Public Citizen v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
362 U.S. App. D.C. 384, 374 F.3d 1209, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14662 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency rule is arbitrary and capricious if the agency entirely fails to consider a factor that Congress has statutorily mandated it to consider. In promulgating safety regulations, an agency must consider all distinct factors required by its governing statute, and consideration of one factor (such as vehicle safety) does not satisfy the requirement to consider a separate, albeit related, factor (such as driver health).
Facts:
- For many years, federal regulations limited commercial truck drivers to 10 hours of driving within a 15-hour on-duty period, followed by 8 hours off-duty.
- In 1995, Congress ordered the relevant federal agency to conduct a new rulemaking process to address fatigue-related issues in commercial trucking.
- The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the successor agency, based its 2000 proposed rule on scientific research showing the need for regular, 24-hour work/rest cycles and continuous sleep to ensure driver alertness.
- The proposed rule suggested reducing driving time, requiring mandatory weekend rest periods, and mandating electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) to monitor compliance.
- In 2003, the FMCSA issued a final rule that differed significantly from its proposal, increasing maximum daily driving time from 10 to 11 hours and introducing a 34-hour "restart" provision which could increase total weekly working hours.
- The final rule also retained a "sleeper-berth exception" allowing drivers to split their rest periods and rejected the mandate for EOBRs, continuing reliance on paper logbooks that the agency had previously acknowledged were widely falsified.
- The statute governing the FMCSA, 49 U.S.C. § 31136(a), mandates that its safety regulations must, at a minimum, ensure that "the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators."
Procedural Posture:
- The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) promulgated a final rule in April 2003, revising the hours-of-service regulations for commercial motor vehicle drivers.
- Public Citizen and other public interest groups (petitioners) filed a petition for review of the final rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the rule as arbitrary and capricious.
- The FMCSA was the respondent in the action before the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a final rule from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration arbitrary and capricious when the agency fails to consider the rule's effect on the physical health of drivers, a factor it is explicitly required by statute to consider under 49 U.S.C. § 31136(a)(4)?
Opinions:
Majority - Sentelle, Circuit Judge
Yes, the rule is arbitrary and capricious. An agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it 'entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,' and a statutorily mandated factor is, by definition, an important aspect. The governing statute, 49 U.S.C. § 31136(a)(4), explicitly requires the FMCSA to ensure its regulations do not have a 'deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators.' The rulemaking record shows the agency considered the effect of driver health on vehicle safety, but it contains no evidence that the agency ever considered the direct impact of the rule on drivers' long-term physical health, such as back problems or immune system damage from overwork. Because the statute lists vehicle safety and driver health as distinct factors, considering one does not satisfy the obligation to consider the other. This complete failure to address a statutorily mandated factor permeates the entire rulemaking and is sufficient, on its own, to vacate the rule.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the principle that an agency's rulemaking authority is strictly bound by the explicit text of its enabling statute. It clarifies that when Congress lists multiple factors for consideration, an agency cannot conflate them, even if they are related. By vacating the entire rule based on the failure to consider a single factor, the court signals that judicial review under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard will be exacting where a clear statutory directive is ignored. This precedent strengthens the hand of challengers to agency actions by highlighting the need for a comprehensive administrative record that demonstrates consideration of every statutorily mandated aspect of a problem.
