This Editorial appears in the Oct. 1 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today. “Hi. We’re from the government, and we’re here to help you.” Not buying it? Well, that seems to be the logic behind the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s filing in federal court last week, defending the agency’s decision to modify the 34-hour restart provision of the new hours-of-service rule.
The agency told the court — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to be exact — that ATA’s lawsuit contesting the changes should be thrown out because the court should rely instead on the agency’s expertise and judgment.
In other words, “We know best because we are the federal agency that is charged with overseeing the trucking industry.”
We, however, agree with the American Trucking Associations lawyer who responded that FMCSA should be allowed to use its discretion only “if its rule is based on reasonable conclusions — from reliable evidence — that are adequately explained.”
The lawyer, deputy general counsel Rich Pianka, added that the agency’s brief showed that FMCSA “cannot demonstrate the reasonableness of its conclusions” regarding the restart provision.
It was ATA that brought the lawsuit challenging the restart change that led to the filing of FMCSA’s brief.
Now, we aren’t surprised that FMCSA would defend its changes, but to declare that the agency is beyond questioning because it’s the federal government seems beyond the pale.
ATA has asked the agency to provide the justification for the rules change, and it seems perfectly reasonable to ask the appeals court judges to decide if they believe that FMCSA’s logic and science is valid.
The agency took an identical position in a similar lawsuit filed by opponents of the hours rule over FMCSA’s decision to retain the 11-hour driving day.
The parties that filed that lawsuit did not respond to requests for comment.
ATA, and most of trucking, supports the 11-hour driving section of the rule, and we believe there is ample, unambiguous evidence to retain this portion of the new rule.
We urge the court not to intervene and throw the 34-hour restart challenge out but rather to examine FMCSA’s logic and see if it meets the test and is allowed to become an integral part of the new rule.
“Because I say so” should not become the standard by which federal regulatory agencies defend their actions.
