FMCSA should follow the normal rulemaking process by providing an opportunity to comment on its proposal and issuing a decision explaining its final rule, citing to portions of the record that support the rule, the groups said, adding that FMCSA should not be allowed to implement CSA 2010 until it has completed this process. But if the court believes that any part of CSA is exempt from APA’s notice-and-comment provisions, “then at a minimum it should stay the publication of individual carriers’ BASIC scores and ratings until the agency has complied with APA requirements,” the motion states.

In justifying its request for a stay, the associations said that CSA and, especially, the publication of BASIC ratings “will result in irreparable competitive and economic harm to motor carriers and freight brokers” while a delay will cause no harm to the agency or the public because FMCSA has in place a successful safety monitoring and enforcement program.

“While the public undoubtedly has an interest in safe highways, it also has an interest in a competitive motor carrier industry, especially in these economic times,” the motion states. “A program that decreases competition, reduces jobs, and increases transportation costs, is not in the public interest. Implementation of CSA 2010 in its current form threatens the survival of thousands of carriers, many of which are small companies in rural America.”

The groups charge that FMCSA has not adequately responded to substantial concerns over CSA methodology, including:

Although FMCSA plans a future rulemaking that would allow it to issue formal safety ratings based on CSA data, public release of individual motor carriers’ BASIC scores and grades will have a substantial anticompetitive effect on the motor carrier industry, and on small carriers in particular, the groups charged in the motion. Shippers and brokers will be exposed to the threat of vicarious liability for alleged “negligent selection” of a motor carrier. “This threat will become immediate whenever a carrier used by such customers has an accident while handling their freight, and then turns out to have less than perfect BASIC scores,” the groups said. “The problem of vicarious liability is real. State law has been applied to require a shipper or broker to second guess the agency’s ultimate fitness determination through use of publicly released data, even when the FMCSA has certified that a carrier is licensed and authorized for use.”

Even if the data were accurate, the devastating effects of its release call for use of the notice and comment procedures of the APA, the organizations said. “But the data has not been demonstrated to be reliable. Concerns over data quality include the difficulty in correcting flawed and misleading data. Although there is a DataQ mechanism for seeking corrections, the process is unsatisfactory and corrections are at the discretion of States where reported violations allegedly occurred.” The petitioners said they were especially concerned about data reliability problems created by the prejudicial effect of reporting anomalies on entities with small samplings.

“Once a carrier has been debarred by shippers or brokers because of a FMCSA safety rating or its reputation has been tarnished, there is no way to undo the harm,” the organizations charged. Despite its website disclaimers, once the data is public, the agency cannot prevent a state or federal court from allowing it into evidence in a civil proceeding, they said. “The agency ignored this economic reality and the devastating effect on tens of thousands of small for-hire carriers.”