FMCSA Official Cautions Fleets to Avoid Substandard Recorders

By Sarah Godfrey, Staff Reporter

This story appears in the Oct. 1 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.

PITTSBURGH — A Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration official said there are between 30 and 40 companies producing onboard recording devices that fail to meet FMCSA standards.

Warning carriers to “shop carefully out there,” Dennis McGee, state program specialist in the agency’s Office of Motor Carriers, said some manufacturers are offering “illegal” devices that allow for driver tampering, only report information periodically and otherwise fail to perform basic functions.

He said Sept. 20 here that FMCSA has no regulatory authority over these manufacturers and that trucking companies must protect themselves.

Addressing the fall conference of the Safety & Loss Prevention Management Council of American Trucking Associations, McGee cautioned fleet managers to be wary of claims that existing onboard recording devices will meet the standards of electronic onboard recorders, because FMCSA has not issued a final rule on EOBRs used for hours-of-service compliance.

Automatic onboard recording devices, which have been in use since the 1980s, are mechanical or electro-mechanical recorders that capture information on the date, time and location of vehicles. EOBRs are a new generation of devices that are electronic in nature, but perform the functions of AOBRDs and boast some additional features.

“AOBRDs where drivers can change the duty status during trips are illegal,” McGee said. Currently, manufacturers of onboard recording devices self-certify their products, he said.

“Part of the discussion surrounding the proposed EOBR rulemaking involves that self-certification process, said Dave Osiecki, ATA vice president of safety, security and operations.

“An issue being debated is how these devices become certified,” Osiecki said in an interview with Transport Topics. “The self-certification process is on the table as it relates to the new standards, relative to EOBRs, and whether manufacturers will continue to self-certify.”

Osiecki said, however, that he does not believe the practice of manufacturers tricking trucking companies into purchasing illegal AOBRDs or selling AOBRDs and claiming them to be compliant with EOBR requirements is a widespread problem.

“Most folks are not duping the industry into thinking the devices that meet today’s requirements will meet tomorrow’s — we don’t know what tomorrow’s are.”

Osiecki added that he thinks the estimate of 30 to 40 illegal recording device makers could be on the high side. “I’ve never heard a number that large and would be surprised if that were the case.”

“We rely on carriers to have knowledge of safety regulations so that, irrespective of what manufacturers are claiming, they can look at details of a device and determine — with a relative degree of certainty — if it does or does not meet standards,” said Larry Minor, FMCSA’s associate administrator for policy and program development.

He added that the agency has 20 years of experience dealing with such devices and has not

seen a widespread problem with manufacturers putting out non-compliant devices. Minor said more research is needed before FMCSA can estimate accurately how many companies are manufacturing illegal recorders.

Ken Yeomans, director of professional services for EOBR manufacturer Xata Corp., said he cautions clients not to rush to invest in onboard recording technology, based on the proposed rule.

“If anybody’s been in business a long time, they know the rulemaking process takes a while. You better be careful what you jump into,” he said.

Yeomans also said that trucking companies should not purchase any trip-recording technology unless it is linked to the engine’s electronic control module.

“Anyone buying anything else right now is spending their money foolishly,” he said. FMCSA’s McGee urged fleets to ask manufacturers whether their devices connect to the engines.

Both Xata and onboard recorder manufacturer Cadec Global said they primarily deal with large private fleets willing to invest in the technology, and believe that because their clientele are unlikely to attempt to cut costs with bargain-priced recorders, they would be less likely to be exposed to the illegal market.

Frank Moreno, Cadec’s vice president of marketing, speculated that fleets with violations that are mandated to install recording technology may be more likely to run into illegal products.

“It seems like one of the primary reasons behind illegal devices is that poorly performing or nonperforming organizations will be forced to have devices over the next few years,” Moreno said during a recent interview with Transport Topics.

“You have to factor in why the devices are being purchased — is it just because you are poorly performing and want to abide by new regs or because you are investing in technology for safety or because it will improve your business?” Moreno asked.