White House clears EOBR rule

[JarJar]

A final rule mandating electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs) for carriers that have a history of serious non-compliance with hours-of-service rules could be just days away now that the White House Office of Management and Budget has cleared the measure.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is expected soon to publish the rule in the Federal Register. Details of the final rule won’t be public until FMCSA announces it. According to OMB’s website, the White House insisted on at least some changes to the rule that was submitted by the Department of Transportation.

As proposed in January 2007, the regulation also would incorporate new performance standards for EOBRs installed in commercial motor vehicles manufactured two years after the rule’s effective date. On-board HOS recording devices meeting FMCSA´s current requirements and voluntarily installed in vehicles manufactured before that date could continue to be used for the remainder of the service life of those vehicles. FMCSA had proposed to encourage industry-wide use of EOBRs by providing certain relief from audit and recordkeeping practices.

FMCSA completed work on the rule during the Bush administration, but the White House failed to clear it before President Obama was inaugurated. A government-wide review of pending rulemakings delayed the regulation, but DOT sent a final rule to the White House in December.

The EOBR issue isn’t settled once FMCSA publishes this rule, however. The agency has said it will consider further expanding the number of motor carriers required to install EOBRs as part of a rulemaking that also will address supporting documents for HOS compliance. FMCSA says it will consider reducing or eliminating paperwork burdens associated with supporting documents in favor of expanded EOBR use.

According to a monthly DOT report, FMCSA now plans to complete work on the EOBR/supporting documents proposal in July with publication in December. Meanwhile, the American Trucking Associations has sued FMCSA to move forward with a supporting documents rule. One of the major concerns is the agency’s decision in December 2008 to begin using satellite positioning data routinely in audits of driver logs. ATA argues that motor carrier obligations for maintaining supporting documents should be clear and established by regulation.

Regulatory action on EOBRs comes as safety advocates and many in Congress are calling on mandatory EOBRs industry-wide. For example, Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, proposed a highway authorization bill last year that would mandate use of EOBRs in all commercial motor vehicles subject to HOS rules.

[GMAN]

I have been expecting this for some time. This administration is all about control. If they want to put them in all commercial vehicles subject to hos rules then perhaps it is time to throw the hos rules out. I don't think that they are needed, anyway. Apparently, these people have not considered how carriers are supposed to pay for these EOBR's. Perhaps they will do like they did with the analog to digital TV changes. Just another tax.

[JarJar]

I am sure when it comes down to it, it will come out of the drivers pockets in some form or fashion!

[zipy46]

EOBR is about a 15 min update preformed by the Qualcom people.

Looks like the thing is still a ways out..probably late 2011 at best

[Windwalker]

EOBR is about a 15 min update preformed by the Qualcom people.

Looks like the thing is still a ways out..probably late 2011 at best

Along with Qualcom, there is also Aethernet and Peoplenet. Are they all ready?
For that matter, the company I just retired from used cellphones. Strictly. I was on my own account, and not a company account. How is that going to work?

[zipy46]

Along with Qualcom, there is also Aethernet and Peoplenet. Are they all ready?
For that matter, the company I just retired from used cellphones. Strictly. I was on my own account, and not a company account. How is that going to work?

Uhhhhhhh ....

i dunno

[zipy46]

Latest Developments on the EOBR:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has decided to mandate electronic onboard recorders on motor carriers that are shown in a single compliance review to be in serious noncompliance with any major hours-of-service regulation.

The final rule takes effect on June 4, 2012, giving EOBR suppliers time to adjust to the new performance standards that also were adopted in the final rule.

The rule – to be published Monday, April 5, in the Federal Register – is significantly more stringent than the regulation proposed in January 2007 when the agency planned to mandate EOBRs based on a review of HOS records during each of two compliance reviews conducted within a two-year period.

FMCSA estimates that nearly 5,700 interstate carriers will use EOBRs after the final rule’s first year of implementation. In January 2007, the agency estimated that approximately 930 motor carriers would be subject to mandatory EOBRs. Carriers that would be subject to mandatory EOBRs if the rule were in place today have 40 percent higher crash rates than the general motor carrier population, FMCSA says.

FMCSA also elaborated somewhat on its plans to conduct another rulemaking to expand the scope of mandatory EOBRs due to “the potential safety risks associated with some motor carrier categories, such as passenger carriers, hazardous materials transporters, and new motor carriers seeking authority to conduct interstate operations in the United States.” The agency said it could not adopt a broader mandate in the final rule because the scope of
the rulemaking was limited to a compliance-based regulatory approach implemented through a remedial directive.

Under the final rule to be published April 5, if an audit finds that a motor carrier has a violation rate of 10 percent or greater for any major HOS regulation listed in a new Appendix C to part 385, FMCSA will require the carrier to install EOBRs in all of its commercial motor vehicles — regardless of when they were built — and to use the devices for HOS recordkeeping for two years.

The new EOBR performance standards replace the current standards that have been in place for more than 20 years for what previously have been called automatic onboard recording devices (AOBRDs). The new standards will be required for EOBRs installed in CMVs manufactured on or after June 4, 2012, regardless of whether those EOBRs are installed voluntarily or subject to an FMCSA remedial directive.

Carriers using recorders voluntarily may continue to use already-installed devices meeting the previous AOBRD standards for the remainder of the vehicle life. Carriers that are required to install recording devices as a result of poor HOS compliance will be allowed to use AOBRDs if they already have vehicles equipped with them and can establish that their drivers understand how to use them.

FMCSA also finalized its plans to offer incentives to carriers to install EOBRs voluntarily. The agency revised its compliance review procedures to permit examination of a random sample — as opposed to a focused sample — of drivers’ records of duty status after the initial sampling and provided partial relief from HOS supporting documents requirements under certain conditions.

FMCSA estimates the rule’s cost at $139 million a year and safety-related benefits at $182 milli0n for a net benefit of $43 million annually. In so doing, the agency said that it assumed carriers would use the least expensive device that satisfies the requirements of the rule — the RouteTracker sold by Turnpike Global and using the Sprint network.

In addition, FMCSA’s cost estimates take into account carriers that already use AOBRDs that can still be used as long as the truck is in service and fleet management systems that would allow compliance just by activating hardware or software functions on existing devices. The agency also accounted for the savings carriers would realize because they no longer would have to purchase and process paper logs.

Performance specs

The new EOBR performance standards capitalize on great leaps in technology since the AOBRD standards were adopted in 1988 – the same year, coincidentally, that Qualcomm introduced OmniTracs. So satellite positioning was practically unheard of in trucking when FHWA adopted Part 395.15. Unlike the AOBRD standard, therefore, EOBRs must automatically record the CMV’s location at each change of duty status and at intervals while the CMV is in motion. EOBRs also must conform to specific information processing standards to ensure the data security and integrity. Drivers will be able to add information to the EOBR record, but the recorder will maintain the original information and track annotations.

In 2007, FMCSA proposed to allow carriers to use recorders that were not synchronized to the vehicle’s engine, but in the end the agency opted to maintain that existing requirement in order to ensure the accuracy of electronic records of duty status. Other changes to the proposal in response to comments include:

* Increasing from 1 minute to 60 minutes the time interval for recording the location of a CMV in motion;
* Making the recording of state-line crossings optional;
* Removing the requirement to record a driver’s acknowledgement of advisory messages;
* Reducing the amount of time a CMV is stationary before the EOBR defaults to on-duty not driving status;
* Removing the daily ceiling on EOBR accumulated time inaccuracy or “time drift”;
* Revising the requirements to allow a driver to enter annotations to denote use of a CMV as a personal conveyance and for yard movement;
* Removing the requirement for an EOBR to display HOS data in a graph-grid format;
* Specifying information technology security and integrity requirements; and
* Adding and strengthening provisions concerning driver and motor carrier responsibilities relating to accurate EOBR records and support system performance.

For a copy of the final rule prior to its publication, go to http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUp...0-06747_PI.pdf. The published version and supporting documents will be available April 5 at Regulations.gov by searching FMCSA-2004-18940.

[Bigmon]

Wouldn't this be better for drivers that have a dispatcher that wants them to go over hours?

[Windwalker]

Wouldn't this be better for drivers that have a dispatcher that wants them to go over hours?

Sure it would...
But, only if...
The drivers are able to prove that the dispatchers held a gun to their heads to make them run like that.
Otherwise, it's the driver that will get it in the BUTT, and dispatch will simply ride herd on other drivers.

[zipy46]

Trucking companies have been pulling off the perfect crimefor years ...no way around doing the dirty work for these companies...keeping them looking good for the DOT...and being the scapegoat if

something should hit the fan.

What a jam for the working man

[b00m]

Time to quit trucking!!!

I don't see being able to survive this business.The way you can legally run,the BS that you get from dispatching,shippers I don't see how companies will be able to survive. It will be even more impossible to survive this business as an O/O.With the increased costs,falling revenue and retarded safety laws will make this business miserable.

[GMAN]

If enough companies refused to participate or closed their doors the feds would need to either change their rules or start hauling freight themselves. I expect many to simply close their doors rather than continue to absorb the additional costs of these useless regulations. It would be interesting to see how many of these politico's have received money from those who manufacture these computers or have stock in the companies.

[zipy46]

From what I been reading...the EOBR is just another Gov't joke...

As usual the Feds solution maintains the problem instead of fixing it.

Its still up to the companies to 'keep their nose clean'... (aka The Fox Guarding the hen house scenario when it comes to HOS and the record keeping details).

[cdswans]

If they want you, they have you. Sure, there are plenty of trucks out there without a Qualcomm (or similar device) and there may be plenty of trucks out there whose driver doesn't have a cell phone and/or a GPS. How many trucks and/or drivers have none of the above? Not many, I suspect. A standardized EOBR will make law enforcement's job a little bit easier but, even today, if you give them cause to go looking, they're going to find what they're looking for.

For example: Laws, Life, and Legal Matters - Court Cases and Legal Information at Leagle.com - All Federal and State Appeals Court Cases in One Search

"The data from Mendez's GPS device and cell phone placed him at or near: (1) the manufacturer's plant when the cigarettes left the plant; (2) the truck yard where, and at the time when, the tractor trailer and container were stolen; and (3) a South Carolina truck stop where a truck driver saw three men transfer the stolen container from a stolen rig to a tractor trailer that matched the description of the tractor trailer Mendez was driving."

I don't have a problem with EOBRs. It's one thing to be sitting at home watching Jerry Springer with a shotgun in your lap. Your castle, your rules. It's an entirely different matter when you head out to engage in a little interstate commerce. Government roads = government rules. I also think it's worth pointing out the electronic bread crumb trail you leave behind everyday could just as easily be used to eliminate you from suspicion or prove your innocence.

[Justruckin]

Follow the MONEY.

[RostyC]

Follow the MONEY.

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

[One]

I have been expecting this for some time. This administration is all about control. If they want to put them in all commercial vehicles subject to hos rules then perhaps it is time to throw the hos rules out. I don't think that they are needed, anyway. Apparently, these people have not considered how carriers are supposed to pay for these EOBR's. Perhaps they will do like they did with the analog to digital TV changes. Just another tax.

OMG is everything a big conspiracy to u? NOONE said anything about 'all commerical vehicles' talk was about '...with history of serious non-compliance' .
Also the didgital TV changes was not 'Big Gooberment messing with you' or whatever administration you blame. It was the INDUSTRY that lobbied for it so big companies could squeeze smaller ones that cant afford the changes out of the business. It may help to be informed and not take what you hear for face value and repeat it over and over.

BTW good to see u ol dog, i havent been on this forum in a while how u been? still running Flatbeds?

[mike3fan]

NOONE said anything about 'all commerical vehicles' talk was about '...with history of serious non-compliance'

Maybe you should go back and read some of the articles out there.

[GMAN]

OMG is everything a big conspiracy to u? NOONE said anything about 'all commercial vehicles' talk was about '...with history of serious non-compliance' .
Also the digital TV changes was not 'Big Gooberment messing with you' or whatever administration you blame. It was the INDUSTRY that lobbied for it so big companies could squeeze smaller ones that cant afford the changes out of the business. It may help to be informed and not take what you hear for face value and repeat it over and over.

BTW good to see u ol dog, i haven't been on this forum in a while how u been? still running Flatbeds?

I don't think that everything is a conspiracy. In the beginning they wanted all carriers and owner operators to have an EOBR. There was so much controversy about it that they decided to start with those with certain offenses. It is a small step from that point to ALL carriers and owner operators.

The thing is that this is unnecessary. As an industry we are at an all time low for accidents. The EOBR's is nothing but a control or power grab and a way for a handful of people to clean up at the expense of the small operators and owner operators. This would be a non issue were it not for the money involved. Those who are involved in the manufacture of these EOBR's stand to make a fortune from this legislation.

Old dog, eh? Yep, still running flats and steps. You should check in more often.

[golfhobo]

Maybe you should go back and read some of the articles out there.

Why read "articles" when you can go directly to the source? I have read the bulk of the Final Ruling published this year. Sure, it was mentioned that SOME of these advocate Azzholes want an industry-wide mandate.... but, it ain't gonna HAPPEN! At least not for years and years!

I actually LIKE reading these Final Rulings! They are extremely "wordy" .... WAY more than I am! But, I actually get the feeling that they take ALL sides into question, and make MOST of their rulings with alot of common sense and driver appreciation.

ONE is correct. The Fmcsa has no intention at this time of expanding the scope of their ruling BEYOND "remedial" actions against the worst offenders.

Oh, they make a comment about "future" rulings... but, that is just "lip service" to shut these advocate groups up! It will NEVER happen in our lifetime!

For BOOM and GMAN, and any OTHER O/O worried about being forced to pay for and install EOBR's.... chill out dudes! You probably ain't even on the RADAR!

How often do YOU get a compliance review? Once a year? I really don't know... but let's assume that is correct. Okay.... have you ever, or WILL you ever have TEN PERCENT of your logs (from a SAMPLE) proven to be noncompliant? I doubt it. If you HAVE.... you NEED to be shut down or forced to instal EOBR's! If you HAVEN'T.... then you never WILL be forced to install one. Got it? Good! Now STFU!

Yes, GMAN, accidents are at an alltime low right now. How do you think that happened? Increased gov't safety regulations and compliance reviews! Perhaps even BETTER HOS regs that ensure alert drivers more than the "old way." But, consider THIS: IF crash stats are lower, and there are still companies out there OVER the 10 percent threshold for HOS noncompliance... WHO do you think are HAVING the crashes that ARE happening? (I'll give you a minute to figure it out!)

Believe me... unlike the Rev.... I am not FOR these things on all CMV's (and he may not be.) But, I AM for them on the most egregious offenders out there! I have to drive out there, too.... and I want to know that the average trucker is not just some "cowboy" like Dubya!