About 280 individuals and organizations – including OOIDA – submitted comments about mandatory black boxes in trucks to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, with opinions running the gamut from total support to total opposition.

OOIDA’s 53-page submission outlining the association’s position against mandatory electronic on-board recorders was the second largest comment behind Qualcomm Inc., which submitted a 55-page statement to the FMCSA.

Most of the comments submitted came from individuals, including some OOIDA members, and most were less than one page.

The Qualcomm comments were similar to comments filed by several other technology firms in that the firm took the opportunity to provide the government with information about its products and services related to EOBRs. Other technology firms commenting included Nextel Communications, IBM Corp., Scanware Inc. and SiriComm Inc.

A number of associations – some directly related to trucking and others with fringe interests – also submitted comments. A variety of trucking companies, ranging from small family operations to national carriers such as ABF Freight System and Overnight Transportation Co., also submitted comments on government-mandated use of EOBRs.

Most of the individual drivers who submitted comments were opposed to the mandatory use of the recorders, citing many of the same arguments that OOIDA included in its comments. Concerns about rights to privacy and cost were among the top issues for individual drivers, as well as fears that the recording devices could be used in punitive ways by carriers.

To view the list of all who submitted comments and to read those comments, CLICK HERE and then select FMCSA in the agency field and type in docket number 18940.

Following are excerpts from a few of the comments submitted.

• National Groundwater Association: “… Given the nature of our industry (family-owned water well drilling businesses) we believe EOBRs for us would be the equivalent of filling a need for a ‘C’ battery with a nuclear power plant. …”

• New Prime Inc. – complete comment: “On behalf of my company – We are in favor of electronic on-board recorders provided they would (be) mandatory for all carriers regardless of size or type of operation. They must be tamper proof and there would be no exception for anyone. We need to get everyone on a ‘level playing field.’ ”

• Graber Trucking Inc. – William Graber, OOIDA member: “We have a small company located in Ewing, NE. The company consists of 31 units, 100 percent owner-operators. With the high fuel costs and insurance costs rising, our truckers are having a hard time making ends meet as it is. If the law changes, forcing them to purchase high-priced equipment, I’m afraid it will drastically affect the trucking industry. We are definitely against any such action.”

• John Grady, OOIDA member: “I just quit a local job and they had on-board recorders, they aren’t the cure all by any means as long as drivers can be called in all hours of the day and night and never know when their shift will end. I was paid by the hour and could just imagine the mayhem the highways will be if people who are paid by the mile have them in their trucks. They will be racing a ticking clock trying to get as many miles as they can for the day before their time runs out. … The cause of the accidents will just change from the driver (who) was driving too many hours to the driver (who) ran a red light or took a corner to fast and rolled over and other causes as they race the clock going tick, tick, tick. As long as drivers are paid by the mile and nobody except the driver and the carrier are liable to the general public the customers have no incentive to hire the safest and best nor do they have to consider the safety of the general public when they put demands on the trucking industry. … I’m all for on-board recorders, but a lot of other issues need to be addressed at the same time to have any real effect on the industry.”

• Michigan Center for Truck Safety: “Any requirement for on-board recording should be selective rather than industrywide. … Initially, two criteria for on-board recording devices should be looked at: 1. Motor carriers operating CMVs which require CDLs; and 2. Any motor carrier, regardless of vehicle size, whose safety rating is unsatisfactory and the rating is a direct result of hours-of-service violations. … Additionally, the penalties for hours-of-service violations should be more severe. …”

• Anonymous: “Regarding EOBRs being forced upon the trucking industry: I now run a three-day run which I can do very safely at an average 63 mph and only be about one hour over my log. With the EOBR, I will be forced to run at 73 mph or sit on a hill 67 miles from my house for 10 hours. The increased speed is legal but much more unsafe and will cost me about 10 percent in economy. I much prefer to be safer and save money than to be forced to run harder and less safe.”

• American Trucking Associations: “To reiterate our current position, ATA continues to support a voluntary approach to EOBR use. … It cannot be presumed or believed that there is a correlation between electronic recording and accident reduction, it must be documented. … Even an assumption that EOBRs will enable federal safety investigators and enforcement officials to better verify the driver’s compliance should be proven. … More comprehensively, significant evidence will need to be provided that the existing paper log system is not obtaining acceptable HOS compliance levels … Any data or information beyond the bare minimum required to comply with the regulations is proprietary to the carrier. … Another extremely important issue that has a genuine chilling effect on the voluntary adoption of EOBRs – and is also a major obstacle to potential support for the mandated deployment of EOBRs – is the possibility that data recorded may be used, and thus misused, in civil litigation. …”

• Werner Enterprises: “Care should be exercised to avoid the temptation to mandate ‘add-ons’ with little proven safety benefit simply because the technology will allow them. Efforts to add or require technological improvements which are not directly related to replacing paper logs should be avoided … Werner has no absolute irrefutable evidence that the use of its paperless logging system and therefore its EOBRs, have resulted in fewer accidents on the highway. … the enhanced enforcement which is sure to follow the widespread use of EOBRs will keep tired drivers on the road if they can not take multiple split breaks without losing on-duty time. … It appears unlikely that, in the short term, use of the EOBRs would have a greater or more significant effect on drivers’ hours of service. …”

-- Coral Beach, Land Line staff
Coral_Beach@landlinemag.com