ABF Freight System, Inc. v. Suthard

• Decision Date: 16 March 1988
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 88-0018-R.
• Citation: 681 F. Supp. 334
• Parties: A.B.F. FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., Plaintiff, v. Colonel Robert L. SUTHARD, Superintendent of Virginia State Police, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

681 F. Supp. 334

A.B.F. FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., Plaintiff, v. Colonel Robert L. SUTHARD, Superintendent of Virginia State Police, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 88-0018-R.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.

March 16, 1988.

F. William Kirby, Jr., Melvin R. Manning, Manning, Davis & Kirby, Richmond, Va., for plaintiff.

James Hayes, Jay Steele, Asst. Attys. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This case presents a challenge to the validity of Virginia's restriction on the local travel access allowed to single tractor-trailer units. The trailer units in question, referred to as single twins or "pup" trailers, measure 28' long by 102" (or 8 and ½') wide. They are typically used in tandem combinations, with two pup trailers connected together, for over-the-road hauling of customer freight. The pup trailers are also used in single trailer units for local freight deliveries and pickups. The dispute in this case centers over the access to local points of loading and unloading which these single pup trailers are guaranteed by federal law.

This case comes before the Court on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment. ABF Freight System, Inc. (ABF) alleges that enforcement of Va.Code §§ 46.1-328, 46.1-328.1 violates federal law and unduly burdens interstate commerce. These Virginia statutes provide for restrictions on the use of 102" wide tractor trailers on the roads of the Commonwealth. Plaintiff contends that under federal law, 49 U.S.C. § 2312, its 28' long, 102" wide single "pup" trailers are guaranteed reasonable access to all points of loading and unloading in the state. ABF further claims that because the Virginia scheme of restrictions prevents this access, it is in direct conflict with the relevant federal statutes, and is thus invalid under the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses of the United States Constitution (Article I, section 8; and Article VI, clause 2).

This declaratory judgment action, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks a ruling that the Virginia scheme is invalid and a permanent injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the Virginia statutes. ABF also seeks to recover its costs and attorneys fees under § 1983.

Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337, which provides that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any federal statute "regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies."

This case is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. While ABF has filed only a motion for a preliminary injunction, both ABF and the defendant have since represented to the Court their agreement that the case is now ripe for summary adjudication on the record as made. The Court will therefore treat ABF's motion for preliminary injunction as one for summary judgment on the merits.

As will be seen, this case arises out of certain undisputed facts; the controversy centers around the interpretation of those facts and their significance under federal law. The record in the case consists of certain exhibits and affidavits, and the in-court testimony of Mr. Linwood Butner, taken at the initial hearing on January 15, 1988.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

ABF Freight System, Inc., is an interstate common carrier claiming to operate under authority issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. In its freight carrier business, it employs approximately 8,100 people nationally and 181 people in Virginia alone. During the fourth quarter of 1987, ABF delivered 18,882 shipments of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight to customers in Virginia, and picked up 18,040 shipments of LTL freight from Virginia customers. These figures do not include stops at ABF's nine terminals in the state. (Affidavit of J. Yarbrough).

Typically, freight is brought into Virginia on tandem units, which are truck tractors pulling two trailers, each measuring 28' long by 102" wide. At ABF's company terminals, the trailers are separated and the individual "pup" trailers are used for local pick-up and delivery operations. The single trailer makes its deliveries, some 15-25 a day, and then calls the local terminal for pick-up instructions. These pick-up requests are received right up to the hour before the truck is dispatched. As a result, the local terminal does not know in advance what the loading or unloading schedules will be. The particular shipments on the truck dictate the deliveries and the order in which they are made. In the same way, loading requests cannot be planned more than a few hours in advance of dispatching. Customers often call on very short notice and the company, in order to be competitive, needs to respond quickly.

Finally, because of these conditions, customer points of loading and unloading change frequently, even daily. Thus, the same truck and driver will not travel the same routes or to the same customers on any two given days. Because current customers call at unpredictable times, and because new customers are always calling, the order and timing of deliveries and pickups are constantly changing. (Affs. of J. Yarbrough, D. Fralin; D. Fralin Depo. at 22-24, 34-39, 42-49.)

ABF owns 7,570 trailers which measure 28' long by 102" wide ("pups"); 1630 trailers which are 28' long by 96" wide; and 682 trailers which are 45' long by 96" wide. These trailers are always moving between ABF's 292 terminals and its thousands of points of loading and unloading. The local terminals do not have trailers permanently assigned to them; the same pup trailers used for local deliveries are also used in tandem units for over-the-road hauling (Affs. of D. Fralin, 1/15/88; P. Bentley).

This case arises from the arrest of driver James M. Hardin, who is a local ABF driver in the Wytheville, Virginia, area. On January 13, 1988 he was dispatched to make deliveries from a pup trailer which had come from Asheville, N.C. After his deliveries he made a pick-up in Dublin, Va., and proceeded to the terminal. Hardin was then dispatched to make a pick-up from Camcar, one of ABF's customers. While en route, at about 4:30 p.m., Hardin was arrested by a Virginia state trooper. The trooper issued Hardin a citation for violating Va.Code § 46.1-328, and advised Hardin that he was driving his pup trailer on a non-designated route. According to Hardin, the trooper also said that he was going to stop the Company from using 102" wide trailers on non-designated routes, and that if he caught them again he was going to park them and make the Company get a permit to move them (Affs. of James Hardin, P. Bentley).

This incident caused ABF to spend an extra three man-hours of time in delivering the freight to Camcar. ABF claims that continued enforcement of the Virginia scheme will cause it untold irreparable harm that can only be prevented by an injunction. (Affs. of D. Fralin, P. Bentley.)

DISCUSSION

I. The Federal Statutes

In order to eliminate problems caused by inconsistent state regulation of highway use, Congress enacted the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 ("STAA"), 49 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq. This Act established uniform rules for the length, width, weight and configuration of commercial vehicles traveling on the Interstate System and segments of qualifying Federal-Aid Primary System highways ("National Network"). The latter federal roads were to be designated by the Secretary of Transportation as capable of safely accomodating such vehicles. 49 U.S.C. § 2311(c), (e).

Congress decided that vehicle sets which consisted of a truck tractor and two trailing units ("tandem") should be allowed on all National Network highways, free from state interference. It prevented local law from interfering with the federal scheme, by stating in 49 U.S.C. § 2311(c) that:

No state shall prohibit commercial motor vehicle combinations consisting of a truck tractor and two trailing units on any segment of the National Network.

Further, Congress barred the states from prohibiting the use of commercial vehicles with the lengths approved by federal law. Section 2311(a) provides that "no state shall establish, maintain, or enforce any regulation of commerce which imposes a vehicle length limitation of less than 48 feet on the length of a semi-trailer unit ..., and of less than 28 feet on the length of any semitrailer or trailer operating as a tandem on any segment of the National Network." 49 U.S.C. § 2311(a).

Likewise, Congress established a uniform width standard for National Network roads by enacting § 2316(a), which reads: "No State, .. shall establish, maintain, or enforce any regulation of commerce which imposes a vehicle width limitation of more or less than 102 inches on any segment of the National Network." 49 U.S.C. § 2316(a).

Finally, in recognition of the fact that authorized vehicles would need to leave the National Network to gain access to their terminals, and to facilities for food, fuel, rest and repair, as well as to make local pickups and deliveries of freight, Congress enacted § 2312(a) to provide that:

No State may enact or enforce any law denying reasonable access to commercial vehicles subject to this chapter, between (1) the National Network, and (2) terminals, facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest, and points of loading and unloading for household goods carriers emphasis supplied.

This was the original version of § 2312(a). While it allowed access to loading and unloading points for carriers of household goods, it apparently did not allow such access for other authorized vehicles, including the single 102" wide pup trailer units. Further, the original scheme allowed no exceptions to the ban on state limitations of length, or to the reasonable access provisions.

For these reasons and others, including a concern that the preemptive provisions of the STAA might have been too sweeping, Cong...