Will Feds Take on States in Trucking Jurisdiction Fight?

When a passenger jet takes off from a U.S. airport, virtually every rule governing its flight applies regardless of where the domestic flight lands. But when a truck leaves a port or distribution center, it can run into a patchwork of regulations that govern how much the driver is paid, the rig's total weight and its emissions. Unlike air transport, states can set many of the rules that govern a semi-truck's operation.

That tension sits at the heart of an ongoing fight between local and national stakeholders over who gets to regulate trucking, and it resurfaces in Congress with regularity.

Two Sides Of The Argument

Some groups, like the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), argue that one-size-fits-all federal policies favor powerful industry interests at the expense of safety and driver pay.

Others, like Joe Rajkovacz of the Western States Trucking Association, counter that a hodgepodge of state rules exposes employers already squeezed by tight margins to confusion and expensive lawsuits.

The U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to administer laws related to interstate travel and commerce, such as the rule requiring truckers to take a 30-minute rest break after eight hours of driving. But states oversee transportation within their own borders, and more than a dozen have implemented labor and weight rules that differ from nationwide standards.

California has some of the most generous hours-of-service standards. With some exceptions, truckers are promised a paid 30-minute meal break before the end of every five hours of driving, on top of a rest break.

The Push For Federal Preemption

Amendments to preempt state hours-of-service rules with federal mandates have been floated before Congress repeatedly. Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) first introduced such an amendment as part of the FAST Act highway bill, but it was edited out of the final version, then re-emerged in later legislation.

The goal: bar states from forcing carriers to pay compensation beyond an existing per-mile or piece-rate basis, including for non-driving activities such as sleeping, loading or eating.

Supporters have included the American Trucking Associations and the Western States Trucking Association. In one open letter, more than 70 carriers, including CRST International, FedEx, Conway, Ryder and Penske Logistics, argued that state-by-state laws complicate compliance with industry-wide standards.

The Case For State Rules

Those defending state-by-state rules say local government is better equipped to drive necessary safety reforms.

OOIDA called centralizing control of break times and compensation "an ambitious overreach." A nationwide blanket rule, the group said, "could unravel mandated fair pay for drivers and would empower large carriers to further reduce driver wages. It would also gut the ability for states to address critical items like payment for detention time."

The detention problem is real. Nearly half of owner-operators wait more than 11 hours a week to load and unload cargo, according to OOIDA. Much of a trucker's day is spent stagnant: passing inspections, completing paperwork, refueling and conducting repairs.

"Truck drivers should be compensated for all their time spent working," said OOIDA spokeswoman Norita Taylor.

Driver advocate Allen Smith, who spent years behind the wheel before launching the popular Ask The Trucker blog, put it bluntly: "The truth is that if drivers were paid for all time worked, there wouldn't be confusion."

The Litigation Backdrop

Federal preemption was originally established as part of the FAA Authorization Act, which determined that a state may not enforce a law related to a price, route or service of any motor carrier. The statute is broad, and it has sparked contested litigation for years.

In one class-action case, three drivers accused Penske Logistics of underpaying them for California-mandated meal breaks; the company settled for $750,000 after nearly a decade in the legal system. A landmark 2014 ruling from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Penske must pay drivers for breaks in states that require it. In a separate case, a jury awarded 850 drivers $55 million in back pay against Walmart.

The Weight-Limit Debate

Similar arguments feature in the fight over truck weight limits. Some in the industry want to raise the federal maximum from 80,000 pounds to 91,000 pounds, arguing that a uniform national standard makes commerce more efficient. Several states have grandfathered rules allowing heavier trucks.

The argument for a higher standard: trucks could maximize cargo space, leading to better fuel economy and fewer trucks on the road, and heavy loads could stay on federal lanes instead of rural roads where the majority of fatal truck crashes occur.

Opponents, including OOIDA, say heavier trucks would endanger other motorists and further damage delicate highway infrastructure, and they question whether raising limits is really a way to ask truckers to do more work for the same pay.

Where It Stands

For now, it remains unsettled whether federal preemption clauses will be voted into law. If the House and Senate pass bills with different language, the two will have to be reconciled, and the politics rarely break cleanly along party lines.

By Tiffany Hsu

Source: Trucks.com