Final briefs filed in hours-of-service lawsuit

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s changes to the hours of service have been in effect for about 18 months, but the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and several safety groups are attempting to get two of the provisions stripped from the rule.

The Teamsters, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways and Parents Against Tired Truckers contend that the agency’s changes to short-haul operations and the 30-minute break negatively affect safety and were made without justification.

FMCSA and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which is serving as an intervenor in the case, argue that rule changes were part of a two-year process based off research and more than 8,000 comments from stakeholders.

On Tuesday, March 8, final briefs for the lawsuit were turned in to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 25.

Rule changes

FMCSA made four changes to the hours of service in an attempt to give truck drivers more flexibility within the rules. The short-haul operations provision increased the on-duty limits from 12 to 14 hours and from 100 air-miles to 150. The 30-minute break provision was modified to allow on-duty, nondriving events, such as fueling or inspecting the load, to meet the requirement. The rule changes also included changes to the adverse driving provision and split-sleeper options, but those updates are not being contested in court.

The lawsuit was filed shortly before the rules took effect in September 2020 but was then put on hold early in 2021 to give a new administration time to familiarize itself with the case. The lawsuit resumed late in 2021 with the petitioners focusing on the short-haul and rest break provisions.

Arbitrary changes?

The Teamsters and the safety groups call the rule changes “arbitrary” and say that FMCSA didn’t consider the risks caused by the new provisions regarding short haul and rest breaks.

“With respect to the short-haul changes, FMCSA failed to account for the risks of driving later in the duty day, to reasonably address a study showing that short-haul drivers have a 383% higher crash risk than other drivers, and to adequately explain why the changes will not increase occupational injuries or affect compliance with hours-of-service regulations,” petitioners wrote in its brief.

“With respect to the changes to the 30-minute break requirement, FMCSA failed to analyze the effects of the changes on driver health or to consider the effects of fatigue due to cumulative on-duty hours or nondriving work.”

FMCSA’s stance

FMCSA responded by claiming the petitioners lacked standing by not even attempting to identify members who have suffered harm from the rule.

The agency also argued that changes were incremental and implemented after careful review.

“The incremental changes to the hours-of-service rules challenged here reflect FMCSA’s weighing of scientific evidence and its careful consideration of the potential impacts on driver health and highway safety,” FMCSA wrote. “The current rule does not alter the length of time a driver may drive, and it generally requires a 30-minute driving break after eight hours of driving. It represents a modest expansion of the conditions a driver must meet to qualify for an exception to logging requirements and permits truck drivers to use their 30-minute break to perform “on-duty” activities like refueling or paperwork.

OOIDA’s stance

The Association believes the changes to the hours of service were based in common sense and aimed at giving drivers more flexibility to drive when they deem it is safe and to stop when they are tired.

OOIDA argues that FMCSA justified its changes to the 30-minute break requirement with reasonable interpretations of data in the administrative record.

The (petitioners’) principal objection to the changes to the 30-minute break requirement is premised on the idea that working, whether driving or otherwise, causes fatigue … But FMCSA specifically pointed to evidence suggesting that any break from ‘time on task’ provides significant safety benefits. In addition to the statistical evidence, commenters provided similar information,” OOIDA wrote.

“OOIDA reported that forcing drivers to stop, for a 30-minute off-duty break, within the first eight hours of coming on duty, often forces drivers to stop before they are tired and to stop at times or locations when there is no safe place to park their truck, like the highway shoulder. The updated rule lets drivers take advantage of natural, preexisting, breaks from driving.”

In addition, OOIDA said the petitioners’ arguments against the short-haul provision weren’t supported by evidence.

“As a general matter, OOIDA takes umbrage at the implication that truck drivers generally attempt to reach or exceed the maximum driving time on a routine basis,” the Association wrote. “It is incorrect, disingenuous and unsupported in the record to assert or imply that the hours-of-service limits have the practical effect of cutting short the daily schedules of the truck-driver population as a matter of course.” LL