E-Logs - the good, the bad & the ugly

HOS regulations exist. EOBR regulations do not. I have read all the white papers, EOBRs are in a bunch of trucks already, because they are guessing at what the regulations will look like. As an example, there is no regulation whether or not the EOBR needs to be tied into the vehicle's engine, or if GPS is good enough. There is also no spec on what should be displayed, and how copies should be provided (i.e. whether or not a printer should be on board).

Thanks for your help!

 

The EOBR's are in some trucks because the carrier got burned in an audit because the people in the safety department aren't smart enough to catch log falsifications by crusty drivers .

 

Lmao..ROFF..I LOVE THIS GUY...OMG PEE'D pants!

 

I made a little mistake, but overall here is what your missing.

That's a given, but...

Then what is 49 CFR 395.15?

This is where my mistake is, it is not 395.14 but 395.15 - AUTOMATIC ON-BOARD RECORDING DEVICES

Here is 395.15 (a) Authority to use automatic on-board recording device.

(1) A motor carrier may require a driver to use an automatic on-board recording device to record the driver's hours of service in lieu of complying with the requirements of §395.8 of this part.

(2) Every driver required by a motor carrier to use an automatic on-board recording device shall use such device to record the driver's hours of service.

Good for you, I have too.

I've got a few here, but the first one I got from Qualcomm states pretty much what I said, the regulation for the EOBRs are in 395.15 and it goes into detail about each part and what it means, you may see on page 14 the outline of the regulation and the history of it.

Sorry you don't seem to get something, there is no guessing. This is a regulated industry which is regulated on three levels of government, the two lower levels agreed to abide by the Federal Standard to operate and enforce their laws - state and local - and with HOS being a key target for safety, there is no guessing or gray areas on device use, the records that have to be kept are the same as the DDL and with that, the state or city enforcement officer may not refuse a written copy of that based on the EOBR's records. This is where the big stink was about driver harassment came about, and why congress revisited the FMCSA need to tighten a couple parts of the regulation up with the Hightway bill.

That's true, it is omitted for a purpose. 395.14 (i)(2) addresses the need for the driver's input when the vehicle is at rest but that implies a couple things, one is that the unit has to know when the vehicle is moving, and the other is allowing the manufacturer to obtain that information when duty status changes by different methods - these are part of the questions left up to the manufacturer to answer. The one reason why the first generation EOBRs didn't work on J1708 trucks but J1939 trucks was the manufacturer didn't design them for the older trucks.

By the way every thing I read did not say that the drive can not input the information manually, it says it can't be edited after it is confirmed. This includes the location, the miles driven (odometer or GPS) and shipment info.

Either way, GPS should be used to obtain the location of the duty status change and a connection made to the truck's ECM for accumulated miles driven.

Actually it does - 395.15 (i)(5) states the minimal information needed to be displayed.

Again it doesn't answer that directly but it requires the driver to be able to reproduce the HOS record in hard copy if needed.

I don't know if I helped, but this seems to be the standard stuff many of us go through. When people ask questions and then assume there are no regulations without working in the industry, it presents a problem for us when products come out. I think you have the best intentions for your customer but as I said before, learning what we do and how we do it matters on the end product that we use.

That's true, the problem is the EOBRs can't be a every thing device to watch the driver within the needs of the FMCSA/states but the device manufacturers have built a good sales pitch to buy all kinds of things to maintain the compliance of the carrier.

 

This is what concerns me. We will be going from loose-leaf to EOBRs soon, like maybe next month. Currently we have one truck (a volunteer) using EOBR. I have discussed this requirement with the boss. His answer is,.. "We can fax them copies of your last 7 days if they request it". Of course this is meant for scale houses, not the roadside inspections. He has no plans to include a printer so we can print them out if, or when asked to do so. He thinks that the nice decal on the side of the trucks will somehow dissuade them from looking much or wanting the hard copies. I think that he is setting us drivers up for being written up for not being able to produce them.

Next we use Peoplenet, the older ones, not the newer nice boxes. They are bolted to our dashes. The only way for a DOT cop to look at them is to be invited into the cab. This is something that not one driver is willing to do. We do not want to allow DOT to climb into our trucks. I'm hoping that he at least calls a meeting to discuss some of these issues, issues that he apparently is blind to. We had to find out via the grapevine that we already had a truck testing the EOBR.

There are some drivers totally against EOBR, threatening to quit. Most however see that it really is no big deal, except for the couple of issues mentioned above, and that we will still have to use the hard-wire keyboard. Wouldn't be that big of deal except the cord keeps pulling back while you're trying to type. They don't want it very accessible from the cab, but you have to sit in the cab to read the small screen.

 

Eaton, if I were in your shoes I'd buy a small printer and have it in my truck. Since you are going to be the one that is on the hook (in addition to your company) when you need to provide 7 days log, I'd want to have my behind well covered. Better yet, see if you can find a deal on bulk purchase of printers and present it to your boss. It might give him impetus to make the purchase in order to retain drivers and keep his own company out of hot water.

 

I agree, however I've found no port in the Peoplenet box to plug a printer into.

 

There isn't a port.

Here is the thing, it is up to the officer, not you or your company which constitutes a hard copy of a log. I know of one Ohio state trooper who refuses faxed copies, and this is because there is no real signature on the fax that can be traced back to the driver - it is a reproduction of a log and as he puts it, the driver has to have 7 days back or be able to reproduce them, not the company. This exact issue has been a problem with FedEx, they faxed copies to the coops but then someone said "hey wait, this is the drivers' responsibility, not the company's" and caused a problem for a few drivers.

With most units, the driver can "review" the last 7 days prior, then reproducing and sign those copies which is the only option for many of these units. A lot of BS, like with Qualcomm, have been forcing their customers to purchase special adaptors for some of their equipment, there isn't going to be much of a change any time soon.

The "regulations" are clear, the company is supposed to a few things, one is to ensure that the driver knows how to use the unit, this means that they have to know how to look back into the history of their logs and reproduce them. The company also has to ensure that there are logs for the driver to use in case the unit quits on them.

 

It's not really up to any DOT officer to decide what he will or will not accept. It's in the law. Perhaps he needs a long chat with a judge... i.e. his ultimate "boss."


Hours of service of drivers

§ 395.15 Automatic on-board recording devices.

(b) Information requirements.

(1) Automatic on-board recording devices shall produce, upon demand, a driver's hours of service chart, electronic display, or printout showing the time and sequence of duty status changes including the drivers' starting time at the beginning of each day.

(2) The device shall provide a means whereby authorized Federal, State, or local officials can immediately check the status of a driver's hours of service. This information may be used in conjunction with handwritten or printed records of duty status, for the previous 7 days.

(3) Support systems used in conjunction with on-board recorders at a driver's home terminal or the motor carrier's principal place of business must be capable of providing authorized Federal, State or local officials with summaries of an individual driver's hours of service records, including the information specified in §395.8(d) of this part. The support systems must also provide information concerning on-board system sensor failures and identification of edited data. Such support systems should meet the information interchange requirements of the American National Standard Code for Information Interchange (ANSCII) (EIARS-232/CCITT V.24 port (National Bureau of Standards "Code for Information Interchange," FIPS PUB 1-1)).

(4) The driver shall have in his/her possession records of duty status for the previous 7 consecutive days available for inspection while on duty. These records shall consist of information stored in and retrievable from the automatic on-board recording device, handwitten records, computer generated records, or any combination thereof.

So... as long as the unit "stores" the records, and the records are "retrievable" - in Qualcomm's case faxing the records to a scalehouse or DOT office- has been approved by the FMCSA. So Ohio can pretty much cram it, can't they?

BTW, it's the driver's responsibility to have an adequate supply of paper logs in the truck to record his hours of service in case of equipment failure.

 

With the e-logs I used when a driver logged off at the end of the day he had to choose between an option certifying the logs were accurate or contained errors . If errors were selected a notation was required . The selection of one of these options was considered a signature .