The California State organization of the United Transportaion Union (UTU) sued the Department of Transportation and FRA in the Ninth Circuit in December 2001 concerning a letter from the FRA Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety to the UTU.   The letter upheld an FRA Regional Administrator’s conclusion that the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) had no obligation under the Federal hours of service laws to inform a crew at the beginning of an off-duty period that it was an interim release rather than a final release, and that the UP's call to the crewmembers telling them when and where to report for duty was not a disruption of the off-duty period.  Since 1971, FRA has construed the 1969 amendments to those laws to the effect that such duty calls did not constitute time on duty or disrupt the time off duty.  Otherwise, the railroad would  have to give a crew its reporting time at the moment it releases them, requiring the railroad to know for certain when it will need the crew 8 or 10 hours in advance, or restart the 8- or 10-hour off-duty period when it calls with a reporting time.  On May 12, 2003, the Ninth Circuit ruled, without dissent, that FRA’s interpretation of the law was reasonable, and that the interpretation was entitled to the court’s deference in light of its thoroughness, the validity of its reasoning, and its consistency with earlier interpretations. Click the link below to read the decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Decision