Court of Appeals rejects HOS Shorthaul and Driver Break Requirements Review
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will not review a challenge to specific federal hours-of-service standards brought forth by the Teamsters Union and three charity organizations.
The group’s legal challenge claimed that the May 2020 final HoS rule was “arbitrary and capricious” because it did not consider the effects of changes to record-keeping requirements for short-haul commercial vehicle drivers and rest break requirements for long-haul drivers on driver safety and health.
According to the appeal panel, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s HOS regulations were sufficiently “explained and grounded in the administrative record,” which rejected the petition for reconsideration.
In its decision, the appellate court stated, “The administration continues to rely on hours-of-service limitations as a linchpin regulatory measure to ensure the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles. Two of those regulations are at issue here: a special record-keeping exemption for short-haul drivers and the requirement that long-haul drivers take a 30-minute break at set intervals.”
By requiring a break after eight hours of nonstop driving and enabling the break to be satisfied by a driver using “on-duty, not driving” status rather than “off-duty,” the final HOS rule, according to FMCSA, offers more flexibility for the 30-minute rest breaks rule.
The final adjustment to the previous HOS rule also changed the short-haul exception that was available to some drivers by increasing their total on-duty time from 12 to 14 hours and the maximum distance they could operate within from 100 to 150 air miles.
The short-haul exception makes it possible for more drivers to benefit from lowered record-keeping standards, which include a ban on the use of electronic logging devices. According to the panel, it also exempts such drivers from the long-haul drivers’ 30-minute break obligation.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, and Parents Against Tired Truckers joined the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in filing the petition. They claimed that FMCSA had not sufficiently explained why it had determined that the new short-haul exemption was safety-neutral about collision risk and driver health and that it would not have a negative impact on regulatory compliance.
More drivers can benefit from the short-haul exemption’s streamlined record-keeping requirements, which also include an exemption for the use of ELDs. According to the panel, it also exempts those drivers from the 30-minute break rule that is in effect for long-haul drivers.
In submitting the petition, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters was joined by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, and Parents Against Tired Truckers. They claimed that FMCSA had not sufficiently explained why it had determined that the new short-haul exemption was safe in terms of collision risk and driver health and would not harm regulatory compliance.
The organizations also claimed that the government failed to adequately explain how the change to the 30-minute break rule would not harm driver health and would be safety-neutral.
A Teamsters study found that: “Some Teamsters members now qualify for the short-haul exemption and will probably be allocated work that either increases [vehicle-miles driven] or requires more non-driving responsibilities that make the workday 14 hours long. A short-haul driver protested that the present 12-hour workweek was “more than enough” and that a 14-hour shift would prevent him from leading a “family-sustaining lifestyle.”
The loss of the prior 30-minute break limit for short-haul drivers was “overwhelmingly expressed” by other Teamsters members who were subject to the new break requirement. The Teamsters said that carriers would “punish” them for taking unauthorized breaks when they were tired and would pressure them to work harder by asking them to complete additional on-duty/non-driving chores.
A panel on appeal disapproved.
The panel noted that although some areas of the administration’s analysis and rationale were lacking, overall, it was concluded that the new short-haul exemption and the 30-minute break requirement would not harm safety, driver health, or regulatory compliance.
“Because drivers now have 30 more minutes to adjust to unexpected weather, traffic, and detention times, they can take breaks without penalty when they need rest. In addition, drivers could gain more restorative sleep because eliminating the 30-minute off-duty break could allow drivers to reach their destination earlier,” the panel said.