Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2007 WL 2089740
In a decision issued July 24, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held two provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration invalid. In its decision, the court decided that the freshly adopted 2005 provisions, increasing the daily driving limit from 10 hours to 11 hours and allowing the weekly limit to restart after a driver spends 34 consecutive hours off-duty, are invalid.
The history of this case plays relevant role in the outcome of this case. The same court in 2003 issued an opinion invaliding the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s hours-of- service regulations. See Citizen v. FMCSA, 374 F.3d 1209. Between 1940 and 2003 the regulations of long haul drivers remained largely unchanged. However, in 2003 the agency revised the regulations.
The FMCSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2000 and formed an agency to make specific findings to aid in the decision- making. In relevant part, the 2003 regulations modified three of the five pre-existing rules and added a sixth regulation. The rules (1) increased the daily driving limit from 10 to 11 hours; (2) reduced the daily on-duty limit from 15 to 14 hours and prohibited drivers from extending that limit by taking off-duty breaks during their shifts; (3) increased the daily off- duty requirement from 8 to 10 hours; (4)allowed a driver using a sleeper berth to satisfy the off- duty requirements in two separate periods as long as each of them was at least 2 hours long; (5) preserved the 60-hour weekly on-duty limit, but created a new exception to this requirement, the 34-hour restart provision; and (6) added a new regulation permitting drivers to restart their 60-hour weekly limit anytime they took 34 consecutive hours off-duty.
In its 2003 decision, the court found all of the modified regulations to be arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to consider the impact of the rule on the health of the drivers. After the decision, the agency sought and received temporary relief from Congress which allowed the 2003 regulations to remain in effect until 2005 at which point the agency was to have new regulations resolving the issues raised by the court in the prior case. In August 2005, the agency released its new regulations which are the target of this case.
The 2005 regulations preserved the 11-hour daily driving limit, the 14-hour daily on-duty limit, the 60-hour weekly on-duty limit and the 34-hour restart provision. Although the changes were largely the same as the 2003 regulations, the agency said it had addressed the concerns of the court regarding the 2003 provisions. In fact, the agency explained it had conducted large amounts of research regarding various health issues and concluded the new regulations would have no effect or a net improvement over the pre-2003 regulations.
However, Public Citizen challenged the new provisions asserting the regulations were arbitrary because they failed to provide reasoned explanations for critical elements.
To contrast the FMSCA’s position, Public Citizen provided large amounts of research and data regarding the safety of drivers after each hour of driving and its effect on driver over a period of time. The research proved that the risk of a fatigue-related crash in the 11th hour of driving or later is notably higher than in the 10th hour of driving (4.4% v. 9.6%). Moreover, the research indicated that by allowing drivers to restart their hours after 34 consecutive hour off- duty, drivers could increase their weekly total by 17 hours. In doing this, the agency overlooked the increased crash risk caused by “cumulative fatigue” associated with driving and working these extra hours. The research proved that longer hours spent driving over the course of a few days has a fatigue-inducing effect that is independent of that caused by insufficient sleep.
Relying on this research and data, the court invalidated both the daily driving limit increase from 10 to 11 hours and the 34-hour restart provision. The court determined that because the agency had not taken into account valid research on these issues, the provisions were arbitrary and invalid. Thus, these provisions are vacated. The courts decision repealing parts of the 2005 rule takes effect Sept 14 2007. The American Trucker Association will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Should you desire further comment on this case or have questions about trucking related risk management, please contact one of our Trucking Practice Group Attorneys.
