Post by dieseljockey on Oct 21, 2008 12:23:49 GMT -5
Journal of Commerce
Waterfront employers want FMC to rule on clean trucks
Oct / 21 / 2008
The National Association of Waterfront Employers has filed amicus curiae brief urging the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to refer the Los Angeles-Long Beach clean-trucks case to the Federal Maritime Commission.
The organization, which represents terminal operators, said the FMC is the federal agency recognized by Congress as having expertise in matters involving the international maritime commerce of the United States.
Charles T. Carroll, NAWE executive director, said the LA-Long Beach clean-trucks case has important implications for all U.S. port authorities that must address clean-air issues. He said the FMC should establish a clear roadmap on what ports can legally mandate in their efforts to reduce pollution.
The employers support the ports’ efforts to reduce pollution from harbor trucking operations, but it argues that the ports’ concession requirements are not a lawful or viable mechanism for achieving that goal.
The group filed its comments by Monday’s deadline for friend of the court briefs in a lawsuit by the American Trucking Associations. ATA is suing the ports, charging that their truck concession requirements violate federal preemption statutes.
According to the ATA, state and local jurisdictions are preempted by federal law from issuing regulations that affect the rates, routes and services of motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce.
The ATA attempted to secure a preliminary injunction against implementation of the ports’ concession requirements, but the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles denied ATA’s request based on issues of truck safety and national security.
The trucking group appealed the district court’s ruling to the 9th Circuit. NAWE filed its comments in support of the trucking association.
While NAWE agrees with ATA’s rates, routes and services argument, which would be heard by the courts, NAWE argues that the FMC should have primary jurisdiction in this matter involving maritime commerce. The FMC, in fact, has initiated an order of investigation of the concession requirements to determine if they violate the Shipping Act of 1984.
“Under clear federal law, this case should be referred to the FMC under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,” the NAWE brief states. “Numerous issues falling within the FMC’s expertise are presented here."
The FMC has jurisdiction over agreements involving marine terminal operators. The commission can proceed against agreements that result in unfair port practices or agreements that discriminate against or give preference to certain service vendors such as harbor truckers. Also, the FMC can proceed against ports and terminal operators that refuse to deal with all qualified operators.
The 9th Circuit will receive arguments from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in early November before issuing its ruling.
In its filing, NAWE urged the appellate court to remand the case back to the district court in Los Angeles with instructions to refer the case to the FMC.
Waterfront employers want FMC to rule on clean trucks
Oct / 21 / 2008
The National Association of Waterfront Employers has filed amicus curiae brief urging the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to refer the Los Angeles-Long Beach clean-trucks case to the Federal Maritime Commission.
The organization, which represents terminal operators, said the FMC is the federal agency recognized by Congress as having expertise in matters involving the international maritime commerce of the United States.
Charles T. Carroll, NAWE executive director, said the LA-Long Beach clean-trucks case has important implications for all U.S. port authorities that must address clean-air issues. He said the FMC should establish a clear roadmap on what ports can legally mandate in their efforts to reduce pollution.
The employers support the ports’ efforts to reduce pollution from harbor trucking operations, but it argues that the ports’ concession requirements are not a lawful or viable mechanism for achieving that goal.
The group filed its comments by Monday’s deadline for friend of the court briefs in a lawsuit by the American Trucking Associations. ATA is suing the ports, charging that their truck concession requirements violate federal preemption statutes.
According to the ATA, state and local jurisdictions are preempted by federal law from issuing regulations that affect the rates, routes and services of motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce.
The ATA attempted to secure a preliminary injunction against implementation of the ports’ concession requirements, but the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles denied ATA’s request based on issues of truck safety and national security.
The trucking group appealed the district court’s ruling to the 9th Circuit. NAWE filed its comments in support of the trucking association.
While NAWE agrees with ATA’s rates, routes and services argument, which would be heard by the courts, NAWE argues that the FMC should have primary jurisdiction in this matter involving maritime commerce. The FMC, in fact, has initiated an order of investigation of the concession requirements to determine if they violate the Shipping Act of 1984.
“Under clear federal law, this case should be referred to the FMC under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,” the NAWE brief states. “Numerous issues falling within the FMC’s expertise are presented here."
The FMC has jurisdiction over agreements involving marine terminal operators. The commission can proceed against agreements that result in unfair port practices or agreements that discriminate against or give preference to certain service vendors such as harbor truckers. Also, the FMC can proceed against ports and terminal operators that refuse to deal with all qualified operators.
The 9th Circuit will receive arguments from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in early November before issuing its ruling.
In its filing, NAWE urged the appellate court to remand the case back to the district court in Los Angeles with instructions to refer the case to the FMC.
