Opinion ID: 621257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The FAAAA's Pre-Emption Provision and the Commerce Clause Issue

Text: For businesses in interstate commerce involving transportation, Congress, concerned both with the states imposing undue burdens and with the national interest in uniform rules, has expressly preempted certain state regulations. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. § 14501(a)(1) (pre-emption of state regulations relating to motor carriers of passengers); id. § 14501(b)(1) (pre-emption of state regulations relating to freight forwarders and brokers); id. § 14501(d)(1) (pre-emption of state regulations relating to pre-arranged ground transportation); id. § 41713 (pre-emption of state regulations relating to air carriers). Congress enacted such a pre-emption provision as part of the FAAAA: 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, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property. Id. § 14501(c)(1). Motor carrier is defined as a person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. Id. § 13102(14). In enacting this provision, Congress found that state regulation of intrastate transportation of property had imposed an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, as well as an unreasonable cost on the American consumers, and thus certain aspects of the State regulatory process should be preempted. FAAAA § 601(a), 108 Stat. at 1605. The conference report explained that preemption legislation is in the public interest as well as necessary to facilitate interstate commerce. State economic regulation of motor carrier operations causes significant inefficiencies, increased costs, reduction of competition, inhibition of innovation and technology and curtails the expansion of markets. H.R.Rep. No. 103-677 (1994), 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1715, 1759 (Conf.Rep.). This federal pre-emption provision relating to motor carriers is substantially identical to a provision pre-empting state regulation of air carriers enacted in 1978, 49 U.S.C. § 41713, and the two statutes are often interpreted in pari materia. See DiFiore v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 646 F.3d 81, 85-86 & n. 4 (1st Cir.2011), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 761, 181 L.Ed.2d 483 (2011). These pre-emption provisions are broad but vague, and have been the subject of considerable litigation. Id. at 86.