Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
The Florilli Corporation v. Frederico Pena, Secretary of Transportation United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
Citations: 118 F.3d 1212; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16071; 1997 WL 349032Docket: 96-2507
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; June 26, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Florilli Corporation challenges the 'unsatisfactory' motor-carrier rating it received from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), arguing the rating is invalid due to the FHWA's failure to follow notice and comment requirements when establishing its Safety Fitness Rating Methodology (SFRM). Following a safety audit on April 22, 1994, the FHWA downgraded Florilli's previous 'satisfactory' rating to 'unsatisfactory' based on identified regulatory violations. Florilli filed a Petition for Review on September 19, 1994, which was denied, and a subsequent compliance review confirmed the 'unsatisfactory' rating on October 13, 1995, with notification sent on October 20, 1995. Florilli contends that the SFRM, deemed a 'legislative' rule, should have undergone the notice and comment process outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), while the FHWA maintains that the SFRM is an interpretive rule, exempt from such requirements. The district court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals, asserting that the appellate court had exclusive jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals determined that Florilli's challenge was untimely under the Hobbs Act's sixty-day limitation for procedural challenges to administrative rules, leading to the dismissal of Florilli's request for relief. The court emphasized that the time limitation is jurisdictional and cannot be waived, affirming that procedural challenges must adhere to the stipulated timeframe. Florilli contests the sixty-day time limit for appealing the procedural genesis of a rule, arguing it is unjust as it restricts parties not initially affected by the rule from challenging its validity. Florilli claims that such parties lack standing to contest the rule until it applies to them. However, the court defines an 'aggrieved' party as one with standing to appeal an agency decision if the agency did not provide a forum for participation in the rule-making process. Florilli did not challenge the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) methodology until January 1996, over two years after the SFRM was established in December 1993, and did not dispute the substance of the FHWA's regulations. Consequently, Florilli's failure to adhere to the sixty-day limit under the Hobbs Act precludes the court from considering the challenge regarding its 'unsatisfactory' safety rating, leading to the dismissal of Florilli's request for relief. The FHWA cited several violations, including failures related to drug testing, driving hours, and maintaining accurate records, which contributed to Florilli's safety rating.