The Agency encouraged motor carriers and other stakeholders to
submit driver record data supporting their comments in a manner that
did not reveal the identity of an individual driver. FMCSA sought
additional information and data on the impacts of

the split-duty period provision, in part to assess its potential costs
and benefits. FMCSA also sought additional information on whether
drivers should be allowed to divide the pause, up to a total of 3
hours. Responses to these questions are discussed in the comment
summaries below.
    Comments in Favor of a Split Duty Option. Approximately 280
commenters supported the proposed pause to the 14-hour driving window.
Many of these commenters, mostly individuals and drivers, simply noted
their support. Others gave the following reasons for supporting this
provision:
     Provides flexibility for drivers to take a break when
needed.
     Greatly improves performance, productivity, and safety by
preventing drivers from feeling compelled to keep driving to complete a
trip if they feel fatigued.
     Compensates for time lost, and provides an opportunity to
rest, while waiting during loading and unloading, rather than placing
stress on drivers to rush to make up for lost time.
     Enables drivers to avoid rush hour traffic periods in
major urban areas.
     Enables drivers to stop and rest while still ensuring they
will be able to make it home at night.
     Avoids congestion and other unsafe conditions.
     Mitigates driver stress and fatigue.
    OOIDA supported the proposal and recommended several actions FMCSA
could take to ensure that the split-duty provision does not exacerbate
detention times currently experienced by drivers.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency agrees with commenters and continues to
believe the split duty proposal could provide significant flexibility
for drivers and provide an incentive to take an extended rest break.
The current 14-hour window disincentivizes drivers from voluntarily
taking rest breaks because those breaks do not pause the 14-hour clock.
Consequently, all the time a driver spends in an off-duty status
reduces the amount of time available to complete up to 11 hours of
driving time during the work shift.
    Therefore, drivers who take additional breaks may feel compelled to
speed in order to complete their driving within the 14-hour window.
    With regard to safety impacts, the Agency notes the additional
break of up to 3 consecutive hours would be off-duty. This means the
extension of the driving window would not result in drivers working
additional hours; the maximum amount of on-duty time that could be
accumulated before a driver would be prohibited from driving during a
work shift would remain at 14 hours. Furthermore, drivers would still
be required to have 10 consecutive hours off-duty at the end of the
work shift.
    Although the Agency's analysis indicates the additional flexibility
could be provided without adversely impacting safety, the analysis did
not take into account the driver protection issues raised by commenters
opposed to the 3-hour pause. These issues are of such concern that the
Agency has not included the 3-hour pause in this final rule.
    Commenters Opposed to the Split Duty Proposal. Approximately 150
commenters opposed the NPRM's split-duty period because it went too
far. Drivers and other individual commenters argued that:
     The pause creates a 17-hour driving window, which is
unwanted and unsafe.
     The pause could be abused, enabling companies to take
advantage of drivers.
     The pause adds 3 unpaid hours to a truck driver's day.
    Multiple opponents provided additional explanations based on
research data. Several motor carriers and a law enforcement agency
expressed concern about the negative safety impact of an extended
driver workday, potentially up to 17 hours. An individual commenter
said a carrier or third party should not be allowed to impact a
driver's schedule based on this provision.
    The Trucking Alliance, Advocates, and others also opposed this
change, stating that FMCSA does not have data on the possible safety
implications of an extended workday. Others, including the AASM and
IBT, opposed the provision, stating that there are no data to support
the assumption that drivers would rest or sleep during the pause; that
the proposal increases the risk of drowsy driving and accidents; and
that allowing up to a 3-hour pause in the driving window does not
necessarily translate to a decrease in driver fatigue levels.
    Advocates offered a detailed discussion of the Blanco (2011) study
and the examples provided by the Agency, and cited additional studies
not mentioned in the NPRM. Advocates argued that the research does not
support the proposal and that FMCSA had provided no analysis of
applicable data to justify the split-duty proposal. Advocates opposed a
pause of any length that would extend the driving window and allow
driving later in the duty period. IIHS also opposed the pause and
questioned the logic that increasing a driver's workday with off-duty
time would have less impact on fatigue than adding the same amount of
driving time.
    Several commenters, including Senator Murray and CVSA, said FMCSA
should consider how this change would interact with other changes
proposed in the NPRM (e.g., adverse driving conditions) and should set
a maximum workday. These commenters stated that these possible
interactions (``stacking'') would raise serious safety, health, and
welfare concerns.
    ATA provided extensive comment and survey results regarding the
potential impact of the pause on driver sleep schedules and the
possible safety impact of the proposal, and concluded that FMCSA should
clarify the safety benefits of the proposed pause. ATA said that FMCSA
should provide some estimate on how often, and for how long, drivers
would use a ``pause,'' and whether that period would impact sleep
cycles and relative measures of roadway safety. ATA also stated that
some motor carriers worry that modifications to the 14-hour clock could
increase their risk exposure, which, in turn, could affect insurance
rates and motor carrier liabilities.
    CVSA stated that, before finalizing the proposed changes, FMCSA
needs to evaluate how these changes will impact broader flexibility
that has already been granted to certain segments of the motor carrier
industry through exceptions and guidance, and to ensure that the
combination of changes does not negatively impact safety.
    CVSA, Trucking Alliance, Road Safe America, IBT, TruckerNation,
industry associations, and individual commenters highlighted the
potential for abuse of this provision by shippers, receivers, brokers,
or motor carriers. They argued that it could be used to coerce drivers
into extending their workday and obscure the problem of unpaid
detention time. Some commenters stated that drivers alone should be
allowed to decide when this provision is used. Others, including CVSA,
stated that drivers might use the provision for work-related activities
rather than rest. ATA generally supported the flexibilities offered by
the proposed split-duty period but pointed to mixed results generated
by a survey it conducted in response to the NPRM. Specifically, ATA
said some motor carriers responded positively to the proposed split-
duty day, but others expressed varying degrees of hesitation regarding
lack of supporting data or potential for abuse by shippers and
receivers. In addition, ATA said many motor carriers want FMCSA to
clarify how a split-duty period would impact

driver detention or ``dwell'' times and affect sleep cycles. EROAD also
provided the results of its survey of trucking industry professionals
and associations. The responses varied between support, requests for
additional flexibility, and opposition due to the impact on driver
fatigue and potential for abuse. ATA asserted that FMCSA had not
undertaken a RIA on whether a flexible split-duty period would impact
detention times and whether those impacts would result in net costs or
benefits. ATA concluded that FMCSA should provide that data before
adopting the proposal. Trucking Solutions Group stated that the
proposed pause would be nothing but a ``band-aid'' to mask a widespread
detention problem.
    Other commenters expressed concern about how drivers would file
complaints if they were coerced to use this provision. Many commenters
mentioned the ``forced dispatch'' policies in place at some companies,
under which drivers can be and are told by the carrier when to take
split or pause breaks to meet the needs of customers. Other commenters
raised concerns about the interaction of the pause with other
regulations, exceptions, and Canadian regulations.
    Commenters requested that the industry and law enforcement be given
clear regulatory language and guidance to help interpret the pause and
how it would interact with other regulations.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency acknowledges commenters' concerns about
the potential for unintended consequences associated with actions by
employers, shippers and receivers that might be contrary to drivers'
interests. Given the uncertainties as to whether these potential
consequences would actually happen, the Agency has not included the 3-
hour pause in this final rule.
    The Agency is not persuaded by commenters' assertions that the
pause, in and of itself, would reduce safety, but does agree that the
issue warrants further study.
    The FMCSRs have always treated off-duty time as an opportunity for
driver rest, but that opportunity is enhanced if the CMV is equipped
with a sleeper berth. That factor, combined with significant
uncertainty about the frequency and extent of detention time, makes the
evaluation of the cost and safety impact of a general 3-hour pause
difficult, since day-cab drivers who are delayed at shipper or receiver
facilities at non-ideal points in their circadian cycle might obtain
less effective rest than sleeper-berth drivers, who always have a bed
ready for use. The Agency believes that limiting an extension of the
14-hour driving window to the shorter period under the sleeper-berth
exception, rather than applying it to all CMVs, will give drivers
greater peace of mind and the rest that will enable them to operate
safely later in the work shift, even if that off-duty period may
sometimes occur at less-than-ideal times.
    Comments Responding to FMCSA's Request for Research and Data.
    FMCSA requested comments, research, and data on the optimal length
of a pause that would allow drivers reasonable flexibility to manage
operational variables while ensuring that driving does not occur after
too much time has elapsed since the last longer rest period. While
Advocates opposed a pause of any length, most commenters did not
provide feedback on an optimal length of the pause, and instead
requested that the Agency obtain additional data.
    Some commenters who opposed the provision, including IIHS,
recommended a pilot program to gather needed data relating to its
impact on driver health and safety and on possible interactions with
other proposed changes. Road Safe America stated that, before moving
forward with the proposal, FMCSA should study the safety risks of
permitting a 17-hour workday and its effect on cumulative fatigue,
given that the NPRM included no limits on the use of the pause
throughout the week.
    Many other commenters, including motor carriers, supported the
proposal but wanted further study on efficiency, the ELD environment,
nocturnal driving and breaks, sleep cycles, and driver detention. In
addition, some commenters that supported the proposal, including the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, requested that the Agency conduct a pilot
program to understand the safety impacts of the split-duty provision
before considering it further.
    The NPRM asked a series of questions about the proposed pause:
    (1) How will this provision impact the number of driving hours
during a single driving window? How will this provision impact your
total driving hours during a given week or year? Although some
commenters stated that the provision would not change driving hours,
others, including OOIDA, industry associations, and motor carriers,
responded that the pause could reduce total driving hours by enabling
drivers to operate more efficiently and flexibly, e.g., to move when
necessary and stop when tired or to avoid driving in some potentially
challenging conditions.
    Advocates warned that the pause would likely permit the scheduling
of more driving hours in a single driving window, probably later in the
duty period when crash risk from fatigue is greatest. Knight-Swift
Transportation Holdings, Inc. stated that industry data collected in
response to the NPRM shows that, in up to 3.8 percent of all workdays,
the day would be extended by up to 3 additional hours and allow for up
to 2 additional driving hours on average between the 14th and 17th hour
of duty. An individual commenter said this provision would allow
drivers to complete more driving hours during the week, but would then
force them to take 34-hour restarts more frequently.
    (2) How would this provision impact your regular schedule? How
often would you expect to take advantage of this provision in a given
work week? Why? OOIDA said its survey respondents believe that their
operations would be more productive and less stressful if the 14-hour
on-duty period offered additional flexibility, not only to avoid
adverse driving conditions, but also to address other issues outside of
their control. OOIDA said its survey respondents indicated that they
would use the split-duty period an average of 2.55 times per week.
American Moving and Storage Association said that its drivers would use
the proposed split-duty period up to three times per week, and that
carriers operating primarily within non-metropolitan areas, or running
single loads, would likely use this proposal less often.
    Industry associations said the overall impact would be minimal but
would allow drivers to safely and compliantly complete their
deliveries. Other commenters said the pause would be used infrequently,
mainly for flexibility in cases of inclement weather, traffic
interruptions, unexpected delays, and seasonal demand.
    (3) What are the expected benefits from utilizing the 3-hour pause?
OOIDA and other commenters said the pause would allow drivers to be
better rested, to stay off the road during unsafe conditions, and to
use their on-duty time more efficiently, resulting in improved highway
safety, more completed trips, and fewer wasted hours. Several industry
associations echoed this, arguing that the pause would promote safe
operation, improve efficiency, and allow drivers to schedule work
better and avoid unexpected and stressful conditions. Other commenters
linked these benefits to driver retention, increased safety and
decreased road congestion, additional capacity within the trucking
industry (by allowing time spent being loaded or unloaded to be

used as off-duty time), more loaded miles for drivers, increased
compensation, and less wasted fuel. Similarly, several industry
associations supported the flexibility of the provision to permit
drivers to make decisions on road condition safety, as well as to
promote fatigue recovery and napping.
    After presenting data relating to daily traffic speed fluctuations,
off-duty breaks, and impacts on braking events and speeding, a
technology company concluded that the pause would allow drivers to
reclaim the time spent off-duty and traverse congested metropolitan
areas at more efficient times.
    A motor carrier stated that its drivers would likely use this
provision to offset extended detention times, effectively allowing them
to use more of their HOS on-duty time on the road instead of at the
loading dock. An individual commenter said that the pause may enable a
driver to return home sooner instead of taking a 10-hour off-duty or
sleeper berth period.
    American Moving and Storage Association said carriers that
compensate their drivers by the hour would not see a direct labor cost
benefit from this proposal, but that operations that pay per load
weight or per mile may recapture lost efficiency. However, the
commenter said the flexibility provided by the proposal would be
expected to minimize idling fuel costs and reduce contractual payback
penalties for late deliveries.
    An individual commenter stated that this provision would be
beneficial if its use is restricted to the avoidance of traffic
congestion. However, because companies, shippers, and receivers could
abuse this provision, the commenter said it would result in more
drivers driving fatigued when they do not want to be driving.
    Advocates expressed concern that the question failed to ask for
details from research or to try to account for the cost of crashes
caused using the 3-hour pause.
    (4) Do you expect to use this provision to account for uncertainty
such that trips could be finished on their scheduled completion day?
How often do uncertain factors impact your schedule such that you are
unable to complete a trip during the expected driving window and must
delay delivery until after a 10 hour off-duty period? OOIDA responded
that the provision would give drivers more flexibility to account for
uncertainty during their workdays, which in many cases would help them
finish trips on their scheduled completion days. TruckerNation remarked
that the ``supreme benefit'' of the proposed split-duty provision is
the fact that it accounts for uncertainty and results in loads getting
to their destination as scheduled, rather than having drivers exhaust
their 14 hours with miles yet to drive. Minnesota Trucking Association
responded that its drivers would consider using this provision to react
to unforeseen circumstances encountered during the trip. A motor
carrier servicing railroads stated that, since unplanned events that
block lines (e.g., weather event or derailment) often occur outside of
normal business hours, railroad contractors require flexibility to send
drivers to the site with the equipment necessary to remove railcars and
debris and restore service. Regarding uncertain impacts, a commenter
said that traffic congestion occurs at least a couple of times a week.
    Another commenter responded that it uses driver teams to account
for uncertainty in its operations.
    (5) Do you expect to be able to complete more trips due to this
provision (i.e., schedule additional freight movement)? How many
additional trips would you expect to plan during a given week or year?
OOIDA said 58 percent of its survey respondents replied that they would
not complete more trips due to this provision, and 42 percent said that
they would be able to complete an average of 1.6 more trips per week.
Several commenters, including a trade association, reported that they
would not complete more trips due to this provision, or expect fewer
trips.
    (6) Would you expect to be able to use more of the 11 hours of
drive time currently available due to the 3-hour pause? OOIDA and other
industry associations responded they expect drivers would be able to
use the 11 hours of drive time more efficiently with the option of a 3-
hour pause. Schneider National Carriers, Inc. also said drivers are
likely to use more of their 11-hour maximum drive time than they are
using under the current rule, but did not have an estimate as to how
much more of the maximum drive time would be used. However, Boyle
Transportation responded that they would not be able to use their drive
time more effectively.
    (7) Do you expect this provision to impact drivers' sleep schedule?
How so? (8) Will this provision allow for drivers to shift off their
circadian rhythm more easily than under current rules? OOIDA responded
that the provision would not allow drivers to shift off their circadian
rhythms more easily than the current rule; rather, it would provide
drivers more opportunities to rest when they feel tired. OOIDA further
stated that 74 percent of its survey participants indicated that the
provision would not impact their sleep schedule. Of those who expected
an impact, 72 percent said that the impact would be positive because it
would provide additional opportunities to rest as needed. Similarly,
the Minnesota Trucking Association stated that its members anticipate
this proposal could enhance safety by allowing a driver to take a rest
period as needed or avoid high stress situations and traffic. This
commenter added that the proposed rule would allow drivers to better
manage their own fatigue levels but suggested that FMCSA consider how
often a driver could safely use this extension.
    The National Tank Truck Carriers also discussed how often the pause
could be used, stating that its members have expressed concern over
whether this proposed change would disrupt driver sleep patterns, and
that FMCSA should monitor how frequently this option is used by drivers
to determine to what extent, if any, drivers' sleep patterns are
disrupted in a manner that negatively impacts safety. Another commenter
said this provision would adversely impact drivers' sleep schedules
because companies, shippers, and receivers would force drivers to take
the pause to compensate for detention times, thus forcing drivers to
drive fatigued.
    The NSC provided studies indicating that lack of rest is associated
with a higher likelihood of safety-critical mistakes and that the
effects of lack of sleep can be exacerbated if they occur during
circadian lows. Boyle Transportation stated that no new science or
study has altered previous findings about humans' sleep cycles and
requirements for sleep, and that the split-duty provision will
eliminate any safety advantage by disrupting and extending the regular
on/off cycle beyond 24 hours. This commenter concluded that the pause
would subject drivers to a rotating sleep schedule since the 3 hours
added to the workday would offset their circadian rhythm. Another
commenter responded that the rule would allow drivers to shift their
circadian rhythm and would lead to more fatigued driving. Another
commenter also stated that the rule would allow drivers to shift their
circadian rhythm and would create a 27-hour day.
    (9) In a full year, would this provision lead to additional driving
miles or driving time? OOIDA said this provision could lead to
additional driving miles but not additional driving time and, in many
cases, would likely decrease total

driving time. Boyle Transportation responded that the proposal would
not lead to additional driving miles or time. The Minnesota Trucking
Association said the proposal could increase both miles and time.
    (10) How often would you take advantage of the full 3-hour pause as
compared to shorter amount of times? Why? OOIDA responded that
frequency of use would vary depending on the conditions that
necessitated the pause. Similarly, the Minnesota Trucking Association
said that use of the pause is difficult to estimate, as decisions would
be made on a case-by-case basis by a driver.
    Another commenter, presumably a driver, stated that, if left solely
to the commenter's discretion, the provision would only be used to
avoid traffic congestion and adverse weather. However, the commenter
said the decision would not be left to the driver's discretion unless
FMCSA implements stronger coercion rules and enforcement.
    (11) How would you plan to use the off-duty time spent during the
3-hour pause? Would you use the time sleeping in a truck cab more often
or other leisure activities more often? OOIDA stated that 27 percent of
its survey respondents said they would use time sleeping in the cab, 6
percent said personal time, 55 percent said both sleep and personal
time, and 12 percent responded with ``other.'' The Minnesota Trucking
Association said the answer would depend on professional drivers
managing their trip plan and productivity to determine what is safe.
    (12) Do you anticipate any fatigue impacts on driving up to the
17th hour of a duty day? How would the up to 3-hour break impact that
fatigue level? OOIDA stated that 79 percent of its survey respondents
said they did not anticipate any fatigue impacts on driving up to the
17th hour of a duty day; rather, the split-duty break would lessen
fatigue by providing drivers more time to rest, thus reducing stress
and increasing vigilance. A motor carrier also expected reduced fatigue
because drivers would be allowed to adhere more to their personal
``body clock.'' The Pipeline Contractors Association said its members
would not suffer additional fatigue if they extend the driving window
by taking a break.
    Several industry associations pointed to research indicating that
that drivers can safely work a 16-hour shift without significant
degradation in performance, noting the research failed to consider the
restorative impact of taking one or more off-duty rest breaks of
between 30 minutes and 3 hours.
    Some commenters argued that driving up to the 17th hour of a duty
day would have fatigue impacts. Truckers for a Cause cited research and
studies on how hours awake relate to fatigue impairment and stated that
detention time at shipper facilities does not result in an opportunity
for rest. The commenter concluded that, unless regulatory language
provides reasonable assurance that a nap will be possible during a
split or pause, the proposal would not result in safety equal to or
better than that found under the current FMCSRs. Similarly, AASM stated
there is no guarantee that a driver can or will sleep during a pause of
up to 3 hours and that this prolonged wakefulness can occur during
circadian ``low'' periods when performance is lowest, thus resulting in
a higher risk of drowsy driving and motor vehicle accidents. Knight-
Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. said the proposal would create
significant additional risk, in terms of VMT at the most vulnerable
times in the driver's daily work shift (after the 14th hour on-duty),
to accommodate a rather small percentage of drivers affected by the
current and more rigid 14-hour limit.
    Truckers for a Cause disagreed with drivers who cite the rule on
ill or fatigued operators (Sec.  392.3) as providing adequate
protections from forced dispatch that might result in excessive
fatigue. The commenter said a driver being told to take a split or
pause break when and where a carrier, shipper, or receiver wants,
rather than when and where a driver chooses, would not be violation of
the coercion rule unless new regulatory language is included in the
final rule.
    Advocates asserted that evidence shows that fatigue and crash risk
increase with increasing length of day and the ``question incorrectly
assumes that carriers and drivers' expectations regarding fatigue are a
comparable substitute to research and scientific fact.''
    Some commenters foresaw a potential fatigue impact but said this
could be mitigated by the off-duty rest periods. An industry
association suggested that FMCSA further study whether stopping the
clock could be done daily without an increase in driver fatigue.
    IBT reported that half of all its survey respondents indicated that
fatigue levels would be negatively impacted by driving up to the 17th
hour of a duty day. However, survey respondents indicated that having a
3-hour pause in the driving window would not equate to a decrease in
fatigue levels, as off-duty pauses can be more fatiguing than being
active.
    (13) What operations would benefit from multiple off-duty periods
totaling 3 hours? Many commenters, including an industry association,
indicated that long-haul operations would benefit from multiple off-
duty periods totaling 3 hours, or just multiple pauses. Similarly, the
Minnesota Trucking Association said short-haul and local operations
would be affected less, as these operations use a standard schedule for
pickup and delivery.
    OOIDA, the Minnesota Trucking Association, and Schneider National
Holdings, Inc., however, did not support multiple pauses. The industry
association said FMCSA should provide clear guidance regarding the
potential use of multiple extensions in one workday and address
concerns regarding potential circumvention of the HOS rules through the
combination of multiple extensions in a single workday.
    (14) Would this flexibility cause drivers to alter their daily
behavior or increase productivity? If so, how? The Minnesota Trucking
Association said allowing a driver to take a pause as needed would
effectively manage fatigue, as well as improve driver lifestyle and
work life overall.
    (15) What would be the impact on fatigue with several smaller
breaks compared to a single period of up to 3 hours? The AASM said
multiple off-duty periods are less restful than a single, long
opportunity to sleep; restorative sleep progresses through specific,
well-organized stages that cannot be generated when sleep opportunities
are short or timed against the natural circadian rhythm. Therefore,
shorter off-duty periods would be expected to decrease total sleep time
per 24 hours, impacting driver safety. This commenter also said shorter
rest breaks mean that drivers will likely end up operating their
vehicle during circadian low periods, which is a major risk for
sleepiness-related crashes. Lastly, the commenter said the proposal
would lead to more episodes of sleep inertia, which has been tied to
accidents and near-miss events in operational environments.
    The Minnesota Trucking Association responded that taking a break
when a driver needs to can positively impact fatigue reduction and
improve driver lifestyle, but this becomes more challenging from a
reporting standpoint.
    (16) If the 3-hour break were divided up into smaller increments,
what would be the impact on enforcement when determining compliance?
The Minnesota Trucking Association said dividing up the break into
smaller segments would cause confusion with no increase in safety.
Schneider said

multiple pauses could encourage drivers to inaccurately record on-duty
time as off-duty time, make verification and enforcement of the rule
more difficult, and overly complicate the rule.
    (17) Would the added complexity of multiple pauses substantially
add to the time needed for ELD vendors to reprogram ELD software? If
so, how much additional time would be needed? The Minnesota Trucking
Association anticipated that technology vendors would need adequate
time to adjust to any new rule.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency has decided not to implement the
proposed pause in the 14-hour driving window at this time. FMCSA
continues to believe that an opportunity for a single off-duty pause in
the 14-hour driving window could provide flexibility for drivers
without compromising safety, as explained in the NPRM. However, many
commenters believe that drivers would be pressured by carriers,
shippers, or receivers to use the break to cover detention time, which
would not necessarily provide the driver an optimal environment for
restorative rest. This suggests that the proposal could have unintended
consequences that were not adequately evaluated in the development of
the NPRM.
    An off-duty break of up to three consecutive hours during a work
shift would have enabled drivers to avoid congestion. The subsequent
driving time would then be more productive as drivers may have a
greater opportunity to travel at the posted speed limits rather than at
lower speeds through heavy traffic and congestion. It may also reduce
the pressure to drive above the posted speed limits because of concerns
raised by the 14-hour clock. In addition, drivers could take a rest
break to reduce the likelihood of experiencing fatigue while driving.
Because drivers would continue to take 10 consecutive hours off-duty at
the end of the work shift, exercising the pause option during the work
shift would increase the driver's off-duty time during the work week.
    This increased productivity, resulting from an ability to avoid
congestion, would be accomplished without altering the maximum amount
of on-duty time that could be accumulated before driving is prohibited,
or increasing the maximum driving time allowed during a work shift. The
maximum amount of time accumulated before the designated single off-
duty pause and immediately following the off-duty pause could not
exceed 14 hours, irrespective of the duty status recorded before and
after the designated break. The driver would be prohibited from
operating a CMV until there was a break of at least 10 consecutive
hours, thereby starting a new work shift. And the total amount of
driving time accumulated before the designated off-duty pause and
immediately following the pause could not exceed 11 hours before the
driver takes a break of 10 consecutive hours, thereby retaining the 11-
hour limit on driving time during the work shift.
    FMCSA acknowledges that the potential benefits of increased
flexibility could be undermined if the pause is used by carriers,
shippers, or receivers for purposes other than the productivity and
safety of drivers, especially to compensate for time wasted during the
14-hour driving window due to increased detention time. Under such a
scenario, the Agency believes it is unlikely that the off-duty period
would provide a meaningful opportunity for drivers to rest. Drivers may
have limited choices where the off-duty period would take place,
especially if the CMV is not equipped with a sleeper berth.
    For drivers operating sleeper berth-equipped CMVs, the Agency
believes it is more likely that the driver would elect to use the
split-sleeper berth option adopted through this final rule rather than
the pause of up to three consecutive hours. With the sleeper berth
option the driver would be required to spend only seven consecutive
hours in the sleeper berth to fulfill the HOS requirements rather than
spending 10-consecutive hours off duty (or in the sleeper berth). The
split sleeper berth option would allow the individual to resume CMV
driving three hours sooner and thereby increase the likelihood of
meeting scheduling demands. Therefore, there is an inherent incentive
for drivers of sleeper berth-equipped CMVs to use the sleeper berth
rule instead of the pause.
    Because the drivers most likely to use the pause are individuals
who do not have the option of using a sleeper berth, the Agency is
particularly mindful of commenters' views about the potential for
unintended consequences. The Agency is concerned about the need to
ensure that drivers are not forced into situations where the break
fails to provide meaningful rest. If an individual operating a CMV that
is not equipped with a sleeper berth is pressured into using the pause
at a time and location the driver finds inappropriate, the driver's
options for a comfortable or suitable resting location are likely to be
limited. If there is no lounge or similar location where the driver can
relax in a comfortable seat or recliner, take a nap, read a book, or
have access to multi-media entertainment, the value of the off-duty
pause is diminished. This is especially the case if the driver's
preferences about the timing and location of the break are not part of
the equation.
    Additionally, although this final rule makes modifications, the
split sleeper berth provisions are already well-established, whereas
the pause was a wholly new proposal. Due to its established use, FMCSA
does not believe the sleeper berth changes are likely to affect current
industry practices, as both breaks are required (so a driver's break is
not a question of ``if'', but only ``when'') compared to the proposed
new voluntary pause, when a driver could be pressured into a break that
she is never ``required'' to take.
    Given the uncertainty about the amount and quality of rest drivers
could obtain under the circumstances described above, previous research
about the safety risks of driving later in the work shift becomes more
relevant because drivers would indeed be operating within a 17-hour
window during which there may be minimal opportunity to get meaningful
rest. For drivers of sleeper berth-equipped vehicles, concerns about
where the driver could rest are not as significant, because these
individuals already have experience using sleeper berths while the CMV
is parked at various locations, including shipper and receiver
facilities, and under various conditions (e.g., noise levels and
weather conditions). Given the uncertainty about the amount and quality
of rest drivers could obtain under certain circumstances, previous
research about the safety risks of driving later in the work shift
become more relevant because drivers would indeed be operating with a
17-hour window during which there is minimal opportunity to get
meaningful rest. For drivers of sleeper berth-equipped vehicles,
concerns about where the driver could rest are not as significant
because these individuals already have experience using sleeper berths
while the CMV is parked at various locations, including shipper and
receiver facilities, and under various conditions (e.g., noise levels
and weather conditions).
    As stated above, some commenters suggested the pause would be
helpful but only if the regulatory text included language giving
drivers exclusive discretion over its use. While this approach might
address some of the concerns expressed above, the Agency believes
enforcement of drivers' rights in this matter would be difficult at
best. Based on the commenters' concerns about the ways in which drivers
may be compelled by their employers, shippers, and receivers to extend
their days involuntarily, the Agency believes it is unclear whether the
off-duty period

would provide a meaningful opportunity for drivers to rest. There would
be challenges documenting the circumstances surrounding drivers'
schedules. It would be complicated to demonstrate whether taking the
break was a reasonable expectation that a supervisor would have, given
a specific driver's schedule at that moment, or whether the break
represented an employer's imposition on the driver through unplanned
and abrupt changes to the schedule.
    This final rule gives drivers with a sleeper berth additional
flexibility when operating under the split sleeper berth cycle.
Further, FMCSA anticipates that drivers of sleeper berth equipped
trucks would likely have opted to use the sleeper berth exception
rather than the pause in any case.
    Based on the reasons discussed above, the Agency believes the
split-duty option should be deferred until additional data can be
collected on how it would be used and who would determine its use.
    Comments About Petitions for Rulemaking Previously Submitted to
FMCSA.
    A few commenters, mostly individuals and drivers, endorsed the
changes for increased flexibility proposed by OOIDA. However, the
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers argued that FMCSA should
delay the adoption of the OOIDA petition and not finalize the split-
duty provision due to the lack of scientific data.
    CVSA suggested that FMCSA grant its petition to set a maximum
distance that the personal conveyance provision may be used under the
final rule. CVSA argued that the current guidance for personal
conveyance allows drivers to drive several hours, possibly increasing
fatigue and risking safety.
    Advocates agreed with FMCSA's denials of the TruckerNation, USTA,
and UDA petitions, because they would allow drivers to operate for long
periods without a sufficient sleep period.
    FMCSA Response: The normal Agency process for handling petitions
for rulemaking is set forth in 49 CFR part 389, subpart B--Procedures
for Adoption of Rules. FMCSA declines to discuss CVSA's petition on
personal conveyance, originally filed on December 17, 2018, as the
Agency will issue a separate decision on this matter pursuant to part
389 rulemaking procedures. OOIDA petitioned FMCSA to allow property-
carrying CMV drivers to take a single off-duty rest break for up to 3
consecutive hours once per 14-hour driving window. That rest break
would pause the 14-hour clock for the duration for the break. As
explained in greater detail above, the Agency has decided not to adopt
that proposal.
    Comments About the Compliance Date for the Final Rule.
    OOIDA and the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA)
recommended that the proposed rule go into effect as soon as possible,
stating that it would improve highway safety.
    The National Propane Gas Association and Keep Truckin, Inc.
recommended a compliance date less than 6 months after the effective
date, regardless of ELD concerns. Wright Knox Motor Carrier, Inc.
commented that it could comply within 6 months. The Pipeline
Contractors Association recommended a compliance period of 6 months,
stating that such a timeframe would result in cost savings to it
members and customers.
    ATA recommended that FMCSA collaborate with CVSA and ELD vendors to
arrive at a single compliance date (rather than phasing in the rule).
CVSA likewise recommended a single compliance date rather than a phase-
in and recommended that FMCSA consult with ELD manufacturers.
Conversely, industry associations recommended that a 6-month phase-in
be adopted.
    EROAD said that a compliance date of at least 6 months would be
necessary to accommodate ELD manufacturers, and provided a breakdown of
the time and methodology needed for discrete tasks. The Trucker
Alliance and Trimble Transportation Mobility recommended a compliance
date of at least 9 months after adoption of the rule to accommodate ELD
providers. The National Association of Manufacturers and Garmin
International recommended a 12-month compliance date. TruckerNation
argued that extensive ELD software updates by manufacturers would be
necessary to ensure compliance with the final rule. Schneider National
Holdings, Inc. recommended a compliance date 12 to 18 months after the
proposed rule's implementation.
    The USTA requested a ``soft'' enforcement period to accommodate
affected parties' learning curves. One driver asked if the ``Big Road''
app would be uploaded with the pause button and if the proposed rule
would go into effect immediately.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes that the proposed changes will be
positive for the industry, and that an early compliance date would be
ideal, as suggested by the OOIDA comments. However, there are other
factors to consider.
    Many commenters, particularly those from ELD manufacturers, believe
a longer compliance period should be considered, allowing them time to
program changes consistent with this final rule. Although some aspects
of the final rule theoretically could have a shorter effective date,
FMCSA agrees with the commenters suggesting that a single date is
needed to minimize confusion. With the elimination of the pause
provision and market pressure from motor carriers, FMCSA believes the
timeline for reprogramming ELDs can be shorter than reflected in the
comments.
    Considering these facts, FMCSA believes that a 120-day effective
date without a delayed compliance period is appropriate.
    Comments About Economic Issues.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) recommended that FMCSA
consider the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses, and
especially those raised in Regional Regulatory Reform Roundtables.
These included complaints about ELD requirements and requests for
relief from HOS requirements that are impracticable because of the lack
of sufficient safe stopping locations for drivers.
    Advocates asserted that FMCSA failed to provide any relevant,
meaningful analysis or evidence to support the conclusion that the
proposed rule had potential cost benefits. Advocates said that FMCSA
``cites several benefits related to dealing with congestion and
detention times which are factors not necessarily aligned with fatigue
and rest needs of drivers.'' Advocates also stated that suggesting that
the proposal will benefit drivers by increasing flexibility to rest
when tired fails to acknowledge that breaks will likely be taken in
response to logistical concerns and not in terms of fatigue. Advocates
concluded that the proposed rule may very well lead to reduced
consolidated sleep, schedule changes to fit carrier interests over
driver fatigue and health, weakened public safety, and other
detrimental costs of long working and driving hours.
    Schneider National Holdings, Inc. commented that the proposed
rule's cost analysis failed to consider compliance costs associated
with training law enforcement and drivers, comparing this against the
2005 rule.
    Institute for Policy Integrity commented that FMCSA failed to
consider a sufficiently broad range of alternatives, faulting the
overly-narrow goal of increasing flexibility.
    FMCSA Response: The specific impacts mentioned by the SBA Office of
Advocacy's Regional Regulatory Reform Roundtables include complaints
about ELD requirements and inadequate

parking spaces. Measures to address concerns about ELD requirements or
CMV parking are outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
    As for the commenter that said FMCSA failed to consider carrier
compliance and law enforcement training costs, it should be noted that
training costs for new entrants are included in the costs estimated for
the Entry-level Driver Training rule,\56\ so it would be double-
counting to include those costs in the analysis for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 81 FR 88732, published December 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA added costs for law enforcement training in the RIA for this
final rule. The Agency notes that existing funds allocated through the
MCSAP are used for law enforcement training and can be used to cover
State law enforcement training costs. Training costs for new inspectors
would be covered by the costs allocated for existing training
requirements, and would not be attributable to this final rule.
    As for the suggestion that that the Agency failed to consider a
sufficiently broad range of alternatives, FMCSA notes that its approach
to regulatory alternatives was based on the guidance provided by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Circular A-4 (``Regulatory
Analysis: A Primer.'') Circular A-4 suggests that agencies consider the
preferred option and at least one alternative that is less stringent
and one alternative that is more stringent. Because the HOS rule is
comprised of separate provisions that affect different aspects of HOS
compliance, FMCSA considered alternatives to each individual provision
and followed OMB's guidance to consider more and less stringent
alternatives to the Agency's preferred option.
    Comments About the HOS Exception for the Transportation of
Agricultural Commodities.
    An industry association emphasized the importance of the
agricultural commodity exception noted in the ANPRM. However, the
association asked the Agency to include additional livestock
commodities, such as animal feed and feed ingredients, and other
agricultural products sensitive to temperature. The National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association compared the time sensitivity of concrete to
the agricultural exceptions and definitions.
    FMCSA Response: The HOS exception for the transportation of
agricultural commodities and farm supplies in Sec.  395.1(k) reads as
follows:
    ``(k) Agricultural operations. The provisions of this part shall
not apply during planting and harvesting periods, as determined by each
State, to drivers transporting
    (1) Agricultural commodities from the source of the agricultural
commodities to a location within a 150 air-mile radius from the source;
    (2) Farm supplies for agricultural purposes from a wholesale or
retail distribution point of the farm supplies to a farm or other
location where the farm supplies are intended to be used within a 150
air-mile radius from the distribution point; or
    (3) Farm supplies for agricultural purposes from a wholesale
distribution point of the farm supplies to a retail distribution point
of the farm supplies within a 150 air-mile radius from the wholesale
distribution point.''
    This exception is statutory and was most recently amended in
Section 32101(d) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act, which extended the radius of the HOS exception from 100 air-miles
to 150 air-miles from the source (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778,
July 6, 2012). Section 12104 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018
(Pub. L. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4942, Dec. 20, 2018) also amended the
definition of ``livestock.'' Those transporting agricultural
commodities and livestock meeting the relevant definition can use this
exception. This final rule does not address agricultural issues. On a
separate rulemaking track, the Agency published an ANPRM seeking
comment on the potential clarification of the definitions of
``agricultural commodities'' or ``livestock'' in section 395.1(k) (84
FR 36559, July 29, 2019). Any changes to the agricultural commodity
definitions will be handled in that rulemaking, not in this final rule.
    Comments on ELDs.
    NTSB stated that a science-based safety evaluation of the current
HOS regulations combined with the implementation of ELDs is needed
before changes should be made to the rules. NTSB argued that this is
necessary because FMCSA has failed to present any evidence that the
proposed changes will improve highway safety or any evaluation of the
potential combined effects of relaxing multiple aspects of the
regulations simultaneously. NSC said FMCSA should support the use of
ELDs and not make any changes to their required usage. The
Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) asserted that the ELDs
provide a large amount of real-time data which should be used to update
the regulations to benefit the motor carrier industry.
    FMCSA Response:
    NTSB's comment emphasized the need for ``science-based evidence.''
Although ELDs could provide useful safety data, as TIA suggested, the
Agency is required by statute to use such data ``only to enforce the
Secretary's motor carrier safety and related regulations, including
record-of-duty status regulations'' (49 U.S.C. 31137(e)(1)). In other
words, FMCSA can use ELD data for enforcement purposes, but it may not
use data collected directly from drivers' ELDs for broader statistical
or research purposes. More broadly, as described throughout this
document, the Agency believes that it is indeed using the best
available ``science-based evidence'' in promulgating this final rule.
To the extent a scientific result can be ascertained, fatigue science
does not, by itself, dictate a policy outcome. Fatigue science simply
provides information about the levels of fatigue that a person
experiences under certain conditions. Congress recognized the need for
balanced rulemaking by requiring the Agency to consider, among other
things, the ``costs and benefits'' of proposed rules (49 U.S.C.
31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)).
    In the Agency's judgment, the elements of the NPRM that are adopted
today make useful, but only incremental, changes to enhance operational
flexibility. As discussed throughout the preamble, FMCSA believes that
this final rule is safety-neutral.
    With respect to ELDs, the revisions to the short-haul provision
ensures that more deliveries within the expanded 14-hour workday will
limit the amount of driving that can be done, and the maximum driving
time remains limited to 11 hours; conversely, driving closer to the
expanded 150 air-mile radius will limit the number of deliveries that
can be made. Carriers and drivers will have more discretion in the
number and geographic location of customers they can serve, while not
exceeding the time limit.
    Outreach and Training.
    TruckerNation asserted that robust training, guidance documents,
and operating policies should be developed to enable effective
communication and collaboration with stakeholders and law enforcement
officers at all levels.
    FMCSA Response: As with all significant rulemakings, FMCSA has been
working to develop a complete HOS implementation plan since the start
of this rulemaking effort. This plan includes training and support
tools for Federal and State enforcement personnel. As outreach and
communication with the motor carrier

industry will be essential for an effective roll-out, the Agency has
also developed a plan and corresponding materials that will be
disseminated now that the final rule has been published.
    Comments on Harmonization of U.S. and Canada, and Inconsistent
State HOS Regulations.
    A few commenters suggested reviewing and considering other HOS
regulations, particularly those of Canada and Texas. An anonymous
commenter noted that: ``In Canada, we are allowed 13 hours of total
driving time and 14 hours of total on-duty time within a 16-hour daily
clock. Additionally, to reset our daily 16-hour clock we only need 8
hours of continuous off-duty or sleeper berth time, however we are
required to have 10 hours of total off-duty time within the daily 24-
hour clock. The additional two hours of required off-duty time can
consist of 30-minute increments of off-duty periods throughout the
day.''
    In responding to FMCSA's proposed 3-hour pause in the duty day,
CVSA noted that ``the maximum work shift [in Canada] for a driver is 16
hours, rather than the U.S. 14-hour rule. Therefore, CVSA suggests that
FMCSA consider 2 additional hours, as opposed to 3 hours, to align with
the Canadian HOS requirements. The alignment would make it easier for
the motor carrier industry to comply with the HOS regulations in both
countries, streamlining operations for the entire transportation supply
chain and would provide a uniform ELD solution for cross-border
operations which would make it easier for roadside safety inspectors to
enforce.''
    An individual summarized the Texas HOS rules as ``No required 30-
minute breaks. 12-hour drive time 15 hour on-duty time. 8-hour sleeper
berth or off-duty. I believe this will help with fatigued drivers and
allow drivers to drive when they feel comfortable and not when the log
book says they have to go.'' One commenter who transports placardable
quantities of hazardous materials complained that California allows
only 10 hours of driving time for operations in intrastate commerce. He
argued that all States should be required to adopt Federal HOS limits.
ABA also commented in support of FMCSA rest break standards
invalidating all State and local standards by field preemption,
asserting the importance of uniformity in the transportation and
shipping industries.
    Other commenters, including drivers and industry associations,
suggested adopting different HOS rules for major sectors of industry,
such as team operations, oversized freight, and agricultural
transportation, especially livestock.
    Supporters of team operations generally favor splitting sleeper
berth time into two 5-hour segments to allow drivers to trade places
every few hours and keep the CMV moving. Oversized and overweight cargo
is often transported on special vehicles that move slowly. The HOS
limits can therefore create problems for these operations.
    Agricultural interests that commented on the NPRM emphasized the
perishability of livestock. The American Veterinary Medical Association
stressed the need to avoid longer transit times, especially through
mandatory stops when animals in crowded trailers can experience heat
stress. The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) generally supported
the changes proposed in the NPRM, though it preferred a 6-hour, rather
than a 7-hour, sleeper berth period. However, the NPPC also argued that
the distinction between the 14-hour driving window and the 11-hour
drive-time limit should be eliminated. ``Work is work, and if a driver
can be on-duty then the driver should be free to continue driving if
they feel comfortable.'' The NPPC argued that a 14-hour driving limit
is consistent with rules in Canada and Australia, as well as the
intrastate rules of California and Texas.
    FMCSA Response: The commenters who suggested adopting Canadian HOS
limits or the Texas rules applicable to intrastate commerce offered
nothing beyond their opinion that these regulations are preferable to
the Federal limits adopted today.
    Motor carrier operations in Canada and the U.S. differ in important
ways. While trip lengths may be comparable, traffic density in Canada
is much less and weather conditions are more challenging. Longer
Canadian driving limits and reduced off-duty times are geared to those
operating conditions. In fact, Canada has special HOS regulations for
its far northern regions that are not applicable to the rest of the
country. (Similarly, the FMCSA has different HOS rules specific to
Alaska, 49 CFR 395.1(h).) The Canadian rules appear to be every bit as
complex as U.S. rules. Adopting some or part of them would entail a
major re-training effort, not only for the clear majority of U.S.
drivers unfamiliar with Canadian rules, but also for the State
enforcement agencies that would have to revise their regulations and
databases and then re-train all their officers. The CVSA suggestion to
(partially) harmonize U.S. and Canadian rules by adopting a 16-hour
driving window is not feasible, given FMCSA's decision not to go
forward with a 3-hour pause in the driver's duty day. The NPRM did not
propose to adopt any portion of the Canadian HOS rules, and the Agency
therefore cannot do so as part of this rulemaking.
    Both the Texas and California intrastate HOS rules cited by
commenters are consistent with the variances from the FMCSRs allowed by
Sec.  350.341. In implementing the MCSAP in the late 1980s, the Federal
Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor agency, allowed State
regulations for intrastate operations to remain less than fully
``compatible'' with the FMCSRs, providing the States were making
progress toward ``compatibility,'' i.e., national uniformity. However,
in 1991 Congress directed that these ``tolerance guidelines'' with
their intrastate variances be made permanent.\57\ Like most States,
Texas has availed itself of the variances allowed by Sec.  350.341 to
adopt standards for intrastate commerce that are less stringent than
the FMCSRs, but California's more stringent driving-time limit is also
within its authority. The NPRM proposed no changes to the MCSAP
variances and none are adopted today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,
Public Law 102-240, 4002(l), 105 Stat. 1914, 2144, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency notes that industry representatives have occasionally
stated that they believe the Agency follows a ``one-size-fits-all''
regulatory approach, even though the FMCSRs make special provision for
a wide variety of motor carrier operations. Some of these provisions
are based on statute, but many were adopted by the Agency to
accommodate the needs of particular segments of the industry. The
current rulemaking generated additional requests for segment-specific
HOS rules. No such rules were proposed and none are adopted today.
However, many of the requests have been addressed in other contexts or
by other authorities.
    Oversize and overweight cargo is often eligible for special State
permits, some of which include time limits (e.g., no nighttime
operations). Although parking these combinations may be difficult,
careful route planning can minimize, if not avoid, such problems. In
any case, FMCSA has no authority to address parking shortages, and does
not believe that extended driving hours are a reasonable solution to
the problems inherent in moving unusual cargo.
    Supporters of team operations often argue that drivers should be
allowed to split their sleeper berth time into 5-hour segments,
separated by 5-hour driving

stints. While such a rule would keep the vehicle on the road almost
continuously, its implications for safety are far from ideal. Drivers'
circadian rhythms would inevitably be scrambled as their 5-hour rest
periods rotate around the clock. Even if 5-hour rest periods were
theoretically as restorative as the sleeper berth option adopted today,
obtaining quality rest in a moving vehicle is problematic. FMCSA is
aware of no research demonstrating that splitting sleeper berth time
into continually repeated 5-hour segments ensures adequate rest. This
final rule therefore adopts the sleeper berth requirements proposed in
the NPRM.
    The transportation of livestock poses unique challenges, and
consequently receives specialized treatment. Congress has exempted
drivers hauling livestock from the required 30-minute break.\58\
Drivers hauling livestock who qualify for the statutory ``covered farm
vehicle'' exception in Sec.  390.39 are completely exempt from the HOS
rules and many other parts of the FMCSRs. The more limited statutory
provision for the transportation of ``agricultural commodities'' in
Sec.  395.1(k)(1) exempts drivers from the HOS regulations while
operating within a 150 air-mile radius of the ``source'' of livestock
and other commodities. Even if animals are being transported a
substantial distance, the exempt radius gives drivers about a 3-hour
addition to the normal 11-hour driving limit. Finally, Congress has
prohibited the use of Federal funds to enforce the ELD requirements
against transporters of livestock.\59\ The 14-hour driving limit
proposed by the NPPC is far beyond the scope of this rulemaking and
will not be addressed. In any case, longer hours are not the only
solution to the transportation of animals. For example, livestock
transporters seem to make little use of team drivers to address the
problems they have identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Sec. 5206(b)(1)(B)-(C), Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537, Dec. 4,
2015.
    \59\ Sec. 131 of Title I of Division H of the Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, signed on December 20, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Discussion of the Final Rule

A. Short-Haul Operations

    In this final rule, FMCSA adopts most of the changes proposed in
the NPRM, including extending the maximum allowable workday for short-
haul property- and passenger-carrying CMV drivers from 12 to 14 hours
to correspond with the 14-hour period requirement for property drivers,
and extending the existing distance restriction from 100 air-miles to
150 air-miles to be consistent with the distance limitation for short-
haul drivers that are not required to possess a commercial driver's
license.
    Drivers and carriers using the short-haul exception are not
required to use a RODS or ELD or take a 30-minute break. This extra
time in the driving day has always been available to drivers, if they
opted out of the short-haul exception. This change allows drivers to
retain that status while receiving regulatory relief.

B. Adverse Driving Conditions

    FMCSA adopts the proposed changes concerning the adverse driving
exception. A driver who encounters adverse driving conditions is
allowed up to a 16-hour driving window (for property carriers) within
which to complete up to 13 hours of driving, or a 17-hour duty period
(for passenger carriers) within which to complete up to 12 hours of
driving.
    In addition, FMCSA also modifies the definition of ``adverse
driving conditions,'' to clarify the role of the driver in determining
when such conditions are identified:

    Adverse driving conditions means snow, ice, sleet, fog, or other
adverse weather conditions or unusual road or traffic conditions
that were not known, or could not reasonably be known, to a driver
immediately prior to beginning the duty day or immediately before
beginning driving after a qualifying rest break or sleeper berth
period, or to a motor carrier immediately prior to dispatching the
driver.

    This addition of the driver to the definition makes it clear that
the driver should be involved in the decision-making, which should
lessen the need for regulatory guidance to explain the role of the
driver in determining when the conditions are identified. The changes
to the other parts of the definition, including referring to the duty
day, qualifying rest breaks, and sleeper berth period, simply update
the definition and reflect the changes and updates to the HOS
regulations, rather than using informal terminology (``the run''). The
Agency declines to expand the circumstances covered by the definition.

C. 30-Minute Break

    FMCSA adopts the proposed change linking the mandatory break to
cumulative driving time rather than on-duty time, and allowing an on-
duty-not-driving break of at least 30-minutes, to satisfy the
requirement.
    The Agency notes that many CMV drivers interrupt their driving time
during normal business operations, such as loading or unloading a
truck, completing paperwork, or stopping for fuel. Before this final
rule, the break was required to be off-duty, during which no work,
including paperwork, could be performed and was triggered after 8
hours, regardless of driving time. However, the changes to the 30-
minute break provision do not increase the maximum driving time during
the work shift or allow driving after the 14th hour from the beginning
of the work shift.
    The flexibility provided with this change will allow normal breaks
from driving (i.e., from ``time on task'' in the research literature)
to satisfy the requirement, provided the break lasts at least 30
minutes.

D. Sleeper Berth

    FMCSA adopts the proposal allowing a driver additional flexibility
in taking two off-duty periods under the sleeper berth exception. One
period must be at least 7 consecutive hours spent in the sleeper berth,
paired with another period of at least 2 hours spent either in the
berth or otherwise off-duty, if the two periods total at least 10
hours. When paired, neither qualifying period counts against the 14-
hour driving window. (Prior to this final rule, the shorter period
counted against the driving window.) Identical changes are made to a
parallel provision applicable in the State of Alaska found in Sec.
395.1(h).

E. Compliance Date for the Rulemaking

    FMCSA believe that the flexibility provided by these changes will
be beneficial to the motor carrier industry. A short effective date
would therefore be ideal, however, there are other factors to consider.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. chapter 8) requires a 60
day delay before a major rule, like this rule, can take effect.
Additionally, the need for ELD manufacturers to update those systems
that exceed the minimum requirements, and to train drivers and
enforcement personnel must be considered.
    FMCSA believes that an effective date 120 days after publication is
appropriate, given the actions required for full implementation.

F. Appendix B to 49 CFR Part 385

    Based upon this final rule, technical changes to the corresponding
paragraphs listing acute and critical violations in 49 CFR part 385,
Appendix B, VII. List of Acute and Critical Regulations are made.

VIII. International Impacts

    The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the

United States (and, in some cases, United States Territories). Motor
carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the
countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement
states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the
regulatory differences among nations in which they operate. Canada- and
Mexico-domiciled drivers must ensure compliance with U.S. HOS
requirements while they are driving in the U.S.
    A driver domiciled in the United States may comply with the
Canadian hours of service regulations while driving in Canada. Upon re-
entering the United States, however, the driver is subject to all the
requirements of Part 395, including the 11- and 14-hour rules, and the
60- or 70-hour rules applicable to the previous 7 or 8 consecutive
days. In other words, a driver who takes full advantage of Canadian
requirements may have to stop driving for a time immediately after
returning to the U.S. to restore compliance with Part 395. Despite its
possible effect on decisions a U.S. driver must make while in Canada,
this interpretation does not involve an exercise of extraterritorial
jurisdiction (62 FR 16379, 16424; April 4, 1997).

IX. Section-by-Section Analysis

    This rulemaking seeks to provide additional flexibility under the
HOS rules in a manner that does not compromise safety. Specifically, it
(1) modifies the definition of ``adverse driving conditions'' and
extends a driver's driving window by up to two hours should adverse
driving conditions be encountered; (2) expands the scope of the short-
haul exception for drivers of property-carrying CMVs requiring a CDL
and for passenger-carrying CMVs; (3) modifies the sleeper berth rule;
and (4) amends the mandatory 30-minute break to give drivers subject to
the rule less restrictive means of satisfying the requirement.
Additional technical changes are made in this final rule. Changes to
the regulatory text proposed in the NPRM are noted below.

A. Part 385--Safety Fitness Procedures

    In Section VII of appendix B of part 385, the list of acute and
critical violations, is modified to match changes made in part 395.
Specifically, the references to Sec.  395.1(h)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and
(iv) are modified to reflect the redesignations, and text addressing
Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii) is modified to reflect the substantive changes in
the 30-minute rule. While the changes to this list were not included in
the NPRM, their inclusion on the designation of acute and critical
violations are distinctly technical in nature; they simply update the
list for purposes of clarity and comprehension to reflect regulatory
changes made elsewhere in the rule.

B. Part 395--Hours of Service of Drivers

1. Section 395.1 (Scope of Rules in This Part)
    In subparagraph (b)(1), FMCSA modifies the exception for drivers of
property- and passenger-carrying CMVs encountering adverse driving
conditions, allowing them to extend their respective driving windows by
a maximum of 2 hours, consistent with the long-standing provision
governing the extension of driving time. Other changes in this
subparagraph are merely technical or clarifying.
    In subparagraph (e)(1), FMCSA modifies the short-haul exception for
drivers operating either property-carrying or passenger-carrying CMVs,
under which time records can be used in lieu of ELDs or RODS, and
supporting documents need not be submitted to the motor carrier. This
final rule extends the scope of this exception from a 100- to a 150-
air-mile radius from the driver's normal work reporting location and
extends the driver's maximum workday from 12 to 14 hours, a period
consistent with the general rule governing the maximum driving window
applicable to drivers operating property-carrying CMVs. All short-haul
drivers remain subject to the existing limit on hours spent driving--11
hours for drivers of property-carrying CMVs requiring a CDL and 10
hours for drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs. Other changes in this
subparagraph are merely technical or clarifying. For example, specific
references to the 14-hour duty window for drivers of ``ready-mixed
concrete delivery vehicles'' are eliminated, given the expansion of the
duty day for all short-haul drivers to 14 hours. Provisions previously
found in Sec.  395.1(e)(1)(iv), duplicating provisions limiting
drivers' hours under Sec. Sec.  395.3 and 395.5, are eliminated as
superfluous and to avoid redundancy.
    In subparagraph (g)(1), FMCSA modifies the general sleeper berth
exception for drivers of property-carrying CMVs who elect to use this
exception. Specifically, the Agency replaces the requirement for 8
consecutive hours in the sleeper berth and 2 additional hours, either
in the berth or off-duty, or some combination thereof, with a
requirement for at least 7 (but less than 10) consecutive hours in the
sleeper berth and at least 2 additional hours, either in the berth or
off-duty or some combination thereof. However, the two periods must
total at least 10 hours, equivalent to the 10 off-duty hours required
of drivers who do not use sleeper berths. Neither period counts against
the driver's 14-hour driving window. Other changes are clarifying or
technical. For example, the provision authorizing a team driver to
count time in the passenger seat while the CMV is moving toward his/her
sleeper berth break is modified to allow up to 3 (rather than 2) hours
in the passenger seat for consistency with the minimum hours required
in the berth under this rule. Long-standing language omitted from the
NPRM that required a driver using the sleeper berth exception to
calculate available hours from the end of the initial break period, is
restored in this final rule for clarity. Provisions previously found in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(B) and (C) are eliminated as superfluous because
these requirements are covered elsewhere in part 395. Finally,
provisions in former Sec.  395.1(g) specific to drivers of property-
carrying CMVs operating in Alaska are removed and recodified in Sec.
395.1(h)--addressing HOS requirements unique to that State.
    In paragraph (h), FMCSA revises the HOS exception applicable to
drivers of property-carrying CMVs in the State of Alaska. Provisions
formerly found in Sec.  395.1(g) specific to Alaska are recodified and
consolidated in paragraphs (h), specifically in (h)(1)(ii) and (iii),
including provisions addressing required off-duty periods and sleeper
berth provisions. Provisions previously found in paragraph (g) that are
eliminated because they are covered elsewhere are added here, given
that CMV drivers in the State of Alaska are not covered by paragraphs
Sec.  395.3(a) and (b) (property-carrying CMVs) or Sec.  395.5
(passenger-carrying CMVs). Although not proposed in the NPRM, language
is also added to this paragraph to address how a driver using the
sleeper berth exception calculates available hours from the end of the
initial break period, consistent with provisions of paragraph (g). The
changes are either technical or stylistic. For example, language
proposed in the NPRM is modified to more closely track language in the
current rules, and to make clear that, under Sec.  395.1(h), neither
rest period under the sleeper berth provision can exceed 10 hours.
These changes are made for purposes of clarity; except as noted above,
changes largely reflect language included in the NPRM.
2. Section 395.2 (Definitions)
    FMCSA modifies the definition of ``adverse driving conditions,''

eliminating certain language addressing conditions already covered, and
modifying the applicable standard to encompass conditions ``not known,
or [that] could not reasonably be known'' to clarify when the
definition applies. Furthermore, rather than focus solely on the
knowledge of the dispatcher, the definition is modified to reflect
knowledge of either the driver or the motor carrier at applicable
points in time.\60\ Additional clarifying changes were made. For
example, the word ``immediately'' is added to clarify the point in time
that the applicable conditions must be known and the reference to
``unusual road and traffic conditions'' is modified to read ``unusual
road or traffic conditions'' to clarify either scenario would qualify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ In the NPRM, FMCSA posed a series of specific questions on
the potential modification of the definition of ``adverse driving
conditions,'' driven in large part by comments the Agency received
to the ANPRM. Specifically, the Agency requested comment on whether
the knowledge requirement ought to reside with the driver rather
than dispatcher, whether the lack of knowledge at time of dispatch
be eliminated, and whether the definition ought to encompass
additional circumstances. See 84 FR at 44200, August 22, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA also modifies the definition of ``on-duty time'' by updating
paragraph (4)(iii) of the definition to align with Sec.
395.1(g)(1)(i)(D) in this final rule.
3. Section 395.3 (Maximum Driving Time for Property-Carrying Vehicles)
    FMCSA revises paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)(i) to remove superfluous
language and make stylistic changes, respectively. No substantive
change is intended. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), the Agency modifies the
30-minute break requirement to focus on extended consecutive driving
periods rather than a driver's time on-duty. Thus, a driver may not
drive more than 8 hours without an interruption of at least 30
consecutive minutes. A driver may satisfy the 30-minute period by
spending the time off-duty, on-duty (not driving), or in the sleeper
berth, or any combination of these non-driving statuses. The specific
reference to time in the sleeper berth is added for clarity. As before,
drivers operating under the short-haul exception (Sec.  395.1(e)) are
not subject to the 30-minute break requirement.
    The Agency is not adopting the NPRM's proposal to extend the
driver's 14-hour duty period by taking an off-duty break ranging from
30 minutes to 3 hours.

X. Regulatory Analyses

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined
that this rulemaking is an economically significant regulatory action
under E.O. 12866 \61\ Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented
by E.O. 13563.\62\ It also is significant under DOT regulations because
the economic costs and benefits of the rule exceed the $100 million
annual threshold and because of the substantial Congressional and
public interest concerning the HOS requirements (84 FR 71714, Dec. 27,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Regulatory
Planning and Review. (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
    \62\ Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011. Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review. (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An RIA is available in the docket. That document:
     Identifies the problem targeted by this rulemaking,
including a statement of the need for the action;
     Defines the scope and parameters of the analysis;
     Defines the baseline; and,
     Defines and evaluates the costs and benefits of the
action.
    The RIA is the synthesis of research conducted specific to current
HOS practices, stakeholder comments, and analysis of the impacts
resulting from changes to the HOS provisions in this final rule.
Affected Entities
    The changes in this final rule will affect CMV drivers, motor
carriers, and, except as otherwise exempt under Sec.  390.3T(f)(2). The
HOS regulations apply to CMV drivers. FMCSA obtained driver count
information, by carrier operation, from the Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS), which includes information submitted to
FMCSA by motor carriers the first time the carrier applies for a DOT
number, and biennially thereafter. Table 3 displays the 2018 estimate
of CMV drivers from MCMIS. With the current baseline annual number of
6,520,268 CMV drivers (478,184 passenger carrier CMV drivers and
6,042,084 property carrier CMV drivers), FMCSA then estimated the
future baseline number of CMV drivers who will be affected by this
final rule annually during the analysis period of 2020 to 2029. These
future baseline projections were developed by increasing the current
baseline 2018 values consistent with occupation-specific employment
growth projections obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Employment Projections program.\63\ The BLS employment projections for
the following standard occupational classifications were used:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ U.S. DOL, BLS. Employment Projections Program. Table 1.2:
Employment by detailed occupation, 2016 and projected 2026.
Available at: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ind-occ-matrix/occupation.xlsx,
last accessed October 29, 2018.

BLS SOC 53-3021 (Bus drivers, transit and intercity)
BLS SOC 53-3022 (Bus drivers, school or special client)
BLS SOC 53-3032 (Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers)
BLS SOC 53-3023 (Light truck or delivery service drivers)

    The occupational categories noted above do not overlap exactly with
the entire population of CMV drivers who will be subject to this rule,
primarily because there are some CMV drivers who operate vehicles over
10,001 pounds but do not specifically declare their occupation as being
a bus or truck driver. However, as noted above, this does not mean that
those drivers are not reflected in the baseline 2018 estimates of CMV
drivers produced above. All CMV drivers, regardless of their
occupational category, are included in the estimates. The occupational
categories above represent approximately 3.6 million employees in 2018,
and combined are used to forecast the future growth from 2018 through
2029 based on the BLS estimates of employees in those industries from
2018 through 2028.
    BLS provides baseline 2018 values for the total number of employees
in all of the occupational categories noted, as well as estimates for
2028. An annual compound growth rate for net overall growth in the
total population of CMV bus drivers and CMV truck drivers was
calculated from the growth in the number of employees in these
occupations from 2018 to 2028 as projected by BLS. The projected net
growth in total employment for BLS SOC 53-3021 (Bus drivers, transit
and intercity) from 2018 to 2028 is 6.1 percent, which equates to a
0.598 percent annual compound growth rate. The projected net growth in
total employment for BLS SOC 53-3022 (Bus drivers, school or special
client) from 2018 to 2028 is 4.3 percent, which equates to a 0.426
percent annual compound growth rate. FMCSA then computed a weighted
average annual compound bus driver growth rate of 0.472 percent for
these two occupational categories. The projected net growth in

total employment for BLS SOC 53-3032 (heavy and tractor-trailer truck
drivers) from 2018 to 2028 is 5.1 percent, which equates to a 0.498
percent annual compound growth rate. The projected net growth in total
employment for BLS SOC 53-3033 (light truck or delivery service
drivers) from 2018 to 2028 is 4.4 percent, which equates to a 0.429
percent annual compound growth rate. FMCSA then computed a weighted
average annual compound truck driver growth rate of 0.474 percent for
these two occupational categories. Beyond 2028, these annual compound
growth rates were assumed to be the same out to the final year of the
analysis period of 2029. FMCSA applies the weighted average annual
compound growth rate to the population of CMV bus and truck drivers to
estimate the affected driver population throughout the period of
analysis, as shown in Table 3.
    Due to exceptions and exemptions from the HOS regulations, the
total CMV driver population must be broken down based on specific
criteria to isolate the population that will be affected by each
provision of this final rule. HOS regulations are dependent on the
vehicle operated; for example, drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles
must operate under regulations specific to those vehicles and drivers
of non-passenger (i.e., property) carrying vehicles must operate under
regulations specific to those vehicles. For this reason, Table 3
provides the CMV driver count based on the type of operation (passenger
vs. property) in column (B) and column (C). Column (D) is the total CMV
driver count. Column (E) is a subset of the property carrier CMV
drivers in column (C).
    The potential cost savings gained by motor carriers under this
final rule are in part a function of the estimated number of CMV
drivers subject to the 30-minute break requirement. This rule refers to
drivers affected by the 30-minute break requirement as CMV truck
drivers. Those drivers operating passenger carrying vehicles are not
subject to the 30-minute break requirement. For this reason, the driver
counts in Column (E) are from carriers that do not identify themselves
as passenger carriers. Second, those drivers operating under the short-
haul exception are not subject to the 30-minute break requirement.
    Previously, drivers could qualify for the HOS short-haul exception
in Sec.  395.1(e)(1) if they return to their normal work reporting
location and are released from work within 12 hours after coming on-
duty, can submit their work schedule via time cards, and operate within
a 100 air-mile radius of their work reporting location. Under this
final rule, drivers can qualify for the HOS short-haul exception
provided they return to the normal work reporting location and are
released from work within 14 hours after coming on-duty, can submit
their work schedule via time cards, and operate within a 150 air-mile
radius of their work reporting location. In the RIA for the NPRM, FMCSA
did not estimate an increase in the number of drivers that would be
eligible for the short-haul exception based on the alternatives
presented but asked for comments on how the rule would affect the
number of drivers operating under the exception.
    In the ELD rule, FMCSA anticipated that all drivers employed by
passenger and private non-passenger (i.e., property) carriers
qualifying for the short-haul exception would be able to take advantage
of the exception.\64\ Carriers report their driver employees to FMCSA
based on whether they operate beyond or within a 100 air-mile radius.
The number of drivers reported to operate within a 100 air-mile radius
was used as a proxy estimate of drivers operating under the short-haul
exception. This is not an exact count of drivers who operate under the
short-haul exception because it does not include drivers that sometimes
operate within 100 air-miles and on these occasions, operate as short-
haul, and because it includes drivers who operate within 100 air-miles
but may not return to their work reporting location within 12 hours. In
preparation for the final rule, FMCSA reviewed the comments received
and the short-haul exception requests to determine how the rule would
affect the number of drivers operating under the short-haul exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ U.S.DOT, FMCSA. ``Regulatory Evaluation of Electronic
Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting Documents Final
Rule.'' November 2015. Presented in Table 10 on page 34 and
discussed on page 33. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2010-0167-2281 last accessed on: December 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the extension of the workday from 12 to 14 hours,
FMCSA did not receive specific information on the increase in drivers
that would be eligible for the short-haul exception. However, the
approximately 10 exception requests relating to an extension of the
time required to return to the work reporting location claim to cover
between 100,000 and 150,000 drivers. FMCSA assumes that these drivers
operate within 100 air-miles, but do not routinely return to their work
reporting location within 12 hours. These drivers were included in the
estimate of drivers eligible for, and assumed to be operating under,
the short-haul exception. As such, FMCSA does not include a cost
savings estimate resulting from this rule.
    FMCSA has not received an exemption request that references the
air-mile radius within which a driver may operate and still maintain
eligibility for the short-haul exception. FMCSA did not receive data or
information on the number of drivers that routinely operate between 100
and 150 air-miles, and will thus be newly covered by the short-haul
exception. However, some commenters stated that they have drivers that
routinely operate within 100 air-miles, but on occasion their
operations require them to drive up to 150 air-miles from their work
reporting location. These drivers are generally eligible for the short-
haul exception, but must keep track of how often they operate beyond
100 air-miles. If this occurs more than 8 times in a 30-day period the
driver would no longer be eligible, and would be subject to ELDs. This
rule will remove the confusion and administrative hassle of estimating
the number of times each driver has driven between 100 and 150 air-
miles. It will not, necessarily, increase the number of drivers that
are covered by the short-haul exception or decrease the number of ELDs
in use. Therefore, FMCSA is not estimating an increase in the number of
drivers operating under the short-haul exception for this rule and has
determined that the carrier-reported information is a good proxy for
the count of drivers who are eligible for, and will operate under, the
short-haul exception.
    In 2018, there were 1.4 million interstate non-passenger drivers
and 1.7 million intrastate non-passenger drivers reported to operate
solely within 100 air-miles. Lastly, CMV drivers in Alaska are not
subject to the 30-minute break requirement. In 2018, there were
approximately 19,000 drivers operating in Alaska. FMCSA estimated the
CMV truck drivers currently subject to the 30-minute break requirement
by subtracting from the total 6.4 million CMV drivers, the passenger
carrier CMV drivers (478,184), the inter- and intrastate CMV truck
driver employees that operate within a 100 air-mile radius (3.1
million), and the 19,000 CMV drivers in Alaska. In 2018, that total is
2.9 million CMV truck drivers subject to the 30-minute break
requirement (Column (E) below).

                                           Table 3--CMV Driver Counts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                CMV drivers
                                                  Passenger       Property        Total CMV    currently subject
                     Year                        carrier CMV     carrier CMV       drivers      to the 30-minute
                                                   drivers         drivers                     break requirement
(A)                                                       (B)             (C)     (D) = (B) +                (E)
                                                                                (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018.........................................         478,184       6,042,084       6,520,268          2,944,705
2019.........................................         480,444       6,070,752       6,551,196          2,958,677
2020.........................................         482,714       6,099,556       6,582,270          2,972,715
2021.........................................         484,994       6,128,497       6,613,491          2,986,820
2022.........................................         487,286       6,157,575       6,644,860          3,000,991
2023.........................................         489,588       6,186,791       6,676,378          3,015,230
2024.........................................         491,901       6,216,145       6,708,046          3,029,536
2025.........................................         494,225       6,245,639       6,739,864          3,043,911
2026.........................................         496,560       6,275,273       6,771,833          3,058,353
2027.........................................         498,906       6,305,047       6,803,953          3,072,864
2028.........................................         501,263       6,334,963       6,836,226          3,087,444
2029.........................................         503,631       6,365,021       6,868,652          3,102,093
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Costs
    FMCSA evaluated the impacts expected to result from the changes in
this final rule and anticipates that there will be no new regulatory
costs or increases in existing regulatory costs for the regulated
entities. The final rule will, however, improve efficiency by allowing
drivers to shift their drive and work time to mitigate the effect of
uncertain variables, resulting in a reduction in costs, or cost
savings, to drivers and motor carriers. The Agency anticipates that the
changes to each provision will result in cost savings, quantitatively
estimates the motor carrier cost savings attributable to the 30-minute
break provision, quantitatively estimates the training costs to the
Federal Government attributable to the rule, and qualitatively assesses
cost savings of the remaining impacts resulting from this final rule.
30-Minute Break
    This final rule will allow on-duty, non-driving time to fulfill the
30-minute break requirement, as opposed to the current off-duty
requirement. Also, the break will be required after 8 hours of driving
rather than 8 hours of on-duty time. The final rule will thus reduce
the number of drivers required to take a break (i.e., those drivers
whose schedules include on-duty breaks from driving will not be
required to also take an off-duty break) and it also allows for
flexibility in how drivers spend their time if they are not driving.
The final rule will result in cost savings to carriers in the form of
avoided losses in driver productivity.
    FMCSA values the reduction in driver time spent in nonproductive
activity as the opportunity cost to the motor carrier, which is
represented by the now attainable profit, using three variables: driver
hours available for labor (i.e., those hours that are currently
required to be off-duty, but could be on-duty but not-driving under the
final rule), an estimate of a typical average motor carrier profit
margin, and the marginal cost of operating a CMV. The estimation of
driver hours stems from the populations of drivers who either (1) drive
more than 8 hours in an average shift, (2) work more than 8 hours in an
average shift but do not drive more than 8 hours, or (3) work less than
8 hours in an average shift. Drivers who fall into category (3) will be
unaffected by the changes. Drivers who fall into category (2) will
receive regulatory relief from the changes, estimated as regaining a
full half hour per shift. Additionally, drivers who drive more than 8
hours (category 1), will also receive regulatory relief by the
allowance of on-duty, non-driving time to meet the 30-minute break
requirement, estimated as regaining half of the half hour break time
(15 minutes) per shift. The Agency multiplied the time estimated to be
regained by drivers per affected shift, the number of affected shifts,
and the estimated driver population in each driver group to produce
column (A) in Table 4.
    As shown in Table 4, the estimate of cost savings is the product of
the total hours saved by drivers (column A), and the estimated hourly
profit for motor carriers (column B). FMCSA estimates the cost savings
resulting from the changes to the 30-minute break provision to be
$278.4 million (or a cost of -$278.4 million) on an annualized basis at
a 3 percent discount rate, and $274.1 million (or a cost of -$274.1
million) on an annualized basis at a 7 percent discount rate.

                               Table 4--Total and Annualized Motor Carrier Cost Savings Due to Changes in Break Provision
                                                                   [Millions of 2018$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     CMV drivers
                                                      currently                                                             Total cost      Total cost
                                                   subject to the    Total hours     Profit per    Total cost  savings--    savings-- 3     savings-- 7
                       Year                           30-minute         saved           hour            undiscounted          percent         percent
                                                        break                                                              discount rate   discount rate
                                                     requirement
                                                                              (A)             (B)         (C = A x B)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.............................................       2,972,715      27,376,449           $3.59             ($98.3)            ($95.4)         ($91.8)
2021.............................................       2,986,820      82,502,528            3.59             (296.1)            (279.1)         (258.6)
2022.............................................       3,000,991      82,893,979            3.59             (297.5)            (272.3)         (242.9)
2023.............................................       3,015,230      83,287,288            3.59             (298.9)            (265.6)         (228.0)
2024.............................................       3,029,536      83,682,462            3.59             (300.3)            (259.1)         (214.1)
2025.............................................       3,043,911      84,079,512            3.59             (301.8)            (252.7)         (201.1)

2026.............................................       3,058,353      84,478,446            3.59             (303.2)            (246.5)         (188.8)
2027.............................................       3,072,864      84,879,272            3.59             (304.6)            (240.5)         (177.3)
2028.............................................       3,087,444      85,282,000            3.59             (306.1)            (234.6)         (166.5)
2029.............................................       3,102,093      85,686,640            3.59             (307.5)            (228.8)         (156.3)
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total 10-Year Cost Savings...................         (2,375)        ($1,925)
    Total Annualized Cost Savings................         (278.4)         (274.1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\(a)\ Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding. (The totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
  components.)
\(b)\ Values shown in parentheses are negative values (i.e., less than zero) and represent a decrease in cost or a cost savings.

    Time is a scarce resource, and FMCSA recognizes that forced off-
duty time is not always the drivers' best alternative. Some commenters
claimed that the rigid off-duty requirement forces drivers to rest when
they are not tired and penalizes them for resting. Though the Agency
does not necessarily agree with these commenters' characterization of
the off-duty requirement, it is reasonable to assume that the current
HOS regulations are imposing an opportunity cost on drivers that could
be alleviated by providing drivers greater flexibility. In recent RIAs
for non-HOS regulations, FMCSA has valued the opportunity cost of
drivers' time using their wage rate. In other words, the increased
flexibility provided by the final rule will result in a reduction in
costs, or a cost savings, to drivers equal to the number of hours saved
multiplied by the driver wage rate. The Agency did not account for the
opportunity cost of the driver's time in the 2011 RIA, or in the 2019
NPRM, and for consistency does not monetize this component of the final
rule's savings.
    FMCSA considered eliminating the break requirement entirely.
Drivers would still use off-duty time when needed or break-up the
driving task using on-duty/non-driving time. Drivers in group 1 would
likely regain 15 minutes of on-duty time, and drivers in group 2 would
likely regain 30 minutes of on-duty time. As in the preferred
alternative, FMCSA assumes that drivers in group 1 would only regain 15
minutes because they need personal time to eat, drink, etc. That time
would continue to be off-duty regardless of eliminating the
requirement. Elimination of the break requirement would seem to provide
additional flexibility beyond the preferred alternative; however, it
would not impact driver behavior relative to the preferred alternative,
and thus would result in an equivalent motor carrier cost savings.
Sleeper Berth
    Drivers qualifying for the previous HOS sleeper berth provision in
Sec.  395.1(g)(1)(i)(A) and (ii)(A) must, before driving, accumulate
the equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off-duty. The
equivalent refers to two periods that need not be consecutive: at least
8 but less than 10 consecutive hours in a sleeper berth, and a separate
period of at least 2 hours either in the sleeper berth or off-duty, or
any combination thereof. This final rule will continue to allow drivers
using the sleeper berth to obtain their required off-duty time by
taking fewer hours in the sleeper berth. However, drivers using this
option will be required to obtain one rest period of at least 7
consecutive hours in the sleeper berth, paired with another period of
at least 2 hours, such that at least 10 hours of off-duty time is
achieved. Neither period will count against the 14-hour driving window.
    The sleeper berth provision in this final rule allows for
additional flexibility in a driver's duty day by (1) providing for an
optional 1-hour reduction in the amount of time that drivers are
required to spend in the sleeper berth, and (2) excluding both rest
periods when calculating the 14-hour driving window. The Agency expects
that carriers and drivers could realize efficiency gains by the
reduction in time required to be in the sleeper berth and the exclusion
of the shorter off-duty period in the calculation of the 14-hour
driving window. A driver who used the previous sleeper berth provision
today was required to include the shorter rest period in the
calculation of the 14-hour window, resulting in an available 12 hours
to complete up to 11 hours of driving. Under this final rule, drivers
will be provided the ability to choose between split-rest options that
will not reduce their available work time because the shorter rest
period will be excluded from the calculation of the 14-hour driving
window. The Agency, however, lacks data on the use of the previous
sleeper berth provision, and the number of drivers that will use it
under the final rule.
    FMCSA received some information from commenters regarding how often
some drivers use the current sleeper berth provisions and how usage
might change under the new provision, with some expecting drivers to
increase their usage and others expecting that the new provision will
not be widely used. Despite the comments received on this issue, FMCSA
still lacks definitive information that would be needed to estimate
usage among the entire population of drivers. In addition, FMCSA also
lacks data on the number of trucks that are equipped with sleeper
berths and the impact that schedule changes might have on motor carrier
operations. Therefore, FMCSA did not evaluate the impacts of schedule
changes that may occur because of this final rule.
    FMCSA also considered retaining the current split option of \8/2\
but excluding the shorter rest period from the calculation of the 14-
hour driving window. Excluding the shorter rest period from the
calculation of the 14-hour driving window would result in the same per-
trip cost savings estimated

for the preferred alternative but would limit the driver's flexibility.
The preferred alternative will allow drivers to use a \7/3\ split
option, which provides flexibility for drivers to shift an additional
hour of their off-duty time in the most optimal way for their current
situation.
    FMCSA also considered expanding the sleeper berth options to allow
a \7/3\ split, while continuing to count the shorter rest period in the
calculation of the 14-hour driving window. Drivers making use of this
alternative would then have an 11-hour window within which to drive 11
hours. This alternative provides a false sense of flexibility due to
its impracticality, and would limit the use of the option to those
drivers that don't anticipate reaching the maximum driving or work
time. Additionally, it would eliminate the cost savings resulting from
increased productivity discussed in the preferred alternative. This
alternative does not meet the Agency objective of providing drivers the
ability to take needed rest breaks while ensuring opportunity for an
adequate rest period.
Short-Haul Operations
    Previously, under Sec.  395.1(e)(1), drivers did not have to
prepare RODS or use an ELD if they met certain conditions, including a
return to their work reporting location and release from work within 12
consecutive hours. Drivers operating under this provision were
permitted a 12-hour workday in which to drive up to 11 hours (for
passenger carriers, up to 10 hours) and the motor carrier was required
to maintain time records reflecting certain information. Specifically,
the motor carrier that employed the driver and utilized this exception
was required to maintain and retain for a period of 6 months accurate
and true time records showing: the time the driver reported for duty
each day; the total number of hours the driver was on-duty each day;
the time the driver was released from duty each day; and the total time
for the preceding 7 days in accordance with Sec.  395.8(j)(2) for
drivers used for the first time or intermittently.
    Under Sec.  395.3(a)(2) and (3), other property-carrying CMV
drivers not utilizing the short-haul exception have a 14-hour driving
window in which to drive up to 11 total hours. Under Sec.  395.5(a)(1)
and (2), CMV drivers operating passenger-carrying CMVs can operate for
up to 15 hours after coming on-duty. However, unless otherwise
excepted, these drivers must maintain RODS, generally with an ELD. The
drivers qualifying for the Sec.  395.1(e)(1) exception previously had
the option to use the 14- or 15-hour duty day in Sec.  395.3 or Sec.
395.5, but could choose not to use the option to avoid keeping RODS.
    Additionally, drivers currently qualifying for previous HOS short-
haul exception had to stay within 100 air-miles of their work reporting
location. In this final rule, FMCSA extends that radius from 100 air-
miles to 150 air-miles, consistent with the radius requirement for the
other short-haul exceptions in Sec.  395.1(e)(2).
    In the ELD rule, FMCSA anticipated that all drivers employed by
passenger and private non-passenger (i.e., property) carriers
qualifying for the short-haul exception would be able to take advantage
of the exception. However, FMCSA received comments on the HOS ANPRM
from carriers discussing their business practices and normal operating
conditions, and how the lack of flexibility in the 12-hour workday
limited their ability to take advantage of the short-haul exception. On
many shifts, drivers returned to their work reporting location within
12 hours, but there are some occasions when drivers needed an
additional 2 hours in their workday. This extra time beyond 12 hours
could result from detention time, longer-than-expected customer service
stops, traffic, or other unforeseen events. When this occurred more
than 8 days in a 30-day period, the driver had to prepare daily RODS
using an ELD as required by Sec.  395.8 (a)(1)(iii)(A)(1). Due to the
uncertainty surrounding the driver's eligibility at the beginning of
the workday, the carrier could choose to have their driver operate as
though he or she was not eligible for the short-haul exception. This
resulted in unnecessary ELD expenses. One commenter on the HOS ANPRM
estimated that the proposal would reduce the required ELDs for its
heavy-duty service vehicles by 84 percent, resulting in annual cost
savings of $1.5 million. While this comment is informative and suggests
that this final rule will result in cost savings, FMCSA cannot
extrapolate from one carrier's cost savings to determine the cost
savings to all carriers. Thus, while FMCSA expects the final rule to
result in cost savings for the affected entities, those impacts are not
quantified.
    The extension of the air-mile radius by 50 air-miles will afford
drivers additional flexibility and allow carriers to reach customers
farther from the work reporting location while maintaining eligibility
for the short-haul exception. Extending the air-mile radius will not
extend the driving time. FMCSA does not anticipate that extending the
air-mile radius will increase market demand or result in an increase to
aggregate VMT. Rather, more carriers might use the short-haul
exception. Carriers will have the flexibility to meet market demands
more efficiently while maintaining eligibility for the short-haul
exception. One commenter on the HOS ANPRM explained that the increased
flexibility in the air-mile radius would reduce the number of vehicles
necessary for their operation, and thus would result in cost savings of
approximately $1.7 million per year. Again, motor carriers are very
diverse in their operating structures, and FMCSA cannot extrapolate
from one carrier's cost savings to determine the cost savings to all
carriers.
    FMCSA asked for comments from the public on the cost savings that
would be expected to result from not having to comply with the ELD
requirements. 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 saving would be at least $500 to
$1,000 per truck, including costs for equipment, maintenance, repair,
and back office administration. Another commenter stated that due to
the diverse nature of the motor coach industry, some segments of the
driver population would continue to need ELDs, and FMCSA agrees with
this comment. FMCSA is unable to estimate the population of drivers
under the short-haul exception that would continue to require ELDs, and
FMCSA is thus unable to quantify the expected cost savings for the
short-haul driver population that will no longer need ELDs under this
final rule.
    The Agency agrees with other commenters who stated that the
proposed changes to the current short-haul provisions would provide
increased flexibility for both motor carriers and drivers who utilize
the exception. FMCSA believes that the extension of the 12-hour limit
to 14 hours, and the 100 air-mile radius to 150 air-miles will provide
motor carriers the necessary flexibility to spend quality 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. The changes to the short-haul exception will
not extend the workday beyond the current long-haul driving window,
thus FMCSA has no reason to believe that the rule would negatively
impact safety.

    FMCSA also considered limiting the proposal to an extension of the
time required for drivers to return to their work reporting location
from 12 to 14 hours, without changing the air-mile radius requirements.
This alternative would decrease the population eligible for the short-
haul exception relative to the preferred alternative by removing
eligibility for those drivers operating between 100 and 150 air-miles.
Decreasing the population affected by this final rule would decrease
any cost savings resulting from it.
Adverse Driving Conditions
    Under the previous regulations, drivers qualifying for the HOS
adverse driving conditions exception in Sec.  395.1(b)(1) could drive
for no more than 2 additional hours beyond the maximum driving time
allowed under Sec.  395.3(a) or Sec.  395.5(a) if they encountered
adverse driving conditions after dispatch. The previous provision did
not allow for the extension of the 14-hour driving window (or 15 hours
on-duty for drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs), and thus could not be
used if the adverse driving condition was encountered towards the end
of that period. In this final rule, FMCSA allows a 2-hour extension of
the 14-hour driving window (or 15 hours on-duty for drivers of
passenger-carrying CMVs). This change aligns the regulations with the
intent of the adverse driving condition provision, which is to allow
drivers flexibility when faced with unexpected conditions. This change
will not increase the available driving time.
    The adverse driving conditions provision is intended to provide
flexibility for drivers who encounter such adverse driving conditions
which were not apparent at the time of dispatch. However, it did not
previously extend the driving window, limiting its use. This final rule
will increase flexibility by allowing drivers encountering adverse
driving conditions to extend their driving window by the same 2 hours
that currently apply to driving time. This change will provide drivers
with additional options to determine the best solution based on their
situation.
    The Agency anticipates that the increased options and flexibility
will result in cost savings to drivers, but is unable to quantify them
due to a lack of data regarding the use of the adverse driving
exception. FMCSA appreciates the feedback and information received from
commenters regarding specific motor carrier experience with the adverse
driving condition provision. Commenters were split on the issue, with
some stating that they expect an increase in its use and others not
expecting to see an increase. FMCSA believes that a decrease in use is
unlikely to result from the changes, but it is not clear if or how much
of an increase may result on an industry-wide level. Given this
uncertainty, FMCSA is unable to estimate the change in use of the
adverse driving condition provision at this time.
Federal and State Government Costs
    FMCSA will incur costs to update the existing eRODS software. The
eRODS software is used by safety officials (Federal, State, and local
safety partners) to locate, open, and review output files transferred
from a compliant ELD. The eRODS software consists of two components: A
database containing the HOS requirements and the software component
that compares the compliant ELD output files to the HOS requirements.
The changes to the 30-minute break requirement, sleeper berth
requirements, and the split-duty period will necessitate updates to the
eRODS database that stores the HOS requirements and some minor
programming changes to the compliance algorithm aspects of the
software.
    The Department's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
developed the eRODS software and continues to maintain and update it
when needed. Volpe estimates that the final rule will result in one-
time eRODS software update costs of $20,000. This includes updating the
HOS requirements database and minor programing changes to the software
component which consist of five steps: Developing a requirements
analysis, design, coding, testing, and deployment of the updates.
    The Agency will incur one-time costs in the first year of the
analysis period for the training of enforcement personnel. The Agency
intends for all training costs related to this final rule to accrue in
2020. First, a contractor is developing training materials at an
estimated cost of $90,000. The Agency intends to then utilize these
materials and implement a ``train-the-trainer'' model to train
inspectors in field locations. This process will involve the training
of three master trainers over the course of 3, 8-hour training days (24
hours in total for each master trainer). Next, the 3 master trainers
will train 100 trainers from across the country, again over the course
of 3, 8-hour training days (24 hours in total for each trainer). The
100 trainers will then conduct approximately 50 training sessions for
500 Federal and 10,500 State trainees in pairs (with 2 trainers per
class).
    FMCSA then calculated training costs by multiplying the wage rate
for each group by the total number of training hours. Next, FMCSA
estimated the travel costs associated with the trainings. FMCSA assumed
that the 3 master trainers are located near the training sites and thus
will not incur travel costs. The 100 trainers, however, are from
disparate locations across the country and will be required to travel
to the training sites. Federal and State trainees are also expected to
travel within their respective State to attend the trainings given at
field locations.
    Next, FMCSA combined the costs for time spent in trainings and
travel costs for each group to estimate total costs for training that
are incurred because of the final rule. As shown in Table 5, these
calculations resulted in a total cost of $8.6 million associated with
training.

            Table 5--Estimated Total Costs for Training, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Training group                         Total costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training Materials......................................         $90,000
Master Trainers.........................................          18,720
Trainers................................................         382,400
Federal Trainees........................................         435,000
State Trainees..........................................       7,638,750
                                                         ---------------
    Total Costs.........................................       8,564,870
    Total 10-Year Cost Savings--7 percent Discount Rate.       8,004,551
    Total 10-Year Cost Savings--3 percent Discount Rate.       8,315,408
    Total Annualized Cost Savings--7 percent Discount          1,139,668
     Rate...............................................
    Total Annualized Cost Savings--3 percent Discount            974,819
     Rate...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Quantified Costs
    This final rule will not result in any new costs for regulated
entities. Instead, this 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 $8.6
million for training inspectors on the new requirements. The Federal
Government also will incur a one-time 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 costs
attributable to the changes to the 30-minute break provision at -
$2,814.3 million (or a total 10-year motor carrier cost savings of
$2,814.3). As shown in Table 6, 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.

                                              Table 6--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.

Non-Quantified Costs
    There are a number of other potential cost savings of this final
rule that FMCSA considered which, due to uncertainty around driver
behavior, could not be quantified on an industry level.
    FMCSA has granted 5-year exceptions from the requirement to return
to the driver's normal work reporting location within 12 hours of
coming on-duty (examples include: Waste Management Holdings, Inc.;
American Concrete Pumping Association; and National Asphalt Paving
Association).\65\ During the period of the exception, all drivers
utilizing it must carry a copy of the exception notice; after that
period, entities seeking to maintain the exception must reapply. This
final rule will result in cost savings to these (and potentially other)
entities by alleviating the need to pursue the exception process and
eliminating compliance with exception conditions such as carrying a
copy of the exception document, as well as reallocating the time and
resources that would have been spent on the exception reapplication.
The Federal Government will experience a cost savings equal to the
reduction in time and resources necessary to review, comment on, and
make final determinations on the exceptions. Additional non-quantified
cost savings include increased efficiency afforded to drivers through
the changes to the various HOS provisions, such as, efficiency gains
due to the short-haul exception; the ability of drivers to make
informed decisions due to the changes to the adverse driving conditions
and sleeper berth provisions; and the reduction in opportunity cost to
drivers from the changes to the 30-minute break provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2017-0197. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0181-0057, and https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2018-0175,
respectively.