American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles
660 F.3d 384
9th Cir.2011Background
- Port of Los Angeles (POLA) implemented the Clean Truck Program (CTP) including a concession system requiring concession agreements with motor carriers for access to Port property.
- Concession agreements contain five challenged provisions: employee-driver, off-street parking, maintenance, placard, and financial capability; each concessionaire pays a $2,500 one-time fee and $100 per truck annually.
- ATA challenged preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAA Act) § 14501(c)(1) and safety exception § 14501(c)(2)(A); district court held some provisions non-preempted, others preempted.
- The district court granted injunctions against some provisions (employee-driver, parking, financial capability) but not maintenance and placard; upon appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo.
- Majority held: financial capability, maintenance, off-street parking, and placard provisions are not preempted; employee-driver provision is preempted as a regulation, and remanded for further proceedings.
- Dissent disagrees, arguing market participant defense does not apply, and that off-street parking and placard provisions are preempted or invalid under Castle and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the concession program relate to rates, routes, or services? | ATA asserts per se relation to rates/routes/services via access restrictions. | POLA argues several provisions are conditions on port access and do not bind to rates/routes/services. | Most provisions not preempted; only employee-driver preemption shown. |
| Does the market participant doctrine save the challenged provisions? | ATA contends Port acts as regulator, not market participant. | Port acts as market participant by managing Port facilities and drayage markets. | Market participant defense applies to off-street parking and placard; employee-driver not saved. |
| Is the safety exception applicable to the maintenance provision? | Maintenance duplicates federal law and has no safety benefit beyond federal standards. | Maintenance enhances safety and environmental goals; genuine safety purpose. | Maintenance provision is genuinely safety-related and not preempted. |
| Is the placard provision preempted by § 14501(c) or § 14506(a)? | Placards regulate carrier identification and reporting; may implicate rates/routes/services. | Placards lawful as safety-related and within market participant scope; § 14506(a) may apply to identification. | Placard not saved by safety; but market participant defense applies to proprietary action; however, § 14506(a) preempts as identification requirement; not saved. |
| Does the off-street parking provision survive preemption under the market participant doctrine or otherwise? | Off-street parking is a regulatory restraint affecting third parties beyond port obligations. | Proprietary action addressing port safety and community concerns; tailored to port operation. | Off-street parking provision survives under market participant doctrine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (U.S. 2008) (preemption test for relation to rates, routes, or services; framework used)
- Air Transport Ass’n of Am. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2001) (borderline effect on rates/routes/services; direct vs indirect impact)
- Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61 (1954) (state safety enforcement cannot suspend interstate carrier rights; limits on state power)
- Gould v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Industry, Labor & Human Relations, 475 U.S. 282 (1986) (duality of safety motive; duplicative federal law may still be safety-related)
- Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 623 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (two-prong market participant test; proprietary vs regulatory action)
- Boston Harbor v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 507 U.S. 218 (1993) (market participant paradigm in large-scale state projects)
- Tocher v. City of Santa Ana, 219 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2000) (market participant framework in public contracting contexts)
- City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002) (safety regulation preemption scope and federal authority interplay)
- S.-Cent. Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984) (scope and limits of market participant doctrine; downstream regulation caution)
- Loyal Tire & Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Town of Woodbury, 445 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2006) (safety motives must be genuine; preemption analysis in selective contexts)