CVSA Inspection Bulletin 2026-02 False Records of Duty Status and Electronic Logging Device Tampering
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) has released Inspection Bulletin 2026-02 addressing enforcement distinctions between false Records of Duty Status (RODS) and Electronic Logging Device (ELD) tampering.
In North America’s regulatory structure:
This bulletin is important because it provides structured enforcement interpretation in an area that has historically lacked consistency — distinguishing between ordinary falsification and data integrity compromise.
False Record of Duty Status
§ 395.8(e)(1) (U.S.) and 86(2) – Canada
A false RODS occurs when the recorded duty status does not reflect actual activity, but the timeline can still be reconstructed.
Personal conveyance misuse is one example — but not the only one.
Common falsification scenarios include:
If the inspector can determine when the driving occurred and correct the record:
The key factor is whether compliance can be reconstructed.
Reengineered, Reprogrammed, or Tampered RODS
§ 395.8(e)(2) (U.S.) and 86(3) – Canada
Tampering is fundamentally different.
Here, the issue is not an incorrect duty status selection — it is compromised data integrity.
Examples include:
The bulletin provides an example where fuel receipts proved activity in one state while the RODS reflected off-duty status in another, with approximately 21 hours of driving unaccounted for.
When required ELD data has been altered or cannot be relied upon, enforcement escalates.
If the inspector cannot determine actual driving and rest periods:
At that point, the question is no longer whether a driver exceeded hours — it becomes whether compliance can be verified at all.
Context Within the Broader ELD Discussion
This bulletin does not arise in isolation.
In a previous article, “Late to the Party: The U.S. Wakes Up to Widespread ELD Tampering,” I examined how ELD manipulation practices had already been identified across the industry before formal enforcement clarification was issued.
https://raventransportationsafetyconsulting.com/late-to-the-party-the-u-s-wakes-up-to-widespread-eld-tampering/
That analysis identified recurring indicators such as improper unidentified driving reassignment, credential sharing, manual driving entries where automatic capture should occur, and discrepancies between supporting documents and recorded duty status.
The CVSA bulletin now formalizes the enforcement distinction between:
That distinction is significant for both carriers and enforcement.
Interpretation and Guidance Gaps
The CCMTA and Transport Canada have previously issued technical guidance relating to Data Diagnostic Events in Table 4 of the Canadian ELD Technical Standard. However, that guidance has not consistently filtered through to industry stakeholders in Alberta.
As a result, carriers have faced ELD violations for several years without a comprehensive interpretation framework clarifying how enforcement should evaluate data structure, transmission methods, and Technical Standard compliance.
Inspection Bulletin 2026-02 provides a foundation that Canadian jurisdictions can use in developing consistent interpretation guidance.
Final Observations
Full U.S. ELD enforcement began in 2019.
Full Canadian enforcement followed in 2023.
Structured regulatory interpretation of falsification versus tampering is only now being clarified.
This bulletin signals a shift toward evaluating not only hours compliance, but the integrity of the underlying ELD dataset itself.
For carriers, that distinction matters.
The FMCSA has issued a Regional Emergency Declaration granting temporary Hours of Service (HOS) relief due to severe winter storms and extreme cold impacting major U.S. transportation corridors. While the exemption provides regulatory relief, it does not magically make ELD compliance problems disappear.
This is where carriers and drivers get into trouble.
The federal government may exempt a driver from certain HOS limits — but the ELD still records data unless you tell it otherwise. An ELD does not understand emergency declarations, intent, weather, or common sense. It only understands inputs, rules, and thresholds.
If this exemption is not managed correctly, a driver can appear non-compliant roadside or during a compliance review, even while operating lawfully under the emergency declaration.
What the FMCSA Emergency Declaration Actually Does
Under Emergency Declaration No. 2026-001, FMCSA has granted emergency relief from:
This relief applies only to motor carriers and drivers providing direct assistance supporting emergency relief efforts in the affected states. It does not apply to routine commercial deliveries, mixed loads with nominal emergency supplies, or long-term recovery operations. All other FMCSRs remain fully in effect, including CDL, drug and alcohol testing, insurance, hazardous materials, and vehicle size and weight requirements.
The ELD Problem No One Understands
There is no regulatory interpretation guide in the U.S. or Canada that explains how ELD data should be managed. There is only:
ELD providers are not required to train carriers, drivers, or enforcement on how their applications function. They built an app. It is up to the user to figure out how to operate it correctly under real-world conditions.
And here’s the critical reality:
ELDs record data whether the driver is exempt or not.
If a driver:
None of those outcomes are what you want during an emergency exemption.
The Only Regulatory Workaround That Exists
The HOS regulations and the ELD Technical Standard do provide a workaround — the Exempt Driver function.
What the Regulation Says
49 CFR § 395.28(b) — Drivers exempt from ELD use
“A motor carrier may configure an ELD to designate a driver as exempt from ELD use.”
What the Technical Standard Says
49 CFR Part 395, Appendix A, Subpart B, Section 3.1.3 — Exempt Driver
“An ELD must allow a motor carrier to configure an ELD for a driver who may be exempt from the use of the ELD… motor carriers can use this allowed configuration to avoid issues with unidentified driver data diagnostic errors.”
There is a clear acknowledgement here that functionality issues exist, and the exempt driver configuration is the mechanism provided to deal with them.
Further clarified in:
Section 4.3.3.1.2(a)
“An ELD must provide the motor carrier the ability to configure a driver account exempt from use of an ELD.”
How the Exempt Driver Function Actually Works
The technical standard does not require a carrier to use the exemption — only that the ELD provider make it available. The decision to activate it rests entirely with the carrier.
Carrier Setup
Driver Operation
Important limitations:
What the ELD Does While the Driver Is Exempt
49 CFR Part 395, Appendix A, Section 4.3.3.1.2(d)(2) states:
“The ELD must continue to record ELD driving time but suspend detection of missing data elements data diagnostic events and data transfer compliance monitoring functions when such driver is authenticated.”
On the device:
This distinction matters.
Roadside Inspections and Audits: How to Defend It
During a roadside inspection, the driver should state:
“I am operating under FMCSA Emergency Declaration No. 2026-001 and am exempt from HOS limits.”
The driver must then:
Do not assume enforcement has read the bulletin email.
During a compliance review or audit:
Bottom Line
Using the emergency exemption properly is cumbersome, but the exempt driver function is the only way to keep ELD records aligned with both the regulation and the technical standard.
This is not about convenience — it’s about defensibility.
Drivers need to be able to explain it roadside.
Administrators need to be able to explain it during a review.
Enforcement and auditors are not trained in ELD minutiae. If you follow the exact mechanisms provided in the regulation and technical standard, you are using their own language, systems, and rules to protect yourself — and to successfully challenge incorrect findings if necessary.
The Alberta government has introduced a new funding model for municipalities with respect to policing services. Rural and municipal policing have inherent pain points that will never be resolved: there are only so many officers for remote regions, only so much money to go around, and that reality isn’t changing.
In my September 2024 blog, STOP Treating Tickets as a Cost of Doing Business, I talked about Alberta’s shifting enforcement landscape. Between the RCMP, sheriffs, bylaw officers, peace officers, the new Border Interdiction Team, and independent city police services, Alberta is crawling with new enforcement. Edmonton and Calgary both have dedicated commercial vehicle divisions with fully trained CVSA officers. The Interdiction Patrol Team has helicopters, drones, dogs, and guns.
All of this is very expensive. Calgary and Edmonton are tens of millions of dollars short in their policing budgets because of lost photo radar revenue — thanks for that, Maple MAGA Dreeshen.
How Police in Alberta Are Currently Funded
Short answer: It’s complicated.
1. Municipal Police Services (e.g., Calgary Police, Edmonton Police)
Funded primarily by municipal taxes, not the province or feds.
Main sources:
👉 Bottom line: Calgary Police and Edmonton Police are paid for by their cities, not by higher levels of government.
2. Provincial Police (RCMP contract policing in rural Alberta)
Funding split:
RCMP covers rural areas, small towns, and provincial highways.
3. Federal RCMP Units
Entirely funded by the federal government.
They handle national security, organized crime, border integrity, and financial crimes.
Municipalities do not pay for this.
The New Alberta Funding Model (April 2026)
Beginning April 1 2026, municipalities will pay a larger share of their own policing — without raising property taxes.
And how exactly do you think they’ll pull that off?
Commercial vehicles.
Because commercial vehicle enforcement is the most reliable revenue generator in the game.
Violations are endless:
And remember, if a driver is overweight on multiple axles, an officer can ticket each axle separately, plus the overall weight. LinkedIn is full of officers proudly posting ticket stats adding up to thousands of dollars.
Throw in a few ELD violations and your town might finally be able to afford the armoured vehicle or tactical team the chief has been dreaming about.
Most carriers don’t fight tickets because:
The government knows this.
It’s one reason some officers like to “pile on” violations — issuing multiple tickets for essentially the same offence under different regulations.
And when that well starts to dry up, there’s always the “chicken tickets”: tint, exhaust, and the Wetaskiwin special — obscured or faded licence plate under TSA AR320/2002 s.71(1).
Alberta had an entire bad batch of plates for a decade. Instead of issuing a warning and a notice to replace the plate, the province quietly posted a notice on its website… and let enforcement go wild writing tickets for it.
What Wetaskiwin Has to Say
Josh Bishop, Reeve of Wetaskiwin County, said:
“We appreciate the government’s commitment to freeze the police funding model rate and consult with municipalities. The proposed five-year transition provides the budget predictability municipalities require. This approach acknowledges the increased costs of policing and allows us time to adjust without forcing immediate, severe tax hikes on our residents.”
Of course he appreciates it — Wetaskiwin has more shitty plates than anywhere else in Alberta from the number of tickets they write. They can ride that revenue wave all the way into the sunset.
And Don’t Forget the Coming Alberta Police Force
The pressure on commercial carriers will only intensify when Alberta moves to its own provincial police service. Hopefully it gets a cool name like Alberta Rapid Force or The A Team.
And yes — Alberta is actively recruiting globally.
The Law Enforcement Pathway under the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program is designed to attract police officers from abroad. In 2025, 20 nomination spots were available; 11 were already filled, with more than a hundred candidates waiting.
For the Record…
I’m not anti-enforcement. I’m anti-abuse-of-power.
Commercial vehicle enforcement is necessary in Alberta and across Canada. The industry cannot and does not police itself — and when left alone, it descends into chaos, as we’ve recently seen.
Municipalities need policing revenue. Fine.
But does it really have to come from window tint and plate tickets?
How about focusing on:
But that takes actual work.
And writing 20 chicken tickets in a day is so much easier — and better for bragging rights on Snapchat.
Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors has released its new Class 1 Driver Experience Record, a program demanded by insurers after years of skyrocketing claims involving untrained drivers. The irony? The same government that ignored the problem of unqualified drivers for years now expects a magic form to fix it.
This isn’t safety reform. It’s paperwork theatre.
A Form Written by People Who Don’t Understand the Industry
Carriers are now required to document every tiny detail of a driver’s history, including:
Equipment Types
Commodities
Every TDG class separately.
Sand, gravel, water, dairy.
“Over-dimensional” AND “overweight” as separate categories—despite being essentially the same thing. Any professional would simply call it permitted or extraordinary loads.
Driving Environments
Mountains, cliff roads, ice roads, resource roads.
Range of Operations
Urban, interurban, interprovincial, international (USA, Mexico, other).
This isn’t meaningful safety data. It’s bureaucratic box-ticking designed to look impressive on paper.
Shifting Liability to Carriers—Not Improving Safety
The person who signs the form is now personally attesting to a driver’s training, experience, competence, and claims history.
If that driver has a major collision? The attestor may be the one explaining their signature.
Meanwhile, the actual safety problem remains untouched.
Legitimate Carriers Already Do This Work
Carriers who operate legally and pay for insurance already have:
This form doesn’t improve anything—they already manage driver development responsibly.
The Real Problem? The Province Still Won’t Touch It.
The carriers destroying Alberta’s insurance market are:
These carriers will ignore the form or fabricate it—just like they ignore every other requirement.
Alberta’s own track record proves this.
One carrier hit so many bridges in BC that the province shut them out. Alberta welcomed them with open arms and operating authority.
Now TEC wants you to record how many structures your drivers have hit. Why? The government clearly doesn’t care.
Sure, Alberta Transportation has posted some recent “wins” — shutting down 13 carriers sounds impressive, but in reality, that’s just 0.067% of Alberta carriers, the investigations took half a year, and Minister Dreeshen has held this portfolio since 2022. You don’t get applause for finally doing your job.
This isn’t safety. It’s a distraction designed to appease the insurance industry while the actual causes of rising premiums continue unchecked.
One of the most talked-about topics in the transportation industry today is the controversy surrounding commercial drivers' language proficiency. While recent efforts in the U.S. to enforce English-language requirements are making headlines, this focus is a distraction from the root cause of the industry's problems. The truth is, the real issue isn't a lack of language skills; it's a lack of standardized training and insufficient regulatory oversight that has been ignored for decades.
This is a problem that hits close to home in Canada, particularly when we compare our system to the proactive approach taken by the European Union.
A Tale of Two Systems: The EU vs. Alberta
The European Union has a clear, standardized system for commercial driver qualifications. Drivers must obtain a Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (Driver CPC), which involves rigorous training and exams. Crucially, these exams are administered in the official language of the country where the training is conducted. This process ensures that drivers are not only technically competent but also have a working knowledge of the local language necessary for safety and communication. This framework prevents what is known as "license shopping," where drivers obtain qualifications from countries with less stringent standards, sound familiar?
Now let's look at the contrast in Canada, using Alberta as a key example. While Canada has made strides and many provinces have implemented Mandatory Entry-Level Training (MELT), the system remains fragmented. In Alberta we have the Class 1 Learning Pathways but, the true gap appears in how carriers are created, regulated and monitored.
The "Chameleon Carrier" Problem
In the EU, opening a trucking company requires a specific license from the Ministry of Transport, along with registration with tax and social security agencies. The owner or manager is required to hold a Transport Manager Certificate of Professional Competence (TM CPC), which ensures they have formal training in transportation operations, financial management, and legal requirements. This ensures that new carriers are held to a high standard from the outset.
In Alberta, the process is starkly different. You can register a company, get a business number, and obtain an NSC number after one person completes a 6 – 8 hour online course and a in person knowledge test. A third-party review is required within a year, but it can be conducted remotely. This lenient system creates an environment ripe for what are known as "chameleon carriers" carriers who have been documented as unsafe in other provinces. Additionally trucking companies are often domiciled on paper in one province for insurance or lenient NSC enforcement but primarily operate in another, often skirting regulations.
This lack of strict, in-person audits and comprehensive pre-entry requirements contributes to this dumpster fire of a chaotic market, unqualified drivers and shady operators entering the industry with minimal barriers and allowed to operate unchecked.
A Closer Look at the Hours
The difference in standards becomes even more apparent when you look at the training hours. The EU’s Driver CPC program requires a minimum of 280 hours of training, while in Germany, a full vocational apprenticeship can last 1.5 to 3 years, providing a comprehensive education in all aspects of the trade, not just driving.
Contrast this with the Canadian standard. While Canada has tried to move towards a standardized system, the hours are a fraction of what is required in Europe.
| Country/Region | Qualification Type | Duration |
| Germany | Full Vocational Training | 1.5 to 3 years |
| European Union (EU) | Driver CPC Qualification | 280 hours |
| Canada (Alberta) | New Class 1 Learning Pathway | 103.5 hours |
The Fight for a National Standard
For years, organizations like the Private Motor Truck Council of Canada (PMTC) have been vocal advocates for a national standard to address these very issues. They and other industry groups have been pushing to have professional truck driving recognized as a Red Seal trade. However, despite these long-standing efforts, the results have been frustratingly slow. The industry is still grappling with inconsistencies in training hours and a lack of mandatory instructor certification across jurisdictions. Driver schools in Ontario have been given a extension to October 2025 for the requirement to have a written curriculum ffs! Would anyone pay tuition to go to a university or college class that didn’t have a written curriculum? This is the state of the world we are in. The industry is pleading for the government to "prioritize and expedite" a review of the training sector to put an end to the "unscrupulous" and "substandard" training schools that are undermining legitimate businesses and putting untrained drivers on the road. The problem is not the language drivers speak; it's the broken system that allows them to get on the road without the proper training and oversight.
It’s time to stop the lip service and demand a federal commitment to a more professional trucking industry for everyone.
By now, everyone has seen the horrific images from the fatal crash in Texas, caused by a semi-truck driver who fell asleep behind the wheel. While media outlets have zeroed in on the driver’s nationality and immigration status, the real issue—the one that should concern all of us—is this: the company that employed him should never have been operating in the first place.
The investigation that followed uncovered that the carrier was a non-citizen trucking operations exploiting non-domiciled drivers, using virtual addresses in the U.S. to register with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) while actually operating out of other countries like in Eastern Europe or Russia. These carriers exist on paper only—shell companies dispatching trucks remotely, often with no real oversight, regulation, or liability.
This same thing is happening in Canada. And it's been ignored for years.
In my blog post “Hey Transport Canada, Take a Page Out of the FMCSA’s Book on Chameleon Carriers,” I discussed the FMCSA’s new national registration program called Motus. Motus is designed to identify so-called “chameleon carriers” by creating a national data base that will flag companies that share the same addresses, phone numbers, or ownership information.
The numbers out of the U.S. are staggering:
Why should Canada care? Because we are no different—and in some ways, worse.
Canada’s carrier profile system hasn’t allowed enforcement data to be shared seamlessly across provinces or with international partners for years. We’ve ignored the problem and the inaccurate carrier profile data, hoping it will resolve itself. It won’t. This is our opportunity to join with the United States and Mexico and create compatible registry systems that can track and flag suspicious operations in real time. We should be integrating with Motus, not pretending this is someone else’s issue to solve.
The loopholes are being exploited daily.
Carriers operating illegally know our enforcement system is broken. They know they’re unlikely to be caught, and if they are, the consequences are minimal—especially when the carrier dosen’t exist in any meaningful way. In the Texas case, the carrier was foreign-owned, registered with fraudulent info, and employed a Cuban national. Think about it: what are the odds that this company had valid commercial insurance?
Here’s what will likely happen:
If the public knew how many trucks were operating without valid insurance—or with forged documents—they would be stunned. Commercial trucking insurance is extremely expensive, and freight rates are shockingly low. Carriers that play by the rules are being pushed out because they cannot compete with companies that skip insurance, taxes, source deductions, fair wages, and maintenance.
What’s enabling this insurance fraud? A lack of centralized data.
Unlike vehicle registrations or driver’s licenses, there is no real-time insurance database available to enforcement officers. When a driver is pulled over, they show a pink insurance card—sometimes altered or completely fake. The insurance status is taken at face value because there is no place for an officer to check. Most people only discover the coverage is fake after a crash.
So what’s the fix? Centralize and share the data. Now.
If governments collaborated, created a shared national and cross-border registry system, and made real-time insurance verification available to enforcement, fraudulent carriers would be stopped in their tracks. It would also level the playing field for honest carriers—those who pay taxes, follow the rules, and put safety first.
There’s more data available than ever before. The problem isn’t lack of information—it’s that it’s scattered, siloed, and hoarded by different agencies an jurisdictions. The criminals have figured out how to exploit the cracks in the system. It’s time we closed them.
We don’t need another tragedy to act.
On May 12, 2025, Alberta’s Minister of Transportation, Devin Dreeshen, signed Ministerial Order 20/25, which introduced amendments to the Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance Regulation (AR 314/2002). These changes are already in effect and impact driver recordkeeping requirements, NSC Standard 15 audit scoring, and NCCR evaluations.
Despite reaching out to Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight and the Alberta Motor Transport Association (AMTA), I have received no clarification or further information on the updated requirements or the prescribed new form. Stakeholders are left without guidance on compliance changes that are now enforceable.
Summary of Key Changes to Section 41(1): Driver Records
Previous Regulation:
Carriers were required to maintain the following:
Revised Regulation (Post-Ministerial Order 20/25):
My Interpretation of the Changes:
The revised wording appears to consolidate several previous requirements:
Impact on NSC Standard 15 & NCCR Audit Scoring
Previously, carriers could earn up to 4 points across four individual audit questions. Now, due to the consolidation:
Key Concern:
This scoring method could disadvantage carriers and negatively impact audit results unless there is an accompanying change to the scoring methodology—which has not been communicated by Alberta Transportation.
New Requirement: Record of Commercial Driving Experience (driver exit abstract)
Ministerial Order 20/25 introduces two new sections: 31.3 and 31.4.
Section 31.3(1–2):
Section 31.4(1–2):
My Understanding:
This relates to drivers transitioning from Learning Pathway (Alberta-only restricted license) to a full Class 1 license. However, the specific certificate format or template has not been made available.
What Should Carriers Do Now?
Here’s my advice until further direction is provided:
✅ Update your safety program driver recordkeeping policies:
✅ Review your driver files:
⚠️ Regarding the commercial driving experience certificate:
Final Thoughts & Call to Action
It has now been over a month since the Order was signed, and Alberta Transportation has failed to provide adequate updates or resources to affected carriers. This level of information hoarding puts carriers at risk of non-compliance through no fault of their own.
What You Can Do:
I will continue reaching out to Alberta Transportation and the AMTA. As soon as I receive any updates, I will post a follow-up blog.
Chameleon carriers have quietly and systematically undermined the integrity of the trucking industry in Canada and the U.S. for decades. Untrained drivers, fake or nonexistent insurance, undercutting rates, and tax evasion through schemes like Driver Inc. are symptoms of a much deeper issue: the lack of enforcement and coordination between regulatory bodies.
Let’s be honest—the regulators have had decades to shut this down. And now, the only reason we’re even talking about it is because of the growing number of high-profile crashes flooding social media. The public is watching, and they’re demanding change.
If you're not familiar with chameleon carriers, check out my earlier blog karma, karma, karma, karma, karma Chameleon…. Canada’s Chameleon Carrier Crisis, where I explain the scam in more detail. In short, these are companies that dissolve and reincarnate under new names and registrations to dodge enforcement, liability, and oversight. And they’re allowed to do this because our provinces and territories don’t share data effectively. Alberta has been a hotbed for this issue since 2019, but it's not alone—this is a national failure.
Even after fatal crashes, these operators often have another Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC) waiting in the wings. Why? Because there’s no integrated system to flag them across jurisdictions. They hop from province to province—or state to state in the U.S.—and no one is any the wiser. It's a loophole, and they exploit it daily.
The FMCSA isn’t blameless—they ignored this problem for years, too. But now they’ve decided to do something about it. In 2025, they’re launching a new registration and vetting system. Here’s what it includes:
The FMCSA Plan:
So, What Is Canada Doing?
Nothing, we’ve got committees. Meetings. Thoughts and prayers after every crash. But no plan. No system. No timeline.
Transport Canada needs to build a program exactly like the FMCSA’s—now, not five years from now when we’re forced to reverse-engineer it at triple the cost. Just like the U.S., Canada struggles with regulatory inconsistency between provinces and territories. We may never harmonize weights and dimensions, but we can harmonize how we track, vet, and shut down fraudulent carriers.
Why It Matters:
Cross-border trade isn’t going away. In fact, closer integration between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico means we need to share data. That’s how we stop chameleon carriers from gaming the system.
Let’s stop pretending that deportations or blaming untrained drivers will fix trucking. It’s not the drivers—it’s the owners, the ones profiting off exploitation and safety shortcuts. Turning on a system like the FMCSA’s is like flipping a light switch and watching the cockroaches scatter.
Transport Canada, please do something. Get in the game.
Well, here we go again. Another publicly-funded vacation, this time sending Glenn van Dijken, MLA for Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock, off to Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The official reason? According to the government’s media release, it’s to “champion Alberta’s role as a reliable partner in establishing U.S. food security, share best practices in agriculture and agri-food development.” He’ll also be “advocating for Alberta’s unimpeded access to U.S. markets in discussions with key decision makers on state-level and federal agriculture policy issues.”
Sounds like a great mission. But let’s take a closer look.
The media release also tells us that in 2024, Alberta exported CAD $9.2 billion in agri-food products to the U.S.—a 4% increase over 2023. That’s great. Trade matters. But so does fairness, and this is where things start to feel disingenuous.
If Glenn van Dijken is so invested in aligning with U.S. agricultural policy and sharing “best practices,” maybe he should start by bringing some of those best practices home. Here’s an idea: instead of spending three days networking in Iowa, how about staying in Alberta and having a long-overdue conversation with your colleague, Devin Dreeshen, about the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) exemption for farmers and livestock haulers?
The U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) already includes a livestock transportation exemption under regulation. It’s built right into the rule—no permit required, no red tape. Why? Because U.S. regulators understand that livestock haulers operate under different realities. Animals aren't cargo you can just park at a rest stop and walk away from.
Meanwhile, Canadian regulations require ELDs to be certified and programmed with both Canadian and U.S. hours-of-service rules. And despite the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—which was designed to facilitate cross-border trade—we still have a regulatory gap that gives U.S. drivers more flexibility than their Canadian counterparts when operating in the same country.
Where’s the logic? Where’s the fairness? Where’s the reciprocity that trade agreements are supposed to ensure?
If Alberta’s politicians want to make themselves useful on the international stage, they should start by getting their own house in order. Championing Alberta’s role in agri-food security is great. But championing Alberta’s farmers, ranchers, and livestock haulers at home should be the first priority—not just something to gesture toward in talking points.
So here’s a challenge for Mr. van Dijken: skip the next media release. Sit down with Dreeshen. Fix the ELD exemption for Canadian farmers and ranchers. Then maybe you can host a conference and talk about best practices.
This high-level overview outlines the core issues surrounding Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs), how ELD data is generated, transmitted, and displayed, and why the current Third-Party Auditor (TPA) system in Alberta is fundamentally flawed.
The U.S. implemented its ELD mandate first, with self-certification by ELD providers. In contrast, Canada requires third-party certification. There are hundreds of providers in the US and Canada has less than 50 because the majority of the US devices won’t meet the Canadian standards because they allow driving time to be manipulated. The US is currently revoking the licences of ELD providers that don’t meet the Technical Standard.
Canadian ELD enforcement began fully on January 1, 2022, after a soft rollout in 2021. The workshift rules of HOS didn’t change—only the requirement to log time electronically did.
While Transport Canada and CCMTA created the regulations and standards, they provided no implementation training—to either industry or government. The ELD providers did what was asked, they built the device as per the specs. The Feds and CCMTA did what they were supposed to, they wrote the regulations, and they gave the standards to follow. This failure is 100% on the provincial jurisdictions, by adopting the Federal regulation Alberta Transportation has a obligation to explain what those regulations mean to its constituents and failed to do so.
ELDs collect data from the ECM—engine sensors, tires, GPS, and time. The data is stored on the device and in the cloud. These devices are always powered and continuously monitor and log driver activity.
All certified ELDs function similarly; the only difference is the appearance of the PDF RODS. The only legally recognized output files that meet the full data requirements are:
TPAs don’t use these. They lack:
Instead, they audit printable dashboard PDFs, which can be missing data or altered. As a result, TPA audits are fundamentally flawed.
Imagine doing your taxes with a T4 that leaves out key earnings. You get a refund, then face a CRA audit and a large fine. You find out:
This is what’s happening with TPAs and ELD audits. 95% of audits in Alberta are conducted by TPAs—and they’re based on incomplete, inaccurate data.
From the Federal HOS Regulations:
Section 98(2): Drivers must transmit RODS using the method supported by the ELD and identified by the inspector.
Section 99(2): Carriers must transmit the RODS in the format and method prescribed in the Technical Standard.
From the ELD Technical Standard:
Without following this encrypted, standard process, any audit or review lacks legitimacy.
June 22, 2022, the CTA (Canadian Transportation Association) released information via email regarding the PKI system:
Encryption of Record of Duty Status Email Files
The process for establishing the encryption of records of duty status (known as PKI) for email transfer to Roadside officials is the responsibility of Transport Canada. The process for implementing the Transport Canada work is the responsibility of each provincial and territorial jurisdiction, which includes submitting email addresses of enforcement officials who will be engaged in hours-of-service enforcement. The requirements and format for ELDs to produce the encrypted record of duty status are contained in the ELD technical standard, which is the result of a collaborative effort between Transport Canada, representatives from all provincial and territorial governments and ELD vendors. Devices certified through the Transport Canada and Standards Council of Canada process will meet the required format for record of duty status.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trucking-association-raises-concerns-over-canadas-eld-mandate
“We still want to see ELD enforcement going forward in January, but there’s issues that people are not talking about that are serious issues that still need to be addressed, and the biggest one is the PKI system,” Mike Millian, president of PMTC, told FreightWaves.
This is not just a trucking problem—it’s a systemic data failure that threatens public safety, insurance reliability, and government credibility. The ELD system was designed to bring accountability and transparency. But without proper training, implementation, and audit processes, we’re back to the same risks paper logs created—just with digital lipstick.
Until audits are conducted using fully encrypted CSV or PDF files via PKI, no TPA result should be considered valid.
