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.

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.

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

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?

Uhhhhhhh ....

i dunno :confused:

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.

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.

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 :(

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.

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.

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). :(

:thumbsdown:

Forensic Trucking
 

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.

Follow the MONEY.

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

*rolleyes*
 

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?

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

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.

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! :lol2:

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!) :roll:

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! :lol2:

They can throw all the regulations on us that they want, but EOBR's and all the other frivolous regs will not make us or the roads 100% safe. And we will not be any safer with EOBR's than we are today. What they don't want to address are the cause of most truck involved accidents.....cars. At least 76% of all accidents involving trucks are the responsibility of 4 wheelers according to the last statistics that I read. So instead of addressing the primary cause, they are going after the money. They know that they can shake more money out of the trucking industry than the average consumer.

Lamar Alexander from Tennessee and a senator from Arkansas have introduced a bill that would require ALL class 8 trucks to buy and install EOBR's. I got a different answer as to the reasoning why they would want to support such a bill when I called each of their respective offices. It has never been about safety. It is about the money. Forcing 3-5 million trucks to have EOBR's will make someone a fortune. In all likelyhood there will not only be the upfront cost buy a monthly fee, much like having a qualcomm.

Oh My gawd Lamar Alexander the REPUBLICAN that sleeps with big business!( you didnt point out his party afiliation! :P) WOW i thought it was all Obamas fault??

Anyway like I said this EOBR thing is not for all carriers, just the ones that run illegal, so whats the problem?? I know my company will never run qualcom or eobrs or data recorders :) so im not worried. Besides, i wouldnt run for a company with a bad safety record im too much of a safety hawk even for my company with very good record.

I had all the reservations about EOBR... how it would affect my revenue, "big brother" is watching, etc.

My carrier made a decision to go to EOBR early last year. I got one put in my truck in early December. Hasn't had a negative effect on revenue. Matter of fact, January was a particularly good month for me. Carrier does not charge me any more than what they were before with the original Qualcomm unit, even though this one has a pretty decent GPS routing program built in and even has games you can play on it.

I still use the truck to run around on my own time, OFF DUTY, so it doesn't affect breaks and 34 hr resets. I just made a run that I had to use the adverse driving conditions option to drive an extra hour to make it to a safe location. No problem. I have kept myself running primarily regional for the last 12 years, so most of my runs can be done in a typical 14 hr period, and that hasn't changed any with the EOBR. I still drive the same speed and stop at the same places I did before. The only difference for me is that I do use the 8 and 2 split provision a little more often.

You can run, but you cannot hide. All it takes is watching a few Law & Order reruns to see that if the Government or some hot shot lawyer wants to target you, they will find out if you were where you said you were and at the time you said. There is no such thing as privacy anymore, whether in your truck or just about anything else you do in life. The EOBR is just a recording device. Unless you actually give someone a reason to take a look at you, no one is really watching what you do, even with an EOBR. But if someone does target you, then the EOBR can help CYA.

True, they will not enhance safety and they should not be mandated in any way. But I have found it really isn't that big a deal. I had the same fears and concerns as everyone else. I decided to give it a try before "jumping ship". Glad I did so that I could really find out how it would affect me instead of listening to all the banter from those that had never even been around them.

I will agree with the idea that it is all about the money. Much in the same way the new body scanners the TSA is using. Interesting that the former head of Homeland Security is one of the primary executives at the firm that is making these scanners. I am sure that some politician is planning on raking in the bucks by having an EOBR mandate as well. But then, this has been going on since the country was founded.

I have probably known Lamar Alexander for more than 20 years. He is a Republican in name only. No self respecting Republican would even consider putting forth a bill such as this. When EOBR's were first proposed, they were planning on only having carriers with safety issue install them. This new bill will force anyone who owns a class 8 truck to install them. The only ones who would be exempt are those who are strictly local and run within a 150 mile radius, according to what his office told me. If the bill passes, as it is, all of us will be required to have them installed. Your company safety record won't even be considered. If it passes, your company will have 3 years to install them in all of their otr trucks. If they don't then they will be shut down. So, unless you want to deal with them, then I suggest you voice your opinion before it is too late. If you doubt what I am telling you, then give one of them a call and ask. And Obama really wants this new law. He gets all excited when anyone calls for more controls.

A major problem that I have when I see this type of legislation is that they want to force me and hundreds of thousands of other owners to install these EOBR's at considerable expense when there has NEVER been any evidence that they will make roads more safe. It will also not level the playing field for anyone. It will limit competition. That is a primary reason for the computers. We don't even know the cost. I have been told that it will probably run between $1,200-1,800 per truck. I don't know if that includes installation. There is still no actual cost that has been quoted. Those are estimates. In addition, there will be a monthly fee attached. With this economy, the last thing we need is another expense. We have between 3-5 million class 8 trucks in this country. That is some serious dollars.

Im sorry, but the releases talking about eobrs DO NOT secify ALL Class 8 trucks but it does state only carrieres that run illegal , We have already established that painstakingly.
Yet you still claim everyone has to have them. And we are supposed to trust you on this not press releases?? So, you, that likes to cut and paste BS 'news' you got in an email from a crackhead and post it as news without any scrutiny? Im sorry, you telling us 'trust me, i know' doesnt fly anymore

When I called Senator Lamar Alexander's office I was told that the bill they proposed was to include ALL owners of class 8 trucks. We could be talking about two entirely different things. The original proposal that the feds were talking about did initially propose those who had poor safety records or had other problems would need to be first to have to install EOBR's. I don't think the Alexander/Pryor bill has had time to make it through committee. Alexander and Pryor wanted to make it a law in order to make it more difficult to change, according to what they told me when I called. I would like to know if this is from the bill that has been proposed or a rule put forth by the fmcsa.

By the way, One. It is much easier to understand your insults when you use the spell check. And I never asked you to "trust me."

This is a summary of the bill proposed by Alexander and Pryor. You can check it for yourself by doing a search for the "Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act." I did cut and paste the summary from the text. As you can see, if the bill passes as proposed, it will require ALL owners of class 8 trucks to install EOBR's if they are require to comply with the hours of service rules. Apparently, they want to exclude owners who have trucks that run local.



S.3884
Latest Title: Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act
Sponsor: Sen Pryor, Mark L. [AR] (introduced 9/29/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, AmendmentsSUMMARY AS OF:
9/29/2010--Introduced.

Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act - Requires all commercial motor vehicles involved in interstate commerce and subject to both federal hours-of-service and record of duty status requirements, in order to improve compliance with federal hours-of-service regulations, to be equipped with an electronic on-board recording device meeting performance and design standards and requirements prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation (DOT).
Denies the admissibility in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding of recorded information retrieved from an electronic on-board recording device installed in a motor vehicle: (1) for any purpose other than to establish compliance or noncompliance with applicable federal hours-of-service requirements; or (2) unless the motor vehicle owner consents to the retrieval of information, or the information is retrieved by a government motor vehicle safety or law enforcement agency and is not used by any person or entity other than that agency.

Hey one! get the hair out YO AZZ! and chill! why the frustration ?
"some gotta win some gotta lose good time charleys got the blues" haha! lloooollllaaaa!

MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD! "THE MAN IS WATCHING YOU!!!

lol freebrd :)
Gman i stand corrected, i thought i saw the proposal as being for only habitually violating carriers, must be the original proposal like you said.
As to spelling, it looks like my post is comprehensible, but i do not see an insult there, as you have admitted you cut and paste stuff you get in an email assuming it is true. I'm just keeping you on your toes and this thread is an example of that working: You posted first hand info straight from the source, not some pre-chewed opinion form dubious sources.

I agree that EOBR does nothing for safety. Not sure how it will limit competition, though. Do you mean it will limit those that will do the "creative logging" game so that they can out do the driver that would rather get his breaks when he can and run when he can? Regarding cost, if there ever is a total mandate on all trucks to have EOBR, then there will also come increased competition among those that make EOBR units, which will cause some price competition between them to sell units. No, it will not lower the price to a Walmart Blue Light Special, but I would bet there will be units available that will not be very cost prohibitive. Right now the cost is high because there is no real mandate for everyone and only a few EOBR producers out there, so no real competition to make them. Apple made the iPad and everyone wanted one. Now there are similar tablet type units coming from just about everyone who makes electronics. And this all happened in just a few months. Same thing with the iPhone, now everyone has some form of touch phone that runs apps.

I am TOTALLY against any mandate for every commercial vehicle to have EOBR. I have no real problem using one, and it hasn't caused any loss in productivity or increased cost for me. But no two operations are exactly the same. It is because of that fact, I am against wide spread EOBR mandate. But, if there is a mandate, there will be a length of time before the mandate goes into effect (probably 6 months to a year time to get compliant), and that will cause manufacturers to come out of the woodwork and build units and try to outsell the competition. That will lead to more reasonable pricing. Simple economics. I just can't imagine that a unit that connects to the truck with a simple GPS unit to monitor truck movement would be all that expensive to produce. Most of the high prices that are out there are for units that do much more than EOBR, like the Qualcomm MCP200 unit which has a screen that costs $350 to replace. But how many, other than bigger carriers, actually need all those features? GPS location satellites are free to anyone out there who can pick up the signals. The logging feature of the unit could be a simple software program with ability to display log graph. All that is needed beyond that is some way of transfering data to a laptop or PC for record keeping and a way for producing printouts for the DOT at a scale if needed. Simple cellphone service for data transfer would take care of all that (or it would cost nothing extra if you have wifi hotspot ability in your current cellphone like I and many others already have or bluetooth). And of course, the unit would have to have a way to hook up to the truck's ECM. Anyone can buy a USB cable now that hooks up to a truck's ECM data port right in the cab.

Heck, I got just about all those features and GPS in my current Samsung Epic 4G cellphone. All I would need is an app to do the logging and a cable to hook it up to the ECM port.

The lowest cost that I have heard is $1,200-1,800. But, I don't know if those figures are accurate. In addition, there will be a monthly fee. The actual cost is something that is very vague at this point. The cost factor will be most detrimental to smaller carriers and owner operators who must fork out the money for these recorders. When I spoke to Lamar Alexander's office, the woman that I spoke with said that we would be able to buy used units and have 3 years from the time the bill passes, to have them installed. Major carriers stand to benefit the most from this legislation. They can take advantage of their large buying discounts and it could lower their compliance costs. They may even be able to order them already installed when they buy new trucks.

I just don't like the government coming in a trying to force me to purchase a product that I neither need or want. We are mandated to keep logs. We should have an option as to how we want to provide those logs. Those who push the envelope and run illegally, will continue to do so, regardless of what laws are in place. Those who want to install electronic logs in their trucks are free to do so. It is a matter of choice. These people have not even bothered to have a study to determine whether electronic logs would accomplish what they state. To my knowledge, there is no proof that those running electronic logs are any safer than those who use paper. Until this has been done, the bill should never see a vote.

Of course this is BS legislation but i remind you yet again that the ones pushing for this are the ones standing to profit handsomely. ATA in bed with the makers of this junk ? Its not 'big gooberment gunna gitcha' its interlocking boards of directors and big trucking companies represented by the ATA killing competition including the O/O. the threat here is not government but the corruption of government by corporations wanting to monopolize an industry. One solution: Break up monopolies and prohibit corporatons from buying politicians like we used to do. But since thats not being discussed, i guess we can try and push back against the ATA and their eobrs by phone calls and letters...

Used eobrs?? so whos been using them??wtf? if this becomes law you can bet on some company tied in with chinese manufacturers will be happy to 'fill demand'.

Hey, GMAN..... I think you accidentally CLOSED the other EOBR thread. Could you re-open it please? Thanks.

I am not quiet sure how it happened, but the thread is open for business. Thanks for the heads up, Hobo.

They aren't worried about how many indies or companies they run out of business anyway. They've already got your replacements in the wings..... --> Mexican Trucks.

Wonder what will happen now after the lawsuit mentioned in this thread: http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/a...mpany-its.html

I am not sure the lawsuit has gone to court. From the article, they count on companies settling prior to the court date rather than dealing with the cost of litigating.

But what companies will go forward until the mess is cleaned up? Can the government still force you to install something that's a patent infringement? Plus, with the number of companies that are being sued, I'm quite sure some of them are ATA members and will push to stop the EOBR rule until it's decided on.