Profile:

frns

…Sounds like a great system for lawbreakers, but I do not agree that this seemingly intrusive tactic should be implemented or forced upon others, especially those law abiding small business motor carriers that already have a thin profit margin in these tough economic times.
Apparently there were “many people and groups who commented on that regulation [that] wanted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to require EOBRs more broadly.” Who are these people and groups and why do they think this is a good idea? What is their “interest” in passing this intrusive and expensive rule? Would it also make sense to put ankle bracelets on law abiding citizens to make sure they continue to be law abiding citizens? Of course not, so why is this viewed as a good idea? Who stands to gain from it? Not the law abiding motor carrier who would be required to buy equipment and pay monthly monitoring fees in their already shrinking budget if this rule passes. Compare the cost of this monitoring system with the cost of $0.99 cent drivers log books and explain how this new expensive system will benefit the small business’s bottom line. The obvious answer is that it will only hurt small business, not help it.
Of course, the proponents of the new rule will say that it is a “safety issue,” and that this will reduce the occurrence of fatigued drivers and motor vehicle accidents. The DOT admits in Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 64, that, “the Agency is not aware of any published information that demonstrates that the specific mandate imposed … has contributed to any discernible benefits in safety.” The DOT already has so many rules for motor carriers on the books, everything from drug and alcohol testing, to log book inspections, to weigh station inspections, and the like. Yet, with all of this monitoring and inspection there are those carriers that still push the limits, break the law, falsify the books, etc. A lawbreaker will likely find a way around this rule, and the law abiding drivers will continue to obey the law, but now will do so at an added cost.
Add another layer of costly and intrusive oversight and it will result in putting some carriers out of business and longer lines at the unemployment office. However, I’m sure the Government would gain employees as the new rule needs to be implemented and monitored by someone, costing the taxpayer more money to support another Government rule or program.
Let’s not forget who gets hurt every time another new rule is impressed upon a company. Impose a new expensive rule on motor carriers and they are forced to pass the added cost on to the consumer. In a time when the economy is weak, the last thing we need is another cost added because some person or group thought it would be a good idea for CMV companies to be monitored electronically. In the case of my company, the costs associated with this new rule will be added to the already high cost of health care. My company provides a medical service to rural hospitals. We transport our service via commercial vehicles subject to this new rule. Therefore, the added cost would eventually be passed on to the healthcare system that we bill for our services rendered.
How about fuel transport, or produce, or household goods, or manufacture industry goods? All of these industries and others that depend on commercial transport would likely need to increase the cost to the end user to cover for the added expense imposed by this punishing rule. The result: higher health care costs, higher fuel costs, higher grocery bills, higher materials cost, and the list could go on, all because some person or group thought it would be a good idea to make everyone abide by a rule that was initially limited to be imposed upon lawbreaker CMV drivers and companies.
According to the Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64, (49 CFR Parts 350, 385, 395, et al. Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours of Service Compliance; Final Rule) which states, “before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their costs and benefits.” They went on to say, “The Agency has taken these statutory requirements into account throughout the final rule.” Yet, by their own admission, they state within the same rule, “For a number of reasons, including lack of adequate cost and benefit data, FMCSA decided not to adopt EOBR regulations in 2003.” In a foot note, they state, “Estimates of benefits and costs that will be developed for future HOS-related rulemaking actions will use more recent baseline data..” To my understanding, the DOT did not provide an adequate cost and benefit analysis due to a “lack of adequate cost and benefit data,” yet they are still pursuing an industry wide implementation of this new rule without conducting a cost and benefit analysis based from recent data as they stated they would. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance noted within the same referenced Federal Register that “government resources needed to monitor carriers subject to mandatory EOBR use will be substantial, and the benefits will not outweigh the costs.” “FMCSA has determined this rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more, and is, therefore, an economically significant regulatory action.”

So, in a time when Government spending is out of control, the deficit is through the roof, the economy is in poor shape, unemployment is up, fuel costs are up, and the value of the Dollar is down, this Agency thinks imposing this rule is a good idea despite the dismal facts stated within the current rule.
In my humble opinion it is a very bad idea to pass this proposed rule.
« less