Opinion ID: 1200680
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assessment of Legislative Intent

Text: The second step of the Loyal Tire framework requires an assessment of the safety justifications in light of the record evidence. Loyal Tire, 445 F.3d at 145. The City argues that the regulations have helped reduce chasing, which has correspondingly improved public safety. [5] However, the City has not presented any evidence to support this argument, relying exclusively on the Scheme's legislative history to demonstrate that the City Council and Mayor were motivated by a desire to make New York City safer. As noted by the district court, the City has never assessed the effectiveness of the Scheme in fighting chasing. Multiple amendments so soon after its enactment suggest that it was not strongly effective. In fact, the legislative history for the amendment expressly states that [s]ince its enactment in 1987, DARP has been unable to eliminate the problem of `chasing' that continues to plague the streets of the city of New York. Report of the Legal and Governmental Affairs Division, New York City Council Committee on Consumer Affairs (Dec. 10, 1993). Even assuming that the Scheme has been effective in reducing chasing for accidents within New York City, the City has not articulated a reason as to why the Scheme must be enforced against all tow trucks anywhere within the City in order to reduce chasing, or how that broad enforcement is genuinely responsive to safety concerns. When a City resident's car breaks down in New Jersey, or Westchester, or Connecticut, the few trucks (if any) starting the chase from within the City would presumably already be licensed. Those starting and ending the chase outside of the City would not drive on City roads or highways or threaten City pedestrians. The tow truck returning the car to the City resident's repair shop within the City would not seriously jeopardize safety within New York City either. Although enforcement of the Scheme under these circumstances might serve to protect the City resident from high prices, that is not a safety concern. At that point, it becomes precisely the general industry regulation that Congress intended to preempt in enacting 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c). No court has upheld a licensing scheme as restrictive as New York City's. One regulation upheld was a rotation requirement and accompanying solicitation ban not unlike the City's DARP program. See Tow Operators Working to Protect Their Right to Operate v. City of Kansas City, 338 F.3d 873, 876 (8th Cir.2003). On the other hand, an ordinance that, like the one at issue here, required a city license in order for a tow truck to operate on city streets has been invalidated because it did not ensure that the towing and storage of motor vehicles will be performed safely. See Northway Towing, Inc. v. City of Pasadena, Tex., 94 F.Supp.2d 801, 803 (S.D.Tex.2000), abrogated on other grounds by Stucky v. City of San Antonio, 260 F.3d 424 (5th Cir.2001), abrogated by City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 122 S.Ct. 2226, 153 L.Ed.2d 430 (2002). The same is true of New York City's Scheme. Enforcing the Scheme against tow trucks passing through New York City or towing vehicles into New York City does not respond to safety concerns and does not fall within the safety exception of 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A). Accordingly such enforcement, and the City's definition of towing in N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-495(d), are preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).