Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01357/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01357-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ezzell Trucking, Inc.
Petitioner
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 12, 2002 Decided November 5, 2002

No. 01-1357

Ezzell Trucking, Inc.,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,

Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Timothy W. Wiseman argued the cause for petitioner.

With him on the briefs were Laurie T. Baulig and Daniel R.

Barney.

August E. Flentje, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was

John C. Hoyle, Special Counsel. Mark S. Davies, Attorney,

U.S. Department of Justice, entered an appearance.

USCA Case #01-1357 Document #711967 Filed: 11/05/2002 Page 1 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Henderson, Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Tatel.

Tatel, Circuit Judge: A commercial motor carrier petitions for review of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration order upgrading the company's safety rating to "satisfactory"--the highest possible rating--but letting stand a

finding that the company had violated regulations concerning

pre-employment drug testing of drivers. Because petitioner

has failed to demonstrate that the drug testing finding injures

it in any way, we dismiss the petition for lack of Article III

standing.

I.

Created in 1999 to take over certain duties from the

Federal Highway Administration, see Motor Carrier Safety

Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-159, s 101(a), 113

Stat. 1748, 1750-51 (codified at 49 U.S.C. s 113), the Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Administration assigns safety fitness

ratings to owners and operators of commercial motor vehicles. 49 U.S.C. s 31144(b); 49 C.F.R. s 1.73(h). Administration inspectors perform periodic on-site compliance reviews, in which they assess points for regulatory violations

and preventable accidents in six categories called "factors"--

general, driver, operational, vehicle, hazardous materials, and

accidents--and then assign ratings of "satisfactory," "conditional," or "unsatisfactory" for each factor. 49 C.F.R.

ss 385.5, 385.7; id. pt. 385, App. B, II. From these factor

ratings, the Administration calculates an overall rating of

"satisfactory," "conditional," or "unsatisfactory." Id. s 385.3;

id. pt. 385, App. B, III. Although a single unsatisfactory

factor rating automatically reduces a carrier's overall rating

to conditional, a single conditional factor rating does not

change a satisfactory overall rating. Id. pt. 385, App. B,

III.A.

In June 2000, the Administration conducted a compliance

review of petitioner Ezzell Trucking, Inc., at its headquarters

in Harrells, North Carolina. The inspector assigned the

company satisfactory ratings on four factors and an unsatisfactory rating on the operational factor. Concluding that the

USCA Case #01-1357 Document #711967 Filed: 11/05/2002 Page 2 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

company had violated drug testing regulations by allowing

five new hires to ride with current drivers before receiving

their pre-employment drug test results, see id. s 382.301(a),

the inspector also assigned a conditional rating on the driver

factor. The two negative factor ratings caused Ezzell's proposed overall rating to drop from satisfactory to conditional.

Ezzell appealed, and the Administration vacated the unsatisfactory operational factor rating but let the drug testing

violation stand. Therefore, because Ezzell had five satisfactory factor ratings and one conditional factor rating, the Administration restored the company's overall rating to satisfactory.

Ezzell nonetheless filed a petition for review. Challenging

the drug testing violation, the company argues both that the

five new hires had not yet been authorized to act as drivers

and that riding as a passenger in a commercial motor vehicle

as part of an orientation program should not trigger drugtesting requirements. See id. ss 382.107, 382.301(a).

II.

Before considering the merits of Ezzell's challenge, we

must address the Administration's argument that the company lacks Article III standing. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a

Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). Under the "irreducible constitutional minimum" required for standing, Ezzell

must demonstrate an "injury in fact" that is both concrete

and particularized and actual or imminent, a causal connection between the injury and the Administration's action, and a

likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable

decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-

61 (1992). According to the Administration, Ezzell has suffered no injury in fact because the company prevailed in its

administrative appeal of its overall safety rating. See, e.g.,

Mathias v. WorldCom Techs., Inc., 122 S. Ct. 1780, 1780

(2002) (per curiam) (a successful party generally may not

appeal a favorable judgment from an agency or lower court

simply because it dislikes the decision's language or reasoning).

USCA Case #01-1357 Document #711967 Filed: 11/05/2002 Page 3 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Acknowledging that it succeeded in having its overall rating

restored to satisfactory, Ezzell argues that the conditional

factor rating injures it in several ways. First, the company

asserts in its brief that principles of collateral estoppel will

bar it from challenging the drug testing violation finding in a

pending civil enforcement proceeding. We rejected a similar

argument in Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 137 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1998), holding that an

administrative ruling unnecessary to the judgment raises "no

reasonable concern about preclusive effect" and thus does not

support Article III standing. Id. at 648-49. In any event,

the Administration informed us at oral argument that the

finding will have no preclusive effect in the related proceeding. In view of this assurance, Ezzell's counsel conceded that

the possibility of collateral estoppel cannot provide a basis for

Article III standing.

Second, pointing out that the drug testing violation is listed

in the Administration's public database, called SafeStat, Ezzell claims injury to its reputation. To establish such a claim

for purposes of Article III standing, Ezzell must produce

evidence that such injury is concrete, not speculative. Lujan,

504 U.S. at 560; Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 899 (D.C.

Cir. 2002). Ezzell fails to meet this burden. The company

cites only a treatise saying that some insurance companies

and trucking customers consider safety ratings in setting

rates and in choosing carriers. 1 William E. Kenworthy,

Transportation Safety and Insurance Law s 7-1, at 169 (2d

ed. 1998). The treatise, however, does not specify whether

industry watchers focus on carriers' overall ratings or individual factor scores, nor whether Ezzell's insurance providers or

customers have changed their business decisions based on the

company's SafeStat listing. Cf. Advanced Mgmt. Tech., Inc.

v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 211 F.3d 633, 636-37 (D.C. Cir.

2000) (rejecting reputational injury argument as "speculative"

based on "sparse record" as to present and future consequences for petitioner's business).

Finally, Ezzell asserts that the presence of a violation in its

record increases the probability that inspectors will select it

for compliance reviews and roadside inspections. But the

USCA Case #01-1357 Document #711967 Filed: 11/05/2002 Page 4 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

company presented no evidence of how much more likely such

reviews are to occur or of the burden they would impose.

More important, in a letter to us following oral argument, the

Administration advises that because the violation listing is

more than eighteen months old, "the results of Ezzell Trucking's June 2000 compliance review [are] no longer being used

by the SafeStat system for any purpose." Letter from

August E. Flentje, Attorney, Department of Justice Appellate

Staff Civil Division, to Mark J. Langer, Clerk, United States

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2 n.1 (Sept. 13, 2002).

Because Ezzell lacks Article III standing, its petition is

dismissed.

So ordered.

USCA Case #01-1357 Document #711967 Filed: 11/05/2002 Page 5 of 5