|
Electronic On-Board Recorders Will Paper Logbooks Survive?
Sometime before the middle of the year the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, is expected to issue a much-anticipated notice of proposed rulemaking, NPRM, regarding the use of electronic on-board recorders, EOBRs. These so-called “black-boxes” are increasingly being used in place of traditional paper log books for recording driver’s hours of service.
Current FMCSA regulations (49 CFR 395.15) govern the operation of EOBRs when they are used voluntarily by motor carriers. They specify what type of information must be captured by the EOBR, security requirements for storing and accessing the data, and backup methods to preserve data and warn of systems failures.
What the current regulations do not do is mandate the use of EOBRs. Right now no one is sure whether or not the upcoming NPRM will change the current status of EOBRs from voluntary to mandatory. However there does seem to be an industry-wide consensus that things are moving in the direction of a mandate, if not with the new NPRM, then certainly within the foreseeable future.
The FMCSA has solicited comments on the EOBR issue since September 2004 when it published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, ANPRM. Some 340 comments (as of this date) have so far been received and published by the agency. Comments have been submitted from a wide variety of interested parties ranging from large motor carriers, to single truck owner operators, representatives of the insurance industry, and trucking interest and advocacy groups such as the American Trucking Association and the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association.
The prospect of the government requiring a switchover from paper logbooks to EOBRs has provoked considerable controversy throughout the transportation industry. Those in favor of such a switchover cite safety and efficiency among their main arguments, while those opposed, cite privacy, cost and no noticeable increase in safety as their primary arguments.
Supporters of EOBRs argue that they will bring a new level of compliance with hours of service regulations, that traditional paper logs, (often called “cheat sheets” by drivers) simply cannot match. Safety on the road will increase because drivers will be unable to conceal hours of service violations.
Opponents on the other hand say that since EOBRs still require driver input for all on-duty, not driving log entries, the records provided by EOBRs will be no more reliable than paper logs. On-duty, not driving activities are, say those opposed to EOBRs, the area where drivers already receive the most pressure to violate the hours of service regulations by falsifying logs, and EOBRs will not change that.
Electronic on-board recorders say proponents, will free drivers from the tedious task of keeping accurate paper logs and will save drivers almost 2 hours per week that they now spend on filling out logbooks. Companies that are currently using EOBRs say that both efficiency and driver satisfaction have increased as a result of their introduction.
Those with reservations about EOBRs acknowledge that they might well save drivers a few hours each week but contend that the potential privacy violations outweigh those savings. The Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association, OOIDA, noted that; “The degree of intrusion inflicted upon drivers is far from the minimal intrusion associated with traffic checkpoints, for it is unrelenting and exercises no discretion.”
Should the FMCSA decide to mandate EOBRs, questions about whom the mandate should apply to, how it should be phased in, and who should pay for the new equipment remain unresolved and an issue of contention within the transportation industry itself. For example, some motor carriers contend that if EOBRs are required, companies in total compliance with hour-of-service rules should be exempted. However other motor carriers supported mandating EOBRs only if all carriers were required to implement the mandate simultaneously with no phase-in period.
The FMCSA itself recognizes the potential benefits of EOBR technology but also acknowledges the difficulty inherent in instituting that technology in an industry as diverse as the transportation industry. Before making a decision that is likely to have major long-lasting implications, the agency is seeking input from as many concerned parties as possible. “…we want more comments,” said Larry Minor, director of the FMCSAs office of bus and truck safety operations.
If you would like to read the ANPRM and the comments already submitted you can find them at: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?searchType=docket&numberValue=18940
| 
