ATA Appeals Partial Preliminary Injunction on LA/LB Port Concession Agreements
The American Trucking Association has initiated an appeal of the April 28, 2009 ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in American Trucking Associations, Inc. vs. the City of Los Angeles, et al.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The court's ruling granted a preliminary injunction on 7 out of the 18 requirements the ports were imposing on drayage providers via concession agreements, as part of the Los Angeles/Long Beach Clean Trucks Program. ATA's appeal seeks to reverse the District Court's preliminary upholding of the remaining 11 requirements the ports are imposing, pending a trial set for December 15, 2009.
(On September 9, 2008, the District Court ruled that although the ports' plan "related to a price, route, or service," of interstate motor carriers, and therefore seemed to run contrary to federal preemption, nevertheless it likely fell under the safety exceptionin the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.1
When ATA appealed this ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for reconsideration, leading to the April 28 preliminary injunction on those concession agreement requirements that the Court did not deem sufficiently likely to fall within the safety exception at trial. See ITT's Online Archives or 05/08/09 news 09050820 for BP summary of District Court's April 29, 2009 decision.)
At Issue: Scope of Safety Exception, Ports' Authority to Regulate Carriers
In its one-page docketing statement, ATA summarizes the following arguments it will present on appeal:
The District Court failed to follow the Appeals Court direction that a concession provision can only be allowed to stand if it is genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety;
The District Court committed errors of law in ruling that certain concession requirements, which the ports claim are tied to "port security" or to the enforcement of state, local and federal laws, also fall within the safety exception;.
The District Court erred and abused its discretion by refusing to enjoin the ports' use of a concession contract which serves purposes other than vehicle safety;
In regards to actual safety violations, the association asserts that the District Court should have found that federal law does not allow the ports to revoke a motor carrier's interstate operating authority for such violations, as only the U.S. Department of Transportation has that power;
The District Court abused its discretion in failing to preliminary enjoin the Concession Agreements in their entirety, rather then in part.
1The safety exception in the FAAA Act stipulates that federal preemption of state powers regarding interstate carriers "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles" (49 USC 13401(c)(1)).
ATA Civil Appeals Docketing Statement available via e-mail by sending a request to documents@brokerpower.com