EOBR Electronic Logs - Good or Bad

Not quite...

So, the FMCSA states that DRIVING TIME only applies when the CMV is in "operation" and we know that they mean that to include being stopped in traffic, but not when at the driving controls if operating equipment and not driving.

Therefore, it is untrue that all time at the driving controls is to be considered DRIVING TIME.

Now, normally I would just stop there and say that if I were parked and had changed my duty status to SLEEPER BERTH, then I would not be in fear of receiving a citation from any enforcement officer who happened to witness me occupying either of the driver or passenger seats... so long as I wasn't doing any paperwork or other work-related activities that could be construed to mean I was ON-DUTY. I am only guessing because it has never happened to me, but I think this is where drivers have been nailed for a violation when sitting in the driver's seat (if it has actually happened)... they are logged either OFF-DUTY or SLEEPER BERTH but are actually doing something work-related, like their logs (for an extended period) or trip planning, etc.

But, I'm not done.

Is it reasonable to consider that if a driver is seated at the driving controls and is neither DRIVING nor ON-DUTY, then can he be considered to be in a SLEEPER BERTH if that part of the truck can be considered to qualify per § 393.76 Sleeper berths?

Part 393.76 tells us many things about what a SLEEPER BERTH is, but it does not tell us what a SLEEPER BERTH isn't. It gives us minimum measurements, but not maximums. It tells us what it must include insofar as equipment, access, ventilation, occupant restraint and so on, but nowhere does it say that it cannot include the driver's compartment nor either of the driver or passenger seats. In fact, there are a couple of clues that could lead us to believe otherwise.

(emphasis is mine)

The key phrases reference being "within" the driver's compartment/cab, but the FMCSA does not give any reference as to whether any part of the driver's compartment can, or can not, be considered part of the sleeper berth. I searched the FMCSA regulations but cannot find anything that suggests the sleeper berth cannot include any portion of the cab. In fact, the only thing I did find was in regard to radar detectors (§ 390.5 Definitions Radar detector (2)) which included the phrase, "For this purpose, the driver's compartment of a passenger-carrying CMV shall include all space designed to accommodate both the driver and the passengers." The key part of the phrase being the words "all space."

The only remotely related thing turned up by a quick Google search is contained in an FMCSA Overview (pg. 51), which includes the phrase "...the driver's compartment (including a sleeper berth)...", which seems to indicate they should be considered as one-and-the-same.

When the regulations were written and last amended (39 FR 14711, Apr. 26, 1974; 39 FR 17233, May 14, 1974, as amended at 53 FR 49401, Dec. 7, 1988 ), the current specification of SLEEPER BERTH such as the condo sleepers which incorporate virtually the entire cab, were not in vogue. I would say that the regulations have been exceeded by equipment that is in common use and accepted by the various regulators and enforcement to include the driver's compartment, even if tacitly, at least when stopped.

The proposed changes to the HOS both confirm this and even extend it.

 

No, the regulations do not state that.

 

After reading Part 395, including "Appendix A to Part 395—Electronic On-Board Recorder Performance Specifications", I can't find anything that exempts EOBR-equipped trucks from the same regulations as non-EOBR trucks. Therefore the regulations as quoted in the previous few posts would still be applicable and all the time spent at the driving controls of a truck, while in traffic, should be recorded as DRIVING TIME.

This is another area where enforcement seems to be lagging behind the technology, but I would expect that to change in the future... with violations and citations to follow.

 

I suppose your comments would be correct. I guess there are bigger fish to fry right now than worrying if time in a drivers seat stopped in traffic is recorded on the correct line. But then I think enforcement on this technicality is spotty at best. In 30 years, I have never heard of an enforcement action as to whether time in a traffic jam was recorded on line 3 or 4. Even the few years back in the mid 90's when I was indirectly associated with the safety department at CFI (now Conway Truckload).

The net result is the same anyway.... total time available for a 70/8 day would be reduced irregardless of whether line 3 or 4. And since that is in the spirit of intent of the regs, it really would not be worth the time and cost of discovery to substantiate an enforcement action. Just a matter of priorities.

With that in mind, I will not lose sleep over a strict and literal adherence to this technicality.

 

In the past it would have been much more difficult to enforce due to the lack of proof of exactly what was occurring. A driver could have also just as easily logged a stop at the TS/rest area just before that and waited it out in their sleeper. Without actually being observed, it would be tough to prove otherwise. With the advent of GPS and cell-based tracking systems and EOBRs, that challenge has all but disappeared. Time, location and activity can now be neatly recorded and verified for easy retrieval.

You are correct that, insofar as being stuck in traffic, the time eroded makes no change in the 70/8, however it could have a significant impact on the 11 (ADVERSE DRIVING CONDITIONS or EMERGENCY CONDITIONS exceptions notwithstanding).

I also agree that this kind of "violation" seems innocuous and insignificant and hardly worth any investigation... until enforcement realizes the true $cope of fine$ available and the ease with which they can be enforced due to the electronic tattle-tales. I'm not talking solely about this type of violation, but about the sum total of violations that will be neatly presented any time there is a (primarily carrier) inspection/audit. I think a lot of the "small" violations can be, and have been, overlooked because they are difficult to prove and don't provide the kind of "yield" that the bigger ones do. So when the larger violations become more scarce due to easier, more accurate, compliance on the part of companies, then enforcement is just going to give other areas more scrutiny.

I also wouldn't lose any sleep over this because it is really a carrier issue as they are the ones responsible for ensuring their EOBRs are recording properly... unless the driver is manually switching an otherwise correctly configured EOBR into the wrong category in an attempt to save a few minutes.

 

And in Minnesota, they will require a sleeping log to very whether fatigued or not.

 

Yes, but Minnesota will be instituting a level 4 inspection in order to pull the records from the machine. They will have a requirement of at least 8 hours in the sleeper on the machine and any less will be a violation.

Any false mark or not clear line drawn by the machine will be treated as a false log entry and they will go for a fine of 2750.00.

This will balance the budget.

 

Probably not that far fetched. But until the FMCSA actually mandates sleep while in the sleeper, that will be an easy fine to get rid of with your attorney just making a quick phone call, since the only mandate is to be in the sleeper when logging sleeper. Though it will probably come in the future, there is no mandate for actual sleep.

 

been on e-logs 5 weeks,runnin 3-3300 miles a week and more rest than i have ever had in 20 years of trucking,RR