Post by HardTimeTrucker on Apr 7, 2009 8:17:22 GMT -5
Truckers Sue to Enjoin Clean-trucks Concessions
Bill Mongelluzzo
Apr 6, 2009
The Journal of Commerce
ATA says provisions deal with administrative efficiency, not safety
The American Trucking Associations asked the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to enjoin all of the concession requirements imposed by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach on motor carriers in their clean-trucks plans.
In a filing at the weekend in Los Angeles, the ATA asked the court to enjoin the concession agreements "in toto," stating that virtually all of the provisions in the agreements are directed toward administrative efficiency, rather than motor vehicle safety.
Judge Christina Snyder, in her original ruling last summer, denied ATA's request for a preliminary injunction, stating that the concession agreements that harbor drayage companies must sign in order to operate at the ports are necessary for reasons of truck safety and port security.
ATA appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The appellate court on March 20 remanded the case back to Judge Snyder and indicated a preliminary injunction against implementation of all or certain provisions in the concession agreements was appropriate.
The 9th Circuit Court cited certain provisions it found objectionable, such as the Port of Los Angeles employee driver mandate and restrictions on street parking of trucks. The appellate court left it to the discretion of Judge Snyder to decide if she wanted to enjoin the concession agreements in total, or only those provisions that have nothing to do with safety and security.
ATA argued that since many of the provisions are unrelated to safety and security, failure to enjoin the concession agreements in total would "leave a small, incongruous jumble of elements that already are either required of motor carriers by federal or state law or enforceable against trucks and drivers."
ATA noted that the ports are still able to implement all of the environmental restrictions on old, polluting trucks. Also, the ATA suit does not challenge the cargo fees the ports implemented on Feb. 18 to fund trucker subsidies under the clean-trucks plans.
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach must file their written arguments with the court by April 13 and the ATA will have until April 17 to file its response to the ports' comments. Judge Snyder will hear oral arguments from both sides at 10 a.m. April 27 in Los Angeles.
Bill Mongelluzzo
Apr 6, 2009
The Journal of Commerce
ATA says provisions deal with administrative efficiency, not safety
The American Trucking Associations asked the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to enjoin all of the concession requirements imposed by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach on motor carriers in their clean-trucks plans.
In a filing at the weekend in Los Angeles, the ATA asked the court to enjoin the concession agreements "in toto," stating that virtually all of the provisions in the agreements are directed toward administrative efficiency, rather than motor vehicle safety.
Judge Christina Snyder, in her original ruling last summer, denied ATA's request for a preliminary injunction, stating that the concession agreements that harbor drayage companies must sign in order to operate at the ports are necessary for reasons of truck safety and port security.
ATA appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The appellate court on March 20 remanded the case back to Judge Snyder and indicated a preliminary injunction against implementation of all or certain provisions in the concession agreements was appropriate.
The 9th Circuit Court cited certain provisions it found objectionable, such as the Port of Los Angeles employee driver mandate and restrictions on street parking of trucks. The appellate court left it to the discretion of Judge Snyder to decide if she wanted to enjoin the concession agreements in total, or only those provisions that have nothing to do with safety and security.
ATA argued that since many of the provisions are unrelated to safety and security, failure to enjoin the concession agreements in total would "leave a small, incongruous jumble of elements that already are either required of motor carriers by federal or state law or enforceable against trucks and drivers."
ATA noted that the ports are still able to implement all of the environmental restrictions on old, polluting trucks. Also, the ATA suit does not challenge the cargo fees the ports implemented on Feb. 18 to fund trucker subsidies under the clean-trucks plans.
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach must file their written arguments with the court by April 13 and the ATA will have until April 17 to file its response to the ports' comments. Judge Snyder will hear oral arguments from both sides at 10 a.m. April 27 in Los Angeles.