[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 105 (Monday, June 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33396-33452]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11469]

Vol. 85

Monday,

No. 105

June 1, 2020

Part III

 Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

49 CFR Parts 385 and 395

Hours of Service of Drivers; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 105 / Monday, June 1, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 385 and 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0248]
RIN 2126-AC19

Hours of Service of Drivers

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA revises the hours of service (HOS) regulations to
provide greater flexibility for drivers subject to those rules without
adversely affecting safety. The Agency expands the short-haul exception
to 150 air-miles and allows a 14-hour work shift to take place as part
of the exception; expands the driving window during adverse driving
conditions by up to an additional 2 hours; requires a 30-minute break
after 8 hours of driving time (instead of on-duty time) and allows an
on-duty/not driving period to qualify as the required break; and
modifies the sleeper berth exception to allow a driver to meet the 10-
hour minimum off-duty requirement by spending at least 7, rather than
at least 8 hours of that period in the berth and a minimum off-duty
period of at least 2 hours spent inside or outside of the berth,
provided the two periods total at least 10 hours, and that neither
qualifying period counts against the 14-hour driving window.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 29, 2020. Petitions for
Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted to the FMCSA
Administrator no later than July 1, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
about viewing material in the docket, contact Docket Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This final rule is organized as follows:

I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
II. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of Major Provisions of the Final Rule
    C. Costs and Benefits
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
V. Background
    A. OOIDA Petition for Rulemaking
    B. TruckerNation Petition for Rulemaking
    C. Additional Petitions for Rulemaking
    D. 2018 ANPRM
    E. ANPRM Public Listening Sessions
    F. 2019 NPRM
VI. Stakeholder Engagement Following Publication of the NPRM
    A. Summary of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee
Meeting
    B. Summary of Comments Presented at the NPRM Public Listening
Sessions
    C. Summary of the Written Comments to the NPRM; FMCSA Responses
to the Written Comments
VII. Discussion of the Rule
    A. Short-Haul Operations
    B. Adverse Driving Conditions
    C. 30-Minute Break
    D. Sleeper Berth
    E. Split-Duty Provision
    F. TruckerNation Petition
    G. Petitions for Rulemaking Submitted After the NPRM
    H. Compliance Date for the Rulemaking
VIII. International Impacts
IX. Section-by-Section Analysis
    A. Section 395.1 Scope of Rules in This Part
    B. Section 395.3 Maximum Driving Time for Property-Carrying
Vehicles
X. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review),
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs)
    C. Congressional Review Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Assistance for Small Entities
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
    I. Privacy
    K. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth)
    L. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
    M. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)
    N. Environment (Clean Air Act, NEPA)

I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2018-0248 to read background documents
and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or
to Docket Operations at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 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<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting the Docket Operations

II. Executive Summary

A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action

    The implementation of the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) rule (80
FR 78292, December 16, 2015) and ELDs' ability to increase compliance
with HOS regulations for drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
prompted numerous requests for FMCSA to consider revising certain HOS
provisions to provide greater flexibility. The Agency received requests
from members of Congress and multiple stakeholders seeking relief from
certain provisions. In response, FMCSA published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on August 23, 2018 (83 FR 42631) and held
five public listening sessions. The Agency published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 22, 2019 (84 FR 44190) and held
two additional public listening sessions. This final rule revises the
HOS regulations to provide greater flexibility for drivers subject to
those rules without adversely affecting safety.

B. Summary of Major Provisions of the Final Rule

    This final rule will improve efficiency without compromising safety
by providing flexibility for drivers in four areas without changing the
maximum allowable driving time. The rule extends the maximum duty
period allowed under the short-haul exception in 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1)
from 12 hours to 14 hours. It also extends the maximum radius in which
the short-haul exception applies from 100 to 150 air-miles. FMCSA
modifies the definition of adverse driving conditions so that the
adverse driving conditions exception may be applied based on the
driver's (in addition to the dispatcher's) knowledge of the conditions
after being dispatched, and extends the driving window during which the
current exception for extended driving time may be used by up to 2
hours for truck and bus operations under Sec. Sec.  395.3(a)(2) and
395.5(a)(2), respectively. The Agency makes the 30-minute break
requirement for drivers of property-carrying CMVs in Sec.
395.3(a)(3)(ii) applicable only when a driver has driven (instead of
having been on-duty) for a period of 8 hours without at least a 30-
minute non-driving interruption. The break may be satisfied by any non-
driving period of 30 minutes, i.e., on-duty, off-duty, or sleeper berth
time. FMCSA also modifies the sleeper berth requirements to (1) allow
drivers to take their required 10 hours off-duty in two periods,
provided one off-duty period (whether in or out of the sleeper berth)
is at least 2 hours long and the other involves at least 7 consecutive
hours spent in the sleeper berth, and (2) add that neither period
counts against the maximum 14-hour driving window in Sec.  395.3(a)(2).
    The Agency excludes from the final rule its proposal to allow a
single off-duty period of up to 3 hours to be

excluded from the 14-hour driving window, for reasons explained later
in the document.

C. Costs and Benefits

    This final rule will result in increased flexibility for drivers
and a quantified reduction in costs for motor carriers. Federal and
State governments will incur one-time training costs of approximately
$8.6 million for training inspectors on the new requirements. The
Federal Government also will incur a one-time electronic Record of Duty
Status (eRODS) software update cost of approximately $20,000. The
change to the 30-minute break requirement will result in a reduction in
opportunity cost, or a cost savings, for motor carriers. FMCSA
estimates the 10-year motor carrier cost attributable to the changes to
the 30-minute break provision at -$2,814.3 million (or a cost savings
of $2,814.3 million). As shown in Table 1, FMCSA estimates the total
costs of this final rule at -$2,366.2 million (or $2,366.2 million in
cost savings) discounted at 3 percent, and -$1,917.5 million (or
$1,917.5 million in cost savings) discounted at 7 percent. Expressed on
an annualized basis, this equates to -$277.4 million in costs (or
$277.4 million in cost savings) at a 3 percent discount rate, and -
$273.0 million in costs (or $273.0 million in cost savings) at a 7
percent discount rate. All values are in 2018 dollars.
    There are a number of other potential cost savings of this final
rule that FMCSA considered but, due to uncertainty about driver
behavior, could not quantify on an industry level. These non-quantified
cost savings include increased flexibility resulting from the extension
of the duty day and the air-mile radius for those operating under the
short-haul exception; the increased options for drivers to respond to
adverse driving conditions during the course of their duty period;
reduced need to apply for exceptions from the 30-minute break
requirement and for special eligibility for the short-haul exception;
and increased flexibility afforded to drivers, such as increased
options with regard to on-duty and off-duty time resulting from changes
to the 30-minute break requirement and the sleeper berth provisions.
    None of the provisions in this final rule will increase the maximum
allowable driving time, but may result in changes to the number of
hours driven, or hours worked during a given work shift.\1\ The
flexibilities in this final rule are intended to allow drivers to shift
their drive and work time to mitigate the impacts of certain variables
(e.g., weather, traffic, detention times, etc.) and to take breaks
without penalty when they need rest. FMCSA does not anticipate that any
of these time shifts will negatively impact drivers' health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, with the newly revised short-haul provisions in
this final rule, a driver can drive for up to 11 hours maximum in
the shift, and be on-duty (not driving) for a maximum of at least 3
more hours, and remain in compliance with the rule's short-haul
exception provisions, assuming the driver returned to the normal
work reporting location within 14 hours, and within a 150-air mile
radius. By comparison, in the prior HOS short-haul exception
regulations, a driver utilizing this exception was allowed to drive
for up to 11 hours maximum in the shift, but had to return to the
normal work reporting location within 12 (not 14) hours and 100 air
miles--allowing only 1 other hour of on-duty (not driving) time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA notes that drivers of property-carrying CMVs are still
prohibited from driving more than 11 hours during a work shift (13
hours under the adverse driving conditions exception) and driving is
prohibited after an individual accumulates 14 hours of on-duty time (16
hours under the adverse driving conditions exception). Because the rule
provides greater flexibility for drivers to take breaks from the
driving tasks and greater flexibility to obtain recuperative sleep, the
rule will not have an adverse impact on drivers' health.
    As discussed later in this document and in the RIA for this final
rule, FMCSA anticipates that individual drivers may see a change in
their work hours (both driving and non-driving) or vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), but this final rule will not result in an increase in
freight movement or aggregate VMT. Aggregate VMT is determined by many
factors, including market demand for transportation services. FMCSA
does not anticipate that the changes in this final rule, which produce
an annual cost savings to carriers of 0.03 percent of total trucking
revenues of nearly $800 billion in 2018, are sufficient to stimulate
demand in the freight market, but acknowledges that freight loads may
shift from one carrier or driver to another. After consideration of the
potential impacts, FMCSA has determined that this final rule will not
adversely affect driver fatigue levels or safety. Table 2 summarizes
the changes in this rule.

                                              Table 1--Total 10-Year and Annualized Costs of the Final Rule
                                                                 [In millions of 2018$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Federal  and     Cost due to
                                                                          state      changes in  30-    Total costs--      Total costs--   Total costs--
                                Year                                   government       min break        undiscounted       (7 percent      (3 percent
                                                                          cost          provision                         discount rate)  discount rate)
                                                                                A               B          C = A + B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020...............................................................            $8.6         ($98.3)            ($89.7)           ($83.8)         ($87.1)
2021...............................................................             0.0         (296.1)            (296.1)           (258.6)         (279.1)
2022...............................................................             0.0         (297.5)            (297.5)           (242.9)         (272.3)
2023...............................................................             0.0         (298.9)            (298.9)           (228.0)         (265.6)
2024...............................................................             0.0         (300.3)            (300.3)           (214.1)         (259.1)
2025...............................................................             0.0         (301.8)            (301.8)           (201.1)         (252.7)
2026...............................................................             0.0         (303.2)            (303.2)           (188.8)         (246.5)
2027...............................................................             0.0         (304.6)            (304.6)           (177.3)         (240.5)
2028...............................................................             0.0         (306.1)            (306.1)           (166.5)         (234.6)
2029...............................................................             0.0         (307.5)            (307.5)           (156.3)         (228.8)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total 10-Year Costs............................................  ..............  ..............  ...................       (1,917.5)       (2,366.2)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annualized Costs.........................................  ..............  ..............  ...................         (273.0)         (277.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Values shown in parentheses are negative values (i.e., less than zero) and represent a decrease in cost or a cost savings.

                                          Table 2--Revised Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           HOS provision              Existing requirement     Revised requirement             Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-Haul.........................  Drivers using the       Extends the maximum     Increases the number of
                                      short-haul (100 air-    duty period allowed     drivers able to take
                                      mile radius)            under the short-haul    advantage of the short-
                                      exception may not be    exception from 12       haul (150 air-mile)
                                      on-duty more than 12    hours to 14 hours.      exception.
                                      hours.
                                     Drivers using the       Extends the maximum     Potentially shifts work and
                                      short-haul (150 air-    radius of the short-    drive time from long-haul
                                      mile radius)            haul exception from     to short-haul exception,
                                      exception applicable    100 to 150 air-miles.   or from driver to driver.
                                      to drivers not                                 Minimum or no change to
                                      requiring a CDL may                             hours driven or aggregate
                                      not drive beyond the                            VMT.
                                      14th or 16th hour on-
                                      duty, depending upon
                                      the number of days on
                                      duty.
Adverse Driving Conditions.........  A driver may drive and  Allows a driver to      Increases the use of the
                                      be permitted or         extend the maximum      adverse driving condition
                                      required to drive a     ``driving window'' by   provision.
                                      CMV for not more than   up to 2 hours during   Allows driving later in the
                                      2 additional hours      adverse driving         workday, potentially
                                      beyond the maximum      conditions. This        shifting forward the hours
                                      time allowed.           change applies both     driven and VMT travelled.
                                      However, this does      to drivers of          Allows drivers time to park
                                      not currently extend    property-carrying       and wait out the adverse
                                      the maximum ``driving   CMVs (14-hour           driving condition or to
                                      windows.''.             ``driving window'')     drive slowly through it.
                                                              and passenger-          This has the potential to
                                                              carrying CMVs (15-      decrease crash risk
                                                              hour ``driving          relative to current
                                                              window'').              requirements, assuming
                                                                                drivers now drive through
                                                                                adverse driving
                                                                                conditions.
                                                                                No increase in freight
                                                                                volume or aggregate VMT.
30-minute break....................  If more than 8          Requires a 30-minute    Increases the on-duty/non-
                                      consecutive hours       break only when a       driving time by up-to 30
                                      have passed since the   driver has driven for   minutes, or allow drivers
                                      last off-duty (or       a period of 8 hours     to reach their destination
                                      sleeper berth) period   without at least a 30-  earlier.
                                      of at least half an     minute interruption.   No anticipated fatigue
                                      hour, a driver must     If required, the        effect because drivers
                                      take an off-duty        break may be            continue to be constrained
                                      break of at least 30    satisfied by any non-   by the 11-hour driving
                                      minutes before          driving period of 30    limit and would continue
                                      driving.                minutes, i.e. on-       to receive on-duty/non-
                                                              duty, off-duty, or      driving breaks from the
                                                              sleeper berth time.     driving task.
                                                                                Minimal or no change to
                                                                                hours driven or VMT, as
                                                                                the current off-duty break
                                                                                only impacts these factors
                                                                                if the schedule required
                                                                                driving late within the 14-
                                                                                hour driving window.
Split-Sleeper berth................  A driver can use the    Modifies the sleeper    Allow one hour to be
                                      sleeper berth to get    berth requirements to   shifted from the longer
                                      the ``equivalent of     allow drivers to take   rest period to the shorter
                                      at least 10             their required 10       rest period.
                                      consecutive hours off-  hours off-duty in two  Potentially increase the
                                      duty.'' To do this,     periods, provided one   use of sleeper berths
                                      the driver must spend   off-duty period         because drivers using a
                                      at least 8              (whether in or out of   berth have additional
                                      consecutive hours       the sleeper berth) is   hours to complete 11 hours
                                      (but less than 10       at least 2 hours long   of driving (by virtue of
                                      consecutive hours) in   and the other           excluding the shorter rest
                                      the sleeper berth.      involves at least 7     period from the
                                      This rest period does   consecutive hours       calculation of the 14-hour
                                      not count as part of    spent in the sleeper    driving window).
                                      the 14-hour limit. A    berth. Neither period  No anticipated negative
                                      second, separate rest   counts against the      effect on fatigue because
                                      period must be at       maximum 14-hour         aggregate drive limits and
                                      least 2 (but less       driving window.         off-duty time remains
                                      than 10) consecutive                            unchanged.
                                      hours long. This                               Hours driven or VMT may
                                      period may be spent                             change for an individual
                                      in the sleeper berth,                           driver on a given work
                                      off-duty, or sleeper                            shift (by increased use of
                                      berth and off-duty                              the sleeper berth). Total
                                      combined. It does                               hours driven or aggregate
                                      count as part of the                            VMT would remain the same.
                                      maximum 14-hour
                                      driving window.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Abbreviations and Acronyms

1935 Act The Motor Carrier Act of 1935
1984 Act The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
AASM The American Academy of Sleep Medicine
ABA American Bus Association
ACPA American Concrete Pumping Association
Advocates Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
ATA American Trucking Associations, Inc.
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMV Commercial motor vehicle
CRA Congressional Review Act
CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
DOT Department of Transportation
ELD Electronic logging device
E.O. Executive Order
eRODS Electronic record of duty status
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FR Federal Register
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
HOS Hours of service
IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
IBT International Brotherhood of Teamsters
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
LTL less-than-truckload
MCSAC Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee
MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System

NAPA The National Asphalt Pavement Association
National Academies National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine
ND Naturalistic Driving
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPPC National Pork Producers Council
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NSC The National Safety Council
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OOIDA Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
RODS Record of duty status
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBA The Small Business Administration
SCE Safety critical event
Sec.  Section
Secretary Secretary of Transportation
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
TIA Transportation Intermediaries Association
The Coalition National Coalition on Truck Parking
TL truckload
TRB Transportation Research Board
TruckerNation TruckerNation.org
TSC Truck Safety Coalition
UDA United Drivers Association
USDOT The U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S.C. United States Code
USTA United States Transportation Alliance
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This final rule is based on the authority derived from the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
(1984 Act). The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that ``The Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours
of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor
private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.'' (49
U.S.C. 31502(b)(1), (2)).
    The HOS regulations below concern the ``maximum hours of service of
employees'' of both motor carriers and motor private carriers, as
authorized by the 1935 Act.
    This rule also is based on the authority of the 1984 Act, as
amended, which provides broad concurrent authority to regulate drivers,
motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) to ``prescribe regulations on commercial
motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety
standards for commercial motor vehicles.'' The 1984 Act also requires
that: ``At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that--(1) commercial
motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely;
(2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor
vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely;
(3) the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is
adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely . . .; (4) the
operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious
effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator
of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier,
shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a
commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under
this section . . .''. (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)-(5)).
    This rule is based specifically on section 31136(a)(2) and, less
directly, sections 31136(a)(3) and (4). To the extent section
31136(a)(1) focuses on the mechanical condition of CMVs, that subject
is not included in this rulemaking. However, as the phrase ``operated
safely'' in paragraph (a)(1) encompasses safe driving practices, this
final rule also addresses that mandate. To the extent section
31136(a)(4) focuses on the health of the driver, the Agency addresses
that issue below. As for section 31136(a)(5), FMCSA anticipates that
because the rule makes the HOS regulations more flexible, the rule will
not increase the risk that drivers will be coerced to operate a
commercial motor vehicle in violation of the regulations.
    Before prescribing regulations under these authorities, FMCSA must
consider their ``costs and benefits'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and
31502(d)). Those factors are addressed below.

V. Background

    For an extended discussion of the history of the HOS regulations,
please see the NPRM (84 FR 44190, at 44193-44196, August 22, 2019).
Following implementation of the ELD rule and increased accuracy in HOS
tracking, FMCSA received feedback from members of Congress and other
interested parties expressing the need for additional flexibility for
drivers under the HOS rules.

A. OOIDA Petition for Rulemaking

    On February 13, 2018, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA) petitioned FMCSA to amend the HOS rules to allow
drivers to take an off-duty rest break for up to 3 consecutive hours
once per 14-hour driving window. OOIDA requested that the rest break
stop the 14-hour clock and extend the latest time a driver could drive
after coming on-duty.\2\ However, drivers would still be limited to 11
hours of driving time and required to have at least 10 consecutive
hours off-duty before the start of the next work shift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-1210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OOIDA's petition also included a request that the Agency eliminate
the 30-minute break requirement. The organization explained that there
are many operational situations where the 30-minute break requires
drivers to stop when they do not feel tired.

B. TruckerNation Petition for Rulemaking

    On May 10, 2018, TruckerNation petitioned the Agency to revise the
prohibition against driving after the 14th hour following the beginning
of the work shift.\3\ As an alternative, the organization requested
that the Agency prohibit driving after the driver has accumulated 14-
hours of on-duty time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, TruckerNation requested that FMCSA allow drivers to
use multiple off-duty periods of 3 hours or longer in lieu of having 10
consecutive hours off-duty and eliminate the 30-minute break
requirement.

C. Additional Petitions for Rulemaking

    Two additional petitions for rulemaking were received: One from the
United States Transportation Alliance (USTA) and one from the United
Drivers Association (UDA).\4\ The petitions were not discussed in the
ANPRM due to the timing of receipt; however, they were reviewed and
considered in the development of the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-2550 and https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-0342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The USTA petition proposed an HOS rule that would prohibit driving
after 80 hours on-duty in a work week (instead of the current limits in
Sec. Sec.  395.3(b) and 395.5(b)), and allow a 14-hour day for driving
or other work duties. Drivers' remaining 10 hours would include 2 hours
of off-duty time, and 8 hours of sleeper berth time that could be split
into two segments, with a minimum of 2 hours per segment. The 80-hour
clock would be reset by 24 hours off-duty. The petition is included in
the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    The UDA proposal maintained the 14/10 HOS rule; however, the 10
hours off-duty could be split into two 5-hour sleeper berth periods.
The weekly on-

duty time, after which driving would be prohibited, would be 80 hours
in an 8-day period, with a 24-hour restart, similar to that proposed by
USTA. The petition is included in the docket referenced at the
beginning of this notice.

D. 2018 ANPRM

    The August 23, 2018, ANPRM (83 FR 42631) requested public comment
on four areas pertaining to the HOS rules: Short-haul operations, the
adverse driving conditions exception, the 30-minute break requirement,
and the sleeper berth provision. The ANPRM also sought public comment
on two petitions for rulemaking relating to the HOS rules, one from
OOIDA and one from TruckerNation.

E. ANPRM Public Listening Sessions

    FMCSA held a series of public listening sessions following the
release of the ANPRM. These were held in Dallas, Texas, on August 24,
2018; Reno, Nevada, on September 24, 2018; Joplin, Missouri, on
September 28, 2018; Orlando, Florida, on October 2, 2018; and
Washington, DC, on October 10, 2018.\5\ Transcripts of those listening
sessions are available in the public docket for the rulemaking, and are
available to stream at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/public-listening-sessions-hours-service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Listening sessions were announced in the Federal Register at
83 FR 42631, August 23, 2018; 83 FR 45204, September 6, 2018; 83 FR
47589, September 20, 2018; 83 FR 48787, September 27, 2018, and 83
FR 50055, October 4, 2018. The listening session scheduled for
September 14, 2018 in Washington, DC was canceled and rescheduled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. 2019 NPRM

    FMCSA published an NPRM on August 22, 2019 (84 FR 44190). This NPRM
requested comment on five topics: (1) Altering the short-haul exception
to the record of duty status (RODS) requirement available to certain
CMV drivers, (2) modifying the adverse driving conditions exception,
(3) increasing flexibility for the 30-minute break rule by requiring a
break after 8 hours of driving time (instead of on-duty time) and
allowing on-duty/not driving periods to qualify as breaks, (4)
modifying the sleeper berth exception to allow a driver to spend a
minimum of 7 hours in the berth combined with a minimum 2-hour off-duty
period, provided the combined periods total 10 hours and allowing
neither period to count against the maximum 14-hour driving window, and
(5) allowing one off-duty break that would pause a truck driver's 14-
hour driving window.
    The Agency held two public listening sessions with the first being
conducted at the Great American Truck Show on August 23, 2019, in
Dallas, Texas. The second listening session was held at the United
States Department of Transportation (DOT) in Washington, DC on
September 17, 2019.\6\ Transcripts of those listening sessions are
available in the public docket for the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Listening sessions were announced in the Federal Register at
84 FR 43097, August 20, 2019, and 84 FR 45940, September 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Stakeholder Engagement Following Publication of the NPRM

A. Summary of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Meeting

    On August 28, 2019, FMCSA announced that a public meeting of the
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) would be held on
September 30, 2019, and October 1, 2019 (84 FR 45201). As part of the
Agency's efforts to engage its stakeholders and State partners in a
conversational setting rather than waiting until the end of the public
comment period and relying solely on submissions to the rulemaking
docket, the MCSAC was asked to review the NPRM and provide feedback to
the Agency. The process involved deliberations among the MCSAC members
with Agency representatives present to answer questions about the
contents of the NPRM and regulatory impact analysis.
    In its report issued on October 15, 2019, https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/advisory-committees/mcsac/task-19-1-hos-report, the
MCSAC stated that it would need more information to understand the
potential impacts of the proposed changes. Additionally, the MCSAC
expressed concern that the rulemaking may not provide quantitative
improvements to safety, although the NPRM's preamble indicated the
rulemaking would increase flexibility without reducing safety. The
MCSAC discussed the history of certain hours-of-service (HOS)
provisions to understand the Agency's rationale for the current
requirements and the reasons for proposing changes, highlighting the
need to consider data and information presented by commenters to the
rulemaking docket before making any final decisions about changes to
the HOS rules. The MCSAC considered potential enforcement challenges
associated with the proposed changes, including discussions that the
use of the increased flexibility should be at the driver's discretion.
The MCSAC also stated that drivers may be pressured by shippers/
receivers to use the flexibility to go into an off-duty status rather
than addressing detention time issues. Finally, there was concern that
the Agency should not provide additional HOS flexibility to high-risk
carriers with demonstrated safety performance problems and difficulty
achieving compliance with the current HOS rules.
    In keeping with the intent of its task to the MCSAC, the Agency did
not attempt to influence the committee's deliberations or express views
concerning the MCSAC's report as it was being drafted by the committee
during the public meeting. The Agency used the opportunity to hear the
initial reactions of a cross section of stakeholders and State partners
to the HOS proposals in anticipation of the formal written comments
that would be submitted to the rulemaking docket.

B. Summary of Comments Presented at the NPRM Public Listening Sessions

    FMCSA held two public listening sessions during the comment period
for the NPRM as part of the Agency's efforts to engage the public in a
conversational setting to get a sense of their initial reactions rather
than waiting until the end of the public comment period and relying
solely on submissions to the rulemaking docket. During the listening
sessions, a panel of Agency officials took in-person public comments
and solicited online comments. The panel also answered questions and
clarified parts of the NPRM when requested. Both sessions are available
online, and transcripts have been placed in the docket.\7\ Because the
same substantive comments were also submitted in writing to the docket,
FMCSA responds to these comments in the responses to written comments
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/public-listening-session-live-stream-hours-service-drivers https://youtu.be/MHo6OjoBAfk, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-8166, and https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-8167, last accessed February 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In keeping with the intent of the public meetings, the Agency did
not attempt to influence the participants' beliefs or opinions. The
Agency used the opportunity to hear the initial reactions of interested
parties to the HOS rule in anticipation of the formal written comments
that would be submitted to the rulemaking docket. Throughout the public
listening session participants were encouraged to submit written
comments to the rulemaking docket and to include any information (e.g.,
research reports or studies, etc.) and data they would like the Agency
to consider.

    Short-haul. Many commenters agreed with the proposed extension of
the workday to 14 hours. Several commenters requested clarification of
how the proposed changes would interact with each other, and about ELD
use. Questions about the question of returning to their normal work
reporting location were asked.
    Adverse Driving Conditions. Most commenters spoke positively of the
proposed changes to the adverse driving conditions rule. Several
requested that the Agency clarify the criteria for acceptable use of
this exception. Many commenters asked for expansion of the definition
of ``adverse driving conditions''. Commenters also wanted information
regarding the impact on total driving-day and cumulative hours.
    30-Minute Break. Most commenters requested that the 30-minute break
requirement be eliminated, arguing that it has a negative impact on
safety by forcing drivers to stop when they did not need a break and to
skip breaks when they need to stop because they cannot afford to lose
the drive time. Other commenters provided many suggestions for
additional flexibility concerning the 30-minute break.
    Split-Sleeper Berth. Many commenters asked for clarification of the
proposed sleeper berth provisions. Some expressed concern about how to
calculate sleeper berth time under the proposed revisions, especially
in relation to the 3 hour pause. Others asked for other splits.
    Split-Duty Pause. Commenters primarily requested clarification
regarding which operations would be able to use the proposed 3-hour
pause, and expressed concern about abuse of the provision.

C. Summary of the Written Comments to the NPRM; FMCSA Responses

    The NPRM comment period closed on October 21, 2019. The Agency
considered late filed comments to the extent practicable and, as of
November 27, 2019, had received a total of 2,874 submissions to the
docket.
1. Agency Approach To Reviewing Research Cited in the Written Comments
    Methodology of Comment Evaluation. Because of the level of
Congressional and public interest in this HOS rulemaking, FMCSA shares
with interested parties its methodology for analyzing almost 3,000
submissions to the rulemaking docket. Approximately 200 studies were
cited in written comments to the NPRM. To ensure that FMCSA did not
overlook any relevant research, the Agency created a list of those
studies for systematic review.
    FMCSA notes that while conducting HOS rulemakings over the past 25
years, the Agency has examined many studies on the effects of time on
task on fatigue, and of fatigue on safety. Some of the studies are
based on laboratory experiments with closely controlled inputs, while
others are derived from technical data generated by drivers operating
instrumented trucks. Still others involve extensive surveys of CMV
drivers. The number of subjects or survey respondents varies
enormously, from a few dozen to many thousands. None of these studies
were considered as representative of every aspect of the enormously
varied motor carrier industry.
    The FMCSA acknowledges that no single study that it previously
reviewed or referenced in responses to the 2019 NPRM addresses all of
the proposed changes. The results of the various studies are not
uniform, rarely converging in a straightforward conclusion about
specific work-rest schedules. FMCSA therefore considered the wide range
of studies, including those provided or cited by commenters, to draw
conclusions about the overarching HOS principles based on its own
experience and expertise and the extensive, but inconclusive, body of
evidence currently available.
    Procedural Matters. A few commenters addressed procedural matters
regarding the proposed rule. Three requests for an extension of the
public comment period were received. FMCSA extended the public comment
period from October 7 to October 21, 2019.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 84 FR 49212, September 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. General Comments on the Rulemaking
    Agreement with Proposed Revisions. Approximately 530 submissions
expressed general agreement with the proposed changes. Many of these
included individuals and drivers who stated their general agreement
with the proposal without providing substantive rationale. Numerous
commenters stated that the proposed changes:
     Increase flexibility;
     Improve highway safety;
     Provide drivers with greater control when and where to
take rest breaks;
     Increase efficiency and productivity; and,
     Reduce driver stress and fatigue.
    Safety for the Long Haul, Inc. and OOIDA stated that the proposed
revisions would increase driver flexibility and efficiency without
adversely affecting driver alertness. However, Safety for the Long Haul
also argued that the ``ND [Naturalistic Driving] Mixed Safety-Critical
Event'' (SCE) method for assessing fatigue, as referenced in the
Agency's NPRM, is flawed. OOIDA commented that the proposed rule would
improve trucker safety, as drivers know best when they need to take a
break or whether driving conditions are unsafe.
    A few industry associations commented that current HOS rules have
contributed to increases in crashes involving trucks. One association
commented that current HOS rules may pressure drivers to rush or
continue driving despite being fatigued. They believe the proposed
changes would provide greater flexibility for drivers to take breaks
from the driving task.
    Several industry associations and companies from the agricultural,
beverage, construction, concrete, forest products, packaging and
recycling, and livestock sectors of the motor carrier industry stated
that the proposed rule would benefit their members.
    The National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc. commented that
the proposed rule would help ``less-than-truckload'' drivers, who have
relatively regular schedules but who are susceptible to poor traffic
conditions; they can usually obtain adequate rest and complete their
work safely. Another industry association generally supported the
proposed rule for its different treatment of long-haul, regional, and
short-haul trucking.
    Several construction industry associations supported the proposed
rule but requested that the construction industry be exempted from HOS
regulations.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees that the relief provided through this
rulemaking will benefit some of the industries or distinct operations
(e.g., propane delivery) currently seeking relief through exception or
other means.
    As for industry-specific exceptions or regulatory relief, it should
be noted that FMCSA has already granted exemptions from specific HOS
requirements to various industry segments and motor carriers, including
some related to the regulations addressed in the NPRM. The exemptions
were granted through a public notice-and-comment process authorized by
49 U.S.C. 31315, with implementing regulations provided in 49 CFR part
381.
    Three exemption applications concerning an extension of the short-
haul duty day from 12 to 14 hours have already been granted to the
following: (1) Waste Management, Inc.; (2) the American Concrete
Pumping

Association (ACPA); and (3) the National Asphalt Pavement Association
(NAPA). In addition, NAPA requested and received an exception from the
30-minute rest break provision, allowing its members to use 30 minutes
of ``waiting time'' or ``attendance time'' to satisfy the break
requirement.
    Others who have requested and received similar exemptions from the
30-minute rest break include the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC)
for drivers transporting livestock, ACPA, the American Trucking
Associations, Inc. (ATA) for placarded hazardous materials loads, the
Department of Energy for special category (often nuclear) shipments,
the National Tank Truck Carriers, the Oregon Trucking Associations, the
Specialized Carriers and Rigging Association, and the U.S. Department
of Defense's Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command.
    This final rule does not include industry-specific relief (i.e.,
regulatory exceptions). However, FMCSA notes certain industries may
find their concerns about HOS addressed by this rule. As noted above,
the requirements concerning applications for exemptions or requests for
waivers are described in 49 CFR part 381, and interested parties that
continue to believe that additional flexibility is needed should review
part 381 to determine whether an exemption application may be
warranted. The Agency notes that such requests should consider the
statutory requirement that the exemption must be likely to achieve a
level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety
provided absent the exemption.
    Disagreement with the Proposed Changes to the HOS Requirements.
Approximately 215 commenters expressed general disagreement with the
proposed rule. Numerous commenters, mostly individuals, opposed the
rule without further explanation. Many of these commenters, including
individuals and drivers, stated that the proposed rule:
     Enables companies to abuse drivers;
     Fails to promote safety;
     Does not provide enough flexibility;
     Adds confusion when looking at the provisions overall;
     Decreases efficiency and productivity; and,
     Does not address the lack of parking and problems
associated with ``pay to park'' schemes.
    Many of the commenters who opposed the rule argued that the
proposed rule would contribute to the prevalence of driver fatigue and
threaten public safety through an increase in fatigue-related crashes.
Among the commenters articulating variations on this theme were the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the National Safety
Council (NSC), the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM),
Advocates, Road Safe America, Senator Patty Murray, the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC).
Representative Greg Steube argued that the current proposal does not do
enough to fully address safety and logistics issues. The NSC,
Advocates, IBT, and TSC cited data about the importance of healthy
sleep patterns and the safety risks of fatigued driving. Road Safe
America and Senator Murray argued that the proposed rule would increase
the likelihood that motor carriers would coerce drivers into working
while fatigued, creating unsafe road conditions for drivers and other
motorists. The Institute for Policy Integrity argued that the proposed
rule is too focused on flexibility for drivers and that FMCSA should
consider the effects of the proposed rule on drivers' health.
    Representative Peter DeFazio warned that the proposed rule
significantly expands on-duty time for truck drivers, deprives drivers
of true rest, and passes more of the inefficiencies and uncertainties
of goods movement on to drivers who have little economic leverage.
Congressman DeFazio also argued that the changes may seem modest, but
instead represent a ``substantial backslide'' in a 24-year process to
update on-duty rules and reduce fatigue among commercial drivers--which
has been ``painstakingly'' debated by FMCSA, Congress, and the courts.
However, many other commenters felt strongly that the additional
flexibility would minimize the stress on a driver that results under
the current rules.
    The Small Business in Transportation Coalition expressed concern
that the proposed rule would be difficult to enforce and that drivers
needed greater flexibility. Another commenter argued that free market
forces will correct the challenge of long detention times at shippers'
and receivers' facilities, and that the proposed rule would be
counterproductive in resolving this issue.
    Senator Murray claimed the proposed rule contravened FMCSA's
mandate by unreasonably extending drivers' work hours, eliminating
drivers' right to sufficient rest, and threatening the safety of
drivers and the public. Advocates asserted that FMCSA's reasoning for
each of the proposals in the NPRM is baseless, misrepresentative, or
based on incorrect reinterpretation of research and often in direct
contradiction of earlier Agency findings and statements.
    The Institute for Policy Integrity urged FMCSA to analyze each
proposed provision's effect on driver health, including driver
morbidity, chronic health conditions, obesity, and exposure to diesel
exhaust. Another commenter recommended that FMCSA consider amending the
proposed changes to include screening for sleep problems, such as
Obstructive Sleep Apnea, and then prescribing practical solutions if
the driver is diagnosed with a sleep problem.
    ATA expressed conditional support for some provisions of the rule.
IIHS, ATA, and a few industry associations argued that more research
would be needed before the rule or individual provisions could be
adequately evaluated. Trucking Solutions Group provided conditional
approval if FMCSA would wait for the full effects of the ELD mandate on
the industry to occur before undertaking a new rulemaking.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA acknowledges commenters concerns. However,
the Agency concludes that the changes adopted today will not result in
the adverse safety consequences they described. None of the revisions
in this rule allow truck drivers additional driving time beyond the 11-
hour limit provided in the current regulations (or the 13-hour limit
provided with the current adverse driving conditions exceptions).
Except for the adverse driving conditions provision, none of the
revisions allow drivers to operate a CMV after accumulating 14 hours of
on-duty time during a work shift. Consistent with the Agency's
rationale for adopting the 14-hour rule, none of the revisions allow
the use of multiple or intermittent off-duty breaks to extend the work-
shift. Also, the weekly limitations under the 60/70-hour rules
concerning the maximum number of on-duty hours that may be accumulated
before driving is prohibited remain unchanged. Furthermore, none of the
revisions relieve motor carriers and drivers of the explicit
prohibitions against: (1) Operating commercial motor vehicles while ill
or fatigued, or (2) coercing drivers to violate Federal safety rules.
Therefore, the basic parameters of the HOS rule that are essential to
safety remain unchanged.
    Regarding the extension of the driving window to 16 hours during
``adverse driving conditions,'' drivers will no longer need to stay on
the road during such conditions to avoid the impending closure of the
previous 14-hour driving window. Therefore, the added flexibility

will not decrease safety during adverse driving conditions.
    Regarding the proposal to allow drivers to pause the 14-hour
driving window by taking up to 3 hours off-duty, the Agency intended to
give drivers the ability to adjust their operations such that they
could defer work, especially driving time, until the conditions were
conducive to greater efficiency. The NPRM considered that the pause
could have been as short as 30 minutes or as long as 3 hours, provided
the driver was relieved of all responsibility for performing work, with
the assumption being that pauses up to 3 hours would allow drivers to
obtain rest during the extended window. Drivers would have the
opportunity to take a meaningful rest break during the work shift but
still be required to have 10 consecutive hours off duty at the end of
the work shift.
    As explained elsewhere in the preamble, FMCSA has decided that
further information is needed concerning the potential for unintended
consequences associated with the pause and therefore has not included
that provision in this final rule.
    As to driver health, the Agency acknowledges that the effect of
specific regulatory changes on driver health is difficult to evaluate.
First, most health conditions have multiple contributing factors and
are discernible only over extended periods. Second, a cause-and-effect
relationship between a rule and a given health outcome is difficult to
establish. Driver health issues were addressed extensively in the 2005
final rule [70 FR 49978, 49982-49992, August 25, 2005]. The preamble
noted that ``FMCSA has reviewed and evaluated the available and
pertinent information concerning driver health, with emphasis on
chronic conditions potentially associated with changes from the pre-
2003 and 2003 rules, to this final rule. The research on CMV driver
health falls into several broad categories: (1) Sleep loss/restriction,
(2) exposure to exhaust, (3) exposure to noise, (4) exposure to
vibration, (5) cardiovascular disease, (6) long work hours, and (7)
shift work and gastrointestinal disorders'' (70 FR 49978, 49982).
    The Agency concluded that the 2005 rule would not have any effect
on those potential health issues. That discussion remains applicable
today with only a few changes. For example, FMCSA noted in 2005 that
attempts to create a dose-response curve for the effects of exposure to
diesel exhaust had not produced clear-cut results (70 FR 49983). Such
an attempt would be even less useful today because exposure to diesel
exhaust has declined significantly in the last 15 years as a result of
the tightened EPA standards discussed in the 2005 rule. The incremental
changes adopted in this final rule, though useful to motor carriers and
drivers, do not change the conclusions explained in the 2005 final
rule. As pointed out in the 2005 HOS final rule (70 FR 49978, 4983,
August 25, 2005), attempts to create a dose-response curve for the
effects of exposure to diesel exhaust, for example, have not produced
clear-cut results. Such an attempt would be even more difficult for the
incremental HOS changes promulgated today.
    However, based on the current scientific information and its own
experience with Hours of Service regulation, FMCSA concludes that the
changes made by this final rule are safety- and health-neutral. For
example, the expansion of the short-haul workday from 12 to 14 hours
simply gives short-haul carriers the same driving window that other
carriers have used for many years. The 14-hour HOS limit now applicable
to both short- and long-haul carriers is consistent with the statutory
obligation to protect driver safety and health (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2),
(4)), as shown by the extensive discussion in the 2005 final rule (70
FR 49978, 49982 et seq.). Moreover, FMCSA requires that interstate
drivers subject to the physical qualifications standards under 49 CFR
part 391 obtain proof of their physical qualifications from a licensed
healthcare professional listed on the Agency's National Registry of
Certified Medical Examiners. These healthcare professionals must be
licensed by the State, complete a training program concerning FMCSA's
physical qualification standards, and pass a test concerning the
Federal requirements. These Medical Examiners are likely to provide
some level of education at the time of the exam if drivers exhibit
specific health issues.
    As to obstructive sleep apnea, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) do not require medical examiners to screen CMV
drivers for sleep disorders, and the Agency does not provide criteria
for determining whether an individual should be referred for a sleep
study evaluation. FMCSA relies on Certified Medical Examiners who have
proper licensure, training, and medical knowledge to apply independent
medical judgment based on the individual's complete medical history,
including risk factors, and clinical findings from the physical
examination when making medical determinations concerning screening,
testing, and treatment, for obstructive sleep apnea. FMCSA notes that
obstructive sleep apnea is a condition for which there are effective
treatments available, and drivers who follow the prescribed treatment
regime after being diagnosed may be medically certified.
    Problems caused by detention time and parking shortages have been
apparent for many years. However, these issues are beyond the scope of
this rulemaking.
    The purpose of this rule is to enhance the operational flexibility
of drivers and carriers, without compromising the Agency's statutory
safety mission. Many commenters stated that the current HOS
requirements are too restrictive and that their removal would not
adversely affect safety; but those assertions are supported only with
personal anecdotes. While stakeholders' personal experiences inform the
Agency's decision-making process, further evidence is generally
required to support changes to the FMCSRs.
    Neutral Comments and Comments on HOS-Related Issues Beyond the
Scope of the NPRM. Approximately 1,460 comments, mostly from
individuals and drivers, provided mixed, neutral feedback on the
proposal. In addition, some drivers and individuals addressed certain
provisions of the NPRM while remaining silent on other provisions. Some
individual commenters and drivers provided conditional support while
others neither provided an opinion nor suggested alternatives to the
NPRM.
    Approximately 630 submissions concerned aspects of the HOS rules
that were not covered in the NPRM. Numerous individuals and drivers
made the following types of suggestions:
     Eliminate the 14-hour window;
     Eliminate or revise the 34-hour restart provision;
     Eliminate the 70-hour rule prohibiting driving after the
driver has accumulated 70 hours of on-duty time in 8 consecutive days;
     Eliminate the use of ELDs;
     Allow drivers to develop their own drive/rest schedules;
     Exempt small businesses from the HOS rules or create
separate rules applicable to small fleets;
     Extend driving time from 11 to 12 or 13 hours;
     Address the amount of time drivers are held up at shippers
or receivers;
     Address the lack of parking and ``pay to park'' schemes;
and,
     Drivers should be paid hourly instead of by the mile.
    Multiple individual commenters and drivers briefly summarized
alternative or ``simplified'' HOS requirements that they would prefer
(e.g., maximum 9-hour drive time in a 12-hour workday;

12 on-duty/12 off-duty; 13 hours of drive time in a 24-hour workday;
14- or 16-hour total workday; 77 hours in 8 days, etc.).
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of commenters that
opted not to take a position on certain aspects of the proposal. Each
aspect of the NPRM addresses a piece of a complex puzzle concerning the
flexibility needs for different segments of the transportation
industry. For certain segments of the industry, a single element of the
NPRM would provide all the flexibility necessary while other segments
may benefit from two or more elements. This final rule is intended to
provide reasonable adjustments to the HOS requirements to allow for
increased flexibility without decreasing safety.
    FMCSA also acknowledges commenters' interest in changing major
provisions of the HOS requirements. However, these issues are beyond
the scope of this rulemaking. In some of these cases such as an
extension of the driving time limits or the elimination of the 70-hour
rule, additional research would be needed to support changing the basic
parameters of the HOS rules that have been previously determined to be
important in minimizing the risk of fatigue. And several of the issues
raised by commenters are beyond FMCSA's statutory authority (e.g.,
driver compensation, elimination of ELDs).
    In response to commenters' concerns about third parties such as
shippers and receivers forcing drivers to violate HOS rules or creating
an environment where drivers are unable to take advantage of the work
time allowed, the Agency issued a final rule in 2015 prohibiting motor
carriers, shippers, receivers, and transportation intermediaries from
coercing drivers to operate CMVs in violation of certain FMCSA
regulations, including the HOS regulations in 49 CFR part 395 (See 49
CFR 390.6). In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration in the Department of Labor has authority under 49 U.S.C.
31105 to take remedial action against employers who have discharged or
discriminated against employees who refuse to violate the FMCSRs.
    Comments on Issues and Industry Concerns Separate from the HOS
Rules. Approximately 30 submissions addressed topics that involved
safety but were separate from the HOS requirements. The topics
included:
     Education for the public on safe driving procedures around
trucks;
     Inspection of trucks crossing the U.S. border;
     Public respect for truck drivers;
     Improvements to rest areas;
     CMV driving speeds;
     The impact of certain States' laws on interstate commerce;
and,
     The ability of drivers to participate in public listening
sessions.
    FMCSA Response: While the topics raised by these commenters are
important, they do not relate to the specific revisions proposed at the
NPRM stage of the rulemaking or adopted through this final rule.
    The Agency nevertheless acknowledges commenters' concerns about
these issues and has acted in several of these areas. For example, the
Agency launched ``Our Roads, Our Safety,'' a national safety campaign
shaped to raise public awareness about sharing the road safely with
large trucks and buses.
    On the topic of truck parking, FMCSA is an active participant in
the National Coalition on Truck Parking (the Coalition). The U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) and several stakeholder
organizations established the Coalition in August 2015 as a response to
a documented need for truck parking solutions. Stakeholders engaged in
the Coalition represent the trucking industry, commercial vehicle
safety officials, State departments of transportation (DOTs), and
commercial truck stop owners and operators.
    Finally, about the inspection of trucks crossing the U.S.-Mexico
border, in each of the past 4 years FMCSA and its State partners
conducted more than 250,000 inspections of commercial motor vehicles
operated by Mexico-owned or Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Available at https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SafetyProgram/MexicanCarriers.aspx, last accessed February 5, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Short-Haul Operations
    NPRM. The NPRM proposed extending the maximum allowable workday for
property-and passenger-carrying CMV drivers under the Sec.  395.1(e)(1)
short-haul exception from 12 to 14 hours to correspond with the 14-hour
limit for property-carrying drivers in Sec.  395.3(a)(2). The Agency
proposed extending the existing distance restriction under this
provision from 100 air-miles to 150 air-miles to be consistent with the
radius requirement for the short-haul exception applicable to drivers
of CMVs not requiring a CDL (Sec.  395.1(e)(2)). Under the proposal,
truck drivers would continue to be limited to 11 hours of driving time,
and passenger carrier drivers to 10 hours of driving time. FMCSA
proposed requiring all CMV drivers using the Sec.  395.1(e)(1)
exception to complete their workday within 14 hours of the beginning of
the work shift.
    The NPRM also sought additional information and data on the impacts
of expanding the short-haul exception provision, in part to assess its
potential costs and benefits. Specifically:
     How would this change impact the motor carriers' ability
to enforce the HOS rules? What enforcement difficulties may arise from
expanding both the time and distance requirements?
     Would drivers drive farther or longer in the driving
window under the short-haul exception? Would this be different than
these loads being hauled by drivers complying with the ELD
requirements?
     Would the elimination of the 30-minute break requirement
for drivers that are potentially driving later in their duty period
impact safety?
     What cost savings are expected from not having to comply
with the ELD requirements?
    In addition, some commenters to the ANPRM requested that drivers
using the short-haul exception be allowed to end their work shift at a
different location than the one from which they were dispatched. FMCSA
therefore included a request for public comment about this suggestion,
including which segments of the motor carrier industry would be
impacted by it and whether it would have an adverse effect on safety,
or lead to operational changes such as increased driving time per trip
or driving in the 12th and 13th hour after coming on-duty.
    Commenters Supporting an Increase to the 12-Hour Limit for Short-
Haul Operations. Approximately 240 submissions supported the proposal
to extend the maximum allowable workday under the short-haul exception
from 12 to 14 hours. Many of the commenters, including drivers and
individuals, stated that the additional flexibility would be helpful or
would positively impact them or their company. Some of the specific
benefits commenters mentioned included:
     Extending the short-haul provision to 14 hours would
reduce the burden of switching to logbooks and installing ELDs;
     The provision would allow dispatchers to schedule loads
and routes more efficiently;
     Short-haul drivers should be allowed to work as many hours
as over the road drivers;
     The added flexibility will increase safety because short-
haul drivers will be under less pressure to ``beat the clock;''

     The proposed changes to the exception would reduce
compliance burdens;
     The extra time will help improve transportation
productivity efficiency, such as truck utilization and driver
optimization, thereby reducing costs; and,
     Extending the short-haul provision from 12 to 14 hours
would not negatively impact safety.
    Many commenters, including OOIDA, the American Bus Association
(ABA), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trucking industry associations and
motor carriers expressed support for extending the 12-hour short-haul
exception to 14 hours. These commenters believed the change would
afford drivers greater flexibility by allowing them more time to
complete trips during peak periods, more non-consecutive driving hours,
and a larger window to return home if drivers encounter unexpected
delays during their shift. Several associations representing specific
segments of the trucking industry and motor carriers reiterated that
the increased flexibility would positively impact them, their members,
or their segment, including agricultural operations supporting aerial
crop dusting, motorcoach businesses, towing and recovery companies,
retailers, beverage producers and distributors, construction and
manufacturing businesses, and propane gas delivery businesses. A few
commenters remarked that the proposed change would provide small
businesses partial relief from the chronic shortage of CDL drivers
nationwide because the additional 2 hours of on-duty time per shift
would increase the productivity of drivers already on the payroll.
    Multiple commenters, including OOIDA, the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA), and some motor carriers and drivers, stated that
extending the limit for the short-haul exception from 12 to 14 hours
would align the exception with existing requirements for long-haul,
regional, and over the road drivers and thereby simplify enforcement
and improve compliance. A few commenters, including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and industry associations, remarked that for companies that
manage a variety of trucking operations, the proposed change would
facilitate compliance because more operations would follow the same set
of rules making fleet management easier, and reducing the possibility
of inadvertently violating the rules. Some commenters, including
several motor carriers, said that the proposal would remove the need
for multiple exemptions from the HOS rules and make the standards more
consistent for all drivers.
    Many commenters, including individuals, drivers, motor carriers,
and industry associations, stated that this proposed change would allow
many more drivers to qualify for the short-haul exception. A few
commenters, including Transco, Inc. and the National Limousine
Association, stated that the provision would allow more frequent use of
the exception and include the benefit of not having to complete a
driver's daily graph grid log or use an ELD. Others stated that the
proposal would enable more drivers to go home at night rather than
sleeping in hotels, improving not only rest, safety, and productivity,
but also saving the company on costs.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency agrees with those commenters who believe
the proposed changes to the current short-haul provisions would provide
increased flexibility for both motor carriers and drivers who utilize
the exception. FMCSA continues to believe the extension of both the 12-
hour limit to 14 hours, and the 100 air-mile radius to 150 air miles
will provide the increased flexibility for drivers without compromising
overall safety.
    The Agency emphasizes, however, that the changes to the short-haul
exception finalized in this final rule allow neither additional drive
time during the workday, nor driving after the 14th hour from the
beginning of the workday. Because the extension of the air-mile radius
and the workday does not extend the maximum allowable driving time or
the 14-hour window, FMCSA does not anticipate adverse impacts on
safety.
    FMCSA also agrees with commenters who stated that the proposed
changes to the short-haul exception this final rule would allow more
drivers to be consistently eligible for the short-haul exception. Thus,
they will be excluded from the requirement to take a 30-minute break or
prepare daily RODS, potentially with an ELD if the carrier exceeded the
short-haul limits more than 8 days within a 30-day period. Carriers now
have the flexibility to meet existing and future market demands for
services within a larger area that could be covered within a 14-hour
duty day. Services may now be provided more efficiently (i.e., not
incurring the costs of preparing RODS and retaining supporting
documents for the days drivers did not satisfy the short-haul limits)
without compromising safety.
    FMCSA notes that short-haul carriers must maintain accurate records
concerning drivers' schedules. These time records must document when
drivers report to work and are released from work. The Agency may
review carriers' records to determine whether drivers have traveled to
locations beyond the distance limits.
    Regarding the issue of more uniform enforcement of the short-haul
provisions based on the changes in this final rule, FMCSA anticipates
that the number of associations, organizations and companies seeking
exceptions via 49 CFR part 381 provisions will considerably decrease
and enforcement agencies will not have to monitor the list of active
exemptions to avoid errors in citing carriers operating under an
exemption. Because most of the exemptions are granted to groups or
associations on behalf of their motor carrier members, enforcement
officials need to understand the scope of the exemption so that when
commercial vehicle inspections are performed, the enforcement official
can make the determination whether the exemption covers the specific
driver or carrier being inspected, and how the remaining HOS
requirements are to be applied to that driver.\10\ Several of these
applications for exemption have been granted by the Agency in the past,
including some that extended the 12-hour short-haul limit to 14 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the calendar year 2018, FMCSA received 6 exemption
requests regarding the short-haul provision. The majority concerned
an extension from 12 hours to 14 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters Seeking Flexibility Beyond the Proposed Revisions to the
Short-Haul Time Limits. An individual said the provision is ``90%
good'' but would not help the sub-class of short-haul drivers that
primarily do ``drop and hook.'' \11\ Another commenter said short-haul
drivers should be allowed a 16-hour day. Another individual familiar
with oilfield operations said that the short-haul exception should
allow up to 15 hours of driving time, since oilfield workers must often
be on-site for 12 hours. TruckerNation reasoned that, while expanding
the short-haul exception to 14-hours would create a uniform duty day
for all CMV drivers and decrease unnecessary complexity, reducing the
complexity for drivers may increase the probability of inconsistent
enforcement actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This is a term that refers to when a driver drops the
trailer and simply picks up a new trailer; in other words, a
delivery where no loading or unloading is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA Response: The Agency believes this final rule provides an
appropriate amount of flexibility while ensuring that safety is not
compromised. As noted above, none of proposals included in the NPRM and
adopted today allow truck drivers additional

driving time beyond the 11-hour limit provided in the current
regulations (or the 13-hour limit provided with the current adverse
driving conditions exceptions). Except for the adverse driving
conditions provision, none of the revisions allow drivers to operate a
CMV after accumulating 14 hours of on-duty time during a work shift.
Consistent with the Agency's rationale for adopting the 14-hour rule,
none of the revisions allow the use of multiple or intermittent off-
duty breaks to extend the work-day which would in turn increase the
risk of driver fatigue.
    Based upon the many research studies the Agency has reviewed over
the past 25 years of conducting HOS-related rulemakings, the Agency
believes it would be inappropriate to consider amending the rules to
allow more than 11 hours of driving time, without taking the required
10 consecutive hours off-duty (property carriers). Aside from adverse
driving conditions, it would also be inappropriate to allow a 16-hour
driving window, during which drivers could operate a CMV after
accumulating 14 hours of on-duty time during a work shift.
    Finally, the Agency does not anticipate that enforcement
difficulties will arise from the expansion of on-duty hours permitted
under the exception. The employer must still maintain and retain
accurate time records for a period of 6 months showing the time the
duty period began and ended, and the total hours on-duty each day in
place of RODS (Sec.  395.1(e)(1)(v)).
    Commenters Opposed to Increasing the 12-Hour Limit for Short-haul
Operations. Some individuals and drivers raised arguments against the
proposal:
     The provision would allow companies to force drivers to
extend their workdays.
     Short-haul drivers should be limited to a 12-hour workday;
any more would increase driver fatigue and be a detriment to safety.
     Short-haul drivers can already run a 14-hour day, so the
proposal would just make HOS regulations more difficult to enforce.
    Advocates argued that the proposed changes to the short-haul
exception would extend drivers' duty hours, extend driving hours later
into the duty period, increase the number of carriers operating under
the exception, and thereby increase the number of drivers not provided
adequate rest breaks, and impair enforcement.
    A number of commenters, including some individual commenters and
drivers, asked questions about the increased driving window of the
short-haul exception:
     How will FMCSA monitor and keep carriers from allowing
abuse and driving over the 11-hour driving limit?
     How will FMCSA protect against ``stacking'' (allowing a
19-hour day by combining the 2-hour adverse driving condition exception
and a 3-hour ``pause'' to the 14-hour window)?
     Why are trucks without sleeper berths not allowed to run
12 hours or stop the clock during pickup or delivery?
     Why did FMCSA not consider a straight 13/16-hour day for
all CMV operators?
    A few commenters, including the Trucking Alliance, industry
associations, and motor carriers, indicated they would support the
increase from 12 to 14 hours only if an ELD were required to track a
driver's HOS. The Trucking Alliance argued that having ELDs on board
all trucks would ensure compliance, improve highway safety, and reduce
the risk of large truck crashes. ATA stated that, while they supported
the proposed expansion of the short-haul exception, they were concerned
that it would increase the number of drivers who would no longer be
required to use an ELD, and even that ELDs would be removed from some
vehicles. Schneider National Carriers, Inc. stated that while
``neutral'' with respect to the proposed 14-hour day, it favored an ELD
requirement to deter abuse.
    Citing results of a membership survey, ATA concluded that the
number of motor carriers that would become exempt under the proposed
short-haul exceptions would be ``small but not insignificant.''
    An individual said FMCSA should be more specific regarding which
drivers would qualify for the proposed short-haul exception changes.
    The California Highway Patrol warned that an expansion of the
short-haul exception to 14 hours would make impossible discovery of 11-
hour violation(s) by enforcement personnel, foster noncompliance, and
would not be prudent in large States.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency acknowledges commenters' concerns about
extending the driving window. However, the Agency emphasizes that the
HOS requirements for drivers using RODS allow up to 11 hours of driving
time within a 14-hour window, following 10 consecutive hours off-duty.
Short-haul drivers who exceed the current 12-hour limit for returning
to the normal work-reporting location can already operate using the 14-
hour window for up to 8 days in any 30-consecutive-day period without
an ELD, provided they keep paper RODS for those days. If they are
willing to use an ELD, these drivers could simply operate under the
same HOS limits as regional and long-haul drivers. Whether to do so is
a business decision on the part of the motor carrier. The extension to
14 hours will relieve some short-haul drivers of the pressure to drive
at a higher speed to finish their 11 hours of driving time and return
to their duty reporting location within 12 hours.
    FMCSA also acknowledges the comments about monitoring compliance
and enforcement challenges under the short-haul provision. However, the
techniques currently used to enforce the HOS requirements for short-
haul drivers will be the same whether the maximum work shift is 12 or
14 hours. FMCSA does not agree that the changes to the short-haul
provision would make discovery of violations impossible or foster
noncompliance with the underlying HOS requirements.
    As noted above, employers must maintain and retain accurate time
records for a period of 6 months showing the time the duty period began
and ended, and the total hours on-duty each day in place of RODS (Sec.
395.1(e)(1)(v)).
    Expanding the duty period to 14 hours, without increasing the
existing 11 hours of driving time, will allow short-haul drivers to
spend time with customers, respond to changes in market demand, such as
peak holiday delivery times, and reduce the administrative burden of
determining how often a driver has gone beyond 12 hours or 100 air-
miles in any 30-consecutive-day period. Because the changes to the
short-haul exception will not extend the workday beyond the current 14-
hour driving window, FMCSA has no reason to believe that the revised
rule will adversely impact safety.
    Neither of the changes to the short-haul exception increase the
opportunities to falsify time records. If anything, the changes remove
pressure from short-haul drivers to ``beat the clock.'' Furthermore,
the Agency agrees with ATA and has retained the requirement for drivers
to return to the normal work reporting location at the end their work
shift, rather than having the option of ending the shift at a different
location. This will help to ensure compliance with the short-haul
exception to the RODS requirement.
    The FMCSA acknowledges commenters' overall concerns that an
expansion of the short-haul provision (both the extension of the time
and distance limits) would result in fewer

motor carriers and drivers being required to use ELDs. However, this
fact, in and of itself, does not mean that the carriers in question
would experience increased levels of non-compliance with the applicable
HOS rules or increases in crash involvement. Enforcement of the short-
haul provision during vehicle inspections has always presented a
challenge because officials do not have access to supporting documents,
specifically records indicating when the driver began the work day.
However, enforcement at a terminal or the principal place of business
generally provides a better opportunity to investigate compliance with
the hours-of-service requirements. At such time, enforcement personnel
will continue to focus on (1) the time between the driver reporting to
the normal work-reporting location and the time the driver is released
from work, and (2) the maximum distance the driver traveled from the
normal work-reporting location. The enforcement official could request
certain records that would identify where the driver traveled and the
time spent at those locations. Because of the inherent nature of short-
haul operations (e.g., several stops for pick-up and/or delivery during
the shift, or a few trips with extended periods at the delivery/service
site, etc.) and the distance limitation, the Agency does not believe
short-haul CDL drivers will have more opportunities or incentives to
exceed 11 hours of driving time within the 14-hour window than non-CDL
short-haul drivers who already have these time and distance limits.
Short-haul drivers do not have the opportunity to pause the 14-hour
clock while drivers are loading and unloading at the various points at
which services are being provided. Safety investigators will continue
to sample and examine time cards and other HOS records during
compliance investigations.
    The Agency reviewed its December 16, 2015, final rule establishing
the ELD mandate and the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis. Based
on the 2015 analysis, the Agency estimated that the annualized safety
(crash reduction) benefit for mandating ELDs for all CMV operations
(including short haul) subject to the HOS requirements would be $687
million while the annualized safety benefit for mandating ELDs for all
CMV operations where the driver is required to prepare RODS would be
$572 million. The values were presented in 2013 dollars at a 7%
discount rate. The Agency explained:

    ``Safety benefits of requiring ELDs are higher when all
regulated CMV operations are included in the ELD mandate . . ., but
the marginal costs (ELD costs plus compliance costs) of including
these operations are more than 3\1/2\ times higher than the marginal
benefits. . . . [Short-haul] drivers who do not use RODS, have
better HOS compliance, and much lower crash risk from HOS
noncompliance. For the [short-haul] non-RODS subgroup, FMCSA's
analysis indicates that ELDs are not a cost-effective solution to
improving the HOS compliance of [short-haul] non-RODS drivers. This
result is consistent with that of past ELD analyses.''

    In consideration of the above discussion, FMCSA believes the
decrease in the number of carriers using ELDs will be limited because
the change impacts only the CDL holders who currently travel between
100 and 150 air-miles from the normal work-reporting location, and
return to that location within 12 to 14 hours each day. And, the Agency
continues to believe ELDs are not a cost-effective solution to ensuring
HOS compliance for these drivers because, as discussed below, short-
haul operations are essentially self-limiting due to the nature of the
operations and requirement to return to the reporting location.
    Commenters Supporting the Expansion of the 100 Air-Mile radius to
150 Air-Miles, but not the 12-hour limit. Multiple commenters, mostly
individual commenters and drivers, expressed brief, general support for
extending the radius for the short-haul exception to 150 air-miles.
Many individuals and drivers said that the additional flexibility was
helpful or would positively impact them, their industry, or their
company. Some commenters provided the following arguments for expanding
the short-haul exception to 150 air-miles:
     The proposed change would allow carriers to classify
drivers as short-haul more accurately;
     Extending the air-mile radius would reduce the burden of
switching to logbooks and installing e-logs;
     Increasing the 100 air-mile to a 150 air-mile radius would
increase new business opportunities;
     It is difficult to run a delivery business legally with
the 100 air-mile restriction;
     The exception would reduce compliance burdens; and,
     Extending the air-mile radius would not increase safety
risks.
    Multiple industry associations and motor carriers stated that
extending the 100 air-mile radius for the short-haul exception to 150
air-miles would increase flexibility and positively impact carriers,
their members, or their segment, including crop dusting, commercial
trucking, and motor coach businesses, retailers, beverage manufacturers
and distributors, construction, manufacturing, and propane gas
delivery. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commented that extending the
radius to 150 air-miles would provide flexibility for carriers to use
the short-haul provision for runs that are farther from their work
reporting location and may be currently managed as a long-haul run.
    Many commenters said that the proposed extension would remove the
need for several HOS exceptions that have already been issued and make
standards more consistent for all drivers. Several commenters,
including CVSA, and some motor carriers and drivers, stated that
expanding the radius from 100 to 150 air-miles would align the short-
haul exception with existing HOS requirements and thereby simplify
enforcement and improve compliance. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
remarked that, for companies that manage a variety of trucking
operations, the proposed change would facilitate compliance because
more operations would follow the same set of rules, in turn making
fleet management simpler and reducing the likelihood of inadvertent
violations of the rules.
    As stated above, many commenters said that the proposed changes
would allow many more drivers to qualify for or utilize the short-haul
exception.
    Many commenters argued that a 150 air-mile radius did not go far
enough, suggesting that it be increased to 200, 250, or 300 air-miles.
A commenter asked what difference it makes how far drivers travel
provided they return to their home terminal within the allotted time,
noting that a short-haul driver can legally drive almost as many miles
inside a 150 air-mile radius as a long-haul driver. Other individual
commenters recommended removing the mileage radius as long as drivers
return home at the end of a day.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency agrees with commenters who stated that
the proposed changes to the short-haul exception would provide
increased flexibility to motor carriers and drivers without decreasing
overall safety, irrespective of whether the 12-hour limit was
increased. FMCSA also agrees with CVSA and other commenters that
expanding the short-haul radius from 100 to 150 air-miles would align
it with existing HOS requirements in Sec.  395.1(e)(2) and Sec.
395.1(k) and thereby simplify enforcement and improve compliance.
    FMCSA believes that a 150 air-mile radius is the appropriate size
for the short-haul exception applicable to CDL holders operating in
interstate commerce. However, FMCSA disagrees

with commenters requesting that the mileage should be longer or even
removed altogether, and with commenters seeking removal of the
requirement for drivers to return to their normal work reporting
location.
    Short-haul drivers with occasional assignments that necessitate
traveling long distances (i.e., more than 300 air miles round trip)
have always been allowed to take on such assignments provided they
prepare RODS for those days. And under existing regulations and the
rules adopted today they may continue to conduct these operations up to
8 days within a 30 consecutive day period without incurring the costs
of installing and using ELDs. The Agency believes the flexibility
provided in this final rule should be sufficient and that the increased
distance suggested by some commenters is far beyond what should be
considered short-haul operations.
    Commenters Opposed to Extending the Distance to 150 Air-miles. A
number of comments were opposed to the proposal to extend the allowable
short-haul air-mile radius to 150 air miles, arguing that:
     Extending the air-mile radius to 150 air-miles would
reduce safety;
     Short-haul is an often-abused rule and increasing the air-
mile radius to 150 air-miles is a mistake; and,
     The extension to 150 air miles will drastically reduce the
number of carriers and drivers required to use ELDs, which dilutes the
intent of part 395, subpart B.
    Advocates argued that the proposed changes would extend drivers'
duty days, extend driving hours later into the duty period, increase
the number of carriers operating under the exception--thereby
increasing the number of drivers not provided adequate rest breaks, and
impair enforcement.
    Advocates also argued that FMCSA failed to provide evidence or
analysis to support its conclusion that VMT and crash risk would not
increase because of the extension of the air-mile radius to 150 air
miles. A few commenters, including Advocates, IIHS, and Senator Murray,
cited IIHS's 2017 crash risk study indicating that the short-haul
exception was associated with a statistically significant 383 percent
increase in crash risk. Senator Murray and an industry association
warned that a 50 air-mile radius increase would not increase the
driving area in a linear manner, but instead expand the total area that
drivers may operate by more than double to over 31,000 square
miles.\12\ Citing many studies and statistics, IBT stated that short-
haul drivers would experience increased fatigue and more fatigue-
related occupational injuries and crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Crash Risk Factors for Interstate Large Trucks in North
Carolina.'' Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Teoh, Eric,
2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28882260, last accessed
February 6, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO opposed the proposal to
increase the air-mile radius because it would not provide enough time
for adequate sleep and would encourage more driving time, increase
driver fatigue, and decrease safety. Congressman DeFazio warned that
the proposed rule significantly increases driving and on-duty time.
    Several commenters took issue with the Agency's use of crash data
on ready-mixed concrete trucks to argue that a 14-hour short-haul work
shift would not decrease safety. Commenters also relied heavily on an
IIHS study which concluded that carriers using the previous short-haul
exception were significantly more likely to be involved in crashes than
carriers not using the exception. These comments are discussed more
fully in the RIA.
    The IBT emphasized that a 14-hour short-haul work shift would
increase the number of hours that drivers spend behind the wheel, the
number of times they get in and out of the cab and trailer, and the
amount of freight they manually handle. ``Therefore, it is reasonable
to expect that the incidence and prevalence of occupational injuries
and illnesses for these drives will also increase. In addition, motor
carriers will likely experience higher worker compensation costs and
costs associated with increased crash liability.''
    FMCSA Response: The Agency concludes that extending the air-mile
radius will not reduce safety. The motor carriers and drivers that
would take advantage of this increased flexibility continue to be
limited to 11 hours of driving time during the work shift and, like
other drivers subject to the HOS requirements, continue to be
prohibited from driving after 14 hours from the beginning of the work
shift. These two factors are most critical for ensuring safe operations
among short-haul operators.
    With respect to not providing enough time for adequate sleep, the
Agency reiterates that drivers must still comply with the requirement
for 10 consecutive hours off duty at the end of the work shift. There
is no research or data provided to suggest than an increase in the air-
mile radius would result in increased crash risk, specifically when
drivers are still restricted in the amount of time they can spend on-
duty and driving.
    Furthermore, drivers must still return to their normal work
reporting location at the end of each work shift, which negates the
notion that drivers would be able to cover a significant portion of the
operational area (approximately 70,650 square miles) during a given
work shift. The study cited by Advocates, IIHS, and Senator Murray
(Teoh, 2017) was based on a small sample size which was not nationally
representative and the analysts did not estimate a matched-pair odds
ratio restricted to drivers operating under a short-haul exception. No
data was provided to suggest that driving distance was directly related
to injuries received by short-haul drivers; rather, several citations
provided state that most injuries suffered by short-haul drivers are
experienced during non-driving tasks, such as loading and unloading.
    The continued absence of an ELD requirement for short-haul
operations after expansion of the operating radius will not compromise
safety. These short-haul operations are essentially self-limiting
because of the nature of the operations and requirement to return to
the reporting location. The frequent delivery stops generally made by
short-haul drivers mean they rarely approach the 11-hour driving limit.
Expanding the workday from 12 to 14 hours may result in more deliveries
than were possible within a 100 air-mile radius, but total driving time
will usually continue to fall short of the 11-hour limit. Conversely,
carriers that choose to serve new customers near the outer limit of the
expanded 150 air-mile radius will draw down more of the 11-hour driving
limit and therefore be unable to make as many deliveries as they could
have made within the previous 100 air-mile radius. Carriers may opt for
either of these alternatives, or settle on an operational compromise
that allows them to serve somewhat more customers, somewhat farther
away. In any case, the nature of short-haul operations, with frequent
delivery stops, means that an increase in violations of the 11-hour
driving limit is highly unlikely.
    Since the publication of the December 27, 2011 final rule
concerning hours of service (76 FR 81134), non-CDL drivers have been
allowed to use, and presumably have used, the 14-hour driving window in
short-haul operations, within 150 air miles of the normal work
reporting location. They also operate within a 16-hour window up to 2
days per week, within 150 air miles of the normal work reporting
location. In other words, any carrier that found it operationally and
financially advantageous to utilize a 14-hour

driving window has probably been doing so, at least with its non-CDL
holders. Some of these carriers may choose to utilize the revised
short-haul exception for CDL holders who exceed the current short-haul
time and distance restrictions more than 8 times in a 30-day period to
spare themselves monthly ELD charges. However, it is possible that many
will retain ELDs which enable them to operate beyond the 150 air-mile
radius when longer-haul opportunities arise. These carriers should
experience no changes in the rate of workplace injuries because the
rule will not require operational changes.
    As indicated above, the expanded 150 air-mile radius may induce
some carriers to make longer runs with fewer deliveries than before,
which may minimize, or even eliminate, an increase in the number of
stops, where IBT claims workplace injuries typically occur. In any
case, IBT has not reported, nor is FMCSA aware of, any study that
purports to establish a dose-response curve showing workplace injuries
as a function of each hour worked.
    FMCSA reviewed the comments received and the previous short-haul
exception requests to determine how the rule would affect the number of
drivers operating under the short-haul exception. As discussed in the
RIA for this final rule, FMCSA is not estimating a significant change
in the number of drivers or motor carriers operating under the short-
haul exception given that the revision would only benefit CDL holders
who travel between 100 and 150 air miles of the normal work reporting
location, and return to that location between 12 and 14 hours from the
beginning of the work shift.
    While some drivers' routine schedules that were considered non-
short haul may now be eligible for the short-haul exception, it is
unclear if motor carriers employing those drivers will choose to remove
ELDs from their vehicles. Nevertheless, the Agency continues to believe
ELDs are not a cost-effective solution to ensuring HOS compliance for
these drivers, as stated earlier.
    Ensuring Compliance with the Short-Haul Exception. The NPRM asked
how the proposed changes to the short-haul exception would impact a
motor carrier's ability to ensure its drivers comply with the HOS
rules, and if enforcement difficulties would arise from expanding both
the time and distance requirements.
    A few commenters, including ABA and motor carriers, remarked that
the proposed changes to the short-haul exception would not negatively
impact a motor carrier's ability to comply with the HOS rules, and
instead would simplify enforcement since the revised short-haul
exception would more closely align with other sections of the other HOS
provisions, thus increasing compliance and enforcement.
    Some commenters, including Road Safe America, the Trucking
Alliance, motor carriers, and drivers warned, however, that the
proposed change would increase the likelihood that motor carriers would
not comply with HOS rules because neither RODS nor ELDs would any
longer be required. TruckerNation suggested that FMCSA consider a
standardized way for a driver or motor carrier to make the distinction
that they operate under the short-haul exception to ensure compliance
with the exception. ATA stated that, while they understand that an ELD
requirement is impractical for some drivers who are engaged in local,
daily activities, motor carriers should be required to have some form
of an electronic device that tracks on-duty and driving times.
    The Customized Logistics and Delivery Association stated that
timecards and run distances are recorded by all operational systems of
a carrier ensuring compliance and enforcement.
    A few commenters stated that the proposed changes to short-haul
operations would not create any new enforcement difficulties. Some
carriers said that no enforcement difficulties would arise because all
their trucks have ELDs and all route locations and durations would be
monitored. Motor Transport Association of Connecticut said that the
short-haul exception would make enforcement easier for law enforcement
officials because it would be uniform for CDL and non-CDL drivers.
    Road Safe America, ATA, Advocates, and several motor carriers
warned, however, that enforcement would be harder because there would
be no legitimate way of tracking hours driven or worked without
requiring RODS or ELDs. Road Safe America reasoned that enforcement
difficulties would increase because the additional 50 air-miles could
expand driving ranges into multiple States, which would require
coordination between officers of different jurisdictions to determine
if a driver is legally employing the short-haul exception.
    ATA suggested that FMCSA examine additional ways to track and
enforce short-haul drivers' on-duty and driving times during the duty
day. TruckerNation suggested that FMCSA establish an ``operating
policy'' for officers to determine the allowable radius to ensure
consistent enforcement actions.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency agrees with the commenters who remarked
that the proposed changes to the short-haul regulations will simplify
motor carriers' ability to comply with and enforce the HOS rules. The
extension of the 100 air-miles radius to 150 air-miles makes the
distance radius consistent with the distance limitation for short-haul
CMV drivers of property-carriers who are not required to possess a CDL,
which will simplify enforcing requirements of the short-haul exceptions
for motor carriers that use both CDL and non-CDL drivers. Likewise,
extending the short-haul duty period to 14 hours makes the duty period
consistent with the rule for drivers of property-carriers who do not
operate under the short-haul provision. For carriers that have both
short-haul and long-haul property operations, this will simplify their
enforcement of the 14-hour duty period.
    FMCSA does not agree that these changes to the short-haul exception
will increase the likelihood that motor carriers will not comply with
HOS rules. Motor carriers must still ensure that short-haul drivers
using the exception do not drive more than 11 hours for property
carriers or 10 hours for passenger carriers and that they return to the
same location they left from at the beginning of their work shift.
Expanding the duty period to 14 hours without increasing the existing
11 hours of drive time will allow short-haul truck drivers more
flexibility to spend time with customers, respond to changes in market
demand such as peak holiday delivery times, and reduce the
administrative burden of determining how often a driver has gone beyond
12 hours or 100 air-miles in any 30-consecutive day period. This change
would also somewhat align with the 14-hour rule for drivers of
property-carrying vehicles who do not operate under the short-haul
provision.
    FMCSA does not agree that motor carriers using the short-haul
provision should be required to use ELDs. Because drivers would be
returning to their original duty reporting location at the end of their
shift, FMCSA will continue to allow motor carriers with short-haul
operations the option to use duty reporting location time records
rather than a record of duty status or ELD. Although motor carriers
that conduct short-haul operations may use electronic tracking for
payroll or other purposes, there is no requirement that the time
records be electronic. In addition, motor carriers are not required to
use the short-haul provision and can require their short-haul drivers
to use an

ELD or other type of electronic device if they choose.
    In addition to simplifying the motor carrier's ability to comply
with and enforce HOS for their drivers, the Agency agrees with the
commenters who stated that the changes to the short-haul operations
provision would also simplify enforcement since the air-mile radius
distance will be consistent for both CDL and non-CDL drivers.
    As for comments that enforcement would be harder without required
RODS or ELDs and that the 150 air-mile radius could expand driving into
multiple States, changes do not increase the difficulty of enforcement
of the FMCSRs. Enforcement personnel will be required to use the same
investigative techniques as they currently do to verify radius of
travel, driving time, and start time for the work shift. Generally,
enforcement personnel use an online air-mile radius calculator to
determine compliance with radius requirements and would not require
assistance from officers of different jurisdictions when the radius
extends into adjacent States. FMCSA will continue to work with the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's (CVSA) committees assuring uniform
training development and delivery, and enforcement tolerances. This on-
going partnership will ensure smooth implementation of the modified
short-haul provision. Many State officials already have experience
dealing with non-CDL short-haul drivers who are currently provided a
14-hour driving window and 150 air miles within which to operate and
this first-hand knowledge will be helpful in developing the training
materials.
    More Behind-the-Wheel Time During the Driving Window. The NPRM
asked if drivers would drive farther or longer in the driving window
(i.e., spend more of the work shift behind the wheel) if the short-haul
exception was revised. FMCSA also asked whether the time behind the
wheel for these operations would differ from that of drivers complying
with the ELD requirements.
    Many commenters, including motor carriers and drivers, argued that
drivers would not drive farther or longer for various reasons,
including that drivers would be required to return to their original
locations, that the 11-hour maximum driving rule would still apply, and
that the current miles and radius are sufficient.
    Citing studies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated that, while
shifts in driver schedules would occur, overall increase in driver
schedule intensity would not. The commenter reasoned that, because most
drivers never approach the maximum daily or weekly allowable driving
limits, only the administration of driving shifts would change.
    OOIDA and a few motor carriers argued that a short-haul driver may
drive farther with the expanded air-mile radius, especially in more
rural areas, but noted that the proposal still maintains the current
11-hour driving limit.
    Some commenters said the exception has the potential to increase
driving hours and miles. Road Safe America and IBT argued that short-
haul drivers would now drive longer, especially since RODS would not be
required and law enforcement would not be able to ensure that a driver
did not drive for the entire 14-hour duty period. IBT added that
surveys show that drivers are already being required to perform or will
likely be assigned work that would increase miles traveled or entail
more non-driving tasks that extend the workday to 14 hours, all of
which will increase their fatigue and decrease safety. A few commenters
stated that interstate and intrastate operations would likely use the
additional 50 air-miles and additional time to service customers who
would otherwise receive service through a separate operational
schedule.
    Commenters, including OOIDA and other industry associations,
asserted that short-haul drivers would not drive any further or longer
than those complying with ELD requirements. Some industry associations
argued that many carriers would use ELDs regardless of whether they
could operate under the short-haul exception.
    The ABA remarked that ELD providers could serve as an invaluable
resource to FMCSA for purposes of providing data on use of the short-
haul exception (i.e., frequency of use and distances traveled).
    FMCSA Response: The Agency agrees that drivers will generally not
spend significantly more time behind the wheel on a daily basis than
they currently do, especially because they are limited to 11 hours of
driving time. With respect to the notion that drivers will drive
farther by falsifying time records due to the lack of an ELD, the
Agency notes that the exception allowing short-haul drivers to use time
cards as opposed to RODS has long existed in the HOS rules. Nothing in
the changes to the short-haul exception creates additional
opportunities for short-haul drivers to falsify time records. The
normal work-reporting location requirement remains applicable to short-
haul drivers.
    As to ABA's comment regarding ELD data as a valuable resource, it
must be noted that 49 U.S.C. 31137(e)(1) prohibits the Secretary from
using data from ELDs except ``to enforce the Secretary's motor carrier
safety and related regulations.'' Therefore, the ELD data cannot be
used, outside the context of enforcing part 395, to analyze either the
frequency of use of the short-haul exception or the distances traveled
by drivers operating under the short-haul exception. Furthermore, given
that carriers using ELDs for short-haul operations do so on a voluntary
basis, such data would not be representative of the wide variety of
short-haul operations.
    Cost Savings from Not Using ELDs. FMCSA asked for comments on the
cost savings that would be expected from not having to comply with the
ELD requirements for operations out to a radius of 150 air-miles.
Commenters noted that cost savings could range from $240 to $1,700 per
truck, including the costs for purchase of the device, data
maintenance, and technical support. Comments from industry associations
stated that the cost savings would be at least $500 to $1,000 per
truck, including costs for equipment, maintenance, repair, and back
office administration. ABA stated that, due to the diverse nature of
the motor coach industry, some segments of the driver population would
continue to use ELDs. Road Safe America warned that the cost savings
associated with the avoidance of ELDs would be negligible compared to
the far greater costs of significantly increased risk of fatigue-
related crashes associated with extending the short-haul exceptions.
ATA suggested that FMCSA assess the motor carrier populations affected
by the changes to the short-haul exception to better estimate the
industrywide cost savings of the proposed rule.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA acknowledges commenters' views. FMCSA
previously estimated a per-truck cost of $419 per ELD, and notes that
this is within the range provided by commenters.\13\ It is, however,
unclear how many motor carriers and drivers will no longer be required
to use ELDs. For instance, although some bus routes will no longer need
ELDs, the motor carrier may choose to retain the device to use the bus
on longer-haul routes, should the occasion arise. Further, some motor
carriers use and will retain ELDs for business reasons, even if not
required by regulation. Under the changes made to the short-haul
exception today, these motor carriers will not necessarily see a
reduction in the number of ELDs. FMCSA is not

quantifying a cost savings in this rule due to the uncertainty
surrounding the number of vehicles that will no longer use ELDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 80 FR 78292, December 16, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA reviewed the comments and tried to estimate the number of
drivers who would be covered by the short-haul exception. This is
discussed in detail in section 2.4 (Baseline for Analysis) of the RIA
for the final rule. Inadequate data prevented FMCSA from estimating the
number of additional drivers who will likely operate under the revised
short-haul exception. The Agency has determined that the carrier-
reported information on drivers operating within 100 air miles of their
work reporting location is a good proxy for the count of drivers who
are eligible for, and will operate under, the short-haul exception
following the implementation of this final rule.
    Return to the Normal Work Reporting Location. Some commenters to
the ANPRM requested that drivers using the short-haul exception be
allowed to end their work shift at a different location than the one
from which they were dispatched. FMCSA requested public comment on this
issue, including which segments of the motor carrier industry would be
impacted by such a change and whether the change would have an adverse
effect on safety, or lead to operational changes such as increased
driving time per trip or driving in the 12th and 13th hour after coming
on-duty.
    Many commenters, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Advocates,
motor carriers, and drivers, argued that short-haul drivers should not
be allowed to end the work shift at a different location. Road Safe
America, CVSA, the Trucking Solutions Group, and Sysco Corporation said
that removing this requirement would contravene the original intent of
the short-haul exception. Trucking Solutions Group added that such a
change would give short-haul companies a competitive advantage over
companies that is ineligible to operate under the exception. ATA warned
that the provision to return to the same location ensures compliance
with the short-haul requirements; otherwise, enforcement would have no
way to ensure drivers adhere to the air-mile radius and on-duty limits.
The Trucking Alliance, Road Safe America, and CVSA said that short-haul
drivers should be required to return to their work reporting location,
because otherwise drivers would be able to ``leapfrog'' from one
location to another across the country, extending the effective air-
mile radius beyond 150 air miles. Advocates argued that allowing
carriers to return to a different location would effectively turn them
into traditional long-haul operations minus the required rest break and
ELDs.
    Many commenters, however, including TruckerNation, OOIDA, ABA, and
industry associations, supported allowing drivers to end the shift at a
different location, citing various benefits, including minimizing
driving time and distance traveled, reducing wear on the fleet,
aligning with the diverse nature of the trucking industry, maximizing
the allowable on-duty period, leading to more productive and flexible
schedules, and not negatively impacting safety. Many industry
associations stated that returning to the same location does not
necessarily promote safer driving habits and that modern technology
allows businesses to monitor the start and stop locations of their
drivers via tracking apps and electronic communications.
    The Minnesota Trucking Association remarked that its members were
split on this question, with some supporting allowing drivers to end at
a different location.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency has opted not to change the requirement
that short-haul drivers return to their work reporting location at the
end of their shift. The current requirement is consistent with
operations that are generally considered short-haul. As commenters
noted, the current requirement assists enforcement personnel in
determining the applicability of the short-haul exception and prevents
abuse. If the requirement were changed, enforcement personnel would not
have a beginning reference point from which to calculate the 150 air-
mile radius. The provision would be difficult to enforce and could lead
to abuse as drivers could potentially ``leap-frog'' across the country
without any way to verify their hours of service.
    The 30-Minute Break in Relation to the Short-Haul Provision. The
NPRM asked if eliminating the 30-minute break requirement for drivers
who are potentially driving later in their duty period would impact
safety.
    A few commenters, including industry associations, said that the
elimination of the 30-minute break requirement would not negatively
impact safety for various reasons, including that short-haul drivers
often make frequent stops throughout the on-duty period, are less
likely to be affected by driving-related fatigue, and will have the
flexibility to stop as needed to rest under the additional time
provided in this rule. The Trucking Alliance said the 30-minute break
is not necessary because short-haul drivers would be performing many
non-driving activities each day. Citing research studies, the Petroleum
Marketers Association of America argued that, while the studies did not
specifically address the 30-minute break, they indicate short-haul
drivers are less likely to experience reduced safety performance due to
the nature of the job. TruckerNation stated that the proposed changes
to the 30-minute break would mean ``short-haul operators will not reach
the 8th consecutive hour of drive time without the opportunity to have
an on-duty, not driving change in duty status'' and would eliminate
regulatory complexity by making the short-haul exceptions the same as
HOS regulations for all drivers.
    IBT, citing research and studies, said that eliminating the 30-
minute break requirement for short-haul drivers would have an adverse
impact on safety as data demonstrates that crash risk significantly
increases after the 7th consecutive hour of a driver's workday.\14\
Another commenter, a driver, warned that the elimination of the 30-
minute break for drivers who are potentially driving later in their
duty period would impact safety because drivers would not obtain
adequate rest and their performance could suffer. Advocates asserted
that by asking this question, FMCSA is ``admitting'' that the proposed
changes would result in drivers being scheduled to drive later in their
duty period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ IBT cited: 65 FR 25539 (Apr. 2000); Saccomano, F., et al.,
``Effect of Driver Fatigue On Truck Accident Rates,'' Urban
Transport and the Environment for the Twenty-First Century (ed. L.J.
Sucharov), Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, U.K.,
439-446 (1995); Saccomano, F. and Shortread, J., ``Truck Safety:
Perceptions and Reality,'' the Institute for Risk Reduction,
Ontario, Canada, 157-174 (1996).; Lin, T. et al., ``Time of Day
Models of Motor Carrier Accident Risk,'' Transportation Research
Record 1467: 1-8, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, (1994); Frith, W., ``A Case-Control Study of Heavy Vehicle
Drivers' Working Time and Safety,'' Proceedings of the Australian
Road Research Board Conference, 17(5): 17-30 (1994) and Jovanis,
J.P., Wu, K.F., and Chen, C., ``Hours of Service and Driver
Fatigue--Driver Characteristics Research,'' FMCSA (April 2011), DOT
docket number FMCSA-2004-19608-27614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA concludes that the expansion of the criteria
for short-haul operations and the associated elimination of the 30-
minute break requirement for these drivers will not have an adverse
impact on safety. As noted above, the primary factors influencing
safety outcomes for short-haul drivers are the continued adherence to
the 11-hour driving time limit and the continued prohibition against
driving after the 14th hour of the beginning of the work shift. FMCSA
acknowledges that in the 2011 final rule and during the subsequent
litigation, the

Agency argued that, on their face, the safety benefits of an off-duty
30-minute break requirement applied to short-haul operations as well as
long-haul. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, found that
applying the 30-minute break requirement to all drivers despite the
clear distinctions between short-haul and long-haul operations was not
justified in the record.\15\ The Agency has received no new evidence to
compel a different finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ American Trucking Ass'n v. FMCSA, 724 F.3d 243, 253 (D.C.
Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, there is no safety basis for expanding the definition of
short-haul but continuing to require a 30-minute break for the subset
of short-haul CDL drivers who operate between 100 and 150 air miles, or
who drive between the 12th and 14th hour of coming on duty. To the
extent that the debate and comments about the safety impact of
relieving this group of drivers of the need to comply with the 30-
minute break provision lingers, FMCSA believes it is best resolved
below in the Agency's decision concerning changes to the 30-minute
break.
    The changes adopted in this final rule result in the break being