EOBR comment period remains open – make your voice heard   

The Truckload Carriers Conference plans to oppose the FMCSA's mandate that truckers use electronic on-board trip recorders (EOBRs). The group says there is no evidence to link the use of EOBRs with better safety performance. FMCSA expects to have a final rule in place by June 2012 and then carriers would have an additional three years after that to comply. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and the National Association of Small Trucking Companies also have indicated they will oppose the mandate. Even the FMCSA allows that they do not have the data to identify a strong correlation between EOBRs and actual safety results.

The American Trucking Associations (ATA) is still studying the issue but takes a more favorable view towards EOBRs. Dave Osiecki, ATA's senior vice president of policy and regulatory affairs, said that "relatively new data captured by the CSA program in 2009 and 2010 [are] showing a relationship between hours-of-service compliance and safety performance." ATA president Bill Graves said "There actually is data that creates a correlation between those companies that log drivers' hours electronically and the safety of that company." Most large truckload carriers are already using some form of electronic log tracking and some are saying that productivity goes up, not down, with the new technology. The reason is that without electronic logs a driver may accept a good long haul load saying he has hours available, but then shorty after dispatch reports that he is out of hours and needs to shut down. With better information on which drivers have hours available and which drivers need to shut down, carriers can do a better job of assigning loads to drivers thus improving operational efficiency and productivity.

There is an interesting technology twist in the EOBR story. Despite the fact that many carriers are using what they consider to be EOBRs, the FMCSA says that EOBRs are legally distinct from the current generation of electronic logging tools that the agency calls "automated on-board recording device." No e-logging device on the market today meets the technical definition of an EOBR set forth by FMCSA, primarily because the agency does not mandate that the old devices be capable of data transfer. EOBRs must be capable of transmitting HOS data in several ways: by universal serial bus (USB), Wi-Fi, and cellular and other radio-broadcast networks. The problem is, law enforcement agencies don't have the technology to read EOBR output nor do they have the money to buy such technology. Furthermore, many companies and state agencies will not allow a USB memory stick from a different company to be used in their computers due to data security and virus concerns. It does seem a little odd in today's environment of heightened security concerns that we would allow a truck driver to hand a memory stick to a law enforcement agent, who would then insert the memory stick into their computer. That makes no sense from a data and network security standpoint. A Wi-Fi connection requires Internet connectivity, which may not be available at the point of inspection. Clearly there is some work remaining to be done.

I remain in favor of the EOBR mandate. The final rule is still over a year out and then there is a 3-year period for compliance. That is more than enough time to solve relatively minor technical issues. The fact that many large and safety conscious trucking companies have implemented EOBR technology without a government mandate is evidence that the technology makes sense from both a safety and economic perspective. It is time to get better control over log violations, and even though an EOBR won't eliminate log violations, they will substantially reduce log falsification.

As a reminder, FMCSA will take public comments on the proposal for 60 days from the date it published the rule in the Federal Register, which was February 1. I encourage you to post your comments through the Regulations.gov web site. The docket number is FMCSA-2010-0167.