others that depend on commercial transport would likely need to increase the cost to the end user to cover for the added expense imposed by this punishing rule. The result: higher health care costs, higher fuel costs, higher grocery bills, higher materials cost, and the list could go on, all because some person or group thought it would be a good idea to make everyone abide by a rule that was initially limited to be imposed upon lawbreaker CMV drivers and companies. According to the Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64, (49 CFR Parts 350, 385, 395, et al. Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours of Service Compliance; Final Rule) which states, "before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their costs and benefits." They went on to say, "The Agency has taken these statutory requirements into account throughout the final rule." Yet, by their own admission, they state within the same rule, "For a number of reasons, including lack of adequate cost and benefit data, FMCSA decided not to adopt EOBR regulations in 2003." In a foot note, they state, "Estimates of benefits and costs that will be developed for future HOS-related rulemaking actions will use more recent baseline data.." To my understanding, the DOT did not provide an adequate cost and benefit analysis due to a "lack of adequate cost and benefit data," yet they are still pursuing an industry wide implementation of this new rule without conducting a cost and benefit analysis based from recent data as