David Heller
Key takeaways
- FMCSA’s Motus system aims to modernize carrier registration, strengthen identity verification, and reduce fraud.
- Login problems, account verification steps, and registration errors have complicated the transition for carriers.
- Successful modernization depends on balancing stronger security with usable systems and reliable support for fleets.
Motus rollout highlights challenges in trucking regulatory compliance
We’ve all heard adages like “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again,” “Nothing ventured, nothing gained,” and “Better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.”
I have uttered each of these, and I’m sure you have too. Yet with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Motus rollout facing issues, these sayings feel truer now than ever.
FMCSA deserves credit for attempting something the trucking industry has needed for years: modernization of its registration systems. The agency’s new Motus platform is intended to replace a patchwork of aging registration tools with a single, secure portal that allows carriers, brokers, and other regulated entities to manage registrations, operating authority, and compliance obligations through one centralized system. According to FMCSA, Motus was designed to strengthen oversight, improve efficiency, reduce fraud, and provide a more user-friendly experience for industry stakeholders.
Those are worthy goals, and the industry fully supports them. In fact, today’s FMCSA has taken an aggressive and welcome approach to enforcement to remove the negative aspects of our industry, with freight fraud and chameleon carriers squarely in the crosshairs.
Unfortunately, the rollout of Motus shows that a good idea isn’t guaranteed to be successfully executed, a pattern time and again with the Clearinghouse, the Medical Registry, and more.
Our industry has long struggled to introduce new systems designed to improve data accuracy and, in the case of Motus, strengthen identity verification to eliminate fraud; however, the rollout has been far from seamless.
The irony is that Motus was intended to make regulatory compliance easier. From the outset, users have faced challenges such as login issues, insurance filings disappearing or changing, inactive operating authority, or the site simply not working. FMCSA itself acknowledges that users must create individual profiles, complete identity verification, and then establish or claim company accounts before registering.
That may sound straightforward on paper. In practice, many trucking companies operate with limited administrative staff and little time to decipher shifting registration requirements. Every additional step creates another opportunity for confusion, delay, or error.
To FMCSA’s credit, Motus is designed to improve data integrity, reduce duplicate records, and provide better visibility into regulated entities. The agency has also highlighted the need for stronger identity verification to combat fraud, a growing concern across the transportation sector, and no reasonable stakeholder would oppose those objectives.
Fraudulent carrier identities and cargo theft schemes have become increasingly serious threats. The industry needs stronger protections, and federal regulators must safeguard the integrity of the registration process. Motus aims to address those vulnerabilities through modern technology and stronger security controls.
But good security must be balanced with usability.
A successful registration platform should not merely satisfy federal requirements; it should work effectively for the people who depend on it every day. Carriers need clear instructions, responsive customer service, and a transition process that minimizes operational disruption. When users struggle to access accounts, verify identities, or understand a new process, the result is frustration, not modernization.
FMCSA still has time to fix this. The agency is openly acknowledging the system’s shortcomings, listening to the entire industry—carriers, brokers, registration service providers, and industry associations—and working to deliver the system as promised.
Modernization is necessary and long overdue. The ultimate measure of Motus will not be the sophistication of its technology or the strength of its security architecture. It will be whether carriers can complete essential registration tasks efficiently, accurately, and without unnecessary obstacles.
The trucking industry supports modernization but cannot afford anything that makes compliance harder rather than easier. The agency is working overtime to correct this process. While it’s easy to criticize the rollout, we should acknowledge that FMCSA and its staff are working diligently to fix the problems.
For an industry with over two million registered motor carriers and a growing network of supporting organizations, fixes with Motus don’t happen overnight; they require a strategic, step-by-step process that can take a long time.
FMCSA launched Motus with the promise of creating a more efficient and secure registration environment. Refining Motus for a seamless user experience will take time.
Doug Marcello
For a decade, litigation funders told courts they were passive investors who wrote checks and stayed out of the way. Three developments this year say otherwise — and one of them took effect last week.
On October 6, Ohio began requiring litigation funders to register with the state attorney general and disclose their funding agreements. House Bill 105, signed by Governor DeWine on July 7, also bars funders from influencing litigation strategy or settlement decisions, prohibits funding from entities not domiciled in the United States, and creates a public database of funding agreements after cases resolve.
Ohio is not an outlier. In June, North Carolina became the first state to ban third-party litigation funding outright rather than regulate it. In the United Kingdom, the collapse of a funder owing roughly £300 million to retail investors has regulators debating whether funders belong inside the financial regulatory perimeter at all.
Taken together, these are not three unrelated news items. They are three simultaneous failures of the same argument.
The scale of what is being regulated
The American Tort Reform Association, citing Westfleet Advisors’ annual market report, told state legislators that major litigation funders alone had more than $15 billion invested in U.S. litigation in 2023. That is the capital base — assets under management across the funders Westfleet tracks.
Annual deployment is a different and smaller figure. Westfleet reported $2.3 billion in new commitments in 2024, down sixteen percent, and $2.8 billion in 2025, a twenty-three percent rebound after two years of contraction. Westfleet stopped publishing assets-under-management estimates with its newest report, citing inconsistencies in how funders define and report the number.
Crack one: the passive investor story
Funders have consistently maintained that clients run their own litigation. Two disputes raise questions, at opposite ends of the market. What happened next is the part most coverage gets wrong.
Burford Capital put more than $140 million into Sysco Corporation’s antitrust claims across the chicken, beef, pork, and turkey industries. The arrangement broke down when Sysco wanted to settle at numbers Burford considered too low.
At the consumer end, funder Legalist went to arbitration against its own client. In Legalist, Inc. v. Rinaldi, pending in the Southern District of New York, Legalist won a partial final award in May 2026 and is now asking a federal court to confirm roughly $105,000 in fees against the man whose case it backed.
Crack two: funders can fail — two different ways
Woodville Consultants Ltd entered administration in July 2026. Its administrators reported in September that it owes close to £300 million to retail investors who bought high-risk loan notes, that its lending was concentrated among ten law firms, that more than £160 million was owed by those ten firms alone — often with no security — and that roughly £37 million appears to have been loaned to parties connected to Woodville’s own directors. The administrators have warned that the value of the underlying portfolio and likely investor recoveries remain uncertain.
Litigation Capital Management, listed on London’s AIM since 2018, went into orderly run-off this month. It lost seven of the eight cases that concluded in its financial year. The result was an £87 million after-tax loss for the year to June 30, 2026 — more than double the prior year — and net liabilities of A$54 million, against net assets of A$114 million a year earlier.
Run-off means LCM will see its existing cases through and make no new investments. It is still carrying 37 ongoing cases, with A$122 million invested and another A$102 million committed. Its directors have warned that the company’s continuation is materially dependent on portfolio realizations outside their control.
The defense implication is worth stating plainly: the plaintiff across the table may be financed by a balance sheet that nobody — not the court, not the defendant, arguably not the plaintiff — has examined. And a funder in run-off is still litigating dozens of live cases while its own survival depends on how they resolve.
Crack three: disclosure arrives, state by state
North Carolina’s House Bill 315, effective June 22, 2026, makes litigation investment unlawful, voids offending contracts, and creates civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation along with a private right of action and treble statutory damages. The law is prospective and carries nine exceptions, including contingency fees, pro bono work, and insurer obligations.
Ohio took the regulatory route instead, and the Ohio approach is the one more states are likely to copy: registration, disclosure, a prohibition on funder control, and a foreign-funding ban that the legislature justified by what it called the grave risk of foreign actors seeking to interfere with Ohio’s courts.
Federally, nothing has changed yet. A draft Rule 26 disclosure amendment from Lawyers for Civil Justice and the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform has been pending before the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules since March. On September 14, a coalition of 214 companies urged the committee to adopt that proposal rather than draft new language. The committee has not published anything for comment. Individual districts and judges have moved ahead with local rules and standing orders in the meantime.
In the meantime, individual Federal Courts have been issuing local rules concerning the disclosure of funding in the litigation.
What this means for trucking defense
Funding is the capital engine behind nuclear verdicts. It pays for the expert work, the trial preparation, and above all the staying power that lets a plaintiff firm decline a reasonable number and wait.
That is the mechanism carriers feel without being able to name. Settlement talks that go nowhere on a case with real defenses. A plaintiff who should want resolution and does not. A demand that bears no relationship to the exposure.
Three practical consequences follow from this year’s developments:
- Ask about funding. Nothing in the federal rules prevents it, and judges in MDLs, class actions, and patent cases have been requesting funding information on their own initiative. Check your district’s local rules and standing orders before assuming the answer is no.
- In Ohio, the agreements must be reported. A funding agreement must be reported post-trial after October 6. That is a live argument this month.
- Build the record early. Courts have been declining to intervene absent concrete evidence of undue control. That points to targeted early discovery into the funding agreement, assignment mechanics, settlement decision rights, and communications — and being ready to argue why it is relevant and proportional. Settlement authority, counsel selection, and notice requirements are where the passive investor claim breaks.
What to watch
The copycat question will define the next twelve months. North Carolina’s ban energized reform advocates, but no other state has introduced a replica and none is expected to pass. The Ohio model — register, disclose, no control, no foreign money — is the template with legislative legs.
The federal timeline is slower than it looks. A rule published for comment in 2027 would not take effect before December 2029. State legislatures will keep moving faster than the federal rules process, which means the practical question for the next several years is jurisdictional: what can you reach, where. In the meantime, check the local rules that are developing a district-by-district approach to addressing the issue.
The funding industry spent a decade arguing that its arrangements were nobody else’s business. Courts, legislatures, and now its own investors are concluding otherwise.
Law enforcement, regulators and policymakers are cracking down on ELD manipulation and noncompliant devices
Fraudsters are constantly using newer technology to develop methods of evading regulations. (Krista Bussey/Transport Topics)
“Ghost driver” schemes can obscure a driver’s actual time behind the wheel and circumvent HOS limits. (Krista Bussey/Transport Topics)
Mindy Long
Federally mandated electronic logging devices have made driver hours-of-service violations harder to hide than they were during the days of paper logbooks, but bad actors have devised increasingly sophisticated methods to cheat.
Some noncompliant motor carriers have been skirting safety regulations by working with dubious technology vendors to illegally falsify driver records.
In response, federal regulators, law enforcement and elected officials are taking action to clamp down on ELD manipulation.
“The frequency and technical sophistication involved with the tampering has changed significantly,” said Jeremy Disbrow, roadside inspection specialist for the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.
Some schemes involve fictitious driver accounts, sometimes described as “ghost drivers,” created by third-party dispatchers or rogue ELD providers to obscure the driver’s actual time behind the wheel and circumvent HOS limits.
“The problem has become significantly worse as some ELD vendors have advertised that they will manipulate a driver’s records for a monthly service fee,” Disbrow said.
When stopped, a driver can send a text message and, within minutes, the time and location information is changed, making a trip appear compliant.
“Inspectors have seen this work in real time when the data changes while the inspector is actually looking at the device,” Disbrow said.
Industry reporting has shown that some foreign ELD providers are selling devices in the U.S. “with the express aim of helping falsify driver logs, including during roadside inspections, so drivers can stay on the road past the point of safe operation,” said Eric Danko, head of global public policy and government affairs for technology supplier Samsara.
While there have always been drivers and fleets that work around the edges of the HOS rules, this form of ELD manipulation goes further.
“This is an entirely different scenario,” said Kevin Grove, director of safety and technology policy for American Trucking Associations. “This is whole-cloth fabrication of the logs.”
Simpler tactics for manipulating driver records remain as well.
“We regularly see misuse of personal conveyance and yard-move statuses, edits that convert on-duty time to off-duty time, and unassigned-driving events that are never properly attributed to a driver,” said Josh Lovan, an industry business adviser with J.J. Keller & Associates.
A driver could also have multiple driver IDs on the same hardware or more than one ELD application operating on the same device.
“Back in the day, the way to cheat the system was to carry two logbooks,” said Joe Ohr, chief operations and technical officer for the National Motor Freight Traffic Association. “The digital way to do that is to have two logins.”
Tougher enforcement
Most motor carriers comply with the regulations, but ELD falsification remains a significant issue that can be hard to quantify.
“We know some scope from enforcement and what they’ve found at roadside … but their inspection process doesn’t touch every truck every day,” ATA’s Grove said.
False records-of-duty status were the second-most cited driver violation in 2025, with more than 58,000 instances recorded, said Jason Hartwig, associate director of product management at J.J. Keller.
CVSA placed heightened emphasis on ELD tampering, falsification and manipulation during its annual International Roadcheck enforcement blitz in May.
The organization also has expanded training on ELD tampering and strengthened enforcement. Since April, a manipulated logbook violation carries a 10-hour out-of-service penalty.
Those changes have given inspectors more leverage, said Capt. Anthony Gerard with the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
“Our out-of-service rate for drivers having manipulated or tampered logbooks have gone up significantly,” he added.
With ELD tampering harder to detect, inspectors have turned to other sources to verify driver hours, including fuel and meal receipts, bills of lading, toll records and GPS data, but even those can be manipulated.
“We have seen numerous AI-generated shipping papers, registrations, insurance and all sorts of documents that are fake,” Gerard said.
Increasingly, inspectors are utilizing license plate readers to compare a truck’s location with its electronic logs, he said.
Inspectors also are getting better at interviewing drivers about their trips, Gerard added. “They will lock [drivers] down to a story up front, and it eliminates their excuses later on.”
More scrutiny on ELD vendors
In the decade since the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration began phasing in its ELD rule in 2016, technology vendors have been registering their devices with FMCSA through a self-certification process with limited oversight.
For the past couple years, though, FMCSA has placed more scrutiny on questionable ELD vendors and has been steadily purging its registry of devices that fail to meet minimum requirements.
As of early August, the agency had delisted 95 devices since January 2025.
“FMCSA is committed to ensuring that electronic logging devices meet the highest standards for accuracy, reliability and compliance,” FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs said in an Aug. 6 statement. “When devices fail to satisfy the agency’s requirements, we will take appropriate action to protect the integrity of hours-of-service records and support our mission of improving safety on our nation’s roadways.”
FMCSA has also “closed the doors” temporarily on new ELD vendors while it reviews registered devices and determines how to safely allow new devices, ATA’s Grove explained.
NMFTA’s Ohr said the issue is complicated by the prevalence of white-label ELDs. While white labeling isn’t evidence of fraud or noncompliance, it means multiple products can share the same underlying software, cloud infrastructure and administrative tools while being marketed under different names.
NMFTA has reviewed about 75% of ELDs on the federal registry and found that roughly 70% of those were white labeled.
The association grouped providers into “families,” and Ohr said some families have more than 100 entries. “You revoke one, but what about the other 50 in the family?”
Ohr has also seen registry entries with incomplete or questionable company information, including addresses that point to empty lots or brokerages rather than ELD developers.
These types of findings have reinforced calls for more independent review of devices.
ATA’s board voted unanimously in October 2025 to support third-party certification and formed a working group of fleets, ELD providers and other stakeholders to create certification recommendations for FMCSA. It plans to share them during ATA’s 2026 Management Conference & Exhibition in October.
Canada has taken a different approach to device certification. While its ELD mandate largely mirrored the U.S. technical standard, it requires independent third-party certification of the devices.
Melanie Simard, vice president of safety, compliance and technical support for Isaac Instruments and a member of ATA’s working group, said Canada has about 100 certified ELDs, compared with more than 900 devices on FMCSA’s U.S. list.
Ensuring compliance
Compliant ELD providers have safeguards built into their technology to prevent tampering.
Simard said automatically recorded driving time cannot be modified within reputable systems.
“If it was recorded by the ELD, the wheels were spinning and the truck was driving — we can’t change that,” she explained. “No one at Isaac is allowed to go into a logbook and modify it.”
Authorized carrier personnel can, however, make edits to correctly assign that driving time when appropriate. Drivers can easily forget to change duty status or log out, for example.
Simard said those types of corrections are part of normal fleet operations and permitted by the regulations.
Danko said any edit in Samsara’s system creates a new, versioned record rather than overwriting the original, and every event carries a record of who made it and why. A motor carrier administrator can propose certain changes, but the driver must accept or reject them.
Even with those protections in place, compliance takes effort, fleet operators said.
“First and foremost, we use an FMSCA-compliant ELD. We keep the ELD software and firmware current,” said Deen Albert, vice president of operations at Grand Island Express, a refrigerated carrier based in Grand Island, Neb. “We restrict administrative access to authorized personnel only.”
Truckload carrier Boyle Transportation validates drivers’ log hours on a daily, weekly and quarterly basis.
“ELD compliance isn’t something we simply assume because we have an electronic system in the truck,” said Michael Lasko, assistant general manager and vice president at Boyle Transportation. “Technology is an important compliance tool, but it still requires active human oversight.”
Boyle conducts comprehensive audits of its HOS records to detect potential violations or anomalies.
“We also review unassigned drive time daily to verify that our professional drivers are actively logged into the ELD for every mile they are behind the wheel,” Lasko said.
Lori Johnson, a senior consultant with Fleetworthy, said carriers should review unassigned driving reports, edit histories and supporting documents.
Accountability can’t stop with the driver, she said. “It’s accountability to the dispatcher, the supervisor, the manager, all the way up.”
How cheaters prosper
Bad actors within the trucking industry have a strong incentive to circumvent HOS rules. Carriers that illegally create more driving time can move more freight with the same truck and driver, increasing utilization.
“The more miles you run, the more your cost comes down,” said Zach Meiborg, CEO at Meiborg Cos., a truckload carrier and logistics provider based in Rockford, Ill.
Meiborg said his company has lost freight to competitors that cheat on HOS, enabling them to offer lower per-mile rates that compliant carriers can’t match.
“We lost a lot of business to brokers and had shippers flat out tell us, ‘Why would we pay you $2.50 when I can get it for $1.70?’” he said. “There’s an adverse incentive to do the right thing.”
The consequences go far beyond freight transactions.
Albert of Grand Island Express said unsafe practices and fatigue-related crashes contribute to higher insurance costs and greater liability across the industry.
“Drivers who are pushed past legal hours may become fatigued, increasing the risk of crashes and injuries,” he said.
CVSA’s Disbrow said some drivers have told inspectors that carriers pressured them to participate in tampering. Newer drivers can be particularly vulnerable if they enter the industry through carriers that normalize fraudulent practices.
ELD legislation
Congress is also considering ways to reduce the risk of ELD manipulation.
The GHOSTRUCK Act, introduced in the House by Reps. Greg Steube of Florida and Dave Taylor of Ohio, would require ELD edits made by a carrier, dispatcher or other authorized agent to originate from someone physically located in North America.
J.J. Keller’s Hartwig called it “a meaningful, targeted safeguard” against offshore dispatchers. However, many in the industry said it only addresses one form of manipulation and could be hard to enforce.
ATA supports the bill. Ultimately, Grove said the goal is to create more “touchpoints” where fraudulent activity can be detected among ELD providers, fleets, drivers, FMCSA and enforcement and to shorten the window in which a bad device or falsified record can exist without being discovered.
“I think we just need to agree on a path forward and get moving on it,” he said.
Jason Cannon
Last December, Shawn Gresham stood at a crossroads that tested everything he believed in.
An investor had just offered him $100,000 to open the truck-driving school he had dreamed of for years.
The catch: The school was to run as a CDL mill—a high-turnover operation designed to push students through the system as fast as possible, bypassing the kind of rigorous, hands-on, real-world training and education Gresham knew they needed.
For Gresham, a certified driver trainer and 17-year Class A CDL holder with a spotless, violation-free record, the choice was easy but “heart-breaking,” he said. He walked away from the money, even if that meant walking away from his dream, too.
“I couldn’t be part of that,” he said. “I’ve always wanted to help people enter this industry the right way, build successful careers, and return home safely to their families.”
What happened next in the small town of Dalton, Georgia, is a testament to what blue-collar workers can accomplish when they are united by a common frustration and a shared hope.
Four months after turning down six figures, Gresham took a leap of faith. He had no funding, but he had a loyal following on a YouTube channel he started four years ago to help drivers succeed.
The pieces started falling into place almost miraculously.
A Dalton landowner who believed in Gresham’s vision offered him a five-acre lot for just $300 a month. Soon after, a fellow truck driver stepped up to pay the lease for an entire year and asked for nothing in return.
Finally, equipment started rolling in.
A man from Florida, whom Gresham had trained years prior, had a 2014 Freightliner delivered to the lot. A week later, a local business, Brown’s Diesel Repair & Towing, handed Gresham the title to a 2012 International ProStar day cab. The following week, Leasing Services in Dalton arrived with a trailer and signed the title over on the spot.
These weren’t wealthy philanthropists looking for a tax write-off or good PR. They were working truck drivers and local business owners tired of watching an industry in decline. Frustrated with sharing the highways with new CDL graduates who were never properly taught how to back up a trailer or operate a big rig, they decided to take matters into their own hands.
Over three months, more than 50 truckers from New York to Texas chipped in what they could afford—$50, $100, or $300 at a time. Drivers from across the country shipped traffic cones and chains. A local meat market stepped up to help feed incoming students.
By August 1, exactly three months after Gresham signed his lease, the school was fully funded.
Today, the Trucking Life Academy boasts a five-acre training lot and a seven-office facility. As word of the grassroots school spread, Amazon packages began piling up on their doorstep. Strangers and community members sent printers, paper, pens, and even toilet paper to ensure the academy had everything it needed to operate.
While Gresham happily admits the perks of an automatic rig, and enjoys driving them himself, all instruction at the academy will be done on manual transmissions. He insists that mastering a stick shift forces rookies to respect the sheer size and power of a commercial truck, keeping them from treating it like an oversized passenger car.
More than 3,000 providers have been removed from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Training Provider Registry for not meeting federal standards, and numerous others have been flagged for more minor clerical violations. But Shawn says he is ready for the scrutiny.
Gresham isn’t asking for any more money, and he isn’t selling anything. The first class, set to begin October 18 pending Georgia licensing, is already completely full. He proudly offers on-site tours and donor records to anyone who wants to verify the seemingly impossible story of how the academy came to be.
“Everything about this school is proof that what is impossible with man is possible with God,” Gresham said. “It wasn’t built by one wealthy investor. It was built through faith, sacrifice, working truck drivers, local businesses, and an entire community of people who believed this industry could do better.” Click on following video to see video. https://youtu.be/T3TXpaK-z_0
Brad Klepper
Hiring safe, qualified drivers is essential to every motor carrier’s success. A strong safety record protects more than the company’s reputation: It can support equipment uptime, reduce crash-related costs and legal exposure, help control insurance premiums and make the roads safer for everyone.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) helps motor carriers make more informed hiring decisions by providing access to a commercial driver applicant’s federally maintained crash and roadside inspection history.
Why PSP Matters
With the driver’s written consent, an authorized motor carrier can obtain a PSP record containing five years of crash data and three years of roadside inspection data from FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System.
Unlike a Motor Vehicle Record (MVR), which generally focuses on state-reported license status and convictions, a PSP record provides federal crash and inspection information. Used together, these resources can give employers a more complete picture of a driver applicant’s safety history.
PSP records can help motor carriers:
- Identify crash and inspection patterns during pre-employment screening;
- Make more informed and consistent hiring decisions;
- Recognize areas where a driver may benefit from additional training; and
- Strengthen their overall safety culture and risk-management practices.
PSP does not make hiring decisions or assign safety ratings to drivers. Instead, it provides objective information that employers can consider as part of a fair and comprehensive hiring process.
Recent PSP Enhancements
FMCSA has introduced several enhancements to make PSP information more transparent, useful and secure for drivers and motor carriers:
First-Name Variance Transparency
A driver’s first name may appear differently on an inspection or crash record because of a shortened name, alternate spelling, nickname or roadside data-entry variation.
PSP now provides greater transparency by displaying the first name as it was recorded at roadside. The report also identifies the information used to conduct the record search. This helps drivers and employers better understand why a name may appear differently and reduces potential confusion when reviewing a record.
45-Day Driver Candidate Monitoring
Driver Candidate Monitoring gives participating motor carriers an additional way to remain informed during the hiring process. An eligible PSP record can be monitored for 45 days from the original request date and time.
If the underlying record changes during that period, the employer is notified and can reorder the PSP record to review the updated information. This is especially helpful when hiring decisions, onboarding, background reviews, or start dates extend beyond the day the original report was requested.
Driver Candidate Monitoring does not continuously provide updated information. Instead, it alerts the employer that a change was detected so an updated record can be requested with the appropriate driver authorization.
Free PSP Monitoring for Drivers
Drivers can also enroll in the free PSP Monitoring service to stay informed about their own records. The service automatically monitors the driver’s PSP record and sends notifications when crash or inspection information is added, updated, or removed.
Enrolled drivers can receive email notifications and SMS text alerts. This gives drivers an opportunity to review changes, identify possible errors and use FMCSA’s DataQs system to request a review of potentially inaccurate data.
Monitoring helps drivers remain informed about the records prospective employers may see and better prepared for future employment opportunities.
Protecting Sensitive Driver Information
PSP’s optional PII Masking feature provides additional protection for sensitive driver information. When enabled by an authorized company user, the driver’s date of birth and commercial driver’s license number is partially masked.
This enhancement reduces the amount of sensitive information visible when PSP records are stored, shared, or reviewed internally while preserving the information needed to identify the driver and evaluate the report.
Safer Drivers Strengthen the Entire Operation
A safe driver contributes value across the organization. Fewer crashes and roadside violations can mean less equipment downtime, fewer costly repairs, stronger customer confidence and reduced legal and insurance exposure. Most importantly, careful screening and a strong safety culture help protect drivers, passengers and everyone sharing the road.
PSP provides meaningful information to motor carriers before making a hiring decision, while its driver-focused services provide greater transparency and help drivers take an active role in understanding their safety records.
To find more information about PSP, request a record or enroll in monitoring, visit psp.fmcsa.dot.gov
