Rest and meal breaks for truckers are coming under scrutiny as groups and lawmakers are at odds over whether state-specific rules should override federal laws, after a controversial provision requiring states to follow federal laws was recently stripped from an aviation bill.
Proponents of uniform rest and meal breaks across the country are concerned that different rules for various states would prompt confusion, as more than 20 states have different meal break rules that deviate from the federal standard.
“If this state meal and rest break issue starts promulgating to a fashion that becomes rampant where you have 48 states … with different meal and rest breaks from the federal rule, then it becomes a question of what do you follow, and I don’t think anybody wants to be in that position,” said David Heller, vice president of government affairs at Truckload Carriers Association.
“There’s a lot of avenues that can hasten or further truck driver safety, we just have to be prepared to do that, and operating under one federal standard is going to be the best we can actually do it,” Heller added.
Under federal law, truck drivers are required to take 30-minute rest breaks every eight hours, and are permitted to take additional breaks as needed depending on their fatigue levels and other factors, although they are not paid for those breaks.
However, states can override federal laws. For example, California requires truck drivers to take a paid 30-minute meal break every five hours, in addition to a paid 10-minute rest break for every four hours they work.
The rules attracted additional attention after the House removed the so-called “Denham Amendment” shepherded by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., from its version of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill late last month. The provision would have allowed truck carriers to be exempt from adhering to state meal and rest break rules.
Groups including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters praised the decision to remove the measure, as they had argued it was an attempt to take away truck drivers’ paid breaks during the work day.
“Congress was smart to realize that no one wants to ground a FAA bill in order to attack truck drivers.” Teamsters general president Jim Hoffa said in a statement in September.
The Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association also opposed the amendment because they claimed it was too broad. OOIDA spokesperson Norita Taylor said the amendment was “poorly written” and “goes well beyond addressing meal and rest breaks.”
Specifically, OOIDA pointed to language in the amendment that would have barred states from “imposing any additional obligations on motor carriers,” which OOIDA argued might prompt “blanket federal preemption for any issue that a state might want to address to improve the lives of employee truck drivers,” according to an OOIDA fact sheet.
“None of this is good for small-business truckers,” Taylor said.
But American Trucking Associations President Chris Spear indicated last month during ATA’s Economic Summit that if the Denham Amendment were stripped from the FAA bill, “we will move to the Department of Transportation” to appeal changes through a regulatory process, rather than through legislation.
As a result, ATA filed a petition late last month with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration urging the agency to conclude that federal law supersedes California’s state rest and meal break rules.
“We will be submitting comments at the end of the month on this issue,” Heller said. “Obviously, we’re supportive of preemption.”
An administration spokesperson declined to comment to the Washington Examiner, but Heller said he anticipates the agency will make a determination before the end of the year.
“We would expect to receive word on whether this moves forward with the federal preemption sometime around Thanksgiving, possibly Christmas,” Heller said. “If we can get it, that’s great news. If not, then we obviously we would have to consider what the next step is.”
