WASHINGTON - The United Motorcoach Association has urged the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to consider the motorcoach industry separately from the trucking industry as it considers electronic on-board recorders and to make them mandatory only for companies that have established patterns of hour-of-service violations.
In comments filed in response to a FMCSA request, the UMA repeated its long-held objection to mandatory on-board recorders. The association said it objected to the recorders on many levels.
"While the Department (of Transportation) may believe the devices will serve as electronic cops' to extend the enforcement capabilities of a depleted and overworked force of field investigators, the UMA sees this as a classic use of sledgehammers to kill flies. . . . UMA supports the voluntary application of commercial vehicle technologies and specifically opposes selective mandatory installation on commercial vehicles. We also believe that such mandated technologies represent a significant violation of the rights to privacy for our member operators."
UMA said it could no abide proposed rules with "no limitations on the intrusion powers of the enforcement community and no clear guidelines for the enforcement uses of data that it recovers from such recorders."
The association also opposed mandated EOBRs because of the strong evidence they are "far from the tamper- or trouble-free devices they are depicted to be. . . . The machines haven't proven impossible or even difficult to alter. They have, however, proven difficult for roadside personnel to read and to use for enforcement. UMA is concerned, too, that a malfunctioning device could lead to unfair roadside enforcement or even an out-of-service citation while passengers are on-board.
"No electronic devices are 100 percent reliable. Operators will be allowed to abandon paper logs once EOBRs are installed, but if a recorder fails during travel without the driver's notification, UMA can foresee some very ugly roadside confrontations with enforcement personnel. We can also foresee undue delays if drivers will be expected to service malfunctioning recorders before proceeding. Will the department allow passenger service to suffer for the lofty goal of electronic monitoring?" UMA asked rhetorically.
"It is clear that the department had a desk-bound perspective of the commercial driving business when it drafted the electronic recorder provisions of this NPRM. The commercial passenger carrier industry is dominated by drivers and vehicles which serve both local and intercity needs - interchangeably - on a day-to-day basis. Though the department has anticipated the jump between types of service for drivers with the suggestion that companies will hasten to add EOBRs to non-mandated local service vehicles to accommodate the varying daily uses of the vehicle and driver, we suggest that just the opposite will happen.
"Given the confusions over both the appropriate use and reliability of EOBRs, UMA predicts that most carriers will continue to mandate duplicative paper logs, negating much of the . . . anticipated cost savings to carriers."
"UMA fails to understand why EOBRs are being proposed for all carriers. Considering the expense and complexity of the devices, compared with the anticipated increase in compliance that they might cause, the cost-benefit ratio will be prohibitively high for most carriers. UMA would endorse the mandatory implementation of EOBRs only for chronic offenders. Their use as law enforcement house arrest' bracelets might be an acceptable alternative to the proposed rule."
UMA also noted that the coach industry is extremely safe with an hours-of-service/driver out-of-service rate of roughly one-third of the trucking industry.
Finally, the association said that the costs in terms of hardware, software, equipment upgrades and training would be astronomical for the hundreds of small companies that populate the motorcoach industry.