Tech Execs Expect Broader Mandates When FMCSA Issues EOBR Final Rule
By Sean McNally, Senior Reporter
This story appears in the Oct. 13 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.
NEW ORLEANS — The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s final rule governing electronic onboard recorders may change significantly from the proposal the agency issued in 2007, executives of several technology firms said.
FMCSA officials have said they expect to expand the mandate in the rule, which, when first proposed, would apply only to carriers with numerous, egregious violations of the hours-of-service rules.
The changes could come from FMCSA as it moves the final rule through the process, or more likely, from Congress when it takes up the highway bill next year, officials said.
David Kraft, senior manager with Qualcomm Inc., said that besides funding questions and road projects, the highway bill Congress is set to take up next year is also likely to include “requirements for regulation or policy changes” and for that reason “you’re going to see a lot more attention to policy issues with EOBRs” on Capitol Hill.
“What we’re sensing is that the mandate will be more pervasive than what was published,” said Brian McLaughlin, chief operating officer of PeopleNet.
The rule, which FMCSA said would go to the White House for review soon, could be published later this year, officials said.
McLaughlin said Congress also might look at providing financial incentives to carriers that adopt the technology voluntarily.
“The highway bill, with some of the earmarks — that’s the place where we could see some financial incentives,” McLaughlin said.
The regulation, as proposed in 2007, would have exempted carriers that used the technology voluntarily from some of the recordkeeping requirements associated with hours-of-service, an incentive McLaughlin said could have acted in place of a broad-based mandate.
“The way we read the rule, the supporting documents were going to become a virtual mandate, meaning, if you don’t run an EOBR, you’re going to be so swamped with paperwork that you’re not going be able to run a legal operation,” he said.
FMCSA had been working on a rule revising the number and type of documents carriers needed to maintain to verify driver logbooks, but the agency was forced to abandon it to do further analysis.
Qualcomm’s Kraft said that, even without financial or regulatory incentives, there are benefits to adopting EOBRs voluntarily. “From a compliance perspective, everyone pretty much believes that compliance is significantly improved,” he said.
However, Kraft added it was unclear whether better compliance improved safety. “I don’t know about anything that’s conclusive about EOBRs that improves safety.”
Some executives noted problems with the proposed rule.
Tom Cuthbertson, vice president of Xata Corp., said there were “quite a few issues within the regulation,” particularly in the area of what happens if an EOBR malfunctions, and what to do in areas where the required satellite communication is impossible.
He also said the mandate would likely apply mostly to smaller companies, and “the rule isn’t very clear on what they need to do or whether they need to use some sort of outside system” to manage the data and recordkeeping associated with the recorders.
“Hopefully, the new regulation will provide clarity, and we’ll see the marketplace will produce more affordable solutions,” Kraft said.
