Document ID: FMCSA-2018-0248-5454
Agency: fmcsa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Hours of Service of Drivers
Posted Date: 2019-08-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44190-44222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17810]

[[Page 44189]]

Vol. 84

Thursday,

No. 163

August 22, 2019

Part VI

 Department of Transportation

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

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 395

 Hours of Service of Drivers; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 44190]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

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

Hours of Service of Drivers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes amendments to its hours-of-service (HOS) 
requirements to provide greater flexibility for drivers subject to the 
HOS rules without adversely affecting safety. This would be 
accomplished by altering the short-haul exception to the record of duty 
status (RODS) requirement available to certain commercial motor vehicle 
(CMV) drivers, modifying the adverse driving conditions exception, 
increasing flexibility for the 30-minute break rule by requiring a 
break after 8 hours of driving time (instead of on-duty time) and 
allowing on-duty/not driving periods as qualifying breaks from driving, 
modifying the sleeper berth exception to allow a driver to spend a 
minimum of 7 hours in the berth combined with a minimum 2-hour off-duty 
period, provided the combined periods total 10 hours (rather than the 
current 8/2 split), and allowing one off-duty break that would pause a 
truck driver's 14-hour driving window.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before October 7, 
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2018-0248 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting 
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 
DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202) 366-4325, or email at 
MCPSD@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material 
to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This NPRM is organized as follows:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
II. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of Major Provisions
    C. Costs and Benefits
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
V. Background
VI. Overview of Comments to the ANPRM
VII. Discussion of the Proposed Rulemaking
    A. Short-Haul Operations
    B. Adverse Driving Conditions
    C. 30-Minute Break
    D. Sleeper Berth
    E. Split Duty Provision
    F. TruckerNation Petition
    G. Other Petitions
    H. Compliance Date for the Rulemaking
VIII. International Impacts
IX. Section-by-Section Analysis
    A. Section 395.1 Scope of Rules in This Part
    B. Section 395.3 Maximum Driving Time for Property-Carrying 
Vehicles
X. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 
Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Assistance for Small Entities
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
    H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
    J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    K. Privacy
    L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
    M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    N. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic 
Growth)
    O. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
    P. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical 
Standards)
    Q. Environment (NEPA, CAA)

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0248), indicate the specific section of 
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for 
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and 
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only 
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a 
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of 
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions 
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0248, in the keyword box, and click 
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!'' 
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. 
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on 
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them 
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your 
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of 
the comment period.
Confidential Business Information
    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial 
information that is customarily not made available to the general 
public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 
552), CBI is eligible for protection from public disclosure. If you 
have CBI that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important 
that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, 
please mark each page of your submission as ``confidential'' or 
``CBI.'' Submissions designated as CBI and meeting the definition noted 
above will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions 
containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory 
Evaluation Division,

[[Page 44191]]

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary that FMCSA receives that is 
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket 
for this rulemaking.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this 
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0248, in the 
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket 
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have 
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the 
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the 
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under section 5202 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation 
Act (FAST Act), Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1534-1535 (Dec. 4, 
2015), if a regulatory proposal is likely to lead to the promulgation 
of a major rule, FMCSA is required to engage in negotiated rulemaking 
or publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), unless the 
Agency finds good cause that an ANPRM is impracticable, unnecessary, or 
contrary to the public interest (49 U.S.C. 31136(g)). FMCSA published 
an ANPRM on August 23, 2018 (83 FR 42631).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On August 21, 2018, FMCSA posted the ANPRM at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service-advanced-notice-proposed-rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Executive Summary

A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory Action

    The implementation of the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) rule (80 
FR 78292, Dec. 16, 2015) and the ELD's ability to increase compliance 
with HOS regulations for drivers of CMVs prompted numerous requests 
from Congress and from CMV operators for FMCSA to consider revising 
certain HOS provisions. FMCSA has received petitions from multiple 
stakeholders requesting relief from the HOS rules, including the Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and TruckerNation.org 
(TruckerNation).\2\ In response, FMCSA published the August 23, 2018 
ANPRM, and held five public listening sessions. Today's NPRM addresses 
the areas of concern discussed in the petitions, listening sessions, 
and in the ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These are available in the public docket for this rulemaking 
at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-1210 and 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-0003, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Major Provisions

    Today's proposal would improve efficiency by providing flexibility 
in five areas, allowing operators to shift their work and drive time to 
mitigate the effect of certain variables (e.g., weather, traffic, 
detention times). Today's proposal would extend the maximum duty period 
allowed under the short-haul exception available to certain CMV drivers 
under 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1) from 12 hours to 14 hours. It would also 
extend, from a 100 to a 150 air-mile radius, the maximum distance from 
the work-reporting location in which drivers qualifying for the short-
haul exception may operate. FMCSA also proposes to modify the exception 
for adverse driving conditions in Sec.  395.1(b)(1) by allowing such 
conditions to extend the maximum driving windows under Sec. Sec.  
395.3(a)(2) and 395.5(a)(2) by up to 2 hours. The Agency proposes to 
make the 30-minute break requirement for property-carrying CMV drivers 
in Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii) applicable only in situations where a driver 
has driven for a period of 8 hours without at least a 30-minute non-
driving interruption. If required, a 30-minute break could be satisfied 
with a period, either off duty, in the sleeper berth, or on-duty not-
driving. FMCSA also proposes to modify the sleeper-berth requirements 
to allow drivers to take their required 10 hours off duty in two 
periods, provided one off-duty period (whether in or out of the sleeper 
berth) is at least 2 hours long and the other involves at least 7 
consecutive hours spent in the sleeper berth. Neither time period would 
count against the maximum 14-hour driving window in Sec.  395.3(a)(2). 
Finally, FMCSA proposes to add a new option under Sec.  
395.3(a)(3)(iii) that would allow one off-duty break of at least 30 
minutes, but not more than 3 hours, during the course of a driver's 14-
hour driving window to extend that period for the length of the break, 
provided drivers take at least 10 consecutive hours off duty at the end 
of the work shift.

C. Costs and Benefits

    The proposed rule would not result in any new costs for regulated 
entities. Instead, the proposed rule would result in increased 
flexibility for drivers and a quantified reduction in costs for motor 
carriers. The Federal Government would incur a one-time electronic 
Record of Duty Status (eRODS) software update cost of approximately 
$20,000. The proposed change to the 30-minute break requirement would 
result in a reduction in opportunity cost, or a cost savings, for motor 
carriers. FMCSA estimates that the 10-year motor carrier cost savings 
attributable to the proposed changes to the 30-minute break provision, 
net of the Federal Government costs, would total $2,348.9 million 
discounted at 3 percent, and $1,931 million discounted at 7 percent. 
These cost savings are $275.4 million annualized at a 3 percent 
discount rate and $274.9 million annualized at a 7 percent discount 
rate. All values are in 2017 dollars. There are a number of other 
potential cost savings of this proposed rule that FMCSA considered but, 
due to uncertainty about driver behavior, could not quantify on an 
industry level. These non-quantified cost savings include increased 
flexibility resulting from the extension of the duty day and the air-
mile radius for those operating under the short-haul exception; the 
increased options for drivers to respond to adverse driving conditions 
during the course of their duty period; reducing the need to apply for 
exemptions from the 30-minute break requirement; and increased 
flexibility afforded to drivers, such as increased options with regard 
to on-duty and off-duty time resulting from changes to the 30-minute 
break requirement, the sleeper-berth provisions, and the new split duty 
period provision.
    None of the proposals in today's NPRM would increase the maximum 
allowable driving time, but may change the number of hours driven, or 
hours worked during a given work shift. The flexibilities in this 
proposal are intended to allow drivers to shift their drive and work 
time to mitigate the impacts of certain variables (e.g., weather, 
traffic, detention times) and to take breaks without penalty when they 
need rest; FMCSA does not anticipate that any of these time shifts 
would negatively impact drivers' health. As discussed later in this 
document,

[[Page 44192]]

FMCSA anticipates that individual drivers may see a change in their 
work hours (both driving and non-driving) or vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT), but that the proposed changes would not result in an increase in 
freight movement or aggregate VMT. Aggregate VMT is determined by many 
factors, including market demand for transportation. FMCSA does not 
anticipate that the changes proposed in this rule would stimulate 
demand in the freight market, but acknowledges that freight loads may 
shift from one carrier or driver to another. However, FMCSA also 
acknowledges that if drivers and motor carriers cannot meet the current 
freight demands, the proposed rule may enable them to rearrange their 
daily schedules such that additional loads could be moved, resulting in 
an increase in aggregate VMT. FMCSA considers this an unlikely outcome 
of the proposed rule, and after consideration of the potential impacts, 
has determined that this proposal would not adversely affect driver 
fatigue levels or safety.

                                            Table 1--Today's Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              HOS provision                Existing requirement      Proposed changes        Potential impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Haul..............................  Drivers using the       Would extend the        Increase the number of
                                           short haul exception    maximum duty period     drivers able to take
                                           applicable to drivers   allowed under the       advantage of the
                                           requiring CDL may not   short-haul exception    short-haul exception.
                                           be on duty more than    available to certain   Shift work and drive
                                           12 hours.               CMV drivers from 12     time from long-haul
                                          Drivers using the        hours to 14 hours.      to short-haul, or
                                           short haul exception   Would also extend,       from driver to
                                           applicable to drivers   from a 100 to a 150     driver.
                                           requiring CDL may not   air-mile radius, the   No increase in freight
                                           drive beyond a 100      maximum distance in     movement or aggregate
                                           air-mile radius.        which drivers           VMT.
                                                                   qualifying for the
                                                                   short-haul exception
                                                                   may operate.
Adverse Driving Conditions..............  A driver may drive and  Would allow a driver    Increase the use of
                                           be permitted or         to use the adverse      the adverse driving
                                           required to drive a     driving conditions      condition provision.
                                           commercial motor        exception to extend    Allow driving later in
                                           vehicle for not more    the maximum ``driving   the work day,
                                           than 2 additional       windows'' by up to 2    potentially shifting
                                           hours beyond the        hours. This proposed    forward the hours
                                           maximum time allowed.   change would apply      driven and VMT
                                           However, this does      for both property-      travelled
                                           not currently extend    carrying (14-hour      Allow drivers time to
                                           the maximum ``driving   ``driving window'')     park and wait out the
                                           windows''.              and passenger-          adverse condition or
                                                                   carrying (15-hour       driving slowly
                                                                   ``driving window'')     through it. This has
                                                                   operators.              the potential to
                                                                                           decrease crash risk
                                                                                           relative to current
                                                                                           requirements,
                                                                                           assuming drivers now
                                                                                           drive through adverse
                                                                                           conditions
                                                                                          No increase in freight
                                                                                           volume or aggregate
                                                                                           VMT, as adverse
                                                                                           conditions cannot be
                                                                                           planned for in
                                                                                           advance.
30 Minute Break.........................  If more than 8          Would make the 30-      Increase the on-duty/
                                           consecutive hours       minute break            non-driving time by
                                           have passed since the   requirement for         up-to 30 minutes, or
                                           last off-duty (or       property-carrying CMV   allow drivers to
                                           sleeper berth) period   drivers applicable      reach their
                                           of at least half an     only in situations      destination earlier.
                                           hour, a driver must     where a driver has     No anticipated fatigue
                                           take an off-duty        driven for a period     effect because
                                           break of at least 30    of 8 hours without at   drivers continue to
                                           minutes before          least a 30-minute       be constrained by the
                                           driving.                interruption. If        11-hour driving limit
                                                                   required, a 30-minute   and would continue to
                                                                   break could be          receive on-duty/non-
                                                                   satisfied with a non-   driving breaks from
                                                                   driving period,         the driving task.
                                                                   either off duty, in     Additionally, drivers
                                                                   the sleeper berth, or   are enabled to take
                                                                   on-duty not-driving.    off-duty breaks when
                                                                                           needed via the split-
                                                                                           duty day provision.
                                                                                          Minimal or no change
                                                                                           to hours driven or
                                                                                           VMT, as the current
                                                                                           off-duty break only
                                                                                           impacts these factors
                                                                                           if the schedule
                                                                                           required driving late
                                                                                           within the 14-hour
                                                                                           driving window.
Split-Sleeper Berth.....................  A driver can use the    Would modify the        Allow one hour to be
                                           sleeper berth to get    sleeper-berth           shifted from the
                                           the ``equivalent of     requirements to allow   longer rest period to
                                           at least 10             drivers to take their   the shorter rest
                                           consecutive hours off   required 10 hours off-  period.
                                           duty.'' To do this,     duty in two periods,   Potentially increase
                                           the driver must spend   provided one off-duty   the use of sleeper
                                           at least 8              period (whether in or   berths because
                                           consecutive hours       out of the sleeper      drivers using a berth
                                           (but less than 10       berth) is at least 2    have two additional
                                           consecutive hours) in   hours long and the      hours to complete 11
                                           the sleeper berth.      other involves at       hours of driving (by
                                           This rest period does   least 7 consecutive     virtue of excluding
                                           not count as part of    hours spent in the      the shorter rest
                                           the 14-hour limit. A    sleeper berth.          period from the
                                           second, separate rest   Neither time period     calculation of the 14-
                                           period must be at       would count against     hour driving window).
                                           least 2 (but less       the maximum 14-hour    No anticipated effect
                                           than 10) consecutive    driving window.         on fatigue because
                                           hours long. This                                aggregate drive
                                           period may be spent                             limits and off-duty
                                           in the sleeper berth,                           time remains
                                           off duty, or sleeper                            unchanged.
                                           berth and off duty                             Hours driven or VMT
                                           combined. It does                               may change for an
                                           count as part of the                            individual driver on
                                           maximum 14-hour                                 a given work shift
                                           driving window.                                 (by increased use of
                                                                                           the sleeper berth).
                                                                                           Total hours driven or
                                                                                           aggregate VMT would
                                                                                           remain the same.

[[Page 44193]]

 
Split-Duty Provision....................  Once the duty period    Would add a new option  Allow up to 3 hours in
                                           starts, it runs for     for one off duty        an off-duty status to
                                           14 consecutive hours,   break of at least 30    be excluded from the
                                           after which the         minutes, but not more   14-hour driving
                                           driver may not drive    than 3 hours, during    window.
                                           a commercial motor      the course of a        Drivers could use this
                                           vehicle (CMV) again     driver's 14-hour        time to: Rest without
                                           until having another    ``driving window'' to   the penalty of losing
                                           10 or more              extend that period      time in their driving
                                           consecutive hours off   for the length of the   window, avoid traffic
                                           duty. Nothing stops     break, provided that    via waiting in a
                                           the running of the      drivers take at least   parking lot and
                                           ``14-hour clock''       10 consecutive hours    increase their VMT
                                           except a minimum 8-     off duty at the end     efficiency, or
                                           hour period in a        of the work shift.      mitigate the effect
                                           sleeper berth.                                  on the 14-hour rule
                                                                                           of long detention
                                                                                           times by allowing
                                                                                           driving later in the
                                                                                           work shift.
                                                                                          Minimizing the effect
                                                                                           on fatigue because
                                                                                           drivers could use the
                                                                                           voluntary pause to
                                                                                           rest, off-setting any
                                                                                           potential effect of
                                                                                           driving later in the
                                                                                           work shift.
                                                                                          Depending on the
                                                                                           situation, hours
                                                                                           driven and VMT on a
                                                                                           given work shift
                                                                                           could: Remain the
                                                                                           same but shift within
                                                                                           the driving window;
                                                                                           decrease the hours
                                                                                           driven by increasing
                                                                                           VMT per hour; allow
                                                                                           the driver to finish
                                                                                           more work during the
                                                                                           current work shift
                                                                                           instead of postponing
                                                                                           it to the next one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CE Categorical Exclusion
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMV Commercial motor vehicle
DOT Department of Transportation
ELD Electronic logging device
E.O. Executive Order
eRODS Electronic record of duty status
FAST Act Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FR Federal Register
HOS Hours of service
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OOIDA Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
RODS Record of duty status
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SCE Safety critical event
Sec.  Section
Secretary Secretary of Transportation
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
TruckerNation TruckerNation.org
UDA United Drivers Association
U.S.C. United States Code
USTA United States Transportation Alliance

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

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

V. Background

    The HOS regulations in effect until 2003 were promulgated pursuant 
to the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and then reissued under the Motor 
Carrier Safety Act of 1984, along with the rest of the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulations (53 FR 18042, May 19, 1988). The HOS rules 
are codified at Part 395 of Title 49 CFR. These regulations were 
originally promulgated in 1937, revised several times before 1940, and 
then left largely unchanged until 1962. They required 8 hours off 
between tours of duty work shifts that could be of indeterminate 
length, lasting until the driver accumulated a total of 15 hours on 
duty. Concerns that these regulations were outdated and contributed to 
driver fatigue led to an effort to incorporate new knowledge about 
fatigue and rest, and their effects on safety.
    Revisions to the HOS regulations were proposed in an NPRM published 
in the May 2, 2000, Federal Register (65 FR 25540). Following reviews 
of the comments to the docket and additional study, FMCSA developed a 
revised set of HOS regulations. The final rule (the

[[Page 44194]]

``2003 HOS rule'') was promulgated on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22456), and 
took effect on January 4, 2004. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 
comparing the costs, benefits, and impacts of this rule relative to the 
previous rule and several alternatives was prepared in accordance with 
the requirements of Executive Order 12866. That RIA, which is available 
in the HOS rule docket, showed that full compliance with the 2003 HOS 
rule could both save lives and increase productivity compared to full 
compliance with the rule then in existence. Much of the safety 
advantage of the 2003 HOS rule was shown to come from the mandate for 
at least 10 hours off after each tour of duty, and from helping to keep 
drivers on a regular 24-hour cycle.
    After the 2003 HOS rule had been in effect for several months, it 
was vacated by a Federal appellate court. On July 16, 2004, the United 
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that FMCSA had not 
considered effects of the changes in the HOS rule on drivers' health, 
as required by 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(4). Public Citizen et al. v. FMCSA, 
374 F.3d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Additionally, the court expressed 
concerns about several areas of the rule, including:
    [ssquf] Permission to drive 11 hours in a tour of duty, rather than 
10;
    [ssquf] Allowing more hours on duty in a given week, as a result of 
the restart provisions;
    [ssquf] Allowing drivers to split their off-duty periods into two 
parts through the use of sleeper berths; and
    [ssquf] Lack of consideration of the use of electronic on-board 
recorders.
    In response to the court's action, Congress reinstated the 2003 HOS 
rule for a year, to give FMCSA a chance to revisit the issues cited by 
the court. A new HOS rule was published on August 25, 2005, retaining 
most of the provisions of the 2003 rule but requiring drivers using 
sleeper berths to spend 8 consecutive hours in the berth and take an 
additional 2 hours either off duty or in the sleeper berth; this 2 hour 
period must be counted against the 14 hour driving window (70 FR 
49978). This established one ``core'' 8-hour period of sleep, as called 
for by various scientific research studies, yet provided the driver 
flexibility in use of the shorter off-duty period. Drivers, however, 
objected to 8 hours in the sleeper berth, and, in general, to the lack 
of flexibility provided by the sleeper-berth provisions and 14-hour 
rule. The 2005 HOS rule also provided relief to some short-haul 
operations using lighter trucks.
    Public Citizen and others challenged the August 2005 rule on 
several grounds. On July 24, 2007, the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of 
Public Citizen and vacated the 11-hour driving time and 34-hour restart 
provisions (Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. Inc. v. 
FMCSA, 494 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). The court concluded that FMCSA 
had violated the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements by failing 
to provide an opportunity for public comment on the methodology of the 
Agency's operator-fatigue model, which FMCSA had used to assess the 
costs and benefits of alternative changes to the 2005 HOS rule. In 
particular, the court found that the Agency had not adequately 
disclosed and made available for review the modifications it had made 
to the 2003 operator-fatigue model to account for time-on-task (TOT) 
effects in the 2005 analysis. The court concluded that FMCSA's 
methodology had not remained constant from 2003 to 2005 because the TOT 
element in the model was new and constituted the Agency's response to a 
defect in its previous methodology. The court concluded that the Agency 
violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to give 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the methodology of the 
crash risk model that the Agency used to justify an increase in the 
maximum number of daily and weekly hours that CMV drivers may drive and 
work. The court listed several elements of the way FMCSA calculated the 
impact of TOT that it held could not have been anticipated and that 
were not disclosed in time for public comment upon them. Turning to 
Public Citizen's second argument, the court also found that FMCSA had 
failed to provide an adequate explanation for certain critical elements 
in the model's methodology. In vacating the increase in the daily 
driving limit from 10 to 11 hours, the court found arbitrary and 
capricious what it described as FMCSA's ``complete lack of explanation 
for an important step in the Agency's analysis,'' the manner in which 
it had plotted crash risk as a function of TOT per hours of driving. 
The court also found that FMCSA had failed to provide an explanation 
for its method for calculating risk relative to average driving hours 
in determining its estimate of the increased risk of driving in the 
11th hour. In vacating the 34-hour restart provision, the court found 
that FMCSA also had provided no explanation for the failure of its 
operator-fatigue model to account for cumulative fatigue due to the 
increased weekly driving and working hours permitted by the 34-hour 
restart provision.
    In an order filed on September 28, 2007, the court granted in part 
FMCSA's motion for a stay of the mandate. The court directed that 
issuance of the mandate be withheld until December 27, 2007.
    On December 17, 2007, FMCSA published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) 
amending the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, effective 
December 27, 2007, to allow CMV drivers up to 11 hours of driving time 
within a 14-hour, non-extendable window from the start of the workday, 
following 10 consecutive hours off duty (72 FR 71247). The IFR also 
allowed motor carriers and drivers to restart calculations of the 
weekly on-duty time limits after the driver has at least 34 consecutive 
hours off duty. FMCSA explained that the IFR reinstating the 11-hour 
limit and the 34-hour restart was necessary to prevent disruption to 
enforcement and compliance with the HOS rule when the court's stay 
expired, and would ensure that a familiar and uniform set of national 
rules governed motor carrier transportation. Public Citizen immediately 
requested the D.C. Circuit to invalidate the IFR. However, on January 
23, 2008, the court issued a per curiam order denying Public Citizen's 
request. On November 19, 2008, FMCSA adopted the provisions of the IFR 
as a final rule (73 FR 69567).
    On December 18, 2008, Advocates for Highway and Automotive Safety, 
Public Citizen, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the 
Truck Safety Coalition (hereafter referred to as ``HOS petitioners'') 
petitioned FMCSA to reconsider the research and crash data justifying 
the 11-hour driving rule and the 34-hour restart provision. FMCSA 
denied the petition on January 16, 2009. On March 9, 2009, the HOS 
petitioners filed a petition for judicial review of the 2008 rule in 
the D.C. Circuit and, on August 27, 2009, filed their opening brief. 
However, in October 2009, DOT, FMCSA, and the HOS petitioners reached a 
settlement agreement. DOT and FMCSA agreed to submit a new HOS NPRM to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by July 26, 2010, and to 
publish a final rule by July 26, 2011. Subsequently, FMCSA, DOT and the 
HOS petitioners agreed to publish the final rule on October 28, 2011. 
The parties filed a joint motion to hold the 2009 lawsuit in abeyance 
pending publication of the NPRM; the court later accepted that motion.
    In 2011, after presenting various alternatives, FMCSA revised some 
aspects of the HOS regulations and maintained other provisions. The 
2011

[[Page 44195]]

Final Rule could be divided into ``daily'' and ``multi-day'' 
provisions, which can be expressed as follows:
    [ssquf] Drivers of property-carrying CMVs must take at least 30 
minutes off-duty no later than 8 hours after coming on duty if they 
wish to continue driving after the 8th hour.
    [ssquf] Drivers of property-carrying CMVs may drive up to 11 hours 
following an off-duty period of at least 10 consecutive hours.
    [ssquf] Drivers of property-carrying CMVs may not drive after the 
end of the 14th hour after coming on duty following an off-duty period 
of at least 10 consecutive hours.
    [ssquf] Drivers of property-carrying CMVs may obtain the equivalent 
of 10 consecutive hours off duty if they have a period of at least 8 
hours in the sleeper berth and a second period of at least 2 hours 
either off duty or in the sleeper berth. Compliance is calculated from 
the end of the first two periods.
    [ssquf] For Drivers of property-carrying CMVs, any period of 7 or 8 
consecutive days can begin following a period of at least 34 
consecutive hours off duty provided it included 2 periods between 1:00 
a.m. and 5:00 a.m.
    Several categories of motor carriers and drivers are exempt from 
parts of the HOS regulations or from the entire HOS regulation under 
the National Highway System (NHS) Designation Act of 1995 (referred to 
as the NHS Act) and other statutes.
    Public Citizen, the American Trucking Associations, and others 
challenged the 2011 final rule on several grounds. On August 2, 2013, 
the D.C. Circuit vacated the requirement for short-haul drivers to take 
a 30-minute break, but upheld the 2011 rule in all other respects. 
American Trucking Associations, Inc., v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, 724 F.3d 243 (2013).

The 2015 and 2016 DOT Appropriations Acts and the Further Continuing 
and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017

    Sec. 133 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations 
Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, Div. K, Title I, sec. 133, 128 Stat. 
2130, 2711-2713 (Dec. 16, 2014) suspended the 2011 restart provisions, 
which required 2 consecutive off-duty periods between 1:00 and 5:00 
a.m. and allowed only one restart per week; temporarily reinstated the 
pre-2011 restart rule; and required a study of the effectiveness of the 
new rule. Sec. 133 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public 
Law 114-113, Div. L., Title I, sec. 133, 129 Stat. 2242, 2850 (Dec. 18, 
2015) made it clear that the 2011 restart provisions would have no 
effect unless the study required by the 2015 DOT Appropriations Act 
showed that those provisions had statistically significant benefits 
compared to the pre-2011 restart rule; this Act also expanded the 
factors that the Agency was required to evaluate by including driver 
health and longevity. The Further Continuing and Security Assistance 
Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 114-254, Div. A, sec. 180, 130 
Stat. 1005, 1016 (Dec. 10, 2016), replaced Sec. 133 of the 2016 DOT 
Appropriations Act in its entirety to correct an error and ensure that 
the pre-2011 restart rule would be reinstated by operation of law \3\ 
unless the study required by the 2015 DOT Appropriations Act showed 
that the 2011 restart rule had statistically significant benefits 
compared to the pre-2011 restart rule. DOT concluded that the study 
failed to find statistically significant benefits, and the Office of 
Inspector General confirmed that conclusion in a report to Congress. 
The pre-2011 restart rule was therefore reinstated by operation of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because this study failed to establish a statistically 
significant improvement in the initial factors required by Congress, 
evaluation of the additional factors added by Congress became moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs, issued on January 30, 2017, directs executive 
agencies of the Federal government to ``manage the costs associated 
with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to 
comply with Federal regulations'' (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017). The E.O. 
13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, issued on February 24, 
2017, sets forth regulatory reform initiatives and policies to 
``alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American 
people'' (82 FR 12285, Mar. 1, 2017). In accordance with those 
Presidential directives and based upon its experience and expertise, 
FMCSA reviewed the driver HOS regulations to determine if revisions 
might alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining CMV 
driver safety and health and motor carrier safety, as well as the 
safety of the public. On May 17, 2018, 5 months after the 
implementation of the ELD mandate mentioned above, Administrator 
Martinez received a letter signed by 30 Senators (available in the 
docket for this rulemaking) expressing support for greater flexibility 
in the HOS regulations.
    The DOT has longstanding processes to periodically review 
regulations and other agency actions.\4\ If appropriate, FMCSA will 
revise regulations to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for 
which they were originally designed and that they remain justified, in 
accordance with applicable executive orders.\5\ On October 2, 2017, DOT 
published a Notification of Regulatory Review, stating that it was 
reviewing its ``existing regulations and other agency actions to 
evaluate their continued necessity, determine whether they are crafted 
effectively to solve current problems, and evaluate whether they 
potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced 
energy resources'' (82 FR 45750). As part of these reviews, DOT sought 
public comment on existing rules that are good candidates for repeal, 
replacement, suspension, or modification. The HOS regulations and ELDs 
were the most common substantive topics discussed in response to the 
DOT Notification of Regulatory Review. The HOS regulations were 
identified as an area for potential modifications both as a result of 
the public comments received and due to changes in tracking HOS 
compliance through implementation of the ELD rulemaking. The accuracy 
of the electronic data provided to enforcement is much higher than the 
information that was previously provided on paper. While the ELD rule 
did not change the HOS rules, the accurate recording of driving time by 
ELDs highlighted the rigidity of HOS provisions and the practical 
ramifications drivers faced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 
Federal Agencies to periodically conduct reviews of rules that: (1) 
Have been published within the last 10 years; and (2) have a 
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Agencies publish in the Federal Register the results of 
any such rules they reviewed during the past year, as well as a list 
of rules to be reviewed the next year.
    \5\ See Exec. Order No. 13777, sec. 1, (Mar. 1, 2017, 82 FR 
12285) (``It is the policy of the United States to alleviate 
unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people or . . 
.''); E.O. 13610 (May 14, 2012, 77 FR 28469) (requiring agencies to 
conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to determine 
whether they remain justified); E.O. 13563, sec. 6(b) (Jan. 21, 
2011, 76 FR 3821) (requiring agencies to submit a plan ``under which 
the agency will periodically review its existing significant 
regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be 
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the 
agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in 
achieving the regulatory objectives''); E.O. 12866, sec. 5, (Sept. 
30, 1993, pub. 58 FR 51735) (requiring each agency to ``review its 
existing significant regulations to determine whether any such 
regulations should be modified or eliminated so as to make the 
agency's regulatory program more effective in achieving the 
regulatory objectives, less burdensome, or in greater alignment with 
the President's priorities and the principles set forth in this 
Executive order'').

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

[[Page 44196]]

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

OOIDA Petition for Rulemaking

    On February 13, 2018, OOIDA petitioned FMCSA to amend the HOS rules 
to allow drivers to take an off-duty rest break for up to 3 consecutive 
hours once per 14-hour driving window. OOIDA requested that the rest 
break stop the 14-hour clock and extend the latest time a driver could 
drive after coming on duty. However, drivers would still be limited to 
11 hours of driving time and required to have at least 10 consecutive 
hours off duty before the start of the next work shift.
    OOIDA's petition also included a request that the Agency eliminate 
the 30-minute break requirement. The organization explained that there 
are many operational situations where the 30-minute break requires 
drivers to stop when they do not feel tired.

TruckerNation Petition for Rulemaking

    On May 10, 2018, TruckerNation petitioned the Agency to revise the 
prohibition against driving after the 14th hour following the beginning 
of the work shift. As an alternative, the organization requested that 
the Agency prohibit driving after the driver has accumulated 14-hours 
of on-duty time.
    In addition, TruckerNation requested that FMCSA allow drivers to 
use multiple off-duty periods of 3 hours or longer in lieu of having 10 
consecutive hours off-duty and eliminate the 30-minute break 
requirement.

Additional Petitions for Rulemaking

    Two additional petitions for rulemaking were received; one from the 
United States Transportation Alliance (USTA) and one from the United 
Drivers Association (UDA).\6\ The petitions were not discussed in the 
ANPRM due to the timing of receipt; however, they were reviewed and 
considered in the development of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These petitions are available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-2550 and https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-0342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The USTA petition proposed an HOS rule that would prohibit driving 
after 80 hours on duty in a 7-day period (instead of the 60-hour limit 
in Sec. Sec.  395.3(b)(1) and 395.1(b)(1), and allow a 14-hour day for 
driving or other work duties. The drivers' remaining 10 hours would 
include 2 hours of off-duty time, and 8 hours of sleeper-berth time 
could be split into two segments, with a minimum of 2 hours per 
segment. The 80-hour clock would be reset by 24 hours off duty. The 
petition is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this 
notice.
    The UDA proposal maintained the 14/10 HOS rule; however, the 10 
hours off duty could be split into two 5-hour sleeper-berth periods. 
The weekly on-duty time, after which driving would be prohibited, would 
be 80 hours in an 8-day period, with a 24-hour restart, similar to that 
proposed by USTA. The petition is included in the docket referenced at 
the beginning of this notice.

Public Listening Sessions

    FMCSA held a series of public listening sessions following the 
release of the ANPRM. These were held in Dallas, Texas, on August 24, 
2018; Reno, Nevada, on September 24, 2018; Joplin, Missouri, on 
September 28, 2018; Orlando, Florida, on October 2, 2018; and 
Washington, DC, on October 10, 2018.\7\ Transcripts of those listening 
sessions are available in the public docket for the rulemaking, and the 
sessions are available to stream at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/public-listening-sessions-hours-service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Listening sessions were announced in the Federal Register at 
83 FR 42631, August 23, 2018; 83 FR 45204, September 6, 2018; 83 FR 
47589, September 20, 2018; 83 FR 48787, September 27, 2018, and 83 
FR 50055, October 4, 2018. The listening session scheduled for 
September 14, 2018 in Washington, DC was canceled and rescheduled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Overview of Comments to the ANPRM

    The ANPRM asked a series of questions about the four topics and the 
two petitions for rulemaking mentioned above, but did not propose any 
regulatory changes. FMCSA appreciates the comments submitted. The 
Agency requests that individuals responding to the ANPRM comment again 
in the context of today's NPRM.
    As noted above, FMCSA held a series of listening sessions. Comments 
provided at those sessions have been considered in the development of 
section VII of this preamble, ``Discussion of the Proposed 
Rulemaking.''
    In addition, the Agency received more than 5,200 comments on the 
ANPRM, including over 1,000 from CMV drivers. Commenters also included 
trade associations and industry groups, law enforcement agencies, 
safety advocacy groups, motor carriers, and governmental entities. The 
majority of ANPRM commenters supported changes to the HOS rules. Of the 
issues addressed in the ANPRM, most comments were addressed to the 30-
minute break and the sleeper-berth issues. Drivers and individuals 
supported other issues raised in the ANPRM or petitions, especially 
extending the short-haul duty period from 12 hours to 14 hours. Many 
drivers and individual commenters were in favor of extending the 
maximum driving window by 2 hours in the event of adverse driving 
conditions. A few driver and individual commenters requested that the 
definition of ``adverse driving conditions'' be changed or clarified, 
to make understanding and compliance easier for users and enforcement 
personnel. A large number of CMV drivers, trade associations, and 
industry groups supported the elimination of the 30-minute break rule. 
However, safety advocacy groups opposed changes to the rule due to the 
lack of research on its safety impacts.
    Many commenters favored expanding the sleeper-berth options to 5/5, 
6/4, or 7/3. In addition, they would like to see both qualifying 
sleeper-berth periods stop the 14-hour driving window. Most of the 
trade associations that commented on short-haul operations approved of 
an expansion of the 12-hour driving window to 14 hours. Trade 
associations, and other commenters were also in favor of expanding the 
adverse driving condition provision to extend the duty period during 
which driving is allowed.
    Generally, law enforcement and safety advocacy organizations 
opposed changes to the current HOS rules. These comments often 
referenced safety research identified in prior HOS rulemakings. The 
relevant studies are discussed in the sections below.
    Most motor carriers that responded were in favor of all the 
suggested changes in the ANPRM. Most of the elected officials supported 
flexibility for drivers.

Other Comments to the ANPRM

    In addition to the four central topics covered by the ANPRM and the 
two petitions, FMCSA received comments and suggestions related to other 
aspects of the HOS rules.
    Driver Health Comments. A number of commenters critiqued the 
current HOS rules, stating that the rules negatively impact their 
health. However, safety advocacy groups stated that changes to existing 
HOS would negatively impact health. The driver

[[Page 44197]]

sleep apnea group, Truckers for a Cause provided research by Dr. Mona 
Shattell (3 studies cited in comments) on CMV driver mental health 
issues that showed stress caused by the ``14-hour clock'' to be a large 
cause and potential health issues. HOS changes which reduce this 
documented stress inducer would reduce driver stress and resulting 
health issues. They go on to add that fatigue research (Williamson 
2001) has clearly shown that there is a fatigue impairment which 
greatly increases with being awake more than 14 hours. This impairment 
is equivalent to blood alcohol content (BAC) of .02% at 15 hours and 
.04% at 16 hours. With .04% being legally intoxicated for a CMV driver 
it is reasonable that HOS regulations should restrict driving beyond a 
14 hour work day limit unless there has been reasonable restorative 
rest. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine focuses almost exclusively 
on the issue of fatigue--as it relates to driver health and some of the 
proposed changes. According to AASM, ``these proposed changes would 
occur in the setting of other common sleep disorders, such as sleep 
apnea, shift work sleep disorder, or insufficient sleep, which increase 
the risk of drowsy driving . . . . Given the large body of evidence 
that sleepiness plays a significant role in crashes, we recommend 
against the proposed relaxation of the present rules, in the best 
interest of not only commercial drivers' health and safety, but also 
public safety as a whole.'' The International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
commented on the 12-hour short haul provision, stating that several 
studies show that the majority of work-related injuries occurring among 
truck drivers result from non-driving work activities. When researchers 
further investigated these findings, they found that the types of 
injuries experienced by truck drivers varied by industry sector but 
were generally associated with falling from heights, trips, slips, 
falls, and overexertion due to manual materials handling. Drivers who 
are involved in short haul operations experienced occupational injuries 
primarily while performing three activities: (1) Operating the truck; 
(2) lifting/cranking; and (3) maneuvering into/out of truck cab . . . . 
Short-haul drivers will experience increased fatigue as a result of 
having to work an expanded number of hours and concurrently experience 
more fatigue-related occupational injuries and crashes . . . .'' In 
addition, researcher collected data on the driver's heart rates to 
estimate metabolic output and determined that such drivers worked in a 
job that required a high level of energy.'' FMCSA has considered these 
comments, and, as discussed in the Health Impacts section later in this 
document, proposes to find that the provisions of this NPRM would not 
adversely affect driver health.
    Economic and Research Data, Surveys, and Studies Submitted to the 
Docket. A number of research papers, surveys, and studies, along with 
related data, were submitted to the docket. The relevant submissions, 
including those made by OOIDA, the American Transportation Research 
Institute (ATRI), and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS), have been considered and are discussed in the draft RIA for 
this NPRM, available in the docket. Other studies had been considered 
in previous rulemakings, were out of scope for this rule, or had data 
limitations.
    Scope of Rulemaking. A number of the commenters raised HOS issues 
beyond the topics identified in the ANPRM. Many commenters believe 
driver pay is too low for the responsibilities they hold and stated 
that if drivers were paid more or compensated by the hour, there would 
be less of a need for HOS regulations. Other commenters stated that 
third parties such as shippers and receivers, who are not generally 
subject to FMCSA regulations, pressure drivers to violate HOS rules or 
create an environment where drivers are unable to take advantage of the 
work time allowed.
    A number of commenters requested that FMCSA consider adopting the 
Canadian HOS standards.\8\ These comments were either general or 
focused on specific limits, rest breaks, and sleeper-berth provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A copy of the Canadian Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of 
Service rules is available at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-313/page-2.html#docCont (Accessed December 31, 
2018). A single-page summary is available at https://www.cvse.ca/national_safety_code/pdf/HOS_Service_Rules.pdf (Accessed December 
31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Discussion of the Proposed Rulemaking

A. Short-Haul Operations

Current Regulation
    Currently, under 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1), certain CMV drivers do not 
have to prepare RODS, use an ELD, maintain supporting documents, or 
take a 30-minute break after 8 hours of duty if they meet certain 
conditions, including a return to their normal work reporting location 
and release from work within 12 consecutive hours after their starting 
time. Truck drivers operating under this provision are permitted a 12-
hour work day in which to drive up to 11 total hours. Passenger-carrier 
drivers are allowed 10 hours of driving in a 12-hour workday. Under 
this short-haul exception, drivers also must operate within a 100 air-
mile radius of their work reporting location. The motor carrier must 
maintain time records reflecting certain information. Specifically, the 
motor carrier that employs the driver and utilizes this exception must 
maintain and retain for a period of 6 months accurate and true time 
records showing: The time the driver reports for duty each day; the 
total number of hours the driver is on duty each day; the time the 
driver is released from duty each day; and the total time for the 
preceding 7 days in accordance with 49 CFR 395.8(j)(2) for drivers used 
for the first time or intermittently.
    Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2)-(3), other property-carrying CMV drivers 
not utilizing the short-haul exception have a 14-hour window in which 
to drive up to 11 hours. Unless otherwise excepted, however, these 
drivers must maintain RODS, generally using an ELD. Drivers qualifying 
for the 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1) exception have the option to use the 14- or 
15-hour driving window applicable to property and passenger carriers, 
respectively, under Sec. Sec.  395.3 or 395.5, to fulfill the needs of 
the employer on a given day. However, drivers doing so would lose the 
benefits of the short-haul exception and be required to prepare RODS 
for those days.
Current Exemptions to the Short-Haul Operation Provision
    Among other things, section 5521 of the FAST Act requires that the 
Agency allow drivers of ready-mixed concrete delivery trucks to return 
to the normal work reporting location within 14 hours of coming on duty 
rather than 12-hours of coming on duty. FMCSA implemented this 
provision on July 22, 2016 (81 FR 47714). FMCSA also has granted 
applications for exemptions, allowing an extension of the duty period 
in the short-haul provision from 12 to 14 hours, to the following 
entities: Waste Management Holdings, Inc., October 25, 2018 (83 FR 
53940); American Concrete Pumping Association, November 1, 2018 (83 FR 
54975); and National Asphalt Pavement Association, Inc., January 26, 
2018 (83 FR 3864). Several additional groups have requested similar 
exemptions, but FMCSA has not yet published final decisions.
Comments to the ANPRM
    A majority of commenters asserted that FMCSA should extend the duty

[[Page 44198]]

period for short-haul operations from 12 to 14 hours. However, other 
commenters, including drivers, disagreed. Some commenters suggested 
extending the air-mile radius of this provision to match the 
requirements of the 150 air-mile exceptions in Sec. Sec.  395.1(e)(2) 
(Operators of property-carrying CMVs not requiring a CDL) and 395.1(k) 
(Agricultural operations).
    A number of commenters said that they use the short-haul exception 
or would like to utilize it.\9\ They gave specific operational examples 
under which drivers exceeded one or both of the limits infrequently, 
and most described driving as a secondary job function for their 
drivers. These commenters stated that operational complexity increased 
due to drivers using different statuses. If the overall short-haul 
provision were modified, many commenters who supported changing the 
short-haul provisions believed they might not need other exemptions and 
exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Association of General Contractors of America commented: 
``Since many construction operations are local in nature, the short-
haul exemption has been helpful but limited. Expansion of the short 
haul to 150 miles would significantly reduce the impact of HOS on 
the construction industry. The short-haul exemption should allow for 
an additional 2 hours of on-duty time. These additional 2 hours are 
absolutely crucial due to the seasonal nature of construction, and 
the fact that drivers in this industry are so frequently waiting at 
a jobsite--which we classify as ``on duty not driving''.'' (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-4947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's Proposal
    This NPRM proposes extending the maximum allowable work day for 
property-and passenger-carrying CMV drivers under the Sec.  395.1(e)(1) 
short-haul exception from 12 to 14 hours to correspond with the 14-hour 
period requirement for property drivers in Sec.  395.3(a)(2). Today's 
proposal would also extend the existing distance restriction under this 
provision from 100 air miles to 150 air miles to be consistent with the 
radius requirement for the other short-haul exception under Sec.  
395.1(e)(2). Truck drivers would continue to be limited to 11 hours of 
driving time, and passenger carrier drivers to 10 hours of driving 
time. All CMV drivers using the Sec.  395.1(e)(1) exception would need 
to complete their work day within 14 hours of the beginning of the work 
shift.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Currently, short-haul drivers can use the adverse driving 
conditions provision under Sec.  395.1(b), and this provision would 
continue to be available to drivers using the short-haul exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety Rationale
    Using data from the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information 
System (MCMIS),\11\ the Agency analyzed concrete mixer crashes before 
and after the FAST Act allowed ready-mix concrete operators up to 14 
hours to return to their work reporting location under the short-haul 
provision. A review of the MCMIS crash data found that extending the 
short-haul exemption from 12 to 14 hours did not statistically increase 
the share of concrete mixers involved in crashes. This evaluation is 
discussed further in the draft RIA. Furthermore, the Agency emphasizes 
that the changes to the short-haul exception proposed in today's notice 
would allow neither additional drive time during the work day nor 
driving after the 14th hour from the beginning of the work day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ MCMIS is an information system that captures data from 
field offices and through various sources. It is a source for FMCSA 
inspection, crash, compliance review, safety audit, and registration 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The extension of the air-mile radius by 50 air miles would allow 
carriers to reach customers farther from the work reporting location 
while maintaining eligibility for the short-haul exception. FMCSA 
believes that extending the air-mile radius would not increase market 
demand for services, and thus would not result in increased vehicle 
miles traveled (VMT). FMCSA anticipates that if these drivers change 
their routes resulting in an increase in VMT (e.g., an increase in 
deliveries made per shift), that VMT would be shifted from other 
drivers or from the next day. On any given day, a driver may see an 
increase or decrease in VMT, but total VMT would not change. It could 
also be the case that on days that required driving past the 12th work 
hour, the driver was previously operating as a long-haul driver. Under 
this rule, the same driver could work the same day (i.e., no change in 
work hours or VMT for any driver), with the only change being 
eligibility for the short-haul exception. Thus, more drivers or more 
trips would now be eligible for the short-haul exception, and thus 
excluded from the requirement to take a 30-minute break or prepare 
daily RODS, potentially with an ELD. Carriers would have the 
flexibility to meet existing and future market demands within the area 
that could be serviced within a 14-hour duty day more efficiently 
(i.e., not incurring the costs of preparing RODS and retaining 
supporting documents for the days drivers did not satisfy the short-
haul limits) while maintaining eligibility for the short-haul 
exception. Extending the air-mile radius and the work day would not 
extend the maximum allowable driving time. Therefore, the Agency does 
not anticipate any adverse impact on safety.
    The IIHS provided data it believes indicates interstate truck 
drivers operating under the short-haul exception had a significantly 
higher crash risk than those not using the exception. FMCSA reviewed 
this study and found that it was based on a very small sample size, 
which prevented the authors from estimating a matched-pair odds ratio 
restricted to drivers operating under a short-haul exception, and was 
not nationally representative. Further, the authors noted that other 
related factors unobserved in the study may have led to this result. 
For example, it is possible that older or more poorly maintained trucks 
are used in local operations. The Agency relied on its own data and 
analysis discussed earlier in this section, which shows that increasing 
the duty day from 12 to 14 hours did not statistically increase the 
share of concrete mixers involved in crashes. The Agency's analysis is 
discussed in more detail in the RIA. The Agency invites comments on 
this determination.
    In addressing today's proposed changes to the HOS rules, the agency 
encourages motor carriers and other stakeholders to submit driver 
record data supporting their comments in a manner that does not reveal 
the identity of an individual driver.
Additional Questions
    FMCSA seeks additional information and data on the impacts of 
expanding short-haul exemption provision, in part to assess its 
potential costs and benefits. Specifically:
     How will this change impact motor carrier's ability to 
enforce HOS rules? What enforcement difficulties may arise from 
expanding both the time and distance requirements?
     Will drivers drive further or longer in the driving window 
under the short haul exception? Would this be different then these 
loads being hauled by drivers complying with the ELD requirements?
     Will the elimination of the 30-minute break requirement 
for drivers that are potentially driving later in their duty period 
impact safety?
     What cost savings are expected from not having to comply 
with the ELD requirements?
    Additionally, some commenters to the ANPRM requested that drivers 
using the short-haul exception be allowed to end the work shift at a 
different location than the one from which they were dispatched. FMCSA 
requests public comment about this request, including which segments of 
the motor carrier industry would be impacted by this

[[Page 44199]]

potential change and whether this change would have an adverse effect 
on safety, or lead to operational changes such as increased driving 
time per trip or driving in the 12th and 13th hour after coming on-
duty.

B. Adverse Driving Conditions

Current Regulation
    Section 395.1(b)(1) allows 2 additional hours of driving time for 
``adverse driving conditions,'' which is defined in Sec.  395.2 as 
``snow, sleet, fog, other adverse weather conditions, a highway covered 
with snow or ice, or unusual road and traffic conditions, none of which 
were apparent on the basis of information known to the person 
dispatching the run at the time it was begun.'' Although the rule 
allows truck drivers up to 13 hours of driving time under adverse 
conditions, instead of the normal 11 hours, it does not provide a 
corresponding extension of the 14-hour driving window. Similarly, the 
current rule allows drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs up to 12 hours 
of driving time under adverse conditions without a corresponding 
extension of the applicable duty period.
Comments to the ANPRM
    Most commenters generally supported extending the adverse driving 
conditions provision to allow for a longer duty period. Some of these 
commenters noted that the additional time could be used to enable 
drivers to find a safe place to park. However, some commenters objected 
to a change to the exception. One commenter stated that due to the 
advancements of technology, there is no reason to replace proper trip 
planning with a 2-hour extension of the 14-hour driving window. Another 
commenter said that extending the 14-hour driving window would allow 
operators to be driving at a time in the drivers' work days when crash 
risks increase dramatically.
    Frequency of Use. Some commenters said that they never used the 
adverse driving conditions exception, while others reported wide 
variances in the frequency of their use. A trade group provided survey 
results indicating an average use of the exception of 1.5 times a 
month.\12\ A commenter said drivers should not be allowed to use this 
exception more than twice in a 7-day period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Comment from OOIDA with this survey is available at: 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0248-3347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clarify Definition. Many commenters were confused by the current 
definition and requested clarification, including how often the 
provision may be used. Several specifically asked about the 
definition's use of the word ``apparent.'' Some commenters asked that 
provisions be expanded to include ``foreseen'' conditions or requested 
that ``unforeseen'' be stricken from the definition. Some commenters 
pointed out that weather conditions would be known by the dispatcher 
before the start of a trip, given today's technology. However, these 
commenters still believed the provision should exist. Many commenters 
stated that detainment by a third party, such as a shipper or receiver, 
during loading and unloading should be considered an adverse condition.
    Commenters also requested that the definition be changed to require 
``proof'' or that the use of this status be ``verifiable.'' Commenters 
asked for a clear definition that would eliminate inconsistent 
enforcement practices. Commenters also stated that training drivers in 
the use of the regulations should be based on a clarified definition. 
Some commenters requested that specific weather conditions be mentioned 
in the definition, while others wanted it to also apply to a variety of 
road-work conditions.
    Some commenters requested that determination of adverse driving 
conditions should be a decision of the driver rather than the 
dispatcher.
    Passenger Carriers. Some commenters requested that ``adverse 
passenger conditions'' be taken into consideration in the definition, 
and requested that passenger carriers be allowed an extension of the 
10-hour drive time due to ``adverse passenger conditions.''
Today's Proposal
    Today's proposal would allow a driver 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, if the driver encounters 
adverse driving conditions.
Safety Rationale
    While the Agency is not aware of any research that is specific to 
the impact of adverse conditions on crash risk, the flexibility 
provided in the proposal would give drivers greater latitude to respond 
to adverse driving conditions by removing the existing penalty that 
``shortens'' the driver's duty day if he or she responds cautiously to 
an adverse condition in a manner that takes up more duty time. FMCSA 
expects the proposed increase to duty time during adverse driving 
conditions to incentivize drivers facing these conditions to either 
travel at a reduced speed due to road conditions, which is likely to 
minimize the risk of crashes, or to suspend CMV operations in order to 
wait for the adverse conditions to abate. Further, the Agency stresses 
that this proposal would not increase available driving time beyond 
what is currently allowed by the exception. FMCSA does not anticipate 
that changes to the adverse weather condition provision would lead to 
increased VMT in most situations, but might shift when the miles are 
driven. This provision is intended to allow you to drive your 
anticipated trip within 1 shift (instead of extending it to 2) when 
adverse weather would decrease your VMT efficiency, or make road travel 
unsafe for a period of up to 2 hours. It is not intended to allow for 
additional trips or increased freight movement. FMCSA does not 
anticipate that motor carriers would be able to schedule additional 
freight movement because adverse conditions can't be planned for in 
advance.
    FMCSA notes that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the 
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) both allow duty period extensions 
in similar circumstances. FAA allows a 2-hour flight duty period 
extension for unforeseen operational circumstances (14 CFR 
117.19(a)(1)) and FRA allows a 4-hour duty period extension for 
emergencies or work related to emergencies (49 CFR 228.405(c)). FRA's 
hours of service laws also do not apply to circumstances involving 
``Acts of God'' (49 U.S.C. 21102(a)(3)).
    The ``adverse passenger conditions'' mentioned by commenters from 
the bus industry do not involve driving conditions external to the 
vehicle, such as snow, sleet, fog, and the other conditions listed in 
the definition in Sec.  395.2. Adverse passenger conditions are not 
within the scope of this rulemaking.
    In addressing today's proposed changes to the HOS rules, the agency 
encourages motor carriers and other stakeholders to submit driver 
record data supporting their comments in a manner that does not reveal 
the identity of an individual driver.
Additional Questions
    FMCSA seeks additional information and data on the impacts of 
changing the adverse conditions provision, in part to assess its 
potential costs and benefits. Specifically:
     Will this change cause drivers to travel further in 
adverse conditions?
     Will this change drivers' behavior when encountering 
adverse conditions? How so?

[[Page 44200]]

     Understanding adverse conditions cannot be predicted, will 
drivers utilize this provision more often after this change?
    Additionally, FMCSA requests public comment about potential 
modifications to the definition of ``adverse driving conditions.'' 
Specifically, the Agency requests input on the suggestion that 
knowledge of the existence of adverse conditions should rest with the 
driver rather than the dispatcher. Alternatively, should the 
requirement for lack of advance knowledge at the time of dispatch be 
eliminated? Should the current definition of ``adverse driving 
conditions'' be modified to address other circumstances?

C. 30-Minute Break

Current Regulation
    Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii), except for drivers who qualify for 
either short-haul exception under Sec.  395.1(e)(1) or (2), driving is 
not permitted if more than 8 hours have passed since the end of the 
driver's last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of at least 30 
minutes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The 30-minute rule does not apply to drivers who operate 
CMVs within a 100 air-mile radius of their normal work reporting 
location and return to that location within 12 hours, as authorized 
by Sec.  395.1(e)(1), or to drivers who do not need a CDL, operate 
within a 150 air-mile radius of their work reporting location, and 
meet certain other requirements, as authorized by Sec.  395.1(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments to the ANPRM
    Most commenters (including many drivers) supported removing the 30-
minute break, citing a number of reasons, including stress on the 
driver and a perceived increase in crash risk. Many commenters stated 
that drivers already take sufficient breaks from driving, and that the 
additional break requirement is unsafe or unnecessary. Some commenters, 
including safety organizations, expressed support for the 30-minute 
break requirement, stating that rest breaks are necessary and should 
remain as currently required. Others stated that no other viable 
alternative could match the safety benefits achieved by an off-duty, 
30-minute break.
    Logistics/Time Taken. Some commenters recommended replacing the 30-
minute provision with a rule requiring two breaks or similar expansions 
of break time. Drivers liked this idea if they felt it was more in-line 
with their existing operations, or if they thought it would be more 
advantageous. There was no data provided to show it increased safety. 
Commenters were discussing the current requirement, which mandates a 
30-minute off-duty break that does not pause the duty clock. A 
commenter asked that the rule be revised to provide that the break may 
be taken any time during the duty period and that a second break would 
not be required if the first one is taken early in the duty period. 
Some commenters suggested allowing breaks to be split into smaller 
segments, such as 10 minutes. Others stated that the break should be 
tied to changes to the sleeper-berth provision.
    Total On-Duty Time. Many commenters requested that on-duty non-
driving time, e.g., fueling or loading and unloading, be counted 
towards the break time. A number of commenters also requested that 
breaks stop the 14-hour on-duty clock. Others said that only breaks 
over a certain length and spent in a sleeper berth should stop the 14-
hour on-duty clock.
    In Combination with the Split Sleeper-Berth Provisions. Several 
commenters recommended that modifications to the break be tied to 
sleeper-berth changes. Others suggested that breaks be reviewed in 
conjunction with the proposed Split Sleeper-Berth Pilot Program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Split Sleeper-Berth Pilot Program mentioned in comments 
has been canceled. See the discussion below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Removal of the 30-Minute Break for All Drivers. Since short-haul 
drivers are exempt from the 30-minute break requirement, several 
commenters believed that it ought to be eliminated for all drivers.
    Incidental Drivers. Multiple commenters represented industries or 
operations for which driving is incidental to the principal job of the 
driver. A number suggested that their operations be exempt from the 30-
minute break requirement.
Today's Proposal
    FMCSA proposes to modify the existing 30-minute break requirement 
with a prohibition on driving for more than 8 hours without at least 
one 30-minute change in duty status. This would allow 30 minutes of on-
duty, not driving time, off-duty time, or sleeper berth time to qualify 
as a break. Many drivers have interruptions of their driving time 
during normal business operations, such as loading or unloading a 
truck, completing paperwork, or stopping for fuel. Under the current 
rules, the break is required to be off-duty time during which no work, 
including paperwork, may be performed and is triggered after 8 hours, 
regardless of driving time. The flexibility provided in this proposal 
would allow these normal breaks from driving (i.e., ``time on task'' in 
the research literature) to count as an interruption of the 8 hours of 
driving status, provided the break lasts at least 30 minutes. 
Additionally, these proposed changes to the 30-minute break provision 
proposed by today's rule would not allow an increase in maximum driving 
time during the work shift or driving after the 14th hour from the 
beginning of the work shift.
Safety Rationale
    In today's NPRM, the Agency is reconsidering the value of off-duty 
breaks relative to on-duty breaks. Based on comments received, the 
Agency has taken another look at the Blanco, et al. (2011),\15\ study 
to determine the applicability of its findings to the 30-minute break 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Blanco, M., Hanowski, R., Olson, R., Morgan, J., Soccolich, 
S., Wu, S.C., & Guo, F. (2011) ``The Impact of Driving, Non-Driving 
Work, and Rest Breaks on Driving Performance in Commercial Motor 
Vehicle Operations.'' Available in this rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Blanco found that off-duty breaks resulted in a greater 
decrease in subsequent safety critical events (SCE) than on-duty 
breaks, many of the breaks were between 30 and 59 minutes in length, 
casting doubt on the findings' applicability to a strict 30-minute 
break.\16\ Furthermore, the off-duty breaks in the Blanco study were 
voluntary and many were taken in the sleeper berth. Both of these 
elements deviate from the current environment where a rigid 30-minute 
rest break requirement forces drivers to go off-duty regardless of 
whether they feel fatigued or have space to rest. Thus, the study 
participants could have experienced off-duty breaks that were more 
beneficial in nature than the off-duty breaks taken as a result of the 
2011 final rule, as the study participants likely opted to take off-
duty breaks as a countermeasure to fatigue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In reviewing the Blanco study, it was determined that there 
were 3,171 breaks of 30 minutes or longer used in the analysis. It 
should be noted that there were relatively few off-duty breaks--only 
211 off-duty breaks, which was less than 6.7 percent of the total 
number of breaks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, Blanco categorized breaks from driving into four groups; 
Rest During Duty Period (Type 1), Work During Duty Period (Type 2), 
Rest During Duty Period/Off Duty (Type 3), and Off-Duty (Type 4). Break 
Type 1 and Type 4 include resting activities such as eating and 
sleeping, and break Type 3 is a combination of Type 1 and Type 4 breaks 
such that it also includes rest activities. The Blanco study collected 
data from November 2005 to March 2007, when the regulatory guidance 
required that any time spent in the vehicle cab (with the exception of 
the sleeper berth) was considered on-duty

[[Page 44201]]

time. This would include in-cab activities that after 2011 could be 
considered off-duty, such as eating or taking naps. As such, while the 
Blanco study analyzes the reduction in SCEs for Type 1 and Type 4 
breaks separately, under the present regulatory structure they would 
likely both be considered off-duty breaks and thus would fit into Type 
4; Off-Duty Break. Using the published data in the Blanco study, FMCSA 
recalculated the magnitude of SCE reduction for an off-duty break using 
the break frequency published in the study for break Type 1, Type 3, 
and Type 4. This calculation resulted in a 33 percent SCE reduction, 
which is lower than the 51 percent for Type 4 breaks alone, and very 
close to the 30 percent reduction for Break Type 2.\17\ FMCSA 
acknowledges that this result is not precise due to the limitations of 
the available data. Multiple break types could make up a single break, 
such that the summation of the break frequency by type can be more than 
the total number of breaks, and the magnitude of SCE reduction would 
likely be slightly different than what was calculated above. What is 
clear is that the magnitude of SCE reduction that Blanco attributed to 
off-duty breaks is larger than the SCE reduction that would be 
attributable to the off-duty 30-minute breaks required under the 2011 
HOS rule (those that would be made up of Type 1, Type 3, Type 4 breaks 
as defined by Blanco). In light of this recent review, it appears that 
FMCSA placed too great a value on off-duty breaks, compared to other 
types of breaks described above. What seems to be consistent in the 
Blanco study was that breaks of any type reduced SCEs. Therefore, the 
Agency proposes to change the break provision to allow the driver to 
take a break while on duty but not driving, rather than requiring the 
time to be off duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ It is FMCSA's position that the calculated 3% difference in 
SCE reduction should not be considered to correspond directly to a 
difference in crash rates. This is because SCEs are a much more 
common event than crashes, which results in the likelihood that a 
30% reduction and a 33% reduction in SCEs may have the same impact 
on overall crash rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Agency is proposing to tie the break requirement to 
eight hours of driving time rather than eight consecutive hours since 
the driver's last off-duty or sleeper berth period of at least 30 
minutes. Based on the discussion above, FMCSA believes that on-duty 
breaks can have essentially the same SCE reduction as off-duty breaks. 
Tying the break requirement to driving time is in line with this 
finding. Many commenters to the ANPRM stated that the current 30-minute 
break provision requires them to go off duty after eight hours of on-
duty time, even though they may not have driven for a long period of 
time when the rule requires a stop. FMCSA required the 30-minute break 
in the 2011 HOS rule based on literature that found a break from the 
driving task would lead to a reduction in SCEs in the hour after a 
break was taken. If drivers' schedules include time periods of at least 
30-minutes in an on-duty/non-driving status, they are receiving the 
intended benefits of the current requirement. FMCSA continues to 
believe that a break from driving is important for safety, but 
acknowledges that the changes in today's proposed rule would be less 
burdensome for carriers and drivers while achieving the same goal--a 
break from the driving task. These proposed changes may result in a 
decrease in off-duty breaks, but FMCSA anticipates that any potential 
effect on fatigue from fewer off-duty breaks will be offset or 
minimized by continuing to require a break from the driving task. 
Further, as explained below, this proposal would allow drivers to take 
an off-duty break when they believe it would be most helpful at 
preventing them from driving while fatigued, as opposed to requiring a 
break regardless of the warning signs of fatigue, without impacting 
their 14-hour driving window. As an example, consider a driver who 
under the current requirements spends two hours in on-duty/not driving 
status to start his or her duty period subsequently drives for six 
hours, takes the required 30-minute break, and then drives for five 
more hours before reaching the 11-hour limit. All other things equal, 
the proposed changes would allow this driver to take the break up to 
two hours later than under the current requirements, such that the 
driver's duty period could consist of an initial two hours in on-duty/
not driving status followed by eight hours of driving, a 30-minute 
break, and three hours of driving before reaching the 11-hour limit. 
Both under the current requirements and under the proposed rule, this 
hypothetical driver receives the benefits of a break from the driving 
task. However, deferral of the break results in the driver driving 
later into the day before taking a required break, but driving fewer 
hours after it is taken. The Agency cannot say how this temporal shift 
in the break would alter the frequency of SCEs before the required 
break is taken as compared to driving fewer hours after the break. The 
agency requests comments on how to estimate the change in SCEs from 
this temporal shift in the 30 minute break. Further, the Agency notes 
that for a driver who immediately begins driving at the start of his or 
her duty period, he or she may drive eight continuous hours before a 
break is required; this is true under the current requirements and 
would remain so under the proposed rule.
    FMCSA anticipates that the same level of safety can be achieved by 
(1) allowing the driver to take a break while on-duty but not driving, 
rather than requiring the time to be off-duty, and (2) starting the 8-
hour period when the CMV operator begins driving. The changes to the 
30-minute break provision proposed by today's rule do not involve any 
increase to the 11-hour driving limit in place today.
    Those drivers that work more than 8 hours but do not drive more 
than 8 hours may increase their VMT efficiency. These drivers are 
currently required to take a 30-minute off-duty break. Under the 
proposal, their on-duty/non-driving time would be considered a break 
from driving. They would be able to increase their efficiency by a 
reduction in off-duty time of up-to 30 minutes, but this would only be 
the case if off-duty breaks are not part of their regular operating 
schedule, and taken solely as a result of the 30-minute break 
requirement.
    Drivers that drive for 8 consecutive hours may see an increase in 
VMT efficiency. This would occur if their day already has a 30-minute 
on-duty period (e.g., waiting at a loading dock) that would occur 
regardless of this rule. This on-duty period would meet the break 
requirements of the proposed rule. These drivers may also see their VMT 
unchanged. This would occur if their day does not contain a 30-minute 
on-duty period that could count towards the proposed break requirement. 
In this instance, they would need to find a spot to park and take a 
break from driving under both today's requirements and the proposed 
requirements.
    Furthermore, the Agency has reviewed several requests for exemption 
from the current 30-minute break requirement. In certain cases, the 
Agency has granted limited exemptions after determining, following 
notice and comment in the Federal Register, that the exemption would 
not result in any decrease in safety.\18\ For example, in

[[Page 44202]]

certain cases the Agency has allowed the break requirement to be 
satisfied with on-duty not-driving time. All exemptions require a 
carrier to report recordable crashes related to the exemption to the 
Agency. However, crashes may involve multiple factors, and might not be 
directly attributable to the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For more information about each of the exemptions, and the 
specific conditions under which they were granted, please review the 
following notices: the American Trucking Associations, granted 
August 21, 2015 (80 FR 50912); the Department of Energy, granted 
June 22, 2015 (80 FR 35703); the National Asphalt Pavement 
Association, granted January 26, 2018 (83 FR 3864); the National 
Tank Truck Carriers, granted April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15221); R&R 
Transportation, granted October 2, 2015 (80 FR 59848); the 
Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association, granted November 1, 2016 
(81 FR 75727); the Department of Defense (DOD) Surface Deployment & 
Distribution Command (SDDC), granted October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64265); 
the American Concrete Pumping Association, granted March 21, 2017 
(82 FR 14595); the National Pork Producers Council, granted June 11, 
2014 (79 FR 33634); the California Farm Bureau Federation for bee 
transporters, granted June 19, 2015 (80 FR 35425); and the American 
Concrete Pavement Association, granted February 6, 2019 (84 FR 
2307).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA was able to analyze some MCMIS crash data to provide insight 
into the relationship between crash risk and one exemption in 
particular. FMCSA granted an exemption on August 21, 2015 (80 FR 
50912), allowing operators of vehicles transporting certain hazardous 
materials (HM) to satisfy the 30-minute break requirement using 
attending time. This exemption was necessary because FMCSA regulations 
prohibit operators of vehicles transporting certain HM from leaving 
their vehicles unattended (49 CFR 397.5), and thus, they could not 
satisfy the off-duty break requirement while maintaining compliance 
with the requirement to attend the vehicle.
    MCMIS contains counts of crashes where a vehicle with an HM placard 
was present, as well as crash counts of all large truck crashes. Using 
these data points, FMCSA examined the total number of crashes where a 
vehicle with an HM placard was present for the 2 years before and after 
the exemption went into effect. From August 22, 2013, through August 
21, 2015, there were 7,217 crashes where vehicles with an HM placard 
were present, or 2.616 percent of the total crashes involving large 
trucks (7,217 HM placard present/275,915 large truck crashes). From 
August 22, 2015 through August 21, 2017 there were 7,277 crashes where 
vehicles with an HM placard were present, or 2.419 percent of the total 
crashes involving large trucks (7,277 HM placard present/300,775 large 
truck crashes). This analysis has some limitations in that not all 
vehicles transporting HM are large trucks and that crashes cannot be 
attributed to the exemption. However, the slight decrease in the HM 
placard share of total large truck crashes may suggest that the 
exemption allowing attending time to satisfy the break requirement did 
not increase crash risk for operators of vehicles transporting certain 
HM.
    In the years that FMCSA has spent administering these exemptions, 
FMCSA has not discovered evidence of adverse safety impacts that would 
require withdrawal of any 30-minute exemption. However, in other cases, 
FMCSA has denied requests for blanket exemptions because the applicants 
were unable to provide an adequate alternative to, or sufficient 
information to support relief from, the 30-minute break that meets the 
statutory criteria and demonstrates an equivalent level of safety.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For more information about these denials, please review the 
following information: the Payne & Dolan/Zenith Tech/Northeast 
Asphalt application, denied June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36397); the 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance petition, denied August 9, 2016 
(T.F. Scott Darling, Administrator, FMCSA, in a letter denying a 
petition for rulemaking dated October 28, 2015, to Colin Mooney, 
Executive Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, August 8, 
2016. Available at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/petitions); and the 
Transco/McLane application, denied July 18, 2017 (82 FR 32918).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA anticipates that an on-duty break from driving would not 
adversely affect safety relative to the current requirements as 
discussed in connection with the Blanco study, above, but requests 
additional data on the safety impacts of this proposal.
    In addressing today's proposed changes to the HOS rules, the agency 
encourages motor carriers and other stakeholders to submit driver 
record data supporting their comments in a manner that does not reveal 
the identity of an individual driver.
Additional Questions
    FMCSA seeks additional information and data on the impacts of 
changing the 30 minute break provision, in part to better assess its 
potential costs and benefits. Specifically:
     Will you take fewer total breaks from driving with this 
change? How many and when would those breaks have occurred during your 
route?
     Do you expect to still take a 30 minute break if you have 
less than 8 hours of drive time? If so, would you take that break on-
duty or off-duty?
     If you no longer need to take a 30 minute break, how do 
you expect to spend this additional time?
     How will this provision change your scheduling and 
planning?
     Do you expect to drive more miles or hours based on this 
change? Do you expect to be able to complete additional ``runs''?
    Additionally, the Agency acknowledges that many commenters 
specifically asked that the 30-minute break requirement be eliminated, 
and has considered that as an alternative under E.O. 12866. However, 
without the benefit of further information in this regard, it would not 
be appropriate to entirely eliminate the rule. Given that the 
flexibility allowed in today's proposal would alleviate many of the 
concerns expressed by commenters, FMCSA seeks further information on 
the effect of eliminating the break requirement altogether. 
Specifically--
    (1) What would be the safety impact of eliminating the required 
break, potentially allowing up to 11 consecutive hours of driving?
    (2) What has been the cost to your company of complying with the 
30-minute break rule since the compliance date for that rule, July 1, 
2013?
    (3) How often do work shifts require an individual to drive more 
than 8 hours without at least a 30-minute change in duty status?
    (4) Would eliminating the break requirement result in greater cost 
savings than the current proposal? If so, what would be the amount of 
these cost savings?

D. Sleeper Berth

History
    The 2003 HOS rule (68 FR 22456, Apr. 28, 2003, amended by 68 FR 
56208, Sept. 30, 2003), introduced the concept of a fixed 14-hour 
driving window to help limit potential overly-long periods of 
wakefulness and duty hours that could lead to fatigue-related crashes.
    The 2005 HOS final rule (70 FR 49978, Aug. 25, 2005) changed the 
sleeper-berth provisions to require the equivalent of 10 hours off duty 
to be taken in one 8-hour sleeper-berth period, combined with another 
2-hour period, either in the sleeper berth, off duty, or a combination 
of the two. This established one 8-hour period in which to obtain 
restorative rest, yet provided the driver flexibility in use of the 
shorter period. Although comments were closely divided on the issue and 
research related to the length of the longer rest period was not 
definitive, the Agency limited drivers to an 8/2 spilt option. Drivers, 
however, have often objected to 8 hours in the sleeper berth, the lack 
of flexibility allowed by the sleeper-berth provisions, and 14-hour 
rule in general.
Current Regulation
    Current HOS rules allow a sleeper-berth user to divide the minimum 
10 hours off duty, which are otherwise required to be consecutive, into 
two separate periods. Drivers who use

[[Page 44203]]

sleeper berths may take at least 8 consecutive hours of the required 
10-hour off-duty period in the sleeper berth. In addition, the driver 
using the sleeper-berth exception must take a separate (earlier or 
later) period of at least 2 hours off duty, which may be in the sleeper 
berth if desired. It does not matter which rest period is taken first.
Comments to the ANPRM
    Many commenters to the ANPRM requested increased flexibility in the 
sleeper-berth provisions. Some suggested reverting to the pre-2005 
split sleeper-berth provisions, which allowed qualifying hourly splits 
of 7/3, 6/4, or 5/5.\20\ Some drivers suggested that the longer period 
be not less than 7 hours, because they suspected that motor carriers 
might require them to take the shortest rest period, regardless of how 
the drivers felt. However, several commenters stated that team drivers 
should be allowed to take advantage of additional flexibility, such as 
a 5/5 split. Safety advocates did not believe the data supported any 
changes to the existing sleeper-berth provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Before the August 25, 2005 revisions of Sec.  395.1(g), 
drivers of property-carrying CMVs were allowed to split sleeper-
berth time into any two periods, as long as neither one was less 
than 2 hours, subject to certain restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the most common concerns raised by CMV drivers has been 
that, under the current HOS rules, they do not have the flexibility to 
rest when they are tired. Some commenters suggested that sleeper-berth 
time splits be allowed to vary from day to day, so long as drivers 
accumulated a total of at least 8 hours a day in the berth. Other 
commenters suggested that at least 8 hours in the berth should be 
logged for every 24-hour period, and once 10 hours are accumulated, the 
on-duty clock should be restarted. One commenter recommended 
eliminating the split sleeper-berth provision and just allowing ``off-
duty'' time to stop the 14-hour clock. Some drivers stated that 
increased flexibility in split options would allow carriers to coerce 
drivers to operate when they would prefer not to do so. The perception 
from these commenters was that the dispatcher would manipulate the 
hours to maximize productivity.
    Commenters from multiple segments of the motor carrier industry 
stated that sleeper-berth options currently do not suit their specific 
needs, and that expanded options would assist their operations. 
Commenters stated that parking would be easier if drivers had more 
staggered sleeping times and used rest stops at different times. 
However, some commenters suggested retaining the current standard, a 
sleeper-berth period of at least 8 hours.
Safety Rationale
    There is an extensive body of research suggesting that split-sleep 
schedules may improve safety and productivity as compared to 
consolidated daytime sleep. Mollicone, et al. (2007) \21\ conducted a 
laboratory study of 93 healthy adult subjects to investigate 
physiological sleep obtained in a range of restricted sleep schedules. 
Eighteen different conditions with restricted nocturnal anchor sleep, 
with and without diurnal naps, were examined. The study found that 
``split sleep schedules are feasible and can be used to enhance the 
flexibility of sleep/work schedules involving restricted nocturnal 
sleep due to scheduling.'' The researchers concluded that the results 
are generally applicable to any continuous industrial operation that 
involves sleep restriction, night operations, and shift work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Mollicone, D.J., Van Dongen, H.P.A., Dinges, D.F. (2007) 
``Optimizing Sleep/Wake Schedules in Space: Sleep During Chronic 
Nocturnal Sleep Restriction With and Without Diurnal Naps,'' Acta 
Astronautica, 60 (2007) 354-361. Available in this rulemaking 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Belenky, et al. (2012) \22\ conducted a laboratory study on 53 
healthy participants, making a between-group comparison of nighttime, 5 
hour/5 hour split, or daytime sleep across a 5-day simulated workweek. 
The effect of the three sleep conditions was measured by 
polysomnography, Psychomotor Vigilance Task, high fidelity driving 
simulator, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and subjective state, as 
well as the long-term health-related biomedical measurements of blood 
glucose, IL-6, leptin, testosterone, and blood pressure. In comparison 
to consolidated nighttime sleep or split sleep, participants in the 
daytime sleep condition slept less and reported (on a subjective 
sleepiness scale) that they felt sleepier. With respect to total sleep 
time and sleepiness, the findings of this 2012 study suggest that split 
sleep is preferable to consolidated daytime sleep which is allowed 
under the current regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Belenky, G., Jackson, M.L., Tompkins, L., Satterfield, B., 
& Bender, A. (2012) ``Investigation of the Effects of Split Sleep 
Schedules on Commercial Vehicle Driver Safety and Health,'' 
Washington, DC: FMCSA. Available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Short, et al. (2015) \23\ conducted a systematic review of the 
sleep, sleepiness, and performance implications of limited wake shift 
work schedules. They identified 20 independent studies, including 5 
laboratory and 17 field-based studies focused on maritime watch 
keepers, ship bridge officers, and long-haul train drivers. Findings 
indicate that limited wake shift work schedules were associated with 
better sleep and lower sleepiness in the case of (1) shorter time-at-
work, (2) more frequent rest breaks, (3) shifts that start and end at 
the same clock time every 24 hours, and (4) work shifts commencing in 
the daytime (as opposed to night).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Short, M.A., Agostini, A., Lushington, K., & Dorrian, J. 
(2015) ``A Systematic Review of the Sleep, Sleepiness, and 
Performance Implications of Limited Wake Shift Work Schedules,'' 
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 41(5):425440. 
Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26103467. 
(Accessed January 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Soccolich, et al. (2015) \24\ analyzed data that had been 
naturalistically collected during a separate study to compare driver 
usage of three separate restart methods under the 2005 HOS regulations: 
10 consecutive hours off duty, 34 consecutive hours off duty, or the 
split sleeper berth provision, which requires a single sleeper berth 
period of at least 8 hours. The study also examined the relationship 
between the driver's choice of restart method and that driver's safety 
performance. The drivers chose which restart method worked best for 
their schedule and their preference, and they were free to use any 
restart period at any time, as long as they complied with the current 
HOS regulations. Safety performance was determined by comparing safety 
critical events with baseline data for each driver during the shift 
following their chosen restart method. After controlling for individual 
driver differences, Soccolich, et al. found that safety performance was 
comparable (i.e., not significantly different) between drivers who used 
the sleeper berth provision and drivers who chose either the 10- or 34-
hour restart method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Soccolich, S., Hanowski, R., & Blanco M. (2015). Evaluating 
the Sleeper Berth Provision: Investigating Usage Characteristics and 
Safety-Critical Event Involvement. (Report No. 17-UI-046). Available 
at: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/73954 (accessed June 
20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above research highlights the value of split-sleep scenarios in 
combating driver fatigue, but does not directly speak to the changes 
proposed in this rule--allowing a 7/3 ``split'' option, and not 
counting either rest period in the calculation of the 14-hour ``driving 
window.'' Under the 2003 HOS rule, which initially established the 
concept of the 14-hour driving window, drivers were permitted to 
accumulate the minimum off-duty period of 10 consecutive hours in four 
separate ways: (1) A minimum of 10 consecutive hours off duty; (2) a 
minimum of 10

[[Page 44204]]

consecutive hours in a sleeper berth; (3) by combining consecutive 
hours in the sleeper berth and off-duty time that total 10 hours; and 
(4) by combining two separate sleeper-berth rest periods totaling at 
least 10 hours, provided that neither period is less than 2 hours. The 
fourth option was the split sleeper-berth option at the time, which 
allowed drivers to split their sleeper berth time in any combination 
(such as 4/6; 5/5) as long as each period was at least 2 hours, and 
totaling a minimum of 10 hours. The rule allowed these periods to be 
excluded from the calculation of allowable on-duty and driving time. 
This approach resulted in concerns that the 2005 HOS rule intended to 
alleviate. The primary issue was the ability of drivers to split their 
rest periods into segments that did not provide for an adequate rest 
period, such as the 5/5 split. The 2005 rule resulted in more clarity 
by relying on the fixed 14-hour ``driving window'' under which only a 
rest period of at least 8 hours in the sleeper berth would not count 
against the 14-hour driving window. Although comments were closely 
divided on the issue and research related to the length of the longer 
rest period was not definitive, the Agency limited drivers to an 8/2 
spilt option. In developing today's proposal, the Agency reviewed 
available research regarding the sleeper berth exception that has been 
in place since 2005 to determine if the intention of the regulation--an 
adequate longer rest period--can be achieved while providing additional 
flexibility.
    Research conducted prior to 2003 found that commercial drivers were 
getting 5.18 hours of sleep per night, on average (Mitler, et al. 
(1997)).\25\ In 2003, FMCSA revised the HOS regulations to provide 
drivers with more opportunities for sleep. Research completed after 
2003 found an increase in sleep for drivers following the 
implementation of the 2003 HOS regulations. Hanowski, et al. 
(2007),\26\ conducted a naturalistic driving study with 73 drivers, 
collecting and analyzing sleep actigraphy data to determine overall 
sleep quantity. The study found that commercial drivers were getting 
more sleep under the revised HOS regulations, with an average of 6.15 
hours of sleep per 24-hour period (compared to the average of 5.18 
hours per night reported by Mitler, et al. in 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Mitler, M.M., Miller, J.C., Lipsitz, J.J., Walsh, J.K., 
Wylie, C.D. (1997) ``The Sleep of Long-Haul Truck Drivers,'' New 
England Journal of Medicine, 337, 755-761. Available in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    \26\ Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J., Fumero, M.C., Olson, R.L., 
Dingus, T.A. (2007) ``The Sleep of Commercial Vehicle Drivers Under 
the 2003 Hours-of-Service Regulations,'' Accident; Analysis and 
Prevention, 39(6), 1140-5. Available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Van Dongen and Mollicone (2013) \27\ conducted a naturalistic 
driving study of 106 CMV drivers whose schedules included the HOS 
restart provision. The study found that drivers obtained between 6.0 
and 6.2 hours of sleep (on average) per 24 hours during duty cycles, as 
measured by wrist-worn actigraphy devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Van Dongen, H.P.A. & Mollicone, D.J. (2013) ``Field Study 
on the Efficacy of the New Restart Provision for Hours of Service,'' 
(FMCSA-RRR-13-058). Washington, DC: FMCSA. Available in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dinges, et al. (2017),\28\ conducted a naturalistic driving study 
to evaluate the operational, safety, fatigue, and health impacts of the 
HOS restart provisions. A total of 235 CMV drivers, representative of 
the industry, contributed data while working their normal schedules, 
with 181 drivers completing all 5 months of the study. Drivers' sleep 
times were monitored with wrist-worn actigraphy devices. The study 
found that drivers obtained, on average, approximately 6.5 hours of 
sleep per day during duty periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Dinges, D.F., Maislin, G., Hanowski, R.J., Mollicone, D.J., 
Hickman, J.S., Maislin, D., Kan, K., Hammond, R.L., Soccolich, S.A., 
Moeller, D.D., & Trentalange, M. (2017) ``Commercial Motor Vehicle 
(CMV) Driver Restart Study: Final Report,'' (FMCSA-RRR-15-011). 
Washington, DC: FMCSA. Available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Sieber, et al. (2014),\29\ conducted a survey of 1,670 
long-haul truck drivers at 32 truck stops across the 48 contiguous 
United States. The research team used the responses to compute 
prevalence estimates for self-reported health conditions and risk 
factors. Drivers were asked to report how many hours they slept per 
night, on average; researchers compared drivers' self-reported sleep 
durations to those reported by sampled working adults in the 2010 
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).\30\ The National Institute of 
Occupational Safety and Health study found that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Sieber, K.W., Robinson, C.F., Birdsey, J., Chen, G.X., 
Hitchcock, E.M., Lincoln, J.E., Akinori, N., & Sweeney, M.H. (2014) 
``Obesity and Other Risk Factors: The National Survey of U.S. Long-
Haul Truck Driver Health and Injury,'' American Journal of 
Industrial Medicine, 57, 615-626. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24390804. (Accessed January 4, 2019).
    \30\ Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22624451 
(accessed May 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     26.5 percent of long-haul truck drivers reported that they 
slept 6 hours or less per night, compared to 30.0 percent of the 
general working population;
     51.4 percent of long-haul truck drivers reported that they 
slept 6-8 hours per night, compared to 63.9 percent of the general 
working population; and
     22.1 percent of long-haul truck drivers reported that they 
slept more than 8 hours per night, compared to 5.0 percent of the 
general working population.
    These studies show that long-haul truck drivers are, on average, 
getting more sleep than they did prior to the HOS rule change in 2003. 
Further, it shows that drivers are likely getting more sleep than other 
working adults in the United States.
    Maislin, et al. (2001),\31\ showed that it is possible for a person 
to avoid physiological sleepiness or performance deficits on less than 
7 hours of sleep; the subjects in this study were supplementing their 
sleep with longer naps later in the day. Maislin found that a shorter 
restricted anchor sleep combined with longer naps can reduce sleepiness 
and performance deficits similar to longer duration anchor sleep alone. 
This study confirmed that total sleep time per 24-hour period is an 
important factor in reducing fatigue and improving performance. Rest 
breaks, and especially naps, are an important tool in combating 
fatigue, and FMCSA encourages their use. As noted in Wylie (1998),\32\ 
``[n]aps in trips with judged drowsiness appeared to result in recovery 
effect, compared to the relatively high levels of drowsiness seen in 
the hour prior to napping.'' Research on napping indicates it does 
refresh a driver and improves performance in the near term. Caldwell, 
et al. (1997),\33\ found that their subjects performed better after 
napping compared to after only resting without sleep. Garbarino (2004) 
\34\ found that, in addition to working as a short-term countermeasure 
to fatigue experienced during normal working hours, napping ``before 
night work can be an effective countermeasure to alertness and 
performance deterioration.'' Naps do not have to be long to improve 
performance.

[[Page 44205]]

Sallinen, et al. (1997),\35\ found that naps of less than 1 hour most 
influenced performance, and a survey of train engineers found that 20-
minute napping was effective for enhancing alertness (Moore-Ede, et al. 
(1996)).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Maislin, G., Rogers, N.L., Price, N.J., Mullington, J.M., 
Szuba, M.P., Van Dongen, H.P.A., and Dinges, D., (2001) ``Response 
Surface Modeling of the Effects of Chronic Sleep Restriction With 
and Without Diurnal Naps,''--Report. Available in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
    \32\ Wylie, D. (1998) ``Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver 
Drowsiness, Length of Prior Principal Sleep Periods, and Naps,''--
Report. Available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \33\ Caldwell, J.S., et al. (1997) ``The Efficacy of Hypnotic-
Induced Prophylactic Naps for the Maintenance of Alertness and 
Performance in Sustained Operations,''--Report. Available in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
    \34\ Garbarino, S., et al. (2004) ``Professional Shift-Work 
Drivers Who Adopt Prophylactic Naps Can Reduce the Risk of Car 
Accidents During Night Work,''--Report Abstract. Available in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
    \35\ Sallinen, Harma, M., [Aring]kerstedt, T., Rosa, R., 
Lillqvist, O. (1997) ``Can a Short Napbreak Improve Alertness in a 
Night Shift?''--Report. Available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The research discussed above demonstrates that drivers are getting 
adequate sleep, and that allowing a 7/3 split option would continue to 
provide the opportunity for a a longer sleep period commensurate with 
current levels of sleep for truck drivers. Further, by excluding the 
shorter rest period from the calculation of the 14-hour driving window, 
a driver has the ability to obtain needed rest without using available 
work time.
    The Agency had planned to conduct a pilot program to collect data 
on the safety of drivers who split their sleeper-berth time in a 
variety of ways. However, as a result of a literature review, and 
subsequent comments to the ANPRM and listening sessions, FMCSA 
concluded that there was sufficient basis to support limited changes to 
the sleeper-berth provision without conducting a pilot program. Today's 
proposal would allow drivers additional flexibility in the use of the 
sleeper-berth provision.
Today's Proposal
    Over the years FMCSA has received comments from motor carriers and 
industry associations that the current sleeper-berth provisions are too 
rigid and that drivers do not have enough opportunities to stop driving 
and take breaks when they are fatigued. The Agency recognizes that 
approximately 26 percent of drivers sleep less than 6 consecutive hours 
per night and about 51 percent sleep between 6 and 8 consecutive hours 
per night based on the NHIS study cited above; some may actually find 
it difficult to sleep more than 7 consecutive hours.\37\ However, the 
current sleeper-berth provision requires them to be in the berth for 8 
consecutive hours thus confining them to the berth for more time than 
many of them need for sleeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Moore-Ede, M., Mitchell, R.E., Heitmann, A., Trutschel, U., 
Aguirre, A., Hajamavis, H. (1996) ``Canalert '95--Alertness 
Assurance in the Canadian Railways,''--Report. Available in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, FMCSA proposes a modification of the sleeper berth exception 
to allow drivers to satisfy the required 10 hours off duty by taking 
two off-duty periods, provided that neither period is less than 2 
consecutive hours and one period consists of at least 7 consecutive 
hours in the berth. This sleeper-berth exception would provide drivers 
greater operational flexibility, while affording the opportunity for 
the driver to obtain the necessary amount of restorative sleep. Drivers 
using this option would be required to obtain one single rest period of 
at least 7 consecutive hours, paired with another period of at least 2 
hours, provided that a total of 10 hours of off-duty time is achieved. 
When paired, neither qualifying period would count against the 14-hour 
driving window.
    This proposal would ensure that drivers using the sleeper berth to 
obtain the minimum off-duty time have at least one rest period of a 
sufficient length to have restorative benefits to counter fatigue. This 
proposal would also provide for a second rest period that would allow a 
driver to have time for a nap or rest break, or provide an opportunity 
to attend to personal matters or other activities. A break later in the 
day, in which a driver could take a nap, could have a positive impact 
on driver performance, especially considering that drivers could be on 
an irregular or rotating schedule, getting out of phase with their 
natural circadian rhythm. Consistent with the current HOS rules, the 
order of the qualifying rest periods does not matter.
    Each time an individual takes one of these two rest breaks, he or 
she would need to recalculate the on-duty period and driving hours 
available. Drivers must be in compliance with the 11-hour driving time 
and 14-hour driving window requirements on both sides of the qualifying 
rest period. Driving time in the period immediately before and after 
each rest period, when added together, must not exceed 11 hours under 
Sec.  395.3(a)(3) and must not violate the 14-hour driving window under 
Sec.  395.3(a)(2). The time in the period immediately before and after 
each rest period, when added together, establish the 14-hour window 
within which all driving must be completed. Thus, a CMV driver's 
activities between the qualifying split breaks, count towards the 
driver's next available 11-hour and 14-hour limits.
    An example showing the 11-hour and 14-hour limitations in which the 
driver uses the sleeper berth provision might prove helpful. Assume the 
driver starts work on day 1 at 7:30 a.m., spends half an hour on duty 
(not driving), and then starts driving at 8:00 a.m. She drives for a 
continuous 7 hours but then takes a 3-hour off duty break, beginning at 
3:00 p.m. She then starts driving again at 6:00 p.m. and drives for 4 
hours. At 10:00 p.m., the driver enters the sleeper berth for 7 hours 
when she exhausted her 11 hours of driving time clock. She remains in 
the sleeper berth until 5:00 a.m. on day 2. (Alternatively, she could 
have limited her 3:00 p.m. break to as little as 2 hours and then 
restarted driving, but her second break in the sleeper berth would need 
to be longer so that combined time equals at least 10 hours.) Under 
either scenario, combining the two break periods under the sleeper 
berth provision, would allow her to avoid the required 10 consecutive 
hours off-duty, which would apply had she relied on the proposed split 
duty day provision rather than the sleeper berth exception. She can now 
drive again until noon that second day, at which point she runs up 
against the 11-hour clock governing driving time (her available hours 
are calculated from the end of the initial break period). Suppose 
instead of beginning to drive at 5:00 a.m., the driver spent 4 hours on 
duty (not driving) and then resumed driving at 9:00 a.m. She would then 
need to stop driving at 3:00 p.m. because she exhausted her 14-hour 
driving window, even though she drove for only 10 hours. However, note 
that a driver could not claim use of both the split duty day provision 
and the sleeper berth exception in a single duty day, without violating 
the 10 consecutive hour rule.
    In addressing today's proposed changes to the HOS rules, the agency 
encourages motor carriers and other stakeholders to submit driver 
record data supporting their comments in a manner that does not reveal 
the identity of an individual driver.
Additional Questions
    In today's NPRM, the Agency requests comments on the split rest 
periods under the sleeper berth proposal, including not counting either 
period toward the 14-hour driving window.
    Given the previous discussion of the research showing many drivers 
typically sleep a little more than 6 consecutive hours, FMCSA also 
requests comments and any supporting data on the possibility of a 6- 
and 4-hour split break. Drivers using this option would be required to 
obtain one rest period of at least 6 consecutive hours in the sleeper 
berth, paired with another period off duty or in the sleeper berth, for 
a total of 10 hours of off-duty time.
    Specifically FMCSA requests comments on:
     How often do you use the sleeper berth provision under the 
current regulations? Will you use the sleeper berth provision more or 
less if the proposed changes are finalized? How much more or less?

[[Page 44206]]

     How will this provision change your scheduling and 
planning?
     How often would you utilize the 7-3 hour split during an 
average week?
     Would you expect to get the same amount of sleep in the 7 
hour period as in the current 8 hour period?
     Do you expect to drive more miles or hours based on this 
change? Do you expect to be able to complete additional ``runs''?

E. Split-Duty Period

Current Rule
    After being off duty for 10 or more consecutive hours, a driver of 
a property-carrying CMV is allowed a period of 14 consecutive hours in 
which to drive up to 11 hours. The 14-consecutive-hour driving window 
begins when an individual starts any kind of work. The individual may 
not drive again after the end of the 14-hour window until he or she has 
been off duty for another 10 consecutive hours, or the equivalent of at 
least 10 consecutive hours using the sleeper berth option. This 14-hour 
window currently may not be extended by off-duty breaks that may occur 
during the duty period.
Request
    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 of the break. However, drivers would still be 
limited to 11 hours of driving time and required to have at least 10 
consecutive hours off duty before starting a new duty period. OOIDA 
also requested that the Agency eliminate the 30-minute break.
Comments Related to the Petition
    Consistent with the OOIDA petition, a number of commenters 
addressed the 14-hour rule, saying that it should be extended by a 
break period of up to 3 hours. Many commenters to the ANPRM have stated 
that the 14-hour driving window does not comport with the inconsistent 
and sometimes unpredictable working conditions encountered during a 
duty period. Thus, the current rule leads to unintended consequences of 
added stress and potential speeding that result from the need to finish 
a run prior to the end of the 14-hour window.
Relevant Research
    The Blanco study showed that the SCE rate increased modestly with 
increasing work and driving hours. Blanco also found that

``. . . breaks can be used to counteract the negative effects of 
time-on-task. The results from the break analyses indicated that 
significant safety benefits can be afforded when drivers take breaks 
from driving. This was a key finding in the current study and 
clearly shows that breaks can ameliorate the negative impacts 
associated with time-on-task. The benefits from breaks from driving 
ranged from a 30- to 50-percent reduction in the rate of SCE in the 
hour following a break, depending on the type of break from driving, 
with the most benefit occurring for off-duty (non-working) breaks.''

Today's Proposal
    Today's proposal would allow a single break of off-duty time, 
ranging from 30 minutes to no more than 3 consecutive hours, to be 
excluded from the 14-hour driving window, provided the driver has at 
least 10 consecutive hours off duty before the start of his or her next 
duty period. A single pause up to 3 hours to the 14-hour clock would 
provide significantly more flexibility than allowed under the current 
rules. It would allow drivers to take an off-duty break without fear of 
exhausting their available hours under the 14-hour clock, which would 
also allow them to take additional rest or to avoid traffic 
congestion.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ OOIDA also petitioned for elimination of the current 30-
minute break requirement. The agency's analysis of this issue is 
discussed earlier in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An example under which a driver uses the split duty period might 
prove helpful. Assume a driver starts a new workday on duty at 7:30 
a.m. and begins driving at 8:00 a.m. At 9:00 a.m., she arrives at a 
warehouse and experiences a 3-hour wait. The driver elects to use the 
split duty period, recording this time as ``off-duty,'' given she isn't 
performing any type of work. At noon, the driver begins to load, a 
process that takes 1 hour which she records as on duty, not-driving 
time. At 1:00 p.m., the driver starts driving for a consecutive 8 hours 
(1:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.), at which point she must take a 30-minute break 
under today's proposal. At 9:30 p.m., however, she may still drive an 
additional 2 hours under today's split duty day proposal. She would 
need to stop driving at 11:30 p.m. because she would run up against her 
maximum driving time--11 hours (even though she would have another hour 
available on her maximum driving window). At 11:30 p.m., she starts a 
10-consecutive hour off-duty period. She may then resume driving at 
9:30 a.m. the following day. Absent the split duty pause, the driver 
would have had to stop driving at 9:30 p.m. when she exhausted her 14-
hour driving window.
    At 9:30 a.m., assume the driver spends 30 minutes on duty (not 
driving), then drives from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. She then spends 2\1/
2\ hours at a receiver, unloading part of her load. From 4:30 p.m. to 
6:30 p.m., she drives to her next stop where she spends an additional 2 
hours unloading (until 8:30 p.m.). She then drives for an hour to a 
rest area (9:30 p.m.) where she rests for 3 hours under the proposed 
split duty period. At 12:30 a.m. she starts driving. However, at 2:30 
a.m. she has exhausted the 14-hour window (adjusted for her 3-hour 
pause) and must now take 10 hours off duty before driving, even though 
she never exhausted her 11-hour driving limit.
Safety Rationale
    Except under the sleeper berth option, current regulations do not 
allow drivers to pause the 14-hour clock to take a prolonged break 
regardless of how they feel. By not providing credit for a break taken 
during a duty period, the existing rules may disincentivize drivers 
from voluntarily taking any additional rest breaks beyond those 
required by regulation. For drivers who voluntarily take additional 
rest breaks, the existing rules may incentivize these drivers to speed 
in order to complete their driving prior to the end of the 14-hour 
driving window, resulting in increasing crash risk. The split-duty 
provision would alleviate these unintended consequences by allowing 
drivers to take a break if they feel fatigued, or if their work day 
straddles a time period that doesn't provide for meaningful work to be 
accomplished (e.g., long detention times). The intent is to give 
drivers the flexibility to shift their work and drive time commensurate 
with the length of a voluntary off-duty period. FMCSA is aware that 
this provision would allow driving up to 17 hours after the last longer 
rest period. Some research \39\ has found a higher risk of an SCE when 
driving later in the driving window. However, that research did not 
examine a prolonged break within the driving window. Nor did that 
research consider how driver behavior might change to meet a delivery 
time. FMCSA is proposing to allow a voluntary break of up to 3 hours to 
mitigate the safety impacts that could result from unpredictable 
working conditions, and anticipates that due to the voluntary nature of 
the break, drivers would be able to obtain rest that would mitigate

[[Page 44207]]

the potential effect on fatigue of driving later in the work shift. 
FMCSA is not aware of research findings pointing to the optimal length 
of a pause, but considers 3 hours to be the right balance of 
flexibility and safety. FMCSA bases this proposal on the same logic 
which allows the 10-hour off-duty period to be split for drivers using 
sleeper berths. Research, as described in section VII. D., indicates 
benefits of mitigating time on task fatigue through a shorter rest 
period combined with a required sleeper berth period. Both provisions 
are based on a shorter break paired with a longer rest period. FMCSA 
requests 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Blanco, M., Hanowski, R., Olson, R., Morgan, J., Soccolich, 
S., Wu, S.C., & Guo, F. (2011) ``The Impact of Driving, Non-Driving 
Work, and Rest Breaks on Driving Performance in Commercial Motor 
Vehicle Operations.'' Available in this rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the proposed off-duty break of up to 3 
hours is not a unique exception to the 24-hour circadian cycle implicit 
in the current 14-hour driving window plus 10 consecutive hours off 
duty. Under current rules, drivers are not required to go off duty at 
the end of the 14-hour period. They must stop driving, but may remain 
on duty to perform other tasks. Post-driving work is most likely if the 
driver arrives at a terminal near the end of the 14-hour period and is 
required to perform additional work for the motor carrier at that 
location. Only when the driver goes off duty does the 10-hour rest 
period begin. The work day may thus be longer than 24 hours. On the 
other hand, drivers wishing to maximize their driving time may drive up 
to 11 hours, take a minimum of 10 hours off duty, and repeat the cycle. 
Based on FMCSA experience, this schedule is rare and mostly limited to 
drivers making rapid cross-country trips. The result is a 21-hour day, 
called a backward rotating cycle. That is a considerable improvement 
over the 18-hour day allowed by the FMCSRs until 2003, when a 10-hour 
driving limit could be combined with only 8 hours off duty. But in 
those two cases, drivers are likely to reach their 60- or 70-hour 
``weekly'' on-duty limit more quickly, requiring them to stop driving, 
at least for a 34-hour restart. Neither of the current alternatives to 
a 24-hour cycle--post-driving work and compressed schedules--requires 
the driver to take compensatory off-duty time, yet that is precisely 
the added value provided by the proposed split duty day. The off-duty 
time required by this provision would enable drivers to take 
restorative rest that would counteract, if not eliminate, the effects 
of a longer duty day. The preamble to the 2003 final rule included the 
following: ``The FMCSA believes that the strict 24-hour work/rest cycle 
would be ideal from a scientific viewpoint, but it is simply not 
practical and too inflexible to require of the industry. A strict 24-
hour work/rest cycle would cause unavoidable impacts to motor carrier 
operations that the agency cannot justify from a safety or economic 
standpoint'' (81 FR 22456, 22468, April 28, 2003). That conclusion 
remains true today.
    When designating a qualifying off-duty period during the course of 
a duty day, a driver is not required to document the provision she or 
he is employing. However, a driver could not extend the duty period by 
employing both the sleeper berth option and split-duty day provision 
within the course of a duty period. A driver relying on the split-duty 
day provision can extend a duty day up to 17 hours by taking a 
qualifying off-duty break (ranging between 30 minutes and 3 hours), but 
then must take 10 consecutive hours off-duty before resuming driving. 
However, a driver could decide after taking a 3-hour break (or any off-
duty or sleeper berth break of at least 2 consecutive hours) to instead 
pair it with a sleeper berth break of 7 hours, (thus totaling 10 hours 
off duty) and neither break period would count against the 14-hour 
clock. By using the sleeper berth approach, the driver could avoid the 
10 consecutive hours off-duty under the split-duty day provision, 
provided that she or he satisfies the provisions of the sleeper berth 
rule. While the driver would have the option of using either the split-
duty day provision or the sleeper berth option (provided the vehicle 
has a sleeper berth), a driver could not take more than a single 3-hour 
break, claiming time under both the sleeper berth provision and split-
duty day provision without running afoul of the required 10 consecutive 
hours off duty under the split-duty day provision. Additionally, the 
split-duty day provision would be available to drivers who cannot rely 
on the sleeper berth exception because they are driving vehicles 
lacking a sleeper berth.
    In addressing today's proposed changes to the HOS rules, the agency 
encourages motor carriers and other stakeholders to submit driver 
record data supporting their comments in a manner that does not reveal 
the identity of an individual driver.
Additional Questions on the Proposal
    FMCSA seeks additional information and data on the impacts of the 
split-duty period provision, in part to assess its potential costs and 
benefits. Specifically:
     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?
     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?
     What are the expected benefits from utilizing the 3 hour 
pause?
     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?
     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?
     Would you expect to be able to utilize more of the 11 
hours of drive time currently available due to the 3 hour pause?
     Do you expect this provision to impact drivers' sleep 
schedule? How so?
     Will this provision allow for drivers to shift off their 
circadian rhythm more easily than under current rules?
     In a full year, would this provision lead to additional 
driving miles and/or driving time?
     How often would you take advantage of the full 3 hour 
pause as compared to shorter amount of times? Why?
     How would you plan to utilize the off-duty time spent 
during the 3 hour pause? Would you utilize the time sleeping in a truck 
cab more often or other leisure activities more often?
     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?
Additional Questions on Allowing Multiple Pauses
    FMCSA seeks additional information on whether the pause should be 
allowed to be divided and total up to 3 hours. Specifically:
     What operations would benefit from multiple off-duty 
periods totaling 3 hours?
     Are there data and research available to support breaking 
up the 3-hour pause into smaller increments?

[[Page 44208]]

     Would this flexibility cause drivers to alter their daily 
behavior or increase productivity? If so, how?
     What would be the impact on fatigue with several smaller 
breaks compared to a single period of up to 3 hours?
     If the 3-hour break were divided up into smaller 
increments, what would be the impact on enforcement when determining 
compliance?
     Would the added complexity of multiple pauses 
substantially add to the time needed for ELD vendors to re-program ELD 
software? If so, how much additional time would be needed?

F. TruckerNation Petition

    TruckerNation petitioned the Agency to prohibit driving after the 
driver has accumulated 14 hours of on-duty time, rather than 14 hours 
after the beginning of the work shift. In addition, it petitioned the 
Agency to allow drivers to use multiple off-duty periods of 3 hours or 
longer in lieu of having 10 consecutive hours off duty. TruckerNation 
also requested elimination of the 30-minute break requirement.
Comments Related to the Petition
    Commenters voiced both agreement with and opposition to the 
petition. Some stated that other changes to HOS rules might yield 
better results. Others objected to it on the grounds of safety 
concerns.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA has reviewed the TruckerNation petition and notes that it did 
not include data or research that would support the request. The 
TruckerNation petition would allow use of multiple off-duty periods of 
3 hours or longer in lieu of having 10 consecutive hours off-duty or a 
split-sleeper rest period of at least 7 hours. This petition has the 
potential to allow drivers to operate for long periods of time without 
a sufficient longer sleep period. FMCSA believes it is important that 
CMV drivers have an opportunity for a longer sleep period. For these 
reasons, the Agency is not adopting the TruckerNation petition as 
proposed; however, aspects of the TruckerNation petition may be 
addressed in alternate ways.

G. Other Petitions

    Similar to TruckerNation, the USTA petition provides an alternate 
means for splitting up the 10 hours of off-duty time into three 
separate periods, some as short as 2 hours, including, e.g., a 2/3/5 
split of the 10-hour period. The UDA petition provides for splitting 
the 10-hour period into two 5-hour periods. In both proposals, the 34-
hour restart is shortened to 24 hours.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA has reviewed both the USTA and UDA petitions. As discussed 
above, no data was provided by the petitioners or available from other 
sources to support a proposal to eliminate the opportunity for a CMV 
driver to have a longer sleep period. Both petitions would result in 
the potential of drivers operating for long periods of time without a 
sufficient sleep period. For example, both petitions would allow a 
driver to operate for an entire week without a rest period longer than 
5 hours. For these reasons, the Agency is not adopting the USTA or UDA 
petitions as proposed; however, aspects of both petitions may be 
addressed in alternate ways.

H. Compliance Date for the Rulemaking

    To determine an appropriate compliance date for any final HOS rule, 
FMCSA asks for comments on the time needed for vendors to reprogram 
ELDs to conform to the proposed changes as well as time required by 
other areas of the motor carrier industry. While today's proposed 
changes, if adopted, should not require reprogramming of the basic 
requirements of an ELD, the Agency recognizes that many ELDs are set up 
to provide information and warnings to the driver or carrier relating 
to HOS compliance beyond what the technical specifications governing 
ELDs require, thus necessitating modifications in ELD software. Several 
ELD manufacturers requested time to implement HOS changes into their 
technology and the Agency requests additional information on how long 
this might take. Specifically, the Agency seeks comment on whether a 6- 
month or 12-month timeframe would provide sufficient time for ELD 
manufacturers and the motor carrier industry to conform to the proposed 
changes.

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.

IX. Section-by-Section Analysis

    This section includes a summary of the proposed regulatory changes 
in 49 CFR part 395, organized by section number and paragraph number.

A. Section 395.1 Scope of Rules in This Part

Sec.  395.1(b)(1): Adverse Driving Conditions
    Today's NPRM proposes to modify the exception for drivers of 
property- and passenger-carrying CMVs encountering adverse driving 
conditions. Specifically, it would allow drivers of property- or 
passenger- carrying CMVs to extend their respective driving windows by 
up to an additional 2 hours, consistent with the current rules 
governing an extension of driving time.
    In proposed Sec.  395.1(b)(1), the reference to paragraph (h)(2) 
would be corrected to ``paragraph (h)(3),'' to reflect the provision 
addressing adverse driving conditions in the State of Alaska. The 
phrase ``or duty time during which driving is permitted'' would be 
added to reflect the expanded coverage of the adverse driving condition 
exception.
    Other proposed changes to Sec.  395.1 are editorial in nature to 
improve the clarity of the rule.
Sec.  395.1(e)(1): Short-Haul Operations
    Today's NPRM proposes to modify the HOS short-haul exception under 
which an eligible driver of a CMV is not required to maintain RODS, and 
thus does not require an ELD for that day, and is not required to 
maintain supporting documents. Specifically, today's proposal would 
extend the current ``100 air-mile radius'' under Sec.  395.1(e)(1)(i) 
to a ``150 air-mile radius'' and extend the work day period during 
which driving and work is allowed under Sec.  395.1 (e)(1)(iii)(A) to a 
maximum of 14 hours. The driving time limits and off-duty periods 
required before restarting driving would remain unchanged.
    References throughout paragraph (e)(1) under which drivers of 
``ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle[s]'' have a 14-hour driving 
window would be removed because the proposed change would allow a 14-
hour driving window for all drivers operating under this exception.
    Existing paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(C) (proposed paragraph 
(e)(1)(iii)(B)) would be modified to extend the 12-hour driving window 
applicable to drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs using the short-haul 
exception to a 14-hour driving window for consistency with the rule 
governing other drivers operating under this exception.
    Existing paragraphs (e)(1)(iv)(A), (B), and (C) would be removed as 
these

[[Page 44209]]

provisions are duplicative of provisions under Sec. Sec.  395.3 and 
395.5. Existing (e)(1)(v) would be redesignated as (e)(1)(iv).
    The proposed changes would not alter the current exception 
referenced in Sec.  395.1(e)(1)(ii)(A) to a ``driver-salesperson'' or 
affect drivers of property-carrying CMVs not requiring a commercial 
driver's license who operate under Sec.  395.1(e)(2).
    Other proposed changes are stylistic.
Sec.  395.1(g)(1): Sleeper Berths
    Today's NPRM proposes to modify the sleeper berth rule applicable 
to drivers of property-carrying CMVs who elect to use this exception, 
provided that the CMV is equipped with a sleeper berth as defined in 
Sec.  393.76. Generally, rather than the current 8- and 2-hour sleeper 
berth provision, today's proposal would allow a driver to satisfy the 
required 10 hours off duty by taking two off-duty periods, provided 
that neither period is less than 2 consecutive hours and one period 
consists of at least 7 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth. The two 
breaks would need to total 10 hours. Furthermore, under today's 
proposal, neither period of time would count against the driver's 14-
hour driving window.
    Paragraph (g)(1)(i) would be modified to clarify that this 
provision reflects the options available to a driver to satisfy the 10-
hour hour off-duty period required under
    Proposed new paragraph (g)(1)(i)(D) would describe an option for a 
team driver to take a combination of sleeper-berth time and time in the 
passenger seat--an option currently addressed in Sec.  
395.1(g)(1)(ii)(C). However, the current provision would be modified to 
require at least 7 hours in the sleeper berth rather than the current 8 
hours, and would allow up to 3 hours, rather than the current 2 hours, 
spent riding in the passenger seat of a CMV.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(iii), captioned ``Calculation,'' would 
exclude both qualifying rest periods in applying the 14-hour rule.
    Existing paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(B) through (g)(1)(i)(C) would be 
removed because these requirements are covered elsewhere in part 395. 
Specific requirements that pertain to the State of Alaska would be 
moved to Sec.  395.1(h).
    Proposed paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) would require that a rest 
period consist of no less than 2 hours and that one rest period consist 
of at least 7 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth. As stated in 
proposed new paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(C), the two breaks would need to 
total 10 hours.
    Existing paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(C), as it relates to the calculation 
point for compliance with the ``equivalent . . . 10 consecutive hours 
off duty,'' is deleted as unnecessary in light of the proposed language 
making clear that driving time in the period ``immediately before and 
after each rest period, when added together'' not violate either the 
11- or 14-hour rules. This deletion does not modify how compliance with 
the sleeper berth provision is calculated. Other proposed changes are 
stylistic.
Sec.  395.1(h): State of Alaska
    Today's NPRM would revise the HOS exception applicable to drivers 
of property-carrying CMVs in the State of Alaska to clarify the 
provision. Specifically, existing paragraph (h)(1) would be 
redesignated as new paragraph (h)(1)(i) and proposed paragraphs 
(h)(1)(ii)-(iv) would be added to address the required off-duty periods 
and use of the proposed sleeper-berth option. These proposed additions 
are derived from existing provisions applicable to Alaska under Sec.  
395.1(g) and are moved to paragraph (h) for clarity and based upon the 
provisions implicit under existing paragraph (h)(1). For example, the 
maximum 20-hour duty period under paragraph (h)(1)(ii) need not be 
consecutive hours and may be interrupted by any off-duty or sleeper-
berth period. The reference to a 30-minute break under existing Sec.  
395.1(g)(1)(i)(B) was inadvertently added as part of a technical 
amendment rule (78 FR 58470, Sept. 24, 2015). That change was intended 
to address the hour limitations applicable in Alaska, but erroneously 
included the reference to a 30-minute break provision--a provision that 
was never intended to apply to drivers operating in Alaska, given the 
specific rules applicable to such drivers. Today's proposal would 
eliminate that reference.
    Other proposed changes are editorial in nature to improve the 
clarity of the rule.

B. Section 395.3 Maximum Driving Time for Property-Carrying Vehicles

    Today's NPRM would allow drivers to pause their 14-hour driving 
window and would modify the 30-minute break requirement applicable to 
drivers of property-carrying CMVs.
    Specifically, proposed Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii) (Interruption of 
driving time) would modify the requirement that a driver (other than a 
driver operating under the short-haul exceptions) may not drive if more 
than 8 hours have passed since the last period in which the driver took 
a minimum 30-minute off-duty or sleeper-berth break. Instead, the 
proposal would provide that a driver may not drive more than 8 hours 
without at least a 30-minute interruption in time behind the wheel 
whether on duty, off duty, or a combination of both.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) (Split-duty period) would be added 
to allow drivers the option to break up their 14-hour driving window by 
taking a single off-duty break of at least 30 consecutive minutes, but 
not more than 3 consecutive hours, extending the driver's 14-hour limit 
by the length of the off-duty break. This proposal would make clear 
that a break under this provision would not impact the requirement for 
a driver to take 10 consecutive hours off under Sec.  395.3(a)(1).
    Other proposed changes are editorial in nature and intended to 
improve the clarity of the rule.

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

    FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking is an economically 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 \40\ Regulatory Planning 
and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563.\41\ It also is significant 
under Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures 
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 (DOT Order 2100.6 
dated December 20, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Regulatory 
Planning and Review. (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
    \41\ 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.
     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 proposed by this NPRM.
Affected Entities
    The changes proposed in this NPRM would affect CMV drivers, motor

[[Page 44210]]

carriers, and, except as otherwise exempt under 49 CFR 390.3T(f)(2), 
the Federal government. 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 then biennially thereafter. Table 
2 below displays the 2017 estimate of CMV drivers from MCMIS. With the 
current baseline annual number of 6,317,068 CMV drivers (473,617 
passenger carrier CMV drivers and 5,843,451 property carrier CMV 
drivers), FMCSA then estimated the future baseline number of CMV 
drivers who would be affected by the proposed rule annually during the 
analysis period of 2020 to 2029. These future baseline projections were 
developed by increasing the current baseline 2017 values consistent 
with occupation-specific employment growth projections obtained from 
the BLS Employment Projections program. As explained in the RIA, FMCSA 
computed a weighted average annual compound growth rate of 0.613 
percent for passenger vehicle driver employees and 0.588 percent for 
truck driver employees. The table below provides the total annual 
population of CMV drivers. More detail on these driver counts can be 
found in the RIA.
    Due to exceptions and exemptions from the HOS regulations, the 
total CMV driver population must be broken down based on specific 
criteria in order to isolate the population that would be affected by 
each provision of today's proposal. With the exception of the adverse 
driving condition provision and maximum driving window under the short-
haul exception, the changes proposed in this NPRM would affect only 
property-carrying CMV operations. Further, the quantified cost savings 
anticipated from the rule are largely a function of the estimated 
number of drivers who are affected by the 30-minute break requirement. 
In general, those CMV drivers subject to the 30-minute break 
requirement exclude the 474,000 passenger carrier drivers, the 3.0 
million drivers estimated to operate under the short-haul exception, 
and the 19,000 drivers from Alaska (who are not subject to the 30-
minute break requirement). This analysis will refer to drivers affected 
by the 30-minute break requirement as CMV truck drivers. The table 
below provides estimates of all CMV drivers, and the CMV truck drivers 
that are currently subject to the 30-minute break requirement.

                                      Table 2--CMV Truck Driver Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  CMV Drivers
                                             Passenger         Property                        subject to the 30-
                  Year                      carrier CMV      carrier CMV    Total CMV drivers     minute break
                                              drivers          drivers                            requirement
(A)                                                   (B)              (C)    (D) = (B) + (C)                (E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................          473,617        5,843,451          6,317,068          2,866,472
2018....................................          476,522        5,877,791          6,354,312          2,883,317
2019....................................          479,444        5,912,332          6,391,776          2,900,261
2020....................................          482,385        5,947,077          6,429,461          2,917,305
2021....................................          485,343        5,982,025          6,467,368          2,934,449
2022....................................          488,320        6,017,179          6,505,499          2,951,693
2023....................................          491,314        6,052,540          6,543,854          2,969,039
2024....................................          494,328        6,088,108          6,582,436          2,986,487
2025....................................          497,359        6,123,886          6,621,245          3,004,038
2026....................................          500,409        6,159,874          6,660,283          3,021,691
2027....................................          503,478        6,196,073          6,699,551          3,039,449
2028....................................          506,566        6,232,485          6,739,051          3,057,310
2029....................................          509,673        6,269,111          6,778,784          3,075,277
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Costs
    FMCSA evaluated the impacts expected to result from the changes 
proposed in the NPRM and anticipates that there would be no new 
regulatory costs or increases in existing regulatory costs for the 
regulated entities. The NPRM would, 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 change to each provision would result in cost savings, 
quantitatively estimates the motor carrier cost savings attributable to 
the 30-minute break proposal, and qualitatively assesses cost savings 
of the remaining impacts resulting from today's NPRM.
30-Minute Break
    Today's NPRM proposes to allow on-duty, non-driving time to fulfill 
the 30-minute break requirement, as opposed to the current off-duty 
requirement. Also, the break would be required after 8 hours of driving 
rather than 8 hours of on-duty time. The NPRM would thus reduce the 
number of drivers required to take a break (i.e., those drivers whose 
schedules include on-duty breaks from driving would not be required to 
also take an off-duty break) and it also allows for flexibility in how 
drivers spend their time as long as they are not driving. The proposed 
rule would 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 
NPRM), 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) would 
be unaffected by the proposed changes. Drivers who fall into category 
(2) would receive regulatory relief from the proposal, estimated as 
regaining a full half hour per shift. Additionally, drivers who drive 
more than 8 hours (category 1), would also receive regulatory relief by 
the

[[Page 44211]]

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 3.
    As shown in Table 3, 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 
$275.4 million on an annualized basis at a 3 percent discount rate, and 
$274.9 million on an annualized basis at a 7 percent discount rate.

                               Table 3--Total and Annualized Motor Carrier Cost Savings Due to Changes in Break Provision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             CMV Drivers
                                              currently                                    Total cost savings-- Total cost savings-- Total cost savings--
                                           subject to the    Total hours     Profit per        undiscounted       3% discount rate     7% discount rate
                   Year                       30-minute         saved       hour (2017$)   (millions of 2017$)  (millions of 2017$)  (millions of 2017$)
                                                break
                                             requirement
                                                                      (A)             (B)          (C = A x B)  ...................  ...................
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.....................................       2,917,305      80,582,382           $3.33             ($268.5)             ($260.7)             ($251.0)
2021.....................................       2,934,449      81,055,933            3.33              (270.1)              (254.6)              (235.9)
2022.....................................       2,951,693      81,532,267            3.33              (271.7)              (248.6)              (221.8)
2023.....................................       2,969,039      82,011,401            3.33              (273.3)              (242.8)              (208.5)
2024.....................................       2,986,487      82,493,350            3.33              (274.9)              (237.1)              (196.0)
2025.....................................       3,004,038      82,978,132            3.33              (276.5)              (231.6)              (184.3)
2026.....................................       3,021,691      83,465,762            3.33              (278.1)              (226.2)              (173.2)
2027.....................................       3,039,449      83,956,258            3.33              (279.8)              (220.9)              (162.8)
2028.....................................       3,057,310      84,449,636            3.33              (281.4)              (215.7)              (153.1)
2029.....................................       3,075,277      84,945,914            3.33              (283.1)              (210.6)              (143.9)
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total 10-Year Cost Savings...........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ...................            (2,348.9)            (1,930.5)
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Annualized Cost Savings....  ..............  ..............  ..............  ...................              (275.4)              (274.9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposal would 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, and thus 
hesitates to estimate cost savings resulting from today's proposed 
changes. The Agency requests comments on any additional impacts that 
have not been discussed above.
    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.
Split-Duty Period
    Currently, after being off duty for 10 or more consecutive hours, a 
driver of a property-carrying CMV is allowed a period of 14 consecutive 
hours in which to drive up to 11 hours. The 14-consecutive hour driving 
window begins when an individual starts any kind of work. Subject to an 
exception involving use of a sleeper berth, the individual cannot drive 
again after the end of the 14-consecutive hour period until he or she 
has been off duty for another 10 consecutive hours, or the equivalent 
of at least 10 consecutive hours. This 14-hour window currently cannot 
be extended by off-duty breaks that may occur during the duty period. 
In effect, taking a break penalizes drivers because their available 
work hours were spent resting. The 14-hour window was intended to 
prohibit drivers from extending their work day by continuing to drive 
after taking repeated breaks. However, many commenters to the ANPRM 
have stated that the 14-hour driving window does not comport with the 
inconsistent and

[[Page 44212]]

sometimes unpredictable working conditions encountered during a duty 
period. Thus, the current rule leads to unintended consequences of 
added stress and potential speeding that result from the need to finish 
a run prior to the end of the 14-hour window.
    In an effort to provide more flexibility, but still maintain the 
safety achieved by the 14-hour window, today's proposal would allow a 
single break of off-duty time, ranging from a minimum of 30 consecutive 
minutes, up to 3 consecutive hours, to be excluded from the 14-hour 
window, provided that the driver has 10 consecutive hours off-duty 
before the start of his or her next duty period. A single pause would 
allow drivers desiring to rest to take an off-duty break without fear 
of exhausting their available hours under the 14-hour driving window.
    This proposal would not result in new requirements or costs but 
would allow for additional flexibility by giving drivers the ability to 
make informed decisions about their work and driving time. The ATRI 
estimated time and cost savings of a scenario similar to the 
proposal.\42\ For reasons discussed in the RIA, FMCSA cannot 
extrapolate the time savings to any particular driver or trip. However, 
the analysis is informative and insightful. In light of the ATRI 
analysis, FMCSA believes that allowing drivers to rest when they are 
tired or during peak rush-hour or detention times would result in cost 
savings to drivers. The Agency requests comments on any additional 
impacts that have not been discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ American Transportation Research Institute, ``Technical 
Memorandum: Hours-of-Service Flexibility''. August 2018. Available 
at: http://atri-online.org/2018/08/28/atri-hours-of-service-flexibility-technical-memo/ (Accessed on December 31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sleeper Berth
    Drivers qualifying for the HOS sleeper-berth provision in 49 CFR 
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 
fewer 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. Today's NPRM would 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 would 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 10 hours of off-duty time is achieved. 
Neither period would count against the 14-hour driving window.
    The sleeper berth provision proposed in today's 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 
proposed 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 that uses the sleeper berth provision 
today must 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 the proposed rule, drivers would be provided 
the ability to choose between split-rest options that would not reduce 
their available work time because the shorter rest period would be 
excluded from the calculation of the 14-hour driving window. The 
Agency, however, lacks data on the use of the sleeper berth provision 
today, and the number of drivers that would use it under the proposed 
rule. FMCSA thus requests comment on the potential frequency of the use 
of the sleeper berth provision today, the change in the use of the 
provision that would result from the proposal, and the gains in 
efficiency that drivers would experience due to this change.
    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 would allow drivers to 
use a 7/3 split option, which is consistent with the split-duty period 
proposal in this NPRM and 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 
the impractically, 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
    Currently, under 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1), drivers do not have to prepare 
RODS or use an ELD if they meet certain conditions, including a return 
to their work reporting location and release from work within 12 
consecutive hours. Drivers operating under this provision are permitted 
a 12-hour work day in which to drive up to 11 hours (for passenger 
carriers, up to 10 hours) and the motor carrier must maintain time 
records reflecting certain information. Specifically, the motor carrier 
that employs the driver and utilizes this exception must maintain and 
retain for a period of 6 months accurate and true time records showing: 
The time the driver reports for duty each day; the total number of 
hours the driver is on duty each day; the time the driver is released 
from duty each day; and the total time for the preceding 7 days in 
accordance with 49 CFR 395.8(j)(2) for drivers used for the first time 
or intermittently.
    Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2)-(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 49 CFR 395.5(a)(1)-(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 through the use of an ELD. The 
drivers qualifying for the 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1) exception currently have 
the option to use the 14- or 15-hour duty day in Sec. Sec.  395.3 or 
395.5, but may choose not to use the option to avoid keeping RODS.
    Additionally, drivers currently qualifying for this HOS short-haul 
exception must stay within 100 air-miles of their work reporting 
location. In today's NPRM, FMCSA proposes to extend the air-mile 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

[[Page 44213]]

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 limits their 
ability to take advantage of the short-haul exception. On many shifts, 
drivers return to their work reporting location within 12 hours, but 
there are some occasions when drivers need 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 occurs more than 8 days in a 30-
day period, the driver must prepare daily RODS using an ELD as required 
by 49 CFR 395.8 (a)(1)(iii)(A)(1). Due to the uncertainty surrounding 
the driver's eligibility at the beginning of the workday, the carrier 
may choose to have their driver operate as though he or she is not 
eligible for the short-haul exception. This results in unnecessary ELD 
expenses. One commenter 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 the proposed rule would 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 proposal 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 would 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 would not 
extend the driving time. FMCSA does not anticipate that extending the 
air-mile radius would increase market demand or result in more VMT. 
Rather, more carriers might use the short-haul exception. Carriers 
would have the flexibility to meet market demands more efficiently 
while maintaining eligibility for the short-haul exception. One 
commenter 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. While FMCSA 
expects the proposal to result in cost savings for the affected 
entities, those impacts are not quantified. The Agency requests 
comments on the impact of extending the air-mile radius and any 
additional impacts that have not been discussed above.
    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 the NPRM would decrease any cost 
savings resulting from the proposal.
Adverse Driving Conditions
    Under the current regulations, drivers qualifying for the HOS 
adverse driving conditions provision in 49 CFR 395.1(b)(1) may drive 
for no more than 2 additional hours beyond the maximum driving time 
allowed under 49 CFR 395.3(a) or 395.5(a) if they encounter adverse 
driving conditions after dispatch. The current provision does not allow 
for the extension of the 14-hour driving window (or 15 hours on duty 
for drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs), and thus cannot be used if the 
adverse condition is encountered towards the end of that period. In 
today's rule, FMCSA proposes to allow a 2-hour extension of the 14-hour 
driving window (or 15 hours on duty for drivers of passenger-carrying 
CMVs). This proposal aligns the regulations with the intent of the 
adverse driving condition provision, which is to allow drivers 
flexibility when faced with unexpected conditions. This proposal would 
not increase the available driving time.
    The adverse driving conditions provision is intended to provide 
flexibility for drivers who encounter adverse conditions which were not 
apparent at the time of dispatch. However, it does not currently extend 
the driving window, limiting its use. Today's proposal would increase 
flexibility by allowing drivers encountering adverse conditions to 
extend their driving window by the same 2 hours that currently apply to 
driving time. The proposed changes would provide drivers with 
additional options to determine the best solution based on their 
situation.
    The Agency anticipates that the increased options and flexibility 
would 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. The Agency requests information on current usage of the 
adverse driving conditions exception as well as anticipated use under 
the proposed rule. The Agency also welcomes comments on possible cost 
savings, as well as any additional impacts that have not been discussed 
above.
Federal Government eRODS Cost
    FMCSA would 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 proposed changes to the 30-minute break requirement, sleeper-berth 
requirements, and the split duty period would 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 proposed rule would result in 
one-time eRODS software update costs of $20,000. This would include 
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.
Non-Quantified Costs
    There are a number of other potential cost savings of this proposed 
rule that FMCSA considered that, due to uncertainty around driver 
behavior, could not quantify on an industry level.
    FMCSA has granted 5-year exemptions from the requirement to return 
to the driver's normal work reporting location within 12 hours of 
coming on duty (examples include: (1) Waste Management Holdings, Inc.; 
(2) American Concrete Pumping Association; and (3) National Asphalt 
Paving Association).\43\ During the

[[Page 44214]]

exemption period, all drivers operating under the exemption must carry 
a copy of the exemption; after that period, those entities seeking to 
maintain the exemption must reapply. This proposal, if adopted, would 
result in cost savings to these entities by alleviating the need to 
pursue the exemption process and eliminating compliance with exemption 
conditions such as carrying a copy of the exemption applicable to 49 
CFR 395.1(e)(1), as well as reallocating the time and resources that 
would have been spent on the exemption reapplication. The Federal 
government would experience a cost savings equal to the reduction in 
time and resources necessary to review, comment on, and make final 
determinations on the exemptions. 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. The Agency 
requests comment on how drivers would use the changes in these 
provisions to inform their decision-making process. This information 
could assist the Agency in quantifying additional cost savings that are 
anticipated to result from today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency did not include the cost for ELD manufacturers to update 
ELD equipment. A compliant ELD would not need to be updated as a result 
of this proposed rule. FMCSA is aware that some ELD manufacturers have 
chosen to go beyond the ELD requirements and provide additional 
features such as alerts when a driver may be close to an HOS violation. 
Those additional features would need to be updated as a result of the 
rule, or risk being inaccurate. Because the additional features are not 
required by FMCSA, but were developed as a selling point for individual 
ELD products, updating the additional features would not be a cost to 
this rule and FMCSA is not estimating the cost of updating the 
additional ELD features.
    The Agency did not quantify impacts resulting from any potential 
decreases in congestion that may result from the proposed rule. 
Allowing drivers to take breaks at their convenience, such as during 
times of heavy traffic congestion, could allow the driver to operate at 
a consistent speed without the starting and stopping that occurs in 
heavy traffic. The ATRI technical memorandum demonstrated that avoiding 
congestion could result in moving freight the same number of miles in 
fewer work hours. This could reduce fuel and vehicle costs for the 
motor carriers, congestion for the public by removing large vehicles 
from the road during peak travel times, and the incidence of crashes 
related to congestion. While these impacts could result from any 
individual trip, FMCSA cannot estimate the magnitude or likelihood of 
these potential impacts for many reasons. Most notably, these impacts 
hinge on the availability of CMV parking. FMCSA is aware that parking 
is not always available, especially in urban areas or heavily travelled 
truck routes.
    Additional non-quantified cost savings include increased 
flexibility resulting from the extension of the duty day and the air-
mile radius for those operating under the short-haul exception; the 
increased options for drivers to respond to adverse driving conditions 
during the course of their duty period; and increased flexibility 
afforded to drivers, such as increased options with regard to on-duty 
and off-duty time resulting from changes to the 30-minute break 
requirement, the sleeper-berth provisions, and the new split duty 
period provision. The Agency requests comment on how drivers would 
utilize the changes in these provisions to inform their decision-making 
process. This information could assist the Agency in quantifying 
additional cost savings that are anticipated to result from today's 
rule.
Summary of Benefits
    The Agency does not anticipate that this proposed rule would result 
in any new regulatory benefits. Additionally, the Agency does not 
believe that the proposed changes would result in any reductions in 
safety benefits or other regulatory benefits.
30-Minute Break
    The proposed changes to the 30-minute break provision are estimated 
to be safety-neutral because both the current rule and the proposed 
rule would prevent CMV operators from driving for more than 8 hours 
without at least a 30-minute change in duty status. The distinction is 
that the proposal would focus on actual driving time rather than on-
duty time, some of which may not be spent behind the wheel. The Agency 
discussed the value of off-duty breaks as compared to on-duty breaks in 
previous rulemakings, but did not quantify the safety benefits 
attributable to the off-duty break when the break provision was added 
to the HOS rules in 2011 (76 FR 81134, Dec. 27, 2011). Further, FMCSA 
has determined that the value of off-duty breaks relative to on-duty 
breaks should be reconsidered.
    As discussed above and in the RIA, The Agency has carefully 
considered the views of numerous commenters requesting exemptions or 
removal of the 30-minute break requirement. As a result of the 
feedback, and after reviewing available research, FMCSA anticipates 
that an on-duty break, which would maintain a break from driving, would 
not adversely affect safety relative to the current requirements. Based 
on comments received, the Agency has taken another look at the Blanco, 
et al. (2011), study to determine the applicability of the study 
findings to the 30-minute break requirement. Today's NPRM focuses on 
achieving a break from driving as opposed to a break after a certain 
amount of time on duty. For these reasons, the Agency believes that 
these changes would not have an impact on the safety benefits of the 
HOS rules and did not quantify changes in regulatory benefits for this 
proposed rule.
    Alternative 1, which would eliminate the 30-minute break 
requirement, seems to be more flexible than the preferred alternative. 
However, eliminating the requirement would allow drivers the 
opportunity to operate a vehicle for 11 hours without stopping. In 
general, FMCSA does not anticipate that drivers would alter their 
schedules to such an extent, but would likely take breaks to eat, rest, 
etc. However rare of an occurrence 11 continuous hours of driving may 
be, FMCSA considers it to be detrimental to safety. As such, 
alternative 1 may be more flexible and would result in an equivalent 
level of motor carrier cost savings, but would lead to a reduction in 
safety benefits relative to the preferred alternative. Therefore, FMCSA 
is not proposing alternative 1, but requests comment on this 
determination.
Split-Duty Period
    Today's 14-hour continuous driving window has been perceived as 
regulatory discouragement against taking long breaks. Drivers may feel 
compelled to operate while fatigued to avoid losing available driving 
time, or speed to make up time from traffic congestion. FMCSA 
anticipates that the NPRM would increase flexibility by allowing 
drivers to rest when they are tired or to avoid traffic congestion, 
without losing available work time, and would not reduce safety 
relative to the current HOS requirements. Additionally, drivers would 
still be

[[Page 44215]]

constrained by the 11-hour driving limit in place today.
Sleeper Berth
    As discussed in the RIA and elsewhere in this preamble, there is an 
extensive body of research suggesting that split-sleep schedules may be 
a good alternative to consolidated daytime sleep, as they may improve 
safety and productivity as compared to consolidated daytime sleep.
    This proposal would ensure that drivers using the sleeper berth to 
obtain the minimum off-duty time have at least one rest period of a 
sufficient length to have restorative benefits to counter fatigue. 
Today's proposal intends to provide drivers with the flexibility to 
make decisions regarding their rest that best fits their individual 
needs, while continuing to prohibit potential overly-long periods of 
wakefulness and duty hours that could lead to fatigue-related crashes.
    The proposed sleeper-berth exception would provide drivers greater 
operational flexibility, while affording the opportunity for the driver 
to obtain the necessary amount of restorative sleep. As such, the 
Agency anticipates that the increased flexibility proposed in today's 
NPRM would not affect the safety outcomes achieved by the current 
sleeper berth provision. FMCSA requests comments on the frequency of 
use of the proposed split-rest periods provision and the impacts of the 
provision on safety. Additionally, the Agency invites stakeholders to 
identify any additional safety impacts resulting from the changes to 
the split-rest periods provision in today's NPRM they believe have not 
been adequately considered.
    Alternative 1, which would maintain an 8/2 split option but exclude 
the shorter rest period from the calculation of the 14-hour driving 
window, is more restrictive than the preferred alternative by allowing 
fewer options for a driver to split their 10 hours of off-duty time. 
Based on the research discussed above, a 7/3 split option would allow 
for an adequate rest period such that it would not impact safety 
relative to an 8/2 split option. As such, alternative 1 would be more 
restrictive, would reduce cost savings associated with the proposal, 
and would not provide any additional safety benefits relative to the 
preferred alternative. Therefore, FMCSA is not proposing alternative 1 
but requests comment on this determination.
    Alternative 2, which would allow a 7/3 split option but include the 
shorter rest period from the calculation of the 14-hour driving window, 
is more restrictive than the preferred alternative by continuing to 
count the shorter rest period in the calculation of the 14-hour driving 
window. Under this alternative, a driver would be required to stop 
driving 14 hours after coming on-duty, regardless of how much of that 
14-hour period was spent resting. Based on results in the Blanco study 
(2011), FMCSA believes that excluding the shorter rest period from the 
calculation of the 14-hour driving window would not reduce safety 
relative to the preferred alternative. The Blanco study showed that the 
SCE rate increased modestly with increasing work and driving hours. 
Blanco also found that breaks can be used to counteract the negative 
effects of time-on-task. The results from the break analyses indicated 
that significant safety benefits can be afforded when drivers take 
breaks from driving. This was a key finding in the Blanco study and 
clearly shows that breaks can ameliorate the negative impacts 
associated with fatigue and time-on-task. As such, alternative 2 would 
be more restrictive, reduce cost savings associated with the proposal 
and would not provide any additional safety benefits relative to the 
preferred alternative. Therefore, FMCSA is not proposing alternative 2, 
but requests comment on this determination.
Short-Haul Operations
    The IIHS conducted a study in North Carolina in 2017 and found that 
interstate truck drivers operating under the short-haul exception had a 
crash risk 383 percent higher than those not using the exception. They 
recommended that, due to this finding, the Agency should not propose an 
extension of the short-haul exception from 12 to 14 hours. FMCSA 
reviewed the study and noted that while the finding was statistically 
significant, it was based on a very small sample size, which prevented 
the author from estimating a matched-pair odds ratio restricted to 
drivers operating under a short-haul exception, and was not nationally 
representative. Further, the authors noted that other related factors 
unobserved in the study may have led to this result. For example, it is 
possible that older or more poorly maintained trucks are used in local 
operations. Regardless, because FMCSA's number one priority is safety, 
the Agency investigated the safety implications of the proposal using 
available data.
    Congress passed the FAST Act on December 4, 2015, which, among 
other things, requires drivers of ready-mixed concrete delivery trucks 
be exempted from the requirement to return to their normal work-
reporting location after 12 hours of coming on duty. Beginning on 
December 5, 2015, operators of concrete mixer trucks met the 
requirements for the short-haul exception if they returned to their 
normal work reporting location within 14 hours after coming on duty. 
MCMIS contains data on crashes based on vehicle type, allowing the 
Agency to isolate crashes involving concrete mixer trucks both before 
and after the congressionally mandated changes to the short-haul 
exception that mirror today's proposal to extend the 12-hour limit for 
all short-haul operators.
    The Agency first focused on the time of day when crashes occurred. 
Assuming the majority of concrete mixer trucks are operated on a 
schedule with a workday that begins in the morning hours and ends in 
the evening hours, those crashes that occur in the later part of the 
day would occur towards the end of the 12- or 14-hour workday for the 
concrete mixer driver. FMCSA found that the percentage of concrete 
mixers in crashes at later hours of the day (5:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.--
when drivers are more likely to be close to their maximum hours for the 
day) has been declining in recent years, falling from 7.6 percent in 
2013 to 5.8 percent in 2017.
    FMCSA also examined the total number of crashes that involved 
concrete mixer trucks for the 2 years before and after the 
congressionally mandated change went into effect. From December 4, 
2013, through December 3, 2015, there were 2,723 concrete mixers 
involved in crashes, or 0.907 percent of the total large trucks 
involved in crashes (2,723 concrete mixers involved in crashes/300,324 
large trucks, including concrete mixers, involved in crashes). From 
December 4, 2015, through December 2, 2017, there were 2,955 concrete 
mixers involved in crashes, or 0.919 percent of the total large trucks 
involved in crashes (2,955 concrete mixers involved in crashes/321,471 
large trucks, including concrete mixers, involved in crashes). A Chi-
square test suggests that this very minor increase in the concrete 
mixer share of the total is not statistically significant at the p < 
0.05 level. Both analyses suggest that the implementation of the FAST 
Act on December 4, 2015, did not increase the share of concrete mixers 
involved in crashes when extending the short-haul exception requirement 
from 12 to 14 hours.
    FMCSA does not anticipate that extending the air-mile radius would 
increase market demand for services, and thus would not result in 
increased VMT. While more drivers or more trips would now be eligible 
for the short-haul exception, and thus excluded from the requirement to 
take a 30-minute break

[[Page 44216]]

or prepare daily RODS, the total costs of freight transportation would 
likely not change to such an extent that the quantity demanded of 
trucking services would increase. Because total VMT is not expected to 
increase, the Agency does not anticipate changes in exposure or crash 
risk. FMCSA requests comments on the operational changes, or changes to 
VMT, that might result from today's proposal to extend the air-mile 
radius. Additionally, the Agency emphasizes the changes to the short-
haul exception proposed today would not allow any additional drive 
time, or allow driving after the 14th hour from the beginning of the 
duty day. Drivers also would still be subject to the ``weekly'' limits 
of 60 and 70 hours, and the employer must maintain accurate time 
records concerning the time the driver reports for work each day and 
the time the driver is released from duty each day. FMCSA therefore 
anticipates that this proposal would not affect the crash risk of 
drivers operating under the short-haul exception.
    Alternative 1, which would extend the time required for drivers to 
return to their work reporting location from 12 to 14 hours but 
continue to maintain a 100 air-mile radius requirement, would be more 
restrictive than the preferred alternative by reducing the population 
of drivers eligible for the short-haul exception. As discussed above, 
FMCSA does not anticipate that changing the air-mile radius from 100 to 
150 air-miles would impact safety. As such, alternative 1 would be more 
restrictive, reduce any cost savings associated with the proposal, and 
would not provide any additional safety benefits relative to the 
preferred alternative. As a result, FMCSA is not proposing alternative 
1, but requests comment on this determination.
Adverse Driving Conditions
    The Agency defines ``adverse driving conditions'' in 49 CFR 395.2 
as ``snow, sleet, fog, other adverse weather conditions, a highway 
covered with snow or ice, or unusual road and traffic conditions, none 
of which were apparent on the basis of information known to the person 
dispatching the run at the time it was begun.'' The adverse driving 
condition provision was intended to provide drivers flexibility to 
avoid rushing to either stay ahead of adverse conditions, make up for 
lost time due to poor conditions, or allow drivers time to locate a 
safe place to stop and wait out the adverse conditions. The Agency 
anticipates that today's proposed rule would enhance this goal by 
allowing drivers to avail themselves of this flexibility when the 
adverse conditions occur later in the driving window. While the Agency 
is not aware of any research that is specific to the impact of adverse 
conditions on crash risk, the flexibility provided in the proposal 
would allow drivers to make decisions based on current conditions 
without penalizing them by ``shortening'' their driving window. 
Further, the Agency stresses that this proposal would not increase 
maximum available driving time beyond that allowed by the current rule, 
but may increase driving hours by allowing some drivers to use more of 
their available driving time.
    The Agency is unable to quantitatively assess the impacts on safety 
from today's proposal due to a lack of data regarding the use of the 
adverse driving provision. The Agency also lacks data on the 
relationship between crash risk and adverse driving conditions, and 
potential reductions in crash risk that result from the avoidance of 
these conditions. FMCSA thus requests comment on the frequency of use 
of the adverse driving conditions provision and the impacts of the 
provision on safety. Additionally, the Agency invites stakeholders to 
identify any additional safety impacts resulting from the changes to 
the adverse driving conditions provision in today's proposed rule that 
have not been discussed above.
Health Impacts
    The RIA for the 2011 HOS final rule estimated health benefits in 
the form of decreased mortality risk based on decreases in daily 
driving time, and possible increases in sleep. The changes were largely 
based on limiting the use of the 34-hour restart provision. That 
provision, however, was removed by operation of law when the study 
required by the 2015 DOT Appropriations Act failed to find 
statistically significant benefits of the 2011 limitations on the 34-
hour restart.\44\ Today's proposed rule does not affect the reinstated 
original 34-hour restart provision, and thus the health benefits 
estimated in the 2011 RIA would not be affected by today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Sec. 133 of the 2015 DOT Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 113-
235, Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2130, 2711) suspended the 2011 restart 
provisions, temporarily reinstated the pre-2011 restart rule, and 
required a study of the effectiveness of the new rule. Sec. 133 of 
the 2016 DOT Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 114-113, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 
Stat. 2242, 2850) made it clear that the 2011 restart provisions 
would have no effect unless the study required by the 2015 DOT 
Appropriations Act showed that those provisions had statistically 
significant benefits compared to the pre-2011 restart rule. Sec. 180 
of the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations 
Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 114-254, Dec. 10, 2016, 130 Stat. 1005, 1016) 
replaced Sec. 133 of the 2016 DOT Appropriations Act in its entirety 
to correct an error and ensure that the pre-2011 restart rule would 
be reinstated by operation of law unless the study required by the 
2015 DOT Appropriations Act showed that the 2011 restart rule had 
statistically significant improvements related to safety and 
operator fatigue compared to the pre-2011 restart rule. DOT 
concluded that the study failed to find these statistically 
significant improvements, and the Office of Inspector General 
confirmed that conclusion in a report to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As concerns this proposed rule, FMCSA anticipates that some drivers 
would experience a decrease in stress, which could lead to increases in 
health benefits. As discussed in the RIA, drivers have repeatedly 
provided comments relating to stress resulting from the 14-hour limit. 
Both the split-duty and sleeper berth proposal could alter drivers' 
schedules relative to the current requirements, by allowing drivers 
flexibility to rest, without penalty, when they are tired or in times 
of heavy traffic. However, these proposals would continue to allow for 
an adequate rest period. Today's proposal retains the current driving 
time and work time, but could allow for changes in the number of hours 
driven or worked on any given day. The flexibilities in this proposal 
are intended to allow drivers to shift their drive and work time under 
the HOS rules in an effort to mitigate the impacts of uncertain factors 
(e.g., traffic, weather, and detention times). Total hours driven or 
worked could increase or decrease on a given day, but FMCSA does not 
anticipate that these time shifts would negatively impact drivers 
health. Instead, today's proposal would empower drivers to make 
informed decisions based on the current situation, and as a result the 
proposed rule could lead to a decrease in stress and subsequent health 
benefits. FMCSA requests comments on the health impacts of today's 
proposal.
    Section 12.f of DOT Order 2100.6 dated December 20, 2018 provides 
additional requirements for retrospective reviews, specifically each 
economically significant rule or high-impact rule, the responsible OA 
or OST component shall publish a regulatory impact report in the 
Federal Register every 5 years after the effective date of the rule 
while the rule remains in effect.
    In accordance with the DOT order, FMCSA would assess the impact of 
the proposed changes to the HOS requirements within five years of the 
effective date of a final rule.

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)

    E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, 
was

[[Page 44217]]

issued on January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017). E.O. 13771 
requires that, for every one new regulation issued by an Agency, at 
least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the 
cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through 
a budgeting process. Final implementation guidance addressing the 
requirements of E.O. 13771 was issued by the OMB on April 5, 2017.\45\ 
The OMB guidance defines what constitutes an E.O. 13771 regulatory 
action and an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action, provides procedures for 
how agencies should account for the costs and cost savings of such 
actions, and outlines various other details regarding implementation of 
E.O. 13771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and 
Budget. Memorandum M-17-21. Guidance Implementing Executive Order 
13771. April 5, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule is expected to have total costs less than zero, 
and, if finalized, would therefore qualify as an E.O. 13771 
deregulatory action. The present value of the cost savings of this 
proposed rule, measured on an infinite time horizon at a 7 percent 
discount rate, expressed in 2016 dollars, and discounted to 2020 (the 
year the proposed rule would go into effect and cost savings would 
first be realized), is $4,055 million. On an annualized basis, these 
cost savings are $284 million.
    For the purpose of E.O. 13771 accounting, the April 5, 2017, OMB 
guidance requires that agencies also calculate the costs and cost 
savings discounted to year 2016. In accordance with this requirement, 
the present value of the cost savings of this rule, measured on an 
infinite time horizon at a 7 percent discount rate, expressed in 2016 
dollars, and discounted to 2016, is $3,094 million. On an annualized 
basis, these cost savings are $217 million.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 
Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121, 
110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 
(Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal 
agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small 
business and other small entities and to minimize any significant 
economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses 
and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and 
operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental 
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Additionally, DOT 
policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small 
entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse 
effects on these businesses. FMCSA has not determined whether this 
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Therefore, FMCSA is publishing this Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to aid the public in commenting 
on the potential small business impacts of the proposals in this NPRM. 
We invite all interested parties to submit data and information 
regarding the potential economic impact that would result from adoption 
of the proposals in this NPRM. We will consider all comments received 
in the public comment process when making a determination or when 
completing a Final Regulatory Flexibility Assessment.
    An IRFA must contain the following:
    (1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is 
being considered;
    (2) A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule;
    (3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record;
    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule; and
    (6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed 
rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and 
which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities.
Why the Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
    FMCSA has longstanding processes, which provide that regulations 
and other agency actions be periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, 
revised to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they 
were originally designed, and that they remain justified.\46\ Further, 
on October 2, 2017, DOT published a Notification of Regulatory Review 
and stated that it was reviewing its ``existing regulations and other 
agency actions to evaluate their continued necessity, determine whether 
they are crafted effectively to solve current problems, and evaluate 
whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically 
produced energy resources'' (82 FR 45750). As part of these reviews, 
DOT sought public comment on existing rules that are good candidates 
for repeal, replacement, suspension, or modification. The HOS 
regulations and ELDs were the most common substantive topics discussed 
in response to the DOT Notification of Regulatory Review. The HOS 
regulations were identified as an area for potential modifications in 
2018, due to changes in tracking HOS brought about by the 
implementation of the ELD rulemaking (80 FR 78292, Dec. 16, 2015). 
Consistent with these processes and with the goal of improving 
regulatory efficiency, the Agency proposes to revise the HOS 
requirements applicable to CMV drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See footnote 4, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
    In response to public comments received on the ANPRM and to the 
listening sessions held by FMCSA, the proposed rule would (1) change 
the short-haul exception available to certain CMV drivers by 
lengthening the drivers' maximum on-duty period from 12 to 14 hours and 
extending from 100 air miles to 150 air miles within which the driver 
may operate; (2) modify the adverse driving conditions exception by 
extending by 2 hours the maximum window during which driving is 
permitted; (3) provide flexibility for the 30-minute break rule by 
tying the break requirement to 8 hours of driving time without an 
interruption of at least 30 minutes and allowing the break to be 
satisfied by a driver using on-duty, not-driving status, rather than 
off duty; (4) modify the sleeper-berth exception to allow drivers to 
split their required 10-hours off duty into two periods, one of at 
least 7 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth and the other of not 
less than 2 consecutive hours, either off duty or in the sleeper berth, 
with neither period counting against the driver's 14-hour driving 
window; and (5) allow one off-duty break of at least 30 minutes, but 
not more than 3 hours, that would pause a truck driver's 14-hour 
window, provided the driver takes 10 consecutive hours off-duty at the 
end of the work shift. This NPRM is based on authority derived from the 
Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984. See 
heading IV, Legal Basis for Rulemaking, above.

[[Page 44218]]

A Description of, and Where Feasible an Estimate of, the Number of 
Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
    ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(3) as having the same 
meaning as ``small business concern'' under Section 3 of the Small 
Business Act (SBA). This includes any small business concern that is 
independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of 
operation. Section 601(4), likewise, includes within the definition of 
``small entities'' not-for-profit enterprises that are independently 
owned and operated, and are not dominant in their fields of operation. 
Additionally, Section 601(5) defines ``small entities'' as governments 
of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts with populations less than 50,000. Small businesses 
are defined by the SBA Table of Size standards, which adopts the NAICS 
codes for industry sectors.
    This proposed rule would affect drivers, motor carriers, and the 
Federal government. Drivers are not considered small entities because 
they do not meet the definition of a small entity in Section 601 of the 
RFA. Specifically, drivers are considered neither a small business 
under Section 601(3) of the RFA, nor are they considered a small 
organization under Section 601(4) of the RFA.
    The SBA defines the size standards used to classify entities as 
small. SBA establishes separate standards for each industry, as defined 
by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). It is 
estimated that the motor carriers that would experience regulatory 
relief under the proposed rule would be in industries within Subsector 
484 (Truck Transportation). These industries include General Freight 
Trucking (4841) and Specialized Freight Trucking (4842). Subsector 484 
has an SBA size standard based on annual revenue of $27.5 million.
    FMCSA examined data from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) 
annual data tables by Enterprise Receipt size and the 2012 Economic 
Census, the most recent Census for which data were available, to 
determine the percentage of firms that have revenue at or below SBA's 
thresholds. Although boundaries for the revenue categories used in the 
Economic Census do not exactly coincide with the SBA thresholds, FMCSA 
was able to make reasonable estimates using these data.
    Motor carrier operations in the Truck Transportation industry 
primarily earn their revenue via the movement of goods. According to 
the 2012 Economic Census, 98,312 Truck Transportation firms operated 
for the entire year. As shown in Table 4, according to the Economic 
Census, at least 98 percent of trucking firms with employment had 
annual revenue less than $25 million; the Agency concluded that the 
percentage would be approximately the same using the SBA threshold of 
$27.5 million as the boundary.

                         Table 4--Estimates of Numbers of Small Entities With Employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total number      Number of    Percent of all
            NAICS code                      Description              of firms     small entities       firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
484..............................  Truck Transportation.........          98,312          96,539              98
484110...........................  General Freight Trucking,              25,754          25,270              98
                                    Local.
484121...........................  General Freight Trucking,              25,933          25,268              97
                                    Long-Distance, Truckload.
484122...........................  General Freight Trucking,               3,525           3,410              97
                                    Long-Distance, Less Than
                                    Truckload.
484210...........................  Used Household and Office               6,945           6,860              99
                                    Goods Moving.
484220...........................  Specialized Freight (except            29,048          28,588              98
                                    Used Goods) Trucking, Local.
484230...........................  Specialized Freight (except             7,623           7,285              96
                                    Used Goods) Trucking, Long-
                                    Distance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment Industry. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/econ/susb/2012-susb-annual.html.

    The SUSB data includes information from most U.S. business 
establishments but does not include data on sole-proprietorship 
establishments, commonly referred to in the truck transportation 
industry as owner/operators. The U.S. Census Bureau also provides the 
Nonemployer Statistics, which is an annual series that provides 
subnational economic data for businesses that have no paid employees 
and are subject to federal income tax. This series includes the number 
of establishments by the total receipts (i.e., revenue) by 
industry.\47\ An establishment is a single physical location at which 
business is conducted. A firm, or business, may consist of multiple 
establishments. It is not clear if a sole-proprietorship would report a 
single or multiple establishments. The Nonemployer Statistics for 2016 
reports a total or 587,038 establishments. This is slightly larger than 
expected because MCMIS contains information for a total of 493,730 
active interstate freight motor carriers. The Nonemployer Statistics 
could include a large number of intrastate freight motor carriers that 
are not regulated by FMCSA. Regardless, FMCSA assumes that all owner/
operator firms would be considered small under the SBA thresholds, and 
requests comment on the number of interstate freight motor carriers 
that are considered owner/operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2018 Nonemployer Statistics. Available 
at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/nonemployer-statistics.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA does not have exact estimates on the per-motor carrier impact 
of this proposal. The RIA for the NPRM estimated cost savings 
associated with the proposed changes to the 30-minute break 
requirement. For illustrative purposes within this IRFA, FMCSA 
developed a per-driver annual cost savings estimate. As shown below, a 
firm with one driver could expect a cost savings of approximately $127 
in 2020, the first year of the analysis.

[[Page 44219]]

   Table 5--Weighted Annual Per-Driver Cost Savings of the Proposed Changes to the 30-Minute Break Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Annual hours     Annual per-     Percent of
          Driver group              Hours saved     Shifts per       saved per      driver cost    total  hours
                                   per shift \a\     year \b\       driver \c\      savings \d\         \e\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1.........................            0.25             120              30          $99.98              19
Group 2.........................            0.50              80              40          133.30              81
Group 3.........................            0.00              60               0               0               0
Weighted Annual Per-Driver Cost   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         $127.04
 Savings........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ See Table 5 in the RIA.
\b\ See Table 6 in the RIA.
\c\ Hours Saved per Shift x Annual Hours Saved per Driver.
\d\ Annual Hours Saved per Driver x $3.33 Motor Carrier Profit Margin.
\e\ See Table 7 in the RIA, Total Hours Saved per Year, by Group / Total Hours Saved per Year for All Groups.

A Description of the Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of 
the Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement 
and Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report 
or Record
    This proposed rule would not change recordkeeping requirements as 
compared to what is currently required by the HOS rules.
An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
    FMCSA is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. The current HOS 
rules would be replaced by those in the NPRM.
A Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 
Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which 
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small 
Entities
    In developing this proposal, FMCSA considered alternatives that 
would involve: (1) Requiring an off-duty 30-minute break following 8 
hours of driving, (2) eliminating the 30-minute break requirement 
entirely; (3) continuing to allow and 8/2 sleeper berth option, but 
excluding the shorter rest period from the calculation of the 14-hour 
driving window; (4) allowing both an 8/2 and a 7/3 sleeper berth 
option, but continuing to include the shorter rest period in the 
calculation of the 14-hour driving window; (5) allowing drivers to 
maintain eligibility for the short-haul exception if they return to 
their work reporting location within 14 hours, but maintaining the 
current air-mile radius; and (6) a ``no-action'' alternative for both 
the split-duty period and adverse driving condition proposals. These 
alternatives generally would be more restrictive, reduce or eliminate 
any cost savings associated with the proposal, and would not provide 
any additional safety benefits relative to the preferred alternative. 
FMCSA requests comments, with supporting data, on these and any other 
alternatives that would meet the intent of the statutes and prove cost 
beneficial for small entities.
Requests for Comment To Assist Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    FMCSA requests comments on all aspects of this IRFA and on the cost 
and benefit impacts that small business may experience as a result of 
this rule.
    FMCSA is not a covered agency as defined in Section 609(d)(2) of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and has taken no steps to minimize the 
additional cost of credit for small entities.

D. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the SBREFA, FMCSA wants to 
assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they 
can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the 
rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small 
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have 
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please 
consult the FMCSA point of contact, Richard Clemente, listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal 
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and 
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small 
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these 
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small 
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights 
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit 
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $161 million (which is the 
value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 
2017 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would 
not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required. 
However, the Agency does discuss the costs and benefits of this 
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). This proposed rule would not modify the existing approved 
collection of information (OMB Control Number 2126-0001, HOS of Drivers 
Regulations, approved Jun. 13, 2016, through Jun. 30, 2019).

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 
13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' FMCSA determined that this proposal would not have 
substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the

[[Page 44220]]

policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts 
any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Impact Statement.

H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires agencies 
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also 
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has 
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an 
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects 
on children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is economically 
significant, however it does not anticipate that this regulatory action 
could in any respect present an environmental or safety risk that could 
disproportionately affect children.

J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights, and has determined it would not effect a taking of 
private property or otherwise have taking implications.

K. Privacy

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, note following 5 U.S.C. 552a), requires the 
Agency to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment of a regulation that will 
affect the privacy of individuals. The assessment considers impacts of 
the rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form and 
related matters. The FMCSA Privacy Officer has evaluated the risks and 
effects the rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing 
personally identifiable information and has evaluated protections and 
alternative information handling processes in developing the rule to 
mitigate potential privacy risks. FMCSA determined that this rule does 
not require the collection of individual personally identifiable 
information.
    Additionally, the Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment 
analyzing the rulemaking and the specific process for collection of 
personal information to the DOT, Office of the Secretary's Privacy 
Office. The DOT Privacy Office has determined that this rulemaking does 
not create privacy risk.
    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct 
a Privacy Impact Assessment for new or substantially changed technology 
that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an 
identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would 
collect, maintain, or disseminate information because of this proposed 
rule.

L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this 
rulemaking.

M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it 
does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

N. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth)

    E.O. 13783 directs executive departments and agencies to review 
existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of 
domestically produced energy resources, and to appropriately suspend, 
revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic 
energy resources. In accordance with E.O. 13783, DOT prepared and 
submitted a report to the Director of OMB that provides specific 
recommendations that, to the extent permitted by law, could alleviate 
or eliminate aspects of agency action that burden domestic energy 
production. This proposed rule has not been identified by DOT under 
E.O. 13783 as potentially alleviating unnecessary burdens on domestic 
energy production.

O. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

P. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical 
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (note 
following 15 U.S.C. 272) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides 
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, 
performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; 
and related management systems practices) are standards that are 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This 
proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did 
not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Q. Environment (CAA, NEPA)

    FMCSA completed an environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, Council on Environmental Quality 
Regulations for Implementing NEPA, as amended, FMCSA Order 5610.1, 
National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures and Policy 
for Considering Environmental Impacts, March 1, 2004, and DOT Order 
5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, as amended 
on July 13, 1982 and July 30, 1985. The EA is in the docket pertaining 
to this rulemaking. As discussed in the EA, FMCSA also analyzed this 
proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended, section 176(c), (42 
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and implementing regulations promulgated by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. FMCSA concludes that the issuance of 
the proposed rule would not significantly affect the quality of the 
human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement process 
is unnecessary. FMCSA requests comments on this analysis.

[[Page 44221]]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 395

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 395.

PART 395--HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 395 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31137, 31502; sec. 113, 
Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as 
added and transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, 
Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743, 1744); sec. 4133, Pub. 
L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1744; sec. 108, Pub. L. 110-432, 122 
Stat. 4860-4866; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; 
sec. 5206(b), Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  395.1 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (e)(1), (g)(1) and 
(h) to read as follows:

Sec.  395.1  Scope of rules in this part.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * (1) Adverse driving conditions. Except as provided in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section, a driver who encounters adverse 
driving conditions, as defined in Sec.  395.2, and cannot, because of 
those conditions, safely complete the run within the maximum driving 
time or duty time during which driving is permitted under Sec. Sec.  
395.3(a) or 395.5(a) may drive and be permitted or required to drive a 
commercial motor vehicle for not more than 2 additional hours beyond 
the maximum allowable hours to complete that run or to reach a place 
offering safety for the occupants of the commercial motor vehicle and 
security for the commercial motor vehicle and its cargo.
* * * * *
    (e) * * * (1) 150 air-mile radius. A driver is exempt from the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  395.8 and 395.11 if:
    (i) The driver operates within a 150 air-mile radius (172.6 miles) 
of the normal work reporting location;
    (ii) The driver, except a driver-salesperson, returns to the work 
reporting location and is released from work within 14 consecutive 
hours;
    (iii)(A) A property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver has at 
least 10 consecutive hours off duty separating each 14 hours on duty;
    (B) A passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver has at 
least 8 consecutive hours off duty separating each 14 hours on duty; 
and
    (iv) The motor carrier that employs the driver maintains and 
retains for a period of 6 months accurate and true time records 
showing:
    (A) The time the driver reports for duty each day;
    (B) The total number of hours the driver is on duty each day;
    (C) The time the driver is released from duty each day; and
    (D) 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.
* * * * *
    (g) * * * (1) Property-carrying commercial motor vehicle--(i) 
General. A driver who operates a property-carrying commercial motor 
vehicle equipped with a sleeper berth, as defined in Sec.  395.2, and 
uses the sleeper berth to obtain the required off duty time must 
accumulate:
    (A) At least 10 consecutive hours off duty;
    (B) At least 10 consecutive hours of sleeper-berth time;
    (C) A combination of consecutive sleeper-berth and off-duty time 
amounting to at least 10 hours;
    (D) A combination of sleeper-berth time of at least 7 consecutive 
hours and up to 3 hours riding in the passenger seat of the vehicle 
while the vehicle is moving on the highway, either immediately before 
or after the sleeper berth time, amounting to at least 10 consecutive 
hours; or
    (E) The equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty 
calculated under paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
    (ii) Sleeper berth. A driver may accumulate the equivalent of at 
least 10 consecutive hours off duty by taking not more than two periods 
of either sleeper-berth time or a combination of off-duty time and 
sleeper-berth time if:
    (A) Neither rest period is shorter than 2 consecutive hours;
    (B) One rest period is at least 7, but less than 10, consecutive 
hours in the sleeper berth;
    (C) The total of the two periods is at least 10 hours; and
    (D) Driving time in the period immediately before and after each 
rest period, when added together:
    (1) Does not exceed 11 hours under Sec.  395.3(a)(3); and
    (2) Does not violate the 14-hour duty-period limit under Sec.  
395.3(a)(2).
    (iii) Calculation. The 14-hour driving window for purposes of Sec.  
395.3(a)(2) does not include qualifying rest periods under paragraph 
(g)(1)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) State of Alaska--(1) Property-carrying commercial motor 
vehicle. (i) In general. The provisions of Sec.  395.3(a) and (b) do 
not apply to any driver who is driving a commercial motor vehicle in 
the State of Alaska. A driver who is driving a property-carrying 
commercial motor vehicle in the State of Alaska must not drive or be 
required or permitted to drive:
    (A) More than 15 hours following 10 consecutive hours off duty;
    (B) After being on duty for 20 hours or more following 10 
consecutive hours off duty;
    (C) After having been on duty for 70 hours in any period of 7 
consecutive days, if the motor carrier for which the driver drives does 
not operate every day in the week; or
    (D) After having been on duty for 80 hours in any period of 8 
consecutive days, if the motor carrier for which the driver drives 
operates every day in the week.
    (ii) Off-duty periods. Before driving, a driver who operates a 
property-carrying commercial motor vehicle equipped with a sleeper 
berth, as defined in Sec.  395.2, and uses the sleeper berth to obtain 
the required off-duty time in the State of Alaska must accumulate:
    (A) At least 10 consecutive hours off duty;
    (B) At least 10 consecutive hours of sleeper-berth time;
    (C) A combination of consecutive sleeper-berth and off-duty time 
amounting to at least 10 hours;
    (D) A combination of consecutive sleeper-berth time and up to 3 
hours riding in the passenger seat of the vehicle while the vehicle is 
moving on a highway, either immediately before or after a period of at 
least 7, but less than 10, consecutive hours in the sleeper berth; or
    (E) The equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty 
calculated under paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (iii) Sleeper berth. A driver who uses a sleeper berth to comply 
with the Hours of Service regulations may accumulate the equivalent of 
at least 10 consecutive hours off duty by taking not more than two 
periods of either sleeper-berth time or a combination of off-duty time 
and sleeper-berth time if:
    (A) Neither rest period is shorter than 2 consecutive hours;
    (B) One rest period is at least 7 consecutive hours in the sleeper 
berth;
    (C) The total of the two periods is at least 10 hours; and
    (D) Driving time in the period immediately before and after each 
rest period, when added together:
    (1) Does not exceed 15 hours; and
    (2) Does not violate the 20-hour duty period under paragraph 
(h)(1)(i)(B) of this section.

[[Page 44222]]

    (iv) Calculation. The 20-hour duty period under paragraph 
(h)(1)(i)(B) does not include off-duty or sleeper-berth time.
    (2) Passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle. The provisions of 
Sec.  395.5 do not apply to any driver who is driving a passenger-
carrying commercial motor vehicle in the State of Alaska. A driver who 
is driving a passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle in the State 
of Alaska must not drive or be required or permitted to drive--
    (i) More than 15 hours following 8 consecutive hours off duty;
    (ii) After being on duty for 20 hours or more following 8 
consecutive hours off duty;
    (iii) After having been on duty for 70 hours in any period of 7 
consecutive days, if the motor carrier for which the driver drives does 
not operate every day in the week; or
    (iv) After having been on duty for 80 hours in any period of 8 
consecutive days, if the motor carrier for which the driver drives 
operates every day in the week.
    (3) Adverse driving conditions. (i) A driver who is driving a 
commercial motor vehicle in the State of Alaska and who encounters 
adverse driving conditions (as defined in Sec.  395.2) may drive and be 
permitted or required to drive a commercial motor vehicle for the 
period of time needed to complete the run.
    (ii) After a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver 
completes the run, that driver must be off duty for at least 10 
consecutive hours before he/she drives again; and
    (iii) After a passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver 
completes the run, that driver must be off duty for at least 8 
consecutive hours before he/she drives again.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  395.3 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  395.3  Maximum driving time for property-carrying vehicles.

    (a) * * *
    (2) 14-hour period. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of 
this section, a driver may not drive after a period of 14 consecutive 
hours after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty.
    (3) Driving time and interruptions of driving periods. (i) Driving 
time. A driver may drive a total of 11 hours during the period 
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (ii) Interruption of driving time. Except for drivers who qualify 
for either of the short-haul exceptions in Sec.  395.1(e)(1) or (2), 
driving is not permitted if more than 8 hours of driving time have 
passed without at least a 30-minute consecutive interruption in driving 
status, either off duty or on duty.
    (iii) Split duty period. (A) A driver may take one off-duty break 
of at least 30 minutes, but not more than 3 hours, during the driver's 
14-hour period specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and extend 
the 14-hour period for the length of the driver's off-duty break.
    (B) An off-duty break under paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this 
section does not affect the requirement that a driver take 10 
consecutive hours off duty under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: August 13, 
2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-17810 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P