Driving Hours Remain in Effect
Groups Back Current Rule
By Sean McNally, Senior Reporter
This story appears in the Sept. 24 print edition of Transport Topics.
The current truck-driver hours-of-service rules — allowing 11 hours of driving and restarting a week after 34 hours of rest — are likely to remain in place for at least several more weeks, lawyers representing the trucking industry and safety groups told Transport Topics.
The potential delay in implementing a court decision overturning the rules is the result of legal actions by industry groups, including American Trucking Associations, with the support of nearly a half-dozen others, seeking an eight-month stay.
ATA and others said implementing the court’s finding now would cause tremendous disruption and upheaval in the trucking industry.
“We keep pushing this out a little bit,” said Robert Digges, deputy general counsel for ATA.
In late July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that when it revised the hours rule in 2005, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration failed to properly justify allowing truckers to drive 11 hours and the section of the rule allowing drivers to reset their weekly hour limits with a 34-hour off-duty period (7-30, p. 1).
Digges said that because ATA filed its request for a stay of the decision striking down the 11th hour of driving and 34-hour restart on Sept. 6, the deadline for FMCSA and Public Citizen to respond to ATA’s request was Sept. 21. After that date, he said, ATA would have five days to respond, meaning the earliest the court could rule would be Sept. 28 or even Oct. 1.
According to the rules of the court, the mandate, or effect of the decision, is delayed “until disposition of [a] petition or motion, unless the court orders otherwise.” So far, the court has not issued such an order.
Bonnie Robin-Vergeer, a lawyer representing Public Citizen in its challenge to the rule, said two issues are delaying the court issuing its mandate: ATA’s petition and a request by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association for a rehearing of the case.
OOIDA’s Sept. 7 request “stays the mandate until the court disposes of the petition,” Robin-Vergeer said.
The court’s ruling on OOIDA’s petition “could be nearly immediate,” she said. “If the court asks for a response from the agency, that will drag out the process, as well.”
Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for FMCSA declined to comment on how it will respond to the court’s ruling or ATA’s motion, beyond saying the agency was “still working with [the Department of Justice] to determine our next steps.”
Digges speculated that, though “there may not be any technical obligation to reply, we would assume they would, because there’s a significant chance, given what we’ve said in our motion, that the court would ask them to reply.”
Though the government and Public Citizen had yet to weigh in on ATA’s request by press time, several industry groups filed motions in support of the stay.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, which represents law enforcement agencies, said vacating the rule “has immediate, negative impacts,” including confusion, inconsistent enforcement and increased costs for training.
Several shipper groups, including the Retail Industry Leaders Association, NASSTRAC and the National Industrial Transportation League, urged the court to postpone its decision, citing the risk of significant supply-chain disruption and “irreparable harm” to businesses that rely on trucking.
Parcel carrier UPS Inc. also filed a brief saying implementing the court’s ruling would “seriously disrupt the trucking industry.”
This story appears in the Sept. 24 print edition of Transport Topics.
The current truck-driver hours-of-service rules — allowing 11 hours of driving and restarting a week after 34 hours of rest — are likely to remain in place for at least several more weeks, lawyers representing the trucking industry and safety groups told Transport Topics.
The potential delay in implementing a court decision overturning the rules is the result of legal actions by industry groups, including American Trucking Associations, with the support of nearly a half-dozen others, seeking an eight-month stay.
ATA and others said implementing the court’s finding now would cause tremendous disruption and upheaval in the trucking industry.
“We keep pushing this out a little bit,” said Robert Digges, deputy general counsel for ATA.
In late July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that when it revised the hours rule in 2005, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration failed to properly justify allowing truckers to drive 11 hours and the section of the rule allowing drivers to reset their weekly hour limits with a 34-hour off-duty period (7-30, p. 1).
Digges said that because ATA filed its request for a stay of the decision striking down the 11th hour of driving and 34-hour restart on Sept. 6, the deadline for FMCSA and Public Citizen to respond to ATA’s request was Sept. 21. After that date, he said, ATA would have five days to respond, meaning the earliest the court could rule would be Sept. 28 or even Oct. 1.
According to the rules of the court, the mandate, or effect of the decision, is delayed “until disposition of [a] petition or motion, unless the court orders otherwise.” So far, the court has not issued such an order.
Bonnie Robin-Vergeer, a lawyer representing Public Citizen in its challenge to the rule, said two issues are delaying the court issuing its mandate: ATA’s petition and a request by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association for a rehearing of the case.
OOIDA’s Sept. 7 request “stays the mandate until the court disposes of the petition,” Robin-Vergeer said.
The court’s ruling on OOIDA’s petition “could be nearly immediate,” she said. “If the court asks for a response from the agency, that will drag out the process, as well.”
Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for FMCSA declined to comment on how it will respond to the court’s ruling or ATA’s motion, beyond saying the agency was “still working with [the Department of Justice] to determine our next steps.”
Digges speculated that, though “there may not be any technical obligation to reply, we would assume they would, because there’s a significant chance, given what we’ve said in our motion, that the court would ask them to reply.”
Though the government and Public Citizen had yet to weigh in on ATA’s request by press time, several industry groups filed motions in support of the stay.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, which represents law enforcement agencies, said vacating the rule “has immediate, negative impacts,” including confusion, inconsistent enforcement and increased costs for training.
Several shipper groups, including the Retail Industry Leaders Association, NASSTRAC and the National Industrial Transportation League, urged the court to postpone its decision, citing the risk of significant supply-chain disruption and “irreparable harm” to businesses that rely on trucking.
Parcel carrier UPS Inc. also filed a brief saying implementing the court’s ruling would “seriously disrupt the trucking industry.”
