OOSC, Part I, Item 10. Driver's Record of Duty Status, a. Property-Carrying Vehicles (4) and (5)

In the 2026 out-of-service criteria, the language regarding Part I., Driver, Section 10.a (4) and (5), can be confusing to follow in certain scenarios. The scenario is a driver who requires a RODS and ELD for 8 days, but on the FIRST day of the 8 day period, they have a paper log, while the other 7 days they are operating on an ELD as required. Under item 10.a.(4), it reads, “No Record of Duty Status,” and directs the reader to footnotes 5, 6, and 8. An inspector may assume that is not the correct OOS condition because the driver does have a RODS for each day. Therefore, they would never get to footnotes 5, 6 and 8. The inspector could potentially move on to section 10.a.(5), “no previous seven days,” as they felt the driver did have a record of duty status (even though it was not an ELD), and believed that “no previous seven days,” would be more applicable in the situation. In footnote #8, it says if the driver is required to have an ELD, and the vehicle is not equipped, then the driver is to be considered as having no RODS, and therefore shall be declared out of service. If the inspector follows the route of item 10.a.(5), no previous 7 days, the inspector is only directed to look at footnote #4, which discusses drivers using a computer, tablet, or phone, including an ELD in malfunction as RODS. In those circumstances, the driver is not OOS as long as the RODS can be displayed on the screen or printed. In the first scenario, the driver was not permitted to use a paper RODS, but their RODS was able to be DISPLAYED, so it is assumed the driver would still be declared OOS based on footnote #8. However, the inspector would have never got to footnote #8 when starting from the “no previous 7 days” condition (10.a.(5)). Does footnote #8 mean the CURRENT vehicle not equipped with an ELD, or is it ALL vehicles operated by the same driver not equipped with an ELD? What does it mean if it was not equipped only one day of the 8-day period? Shall that driver be declared OOS in accordance with footnote #8?

Clarify the OOS conditions and/or footnotes regarding when a driver should or not be placed out of service to ensure consistent enforcement roadside, consistent understanding for carriers, and consistent handling on DataQ requests. When conferring with various inspectors with the scenario above, I received several answers of whether it should be a violation, and whether it should be an OOS violation. In addition, it seems as though both scenarios seem to come up as to when the driver should be placed OOS for no RODS, but both footnotes are not included in items 10.a.(4) and (5). I question if that seems overly harsh to place a driver out of service for an issue that occurred 7 days prior, perhaps before a 34 hour restart, or even after multiple days off. This is similar to the changes of the false RODS and utilizing logging software in recent years and the emphasis that the purpose of the OOSC is remove the imminent hazard, not apply punitive punishment.

I request consideration of adding language to footnote #8 specifying that if a driver is required to have an ELD, and there was not an ELD for each day of the 8-day period in which logs were required, the driver is considered to have no RODS. I would also suggest adding the reference to footnote #8 in OOSC item 10.a.(5), no previous seven days. Example text: "NOTE: A driver who was required to have an ELD for any day during the current or previous 7 days, and who has not or is not using an approved ELD, shall be considered to no have record of duty status, and therefore declared out of service." I also feel the committee should consider if there should be an amendment making it different to have No RODS/ELD whatsoever, versus since the last qualifying rest break, or perhaps at least since last 34-hour restart.