At STC, one of the services we provide is conducting mock DOT compliance reviews for motor carriers seeking an outside assessment of their compliance posture and processes. This means that, over the years, we’ve reviewed thousands of driver qualification and vehicle maintenance files, assessed many drug and alcohol testing programs and reviewed countless records of duty status’ in search of hours of service (HOS) violations. In reflection, we thought this may be a good opportunity to launch a new series on the most common violations cited by law enforcement during actual DOT audits and provide some tips to help motor carriers avoid these common pitfalls.

This month, we’ll focus on the top HOS violation cited over the last five years: false reports of records of duty status (RODS). This violation has been on the rise since the implementation of electronic logging devices, which made identifying hours violations (11, 14, 60/70, and rest break) much easier. As a result, serial violators have found new ways to conceal these violations and law enforcement has changed its focus to identify them.

In our experience, most of these violations are found in one of these scenarios: 1) improper use of personal conveyance; 2) inappropriate use of common exceptions like “adverse driving conditions” or the “big day” exception (see 395.1(o)); and 3) not adjudicating unidentified driving time when it occurs.

To combat this, STC recommends conducting regular internal compliance checks of driver logs to ensure accuracy. Of course, it can be a monumental task to manually audit every driver’s log every day, which is why some carriers start with an exception-based auditing process that launches a close review of driver RODS based on specific events. For example, when a driver receives an HOS violation during a roadside inspection, when a driver is involved in an accident, or when ELD reporting shows excessive use of personal conveyance or unusual unidentified driving events could be good reasons to conduct a more detailed review. As carriers refine their internal auditing processes, this list of exceptions can be expanded and, eventually, regular manual auditing of a sample of all drivers can also be implemented.

In their search for false log violations, carriers can focus on off-duty and on-duty not driving (ODND) duty statuses by comparing mileage and location data from these events with that of the next driving event. Any discrepancy should warrant a more detailed investigation to understand the root cause. Often, these discrepancies can be attributed to honest, correctable mistakes that can be addressed through additional driver training. Of course, if these mistakes are discovered by law enforcement, they may not accept the “honest mistake” defense. It’s also worth mentioning that critical violations of HOS rules are double weighted under FMCSA’s safety rating methodology, meaning the best safety rating a carrier can obtain when a critical HOS violation is discovered during a Compliance Investigation is Conditional under the Hours of Service factor. This makes it imperative that motor carriers discover and address these violations as soon as possible.

While compliance dashboards provided by ELD vendors can be a useful tool to understand, at a glance, for general fleet HOS compliance, they are only as good as the data on which they rely. Unassigned driving time and improper use of exceptions or personal conveyance can conceal potential violations, intentional or otherwise. While an exception-based auditing approach may not find every violation, it is a good place to start and, as violations are discovered and addressed, can send an important signal to drivers that RODS accuracy is important and will not be tolerated, improving compliance and strengthening the carrier’s safety culture.