Michigan Trucking Ass'n v. Michigan Public Service Com'n
| Decision Date | 16 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 195240 |
| Citation | 571 N.W.2d 734,225 Mich.App. 424 |
| Parties | , Fed. Carr. Cas. P 59,007, Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,055 MICHIGAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee. (On Remand) |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C. by Glen A. Schmiege and Robert E. McFarland, Farmington Hills, for Michigan Trucking Association.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Don L. Keskey and Henry J. Boynton, Assistant Attorneys General, for Public Service Commission.
Before CORRIGAN, C.J., and MARKEY and MARKMAN, JJ.
ON REMAND
Pursuant to a remand from the Supreme Court, appellant Michigan Trucking Association (MTA) appeals as of right from an order of appellee Public Service Commission (PSC) implementing a safety rating system for motor carrier vehicles pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act, M.C.L. § 475.1 et seq.; M.S.A. § 22.531 et seq. Michigan Trucking Co. v. Public Service Comm., 451 Mich. 906, 550 N.W.2d 527 (1996). Appellant claims that the PSC was without authority to issue the order because the act was preempted by Congress when it enacted the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), P.L. 103-305. Appellant also contends that even if the PSC had authority to implement the safety rating system, its action is invalid because it failed to follow proper procedures for the promulgation of rules before issuing the order. We affirm.
The Motor Carrier Act was amended by the Legislature with the enactment of 1993 P.A. 352, effective January 13, 1994. One of the changes, codified at M.C.L. § 479.43; M.S.A. § 22.587(103), provides as follows:
The public service commission, in cooperation with the department of state police, will develop and implement by rule or order a motor carrier safety rating system within 12 months after the effective date of this article. In the rating system, an unsatisfactory rating shall not be imposed without an on-site safety review being conducted by the department of state police.
Following enactment of this statute, representatives of the PSC Motor Carrier Regulation Division and the Motor Carrier Division of the Michigan State Police met to develop a system of safety ratings. On December 19, 1994, they recommended that the PSC adopt a safety rating system based on the United States Department of Transportation safety ratings and supplemented by additional information from the Secretary of State's office and the state police with regard to driving records, accidents, citations, and vehicle inspections. On January 11, 1995, the PSC issued an order immediately implementing the safety rating system, finding that "the process proposed by the Motor Carrier Division and the State Police ... meets the requirements of M.C.L. § 479.43." The PSC also found that the proposed system was in the "public interest" and that a public hearing was unnecessary.
Initially, we reject the PSC's argument that appellant lacks standing to challenge the order because it is not an aggrieved party. "A party is aggrieved by a judgment or order when it operates on the party's rights and property, or bears directly on the party's interest." Midland Cogeneration Venture Ltd. Partnership v. Public Service Comm., 199 Mich.App. 286, 304, 501 N.W.2d 573 (1993); see also In re Quality of Service Standards for Regulated Telecommunication Services, 204 Mich.App. 607, 610, 516 N.W.2d 142 (1994). The safety rating system at issue bears directly on the trucks operated by appellant's members and on their right to operate those trucks in Michigan. Therefore, appellant has standing to challenge the order.
Appellant first argues that the PSC lacked authority to issue the order because the entire Motor Carrier Act was preempted by the amendments of the FAAAA, which were signed into law on August 23, 1994. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. § 11501 was amended by adding subsection h (referred to as § 601), which states in relevant part:
(h) 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 ... 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. [Now recodified as 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c).]
The extent to which the amendments of the FAAAA preempted the Motor Carrier Act was expressly considered in In re Federal Preemption of Provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 223 Mich.App. 288, 566 N.W.2d 299 (1997). In that case, this Court rejected the argument that the amendments of the FAAAA completely preempted the Motor Carrier Act. Id. at 301, 566 N.W.2d 299. This Court concluded that
it is clear and unambiguous from the language of § 601 that the congressional intent was not to preempt all state regulation of the trucking industry. Section 601 expressly excepts from its preemptive effect significant aspects of regulation, including safety regulation.... If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute reflects the legislative intent. Furthermore, the House Conference Report indicates that "economic regulation" is intended to be preempted and that states retain their authority to regulate various aspects of the transportation industry.... The argument that Congress intended to preempt the entire field of regulation of motor carriers fails in the face of the language of the legislation and its history. The PSC's determination that § 601 was intended to preempt only economic regulation is consistent with the language and history of the legislation. [Id. Citations omitted.]
In this case, it is difficult to conceive of an order that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
By Lo Oil Co. v. Department of Treasury, No. 251200
...the action in question. Detroit Coalition, supra at 187-188, 428 N.W.2d 335. See also Michigan Trucking Ass'n v. Pub. Service Comm. (On Remand), 225 Mich.App. 424, 430, 571 N.W.2d 734 (1997) (§ 7[j] applied to the agency's action because a statute explicitly authorized it), and Village of W......
-
City of Romulus v. DEPT. OF ENVIR. QUALITY
...policies the DEQ follows in deciding whether to issue Part 111 permits. 27. As in Michigan Trucking Ass'n. v. Public Service Comm. (On Remand), 225 Mich.App. 424, 430, 571 N.W.2d 734 (1997), this conclusion is buttressed by the fact that Part 111 does not expressly require the DEQ to promul......
-
In re MCTA Complaint
...would lead to an unreasonable result, which should be avoided whenever possible. Michigan Trucking Ass'n v. Public Service Comm. (On Remand), 225 Mich.App. 424, 430, 571 N.W.2d 734 (1997). To find that Ameritech Michigan violated subsection 305(3), the PSC was not required to, and did not, ......
-
Michigan Trucking Ass'n v. Michigan Public Service Com'n
...v. Michigan Public Service Commission NO. 111297. COA No. 195240. Supreme Court of Michigan August 28, 1998 Prior Report: 225 Mich.App. 424, 571 N.W.2d 734. Disposition: Leave to appeal ...