We conclude that the Ordinance is not a discriminatory tax or otherwise in violation of the AHTA or

AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., and the Hertz Corporation, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CITY OF NEWARK, City Council of the City of Newark, Mayor of the City of Newark, and Director of Finance of the City of Newark, Defendants–Respondents.
John Longstreth (K & L Gates, LLP) of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellants (Mark D. Marino and Mr. Longstreth, of counsel and on the brief; Daniel A. Suckerman, on the brief).Michael R. Griffinger argued the cause for respondents (GluckWalrath and Gibbons, discount airplane tickets P.C., attorneys; Mr. Griffinger, Robert C. Brady, Fruqan Mouzon, Brian P. McElroy, David A. Clark and Antonella Colella, on the brief).
This appeal requires us to consider discount airplane tickets the validity of Ordinance 6PFS–I 050510 (the Ordinance), enacted by defendant City of Newark (the City), 1 levying a tax on all car rental transactions within the City's discount airplane tickets Second and Third Industrial Zones, the latter of which encompasses parts of Newark Liberty International Airport (the Airport). Plaintiffs discount airplane tickets Avis Budget Group (Avis) and Hertz Corporation (Hertz) challenge the Ordinance, asserting that it violates the Anti–Head Tax Act (AHTA), 49 U.S.C.A. § 40116, as well as 42 U . S.C.A. § 1983 and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
We conclude that the Ordinance is not a discriminatory tax or otherwise in violation of the AHTA or the dormant Commerce Clause. We determine that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of municipal authority. Accordingly, we affirm.
On July 28, 2009, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the New Jersey Economic Stimulus discount airplane tickets Act of 2009, N.J.S.A. 40:48H–1 to –9, which, among other things, granted authority to certain municipalities to tax motor vehicle rental transactions taking place in designated industrial zones, specifically, zones within discount airplane tickets which commercial airports are located. N.J.S.A. 40:48H–2. The stated purpose of the legislation and the tax was to finance the redevelopment of certain municipalities. N.J.S.A. 40:48H–1.
a. A municipality having a population in excess of 100,000 and within which is located a commercial airport which provides for a minimum of 10 regularly scheduled commercial airplane flights per day, or a municipality in which any portion of such an airport is located, discount airplane tickets by ordinance, may impose a tax on the rental of motor vehicles on such rental transactions that occur within a designated industrial zone of the municipality. Such tax shall be imposed on the person, corporation, or other legal entity discount airplane tickets that is permitted the use of a motor vehicle that it does not own for a period of time that is less than one year, in exchange for the payment of a fee, and shall be collected discount airplane tickets on behalf of the municipality by the person collecting such rental fee, in accordance with such procedures as shall be established in the ordinance imposing the tax.
The local motor vehicle rental tax rate imposed under an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall not exceed five percent of the total amount of the fee charged for the rental of the motor vehicle, excluding any taxes and surcharges.
The City, which has a population discount airplane tickets in excess of 100,000 and "within which [the Airport] is located," qualified under this provision. On April 27, 2010, the City Council, pursuant to N.J.S .A. 40:48H–2, introduced an ordinance to tax car rental transactions. During a public meeting to consider the proposed ordinance, council members informed the public that the Ordinance was intended to tax "outsiders" at the Airport but not Newark residents. Following the meeting, discount airplane tickets the Council passed the Ordinance, and the Mayor signed it into law on May 7, 2010. It was published on May 14, 2010.
There is hereby imposed on the person, corporation or other legal entity that is permitted the use of a motor vehicle that it does not own for a period of time that is less than one year, in exchange for the payment of a fee, a tax of five (5%) percent on the fee charged for the rental of such motor vehicle, excluding any taxes and surcharges, in respect of rental transactions that occur within the industrial discount airplane tickets zone. This tax is in addition to any other taxes or surcharges.
a. The City hereby designates the following portion of the City as an "industrial zone" for purposes of the motor vehicle rental tax authorized by the Act and this chapter, such portion not exceeding, in the aggregate, fifty percent (50%) of the territory of the City: All of the territory within the City which is, as of the effective date of this ordinance, located [within] the "Second Industrial District" and the "Third Industrial District[,]" [ ] as such areas are established by Title XL, Chapter 2 of the Newark Municipal Code. The area so designated as an industrial zone under this paragraph a. shall not be altered by any subsequent revision of the City's zoning districts, but rather shall be amended only by an ordinance expressly amending this ordinance in accordance with the [A]ct.
b. The City hereby determines that the industrial zone designated in paragraph a. of this Section 10:22A–4 of the City constitutes an area having, or intended to have, predominantly industrial, port, airport, and related uses.
The Third Industrial Zone encompasses parts of the Airport and the Port Newark Marine Terminal. All of the ten rental discount airplane tickets car companies that are currently affected by the Ordinance are located within the Third Industrial Zone. Plaintiffs are two of the ten affected companies.
Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the Ordinance in the Law Division, asserting that it violated State due process rights, was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and was contrary to the AHTA and the Commerce Clause. At the hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties focused on whether the tax violated the AHTA. The City argued that the court could not consider the issue since there was no private right of action to enforce discount airplane tickets the AHTA. On the merits, it claimed that the Ordinance did not exclusively affect Airport businesses because three rental car companies located in the Third Industrial Zone were not located "at the Airport." Plaintiffs countered that two of the referenced "companies" were actually Avis parking lots where no rental transactions occurred, and were unaffected by the tax, and the third, Action discount airplane tickets Car Rental, was "at the Airport" because it serviced the Airport by shuttle bus from an Airport hotel.
In a written opinion, discount airplane tickets Judge Michael R. Casale rejected the City's claim that plaintiffs did not have a private right of action to enforce the AHTA, relying on Interface Group, Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Authority, 816 F.2d 9, 16 (1st Cir.1987), discount airplane tickets and Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, 955 F.2d 1054, 1058 (6th Cir.1992), aff'd, 510 U.S. 355, 114 S.Ct. 855, 127 L. Ed.2d 183 (1994) (deciding the questions presented on other grounds and not reaching the issue of the implied right of action). He rejected contrary decisions by the Seventh and Tenth Circuits in Southwest Air Ambulance, Inc. v. City of Las Cruces, 268 F.3d 1162, 1169 (10th Cir.2001), and Miller Aviation v. Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, 273 F.3d 722, 729 (7th Cir.2001). However, since plaintiffs averred violations of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 in the complaint, the trial court relied on Southwest, supra, 268 F.3d at 1176, to conclude that plaintiffs were not precluded from either enforcing the AHTA or challenging the Ordinance.
Turning to the merits, the judge addressed the issue of whether the Ordinance violated the AHTA. Citing Burbank–Glendale–Pasadena Airport Authority v. City of Burbank, 64 Cal.App.4th 1217, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 297, 298 (Cal.App.1998), the judge concluded that the Ordinance did not offend discount airplane tickets the AHTA:
Here, the tax is not on air commerce; it is on the fee paid for renting a car. Second, the tax is paid by the customer, not the businesses. Third, the tax is not imposed exclusively on airport businesses, but rather it must be paid by any rental car facility that is open or will open in the qualified zones. Finally, the tax is payable by anyone who rents a car in the designated zones, not only air travelers[;] and air travelers who wish to avoid the tax can travel outside of the industrial zones and rent a car elsewhere. The tax at issue herein discount airplane tickets is very similar to the tax upheld by the California discount airplane tickets Court of Appeals [in Burbank ] and is the type of tax authorized by 4[9] U.S.C. [A.] § 40116(e)(1).
The court neither found a violation of the AHTA, nor a violation of the Commerce Clause. The judge held: (1) where Congress has legislated, as it did in enacting the AHTA, courts discount airplane tickets need not determine discount airplane tickets whether state action authorized by the statute has violated the Commerce Clause; and (2) the statements City Council discount airplane tickets members made during the public meeting did not affect the Commerce Clause analysis when the City enacted the Ordinance "in strict compliance with ․ [N.J.S.A. 40:48H–2]." Finally, the judge determined that the City Council followed proper procedures in enacting the Ordinance, and the Ordinance neither offended due process nor was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. This appeal followed.
The City reiterates its argument that even if the tax violates the AHTA, dismissal must be affirmed because there is no private right of action discount airplane tickets to enforce the AHTA. Plaintiffs counter that even if there is no private right of action, an AHTA violation may be remedied under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
That the AHTA permits a private right of action is no longer a viable argument. The AHTA is within the regulatory purview of the Department of Transportation under the direction of the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary). See Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cnty. of Kent, 510 U.S. 355, 366–67, 114 S.Ct. 855, 863, 127 L. Ed.2d 183, 195 (1994) (observing that the "Secretary discount airplane tickets of Transportation discount airplane tickets is charged with administering ․ the AHTA"); Township of Tinicum v. U.S. Dep't of Tr