Judge: Denial of ATA injunction vs. SoCal ports to stand

Judge: Denial of ATA injunction vs. SoCal ports to stand

Related News •   Judge rules against ATA in SoCal truck plan suit •   SoCal terminal operators call for delay of ports' truck plan

   One day after ruling tentatively against the American Trucking Associations, a federal judge on Tuesday formally denied the trucking group's injunction request that sought to block portions of the Southern California ports' $2.4 billion trucking re-regulation plan.
   In issuing her final ruling on the injunction, U.S. District Court Judge Christina A. Snyder reiterated all of the findings from her tentative ruling issued Monday in downtown Los Angeles.
   Snyder's final determination against ATA's injunction request rested primarily on safety issues, and claims by Long Beach and Los Angeles port officials that an access license component of the truck plan is, to a large degree, a security and safety component that cannot be separated from the overall truck plan. The judge also found ATA did not prove that possible impacts of the ports' truck plan to the association's members outweighed possible impacts to the public.
   'The public has a significant interest in ensuring that the ports are safe from security concerns,' wrote Snyder in her ruling. 'Enjoining the (access license component) would have the potential to compromise security measures contained therein, which could significantly harm the public interest in secure ports.'
   Snyder, while finding in favor of ATA's argument that federal interstate commerce laws preempt the truck plan, based her finding on a so-called 'safety exclusion' provision within the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1984 (FAAA).
   The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that federal laws 'shall be the supreme law of the land.' Thus, when state and federal law conflicts, federal law trumps, or preempts, the state law. Federal preemption occurs in three situations: when Congress enacts a statute that explicitly preempts state law; when a state law actually conflicts with federal law; or when Congress, in enacting a federal law, left no room for state regulation in that field.
   In its request for an injunction and its full suit against the ports, ATA argued that portions of the ports' truck plan violated the FAAA. The act includes a federal statue regarding preemption that states, 'A state, political subdivision of a state, or political authority of two or more states may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier.'
   Because the Long Beach and Los Angeles port authorities derive their trustee powers from the state of California, the law considers them political subdivisions of the state.
   ATA argued in its injunction request that the ports' truck plan component requiring motor carriers to obtain ports-issued access licenses, called concession agreements, violate the 'price, route and services' portion of the FAAA preemption statue.
   Snyder agreed: 'There is a significant likelihood that (ATA) will succeed in (the full suit) showing that the concession agreements fall within the preemption provision of the FAAA. Indeed, (the ports) do not seem to dispute this, but instead argue ' that they are exempted from preemption.'
   Case law has provided for several potential exemptions to federal preemption. The ports argued against the injunction claiming they met the standard for three such exemptions.
   Snyder wrote, 'Although the court finds that the concession agreements likely fall outside of the first two exceptions, (ATA) is not likely to succeed in showing that the concession agreements are not exempted from preemption under the safety exception.'
   The FAAA, while providing a broad preemption statute, also contains an express exception to preemption based on safety issues. This exception provides that the FAAA preemption provision 'shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles ' '
   Snyder pointed out that although there is little case law interpreting the limits of the safety exemption of federal preemption, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the safety exception only applies if a statue, regulation or provision is genuinely responsive to public safety concerns.
   'A regulation does not fall under the safety exception if it is an economic regulation under the guise of a public safety regulation,' Snyder wrote.
   The judge, citing a previous precedent, also said criterion for applying the safety exception is 'whether the purpose and intent of the body passing the law at issue, whether state or municipality, was truly safety.'
   The ports argued that the access licenses requirement of the truck plan was 'intended in some substantial measure to achieve enhanced port safety and to address gaps in port security.'
   In their pre-hearing filings to Snyder, the ports defined these as 'traditional' safety concerns, including 'concerns that older trucks may pose road hazards that newer trucks do not pose,' as well as concerns related to 'port security.' The ports also argued that they currently lack any information or records about motor carriers entering the ports, and that the access licenses address this security concern by allowing the ports to track the identity of drivers and by holding the drivers accountable to the ports' rules.
   ATA, which represents more than 37,000 motor carriers nationwide, argued against the preemption safety exception on several points.
   First, the association argued that the California Highway Patrol has jurisdiction over motor vehicle safety and the ports lack the authority to impose motor carrier regulations.
   Snyder found this argument unconvincing, writing, 'As the safety regulations at issue are not purely related to the 'safety of operation of motor carriers of property,' but rather address broader concerns more tangentially related to the operation of motor carriers and not under the authority of the CHP, such as the security of the ports.'
   Snyder also dismissed ATA's argument against the safety exception that the access license portion of the ports' truck plan goes well beyond safety issues and is, in essence, an environmental plan.
   'Case law examining the safety exception does not indicate that regulations have to have been passed for the exclusive purpose of promoting safety,' Snyder said. 'As long as the 'purpose and intent ' was truly safety,' the safety exception may apply.'
   ATA also argued that the access licenses do not fall within the safety exception because other local, state, and federal security measures, such as the Federal Transportation Worker Identification Credential program, will be implemented whether or not the truck plan components is enjoined.
   The judge found this argument unconvincing based on statements from port officials that the ports' security measures are integrated into the access license component of the truck plan and cannot implemented separately.
   A final argument by ATA posited that the federal Maritime Transportation Security Act and the federal Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 preempt the ports' claimed security measures.
   Snyder replied, 'Although the legislative history shows some intent to preempt state regulations that conflict with these federal regulations, it does not evince any intent to preempt all state regulations not inconsistent with the regulations in the field of port trucking.'
   Based on the strength of the ports arguments, Snyder concluded, 'There is a significant probability that the concession agreements fall under the safety exception to the FAAA, and that they may therefore be saved from preemption.'
   The judge also found that due to the possibility that an injunction may impede the ports from enacting security and safety measures regarding trucks, the public safety benefit outweighs the possible economic harm of the access licenses to ATA members.
   Snyder wrote that while ATA argued that its members face financial harm, the ports 'could stand to incur significant non-monetary irreparable harm if the concession agreements, and the safety and environmental protection measures they contain, are enjoined.'
   ATA plans to appeal Snyder's decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with a filing likely before the end of the week. Although the appeals process typically requires up to three months before an appeals panel might hear the case, there is a process providing for an expedited time line.
   Attorneys for the ATA said Monday they believe they could find themselves before a Ninth Circuit panel within 'several weeks.' ' Keith Higginbotham