104Feeder
Phoenix Feeder
It's always possible the FMCSA will appeal the provision that was vacated, but seeing as most of the rule that they are really concerned with was upheld I'm betting they won't. There is no mention of this in their press release News Release - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the agency is touting it as a victory which it was. Here is a link to the actual decision:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...18F85257BBB004DEFAD/$file/12-1092-1449738.pdf
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...18F85257BBB004DEFAD/$file/12-1092-1449738.pdf
The section relevant to the 30 minute break period starts on page 16 and continues to the end.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...18F85257BBB004DEFAD/$file/12-1092-1449738.pdf
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...18F85257BBB004DEFAD/$file/12-1092-1449738.pdf
The section relevant to the 30 minute break period starts on page 16 and continues to the end.
Changing gears, ATA next argues FMCSA acted
arbitrarily and irrationally by failing to explain the agency’s
decision to apply the 30-minute break requirement to shorthaul drivers. See ATA Br. 50–51. This claim has far more
traction. Despite the many paragraphs scattered throughout
the multiple rulemakings distinguishing short- and long-haul
trucking both in degree and in kind, see, e.g., 2011 Final Rule
at 81,141; 2010 NPRM at 82,175; 2005 Final Rule at 49,995–
96; 2003 Final Rule at 22,482, the 2011 Final Rule contains
not one word justifying the agency’s decision to apply the
new requirement to the unique context of short-haul
operations.9
The agency responds meekly, suggesting that the
general explanation for the necessity of a 30-minute break
“applies, on its face, to short-haul as well as long-haul
drivers.” Respondent Br. 79. Because such conclusory, posthoc rationalization falls far short of what is required under
State Farm, we think the offending requirement must be
vacated. See 463 U.S. at 50.