FMCSA proposes to mandate onboard recorders

| February 01, 2011

All interstate commercial truck and bus carriers that now use logbooks to track compliance with hours-of-service regulations would have to use electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs) instead under a proposed regulation issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration on Jan. 31.

The proposal would relieve carriers of the current requirement to retain certain HOS documents, such as delivery and toll receipts, that are now used to verify the number of hours the vehicle is in operation. Approximately 500,000 carriers would be affected by the proposed rule, FMCSA said.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered FMCSA to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on HOS supporting documents by yearend. In December, the court gave the agency another month — until Jan. 31 — to comply. The court order stemmed from a lawsuit the American Trucking Associations filed just over a year ago to compel FMCSA to move forward with a regulation as mandated by Congress in the mid-1990s.

By the time ATA filed its lawsuit, FMCSA had already announced that it was planning to link new regulations on supporting documents to an expansion of the EOBR mandate. In April 2010, FMCSA issued a final rule requiring carriers that have a history of serious log violations to install EOBRs. That rule takes effect in June 2012.

“We cannot protect our roadways when commercial truck and bus companies exceed hours-of-service rules,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said yesterday. “This proposal would make our roads safer by ensuring that carriers traveling across state lines are using EOBRs to track the hours their drivers spend behind the wheel.”

Interstate carriers that currently use records of duty status (RODS) logbooks to document drivers’ HOS would be required to use EOBRs. Short-haul interstate carriers that use timecards to document HOS would not be required to use them. Carriers that violate this EOBR requirement would face civil penalties of up to $11,000 for each offense. Noncompliance would also negatively impact a carrier’s safety fitness rating and DOT operating authority.

“This proposal is an important step in our efforts to raise the safety bar for commercial carriers and drivers,” said FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro. “We believe broader use of EOBRs would give carriers and drivers an effective tool to strengthen their HOS compliance.”

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association saw it differently. “EOBRs are nothing more than over-priced record keepers,” said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of OOIDA. “This proposal is actually another example of the administration’s determination to wipe out small businesses by continuing to crank out overly burdensome regulations that simply run up costs.”

OOIDA said EOBRs cannot accurately and automatically record a driver’s hours of service and duty status. They can only track the movement and location of a truck and require human interaction to record any change of duty status. Therefore, such as in the case of loading and unloading time, the device is incapable of determining the actual duty status of drivers without interaction from drivers indicating to the device that they are on-duty. Loading and unloading time should typically be logged as “on-duty, not driving” in order to accurately reflect the hours a driver has worked.

OOIDA also contends that by insisting on pushing for this mandate, the government ignored a federal statute to ensure that EOBRs will not be used to harass vehicle operators. An analysis conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration said that “companies use EOBRs to enforce company policies and monitor drivers’ behavior in other ways.”

The proposal and information about how to submit comments is available by clicking here. For more information, go to

  • Pingback: Curtain falls on new scale house inspection technology, opens on EOBRs

  • Pingback: Curtain falls on new scale house inspection technology, opens on EOBRs « Momma Donna

  • Pingback: Onboard recorders: The proposed mandate | Overdrive - Owner Operators Trucking Magazine

  • Pingback: Truckers Resources - FMCSA proposes to mandate onboard recorders

  • mousekiller

    At least they didn’t blow about making our highways safer with EOBR’s. EOBR;s are for control. It will not make highways safe. They think all trucking companies are less than stellar in performance and they have educated, well informed hard working drivers. Nothing could be further from the truth. If drivers are not willing to leave a second or even a third class carrier for a better job the government is not going to improve on it. You can not fix stupid and lazy. Far too many drivers today don’t speak English. They work for cash startup companies.
    Drivers with the EOBR will be concerned with hours to work and not pay proper attention to their surrounding and become unsafe. It will cause drivers to push to the last minute looking for parking. What happens if none is found? Drive on in violation? Park on the shoulder of the highway? Park on private property? If you think traffic is bad now wait until the EOBRs are mandated. Mark this on your calendar.
    As long as there are people involved in moving freight there will be those that find easy ways to get the job done in spite of the obstacles place before them.This is not always a bad thing.
    This EOBR will do nothing but destroy the individuality of drivers. It will remove any desire to excel. It will turn drivers into nothing more than robots. The EOBR’s will cause the adaptability of drivers to vanish and be replaced with steering wheel holders. It will reduce the number of US drivers and allow our government to open the borders to none US drivers to fill the empty seats. A government sponsored and funded attack on our transportation industry. The EOBR’s are nothing more than an ankle bracelet to monitor you in your 6×7 cell as was said by another driver.

  • Pingback: North Carolina Truck Accident Risks Reduced by Data Recorders, Speed Limiters | Law Wire News

  • Mind Games

    This is what a 1984/fascist/666 government looks like. Will you take the mark of the beast???
    What I propose is this… On a specific date we all show up in front of the White House with the mark stamped in our right hand and we all stand in front with our right hand up and show the world that this is what it looks like to have the mark.
    We also walk over to the Department of Transportation and do the same then we go over to every member of Congress and Senator’s office that agreed with the mark and we all go home and not return to work till they chase the beast out of our trucks.
    I’m all for running Satan out of our government but it must be done in the right way.
    Has anyone ever asked their fellow driver how does it feel good have the mark stamped in their right hand? And if you have please come back and let us know I’d be willing to bet they will deny the obvious.
    If you are reading this do you know you are going to hell if you have accepted Satan as your lord and savior if you have accepted the mark of 666???

  • Mind Games

    Let me clarify something a protest with the mark is one thing but accepting the mark is another.

  • chaindawg812

    It’s another way to kill small business, the mega carriers love it. More rules and they can drive out the competition. How much do you think is used to contribute to politicians to get this bull crap put into the rule process? strives to maintain an open forum for reader opinions. Click here to read our comment policy.