Washington Retail Insight

Trucking Association Will Appeal Judge’s Decision in Favor of Ban on Independent Drivers at LA Port

By J. Craig Shearman
Washington Retail Insight
August 30, 2010

The American Trucking Associations says it will appeal a federal judge’s ruling in favor of a provision of the Port of Los Angeles Clean Trucks Plan that bars independent drivers from hauling cargo at the retail industry’s most important West Coast port.

“We are disappointed with the decision and believe it is clearly erroneous,” the association said. “ATA intends to appeal.”

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder ruled in favor of the port on Thursday in a 2008 lawsuit brought by ATA against the “concession plan” portion of the Clean Trucks Plan launched that year. The provision requires all harbor trucking to be done by companies that obtain a concession from the port and have their trucks operated by employee drivers.

Supporters contend that the ban on independent drivers is needed to ensure that all trucks operating at the port meet environmental standards set under the plan. But the requirement has been strongly backed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and critics contend that its real purpose is to make it easier to unionize port drivers.

The lawsuit contended that the concession plan violated federal law prohibiting states and local governments from regulating “rates, routes and service” in interstate trucking.

But Snyder said the port should be considered a private sector entity and that it has the authority to impose restrictions on its tenant much like any other landlord. She noted that other lawsuits against the port citing environmental and air pollution concerns have stalled the ability of the port to grow and remain commercially viable. Concession agreements that include strict environmental requirements on port tenants and customers are a “business necessity” and do not violate any federal laws, she wrote.

In addition to dismissing the ATA lawsuit, the court decision also lifts a preliminary injunction against the concession plan, but ATA said it would ask that the injunction be left in place while it appeals the judge’s ruling.

“In as much as all parties agreed at trial that the benefits of the clean truck and clean air elements of the Clean Trucks Plan have been fully realized with the injunction in place, neither the Port nor the people of California have been harmed,” ATA said. “We hope that the request will be granted.”

ATA noted that Snyder ruled in favor of the port on the grounds that it is a “market participant,” put pointed out that she had said in previous rulings that the market participant doctrine was “of very narrow scope” and should only be applied if the port were actually buying or selling trucking services and actually participating in the trucking market. Application of the doctrine at this point “is plainly wrong and very likely to be reversed,” the association said.

It is unknown whether the court ruling will affect momentum on legislation introduced in Congress this summer that would amend the federal restriction on state and local trucking regulation in order to support the concession plan. H.R. 5967, the Clean Ports Act of 2010, is sponsored Representative Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, and has been backed by the Teamsters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and other national environmental groups.

© 2010 National Retail Federation