49 C.F.R. § 395.3

Maximum driving time for property-carrying vehicles

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as otherwise provided in § 395.1, no motor carrier shall permit or require any driver used by it to drive a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, nor shall any such driver drive a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, regardless of the number of motor carriers using the driver's services, unless the driver complies with the following requirements:

(1) Start of work shift. A driver may not drive without first taking 10 consecutive hours off duty;

(2) 14-hour period. 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 § 395.1(e)(1) or (2), driving is not permitted if more than 8 hours of driving time have passed without at least a consecutive 30-minute interruption in driving status. A consecutive 30-minute interruption of driving status may be satisfied either by off-duty, sleeper berth or on-duty not driving time or by a combination of off-duty, sleeper berth and on-duty not driving time.

(b) No motor carrier shall permit or require a driver of a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle to drive, nor shall any driver drive a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, regardless of the number of motor carriers using the driver's services, for any period after—

(1) Having been on duty 60 hours in any period of 7 consecutive days if the employing motor carrier does not operate commercial motor vehicles every day of the week; or

(2) Having been on duty 70 hours in any period of 8 consecutive days if the employing motor carrier operates commercial motor vehicles every day of the week.

(c)(1) Any period of 7 consecutive days may end with the beginning of an off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours.

(2) Any period of 8 consecutive days may end with the beginning of an off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours.

[76 FR 81188, Dec. 27, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 58485, Sept. 24, 2013; 78 FR 64181, Oct. 28, 2013; 84 FR 48081, Sept. 12, 2019; 85 FR 33452, June 1, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 137 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Intl Bhd. of Teamsters v. Fmcsa, 986 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2021).
Intl Bhd. of Teamsters v. Fmcsa, 986 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 6× “FMCSA 11 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 (a)(1) (2018), 1 and “may not drive after the end of the 14-consecutive-hour period without first taking 10 consecutive hours off duty,” id.”
Mickey Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “They therefore are not covered by other state laws or federal hours-of- service regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 , and would be without any hours- of-service limits if California laws did not apply to them.”
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 494 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “49 C.F.R. § 395.3 (a)(1) (2002) (superseded).”
Greist v. Phillips, 906 P.2d 789 (Or. 1995). · cites it 4× “49 C.F.R. 395.3. [4] From the evidence developed at trial, a reasonable juror could have inferred that the speedometer in the truck was not operative at the time of the accident.”
Charles Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “5(a); 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 (a)(1). During mandatory breaks, drivers may take “sleeper berth” time or “off duty” time.”
Dennis Rayner & Joe Tex Xpress, Inc. v. Krista Dillon, 501 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016). · cites it 4× “See 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 (West, Westlaw current through July 7, 2016).”
Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 358 P.3d 1139 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 395.3 (b)(1). ¶3 In November 2009, Rose’s supervisor allegedly directed Rose to transport a load to Seattle, which would have put Rose over the 60-hour limit.”
Godfrey v. Oakland Port Servs. Corp., 230 Cal. App. 4th 1267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “For the reasons discussed in this section, we hold that California’s meal and rest break laws, as generally applied to motor carriers, are not preempted, [f] Were we to construe Defendant’s argument as an ‘as applied’ challenge, we would reach the same conclusion and, if…”
White v. U.S. Corr., 996 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2021). “19-51074 Companies covered under [Jeanna’s Act] must adhere to the maximum driving time provisions applicable to commercial motor vehicle operators, as set forth in Department of Transportation regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 which will apply regardless of whether a private…”
Julian v. Swift Transp. Co., 360 F. Supp. 3d 932 (D. Ariz. 2018). · cites it 3× “49 C.F.R. § 395.3 . Somewhat simplified, a driver cannot be logged as "driving" or "on duty not driving" for more than "70 hours in any period of 8 consecutive days.”
Commonwealth v. Petroll, 738 A.2d 993 (Pa. 1999). · cites it 2× “341; see 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 (establishing driving time limits).”
Sparks v. M&D Trucking, L.L.C., 921 N.W.2d 110 (Neb. 2018). “26 See 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 (2) (2017). 27 Kime, supra note 4 .”
49 C.F.R. § 395.3(a): 1 case
Cerutti v. Frito Lay, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 2d 920 (W.D. Pa. 2011).
49 C.F.R. § 395.3(a)(1): 1 case
Rivera v. TransAm Trucking, No. E075289 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2022).
49 C.F.R. § 395.3(a)(2): 2 cases
Rivera v. TransAm Trucking, No. E075289 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2022).
Friedel v. Quota, 2015-Ohio-4060.
49 C.F.R. § 395.3(a)(3): 1 case
Gonzalez v. Point Logistics, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00027 (W.D. Ky. July 28, 2021).
49 C.F.R. § 395.3(a)(3)(ii): 2 cases
Gonzalez v. Point Logistics, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00027 (W.D. Ky. July 28, 2021).
Skau v. JBS Carriers, Inc, No. 2:18-cv-00681 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 23, 2019).
49 C.F.R. § 395.3(b): 1 case
Shamell Roberson v. Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals, L.P., No. 05-22-00805-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 30, 2024).
49 C.F.R. § 395.3(b)(1): 1 case
Rivera v. TransAm Trucking, No. E075289 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.