Trucking's Lightning Rod
Onboard Recorders Draw Some Fire, Some Ire, Some Fans
Oliver B. Patton, Washington Editor &
Jim Beach,Technology Editor
Mandatory electronic onboard recorders may be the most controversial part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's proposed rule, but there's another part that will be much more significant in the long run.
The agency is proposing a new set of performance standards that open the door to the tremendous advances in recorder technology that have been made since the current rule was written in 1985. This is in addition to the two other important changes in the proposal: carriers that consistently fail to comply with the hours of service standards would be required to use recorders, as would owner-operators who are leased to those carriers; and the agency would offer incentives to carriers that use recorders voluntarily.
The key change in performance standards concerns the current requirement that recorders be integrated with the truck engine. Older devices need to be "integrally synchronized" to the engine to get critical information such as time, miles and road speed. With modern satellite and terrestrial positioning systems, that link-up is no longer necessary – and the agency is proposing that it no longer be required. This means that driver hours could be tracked with a device as common as a cell phone linked to a positioning system.
Over time, the agency hopes, the new technology might make it easier for carriers to accept the idea of tracking driver hours electronically rather than with paper and pencil. Nothing will happen soon, however. It probably will take another two years for the proposal to work its way through the rulemaking process, and the details could change between now and then.
Opinions Differ
Electronic onboard recorders have always been a lightning rod for the industry, attracting strong, deeply felt opinions from all corners of the transportation community. Many small carriers and owner-operators are adamantly opposed, viewing recorders as unnecessary and an overbearing federal intrusion into their business lives. At the other end of the spectrum, a few carriers use recorders and like them.
And here's one industry leader who thinks FMCSA pulled its punches when it proposed mandatory recorders only for carriers that fail to meet hours of service standards.
"I think the proposed rule . . . falls woefully short," says Steve Williams, chairman and CEO of Maverick Transportation. "We're the only industrialized nation on the planet that has been able to BS our way into saying it wasn't a good idea to have EOBRs."
Williams was speaking at an Economic Summit sponsored by Newport Communications, publisher of Heavy Duty Trucking, at the Mid-America Trucking Show in Louisville, Ky., in March.
Williams, a former chairman of American Trucking Associations, thinks that it's only a matter of time before recorders are universal in the industry. "I think it's a necessary paradigm shift that will have to occur in order for us to take our game to the next level. And I, for one, wish to hell they'd just go ahead and bring it on and let's get on with the next level."
It won't be easy, he warned: "I quite frankly think EOBRs will be very problematic for the industry and this nation's economy. I also think that is the only thing that will ever allow us to have the assurance of a level playing field, from a competitive standpoint."
Another panelist at the Economic Summit, Daniel England, CEO of C.R. England, also said recorders have merit because they can put a carrier in a better position to clear a federal safety audit and they would help get rid of safety violators. On the other hand, he's not convinced that they will actually improve safety. "I still think it's a very legitimate question as to whether the existing hours of service rules are the best model for good safety performance. You can ensure greater compliance with the rules through EOBRs, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to improve your safety performance."
A third panelist, Charles Hammel III, president of LTL carrier Pitt-Ohio Express, said he uses recorders in all his trucks and thinks everyone should. "The responsible thing to do is to put the recorders in the trucks, and to force all to comply. Some less responsible carriers allow their drivers to run double log books. Responsible carriers do not. I think that if you're going to enforce the hours of service, there should be nothing wrong with having an electronic recorder."
At Pitt-Ohio, recorders are part of an overall system for offering customers shipment tracking and tracing, and for monitoring other aspects of driver performance besides hours of service.
"From the standpoint of being able to watch how fast our drivers are driving, to see whether or not there are sudden stops – I hate this term, but to be the Big Brother – we like to inspect what we expect, and that's what we use them for," Hammel said. "But I will tell you, they're very expensive and there's no return on them from the shipper. It's all about what you can provide as far as a better level of service at market rates."
Don Orr, executive vice president of Central Freight Lines, had another perspective. He said that any driver who has a million accident-free miles should not even have to fill in a log book.
"The one-size-fits-all issue is really big with drivers. There's really no reward for a guy that does a quality job. So a person that's had a long history and done a wonderful job is treated the same as the guy that just came out of driving school. I think that has a big effect on keeping the right person in the truck and in the industry."
The docket for comments on the FMCSA proposal is still open, so the full scope of responses is not yet available. It is clear, however, that the rulemaking can lead to a broader range of technical solutions to the EOBR challenge, including simple, single-purpose wireless devices that do nothing but track driver hours and are less expensive than fully integrated management systems.
Supplier Challenges
Most suppliers interviewed for this article say they will have little trouble updating their software or hardware offerings to meet the proposed new equipment standards, which differ from the current 49 CFR 395.15 standards in a number of ways.
"I think the FMCSA did a pretty comprehensive job in understanding the landscape, and there are no significant gaps that need to be overcome to meet the preponderance of what the FMCSA is looking for in these types of solutions," says John Lewis, president and CEO of GeoLogic Solutions, Herndon, Va. He noted that most major providers of the systems were able to provide "a fair amount of input during the process."
Without testing, however, it remains unclear if any current systems meet the proposed standards. "Ours doesn't, and nobody else's does," says Joel Beal, senior vice president of product development, Tripmaster Corp, Grand Prairie, Texas. "There are accuracy standards we've never had before. We all have to test our devices to make sure they meet these standards. Of course, the proposed rule could change a lot before it becomes a formal rule."
Even with new standards, however, fleets using EOBRs for driver logs needn't worry about their equipment becoming obsolete. The proposed equipment standards would not apply until two years after the final rule is released, giving equipment providers time to introduce new products or upgrade existing ones. It also grandfathers in existing systems that meet the current 395.15 standard.
Proposed Changes
Perhaps the most significant change in the proposed rule regarding EOBR standards is removal of the requirement that such a device be "integrally synchronized" to the commercial vehicles.
By integrally synchronized, the FMCSA means a device "that receives the engine use status for the purpose of deriving on-duty driving status from a source or sources internal to the CMV (commercial motor vehicle)."
Under the current standards, the onboard recording device must record engine use, road speed, miles driven (axle revolutions), date and time of day (internal clock). With the exception of road speed, the proposed rule would require collecting the same data, plus it requires "accurate and frequent reporting of the commercial vehicle's location whether through a device installed on the CMV or one worn (as a cellular telephone might be) by the driver.
The GPS location must be recorded at least once a minute under the proposed rule, which also eliminates the requirement to record road speed.
Using GPS data to record distance traveled can be problematic, some suppliers say. The proposed requirement says distance traveled data from a source external to the vehicle must be accurate to within plus or minus 1 percent of the vehicle's odometer over a 24-hour period. "The question becomes, can GPS be that accurate?" asks Tom Lemke, vice president Cadec, Manchester, N.H.
"In order to be within 1 percent accurate, you can never be out of coverage and you can never turn the device off," says Tripmaster's Joel Beal. "It will be interesting to see if you can actually meet that standard without being tied to the vehicle."
"I don't see how you could use a cell phone to do that," agrees Norm Ellis, vice president and general manager with Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions. "You could leave the phone at home. And, dependability could be an issue."
Other suppliers foresee little problem using devices other than those hard-wired to the vehicle for computing distance traveled and other information. "The proposed rules from FMCSA point toward more affordable, more standard technology in the cab and we see that as a good thing," says Tom Flies, vice president business development, XATA Corp.
"The one big difference of the proposed rule is the removal of the requirement to be connected to the vehicle, which is basically being replaced by technology such as global positioning. The technology is available today. We have customers that are using a hand-held computer to manage their DOT driver logs, to recall the logs for law enforcement." Flies notes that his company's systems are attached to the vehicle to meet current regulations, but adds "our software can be adapted to run solely on a hand-held computer once the regulations are in place."
As for removing the requirement that an EOBR be synchronized with the vehicle, "We think that is a big mistake to remove that requirement," says Brian McLaughlin, vice president marketing and product planning, PeopleNet Communications, Minneapolis. Synchronization "provides data integrity and consistency that you really can't get when you are not synchronized with the vehicle. The other option for calculating miles is based on GPS. GPS is very accurate on a point by point basis. But if you turn off your cell phone after 10 hours, there's no more calculating. You really can't do that with an EOBR that's connected to the engine and fix mounted."
Other key changes in the proposed EOBR standards include allowing driver edits and the ability to produce standard file formats when enforcement officers ask to review a driver's log. "Driver edits are not allowed under the current rules but they are allowed under the proposed new rule," Beal says. "So first we have to keep two streams of data, one that is unchanged, the other that contains data with driver edits."
The proposed standards also call for EOBRs to be able to transfer data to a roadside inspector.
"This is a significant change," says PeopleNet's Brian McLaughlin. "In the new world, you will have to be able to transfer this data to a roadside inspector through either a USB key fob or through some wireless means. Most devices out there today can't do that."
"The whole concept of creating a standard, open file that can be transmitted to a PC or whatever, that's not mentioned in the current rule," Beal says, "So most current devices cannot provide that."
The new rule will also require EOBRs to have the capability of displaying a driver record of duty status chart on a screen, when requested by an enforcement officer. "Another thing is you have to present a graph on a screen and a lot of earlier versions can't present graphs," McLaughlin says.
That's a concern for some Qualcomm customers, according to Norm Ellis. "There is a fair amount of confusion about the proposed rules," he says. "Some feel that our previous hours of service application won't meet the proposed standards for graphical display. But those units will be grandfathered in under the new rule as they meet current standards.
He said the company's recently introduced OmniVision system will meet the proposed standards.
Opening The Market
One consequence of the proposed rule could be changes in the EOBR marketplace from the vendor standpoint. "There might have to be a shake-out," says Joel Beal of Tripmaster. "There are devices out there that appear to be compliant with 395.15 but clearly are not. If 395.16 goes into effect as is, you will see mobile communications companies that are not now providing electronic logs begin to provide them."
One of the factors pushing new entrants into the market place will be the specificity in the proposed rule. "There was so much not stated in the 395.15 rule that it was kind of an art. With the new rule, it is so well spelled out, I think it will open up the market and people who have not been providing electronic logs, you will see them do so."
Tim Van Cleve, COO Teletrac, Garden Grove, Calif., agrees the proposed rule "is going to open up the marketplace for all kinds of vendors to get involved with this."
He acknowledges there are challenges with the proposed standards, but said he felt his company and others were "well positioned" with their current product offerings.
Precursor To A Mandate
The proposed rule only requires EOBRs for fleets deemed to have problems with hours of service enforcement but offers incentives to other fleets to adopt the technologies. Safety groups continue to lobby for a mandate requiring EOBRs on all commercial vehicles and there is some speculation that the FMCSA will eventually issue such a mandate.
Electronic logs are not new to the trucking industry; they've been around since the mid-1980s. But their use has been confined primarily to private fleets and large truckload carriers, with some estimating the total market penetration of electronic logs at less than 5 percent of trucks.
"We were the first to do electronic logs," says Tom Lemke, vice president of Cadec, Manchester, N.H. "We introduced the Cadec 300 in the mid-1980s before there was a 395.15, and about 10 companies the first year got a waiver from the government that said they could do their logs electronically."
The first adopters were primarily private fleets, Lemke says. "They were companies that had their names plastered all over their trailers, generally private fleets selling into the public arena, food stores, food service companies."
After the FMCSA adopted 395.15 allowing electronic logs in 1988, more fleets became interested in electronic logging.
"We have thousands of units on the air using electronic logs," Qualcomm's Norm Ellis says. "On the private fleet side, there was and continues to be high interest. On the other side, it differs. There hasn't been the demand we'd expect."
But interest is increasing. "About 40 percent of our units that go out the door utilize the electronic log capability," PeopleNet's McLaughlin says. "It's not 100 percent and I don't think we'll get to 100 percent without a federal mandate, but I think you are seeing the use creep up year over year as fleets see the benefits beyond just the compliance side."
John Lewis, CEO GeoLogic, notes the proposed rule brings more attention to available technologies. "The fact that there is any rule has put a lot of exposure on the technology itself. Some are willing to consider the business benefits of this technology. Whether or not the government requires it of this or that carrier is kind of a moot point. We think that for many carriers there is a very interesting payback proposition for it."
Short of a mandate requiring all fleets to equip their trucks with EOBRs, McLaughlin says the FMCSA could offer enough incentives to fleets that adopt the technology to create a "virtual mandate."
"What we're keeping an eye on is if what we're seeing is a virtual mandate. They have not come out with the supporting documents rule, but they mentioned it pretty clearly in the EOBR rule that if you are using an EOBR you will be granted some relief from the supporting document ruling. And I think it is going to become such a burden on carriers in a non-EOBR world to continue complying with these documents rules. The incentives they've laid out on the inspection side of things and in supporting documents will move more carriers to adopt the technologies."
McLaughlin already notes that his company is seeing more voluntary adoption of EOBRs. "If companies see that other carriers are getting real benefits from using EOBRs, you'll see more widespread adoption. Then, if a mandate comes down a few years from now, you won't see as big a bite as if it came down now."
The rulemaking process was still in the comment stage as we went to press with this issue. When a final rule is approved, or what changes may be made to the proposed rule in the meantime remain unknown. Industry sources say they'd be surprised to see a final rule before this time next year, meaning new equipment standards won't go into effect until 2010 at the earliest.
Until then, vendors will tweak their current systems or introduce new products while new entrants will bring products to the market.
Special Report continued
