Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

  1. Join us at the Holiday Inn Detroit-Livonia on Thursday, May 14, 2015 for a full 4 hours on expedite trucking information, career information and tips. Learn how to be successful as an expedite Owner Operator and discover new products and services in the Expedite Trucking Industry. CLICK HERE to register today!

CARB sued by OOIDA (Finally)

Discussion in 'General Expediter Forum' started by jjoerger, Dec 11, 2013.

  1. jjoerger

    jjoerger Active Expediter

  2. davekc

    davekc Senior Moderator

  3. fatboy1

    fatboy1 Rookie Expediter

    We all are hoping they would. Hope this will help them come to it. The cost to upgrade is a big factor in some not going at all.
     
  4. Tennesseahawk

    Tennesseahawk Seasoned Expediter

    My guess is they were waiting for someone to get nailed with the law, so they could get standing by representing him.
     
  5. zorry

    zorry New Recruit

    I have a friend that runs 90% Ca and lives in the LA area.

    He should have jumped on the Govt grants and bought new, or newer.

    He sat by waiting.
    Now he can put $17,000 into a $20,000 truck or retire.

    Or move.

    The people whose choice is "do I load Ca or not" are really not that bad off. At least not comparatively.
     
  6. highway star

    highway star Active Expediter

    Cali is no longer on my registration. Simple solution... for me anyway.
     
  7. Turtle

    Turtle Moderator

    The suit with the best chance of winning is the one filed by California Construction Trucking Association (formerly the California Dump Truck Owners Association) who filed on the basis of the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAA).

    In 1980, Congress deregulated the trucking industry by enacting the Motor Carrier Act. In 1994, it sought to preempt state trucking regulations by enacting the FAAA Act. The Act preempts a wide range of state regulation of intrastate trucking, providing that a state “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).

    Congress believed it was necessary to eliminate non-uniform state regulations that had curtailed the expansion of markets and resulted in nefficiencies, creased costs, reduced competition, and inhibition of innovation and technology.

    Because of the FAAA, in November of 2011 a federal district court in California issued a decision, in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122421 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011), holding that motor carriers that transport property are not subject to California’s meal and rest break laws because such laws are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAA Act). This was for employees who live and work primarily in California, who mainly loaded appliances onto delivery trucks, took them to the install site, and then installed the appliances. The court found that Congress did in fact intend that the FAAA Act preempt intrastate transportation to avoid unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, and that contrary to the claims of the plaintiffs that they were appliance installers and driving was merely incidental to that task, the judge ruled that the drivers of property hauling vehicles also did installations in addition to hauling property.

    The court held that the FAAA Act preempted the plaintiffs’ meal and rest break claims and explained that the proper inquiry is “whether the [meal and rest break law], directly or indirectly, ‘binds the ... carrier to a particular price, route or service and thereby interferes with competitive market forces within the ... industry.’” The court found that California’s meal and rest break laws are related to “routes” because they deprive drivers of the “ability to take any route that does not offer adequate locations for stopping, or by forcing them to take shorter or fewer routes.” The court also held that the meal and rest break laws impacted the company’s “services” because the state-mandated length
    and timing of the meal and rest breaks impacted the “frequency and scheduling of transportation.” The court also explained that California’s meal and rest break laws impacted the company’s prices because of the increased cost of additional drivers, helpers, tractors, and trailers that would be needed to ensure off-duty breaks under California law. The court refused to “allow California to insist exactly when and for exactly how long carriers provide breaks for their employees,” because to do so “would allow other States to do the same, and to do so differently.”

    This case was about meal and rest breaks, but the key here is the, "binds the ... carrier to a particular price, route or service and thereby interferes with competitive market forces within the ... industry."

    That's one heckuva legal precedent.
     
  8. davekc

    davekc Senior Moderator

    That is a interesting angle. I could see where that might work. Or at the very least, increase the odds they can get some relief.
     
  9. Turtle

    Turtle Moderator

    I don't know if you remember, but 20 years ago or so in Ohio, when they raised the tolls on the Turnpike for trucks, a lot of the trucks took to running US 20 across the state instead of the Turnpike. The mayors of all those little towns along US 20 were livid, because of the increased traffic and road wear. Several of them introduced local ordinances prohibiting trucks on that road through their towns. The FAAA said newp. Interferes with interstate commerce.

    “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property.”

    The problem in this case with California is, the EPA got dragged into it, even to the point where the California Construction Trucking Association had to appeal one of the judge's rulings that he no longer has jurisdiction on the matter because the EPA made a ruling when it approved the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) in the first place. The appeal of the judge's order saying that "he no longer had authority over the case" is still pending and will be appealed ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court already agreed to hear the ATA's appeal for the Port of Los Angeles fiasco, which required all kinds of silly local laws applied especially to dryage operators (those who move freight short distances around the port and to short distances outside the port). Among them were prohibiting owner/operators from picking up or delivering to the port. In the first appeal, the Ninth Circuit struck down the port's ban on owner-operators, but ruled the port was allowed to require drayage operators to submit off-street parking plans, properly maintain their trucks, post placards on permitted trucks and demonstrate financial responsibility as part of the plan. The ATA filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in December 2011 to challenge specific parts of the plan, saying they would lead to a patchwork of rules and regulations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ATA. The port, which is an agency of the city of Los Angeles, had argued that it acted as a “market participant” in imposing the requirements, which would exempt it from the FAAAA’s prohibitions. But the court found that the enforcement of the rules did not qualify them for the market-participant exemption.

    That was a big blow using the FAAA as the hammer. The SC has consistently ruled in favor of the FAAA many times. California has for many years had the sole exception on EPA rules where they make their own and aren't subject to the regulations of other states and the EPA. That's why car makers for years have made two versions of their cars, one regular version and the California Emissions version. But even though they have the exception, and the EPA signed off on the SIP in the first place, the FAAA makes things pretty clear about not interfering with anything related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier. And I think that tactic has a better chance of winning than does the OOIDA poor, poor, pitiful me financial burden angle.
     
  10. paullud

    paullud Seasoned Expediter

    I think it is just a legal tactic so that they can get this in front of a judge quickly and get an injunction easier.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
     
  11. OntarioVanMan

    OntarioVanMan Expert Expediter

    Question.....doesn' t Cali consider in part the Federal commerce trade legislation a violation of the Constitution?...Cali has every right to enforce any law within their borders....states rights before federal...

    and would cars/trucks still be spitting out their dirty crap if Cali wasn't forcing the car makers to clean up the emissions?....
     
  12. Tennesseahawk

    Tennesseahawk Seasoned Expediter

    For one, interstate commerce was put into place, so an individual state couldn't leverage its authority upon other states, when it came to trade.

    For two, Cali always takes the lead in socialistic, controlling policy, whether it be some expensive mix of fuel that ends up having the adverse effect, or helping save the habitat of some species of sand flea, at the cost of a farmer's property rights.
     
  13. OntarioVanMan

    OntarioVanMan Expert Expediter

    Thanks Hawk...I was just asking a question.....:)
     
  14. letzrockexpress

    letzrockexpress New Recruit

    Where was OOIDA before this was passed? Detached as usual...
     
  15. beachbum

    beachbum Rookie Expediter

    No, California has no right to force out of state vehicles entering the state to conform to their smog equipment laws.
     
  16. zorry

    zorry New Recruit

    Deleted, too snarky for this early in the morning.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2013
  17. OntarioVanMan

    OntarioVanMan Expert Expediter

    Yes they do.....just because the Feds make laws that interferes with states rights doesn't make it right...States should and do....what if they made you slowdown to 60 mph?....how about No right on a red at ALL intersections?....it could be argued that interferes with commerce...
    Smog is a serious issue....with their weather patterns out there...the inversions and all.....or would you like to have to wear a air mask just to get out of truck ?....
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2013
  18. OntarioVanMan

    OntarioVanMan Expert Expediter

    Ragman....I can see that! Bad boy......LOL
     
  19. Ragman

    Ragman Seasoned Expediter

    Gimme a break! Even I can have a brain fart. Lol
     
  20. OntarioVanMan

    OntarioVanMan Expert Expediter

    no one gives me a break......LOL
     

Share This Page