ELDs and HOS Monitoring: What You Still Need to Do and What Is New

Dave Elniski, AMTA Industry Advisor, Safety & Compliance

Federally regulated carriers in Canada need to be ready for the enforcement of the electronic logging device (ELD) rule which will be starting on January 1st, 2023.  Given this deadline is fast approaching, it is important carriers consider how their daily compliance habits will be affected.  This article will, hopefully, ease some of the confusion that exists around the ELD rule on two specific topics: regular hours of service (HOS) monitoring and managing ELD malfunctions.

In short, the HOS monitoring requirements did not change with the ELD rule and will not change once enforcement starts.  But, there is a change related to ELDs that carriers will need to address: tracking, recording, and managing ELD malfunctions.  This article will, in the following sections, explore these two issues in greater detail.

The Constant: HOS Monitoring Requirements

Federally regulated carriers must, according to Section 87 of the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations, monitor themselves to ensure they comply with the HOS rules.  Specifically, a “motor carrier that determines that there has been non-compliance with these Regulations shall take immediate remedial action and record the dates on which the non-compliance occurred and the action taken” [1].

That’s the requirement; it’s even shorter than what it was as of June of 2019 [2].  Carriers are quite free to do this monitoring in a way that makes sense to them and demonstrates due diligence.  This requirement existed before the ELD rule came into effect and is not changing with the ELD rule and the start of enforcement.

Simply put, your pre-ELD HOS monitoring should continue as you move to ELDs with perhaps some modifications to get the most out of this new technology.

Many carriers have been under the impression they will no longer need to keep doing the paperwork related to tracking driver HOS violations once they have an ELD in place.  They state the ELD’s own monitoring software will do this for them.  This is not true.  The ELD software may provide them with additional tools to track compliance; however, it does nothing to relieve the carrier of the responsibility to ensure compliance.

The key here is to not lower the level of safety by adopting the ELD’s monitoring system without assessing its blind spots.  It is also a good idea to have some sort of monitoring that checks to make sure the ELD system itself is doing what it should be.  After all, ELDs will fail from time to time.

Example

Let’s say you have a monthly practice of checking half of your driver’s logbooks from the past month.  Your process is to make photocopies of the logs, go over them with a red pen searching for fatigue and form-and-manner violations, record your findings, and present any violations to the driver individually so they can improve.  Such a process is common.

Now you have installed ELDs in your vehicles and drivers no longer complete paper logs.  The ELD provider you have chosen has a built-in computer dashboard you can access at any time that tracks violations; it even generates reports.

The new technology should not replace your earlier process but can be used to enhance it.  One way of doing this would be to go right to the ELD program to access the driver logs (a major plus since there will no longer be delays in receiving HOS paperwork).  Then, you record your regular HOS findings as you have been before and work with drivers to address issues.

Some violations may be identified right away with the new program, speeding the process of going through the logs.  However, the ELD may not identify all violations.  For example, it may track whether a driver has entered a bill of lading number.  However, it may not identify the error of forgetting to update this number with each new load.  Your manual monitoring will be needed to catch such a thing.

More serious fatigue related violations can also be missed by an ELD’s monitoring software.  If someone forgets to enter their personal ELD account and drives and reconnects later, that driver’s records may not show this violation without digging deeper than the provider’s dashboard.  Selecting the wrong HOS rules (US versus Canada, provincial versus federal), deliberately tampering with the device, and technology glitches are all examples of violations that may require a deeper look.

Using ELDs does not mean the carrier should reduce the amount of internal HOS monitoring it does.  The carrier’s pre-ELD monitoring practice above has set a safety standard for that company; internal standards shouldn’t be relaxed on the assumption the ELD will catch everything.

In summary, ELDs expand the options available to carriers to ensure they comply with Canadian federal HOS rules which means carrier should look at their internal monitoring practices and see how improvements and efficiencies can be found.  ELDs don’t, though, provide a get-out-of-monitoring free card.

The Change: ELD Malfunction Management

We’ve seen how the requirement to track HOS compliance existed before ELDs and how it is not changing with ELDs becoming mandatory.  But there is a new compliance requirement beyond installing and using ELDs: tracking and managing malfunctions.

Section 78 of the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations outlines the requirements for tracking, managing, and recording ELD malfunctions [2].  It isn’t vague, and it outlines specific requirements for the times when an ELD fails.

Carriers need to read this requirement word-for-word.  It’s new and it’s detailed.  The carrier and the carrier’s driver both have specific requirements for what to do when an ELD experiences problems ranging from complete and prolonged failures to minor glitches where a single fault code is displayed.

Those familiar with the American regulations around ELD malfunctions will see many similarities.  There are some differences, especially in reporting and timelines, but, in general, it is possible to create a system that accounts for each country’s rules.

This malfunction monitoring is completely different than HOS monitoring (unless someone is intentionally tampering with the ELD).  If you’re working to prepare for ELD enforcement, this is an area of your safety system you will want to begin addressing soon.

In conclusion, the ELD rule brings changes for federal carriers from a technology and compliance perspective.  But, it’s important to remember the HOS legislation regarding internal monitoring and hours limits hasn’t changed.  The scope of the change is important to consider as we enter a new – at least from an HOS perspective – era in Canadian trucking.

Need Help?  Contact AMTA

AMTA can provide carriers with guidance on the information presented in this bulletin.  If you have any questions, please contact AMTA and our experienced staff will be happy to help.  For your safety and compliance questions, please email Workplace Support Services (WSS) directly at wss@amta.ca.

For more updates like this on a variety of topics related to the trucking industry, please sign up for our eNews.

References

1 – Government of Canada. Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations. Current as of September 11th, 2022. Accessed September 20th, 2022, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-313/FullText.html

2 – Government of Canada (archived). Section 87 from the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations up until June 11th, 2019. Accessed September 20th, 2022, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-313/section-87-20070101.html