Introduction:
We can all agree the ELD hours of service regulations desperately need an interpretation guide especially around NSC Standard 15 Audits. The adoption of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) has brought about significant changes in how hours of service regulations are enforced and monitored. Understanding the intricate guidelines around ELDs, particularly in relation to NSC Standard 15 Audits, is crucial for both trucking companies and drivers to avoid penalties and ensure compliance.
ELD Interpretation Guidelines and Regulatory Responsibility:
The need is great for a comprehensive interpretation guide for ELD regulations, specifically NSC Standard 15 Audits. The CCMTA (Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators) in conjunction with Transport Canada developed the ELD Technical Standard and the certification testing. However, the responsibility for interpreting these regulations falls on individual provincial jurisdictions. When a provincial jurisdiction chooses to adopt a federal regulation, it is up the provincial jurisdiction to decide what that regulation means to its constituents. This lack of standardized guidelines can lead to confusion and misinterpretation, highlighting the importance of clear communication between regulatory bodies and industry players.
When Alberta Transportation chose to adopt the Federal Hours of Service regulation, which included the ELD mandate, Alberta Transportation had a governmental obligation to inform industry what that meant, especially when issuing administrative penalties/fines for contravention of that regulation. A trucking company that received an administrative penalty or downgraded SFC should seek clarification from Alberta Transportation, to explain the penalty. Industry needs fair treatment and transparency in enforcement of regulations. Maybe if industry starts questioning things, Alberta Transportation will have to deal with ELDs. Alberta Transportation dropped the ball that is clear, but what does industry do now? Status quo isn’t going to work anymore; it’s been 2 years.
The Spirit of ELD Mandate and the Technical Standard:
Whenever a regulation is questioned, bureaucrats like to revert to the spirit of the regulation. Simply, this means determining what were the regulators looking to accomplish when they wrote the ELD mandate and the Technical Standard. Let’s examine the spirit of the ELD mandate and the Technical Standard. To do this, it is essential to delve into the historical context of paper logs and the evolution of monitoring technologies in transportation. In the old days, driver tracked their own time in a paper log book. The driver turned in the paper logs every few weeks and the trucking company that employed the driver would review those records to verify the accuracy, but for the most part it was on the driver. GPS was adopted by most trucking companies in the 90’s and GPS was used to track drivers and audit logs but, it was still weeks after the trip. The trucking company was, and still is, very rarely held liable for a driver’s behaviour. People who were injured in collisions or fatalities got sick of suing broke truck drivers and decided it was better to go after trucking companies with big insurance policies. What better evidence than a government certified system that continuously monitors the driver and alerts the driver and company in real time if the driver is in an out-of-service condition? Add in front and rear facing cameras and the lawyers are golden.
The Role of ELDs in Enhancing Safety and Accountability:
ELDs establish real-time monitoring of driver activities, ensuring compliance with rest requirements and promoting road safety. While the intentions behind these regulations are noble, the practical implementation and adherence pose significant challenges for both drivers and carriers. ELDs serve as a crucial tool in enhancing safety standards and accountability within the transportation industry. By providing real-time data on driver activity and alerting carriers to potential violations, ELDs aim to prevent instances of driver fatigue. The driver and the carrier working together, using the information from the ELD, are supposed to ensure the driver is never exceeding daily limits or are in an out of service condition. The wording from the hours of service regulation (78.3 & 78.2) is certify, verify and monitor. The collaborative effort required between drivers and carriers in using ELD data for monitoring and compliance underscores the shared responsibility in upholding road safety standards.
Conclusion:
It is paramount as the ELD technology evolves; the hours of service regulation will need continuous updates. Industry needs cohesive interpretation guides and transparent communication channels. By embracing the spirit of ELD mandate and leveraging technological advancements to enhance safety and compliance, the transportation industry can pave the way for a more efficient and secure operating environment for all parties involved. That is the spirit of the regulation, to ensure that liability is shared equally.
In the world of commercial transportation, safety is paramount. To ensure the safety of drivers and other road users, regulations and monitoring programs are essential. One such program is the National Safety Code (NSC), which sets standards for commercial vehicles, drivers, and motor carriers in Canada. This code, though not law, is crucial in guiding provincial and territorial governments in drafting their safety regulations. In Alberta, the regulations are outlined in the Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation, AR 314/2002 (Part 4.1).
NSC Standard 7 is the criteria for carrier and driver profiles. The Carrier Profile system is designed to provide an overview of a carrier's safety performance, encompassing records of infractions, collisions, on-road inspections, and facility audits. This system allows Alberta to monitor carriers' performance and take action against those posing safety risks across North America.
The Carrier Profile acts as a report card for carriers, offering transparency to stakeholders like shippers, insurance companies, and the public. By accessing this information, stakeholders can make informed decisions about engaging with specific carriers, promoting safety and accountability within the industry.
However, there is a critical issue with the reliability of the Carrier Profile data. Despite its intended purpose, there is a significant flaw in data sharing between jurisdictions. Alberta is not accurately capturing enforcement data from other provinces. This oversight means that Alberta trucking companies involved in incidents outside the province may not have their records updated promptly or accurately on their Carrier Profiles.
The implications of this data discrepancy are concerning. Carriers with incomplete or delayed information may not face the necessary interventions or audits, leading to inaccuracies in their risk factor scores. This discrepancy could potentially result in carriers maintaining a clean record, qualifying for insurance discounts, and evading enhanced monitoring or audits due to inaccurate risk assessment.
Moreover, the shortcomings extend to the auditing process itself. TPA (Third Party Auditors) do not have encryption keys and cannot audit unencrypted RODS. TPA (Third Party Auditors) lack proper training, support, and communication channels with Alberta Transportation, leading to flawed audits that further impact safety compliance determinations. This systemic issue raises questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the safety oversight program in Alberta.
Despite federal funding allocated to enhance road safety and data exchange initiatives, the existing gaps in the Carrier Profile system highlight a critical need for improvement. The discrepancy between intended safety measures and operational shortcomings underscores the urgency for corrective actions and increased accountability within the transportation safety framework.
Why is Alberta Transportation allowed to continue a program that is fundamentally flawed? Why are taxpayers paying salaries to a leadership group to run a flawed program? This is just another example of government inertia that is allowed to continue unabated while bureaucrats collect taxpayer salaries to do a terrible job. As taxpayers and stakeholders invested in road safety, it is essential to demand transparency, efficiency, and accuracy in safety monitoring programs. Accountability and rectification of existing flaws are imperative to uphold the standards of safety and compliance in the commercial transportation industry.
In conclusion, the revelations regarding the Alberta Transportation safety monitoring system shed light on the need for reform and transparency in data sharing and auditing processes. By addressing these issues, we can ensure that carriers are held accountable, road safety is prioritized, and the integrity of safety compliance programs is maintained for the well-being of all road users.
In the arena of politics and government decision-making, lobbying is a controversial practice that often sparks debates and raises concerns about its influence on public policy. While lobbying can serve as a powerful tool for advocacy and positive change, it also has a dark side marked by unethical behaviors and potential manipulation of government regulations.
Lobbying, defined as the act of attempting to influence decisions made by government officials, is a common practice in both the United States and Canada. However, the way lobbying is conducted, and its impact vary between the two countries. In the United States, the connections between lobby groups and donations to government officials have raised suspicions and led to scrutiny, especially during presidential elections. On the other hand, Canada has a smaller lobbying industry with less influence of money, but it is not immune to lobbying scandals.
One such scandal that rocked the Canadian political landscape was the SNC-Lavalin affair, where a prominent engineering company engaged in unlawful lobbying activities to secure a government agreement. The scandal shed light on the ethical and legal implications of lobbying practices, highlighting concerns about transparency in government decision-making and the potential for undue influence on public policy.
While cases like the SNC-Lavalin scandal tarnish the reputation of lobbying, not all lobbying efforts are harmful. Advocacy organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in Canada have successfully lobbied for stricter laws and policies to combat impaired driving, leading to tangible improvements in road safety and a reduction in alcohol-related accidents.
However, the issue arises when lobbying serves the interests of specific industries at the expense of public safety and accountability. This example of the Alberta Motor Transport Association (AMTA) lobbying on behalf of the Canadian Association of Energy Contractors (CAOEC) to secure exemptions raises questions about the integrity of lobbying practices.
The AMTA successfully lobbied Alberta Transportation and got exemptions to the Oilfield Exemption Permit as it relates to the Hours of Service regulations. Specifically, under this permit, a driver does not have to use the prescribed log book required in the Hours of Service regulation. Drivers under this permit are already exempt from using a ELD and should be using a paper log to meet the Hours of Service requirements. However, because of lobbying instead of a paper log these drivers are allowed to record working time on a “tour sheet”. The criteria for a “tour sheet” only requires the total on-duty and off duty hours for the day. No work shift start and end time is required. There is absolutely no way for an auditor to confirm total off duty requirements are met if there is no start and end time. The CAOEC essentially got an exemption to the very heart of the regulation which is to ensure drivers are getting adequate off duty time. By influencing Alberta Transportation to grant exemptions that compromise driver safety and accountability, the AMTA and CAOEC showcase how lobbying can be used to circumvent regulations for the benefit of industry interests.
Farmers and Ranchers in Alberta have been asking for a ELD permit or a ELD exemption for years and it has been ignored. The disparity in treatment between different sectors, as seen in the case of farmers and ranchers in Alberta seeking ELD permits or exemptions, further underscores the need for fair and transparent lobbying practices.
When government decisions prioritize economic interests over public safety, it creates a concerning precedent that undermines the trust in regulatory processes. Unethical lobbying practices erode trust in government institutions and jeopardize public welfare. It is crucial for policymakers, advocacy groups, and citizens to remain vigilant and hold lobbying activities with government accountable to ensure transparency, fairness, and ethical conduct in shaping government decisions.
When you mix transportation in with economic corridors there is always the risk that safety will not be a priority over the economy. I want to address some critical safety gaps that have been ignored by TEC (Transportation and Economic Corridors) for years. Albertan’s should be deeply troubled by the neglect of crucial safety policies within Compliance and Oversight.
The Compliance and Oversight department monitors the overall safety of trucking companies in Alberta. Compliance and Oversight conducts audits and investigations to ensure compliance with the NSC standards. However, there are glaring issues that demand immediate attention:
1. **Non-Compliance with Intervention and Discipline Policies:** There is a disturbing trend of Compliance and Oversight failing to adhere to its own policies. Companies with significant safety violations are not being labeled as unsatisfactory, allowing them to operate under conditional status without proper intervention. This negligence has been repeatedly highlighted in audits by the Auditor General, yet no corrective actions have been taken.
2. **Flawed Third-Party Auditor (TPA) Program:** The TPA program, responsible for conducting NSC Standard 15 Audits on behalf of the Alberta government, is fundamentally flawed:
- Auditors do not have encryption keys to be able to download complete RODS. This compromised data is used for hours of service reviews, impacting carrier safety and public road safety.
- Lack of support for auditors, hindering their ability to communicate with TEC for assistance.
- Inadequate training and monitoring of auditors, leading to unreliable audit information.
- Inefficiencies in data processing and communication, undermining the accuracy and effectiveness of audits.
If any carrier failed a audit or got a penalty as a result of a audit by a TPA in the last 2 years, I would 100% appeal it. The TPA audits are not accurate because TPA auditors do not have the “key” to unlock the box, that contains the accurate RODS. Would you pay your income tax if you found out the T4’s information has been wrong for years? Pretty simple argument.
To address these urgent safety concerns, the following actions are proposed:
1. Immediate review of all TPA audits and compliance records since June 2022, to ensure accuracy and reliability.
2. Establish a streamlined process for handling TPA audit by providing encryption keys, enhancing transparency and accountability.
3. Enforce intervention and discipline policies rigorously, ensuring that unsafe carriers are marked unsatisfactory and penalized accordingly, promoting road safety and public confidence.
Continuing to ignore these issues and allowing unsafe carriers continued operation is validating the perception that Alberta highways are more dangerous today. Unfortunately, these issues will be ignored until there is another incident involving a Alberta trucking company that Compliance and Oversight deemed safe.
This is a quote from the Transportation and Economic Corridors Annual Report 2022-2023, “Innovation is core to TEC’s mandate. In 2022 ‑ 23, TEC delivered on a range of cutting-edge initiatives.” Cutting edge initiatives and you have professional auditors doing data entry because the computer system doesn’t accept time to the second? Really?
Why is Alberta Transportation paying professional auditors to do hours of manual data entry? I can tell you why!
Professional auditors, who command professional wages due to their extensive experience and education, are currently dedicating hours and hours to manual data entry tasks, highlighting the inefficiency of the current process.
The current system ARC (assessment of regulatory compliance) is designed to accept time entries only in 15 minute increments of an hour (8.25, 8.50, 8.75), which is completely unfeasible and inefficient process in 2024. ELDs (Electronic Logging Devices) record a driver's time in real-time by the second using data from the truck engine (ECM). Auditors are required to look up converted time information from a paper chart and then enter the data into ARC. In 2024 there exists a more advanced and streamlined solution that should be implemented.
During hours of service reviews, a 30-day sample of drivers RODS (Record of Duty Status) is reviewed and recorded. However, the existing computer program, ARC (Assessment of Regulatory Compliance) was not created to handle time by the second. The ARC system requires auditors to refer to a Conversion Chart in the ARC help manual to translate minutes into the appropriate decimal value for data entry. This cumbersome process not only consumes investigative resources but also contradicts the efficiency goals that technology is meant to enable.
Below is taken from the ARC help manual used by Investigator’s and Third Party Auditors (TPA).
All “Hours” fields in the New ARC take time in decimals of an hour only. For proper calculations please ensure the appropriate decimal of an hour is entered in New ARC.
Conversion Chart
Find the minutes you need to enter under the “Minutes” column and beside it in the right side column is the appropriate decimal conversion. Add this decimal conversion to the total full hours and you will have the appropriate time in decimals of an hour to enter in your field.
Consider this - a standard 5-driver audit sample can lead to 450–900 minutes or 7.5–15 hours simply being spent on manual data entry. These 7.5 – 15 hours represents just entering time, if a violation is detected a descriptive narrative of the violation is also required. If every calendar day has a violation, which happens all the time, that is a significant waste of resources. ELD systems generate a CSV files in Excel format that contain all the relevant information needed by Investigators and Third Party Auditors.
It is evident that there is a clear need to modernize and integrate ELD systems into the audit process to streamline operations, improve accuracy, and save valuable time and resources. By transitioning to a more technology-driven approach, the Transportation and Economic Corridors sector can enhance efficiency, reduce errors, and ultimately improve overall regulatory compliance.
Transportation and Economic Corridors could have been a leader in technology based solutions but, shortsightedness in leadership will keep Alberta auditors using a abacus. It is crucial that leadership drive progress and innovation within critical sectors like transportation auditing.
What do planes, trains and semi trucks all have in common? Regulations to ensure the operators of those vehicles do not work fatigued. The Federal Hours of Service HOS (SOR/2005-313) regulates the amount of time a commercial driver is allowed to drive, be on duty and mandatory off duty time limits. The intent of regulating a driver’s time is an attempt to mitigate the number and gravity of truck crashes by tackling driver fatigue.
All carriers holding a Federal Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC) must follow the Federal Hours of Service (HOS) SOR/2005-313, which includes the mandatory use of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) for tracking driver hours (HOS 77). It is important to recognize that some provinces in Canada like Alberta and Manitoba have both federal and provincial SFCs, leading to potential variations in HOS regulations between federal and provincial rules. Example, a carrier with a provincial SFC has no cycle limitations and can be on duty a total of 15 hours a day. A carrier with a federal SFC is limited to 70 hrs in 7 days or 120 hours in 14 days in a cycle and on duty a total of 14 hours in a day. Moreover, some provinces like Alberta did not adopt the ELD mandate for carriers with Provincial SFCs. Regardless of the specific type of Safety Fitness Certificate held by a carrier, all drivers operating regulated commercial motor vehicles are obligated to comply with the relevant Hours of Service duty status limits. This underscores the importance of understanding and adhering to the appropriate regulations to ensure compliance.
The Federal Hours of Service (SOR/2005-313) section 4 outlines the responsibilities of motor carriers, drivers, shippers, consignees, safety officers, dispatchers, and others to help prevent driver fatigue.
They are responsible to ensure a drivers must not drive if:
ELDs record time by the second and track how much time is remaining in a drivers shift. The ELD alerts the driver 30 minutes before a duty status limit is reached, Technical Standard 4.6.4. Drivers and persons listed in Section 4 of the HOS must be trained in the rules of HOS. However, it is no longer imperative to understand the minutia of team split sleeper or deferral calculations because the ELD does and the ELD monitors and alerts the driver to available time.
On duty and driving limits: driving and on duty time is automatically recorded by the ELD. Team drivers must authenticate (log in) to the ELD, (Technical Standard 4.1.4 b). The ELD monitors and calculates time concurrently for team driving conditions such as; team split sleeper berth.
Operating zone is set by the motor carrier during the drivers account creation (Technical Standard 7.46). The ELD will track and alert the driver 30 minutes before a duty status is reached. North of 60 covers three territories: Nunavut, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. There are no daily limits only work shift limits.
A driver is allowed to defer 2 hours of off duty time to the following day. This allows drivers to obtain two additional driving and on-duty hours in a 24-hour period (Day 1). Then, they can take the required two hours off immediately the next day (Day 2).
The ELD will track and alert the driver to the time requirements ensuring compliance to the regulation.
Certified ELDs are now required for commercial carriers as part of the law. Carriers must understand how ELDs work and how to review the data they generate. Previously, drivers used paper logbooks to track their time, with the burden of accurate recording falling on the driver. Carriers were responsible for monitoring these logs, but they provided historical information. With ELDs offering real-time certified data, it is now the motor carrier's duty to actively monitor drivers through the ELD's features and confirm the accuracy of their records of duty status (RODS). In case of a serious collision, the carrier can no longer shift blame to the driver, claiming ignorance of any violations of driving hours, as they are now expected to constantly monitor and verify compliance using the ELD data.
Drivers of commercial motor vehicles are subject to roadside inspections and NSC Standard 15 audit inspections. If a driver or vehicle is placed out of service, the driver and/or carrier would be subject to a written warning, tickets and/or points on the Carrier Profile. If the non-compliance is serious the driver and/or vehicle would be placed Out Of Service (OOS) until corrected. These are considered HOS violations. Not all provinces and territories follow the Federal Contraventions Regulations (Schedule XVIII): SOR/2023-137, which means that penalties for violations can vary depending on where the violation occurs. The penalties outlined in the contravention regulations are different for the driver and carrier involved in the violation. Specifically, carrier penalties are set at double the amount of driver penalties in order to ensure that responsibility is appropriately distributed between the driver and carrier.
77 (1) A motor carrier shall ensure that each commercial vehicle that it operates is equipped with an ELD that meets the requirements of the Technical Standard and shall ensure that it is mounted in a fixed position during the operation of the commercial vehicle and is visible to the driver when the driver is in the normal driving position. Contraventions Regulations (Schedule XVIII): SOR/2023-137 suggested penalty is $1000.00.
How to avoid: Install a $20.00 magnetic cell phone holder if the ELD is on the driver’s phone and not a wired connection.
77 (7) The motor carrier shall ensure that each commercial vehicle that it operates carries an ELD information packet. Contraventions Regulations (Schedule XVIII): SOR/2023-137 suggested penalty is $600.00.
How to avoid: Ensure each CMV contains an information packet that contains; (a) a user’s manual; (b) an instruction sheet for the driver describing the data transfer mechanisms supported by the ELD and the steps required to generate and transfer the data with respect to the driver’s hours of service to an inspector; (c) an instruction sheet for the driver describing the measures to take in the event that the ELD malfunctions; and (d) a sufficient number of records of duty status to allow the driver to record the information required under section 82 for at least 15 days.
77 (8) The motor carrier shall ensure that the driver records the information related to their record of duty status and the driver is required to record that information in a complete and accurate manner.
78.1 A motor carrier shall create and maintain a system of accounts for ELDs that is in compliance with the Technical Standard and that (a) allows each driver to record their record of duty status in a distinct and personal account; and (b) provides for a distinct account for the driving time of an unidentified driver.
Technical Standard 4.1.5 Non-Authenticated Driving of a CMV
87 (1) A motor carrier shall monitor the compliance of each driver with these Regulations.
Contraventions Regulations (Schedule XVIII): SOR/2023-137 suggested penalty 77(8) is $500.00 for the driver $1000.00 for the carrier. 78.1 suggested penalty is $1000.00 for the carrier. 87(1) suggested penalty is $2000.00 for the carrier.
How to avoid: Carrier to assign all unidentified time.
Technical Standard 4.6.1 Compliance Self-Monitoring, Malfunctions and Data Diagnostic Events Table 4
86 (3) No motor carrier shall request, require or allow any person to, and no person shall, disable, deactivate, disengage, jam or otherwise block or degrade a signal transmission or reception, or re-engineer, reprogram or otherwise tamper with an ELD so that the device does not accurately record and retain the data that is required to be recorded and retained.
Contraventions Regulations (Schedule XVIII): SOR/2023-137 suggested penalty 86 (3) is $2000.00 for the carrier.
Data diagnostic events: Table 4 Technical Standard
(Code 1) Power Data Diagnostic Event: Problem ELD is not fully powered/functional within one minute of the vehicle’s engine receiving power. How to avoid: Plug the ELD in.
(Code 2) Engine Synchronization Data Diagnostic Event: Problem the ELD loses ECM connectivity to any of the required data sources and can no longer acquire updated values for the required ELD parameters within five seconds of the need. Connectivity must be maintained while the vehicle is powered on. How to avoid/ fix the connectivity where the ELD loses ECM connectivity to the required data sources, you can try the following steps:
(Code 3) Missing Required Data Elements Data Diagnostic Event: Problem there are missing data elements (like GPS location) in the ELD event record. How to avoid: Instruct drivers to input missing information when ELD prompted.
(Code 4) Data Transfer Data Diagnostic Event: Problem the internal monitoring of the data transfer test fails and is unable to send the output file data. How to correct: consult with technical support
(Code 5) Unidentified Driving Records Data Diagnostic Event: Problem there is over 30 minutes of unidentified driving time for the vehicle over the last 24 hours. Unidentified Driving Records Data Diagnostic Events will clear when the cumulative time for unidentified driving is less than 15 minutes. How to correct: Assign all unidentified driving time.
Technical Standard 4.6.1 Compliance Self-Monitoring, Malfunctions and Data Diagnostic Events Table 4
(Code P) Power Compliance Malfunction
(Code E) Engine Synchronization Malfunction
(Code L) Positioning Compliance Malfunction
(Code T) Timing Compliance Malfunction – Drivers using a smartphone as a device must disable the Automatic Time Zone Detection or Automatic Time Zone Adjustment.
(Code R) Data Recording Compliance Malfunction
(Code S) Data Transfer Compliance Malfunction
How to avoid: Malfunctions occur when Data Diagnostic Events are not corrected, fix the data, avoid the Malfunction. When a Malfunction is detected, the driver is to stop, switch to paper logs and follow the Malfunction criteria 78 (2)(3)(4).
That’s my top 5 and the easiest to avoid and correct. In my experience 75% of issues are driver training and safety officers not understanding how ELDs work. It’s not the device, the ELD records data, the ELD does not interpret what that data means. With ELDs providing a digital record of a driver’s activity it is important for carriers to recognize the level of liability that entails if your driver is involved in a serious incident.
Ensuring that motor carriers have appropriate safety ratings is a crucial responsibility of regulatory authorities overseeing transportation. The presence of unsafe and unfit carriers on the road poses significant risk, not only to the drivers and personnel directly involved, but also to the general public. The consequences of accidents involving such carriers can be severe, leading to injuries, loss of lives, property damage, and environmental hazards.
There is a real and probable risk that federally regulated Alberta carriers have been upgraded to a Satisfactory or Excellent safety ratings using unreliable audit scores. The Province has been made aware of this, yet has taken no action to correct it, putting the Province at serious risk of liability.
The Alberta government is permitting private third-party auditors (TPAs) to use encrypted Record of Duty Status (RODS) for conducting NSC Standard 15 Audits. There are concerns about the validity of the audit results because encrypted data was used to conduct the audit. The specific concern is that encrypted RODS may lead to inaccurate and unreliable hours of service scores, which significantly contribute to the overall audit score, potentially rendering the entire audit ineffective.
Any federally regulated carriers in Alberta that have undergone an NSC Standard 15 audit by a TPA since January 1, 2023, should have their audit fees refunded, administrative penalties and conditions repealed, and their safety rating rescinded to preaudit status.
In 2021, Transport Canada updated the Federal Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (SOR/2005-313) to include Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs), (Section 77), and also refers to the Technical Standard, developed by the CCMTA. All certified ELD devices must meet the Technical Standard.
The Technical Standard requires all ELD systems to generate standardized ELD output file (CSV and PDF) and transfer those record of duty status (RODS) to an authorized safety official upon request (System Design 1.4 d). The Technical Standard specifies the minimum data required to be included on the standard ELD output file (CSV and PDF) (System Design 1.4 e). For a TPA to audit RODS that fully meet the Technical Standard, the RODS must be sent via one of the transfer methods specified, and in the manner specified in Technical Standard 4.8.2 ELD Output File. Data must be transmitted via:
Transport Canada compiled a list of email addresses for inspectors authorized to have PKI encryption keys. PKI is an acronym for public key infrastructure, which is the technology behind digital certificates. A digital certificate fulfills a similar purpose to a driver’s license or a passport – it is a piece of identification that proves your identity and provides certain allowances.
When a government safety official receives the RODS from a trucking company, the RODS are unencrypted, via PKI, because government enforcement officials have the encryption key. TPAs do not, because they are not designated as inspectors. This is a critical gap in the auditing process when a trucking company transmits encrypted Record of Duty Status (RODS) to a government-certified TPA. The TPA cannot access all the required data for a comprehensive audit.
TPAs do not have encryption keys primarily to protect driver privacy during periods of personal conveyance. Driver privacy is paramount and there is a Technical Standard specific to that end (Technical Standard 4.7.3 Privacy Preserving Provision for use during personal uses of a CMV).
To compound the issue, TPAs are not required to retain the RODS reviewed in an audit, therefore previous audits cannot be reviewed to ensure correct RODS were used.
Both of these factors raise significant concerns about the transparency and accountability of Third-Party Auditors (TPAs) in the auditing process, particularly regarding the handling and verification of unencrypted Record of Duty Status (RODS) data. If there is no mechanism to confirm whether TPAs are using unencrypted data and no requirement for them to submit evidence for retention, it creates a potential vulnerability in the accuracy and reliability of audits.
Private industry is aware of the problem to some degree. Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC) president Mike Millian said in a 2022 press release:
“We are also waiting for a PKI vendor and system to be announced by Transport Canada that allows for ELD data to be transferred securely from the device to enforcement personnel, as well as enforcement protocols, training, and how the regulation will be enforced uniformly between jurisdictions.”
In June 2022, the CTA (Canadian Transportation Association) released information via email regarding the PKI system:
“Encryption of Record of Duty Status Email Files
The process for establishing the encryption of records of duty status (known as PKI) for email transfer to Roadside officials is the responsibility of Transport Canada. The process for implementing the Transport Canada work is the responsibility of each provincial and territorial jurisdiction, which includes submitting email addresses of enforcement officials who will be engaged in hours-of-service enforcement. The requirements and format for ELDs to produce the encrypted record of duty status are contained in the ELD technical standard, which is the result of a collaborative effort between Transport Canada, representatives from all provincial and territorial governments and ELD vendors. Devices certified through the Transport Canada and Standards Council of Canada process will meet the required format for record of duty status.”
As of January 1, 2023, NSC Audits conducted by Third Party Auditors in Alberta can not be considered accurate to a threshold that can be used to assess carrier safety risk.
There is no way to confirm the RODS used by a third party auditor were unencrypted because unlike the government auditors, TPAs are not required to submit the evidence reviewed for retention in the TSIS system. If you compare this to evidence used in criminal matters, if evidence is considered suspect or deficient, it cannot be used to convict. If the RODS used in a Third Party Auditor audit are suspect or deficient, the information cannot be used to assess an administrative penalty, condition or SFC rating.
Recommendations
There are two possible resolutions to the issues at hand.
Recommendation 1
A simple three-part solution exists to mitigate and correct the issues at hand.
Recommendation 2
Designate government-certified TPAs as “inspectors” which would enable them to access the PKI encryption key required to access full and correct ELD RODS datasets. The Federal Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (SOR/2005-313) defines an
inspector as:
(a) a person designated under subsection 3(2); or
(b) a peace officer within the meaning of section 2 of the Criminal Code.
Section 3(2) of the same regulations notes that:
(2) A director may designate inspectors for the purposes of these Regulations.
References
