Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. United States Department of Transportation
840 F.3d 879
7th Cir.2016Background
- Federal law has long required truck drivers in interstate commerce to record hours of service; paper logs are error- and fraud-prone.
- Congress (2012) mandated that most commercial vehicles be equipped with electronic logging devices (ELDs) and instructed DOT to consider harassment, privacy, and confidentiality when issuing implementing rules (49 U.S.C. § 31137).
- FMCSA promulgated the Final ELD Rule in 2015 requiring engine-linked devices that record time, engine status, approximate location, driver and vehicle IDs, and limited periodic tracking; inspections of ELD data at roadside/audits are authorized without a warrant.
- Petitioners (Elrod, Pingel, OOIDA) sought review, arguing the rule (1) fails to require fully automatic recording, (2) defines harassment too narrowly, (3) lacks an adequate cost-benefit analysis, (4) fails to protect confidentiality, and (5) violates the Fourth Amendment.
- The Seventh Circuit rejected each challenge, upholding agency balancing of statutory directives, its harassment definition and procedures, its treatment of costs and confidentiality, and concluding any inspection regime fits within the pervasively regulated-industry exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "automatically" requires devices with no human input | Petitioners: "automatically" means entirely automatic (no manual status entries) | FMCSA: "automatically" reasonably interpreted to require engine-linked automatic recording of specified events while allowing limited manual input for certain on-duty, non-driving activities | Court: Agency’s reading is reasonable; statute contemplates balancing privacy/harassment concerns and did not require invasive continuous surveillance |
| Whether FMCSA’s harassment definition is too narrow | Petitioners: Definition protects only narrow subset (ties harassment to impairment/HOS violations) and misses other harassment forms | FMCSA: Definition provides objective, administrable standards and includes non-HOS impairment under §392.3; rule adds procedures, tamper protections, mute, complaint process | Court: Definition is reasonable, informed by notice-and-comment and outreach, and addresses petitioners’ hypothetical |
| Whether agency needed or performed adequate cost-benefit analysis | Petitioners: Benefits overstated because devices aren’t fully automatic and relied studies are unreliable | FMCSA: Congress mandated ELDs (no cost-benefit prerequisite); agency nonetheless relied on empirical studies and models | Court: No statutory requirement to perform cost-benefit analysis for §31137; even on merits agency used reasonable methods and estimates suffice |
| Whether ELD data collection and inspection violates Fourth Amendment | Petitioners: Mandate effects an unreasonable search/seizure; cannot rely on pervasively regulated-industry exception | FMCSA: Trucking is pervasively regulated; warrantless inspection of limited ELD records is necessary and reasonable with procedural limits | Court: Trucking is pervasively regulated and FMCSA’s inspection scheme satisfies Burger factors; no Fourth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (deference to reasonable agency statutory interpretation)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (weight of agency interpretations depends on persuasiveness)
- Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 656 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2011) (vacating prior EOBR rule for failing to address harassment)
- Public Citizen v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 374 F.3d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency discretion in evaluating competing estimates in safety rules)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (pervasively regulated-industry exception; three-part reasonableness test for administrative inspections)
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (consideration of whether an industry is pervasively regulated)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457 (courts avoid reading ambiguous statutory text to effect sweeping change)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment privacy framework)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (warrantless searches generally unreasonable without exception)
- Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (Fourth Amendment applies to commercial inspections)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (special needs doctrine for safety-sensitive regulated activities)