Truckers Launch Clean-Trucks Appeal

The American Trucking Associations filed its opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, charging that the U.S. District Court in September erroneously upheld the concession requirements in the Port of Los Angeles' clean-truck plan.

The two-year-old case, which began in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in July 2008, will be heard on appeal this spring or summer by the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. The case is of national significance because it could play an important role in determining whether port authorities can regulate harbor trucking and promote the unionization of drivers.

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder on Sept. 15, 2010, upheld the Port of Los Angeles concession requirements in their entirety, including a requirement that motor carriers begin to replace owner-operator drivers with employee drivers that could be legally organized by the Teamsters Union.

However, Judge Snyder agreed to enjoin the employee-driver mandate until the case is heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In its opening brief filed with the 9th Circuit, the ATA charged that Judge Snyder's ruling violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the motor carrier provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which deals with federal preemption over interstate commerce.

ATA stated that a major concern involves the impact of the Port of Los Angeles concession requirements on the prices, routes and services of motor carriers. State and local entities are prohibited from regulating motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce.

ATA also questioned if the district court erroneously exempted the port from federal preemption law based on the port's market participant defense. The Port of Los Angeles argued that it is exempt from federal preemption law because it is a participant in the international port industry and is attempting to protect its commercial interests.

However, ATA argued that the port does not participate in harbor drayage because it does not contract for drayage services. Also, ATA argued that the concession requirements are government policies rather than actions taken for proprietary commercial reasons.

Also, ATA questioned whether the port's concession requirements fall under the motor carrier safety exception of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, and whether the requirements are truly responsive to safety concerns.

The Port of Los Angeles and the National Resources Defense Council are scheduled to submit their briefs to the 9th Circuit by the end of January.
(Source:www.joc.com)