Opinion ID: 186266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sleeper-Berth Exception

Text: 46 Our doubts extend as well to the agency's justification for retaining the sleeper-berth exception. The final rule, again, permits solo and team drivers to obtain the necessary ten hours of off-duty time by splitting their rest in two periods of time spent in sleeper berths, at least one of which is two hours long. 49 C.F.R. § 395.1(g) (2003). Petitioners argue persuasively that the agency's justification for retaining this exception was not rational in view of the conceded central premise of the HOS regulations, shared by the NPR and the final rule, that [e]ach driver should have an opportunity for eight consecutive hours of uninterrupted sleep every day. 68 Fed.Reg. at 22,469. 47 Despite that premise, the agency offered several justifications for nevertheless permitting drivers to obtain the required continuous period of rest in two chunks, all of which are quite weak. First, the agency cited two studies, Dingus et al., Impact of Sleeper Berth Usage on Driver Fatigue (2002); and Wylie et al., Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study (1996). 68 Fed.Reg. at 22,465. The agency cited the first study for the proposition that [s]tudies on the sleeper berth issue have generally found that, for a number of reasons, sleeping in a berth, particularly when the vehicle is moving, is less restorative than sleeping in a bed. Id. at 22,464. The agency also noted that team drivers used sleeper berths more effectively than solo drivers did. Id. at 22,465. 48 It is not clear how the Dingus study could rationally justify retaining the sleeper-berth exception. The conclusions that the agency draws from the study either do not support retaining the exception or have nothing to do with the problem of sleeper-berth rest. For one, the agency's citation to the study for the idea that sleeping in a berth is less restorative than sleeping in a bed supports eliminating, not retaining, the exception. Similarly, the agency's observation that solo drivers less effectively use sleeper berths than do team drivers also supports eliminating the exception for solo drivers, as the rule proposed in the NPR would have. For another, a study comparing the effects of sleeper berth usage on team drivers and solo drivers says little about whether, as an absolute matter, retaining the exception is safe. Congress directed the FMCSA to ensure that commercial motor vehicles are ... operated safely, 49 U.S.C. § 31136(a)(1), not to ensure that commercial motor vehicles driven by team drivers are safe relative to those driven by solo drivers. The Dingus study, in short, is weak justification for retaining the exception. 49 The agency's use of the Wiley study is also difficult to understand. The Wiley study did not even evaluate the problem of sleeper-berth sleep, much less split sleeper-berth sleep; the drivers in that study slept in hospitals and motels, not sleeper berths. The Wiley study thus is also weak evidence that retaining the sleeper-berth exception is appropriate. 50 The other justifications the agency used to justify the sleeper-berth exception are also unimpressive. The agency noted that the proximity and convenience of the sleeper-berth reduces the importance of the length of the uninterrupted period. Id. at 22,466. That says nothing about whether drivers should be able to split their rest in a sleeper berth; at most, it would justify reducing the required length of continuous rest if a driver spends the time in a berth, which the rule does not do. The agency also said that [u]se of sleeper berths in long-haul operations is firmly entrenched in the practice, culture, and equipment of the trucking industry, and that therefore to eliminate the sleeper-berth exception would require more documented evidence of a safety problem than the agency now has. Id. This is another nonsequitur. Eliminating the sleeper-berth exception would not prevent drivers from using sleeper berths. It would only prevent them from splitting their rest in them. 51 In sum, we have grave doubts about whether the agency's explanation for retaining the sleeper-berth exception would survive arbitrary-and-capricious review.