U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–551 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 110–1205 

ELECTRONIC ON-BOARD RECORDERS (EOBRs) AND 

TRUCK DRIVER FATIGUE REDUCTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

AND MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 1, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT 

MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, 

Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon, Ranking 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 1, 2007 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 55 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 25 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Gabbard, Jerry G., Vice President and General Manager, Commercial Vehicles, NAFTA Region, Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation .......................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Harrison, Captain John E., President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ..... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Hill, Hon. John H., Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ........................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

McCartt, Anne T., Senior Vice President, Research, Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety .................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Olson, Richard G., CEO, FIL-MOR Express, Inc. ................................................. 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Reiser, Richard S., on behalf of the American Trucking Associations, Inc. 

(ATA); Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Werner Enterprises, 

Inc.; Chairman, ATA’s Hours-of-Service Committee ......................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Rosenker, Hon. Mark V., Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board .... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

APPENDIX

Rajkovacz, Joe, Member, Board of Directors, Owner-Operator Independent 

Drivers Association, prepared statement ........................................................... 61 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to: 

Captain John E. Harrison ................................................................................ 69 

Hon. John H. Hill ............................................................................................. 64 

Richard S. Reiser .............................................................................................. 71 

(1) 

ELECTRONIC ON-BOARD RECORDERS (EOBRs) 

AND TRUCK DRIVER FATIGUE REDUCTION 

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND

MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Our Subcommittee hearing today is on 

electronic on-board recorders and truck driver fatigue reduction. 

I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing as we begin the 

Subcommittee’s work on truck safety. It’s a factor that worries all 

of us, particularly in a state like mine which has high-density travel, and in New Jersey, we are very conscious of risk that we face 

with a mixture of cars and trucks on the same roads, all competing 

for space and time. 

Today, we’re going to focus on reducing truck driver fatigue 

through the use of safety technologies. Each year, some 43,000 

Americans die in traffic crashes; 5,000 of them are killed in a crash 

with a large truck. Surveys show that as many as one in five truck 

drivers regularly exceeds the maximum hours that they may drive 

under the law, and we know that that fatigue causes crashes. 

The paper logbook system for recording driver time is outdated, 

easy to falsify, and fails to ensure safety. But there’s an existing 

technology available to better enforce our safety laws. A device, 

presented over here on the table, called an ‘‘electronic on-board recorder,’’ could help prevent tragedies by giving trucking companies 

and law enforcement officials a way to enforce hours-of-service. 

These recorders can be installed in a truck’s cab, made tamperproof, and programmed like a black box to record safety data, including engine operation, location, mileage, speed, and braking 

data. Further, I believe that these recorders could be used to help 

drivers accurately log the time spent loading and unloading trucks 

at terminals. This work, and the delays that sometimes occur at 

these facilities, can significantly add to driver fatigue, consumes a 

lot of time. 

2 

Last, on-board recorders can save time and money for truckers 

and trucking companies by reducing paperwork, improving fleet 

management, and increasing safety. 

Electronic on-board recorders are already required in big trucks 

in the entire European Union, and many other countries in Asia, 

and South Africa. They’ve noted substantial reduction of accidents 

as a result—in the European Union—of the device’s presence. Safety advocates have been advocating their mandatory use in the 

United States since the 1980s. 

So, I’m perplexed as to why the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration proposed in January to require recorders on as few as 

465 of the more than 700,000 trucking companies in this country. 

It doesn’t make any sense. 

Under the proposal, only 1 and a half percent of the industry will 

even be inspected for compliance with truck safety laws each year. 

Now, I’m not sure that the industry themselves could have written 

a more favorable proposal if they choose not to be concerned about 

this. We need electronic on-board recorders in every truck on the 

road to ensure the safety of our truck drivers and the families who 

travel on the highways. 

So, I thank our witnesses for appearing today. Before we call on 

them, I want to recognize my colleague, Ranking Member Smith, 

Senator Smith, your comments, please? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

scheduling this important and timely hearing. Thank all the witnesses for being here. I particularly want to welcome Administrator 

John Hill, who, I understand, recently was in Oregon, where he addressed the Oregon Truckers Association. And I hear you earned 

rave reviews. 

So, we’re fortunate to have an impressive group of experts with 

us to discuss an issue that’s been debated for several decades and 

is now the subject of pending rulemaking. 

So, I look forward to the hearing. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. We’re pleased to 

have you join us for this hearing. 

And I would now call on Mr. Hill. We welcome you here. You 

bring a lot of experience and knowledge. We’re pleased to have 

your testimony. And if you would be—start with us. We’ll give you 

5 minutes. If you don’t break down at 5, we’ll give you some coasting time, maybe another minute, but we ask you to summarize, 

please. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. HILL, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I’ll try to be right on time. 

Chairman Lautenberg and Ranking Member Smith, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposed ruleVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
3 

making concerning electronic on-board recorders and our efforts to 

reduce the number of fatigue-related crashes. 

I am pleased to describe FMCSA’s proposal to require carriers 

with severe patterns of hours-of-service violations to use EOBRs 

and to promote the voluntary use of EOBRs throughout the industry. We are currently analyzing all the comments received on the 

proposal, and we will also incorporate the comments from this 

hearing into the public docket, basing future decisions on a complete analysis of all submitted information. 

Since 2000, FMCSA has been exploring the EOBR issue, including whether these devices should be mandatory, and analyzing 

proper design, use, cost, and benefits. 

In May 2000, FMCSA proposed requiring the use of on-board recorders for long-haul and regional carriers based on data indicating, one, the higher percentage of crashes involving these carriers; and, two, noncompliance with the hours-of-service regulations, particularly by some segments of the long-haul industry. 

The proposal was part of the Agency’s comprehensive rulemaking 

on hours-of-service. After reviewing nearly 50,000 comments to the 

rulemaking docket, and the data concerning the potential costs and 

benefits of requiring the use of on-board recorders, the Agency decided to focus, at that time, on completing the first major revision 

to the hours-of-service rules in over 50 years. 

In September 2004 FMCSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, requesting public comment on the issue of technological specifications for EOBRs and whether their use should be 

required for the entire motor carrier industry, certain segments of 

the industry, or whether they should remain voluntary. 

During 2005, we completed a literature and technology review 

and study focusing on a range of data collection and information 

management topics. 

In January 2007, FMCSA proposed a rule intended to increase 

the use of electronic on-board recorders within the industry and to 

improve hours-of-service compliance. The proposal contains three 

components: one, a new performance-based standard for EOBR 

technology; two, the use of EOBRs to enforce and monitor regulatory noncompliance; and three, incentives to promote EOBR use. 

We believe these three components strike a balance promoting 

highway safety while objectively evaluating the cost and benefits of 

the rulemakings. In addition to requesting comments through the 

Federal Register notice, the agency held three public listening sessions in Washington, D.C.; Phoenix, Arizona; and Chicago, Illinois. 

In our enforcement activities, FMCSA targets unsafe companies. 

Based on our safety research, motor carriers whose drivers routinely exceed hours-of-service limits have an increased probability 

of involvement in fatigue-related crashes. The carriers that would 

be required, under the proposed rule to use EOBRs have crash 

rates that are 87 percent higher than the overall industry average. 

Therefore, we propose a risk-based approach to target these carriers. 

EOBR technology is available and an important tool to ensure 

improved unsafe driving behavior. Drivers must follow the hoursof-service rules to protect them and those with whom they share 

the road. FMCSA’s Large Truck Crash Causation Study shows that 

4 

approximately 13 percent of the large truck crashes involved some 

form of fatigue on the part of the commercial vehicle driver. EOBRs 

will help to encourage compliance of drivers violating hours-of-service regulations and reduce the likelihood of fatigue-related crashes. 

My experience in traffic safety has taught me that meaningful 

traffic enforcement programs must contain strong and valuable 

laws and rules, public support for the law to encourage voluntary 

compliance, an effective enforcement regime that imposes sanctions 

for noncompliance, and, finally, there must be meaningful adjudication processes. 

The 2007 notice of proposed rulemaking for electronic on-board 

recorders will provide a basis for meaningful enforcement of those 

who flaunt the safety of our highways. We intend to build on that 

NPRM as we review the comments, the docket, and will take them 

into consideration in determining the most appropriate action. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and 

I’ll be looking forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. HILL, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR

CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Introduction 

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration’s (FMCSA’s) proposed rulemaking concerning Electronic OnBoard Recorders (EOBRs) and our efforts to reduce the number of fatigue-related 

crashes involving commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. I am pleased to describe 

to you what FMCSA has proposed to improve the safety performance of motor carriers with severe patterns of hours-of-service (HOS) violations, and to promote the 

voluntary use of EOBRs in the motor carrier industry. However, as FMCSA is now 

analyzing all the comments received on the proposal, we have not made any decisions about the next step in the rulemaking. Any future decisions concerning the 

rulemaking will be based on our analysis of the comments and data submitted to 

the docket. 

These days, the transportation community must confront many important issues. 

Even as priorities change and transportation needs evolve, safety on our roads must 

remain paramount to all other priorities. Perhaps the most important influence on 

improving future road safety rests with technology. By strategically integrating 

smart technologies like EOBRs, we will improve safety in the motor carrier industry. 

For many years, the transportation community has focused on fighting driver fatigue as a way to make our roads safer. Earlier this year, we took another step toward reducing the number of these crashes by proposing the mandatory use of 

EOBRs by carriers with the worst levels of compliance with the HOS rules. This 

action will force these carriers to provide their drivers with adequate opportunities 

to obtain the proper amount of rest before getting behind the wheel. 

Background 

Initially prompted by a desire to improve efficiency, the motor carrier industry 

began looking to automated methods for recording drivers’ duty status more than 

20 years ago. In the late 1980s, we implemented the first rule allowing the use of 

automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs). Still in effect today, the rule provides straightforward performance requirements for these devices to ensure they are 

tamper-resistant and capture enough information to monitor drivers’ time behind 

the wheel. 

The existing design standard must permit duty status to be updated only when 

the vehicle is at rest, unless the driver is registering the crossing of a state boundary. The on-board recorder and support systems must be tamper resistant ‘‘to the 

maximum extent practicable.’’ The device must provide a visual or an audible warning to the driver if it ceases to function. Any sensor failures and edited data must 

be identified in the Records of Duty Status, more commonly known as log books, 

printed from the device. Finally, the on-board recorder must be maintained and reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
5 

calibrated according to the manufacturer’s specifications, drivers must be adequately trained in the proper operation of the device, and the motor carrier must 

maintain a second (backup) copy of electronic HOS files in a separate location. 

At the time the current rule was issued, the technology to allow on-board recorders to transmit data wirelessly between the CMV and the motor carrier’s base of 

operations did not exist on a widespread commercial basis. Today’s technologies 

allow for real-time transmission of a vehicle’s location and other operational information. These technologies enable a motor carrier to know at any point in time 

where a vehicle is, whether it is on its assigned route, and when it reaches its destination. These same technologies can also be used to record and transmit the driver’s HOS information. FMCSA calls these current-generation recording devices electronic on-board recorders or EOBRs. By exploiting the power of these technologies, 

a motor carrier can improve not only its scheduling of vehicles and drivers but its 

asset management and customer service. These developments in technology and 

communications require that FMCSA revise the current, narrowly defined on-board 

recorder regulations. 

May 2000 Proposal to Require EOBRs 

Since 2000, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has been exploring 

the EOBR issue further—including whether these devices should be mandatory— 

and analyzing proper design, use, costs, and benefits. In May 2000, FMCSA proposed requiring the use of on-board recorders for long-haul and regional carriers 

based on data indicating: (1) a higher percentage of crashes involving these carriers; 

and (2) non-compliance with the HOS regulations, particularly by some segments 

of the long-haul industry. The proposal was part of the Agency’s comprehensive 

rulemaking on HOS of CMV drivers. 

After reviewing the public comments to the rulemaking docket and considering 

data concerning the potential costs and benefits of the proposal to mandate 

AOBRDs, the Agency decided that mandating the use of on-board recorders was not 

appropriate at that time. However, the Agency determined there was a need to further explore the potential of this technology for helping to ensure that motor carriers and drivers comply with the HOS rule. To this end, the Agency conducted research on EOBRs and other technologies, and considered the feasibility of providing 

incentives for their voluntary use. Key research factors included: (1) the ability to 

identify the individual driver; (2) tamper resistance; (3) the ability to produce 

records for audit; (4) the ability of roadside enforcement to quickly and easily access 

the HOS information; (5) the level of protection afforded other personal, operational, 

or proprietary information; (6) cost; and (7) driver acceptability. The research included a literature and technology review that was completed in March 2005, and 

a study focusing on a range of data collection and information management topics, 

including location referencing methods, completed in August 2005. 

Initiation of New Rulemaking in 2004 

On September 1, 2004, FMCSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting public comment on the issue of technical specifications 

for EOBRs, and whether the use of such devices should be required for the entire 

motor carrier industry, certain segments of the industry, or whether use of the devices should remain voluntary. During 2005, we analyzed the comments to the 

ANPRM and prepared a proposal for a new EOBR rule that takes those comments 

into consideration. 

January 2007 Proposal 

In January 2007, FMCSA proposed a comprehensive rule intended to increase the 

use of EOBRs within the motor carrier industry and to improve HOS compliance. 

The approach contains three components: (1) a new performance-oriented standard 

for EOBR technology; (2) the use of EOBRs to remediate regulatory noncompliance; 

and (3) incentives to promote EOBR use. FMCSA believes this approach strikes an 

appropriate balance between promoting highway safety and Executive Order requirements to evaluate the societal costs and benefits of all significant rulemakings. 

In addition to requesting comments through the Federal Register notice, the Agency 

held three listening sessions in Washington, D.C.; Phoenix, AZ; and Chicago, IL. 

FMCSA’s NPRM proposes amending the safety regulations to incorporate new 

performance standards for EOBRs installed in CMVs manufactured on or after 2 

years from the effective date of a final rule. EOBRs meeting FMCSA’s current requirements and voluntarily installed in CMVs manufactured before the rule’s effective date may continue to be used for the remainder of the service life of those 

CMVs. 

The technical standards element of the proposed rule would help motor carriers 

and safety compliance officials by providing them with clearly defined information, 

6 

presented and stored in a standardized way. These standards would provide a 

‘‘benchmark’’ for EOBR system developers to use in designing their systems and for 

motor carriers to use in comparing the features and performance of different systems. The standards would also enable motor carriers to select the devices that are 

most appropriate for different types of operations, knowing that the data from the 

different systems will be recorded, stored, and secured in consistent ways. This portion of the rule would require EOBRs to record basic information needed to track 

a driver’s HOS compliance, including: identity of the driver, duty status, date, time, 

and location of the commercial vehicle, and distance traveled. Additionally, it would 

add a new requirement to use Global Positioning System technology or other location tracking systems to automatically identify the location of the vehicle, which further reduces the likelihood of falsification of HOS information. 

Our proposed technical specifications would improve dramatically the ease and 

convenience of using these devices as a safety tool. First, there would be standard 

display of specific data fields. Regardless of location or which manufacturer’s device 

is being used, every read-out and display would be in a similar format. Additionally, 

the technology would have to support the ability to transfer the data—either by 

hard wire or wireless transmission. Updating the technology standards will allow 

us to make the best use of modern and efficient communications. Uniformity will 

help drivers and law enforcement know how to use these devices regardless of manufacturer or model. 

The rule further proposes that motor carriers with a history of serious noncompliance with the HOS rules would be subject to mandatory installation of EOBRs 

meeting the new performance standards. If FMCSA determined, based on HOS 

records reviewed during each of two compliance reviews (CRs) conducted within a 

2-year period, that a motor carrier had a 10 percent or greater violation rate (‘‘pattern violation’’) for certain HOS regulations, FMCSA would issue the carrier an 

EOBR remedial directive. The motor carrier would be required to install EOBRs in 

all of its CMVs regardless of their date of manufacture unless the carrier had 

equipped its vehicles already with AOBRDs meeting the Agency’s current requirements and could demonstrate to FMCSA that its drivers understand how to use the 

devices. 

Finally, FMCSA would encourage industry-wide use of EOBRs by providing the 

following incentives for motor carriers that voluntarily use EOBRs in their CMVs: 

(1) revising its compliance review procedures to permit examination of a random 

sample of drivers’ records of duty status; and (2) providing relief from HOS supporting documents requirements, provided certain conditions were satisfied. 

Rationale for Limiting the Mandate 

In all our enforcement activities, FMCSA focuses on those companies that are 

most likely to be a safety hazard on the road. Based on its safety research, FMCSA 

believes that motor carriers whose drivers routinely exceed HOS limits have an increased probability of involvement in fatigue-related crashes and therefore present 

a disproportionately high risk to highway safety. Based on the Agency’s analysis of 

its Motor Carrier Management Information System data from CRs conducted on 

motor carriers operating in interstate commerce, carriers to which a remedial directive would apply under this proposal have crash rates that are 87 percent higher 

than the overall industry average. Currently, carriers with high crash rates and 

high driver HOS violation rates top our priority list for CRs and are targeted at the 

roadside for increased inspections. 

Under this proposed rule, only those truck companies with a history of serious 

HOS violations would be required to install EOBRs in all of their commercial vehicles. Within the first 2 years of the rule’s enforcement, we estimate that 930 carriers 

with 17,500 drivers would fall under this requirement. 

FMCSA recognizes the views of many in the highway safety community and the 

general public about mandating EOBRs. However, there are several million CMVs 

on America’s roads today. Our estimated costs for mandating EOBRS on every vehicle in the fleet greatly exceeded the estimated benefits at the time we published the 

April 2003 Final Rule on drivers’ HOS. Therefore, we focused on finding other ways 

to get more of these units on CMVs without creating an unreasonable burden with 

a government mandate. Consequently, we proposed a risk-based approach to target 

this technology where it is likely to have the most benefits for the driving public. 

Driver Behavior 

While EOBR technology is at our disposal, we must always remember that it is 

just another tool to ensure safe driver behavior. Drivers must also follow the HOS 

rules that protect them and protect those with whom they share the road. In 2003 

and again in 2005, FMCSA revised its HOS regulations to require motor carriers 

7 

of property to provide drivers with better opportunities to obtain sleep and thereby 

reduce the incidence of crashes attributed in whole or in part to drivers operating 

CMVs while drowsy, tired, or fatigued. These rulemakings were necessary because 

FMCSA estimated that a portion of truck drivers involved in large truck crashes 

each year is fatigued. Specifically, the results from our March 2006 Report to Congress on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study indicate that 13 percent of the 

large truck drivers involved in study crashes were believed to be fatigued. FMCSA 

estimates that, when adhered to fully, the changes to the HOS rules will save lives 

each year as a result of giving drivers an increased incremental amount of time to 

obtain rest and sleep. EOBRs will monitor non-complying motor carriers for compliance with these important rules. 

Conclusion 

Motor carriers have been allowed to use on-board recorders to document drivers’ 

HOS for approximately 20 years. While the current level of on-board recorder use 

is limited and many believe that nothing short of an industry-wide mandate will improve safety, the information we had available at the time we published our NPRM 

did not support an industry-wide mandate. We have received strong feedback to our 

NPRM and have begun the process of reviewing each of the comments to the docket 

to determine the most appropriate steps to take in following up on the January 2007 

proposal. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working with this Committee and the transportation community to ensure a safe transportation system for the citizens of the United States. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill. 

The witnesses range from the Administration to trucking industry officials to the manufacturers of the on-board recorders, and we, 

obviously, welcome all of you to the witness table. 

Mr. Rosenker, Mark Rosenker, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, welcome, and please give your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK V. ROSENKER, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

Mr. ROSENKER. Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking 

Member Smith for allowing me to present testimony on behalf of 

the National Transportation Safety Board. It is my privilege to represent an agency that is dedicated to the safety of the traveling 

public. 

Today, I’d like to talk about how technology can help prevent fatigue-related accidents by improving commercial driver compliance 

with the hours-of-service regulations. 

First, I’d like to compliment the administrator and his organization, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, on beginning this process and framing the public debate by issuing a notice 

of proposed rulemaking on electronic data recorders for hours-ofservice. 

As you know, paper logbooks offer many opportunities to play 

fast and loose with the hours-of-service rules. Some unscrupulous 

drivers falsify their books, or keep two sets of books. Some motor 

carriers do not closely monitor their driver’s compliance with the 

rules and some may actually coach their drivers on how to fudge 

their logbooks. 

Recognizing this lack of accountability with paper logbooks, the 

Safety Board has advocated the use of on-board data recorders for 

the past three decades. In 1977, the Safety Board issued its first 

recommendation on the use of on-board recording devices for hoursof-service compliance by asking the Federal Highway AdministraVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
8 

tion to explore the merits of tachographs on reducing commercial 

vehicle accidents. Although the Highway Administration studied 

the issue, they did not make any changes. 

During the 1980s, the technology for on-board recorders for 

hours-of-service improved dramatically. In 1990, as part of a study 

on heavy-truck crashes, the Safety Board recommended that the 

Highway Administration and the states require the use of automated, tamperproof on-board recording devices. This recommendation was rejected by the Highway Administration. 

In 1995, the Board reiterated this same recommendation to the 

Federal Highway Administration and the states. Both failed to act. 

In 1998, the Safety Board tried a different approach and made 

recommendations directly to the industry, asking them to equip 

their commercial vehicle fleets with automated and tamperproof 

on-board recording devices. This recommendation was opposed by 

the industry. 

In 2001, when the new FMCSA issued an NPRM for hours-ofservice of drivers, the Board reiterated its position that FMCSA 

strongly consider mandatory use of electronic on-board recorders by 

all motor carriers. FMCSA did not incorporate this suggestion into 

the NPRM. 

Finally, 2 weeks ago, the Board sent a letter to the FMCSA expressing our disappointment with the NPRM on-board recorder 

issue. There are three primary reasons why the Board felt that the 

NPRM fell short of its intended target: 

First, the Board would like to see damage-resistance and datasurvivability included in the standards for recorder hardware. 

Second, the Safety Board believes on-board recorder technology 

should be applied to all carriers, rather than only to carriers found 

to be pattern violators. It will be extremely difficult for FMCSA to 

identify and administer the program on an exception basis, given 

that they can only audit annually about 1 percent of the carriers 

and that the Board has found significant problems with their current compliance review program. Therefore, the Safety Board is 

convinced that the only effective way in which on-board recorders 

can help stem hours-of-service violations, which the Board has 

linked to numerous fatigue-related accidents, is to mandate their 

use by all operators. 

Third, the proposed rulemaking attempts to promote the voluntary installation and use of on-board recorders. It seems extremely unlikely that the unscrupulous motor carrier, who already 

plays fast and loose with the logbooks, would be willing to comply 

with a voluntary program. 

In summary, fatigue-related accidents continue to plague our Nation’s highways, because, unlike alcohol, fatigue is extremely difficult to detect. In fact, fatigue is probably the most under-reported 

causal factor in highway accidents. Electronic on-board recorders 

hold the potential to efficiently and accurately collect and verify the 

hours-of-service for all drivers. They will also establish the proper 

incentives and a level playing field for compliance with hours-ofservice rules and will ultimately make our highways safer for all 

drivers. 

Accordingly, Safety Board urges Congress to support the requirement for on-board recorders for all motor carriers. 

9 

I would be delighted to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK V. ROSENKER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Good morning Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to present testimony 

on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board regarding Electronic OnBoard Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance. 

As you know, the NTSB is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress 

with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant 

accidents in other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine, and pipeline, 

and issuing safety recommendations to prevent future accidents. The Safety Board 

also oversees the assistance to victims and their families following commercial aviation accidents and also acts as the Court of Appeals for airmen, mechanics and 

mariners whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administrator 

or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant or when civil penalties are assessed by the 

FAA. 

Since its inception in 1967, the Safety Board has investigated about 138,000 aviation accidents and thousands of surface transportation accidents. In addition, the 

Safety Board has issued more than 12,600 safety recommendations in all modes of 

transportation. Although we do not have authority to regulate safety, our reputation 

and our perseverance in following up on safety recommendations has resulted in an 

82 percent acceptance rate for our recommendations. 

Today, I would like to talk about how technology can help prevent fatigue-related 

accidents by improving commercial driver compliance with the hours-of-service regulations. 

As you know, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding ‘‘Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance,’’ on January 18, 2007 and asked for comments by April 18, 2007. Although this very important rulemaking has the potential 

to greatly improve the compliance with hours-of-service rules, and ultimately reduce 

fatigue-related accidents, it will not accomplish this in its present form. 

First I would like to give you some background and long history on the Board’s 

position on this issue. 

For the past 30 years, the Safety Board has advocated the use of on-board data 

recorders to increase hours-of-service compliance of commercial drivers. As you 

know, commercial drivers are currently required to keep logbooks on the hours they 

drive. However, for many reasons these log books often do not reflect the true hours 

of operation. Because drivers for the most part are paid by the mile and motor carriers make more money the more miles that are driven by their drivers, neither 

party has adequate incentives for compliance with the hours-of-service rules. The 

current system of paper logbooks offers many opportunities to play fast and loose 

with these rules. Some unscrupulous drivers write down hours different from those 

that they actually drive, some maintain multiple logbooks, and some outright falsify 

the information. In addition, some motor carriers do not closely monitor their drivers’ compliance with the rules and some actually may coach their drivers on how 

to fudge their logbook. It is not comical, but many in the truck and bus industry 

affectionately call the logbooks ‘‘comic books’’. 

Let me summarize some of the key events that have led to the Board’s position 

on hours-of-service compliance. 

In 1977, the Safety Board issued its first recommendation on the use of on-board 

recording devices for commercial vehicle hours-of-service compliance. It was in response to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) withdrawal of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the installation of tachographs in 

interstate buses. That recommendation proposed that the FHWA: 

Conduct scientifically controlled studies to determine the effects and merits of the 

use of tachographs on commercial vehicles in reducing accidents. (H–77–32) 

In April 1977, FHWA rejected the Board’s recommendation due to ‘‘insufficient 

credible evidence of the effectiveness of recording speedometers as an accident prevention device’’ and due to ‘‘evidence that present day technology of recording speedometers severely limits their use to certain purposes and specific conditions.’’ 

In the 1980s, the technology for on-board recorders for hours-of-service improved 

dramatically, such that in 1990, the Safety Board first urged the FHWA to mandate 

the use of on-board recorders. 

10 

The Board made this recommendation in its 1990 safety study on Fatigue, Alcohol, Drugs, and Medical Factors in Fatal-to-the-Driver Heavy Truck Crashes. This 

study concluded that on-board recording devices could provide a tamper-proof mechanism to enforce the hours-of-service regulations. The study also found that, of the 

182 cases studied, the most frequently cited factor or probable cause in these accidents was fatigue, cited in 31 percent the cases. Alcohol was second at 29 percent. 

Therefore, the Safety Board recommended that the FHWA: 

Require automated/tamper-proof on-board recording devices such as 

tachographs or computerized logs to identify commercial truck drivers who exceed hours-of-service regulations. (H–90–28) 

An identically worded companion recommendation was made to the states, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Territories (H–90–48). 

In 1995, the Board reiterated this Safety Recommendation (H–90–28) in its safety 

study on ‘‘Factors That Affect Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents’’ in which 107 

heavy truck accidents were studied. The study also noted that the incidence of driver fatigue is under-represented in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 

database. Both the FHWA and the states failed to act on this recommendation. 

In 1998, the Safety Board again advocated industry-wide use of on-board recording devices after investigating a multiple-vehicle accident that occurred in Slinger, 

Wisconsin, on February 12, 1997 in which 8 persons died. This time, rather that 

focusing on regulations we tried a different route and made the recommendations 

to the American Trucking Associations, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 

and the Motor Freight Carriers Association, the Independent Truckers and Drivers 

Association, the National Private Truck Council, and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. The recommendation was: 

Advise your members to equip their commercial vehicle fleets with automated 

and tamper-proof on-board recording devices, such as tachographs or computerized recorders, to identify information concerning both driver and vehicle operating characteristics. (H–98–26) (H–98–23) 

At that time the American Trucking Associations responded that it opposed the 

mandatory installation of such devices. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

and the Motor Freight Carriers Association did not respond. 

In August 12, 2001, the Safety Board reiterated its position regarding the use of 

on-board recorders for hours-of-service compliance in its response to the FMCSA’s 

NPRM on Hours-of-Service of Drivers. In our response, the Safety Board again requested that the FMCSA strongly consider mandatory use of EOBRs by all motor 

carriers to help improve hours-of-service compliance. 

Finally, 2 weeks ago on April 18, 2007 the Board sent a letter to FMCSA expressing its disappointment with the notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ‘‘Electronic 

On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance’’. Let me highlight some of the 

reasons why the Board felt the NPRM fell short of its intended target. 

As you know, the NPRM focuses on three elements: 

1. Performance-oriented standards for EOBR technology; 

2. Mandatory use of EOBRs by motor carriers who are found to exhibit a pattern of violations of HOS regulations; and 

3. Development of incentives anticipated to encourage voluntary industry-wide 

use of EOBRs. 

With respect to the first element, the Safety Board is generally satisfied with the 

direction proposed by the FMCSA except in the area of crash protection. Performance standards offer flexibility in the face of rapid technological advances; thereby 

requiring minimal-to-no changes to pertinent regulations. The NPRM makes several 

proposals designed to ensure the security and validity of EOBR data, but it fails 

to address EOBR damage resistance and data survivability. Naturally, the survival 

of the data is important, not only for regulatory compliance, but also to assist accident investigators to determine the influence of fatigue on the driver and the cause 

of the accident. Therefore, in its comments on FMCSA’s NPRM, the Safety Board 

asked FMCSA to add performance standard factors that consider these issues. 

Concerning the second element, the Safety Board is disappointed that the NPRM 

did not propose to mandate the use of EOBRs by all operators subject to the hoursof-service regulations. The proposed rules only require EOBRs for carriers who are 

identified through the compliance review process as pattern violators of the hoursof-service regulations. Identifying such carriers seems problematic. 

For a carrier to be identified as such, the FMCSA must perform at least two compliance reviews on that carrier within a 2-year span. In 2005, the FMCSA was only 

11 

able to perform a total of 8,097 compliance reviews on a population of approximately 

911,000 active and registered carriers, meaning that less than 1 percent of all carriers were assessed for safety and fitness. Although the FMCSA uses a computerized rating methodology (SafeStat) to target potentially unsafe carriers for compliance reviews, flaws in the compliance review system guarantee that many unsafe 

carriers continue to evade even initial identification as an hours-of-service violator. 

The Safety Board has documented several instances in which carriers have received 

favorable compliance review ratings despite long and consistent histories of driverand vehicle-related violations. For example, this was the case for the operator and 

vehicle involved in the recent investigation of the motorcoach fire that fatally injured 23 people near Dallas, Texas. 

In light of the proven deficiencies in the FMCSA motor carrier compliance program, this program should not be the triggering mechanism to initiate a requirement for EOBRs. The Safety Board does not believe that the FMCSA has the resources or processes necessary to identify and discipline all carriers and drivers who 

are pattern violators of the hours-of-service regulations. 

Consequently, a program to impose EOBRs on pattern violators that relies on the 

compliance program to identify such carriers seems unlikely to succeed. In addition, 

pattern violators of hours-of-service regulations are the carriers least likely to 

choose to install and use EOBRs voluntarily. The Safety Board is therefore convinced that the only effective way in which EOBRs can help stem hours-of-service 

violations, which the Board has linked to numerous fatigue-related accidents, is to 

mandate EOBR installation and use by all operators subject to hours-of-service regulations. 

Additionally, the Safety Board is concerned that the NPRM proposes using 

EOBRs as a form of remediation or punishment, when the technology has significant potential for increasing the safety of all motorists. According to the NPRM, 

‘‘. . . motor carriers that have demonstrated a history of serious noncompliance with 

the hours-of-service (HOS) rules would be subject to mandatory installation of 

EOBRs meeting the new performance standards.’’ The Safety Board believes that 

encouraging motor carriers to perceive EOBRs primarily as a means of punishment 

would undermine the goal of achieving voluntary industry-wide acceptance. In fact, 

progressive motor carriers are using EOBRs as an effective tool in shipment tracking, equipment maintenance, and operator scheduling. In addition, EOBRs provide 

a more efficient and reliable way for enforcement agencies to monitor hours-of-service compliance. Finally, the Europeans have required the use of digital tachographs 

for some time. 

With respect to the NPRM’s third element, the proposed rulemaking outlines several incentives that the FMCSA hopes will promote the voluntary installation and 

use of EOBRs. Among these incentives are new compliance review procedures and 

exemptions for certain supporting documentation requirements. The Safety Board is 

in favor of any incentive that fosters use of EOBRs without undermining safety; 

however, the Board is skeptical whether the incentives currently proposed would be 

strong enough to override the financial motivation some carriers and drivers have 

for continuing to circumvent the HOS regulations and not use EOBRs. Moreover, 

for those motor carriers considering the installation of EOBRs, the burden of being 

subject to additional regulatory requirements might cause them to choose not to 

equip their vehicles with the technology voluntarily. 

In summary, the Safety Board is convinced that the regulations proposed in the 

NPRM: 

• will not result in the timely and effective adoption of EOBR technology by all 

motor carriers, 

• may serve to depict EOBRs as a punitive device rather than as one that promotes safety, and 

• will ultimately fail to reduce the number of carriers and drivers who exceed 

Federal hours-of-service limits. 

Accordingly, the Safety Board urges the FMCSA to revise the NPRM to require 

that all motor carriers, subject to the HOS regulations, to install and use EOBRs. 

The trucking industry in the United States has already installed hundreds of 

thousands of devices capable of recording hours-of-service information. We believe 

it is past time to act and that the use of EOBRs should be mandatory throughout 

the industry, as are similar devices required in most of Europe. 

Fatigue-related accidents continue to plague our nation’s highways and because 

fatigue is difficult to quantify by investigating agencies, it is likely the most underreported underlying causal factor in highway accident investigation. Electronic OnBoard Recorders hold the potential to efficiently provide the proper incentives for 

12 

compliance with hours-of-service rules and ultimately make our highways safer for 

all drivers. 

I would be delighted to respond to any questions you may have. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Now, Captain John Harrison, President of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. 

Captain Harrison, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOHN E. HARRISON, PRESIDENT, 

COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE 

Mr. HARRISON. Good afternoon, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking 

Member and Senator Smith. 

I am John Harrison, President of the Commercial Vehicle Safety 

Alliance, and Captain with the Georgia Department of Public Safety. 

CVSA is an international not-for-profit organization comprised of 

local, state, provincial, territorial, and Federal motor carrier safety 

officials and industry representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Our mission is to promote commercial motor vehicle safety and security by providing leadership in enforcement, industry, and policymakers. 

Our goal is uniformity, compatibility, and reciprocity of commercial vehicle inspections and enforcement activities throughout 

North America. 

Chairman Lautenberg, thank you for calling this important hearing and inviting me to testify on issues relating to electronic onboard recorders and truck driver fatigue reduction. 

In my testimony today, I will discuss the existing problems relating to hours-of-service, how EOBR technology can help provide—or 

help solve these problems, and our recommendations and qualifications on implementing EOBRs. 

In our written statement, we have provided more detailed comments and recommendations on the current FMCA rulemaking. 

Even though I am a captain and have a number of employees 

under my command, I maintain CVSA certification to conduct 

North American standards inspections. 

Since 2000, the regulations regarding commercial driver hoursof-service have been through a series of formal actions by the 

FMCSA, as well as being challenged by outside groups and in the 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the meantime, compliance with 

hours-of-service continues to be a significant problem encountered 

by law enforcement, both at roadside and in the motor carrier’s 

place of business. 

In 2006, hours-of-service violations were represented in 7 of the 

top 20 driver violations discovered during roadside inspections representing 34.2 percent of the total. Further, of the top 20 driver 

out-of-service violations at roadside, 78.8 percent were for hours-ofservice. During compliance reviews, 5 of the top 12 critical violations cited were hours-of-service related, representing 34.6 percent 

of the total. 

The results from the 2006 Large Truck Crash Causation Study 

indicated that fatigue was reported as an associated factor in 13 

percent of all large truck crashes. 

13 

We believe EOBRs hold great promise for helping improve compliance with hours-of-service regulations and providing a positive 

impact on safety in crashes related to driver fatigue. We also believe that widescale—with emphasis on ‘‘widescale’’—adoption of 

EOBRs will help curb the challenges with the limited resources 

available at State and Federal levels for overseeing the motor carrier industry. Unfortunately, drivers operating in excess of hoursof-service limits and falsified driver logs continue to represent a 

significant risk to safety. However, it is important to realize that 

technology has limitations. In the end, driver behavior and changing the safety culture are determining factors in enhancing compliance and reducing crashes. 

EOBR technology is proven. More than 50 countries have mandated electronic data recorders for driving and standby-time recording and/or speed and distance recording. Our recommendations are 

as follows: 

FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

should work to make EOBR standard equipment with an implementation time-frame on the order of 3 to 5 years. 

After market retrofit, installations should only be permitted if 

they meet OEM equipment standards. 

Existing devices should be grandfathered into this new requirement only if they’re able to meet the new OEM standards. 

Those drivers operating existing vehicles, those built prior to the 

new OEM requirement, or using noncompliant EOBRs, would be 

required to retrofit their vehicles within 3 years to meet the OEM 

standard. The paper-based logging system would no longer be permitted. 

FMCSA and NHTSA should create a rigorous certification program for EOBRs administered by a third party, similar to how 

speed-measuring instruments and breath alcohol testing devices 

are approved and certified. 

Until such time the OEM standard is effected, FMCSA should 

conduct several field operational tests of different EOBRs and include a wide range of carrier operational types. In our view, moving 

forward with EOBR implementation means taking the following 

issues into consideration: simple and standardized display of the 

data for enforcement; positive driver identification; tamperproof; 

simple identification and explanation of errors malfunctions and 

manual inputs; an audit trail at roadside; certification and calibration standards; seamless secure standards based on EOBR data— 

EOBR data transfer for analysis by roadside enforcement away 

from the truck; evidentiary needs need to be accommodated; redundancy in the event the system malfunctions; and adequate and 

comprehensive training for enforcement; rigorous monitoring and 

quality control. 

In summary, we believe that in order to enable significant 

changes—significant policy changes to out-of-service compliance, 

there needs to be a universal adoption of EOBR technology. However, it is critically important that the performance specifications 

for these devices and oversight for producing and using them is 

done in a such a manner that enables them to be user-friendly for 

law enforcement, and that there is credibility and confidence in the 

accuracy of the data. 

14 

Moving forward with a mandatory requirement will help provide 

certainty and competition in the manufacturing community, and 

help keep costs down for the motor carrier. 

Thank you very much for inviting me to testify here, and I’ll be 

glad to take any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOHN E. HARRISON, PRESIDENT, 

COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member, Senator Smith, and 

members of the Subcommittee. I am John Harrison, President of the Commercial 

Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and Captain with the Georgia Department of Public 

Safety. 

CVSA is an international not-for-profit organization comprised of local, state, provincial, territorial and Federal motor carrier safety officials and industry representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Our mission is to promote commercial motor vehicle safety and security by providing leadership to enforcement, 

industry and policymakers. Our goal is uniformity, compatibility and reciprocity of 

commercial vehicle inspections and enforcement activities throughout North America. 

Chairman Lautenberg, thank you for calling this important hearing and inviting 

me to testify on issues relating to Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) and truck 

driver fatigue reduction. 

In my testimony today I will discuss the existing problems relating to hours-ofservice and driver log violations, how EOBR technology can help solve these problems, and our recommendations and qualifications on implementing EOBRs. Finally, 

I will comment on the current FMCSA EOBR proposed rulemaking and what we 

view as its shortcomings in addressing hours-of-service compliance and enforcement 

and the related problem of driver fatigue. 

Even though I am a Captain and have a number of employees under my command, I maintain my CVSA Certification to conduct North American Standard 

Roadside Inspections. I work out in the field with the troops on a daily basis. From 

my perspective, if I am to be effective and have credibility within the ranks, this 

is something I need to do. 

Problem Statement 

Since 2000, the regulations regarding commercial driver hours-of-service (HOS) 

have been through a series of formal actions by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), as well as being challenged on the outside by various 

groups and the D.C. United States Circuit Court of Appeals. Countless hours have 

been devoted to this subject, both internal to the agency and by the public. In the 

meantime, compliance with the hours-of-service regulations continues to be a significant problem encountered by law enforcement, both at roadside and in the motor 

carrier’s place of business. The problem is pervasive. 

In the 2006 calendar year, hours-of-service violations were represented in 7 of the 

‘‘Top 20’’ driver violations discovered during roadside inspections. These Top 20 driver violations in the aggregate numbered 2,232,834—Hours-of-Service violations comprised 763,186 of this total, or 34.2 percent. Delving further into the Top 20, Out 

of Service (OOS) violations related to Hours-of-Service totaled 179,778 of the 

228,211 total driver OOS violations, or 78.8 percent. At the motor carrier’s place of 

business during the conduct of Compliance Reviews, 5 of the ‘‘Top 12’’ Critical violations cited were Hours-of-Service related. These Top 12 violations in the aggregate 

numbered 6,676—Hours-of-Service violations numbered 2,309 of this total, or 34.6 

percent. 

There are numerous studies regarding commercial driver fatigue and each of them 

report different numbers related to driver fatigue and its contribution to large truck 

involved crashes. The results from the 2006 Large Truck Crash Causation Study indicated that fatigue was reported as an associated factor in 13 percent of all large 

truck crashes. This is a significant number. 

It is clear we have a compliance and a safety problem. How can we fix it? 

Recommendation 

We believe the implementation of Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) for 

compliance with HOS regulations holds great promise for helping improve compliVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
15 

ance with HOS regulations and ultimately providing a positive impact on safety and 

reducing crashes related to driver fatigue and other work-related injuries. We also 

believe that the wide-scale adoption of EOBRs will also help to curb the challenges 

that currently exist with the limited resources available at the state and Federal 

levels for overseeing the motor carrier industry. With nearly 50,000 new motor carriers entering the business each year in the United States, the implementation of 

proven safety technologies serves to assist the law enforcement community in focusing its attention on high-risk drivers, vehicles and motor carriers. 

EOBR technology is proven. More than 50 countries have mandated Electronic 

Data Recorders for driving and standby time recording and/or speed and distance 

recording. As an example, more than 5.5 Million Tachograph systems are being used 

in commercial vehicles and buses to improve road safety in the whole of Western 

and Eastern Europe. In Germany, for example, since the mid-1970s when the Tachograph was mandated until 2000, they experienced approximately a 167 percent improvement in the number of commercial vehicle miles traveled without personal injury (see figure below). 

We believe that in order to meet the intent of the 3 objectives FMCSA laid out 

in its recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for EOBRs, these devices must 

be made mandatory for all commercial vehicles. 

FMCSA should work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) to make these devices standard OEM equipment. Aftermarket/retrofit installations should only be permitted if they meet the OEM equipment standards. In 

order to assist the manufacturing community and to help minimize the cost impacts 

to the industry, we would suggest that the requirement would be put in place at 

a point in the future, somewhere on the order to 3–5 years after the final rule is 

published. We believe existing devices should be grandfathered into this new requirement only if they are able to meet the new OEM standard specifications. We 

also believe the existing Automatic On-Board Recording Device (AOBRD) regulations in 49 CFR § 395.15 should be sunsetted. Those drivers operating existing vehicles (those built prior to the new OEM requirement) or using EOBR devices not 

compliant with the new standard would be required to retrofit their vehicles within 

3 years to meet the OEM equipment standards. The paper-based logging system 

would no longer be permitted. 

In the interim, we would suggest that FMCSA conduct several field operational 

tests of different device types (to include those not integrally synchronized with the 

vehicle) to understand what the optimum performance requirements should be, as 

well as to more fully evaluate their impact on safety. One option for this test could 

be to use the motor carrier population the Agency has suggested in its NPRM that 

would be subject to a remedial directive and be required to have the EOBRs installed—those carriers FMCSA has determined, based on HOS records reviewed 

during each of two compliance reviews conducted within a 2-year period, that the 

motor carrier has a 10 percent or greater violation rate (‘‘pattern violation’’) for any 

regulation in proposed Appendix C to Part 385. Theoretically, once EOBRs are installed on the habitual offenders’ vehicles, they should realize a significant improvement in safety, both in HOS compliance and in fatigue-related crashes. Another opVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE

501harr.eps
16 

tion to consider for the test phase, which is our preferred option, is to tie EOBR 

application (for the test phase) to SafeStat and ISS scores. This approach would 

broaden the pool of test candidates and will likely also serve as a more representative sampling of the industry. We believe that by taking into account both SafeStat 

and ISS scores, carriers with demonstrated performance problems, as well as those 

with no history can be part of the pool to be evaluated. If the test is properly carried 

out and administered, it should effectively demonstrate how to positively impact 

HOS compliance for carriers on both ends of the scale—those who are uninformed 

about the hours-of-service regulations and those who are habitual violators. 

EOBRs must use standardized data formats and have a standardized interface for 

law enforcement so that training, compliance evaluation and monitoring is effective 

and simplified. 

We also recommend that FMCSA (and NHTSA) create a more rigorous certification program for EOBRs that is administered by a 3rd party, and to also create 

an advisory board that would serve to create and maintain an approved EOBR list. 

This advisory group could operate similarly to those groups who are involved with 

speed measuring instruments and breath alcohol testing devices. Wherever possible, 

EOBR design and performance specifications should use accepted industry standards that are verifiable and certifiable. 

It is our belief that moving forward with a mandatory requirement will help on 

all fronts. It will provide some certainty and competition in the manufacturing community and likely result in more ‘‘hardened’’ and user-friendly systems, help keep 

costs down for the motor carrier industry through economies of scale, and will assist 

the enforcement community since there will be stringent and uniform standards. It 

also will provide adequate lead time for both industry and enforcement to ramp up 

their operations and provide for training, as well as budget planning for the procurement of these devices and the development of back office systems to accept and 

manage the data output. 

The FMCSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

In its recent NPRM regarding Electronic On-Board Recording devices for Hoursof-Service, FMCSA indicated the intent of the NPRM was to: 

1. Improve CMV safety; 

2. Increase use of EOBRs within the motor carrier industry; and 

3. Improve HOS compliance. 

They further indicated that their approach had three components: 

1. A new performance-oriented standard for EOBR technology; 

2. Use of EOBRs to remediate regulatory noncompliance; and 

3. Incentives to promote EOBR use. 

While CVSA certainly supports the 3 objectives embodied in the intent of the 

NPRM, we believe the approach FMCSA has taken will not measurably impact on 

them. The universe of motor carriers required to install EOBRs as a part of the proposal is a small fraction of the motor carrier population as a whole. Additionally, 

we also believe that their voluntary adoption, even with the incentives offered by 

FMCSA, will not occur in large numbers. 

Safety 

Given the fact that hours-of-service (HOS) compliance continues to be a major 

problem area for many motor carriers, and large truck crashes related to fatigue are 

significant, we firmly believe that in order to have a substantial impact on safety 

and HOS compliance EOBRs must be universally used in the motor carrier industry. We believe that habitual HOS offenders need stronger enforcement in addition 

to requiring the installation of EOBRs. HOS non-compliance is indicative of a systemic management problem within the motor carrier’s operation, and the mere installation of EOBRs will not serve to correct this problem. The resources expended 

by government to monitor the motor carriers subject to mandatory EOBR use will 

be substantial and in our view, the benefits will not outweigh the costs. 

Level Playing Field 

In our view the NPRM will do little to help deploy EOBRs in large quantities. 

Most carriers already using these systems are doing them primarily to help better 

manage their drivers and not necessarily for HOS compliance. HOS compliance [to 

many of them] is a secondary benefit of these devices. We do not believe this thinking will change much with the implementation of the NPRM. Most carriers will view 

this as a cost item (and a legal liability) that will put them at a competitive disadvantage with their peers, therefore making them reluctant to voluntarily invest 

17 

in these devices. The EOBR vendors will not put much capital outlay into the development and deployment of these systems since there is not a clear market for them. 

Additionally, given the minimal number of devices that will likely penetrate the 

market, the benefit of economies of scale will not be realized, therefore not putting 

much pricing pressure or competition in the marketplace. This will likely result in 

most of the devices not being an attractive purchasing option for many small to medium sized fleets, or for those fleets operating on thin margins. Ultimately, in our 

view the NPRM will not enable a level playing field for the motor carrier industry 

as a whole, which will cause most fleets to opt not to purchase an EOBR. 

Technology 

As FMCSA indicates in its NPRM, technology has come a long way in recent 

years and is capable of performing many more functions than what would be needed 

to monitor and manage HOS compliance. We believe the optimal approach related 

to EOBRs is to limit their performance requirements to just those necessary for 

HOS compliance. This will help to keep costs down, and also help to ensure that 

the display, evaluation and back office system functionality needed for enforcement 

to monitor and evaluate compliance will be made easier and help to minimize the 

liability exposure to the industry. 

We believe FMCSA needs to put more explicit focus and emphasis on standardizing the performance specifications regarding tamperproof requirements, information gathering and display, editing and error recording and reporting, and as well 

as communication accuracy, timeliness and redundancy. We are appreciative of the 

fact that FMCSA included GPS as a performance requirement in the NPRM, as this 

will provide some measure of assistance in accuracy and redundancy. We also appreciate requiring parallel data streams and making sure that the original data is 

kept intact, as this should help law enforcement when reviewing records and during 

the driver interview process. However, we still strongly believe there must be a tamperproof requirement. 

A related issue is one of FMCSA’s identified seven performance requirements in 

the NPRM—identification of the driver and ensuring the EOBR is able to attach the 

driver to his/her appropriate hours-of-service. In our view this issue is critical and 

fundamental to helping minimize falsification and errors/inaccuracies. Although we 

support providing flexibility to motor carriers and technology providers on this 

point, we strongly believe that FMCSA needs to specify a minimum performance requirement, to include outlining standardized and explicit test procedures and expectations. This would be part of the EOBR certification program (see Recommendation 

section). The EOBR must be able to correctly identify the driver/employee in all 

duty status stages of his/her hours-of-service and be able to accurately tie the employee to the vehicle, cargo and motor carrier at all times. This is especially important for leased drivers and owner/operators. 

The NPRM discusses the notion of permitting EOBR devices that are not integrally synchronized with the vehicle. While we fully understand that cell phone and 

other like-technologies are available that use hours-of-service applications, at this 

point in time we are not supportive of permitting them to be used as EOBRs. We 

are not convinced that these technologies will effectively minimize the opportunity 

for falsification and drivers taking ghost runs. However, we do believe that these 

types of devices are in need of further study to understand how in the future they 

may be used in this capacity. We are sensitive to the fact that cell phone and liketechnologies are pervasive in the industry and tend to be on the lower cost end of 

EOBR devices. We do not want to dismiss out of hand the fact that once they (and 

the performance specifications) are more fully outlined and understood they possibly 

could be used as an EOBR. 

As for the recording interval, we are supportive of 1 minute increments. We also 

support the ± 1 percent location accuracy. We believe that EOBRs must use standardized data formats and communications protocols. We also firmly believe there 

must be a standardized display using the graph-grid format, and that non-compliance must be easily identified. 

In our view, FMCSA may not want to explicitly identify the different types of 

communications technologies that are able to be used in the application of EOBRs, 

since they are so rapidly changing and evolving. The more important aspects related 

to the data in our view are the security aspects as well as the content and timeliness of the information availability, and not necessarily the method of communication. 

Enforcement 

The NPRM upon implementation will likely make it difficult for enforcement officers. The problem with EOBRs today is that there is no standardization in terms 

18 

of how the information is made available for officers to evaluate compliance, how 

errors and modifications to records are recorded and reported, nor is there a rigorous certification program to ensure they are operating correctly. The combination 

of grandfathering existing devices, providing the 2 year window for voluntary adoption of non-complaint 395.16 devices, and the likely limited penetration of EOBRs 

will continue to create difficulties for enforcement with understanding and accurately evaluating the operation of all the different device types. We also believe that 

the option of using devices not integrally synchronized with the vehicle presents its 

own set of challenges for enforcement that are not yet fully understood. We also 

strongly believe that EOBRs must be made tamperproof. Although the NPRM does 

make an attempt to correct some of these concerns in the performance specifications, we do not believe it goes far enough to minimize tampering or to make sure 

that officers will feel comfortable with using the devices. 

Law enforcement needs the capability to be able to print HOS records at roadside 

to more effectively review HOS compliance and collect evidence. Although we support having EOBRs providing the functionality to print out the HOS records, we 

think a more prudent and cost effective approach is to equip certified inspectors/officers with the appropriate technologies and printing device to be able to do this 

themselves. This will help those officers who do not currently use laptop or hand 

held computers (or the software to read the EOBR data file). Ultimately, this approach will also serve to assist in having more roadside inspections completed (and 

uploaded) electronically, since many inspectors are still completing inspections on 

paper. 

As for access to the HOS data, we agree with FMCSA that EOBRs must not require the officer to have to enter the cab of the vehicle. If electronic files are going 

to be made available for download, they must adhere to common, uniform and strict 

standards. In addition, the officers must be able to read the data on their (for those 

who have them) laptops or hand held computers. However, we do have concerns 

with the possibility of these files introducing a virus or otherwise damaging the operating system or software. 

Summary 

We believe that in order to enable significant positive changes to hours-of-service 

compliance there needs to be universal adoption of EOBR technology. However, it 

is critically important that the performance specifications for these devices, and the 

oversight of those producing and using them is done in such a manner that enables 

them to be user-friendly for law enforcement and that there is credibility and confidence in the accuracy of the data. 

Hours-of-service continues to be a challenging area for many motor carriers to 

make significant strides in improving compliance. There must be a multi-faceted approach in terms of finding solutions, and the status quo is just not acceptable. We 

believe that the implementation of EOBRs is one of the important elements of such 

an approach. 

Thank you very much for inviting us to be here today, and I am happy to take 

any questions you may have. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank each one of you for your testimony. 

Mr. Rosenker, the USDOT’s Large Truck Crash Causation Study 

in 2006, estimates that only 13 percent of American truck crashes 

involve fatigue, but yet, your agency has put the figure at 30 to 40 

percent. Now, is DOT underestimating the problem of truck driver 

fatigue? 

Mr. ROSENKER. Sir, our study that we did in 1990 on large truck 

crashes dealt with fatal accidents. We found that approximately 

one-third dealt with, in some shape or form, fatigue. But that 

didn’t necessarily mean it was fatigue only. So, the data that, in 

fact, we are seeing now, clearly later data, is data which is quite 

valid. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How difficult is it to find out whether driver fatigue is a factor in truck crashes? Does it have to be an extrapolation of other data in order to even make an assumption like 

that? 

Mr. ROSENKER. It does. And what we’ve found, in a series of 3 

million inspections, 7 percent of the drivers that they took a look 

19 

at in the 3 million inspections were put off the road for human-factor issues, the vast majority of which dealt with fatigue. So, we 

found that to be a very large factor when they were put out-of-service. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Hill, what do you think about that? 

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you agree with Mr. Rosenker? 

Mr. HILL. Well, I would agree with several points that he made. 

I would just like to clarify on the data problem that we have in 

quantifying exactly the related cause of crashes. 

As you know, most of the crashes were done by local and state 

enforcement officers, and the crash reports indicate a variety of 

things. Fatigue is one of the things that’s indicated on a crash report, as well as driver inattention. And so, what we look at is the 

FARS data, the fatality accident reduction—the accident reporting 

system, FARS, has a typical under-reporting problem with fatigue. 

We know that. Therefore, we’re taking into consideration later 

data. When you mention the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, 

this study took nearly 1,000 crashes, and it had specialized people 

who went to the scene of the crash, interviewed all the drivers involved, and they knew how to find this fatigue-related matter. That 

is why the number is so much higher than what the common reporting numbers in FARS indicate, which is somewhere around 2 

percent of all fatal crashes. So, we think that the number is much 

higher, and that’s why our Large Truck Crash Causation Study indicates the number of 13 percent. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Did it take a long time for your agency to 

step up to the reinforcement requirements, the law enforcement requirements that were expected to be there in these years past, and 

yet very little has really happened? 

Mr. HILL. In terms of the enforcement of the hours-of-service 

rules, sir? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. HILL. As Captain Harrison indicated, there has been significant litigation, and every time we have a disruption in that rulemaking process, the enforcement suffers from that. They are uncertain about what the current rule is. At any given time, when there 

are changes to the rule, we have to go out and train them on the 

changes that need to be enacted. There has been some disruption 

since 2003, when we implemented the rule. Since that time, we are 

moving forward with our current enforcement program. As Chairman Rosenker indicated we are seeing out-of-service rates comparable to what they were before the rule was imposed. So, we do 

have a consistency in the enforcement regime at this time. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Captain Harrison, how do you see it, in 

terms of the estimates on fatigue and the causation that it brings 

about? 

Mr. HARRISON. Well, we are not statisticians, we’re—we’ll enforce 

whatever the rule is. And it appears, examining the data that we 

do have, that it’s been pretty consistent, whether it was under the 

old rules or the revised rules. You know, the point I want to make 

is that the hours-of-service regulations since January 2004 have 

been in a constant state of flux, seems like. And, as far as an enforcement is concerned, we need stability in those rules so that evVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
20 

erybody understands the rules and we can readily educate the 

motor carrier population and enforce the rules. We consistently run 

upon drivers that don’t understand the rules. And sometimes we 

come to blows, almost, with drivers, because they can’t understand 

why they’re being placed out-of-service for exceeding the limits, 

when they don’t really understand the limits. So, we need consistency on the rules, to start with. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How do we get that educational factor in 

place? 

Mr. HARRISON. Well, first, we need these hours-of-service rules— 

if the FMCSA has done their job, and they have identified the 

human factors that affect driver fatigue, and say that a 24-hour 

clock is what you need, the circadian rhythm, and they fashion the 

rules according to that, we need them locked in place, and we’ll enforce whatever the rules are. And then we can have a set of data 

that we can analyze. Right now, with the flux in the regulations, 

we haven’t been under the new rules long enough to determine if 

they are effective, if they’re making a difference. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It’s obviously important for the EOB recorders on trucks to be tamperproof. Now, that doesn’t look like it’s 

an impossible problem, either technologically or educationally. Nobody can alter or adjust the information in black boxes on airplanes 

or locomotives, right? So, there shouldn’t be a problem with that, 

certainly, in terms of what we expect the device to be able to guarantee here. 

Mr. Hill, it seems that the Bush administration is taking an opportunity to use technology to make our highways safer. Why not 

require on-board recorders for all new trucks and all new carriers, 

at the very least? That’s, frankly, how we got airbags into cars. 

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to you that we are currently proposing a rule that would begin down the road of seeing 

a greater expansion of the technology in trucks, and we’re open to 

considering other alternatives. That is why we are going through 

this notice of proposed rulemaking. So, I think that your question— 

for us, in terms of this particular rule, we’re proposing one that 

deals with the risk, at the present time, that we feel is the greatest, and that’s why we have addressed it the way we did. I made 

mention, in my earlier statement, that 87 percent of the carriers 

that would be involved in this remedial directive, or a requirement 

to have an EOBR placed on the vehicle within the first 2 years, 

80—they have an 87 percent higher crash rating than other carriers not in that group of people. So, we’re trying to assess risk, 

and put the technology where we can see it start to grow, and then 

hopefully create some incentives for other industry participation, as 

well. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, but should we confine the use of these 

recorders only to those who seem to be riskier? We ought to be get 

it out there and introduce it as a requirement for new product. I 

think that’s a relatively easy thing to do. 

What do you think, Mr. Rosenker? 

Mr. ROSENKER. We agree with you, Mr. Chairman. We’ve long 

been on the record about this particular technology. We believe it 

can do much to begin the process of getting compliance from those 

that are, unfortunately, skirting the law, and that it makes it easy 

21 

to do when you don’t have technology like this to validate the actual hours-of-service that an operator is performing. We started 

with this back in 1977, and, unfortunately, have not been very successful in getting either regulatory or voluntary installation. 

However, with that said, we’ve got an NPRM that’s now out 

there, and I’m hoping that it would perhaps include, as what we 

suggested in our response to the NPRM: one, heartier, more robust 

standards for crash-worthiness that could be utilized in the event 

of an accident; two, it should basically deal with all carriers, not 

just selected carriers that have appeared in one shape or form that 

violated the rules; and, finally, the NPRM asks for voluntary compliance, and if you’re asking for voluntary compliance from everyone, those that, in fact, are the most egregious of violators won’t 

be incentivized to install this device. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I agree. 

Last summer, a large truck crashed into two cars on the New 

Jersey Turnpike, killing four people. The truck driver was cited for 

careless driving. When your agency looked at the records of this 

driver—after the fact—the investigators found previous violations 

of the hours-of-service laws, falsifying records of compliance, and 

no drug or alcohol testing plan in place. 

Now, obviously, wouldn’t the electronic on-board recorder be an 

aid to your inspectors, and state inspectors, to find violators before, 

not after, a crash? The thing we were discussing, Mr. Hill, about 

looking at the riskiest places—the riskiest individuals also to be 

part of that. 

Want do you think, Mr. Rosenker? 

Mr. ROSENKER. Again, we believe technology has a tremendous 

place in this issue of compliance. With the new devices are data 

and digital data-driven, we believe that they are extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible, to in any way influence on change. 

So for us, when it comes to accident investigation, the kinds of 

equipment that we see right now would be extremely helpful. We 

believe we can significantly reduce the number of accidents, injuries and, ultimately, fatalities by getting compliance ahead of time 

so that the fatigue issue isn’t a factor when we’re talking about 

highway accidents. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But I’m not sure that we came to the conclusion that relates to the records of drivers, those who have had 

past difficulties, falsifying records. Could we use the data gathered 

here to determine that and make sure that these people had a particular condition that we had to watch out for? 

Mr. ROSENKER. I’m not sure if this type of device, the way it is 

built at this moment, would be a device that would provide that 

type of information to the roadside inspector. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. ROSENKER.—an entire record. I don’t know if that could be 

done. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. No, but I assume that there is a place 

where records are kept of a driver’s performance, especially in serious accidents. Shouldn’t that be a database that we tap routinely 

for people who are going to get behind the wheel of a giant truck 

and get out there on—— 

22 

Mr. ROSENKER. I would agree. And we have that on our Most 

Wanted List. I happen to have brought an example of our Most 

Wanted List with me. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. 

Mr. ROSENKER. Two areas that, in fact, we’ve worked on with the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is the area of preventing medically unqualified drivers from operating commercial 

vehicles, and also improving the carrier operations. We’ve asked 

that to be done by preventing motor carriers from operating if they 

put vehicles with mechanical problems on the road or unqualified 

drivers behind the wheel, which would be those that are in egregious violation of the rules and regulations of the State and Federal law. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks. I have more questions, but my 

colleague Senator Smith has been most patient. 

Senator take as much—— 

Senator SMITH. OK. 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—time as you need. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Hill, I understand that under the rule proposed by 

your agency earlier in the year, only carriers that have a identified 

history of noncompliance with hours-of-service regulations are the 

ones that will then get these electronic on-board recorders. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. HILL. That is the proposal at this time. Of course, there are 

also incentives for people to put it onto their carriers into their 

fleet voluntarily, but we did require EOBRs as you suggested, for 

the noncompliant ones, yes. 

Senator SMITH. I’m interested in how you arrive at the designation of a noncompliant person. As I listened to Mr. Rosenker, it 

seems to me he’s saying that the sampling may be awfully small. 

In 2005, your agency performed only 8,000, roughly, compliance reviews, and there are nearly over 900,000 active and registered carriers, meaning 1 percent is the sample. If you’re going to take your 

approach, providing EOBRs on all trucks, is that a sufficient sample? 

Mr. HILL. Well, it—as I said, earlier to the Chairman in response 

to his question, we are starting with a proposed rule, and I think 

we have to consider that this is a baseline, and we need to consider 

other options. I’m hearing that very clearly today. I do believe that 

it’s very small sample, and it’s going to be difficult, but I will say 

that it’s a snapshot in time, so that this list could grow, it could 

become larger, because of more roadside inspections finding noncompliance, and we could also foresee a time when we might use 

other indicators. And one of the things that using EOBRs does do, 

as the Chairman was alluding to in his last questioning with the 

Chairman, is that it allows us to go in and readily look for patterns 

of violations. So, where we put this into carriers, we’ll be able to 

quickly survey and do an assessment of the driver records at that 

carrier’s place of business much more quickly, because it will be 

automated, as opposed to the safety investigator going through and 

doing a laborious sampling of certain logbooks. So, I think it’s 

a—— 

Senator SMITH. Doesn’t it take you—— 

23 

Mr. HILL.—in the long run—— 

Senator SMITH. It takes 2 years to determine if somebody has a 

noncompliance history? 

Mr. HILL. Well, in terms of the proposal, that’s what has been 

suggested. 

Senator SMITH. And do you have the resources to increase the 

surveillance, the designations? 

Mr. HILL. Well, as you indicate, as you framed the last question—we do have a large population here, and we have finite resources. I think last year we did 15,000 compliance reviews between us and the State enforcement groups. They’re doing 3 million 

roadside inspections. That’s still a very small part of the overall 

picture. So, we do have limited resources, and that’s why we, as an 

agency, and our State partners, focus on risk, looking at the most 

severe violations to try to address that problem. And that’s the consistent theme here that we’ve been trying to apply in this rule. And 

I would just, again, reiterate that it is a notice of proposed rulemaking, with the opportunity to make changes. 

Senator SMITH. I would imagine that the truckers don’t like this. 

You know, this is Big Brother watching over them. I can imagine 

that they just don’t like the regulation. Can you give me some flavor of the opposition to this? 

Mr. HILL. Sure. We’re hearing privacy issues. In some cases, I 

think there is confusion on the part of the person making that 

claim, because we’re not going to require anything under this proposed rule or this final rule of—as it comes out, that isn’t already 

on a logbook. 

But it’s the idea that the monitoring system will allow the carrier 

to know where the vehicle is going when they are not doing work 

for the carrier—— 

Senator SMITH. So, is it the driver or the trucking company? 

Sometimes they’re the same, I understand—but where is most of 

the pushback coming from, the drivers or the motor carrier company? 

Mr. HILL. I believe you have both. I think, from the carrier perspective, there’s a cost factor, and they want to make sure that if 

you do have it, that they’re not playing on an uneven playing field 

with their competition. And then, I think you have other drivers 

who are concerned, because they’re not fully aware of the EOBR 

technology, about privacy concerns. 

Senator SMITH. So, the companies would prefer that, going forward, it be in every vehicle, I assume, as part of the cost of the 

vehicle, if you’re going to have it at all, or would they prefer just 

in the basis of where you designate who has a noncompliance history? 

Mr. HILL. Well, the industry’s going to be here on panel two, and 

I’m sure they’ll be ready to tell you how they feel about it. But 

I—— 

Senator SMITH. Well, I can imagine how they feel about it. I’m 

not saying where I am on this position. But I’m anxious to hear 

your perspective on your challenge in crafting this regulation, why 

you’re proposing to do it this way. 

Mr. HILL. Our problem, Senator Smith, is we’re required, under 

the Administrative Procedures Act, to figure costs and benefits, and 

24 

it’s going to be difficult to put a rule forward that allows us to show 

some kind of benefit with an industry-wide mandate. 

Senator SMITH. OK. 

Mr. HILL. And so, we’re trying to work within that. To the extent 

that we can do this with a limited population, we can show a safety 

benefit. That is one of the options. 

The alternative to that, of course, is that, as you deploy this 

more widespread you’ll see prices come down with the—— 

Senator SMITH. Right. 

Mr. HILL.—the technology. And somewhere in there, I’d like to 

see somebody suggest more incentives to encourage carriers to put 

this on their vehicles. 

Senator SMITH. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Rosenker, I understand that you’ve looked at what the Europeans are doing and their digital recorders for some time now, do 

they have it on all trucks? Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENKER. That is a requirement, yes, sir. 

Senator SMITH. And has the incidence of fatigue-related crashes 

in Europe decreased since the installation of the recorders? Was 

there any data—— 

Mr. ROSENKER. We believe they have. And we believe we’d see 

that same type of improvement here in the United States if, in fact, 

we required all of the motor carriers to use them. I have to feel 

some sympathy for the Administrator, but I believe if we made it 

a requirement across the board, there would be a level playing field 

where everyone could participate. The costs of these devices would 

come down significantly. And you would also begin to see much 

better compliance. 

As matter of fact, I believe what you would find is that this 

would help the Administrator and the local authorities in compliance, because, in fact, if everyone has them then they all run the 

same risk of being stopped and their devices being looked at for 

valid hours-of-service. 

Senator SMITH. Do you know of any evidence that suggests the 

carriers with the EOBRs have fewer fatigue-related crashes? 

Mr. ROSENKER. I have not seen the specific data that deals with 

that. There are not a whole lot of carriers out there that have it. 

Many of your larger carriers are using them, but they’re using 

them as a total system, because with many of the more advanced 

devices that you get do significantly more than just monitor the 

hours-of-service. They will deal in load management, fuel management, trip management, cost-accounting devices. Now, those are 

more expensive devices, but I believe you’re going to hear from industry that will follow us in the next panel, that will talk about 

the significant benefits they have in not only using the actual recorder for hours-of-service monitoring, but for other broader applications as well. 

Senator SMITH. Administrator Hill, I wonder if there are any carrier companies that have them installed now, because they want all 

the information that Mr. Rosenker identified—accounting and control of their traffic and all of these things? 

Mr. HILL. Yes, Senator, that is a very legitimate point to this 

whole process. It helps with the overall operational efficiency of 

their carrier operation. 

25 

I would just say to you in response to what you asked earlier, 

we are presently working with carriers who have deployed EOBR 

equipment, and we are looking at their crash rates. And I—it’s a 

little premature, the study is finished, but we’re going through a 

peer-review, so it’s preliminary for me to actually tell you the results of it, but I will say the findings do look encouraging, in response to your question about the safety benefit for people who 

have deployed it. 

Senator SMITH. I wonder—with all the information-gathering 

that could come from this, I wonder if one of the pushbacks, in addition to loss of privacy on the part of the driver, would be the fear 

on the part of the company for litigation and what would be discovered, in terms of information. Are you hearing that? 

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir, that is a concern. And there is a desire in 

some part of the motor carrier industry to have that bulletproof so 

that there would not be this opportunity to just routinely take that 

information and use it in tort situations. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. Been helpful. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much. 

Senator Pryor, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask, if I may, Administrator Hill, just a quick hypothetical so I make sure I understand the program we’re talking 

about. Let’s say you have a trucking company that has 100 trucks, 

and one driver has an hours-of-service violation. Would this require 

all 100 to add this? Tell me how this is going to work. 

Mr. HILL. Senator Pryor, the current proposal is that when we 

go in to do compliance review, we do a sampling of the hours-ofservice compliance, so we would take a percentage of the drivers, 

so, in your particular scenario, it would have to be a very small 

carrier for one driver to be affected. If you have 100 drivers—— 

Senator PRYOR. Do you know—— 

Mr. HILL.—it would not affect the—— 

Senator PRYOR.—what you—what percentage—— 

Mr. HILL.—entire carrier. 

Senator PRYOR.—what percentage are you looking for? 

What’s your threshold? 

Mr. HILL. Ten percent violation rate, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Let me ask this. I know that there are companies that are using this. And you all talked about that just a 

minute ago. What’s your sense of how many trucks, or what percentage of trucks, on the road in the U.S. are using this technology? 

Mr. HILL. We anticipated that question, sir, and we’ve been trying diligently to put our hands around it. There was a article in 

last year’s Commercial Carrier Journal that suggested 100,000 vehicles had this kind of equipment. We have seen more recent data, 

from some of the trade publications, that indicates that there might 

be vehicles equipped with technology that is not presently measuring hours-of-service, but has the capability of doing so, on the 

order of 400,000–450,000. So, there is a lot of—as the chairman 

26 

just indicated—there’s a lot of interest in this already with managing your operation, but not using it for the hours-of-service rule. 

Senator PRYOR. And so, whatever the number is—100,000, 

400,000—how many of these large trucks are out on the road? 

Mr. HILL. Well, we are aware of about 8 million being registered, 

so—now, that includes anything over 10,000 pounds. So, a lot of 

trucks, a lot of vehicles that would impacted. 

Senator PRYOR. I’m sorry, I missed the first part of the hearing, 

you probably said this, how expensive is the base unit? I know, as 

you mentioned, some do a lot of other things, but how much is a 

base unit? What’s the cost? 

Mr. HILL. You didn’t miss it. We have, in the Notice Of Proposed 

Rulemaking, a range, anywhere from $100 up to $4,100. And the 

estimate that we use for this notice of proposed rulemaking was 

about $1,200. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. You guys are working on this Mexican truck 

program that we’ve talked about before. The DOT, you know, is 

scheduled to allow Mexican trucks to operate beyond their current 

scope of authority and do international pickups and deliveries outside their current, ‘‘commercial zone.’’ What sort of technology will 

be required, or is at least being contemplated, for those trucks participating in the Mexican truck program? What type of technology 

are we talking about there? 

Mr. HILL. Well, I can say a couple of things. First of all, they are 

required to meet the same standards that U.S. trucks have. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Mr. HILL. So, the regulatory scheme, there would be nothing 

other than what we presently have for U.S. trucks. But we are 

looking and considering using some kind of tracking mechanism for 

Mexican trucks and U.S. trucks going into Mexico during the time 

of the demonstration project that would be similar to a global positioning system that would allow us to monitor some of these activities. 

Senator PRYOR. Would that qualify as an EOBR, or would that 

just be more like a GPS? And I’m not sure I understand the difference, completely, but—— 

Mr. HILL. It would have the capability of doing what an EOBR 

does. I haven’t done a side-by-side comparison to say it meets every 

one of our performance standards, but it would allow us to monitor 

the movement of that vehicle. I wouldn’t necessarily put a driver 

in the exact location every time in the same way that we want in 

this EOBR. 

Senator PRYOR. And you might—underline the word ‘‘might,’’ because I think you haven’t finalized what you’re going to do yet— 

but you might put—require these as part of this pilot program in 

order—so you can accurately monitor the program and see how it’s 

going, is that the purpose of doing it? 

Mr. HILL. Well, first of all, we are considering this, Senator. But 

the large issue here is cabotage movement. It’ll allow us to watch 

for whether or not there is extensive movement beyond the point 

of delivery and the point of return. And so, in that sense, it’ll allow 

us to know if the truck is operating within the United States contrary to the international point—— 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

27 

Mr. HILL.—of pickup and delivery. It’s not really focused exclusively on hours-of-service, but it could have an application. And I’m 

not prepared to talk a further about it, because I have not been 

fully briefed on that. I’d be glad to get back with you on it, though. 

Senator PRYOR. That’d be great. If you would—— 

Mr. HILL. OK 

Senator PRYOR.—that would be great. 

Captain Harrison, let me ask you, from a law enforcement perspective, does having EOBR—a new EOBR regulation, does that 

present any challenge to local law enforcement, in terms of training 

and equipment, et cetera? 

Mr. HARRISON. I don’t think it would have a significant impact, 

provided we have a standard. The problem right now with the 

EOBRs that are in use is, there’s not a standardized format from 

company to company or manufacturer to manufacturer. So, when 

we’re trying to examine these devices now at roadside, it presents 

a significant problem, because every one of them presents the data 

in a different way. And so, now—it’s probably a bigger problem 

now than it would be in the future, if they’re implemented, because 

now what do you train on? You have all these—— 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Mr. HARRISON.—different formats? 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Mr. HARRISON. In the future, if you have a standardized display 

of the information and how it’s retrieved and so forth, we can train 

on that, and we can implement it. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Is, your concern is that there may not be 

any standard? 

Mr. HARRISON. Well, our concern is that when and if it’s implemented, number one, it should be systemwide. We advocate that it 

be on all vehicles—all commercial vehicles for an unspecified period 

of time, and that there be standards in place over and above what’s 

there now to make sure that, number one, the data is displayed in 

a standardized format from manufacturer to manufacturer, that we 

have positive driver identification, because that is a significant 

problem. You could falsify the data in one of these devices by using 

a ghost driver. You punch in a different driver code, and, you know, 

the officer at the roadside, unless he has the name on the data, he 

doesn’t know who that data belongs to, it’s just some driver number. And also, that it’s tamperproof. Those are our major concerns. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may, just one more question for the NTSB. 

Mr. Rosenker, today we’re talking about trucking. What other 

transportation industries regulated by DOT are currently required 

to use EOBR for hours-of-service compliance? 

Mr. ROSENKER. As far as hours-of-service compliance, the primary use for the kinds of recorders that we use in aircraft, are 

flight data recorders for performance of the aircraft. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Mr. ROSENKER. The hours-of-service is governed by other methods. We have data recorders for cabs in locomotives. Once again, 

they are dealing in performance. And then, of course, the same 

type of recording device for ships called voyage data recorders. 

28 

These are devices which record performance data of the vessels but 

not necessarily hours-of-service of the operators. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. That’s fair enough. 

Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much. 

I would ask that you respond to any questions in writing that 

may come. And I thank you all for your testimony. And we’ll excuse 

you now from the witness desk and ask for the next panel to come 

up. That would include Mr. Gabbard, Dr. McCartt, Mr. Reiser, and 

Mr. Olson, please. 

[Pause.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Welcome, to our second panel. Mr. 

Gabbard—or is it Gabbard? 

Mr. GABBARD. Gabbard is correct, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK, you’re Vice President of Siemens, 

VDO Automotive; Dr. Anne McCartt, Senior Vice President, Research, for Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Mr. Reiser, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Werner Enterprises, Incorporated—Mr. Reiser, you’re going to be representing 

the American Trucking Association; and Mr. Olson, we know that 

you’re Chief Executive Officer of FIL-MOR Express, Incorporated— 

as a small-size trucking company, you’ll be able to tell us what size 

is small in the trucking industry. Thank you. 

Let’s start with Mr. Gabbard, please. Try to stay to a 5-minute 

limit, if you would. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY G. GABBARD, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

GENERAL MANAGER, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, NAFTA 

REGION, SIEMENS VDO AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION 

Mr. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and your 

Ranking Member. 

My name is Jerry Gabbard. I am the Vice President of the Commercial Vehicle Group of Siemen’s VDO. On behalf of Siemens 

VDO Automotive Corporation, I appreciate the opportunity to 

present our views on the use of electronic on-board recording devices. 

As you stated earlier, I will say I find it astounding that the 

United States is one of the few areas of a modern industrialized society on this globe that does not have an electronic hours-of-service 

recording device requirement for heavy-duty truck drivers. 

Globally, Siemens VDO, as indicated somewhat earlier in some 

testimony, is involved in the manufacturing of this type of device, 

and we have over 6 million of these devices deployed throughout 

the world. 

What’s wrong with today’s notice of proposed rulemaking? I 

would suggest that the regulatory impact analysis that’s been referenced in the earlier testimony has used data that is flawed, and 

has led people to draw erroneous conclusions. 

The rule does not mandate the universal installation of EOBRs, 

and experience has found without the universal mandate of the 

EOBR, it will have minimal effect on road safety. 

The rule does not require a tamperproof system, which is absolutely mandatory for law enforcement and to enforce the rules of 

the road. 

29 

The rule lacks standardization for driver identification, as mentioned earlier, on falsification of records and ghost trips. 

And there also is no provision for moving data from one truck to 

the next. When a driver would happen to move from one vehicle 

to another, his hours-of-service data needs to move with him. 

The data privacy concern is not adequately addressed. 

Actually, what has happened is that the FMCSA has been led to 

ignore some of the evidence that was presented, and has been 

swayed somewhat by a regulatory impact analysis that is not as accurate as it should be. 

If you look at the regulatory impact analysis specifically, the full 

cost of a fleet management system was being used, as was indicated in earlier testimony, that full cost was in the range of $1,200, 

when, reality, a minimally compliant device could be in the area of 

$300 to $450, which would dramatically impact and change the 

outlook of the regulatory impact analysis. 

Also included in the RIA are costs for wireless data transmission 

of data back to a base or a home office, when, in reality today, sir, 

a lot of the truckers that are operating in the United States do not 

have a back office; in fact, it might be—the back of the cab that 

they’re riding in might be their office; and, therefore, the wireless 

data transmission is not really needed for a minimally compliant 

device. 

Cost savings from economies of scale, if you make a market attractive for manufacturers such as ourselves, it will drive down the 

cost of the device; therefore, the cost savings from economies of 

scale was not considered. 

The useful life of the device, or the life expectancy of the device 

in the RIA was stated to be 3 to 5 years, when, in reality, the true 

market indication is, the life of the device should be in the neighborhood of 10 years. 

A universal mandate will also further reduce costs of the device 

itself, as I mentioned, by economies of scale and by reducing installation costs; and, furthermore, with a standardized device, as indicated in earlier testimony, it will significantly reduce training costs 

for drivers, dispatchers, and law enforcement. 

Therefore, I would re-emphasize that the—I believe that the 

FMCSA was led, to false conclusions by using flawed RIA data in 

their analysis. 

What can an EOBR do for society and for the American roads? 

It can increase road safety. It can reduce the paper mill of supporting documents. It can improve driver compliance. It can provide tamperproof data. It can provide and reduce roadside time for 

roadside safety inspections. It can reduce accidents that translate 

into the reduced loss of life and property. It can provide a level 

playing field. And it can provide and create a market for a low-cost 

device. And, reemphasizing again, a low-cost device should be in 

the hundreds, not in the thousands. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the full potential of a standardized 

device of an EOBR can lead to increased road safety. We can create 

an attractive market for manufacturing the device and the supporting materials that will come along with it. 

The paper record of driver activity needs to be replaced, and I 

believe that in the efforts that have taken place over the last 3 

30 

years, that we’ve lost the focus of trying to come up with a system 

that would provide trustworthy, reliable data in order to enforce 

hours-of-service rules on our American highways. And this rule, to 

this point, has failed to address this issue. 

This concludes my discussion, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward 

to questions later on. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gabbard follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY G. GABBARD, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL

MANAGER, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, NAFTA REGION, SIEMENS VDO AUTOMOTIVE

CORPORATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jerry Gabbard, 

and I am Vice President for Commercial Vehicles in the NAFTA region of Siemens 

VDO Automotive. On behalf of the Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation, I appreciate the opportunity to present our views on the use of electronic on-board recording devices. 

Background of Siemens with Vehicle Safety Technologies 

Siemens VDO is a leading international supplier of automotive electronics and 

mechatronics. Through the use of our products, such as airbags, ABS, or access control systems, both chassis and car-body safety is increased. As a development partner within the automobile industry, we manufacture a comprehensive spectrum of 

products relating to the drive-train, engine management electronics and fuel injection that simultaneously improve engine performance and reduce emissions. Driver 

comfort is enhanced and driving is made easier with information and car communication systems that include instrumentation, audio and navigation equipment, 

telematics, and multimedia applications, up to entire cockpit designs. 

Globally, Siemens VDO supplies virtually all manufacturers of commercial vehicles with electronic on-board recorders and offers a variety of aftermarket solutions 

tailored to unique regional and national needs. There are more than 6 million of 

our on-board recorders installed in commercial vehicles throughout the world. 

Our company is committed to support Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA’s) goal to improve commercial vehicle motor safety and the intention 

to introduce a practical rule on Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) for Hoursof-Service (HOS) compliance. Over the past 35 years Siemens has learned from 

other world regions that EOBRs, universally used in all heavy commercial vehicles, 

have significant potential to contribute to improved compliance with HOS regulation, and therefore, reduce crashes related to driver fatigue. 

Major Concerns With the Proposed FMCSA Rule on EOBRs 

• Siemens VDO believes that the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on 

EOBR in its current form will not lead to increased installation and proper utilization of EOBR. We therefore predict no measurable impact on improved road 

safety and no contribution toward treating all carriers and drivers equitably 

and less driver exploitation. 

• The Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA) has used excessive EOBR cost estimates 

leading to inappropriate analyses. 

• The rule does not mandate the universal installation of EOBRs, and the proposed incentives will not encourage carriers to install EOBR in significant quantities. 

• The rule uses an inappropriate definition of ‘‘problem drivers’’ in regard to the 

reality of HOS compliance. Thus, the chances of detecting non-compliance given 

today’s minimal number of roadside checks makes meaningful road safety improvements highly unlikely. 

• The rule does not require a tamperproof system design. 

• The rule lacks standard specifications for driver identification and how drivers 

can move their HOS data from one vehicle to another. 

• Data privacy concerns are not adequately considered. 

• FMCSA has tried to balance different arguments in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) but has failed to put safety first. The rule therefore fails to meet the minimum standards established by the Motor Carrier 

Safety Improvement Act of 1999 or the D.C. Court of Appeals dictate in the 

Public Citizen decision. 

31 

1 I.e., Report On Board. 

FMCSA has based its decision not to propose a universal mandate for an EOBR 

and to promote mobile devices mainly on the cost/benefit analyses of the Regulatory 

Impact Analyses of Electronic On-Board Recorders. Unfortunately, the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA), and therefore FMCSA, ignored submitted evidence about 

EOBR products now on the market that are inexpensive, tamper-resistant and 

standardized. There is a significant difference between the cost estimation for EOBR 

as stated in the RIA and the cost estimation of Siemens VDO and other potential 

vendors.1

Detailed Criticism of the Underlying Regulatory Impact Analysis 

• The full cost for today’s fleet management systems has been used by FMCSA 

for the RIA, ignoring the fact that HOS function is only an add on component 

to the system. The primarily reason to use the fleet management system (and 

therefore its main cost driver) is to enforce other company policies such as to 

monitor drivers’ behavior, vehicle movement, and freight. The proposed performance specification for EOBR HOS recording adds only minimal costs to 

standard fleet management solutions (FMS). Those transport companies that 

buy and use FMS mainly for operational reasons, are likely to benefit from limited additional cost for electronic HOS recording and would recoup their investment costs in a very short period. However, this would place smaller fleets and 

owner-operators at a competitive disadvantage. 

• Costs for wireless data extraction are included in the annual operating cost. 

This is necessary for mobile phone solutions and is also normally part of fleet 

management concepts designed for big fleets in long haul operations. But this 

is not implicitly required for minimally compliant, tethered EOBR solutions, as 

they may use other means to transfer data to a secondary data back up system. 

In particular, owner-operators, small carriers, and those operating short range 

distributions do not benefit from wireless data extraction of HOS data. As only 

a limited number of power units do not return to the transport companies home 

location within the required time for downloading of HOS data to a secondary 

back up system, the EOBR rule must allow for data downloading without General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) or satellite communication. 

• FMCSA is focusing on technical solutions available off-the-shelf today, but does 

not consider the technological possibilities for a minimally compliant and standardized EOBRs at current low cost. 

• Cost savings from economies of scale (when universally mandating EOBR) and 

increased competition have not been considered by FMCSA. 

• FMCSA assumes a useful lifetime of the EOBR of 3–5 years which might be 

correct when using mobile phones or fleet management systems but will certainly not be the case with minimally compliant and standardized EOBR. The 

Siemens solution, for example, has a market life of 10 years. 

• With a universal mandate of EOBR, vehicle manufacturers are likely to offer 

the HOS functionality as an integral part of their vehicles. This will further reduce the cost for the device itself and its installation cost. 

• Standardization will significantly reduce training cost for drivers, dispatchers 

and enforcers. 

The Need to Introduce a Practical EOBR Rule 

Thousands of people are killed every year on our roads in accidents in which 

trucks are involved. In addition, tens of thousands are severely injured. Anyone who 

has witnessed a large truck accident understands the extreme damage to life and 

property that can result. 

Road traffic is increasing worldwide. The fact that safety on the roads has increased in most of the world’s highly developed countries despite increasing traffic 

density is due to a wide range of measures ranging from improved infrastructure 

to safer vehicles and better training. Measures which encourage people to comply 

with speed and hours-of-service regulations are a key part of many of these regulatory systems. 

Truck Crash Studies 

Various truck crash studies have reached varying conclusions on the role of the 

driver but all conclude that driver fatigue is a significant factor. 

We understand that some truck crash studies have assigned only 13 percent of 

the accidents to the fatigue of drivers (Large Truck Crash Causation Study) while 

32 

2Transportation Research and Marketing—A Report on the Determination and Evaluation of 

Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents, 1985. 3 tzuoo-Ding Lin, Paul P. Jovanis, and Chun-Zin Yang, Time of Day Models of Motor Carrier 

Accident Risk. 4 Beilock, R. and Capelle, R.B. ‘‘Economic Pressure, Long Distance Trucking and Safety’’, Journal of the Transportation Research Forum 28 (1987) 177–85. Hertz, R.P. ‘‘HOS Violations Among 

Tractor-Trailer Drivers’’ Accident Analyses and Prevention 23 (1991). Elisa R. Braver et al., 

‘‘Long Hours and Fatigue: A Survey of Tractor-Trailer Drivers’’ Journal of Public Health Policy 

353 (1992). 5 Id. Elisa R. Braver et al., at 4. 6Mobile EOBR can record proper HOS data, but only if the driver wants data to be recorded 

properly. 

others conclude that fatigue was the probable or primary cause of more than 40 percent of the crashes.2 Other studies show significantly increased crash risk among 

drivers who have driven a long time rising by 50 percent after 4 hours driving and 

increasing by even 130 percent after more than 8 hours of driving time.3

To determine if drivers are violating the HOS rules, various studies have been 

conducted. Observations of long distance trucking indicate that 30 percent to 50 percent are in violation of the HOS regulations 4 whereas interviews of drivers indicate 

that more the 75 percent are at least partly violating the HOS rules. 

It should also be noted that two-thirds of interviewed drivers stated that they had 

driven more miles than was recorded in their logbook during the past year.5 In 

other words, Records of Duty Status (RODS) or electronic data records often do not 

reflect the reality about driving time. It is not only the paper log books which are 

easily tampered with but is also the case with many of the recording devices currently available in the U.S. 

Data Security, Data Privacy and Standardization Requirements 

A key purpose of EORB is to achieve less tampering of HOS records than is presently the case and to allow for better enforcement. Ultimately, the HOS data recorded in the EOBR must be reliable enough that they could be accepted in court, 

if required. 

This requires: 

1. A technical and organizational concept which ensures that HOS data input 

reflects drivers’ consecutive activities properly; 

2. A technical solution which records, stores, and transmits data in a 

tamperproof way; 

3. A means to allow enforcers to detect any manipulation attempt; 

4. Standardized data access/download interfaces for enforcers and carriers; and 

5. Data access routines ensuring that only HOS relevant data could be accessed 

by law enforcers. 

The NPRM fails to address these requirements in the following ways: 

• Although the NPRM makes some suggestions for common protocols and file formats, EOBR systems from different vendors are unlikely to be interoperable 

with each other. 

• The driver identification system and drivers’ data transfer from one vehicle to 

another have not been specified and restricted to one technical solution. A consecutive HOS record for drivers using different vehicles is therefore highly unlikely. 

• The proposed possibility to use mobile EOBR solutions not tethered to the vehicle leaves the door wide open for falsification.6

• The EOBR security level has not been defined. Test and certification against 

common IT standards by independent laboratories are not required as they 

should be. 

Unfortunately, devices currently available in the U.S. are not able to provide 

meaningful compliance, because those who want to cheat can easily do it using 

these devices. The proposed FMCSA EOBR rule is unlikely to change this. It can 

be expected that law enforcement will return to requiring supporting documents, as 

the proposed EOBR rule does not provide the confidence that the HOS data is accurate and dependable. 

Thus, we believe the proposed EOBR FMCSA rule will make little or no difference 

in improving the road safety and driving habits of drivers who frequently violate 

the HOS regulation. 

33 

7 RIA prepared by ICF Consulting, Inc. for the FMCSA Analyses Division, November 2006. 

Findings and Conclusions 

There is a widespread agreement that driver fatigue is a significant contributor 

to accidents and excessive driving times are a major contributor to driver fatigue. 

Professional drivers are likely to drive routinely for many hours and this behavior 

is often due to self-imposed economic pressure or other competitive pressures. These 

and other factors often encourage drivers to ignore HOS requirements. 

Responsible managers of transport companies are aware and well informed about 

the link between driving time and accident risk. Several leading transport companies have given a favorable opinion on a mandated EOBR system, because they understand that both they and society benefit from EOBR deployment. 

Based on our 35 years of experience around the world with legally required systems for recording of drivers’ hours-of-service, we are fully convinced that these systems do have the strong potential to significantly reduce accidents that would otherwise be caused by fatigued drivers violating the rules and will contribute to harmonized competitive conditions and perhaps foster an environment that minimizes 

driver exploitation. 

However, we have also learned that EOBR systems only achieve their full potential for improved road safety at a low cost if the technical concept of the EOBR system, its infrastructure and enforcement, are tailored for the specific needs and goals 

of the region in which they are being considered. 

We believe that the proposed FMCSA rulemaking on EOBR for HOS compliance 

in its current form fails to meet these requirements and does not serve the public 

interest to reduce accidents caused by fatigued drivers, nor will it significantly contribute to any significant cost savings to the trucking industry. 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis of Electronic On-Board Recorders 7 has failed to 

adequately collect and analyze information about cost reduction potential for EOBR 

systems for HOS recording in a universally mandated market and ignored submitted evidence about the existence of inexpensive tamperproof electronic on-board 

recorders. The conclusions of FMCSA in the NPRM regarding the cost/benefit analysis are therefore fundamentally flawed. 

Low cost EOBRs are possible, especially for owner-operators or other companies 

that do not need the sophisticated functionality of fleet management systems. Dedicated EOBR for HOS recording could be available at low annual total cost if EOBRs 

are universally mandated by FMCSA. 

Due to the lack of a universal mandate, existing and potential new vendors of 

EOBR systems can not expect any reasonable market for a low cost EOBR. Therefore, costs for an EOBR unit including ongoing operating cost will remain high. 

Carriers are not homogenous and have different needs. Whereas some fleets benefit from using sophisticated fleet management systems others do not. It is likely 

that the majority of carriers will accept EOBRs, but only if their concerns about 

cost, data privacy, and competitive disadvantages are considered in the manner in 

which is mandated. 

Under the proposed rule, the U.S. is unlikely to see significant numbers of EOBR 

systems installed and properly used by those drivers referred to as heavy violators, 

as they are simply not going to be apprehended by law enforcement. 

Public safety will not be enhanced without a universal EOBR mandate. 

The use of mobile solutions, not permanently installed in the vehicle, allows for 

ease of use but also allows easy manipulation of driving status. Those systems are 

perfect for drivers who will comply and demonstrate HOS compliance, but useless 

for enforcement if used by drivers willing to cheat. 

The proposed EOBR performance standard proposed in the rule with its inherent 

possibility to falsify EOBR data records at all levels, will not improve the integrity 

of the recorded data over manual RODS. Additionally, law enforcement will not 

have an enhanced tool to detect falsifications. 

It is highly likely under the proposed rule that any EOBR data will largely be 

ignored by state and local law enforcement official, as they will soon discover the 

shortcomings. Therefore, it is also unlikely to result in any reduction in the need 

for supporting documents. 

Summary of Siemens VDO Recommendations 

• The NPRM should be canceled and replaced by a new NPRM. 

• The RIA must be reworked in order to take into consideration the existence of 

low cost EOBR devices. 

• The NPRM must standardize the level of measures to prevent tampering with 

the overall system; it should standardize user interfaces with respect to driver 

34 

identification and how drivers’ data are transferred from one vehicle to another; 

and it should define file formats and download protocols. 

• The final EOBR rule should require systems to be fixed to the vehicle and not 

allow mobile solutions. 

• As surveys show clearly that HOS violations are much more widespread than 

what FMCSA is assuming, a widespread mandate should be proposed. 

• A phase-in scenario for tamperproof EOBR and phaseout for old systems should 

be developed. 

• FMCSA should facilitate the introduction of EOBRs by sharing the most current and correct information on them with carriers and drivers. 

• The decision to universally mandate EOBRs should be made with realistic figures and also in the light of the primary goal which is to improve road safety. 

I appreciate this opportunity to offer these observations, experiences, and recommendations to improve highway safety in the United States. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Dr. McCartt? 

STATEMENT OF ANNE T. MCCARTT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

RESEARCH, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY 

Dr. MCCARTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and communications organization that identifies ways to reduce the deaths, injuries, and property damage on our Nation’s 

highways. We’re sponsored by U.S. auto insurers. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on this critical safety issue. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and its predecessor agencies have refused to protect the American public by addressing, in a meaningful way, the serious problem of truck driver 

fatigue. The agency’s decision to increase trucker’s permissible 

daily and weekly driving hours, plus its failure to enforce the work 

rules, demonstrate indifference to public safety. Because it does not 

require recorders on all large trucks, and will affect only a tiny proportion of motor carriers, the proposed rule, if finalized, will be a 

travesty. 

Efforts to improve enforcement of truckers’ work rules span more 

than three decades. In 1971, Federal legislation was introduced to 

require all commercial buses and trucks manufactured after January 1974 to be equipped with tachographs to record driving time. 

The legislation was not enacted, and the system for enforcement 

still is inadequate. 

In 1986, our Institute petitioned the Bureau of Motor Carrier 

Safety to require automatic on-board recording devices on all heavy 

trucks. The petition was denied, and, during the intervening 20 

years, an estimated 16,030 people died in crashes involving fatigued truckers. This included 11,750 passenger vehicle occupants, 

2,257 occupants of large trucks, and 2,023 motorcyclists, bicyclists, 

pedestrians, and others. By failing to take meaningful, readily 

available steps to address trucker fatigue, FMCSA and its predecessor agencies share responsibility for these deaths. 

By all accounts, the system of manually recorded logbooks is a 

joke. In the electronic age, there’s no excuse for refusing to require 

devices to enforce what are lax restrictions on truckers’ driving 

times. It is doubtful that anyone can argue with a straight face 

that a tractor trailer driver spending 11 hours behind the wheel is 

good for safety. 

35 

Since 1986, our Institute has submitted four additional petitions 

and 19 comments calling for an on-board recorder requirement for 

all large trucks. We’ve provided more than 200 pages documenting 

the failed paper-based system of enforcement and the affordability 

of electronic on-board recorders. Instead of considering these and 

other objective research findings, FMCSA has given weight to evidence that’s biased and lacking in scientific merit. For one brief period in 2000, FMCSA appeared to take its safety title seriously and 

proposed to require recorders in all large trucks. However, this requirement was removed from the final rule effective in January 

2004. When it vacated the rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia questioned the rationality of the decision, 

chastising the agency for its, ‘‘one-sided and passive,’’ regulatory 

approach to the issue of recorders, and noting that the agency had 

not taken the ‘‘seemingly obviously step of testing existing recorders on the road.’’ 

FMCSA still has not tested existing recorders, and, with little 

justification, has drafted a rule affecting only a tiny percentage of 

carriers. The proposal represents the most minimal action the 

agency could have taken in response to the court. 

In requiring recorders for a tiny proportion of carriers, the agency assumes there are only a few problem carriers and drivers. This 

is contradicted by our Institute’s research indicating that 20 to 25 

percent of long-distance truck drivers violate work rules. In 2005, 

one in five drivers reported falling asleep at the wheel during the 

previous month, an increase from 13 percent in 2003, before the 

work rule change. Unless recorders are required, compliance officers must rely on paper logbooks and related documentation that 

can be easily falsified. So, identifying even this tiny proportion of 

egregious violators is problematic. 

The proposal also fails to account for the large increase in trucks 

equipped with recorders. About 45 percent of truck drivers we 

interviewed in 2005 said their trucks had recorders, up from 18 

percent in 2003; however, only 10 percent, or fewer, of truckers 

with recorders said they were using them in lieu of paper logbooks 

to show compliance with the rules. The excuse that technology is 

not there yet does not stand up to scrutiny. We can download 

20,000 songs to our iPods. Worldwide, we sent 161 billion gigabits 

of digital information last year. Our Government sends astronauts 

to space for months at a time. In-vehicle technologies can parallel 

park without driver input. Many large truck rigs have expensive 

multifunction entertainment systems. Is it really possible that the 

Government cannot figure out how to get devices in trucks to 

record when they are being driven? It is past time for research, 

pilot studies, or government/industry cooperative ventures. It is 

time for action. 

In the meantime, fatigue-related deaths continue. In Lake Butler, Florida, on January 26, 2006, a trucker, who had been awake 

for 34 hours, except for a short nap, rammed his tractor trailer into 

the back of a van stopped behind a school bus. In the ensuing inferno, all seven children in the van, ages 20 months to 15 years, 

were killed. Upon hearing of the tragedy, their grandfather suffered a fatal heart attack. The driver of the school bus and three 

children were seriously injured. Highway patrol officers said there 

36 

was no evidence the trucker braked and no apparent reason why 

the driver could not have seen the van and bus stopping. Many 

such tragedies occur each year because truck drivers, like this one, 

violate the work rules. 

The proposed rule does nothing that will prevent future tragedies 

like this. FMCSA, with the word ‘‘Safety’’ in its name, must require 

electronic recorders in all trucks if it is to put real teeth in the 

hours-of-service rules and finally begin to curb the deadly problem 

of fatigued truck drivers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McCartt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNE T. MCCARTT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and communications organization that identifies ways to reduce the deaths, injuries, and property damage on our Nation’s highways. We are sponsored by U.S. automobile insurers. Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to testify on this critical safety issue. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and its predecessor agencies 

have refused to protect the American public by addressing in a meaningful way the 

serious problem of truck driver fatigue. The agency’s recent decision to increase 

truck drivers’ permissible daily and weekly driving hours plus its failure to enforce 

work rules demonstrate indifference to public safety. Because it does not require 

electronic recorders in all large trucks and will affect only a tiny proportion of carriers, the proposed rule, if finalized, will be a travesty. 

Efforts to improve enforcement of hours-of-service rules for truck drivers span 

more than 3 decades. In 1971 Federal legislation was introduced to require all commercial trucks and buses manufactured after January 1974 to be equipped with 

tachographs to record driving time. The legislation was not enacted, and to this day 

the system for enforcing hours-of-service rules is inadequate. I refer the Committee 

to the detailed chronology on rulemaking that is attached to my testimony. 

On October 1, 1986, the Institute petitioned the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety 

to require automatic on-board recording devices to be installed and used in all heavy 

trucks. This petition was denied, and during the intervening 20 years an estimated 

16,030 people died in crashes involving fatigued truckers. This toll includes 11,750 

passenger vehicle occupants; 2,257 occupants of large trucks; and 2,023 motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and others on the road. By failing to take meaningful 

and readily available steps to address truck driver fatigue, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and its predecessor agencies share responsibility for 

these deaths. 

By all accounts the current system of manually recorded logbooks is a joke. In 

the electronic age there is no excuse for refusing to require devices in trucks to improve the enforcement of what are lax restrictions on the amount of time truck drivers can spend behind the wheel. It is doubtful that anyone can argue with a straight 

face that a tractor trailer driver spending 11 hours behind the wheel is good for 

safety. 

Since 1986 our Institute has submitted 4 additional petitions and 19 comments 

calling for an on-board recorder requirement for all large trucks. We have provided 

more than 200 pages documenting the failed paper-based system of enforcement of 

the hours-of-service rules and the affordability of electronic on-board recorders. Instead of considering these and other objective research findings, the agency has 

given weight to evidence that is biased and lacking in scientific merit. 

For one brief period in 2000 the agency did appear to take its safety title seriously, proposing to require recorders in all large trucks. However, this requirement 

was removed from the final rule that was effective January 4, 2004. When it vacated the rule in July 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

questioned the rationality of the decision, chastising the agency for its ‘‘one-sided 

and passive’’ regulatory approach to the issue of recorders and noting that the agency had not taken the ‘‘seemingly obvious step of testing existing [recorders] on the 

road’’ (Public Citizen v. FMCSA, 374 F.3d 1209, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). The Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration still has not tested existing on-board recorders 

and, with little justification, has drafted a rule that would affect only a tiny percentage of motor carriers. The proposal represents the most minimal action the agency 

could have taken in response to the court. 

37 

In requiring on-board recorders for only a miniscule proportion of carriers, the 

agency assumes there are only a few problem carriers and drivers. This is contradicted by Institute research indicating that 20–25 percent of long-distance truck 

drivers violate work rules. In 2005, 1 in 5 drivers reported falling asleep at the 

wheel during the previous month, an increase from 13 percent in 2003 before the 

work rule change. The research further indicates an association between work rule 

violations and dozing at the wheel. Unless on-board recorders are required, compliance officers must rely on paper logbooks and related documentation that can be 

falsified easily. So identifying even this tiny proportion of egregious violators will 

be problematic. 

The proposed rule fails to account for the large increase in trucks equipped with 

recorders. About 45 percent of long-distance truck drivers said in 2005 that their 

trucks had recorders, up from about 18 percent in 2003 and about 38 percent in 

2004. However, only 10 percent or fewer of the truckers who reported having onboard recorders said they were using them in lieu of paper logbooks to show compliance with work rules. This indicates the need for on-board recorders to overcome 

noncompliance. 

The excuse that the technology is not there yet simply does not stand up to scrutiny. We can download 20,000 songs to our iPods. Worldwide we sent 161 billion 

gigabytes of digital information last year. Our government sends astronauts to space 

for months at a time. In-vehicle technologies can parallel park without driver input. 

Many large truck rigs have expensive, multifunction entertainment systems. Is it 

really possible that the government cannot figure out how to get devices in trucks 

to record when they are being driven? It is no longer credible to argue that the devices are too expensive or burdensome for widespread use. It is past time for research, pilot studies, or government/industry cooperative ventures. It is time for action. 

In the meantime, fatigue-related deaths continue. In Lake Butler, Florida, on January 26, 2006, a trucker who had been awake for 34 hours except for a short nap 

rammed his tractor trailer into the back of a van stopped behind a school bus. In 

the ensuing inferno all 7 children in the van, ages 20 months to 15 years, were 

killed. Upon hearing of the tragedy, their grandfather suffered a fatal heart attack. 

The driver of the school bus and 3 children were seriously injured. Highway Patrol 

officers said there was no evidence that the trucker braked, and there did not appear to be any reason why the truck driver could not have seen the van and bus 

stopping. Many such tragedies occur each year because truck drivers, like this one, 

exceed the hours-of-service regulations. 

The proposed rule does nothing that will prevent future tragedies like this. The 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, with the word ‘‘safety’’ in its name, 

must require electronic recorders in all trucks if it is to put real teeth in hours-ofservice rules and finally begin to curb the deadly problem of fatigued truck drivers. 

REGULATING TRUCK DRIVER FATIGUE: A CHRONOLOGY OF DELAY

Hours-of-service and logbook regulations are inextricably related. The following 

chronology documents many initiatives that have been made over the past three 

decades to address the driver fatigue problem by improving the hours-of-service regulations and introducing on-board recorder technology that is objective and that 

does not rely on self reporting by the regulated industry. 

1971—To address the issue of truck speeds and fatigued truck drivers, the Bus 

and Truck Safety Act of 1971 (H.R. 10267) is introduced to require all commercial 

trucks and buses to be equipped with tachographs to record driving speed and miles 

traveled. 

1976—The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety requests public comment on hours-ofservice regulations to address the problem of fatigue-related crashes. 

1986—The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety petitions the Bureau of Motor 

Carrier Safety to require heavy-duty truckers to install and use automatic on-board 

devices to record driving times and speeds. This petition is denied. 

1987—After denying the 1986 petition to require on-board recorders, the Federal 

Highway Administration reverses its decision and publishes a notice seeking more 

information. 

1987—The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety research shows that driving 

more than 8 hours increases the risk of large truck crashes. 

1988—Citing the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s petition for reconsideration on on-board recorders, the Federal Highway Administration proposes to allow 

on-board recorders in lieu of the handwritten log. 

38 

1988—Congress passes the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act requiring the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety to begin rulemaking on improved compliance with hours-of-service regulations, including consideration of on-board recorders. 1989—The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment issues a report citing 

a wide array of immediate and long-term governmental and industry actions that 

could reduce the truck crash problem. Requiring on-board recorders is among the 

recommendations. 

1989—The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety petitions the Federal Highway 

Administration to require on-board recorders in motor carriers transporting hazardous materials. 

1990—The National Transportation Safety Board recommends issuance of a Federal rule to require on-board recorders to monitor the hours-of-service of truck drivers. 1992—A survey by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that the 

majority of long-distance truckers violate work-hour rules. 

1992—The Federal Highway Administration proposes to increase the hours commercial vehicle drivers are permitted to drive. 

1995—The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and five other safety groups 

petition the Federal Highway Administration to require on-board recorders. 

1996—Directed by Congress in 1995 to reassess hours-of-service rules, the Federal 

Highway Administration again considers relaxing the rule, relying on a driver fatigue study by the agency and American Trucking Associations. Both the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety and a panel assembled by the agency identified numerous weaknesses in the study. 

2000—The newly created Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announces 

a proposal intended to reduce the problem of fatigue by requiring longer off-duty 

time for truckers and mandatory electronic recorders. 

2003—The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announces a rule that increases the mandatory daily rest period by 2 hours, allows drivers to stay on the 

road for an extra hour, and introduces a restart provision to increase allowable driving hours within a 7- or 8-day period. The rule does not require on-board recorders, 

despite proposing to require them. 

2004—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismisses the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s action as being ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ The court specifically cited the agency’s attempted justification for backing 

off from its proposal to require on-board recorders. The agency’s attempt reflects 

‘‘questionable rationality,’’ the court said, adding that it ‘‘cannot fathom . . . why 

the agency has not even taken the seemingly obvious step of testing existing [recorders] on the road’’ to see if they should be required in all truck rigs. Public Citizen v. FMCSA, 374 F.3d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

2004—Although the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has permitted 

some carriers to use recorders instead of paper logs since 1985, the agency issues 

an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on dozens of 

questions. This further delays mandating the use of recorders by all carriers. 

2005—The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety surveys find that the Federal 

rule addressing truck drivers’ work hours is not stopping truckers from driving with 

too little rest. The American Trucking Associations announces its conditional support for on-board recorders. 

2005—The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issues a revised hoursof-service rule very similar to the one the court rejected in 2004. Public Citizen and 

others immediately sue to overturn the rule. 

2007—The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issues a proposed rule to 

require on-board recorders for a miniscule proportion of truckers. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Dr. McCartt. 

Mr. Reiser? 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. REISER, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (ATA); EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.; CHAIRMAN, ATA’S HOURS-OFSERVICE COMMITTEE 

Mr. REISER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and other members 

of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to express the 

American Trucking Associations’ views on these important issues. 

39 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Bring the mike a little closer to you, 

please. 

Mr. REISER. I have to turn it on, too. I’m sorry. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. All right. Start anew. 

Mr. REISER. My name is Richard Reiser. I’m the Executive Vice 

President and General Counsel of Werner Enterprises, from 

Omaha, Nebraska. 

Werner Enterprises is a truckload motor carrier with a host of 

trucking- and transportation-related services. We have a fleet of 

more than 8,800 tractors, over 25,000 trailers, and have more than 

14,000 employees and independent contractors. Our mission is to 

provide premier transportation and logistics services while maintaining a high standard of safety, profitability, and integrity. 

Werner has operated a paperless electronic logging system since 

1998 under a unique program and an exemption granted by the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. For years now, we 

have had the functional equivalent of an EOBR in every one of our 

8,000-plus trucks. As a result, we have a significant amount of experience in designing, installing, maintaining, and managing an 

EOBR system, as well as designing and implementing a training 

program for drivers. 

The costs, complexities, and outcomes associated with using an 

EOBR system are well known to us. Although it is disappointing 

to say, we have not been able to quantify an improved safety outcome from using EOBRs and achieving a higher degree of hoursof-service compliance. Werner’s experience with EOBRs, along with 

other members of ATA, is what drives ATA’s position and recommendations on this issue. 

ATA has tried hard to avoid the rhetoric surrounding this issue, 

and has tried to be dispassionate and productive in its policy recommendations. ATA can see a future state where certain trucking 

operations are mandated to use EOBRs for hours-of-service recordkeeping. 

In our written testimony, we have included our full set of policy 

recommendations aimed toward moving the regulators and the industry there. I will highlight three of those: 

First, there should be sound evidence that EOBR use leads to enhanced safety performance by means such as an accident-rate reduction or other safety performance measures in addition to improved compliance. This data will increase the credibility of EOBR 

systems as a cost-effective technology for motor carriers. A presumption has been made that EOBR use leads to better safety performance by carriers and drivers; however, there is little, if any, 

empirical evidence to support that position. Werner’s 9-year experience with EOBRs bears that out. To try to get beyond this presumption, the regulators should partner with trucking to conduct 

a pilot program of sufficient duration with adequate controls in 

place to determine whether driver fatigue is reduced and if there 

are real safety benefits to EOBR use. 

I note that CVSA has also recommended to the FMCSA that it 

conduct field operational tests to more fully evaluate the safety 

benefits of EOBR use. Whether we call it a pilot program or an 

operational test, it should be done, and it should involve the regulators, the industry, and the enforcement community. And it should 

40 

involve EOBRs which FMCSA certifies as meeting its requirements. 

This leads me to our second recommendation. FMCSA should 

complete and issue updated and improved performance specifications for EOBRs, guidelines for how the technology works, what it 

should record, how often it records the data, et cetera. Having 

final, or draft final, technology specifications for the device will facilitate the short-term pilot program I mentioned. It will also facilitate voluntary adoption of this technology by those carriers choosing to move from paperwork to electronic logging. 

Our first two recommendations are made to the regulatory agency, but our third is legislative in nature. We believe that statutory 

language defining motor carriers as the owners and primary controllers of the EOBR-generated data, along with language protecting the privacy rights of drivers, should be in place. Those 

granted access to this data should make up a limited list, and the 

access should be for hours-of-service compliance verification and 

enforcement, if necessary. Federal policy should be clear on this 

issue. 

ATA can clearly see the future where certain trucking companies 

are mandated by regulation to use EOBRs for documenting hoursof-service compliance. Given the current lack of empirical evidence 

showing a safety benefit EOBR use, ATA understands FMCSA’s 

proposed regulatory approach, and generally supports it. More 

meaningful regulatory incentives will help that approach. 

In order to get to the desired future state, though, ATA recommends a pilot program for a goal—with the goal of producing 

empirical evidence that EOBR use has safety benefits and is costeffective; that the basic performance specifications for EOBRs be 

clearly defined and finalized; and that Federal policy captured in 

statute clearly define data-ownership control and access limits. 

In closing, a comment on hours-of-service limits. Most would 

agree that hours-of-service rules are a fairly rudimentary approach 

to addressing the complex issue of human alertness. The transportation industry and regulators need to move toward a comprehensive alertness and fatigue management program that better addresses this important issue. 

Thank you for the opportunity for ATA to offer its views and policies. We look forward to working with this Subcommittee, the Congress, FMCSA, and other reasoned stakeholders to improve the 

safety and productivity of our Nation’s highway transportation system. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reiser follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. REISER, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN

TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (ATA); EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL

COUNSEL, WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.; CHAIRMAN, ATA’S HOURS-OF-SERVICE

COMMITTEE

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to express the American Trucking Associations’ views 

on the issues of electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) and truck driver fatigue. I 

am Richard S. Reiser, Executive Vice President & General Counsel of Werner Enterprises, Inc. in Omaha, Nebraska. Werner Enterprises is among the five largest 

truckload motor carriers in the U.S. with a portfolio of transportation services that 

includes: medium to long haul, regional and local van capacity, temperature-conVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
41 

1 ‘‘Electronic On-Board Recorder Adoption In the Trucking Industry: Issues and Opportunities,’’ September 2006, The American Transportation Research Institute. 

trolled, flatbed, dedicated and expedited service. Werner is in its 51st year of business and has a fleet of more than 8,800 tractors, over 25,000 trailers and has more 

than 14,000 employees and independent contractors. The principal types of freight 

transported by Werner include retail store merchandise, consumer products, manufactured products and grocery items. Werner’s mission is to provide premium transportation service while maintaining a high standard of safety, profitability and integrity. 

Werner has operated a paperless electronic logging system since 1998 under a 

pilot program and exemption granted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). As a result, Werner has a significant amount of experience in designing, installing, maintaining and managing an electronic on-board recorder 

(EOBR) system, as well as designing and implementing a training program for drivers. The costs, complexities and outcomes associated with using an EOBR system 

are well known to us. 

It is my pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee today on behalf of the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA). Werner is a longstanding and active member 

of ATA and I am currently the Chairman of ATA’s Hours-of-Service Committee. 

ATA is a united federation of motor carriers, state trucking associations, and national trucking conferences created to promote and protect the interests of the trucking industry. Its membership includes more than 2,000 trucking companies and industry suppliers of equipment and services. Directly and indirectly through its affiliated organizations, ATA encompasses over 35,000 companies and every type and 

class of motor carrier operation. 

ATA is encouraged that FMCSA has initiated the process to update regulations 

involving EOBRs used to record a drivers’ hours-of-service. ATA is also aware that 

the agency is contemplating the promotion of several new ‘‘safety technologies’’ to 

be potentially used in the future. As such, the agency and industry have undertaken 

studies to determine what is needed to motivate the industry to adopt and deploy 

on-board safety devices and technologies. The shared objective is to reduce truckinvolved crashes by deploying proven, effective equipment that has the best returnon-investment (ROI). Integration of these concepts in the development of an EOBR 

rule would help to produce a useful regulation and provide incentives for implementation. (See Attachment A for recent research findings). 

In our testimony today, we will: 

• Explain our policies and views on FMCSA’s proposed rule on EOBRs. 

• Offer ATA’s recommendations to make use of EOBRs more viable and effective. 

• Offer an insight into the size of the truck driver fatigue issue and public policy 

development associated with it. 

ATA’s Policy Conditionally Supports a Mandate 

ATA foresees a future state where certain trucking operations are required to use 

EOBRs for hours-of-service recordkeeping. ATA’s membership established in October 2005 a nine-point policy regarding EOBRs aimed at achieving prudent utilization of this technology. We have attached this policy for the Subcommittee’s review. 

(See Attachment B). 

A primary point within our policy concerns the safety benefits of EOBR usage. 

This is stated as: 

‘‘There should be sound, consensus-based evidence that EOBR use leads to enhanced fleet safety performance by such means as accident rate reduction and 

improved compliance, therefore, increasing the credibility of EOBR systems as 

a cost-effective technology for motor carriers.’’ 

There is little, if any, empirical evidence showing that EOBR use reduces driver 

fatigue, prevents accidents, improves safety and lowers costs.1 This empirical evidence is necessary not only to support a regulation and its associated benefits, but 

also to provide motor carriers meaningful information in deciding whether to deploy 

such systems in their fleets. 

While the safety benefits are the primary issue, as they should be, investment and 

ongoing costs are also a concern to ATA’s members. When assessing the economic 

impact on a motor carrier of any future proposed requirement for EOBRs, it is necessary not only to consider the cost of purchasing and installing the system in each 

truck to record a driver’s hours-of-service, but also other associated and potentially 

significant ongoing costs (See Attachment C). On this point, it is unfortunate that 

42 

FMCSA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) did little to help clarify the costs and 

benefits of the proposed rule, other than finding that costs of EOBRs almost always 

outweigh the benefits. The RIA makes it clear that there is a dearth of research 

identifying safety benefits of EOBR use, while the costs of the EOBR systems used 

in the RIA indicate that the technology remains a significant investment for motor 

carriers. 

Given that FMCSA does not have safety benefit data sufficient to support an overall mandate, ATA generally supports the agency’s policy approach to provide incentives to drive voluntary industry adoption of EOBRs, with mandates limited to targeted enforcement against carriers and drivers shown to be historically non-compliant with hours-of-service rules. 

However, ATA believes the agency must make important changes to the proposed 

rule to make it effective in practice and to better promote the voluntary use of 

EOBRs. 

This brings us to our next point within ATA’s policy. That is: 

‘‘EOBR systems should be based on the minimal, functional and performance 

specifications necessary to accurately record and report hours-of-service compliance and assure reliability and utility of operation.’’ 

The industry has asked for uniform, minimum performance criteria for EOBR devices and systems, which provides for flexibility in the design and delivery to the 

market. There needs to be design and operational requirements that will dependably, reliably and comprehensively replace manual logbooks. Without consistent and 

recognizable specifications for EOBR devices and systems, there will continue to be 

questions related to utility, reliability, tamper-resistance, accuracy, durability and 

effectiveness. 

ATA members have expressed that they are much less likely to invest in EOBRs 

for hours-of-service compliance until there are accepted, feasible and finalized performance specifications. These performance specifications are needed to firmly establish uniform and reliable EOBR systems that will accurately record and report 

drivers’ hours-of-service. 

Motor carriers must make decisions in the course of product selection and need 

assurance that: 

• The EOBR design requirements are fully and adequately determined. 

• Performance specifications are recognized as the standard to be met by EOBR 

equipment and service providers. 

• The EOBR system will function as expected in a secure environment. 

ATA recognizes that recent court challenges to the existing hours-of-service rules 

have also hindered progress in defining specific information and parameters that 

would be entered into EOBRs. The hours-of-service rules need to be stable and firmly in place so that this integral information can be included in the software of 

deployable (‘‘ready-to-use’’) EOBR systems, and thus eliminate the need for redeployment of operational systems in the future. 

Even more immediately significant is that without final, definitive and acceptable 

performance specifications for EOBRs: 

1. It is highly unlikely that motor carriers will invest in such systems (preferring to wait and buy the compliant version). 

2. The EOBR vendor community will likely promote current designs and systems rather than make technological improvements (preferring to wait and 

produce a compliant version). 

3. Research that could illustrate the benefits and costs of EOBRs will be placed 

on hold (preferring to model methodology with the new compliant version). 

While we addressed two of our nine policy points above, we encourage a review 

of the additional points in the attached ATA policy. (See Attachment B). 

ATA’s Recommendations 

Complete the Performance Specifications for EOBRs 

The importance of satisfactorily completing and issuing final performance specifications should not be underestimated. This is essential to deployment of EOBRs 

and ATA recommends that FMCSA issue in the very near future a supplemental 

rulemaking notice with better and more technically sound performance specifications for EOBRs. ATA’s comprehensive written comments to FMCSA included a 

number of specific recommendations in this area. 

43 

2 Report to Congress on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, MC–R/RRA, March 2006, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 3 Ibid, p. 3. 

Conduct a Pilot Program 

FMCSA should conduct a pilot program of sufficient duration with adequate controls in place to determine whether or not driver fatigue is reduced and there are 

real safety benefits to EOBR use. Congressional oversight Committees should support this type of pilot program. A presumption has been made that there are safety 

benefits; however, there is little, if any, empirical evidence to support that position. 

The pilot program should use a form of EOBRs which FMCSA certifies as meeting 

its requirements. This is critical since driver acceptance of the technology and the 

ability of drivers to understand and use it will be critical to the ultimate success 

of any such device. Additionally, it should ensure that a complying device is available at a cost which will obtain voluntary participation by carriers and which can 

be used for a benefit-cost analysis. 

Given the size of the trucking industry, and the scope and complexity of this 

issue, mandating EOBRs without adequate testing through a pilot program may impose a huge financial and operational burden upon the trucking industry, for which 

no real benefit is derived by either the public or the industry. 

ATA and several of its members are very much interested in participating with 

FMCSA in conduct of a pilot program and plans to submit a petition for such a program. 

Provide Meaningful Incentives 

If FMCSA moves forward with its current regulatory approach, it should offer 

motor carriers more substantial incentives to promote voluntary adoption of EOBRs. 

It can directly encourage motor carrier adoption of EOBRs by providing reasonable 

and defensible flexibility in certain areas of the hours-of-service requirements, and 

offering administrative incentives. For example, allowing the 14 hour ‘‘running 

clock’’ on-duty limit to be stopped for up to 2 hours for rest and meal breaks, providing flexibility in how drivers may take their rest periods when using a sleeper 

berth, and providing positive credit or points for carriers in the criteria used to select carriers for audits. 

Congress can also assist in stimulating voluntary adoption of EOBRs for improved 

compliance. Two legislative approaches that might be considered are statutory data 

protections and tax incentives. 

Statutory protections should be afforded to motor carriers pertaining to the control, ownership and admissibility/discoverability of data generated and derived from 

EOBRs, and to assure the privacy rights of drivers. The enactment of statutory protections for data beyond that currently required under 49 CFR Part 395 could alleviate a major impediment to industry acceptance of EOBRs. Government policy also 

needs to support data privacy. Without certain protections afforded to motor carriers 

and drivers, the shadow of external access to EOBR collected data that is outside 

the scope of the hours-of-service rules could serve as a disincentive to motor carrier 

investment. 

Congress should also consider tax incentives (e.g., credits) to encourage motor carrier investment in EOBRs and to offset the cost of purchasing EOBR devices and 

associated support systems. As noted in Attachment A, tax incentives for expense 

of equipment are prime ‘‘non-safety’’ motivators for investment. 

Truck Driver Fatigue and Related Issues 

It is important for policymakers to understand the size of the driver fatigue issue 

in relationship to truck-involved crashes. The most recent and, by far, most comprehensive truck crash causation study was completed last year, and a report was 

issued to Congress in March 2006.2 That study found that fatigue was 11th on the 

list of the ‘‘Top 20’’ associated factors list. This report did not list fatigue as a ‘‘critical reason’’ or causation factor for the crashes investigated, rather it listed it along 

with other issues as an ‘‘associated factor.’’ Associated factors in the study were defined as conditions or circumstances present at the time of the crash, and no judgment was made as to whether it was related to the crash—just that it was present. 

This study also found that the majority of truck crashes are multi-vehicles crashes 

involving at least one truck and one passenger vehicle, and that fatigue was coded 

as an associated factor twice as often for passenger vehicle driver and speeding 

more often for truck drivers.3 We have included two tables from this report showing 

fatigue listed as an associated factor. (See Attachment D). This study was authorized and funded by the Congress, performed by the U.S. Department of TransporVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
44 

1 ‘‘Factors in Decisions to Make, Purchase, and Use On-board Safety Technologies’’, Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, December 2005. webpage at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov 

/facts-research/research-technology/report/factors-in-decisions.htm. 

tation, and is widely recognized as the most comprehensive study of truck-involved 

crashes ever performed. 

Of course, EOBRs are intended to assist companies and drivers record on-duty 

shifts and off-duty rest periods consistent with the applicable hours-of-service rules 

in order to minimize the risk of operating while fatigued. These rules have changed 

twice over the last 4 years, after remaining constant for more than 6 decades. Unfortunately, the current rules are unsettled again because they are the subject of 

ongoing litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by advocacy 

groups and organizations representing different parts of the industry. Depending 

upon the outcome, the rules could change yet again. FMCSA’s EOBR rulemaking 

process could well be impacted by the Court’s decision. 

In addition, as a result of the rapid change in the hours-of-service rules in the 

last 4 years, the jury is still out on whether the revised rules are achieving their 

intended safety benefit. But the majority of stakeholders in this debate would likely 

agree that effective hours-of-service rules are only part of a solution aimed at keeping commercial operators alert and safe when working and driving. Managing operator alertness and fatigue in a trucking setting is a complex issue that calls for a 

more comprehensive approach. ATA is hopeful that the national dialogue on this 

issue moves beyond simple on-duty and driving limits toward a more comprehensive 

programmatic approach to managing alertness. This will take years, but movement 

toward this goal needs to begin. 

Summary and Conclusion 

ATA foresees and supports a future state where certain trucking companies are 

required to use EOBRs for documenting hours-of-service compliance. But given the 

lack of empirical evidence showing a safety benefit of EOBR use, ATA understands 

and generally supports FMCSA’s proposed regulatory approach. In order to get to 

the desired future state, ATA recommends: 

• A pilot program aimed at producing empirical evidence that EOBR use has safety benefits and is cost effective, 

• That the basic performance specifications for EOBRs be clearly defined and finalized. 

If FMCSA moves forward with its current regulatory approach, it should provide 

meaningful incentives for motor carriers to voluntarily adopt EOBRs for compliance 

purposes. 

In addition, both government and industry need to recognize that hours-of-service 

rules are a fairly rudimentary approach to addressing the complex issue of human 

fatigue and alertness. The transportation industry and regulators need to move toward alertness and fatigue management programs that more comprehensively address this important issue. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

for ATA to offer its views and policies on EOBRs and driver fatigue. We look forward to working with this Subcommittee, the Congress, FMCSA, and other reasoned 

stakeholders to improve the safety and productivity of our Nation’s highway transportation system. 

ATTACHMENT A 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in its 2005 report 

‘‘Factors in Decisions to Make, Purchase, and Use On-board Safety Technologies’’ 

identified several recommendations and conclusions in regards to advancing adoption of safety technologies for commercial motor vehicles.1 This guidance was offered 

by motor carriers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), product vendors, drivers, and insurance companies. Some of the key decision points for promoting the use 

of such equipment were determined to be: 

• ‘‘Return on Investment (ROI) for Purchaser (the carrier) is considered an important factor for sustained commercial success for on-board safety technologies. A 

positive ROI is a significant factor when carriers decide to purchase on-board 

safety technologies according to most of the carriers interviewed.’’ 

• ‘‘Demonstrated Effectiveness to Improve Safety through the use of on-board safety systems essentially represents the benefits that offset the purchase and other 

45 

2 Virginia Dick, Daniel Murray and Amy Houser, ‘‘Synthesis of Commercial Motor Vehicle 

Safety Technology Surveys’’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1969, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, 

DC 2006, pp 107–144. 

costs to yield a positive ROI. This factor is important to all stakeholders surveyed.’’ 

• ‘‘Reliability and Maintainability is also a significant factor (mentioned in a 

number of interviews) and is considered important to buyers (carriers) and 

manufacturers (OEMs and vendors). On-board safety technologies must be easy 

to use, provide accurate results, be consistently reliable, and be easy to maintain. Any inconsistencies or high maintenance requirements will discourage 

purchase by carriers.’’ 

• ‘‘Liability is a potential concern to a number of stakeholders interviewed, especially when combined with the discoverable nature of the data stored by some 

on-board safety technologies. While the absence of liability concerns is not sufficient to drive deployment, the presence of other concerns in this area could impede deployment, therefore making it a significant factor as well. Liability concerns are an important factor to carriers, drivers, and manufacturers interviewed.’’ 

• ‘‘Initial Cost is an important adjunct to ROI. Too high a purchase cost not only 

makes it difficult for the purchaser to believe there is a positive ROI but also 

may strain the ability of the purchaser to raise the needed capital for the purchase. The carriers interviewed indicated that affordability and payback influence the decision to purchase the new technology.’’ 

• ‘‘Investment Required for Research and Development of New Technology, such as 

on-board safety technologies for OEMs and vendors, is fundamental to their 

business plan. The combination of investment needed, expected sales volume, 

purchase cost, and cost of production make up the potential profitability for the 

vendor.’’ 

• ‘‘Market Image is a factor, at least in initial deployment of on-board safety technologies. As the market matures, leveling the competitive playing field, this 

may become less significant as a decision factor. Carriers compete for customers. Their image or reputation in the business is important to them. Running a state-of-the-art fleet that operates safely and efficiently is important to 

carriers’ marketing programs. Crashes cause delays, additional costs, and damaged cargos.’’ 

• ‘‘Driver Acceptance is considered important by a number of carriers. Drivers 

were receptive to on-board safety technologies, as long as the devices are proven 

effective in improving safety, are user friendly, and that the recorded data will 

not be used to violate their privacy.’’ 

• ‘‘In-Cab Technology Interface Integration is an important factor to a number of 

the stakeholders interviewed. This factor plays a key role in enabling the various stakeholders to realize the value of on-board safety technologies with minimum cost, distraction, and potential for errors.’’ 

The 2006 release ‘‘Synthesis of Commercial Motor Vehicle Technology Surveys: 

What Has Been Learned,’’ 2 reported that: 

‘‘Safety technology systems such as lane departure warning, forward radar, collision warning, adaptive cruise control, rollover and stability control, and many 

others are being investigated and promoted by FMCSA. In an effort to address 

three primary crash types (rear-end collisions, road departures, and lane change 

and merge collisions), FMCSA and other agencies within the U.S. Department 

of Transportation are working toward integration of collision avoidance systems 

for large trucks.’’ 

This study documented and synthesized the major qualitative survey efforts within the U.S. relating to stakeholder design, use and perspectives of on-board safety 

technologies. An underlying finding of this study was: 

‘‘Determination of ROI and a need for increased safety were the two biggest factors associated with decisions to purchase safety technologies according to two 

protocols. When assessing the technology to determine its value and effectiveness once installed, tangible safety benefits and ROI were again the two most 

cited factors.’’ 

This report further found that the prime motivations for installations of safety 

technology among the motor carriers were—reduce accidents (68 percent), lower inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
46 

3 ‘‘Electronic On-Board Recorder Adoption in the Trucking Industry: Issues and Opportunities’’, American Transportation Research Institute, September 2006. 

surance rates (52 percent), assist drivers (40 percent), and lower maintenance costs 

(40 percent). 

When motor carriers were asked ‘‘what FMCSA could do to encourage the development and deployment of these technologies,’’ participants responded: 

• ‘‘Offer tax incentives for the expense of the equipment.’’ 

• ‘‘Make technology more affordable.’’ 

• ‘‘Avoid mandates.’’ 

• ‘‘Encourage public-private partnerships.’’ 

A 2006 study by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) entitled 

‘‘Electronic On-Board Recorder Adoption in the Trucking Industry: Issues and Opportunities’’ 3 found crucial indicators about EOBR deployment including: 

• ‘‘. . . there is still a considerable dearth of research and data scientifically linking the various components of the EOBR-to-safety continuum. Ultimately, these 

research gaps form the underlying basis for most industry concerns.’’ 

• ‘‘. . . numerous participants and respondents cited the need for further documentation and justification of the relationship between EOBRs and safety. As 

such, there is a significant need for, and interest in, research that scientifically 

documents the linear relationship between EOBRs, compliance, fatigue, and 

safety.’’ 

• ‘‘The study authors determined that EOBR benefits were equally difficult to assess . . .’’ This is likely due to the lack of empirical data correlating the use 

of EOBRs with reduced driver fatigue, which is a primary basis for IIHS and 

other advocacy groups to advocate for the technology mandate. (Editor’s Note: 

IIHS is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) 

• ‘‘EOBR usage is typically rationalized as a compliance tool by both users and 

nonusers, rather than a safety management system.’’ 

• ‘‘Ultimately, what is needed is a large-scale study that causally (correlationally 

at minimum) links the relationship of fatigue to safety, and the successful management thereof by HOS regulations.’’ 

• ‘‘Cost, privacy, and the lack of safety nexus are the primary barriers to industry 

support of EOBR usage and mandates.’’ 

ATTACHMENT B 

ATA Policy on Electronic on Board Recorders (EOBRS) Adopted October 

2005 

1. There should be sound, consensus-based evidence that EOBR use leads to enhanced fleet safety performance by such means as accident rate reduction and improved compliance, therefore, increasing the credibility of EOBR systems as a costeffective technology for motor carriers. 

Explanation: An EOBR mandate should be based on widely accepted substantiation that the devices and their support systems result in safety, cost and management advantages for carrier rather than be a consequence of political decisionmaking. 

FMCSA should produce persuasive evidence that EOBR use will reduce fatiguerelated accidents and thereby improve truck safety. It should not be presumed that 

there is a correlation between electronic recording and accident reduction. It must 

be documented. A belief that use of these recorders will improve compliance does 

not substantiate a conclusion of accident mitigation. The agency will need to provide 

research and data that shows that improved driver compliance, leads to safer performance and a decrease in accident occurrence. 

2. EOBR systems should be based on the minimal, functional and performance 

specifications necessary to accurately record and report HOS compliance and assure 

reliability and utility of operation. 

Explanation: Design and operational requirements and their recording, reporting 

and communication systems should be the basic elements that are needed to dependably replace manual logbooks. 

What the industry needs are uniform, minimum performance criteria for EOBR 

devices and systems, which provides for flexibility in the design and delivery to the 

market. If EOBRs are to be further utilized, the emphasis should be on performance 

criteria rather than design specifications. Additionally, there needs to be specific criVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
47 

teria for what data should be collected and stored in an EOBR. It would be in the 

best interest of motor carriers, FMCSA, and enforcement personnel to define the 

minimum records of duty status (RODS) format and support system. This would 

help to remove all ambiguity between the different manufacturers and service providers, increase the basic utility of EOBRs for trucking companies, and improve the 

efficiency of the auditing process. Without consistent and recognizable guidelines for 

EOBR devices and systems, questions related to utility, reliability, tamper-resistance, accuracy, durability, and effectiveness will be raised. 

3. Statutory protections should be afforded to motor carriers pertaining to the control and ownership of generated data and to assure the privacy rights of drivers. 

Explanation: Federal policy should support and clarify that motor carriers are the 

owners of, and have exclusive control over the data. 

Government policy needs to support data privacy. Without certain protections afforded to motor carriers, the shadow of external access could serve as a disincentive 

to motor carrier investment. In the case of EOBRs, there needs to be statutory protections for the control, ownership, admissibility, and discovery of generated data. 

To help minimize concerns and central to greater acceptance, the motor carrier must 

be recognized as the entity that has sole ownership of the EOBR data. To comply 

with and enforce the HOS rules, those granted access to this data should be a very 

limited list composed only of the motor carrier and the agents it designates, FMCSA 

officials, authorized state enforcement personnel, and, possibly, representatives of 

the National Transportation Safety Board for the purposes of post-incident investigations. 

4. Drivers shall be responsible for operating the EOBR in full compliance with all 

applicable regulations. 

Explanation: Recordings are for verification of drivers’ HOS compliance. Drivers 

make these entries and should, therefore, be held responsible for the accuracy of the 

entries they make. Drivers are in the driver seat and must comply with the HOS 

requirements. 

Drivers currently complete the manual record of duty status or logs for HOS compliance. Therefore, drivers must therefore be held responsible for correctly making 

entries into electronic on-board logging systems. 

5. Any EOBR regulation must address the operational diversity of the trucking industry, continue existing exceptions to the record of duty status, and consider additional exemptions that balance compliance and the evolving industry diversity. 

Explanation: If there is sufficient justification to exempt operational portions of 

the industry and HOS compliance can be pre-determined (e.g., Less-than-Truckload 

(LTL), terminal to terminal routes), such operations should not be mandated to use 

EOBRs. Other exceptions currently granted by FMCSA from logbooks should be continued. 

There are industry segments and types of operations that have expressed more 

concern than others regarding a potential, future requirement for EOBR use. Some 

ATA members that operate in the LTL segment fall into this category. LTL carriers 

typically operate with a hub and spoke system using pickup and delivery drivers 

in a local area (i.e., they are typically 100 air-mile radius drivers), and in line-haul 

operations with drivers moving freight over a longer distance between company terminals. LTL line-haul drivers operate in a tightly controlled, closely supervised 

manner between terminals. In most cases the terminals of LTL carriers are strategically located to not only service customers, but to ensure that the regularly scheduled movements of freight are made in compliance with the HOS rules. Some of 

these LTL carriers see little or no compliance and safety performance benefit, of imposing a more complex HOS recording system. Also, it is believed that drivers and 

operations that are not currently subject to the logbook requirements should be 

treated similarly in regards to EOBR usage. These include 100 air-mile radius drivers, drivers in the state of Hawaii, and certain drivers in agricultural operations. 

6. Motor carriers using compliant EOBRs should be relieved of the burden of retaining supporting documents for HOS compliance and enforcement purposes. 

Explanation: If a compliant EOBR system is used, HOS supporting documents 

should no longer be required. This should reduce compliance costs and serve as a 

strong incentive for carriers to adopt such systems. 

There has been a series of rulemaking by FMCSA on what records are needed to 

verify the recordings made by drivers on HOS logs. The most recent being a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in November 3, 2004. There is significant 

driver and motor carrier commitment in keeping the verifications. ATA estimates 

that the total annual requirement for industry to implement the proposed November 

2004 rule would be about 258 million driver and motor carrier paperwork 

manhours. The potential overall costs could be over $5 billion annually. If FMCSA 

48 

4 Costs were identified by ATA’s membership and included in written submissions to FMCSA 

in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Electronic On-Board Recorders 

for Hours-of-Service Compliance, Docket No. FMCSA–2004–18940, American Trucking Associations, Inc., November 30, 2004 and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance, Docket No. FMCSA2004–18940, American Trucking 

Associations, Inc., April 18, 2007. 

provides allowances in the electronic generation and storage of data through the use 

of EOBRS, there could be substantial savings in operational time and expenses. 

7. Any EOBR mandate, if instituted, should be made simultaneously applicable 

to all vehicles of the affected population of motor carriers, it should avoid any implementation inequities identified, and take measures to eliminate them. 

Explanation: If EOBR adoption is required, it should be on all carriers large and 

small within the regulated industry segment at the same time. (The regulated segment may include exemptions for a part of the industry such as proposed in ATA 

provision #5.) 

Many ATA members have communicated that any proposed future EOBR requirement should not treat large and small motor carriers differently. To propose a requirement where only trucking companies of a certain size must implement EOBR 

systems will permit these exempted carriers to operate at an economic advantage 

and therefore permit them to provide service at a lower cost. The same is true if 

a future proposal suggests that large motor carriers would have to implement 

EOBRs on a more accelerated timeline than small motor carriers. Small and large 

motor carriers should receive the same consideration in any future rulemaking proposal. 

8. Any EOBR regulation that takes an incentive-based approach should allow for 

reasonable and defensible flexibility in the HOS rules for drivers and motor carriers. 

Explanation: A rule encouraging the use of EOBRs should be based on adaptable 

HOS regulations. 

An example of one aspect where of flexibility in the HOS rules could serve to be 

an incentive is in regards to the sleeper berth exemption. ATA members have stated 

difficulty in complying with the 2005 changes in regards to this provision, particularly, associated with team drivers. ‘‘Sleeper-berth’’ flexibility, if EOBRs were used, 

could serve as an added incentive, particularly, for truckload carriers. 

9. Tax incentives should be pursued as a means to facilitate adoption of EOBR 

systems. 

Explanation: There should be tax incentives (e.g., credits) in Federal legislation 

to encourage carrier investment in EOBRs and to off-set the cost of purchasing 

EOBR devices and associated support systems. 

Tax credits would serve to encourage motor carriers to invest in EOBR systems. 

ATTACHMENT C 

Costs Associated with Implementation of EOBRs 4

• Airtime for transmission of data and retrieval of records (or data cartridge extraction and transfer). 

• Technical demands that EOBR usage places on drivers. 

• Training program development. 

• Driver training in EOBR usage. 

• Training for manual HOS log entry in the event of EOBR malfunction. 

• Back office manpower and training in EOBR system usage. 

• Training of field enforcement officers in relative aspects of EOBR device(s) and 

system(s). 

• Computer capabilities and redundancy. 

• External report generation. 

• Inspection, maintenance and repairs and required recordkeeping. 

• Calibration of devices. 

• Potential truck downtime. 

• Future hardware and software upgrades and future replacements. 

• Costs for some fleets of moving from existing systems to new systems meeting 

the requirement (i.e., stranded investments). 

49 

ATTACHMENT D 


501reise1.eps
50 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Olson, we’d be pleased to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. OLSON, CEO, 

FIL-MOR EXPRESS, INC. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. My name is Richard Olson. I own FILMOR Express, in Cannon Falls, Minnesota. 

We’ve got—our good Senator from Minnesota here—we have 174 

tractors and 234 drivers. We voluntarily installed a logging system 

in our trucks. We studied the system, starting back in July of 2005. 

We bought—the first company that we investigated, we bought 

their system, and ran it for about 5 months, and my colleague 

Michelle, who is very astute at the IT side of this business, researched all of the vendors that we could find, and we saw many 

of them going wanting. 

We discovered a small company in Salt Lake City. The name is 

DriverTech, which is not a household word for anybody in this 


501reise2.eps
51 

room, I don’t think. We’ll show you some things that, I think, could 

halfway amaze you. We voluntarily put these in our trucks. We 

started them about a year and a half ago. We ran them with dual 

logs, with paper logs and with the device that we’re currently operating. January 1 of this year, we went full-blown with all of our 

trucks, and we’re 100 percent active with the—I call them 

paperless logs, electronic logs. And our results have been outstanding. 

And what we’ve seen, in all of the carriers that we’ve talked to, 

big and small, that calls her on a regular basis and say, ‘‘How do 

you do that?’’ And she tells them. Or they want to know how we 

can get the kind of success that we’ve had. 

In the last 2 weeks, we’ve had zero violations with all of our 

trucks. We’ve had 26 violations, total, since the first of the year; 

many of those, for a minute and 22 seconds, 4 minutes, 2 minutes 

and 16 seconds. You can’t draw a line on a paper log today to reflect that kind of a difference. 

Having said that, we’ll show you how we do it. 

By the way, we have a electronic presentation that we’ve been 

doing with the state patrols around the country and with the local 

DOT representatives, and Michelle will do a second presentation 

with the Minnesota State Patrol on May 9th to do an in-service 

with all the State Troopers. 

They’re enthused with what they see. They are impressed with 

the accuracy. And the accuracy is there, and it comes from what 

you see in front of you. We’ve got a computer—the same kind of 

a computer that you may have on your office desk today to start 

with, it’s Windows XP, 400 gigabytes on the hard drive, 256 of 

RAM, 1 gigahertz processor, and there are 15 ports. And we’ll show 

you exactly what the device looks like. 

But in our presentation with the state patrols and the DOT—our 

regulators, that we’re dealing with, when we show them what this 

will do, they see this kind of a device—the three ports that you see 

on that picture, run three cameras. And we do. We can shine a 

camera down the right side of the truck in the so-called blind spot 

that everybody deals with. I have a major beer customer that told 

us that we were having trouble with shifting loads, and we loaded 

our little camera in the front end, closed the doors. It was infrared 

technology. There’s a little thing called a ‘‘graph,’’ that measured 

the shake of the trailer forward, back, up and down, and then we 

coordinated it with this, and pinged the truck every 3 minutes, so 

we knew exactly when that load shifted, or didn’t. We knew the 

exact location. And this technology, as Dr. McCartt said earlier, 

this is a day in the United States that we’ve got this kind of technology, whether it’s iPods or whatever, and we’re carrying this 

around in our truck. I’ll show you, in a few minutes, it’s not expensive. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How much? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLSON. I’ll show you, in just a moment. I’m sorry, Senator. 

I’ve got a chart that shows how we arrive at that. 

In addition to the cameras, we can run ports that measure the 

pressure and temperature of the tires going down the road at each 

wheel position. This is better than iPods, by the way. The rubber 

52 

that you see on the road, you have lower inflation in the tires, you 

have poorer fuel economy, you possibly can prevent an accident, 

you can clearly stop the tire from going flat on the road. That data, 

when it reads on the screen with the driver, gets transmitted into 

our dispatch office and to our shop, and technically we could see 

the truck pull into a filling station or a truckstop and we could see 

the inflation on that tire going up. This is what we can do today. 

Everybody knows what Wal-Mart is doing with devices that 

measure inventory, RFID. We’ve got this tag, that’s now being installed—we’ve got 20 of them that are on the truck. We’ve done the 

programming, and we’ve got the antenna coming out of our box 

that you saw earlier. And this will have the trailer number loaded 

on this RFID in the front of the trailer It will download the data, 

the trailer number, to the driver’s log, which is required; it’ll 

download into dispatch and show which trailer the driver has. If 

he was told to pick up trailer number 4000, and he backs into trailer number 5000, it says, ‘‘You’ve got the wrong trailer.’’ Now, I’ve 

told this story to many of our friends in the trucking industry that 

are trying to see how this thing works, and I say, ‘‘There isn’t anybody in the industry who hasn’t shipped a trailer to New York 

when it’s supposed to be in Los Angeles.’’ And everybody laughs. 

And the—one large company said, ‘‘Yes, and the one in New York 

is empty.’’ I mean, the reason it’s funny is, it happens. And here 

is the technology, right here, that can help prevent those kind of 

things. 

This—go ahead—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Can you wrap up with that 

next poster? 

Mr. OLSON. Wow. Yes. We can also do seatbelt monitoring. 

Did I go over the 5 minutes already? I’m sorry, I wasn’t—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, time flies when you’re having fun. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. Yes, it does. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLSON. We’ve got a potential of doing seatbelt monitoring. 

The Federal law says that a truck driver has to be wearing a seatbelt. The officers that we talk with on a regular basis say the seatbelt monitor—or the seatbelt use is a big factor in safety. If we 

can’t convince the driver that he—after he gets the sensor, we 

could put a camera on him. Now, we don’t want to do that. But 

we’ve got the ability to do and see those kinds of things. 

First of all, we’re very happy with what’s going on with this. We 

think this is important, because we don’t think anybody in this 

room has seen this kind of technology out there. We took the position, when we put this together with DriverTech—and I heard people talk about that, earlier, in this room today—that the issue was, 

how do you stop a violation from happening? And that’s exactly 

what we built into our system. Everybody that came to us says, 

‘‘We’ll give you a list of your violations the next day.’’ I don’t want 

a list of violations, I want the help built into this system that tells 

the driver that he’s got to stop in an hour, he’s got to stop in 30 

minutes. If he logs in too early on his 10 hour rest, it tells him, 

‘‘Don’t log in. Don’t start the truck,’’ et cetera, et cetera. So, we’ve 

started with that kind of a premise. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:] 

53 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. OLSON, CEO, FIL-MOR EXPRESS, INC. 

This is FIL-MOR Express Inc.’s follow up statement from the May 1, 2007 Hearing on Electronic On-Board Recorders and Truck Driver Fatigue. Because of the relatively short presentation, the Committee suggested I finish my testimony with 

written comments. 

FIL-MOR Express is a voluntary user of EOBR’s for our entire fleet since January 

2007. Our experience developing our current system since July 2005 has shown us 

that there is a great deal of misunderstanding by many parties including regulators, 

motor carriers both big and small, enforcement and perhaps legislators. 

Our experience developing our plan for the recorders has brought us in contact 

with the various groups listed above, and our testimony hopefully will shed some 

light on this very important safety subject. 

There are four general areas I will speak to: 

a. mandatory policy 

b. incentives 

c. substantial and reliable devices 

d. statutory protection of data 

The current proposal relies on a voluntary implementation coupled with vigorous 

enforcement for a limited population with enforcement issues. This direction is penalty driven for a small group of carriers with no incentives for large scale participation. Presented as a mandate more electronic manufacturers would participate, leading to greater quality and technical equipment at a lower cost. 

Clearly one of the major misunderstandings by all is the cost or return of these 

devices for the carrier. Our experience has shown costs reductions in transmission 

costs alone of $11,000.00 per month. In addition we’ve eliminated one position for 

a total of $182,000 per year or an 18 month payback for those two cost areas. The 

precise data we now have has allowed us to reconfigure our routes and relay locations to more than pay for our recorders in the first year. 

With an incentive program for tax relief in the form of tax credits or accelerated 

depreciation coupled with true incentives such electronic matching of documents 

would help carriers bridge the original investment gap. We did this on our own voluntarily. It was one of the best decisions we’ve made! Clearly others would move 

more quickly if mandated and incentives drove the proposal. 

An additional misunderstanding and incentive is the accuracy and control of the 

EBOR—that’s good news! However, any voluntary user is at a distinct disadvantage 

to the paper log user. The first 41⁄2 months of 2007 FIL-MOR had 32 violations for 

all drivers. Sixty percent were under 5 minutes. None of these violations would have 

shown up with a paper log. 

Interruptions during the 10 hour reset to move a trailer at a customer, truckstop, 

or rest area is recorded electronically, but not on paper. Fuel stops with paper are 

averaged at 15 minutes. Spotting a trailer at a customer, or multiple deliveries in 

one city get logged differently today. Carriers need a variance of some type to provide for these experiences. We end up majoring in minors and lose site of the overall 

benefits of the EOBR. 

Further discussion and comments between carriers and regulators need development as we learn from the accuracy of these devices as compared to paper logs. 

Another major misunderstanding is the adequacy of existing technology. We researched the available equipment in the market and found the specifications of 

395.16 could not be met. However, through our due diligence we found DriverTech 

in Salt Lake City with the basic technology and skills to program 395.15 and 395.16. 

This equipment is substantial and I’m confident it will meet the requirements of the 

current proposal. On the other hand there are a number of devices on the market 

that do not perform in an adequate way. 

The final rules must spell out specific performance specifications for the EOBR. 

Finally a mandated proposal must provide statutory protection of the data. A 

mandated proposal coupled with incentives and data protection will alleviate the 

majority of carrier concerns and take advantage of this huge safety opportunity! 

FIL-MOR Express has been working with a small coalition of carriers that share 

our views on highway safety. In each instance these carriers are far more advanced 

than our company on this subject. They have agreed to share their views with you 

through this statement. This small group represents a substantial number of tractors and drivers, and shows the deep interest shared by motor carrier fleets for the 

broad support of the EOBR. 

54 

ATTACHMENT A 

FIL-MOR EXPRESS, INC. 

Cannon Falls, MN. 

Hon. JOHN HILL, Administrator, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

Docket No. FMCSA–2004–18940; Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-ofService Compliance; Proposed Rule—RIN–2126–AA89 

Dear Mr. Hill: 

My name is Richard Olson, I am CEO of Fil-Mor Express, Cannon Falls, Minnesota. We operate 174 tractors, 550 trailers, with 234 drivers. We’ve been in business about 25 years. July 2005, we researched the market and looked at the major 

players offering EOBRs and did not find anyone immediately that met Federal requirements. 

In January 2006, we learned of a company that was in the development stage 

with adequate controls and the precision to meet our requirements. We learned we 

had to work closely with them since they were an electronic company and did not 

understand fully all of the hours-of-service requirements. We purchased their system in April of 2006 and worked closely with their programming and mechanical 

people through October of 2006 when we installed 174 units in all of our trucks. 

A substantial portion of the programming was completed. In January 2007, after 

running a dual operation of paper logs and electronic logs, we went ‘‘paperless’’ with 

the system on January 1, 2007. This was one of the best decisions our company has 

made. 

The cost to own and operate this EOBR is outstanding with a payback of about 

12 months as currently configured. Added operational and monitoring systems such 

as tire pressure and temperature monitoring by each wheel position is now in test. 

The cost of safety benefits has not yet been determined but we’re expecting fuel and 

tire cost improvements as well as safety improvements. The technology to monitor 

seat belt compliance is a sensor and program away. One person buckled in and 

saved is worth it, just ask any law enforcement officer. 

Here are our comments regarding the NPRM Mandatory Compliance: 

1. All EOBRs should be mandatory for all carriers regardless of size. The present 

positioning of the rule targets a limited number of vehicles which will have a minimum impact on safety and no real incentives for voluntary participation. We voluntary participated with no second thoughts. Positioned properly, this is a very 

large idea to bring together a safety coalition of motor carrier industry participants 

and Washington safety proponents. This would be a strong and unusual coalition 

with congressional backing. 

2. Equipment Specifications—FMCSA approved EOBRs should be substantial with 

total accuracy, tamper proof, and tethered. Specifications should also be mandated 

by FMCSA. 

3. Mileage Exemptions—Docket No. FMCSA–2003–15818 provides an exemption 

renewal for a 2 mile exemption. ‘‘The FMCSA believes that with the terms and conditions in place, llll will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to or 

greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the requirements for written RODS’’. 

4. We concur with the mileage exemption! Our operating experience with the 

EOBR has given us insight into the total accuracy of a solidly designed and built 

recorder. Here’s what we’ve experienced: 

A. The miles are recorded from the ABS system which flows through the engine 

ECM. When the wheels turn, driving is recorded. It’s tamper proof with no way 

for a driver to change it. It works! 

B. A fuel stop moves to On Duty, Not Driving and actual fuel time is recorded— 

not the 15 minutes paper log entries show. It may be 6 minutes, 8 minutes, or 

12 minutes. 

C. If a driver is parked at a shipper or receiver on a 10 hour break, and the 

customer asks the driver at anytime to back the vehicle into the dock, the movement is detected, miles are recorded, and the driver with an accurate EOBR is 

in violation while a driver with a paper log at the next dock door backs in and 

logs nothing. This is a competitive disadvantage for a voluntary EOBR user. It 

happens! 

55 

D. The same situation develops at truck stops or rest areas if the driver is 

asked or told to move. Is our driver less safe? 

E. When a driver enters a receiver’s yard and must move 3 or 4 limited times 

to position a trailer in a lot or at a door, the grid becomes a 1/8′′ thick line on 

the recorder and the miles are recorded on the EOBR. Who knows what the 

paper logs show? 

The point is the EOBR is so accurate as compared to the paper log that the EOBR 

user is at a competitive disadvantage to a paper log where in fact an exemption 

should be provided so as an incentive for voluntary use. We feel strongly that a 1 

percent total driving mileage exemption should apply. As an example, a 550 mile 

driving day with the exemption would be 5.5 miles which would equalize paper log 

differentials and serve as an incentive. 

Other incentives should include accelerated deprecation or tax credits for further 

encouragement of use. I recognize the IRS would have to be involved with those 

types of incentives but the dialogue should begin. 

I read over 500 comments to the NPRM and the various studies in your preamble. 

After operating our outstanding EOBR with the results I’ve seen, I’m convinced 

there is a lack of factual understanding of cost, opportunities, and accuracy of a well 

developed EOBR. It’s the best decision we’ve made and I encourage you to move this 

enormous opportunity ahead for better safety. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD G. OLSON, 

CEO. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, your testimony is compelling, and I 

wish we had more time. Unfortunately, it would be unfair to the 

others and to my colleague Senator Klobuchar, who we’re very 

proud of. She’s a new member of the U.S. Senate. Also, like you, 

Mr. Olson, she has lifted the spirits of the environment that she’s 

in, and we’re pleased to see her here, and would turn the program 

over to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 

and all of you. Welcome to the Committee. 

I’m going to preside over the Senate, which is always an honor, 

and so, I’m not going to be able to ask questions here. But I just 

wanted to thank all of you for coming. 

And I wanted to thank you, Mr. Olson. You would be glad to 

know that another Minnesotan, Garrison Keillor, was here today, 

and, as you talked, I thought of his words, ‘‘Minnesota, where the 

women are strong, the men are good looking, and all the children 

are above average.’’ You are clearly above average, Mr. Olson, and 

I want to thank you for the good work that you’re doing. 

Sadly, I was reading about the case, this morning, on the computer, out in Minnesota, where the truck driver’s truck had overturned and hit a bus containing members of the Chippewa band in 

Wisconsin, five of them were killed. The case went to trial. He was 

acquitted. I don’t know the details of the case or what was right 

or wrong, but I know one of the allegations was that he may have 

been tired. And I wanted to thank you for being so proactive. And 

certainly, there must be a way to take the work that you’ve done 

here and to look at how we can bring these kind of safety measures 

throughout the industry. 

And I will tell you, also, there have been some small-business 

truckers that have called our office, concerned. And I guess my 

opening question I’d ask of the panel before I have to leave here 

56 

is how you think that we could fashion this in a way that would 

take account for the concerns of some of the small business truckers. Any thoughts on that? 

Mr. GABBARD. I would suggest that a minimally compliant device 

that’s been suggested in our notice of proposed rulemaking comments and—is a way to address this. For a trucker, a dollar spent 

has to be a dollar of income in the truck, so they’re very cost-conscious about investing in their livelihood. And if you could put a 

cost-effective, minimally compliant hours-of-service recording device in their truck, it reduces the time that it takes to fill out the 

paper log document. His time can be better spent driving the vehicle rather than filling out a paper log. So, it’s a cost-effective alternative. 

And if the rule is properly deployed, it also will potentially eliminate the supporting documents, which is a big cost of doing business for a trucker. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And then, Mr. Olson, how much did you say 

this costs per truck? 

Mr. OLSON. It was around a quarter of a million dollars, the 

original purchase. It’s—we started it in the first of January of this 

year—it’s completely paid for itself. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And how has it paid for itself? 

Mr. OLSON. Pardon me? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. How has it paid for itself? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. How has it paid—— 

Mr. OLSON. The—first of all, the transmission time in the system 

that we had before was a satellite transmission, and the 

DriverTech—my cost per month went from $14,500 a month to 

$3,500. Big amount of money. It saved one labor position, because 

somebody wasn’t sorting through paper logs all day long. And the 

analysis that we can now do as to what our routes look like, I— 

it was a large amount of money, I’ll put it that way. It was greater 

than we spent—and this just happened in the last 10 days. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. REISER. Senator, if I could address your first question, there, 

that you asked of the panel, just briefly, I think one thing that 

would help in getting the small truckers interested in the technology and using it is if they were—if they could see, and were convinced, that there is a true safety benefit, in terms of accident reduction from using the technology. I think there’s a great deal of 

apprehension and skepticism that rigid adherence to the hours-ofservice will result in reduced accidents on the highway. And I 

think if they were convinced of that, they would be much more willing to move towards that technology. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Senator Klobuchar, for being with 

us. Mr. Olson, we appreciate your views considering you have a relatively small company but, in terms of equipment, et cetera, it’s a 

pretty good-sized operation. And we admire the fact that you got 

into this thing with so much gusto, if I can call it that. And the 

results that you talk about are very comforting. 

Now, compared to Mr. Reiser’s company experience, in which I’d 

say, Mr. Reiser, if I understood your testimony correctly, you were 

57 

not very excited about the results obtained. Am I correct in that 

assessment? 

Mr. REISER. No—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Because I didn’t hear you say—I thought 

you said very little by way of safety evidence, very little by—very 

little advantage here, there, and everywhere. And I wonder what 

the difference is. 

Mr. REISER. Senator, that—actually, my comment was limited to 

seeing a direct result in accident reduction as a result of using the 

technology. We have achieved a—an excellent driver out-of-service 

number. Our number, on a percentage basis, runs about 1.5 percent. The national average is 6.8 percent. So, in terms of compliance, which is, you know, a significant factor to our business, we 

are very compliant with the hours-of-service rule. So, that’s certainly a benefit to us. If we get a compliance review, our drivers 

are doing a good job. It’s also, I think, a benefit to us that we are 

controlling the hours-of-service from the standpoint of accident litigation. That’s a positive for us, that we don’t have the situation 

where some companies find themselves with a driver who is seriously over on the hours-driving time, at the time of the accident, 

because we’re doing a better job—we’re able to control that on the 

front end. So, we do see some benefits. 

But my—the distinction I guess I’m trying to make is we have 

not been able to say, ‘‘Because we put this in, we are seeing a better accident rate than we were before.’’ 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So, essentially, you’re saying that fatigue, 

et cetera, hours-of-service, as far as you can see, it doesn’t improve 

safety records. So, should we discard all this and say, ‘‘Look, it 

doesn’t matter’’? I mean, if compliance is your mission, that’s a different goal than I would have imagined, because obeying the rules 

is usually good for your health and well-being. 

Mr. Olson, we learned a very sad lesson in the State of New Jersey a couple of weeks ago, when my dear friend, and our Governor, 

was in a very serious accident, and he wasn’t wearing his seatbelt 

and was seriously injured as a result. So, we put the two together, 

anyway and—— 

So, Dr. McCartt, what do you think of the little dialogue that we 

just had here? 

Dr. MCCARTT. Well, I think one—first of all, I would say that—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Push your button, please. 

Dr. MCCARTT. First of all, I would agree with comments several 

people have made. It’s very difficult to determine whether or not 

a particular crash involved fatigue. And I think a problem with 

looking at on-board recorders and seeing a difference in crashes is 

that, as you’ve heard today, the carriers who are using these devices tend to have good safety records already. And so, you know, 

it’s—if they’re already obeying the rules, and already have low 

crash rates, then it may be the case that on-board recorders won’t 

make a significant difference. 

But I guess the other thing I would say is that the purpose of 

on-board recorders is to have people follow the work rules. And it’s 

the Institute’s belief, and many others’ belief that the work rules 

already allow very arduous schedules. And we can argue about the 

percentage of crashes due to fatigue, but I don’t think there’s any 

58 

debate about the fact that fatigue in truck crashes is a significant 

factor. And so, we’ve developed these work rules to try to address 

fatigue. And the purpose of recorders, again, is to achieve compliance with that. So, I don’t think the burden of proof really should 

be that the recorders reduce crashes, per se, because we know 

there’s fatigue, we know that the work rules already, even if 

they’re followed legally, are very arduous. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Gabbard, what do you think? 

Mr. GABBARD. I would like to add a comment that the system 

that Mr. Olson is talking about—and, I believe, the systems that 

Mr. Reiser is running in his fleet—are a somewhat more complicated and much more extensive system than a minimally compliant EOBR device would be. An hours-of-service recording device is 

intended to record time and distance and location. It’s not dealing 

with some of the other functions that could be put into a fleet management system, because there is still a lot of confusion about a 

fleet management system and a minimally compliant electronic 

hours-of-service recording device. They’re two different beasts. 

A minimally compliant device has to be—in order to be effective, 

it has to be standardized. The systems that we’re talking about— 

and you can just—and Mr. Olson’s system, which is quite extravagant and extensive in its functionality—is beyond what a minimally compliant hours-of-service recording device is perceived to be. 

I’m not saying that those benefits are not good, because they’re outstanding. He’s making a significant contribution to road safety and 

driver safety. But he’s somewhat unique in that characteristic. 

But I would say there is a minimally compliant, simple device to 

replace paper logbooks and to get a tamperproof system in place to 

eliminate the paper logbooks that are sometimes referred to in the 

industry as comic books. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I think that the most important thing with 

compliance is to improve safety, it’s not simply to regulate behavior. It’s to regulate behavior—for what reason? And the reason is 

to make the roads safer. And so, whether it’s as elaborate a system 

as you suggest—that Mr. Olson says, or the one that’s simpler, 

plainer, that you have, the fact is that whatever brings about compliance can’t help but bring around improved safety, reduce risks 

for those on the highway. We’re stunned when we hear about rearending a car, as we had in New Jersey, a little SUV, a woman and 

two children, and a truck came down the hill, the driver not paying 

attention, for whatever reason, just killed the three of them. These 

are such painful things to observe. And when you take these behemoths, these big trucks, 10,000 pounds and over, coming down and 

not being sure that the driver of the vehicle is in good shape a la 

hours of work, not extended beyond one’s ability to think clearly— 

look at what happens with pilots. I mean, they don’t want pilots 

up there, because they know that there is a fatigue factor that enters in with too much time spent at the stick, I’ll say. 

And, in terms of tamperproof, I was just in a visit out-of-state, 

and I was introduced to an operation that had 400 employees. Now, 

before I came to the Senate, I ran a company; I was co-founder of 

a company called ADP, pretty big-sized company today, and our 

specialty was payroll. And I know that the company now processes 

payroll for some 35 million people every pay period. The figure’s 

59 

enormous. And what I saw at this company that I visited, they had 

a handprint for timecards. Very simple. Put it down, and nobody 

else could use that timecard. And it’s readily available. This is a 

nice-sized company, but these are not people who are billionaires 

or whatever. And so, they bought these machines to make sure that 

the recording was easier. And if that can be so easily—an identifier 

for people, that there are things that you can do that would make 

these things fairly tamperproof. 

Dr. McCartt, does the insurance industry offer lower insurance 

rates or any other benefits to trucking companies that use the 

EOBR systems? 

Dr. MCCARTT. I can’t really address that. Our Institute—I can’t 

answer that question. The Institute does research, and disseminates the research. We’re funded by insurers, but we’re not involved in the business—their business—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anybody else have any commentary about 

that? Insurance rates? No? 

Mr. Gabbard, you would—— 

Mr. GABBARD. I’m aware of a fleet in the United States that has 

reduced their insurance rates by installing a European version of 

this device, which has been referred to in this testimony as a tachograph. They have chosen to go self-insured, because their results 

from running the system has proven to be extremely beneficial, except for major liability insurance. They dropped a lot of their actuarial carrier insurance, so that particular fleet claims to be saving 

quite a few dollars in insurance rates, because he feels he’s modified the behavior of this drivers. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. I think you said, earlier, that if the 

systems were used more universally in the United States, that the 

prices would come down substantially. Is that correct? 

Mr. GABBARD. Yes, our assumption is, if you create a broad market you can attract enough competitive electronic manufacturers, 

such as ourselves, to the marketplace, that the law of supply and 

demand will weigh in, and, therefore, the price of the device will 

go down with time. As long as the people are meeting the minimal 

design requirements and meeting the specifications of the regulation. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What does the recorder that your company 

makes cost? 

Mr. GABBARD. Today, because the market does not exist in the 

United States, we are not producing a device nor selling a device, 

because the market, in theory, for a minimally compliant device 

really does not exist. There is a market for fleet management systems, and there are a lot of very competent suppliers that are supplying those to the industry. 

We would project, based upon some limited—based upon the understanding of what the rule is requiring today, which requires 

GPS for location, and requires wireless messaging capability. That 

we would be able to sell the device in the marketplace for $450. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And the—— 

Mr. GABBARD. That’s what we would project—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And the cost for wireless operational—like 

that of a telephone or anything else is—— 

60 

Mr. GABBARD. Yes, that adds costs to the system. As we know 

with our telephone, the cost of buying the hardware is the beginning of your cost—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Sure. 

Mr. GABBARD.—with any wireless tool, because you’re going to 

pay your monthly fees—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. GABBARD.—to maintain that system on the airways. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. Well, once you buy the fishing pole, 

then the cost starts going up. If you—— 

Mr. GABBARD. Unfortunately, that’s true. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The—Mr. Gabbard, many have said that 

that FMCA’s analysis of costs and benefits of using electronic onboard recordings is flawed. Do you believe that their cost-benefit 

analysis for these devices under this rule is accurate? 

Mr. GABBARD. I believe the—what they’ve chosen to use as their 

foundation is accurate data, but I do not feel that they have followed enough of the marketplace and really paid attention to the 

ATRI study, which was done about 2 years ago. This study did a 

good cross-section study of data, of potential devices that were 

available, and, therefore, they chose to use a higher price point for 

the function. That price point does exist in the marketplace for a 

fleet management system, but the price point that’s used in that 

analysis is not a minimally compliant hours-of-service recording device. We are confusing two basic tools, a fleet management system 

and an hours-of-service recording device, or, as this industry is referring to it, as an EOBR. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I thank all of you for your testimony. 

You’ve been very helpful, to me anyway, and, I think, to the Subcommittee and to the Committee, in terms of focusing in on this 

problem, because the problem certainly exists, whether the system 

to put a check on it, to reduce these horrible accidents that do 

occur, when there are 5,000 of them in a year, that’s far, far too 

many than what we should have to deal with. So, we thank you 

all. 

And, with that, this Subcommittee hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(61) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE RAJKOVACZ, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EOBRs Are No Better Than Paper Logs for Ensuring Hours-of-Service 

(HOS) Compliance 

The hours-of-service rules require a record to be kept of both driving time and 

all non-driving work activity (waiting to load and unload, inspecting/repairing the 

truck, performing the loading and unloading, looking for the next load, receiving a 

dispatch, doing paperwork, performing compensated work at another job, etc.) Even 

though an EOBR can record how long someone has operated a truck, if the driver 

does not manually enter his non-driving work time into the EOBR, the EOBR will 

show the driver as available to drive when he is not under the HOS rules! In fact, 

EOBRs will still permit someone performing compensated work for a person other 

than the motor carrier to drive, without showing a violation. 

EOBRs Do Not Address the Cause of Driver Fatigue: Economic Pressure 

Drivers do not always know in advance how much uncompensated time a shipper 

or receiver will demand of them. Nor do drivers always know whether they will be 

expected to do the physical work of loading or unloading their truck or whether 

there will be proper equipment to do the job. Many drivers are forced to spend between 18 and 44 hours per week at the loading docks. How can drivers facing such 

wild cards be expected to plan their work/rest schedule and manage their fatigue? 

The majority of drivers are paid either a flat amount per load-hauled, a percentage of freight charges or per mile-driven. Working under such an unpredictable 

schedule, some drivers must minimize the recording of their non-driving work in 

order to drive enough to make a basic living. EOBRs will do nothing to address 

these problems. And as described above, they will permit drivers to manage this 

problem as they always have—not logging all of their on-duty, not-driving time. If, 

on the other hand, driver compensation were correlated to both the amount of driving and the amount of non-driving work performed, not only would the incentive to 

maximize driving time be eliminated, but drivers would have a powerful incentive 

to log every hour of non-driving work required of him or her. 

EOBRs Can Be Used To Exacerbate Driver Fatigue 

As FMCSA touted in its proposed rule, EOBRs will permit motor carriers to monitor, in real-time, the location and duty-status of their drivers. Carriers will be able 

to notice whenever a driver has stopped the truck during their on-duty time. Perhaps the driver has decided to take a break and get rest. Such breaks do not suspend the running of the 14 hour work-day under the HOS rules. The carrier will 

be able to instantly instruct the driver to return to the road and maximize his or 

her driving time. Carriers will also be able to instruct drivers, whenever they want, 

to log their on-duty, not-driving work as off-duty, thereby preserving their on-duty 

driving time. Both practices remove what little discretion drivers have today to resist the economic pressure discussed above. 

Mandating EOBRs Would Be an Unconstitutional Invasion of Privacy 

Truck drivers are widely offended by the invasion of privacy presented by 24 hour 

a day electronic monitoring by EOBRs of, for many, their home away from home. 

The use of EOBRs would be a warrantless search prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. An EOBR mandate for HOS enforcement would not pass the Supreme Court’s 

standards for a search of a pervasively regulated business or a search under the 

special needs exception in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Truck drivers feel as 

though EOBRs represent the government’s categorical ‘‘sentencing’’ of thousands of 

persons to the ‘‘wearing’’ of electronic ankle bracelets without suspicion, probable 

cause, due process or any finding of wrongdoing. 

62 

OOIDA encourages lawmakers to seek solutions to motor carrier safety issues that 

are much less intrusive and much more effective: mandating comprehensive driver 

training, resolving problems at the loading docks, revising methods of driver compensation, creating more flexible hours-of-service rules, and providing adequate 

truck parking in those areas around the country where drivers who wish to rest cannot find such parking today. 

(See ‘‘Rigs Keep On Trucking, Searching for Parking’’ the The Wall Street Journal, 

page B1, May 1, 2007) 

TESTIMONY OF JOE RAJKOVACZ

I was an Owner-Operator for over two decades. I owned both my truck and trailer 

and lease them along with my driving services to a motor carrier. I was also a representative of a group of owner-operators who collectively haul a majority of America’s fresh foods. Meat, dairy products, and produce are primary examples of what 

I would haul. I love what I did. However, I also hated what I did. Unfortunately, 

this testimony outlines what it is I hated in the industry. It is abuse of truckers 

at loading docks around this country and by implication, why many truckers do not 

account for time spent unloading or loading in the log books. 

I appreciate the Committee reviewing my testimony and look forward to any opportunity to interact with Committee Members and staff on these critically important trucking issues. I believe it would have been prudent for the Committee to first 

explore the substantial and overwhelming problems facing truck drivers in complying with the hours-of-service rules, which I have detailed in the below testimony. 

Hopefully my testimony will shed some light on these critical issues, in light of the 

fact that it appears the Committee may have jumped to the conclusion that Electronic On-Board Recording Devices (EOBRs) are the solution to the problems truckers face. I trust that future hearings will involve the voice of the professional truckers. 

Although my testimony may be anecdotal in nature, what happens to truckers has 

a profound effect on highway safety, driver health, and our country’s economy. Loading and unloading abuse begins at the point of dispatch for a driver. Often, the 

schedules given to me were not achievable within the Federal hours-of-service regulations. Most shippers and receivers require appointments for loading and unloading. They tell truckers when to arrive and are not concerned whether a driver can 

do it legally. They utilize a form of hidden coercion. 

For example, I may have been required to make an appointment no earlier than 

8 AM on a given Monday. But, they wanted me there at 2 a.m. If I said that won’t 

work, they’d respond that the next available date for delivery is Wednesday—an 

extra 2 days for which their load will sit on my truck, but I receive no extra compensation. Thus, I am compelled to accept a time I knowingly cannot make legally. 

Remember, most truckers are paid by the mile or by a percentage of whatever a 

load pays, not by the hour. 

Earlier last year, I was given a delivery schedule spanning 22.5 hours to drop part 

of my freight at six different locations. After 22.5 hours, I was scheduled to drive 

800 miles to the next morning’s appointment. Federal regulation only allows me to 

be on duty for fourteen consecutive hours at which time I must take a 10 hour 

break. I objected to the scheduling and was told the usual, ‘‘do the best you can.’’ 

I was not told, ‘‘sorry Joe, do it legally.’’ Upon leaving my terminal, my mood was 

flustered and my anxiety level was high, because I knew I was ‘‘screwed’’ with an 

impossible schedule. 

The majority of truckers are very conscientious about appointments. They know 

to miss an appointment can yield a fine by the shipper or receiver and being rescheduled to another day. An increasing number of receivers are imposing ‘‘late 

fees’’ for missed appointment times. The charge is usually $150. To wait for another 

day would mean more uncompensated time away from the family. That is a great 

motivator to be on-time regardless of the regulations. Everyone in this room has 

been late for work at one time or another for reasons beyond your control. Traffic 

accidents, bad weather and vehicle break-downs are primary examples. Your employer may take action against you if a pattern develops. However, none of you risk 

losing a day’s pay because you got caught behind an accident. Truckers do. The 

stress to make schedules is immense on drivers. Fines and rescheduled appointments for days late are an unconscionable burden imposed by shippers and receivers. It is ironic that when I showed up on-time to deliver, for example, three pallets 

of freight, and 5 hours later I finally left the dock, the same receiver threatened 

me with ‘‘late fees’’ and refused to pay me for my wasted time. Neither the FMCSA 

nor Congress has studied this issue or searched for solutions in over twenty-five 

years. 

63 

Delays in unloading cause a cascade effect where other appointments are missed. 

The primary cause of unloading delays is that time spent at a dock does not represent a cost to the receiver. They have no economic incentive to use drivers’ time 

productively. Their trucks become rolling and sitting warehouses with the driver 

spending as much time babysitting the freight as moving it from point to point. It 

is a huge inefficiency in our economy, favoring shippers and receivers. 

At the beginning of last year, I made two deliveries to a distribution center in 

Anniston, Alabama. The first time I was to deliver two pallets of cottage cheese and 

the second time I had only one pallet, of all of the pallets on my truck. I was ontime for both appointments. I spent 6.5 hours and 4.75 hours respectively to deliver 

that freight. That is 11.25 hours for three pallets of freight. I was not paid for that 

excessive time and caused me to miss other appointments. How is this productive 

for me or our economy? 

An absolute maxim of economic theory is, ‘‘if something is free, it will be used to 

excess, regardless of the hidden costs.’’ There are hidden costs. Drivers do not account for those hours as I described because they are not paid for them. Because 

EOBRs require manual input from a driver to account for such time, drivers will 

still be able to continue to not log this time, mostly as a result of subtle coercive 

pressure from motor carriers, shippers, and receivers. Drivers sacrifice their health 

putting in 20 hour days because of an inequitable system that quietly coerces them 

to do so. EOBRs will not affect this coercion. 

Most receivers I frequented required me to enter their property through a security 

gate. They scheduled the appointments and grouped more trucks together than they 

could unload during a given time. Trucks are usually not allowed on the property 

until 1 hour prior to an appointment. This creates bottle-necks of trucks in line at 

the same time. I have spent hours, just creeping forward to the gate, waiting for 

my turn at the guard shack, only to get there and be told I am late. This time is 

never logged. The receiver has no incentive to use my time productively, because 

my time is free. 

When I finally arrived at the receiving office all of those trucks ahead of me at 

the gate were now in line ahead of me at the single receiving window to check in. 

A particular receiver in Puyallup, Washington, requires all drivers to check in at 

2 a.m. I have spent hours standing in line, outside in a cold drizzle, snaking my 

way in line to the one receiving window. No drivers report this waste of time, because they are not paid for it. Hopefully, once I checked in with the receiver I’d be 

given a dock assignment. Unfortunately, because of over-booking and unproductive 

use of truckers ahead of me, I’d have to wait for a dock to become available for 1, 

2, 3, and 8 or more hours. I’ve experienced it all. I’m on-time, yet I sit. No driver 

accounts for these delays in their log books, and they won’t be accounted for on 

EOBRs. 

Finally, I’d back in, ready to unload my freight. However, the receiver would not 

use their powered equipment to remove my pallets unless I paid their employees 

to unload their own freight. In the grocery distribution business, drivers are an easy 

target and a profit center for the receiver. Nearly every grocery chain in America 

plays this game. Grocery distribution centers contract with unloading services drivers call ‘‘lumpers.’’ Lumping services never have one person for each dock maybe 

one for every five docks. 

To keep from totally running afoul of the law, the receiver may make a manual 

hand-jack available for a driver to pull pallets off the trailer onto their dock. However, they may have only one jack for twenty doors, or worse, the jack is so decrepit 

that its unusable. Drivers are given a choice without a distinction and coerced into 

paying for unloading. 

An average pallet of freight often exceeds 2,000 pounds. This represents a physical impracticality for most drivers to manually remove. If a driver is lucky enough 

to have a load called a ‘‘straight pull’ (the palletized freight simply needs to be 

pulled from the trailer and placed on the dock and counted) unloading by manual 

pallet jack can takes hours. 

The situation is worse if a load needs to be ‘‘broken-down’’. Break-downs represent 

the majority of freight I hauled. I performed this task myself or hired the lumpers 

to do it. An example of a break-down is palletized butter that I haul. The shipper 

stacked it four boxes high on the pallet, but the receiver wanted one or two boxes 

taken off and placed on a separate pallet. If I could not do the break down, I had 

to pay a lumper a minimum of $45 for one pallet. This would often lead to a cost 

of hundreds of dollars for an entire trailer load. That is a steep enough price to 

make me labor for endless hours on a dock to avoid paying for unloading. Drivers 

spend many hours engaged in physical labor on docks and do not record any of that 

time against hours-of-service. It is because drivers are not paid. 

64 

It is the classic catch 22 situation. Comply with Federal regulations, burning 

hours for no compensation. A driver can hide that time wasted at docks so that a 

he has hours left for driving, where the money is made. 

Some in Washington believe that mandating electronic on-board recorders 

(EOBRs) will stop this coerced driver behavior. Supporters include those without experience driving a truck, motor carriers who seek to use EOBRs to maximize the 

efficiency of their fleet, and of course, EOBR equipment manufacturers. None are 

truck drivers. 

An EOBR is dependent on a driver’s input. If he is not paid for all the above mentioned wasted time he will not start the EOBR until loading or unloading is completed, thus saving hours for driving. All of this has obvious repercussions on highway safety, driver health and our economy. Another economic axiom is, ‘‘there are 

no free lunches.’’ Truckers pay a huge hidden price with their health for this abuse 

at docks. Now they are being asked to bear the additional burden of EOBRs, an unconstitutional invasion of their privacy. This would be nothing more than the government’s categorical ‘‘sentencing’’ of thousands of persons to the ‘‘wearing’’ of electronic ankle bracelets without suspicion, probable cause, due process or any finding 

of wrongdoing. I’ve read where electronic monitoring adds precipitously to worker 

stress levels. 

For many, the sleeper berth in the truck is home away from home. If EOBRs 

record everywhere drivers go and when they go there, such data would reveal their 

routes, the houses of friends and relatives, and other places they may visit while 

in their truck: book stores, restaurants, motels, libraries, casinos, truck stops, lawyers’ offices, doctors’ offices, health clinics, therapist offices, places of worship, customers, and possible future employers. None of this information is necessary to enforce any motor carrier safety rule and none of it is anybody else’s business. 

EOBRs are not the panacea to compel better adherence to HOS regulations. If the 

objective is more effective recording of drivers hours and improving safety, how, 

without addressing loading and unloading abuse is this to be accomplished? America’s hard working truck drivers deserve better from their government. If this were 

addressed properly, benefits to safety and improvements in warehousing and trucking efficiency would logically follow. 

You may ask yourself, if the trucking business is so bad, why did I continue trucking for so many years? For as much as I hated the treatment that I’ve described, 

I knew that eventually I’d be rolling down the highway, across the mountains, seeing what others only see in dreams. Truckers personify that undefeatable American 

spirit of freedom and independence. They have an optimism that all things pass and 

tomorrow can be better. I urge you to put the proposal of EOBRs aside, and give 

drivers the hope that Congress will pursue real solutions that address the actual 

causes of drivers’ problems in the workplace. Thank you for your attention to my 

comments. 

Joe Rajkovacz has been a truck driver for 29 years and a member of the OwnerOperator Independent Drivers Association Board of Directors for 7 years. OOIDA 

has submitted extensive comments to the FMCSA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking detailing its Constitutional arguments against EOBRs: http:// 

dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/306665lweb.pdf and presenting drivers’ critical 

review of Werner Enterprises’ experience with such devices. See: http:// 

dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf90/306665lweb.pdf and to FMCSA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking detailing several legal deficiencies in the agency’s proposed 

EOBR rule, See: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf101/466044lweb.pdf. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

HON. JOHN H. HILL

Question 1. Why doesn’t your proposed rule make use of the results of the 3 million roadside inspections performed every year to identify the motor carriers that 

are violating hours-of-service? 

Answer. Under FMCSA’s electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) proposal, motor 

carriers that have demonstrated a history of serious noncompliance with the hoursof-service (HOS) rules would be subject to mandatory installation of EOBRs meeting 

the new performance standards. If FMCSA determined, based on HOS records reviewed during each of two compliance reviews (CRs) conducted within a 2 year period, that a motor carrier had a 10 percent or greater violation rate (‘‘pattern violation’’) for certain HOS-related regulations, FMCSA would issue the carrier an EOBR 

remedial directive. 

Such carriers would have already demonstrated repeated noncompliance with the 

HOS regulations after being afforded an opportunity to improve. The Agency’s existVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
65 

ing compliance oversight processes would already have singled out these carriers for 

FMCSA’s attention because safety violations found during roadside inspections, 

crash involvement, or both, placed them statistically well outside the norm at the 

time of the second CR. The Agency would also have provided recommendations to 

these carriers following the first CR to guide them toward improving their safety 

performance and regulatory compliance. 

FMCSA considered, but rejected, approaches for a remedial directives trigger 

based on roadside inspections or other non-CR procedures. Far more roadside inspections than CRs are performed, and these inspections generate a significant volume of HOS compliance data. However, certain of the Agency’s algorithms using 

these data, such as the Driver Safety Evaluation Area (SEA) component of SafeStat 

scores, incorporate both HOS and some non-HOS violations, such as commercial 

driver’s license violations. In addition, roadside inspections are designed to determine the safety status of a driver or vehicle at a given point in time, not to provide, 

on the basis of a single examination, a broad assessment of a motor carrier’s general 

operations and safety management controls. 

CRs, by contrast, are intended to provide a broad assessment of a motor carrier’s 

overall operations and safety management controls. They are ordinarily conducted 

at a motor carrier’s place of business, involve larger samples of records, examine 

multiple vehicles and drivers’ RODS, and typically produce a series of violation findings. Motor carrier safety ratings are based largely on CR data. Given the potential 

for an EOBR remedial directive to place a serious financial burden on a motor carrier, we believe such a directive should be issued only on the basis of a broad scope 

of operational examination and extensive record review inherent to the CR process. 

Although the Agency will continue to compile and use non-CR data as in the past 

and may consider cumulative roadside data in the future, FMCSA is proposing to 

use only CR-based violations as direct grounds for issuance of EOBR remedial directives. The Agency would continue to capture and make use of this valuable roadside 

input by using SafeStat results as a basis for selecting carriers for CRs. 

The FMCSA believes the proposal to use CR results was appropriate, based on 

the information available at the time the proposed rule was published. The FMCSA 

is reviewing the public comments to its EOBR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

will consider whether different criteria should be used for triggering the mandatory 

use of EOBRs. 

Question 2. Hasn’t your Compliance Review (CR) system been severely and repeatedly criticized for poor data and mistaken identification of the more dangerous 

motor carriers? If you propose using the data from CRs, how are you going to quickly correct these defects? 

Answer. As part of FMCSA’s recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, motor carriers that have demonstrated a history of serious noncompliance with the hours-ofservice rules would be subject to mandatory installation of EOBRs. Serious noncompliance would be determined based on hours-of-service records reviewed during 

compliance reviews conducted onsite at the motor carrier’s place of business. 

The underlying violation data resulting from compliance reviews has not been 

routinely criticized. To the contrary, a recent draft Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that FMCSA’s management of our compliance review program met their standards for internal controls, thereby promoting thoroughness and 

consistency. 

The FMCSA’s Safety Status Measurement System (SafeStat) used to identify 

which carriers should be subjected to an onsite compliance review has, however, 

been the subject of recent reviews that have identified problems primarily associated with the completeness of state-reported crash data. In response, FMCSA has 

implemented a number of data quality initiatives that have resulted in improvements. 

While FMCSA works continually to improve SafeStat’s effectiveness, the system 

is still an efficient, effective, and useful tool for identifying high-risk motor carriers. 

The 2004 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report noted that compliance review results support the ability of SafeStat to identify high-risk carriers. In addition, a 

2007 GAO report indicated that SafeStat works twice as well as selecting carriers 

randomly and, therefore, has value for improving safety. 

The crash data quality issues identified in recent GAO and OIG reports have the 

potential to allow some high-risk carriers to escape scrutiny. They do not, however, 

mean that the carriers FMCSA has identified are not high-risk. 

With respect to the EOBR proposed rule, an important point is that any motor 

carrier that would be subject to mandatory installation would have had their hoursof-service problems documented through more than one on-site compliance review 

and would have been afforded full due process before being required to install 

EOBRs. 

66 

Question 3. If you are concerned about U.S. motor carriers and drivers violating 

hours-of-service and falsifying logbooks, why aren’t you requiring electronic on-board 

recorders for all Mexico-domiciled motor carriers? 

Answer. The FMCSA’s proposal to require the mandatory use of EOBRs by certain motor carriers is intended to serve as a corrective measure for motor carriers 

that have demonstration a history of serious noncompliance with the hours-of-service rules. The FMCSA is not aware of any information that would suggest that Mexico-domiciled motor carriers, as a group, have a demonstrated history of serious noncompliance with the hours-of-service regulations. 

The FMCSA requires that all motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles 

within the United States comply with the applicable HOS requirements. The Agency 

recognizes that there are differences between the HOS requirements of the United 

States and Mexico. However, the fact that Mexico-domiciled carriers operating in 

Mexico are not subject to FMCSA’s requirements while they operate within Mexico 

does not mean these carriers have a history of serious noncompliance with FMCSA’s 

hours-of-service rules. 

Question 4. Is there data that shows that truck drivers working nearly 100 hour 

weeks are just as safe and healthy as workers who work more conventional jobs requiring 40-hour work weeks? 

Answer. On August 25, 2005, FMCSA published a final rule revising its hoursof-service regulations or drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles. The 

2005 HOS rule provides increased opportunities for drivers to obtain necessary rest 

and restorative sleep, while also recognizing the need to provide motor carriers with 

flexibility to move products and while ensuring safe operations. The FMCSA’s revised HOS rule balanced considerations of driver and public safety, driver health, 

and costs and benefits to the public and the motor carrier industry—all factors the 

Agency is statutorily required to consider under 49 U.S.C. 31136. 

On July 24, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated 

those portions of the 2005 final rule that increase the daily driving limit from 10 

to 11 hours, and that permit an off-duty period of 34 hours to restart the weekly 

on-duty limits. Therefore, motor carriers employing drivers of property-carrying vehicles no longer have the opportunity to use the restart provision. Other portions 

of the rule that remain in effect include: a more stringent sleeper berth provision 

that bars drivers from splitting their off-duty sleep period by requiring one 8-hour 

rest period; the 10 hour off-duty requirement to enable 8 hours of continuous rest; 

and a more restrictive 14 hour non-extendable duty tour ‘‘driving window.’’ The 

FMCSA is analyzing the court’s opinion regarding driving time in light of its mandate to protect the health and safety of drivers. 

Question 5. FMCSA stated in the proposed rule that falsifying logbooks is a pervasive and chronic problem. These rules exist to prevent accident and injury. Why 

isn’t the FMCSA using every technology, including requiring on-board recorders in 

all large commercial motor vehicles to stop these violations? If FMCSA can’t justify 

enforcing the rules, can the rules themselves be justified? 

Answer. The FMCSA recognizes the views of many in the highway safety community and the general public about mandating EOBRs for the entire motor carrier 

industry. However, there are several million trucks and buses on America’s roads 

today. The FMCSA’s estimated safety benefits of mandating EOBRs on each of these 

vehicles was far less than the estimated costs of doing so, at the time the Agency 

published the NPRM. Therefore, the Agency focused on finding other ways to get 

more of these units on commercial motor vehicles, while targeting those with the 

greatest safety risk, without creating an unreasonable burden. This is why the proposed rule would encourage industry-wide use of EOBRs by providing incentives for 

voluntary use, rather than mandating the devices for the entire industry. 

Question 6. How are you going to stop hours-of-service violations and logbook falsification by only requiring about one one-hundredth of 1 percent of motor carriers 

each year to have to install and use electronic on-board recorders? 

Answer. The Agency is aware of comments suggesting the final rule should cover 

more motor carriers, and is considering how to address such comments. 

The FMCSA focuses on those companies that are most likely to be a safety hazard 

on the road in its enforcement activities. Under this proposed rule, only those truck 

and bus companies with a history of serious hours-of-service violations would be required to install electronic on-board recorders in all of their commercial vehicles. 

Within the first 2 years that the rule would be enforced, we estimate that about 

930 carriers with 17,500 drivers would fall under this requirement. 

The FMCSA, based on its safety research, believes that motor carriers whose drivers routinely exceed HOS limits have an increased probability of involvement in fatigue-related crashes and therefore present a disproportionately high-risk to highVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:53 Mar 07, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79551.TXT JACKIE
67 

way safety. Based on the agency’s analysis of its Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) data from CRs conducted since 1995 on motor carriers operating in interstate commerce, carriers to which a remedial directive would apply 

under this proposal have crash rates that are 87 percent higher than average. The 

crash rate for these carriers is an indication that they should be a top priority for 

the Agency. 

The FMCSA recognizes the views of many in the highway safety community and 

the general public about mandating EOBRs. However, there are several million 

trucks and buses on America’s roads today. The FMCSA’s estimated safety benefits 

of mandating EOBRs on each of these vehicles was far less than the estimated costs 

of doing so, at the time the Agency published the NPRM. Therefore, the Agency focused on finding other ways to get more of these units on commercial motor vehicles, without creating an unreasonable burden with a government mandate. This is 

why the proposed rule would encourage industry-wide use of EOBRs by providing 

incentives for voluntary use, rather than mandating the devices for the entire industry. 

Question 7. Why aren’t you preventing fraud, misuse, and tampering by setting 

enforceable requirements in your EOBR proposed rule? 

Answer. The FMCSA believes the proposed performance standards for EOBRs are 

enforceable. However, while the Agency has authority to regulate motor carriers and 

drivers, it does not have direct regulatory authority over EOBR manufacturers. In 

developing the proposed requirements for EOBRs, FMCSA focused its attention on 

seven research factors listed in the ANPRM: (1) Ability to identify the individual 

driver; (2) Tamper resistance; (3) Ability to produce records for audit; (4) Ability of 

roadside enforcement personnel to access the HOS information quickly and easily; 

(5) Level of protection afforded other personal, operational, or proprietary information; (6) Cost; and (7) Driver acceptability. 

The FMCSA proposed that the EOBR record basic information needed to track 

duty status, including the identity of the driver, duty status, date and time, location 

of the CMV, distance traveled, and other items that the driver would enter (such 

as truck numbers and shipping document numbers). The EOBR would be required 

to identify the driver, although FMCSA does not propose mandating a specific identification method. This approach would allow carriers to use existing identification 

systems or implement newer technologies as they become feasible. 

While many of the proposed requirements, such as that for tamper resistance, 

parallel the requirements for AOBRDs, others would extend the AOBRD requirements based on our expectation that the EOBR will have a high degree of reliability. For example, FMCSA proposed that the EOBR would not need to be integrally synchronized to the engine or other vehicle equipment. An EOBR must, however, have GPS or other location tracking systems that record location of the CMV 

at least once a minute. EOBRs could still use sources internal to the vehicle to 

record distance traveled and time. EOBRs must perform a power-on self-test on demand and must also warn the driver if the device ceased to function. Maintenance, 

recalibration, and self-certification requirements would be similar to those for 

AOBRDs. 

Question 8. How are you going to prevent fraud and misuse by allowing portable 

cell phones to be used for showing hours-of-service compliance and without linking 

an EOBR with engines and electronic control modules? 

Answer. The purpose of an AOBRD or EOBR is to accurately record a driver’s sequence of duty statuses, the time the driver is engaged in a given duty status category, and the sequence of dates, times, and locations that make up a trip. Historically, the only information available from a source not directly controlled by the 

driver was the driving time and distance, both of which were obtained from a source 

on the vehicle. Change-of-duty status locations had to be entered manually. In the 

20 years since AOBRDs were first used, communications and logistics management 

technologies have evolved to enable a more fundamental item of information vehicle 

location to be tracked and recorded. The precision and accuracy of this recording has 

come to rival or surpass that of distance-and-time records from the CMV. 

FMCSA believes it is appropriate to offer an alternative, performance-oriented approach that allows motor carriers and EOBR developers to take advantage of emerging technologies. Specifically, FMCSA now believes that an EOBR does not necessarily have to be ‘‘integrally synchronized’’ with the CMV to provide an accurate 

record of driving time, equivalent to that of an electronic odometer or the time function contained in an ECM. The Agency is proposing to allow two ways to record distance traveled and time: (1) via sources internal to the vehicle (i.e., the ECM with 

an internal clock/calendar) to derive distance traveled, or (2) via sources external 

to the vehicle (i.e., location-reference systems—GPS, terrestrial, or a combination of 

68 

both) recording location of the CMV once per minute and using a synchronized 

clock/calendar to derive distance traveled (‘‘electronic breadcrumbs’’). This approach 

has the potential advantages of removing a restrictive design requirement, providing an opportunity for innovation, and allowing use of less expensive hardware 

(e.g., GPS-enabled cell phones), without making existing synchronized devices obsolete. 

Regardless of the communications modes (wireless or terrestrial) and the method 

used to synchronize the time and CMV-operation information into an electronic 

RODS, FMCSA would require the records from EOBRs to record duty status information accurately. The difference proposed between actual distance traveled and 

distance computed via location-tracking methods over a 24-hour period would be ± 

1 percent. EOBR developers would need to test their devices thoroughly to ensure 

they meet or exceed these tolerances. 

Question 9. How are you going to guarantee that the driver of a rig with an EOBR 

is actually the authorized or bona fide driver? 

Answer. The FMCSA’s proposal would correct an apparent gap in the existing 

automatic on-board recorder (AOBRD) regulation. The current rule includes no explicit requirement for driver identification beyond requiring the driver’s signature 

on hard copies of the record of duty status. The proposed rule would require driver 

identification, without prescribing a specific method. 

The FMCSA recognizes the diversity of motor carrier operations and acknowledges that numerous commenters’ to the Agency’s 2004 advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) expressed concerns about the potential costs of advanced driver identification methods such as biometric identifiers and smart cards. Various approaches to identification currently exist, while others are being developed, and carriers may have different needs and standards regarding an acceptable level of risk. 

Rather than limiting carriers’ ability to adopt technically advanced systems or imposing duplicative requirements on carriers desiring more secure systems, FMCSA 

proposed adopting a general requirement that driver identification be part of the 

EOBR record, without prescribing a specific approach. An EOBR would require the 

driver to enter self-identifying information (e.g., user ID and password, PIN numbers) or to provide other identifying information (e.g., smart card, biometrics) when 

he or she logs on to the EOBR system. 

In developing its proposed rule, FMCSA also considered ANPRM comments suggesting that the Agency require use of the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed Transportation Working Identification Card (TWIC) to identify the CMV driver and possibly serve as a portable data record, FMCSA does not presently anticipate using TWIC for EOBR HOS data storage. There are several reasons for this. 

While the amount of memory required has yet to be specified, it is expected to be 

less than what would be needed for an EOBR application. Furthermore, FMCSA acknowledges concerns about driver and motor carrier privacy; some information contained on the TWIC would not be relevant to an HOS record. 

Question 10. Do you agree that waiting, loading and unloading activities for truck 

drivers can contribute to fatigue? Will the FMCSA consider requiring that carriers 

who use EOBRs ensure that on-duty, not driving time is also entered into the EOBR 

system to keep track of these waiting, loading and unloading activities? 

Answer. Yes. All motor carriers that are required to maintain a record of duty 

status, whether handwritten or electronic, must continue to ensure that the record 

accurately documents all driving time, and other duty time, such as waiting, loading 

and unloading. 

In developing the proposed requirements for EOBRs, FMCSA focused its attention 

on seven research factors listed in the ANPRM: (1) Ability to identify the individual 

driver; (2) Tamper resistance; (3) Ability to produce records for audit; (4) Ability of 

roadside enforcement personnel to access the HOS information quickly and easily; 

(5) Level of protection afforded other personal, operational, or proprietary information; (6) Cost; and (7) Driver acceptability. The FMCSA proposed that the EOBR 

record basic information needed to track duty status, including the identity of the 

driver, duty status, date and time, location of the CMV, distance traveled, and other 

items that the driver would enter (such as truck numbers and shipping document 

numbers). The EOBR would also be required to identify the driver, although 

FMCSA does not propose mandating a specific identification method. This approach 

would allow carriers to use existing identification systems or implement newer technologies as they become feasible. 

69 

1Large Truck Crash Facts 2003, Analysis Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA–RI–04–033, February 2005. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

CAPTAIN JOHN E. HARRISON

Question 1. Do you believe that EOBR’s will permit enforcement officials to more 

efficiently and accurately determine hours-of-service violations? 

Answer. Yes, if there are uniform standards regarding their design and implementation (i.e. standard interface for enforcement). As important, if not more so, is how 

to ‘‘enforce’’ these standards. There should be a 3rd party independent certification 

(initial and ongoing) program and a list of ‘‘approved’’ EOBRs. This will help to give 

comfort to those buying EOBRs and enforcement officers using them that they are 

certified to a certain standard. 

Question 2. Currently, how long does it take, on average, for enforcement officials 

to review and verify a driver’s paper logbook? How do enforcement officials verify 

the information in the paper logbook and corroborate evidence to support driver’s 

notations? 

Answer. It depends on the complexity of the trip and the nature of the interview. 

Generally speaking, the hours-of-service portion of the inspection takes approximately 10–15 minutes. Law enforcement uses the driver interview, supporting documents such as bills of lading, toll receipts, fuel receipts, gate receipts and other triprelated documentation to review hours-of-service compliance. 

Question 3. From your organization’s perspective, how large is the problem of 

drivers falsifying logbooks and exceeding their hours-of-service limits? 

Answer. We believe it is larger than what the data show. 

Question 4. Do you believe there is a corollary between drivers who violate the 

hours-of-service rules and safety? 

Answer. Yes we do. The attached research report corroborates this. 

PREDICTING TRUCK CRASH INVOLVEMENT: DEVELOPING A COMMERCIAL DRIVER

BEHAVIOR-BASED MODEL AND RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES, 

A Report by American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) 

The Problem 

Efforts by government and industry over the years to reduce large truck crashes 

have led to a number of significant positive trends. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) recently reported a decrease in the fatal crash rate for large 

trucks from 2.2 fatalities per 100M vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2000 to 1.9 fatal 

crashes per 100M VMT in 2003.1 In spite of increasing VMT and increased congestion over the years, the trucking industry has seen a general downward trend in 

fatal, injury and property damage crash rates over the last 20 years. 

However, both industry and government recognize that more must be done to reduce the overall number of large truck crashes. Prior research studies, including the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Large Truck Crash Causation Study, point to driver-related factors as a critical reason for the majority of 

crashes involving large trucks. Therefore, focusing on driver behaviors will have the 

most profound impact on crash reduction. 

Research Goal 

The objective of this research was to design and test an analytical model for predicting future crash involvement based on prior driver history information. A second 

objective of the research, conducted in conjunction with the Commercial Vehicle 

Safety Alliance (CVSA), was to identify effective enforcement actions to counteract 

the driving behaviors and events that are predictive of future crash involvement. 

Methodology 

This research is one of the first studies of its kind to analyze several available 

subsets of driver-specific data and statistically relate the data to future crashes. 

Data sources included the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) 

and the Commercial Drivers License Information System (CDLIS). 

The main dependent variable is crash involvement. For purposes of this research, 

crash involvement is the objective measure of driver ‘‘safety.’’ The independent variables are driver-specific performance indicators mined from the data including: specific violations; driver traffic conviction information; as well as past accident involvement information. 

70 

Driver data was gathered across a 3-year timeframe, and was analyzed to determine future crash predictability. For each of the drivers in the selected samples, 

driver history regarding past inspections and crashes were derived from MCMIS, 

and past conviction data was derived from CDLIS. Descriptive statistics were run 

on this entire dataset to develop the targeted samples. 

Appropriate statistical tests, including chi-square analyses, were used to identify 

statistically significant predictions for future crash involvement based on past inspection, conviction, and/or crash information. 

In order to associate the negative behaviors and events with enforcement strategies on a state-by-state basis, an objective measure was created that developed a 

statistical relationship between CMV traffic enforcement and a weighted crash metric. All 51 enforcement jurisdictions were surveyed to identify current enforcement 

activities addressing CMV driver behavior. Additional research was conducted on 

those states identified as ‘‘top tier’’ to identify targeted enforcement strategies and 

best practices. 

Findings 

The predictive model included data on 540,750 drivers. The analysis shows reckless driving and improper turn violations as the two violations associated with the 

highest increase in likelihood of a future crash. The four convictions with the highest likelihood of a future crash are: improper or erratic lane change; failure to yield 

right of way; improper turn; and failure to maintain proper lane. When a driver receives a conviction for one of these behaviors, the likelihood of a future crash increases between 91 and 100 percent. Table 1 ranks the top 10 driver events by the 

percentage increase in the likelihood of a future crash. 

The targeted surveys and interviews indicated that successful enforcement programs and strategies for addressing problem driver behaviors are those that exhibit 

one or more of the following components: 

• Center on aggressive driving apprehension programs/initiatives; 

• Target both commercial motor vehicle (CMV) and non-CMV behavior patterns; 

• Utilize both highly visible and covert enforcement activities; and 

• Incorporate an internal performance-based system for managing enforcement by 

specific crash types, driver behaviors, and locations. 


501atri.eps
71 

* This report is maintained in Committee files. 

The research also surveyed carriers to identify those hiring, training, and remediation practices most likely to mitigate the impacts of the problem behaviors identified. 

A complete listing of findings and recommendations can be found in the full report, Predicting Truck Crash Involvement: Developing a Commercial Driver Behavior-Based Model and Recommended Countermeasures.* 

To receive a copy of this report and other ATRI studies, please visit: www.atrionline.org. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

RICHARD S. REISER

Question. Do you have an explanation of why your drivers regularly falsified their 

Qualcomm logs a few years ago when you started the FMCSA’s pilot program to test 

Qualcomm’s GPS system for monitoring truck driver hours-of-service compliance? 

Answer. We are uncertain of the context in which it is alleged that our drivers 

‘‘regularly falsified their Qualcomm logs a few years ago’’. We have sought clarification of that through the American Trucking Associations; however, as of this time 

we have not received a clarification of the question. In view of the impending deadline, we will attempt to answer the question as we understand it. 

The concept and design of the Werner Paperless Log System was to create an 

automated logging system for our drivers. The purpose was not to create simply an 

electronic means of recording logbook information, but to create a system which 

would do so automatically with minimal driver input. Stated differently, we were 

not attempting to simply replace a hand written document with a type written document. We should also explain that both the idea and motivation for the Paperless 

Log System originated from Werner with the dual goals of improving the accuracy 

of driver records of duty status and the safety of its fleet. 

In order to accomplish an automated logging system it was necessary that certain 

assumptions be made. Those assumptions were made on the basis of what the most 

frequent, or most common response would be to a particular situation, and the driver given the means of overriding that assumed response as necessary. Drivers were 

instructed to do so. One of the assumptions made in the first stages of the pilot program, which was based on years of experience with records of duty status in our 

fleet, was that if a truck stopped moving for a certain period of time (15 minutes), 

it was assumed that the driver had gone off-duty. A log entry would be entered accordingly. That was the most common situation when a driver ceased moving for 

a period in excess of 15 minutes. Obviously, however, there were times when a driver ceased moving and then went on-duty not driving. In those situations, the driver 

was instructed to override the assumption and show that he was in fact on-duty. 

During the course of the pilot program and the frequent auditing of the pilot program by FMCSA, FMCSA became concerned that some drivers were simply accepting the assumption that they had gone off-duty and were failing to override that 

assumption to show that they were in fact on-duty not driving. Doing so would create the effect of a false log. Although there was no indication that this was a widespread problem, FMCSA required that assumption be changed, so that when a truck 

ceased moving for a period of time, the driver would be placed ‘‘on-duty not driving’’, 

and would therefore be less likely to accept that assumption if he was ‘‘off-duty’’. 

The changes which were made in the program to change the automatic assumption, have been reviewed by FMCSA and found acceptable prior to the time an exemption was granted. If you have any additional questions concerning this, or if this 

is not the issue to which your question was directed, please feel free to contact me. 

Æ