Federal regulations seem to prohibit state and local governments, such as airports, from regulating federally regulated passenger carriers engaged in interstate commerce. Specifically, charter motorcoach operators.
About 40 of the nation’s 67 busiest airports, however, required operators to obtain permits, sometimes decals and transponders, when a federal study was conducted in 2008.
The industry is awaiting a finding on these practices from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Administrator Raymond P. Martinez, who was petitioned by the industry to enjoin airports from enforcing them.
A public comment period on the petition ended on June 10. None of the 25 comments filed online supported the airport’s position.
Standard revenue source
“Airports across the country have some sort of system. It’s hard to say one can’t do it when everybody else is,” said Tom Giddens, owner of Pacific Coachways in Garden Grove, California.
Giddens has 19 motorcoaches registered with Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), which requires operators to complete a lengthy application and submit nearly a dozen documents. Motorcoaches must visit the airport for the installation of a decal and transponder.
Some motorcoaches operated by Escot Bus Lines carry half a dozen transponders so fees can be assessed by airports and seaports in southern Florida, said Brian Scott, president of the Orlando-based carrier.
Fees on charter bus companies have become an essential source of revenue for airports, said Ken Presley, vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs for the United Motorcoach Association.
“States typically create airport authorities and send them on their way to survive on their own. The airlines have learned to squeeze them on gate fees and airport concessions. They can no longer get away with exorbitant pricing, so those rates have fallen,” he said.
“The number-one revenue stream for airports is parking, and there are plenty of competitors. The last great place to make money is with curb space, so creating so-called safety rules is simply a sham for collecting more money.”
The safety link for these permitting policies is based on the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Columbus v. Ours Garage and Wrecker Service. The tow-truck operator and its trade association sued to enjoin enforcement of the city’s tow-truck regulations on the ground that they were preempted by federal law.
However, the court stated, “Exceptions to this general rule provide that the preemption directive ‘shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.'”
Most major airports
Commercial ground transportation regulations of the 67 busiest airports were studied in 2008 by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences. About 40 airports required permits for ground transportation carriers bur rarely exempted interstate carriers.
Many airports required transponders. A few allowed charter operators to simply pay an entrance fee for each trip. Two airports exempted carriers that visited the airport twice or less monthly.
The Tucson Airport Authority description was typical. “Operators must provide extensive documentation to the Permit Office… must show insurance coverage, proof of vehicle inspections and title… must submit their vehicles to the TAA for regular inspections.”
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport required carriers to “submit a vehicle maintenance plan” and mandated “Drivers must have an airport permit.”
One airport then acknowledged federally regulated carriers. At Philadelphia International Airport, the report stated, “Operators engaged solely in interstate commerce need only comply with federal regulations.”
Federal preemption?
In October, UMA and the American Bus Association petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to declare that San Francisco International Airport is preempted from requiring inspections of passenger vehicles engaged in interstate commerce.
UMA and ABA cite the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, which established regulations for carriers engaged in interstate commerce.
The act states that a state or local regulation cannot be enforced if the Secretary of Transportation determines “the State law or regulation has no safety benefit” or “enforcement of the State law or regulation would cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.”
Another law, the 2002 Real Interstate Driver’s Equity (RIDE) Act, prevents states or their political subdivisions from requiring licenses or fees from interstate carriers for “pre-arranged ground transportation… pursuant to a contract” if the trip crosses state lines.
“The RIDE Act is the most obscure legislation that nobody seems to know much about,” Presley said.
Cleveland officials cannot be convinced that federal regulations preempt them from requiring charter carriers to obtain airport permits, said Dave James, president of BRT Charter Service in Cleveland. “In our world of interstate commerce, we think they should not infringe on that. They have no clue what that means. They just think they have to generate revenue.”
Burden?
In addition to permits and fees, airports may require on-site visits.
“We have to send buses to Miami and Fort Lauderdale so they can install their transponder and decal,” Scott said. “That itself is in violation of the federal law, which states that no state or political subdivision can require any form of identification in or on a vehicle that is not required by the Secretary of Transportation.
“For me to send buses from Orlando is a four-and-a-half- to five-hour trip each way. I have a minimum of 12 hours of driver pay, put 500 miles on each vehicle and take the vehicle out of service, which means lost revenue.”
A solution?
A favorable ruling from FMCSA on the UMA/ABA petition could resolve questions surrounding the burdens imposed by airports on charter operators, Giddens said. “We have to see how San Francisco turns out, then maybe we can put a little pressure on LAX. One giant at a time.”
Sidebar
Public Comments Filed to FMCSA Docket on UMA/ABA Petition
“Airport mechanics are not qualified to properly inspect motor coaches. Airport mechanics may cause a repair or modification that could actually result in a crash or bodily injury. Our motorcoaches are already inspected by qualified personnel from FMCSA, the State of Arkansas and our own factory-trained mechanics.” Jim Lienhart, Little Rock, Arkansas
“Onerous regulations are a roadblock to free enterprise, interstate commerce and the conducting of business by private companies. Adding the extra layer of inspections and licensing will only ensure that the city and county of San Francisco (the owners and operators of SFO) will collect extra revenue.” Marcus Jones, Spartanburg, North Carolina
“SFO is not certified to inspect commercial motor vehicles by any regulatory authority. It is a growing problem as we have received a new program from Fresno International Airport which is set to start in 2020.” Anonymous
“Transportation Charter Services operates 75 vehicles. It will cost our company approximately $2,100 per vehicle to move them to SFO and back for this inspection, which will represent a total cost of approximately $52,000. San Francisco International Airport would achieve the same objective by simply reviewing the current 45-day inspection carried in the vehicle.” Terry Fischer, Orange, California
“Based on our frustrations with getting in and out of the San Francisco International Airport we have changed most of our fly tours to fly out of other airports. I’m sure we are not alone in our efforts to avoid SFO.” Heather Paul, Newton, North Carolina
“Federal, state and local governments should be adopting policies that encourage travel by larger, low-emission vehicles versus travel by single-occupant automobiles. San Francisco’s proposed policies will have a chilling effect on the use of environmentally-friendly motorcoaches.” John Walker, San Antonio, Texas
“Being subject to inspections by airport personnel who are deemed qualified by and amongst themselves without federal oversight is wrong.” Anonymous
“We face the same situation here at Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport. We have to purchase an ID badge for each driver at $100, then the renewal each year is $20. Our transponders are $100 per bus plus a $20 fee each time we go in to pick up groups. The most alarming part to me is that their mechanics are required to inspect our coaches for issues.” Elizabeth Kamalakis, Savannah, Georgia
“There is no safety benefit from the airport’s inspection requirements. They do not specify any particular standard of performance for the vehicles or their components.” Tim Stout, Washington, New Jersey
“We have personally experienced the unnecessary burden placed on companies like us by having to jump through hoops to become certified, approved, inspected or pay additional fees to pick up or deliver passengers at airports, ports, cities, etc. Many operators choose to avoid areas that have these additional burdens or choose to charge the end user a higher fee. The net result is less business for everyone.” David Moody, Randleman, North Carolina
“For our fleet of 36 motorcoaches, it would interrupt charter and tour operations over several months just to schedule inspections of all vehicles. All the different rules at different airports add up to hours of paperwork and financial strains that often hinder interstate commerce. Our company has already chosen not to pick up or drop off passengers at certain airports because of the complicated permit application process.” Hazel Dance, Greenville, South Carolina
“Duplicative rules created by local and regional authorities that have no real bearing on safety, and which also conflict with federal regulations, place an extreme burden on the operation of our business.” Michael Giddens, Garden Grove, California
“I am very concerned about safety. I do not want anybody inspecting my motorcoaches that is not certified to do so.” Diane Byrnes, Winlock, Washington
