Ryan Witkowski
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is taking an axe to yet another unnecessary paperwork requirement for truckers.
In a final rule expected to be published in the Federal Register on June 22, the agency will announce its decision to rescind the regulation requiring motor carriers to keep a copy of their ELD owner’s manual with them in the vehicle.
“There is no readily apparent benefit to continuing to require that the user’s manual be in the CMV given the use of ELDs since December 2019,” the agency said. “This final rule eliminates a regulatory burden on motor carriers without compromising safety.”
Despite not having to keep a copy of the manual, FMCSA said that drivers are still required to “understand the operation of the ELD on the vehicle to ensure the accuracy of their electronic records of duty status and to present this information during inspections by enforcement officials.”
The agency proposed rescinding the requirement in May 2025 and opened a 30-day public comment period on the proposal. In total, FMCSA received 24 comments regarding the proposal.
Those in favor of rescinding the regulation noted that ELDs often have an electronic version of the user’s manual built into the device, making the requirement to carry a paper copy redundant. Additionally, some commenters noted that maintaining a user’s manual in the vehicle is a burden on motor carriers and can affect their safety measurement system scores, particularly for violations cited during inspections. The commenters stated that its absence is usually not cited as a violation, but could be.
“This action is an example of commonsense regulatory reform,” the Association said in comments signed by President Todd Spencer. “We applaud the agency’s series of deregulatory proposals and urge FMCSA to further eliminate or modify unnecessary, ineffective regulations that have no connection to safety performance.”
Those opposed to the proposal said they felt the requirement to maintain a user’s manual in the vehicle was not a major burden. Additionally, the opposition noted that both drivers and law enforcement often do not know how to access the electronic version of the user’s manual, a complication further compounded by the various types of ELDs in use.
In response, FMCSA stated that drivers are already required to demonstrate the ability to operate the ELD upon an enforcement officer’s request, so they should not need to use the ELD user manual “unless they face a rare request.”
The regulation will go into effect on July 22. Petitions for the agency to reconsider the final rule will be accepted by the FMCSA Administrator up to the day the rule goes into effect.
In a unanimous opinion issued today in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a driver transporting an intrastate leg (i.e., not crossing state lines) that is part of an interstate shipment of goods is engaged in interstate commerce under the “transportation worker” exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The decision resolves a split in the U.S. Courts of Appeals on the question of what it means for a driver to be engaged in interstate commerce under the FAA.
The FAA generally requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including class and collective arbitration waivers. However, the FAA contains an exemption for contracts of employment with transportation workers who are engaged in interstate commerce. At issue in Flowers Foods was the interstate commerce element. The Court held that the statutory text does not require a driver to cross state lines to be engaged in interstate commerce, and that a driver can engage in interstate commerce as part of a continuous interstate journey.
The Court rejected Flowers Foods’s sole theory that, to be engaged in interstate commerce, a driver must either cross state lines or interact with a vehicle that does so (e.g., loading or unloading). Instead, the Court held that drivers who are “direct, necessary, and active participants in moving goods from … points in one state to points in another state” are exempt, even if their work does not involve “crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do.” (internal quotations omitted).
Notably, the Court acknowledged a difference in opinion in the lower courts on whether contracting with a business entity qualifies as a “contract of employment” even when the business is engaged in interstate commerce, another element of the transportation worker exemption. The Court’s opinion leaves open that question, which may present the next opportunity for the Court to further refine the scope of the exemption.
Even where the FAA does not apply because of the transportation worker exemption, arbitration may be available under state arbitration laws and, therefore, may remain a viable alternative to resolve disputes. The availability of arbitration under state law is jurisdiction-specific and may depend on the specific language of the arbitration agreement, so effectively compelling arbitration under state law requires careful planning and analysis.
For more information, contact Greg Feary, Braden Core, Prasad Sharma, or Jim Eckhart.
Alex Lockie
Roughly two months since the new breed of electronic-logging-device cheating with entirely hacked and fabricated logs got its own distinct out-of-service violation code, the state of Arizona said it’s already found 281 such violations.
Here’s the odd part: those 281 violations came from just 115 Driver Vehicle Examination Reports, the formal phrase for a driver inspection report.
Inspectors around the nation on April 1 began to use the new OOS violation code to differentiate between old-school false logs (incorrect PC use, for instance) and the new brand of backend ELD manipulation. The regulatory code is 49 CFR 395.8(e)(2), for “False Record of Duty Status: ELD Tampering.”
The 281 OOS violations recorded by Arizona inspectors are among the most documented by any state in the nation.
“In Arizona, where long, monotonous stretches of I-10, I-40, and I-17 serve as primary CMV corridors, a fatigued driver operating an 80,000-pound vehicle at highway speeds represents a catastrophic risk to every other motorist on the road,” a spokesperson for the Arizona Department of Public Safety told Overdrive.
AZ DPS’ Commercial Motor Vehicle Enforcement Program, in coordination with the state DOT and other state and federal partners, has led targeted enforcement operations “along high-volume freight corridors, including roadside ELD compliance inspections, HOS audits, and Level I through Level III vehicle and driver inspections,” the spokesperson said.
As in Oregon, another state experiencing some success spotting the new breed of ELD manipulation, training plays a key role for Arizona inspectors.
“Troopers are trained to identify indicators of both ELD tampering and driver fatigue/impairment, including bloodshot eyes, erratic lane behavior, and slurred speech,” said the AZ DPS spokesperson.
Common sense goes a long way. If someone shows spotless logs but they’re tired and on their third can of Monster, inspectors take a closer look.
Some states around the nation, at once, have been frank in self-assessment, noting they truly don’t know how to prove such sophisticated manipulation if the ELD looks clean upon initial inspection.
Since the April 1 introduction of new OOS standards “AZ DPS has seen a notable increase in out-of-service drivers and related violations identified during commercial vehicle inspections,” the spokesperson noted. Through May 19 inspectors “documented approximately 115 Driver Vehicle Examination Reports (DVERs) associated with these cases, resulting in roughly 281 violations of False Record of Duty Status — ELD Tampering.”
How is it possible to have 115 inspections result in 281 OOS violations for the same thing? According to AZ DPS, each day with an observed ELD falsification results in a distinct OOS violation.
From AZ DPS:
“When documenting these violations, certified commercial vehicle inspectors in Arizona adhere to CVSA Operational Policy 14 regarding Hours-of-Service enforcement and violation documentation. In accordance with Operational Policy 14, inspectors document hours-of-service limitations and falsification violations separately for each 24-hour period during which a violation occurred. Each affected 24-hour period must be clearly identified and supported by the corresponding evidence discovered during the inspection or investigation.”
Getting specific on just how they look at ELDs, AZ DPS added that “ELD analysis during a roadside inspection involves a thorough comparison of ALL supporting documents and driver statements with the ELD record.”
Fuel receipts likely play a big role. And FMCSA does have a central portal inspectors use to help analyze hours data, and AZ DPS takes a hard look at that, too.
AZ DPS’ success catching ELD tampering relative to other states comes back, ultimately, to a big emphasis on training.
“This improvement is largely the result of enhanced training and frequent continuing education for our commercial vehicle enforcement personnel, combined with more effective analysis of ELD and paper logs when encountered during inspections,” the spokesperson said.
AZ DPS places “primary emphasis,” the spokesperson added, on “officer training, experience, and thorough inspection practices.
“Our officers continue to focus on identifying inconsistencies and ensuring compliance with federal safety regulations.”
Overdrive first reported on the trend of certified ELD vendors cold calling owner-operators and offering “ELD editing” services in 2025. More recently, accusations emerged of widespread ELD cheating at two fleets: Extra Mile International and Prime Route Transportation. More reports of ELD cheating and driver coercion continue to filter in from readers.
A Breaking Analysis of the May 14, 2026, Supreme Court Decision and Its Immediate Implications for the Transportation Industry
The preemption shield that freight brokers have relied on for years to defend against personal injury claims is gone. The United States Supreme Court said so unanimously on May 14, 2026.
In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), a nine-justice Court held that negligent hiring claims against freight brokers are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. The decision, written by Justice Barrett, reverses the Seventh Circuit and abrogates two circuit precedents that had insulated brokers from state tort liability. It resolves a circuit split that had divided courts for years.
The implications reach every segment of the trucking industry. Brokers face new and immediate litigation exposure. Carriers find their FMCSA safety records newly elevated as commercial gatekeeping criteria. Insurers must reassess coverage structures built on preemption assumptions that no longer hold. And the broker-carrier contractual relationship — particularly indemnification provisions — is due for immediate scrutiny.
The Facts That Got to the Supreme Court
Shawn Montgomery was working as a truck driver on an Illinois highway when his tractor-trailer, stopped on the shoulder, was struck by a Mack Truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena. Montgomery’s leg was amputated. He sustained other severe and permanent injuries.
Varela-Mojena was driving for Caribe Transport II, LLC, hauling a load of plastic pots. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. — one of the largest freight brokers in the country, arranging transportation for enormous volumes of freight annually — had brokered the shipment.
Montgomery’s central claim against C.H. Robinson was straightforward: the broker negligently hired Caribe Transport, a carrier that had a conditional safety rating from FMCSA at the time of the hiring. That rating reflected documented deficiencies across multiple BASIC categories — driver qualification, hours of service compliance, inspection and maintenance records, and recordable crash rate. Montgomery argued that C.H. Robinson knew or should have known from that record that choosing Caribe Transport was reasonably likely to result in crashes injuring others.
The district court held the claim preempted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split — and reversed, unanimously.
What the Court Held and Why
The legal analysis turned on a single statutory provision: the FAAAA’s safety exception, which provides that the preemption clause shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles. 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A).
The Court’s reasoning was direct. Negligent hiring claims impose a duty of reasonable care in selecting a contractor for work carrying a risk of physical harm. The preemption question was whether such claims are with respect to motor vehicles. The Court held they are — because requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier concerns the trucks that will transport the goods. That connection brings the claim within the safety exception and saves it from preemption.
Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, joined by Justice Alito, acknowledged competing contextual arguments that cut in favor of the brokers: the FAAAA does not mandate insurance for brokers as it does for carriers, suggesting Congress did not anticipate routine broker liability; and the anomaly that state tort suits would be permitted against brokers for arranging interstate transportation but preempted for intrastate. He treated these as serious points — but concluded that Congress, in an economic-deregulation statute, did not intend to immunize brokers from safety-based tort liability while leaving trucking companies fully exposed to it. The bottom line: federal law does not preempt state tort liability against brokers for negligent selection of trucking companies.
The Court was also careful to cabin the ruling. This is not strict liability. Brokers who exercise reasonable care in vetting carriers — who verify safety ratings, check BASIC scores, and ask the hard questions before tendering a load — should be able to defend successfully against negligent hiring claims. As plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged at oral argument, brokers who hire carriers with reasonable safety records and ask substantive questions about carrier safety practices will not have a problem. The exposure is for negligent vetting, not for every accident involving a brokered load.
Impact on Brokers: The Vetting Obligation Is Now a Legal Duty
The most immediate impact falls on freight brokers. The preemption defense that brokers have used to dismiss personal injury claims at the pleading stage is gone. Cases that were previously dismissed on preemption grounds will now proceed to discovery and potentially trial.
The standard that will govern broker liability in these cases is negligent hiring — whether the broker exercised reasonable care in selecting the carrier before the load moved. That standard has several practical components:
- CSA score and BASIC review. Caribe Transport’s conditional safety rating and BASIC alert status were the foundation of the negligent hiring claim in this case. Brokers must review carrier CSA scores and BASIC ratings as a standard part of the vetting process. A carrier with a conditional rating or alert status in safety-related BASICs presents heightened risk that a broker who proceeds without additional scrutiny may have difficulty defending.
- Safety rating verification. Brokers should verify a carrier’s current FMCSA safety rating — satisfactory, conditional, or unsatisfactory — before tendering freight. An unsatisfactory rating should, in most circumstances, preclude the hiring. A conditional rating at least warrants additional inquiry if not preclusion.
- Documentation. The vetting process that was previously a business practice is now a legal obligation. Every element of the review — what was checked, what was found, what decision was made and why — needs to be documented before the load moves. That documentation is the broker’s defense at trial.
- Carrier selection standards. Brokers should consider developing and following written carrier selection criteria. A documented internal standard, consistently applied, is significantly more defensible than ad hoc selection. The standard does not need to be perfect — it needs to be reasonable and followed.
Impact on Carriers: Your Safety Record Is Now a Commercial Gatekeeping Criterion
For motor carriers, the implications of this decision are less about direct liability and more about commercial consequences that flow from brokers’ new legal exposure.
Your CSA scores are now gatekeeping criteria. Brokers who face personal injury liability for negligently hiring unsafe carriers will scrutinize carrier safety records more carefully than ever before. A conditional safety rating, alert status in safety-related BASICs, or a pattern of unresolved violations is not just a regulatory compliance issue — it is a commercial liability that may result in brokers refusing to tender freight.
This makes the DataQs reform published April 16, 2026 — which we covered in this series two weeks ago — immediately more important. Every inaccurate inspection record, every incorrectly attributed crash, every data entry error that sits unchallenged in the FMCSA system now has direct commercial consequences in addition to its litigation implications. The three-stage appellate process established by the new DataQs requirements gives carriers a real mechanism to challenge inaccurate records. Use it aggressively.
Broker-carrier contract indemnification provisions. Brokers facing increased liability exposure will respond by strengthening indemnification clauses in their broker-carrier agreements. Carriers should expect to see contract language requiring them to indemnify and hold harmless brokers for claims arising from carrier negligence — including personal injury claims like the one in Montgomery. These provisions need to be reviewed by counsel before execution. The insurance implications need to be assessed against the carrier’s current coverage.
Carriers who also broker: Many motor carriers also broker freight as part of their operations. Those companies now carry broker liability exposure on top of their carrier exposure. If your company arranges transportation for others, the broker analysis applies fully to your brokering activities.
Impact on Insurers: The Coverage Landscape Has Changed
For insurers covering brokers for personal injury liability, the foundational assumption that preemption would defeat most claims before trial is no longer operative. Cases that would have been dismissed at the pleading stage will now reach discovery and potentially jury trial. The cost of defending those cases, and the risk of adverse verdicts, has increased materially.
Broker liability policies need to be examined in light of the decision. Policy language addressing negligent hiring claims, coverage limits, and premium structures may all require reassessment. The underwriting models built on the preemption defense need to account for a post-Montgomery environment where that defense is unavailable.
For insurers covering motor carriers, the indemnification dynamic matters. Brokers whose contracts include carrier indemnification provisions will make indemnification claims against carriers following accidents. Those claims will implicate carrier liability policies. The scope of coverage for indemnification obligations, the adequacy of coverage limits, and the interaction between carrier and broker policies all deserve review.
The DENUCLEARIZATION Connection
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport is a direct illustration of why the DENUCLEARIZATION series exists. The decision does not create new litigation risks out of thin air. It validates and expands the framework that plaintiff attorneys have been building for years — the use of FMCSA safety data to establish that a commercial entity knew or should have known it was engaging with an unsafe operator.
The CSA data that plaintiff attorneys have long used to establish systemic failure narratives against carriers is now the same data that establishes broker negligent hiring claims. The carrier whose FMCSA record shows conditional ratings and BASIC alert status is not just a litigation defendant — it is now a commercial pariah that brokers cannot afford to hire.
The DataQs reform, the data management framework, the Motus transition, the Reptile Theory defense — all of it now applies with equal force to broker vetting decisions and the carrier records that drive them. A clean, accurately documented FMCSA safety record is not just a defense asset in the courtroom. It is a commercial prerequisite for participation in the brokered freight market.
The industry that moves to the front of this decision — that builds the vetting processes, cleans the safety records, reviews the contracts, and reassesses the coverage — will be in a fundamentally different position than the industry that waits to respond case by case.
