Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting Documents, 17655-17724 [2014-05827]
Download as PDF
Vol. 79
Friday,
No. 60
March 28, 2014
Part II
Department of Transportation
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, et al.
Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting Documents;
Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17656
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, and 395
[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0167]
RIN 2126–AB20
Electronic Logging Devices and Hours
of Service Supporting Documents
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA)
proposes amendments to the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to establish: Minimum
performance and design standards for
hours-of-service (HOS) electronic
logging devices (ELDs); requirements for
the mandatory use of these devices by
drivers currently required to prepare
HOS records of duty status (RODS);
requirements concerning HOS
supporting documents; and measures to
address concerns about harassment
resulting from the mandatory use of
ELDs. This rulemaking supplements the
Agency’s February 1, 2011, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and
addresses issues raised by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
in its 2011 decision vacating the
Agency’s April 5, 2010, final rule
concerning ELDs as well as subsequent
statutory developments. The proposed
requirements for ELDs would improve
compliance with the HOS rules.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 27, 2014. Comments sent
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on the collection of information
must be received by OMB on or before
May 27, 2014. Before publishing a final
rule, FMCSA will submit to the Office
of the Federal Register publications
listed in the rule for approval of the
publications’ incorporation by
reference.
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments
identified by Docket Number FMCSA–
2010–0167 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
instructions on submitting comments,
including collection of information
comments for the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of
Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001 or by telephone at 202–366–5370.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) is organized as
follows:
I. Executive Summary
II. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Comments on the Collection of
Information
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
A. Motor Carrier Act of 1935
B. Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
C. Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory
Reform Act
D. Hazardous Materials Transportation
Authorization Act of 1994
E. MAP–21
V. Background
A. ELDs: Discussion of the 2010 Final Rule
and the 2011 NPRM
B. History of the Supporting Documents
Rule
C. Concurrent Activities
D. Table Summary
VI. ELD Performance and Design
Specifications
A. Terminology
B. ELD Function
C. ELD Regulatory Compliance
VII. Proposed ELD Mandate
VIII. Proposed Compliance Date
A. Effective and Compliance Dates for a
Final Rule
B. 2-Year Transition Period
C. Cost Associated With Replacing
AOBRDs
IX. Proposed Supporting Document
Provisions
A. Applicability
B. Categories
C. Data Elements
D. Number
E. Submission to Motor Carrier
F. HOS Enforcement Proceedings
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
G. Carriers Using Paper Logs
H. Self-Compliance Systems
X. Ensuring Against Driver Harassment
A. Drivers’ Access to Own Records
B. Explicit Prohibition on Harassment
C. Complaint Procedures
D. Enhanced Penalties To Deter
Harassment
E. Mute Function
F. Edit Rights
G. Tracking of Vehicle Location
H. FMCSRs Enforcement Proceedings
I. Summary
XI. MAP–21 Coercion Language
XII. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Part 385—Safety Fitness Procedures
B. Part 386—Rules of Practice for Motor
Carrier, Intermodal Equipment Provider,
Broker, Freight Forwarder, and
Hazardous Materials Proceedings
C. Part 390—Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations: General
D. Part 395—Hours of Service of Drivers
XIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
H. Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
K. National Environmental Policy Act and
Clean Air Act
L. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental
Justice)
M. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
N. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
O. E-Government Act of 2002
I. Executive Summary
This SNPRM would improve
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety
and reduce the overall paperwork
burden for both motor carriers and
drivers by increasing the use of ELDs
within the motor carrier industry, which
would in turn improve compliance with
the applicable HOS rules. Specifically,
this SNPRM proposes: (1) Requiring
new technical specifications for ELDs
that address statutory requirements; (2)
mandating ELDs for drivers currently
using RODS; (3) clarifying supporting
document requirements so that motor
carriers and drivers can comply
efficiently with HOS regulations, and so
that motor carriers can make the best
use of ELDs and related support systems
as their primary means of recording
HOS information and ensuring HOS
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
compliance; and (4) proposing both
procedural and technical provisions
aimed at ensuring that ELDs are not
used to harass vehicle operators.
In August 2011, however, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit vacated the April 2010 final rule,
including the device performance
standards. See Owner-Operator Indep.
Drivers Ass’n v. Fed. Motor Carrier
Safety Admin., 656 F.3d 580 (7th Cir.
2011) available in the docket for this
rulemaking. Thus, FMCSA expands the
2011 NPRM significantly. The
regulatory text proposed in today’s
SNPRM supersedes that published in
the February 2011 NPRM.
All of the previous rulemaking
notices, as well as notices announcing
certain Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee (MCSAC) meetings and
public listening sessions, referred to the
devices and support systems used to
record electronically HOS RODS as
‘‘electronic on-board recorders
(EOBRs).’’ Beginning with this SNPRM,
the term ‘‘electronic logging device
(ELD)’’ is substituted for the term
‘‘EOBR’’ in order to be consistent with
the term used in MAP–21. To the extent
applicable, a reference to an ELD
includes a related motor carrier or
vendor central support system—if one is
used—to manage or store ELD data.
This rulemaking is based on authority
in a number of statutes, including the
Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Motor
Carrier Safety Act of 1984, the Truck
and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1988, the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Authorization Act of
1994 (HMTAA), and MAP–21.
This SNPRM follows the NPRM
published February 1, 2011 (76 FR
5537). The original NPRM had three
components that: (1) Required ELDs to
be used by motor carriers and drivers
required to prepare handwritten RODS;
(2) required motor carriers to develop
and maintain systematic HOS oversight
of their drivers; and (3) simplified
supporting document requirements so
motor carriers could achieve paperwork
efficiencies from ELDs and their support
systems as their primary means of
recording HOS information and
ensuring HOS compliance. This SNPRM
modifies that earlier proposal based on
docket comments and other new
information received by the Agency.
Because the Agency’s 2010 final rule
providing technical specifications for
17657
ELDs was vacated, this SNPRM also
proposes new technical specifications
for ELDs and addresses the issue of
ELDs being used by motor carriers to
harass drivers. The SNPRM supersedes
the February 1, 2011, NPRM.
This rulemaking examines four
options:
• Option 1: ELDs are mandated for all
CMV operations subject to 49 CFR part
395.
• Option 2: ELDs are mandated for all
CMV operations where the driver is
required to complete RODS under 49
CFR 395.8.
• Option 3: ELDs are mandated for all
CMV operations subject to 49 CFR part
395, and the ELD is required to include
or be able to be connected to a printer
and print RODS.
• Option 4: ELDs are mandated for all
CMV operations where the driver is
required to complete RODS under 49
CFR 395.8, and the ELD is required to
include or be able to be connected to a
printer and print RODS.
The following table lists the
breakdown of regulated entities under
FMCSA’s regulations:
TABLE 1—REGULATED ENTITIES
For-hire
specialized
freight
For-hire
general freight
Carriers ....................................................
Percent of Carriers ...................................
Drivers ......................................................
Percent of Drivers ....................................
Total CMVs ..............................................
Percent of CMVs ......................................
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index ....................
10-Firm Concentration .............................
Single-Truck For-Hire Carriers .................
176,000
33%
1,727,000
40%
1,717,000
39%
53
18.0%
93,000
For-hire
passenger 1
139,000
26%
891,000
21%
1,003,000
23%
5
........................
65,000
8,000
2%
216,000
5%
183,000
4%
406
38.0%
Private
property
Private
passenger
203,000
38%
1,442,000
33%
1,433,000
33%
6
6,000
1%
40,000
1%
24,000
1%
15
Total
532,000
100%
4,316,000
100%
4,360,000
100%
10
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source: FMCSA, Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) registration data as of December 14, 2012.
FMCSA evaluated 1 another option for
the NPRM prepared in 2011, which
would have required ELD use by
hazardous materials and passenger
carriers that did not use RODS, in
addition to all RODS users. This was not
the preferred option then and it was not
part of this evaluation. The marginal net
benefits of including those groups in the
rule were negative. When these carrier
populations were added to RODS users,
estimated net benefits, although they
were positive, were 8.5 percent lower
than the net benefits calculated using
the RODS-only population. Hazardous
material carriers and passenger carriers
tend to have above average safety
1 Includes 2,000 carriers with only taxi/limousine
services operating in interstate commerce.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
records. This may be because they are
subject to many other safety regulations,
and are overseen by FMCSA and other
Federal agencies. However, neither
group will gain paperwork savings from
eliminating paper RODS, as costs
exceeded benefits for these two groups.
FMCSA gathered cost information
from publicly available marketing
material and through communication
with fleet management systems (FMS)
vendors. Although the prices of some
models have not significantly declined
in recent years, manufacturers have
been introducing less expensive FMS
in-cab units and support systems with
fewer features (for example, they do not
include real time tracking and routing),
as well as in-cab units that resemble a
stand-alone ELD. The Agency bases its
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
calculations in this RIA on the Mobile
Computing Platform (MCP) 50 produced
by Qualcomm, which is the largest
manufacturer (by market share) of FMS
in North America.2 While this analysis
is not an endorsement of Qualcomm’s
products, the Agency believes that its
2 Qualcomm Incorporated 2012 Annual Report,
Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10K,
(investor.qualcomm.com/annuals.cfm.) The
Qualcomm Enterprise Services (QES, recently
renamed Omnitracs) reported revenues of $371
million in fiscal year 2012. Omnitracs currently
estimates its active installed base of FMS, which
include those with an ELD function, to be 350,000
in North America, most of which are operated in
the US (https://www.qualcomm.com/solutions/
transportation-logistics). FMCSA estimates that
about 955,000 CMVs currently use FMS in the US,
including those with an ELD function, which
indicates that Qualcomm’s US market share is as
high as 37 percent.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17658
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
large market share makes the MCP 50
FMS an appropriate example of current
state-of-the-art, widely available devices
with ELD functionality. FMCSA also
examined cost information from several
other vendors, and found that the MCP
50, when all installation, service, and
hardware costs are considered, falls
roughly into the middle of the price
range of FMSs with ELD capabilities:
$495 per CMV on an annualized basis
where the range is from $165 to $832
per CMV on an annualized basis. The
Agency also carefully considered the
VDO RoadLog ELD produced by the
Continental Corporation, which,
through its VDO subsidiary, has a 90
percent share of the electronic
tachograph market in the European
Union (EU) and more than 5 million
electronic tachographs or ELD devices
in use worldwide.3 Continental has
recently begun offering the RoadLog
ELD in the North American market, and
the Agency believes that the overall
capacity and market share of this
corporation may allow it to influence
the U.S. ELD market. As discussed
below, the Agency has found that basing
costs on the MCP 50, the VDO RoadLog,
or several other devices, all lead to
positive net benefits of this rulemaking.
Although carrier preferences and device
availability prevent FMCSA from more
precisely estimating costs, it is
confident that they will be lower than
the rule’s benefits.
The Agency requests comments on its
analysis of the ELD and FMS markets,
and, in particular, how prices and
availability of units affect motor carriers
differently with respect to fleet size.
This analysis also evaluates the costs
and benefits of improvements in motor
carrier compliance with the underlying
HOS rules through the use of ELDs. To
evaluate compliance costs, the Agency
has updated its assessment of the
baseline level of non-compliance with
the HOS rules to account for changes in
factors such as inflation, changes in the
HOS violation rate that preceded the
mandate for ELD use, and the vehicle
miles traveled by CMVs. To evaluate
safety benefits, the Agency examined
several types of analysis and has used
its judgment to select a conservative
result for the number of crashes and
fatalities avoided by ELD use. The costs
and benefits are detailed in the RIA
associated with this rulemaking and the
methods by which they were derived
are also discussed. The major elements
that contribute to the overall net
benefits are shown below in Table 1.
This table summarizes the figures for
the Agency’s preferred option, Option 2,
which also has the highest net benefits.
TABLE 2—COST AND BENEFIT SUMMARY
Annualized
total value
($2011
millions)
Cost element
New ELDs .................................................
955.7
Automatic On-Board Recording Device
(AOBRD) Replacement Costs.
Equipment for Inspectors ..........................
8.7
Inspector Training .....................................
1.7
CMV Driver Training .................................
Compliance ...............................................
6.7
604.0
2.0
Benefit element
For all long haul (LH) and short haul (SH) drivers that use RODS, to pay for new
devices and FMS upgrades.
Carriers that purchased AOBRDs for their CMVs and can be predicted to still have
them in 2018 would have to replace them with ELDs.
Quick Response Code (QR) scanners to read ELD output. These would be heavily
used, and we assume they will be replaced three times during the 10 year period
for which we are estimating costs.
Costs include travel to training sites, as well as training time, for all inspectors in
the first year and for the new officers every year after.
Costs of training new drivers in 2016, and new drivers each year thereafter.
Extra drivers and CMVs needed to ensure that no driver exceeds HOS limits.
Annualized
total value
($2011
millions)
Paperwork Savings (Total of three parts
below).
(1) Driver Time ..........................................
(2) Clerical Time .......................................
(3) Paper Costs ........................................
Safety (Crash Reductions) .......................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Notes
Notes
1,637.7
1,261.4
278.8
97.6
394.8
This SNPRM also proposes changes to
the HOS supporting document
requirements. The Agency has
attempted to clarify its supporting
document requirements, recognizing
that ELD records serve as the most
robust form of documentation for onduty driving periods. FMCSA neither
increases nor decreases the burden
Reflects time saved as drivers no longer have to fill out and submit paper RODS.
Reflects time saved as office staff no longer have to process paper RODS.
Purchases of paper logbooks are no longer necessary.
Although the predicted number of crash reductions is lower for SH than LH drivers,
both should exhibit less fatigued driving if HOS compliance increases. Complete
HOS compliance is not assumed.
associated with supporting documents.
These proposed changes are expected to
improve the quality and usefulness of
the supporting documents retained, and
would consequently increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of the
Agency’s review of motor carriers’ HOS
records during on-site compliance
reviews, thereby increasing its ability to
detect HOS rules violations. The Agency
is currently unable to evaluate the
impact the proposed changes to
supporting documents requirements
would have on crash reductions. Tables
3 and 4 summarize the analysis. The
figures presented are annualized using 7
percent and 3 percent discount rates.
3 https://www.RoadLog.vdo.com/generator/www/
us/en/vdo/RoadLog/about_vdo/about_vdo_en.html.
May 9, 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17659
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS
[$2011 millions, 7 percent discount rate]
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
New ELD Costs ...............................................................................................................
AOBRD Replacement Costs ...........................................................................................
HOS Compliance Costs ...................................................................................................
Enforcement Training Costs ............................................................................................
Enforcement Equipment Costs ........................................................................................
Driver Training .................................................................................................................
$1,270.0
8.7
726.6
1.7
2.0
8.5
$955.7
8.7
604.0
1.7
2.0
6.7
$1,722.6
8.7
726.6
1.7
0.0
8.5
$1,311.1
8.7
604.0
1.7
0.0
6.7
Total Costs ...............................................................................................................
Paperwork Savings ..........................................................................................................
Safety Benefits .................................................................................................................
2,017.4
1,637.7
474.8
1,578.7
1,637.7
394.8
2,468.0
1,637.7
474.8
1,932.1
1,637.7
394.8
Total Benefits ............................................................................................................
2,112.5
2,032.5
2,112.5
2,032.5
Net Benefits .......................................................................................................
95.1
453.8
¥355.5
100.4
TABLE 4—ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS
[$2011 Millions, 3 percent discount rate]
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
$1,260.7
8.0
726.6
1.6
2.0
7.5
$949.5
8.0
604.1
1.6
2.0
5.9
$1,707.4
8.0
726.6
1.6
0.0
7.5
$1,300.3
8.0
604.1
1.6
0.0
5.9
Total Costs ...............................................................................................................
Paperwork Savings ..........................................................................................................
Safety Benefits .................................................................................................................
2,006.4
1,670.2
474.8
1,571.1
1,670.2
394.8
2,451.1
1,670.2
474.8
1,919.9
1,670.2
394.8
Total Benefits ............................................................................................................
2,145.0
2,065.0
2,145.0
2,065.0
Net Benefits .......................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
ELD Costs ........................................................................................................................
AOBRD Replacement Costs ...........................................................................................
HOS Compliance Costs ...................................................................................................
Enforcement Training Costs ............................................................................................
Enforcement Equipment Costs ........................................................................................
Driver Training .................................................................................................................
138.6
493.9
¥306.1
145.1
The estimated benefits of ELDs do not
differ greatly among the options, and the
paperwork savings are identical for all
four options. The Agency estimates zero
paperwork burden from operations
exempt from RODS, so ELDs can only
reduce the paperwork burden of RODs
users, which are included in all four
options. Safety benefits are higher when
all regulated CMV operations are
included in the ELD mandate (Options
1 and 3), but the marginal costs (ELD
costs plus compliance costs) of
including these operations are about 51⁄2
times higher than the marginal benefits.
These options would add short-haul
drivers who do not use RODS, have
better HOS compliance, and much
lower crash risk from HOS noncompliance. For the short-haul nonRODS subgroup, FMCSA’s analysis
indicates that ELDs are not a costeffective solution to their HOS non-
compliance problem. This result is
consistent with that of past ELD
analyses. The requirement for printers
with each ELD would increase ELD
costs by about 40 percent. This is the
first time that FMCSA has explored
requiring a printer, and it seeks
comment on the feasibility and accuracy
of the benefit and cost estimates
associated with this requirement. Only
Option 2, which would require ELDs
similar to those currently being
manufactured for paper RODS users,
provides positive net benefits. Net
benefits for Options 1, 2, and 4 are
positive with a 3 percent discount rate,
but the net benefits for Option 2 are still
much higher than those of other
options—about 11 times higher than the
net benefits of the next best alternative,
Option 4. Non-monetized benefits of the
various options are also substantial. The
number of crashes avoided ranges from
1,425 to 1,714, and this rule could save
between 20 and 24 lives per year.
Review of Trucks Involved in Fatal
Accidents (TIFA) data from 2005–2009
supports this analysis: Variables
indicating that the driver of the CMV
was drowsy, sleepy, asleep, or fatigued
are coded for crashes that caused an
average of 85 deaths per year in that
period (https://www.umtri.umich.edu/
our-results/publications/trucksinvolved-fatal-accidents-factbook-2008linda-jarossi-anne-matteson). An
average of nine crashes per year in TIFA
was associated with fatigued drivers
exceeding drive time limits. Additional
factors were at play in most of these
events, but the removal of some
substantial fraction of fatigued driving
should provide some benefit. Estimated
crash reductions due to the proposed
rule are summarized in Table 5.
TABLE 5—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN CRASHES
Option 1
Crashes Avoided .............................................................................................................
Injuries Avoided ...............................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1,714
522
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
Option 2
1,425
434
28MRP2
Option 3
1,714
522
Option 4
1,425
434
17660
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN CRASHES—Continued
Option 1
Lives Saved .....................................................................................................................
II. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
After the publication of the 2011
NPRM, Congress enacted MAP–21; the
Act that mandated that the Agency
require the use of ELDs by interstate
CMV drivers required to keep RODS. In
addition, the Agency gained information
as part of its outreach efforts. Because
the proposed regulatory text in today’s
SNPRM supersedes that proposed in the
2011 NPRM, and because of the
significance of the changes, FMCSA
encourages stakeholders and members
of the public—including those who
submitted comments previously—to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments and related
materials on the complete proposal.
FMCSA will address comments
submitted in response to the February
2011 NPRM (76 FR 5537) as part of a
final rule, to the extent such comments
are relevant given the intervening events
since publication of that document and
today’s SNPRM.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
SNPRM (Docket No. FMCSA–2010–
0167), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each section
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that
you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that FMCSA can contact you if there
are questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, put the
docket number, FMCSA–2010–0167, in
the keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’
When the new screen appears, click on
the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button and type
your comment into the text box on the
following screen. Choose whether you
are submitting your comment as an
individual or on behalf of a third party
and then submit.
If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
24
Option 2
20
Option 3
Option 4
24
20
comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope.
We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment
period and may change this proposed
rule based on your comments. FMCSA
may issue a final rule at any time after
the close of the comment period.
FMCSA, DOT’’ in the subject line of the
email) or fax at 202–395–6566. An
alternative, though slower, method is by
U.S. Mail to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
ATTN: Desk Officer, FMCSA, DOT.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Insert the
docket number, FMCSA–2010–1067, in
the keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’
Next, click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’
button and choose the document to
review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Automatic On-Board Recording
Device.
Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Categories.
Commercial Driver’s License ....
Commercial Motor Vehicle .......
Compliance, Safety, Accountability.
Department of Transportation ..
Electronic Control Module ........
Electronic Logging Device .........
Electronic On-Board Recorder ..
Extensible Markup Language ....
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations.
Fleet Management System ........
Geographic Names Information
System.
Global Positioning System ........
Hazardous Materials ..................
Hours of Service ........................
Mobile Computing Platform 50
Motor Carrier Management Information System.
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
National Transportation Safety
Board.
North American Free Trade
Agreement.
North American Industrial
Classification System.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Office of Management and
Budget.
On-Duty Not Driving .................
Personally Identifiable Information.
Quick Response .........................
Record of Duty Status ...............
Regulatory Impact Analysis ......
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Universal Serial Bus ..................
Vehicle Identification Number
C. Privacy Act
All comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide.
Anyone may search the electronic form
of comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the
person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register (FR)
notice published on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316) or you may visit https://
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8785.pdf.
D. Comments on the Collection of
Information
If you have comments on the
collection of information discussed in
this SNPRM, you must also send those
comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs at OMB. To
ensure that your comments are received
on time, the preferred methods of
submission are by email to oira_
submissions@omb.eop.gov (include
docket number ‘‘FMCSA–2010–0167’’
and ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
AOBRD.
BASICs.
CDL.
CMV.
CSA.
DOT.
ECM.
ELD.
EOBR.
XML.
FMCSA.
FMCSRs.
FMS.
GNIS.
GPS.
HM.
HOS.
MCP50.
MCMIS.
MCSAC.
MCSAP.
NHTSA.
NTSB.
NAFTA.
NAICS.
NPRM.
OMB.
ODND.
PII.
QR.
RODS.
RIA.
SNPRM.
USB.
VIN.
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
FMCSA’s authority for this
rulemaking is derived from several
statutes.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
A. Motor Carrier Act of 1935
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (Pub.
L. 74–255, 49 Stat. 543, August 9, 1935),
as amended, (the 1935 Act) provides
that, ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Transportation
may prescribe requirements for—(1)
qualifications and maximum hours of
service of employees of, and safety of
operation and equipment of, a motor
carrier; and (2) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees
of, and standards of equipment of, a
motor private carrier, when needed to
promote safety of operation’’ (49 U.S.C.
31502(b)). Among other things, by
requiring the use of ELDs, this SNPRM
would require safety equipment that
would increase compliance with the
HOS regulations and address the ‘‘safety
of operation’’ of motor carriers subject to
this statute. The SNPRM would do this
by ensuring an automatic recording of
driving time and a more accurate record
of a driver’s work hours.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98–554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832,
October 30, 1984), as amended, (the
1984 Act) provides authority to the
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary)
to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and
vehicle equipment. It requires the
Secretary to prescribe minimum safety
standards for CMVs to ensure that—(1)
CMVs are maintained, equipped,
loaded, and operated safely; (2)
responsibilities imposed on CMV
drivers do not impair their ability to
operate the vehicles safely; (3) drivers’
physical condition is adequate to
operate the vehicles safely; (4) the
operation of CMVs does not have a
deleterious effect on drivers’ physical
condition; and (5) CMV drivers are not
coerced by a motor carrier, shipper,
receiver, or transportation intermediary
to operate a CMV in violation of
regulations promulgated under 49
U.S.C. 31136 or under chapter 51 or
chapter 313 of 49 U.S.C. (49 U.S.C.
31136(a). The 1984 Act also grants the
Secretary broad power in carrying out
motor carrier safety statutes and
regulations to ‘‘prescribe recordkeeping
and reporting requirements’’ and to
‘‘perform other acts the Secretary
considers appropriate’’ (49 U.S.C.
31133(a)(8) and (10)).
The HOS regulations are designed to
ensure that driving time—one of the
principal ‘‘responsibilities imposed on
the operators of commercial motor
vehicles’’—does ‘‘not impair their
ability to operate the vehicles safely’’
(49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)). ELDs that are
properly designed, used, and
maintained would enable drivers, motor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
carriers, and authorized safety officials
to more effectively and accurately track
on-duty driving hours, thus preventing
both inadvertent and deliberate HOS
violations. Driver compliance with the
HOS rules helps ensure that drivers are
provided time to obtain restorative rest
and thus that ‘‘the physical condition of
[CMV drivers] is adequate to enable
them to operate the vehicles safely’’ (49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)). Indeed, the Agency
considered whether this proposal would
impact driver health under 49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(3) and (a)(4), asdiscussed in
the Draft Environmental Assessment,
available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
By ensuring an electronic RODS is
tamper-resistant, this rulemaking would
protect against coercion of drivers, (49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)). The ELD would
decrease the likelihood that driving
time, which would be captured
automatically by the device, could be
concealed and that other duty status
information entered by the driver could
be inappropriately changed after it is
entered. Thus, motor carriers would
have limited opportunity to force
drivers to violate the HOS rules without
leaving an electronic trail that would
point to the original and revised
records. This SNPRM also expressly
proposes to prohibit motor carriers from
coercing drivers to falsely certify their
ELD records. FMCSA intends to further
address the issue of driver coercion in
a separate rulemaking.
Because the proposal would increase
compliance with the HOS regulations, it
would have a positive effect on the
physical condition of drivers and help
to ensure that CMVs are operated safely
(49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)). Other
requirements in 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)
concerning safe motor vehicle
maintenance, equipment, and loading
are not germane to this SNPRM because
ELDs and the SNPRM’s related
provisions influence driver operational
safety rather than vehicular and
mechanical safety.
C. Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory
Reform Act
Section 9104 of the Truck and Bus
Safety and Regulatory Reform Act (Pub.
L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, 4529,
November 18, 1988) anticipated the
Secretary’s promulgating a regulation
about the use of monitoring devices on
CMVs to increase compliance with HOS
regulations. The statute, as amended,
requires the Agency to ensure that any
such device is not used to ‘‘harass a
vehicle operator’’ (49 U.S.C.
31137(a)(2)). This SNPRM would
protect drivers from being harassed by
motor carriers to violate safety
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17661
regulations and would limit a motor
carriers’ ability to interrupt a driver’s
sleeper berth period. In so doing, the
SNPRM also furthers the provisions of
49 U.S.C. 31136(a), protecting driver’s
health. The provisions addressing
harassment proposed in this SNPRM are
discussed in more detail under Part X.
D. Hazardous Materials Transportation
Authorization Act of 1994
Section 113 of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Authorization
Act of 1994, Public Law 103–311, 108
Stat. 1673, 16776–1677, August 26,
1994, (HMTAA) requires the Secretary
to prescribe regulations to improve
compliance by CMV drivers and motor
carriers with HOS requirements and the
effectiveness and efficiency of Federal
and State enforcement officers
reviewing such compliance.
Specifically, the Act addresses
requirements for supporting documents.
The cost of such regulations must be
reasonable to drivers and motor carriers.
Section 113 of HMTAA describes what
elements must be covered in regulation,
including a requirement that the
regulations specify the ‘‘number, type,
and frequency of supporting documents
that must be retained by the motor
carrier’’ and a minimum retention
period of at least 6 months.
Section 113 also requires that
regulations ‘‘authorize, on a case-bycase basis, self-compliance systems’’
whereby a motor carrier or a group of
motor carriers could propose an
alternative system that would ensure
compliance with the HOS regulations.
The statute defines ‘‘supporting
document,’’ in part, as ‘‘any document
. . . generated or received by a motor
carrier or commercial motor vehicle
driver in the normal course of
business. . . .’’ This SNPRM does not
propose to require generation of new
supporting documents outside the
normal course of the motor carrier’s
business. The SNPRM addresses
supporting documents that a motor
carrier would need to maintain
consistent with the statutory
requirements. The provisions
addressing supporting documents are
discussed in more detail under Part IX.
E. MAP–21
Section 32301(b) of the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Enhancement Act,
enacted as part of MAP–21 (Pub. L. 112–
141, 126 Stat. 405, 786–788 (July 6,
2012)), mandated that the Secretary
adopt regulations requiring that CMVs
involved in interstate commerce,
operated by drivers who are required to
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17662
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
keep RODS, be equipped with ELDs.4
The statute sets out provisions that the
regulations must address, including
device performance and design
standards and certification
requirements. In adopting regulations,
the Agency must consider how the need
for supporting documents might be
reduced, to the extent data is captured
on an ELD, without diminishing HOS
enforcement. The statute also addresses
privacy protection and use of data. Like
the Truck and Bus Safety and
Regulatory Reform Act, the amendments
in MAP–21 section 32301(b) require the
regulations to ‘‘ensur[e] that an
electronic logging device is not used to
harass a vehicle operator.’’ Finally, as
noted above, MAP–21 amended the
1984 Act to add new 49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(5), requiring that FMCSA
regulations address coercion of drivers
as discussed above.
V. Background
A. ELDs: Discussion of the 2010 Final
Rule and the 2011 NPRM
1. April 2010
Rule
On April 5, 2010, the Agency issued
a final rule (April 2010 rule) that
addressed the limited, remedial use of
electronic on-board recorders or
EOBRs—now termed ‘‘ELDs’’—for
motor carriers with significant HOS
violations (75 FR 17208).5 The rule also
contained new performance standards
for all ELDs installed in CMVs
manufactured on or after June 4, 2012.
These standards reflected the significant
advances in recording and
communications technologies that had
occurred since the introduction of the
first AOBRDs under a waiver program in
1985 and the publication of 49 CFR
395.15 in 1988 (53 FR 38666). FMCSA
would have required ELDs:
• To be integrally synchronized to the
engine.
• To provide the same basic
information as is required on an
AOBRD, including the identity of the
driver, the USDOT number, and the
CMV’s identification.
• To record the distance traveled and
the driver’s duty status.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4 In
today’s SNPRM, the term ‘‘electronic logging
device (ELD)’’ is substituted for the term ‘‘electronic
on-board recorder (EOBR),’’ which was used in the
April 2010 final rule and February 2011 NPRM, in
order to be consistent with the term used in MAP–
21. In this SNPRM, we use the term ELD both
generically and specifically. Generically, we use it
to describe what has in the past been called an ELD,
an EOBR, or a fleet management system (FMS). In
referring to the proposed regulation, we use the
term specifically to mean a device or technology
that complies with proposed subpart B of part 395.
5 All the documents related to the April 2010 rule
can be found in docket FMCSA–2004–18940.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
• To automatically record the date,
time, and location of the CMV at each
change of duty status and at intervals of
no greater than 60 minutes while the
CMV was in motion.
• To ensure the security and integrity
of the recorded data by conforming to
specific information processing
standards.
• To meet certain communications
interface requirements for hardwired
and wireless transfer of information.
• To allow drivers to annotate the
ELD record while requiring the ELD or
its support system to maintain the
original recorded information and track
the annotations.
• To be resistant to tampering by
protecting both input and output. It
would have identified any amendments
or annotations of the record, including
who made them and when.
• To provide a digital file in a
specified format for use by enforcement
officials that could be read using nonproprietary software. This would have
included the ability to generate a graphgrid on an enforcement official’s
computer, rather than on the ELD itself.
• To provide certain self-tests and
self-monitoring. It would have
identified sensor failures and edited or
annotated data. The ELD would also
have provided a notification 30 minutes
before the driver reached the daily on
duty and driving limits.
Remedial directive. If a motor carrier
were found, during a single compliance
review, to have a 10-percent violation
rate for any HOS regulation listed in
rescinded appendix C of 49 CFR part
385, the 2010 rule would have required
motor carriers to install, use, and
maintain ELDs on all of the motor
carrier’s CMVs for a period of 2 years.
By focusing on the most severe
violations and the most chronic
violators, the Agency sought to achieve
the greatest safety benefit by adopting a
mandatory installation trigger designed
to single out motor carriers that
demonstrated poor compliance with the
HOS regulations.
Incentives to promote the voluntary
use of ELDs. In order to increase the
number of motor carriers using ELDs in
place of paper RODS, the April 2010
rule would have provided incentives for
voluntary adoption. The incentives
would have included eliminating the
requirement to maintain supporting
documents related to driving time.
Instead, the ELD would record and
make available that information.
Additionally, if a compliance review of
a motor carrier who voluntarily used
ELDs showed a 10 percent or higher
violation rate based on the initial
focused sample, the 2010 rule would
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
have provided that FMCSA assess a
random sample of the motor carrier’s
overall HOS records. The HOS part of
the safety rating would have been based
on this random review. Given that the
use of ELDs would be required for most
drivers currently required to prepare
RODS, today’s SNPRM does not propose
any incentives for ELD use.
2. February 2011
NPRM
On February 1, 2011, FMCSA
proposed to expand the electronic
logging requirements to a much broader
population of motor carriers (76 FR
5537). Subject to a limited exception for
drivers who would need to keep RODS
on an infrequent basis, all motor carriers
currently required to document their
drivers’ HOS with RODS would have
been required to use ELDs meeting the
requirements of the April 2010 rule on
CMVs manufactured on or after June 1,
2012. Furthermore, within 3 years of the
rule’s effective date, motor carriers
would have been required to install and
use ELDs meeting these technical
requirements on CMVs operated by
drivers required to keep RODS, subject
to a limited exception, regardless of the
date of the CMV’s manufacture.
The 2011 NPRM did not alter the ELD
technical specifications contained in the
April 2010 rule. FMCSA also proposed
to address in regulation the requirement
that motor carriers—both RODS and
timecard users—systematically monitor
their drivers’ compliance with the HOS
requirements. While this requirement is
not novel (see In the Matter of Stricklin
Trucking Co., Inc., Order on
Reconsideration (March 20, 2012) 6), the
proposed rule would have added a
specific requirement to part 395 that
motor carriers have in place an HOS
management system. The Agency
proposed to clarify the supporting
documents requirements for motor
carriers using ELDs by requiring
retention of categories of documents and
eliminating the need to maintain
supporting documents to verify driving
time.
3. March 2011
Period
Extension of Comment
FMCSA received two requests for
extensions of the comment period. The
Agency granted these requests and
extended the comment period in a
notice published on March 10, 2011 (76
FR 13121).
6 Available in Docket FMCSA–2011–0127,
https://www.regulations.gov (Document No.
FMCSA–2011–0127–0013).
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
4. April 2011 Notice Requesting
Additional Comment on Harassment
In June 2010, the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA) filed a petition in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit seeking review of the April 2010
rule (Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers
Ass’n v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety
Admin., 656 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2011)),
in the docket for this rulemaking.
OOIDA raised several concerns,
including the potential use of ELDs by
motor carriers to harass drivers. Oral
arguments were held on February 7,
2011, shortly after publication of the
February 2011 NPRM. Due to the
concurrent litigation on the 2010 final
rule, FMCSA supplemented the request
for public comments on the 2011 NPRM
by publishing a notice on April 13,
2011, seeking comments on the topic of
harassment (76 FR 20611).
5. August 2011
Decision
Seventh Circuit
On August 26, 2011, the Seventh
Circuit vacated the entire April 2010
rule. The court held that, contrary to a
statutory requirement, the Agency failed
to address the issue of driver
harassment.7
6. February 2012 Notice of Intent To
Publish an SNPRM
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
On February 13, 2012, FMCSA
announced its intent to move forward
with an SNPRM on ELDs to propose
technical standards, address driver
harassment issues, and propose revised
requirements on HOS supporting
documents (77 FR 7562). Additionally,
the Agency stated it would hold public
listening sessions and task the MCSAC
to make recommendations related to the
proposed rulemaking. FMCSA has
initiated a survey of drivers, as well as
motor carriers, concerning the potential
for the use of electronic logging to result
in harassment (Notice published May
28, 2013, (78 FR 32001).
7 656 F.3d 580, 589. At the time of the court’s
decision, 49 U.S.C. 31137(a) read as follows: ‘‘Use
of Monitoring Devices.—If the Secretary of
Transportation prescribes a regulation about the use
of monitoring devices on commercial motor
vehicles to increase compliance by operators of the
vehicles with hours of service regulations of the
Secretary, the regulation shall ensure that the
devices are not used to harass vehicle operators.
However, the devices may be used to monitor
productivity of the operators.’’ MAP–21 revised
section 31137 and no longer expressly refers to
‘‘productivity.’’ However, FMCSA believes that, as
long as an action by a motor carrier does not
constitute harassment that would be prohibited
under this rulemaking, a carrier may legitimately
use the devices to improve productivity or for other
appropriate business practices.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
7. May 2012 Withdrawal of the April
2010 Rule
On May 14, 2012, FMCSA published
a final rule (77 FR 28448) to rescind
both the April 5, 2010, final rule (75 FR
17208) and subsequent corrections and
modifications to the technical
specifications (September 13, 2010, 75
FR 55488), in response to the Seventh
Circuit’s decision.
8. Results of the Vacatur; Subsequent
Developments
As a result of the Seventh Circuit’s
vacatur, the technical specifications that
were one of the bases of the 2011 NPRM
were rescinded. Because the
requirements for AOBRDs were not
affected by the Seventh Circuit’s
decision, motor carriers relying on
electronic devices to monitor HOS
compliance are currently governed by
the Agency’s rules regarding the use of
AOBRDs in 49 CFR 395.15, originally
published in 1988. There are no new
standards currently in effect to replace
these dated technical specifications.
Furthermore, because the entire rule
was vacated, FMCSA was unable to
grant relief from supporting document
requirements to motor carriers
voluntarily using ELDs.8
In response to the vacatur of the 2010
final rule, recommendations from the
MCSAC, and the enactment of MAP–21,
FMCSA now proposes new technical
standards for ELDs. The Agency also
proposes new requirements for
supporting documents and ways to
ensure that ELDs are not used to harass
vehicle operators.
9. MCSAC Meetings
Technical specifications. In response
to industry and enforcement concern
over the technical implementation of
the April 2010 final rule, FMCSA held
a public meeting on May 31, 2011, and
later engaged the MCSAC to assist in
developing technical specifications for
ELDs. The scope of this task was limited
because of the planned June 2012
implementation date for the April 2010
final rule.
At the June 20–22, 2011, MCSAC
meeting, FMCSA announced task 11–04,
titled ‘‘Electronic On-Board Recorders
Communications Protocols, Security,
Interfaces, and Display of Hours-ofService Data During Driver/Vehicle
Inspections and Safety Investigations.’’
FMCSA tasked the MCSAC to clarify
8 The Agency’s June 2010 guidance, ‘‘Policy on
the Retention of Supporting Documents and the Use
of Electronic Mobile Communication/Tracking
Technology,’’ which granted certain motor carriers
limited relief from the requirement to maintain
certain supporting documents, was not affected by
the Seventh Circuit decision.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17663
‘‘the functionality of Part 395
communications standards relating to
[ELD] data files.’’ The MCSAC was
asked to make recommendations to
FMCSA concerning data
communication and display
technologies with input from
stakeholders, including law
enforcement, the motor carrier industry,
FMCSA information technology/
security experts, and technical product
manufacturers. A MCSAC Technical
Subcommittee was formed to advise the
committee at large. The subcommittee
met numerous times in late 2011. The
MCSAC also held public meetings on
August 30–31 and December 5–6, 2011,
to discuss the subcommittee’s
recommendations (76 FR 62496, Oct. 7,
2011).
The Seventh Circuit’s August 2011
decision to vacate the April 2010 final
rule changed the nature of the MCSAC’s
report. Instead of presenting comments
and recommended changes to the April
2010 final rule regulatory text, the
report proposed a new regulation using
vacated § 395.16 as the template. The
report was delivered to the FMCSA
Administrator on December 16, 2011.
Harassment. On February 7–8, 2012,
the MCSAC considered task 12–01,
‘‘Measures To Ensure Electronic OnBoard Recorders Are Not Used To
Harass Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators.’’ FMCSA tasked the MCSAC
to consider a long list of questions
concerning the topic of potential
harassment as it could stem from the
use of ELDs.
Among other issues, the committee
asked what constitutes driver
harassment and whether electronic HOS
recording would change the nature of
driver harassment. The MCSAC
considered whether ELDs would make
drivers vulnerable to harassment or if
they might make drivers less susceptible
to harassment. The MCSAC asked what
types of harassment drivers experience
currently, how frequently, and to what
extent this harassment happens. The
MCSAC also considered the experience
motor carriers and drivers have had
with carriers currently using ELDs in
terms of their effect on driver
harassment. The report on harassment
was delivered to the FMCSA
Administrator on February 8, 2012. The
harassment provisions in today’s
SNPRM respond to many of the MCSAC
recommendations in that report.
These meetings, like all MCSAC
meetings, were open to the public, and
had a public comment component at the
end of every day’s session. Additional
information about both of these tasks
and the MCSAC recommendations can
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17664
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
be found at https://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/
meeting.htm.
10. Public Listening Sessions on
Harassment
FMCSA held two public listening
sessions focusing on the issue of
harassment, subsequent to the Seventh
Circuit decision. The first session was in
Louisville, Kentucky, on March 23,
2012, at the Mid-America Truck Show;
and the second session was in Bellevue,
Washington, on April 26, 2012, at the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA) Workshop. Transcripts of both
sessions are available in the docket for
this rulemaking, and the Web casts are
archived and available at https://
www.tvworldwide.com/events/dot/
120323/ and https://
www.tvworldwide.com/events/dot/
120426/, respectively (last accessed May
30, 2013).
11. Regulation Room
DOT enhanced effective public
involvement regarding the NPRM by
using the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative
called ‘‘Regulation Room.’’ Regulation
Room is not an official DOT Web site;
therefore, a summary of discussions
introduced in Regulation Room was
prepared collaboratively on the site and
submitted to DOT as a public comment
to the docket. Regulation Room
commenters were informed that they
could also submit individual comments
to the rulemaking docket.9 Although the
comment period has closed, the
comments submitted to Regulation
Room, as well as the discussion
summary, are publicly available through
the Regulation Room Web site, https://
regulationroom.org/eobr (last accessed
March 6, 2013).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12. Comments to the 2011 NPRM
FMSCA will address comments
submitted in response to the February
2011 NPRM (76 FR 5537) as part of a
final rule to the extent such comments
are relevant, given the significant
intervening events that have occurred
since publication of that document and
today’s SNPRM. Because the proposed
regulatory text in today’s SNPRM
supersedes that in the 2011 NPRM and
because of the significance of the
changes, FMCSA invites comments on
the complete proposal.
B. History of the Supporting Documents
Rule
A supporting document is a paper or
electronic document that a motor carrier
generates or receives in the normal
9 Because FMCSA has completed this effort,
comments to this SNPRM will not be sought to
Regulation Room.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
course of business that motor carriers or
enforcement officials can use in
verifying drivers’ HOS compliance.10
A fundamental principle of the
FMCSRs, stated in 49 CFR 390.11, is
that a motor carrier has the duty to
require its drivers to comply with the
FMCSRs, including the HOS
requirements. Current Federal HOS
regulations (49 CFR Part 395) limit the
number of hours a CMV driver may
drive and work. With certain
exceptions,11 motor carriers and drivers
are required by 49 CFR 395.8 to use
RODS to track driving, on-duty not
driving (ODND), sleeper berth, and off
duty time. FMCSA and State
enforcement personnel use these RODS,
in combination with supporting
documents and other information, to
ensure compliance with the HOS rules.
Motor carriers have historically required
their drivers—as a condition of
employment, for reimbursement, and
other business purposes—to provide to
the motor carriers supporting
documents, such as fuel receipts, toll
receipts, bills of lading, and repair
invoices. Motor carriers can compare
these documents to drivers’ entries on
the paper RODS to verify the accuracy
of the RODS. The FMCSRs require
motor carriers to retain all supporting
documents, generated in the ordinary
course of business, as well as the paper
and electronic RODS, for a period of 6
months from the date of receipt (49 CFR
395.8(k)(1)).
Although the FMCSRs have always
required a ‘‘remarks’’ section to augment
the duty status information contained in
the RODS document, it was not until
January 1983 that the use of supporting
documents was explicitly required (47
FR 53383, Nov. 26, 1982). The rule did
not define the term ‘‘supporting
documents,’’ and questions arose
concerning what motor carriers were
expected to retain. To resolve several
questions, regulatory guidance was
published in 1993 and 1997 (November
17, 1993, 58 FR 60734; April 4, 1997, 62
FR 16370, 16425).
In 1994, Congress directed that 49
CFR Part 395 be amended to improve
driver and motor carrier compliance
with the HOS regulations (section 113 of
the HMTAA, Pub. Law 103–311, sec.
113, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676–1677 (August
26, 1994)). Congress defined supporting
documents in a manner nearly identical
to the Agency’s regulatory guidance:
10 This section briefly summarizes the history of
supporting document requirements. For an
extensive discussion of the history of the
supporting documents requirements, please refer to
the February 1, 2011, NPRM (76 FR 5541).
11 These exceptions are set forth in 49 CFR
390.3(f) and 395.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
‘‘For purposes of this section, a
supporting document is any document
that is generated or received by a motor
carrier or commercial motor vehicle
driver in the normal course of business
that could be used, as produced or with
additional identifying information, to
verify the accuracy of a driver’s record
of duty status.’’ (Id.)
In response to section 113(a) of
HMTAA, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), FMCSA’s
predecessor agency, published an
NPRM on supporting documents on
April 20, 1998 (63 FR 19457). The
FMCSA included further proposals on
supporting documents in its proposed
rule on HOS published May 2, 2000 (65
FR 25540). On November 3, 2004,
FMCSA published an SNPRM proposing
language to clarify the duties of motor
carriers and drivers with respect to
supporting documents and requesting
further comments on the issue (69 FR
63997). However, the Agency
discovered a long-standing error that
had caused it to significantly
underestimate the information
collection burden attributable to the
2004 SNPRM, and FMCSA therefore
withdrew the SNPRM on October 25,
2007 (72 FR 60614).
On January 15, 2010, the American
Trucking Associations (ATA) filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 10–
1009). ATA petitioned the court to
direct FMCSA to issue an NPRM on
supporting documents in conformance
with section 113 of HMTAA within 60
days after the issuance of the writ and
a final rule within 6 months after the
issuance of the NPRM. The court
granted the petition for writ of
mandamus on September 30, 2010,
ordering FMCSA to issue an NPRM on
the supporting document regulations by
December 30, 2010.
FMCSA issued guidance on HOS
supporting documents and use of
electronic mobile communications/
tracking technology on June 10, 2010
(75 FR 32984). In addition to removing
certain documents from the list of
supporting documents a motor carrier
must maintain, that guidance confirmed
the Agency’s interpretation that motor
carriers are liable for the actions of their
employees if they have, or should have,
the means by which to detect HOS
violations.
The April 2010 final rule had
provided relief to motor carriers using
ELDs on a voluntary basis from the
requirement to maintain supporting
documents to verify driving time. Those
motor carriers would have needed to
maintain only those additional
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
supporting documents necessary to
verify ODND activities and off duty
status (75 FR 17208, at 17212, 17233,
and 17234, April 5, 2010). However, as
discussed above, the April 2010 rule is
no longer in effect.
C. Concurrent Activities
1. Safety Study
FMCSA is engaging in another action,
‘‘Evaluating the Potential Safety Benefits
of Electronic Onboard Recorders.’’ The
study is an effort to further quantify the
safety benefits of ELDs.
2. Coordination With the U.S.
Department of Labor
FMCSA has worked with the U.S.
Department of Labor to clarify and
reinforce the procedures of both
agencies, specifically concerning
harassment. The Department of Labor
administers the whistleblower law
enacted as part of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (49
U.S.C. 31105). Although FMCSA and
the U.S. Department of Labor have
previously consulted on particular cases
or referred drivers to the appropriate
agency based on the nature of the
17665
concern, the agencies have been in
communication concerning their
respective authorities and complaint
procedures. Several elements in this
SNPRM, including the proposed
requirement that all drivers have
improved access to their HOS
compliance records, should provide
drivers with better documentation of
situations that they believe constitute
harassment and would help their case in
the event they file complaints with
either Department of Labor or FMCSA.
D. Table Summary
TIMELINE OF REGULATORY AND JUDICIAL ACTIONS RELATED TO THIS SNPRM
Title
Type of action, RIN
Citation, date
Synopsis
Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance.
Final rule, 2126–AA89 .......
75 FR 17208, Apr. 5, 2010
Policy on the Retention of
Supporting Documents
and the Use of Electronic
Mobile Communication/
Tracking Technology in
Assessing Motor Carriers’
and Commercial Motor
Vehicle Drivers’ Compliance With the Hours of
Service Regulations.
Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance.
Notice of Regulatory Guid- 75 FR 32984, June 10,
ance and Policy Change..
2010.
Established new performance standards for EOBRs,
required EOBRs to be installed in CMVs for motor
carriers that have demonstrated serious noncompliance; set incentives for voluntary usage of EOBRs.
Provided notice to the motor carrier industry and the
public of regulatory guidance and policy changes regarding the retention of supporting documents and
the use of electronic mobile communication/tracking
technology in assessing motor carriers’ and commercial motor vehicle drivers’ compliance with the
hours of service regulations.
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours-ofService Supporting Documents.
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours-ofService Supporting Documents.
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)
Series of Public Subcommittee Meetings.
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n v. Fed. Motor
Carrier Safety Admin..
NPRM; extension of com76 FR 13121, Mar. 10,
ment period, 2126–AB20.
2011.
Amended requirements for the temperature range in
which EOBRs must be able to operate, and the connector type specified for the Universal Serial Bus
(USB) interface.
Required all motor carriers currently required to maintain RODS for HOS recordkeeping to use EOBRs
instead; relied on the technical specifications from
the April 2010 final rule, and reduced requirements
to retain supporting documents.
Extended the public comment period for the NPRM
from April 4, 2011, to May 23, 2011.
Notice; request for additional public comment,
2126–AB20.
76 FR 20611, Apr. 13,
2011.
Expanded the opportunity for the public to comment
on the issue of ensuring that EOBRs are not used
to harass CMV drivers.
Notice of meeting, related
to 2126–AA89.
76 FR 38268, June 29,
2011.
Announced series of subcommittee meetings on task
11–04, concerning technical specifications for an
EOBR as related to the April 2010 final rule.
Judicial Decision, United
States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit, related
to 2126–AA89.
Vacated the April 2010 final rule.
MCSAC: Public Meeting
Medical Review Board:
Joint Public Meeting With
MCSAC.
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours-ofService Supporting Documents.
Notice of meeting, related
to 2126–AB20.
Owner-Operator Indep.
Drivers Ass’n v. Fed.
Motor Carrier Safety
Admin., 656 F.3d. 580
(7th Cir. 2011), Aug. 26,
2011.
77 FR 3546, Jan. 24, 2012
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours-ofService Supporting Documents.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Final rule; Technical
amendments, response
to petitions for reconsideration, 2126–AA89.
NPRM, 2126–AB20 ...........
Notice of intent, 2126–
AB20.
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
75 FR 55488, Sept. 13,
2010.
76 FR 5537, Feb. 1, 2011
77 FR 7562, Feb. 13, 2012
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Announced meeting on task 12–01, concerning issues
relating to the prevention of harassment of truck and
bus drivers through EOBRs.
Announced FMCSA’s intent to go forward with an
SNPRM; two public listening sessions; an initial engagement of the MCSAC in this subject matter; a
survey of drivers concerning potential for harassment; and a survey for motor carriers and vendors
concerning potential for harassment.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17666
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TIMELINE OF REGULATORY AND JUDICIAL ACTIONS RELATED TO THIS SNPRM—Continued
Title
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours-ofService Supporting Documents.
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours-ofService Supporting Documents.
Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance; Removal
of Final Rule Vacated by
Court.
Type of action, RIN
77 FR 12231, Feb. 29,
2012.
Announced public listening session held in Louisville,
Kentucky on March 23, 2012.
Notice of public listening
session, 2126–AB20.
77 FR 19589, Apr. 2, 2012
Announced public listening session held in Bellevue,
Washington on April 26, 2012.
Final rule, 2126–AB45 .......
77 FR 28448, May 14,
2012.
Responded to a decision of the Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit that vacated the April 2010 final
rule.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Today’s SNPRM proposes new
technical standards, replacing those in
the vacated April 2010 final rule. It also
responds to the specific ELD technical
requirements in MAP–21; see 49 U.S.C.
31137. Although MAP–21 requires that
an ELD ‘‘accurately record commercial
driver [HOS],’’ there is no current
technology that can automatically
differentiate between a driver’s ODND
status versus off duty or sleeper berth
status. An ELD, however, would reduce
HOS record falsification, especially for
driving time, which would be recorded
automatically. ELDs facilitate
considerably more accurate recording of
non-driving activities through the
requirement to provide time, location,
engine hours, and odometer reading
‘‘snapshots’’ at each change of duty
status.
The ELD record, in combination with
a driver’s supporting documents, is
expected to provide a far more accurate
record than paper RODS. The detailed
performance and design requirements
for ELDs proposed in this SNPRM
would ensure that providers would be
able to develop compliant devices and
systems and that motor carriers could
better understand which products are
compliant and make informed decisions
before acquiring them. The
requirements would also provide
drivers with effective recordkeeping
systems, which would provide them
control over and access to their records.
The technical specifications would also
address statutory requirements
pertaining to prevention of harassment,
protection of driver privacy, compliance
certification procedures, and resistance
to tampering. Furthermore, they would
establish methods for providing
authorized safety officials with drivers’
ELD data when required. See 49 U.S.C.
31137(a)–(f).
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Synopsis
Notice of public listening
session, 2126–AB20.
VI. ELD Performance and Design
Specifications
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Citation, date
Jkt 232001
For a 2-year period after the
compliance date (4 years after the
publication of a final rule) for these
technical specifications, AOBRDs as
described in current § 395.15, installed
before that date, could continue to be
used in lieu of ELDs to comply with
HOS regulations. At that point, all
AOBRD-users would be required to
update or replace their devices and
systems to bring them into conformance
with the new 49 CFR Part 395, subpart
B requirements. For more about the
transition period proposed for this
SNPRM, see Part VIII.
A. Terminology
For the reader’s convenience, this
section describes terms that are used in
today’s SNPRM.
1. AOBRD
An AOBRD is a device that meets the
requirements of 49 CFR 395.15. As
described below, a minimally compliant
device would need to be replaced.
However, many technologies exist today
that currently meet or exceed parts of
the standards of this proposed
regulation, and could be easily and
cheaply made to fit the requirements for
an ELD. The Agency refers to these as
ELD-like devices. The definition of
AOBRDs is set out in 49 CFR 395.2; and
Table 6, below, shows a comparison of
the different kinds of logging devices.
2. ELD
An ELD is a recording-only
technology, used to track the time a
CMV is operating. An ELD is integrally
connected to the CMV’s engine, uses
location information, and is tamperresistant. An ELD automatically tracks
CMV movement, but allows for
annotations by both the driver and the
motor carrier’s agent to explain or
correct records. An ELD is not
necessarily a physical device; it is a
technology platform, and may be
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
portable or implemented within a
device not permanently installed on a
CMV. The definition of ELD is in a
proposed amendment to 49 CFR 395.2;
and Table 6, below, shows a comparison
of the different kinds of logging devices.
3. ELD Data
FMCSA uses the term ‘‘ELD data’’ to
mean each data element captured by an
ELD that is compliant with the
requirements contained in proposed
subpart B of part 395. These data would
be available to authorized safety
officials during roadside inspections
and as part of on-site or other reviews.
4. eRODS Software System
eRODS is the software system that
FMCSA is currently developing in
conjunction with its State partners.
During an inspection, the eRODS
software system would receive, analyze,
and display ELD data in a way that can
be efficiently used by authorized safety
officials.
5. FMS
A Fleet Management System (FMS) is
an asset tracking and business
optimization solution which may also
accomplish the ELD functionality. Some
of these technologies may have
functions such as real-time asset
monitoring for fleet efficiency, but these
capabilities would not be required by
this regulation. FMCSA emphasizes that
it does not prohibit the integration of
ELD functions into other electronic
platforms, such as an FMS, already used
on CMVs. FMCSA requires only the use
of ELDs.
6. Comparison of AOBRD, EOBR, and
ELD Specifications
Table 6, below, shows how AOBRDs,
as regulated in 49 CFR 395.15, compare
to the specifications for EOBRs,
published in the 2010 Final Rule, and
the ELDs proposed in this SNPRM.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
17667
TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF SPECIFICATIONS
Feature/function
1988 AOBRD rule
2010 EOBR final rule
Integral Synchronization
Integral synchronization
required, but term not
defined in the
FMCSRs.
Integral synchronization required, defined to specify signal source internal
to the CMV.
Recording Location Information.
Required at each
change of duty status.
Manual or automated.
Graph Grid Display ........
Not required—‘‘time and
sequence of duty status changes’’.
Not addressed ..............
HOS Driver Advisory
Messages.
Device ‘‘Default’’ Duty
Status.
Not addressed ..............
Clock Time Drift .............
Not addressed ..............
Communications Methods.
Not addressed—focused
on interface between
AOBRD support systems and printers.
Resistance to Tampering
AOBRD and support
systems, must be, to
the maximum extent
practical, tamperproof.
Identification of Sensor
Failures and Edited
Data.
Must identify sensor failures and edited data.
B. ELD Function
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Performance and Design Standards
FMCSA created these proposed
technical specifications to be
performance-based, so as to
accommodate evolving technology and
standards, allow for more cost-effective
adoption of the technical specifications,
and afford ELD providers flexibility to
offer compliant products that are
innovative and meet the needs of
drivers and motor carriers. However,
FMCSA does propose specific standard
data formats and outputs that ELD
providers would need to use to transfer,
initialize, or upload data between
systems or to authorized safety officials.
FMCSA has placed these performance
and design standards into the appendix
to proposed subpart B of part 395. This
SNPRM also would incorporate by
reference a number of established
technical standards for sub-functions of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Integral synchronization with the CMV engine,*
to automatically capture engine power status,
vehicle motion status, miles driven, engine
hours.
* For MY 2000 and later, interfacing with engine
ECM.
Require automated entry at each Require automated entry at each change of duty
change of duty status and at 60status, at 60-minute intervals while CMV is in
minute intervals while CMV in motion.
motion, at engine-on and engine-off instances,
and at beginning and end of personal use and
yard moves.
Not required on EOBR, digital file to An ELD must be able to present a graph grid of
generate graph grid on enforcement
driver’s daily duty status changes either on a
official’s portable computer.
display unit or on a printout.
Requires notification at least 30 min- HOS limits notification not required.
utes before driver reaches 24-hour ‘‘Unassigned driving time/miles’’ warning proand 7/8 day driving and on-duty limvided upon login.
its.
On-duty not driving when the vehicle is On-duty driving, when CMV has not been in-mostationary (not moving and the ention for 5 consecutive minutes, and driver has
gine is off) 5 minutes or more.
not responded to an ELD prompt within 1
minute. No other non-driver-initiated status
change is allowed.
Absolute deviation from the time base ELD time must be synchronized to UTC, absocoordinated to UTC shall not exceed
lute deviation must not exceed 10 minutes at
10 minutes at any time.
any point in time.
Wired: USB 2.0 implementing Mass Primary: Wireless Webservices or Bluetooth 2.1
Storage Class 08H for driverless opor Email (SMTP) or Compliant Printout.
eration.
Backup Wired/Proximity: USB 2.0 * and (ScanWireless: IEEE 802.11g, CMRS ...........
nable QR codes, or TransferJet *)
* Except for ‘‘printout alternative.’’
Must not permit alteration or erasure of An ELD must not permit alteration or erasure of
the original information collected
the original information collected concerning
concerning the driver’s hours of
the driver’s ELD records or alteration of the
service, or alteration of the source
source data streams used to provide that infordata streams used to provide that inmation. An ELD must support data integrity
formation.
check functions.
The device/system must identify sen- An ELD must have the capability to monitor its
sor failures and edited and annocompliance (engine connectivity, timing, positated data when downloaded or retioning, etc.) for detectable malfunctions and
produced in printed form.
data inconsistencies. The ELD must record
these occurrences.
an ELD, all of which are readily
available at little to no cost. The use of
these industry standards would reduce
the cost of producing ELDs that meet the
technical standards of a final rule.
However, FMCSA emphasizes that there
are no industry standards for ELDs.
Functional requirements regarding the
communications between a vehicle’s
engine electronic control module (ECM)
and the ELD are included in today’s
SNPRM. The technical requirements
proposed in today’s SNPRM would be
considerably expanded from those in
the vacated April 2010 final rule, and
provide detail on processes, including
security and tamper resistance.
2. Recording
In order to minimize compliance
costs, today’s SNPRM positions the ELD
as a recording-only technology with the
ability to transfer data to authorized
safety officials. This rulemaking would
PO 00000
2013 ELD SNPRM
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
not require the ELD to analyze or review
driver’s RODS data for any purpose,
including compliance. It would not
require the ELD to provide a warning for
a driver who may be reaching HOS
violation limits or to address other
compliance concerns, although motor
carriers and ELD providers are not
prohibited from using or building an
ELD that does so.
The following data elements would be
automatically recorded within the ELD
dataset and transferred to authorized
safety officials when requested: date,
time, CMV location, engine hours,
vehicle miles, driver or authenticated
user identification data, vehicle
identification data, and motor carrier
identification data.
CMV location information. For an
ELD, location measurement would be
used primarily to automatically
populate CMV position at duty status
changes and at intervening intervals.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
17668
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
FMCSA proposes that location
information remain a part of the
technical specifications for an ELD.
Without accurate and verifiable CMV
location information, a driver’s RODS
would not be complete. Furthermore,
some of the tamper-resistance measures
proposed in the SNPRM would use
location information in consistencycheck algorithms. FMCSA also believes
that intermediate location recordings
while the CMV is in motion are
important to include in the dataset for
verification purposes. With this
SNPRM, FMCSA also proposes the
precision and availability requirements
associated with the automatic
positioning services to be used as part
of an ELD.
FMCSA no longer proposes requiring
the ELDs’ dataset exchanged with
authorized safety officials to include
‘‘place name.’’ Instead, latitude and
longitude coordinates would be
recorded and transmitted to those
officials’ portable computers. There the
eRODS software would resolve the
coordinates into a named place and, as
necessary, the distance and direction
offset from the named place. An ELD
would still need to be able to present
location information in understandable
terms to the driver and motor carriers to
allow them to review and certify
records. ELDs that print a graph-grid for
authorized safety officials would also
require understandable location
information. Because latitude and
longitude information would not be
adequately descriptive for them,
FMCSA retains the requirement for
ELDs to report geo-location information.
The Agency also proposes the
incorporation by reference of the
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) INCITS 446–2008 document,
which includes the ‘‘USGS GNIS, where
Feature Class = Populated Place’’ list.
Relying on a performance and design
standard, FMCSA would not require the
use of the satellite-based global
positioning system (GPS) for positioning
services. Location codes may be
obtained from satellite or land-based
sources, or a combination of sources.
This SNPRM would require the
monitoring of engine hours and
odometer readings in addition to
automatic recording of location
information. Interruptions to GPS or
other location services would not
prevent CMV movement from being
detected by the ELD.
Today’s SNPRM proposes revised,
more detailed technical specifications
for standard location information
presentation, using geo-location
combined with a nearby reference point,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
distance, and direction from that
reference.
Driver or authenticated user
identification data. HOS regulations
require unique identification of the
driver on the ELD, which implies the
inclusion of personally identifiable
information (PII). The Agency
determined that name and use of a
partial driver’s license number does not
lower the security requirements the
Agency must establish for handling of
the data. However, use of a partial
driver’s license number complicates the
process due to the States’ varying
methods for assigning drivers’ license
numbers. Therefore, the Agency
determined that including the entire
driver’s license number and driver’s
license issuing State would be necessary
to ensure a unique identification of each
driver and to attain a sufficient level of
tamper resistance for the ELDs by
preventing the potential creation of
multiple aliases for a single driver
within a motor carrier.
When the ELD records the required
dataset. Today’s SNPRM proposes to
require the ELD to record the dataset,
including geographic information as
described above, at 60-minute intervals
when the vehicle is in motion, at the
time of any duty status change the
driver inputs, and when a CMV’s engine
is powered up or shut down. Further, if
a motor carrier has allowed drivers to
use a CMV for personal conveyance or
yard moves, a driver’s indication of the
start and end of such occurrences will
also record a dataset; these are not
indicated as separate duty statuses.
The ELD would record the account
logged into the ELD at the time of the
recording, including a standard
identifier when a driver may not be
authenticated.
Because FMCSA will continue to
allow use of paper RODS in certain
operations and temporarily during ELD
malfunctions, retaining the same four
duty status categories used for paper
RODS is necessary: driving, ODND, off
duty, and sleeper berth. However, there
are situations where it is necessary to
annotate or otherwise flag periods
where the CMV is moving as a status
other than ‘‘on-duty driving,’’ including
various covered exceptions under 49
CFR 395.1. FMCSA proposes to add a
requirement for the ELD to provide the
capability for a driver to indicate the
beginning and end of two specific
categories, namely, personal use of a
CMV and yard moves, as allowed by the
motor carrier, where the CMV may be in
motion but a driver is not necessarily in
a ‘‘driving’’ duty status. This would
record the necessary information in a
consistent manner for the use of drivers,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
motor carriers, and authorized safety
officials.
Personal conveyance. If a CMV is
used for personal conveyance, and the
driver uses the ELD to electronically
indicate the beginning of the event, the
ELD would not record that time as onduty driving. Today’s SNPRM provides
for selection of a special driving
category when a CMV is being driven
but the time is not recorded as on-duty
driving. FMCSA does not define a
specific threshold of distance or time
traveled for a driver to be able to use the
personal use provision. FMCSA
emphasizes that ELDs are HOSrecording technologies. Authorized
motor carrier safety personnel and
authorized safety officials would use the
ELD data to further explore and
determine whether the indicated special
category was appropriately used by the
driver.
Integral synchronization. FMCSA
would require integral synchronization
for engine information to be shared with
the ELD. For example, FMCSA proposes
that distance traveled be measured by
the odometer indication electronically
available on the vehicle databus, the
engine control module, or other
electronic device, when allowed, which
would indicate the total distance
traveled from a source internal to the
CMV. Today’s SNPRM describes the
underlying requirements associated
with engine synchronization in
recording the HOS logs of a driver. The
proposal provides sufficient flexibility
to accommodate engines on older
CMVs. However, FMCSA would like to
hear more details from the public on the
complexity of compliance with a CMV
manufactured on or before 2000.
3. Resistance to Tampering
MAP–21 defines ‘‘tamper resistant’’ as
‘‘resistant to allowing any individual to
cause an [ELD] to record the incorrect
date, time, and location for changes to
on-duty driving status . . . or to
subsequently alter the record created by
that device’’ (49 U.S.C. 31137(f)(2)).
FMCSA interprets ‘‘tamper’’ in this
context as a deliberate action that
results in erroneous data or
unauthorized changes to ELD data.
Tampering could result in the alteration
of hardware, software, or stored data.
Because of the variety of potential
hardware and software solutions and
the lack of any published standards that
are followed by ELD-like system
providers, FMCSA has chosen to focus
on establishing requirements that would
address many of the known types of
tampering. FMCSA would also require
additional data elements that would be
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
used to identify attempts to falsify or
tamper with ELD data.
FMCSA acknowledges that there is a
possibility that someone might tamper
with ELD systems out of curiosity or to
avoid or subvert operational or safety
oversight. Like the NPRM, this SNPRM
would explicitly prohibit motor carriers
and drivers from disabling, deactivating,
damaging, jamming, or otherwise
blocking or degrading a signal
transmission or reception, or otherwise
tampering with an AOBRD or ELD so
that the device would not accurately
record the duty status of a driver
(§ 395.8(e)(2)).
FMCSA has increased its tamper
resistance performance and design
specifications in this SNPRM and would
require that all ELDs have standard
security features, which include
recording data that would help indicate
tampering. Motor carrier safety
oversight personnel and authorized
safety officials would be able to use
these indicators to review potential
inconsistencies, assess their sources,
and estimate their effects. However,
complete tamper-proofing is neither
possible nor practical. The SNPRM
would balance tamper-resistance with
the cost-effectiveness of available
solutions. If ELDs were required to
implement military-level security
standards, such requirements would
likely increase their complexity and
cost, and adversely impact their ease of
use.
Each captured record would include a
code derived from the data itself at the
time of recording that eRODS software
would use to determine the authenticity
of the information. Additionally, the
combination of the vehicle mileage,
time record, and location coordinates
would increase the difficulty of
fabricating data and make it more likely
to produce inconsistent data that would
be evident to authorized safety officials
reviewing the ELD records. In addition
to instituting strict account management
requirements to ensure every driver has
only one ELD profile within a motor
carrier, FMCSA would also require the
capture of data during CMV movement
when no driver has logged into an ELD,
to provide authorized safety officials
with a complete picture of vehicle
movement. Finally, the increased
number of data elements from the
engine would make creating false data a
difficult and time-consuming process,
even if someone could find a way to
introduce such data into an ELD. None
of these controls should dissuade ELD
providers from adding additional,
appropriate hardware and software
controls against tampering.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
4. Damaged, Outdated, or
Malfunctioning ELDs
FMCSA understands that any devices,
systems, or enabling technologies might
occasionally fail. This SNPRM contains
provisions that would allow drivers to
continue to operate a CMV in the event
of an ELD failure. Drivers would be
required to use paper RODS temporarily
while the ELD is inoperative. The driver
would be required to give the motor
carrier written notice of the failure
either electronically, for example, by
email, or by some other written means,
within 24 hours. Owner-operators who
lease on with a motor carrier are
generally considered employees under
the FMCSRs; thus, they would be
required to notify that motor carrier.
However, owner-operators who
operated independently would need to
satisfy requirements applicable to both
a motor carrier and driver. One option
for these owner-operators would be to
record a malfunction by documenting it
on a paper log used during the period
that their ELD was not functioning.
Unless the records were already
available, the driver would have to
reconstruct the RODS for the current 24hour period and the previous 7 days.
Until the ELD was brought back into
compliance, the driver would have to
continue to manually prepare RODS.
FMCSA has added more details on
failure detection to this SNPRM. In a
new table of ELD compliance
malfunctions and data diagnostic event
codes, FMCSA outlines the proposed
listing of malfunction types (Table 4 in
the appendix to subpart B of part 395).
Proposed new table 4 would require
data diagnostics self-testing by ELDs.
Table 4 expands the categories of data
diagnostic consistency checks and
establishes consistency with the
compliance malfunction detection
strategy outlined in this rule. These
malfunctions cover many of the
detectable and actionable error types.
However, the table is structured in
terms of ‘‘compliance malfunctions,’’
which refer to more generalized
performance compliance elements of
this rule across different types of ELD
implementation possibilities.
The SNPRM would require the motor
carrier to repair the ELD within 8 days
of discovering its condition. However,
the SNPRM provides a procedure
whereby a motor carrier may request an
extension of time from FMCSA to
repair, replace, or service an ELD.
Unless an extension is granted, if a
driver is inspected for HOS compliance
during a malfunction, the driver would
receive a citation for the malfunctioning
ELD, and the driver would have to
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17669
provide the authorized safety official
with manually prepared RODS for
further assessment with respect to HOS
regulations.
C. ELD Regulatory Compliance
1. Certification Process
Compliance test procedures. The
SNPRM would still propose to require
ELDs to be certified by the provider, but
FMCSA will develop a standard set of
compliance test procedures that
providers may use in their certification
processes. FMCSA anticipates that
industry standards for testing and
certification of ELDs may emerge and
evolve after the publication of the
SNPRM, and such standards may use or
build upon the compliance test
procedures FMCSA establishes.
ELD providers would not be required
to follow FMCSA’s compliance test
procedures to certify compliance of
their product. Their ELDs, however,
would need to meet or exceed the
performance requirements proposed in
the appendix to subpart B of part 395.
FMCSA may subject registered ELDs to
FMCSA’s compliance test procedures to
independently verify their compliance.
FMCSA stresses that it does not have
regulatory authority over system
providers. FMCSA is not proposing
mandating blanket testing and
certification criteria, because allowing
ELD providers flexibility to meet or
exceed the performance requirements of
these criteria is consistent with other
DOT regulations and would be as
effective as existing DOT regulations.
FMCSA will continue to monitor the
testing and certification activities and
may issue guidance on test standards at
a future date.
Registration and Web site. This
SNPRM would require certified ELDs to
be registered with FMCSA, and would
require motor carriers to use only those
ELDs listed on FMCSA’s Web site.
FMCSA expects this process to inform
motor carriers of all available options
through a single resource. FMCSA
anticipates ELD providers will be able to
meet industry demands in advance of
the rule’s compliance date. However,
FMCSA seeks comment and information
about providers’ ability to meet industry
demand.
Third-party certification. This SNPRM
is not proposing that certification be
completed by a third party. While the
certification process would not prohibit
the use of a third-party testing service,
the ELD provider would be the
responsible certifying entity. Although
not proposed in this SNPRM, FMCSA is
seeking information on, and may
consider using, a third-party
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
17670
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
certification process whereby all ELDs
would have to be independently tested,
validated, certified, and stamped for
listing by, for example, a nationally
recognized testing laboratory. The
Agency believes that such a requirement
would increase costs to the motor
carrier industry, but in the absence of
robust standards for testing and
validation for ELD-like systems in the
marketplace today, the Agency was
unable to clearly quantify such costs
and project their potential impact on the
rule’s implementation. FMCSA believes
that such a process may emerge by
market demand even in the absence of
a regulation, and this SNPRM does not
prohibit such third-party certification.
FMCSA requests public comment on
industry’s preference on a potential
third-party certification requirement.
Original equipment manufacturers.
FMCSA recognizes that, in some cases,
ELDs will be made available by the
original equipment manufacturers on
new CMVs. Many original equipment
manufacturers have announced that
they are installing, or have plans to
install, multifunctional terminals in the
instrument panel of some models of
CMVs. This would offer a more
‘‘application ready’’ interface for motor
carriers, allowing them to use a variety
of productivity, safety, and telematics
applications. However, the fact that
original equipment manufacturers offer
those terminals—and the ability of CMV
operators to take delivery of CMVs with
those terminals installed—does not
imply that original equipment
manufacturers are subject to ELD
regulations, nor that the terminals, by
themselves, comply with the definition
of ELDs.
This SNPRM would not regulate
original equipment manufacturers; that
responsibility has been delegated to
NHTSA (49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 CFR
1.95(a)). FMCSA may not regulate ‘‘the
manufacture of commercial motor
vehicles for any purpose’’ under the
safety regulation provisions of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 311 (49 U.S.C. 31147(b)). The
proposed regulations do not distinguish
between original equipment
manufacturers that install in-cab
computer terminals that have ELD
capacity and aftermarket providers of
ELDs. ELDs installed at the time of
vehicle manufacture are currently
supplied by ELD providers. Regardless
of the manufacturer or integrator of an
ELD, a motor carrier may only use an
ELD that has been certified and
registered with FMCSA.
2. User Requirements
Data entry when the CMV is moving.
The current AOBRD regulation allows
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
minimal keystroke sequences to be used
while the CMV is in motion. This was
done to allow drivers to note State-line
crossings because AOBRD data is used
for fuel tax reporting purposes.
Improved geographic-location
technology renders this unnecessary.
Today’s SNPRM would eliminate the
ability of a driver to enter information
into an ELD while the vehicle is in
motion. An ELD must not allow a driver
to access it unless the CMV is stopped.
Editing and annotating RODS.
FMCSA would take the ‘‘ship’s log’’
approach to records. Once a record has
been created using the ELD, it must not
be erased and driving-time records must
not be changed. However, editing a
record does not erase the original data
captured by the ELD, and records may
be edited or annotated to correct
inaccuracies or errors. Driving time may
not be changed.
As proposed by this SNPRM, both the
driver and the motor carrier would need
to ensure that the ELD records are
accurate. A driver may edit, enter
missing information, or annotate the
record. The motor carrier may propose
changes to the driver. The driver would
need to confirm or reject any change,
edit the record, then re-certify the
record, in order for the motor carrier’s
proposed change to take effect. This
would preserve the driver’s
responsibility for the driver’s records.
Entering false information. The 2011
NPRM prohibited entering false
information in the ELD, subject to the
same penalties as the current
regulations apply to instances of
falsifying RODS. This SNPRM proposes
to retain and expand upon this
prohibition.
Although some individuals will
attempt to enter false or inaccurate
information on ODND time, the
possibility of some cheating does not
negate the anticipated overall
effectiveness of this SNPRM. The
Agency is not aware of any reliable
sensing technologies that can
automatically differentiate between the
various non-driving statuses without an
unacceptable loss of privacy. ELDs,
however, would dramatically reduce
HOS record falsification for driving
time, which would be recorded
automatically, and thus would decrease
the level of falsification among HOS
records as a whole.
3. Enforcement Procedure and
Transmitting Data
ELD data would need to be transferred
to authorized safety officials at a motor
carrier’s facility or as part of a roadside
inspection or review. Today’s SNPRM
would provide flexibility by allowing
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
various options for the transfer of data,
while ensuring a driver’s privacy would
be protected. Based on States’
capabilities, FMCSA proposes
alternatives for compliance with the use
of primary and backup transfer
mechanisms.
ELDs would need to incorporate a
standardized, single-step, driver
interface for the transfer of data to an
authorized safety official at roadside.
Under this proposal, the enforcement
officer would be able to read the ELD
data without entering the CMV. The
uniform process for the transfer of data
would allow standardized review of
ELD data by authorized safety officials
using eRODS software.
FMCSA currently requires AOBRDs to
display the time and sequence of duty
status entries, and today’s SNPRM
proposes the same requirement for
ELDs. This SNPRM would require an
ELD to provide graph-grids for the
current 24-hour period and the previous
7 days, either on a display or on a
printout.
FMCSA considered the option to
require all ELDs to produce printouts
and includes the cost-benefit analysis
for this option in the RIA that supports
this SNPRM. Such a broad mandate
would be comparatively costly to the
industry. FMCSA is, therefore,
proposing to allow printing as an
acceptable form of compliance for ELDs
during roadside inspections, but would
not require all ELDs to provide printouts. FMCSA also considered regulating
details of a compliant ELD screen
specification, but decided that this
approach would both increase the cost
of ELDs and limit innovative solutions,
without markedly increasing benefits. In
this SNPRM, FMCSA more generally
refers to the functional information
presentation requirements instead of
listing specific screen requirements.
4. ELD Specifications To Protect Privacy
The primary Federal statute
addressing protection of an individual’s
PII is the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). This Act
applies to information maintained in a
‘‘system of records’’—a group of any
records under control of the Agency
from which information may be
retrieved by an individual’s name or by
some identifying number, symbol, or
other identifying particular assigned to
an individual. MAP–21 requires that
FMCSA ‘‘include such measures as
[FMCSA] determines are necessary to
protect the privacy of each individual
whose personal data is contained in an
[ELD].’’ See 49 U.S.C. 31137(d)(2).
FMCSA would limit the collection of PII
to the driver’s name, driver’s license
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
number, location, the co-driver’s name,
and names of other users of the ELD.
Additionally, information provided in
driver annotations may contain PII.
To protect the privacy of drivers using
ELDs, FMCSA would require a variety
of controls. Both drivers and motor
carrier support personnel would have to
possess proper user authentication
credentials (e.g., username and
password) to access ELD data. For
location information, FMCSA would
also limit the detail of captured
coordinates to two decimal places and
require accuracy only to a radius of
approximately 1 mile. Furthermore,
when a driver indicates personal use of
a CMV on the ELD, recording accuracy
for position information would be
further reduced to a single decimal
place, resulting in an accuracy
equivalent to a radius of approximately
10 miles. Finally, as explained in the
data transfer section, FMCSA would
require data transferred to authorized
safety officials to be encrypted or, in the
case of a display or print-out, physically
protected, reducing the likelihood of the
unauthorized capture of ELD data. This
requirement addresses the protection of
personal data consistent with
requirements of MAP–21, 49 U.S.C.
31137(e)(2).
In support of its safety mission,
FMCSA has been delegated broad
authority to prescribe recordkeeping
and reporting requirements (49 U.S.C.
31133(a)(8); 49 CFR 1.87(f)). However,
in MAP–21, Congress restricted the way
ELD data might be used. Specifically,
the statute provides that the Agency
‘‘may utilize information contained in
an electronic logging device only to
enforce. . . motor carrier safety and
related regulations, including record-ofduty status regulations’’ (49 U.S.C.
31137(e)(1)). Furthermore, appropriate
measures must be instituted ‘‘to ensure
any information collected by electronic
logging devices is used by enforcement
personnel only for the purpose of
determining compliance with hours of
service requirements’’ (49 U.S.C.
31137(e)(3)). As explained in the
accompanying conference committee
report, Congress intended that such data
‘‘be used only to enforce federal
regulations’’ (H. Rep. No. 112–557, at
607 (2012)).
FMCSA reads these ELD data-use
restrictions in the context of the
regulatory structure and longstanding
HOS enforcement practices in existence
at the time MAP–21 was adopted, and
the Agency does not infer from the
provisions any congressional intent to
diminish the Agency’s previous
enforcement capabilities. MAP–21
effectively directs the Agency to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
substitute the paper RODS requirement
with a requirement that the same motor
carriers use ELDs. While the primary
purpose of drivers’ RODS has always
been the enforcement of the HOS rules,
authorized safety officials use drivers’
logs also for additional evidentiary
purposes. However, the Agency’s HOS
regulations apply only to drivers
operating in interstate commerce, and
the Agency has often relied on drivers’
logs to demonstrate interstate commerce
as an element of FMCSA jurisdiction.
Logs are also used to identify the driver,
a function specifically required by 49
U.S.C. 31137(b)(2)(D) and inherent in
enforcement of HOS requirements. Once
established for purposes of determining
compliance with the HOS requirements,
such a legally essential predicate fact
becomes the law in the case. The
established fact may then supply an
element of proof of non-HOS violations.
FMCSA believes this is a reasonable
interpretation of sec. 31137(e), given the
Agency’s historical multipurpose use of
the logbook, which Congress intends to
displace through mandatory ELD use,
and in light of the reference to the
enforcement of ‘‘related regulations’’ in
sec. 31137(e)(1).
Although MAP–21 restricts the
manner in which FMCSA may use ELD
data, the Agency also believes that such
data could be employed in future
research efforts relating to HOS
compliance and highway safety, as this
research may ultimately improve
compliance with HOS requirements.
Although this option is available to the
Agency, consistent with current
practice, such data would not be
retained absent a violation. For more
information concerning how FMCSA
would use ELD data, please see the
Privacy Impact Assessment associated
with this rulemaking. In the event that
FMCSA elects to retain such data in
connection with a future research effort,
the Agency would give the public
advance notice of its decision.
5. ELD Specifications To Protect Against
Harassment
In prescribing regulations on the use
of ELDs, the Agency is required by
statute to ensure that ELDs are ‘‘not
used to harass a vehicle operator’’ (49
U.S.C. 31137(a)(2)). The Agency
proposes both procedural and technical
provisions to protect drivers of CMVs
from harassment resulting from
information generated by ELDs. As
voiced during public listening sessions
and stated in previous comment
submissions, drivers’ primary
harassment-related complaints focused
on pressures from motor carriers to
break the HOS rules. Not every type of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17671
complaint suggested a technical
solution. However, 49 CFR 392.3
prohibits a motor carrier from requiring
the driver to drive while ill or fatigued.
Proposed § 390.36 prohibits harassment
of drivers through the use of data
available through an ELD or related
technology. Furthermore, in the
technical specifications in this SNPRM,
the Agency proposes to include several
technical requirements aimed, among
other things, at protecting the driver
from harassment.
The Agency anticipates that some
motor carriers would use technology or
devices that include both an ELD
function and communications function.
To protect a driver using such a device
from unwelcome communications
during rest periods, the proposed rule
would require that, if a driver indicates
sleeper berth status, the device must
either allow the driver to mute or turn
down the volume on the
communication feature or turn off this
feature, or that the device do one of
these things automatically.
To protect the driver’s data, the rule
proposes to require that any changes
made by a motor carrier would require
the driver’s approval. Furthermore, the
rule proposes to ensure that a driver has
a right to access the driver’s ELD data
during the period a carrier must keep
such records without requesting the
data from the motor carrier if those
records are on the ELD or can be
retrieved through the ELD.12
In developing these proposed
technical performance requirements, the
Agency has taken into account drivers’
privacy interests. As explained above,
FMCSA would not require vehicle
location information to be recorded at
the level of precision that could identify
street addresses. Further, detailed
location information would be required
to be recorded only at discrete
instances, such as when a driver
changes duty status or at 60-minute
intervals when the vehicle is in motion.
FMCSA believes these privacy
protection features also would help
ensure that driver harassment does not
arise from the use of ELDs.
6. Interoperability
Interoperability refers to the ability of
an ELD to share data with ELDs from
other systems and providers. FMCSA
clarifies that it is proposing technical
requirements to facilitate
interoperability, principally through the
requirement for standardized data
12 If a driver’s records were not available through
the ELD, a motor carrier would need to provide the
driver with access to and copies of the driver’s
records, on request.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
17672
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
output formats. FMCSA offers
alternative communication interfaces to
provide for the transfer of standardized
ELD output data to authorized safety
officials. This would allow different
hardware implementations of ELDs in
the market place, so long as the software
produces the required data in a specific
and consistent format. FMCSA
understands that some carriers use more
than one provider for HOS and FMS
applications, and flexibility provided in
the SNPRM would allow ELD providers
to use standardized data formats and
outputs as necessary to accommodate
specific motor carrier needs.
It is FMCSA’s belief that output
standardization would facilitate
voluntary solutions for interoperability
for those motor carriers who would
need such functions. FMCSA
considered requiring full
interoperability, but does not propose it
in this SNPRM, instead focusing on a
minimal compliance standard that
includes standardized outputs. FMCSA
does not propose full interoperability in
this SNPRM because FMCSA believes
that there could be additional cost to
some vendors by having the government
mandate a universal input standard
which might create some unevenness
among vendors by selecting a certain
data format. Additionally, the benefits
of such a standard would only be
realized by carriers who utilize multiple
devices from different vendors.
Though FMCSA is not proposing it,
FMCSA would like to know more about
the cost and benefits of full
interoperability, and request
information from the public concerning
this topic:
1. Should FMCSA require that every
ELD have the capability to import data
produced by other makes and brands of
ELDs?
2. To what extent would these
additional required capabilities for full
interoperability increase the cost of the
ELDs and the support systems?
3. While full interoperability could
lower the cost of switching between
ELDs for some motor carriers, are there
a large number of motor carriers who
operate or plan to operate with ELDs
from more than one vendor? How would
full interoperability compare to the
proposed level of standardized output?
If carriers wanted to operate ELDs from
more than one vendor, would this be a
barrier? Would this issue be impacted
by the market-share of the ELD
manufacturer?
4. Would motor carriers and
individual drivers have broad-based use
or need for such capability? Is there a
better way to structure standardized
output to lower cost or encourage
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
flexibility without requiring full
interoperability?
VII. Proposed ELD Mandate
Consistent with the requirements of
MAP–21, 49 U.S.C. 31137, FMCSA
proposes that interstate motor carriers
install ELDs in all CMVs operated by
drivers who are now required to prepare
paper RODS, subject to a limited
exception for drivers who are rarely
required to keep RODS. If a driver is
required to use an ELD, the motor
carrier must not require or allow the
driver to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce without using the device.
Drivers engaged in operations that do
not require the preparation of RODS
may use ELDs to document their
compliance with the HOS rules, but are
not required to do so. Furthermore,
under today’s proposal, drivers
currently allowed to use timecards
could continue to do so under the
provisions of 49 CFR 395.1(e).
Drivers who need to use RODS
infrequently or intermittently would be
allowed to continue using paper RODS,
provided they are not required to use
RODS more than 8 days in any 30-day
period. This proposed provision would
accommodate drivers working for motor
carriers that keep timecards under 49
CFR 395.1(e)(1) and (2) and who may
occasionally operate beyond the
parameters of those provisions (for
example, by operating outside the
specified 100- or 150-air-mile radius).
The new threshold of not more than 8
days in any 30-day period would
replace the threshold of 2 days out of
any 7-day period that was proposed in
the February 2011 NPRM in order to
provide additional flexibility for this
population. The Agency seeks comment
on the proposed 8 out of 30-day
threshold, how it would impact various
segments of the industry, the potential
cost savings resulting from this limited
exception, and whether a shorter or
longer duration would result in a more
appropriate balance between the needs
of enforcement and carrier flexibility.
An eight-day period is the time-frame
for current hours-of-service recordkeeping requirements. Currently drivers
are required to keep the previous seven
days’ records and the present day’s
records. Using eight days as the
threshold for RODS usage to switch into
ELD use keeps this time-frame
consistent.
FMCSA evaluated whether ELD usage
required by this threshold could
reasonably achieve positive net benefits,
and concluded that some ELDs fulfill
this condition. In addition, vendors
have indicated that may produce
additional low-cost ELDs that are closer
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to the minimally compliant device
specifications. See section 6.5 (page 72)
of the accompanying RIA for a more
detailed discussion.
As with the HOS record-retention
provision of § 395.8(k), the period
would move with the calendar. For
example, a driver who operates beyond
the short-haul radius for 8 days in the
previous 30-day period would need to
use an ELD on the sixth day and any
subsequent day when the driver
exceeded the short-haul exemption. The
30-day period restarts each day, looking
back at the previous 30 days. This is a
similar concept to the requirements of
60 hours in 7-day or 70 hours in 8-day
limits for on duty time under the HOS
regulations.
It is estimated that this proposal
would generate benefits that exceed the
costs of installing ELDs and the costs
associated with increased levels of
compliance with the HOS rules. The
proposal addresses the segment of the
motor carrier industry with the highest
safety and HOS compliance gaps. It also
acknowledges the operational
distinctions between drivers allowed to
use timecards under 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1)
and (2) exclusively, and the other
drivers who would be required to use
ELDs. More information concerning the
estimated costs and benefits is available
in the RIA associated with this
rulemaking.
In the 2011 NPRM, the Agency raised
a number of issues concerning the scope
of the ELD mandate, and today’s
SNPRM modifies that proposed
mandate in some respects. Given the
distinction between short-haul and
long-haul operations, and the proposed
exception for drivers infrequently
required to keep RODS, FMCSA is not
proposing any additional exceptions
addressing specific sectors of the
industry, size of operations, or specific
types of CMVs at this time. Nor is the
Agency any longer proposing to require
ELD use by passenger carriers whose
drivers are not required to keep RODS,
e.g., local operations permitted to rely
on timecards under existing 49 CFR
395.1(e)(1). The Agency is also not
proposing to include all motor carriers
transporting bulk quantities of HM or all
carriers subject to part 395 (the ‘‘true
universal’’ approach). The estimated
compliance costs of the ‘‘true universal’’
approach recommended by NTSB 13
exceed the estimated safety benefits for
most short-haul motor carriers; the
comprehensive estimated net benefits
are negative. The mandated use of ELDs
as part of a remedial directive, as in the
13 NTSB Safety Recommendation H–07–041
issued on December 17, 2007.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
vacated April 2010 rule, also is not
proposed today. Finally, the Agency is
not proposing an exception based on
HOS compliance history in today’s
SNPRM because: (1) It could provide an
unfair advantage to motor carriers for
whom FMCSA has insufficient data to
assess their HOS-related safety status;
and (2) the dynamic nature of safety
status measurements would present
significant challenges to communicating
changes in carriers’ safety status levels.
VIII. Proposed Compliance Dates
A. Effective and Compliance Dates for a
Final Rule
1. Technical Specifications
An ELD provider could begin
manufacturing ELDs according to the
technical specifications of this
rulemaking on the effective date of a
final rule (30 days after the publication
of a final rule in the Federal Register).
This means that ELDs meeting the
requirements of this rulemaking could
be both manufactured and used to
comply voluntarily with this rule soon
after the date of the final rule’s
publication and establishment of
FMCSA’s public Web site.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. ELD Mandate
A driver or motor carrier subject to
this proposed regulation would not be
required to install or use an ELD until
the compliance date (2 years after the
effective date of the final rule).
However, a motor carrier that required
its drivers to use AOBRDs that met the
requirements of § 395.15 before the
compliance date for the ELD final rule
could continue using such devices for 2
years after the rule’s compliance date.
At that point, a driver subject to the rule
would need to use an ELD that met the
new specifications. Today’s SNPRM
would not preclude a driver or motor
carrier who chose to voluntarily adopt
ELDs in advance of the compliance date
from doing so.
3. Supporting Documents
The proposed supporting document
requirements in this rulemaking would
take effect on the compliance date for
the final rule (2 years after the effective
date). On that date, the regulatory
provisions would supersede the policy
on retention of supporting documents
and the use of electronic mobile
communications/tracking technology
issued June 10, 2010 (75 FR 32984).
4. Harassment
Because the harassment provisions
are tied to the presence of part 395,
subpart B compliant ELDs, there is no
specific compliance date. If a driver
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
worked for a motor carrier that
implemented ELDs voluntarily (before
the 2-year compliance date), that driver
could make a complaint before the ELD
compliance date, as noted in Section X,
below. However, a driver working for a
motor carrier using AOBRDs before the
compliance date would be unable to use
the complaint process proposed in
today’s SNPRM until a compliant ELD
device was in place. In other words, the
harassment language would take effect
on the rule’s effective date, but, as a
practical matter, the provision would be
unavailable until an ELD was in use.
The existing avenues to submit
complaints remain available to drivers,
including the FMCSA complaint
process for substantial violations (49
CFR 386.12), the FMCSA National
Consumer Complaint Helpdesk, and the
complaint process at the U.S.
Department of Labor under 49 U.S.C.
31105(b). FMCSA also cooperates with
the U.S. Department of Justice in
appropriate enforcement cases.
B. 2-Year Transition Period
The 2011 NPRM proposed a
compliance date 3 years after the
effective date of the anticipated final
rule. Furthermore, motor carriers would
have been required to install compliant
devices in CMVs manufactured on or
after June 4, 2012.
MAP–21, however, requires a
compliance date 2 years after
publication of a final rule (49 U.S.C.
31137(b)(1)(C)). In implementing the
statute, the Agency seeks to balance
effective roadside enforcement against
the transition costs to motor carriers that
installed AOBRDs before the
compliance date of the ELD final rule.
Thus, the Agency proposes to allow
continued use of § 395.15 devices,
installed before the compliance date, for
2 years beyond the compliance date. To
enhance enforcement, all motor carriers
that use RODS—including those who
used AOBRDs before the compliance
date—would be required to use
compliant ELDs by 2 years after the
compliance date. The Agency does not
propose to require use of ELDs based on
a vehicle’s manufacture date.
C. Cost Associated With Replacing
AOBRDs
In setting the proposed compliance
date, FMCSA considered the costs of
replacing voluntarily adopted AOBRDs
and addressed those costs in the RIA
prepared for this SNPRM. Although the
proposed performance specifications for
ELDs differ from those published in the
April 2010 rule, FMCSA believes that
most HOS recording devices and
systems manufactured on or after 2010
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17673
will be able to comply with this rule
with relatively inexpensive software
upgrades. To avoid understating costs,
FMCSA assumed, however, that all
devices and systems manufactured
before 2010 would have to be replaced.
The compliance date for a final rule that
would follow this SNPRM is anticipated
to be at the end of the useful life of these
devices. FMCSA estimates that
annualized costs to all voluntary
adopters would be less than $5 million.
The RIA contains more details on how
these estimates were derived. FMCSA
seeks comments on the assumptions and
methodology used.
IX. Proposed Supporting Document
Provisions
Today’s SNPRM defines ‘‘supporting
document’’ in a manner that generally
tracks the definition found in section
113(c) of the HMTAA, i.e., ‘‘any
document . . . generated or received by
a motor carrier . . . in the normal
course of business that could be used,
as produced or with additional
identifying information, to verify the
accuracy of a driver’s record of duty
status.’’ In accordance with HMTAA,
sec. 113(b)(2), this SNPRM would limit
the supporting documents that a motor
carrier must maintain by specifying the
number, category, and required
elements for a supporting document
and, subject to a limited exception,
would not require supporting
documents that reflect driving time. The
reference in the statute to a ‘‘commercial
motor vehicle driver’’ is not repeated in
today’s proposed definition because the
specific obligations of the driver are
addressed in proposed § 395.11. The
supporting document requirements
would supersede the June 2010 policy
on the retention of supporting
documents (75 FR 32984) and would
take effect the same date as the ELD
compliance date (2 years after the
effective date of a final rule).
FMCSA acknowledges that some
stakeholders have claimed that the use
of ELDs eliminates the need to retain
supporting documents. While properly
functioning ELDs eliminate the need for
supporting documents demonstrating
driving time, some supporting
documents are still necessary to ensure
HOS compliance. In today’s SNPRM,
FMCSA clearly delineates between the
information and data produced by the
ELD and what FMCSA considers a
supporting document.
FMCSA believes that today’s proposal
is consistent with both the HMTAA and
MAP–21. It balances the need for
effective HOS enforcement and the
burden on motor carriers to meet their
obligation to ensure compliance in a
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17674
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
cost effective manner. It is also
consistent with motor carriers’ current
obligations related to the retention and
monitoring of supporting documents.
Among the major changes from the
February 2011 NPRM, today’s SNPRM
would eliminate the former proposals
that each motor carrier maintain an HOS
Management System and that a motor
carrier certify as to the lack of
supporting documents showing required
elements. Further, today’s SNPRM
would eliminate the proposal in the
2011 NPRM that a single document,
showing the start and end of any ODND
period, could satisfy the supporting
documents requirement.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Applicability
The motor carrier would need to
maintain supporting documents, which
are generated or received in the normal
course of business, to verify a driver’s
HOS compliance. The Agency defines
‘‘supporting document’’ to clarify that a
document can be ‘‘in any medium,’’ that
is, either a paper or an electronic
document.
The Agency would not require motor
carriers to retain supporting documents
to verify driving time, because the ELD
would capture this information. The
Agency’s position is that ELDs record
driving time more accurately than
drivers using paper RODS and supplant
the need for paper logs and any
supporting documents that would have
been generated or received concerning
driving time. FMCSA, however,
proposes to require motor carriers to
retain, for each driver, supporting
documents to verify each driver’s ODND
periods.
The Agency proposes generally to
require a single supporting document
standard. For drivers who continue to
use paper RODS, however, toll receipts
would also need to be maintained. An
otherwise uniform supporting document
requirement will benefit both motor
carriers and enforcement personnel by
promoting standardized document
retention and enforcement practices.
FMCSA’s proposal would require
motor carriers and CMV drivers to share
responsibility for complying with the
proposed supporting document
requirements. A driver would be
required to submit his or her supporting
documents to the employing carrier
within 8 days. While a driver would not
be required to keep all supporting
documents in the CMV, a driver would,
nonetheless, need to make supporting
documents that are in the driver’s
possession available, on request, during
a roadside inspection.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
B. Categories
In today’s SNPRM, FMCSA would
modify the categories of supporting
documents that were proposed in the
2011 NPRM to better accommodate the
broad diversity of the motor carrier
industry. Specifically, the Agency
proposes to alter the number of
categories to provide clarification and
more detailed descriptions of the
supporting documents within each
category. For every 24-hour period a
driver is on duty, the motor carrier
would be required to maintain not more
than 10 supporting documents from the
following 5 categories:
• Bills of lading, itineraries,
schedules, or equivalent documents that
indicate the origin and destination of
each trip;
• Dispatch records, trip records, or
equivalent documents;
• Expense receipts;
• Electronic mobile communication
records, reflecting communications
transmitted through an FMS for the
driver’s 24-hour duty day; and
• Payroll records for the driver’s 24hour duty day, settlement sheets, or
equivalent documents that indicate
what and how a driver was paid.
These categories would provide the
Agency and motor carriers with the
supporting documents necessary to
perform their safety oversight functions.
FMCSA acknowledges the view of
some stakeholders that supporting
documents ought to be limited to a
specific, finite list of documents to ease
compliance. Given the wide diversity of
operations in the CMV industry,
however, this approach would not be
feasible from an HOS enforcement
perspective. The proposed categories are
intended to accommodate various
sectors of the industry.
C. Data Elements
In today’s SNPRM, FMCSA proposes
to clarify the data elements that would
need to be included on a document for
it to qualify as a supporting document
and be counted toward the proposed 10document retention cap. These
proposed elements are: (1) Driver name
or carrier-assigned identification
number, either on the document or on
another document enabling the carrier
to link the document to the driver, or
the vehicle unit number if that number
can be linked to the driver; (2) date; (3)
location (including name of nearest city,
town, or village); and (4) time. If
sufficient documents containing these
four data elements were not available, a
motor carrier would be required to
maintain supporting documents that
contain the driver name or motor
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
carrier-assigned identification number,
date, and location.
D. Number
FMCSA proposes a cap of 10
supporting documents that would need
to be maintained for each day a driver
is on duty. While a motor carrier may
not have 10 supporting documents for a
driver’s duty day, in establishing a cap,
the Agency has attempted to balance the
need for adequate enforcement of the
HOS regulations against any burden on
carrier operations, while applying the
requirements of the HMTAA.
To arrive at a total of 10, all electronic
mobile communication records
involving a driver over the course of the
driver’s 24-hour period would count as
a single document, regardless of the
number of individual communications
involved. All other types of supporting
documents that are relevant to distinct
activities—such as a payroll document
covering one or several drivers, a bill of
lading for a particular delivery, and an
expense receipt—would count as
individual documents. In instances
where there are more than 10
supporting documents available, a
motor carrier would need to retain the
first and last supporting documents
containing an indication of time for
each end of a driver’s duty day.
The Agency recognizes that, in many
cases, fewer than 10 supporting
documents would be accumulated for a
driver’s duty day. If the supporting
document cap were not reached, the
motor carrier would be required to keep
all of the supporting documents for that
period. There would be no obligation on
a motor carrier to create or annotate
documents that it did not otherwise
generate or receive in its normal course
of business.
E. Submission to Motor Carrier
In today’s SNPRM, FMCSA proposes
that a driver who is required to maintain
RODS or use an ELD submit supporting
documents (and the RODS or the ELD
record) to the driver’s motor carrier
within 8 days of either the 24-hour
period to which the documents pertain
or the day the document comes into the
driver’s possession, whichever is later.
The SNPRM would extend the time for
a driver to submit supporting
documents to the motor carrier beyond
the 3-day and 1-day periods proposed in
the February 2011 NPRM. In addition,
unlike the 2011 NPRM, the SNPRM
proposes the same submission period
for both electronic and paper records: 8
days.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
F. HOS Enforcement Proceedings
Today’s SNPRM does not contain the
HOS management system requirement
proposed in the 2011 NPRM. Instead, to
further HOS enforcement, FMCSA
proposes to add procedural provisions
that would apply during any proceeding
under 49 CFR part 395. Consistent with
a motor carrier’s existing obligation to
require that its drivers comply with the
FMCSRs, today’s SNPRM would
provide that a motor carrier is liable for
an employee’s act, or failure to act, that
violates 49 CFR part 395, provided that
the act or omission is within the course
of the motor carrier’s operations. The
burden of proving that the employee
was acting outside the scope of the
motor carrier’s operation would be on
the motor carrier. Finally, knowledge of
any document, either in a motor
carrier’s possession or available to the
motor carrier, that could be used to
ensure compliance with 49 CFR part
395 would be imputed to the motor
carrier.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
G. Carriers Using Paper Logs
Under today’s SNPRM, certain drivers
who would infrequently need to keep
RODS could continue to use paper logs.
Any carriers that would be required to
maintain supporting documents when
their drivers keep paper logs would be
required to maintain the same number
and types of supporting documents that
are required for ELD users. Motor
carriers whose drivers use paper logs
would also need to maintain toll
receipts.
H. Self-Compliance Systems
Section 113(b)(4) of the HMTAA
requires FMCSA to provide exemptions
for qualifying ‘‘self-compliance
systems,’’ in place of supporting
documents retention. In satisfaction of
section 113(b)(4), today’s SNPRM would
add a provision to authorize, on a caseby-case basis, motor carrier selfcompliance systems (49 CFR 395.11(h)).
Consistent with our 2011 NPRM, under
today’s SNPRM, a motor carrier could
apply for an exemption under existing
49 CFR part 381 provisions for relief
from the requirements for retaining
supporting documents for RODS. While
the authority to exempt self-compliance
systems is derived from HMTAA, the
Agency relies on existing 49 CFR part
381 provisions to govern exemption
requests.
X. Ensuring Against Driver Harassment
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31137(a)(2), FMCSA proposes both
procedural and technical provisions
aimed at protecting CMV operators from
harassment involving ELDs or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
connected technology. The primary
focus of the Agency’s proposal
addresses the problems of: (1) Drivers
being pressured to exceed HOS
limitations; and (2) inappropriate
communications that affect drivers’ rest
periods. The Agency addresses the
related but distinct issue of driver
coercion in Part XI, below.
Although the statute provides that
regulations relating to ELDs shall
‘‘ensur[e] that an electronic logging
device is not used to harass a vehicle
operator,’’ the Agency notes that it
cannot adopt a regulation guaranteeing
that every instance and form of
harassment, whether real or perceived,
is eliminated. Nor does the Agency
believe that Congress intended that the
Agency interfere with labor/
management agreements or disputes not
directly related to the required use of
ELDs, or duplicate the role Congress has
assigned to the U.S. Department of
Labor under 49 U.S.C. 31105.
As explained in Part VI of this
SNPRM, FMCSA would refine the
requirements of an ELD to include only
recording functions; anything beyond
basic recording of the required data
elements would not be required by an
ELD. However, the SNPRM would not
prohibit motor carriers from employing
communication, FMS, and other
functions beyond mere recording. Many
current systems, which have been on
the market for years, go beyond the
recording abilities proposed in this
SNPRM; and the Agency does not infer
from the anti-harassment provision in
section 31137(a)(2) a congressional
intent that FMCSA ban or impose
significant new restrictions on those
functionalities in this rulemaking.
Therefore, to the extent necessary to
address harassment, FMCSA would
address use of technology beyond the
minimally compliant ELD only if that
technology encompassed an ELD
function.
A. Drivers’ Access to Own Records
ELDs meeting the proposed technical
requirements in today’s SNPRM would
help protect drivers from pressures to
violate the HOS rules. However, to
ensure adequate protection, it is critical
that drivers have access to their ELD
records. FMCSA proposes to require
that drivers be able to obtain copies of
their own ELD records available on or
through an ELD. On request, a motor
carrier must provide its drivers with
access to and copies of their ELD
records for the 6 months that the motor
carrier is required to maintain the
records.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17675
B. Explicit Prohibition on Harassment
FMCSA proposes to add a new
§ 390.36 to prohibit a motor carrier from
engaging in harassment of a driver. As
defined, ‘‘harass or harassment’’ would
mean ‘‘an action by a motor carrier
towards a driver employed by the motor
carrier (including an independent
contractor while in the course of
operating a CMV on behalf of the motor
carrier) involving the use of information
available through an ELD . . . or
through other technology used in
combination with and not separate from
the ELD, that the motor carrier knew, or
should have known, would result in the
driver violating § 392.3 or part 395 [of
49 CFR].’’ This definition recognizes the
dire safety consequences that can result
when the pressure a motor carrier
imposes on a driver results in an HOS
violation or in a driver operating when
the driver’s alertness is impaired
through fatigue or illness.
Under today’s proposal, however, a
driver who believed that a motor carrier
required him or her to violate § 392.3 or
part 395 in a manner described in the
proposed definition could file a
complaint alleging harassment with
FMCSA.14
Although FMCSA’s definition of
harassment would not require adverse
action by the carrier against the driver,
it would require an actual violation of
§ 392.3 or part 395 of the FMCSRs.
MAP–21 eliminated the reference to
productivity in 49 U.S.C. 31137;
however, the Agency would not
penalize motor carrier actions aimed at
productivity, provided that the action
did not constitute harassment as defined
in today’s proposal.
C. Complaint Procedures
The SNPRM proposes to add new
§§ 386.12a and 390.36, prescribing a
process for filing a harassment
complaint. Among other things, the
complaint would need to describe the
action by the motor carrier that the
driver deems harassment, including
how the ELD or related technology was
used to contribute to the carrier’s action.
The complaint would also need to
identify how the motor carrier’s action
violated 49 CFR 392.3 or part 395.
The proposals outlined in this
SNPRM would give drivers control over
their own ELD records and ensure
driver access to such records.
Furthermore, drivers would be able to
annotate their records reflecting
concerns such as driver fatigue. These
14 Currently, drivers can file an informal
complaint on any violation of the FMCSRs with
FMCSA’s National Consumer Complaint Database
help desk. This option would not change.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17676
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
records would provide drivers with
better information to substantiate any
complaint.
D. Enhanced Penalties To Deter
Harassment
FMCSA proposes a new penalty for a
motor carrier that engages in
harassment. Because harassment would
be considered in cases of alleged HOS
violations, the penalty for harassment
would supplement the underlying HOS
violations of 49 CFR 392.3 and part 395.
An underlying violation would have to
be found for a penalty for harassment to
be assessed. Further, harassment would
constitute an acute violation under part
385.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
E. Mute Function
FMCSA acknowledges that some
drivers feel their motor carriers
inappropriately contact them during rest
periods through FMS communication
systems—technology frequently used,
but not required, as part of a minimally
compliant ELD. Thus, if the driver puts
the ELD into a sleeper berth status, and,
in the case of co-drivers, no other driver
has logged into the ELD in an on-duty
driving status, the SNPRM specifies that
the ELD must automatically mute the
ELD’s volume, turn off the ELD’s
audible output, or allow the driver to do
so. FMCSA believes this addition is
important to allow drivers to obtain
adequate rest during sleeper berth
periods.
F. Edit Rights
FMCSA recognizes that some
electronic recorders currently in use
allow changes to drivers’ HOS records
by motor carriers or dispatchers without
the driver’s input. FMCSA proposes to
revise the procedures for amendment of
electronic records to better protect the
integrity of those records and to prevent
related instances of driver harassment.
In today’s SNPRM, the word ‘‘edit’’
means a change to an electronic record
that does not overwrite the original
record. An example of such a change
would be revising a duty status
designation from ‘‘off duty’’ to ‘‘on-duty
not driving.’’ Edits would need to reflect
their authorship, and an edit could not
convert driving time into non-driving
time. In this SNPRM, FMCSA proposes
that a driver may edit and the motor
carrier may request edits to electronic
RODS. Drivers would have a full range
of edit abilities and rights over their
own records (except for the listed
limitations in the rule), while a carrier
would be allowed to propose edits for
a driver’s approval or rejection.
All edits, whether made by a driver or
the motor carrier, would have to be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
annotated to document the reason for
the change. For example, an edit
showing time being switched from ‘‘off
duty’’ to ‘‘on-duty not driving’’ could be
annotated by the carrier to note, ‘‘Driver
logged training time incorrectly as off
duty.’’ This edit and annotation would
then be sent to the driver for approval.
FMCSA believes this is the most
efficient way to capture these data and
ensure that HOS violations are not being
concealed from either party. FMCSA
believes that there are good reasons for
both the motor carrier and the driver to
be able to view HOS records and
understands that there are legitimate
reasons that both a motor carrier and a
driver might want to edit these records.
For example, if a driver were to
inadvertently show a 30 minute break as
ODND, the record could be annotated to
show a mandatory break. It is the
Agency’s view that these provisions,
and additional requirements addressing
security of data, would significantly
reduce the potential for driver
harassment resulting from use of ELDs.
purposes of HOS enforcement.
However, when a CMV is operated for
personal use, the position reporting
accuracy would be even further reduced
to an approximate 10-mile radius. Thus,
the Agency would not require that an
ELD determine or record a CMV’s or
driver’s exact location. Moreover, the
SNPRM would not require that the ELD
record and transmit any CMV location
data in real time, either to the motor
carrier or to enforcement officials.
G. Tracking of Vehicle Location
FMCSA acknowledges that some
drivers view the FMS, which often
includes ELD functions as well as
additional recording capabilities and
real-time communication features, as a
mechanism for the harassment of
drivers or invasion of privacy. Motor
carriers counter, however, that
companies use this technology to know
where their CMVs are at all times and
how much time their drivers may
continue to operate in compliance with
the HOS regulations. The technical
specifications in today’s SNPRM are
intended to address drivers’ concerns in
terms of the level of data collected for
HOS enforcement.
Location recording is a critical
component of HOS enforcement. Drivers
have always had to record certain
location information on paper RODS.
Although electronic recording is more
accurate, the acquisition of location
information for CMV operators is not a
novel requirement. Nonetheless,
FMCSA does not propose to require
real-time tracking of CMVs or the
recording of precise location
information. Instead, location data
would be required to be recorded when
the driver changes duty status, when a
driver indicates personal use or yard
moves, when the CMV engine powers
up and shuts down, and at 60-minute
intervals when the vehicle is in motion.
During on-duty driving periods, FMCSA
would limit the location accuracy for
HOS enforcement to coordinates of two
decimal places, providing an accuracy
of approximately a 1-mile radius for
I. Summary
In today’s SNPRM, FMCSA would
provide enhanced procedural
protections and remedies intended to
protect drivers using ELDs from actions
considered harassment. In addition, the
proposed technical specifications for the
ELD were specifically designed to
provide drivers additional protection.
By recording the time spent behind the
wheel of a CMV accurately, the ELD
would make all parties involved aware
of the actual time for a driver to make
a certain trip. FMCSA believes this
increased transparency would lead to
reduced pressure on drivers to falsify
their RODS. ELDs provide a more
reliable and simpler tool for recording
drivers’ HOS than paper RODS. FMCSA
believes the use of ELDs would lead, not
only to better compliance with HOS
regulations, but also to a clearer
understanding of driver schedules. The
technical specifications aimed at
protecting drivers from harassment are
further addressed under Part IV.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
H. FMCSRs Enforcement Proceedings
MAP–21 requires that the Agency
institute appropriate measures to
preserve the confidentiality of personal
data recorded by an ELD that is
disclosed in the course of an FMCSRs
enforcement proceeding (49 U.S.C.
31137(e)(2)). To protect data of a
personal nature unrelated to business
operations, the Agency would redact
such information included as part of the
administrative record before a document
was made available in the public
docket.
XI. MAP–21 Coercion Language
As a result of section 32911 of MAP–
21, FMCSA will publish an NPRM that
proposes regulations that would
prohibit motor carriers, shippers,
receivers, or transportation
intermediaries from coercing drivers to
operate CMVs in violation of certain
provisions of the FMCSRs or the
Hazardous Materials Regulations. The
coercion NPRM would propose
procedures for drivers to report
incidents of coercion to FMCSA, rules
of practice the Agency would follow in
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
response to allegations of coercion, and
penalties that would be imposed on
entities found to have coerced drivers.
The coercion rule will differ from the
anti-harassment provisions proposed in
this rulemaking. Major differences
include that the proposed coercion rule
will address shippers, receivers, and
transportation intermediaries as well as
motor carriers; and its focus is on the
loss or potential loss of future business
or work. While the term ‘‘coercion’’ will
be defined in the coercion rule, today’s
SNPRM specifically proposes
prohibiting motor carriers from coercing
drivers to falsely certify ELD records.
XII. Section-by-Section Analysis
This SNPRM contains significant
changes to the NPRM published
February 1, 2011. Today’s proposed
regulatory text supersedes the February
2011 NPRM. In light of the vacatur of
the April 2010 final rule and the
enactment of MAP–21, this SNPRM
addresses requirements for technical
specifications for ELDs, the use of ELDs,
the maintenance of supporting
documents, and the potential for
harassment of drivers related to ELD
technology. This section-by-section
analysis describes the revised proposed
rule provisions in numerical order.
A. Part 385—Safety Fitness Procedures
In Section VII of appendix B of part
385, the list of acute and critical
regulations would be modified to reflect
proposed changes in parts 390 (driver
harassment) and 395 (hours of service).
B. Part 386—Rules of Practice for Motor
Carrier, Intermodal Equipment Provider,
Broker, Freight Forwarder, and
Hazardous Materials Proceedings
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Section 386.1
This section would be modified to
reflect the handling of substantial
violations and harassment violations by
the appropriate Division Administrator,
rather than the Assistant Administrator.
2. Section 386.12
This section would be changed to
reflect the handling of substantial
violation complaints by the Division
Administrator for the State where the
incident occurs, rather than the
Assistant Administrator. It would
prescribe procedures governing these
complaints. It would also address how
allegations brought to the attention of
other officials in the Agency would be
handled.
3. Section 386.12a
This section would be added to
prescribe procedures for the handling of
harassment complaints filed with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
17677
Division Administrator for the State
where the incident occurs. It would
prescribe the information that a driver
would need to include in a written
complaint alleging harassment by a
motor carrier as well as procedures that
the Division Administrator would need
to follow in handling complaints. It
would also address how allegations
brought to the attention of other officials
in the Agency would be handled.
as long as the action was within the
course of the motor carrier’s operation.
The burden of proving that the
employee acted outside the scope of the
motor carrier’s operation would be on
the motor carrier. Finally, knowledge of
any document in the motor carrier’s
possession, or available to the motor
carrier, that could be used to ensure
compliance with part 395 would be
imputed to the motor carrier.
4. Appendix B to Part 386
New paragraph (a)(7) would be added
to emphasize how the Agency would
impose penalties upon a finding of
driver harassment.
4. Section 395.8
This section addresses general
requirements for HOS RODS. Subject to
limited exceptions, it would require
motor carriers to install and use ELDs
that comply with the proposed technical
specifications no later than 2 years
following the rule’s effective date.
Subject to limited exceptions, under
paragraph (a)(1), motor carriers would
need to require drivers that keep RODS
to use ELDs. The rule would allow for
continued use of AOBRDs (2-year
grandfathering of devices installed prior
to compliance date) as well as use of
paper RODS by drivers requiring RODS
not more than 8 days in a 30-day period
after the rule’s compliance date.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require drivers
to use the recording method required by
their motor carrier and to submit their
RODS to their carrier within 8 days. The
requirement for motor carriers to use
ELDs, however, would not apply when
an extension is granted by FMCSA to
allow a motor carrier to repair, replace,
or service one or more malfunctioning
ELDs under § 395.34(d).
Paragraph (e) would prohibit a motor
carrier or driver from making a false
report in connection with duty status
and from tampering with, or allowing
another person to tamper with, an
AOBRD or ELD to prevent it from
recording or retaining accurate data.
Paragraph (i), which currently allows
submission of records to a motor carrier
within 13 days, would be eliminated in
light of proposed § 395.8(a)(2)(ii), which
would require drivers to submit records
to the motor carrier within 8 days.
Paragraph (k)(1) would continue to
require a motor carrier to maintain
RODS and supporting documents for a
6-month period.
C. Part 390—Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations; General
FMCSA would add a new § 390.36 to
define harassment, prohibit motor
carriers from engaging in harassment,
and reference the process under which
a driver could file a written complaint.
D. Part 395—Hours of Service of Drivers
Today’s SNPRM would divide part
395 into two subparts. Proposed subpart
A, General, would include §§ 395.1
through 395.19. Proposed subpart B,
ELDs, would address the design and use
of ELDs and would consist of §§ 395.20
through 395.38 and detailed
performance specifications applicable to
ELDs in the appendix to subpart B.
Subpart A—General
1. Section 395.1(e)
This paragraph would be amended to
reflect that drivers who qualify to use
the short-haul exceptions under 49 CFR
395.1(e)(1) or (2) would not be required
to keep supporting documents under
proposed § 395.11.
2. Section 395.2
In this section, FMCSA proposes to
add the following new definitions.
Electronic Logging Device (ELD).
FMCSA would add a new definition of
‘‘ELD’’: A device or technology that
meets the requirements of proposed
subpart B of part 395.
Supporting Document. FMCSA
proposes a definition of ‘‘supporting
document’’ similar to the definition in
the HMTAA. Substantive provisions
pertaining to supporting documents are
proposed in § 395.11.
3. Section 395.7
This section would add procedural
provisions that would apply during any
proceeding involving the enforcement of
49 CFR part 395. Specifically, it would
provide that a motor carrier would be
liable for an employee’s acting or failing
to act in a manner that violates part 395
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5. Section 395.11
FMCSA would place the detailed
requirements concerning supporting
documents in § 395.11.
Paragraph (a) provides that the new
supporting document provisions would
take effect 2 years after the effective date
of the final rule. Until this date, the June
2010 policy on the retention of
supporting documents and the use of
electronic mobile communication/
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
17678
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tracking technology would remain in
place (75 FR 32984).
Paragraph (b) would address the
drivers’ obligation to submit supporting
documents to their employers within 8
days. (The term ‘‘employer’’ is defined
in § 390.5.)
Paragraph (c) describes five categories
of supporting documents generated or
received in the normal course of
business. These categories would
include: (1) Bills of lading, itineraries,
schedules, or equivalent documents
indicating the origin and destination of
a trip; (2) dispatch records, trip records,
or equivalent documents; (3) expense
receipts related to ODND time; (4)
electronic mobile communication
records reflecting communications
transmitted through an FMS (e.g., text
messages, email messages, instant
messages, or pre-assigned coded
messages); and (5) payroll records,
settlement sheets, or equivalent
documents reflecting driver payments.
Paragraph (c) also would address the
data elements that a document must
reflect to qualify as a supporting
document.
Paragraph (d) generally proposes to
require a motor carrier to retain, at most,
10 documents for an individual driver’s
24-hour duty day. It also describes how
FMCSA would treat electronic mobile
communication records in applying the
10-document cap. If a driver were to
submit more than 10 documents for a
24-hour period, the motor carrier would
need to retain the documents containing
earliest and latest time indications.
Finally, for drivers that continued to use
paper RODS, all toll receipts would also
need to be maintained, irrespective of
the 10-document requirement. The
Agency interprets the reference to ‘‘toll
receipts’’ to include electronic records.
Paragraph (e) would require a motor
carrier to maintain supporting
documents in a way that allows the
documents to be matched to a driver’s
RODS.
Paragraph (f) would prohibit motor
carriers and drivers from obscuring,
defacing, destroying, mutilating, or
altering information in a supporting
document.
Paragraph (g) would require that a
driver make available, during a roadside
inspection, any supporting document in
the driver’s possession.
Paragraph (h) describes the proposed
process for submitting requests for selfcompliance systems that FMCSA may
authorize on a case-by-case basis, as
required by HMTAA.
6. Section 395.15
FMCSA proposes to sunset the
authority to use AOBRDs 2 years after
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
the rule’s effective date. However, those
motor carriers that have installed
AOBRDs prior to the sunset date would
be allowed to continue using AOBRDs
for an additional 2 years (i.e., up to 4
years after the effective date of the final
rule).
Subpart B—Electronic Logging Devices
(ELDs)
7. Section 395.20
Section 395.20 paragraph (a) would
describe the scope of ELDs described in
proposed subpart B.
Paragraph (b) would describe the
applicability of technical specifications
required for ELDs under subpart B,
effective 2 years after the rule’s effective
date.
Paragraph (c) would clarify that,
throughout subpart B, the term ‘‘ELD’’
includes an ELD support system, as
applicable.
8. Section 395.22
Section 395.22 outlines the proposed
responsibilities of the motor carrier
related to the ELD.
Paragraph (a) proposes a requirement
for motor carriers to use only ELDs
registered and certified with FMCSA
and listed on the Agency’s Web site.
Paragraph (b) outlines the
responsibilities of a motor carrier and its
support personnel.
Paragraph (c) lists the proposed driver
identification data that would be
required.
Paragraph (d) details the
identification data for motor carrier
support personnel.
Paragraph (e) describes the proposed
requirement for a motor carrier to
require its drivers and support
personnel to use the proper log-in
process for an ELD.
Paragraph (f) proposes the
requirement for a motor carrier to
calibrate and maintain ELD systems.
Paragraph (g) proposes requirements
for mounting portable ELDs.
Paragraph (h) lists the information a
motor carrier would be required to
provide to its drivers who are using
ELDs in their CMVs.
Paragraph (i) would require a motor
carrier to maintain a driver’s ELD
records so as to protect the driver’s
privacy in a manner consistent with
sound business practices. However,
given the diversity of the regulated
community and business practices, the
Agency declines to require specific
record maintenance requirements. It
also would require that the motor carrier
keep a back-up copy of ELD records in
storage.
Paragraph (j) would require a motor
carrier to provide 6 months of ELD
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
records electronically to authorized
safety officials as requested during an
enforcement activity.
9. Section 395.24
Paragraph (a) would require a driver
to provide data as prompted by the ELD
and as specified by the motor carrier.
Paragraph (b) lists the duty statuses
that a driver may choose from,
corresponding to the duty status
categories currently listed on paper
RODS.
Paragraph (c) lists other data that a
driver may sometimes need to enter
manually into the ELD, such as
annotations, file comments, verification,
CMV number, trailer numbers, and
shipping numbers, as applicable.
Paragraph (d) would require a driver
to produce and transfer the driver’s HOS
data to an authorized safety official on
request.
10. Section 395.26
Paragraph (a) outlines the purpose of
the section, namely, to provide an
overview of what an ELD accomplishes
in accordance with the provisions of the
appendix to proposed subpart B of part
395.
Paragraph (b) lists the data elements
recorded when an ELD logs an event.
Paragraph (c) describes requirements
for data recording during a change of
duty status event.
Paragraph (d) describes what an ELD
records during an intermediate
recording when the CMV is in motion
and there has been no change of duty
status entered into the ELD and no other
intermediate status recorded in an hour.
Paragraph (e) describes what an ELD
records when a driver selects a special
driving category, i.e., personal use or
yard moves.
Paragraph (f) describes what an ELD
records when a driver certifies a daily
log.
Paragraph (g) describes what an ELD
records when there is a login/logoff
event.
Paragraph (h) describes what happens
when the CMV’s engine powers on or
off.
Paragraph (i) describes the recording
of location information during
authorized personal use of a CMV.
Paragraph (j) describes what happens
in the case of an ELD malfunction event.
11. Section 395.28
Paragraph (a) lists special driving
categories and explains that motor
carriers may configure these settings
based on company policies. This
paragraph also lists driver
responsibilities when selecting one of
these special driving categories.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph (b) proposes that a motor
carrier may configure an ELD to show
that a driver is exempt from the
requirement to use an ELD.
Paragraph (c) proposes that a driver
excepted under § 390.3(f) or § 395.1
must annotate the record to explain why
the driver is excepted.
12. Section 395.30
Paragraph (a) proposes that both
drivers and motor carriers are
responsible for ensuring that drivers’
ELD records are accurate.
Paragraph (b) lists the proposed
requirements for a driver to review and
certify that the driver’s RODS are
accurate.
Paragraph (c) explains the proposed
process for a driver to edit, add missing
information to, and annotate RODS to
fix information entered in error.
Paragraph (d) explains the proposed
process for motor carrier support
personnel to request edits of a driver.
This paragraph also explains that, under
the proposal, edits made to the driver’s
record by anyone other than the driver
would require the driver’s approval or
rejection.
Paragraph (e) would prohibit a motor
carrier from coercing a driver to falsely
certify the driver’s ELD records. FMCSA
plans to define the term ‘‘coerce’’ in a
separate rulemaking.
Paragraph (f) would prohibit a motor
carrier from manipulating or deleting
ELD records or their source data
streams.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13. Section 395.32
Paragraph (a) describes the concept of
‘‘non-authenticated driver logs,’’ an
account which is assigned any driving
time not associated with an authorized
ELD user and driver.
Paragraph (b) describes how a driver
would have to review any driving time
listed under the ‘‘non-authenticated
driver log’’ account upon login to the
ELD. If there were driving time listed
under this account that belonged to the
driver, the driver would be required to
add that driving time to the driver’s own
record.
Paragraph (c) lists the proposed
requirements for a motor carrier to
explain or assign ‘‘non-authenticated
driver log’’ time. This paragraph
proposes that the motor carrier retain
these records as a part of its HOS ELD
records and present them to safety
enforcement officials.
14. Section 395.34
Paragraph (a) explains what a driver
would be required to do should the ELD
malfunction. It specifies that the driver
would need to notify the motor carrier
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
of an ELD malfunction in writing within
24 hours. Written notice could be
provided by electronic means such as
email.
Paragraph (b) explains what a driver
would be required to do if the driver’s
HOS records were inspected during a
malfunction.
Paragraph (c) explains that a driver
would have to address any data
inconsistency in the ELD according to
the ELD provider’s and motor carrier’s
procedures.
Paragraph (d) would require a motor
carrier to take action to repair any
malfunctioning ELD within 8 days of
discovery of the malfunction or a
driver’s notification of the malfunction.
If a motor carrier needs additional time
to repair, replace, or service one or more
ELDs, paragraph (d) also provides a
process for requesting an extension of
time.
15. Section 395.36
Paragraph (a) would require a motor
carrier to provide its drivers with access
to their own ELD records in a way that
does not require requesting them
through the motor carrier if those
records are available on or retrievable
through the ELD.
Paragraph (b) would require a motor
carrier to give a driver access to the
driver’s own ELD records, upon request,
if they are unavailable through the ELD.
16. Section 395.38
Section 395.38 describes materials
that would be incorporated by reference
in subpart B and addresses where the
materials are available. Whenever
FMCSA, or any Federal agency, wants to
refer in its rules to materials or
standards published elsewhere, it needs
approval from the Director of the Office
of the Federal Register. The process
FMCSA needs to follow is described in
this section. For additional information
regarding use of technical standards see
Section N. of Part XIII.
The following explanations provide a
brief description of each standard. In
order to provide better access, FMCSA
includes Web addresses where more
information about each standard can be
found. Complete contact information is
included as part of § 395.38. These
standards are also available for review at
FMCSA headquarters.
In paragraph (b)(1), ‘‘Standard for
Authentication in Host Attachments of
Transient Storage Devices’’ is a standard
from the IEEE that describes a trust and
authentication protocol for USB flash
drives and other storage devices that
would be able to be used for a possible
transfer of ELD data according to the
specifications of this proposed rule. As
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17679
of November 25, 2013, this standard was
available for $175, and information
about it can be found at https://
standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/
1667-2009.html.
Paragraph (c)(1) references the
‘‘Universal Serial Bus Specification’’ or
USB, which is an industry standard for
communication between two computing
devices. The USB allows a driver to
transfer the record of duty status data to
a safety official using a small device
commonly called a ‘‘flash drive.’’ As of
November 18, 2013, this standard was
available at no cost, and information
about it can be found at https://
www.bluetooth.org/Technical/
Specifications/adopted.htm.
Paragraph (d)(1) describes ‘‘ANSI
INCITS 446–2008, American National
Standard for Information Technology—
Identifying Attributes for Named
Physical and Cultural Geographic
Features (Except Roads and Highways)
of the United States, Its Territories,
Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated
Areas and the Waters of the Same to the
Limit of the Twelve-Mile Statutory Zone
(10/28/2008),’’ a standard from the
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) that covers geographic names
and locations stored in the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Geographic
Names Information System (GNIS). This
information is required to populate the
location database of complaint ELDs. As
of November 25, 2013, this standard was
available for $30, and information about
it can be found at https://webstore
.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI+
INCITS+446-2008.
Paragraph (d)(2) describes
‘‘Information Systems—Coded Character
Sets—7-Bit American National Standard
Code for Information Interchange (7-Bit
ASCII),’’ a standard from ANSI that
describes a character set code to convert
digits to alphabet, number, and symbol
characters used in computing. This code
set is used to create ELD files. As of
December 10, 2013, this standard was
available for $30, and information about
it can be found at https://webstore.ansi.
org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI+
INCITS+4-1986+%28R2007%29.
Paragraph (e)(1) ‘‘ISO/IEC 18004:2006
Information technology—Automatic
identification and data capture
techniques—QR Code 2005 bar code
symbology specification,’’ which is an
industry standard from the International
Standards Organization (ISO) for
converting information into two
dimensional barcodes that can be read
using common tools such as smart
phones or hand scanners. This standard
would be used to comply with the
transfer of ELD data specifications. As of
December 10, 2013, this standard was
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
17680
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
available from the ANSI at https://
www.webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail
.aspx?sku=ISO%2fIEC+18004%3a200t 6
for $250.
Paragraph (e)(2) describes ‘‘ISO/IEC
17568 Information technology—
Telecommunications and information
exchange between systems—Close
proximity electric induction wireless
communications,’’ a standard from the
ISO for transmitting a large amount of
data at high speed when two devices are
held very close together. This standard
is used commercially in the TransferJet
technology. This standard describes
how close proximity transfers of data
would take place with a compliant ELD
that may elect to support TransferJet. As
of December 10, 2013, this standard was
available at https://webstore.ansi.org/
RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ISO%2FIEC+
17568%3A2013 for $235.
Paragraph (f)(1) ‘‘The Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2’’
describes a standard from the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), which
describes a security mechanism for
information that is being transmitted
over a network. This standard is best
known for use with Web sites that start
with ‘‘https://’’ rather than just
‘‘https://’’. This standard would be used
to secure data if ELD files are transferred
using the web. As of December 10, 2013,
this standard was available at no cost
and it can be found at https://ietf.org/
doc/rfc5246/.
Paragraph (f)(2) ‘‘Simple Mail
Transfer Protocol’’ is an industry
standard from the IETF for a computer
networking protocol to send and receive
electronic mail (email) containing ELD
data. As of December 12, 2013, this
standard was available at no cost, and
can be found at https://ietf.org/doc/
rfc5321/.
Paragraph (f)(3) ‘‘Internet Message
Format,’’ describes an industry standard
from the IETF for the format of email,
including address, header information,
text, and attachments, including those
emails containing ELD data. As of
December 12, 2013, this standard was
available at no cost, and can be found
at https://ietf.org/doc/rfc5322/.
Paragraph (g)(1) ‘‘Federal Information
Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication
197, November 26, 2001, Announcing
the ADVANCED ENCRYPTION
STANDARD (AES)’’ describes a Federal
government standard from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) for encrypting data to protect its
confidentiality and integrity. This
standard would be used to encrypt
emailed data derived from the ELD. This
standard is available at no cost at https://
csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips197/
fips-197.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Paragraph (g)(2) describes ‘‘Special
Publication (SP) 800–32, February 26,
2001, Introduction to Public Key
Technology and the Federal PKI
Infrastructure,’’ a guidance document
from NIST for securely exchanging
sensitive information, including some
ELD data. This standard is available at
no cost at https://csrc.nist.gov/
publications/nistpubs/800-32/sp80032.pdf.
Paragraph (h)(1) ‘‘Web Services
Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, W3C
Note 15, March 2001’’ describes a
specification from the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C) that describes the
interface to a Web service. This standard
would be used if ELD files are
transferred using the web. As of
December 12, 2013, this standard was
available at no cost, and can be found
at https://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.
Paragraph (h)(2) describes ‘‘Simple
Object Access Protocol (SOAP) Version
1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework
(Second Edition), W3C
Recommendation 27 April 2007,’’ a
specification from the W3C for a
computer networking protocol for Web
services. This standard would be used if
ELD files are transferred using the web.
As of December 12, 2013, this standard
was available at no cost, and can be
found at https://www.w3.org/TR/soap12part1/.
Paragraph (h)(3) describes ‘‘Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition), W3C Recommendation 26
November 2008,’’ a specification from
the W3C for annotating data to make it
readable by both humans and machines.
This standard would be used if ELD
files are transferred using the web. As of
December 12, 2013, this standard was
available at no cost, and can be found
at https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/.
Paragraph (h)(4) describes ‘‘Hypertext
Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1,’’ a
specification from the W3C for a
computer networking protocol that is
the foundation for the World Wide Web.
This standard would be used if ELD
files are transferred using the web. As of
December 12, 2013, this standard was
available at no cost, and can be found
at https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/
rfc2616.html.
Paragraph (i)(1) describes
‘‘Specification of the Bluetooth System:
Wireless Connections Made Easy,’’ a
standard from the Bluetooth Special
Interest Group for short range wireless
network communication that would be
able to be used as a possible transfer of
ELD data according to the specifications
of this proposed rule. As of December
24, 2013, this standard was available for
free and can be found at https://
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
www.bluetooth.org/en-us/specification/
adopted-specifications.
17. Appendix to Subpart B of Part 395
The proposed appendix to subpart B
of part 395 contains the technical
requirements for ELDs. It consists of
seven sections.
Section 1 contains the scope of the
appendix. It outlines the purpose and
content of the rest of the appendix.
Section 2 lists the abbreviations used
throughout this appendix.
Section 3 provides definitions for
terms and notations used in this
appendix.
Section 4 lists all the functional
requirements for an ELD. This section
describes the technical specifications for
an ELD, including security
requirements, internal engine
synchronization, ELD inputs, manual
entries of data, and drivers’ use of
multiple vehicles, in sufficient detail to
allow the ELD provider to know if an
ELD would meet the requirements for
certification.
Section 5 describes the ELD
certification and registration process.
Section 6 lists the cited references
throughout this appendix.
Section 7 provides a data elements
dictionary for each data element
referenced in the appendix.
XIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FMCSA has determined that this
rulemaking is an economically
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011). It also is
significant under Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures because the economic costs
and benefits of the rule exceed the $100
million annual threshold and because of
the substantial congressional and public
interest concerning the crash risks
associated with driver fatigue.
FMCSA is proposing to mandate the
installation and use of ELDs for the
majority of interstate motor carrier
operations.15 However, the costs and
benefits of such a broad mandate are not
identical across all options. The Agency
15 Today’s SNPRM would not require short-haul
drivers who would need to keep RODS more than
8 days in any 30-day period to use an ELD.
Although FMCSA cannot quantify the costs to
carriers, the Agency believes extending the ELD
mandate to these drivers would not be cost
beneficial.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
has chosen to evaluate options that
reflect public comments regarding past
ELD and HOS rulemakings and the
Agency’s safety priorities. The RIA
associated with this SNPRM examines
four options:
• Option 1: ELDs are mandated for all
CMV operations subject to 49 CFR part
395.
• Option 2: ELDs are mandated for all
CMV operations where the driver is
required to complete RODS under 49
CFR 395.8 (this is the FMCSA-preferred
option).
• Option 3: ELDs are mandated for all
CMV operations subject to 49 CFR part
395, and the ELD is required to include,
or be able to be connected to, a printer,
and to print RODS.
• Option 4: ELDs are mandated for all
CMV operations where the driver is
required to complete RODS under 49
CFR 395.8, and the ELD is required to
include, or be able to be connected to,
a printer, and to print RODS.
Of the four options, Option 2 is
preferred by FMCSA. This table
summarizes the cost and benefits of this
option:
TABLE 7—PREFERRED OPTION (2)
SUMMARY
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Annualized
costs and benefits in millions
(2011$, 7 percent discount
rate)
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations
on small entities and mandates that
agencies strive to lessen any adverse
effects on these businesses.
A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
must contain the following:
• A description of the reasons for the
action by the Agency.
• A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
rule.
• A description—and, where feasible,
an estimate of the number—of small
entities to which the rule applies.
• A description of the reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities
that will be subject to the requirement
and the types of professional skills
necessary for preparation of the report
or record.
• Identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the rule.
• A description of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and minimize any
significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
2. Description of Reasons for Action by
the Agency
The Agency is required by statute
(MAP–21) to adopt regulations requiring
New ELD Costs ....................
$955.7
that CMVs operated in interstate
AOBRD Replacement Costs
3.0
HOS Compliance Costs .......
604.1 commerce by drivers required to keep
Enforcement Training Costs
1.7 RODS be equipped with ELDs. FMCSA
proposes to amend part 395 of the
Enforcement Equipment
Costs .................................
10.0 FMCSRs to require the installation and
use of ELDs for CMV operations for
Total Costs ........................
1,574.5 which RODS are required. CMV drivers
are currently required to record their
Paperwork Savings ...............
1,529.9
HOS (driving time, on- and off-duty
Safety Benefits .....................
394.8
time) in paper RODS, although some
Total Benefits ....................
1,924.7 carriers have voluntarily adopted an
earlier standard for HOS recording
Net Benefits ...................
350.2 devices known as AOBRDs.
The HOS regulations are designed to
ensure that driving time, one of the
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
principal ‘‘responsibilities imposed on
1. Introduction
the operators of commercial motor
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
vehicles,’’ does ‘‘not impair their ability
1980, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164
to operate the vehicles safely’’ (49
(5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires Federal
U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)). Driver compliance
agencies to consider the effects of the
with the HOS rules helps ensure that
regulatory action on small business and ‘‘the physical condition of commercial
other small entities and to minimize any motor vehicle drivers is adequate to
significant economic impact. The term
enable them to operate the vehicles
‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
safely’’ (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)). FMCSA
businesses and not-for-profit
believes that properly designed, used,
organizations that are independently
and maintained ELDs would enable
owned and operated and are not
motor carriers to track their drivers’ ondominant in their fields and
duty driving hours accurately, thus
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17681
preventing regulatory violations or
excessive driver fatigue. Improved HOS
compliance, which today’s proposed
rule would promote, will prevent
commercial vehicle operators from
driving for long periods without
opportunities to obtain adequate sleep.
Sufficient sleep is necessary to ensure
that a driver is alert behind the wheel
and able to respond appropriately to
changes in the driving environment.
Substantial paperwork and
recordkeeping burdens are also
associated with HOS rules, including
time spent by drivers filling out and
submitting paper RODS and time spent
by motor carrier staff reviewing, filing,
and maintaining these RODS. ELDs
would eliminate most of the clerical
tasks associated with the RODS and
significantly reduce the time drivers
spend recording their HOS. These
paperwork reductions offset most of the
costs of the devices.
3. Objectives and Legal Basis
The Agency is issuing an SNPRM
proposing to mandate the use of ELDs
by the majority of interstate CMV
operations. The objective is to reduce
the number of crashes caused by driver
fatigue that could have been avoided
had the driver complied with the HOS
rules. The legal basis for this proposed
rule is described in Part IV.
4. Small Entities Affected
FMCSA regulations affect many
different industries, and no single Small
Business Administration (SBA)
threshold for determining whether an
entity is a ‘‘small business’’ is
applicable to all motor carriers. Most
for-hire property carriers operate under
North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) code 484,
truck transportation, although some forhire carriers categorize themselves as
‘‘express delivery services’’ (NAICS
492110), ‘‘local delivery’’ (NAICS
492210), or operate primarily in other
modes of freight transportation. As
shown in the table below, the SBA
‘‘small business’’ size standard for truck
transportation and local delivery
services is currently $25.5 million in
revenue per year, and 1,500 employees
for express delivery services. For other
firms in other modes that may also be
registered as for-hire motor carriers, the
size standard is 500 or 1,500 employees.
As Table 8, below, also shows, for-hire
passenger operations that FMCSA
regulates have a size standard of $14
million in annual revenue. This
rulemaking also affects other industry
sectors, including the industry
descriptions reflected in Table 8.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17682
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—SBA SIZE STANDARDS FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES
NAICS industry description
Annual revenue
(millions)
Employees
Freight Air Transportation .....................................................................
Line-Haul Railroads ..............................................................................
Freight Water Transportation ................................................................
Freight Trucking ....................................................................................
Couriers and Express Delivery .............................................................
Local Messengers and Local Delivery .................................................
Bus Transportation ...............................................................................
Supermarkets and Grocery Stores .......................................................
Department Stores (except Discount Department Stores) ...................
Discount Department Stores ................................................................
Warehouse Clubs and Superstores .....................................................
Other General Merchandise Stores ......................................................
Office Supplies and Stationery Stores .................................................
Building Construction ............................................................................
Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction ..............
Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction .................
Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction
Land Subdivision ..................................................................................
Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ...........................................
Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction .................................
Specialty Trade Contractors .................................................................
Crop Production ....................................................................................
Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming ......................................................
Cattle Feedlots ......................................................................................
Dairy Cattle and Milk Production ..........................................................
Hog and Pig Farming ...........................................................................
Chicken Egg Production .......................................................................
All Other Animal Production .................................................................
Logging .................................................................................................
Oil and Gas Extraction and Mining ......................................................
..............................
..............................
..............................
$25.5
..............................
25.5
14.0
30.0
30.0
27.0
27.0
30.0
30.0
33.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
7.0
33.5
33.5
14.0
0.75
0.75
2.5
0.75
0.75
12.5
0.75
..............................
..............................
1,500
1,500
500
........................
1,500
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
500
500
NAICS codes
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
481112
482111
483111
484110
492110
492210
485210
445110
452111
452112
452910
452990
453210
236115
237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110
111110
112111
112112
112120
112210
112310
112320
113310
211111
and 481212 .......................
...........................................
through 483113 .................
through 484230 .................
...........................................
...........................................
through 485510 .................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
through 236220 .................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
through 238990 .................
through 111998 .................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
through 112990 .................
...........................................
through 213111 .................
Private motor carriers use the CMVs
they own or lease to ship their own
goods or in other regulated
transportation activities related to their
primary business activities. These
include, for example, a motor carrier
that a retail department store chain
operates to distribute goods from its
warehouses to its store locations, dump
trucks used by construction companies,
or passenger transportation services not
available to the general public. Separate
NAICS codes for entities with private
motor carrier operations are not
available; and FMCSA, therefore, cannot
determine the appropriate size standard
to use for each case. As shown, the size
standards among industries that contain
private motor carrier operations vary
widely, from $0.75 million for many
types of farms to $33.5 million for
building construction firms.
For for-hire motor carriers, FMCSA
examined data from the 2007 Economic
Census to determine the percentage of
firms that have revenue at or below
SBA’s thresholds. Although boundaries
for the revenue categories used in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Economic Census do not exactly
coincide with the SBA thresholds,
FMCSA was able to make reasonable
estimates using these data. According to
the Economic Census, about 99 percent
of trucking firms had annual revenue
less than $25 million; the Agency
concluded that the percentage would be
approximately the same using the SBA
threshold of $25.5 million. For
passenger carriers, the $14 million SBA
threshold falls between two Economic
Census revenue categories, $10 million
and $25 million. The percentages of
passenger carriers with revenue less
than these amounts were 96.7 percent
and 98.9 percent, respectively. Because
the SBA threshold is closer to the lower
of these two boundaries, FMCSA has
assumed that the percent of passenger
carriers that are small will be closer to
96.7 percent, and is using a figure of 97
percent.
For private carriers, the Agency
constructed its estimates under the
assumption that carriers with more
CMVs than the 98.9 percentile of forhire property carriers or the 97
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
percentile of for-hire passenger carriers
will also be large. That is, any company
large enough to maintain a CMV fleet
large enough to be considered a large
truck or bus company will be large
within its own industry. Because of
NAICS classifications, this methodology
could overestimate the number of small,
private carriers. Under this conservative
analysis, however, the Agency is
confident that no small private carrier
would be excluded. The Agency found
that for property carriers, the threshold
was 194 CMVs, and for passenger
carriers, it was 89 CMVs. FMCSA
identified 201,725 small private
property carriers (99.4 percent of this
group), and 6,000 small private
passenger carriers (100.0 percent of this
group).
Table 9 below shows the complete
estimates of the number of small
carriers. All told, FMCSA estimates that
99.1 percent of regulated motor carriers
are small businesses according to SBA
size standards.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
17683
TABLE 9—ESTIMATES OF NUMBERS OF SMALL ENTITIES
For-hire
general
freight
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Carriers ....................................................
Percentage of Small Carriers ..................
Number of Small Carriers ........................
176,000
98.9%
174,064
5. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
FMCSA believes that implementation
of the SNPRM would not require
additional reporting, recordkeeping, or
other paperwork-related compliance
requirements beyond what are already
required in the existing regulations. In
fact, the SNPRM is estimated to result
in paperwork savings, particularly from
the elimination of paper RODS.
Furthermore, the carriers would
experience compensatory time-saving or
administrative efficiencies as a result of
using ELD records in place of paper
RODS. The level of savings would vary
with the size of the carrier
implementing the systems (larger
carriers generally experience greater
savings).
Under current regulations, most CMV
drivers are required to fill out RODS for
every 24-hour period. The remaining
population of CMV drivers is required
to fill out time cards at their workplace
(reporting location). Motor carriers must
retain the RODS (or timecards, if used)
for 6 months. FMCSA estimates the
annual recordkeeping cost savings from
this proposed rule to be about $705 per
driver. This comprises $487 for a
reduction in time drivers spend
completing paper RODS and $56
submitting those RODS to their
employers; $120 for motor carrier
clerical staff to handle and file the
RODS; and $42 for elimination of
expenditures on blank paper RODS for
drivers. Two of the options discussed in
the SNPRM extend the ELD mandate to
carrier operations that are exempt from
the RODS. Paperwork savings will not
accrue to drivers engaged in these
operations.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from the OMB for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or
require through regulations. This
SNPRM proposes regulatory changes to
several parts of the FMCSRs, but only
those applicable to part 395, ‘‘Hours of
Service of Drivers,’’ would alter or
impose information collection
requirements. The information
collection requirements of this NPRM
would affect OMB Control Number
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
For-hire
specialized
freight
For-hire
passenger
139,000
98.9%
137,471
8,000
97.0%
7,760
2126–0001, which is currently approved
through December 31, 2014, at
184,380,000 burden hours.
OMB requires agencies to provide a
specific, objective estimate of the
burden hours imposed by their
information collection requirements (5
CFR 1320.8(a)(4)). This SNPRM
proposes a compliance date 2 years after
the date of publication of the final rule
to allow regulated entities a reasonable
opportunity to satisfy its requirements.
The reduction in the burden hours
resulting from this SNPRM will take
effect in the third year of the ICR
connected with OMB Control Number
2126–0001. The reduction in the annual
burden is estimated to be 22,093,000
hours. This is an average over the 3
years of this ICR: There will be no
reduction in the first 2 years, and a
reduction of 66,280,000 hours in the
third. This estimated burden reduction
includes CMVs that voluntarily had
ELDs installed in them.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Rule
The Agency did not identify any
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule.
7. Steps To Minimize Adverse
Economic Impacts on Small Entities
Of the population of motor carriers
that FMCSA regulates, 99 percent are
considered small entities under the
SBA’s definition. Because small
businesses constitute a large part of the
demographic the Agency regulates,
providing exemptions to small business
to permit noncompliance with safety
regulations is not feasible and not
consistent with good public policy. The
safe operation of CMVs on the Nation’s
highways depends on compliance with
all of FMCSA’s safety regulations.
Accordingly, the Agency will not allow
any motor carriers to be exempt from
coverage of the proposed rule based
solely on a status as a small entity.
FMCSA analyzed an alternative 5-year
implementation schedule in the
previous NPRM that would have
provided a longer implementation
period for small businesses. However,
the estimated cost of compliance for
motor carriers, including small
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Private
property
203,000
99.4%
201,725
Private
passenger
6,000
100.0%
6,000
Total
532,000
99.1%
527,020
businesses, did not decrease from the 3year ‘‘baseline’’ proposed
implementation period. Furthermore, a
considerably longer implementation
period could compromise the
consistency of compliance-assurance
and enforcement activities, and thereby
diminish the rule’s potential safety
benefits. Therefore, the Agency’s
proposal includes a single compliance
date for all motor carriers that would be
subject to the new rule’s requirements.
The Agency recognizes that small
businesses may need additional
information and guidance in order to
comply with the proposed regulation.
To improve their understanding of the
proposal and any rulemaking that
would result from it, FMCSA proposes
to conduct outreach aimed specifically
at small businesses. FMCSA would
conduct Webinars and other
presentations upon request as needed
and at no charge to the participants.
These would be held after the final rule
has published and before the rule’s
compliance date. To the extent
practicable, these presentations would
be interactive. Their purpose would be
to describe in plain language the
compliance and reporting requirements
so they are clear and readily understood
by the small entities that would be
affected.
ELDs can lead to significant
paperwork savings that can offset the
costs of the devices. The Agency,
however, recognizes that these devices
entail an up-front investment that can
be burdensome for small carriers. At
least one vendor, however, provides free
hardware and recoups the cost of the
device over time in the form of higher
monthly operating fees. The Agency is
also aware of lease-to-own programs
that allow carriers to spread the
purchase costs over several years.
Nevertheless, the typical carrier would
likely be required to spend about $800
per CMV to purchase and install ELDs.
In addition to purchase costs, carriers
would also likely spend about $25 per
month per CMV for monthly service
fees.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17684
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 requires Agencies to
evaluate whether an Agency action
would result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$143.1 million or more (as adjusted for
inflation) in any 1 year, and, if so, to
take steps to minimize these unfunded
mandates. As Table 10 shows, this
rulemaking would result in private
sector expenditures in excess of the
$143.1 million threshold for each of the
proposed options. Gross costs, however,
are expected to be more than offset in
savings from paperwork burden
reductions. The savings will be realized
by the same entities that are required to
employ ELDs.
The Agency is required by statute to
adopt regulations requiring that CMVs
operated in interstate commerce,
operated by drivers required to keep
RODS, be equipped with ELDs. 49
U.S.C. 31137. To the extent this rule
implements the direction of Congress in
mandating the use of ELDs, a written
statement under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act is not required.
However, the Agency has provided an
analysis of the costs to the private sector
in the Preliminary Regulatory
Evaluation available in the docket
referenced above. Additionally the
Agency’s proposed option provides the
lowest cost and highest net benefits of
the options considered.
TABLE 10—ANNUALIZED NET EXPENDITURES BY PRIVATE SECTOR
[millions]
Option 1
Total ELD Cost ................................................................................................................
Total Paperwork Savings .................................................................................................
Net ELD Cost ...................................................................................................................
$1,270.0
1,637.7
¥367.7
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
H. Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
This SNPRM would meet applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The regulations implementing E.O.
12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and
activities do not apply to this action.
E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
FMCSA analyzed this action under
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. FMCSA determined that this
SNPRM would not pose an
environmental risk to health or safety
that might affect children
disproportionately.
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
This rulemaking would not effect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have takings implications under E.O.
12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
A rulemaking has implications for
Federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on State or local
governments. FMCSA analyzed this
action in accordance with E.O. 13132.
The rule would not have a substantial
direct effect on States or local
governments, nor would it limit the
policymaking discretion of States.
Nothing in this rulemaking would
preempt any State law or regulation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
FMCSA analyzed this rulemaking in
accordance with the principles and
criteria in E.O. 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. This rulemaking is
required by law and does not
significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of the Indian tribal
governments or impose substantial
direct compliance costs on tribal
governments. Thus, the funding and
consultation requirements of E.O. 13175
do not apply and no tribal summary
impact statement is required.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) requires Federal
agencies to obtain OMB approval of
each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through
agency regulations. On December 11,
2011, OMB approved the information
collection (IC) requirements of part 395
and the Agency’s estimate of the annual
IC burden of 184.38 million burden
hours (OMB Control Number 2126–
0001, ‘‘Hours of Service of Drivers’’).
OMB’s approval expires December 31,
2014.
OMB’s regulations require agencies to
provide a specific, objective estimate of
the burden hours imposed by their IC
requirements [5 CFR 1320.8(a)(4)]. The
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Option 2
$955.7
1,637.7
¥682.0
Option 3
$1,722.6
1,637.7
84.9
Option 4
$1,311.1
1,637.7
¥326.6
IC requirements of part 395 would
change when the amendments proposed
by this SNPRM become final; the IC
requirements of other parts of the
FMCSRs would not be affected by this
SNPRM.
The Agency in this subsection J is
estimating the paperwork burden of part
395 as amended by the proposals of this
SNPRM. The Agency is also in this
subsection J incorporating revised
Agency estimates of the population of
CMV drivers subject to the
recordkeeping requirements of part 395.
The Agency recently analyzed data in
FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management
Information System 16 (MCMIS) and
revised the Agency’s estimate of the
CMV driver population from the
estimate approved by OMB in 2011.
Customarily, FMCSA provides a
separate Federal Register notice
explaining revised Agency estimates
derived solely from updated Agency
data and inviting public comment.
However, to avoid confusion, the
Agency is presenting a single estimate of
the IC burden of part 395 as affected by
both the changes in Agency data and the
proposals of this SNPRM.
The net effect of updated Agency data
on the CMV driver population is that
the Agency now estimates that 2.84
million CMV drivers are subject to the
IC requirements of the HOS rules. In
2011, the Agency provided OMB a
baseline estimate of 7 million CMV
drivers subject to the FMCSRs. Current
data indicate that this baseline
population is 4.32 million drivers. The
Agency reduces this figure to exclude
16 Source: FMCSA, Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS) registration data as of
April 27, 2012.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
short-haul drivers. Short-haul drivers
are subject to most of the on-duty and
off-duty requirements of the HOS rules,
but are exempt from the requirement to
maintain an HOS record, or log, on the
vehicle. All the IC requirements of part
395 are associated with the log, so these
drivers experience no IC burden under
the HOS rules. In 2011, FMCSA
estimated the population of these shorthaul CMV drivers to be 2.4 million, and
derived its estimate of 4.6 million CMV
drivers subject to the IC requirements of
the HOS rules (7 million less 2.4
million). The Agency’s data indicates
that .64 million interstate CMV drivers
currently qualify for the short-haul
exception; accordingly, the Agency
reduces its baseline estimate of 4.32
million CMV drivers to 3.68 million
(4.32 million less .64 million). The
Agency further revises its estimate to
exclude drivers who operate exclusively
in intrastate commerce. In 2011, FMCSA
included all CMV drivers in its estimate
of the driver population. However,
drivers who operate exclusively in
intrastate commerce are not subject to
part 395. FMCSA has analyzed its data
and estimates that .84 million CMV
drivers operate exclusively in intrastate
commerce. Consequently, the Agency
reduces its baseline estimate of the
population of CMV drivers by .84
million, to 2.84 million (3.68 million
less .84 million). The Agency estimates
that 2.84 million CMV drivers are
subject to the recordkeeping
requirements of the HOS rules. Though
this change is unrelated to this
rulemaking and not an OMB-approved
figure, FMCSA uses these populations
in its analysis of the rule for simplicity,
and will be updating the ICR to reflect
this change.
This SNPRM proposes a transition
period of 2 years following publication
of a final ELD rule after which drivers
and motor carriers would be required to
have ELDs in place. OMB regulations
require that Agencies estimate IC
burdens over a period of 3 years after a
rule becomes final. In the third year
after publication of a final ELD rule, the
Agency estimates the IC burden of part
395 would be reduced by 66,280,000.00
burden hours; thus, the average
reduction in the annual burden over the
3-year period would be approximately
22,093,000.00 burden hours. This
estimate incorporates the Agency’s
estimate of the voluntary use of ELDs in
years 1 and 2.
K. National Environmental Policy Act
and Clean Air Act
FMCSA analyzed this SNPRM for the
purpose of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
seq.) and determined under DOT
environmental procedures Order 5610.1,
issued March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that
this action would have a minor impact
on the environment. The Environmental
Assessment is available for inspection
or copying at the Regulations.gov
website listed under ADDRESSES.
FMCSA also analyzed this action
under section 176(c) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
7506(c)), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s implementing
regulations, 40 CFR part 93. Pursuant to
40 CFR 93.153, a conformity
determination is required ‘‘for each
criteria pollutant or precursor where the
total of direct and indirect emissions of
the criteria pollutant or precursor in a
nonattainment or maintenance area
caused by a Federal action would equal
or exceed any of the rates in paragraphs
(b)(1) or (2) of this section.’’ FMCSA
recognizes that the action taken in this
rulemaking could slightly affect
emissions of criteria pollutants from
CMVs. FMCSA discusses the air
emissions analysis in section 3.2.1. of
the draft Environmental Assessment for
this rule.
As discussed in section 3.1.2 of the
Environmental Assessment, the CAA
requires additional analysis to
determine if this proposed action
impacts air quality. In determining
whether this action conforms to CAA
requirements in areas designated as
nonattainment under section 107 of the
CAA and maintenance areas established
under section 175A of the CAA, FMCSA
is required (among other criteria) to
determine if the total direct and indirect
emissions are at or above de minimis
levels. In the case of the alternatives
proposed in this SNPRM, as discussed
in section 3.2.1 (except for the NoAction Alternative), FMCSA considers
the change in emissions to be an
indirect result of the rulemaking action.
FMCSA is requiring drivers and motor
carriers to use ELDs that would lead to
greater compliance with the HOS
regulations, which does not directly
result in additional emissions releases.
Although emissions from idling are
foreseeable and an indirect result of the
rulemaking, in order for the idling
emissions to qualify as ‘indirect
emissions’ pursuant to 40 CFR 93.152,
they must meet all four criteria in the
definition: (1) The emissions are caused
or initiated by the Federal action and
originate in the same nonattainment or
maintenance area but occur at a
different time or place as the action; (2)
they are reasonably foreseeable; (3)
FMCSA can practically control them;
and (4) FMCSA has continuing program
responsibility for them. FMCSA does
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17685
not believe the increase of emissions of
some criteria pollutants or their
precursors from this proposed
rulemaking meet two of the criteria:
That FMCSA can practically control the
emissions, and that FMCSA has
continuing program responsibility.
FMCSA’s statutory authority limits its
ability to require drivers to choose
alternatives to idling while taking a rest
period. If FMCSA had authority to
control CMV emissions, the Agency
could prohibit idling or require drivers
to choose an alternative such as
electrified truck stops or use of auxiliary
power units, both of which reduce
idling emissions. Moreover, based on
FMCSA’s analysis, it is reasonably
foreseeable that the SNPRM would not
significantly increase total CMV
mileage, nor would it change the routing
of CMVs, how CMVs operate, or the
CMV fleet mix of motor carriers.
Therefore, because the idling emissions
do not meet the definition of direct or
indirect emissions in 40 CFR 93.152,
FMCSA has determined it is not
required to perform a CAA general
conformity analysis, pursuant to 40 CFR
93.153.17
L. Executive Order 12898
(Environmental Justice)
FMCSA evaluated the environmental
effects of this SNPRM in accordance
with E.O. 12898 and determined that
there are neither environmental justice
issues associated with its provisions nor
any collective environmental impact
resulting from its promulgation.
Environmental justice issues would be
raised if there were ‘‘disproportionate’’
and ‘‘high and adverse impact’’ on
minority or low-income populations.
None of the alternatives analyzed in the
Agency’s deliberations would result in
high and adverse environmental justice
impacts.
M. Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Effects)
FMCSA analyzed this action under
E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
FMCSA determined that it is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under that
E.O. because, although this rulemaking
is economically significant, it is not
likely to have an adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
17 Additionally, the EPA General Conformity
regulations provide an exemption for rulemaking
activities. See 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(iii).
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17686
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
N. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) requires agencies to ‘‘use technical
standards that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies’’ to carry out policy objectives
determined by the agencies, unless the
standards are ‘‘inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise
impractical.’’ This requirement pertains
to ‘‘performance-based or designspecific technical specifications and
related management systems practices.’’
MAP–21 also requires that the Agency
adopt a ‘‘standard security level for an
electronic logging device and related
components to be tamper resistant by
using a methodology endorsed by a
nationally recognized standards
organization’’ (49 U.S.C. 31137(b)(2)(C)).
FMCSA is not aware of any technical
standards addressing ELDs. However, in
today’s SNPRM, the Agency employs
several publicly-available consensus
standards consistent with these
statutory mandates, including standards
adopted by the World Wide Web
Consortium to facilitate secure Web
based communications, American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)
codes for identification of geographic
locations and for standard information
display, Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Standards
Association standards addressing secure
transfer of data with a portable storage
device,, International Standards
Organization standards concerning QR
codes, Bluetooth Special Interest Group
(SIG) standards addressing short-range
wireless information transfer, and the
USB Specification (Revision 2.0). In
addition, although not developed by a
private sector consensus standard body,
FMCSA also employs the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) standards concerning data
encryption. A complete list of standards
that FMCSA proposes for adoption is
found in proposed 49 CFR 395.38 of this
SNPRM.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The E-Government Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–347, § 208, 116 Stat.
2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires
Federal agencies to conduct a privacy
impact assessment (PIA) for new or
substantially changed technology that
collects, maintains, or disseminates
information in an identifiable form.
FMCSA has completed a PIA in
connection with today’s SNPRM
addressing the handling of PII. The PIA
is a documented assurance that privacy
issues have been identified and
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 385
Administrative practice and
procedure, Highway safety, Mexico,
Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 386
Administrative practice and
procedure, Brokers, Freight forwarders,
Hazardous materials transportation,
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety, Penalties.
49 CFR Part 390
Highway safety, Intermodal
transportation, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 395
Highway safety, Incorporation by
reference, Motor carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing,
FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter III, parts 385, 386, 390, and 395
to read as follows:
PART 385—SAFETY FITNESS
PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 385
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b),
5105(e), 5109, 13901–13905, 14701, 31133,
31135, 31136, 31137(a), 31144, 31148, and
31502; Sec. 113(a), Pub. L. 103–311; Sec. 408,
Pub. L. 104–88; Sec. 350, Pub. L. 107–87; and
49 CFR 1.87.
2. Amend Appendix B to part 385—
Explanation of Safety Rating Process
section VII by removing the entries for
§§ 395.8(a), 395.8(e), and 395.8(i), and
the two entries for § 395.8(k)(1) and
adding the following violations
§ 390.36(b)(1), § 395.8(a)(1),
§ 395.8(e)(1), § 395.8(e)(2), § 395.8(k)(1),
§ 395.11(b) or (c), § 395.11(d),
§ 395.11(e), and § 395.30(e) in numerical
order to read as follows:
■
O. E-Government Act of 2002
VerDate Mar<15>2010
adequately addressed, ensures
compliance with laws and regulations
related to privacy, and demonstrates the
DOT’s commitment to protect the
privacy of any personal information we
collect, store, retrieve, use, and share.
Additionally, the publication of the PIA
demonstrates DOT’s commitment to
provide appropriate transparency in the
ELD rulemaking process. A copy of the
PIA is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Appendix B to Part 385—Explanation
of Safety Rating Process
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00032
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
VII. List of Acute and Critical Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
§ 390.36(b)(1) Engaging in harassment of a
driver (acute).
*
*
*
*
*
§ 395.8(a)(1) Failing to require a driver to
make a record of duty status using
appropriate method (critical).
§ 395.8(e)(1) Making a false report (critical).
§ 395.8(e)(2) Disabling, deactivating,
disengaging, jamming, or otherwise blocking
or degrading a signal transmission or
reception; tampering with an automatic onboard recording device or ELD; or permitting
or requiring another person to engage in such
activity (acute).
§ 395.8(k)(1) Failing to preserve a driver’s
record of duty status or supporting
documents for 6 months (critical)
§ 395.11(b) or (c) Failing to maintain a
supporting document as required by
§ 395.12(b) or (c) (critical).
§ 395.11(d) Failing to maintain supporting
documents in a manner that permits the
effective matching of the documents to the
driver’s record of duty status (critical).
§ 395.11(e) Altering, defacing, destroying,
mutilating, or obscuring a supporting
document (critical).
§ 395.30(e) Failing to maintain ELD
information (acute).
*
*
*
*
*
PART 386—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR
MOTOR CARRIER, INTERMODAL
EQUIPMENT PROVIDER, BROKER,
FREIGHT FORWARDER, AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PROCEEDINGS
3. The authority citation for part 386
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, chapters 5, 51,
59, 131–141, 145–149, 311, 313, and 315;
Sec. 204, Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, 941
(49 U.S.C. 701 note); Sec. 217, Pub. L. 106–
159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; Sec. 206, Pub. L.
106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1763; subtitle B,
title IV of Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144,
1751–1761; and 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.87.
4. Amend § 386.1 by revising
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
■
§ 386.1
Scope of rules in this part.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, the rules in this part
govern proceedings before the Assistant
Administrator, who also acts as the
Chief Safety Officer of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),
under applicable provisions of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts
350–399), including the commercial
regulations (49 CFR parts 360–379), and
the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49
CFR parts 171–180).
*
*
*
*
*
(c)(1) The rules in § 386.12 govern the
filing of a complaint of a substantial
violation and the handling of the
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17687
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
complaint by the Division
Administrator for the State where the
incident occurs.
(2) The rules in § 386.12a govern the
filing of a complaint of a harassment
violation under § 390.36 and the
handling of the complaint by the
Division Administrator for the State
where the incident occurs.
■ 5. Revise § 386.12 to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 386.12 Complaint of substantial
violation.
(a) Complaint. Any person alleging
that a substantial violation of any
regulation issued under the Motor
Carrier Safety Act of 1984 is occurring
or has occurred within the preceding 60
days may file a written complaint with
the FMCSA Division Administrator for
the State where the incident is occurring
or has occurred. A substantial violation
is one which could reasonably lead to,
or has resulted in, serious personal
injury or death. Allegations brought to
the attention of other officials of the
Agency through letter, email, social
media, phone call, or other means will
be referred to the Division
Administrator for the State where the
incident occurred. Delays in transferring
the allegations to the appropriate
Division Administrator do not stay the
60-day period for filing a written
complaint. Each complaint must be
signed by the complainant and must
contain:
(1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the person who files it;
(2) The name and address of the
alleged violator and, with respect to
each alleged violator, the specific
provisions of the regulations that the
complainant believes were violated; and
(3) A concise but complete statement
of the facts relied upon to substantiate
each allegation, including the date of
each alleged violation.
(b) Action on complaint. Upon the
filing of a complaint of a substantial
violation under paragraph (a) of this
section, the Division Administrator
shall determine whether the complaint
is non-frivolous and meets the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section. If the Division Administrator
determines the complaint is nonfrivolous and meets the requirements of
paragraph (a), the Division
Administrator shall investigate the
complaint. The complainant shall be
timely notified of findings resulting
from such investigation. The Division
Administrator shall not be required to
conduct separate investigations of
duplicative complaints. If the Division
Administrator determines the complaint
is frivolous or does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (a), the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Division Administrator shall dismiss the
complaint and notify the complainant in
writing of the reasons for the dismissal.
If after investigation the Division
Administrator determines that a
violation has occurred, the Division
Administrator may issue a Notice of
Violation under § 386.11(b) or a Notice
of Claim under § 386.11(c) of this part.
(c) Protection of complainant.
Notwithstanding the provisions of
section 552 of title 5, United States
Code, the Division Administrator shall
not disclose the identity of
complainants unless it is determined
that such disclosure is necessary to
prosecute a violation. If disclosure
becomes necessary, the Division
Administrator shall take every practical
means within the Division
Administrator’s authority to ensure that
the complainant is not subject to
harassment, intimidation, disciplinary
action, discrimination, or financial loss
as a result of such disclosure.
■ 6. Add § 386.12a to read as follows:
§ 386.12a
Complaint of harassment.
(a) Complaint. (1) A driver, as defined
in § 390.5, alleging harassment
prohibited by § 390.36 by a motor
carrier is occurring or has occurred
within the preceding 60 days may file
a written complaint with the FMCSA
Division Administrator for the State
where the incident is occurring or has
occurred. Allegations brought to the
attention of other officials in the Agency
through letter, email, social media,
phone call, or other means will be
referred to the Division Administrator
for the State where the incident
occurred. Delays in transferring the
allegations to the appropriate Division
Administrator do not stay the 60-day
period for filing a written complaint.
(2) Each complaint must be signed by
the driver and must contain:
(i) The name, address, and telephone
number of the driver who files it;
(ii) The name and address of the
alleged violator; and
(iii) A concise but complete statement
describing the alleged action taken by
the motor carrier that the driver claims
constitutes harassment, including:
(A) How the ELD or other technology
used in combination with and not
separable from the ELD was used to
contribute to harassment; and
(B) How the motor carrier’s action
violated either § 392.3 or part 395.
(3) Each complaint may include any
supporting evidence that will assist the
Division Administrator in determining
the merits of the complaint.
(b) Action on complaint. Upon the
filing of a complaint of a substantial
violation under paragraph (a) of this
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
section, the Division Administrator
shall determine whether the complaint
is non-frivolous and meets the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section. If the Division Administrator
determines the complaint is nonfrivolous and meets the requirements of
paragraph (a), the Division
Administrator shall investigate the
complaint. The complainant shall be
timely notified of findings resulting
from such investigation. The Division
Administrator shall not be required to
conduct separate investigations of
duplicative complaints. If the Division
Administrator determines the complaint
is frivolous or does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (a), the
Division Administrator shall dismiss the
complaint and notify the complainant in
writing of the reasons for the dismissal.
If after investigation the Division
Administrator determines that a
violation has occurred, the Division
Administrator may issue a Notice of
Violation under § 386.11(b) or a Notice
of Claim under § 386.11(c) of this part.
(c) Protection of complainant.
Notwithstanding the provisions of
section 552 of title 5, United States
Code, the Division Administrator shall
not disclose the identity of
complainants unless it is determined
that such disclosure is necessary to
prosecute a violation. If disclosure
becomes necessary, the Division
Administrator shall take every practical
means within the Division
Administrator’s authority to ensure that
the complainant is not subject to
harassment, intimidation, disciplinary
action, discrimination, or financial loss
as a result of such disclosure.
■ 7. Amend appendix B to part 386 by
adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Part 386—Penalty
Schedule; Violations and Monetary
Penalties
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(7) Harassment. In instances of a violation
of § 390.36(b)(1) the Agency may consider the
‘‘gravity of the violation,’’ for purposes of 49
U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(D), sufficient to warrant
imposition of penalties up to the maximum
permitted by law.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 390—FEDERAL MOTOR
CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS;
GENERAL
8. The authority citation for part 390
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132,
31133, 31136, 31144, 31151, 31502; sec. 114,
Pub. L. 103–311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677–1678;
sec. 212, 217, 229, Pub. L. 106–159, 113 Stat.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17688
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106–159
(as transferred by sec. 4114 and amended by
secs. 4130–4132, Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat.
1144, 1726, 1743–1744); sec. 4136, Pub. L.
109–59, 119 Stat. 114, 1745; sections
32101(d) and 34934, Pub. L. 112–141, 126
Stat. 405, 778, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.
■
9. Add § 390.36 to read as follows:
§ 390.36
Harassment of drivers prohibited.
(a) Harass or harassment defined. As
used in this section, harass or
harassment means an action by a motor
carrier toward a driver employed by the
motor carrier (including an independent
contractor while in the course of
operating a commercial motor vehicle
on behalf of the motor carrier) involving
the use of information available to the
motor carrier through an ELD, as
defined in § 395.2 of this chapter, or
through other technology used in
combination with and not separable
from the ELD, that the motor carrier
knew, or should have known, would
result in the driver violating § 392.3 or
part 395 of this chapter.
(b) Prohibition against harassment. (1)
No motor carrier may harass a driver.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section shall be construed to prevent a
motor carrier from using technology
allowed under this subchapter to
monitor productivity of a driver
provided that such monitoring does not
result in harassment.
(c) Complaint process. A driver who
believes he or she was the subject of
harassment by a motor carrier may file
a written complaint under § 386.12a of
this subchapter.
10. The authority citation for part 395
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136,
31137, and 31502; sec. 113, Pub. L. 103–311,
108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106–
159 (as transferred by sec. 4115 and amended
by secs. 4130–4132, Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat.
1144, 1726, 1743, 1744); sec. 4133, Pub. L.
109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1744; sec. 108, Pub.
L. 110–432, 122 Stat. 4860–4866; sec. 32934,
Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; and 49
CFR 1.87.
11. In Part 395 redesignate § 395.1
through § 395.19 as subpart A, and add
a new subpart heading to read as
follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
Subpart A—General
12. Amend § 395.1 by revising
introductory text paragraphs (e)(1) and
(e)(2) to read as follows:
§ 395.1
*
*
Scope of rules in this part.
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
§ 395.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Electronic logging device (ELD) means
a device or technology that
automatically records a driver’s driving
time and facilitates the accurate
recording of the driver’s hours of
service, and that meets the requirements
of subpart B of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
Supporting document means a
document, in any medium, generated or
received by a motor carrier in the
normal course of business as described
in § 395.11 that can be used, as
produced or with additional identifying
information, by the motor carrier and
enforcement officials to verify the
accuracy of a driver’s record of duty
status.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Add § 395.7 to read as follows:
§ 395.7
PART 395—HOURS OF SERVICE OF
DRIVERS
■
(e) * * * (1) 100 air-mile radius
driver. A driver is exempt from the
requirements of § 395.8 and § 395.11 if:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Operators of property-carrying
commercial motor vehicles not requiring
a commercial driver’s license. Except as
provided in this paragraph, a driver is
exempt from the requirements of
§ 395.3(a)(2), 395.8, and 395.11 and
ineligible to use the provisions of
§ 395.1(e)(1), (g), and (o) if:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Amend § 395.2 by adding the
definitions for Electronic logging device
(ELD) and Supporting document, in
alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Enforcement proceedings.
(a) General. A motor carrier is liable
for any act or failure to act by an
employee, as defined in § 390.5, that
violates any provision of part 395 if the
act or failure to act is within the course
of the motor carrier’s operations. The
fact that an employee may also be liable
for a violation in a proceeding under
this subchapter based on the employee’s
act or failure to act does not affect the
liability of the motor carrier.
(b) Burden of proof. Notwithstanding
any other provision of this subchapter,
the burden of proof is on a motor carrier
to prove that the employee was acting
outside the scope of the motor carrier’s
operations when committing an act or
failing to act in a manner that violates
any provision of this part.
(c) Imputed knowledge of documents.
A motor carrier shall be deemed to have
knowledge of any document in its
possession and any document that is
available to the motor carrier and that
the motor carrier could use in ensuring
compliance with this part. ‘‘Knowledge
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of any document’’ means knowledge of
the fact that a document exists and the
contents of the document.
■ 15. Amend § 395.8 by:
■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph
(i),
■ b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (e), and
■ c. Revising the heading of paragraph
(k), and paragraph (k)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 395.8
Driver’s record of duty status.
(a)(1) Except for a private motor
carrier of passengers (nonbusiness), as
defined in § 390.5, a motor carrier
subject to the requirements of this part
must require each driver used by the
motor carrier to record the driver’s duty
status for each 24-hour period using the
method prescribed in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, as
applicable.
(i) Subject to paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and
(iii) of this section, a motor carrier
operating commercial motor vehicles
must install and require each of its
drivers to use an ELD to record the
driver’s duty status in accordance with
subpart B of this part no later than
[DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE].
(ii) A motor carrier that installs and
requires a driver to use an automatic onboard recording device in accordance
with § 395.15 before [DATE TWO
YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE FINAL RULE] may continue to
use the compliant automatic on-board
recording device no later than [DATE
FOUR YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
(iii) A motor carrier may require a
driver who must complete a record of
duty status not more than 8 days within
any 30-day period to record the driver’s
duty status manually, in accordance
with this section. The record of duty
status must be recorded in duplicate for
each 24-hour period for which recording
is required. The duty status shall be
recorded on a specified grid, as shown
in paragraph (g) of this section. The grid
and the requirements of paragraph (d) of
this section may be combined with any
company form.
(iv) Subject to paragraph (a)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this section, until [DATE
TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], a motor
carrier operating commercial motor
vehicles shall require each of its drivers
to record the driver’s record of duty
status:
(A) Using an ELD that meets the
requirements of subpart B of this part;
(B) Using an automatic on-board
recording device that meets the
requirements of § 395.15; or
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(C) Manually, recorded on a specified
grid as shown in paragraph (g) of this
section. The grid and the requirements
of paragraph (d) of this section may be
combined with any company form. The
record of duty status must be recorded
in duplicate for each 24-hour period for
which recording is required.
(2) A driver operating a commercial
motor vehicle must:
(i) Record the driver’s duty status
using one of the methods under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and
(ii) Submit the driver’s record of duty
status to the motor carrier within 8 days
of the 24-hour period to which the
record pertains.
(3) Unless an extension of time has
been granted under § 395.34(d), a motor
carrier required to use an ELD is in
violation of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section during any period in which the
motor carrier is operating a commercial
motor vehicle while the ELD is
malfunctioning.
*
*
*
*
*
(e)(1) No driver or motor carrier may
make a false report in connection with
a duty status.
(2) No driver or motor carrier shall
disable, deactivate, disengage, jam, or
otherwise block or degrade a signal
transmission or reception, or reengineer,
reprogram, or otherwise tamper with an
automatic on-board recording device or
ELD so that the device does not
accurately record and retain required
data.
(3) No driver or motor carrier shall
permit or require another person to
disable, deactivate, disengage, jam, or
otherwise block or degrade a signal
transmission or reception, or reengineer,
reprogram, or otherwise tamper with an
automatic on-board recording device or
ELD so that the device does not
accurately record and retain required
data.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Retention of driver’s record of duty
status and supporting documents. (1) A
motor carrier shall retain and maintain
records of duty status and supporting
documents required under this part for
each of its drivers for a period of not
less than 6 months from the date of
receipt.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 16. Add § 395.11 to read as follows:
§ 395.11
Supporting documents.
(a) Applicability. The supporting
document provisions under this section
take effect [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
(b) Submission of supporting
documents to motor carrier. Except for
a private motor carrier of passengers
(nonbusiness), a driver must submit to
the driver’s employer the driver’s
supporting documents required to be
maintained under this section within 8
days of either the 24-hour period to
which the documents pertain or the day
the document comes into the driver’s
possession, whichever is later.
(c) Supporting document retention. (1)
Subject to paragraph (d) of this section,
a motor carrier must maintain each
supporting document generated or
received in the normal course of
business in the following categories for
each of its drivers for every 24-hour
period to verify on-duty not driving
time in accordance with § 395.8(k):
(i) Each bill of lading, itinerary,
schedule, or equivalent document that
indicates the origin and destination of
each trip;
(ii) Each dispatch record, trip record,
or equivalent document;
(iii) Each expense receipt related to
any on-duty not driving time;
(iv) Each electronic mobile
communication record, reflecting
communications transmitted through a
fleet management system; and
(v) Each payroll record, settlement
sheet, or equivalent document that
indicates what and how a driver was
paid.
(2)(i) A supporting document must
include each of the following data
elements:
(A) On the document or on another
document that enables the carrier to link
the document to the driver, the driver’s
name or personal identification number
(PIN) or a unit (vehicle) number if the
unit number can be associated with the
driver operating the unit;
(B) The date, which must be the date
at the location where the date is
recorded;
(C) The location, which must include
the name of the nearest city, town, or
village to enable Federal, State, or local
enforcement personnel to quickly
determine a vehicle’s location on a
standard map or road atlas; and
(D) Subject to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of
this section, the time, which must be
convertible to the local time at the
location where it is recorded.
(ii) If a driver has fewer than 10
supporting documents containing the
four data elements under paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section for a 24-hour
period, a document containing the data
elements under (c)(2)(i)(A)–(C) of this
section is considered a supporting
document for purposes of paragraph (d)
of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17689
(d) Maximum number of supporting
documents. (1) Subject to paragraphs
(d)(3) and (4) of this section, a motor
carrier need not maintain more than 10
supporting documents for an individual
driver’s 24-hour period under paragraph
(c) of this section.
(2) In applying the limit on the
number of documents required under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, each
electronic mobile communication
record applicable to an individual
driver’s 24-hour period shall be counted
as a single document.
(3) If a driver submitted more than 10
supporting documents for a 24-hour
period, a motor carrier must retain the
supporting documents containing
earliest and latest time indication
among the 10 supporting documents
maintained.
(4) In addition to other supporting
documents required under this section,
and notwithstanding the maximum
number of documents under paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, a motor carrier that
requires a driver to complete a paper
record of duty status under
§ 395.8(a)(1)(iii) must maintain toll
receipts for any period when the driver
kept paper records of duty status.
(e) Link to driver’s record of duty
status. A motor carrier must maintain
supporting documents in such a manner
that they may be effectively matched to
the corresponding driver’s record of
duty status.
(f) Prohibition of destruction. No
motor carrier or driver may obscure,
deface, destroy, mutilate, or alter
existing information contained in a
supporting document.
(g)(1) On request during a roadside
inspection, a driver must make available
to an authorized Federal, State, or local
official for the official’s review any
supporting document in the driver’s
possession.
(2) A driver need not produce a
supporting document under paragraph
(g)(1) of this section in a format other
than the format in which the driver
possesses it.
(h) Self-compliance systems. (1)
FMCSA may authorize on a case-by-case
basis motor carrier self-compliance
systems.
(2) Requests for use of a supporting
document self-compliance system may
be submitted to FMCSA under the
procedures described in 49 CFR part
381, subpart C (Procedures for Applying
for Exemptions).
(3) FMCSA will consider requests
concerning types of supporting
documents maintained by a motor
carrier under § 395.8(k)(1) and the
method by which a driver retains and
maintains a copy of the record of duty
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17690
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
status for the previous 7 days and makes
it available for inspection while on duty
in accordance with § 395.8.
■ 17. Amend § 395.15 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 395.15 Automatic on-board recording
devices.
(a) Authority to use. (1) A motor
carrier that installs and requires a driver
to use an automatic on-board recording
device in accordance with this section
before [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE] may continue to use the
compliant automatic on-board recording
device no later than [DATE FOUR
YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE FINAL RULE]. Otherwise, the
authority to use automatic on-board
recording devices (AOBRDs) under this
section ends on [DATE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
FINAL RULE].
(2) A motor carrier may require a
driver to use an automatic on-board
recording device to record the driver’s
hours of service.
(3) Every driver required by a motor
carrier to use an automatic on-board
recording device shall use such device
to record the driver’s hours of service.
*
*
*
*
*
§§ 395.16–395.19
[Reserved]
18. Add and reserve §§ 395.16 through
395.19.
■ 19. Amend part 395 by adding a new
subpart B, consisting of §§ 395.20
through 395.38, and Appendix to
Subpart B of Part 395, to read as follows:
■
Subpart B—Electronic Logging
Devices (ELDs)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 395.20 ELD applicability and scope.
§ 395.22 Motor carrier responsibilities—In
general.
§ 395.24 Driver responsibilities—In general.
§ 395.26 ELD data automatically recorded.
§ 395.28 Special driving categories; other
driving statuses.
§ 395.30 ELD record submissions, edits,
annotations, and data retention.
§ 395.32 Non-authenticated driver logs.
§ 395.34 ELD malfunctions and data
diagnostic events.
§ 395.36 Driver access to records.
§ 395.38 Incorporation by reference.
Appendix to Subpart B of Part 395—
Functional Specifications for All
Electronic Logging Devices (ELDS)
Subpart B—Electronic Logging
Devices (ELDs)
§ 395.20
ELD applicability and scope.
(a) Scope. This subpart applies to
ELDs used to record a driver’s hours of
service under § 395.8(a).
(b) Applicability. An ELD used after
[DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
must meet the requirements of this
subpart.
(c) ELD system. Throughout this
subpart, a reference to an ELD includes,
to the extent applicable, an ELD support
system.
§ 395.22 Motor carrier responsibilities—In
general.
(a) Registered ELD required. A motor
carrier required to use an ELD must use
only an ELD that is listed on the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s
registered ELDs list, accessible through
the Agency’s Web site.
(b) User rights management. (1) This
paragraph (b) of this section applies to
a motor carrier whose drivers use ELDs
and to the motor carrier’s support
personnel who have been authorized by
the motor carrier to access ELD records
and make or suggest authorized edits.
(2) A motor carrier must:
(i) Actively manage ELD accounts,
including creating, deactivating, and
updating accounts, and ensure that
properly authenticated individuals have
ELD accounts with appropriate rights;
(ii) Assign a unique ELD username to
each user account with the required
user identification data;
(iii) Ensure that a driver’s license used
in the creation of an ELD driver account
is valid and corresponds to the intended
driver; and
(iv) Ensure that information entered to
create a new account is accurate.
(c) Driver identification data. (1) The
ELD user account assigned by the motor
carrier to a driver requires the following
data elements:
(i) A driver’s first and last name, as
reflected on the driver’s license;
(ii) A unique ELD username selected
by the motor carrier;
(iii) The driver’s valid driver’s license
number; and
(iv) The State or jurisdiction that
issued the driver’s license.
(2) The driver’s license number or
Social Security number must not be
used as, or as part of, the username for
the account created on an ELD.
(d) Motor carrier support personnel
identification data. The ELD user
account assigned by a motor carrier to
support personnel requires the
following data elements:
(1) The individual’s first and last
name, as reflected on a government
issued identification; and
(2) A unique ELD username selected
by the motor carrier.
(e) Proper log-in required. The motor
carrier must require that its drivers and
support personnel log into the ELD
system using their proper identification
data.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(f) Calibration. A motor carrier must
ensure that an ELD is calibrated and
maintained in accordance with the
provider’s specifications.
(g) Portable ELDs. If a driver uses a
portable ELD, the motor carrier shall
ensure that the ELD is mounted in a
fixed position during the operation of
the commercial motor vehicle and
visible to the driver when the driver is
seated in the normal driving position.
(h) In-vehicle information. A motor
carrier must ensure that its drivers
possess onboard a commercial motor
vehicle an ELD information packet
containing the following items:
(1) A user’s manual for the driver
describing how to operate the ELD;
(2) An instruction sheet for the driver
describing the data transfer mechanisms
supported by the ELD and step-by-step
instructions for the driver to produce
and transfer the driver’s hours-of-service
records to an authorized safety official;
(3) An instruction sheet for the driver
describing ELD malfunction reporting
requirements and recordkeeping
procedures during ELD malfunctions;
and
(4) A supply of blank driver’s records
of duty status graph-grids sufficient to
record the driver’s duty status and other
related information for a minimum of 8
days.
(i) Record backup and security. (1) A
motor carrier must maintain for 6
months a back-up copy of the ELD
records on a device separate from that
on which the original data are stored.
(2) A motor carrier must maintain a
driver’s ELD records so as to protect a
driver’s privacy in a manner consistent
with sound business practices.
(j) Record production. When
requested by an authorized safety
official, a motor carrier must produce
ELD records in an electronic format
either on request or, if the motor carrier
has multiple offices or terminals, within
the time permitted under § 390.29.
§ 395.24 Driver responsibilities—In
general.
(a) In general. A driver must provide
the information the ELD requires as
prompted by the ELD and required by
the motor carrier.
(b) Driver’s duty status. A driver must
input the driver’s duty status by
selecting among the following categories
available on the ELD:
(1) ‘‘Off duty’’ or ‘‘OFF’’ or ‘‘1’’;
(2) ‘‘Sleeper berth’’ or ‘‘SB’’ or ‘‘2’’, to
be used only if sleeper berth is used;
(3) ‘‘Driving’’ or ‘‘D’’ or ‘‘3’’; or
(4) ‘‘On-duty not driving’’ or ‘‘ON’’ or
‘‘4’’.
(c) Miscellaneous data. (1) A driver
must manually input the following
information in the ELD:
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(i) Annotations, when applicable;
(ii) Driver’s location description,
when prompted by the ELD; and
(iii) Output file comment, when
directed by an authorized safety officer.
(2) A driver must manually input or
verify the following information on the
ELD:
(i) Commercial motor vehicle power
unit number;
(ii) Trailer number(s), if applicable;
and
(iii) Shipping document number, if
applicable.
(d) Driver use of ELD. On request by
an authorized safety official, a driver
must produce and transfer from an ELD
the driver’s hours-of-service records in
accordance with the instruction sheet
provided by the motor carrier.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 395.26
ELD data automatically recorded.
(a) In general. An ELD provides the
following functions and automatically
records the data elements listed in this
section in accordance with the
requirements contained in the appendix
to subpart B of part 395.
(b) Data automatically recorded. The
ELD automatically records the following
data elements:
(1) Date;
(2) Time;
(3) CMV geographic location
information;
(4) Engine hours;
(5) Vehicle miles;
(6) Driver or authenticated user
identification data;
(7) Vehicle identification data; and
(8) Motor carrier identification data.
(c) Change of duty status. When a
driver indicates a change of duty status
under § 395.24(b), the ELD records the
data elements in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (8) of this section.
(d) Intermediate recording. (1) When
a commercial motor vehicle is in motion
and there has not been a duty status
change or another intermediate
recording in the previous 1 hour, the
ELD automatically records an
intermediate recording that includes the
data elements in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (8) of this section.
(2) If the intermediate recording is
created during a period when the driver
indicates authorized personal use of a
commercial motor vehicle, the data
elements in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5)
of this section (engine hours and vehicle
miles) will be left blank and paragraph
(b)(3) of this section (location) will be
recorded with a single decimal point
resolution (approximately within a 10mile radius).
(e) Change in special driving category.
If a driver indicates a change in status
under § 395.28(a)(2), the ELD records
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
the data elements in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (8) of this section.
(f) Certification of the driver’s daily
record. The ELD provides a function for
recording the driver’s certification of the
driver’s records for every 24-hour
period. When a driver certifies or
recertifies the driver’s records for a
given 24-hour period under
§ 395.30(b)(2), the ELD records the date,
time and driver identification data
elements in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and
(6) of this section.
(g) Log in/log out. When an authorized
user logs into or out of an ELD, the ELD
records the data elements in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) and (b)(4) through (8) of
this section.
(h) Engine power up/shut down.
When a commercial motor vehicle’s
engine is powered up or powered down,
the ELD records the data elements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(i) Authorized personal use. If the
record is created during a period when
the driver has indicated authorized
personal use of a commercial motor
vehicle, the data element in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section is logged with a
single decimal point resolution
(approximately within a 10-mile radius).
(j) Malfunction and data diagnostic
event. When an ELD detects or clears a
malfunction or data diagnostic event,
the ELD records the data elements in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) and (b)(4)
through (8) of this section.
§ 395.28. Special driving categories; other
driving statuses.
(a) Special driving categories. (1)
Motor carrier options. A motor carrier
may configure an ELD to authorize a
driver to indicate that the driver is
operating a commercial motor vehicle
under any of the following special
driving categories:
(i) Authorized personal use; and
(ii) Yard moves.
(2) Driver’s responsibilities. A driver
operating a commercial motor vehicle
under one of the authorized categories
listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
(i) Must select on the ELD the
applicable special driving category
before the start of the status and deselect
when the indicated status ends; and
(ii) When prompted by the ELD,
annotate the driver’s ELD record
describing the driver’s activity.
(b) Drivers exempt from ELD use. A
motor carrier may configure an ELD to
designate a driver as exempt from ELD
use.
(c) Other driving statuses. A driver
operating a commercial motor vehicle
under any exception under § 390.3(f) or
§ 395.1 who is not covered under
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17691
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must
annotate the driver’s ELD record
explaining the applicable exemption.
§ 395.30 ELD record submissions, edits,
annotations, and data retention.
(a) True and correct record keeping. A
driver and the motor carrier must ensure
that the driver’s ELD records are
accurate.
(b) Review of records and certification
by driver. (1) A driver must review the
driver’s ELD records, edit and correct
inaccurate records, enter any missing
information, and certify the accuracy of
the information.
(2) Using the certification function of
the ELD, the driver must certify the
driver’s records by affirmatively
selecting ‘‘Agree’’ immediately
following a statement that reads, ‘‘I
hereby certify that my data entries and
my record of duty status for this 24-hour
period are true and correct.’’ The driver
must certify the record immediately
after the final required entry has been
made or corrected for the 24-hour
period.
(3) The driver must submit the
driver’s certified ELD records to the
motor carrier in accordance with
§ 395.8(a)(2).
(4) If any edits are necessary after the
driver submits the records to the motor
carrier, the driver must recertify the
record after the edits are made.
(c) Edits, entries, and annotations. (1)
Subject to the edit limitations of an ELD,
a driver may edit, enter missing
information, and annotate ELD recorded
events. When edits, additions, or
annotations are necessary, a driver must
use the ELD and respond to the ELD’s
prompts.
(2) The driver or support personnel
must annotate each change or addition
to a record.
(3) In the case of team drivers, if there
was a mistake resulting in the wrong
driver being assigned driving-time hours
by the ELD, and if the team drivers were
both indicated in each other’s records
for that period as co-drivers, driving
time may be edited and reassigned
between the team drivers following the
procedure supported by the ELD.
(d) Motor carrier-proposed edits. (1)
On review of a driver’s submitted
records, the motor carrier may request
edits to a driver’s records of duty status
to ensure accuracy. A driver must
confirm or reject any proposed change,
implement the appropriate edits on the
driver’s record of duty status, and
recertify and resubmit the records in
order for any motor carrier-proposed
changes to take effect.
(2) A motor carrier may not request
edits to the driver’s electronic records
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17692
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
before the records have been submitted
by the driver.
(3) Edits requested by any system or
by any person other than the driver
must require the driver’s electronic
confirmation or rejection.
(e) Coercion prohibited. A motor
carrier may not coerce a driver to make
a false certification of the driver’s data
entries or record of duty status.
(f) Motor carrier data retention
requirements. A motor carrier must not
alter or erase, or permit or require
alteration or erasure of, the original
information collected concerning the
driver’s hours of service, the source data
streams used to provide that
information, or information contained
in any ELD support system that uses the
original information and source data
streams.
§ 395.32
Non-authenticated driver logs.
(a) Tracking non-authenticated
operation. The ELD must associate the
non-authenticated operation of a
commercial motor vehicle with a single
account labeled ‘‘Unidentified Driver’’
as soon as the vehicle is in motion, if
no driver has logged into the ELD.
(b) Driver. When a driver logs into an
ELD, the driver must review any
unassigned driving time when
prompted by the ELD and must:
(1) Assume any records that belong to
the driver under the driver’s account; or
(2) Indicate that the records are not
attributable to the driver.
(c) Motor carrier. (1) A motor carrier
must ensure that records of unidentified
driving are reviewed and must:
(i) Annotate the record, explaining
why the time is unassigned; or
(ii) Assign the record to the
appropriate driver to correctly reflect
the driver’s hours of service.
(2) A motor carrier must retain
unidentified driving records for each
ELD for a minimum of 6 months from
the date of receipt.
(3) During a safety inspection, audit or
investigation by an authorized safety
official, a motor carrier must make
available unidentified driving records
from the ELD corresponding to the time
period for which ELD records are
required.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 395.34 ELD malfunctions and data
diagnostic events.
(a) Recordkeeping during ELD
malfunctions. In case of an ELD
malfunction, a driver must do the
following:
(1) Note the malfunction of the ELD
and provide written notice of the
malfunction to the motor carrier within
24 hours;
(2) Reconstruct the record of duty
status for the current 24-hour period
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
and the previous 7 consecutive days,
and record the records of duty status on
graph-grid paper logs that comply with
§ 395.8, unless the driver already
possesses the records or the records are
retrievable from the ELD; and
(3) Continue to manually prepare a
record of duty status until the ELD is
serviced and brought back into
compliance with this subpart.
(b) Inspections during malfunctions.
When a driver is inspected for hours of
service compliance during an ELD
malfunction, the driver must provide
the authorized safety official the driver’s
records of duty status manually
maintained as specified under
paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section.
(c) Driver requirements during ELD
data diagnostic events. If an ELD
indicates that there is a data
inconsistency that generates a data
diagnostic event, the driver must follow
the motor carrier’s and ELD provider’s
recommendations in resolving the data
inconsistency.
(d) Motor carrier requirements for
repair, replacement, or service. (1) If a
motor carrier receives or discovers
information concerning the malfunction
of an ELD, the motor carrier must take
corrective actions to correct the
malfunction of the ELD within 8 days of
discovery of the condition or a driver’s
notification to the motor carrier,
whichever occurs first.
(2) A motor carrier seeking to extend
the period of time permitted for repair,
replacement, or service of one or more
ELDs shall notify the FMCSA Division
Administrator for the State of the motor
carrier’s principal place of business
within 5 days after a driver notifies the
motor carrier under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section. Each request for an
extension under this section must be
signed by the motor carrier and must
contain:
(i) The name, address, and telephone
number of the motor carrier
representative who files the request;
(ii) The make, model, and serial
number of each ELD;
(iii) The date and location of each
ELD malfunction as reported by the
driver to the carrier; and
(iv) A concise statement describing
actions taken by the motor carrier to
make a good faith effort to repair,
replace, or service the ELD units,
including why the carrier needs
additional time beyond the 8 days
provided by this section.
(3) If FMCSA determines that the
motor carrier is continuing to make a
good faith effort to ensure repair,
replacement, or service to address the
malfunction of each ELD, FMCSA may
allow an additional period.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(4) FMCSA will provide written
notice to the motor carrier of its
determination. The determination may
include any conditions that FMCSA
considers necessary to ensure hours-ofservice compliance. The determination
shall constitute a final agency action.
(5) A carrier providing a request for
extension that meets the requirements of
paragraph (d)(2) of this section is
deemed in compliance with
§ 395.8(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2) until FMCSA
makes an extension determination
under this section, provided the motor
carrier and driver continue to comply
with the other requirements of this
section.
§ 395.36
Driver access to records.
(a) Records on ELD. Drivers must be
able to access their own ELD records. A
motor carrier must not introduce a
process that would require a driver to go
through the motor carrier to obtain
copies of the driver’s own ELD records
if such records exist on or are
automatically retrievable through the
ELD operated by the driver.
(b) Records in motor carrier’s
possession. On request, a motor carrier
must provide a driver with access to and
copies of the driver’s own ELD records
unavailable under paragraph (a) of this
section during the period a motor carrier
is required to retain the records under
§ 395.8(k).
§ 395.38
Incorporation by reference.
(a) Incorporation by reference. Certain
materials are incorporated by reference
in part 395, with the approval of the
Director of the Office of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration must publish notice of
change in the Federal Register, and the
material must be available to the public.
All approved material is available for
inspection at the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, Office of Bus and
Truck Standards and Operations (MC–
PS), (202) 366–4325, and is available
from the sources listed below. It is also
available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030 or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.
(b) Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Standards
Association. 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway,
NJ 08854–4141. Web page is https://
standards.ieee.org/.
Telephone is (732) 981–0060.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(1) ‘‘Standard for Authentication in
Host Attachments of Transient Storage
Devices,’’ IEEE Standards Association:
2009 (IEEE Std. 1667–2009).
Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395,
paragraph 4.10.2.1.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) Universal Serial Bus Implementers
Forum (USBIF). 3855 SW. 153rd Drive,
Beaverton, Oregon 97006. Web page is
https://www.usb.org. Telephone is (503)
619–0426.
(1) ‘‘Universal Serial Bus
Specification,’’ Compaq, HewlettPackard, Intel, Lucent, Microsoft, NEC,
Philips; April 27, 2000 (Revision 2.0).
Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395,
paragraphs 4.9.1, Table 5, 4.9.2,
4.10.2.1, and 4.10.3.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). 11 West 42nd Street,
New York, New York 10036. Web page
is https://webstore.ansi.org. Telephone is
(212) 642–4900.
(1) ‘‘ANSI INCITS 446–2008,
American National Standard for
Information Technology—Identifying
Attributes for Named Physical and
Cultural Geographic Features (Except
Roads and Highways) of the United
States, Its Territories, Outlying Areas,
and Freely Associated Areas and the
Waters of the Same to the Limit of the
Twelve-Mile Statutory Zone (10/28/
2008),’’ (ANSI INCITS 446–2008).
Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395,
paragraph 4.4.2. (For further
information, see also the Geographic
Names Information System (GNIS) at
https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/
index.html.)
(2) ‘‘Information Systems—Coded
Character Sets—7-Bit American
National Standard Code for Information
Interchange (7-Bit ASCII),’’ ANSI
INCITS 4–1986 (R2007). Incorporation
by reference approved for appendix to
subpart B of part 395, Table 3 and
paragraph 4.8.2.1.
(e) International Standards
Organization (ISO). 1, ch. de la VoieCreuse, CP 56—CH–1211, Geneva 20,
Switzerland. Web page is https://
www.iso.org. Telephone is 41 22 749 03
46.
(1) ‘‘ISO/IEC 18004:2006 Information
technology—Automatic identification
and data capture techniques—QR Code
2005 bar code symbology specification.’’
Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395,
paragraph 4.10.2.2.
(2) ‘‘ISO/IEC 17568 Information
technology—Telecommunications and
information exchange between
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
systems—Close proximity electric
induction wireless communications.’’
Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395,
paragraph 4.10.2.3.
(f) Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). C/o Association Management
Solutions, LLC (AMS) 48377 Freemont
Blvd., Suite 117, Freemont, CA 94538.
Telephone is (510) 492–4080.
(1) Request for Comment (RFC) 5246–
‘‘The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol Version 1.2,’’ August 2008.
Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395,
paragraph 4.10.1.1.
(2) RFC 5321—‘‘Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol,’’ October 2008. Incorporation
by reference approved for appendix to
subpart B of part 395, paragraph
4.10.1.3.
(3) RFC 5322—‘‘Internet Message
Format,’’ October 2008. Incorporation
by reference approved for appendix to
subpart B of part 395, paragraph
4.10.1.3.
(g) U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). 100 Bureau Drive,
Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–
1070. Web page is https://www.nist.gov.
Telephone is (301) 975–6478.
(1) ‘‘Federal Information Processing
Standards (FIPS) Publication 197,
November 26, 2001, Announcing the
ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD
(AES).’’ Incorporation by reference
approved for appendix to subpart B of
part 395, paragraphs 4.10.1.3 and
4.10.2.1.
(2) ‘‘Special Publication (SP) 800–32,
February 26, 2001, Introduction to
Public Key Technology and the Federal
PKI Infrastructure.’’ Incorporation by
reference approved for appendix to
subpart B of part 395, paragraphs
4.10.1.1 and 4.10.1.3.
(h) World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C). 32 Vassar Street, Building 32–
G514, Cambridge, MA 02139. Web page
is https://www.w3.org. Telephone is
(617) 253–2613.
(1) ‘‘Web Services Description
Language (WSDL) 1.1, W3C Note 15,
March 2001,’’ Ariba, IBM Research,
Microsoft. Incorporation by reference
approved for appendix to subpart B of
part 395, paragraph 4.10.1.1(1).
(2) ‘‘Simple Object Access Protocol
(SOAP) Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging
Framework (Second Edition), W3C
Recommendation 27 April 2007,’’ W3C®
(MIT, ERCIM, Keio). Incorporation by
reference approved for appendix to
subpart B of part 395, paragraph
4.10.1.1(2).
(3) ‘‘Extensible Markup Language
(XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition), W3C
Recommendation 26 November 2008,’’
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17693
W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio).
Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395,
paragraph 4.10.1.1(3).
(4) RFC 2616 ‘‘Hypertext Transfer
Protocol—HTTP/1.1’’ Incorporation by
reference approved for appendix to
subpart B of part 395, paragraph
4.10.1.1.
(i) Bluetooth SIG, Inc., 5209 Lake
Washington Blvd. NE., Suite 350,
Kirkland, WA 98033. Web page is
https://www.bluetooth.org/Technical/
Specifications/adopted.htm. Telephone
is (425) 691–3535.
(1) ‘‘Specification of the Bluetooth
System: Wireless Connections Made
Easy,’’ Bluetooth SIG Version, Covered
Core Package version 2.1 + EDR or a
higher version. Incorporation by
reference approved for appendix to
subpart B of part 395, paragraph
4.10.1.2.
(2) [Reserved]
Appendix to Subpart B of Part 395—
Functional Specifications for All
Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs)
Table of Contents
1. SCOPE AND DESCRIPTION
1.1. ELD Function
1.2. System User
1.3. System Architecture
1.4. System Design
1.5. Sections of Appendix
2. ABBREVIATIONS
3. DEFINITIONS; NOTATIONS
3.1. Definitions
3.1.1. Databus
3.1.2. ELD Event
3.1.3. Exempt Driver
3.1.4. Geo-Location
3.1.5. Ignition Power Cycle, Ignition Power
On Cycle, Ignition Power Off Cycle
3.1.6. Unidentified Driver
3.2. Notations
4. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1. ELD User Accounts
4.1.1. Account Types
4.1.2. Account Creation
4.1.3. Account Security
4.1.4. Account Management
4.1.5. Non-Authenticated Operation
4.2. ELD-Vehicle Interface
4.3. ELD Inputs
4.3.1. ELD Sensing
4.3.1.1. Engine Power Status
4.3.1.2. Vehicle Motion Status
4.3.1.3. Vehicle Miles
4.3.1.4. Engine Hours
4.3.1.5. Date and Time
4.3.1.6. CMV Position
4.3.1.7. CMV VIN
4.3.2. Driver’s Manual Entries
4.3.2.1. Driver’s Entry of Required Event
Data Fields
4.3.2.2. Driver’s Status Inputs
4.3.2.2.1. Driver’s Indication of Duty Status
4.3.2.2.2. Driver’s Indication of Situations
Impacting Driving Time Recording
4.3.2.3. Driver’s Certification of Records
4.3.2.4. Driver’s Data Transfer Initiation
Input
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
17694
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
4.3.2.5. Driver’s Entry of an Output File
Comment
4.3.2.6. Driver’s Annotation of Records
4.3.2.7. Driver’s Entry of Location
Information
4.3.2.8. Driver’s Record Entry/Edit
4.3.3. Motor Carrier’s Manual Entries
4.3.3.1. ELD Configuration
4.3.3.1.1. Configuration of Available
Categories Impacting Driving Time
Recording
4.3.3.1.2. Configuration of Using ELDs
4.4. ELD Processing and Calculations
4.4.1. Conditions for Automatic Setting of
Duty Status
4.4.1.1. Automatic Setting of Duty Status to
Driving
4.4.1.2. Automatic Setting of Duty Status to
On-Duty Not Driving
4.4.1.3. Other Automatic Duty-Status
Setting Actions Prohibited
4.4.2. Geo-Location Conversions
4.4.3. Date and Time Conversions
4.4.4. Setting of Event Parameters in
Records, Edits, and Entries
4.4.4.1. Event Sequence Identifier (ID)
number
4.4.4.2. Event Record Status, Event Record
Origin, Event Type Setting
4.4.4.2.1. Records Automatically Logged by
ELD
4.4.4.2.2. Driver Edits
4.4.4.2.3. Driver entries
4.4.4.2.4. Driver’s Assumption of
Unidentified Driver Logs
4.4.4.2.5. Motor Carrier Edit Suggestions
4.4.4.2.6. Driver’s Actions Over Motor
Carrier Edit Suggestions
4.4.5. Data Integrity Check Functions
4.4.5.1. Event Data Check
4.4.5.1.1. Event Checksum Calculation
4.4.5.1.2. Event Data Check Calculation
4.4.5.2. Line Data Check
4.4.5.2.1. Line Checksum Calculation
4.4.5.2.2. Line Data Check Calculation
4.4.5.2.3. Line Data Check Value Inclusion
in Output File
4.4.5.3. File Data Check
4.4.5.3.1. File Checksum Calculation
4.4.5.3.2. File Data Check Value
Calculation
4.4.5.3.3. File Data Check Value Inclusion
in Output File
4.5. ELD Recording
4.5.1. Events and Data to Record
4.5.1.1. Event: Change in Driver’s Duty
Status
4.5.1.2. Event: Intermediate Logs
4.5.1.3. Event: Change in Driver’s
Indication of Allowed Conditions that
Impact Driving Time Recording
4.5.1.4. Event: Driver’s Certification of
Own Records
4.5.1.5. Event: Driver’s Login/Logout
Activity
4.5.1.6. Event: CMV’s Engine Power Up
and Shut Down Activity
4.5.1.7. Event: ELD Malfunction and Data
Diagnostics Occurrence
4.6. ELD’s Self-Monitoring of Required
Functions
4.6.1. Compliance Self-Monitoring,
Malfunctions and Data Diagnostic Events
4.6.1.1. Power Compliance Monitoring
4.6.1.2. Engine Synchronization
Compliance Monitoring
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
4.6.1.3. Timing Compliance Monitoring
4.6.1.4. Positioning Compliance
Monitoring
4.6.1.5. Data Recording Compliance
Monitoring
4.6.1.6. Monitoring Records Logged under
the Unidentified Driver Profile
4.6.1.7. Data Transfer Compliance
Monitoring
4.6.1.8. Other Technology-Specific
Operational Health Monitoring
4.6.2. ELD Malfunction Status Indicator
4.6.2.1. Visual Malfunction Indicator
4.6.3. ELD Data Diagnostic Status Indicator
4.6.3.1. Visual data diagnostics indicator
4.7. Special Purpose ELD Functions
4.7.1. Driver’s ELD Volume Control
4.7.2. Driver’s Access to Own ELD Records
4.7.3. Privacy Preserving Provision for Use
During Personal Uses of a CMV
4.8. ELD Outputs
4.8.1. Information To Be Displayed by an
ELD
4.8.2. ELD Data File
4.8.2.1. ELD Output File Standard
4.8.2.1.1. Header Segment
4.8.2.1.2. User List
4.8.2.1.3. CMV List
4.8.2.1.4. ELD Event List for Driver’s
Record of Duty Status
4.8.2.1.5. Event Annotations, Comments,
and Driver’s Location Description
4.8.2.1.6. ELD Event List for Driver’s
Certification of Own Records
4.8.2.1.7. Malfunction and Diagnostic
Event Records
4.8.2.1.8. ELD Login/Logout Report
4.8.2.1.9. CMV’s Engine Power-Up and
Shut Down Activity
4.8.2.1.10. ELD Event Log List for the
Unidentified Driver Profile
4.8.2.1.11. File Data Check Value
4.8.2.2. ELD Output File Name Standard
4.9. Data Transfer Capability Requirements
4.9.1. Data Reporting During Roadside
Safety Inspections
4.9.2. Motor Carrier Data Reporting
4.10. Communications Standards for the
Transmittal of Data Files from ELDs
4.10.1. Primary Wireless Data Transfer
Mechanisms
4.10.1.1. Wireless Data Transfer via Web
Services
4.10.1.2. Wireless Data Transfer via
Bluetooth®
4.10.1.3. Wireless Data Transfer Through EMail
4.10.2. Backup Wired and Proximity Data
Transfer Mechanisms
4.10.2.1. USB 2.0
4.10.2.2. Data Transfer via Scannable QR
Codes
4.10.2.3. Data Transfer via TransferJetTM
4.10.2.4. Printout
4.10.3. Motor Carrier Support System Data
Transmission.
5. ELD-CERTIFICATION—REGISTRATION
5.1. Certification of Conformity with
FMCSA Standards
5.1.1. Registering Online
5.1.2. Keeping Information Current
5.1.3. Authentication Information
Distribution
5.2. ELD Provider’s Registration.
5.2.1. Online Certification
5.2.2. Procedure to Validate an ELD’s
Authenticity
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5.3. Publicly Available Information
6. REFERENCES
7. DATA ELEMENTS DICTIONARY
7.1.1. 24-Hour Period Starting Time
7.1.2. Carrier Name
7.1.3. Carrier’s USDOT Number
7.1.4. CMV Power Unit Number
7.1.5. CMV VIN
7.1.6. Comment/Annotation
7.1.7. Data Diagnostic Event Indicator
Status
7.1.8. Date
7.1.9. Distance Since Last Valid
Coordinates
7.1.10. Driver’s License Issuing State
7.1.11. Driver’s License Number
7.1.12. Driver’s Location Description
7.1.13. ELD Account Type
7.1.14. ELD Authentication Value
7.1.15. ELD Identifier
7.1.16. ELD Registration ID
7.1.17. ELD Username
7.1.18. Engine Hours
7.1.19. Event Code
7.1.20. Event Data Check Value
7.1.21. Event Record Origin
7.1.22. Event Record Status
7.1.23. Event Sequence ID Number
7.1.24. Event Type
7.1.25. Exempt Driver Configuration
7.1.26. File Data Check Value
7.1.27. First Name
7.1.28. Geo-Location
7.1.29. Last Name
7.1.30. Latitude
7.1.31. Line Data Check Value
7.1.32. Longitude
7.1.33. Malfunction/Diagnostic Code
7.1.34. Malfunction Indicator Status
7.1.35. Multiday Basis Used
7.1.36. Order Number
7.1.37. Output File Comment
7.1.38. Shipping Document Number
7.1.39. Time
7.1.40. Time Zone Offset from UTC
7.1.41. Trailer Number(s)
7.1.42. Vehicle Miles
1. Scope and Description
This appendix specifies the minimal
requirements for an electronic logging device
(ELD) necessary for an ELD provider to build
and certify that its technology is compliant
with this appendix.
Throughout this appendix, a reference to
an ELD includes, to the extent applicable, an
ELD support system.
1.1. ELD Function
The ELD discussed in this appendix is an
electronic module capable of recording the
electronic records of duty status for CMV
drivers using the unit in a driving
environment within a CMV and meets the
compliance requirements in this appendix.
1.2. System Users
Users of ELDs are:
(1) CMV drivers employed by a motor
carrier; and
(2) Support personnel who have been
authorized by the motor carrier to:
(a) Create, remove and manage user
accounts;
(b) Configure allowed ELD parameters; and
(c) Access, review and manage drivers’
ELD records on behalf of the motor carrier.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
1.4. System Design
An ELD is integrally synchronized with the
engine of the CMV such that driving time can
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–C
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1.5. Sections of Appendix
Section 2 lists the abbreviations used
throughout this appendix.
Section 3 provides definitions for terms
and notations used in this document.
Section 4 lists functional requirements for
an ELD. More specifically, section 4.1
describes the security requirements for
account management within an ELD system
and introduces the term ‘‘Unidentified
Driver’’ account. Section 4.2 explains
internal engine synchronization requirements
and its applicability when used in recording
a driver’s record of duty status in CMVs built
before and after a threshold model year.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
be automatically recorded for the driver
operating the CMV and using the ELD.
An ELD allows for manual inputs from the
driver and the motor carrier support
personnel and automatically captures date
and time, vehicle position, and vehicle
operational parameters.
An ELD records a driver’s electronic RODS
and other supporting events with the
required data elements specified in this
appendix and retains data to support the
performance requirements specified in this
appendix
An ELD generates a standard data file
output and transfers it to an authorized safety
official upon request.
This appendix specifies minimally
required data elements that must be part of
an event record such that a standard ELD
output file can be produced by all compliant
ELDs.
Figure 1 provides a visual layout of how
this appendix is generally organized to
further explain the required sub-functions of
an ELD.
Section 4.3 describes the inputs of an ELD
which includes automatically measured
signals by the ELD as covered in section
4.3.1, and manual entries by the
authenticated driver as covered in section
4.3.2 and by the motor carrier as covered in
section 4.3.3. The ELD requirements for
internal processing and tracking of
information flow are described in section 4.4
which includes conditions for and
prohibitions against automatic setting of
duty-status in section 4.4.1, required geolocation and date and time conversion
functions in sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3,
respectively, use of event attributes for
tracking of edit and entry history in section
4.4.4, and the use of data check functions in
the recording of ELD logs in section 4.4.5 as
standard security measures for all ELDs.
Section 4.5 describes the events an ELD must
record and the data element each type of an
event must include. Section 4.6 introduces
device self-monitoring requirements and
standardizes the minimal set of malfunctions
and data diagnostic events an ELM must be
able to detect. Section 4.7 introduces
technical functions that are intended to guard
a driver against harassment and introduces a
privacy preserving provision when a driver
operates a CMV for personal purposes.
Section 4.8 explains ELD outputs, which are
the information displayed to a user and the
standard data output file an ELD must
produce. Sections 4.9 and 4.10, respectively,
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
EP28MR14.000
1.3. System Architecture
An ELD may be implemented as a standalone technology or within another electronic
module. It may be installed in a CMV or may
be implemented on a handheld unit that may
be moved from vehicle to vehicle. The
functional requirements are the same for all
types of system architecture that may be used
in implementing the ELD functionality.
17695
17696
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
describe the data reporting requirements and
the communications protocols.
Section 5 describes the ELD certification
and registration process.
Section 6 lists the cited references
throughout this appendix.
Section 7 provides a data elements
dictionary for each data element referenced
in this appendix.
2. Abbreviations
3pDP Third-party Developers’ Partnership
ASCII American Standard Code for
Information Interchange
CAN Control Area Network
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
ECM Electronic Control Module
ELD Electronic Logging Device
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
HOS Hours of Service
HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol
HTTPS Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure
ICD Interface Control Document
SAFER Safety and Fitness Electronic
Records
QR Quick Response
RFC Request for Comments
RODS Records of Duty Status
TLS Transport Layer Security
UCT Coordinated Universal Time
USB Universal Serial Bus
WSDL Web Services Definition Language
XML Extensible Markup Language
XOR Exclusive Or {bitwise binary
operation}
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Definitions; Notations
3.1. Definitions
3.1.1. Databus
A vehicle databus refers to an internal
communications network that interconnects
components inside a vehicle and facilitates
exchange of data between subsystems
typically using serial or control area network
protocols.
3.1.2. ELD Event
An ELD event refers to a discrete instance
in time when the ELD records data with the
data elements specified in this appendix. The
discrete ELD events relate to the driver’s duty
status and ELD’s operational integrity. They
are either triggered by input from the driver
(driver’s duty status changes, driver’s login/
logout activity, etc.) or triggered by ELD’s
internal monitoring functions (ELD
malfunction detection, data diagnostics
detection, intermediate logs, etc.). ELD events
and required data elements for each type of
ELD events are described in detail in section
4.5.1.
3.1.3. Exempt Driver
As specified in further detail in section
4.3.3.1.2, an ELD must allow a motor carrier
to configure an ELD for a driver who may be
exempt from the use of ELD. Examples of an
exempt driver would be a 100 air-mile radius
driver and non-CDL 150-air mile radius
driver. Even though exempt drivers do not
have to use an ELD, in operations when an
ELD equipped CMV may be shared between
exempt and non-exempt drivers, motor
carriers can use this allowed configuration to
avoid issues with unidentified driver data
diagnostics errors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
3.1.4. Geo-Location
Geo-location is the conversion of a position
measurement in latitude/longitude
coordinates into a description of the distance
and direction to a recognizable nearby
location name. Geo-location information is
used in ELD’s displayable outputs such as on
a screen.
3.1.5. Ignition Power Cycle, Ignition Power
On Cycle, Ignition Power Off Cycle
An ignition power cycle refers to the
engine’s power status changing from ‘‘on to
off’’ or ‘‘off to on’’, typically with driver
controlling ignition power by switching the
ignition key positions.
An ignition power on cycle refers to the
engine power sequence changing from ‘‘off to
on and then off’’. This refers to a continuous
period when a CMV’s engine is powered.
An ignition power off cycle refers to the
engine power sequence changing from ‘‘on to
off and then on’’. This refers to a continuous
period when a CMV’s engine is not powered.
3.1.6. Unidentified Driver
‘‘Unidentified Driver’’ refers to the
operation of a CMV featuring an ELD without
an authenticated driver logging in the system.
Functional specifications in this appendix
require an ELD to automatically capture
driving time under such conditions and
attribute such records with the unique
‘‘Unidentified Driver’’ account, as specified
in section 4.1.5, until they are reviewed and
assigned to the true and correct owner of
these records.
3.2. Notations
Throughout this appendix the following
notations are used when data elements are
referenced.
<.> indicates a parameter an ELD must track.
For example ELD username refers to the
unique or identifier
specified during the creation of an ELD
account with the requirements set forth in
section 7.1.17.
{.} indicates which of multiple values of a
parameter is being referenced. For example
ELD username {for the co-driver} refers
specifically the ELD username for the codriver.
indicates a carriage return or new line
or end of current line. This notation is used
in section 4.8.2 which describes the
standard ELD output file and in section
4.10.2.4 which describes a standard
printout report.
4. Functional Requirements
4.1. ELD User Accounts
4.1.1. Account Types
An ELD must support a user account
structure that separates drivers and motor
carrier’s support personnel (i.e. non-drivers).
4.1.2. Account Creation
Each user of the ELD must have a valid
active account on the ELD with a unique
identifier assigned by the motor carrier.
Each driver account must require the entry
of the driver’s license number and the State
or jurisdiction that issued the driver’s license
into the ELD during the account creation
process. The driver account must securely
store this information on the ELD.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
An ELD must not allow creation of more
than one driver account associated with a
driver’s license for a given motor carrier.
A driver account must not have
administrative rights to create new accounts
on the ELD.
A support personnel account must not
allow recording of ELD data for its account
holder.
An ELD must reserve a unique driver
account for recording events during nonauthenticated operation of a CMV. This
appendix will refer to this account as
unidentified driver account.
4.1.3. Account Security
An ELD must provide secure access to data
recorded and stored on the system by
requiring user authentication during system
login.
Driver accounts must only have access to
data associated with that driver, protecting
the authenticity and confidentiality of the
collected information.
4.1.4. Account Management
An ELD must be capable of separately
recording and retaining ELD data for each
individual driver using the ELD.
An ELD must provide for and require
concurrent authentication for team drivers.
If more than one ELD unit is used to record
a driver’s electronic records within a motor
carrier’s operation, the ELD in the vehicle the
driver is operating most recently must be able
to produce a complete ELD report for that
driver, on demand, for the current 24-hour
period and the previous 7 consecutive days.
4.1.5. Non-Authenticated Operation
An ELD must associate all nonauthenticated operation of a CMV with a
single ELD account labeled unidentified
driver.
If a driver does not log onto the ELD, as
soon as the vehicle is in motion, the ELD
must:
(a) Provide a visual or visual and audible
warning reminding the driver to stop and
login to the ELD;
(b) Record accumulated driving and onduty, not-driving, time in accordance with
the ELD defaults described in section 4.4.1
under the unidentified driver profile; and
(c) Not allow entry of any information into
the ELD other than a response to the login
prompt.
4.2. ELD-Vehicle Interface
An ELD must be integrally synchronized
with the engine of the CMV. Engine
synchronization for purposes of ELD
compliance means the monitoring of the
vehicle’s engine operation to automatically
capture engine’s power status, vehicle’s
motion status, miles driven value, and engine
hours value. Furthermore, an ELD used while
operating a CMV that is a model year 2000
or later model year, as indicated by the
vehicle identification number, that has
engine electronic control module (ECM),
must establish a link to the engine ECM and
receive this information automatically
through the serial or Control Area Network
communication (CAN) protocols supported
by the vehicle’s engine ECM. Otherwise, an
ELD may use alternative sources to obtain or
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
estimate these vehicle parameters with the
listed accuracy requirements under section
4.3.1.
4.3. ELD Inputs
4.3.1. ELD Sensing
4.3.1.1. Engine Power Status
An ELD must be powered within 15
seconds of the vehicle’s engine receiving
power and must remain powered for as long
as the vehicle’s engine stays powered.
4.3.1.2. Vehicle Motion Status
An ELD must automatically determine
whether a CMV is in motion or stopped by
comparing the vehicle speed information
with respect to a set speed threshold as
follows:
(1) Once the vehicle speed exceeds the set
speed threshold, it must be considered in
motion.
(2) Once in motion, the vehicle must be
considered in motion until its speed falls to
0 miles per hour and stays at 0 miles per
hour for 3 consecutive seconds. Then, the
vehicle will be considered stopped.
(3) An ELD’s set speed threshold for
determination of the in-motion state for the
purpose of this section must not be
configurable to greater than 5 miles per hour.
If an ELD is required to have a link to the
vehicle’s engine ECM, vehicle speed
information must be acquired from the
engine ECM. Otherwise, vehicle speed
information must be acquired using an
independent source apart from the
positioning services described under section
4.3.1.6 and must be accurate within ±3 miles
per hour of the CMV’s true ground speed for
purposes of determining the in-motion state
for the CMV.
4.3.1.3. Vehicle Miles
An ELD must monitor vehicle miles as
accumulated by a CMV over the course of an
ignition power on cycle (accumulated vehicle
miles) and over the course of CMV’s
operation (total vehicle miles). Vehicle miles
information must use or must be converted
to units of whole miles.
If the ELD is required to have a link to the
vehicle’s engine ECM as specified in section
4.2:
(1) The ELD must monitor the engine
ECM’s odometer message broadcast and use
it to log total vehicle miles information; and
(2) The ELD must use the odometer
message to determine accumulated vehicle
miles since engine’s last power on instance.
Otherwise, the accumulated vehicle miles
indication must be obtained or estimated
from a source that is accurate to within ±10%
of miles accumulated by the CMV over a 24hour period as indicated on the vehicle’s
odometer display.
4.3.1.4. Engine Hours
An ELD must monitor engine hours of the
CMV over the course of an ignition power on
cycle (elapsed engine hours) and over the
course of the CMV’s operation total engine
hours. Engine hours must use or must be
converted to hours in intervals of a tenth of
an hour.
If an ELD is required to have a link to the
vehicle’s engine ECM, the ELD must monitor
engine ECM’s total engine hours message
broadcast and use it to log total engine hours
information. Otherwise, engine hours must
be obtained or estimated from a source that
monitors the ignition power of the CMV and
must be accurate within ±0.1 hour of the
engine’s total operation within a given
ignition power on cycle.
4.3.1.5. Date and Time
The ELD must obtain and record the date
and time information automatically without
allowing any external input or interference
from a motor carrier, driver, or any other
person.
The ELD time must be synchronized to
Coordinated Universal Time (UCT) and the
absolute deviation from UCT must not
exceed 10 minutes at any point in time.
4.3.1.6. CMV Position
An ELD must have the capability to
automatically determine the position of the
CMV in standard latitude/longitude
coordinates with the accuracy and
availability requirements of this section.
ELD must obtain and record this
information without allowing any external
input or interference from a motor carrier,
driver, or any other person.
CMV position measurement must be
accurate to ±0.5 mile of absolute position of
the CMV when an ELD measures a valid
latitude/longitude coordinate value.
Position information must be obtained in
or converted into standard signed latitude
and longitude values and must be expressed
as decimal degrees to hundreds of a degree
precision (i.e., a decimal point and two
decimal places).
Measurement accuracy combined with the
reporting precision requirement implies that
position reporting accuracy will be in the
order of ±1mile of absolute position of the
CMV during the course of a CMV’s
commercial operation.
During periods of a driver’s indication of
personal use of the CMV, measurement
17697
reporting precision requirement is further
reduced to be expressed as decimal degrees
to tenths of a degree (i.e. a decimal point and
single decimal place) as further specified in
section 4.7.3.
An ELD must be able to acquire a valid
position measurement at least once every 5
miles of driving; however, CMV location
information is only recorded during ELD
events as specified in section 4.5.1.
4.3.1.7. CMV VIN
The vehicle identification number (VIN)
for the power unit of a CMV must be
automatically obtained from the engine ECM
and recorded if it is available on the vehicle
databus.
4.3.2. Driver’s Manual Entries
An ELD must prompt the driver to input
information into the ELD only when the CMV
is stationary and driver’s duty status is not
on-duty driving, except for the condition
specified in section 4.4.1.2.
If the driver’s duty status is driving, an
ELD must only allow the driver who is
operating the CMV to change the driver’s
duty status to another duty status.
A stopped vehicle must maintain zero (0)
miles per hour speed to be considered
stationary for purposes of information entry
into an ELD.
An ELD must allow an authenticated codriver who is not driving, but who has logged
into the ELD prior to the vehicle being in
motion to make entries over his or her own
records when the vehicle is in motion. The
ELD must not allow co-drivers to switch
driving roles when the vehicle is in motion.
4.3.2.1. Driver’s Entry of Required Event Data
Fields
An ELD must provide a means for a driver
to manually enter information pertaining to
driver’s ELD records such as CMV power unit
number as specified in section 7.1.4, trailer
number(s) as specified in section 7.1.41 and
shipping document number as specified in
7.1.38.
If these fields are populated automatically
by motor carrier’s ELD system, the ELD must
provide means for the driver to review such
information and make corrections as
necessary.
4.3.2.2. Driver’s Status Inputs
4.3.2.2.1. Driver’s Indication of Duty Status
An ELD must provide a means for the
authenticated driver to select a driver’s duty
status. The ELD must use the ELD duty status
categories listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1—DUTY STATUS CATEGORIES
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Duty status
Abbreviation
Off Duty .............................................................................................................................................................
Sleeper Berth ....................................................................................................................................................
Driving ...............................................................................................................................................................
On-duty Not Driving ..........................................................................................................................................
OFF ..................
SB .....................
D .......................
ON ....................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Data coding
1
2
3
4
17698
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
4.3.2.2.2. Driver’s Indication of Situations
Impacting Driving Time Recording
An ELD must provide means for a driver
to indicate the beginning and end of a period
when the driver may use the CMV for
authorized personal use, or for performing
yard moves. The ELD must acquire this status
in a standard format from the category list in
Table 2. This list must be supported
independent of the duty status categories
described in section 4.3.2.2.1.
TABLE 2—CATEGORIES FOR DRIVER’S INDICATION OF SITUATIONS IMPACTING DRIVING TIME RECORDING
Category
Abbreviation
Authorized Personal Use of CMV ....................................................................................................................
Yard Moves .......................................................................................................................................................
Default: None ....................................................................................................................................................
PC ....................
YM ....................
...........................
An ELD must allow a driver to only select
categories that a motor carrier enables by
configuration for that driver, as described in
section 4.3.3.1.1.
An ELD must only allow one category to
be selected at any given time and use the
latest selection by the driver.
The ELD must prompt the driver to enter
an annotation upon selection of a category
from Table 2 and record driver’s entry.
A driver’s indication of special driving
situation must reset to none if the ELD or
CMV’s engine goes through a power off cycle
(ELD or CMV’s engine turns off and then on)
except if the driver has indicated authorized
personal use of CMV, in which case, the ELD
must require confirmation of continuation of
the authorized personal use of CMV
condition by the driver. If not confirmed by
the driver and the vehicle is in motion, the
ELD must default to none.
4.3.2.3. Driver’s Certification of Records
An ELD must include a function whereby
a driver can certify the driver’s records at the
end of a 24-hour period. This function, when
selected, must display a statement that reads
‘‘I hereby certify that my data entries and my
record of duty status for this 24-hour period
are true and correct.’’ Driver must be
prompted to select ‘‘Agree’’ or ‘‘Not ready.’’
Driver’s affirmative selection of ‘‘Agree’’
must be recorded as an event.
An ELD must only allow the authenticated
driver to certify records associated with that
driver.
If any edits are necessary after the driver
certifies the records for a given 24-hour
period, the ELD must require and prompt the
driver to re-certify the updated records.
If there are any past records on the ELD
(excluding the current 24-hour period) that
requires certification or re-certification by the
driver, the ELD must indicate the required
driver action on the ELD’s display and
prompt the driver to take the necessary
action during the login and logout processes.
the compliant output file and perform the
data transfer.
The supported single-step data transfer
initiation mechanism (such as a switch or an
icon on a touch-screen display) must be
clearly marked and visible to the driver when
the vehicle is stopped.
4.3.2.5. Driver’s Entry of an Output File
Comment
An ELD must accommodate the entry of an
output file comment up to 60 characters long.
If an authorized safety official provides a key
phrase or code during an inspection to be
included in the output file comment, it must
be entered and embedded into the electronic
ELD records in the exchanged dataset as
specified in section 4.8.2.1.1. The default
value for the output file comment must be
blank. This output file comment must be
used only for the creation of the related data
files for the intended time, place, and ELD
user.
4.3.2.6. Driver’s Annotation of Records
An ELD must allow for a driver to add
annotations in text format to recorded,
entered, or edited ELD events.
The ELD must require annotations to be 4
characters or longer, including embedded
spaces if driver annotation is required and
driver is prompted by the ELD.
4.3.2.7. Driver’s Entry of Location
Information
An ELD must allow manual entry of a
CMV’s location by the driver in text format
in support of the driver edit requirements
described in section 4.3.2.8.
Driver’s manual location entry must be
available as an option to a driver only when
prompted by the ELD under allowed
conditions as described in section 4.6.1.4.
A manual location entry must show ‘‘M’’
in the latitude/longitude coordinates fields in
ELD records.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4.3.2.4. Driver’s Data Transfer Initiation Input
4.3.2.8. Driver’s Record Entry/Edit
An ELD must provide a standardized
single-step driver interface for compilation of
driver’s ELD records and initiation of the
data transfer to authorized safety officials
when requested during a roadside inspection.
The ELD must input the data transfer
request from the driver, require confirmation,
present and request selection of the
supported data transfer options by the ELD,
and prompt for entry of the output file
comment as specified in section 4.3.2.5.
Upon confirmation, the ELD must generate
An ELD must provide a mechanism for a
driver to review, edit, and annotate the
driver’s ELD records when a notation of
errors or omissions is necessary or enter the
driver’s missing ELD records subject to the
requirements specified in this section.
An ELD must not permit alteration or
erasure of the original information collected
concerning the driver’s ELD records or
alteration of the source data streams used to
provide that information.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Data coding
1
2
0
4.3.2.8.1. Mechanism for Driver Edits and
Annotations
If a driver edits or annotates an ELD record
or enters missing information the act must
not overwrite the original record.
The ELD must use the process outlined in
section 4.4.4.2 to configure required event
attributes to track the edit history of records.
Driver edits must be accompanied by an
annotation. The ELD must prompt the driver
to annotate edits.
4.3.2.8.2. Driver Edit Limitations
An ELD must not allow or require the
editing or manual entry of records with the
following event types, as described in section
7.1.24:
Event Type
Description
2 ...................
5 ...................
6 ...................
An intermediate log,
A driver’s login/logout activity,
CMV’s engine power up/shut
down, or
ELD malfunctions and data
diagnostic events.
7 ...................
An ELD must not allow automatically
recorded driving time to be shortened. An
ELD must not allow the ELD username
associated with an ELD record to be edited
or reassigned, except under the following
circumstances:
(1) Assignment of Unidentified Driver
records. ELD events recorded under the
‘‘Unidentified Driver’’ profile may be edited
and assigned to the driver associated with the
record; and
(2) Correction of errors with team drivers.
In the case of team drivers, the driver account
associated with the driving time records may
be edited and reassigned between the team
drivers if there was a mistake resulting in a
mismatch between the actual driver and the
driver recorded by the ELD and if the team
drivers were both indicated in each other’s
records as a co-driver. The ELD must require
each co-driver to confirm the change for the
corrective action to take effect.
4.3.3. Motor Carrier’s Manual Entries
An ELD must restrict availability of motor
carrier entries outlined in this subsection
only to authenticated ‘‘support personnel’’
account holders.
4.3.3.1. ELD Configuration
If an ELD or a technology that includes an
ELD function offers configuration options to
the motor carrier or the driver that are not
otherwise addressed or prohibited in this
appendix, the configuration options must not
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
affect the ELD’s compliance with the
requirements of this rule for each
configuration setting of the ELD.
4.3.3.1.1. Configuration of Available
Categories Impacting Driving Time Recording
An ELD must allow a motor carrier to
unilaterally configure the availability of each
of the three categories listed on Table 2 that
the motor carrier chooses to authorize for
each of its drivers. By default, none of these
categories must be available to a new driver
account without the motor carrier proactively
configuring their availability.
A motor carrier may change the
configuration for the availability of each
category for each of its drivers. Changes to
the configuration setting must be recorded on
the ELD and communicated to the applicable
authenticated driver during the ELD login
process.
4.3.3.1.2. Configuration of Using ELDs
An ELD must provide the motor carrier an
ability to configure a driver account exempt
from use of an ELD.
The ELD must default the setting of this
configuration option for each new driver
account created on an ELD to no exemption.
An exemption must be proactively
configured for an applicable driver account
by the motor carrier. The ELD must prompt
the motor carrier to annotate the record and
provide an explanation for the configuration
of exemption.
If a motor carrier configures a driver
account to be exempt, the ELD must present
the configured indication that is in effect for
that driver during the ELD login and logout
processes.
If a motor carrier configures a driver
account as exempt the ELD must continue to
record ELD driving time but suspend
detection of missing data elements data
diagnostic event for the driver described in
section 4.6.1.5 and data transfer compliance
monitoring function described in section
4.6.1.7 when such driver is authenticated on
the ELD.
4.3.3.2. Motor Carrier’s Post-Review
Electronic Edit Requests
An ELD may allow the motor carrier (via
a monitoring algorithm or support personnel)
to screen, review, and request corrective edits
to the driver’s certified (as described in
section 4.3.2.3) and submitted records
through the ELD system electronically. If this
function is implemented by the ELD, the ELD
must also support functions for the driver to
see and review the requested edits.
Edits requested by anyone or any system
other than the driver must require the
driver’s electronic confirmation or rejection.
4.4. ELD Processing and Calculations
4.4.1. Conditions for Automatic Setting of
Duty Status
4.4.1.1. Automatic Setting of Duty Status to
Driving
An ELD must automatically record driving
time when the vehicle is in motion by setting
duty status to driving for the driver unless,
before the vehicle is in motion, the driver:
(1) Sets the duty status to off-duty and
indicates personal use of CMV, in which case
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
duty status must remain off-duty until
driver’s indication of the driving condition
ends; or
(2) Sets the duty status to on-duty not
driving and indicates yard moves, in which
case duty status must remain on-duty not
driving until driver’s indication of the
driving condition ends.
4.4.1.2. Automatic Setting of Duty Status to
On-Duty Not Driving
When the duty status is set to driving, and
the CMV has not been in-motion for 5
consecutive minutes, the ELD must prompt
the driver to confirm continued driving
status or enter the proper duty status. If the
driver does not respond to the ELD prompt
within 1-minute after receiving the prompt,
the ELD must automatically switch the duty
status to on-duty not driving. The time
thresholds for purposes of this section must
not be configurable.
4.4.1.3. Other Automatic Duty-Status Setting
Actions Prohibited
An ELD must not feature any other
automatic records of duty setting mechanism
than those described in sections 4.4.1.1 and
4.4.1.2. Duty status changes that are not
initiated by the driver, including duty status
alteration recommendations by motor carrier
support personnel or a software algorithm,
are subject to motor carrier edit requirements
in section 4.3.3.2.
4.4.2. Geo-Location Conversions
For each change in duty status, the ELD
must convert automatically captured vehicle
position in latitude/longitude coordinates
into geo-location information, indicating
approximate distance and direction to an
identifiable location corresponding to the
name of a nearby city, town, or village, with
a State abbreviation.
Geo-location information must be derived
from a database that contains all cities,
towns, and villages with a population of
5,000 or greater and listed in ANSI INCITS
446–2008 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 395.38), reference (3)(a) in section 6 of this
appendix.
An ELD’s viewable outputs (such as
printouts or displays) must feature geolocation information as place names in text
format.
4.4.3. Date and Time Conversions
An ELD must have the capability to
convert and track date and time captured in
UTC standard to the time standard in effect
at driver’s home terminal, taking the daylight
savings time changes into account by using
the parameter ‘‘Time Zone Offset from UTC’’
as specified in section 7.1.40.
An ELD must record the driver’s record of
duty status using the time standard in effect
at the driver’s home terminal for a 24-hour
period beginning with the time specified by
the motor carrier for that driver’s home
terminal.
The data element ‘‘Time Zone Offset from
UTC’’ must be included in the ‘‘Driver’s
certification of Own Records’’ events as
specified in section 4.5.1.4.
4.4.4. Setting of Event Parameters in Records,
Edits, and Entries
This section describes the security
measures for configuring and tracking event
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17699
attributes for ELD records, edits, and entries
in a standardized manner.
4.4.4.1. Event Sequence Identifier (ID)
Number
Each ELD event must feature an event
sequence ID Number.
The event sequence ID number for each
ELD must use continuous numbering across
all users of that ELD and across engine and
ELD power on and off cycles.
An ELD must use the next available event
sequence ID number (incremented by one)
each time a new event log is recorded.
Event sequence ID number must track at
least the last 65,536 unique events recorded
on the ELD.
The continuous event sequence ID
numbering structure used by the ELD must
be mapped into a continuous hexadecimal
number between 0000 (Decimal 0) and FFFF
(Decimal 65535).
4.4.4.2. Event Record Status, Event Record
Origin, Event Type Setting
An ELD must retain the original records
even when allowed edits and entries are
made over a driver’s ELD records.
An ELD must keep track of all event record
history, and the process used by the ELD
must produce the event record status, event
record origin, and event type for the ELD
records in the standard categories specified
in sections 7.1.22, 7.1.21 and 7.1.24,
respectively for each record as a standard
security measure. For example, an ELD may
use the process outlined in sections
4.4.4.2.1–4.4.4.2.6 to meet the requirements
of this section.
4.4.4.2.1. Records Automatically Logged by
ELD
At the instance an ELD creates a record
automatically, the ELD must:
(1) Set the ‘‘Event Record Status’’ to ‘‘1’’
(active); and
(2) Set the ‘‘Event Record Origin’’ to ‘‘1’’
(automatically recorded by ELD).
4.4.4.2.2. Driver Edits
At the instance of a driver editing existing
record(s), the ELD must:
(1) Identify the ELD record(s) being
modified for which the ‘‘Event Record
Status’’ is currently set to ‘‘1’’ (active);
(2) Acquire driver input for the intended
edit and construct the ELD record(s) that will
replace the record(s) identified in (1) above;
(3) Set the ‘‘Event Record Status’’ of the
ELD record(s) identified in (1) above, which
is being modified, to ‘‘2’’ (inactive-changed);
(4) Set the ‘‘Event Record Status’’ of the
ELD record(s) constructed in (2) above to ‘‘1’’
(active); and
(5) Set the ‘‘Event Record Origin’’ of the
ELD record(s) constructed in (2) above to ‘‘2’’
(edited or entered by the driver).
4.4.4.2.3. Driver Entries
When a driver enters missing record(s), the
ELD must:
(1) Acquire driver input for the missing
entries being implemented and construct the
new ELD record(s) that will represent the
driver entries;
(2) Set the ‘‘event record status’’ of the ELD
record(s) constructed in (1) above to ‘‘1’’
(active); and
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
17700
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(3) Set the ‘‘event record origin’’ of the ELD
record(s) constructed in (1) above to ‘‘2’’
(edited or entered by the driver).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4.4.4.2.4. Driver’s Assumption of
Unidentified Driver Logs
When a driver reviews and assumes ELD
record(s) logged under the unidentified
driver profile, the ELD must:
(1) Identify the ELD record(s) logged under
the unidentified driver profile that will be
reassigned to the driver;
(2) Use elements of the unidentified driver
log(s) from (1) above and acquire driver input
to populate missing elements of the log
originally recorded under the unidentified
driver profile, and construct the new event
record(s) for the driver;
(3) Set the event record status of the ELD
record(s) identified in (1) above, which is
being modified, to ‘‘2’’ (inactive–changed);
(4) Set the event record status of the ELD
record(s) constructed in (2) above to ‘‘1’’
(active); and
(5) Set the event record origin of the ELD
record(s) constructed in (2) above to ‘‘4’’
(assumed from unidentified driver profile).
4.4.4.2.5. Motor Carrier Edit Suggestions
If a motor carrier requests an edit on a
driver’s records electronically, the ELD must:
(1) Identify the ELD record(s) being
requested to be modified for which the
‘‘event record status’’ is currently set to ‘‘1’’
(active);
(2) Acquire motor carrier input for the
intended edit and construct the ELD record(s)
that will replace the record identified in (1)
above —if approved by the driver;
(3) Set the event record status of the ELD
record(s) in (2) above to ‘‘3’’ (inactive–change
requested); and
(4) Set the event record origin of the ELD
record constructed in (2) above to ‘‘3’’ (edit
requested by an authenticated user other than
the driver).
4.4.4.2.6. Driver’s Actions Over Motor Carrier
Edit Suggestions
(1) If edits are requested by the motor
carrier to the driver over a driver’s records
electronically, the ELD must implement
functions for the driver to review the
requested edits, see their effects and indicate
on the ELD whether the driver confirms or
rejects the requested edit(s).
(2) If the driver approves the motor
carrier’s edit suggestion the ELD must:
(a) Set the event record status of the ELD
record(s) identified under section 4.4.4.2.5(1)
being modified, to ‘‘2’’ (inactive–changed);
and
(b) Set the ‘‘event record status’’ of the ELD
record(s) constructed in 4.4.4.2.5(2) to ‘‘1’’
(active).
(3) If the driver disapproves the motor
carrier’s edit(s) suggestion, the ELD must set
the ‘‘event record status’’ of the ELD record(s)
identified in 4.4.4.2.5(2) to ‘‘4’’ (inactive–
change rejected).
4.4.5. Data Integrity Check Functions
An ELD must support standard security
measures which require the calculation and
recording of standard data check values for
each ELD event recorded, for each line of the
output file, and for the entire data file to be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
generated for transmission to an authorized
safety official or the motor carrier.
For purposes of implementing data check
calculations, the alphanumeric-to-numeric
mapping provided in Table 3 must be used.
Each ELD event record type specified in
sections 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.1.3 must include an
event data check value, which must be
calculated as specified in section 4.4.5.1. An
event data check value must be calculated at
the time of the following instances and must
accompany that event record thereafter:
(1) When an event record is automatically
created by the ELD;
(2) When an authorized edit is performed
by the driver on the ELD or on its support
systems; and
(3) When an electronic edit proposal is
created by the motor carrier through the ELD
system.
Each line of the ELD output file must
include a line data check value, which must
be calculated as specified in section 4.4.5.2.
Each ELD report must also include a file
data check value, which must be calculated
as specified in section 4.4.5.3.
4.4.5.1. Event Data Check
The event data check value must be
calculated as follows.
4.4.5.1.1. Event Checksum Calculation
A checksum calculation includes the
summation of numeric values or mappings of
a specified group of alphanumeric data
elements. The ELD must calculate an event
checksum value associated with each ELD
event at the instance of the event record
being created.
The event record elements that must be
included in the checksum calculation are the
following:
(1) ,
(2) ,
(3) ,
(4) ,
(5) ,
(6) ,
(7) ,
(8) ,
(9) , and
(10) < ELD username>.
The ELD must sum the numeric values of
all individual characters making up the listed
data elements using the character to decimal
value coding specified in Table 3, and use
the 8-bit lower byte of the hexadecimal
representation of the summed total as the
event checksum value for that event.
4.4.5.1.2. Event Data Check Calculation
The event data check value must be the
hexadecimal representation of the output 8bit byte, after the below bitwise operations
are performed on the binary representation of
the event checksum value, as set forth below:
(1) Three consecutive circular shift left
(rotate no carry -left) operations; and
(2) A bitwise exclusive OR (XOR) operation
with the hexadecimal value C3 (decimal 195;
binary 11000011).
4.4.5.2. Line Data Check
A line data check value must be calculated
at the time of the generation of the ELD
output file, to transfer data to authorized
safety officials or to catalogue drivers’ ELD
records at a motor carrier’s facility. A line
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
data check value must be calculated as
follows.
4.4.5.2.1. Line Checksum Calculation
The ELD must calculate a line checksum
value associated with each line of ELD
output file at the instance when an ELD
output file is generated.
The data elements that must be included
in the line checksum calculation vary as per
the output data file specified in section
4.8.2.1.
The ELD must convert each character
featured in a line of output using the
character to decimal value coding specified
on Table 3 and sum the converted numeric
values of each character listed on a given
ELD output line item (excluding the line data
check value being calculated), and use the 8bit lower byte value of the hexadecimal
representation of the summed total as the
line checksum value for that line of output.
4.4.5.2.2. Line Data Check Calculation
The line data check value must be
calculated by performing the following
operations on the binary representation of the
line checksum value as follows:
(1) Three consecutive circular shift left
(rotate no carry-left) operations on the line
checksum value; and
(2) A bitwise XOR operation with the
hexadecimal value 96 (decimal 150; binary
10010110).
4.4.5.2.3. Line Data Check Value Inclusion in
Output File
The calculated line data check value must
be appended as the last line item of each of
the individual line items of the ELD output
file as specified in the output file format in
section 4.8.2.1.
4.4.5.3. File Data Check
A file data check value must also be
calculated at the time of the creation of an
ELD output file. A file data check value must
be calculated as follows.
4.4.5.3.1. File Checksum Calculation
The ELD must calculate a single 16-bit file
checksum value associated with an ELD
output file at the instance when an ELD
output file is generated.
The file data check value calculation must
include all individual line data check values
contained in that file.
The ELD must sum all individual line data
check values contained in a data file output
created, and use the lower two 8-bit byte
values of the hexadecimal representation of
the summed total as the ‘‘file checksum’’
value.
4.4.5.3.2. File Data Check Value Calculation
The file data check value must be
calculated by performing the following
operations on the binary representation of the
file checksum value:
(1) Three consecutive circular shift left (aka
rotate no carry -left) operations on each 8-bit
bytes of the value; and
(2) A bitwise XOR operation with the
hexadecimal value 969C (decimal 38556;
binary 1001011010011100).
The file data check value must be the 16bit output obtained from the above process.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
4.4.5.3.3. File Data Check Value Inclusion in
Output File
The calculated 16-bit file data check value
must be converted to hexadecimal 8-bit bytes
17701
and must be appended as the last line item
of the ELD output file as specified in the
output file format in section 4.8.2.1.11.
BILLING CODE 4190–EX–P
Table 3
Character to Decimal Value Mapping for Checksum Calculations
"Character" -+ Decimal mapping {ASCII ("Character") (decima~ 48 (decimal)}
"1"-+ 1
"A"-+ 17
"J"-+26
"S"-+35
"a"-+49
"j"-+58
"L"-+28
"U"-+37
"c"-+51
"1"-+60
"N"-+30
"W"-+39
"e"-+53
"n"-+62
"P"-+32
"Y"-+41
"g"-+55
"p"-+64
"i"-+57
"r"-+66
"s"-+67
"3"-+3
"C"-+19
"u"-+69
"5"-+5
"E"-+21
"w"-+71
"7"-+7
"G"-+23
'"
"9"-+9
VerDate Mar<15>2010
"I"-+25
19:22 Mar 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
"R"-+34
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\28MRP2.SGM
28MRP2
EP28MR14.001
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
"y"-+73
17702
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4190–EX–C
4.5. ELD Recording
4.5.1. Events and Data to Record
An ELD must record data at the following
discrete events:
4.5.1.1. Event: Change in Driver’s Duty Status
When a driver’s duty status changes, the
ELD must associate the record with the
driver, the record originator—if created
during an edit or entry—the vehicle, the
motor carrier, and the shipping document
number and must include the following data
elements:
(1) as
described in section 7.1.23;
(2) as described in
section 7.1.22;
(3) as described in
section 7.1.21;
(4) as described in section
7.1.24;
(5) as described in section
7.1.19;
(6) <{Event} Date> as described in section
7.1.8;
(7) <{Event} Time> as described in section
7.1.39;
(8) <{Accumulated} Vehicle Miles> as
described in section 7.1.42;
(9) <{Elapsed} Engine Hours> as described
in section 7.1.18;
(10) <{Event} Latitude> as described in
section 7.1.30;
(11) <{Event} Longitude> as described in
section 7.1.32;
(12) as described in section 7.1.9;
(13) as described in section 7.1.34;
(14) as described in section
7.1.7;
(15) <{Event} Comment/Annotation> as
described in section 7.1.6;
(16) as
described in section 7.1.12; and
(17) as
described in section 7.1.20.
4.5.1.2. Event: Intermediate Logs
When a CMV is in motion, as described in
section 4.3.1.2, and there has not been a duty
status change event or another intermediate
log event recorded in the previous 1-hour
period, the ELD must record a new
intermediate log event.
The ELD must associate the record to the
driver, the vehicle, the motor carrier, and the
shipping document number, and must
include the same data elements outlined in
section 4.5.1.1 except for item (16).
4.5.1.3. Event: Change in Driver’s Indication
of Allowed Conditions That Impact Driving
Time Recording
At each instance when the status of a
driver’s indication of personal use of CMV or
yard moves changes, the ELD must record a
new event. The ELD must associate the
record with the driver, the vehicle, the motor
carrier, and the shipping document number,
and must include the same data elements
outlined in section 4.5.1.1.
4.5.1.4. Event: Driver’s Certification of Own
Records
At each instance when a driver certifies or
re-certifies that driver’s records for a given
24-hour period are true and correct, the ELD
must record the event. The ELD must
associate the record with the driver, the
vehicle, the motor carrier, and the shipping
document number and must include the
following data elements:
(1) as
described in section 7.1.23;
(2) as described in section
7.1.24;
(3) as described in section
7.1.19;
(4)
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17655-17724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05827]
[[Page 17655]]
Vol. 79
Friday,
No. 60
March 28, 2014
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, et al.
Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting Documents;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17656]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, and 395
[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167]
RIN 2126-AB20
Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
proposes amendments to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to establish: Minimum performance and design standards for
hours-of-service (HOS) electronic logging devices (ELDs); requirements
for the mandatory use of these devices by drivers currently required to
prepare HOS records of duty status (RODS); requirements concerning HOS
supporting documents; and measures to address concerns about harassment
resulting from the mandatory use of ELDs. This rulemaking supplements
the Agency's February 1, 2011, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and
addresses issues raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit in its 2011 decision vacating the Agency's April 5, 2010, final
rule concerning ELDs as well as subsequent statutory developments. The
proposed requirements for ELDs would improve compliance with the HOS
rules.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2014. Comments
sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the collection of
information must be received by OMB on or before May 27, 2014. Before
publishing a final rule, FMCSA will submit to the Office of the Federal
Register publications listed in the rule for approval of the
publications' incorporation by reference.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2010-0167 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at 202-
366-5370.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) is organized as follows:
I. Executive Summary
II. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Comments on the Collection of Information
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
A. Motor Carrier Act of 1935
B. Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
C. Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act
D. Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994
E. MAP-21
V. Background
A. ELDs: Discussion of the 2010 Final Rule and the 2011 NPRM
B. History of the Supporting Documents Rule
C. Concurrent Activities
D. Table Summary
VI. ELD Performance and Design Specifications
A. Terminology
B. ELD Function
C. ELD Regulatory Compliance
VII. Proposed ELD Mandate
VIII. Proposed Compliance Date
A. Effective and Compliance Dates for a Final Rule
B. 2-Year Transition Period
C. Cost Associated With Replacing AOBRDs
IX. Proposed Supporting Document Provisions
A. Applicability
B. Categories
C. Data Elements
D. Number
E. Submission to Motor Carrier
F. HOS Enforcement Proceedings
G. Carriers Using Paper Logs
H. Self-Compliance Systems
X. Ensuring Against Driver Harassment
A. Drivers' Access to Own Records
B. Explicit Prohibition on Harassment
C. Complaint Procedures
D. Enhanced Penalties To Deter Harassment
E. Mute Function
F. Edit Rights
G. Tracking of Vehicle Location
H. FMCSRs Enforcement Proceedings
I. Summary
XI. MAP-21 Coercion Language
XII. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Part 385--Safety Fitness Procedures
B. Part 386--Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier, Intermodal
Equipment Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous
Materials Proceedings
C. Part 390--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: General
D. Part 395--Hours of Service of Drivers
XIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
H. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
K. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act
L. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
M. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O. E-Government Act of 2002
I. Executive Summary
This SNPRM would improve commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety and
reduce the overall paperwork burden for both motor carriers and drivers
by increasing the use of ELDs within the motor carrier industry, which
would in turn improve compliance with the applicable HOS rules.
Specifically, this SNPRM proposes: (1) Requiring new technical
specifications for ELDs that address statutory requirements; (2)
mandating ELDs for drivers currently using RODS; (3) clarifying
supporting document requirements so that motor carriers and drivers can
comply efficiently with HOS regulations, and so that motor carriers can
make the best use of ELDs and related support systems as their primary
means of recording HOS information and ensuring HOS
[[Page 17657]]
compliance; and (4) proposing both procedural and technical provisions
aimed at ensuring that ELDs are not used to harass vehicle operators.
In August 2011, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit vacated the April 2010 final rule, including the device
performance standards. See Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Fed.
Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 656 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2011) available in
the docket for this rulemaking. Thus, FMCSA expands the 2011 NPRM
significantly. The regulatory text proposed in today's SNPRM supersedes
that published in the February 2011 NPRM.
All of the previous rulemaking notices, as well as notices
announcing certain Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)
meetings and public listening sessions, referred to the devices and
support systems used to record electronically HOS RODS as ``electronic
on-board recorders (EOBRs).'' Beginning with this SNPRM, the term
``electronic logging device (ELD)'' is substituted for the term
``EOBR'' in order to be consistent with the term used in MAP-21. To the
extent applicable, a reference to an ELD includes a related motor
carrier or vendor central support system--if one is used--to manage or
store ELD data.
This rulemaking is based on authority in a number of statutes,
including the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Motor Carrier Safety Act
of 1984, the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act of 1988,
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994
(HMTAA), and MAP-21.
This SNPRM follows the NPRM published February 1, 2011 (76 FR
5537). The original NPRM had three components that: (1) Required ELDs
to be used by motor carriers and drivers required to prepare
handwritten RODS; (2) required motor carriers to develop and maintain
systematic HOS oversight of their drivers; and (3) simplified
supporting document requirements so motor carriers could achieve
paperwork efficiencies from ELDs and their support systems as their
primary means of recording HOS information and ensuring HOS compliance.
This SNPRM modifies that earlier proposal based on docket comments and
other new information received by the Agency. Because the Agency's 2010
final rule providing technical specifications for ELDs was vacated,
this SNPRM also proposes new technical specifications for ELDs and
addresses the issue of ELDs being used by motor carriers to harass
drivers. The SNPRM supersedes the February 1, 2011, NPRM.
This rulemaking examines four options:
Option 1: ELDs are mandated for all CMV operations subject
to 49 CFR part 395.
Option 2: ELDs are mandated for all CMV operations where
the driver is required to complete RODS under 49 CFR 395.8.
Option 3: ELDs are mandated for all CMV operations subject
to 49 CFR part 395, and the ELD is required to include or be able to be
connected to a printer and print RODS.
Option 4: ELDs are mandated for all CMV operations where
the driver is required to complete RODS under 49 CFR 395.8, and the ELD
is required to include or be able to be connected to a printer and
print RODS.
The following table lists the breakdown of regulated entities under
FMCSA's regulations:
Table 1--Regulated Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For-hire For-hire
general specialized For-hire Private Private Total
freight freight passenger \1\ property passenger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carriers................................................ 176,000 139,000 8,000 203,000 6,000 532,000
Percent of Carriers..................................... 33% 26% 2% 38% 1% 100%
Drivers................................................. 1,727,000 891,000 216,000 1,442,000 40,000 4,316,000
Percent of Drivers...................................... 40% 21% 5% 33% 1% 100%
Total CMVs.............................................. 1,717,000 1,003,000 183,000 1,433,000 24,000 4,360,000
Percent of CMVs......................................... 39% 23% 4% 33% 1% 100%
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index.............................. 53 5 406 6 15 10
10-Firm Concentration................................... 18.0% .............. 38.0%
Single-Truck For-Hire Carriers.......................... 93,000 65,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FMCSA, Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) registration data as of December 14, 2012.
FMCSA evaluated \1\ another option for the NPRM prepared in 2011,
which would have required ELD use by hazardous materials and passenger
carriers that did not use RODS, in addition to all RODS users. This was
not the preferred option then and it was not part of this evaluation.
The marginal net benefits of including those groups in the rule were
negative. When these carrier populations were added to RODS users,
estimated net benefits, although they were positive, were 8.5 percent
lower than the net benefits calculated using the RODS-only population.
Hazardous material carriers and passenger carriers tend to have above
average safety records. This may be because they are subject to many
other safety regulations, and are overseen by FMCSA and other Federal
agencies. However, neither group will gain paperwork savings from
eliminating paper RODS, as costs exceeded benefits for these two
groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 2,000 carriers with only taxi/limousine services
operating in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA gathered cost information from publicly available marketing
material and through communication with fleet management systems (FMS)
vendors. Although the prices of some models have not significantly
declined in recent years, manufacturers have been introducing less
expensive FMS in-cab units and support systems with fewer features (for
example, they do not include real time tracking and routing), as well
as in-cab units that resemble a stand-alone ELD. The Agency bases its
calculations in this RIA on the Mobile Computing Platform (MCP) 50
produced by Qualcomm, which is the largest manufacturer (by market
share) of FMS in North America.\2\ While this analysis is not an
endorsement of Qualcomm's products, the Agency believes that its
[[Page 17658]]
large market share makes the MCP 50 FMS an appropriate example of
current state-of-the-art, widely available devices with ELD
functionality. FMCSA also examined cost information from several other
vendors, and found that the MCP 50, when all installation, service, and
hardware costs are considered, falls roughly into the middle of the
price range of FMSs with ELD capabilities: $495 per CMV on an
annualized basis where the range is from $165 to $832 per CMV on an
annualized basis. The Agency also carefully considered the VDO RoadLog
ELD produced by the Continental Corporation, which, through its VDO
subsidiary, has a 90 percent share of the electronic tachograph market
in the European Union (EU) and more than 5 million electronic
tachographs or ELD devices in use worldwide.\3\ Continental has
recently begun offering the RoadLog ELD in the North American market,
and the Agency believes that the overall capacity and market share of
this corporation may allow it to influence the U.S. ELD market. As
discussed below, the Agency has found that basing costs on the MCP 50,
the VDO RoadLog, or several other devices, all lead to positive net
benefits of this rulemaking. Although carrier preferences and device
availability prevent FMCSA from more precisely estimating costs, it is
confident that they will be lower than the rule's benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Qualcomm Incorporated 2012 Annual Report, Securities and
Exchange Commission Form 10K, (investor.qualcomm.com/annuals.cfm.)
The Qualcomm Enterprise Services (QES, recently renamed Omnitracs)
reported revenues of $371 million in fiscal year 2012. Omnitracs
currently estimates its active installed base of FMS, which include
those with an ELD function, to be 350,000 in North America, most of
which are operated in the US (https://www.qualcomm.com/solutions/transportation-logistics). FMCSA estimates that about 955,000 CMVs
currently use FMS in the US, including those with an ELD function,
which indicates that Qualcomm's US market share is as high as 37
percent.
\3\ https://www.RoadLog.vdo.com/generator/www/us/en/vdo/RoadLog/about_vdo/about_vdo_en.html. May 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency requests comments on its analysis of the ELD and FMS
markets, and, in particular, how prices and availability of units
affect motor carriers differently with respect to fleet size. This
analysis also evaluates the costs and benefits of improvements in motor
carrier compliance with the underlying HOS rules through the use of
ELDs. To evaluate compliance costs, the Agency has updated its
assessment of the baseline level of non-compliance with the HOS rules
to account for changes in factors such as inflation, changes in the HOS
violation rate that preceded the mandate for ELD use, and the vehicle
miles traveled by CMVs. To evaluate safety benefits, the Agency
examined several types of analysis and has used its judgment to select
a conservative result for the number of crashes and fatalities avoided
by ELD use. The costs and benefits are detailed in the RIA associated
with this rulemaking and the methods by which they were derived are
also discussed. The major elements that contribute to the overall net
benefits are shown below in Table 1. This table summarizes the figures
for the Agency's preferred option, Option 2, which also has the highest
net benefits.
Table 2--Cost and Benefit Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
total value
Cost element ($2011 Notes
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New ELDs....................... 955.7 For all long haul (LH)
and short haul (SH)
drivers that use RODS,
to pay for new devices
and FMS upgrades.
Automatic On-Board Recording 8.7 Carriers that purchased
Device (AOBRD) Replacement AOBRDs for their CMVs
Costs. and can be predicted
to still have them in
2018 would have to
replace them with
ELDs.
Equipment for Inspectors....... 2.0 Quick Response Code
(QR) scanners to read
ELD output. These
would be heavily used,
and we assume they
will be replaced three
times during the 10
year period for which
we are estimating
costs.
Inspector Training............. 1.7 Costs include travel to
training sites, as
well as training time,
for all inspectors in
the first year and for
the new officers every
year after.
CMV Driver Training............ 6.7 Costs of training new
drivers in 2016, and
new drivers each year
thereafter.
Compliance..................... 604.0 Extra drivers and CMVs
needed to ensure that
no driver exceeds HOS
limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit element Annualized Notes
total value
($2011
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Savings (Total of 1,637.7
three parts below).
(1) Driver Time................ 1,261.4 Reflects time saved as
drivers no longer have
to fill out and submit
paper RODS.
(2) Clerical Time.............. 278.8 Reflects time saved as
office staff no longer
have to process paper
RODS.
(3) Paper Costs................ 97.6 Purchases of paper
logbooks are no longer
necessary.
Safety (Crash Reductions)...... 394.8 Although the predicted
number of crash
reductions is lower
for SH than LH
drivers, both should
exhibit less fatigued
driving if HOS
compliance increases.
Complete HOS
compliance is not
assumed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SNPRM also proposes changes to the HOS supporting document
requirements. The Agency has attempted to clarify its supporting
document requirements, recognizing that ELD records serve as the most
robust form of documentation for on-duty driving periods. FMCSA neither
increases nor decreases the burden associated with supporting
documents. These proposed changes are expected to improve the quality
and usefulness of the supporting documents retained, and would
consequently increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Agency's
review of motor carriers' HOS records during on-site compliance
reviews, thereby increasing its ability to detect HOS rules violations.
The Agency is currently unable to evaluate the impact the proposed
changes to supporting documents requirements would have on crash
reductions. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the analysis. The figures
presented are annualized using 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates.
[[Page 17659]]
Table 3--Annualized Costs and Benefits
[$2011 millions, 7 percent discount rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New ELD Costs............................................... $1,270.0 $955.7 $1,722.6 $1,311.1
AOBRD Replacement Costs..................................... 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7
HOS Compliance Costs........................................ 726.6 604.0 726.6 604.0
Enforcement Training Costs.................................. 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Enforcement Equipment Costs................................. 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
Driver Training............................................. 8.5 6.7 8.5 6.7
---------------------------------------------------
Total Costs............................................. 2,017.4 1,578.7 2,468.0 1,932.1
Paperwork Savings........................................... 1,637.7 1,637.7 1,637.7 1,637.7
Safety Benefits............................................. 474.8 394.8 474.8 394.8
---------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.......................................... 2,112.5 2,032.5 2,112.5 2,032.5
---------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits........................................ 95.1 453.8 -355.5 100.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Annualized Costs and Benefits
[$2011 Millions, 3 percent discount rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELD Costs................................................... $1,260.7 $949.5 $1,707.4 $1,300.3
AOBRD Replacement Costs..................................... 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
HOS Compliance Costs........................................ 726.6 604.1 726.6 604.1
Enforcement Training Costs.................................. 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Enforcement Equipment Costs................................. 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
Driver Training............................................. 7.5 5.9 7.5 5.9
---------------------------------------------------
Total Costs............................................. 2,006.4 1,571.1 2,451.1 1,919.9
Paperwork Savings........................................... 1,670.2 1,670.2 1,670.2 1,670.2
Safety Benefits............................................. 474.8 394.8 474.8 394.8
---------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.......................................... 2,145.0 2,065.0 2,145.0 2,065.0
---------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits........................................ 138.6 493.9 -306.1 145.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated benefits of ELDs do not differ greatly among the
options, and the paperwork savings are identical for all four options.
The Agency estimates zero paperwork burden from operations exempt from
RODS, so ELDs can only reduce the paperwork burden of RODs users, which
are included in all four options. Safety benefits are higher when all
regulated CMV operations are included in the ELD mandate (Options 1 and
3), but the marginal costs (ELD costs plus compliance costs) of
including these operations are about 5\1/2\ times higher than the
marginal benefits. These options would add short-haul drivers who do
not use RODS, have better HOS compliance, and much lower crash risk
from HOS non-compliance. For the short-haul non-RODS subgroup, FMCSA's
analysis indicates that ELDs are not a cost-effective solution to their
HOS non-compliance problem. This result is consistent with that of past
ELD analyses. The requirement for printers with each ELD would increase
ELD costs by about 40 percent. This is the first time that FMCSA has
explored requiring a printer, and it seeks comment on the feasibility
and accuracy of the benefit and cost estimates associated with this
requirement. Only Option 2, which would require ELDs similar to those
currently being manufactured for paper RODS users, provides positive
net benefits. Net benefits for Options 1, 2, and 4 are positive with a
3 percent discount rate, but the net benefits for Option 2 are still
much higher than those of other options--about 11 times higher than the
net benefits of the next best alternative, Option 4. Non-monetized
benefits of the various options are also substantial. The number of
crashes avoided ranges from 1,425 to 1,714, and this rule could save
between 20 and 24 lives per year. Review of Trucks Involved in Fatal
Accidents (TIFA) data from 2005-2009 supports this analysis: Variables
indicating that the driver of the CMV was drowsy, sleepy, asleep, or
fatigued are coded for crashes that caused an average of 85 deaths per
year in that period (https://www.umtri.umich.edu/our-results/publications/trucks-involved-fatal-accidents-factbook-2008-linda-jarossi-anne-matteson). An average of nine crashes per year in TIFA was
associated with fatigued drivers exceeding drive time limits.
Additional factors were at play in most of these events, but the
removal of some substantial fraction of fatigued driving should provide
some benefit. Estimated crash reductions due to the proposed rule are
summarized in Table 5.
Table 5--Estimated Reductions in Crashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashes Avoided............................................. 1,714 1,425 1,714 1,425
Injuries Avoided............................................ 522 434 522 434
[[Page 17660]]
Lives Saved................................................. 24 20 24 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Participation and Request for Comments
After the publication of the 2011 NPRM, Congress enacted MAP-21;
the Act that mandated that the Agency require the use of ELDs by
interstate CMV drivers required to keep RODS. In addition, the Agency
gained information as part of its outreach efforts. Because the
proposed regulatory text in today's SNPRM supersedes that proposed in
the 2011 NPRM, and because of the significance of the changes, FMCSA
encourages stakeholders and members of the public--including those who
submitted comments previously--to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials on the complete proposal.
FMCSA will address comments submitted in response to the February 2011
NPRM (76 FR 5537) as part of a final rule, to the extent such comments
are relevant given the intervening events since publication of that
document and today's SNPRM.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
SNPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2010-0167, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2010-1067, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
C. Privacy Act
All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you
provide. Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received
into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register (FR) notice
published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316) or you may visit https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
D. Comments on the Collection of Information
If you have comments on the collection of information discussed in
this SNPRM, you must also send those comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB. To ensure that your comments
are received on time, the preferred methods of submission are by email
to oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov (include docket number ``FMCSA-2010-
0167'' and ``Attention: Desk Officer for FMCSA, DOT'' in the subject
line of the email) or fax at 202-395-6566. An alternative, though
slower, method is by U.S. Mail to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, FMCSA, DOT.
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
Automatic On-Board Recording Device........ AOBRD.
Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement BASICs.
Categories.
Commercial Driver's License................ CDL.
Commercial Motor Vehicle................... CMV.
Compliance, Safety, Accountability......... CSA.
Department of Transportation............... DOT.
Electronic Control Module.................. ECM.
Electronic Logging Device.................. ELD.
Electronic On-Board Recorder............... EOBR.
Extensible Markup Language................. XML.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations... FMCSRs.
Fleet Management System.................... FMS.
Geographic Names Information System........ GNIS.
Global Positioning System.................. GPS.
Hazardous Materials........................ HM.
Hours of Service........................... HOS.
Mobile Computing Platform 50............... MCP50.
Motor Carrier Management Information System MCMIS.
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.... MCSAC.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program.... MCSAP.
National Highway Traffic Safety NHTSA.
Administration.
National Transportation Safety Board....... NTSB.
North American Free Trade Agreement........ NAFTA.
North American Industrial Classification NAICS.
System.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.............. NPRM.
Office of Management and Budget............ OMB.
On-Duty Not Driving........................ ODND.
Personally Identifiable Information........ PII.
Quick Response............................. QR.
Record of Duty Status...................... RODS.
Regulatory Impact Analysis................. RIA.
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SNPRM.
Universal Serial Bus....................... USB.
Vehicle Identification Number.............. VIN.
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
FMCSA's authority for this rulemaking is derived from several
statutes.
[[Page 17661]]
A. Motor Carrier Act of 1935
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 74-255, 49 Stat. 543, August
9, 1935), as amended, (the 1935 Act) provides that, ``[t]he Secretary
of Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications
and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation
and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum
hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a
motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation'' (49
U.S.C. 31502(b)). Among other things, by requiring the use of ELDs,
this SNPRM would require safety equipment that would increase
compliance with the HOS regulations and address the ``safety of
operation'' of motor carriers subject to this statute. The SNPRM would
do this by ensuring an automatic recording of driving time and a more
accurate record of a driver's work hours.
B. Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98
Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984), as amended, (the 1984 Act) provides
authority to the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to regulate
drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the
Secretary to prescribe minimum safety standards for CMVs to ensure
that--(1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely;
(2) responsibilities imposed on CMV drivers do not impair their ability
to operate the vehicles safely; (3) drivers' physical condition is
adequate to operate the vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does
not have a deleterious effect on drivers' physical condition; and (5)
CMV drivers are not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or
transportation intermediary to operate a CMV in violation of
regulations promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136 or under chapter 51 or
chapter 313 of 49 U.S.C. (49 U.S.C. 31136(a). The 1984 Act also grants
the Secretary broad power in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes
and regulations to ``prescribe recordkeeping and reporting
requirements'' and to ``perform other acts the Secretary considers
appropriate'' (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10)).
The HOS regulations are designed to ensure that driving time--one
of the principal ``responsibilities imposed on the operators of
commercial motor vehicles''--does ``not impair their ability to operate
the vehicles safely'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)). ELDs that are properly
designed, used, and maintained would enable drivers, motor carriers,
and authorized safety officials to more effectively and accurately
track on-duty driving hours, thus preventing both inadvertent and
deliberate HOS violations. Driver compliance with the HOS rules helps
ensure that drivers are provided time to obtain restorative rest and
thus that ``the physical condition of [CMV drivers] is adequate to
enable them to operate the vehicles safely'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)).
Indeed, the Agency considered whether this proposal would impact driver
health under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) and (a)(4), asdiscussed in the Draft
Environmental Assessment, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
By ensuring an electronic RODS is tamper-resistant, this rulemaking
would protect against coercion of drivers, (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)). The
ELD would decrease the likelihood that driving time, which would be
captured automatically by the device, could be concealed and that other
duty status information entered by the driver could be inappropriately
changed after it is entered. Thus, motor carriers would have limited
opportunity to force drivers to violate the HOS rules without leaving
an electronic trail that would point to the original and revised
records. This SNPRM also expressly proposes to prohibit motor carriers
from coercing drivers to falsely certify their ELD records. FMCSA
intends to further address the issue of driver coercion in a separate
rulemaking.
Because the proposal would increase compliance with the HOS
regulations, it would have a positive effect on the physical condition
of drivers and help to ensure that CMVs are operated safely (49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(1)). Other requirements in 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) concerning
safe motor vehicle maintenance, equipment, and loading are not germane
to this SNPRM because ELDs and the SNPRM's related provisions influence
driver operational safety rather than vehicular and mechanical safety.
C. Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act
Section 9104 of the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act
(Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181, 4529, November 18, 1988) anticipated
the Secretary's promulgating a regulation about the use of monitoring
devices on CMVs to increase compliance with HOS regulations. The
statute, as amended, requires the Agency to ensure that any such device
is not used to ``harass a vehicle operator'' (49 U.S.C. 31137(a)(2)).
This SNPRM would protect drivers from being harassed by motor carriers
to violate safety regulations and would limit a motor carriers' ability
to interrupt a driver's sleeper berth period. In so doing, the SNPRM
also furthers the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), protecting driver's
health. The provisions addressing harassment proposed in this SNPRM are
discussed in more detail under Part X.
D. Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994
Section 113 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization
Act of 1994, Public Law 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 16776-1677, August 26,
1994, (HMTAA) requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations to
improve compliance by CMV drivers and motor carriers with HOS
requirements and the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal and State
enforcement officers reviewing such compliance. Specifically, the Act
addresses requirements for supporting documents. The cost of such
regulations must be reasonable to drivers and motor carriers. Section
113 of HMTAA describes what elements must be covered in regulation,
including a requirement that the regulations specify the ``number,
type, and frequency of supporting documents that must be retained by
the motor carrier'' and a minimum retention period of at least 6
months.
Section 113 also requires that regulations ``authorize, on a case-
by-case basis, self-compliance systems'' whereby a motor carrier or a
group of motor carriers could propose an alternative system that would
ensure compliance with the HOS regulations.
The statute defines ``supporting document,'' in part, as ``any
document . . . generated or received by a motor carrier or commercial
motor vehicle driver in the normal course of business. . . .'' This
SNPRM does not propose to require generation of new supporting
documents outside the normal course of the motor carrier's business.
The SNPRM addresses supporting documents that a motor carrier would
need to maintain consistent with the statutory requirements. The
provisions addressing supporting documents are discussed in more detail
under Part IX.
E. MAP-21
Section 32301(b) of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Enhancement
Act, enacted as part of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 786-788
(July 6, 2012)), mandated that the Secretary adopt regulations
requiring that CMVs involved in interstate commerce, operated by
drivers who are required to
[[Page 17662]]
keep RODS, be equipped with ELDs.\4\ The statute sets out provisions
that the regulations must address, including device performance and
design standards and certification requirements. In adopting
regulations, the Agency must consider how the need for supporting
documents might be reduced, to the extent data is captured on an ELD,
without diminishing HOS enforcement. The statute also addresses privacy
protection and use of data. Like the Truck and Bus Safety and
Regulatory Reform Act, the amendments in MAP-21 section 32301(b)
require the regulations to ``ensur[e] that an electronic logging device
is not used to harass a vehicle operator.'' Finally, as noted above,
MAP-21 amended the 1984 Act to add new 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5), requiring
that FMCSA regulations address coercion of drivers as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In today's SNPRM, the term ``electronic logging device
(ELD)'' is substituted for the term ``electronic on-board recorder
(EOBR),'' which was used in the April 2010 final rule and February
2011 NPRM, in order to be consistent with the term used in MAP-21.
In this SNPRM, we use the term ELD both generically and
specifically. Generically, we use it to describe what has in the
past been called an ELD, an EOBR, or a fleet management system
(FMS). In referring to the proposed regulation, we use the term
specifically to mean a device or technology that complies with
proposed subpart B of part 395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Background
A. ELDs: Discussion of the 2010 Final Rule and the 2011 NPRM
1. April 2010 Rule
On April 5, 2010, the Agency issued a final rule (April 2010 rule)
that addressed the limited, remedial use of electronic on-board
recorders or EOBRs--now termed ``ELDs''--for motor carriers with
significant HOS violations (75 FR 17208).\5\ The rule also contained
new performance standards for all ELDs installed in CMVs manufactured
on or after June 4, 2012. These standards reflected the significant
advances in recording and communications technologies that had occurred
since the introduction of the first AOBRDs under a waiver program in
1985 and the publication of 49 CFR 395.15 in 1988 (53 FR 38666). FMCSA
would have required ELDs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All the documents related to the April 2010 rule can be
found in docket FMCSA-2004-18940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be integrally synchronized to the engine.
To provide the same basic information as is required on an
AOBRD, including the identity of the driver, the USDOT number, and the
CMV's identification.
To record the distance traveled and the driver's duty
status.
To automatically record the date, time, and location of
the CMV at each change of duty status and at intervals of no greater
than 60 minutes while the CMV was in motion.
To ensure the security and integrity of the recorded data
by conforming to specific information processing standards.
To meet certain communications interface requirements for
hardwired and wireless transfer of information.
To allow drivers to annotate the ELD record while
requiring the ELD or its support system to maintain the original
recorded information and track the annotations.
To be resistant to tampering by protecting both input and
output. It would have identified any amendments or annotations of the
record, including who made them and when.
To provide a digital file in a specified format for use by
enforcement officials that could be read using non-proprietary
software. This would have included the ability to generate a graph-grid
on an enforcement official's computer, rather than on the ELD itself.
To provide certain self-tests and self-monitoring. It
would have identified sensor failures and edited or annotated data. The
ELD would also have provided a notification 30 minutes before the
driver reached the daily on duty and driving limits.
Remedial directive. If a motor carrier were found, during a single
compliance review, to have a 10-percent violation rate for any HOS
regulation listed in rescinded appendix C of 49 CFR part 385, the 2010
rule would have required motor carriers to install, use, and maintain
ELDs on all of the motor carrier's CMVs for a period of 2 years. By
focusing on the most severe violations and the most chronic violators,
the Agency sought to achieve the greatest safety benefit by adopting a
mandatory installation trigger designed to single out motor carriers
that demonstrated poor compliance with the HOS regulations.
Incentives to promote the voluntary use of ELDs. In order to
increase the number of motor carriers using ELDs in place of paper
RODS, the April 2010 rule would have provided incentives for voluntary
adoption. The incentives would have included eliminating the
requirement to maintain supporting documents related to driving time.
Instead, the ELD would record and make available that information.
Additionally, if a compliance review of a motor carrier who voluntarily
used ELDs showed a 10 percent or higher violation rate based on the
initial focused sample, the 2010 rule would have provided that FMCSA
assess a random sample of the motor carrier's overall HOS records. The
HOS part of the safety rating would have been based on this random
review. Given that the use of ELDs would be required for most drivers
currently required to prepare RODS, today's SNPRM does not propose any
incentives for ELD use.
2. February 2011 NPRM
On February 1, 2011, FMCSA proposed to expand the electronic
logging requirements to a much broader population of motor carriers (76
FR 5537). Subject to a limited exception for drivers who would need to
keep RODS on an infrequent basis, all motor carriers currently required
to document their drivers' HOS with RODS would have been required to
use ELDs meeting the requirements of the April 2010 rule on CMVs
manufactured on or after June 1, 2012. Furthermore, within 3 years of
the rule's effective date, motor carriers would have been required to
install and use ELDs meeting these technical requirements on CMVs
operated by drivers required to keep RODS, subject to a limited
exception, regardless of the date of the CMV's manufacture.
The 2011 NPRM did not alter the ELD technical specifications
contained in the April 2010 rule. FMCSA also proposed to address in
regulation the requirement that motor carriers--both RODS and timecard
users--systematically monitor their drivers' compliance with the HOS
requirements. While this requirement is not novel (see In the Matter of
Stricklin Trucking Co., Inc., Order on Reconsideration (March 20, 2012)
\6\), the proposed rule would have added a specific requirement to part
395 that motor carriers have in place an HOS management system. The
Agency proposed to clarify the supporting documents requirements for
motor carriers using ELDs by requiring retention of categories of
documents and eliminating the need to maintain supporting documents to
verify driving time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available in Docket FMCSA-2011-0127, https://www.regulations.gov (Document No. FMCSA-2011-0127-0013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. March 2011 Extension of Comment Period
FMCSA received two requests for extensions of the comment period.
The Agency granted these requests and extended the comment period in a
notice published on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13121).
[[Page 17663]]
4. April 2011 Notice Requesting Additional Comment on Harassment
In June 2010, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA) filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit seeking review of the April 2010 rule (Owner-Operator
Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 656 F.3d 580
(7th Cir. 2011)), in the docket for this rulemaking. OOIDA raised
several concerns, including the potential use of ELDs by motor carriers
to harass drivers. Oral arguments were held on February 7, 2011,
shortly after publication of the February 2011 NPRM. Due to the
concurrent litigation on the 2010 final rule, FMCSA supplemented the
request for public comments on the 2011 NPRM by publishing a notice on
April 13, 2011, seeking comments on the topic of harassment (76 FR
20611).
5. August 2011 Seventh Circuit Decision
On August 26, 2011, the Seventh Circuit vacated the entire April
2010 rule. The court held that, contrary to a statutory requirement,
the Agency failed to address the issue of driver harassment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 656 F.3d 580, 589. At the time of the court's decision, 49
U.S.C. 31137(a) read as follows: ``Use of Monitoring Devices.--If
the Secretary of Transportation prescribes a regulation about the
use of monitoring devices on commercial motor vehicles to increase
compliance by operators of the vehicles with hours of service
regulations of the Secretary, the regulation shall ensure that the
devices are not used to harass vehicle operators. However, the
devices may be used to monitor productivity of the operators.'' MAP-
21 revised section 31137 and no longer expressly refers to
``productivity.'' However, FMCSA believes that, as long as an action
by a motor carrier does not constitute harassment that would be
prohibited under this rulemaking, a carrier may legitimately use the
devices to improve productivity or for other appropriate business
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. February 2012 Notice of Intent To Publish an SNPRM
On February 13, 2012, FMCSA announced its intent to move forward
with an SNPRM on ELDs to propose technical standards, address driver
harassment issues, and propose revised requirements on HOS supporting
documents (77 FR 7562). Additionally, the Agency stated it would hold
public listening sessions and task the MCSAC to make recommendations
related to the proposed rulemaking. FMCSA has initiated a survey of
drivers, as well as motor carriers, concerning the potential for the
use of electronic logging to result in harassment (Notice published May
28, 2013, (78 FR 32001).
7. May 2012 Withdrawal of the April 2010 Rule
On May 14, 2012, FMCSA published a final rule (77 FR 28448) to
rescind both the April 5, 2010, final rule (75 FR 17208) and subsequent
corrections and modifications to the technical specifications
(September 13, 2010, 75 FR 55488), in response to the Seventh Circuit's
decision.
8. Results of the Vacatur; Subsequent Developments
As a result of the Seventh Circuit's vacatur, the technical
specifications that were one of the bases of the 2011 NPRM were
rescinded. Because the requirements for AOBRDs were not affected by the
Seventh Circuit's decision, motor carriers relying on electronic
devices to monitor HOS compliance are currently governed by the
Agency's rules regarding the use of AOBRDs in 49 CFR 395.15, originally
published in 1988. There are no new standards currently in effect to
replace these dated technical specifications. Furthermore, because the
entire rule was vacated, FMCSA was unable to grant relief from
supporting document requirements to motor carriers voluntarily using
ELDs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Agency's June 2010 guidance, ``Policy on the Retention
of Supporting Documents and the Use of Electronic Mobile
Communication/Tracking Technology,'' which granted certain motor
carriers limited relief from the requirement to maintain certain
supporting documents, was not affected by the Seventh Circuit
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the vacatur of the 2010 final rule, recommendations
from the MCSAC, and the enactment of MAP-21, FMCSA now proposes new
technical standards for ELDs. The Agency also proposes new requirements
for supporting documents and ways to ensure that ELDs are not used to
harass vehicle operators.
9. MCSAC Meetings
Technical specifications. In response to industry and enforcement
concern over the technical implementation of the April 2010 final rule,
FMCSA held a public meeting on May 31, 2011, and later engaged the
MCSAC to assist in developing technical specifications for ELDs. The
scope of this task was limited because of the planned June 2012
implementation date for the April 2010 final rule.
At the June 20-22, 2011, MCSAC meeting, FMCSA announced task 11-04,
titled ``Electronic On-Board Recorders Communications Protocols,
Security, Interfaces, and Display of Hours-of-Service Data During
Driver/Vehicle Inspections and Safety Investigations.'' FMCSA tasked
the MCSAC to clarify ``the functionality of Part 395 communications
standards relating to [ELD] data files.'' The MCSAC was asked to make
recommendations to FMCSA concerning data communication and display
technologies with input from stakeholders, including law enforcement,
the motor carrier industry, FMCSA information technology/security
experts, and technical product manufacturers. A MCSAC Technical
Subcommittee was formed to advise the committee at large. The
subcommittee met numerous times in late 2011. The MCSAC also held
public meetings on August 30-31 and December 5-6, 2011, to discuss the
subcommittee's recommendations (76 FR 62496, Oct. 7, 2011).
The Seventh Circuit's August 2011 decision to vacate the April 2010
final rule changed the nature of the MCSAC's report. Instead of
presenting comments and recommended changes to the April 2010 final
rule regulatory text, the report proposed a new regulation using
vacated Sec. 395.16 as the template. The report was delivered to the
FMCSA Administrator on December 16, 2011.
Harassment. On February 7-8, 2012, the MCSAC considered task 12-01,
``Measures To Ensure Electronic On-Board Recorders Are Not Used To
Harass Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators.'' FMCSA tasked the MCSAC to
consider a long list of questions concerning the topic of potential
harassment as it could stem from the use of ELDs.
Among other issues, the committee asked what constitutes driver
harassment and whether electronic HOS recording would change the nature
of driver harassment. The MCSAC considered whether ELDs would make
drivers vulnerable to harassment or if they might make drivers less
susceptible to harassment. The MCSAC asked what types of harassment
drivers experience currently, how frequently, and to what extent this
harassment happens. The MCSAC also considered the experience motor
carriers and drivers have had with carriers currently using ELDs in
terms of their effect on driver harassment. The report on harassment
was delivered to the FMCSA Administrator on February 8, 2012. The
harassment provisions in today's SNPRM respond to many of the MCSAC
recommendations in that report.
These meetings, like all MCSAC meetings, were open to the public,
and had a public comment component at the end of every day's session.
Additional information about both of these tasks and the MCSAC
recommendations can
[[Page 17664]]
be found at https://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/meeting.htm.
10. Public Listening Sessions on Harassment
FMCSA held two public listening sessions focusing on the issue of
harassment, subsequent to the Seventh Circuit decision. The first
session was in Louisville, Kentucky, on March 23, 2012, at the Mid-
America Truck Show; and the second session was in Bellevue, Washington,
on April 26, 2012, at the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)
Workshop. Transcripts of both sessions are available in the docket for
this rulemaking, and the Web casts are archived and available at https://www.tvworldwide.com/events/dot/120323/ and https://www.tvworldwide.com/events/dot/120426/, respectively (last accessed May 30, 2013).
11. Regulation Room
DOT enhanced effective public involvement regarding the NPRM by
using the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative called ``Regulation Room.''
Regulation Room is not an official DOT Web site; therefore, a summary
of discussions introduced in Regulation Room was prepared
collaboratively on the site and submitted to DOT as a public comment to
the docket. Regulation Room commenters were informed that they could
also submit individual comments to the rulemaking docket.\9\ Although
the comment period has closed, the comments submitted to Regulation
Room, as well as the discussion summary, are publicly available through
the Regulation Room Web site, https://regulationroom.org/eobr (last
accessed March 6, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Because FMCSA has completed this effort, comments to this
SNPRM will not be sought to Regulation Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Comments to the 2011 NPRM
FMSCA will address comments submitted in response to the February
2011 NPRM (76 FR 5537) as part of a final rule to the extent such
comments are relevant, given the significant intervening events that
have occurred since publication of that document and today's SNPRM.
Because the proposed regulatory text in today's SNPRM supersedes that
in the 2011 NPRM and because of the significance of the changes, FMCSA
invites comments on the complete proposal.
B. History of the Supporting Documents Rule
A supporting document is a paper or electronic document that a
motor carrier generates or receives in the normal course of business
that motor carriers or enforcement officials can use in verifying
drivers' HOS compliance.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This section briefly summarizes the history of supporting
document requirements. For an extensive discussion of the history of
the supporting documents requirements, please refer to the February
1, 2011, NPRM (76 FR 5541).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fundamental principle of the FMCSRs, stated in 49 CFR 390.11, is
that a motor carrier has the duty to require its drivers to comply with
the FMCSRs, including the HOS requirements. Current Federal HOS
regulations (49 CFR Part 395) limit the number of hours a CMV driver
may drive and work. With certain exceptions,\11\ motor carriers and
drivers are required by 49 CFR 395.8 to use RODS to track driving, on-
duty not driving (ODND), sleeper berth, and off duty time. FMCSA and
State enforcement personnel use these RODS, in combination with
supporting documents and other information, to ensure compliance with
the HOS rules. Motor carriers have historically required their
drivers--as a condition of employment, for reimbursement, and other
business purposes--to provide to the motor carriers supporting
documents, such as fuel receipts, toll receipts, bills of lading, and
repair invoices. Motor carriers can compare these documents to drivers'
entries on the paper RODS to verify the accuracy of the RODS. The
FMCSRs require motor carriers to retain all supporting documents,
generated in the ordinary course of business, as well as the paper and
electronic RODS, for a period of 6 months from the date of receipt (49
CFR 395.8(k)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ These exceptions are set forth in 49 CFR 390.3(f) and
395.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the FMCSRs have always required a ``remarks'' section to
augment the duty status information contained in the RODS document, it
was not until January 1983 that the use of supporting documents was
explicitly required (47 FR 53383, Nov. 26, 1982). The rule did not
define the term ``supporting documents,'' and questions arose
concerning what motor carriers were expected to retain. To resolve
several questions, regulatory guidance was published in 1993 and 1997
(November 17, 1993, 58 FR 60734; April 4, 1997, 62 FR 16370, 16425).
In 1994, Congress directed that 49 CFR Part 395 be amended to
improve driver and motor carrier compliance with the HOS regulations
(section 113 of the HMTAA, Pub. Law 103-311, sec. 113, 108 Stat. 1673,
1676-1677 (August 26, 1994)). Congress defined supporting documents in
a manner nearly identical to the Agency's regulatory guidance: ``For
purposes of this section, a supporting document is any document that is
generated or received by a motor carrier or commercial motor vehicle
driver in the normal course of business that could be used, as produced
or with additional identifying information, to verify the accuracy of a
driver's record of duty status.'' (Id.)
In response to section 113(a) of HMTAA, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), FMCSA's predecessor agency, published an NPRM on
supporting documents on April 20, 1998 (63 FR 19457). The FMCSA
included further proposals on supporting documents in its proposed rule
on HOS published May 2, 2000 (65 FR 25540). On November 3, 2004, FMCSA
published an SNPRM proposing language to clarify the duties of motor
carriers and drivers with respect to supporting documents and
requesting further comments on the issue (69 FR 63997). However, the
Agency discovered a long-standing error that had caused it to
significantly underestimate the information collection burden
attributable to the 2004 SNPRM, and FMCSA therefore withdrew the SNPRM
on October 25, 2007 (72 FR 60614).
On January 15, 2010, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) filed
a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 10-1009). ATA petitioned
the court to direct FMCSA to issue an NPRM on supporting documents in
conformance with section 113 of HMTAA within 60 days after the issuance
of the writ and a final rule within 6 months after the issuance of the
NPRM. The court granted the petition for writ of mandamus on September
30, 2010, ordering FMCSA to issue an NPRM on the supporting document
regulations by December 30, 2010.
FMCSA issued guidance on HOS supporting documents and use of
electronic mobile communications/tracking technology on June 10, 2010
(75 FR 32984). In addition to removing certain documents from the list
of supporting documents a motor carrier must maintain, that guidance
confirmed the Agency's interpretation that motor carriers are liable
for the actions of their employees if they have, or should have, the
means by which to detect HOS violations.
The April 2010 final rule had provided relief to motor carriers
using ELDs on a voluntary basis from the requirement to maintain
supporting documents to verify driving time. Those motor carriers would
have needed to maintain only those additional
[[Page 17665]]
supporting documents necessary to verify ODND activities and off duty
status (75 FR 17208, at 17212, 17233, and 17234, April 5, 2010).
However, as discussed above, the April 2010 rule is no longer in
effect.
C. Concurrent Activities
1. Safety Study
FMCSA is engaging in another action, ``Evaluating the Potential
Safety Benefits of Electronic Onboard Recorders.'' The study is an
effort to further quantify the safety benefits of ELDs.
2. Coordination With the U.S. Department of Labor
FMCSA has worked with the U.S. Department of Labor to clarify and
reinforce the procedures of both agencies, specifically concerning
harassment. The Department of Labor administers the whistleblower law
enacted as part of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (49 U.S.C.
31105). Although FMCSA and the U.S. Department of Labor have previously
consulted on particular cases or referred drivers to the appropriate
agency based on the nature of the concern, the agencies have been in
communication concerning their respective authorities and complaint
procedures. Several elements in this SNPRM, including the proposed
requirement that all drivers have improved access to their HOS
compliance records, should provide drivers with better documentation of
situations that they believe constitute harassment and would help their
case in the event they file complaints with either Department of Labor
or FMCSA.
D. Table Summary
Timeline of Regulatory and Judicial Actions Related To This SNPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Type of action, RIN Citation, date Synopsis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic On-Board Recorders for Final rule, 2126-AA89. 75 FR 17208, Apr. 5, Established new performance
Hours-of-Service Compliance. 2010. standards for EOBRs,
required EOBRs to be
installed in CMVs for
motor carriers that have
demonstrated serious
noncompliance; set
incentives for voluntary
usage of EOBRs.
Policy on the Retention of Notice of Regulatory 75 FR 32984, June 10, Provided notice to the
Supporting Documents and the Use Guidance and Policy 2010. motor carrier industry and
of Electronic Mobile Communication/ Change.. the public of regulatory
Tracking Technology in Assessing guidance and policy
Motor Carriers' and Commercial changes regarding the
Motor Vehicle Drivers' Compliance retention of supporting
With the Hours of Service documents and the use of
Regulations. electronic mobile
communication/tracking
technology in assessing
motor carriers' and
commercial motor vehicle
drivers' compliance with
the hours of service
regulations.
Electronic On-Board Recorders for Final rule; Technical 75 FR 55488, Sept. 13, Amended requirements for
Hours-of-Service Compliance. amendments, response 2010. the temperature range in
to petitions for which EOBRs must be able
reconsideration, 2126- to operate, and the
AA89. connector type specified
for the Universal Serial
Bus (USB) interface.
Electronic On-Board Recorders and NPRM, 2126-AB20....... 76 FR 5537, Feb. 1, Required all motor carriers
Hours-of-Service Supporting 2011. currently required to
Documents. maintain RODS for HOS
recordkeeping to use EOBRs
instead; relied on the
technical specifications
from the April 2010 final
rule, and reduced
requirements to retain
supporting documents.
Electronic On-Board Recorders and NPRM; extension of 76 FR 13121, Mar. 10, Extended the public comment
Hours-of-Service Supporting comment period, 2126- 2011. period for the NPRM from
Documents. AB20. April 4, 2011, to May 23,
2011.
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Notice; request for 76 FR 20611, Apr. 13, Expanded the opportunity
Hours-of-Service Supporting additional public 2011. for the public to comment
Documents. comment, 2126-AB20. on the issue of ensuring
that EOBRs are not used to
harass CMV drivers.
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Notice of meeting, 76 FR 38268, June 29, Announced series of
Committee (MCSAC) Series of Public related to 2126-AA89. 2011. subcommittee meetings on
Subcommittee Meetings. task 11-04, concerning
technical specifications
for an EOBR as related to
the April 2010 final rule.
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n Judicial Decision, Owner-Operator Indep. Vacated the April 2010
v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety United States Court Drivers Ass'n v. Fed. final rule.
Admin.. of Appeals, Seventh Motor Carrier Safety
Circuit, related to Admin., 656 F.3d. 580
2126-AA89. (7th Cir. 2011), Aug.
26, 2011.
MCSAC: Public Meeting Medical Notice of meeting, 77 FR 3546, Jan. 24, Announced meeting on task
Review Board: Joint Public Meeting related to 2126-AB20. 2012. 12-01, concerning issues
With MCSAC. relating to the prevention
of harassment of truck and
bus drivers through EOBRs.
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Notice of intent, 2126- 77 FR 7562, Feb. 13, Announced FMCSA's intent to
Hours-of-Service Supporting AB20. 2012. go forward with an SNPRM;
Documents. two public listening
sessions; an initial
engagement of the MCSAC in
this subject matter; a
survey of drivers
concerning potential for
harassment; and a survey
for motor carriers and
vendors concerning
potential for harassment.
[[Page 17666]]
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Notice of public 77 FR 12231, Feb. 29, Announced public listening
Hours-of-Service Supporting listening session, 2012. session held in
Documents. 2126-AB20. Louisville, Kentucky on
March 23, 2012.
Electronic On-Board Recorders and Notice of public 77 FR 19589, Apr. 2, Announced public listening
Hours-of-Service Supporting listening session, 2012. session held in Bellevue,
Documents. 2126-AB20. Washington on April 26,
2012.
Electronic On-Board Recorders for Final rule, 2126-AB45. 77 FR 28448, May 14, Responded to a decision of
Hours-of-Service Compliance; 2012. the Court of Appeals for
Removal of Final Rule Vacated by the Seventh Circuit that
Court. vacated the April 2010
final rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. ELD Performance and Design Specifications
Today's SNPRM proposes new technical standards, replacing those in
the vacated April 2010 final rule. It also responds to the specific ELD
technical requirements in MAP-21; see 49 U.S.C. 31137. Although MAP-21
requires that an ELD ``accurately record commercial driver [HOS],''
there is no current technology that can automatically differentiate
between a driver's ODND status versus off duty or sleeper berth status.
An ELD, however, would reduce HOS record falsification, especially for
driving time, which would be recorded automatically. ELDs facilitate
considerably more accurate recording of non-driving activities through
the requirement to provide time, location, engine hours, and odometer
reading ``snapshots'' at each change of duty status.
The ELD record, in combination with a driver's supporting
documents, is expected to provide a far more accurate record than paper
RODS. The detailed performance and design requirements for ELDs
proposed in this SNPRM would ensure that providers would be able to
develop compliant devices and systems and that motor carriers could
better understand which products are compliant and make informed
decisions before acquiring them. The requirements would also provide
drivers with effective recordkeeping systems, which would provide them
control over and access to their records. The technical specifications
would also address statutory requirements pertaining to prevention of
harassment, protection of driver privacy, compliance certification
procedures, and resistance to tampering. Furthermore, they would
establish methods for providing authorized safety officials with
drivers' ELD data when required. See 49 U.S.C. 31137(a)-(f).
For a 2-year period after the compliance date (4 years after the
publication of a final rule) for these technical specifications, AOBRDs
as described in current Sec. 395.15, installed before that date, could
continue to be used in lieu of ELDs to comply with HOS regulations. At
that point, all AOBRD-users would be required to update or replace
their devices and systems to bring them into conformance with the new
49 CFR Part 395, subpart B requirements. For more about the transition
period proposed for this SNPRM, see Part VIII.
A. Terminology
For the reader's convenience, this section describes terms that are
used in today's SNPRM.
1. AOBRD
An AOBRD is a device that meets the requirements of 49 CFR 395.15.
As described below, a minimally compliant device would need to be
replaced. However, many technologies exist today that currently meet or
exceed parts of the standards of this proposed regulation, and could be
easily and cheaply made to fit the requirements for an ELD. The Agency
refers to these as ELD-like devices. The definition of AOBRDs is set
out in 49 CFR 395.2; and Table 6, below, shows a comparison of the
different kinds of logging devices.
2. ELD
An ELD is a recording-only technology, used to track the time a CMV
is operating. An ELD is integrally connected to the CMV's engine, uses
location information, and is tamper-resistant. An ELD automatically
tracks CMV movement, but allows for annotations by both the driver and
the motor carrier's agent to explain or correct records. An ELD is not
necessarily a physical device; it is a technology platform, and may be
portable or implemented within a device not permanently installed on a
CMV. The definition of ELD is in a proposed amendment to 49 CFR 395.2;
and Table 6, below, shows a comparison of the different kinds of
logging devices.
3. ELD Data
FMCSA uses the term ``ELD data'' to mean each data element captured
by an ELD that is compliant with the requirements contained in proposed
subpart B of part 395. These data would be available to authorized
safety officials during roadside inspections and as part of on-site or
other reviews.
4. eRODS Software System
eRODS is the software system that FMCSA is currently developing in
conjunction with its State partners. During an inspection, the eRODS
software system would receive, analyze, and display ELD data in a way
that can be efficiently used by authorized safety officials.
5. FMS
A Fleet Management System (FMS) is an asset tracking and business
optimization solution which may also accomplish the ELD functionality.
Some of these technologies may have functions such as real-time asset
monitoring for fleet efficiency, but these capabilities would not be
required by this regulation. FMCSA emphasizes that it does not prohibit
the integration of ELD functions into other electronic platforms, such
as an FMS, already used on CMVs. FMCSA requires only the use of ELDs.
6. Comparison of AOBRD, EOBR, and ELD Specifications
Table 6, below, shows how AOBRDs, as regulated in 49 CFR 395.15,
compare to the specifications for EOBRs, published in the 2010 Final
Rule, and the ELDs proposed in this SNPRM.
[[Page 17667]]
Table 6--Comparison of Specifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feature/function 1988 AOBRD rule 2010 EOBR final rule 2013 ELD SNPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integral Synchronization........... Integral Integral Integral synchronization
synchronization synchronization with the CMV engine,* to
required, but term required, defined to automatically capture
not defined in the specify signal source engine power status,
FMCSRs. internal to the CMV. vehicle motion status,
miles driven, engine
hours.
* For MY 2000 and later,
interfacing with engine
ECM.
Recording Location Information..... Required at each Require automated entry Require automated entry at
change of duty at each change of duty each change of duty
status. Manual or status and at 60- status, at 60-minute
automated. minute intervals while intervals while CMV is in
CMV in motion. motion, at engine-on and
engine-off instances, and
at beginning and end of
personal use and yard
moves.
Graph Grid Display................. Not required--``time Not required on EOBR, An ELD must be able to
and sequence of duty digital file to present a graph grid of
status changes''. generate graph grid on driver's daily duty
enforcement official's status changes either on
portable computer. a display unit or on a
printout.
HOS Driver Advisory Messages....... Not addressed......... Requires notification HOS limits notification
at least 30 minutes not required.
before driver reaches ``Unassigned driving time/
24-hour and 7/8 day miles'' warning provided
driving and on-duty upon login.
limits.
Device ``Default'' Duty Status..... Not addressed......... On-duty not driving On-duty driving, when CMV
when the vehicle is has not been in-motion
stationary (not moving for 5 consecutive
and the engine is off) minutes, and driver has
5 minutes or more. not responded to an ELD
prompt within 1 minute.
No other non-driver-
initiated status change
is allowed.
Clock Time Drift................... Not addressed......... Absolute deviation from ELD time must be
the time base synchronized to UTC,
coordinated to UTC absolute deviation must
shall not exceed 10 not exceed 10 minutes at
minutes at any time. any point in time.
Communications Methods............. Not addressed--focused Wired: USB 2.0 Primary: Wireless
on interface between implementing Mass Webservices or Bluetooth
AOBRD support systems Storage Class 08H for 2.1 or Email (SMTP) or
and printers. driverless operation. Compliant Printout.
Wireless: IEEE 802.11g, Backup Wired/Proximity:
CMRS. USB 2.0 * and (Scannable
QR codes, or TransferJet
*)
* Except for ``printout
alternative.''
Resistance to Tampering............ AOBRD and support Must not permit An ELD must not permit
systems, must be, to alteration or erasure alteration or erasure of
the maximum extent of the original the original information
practical, information collected collected concerning the
tamperproof. concerning the driver's ELD records or
driver's hours of alteration of the source
service, or alteration data streams used to
of the source data provide that information.
streams used to An ELD must support data
provide that integrity check
information. functions.
Identification of Sensor Failures Must identify sensor The device/system must An ELD must have the
and Edited Data. failures and edited identify sensor capability to monitor its
data. failures and edited compliance (engine
and annotated data connectivity, timing,
when downloaded or positioning, etc.) for
reproduced in printed detectable malfunctions
form. and data inconsistencies.
The ELD must record these
occurrences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. ELD Function
1. Performance and Design Standards
FMCSA created these proposed technical specifications to be
performance-based, so as to accommodate evolving technology and
standards, allow for more cost-effective adoption of the technical
specifications, and afford ELD providers flexibility to offer compliant
products that are innovative and meet the needs of drivers and motor
carriers. However, FMCSA does propose specific standard data formats
and outputs that ELD providers would need to use to transfer,
initialize, or upload data between systems or to authorized safety
officials.
FMCSA has placed these performance and design standards into the
appendix to proposed subpart B of part 395. This SNPRM also would
incorporate by reference a number of established technical standards
for sub-functions of an ELD, all of which are readily available at
little to no cost. The use of these industry standards would reduce the
cost of producing ELDs that meet the technical standards of a final
rule. However, FMCSA emphasizes that there are no industry standards
for ELDs.
Functional requirements regarding the communications between a
vehicle's engine electronic control module (ECM) and the ELD are
included in today's SNPRM. The technical requirements proposed in
today's SNPRM would be considerably expanded from those in the vacated
April 2010 final rule, and provide detail on processes, including
security and tamper resistance.
2. Recording
In order to minimize compliance costs, today's SNPRM positions the
ELD as a recording-only technology with the ability to transfer data to
authorized safety officials. This rulemaking would not require the ELD
to analyze or review driver's RODS data for any purpose, including
compliance. It would not require the ELD to provide a warning for a
driver who may be reaching HOS violation limits or to address other
compliance concerns, although motor carriers and ELD providers are not
prohibited from using or building an ELD that does so.
The following data elements would be automatically recorded within
the ELD dataset and transferred to authorized safety officials when
requested: date, time, CMV location, engine hours, vehicle miles,
driver or authenticated user identification data, vehicle
identification data, and motor carrier identification data.
CMV location information. For an ELD, location measurement would be
used primarily to automatically populate CMV position at duty status
changes and at intervening intervals.
[[Page 17668]]
FMCSA proposes that location information remain a part of the technical
specifications for an ELD. Without accurate and verifiable CMV location
information, a driver's RODS would not be complete. Furthermore, some
of the tamper-resistance measures proposed in the SNPRM would use
location information in consistency-check algorithms. FMCSA also
believes that intermediate location recordings while the CMV is in
motion are important to include in the dataset for verification
purposes. With this SNPRM, FMCSA also proposes the precision and
availability requirements associated with the automatic positioning
services to be used as part of an ELD.
FMCSA no longer proposes requiring the ELDs' dataset exchanged with
authorized safety officials to include ``place name.'' Instead,
latitude and longitude coordinates would be recorded and transmitted to
those officials' portable computers. There the eRODS software would
resolve the coordinates into a named place and, as necessary, the
distance and direction offset from the named place. An ELD would still
need to be able to present location information in understandable terms
to the driver and motor carriers to allow them to review and certify
records. ELDs that print a graph-grid for authorized safety officials
would also require understandable location information. Because
latitude and longitude information would not be adequately descriptive
for them, FMCSA retains the requirement for ELDs to report geo-location
information. The Agency also proposes the incorporation by reference of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) INCITS 446-2008
document, which includes the ``USGS GNIS, where Feature Class =
Populated Place'' list.
Relying on a performance and design standard, FMCSA would not
require the use of the satellite-based global positioning system (GPS)
for positioning services. Location codes may be obtained from satellite
or land-based sources, or a combination of sources. This SNPRM would
require the monitoring of engine hours and odometer readings in
addition to automatic recording of location information. Interruptions
to GPS or other location services would not prevent CMV movement from
being detected by the ELD.
Today's SNPRM proposes revised, more detailed technical
specifications for standard location information presentation, using
geo-location combined with a nearby reference point, distance, and
direction from that reference.
Driver or authenticated user identification data. HOS regulations
require unique identification of the driver on the ELD, which implies
the inclusion of personally identifiable information (PII). The Agency
determined that name and use of a partial driver's license number does
not lower the security requirements the Agency must establish for
handling of the data. However, use of a partial driver's license number
complicates the process due to the States' varying methods for
assigning drivers' license numbers. Therefore, the Agency determined
that including the entire driver's license number and driver's license
issuing State would be necessary to ensure a unique identification of
each driver and to attain a sufficient level of tamper resistance for
the ELDs by preventing the potential creation of multiple aliases for a
single driver within a motor carrier.
When the ELD records the required dataset. Today's SNPRM proposes
to require the ELD to record the dataset, including geographic
information as described above, at 60-minute intervals when the vehicle
is in motion, at the time of any duty status change the driver inputs,
and when a CMV's engine is powered up or shut down. Further, if a motor
carrier has allowed drivers to use a CMV for personal conveyance or
yard moves, a driver's indication of the start and end of such
occurrences will also record a dataset; these are not indicated as
separate duty statuses.
The ELD would record the account logged into the ELD at the time of
the recording, including a standard identifier when a driver may not be
authenticated.
Because FMCSA will continue to allow use of paper RODS in certain
operations and temporarily during ELD malfunctions, retaining the same
four duty status categories used for paper RODS is necessary: driving,
ODND, off duty, and sleeper berth. However, there are situations where
it is necessary to annotate or otherwise flag periods where the CMV is
moving as a status other than ``on-duty driving,'' including various
covered exceptions under 49 CFR 395.1. FMCSA proposes to add a
requirement for the ELD to provide the capability for a driver to
indicate the beginning and end of two specific categories, namely,
personal use of a CMV and yard moves, as allowed by the motor carrier,
where the CMV may be in motion but a driver is not necessarily in a
``driving'' duty status. This would record the necessary information in
a consistent manner for the use of drivers, motor carriers, and
authorized safety officials.
Personal conveyance. If a CMV is used for personal conveyance, and
the driver uses the ELD to electronically indicate the beginning of the
event, the ELD would not record that time as on-duty driving. Today's
SNPRM provides for selection of a special driving category when a CMV
is being driven but the time is not recorded as on-duty driving. FMCSA
does not define a specific threshold of distance or time traveled for a
driver to be able to use the personal use provision. FMCSA emphasizes
that ELDs are HOS-recording technologies. Authorized motor carrier
safety personnel and authorized safety officials would use the ELD data
to further explore and determine whether the indicated special category
was appropriately used by the driver.
Integral synchronization. FMCSA would require integral
synchronization for engine information to be shared with the ELD. For
example, FMCSA proposes that distance traveled be measured by the
odometer indication electronically available on the vehicle databus,
the engine control module, or other electronic device, when allowed,
which would indicate the total distance traveled from a source internal
to the CMV. Today's SNPRM describes the underlying requirements
associated with engine synchronization in recording the HOS logs of a
driver. The proposal provides sufficient flexibility to accommodate
engines on older CMVs. However, FMCSA would like to hear more details
from the public on the complexity of compliance with a CMV manufactured
on or before 2000.
3. Resistance to Tampering
MAP-21 defines ``tamper resistant'' as ``resistant to allowing any
individual to cause an [ELD] to record the incorrect date, time, and
location for changes to on-duty driving status . . . or to subsequently
alter the record created by that device'' (49 U.S.C. 31137(f)(2)).
FMCSA interprets ``tamper'' in this context as a deliberate action that
results in erroneous data or unauthorized changes to ELD data.
Tampering could result in the alteration of hardware, software, or
stored data. Because of the variety of potential hardware and software
solutions and the lack of any published standards that are followed by
ELD-like system providers, FMCSA has chosen to focus on establishing
requirements that would address many of the known types of tampering.
FMCSA would also require additional data elements that would be
[[Page 17669]]
used to identify attempts to falsify or tamper with ELD data.
FMCSA acknowledges that there is a possibility that someone might
tamper with ELD systems out of curiosity or to avoid or subvert
operational or safety oversight. Like the NPRM, this SNPRM would
explicitly prohibit motor carriers and drivers from disabling,
deactivating, damaging, jamming, or otherwise blocking or degrading a
signal transmission or reception, or otherwise tampering with an AOBRD
or ELD so that the device would not accurately record the duty status
of a driver (Sec. 395.8(e)(2)).
FMCSA has increased its tamper resistance performance and design
specifications in this SNPRM and would require that all ELDs have
standard security features, which include recording data that would
help indicate tampering. Motor carrier safety oversight personnel and
authorized safety officials would be able to use these indicators to
review potential inconsistencies, assess their sources, and estimate
their effects. However, complete tamper-proofing is neither possible
nor practical. The SNPRM would balance tamper-resistance with the cost-
effectiveness of available solutions. If ELDs were required to
implement military-level security standards, such requirements would
likely increase their complexity and cost, and adversely impact their
ease of use.
Each captured record would include a code derived from the data
itself at the time of recording that eRODS software would use to
determine the authenticity of the information. Additionally, the
combination of the vehicle mileage, time record, and location
coordinates would increase the difficulty of fabricating data and make
it more likely to produce inconsistent data that would be evident to
authorized safety officials reviewing the ELD records. In addition to
instituting strict account management requirements to ensure every
driver has only one ELD profile within a motor carrier, FMCSA would
also require the capture of data during CMV movement when no driver has
logged into an ELD, to provide authorized safety officials with a
complete picture of vehicle movement. Finally, the increased number of
data elements from the engine would make creating false data a
difficult and time-consuming process, even if someone could find a way
to introduce such data into an ELD. None of these controls should
dissuade ELD providers from adding additional, appropriate hardware and
software controls against tampering.
4. Damaged, Outdated, or Malfunctioning ELDs
FMCSA understands that any devices, systems, or enabling
technologies might occasionally fail. This SNPRM contains provisions
that would allow drivers to continue to operate a CMV in the event of
an ELD failure. Drivers would be required to use paper RODS temporarily
while the ELD is inoperative. The driver would be required to give the
motor carrier written notice of the failure either electronically, for
example, by email, or by some other written means, within 24 hours.
Owner-operators who lease on with a motor carrier are generally
considered employees under the FMCSRs; thus, they would be required to
notify that motor carrier. However, owner-operators who operated
independently would need to satisfy requirements applicable to both a
motor carrier and driver. One option for these owner-operators would be
to record a malfunction by documenting it on a paper log used during
the period that their ELD was not functioning. Unless the records were
already available, the driver would have to reconstruct the RODS for
the current 24-hour period and the previous 7 days. Until the ELD was
brought back into compliance, the driver would have to continue to
manually prepare RODS.
FMCSA has added more details on failure detection to this SNPRM. In
a new table of ELD compliance malfunctions and data diagnostic event
codes, FMCSA outlines the proposed listing of malfunction types (Table
4 in the appendix to subpart B of part 395). Proposed new table 4 would
require data diagnostics self-testing by ELDs. Table 4 expands the
categories of data diagnostic consistency checks and establishes
consistency with the compliance malfunction detection strategy outlined
in this rule. These malfunctions cover many of the detectable and
actionable error types. However, the table is structured in terms of
``compliance malfunctions,'' which refer to more generalized
performance compliance elements of this rule across different types of
ELD implementation possibilities.
The SNPRM would require the motor carrier to repair the ELD within
8 days of discovering its condition. However, the SNPRM provides a
procedure whereby a motor carrier may request an extension of time from
FMCSA to repair, replace, or service an ELD. Unless an extension is
granted, if a driver is inspected for HOS compliance during a
malfunction, the driver would receive a citation for the malfunctioning
ELD, and the driver would have to provide the authorized safety
official with manually prepared RODS for further assessment with
respect to HOS regulations.
C. ELD Regulatory Compliance
1. Certification Process
Compliance test procedures. The SNPRM would still propose to
require ELDs to be certified by the provider, but FMCSA will develop a
standard set of compliance test procedures that providers may use in
their certification processes. FMCSA anticipates that industry
standards for testing and certification of ELDs may emerge and evolve
after the publication of the SNPRM, and such standards may use or build
upon the compliance test procedures FMCSA establishes.
ELD providers would not be required to follow FMCSA's compliance
test procedures to certify compliance of their product. Their ELDs,
however, would need to meet or exceed the performance requirements
proposed in the appendix to subpart B of part 395. FMCSA may subject
registered ELDs to FMCSA's compliance test procedures to independently
verify their compliance.
FMCSA stresses that it does not have regulatory authority over
system providers. FMCSA is not proposing mandating blanket testing and
certification criteria, because allowing ELD providers flexibility to
meet or exceed the performance requirements of these criteria is
consistent with other DOT regulations and would be as effective as
existing DOT regulations. FMCSA will continue to monitor the testing
and certification activities and may issue guidance on test standards
at a future date.
Registration and Web site. This SNPRM would require certified ELDs
to be registered with FMCSA, and would require motor carriers to use
only those ELDs listed on FMCSA's Web site. FMCSA expects this process
to inform motor carriers of all available options through a single
resource. FMCSA anticipates ELD providers will be able to meet industry
demands in advance of the rule's compliance date. However, FMCSA seeks
comment and information about providers' ability to meet industry
demand.
Third-party certification. This SNPRM is not proposing that
certification be completed by a third party. While the certification
process would not prohibit the use of a third-party testing service,
the ELD provider would be the responsible certifying entity. Although
not proposed in this SNPRM, FMCSA is seeking information on, and may
consider using, a third-party
[[Page 17670]]
certification process whereby all ELDs would have to be independently
tested, validated, certified, and stamped for listing by, for example,
a nationally recognized testing laboratory. The Agency believes that
such a requirement would increase costs to the motor carrier industry,
but in the absence of robust standards for testing and validation for
ELD-like systems in the marketplace today, the Agency was unable to
clearly quantify such costs and project their potential impact on the
rule's implementation. FMCSA believes that such a process may emerge by
market demand even in the absence of a regulation, and this SNPRM does
not prohibit such third-party certification. FMCSA requests public
comment on industry's preference on a potential third-party
certification requirement.
Original equipment manufacturers. FMCSA recognizes that, in some
cases, ELDs will be made available by the original equipment
manufacturers on new CMVs. Many original equipment manufacturers have
announced that they are installing, or have plans to install,
multifunctional terminals in the instrument panel of some models of
CMVs. This would offer a more ``application ready'' interface for motor
carriers, allowing them to use a variety of productivity, safety, and
telematics applications. However, the fact that original equipment
manufacturers offer those terminals--and the ability of CMV operators
to take delivery of CMVs with those terminals installed--does not imply
that original equipment manufacturers are subject to ELD regulations,
nor that the terminals, by themselves, comply with the definition of
ELDs.
This SNPRM would not regulate original equipment manufacturers;
that responsibility has been delegated to NHTSA (49 U.S.C. 30111; 49
CFR 1.95(a)). FMCSA may not regulate ``the manufacture of commercial
motor vehicles for any purpose'' under the safety regulation provisions
of 49 U.S.C. chapter 311 (49 U.S.C. 31147(b)). The proposed regulations
do not distinguish between original equipment manufacturers that
install in-cab computer terminals that have ELD capacity and
aftermarket providers of ELDs. ELDs installed at the time of vehicle
manufacture are currently supplied by ELD providers. Regardless of the
manufacturer or integrator of an ELD, a motor carrier may only use an
ELD that has been certified and registered with FMCSA.
2. User Requirements
Data entry when the CMV is moving. The current AOBRD regulation
allows minimal keystroke sequences to be used while the CMV is in
motion. This was done to allow drivers to note State-line crossings
because AOBRD data is used for fuel tax reporting purposes. Improved
geographic-location technology renders this unnecessary. Today's SNPRM
would eliminate the ability of a driver to enter information into an
ELD while the vehicle is in motion. An ELD must not allow a driver to
access it unless the CMV is stopped.
Editing and annotating RODS. FMCSA would take the ``ship's log''
approach to records. Once a record has been created using the ELD, it
must not be erased and driving-time records must not be changed.
However, editing a record does not erase the original data captured by
the ELD, and records may be edited or annotated to correct inaccuracies
or errors. Driving time may not be changed.
As proposed by this SNPRM, both the driver and the motor carrier
would need to ensure that the ELD records are accurate. A driver may
edit, enter missing information, or annotate the record. The motor
carrier may propose changes to the driver. The driver would need to
confirm or reject any change, edit the record, then re-certify the
record, in order for the motor carrier's proposed change to take
effect. This would preserve the driver's responsibility for the
driver's records.
Entering false information. The 2011 NPRM prohibited entering false
information in the ELD, subject to the same penalties as the current
regulations apply to instances of falsifying RODS. This SNPRM proposes
to retain and expand upon this prohibition.
Although some individuals will attempt to enter false or inaccurate
information on ODND time, the possibility of some cheating does not
negate the anticipated overall effectiveness of this SNPRM. The Agency
is not aware of any reliable sensing technologies that can
automatically differentiate between the various non-driving statuses
without an unacceptable loss of privacy. ELDs, however, would
dramatically reduce HOS record falsification for driving time, which
would be recorded automatically, and thus would decrease the level of
falsification among HOS records as a whole.
3. Enforcement Procedure and Transmitting Data
ELD data would need to be transferred to authorized safety
officials at a motor carrier's facility or as part of a roadside
inspection or review. Today's SNPRM would provide flexibility by
allowing various options for the transfer of data, while ensuring a
driver's privacy would be protected. Based on States' capabilities,
FMCSA proposes alternatives for compliance with the use of primary and
backup transfer mechanisms.
ELDs would need to incorporate a standardized, single-step, driver
interface for the transfer of data to an authorized safety official at
roadside. Under this proposal, the enforcement officer would be able to
read the ELD data without entering the CMV. The uniform process for the
transfer of data would allow standardized review of ELD data by
authorized safety officials using eRODS software.
FMCSA currently requires AOBRDs to display the time and sequence of
duty status entries, and today's SNPRM proposes the same requirement
for ELDs. This SNPRM would require an ELD to provide graph-grids for
the current 24-hour period and the previous 7 days, either on a display
or on a printout.
FMCSA considered the option to require all ELDs to produce
printouts and includes the cost-benefit analysis for this option in the
RIA that supports this SNPRM. Such a broad mandate would be
comparatively costly to the industry. FMCSA is, therefore, proposing to
allow printing as an acceptable form of compliance for ELDs during
roadside inspections, but would not require all ELDs to provide print-
outs. FMCSA also considered regulating details of a compliant ELD
screen specification, but decided that this approach would both
increase the cost of ELDs and limit innovative solutions, without
markedly increasing benefits. In this SNPRM, FMCSA more generally
refers to the functional information presentation requirements instead
of listing specific screen requirements.
4. ELD Specifications To Protect Privacy
The primary Federal statute addressing protection of an
individual's PII is the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C.
552a). This Act applies to information maintained in a ``system of
records''--a group of any records under control of the Agency from
which information may be retrieved by an individual's name or by some
identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to
an individual. MAP-21 requires that FMCSA ``include such measures as
[FMCSA] determines are necessary to protect the privacy of each
individual whose personal data is contained in an [ELD].'' See 49
U.S.C. 31137(d)(2). FMCSA would limit the collection of PII to the
driver's name, driver's license
[[Page 17671]]
number, location, the co-driver's name, and names of other users of the
ELD. Additionally, information provided in driver annotations may
contain PII.
To protect the privacy of drivers using ELDs, FMCSA would require a
variety of controls. Both drivers and motor carrier support personnel
would have to possess proper user authentication credentials (e.g.,
username and password) to access ELD data. For location information,
FMCSA would also limit the detail of captured coordinates to two
decimal places and require accuracy only to a radius of approximately 1
mile. Furthermore, when a driver indicates personal use of a CMV on the
ELD, recording accuracy for position information would be further
reduced to a single decimal place, resulting in an accuracy equivalent
to a radius of approximately 10 miles. Finally, as explained in the
data transfer section, FMCSA would require data transferred to
authorized safety officials to be encrypted or, in the case of a
display or print-out, physically protected, reducing the likelihood of
the unauthorized capture of ELD data. This requirement addresses the
protection of personal data consistent with requirements of MAP-21, 49
U.S.C. 31137(e)(2).
In support of its safety mission, FMCSA has been delegated broad
authority to prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements (49
U.S.C. 31133(a)(8); 49 CFR 1.87(f)). However, in MAP-21, Congress
restricted the way ELD data might be used. Specifically, the statute
provides that the Agency ``may utilize information contained in an
electronic logging device only to enforce. . . motor carrier safety and
related regulations, including record-of-duty status regulations'' (49
U.S.C. 31137(e)(1)). Furthermore, appropriate measures must be
instituted ``to ensure any information collected by electronic logging
devices is used by enforcement personnel only for the purpose of
determining compliance with hours of service requirements'' (49 U.S.C.
31137(e)(3)). As explained in the accompanying conference committee
report, Congress intended that such data ``be used only to enforce
federal regulations'' (H. Rep. No. 112-557, at 607 (2012)).
FMCSA reads these ELD data-use restrictions in the context of the
regulatory structure and longstanding HOS enforcement practices in
existence at the time MAP-21 was adopted, and the Agency does not infer
from the provisions any congressional intent to diminish the Agency's
previous enforcement capabilities. MAP-21 effectively directs the
Agency to substitute the paper RODS requirement with a requirement that
the same motor carriers use ELDs. While the primary purpose of drivers'
RODS has always been the enforcement of the HOS rules, authorized
safety officials use drivers' logs also for additional evidentiary
purposes. However, the Agency's HOS regulations apply only to drivers
operating in interstate commerce, and the Agency has often relied on
drivers' logs to demonstrate interstate commerce as an element of FMCSA
jurisdiction. Logs are also used to identify the driver, a function
specifically required by 49 U.S.C. 31137(b)(2)(D) and inherent in
enforcement of HOS requirements. Once established for purposes of
determining compliance with the HOS requirements, such a legally
essential predicate fact becomes the law in the case. The established
fact may then supply an element of proof of non-HOS violations. FMCSA
believes this is a reasonable interpretation of sec. 31137(e), given
the Agency's historical multipurpose use of the logbook, which Congress
intends to displace through mandatory ELD use, and in light of the
reference to the enforcement of ``related regulations'' in sec.
31137(e)(1).
Although MAP-21 restricts the manner in which FMCSA may use ELD
data, the Agency also believes that such data could be employed in
future research efforts relating to HOS compliance and highway safety,
as this research may ultimately improve compliance with HOS
requirements. Although this option is available to the Agency,
consistent with current practice, such data would not be retained
absent a violation. For more information concerning how FMCSA would use
ELD data, please see the Privacy Impact Assessment associated with this
rulemaking. In the event that FMCSA elects to retain such data in
connection with a future research effort, the Agency would give the
public advance notice of its decision.
5. ELD Specifications To Protect Against Harassment
In prescribing regulations on the use of ELDs, the Agency is
required by statute to ensure that ELDs are ``not used to harass a
vehicle operator'' (49 U.S.C. 31137(a)(2)). The Agency proposes both
procedural and technical provisions to protect drivers of CMVs from
harassment resulting from information generated by ELDs. As voiced
during public listening sessions and stated in previous comment
submissions, drivers' primary harassment-related complaints focused on
pressures from motor carriers to break the HOS rules. Not every type of
complaint suggested a technical solution. However, 49 CFR 392.3
prohibits a motor carrier from requiring the driver to drive while ill
or fatigued. Proposed Sec. 390.36 prohibits harassment of drivers
through the use of data available through an ELD or related technology.
Furthermore, in the technical specifications in this SNPRM, the Agency
proposes to include several technical requirements aimed, among other
things, at protecting the driver from harassment.
The Agency anticipates that some motor carriers would use
technology or devices that include both an ELD function and
communications function. To protect a driver using such a device from
unwelcome communications during rest periods, the proposed rule would
require that, if a driver indicates sleeper berth status, the device
must either allow the driver to mute or turn down the volume on the
communication feature or turn off this feature, or that the device do
one of these things automatically.
To protect the driver's data, the rule proposes to require that any
changes made by a motor carrier would require the driver's approval.
Furthermore, the rule proposes to ensure that a driver has a right to
access the driver's ELD data during the period a carrier must keep such
records without requesting the data from the motor carrier if those
records are on the ELD or can be retrieved through the ELD.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ If a driver's records were not available through the ELD, a
motor carrier would need to provide the driver with access to and
copies of the driver's records, on request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing these proposed technical performance requirements,
the Agency has taken into account drivers' privacy interests. As
explained above, FMCSA would not require vehicle location information
to be recorded at the level of precision that could identify street
addresses. Further, detailed location information would be required to
be recorded only at discrete instances, such as when a driver changes
duty status or at 60-minute intervals when the vehicle is in motion.
FMCSA believes these privacy protection features also would help ensure
that driver harassment does not arise from the use of ELDs.
6. Interoperability
Interoperability refers to the ability of an ELD to share data with
ELDs from other systems and providers. FMCSA clarifies that it is
proposing technical requirements to facilitate interoperability,
principally through the requirement for standardized data
[[Page 17672]]
output formats. FMCSA offers alternative communication interfaces to
provide for the transfer of standardized ELD output data to authorized
safety officials. This would allow different hardware implementations
of ELDs in the market place, so long as the software produces the
required data in a specific and consistent format. FMCSA understands
that some carriers use more than one provider for HOS and FMS
applications, and flexibility provided in the SNPRM would allow ELD
providers to use standardized data formats and outputs as necessary to
accommodate specific motor carrier needs.
It is FMCSA's belief that output standardization would facilitate
voluntary solutions for interoperability for those motor carriers who
would need such functions. FMCSA considered requiring full
interoperability, but does not propose it in this SNPRM, instead
focusing on a minimal compliance standard that includes standardized
outputs. FMCSA does not propose full interoperability in this SNPRM
because FMCSA believes that there could be additional cost to some
vendors by having the government mandate a universal input standard
which might create some unevenness among vendors by selecting a certain
data format. Additionally, the benefits of such a standard would only
be realized by carriers who utilize multiple devices from different
vendors.
Though FMCSA is not proposing it, FMCSA would like to know more
about the cost and benefits of full interoperability, and request
information from the public concerning this topic:
1. Should FMCSA require that every ELD have the capability to
import data produced by other makes and brands of ELDs?
2. To what extent would these additional required capabilities for
full interoperability increase the cost of the ELDs and the support
systems?
3. While full interoperability could lower the cost of switching
between ELDs for some motor carriers, are there a large number of motor
carriers who operate or plan to operate with ELDs from more than one
vendor? How would full interoperability compare to the proposed level
of standardized output? If carriers wanted to operate ELDs from more
than one vendor, would this be a barrier? Would this issue be impacted
by the market-share of the ELD manufacturer?
4. Would motor carriers and individual drivers have broad-based use
or need for such capability? Is there a better way to structure
standardized output to lower cost or encourage flexibility without
requiring full interoperability?
VII. Proposed ELD Mandate
Consistent with the requirements of MAP-21, 49 U.S.C. 31137, FMCSA
proposes that interstate motor carriers install ELDs in all CMVs
operated by drivers who are now required to prepare paper RODS, subject
to a limited exception for drivers who are rarely required to keep
RODS. If a driver is required to use an ELD, the motor carrier must not
require or allow the driver to operate a CMV in interstate commerce
without using the device. Drivers engaged in operations that do not
require the preparation of RODS may use ELDs to document their
compliance with the HOS rules, but are not required to do so.
Furthermore, under today's proposal, drivers currently allowed to use
timecards could continue to do so under the provisions of 49 CFR
395.1(e).
Drivers who need to use RODS infrequently or intermittently would
be allowed to continue using paper RODS, provided they are not required
to use RODS more than 8 days in any 30-day period. This proposed
provision would accommodate drivers working for motor carriers that
keep timecards under 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1) and (2) and who may
occasionally operate beyond the parameters of those provisions (for
example, by operating outside the specified 100- or 150-air-mile
radius). The new threshold of not more than 8 days in any 30-day period
would replace the threshold of 2 days out of any 7-day period that was
proposed in the February 2011 NPRM in order to provide additional
flexibility for this population. The Agency seeks comment on the
proposed 8 out of 30-day threshold, how it would impact various
segments of the industry, the potential cost savings resulting from
this limited exception, and whether a shorter or longer duration would
result in a more appropriate balance between the needs of enforcement
and carrier flexibility. An eight-day period is the time-frame for
current hours-of-service record-keeping requirements. Currently drivers
are required to keep the previous seven days' records and the present
day's records. Using eight days as the threshold for RODS usage to
switch into ELD use keeps this time-frame consistent.
FMCSA evaluated whether ELD usage required by this threshold could
reasonably achieve positive net benefits, and concluded that some ELDs
fulfill this condition. In addition, vendors have indicated that may
produce additional low-cost ELDs that are closer to the minimally
compliant device specifications. See section 6.5 (page 72) of the
accompanying RIA for a more detailed discussion.
As with the HOS record-retention provision of Sec. 395.8(k), the
period would move with the calendar. For example, a driver who operates
beyond the short-haul radius for 8 days in the previous 30-day period
would need to use an ELD on the sixth day and any subsequent day when
the driver exceeded the short-haul exemption. The 30-day period
restarts each day, looking back at the previous 30 days. This is a
similar concept to the requirements of 60 hours in 7-day or 70 hours in
8-day limits for on duty time under the HOS regulations.
It is estimated that this proposal would generate benefits that
exceed the costs of installing ELDs and the costs associated with
increased levels of compliance with the HOS rules. The proposal
addresses the segment of the motor carrier industry with the highest
safety and HOS compliance gaps. It also acknowledges the operational
distinctions between drivers allowed to use timecards under 49 CFR
395.1(e)(1) and (2) exclusively, and the other drivers who would be
required to use ELDs. More information concerning the estimated costs
and benefits is available in the RIA associated with this rulemaking.
In the 2011 NPRM, the Agency raised a number of issues concerning
the scope of the ELD mandate, and today's SNPRM modifies that proposed
mandate in some respects. Given the distinction between short-haul and
long-haul operations, and the proposed exception for drivers
infrequently required to keep RODS, FMCSA is not proposing any
additional exceptions addressing specific sectors of the industry, size
of operations, or specific types of CMVs at this time. Nor is the
Agency any longer proposing to require ELD use by passenger carriers
whose drivers are not required to keep RODS, e.g., local operations
permitted to rely on timecards under existing 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1). The
Agency is also not proposing to include all motor carriers transporting
bulk quantities of HM or all carriers subject to part 395 (the ``true
universal'' approach). The estimated compliance costs of the ``true
universal'' approach recommended by NTSB \13\ exceed the estimated
safety benefits for most short-haul motor carriers; the comprehensive
estimated net benefits are negative. The mandated use of ELDs as part
of a remedial directive, as in the
[[Page 17673]]
vacated April 2010 rule, also is not proposed today. Finally, the
Agency is not proposing an exception based on HOS compliance history in
today's SNPRM because: (1) It could provide an unfair advantage to
motor carriers for whom FMCSA has insufficient data to assess their
HOS-related safety status; and (2) the dynamic nature of safety status
measurements would present significant challenges to communicating
changes in carriers' safety status levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-07-041 issued on December 17,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Proposed Compliance Dates
A. Effective and Compliance Dates for a Final Rule
1. Technical Specifications
An ELD provider could begin manufacturing ELDs according to the
technical specifications of this rulemaking on the effective date of a
final rule (30 days after the publication of a final rule in the
Federal Register). This means that ELDs meeting the requirements of
this rulemaking could be both manufactured and used to comply
voluntarily with this rule soon after the date of the final rule's
publication and establishment of FMCSA's public Web site.
2. ELD Mandate
A driver or motor carrier subject to this proposed regulation would
not be required to install or use an ELD until the compliance date (2
years after the effective date of the final rule). However, a motor
carrier that required its drivers to use AOBRDs that met the
requirements of Sec. 395.15 before the compliance date for the ELD
final rule could continue using such devices for 2 years after the
rule's compliance date. At that point, a driver subject to the rule
would need to use an ELD that met the new specifications. Today's SNPRM
would not preclude a driver or motor carrier who chose to voluntarily
adopt ELDs in advance of the compliance date from doing so.
3. Supporting Documents
The proposed supporting document requirements in this rulemaking
would take effect on the compliance date for the final rule (2 years
after the effective date). On that date, the regulatory provisions
would supersede the policy on retention of supporting documents and the
use of electronic mobile communications/tracking technology issued June
10, 2010 (75 FR 32984).
4. Harassment
Because the harassment provisions are tied to the presence of part
395, subpart B compliant ELDs, there is no specific compliance date. If
a driver worked for a motor carrier that implemented ELDs voluntarily
(before the 2-year compliance date), that driver could make a complaint
before the ELD compliance date, as noted in Section X, below. However,
a driver working for a motor carrier using AOBRDs before the compliance
date would be unable to use the complaint process proposed in today's
SNPRM until a compliant ELD device was in place. In other words, the
harassment language would take effect on the rule's effective date,
but, as a practical matter, the provision would be unavailable until an
ELD was in use.
The existing avenues to submit complaints remain available to
drivers, including the FMCSA complaint process for substantial
violations (49 CFR 386.12), the FMCSA National Consumer Complaint
Helpdesk, and the complaint process at the U.S. Department of Labor
under 49 U.S.C. 31105(b). FMCSA also cooperates with the U.S.
Department of Justice in appropriate enforcement cases.
B. 2-Year Transition Period
The 2011 NPRM proposed a compliance date 3 years after the
effective date of the anticipated final rule. Furthermore, motor
carriers would have been required to install compliant devices in CMVs
manufactured on or after June 4, 2012.
MAP-21, however, requires a compliance date 2 years after
publication of a final rule (49 U.S.C. 31137(b)(1)(C)). In implementing
the statute, the Agency seeks to balance effective roadside enforcement
against the transition costs to motor carriers that installed AOBRDs
before the compliance date of the ELD final rule. Thus, the Agency
proposes to allow continued use of Sec. 395.15 devices, installed
before the compliance date, for 2 years beyond the compliance date. To
enhance enforcement, all motor carriers that use RODS--including those
who used AOBRDs before the compliance date--would be required to use
compliant ELDs by 2 years after the compliance date. The Agency does
not propose to require use of ELDs based on a vehicle's manufacture
date.
C. Cost Associated With Replacing AOBRDs
In setting the proposed compliance date, FMCSA considered the costs
of replacing voluntarily adopted AOBRDs and addressed those costs in
the RIA prepared for this SNPRM. Although the proposed performance
specifications for ELDs differ from those published in the April 2010
rule, FMCSA believes that most HOS recording devices and systems
manufactured on or after 2010 will be able to comply with this rule
with relatively inexpensive software upgrades. To avoid understating
costs, FMCSA assumed, however, that all devices and systems
manufactured before 2010 would have to be replaced. The compliance date
for a final rule that would follow this SNPRM is anticipated to be at
the end of the useful life of these devices. FMCSA estimates that
annualized costs to all voluntary adopters would be less than $5
million. The RIA contains more details on how these estimates were
derived. FMCSA seeks comments on the assumptions and methodology used.
IX. Proposed Supporting Document Provisions
Today's SNPRM defines ``supporting document'' in a manner that
generally tracks the definition found in section 113(c) of the HMTAA,
i.e., ``any document . . . generated or received by a motor carrier . .
. in the normal course of business that could be used, as produced or
with additional identifying information, to verify the accuracy of a
driver's record of duty status.'' In accordance with HMTAA, sec.
113(b)(2), this SNPRM would limit the supporting documents that a motor
carrier must maintain by specifying the number, category, and required
elements for a supporting document and, subject to a limited exception,
would not require supporting documents that reflect driving time. The
reference in the statute to a ``commercial motor vehicle driver'' is
not repeated in today's proposed definition because the specific
obligations of the driver are addressed in proposed Sec. 395.11. The
supporting document requirements would supersede the June 2010 policy
on the retention of supporting documents (75 FR 32984) and would take
effect the same date as the ELD compliance date (2 years after the
effective date of a final rule).
FMCSA acknowledges that some stakeholders have claimed that the use
of ELDs eliminates the need to retain supporting documents. While
properly functioning ELDs eliminate the need for supporting documents
demonstrating driving time, some supporting documents are still
necessary to ensure HOS compliance. In today's SNPRM, FMCSA clearly
delineates between the information and data produced by the ELD and
what FMCSA considers a supporting document.
FMCSA believes that today's proposal is consistent with both the
HMTAA and MAP-21. It balances the need for effective HOS enforcement
and the burden on motor carriers to meet their obligation to ensure
compliance in a
[[Page 17674]]
cost effective manner. It is also consistent with motor carriers'
current obligations related to the retention and monitoring of
supporting documents.
Among the major changes from the February 2011 NPRM, today's SNPRM
would eliminate the former proposals that each motor carrier maintain
an HOS Management System and that a motor carrier certify as to the
lack of supporting documents showing required elements. Further,
today's SNPRM would eliminate the proposal in the 2011 NPRM that a
single document, showing the start and end of any ODND period, could
satisfy the supporting documents requirement.
A. Applicability
The motor carrier would need to maintain supporting documents,
which are generated or received in the normal course of business, to
verify a driver's HOS compliance. The Agency defines ``supporting
document'' to clarify that a document can be ``in any medium,'' that
is, either a paper or an electronic document.
The Agency would not require motor carriers to retain supporting
documents to verify driving time, because the ELD would capture this
information. The Agency's position is that ELDs record driving time
more accurately than drivers using paper RODS and supplant the need for
paper logs and any supporting documents that would have been generated
or received concerning driving time. FMCSA, however, proposes to
require motor carriers to retain, for each driver, supporting documents
to verify each driver's ODND periods.
The Agency proposes generally to require a single supporting
document standard. For drivers who continue to use paper RODS, however,
toll receipts would also need to be maintained. An otherwise uniform
supporting document requirement will benefit both motor carriers and
enforcement personnel by promoting standardized document retention and
enforcement practices.
FMCSA's proposal would require motor carriers and CMV drivers to
share responsibility for complying with the proposed supporting
document requirements. A driver would be required to submit his or her
supporting documents to the employing carrier within 8 days. While a
driver would not be required to keep all supporting documents in the
CMV, a driver would, nonetheless, need to make supporting documents
that are in the driver's possession available, on request, during a
roadside inspection.
B. Categories
In today's SNPRM, FMCSA would modify the categories of supporting
documents that were proposed in the 2011 NPRM to better accommodate the
broad diversity of the motor carrier industry. Specifically, the Agency
proposes to alter the number of categories to provide clarification and
more detailed descriptions of the supporting documents within each
category. For every 24-hour period a driver is on duty, the motor
carrier would be required to maintain not more than 10 supporting
documents from the following 5 categories:
Bills of lading, itineraries, schedules, or equivalent
documents that indicate the origin and destination of each trip;
Dispatch records, trip records, or equivalent documents;
Expense receipts;
Electronic mobile communication records, reflecting
communications transmitted through an FMS for the driver's 24-hour duty
day; and
Payroll records for the driver's 24-hour duty day,
settlement sheets, or equivalent documents that indicate what and how a
driver was paid.
These categories would provide the Agency and motor carriers with the
supporting documents necessary to perform their safety oversight
functions.
FMCSA acknowledges the view of some stakeholders that supporting
documents ought to be limited to a specific, finite list of documents
to ease compliance. Given the wide diversity of operations in the CMV
industry, however, this approach would not be feasible from an HOS
enforcement perspective. The proposed categories are intended to
accommodate various sectors of the industry.
C. Data Elements
In today's SNPRM, FMCSA proposes to clarify the data elements that
would need to be included on a document for it to qualify as a
supporting document and be counted toward the proposed 10-document
retention cap. These proposed elements are: (1) Driver name or carrier-
assigned identification number, either on the document or on another
document enabling the carrier to link the document to the driver, or
the vehicle unit number if that number can be linked to the driver; (2)
date; (3) location (including name of nearest city, town, or village);
and (4) time. If sufficient documents containing these four data
elements were not available, a motor carrier would be required to
maintain supporting documents that contain the driver name or motor
carrier-assigned identification number, date, and location.
D. Number
FMCSA proposes a cap of 10 supporting documents that would need to
be maintained for each day a driver is on duty. While a motor carrier
may not have 10 supporting documents for a driver's duty day, in
establishing a cap, the Agency has attempted to balance the need for
adequate enforcement of the HOS regulations against any burden on
carrier operations, while applying the requirements of the HMTAA.
To arrive at a total of 10, all electronic mobile communication
records involving a driver over the course of the driver's 24-hour
period would count as a single document, regardless of the number of
individual communications involved. All other types of supporting
documents that are relevant to distinct activities--such as a payroll
document covering one or several drivers, a bill of lading for a
particular delivery, and an expense receipt--would count as individual
documents. In instances where there are more than 10 supporting
documents available, a motor carrier would need to retain the first and
last supporting documents containing an indication of time for each end
of a driver's duty day.
The Agency recognizes that, in many cases, fewer than 10 supporting
documents would be accumulated for a driver's duty day. If the
supporting document cap were not reached, the motor carrier would be
required to keep all of the supporting documents for that period. There
would be no obligation on a motor carrier to create or annotate
documents that it did not otherwise generate or receive in its normal
course of business.
E. Submission to Motor Carrier
In today's SNPRM, FMCSA proposes that a driver who is required to
maintain RODS or use an ELD submit supporting documents (and the RODS
or the ELD record) to the driver's motor carrier within 8 days of
either the 24-hour period to which the documents pertain or the day the
document comes into the driver's possession, whichever is later. The
SNPRM would extend the time for a driver to submit supporting documents
to the motor carrier beyond the 3-day and 1-day periods proposed in the
February 2011 NPRM. In addition, unlike the 2011 NPRM, the SNPRM
proposes the same submission period for both electronic and paper
records: 8 days.
[[Page 17675]]
F. HOS Enforcement Proceedings
Today's SNPRM does not contain the HOS management system
requirement proposed in the 2011 NPRM. Instead, to further HOS
enforcement, FMCSA proposes to add procedural provisions that would
apply during any proceeding under 49 CFR part 395. Consistent with a
motor carrier's existing obligation to require that its drivers comply
with the FMCSRs, today's SNPRM would provide that a motor carrier is
liable for an employee's act, or failure to act, that violates 49 CFR
part 395, provided that the act or omission is within the course of the
motor carrier's operations. The burden of proving that the employee was
acting outside the scope of the motor carrier's operation would be on
the motor carrier. Finally, knowledge of any document, either in a
motor carrier's possession or available to the motor carrier, that
could be used to ensure compliance with 49 CFR part 395 would be
imputed to the motor carrier.
G. Carriers Using Paper Logs
Under today's SNPRM, certain drivers who would infrequently need to
keep RODS could continue to use paper logs. Any carriers that would be
required to maintain supporting documents when their drivers keep paper
logs would be required to maintain the same number and types of
supporting documents that are required for ELD users. Motor carriers
whose drivers use paper logs would also need to maintain toll receipts.
H. Self-Compliance Systems
Section 113(b)(4) of the HMTAA requires FMCSA to provide exemptions
for qualifying ``self-compliance systems,'' in place of supporting
documents retention. In satisfaction of section 113(b)(4), today's
SNPRM would add a provision to authorize, on a case-by-case basis,
motor carrier self-compliance systems (49 CFR 395.11(h)). Consistent
with our 2011 NPRM, under today's SNPRM, a motor carrier could apply
for an exemption under existing 49 CFR part 381 provisions for relief
from the requirements for retaining supporting documents for RODS.
While the authority to exempt self-compliance systems is derived from
HMTAA, the Agency relies on existing 49 CFR part 381 provisions to
govern exemption requests.
X. Ensuring Against Driver Harassment
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31137(a)(2), FMCSA proposes both
procedural and technical provisions aimed at protecting CMV operators
from harassment involving ELDs or connected technology. The primary
focus of the Agency's proposal addresses the problems of: (1) Drivers
being pressured to exceed HOS limitations; and (2) inappropriate
communications that affect drivers' rest periods. The Agency addresses
the related but distinct issue of driver coercion in Part XI, below.
Although the statute provides that regulations relating to ELDs
shall ``ensur[e] that an electronic logging device is not used to
harass a vehicle operator,'' the Agency notes that it cannot adopt a
regulation guaranteeing that every instance and form of harassment,
whether real or perceived, is eliminated. Nor does the Agency believe
that Congress intended that the Agency interfere with labor/management
agreements or disputes not directly related to the required use of
ELDs, or duplicate the role Congress has assigned to the U.S.
Department of Labor under 49 U.S.C. 31105.
As explained in Part VI of this SNPRM, FMCSA would refine the
requirements of an ELD to include only recording functions; anything
beyond basic recording of the required data elements would not be
required by an ELD. However, the SNPRM would not prohibit motor
carriers from employing communication, FMS, and other functions beyond
mere recording. Many current systems, which have been on the market for
years, go beyond the recording abilities proposed in this SNPRM; and
the Agency does not infer from the anti-harassment provision in section
31137(a)(2) a congressional intent that FMCSA ban or impose significant
new restrictions on those functionalities in this rulemaking.
Therefore, to the extent necessary to address harassment, FMCSA would
address use of technology beyond the minimally compliant ELD only if
that technology encompassed an ELD function.
A. Drivers' Access to Own Records
ELDs meeting the proposed technical requirements in today's SNPRM
would help protect drivers from pressures to violate the HOS rules.
However, to ensure adequate protection, it is critical that drivers
have access to their ELD records. FMCSA proposes to require that
drivers be able to obtain copies of their own ELD records available on
or through an ELD. On request, a motor carrier must provide its drivers
with access to and copies of their ELD records for the 6 months that
the motor carrier is required to maintain the records.
B. Explicit Prohibition on Harassment
FMCSA proposes to add a new Sec. 390.36 to prohibit a motor
carrier from engaging in harassment of a driver. As defined, ``harass
or harassment'' would mean ``an action by a motor carrier towards a
driver employed by the motor carrier (including an independent
contractor while in the course of operating a CMV on behalf of the
motor carrier) involving the use of information available through an
ELD . . . or through other technology used in combination with and not
separate from the ELD, that the motor carrier knew, or should have
known, would result in the driver violating Sec. 392.3 or part 395 [of
49 CFR].'' This definition recognizes the dire safety consequences that
can result when the pressure a motor carrier imposes on a driver
results in an HOS violation or in a driver operating when the driver's
alertness is impaired through fatigue or illness.
Under today's proposal, however, a driver who believed that a motor
carrier required him or her to violate Sec. 392.3 or part 395 in a
manner described in the proposed definition could file a complaint
alleging harassment with FMCSA.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Currently, drivers can file an informal complaint on any
violation of the FMCSRs with FMCSA's National Consumer Complaint
Database help desk. This option would not change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although FMCSA's definition of harassment would not require adverse
action by the carrier against the driver, it would require an actual
violation of Sec. 392.3 or part 395 of the FMCSRs. MAP-21 eliminated
the reference to productivity in 49 U.S.C. 31137; however, the Agency
would not penalize motor carrier actions aimed at productivity,
provided that the action did not constitute harassment as defined in
today's proposal.
C. Complaint Procedures
The SNPRM proposes to add new Sec. Sec. 386.12a and 390.36,
prescribing a process for filing a harassment complaint. Among other
things, the complaint would need to describe the action by the motor
carrier that the driver deems harassment, including how the ELD or
related technology was used to contribute to the carrier's action. The
complaint would also need to identify how the motor carrier's action
violated 49 CFR 392.3 or part 395.
The proposals outlined in this SNPRM would give drivers control
over their own ELD records and ensure driver access to such records.
Furthermore, drivers would be able to annotate their records reflecting
concerns such as driver fatigue. These
[[Page 17676]]
records would provide drivers with better information to substantiate
any complaint.
D. Enhanced Penalties To Deter Harassment
FMCSA proposes a new penalty for a motor carrier that engages in
harassment. Because harassment would be considered in cases of alleged
HOS violations, the penalty for harassment would supplement the
underlying HOS violations of 49 CFR 392.3 and part 395. An underlying
violation would have to be found for a penalty for harassment to be
assessed. Further, harassment would constitute an acute violation under
part 385.
E. Mute Function
FMCSA acknowledges that some drivers feel their motor carriers
inappropriately contact them during rest periods through FMS
communication systems--technology frequently used, but not required, as
part of a minimally compliant ELD. Thus, if the driver puts the ELD
into a sleeper berth status, and, in the case of co-drivers, no other
driver has logged into the ELD in an on-duty driving status, the SNPRM
specifies that the ELD must automatically mute the ELD's volume, turn
off the ELD's audible output, or allow the driver to do so. FMCSA
believes this addition is important to allow drivers to obtain adequate
rest during sleeper berth periods.
F. Edit Rights
FMCSA recognizes that some electronic recorders currently in use
allow changes to drivers' HOS records by motor carriers or dispatchers
without the driver's input. FMCSA proposes to revise the procedures for
amendment of electronic records to better protect the integrity of
those records and to prevent related instances of driver harassment. In
today's SNPRM, the word ``edit'' means a change to an electronic record
that does not overwrite the original record. An example of such a
change would be revising a duty status designation from ``off duty'' to
``on-duty not driving.'' Edits would need to reflect their authorship,
and an edit could not convert driving time into non-driving time. In
this SNPRM, FMCSA proposes that a driver may edit and the motor carrier
may request edits to electronic RODS. Drivers would have a full range
of edit abilities and rights over their own records (except for the
listed limitations in the rule), while a carrier would be allowed to
propose edits for a driver's approval or rejection.
All edits, whether made by a driver or the motor carrier, would
have to be annotated to document the reason for the change. For
example, an edit showing time being switched from ``off duty'' to ``on-
duty not driving'' could be annotated by the carrier to note, ``Driver
logged training time incorrectly as off duty.'' This edit and
annotation would then be sent to the driver for approval. FMCSA
believes this is the most efficient way to capture these data and
ensure that HOS violations are not being concealed from either party.
FMCSA believes that there are good reasons for both the motor carrier
and the driver to be able to view HOS records and understands that
there are legitimate reasons that both a motor carrier and a driver
might want to edit these records. For example, if a driver were to
inadvertently show a 30 minute break as ODND, the record could be
annotated to show a mandatory break. It is the Agency's view that these
provisions, and additional requirements addressing security of data,
would significantly reduce the potential for driver harassment
resulting from use of ELDs.
G. Tracking of Vehicle Location
FMCSA acknowledges that some drivers view the FMS, which often
includes ELD functions as well as additional recording capabilities and
real-time communication features, as a mechanism for the harassment of
drivers or invasion of privacy. Motor carriers counter, however, that
companies use this technology to know where their CMVs are at all times
and how much time their drivers may continue to operate in compliance
with the HOS regulations. The technical specifications in today's SNPRM
are intended to address drivers' concerns in terms of the level of data
collected for HOS enforcement.
Location recording is a critical component of HOS enforcement.
Drivers have always had to record certain location information on paper
RODS. Although electronic recording is more accurate, the acquisition
of location information for CMV operators is not a novel requirement.
Nonetheless, FMCSA does not propose to require real-time tracking of
CMVs or the recording of precise location information. Instead,
location data would be required to be recorded when the driver changes
duty status, when a driver indicates personal use or yard moves, when
the CMV engine powers up and shuts down, and at 60-minute intervals
when the vehicle is in motion. During on-duty driving periods, FMCSA
would limit the location accuracy for HOS enforcement to coordinates of
two decimal places, providing an accuracy of approximately a 1-mile
radius for purposes of HOS enforcement. However, when a CMV is operated
for personal use, the position reporting accuracy would be even further
reduced to an approximate 10-mile radius. Thus, the Agency would not
require that an ELD determine or record a CMV's or driver's exact
location. Moreover, the SNPRM would not require that the ELD record and
transmit any CMV location data in real time, either to the motor
carrier or to enforcement officials.
H. FMCSRs Enforcement Proceedings
MAP-21 requires that the Agency institute appropriate measures to
preserve the confidentiality of personal data recorded by an ELD that
is disclosed in the course of an FMCSRs enforcement proceeding (49
U.S.C. 31137(e)(2)). To protect data of a personal nature unrelated to
business operations, the Agency would redact such information included
as part of the administrative record before a document was made
available in the public docket.
I. Summary
In today's SNPRM, FMCSA would provide enhanced procedural
protections and remedies intended to protect drivers using ELDs from
actions considered harassment. In addition, the proposed technical
specifications for the ELD were specifically designed to provide
drivers additional protection. By recording the time spent behind the
wheel of a CMV accurately, the ELD would make all parties involved
aware of the actual time for a driver to make a certain trip. FMCSA
believes this increased transparency would lead to reduced pressure on
drivers to falsify their RODS. ELDs provide a more reliable and simpler
tool for recording drivers' HOS than paper RODS. FMCSA believes the use
of ELDs would lead, not only to better compliance with HOS regulations,
but also to a clearer understanding of driver schedules. The technical
specifications aimed at protecting drivers from harassment are further
addressed under Part IV.
XI. MAP-21 Coercion Language
As a result of section 32911 of MAP-21, FMCSA will publish an NPRM
that proposes regulations that would prohibit motor carriers, shippers,
receivers, or transportation intermediaries from coercing drivers to
operate CMVs in violation of certain provisions of the FMCSRs or the
Hazardous Materials Regulations. The coercion NPRM would propose
procedures for drivers to report incidents of coercion to FMCSA, rules
of practice the Agency would follow in
[[Page 17677]]
response to allegations of coercion, and penalties that would be
imposed on entities found to have coerced drivers.
The coercion rule will differ from the anti-harassment provisions
proposed in this rulemaking. Major differences include that the
proposed coercion rule will address shippers, receivers, and
transportation intermediaries as well as motor carriers; and its focus
is on the loss or potential loss of future business or work. While the
term ``coercion'' will be defined in the coercion rule, today's SNPRM
specifically proposes prohibiting motor carriers from coercing drivers
to falsely certify ELD records.
XII. Section-by-Section Analysis
This SNPRM contains significant changes to the NPRM published
February 1, 2011. Today's proposed regulatory text supersedes the
February 2011 NPRM. In light of the vacatur of the April 2010 final
rule and the enactment of MAP-21, this SNPRM addresses requirements for
technical specifications for ELDs, the use of ELDs, the maintenance of
supporting documents, and the potential for harassment of drivers
related to ELD technology. This section-by-section analysis describes
the revised proposed rule provisions in numerical order.
A. Part 385--Safety Fitness Procedures
In Section VII of appendix B of part 385, the list of acute and
critical regulations would be modified to reflect proposed changes in
parts 390 (driver harassment) and 395 (hours of service).
B. Part 386--Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier, Intermodal Equipment
Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous Materials
Proceedings
1. Section 386.1
This section would be modified to reflect the handling of
substantial violations and harassment violations by the appropriate
Division Administrator, rather than the Assistant Administrator.
2. Section 386.12
This section would be changed to reflect the handling of
substantial violation complaints by the Division Administrator for the
State where the incident occurs, rather than the Assistant
Administrator. It would prescribe procedures governing these
complaints. It would also address how allegations brought to the
attention of other officials in the Agency would be handled.
3. Section 386.12a
This section would be added to prescribe procedures for the
handling of harassment complaints filed with the Division Administrator
for the State where the incident occurs. It would prescribe the
information that a driver would need to include in a written complaint
alleging harassment by a motor carrier as well as procedures that the
Division Administrator would need to follow in handling complaints. It
would also address how allegations brought to the attention of other
officials in the Agency would be handled.
4. Appendix B to Part 386
New paragraph (a)(7) would be added to emphasize how the Agency
would impose penalties upon a finding of driver harassment.
C. Part 390--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; General
FMCSA would add a new Sec. 390.36 to define harassment, prohibit
motor carriers from engaging in harassment, and reference the process
under which a driver could file a written complaint.
D. Part 395--Hours of Service of Drivers
Today's SNPRM would divide part 395 into two subparts. Proposed
subpart A, General, would include Sec. Sec. 395.1 through 395.19.
Proposed subpart B, ELDs, would address the design and use of ELDs and
would consist of Sec. Sec. 395.20 through 395.38 and detailed
performance specifications applicable to ELDs in the appendix to
subpart B.
Subpart A--General
1. Section 395.1(e)
This paragraph would be amended to reflect that drivers who qualify
to use the short-haul exceptions under 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1) or (2) would
not be required to keep supporting documents under proposed Sec.
395.11.
2. Section 395.2
In this section, FMCSA proposes to add the following new
definitions.
Electronic Logging Device (ELD). FMCSA would add a new definition
of ``ELD'': A device or technology that meets the requirements of
proposed subpart B of part 395.
Supporting Document. FMCSA proposes a definition of ``supporting
document'' similar to the definition in the HMTAA. Substantive
provisions pertaining to supporting documents are proposed in Sec.
395.11.
3. Section 395.7
This section would add procedural provisions that would apply
during any proceeding involving the enforcement of 49 CFR part 395.
Specifically, it would provide that a motor carrier would be liable for
an employee's acting or failing to act in a manner that violates part
395 as long as the action was within the course of the motor carrier's
operation. The burden of proving that the employee acted outside the
scope of the motor carrier's operation would be on the motor carrier.
Finally, knowledge of any document in the motor carrier's possession,
or available to the motor carrier, that could be used to ensure
compliance with part 395 would be imputed to the motor carrier.
4. Section 395.8
This section addresses general requirements for HOS RODS. Subject
to limited exceptions, it would require motor carriers to install and
use ELDs that comply with the proposed technical specifications no
later than 2 years following the rule's effective date.
Subject to limited exceptions, under paragraph (a)(1), motor
carriers would need to require drivers that keep RODS to use ELDs. The
rule would allow for continued use of AOBRDs (2-year grandfathering of
devices installed prior to compliance date) as well as use of paper
RODS by drivers requiring RODS not more than 8 days in a 30-day period
after the rule's compliance date. Paragraph (a)(2) would require
drivers to use the recording method required by their motor carrier and
to submit their RODS to their carrier within 8 days. The requirement
for motor carriers to use ELDs, however, would not apply when an
extension is granted by FMCSA to allow a motor carrier to repair,
replace, or service one or more malfunctioning ELDs under Sec.
395.34(d).
Paragraph (e) would prohibit a motor carrier or driver from making
a false report in connection with duty status and from tampering with,
or allowing another person to tamper with, an AOBRD or ELD to prevent
it from recording or retaining accurate data.
Paragraph (i), which currently allows submission of records to a
motor carrier within 13 days, would be eliminated in light of proposed
Sec. 395.8(a)(2)(ii), which would require drivers to submit records to
the motor carrier within 8 days.
Paragraph (k)(1) would continue to require a motor carrier to
maintain RODS and supporting documents for a 6-month period.
5. Section 395.11
FMCSA would place the detailed requirements concerning supporting
documents in Sec. 395.11.
Paragraph (a) provides that the new supporting document provisions
would take effect 2 years after the effective date of the final rule.
Until this date, the June 2010 policy on the retention of supporting
documents and the use of electronic mobile communication/
[[Page 17678]]
tracking technology would remain in place (75 FR 32984).
Paragraph (b) would address the drivers' obligation to submit
supporting documents to their employers within 8 days. (The term
``employer'' is defined in Sec. 390.5.)
Paragraph (c) describes five categories of supporting documents
generated or received in the normal course of business. These
categories would include: (1) Bills of lading, itineraries, schedules,
or equivalent documents indicating the origin and destination of a
trip; (2) dispatch records, trip records, or equivalent documents; (3)
expense receipts related to ODND time; (4) electronic mobile
communication records reflecting communications transmitted through an
FMS (e.g., text messages, email messages, instant messages, or pre-
assigned coded messages); and (5) payroll records, settlement sheets,
or equivalent documents reflecting driver payments. Paragraph (c) also
would address the data elements that a document must reflect to qualify
as a supporting document.
Paragraph (d) generally proposes to require a motor carrier to
retain, at most, 10 documents for an individual driver's 24-hour duty
day. It also describes how FMCSA would treat electronic mobile
communication records in applying the 10-document cap. If a driver were
to submit more than 10 documents for a 24-hour period, the motor
carrier would need to retain the documents containing earliest and
latest time indications. Finally, for drivers that continued to use
paper RODS, all toll receipts would also need to be maintained,
irrespective of the 10-document requirement. The Agency interprets the
reference to ``toll receipts'' to include electronic records.
Paragraph (e) would require a motor carrier to maintain supporting
documents in a way that allows the documents to be matched to a
driver's RODS.
Paragraph (f) would prohibit motor carriers and drivers from
obscuring, defacing, destroying, mutilating, or altering information in
a supporting document.
Paragraph (g) would require that a driver make available, during a
roadside inspection, any supporting document in the driver's
possession.
Paragraph (h) describes the proposed process for submitting
requests for self-compliance systems that FMCSA may authorize on a
case-by-case basis, as required by HMTAA.
6. Section 395.15
FMCSA proposes to sunset the authority to use AOBRDs 2 years after
the rule's effective date. However, those motor carriers that have
installed AOBRDs prior to the sunset date would be allowed to continue
using AOBRDs for an additional 2 years (i.e., up to 4 years after the
effective date of the final rule).
Subpart B--Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs)
7. Section 395.20
Section 395.20 paragraph (a) would describe the scope of ELDs
described in proposed subpart B.
Paragraph (b) would describe the applicability of technical
specifications required for ELDs under subpart B, effective 2 years
after the rule's effective date.
Paragraph (c) would clarify that, throughout subpart B, the term
``ELD'' includes an ELD support system, as applicable.
8. Section 395.22
Section 395.22 outlines the proposed responsibilities of the motor
carrier related to the ELD.
Paragraph (a) proposes a requirement for motor carriers to use only
ELDs registered and certified with FMCSA and listed on the Agency's Web
site.
Paragraph (b) outlines the responsibilities of a motor carrier and
its support personnel.
Paragraph (c) lists the proposed driver identification data that
would be required.
Paragraph (d) details the identification data for motor carrier
support personnel.
Paragraph (e) describes the proposed requirement for a motor
carrier to require its drivers and support personnel to use the proper
log-in process for an ELD.
Paragraph (f) proposes the requirement for a motor carrier to
calibrate and maintain ELD systems.
Paragraph (g) proposes requirements for mounting portable ELDs.
Paragraph (h) lists the information a motor carrier would be
required to provide to its drivers who are using ELDs in their CMVs.
Paragraph (i) would require a motor carrier to maintain a driver's
ELD records so as to protect the driver's privacy in a manner
consistent with sound business practices. However, given the diversity
of the regulated community and business practices, the Agency declines
to require specific record maintenance requirements. It also would
require that the motor carrier keep a back-up copy of ELD records in
storage.
Paragraph (j) would require a motor carrier to provide 6 months of
ELD records electronically to authorized safety officials as requested
during an enforcement activity.
9. Section 395.24
Paragraph (a) would require a driver to provide data as prompted by
the ELD and as specified by the motor carrier.
Paragraph (b) lists the duty statuses that a driver may choose
from, corresponding to the duty status categories currently listed on
paper RODS.
Paragraph (c) lists other data that a driver may sometimes need to
enter manually into the ELD, such as annotations, file comments,
verification, CMV number, trailer numbers, and shipping numbers, as
applicable.
Paragraph (d) would require a driver to produce and transfer the
driver's HOS data to an authorized safety official on request.
10. Section 395.26
Paragraph (a) outlines the purpose of the section, namely, to
provide an overview of what an ELD accomplishes in accordance with the
provisions of the appendix to proposed subpart B of part 395.
Paragraph (b) lists the data elements recorded when an ELD logs an
event.
Paragraph (c) describes requirements for data recording during a
change of duty status event.
Paragraph (d) describes what an ELD records during an intermediate
recording when the CMV is in motion and there has been no change of
duty status entered into the ELD and no other intermediate status
recorded in an hour.
Paragraph (e) describes what an ELD records when a driver selects a
special driving category, i.e., personal use or yard moves.
Paragraph (f) describes what an ELD records when a driver certifies
a daily log.
Paragraph (g) describes what an ELD records when there is a login/
logoff event.
Paragraph (h) describes what happens when the CMV's engine powers
on or off.
Paragraph (i) describes the recording of location information
during authorized personal use of a CMV.
Paragraph (j) describes what happens in the case of an ELD
malfunction event.
11. Section 395.28
Paragraph (a) lists special driving categories and explains that
motor carriers may configure these settings based on company policies.
This paragraph also lists driver responsibilities when selecting one of
these special driving categories.
[[Page 17679]]
Paragraph (b) proposes that a motor carrier may configure an ELD to
show that a driver is exempt from the requirement to use an ELD.
Paragraph (c) proposes that a driver excepted under Sec. 390.3(f)
or Sec. 395.1 must annotate the record to explain why the driver is
excepted.
12. Section 395.30
Paragraph (a) proposes that both drivers and motor carriers are
responsible for ensuring that drivers' ELD records are accurate.
Paragraph (b) lists the proposed requirements for a driver to
review and certify that the driver's RODS are accurate.
Paragraph (c) explains the proposed process for a driver to edit,
add missing information to, and annotate RODS to fix information
entered in error.
Paragraph (d) explains the proposed process for motor carrier
support personnel to request edits of a driver. This paragraph also
explains that, under the proposal, edits made to the driver's record by
anyone other than the driver would require the driver's approval or
rejection.
Paragraph (e) would prohibit a motor carrier from coercing a driver
to falsely certify the driver's ELD records. FMCSA plans to define the
term ``coerce'' in a separate rulemaking.
Paragraph (f) would prohibit a motor carrier from manipulating or
deleting ELD records or their source data streams.
13. Section 395.32
Paragraph (a) describes the concept of ``non-authenticated driver
logs,'' an account which is assigned any driving time not associated
with an authorized ELD user and driver.
Paragraph (b) describes how a driver would have to review any
driving time listed under the ``non-authenticated driver log'' account
upon login to the ELD. If there were driving time listed under this
account that belonged to the driver, the driver would be required to
add that driving time to the driver's own record.
Paragraph (c) lists the proposed requirements for a motor carrier
to explain or assign ``non-authenticated driver log'' time. This
paragraph proposes that the motor carrier retain these records as a
part of its HOS ELD records and present them to safety enforcement
officials.
14. Section 395.34
Paragraph (a) explains what a driver would be required to do should
the ELD malfunction. It specifies that the driver would need to notify
the motor carrier of an ELD malfunction in writing within 24 hours.
Written notice could be provided by electronic means such as email.
Paragraph (b) explains what a driver would be required to do if the
driver's HOS records were inspected during a malfunction.
Paragraph (c) explains that a driver would have to address any data
inconsistency in the ELD according to the ELD provider's and motor
carrier's procedures.
Paragraph (d) would require a motor carrier to take action to
repair any malfunctioning ELD within 8 days of discovery of the
malfunction or a driver's notification of the malfunction. If a motor
carrier needs additional time to repair, replace, or service one or
more ELDs, paragraph (d) also provides a process for requesting an
extension of time.
15. Section 395.36
Paragraph (a) would require a motor carrier to provide its drivers
with access to their own ELD records in a way that does not require
requesting them through the motor carrier if those records are
available on or retrievable through the ELD.
Paragraph (b) would require a motor carrier to give a driver access
to the driver's own ELD records, upon request, if they are unavailable
through the ELD.
16. Section 395.38
Section 395.38 describes materials that would be incorporated by
reference in subpart B and addresses where the materials are available.
Whenever FMCSA, or any Federal agency, wants to refer in its rules to
materials or standards published elsewhere, it needs approval from the
Director of the Office of the Federal Register. The process FMCSA needs
to follow is described in this section. For additional information
regarding use of technical standards see Section N. of Part XIII.
The following explanations provide a brief description of each
standard. In order to provide better access, FMCSA includes Web
addresses where more information about each standard can be found.
Complete contact information is included as part of Sec. 395.38. These
standards are also available for review at FMCSA headquarters.
In paragraph (b)(1), ``Standard for Authentication in Host
Attachments of Transient Storage Devices'' is a standard from the IEEE
that describes a trust and authentication protocol for USB flash drives
and other storage devices that would be able to be used for a possible
transfer of ELD data according to the specifications of this proposed
rule. As of November 25, 2013, this standard was available for $175,
and information about it can be found at https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/1667-2009.html.
Paragraph (c)(1) references the ``Universal Serial Bus
Specification'' or USB, which is an industry standard for communication
between two computing devices. The USB allows a driver to transfer the
record of duty status data to a safety official using a small device
commonly called a ``flash drive.'' As of November 18, 2013, this
standard was available at no cost, and information about it can be
found at https://www.bluetooth.org/Technical/Specifications/adopted.htm.
Paragraph (d)(1) describes ``ANSI INCITS 446-2008, American
National Standard for Information Technology--Identifying Attributes
for Named Physical and Cultural Geographic Features (Except Roads and
Highways) of the United States, Its Territories, Outlying Areas, and
Freely Associated Areas and the Waters of the Same to the Limit of the
Twelve-Mile Statutory Zone (10/28/2008),'' a standard from the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) that covers geographic names and
locations stored in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geographic Names
Information System (GNIS). This information is required to populate the
location database of complaint ELDs. As of November 25, 2013, this
standard was available for $30, and information about it can be found
at https://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI+INCITS+446-2008.
Paragraph (d)(2) describes ``Information Systems--Coded Character
Sets--7-Bit American National Standard Code for Information Interchange
(7-Bit ASCII),'' a standard from ANSI that describes a character set
code to convert digits to alphabet, number, and symbol characters used
in computing. This code set is used to create ELD files. As of December
10, 2013, this standard was available for $30, and information about it
can be found at https://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI+INCITS+4-1986+%28R2007%29.
Paragraph (e)(1) ``ISO/IEC 18004:2006 Information technology--
Automatic identification and data capture techniques--QR Code 2005 bar
code symbology specification,'' which is an industry standard from the
International Standards Organization (ISO) for converting information
into two dimensional barcodes that can be read using common tools such
as smart phones or hand scanners. This standard would be used to comply
with the transfer of ELD data specifications. As of December 10, 2013,
this standard was
[[Page 17680]]
available from the ANSI at https://www.webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ISO%2fIEC+18004%3a200t 6 for $250.
Paragraph (e)(2) describes ``ISO/IEC 17568 Information technology--
Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Close
proximity electric induction wireless communications,'' a standard from
the ISO for transmitting a large amount of data at high speed when two
devices are held very close together. This standard is used
commercially in the TransferJet technology. This standard describes how
close proximity transfers of data would take place with a compliant ELD
that may elect to support TransferJet. As of December 10, 2013, this
standard was available at https://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ISO%2FIEC+17568%3A2013 for $235.
Paragraph (f)(1) ``The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.2'' describes a standard from the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), which describes a security mechanism for information that
is being transmitted over a network. This standard is best known for
use with Web sites that start with ``https://'' rather than just
``https://''. This standard would be used to secure data if ELD files
are transferred using the web. As of December 10, 2013, this standard
was available at no cost and it can be found at https://ietf.org/doc/rfc5246/.
Paragraph (f)(2) ``Simple Mail Transfer Protocol'' is an industry
standard from the IETF for a computer networking protocol to send and
receive electronic mail (email) containing ELD data. As of December 12,
2013, this standard was available at no cost, and can be found at
https://ietf.org/doc/rfc5321/.
Paragraph (f)(3) ``Internet Message Format,'' describes an industry
standard from the IETF for the format of email, including address,
header information, text, and attachments, including those emails
containing ELD data. As of December 12, 2013, this standard was
available at no cost, and can be found at https://ietf.org/doc/rfc5322/.
Paragraph (g)(1) ``Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)
Publication 197, November 26, 2001, Announcing the ADVANCED ENCRYPTION
STANDARD (AES)'' describes a Federal government standard from the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for encrypting
data to protect its confidentiality and integrity. This standard would
be used to encrypt emailed data derived from the ELD. This standard is
available at no cost at https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips197/fips-197.pdf.
Paragraph (g)(2) describes ``Special Publication (SP) 800-32,
February 26, 2001, Introduction to Public Key Technology and the
Federal PKI Infrastructure,'' a guidance document from NIST for
securely exchanging sensitive information, including some ELD data.
This standard is available at no cost at https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-32/sp800-32.pdf.
Paragraph (h)(1) ``Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1,
W3C Note 15, March 2001'' describes a specification from the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) that describes the interface to a Web service.
This standard would be used if ELD files are transferred using the web.
As of December 12, 2013, this standard was available at no cost, and
can be found at https://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.
Paragraph (h)(2) describes ``Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)
Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition), W3C
Recommendation 27 April 2007,'' a specification from the W3C for a
computer networking protocol for Web services. This standard would be
used if ELD files are transferred using the web. As of December 12,
2013, this standard was available at no cost, and can be found at
https://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/.
Paragraph (h)(3) describes ``Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0
(Fifth Edition), W3C Recommendation 26 November 2008,'' a specification
from the W3C for annotating data to make it readable by both humans and
machines. This standard would be used if ELD files are transferred
using the web. As of December 12, 2013, this standard was available at
no cost, and can be found at https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/.
Paragraph (h)(4) describes ``Hypertext Transfer Protocol--HTTP/
1.1,'' a specification from the W3C for a computer networking protocol
that is the foundation for the World Wide Web. This standard would be
used if ELD files are transferred using the web. As of December 12,
2013, this standard was available at no cost, and can be found at
https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html.
Paragraph (i)(1) describes ``Specification of the Bluetooth System:
Wireless Connections Made Easy,'' a standard from the Bluetooth Special
Interest Group for short range wireless network communication that
would be able to be used as a possible transfer of ELD data according
to the specifications of this proposed rule. As of December 24, 2013,
this standard was available for free and can be found at https://www.bluetooth.org/en-us/specification/adopted-specifications.
17. Appendix to Subpart B of Part 395
The proposed appendix to subpart B of part 395 contains the
technical requirements for ELDs. It consists of seven sections.
Section 1 contains the scope of the appendix. It outlines the
purpose and content of the rest of the appendix.
Section 2 lists the abbreviations used throughout this appendix.
Section 3 provides definitions for terms and notations used in this
appendix.
Section 4 lists all the functional requirements for an ELD. This
section describes the technical specifications for an ELD, including
security requirements, internal engine synchronization, ELD inputs,
manual entries of data, and drivers' use of multiple vehicles, in
sufficient detail to allow the ELD provider to know if an ELD would
meet the requirements for certification.
Section 5 describes the ELD certification and registration process.
Section 6 lists the cited references throughout this appendix.
Section 7 provides a data elements dictionary for each data element
referenced in the appendix.
XIII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking is an economically
significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011). It also is significant under Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures because the economic
costs and benefits of the rule exceed the $100 million annual threshold
and because of the substantial congressional and public interest
concerning the crash risks associated with driver fatigue.
FMCSA is proposing to mandate the installation and use of ELDs for
the majority of interstate motor carrier operations.\15\ However, the
costs and benefits of such a broad mandate are not identical across all
options. The Agency
[[Page 17681]]
has chosen to evaluate options that reflect public comments regarding
past ELD and HOS rulemakings and the Agency's safety priorities. The
RIA associated with this SNPRM examines four options:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Today's SNPRM would not require short-haul drivers who
would need to keep RODS more than 8 days in any 30-day period to use
an ELD. Although FMCSA cannot quantify the costs to carriers, the
Agency believes extending the ELD mandate to these drivers would not
be cost beneficial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1: ELDs are mandated for all CMV operations subject
to 49 CFR part 395.
Option 2: ELDs are mandated for all CMV operations where
the driver is required to complete RODS under 49 CFR 395.8 (this is the
FMCSA-preferred option).
Option 3: ELDs are mandated for all CMV operations subject
to 49 CFR part 395, and the ELD is required to include, or be able to
be connected to, a printer, and to print RODS.
Option 4: ELDs are mandated for all CMV operations where
the driver is required to complete RODS under 49 CFR 395.8, and the ELD
is required to include, or be able to be connected to, a printer, and
to print RODS.
Of the four options, Option 2 is preferred by FMCSA. This table
summarizes the cost and benefits of this option:
Table 7--Preferred Option (2) Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
costs and
benefits in
millions
(2011$, 7
percent
discount rate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New ELD Costs........................................... $955.7
AOBRD Replacement Costs................................. 3.0
HOS Compliance Costs.................................... 604.1
Enforcement Training Costs.............................. 1.7
Enforcement Equipment Costs............................. 10.0
---------------
Total Costs........................................... 1,574.5
---------------
Paperwork Savings....................................... 1,529.9
Safety Benefits......................................... 394.8
---------------
Total Benefits........................................ 1,924.7
---------------
Net Benefits........................................ 350.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Introduction
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat.
1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Federal agencies to consider the
effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small
entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term
``small entities'' comprises small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and
mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these
businesses.
A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis must contain the following:
A description of the reasons for the action by the Agency.
A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the rule.
A description--and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number--of small entities to which the rule applies.
A description of the reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and
the types of professional skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record.
Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule.
A description of any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed
rule on small entities.
2. Description of Reasons for Action by the Agency
The Agency is required by statute (MAP-21) to adopt regulations
requiring that CMVs operated in interstate commerce by drivers required
to keep RODS be equipped with ELDs. FMCSA proposes to amend part 395 of
the FMCSRs to require the installation and use of ELDs for CMV
operations for which RODS are required. CMV drivers are currently
required to record their HOS (driving time, on- and off-duty time) in
paper RODS, although some carriers have voluntarily adopted an earlier
standard for HOS recording devices known as AOBRDs.
The HOS regulations are designed to ensure that driving time, one
of the principal ``responsibilities imposed on the operators of
commercial motor vehicles,'' does ``not impair their ability to operate
the vehicles safely'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)). Driver compliance with
the HOS rules helps ensure that ``the physical condition of commercial
motor vehicle drivers is adequate to enable them to operate the
vehicles safely'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)). FMCSA believes that properly
designed, used, and maintained ELDs would enable motor carriers to
track their drivers' on-duty driving hours accurately, thus preventing
regulatory violations or excessive driver fatigue. Improved HOS
compliance, which today's proposed rule would promote, will prevent
commercial vehicle operators from driving for long periods without
opportunities to obtain adequate sleep. Sufficient sleep is necessary
to ensure that a driver is alert behind the wheel and able to respond
appropriately to changes in the driving environment.
Substantial paperwork and recordkeeping burdens are also associated
with HOS rules, including time spent by drivers filling out and
submitting paper RODS and time spent by motor carrier staff reviewing,
filing, and maintaining these RODS. ELDs would eliminate most of the
clerical tasks associated with the RODS and significantly reduce the
time drivers spend recording their HOS. These paperwork reductions
offset most of the costs of the devices.
3. Objectives and Legal Basis
The Agency is issuing an SNPRM proposing to mandate the use of ELDs
by the majority of interstate CMV operations. The objective is to
reduce the number of crashes caused by driver fatigue that could have
been avoided had the driver complied with the HOS rules. The legal
basis for this proposed rule is described in Part IV.
4. Small Entities Affected
FMCSA regulations affect many different industries, and no single
Small Business Administration (SBA) threshold for determining whether
an entity is a ``small business'' is applicable to all motor carriers.
Most for-hire property carriers operate under North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) code 484, truck transportation, although
some for-hire carriers categorize themselves as ``express delivery
services'' (NAICS 492110), ``local delivery'' (NAICS 492210), or
operate primarily in other modes of freight transportation. As shown in
the table below, the SBA ``small business'' size standard for truck
transportation and local delivery services is currently $25.5 million
in revenue per year, and 1,500 employees for express delivery services.
For other firms in other modes that may also be registered as for-hire
motor carriers, the size standard is 500 or 1,500 employees. As Table
8, below, also shows, for-hire passenger operations that FMCSA
regulates have a size standard of $14 million in annual revenue. This
rulemaking also affects other industry sectors, including the industry
descriptions reflected in Table 8.
[[Page 17682]]
Table 8--SBA Size Standards for Selected Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual revenue
NAICS codes NAICS industry description (millions) Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
481112 and 481212......................... Freight Air Transportation....... ................. 1,500
482111.................................... Line-Haul Railroads.............. ................. 1,500
483111 through 483113..................... Freight Water Transportation..... ................. 500
484110 through 484230..................... Freight Trucking................. $25.5 ..............
492110.................................... Couriers and Express Delivery.... ................. 1,500
492210.................................... Local Messengers and Local 25.5 ..............
Delivery.
485210 through 485510..................... Bus Transportation............... 14.0 ..............
445110.................................... Supermarkets and Grocery Stores.. 30.0 ..............
452111.................................... Department Stores (except 30.0 ..............
Discount Department Stores).
452112.................................... Discount Department Stores....... 27.0 ..............
452910.................................... Warehouse Clubs and Superstores.. 27.0 ..............
452990.................................... Other General Merchandise Stores. 30.0 ..............
453210.................................... Office Supplies and Stationery 30.0 ..............
Stores.
236115 through 236220..................... Building Construction............ 33.5 ..............
237110.................................... Water and Sewer Line and Related 33.5 ..............
Structures Construction.
237120.................................... Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related 33.5 ..............
Structures Construction.
237130.................................... Power and Communication Line and 33.5 ..............
Related Structures Construction.
237210.................................... Land Subdivision................. 7.0 ..............
237310.................................... Highway, Street, and Bridge 33.5 ..............
Construction.
237990.................................... Other Heavy and Civil Engineering 33.5 ..............
Construction.
238110 through 238990..................... Specialty Trade Contractors...... 14.0 ..............
111110 through 111998..................... Crop Production.................. 0.75 ..............
112111.................................... Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming. 0.75 ..............
112112.................................... Cattle Feedlots.................. 2.5 ..............
112120.................................... Dairy Cattle and Milk Production. 0.75 ..............
112210.................................... Hog and Pig Farming.............. 0.75 ..............
112310.................................... Chicken Egg Production........... 12.5 ..............
112320 through 112990..................... All Other Animal Production...... 0.75 ..............
113310.................................... Logging.......................... ................. 500
211111 through 213111..................... Oil and Gas Extraction and Mining ................. 500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private motor carriers use the CMVs they own or lease to ship their
own goods or in other regulated transportation activities related to
their primary business activities. These include, for example, a motor
carrier that a retail department store chain operates to distribute
goods from its warehouses to its store locations, dump trucks used by
construction companies, or passenger transportation services not
available to the general public. Separate NAICS codes for entities with
private motor carrier operations are not available; and FMCSA,
therefore, cannot determine the appropriate size standard to use for
each case. As shown, the size standards among industries that contain
private motor carrier operations vary widely, from $0.75 million for
many types of farms to $33.5 million for building construction firms.
For for-hire motor carriers, FMCSA examined data from the 2007
Economic Census to determine the percentage of firms that have revenue
at or below SBA's thresholds. Although boundaries for the revenue
categories used in the Economic Census do not exactly coincide with the
SBA thresholds, FMCSA was able to make reasonable estimates using these
data. According to the Economic Census, about 99 percent of trucking
firms had annual revenue less than $25 million; the Agency concluded
that the percentage would be approximately the same using the SBA
threshold of $25.5 million. For passenger carriers, the $14 million SBA
threshold falls between two Economic Census revenue categories, $10
million and $25 million. The percentages of passenger carriers with
revenue less than these amounts were 96.7 percent and 98.9 percent,
respectively. Because the SBA threshold is closer to the lower of these
two boundaries, FMCSA has assumed that the percent of passenger
carriers that are small will be closer to 96.7 percent, and is using a
figure of 97 percent.
For private carriers, the Agency constructed its estimates under
the assumption that carriers with more CMVs than the 98.9 percentile of
for-hire property carriers or the 97 percentile of for-hire passenger
carriers will also be large. That is, any company large enough to
maintain a CMV fleet large enough to be considered a large truck or bus
company will be large within its own industry. Because of NAICS
classifications, this methodology could overestimate the number of
small, private carriers. Under this conservative analysis, however, the
Agency is confident that no small private carrier would be excluded.
The Agency found that for property carriers, the threshold was 194
CMVs, and for passenger carriers, it was 89 CMVs. FMCSA identified
201,725 small private property carriers (99.4 percent of this group),
and 6,000 small private passenger carriers (100.0 percent of this
group).
Table 9 below shows the complete estimates of the number of small
carriers. All told, FMCSA estimates that 99.1 percent of regulated
motor carriers are small businesses according to SBA size standards.
[[Page 17683]]
Table 9--Estimates of Numbers of Small Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For-hire For-hire
general specialized For-hire Private Private Total
freight freight passenger property passenger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carriers................................................ 176,000 139,000 8,000 203,000 6,000 532,000
Percentage of Small Carriers............................ 98.9% 98.9% 97.0% 99.4% 100.0% 99.1%
Number of Small Carriers................................ 174,064 137,471 7,760 201,725 6,000 527,020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
FMCSA believes that implementation of the SNPRM would not require
additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other paperwork-related
compliance requirements beyond what are already required in the
existing regulations. In fact, the SNPRM is estimated to result in
paperwork savings, particularly from the elimination of paper RODS.
Furthermore, the carriers would experience compensatory time-saving or
administrative efficiencies as a result of using ELD records in place
of paper RODS. The level of savings would vary with the size of the
carrier implementing the systems (larger carriers generally experience
greater savings).
Under current regulations, most CMV drivers are required to fill
out RODS for every 24-hour period. The remaining population of CMV
drivers is required to fill out time cards at their workplace
(reporting location). Motor carriers must retain the RODS (or
timecards, if used) for 6 months. FMCSA estimates the annual
recordkeeping cost savings from this proposed rule to be about $705 per
driver. This comprises $487 for a reduction in time drivers spend
completing paper RODS and $56 submitting those RODS to their employers;
$120 for motor carrier clerical staff to handle and file the RODS; and
$42 for elimination of expenditures on blank paper RODS for drivers.
Two of the options discussed in the SNPRM extend the ELD mandate to
carrier operations that are exempt from the RODS. Paperwork savings
will not accrue to drivers engaged in these operations.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. This SNPRM proposes regulatory changes to several parts of
the FMCSRs, but only those applicable to part 395, ``Hours of Service
of Drivers,'' would alter or impose information collection
requirements. The information collection requirements of this NPRM
would affect OMB Control Number 2126-0001, which is currently approved
through December 31, 2014, at 184,380,000 burden hours.
OMB requires agencies to provide a specific, objective estimate of
the burden hours imposed by their information collection requirements
(5 CFR 1320.8(a)(4)). This SNPRM proposes a compliance date 2 years
after the date of publication of the final rule to allow regulated
entities a reasonable opportunity to satisfy its requirements. The
reduction in the burden hours resulting from this SNPRM will take
effect in the third year of the ICR connected with OMB Control Number
2126-0001. The reduction in the annual burden is estimated to be
22,093,000 hours. This is an average over the 3 years of this ICR:
There will be no reduction in the first 2 years, and a reduction of
66,280,000 hours in the third. This estimated burden reduction includes
CMVs that voluntarily had ELDs installed in them.
6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Rule
The Agency did not identify any Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule.
7. Steps To Minimize Adverse Economic Impacts on Small Entities
Of the population of motor carriers that FMCSA regulates, 99
percent are considered small entities under the SBA's definition.
Because small businesses constitute a large part of the demographic the
Agency regulates, providing exemptions to small business to permit
noncompliance with safety regulations is not feasible and not
consistent with good public policy. The safe operation of CMVs on the
Nation's highways depends on compliance with all of FMCSA's safety
regulations. Accordingly, the Agency will not allow any motor carriers
to be exempt from coverage of the proposed rule based solely on a
status as a small entity.
FMCSA analyzed an alternative 5-year implementation schedule in the
previous NPRM that would have provided a longer implementation period
for small businesses. However, the estimated cost of compliance for
motor carriers, including small businesses, did not decrease from the
3-year ``baseline'' proposed implementation period. Furthermore, a
considerably longer implementation period could compromise the
consistency of compliance-assurance and enforcement activities, and
thereby diminish the rule's potential safety benefits. Therefore, the
Agency's proposal includes a single compliance date for all motor
carriers that would be subject to the new rule's requirements.
The Agency recognizes that small businesses may need additional
information and guidance in order to comply with the proposed
regulation. To improve their understanding of the proposal and any
rulemaking that would result from it, FMCSA proposes to conduct
outreach aimed specifically at small businesses. FMCSA would conduct
Webinars and other presentations upon request as needed and at no
charge to the participants. These would be held after the final rule
has published and before the rule's compliance date. To the extent
practicable, these presentations would be interactive. Their purpose
would be to describe in plain language the compliance and reporting
requirements so they are clear and readily understood by the small
entities that would be affected.
ELDs can lead to significant paperwork savings that can offset the
costs of the devices. The Agency, however, recognizes that these
devices entail an up-front investment that can be burdensome for small
carriers. At least one vendor, however, provides free hardware and
recoups the cost of the device over time in the form of higher monthly
operating fees. The Agency is also aware of lease-to-own programs that
allow carriers to spread the purchase costs over several years.
Nevertheless, the typical carrier would likely be required to spend
about $800 per CMV to purchase and install ELDs. In addition to
purchase costs, carriers would also likely spend about $25 per month
per CMV for monthly service fees.
[[Page 17684]]
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
Agencies to evaluate whether an Agency action would result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $143.1 million or more (as adjusted for
inflation) in any 1 year, and, if so, to take steps to minimize these
unfunded mandates. As Table 10 shows, this rulemaking would result in
private sector expenditures in excess of the $143.1 million threshold
for each of the proposed options. Gross costs, however, are expected to
be more than offset in savings from paperwork burden reductions. The
savings will be realized by the same entities that are required to
employ ELDs.
The Agency is required by statute to adopt regulations requiring
that CMVs operated in interstate commerce, operated by drivers required
to keep RODS, be equipped with ELDs. 49 U.S.C. 31137. To the extent
this rule implements the direction of Congress in mandating the use of
ELDs, a written statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not
required. However, the Agency has provided an analysis of the costs to
the private sector in the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation available
in the docket referenced above. Additionally the Agency's proposed
option provides the lowest cost and highest net benefits of the options
considered.
Table 10--Annualized Net Expenditures by Private Sector
[millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ELD Cost.............................................. $1,270.0 $955.7 $1,722.6 $1,311.1
Total Paperwork Savings..................................... 1,637.7 1,637.7 1,637.7 1,637.7
Net ELD Cost................................................ -367.7 -682.0 84.9 -326.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This SNPRM would meet applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
FMCSA analyzed this action under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FMCSA determined that
this SNPRM would not pose an environmental risk to health or safety
that might affect children disproportionately.
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rulemaking would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
A rulemaking has implications for Federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on State or local governments. FMCSA analyzed
this action in accordance with E.O. 13132. The rule would not have a
substantial direct effect on States or local governments, nor would it
limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this rulemaking
would preempt any State law or regulation.
H. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
action.
I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
FMCSA analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles
and criteria in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments. This rulemaking is required by law and does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal
governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments. Thus, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O.
13175 do not apply and no tribal summary impact statement is required.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to obtain OMB approval of each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or require through agency
regulations. On December 11, 2011, OMB approved the information
collection (IC) requirements of part 395 and the Agency's estimate of
the annual IC burden of 184.38 million burden hours (OMB Control Number
2126-0001, ``Hours of Service of Drivers''). OMB's approval expires
December 31, 2014.
OMB's regulations require agencies to provide a specific, objective
estimate of the burden hours imposed by their IC requirements [5 CFR
1320.8(a)(4)]. The IC requirements of part 395 would change when the
amendments proposed by this SNPRM become final; the IC requirements of
other parts of the FMCSRs would not be affected by this SNPRM.
The Agency in this subsection J is estimating the paperwork burden
of part 395 as amended by the proposals of this SNPRM. The Agency is
also in this subsection J incorporating revised Agency estimates of the
population of CMV drivers subject to the recordkeeping requirements of
part 395. The Agency recently analyzed data in FMCSA's Motor Carrier
Management Information System \16\ (MCMIS) and revised the Agency's
estimate of the CMV driver population from the estimate approved by OMB
in 2011. Customarily, FMCSA provides a separate Federal Register notice
explaining revised Agency estimates derived solely from updated Agency
data and inviting public comment. However, to avoid confusion, the
Agency is presenting a single estimate of the IC burden of part 395 as
affected by both the changes in Agency data and the proposals of this
SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Source: FMCSA, Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS) registration data as of April 27, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The net effect of updated Agency data on the CMV driver population
is that the Agency now estimates that 2.84 million CMV drivers are
subject to the IC requirements of the HOS rules. In 2011, the Agency
provided OMB a baseline estimate of 7 million CMV drivers subject to
the FMCSRs. Current data indicate that this baseline population is 4.32
million drivers. The Agency reduces this figure to exclude
[[Page 17685]]
short-haul drivers. Short-haul drivers are subject to most of the on-
duty and off-duty requirements of the HOS rules, but are exempt from
the requirement to maintain an HOS record, or log, on the vehicle. All
the IC requirements of part 395 are associated with the log, so these
drivers experience no IC burden under the HOS rules. In 2011, FMCSA
estimated the population of these short-haul CMV drivers to be 2.4
million, and derived its estimate of 4.6 million CMV drivers subject to
the IC requirements of the HOS rules (7 million less 2.4 million). The
Agency's data indicates that .64 million interstate CMV drivers
currently qualify for the short-haul exception; accordingly, the Agency
reduces its baseline estimate of 4.32 million CMV drivers to 3.68
million (4.32 million less .64 million). The Agency further revises its
estimate to exclude drivers who operate exclusively in intrastate
commerce. In 2011, FMCSA included all CMV drivers in its estimate of
the driver population. However, drivers who operate exclusively in
intrastate commerce are not subject to part 395. FMCSA has analyzed its
data and estimates that .84 million CMV drivers operate exclusively in
intrastate commerce. Consequently, the Agency reduces its baseline
estimate of the population of CMV drivers by .84 million, to 2.84
million (3.68 million less .84 million). The Agency estimates that 2.84
million CMV drivers are subject to the recordkeeping requirements of
the HOS rules. Though this change is unrelated to this rulemaking and
not an OMB-approved figure, FMCSA uses these populations in its
analysis of the rule for simplicity, and will be updating the ICR to
reflect this change.
This SNPRM proposes a transition period of 2 years following
publication of a final ELD rule after which drivers and motor carriers
would be required to have ELDs in place. OMB regulations require that
Agencies estimate IC burdens over a period of 3 years after a rule
becomes final. In the third year after publication of a final ELD rule,
the Agency estimates the IC burden of part 395 would be reduced by
66,280,000.00 burden hours; thus, the average reduction in the annual
burden over the 3-year period would be approximately 22,093,000.00
burden hours. This estimate incorporates the Agency's estimate of the
voluntary use of ELDs in years 1 and 2.
K. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act
FMCSA analyzed this SNPRM for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and
determined under DOT environmental procedures Order 5610.1, issued
March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action would have a minor impact
on the environment. The Environmental Assessment is available for
inspection or copying at the Regulations.gov website listed under
ADDRESSES.
FMCSA also analyzed this action under section 176(c) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's implementing regulations, 40 CFR part
93. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.153, a conformity determination is required
``for each criteria pollutant or precursor where the total of direct
and indirect emissions of the criteria pollutant or precursor in a
nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a Federal action would
equal or exceed any of the rates in paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this
section.'' FMCSA recognizes that the action taken in this rulemaking
could slightly affect emissions of criteria pollutants from CMVs. FMCSA
discusses the air emissions analysis in section 3.2.1. of the draft
Environmental Assessment for this rule.
As discussed in section 3.1.2 of the Environmental Assessment, the
CAA requires additional analysis to determine if this proposed action
impacts air quality. In determining whether this action conforms to CAA
requirements in areas designated as nonattainment under section 107 of
the CAA and maintenance areas established under section 175A of the
CAA, FMCSA is required (among other criteria) to determine if the total
direct and indirect emissions are at or above de minimis levels. In the
case of the alternatives proposed in this SNPRM, as discussed in
section 3.2.1 (except for the No-Action Alternative), FMCSA considers
the change in emissions to be an indirect result of the rulemaking
action. FMCSA is requiring drivers and motor carriers to use ELDs that
would lead to greater compliance with the HOS regulations, which does
not directly result in additional emissions releases.
Although emissions from idling are foreseeable and an indirect
result of the rulemaking, in order for the idling emissions to qualify
as `indirect emissions' pursuant to 40 CFR 93.152, they must meet all
four criteria in the definition: (1) The emissions are caused or
initiated by the Federal action and originate in the same nonattainment
or maintenance area but occur at a different time or place as the
action; (2) they are reasonably foreseeable; (3) FMCSA can practically
control them; and (4) FMCSA has continuing program responsibility for
them. FMCSA does not believe the increase of emissions of some criteria
pollutants or their precursors from this proposed rulemaking meet two
of the criteria: That FMCSA can practically control the emissions, and
that FMCSA has continuing program responsibility. FMCSA's statutory
authority limits its ability to require drivers to choose alternatives
to idling while taking a rest period. If FMCSA had authority to control
CMV emissions, the Agency could prohibit idling or require drivers to
choose an alternative such as electrified truck stops or use of
auxiliary power units, both of which reduce idling emissions. Moreover,
based on FMCSA's analysis, it is reasonably foreseeable that the SNPRM
would not significantly increase total CMV mileage, nor would it change
the routing of CMVs, how CMVs operate, or the CMV fleet mix of motor
carriers. Therefore, because the idling emissions do not meet the
definition of direct or indirect emissions in 40 CFR 93.152, FMCSA has
determined it is not required to perform a CAA general conformity
analysis, pursuant to 40 CFR 93.153.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Additionally, the EPA General Conformity regulations
provide an exemption for rulemaking activities. See 40 CFR
93.153(c)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
FMCSA evaluated the environmental effects of this SNPRM in
accordance with E.O. 12898 and determined that there are neither
environmental justice issues associated with its provisions nor any
collective environmental impact resulting from its promulgation.
Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were
``disproportionate'' and ``high and adverse impact'' on minority or
low-income populations. None of the alternatives analyzed in the
Agency's deliberations would result in high and adverse environmental
justice impacts.
M. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FMCSA analyzed this action under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use. FMCSA determined that it is not a ``significant energy action''
under that E.O. because, although this rulemaking is economically
significant, it is not likely to have an adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
[[Page 17686]]
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) requires agencies to ``use technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies'' to carry out
policy objectives determined by the agencies, unless the standards are
``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.'' This
requirement pertains to ``performance-based or design-specific
technical specifications and related management systems practices.''
MAP-21 also requires that the Agency adopt a ``standard security level
for an electronic logging device and related components to be tamper
resistant by using a methodology endorsed by a nationally recognized
standards organization'' (49 U.S.C. 31137(b)(2)(C)).
FMCSA is not aware of any technical standards addressing ELDs.
However, in today's SNPRM, the Agency employs several publicly-
available consensus standards consistent with these statutory mandates,
including standards adopted by the World Wide Web Consortium to
facilitate secure Web based communications, American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) codes for identification of geographic locations and
for standard information display, Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Standards Association standards addressing
secure transfer of data with a portable storage device,, International
Standards Organization standards concerning QR codes, Bluetooth Special
Interest Group (SIG) standards addressing short-range wireless
information transfer, and the USB Specification (Revision 2.0). In
addition, although not developed by a private sector consensus standard
body, FMCSA also employs the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) standards concerning data encryption. A complete list
of standards that FMCSA proposes for adoption is found in proposed 49
CFR 395.38 of this SNPRM.
O. E-Government Act of 2002
The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, Sec. 208, 116
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct
a privacy impact assessment (PIA) for new or substantially changed
technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an
identifiable form. FMCSA has completed a PIA in connection with today's
SNPRM addressing the handling of PII. The PIA is a documented assurance
that privacy issues have been identified and adequately addressed,
ensures compliance with laws and regulations related to privacy, and
demonstrates the DOT's commitment to protect the privacy of any
personal information we collect, store, retrieve, use, and share.
Additionally, the publication of the PIA demonstrates DOT's commitment
to provide appropriate transparency in the ELD rulemaking process. A
copy of the PIA is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 385
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Mexico,
Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 386
Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Freight forwarders,
Hazardous materials transportation, Highway safety, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle safety, Penalties.
49 CFR Part 390
Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 395
Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter III, parts 385, 386, 390, and 395 to read as follows:
PART 385--SAFETY FITNESS PROCEDURES
0
1. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(e), 5109, 13901-
13905, 14701, 31133, 31135, 31136, 31137(a), 31144, 31148, and
31502; Sec. 113(a), Pub. L. 103-311; Sec. 408, Pub. L. 104-88; Sec.
350, Pub. L. 107-87; and 49 CFR 1.87.
0
2. Amend Appendix B to part 385--Explanation of Safety Rating Process
section VII by removing the entries for Sec. Sec. 395.8(a), 395.8(e),
and 395.8(i), and the two entries for Sec. 395.8(k)(1) and adding the
following violations Sec. 390.36(b)(1), Sec. 395.8(a)(1), Sec.
395.8(e)(1), Sec. 395.8(e)(2), Sec. 395.8(k)(1), Sec. 395.11(b) or
(c), Sec. 395.11(d), Sec. 395.11(e), and Sec. 395.30(e) in numerical
order to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 385--Explanation of Safety Rating Process
* * * * *
VII. List of Acute and Critical Regulations
* * * * *
Sec. 390.36(b)(1) Engaging in harassment of a driver (acute).
* * * * *
Sec. 395.8(a)(1) Failing to require a driver to make a record
of duty status using appropriate method (critical).
Sec. 395.8(e)(1) Making a false report (critical).
Sec. 395.8(e)(2) Disabling, deactivating, disengaging, jamming,
or otherwise blocking or degrading a signal transmission or
reception; tampering with an automatic on-board recording device or
ELD; or permitting or requiring another person to engage in such
activity (acute).
Sec. 395.8(k)(1) Failing to preserve a driver's record of duty
status or supporting documents for 6 months (critical)
Sec. 395.11(b) or (c) Failing to maintain a supporting document
as required by Sec. 395.12(b) or (c) (critical).
Sec. 395.11(d) Failing to maintain supporting documents in a
manner that permits the effective matching of the documents to the
driver's record of duty status (critical).
Sec. 395.11(e) Altering, defacing, destroying, mutilating, or
obscuring a supporting document (critical).
Sec. 395.30(e) Failing to maintain ELD information (acute).
* * * * *
PART 386--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR MOTOR CARRIER, INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT
PROVIDER, BROKER, FREIGHT FORWARDER, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PROCEEDINGS
0
3. The authority citation for part 386 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, chapters 5, 51, 59, 131-141, 145-149,
311, 313, and 315; Sec. 204, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 941 (49
U.S.C. 701 note); Sec. 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767;
Sec. 206, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1763; subtitle B, title
IV of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1751-1761; and 49 CFR 1.81 and
1.87.
0
4. Amend Sec. 386.1 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 386.1 Scope of rules in this part.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the rules
in this part govern proceedings before the Assistant Administrator, who
also acts as the Chief Safety Officer of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA), under applicable provisions of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 350-
399), including the commercial regulations (49 CFR parts 360-379), and
the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180).
* * * * *
(c)(1) The rules in Sec. 386.12 govern the filing of a complaint
of a substantial violation and the handling of the
[[Page 17687]]
complaint by the Division Administrator for the State where the
incident occurs.
(2) The rules in Sec. 386.12a govern the filing of a complaint of
a harassment violation under Sec. 390.36 and the handling of the
complaint by the Division Administrator for the State where the
incident occurs.
0
5. Revise Sec. 386.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 386.12 Complaint of substantial violation.
(a) Complaint. Any person alleging that a substantial violation of
any regulation issued under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 is
occurring or has occurred within the preceding 60 days may file a
written complaint with the FMCSA Division Administrator for the State
where the incident is occurring or has occurred. A substantial
violation is one which could reasonably lead to, or has resulted in,
serious personal injury or death. Allegations brought to the attention
of other officials of the Agency through letter, email, social media,
phone call, or other means will be referred to the Division
Administrator for the State where the incident occurred. Delays in
transferring the allegations to the appropriate Division Administrator
do not stay the 60-day period for filing a written complaint. Each
complaint must be signed by the complainant and must contain:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the person who files
it;
(2) The name and address of the alleged violator and, with respect
to each alleged violator, the specific provisions of the regulations
that the complainant believes were violated; and
(3) A concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to
substantiate each allegation, including the date of each alleged
violation.
(b) Action on complaint. Upon the filing of a complaint of a
substantial violation under paragraph (a) of this section, the Division
Administrator shall determine whether the complaint is non-frivolous
and meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If the
Division Administrator determines the complaint is non-frivolous and
meets the requirements of paragraph (a), the Division Administrator
shall investigate the complaint. The complainant shall be timely
notified of findings resulting from such investigation. The Division
Administrator shall not be required to conduct separate investigations
of duplicative complaints. If the Division Administrator determines the
complaint is frivolous or does not meet the requirements of paragraph
(a), the Division Administrator shall dismiss the complaint and notify
the complainant in writing of the reasons for the dismissal. If after
investigation the Division Administrator determines that a violation
has occurred, the Division Administrator may issue a Notice of
Violation under Sec. 386.11(b) or a Notice of Claim under Sec.
386.11(c) of this part.
(c) Protection of complainant. Notwithstanding the provisions of
section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the Division Administrator
shall not disclose the identity of complainants unless it is determined
that such disclosure is necessary to prosecute a violation. If
disclosure becomes necessary, the Division Administrator shall take
every practical means within the Division Administrator's authority to
ensure that the complainant is not subject to harassment, intimidation,
disciplinary action, discrimination, or financial loss as a result of
such disclosure.
0
6. Add Sec. 386.12a to read as follows:
Sec. 386.12a Complaint of harassment.
(a) Complaint. (1) A driver, as defined in Sec. 390.5, alleging
harassment prohibited by Sec. 390.36 by a motor carrier is occurring
or has occurred within the preceding 60 days may file a written
complaint with the FMCSA Division Administrator for the State where the
incident is occurring or has occurred. Allegations brought to the
attention of other officials in the Agency through letter, email,
social media, phone call, or other means will be referred to the
Division Administrator for the State where the incident occurred.
Delays in transferring the allegations to the appropriate Division
Administrator do not stay the 60-day period for filing a written
complaint.
(2) Each complaint must be signed by the driver and must contain:
(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the driver who files
it;
(ii) The name and address of the alleged violator; and
(iii) A concise but complete statement describing the alleged
action taken by the motor carrier that the driver claims constitutes
harassment, including:
(A) How the ELD or other technology used in combination with and
not separable from the ELD was used to contribute to harassment; and
(B) How the motor carrier's action violated either Sec. 392.3 or
part 395.
(3) Each complaint may include any supporting evidence that will
assist the Division Administrator in determining the merits of the
complaint.
(b) Action on complaint. Upon the filing of a complaint of a
substantial violation under paragraph (a) of this section, the Division
Administrator shall determine whether the complaint is non-frivolous
and meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If the
Division Administrator determines the complaint is non-frivolous and
meets the requirements of paragraph (a), the Division Administrator
shall investigate the complaint. The complainant shall be timely
notified of findings resulting from such investigation. The Division
Administrator shall not be required to conduct separate investigations
of duplicative complaints. If the Division Administrator determines the
complaint is frivolous or does not meet the requirements of paragraph
(a), the Division Administrator shall dismiss the complaint and notify
the complainant in writing of the reasons for the dismissal. If after
investigation the Division Administrator determines that a violation
has occurred, the Division Administrator may issue a Notice of
Violation under Sec. 386.11(b) or a Notice of Claim under Sec.
386.11(c) of this part.
(c) Protection of complainant. Notwithstanding the provisions of
section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the Division Administrator
shall not disclose the identity of complainants unless it is determined
that such disclosure is necessary to prosecute a violation. If
disclosure becomes necessary, the Division Administrator shall take
every practical means within the Division Administrator's authority to
ensure that the complainant is not subject to harassment, intimidation,
disciplinary action, discrimination, or financial loss as a result of
such disclosure.
0
7. Amend appendix B to part 386 by adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Part 386--Penalty Schedule; Violations and Monetary
Penalties
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(7) Harassment. In instances of a violation of Sec.
390.36(b)(1) the Agency may consider the ``gravity of the
violation,'' for purposes of 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(D), sufficient to
warrant imposition of penalties up to the maximum permitted by law.
* * * * *
PART 390--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL
0
8. The authority citation for part 390 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31136, 31144,
31151, 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677-1678;
sec. 212, 217, 229, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat.
[[Page 17688]]
1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec.
4114 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144,
1726, 1743-1744); sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 114, 1745;
sections 32101(d) and 34934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778,
830; and 49 CFR 1.87.
0
9. Add Sec. 390.36 to read as follows:
Sec. 390.36 Harassment of drivers prohibited.
(a) Harass or harassment defined. As used in this section, harass
or harassment means an action by a motor carrier toward a driver
employed by the motor carrier (including an independent contractor
while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle on behalf
of the motor carrier) involving the use of information available to the
motor carrier through an ELD, as defined in Sec. 395.2 of this
chapter, or through other technology used in combination with and not
separable from the ELD, that the motor carrier knew, or should have
known, would result in the driver violating Sec. 392.3 or part 395 of
this chapter.
(b) Prohibition against harassment. (1) No motor carrier may harass
a driver.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be construed
to prevent a motor carrier from using technology allowed under this
subchapter to monitor productivity of a driver provided that such
monitoring does not result in harassment.
(c) Complaint process. A driver who believes he or she was the
subject of harassment by a motor carrier may file a written complaint
under Sec. 386.12a of this subchapter.
PART 395--HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS
0
10. The authority citation for part 395 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31137, and 31502; sec.
113, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-
159 (as transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132,
Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743, 1744); sec. 4133, Pub.
L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1744; sec. 108, Pub. L. 110-432, 122
Stat. 4860-4866; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830;
and 49 CFR 1.87.
0
11. In Part 395 redesignate Sec. 395.1 through Sec. 395.19 as subpart
A, and add a new subpart heading to read as follows:
Subpart A--General
0
12. Amend Sec. 395.1 by revising introductory text paragraphs (e)(1)
and (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.
* * * * *
(e) * * * (1) 100 air-mile radius driver. A driver is exempt from
the requirements of Sec. 395.8 and Sec. 395.11 if:
* * * * *
(2) Operators of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles not
requiring a commercial driver's license. Except as provided in this
paragraph, a driver is exempt from the requirements of Sec.
395.3(a)(2), 395.8, and 395.11 and ineligible to use the provisions of
Sec. 395.1(e)(1), (g), and (o) if:
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 395.2 by adding the definitions for Electronic logging
device (ELD) and Supporting document, in alphabetical order, to read as
follows:
Sec. 395.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Electronic logging device (ELD) means a device or technology that
automatically records a driver's driving time and facilitates the
accurate recording of the driver's hours of service, and that meets the
requirements of subpart B of this part.
* * * * *
Supporting document means a document, in any medium, generated or
received by a motor carrier in the normal course of business as
described in Sec. 395.11 that can be used, as produced or with
additional identifying information, by the motor carrier and
enforcement officials to verify the accuracy of a driver's record of
duty status.
* * * * *
0
14. Add Sec. 395.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 395.7 Enforcement proceedings.
(a) General. A motor carrier is liable for any act or failure to
act by an employee, as defined in Sec. 390.5, that violates any
provision of part 395 if the act or failure to act is within the course
of the motor carrier's operations. The fact that an employee may also
be liable for a violation in a proceeding under this subchapter based
on the employee's act or failure to act does not affect the liability
of the motor carrier.
(b) Burden of proof. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subchapter, the burden of proof is on a motor carrier to prove that the
employee was acting outside the scope of the motor carrier's operations
when committing an act or failing to act in a manner that violates any
provision of this part.
(c) Imputed knowledge of documents. A motor carrier shall be deemed
to have knowledge of any document in its possession and any document
that is available to the motor carrier and that the motor carrier could
use in ensuring compliance with this part. ``Knowledge of any
document'' means knowledge of the fact that a document exists and the
contents of the document.
0
15. Amend Sec. 395.8 by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (i),
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (e), and
0
c. Revising the heading of paragraph (k), and paragraph (k)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 395.8 Driver's record of duty status.
(a)(1) Except for a private motor carrier of passengers
(nonbusiness), as defined in Sec. 390.5, a motor carrier subject to
the requirements of this part must require each driver used by the
motor carrier to record the driver's duty status for each 24-hour
period using the method prescribed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv)
of this section, as applicable.
(i) Subject to paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section, a
motor carrier operating commercial motor vehicles must install and
require each of its drivers to use an ELD to record the driver's duty
status in accordance with subpart B of this part no later than [DATE
TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
(ii) A motor carrier that installs and requires a driver to use an
automatic on-board recording device in accordance with Sec. 395.15
before [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] may
continue to use the compliant automatic on-board recording device no
later than [DATE FOUR YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE].
(iii) A motor carrier may require a driver who must complete a
record of duty status not more than 8 days within any 30-day period to
record the driver's duty status manually, in accordance with this
section. The record of duty status must be recorded in duplicate for
each 24-hour period for which recording is required. The duty status
shall be recorded on a specified grid, as shown in paragraph (g) of
this section. The grid and the requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section may be combined with any company form.
(iv) Subject to paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section,
until [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], a
motor carrier operating commercial motor vehicles shall require each of
its drivers to record the driver's record of duty status:
(A) Using an ELD that meets the requirements of subpart B of this
part;
(B) Using an automatic on-board recording device that meets the
requirements of Sec. 395.15; or
[[Page 17689]]
(C) Manually, recorded on a specified grid as shown in paragraph
(g) of this section. The grid and the requirements of paragraph (d) of
this section may be combined with any company form. The record of duty
status must be recorded in duplicate for each 24-hour period for which
recording is required.
(2) A driver operating a commercial motor vehicle must:
(i) Record the driver's duty status using one of the methods under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and
(ii) Submit the driver's record of duty status to the motor carrier
within 8 days of the 24-hour period to which the record pertains.
(3) Unless an extension of time has been granted under Sec.
395.34(d), a motor carrier required to use an ELD is in violation of
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section during any period in which the
motor carrier is operating a commercial motor vehicle while the ELD is
malfunctioning.
* * * * *
(e)(1) No driver or motor carrier may make a false report in
connection with a duty status.
(2) No driver or motor carrier shall disable, deactivate,
disengage, jam, or otherwise block or degrade a signal transmission or
reception, or reengineer, reprogram, or otherwise tamper with an
automatic on-board recording device or ELD so that the device does not
accurately record and retain required data.
(3) No driver or motor carrier shall permit or require another
person to disable, deactivate, disengage, jam, or otherwise block or
degrade a signal transmission or reception, or reengineer, reprogram,
or otherwise tamper with an automatic on-board recording device or ELD
so that the device does not accurately record and retain required data.
* * * * *
(i) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(k) Retention of driver's record of duty status and supporting
documents. (1) A motor carrier shall retain and maintain records of
duty status and supporting documents required under this part for each
of its drivers for a period of not less than 6 months from the date of
receipt.
* * * * *
0
16. Add Sec. 395.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 395.11 Supporting documents.
(a) Applicability. The supporting document provisions under this
section take effect [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
(b) Submission of supporting documents to motor carrier. Except for
a private motor carrier of passengers (nonbusiness), a driver must
submit to the driver's employer the driver's supporting documents
required to be maintained under this section within 8 days of either
the 24-hour period to which the documents pertain or the day the
document comes into the driver's possession, whichever is later.
(c) Supporting document retention. (1) Subject to paragraph (d) of
this section, a motor carrier must maintain each supporting document
generated or received in the normal course of business in the following
categories for each of its drivers for every 24-hour period to verify
on-duty not driving time in accordance with Sec. 395.8(k):
(i) Each bill of lading, itinerary, schedule, or equivalent
document that indicates the origin and destination of each trip;
(ii) Each dispatch record, trip record, or equivalent document;
(iii) Each expense receipt related to any on-duty not driving time;
(iv) Each electronic mobile communication record, reflecting
communications transmitted through a fleet management system; and
(v) Each payroll record, settlement sheet, or equivalent document
that indicates what and how a driver was paid.
(2)(i) A supporting document must include each of the following
data elements:
(A) On the document or on another document that enables the carrier
to link the document to the driver, the driver's name or personal
identification number (PIN) or a unit (vehicle) number if the unit
number can be associated with the driver operating the unit;
(B) The date, which must be the date at the location where the date
is recorded;
(C) The location, which must include the name of the nearest city,
town, or village to enable Federal, State, or local enforcement
personnel to quickly determine a vehicle's location on a standard map
or road atlas; and
(D) Subject to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the time,
which must be convertible to the local time at the location where it is
recorded.
(ii) If a driver has fewer than 10 supporting documents containing
the four data elements under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section for a
24-hour period, a document containing the data elements under
(c)(2)(i)(A)-(C) of this section is considered a supporting document
for purposes of paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Maximum number of supporting documents. (1) Subject to
paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) of this section, a motor carrier need not
maintain more than 10 supporting documents for an individual driver's
24-hour period under paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) In applying the limit on the number of documents required under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, each electronic mobile communication
record applicable to an individual driver's 24-hour period shall be
counted as a single document.
(3) If a driver submitted more than 10 supporting documents for a
24-hour period, a motor carrier must retain the supporting documents
containing earliest and latest time indication among the 10 supporting
documents maintained.
(4) In addition to other supporting documents required under this
section, and notwithstanding the maximum number of documents under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, a motor carrier that requires a
driver to complete a paper record of duty status under Sec.
395.8(a)(1)(iii) must maintain toll receipts for any period when the
driver kept paper records of duty status.
(e) Link to driver's record of duty status. A motor carrier must
maintain supporting documents in such a manner that they may be
effectively matched to the corresponding driver's record of duty
status.
(f) Prohibition of destruction. No motor carrier or driver may
obscure, deface, destroy, mutilate, or alter existing information
contained in a supporting document.
(g)(1) On request during a roadside inspection, a driver must make
available to an authorized Federal, State, or local official for the
official's review any supporting document in the driver's possession.
(2) A driver need not produce a supporting document under paragraph
(g)(1) of this section in a format other than the format in which the
driver possesses it.
(h) Self-compliance systems. (1) FMCSA may authorize on a case-by-
case basis motor carrier self-compliance systems.
(2) Requests for use of a supporting document self-compliance
system may be submitted to FMCSA under the procedures described in 49
CFR part 381, subpart C (Procedures for Applying for Exemptions).
(3) FMCSA will consider requests concerning types of supporting
documents maintained by a motor carrier under Sec. 395.8(k)(1) and the
method by which a driver retains and maintains a copy of the record of
duty
[[Page 17690]]
status for the previous 7 days and makes it available for inspection
while on duty in accordance with Sec. 395.8.
0
17. Amend Sec. 395.15 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 395.15 Automatic on-board recording devices.
(a) Authority to use. (1) A motor carrier that installs and
requires a driver to use an automatic on-board recording device in
accordance with this section before [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] may continue to use the compliant automatic on-
board recording device no later than [DATE FOUR YEARS AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]. Otherwise, the authority to use
automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs) under this section ends
on [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
(2) A motor carrier may require a driver to use an automatic on-
board recording device to record the driver's hours of service.
(3) Every driver required by a motor carrier to use an automatic
on-board recording device shall use such device to record the driver's
hours of service.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 395.16-395.19 [Reserved]
0
18. Add and reserve Sec. Sec. 395.16 through 395.19.
0
19. Amend part 395 by adding a new subpart B, consisting of Sec. Sec.
395.20 through 395.38, and Appendix to Subpart B of Part 395, to read
as follows:
Subpart B--Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs)
Sec. 395.20 ELD applicability and scope.
Sec. 395.22 Motor carrier responsibilities--In general.
Sec. 395.24 Driver responsibilities--In general.
Sec. 395.26 ELD data automatically recorded.
Sec. 395.28 Special driving categories; other driving statuses.
Sec. 395.30 ELD record submissions, edits, annotations, and data
retention.
Sec. 395.32 Non-authenticated driver logs.
Sec. 395.34 ELD malfunctions and data diagnostic events.
Sec. 395.36 Driver access to records.
Sec. 395.38 Incorporation by reference.
Appendix to Subpart B of Part 395--Functional Specifications for All
Electronic Logging Devices (ELDS)
Subpart B--Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs)
Sec. 395.20 ELD applicability and scope.
(a) Scope. This subpart applies to ELDs used to record a driver's
hours of service under Sec. 395.8(a).
(b) Applicability. An ELD used after [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] must meet the requirements of this
subpart.
(c) ELD system. Throughout this subpart, a reference to an ELD
includes, to the extent applicable, an ELD support system.
Sec. 395.22 Motor carrier responsibilities--In general.
(a) Registered ELD required. A motor carrier required to use an ELD
must use only an ELD that is listed on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's registered ELDs list, accessible through the Agency's
Web site.
(b) User rights management. (1) This paragraph (b) of this section
applies to a motor carrier whose drivers use ELDs and to the motor
carrier's support personnel who have been authorized by the motor
carrier to access ELD records and make or suggest authorized edits.
(2) A motor carrier must:
(i) Actively manage ELD accounts, including creating, deactivating,
and updating accounts, and ensure that properly authenticated
individuals have ELD accounts with appropriate rights;
(ii) Assign a unique ELD username to each user account with the
required user identification data;
(iii) Ensure that a driver's license used in the creation of an ELD
driver account is valid and corresponds to the intended driver; and
(iv) Ensure that information entered to create a new account is
accurate.
(c) Driver identification data. (1) The ELD user account assigned
by the motor carrier to a driver requires the following data elements:
(i) A driver's first and last name, as reflected on the driver's
license;
(ii) A unique ELD username selected by the motor carrier;
(iii) The driver's valid driver's license number; and
(iv) The State or jurisdiction that issued the driver's license.
(2) The driver's license number or Social Security number must not
be used as, or as part of, the username for the account created on an
ELD.
(d) Motor carrier support personnel identification data. The ELD
user account assigned by a motor carrier to support personnel requires
the following data elements:
(1) The individual's first and last name, as reflected on a
government issued identification; and
(2) A unique ELD username selected by the motor carrier.
(e) Proper log-in required. The motor carrier must require that its
drivers and support personnel log into the ELD system using their
proper identification data.
(f) Calibration. A motor carrier must ensure that an ELD is
calibrated and maintained in accordance with the provider's
specifications.
(g) Portable ELDs. If a driver uses a portable ELD, the motor
carrier shall ensure that the ELD is mounted in a fixed position during
the operation of the commercial motor vehicle and visible to the driver
when the driver is seated in the normal driving position.
(h) In-vehicle information. A motor carrier must ensure that its
drivers possess onboard a commercial motor vehicle an ELD information
packet containing the following items:
(1) A user's manual for the driver describing how to operate the
ELD;
(2) An instruction sheet for the driver describing the data
transfer mechanisms supported by the ELD and step-by-step instructions
for the driver to produce and transfer the driver's hours-of-service
records to an authorized safety official;
(3) An instruction sheet for the driver describing ELD malfunction
reporting requirements and recordkeeping procedures during ELD
malfunctions; and
(4) A supply of blank driver's records of duty status graph-grids
sufficient to record the driver's duty status and other related
information for a minimum of 8 days.
(i) Record backup and security. (1) A motor carrier must maintain
for 6 months a back-up copy of the ELD records on a device separate
from that on which the original data are stored.
(2) A motor carrier must maintain a driver's ELD records so as to
protect a driver's privacy in a manner consistent with sound business
practices.
(j) Record production. When requested by an authorized safety
official, a motor carrier must produce ELD records in an electronic
format either on request or, if the motor carrier has multiple offices
or terminals, within the time permitted under Sec. 390.29.
Sec. 395.24 Driver responsibilities--In general.
(a) In general. A driver must provide the information the ELD
requires as prompted by the ELD and required by the motor carrier.
(b) Driver's duty status. A driver must input the driver's duty
status by selecting among the following categories available on the
ELD:
(1) ``Off duty'' or ``OFF'' or ``1'';
(2) ``Sleeper berth'' or ``SB'' or ``2'', to be used only if
sleeper berth is used;
(3) ``Driving'' or ``D'' or ``3''; or
(4) ``On-duty not driving'' or ``ON'' or ``4''.
(c) Miscellaneous data. (1) A driver must manually input the
following information in the ELD:
[[Page 17691]]
(i) Annotations, when applicable;
(ii) Driver's location description, when prompted by the ELD; and
(iii) Output file comment, when directed by an authorized safety
officer.
(2) A driver must manually input or verify the following
information on the ELD:
(i) Commercial motor vehicle power unit number;
(ii) Trailer number(s), if applicable; and
(iii) Shipping document number, if applicable.
(d) Driver use of ELD. On request by an authorized safety official,
a driver must produce and transfer from an ELD the driver's hours-of-
service records in accordance with the instruction sheet provided by
the motor carrier.
Sec. 395.26 ELD data automatically recorded.
(a) In general. An ELD provides the following functions and
automatically records the data elements listed in this section in
accordance with the requirements contained in the appendix to subpart B
of part 395.
(b) Data automatically recorded. The ELD automatically records the
following data elements:
(1) Date;
(2) Time;
(3) CMV geographic location information;
(4) Engine hours;
(5) Vehicle miles;
(6) Driver or authenticated user identification data;
(7) Vehicle identification data; and
(8) Motor carrier identification data.
(c) Change of duty status. When a driver indicates a change of duty
status under Sec. 395.24(b), the ELD records the data elements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section.
(d) Intermediate recording. (1) When a commercial motor vehicle is
in motion and there has not been a duty status change or another
intermediate recording in the previous 1 hour, the ELD automatically
records an intermediate recording that includes the data elements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section.
(2) If the intermediate recording is created during a period when
the driver indicates authorized personal use of a commercial motor
vehicle, the data elements in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this
section (engine hours and vehicle miles) will be left blank and
paragraph (b)(3) of this section (location) will be recorded with a
single decimal point resolution (approximately within a 10-mile
radius).
(e) Change in special driving category. If a driver indicates a
change in status under Sec. 395.28(a)(2), the ELD records the data
elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section.
(f) Certification of the driver's daily record. The ELD provides a
function for recording the driver's certification of the driver's
records for every 24-hour period. When a driver certifies or
recertifies the driver's records for a given 24-hour period under Sec.
395.30(b)(2), the ELD records the date, time and driver identification
data elements in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (6) of this section.
(g) Log in/log out. When an authorized user logs into or out of an
ELD, the ELD records the data elements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) and
(b)(4) through (8) of this section.
(h) Engine power up/shut down. When a commercial motor vehicle's
engine is powered up or powered down, the ELD records the data elements
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section.
(i) Authorized personal use. If the record is created during a
period when the driver has indicated authorized personal use of a
commercial motor vehicle, the data element in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section is logged with a single decimal point resolution (approximately
within a 10-mile radius).
(j) Malfunction and data diagnostic event. When an ELD detects or
clears a malfunction or data diagnostic event, the ELD records the data
elements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) and (b)(4) through (8) of this
section.
Sec. 395.28. Special driving categories; other driving statuses.
(a) Special driving categories. (1) Motor carrier options. A motor
carrier may configure an ELD to authorize a driver to indicate that the
driver is operating a commercial motor vehicle under any of the
following special driving categories:
(i) Authorized personal use; and
(ii) Yard moves.
(2) Driver's responsibilities. A driver operating a commercial
motor vehicle under one of the authorized categories listed in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
(i) Must select on the ELD the applicable special driving category
before the start of the status and deselect when the indicated status
ends; and
(ii) When prompted by the ELD, annotate the driver's ELD record
describing the driver's activity.
(b) Drivers exempt from ELD use. A motor carrier may configure an
ELD to designate a driver as exempt from ELD use.
(c) Other driving statuses. A driver operating a commercial motor
vehicle under any exception under Sec. 390.3(f) or Sec. 395.1 who is
not covered under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must annotate
the driver's ELD record explaining the applicable exemption.
Sec. 395.30 ELD record submissions, edits, annotations, and data
retention.
(a) True and correct record keeping. A driver and the motor carrier
must ensure that the driver's ELD records are accurate.
(b) Review of records and certification by driver. (1) A driver
must review the driver's ELD records, edit and correct inaccurate
records, enter any missing information, and certify the accuracy of the
information.
(2) Using the certification function of the ELD, the driver must
certify the driver's records by affirmatively selecting ``Agree''
immediately following a statement that reads, ``I hereby certify that
my data entries and my record of duty status for this 24-hour period
are true and correct.'' The driver must certify the record immediately
after the final required entry has been made or corrected for the 24-
hour period.
(3) The driver must submit the driver's certified ELD records to
the motor carrier in accordance with Sec. 395.8(a)(2).
(4) If any edits are necessary after the driver submits the records
to the motor carrier, the driver must recertify the record after the
edits are made.
(c) Edits, entries, and annotations. (1) Subject to the edit
limitations of an ELD, a driver may edit, enter missing information,
and annotate ELD recorded events. When edits, additions, or annotations
are necessary, a driver must use the ELD and respond to the ELD's
prompts.
(2) The driver or support personnel must annotate each change or
addition to a record.
(3) In the case of team drivers, if there was a mistake resulting
in the wrong driver being assigned driving-time hours by the ELD, and
if the team drivers were both indicated in each other's records for
that period as co-drivers, driving time may be edited and reassigned
between the team drivers following the procedure supported by the ELD.
(d) Motor carrier-proposed edits. (1) On review of a driver's
submitted records, the motor carrier may request edits to a driver's
records of duty status to ensure accuracy. A driver must confirm or
reject any proposed change, implement the appropriate edits on the
driver's record of duty status, and recertify and resubmit the records
in order for any motor carrier-proposed changes to take effect.
(2) A motor carrier may not request edits to the driver's
electronic records
[[Page 17692]]
before the records have been submitted by the driver.
(3) Edits requested by any system or by any person other than the
driver must require the driver's electronic confirmation or rejection.
(e) Coercion prohibited. A motor carrier may not coerce a driver to
make a false certification of the driver's data entries or record of
duty status.
(f) Motor carrier data retention requirements. A motor carrier must
not alter or erase, or permit or require alteration or erasure of, the
original information collected concerning the driver's hours of
service, the source data streams used to provide that information, or
information contained in any ELD support system that uses the original
information and source data streams.
Sec. 395.32 Non-authenticated driver logs.
(a) Tracking non-authenticated operation. The ELD must associate
the non-authenticated operation of a commercial motor vehicle with a
single account labeled ``Unidentified Driver'' as soon as the vehicle
is in motion, if no driver has logged into the ELD.
(b) Driver. When a driver logs into an ELD, the driver must review
any unassigned driving time when prompted by the ELD and must:
(1) Assume any records that belong to the driver under the driver's
account; or
(2) Indicate that the records are not attributable to the driver.
(c) Motor carrier. (1) A motor carrier must ensure that records of
unidentified driving are reviewed and must:
(i) Annotate the record, explaining why the time is unassigned; or
(ii) Assign the record to the appropriate driver to correctly
reflect the driver's hours of service.
(2) A motor carrier must retain unidentified driving records for
each ELD for a minimum of 6 months from the date of receipt.
(3) During a safety inspection, audit or investigation by an
authorized safety official, a motor carrier must make available
unidentified driving records from the ELD corresponding to the time
period for which ELD records are required.
Sec. 395.34 ELD malfunctions and data diagnostic events.
(a) Recordkeeping during ELD malfunctions. In case of an ELD
malfunction, a driver must do the following:
(1) Note the malfunction of the ELD and provide written notice of
the malfunction to the motor carrier within 24 hours;
(2) Reconstruct the record of duty status for the current 24-hour
period and the previous 7 consecutive days, and record the records of
duty status on graph-grid paper logs that comply with Sec. 395.8,
unless the driver already possesses the records or the records are
retrievable from the ELD; and
(3) Continue to manually prepare a record of duty status until the
ELD is serviced and brought back into compliance with this subpart.
(b) Inspections during malfunctions. When a driver is inspected for
hours of service compliance during an ELD malfunction, the driver must
provide the authorized safety official the driver's records of duty
status manually maintained as specified under paragraphs (a)(2) and (3)
of this section.
(c) Driver requirements during ELD data diagnostic events. If an
ELD indicates that there is a data inconsistency that generates a data
diagnostic event, the driver must follow the motor carrier's and ELD
provider's recommendations in resolving the data inconsistency.
(d) Motor carrier requirements for repair, replacement, or service.
(1) If a motor carrier receives or discovers information concerning the
malfunction of an ELD, the motor carrier must take corrective actions
to correct the malfunction of the ELD within 8 days of discovery of the
condition or a driver's notification to the motor carrier, whichever
occurs first.
(2) A motor carrier seeking to extend the period of time permitted
for repair, replacement, or service of one or more ELDs shall notify
the FMCSA Division Administrator for the State of the motor carrier's
principal place of business within 5 days after a driver notifies the
motor carrier under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Each request for
an extension under this section must be signed by the motor carrier and
must contain:
(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the motor carrier
representative who files the request;
(ii) The make, model, and serial number of each ELD;
(iii) The date and location of each ELD malfunction as reported by
the driver to the carrier; and
(iv) A concise statement describing actions taken by the motor
carrier to make a good faith effort to repair, replace, or service the
ELD units, including why the carrier needs additional time beyond the 8
days provided by this section.
(3) If FMCSA determines that the motor carrier is continuing to
make a good faith effort to ensure repair, replacement, or service to
address the malfunction of each ELD, FMCSA may allow an additional
period.
(4) FMCSA will provide written notice to the motor carrier of its
determination. The determination may include any conditions that FMCSA
considers necessary to ensure hours-of-service compliance. The
determination shall constitute a final agency action.
(5) A carrier providing a request for extension that meets the
requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section is deemed in
compliance with Sec. 395.8(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2) until FMCSA makes an
extension determination under this section, provided the motor carrier
and driver continue to comply with the other requirements of this
section.
Sec. 395.36 Driver access to records.
(a) Records on ELD. Drivers must be able to access their own ELD
records. A motor carrier must not introduce a process that would
require a driver to go through the motor carrier to obtain copies of
the driver's own ELD records if such records exist on or are
automatically retrievable through the ELD operated by the driver.
(b) Records in motor carrier's possession. On request, a motor
carrier must provide a driver with access to and copies of the driver's
own ELD records unavailable under paragraph (a) of this section during
the period a motor carrier is required to retain the records under
Sec. 395.8(k).
Sec. 395.38 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Incorporation by reference. Certain materials are incorporated
by reference in part 395, with the approval of the Director of the
Office of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), and 1 CFR part
51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section,
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration must publish notice of
change in the Federal Register, and the material must be available to
the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Bus and Truck
Standards and Operations (MC-PS), (202) 366-4325, and is available from
the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
Standards Association. 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141. Web
page is https://standards.ieee.org/. Telephone is (732) 981-
0060.
[[Page 17693]]
(1) ``Standard for Authentication in Host Attachments of Transient
Storage Devices,'' IEEE Standards Association: 2009 (IEEE Std. 1667-
2009). Incorporation by reference approved for appendix to subpart B of
part 395, paragraph 4.10.2.1.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) Universal Serial Bus Implementers Forum (USBIF). 3855 SW. 153rd
Drive, Beaverton, Oregon 97006. Web page is https://www.usb.org.
Telephone is (503) 619-0426.
(1) ``Universal Serial Bus Specification,'' Compaq, Hewlett-
Packard, Intel, Lucent, Microsoft, NEC, Philips; April 27, 2000
(Revision 2.0). Incorporation by reference approved for appendix to
subpart B of part 395, paragraphs 4.9.1, Table 5, 4.9.2, 4.10.2.1, and
4.10.3.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 11 West 42nd
Street, New York, New York 10036. Web page is https://webstore.ansi.org.
Telephone is (212) 642-4900.
(1) ``ANSI INCITS 446-2008, American National Standard for
Information Technology--Identifying Attributes for Named Physical and
Cultural Geographic Features (Except Roads and Highways) of the United
States, Its Territories, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated Areas
and the Waters of the Same to the Limit of the Twelve-Mile Statutory
Zone (10/28/2008),'' (ANSI INCITS 446-2008). Incorporation by reference
approved for appendix to subpart B of part 395, paragraph 4.4.2. (For
further information, see also the Geographic Names Information System
(GNIS) at https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/.)
(2) ``Information Systems--Coded Character Sets--7-Bit American
National Standard Code for Information Interchange (7-Bit ASCII),''
ANSI INCITS 4-1986 (R2007). Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395, Table 3 and paragraph 4.8.2.1.
(e) International Standards Organization (ISO). 1, ch. de la Voie-
Creuse, CP 56--CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland. Web page is https://www.iso.org. Telephone is 41 22 749 03 46.
(1) ``ISO/IEC 18004:2006 Information technology--Automatic
identification and data capture techniques--QR Code 2005 bar code
symbology specification.'' Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395, paragraph 4.10.2.2.
(2) ``ISO/IEC 17568 Information technology--Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems--Close proximity electric
induction wireless communications.'' Incorporation by reference
approved for appendix to subpart B of part 395, paragraph 4.10.2.3.
(f) Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). C/o Association
Management Solutions, LLC (AMS) 48377 Freemont Blvd., Suite 117,
Freemont, CA 94538. Telephone is (510) 492-4080.
(1) Request for Comment (RFC) 5246-``The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2,'' August 2008. Incorporation by reference
approved for appendix to subpart B of part 395, paragraph 4.10.1.1.
(2) RFC 5321--``Simple Mail Transfer Protocol,'' October 2008.
Incorporation by reference approved for appendix to subpart B of part
395, paragraph 4.10.1.3.
(3) RFC 5322--``Internet Message Format,'' October 2008.
Incorporation by reference approved for appendix to subpart B of part
395, paragraph 4.10.1.3.
(g) U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST). 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD
20899-1070. Web page is https://www.nist.gov. Telephone is (301) 975-
6478.
(1) ``Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication
197, November 26, 2001, Announcing the ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD
(AES).'' Incorporation by reference approved for appendix to subpart B
of part 395, paragraphs 4.10.1.3 and 4.10.2.1.
(2) ``Special Publication (SP) 800-32, February 26, 2001,
Introduction to Public Key Technology and the Federal PKI
Infrastructure.'' Incorporation by reference approved for appendix to
subpart B of part 395, paragraphs 4.10.1.1 and 4.10.1.3.
(h) World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 32 Vassar Street, Building 32-
G514, Cambridge, MA 02139. Web page is https://www.w3.org. Telephone is
(617) 253-2613.
(1) ``Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, W3C Note 15,
March 2001,'' Ariba, IBM Research, Microsoft. Incorporation by
reference approved for appendix to subpart B of part 395, paragraph
4.10.1.1(1).
(2) ``Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) Version 1.2 Part 1:
Messaging Framework (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 27 April
2007,'' W3C[supreg] (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). Incorporation by reference
approved for appendix to subpart B of part 395, paragraph 4.10.1.1(2).
(3) ``Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition), W3C
Recommendation 26 November 2008,'' W3C[supreg] (MIT, ERCIM, Keio).
Incorporation by reference approved for appendix to subpart B of part
395, paragraph 4.10.1.1(3).
(4) RFC 2616 ``Hypertext Transfer Protocol--HTTP/1.1''
Incorporation by reference approved for appendix to subpart B of part
395, paragraph 4.10.1.1.
(i) Bluetooth SIG, Inc., 5209 Lake Washington Blvd. NE., Suite 350,
Kirkland, WA 98033. Web page is https://www.bluetooth.org/Technical/Specifications/adopted.htm. Telephone is (425) 691-3535.
(1) ``Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless Connections
Made Easy,'' Bluetooth SIG Version, Covered Core Package version 2.1 +
EDR or a higher version. Incorporation by reference approved for
appendix to subpart B of part 395, paragraph 4.10.1.2.
(2) [Reserved]
Appendix to Subpart B of Part 395--Functional Specifications for All
Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs)
Table of Contents
1. SCOPE AND DESCRIPTION
1.1. ELD Function
1.2. System User
1.3. System Architecture
1.4. System Design
1.5. Sections of Appendix
2. ABBREVIATIONS
3. DEFINITIONS; NOTATIONS
3.1. Definitions
3.1.1. Databus
3.1.2. ELD Event
3.1.3. Exempt Driver
3.1.4. Geo-Location
3.1.5. Ignition Power Cycle, Ignition Power On Cycle, Ignition
Power Off Cycle
3.1.6. Unidentified Driver
3.2. Notations
4. FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1. ELD User Accounts
4.1.1. Account Types
4.1.2. Account Creation
4.1.3. Account Security
4.1.4. Account Management
4.1.5. Non-Authenticated Operation
4.2. ELD-Vehicle Interface
4.3. ELD Inputs
4.3.1. ELD Sensing
4.3.1.1. Engine Power Status
4.3.1.2. Vehicle Motion Status
4.3.1.3. Vehicle Miles
4.3.1.4. Engine Hours
4.3.1.5. Date and Time
4.3.1.6. CMV Position
4.3.1.7. CMV VIN
4.3.2. Driver's Manual Entries
4.3.2.1. Driver's Entry of Required Event Data Fields
4.3.2.2. Driver's Status Inputs
4.3.2.2.1. Driver's Indication of Duty Status
4.3.2.2.2. Driver's Indication of Situations Impacting Driving
Time Recording
4.3.2.3. Driver's Certification of Records
4.3.2.4. Driver's Data Transfer Initiation Input
[[Page 17694]]
4.3.2.5. Driver's Entry of an Output File Comment
4.3.2.6. Driver's Annotation of Records
4.3.2.7. Driver's Entry of Location Information
4.3.2.8. Driver's Record Entry/Edit
4.3.3. Motor Carrier's Manual Entries
4.3.3.1. ELD Configuration
4.3.3.1.1. Configuration of Available Categories Impacting
Driving Time Recording
4.3.3.1.2. Configuration of Using ELDs
4.4. ELD Processing and Calculations
4.4.1. Conditions for Automatic Setting of Duty Status
4.4.1.1. Automatic Setting of Duty Status to Driving
4.4.1.2. Automatic Setting of Duty Status to On-Duty Not Driving
4.4.1.3. Other Automatic Duty-Status Setting Actions Prohibited
4.4.2. Geo-Location Conversions
4.4.3. Date and Time Conversions
4.4.4. Setting of Event Parameters in Records, Edits, and
Entries
4.4.4.1. Event Sequence Identifier (ID) number
4.4.4.2. Event Record Status, Event Record Origin, Event Type
Setting
4.4.4.2.1. Records Automatically Logged by ELD
4.4.4.2.2. Driver Edits
4.4.4.2.3. Driver entries
4.4.4.2.4. Driver's Assumption of Unidentified Driver Logs
4.4.4.2.5. Motor Carrier Edit Suggestions
4.4.4.2.6. Driver's Actions Over Motor Carrier Edit Suggestions
4.4.5. Data Integrity Check Functions
4.4.5.1. Event Data Check
4.4.5.1.1. Event Checksum Calculation
4.4.5.1.2. Event Data Check Calculation
4.4.5.2. Line Data Check
4.4.5.2.1. Line Checksum Calculation
4.4.5.2.2. Line Data Check Calculation
4.4.5.2.3. Line Data Check Value Inclusion in Output File
4.4.5.3. File Data Check
4.4.5.3.1. File Checksum Calculation
4.4.5.3.2. File Data Check Value Calculation
4.4.5.3.3. File Data Check Value Inclusion in Output File
4.5. ELD Recording
4.5.1. Events and Data to Record
4.5.1.1. Event: Change in Driver's Duty Status
4.5.1.2. Event: Intermediate Logs
4.5.1.3. Event: Change in Driver's Indication of Allowed
Conditions that Impact Driving Time Recording
4.5.1.4. Event: Driver's Certification of Own Records
4.5.1.5. Event: Driver's Login/Logout Activity
4.5.1.6. Event: CMV's Engine Power Up and Shut Down Activity
4.5.1.7. Event: ELD Malfunction and Data Diagnostics Occurrence
4.6. ELD's Self-Monitoring of Required Functions
4.6.1. Compliance Self-Monitoring, Malfunctions and Data
Diagnostic Events
4.6.1.1. Power Compliance Monitoring
4.6.1.2. Engine Synchronization Compliance Monitoring
4.6.1.3. Timing Compliance Monitoring
4.6.1.4. Positioning Compliance Monitoring
4.6.1.5. Data Recording Compliance Monitoring
4.6.1.6. Monitoring Records Logged under the Unidentified Driver
Profile
4.6.1.7. Data Transfer Compliance Monitoring
4.6.1.8. Other Technology-Specific Operational Health Monitoring
4.6.2. ELD Malfunction Status Indicator
4.6.2.1. Visual Malfunction Indicator
4.6.3. ELD Data Diagnostic Status Indicator
4.6.3.1. Visual data diagnostics indicator
4.7. Special Purpose ELD Functions
4.7.1. Driver's ELD Volume Control
4.7.2. Driver's Access to Own ELD Records
4.7.3. Privacy Preserving Provision for Use During Personal Uses
of a CMV
4.8. ELD Outputs
4.8.1. Information To Be Displayed by an ELD
4.8.2. ELD Data File
4.8.2.1. ELD Output File Standard
4.8.2.1.1. Header Segment
4.8.2.1.2. User List
4.8.2.1.3. CMV List
4.8.2.1.4. ELD Event List for Driver's Record of Duty Status
4.8.2.1.5. Event Annotations, Comments, and Driver's Location
Description
4.8.2.1.6. ELD Event List for Driver's Certification of Own
Records
4.8.2.1.7. Malfunction and Diagnostic Event Records
4.8.2.1.8. ELD Login/Logout Report
4.8.2.1.9. CMV's Engine Power-Up and Shut Down Activity
4.8.2.1.10. ELD Event Log List for the Unidentified Driver
Profile
4.8.2.1.11. File Data Check Value
4.8.2.2. ELD Output File Name Standard
4.9. Data Transfer Capability Requirements
4.9.1. Data Reporting During Roadside Safety Inspections
4.9.2. Motor Carrier Data Reporting
4.10. Communications Standards for the Transmittal of Data Files
from ELDs
4.10.1. Primary Wireless Data Transfer Mechanisms
4.10.1.1. Wireless Data Transfer via Web Services
4.10.1.2. Wireless Data Transfer via Bluetooth[supreg]
4.10.1.3. Wireless Data Transfer Through E-Mail
4.10.2. Backup Wired and Proximity Data Transfer Mechanisms
4.10.2.1. USB 2.0
4.10.2.2. Data Transfer via Scannable QR Codes
4.10.2.3. Data Transfer via TransferJetTM
4.10.2.4. Printout
4.10.3. Motor Carrier Support System Data Transmission.
5. ELD-CERTIFICATION--REGISTRATION
5.1. Certification of Conformity with FMCSA Standards
5.1.1. Registering Online
5.1.2. Keeping Information Current
5.1.3. Authentication Information Distribution
5.2. ELD Provider's Registration.
5.2.1. Online Certification
5.2.2. Procedure to Validate an ELD's Authenticity
5.3. Publicly Available Information
6. REFERENCES
7. DATA ELEMENTS DICTIONARY
7.1.1. 24-Hour Period Starting Time
7.1.2. Carrier Name
7.1.3. Carrier's USDOT Number
7.1.4. CMV Power Unit Number
7.1.5. CMV VIN
7.1.6. Comment/Annotation
7.1.7. Data Diagnostic Event Indicator Status
7.1.8. Date
7.1.9. Distance Since Last Valid Coordinates
7.1.10. Driver's License Issuing State
7.1.11. Driver's License Number
7.1.12. Driver's Location Description
7.1.13. ELD Account Type
7.1.14. ELD Authentication Value
7.1.15. ELD Identifier
7.1.16. ELD Registration ID
7.1.17. ELD Username
7.1.18. Engine Hours
7.1.19. Event Code
7.1.20. Event Data Check Value
7.1.21. Event Record Origin
7.1.22. Event Record Status
7.1.23. Event Sequence ID Number
7.1.24. Event Type
7.1.25. Exempt Driver Configuration
7.1.26. File Data Check Value
7.1.27. First Name
7.1.28. Geo-Location
7.1.29. Last Name
7.1.30. Latitude
7.1.31. Line Data Check Value
7.1.32. Longitude
7.1.33. Malfunction/Diagnostic Code
7.1.34. Malfunction Indicator Status
7.1.35. Multiday Basis Used
7.1.36. Order Number
7.1.37. Output File Comment
7.1.38. Shipping Document Number
7.1.39. Time
7.1.40. Time Zone Offset from UTC
7.1.41. Trailer Number(s)
7.1.42. Vehicle Miles
1. Scope and Description
This appendix specifies the minimal requirements for an
electronic logging device (ELD) necessary for an ELD provider to
build and certify that its technology is compliant with this
appendix.
Throughout this appendix, a reference to an ELD includes, to the
extent applicable, an ELD support system.
1.1. ELD Function
The ELD discussed in this appendix is an electronic module
capable of recording the electronic records of duty status for CMV
drivers using the unit in a driving environment within a CMV and
meets the compliance requirements in this appendix.
1.2. System Users
Users of ELDs are:
(1) CMV drivers employed by a motor carrier; and
(2) Support personnel who have been authorized by the motor
carrier to:
(a) Create, remove and manage user accounts;
(b) Configure allowed ELD parameters; and
(c) Access, review and manage drivers' ELD records on behalf of
the motor carrier.
[[Page 17695]]
1.3. System Architecture
An ELD may be implemented as a stand-alone technology or within
another electronic module. It may be installed in a CMV or may be
implemented on a handheld unit that may be moved from vehicle to
vehicle. The functional requirements are the same for all types of
system architecture that may be used in implementing the ELD
functionality.
1.4. System Design
An ELD is integrally synchronized with the engine of the CMV
such that driving time can be automatically recorded for the driver
operating the CMV and using the ELD.
An ELD allows for manual inputs from the driver and the motor
carrier support personnel and automatically captures date and time,
vehicle position, and vehicle operational parameters.
An ELD records a driver's electronic RODS and other supporting
events with the required data elements specified in this appendix
and retains data to support the performance requirements specified
in this appendix
An ELD generates a standard data file output and transfers it to
an authorized safety official upon request.
This appendix specifies minimally required data elements that
must be part of an event record such that a standard ELD output file
can be produced by all compliant ELDs.
Figure 1 provides a visual layout of how this appendix is
generally organized to further explain the required sub-functions of
an ELD.
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.000
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-C
1.5. Sections of Appendix
Section 2 lists the abbreviations used throughout this appendix.
Section 3 provides definitions for terms and notations used in
this document.
Section 4 lists functional requirements for an ELD. More
specifically, section 4.1 describes the security requirements for
account management within an ELD system and introduces the term
``Unidentified Driver'' account. Section 4.2 explains internal
engine synchronization requirements and its applicability when used
in recording a driver's record of duty status in CMVs built before
and after a threshold model year. Section 4.3 describes the inputs
of an ELD which includes automatically measured signals by the ELD
as covered in section 4.3.1, and manual entries by the authenticated
driver as covered in section 4.3.2 and by the motor carrier as
covered in section 4.3.3. The ELD requirements for internal
processing and tracking of information flow are described in section
4.4 which includes conditions for and prohibitions against automatic
setting of duty-status in section 4.4.1, required geo-location and
date and time conversion functions in sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3,
respectively, use of event attributes for tracking of edit and entry
history in section 4.4.4, and the use of data check functions in the
recording of ELD logs in section 4.4.5 as standard security measures
for all ELDs. Section 4.5 describes the events an ELD must record
and the data element each type of an event must include. Section 4.6
introduces device self-monitoring requirements and standardizes the
minimal set of malfunctions and data diagnostic events an ELM must
be able to detect. Section 4.7 introduces technical functions that
are intended to guard a driver against harassment and introduces a
privacy preserving provision when a driver operates a CMV for
personal purposes. Section 4.8 explains ELD outputs, which are the
information displayed to a user and the standard data output file an
ELD must produce. Sections 4.9 and 4.10, respectively,
[[Page 17696]]
describe the data reporting requirements and the communications
protocols.
Section 5 describes the ELD certification and registration
process.
Section 6 lists the cited references throughout this appendix.
Section 7 provides a data elements dictionary for each data
element referenced in this appendix.
2. Abbreviations
3pDP Third-party Developers' Partnership
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange
CAN Control Area Network
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
ECM Electronic Control Module
ELD Electronic Logging Device
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
HOS Hours of Service
HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol
HTTPS Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure
ICD Interface Control Document
SAFER Safety and Fitness Electronic Records
QR Quick Response
RFC Request for Comments
RODS Records of Duty Status
TLS Transport Layer Security
UCT Coordinated Universal Time
USB Universal Serial Bus
WSDL Web Services Definition Language
XML Extensible Markup Language
XOR Exclusive Or {bitwise binary operation{time}
3. Definitions; Notations
3.1. Definitions
3.1.1. Databus
A vehicle databus refers to an internal communications network
that interconnects components inside a vehicle and facilitates
exchange of data between subsystems typically using serial or
control area network protocols.
3.1.2. ELD Event
An ELD event refers to a discrete instance in time when the ELD
records data with the data elements specified in this appendix. The
discrete ELD events relate to the driver's duty status and ELD's
operational integrity. They are either triggered by input from the
driver (driver's duty status changes, driver's login/logout
activity, etc.) or triggered by ELD's internal monitoring functions
(ELD malfunction detection, data diagnostics detection, intermediate
logs, etc.). ELD events and required data elements for each type of
ELD events are described in detail in section 4.5.1.
3.1.3. Exempt Driver
As specified in further detail in section 4.3.3.1.2, an ELD must
allow a motor carrier to configure an ELD for a driver who may be
exempt from the use of ELD. Examples of an exempt driver would be a
100 air-mile radius driver and non-CDL 150-air mile radius driver.
Even though exempt drivers do not have to use an ELD, in operations
when an ELD equipped CMV may be shared between exempt and non-exempt
drivers, motor carriers can use this allowed configuration to avoid
issues with unidentified driver data diagnostics errors.
3.1.4. Geo-Location
Geo-location is the conversion of a position measurement in
latitude/longitude coordinates into a description of the distance
and direction to a recognizable nearby location name. Geo-location
information is used in ELD's displayable outputs such as on a
screen.
3.1.5. Ignition Power Cycle, Ignition Power On Cycle, Ignition Power
Off Cycle
An ignition power cycle refers to the engine's power status
changing from ``on to off'' or ``off to on'', typically with driver
controlling ignition power by switching the ignition key positions.
An ignition power on cycle refers to the engine power sequence
changing from ``off to on and then off''. This refers to a
continuous period when a CMV's engine is powered.
An ignition power off cycle refers to the engine power sequence
changing from ``on to off and then on''. This refers to a continuous
period when a CMV's engine is not powered.
3.1.6. Unidentified Driver
``Unidentified Driver'' refers to the operation of a CMV
featuring an ELD without an authenticated driver logging in the
system. Functional specifications in this appendix require an ELD to
automatically capture driving time under such conditions and
attribute such records with the unique ``Unidentified Driver''
account, as specified in section 4.1.5, until they are reviewed and
assigned to the true and correct owner of these records.
3.2. Notations
Throughout this appendix the following notations are used when
data elements are referenced.
<.> indicates a parameter an ELD must track. For example ELD
username refers to the unique or identifier specified
during the creation of an ELD account with the requirements set
forth in section 7.1.17.
{.{time} indicates which of multiple values of a parameter is being
referenced. For example ELD username {for the co-driver{time}
refers specifically the ELD username for the co-driver.
indicates a carriage return or new line or end of current line.
This notation is used in section 4.8.2 which describes the standard
ELD output file and in section 4.10.2.4 which describes a standard
printout report.
4. Functional Requirements
4.1. ELD User Accounts
4.1.1. Account Types
An ELD must support a user account structure that separates
drivers and motor carrier's support personnel (i.e. non-drivers).
4.1.2. Account Creation
Each user of the ELD must have a valid active account on the ELD
with a unique identifier assigned by the motor carrier.
Each driver account must require the entry of the driver's
license number and the State or jurisdiction that issued the
driver's license into the ELD during the account creation process.
The driver account must securely store this information on the ELD.
An ELD must not allow creation of more than one driver account
associated with a driver's license for a given motor carrier.
A driver account must not have administrative rights to create
new accounts on the ELD.
A support personnel account must not allow recording of ELD data
for its account holder.
An ELD must reserve a unique driver account for recording events
during non-authenticated operation of a CMV. This appendix will
refer to this account as unidentified driver account.
4.1.3. Account Security
An ELD must provide secure access to data recorded and stored on
the system by requiring user authentication during system login.
Driver accounts must only have access to data associated with
that driver, protecting the authenticity and confidentiality of the
collected information.
4.1.4. Account Management
An ELD must be capable of separately recording and retaining ELD
data for each individual driver using the ELD.
An ELD must provide for and require concurrent authentication
for team drivers.
If more than one ELD unit is used to record a driver's
electronic records within a motor carrier's operation, the ELD in
the vehicle the driver is operating most recently must be able to
produce a complete ELD report for that driver, on demand, for the
current 24-hour period and the previous 7 consecutive days.
4.1.5. Non-Authenticated Operation
An ELD must associate all non-authenticated operation of a CMV
with a single ELD account labeled unidentified driver.
If a driver does not log onto the ELD, as soon as the vehicle is
in motion, the ELD must:
(a) Provide a visual or visual and audible warning reminding the
driver to stop and login to the ELD;
(b) Record accumulated driving and on-duty, not-driving, time in
accordance with the ELD defaults described in section 4.4.1 under
the unidentified driver profile; and
(c) Not allow entry of any information into the ELD other than a
response to the login prompt.
4.2. ELD-Vehicle Interface
An ELD must be integrally synchronized with the engine of the
CMV. Engine synchronization for purposes of ELD compliance means the
monitoring of the vehicle's engine operation to automatically
capture engine's power status, vehicle's motion status, miles driven
value, and engine hours value. Furthermore, an ELD used while
operating a CMV that is a model year 2000 or later model year, as
indicated by the vehicle identification number, that has engine
electronic control module (ECM), must establish a link to the engine
ECM and receive this information automatically through the serial or
Control Area Network communication (CAN) protocols supported by the
vehicle's engine ECM. Otherwise, an ELD may use alternative sources
to obtain or
[[Page 17697]]
estimate these vehicle parameters with the listed accuracy
requirements under section 4.3.1.
4.3. ELD Inputs
4.3.1. ELD Sensing
4.3.1.1. Engine Power Status
An ELD must be powered within 15 seconds of the vehicle's engine
receiving power and must remain powered for as long as the vehicle's
engine stays powered.
4.3.1.2. Vehicle Motion Status
An ELD must automatically determine whether a CMV is in motion
or stopped by comparing the vehicle speed information with respect
to a set speed threshold as follows:
(1) Once the vehicle speed exceeds the set speed threshold, it
must be considered in motion.
(2) Once in motion, the vehicle must be considered in motion
until its speed falls to 0 miles per hour and stays at 0 miles per
hour for 3 consecutive seconds. Then, the vehicle will be considered
stopped.
(3) An ELD's set speed threshold for determination of the in-
motion state for the purpose of this section must not be
configurable to greater than 5 miles per hour.
If an ELD is required to have a link to the vehicle's engine
ECM, vehicle speed information must be acquired from the engine ECM.
Otherwise, vehicle speed information must be acquired using an
independent source apart from the positioning services described
under section 4.3.1.6 and must be accurate within 3
miles per hour of the CMV's true ground speed for purposes of
determining the in-motion state for the CMV.
4.3.1.3. Vehicle Miles
An ELD must monitor vehicle miles as accumulated by a CMV over
the course of an ignition power on cycle (accumulated vehicle miles)
and over the course of CMV's operation (total vehicle miles).
Vehicle miles information must use or must be converted to units of
whole miles.
If the ELD is required to have a link to the vehicle's engine
ECM as specified in section 4.2:
(1) The ELD must monitor the engine ECM's odometer message
broadcast and use it to log total vehicle miles information; and
(2) The ELD must use the odometer message to determine
accumulated vehicle miles since engine's last power on instance.
Otherwise, the accumulated vehicle miles indication must be
obtained or estimated from a source that is accurate to within
10% of miles accumulated by the CMV over a 24-hour
period as indicated on the vehicle's odometer display.
4.3.1.4. Engine Hours
An ELD must monitor engine hours of the CMV over the course of
an ignition power on cycle (elapsed engine hours) and over the
course of the CMV's operation total engine hours. Engine hours must
use or must be converted to hours in intervals of a tenth of an
hour.
If an ELD is required to have a link to the vehicle's engine
ECM, the ELD must monitor engine ECM's total engine hours message
broadcast and use it to log total engine hours information.
Otherwise, engine hours must be obtained or estimated from a source
that monitors the ignition power of the CMV and must be accurate
within 0.1 hour of the engine's total operation within a
given ignition power on cycle.
4.3.1.5. Date and Time
The ELD must obtain and record the date and time information
automatically without allowing any external input or interference
from a motor carrier, driver, or any other person.
The ELD time must be synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time
(UCT) and the absolute deviation from UCT must not exceed 10 minutes
at any point in time.
4.3.1.6. CMV Position
An ELD must have the capability to automatically determine the
position of the CMV in standard latitude/longitude coordinates with
the accuracy and availability requirements of this section.
ELD must obtain and record this information without allowing any
external input or interference from a motor carrier, driver, or any
other person.
CMV position measurement must be accurate to 0.5
mile of absolute position of the CMV when an ELD measures a valid
latitude/longitude coordinate value.
Position information must be obtained in or converted into
standard signed latitude and longitude values and must be expressed
as decimal degrees to hundreds of a degree precision (i.e., a
decimal point and two decimal places).
Measurement accuracy combined with the reporting precision
requirement implies that position reporting accuracy will be in the
order of 1mile of absolute position of the CMV during
the course of a CMV's commercial operation.
During periods of a driver's indication of personal use of the
CMV, measurement reporting precision requirement is further reduced
to be expressed as decimal degrees to tenths of a degree (i.e. a
decimal point and single decimal place) as further specified in
section 4.7.3.
An ELD must be able to acquire a valid position measurement at
least once every 5 miles of driving; however, CMV location
information is only recorded during ELD events as specified in
section 4.5.1.
4.3.1.7. CMV VIN
The vehicle identification number (VIN) for the power unit of a
CMV must be automatically obtained from the engine ECM and recorded
if it is available on the vehicle databus.
4.3.2. Driver's Manual Entries
An ELD must prompt the driver to input information into the ELD
only when the CMV is stationary and driver's duty status is not on-
duty driving, except for the condition specified in section 4.4.1.2.
If the driver's duty status is driving, an ELD must only allow
the driver who is operating the CMV to change the driver's duty
status to another duty status.
A stopped vehicle must maintain zero (0) miles per hour speed to
be considered stationary for purposes of information entry into an
ELD.
An ELD must allow an authenticated co-driver who is not driving,
but who has logged into the ELD prior to the vehicle being in motion
to make entries over his or her own records when the vehicle is in
motion. The ELD must not allow co-drivers to switch driving roles
when the vehicle is in motion.
4.3.2.1. Driver's Entry of Required Event Data Fields
An ELD must provide a means for a driver to manually enter
information pertaining to driver's ELD records such as CMV power
unit number as specified in section 7.1.4, trailer number(s) as
specified in section 7.1.41 and shipping document number as
specified in 7.1.38.
If these fields are populated automatically by motor carrier's
ELD system, the ELD must provide means for the driver to review such
information and make corrections as necessary.
4.3.2.2. Driver's Status Inputs
4.3.2.2.1. Driver's Indication of Duty Status
An ELD must provide a means for the authenticated driver to
select a driver's duty status. The ELD must use the ELD duty status
categories listed in Table 1.
Table 1--Duty Status Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty status Abbreviation Data coding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off Duty...................... OFF................... 1
Sleeper Berth................. SB.................... 2
Driving....................... D..................... 3
On-duty Not Driving........... ON.................... 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17698]]
4.3.2.2.2. Driver's Indication of Situations Impacting Driving Time
Recording
An ELD must provide means for a driver to indicate the beginning
and end of a period when the driver may use the CMV for authorized
personal use, or for performing yard moves. The ELD must acquire
this status in a standard format from the category list in Table 2.
This list must be supported independent of the duty status
categories described in section 4.3.2.2.1.
Table 2--Categories for Driver's Indication of Situations Impacting
Driving Time Recording
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Abbreviation Data coding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Personal Use of CMV PC.................... 1
Yard Moves.................... YM.................... 2
Default: None................. ...................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An ELD must allow a driver to only select categories that a
motor carrier enables by configuration for that driver, as described
in section 4.3.3.1.1.
An ELD must only allow one category to be selected at any given
time and use the latest selection by the driver.
The ELD must prompt the driver to enter an annotation upon
selection of a category from Table 2 and record driver's entry.
A driver's indication of special driving situation must reset to
none if the ELD or CMV's engine goes through a power off cycle (ELD
or CMV's engine turns off and then on) except if the driver has
indicated authorized personal use of CMV, in which case, the ELD
must require confirmation of continuation of the authorized personal
use of CMV condition by the driver. If not confirmed by the driver
and the vehicle is in motion, the ELD must default to none.
4.3.2.3. Driver's Certification of Records
An ELD must include a function whereby a driver can certify the
driver's records at the end of a 24-hour period. This function, when
selected, must display a statement that reads ``I hereby certify
that my data entries and my record of duty status for this 24-hour
period are true and correct.'' Driver must be prompted to select
``Agree'' or ``Not ready.'' Driver's affirmative selection of
``Agree'' must be recorded as an event.
An ELD must only allow the authenticated driver to certify
records associated with that driver.
If any edits are necessary after the driver certifies the
records for a given 24-hour period, the ELD must require and prompt
the driver to re-certify the updated records.
If there are any past records on the ELD (excluding the current
24-hour period) that requires certification or re-certification by
the driver, the ELD must indicate the required driver action on the
ELD's display and prompt the driver to take the necessary action
during the login and logout processes.
4.3.2.4. Driver's Data Transfer Initiation Input
An ELD must provide a standardized single-step driver interface
for compilation of driver's ELD records and initiation of the data
transfer to authorized safety officials when requested during a
roadside inspection.
The ELD must input the data transfer request from the driver,
require confirmation, present and request selection of the supported
data transfer options by the ELD, and prompt for entry of the output
file comment as specified in section 4.3.2.5. Upon confirmation, the
ELD must generate the compliant output file and perform the data
transfer.
The supported single-step data transfer initiation mechanism
(such as a switch or an icon on a touch-screen display) must be
clearly marked and visible to the driver when the vehicle is
stopped.
4.3.2.5. Driver's Entry of an Output File Comment
An ELD must accommodate the entry of an output file comment up
to 60 characters long. If an authorized safety official provides a
key phrase or code during an inspection to be included in the output
file comment, it must be entered and embedded into the electronic
ELD records in the exchanged dataset as specified in section
4.8.2.1.1. The default value for the output file comment must be
blank. This output file comment must be used only for the creation
of the related data files for the intended time, place, and ELD
user.
4.3.2.6. Driver's Annotation of Records
An ELD must allow for a driver to add annotations in text format
to recorded, entered, or edited ELD events.
The ELD must require annotations to be 4 characters or longer,
including embedded spaces if driver annotation is required and
driver is prompted by the ELD.
4.3.2.7. Driver's Entry of Location Information
An ELD must allow manual entry of a CMV's location by the driver
in text format in support of the driver edit requirements described
in section 4.3.2.8.
Driver's manual location entry must be available as an option to
a driver only when prompted by the ELD under allowed conditions as
described in section 4.6.1.4.
A manual location entry must show ``M'' in the latitude/
longitude coordinates fields in ELD records.
4.3.2.8. Driver's Record Entry/Edit
An ELD must provide a mechanism for a driver to review, edit,
and annotate the driver's ELD records when a notation of errors or
omissions is necessary or enter the driver's missing ELD records
subject to the requirements specified in this section.
An ELD must not permit alteration or erasure of the original
information collected concerning the driver's ELD records or
alteration of the source data streams used to provide that
information.
4.3.2.8.1. Mechanism for Driver Edits and Annotations
If a driver edits or annotates an ELD record or enters missing
information the act must not overwrite the original record.
The ELD must use the process outlined in section 4.4.4.2 to
configure required event attributes to track the edit history of
records.
Driver edits must be accompanied by an annotation. The ELD must
prompt the driver to annotate edits.
4.3.2.8.2. Driver Edit Limitations
An ELD must not allow or require the editing or manual entry of
records with the following event types, as described in section
7.1.24:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event Type Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2................................... An intermediate log,
5................................... A driver's login/logout activity,
6................................... CMV's engine power up/shut down,
or
7................................... ELD malfunctions and data
diagnostic events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An ELD must not allow automatically recorded driving time to be
shortened. An ELD must not allow the ELD username associated with an
ELD record to be edited or reassigned, except under the following
circumstances:
(1) Assignment of Unidentified Driver records. ELD events
recorded under the ``Unidentified Driver'' profile may be edited and
assigned to the driver associated with the record; and
(2) Correction of errors with team drivers. In the case of team
drivers, the driver account associated with the driving time records
may be edited and reassigned between the team drivers if there was a
mistake resulting in a mismatch between the actual driver and the
driver recorded by the ELD and if the team drivers were both
indicated in each other's records as a co-driver. The ELD must
require each co-driver to confirm the change for the corrective
action to take effect.
4.3.3. Motor Carrier's Manual Entries
An ELD must restrict availability of motor carrier entries
outlined in this subsection only to authenticated ``support
personnel'' account holders.
4.3.3.1. ELD Configuration
If an ELD or a technology that includes an ELD function offers
configuration options to the motor carrier or the driver that are
not otherwise addressed or prohibited in this appendix, the
configuration options must not
[[Page 17699]]
affect the ELD's compliance with the requirements of this rule for
each configuration setting of the ELD.
4.3.3.1.1. Configuration of Available Categories Impacting Driving Time
Recording
An ELD must allow a motor carrier to unilaterally configure the
availability of each of the three categories listed on Table 2 that
the motor carrier chooses to authorize for each of its drivers. By
default, none of these categories must be available to a new driver
account without the motor carrier proactively configuring their
availability.
A motor carrier may change the configuration for the
availability of each category for each of its drivers. Changes to
the configuration setting must be recorded on the ELD and
communicated to the applicable authenticated driver during the ELD
login process.
4.3.3.1.2. Configuration of Using ELDs
An ELD must provide the motor carrier an ability to configure a
driver account exempt from use of an ELD.
The ELD must default the setting of this configuration option
for each new driver account created on an ELD to no exemption. An
exemption must be proactively configured for an applicable driver
account by the motor carrier. The ELD must prompt the motor carrier
to annotate the record and provide an explanation for the
configuration of exemption.
If a motor carrier configures a driver account to be exempt, the
ELD must present the configured indication that is in effect for
that driver during the ELD login and logout processes.
If a motor carrier configures a driver account as exempt the ELD
must continue to record ELD driving time but suspend detection of
missing data elements data diagnostic event for the driver described
in section 4.6.1.5 and data transfer compliance monitoring function
described in section 4.6.1.7 when such driver is authenticated on
the ELD.
4.3.3.2. Motor Carrier's Post-Review Electronic Edit Requests
An ELD may allow the motor carrier (via a monitoring algorithm
or support personnel) to screen, review, and request corrective
edits to the driver's certified (as described in section 4.3.2.3)
and submitted records through the ELD system electronically. If this
function is implemented by the ELD, the ELD must also support
functions for the driver to see and review the requested edits.
Edits requested by anyone or any system other than the driver
must require the driver's electronic confirmation or rejection.
4.4. ELD Processing and Calculations
4.4.1. Conditions for Automatic Setting of Duty Status
4.4.1.1. Automatic Setting of Duty Status to Driving
An ELD must automatically record driving time when the vehicle
is in motion by setting duty status to driving for the driver
unless, before the vehicle is in motion, the driver:
(1) Sets the duty status to off-duty and indicates personal use
of CMV, in which case duty status must remain off-duty until
driver's indication of the driving condition ends; or
(2) Sets the duty status to on-duty not driving and indicates
yard moves, in which case duty status must remain on-duty not
driving until driver's indication of the driving condition ends.
4.4.1.2. Automatic Setting of Duty Status to On-Duty Not Driving
When the duty status is set to driving, and the CMV has not been
in-motion for 5 consecutive minutes, the ELD must prompt the driver
to confirm continued driving status or enter the proper duty status.
If the driver does not respond to the ELD prompt within 1-minute
after receiving the prompt, the ELD must automatically switch the
duty status to on-duty not driving. The time thresholds for purposes
of this section must not be configurable.
4.4.1.3. Other Automatic Duty-Status Setting Actions Prohibited
An ELD must not feature any other automatic records of duty
setting mechanism than those described in sections 4.4.1.1 and
4.4.1.2. Duty status changes that are not initiated by the driver,
including duty status alteration recommendations by motor carrier
support personnel or a software algorithm, are subject to motor
carrier edit requirements in section 4.3.3.2.
4.4.2. Geo-Location Conversions
For each change in duty status, the ELD must convert
automatically captured vehicle position in latitude/longitude
coordinates into geo-location information, indicating approximate
distance and direction to an identifiable location corresponding to
the name of a nearby city, town, or village, with a State
abbreviation.
Geo-location information must be derived from a database that
contains all cities, towns, and villages with a population of 5,000
or greater and listed in ANSI INCITS 446-2008 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference (3)(a) in section 6 of this
appendix.
An ELD's viewable outputs (such as printouts or displays) must
feature geo-location information as place names in text format.
4.4.3. Date and Time Conversions
An ELD must have the capability to convert and track date and
time captured in UTC standard to the time standard in effect at
driver's home terminal, taking the daylight savings time changes
into account by using the parameter ``Time Zone Offset from UTC'' as
specified in section 7.1.40.
An ELD must record the driver's record of duty status using the
time standard in effect at the driver's home terminal for a 24-hour
period beginning with the time specified by the motor carrier for
that driver's home terminal.
The data element ``Time Zone Offset from UTC'' must be included
in the ``Driver's certification of Own Records'' events as specified
in section 4.5.1.4.
4.4.4. Setting of Event Parameters in Records, Edits, and Entries
This section describes the security measures for configuring and
tracking event attributes for ELD records, edits, and entries in a
standardized manner.
4.4.4.1. Event Sequence Identifier (ID) Number
Each ELD event must feature an event sequence ID Number.
The event sequence ID number for each ELD must use continuous
numbering across all users of that ELD and across engine and ELD
power on and off cycles.
An ELD must use the next available event sequence ID number
(incremented by one) each time a new event log is recorded.
Event sequence ID number must track at least the last 65,536
unique events recorded on the ELD.
The continuous event sequence ID numbering structure used by the
ELD must be mapped into a continuous hexadecimal number between 0000
(Decimal 0) and FFFF (Decimal 65535).
4.4.4.2. Event Record Status, Event Record Origin, Event Type Setting
An ELD must retain the original records even when allowed edits
and entries are made over a driver's ELD records.
An ELD must keep track of all event record history, and the
process used by the ELD must produce the event record status, event
record origin, and event type for the ELD records in the standard
categories specified in sections 7.1.22, 7.1.21 and 7.1.24,
respectively for each record as a standard security measure. For
example, an ELD may use the process outlined in sections 4.4.4.2.1-
4.4.4.2.6 to meet the requirements of this section.
4.4.4.2.1. Records Automatically Logged by ELD
At the instance an ELD creates a record automatically, the ELD
must:
(1) Set the ``Event Record Status'' to ``1'' (active); and
(2) Set the ``Event Record Origin'' to ``1'' (automatically
recorded by ELD).
4.4.4.2.2. Driver Edits
At the instance of a driver editing existing record(s), the ELD
must:
(1) Identify the ELD record(s) being modified for which the
``Event Record Status'' is currently set to ``1'' (active);
(2) Acquire driver input for the intended edit and construct the
ELD record(s) that will replace the record(s) identified in (1)
above;
(3) Set the ``Event Record Status'' of the ELD record(s)
identified in (1) above, which is being modified, to ``2''
(inactive-changed);
(4) Set the ``Event Record Status'' of the ELD record(s)
constructed in (2) above to ``1'' (active); and
(5) Set the ``Event Record Origin'' of the ELD record(s)
constructed in (2) above to ``2'' (edited or entered by the driver).
4.4.4.2.3. Driver Entries
When a driver enters missing record(s), the ELD must:
(1) Acquire driver input for the missing entries being
implemented and construct the new ELD record(s) that will represent
the driver entries;
(2) Set the ``event record status'' of the ELD record(s)
constructed in (1) above to ``1'' (active); and
[[Page 17700]]
(3) Set the ``event record origin'' of the ELD record(s)
constructed in (1) above to ``2'' (edited or entered by the driver).
4.4.4.2.4. Driver's Assumption of Unidentified Driver Logs
When a driver reviews and assumes ELD record(s) logged under the
unidentified driver profile, the ELD must:
(1) Identify the ELD record(s) logged under the unidentified
driver profile that will be reassigned to the driver;
(2) Use elements of the unidentified driver log(s) from (1)
above and acquire driver input to populate missing elements of the
log originally recorded under the unidentified driver profile, and
construct the new event record(s) for the driver;
(3) Set the event record status of the ELD record(s) identified
in (1) above, which is being modified, to ``2'' (inactive-changed);
(4) Set the event record status of the ELD record(s) constructed
in (2) above to ``1'' (active); and
(5) Set the event record origin of the ELD record(s) constructed
in (2) above to ``4'' (assumed from unidentified driver profile).
4.4.4.2.5. Motor Carrier Edit Suggestions
If a motor carrier requests an edit on a driver's records
electronically, the ELD must:
(1) Identify the ELD record(s) being requested to be modified
for which the ``event record status'' is currently set to ``1''
(active);
(2) Acquire motor carrier input for the intended edit and
construct the ELD record(s) that will replace the record identified
in (1) above --if approved by the driver;
(3) Set the event record status of the ELD record(s) in (2)
above to ``3'' (inactive-change requested); and
(4) Set the event record origin of the ELD record constructed in
(2) above to ``3'' (edit requested by an authenticated user other
than the driver).
4.4.4.2.6. Driver's Actions Over Motor Carrier Edit Suggestions
(1) If edits are requested by the motor carrier to the driver
over a driver's records electronically, the ELD must implement
functions for the driver to review the requested edits, see their
effects and indicate on the ELD whether the driver confirms or
rejects the requested edit(s).
(2) If the driver approves the motor carrier's edit suggestion
the ELD must:
(a) Set the event record status of the ELD record(s) identified
under section 4.4.4.2.5(1) being modified, to ``2'' (inactive-
changed); and
(b) Set the ``event record status'' of the ELD record(s)
constructed in 4.4.4.2.5(2) to ``1'' (active).
(3) If the driver disapproves the motor carrier's edit(s)
suggestion, the ELD must set the ``event record status'' of the ELD
record(s) identified in 4.4.4.2.5(2) to ``4'' (inactive-change
rejected).
4.4.5. Data Integrity Check Functions
An ELD must support standard security measures which require the
calculation and recording of standard data check values for each ELD
event recorded, for each line of the output file, and for the entire
data file to be generated for transmission to an authorized safety
official or the motor carrier.
For purposes of implementing data check calculations, the
alphanumeric-to-numeric mapping provided in Table 3 must be used.
Each ELD event record type specified in sections 4.5.1.1 and
4.5.1.3 must include an event data check value, which must be
calculated as specified in section 4.4.5.1. An event data check
value must be calculated at the time of the following instances and
must accompany that event record thereafter:
(1) When an event record is automatically created by the ELD;
(2) When an authorized edit is performed by the driver on the
ELD or on its support systems; and
(3) When an electronic edit proposal is created by the motor
carrier through the ELD system.
Each line of the ELD output file must include a line data check
value, which must be calculated as specified in section 4.4.5.2.
Each ELD report must also include a file data check value, which
must be calculated as specified in section 4.4.5.3.
4.4.5.1. Event Data Check
The event data check value must be calculated as follows.
4.4.5.1.1. Event Checksum Calculation
A checksum calculation includes the summation of numeric values
or mappings of a specified group of alphanumeric data elements. The
ELD must calculate an event checksum value associated with each ELD
event at the instance of the event record being created.
The event record elements that must be included in the checksum
calculation are the following:
(1) ,
(2) ,
(3) ,
(4) ,
(5) ,
(6) ,
(7) ,
(8) ,
(9) , and
(10) < ELD username>.
The ELD must sum the numeric values of all individual characters
making up the listed data elements using the character to decimal
value coding specified in Table 3, and use the 8-bit lower byte of
the hexadecimal representation of the summed total as the event
checksum value for that event.
4.4.5.1.2. Event Data Check Calculation
The event data check value must be the hexadecimal
representation of the output 8-bit byte, after the below bitwise
operations are performed on the binary representation of the event
checksum value, as set forth below:
(1) Three consecutive circular shift left (rotate no carry -
left) operations; and
(2) A bitwise exclusive OR (XOR) operation with the hexadecimal
value C3 (decimal 195; binary 11000011).
4.4.5.2. Line Data Check
A line data check value must be calculated at the time of the
generation of the ELD output file, to transfer data to authorized
safety officials or to catalogue drivers' ELD records at a motor
carrier's facility. A line data check value must be calculated as
follows.
4.4.5.2.1. Line Checksum Calculation
The ELD must calculate a line checksum value associated with
each line of ELD output file at the instance when an ELD output file
is generated.
The data elements that must be included in the line checksum
calculation vary as per the output data file specified in section
4.8.2.1.
The ELD must convert each character featured in a line of output
using the character to decimal value coding specified on Table 3 and
sum the converted numeric values of each character listed on a given
ELD output line item (excluding the line data check value being
calculated), and use the 8-bit lower byte value of the hexadecimal
representation of the summed total as the line checksum value for
that line of output.
4.4.5.2.2. Line Data Check Calculation
The line data check value must be calculated by performing the
following operations on the binary representation of the line
checksum value as follows:
(1) Three consecutive circular shift left (rotate no carry-left)
operations on the line checksum value; and
(2) A bitwise XOR operation with the hexadecimal value 96
(decimal 150; binary 10010110).
4.4.5.2.3. Line Data Check Value Inclusion in Output File
The calculated line data check value must be appended as the
last line item of each of the individual line items of the ELD
output file as specified in the output file format in section
4.8.2.1.
4.4.5.3. File Data Check
A file data check value must also be calculated at the time of
the creation of an ELD output file. A file data check value must be
calculated as follows.
4.4.5.3.1. File Checksum Calculation
The ELD must calculate a single 16-bit file checksum value
associated with an ELD output file at the instance when an ELD
output file is generated.
The file data check value calculation must include all
individual line data check values contained in that file.
The ELD must sum all individual line data check values contained
in a data file output created, and use the lower two 8-bit byte
values of the hexadecimal representation of the summed total as the
``file checksum'' value.
4.4.5.3.2. File Data Check Value Calculation
The file data check value must be calculated by performing the
following operations on the binary representation of the file
checksum value:
(1) Three consecutive circular shift left (aka rotate no carry -
left) operations on each 8-bit bytes of the value; and
(2) A bitwise XOR operation with the hexadecimal value 969C
(decimal 38556; binary 1001011010011100).
The file data check value must be the 16-bit output obtained
from the above process.
[[Page 17701]]
4.4.5.3.3. File Data Check Value Inclusion in Output File
The calculated 16-bit file data check value must be converted to
hexadecimal 8-bit bytes and must be appended as the last line item
of the ELD output file as specified in the output file format in
section 4.8.2.1.11.
BILLING CODE 4190-EX-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.001
[[Page 17702]]
BILLING CODE 4190-EX-C
4.5. ELD Recording
4.5.1. Events and Data to Record
An ELD must record data at the following discrete events:
4.5.1.1. Event: Change in Driver's Duty Status
When a driver's duty status changes, the ELD must associate the
record with the driver, the record originator--if created during an
edit or entry--the vehicle, the motor carrier, and the shipping
document number and must include the following data elements:
(1) as described in section 7.1.23;
(2) as described in section 7.1.22;
(3) as described in section 7.1.21;
(4) as described in section 7.1.24;
(5) as described in section 7.1.19;
(6) <{Event{time} Date> as described in section 7.1.8;
(7) <{Event{time} Time> as described in section 7.1.39;
(8) <{Accumulated{time} Vehicle Miles> as described in section
7.1.42;
(9) <{Elapsed{time} Engine Hours> as described in section
7.1.18;
(10) <{Event{time} Latitude> as described in section 7.1.30;
(11) <{Event{time} Longitude> as described in section 7.1.32;
(12) as described in
section 7.1.9;
(13) as described
in section 7.1.34;
(14)
as described in section 7.1.7;
(15) <{Event{time} Comment/Annotation> as described in section
7.1.6;
(16) as described in section
7.1.12; and
(17) as described in section 7.1.20.
4.5.1.2. Event: Intermediate Logs
When a CMV is in motion, as described in section 4.3.1.2, and
there has not been a duty status change event or another
intermediate log event recorded in the previous 1-hour period, the
ELD must record a new intermediate log event.
The ELD must associate the record to the driver, the vehicle,
the motor carrier, and the shipping document number, and must
include the same data elements outlined in section 4.5.1.1 except
for item (16).
4.5.1.3. Event: Change in Driver's Indication of Allowed Conditions
That Impact Driving Time Recording
At each instance when the status of a driver's indication of
personal use of CMV or yard moves changes, the ELD must record a new
event. The ELD must associate the record with the driver, the
vehicle, the motor carrier, and the shipping document number, and
must include the same data elements outlined in section 4.5.1.1.
4.5.1.4. Event: Driver's Certification of Own Records
At each instance when a driver certifies or re-certifies that
driver's records for a given 24-hour period are true and correct,
the ELD must record the event. The ELD must associate the record
with the driver, the vehicle, the motor carrier, and the shipping
document number and must include the following data elements:
(1) as described in section 7.1.23;
(2) as described in section 7.1.24;
(3) as described in section 7.1.19;
(4) as described in section 7.1.40.
(5) <{Event{time} Date>and as described in section 7.1.8; and
(6) <{Event{time} Time> as described in section 7.1.39.
4.5.1.5. Event: Driver's Login/Logout Activity
At each instance when an authorized user logs in and out of the
ELD, the ELD must record the event. The ELD must associate the
record with the driver, the vehicle, the motor carrier, and the
shipping document number, and must include the following data
elements:
(1) as described in section 7.1.23;
(2) as described in section 7.1.24;
(3) as described in section 7.1.19;
(4) <{Event{time} Date> as described in section 7.1.8;
(5) <{Event{time} Time> as described in section 7.1.39;
(6) <{Total{time} Vehicle Miles> as described in section
7.1.42; and
(7) <{Total{time} Engine Hours> as described in section 7.1.18.
4.5.1.6. Event: CMV's Engine Power Up and Shut Down Activity
When a CMV's engine is powered up or shut down, an ELD must
record the event within 1 minute of occurrence and retain the
earliest shut down and latest power-up event if CMV has not moved
since the last ignition power on cycle. The ELD must associate the
record with the driver or the unidentified driver profile, the
vehicle, the motor carrier, and the shipping document number, and
must include the following data elements:
(1) as described in section 7.1.23;
(2) as described in section 7.1.24;
(3) as described in section 7.1.19;
(4) <{Event{time} Date> as described in section 7.1.8;
(5) <{Event{time} Time> as described in section 7.1.39;
(6) <{Total{time} Vehicle Miles> as described in section
7.1.42;
(7) <{Total{time} Engine Hours> as described in section 7.1.18;
(8) <{Event{time} Latitude> as described in section 7.1.30;
(9) <{Event{time} Longitude> as described in section 7.1.32;
and
(10) as described in
section 7.1.9.
4.5.1.7. Event: ELD Malfunction and Data Diagnostics Occurrence
At each instance when an ELD malfunction or data diagnostic
event is detected or cleared by the ELD, the ELD must record the
event. The ELD must associate the record with the driver, the
vehicle, the motor carrier, and the shipping document number, and
must include the following data elements:
(1) as described in section 7.1.23;
(2) as described in section 7.1.24;
(3) as described in section 7.1.19;
(4) as described in section
7.1.33;
(5) <{Event{time} Date> as described in section 7.1.8;
(6) <{Event{time} Time> as described in section 7.1.39;
(7) <{Total{time} Vehicle Miles> as described in section
7.1.42; and
(8) <{Total{time} Engine Hours> as described in section 7.1.18.
4.6. ELD's Self-Monitoring of Required Functions
An ELD must have the capability to monitor its compliance with
the technical requirements of this section for detectable
malfunctions and data inconsistencies listed in Table 4 and must
keep records of its malfunction and data diagnostic event detection.
Table 4--Standard Coding for Required Compliance Malfunction and Data
Diagnostic Event Detection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malfunction/diagnostic code Malfunction description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P..................................... ``Power Compliance''
Malfunction.
E..................................... ``Engine synchronization
compliance'' malfunction.
T..................................... ``Timing compliance''
malfunction.
L..................................... ``Positioning compliance''
malfunction.
R..................................... ``Data recording compliance''
malfunction.
S..................................... ``Data transfer compliance''
malfunction.
[[Page 17703]]
O..................................... ``Other'' ELD detected
malfunction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malfunction/diagnostic code Data diagnostic event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... ``Power data diagnostic'' event.
2..................................... ``Engine synchronization data
diagnostic'' event.
3..................................... ``Missing required data elements
data diagnostic'' event.
4..................................... ``Data transfer data
diagnostic'' event.
5..................................... ``Unidentified driving records
data diagnostic'' event.
6..................................... ``Other'' ELD identified
diagnostic event.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.6.1. Compliance Self-Monitoring, Malfunctions and Data Diagnostic
Events
4.6.1.1. Power Compliance Monitoring
An ELD must monitor data it receives from the engine ECM or
alternative sources as allowed in sections 4.3.1.1- 4.3.1.4, its
onboard sensors, and data record history to identify instances when
it may not have complied with the power requirements specified in
section 4.3.1.1, in which case, the ELD must record a power data
diagnostics event for the corresponding driver(s), or under the
unidentified diver profile if no drivers were authenticated at the
time of detection.
An ELD must set a power compliance malfunction if the power data
diagnostics event described above indicate an aggregated in-motion
driving time understatement of 30 minutes or more on the ELD over a
24-hour period across all driver profiles, including the
unidentified driver profile.
4.6.1.2. Engine Synchronization Compliance Monitoring
An ELD must monitor the data it receives from the engine ECM or
alternative sources as allowed in sections 4.3.1.1-4.3.1.4, its
onboard sensors and data record history to identify instances and
durations of its non-compliance with the ELD engine synchronization
requirement specified in section 4.2.
An ELD required to establish a link to the engine ECM as
described in section 4.2 of this section must monitor its
connectivity to the engine ECM and its ability to retrieve the
vehicle parameters described under section 4.3.1 and must record an
engine-synchronization data diagnostics event when it no longer can
acquire updated values for the ELD parameters required for records
within 5 seconds of the need.
An ELD must set an engine synchronization compliance malfunction
if connectivity to any of the required data sources specified in
section 4.3.1 is lost for more than 30 minutes during a 24-hour
period aggregated across all driver profiles, including the
unidentified driver profile.
4.6.1.3. Timing Compliance Monitoring
The ELD must periodically cross-check its compliance with the
requirement specified in section 4.3.1.5 with respect to an accurate
external UTC source and must record a timing compliance malfunction
when it can no longer meet the underlying compliance requirement.
4.6.1.4. Positioning Compliance Monitoring
An ELD must continually monitor the availability of valid
position measurements meeting the listed accuracy requirements in
section 4.3.1.6 and must track the distance and elapsed time from
the last valid measurement point.
An ELD records requiring location information must use the last
valid position measurement and include the latitude/longitude
coordinates and distance traveled, in miles, since the last valid
position measurement.
An ELD must monitor elapsed time during periods when the ELD
fails to acquire a valid position measurement within the past 5
miles of CMV's movement. When such elapsed time exceeds a cumulative
60 minutes over a 24 hour period, the ELD must set and record a
positioning compliance malfunction.
If a new ELD event must be recorded at an instance when ELD had
failed to acquire a valid position measurement within the most
recent elapsed 5 miles of driving, but the ELD has not yet set a
positioning compliance malfunction, the ELD must record the
character ``X'' in both the latitude and longitude fields, unless
location is entered manually by the driver, in which case it must
log the character ``M'' instead. Under the circumstances listed in
this paragraph, if the ELD event is due to a change in duty status
for the driver, the ELD must prompt the driver to enter location
manually in accordance with section 4.3.2.7. If the location
information is not entered by the driver and the vehicle is in
motion, the ELD must record a missing required data elements data
diagnostic event for the driver.
If a new ELD event must be recorded at an instance when the ELD
has set a positioning compliance malfunction, the ELD must record
the character ``E'' in both the latitude and longitude fields
regardless of whether the driver is prompted and manually enters
location information.
4.6.1.5. Data Recording Compliance Monitoring
An ELD must monitor its storage capacity and integrity and must
detect a data recording compliance malfunction if it can no longer
record or retain required events or retrieve recorded logs that are
not otherwise catalogued remotely by the motor carrier.
An ELD must monitor the completeness of the ELD event record
information in relation to the required data elements for each event
type and must record a missing data elements data diagnostics event
for the driver if any required field is missing at the time of
recording.
4.6.1.6. Monitoring Records Logged Under the Unidentified Driver
Profile
When there are ELD records involving driving time logged on an
ELD under the unidentified driver profile, the ELD must prompt the
driver(s) logging into that ELD with a warning indicating the
existence of new unassigned driving time. The ELD must provide a
mechanism for the driver to review and either acknowledge the
assignment of one or more of the unidentified driver records
attributable to the driver under the authenticated driver's profile
as described in section 4.3.2.8.2(1) or indicate that these records
are not attributable to the driver.
If more than 30 minutes of driving in a 24-hour period show
unidentified driver on the ELD, the ELD must detect and record an
unidentified driving records data diagnostic event and data
diagnostic indicator must be turned on for all drivers logged in to
that ELD for the current 24-hour period and the following 7 days.
An unidentified driving records data diagnostic event can be
cleared by the ELD when driving time logged under the unidentified
driver profile for the current 24-hour period and the previous 7
consecutive days drops to 15 minutes or less.
4.6.1.7. Data Transfer Compliance Monitoring
An ELD must implement in-service monitoring functions to verify
that certified primary roadside transfer mechanism(s) described in
section 4.9.1 are continuing to function properly. An ELD must
verify this functionality at least once every 7 days. These
monitoring functions may be automatic or may involve manual steps
for a driver.
An ELD must record a data transfer data diagnostic event and
enter an unconfirmed data transfer mode if the monitoring mechanism
fails to confirm proper in-service operation of certified primary
roadside transfer mechanism(s).
[[Page 17704]]
After an ELD records a data transfer data diagnostic event, the
ELD must increase the frequency of the monitoring function to check
at least once every 24-hour period. If the ELD stays in the
unconfirmed data transfer mode following the next three consecutive
monitoring checks, the ELD must detect a data transfer compliance
malfunction.
4.6.1.8. Other Technology-Specific Operational Health Monitoring
In addition to the required monitoring schemes described in
sections 4.6.1.1-4.6.1.7, the ELD provider may implement additional,
technology-specific malfunction and data diagnostic detection
schemes and may use the ELD's malfunction status indicator and data
diagnostic status indicator (described in sections 4.6.2.1 and
4.6.3.1) to communicate ELD's malfunction or non-compliant state to
the operator(s) of the ELD.
4.6.2. ELD Malfunction Status Indicator
ELD malfunctions affect integrity of the device and its
compliance; therefore, active malfunctions must be indicated to all
drivers who may use that ELD. An ELD must provide a recognizable
visual indicator, and may provide an audible signal, to the operator
as to its malfunction status.
4.6.2.1. Visual Malfunction Indicator
An ELD must display a single visual malfunction indicator for
all drivers using the ELD on the ELD's display or on a stand-alone
indicator. The visual signal must be visible to the driver when the
driver is seated in the normal driving position.
The ELD malfunction indicator must be clearly illuminated when
there is an active malfunction on the ELD.
The malfunction status must be continuously communicated to the
driver when the ELD is powered.
4.6.3. ELD Data Diagnostic Status Indicator
ELD data diagnostic status affects only the authenticated user;
therefore, an ELD must only indicate the active data diagnostics
status applicable to the driver logged into the ELD. An ELD must
provide a recognizable visual indicator, and may provide an audible
signal, to the driver as to its data diagnostics status.
4.6.3.1. Visual Data Diagnostics Indicator
An ELD must display a single visual data diagnostics indicator,
apart from the visual malfunction indicator described in section
4.6.2.1, to visually communicate existence of active data
diagnostics events for the applicable driver. The visual signal must
be visible to the driver when the driver is seated in the normal
driving position.
The data diagnostic indicator must be clearly illuminated when
there is a detected data inconsistency for the authenticated driver.
The data diagnostics status must be continuously communicated to
the applicable driver when the ELD is powered.
4.7. Special Purpose ELD Functions
4.7.1. Driver's ELD Volume Control
If a driver selects the sleeper-berth state for the driver's
record of duty status, and no co-driver has logged into the ELD as
on-duty driving, and if the ELD outputs audible signals, the ELD
must either:
(1) Allow the driver to mute the ELD's volume or turn off the
ELD's audible output, or
(2) Automatically mute the ELD's volume or turn off the ELD's
audible output.
For purposes of this section, if an ELD operates in combination
with another device or other hardware or software technology that is
not separate from the ELD, the volume controls required herein apply
to the combined device or technology.
4.7.2. Driver's Access to Own ELD Records
An ELD must provide a mechanism for a driver to obtain a copy of
the driver's own hours-of-service records on demand, in either an
electronic or printout format compliant with inspection standards
outlined in section 4.8.2.1.
The process must not require a driver to go through the motor
carrier to obtain copies of the driver's own hours-of-service
records if driver's records reside on or are accessible directly by
the ELD unit used by the driver.
If an ELD meets the requirements of this section by making data
files available to the driver, it must also provide a utility
function for the driver to display the data on a computer, at a
minimum, as specified in Sec. 395.8(g).
4.7.3. Privacy Preserving Provision for Use During Personal Uses of a
CMV
While an ELD must record the events listed in section 4.5.1
under all circumstances, a subset of the recorded elements must
either be omitted in the records or recorded at a lower precision
level, as described in further detail below, when a driver indicates
that the driver is temporarily using the CMV for an authorized
personal purpose. The driver indicates this intent by setting
driver's duty status to off-duty as described in section 4.3.2.2.1
and indicating authorized personal use of CMV as described in
section 4.3.2.2.2.
During a period when a driver indicates authorized personal use
of CMV, the ELD must:
(1) Record all new ELD events with latitude/longitude
coordinates information rounded to a single decimal place
resolution; and
(2) Omit recording vehicle miles and engine hours fields in new
ELD logs by leaving them blank, except for events corresponding to a
CMV's engine power-up and shut-down activity as described in section
4.5.1.6.
A driver's indication that the CMV is being operated for
authorized personal purposes may span more than one CMV ignition on
cycle if the driver proactively confirms continuation of the
personal use condition prior to placing the vehicle in motion when
the ELD prompts the driver at the beginning of the new ignition
power on cycle.
4.8. ELD Outputs
4.8.1. Information To Be Displayed by an ELD
An ELD must support the capability to present the following
information to a user of the ELD via its user-interface:
(1) Authenticated driver's last name, first name and ELD
username.
(2) Total miles driven and total engine hours information used
in logs.
(3) ELD malfunction status indicator.
(4) ELD data diagnostic status indicator for the authenticated
driver.
(5) ELD records associated with the authenticated driver, and
records in which the driver serves as a co-driver including the
following information:
(i) Each change of duty status for the current 24-hour period
and the previous 7 consecutive days and the time of day and location
for each change;
(ii) Total miles of driving during each driving period and the
current duty day; and
(iii) The sequence of driver's indication pertaining to
authorized personal use of the CMV and yard moves (as specified in
section 4.3.2.2.2) and the accompanying driver annotations for the
current 24-hour period and the previous 7 consecutive days.
(6) A summary of ELD records associated with the driver,
reflecting total hours on duty and driving time for the current 24-
hour period and the previous 7 consecutive days.
(7) A graph-grid view of driver's daily duty status changes for
the current 24-hour period and each of the previous 7 consecutive
days either on a display unit or on a printout report as specified
in section 4.10.2.4.
(8) The ELD records associated with the unidentified driver
profile recorded on that ELD as follows:
(i) The sequence of driving and non-driving time logged for the
current 24-hour period and the previous 7 consecutive days.
(ii) Total miles of driving during each driving period and the
current duty day.
(9) A summary of ELD records associated with the unidentified
driver profile, reflecting the total hours on duty and driving time
for the current 24-hour period and the previous 7 consecutive days.
4.8.2. ELD Data File
An ELD must have the capability to generate a consistent
electronic file output compliant with the format described herein to
facilitate the transfer, processing and standardized display of ELD
data sets on the authorized safety officials' computing
environments.
4.8.2.1. ELD Output File Standard
Regardless of the particular database architecture used for
recording the ELD events in electronic format, the ELD must produce
a standard ELD data output file for transfer purposes, which must be
generated according to the standard specified in this section.
Data output must be provided in a single comma-delimited file
outlined in this section using American National Standard Code for
Information Exchange (ASCII) character sets meeting the standards of
ANSI INCITS 4-1986 (R2007) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
395.38), reference (3)(b) in section 6 of this appendix. It must
include: (1) A header segment, which specifies current or non-
varying elements of an ELD file; and (2) variable length comma-
delimited segments for the drivers, vehicles, ELD events, ELD
malfunction and data diagnostics records, ELD login and logout
activity, and unidentified driver records.
[[Page 17705]]
4.8.2.1.1. Header Segment
This segment must include the following data elements and
format:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.003
4.8.2.1.2. User List
This segment must list all drivers and co-drivers with driving
time records on the most recent CMV operated by the inspected driver
or motor carrier's support personnel who requested edits within the
time period for which this file is generated. The list must be in
chronological order with most recent user of the ELD on top,
including the driver being inspected, the co-driver, and the
unidentified driver profile. This segment has a variable number of
rows depending on the number of profiles with activity over the time
period for which this file is generated. This section must start
with the following title:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.004
[[Page 17706]]
Each subsequent row must have the following data elements:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.005
4.8.2.1.3. CMV List
This segment must list each CMV that the current driver operated
and that has been recorded on the driver's ELD records within the
time period for which this file is generated. The list must be rank
ordered in accordance with the time of CMV operation with the most
recent CMV being on top. This segment has a variable number of rows
depending on the number of CMVs operated by the driver over the time
period for which this file is generated. This section must start
with the following title:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.006
Each subsequent row must have the following data elements:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.007
4.8.2.1.4. ELD Event List for Driver's Record of Duty Status
This segment must list ELD event records tagged with event types
1 (a change in duty status as described in section 4.5.1.1), 2 (an
intermediate log as described in section 4.5.1.2), and 3 (a change
in driver's indication of conditions impacting driving time
recording as described in section 4.5.1.3). The segment must list
all event record status types and of all event record origins for
the driver, rank ordered with the most current log on top in
accordance with the date and time fields of the record. This segment
has a variable number of rows depending on the number of ELD events
recorded for the driver over the time period for which this file is
generated. This section must start with the following title:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.008
Each subsequent row must have the following data elements:
[[Page 17707]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.009
4.8.2.1.5. Event Annotations, Comments, and Driver's Location
Description
This segment must list only the elements of the ELD event list
created in 4.8.2.1.4 above that have an annotation, comment, or a
manual entry of location description by the driver. This segment has
a variable number of rows depending on the number of ELD events
under section 4.8.2.1.4 that feature a comment, annotation, or
manual location entry by the driver. This section must start with
the following title:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.010
Each subsequent row must have the following data elements:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.011
4.8.2.1.6. ELD Event List for Driver's Certification of Own Records
This segment must list ELD event records with event type 4
(driver's certification of own records as described in section
4.5.1.4) for the inspected driver for time period for which this
file is generated. It must be rank ordered with the most current
record on top. This segment has a variable number of rows depending
on the number of certification and re-certification actions the
authenticated driver may have executed on the ELD over the time
period for which this file is generated. This section must start
with the following title:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.012
Each subsequent row must have the following data elements:
[[Page 17708]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.013
4.8.2.1.7. Malfunction and Diagnostic Event Records
This segment must list all ELD malfunctions that have occurred
on this ELD during the time period for which this file is generated.
It must list diagnostic event records related to the driver being
inspected, rank ordered with the most current record on top. This
segment has a variable number of rows depending on the number of ELD
malfunctions and ELD diagnostic event records recorded and relevant
to the inspected driver over the time period for which this file is
generated. This section must start with the following title:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.014
Each subsequent row must have the following data elements:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.015
4.8.2.1.8. ELD Login/Logout Report
This segment must list the login and logout activity on the ELD
(ELD events with event type 5 (A driver's login/logout activity))
for the inspected driver for the time period for which this file is
generated. It must be rank ordered with the most recent activity on
top. This section must start with the following title:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.016
Each subsequent row must have the following data elements:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.017
4.8.2.1.9. CMV's Engine Power-Up and Shut Down Activity
This segment must list the logs created when CMV's engine is
powered up and shut down (ELD events with event type 6 (CMV's engine
power up/shut down)) for the time period for which this file is
generated. It must be rank ordered with the latest activity on top.
This section must start with the following title:
[[Page 17709]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.018
Each subsequent row must have the following data elements:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.019
4.8.2.1.10. ELD Event Log List for the Unidentified Driver Profile
This segment must list the ELD event records for the
Unidentified Driver profile, rank ordered with most current log on
top in accordance with the date and time fields of the logs. This
segment has a variable number of rows depending on the number of
Unidentified Driver ELD records recorded over the time period for
which this file is generated. This section must start with the
following title:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.020
Each subsequent row must have the following data elements:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.021
4.8.2.1.11. File Data Check Value
This segment lists the file data check value as specified in
section 4.4.5.3 of this appendix. This part includes a single line
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.022
4.8.2.2. ELD Output File Name Standard
If the ELD output is saved in a file for transfer or maintenance
purposes, it must follow the twenty-five character-long filename
standard below:
(1) The first five position characters of the filename must
correspond to the first five letters of the last name of the driver
for whom the file is compiled. If the last name of the driver is
shorter than 5 characters, remaining positions must use the
character
[[Page 17710]]
``--'' [underscore] as a substitute character. For example, if the
last name of the driver is ``Lee'', the first five characters of the
output file must feature ``Lee----''.
(2) The sixth and seventh position characters of the filename
must correspond to the last two digits of the driver's license
number for the driver for whom the file is compiled.
(3) The eighth and ninth position characters of the filename
must correspond to the sum of all individual numeric digits in the
driver's license number for the driver for whom the file is
compiled. The result must be represented in two-digit format. If the
sum value exceeds 99, use the last two digits of the result. For
example, if the result equals ``113'', use ``13''. If the result is
less than 10, use 0 as the first digit. For example, if the result
equals ``5'', use ``05''.
(4) The tenth through fifteenth position characters of the
filename must correspond to the date the file is created. The result
must be represented in six digit format ``MMDDYY'' where ``MM''
represent the month, ``''DD'' represent the day and ``YY'' represent
the last two digits of the year. For example, February 5, 2013 must
be represented as ``020513''.
(5) The sixteenth position character of the filename must be a
hyphen ``-''.
(6) The seventeenth through twenty-fifth position characters of
the filename must, by default, be ``000000000'' but each of these
nine digits can be freely configured by the motor carrier or the ELD
provider to be a number between 0 and 9 or a character between A and
Z to be able to produce distinct files--if or when necessary--that
may otherwise be identical in filename as per the convention
proposed in this section. ELD providers or motor carriers do not
need to disclose details of conventions they may use for configuring
the seventeenth through twenty-fifth digits of the filename.
4.9. Data Transfer Capability Requirements
An ELD must be able to present the captured ELD records of a
driver in the standard electronic format as described below, and
transfer the data file to an authorized safety official, on demand,
for inspection purposes.
4.9.1. Data Reporting During Roadside Safety Inspections
On demand during a roadside safety inspection, an ELD must
produce a driver's record of duty status for the current 24-hour
period and the previous 7 consecutive days in electronic format, in
the standard data format described in section 4.8.2.1.
When a driver uses the single-step driver interface, as
described in section 4.3.2.4, to indicate for the ELD to compile and
transfer driver's ELD records to authorized safety officials, the
ELD must transfer the generated ELD data output to the computing
environment used by authorized safety officials via the standards
referenced in this section. To meet roadside data reporting
requirements, an ELD must do at least one of the following:
(1) Generate a printout of the record of duty status report for
the current 24-hour period and the previous 7 consecutive days in
the printout format described in section 4.10.2.4 that can be handed
to an enforcement officer. Upon request, the ELD must also generate
a printout including a scannable QR code (Quick Response) or a
series of QR codes that embed the ELD data used for the printout as
specified in section 4.10.2.2; or
(2) Support the one primary and the two backup data transfer
mechanisms in accordance with the transfer standards outlined in
section 4.10.
(a) The primary transfer mechanisms options are as follows: Web
Services as specified in section 4.10.1.1, or Bluetooth as specified
in section 4.10.1.2, or email as specified in section 4.10.1.3.
(b) The backup transfer mechanisms are as follows:
USB 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference
(2)(a) in section 6 of this appendix, and as specified in section
4.10.2.1, and
(i) Scannable QR codes as specified in section 4.10.2.2; or
(ii) TransferJet as specified in section 4.10.2.3.
An ELD must support one of the 7 options for roadside data
transfer in Table 5 and must certify proper operation of each
element under that option. An authorized safety official will
specify which transfer mechanism the official will use within the
certified transfer mechanisms of an ELD.
Table 5--Required Combination of Roadside Data Transfer Capabilities for
an ELD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option Certified data transfer capabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1:..................... Printout Report + QR Code printout.
Option 2:..................... Wireless Web Services + USB 2.0 + QR
Codes.
Option 3:..................... Wireless Web Services + USB 2.0 +
TransferJet.
Option 4:..................... Bluetooth + USB 2.0 + QR Codes.
Option 5:..................... Bluetooth + USB 2.0 + TransferJet.
Option 6:..................... Wireless Email + USB 2.0 + QR Codes.
Option 7:..................... Wireless Email + USB 2.0 + TransferJet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.9.2. Motor Carrier Data Reporting
An ELD or a support system used in conjunction with ELDs must be
capable of maintaining and retaining copies of electronic ELD
records for a period of at least 6 months from the date of receipt.
An ELD or a support system used in conjunction with an ELD must
produce, on demand, a data file or a series of data files of ELD
records for a subset of its drivers, a subset of its vehicles, and
for a subset of the 6-month record retention period, to be specified
by an authorized safety official, in an electronic format standard
described in section 4.8.2.1 or, if the motor carrier has multiple
offices or terminals, within the time permitted under Sec. 390.29.
At a minimum, an ELD or a support system used in conjunction
with an ELD must be able to transfer the ELD data file or files
electronically by one of the following three transfer mechanisms:
(1) Web Services as specified in section 4.10.1.1 (but not
necessarily wirelessly); or
(2) USB 2.0, reference (2)(a) in section 6 of this appendix, and
as specified in section 4.10.2.1; or
(3) Email as specified 4.10.1.3 (but not necessarily
wirelessly).
4.10. Communications Standards for the Transmittal of Data Files
From ELDs
ELDs must transmit ELD records electronically in accordance with
the file format specified in section 4.8.2.1 and must be capable of
a one-way transfer of these records through wired and/or wireless
methods to authorized safety officials upon request as specified in
section 4.9.
4.10.1. Primary Wireless Data Transfer Mechanisms
For each type of wireless transfer mechanisms, an ELD, when
used, must follow the underlying specifications in this section.
4.10.1.1. Wireless Data Transfer via Web Services
Transfer of ELD data to FMCSA via Web Services must follow the
following standards:
(1) Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference (1)(a) in section 6 of
this appendix
(2) Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.2 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference (1)(b) in section 6 of this
appendix
(3) Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 5th Edition
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference (1)(c) in
section 6 of this appendix
(4) FMCSA's Third-Party Developers' Partnership (3pDP) (see
https://3pdp.fmcsa.dot.gov/)
If an ELD provider plans to use Web Services, upon ELD provider
registration as described in section 5.1 of this appendix, FMCSA
will provide formatting files necessary to convert the ELD file into
an XML format and upload the data to the
[[Page 17711]]
FMCSA servers. These files include the FMCSA's Rules of Behavior,
XML Schema, WSDL file, Interface Control Document (ICD), and the ELD
Web Services Development Handbook. Additionally, ELD Providers must
obtain a Public/Private Key pair compliant with the NIST SP 800-32,
Introduction to Public Key Technology and the Federal PKI
Infrastructure, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 395.38),
reference (5)(b) in section 6 of this appendix, and submit the
public key with their registration. ELD Providers will be required
to complete a test procedure to ensure their data is properly
formatted before they can begin submitting driver's ELD data to the
FMCSA server.
ELD data transmission from the ELD to the ELD support system
must be accomplished in a way that protects the privacy of the
driver(s).
At roadside if both the vehicle operator and law enforcement
have an available data connection, the vehicle operator will
initiate the transfer of ELD data to FMCSA. The ELD support system
will convert the ELD file to XML using an FMCSA provided schema and
upload it using information provided in the WSDL file using SOAP via
Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) using HTTP and RFC 5246,
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 395.38), references (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and
(7)(a) in section 6 of this appendix.
4.10.1.2. Wireless Data Transfer via Bluetooth[supreg]
Bluetooth SIG Specification of the Bluetooth System covering
core package version 2.1 + EDR or higher (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 395.38), reference (8)(a) in section 6 of this appendix,
must be followed. ELDs using this standard must be capable of
displaying a Personal Identification Number generated by the
Bluetooth application profile for bonding with other devices. Upon
request of an authorized official, the ELD must become discoverable
by the authorized safety officials' Bluetooth-enabled computing
platform, and generate a random code, which the driver must share
with the official. The ELD must connect to the roadside authorized
safety officials' technology via wireless personal area network and
transmit the required data via Web Services as described in section
4.10.1.1 of this appendix.
4.10.1.3. Wireless Data Transfer Through EMail
ELD must attach a file to an email message to be sent using RFC
5321 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference (7)(b) in section 6 of this
appendix, to a specific email address, which will be shared with the
ELD providers during the technology registration process.
The file must have the format as described in section 4.8.2.1
and must be encrypted using AES-256 in FIPS Publication 197
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference (5)(a) in
section 6 of this appendix, with the FMCSA public key compliant with
NIST SP 800-32, reference (5)(b) in section 6 of this appendix, to
be provided to the ELD provider at the time of registration.
The email must be formatted using the RFC 5322 Internet Message
Format (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference
(7)(c) in section 6 of this appendix, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.023
A message confirming receipt of the ELD file will be sent to the
address specified in the email. The filename must follow the
convention specified in section 4.8.2.2.
4.10.2. Backup Wired and Proximity Data Transfer Mechanisms
For each type of close proximity data transfer mechanisms used,
an ELD must follow the specifications in this section.
4.10.2.1. USB 2.0
ELDs certified for USB data transfer mechanism must be capable
of transferring ELD records using the Universal Serial Bus
Specification (Revision 2.0) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
395.38), reference (2)(a) in section 6 of this appendix.
Each ELD technology must implement a single USB-compliant
interface with the necessary adaptors for a Type A connector. The
USB interface must implement the Mass Storage class (08h) for
driverless operation, to comply with IEEE standard 1667-2009,
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference (4)(a) in
section 6 of this appendix.
ELD must be capable of providing power to a standard USB-
compatible drive.
An ELD must re-authenticate the driver prior to saving the
driver's ELD file to an external device.
On initiation by an authenticated driver, an ELD must be capable
of saving ELD file(s) to USB-compatible drives (AES-256 hardware
encrypted, reference (5)(a) in section 0 of this appendix) that are
provided by authorized safety officials during an inspection. Prior
to initiating this action, ELDs must be capable of reading a text
file from an authorized safety officials' drive and verifying it
against a file provided to ELD providers who have registered their
technologies as described in section 5.1.
4.10.2.2. Data Transfer via Scannable QR Codes
ELD transmitting data via two-dimensional barcode(s) must be
capable of encoding the data file described in section 4.8.2.1 via a
QR code or a series of QR codes, as defined in ISO/IEC18004:2006
specification (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 395.38),
reference (6)(a) in section 6 of this appendix.
[[Page 17712]]
QR codes must be no smaller than 1.5 square inches and have the
following specifications:
Level: L
Version: 15
Color: Black and White
4.10.2.3. Data Transfer via TransferJet TM
ELDs transmitting data via the close proximity wireless
technology must use the TransferJet protocol as defined in ISO/IEC
17568 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference
(6)(b) in section 6 of this appendix.
The device or component of the device transmitting the ELD data
via TransferJet must be capable of being removed from the CMV to
allow the official to receive the transmission without entering the
vehicle.
An ELD must re-authenticate the driver prior to transferring
driver's ELD file via TransferJet.
With the initiation of the authenticated driver, the ELD using
TransferJet must activate Proactive Mode prior to transmitting
driver's ELD data to an official.
4.10.2.4. Printout
If the ELD technology complies with the roadside data transfer
requirement by producing a printout report, it must be able to
generate the compliant report as specified in this section.
The printout must include separate reports for the inspected
driver's profile and the unidentified driver profile. If there are
no unidentified driver records existing on the ELD for the current
24-hour period and for any of the previous 7 consecutive days, an
ELD does not need to print for the authorized safety official.
Otherwise, both reports must be printed and provided to the
authorized safety official.
Print paper must be at least 2 inches wide. The paper must also
be at least 11 inches in height, or on a roll of paper that can be
torn when each individual printout is complete.
The printout must include the following information for the
current 24-hour period and each of the previous 7 consecutive days:
(Items in < . > are data elements.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.024
[[Page 17713]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.025
[[Page 17714]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.028
[[Page 17715]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.031
[[Page 17716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR14.032
The printout must include a graph-grid consistent with Sec.
395.8(g) displaying each change of duty status. The graph-grid for
each day's RODS must be at least 4 inches by 1.5 inches in size.
The graph-grid must also overlay periods of driver's indications
of authorized personal use of CMV and yard moves using a different
style line (such as dashed or dotted line) or shading. The
appropriate abbreviation must also be indicated on the graph-grid.
Upon request, an ELD must also produce a printout including QR
Code(s) as specified in section 4.10.2.2 to allow for the complete
transfer of data via a scanner in addition to the visual
presentation of the data on the printout report. Data coded in QR
code(s) must be compliant with the ELD data output format specified
in section 4.8.2.1.
4.10.3. Motor Carrier Support System Data Transmission
Regardless of the roadside transmission option supported by the
ELD technology, the support systems of the motor carrier where
electronic ELD records are maintained and retained must be able to
transmit enforcement-specified historical data for their drivers
using one of three methods specified under section 4.9.2. Web
services option must follow the specifications described under
section 4.10.1.1. Email option must follow the specifications
described under section 4.10.1.3, and USB option must follow the
specifications of Universal Serial Bus Specification, revision 2.0
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 395.38), reference (2)(a) in
section 6 of this appendix, and described under section 4.10.2.1.
5. ELD--Registration-Certification
As described in Sec. 395.22(a) of subpart B, motor carriers
must only use ELDs that are listed on the FMCSA Web site. An ELD
provider must register with FMCSA and certify each ELD model and
version for that ELD to be listed on this Web site.
5.1. ELD Provider's Registration
5.1.1. Registering Online
An ELD provider developing an ELD technology must register
online at a secure FMCSA Web site where the ELD provider can
securely certify that its ELD is compliant with this appendix.
Provider's registration must include the following information:
(1) Company name of the technology provider/manufacturer.
(2) Name of an individual authorized by the provider to verify
that the ELD is compliant with this appendix and to certify it under
section 5.2 of this appendix.
(3) Address of the registrant.
(4) Email address of the registrant.
(5) Telephone number of the registrant.
5.1.2. Keeping Information Current
The ELD provider must keep the information in section 5.1.1
current through FMCSA's Web site.
5.1.3. Authentication Information Distribution
FMCSA will provide a unique ELD registration ID, authentication
key(s), authentication file(s), and formatting and configuration
details required in this appendix to registered providers during the
registration process.
5.2. Certification of Conformity With FMCSA Standards
A registered ELD provider must certify that each ELD model and
version has been sufficiently tested to meet the functional
requirements included in this appendix under the conditions in which
the ELD would be used.
5.2.1. Online Certification
An ELD provider registered online as described in section 5.1.1
must disclose the following information about each ELD model and
version and certify that the particular ELD is compliant with the
requirements of this appendix. The online process will only allow a
provider to complete certification if the provider successfully
discloses all of the following required information:
(1) Name of the product.
(2) Model number of the product.
(3) Software version of the product.
(4) An ELD identifier, uniquely identifying the certified model
and version of the ELD, assigned by the ELD provider in accordance
with 7.1.15.
(5) Picture and/or screen shot of the product.
(6) User's manual describing how to operate the ELD.
(7) Description of the supported and certified data transfer
mechanisms and step-by-step instructions for a driver to produce and
transfer the ELD records to an authorized safety official.
(8) Summary description of ELD malfunctions.
(9) Procedure to validate an ELD authentication value as
described in section 7.1.14.
(10) Certifying statement describing how the product was tested
to comply with FMCSA regulations.
5.2.2. Procedure To Validate an ELD's Authenticity
Section 5.2.1(9) requires that the ELD provider institute an
authentication process and disclose necessary details for FMCSA
systems to independently verify the ELD authentication values
included in the dataset of inspected ELD outputs. The authentication
value must include a hash component that only uses data elements
included in the ELD dataset and datafile. ELD authentication value
must meet the requirements specified in section 7.1.14.
5.3. Publicly Available Information
Except for the information listed under section 5.1.1(2), (4),
and (5) and section 5.2.1(9), FMCSA will make the information in
sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 for each certified ELD publicly available
on a Web site to allow motor carriers to determine which products
have been properly registered and certified as ELDs compliant with
this appendix.
6. References
(1) World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 32 Vassar Street, Building
32-G514, Cambridge, MA 02139. Web page is https://www.w3.org;
telephone is (617) 253-2613.
(a) ``Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, W3C Note 15,
March 2001,'' Ariba, IBM Research, Microsoft. (See Sec. 395.38,
Incorporation by Reference.)
(b) ``Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) Version 1.2 Part 1:
Messaging Framework (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 27 April
2007,'' W3C[supreg] (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). (See Sec. 395.38,
Incorporation by Reference.)
(c) ``Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition), W3C
Recommendation 26 November 2008,'' W3C[supreg] (MIT, ERCIM, Keio).
(See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by Reference.)
(d) RFC 2616 ``Hypertext Transfer Protocol--HTTP/1.1.'' (See
Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by Reference.)
(2) Universal Serial Bus Implementers Forum (USBIF). 3855 SW.
153rd Drive, Beaverton, Oregon 97006. Web page is https://www.usb.org; telephone is (503) 619-0426.
[[Page 17717]]
(a) ``Universal Serial Bus Specification,'' Compaq, Hewlett-
Packard, Intel, Lucent, Microsoft, NEC, Philips; April 27, 2000
(Revision 2.0). (See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by Reference.)
(3) American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 11 West 42nd
Street, New York, New York 10036. Web page is https://webstore.ansi.org; telephone is (212) 642-4900.
(a) ``ANSI INCITS 446-2008, American National Standard for
Information Technology--Identifying Attributes for Named Physical
and Cultural Geographic Features (Except Roads and Highways) of the
United States, Its Territories, Outlying Areas, and Freely
Associated Areas and the Waters of the Same to the Limit of the
Twelve-Mile Statutory Zone (10/28/2008),'' (ANSI INCITS 446-2008).
(For further information, see also the Geographic Names Information
System (GNIS) at https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/. (See
Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by Reference.)
(b) ``Information Systems--Coded Character Sets--7-Bit American
National Standard Code for Information Interchange (7-Bit ASCII)'',
ANSI INCITS 4-1986 (R2007). (See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by
Reference.)
(4) IEEE Standards Association. 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ
08854-4141. Web page is https://standards.ieee.org/.
Telephone is (732) 981-0060.
(a) ``Standard for Authentication in Host Attachments of
Transient Storage Devices'', IEEE Standards Association: 2009 (IEEE
Std. 1667-2009). (See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by Reference.)
(b) [Reserved]
(5) U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST). 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD
20899-1070. Web page is https://www.nist.gov. Telephone is (301) 975-
6478.
(a) ``Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)
Publication 197, November 26, 2001, Announcing the ADVANCED
ENCRYPTION STANDARD (AES)''. (See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by
Reference.)
(b) ``Special Publication (SP) 800-32, February 26, 2001,
Introduction to Public Key Technology and the Federal PKI
Infrastructure.'' (See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by Reference.)
(6) International Standards Organization (ISO). 1, ch. de la
Voie-Creuse, CP 56-CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland. Web page is
https://www.iso.org. Telephone is 41 22 749 03 46.
(a) ``ISO/IEC 18004:2006 Information technology--Automatic
identification and data capture techniques--QR Code 2005 bar code
symbology specification''. (See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by
Reference.)
(b) ``ISO/IEC 17568 Information technology--Telecommunications
and information exchange between systems--Close proximity electric
induction wireless communications.'' (See Sec. 395.38,
Incorporation by Reference.)
(7) Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). C/o Association
Management Solutions, LLC (AMS), 48377 Freemont Blvd., Suite 117,
Freemont, CA 94538. Telephone is (510) 492-4080.
(a) RFC 5246--``The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.2'', August 2008. (See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by
Reference.)
(b) RFC 5321--``Simple Mail Transfer Protocol,'' October 2008.
(See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by Reference.)
(c) RFC 5322--``Internet Message Format,'' October 2008. (See
Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by Reference.)
(8) Bluetooth SIG, Inc. 5209 Lake Washington Blvd. NE., Suite
350, Kirkland, WA 98033. Web page is https://www.bluetooth.org/Technical/Specifications/adopted.htm. Telephone is (425) 691-3535.
(a) ``Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless
Connections Made Easy,'' Bluetooth SIG Covered Core Package version
2.1 + EDR or a higher version. (See Sec. 395.38, Incorporation by
Reference.)
(b) [Reserved]
7. Data Elements Dictionary
7.1.1. 24-Hour Period Starting Time
Description: This data element refers to the 24-hour period
starting time specified by the motor carrier for driver's home
terminal.
Purpose: Identifies the bookends of the work day for the driver;
Makes ELD records consistent with Sec. 395.8 requirements which
require this information to be included on the form.
Source: Motor carrier.
Used in: ELD account profile; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Programmed or populated on the ELD during account
creation and maintained by the motor carrier to reflect true and
accurate information for drivers.
Data Range: 0000 to 2359; first two digits 00 to 23; last two
digits 00 to 59.
Data Length: 4 characters.
Data Format: Military time format where ``HH'' refer
hours and ``MM'' refer minutes designation for start time expressed
in time standard in effect at the driver's home terminal.
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [0600], [0730], [1800].
7.1.2. Carrier Name
Description: This data element refers to the motor carrier's
legal name for conducting commercial business.
Purpose: Provides a recognizable identifier about the motor
carrier on viewable ELD outputs; Provides ability to cross check
against USDOT number.
Source: FMCSA's Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER)
System.
Used in: ELD account profile.
Data Type: Programmed on the ELD or entered once during the ELD
account creation process.
Data Range: Any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: Minimum: 4; Maximum: 120 characters.
Data Format: as in to .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Example: [CONSOLIDATED TRUCKLOAD INC.].
7.1.3. Carrier's USDOT Number
Description: This data element refers to the motor carrier's
USDOT number.
Purpose: Uniquely identifies the motor carrier employing the
driver using the ELD.
Source: FMCSA's Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER)
System.
Used in: ELD account profiles; ELD event records; ELD output
file.
Data Type: Programmed on the ELD or entered once during the ELD
account creation process.
Data Range: An integer number of length 1-8 assigned to the
motor carrier by FMCSA (9 position numbers reserved).
Data Length: Minimum: 1; Maximum: 9 characters.
Data Format: as in to .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [1], [1000003].
7.1.4. CMV Power Unit Number
Description: This data element refers to the identifier the
motor carrier uses for their CMVs in their normal course of
business.
Purpose: Identifies the vehicle a driver operates while a
driver's ELD records are recorded; Makes ELD records consistent with
Sec. 395.8 requirements which requires the truck or tractor number
to be included on the form.
Source: Unique CMV identifiers a motor carrier's uses in their
normal course of business and include on dispatch documents or the
license number and the licensing State of the power unit.
Used in: ELD event records; ELD output file.
Data Type: Programmed on the ELD or populated by motor carrier's
extended ELD system or entered by the driver.
Data Range: Any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: Minimum: 1; Maximum: 10 characters.
Data Format: as in to .
Disposition: Mandatory for all CMVs operated while using an ELD.
Examples: [123], [00123], [BLUEKW123], [TX12345].
7.1.5. CMV VIN
Description: This data element refers to the manufacturer
assigned vehicle identification number (VIN) for the CMV powered
unit.
Purpose: Uniquely identifies the operated CMV not only within a
motor carrier at a given time but across all CMVs sold within a 30
year rolling period.
Source: A robust unique CMV identifier standardized in North
America.
Used in: ELD event records; ELD output file.
Data Type: Retrieved from the engine ECM via the vehicle
databus.
Data Range: Either blank or 17 characters long as specified by
NHTSA in 49 CFR part 565, or 18 characters long with first character
assigned as ``-'' (dash) followed by the 17 character long VIN.
Check digit, i.e., VIN character position 9, as specified in 49 CFR
part 565 must imply a valid VIN.
Data Length: Blank or 17-18 characters.
Data Format: or <``-''> or <{blank{time} >
as in , or <-CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC> or <>.
Disposition: Mandatory for all CMVs linked to the engine ECM and
when VIN is
[[Page 17718]]
available from the engine ECM over the vehicle databus; Otherwise
optional. If optionally populated and source is not the engine ECM,
precede VIN with the character ``-'' in records.
Examples: [1FUJGHDV0CLBP8834], [-1FUJGHDV0CLBP8896], [ ].
7.1.6. Comment/Annotation
Description: This is a textual note related to a record, update
or edit capturing the comment or annotation a driver or another
authorized support personnel may input to the ELD.
Purpose: Provides ability for a driver to offer explanations to
records, selections, edits or entries.
Source: Driver or another authenticated motor carrier support
personnel.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Entered by the authenticated user via ELD's
interface.
Data Range: Free form text of any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: 0-60 characters if optionally entered;
4-60 characters if annotation is required and driver is prompted
by the ELD.
Data Format: as in <{blank{time} > or
to .
Disposition: Optional in general; Mandatory if prompted by ELD.
Examples: [ ], [Personal Conveyance. Driving to Restaurant in
bobtail mode], [Forgot to switch to SB. Correcting here].
7.1.7. Data Diagnostic Event Indicator Status
Description: This is a Boolean indicator identifying whether the
used ELD unit has an active data diagnostic event set for the
authenticated driver at the time of event recording.
Purpose: Documents the snapshot of ELD's data diagnostic status
for the authenticated driver at the time of an event recording.
Source: ELD internal monitoring functions.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Internally monitored and managed.
Data Range: 0 (no active data diagnostic events for the driver)
or 1 (at least one active data diagnostic event set for the driver).
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [0] or [1].
7.1.8. Date
Description: In combination with the variable ``Time'', this
parameter stamps records with a reference in time; Even though date
and time must be captured in UTC, event records must use date and
time converted to the time zone in effect at the driver's home
terminal as specified in section 4.4.3.
Purpose: Provides ability to record the instance of recorded
events.
Source: ELD's converted time measurement.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: UTC date must be automatically captured by ELD; Date
in effect at the driver's home terminal must be calculated as
specified in section 4.4.3.
Data Range: Any valid date combination expressed in
format where ``MM'' refers to months, ``DD'' refers to days of the
month and ``YY'' refers to the last two digits of the calendar year.
Data Length: 6 characters.
Data Format: where must be between 01 and 12,
must be between 01 and 31, and must be between 00 and 99.
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [122815], [010114], [061228].
7.1.9. Distance Since Last Valid Coordinates
Description: Distance in whole miles traveled since the last
valid latitude, longitude pair the ELD measured with the required
accuracy.
Purpose: Provides ability to keep track of location for recorded
events in cases of temporary position measurement outage.
Source: ELD internal calculations.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Kept track of by the ELD based on position
measurement validity.
Data Range: An integer value between 0 and 6; If the distance
traveled since the last valid coordinate measurement exceeds 6
miles, the ELD must enter the value as 6.
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [0], [1], [5], [6].
7.1.10. Driver's License Issuing State
Description: This data element refers to the issuing State,
Province or Jurisdiction of the listed Driver's License for the ELD
account holder.
Purpose: In combination with ``Driver's License Number'', it
links the ELD driver account holder uniquely to an individual with
driving credentials; Ensures that only one driver account can be
created per individual.
Source: Driver's license.
Used in: ELD account profile(s); ELD output file.
Data Type: Entered (during the creation of a new ELD account).
Data Range: To character abbreviation listed on Table 6.
Data Length: 2 characters.
as in .
Disposition: Mandatory for all driver accounts created on the
ELD; Optional for ``non-driver'' accounts.
Example: [WA].
Table 6--State and Province Abbreviation Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State code State State code State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL.................................. ALABAMA MT..................... MONTANA.
AK.................................. ALASKA NC..................... NORTH CAROLINA.
AR.................................. ARKANSAS ND..................... NORTH DAKOTA.
AZ.................................. ARIZONA NE..................... NEBRASKA.
CA.................................. CALIFORNIA NH..................... NEW HAMPSHIRE.
CO.................................. COLORADO NJ..................... NEW JERSEY.
CT.................................. CONNECTICUT NM..................... NEW MEXICO.
DC.................................. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NV..................... NEVADA.
DE.................................. DELAWARE NY..................... NEW YORK.
FL.................................. FLORIDA OH..................... OHIO.
GA.................................. GEORGIA OK..................... OKLAHOMA.
HI.................................. HAWAII OR..................... OREGON.
IA.................................. IOWA PA..................... PENNSYLVANIA.
ID.................................. IDAHO RI..................... RHODE ISLAND.
IL.................................. ILLINOIS SC..................... SOUTH CAROLINA.
IN.................................. INDIANA SD..................... SOUTH DAKOTA.
KS.................................. KANSAS TN..................... TENNESSEE.
KY.................................. KENTUCKY TX..................... TEXAS.
LA.................................. LOUISIANA UT..................... UTAH.
MA.................................. MASSACHUSETTS VA..................... VIRGINIA.
MD.................................. MARYLAND VT..................... VERMONT.
ME.................................. MAINE WA..................... WASHINGTON.
MI.................................. MICHIGAN WI..................... WISCONSIN.
MN.................................. MINNESOTA WV..................... WEST VIRGINIA.
[[Page 17719]]
MO.................................. MISSOURI WY..................... WYOMING.
MS.................................. MISSISSIPPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN POSSESSIONS OR PROTECTORATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS.................................. AMERICAN SAMOA.
GU.................................. GUAM.
MP.................................. NORTHERN MARIANAS.
PR.................................. PUERTO RICO.
VI.................................. VIRGIN ISLANDS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Province code Province
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AB.................................. ALBERTA.
BC.................................. BRITISH COLUMBIA.
MB.................................. MANITOBA.
NB.................................. NEW BRUNSWICK.
NF.................................. NEWFOUNDLAND.
NS.................................. NOVA SCOTIA.
NT.................................. NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
ON.................................. ONTARIO.
PE.................................. PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
QC.................................. QUEBEC.
SK.................................. SASKATCHEWAN.
YT.................................. YUKON TERRITORY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEXICO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AG.................................. AGUASCALIENTES MX..................... MEXICO.
BN.................................. BAJA CALIFORNIA NORTE NA..................... NAYARIT.
BS.................................. BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR NL..................... NUEVO LEON.
CH.................................. COAHUILA OA..................... OAXACA.
CI.................................. CHIHUAHUA PU..................... PUEBLA.
CL.................................. COLIMA QE..................... QUERETARO.
CP.................................. CAMPECHE QI..................... QUINTANA ROO.
CS.................................. CHIAPAS SI..................... SINALOA.
DF.................................. DISTRICTO FEDERAL SL..................... SAN LUIS POTOSI.
DG.................................. DURANGO SO..................... SONORA.
GE.................................. GUERRERO TA..................... TAMAULIPAS.
GJ.................................. GUANAJUATO TB..................... TABASCO.
HD.................................. HIDALGO TL..................... TLAXCALA.
JA.................................. JALISCO VC..................... VERACRUZ.
MC.................................. MICHOACAN YU..................... YUCATAN.
MR.................................. MORELOS ZA..................... ZACATECAS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Province code Province, state or country
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OT.................................. ALL OTHERS NOT COVERED ABOVE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1.11. Driver's License Number
Description: This data element refers to the unique Driver's
License information required for each driver account on the ELD.
Purpose: In combination with driver's license issuing State, it
links the ELD driver account holder to an individual with driving
credentials; Ensures that only one driver account can be created per
individual.
Source: Driver's license.
Used in: ELD account profile(s); ELD output file.
Data Type: Entered (during the creation of a new ELD account).
Data Range: Any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: Minimum: 1; Maximum: 20 characters.
Data Format: as in to
. For ELD record keeping purposes, ELD must
only retain characters in a Driver's License Number entered during
an account creation process that are a number between 0-9 or a
character between A-Z (non-case sensitive).
Disposition: Mandatory for all driver accounts created on the
ELD; Optional for ``non-driver'' accounts.
Examples: [SAMPLMJ065LD], [D000368210361], [198],
[N02632676353666].
7.1.12. Driver's Location Description
Description: This is a textual note related to the location of
the CMV input by the driver upon ELD's prompt.
Purpose: Provides ability for a driver to enter location
information related to entry of missing records; Provides ability to
accommodate temporary positioning service interruptions or outage
without setting positioning malfunctions.
Source: Driver, only when prompted by the ELD.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Entered by the authenticated driver when ELD solicits
this information as specified in section 4.3.2.7.
[[Page 17720]]
Data Range: Free form text of any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: 5-60 characters.
Data Format: to .
Disposition: Mandatory when prompted by ELD.
Examples: [ ], [5 miles SW of Indianapolis, IN], [Reston, VA].
7.1.13. ELD Account Type
Description: An indicator designating whether an ELD account is
of type driver support personnel (non-driver).
Purpose: Enables to verify account type specific requirements
set forth in this document.
Source: ELD designated.
Used in: ELD outputs.
Data Type: Specified during the account creation process and
recorded on ELD.
Data Range: Character ``D'' indicating of account type
``Driver'' or ``S'', indicating of account type (``motor carrier's
support personnel'' i.e. non-driver); ``Unidentified Driver''
account must be designated with type ``D''.
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [D], [S].
7.1.14. ELD Authentication Value
Description: An alphanumeric value that is unique to an ELD and
verifies the authenticity of the given ELD.
Purpose: Provides ability to cross-check the authenticity of an
ELD used in the recording of a driver's records during inspections.
Source: ELD provider assigned value; Includes a certificate
component and a hashed component; Necessary information related to
authentication keys and hash procedures disclosed by the registered
ELD provider during the online ELD certification process for
independent verification by FMCSA systems.
Used in: ELD outputs.
Data Type: Calculated from the authentication key and
calculation procedure privately distributed by the ELD provider to
FMCSA during the ELD registration process.
Data Range: Alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: 16-32 characters.
Data Format: .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Example: [D3A4506EC8FF566B506EC8FF566BDFBB].
7.1.15. ELD Identifier
Description: An alphanumeric identifier assigned by the ELD
provider to the ELD technology that is certified by the registered
provider at FMCSA's Web site.
Purpose: Provides ability to cross-check that the ELD used in
the recording of a driver's records is certified through FMCSA's
registration and certification process as required.
Source: Assigned and submitted by the ELD provider during the
online certification of an ELD model, and version.
Used in: ELD outputs.
Data Type: Coded on the ELD by the ELD provider and disclosed to
FMCSA during the online certification process.
Data Range: A six character alphanumeric identifier using
characters A-Z and number 0-9
Data Length: 6 characters.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [1001ZE], [GAM112], [02P3P1].
7.1.16. ELD Registration ID
Description: An alphanumeric registration identifier assigned to
the ELD provider that is registered with FMCSA during the ELD
registration process.
Purpose: Provides ability to cross-check that the ELD provider
has registered as required.
Source: Received from FMCSA during online provider registration.
Used in: ELD outputs.
Data Type: Coded on the ELD by the Provider.
Data Range: A four character alphanumeric registration
identifier using characters A-Z and numbers 0-9.
Data Length: 4 characters.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [ZA10], [QA0C], [FAZ2].
7.1.17. ELD Username
Description: This data element refers to the unique user
identifier assigned to the account holder on the ELD to authenticate
the corresponding individual during an ELD login process; The
individual may be a driver or a motor carrier's support personnel.
Purpose: Documents the user identifier assigned to the driver
linked to the ELD account.
Source: Assigned by the motor carrier during the creation of a
new ELD account.
Used in: ELD account profile; Event records; ELD login process.
Data Type: Entered (during account creation and user
authentication).
Data Range: Any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: Minimum: 4; Maximum: 60 characters.
Data Format: as in to .
Disposition: Mandatory for all accounts created on the ELD.
Examples: [smithj], [100384], [sj2345], [john.smith].
7.1.18. Engine Hours
Description: Engine hours refer to the time the CMV's engine in
powered in decimal hours with 0.1 hr (6-minute) resolution; This
parameter is a placeholder for <{Total{time} Engine Hours> which
refers to the aggregated time of a vehicle's engine's operation
since its inception and used in recording ``engine power on'' and
``engine shut down'' events, and also for <{Elapsed{time} Engine
Hours> which refers to the elapsed time in engine's operation in the
given ignition power on cycle and used in the recording of all other
events.
Purpose: Provides ability to identify gaps in the operation of a
CMV, when the vehicle's engine may be powered but the ELD may not;
Provides ability to cross check integrity of recorded data elements
in events and prevent gaps in the recording of ELD.
Source: ELD measurement or sensing.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Acquired from the engine ECM or a comparable other
source as allowed in section 4.3.1.4.
Data Range: For <{Total{time} Engine Hours>, range is between
0.0 and 99,999.9;
For <{Elapsed{time} Engine Hours>, range is between 0.0 and
99.9.
Data Length: 3-7 characters.
Data Format: as in to .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [0.0], [9.9], [346.1], [2891.4].
7.1.19. Event Code
Description: A dependent attribute on ``Event Type'' parameter
that further specifies the nature of the change indicated in ``Event
Type''; This parameter indicates the new status after the change.
Purpose: Provides ability to code the specific nature of the
change electronically.
Source: ELD internal calculations.
Used in: ELD event records; ELD outputs.
Data Type: ELD recorded and maintained event attribute in
accordance with the type of event and nature of the new status being
recorded.
Data Range: Dependent on the ``Event Type'' as indicated on
Table 7.
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [0], [1], [4], [9].
Table 7--``Event Type'' Parameter Coding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event code
Event type Event code description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................ 1...................... Driver's duty
status changed to
``Off-duty''.
1........................ 2...................... Driver's duty
status changed to
``Sleeper Berth''.
1........................ 3...................... Driver's duty
status changed to
``Driving''.
1........................ 4...................... Driver's duty
status changed to
``On-duty not
driving''.
2........................ 1...................... Intermediate log
with conventional
location
precision.
2........................ 2...................... Intermediate log
with reduced
location
precision.
3........................ 1...................... Driver indicates
``Authorized
Personal Use of
CMV''.
3........................ 2...................... Driver indicates
``Yard Moves''.
[[Page 17721]]
3........................ 0...................... Driver indication
for PC, YM and WT
cleared.
4........................ 1....................... Driver's first
certification of a
daily record.
4........................ n...................... Driver's n'th
certification of a
daily record (when
recertification
necessary). ``n''
is an integer
between 1 and 9.
If more than 9
certifications
needed, use 9 for
each new re-
certification
record.
5........................ 1...................... Authenticated
driver's ELD login
activity.
5........................ 2...................... Authenticated
driver's ELD
logout activity.
6........................ 1...................... Engine power-up
with conventional
location
precision.
6........................ 2...................... Engine power-up
with reduced
location
precision.
6........................ 3....................... Engine shut down
with conventional
location
precision.
6........................ 4....................... Engine shut-down
with reduced
location
precision.
7........................ 1....................... An ELD malfunction
logged.
7........................ 2...................... An ELD malfunction
cleared.
7........................ 3....................... A data diagnostic
event logged.
7........................ 4...................... A data diagnostic
event cleared.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1.20. Event Data Check Value
Description: A hexadecimal ``check'' value calculated in
accordance to procedure outlined in section 4.4.5.1 and attached to
each event record at the time of recording.
Purpose: Provides ability to identify cases where an ELD event
record may have been inappropriately modified after its original
recording.
Source: ELD internal
Used in: ELD events; ELD output file.
Data Type: Calculated by the ELD in accordance with 4.4.5.1.
Data Range: A number between hexadecimal 00 (decimal 0) and
hexadecimal FF (decimal 255).
Data Length: 2 characters.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [05], [CA], [F3].
7.1.21. Event Record Origin
Description: An attribute for the event record indicating
whether it is automatically recorded, or edited, entered or accepted
by the driver, requested by another authenticated user, or assumed
from unidentified driver profile.
Purpose: Provides ability to track origin of the records.
Source: ELD internal calculations.
Used in: ELD event records; ELD outputs.
Data Type: ELD recorded and maintained event attribute in
accordance with the procedures outlined in sections 4.4.4.2.2,
4.4.4.2.3, 4.4.4.2.4 and 4.4.4.2.5.
Data Range: 1, 2, 3 or 4 as described on Table 8.
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4].
Table 8--``Event Record Origin'' Parameter Coding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event record
Event record origin origin code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatically recorded by ELD........................... 1
Edited or Entered by the Driver......................... 2
Edit Requested by an Authenticated User other than the 3
Driver.................................................
Assumed from Unidentified Driver profile................ 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1.22. Event Record Status
Description: An attribute for the event record indicating
whether an event is active or inactive and further, if inactive,
whether it is due to a change or lack of confirmation by the driver
or due to a driver's rejection of change request.
Purpose: Provides ability to keep track of edits and entries
performed over ELD records while retaining original records.
Source: ELD internal calculations.
Used in: ELD event records; ELD outputs.
Data Type: ELD recorded and maintained event attribute in
accordance with the procedures outlined in sections 4.4.4.2.2,
4.4.4.2.3, 4.4.4.2.4, 4.4.4.2.5, and 4.4.4.2.6.
Data Range: 1, 2, 3 or 4 as described on Table 9.
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]
Table 9--``Event Record Status'' Parameter Coding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event record
Event record status status code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active.................................................. 1
Inactive--Changed....................................... 2
Inactive--Change Requested.............................. 3
Inactive--Change Rejected............................... 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1.23. Event Sequence ID Number
Description: This data element refers to the serial identifier
assigned to each required ELD event as described in section 4.5.1.
Purpose: Provides ability to keep a continuous records keeping
track on a given ELD across all users of that ELD.
Source: ELD internal calculations.
Used in: ELD event records; ELD outputs.
Data Type: ELD maintained; Incremented by 1 for each new record
on the ELD; Continuous for each new event the ELD records regardless
of owner of the records.
Data Range: 0 to FFFF; Initial factory value must be 0; After
FFFF hexadecimal (decimal 65535), the next Event Sequence ID number
must be 0.
Data Length: 1-4 characters.
Data Format: as in to .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [1], [1F2C], [2D3], [BB], [FFFE].
7.1.24. Event Type
Description: An attribute specifying the type of the event
record.
Purpose: Provides ability to code the type of the recorded event
in electronic format.
Source: ELD internal calculations.
Used in: ELD event records; ELD outputs.
Data Type: ELD recorded and maintained event attribute in
accordance with the type of event being recorded.
Data Range: 1-7 as described on Table 10.
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [1], [5], [4], [7].
Table 10--``Event Type'' Parameter Coding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event type
Event type code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A change in driver's duty-status........................ 1
An intermediate log..................................... 2
A change in driver's indication of authorized personal 3
use of CMV or yard moves...............................
A driver's certification/re-certification of records.... 4
A driver's login/logout activity........................ 5
CMV's engine power up/shut down activity................ 6
A malfunction or data diagnostic detection occurrence... 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17722]]
7.1.25. Exempt Driver Configuration
Description: A parameter indicating whether the motor carrier's
configured a driver's profile to claim exemption from ELD use.
Purpose: Provides ability to code the motor carrier indicated
exemption for the driver electronically.
Source: Motor carrier's configuration for a given driver.
Used in: ELD outputs.
Data Type: Motor carrier configured and maintained parameter in
accordance with the qualification requirements listed in Sec.
395.1.
Data Range: E (exempt) or 0 (number zero).
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [E], [0].
7.1.26. File Data Check Value
Description: A hexadecimal ``check'' value calculated in
accordance to procedure outlined in section 4.4.5.3 and attached to
each ELD output file.
Purpose: Provides ability to identify cases where an ELD file
may have been inappropriately modified after its original creation.
Source: ELD internal.
Used in: ELD output files.
Data Type: Calculated by the ELD in accordance with 4.4.5.3.
Data Range: A number between hexadecimal 0000 (decimal 0) and
hexadecimal FFFF (decimal 65535).
Data Length: 4 characters.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [F0B5], [00CA], [523E].
7.1.27. First Name
Description: This data element refers to the given name of the
individual holding an ELD account.
Purpose: Links an individual to the associated ELD account.
Source: Driver's license for driver accounts; Driver's license
or government-issued ID for support personnel accounts.
Used in: ELD account profile(s); ELD outputs (display and file).
Data Type: Entered (during the creation of a new ELD account).
Data Range: Any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: Minimum: 2; Maximum: 30 characters.
Data Format: as in to where
``C'' denotes a character.
Disposition: Mandatory for all accounts created on the ELD.
Example: [John].
7.1.28. Geo-Location
Description: A descriptive indicator of the CMV position in
terms of a distance and direction to a recognizable location derived
from a GNIS database at a minimum containing all cities, towns and
villages with a population of 5,000 or greater.
Purpose: Provide recognizable location information on
displayable outputs to users of the ELD.
Source: ELD internal calculations as specified in section 4.4.2.
Used in: ELD visual outputs (display, printout).
Data Type: Identified from the underlying latitude/longitude
coordinates by the ELD.
Data Range: Contains four segments in one text field; A
recognizable location driven from GNIS database containing--at a
minimum--all cities, towns and villages with a population of 5,000
in text format containing a location name and the State
abbreviation, distance from this location and direction from this
location.
Data Length: Minimum: 5 Maximum: 60 characters.
Data Format:
<'mi`> <' `> <' `> where: must either be <{blank{time} > or
or where the--up-to two character number specifies absolute
distance between identified geo-location and event location;
must either be
<{blank{time} > or or or , must represent direction of
event location with respect to the identified geo-location, and must
take a value listed on Table 11;
must
take values listed on Table 6; must be the text description of the identified
reference location;
Overall length of the ``Geo-location'' parameter must not be
longer than 60 characters long.
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [2mi ESE IL Darien], [1mi SE TX Dallas], [11mi NNW IN
West Lafayette].
Table 11--Conventional Compass Rose Direction Coding To Be Used in the
Geo-Location Parameter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direction Direction code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At indicated geo-location................... {blank{time}
North of indicated geo-location............. N
North-North East of indicated geo-location.. NNE
North East of indicated geo-location........ NE
East-North East of indicated geo-location... ENE
East of indicated geo-location.............. E
East-South East of indicated geo-location... ESE
South East of indicated geo-location........ SE
South-South East of indicated geo-location.. SSE
South of indicated geo-location............. S
South-South West of indicated geo-location.. SSW
South West of indicated geo-location........ SW
West-South West of indicated geo-location... WSW
West of indicated geo-location.............. W
West-North West of indicated geo-location... WNW
North West of indicated geo-location........ NW
North-North West of indicated geo-location.. NNW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1.29. Last Name
Description: This data element refers to the last name of the
individual holding an ELD account.
Purpose: Links an individual to the associated ELD account.
Source: Driver's license for driver accounts; Driver's license
or government-issued ID for support personnel accounts.
Used in: ELD account profile(s); ELD outputs (display and file).
Data Type: Entered (during the creation of a new ELD account).
Data Range: Any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: Minimum: 2; Maximum: 30 characters.
Data Format: as in to .
Disposition: Mandatory for all accounts created on the ELD.
Example: [Smith].
7.1.30. Latitude
Description: An angular distance in degrees north and south of
the equator.
Purpose: In combination with the variable ``Longitude'', this
parameter stamps records requiring a position attribute with a
reference point on the face of the earth.
Source: ELD's position measurement.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Latitude and Longitude must be automatically captured
by the ELD.
Data Range: -90.00 to 90.00 in decimal degrees (two decimal
point resolution) in records using conventional positioning
precision; -90.0 to 90.0 in decimal degrees (single decimal point
resolution) in records using reduced positioning precision when
allowed; Latitudes north of the equator must be specified by the
absence of a minus sign (-), preceding the digits designating
degrees; Latitudes south of the Equator must be designated by a
minus sign (-) preceding the digits designating degrees.
Data Length: 3 to 6 characters,
Data Format: First character: [<`-'> or <{blank{time} >] then
[ or ]; then <`.'>; then [ or ],
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [-15.68], [38.89], [5.07], [-6.11], [-15.7], [38.9],
[5.1], [-6.1].
7.1.31. Line Data Check Value
Description: A hexadecimal ``check'' value calculated in
accordance to procedure outlined in section 4.4.5.2 and attached to
each line of output featuring data at the time of output file being
generated.
[[Page 17723]]
Purpose: Provides ability to identify cases where an ELD output
file may have been inappropriately modified after its original
generation.
Source: ELD internal.
Used in: ELD output file.
Data Type: Calculated by the ELD in accordance with 4.4.5.2.
Data Range: A number between hexadecimal 00 (decimal 0) and
hexadecimal FF (decimal 255).
Data Length: 2 characters.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [01], [A4], [CC].
7.1.32. Longitude
Description: An angular distance in degrees measured on a circle
of reference with respect to the zero (or prime) meridian; The prime
meridian runs through Greenwich, England.
Purpose: In combination with the variable ``Longitude'', this
parameter stamps records requiring a position attribute with a
reference point on the face of the earth.
Source: ELD's position measurement.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Latitude and Longitude must be automatically captured
by the ELD.
Data Range: -179.99 to 180.00 in decimal degrees (two decimal
point resolution) in records using conventional positioning
precision; -179.9 to 180.0 in decimal degrees (single decimal point
resolution) in records using reduced positioning precision when
allowed; Longitudes east of the prime meridian must be specified by
the absence of a minus sign (-), preceding the digits designating
degrees of longitude; Longitudes west of the prime meridian must be
designated by minus sign (-) preceding the digits designating
degrees.
Data Length: 3 to 7 characters
Data Format: First character: [<`-'> or <{blank{time} >]; then
[, or ]; then <`.'>; then [ or ].
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [-157.81], [-77.03], [9.05], [-0.15], [-157.8], [-
77.0], [9.1], [-0.2].
7.1.33. Malfunction/Diagnostic Code
Description: A code that further specifies the underlying
malfunction or data diagnostic event.
Purpose: Enables coding the type of malfunction and data
diagnostic event to cover the standardized set in Table 4.
Source: ELD internal monitoring.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Recorded by ELD when malfunctions and data diagnostic
events are set or reset.
Data Range: As specified in Table 4.
Data Length: 1 character
Data Format:
Disposition: Mandatory
Examples: [1], [5], [P], [L].
7.1.34. Malfunction Indicator Status
Description: This is a Boolean indicator identifying whether the
used ELD unit has an active malfunction set at the time of event
recording.
Purpose: Documents the snapshot of ELD's malfunction status at
the time of an event recording.
Source: ELD internal monitoring functions.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Internally monitored and managed.
Data Range: 0 (no active malfunction) or 1 (at least one active
malfunction).
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [0] or [1].
7.1.35. Multiday Basis Used
Description: This data element refers to the multiday basis (7
or 8 days) used by the motor carrier to compute cumulative duty
hours.
Purpose: Provides ability to apply the HOS rules accordingly.
Source: Motor carrier.
Used in: ELD account profile; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Entered by the motor carrier during account creation
process.
Data Range: 7 or 8.
Data Length: 1 character.
Data Format: as in .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [7], [8].
7.1.36. Order Number
Description: A continuous integer number assigned in the forming
of a list, starting at 1 and incremented by 1 for each unique item
on the list.
Purpose: Allows for more compact report file output generation
avoiding repetitious use of CMV identifiers and usernames affected
in records.
Source: ELD internal.
Used in: ELD outputs, listing of users and CMVs referenced in
ELD logs.
Data Type: Managed by ELD.
Data Range: Integer between 1 and 99.
Data Length: 1-2 characters.
Data Format: as in or .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [1], [5], [11], [28].
7.1.37. Output File Comment
Description: A textual field that may be populated with
information pertaining to the created ELD output file; An authorized
safety official may provide a key phrase or code to be included in
the output file comment, which may be used to link the requested
data to an inspection, inquiry or other enforcement action; If
provided to the driver by an authorized safety official, it must be
entered into the ELD or its support system and included in the
exchanged dataset as specified.
Purpose: The output file comment field provides an ability to
link a submitted data to an inspection, inquiry or other enforcement
action, if deemed necessary; Further, it may also serve a purpose to
link a dataset to a vehicle, driver, carrier and/or ELD which may
participate in voluntary future programs that may involve exchange
of ELD data.
Source: Enforcement personnel or driver or motor carrier.
Used in: ELD outputs.
Data Type: If provided, output file comment is entered or
appended to the ELD dataset prior to submission of ELD data to
enforcement.
Data Range: Blank or any alphanumeric combination specified and
provided by an authorized safety official.
Data Length: 0-60 characters.
Data Format: <{blank{time} >, or thru .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [ ], [3BHG701015], [113G1EFW02], [7353930].
7.1.38. Shipping Document Number
Description: Shipping document number the motor carrier uses in
their system and dispatch documents.
Purpose: Links ELD data to the shipping records; Makes ELD
dataset consistent with Sec. 395.8 requirements.
Source: Motor Carrier.
Used in: ELD outputs.
Data Type: Entered in the ELD by the authenticated driver or
populated by motor carrier's extended ELD support system and
verified by the driver.
Data Range: Any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: 0-40 characters.
Data Format: <{blank{time} >, or thru .
Disposition: Mandatory if a shipping number is used on motor
carrier's system.
Examples: [], [B 75354], [FX334411707].
7.1.39. Time
Description: In combination with the variable ``Date'', this
parameter stamps records with a reference in time; Even though date
and time must be captured in UTC, event records must use date and
time converted to the time zone in effect at the driver's home
terminal as specified in section 4.4.3.
Purpose: Provides ability to record the instance of recorded
events.
Source: ELD's converted time measurement.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: UTC time must be automatically captured by ELD; Time
in effect at the driver's home terminal must be calculated as
specified in section 4.4.3.
Data Range: Any valid date combination expressed in
format where ``HH'' refers to hours of the day, ``DD'' refers to
minutes and ``SS'' refers to seconds.
Data Length: 6 characters.
Data Format: where must be between 00 and 23,
and must be between 00 and 59.
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [070111], [001259], [151522], [230945].
7.1.40. Time Zone Offset From UTC
Description: This data element refers to the offset in time
between UTC time and the time standard in effect at the driver's
home terminal.
Purpose: Establishes the ability to link records stamped with
local time to a universal reference.
Source: Calculated from measured variable <{UTC{time} Time> and
<{Time Standard in Effect at driver's home terminal{time} Time>;
Maintained together with ``24-hour Period Starting Time'' parameter
by the motor carrier or tracked automatically by ELD.
[[Page 17724]]
Used in: ELD account profile; ELD event: Driver's certification
of own records.
Data Type: Programmed or populated on the ELD during account
creation and maintained by the motor carrier or ELD to reflect true
and accurate information for drivers. This parameter must adjust for
Daylight Saving Time changes in effect at the driver's home
terminal.
Data Range: 04 to 11; Omit sign.
Data Length: 2 characters.
Data Format: as in where ``HH''
refer to hours in difference.
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [04], [05], [10].
7.1.41. Trailer Number(s)
Description: This data element refers to the identifier(s) the
motor carrier uses for the trailers in their normal course of
business.
Purpose: Identifies the trailer(s) a driver operates while a
driver's ELD records are recorded; Makes ELD records consistent with
Sec. 395.8 which requires the trailer number(s) to be included on
the form.
Source: Unique trailer identifiers a motor carrier uses in their
normal course of business and include on dispatch documents or the
license number and licensing State of each towed unit; Trailer
number(s) must be updated each time hauled trailers change.
Data Type: Automatically captured by the ELD or populated by
motor carrier's extended ELD system or entered by the driver; Must
be updated each time the hauled trailer(s) change.
Data Range: Any alphanumeric combination.
Data Length: Minimum: blank; Maximum: 32 characters (3 trailer
numbers each maximum 10 characters long, separated by spaces).
Data Format: Trailer numbers; Separated by space in case of
multiple trailers hauled at one time; Field to be left ``blank'' for
non-combination vehicles (such as a straight truck or bobtail
tractor).
1{time} ><' `>2{time} > <' `>3{time} > as in <{blank{time} > to .
Disposition: Mandatory when operating combination vehicles.
Examples: [987], [00987 PP2345], [BX987 POP712 10567], [TX12345
LA22A21], [ ].
7.1.42. Vehicle Miles
Description: Vehicle miles refer to the distance traveled using
the CMV in whole miles; This parameter is a placeholder for
<{Total{time} Vehicle Miles> which refers to the odometer reading
and used in recording ``engine power on'' and ``engine shut down''
events, and also for <{Accumulated{time} Vehicle Miles> which
refers to the accumulated miles in the given ignition power on cycle
and used in the recording of all other events.
Purpose: Provides ability to track distance traveled while
operating the CMV in each duty status. Total miles traveled within a
24-hour period is a required field in Sec. 395.8.
Source: ELD measurement or sensing.
Used in: ELD events; ELD outputs.
Data Type: Acquired from the engine ECM or a comparable other
source as allowed in section 4.3.1.3.
Data Range: For <{Total{time} Vehicle Miles>, range is between
0 and 9,999,999;
For <{Accumulated{time} Vehicle Miles>, range is between 0 and
9,999.
Data Length: 1-7 characters.
Data Format: as in to .
Disposition: Mandatory.
Examples: [99], [1004566], [0], [422].
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: March 11,
2014.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-05827 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P