User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 03-19-2010, 08:18 PM
JarJar's Avatar
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Buford Georgia
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default White House clears EOBR rule

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-19-2010, 10:26 PM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Site Admin
Board Icon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-19-2010, 10:58 PM
JarJar's Avatar
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Buford Georgia
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

I am sure when it comes down to it, it will come out of the drivers pockets in some form or fashion!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-20-2010, 01:17 AM
zipy46's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In my head...
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-20-2010, 01:33 AM
Windwalker's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Been there and gone...
Posts: 6,412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zipy46 View Post
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?
__________________
( R E T I R E D , and glad of it)
YES ! ! ! There is life after trucking.
a GOOD life

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-20-2010, 02:55 AM
zipy46's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In my head...
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windwalker View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-07-2010, 12:42 AM
zipy46's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In my head...
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-07-2010, 06:08 PM
Bigmon's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North East
Posts: 1,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Wouldn't this be better for drivers that have a dispatcher that wants them to go over hours?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-08-2010, 04:03 AM
Windwalker's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Been there and gone...
Posts: 6,412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigmon View Post
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.
__________________
( R E T I R E D , and glad of it)
YES ! ! ! There is life after trucking.
a GOOD life

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-11-2010, 12:56 AM
zipy46's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In my head...
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

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
Reply With Quote
Reply





Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:37 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.