Notice2026-20043
Electronic Logging Device Requirements: Application for Exemption; Federation of Professional Truckers
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 30, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Abstract
FMCSA announces its decision to deny the application from the Federation of Professional Truckers (FOPT) requesting an exemption from the electronic logging device (ELD) requirements. FOPT requests an exemption to allow professional drivers the option to record their records of duty status (RODS) manually, instead of using an ELD. FMCSA analyzed the application and public comments and determined that the exemption would not achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61914-61916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20043]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2025-1282]
Electronic Logging Device Requirements: Application for
Exemption; Federation of Professional Truckers
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the application from the
Federation of Professional Truckers (FOPT) requesting an exemption from
the electronic logging device (ELD) requirements. FOPT requests an
exemption to allow professional drivers the option to record their
records of duty status (RODS) manually, instead of using an ELD. FMCSA
analyzed the application and public comments and determined that the
exemption would not achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f88a919b90998a9cd69b949d959d968c9db89c978cd69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d2f343e353c2f39733e313830383329381d393229733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services
via telephone at (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-1282/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-1282/document</a> and
choose the document to review. To view
[[Page 61915]]
comments, click this notice, then click ``Document Comments.'' If you
do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting Dockets Operations in room W58-213 of the DOT West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
II. Legal Basis
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including the
applicant's safety analysis. The Agency must provide an opportunity for
public comment on the request.
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public
comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the
standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish
its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If granted,
the notice will identify the person or class of persons granted the
exemption, the regulatory provision(s) from which the person or class
of persons is exempt, the effective period, and all terms and
conditions of the exemption (49 CFR 381.315(c)(1)). If the exemption is
denied, the notice will explain the reason for the denial (49 CFR
381.315(c)(2)). The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
III. Background
Current Regulatory Requirements
Under 49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(i), drivers required to prepare RODS must
do so using an ELD. Under 49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(iii)(A)(1), a motor
carrier may allow its drivers to prepare RODS manually, rather than use
an ELD, if the driver is operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
``[i]n a manner requiring completion of a record of duty status on not
more than 8 days within any 30-day period.''
Applicant's Request
FOPT's application for exemption was described in detail in a
Federal Register notice on February 9, 2026 (91 FR 5800) and will not
be repeated as the facts have not changed.
IV. Public Comments
The Agency received a total of 901 public comments, with 890 unique
comments. Most commenters were individuals who supported the exemption.
The Truck Safety Coalition, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways,
and Parents Against Tired Truckers submitted a joint comment and said,
``First, FOPT fails to provide any information regarding scope of the
exemption request--i.e. the number of carriers involved, the number of
drivers, how many miles will be driven, etc. They also fail to mention
what the requirements are to be an ELD-exempt FOPT Member--are there
any safety assurances or validations required to be a FOPT Member that
might suggest these drivers prioritize safety beyond compliance?'' The
American Trucking Associations (ATA) said, ``ATA disagrees with
arguments about negative impacts from drivers trying to `beat the
clock' of an ELD. ELD usage and compliance require no changes of hours-
of-service regulations. It is the responsibility of fleets and drivers
to plan routes and contingencies within the same hours of service
regulations, regardless of whether ELDs or paper logs are in use.'' The
Institute for Safer Trucking and Road Safe America jointly commented in
opposition stating, ``ELDs are a data-driven, effective tool for
reducing fatigue-related crashes, improving compliance, and increasing
accountability. Reverting to paper logs would undermine safety gains
and increase risk for all road users. We encourage FMCSA to deny the
exemption request.'' The Buchanan Law Firm, LLC said, ``ELDs are not
perfect, and I do not claim they are. However, FOPT's key that paper
logbooks are `safety equivalent' to ELDs is contradicted by the entire
legislative history of MAP-21. FMCSA's May 2023 `Effects of the Hours-
of-Service Regulations Report to Congress--2021' found that inspections
with at least one hours-of-service violation fell from 274,441 in 2018
to 191,797 in 2020.The report also found that the decrease in the
number of inspections with at least one HOS violation post-adoption of
the ELD requirement was statistically significant'' (emphasis in
original).
Common themes of commenters who support granting FOPT's request for
an exemption include the potential to reduce driver stress and improve
safety by giving drivers more flexibility and autonomy, and reducing
overall costs to the trucking company. Many commenters also raised the
issue of finding adequate truck parking. George Kincaid said, ``It
should be a carrier's choice as to which type of logs they use. ELDs
are just another expense that not everyone needs or wants. With the
regular decertification of numerous ELDs, it can be said that it's a
flawed system as well, with some instances of them causing damage to a
truck's ECM also.'' Samuel Thorne said, ``Without ELDs being required,
that puts control back into the drivers hands. Even if they technically
have hours to drive or work, they don't have to be forced to work when
it's unsafe to do so. They now have the control to tell their company
or dispatcher when the truck will move again so the driver can get
adequate rest to drive safely.'' WMR Transportation said, ``Restoring
the manual logging capability will remove driver pressure to perform
against a device that is auto computing and counting and each and every
move. Safety is an aggregate responsibility shared by employers and
employees but ultimately dictated by the employer. The ELD's are
nothing more than a production tool designed to force on road mile(s)
production putting safety at risk.'' Lazar Gacevski said, ``Independent
contractors and all CDL drivers that are running under small carriers
authority need to be able to choose to log their HOS in paper logs
instead of being under constant pressure of rushing to make the
`clock.' The ELD's malfunction all the time due to numerous technical
issues with the devices and other truck related electronic issues,
giving the driver false information of available driving hours, which
affects their current or next load decision planning [sic]. These wrong
decisions based on faulty info from the ELD, affects their pick up,
transit and delivery times, which directly affects road safety and puts
a heavy financial burden on them.''
Bruce Thompson commented neither for nor against the FOPT request
and stated, ``As a 28 year driver I have seen all the different log
rules and changes through the years and in my personal opinion it's not
paper or electronic, but the actual rules . . . and hours of service
that need to be changed so that drivers aren't on a timer they will be
more relaxed, safer on the road not racing to do as many miles as they
can and racing the next guy to get in a spot before their timer runs
out and they have to park illegally on a posted ramp or on the side of
the road.''
V. FMCSA Decision
FMCSA evaluated FOPT's application and public comments and denies
the exemption request. Section 32301(b) of
[[Page 61916]]
the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Enhancement Act, enacted as a part
of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub.
L. 112-141, July 6, 2012, 126 Stat 405, 765), mandated that the
Secretary adopt regulations requiring that CMVs involved in interstate
commerce operated by drivers who are required to keep RODS be equipped
with ELDs. The Agency is therefore bound by this Congressional mandate
and cannot grant a blanket exemption for any driver or carrier that
wishes to be exempt.
FMCSA further concludes that FOPT's application does not provide
information establishing that the requested exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved absent such exemption. FOPT indicated that
it would educate its members to ensure accuracy in paper log
completion, that participating carriers would conduct random internal
audits, and that violations of HOS limits by paper log users would
result in exclusion from the exemption program. However, FOPT proposed
that the exemption would apply to all drivers who wanted to use the
exemption, not just to FOPT members. FOPT does not explain how its
proposed safety countermeasures would apply to an unknown population of
drivers or how violators would be excluded from the exemption program.
For the above reasons, the FOPT exemption application is denied.
Derek D. Barrs,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-20043 Filed 9-29-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 30, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.