Profile: patrick
This is patrick's Profile page. Use it to view patrick's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments patrick has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
Sorry my comment was posted before I edited and comlpeted it. From the end:
What if a carrier has to do RODS for 5 days in one week and never at any other time of the year. I would suggest that the EOBR rule applying to short haul carriers needs to be based on number of miles driven per year per power unit or total number of days per year requireing RODS or Number of miles per year requireing RODS. This metric could be based on information provided in an MCS-150 and than the CSA data could state weather a carrier has to be compliant with EOBRs.
Jmorris is another commenter on this post who worries about exempting short haul drivers at all. He feels that exempting these drivers would give current long hail carriers a loophole for avoiding the requirement. You can read his full comment here here. Do you think this could be a real concern? Is there a way to avoid having a rule that isn’t just one size fits all, but also doesn’t create a loophole like this?
No comments
I harvest grain from Texas to Montana. Most of my trucking is on rural roads and exempt from HOS rules under 395.1k. However there are between 10 and 15 days a year where I operate under RODS. Requiring EOBRs for carriers that infrequently have to log hours will be a substantial addition burden in both cost and complexity of use than what over the road carriers will face under this rule. When I am moveing under RODS there is very low probability of violating HOS. I am moving in convoy with up to 10 units and pulling oversized loads which can only move in daylight hours. All of my RODS trips except one is less then 440 miles. The EBORs rule is a one size fits all rule. Motor carriers are not all over the road haulers carrying freight everyday across the country. There are a lot of utility… more »
I beleive that EOBRs should only be required as a penalty for carriers that are shown to be habitual offenders of HOS under CSA compliance reviews. The penalty of having to purchase and operate EOBRs is enough of an incentive to stay in compliance with HOS. If carriers decide that there is an economc advantage to useing EOBRs then they should be able to do so as under current rules. This will mostly be large carriers where electronic data is more effective for keeping track of thier HOS compliance. If EBORs are mandated there needs to be a clear line of who has to use them and how does not. This line has to be extremely clear to enforcment so there is no roadside misintrerpratation of who has to comply. The idea of any carrier that has to do RODS more than 2 days a week must use EOBRs is to vague. Is that in just one week a year or all 52 weeks? What if a carrier has to do RODS for 5 da « less
Sorry my comment was posted before I edited and comlpeted it. From the end:
What if a carrier has to do RODS for 5 days in one week and never at any other time of the year. I would suggest that the EOBR rule applying to short haul carriers needs to be based on number of miles driven per year per power unit or total number of days per year requireing RODS or Number of miles per year requireing RODS. This metric could be based on information provided in an MCS-150 and than the CSA data could state weather a carrier has to be compliant with EOBRs.
For my company the cost of useing EOBRs will be extremely burdensome. I am a Custom Harvester with 10 units that fall under RODS requirements for less than 15 days a year. The rest of the year they are either not in use or do not have a GVWR requireing RODS or are operating from exemption of HOS under 395.1k. So requireing EOBRs on these units for 15 days a year of use under FMCSA estimate costs $785 per year would be $52 a day. This is a substantial cost over a paper log sheet costing cents a day. With the 10 units it will cost me $520 dollars a day to move. All but 2 days a year I have to use RODS I average less than 350 miles a day. So while moving my 10 units in convoy the use of EOBRs is going to cust me $1 to $1.52 a mile. To any reasonable person this is a highly burdensome cost.
As… more »
The reduced overhead and administrative costs for EOBRs is moot when compairing a small number of unit used relatively few time a year. My employees are on salery so time for compleating RODS is not direct cost. The clerical time for submiting paper logs will be faster and cheeper than electronic logs when done in small quantities. The cost of storing electronic data could be substancially higher when considering the computers needed to collect and store the data collected from EOBRs. What about data backup, computer data does fail and small business do not generally have the best bomb proof data backup systems. Yes paper logs can be destroid in fire and floods but how often does that happen compared to computer failure. Do you get a large fine because your logs are gone due to a loss of data to electronic failure either in the EOBR, data loging, or data storage?
I dont think the cost of maintaining EOBRs has been fully thought out by FMCSA. I think it has been fully thought out by the EOBR manufactures and they see $$$. 2 million power units required to buy these systems are going to be paying $40 a month for subsription costs, that’s $80 million a MONTH! Everyone knows the best businesses to be in are subsciption based sales were the customer has to keep paying. All the better that the customer has to pay you by force of law. I’m in the wrong business. Even by FMCSA estimates of .3% to.5% of cost to trucking revinue that’s $1 billion to 1.7 billion a year. That might be chump change to the federal government but it is not to private industry. All this expense is because the government does not trust motor carriers to be truthfull with their HOS compliance. All of this cost does not even guarantee a reduction of fatigue related accidents. It just stiffens the reporting requirements of HOS. Most motor carrier’s fatigue related accidents occure with no HOS violations. « less
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… more »
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. « less
There is no definitive method of determining who is a long haul or short haul carrier. Any method used will cause carriers to get on the non EOBR required side. Some might consider this a loophole but it is not. If a carrier does what meets the definition of a short haul carrier than they are a short haul carrier. If the EOBR rule is then moved over to short haul carriers the cost of compliance figures are greatly under estimated. Instead of 2 million power units required to use EOBR over 10 million units will be required. At FMCSA’s estimated cost of $785 per unit a year that is almost $8 billion a year. The majorities of these short haul units are used very few miles a year and are not at risk of HOS violations. It is clear that this rule is made to enrich an industry that is lobbying… more »