Vol. 151, No. 50 — December 16, 2017

Regulations Amending the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (Electronic Logging Devices and Other Amendments)

Statutory authority

Motor Vehicle Transport Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: The current Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (the Regulations) require drivers of commercial buses and trucks to self-report their on-duty time, off-duty time and driving time in a paper-based daily log, and also permit the use of an electronic recording device (ERD). An ERD is a first-generation device that is subject to few technical specifications. The information generated from these daily logs can be falsified, incomplete, duplicated or missing altogether in an effort to avoid accountability for non-compliance with the Regulations. It can be difficult and frequently impossible for roadside enforcement or the motor carrier to detect non-compliance by the driver simply by viewing the daily logs. Non-compliance with hours of service (HOS) requirements by a motor carrier or driver can significantly increase crash risk and provide the non-compliant operator with a competitive advantage over those motor carriers that comply with the Regulations.

Description: The proposed amendments would, in alignment with U.S. requirements, mandate the use of electronic logging devices (ELDs) (see footnote 1), by drivers who are currently maintaining a daily log and establish more specific requirements for supporting documents (e.g. bills of lading) that must be kept by the driver and motor carrier. The proposed amendments would also incorporate by reference a technical standard to establish minimum performance and design specifications for ELDs. Other incidental amendments are being proposed to improve conformity with legal drafting standards and to harmonize the Regulations with updates that have been made to Standard 9 — Hours of Service of the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers.

Cost-benefit statement: The proposed amendments would yield safety benefits by reducing crashes (less property damage and fewer injuries and fatalities); reduced out-of-service detention time of drivers for HOS violations; time savings to both the motor carrier industry (administrative costs saved) and provincial and territorial governments (quicker, more efficient and effective inspections and facility audits); and paper-based daily log savings for motor carriers. The total benefits are estimated to have a present value of $255.4 million, with an annualized value of $36.4 million. In addition, non-quantified benefits would include: more fair and level competition for federally regulated motor carriers; greater harmonization with U.S. regulatory requirements; improved compliance with HOS rules; and an improved quality of life for drivers (increased opportunity for recuperative rest).

The proposed amendments would result in additional costs for federally regulated truck and bus motor carriers and for the provincial and territorial governments. These costs would include those borne by the motor carrier for the acquisition, installation, activation, and the monthly monitoring service of ELDs; training costs for motor carrier drivers and for provincial/territorial inspectors and auditors; and other costs associated with moving closer to full compliance with the Regulations. Total costs are estimated to have a present value of $125.6 million, with an annualized value of $17.9 million. Therefore, the present value of the net benefits of the proposed amendments are estimated at $129.8 million, with an annualized value of $18.5 million.

“One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The proposed amendments would result in a significant reduction in annual administrative costs of $22.7 million ($2,359 per business), a cost savings that could be used to offset new administrative costs from other regulatory proposals under the “One-for-One” Rule.

The proposed amendments would impact small businesses, and the small business lens applies. However, the net impact for small business would be positive, as the cost of compliance would be more than offset by administrative cost savings.

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: The proposed amendments would be aligned with similar requirements in the United States (U.S.), delivering administrative cost savings, as well as safety and competitive benefits, without introducing any impediments to trade.

Background

The Government of Canada is committed to a transportation system that is safe and reliable and facilitates trade and the movement of people and goods. The National Transportation Policy, as articulated in section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996, c. 10), calls for a “competitive, economic and efficient national transportation system that meets the highest practicable safety and security standards” and recognizes that this objective is best achieved when “regulation and strategic public intervention are used to achieve economic, safety, security, environmental or social outcomes that cannot be achieved satisfactorily by competition and market forces and do not unduly favour, or reduce the inherent advantages of, any particular mode of transportation.”

Road safety in Canada is a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The federal government is responsible for limited operational matters pertaining to international and interprovincial truck and bus undertakings (motor carriers) and the provinces and territories are responsible for motor carriers that operate within their respective jurisdictions. The provinces and territories enforce their own regulations as well as the federal regulations.

Driver fatigue is recognized in Canada and internationally as a critical risk factor associated with motor vehicle crashes. Fatigue in commercial drivers is especially important given that crashes involving large trucks and buses can cause more severe injuries and more frequent fatalities than private passenger vehicle crashes. Commercial motor vehicle drivers are particularly at risk because of the monotonous nature of their work, extended work days, irregular schedules and poor sleep hygiene. Driver fatigue results in reduced vigilance and alertness, lower situational awareness, slower reaction times and judgment errors that can lead to performance failure resulting in critical safety events and crashes. The federal, provincial and territorial governments have HOS regulations in place that limit a driver’s on-duty and driving times and require minimum periods of rest or off-duty time in order to reduce fatigue-related crashes, injuries and fatalities. The Regulations are intended to help normalize the driver’s natural sleep rhythms and to provide opportunities for daily rest to help drivers recover from the effects of fatigue, while accommodating the efficient and economic movement of goods and passengers.

The Regulations require commercial drivers to self-report, in a prescribed format, their driving, on-duty and off-duty times in a paper-based daily log or ERD, which is reviewed by provincial and territorial roadside inspectors and facility auditors for compliance with the regulations. Transport Canada estimates that there are 174 700 federally regulated commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) based in Canada (see Table 1). Of this total, the drivers of an estimated 146 300 CMVs are required by the Regulations to maintain a paper-based daily log because they operate their CMV outside of a 160-km radius of their home terminal.

As an alternative to using a paper-based daily log, the Regulations also permit drivers to use an ERD, which is an electric, electronic or telematic device that is installed in a commercial motor vehicle and used to record their daily log electronically. There are few additional technical specifications that apply to these first-generation devices, beyond those required for the paper-based daily log. The ERD must allow the driver to provide daily logs by means of a digital display screen or a printout or any other intelligible output, when requested to do so by an inspector. An ERD is also required to automatically record when it has been disconnected from and reconnected to the commercial motor vehicle and to keep a record of these occurrences. Given that there are so few technical specifications for ERDs, the marketplace largely determines the features of these devices, resulting in a significant variation in their capabilities, ranging from devices that are very sophisticated to others that are as simple as a laptop loaded with a modified spreadsheet program. However, in many cases, the ERD is already a component of a comprehensive fleet management system (FMS). Transport Canada estimates that there are 52 390 trucks equipped with an FMS that has an ERD component, and of these, 35 030 have been voluntarily activated by the motor carrier to realize the benefits of using technology to track the driver’s hours of service rather than a paper-based daily log. An additional 308 buses are also estimated to have voluntarily adopted the use of ERDs.

The U.S. federal government has HOS rules similar to those in Canada. On December 16, 2015, the U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), an agency of the Department of Transportation, published a final rule to mandate the use of ELDs by motor carriers and drivers, to monitor and track compliance with the federal HOS rules. An ELD is a device integrated into a commercial motor vehicle’s on-board electronic systems, which allows for the automatic recording of driving time, which also accounts for most on-duty time. This new device is referred to as an ELD in both the United States and Canada, so as to differentiate the updated technology from the first generation ERDs. As of December 18, 2017, the United States will require all motor carriers, including the Canadian motor carriers, which operate an estimated 82 100 CMVs in the United States, to acquire, install and use the new ELDs. The U.S. final rule also includes extensive technical specifications for the devices and revised requirements for supporting documents in order to simplify the validation of records of duty by motor carriers and enforcement, thereby reducing the administrative burden on motor carriers and drivers.

Table 1: Federally regulated CMVs and ELD/ERD usage

Federally Regulated Commercial Motor Vehicles

Trucks

Buses

Total CMVs

Total CMVs operated by federally regulated motor carriers

170 000

4 700

174 700

Number of CMVs where drivers must maintain a paper-based daily log

142 000

4 300

146 300

Number of Canada-based CMVs that operate in the United States and that will be subject to the U.S. ELD requirement by December 18, 2017

80 000

2 100

82 100

(A) Number of remaining CMVs that would be affected by the proposed amendments (operating only in Canada)

62 000

2 200

64 200

(B) Number of CMVs with fleet management systems (FMS) and electronic recording device (ERD) capability

52 390

0

52 390

(C) Number of CMVs with ERDs currently activated

35 030

308

35 338

(D) Number of CMVs that would require ELD installation

9 610

1 892

11 502

(E) Number of CMVs that would require ERD activation

17 360

0

17 360

Number of CMVs that would require either an ELD or an activated ERD by the implementation date (D+E)

26 970

1 892

28 862

Number of CMVs that would have to replace an ERD with an ELD within two years after the implementation date (C+E)

52 390

308

52 698 (see footnote 2)

Issues

The records generated from daily logs are subject to examination by provincial and territorial enforcement personnel, who are also empowered to lay charges with fines under either provincial, territorial or federal regulations. However, provincial and territorial enforcement officials have found that daily logs can be falsified or incomplete and, in some cases, they are duplicated or missing altogether in an effort to avoid accountability for non-compliance with the Regulations. This can make it difficult and frequently impossible for roadside inspectors to detect the occurrence of non-compliance with HOS requirements. Despite these difficulties, the provincial and territorial governments recorded an average of 9 400 convictions per year for hours of service violations between 2010 and 2015.

Approximately 25% of these HOS convictions are for exceeding the maximum hours prescribed by the Regulations. Another 11% are convictions for operating two daily logs at the same time or for falsifying the information in the daily log. Approximately 48% of the HOS convictions are for failing to maintain or failing to produce a daily log, which is widely recognized by law enforcement officials (and acknowledged by industry) as a strong indicator that the driver may have been exceeding the maximum hours and chooses to submit no daily log for inspection rather than submit one that would show non-compliance. In interviews of truck drivers, the U.S.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that a quarter of interviewed drivers admitted to omitting hours worked in the daily log; driving more than the daily limit; taking less than the required daily off-duty time; and working longer than permitted during the past month. Although Canada-specific data is limited, Transport Canada (TC) estimates, after consulting with industry, that 5% to 10% of drivers routinely exceed allowable HOS limits.

Non-compliance with the HOS rules is an important safety issue, as it can result in fatigued drivers and an increased risk of crash injury or death. There is an international consensus that fatigue is associated with 15% to 20% of crashes in transportation. After controlling for the type of road and the effects of time of day and day of week, the IIHS found that drivers with daily log violations, compared to those with no violations at all, were 2.3 times more likely to have a large truck crash.

Motor carriers and drivers who operate in excess of the HOS limits may also have a competitive advantage over those that do not, due to the increased productivity obtained through the additional operational hours. In addition, as these drivers are able to work more hours, they may be paid more than those who are following the rules, thereby making it easier for non-compliant motor carriers to recruit and retain drivers at a time when the industry is dealing with a driver shortage. Despite the benefits of voluntarily adopting the use of ERDs, motor carriers that use ERDs indicate that they are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with motor carriers and commercial drivers that violate the HOS Regulations.

Transport Canada expects that further voluntary installation and use of ERDs by domestic motor carriers will be minimal and therefore considers that amendments to the Regulations are necessary to enable competitiveness and meet the highest practicable safety standards as envisioned by the national transportation policy. The Department also considers that these benefits could be fully realized for the entire road transportation system should the provincial and territorial governments enact similar legislation; the Department is therefore encouraging them to do so.

As well, in 2015, the Regulations were reviewed by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR). The SJCSR found certain provisions in the current Regulations that do not adhere to regulatory drafting standards due to superfluous, incorrect or redundant wording. The SJCSR found examples of divergences between the French and English versions of the Regulations and a few sections where wording needed improvement so that the regulatory requirements were clear and unambiguous for motor carriers and drivers.

Finally, the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers underwent an amendment in April 2010 to its Standard 9 — Hours of Service, which is the standard used by the federal, provincial and territorial governments to promote harmonization in the drafting of their respective HOS regulations. The Regulations were last amended in 2009, before the most recent amendment to Standard 9 — Hours of Service, and, as a result, they are no longer harmonized with the national standard.

Objectives

The objectives of these proposed amendments are to improve commercial motor vehicle safety and compliance with HOS regulations and to facilitate fairer competition, by requiring the use of ELDs by motor carriers and their commercial bus and truck drivers, who are currently required to use a paper-based daily log or ERD to record their duty hours. The requirements would be aligned with those of the United States to minimize impacts on Canada’s cross-border operators. This proposal is also intended to address issues raised by the SJCSR and to harmonize the Regulations with amendments that have been made to the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers Standard 9 — Hours of Service.

Description

The proposed amendments to the Regulations would require federally regulated motor carriers and their drivers of commercial buses and trucks who are currently required to maintain a paper-based daily log to use an ELD, subject to a few exceptions set out below. The proposed amendments would incorporate by reference the Technical Standard for Electronic Logging Devices (the Technical Standard) published by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), as amended from time to time. The standard establishes minimum performance and design specifications for the ELD that are based on the corresponding U.S. technical requirements, but adapted to accommodate the Canadian HOS regulations.

Exemptions: There will be four main exemptions to the mandatory requirement to use an ELD, namely commercial motor vehicles that are being operated under a permit issued pursuant to the Regulations by a provincial or territorial HOS director or under a statutory exemption, commercial motor vehicles that are subject to rental agreements for a term of 30 days or less, and commercial motor vehicles that were manufactured before the year 2000.

Records of duty status: The proposed amendments would require motor carriers to acquire and install ELDs in their commercial motor vehicles that are compliant with the Technical Standard. What were previously referred to as daily logs would now become known as records of duty status. Drivers would be required to enter into the ELD some of the information associated with their record of duty status (e.g. on-duty time associated with fuelling, loading or unloading the commercial motor vehicle) and the ELD would automatically record the remaining information, such as driving time, odometer readings, and engine power up, in accordance with the Regulations and the Technical Standard. Other provisions would require the motor carrier to create distinct accounts for each driver within the ELD’s operating system so that their hours can be tracked independently. At the end of a day, drivers would be required to certify the accuracy of their record of duty status and the motor carrier would have to verify and retain those records. The integrity of the ELD system is protected through anti-tampering provisions.

Supporting documents: The proposed amendments would also be harmonized with the U.S. rules for supporting documents that are used by the motor carrier and enforcement officers to validate the accuracy of the driver’s record of duty status. The current Regulations require the motor carrier to retain all documents that could be required by enforcement officials to assess compliance. The current provisions come with significant costs to collect, distribute, organize and retain the wide variety of documents needed to meet these requirements. The amended provisions for supporting documents would apply to all motor carriers and drivers, including those that would continue to maintain a paper-based daily log. The new rules standardize the types of supporting documents into five separate categories: bills of lading, dispatch records, expense receipts, electronic mobile communication records and payroll records.

The provisions have been amended to mirror the U.S. provisions and limit the number of supporting documents that must be collected and retained to eight for each driver’s work day. It is considered that this would be an adequate number to verify the accuracy of the driver’s record of duty status while helping to reduce motor carrier administration costs. The new rules would also clarify the information that is required to appear on each supporting document, such as the driver’s name and location, the date and the time of day. If the driver retains more than eight supporting documents during one day, the motor carrier would need to retain at least eight of the documents, including those supporting documents that contain the earliest and last time indications for the day. Where the driver records fewer than eight supporting documents in one day, then those supporting documents would need to contain at least the driver’s name and location and the date. When there are more than eight documents retained in one day, each of the saved documents would need to include the time to which the document pertains.

Forwarding of records by driver to motor carrier: The proposed amendments would establish separate provisions for the forwarding by the driver to the motor carrier of the paper records of duty status and of the records of duty status that are generated by the ELD. The requirements for the forwarding of ELD records and accompanying support documents would be harmonized with the U.S. rules and require that the driver send both to the motor carrier within 13 days after their creation. The requirements for paper records of duty status remain the same as they are under the current Regulations. Paper records of duty status may be forwarded by mail, and in recognition of the extra time that is needed for them to reach the motor carrier, the drivers will continue to have 20 days to send their records of duty status and supporting documents to the home terminal out of which they are dispatched.

Other incidental amendments: Other incidental amendments are proposed to improve the Regulations’ conformity with legal drafting standards. In response to the SJCSR, the proposal would amend subsections 1(2), (4), (5) and (7) to (9), sections 2 to 22, sections 25 and 26, subsection 28(1), section 30, subsections 31(1) and (4), section 32 and subsections 34(2) and (3).

A number of other amendments are proposed in order to harmonize the Regulations with updates that had been made to National Safety Code for Motor Carriers Standard 9 — Hours of Service. The Canadian federal, provincial and territorial hours of service regulations are based on Standard 9. The definitions of “commercial vehicle” and “on-duty time” have been amended to clarify their intent. The personal use provisions have been relocated within the Regulations to ensure that it is treated as an exception to “on-duty time,” which is the original intent for the provisions. There were also some changes made to the sections references associated with out-of-service (OOS) declarations in section 91.

Implementation: Motor carriers and drivers would have two years to prepare for the implementation of ELDs. Motor carriers would need that time to select, acquire and install the ELDs, test the devices and train their drivers on how to use them. For those drivers who would be using an ERD immediately before the ELD amendments come into force, an additional two-year transitional period has been included in the Regulations. During this transitional period, drivers and motor carriers would be exempt from having to comply with the new ELD provisions. After the two-year transitional period, full compliance with the proposed amendments would be required. Other elements of the proposed amendments (e.g. to address certain issues identified by the SJCSR) would come into force upon publication of the Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

Transport Canada considered a number of options for achieving the objectives identified above (e.g. improved HOS compliance, improved safety, and the facilitation of fair competition), including voluntary adoption of ELDs and regulatory amendments with one- and two-year implementation periods.

Voluntary adoption

Voluntary adoption is essentially the baseline or status quo approach. While some motor carriers are voluntarily installing ERDs, the adoption rate appears to be slowing. The motor carriers who have yet to adopt ERDs include those that are the most resistant to using ELDs and those who are finding it difficult to comply with the prescribed HOS limits in the Regulations. A regulatory approach is necessary to achieve a 100% usage rate, among those not exempt from having to use an ELD, to fully realize the competitive and safety benefits of using ELDs.

Introduce regulations — One-year phase-in

Under this option, motor carriers would have one year after the publication of the proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part II, to ramp-up the acquisition, installation and/or activation of ELDs to be compliant with the Regulations. This scenario recognizes that the vast majority of CMVs (145 800 or 84%) would already be compliant when the rule goes into effect. A significant portion of the federally regulated CMV fleet would be engaged in cross-border operations (82 100 CMVs or 47%) and would be already using an ELD in order to be compliant with the U.S. final rule. Another 28 400 CMVs (16%) would be unaffected by the proposed amendments because their drivers are exempt under the Regulations from having to maintain a daily log. An estimated 35 338 CMVs (20%) would already be equipped with ERDs, while 17 360 trucks (10%) would simply have to arrange with their vendor to have the ERD component of their FMS activated in order to be compliant. The combined total of 52 698 CMVs (30%) would have an additional two years, after the implementation date, to migrate to ELD technology. However, the remaining 11 502 CMVs (9 610 trucks and 1 892 buses) or 7% of the federally regulated fleet, would only have one year to select, purchase and install a compliant ELD. As well, industry stakeholders and the provincial and territorial governments strongly favour a longer implementation period than one year (see “Consultation” section below) to ensure that the roll-out is done properly.

Introduce regulations — Two-year phase-in

The two-year implementation period was also considered because it presents slightly lower total costs to motor carriers than the one-year phase-in option, given the greater flexibility for the motor carrier to combine the installation of ELDs with regular maintenance of the commercial motor vehicle. This approach is generally equivalent to the one-year scenario in terms of outcomes, but allows for a longer implementation period that would be consistent with the U.S. approach and would address concerns identified by industry stakeholders and provincial and territorial governments in Canada. A longer implementation period would allow for additional time for outreach to ensure that motor carriers, shippers and consignees were informed of the new requirements. It would provide motor carriers with more time to train drivers and other employees such as dispatchers and safety officers. It would also allow for ERDs to be used for two additional years, for a total of four years, after the publication of the Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II. This would allow motor carriers to better realize the full value of their investment in these first-generation devices. Provincial and territorial governments would benefit from the additional time to train inspectors, to develop enforcement policies and to consider adopting their own ELD mandate for intra-provincial motor carriers. ELD vendors would also need the additional time to ensure that their devices are fully compliant with the Technical Standard.

Benefits and costs

In 2014, TC committed to undertake preparatory work to assess the potential impact of ELDs in anticipation of a U.S. final rule. TC sought support from provinces and territories to obtain their data to contribute towards a national cost-benefit analysis of mandatory ELD usage.

TC completed the first iteration of a cost-benefit analysis on this regulatory proposal in July 2015, which demonstrated that the proposed amendments would yield a two-to-one benefit-to-cost ratio. Where necessary, it drew from assumptions and data from the cost-benefit analysis of the U.S. FMCSA’s proposed rule-making. When the implementation timing of the U.S. final rule on ELDs was finalized (in December 2015), the cost-benefit analysis was updated to exclude the U.S.-bound Canadian vehicles, given that they would need to adopt ELDs, whether the Canadian proposed amendments were implemented or not, in order to be compliant with the U.S. final rule.

Transport Canada estimates that there are 174 400 federally regulated commercial motor vehicles (CMV) based in Canada and 146 300 of these CMVs would require an ELD under these proposed amendments (see Table 1). TC excluded 82 100 CMVs of the 146 300 from the analysis because they operate in the United States and will have been captured by the U.S. final rule on ELDs by year-end. The hardware requirements for the ELDs that are needed for the U.S. final rule have been essentially (see footnote 3) mirrored in these proposed amendments. As a result, commercial motor vehicles would need to have only one ELD in order to be compliant in both countries.

The remaining 64 200 CMVs (146 300 − 82 100) and their drivers are the focus of the proposed amendments. Of the 64 200 CMVs, 52 390 are equipped with FMS technology, with an ERD component. This older ERD technology has been activated voluntarily by the motor carrier in 35 338 of the FMS-equipped CMVs as a method to track the driver’s hours of work in lieu of a paper-based daily log.

Before these proposed amendments are implemented, it is expected that 11 502 CMVs (9 610 trucks and 1 892 buses) would need to have a new ELD installed to be compliant. Another 17 360 trucks are expected to have the ERD component of their FMS activated to take advantage of the transitional provision that would allow them to use their existing technology for an additional two years. Before this proposed two-year period has expired, 52 698 ERD users (35 338 prior users and 17 360 activated users as a result of this amendment) would need to replace their older ERD technology with an ELD to continue to remain compliant.

Data availability presented significant challenges throughout the data collection phase of this project. There were no single or robust data sources to establish a baseline for the number of federally regulated commercial motor vehicles where drivers were required to maintain a daily log, estimate the percentage of U.S.-active commercial motor vehicles, or accurately estimate current ELD usage industry-wide. Time savings for drivers using ELDs instead of filling out paper-based daily logs, as well as accurate HOS OOS rates and detention times, were also difficult to quantify. In light of this, data estimates and baselines were intentionally kept conservative (with respect to the number of commercial motor vehicles that would be affected by this proposal) to account for data integrity and quality issues. In instances where data was unavailable or unreliable, U.S. numbers, estimates and analytical methodologies from FMCSA’s February 2014 Regulatory Impact Analysis were used.

The process to collect required data to be used in this cost-benefit analysis was open and transparent. Data collection requests were sent to all provincial and territorial governments through CCMTA’s Program Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs. All major trucking and bus associations within the regulated community were consulted and invited to submit data.

The final analysis estimated benefits and costs for the proposed amendments. For this analysis, a 7% discount rate was used for a 10-year period, from 2018 to 2027, using 2012 constant values, which are considered reasonable for estimating the impacts of the proposal, given uncertainty regarding the actual implementation date and the minimal impact that an adjustment to the period of analysis would have on the final results. A copy of the cost-benefit analysis is available upon request.

Benefits

The benefits of the proposed amendments would include time savings for drivers by eliminating the need to fill out paper-based daily logs; time savings for carrier clerical staff as daily log information would be electronically transmitted and maintained; time savings for roadside inspectors and auditors as ELDs would allow them to more quickly and efficiently detect HOS violations at roadside and during compliance audits; paper logbooks savings; reduced OOS detention time since fewer drivers would be placed out of service from HOS violations; and safety benefits by reducing crashes (costs saved) involving commercial motor vehicles that may be attributable to driver fatigue or HOS violations.

The present value of these benefits is approximately $255.4 million, corresponding to an annualized value of $36.4 million. Industry savings, including for both motor carriers and drivers, account for the majority of total benefits (99%), while the remaining benefits include the time savings related to roadside inspections and facility audits, as well as the reduction in motor vehicle crashes. By aligning the proposed requirements with U.S. regulatory requirements, the proposed amendments would not negatively impact the cross-border movement of commercial motor vehicles (goods and passengers) between the two countries. Other qualitative benefits include meeting Canadians’ interests in safer roads and transportation in Canada, and enhancing carriers’ capacity to move goods or passengers. In addition, the quality of life for motor carrier drivers may improve from the reduced number of extra working hours and incidents of fatigue, which could result in lower levels of stress, improved personal and family life, and general improved state of health and well-being. Due to data limitations, these benefits were not quantified.

Time savings due to elimination of paper-based daily logs: ELDs can reduce the driver time that is currently needed to maintain a paper-based daily log. The Department conducted a sensitivity analysis on the variables representing the time savings for drivers to fill out a record of duty status with ELDs versus paper-based daily logs. The time savings in the base scenario was 4.5 minutes per record of duty status based on U.S. FMCSA data, which was backed by extensive analysis and public input. However, a survey of industry and ELD providers indicated that average time savings per daily log was reported to be as low as 6 minutes to as high as 23 minutes per daily log. The sensitivity analysis for the range of estimated driver time savings was conducted where all other variables are kept constant. The net benefits were significant and ranged from $150.9 million for TC’s base scenario of 4.5 minutes to $194.7 million for industry’s low scenario of 6 minutes and $645.6 million for industry’s high scenario of 23 minutes. The 4.5-minute scenario was used in the analysis, since it was considered to be more accurate and more conservative in estimating the potential benefits.

ELDs could also shorten the time needed by law enforcement officials to inspect the driver’s record of duty status and allow for the development of software that can quickly analyze the data and help the inspectors and auditors to quickly identify possible violations. Based on survey results from provincial and territorial governments, the time to verify an ELD record is 14 minutes, compared to the 17 minutes it takes to verify a paper-based daily log. The 3-minute time savings multiplied by the estimated number of inspections that are conducted on drivers’ records of duty produced on new ELDs or newly activated ERDs as a result of the proposed amendment would have a present value of $0.35 million. TC also estimates that ELDs would save provincial and territorial facility auditors 27 minutes per audit and that, on average, 193 federally regulated motor carriers receive an audit annually. At an estimated hourly wage rate of $58 for auditors, the present value of the total time saved during facility audits is estimated at $31 thousand. The combined present value total of time savings for the provincial and territorial governments is $0.4 million.

Motor carrier clerical savings: Given that ELD records will be automatically transmitted and stored, it is assumed that motor carrier clerical personnel would no longer need to handle paper-based daily logs manually. Carriers suggest that clerical employees normally take about 3.5 minutes to file each paper-based daily log that has been received from a driver. This would result in annual time savings of 14 hours (= 3.5 minutes × 240 daily logs/60 minutes per hour). Multiplying this time savings by an estimated hourly wage rate of $25 for clerical staff of carriers results in a present value of total clerical time savings of $88.7 million.

Paper logbook savings: ELDs would eliminate the need for paper logbooks. Market information suggests that a one-month supply of these logbooks costs about $3.50, amounting to an annual value of $42 per driver. Multiplying this value by the estimated number of affected drivers would result in significant cost savings, with a present value of $11.1 million. There would also be environmental benefits with reduced paper consumption and the corresponding impact on landfills.

Reduced OOS detention time: ELDs can minimize non-compliance with the Regulations by automatically recording driving time (which accounts for most on-duty time), increasing the accuracy of the driver’s record of duty status and making it more difficult to exceed allowable driving hours. Serious HOS violations can result in OOS orders where further operation of a commercial motor vehicle by its driver is prohibited for a specified period of time or, for some violations, until a required condition is met. The Department reviewed national data on the volume and type of HOS violations and estimated that an annual average percentage (2.81%) of provincial and territorial inspections result in HOS OOS orders over the past five years (2009–2010 to 2013–2014). By applying this to the average number (282 587) of total driver inspections over the same period, the Department calculated that about 7 946 (= 282 587 × 2.81%) OOS orders are issued every year. Given that nearly all inspections are conducted at commercial motor vehicle inspection stations, most of which are located at or near provincial and territorial boundaries or the international border, it is expected that 30% of the driver inspections and related OOS orders are associated with CMVs operating under federal jurisdiction. TC further assumed an effectiveness rate of 45% of ELDs in reducing OOS orders. The data further suggested that there was an average detention time of 34 hours per OOS order.

At the hourly rate of $30 for drivers, the present value of the total saved-income loss due to the OOS detention time is approximately $2.3 million with an annualized value of $0.32 million. This quantified saved-income loss only represents a portion of the total benefits from the reduction of the detention time, given that many other benefits are difficult to quantify, such as the potential to reduce driver fatigue and the risk of fatigue-related crash injuries and fatalities.

Reduced crash risk: With fewer HOS violations and opportunities for drivers to exceed allowable limits, it is expected that the use of ELDs will reduce the crash risk for CMVs. While it is difficult for TC to identify vehicle crashes that are directly attributable to driver fatigue or HOS violations, it is estimated that there are 300 crashes annually where fatigue or falling asleep is a contributing factor (based on a five-year average [2007–2011]) in police-reported motor vehicle crashes on public roads in Canada. This number is likely understated.

TC assumes an effective rate of 10% for the use of ELDs in reducing the types of crashes that might be related to drivers exceeding allowable limits or to fatigue. Transport Canada estimates that the average costs for a crash range from $11,000 for a property-damage-only crash, to $112,500 for a crash with injury, to $10.8 million for a fatal crash. By combining the police-report crash data in conjunction with the number of CMVs with and without ELDs, the Department calculated that ELDs would reduce the overall CMV crash risk by 0.0030%. The estimated benefit from crash avoidance was calculated by using an estimate of the anticipated number of avoided crashes from the reduced incidents of driver fatigue or HOS violations ranging from 0.68 to 1.2 per year. With this estimate of avoided crashes and a weighted cost estimate of approximately $0.29 million per crash, it was estimated that the benefit from crash avoidance would have a present value of $1.9 million with an annualized value of $0.3 million.

However, this estimate of the safety benefit is likely to be substantially understated, since it takes a conservative approach that is focussed only on police-reported crash data. Drivers are often very alert after being involved in a crash and are not motivated to self-report their own decreased alertness to the police. There is an international consensus that fatigue is associated with 15% to 20% of crashes in transportation. The results of the American Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) suggested that errors and lapses by a driver were the critical reasons for 44% of the crashes reviewed and that driver fatigue was found to be one of the most frequently associated factors (13% of total). Although it cannot be quantified or monetized, the true benefits of the prevented crashes may be up to 10 times greater than what is demonstrated in the crash data.

Costs

Costs of this proposal would directly impact federally regulated truck and bus motor carriers, the drivers operating commercial motor vehicles when they are required to maintain daily logs, and provincial and federal governments.

ELD costs: The mandating of ELDs would include costs incurred by the motor carrier for the acquisition, installation and activation of the devices, as well as monitoring service costs. The average lifespan of ELDs is expected to be 10 years, so it was assumed that it would remain functional during the entire 10-year analysis period. According to industry feedback and input from multiple ELD suppliers, the costs of ELDs at an entry or middle level, which the vast majority of carriers would use, could range from $300 to $900. There is a likelihood that portable ELD applications entering the market could push the costs down even further. As such, it is assumed that the acquisition cost of an ELD device is $600, and the associated installation cost is $220 per device. The ELD activation fee is a one-time only fee that is estimated at $15 per unit. Another cost item related to the use of ELDs is the monthly monitoring service fee, which is estimated at $30 per month. Costs of removing the ELDs from replaced vehicles were not considered.

To calculate the number of ELDs that would be needed under the proposed amendments, TC considered that new vehicles would be added to the truck fleet to deal with increased demand due to economic activity and to replace old trucks that would be retired from the fleet. TC estimated that on average, trucks in the federally regulated fleets would have a lifespan of 6 years and buses would have a lifespan of 15 years. Vehicles added due to increased demand would need a new ELD. However, those that are being replaced would simply have the ELD device transferred to the new vehicle. Based on these assumptions, the present value of the total costs associated with the ELD devices over the 10-year period is estimated at $85.5 million, with an annualized cost of $12.2 million.

Driver training costs: Other costs include training costs for drivers, roadside inspectors and auditors in order for them to become familiar with ELD functionality and to be able to accurately read and understand the display or printout structure of the ELD for compliance verification purposes. The estimate of training costs for drivers took into consideration the number of drivers who were expected to retire during the ramp-up period and who would therefore not need training, the number of existing drivers who would need ELD training and the number of new drivers who were expected to be hired during the 10-year analysis period and who are expected to be trained on ELDs at the same time that they receive their entry-level hours of service training. It is calculated that a total of 66 717 drivers would be trained during the ramp-up period and that the average training cost would be $48 per driver. The present value of the total training (opportunity) costs for drivers is approximately $2.8 million.

Inspector and auditor training costs: There are approximately 1 052 roadside inspectors and 102 auditors employed by provincial and territorial governments. These inspectors and auditors are expected to enforce the ELD mandate in the same way that they currently enforce the federal and provincial HOS rules at roadside and during facility audits of the motor carriers. Using information provided by nine jurisdictions, TC estimates that the average inspector and auditor training cost is about $457 per person. The present value of the total training costs for inspectors is $428,700 and for auditors, it is $41,600, for a total of approximately $0.5 million.

Improved HOS compliance costs: The mandating of ELDs is expected to improve compliance with the HOS rules by the estimated 5–10% of motor carriers and drivers that exceed the allowable limits. These motor carriers could have to hire additional drivers and/or purchase additional vehicles in order to redistribute the workload to compensate for an anticipated reduction in driving and on-duty time. The associated costs can include labour for new drivers, hiring and recruiting expenses, a higher wage rate as a result of increased demand of drivers, and purchase and maintenance costs of additional CMVs. The February 2014 FMCSA Regulatory Impact Statement that accompanied the U.S. ELD Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule-Making calculated their full compliance cost based on their national non-compliance rate, the number of commercial motor vehicles and drivers and the estimated cost for both. TC used their model and substituted the national average OOS rate of 2.81% for HOS and false daily log violations. After adjusting for the exchange rate, inflation and the differences in the respective federally regulated fleet size, this equates to $45.9 million or weighted average of about $314 per vehicle.

However, the full compliance cost would be borne only by those CMVs that are non-ELD users, since the current ERD users would not face additional costs. To calculate this, TC assumes a 45% effectiveness rate (the same rate used by the United States), which corresponds to the cost of reducing the existing non-compliance by 45%. After adjusting for the current ERD users, it is estimated that the full compliance cost would be $418 per ELD for non-users, which represents the cost of improving the compliance level from the existing rate. Given the effectiveness rate of 45% in reducing the number of OOS orders, the cost per CMV for each new ELD installed as a result of these proposed amendments is then calculated at $188 (= $418 × 45%). Multiplying this cost by the number of ELDs that are either installed, activated or transferred in a year equates to a present value of the full compliance costs over the 10-year period of $36.8 million, with an annualized cost of $5.2 million.

The present value of the costs of the regulatory proposal is estimated at $125.6 million over a 10-year period, with $125.1 million attributed to motor carriers and $0.5 million to provincial and federal governments. The annualized value of these costs is estimated to be $17.9 million.

In terms of quantified costs and benefits, the present value of the net benefits is approximately $129.8 million, resulting in annualized value of $18.5 million (see Table 2).

Table 2: Cost-benefit statement

 

Base Year 2018

2019

2023

Final Year 2027

Total (Present Value)

Annualized Value

A. Quantitative impacts ($millions)

Costs

Industry

$8.1

$20.1

$18.5

$21.4

$125.1

$17.8

Government

$0.2

$0.4

$0.0

$0.0

$0.5

$0.1

Total costs

$8.2

$20.5

$18.5

$21.4

$125.6

$17.9

Benefits

Industry

$10.2

$23.6

$29.6

$24.9

$253.1

$36.0

General public (crashes prevented)

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$1.9

$0.3

Government

$0.0

$0.0

$0.1

$0.1

$0.4

$0.1

Total benefits

$10.3

$23.8

$30.0

$25.4

$255.4

$36.4

Net benefits

$2.1

$3.3

$11.5

$4.0

$129.8

$18.5

B. Quantified impacts: N/A

C. Qualitative impacts

Costs

n/a

Benefits

  • Improved harmonization with the United States.
  • Enhanced carriers’ capacity to move goods or passengers.
  • Increased customer satisfaction through delay reduction due to less OOS orders.
  • Meeting public expectations for safer transportation in Canada.
  • Improved quality of life for drivers.

“One-for-One” Rule

The proposed amendments would not introduce new administrative burdens on business, and the “One-for-One” Rule therefore would not apply. The proposed amendments would result in an annualized decrease in administrative burden (administrative savings), a cost saving that could be used to offset new administrative costs from other regulatory proposals. These administrative savings would be due to staff time savings (drivers and clerical staff time) from the elimination of the requirement to maintain paper-based daily logs. Assuming that on average each driver needs to complete 240 daily logs (= 48 weeks × 5 days) per year and that using ELDs would save about 4.5 minutes per daily log as compared to completing paper logbooks, then each driver would save 18 hours (= 4.5 minutes × 240 daily logs / 60 minutes per hour) per year to maintain a daily log. In addition, as data logged within ELDs would be automatically transmitted, their use would also eliminate the time spent on forwarding daily logs to carriers. It is assumed that if each daily log submission takes about 5 minutes and drivers submit daily logs 25 times a year, 2.08 hours (= 5 minutes × 25 submissions / 60 minutes per hour) would be saved for every driver annually. Therefore, a total of 20.08 hours (= 18 hours + 2.08 hours) per driver would be saved as a result of the proposed regulatory amendments. By applying the average hourly wage rate of drivers ($30), the Department calculated the annual time savings per driver, or opportunity costs saved, at $602.50 (= 20.08 hours × $30). By applying these savings per driver, the Department estimates that the savings per bus and trucking company can be calculated based on the average number of drivers per company (see Table 3).

Table 3: Average number of drivers per firm

 

Number of Firms

Number of Drivers

Average Number of Drivers per Firm

Trucking companies — large

124

23 435

190.0

Trucking companies — small

9 414

48 965

5.2

Bus companies — large

9

2 431

270.1

Bus companies — small

93

1 529

16.4

Based on the average number of drivers per firm and the cost savings per driver for log entry time savings, the present value of the total time savings for drivers is estimated to be of $150.9 million, or approximately $22.5 million on an annualized basis.

Given that the electronic data associated with records of duty status would be automatically transmitted and stored, it is assumed that carrier clerical personnel would no longer need to handle these documents manually. Motor carriers suggest that it takes about 3.5 minutes to file each paper-based daily log that has been received; therefore, over the course of a year, ELDs would result in annual time savings of 14 hours (= 3.5 minutes × 240 daily logs / 60 minutes per hour) for each driver. The annual time savings are about 7.6 hours per affected driver and the estimated hourly wage rate for clerical staff of carriers is $25. Using these numbers and the estimated average number of drivers per firm and estimated savings per driver, the annualized value of the total clerical time savings over the 10-year period is estimated at $12.6 million. Table 4 presents these costs, discounted to 2012 constant dollars, as per the Red Tape Reduction Act.

Table 4: “One-for-One” Rule estimates of annualized administrative cost savings

Annualized administrative savings (constant 2012 $)

$22,738,415

Annualized administrative savings per business (constant 2012 $)

$2,359

Small business lens

The small business lens would apply to these regulatory changes since their expected impact is estimated to have a net present value of over $1 million and they would have an impact on small businesses (see footnote 4) (the Small Business Lens Checklist is included in Appendix A). The reduction in administrative costs would be particularly beneficial to smaller carriers, as they may not have the same back-office systems in place to monitor and manage drivers’ records. Lower costs and less time to manage records would allow smaller operations to increase productivity. Since the majority of motor carriers are small businesses (more than 90% of firms), TC has been sensitive to the possible impact these regulatory changes could have on smaller businesses. To address these concerns, TC has considered a flexible option (two-year implementation), as well as an initial option (shorter-term one-year implementation).

The two-year implementation period would provide greater flexibility via additional time for ELD installation (e.g. more opportunities for installation to be combined with maintenance or replacement of vehicles to reduce the incremental costs). The initial option, although allowing the benefits from ELD usage to be realized by small business sooner, including significant administrative cost savings, would represent slightly higher initial costs to carriers.

Table 5 compares the present values and annualized average costs for smaller businesses for the initial option (one-year ELD implementation) and the flexible option (two-year ELD implementation). On an annualized cost per small business basis, the flexible option ($808 per small business) would be 3% less than the initial option ($833 per small business).

Table 5: Small business lens — Regulatory flexibility analysis

Small business lens

Initial Option

Flexible Option

Short description

Firms must implement ELDs during the first year.

Firms are allowed to implement ELDs over two years.

Number of small businesses impacted:

9 507

9 507

 

Annualized (2012 $)

Present Value (2012 $)

Annualized Average (2012 $)

Present Value (2012 $)

Compliance costs

$7,916,208

$55,600,129

$7,677,093

$53,920,687

Administrative costs

$0

$0

$0

$0

Total costs

$7,916,208

$55,600,129

$7,677,093

$53,920,687

Average cost per small business

$833

$5,848

$808

$5,672

Risk considerations

This option would implement ELDs in one year resulting in slightly higher costs for small business that would have to be absorbed over a short period of time. However, the benefits of a reduced administrative burden on the small business and improved compliance and safety benefits would be realized more quickly. Shippers, consignees and motor carriers would have less time to adjust to changes as a result of improved compliance. There would be strong opposition to this option from stakeholders. An orderly and problem-free implementation would be unlikely.

This option would prolong by one year the period during which some CMVs would not be outfitted with ELDs, with a potential impact on the administrative burden, HOS compliance and safety; however, this impact is expected to be low, given that 30% of motor carriers are expected to implement ELDs during the first year, with the remaining 70% of motor carriers doing so during the second year. Shippers would also benefit from having more time to adjust to the anticipated tightening of freight movement capacity as a result of improved HOS compliance. Motor carriers and provincial and territorial governments would be more supportive of this option.

Regulatory cooperation

The current Regulations allow the use of ERDs to comply with HOS requirements. When the U.S. final rule goes into full effect on December 18, 2017, cross-border operators will be required to adopt the use of ELDs and will not be restricted from using these devices to comply with Canada’s HOS requirements. However, the use of ELDs by these carriers will intensify any competitive inequities with carriers that operate only domestically within Canada and that elect not to adopt ELDs (to circumvent HOS requirements and gain a competitive advantage).

The harmonization of the proposed amendments to the U.S. ELD technical specifications would result in commercial motor vehicles needing only one ELD to be compliant in both countries. As well, the proposed amendments mirror the U.S. rules for supporting documents, such as fuel receipts and bills of lading, allowing for both Canadian and U.S. international motor carriers to retain the precise number and type of documents to remain compliant with rules in both countries. By aligning with the requirements in the United States, the strengthened and streamlined daily logging requirements in Canada should not result in any impediments to trade.

The proposed amendments would not mirror the U.S. requirement for vendors of ELDs to self-certify and register their devices like what has been done in its final rule, because the self-certification process provides very little in the way of additional assurance to the motor carrier that the ELD is compliant with the technical specification in the proposed Regulations. TC believes that vendors would make every effort to ensure that their devices are compliant, that the marketplace will quickly identify any issues with the devices and that the vendors will quickly rectify any problems that are uncovered. Self-certification by the vendors would not be expected to add any value in terms of ensuring compliance by the vendor. However, in order to assist Canada’s motor carriers, TC is considering the establishment of a website that would include the names of ELD suppliers that are serving the Canadian market and that are also prepared to attest that their products meet the provisions of the Technical Standard. As part of the ongoing consultation with ELD providers, the Department will invite them to self-identify for inclusion on the website.

Consultation

The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), a federation of provincial trucking associations representing the trucking industry and carriers, has long called for federal leadership and a universal mandate to require the use of ELDs as a proactive measure to reduce falsification of driver logbooks. On February 16, 2016, Transport Canada announced that the federal government intended to mandate the use of ELDs.

The CCMTA initiated development of the ELD Technical Standard in 2013, based on a previous iteration of the U.S. proposed rule. CCMTA’s ELD working group, co-chaired by Transport Canada and the Province of Ontario, and with the technical assistance of a consultant, also included representation from seven other provincial and territorial governments, various motor carrier groups and providers of ELDs.

The Department circulated a regulatory pre-consultation survey during the summer of 2016, to seek preliminary views on the broad policy issues, from 27 industry stakeholders, 18 ELD suppliers and the 13 provincial and territorial governments.

Implementation period: The survey sought input regarding the length of the implementation period. The national industry associations and provincial and territorial governments (14 respondents) were in favour of a two-year implementation period, as they felt that all of that time would be necessary to ensure an orderly roll-out of the ELD mandate. Three ELD vendors favoured a one-year implementation period, with another vendor favouring one-to-two years, as they felt that the technology was already compliant with the Technical Standard and ready for deployment. One national oil industry association was not in favour of an ELD mandate, but, if there was to be one, preferred a five-year implementation period.

TC acknowledges that several ELD vendors may already have devices that are compliant. However, there may be others that may need more time to be able to offer compliance devices into the Canadian marketplace. Given the concerns raised regarding a one-year implementation period and the relatively small additional benefit from accelerated implementation, a two-year implementation period is proposed.

Grandfathering ERDs: A significant majority of respondents were in favour of a grandfathering period for motor carriers that are currently using ERDs. TC has included a two-year period during which ERDs will be accepted, in addition to the two-year implementation period.

CanadaU.S. regulatory harmonization: There was strong support to harmonize Canadian requirements with the U.S. requirements consistent with what is proposed.

In early 2017, the Department also conducted an additional consultation with provincial and territorial governments regarding key policy issues related to ELDs that were under consideration. These included the motor carriers, drivers and transportation activities that would be subject to ELD requirements and those that would be exempt, the timeframe for industry to comply with the requirements, and the grandfathering provisions for the use of electronic recording devices. Provincial and territorial governments provided few comments regarding the policy issues, but several of the jurisdictions expressed support for proceeding with the proposed amendments.

TC engaged representatives of livestock stakeholders in 2016 and 2017 in an effort to clarify the requirements of the proposal and the anticipated impacts. Livestock stakeholders expressed concerns that an ELD rule could create difficulties for those that transport livestock in light of the proposed changes to animal rest times in the Health of Animals Regulations that were published for public comment in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on December 3, 2016.

Transport Canada recognizes these concerns, but notes that the proposed amendments would mandate the use of ELDs to ensure that HOS records are more accurate, and would not alter the existing HOS rules themselves, which allow for 13 hours of driving time and 14 hours of on-duty time during a work shift that can be spread out over 16 hours of elapsed time before a driver must take a minimum of 8 consecutive hours of recuperative rest. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) took these HOS requirements into consideration during the development of the proposed amendments to the Health of Animals Regulations and, following further review, TC and the CFIA do not anticipate any compatibility issues between the two proposals.

Livestock stakeholders also indicated that there was a possibility that their industry in the United States could be granted one more year to implement ELDs, in addition to a two-year implementation period ending in December 2017, to allow time for the industry and government to assess and address their request for additional flexibility in the rules.  Transport Canada notes that the proposed amendments are aligned with ELD requirements in the United States, which currently do not include any flexibilities specific to livestock transporters. TC will continue to monitor developments in the United States and, should they move to introduce additional flexibilities, these would be assessed and taken into consideration prior to finalizing the proposed amendments. To date, TC has seen no evidence that unique flexibilities would be needed for livestock transporters.

TC recognizes that the livestock stakeholders have not participated in ELD regulatory and technical standard development in the past, and may be able to provide further insight into these processes and the proposed amendments. TC therefore would encourage them to provide additional comment following publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Rationale

With the implementation of the U.S. final rule on December 18, 2017, almost half (47%) of federally regulated CMVs will have ELDs installed. While the current Regulations do not prevent the use of ELDs, and voluntary installation and use have occurred, only a mandatory requirement would ensure a level-playing field for federally regulated motor carriers by ensuring that the records of duty status are more accurate and that allowable driving hours are not exceeded. Adoption of ELDs would significantly reduce the administrative burden for motor carriers in their efforts to provide safety oversight in their operations, while drivers would need less time and effort to maintain their records of duty status. Improved compliance with hours of service requirements would also help reduce fatigue-related crashes, injuries and fatalities.

The provincial and territorial governments would also benefit from reduced inspection time and improved enforcement tools to detect potential violations of the HOS Regulations.

All Canadian and U.S. motor carriers engaged in cross-border trade will be using U.S.-compliant ELDs by year-end, and it is expected that the vast majority of these ELDs would also be compliant, or be close to being compliant, with the proposed amendments at the time when the amendments would come into effect. Compliant ELDs should be readily available to motor carriers prior to and after the requirements come into force — TC does not anticipate shortages and prices should remain affordable. Provincial and territorial inspectors and facility auditors are expected to be experienced at inspecting ELD records by the time the proposed ELD requirements come into force, given that a significant majority of CMVs will already have adopted the technology. A two-year implementation period would help give the vendors enough time to ensure that their devices are compliant with the Technical Standard and would enable motor carriers to select, acquire and install the ELDs into their fleets.

A limited number of exemptions from having to use an ELD have been proposed where the Department believed it was warranted. Drivers operating under a permit or an exemption would be exempt because the terms and conditions of a permit or an exemption can be complex, temporary in nature, and vary significantly depending on the circumstances, thereby making the parameters of such documents impractical to program into an ELD in a timely and cost-effective basis. Short-term rentals under 30 days in duration would also be exempt, since it would be costly and impractical for motor carriers to install compliant devices in vehicles that are only under their control for a short period of time. If rental companies were to install ELDs in their vehicles, on behalf of their clients, it would be likely that the devices would be different models produced by different manufacturers than the devices already being used by the motor carrier. This would make it difficult for the records of duty status that are generated by different devices to be transferred into the motor carrier’s safety oversight system, which is a requirement under the Technical Standard. As well, renters of trucks frequently use them for non-commercial purposes, such as for moving their own household goods. It would be unreasonable to expect them to learn how to operate and use an ELD installed on a truck when they may only be renting it for one day. The final exemption pertains to commercial motor vehicles that were built before model year 2000, because most of them are equipped with mechanically controlled engines rather than an electronic control module, which is necessary for an ELD to record data such as speed, engine on, or odometer readings. From a safety perspective, it is important to note that the drivers of these exempted vehicles would continue to be required to maintain a paper-based daily log to track their driving and on-duty hours.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

Provincial and territorial governments oversee all roadside enforcement and conduct audits of safety compliance documentation at the motor carrier’s facilities. The enforcement community has been conducting HOS enforcement on those using ERDs for many years now and, in recent years, have begun to do the same with ELDs that are used by early adopters and those that travel in the United States. The rule would not change that dynamic, but rather would simply increase the volume of drivers that will be using ELDs rather than paper-based daily logs.

Provincial and territorial governments would need to provide additional training for their enforcement personnel and would need to develop enforcement procedures to prepare for implementation. They may choose to develop software tools that could help reduce inspection time and identify potential violations. The Department intends to encourage them to adopt their own ELD rules in order for the safety and competitive benefits of ELDs to be fully realized throughout the Canadian road transportation network.

The non-ELD amendments related to the issues raised by Parliament’s SJCSR and those related to National Safety Code for Motor Carriers Standard 9 Hours of Service come into force on the date of publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. The ELD amendments and the other SJCSR-related amendments that pertain to those provisions would come into force two years after the date on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. ERDs would be permitted to be used, as an alternative to ELDs, for another two years after that, which is four years after the publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Contact

Andrew Spoerri
Senior Research Analyst
Motor Vehicle Safety Directorate
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street, 9th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: andrew.spoerri@tc.gc.ca

Please note: It is important that your comments be provided to the attention of the person noted above before the closing date. Submissions not sent directly to the person noted may not be considered as part of this regulatory proposal. An individual response to your submission may not be provided. The Canada Gazette, Part II, will contain any changes that are made resulting from comments received, along with a summary of relevant comments. Please indicate in your submission if you do not wish to be identified or if you do not wish to have your comments published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Appendix A: Small Business Lens Checklist

1. Name of the sponsoring regulatory organization:

Department of Transport

2. Title of the regulatory proposal:

Regulations Amending the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (Electronic Logging Devices and Other Amendments)

3. Is the checklist submitted with a RIAS for the Canada Gazette, Part I or Part II?

Canada Gazette, Part I ☐ Canada Gazette, Part II

A. Small business regulatory design

I

Communication and transparency

Yes

No

N/A

1.

Are the proposed regulations or requirements easily understandable in everyday language?

2.

Is there a clear connection between the requirements and the purpose (or intent) of the proposed regulation?

3.

Will there be an implementation plan that includes communications and compliance promotion activities, that informs small business of a regulatory change and guides them on how to comply with it (e.g. information sessions, sample assessments, toolkits, websites)?

4.

If new forms, reports or processes are introduced, are they consistent in appearance and format with other relevant government forms, reports or processes?

II

Simplification and streamlining

Yes

No

N/A

1.

Will streamlined processes be put in place (e.g. through BizPaL, Canada Border Services Agency single window) to collect information from small businesses where possible?

The proposed ELD requirement itself will reduce administrative burden.

2.

Have opportunities to align with other obligations imposed on business by federal, provincial, municipal or international or multinational regulatory bodies been assessed?

3.

Has the impact of the proposed regulation on international or interprovincial trade been assessed?

4.

If the data or information, other than personal information, required to comply with the proposed regulation is already collected by another department or jurisdiction, will this information be obtained from that department or jurisdiction instead of requesting the same information from small businesses or other stakeholders? (The collection, retention, use, disclosure and disposal of personal information are all subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act. Any questions with respect to compliance with the Privacy Act should be referred to the department’s or agency’s ATIP office or legal services unit.)

5.

Will forms be pre-populated with information or data already available to the department to reduce the time and cost necessary to complete them? (Example: When a business completes an online application for a licence, upon entering an identifier or a name, the system pre-populates the application with the applicant’s personal particulars such as contact information, date, etc. when that information is already available to the department.)

The ELD requirement eliminates the need for paper transactions and will contain business specific particulars.

6.

Will electronic reporting and data collection be used, including electronic validation and confirmation of receipt of reports where appropriate?

7.

Will reporting, if required by the proposed regulation, be aligned with generally used business processes or international standards if possible?

8.

If additional forms are required, can they be streamlined with existing forms that must be completed for other government information requirements?

Additional forms are not required.

III

Implementation, compliance and service standards

Yes

No

N/A

1.

Has consideration been given to small businesses in remote areas, with special consideration to those that do not have access to high-speed (broadband) Internet?

2.

If regulatory authorizations (e.g. licences, permits or certifications) are introduced, will service standards addressing timeliness of decision making be developed that are inclusive of complaints about poor service?

The Regulations are not about authorizations.

3.

Is there a clearly identified contact point or help desk for small businesses and other stakeholders?

The initial point of contact on regulatory compliance remains provincial inspectors.

B. Regulatory flexibility analysis and reverse onus

IV

Regulatory flexibility analysis

Yes

No

N/A

1.

Does the RIAS identify at least one flexible option that has lower compliance or administrative costs for small businesses in the small business lens section?

Examples of flexible options to minimize costs are as follows:

  • Longer time periods to comply with the requirements, longer transition periods or temporary exemptions;
  • Performance-based standards;
  • Partial or complete exemptions from compliance, especially for firms that have good track records (legal advice should be sought when considering such an option);
  • Reduced compliance costs;
  • Reduced fees or other charges or penalties;
  • Use of market incentives;
  • A range of options to comply with requirements, including lower-cost options;
  • Simplified and less frequent reporting obligations and inspections; and
  • Licences granted on a permanent basis or renewed less frequently.

2.

Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, quantified and monetized compliance and administrative costs for small businesses associated with the initial option assessed, as well as the flexible, lower-cost option?

3.

Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, a consideration of the risks associated with the flexible option? (Minimizing administrative or compliance costs for small business cannot be at the expense of greater health, security or safety or create environmental risks for Canadians.)

4.

Does the RIAS include a summary of feedback provided by small business during consultations?

The majority of motor carriers are small businesses, and feedback was received from multiple stakeholders.

V

Reverse onus

Yes

No

N/A

1.

If the recommended option is not the lower-cost option for small business in terms of administrative or compliance costs, is a reasonable justification provided in the RIAS?

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 16.1 (see footnote a) of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (see footnote b), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (Electronic Logging Devices and Other Amendments).

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Andrew Spoerri, Senior Research Analyst, Motor Vehicle Safety Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, 9th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (email: andrew.spoerri@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, December 7, 2017

Jurica Čapkun
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (Electronic Logging Devices and Other Amendments)

Amendments

1 (1) The definition sleeper berth in section 1 of the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (see footnote 5) is repealed.

(2) The definitions daily log and electronic recording device in section 1 of the Regulations are repealed.

(3) The definition on-duty time in section 1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

on-duty time means the period that begins when a driver begins work or is required by the motor carrier to be available to work, except if the driver is waiting to be assigned to work, and that ends when the driver stops work or is relieved of responsibility by the motor carrier, and

(4) The definitions home terminal, principal place of business and supporting document in section 1 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

home terminal means the place of business of a motor carrier at which a driver ordinarily reports for work and, for the purposes of recording information related to the driver’s record of duty status, includes a temporary work site designated by the motor carrier. (gare d’attache)

principal place of business means the place or places designated by the motor carrier where records of duty status and supporting documents are stored. (établissement principal)

supporting document means the following document or information received by a driver in the course of their duties or obtained or generated by the motor carrier:

(5) The definitions directeur and mauvaises conditions de circulation in section 1 of the French version of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

directeur Directeur fédéral ou directeur provincial. (director)

mauvaises conditions de circulation Conditions météorologiques ou routières défavorables, notamment la neige, le grésil et le brouillard, qui n’étaient pas connues ou n’auraient pu vraisemblablement être connues du conducteur ou du transporteur routier qui a autorisé le conducteur à partir, immédiatement avant que celui-ci n’ait commencé à conduire. (adverse driving conditions)

(6) Paragraph (b) of the definition commercial vehicle in section 1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(7) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition driver in section 1 of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(8) Paragraph (b) of the definition oil well service vehicle in section 1 of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(9) Paragraph (a) of the definition véhicule utilitaire in section 1 of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(10) Section 1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

Act means the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. (Loi)

(11) Section 1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

2 (1) Subsection 2(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (e).

(2) Subsection 2(2) of the Regulations is repealed.

3 Paragraphs 4(a) and (b) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

4 (1) Subsection 18(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(2) Subsection 18(3) of the Regulations is repealed.

5 (1) Paragraphs 19(1)(b) and (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection 19(3) of the Regulations is repealed.

6 Section 26 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

26 Subject to section 28, no motor carrier shall request, require or allow a driver who is following cycle 1 to drive, and no driver who is following cycle 1 shall drive, after the driver has accumulated 70 hours of on-duty time during any period of 7 days.

7 Paragraph 27(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

8 Sections 37 and 38 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

37 Sections 39 to 54 apply in respect of driving north of latitude 60°N.

9 Section 40 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

10 (1) The portion of subsection 41(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

41 (1) A driver who is driving a commercial vehicle fitted with a sleeper berth may meet the mandatory off-duty time requirements of section 39 by accumulating off-duty time in no more than 2 periods if

(2) Paragraph 41(1)(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Subsection 41(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(4) Subsection 41(3) of the Regulations is repealed.

11 (1) The portion of subsection 42(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

42 (1) A team of drivers driving a commercial vehicle fitted with a sleeper berth may meet the mandatory off-duty time requirements of section 39 by accumulating off-duty time in no more than 2 periods if

(2) Paragraphs 42(1)(b) and (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) Subsection 42(3) of the Regulations is repealed.

12 Subsections 61(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

61 (1) A federal director may issue a special permit to a motor carrier for the purpose of a research or pilot project if the safety and health of the public, the driver or the employees of the motor carrier are unlikely to be jeopardized.

(2) Sections 12 to 54 and 76 to 99 do not apply in respect of special permits.

13 (1) Paragraph 62(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Paragraph 62(2)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

14 (1) Paragraph 63(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) The portion of subsection 63(2) of the French version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) Les articles 24 à 29 et 49 à 54 ne s’appliquent pas au permis visant les véhicules de service de puits de pétrole; cependant, le permis doit exiger que le conducteur prenne :

(3) Paragraph 63(2)(b) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

15 (1) Paragraph 64(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Paragraph 64(1)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Subsection 64(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (l), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (k) and by repealing paragraph (m).

(4) Subsection 64(2) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) If requested by the director to do so, the motor carrier shall make available to the director the daily logs, supporting documents or records of on-duty times, for the 6 months before the date of the application, of every driver who will drive a commercial vehicle of the motor carrier under the permit.

16 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 64:

64.1 The director may, at any time after the application has been made, require an applicant to provide additional information in order for the director to evaluate whether the granting of a permit would be likely to jeopardize the safety or health of the public, the driver or the employees of the motor carrier.

17 Paragraph 65(2)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

18 Section 66 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

19 (1) Paragraphs 67(1)(a) to (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) Paragraph 67(1)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Subsection 67(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) The motor carrier shall ensure that every driver driving under a permit drives in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit.

20 (1) Paragraph 68(1)(a) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Paragraph 68(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Subsection 68(2) of the Regulations is repealed.

21 (1) The portion of subsection 76(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) A driver who encounters adverse driving conditions while driving the vehicle during a trip south of latitude 60°N may extend the permitted 13 hours of driving time specified in sections 12 and 13 and reduce the 2 hours of daily off-duty time required by subsection 14(3) by the amount of time needed to complete the trip if

(2) Paragraph 76(2)(a) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraph 76(2)(b) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) The portion of subsection 76(3) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3) A driver who encounters adverse driving conditions while driving the vehicle during a trip north of latitude 60°N may extend the permitted 15 hours of driving time specified in section 39 by the amount of time needed to complete the trip if

22 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 76:

Supporting Documents

Provision to Motor Carrier

77 (1) A motor carrier shall ensure that the driver forwards to the motor carrier, and the driver shall forward, any original supporting documents that they receive in the course of their duties.

(2) The driver shall forward the supporting documents as follows:

Required Information

77.1 A motor carrier shall ensure that each supporting document contains the following information:

Retention by Motor Carrier

77.2 A motor carrier shall deposit the supporting documents referred to in paragraph 77(2)(b) at its principal place of business within 30 days from the day on which they are received.

77.3 (1) A motor carrier shall retain, at its principal place of business, the supporting documents that it receives from each driver as well as those that are obtained or generated by the motor carrier for each driver for a period of 6 months beginning on the day on which they are obtained or generated.

(2) Nothing requires the motor carrier to retain more than 8 supporting documents for each day for a driver, but if it retains more than 8, it shall retain those documents that have the first and the last time indications on them.

(3) If less than 8 supporting documents contain the information required under section 77.1 for a day for a driver, any of those supporting documents that contain the information set out in paragraphs 77.1(a) to (c) shall be considered to be in compliance with section 77.1.

(4) The motor carrier shall retain the supporting documents in such a manner that they may be associated with each driver’s record of duty status.

(5) For the purposes of the calculation of the number of supporting documents, each electronic mobile communication record applicable to a driver’s day shall be considered to be a single document.

Tampering

77.4 No motor carrier or driver shall obscure, deface, destroy, mutilate or alter information contained in a supporting document.

Electronic Records of Duty Status

Electronic Logging Device

78 (1) A motor carrier shall ensure that each commercial vehicle that is operated by it 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.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a commercial vehicle that is

(3) The motor carrier shall require the driver to record, and the driver shall record for each day, in accordance with these Regulations and the Technical Standard, all the information associated with their record of duty status as their duty status changes.

(4) If a motor carrier authorizes a driver to operate a commercial vehicle for yard movements within a terminal, depot or port and that is not on a public road, the motor carrier shall ensure that the driver’s ELD has been configured so that the driver can indicate those movements.

(5) A driver shall manually input or verify the following information in the ELD:

(6) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply if

(7) No motor carrier shall request, require or allow a driver to use, and no driver shall use, more than one ELD at the same time for the same period.

(8) The motor carrier shall ensure that each commercial vehicle operated by it has an ELD information packet in the vehicle containing

(9) 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.

Malfunction

78.1 (1) A motor carrier shall ensure that any ELD that is installed or used on a commercial vehicle operated by it is in good working order and is calibrated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s or seller’s specifications.

(2) If a driver of a commercial vehicle becomes aware of the fact that the ELD has one of the malfunctions set out in the Technical Standard, the driver shall notify the motor carrier that is operating the commercial vehicle as soon as possible.

(3) Within 8 days from the day on which it was notified of a malfunction by the driver or otherwise becoming aware of it, a motor carrier shall repair or replace the ELD.

(4) A motor carrier may, within 5 days after the day on which it was notified of the malfunction or otherwise becoming aware of it, request an extension of the period of time set out in subsection (3) from the director for the province in which the motor carrier’s principal place of business is situated.

(5) The extension request shall be signed by an authorized representative of the motor carrier and shall contain the following information:

(6) If the provincial director is satisfied that the motor carrier is continuing to make efforts to repair or replace the ELD, the director may allow the extension request and shall notify the motor carrier in writing and shall specify the period of extension.

(7) A motor carrier that makes an extension request in accordance with subsections (4) and (5) is considered to be in compliance with subsection (3) until it receives notification from the provincial director.

Accounts

78.2 A motor carrier shall create and maintain a system of accounts that is in compliance with the Technical Standard and that

Certification of Record of Duty Status

78.3 A driver shall, immediately after recording the last entry for a day, certify the accuracy of their record of duty status.

Provision of Records of Duty Status

79 A motor carrier shall ensure that the driver forwards, and the driver shall forward to the principal place of business of the motor carrier, the driver’s certified record of duty status within 13 days after certification.

Verification and Retention of Records of Duty Status

79.1 (1) A motor carrier shall verify the accuracy of the certified records of duty status that are forwarded by the driver according to the supporting documents provided and shall require from the driver those changes necessary to ensure the accuracy of the records.

(2) The driver shall either accept or reject the changes required by the motor carrier, make the necessary changes and recertify the accuracy of their record of duty status and forward the amended records of duty status to the motor carrier.

79.2 The motor carrier shall retain, at its principal place of business, the records of duty status for a period of 6 months from the day on which they are received.

Tampering

79.3 No driver or motor carrier 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, nor permit or require another person to do so.

23 The heading “Daily Logs” before section 80 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Paper Records of Duty Status

24 (1) Subsection 81(1) of these Regulations is replaced by the following:

81 (1) A motor carrier shall require every driver to fill out, and every driver shall fill out, a paper record of duty status each day that accounts for all of the driver’s on-duty time and off-duty time for that day if

(2) Paragraph 81(2)(a) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraphs 81(2)(c) and (d) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

25 (1) The portion of subsection 82(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

82 (1) At the beginning of each day, a motor carrier shall require that a driver enters legibly, and the driver shall enter legibly, the following information in a daily log, using the grid in the form as set out in Schedule 2:

(2) Paragraph 82(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraphs 82(1)(d) to (f) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(4) Subsections 82(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) The motor carrier shall require that the driver records, and the driver shall record, in the daily log, using the grid set out in Schedule 2, the following information as it becomes known:

(3) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection (2) prevents the driver from changing the hours at the top of the grid in order to reflect a different start time.

(4) The driver shall record in the daily log, as this information becomes known, the names and addresses of any other motor carriers by which they have been employed or otherwise engaged during the day.

(5) If a driver is engaged in making deliveries in a municipality that results in a number of periods of driving time being interrupted by a number of short periods of other on-duty time, the periods of driving time and other on-duty time may be combined on the grid.

(6) A motor carrier shall require that the driver records at the end of each day, and the driver shall record at the end of each day, on the grid, the total hours for each duty status and the total distance driven by the driver that day, excluding the distance driven in respect of the driver’s personal use of the vehicle, as well as the odometer reading at the end of the day and the driver shall sign the daily log certifying the accuracy of the information recorded in it.

26 Section 83 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

27 (1) Paragraph 84(a) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Section 84 of the Regulations is amended by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (a), by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by repealing paragraph (c).

28 Section 85 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

85 (1) A driver shall, within 20 days after completing a paper record of duty status, forward the original paper record of duty status to the home terminal and the motor carrier shall ensure that the driver does so.

(2) A driver who is employed or otherwise engaged by more than one motor carrier in any day shall forward, within 20 days after completing a paper record of duty status, and the motor carriers shall ensure that the driver forwards, the original of the paper record of duty status to the home terminal of the first motor carrier for which the driver worked and a copy of it to the home terminal of each other carrier for which the driver worked.

(3) The motor carrier shall

29 Subsection 86(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) No motor carrier shall request, require or allow any person to enter, and no person shall enter, inaccurate information in a paper record of duty status or an electronic record of duty status or falsify, mutilate or deface the records or supporting documents.

30 Subsection 87(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) 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.

31 (1) Paragraphs 91(1)(a) to (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) Paragraph 91(1)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraph 91(1)(e) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) Paragraphs 91(3)(a) to (d) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(5) Paragraph 91(3)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(6) Subsection 91(4) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) The out-of-service declaration in respect of a driver who contravenes section 79.3 or 86 continues to apply beyond the 72 hours until the driver rectifies the record of duty status, if applicable, and provides it to the director or inspector so that the director or inspector is able to determine whether the driver has complied with these Regulations.

32 Section 97 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

97 (1) An inspector may, during business hours, enter a motor carrier’s home terminal or principal place of business, other than living quarters, for the purpose of inspecting the daily logs and supporting documents.

(2) An inspector may, at any time, enter a commercial vehicle, except for its sleeper berth, for the purpose of inspecting the daily logs and supporting documents.

(3) An inspector may, at any time, enter a commercial vehicle and its sleeper berth for the purpose of verifying that the sleeper berth meets the requirements of Schedule 1.

(4) No person shall obstruct or hinder, or knowingly make any false or misleading statements either orally or in writing to, an inspector who is engaged in carrying out their duties and functions under these Regulations.

33 The heading before section 98 and sections 98 and 99 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Production of Records of Duty Status and Supporting Documents

98 (1) At the request of an inspector, a driver shall immediately produce for inspection records of duty status for the current day and the preceding 14 days, the supporting documents for the current trip — in their existing format — as well as any permit under which the driver may be driving.

(2) If the records requested by the inspector are in electronic format, the driver shall produce either the display or a printout of the records and, if requested by the inspector to transmit the records of duty status, shall transmit them by one of the transfer methods prescribed in the Technical Standard.

(3) The driver shall, at the request of an inspector, immediately give the inspector a copy of the paper records of duty status and supporting documents for the current day and the preceding 14 days, or the originals if it is not possible in the circumstances to make copies, as well as any permit under which the driver may be driving.

(4) The inspector shall provide the driver with a receipt in the form set out in Schedule 3 for the paper records of duty status and supporting documents received.

99 (1) A motor carrier shall, during business hours, at the request of an inspector, produce for inspection at the place specified by the inspector the paper records of duty status, unidentified driver records and supporting documents that are in its possession as well as any permit under which a driver may be driving or had been driving during the period for which the inspector makes the request.

(2) The motor carrier shall transmit to the inspector the electronic records of duty status in the format, and using one of the transfer methods, prescribed in the Technical Standard.

(3) The inspector shall

34 Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by replacing the references after the heading “SCHEDULE 1” with the following:

(Paragraphs 18(1)(c.1), 19(1)(c), 41(1)(c.1) and 42(1)(c) and subsection 97(3))

35 Item 1(g) of the French version of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

36 Items 1(j) to (l) of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

37 Schedules 2 and 3 to the Regulations are replaced by the Schedules 2 and 3 set out in the schedule to these Regulations.

38 The Regulations are amended by replacing “daily log” and “logbook” with “record of duty status” in the following provisions:

39 The Regulations are amended by replacing “daily logs” with “records of duty status” in the following provisions:

40 The Regulations are amended by replacing “daily log” and “daily logs” respectively with “paper record of duty status” and “paper records of duty status”, respectively, in the following provisions:

Transitional Provision

41 A driver who is driving a commercial vehicle, or a motor carrier that is operating a commercial vehicle, may continue to comply with the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations as they read immediately before the day on which subsections 1(2), (4) and (11) and 19(2), sections 22 to 24 and 26, subsection 27(2), sections 28 and 29, subsections 31(2), (5) and (6) and sections 33 and 37 to 40 come into force, for a period of two years from the day on which those provisions come into force, if

Coming into Force

42 (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(2) Subsections 1(2), (4) and (11) and 19(2), sections 22 to 24 and 26, subsection 27(2), sections 28 and 29, subsections 31(2), (5) and (6) and sections 33 and 37 to 40 of these Regulations come into force two years from the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

SCHEDULE

(Section 34)

SCHEDULE 2 / ANNEXE 2

(Subsections 82(1) and (2) / paragraphes 82(1) et (2))

DUTY STATUS GRID / GRILLE DES ACTIVITÉS

Graph - Detailed information can be found in the surrounding text. / Graphique - Des renseignements complémentaires se trouvent dans les paragraphes adjacents.

SCHEDULE 3 / ANNEXE 3

(Subsection 98(4) and paragraph 99(3)(a) / paragraphe 98(4) et alinéa 99(3)a))

RECEIPT / ACCUSÉ DE RÉCEPTION

It is acknowledged that, pursuant to subsection 98(4) or paragraph 99(3)(a) of the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations, the following records of duty status and supporting documents were provided by

J’accuse réception des rapports d’activités et des documents justificatifs ci-après fournis en vertu du paragraphe 98(4) ou de l’alinéa 99(3)a) du Règlement sur les heures de service des conducteurs de véhicule utilitaire par :

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Name of person / Nom de la personne)

at / à

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Number, street, municipality, location, province of motor carrier / Numéro, rue, municipalité, endroit, province du transporteur routier)

on / le

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Day, month, year / Jour, mois, année)

namely / à savoir 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Description of records of duty status and supporting documents received /
Description des rapports d’activités et des documents justificatifs reçus)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dated at / Fait à

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Municipality, location / Municipalité, endroit)

on / le

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Day, month, year / Jour, mois, année)

 

________________________________________________________________

 

Inspector’s signature / Signature de l’inspecteur

[50-1-o]