WASHIINGTON — The American Trucking Associations says it will seek immediate review of U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder’s decision this week denying a request for a preliminary injunction against the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to halt implementation of their concession agreements.

The decision was based on pleadings and a Sept. 8 hearing in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, during which ATA Deputy Chief Counsel Robert Digges Jr. reiterated that ATA opposes the concession agreements but supports the Ports Clean Truck Programs, including the phased retirement of older trucks from the port operations and their replacement with newer, cleaner vehicles. ATA contends that the port concession agreements are not needed to meet the ports’ environmental goals.

An ATA press release says the judge’s decision was in great part favorable to ATA’s position in the case. The court acknowledged that the ATA would likely succeed on the argument that the Ports’ Clean Truck Programs are preempted by federal law. The court noted that on the key issue of preemption, "there is a significant likelihood that [ATA] will succeed in showing that the concession agreements fall within the preemption provisions of" the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAA).

However, the court, in what ATA calls "an overbroad interpretation of the safety exception to FAAA preemption," sided with the ports and determined that the security aspects of the ports’ plans were sufficient to qualify the entire agreements as exempt from preemption.

At the hearing the ATA vigorously contested the court’s interpretation of the safety exception and alerted the court to the fact that the safety exception could not be read so broadly as to swallow the rule of preemption.

As noted by the ATA, the security protocols mandated under the TWIC program are a key element of national port security and are supported by the ATA. Further, the ATA noted that such a broad definition of "safety" that includes all aspects of "security" was not in line with Congressional intent on the safety exception.

— via Truckinginfo.com