Silverado Stages, Inc. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
809 F.3d 1268
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- Silverado Stages, a California charter bus operator, underwent an FMCSA on-site compliance review in April–June 2014; FMCSA recorded several regulatory violations but still assigned Silverado a "satisfactory" safety rating.
- The FMCSA posted the violations publicly via its Safety Measurement System (SMS), which displayed warning triangles over several safety categories; Silverado alleges public posting caused lost contracts.
- Silverado petitioned for administrative review under 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 in October 2014 challenging the posted violations (not the "satisfactory" rating); FMCSA dismissed the petition as outside § 385.15’s scope, which FMCSA interprets to permit review only of safety ratings.
- Silverado later filed DataQs requests (a separate FMCSA online dispute system) in March 2015 seeking removal/correction of SMS violations; many DataQs requests remained unanswered at the time of briefing.
- Silverado sought this court’s review of the FMCSA’s dismissal. The D.C. Circuit denied the petition, holding some claims were procedurally improper and the merits were without relief in this forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FMCSA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by dismissing Silverado’s § 385.15 petition that challenged posted SMS violations | FMCSA’s dismissal was arbitrary because § 385.15 should permit challenges to online summary violations and the public posting harms carriers | § 385.15 is properly limited to challenges to safety ratings; DataQs exists to challenge posted violations | Denied — FMCSA’s interpretation is reasonable; § 385.15 petitions target ratings, not individual SMS violations |
| Whether Silverado may challenge adequacy/operation of DataQs in this proceeding | DataQs is opaque, lacks deadlines, and is inadequate to protect Silverado’s interests | DataQs is the appropriate, available mechanism to dispute posted violations; Silverado did not exhaust DataQs before seeking judicial review | Not reached substantively — Silverado did not exhaust administrative remedies and did not challenge DataQs in timely fashion; court assumes DataQs adequate for purposes of appeal |
| Whether posted violations are invalid because they were not adopted via notice-and-comment or constitute impermissible sanctions | Violations are unlawful rules/sanctions requiring notice-and-comment and judicial relief | Such challenges must be raised initially in district court per precedent; they are not reviewable here under the Hobbs Act as final agency action | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this forum — challenges to validity of violations must be brought first in district court (Weaver controlling) |
| Whether the FMCSA’s interpretation of its regulation (limiting § 385.15 to ratings) deserves deference | FMCSA misapplied/regulation is ambiguous and should not bar review of violations | Agency interpretation is reasonable and entitled to deference (Auer) because it sensibly prioritizes review of substandard ratings | Court applies Auer deference and upholds FMCSA’s interpretation as reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 744 F.3d 142 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (agency refusal to remove a violation in MCMIS was not final Hobbs Act action; challenges must proceed in district court)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent)
- In re Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (mandamus can compel agency action where agency unreasonably delays responding to petitions)
- Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA v. Chao, 493 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (administrative remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial relief)