The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) determination that federal law preempts California’s meal and rest break requirements as to drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), subject to the FMCSA’s hours of service (HOS) regulations.

On December 21, 2018, the FMCSA issued a Determination of Preemption, finding that California’s break rules are subject to the Secretary of Transportation’s authority to review and preempt state laws and regulations on CMV safety.

The Court held that, because California’s rules are additional to or are more stringent than the HOS regulations, they were subject to preemption since they (1) have no safety benefit, (2) are incompatible with the HOS regulations, and/or (3) cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. Thus concluded, California may no longer enforce its break rules with respect to property carrying CMV drivers subject to the FMCSA’s HOS rules.

Many California truckers and drivers remain subject to the state’s break rules. Although the FMCSA’s HOS regulations, and thus the preemption decision, will apply to any person who operates a CMV, companies must confirm that drivers are operating a vehicle that meets the detailed definition of a CMV.

A CMV is defined as “a self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property” depending on the vehicle’s weight or weight rating, number of potential passengers, or the type of property it is used to transport. A critical factor is whether the vehicle is used “in interstate commerce,” which includes “trade, traffic, or transportation … between two places in a State as part of trade, traffic, or transportation originating or terminating outside the State or the United States.” This definition includes the intrastate transport of goods in “the flow of interstate commerce,” which may be interpreted broadly.

Before ignoring California’s break rules for truck drivers, companies should evaluate drivers’ routes and shipments to confirm that they are transporting property in interstate commerce. This likely will require the advice of legal counsel. It is the employer’s burden to establish the FMCSA preemption defense in any related litigation.

Note, this holding may be short-lived. The decision may still be overruled through en banc review by the Ninth Circuit or on petition to the Supreme Court. Additionally, it is possible that the FMCSA reverses course under President Biden’s nominated Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.