Federal Advisory Panel Studying EOBRs Wrestles With Safeguarding Data Privacy

This story appears in the Jan. 9 print edition of Transport Topics.

A federal advisory committee studying electronic onboard recorders did not reach a consensus on the best way to transmit hours-of-service data from the truck cab to roadside inspectors, but did offer recommendations on items including safeguarding carrier and driver privacy.

The Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee last month forwarded its report on an array of EOBR issues to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The report follows more than six months of study and wide-ranging debate over a remedial EOBR mandate set to go into effect in June, but rejected by a federal appeals court last year.

The 19-member MCSAC, comprising officials from the trucking industry, law enforcement community, and labor and safety advocates, was asked by FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro to help the agency rewrite the EOBR mandates the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected in August.

The appeals court said the agency’s EOBR mandate for carriers with past hours-of-service problems, originally set to go into effect in June 2012, did not adequately address or ensure that carriers could not use the devices to force drivers to stay on the road even when they are tired.

Although the appeals court decision specifically addressed the 2010 final rule, FMCSA also will have to bring into compliance the rule it proposed Jan. 31 mandating that nearly all motor carriers equip their trucks with EOBRs.

Neither EOBR rule has yet been finalized.

Because it could not agree on several issues related to the agency’s EOBR regulatory mandate, the MCSAC forwarded a number of “non-consensus recommendations” that “illustrate the relevant issues and concerns with certain regulatory provisions.”

Some of the agreed-upon recommendations were:

• An EOBR’s hours-of-service data must be available to an inspector if he feels further investigation is warranted or if he cannot see the screen without entering the cab. In those instances, upon the inspector’s request, a driver must provide the inspector with a hard copy (handwritten or printed) of the hours-

of-service information from the EOBR. The driver must certify that the information in the hard copy accurately reflects the requested EOBR hours-of-service record.

• For failures that result in the inoperability of the EOBR, the driver must prepare paper logs for the current day and continue to do so until the EOBR is returned to normal service. In addition, a driver may need to prepare paper logs for previous days, subject to records availability.

• EOBR service providers and carriers must apply security measures consistent with those promulgated by recognized international standards bodies.

• When a motor vehicle is stationary for five minutes or more, the EOBR must default to on-duty/not-driving status, and the driver must enter the proper duty status.

• EOBRs should remain in current duty status, typically on-duty/not-driving, when a vehicle moves during off-highway yard moves.

• At a minimum, a driver must be identified in EOBRs by first and last name, a personal identification number (PIN) and the last four digits of his or her commercial driver license.

The committee, however, wrestled with several other issues, including balancing the pros and cons related to cost and security issues when hours data are transferred from the EOBR to roadside law-enforcement inspectors.

For example, not all members of the committee suggested that vehicles have EOBR printers, and some felt that GPS capability is not a necessary EOBR component

Several committee members suggested that FMCSA require that an EOBR be programmed to set a maximum personal conveyance mileage limit for drivers looking for food, lodging or entertainment. Although many agreed the limit should be 50 miles, others felt that such a limit would encourage abuse by drivers.

While the committee discussed at length the need for security with hours-of-service record transmission, it did not define the necessary level of security.

Some of the data transfer methods discussed included the use of bar codes, universal serial bus (USB) devices, secure digital cards, Bluetooth and wireless networks.

But committee members did agree that EOBR service providers and carriers in managing EOBR systems must apply security measures consistent with recognized international standards bodies.

“EOBR systems and EOBR devices must provide technical features to enable applicable minimum security requirements and security controls,” the committee said.