Crash Spurs Investigation of Tactics Designed to Circumvent HOS Rules
Eric Miller
Faced with evolving tactics to bypass hours-of-service rules, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is taking steps to combat electronic logging device fraud. The agency is launching a multipronged approach to address what it describes as a “moving target.”
In particular, the agency cited National Transportation Safety Board concerns with so-called ghost drivers as well as drivers utilizing multiple ELD accounts, and it is exploring various technological requirements to target those specific issues. It also is monitoring ELD performance data, training enforcement personnel to identify and act against fraud, removing noncompliant ELD providers from the market, and updating its ELD rules.
“FMCSA is committed to staying diligent with its fraud prevention efforts,” an agency spokeswoman said in a statement. “FMCSA continues to explore other methods to decrease ELD fraud in both the short and long term.”
A fatal December 2022 crash in Virginia put a spotlight on ELD fraud after a tractor-trailer driver for Illinois-based Triton Logistics was able to — with apparent participation from the carrier — falsify his ELD records to extend his driving time beyond the 11-hour regulatory maximum limit. The truck he was driving during early morning hours along Interstate 64 near Williamsburg, Va., came upon and crashed into a party bus after he failed to take evasive action or brake in time, according to the NTSB investigation. NTSB cited fatigue as a factor in the crash.
“We found that the truck driver’s lack of response to the slow-moving vehicle in his travel lane was due to fatigue from excess driving time and lack of sleep opportunity,” said the NTSB report, recently made public. “The truck’s motor carrier, Triton Logistics, created fictitious driver accounts for some of its vehicles’ electronic logging device systems that enabled drivers to operate beyond federal regulations, creating an opportunity for fatigued driving.”
Three occupants in the party bus died, nine sustained serious injuries, and 11 sustained minor injuries. The truck driver also was seriously injured.
Triton did not return a message left by Transport Topics seeking comment. However, NTSB said the company’s CEO denied knowledge of the fictitious logins and said it conducted internal checks to determine how the incident happened.
The driver detailed the scheme for NTSB investigators. He said whenever he reached his 11-hour limit, he could call the carrier’s HOS department — based in Lithuania — and add the name of a fictitious or former co-driver to the ELD, opening up another 11-hour driving window. If asked by a roadside inspector about the double login, the driver would tell the inspector that he dropped off his co-driver at a truck stop for a family emergency. The driver noted that other drivers used the login scheme to extend time behind the wheel.
.
After the 2022 crash, FMCSA conducted an on-site review of Triton and issued violations related to drivers making false reports regarding duty status as well as requiring or permitting drivers to extend driving time beyond 11 hours. After the review, FMCSA assigned Triton a conditional safety rating.
With an eye toward remedial action, NTSB concluded that a data-entry tracking history in ELD software could increase accountability and transparency, and also deter motor carrier personnel from making false entries aimed at circumventing HOS regulations. Investigators recommended that FMCSA revise its requirements to require ELD providers to create an audit log that includes the date, driver login time and identity of who logged them in, driver’s license numbers, the names of anyone who edits a log, and any changes to active driver lists. NTSB also recommended that the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inform its members about the scheme and circumstances surrounding the Williamsburg crash.
Senior NTSB investigator Shawn Currie told Transport Topics if the driver’s name was John, he’d be logged in as Frank and then operate with a new 11-hour HOS time limit. “The hours of service, whether you agree with them or not, are there to prevent drivers from driving in excess of the rules, and to ensure they have the appropriate time off,” Currie said. He noted that the circumstance of the Williamsburg case could result in FMCSA fines and possibly criminal penalties if the state elected to bring charges.
Jeremy Disbrow, a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance roadside inspection specialist, said inspectors encounter false ELD log entries “all day, every day. Of course, many of the false entries can’t be proven, or they go unnoticed.”
He said the issue is known to CVSA inspectors. “We just discussed all this in a conference after the NTSB report came out,” Disbrow said. “It was pretty clear from the inspectors around the country that this isn’t an isolated incident by any means. The average inspector is seeing this every shift, at least once or twice. There’s a number of ways that they’re falsifying [logs].”
This can include simply using tools available on some devices, he said.
“Drivers can make edits,” Disbrow noted. “If a driver makes an edit on the device himself, it will show up as an edit, and a suspicious inspector can see that. But if a carrier in their back office makes the edit, there are instances where it’s been done but doesn’t show up as an edit.”
Disbrow noted it’s risky to publicly discuss the varying methods. “It’s hard to talk about it because I don’t want to give people ideas,” he said. “I don’t want the industry to say, ‘Hey we can try that.’ As the years are going by, people are finding new workarounds. It’s a cat and mouse game.”
He added, “The hours-of-service rules are there to protect everybody. Thwarting them and running an extra five, six, seven hours without adequate rest is absolutely a recipe for fatigue.”
Calls grow louder to reform ELD self-certification as manipulation tactics raise safety, fraud, and compliance concerns across the trucking industry.
Jerome Washington
Trucking professionals are sounding alarms over rising cases of electronic logging device (ELD) manipulation, a threat to safety, fair competition, and regulatory compliance.
A growing chorus of drivers, safety advocates, and logistics professionals are calling for urgent reforms to the FMCSA’s ELD certification process, warning that the current self-certification system leaves too much room for abuse.
The issue gained renewed attention after a fatal crash in Texas in which a truck driver reportedly fell asleep after exceeding hours-of-service (HOS) limits — a tragedy some say reflects a broader failure of the ELD system to ensure compliance.
“It’s Broken”: Industry Voices Speak Out
Adam Wingfield recently posted on his LinkedIn about a company openly advertising “ELD editing” services, helping carriers erase violations and fabricate legal driving hours. This practice is openly advertised and often enabled by foreign-made ELDs with backdoor access that allow post-facto edits with no audit trail.
“I’ve had carriers tell me flat out their ELD rep showed them how to ‘make it disappear’ after a log ran long.”
— Adam Wingfield, via LinkedIn
Wingfield’s post follows reports that the driver involved in the deadly Texas crash had exceeded legal HOS limits and admitted to falling asleep at the wheel, a tragic reminder of the life-and-death consequences of lax compliance.
A Self-Certified System With No Teeth
ELD providers in the U.S. currently self-certify with FMCSA, meaning they simply declare that their devices meet technical requirements.
Critics argue that this model lacks third-party validation, allowing unscrupulous companies to produce devices that enable fraudulent edits and dangerous driving behavior.
“They simply ‘declare’ they follow the rules. Do they? Probably not.”
— Danielle Chaffin, via X
Because high-integrity platforms like Samsara and Motive don’t allow such manipulation, some carriers avoid them to maintain operational practices that would otherwise result in violations, or worse.
More Than Just Logs: Implications for Fraud and Security
Trucking analyst @HUNTSMAN compared ELD tampering to AIS spoofing in maritime logistics, a technique used to hide vessel movement, often linked to smuggling or illegal activity.
This analogy highlights the bigger risks of ELD log tampering, which may:
- Obscure routes to hide illicit cargo
- Facilitate rate fraudor ghost co-driver schemes
- Enable money launderingthrough manipulated delivery data
- Undermine insurance validityin the event of a crash
Enforcement Lag: Honest Carriers at a Disadvantage
Clean-operating carriers, those following FMCSA HOS rules with legitimate ELDs, face tighter margins and reduced competitiveness. They struggle to match rates offered by non-compliant operators willing to falsify logs and stretch driving hours.
“The ones trying to run a clean operation are the ones paying the price.”
— Adam Wingfield
Without federal enforcement or technical audits of ELD software, manipulative providers remain on the market, undercutting both safety and fair play.
Industry Demands: What Needs to Change
A growing segment of the logistics industry is demanding:
- Third-party certification of ELD devices, not self-attestation
- Audit trailsfor all log edits, with clear driver identification
- Immediate disqualificationof ELD vendors found to enable fraud
- Greater FMCSA oversightof foreign-developed logging systems
Scopelitis
Since the mandated implementation of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) in December 2019, the trucking industry has largely – sometimes begrudgingly – accepted them and their role in managing Hours of Service (HOS) regulations. However, despite their intended use in preventing driver fatigue, a disturbing trend is emerging: the rise of “ghost” ELDs. These are falsified or tampered-with devices that undermine the very purpose of ELDs, posing significant safety and regulatory challenges.
What Are “Ghost” ELDs?
A “ghost” ELD refers to an electronic logging device that either falsifies data or is intentionally manipulated to create false logs. ELDs are required to accurately record driving time, rest periods, engine data, and driver activity. But with ghost ELDs, the data is either tampered with to show compliance when the driver is in violation, or the device itself is not connected to the engine as required. This creates the illusion of legal operation while allowing drivers or companies to bypass regulations.
Why Are They a Problem?
- Undermining Safety Regulations: The primary reason for the ELD mandate is to ensure drivers don’t work excessive hours, which could lead to fatigue, a factor in many accidents. When ghost ELDs are used, drivers can exceed their allowed hours without detection, putting themselves and others at risk. Fatigued driving significantly increases the likelihood of crashes, injuries, and fatalities. In this sense, ghost ELDs defeat the purpose of HOS regulations meant to protect public safety.
- Unfair Competition: Companies that comply with ELD regulations have to carefully manage driver hours and face the operational costs of keeping drivers within legal limits. However, those using ghost ELDs gain an unfair advantage by allowing drivers to work longer and cover more miles, which translates to lower costs and faster deliveries. This creates a distorted playing field where honest companies face a disadvantage while unscrupulous operators exploit the system.
- Legal and Financial Risks: Tampering with or falsifying ELD data is illegal and can lead to severe consequences for both drivers and carriers. Fines for violating ELD regulations can be steep, and companies caught using ghost ELDs risk even higher penalties. Moreover, in the event of an accident, falsified logs could expose companies and drivers to lawsuits, insurance complications, and potential criminal charges. Ghost ELDs can result in substantial financial losses due to fines, legal fees, and reputational damage.
- Eroding Trust in the System: The effectiveness of the ELD mandate relies on the assumption that the technology is accurately capturing driver activity and enforcing compliance. Widespread use of ghost ELDs threatens to erode trust in the system, not only among regulators but also within the industry itself. If ghost ELDs become more common, the integrity of the entire regulatory framework could be called into question, potentially leading to stricter enforcement measures and scrutiny.
Addressing the Issue
FMCSA appears to be poised to attempt to tackle the problem of ghost ELDs. Presently, the Agency relies on “self-certification” – basically the honor system for providers and carriers. (Canada, by contrast, requires ELD providers to be certified by an independent third party, offering a layer of security in their specifications.) In September 2022, however, FMCSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on a handful of ELD issues, including the question of whether a certification process should be established. According to the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda, the next step in the regulation-making process – a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) – is scheduled to be released in June 2025.
Industry awareness and training can also help curb the use of ghost ELDs. Drivers and companies need to understand the serious risks associated with non-compliance and be educated on how to properly and legally use ELDs.
As technology continues to evolve, it is crucial for the industry to prioritize compliance and integrity, ensuring that ELDs serve their intended purpose of improving safety and transparency in the trucking industry.
Entire Electronic Driving Files Modified to Disguise Rest, Drive Times
Noel Fletcher
Roadside inspectors are considering a new out-of-service rule to combat a growing trend to tamper with electronic logging devices by falsifying a commercial driver’s rest and driving times.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance revealed in recent months that inspectors in many states are reporting new ELD falsification methods by either drivers, carriers or other third parties that are making it difficult for roadside safety inspectors to identify when driving and rest breaks occurred.
“The falsifications are often many hours or days off from what actually occurred. For example, a fuel receipt and bill of lading may say the driver was in Fargo, N.D., on Jan. 1 at 11 a.m., but the record of duty status shows the driver picked up in Fargo on Dec. 30 and was in Santa Fe, N.M., on Jan. 1,” revealed Jeremy Disbrow, CVSA roadside inspection specialist.
“The inspector can prove the ROD is false but cannot determine when the driver was actually driving or resting because the entire record is inaccurate,” he added. “Many of these ELDs are not showing any indication they were edited, which is required by federal regulations. As inspectors are learning of this tactic, they are discovering these types of falsifications on a regular basis.”
Some drivers falsify records to conceal hours and extend driving time limits. “These falsifications may result in fatigue or delayed driver reaction times, which significantly increases the risk of a collision,” he said. “A fatigued driver of a vehicle weighing 80,000 pounds is an imminent hazard to everyone sharing the road around that vehicle.”
Disbrow said previous falsifications generally were created by either claiming an incorrect duty status (driving or fueling while off duty), incorrectly applying an exception (personal conveyance, adverse driving) or using multiple logbooks or nonexistent co-drivers. Inspectors were able to determine when a driver was actually resting or driving by comparing supporting documents to the record of duty status.
“The current OOSC [out-of-service criteria] requires an inspector to prove the falsification concealed the driver being over the 11/14/60 or 70-hour rules at the time of the inspection,” he explained. “An inspector can only determine if the driver was over hours at the time of inspection if they can determine when the rest breaks and driving occurred.”
The current OOSC cannot be applied in ELD tampering because the entire electronic file has been modified. CVSA aims to keep the current language for traditional falsifications and add another OOSC for ELD tampering when an inspector is unable to determine driving/resting times.
CVSA has drafted an inspection bulletin with the new OOSC violation that must be approved this fall. It will require a driver to be prohibited from driving for 10 consecutive hours to ensure adequate rest before resuming the trip.
Oregon has been consistently catching truckers with these new falsified ELDs during inspections after the truckers drove past weigh stations and were turned around by law enforcement officers. Many commercial vehicles driving through Oregon are heading into or out of Idaho and California.
Carla Phelps, interim division commerce and compliance administrator in the Oregon Department of Transportation, told Transport Topics that inspectors are finding in ELDs “manipulation of data, data sent out of country and being manipulated or showing different drivers who are not driving. Individuals in Middle Eastern countries are manipulating data.”
From April to late May, ODOT and law enforcement conducted an operation to nab truckers for illegally bypassing an open weigh station. Tickets were issued to 122 drivers, with 25% placed out of service for regulatory and safety violations.
“Inspectors discovered false logs and multiple electronic logging devices that had been tampered with and were producing fictional logs,” ODOT stated. “Commercial truck drivers use logs to record their daily activities, specifically their time spent driving, on duty, off duty and in sleeper cabs. Driver logs are crucial for ensuring compliance with federal hours-of-service regulations, which limit how long drivers can work without taking breaks.”
Oregon officials conducted an earlier weigh station operation March 3-7. Of the 464 commercial vehicles inspected, 23% were placed out of service. Inspectors found evidence of 65 truckers with ELD/logs that were altered and scrubbed.
Kenneth Oke, ODOT commerce and compliance division safety coordinator, said some tampering may delete a couple of days so inspectors at first will see hours available when they are not. Now electronic file records are being checked “against hard data points, scale crossings, fuel receipts, bills of lading, repair receipts,” he added.
Washington law enforcement officers also are seeing this new tampering trend.
“We are experiencing the same logbook violations reported in Oregon. However, our tracking system doesn’t track the type of logbook violations, just that they occurred,” said Sgt. Jermaine Walker, Washington State Patrol spokesperson. “So, we are unable to provide any direct numbers for these falsifications. With every change or advancement in technology, there must also be advancements in investigatory systems. Our team is working with our partners in the CVSA on strategies to counter these types of violations.”
The American Transportation Research Institute has released its annual Operational Costs of Trucking report looking at costs for 2024, which serves as a benchmarking tool for fleets for industry costs, key performance metrics and revenue.
It’s probably not surprising to most in trucking that all-in trucking costs were mostly flat in 2024 from 2023, falling by just 0.4% to $2.26 a mile. If you take the cost of fuel out of the equation, however, costs actually increased by 3.6% from 2023 to $1.78 a mile. Click on link below to see video.
https://youtu.be/QvTslNd_NpI
By Eric Teoh, Director of Statistical Service, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
The commercial motor vehicles (CMV) industry is a key component of America’s economy, transporting over $700.4 billion worth of goods each year. While the safe operation of CMVs clearly has economic benefits, perhaps more important is that those CMV drivers are also entrusted with the lives of those they transport and those they encounter on our nation’s roads. Due to the size and weight of many CMVs, there is an inherent risk involved in their operation. As such, it is important for all stakeholders to take actions that improve CMV safety. Of note, data collection is crucial in enhancing the safety of the commercial motor vehicle industry by enabling monitoring of driver behavior, vehicle maintenance, and compliance with safety regulations.
A key reason for accurate and comprehensive record-keeping is to hold drivers who operate these large vehicles accountable for bad driving behaviors. Our justice system plays a critical role in ensuring that the drivers and companies operating these large vehicles obey the rules of the road and the rules of their commercial operation. Enforcing these rules translates into real-world reductions in crash risk, as shown in a study, Crash risk factors for interstate large trucks in North Carolina, my colleagues and I completed several years ago and is still relevant today.
For this study, we partnered with the University of North Carolina’s Highway Safety Research Center and with the North Carolina Highway Patrol. Additional data were obtained from a brief questionnaire form for truck drivers and from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which regulates trucking companies engaged in interstate commerce.
This study identified factors that increase large trucks’ crash risk by assessing large trucks involved in crashes and comparing them to control trucks. Trucks involved in crashes were eligible to be in the study if:
- the crash involved a fatality or injury with medical transport,
- and 2) if a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Level 1 post-crash inspection was conducted.
For each crash-involved truck in our sample, we selected a control truck of the same type at approximately the same location as the crash and about the same time of day and part of the week (weekend vs. weekday). Each control truck selected also was subjected to a Level 1 inspection. This is known as a matched case-control study design. To ensure consistency in vehicles and in the rules they are subject to, we restricted the sample to trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings over 26,000 pounds and operated by interstate trucking companies.
A key reason for accurate and comprehensive record-keeping is to hold drivers who operate these large vehicles accountable for bad driving behaviors. This type of study in which the goal is to identify factors that increase large trucks’ crash risk is different than a crash causation study. For example, consider a situation where a car passes a truck, enters its lane, and slows rapidly. Arguably, the car’s maneuver is the main causal factor, but the presence or absence of truck brake defects could be the difference between a crash and an avoidance maneuver. So, if we are able to compare trucks with brake defects and those without, then we may be able to identify this as a risk factor. Using this theory, we employed a more statistically efficient way to do this by comparing crash-involved trucks with a control sample to look for differences in brake defects and other types of violations.
A common theme of the study’s findings was that violating rules was associated with increased crash risk. For instance, having inspection violations for vehicle defects (e.g., out-of-adjustment brakes, defective tires, inoperable lights) tripled the risk of crashing. For vehicle defect violations severe enough to put the truck out of-service, crash risk more than quadrupled. These results align with a similar study we published in 1989.
We found it was not just the truck’s history that mattered; the record of the driver and the company mattered as well. Drivers with one or more moving violations per year, on average, had a 30% higher crash risk than drivers with fewer moving violations. Drivers with out-of-service logbook violations had 50% higher crash risk. Drivers working for companies with histories of violations and crashes also had elevated crash risk. For instance, drivers for companies in which at least 10% of their roadside inspections resulted in trucks being placed out-of-service had 31% higher crash risk, and those driving for companies with over 100 crashes per 1,000 power units in the past two years had 71% higher crash risk.
Research studies like this and the development of appropriate interventions are only possible with accurate and robust recordkeeping. Moreover, for these efforts to be successful, records must accurately represent driver and motor carrier behavior. Charges that are adjudicated in such a manner that do not allow the behaviors to be accurately reflected on the driver and motor carrier records preclude studies from accurately measuring the association between specific violations and crash risk. Holding CDL holders and motor carriers accountable for their dangerous behaviors is just one step, albeit a vital one, in preventing large truck crashes.
Recognizing that enforcement alone cannot prevent crashes and their tragic outcomes, the Department of Transportation has adopted the Safe System Approach to address and mitigate risks in our transportation system. Acknowledging that humans make mistakes, the Safe System Approach addresses this by building and reinforcing multiple layers of protection to both prevent crashes and minimizing harm when crashes occur. Beyond rules and enforcement, other aspects of a Safe System for trucking would include addressing speed with technologies such as speed limiters and intelligent speed assistance and by setting and enforcing reasonable speed limits, equipping large trucks with strong rear and side underride guards, equipping trucks with crash avoidance technology, equipping other vehicles with crash avoidance technology that appropriately detects trucks, and establishing policies at every level that prioritize safety. Holding CDL holders and motor carriers accountable for their dangerous behaviors is just one step in preventing large truck crashes.
None of these are new ideas, but they are essential if we are to address the more than 4,000 lives lost each year due to large truck crashes—and the more than 40,000 people killed in all motor vehicle crashes. Road safety is a shared responsibility, and to that end, IIHS recently put forward a vision called 30×30 to reduce traffic fatalities 30% by 2030.5 This goal is ambitious but achievable and would put us closer to the ultimate goal of eliminating traffic fatalities. It involves doing the things we know are effective and doing them broadly. No single organization can achieve 30×30 alone. Please join us in working toward this vision and help ensure that more people arrive safely at their destinations.
