Again, back in the day when I worked there, the absolute last thing we wanted to do was place a motor carrier Out of Service. That means, the carrier has not demonstrated to the government’s satisfaction they are complying with the rules, and thereby, they cannot operate until do demonstrate compliance. Our leadership and attorneys always seemed troubled about depriving private business of their property, and ability to do business, to say nothing of throwing employees out of work. No longer.

If you receive an Unsatisfactory rating, you need to begin working on getting your rating upgraded IMMEDIATELY. Not tomorrow, not next week, and certainly not in a month. The only requirement FMCSA has on reviewing your upgrade petition is found in 49 CFR 385.17(e), where it says they must review your petition within 45 days, or 30 days if you handle passengers or placardable hazmat. That’s it. Apparently, the FMCSA is starting to take that literally, as I am hearing of horror stories where carriers have filed their petitions one or two weeks before they are placed Out of Service, and the agency ignores their petition, thereby placing the carrier Out of Service. “Hey, man, we have 45 days. You should have filed sooner, we’re busy, we can only do so much in a 40 hour work week! What do you expect, us to drop everything, just so your employees can get a paycheck? Tough, you should have planned ahead.”

My advice is, don’t allow the FMCSA to do you that way. If you are Unsatisfactory, take it seriously, and take it seriously right now. Get that corrective action petition to them as fast as possible. Make it extensive, and make it fast. If you don’t know what you’re doing, call an expert, call me. Under this current FMCSA, they simply don’t care if you have to shut down for a few days or weeks. Get some professional help.

I have said again and again, the elimination of all CMV accidents is not only an unrealistic goal, it is an extremely undesirable one as well. If I took over the country, I could do it tomorrow. I would outlaw all private cars. Furthermore, I would design all CMV’s to be heavily armored, and only go 15 mph. Furthermore, they would all have a force-field around them, which would repel contact with all objects. Naturally, my system would be extraordinarily expensive, especially that force-field part, which I would have to invent. You would all ultimately die from starvation, but you would not die in a CMV accident. Clearly, this is not a desirable system, although I admit, I would like to make some FMCSA bureaucrats live under it for a few days. Not long enough to actually starve to death, but definitely long enough to miss a few meals.

I have been trying to imagine any system where all motor vehicle accidents have been eliminated, and I have yet to come up with one under which I want to live. I suppose the one which seems most likely is one where the computers drive the vehicles for you, and they are all linked together, so the computers will prevent your vehicle from running into walls or other vehicles. Of course, whoever controls the computers, controls your car. In such a complex system, almost certainly a central agency will control the computers, not you. So, if they decide the computers need maintenance, or the computer does not have enough memory today, you have to stay home. You will not be allowed to drive on your own. That’s dangerous… you might hurt yourself or others! We can’t have that.

This system was on display in the movie “I, Robot”, with Will Smith. Although in that movie, Will Smith did have the option to drive his vehicle manually, which I predict will never actually happen under such a system. If the government goes through all the trouble to design such a system, they’re not going to let you screw it up by driving your car yourself, and possibly getting in a accident thereby wrecking their perfect accident-free statistics. In fact, in the movie, Will Smith did drive his vehicle, and he did get in a terrible wreck with a CMV. Of course, the wreck was caused by the computer going beserk, but details, details.

The reason I predict the “I, Robot” system will not have the option to drive the car yourself, is because the system is not designed for accident prevention. It is designed for control. They don’t want to save your life. They want to control you. If the State ever becomes powerful enough to design a system like “I, Robot”, where the computers can drive the cars, the State will mandate the computers drive the cars. You will not be allowed to drive, for your own safety. As Anne Ferro says, “even one fatality is too many”. So, the State will tell you it’s for your own good, and it’s all about safety, but in reality it’s about control.

I challenge the FMCSA to describe to me how they intend to eliminate all CMV accidents without eliminating all my freedom of movement, and/or starving me to death, as well. It’s that last part they never, ever think about. Ever. No one in that agency ever says, by continuing to push more and more draconian regulations, perhaps we are actually making things worse. Stripping Americans of their rights and liberties never enters the bureaucrats’ thinking. To them, it is simply irrelevant.

Furthermore, they always assume that more regulations mean less highway deaths. In reality, stricter regulations often cause more deaths. For example, take their new sleep apnea regulations, coming to a doctor near you in the very near future. I have seen no evidence that sleep apnea is some sort of horrific safety hazard, killing thousands of people on the roadways a year. Nevertheless, we are preparing to disqualify tens of thousands of fat, older, experienced, safe truck drivers. In exchange, these spots will be filled with skinny, inexperienced truck drivers, who will not be as safe.

Then, as the years pass, these skinny, inexperienced truck drivers will get experience, and become safe truck drivers. Unfortunately, as the years pass, they will become fatter, as older people get fat. So, at a certain point, many of the new drivers, will also become fat, sleep apnea risks, and they too will be forced out of the industry. The cycle will repeat itself.

Every time I hear an FMCSA bureaucrat say, “our goal is to eliminate CMV accidents”, what they are really saying is, “our goal is to control you as much as we possibly can”. That’s not a good thing. Just in case you have never heard this, Benjamin Frankin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Smart man, that Franklin.

“It was kind of how the Romans used to conquer villages in the Mediterranean, they would go into little Turkish towns somewhere. They would find the first five guys they saw and crucify them. That town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

Youtube took down the video, which apparently was posted originally by someone in the audience. I found the video here… although I don’t know how long it will be there.

Armendariz was making a point about EPA’s somewhat limited resources, and their inability to fine everyone, or be everywhere at once.

GOP Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma found the video online, and he, and the rest of the GOP went nuts, citing this as proof of Obama’s anti-business, over-regulatory policies. Today, Armendariz resigned, although he says he was not asked to by the Obama Administration. No, of course not, that would be crazy talk.

I found this interesting for two reasons. For one thing, I found the analogy Armendariz used to be spot-on, because that is precisely what regulatory agencies do. Then we have this fake outrage from the Obama Administration. I mean come on. This guy did exactly what you paid him to do. His only mistake was he described it, and had the misfortune of being taped describing it. Perhaps if he had used less inflammatory language, such as, “we try to put them out of business”, or “we fine the ever-loving sh*t out of them”, maybe Obama would have stood behind him.

To Mr. Armendariz, who I’m sure will rapidly find a job with the Sierra Club, or some other leftist environmental think tank, I say, “always look on the bright side of life”.

To summarize, the EDRs will be linked to mandatory GPS units. The police or government will be able to see in real-time how fast you are going, whether you are wearing your seatbelt, even if you have both hands on the wheel. If you violate the rules, boom, traffic citation. Also, an instantaneous increase in your insurance premiums.

The black box will be mandatory. Older vehicles will be required to be retrofitted with the black boxes. They will be required to be functional, and they will be required to be connected to GPS, so your data may be gathered. All in the name of safety, of course.

It happens I agree with Mr. Peters, 100%. You have to ask yourself, why does the government want all vehicles to have these EDRs? Why is it necessary to gather all this data? Well for one reason, because the government can. The technology has advanced to the point where it is not only possible to get this data, it is also relatively easy. So, hey, why not gather as much data as possible? In this way, they can write the most effective rules possible, and design even more effective accident prevention programs. I’m sure there are many people at NHTSA who think this way.

In reality, it will be used exactly as Mr. Peters is predicting. The data will be used to control and tax American drivers, all in the name of safety. The EDRs have nothing to do with safety. If it was about gathering data in the name of designing stronger, safer vehicles, a mandate would not be necessary. There is plenty of EDR data presently available for analysis, as EDRs have been in vehicles on a voluntary basis for years. No, the mandatory EDRs are about control, and our elected officials are eager to approve them.

The Senate and House have appointed members to negotiate together to create a uniform bill. This is called a Conference Committee. The members appointed are found here:

So now what happens? The Conference Committee will attempt to create a final uniform bill. I am unsure of what rules govern a Conference Committee… probably very few. At any rate, if Committee is able to agree on a uniform bill, then that bill will go to both the House and the Senate for a vote before the full memberships of the House and Senate. If it passes both houses, then it will go to the President for his signature.

Will a final bill be created? Will EOBRs be forced into every truck in America? According to one of the villains in this story, Ray LaHood, “no”. In this interview with Politico, LaHood states a bill will not be passed this year. I hope he’s right, because that would be fantastic.

LaHood further states the highway bill will create jobs because the government spending money on infrastructure creates jobs, etc. etc. Sure it’ll create jobs for some, but it will destroy many more jobs than it creates. Every dollar spent by the Federal government is another dollar we don’t have, and another dollar which has to be either taken from the private sector, or borrowed from future generations. Then, of course, there are the billions in regulatory costs, such as the EOBR mandate. The MAP-21 highway bill is a disaster which should be forgotten.

Will there be a highway bill? I don’t know. The current funding runs out June 30, so they’ll have to do something before then. They may agree they are stalemated, and pass an extension of the current highway funding until after the elections, and let the next Congress take up the issue. This seems to be what LaHood thinks is going to happen, unless he’s simply posturing, which is entirely possible.

I guess this could go two ways. 1) Both sides get together in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and create a bill where the Keystone Pipeline is approved, as well as a bunch of transportation spending, EOBRs, black boxes in your cars, IRS agents keeping you from travelling… ie, all of MAP-21. This would be a bad thing. Getting the Keystone Pipeline in exchange for a whole heaping helping of more government is an exceedingly bad trade.

2) Both sides stick to their guns, no deal is reached, and then let the elections decide the matter. This would be a good thing, and probably the more likely outcome, especially since Obama seems dead-set against this Keystone thing for some reason.

Stay tuned……

I would like to tell you all what I think about Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I read something this morning, which I think sums it up very nicely. So with out further ado, here are comments from Ron Paul:

“Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting liberty. It’s doubtful the entire law will be struck down. Regardless, the political left will continue its drive toward a single-payer, government run health care system.

The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to “regulate” commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.

The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state– a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.

But the Supreme Court has utterly abused the commerce clause for decades, at least since the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. In that instance the Court decided that a farmer growing wheat for purely personal use still affected interstate commerce–presumably by not participating in it! As economist Thomas Sowell explains in a recent article, the Wickard case marked the final death of federalism: if the federal government can regulate “anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the 10th Amendment’s limitations on the power of the federal government virtually disappeared.”

It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that liberty-minded Americans must oppose. Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare? The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states’ rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.

While I’m heartened that many conservatives understand this mandate exceeds the strictly enumerated powers of Congress, there are many federal mandates conservatives casually accept. The Medicare part D bill– passed under a Republican President and a Republican House–mandates that you submit payroll taxes to provide prescription drugs to seniors. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, also passed by Republicans, mandates that companies expend countless hours of costly manpower producing useless reports. Selective service laws, supported by defense hawks, mandate that young people sign up for potential conscription. I understand the distinction between these mandates and Obamacare, but the bigger point is that Congress routinely imposes mandates that are wildly beyond the scope of Article I, Section 8.

Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles. We must forcefully oppose lawless government, and demand a return to federalism by electing a Congress that legislates only within its strictly limited authority under Article I, Section 8.”

All told, the GSA spent around $822,000 to host a four day conference for approximately 300 people. Costs included a clown, mind-reader, commerative coins, and top-of-the line catering. Apparently, one of her deputies dropped a dime to the GSA’s Office of Inspector General, who spent a year investigating this conference. Their report came out yesterday, and heads rolled.

I have no proof, but based on my knowledge of the government, I think this sort of thing goes on routinely. The only reason you are hearing about this, is because one of Martha Johnson’s deputies either has a conscience, or simply wanted to wipe out her competition so she could move up the career ladder. Also, in the interest of keeping it real, this is not an Obama only matter. This type of thing goes on under Republican Administrations as well.

The fact is, bureaucrats in government have virtually no reason to track and limit costs. In fact, often it’s quite the opposite. For example, the Department of Transportation gets its money from Congress. It lobbies Congress for the most money it can possibly get, and tells Congress that the blood will run red on the highways if they don’t get it. This is what Ray LaHood is doing right now, as Congress debates the new highway bill. He is demanding outrageous sums of money, and claiming tens of thousands of lives are at stake.

Eventually, Congress will settle on a number, and that’s what DOT will get. They will then divide that number up among the FAA, FRA, FHWA, US Coast Guard, and of course, FMCSA. The same dance goes on. The heads of these sub-agencies… Anne Ferro, in FMCSA’s case, will argue to LaHood that they need a bigger piece of the pie than their brethen sub-agencies.

Finally, once FMCSA has its money, it then divides it up amongst all its various offices and programs. All of FMCSA’s local offices have a budget. For example, the FMCSA office in Pennsylvania has a budget. They are expected to spend that budget. They will receive no reward if they do not spend the budget. In fact, the manager of the office may be punished if he doesn’t spend all of the budget. If they don’t spend it all, when it comes time to replenish the money, how will FMCSA be able to get more money if they didn’t spend all of what they got last year?

I worked for one FMCSA manager, who told me the object was, “spend it all, and ask for more”. I noted when he did ask for more, he always got it. Make no mistake, that is the object: endlessly increasing budgets. Budgets, or money, are power. Agencies increase their power, by spending more, more, more. Spend it all, ask for more. Spend it all, ask for more. Wash, rinse, repeat cycle. It doesn’t matter on what it’s being spent, just spend it. The executive agencies, like GSA or FMCSA, will never limit the spending. Only Congress can do that.

I heard an interview with Speaker Boehner where he indicated the House would attempt to pass its own version of the Highway Bill when the House returns from recess in 2 weeks. I view this as good news. I had feared the House would simply vote on the Senate version of the bill, which contains the EOBR mandate. If they draft their own bill, it almost certainly will not have the EOBR mandate in it.

Once the House passes its version of the Highway Bill, then the bill will go to a conference committee made up of selected members of the House and Senate. They will take the House bill (no EOBR), and the Senate bill (EOBR), negotiate and trade, until the have one version of the bill. Then that bill must pass both the House and Senate. For all you EOBR opponents, you have to hope the House members on the Conference Committee don’t agree to the EOBR mandate in exchange for something else, like the Keystone pipeline, or something.

The point I would make to the GOP members of the House and Senate is this: the EOBR mandate was identified by the Obama Administration as one of their 7 most expensive rulemakings last year. They estimated it would cost $2 billion, which is even more than the hours of service boondoggle FMCSA has put forth. If the Obama Administration is estimating it will cost $2 billion, you know it will really cost $5 – 10 billion. As Joe Biden would say, “it’s a big f*cking deal”. It is not something to be casually traded away to the Democrats. At any rate, the tale will be told in the conference committee, probably taking place by the end of the month.

Are EOBRs about safety? No! Are EOBRs necessary for compliance? No! Are EOBRs a invasion of privacy? Yes! Do EOBRs enable the harassment of drivers? Yes! EOBRs are not about safety or compliance! EOBRs are about productivity control. Just look at who’s pushing em. Beside the FMCSA, large motor carriers are. The American Trucking Association(ATA), the lobby arm of large trucking companies is colluding with the FMCSA to get EOBRs and sleep apnea testing mandated across the trucking spectrum.

The ATA is literally sponsoring studies hoping to find a magic bullet that will legitimize the EOBRs proposal. Large trucking companies see EOBRs as a means of exerting a kind of control on the productive capacity of all industry players. Growth and acquisition of market share(ie customers) through production control is their method of choice. Remember, a market controlled by rule, regs, codes, standards,..etc, is not a “free market.”

Corporate trucking companies see a primary three fold benefit among many others with EOBRs. First they think EOBRs will level the playing field; control the competition. Second EOBRs align drivers of big companies to fit the logistical operational model of their JIT freight. JIT(just in time)freight, is freight that results from alliances formed by corporate trucking companies and their customers that require expedited service. Third and most importantly, big trucking companies want to control their own company drivers with EOBRs. They see EOBRs as a tool and means to micro manage a drivers log and maximize their drivers productive capacity by force.

Why force? Because once a system of rule is codified in law there will exist a sense of necessity or mandate to follow it. OOIDA has already indicated that a EOBR can readily; easily be used to push drivers when a driver stops to rest and hours are available to continue to drive. This should be quite obvious to any casual observer.

But as one company driver Jiles indicated, the situation is much worse than that. Here is the exchange he had with his dispatcher by ph: Disp, “why are you out of hrs,” “you’ve only run 2,000 miles for the week?” Jiles, “I had a lot of pickups and stops on a couple of loads.” Disp, “I see you’re logging line 4 when you’re delivering.” Jiles, I logged it like I did it.” Disp, “stay out of line 4.” “When the truck stops log off-duty.” “I don’t care what you’re doing.” Jiles, “I gotta show something.” Disp, “if you continue to use line 4 on your log we’ll route you to a terminal for a log class.” “If that doesn’t work you could be terminated for lack of performance.” “You need to treat this like it’s your business.” “If you don’t understand that then maybe you’re in the wrong line of work and trucking is not for you!!”

As you can see from the exchange, the EOBR did exactly what it was intended to do. It allowed the dispatcher to see Jiles’ log in real time and enabled him to coerce him to cheat!! WOW, and they were suppose to be about safety; compliance??? That is truely laughable! EOBRs also create a sense that only driving counts as work and the problem with non-compliant drivers is a problem with accounting for truck movement.

In truth nothing could be further from that notion. Consider the following: 1.) Loading 2.) Unloading 3.) Insp trk;trl 4.) Scaling loads 5.) Fueling 6.) In-cab administrative support work like filling out trip sheets and scanning them at trk/stops or in-cab 7.) In-cab safety courses using Driver Tech, Qualcomm, or other devices 8.) Sweeping trls; or washing out reefers or tanker trls 9.) Chaining when weather demands 10.) Waiting in detention; readiness of equipment during repairs or PM srvcs. This is not exhaustive and the list could go on. Yet this flys under the radar of a EOBR but is so relevant to HOS that it is literally the area in which non compliance occurs.

To make matters worse and continue to avert this problem with non-driving work the FMCSA at the behest of the ATA is trying to no longer require retention of supporting documents by companies on EOBRs. This is the worst possible policy. It’s clear what they are attempting to accomplish. They are trying to structure a system in which companies will have legal cover for a drivers HOS RODS. If I’m correct in where I think they are going then we can safely say this is the “hang the driver out to dry policy.” Another words create a regulatory blind spot for company audits and mitigate legal culpability for a company for a drivers HOS. Another words line 3 of a EOBR is all a company need worry about as far as compliance goes. But for the driver, heaven help him if he or she is involved in a fatality accident. The company with have legal cover with the EOBR and new retention of supporting documents policy. But all those supporting documents will become very relevant should the driver be involved in such a accident. Like CSA shift responsibility of equipment onto the driver this is WORSE!!

I’m gonna end but a quick word on the compliant level of a EOBR. I’m afraid it ain’t no better than a paper log. So long as line 4 can be falsified line 3 can never be compliant as it’s being peddled to be. Recall HOS is not just about driving. There is a 11hr 14hr and 70hr involved. Take the 70hr rule, well line 3 & line 4 both draw from the 70 hrs avail. If a driver logs off-duty when he or she should be on-duty they are basically helping themselves to more hrs than they would otherwise be entitled to have for line 3 or driving. Another words by not spending hours as you should for all non-driving work, paid or not, you are wrongly saving hrs to enabled more drive time. Sorry a false log is a false log. Partial accuracy doesn’t count. If you think so try it with a officer and see what happens. You will get cited. EOBRs accomplish nothing compliant! I’ll save privacy and sleep apnea for another day.

The bill now moves to the House. If the House approves the Senate version of the bill, it becomes law, and EOBRs will be mandated for everyone. Normally, I would say, no problem, the Tea Party GOP freshman have got my back. There is no way they are going to let this massive, expensive, burdensome regulation become law. Remember, the EOBR mandate was one of Obama’s Top 7 most expensive regulations, which was identified to Speaker Boehner in August, 2011.

But do they have my back? For one thing, the vast majority of the GOP representatives probably don’t even know this huge regulation is in the bill. Secondly, the House, and the Speaker are under enormous pressure by the Government Media to pass this bill, which will save the economy. Note: this bill will do nothing to save the economy. All it will do is spend another $109 billion of our children’s money.

Finally, the American Trucking Association (ATA) is pushing for the EOBR mandate, because they believe it will give them an economic advantage over the small truckers. So, on the one hand, you have the Government Media, the “safety” advocacy groups, the Teamsters, the Democrats, the FMCSA, and the ATA. On the other hand, you have small business. As Bob Dylan said, “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”.