30-day Federal Register Notice Comment

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Response to Notice and Request for Comments
Agency Information Collection Activities
Driver and Carrier Surveys Related to EOBRs and
Potential Harassment Deriving from EOBR Use
(Docket# FMCSA-2012-0309)

Submitted by:
Werner Enterprises, Inc
14507 Frontier Road
Omaha, NE 68138
Contact: Richard S. Reiser
Vice President of Government Affairs
(402) 894-3307

Werner Enterprises, Inc. ("Werner" or the "Company") is a transportation and logistics
company engaged primarily in hauling truckload shipments of general commodities in
both interstate and intrastate commerce. We also provide logistics services through our
Value Added Services ("VAS") division. We are one of the five largest truckload carriers
in the United States (based on total operating revenues), and our headquarters are located
in Omaha, Nebraska, near the geographic center of our truckload service area. We were
incorporated in the State of Nebraska on September 14, 1982.

We have been operating an electronic logging and fleet management system since 1998
and have had a significant amount of experience with electronic logs and driver issues
related to electronic logs.
We submit the following comments in response to the Notice and Request for Comments
published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2013, and Vol. 78, No. 102, page 32001.
Other than general comments applicable to the entire survey, the following are directed at
the Driver’s Quantitative Survey OMB Control Number: 2126-xxx and are numbered to
correspond to the survey question which raises the concern.
A general concern, however, is that many of the questions do not distinguish an EOBR
from a fleet management system (“FMS”). In practice, the two are sometimes closely
related but unless they are somehow distinguished, many of the driver responses to
questions about EOBRs are likely to be misinterpreted by the driver and answered on the
basis of FMS. For example the questions asked under Q: 16 and 17 with regard to
Schedules, Fatigue, Communications and Paid and Unpaid Time, all relate to FMS and
not to EOBRs. Interruption of off-duty time for example has nothing to do with an
EOBR but relates to the communication device used to interrupt the driver. The
interruption would be the same whether from a FMS or a cell phone. The survey should
be redesigned to gather information only about EOBRs and not about FMSs.

Comments to specific questions are as follows:
2. This question raises concerns about “your job”. It is not specific as to whether it
refers to the driver’s current employment or to his or her general job of truck
driving. The survey does not ask how long the driver has been at his or her
current employment or even how long he or she has been a truck driver. (It does
ask at Q: 41 how long they have had a CDL.) It would seem that satisfaction with
the job would have some relationship to tenure.
5. While we do not understand the relevance of this question, we point out that many
drivers receive additional pay for other job related activities. This is not “some
other basis” as described in Q: 5, but for addition activities such as loading,
unloading, waiting time, multiple stops, and shag trips. To the extent total pay is
relevant to EOBR use, perhaps an additional question should be considered.
10. and 11. The driver is not asked either here or in the Recruitment Questionnaire
how long they have been using the equipment on which question 11 is based.
Satisfaction is often related to familiarity and comfort with the system. Our
experience with EOBRs suggests that drivers new to the device often express
frustration and dissatisfaction during the period of initial use which dissipates as
familiarity with the device increases. We would suggest asking a question to
determine length of experience and perhaps another asking the driver’s opinion as
to how well they feel they know the equipment.
14. The use of the two words “…you, yourself?” is confusing.
16. and 17. We believe that the use of the words “coming from” is confusing and
subject to different interpretation by different drivers. For example, the request
may be made over the device and therefore “come from” but have nothing to do
with the EOBR. Is the ultimate question, “Which of these, if any, happen to you
only because you have an EOBR?” Clearly they are things that can happen
whether or not an EOBR is being used. If the driver interprets “coming from” as
meaning “have any connection with” as opposed to “resulting from” they may
well over attribute problems to the EOBR. These questions are also point out the
problem of not separating the EOBR component from the Fleet Management
System.
21. It appears that a non EOBR user who has answered other than yes to question 19
will not answer this question. It would seem important to find out if the driver
has been asked to drive or work more hours even if they weren’t punished for it as
required by Q: 19.
30.

If the driver responds that he felt harassed, he or she should also be asked if
he felt that the enforcement officer was being unreasonable or somehow out of

line. Many drivers report problems from the attitude of officers towards EOBR
devices and the fact that the officers don’t understand how they work.
It is also noted that while the Summary indicates that the survey data is to
determine the extent to which EOBRs could be used by motor carriers or
enforcement personnel to harass drivers, these are the only two questions (Q29
and Q: 30)directed at enforcement personnel. This suggests a possible
questionnaire bias against carriers.
31.

Optional answer 2 may be confusing. What is meant by the use of the words
“formally filed”? Filed with whom? In most cases the EOBRs require the driver
to indicate that he or she has reviewed the logs before they are submitted to the
carrier which suggests that this may already be happening.

34.

The definition is confusing and hard to follow. Among other things it
requires the driver to possess some knowledge of what “fatigue or ill driver
restrictions” are without any verification that the driver understands those
restrictions. The definition needs to be broken into simple phrases and clarified.
It is also potentially confusing to the driver that the question follows question 15
in which the driver is asked to identify which of 14 different items the driver
considers to be harassment. Many of those items would not seem to fit in the
definition given at Hand Card 34 yet the driver may have already identified those
items as harassing. If this question is used as written a new item 4 should be
added to the list of possible answers read to the driver. The new option should be
“Don’t understand the definition.”

35.

The definition in Hand Card 35 is also wordy and will be confusing to many
drivers. It needs to be broken down to more understandable parts and the fourth
option added as suggested in 34 above.

36.

This question seems to presuppose that the company for which the driver
currently drives is the same company with which the driver developed his
opinions about EOBRs. Given the rate at which drivers change jobs it is possible
that the experience with EOBRs was with a prior carrier and again there is no
indication of how long the driver has been with the company or how long he or
she has actually used an EOBR.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these documents.