Agency Proposal
What about supporting documents?
Clearer rules. FMCSA is also proposing to clarify what supporting documents drivers and carriers must have to confirm the accuracy of duty logs. In general, supporting documents are needed for each change in duty status recorded in the duty log—although EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) users would get a break, as described in the next section.
The proposal identifies 4 types of supporting documents:
- payroll
- trip-related expense records and receipts
- fleet management system communication logs
- bills of lading or equivalent documents
4 essential pieces of information must be provided for each element of the driver’s duty status history:
- The driver’s name, personal identification number, or another identifying number issued to the driver. Vehicle number can be used if it can be tied to the driver operating the vehicle at the specific date, time, and location
- The date
- The time
- The location described with enough information to let enforcement personnel quickly locate the vehicle on a map or atlas.
If a single document can provide all 4 pieces of information for a particular duty period, only that document must be maintained. If not, then the driver/carrier must keep a combination of documents. The current rule that documents must be kept for 6 months (§ 395(8)(k)) would stay the same.
There’s been a lot of confusion and controversy about the kind and number of supporting documents that must be kept. If you think FMCSA’s proposal resolves the questions, say so. If not, why not? What should FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) do instead?
Learn more about Supporting Documents.
Read what FMCSA said.
Read the text of the proposed rule.
Fewer documents for EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) users. Because EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) that comply with FMCSA requirements will maintain and make available information about driving time, EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) users will need supporting documents only for on duty non-driving or off duty status—specifically,
“[f]or any non-driving period after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty, with the exception of any sleeper berth period of at least 2 hours but less than 10 consecutive hours pursuant to § 395.1(g)(1)(ii)(A)(2) and any off-duty period of at least 2 hours but less than 8 consecutive hours pursuant to § 395.1(g)(3).”
FMCSA believes that this reduced recordkeeping burden will be a significant incentive for switching to EOBRs. If you have experience with EOBRs, AOBRDs, or fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management systems that would be relevant to this, please share it.
Learn more about EOBRs, AOBRDs automatic onboard recording devices: earlier recorders w/o GPS capability and fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management systems.
Read what FMCSA said.
Read the text of proposed § 395.11(e).
HOS Management System. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act (HMTAA) requires FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to amend the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) regulations “to improve compliance by commercial motor vehicle Any vehicle owned or used by a business drivers and motor carriers with hours of service Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive requirements.” Congress focused particularly on the role of supporting documents. So, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is proposing to require all carriers subject to HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) requirements to create and maintain an “hours of service management system.” This is defined as:
“the controls, policies, programs, practices, and procedures used by a motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees systematically and effectively to monitor drivers’ compliance with hours of service Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive requirements and to verify the accuracy of the information contained in drivers’ records of duty status. The management system must include, at a minimum, the use of documents, records, and information generated or received by the motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees in the normal course of business. These documents and records, and this information must include, but are not limited to, driver payroll records, trip-related expense reports and receipts, bills of lading or equivalent documents, and fleet A group of motor vehicles owned or leased by businesses or government agencies management system communication records (any record of communication between a motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees and a driver in the normal course of business).”
FMCSA is not proposing any specific form or components for these systems (beyond the supporting document rules themselves). But whatever system the carrier creates must be “capable of preventing and detection violations of [the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) rules] by each of its drivers.” And failure to adopt and properly administer such a system would be added to the list of “acute and critical citations” in the Safety Fitness Procedures. (See How would Penalties/Enforcement Change?) Is this enough guidance for carriers? What more, if anything, should FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) add?
Read what FMCSA said.
Read the text of the proposed rule.
Time for submitting duty records. Drivers currently have 13 days to file their RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) with the carrier. (§ 395.8(i)). FMCSA proposes to shorten this time considerably:
“The driver must submit or forward by mail the driver’s supporting documents and the original record of duty status to the regular employing motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees within 3 days of the 24 hour period to which the receipt pertains, or the day the document comes into the driver’s or motor carrier’s possession, whichever is later. If a supporting document is submitted electronically, the driver shall submit the supporting document within 24 hours.”
FMCSA believes this change is justified by the widespread use of electronic documents and document scanning systems.
Is this a manageable requirement for drivers? The HMTAA requires FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to make changes that improve both HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance by drivers and carriers, and the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement officials. Should FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) consider an alternative time period, that would get HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance documents together more quickly without an unreasonable burden on drivers?
Read what FMCSA said.
Read the text of proposed § 395.11(h) .
Certification and self-compliance systems. FMCSA proposes to adopt the definition of supporting documents used in the HMTAA:
“a supporting document is any document that is generated or received by a motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees or commercial motor vehicle Any vehicle owned or used by a business driver in the normal course of business that could be used, as produced or with additional identifying information, to verify the accuracy of a driver’s record of duty status.”
What if a carrier does not normally maintain documents sufficient to satisfy the proposed requirements? FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) is not proposing to require carriers to create new documents outside the normal course of their business. Therefore, it proposes a certification procedure:
“If a motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees does not receive or retain any supporting documents from the classes of documents listed [above], then the motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees must certify that it does not or did not receive these documents. If a motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees is found to have falsely certified to not having supporting documents, it would be subject to a civil penalty for falsification.”
FMCSA insists that this is not “loophole” in the new stronger HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance plan. There would be substantial penalties for a carrier who makes a false certification. See How would penalties/enforcement change?
Read what FMCSA said.
Read the text of proposed §395.11(f).
Finally, the HMTAA requires FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) to “authorize, on a case-by-case basis, motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees self-compliance systems that ensure driver compliance with hours of service.” FMCSA proposes to handle this under its normal exemptions procedures. The application must explain how the motor carrier’s system would achieve at least the same level of safety as the carrier could if it followed the supporting documents requirement. If you have experience with or information about self-compliances system now in use, or being developed, FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) wants to hear it.
Read what FMCSA said.
Read the text of proposed §395.11(i)
For more information on hours of service, EOBRs, and CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers generally, visit the Background page.
I understand that EOBR users would not have to keep supporting documents for driving time but if you have to keep documents for on-duty non-driving and off duty status, won’t these be a lot of the same receipts, etc. that you supposedly don’t have to keep anymore?
yeah, don’t really see how we’d have *fewer* documents. and, how’s this a *big* advantage compared to how much it’ll cost?
Thanks for your comment. As to your and gadfly12′s concern about the actual number of documents that you still need to keep, the new EOBR requirement will ease the burden for documents by eliminating the need for paper RODs, but not for other supporting documents. According to the FMCSA:
“Although the “foundation” RODS Record of duty status burden would drop dramatically, primarily due to the elimination of paper RODS, the overall supporting documents burden would not be reduced.”
Hope this clears things up. Do you think that this requirement would still be of benefit for reduced record keeping, even with the supporting documents requirement?
Are there exceptions to the 24 hour rule or wiggle room? Seems kinda insane compared to the 13 days we used to have. Actually gives me an incentive not to get my supporting doc in electronically. How’s that for efficiency? Why not 48 hours or something instead?
Thank you for your comment Merc. Is there a reason why you believe 24 hours is not enough time when the documents are all electronic as opposed to hard copy? You suggest 48 hours, is there any particular reason you believe it should be extended to this particular point?
Chronic HOS violations are almost always instigated from the corporate office and dispatch/operations personnel. Penalizing the repeat offenders is a good common-sense policy. However, requiring ALL carriers to install EOBR devices is costly and unnecessary. The cost/benefit statements are overstated, and obviously favor the sellers/administrators of the technology. The current system , with appropriate enforcement, works very well for the majority of carriers who believe in observing the law. Want a good idea that would generate revenue and enhance enforcement? Wipe out the so-called “OWNER OPERATOR” , or “LEASE OPERATOR” who is a de-facto employee,and make the “LESSEES” pay their fair share of employment taxes, and insurances. Re-regulate the brokers and freight forwarders. There are billions of dollars in potential tax revenues each year that are not being paid as a result of the aforementioned dodgers-most of whom do very little work and have very little risk in return for a handsome profit margin. A small portion of that money would go a long way towards corralling scofflaw carriers, with more attendant benefits for the country as a whole than the proposed EOBR rule.
Could you elaborate on your view that EOBR requirements are overly costly and skewed toward the tech providers? You should head over to the What will this cost? post and let others know what you think.
Also, you may interested in the DOT’s proposed rule specifically dealing with HOS policies:
http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2004-19608-4095
EOBR are costly in the sense that they offer no ROI for the operator. While they may reduce some of the administrative cost(s) for a large operation, they will only create an unnecessary layer of responsibility for the small operator; one that is already being adequately filled via log books and proper enforcement procedures. Tech providers and support personnel will be the true beneficiaries of an EOBR mandate, just like the input producers and retailers have been the true beneficiaries of the restrictions placed on the word ORGANIC by the USDA and Big Agri-Business – NOT THE FARMER. Reading your replies makes me wish that I could give you an in-depth, guided tour of this business that brings you your life each day. You would be surprised at how honest and efficient most people are in the face of nearly overwhelming odds, and how completely unnecessary the deployment of EOBR technology is for all but the most habitual offenders of the HOS rules. I refer you to my initial comment.
While I could not agree more that “clearer rules” are very much needed. I do not agree with this EOBR rule.
FMCSA, NTSB, NHTSA, and DOT all have said that adding this pricey mechanical device will make the roads safer. How?
This device will only know what information the driver puts into it. It will not record automatically – it still requires the driver to manually put in information.
How is this different from paper logs?
According to grldbarnes, a driver who says he uses an EOBR for work, says that his EOBR “is set so once you start your day any time you shut off the truck you go on duty, and once the truck starts moving again you go back to driving. You do have to manuelly change to off duty but that is no big deal.” You can read his full comment here.
What do you think about his take on how EOBRs work?
Moderator: So, the EOBR does work automatic, it still does not change my view about the whole EOBR deal. Besides, I did not see anything in the comment about how it has made his driving any safer.
My primary concern is FMCSA falsifying its own information to make it seem that new regulations and such are needed. Plus, adding yet another COST to the trucking company or owner operator – without a positive reasoning.
FMCSA has said that only 1.4% of the trucking accidents were fatigue related in 2009.
So why are EOBRs needed? Seems like a complete waste of time and money, at a time that money is tight for everyone. And with the announcement of another Cross-border trucking program, money will be even tighter.
By the way – FMCSA announced they where going to pay (Actually tax payers will be paying) for the EOBRs for the Mexican trucks. Is FMCSA prepared to pay for the EOBRs for US trucks?
Thanks for your comment, truckdrivernews. Check out FMCSA’s analysis of EOBR Device Costs to see what the agency thinks and whether you agree. You can also comment on what you think EOBRs will cost your business specifically here. Your comment will be most helpful if you draw on personal experiences or specific data.
The fatigue-related accident rate you mentioned came from slide #21 of a webinar by Ralph Craft of FMCSA. Here is what he has to say: “The NHTSA Driver Related Crash Factors are those coded by police at the at the crash scene. Everybody agrees that this number is severely under reported by law enforcement officers. FMCSA believes the real number for fatigue in large truck crashes is in the range of 10-15%. Industry groups claim the number is lower, and safety advocates believe it is higher.”
What do you think? You can read FCMSA’s analysis of fatigue-related crashes in detail
here.
Moderator, the keyword I am focused on is “believes” I can do the same thing. I “believe” that the number is lower than 10-15% – so who is right?
At any cost to the driver – without any “real hard evidence – is uncalled for. This is the whole entire problem with the FMCSA, DOT, NTSB, etc. they all believe that by adding another regulation on top of regulations – and making drivers buy these “magical EOBRs” that all will be safer on the already safe interstates and highways.
Adding EOBRs will do nothing but add expenses to under paid truck drivers and companies.
Drivers are not robots that you can program to sleep or get up when FMCSA says so. Here in the US we have advanced a little in technology but “Technology Can’t Detect a Tired Trucker”
Ok Mr moderator lets go to the world of if. In 2009 there were approximately 3300 lives lost related to CMV. Now lets assume that a lot of what I have read is right that 80% of all cmv accidents are caused by the passenger vehicle., so that makes at fault deaths at approximately 264 deaths tied to at fault with trucks. So now The FMCSA says the fatigue rate is 15% in which I do feel is BS however lets go with it that makes somewhere in the area of 40 deaths because of fatigue driving. Now I do under stand that 1 life is to many. But the FMCSA is more about ending a truckers freedoms then they are about safety.
When we go to the EOBR, will we as drivers need to carry travelling papers to be legal the way a communist country If this wasn’t so serious it would be funny. How anybody can put a computer in your truck to make sure that one is doing what the government says is legal. And this is not a violation of the fourth amendment. Then those amendments only mean what the government says as long as it support them. SO drivers make sure you have your travel papers handy, who’s next the family going on vacation. Freedom in the united states is slowly disappearing, people had better look around it’s not only trucking that is being controlled by government.
You ask how I feel that the EOBR will make the roads safer? They won’t, at best the accident rates will stay the same. A driver is going to be giving an ETA to the receiver that is going to be mathematically possible time wise with out much extra to spare, forcing a driver to be more aggressive in order to even have a chance of making it, and will constantly be detracted by stressing over time. The FMCSA are discussing making it illegal to handle a cell phone in a truck calling it a distraction. Now they are going to force another piece of electronics in your cab in stead. Also what is going to happen when a driver can not find a parking spot after searching for an hour for a spot and his eobr says you are now driving in violation what are you going todo park on a get on ramp and get a ticket. Safer we will see but I think it is away for somebody else to get in a truckers pocket.
Private carriers like myself do not generate as many supporting documents as are required. My trucks transport my own equipment from farm to farm in the western US and rarely see urban areas or interstate coridors where more suporting documents can be generated. Most feuling is done a day or more in advance to a RODS trip and the trip is compleated before feuling is required again. We rarely stop at truck stops since they are not tipically on our routes. Most purchase receipts , port of entry permits, and scale tickets are only date stamped not time stamped. We travel in convoy so all expense receipts are recorded as one receipt for 10 drivers. What advantage we do have is the management responsible for the collection of documents and a compliance review is also travelling with all the drivers using RODS. So lack of mangement control of drivers HOS violations is imposible since our management is traveling with our drivers and in control of generating suporting documents. Most of these documents are for other operations in a business so copies will have to be made to keep them in a seperate file to be sure they are avalible for a compliance review. This substancially increses the size and cost of the file required for HOS duty records. I do not think the additional costs of maintaining these records have been considerd.
In general the type and specificity of the suporting documents required are imposible to ubtain and out of the drivers power to require the details be provided. Once again this regulation assumes that the driver and motor carrier is guilty of HOS violations unless they prove without a resonable doubt they are innocent.