Officials Say FMCSA May Seek Broader Mandate for EOBRs

This story appears in the Sept. 6 print edition of Transport Topics.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is eyeing an even more expansive mandate for electronic onboard recorders than it indicated earlier this year, sources told Transport Topics.

The broader EOBR mandate would go beyond requiring the units for hazardous materials carriers and new trucking companies, which the agency has already indicated it would propose.

An official who asked not to be identified told Transport Topics that the agency was working to have a future mandate apply “to more carriers than were outlined” previously.

“I would say it is more than [a] 50% [chance] they can make it work,” the official said.

FMCSA published a final rule in April, mandating EOBRs for fleets that have a poor record of compliance with the hours-of-service rules, and said that, in a future rule, hazardous materials carriers and new trucking companies may be subject to an EOBR mandate because of the “potential safety risks” they present.

The unidentified official, along with other sources, told TT that the agency intends to go beyond those higher-risk groups and is looking at a mandate for even more fleets.

Another official, Larry Minor, FMCSA associate administrator for policy and program development, said he didn’t think the rule limited the agency to just applying a mandate to hazmat fleets and new entrants.

“Those were examples, but we’re not limiting ourselves to those,” Minor said. “We’re looking at [the National Transportation Safety Board’s] recommendations, which were for all carriers, and some of Congress’ proposals, which is for all trucks. We’re looking at all of that, and we expect to have a proposal out by the end of the year.”

NTSB first called for the installation of EOBRs on commercial vehicles in 1977 and recommended they be mandated on all commercial vehicles in 1990. The recommendation was added to NTSB’s most-wanted list in 2008.

“It is all a political discussion now,” the unnamed official said, adding that the agency feels “a broader mandate makes sense — it’s just whether they can justify the cost-benefit.”

That analysis “depends on the assumptions that you make,” that official said, indicating the agency believed that requiring greater use of EOBRs might reduce the cost of the technology.

The Department of Transportation said in an August report on important rules that the expanded EOBR proposal is slated to go to the White House for its review by the end of September and will be published in late December.

Industry officials said that based on their discussions, they believe FMCSA will press industrywide adoption of electronic onboard recorders.

“I’ve heard its going to be more of a full mandate,” David Heller, director of safety and policy for the Truckload Carriers Association, said Aug. 30. “And that matches up with Oberstar’s blueprint.”

Last year, Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced a proposed highway bill that included a universal EOBR mandate. The bill has languished in his committee.

“It’s either going to come out of Congress or the agency,” Heller said of a mandate.

Dave Osiecki, American Trucking Associations senior vice president of policy and regulatory affairs, said Aug. 30 he’s been told that “the application will be fairly broad, much broader than what was originally suggested earlier.”

How many carriers are subject to a new EOBR requirement “depends on how elastic they can make the numbers,” Osiecki said.

In order for federal rules to be approved, agencies must analyze their costs and benefits and are prohibited from issuing regulations whose costs outstrip their benefits.

Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said Aug. 30 that a mandate “would not surprise us in the least.”

“A broader proposal has been mentioned several times by the agency,” he said. “We know full well that we have lawmakers and we have the NTSB that think these things are the answer to all our safety issues. We don’t share that perspective.”