AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS v. City of Los Angeles
660 F.3d 384
9th Cir.2011Background
- Port of Los Angeles adopted Clean Truck Program (CTP) with a progressive ban on older trucks, plus incentive and concession schemes tying drayage to port access.
- Concession agreements required five key provisions (employee-driver, off-street parking, maintenance, placards, financial capability) for Licensed Motor Carriers to access Port property.
- ATA challenged five provisions as preempted under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) §14501(c)(1) and analyzed under market participant and safety-exemption doctrines.
- District court found some provisions outside preemption and others saved by safety exemption; issued injunctions on several provisions.
- On appeal, Ninth Circuit affirmed most preemption conclusions but reversed on the employee-driver provision, remanding for further proceedings.
- Opinion discusses that the Port acts as a proprietary market participant for some provisions and as a regulator for others, with safety grounds weighing in for maintenance and placard provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the concession program preempt under FAAA §14501(c)(1)? | ATA argues provisions affect rates/routes/services and are not market-participant actions. | Port contends some provisions are propriety market-participant actions or safety-related. | Preemption upheld for employee-driver; others not preempted. |
| Does the market participant doctrine apply to the Port’s concession agreements? | Port cannot be a market participant because it doesn’t procure drayage services. | Port acts as a proprietary market participant by managing Port facilities. | Port acts as market participant for parking and placard; not for employee-driver. |
| Is the maintenance provision genuinely safety-related and exempt from preemption? | Maintenance is regulatory and preempted; benefits duplicative of federal law. | Maintenance is safety-related and valid even if duplicative. | Maintenance provision saved by safety exception; not preempted. |
| Is the off-street parking provision within market-participant doctrine or preempted? | Provision regulates third parties beyond Port’s contracts. | Provision addresses proprietary concerns and port security. | Off-street parking falls under market participant doctrine; not preempted. |
| Is the placard provision preempted under FAA 14501(c) or 14506(a)? | Placards regulate safety; may be saved by safety exception but vulnerable to preemption. | Placards are regulatory and preempted under 14506(a) as identification requirements. | Placard provision saved by safety exception but preemption under 14506(a) also recognized; court ultimately sustains market-participant rationale for placards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (preemption for state action related to rates, routes, services; indirect effects considered)
- Air Transport Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2001) (definition of rates/routes/services; direct/indirect effects)
- Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61 (1954) (state action suspending interstate carrier’s access; federal preemption limits)
- Boston Harbor Ass’n v. City of Boston, 507 U.S. 218 (1993) (market participant doctrine context in public works/markets)
- Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 623 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (two-prong market participant test: proprietary vs regulatory; scope and purpose)