Opinion ID: 184778
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Establish Safety Fitness Procedures for New Carriers

Text: 46 TUFS argues that the FHWA has failed to promulgate specific initial and continuing requirements for motor carriers to prove safety fitness as required by § 31144. Its focus, in fact, is on the word initial; no one could seriously argue that the FHWA has failed to promulgate continuing requirements for carriers already in operation. 47 Although the Secretary does not raise the issue of standing it is our duty to do so where it is questionable. See, e.g., Catholic Social Service v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 1123, 1125 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1994). Here, though it is surely questionable, TUFS passes--if barely. TUFS describes its members as various business entities whose operations subject them to federal regulation of interstate trucking, and complains that the FHWA's regulations cannot be used to keep dangerous trucking companies out of interstate operation. We infer a claim that TUFS' members are particularly exposed to injury from unsafe truckers, although TUFS does not itself make the connection. Such a claim satisfies both the Constitutional and prudential standing requirements to bring a suit under a highway safety statute, as we held in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Pena, 17 F.3d 1478, 1482-83 (D.C.Cir.1994). 48 The FHWA does have a safety-related requirement in place to determine whether a carrier's application for new carrier authority should be approved. Carriers are required to provide proof of financial responsibility. 49 CFR § 365.109(a)(5) (1997). This is relevant to safety; indeed, operating a vehicle without minimum levels of financial responsibility is an acute violation of safety regulations, and failure to maintain proof of financial responsibility is a critical violation. See 62 Fed.Reg. 60,035, 60,045 (1997). It is a modest safety fitness requirement, to say the least, but of course it is designed for new carriers, which by definition lack a record on which to base a safety determination. In the absence of any suggestion from TUFS as to what an adequate safety rating system for new carriers ought to entail, we are in no position to hold the FHWA's system insufficient. TUFS directs none of its fire to the issue of carriers that in some degree represent continuations of prior carriers, possibly with a bad record, so we need not address it. 49 TUFS also claims that it is unconscionable that the government has no legal means to shut down dangerous operations. While this may have been true, it was not because of the FHWA's regulations. The 1984 Act conferred no such power on the agency. The 1998 Act does confer it, see Pub.L. No. 105-178, § 4009(a), 112 Stat. 107, 405-06, to be codified at 49 U.S.C. § 31144(c)(1). As we said earlier, none of the parties even mentioned the 1998 Act, and in any event a judgment aimed at pushing the FHWA into action under the 1998 Act would be premature, as the Act is less than nine months old. In fact the Secretary appears to have been taking steps to implement his new powers. See 63 Fed.Reg. 49,630, 49,631 (1998) (request for comments on 1998 Act implementation encouraging all interested parties to submit written comments through November 22 on any TEA-21 provision).