HEAVY VEHICLE NATIONAL LAW (ACT)
313What record keeper must do if electronic work diary not
Start here
Get a plain-English read of 313
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in HEAVY VEHICLE NATIONAL LAW (ACT).
313 What record keeper must do if electronic work diary not in working order or malfunctioning
(c) the record keeper becomes aware of, or has reason to suspect, either of the following matters— (i) that the electronic work diary is not in working order; (ii) that the electronic work diary is malfunctioning or has malfunctioned. The record keeper may become aware as mentioned in paragraph (c) whether or not the record keeper has been informed by the driver under section 309 or an intelligent access program reporting entity under section 310. (2) The record keeper must as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of the matter or having reason to suspect the matter inform the driver about the matter unless the driver informed the record keeper about the matter under section 309. (3) The record keeper must, after becoming aware of the matter or having reason to suspect the matter— (a) as soon as reasonably practicable, direct the driver in the approved form to use a supplementary record in compliance with section 305; and (b) as soon as reasonably practicable, give the driver information that was in the electronic work diary, in a way that makes the information readily available to the driver, that— (i) is accessible to the record keeper; and (ii) relates to any period during the last 28 days; and (iii) is not stored in the electronic work diary because the electronic work diary is not in working order or is malfunctioning or has malfunctioned; and
(c) within 2 business days, notify the Regulator in the approved form that the electronic work diary is not in working order or is malfunctioning or has malfunctioned, unless the record keeper has a reasonable excuse; and (d) within a period required by the Regulator, ensure the electronic work diary is examined and brought into working order and is not malfunctioning. (4) Subsection (5) applies if the driver of the vehicle changes during any period that is relevant to the duties imposed on the record keeper by subsection (2) or (3). (5) Each reference to the driver in subsection (2) or (3) is a reference to the driver of the vehicle when the record keeper acts under the subsection. (6) If the record keeper has engaged another person under a contract for services to comply with subsection (2) or (3) for the record keeper— subsection (2) or (3); and subsection (2) or (3) as if the other person were the record keeper mentioned in the subsection. (7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the other person is engaged under a contract for services only to repair or otherwise bring the electronic work diary into working order. Example for the purposes of subsection (7)— A person in the business of repairing electronic recording systems is engaged under a contract for services to repair or otherwise bring the electronic work diary into working order on behalf of the record keeper.
Subdivision 5 Use of electronic work diaries 314 How electronic work diary must be used who is required to record information in the driver’s work diary under Subdivision 2 uses an electronic work diary. (2) The driver must use the electronic work diary in a way complying (a) any conditions applying under this Law or a corresponding fatigue law in relation to the use of the approved electronic recording system constituting the work diary or of which the work diary is a part; and (b) the manufacturer’s specifications for the electronic recording system that is or includes the work diary, to the extent the specifications are consistent with the conditions mentioned in (3) The record keeper of a driver of a fatigue-regulated heavy vehicle who uses an electronic work diary must ensure the driver complies with the requirements of subsection (2). (4) In a proceeding for an offence against subsection (2) or (3) involving a person failing to comply with a particular specification of the manufacturer of an electronic recording system, it is a defence for the person to prove that— (a) the specification was not integral to the effective operation of the electronic recording system; or