LogBook

Overdrive Staff | March 20, 2012

Agency focuses on driver harassment

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Feb. 10 announced its intent to move forward with its rulemaking about electronic onboard recorders and hours-of-service supporting documents by preparing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

An FMCSA safety panel made recommendations that would focus on protecting drivers from harassment when using an electronic onboard recorder.

FMCSA also announced via the Federal Register steps to augment efforts to obtain comprehensive data to support this SNPRM, including:

* Listening sessions on the issue of driver harassment;

* Conducting research by surveying drivers, carriers and vendors regarding harassment issues;

* Tasking the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee to assist in developing material to support the rulemaking, including technical specifications for EOBRs and their potential to be used to harass drivers.

Feb. 8, during a four-day meeting, MCSAC finalized a report on mitigating the use of EOBRs to harass drivers that provides suggestions to FMCSA. The document contained information MCSAC suggested the agency should explore in any rulemaking on EOBRs for hours compliance.

Following the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision last August that vacated the 2010 limited mandate for EOBRs for certain noncompliant carriers, the harassment issue may be the key consideration for the agency. The agency has expressed intent to devise a rule that mandates some version of electronic logging devices for virtually all trucks in interstate commerce.

Harassment issues relating to electronic logs cover driver relationships with law enforcement personnel and with carriers, tilting heavily toward carriers and favoring drivers’ positions in certain instances. MCSAC’s report noted, for instance, that “drivers should be able to save records of carrier contact with drivers.”

The committee spelled out the need for any EOBR regulation to avoid giving carriers what could be considered a harassment-enabling tool. “You cannot regulate bad management practices,” the report says. “You cannot prevent a carrier from pressuring a driver to do his/her job in a potentially unsafe way, yet that is the situation you want to avoid.”

The report suggests the agency “consider civil penalty sanctions as deterrents for harassment” and/or “seek out current regulations that appropriately address” any driver complaint that is made. Also suggested was FMCSA-led training for driver supervisors and law enforcement regarding what could constitute harassment.

Debate about limiting real-time, two-way communication with the devices ended with the committee in part divided on the subject of whether such fleet management tools should be required to be included in new standards for the devices. Both the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and Teamsters Union representatives on the committee, in addition to others, opposed requiring such tools to be a part of any electronic logging system.

“The fleet management system that could be incorporated into the [electronic logging device] could open the door to harassment,” a note in the report says.

Stephen Owings of Road Safe America, a safety advocacy group, proposed an item for inclusion that pointed out “benefits of EOBRs” to drivers relative to harassment by carriers. With EOBRs in use, the report stated, “Carriers are less likely to pressure drivers to drive beyond their maximum hours.”

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer disputed Owings and anyone else “who thinks that EOBR data can’t be and isn’t changed in back rooms and in the systems that collect the data,” he said. “It does happen, and I think it probably will always happen.”

More About:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • E. F. McHenry

    The proposed EOBR rule is a absolute SCAM! To say they make drivers compliant is a bold face LIE. The HOS rules will always rely on the integrity of the driver and thus are unenforceable as of current date. Period. So long as a driver is free to imput false values for line 1 2 and line 4 of a EOBR, line 3 can never be known for certain to be accurate. This is because line 3 requires the other lines of a EOBR log to be accurate. For example take line 4 if a driver falsifies line 4 by show off-duty when the driver should really be on-duty not driving, the driver has just helped himself to hours to be spent in line 3 that he or she would not have been eligible to have for driving if he or she had been honest and rightfully spend hrs in line 4. Remember line 3 and line 4 both draw hrs from the original 70. I’m sorry but Big Business is trying to pull off one of the biggest public relation scams in the history of trucking!!!!!

  • Daryl Wirth

    I enjoy my e log

OverdriveOnline.com strives to maintain an open forum for reader opinions. Click here to read our comment policy.