Electric blanket

If paper logs are a "joke," and the limited scope of the FMCSA’s first EOBR proposal last year simply approved "electronic comic books," — as some stakeholders hoping for something with sharper teeth dubbed the proposal — then what are people saying about the agency’s latest plan to require just about every carrier to outfit trucks with electronic-on-board recorders (EOBRs)?

On the whole, there’s general agreement — among larger carriers, at least — that this second version of the EOBR rule will be far more effective at leveling the hours-of-service playing field. (The current plan requires only truckers with a 10-percent or greater HOS violation rate to install EOBRs for a two-year period).

But, as it seems to go with anything transport regulators come up with these days, many uncertainties still persist, namely over the enforceability, uniformity and costs associated with the technology on the market.

But first, what is EOBRs 2.0 all about?

As stated, it vastly expands the first rule, which is still slated to take effect on June 4, 2012, and will be enforced until the new proposal’s start. (It’s projected for 2015, although there’s talk that FMCSA may require "large" carriers to make the move first).

It will cover about 500,000 carriers operating in the U.S. who maintain driver logs, but will not apply to short-haul interstate carriers that use timecards. However, the agency is tossing around the idea of including short-haul hazmat drivers.

At one point, FMCSA ­considered limiting the rule to just long-haul operators who travel beyond a 150-mile radius. But likely fearing a backlash from linehaulers, it decided differently. (It is, however, asking for comments in advance of a final rule on whether that’s feasible).

As expected, the rule would also relieve carriers of having to retain certain HOS documents, such as delivery and toll receipts for hours of service compliance.

Penalties for breaking the rule can be upwards of $11,000 for each offense and will negatively affect a carrier’s safety fitness rating and operating authority.

MIND THE GAPS

Without question, EOBRs will be pricey, although they’ll be scalable.

Most major suppliers will offer standalone EOBRs separate from their complete fleet-management suites — some with no upfront hardware costs. Monthly wireless plans tend to be around $50, give or take a few bucks.

Continental wants to ensure that low-cost
options are available under the new EOBR rule

Still, FMCSA guesses that the annual cost for a carrier currently without any fleet management system could be between $500 to $800 per tractor. Yikes.

Understandably, it’s numbers like that that have owner-ops quite anxious. (Although, as the agency notes, much of the cost could be offset in reduced record keeping).

On that note, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), a longtime critic of a universal rule, called EOBRs "nothing more than over-priced record keepers."

OOIDA contends that EOBRs can only track the movement and location of a truck. And since they need human interaction to record any change-of-duty status, they cannot accurately and automatically record hours working.

"This proposal is actually another example of the administration’s determination to wipe out small businesses by continuing to crank out overly burdensome regulations that simply run up costs," said Todd Spencer OOIDA’s executive vice president.

The group, which is challenging the proposal in court, also claims that the government ignored a federal statute to ensure that EOBRs "will not be used [by employers and highway enforcement] to harass vehicle operators" and infringe on privacy.

Curiously, OOIDA seems to be suggesting in one breath that EOBRs are too Big Brotherish while at the same time they lack sufficient oversight and controls — not that either of those arguments are necessarily untrue.

Regardless, even proponents of the rule are equally concerned that regulators aren’t going far enough to ensure all devices are tamper-proof and defining what exactly that should mean.

"It’s very encouraging the FMCSA has broadened this … but unfortunately, they still have not addressed some of the outstanding technical concerns or functional concerns," says Jerry Gabbard, a VP at Continental Automotive, whose Commercial Vehicle and Aftermarket group is a major electronic logbook and digital tachograph supplier. "The tamper proofness of the data and making it as bulletproof as possible is [critical]." ?

There remain other gaps that Gabbard thinks need bridging. The issue of third-party certification of the devices to ensure "someone doesn’t make a foolish investment in something that isn’t compliant," also needs attention. ?

But, perhaps most importantly, Gabbard is concerned with the lack of a standardized interface — specifically how enforcement officers will be expected to uniformly handle and read a range of data from a variety of devices, wirelessly or not. And the regulation needs to allow cost-effective options for carriers, such as small fleets and owner-ops that don’t need wireless communication and full-fledged fleet management systems. ?

According to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) — which in the past has also expressed some concerns — about 50 percent of motor-vehicle enforcement does not have the ability to accept electronic data, no matter the format. (Not even a flashdrive stick or patch cord).

"So how does law enforcement take certain types of devices and effectively enforce HOS rules?" asks Gabbard. "It’s a big, big issue.?

"If you’re going to have an effective rule that’s enforceable on the short term, you’re going to need the standardization of the ­interface and you need to have the option of just being able to show physically the data on a printout."

Gabbard continues: Confining EOBRs to devices with cellular communication that require data plans — and thereby requiring monthly fees — might put pricing out of orbit for owner-ops. ?

A parallel legislative bill about to be reintroduced in Congress is expected to address many of these loopholes, says Gabbard. (This effectively doubles down an effort last year to legislate universal EOBRs as a way to expedite the FMCSA’s regulatory "broader mandate".)

"The fact that the mandate is out there is wonderful news and that’s what last year’s [legislative] bill was intended to achieve," says Gabbard. "However, the bill had more specificity in dealing with technical issues."

PeopleNet’s executive VP Brian McLaughlin doesn’t disagree that the latest proposal needs patch fixing, but he doesn’t believe regulators need to answer every question right now.

"I don’t feel we should be pushing the government to define deep technical specification," he says. "I think FMCSA has done a good job in creating a performance standard and we as an industry have to seal the gaps around the technical performances, like defining tamper-proof and tighter security standards.

"As well, I’m not sure FMCSA needs to define what the interface should look like. I think it’s something as an industry we can collaborate on with law enforcement. And that’s already happening."

While McLaughlin allows that EOBRs can’t tell whether a stopped driver is actually in the bunk resting or not, it’s absurd to suggest they’re virtually useless in monitoring hours-of-service, as OOIDA contends.

"There is no perfect piece of technology, but is it markedly better than paper logs for its potential to stop cheating? Absolutely," he says. "The argument that this is not perfect so let’s not do it at all, well, you would never make any ­technology investment if you were always looking for perfection."

Eh OBRs

Although Canadian transport officials got the early jump on a universal EOBR mandate, the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) is hoping regulators here don’t fall far behind the Americans in launching a similar rule.

A government working group reporting to the Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation is charged with developing Canada’s EOBR rule and indications are that they’re drafting guidelines for a mandate that covers most drivers.

However, upon hearing about the release of the U.S. proposal, CTA chief David Bradley said that "work will clearly have to be accelerated in Canada."

"There are many ­important issues yet to be resolved, not the least of which is the all-important enforcement policies that will accompany an EOBR rule in the US and in Canada. If we are going to build a new sidewalk, we need to build it where people are going to walk."

And drive. Badum-ching.

Now that’s a bad "joke."