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 policy makers. 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 of service 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.

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%. 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%. 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%.

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% 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?

 

We believe the implementation of Electronic Onboard Recorders (EOBRs) for compliance with HOS regulations holds great promise for helping improve compliance 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 1970’s when the Tachograph was mandated until 2000, they experienced approximately a 167% 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 option 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 3^rd 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.

 

In its recent NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Electronic Onboard Recording devices for Hours of 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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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 like technologies 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.

 

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 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) 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. 

 

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.