One of the best things about living in Alberta is no Provincial sales tax, especially if you move here from a Province that has PST, it is like everything is on sale all the time! In my blog The Confusing World of Alberta’s Safety Fitness Certificates (SFC), I explained the differences between Federal and Provincial SFC and the additional regulations federally regulated carriers must be aware of in other jurisdictions. Another thing to be aware of is the carrier’s obligation to pay PST to the jurisdiction you are operating in. Disclaimer, I do not work in IRP, IFTA or PST, this information is general information I have learned, for specifics contact your IRP/IFTA tax consultant or British Columbia and Saskatchewan tax office.
PST Charges for Alberta Trucking Companies in British Columbia
Alberta-based trucking companies operating in British Columbia (B.C.), face Provincial Sales Tax (PST) in B.C. due to its specific rules for multijurisdictional vehicles (MJVs). For Alberta trucking companies, understanding how and when PST applies to their fleet is essential for staying compliant and avoiding unexpected tax assessments or audits.
Here’s a breakdown of how PST applies to Alberta-registered trucking companies when operating in B.C., based on information from the Consumer Tax Audit Manual and PST Act.
PST and Multijurisdictional Vehicles (MJVs) in B.C.
When Alberta trucking companies operate in B.C. using multijurisdictional vehicles (MJVs), they become subject to B.C.'s PST on a proportional basis. This proportion is calculated based on the ratio of kilometers traveled in B.C. compared to the total distance traveled in all jurisdictions.
Key Points to Note:
PST Charges for Alberta Trucking Companies in Saskatchewan
As an Alberta trucking company operating in Saskatchewan, understanding your Provincial Sales Tax (PST) obligations is crucial. Saskatchewan requires trucking companies based in Alberta, to pay PST on certain goods and services. Here is what Alberta trucking companies need to know about PST in Saskatchewan.
Understanding the Prorated Vehicle Tax (PVT)
Alberta trucking companies registered for interjurisdictional travel in Saskatchewan are subject to the Prorated Vehicle Tax (PVT). The PVT is designed to proportionally tax vehicles based on the distance they travel in Saskatchewan. If you have an apportioned vehicle registration (cab card) that includes Saskatchewan, you will pay the PVT upon registering your vehicles in the province.
This tax is calculated based on the taxable value of the vehicle, the applicable tax rate, the Saskatchewan distance ratio (the portion of total distance traveled in Saskatchewan), and the remaining months in the registration period. This ensures the tax reflects the vehicle's actual use in the province.
Staying Compliant: Best Practices
Alberta-based trucking companies can minimize the risk of tax complications by following these best practices:
Audit Implications for Alberta Trucking Companies
PST audits are common and are part of broader compliance checks that often include IFTA and IRP audits. A company may be selected for an audit if they’ve not been previously audited or if their tax filings raise red flags (e.g., exceptional mileage or fuel reporting). Trucking companies must be prepared for these audits by keeping thorough and accurate records of their operations, particularly when it comes to distances.
Conclusion
If you are an Alberta trucking company reporting kms to IRP and IFTA but, not paying PST in British Columbia or Saskatchewan you may want to investigate that. It's crucial for Alberta-based trucking companies operating in British Columbia and Saskatchewan to understand and comply with PST obligations in these provinces. Whether it's B.C.'s rules for multijurisdictional vehicles or Saskatchewan's Prorated Vehicle Tax, keeping track of kilometers traveled, properly estimating tax liabilities, and maintaining accurate records is essential for avoiding audits and penalties. By staying informed and prepared, carriers can ensure compliance and minimize the risk of unexpected financial obligations.
In Alberta's commercial vehicle regulatory landscape, some trucking companies still consider fines, tickets, and administrative penalties as just another expense—like fuel or rent. However, this corporate mindset is not only outdated but also risky, as the regulatory environment becomes more data rich and enforcement technology advances. Compliance is no longer optional, and treating penalties as a cost of doing business is a flawed corporate approach that needs urgent revision.
The Evolving Enforcement Landscape
Alberta's transportation industry has seen significant technological upgrades in recent years, and with them, the opportunity to write more penalties for non-compliance. A prime example is the Weigh2Go system, which allows real-time data sharing across the highway scale network. These scale bypass systems determine if a truck should be stopped and weighed based on historical data, minimizing human error in enforcement.
Travelling In Alberta you may have noticed the highway scales are never open. That is due to a couple of things:
1 The existing scales are old, and some are located in high traffic corridors like Balzac, AB. Having trucks lined up entering and exiting the scale is a safety issue.
2. Commercial vehicle inspectors are now in the Sherriff’s department, and those officers have expanded powers like firearms, detention and handcuffs.
The Sheriff’s mandate is roadside enforcement that focuses on speeding and impaired driving in addition to commercial vehicles. Roadside penalties are more expensive and roadside officers can write more tickets by targeting speeding trucks rather than sitting at the scale waiting for a violation to roll by. Smaller municipalities are starting to hire enforcement officers, by-law officers or their own police departments like in Grande Prairie, AB. Those officers are all trained or are being trained in commercial vehicle enforcement. To further enhance on-going enforcement the Province of Alberta has just announced: The new Law Enforcement Pathway under the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program (AAIP) is designed to attract experienced and skilled police officers from abroad, addressing both immediate hiring demands and enhancing community safety. It is clear indication that non-compliant companies will find fewer and fewer loopholes to exploit.
ELD Mandate: A Game Changer
The ELD (Electronic Logging Device) mandate is one of the most significant changes in trucking compliance. ELDs create a real-time, transparent RODS (record of duty status), and vehicle inspection reports. With a single data transfer, enforcement officers can instantly review a driver’s RODS and determine whether a driver was in an out-of-service condition. In a collision a roadside officer can assess penalties to the carrier or the driver before a tow truck even arrives. This level of real-time enforcement and transparency will put additional pressure on carriers to be compliant.
The Future of Compliance: More Data, Less Tolerance
The future of Alberta’s commercial vehicle enforcement will be driven by data and automation. Weigh-in-motion scales are already being used enabling enforcement officers to weigh vehicles while they’re on the move. Jurisdictions are updating regulations to allow for the issuing of automatic penalties for overweight vehicles. This would be similar to receiving a red-light camera ticket. This is just the beginning—the enforcement data exchange integration of ECM (Electronic Control Modules) and ELD data will give enforcement agencies access to even more granular information about a truck’s performance and driver’s compliance status.
Imagine a scenario where a truck’s ECM data, combined with real-time ELD logs, is automatically transmitted to an insurance company following an accident. As private insurance companies leave Alberta’s market due to unsustainable market conditions, those that remain will increasingly seek detailed data to assess liability and avoid paying claims. In the near future, insurance companies may demand ELD and ECM data as part of a claims review, further raising the stakes for non-compliant carriers.
The True Cost of Penalties
For carriers that still see fines and penalties as the price of doing business, it’s time for a reality check. The cost of non-compliance is not just about the fines themselves; it’s about the damage to a company’s reputation, increased scrutiny, higher insurance premiums, and potential lawsuits that could sink a business. Every ticket or penalty raises a red flag, and in Alberta’s data-rich environment, red flags are harder to ignore.
Compliance is Your Competitive Edge
Staying up-to-date on regulations and prioritizing compliance isn’t just about avoiding penalties—it’s about staying in business. As insurance and enforcement environments tighten, only carriers with strong compliance programs will be able to avoid the mounting costs associated with non-compliance. Relying on outdated practices and brushing off penalties as a business expense will leave companies vulnerable to everything from hefty fines to insurance claims denial. Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section is not going to help you. It’s enforcement, not education! Give me a call or an email for all of your up to date ELD and NSC compliance education.
As an Alberta-based carrier, understanding the intricacies of Safety Fitness Certificates (SFC) is essential for compliance and avoiding costly penalties. A common question that arises is whether an Alberta-based carrier with a Provincial SFC can operate outside of Alberta by simply purchasing permits in other provinces like British Columbia or Saskatchewan. The short answer is no, and here's why.
Intra-Provincial vs. Extra-Provincial: Know the Difference
First, let’s clarify the two types of SFCs:
It’s crucial to understand that an Intra-Provincial SFC does not give you the flexibility to temporarily operate outside Alberta by buying a permit in another province. The permits available in British Columbia and Saskatchewan that many carriers refer to are for vehicle registration (IRP) and fuel tax (IFTA) purposes, not for operational authority. This common confusion often leads carriers into regulatory trouble. Yes, I know your cousin’s uncle that owns a trucking company has been doing it for years but, that just means they haven’t been caught yet.
Why Permits Don’t Equal Permission
Many carriers mistakenly believe that purchasing a permit for registration or fuel tax allows them to operate extra-provincially. However, these permits are solely for the legal use of highways (registration) and the payment of fuel taxes. They do not grant you the authority to pick up or deliver loads outside Alberta.
The responsibility of understanding the need for a Federal SFC falls on the carrier. Unfortunately, Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division do not provide education on this requirement. Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section focus is on compliance, and they expect carriers to be informed about the regulations governing their operations.
The Siloed System and Its Impact
One of the reasons carriers often find themselves in violation is the lack of communication between various government departments. Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, the departments responsible for permits and those overseeing SFCs operate in silos. This means that when you obtain a permit from one department, there is no cross-communication to inform you of other regulatory requirements, like the need for a Federal SFC.
This disconnect often results in carriers unintentionally violating regulations. Operating extra-provincially with an intra-provincial SFC the carrier is not just risking tickets or penalties but, extra-provincial carriers carry insurance that intra-provincial carriers do not. Should the carrier have an accident while outside the jurisdiction the insurance company may deny that claim and open the carrier up to liability.
The High Stakes of Non-Compliance
Safety Fitness Certificate follows the virginity rule, you only get one shot. An Alberta carrier with a Provincial SFC that is stopped operating in another jurisdiction would be made Federal and the carrier would have to apply to return to intra-provincial. The regulation AR 314/2002 Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation Section 6 4.2(1)(c) uses the wording operates or intends to operate. Getting caught operating extra-provincially proves the intention to operate. Operating with an Intra-Provincial SFC outside Alberta is not just a minor infraction—it’s a serious violation.
Carriers operating extra-provincially require ELDs, speed limiters, and are required to pay Provincial Sales Tax (PST) in jurisdictions like British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Non-compliance with these requirements may put the carrier on the radar of Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section and the carrier will be caught on the never ending NSC Audit wheel of fortune.
Final Thoughts: Stay Educated and Compliant
Remember, Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section role is enforcement, not education. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; carriers must take the initiative to educate themselves on the regulatory environment they operate in. Investing time in understanding these regulations can prevent significant headaches down the road. Stay informed, stay compliant, and keep your operations running smoothly.
BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
The federal vs provincial SFC is an Alberta system, not BC. A BC NSC Certificate is not different for carriers whether they operate only in province or over borders.
If you have a Provincial SFC, you will need to apply and obtain a Federal one in order to cross into BC. We do not issue permits changing a carrier's standing or operational category.
SASKATCHEWAN SGI PERMIT OFFICE
Saskatchewan does not have any permits that covers the provincial safety fitness, customers need to have their fitness safety changed to federal before entering SK
The Government of Alberta announced changes to the MELT Class 1 Mandatory Entry Level Training program, turning the program into an apprenticeship model. These changes are urgently needed today but, it will take time to launch the program and is expected March 1, 2025. Currently MELT drivers pay upwards of $10,000.00 to obtain a Class 1 drivers licence and then most can’t find a job because insurance companies require two years of over the road experience. This apprentice model should fulfill the insurance company requirements and hopefully open federal funding for new students.
All of this is great stuff but, the reality is Alberta will produce quality, well trained drivers and put them to work in an industry that is a disaster. It is like raising Kobe beef only to sell it to Burger King. If commercial driving is going to be a trade, then it is time to hold the road transportation industry to that trade standard.
Transport Canada and the provinces and territories need to take a hard look at the road transportation sector and make some changes. There is zero accountability for trucking companies that utilize questionable practices like Driver Inc to circumvent taxes, immigration and human rights regulations. Driver Inc is a model based on commercial drivers, who do not own/lease or operate their own vehicle. These drivers are becoming incorporated and not paying source deduction like income taxes or Employment Insurance. The prevalence of chameleon carriers operating across Canada highlights the need for greater oversight and enforcement measures. A chameleon carrier is a trucking company that, if cited or closed down for a marginal safety record, quickly changes its name and address and restarts operations.
Chameleon carriers operate unchallenged across Canada, in Alberta the penalty for lying on a Safety Fitness application to fraudulently obtain a Safety Fitness Certificate is $1000.00 and the company is allowed to keep operating. To compare, also in Alberta, the penalty for not stopping for an invasive species boat inspection is $4200.00. Why does Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors (TEC) not take road safety as serious as Alberta Environment takes protecting our lakes?
Alberta does not have accurate enforcement information from all jurisdictions, see my blog, Don’t look behind the curtain! unveiling the Alberta Transportation safety scam. Unless the provincial jurisdictions specifically contact each other about unsafe carriers potentially moving into other jurisdictions, a tragedy is usually the first notification. There is not a central transportation regulatory body in Canada that collects safety data as there is in the United States, the broken carrier profile system all we have in Alberta.
These sketchy chameleon carriers also can be self-insured. Because of this they can cause mayhem, then go bankrupt and start over with zero consequence. Trucking company insurance minimum requirement in Alberta is $10 million dollars. How much do you think a bridge or infrastructure strike costs to repair? British Columbia recently substantially increased the fines and jail time for drivers that hit structures. What about the trucking company that employs the driver? It may be the driver’s fault but, it is the carrier’s responsibility.
The lack of support systems for both rookie and experienced drivers exposes them to exploitation and mistreatment within the industry. Drivers have zero complaint options, even after being abused, unpaid, disrespected, forcibly dispatched and worse. Complaint procedures in Alberta are convoluted and inadequate, leaving drivers without effective recourse when faced with issues such as unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions. Alberta TEC, Compliance and Oversight department complaint procedures are an offense to the rights of workers that need urgent protection. The complainant is sent a witness statement via email. The issue is that the document it is a non-fillable PDF, so the driver needs to print it, physically fill it in, sign it, scan it, and email it back. How does that help or support the driver? Consider a driver that finally gets the courage to complain to the government and gets told to fill out a form. Drivers in a Driver Inc. situation working for chameleon carriers that go bankrupt and leave unpaid wages are not eligible for employment benefits because they are not employees. As a Driver Inc driver the only option is to get a lawyer and sue. Kobe beef cattle has more protections than drivers in Canada.
The qualified driver shortage is a real safety problem, and more training and experience is better for drivers and everyone on the road. Changes must be made in conjunction with large-scale fundamental improvements to the carriers and industry that employ these drivers. Commercial driving is dangerous and lonely with poor pay, no wage guarantees, terrible working environments with limited rest areas and parking. Unless you fix systemic issues, these red seal drivers will leave the industry or die on the highway trying. Make commercial driving a trade that people aspire to undertake the training and time to become a red seal, anything less is another waste of drivers’ time of money.
My favourite Minister, in my favourite department created a news release. Let’s see what Transportation and Economic Corridors (TEC) had to say!
Alberta is marking more than a year of working with Saskatchewan and Manitoba through the Prairies Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to advance economic corridors and enhance collaboration with Alberta’s prairie neighbours. To date, the three provinces have achieved harmonization of regulations related to commercial carriers that improve both safety and regulatory requirements.
Bullshit! In the world of economic corridors and collaboration among provinces, it's essential to examine the actual progress made under MOU partnership. A year of following an agreement with no new initiatives. Way to go, celebrate accomplishing the bare minimum with a fake news release but, is the reality living up to the rhetoric?
“By keeping the momentum of the Prairies MOU going, we can continue to lead the way in building economic corridors, cutting red tape, and creating jobs. This paves the way to make nation-building projects a reality again in western Canada.” Devin Dreeshen, Minister of Transportation and Economic Corridors
The current state of Alberta TEC operations is not leading the way in anything. This is a department in disarray with no oversight, outdated and costly computer systems and redundant manual processes, not a ministry leading in red tape reduction.
The TPA (third party auditor program) is a disaster, TPA auditors have zero oversight and do not review accurate records because TPA auditors do not have encryption keys, check out my blog, Questioning Accountability: The Controversial Alberta Government TPA Program and its Impact on Trucking Companies.
Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors Investigators and TPA’s use a paper chart to look up and convert hours of service information because the computer program (ARC) does not accept time by the second, check out my blog, Transportation and Economic Corridors data entry debacle, another waste of taxpayer dollars.
Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors does not have accurate safety fitness information because Alberta cannot share complete enforcement information from other jurisdictions due to a computer problem see my blog, Don’t look behind the curtain! unveiling the Alberta Transportation safety scam.
As the rhetoric of fake progress clashes with the realities on the ground, it becomes apparent that mere fake news releases and empty promises are insufficient. It is imperative for the leadership group of Alberta TEC to address the systemic shortcomings, enhance regulatory coherence, and prioritize the needs of commercial carriers. By exposing the disparities between official TEC statements and on-the-ground realities, I aim to advocate for substantial reforms, fair treatment of commercial carriers, and a transparent approach to governance in the transportation sector. It’s time to drain the swamp.
It’s Rodeo season in Alberta! Albertans attend local rodeos to celebrate the important history of the rodeo and more importantly the impact livestock and agriculture have on our community. When listening to the opening remarks of the various elected officials that attend these rodeos remember this, Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors created a special permit for the oil and gas industry. A permit that is not available to the livestock transportation sector despite the urgent need and requests from those drivers and carriers. See my blog The dirty business of lobbying and the impact on road safety for the specific details of that sketchy deal.
The oilfield exemption permit exempts federally regulated drivers operating under the oilfield permit from using a ELD (Electronic Logging Device), exempts the driver from the cycle restrictions and does not require the driver to record a work shift start and end time, only total hours. Federally regulated livestock transportation companies are required to install ELD’s and those drivers have zero exemptions.
The FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration), the United States transportation regulatory body, has a livestock transportation exemption, 395.1 (k)(4) (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation). The exemption was built into the ELD regulation and no permit is required. The ELD mandate in Canada requires a certified ELD to be programmed with the Canadian and the United States hours of service rules. The basis of the NAFTA agreement was to facilitate cross border trade between Canada, Mexico and the United States. How does allowing an exemption for US drivers but not Canadian drivers operating in the United States make any sense or respects the spirit of NAFTA?
The Alberta government mandate is focused on revenue generation and building the Alberta War Chest. If Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors is not interested in allowing a free exemption for Livestock Transportation providers, then establish a Livestock ELD permit and make some money. The Province of Manitoba issues an ELD exemption permit why can’t Alberta?
The Honourable Devin Dreeshen, Minister of Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors just announced in a news release July 4, 2024; Alberta is marking more than a year of working with Saskatchewan and Manitoba through the Prairies Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to advance economic corridors and enhance collaboration with Alberta’s prairie neighbours. To date, the three provinces have achieved harmonization of regulations related to commercial carriers that improve both safety and regulatory requirements.
“By keeping the momentum of the Prairies MOU going, we can continue to lead the way in building economic corridors, cutting red tape, and creating jobs. This paves the way to make nation-building projects a reality again in western Canada.” Devin Dreeshen, Minister of Transportation and Economic Corridors
While the Prairies Memorandum of Understanding was supposed to harmonize regulations, the absence of ELD permits or ELD interpretations for commercial carriers in Alberta raises questions about consistency and accountability. It is crucial for commercial carriers to advocate for a level playing field and demand transparency from Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors.
As Albertans gather to celebrate Rodeo season and the contributions of livestock and agriculture, it's essential to address the unequal treatment of transportation providers in the province. The disparities in ELD exemptions highlight broader issues of fairness, safety, and accountability within the industry. It’s not nice to play favorites.
On May 31, 2024, the British Columbia Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit against a commercial carrier and a driver for damages, losses and expenses to repair a bridge damaged in an incident. This is a bold move for the Attorney General’s office and depending on the outcome it may open the door to other jurisdictions following suit.
In August 2022, a commercial vehicle was involved in an incident while transporting dangerous goods and the result was catastrophic. The driver was killed, a vital bridge was significantly damaged, and the community was cut off from essential services. The bridge is still being worked on and the current estimate is $4.25 million. In British Columbia the insurance liability limits for a commercial carrier are 10 million per occurrence and an extra $2 million for the dangerous goods. Maybe the British Columbia government should increase the minimum insurance liability limits to an amount that reflects the cost replacement value of a bridge today? In British Columbia it is a public insurance model, and this is just a matter of changing the insurance regulations.
In this case, the insurance company is never going to have to pay a dime to the carrier because the Attorney General has already pinned the blame on the company and the driver. The insurance company (who is the BC Government) has many many things to “limit liability”, when paying insurance claims. Good luck getting $4.5 million out of a trucking company and a driver’s estate. I personally do not know many drivers taking home that kind of money. The trucking company will go bankrupt with lawyer fees and what point is being made?
In its lawsuit, the federal government doesn't pinpoint exactly what caused the truck to crash into the bridge. Instead, it alleges that negligence from both the company and the driver "caused or contributed to" the crash and the resulting fire. The statement of claim says Troyer Ventures allegedly failed to check that the truck was "mechanically sound," inspect its brakes and ensure that the driver was properly trained for transporting dangerous goods. It also includes a long list of alleged errors made by the driver, ranging from neglecting to ensure the truck was sound and operating "while his ability to drive was impaired by fatigue or other factors."
The lawsuit does not provide evidence indicating how the incident occurred but, they allege the driver and company had a role to play. You know who else has a role to play? The provincial jurisdictions that are supposed to be monitoring commercial carriers to ensure the company has a maintenance program and is conducting vehicle inspections. Under the National Safety Code (NSC Standard 7) the provincial jurisdictions are required to use enforcement information from all of Canada and the United States to determine if the carrier meets the national safety standards. The carrier in the lawsuit, according to the public carrier profile system, currently holds an Alberta Safety Fitness Certificate with a Satisfactory safety rating. A Satisfactory rating means the carrier had a review by the Government of Alberta or a Third Party Auditor (TPA), who are certified by the Government of Alberta. That review found the Carrier has achieved acceptable results on NSC audit; the Carrier has not been identified on Alberta Transportation's monitoring list in the past 12 months and the Carrier has no outstanding compliance issues. Blowing up a bridge and a fatality from 2022 is not an outstanding compliance issue in 2024?
Two crucial aspects to bear in mind:
Dave Earle, the CEO and president of the B.C. Trucking Association said there is not enough staff and not enough enforcement being done. Now we have a situation for those inspections that are getting done, the data is not being received by the jurisdictions that are responsible for monitoring the carrier. The data the jurisdiction is using to determine safety isn’t correct or timely, is it any wonder that transportation safety is such a shit show? Nobody is watching.
If the British Columbia Attorney General is going to hold a carrier and a driver responsible, then I believe the Attorney General has a few bridge strike carriers to review. The same bridge strike carrier that is operating in Alberta because, it’s Transportation and Economic Corridors Department and Alberta is open for business. You can’t sue one carrier and not sue all the carriers that cause significant damage and death. Lawsuits go both ways, if the Attorney General is going after carriers and drivers then I know more than a few families who should consider suing their respective provincial jurisdictions for knowingly allowing operations despite glaring compliance issues and the jurisdiction’s own operational failings of compliance and oversight. We all have a role to play in transportation safety.
In my BLOG, “Why is trucking so F%&$ed up in Alberta? I can tell you why”, I explored the concern that Transportation and Economic Corridors have a vested interest in the economy and transportation safety becomes a secondary priority. Stop expecting Alberta Transportation to help you! Compliance and Oversight makes their budget from writing tickets, no matter how government tries to sell it.
Enforcement and education are two key components in a transportation regulatory framework, and they serve very different purposes. Enforcement uses penalties, fines, or legal actions to ensure compliance with regulations. It is a reactive approach that focuses on punishing non-compliance and deterring future violations. Education provides information, guidance, and resources to help industry understand and comply with regulations. It is a proactive approach that aims to promote awareness, understanding, and voluntary compliance.
Enforcement mechanisms are important for holding unsafe carriers and drivers accountable and maintaining whatever integrity is left of the commercial transportation industry. Where it all falls apart is when the regulatory bodies make the rules and don’t inform industry what those rules mean to them. Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors has had the ELD regulations for three years and carriers facing departmental intervention are clueless to the risks.
In a roadside stop ELD penalties can add up fast. An example is; a driver’s ELD was in a malfunction state for the day the driver was stopped and inspected and the 14 previous days. If the driver did not follow the malfunction protocol the driver could be charged under 78(1) failure to ensure ELD operates in good working order and is calibrated and maintained. That penalty is recommended to be $1000.00 per offence for the driver. That would be $15,000.00. The carrier could be facing: 78(5) Failure to repair or replace ELD within required timeframe. $1000.00 per offence is $15,000.00 for the carrier. If the driver intentionally disconnecting the ELD to avoid accurate recording of the information that could be 86(3), Tamper with ELD $1000.00 per offence and the carrier could be facing 86(3) request require allow a person to tamper with ELD $2000.00 per offence. The carrier could be charged for every day because the carrier is supposed to be monitoring the driver, (87(1) and 78.3 (1)) using the carrier ELD dashboard and is aware of the malfunction. Imagine explaining to your boss how a driver earned the company a $32,000.00 penalty. Nobody gets a safety bonus this month!
This isn’t the good old days of trucking; drivers and carriers are monitored in real time and roadside officers are armed and have expanded powers including detention. Drivers need to take care during a roadside stop, speak respectfully and ask questions respectfully, even if the driver is correct and the officer wrong. In a roadside situation the person with the gun is always right and drivers need to remember that.
In summary, enforcement is about penalizing non-compliance, while education is about empowering compliance through awareness and understanding. Both enforcement and education are important tools in a regulatory framework, and a balanced approach that combines both can be effective in achieving regulatory goals. The problem is Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors Alberta is not balanced; the focus is enforcement with no education for the carriers to be successful. Why would Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors slit the throat of this cash cow when carriers can be kept in the dark and the cash keeps flowing?
Alberta TEC has introduced a new risk factor scoring process as of May 1,2024 that is intended to enhance the identification of the most high-risk carriers operating in Alberta. I would ask the bridge department which carriers are high risk but, government loves data and scoring so, here we are. Roadcheck is in May and Roadcheck is when all the inspectors are out getting inspection numbers to stay certified. Roadcheck is also when all the tickets get written, what a funny coincidence that is. Historical carrier information will remain unchanged. This only applies to points after month-end for April 2024.
A carrier’s risk factor score (R-Factor) is used to determine a carrier’s on-road safety performance to pinpoint carriers with concerning data. For specific details the changes to the scoring are on the TEC (Transportation and Economic Corridors) May Bulletin 1.0: Overview of the Risk Factor Score, Risk Factor Score Change Summary & Carrier Impacts.
TEC (Transportation and Economic Corridors) acknowledges there may be fluctuations to carriers R-Factor score. Carriers may find that their risk factor score has changed from March 2024 to April 2024 month-end, as a result of the refinements. Changes in the risk factor score may impact carrier monitoring, and move the carrier on or off of monitoring, and/or move the carrier to a different stage of monitoring.
Alberta Transportation could not program an audit system that accepts time by the second (see my Data Entry Debacle BLOG). Alberta Transportation cannot get enforcement data from all jurisdictions because of a computer glitch (see my Hidden Dangers: Exposing the of Unreliable Safety Fitness Ratings of Alberta Motor Carriers BLOG). Can industry really trust Alberta Transportation to accurate calculate this “new” algorithm? Probably not. Every carrier should pull a copy of their carrier profile at the end of May, June and July to ensure there is nothing unexpected.
If you do find yourself in monitoring and you’re getting a review from the department, give me a call.
Introduction:
Increasingly, carriers utilizing Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) face challenges with unidentified driving events that can lead to violations during audits and investigations. However, by leveraging the exempt driver functionality within the ELD system, carriers may mitigate those unidentified driving events.
Understanding the Exempt Driver Functionality:
All ELD systems come equipped with an exempt driver function, allowing carriers to configure accounts for drivers who may be exempt from ELD usage. For instance, drivers operating under the short-haul exemption within 160 km of their home terminal can be designated as exempt. This designation enables the sharing of ELD-equipped commercial motor vehicles between exempt and non-exempt drivers seamlessly. The Technical Standard. 3.1.3 Configuration of user account exempt from using an ELD: As specified in 4.3.3.1.2 of the Technical Standard, an ELD must allow a motor carrier to configure an ELD for a driver who may be exempt from the use of an ELD. An example of an exempt driver would be a driver driving under the short-haul exemption under current HOS regulations (i.e. specified in regulation as within a radius of 160 km of the home terminal). Even though exempt drivers do not have to use an ELD, an ELD equipped CMV may be shared between exempt and non-exempt drivers and motor carriers can use this allowed configuration to avoid issues with unidentified driver data diagnostics errors.
Implementation and Training:
Drivers and administrators must be trained on how to utilize the exempt functionality in real-world scenarios. Administrators need to activate the exempt function when creating driver accounts, customizing it for specific drivers even if only a few will be using the exemption.
Compliance and Monitoring:
Drivers using the exempt functionality are not exempt from federal Hours of Service regulations but are excused from using a ELD to record the driver’s time. However, they still need to maintain alternative time records that meet regulatory criteria. Drivers must verify their exempt status periodically, as the ELD does not automatically maintain this status.
Challenges of the Exempt Driver Function:
Transitioning from exempt to non-exempt status can pose challenges, especially when the exemption ends, and ELD usage becomes mandatory. Drivers are required to enter time from paper logs or alternative records.
The Technical Standard 4.3.2.2.4 Indication of Situations Impacting duty-/driving-hour limitations: c) An ELD must provide the means to indicate additional hours that were not recorded for the current motor carrier during the current day or the required previous days specified in current HOS regulations:
(1) When this function is selected, the ELD must prompt the user to select one of the following
options:
i. Option 1: additional hours already recorded and reported in a RODS for another motor carrier.
ii. Option 2: additional hours not recorded since the driver was not required to keep a RODS immediately before the beginning of the day.
Conclusion:
The exempt driver functionality within ELD systems offers a valuable tool for carriers with drivers alternating between exempt and non-exempt status. While managing this transition may require additional effort from both drivers and administrators, the benefits of leveraging the exempt driver function for seamless operations and compliance monitoring cannot be overlooked. By understanding, training, and effectively implementing the exempt driver functionality, carriers may avoid unidentified driving events and avoid administrative penalties.
