WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 14, 2004) — The tug-of-war between the U.S. Department of Transportation and a handful of lobby groups over hours-of-service rules continues as Public Citizen filed a brief with the court calling on it to refuse to grant the government’s motion for a stay on the decision to throw out the rules.

The DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recently asking for a stay of at least six months on the decision. In a motion filed with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, FMCSA asked for a stay to determine what steps could be taken to amend or replace the rule vacated by the court. Were the stay to be granted, the present HOS rules would remain in effect until a new solution has been arrived at.

The brief filed by Public Citizen — as well as other groups historically at odds with the trucking industry like Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) and Parents Against Tired Truckers — urges the Court of Appeals not to “undermine the ruling” that threw out the new HOS rules this past summer by refusing the government’s “highly unusual request for an indefinite stay.”

On July 16th, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia quashed the rules that we’ve been living with since January. In its decision, the court sided with Public Citizen (founded by environmental activist-turned politician Ralph Nader) and its argument that the regulations are “arbitrary and capricious,” and that FMCSA failed to comply with a statute requiring it to consider the rule’s impact on the health of drivers.

“Such an open-ended stay is not consistent with the court’s rules and is contrary to the public interest, given the risk to drivers and the public alike presented by the longer driving hours authorized by the rules,” Public Citizen said in a release, adding that the FMCSA’s request for a stay is an attempt to buy time to launch an effective appeal of the original court decision.

The group also brushed off FMCSA’s suggestion that it would be inconvenient and expensive to revert back to the old rules in place prior to January 2004. “That’s nonsense,” the lobby group said. “Any economic losses that would result from reverting to the old rules would be dwarfed by the safety and health risks entailed by the retention of the new (invalidated) rules.”