Eobr - "off duty/driving" fmsca feedback

**layoutshooter** · 03-10-2010, 01:10 AM

I too have been waiting for some answers for over a week now.

**BigRed32771** · 03-10-2010, 01:42 AM

I'm still pondering the meaning of the last little bit of the following quote from a FMCSA online publication called "Interstate Truck Driver's Guide to Hours of Service." (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regul...ide-to-hos.pdf)
I don't know how current the info in the pdf file is, but the statement about EOBR's raises an eyebrow here.

What Is an Automatic On-Board Recording Device?
Many motor carriers have installed electronic devices in their trucks to help accurately record hours-of-service information. If such a device meets the requirements of Section 395.15 of the safety regulations, it is called an Automatic On-Board Recording Device (AOBRD), and may be used in place of a paper logbook.
Manufacturers of AOBRDs must certify that their devices meet the Section 395.15 requirements. This includes a requirement that an AOBRD must be mechanically or electronically connected to the truck to automatically record, at a minimum, engine use, road speed, miles driven, the date, and time of day. Drivers enter other information required to complete the hours-of-service records. You should discuss with your carrier whether any device on your truck used to record hours-of-service information has been certified to meet Section 395.15 requirements.
The AOBRD device must be capable of displaying or printing for enforcement officers the times of duty status changes and other required information. It must also store this information for the prior 7 days. You may review Section 395.15 for additional AOBRD requirements.
An AOBRD may be used without creating any paper copies of logs by transmitting the data electronically to the carrier, or it may be used to print copies of the logs that would be signed by the driver and mailed to the carrier.
You may have heard about Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs). The use of EOBRs to record hours-of-service information is not yet authorized by the safety regulations, but it has been formally proposed. An EOBR is more complex than an AOBRD and, if approved, may use new technologies such as Global Positioning Systems to automatically record additional hours-of-service information.

**BigRed32771** · 03-10-2010, 01:49 AM

Here's where I suspect the company has us by the short and curlies:

49 CFR 390.3(d): (d) Additional requirements. Nothing in subchapter B of this chapter shall be construed to prohibit an employer from requring and enforcing more stringent requirements relating to safety of operation and employee safety and health.

**layoutshooter** · 03-10-2010, 09:10 AM

It will come down to "it's their way or the highway" as it always does. I love being treated as an employee.

**ATeam** · 03-10-2010, 09:27 AM

I believe DOT truck inspections are required once a year by the law. Some carriers impose the same requirement on its contractors. Our carrier requires DOT truck inspections twice a year. I know of at least one carrier that requires them every three months.

Just because a carrier has the right to impose more stringent requirements than the law requires, it does not mean that it must or that it will.

I don't see this as a case where our carrier has us by the short hairs and is imposing the 0.7 personal conveyance rule for no good reason. I see this as a case where the rule was decided upon for reasons that seemed good at the time.

With contractors now objecting and becoming well informed about what the law actually says regarding personal conveyance, I would expect the rule to be re-visited or at least fully explained to the fleet.

It may help to remember that no decision our carrier makes is made in a vacuum. With an in-house legal department, a complex body of law to deal with, the unknown territory being created by the new devices, over 1,000 trucks on the road, and the infinite set of variables this all creates, there is more to consider than a laid over contractor's desire to log him or herself off duty while driving to the grocery store.

I expect answers to the questions raised here will come. It just may take longer than us grocery-store-going contractors would like (such rebels we are...going to the grocery store and maybe even a movie!). We see it as a simple question. I believe those in the office have more to consider before they answer.

**layoutshooter** · 03-10-2010, 09:36 AM

I have no doubt that this will get resolved. I am disapointed that this was not thought out better before this new contract was sent out. When I inquired about some of these things we are discussing the person I spoke to in contractor relations was not aware that the 7/10th rule was not a DOT requirement. (no need to mention names in here) We also have many questions about the charges for the TVAL equipment. It was explained to my satisfaction over the phone but they seemed reluctant to re-write the contract to match what I was told over the phone. That bothers me.

**MYGIA** · 03-10-2010, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by ATeam

It may help to remember that no decision our carrier makes is made in a vacuum. With an in-house legal department, a complex body of law to deal with, the unknown territory being created by the new devices, over 1,000 trucks on the road, and the infinite set of variables this all creates, there is more to consider than a laid over contractor's desire to log him or herself off duty while driving to the grocery store.

I expect answers to the questions raised here will come. It just may take longer than us grocery-store-going contractors would like (such rebels we are...going to the grocery store and maybe even a movie!). We see it as a simple question. I believe those in the office have more to consider before they answer.

ATEAM: This is a good point. Thank you for the tactful reminder. Patience has never been my strong suit and forever remains a developmental need. I do, however, at least think an acknowledgement of e-mails received would be appropriate by all. Many do, but unfortunately, all in the office do not extend this courtesy. Even a simple – “ I have received your message and will get back to you in as timely a manner possible” would be a good step in the right direction.

**BigRed32771** · 03-10-2010, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by ATeam

I believe DOT truck inspections are required once a year by the law. Some carriers impose the same requirement on its contractors. Our carrier requires DOT truck inspections twice a year. I know of at least one carrier that requires them every three months.

Just because a carrier has the right to impose more stringent requirements than the law requires, it does not mean that it must or that it will.

I don't see this as a case where our carrier has us by the short hairs and is imposing the 0.7 personal conveyance rule for no good reason. I see this as a case where the rule was decided upon for reasons that seemed good at the time.

With contractors now objecting and becoming well informed about what the law actually says regarding personal conveyance, I would expect the rule to be re-visited or at least fully explained to the fleet.

It may help to remember that no decision our carrier makes is made in a vacuum. With an in-house legal department, a complex body of law to deal with, the unknown territory being created by the new devices, over 1,000 trucks on the road, and the infinite set of variables this all creates, there is more to consider than a laid over contractor's desire to log him or herself off duty while driving to the grocery store.

I expect answers to the questions raised here will come. It just may take longer than us grocery-store-going contractors would like (such rebels we are...going to the grocery store and maybe even a movie!). We see it as a simple question. I believe those in the office have more to consider before they answer.

Phil, you are correct. I did have a conversation with a Southern Region representative of FMCSA this morning, and she affirmed my understanding of the rules. She has referred me to a national office person to obtain written interpretations, and I am attempting to provide that person with a detailed specific situation and related questions which may generate the specific information we need to take to FDCC.

I also had a conversation with Bob in logging. I shared with him a specific reference which was posted in the beginning of this thread, and he indicated that he had not seen that one before (49 CFR 395.8, Question 26) and that he would take it up the ladder.

The most important thing I got from Bob, though, is that the issue seems to boil down to one of "paper trail." They are concerned about liability if the EOBR indicates you were driving the truck prior to beginning a 14-hour clock. I compared it to driving my personal vehicle for hours before getting in the truck and the response was that since there was no paper trail it wasn't an issue.

If I can get something in writing from FMCSA I will post relevant information here.

**ATeam** · 03-10-2010, 07:48 PM

Well, at least there is a sign someone is listening and he admits to not knowing the whole story. That 0.7 rule is looking more and more arbitrary all the time, and unecessary. As our carrier office people get more educated about the rules the paper trail issue should go away.

As I read the rules, we could be waiting for freight all weekend long and drive our trucks to ten different places over a hundred miles total and log all of that driving off duty if the vehicle was being used as a personal conveyance. The rules seem to provide a great deal more latitude in this that our carrier as so far acknowledged.

Here's hoping that as our carrier gets familiar with the legal latitude the law provides, concerns about a paper trail will go away. Its not that the off-duty, personal conveyance driving will be hidden. It won't. It will be fully documented and it will be fully legal. Since it is legal, the liability concerns should also fade.

Good job, drivers, in researching the rules and bringing them to our attention here and to our carrier's attention. Because of your efforts, a ray of hope is shining where it did not shine before!

**layoutshooter** · 03-10-2010, 08:14 PM

This is business, it is our responsiblity to look our for ourselves. It helps when we look out for each other.

**BigRed32771** · 03-12-2010, 04:40 PM

Ok, I had a conversation with Tom Yager, Division Chief of the Driver and Carrier Operations Division in DC. I have supplied him with a written situation description and specific questions and requested clarification and guidance on this issue. He indicated it would be a week or so to get a reply, and when I get it I'll post the relevant portions here, as well as taking them to FDCC.

I got 2 things generally from him in our conversations. Regarding the point about having met sleep requirements, he indicated that they would probably not put that into writing because there is no way to verify what someone has done in their off-duty or sleeper berth time. I took it from this comment that for the purposes of FMCSA, off-duty is off-duty. This would, in fact, be consistent with the guidance we have already seen regarding being allowed to drive "off-duty" too and from a terminal before and after a work day and not including it as part of the duty time.

The other thing he said which caught my attention is that technically there are no such things as EOBR's, because the agency has not issued rules regarding them yet. What we will have is an electronic logging software which is outside the scope of current regs. He indicated that he expected that when rules regarding EOBR's are finally issued, there will be something in them to cover a "driving off-duty" status. I compared it to a "5th line" on the log and, subject to the observation that the grid we use for logging will not necessarily be a part of the electronic logging when the time comes, he agreed that the comparison is a reasonable analogy.

Final comment at this time is that Mr. Yager thought that their guidance would probably turn on the point we've already seen, i.e. 49 CFR 395.8, Question 26, which is cited in the opening message of this thread.

Further as this story continues to develop.

**ATeam** · 03-12-2010, 06:44 PM

Thank you, Doug. I appreciate the good work you are doing. I'm sure others do too.

**layoutshooter** · 03-12-2010, 06:49 PM

Count me in on that Phil, it is a great help to all of us.

**Special K** · 03-13-2010, 10:13 PM

Since I was the one who quoted the .7 mi limit initially, I thought I'd add this. About 10 days ago, Doc and I had breakfast with Terry O'Connell in St. Louis. When I mentioned the .7 mi., he said that the system has a variable range, he thought it was .7 to 3 miles, and that FedEx had just chosen the .7 as a more or less arbitrary number. So it's not cast in stone, as it seemed to be during the conference call.

**BigRed32771** · 03-14-2010, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Special K

Since I was the one who quoted the .7 mi limit initially, I thought I'd add this. About 10 days ago, Doc and I had breakfast with Terry O'Connell in St. Louis. When I mentioned the .7 mi., he said that the system has a variable range, he thought it was .7 to 3 miles, and that FedEx had just chosen the .7 as a more or less arbitrary number. So it's not cast in stone, as it seemed to be during the conference call.

From info we've seen here and that I've been given in conversations with FMCSA reps, it's clear that ANY mileage limit for "off-duty personal use" is an arbitrary number. FMCSA has no requirement or limitation at all for this situation.