Dec. 2, 2005<\/p>\n
Appeals Court Excoriates FMCSA for Woefully Inadequate Truck and Bus Driver Training<\/b>\u00a0Rule<\/b><\/p>\n
Rule Is \u201cSo at Odds\u201d With Government\u2019s Own Safety Information<\/i><\/b> That It Must Be Rewritten, Court Says<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 A federal rule establishing training requirements for truck and bus drivers is \u201cso at odds\u201d with safety information assembled by the government that it should be thrown out and redone, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled today.<\/p>\n
In a scathing opinion that excoriates the agency for disregarding data and offering \u201cpatently illogical\u201d reasoning, Senior Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards said that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) \u201chas adopted a rule with little apparent connection to the inadequacies it purports to address.\u201d The rule, issued in May 2004, \u201ccompletely ignores\u201d data about \u201cpractical, on-the-road training.\u201d The court deemed the agency\u2019s analysis \u201cfrail.\u201d<\/p>\n
The rule was supposed to set minimum training requirements for commercial motor vehicle operators, including drivers of trucks and buses. Instead of requiring that drivers have on-the-road training in such things as backing, driving in severe weather, controlling skids and passing other vehicles, though, the rule merely requires training in driver wellness, driver qualifications, hours of service and whistleblower protection.<\/p>\n
\u201cToday\u2019s D.C. Court of Appeals decision, in yet another unanimous opinion against the agency, is a clear rebuke to the FMCSA,\u201d said Jackie Gillan, vice president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, which filed the suit. \u201cOnce again, the courts have stepped in and overturned a major rulemaking of this agency because of serious defects. This shows that the agency lacks the expertise to issue a valid, worthwhile safety regulation, and that the agency is negligent in producing effective safety policies.\u201d<\/p>\n
Added Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, which represented Advocates in court, \u201cThe Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has been reprimanded now twice in the past 18 months by the U.S. Court of Appeals for totally inadequate truck driver safety regulations. This damning decision, which sends the agency back to the drawing board, should be a wake-up call that its statutory priority is public safety, not accommodating the trucking industry. This is a lawless agency.\u201d (The other decision regarded trucker hours of service.)<\/p>\n
Concerned about driver safety, Congress in 1991 directed the Secretary of Transportation to begin a formal process investigating the need for minimum training requirements for entry-level truck and bus drivers. The agency was to issue a rule by December 1993 or submit a report to Congress explaining why a rule was not necessary.<\/p>\n
In a study published in 1995, the agency found that commercial motor vehicle drivers were not being adequately trained. In fact, it found that only 8.1 percent of heavy truck carriers and 18.5 percent of bus operators provided entry-level drivers with adequate training. The agency held a public hearing in 1996 on the issue, but then did nothing for seven years.<\/p>\n
In November 2002, Public Citizen, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired Truckers, and Teamsters for a Democratic Union filed a petition in court seeking an order directing the government to fulfill Congress\u2019 mandate and issue a rule. As part of a settlement, the U.S. Department of Transportation agreed to issue a rule by May 31, 2004.<\/p>\n
However, when FMCSA produced the rule, it appeared to give no consideration to the reams of information it had gathered documenting the inadequacies of driver training and the need for on-the-road training for entry-level commercial drivers. Its final rule calls for just 10 hours of training, none of it on the road.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe agency has entirely failed,\u201d the opinion said. \u201cIt largely ignored the evidence \u2026 and abandoned the recommendations … without reasonable explanation; and it adopted a final rule whose terms have almost nothing to do with an \u2018adequate\u2019 CMV [commercial motor vehicle] training program. FMCSA simply disregarded the volumes of evidence that extensive, on-street training enhances CMV safety.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was unreasonable for the agency to promulgate a rule on mandatory entry-level training that did not require the drivers to receive at least minimally adequate training in the skills and knowledge necessary to drive a truck or bus,\u201d said Adina Rosenbaum, the Public Citizen attorney who handled the case. \u201cWe are pleased that the court recognized the complete disconnect between the evidence before the agency and the agency\u2019s final rule.\u201d<\/p>\n
Also opposing the rule as petitioners in the case were the United Motorcoach Association and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.<\/p>\n
A copy of the opinion is\u00a0available here.<\/a><\/p>\n