NSC expo
Subscribe or Register
View Cart  

Earn recertification points from the Board of Certified Safety Professionals by taking a quiz about this issue.

What's Your Opinion?

What’s the most effective method for OSHA to help ensure worker safety?

Take the poll and add your comment.

Vote Results

Meeting on EOBRs limited to technology discussion

May 25, 2011

Tags
  • / Print
  • Reprints
  • Text Size:
    A A

Washington – The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recently scheduled a hearing for May 31 to gather information on the implementation and testing of technology used under revised regulations for electronic onboard recorders.

FMCSA officials said the one-day public meeting will not be a forum for discussion of broader, non-technical EOBR issues. Rather, discussion will be limited to technical capabilities, transfer methods and use specifications of the technology according to EOBR regulations. On April 5, 2010, the agency published a final rule (.pdf file) revising its regulations for recording hours-of-service information to address technical requirements for EOBRs.

In January, FMCSA announced a proposed rule to mandate use of EOBRs by interstate commercial truck and bus companies. A notice of proposed rulemaking (.pdf file) published in the Feb. 1 Federal Register stated that carriers must comply with FMCSA HOS regulations and those that violate the EOBR requirement would face civil penalties of up to $11,000 for each offense. Non-compliance also would negatively impact a carrier’s safety fitness rating and Department of Transportation operating authority. Operators with serious patterns of HOS violations must install EOBRs in vehicles and comply with the final rule by June 4, 2012.

Post a comment to this article

Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy.