Federal Preemption of Provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, In re
| Citation | 566 N.W.2d 299,223 Mich.App. 288 |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | 186569 and 186726,INTRA-STATE,Docket Nos. 182950 |
| Parties | CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC., and Universal Am-Can, Ltd., Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee. MICHIGANMOTOR TARIFF BUREAU, INC., and National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc., Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee, and United Parcel Service, Appellee. MICHIGAN TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO. 43, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Morgan Drive Away, Inc., Cement Carriers Association, Aggregate Carriers Association of Michigan, Inc., Universal Am-Can, Ltd., and United Parcel Service, Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Foster, Swift, Collings & Smith, P.C. by John W. Ester, Robert E. McFarland, and Peter R. Albertins, Farmington Hills, for Central Transport, Inc., and Universal Am-Can, Ltd.
Foster, Swift, Collings & Smith, P.C. by Robert E. McFarland, Farmington Hills, for Michigan Intra-State Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., and National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc.
Bagileo, Silverberg & Goldman by John R. Bagileo and Claire Shapiro pro hac vice, Washington, DC, for National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc.
Rudell & O'Neill by Kevin J O'Neill, Detroit, for Michigan Teamsters Joint Counsel No. 43.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Don L. Keskey, Henry J. Boynton, and Judith I. Blinn, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Public Service Commission.
Loomis, Ewert, Parsley, Davis & Gotting, P.C. by William D. Parsley, Lansing, for Morgan Drive Away, Inc.
Sullivan and Leavitt, P.C. by Martin J. Leavitt, Northville, for Aggregate Carriers Association of Michigan, Inc., and Cement Carriers Association.
Butzel Long by William R. Rails, Leland R. Rosier, and Wendel V. Hall, Lansing, for United Parcel Service.
Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and JANSEN and T.R. THOMAS, *, JJ.
The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) issued opinions and orders on January 11, 1995, and May 18, 1995, pertaining to the effect of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), P.L. 103-305, on Michigan's Motor Carrier Act, 1933 P.A. 254, as amended, M.C.L. § 475.1 et seq.; M.S.A. § 22.531 et seq. This Court consolidated the appeals of those decisions by several interested parties. Addressing only those aspects of the PSC's decisions that are directly challenged by appellants, we affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.
The FAAAA was signed by President Clinton on August 23, 1994, and took effect on January 1, 1995. Section 601(h) of the FAAAA, P.L. 103-305, § 601, entitled "Preemption of Intrastate Transportation of Property," codified at the time of enactment as 49 U.S.C. § 11501(h), but subsequently recodified as amended as 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), provides:
Preemption of State economic regulation of motor carriers.
(1) General rule. Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States 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 (other than a carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier covered by section 41713(b)(4)) or any motor private carrier with respect to the transportation of property.
(2) Matters not covered. Paragraph (1)
(A) shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles, the authority of a State to impose highway route controls or limitations based on the size or weight of the motor vehicle or the hazardous nature of the cargo, or the authority of a State to regulate motor carriers with regard to minimum amounts of financial responsibility relating to insurance requirements and self-insurance authorization; and
(B) does not apply to the transportation of household goods.
(3) State standard transportation practices.
(iii) uniform cargo credit rules, or
(iv) antitrust immunity for joint line rates or routes, classifications and mileage guides, if such law, regulation, or provision meets the requirements of subparagraph (B).
(B) Requirements. A law, regulation, or provision of a State, political subdivision, or political authority meets the requirements of this subparagraph if
(i) the law, regulation, or provision covers the same subject matter as, and compliance with such law, regulation, or provision is no more burdensome than compliance with, a provision of this subtitle or a regulation issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Secretary of Transportation under this subtitle; and
(ii) the law, regulation, or provision only applies to a carrier upon request of such carrier.
(C) Election. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership may elect to be subject to a law, regulation, or provision of a State, political subdivision, or political authority under this paragraph.
It has long been the PSC's obligation to supervise and regulate the transportation of property by motor vehicle for hire upon the public highways of Michigan. M.C.L. § 475.2; M.S.A. § 22.532. Michigan's Motor Carrier Act applies to entities engaged in interstate commerce only to the extent it is consistent with federal law. M.C.L. § 476.12; M.S.A. § 22.545.
On September 8, 1994, the PSC, acting on its own initiative, commenced the instant proceeding, No. T-1273, to consider the preemptive effect of the federal legislation and to give the PSC an opportunity to express its view regarding which portions of the Motor Carrier Act and the associated regulations were preempted. The PSC's stated intention was to provide guidance to motor carriers until the Legislature amends the Motor Carrier Act to conform with the federal preemption. The PSC did not attempt to address the constitutionality of § 601, but rather assumed it was constitutional.
The PSC concluded that § 601 preempts only regulatory provisions concerning price, routes, and service--the essence of economic regulation. The PSC found it had substantial residual regulatory authority, including regulatory authority over matters such as safety. The PSC further concluded that it should continue a certification process (albeit, a "streamlined" certification process) for intrastate motor carriers and that it could and should continue to assess statutorily mandated fees. The PSC appended to its decisions copies of the Motor Carrier Act and the related rules with lines drawn through the large portions of the act and the rules that it concluded had been preempted. Since issuing its decisions, the PSC has ceased enforcing those provisions of the Motor Carrier Act that it concluded had been preempted.
Under M.C.L. § 462.26(8); M.S.A. § 22.45(8), it is an appellant's burden to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that the order of the PSC complained of is unlawful or unreasonable. Michigan Intra-State Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc. v. Public Service Comm., 200 Mich.App. 381, 387, 504 N.W.2d 677 (1993). This Court gives due deference to the PSC's administrative expertise and will not substitute its judgment for that of the PSC, particularly in legislative matters such as setting rates. Id., at p. 388, 504 N.W.2d 677. However, judicial deference is not as great with respect to administrative interpretations of recent legislation as it is with respect to administrative interpretations of longstanding legislation. Telephone Ass'n of Michigan v. Public Service Comm., 210 Mich.App. 662, 670, 534 N.W.2d 223 (1995); In re Filing Requirements for Telecommunications Complaints, 210 Mich.App. 681, 692-693, 534 N.W.2d 234 (1995).
Numerous acts under which the PSC has been granted regulatory authority incorporate the appeal provisions in M.C.L. § 462.26; M.S.A. § 22.45. See, e.g., M.C.L. § 460.4; M.S.A. § 22.13(4), M.C.L. § 484.114; M.S.A. § 22.1454, repealed by 1991 P.A. 179, M.C.L. § 483.110; M.S.A. § 22.1320, M.C.L. § 460.59; M.S.A. § 22.9, M.C.L. § 460.557(6); M.S.A. § 22.157(6), M.C.L. § 460.301(6); M.S.A. § 22.101(6), and M.C.L. § 460.506; M.S.A. § 22.146. Also see the provisions listed in Sullivan v. Public Service Comm., 93 Mich.App. 391, 396-397, 287 N.W.2d 188 (1979). Appeals from PSC decisions regarding the Motor Carrier Act are no exception. M.C.L. § 479.20; M.S.A. § 22.585 provides that "[a]ny order or decree of the commission shall be subject to review in the manner provided for in" M.C.L. § 462.26; M.S.A. § 22.45.
Under M.C.L. § 462.26(1); M.S.A. § 22.45(1), an appeal as of right to this Court may be filed by any common carrier or other party in interest who is "dissatisfied with any order of the commission fixing any rate or rates, fares, charges, classifications, joint rate or rates, or any order fixing any regulations, practices, or services...."
The question arises whether the PSC's orders, which provide a "framework" and "guidance" to motor carriers, constitutes the "fixing" of rates, fares, practices, and services that forms the basis for this Court's jurisdiction under M.C.L. § 462.26(1); M.S.A. § 22.45(1). "Fix" in M.C.L. § 462.26(1); M.S.A. § 22.45(1) should be construed in the sense the word was intended by the Legislature to be used in the statute. In re Certified Question, 433 Mich. 710, 723, 449 N.W.2d 660 (1989); Aikens v. Dep't of Conservation, 387 Mich. 495, 499, 198 N.W.2d 304 (1972).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westlake Transportation, Inc. v. PSC
......, INC., Vanderkooi Carriers, Inc., El Toro Motor Freight, Inc., Myriah, Inc., Prism, Inc., Gerrigs ... This case involves the effect of several federal laws, specifically 49 USC 11501, 49 USC 11506, ... Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), PL 103-105, subsection 601(h), n various provisions of Michigan's Motor Carrier Act (MCA), M.C.L. § ...(C)(10): one regarding their intrastate-preemption claim and the other regarding their ......
-
Uselmann v. Pop
...... Agreements that named RSP Express as a Carrier and the Plaintiffs’ company, as well as their ...III. LEGAL STANDARD A. Rule 12(b)(1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a ... statute of limitations expiration; (3) preemption; and (4) failure to state viable claims. ... of limitations provided under the federal Motor Carrier Act. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 14705(a) and ... See In re Fed. Preemption of Provisions of the Motor Carrier Act , 223 Mich. App. 288, ......
-
Ameritech Michigan v. Michigan Public Service Com'n
...... "Modification of Final Judgment" in federal court (the AT & T consent decree). See, ... toll calls were carried by a local carrier such as Ameritech while a customer's interLATA ..., that Ameritech was violating various provisions of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, 1991 P.A. ..., grandfather provisions which prevent preemption must not be given a narrow construction.. . * ... re Federal Preemption Of Provisions Of The Motor Carrier Act, 223 Mich.App. 288, 303, 566 N.W.2d ......
-
Mirela United Stateselmann v. Pop
...... Agreements that named RSP Express as a Carrier and the Plaintiffs' company, as well as their ...Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a ... statute of limitations expiration; (3) preemption; and (4) failure to state viable claims. ... of limitations provided under the federal Motor Carrier Act. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 14705(a) and ... See In re Fed . Preemption of Provisions of the Motor Carrier Act , 223 Mich. App. 288, ......