Intl Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Fmcsa, 986 F.3d 841

Background

FMCSA (agency within DOT) concluded in 2018 that federal law preempted California’s meal-and-rest-break (MRB) rules as applied to drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles who are subject to FMCSA hours-of-service (HOS) rules.
Federal HOS (2018 rule) requires, for most property-carrying drivers, a 30-minute break during the first 8 hours worked with scheduling flexibility; California wage orders require more frequent meal and 10-minute rest breaks with stricter timing rules and monetary penalties for noncompliance.
FMCSA had refused to preempt the MRB rules in 2008, but after promulgating driver break rules in 2011, it reopened the issue and issued a preemption determination in 2018.
Petitioners (California Labor Commissioner, Teamsters locals, individual drivers) sought review in the Ninth Circuit, arguing FMCSA lacked authority to preempt, misapplied Chevron, and that its factual and burden analyses were arbitrary and capricious.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed under the APA and denied the petitions, holding FMCSA’s interpretation of 49 U.S.C. § 31141 and its factual findings were permissible and not arbitrary or capricious.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of FMCSA preemption authority: meaning of “on commercial motor vehicle safety”	Narrow: applies only to laws specifically directed at CMV safety; MRB rules are general workplace laws	Broader: covers state laws that impose requirements in areas already regulated by FMCSA under §31136	FMCSA’s interpretation reasonable; §31141 covers state rules that address the same regulatory area as a federal regulation
Chevron deference applicability to FMCSA reversal	No deference: agency reversal and preemption decisions deserve no Chevron deference (relying on Wyeth)	Chevron applies: Congress expressly delegated preemption authority; agency adequately explained departure from 2008 view	Chevron applies; agency’s changed position entitled to deference because it explained departure and justified reinterpretation
Whether MRB rules are “additional to or more stringent than” federal regs	MRB flexible features (waivers, premium-pay remedy) mean they are not effectively more stringent	MRB requires more/earlier breaks and stricter timing; penalties and criminal sanctions treat nonprovision as legal violation	FMCSA reasonably concluded MRB rules are additional/ more stringent than federal HOS rules
Unreasonable burden on interstate commerce (cumulative burden)	MRB safety benefits outweigh costs; other state-law variability common so marginal burden is negligible	MRB reduces available duty hours, imposes productivity/administrative costs, and a multistate patchwork increases burdens	FMCSA adequately analyzed costs, cumulative effects, and benefits; finding of unreasonable burden was not arbitrary or capricious

Key Cases Cited

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (establishing two-step agency deference framework)
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (agency preemption determinations receive no special deference absent congressional delegation)
Nat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (agency may change interpretation and new view can receive Chevron deference if justified)
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FDA, 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (limits to deference where statutory scheme indicates lack of authority)
City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (Chevron applies to agency interpretations of statutes it administers, including statutory-scope questions)
Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014) (addressing a different federal preemption provision; does not control §31141 interpretation)
Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513 (Cal. 2012) (California law on rest-break timing and employer obligations)
Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 274 P.3d 1160 (Cal. 2012) (California Supreme Court: section 226.7 targets nonprovision of breaks, not merely wage remedy)