Background
In 2020, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) determined that California’s meal and rest break (MRB) rules — which require 30-minute meal periods after five hours and 10-minute rest breaks every four hours — are preempted when applied to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles such as intercity buses and charter coaches. The agency found the rules provided no additional safety benefit beyond the federal hours-of-service (HOS) regulations, were incompatible with the federal framework, and imposed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
California’s Attorney General and Labor Commissioner petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. They argued that the FMCSA lacked authority to preempt generally applicable state labor laws, and that the absence of a federal mid-shift break requirement for passenger vehicle drivers should change the analysis. The Ninth Circuit had previously upheld FMCSA preemption of the same MRB rules as applied to property-carrying (truck) drivers in its 2021 Teamsters decision.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, holding that its prior decision in Teamsters largely foreclosed California’s arguments. The court reaffirmed that California’s MRB rules are state regulations “on commercial motor vehicle safety” within the FMCSA’s preemption authority, even though the rules are laws of general applicability not specifically directed at commercial vehicles. Because the MRB rules impose the same types of restrictions on driver duty and driving times as the federal HOS regulations, they fall within the agency’s regulatory domain.
The court rejected California’s argument that the absence of a federal 30-minute break requirement for passenger vehicle drivers should yield a different result. Federal HOS regulations still govern how long passenger vehicle drivers may remain on duty before mandatory off-duty periods, covering the same subject area as the MRB rules. The FMCSA’s decision not to require a mid-shift break for passenger vehicle drivers was a deliberate policy choice — not an absence of regulation.
On the burden-on-commerce analysis, the court found the record adequately supported the FMCSA’s conclusion. Commenters documented significant operational disruptions, increased costs, scheduling difficulties for passenger carriers, and the “patchwork” created by varying state MRB requirements across state lines.
Key Takeaways
- California’s meal and rest break rules are now preempted for drivers of both property-carrying and passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles subject to federal HOS regulations.
- Bus companies, charter services, and other passenger carriers operating in California are not required to comply with California’s MRB rules for their drivers who are subject to federal HOS regulations.
- The FMCSA’s authority to preempt state laws extends to generally applicable labor laws — not just regulations specifically targeting commercial vehicle safety.
- The FMCSA’s deliberate decision not to impose mid-shift breaks on passenger vehicle drivers is treated as an affirmative policy choice, not a regulatory gap that states can fill.
- Employers should confirm whether their drivers are actually subject to federal HOS regulations, as the preemption applies only to those who are.
Why It Matters
This decision closes the gap left after the Ninth Circuit’s 2021 Teamsters ruling: California’s MRB rules are now preempted for essentially all commercial motor vehicle drivers subject to federal hours-of-service regulations, whether they haul freight or carry passengers. For bus companies, tour operators, and transit providers operating in California, this eliminates the legal uncertainty about whether they needed to restructure routes and schedules to accommodate California’s mandatory breaks.
For California labor advocates and regulators, the decision is a significant setback. It means that a large category of workers driving in California will not receive the state’s meal and rest break protections — a category the state specifically sought to protect. The decision also reinforces the broad reach of federal preemption in the commercial vehicle space, making it harder for states to impose supplemental safety-related requirements on interstate carriers.