Isaac v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 19 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2017-CA-001355-MR,2017-CA-001355-MR |
| Parties | THOMAS D. ISAAC AND DON McCORMICK IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF GROUP 151 APPELLANTS v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KENTUCKY CABINET FOR TRANSPORTATION; KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS; REPUBLIC SERVICES OF KENTUCKY, LLC; BENSON VALLEY LANDFILL GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; R.C. CUTTS, INC.; AND CUTTS SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION, INC. APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
This case involves the interplay of federal and state statutes and regulations governing the travel of trucks and trailers on national roadways. At the federal level, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), as amended by the Tandem Truck Safety Act of 1984, 49 United States Code (U.S.C.)§ 31111 et seq., establishes "uniform, national standards for the maximum size and weight of trucks and trailers used in interstate commerce." New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass'n v. Town of Plaistow, 67 F.3d 326, 329 (1st Cir. 1995). "This statute was originally enacted by Congress '[i]n order to eliminate problems caused by inconsistent state regulation of highway use.'" Keck v. Commonwealth ex rel. Golden, 998 S.W.2d 13, 16 (Ky. App. 1999) (quoting A.B.F. Freight System, Inc. v. Suthard, 681 F.Supp. 334, 337 (E.D. Va. 1988)). In furtherance of this goal, the STAA forbids states from enacting or enforcing laws that prohibit trucks and trailers of approved length and weight from travelling on the National Truck Network, the system of interstate highways and other federally funded primary routes designated by the Secretary of Transportation. Plaistow, 67 F.3d at 329. The STAA "also prohibits states from denying approved trucks and trailers 'reasonable access' between the national network and 'terminals.'" Id. (citing 49 U.S.C. § 31114).
Federal regulations provide for additions, deletions, exceptions and restrictions from the National Network. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) retains the authority to rule on requests for any of these and its "approval or disapproval will constitute the final decision of the U.S. Department of Transportation." 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 658.11.
At the state level, regulations promulgated by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet establish the maximum dimensions for a motor vehicle or combination motor vehicle on Kentucky roadways. 603 Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR) 5:070 § 3. In accordance with the federal scheme discussed above, the regulations also provide that motor vehicles that exceed these dimensions may operate on roads designated to be part of the National Truck Network and in areas of access to the Network. 603 KAR 5:070 § 4(2).
KY 151 is a two-lane road stretching from Franklin County to Anderson County. It has been part of the National Truck Network under the STAA for over thirty-six years. It is classified by the Transportation Cabinet as an "[o]ther state primary highway." These are defined as routes 603 KAR 3:030 § 1 (1)(c). The portion of KY 151 at issue in this case runs between Lawrenceburg and Interstate 64 and is regularly used by heavy commercial vehicles.
On March 17, 2016, in response to local residents' concerns about commercial motor vehicle crashes on KY 151, the Acting Secretary of theKentucky Transportation Cabinet contacted the FHWA, in accordance with 23 CFR § 658.11, requesting the emergency removal of the highway from the National Truck Network. The letter stated that KY 151 experienced single vehicle accidents involving large trucks and buses six times as often as US 127 (the alternate route) during the same time period, with half the accidents involving one vehicle running off the roadway. The letter also stated that the typical width of the lanes of KY 151 was only eleven feet and the shoulders from one to two feet, which the letter described as inadequate for larger vehicles like trucks and buses.
On April 25, 2016, Group 151 filed a complaint against the Commonwealth, the Secretary of the Transportation Cabinet, the Transportation Cabinet, and the Department of Public Highways, seeking declaratory judgment, a temporary restraining order and permanent injunctive relief. The complaint contended that Highway 151 is unsuitable for heavy commercial traffic such as trucks, trailers and semi-trailers, as evidenced by the numerous crashes occurring on the roadway as well as incidents involving trucks running off the road into private residences or spilling loads such as grain alcohol or gasoline onto private property adjacent to the roadway. Group 151 sought to remove the classification of KY 151 as an "[o]ther state primary highway" pursuant to 603 KAR 3:030 on the grounds it was arbitrary and unconstitutional, and also claimed KY 151 shouldnot be excluded from classification as an exempted roadway under 603 KAR 5:070 § 7.
On April 26, 2016, the FHWA sent a reply to the Cabinet agreeing that Kentucky's request met the requirements to pursue an emergency deletion from the National Network of the relevant segment of KY 151. The letter also stated that
Upon receipt of this letter, the Cabinet Secretary issued Official Order No. 110134, temporarily removing the specified portions of KY 151 from the Kentucky National Truck Network. The order stated that the removal of the route from the Network was justified because Interstate 64 and US 127 provided a safer route for vehicles with 102-inch-wide trailers while further promoting the safety of the travelling public. The order removed STAA motor vehicles (truck, tractor trailer and semi-trailer combinations from 97 to 102 inches in width) from regular traffic along the relevant portion of KY 151. The maximum width and length of any motor vehicle or combination motor vehicle permitted is 96 inches wide and 65 feet long. These are the default maximum dimensions for travel on any publicroadway in Kentucky not on the National Truck Network. See 603 KAR 5.070 § 3.
In June 2016, a notice was published in the Federal Register by the FHWA regarding the emergency deletion of the relevant portion of KY 151 from the National Network. Comments were due on July 15, 2016. The permanent deletion of KY 151 from the National Truck Network has not been finalized.
On September 27, 2016, the Cabinet Secretary signed Official Order 110454 amending the earlier order to retain the first 1.3 miles of KY 151 north of the junction with US 127 as part of the National Network so that oversized vehicles could access the trucking facilities located there, which include a maintenance, repair and service shop for heavy haul and STAA trucks owned and operated by R.C. Cutts, Inc. and Cutts Specialized Transportation, Inc. (Cutts).
R.C. Cutts, Inc. and Cutts Specialized Transportation, Inc., and Republic Services and Benson Valley Landfill filed motions to intervene in Group 151's lawsuit which were granted on October 27, 2016, on the grounds that their business interests depend on the operation of STAA and larger motor vehicles along KY 151 and would be adversely affected by the removal of the route from the National Truck Network. The circuit court directed the parties to brief jurisdictional issues, directed the Cabinet to file a motion for summary judgmentand the intervenors to file a motion to dismiss. They did so, and Group 151 filed a consolidated response.
The circuit court entered an order dismissing Group 151's petition without prejudice on the grounds that Group 151 failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and that the Cabinet had primary jurisdiction over the matter. This appeal by Group 151 followed.
In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our inquiry focuses on "whether the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996) (citing Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 56.03). Summary judgment may be granted when "as a matter of law, it appears that it would be impossible for the respondent to produce evidence at the trial warranting a judgment in...
To continue reading
Request your trial