WASHINGTON — Claims that giving truck drivers more time for meals and rest will worsen parking shortages in California and Washington are baseless, according to two groups seeking federal preemption waivers.
The Teamsters and the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) have petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for the waivers in response to FMCSA’s notice published in August announcing it would consider rolling back its 2018 and 2020 decisions finding that meal and rest break rules in California and Washington are preempted by federal hours-of-service rules.
In California, truck drivers and other employees must be given a 30-minute meal break if they work more than five hours in a day, and drivers who work a shift of 10 hours or more are entitled to a second 30-minute meal break. Employees are also entitled to a 10-minute rest period for each four hours that they work in a day. Washington’s rules are similar.
Federal hours-of-service rules — which were revamped in September 2020 — require only that drivers be provided a 30-minute break after eight hours of driving time (instead of on-duty time) and allow an on-duty/not driving period to qualify as the required break.
However, FMCSA indicated in its August notice that any federal preemption waiver would focus on how petitioners address truck parking, and whether — as the trucking lobby asserts — allowing California’s and Washington’s stricter meal and rest break (MRB) laws would exacerbate parking shortages, result in more trucks parked on the side of the road and “create additional dangers to drivers and the public.”
But claims that the state MRB laws create safety issues by exacerbating parking shortages are unfounded, according to attorneys representing the Teamsters in their waiver request.
“Any parking shortages that do exist primarily impact one segment of commercial drivers — long-haul property drivers — and do not impact short-haul drivers who have many more opportunities throughout their day to stop and take breaks,” the attorneys stated.
Even for long-haul drivers, there is no persuasive evidence that there is a direct connection between the California and Washington MRB laws and truck parking or that the laws encourage drivers to park in unsafe places, the Teamsters claimed.
“Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, it is completely illogical for the agency to attempt to address parking concerns by depriving drivers of breaks which have been shown to increase drivers’ and public safety,” the labor group stated.
“If a lack of parking really does have the negative effect on safety that the agency and industry players claim, the agency should take steps to directly address that issue through its rulemaking powers, or by supporting separate efforts at the state and federal level to legislatively address these parking issues. The agency should not place the burden of that issue on drivers, who are not the ones that created or have control over any parking issue that does exist.”
TSC, a crash victim advocacy group, acknowledged “the very real and legitimate concerns” regarding truck parking shortages and safety as it pertains to drivers who approach their hours-of-service cap. Many such drivers, who also risk driving fatigued, end up parking on the road shoulder or on exit ramps due to a lack of legitimate parking.
However, “it is very unclear what, if any, documented negative safety impacts result from 30-minute rest breaks, whereby very few vehicles may pass by in that short time,” TSC contended in its petition. “Additionally, federal research indicates truck parking shortages are far more likely to occur in the evenings and overnight.”
In addition, “the premise that 30-minute driving breaks could create ‘additional danger to the public’ is absurd,” TSC stated. “In fact, 30-minute rest breaks have undisputed safety benefits, something FMCSA affirmed” in proposed hours-of-service rule changes in 2010.
Union, advocates dismiss supply chain concerns
The Teamsters and TSC pushed back on other factors FMCSA said it will use to decide whether to grant a waiver: extra burdens on interstate commerce and dissuading carriers from operating in California and Washington — both of which have been cited by the trucking industry in supporting the current federal preemptions in those states.
Regarding burdens on commerce, “TSC respectfully points out this framing is offensive to truck crash victims and anyone who cares about roadway safety,” the group stated, maintaining that FMCSA was relying on a perspective from the American Trucking Associations, which believes regulations should impose a minimal burden on commerce.
“Paying [the cost that] safety requires necessarily reintroduces a previously externalized cost back into supply chain stakeholders, where it always belonged,” TSC stated. “If those who have shirked paying this cost for generations balk at paying the cost now, TSC fails to see that as a ‘burden on commerce.’ Rather, it was always the responsibility of commerce who unjustly foisted this burden on taxpayers and crash victims for far too long.”
Also, the trucking industry’s claim that carriers will be “forced to flee” California and Washington due to extra costs required by the MRB laws is a “red herring,” according to the Teamsters.
“What this reasoning ignores is that it does not actually cost trucking companies much to comply with Washington and California’s MRB laws,” the labor group asserted, considering that 19 other states also regulate meal and rest break requirements.
“Given that carriers still must implement systems to comply with 19 other states’ MRB laws … the marginal administrative cost of complying … is sure to be small.”
Related articles:
Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.
Credit: Source link
