Supreme Court Asks for Opinion on LA Port Clean Truck Rules
The Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General for an opinion in order to decide whether to hear a case in which the American Trucking Associations (ATA) seeks reversal of a Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling on the Port of Los Angeles' Clean Trucks Program concession requirements. The Appeals Court had upheld four of the Port's concession requirements based on the "market participant" exception to federal preemption. ATA expects the Solicitor General to respond by fall 2012.
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.
(The Port's Clean Truck Program established a progressive ban on polluting trucks so that as of January 1, 2012, all trucks that do not meet the 2007 Federal Clean Truck Emissions Standards are banned. Additionally, under the program, trucking firms would be required to enter into a concession agreement covering the rules that trucking companies must follow if they wish to do business with the Port. In October 2011, the Court of Appeals ruled against the Port's concession plan rule that drayage truck drivers must be employees of licensed motor carriers, but upheld four other concession requirements, which are subject of ATA's petition for Supreme Court reversal.)
Appeals Court Upheld Clean Truck Rules Based on Market Participant Exception
The Appeals Court upheld the Port's concession program requirements for (1) an off-street parking mandate, (2) a placarding rule, (3) truck maintenance requirements, and (4) a financial capability provision, based on the finding that the "market participant" exception to federal preemption protects the Port's concession program requirements.
In December 2011, the ATA petitioned the Supreme Court to review and ultimately reverse the Appeals Court ruling. The petition also presented questions related to the statutory language of 49 USC 14501(c)(1), which sets the federal-state parameters on how or whether a state can regulate motor vehicles.1 The Port subsequently filed a brief in response to ATA's petition, urging the Supreme Court not to overturn the Port's concession requirements.
(See ITT's Online Archives 11122707 and 12022803 for summary of ATA's petition and the Port's response filing with the Supreme Court.)
Solicitor General's Opinion on Statutory Language Requested
The specific questions presented for Supreme Court consideration related to the statutory language which the Solicitor has now been asked to express an opinion on are:
1. Whether an unexpressed “market participant” exception exists in Section 14501(c)(1) and permits a municipal governmental entity to take action that conflicts with the express preemption clause, occurs in a market in which the municipal entity does not participate, and is unconnected with any interest in the efficient procurement of services.
2. Whether a required concession agreement setting out various conditions a motor carrier must meet to serve a particular port imposes any requirements that are “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier” for the purposes of preemption under Section 14501(c)(1).
3. Whether permitting a municipal governmental entity to bar federally licensed motor carriers from access to a port operates as a partial suspension of the motor carriers’ federal registration, in violation of Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61 (1954).
Decision on Whether Court Will Hear Case Is Expected by Fall 2012
ATA states that there is no timetable on how long the Solicitor General has to respond, but guesses that a response will be filed in fall 2012.
(According to ATA, the Supreme accepts around 2% of the petitions filed. Regarding this case, the Court could have (1) granted the petition; (2) rejected it; or (3) asked for the Solicitor General for an opinion before the court makes its final decision on whether the take the case. The Court has opted for option 3, which ATA states is "very encouraging.")
1Title 49 USC 14501(c)(1), originally enacted as a provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (F4A), provides that “a State [or] political subdivision . . . 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 . . . with respect to the transportation of property.”