Supreme Court Overturns Port of L.A.’s Truck Rules

This story appears in the June 17 print edition of Transport Topics.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that portions of the Port of Los Angeles clean truck plan violate federal preemption law and cannot be enforced.

The court’s June 13 decision said the port cannot force fleets to submit parking plans or display placards before being allowed to operate.

American Trucking Associations filed a lawsuit in 2008, alleging that provisions of the program violated the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which prohibits regulation of a “price, route or service of any motor carrier.” The court heard arguments April 16.

The port, which is an agency of the city of Los Angeles, had argued that it acted as a “market participant” in imposing the requirements, which would exempt it from the FAAAA’s prohibitions. But the Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision found that the enforcement of the rules did not qualify the port for the market-participant exemption.

“When the government employs a coercive mechanism, available to no private party, it acts with the force and effect of law, whether or not it does so to turn a profit,” the court wrote.

“The port made its regulation of drayage trucks mandatory by imposing criminal penalties on the entities hiring all such trucks at the facility. Slice it or dice it any which way, the port has acted with the force of law,” the court said.

The concession agreement was part of the port’s 2007 clean truck program, which aimed to reduce pollution from trucks serving the port.

ATA President Bill Graves said the decision is sure to send a signal to any other cities that may have been considering similar programs which would “impermissibly regulate the port trucking industry.”

“We are gratified that, at the conclusion of many years of litigation, the highest court in the land unanimously agreed with ATA on these rules,” Graves said. “Our position has always been that the port’s attempt to regulate drayage operators — in ways that had nothing to do with its efforts to improve air quality at the port — was inconsistent with Congress’ command that the trucking industry be shaped by market forces, rather than an incompatible patchwork of state and local regulations.”

A Port of Los Angeles spokesman said attorneys are reviewing the ruling to determine how it affects the port’s ability to provide a “clean, safe and secure trucking system consistent with the court’s guidance.”

“For nearly five years, the clean truck program has played a critical role in reducing harmful emissions by more than 90% from trucks operating at the Port of Los Angeles,” spokesman Phillip Sanfield said. “An important component of the clean truck program has been our concession agreements with trucking companies that call at the Port of Los Angeles.”

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the port’s program to improve air quality “is the most extensive effort to clean up a port in the world, helping to make L.A. the cleanest and greenest big city in the U.S.”

“Our clean truck program has reduced harmful truck emissions by 91%,” Villaraigosa said. “We are reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision, but we intend to continue our efforts to clean L.A.’s port to the extent the law allows.”

The court did not rule on two other concession provisions, one requiring that carriers provide evidence of financial capability and another that would require they maintain their trucks in good working order.

An appeals court ruled those provisions were not preempted by federal law.

The Supreme Court said that rendering any decision on those issues would at this point be “a shot in the dark” until it is known how the port will enforce them.

Richard Pianka, ATA’s deputy chief counsel, said ATA currently has no intention to pursue further legal action.

“There’s been no question all along that the financial capability and maintenance provisions can be enforced,” Pianka said. “The question is how they can be enforced.

“Unless and until the port tries to revoke a carrier’s ability to operate as opposed to just individual trucks, then that issue just sits by the wayside.”

The clean truck program case has been winding its way through the federal courts since 2008, when ATA first filed its lawsuit attempting to block a ban on independent operators servicing the port.

An appeals court rejected the ban as unconstitutional but left standing the concession-agreement provisions related to parking, placarding, financial capability and maintenance.

The Port of Long Beach, originally a named defendant in ATA’s lawsuit, agreed to an out-of-court settlement in October 2009, voluntarily dropping the ban on independent owner-operators.