Details of Court Ruling Rejecting POLA Employee-Driver Rule, Etc.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 26, 2011 ruled against the Port of Los Angeles’ concession plan rule that drayage truck drivers must be employees of licensed motor carriers (LMCs), but upheld four other contested concession requirements.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
(See ITT's Online Archives 11092701 for initial summary announcing this ruling.)
Court Overrules Employee-Driver Rule as Not Related to Safety
The court determined that the POLA concession provision requiring drayage providers to be employee drivers of LMC‘s, not contractors driving separately owned vehicles, amounted to regulation not pertaining to safety and was therefore pre-empted by federal authority to regulate interstate trucking, under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAA).
Court Upholds Maintenance, Placard, Financial Capability, Parking Provisions
Though it definitively ruled out the employee-driver provision, the 9th Circuit Court upheld the other disputed provisions of the port’s concession plan, ruling that drayage service providers holding Port concession agreements must (1) maintain trucks and retrofit pollution control equipment on a formal schedule according to manufacturers’ specifications and provide documentation to prove it; (2) post placards giving a phone number to report concerns regarding emissions, safety and security compliance; (3) demonstrate the financial capability to perform the agreement obligations; and (4) provide off-street parking for trucks to use while waiting to serve the port.
Upheld These Provisions as Either Related to Safety, Market Prerogative, Etc.
In determining to uphold these provisions, the court reasoned that the port‘s role as a “market participant“ allows it to protect its interests; the “safety exception” grants states power to regulate truck safety issues; and truck “rates, routes, or services” were not affected by the retained rules.
(See ITT’s Online Archives 09032305 for summary of prior 9th Circuit Court ruling in favor of granting a preliminary injunction against the POLA Clean Trucks Program employee mandate requirement, etc.)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion No. 10-56465 (filed 09/26/11)