Full opinion text
(Judge Kane ) In this action members of the motoring public who routinely access the Pennsylvania Turnpike (the "Turnpike") for business and personal travel have joined together in challenging Turnpike tolls that are alleged to be increasingly disproportionate to services rendered. Plaintiffs allege that the Pennsylvania statutory scheme permitting this inequity ("Act 44/89"), first enacted in 2007, violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and their constitutional right to travel. Specifically, Plaintiffs complain that in violation of the Constitution, Act 44/89 authorizes and directs the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission ("PTC") to collect user fees with no regard to Turnpike operating costs and to redistribute those funds to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDOT") for projects across the Commonwealth that are of no benefit to the paying Turnpike motorist. Plaintiffs in this case are: Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. ("OOIDA"), National Motorists Association ("NMA"), Marion L. Spray ("Spray"), B.L. Reever Transportation, LLC ("B.L. Reever"), Flat Rock Transportation, LLC ("Flat Rock"), Milligan Trucking, Inc. ("Milligan Trucking"), Frank Scavo ("Scavo"), and Laurence G. Tarr ("Tarr"), consisting of organizations, businesses, and individuals who are required to pay and have paid tolls to the PTC for their use of the Turnpike (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 9-18.) Defendants are the PTC, William K. Lieberman, Vice Chair of the PTC, Barry T. Drew, Secretary Treasurer of the PTC, Pasquale T. Deon, Sr., Commissioner of the PTC, John N. Wozniak, Commissioner of the PTC, Mark P. Compton, Chief Executive Officer of the PTC, Craig R. Shuey, Chief Operating Officer of the PTC (collectively, the "PTC Defendants"), Tom Wolf, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Leslie S. Richards, Chair of the PTC and Secretary of PennDOT (collectively, the "Commonwealth Defendants"). (Id. ¶¶ 19-28.) Before the Court are four motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint filed by the PTC Defendants, the Commonwealth Defendants, individual defendant Shuey, and individual defendant Lieberman. (Doc. Nos. 49, 50, 52, and 53.) Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of liability. (Doc. No. 84.) The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the PTC and Commonwealth Defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted, the motions filed by individual defendants Shuey and Lieberman will be denied as moot, and Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability will be denied. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Act 44/89 The Turnpike is a toll road operated by the PTC, running for 359 miles across the Commonwealth, beginning at the Ohio state line in Lawrence County and ending at the New Jersey border at the Delaware River Bridge in Bucks County. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 41.) Including the Northeastern Extension and Western Extension, the Turnpike covers 552 miles. (Id. ) Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of "excessive" tolls charged to named Plaintiffs and members of a putative class of motor carriers, drivers, and motorists by the PTC for travel on the Turnpike. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1.) The PTC is "an instrumentality of the Commonwealth." 36 P.S. § 652d ; Doc. No. 1 ¶ 32. Pennsylvania law authorizes the PTC to fix and adjust tolls to generate funds for services and facilities provided by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as follows: (a) Establishment and changes in toll amounts. -- ... Tolls shall be fixed and adjusted as to provide funds at least sufficient with other Revenues of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System, if any, to pay all of the following: ... (3) Amounts due to the department under 75 Pa. C.S. Ch. 89 (relating to Pennsylvania Turnpike) and pursuant to the lease agreement under 75 Pa. C.S. § 8915.3 (relating to lease of Interstate 80; related agreements). ... (5) Any other amounts payable to the Commonwealth or to the department. 74 Pa. C.S. § 8116(a) ; Doc. No. 1 ¶ 40. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the PTC obtains almost the entirety of its operating revenue from tolls. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 86.) Plaintiffs allege that prior to the enactment of Act 44, the PTC raised tolls on the Turnpike only five times in the 64-year history of the Turnpike. (Id. ¶ 87.) Plaintiffs allege that in fiscal year ending May 31, 2015, 192 million vehicles traveled on the Turnpike, consisting of approximately 166 million Class 1 Passenger vehicles and 26 million Class 2-9 commercial vehicles. (Id. ¶ 42.) Plaintiffs' complaint estimates that trucks provide for about half of the annual toll revenues generated by the Turnpike, producing $ 443 million in toll revenues for PTC in the 2016 fiscal year. (Id. ¶ 43.) In 2007, the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted a statute known as Act 44, amending portions of the Pennsylvania Public Transportation Law (Title 74) and the Vehicle Code (Title 75). See Act of July 18, 2007, P.L. 169, No. 44; Doc. No. 1 ¶ 44. Pursuant to the statute, the PTC and PennDOT entered into a Lease and Funding Agreement ("LAFA"), for a term of fifty years. See 75 Pa. C.S. § 8915.3(1) ; Doc. No. 1 ¶ 45. Act 44, as originally enacted, required the PTC to make a "[s]cheduled annual commission contribution" to PennDOT in the following amounts: TABLE 1 Amount Fiscal Year $750,000,000 2007-2008 $850,000,000 2008-2009 $900,000,000 2009-2010 Annual Increases of 2.5% 2010-End 75 Pa. C.S. § 8901 ; Doc. No. 1 ¶ 52. As alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint, on December 4, 2008, the PTC issued a press release regarding an imminent 25 percent toll increase: In December 2008, PTC's CEO announced: "The mission of [the Turnpike] has changed.... For the first time, toll income isn't only going back into our toll roads, but helping to fund infrastructure improvements in every corner of Pennsylvania .... Toll increase proceeds are mainly earmarked for non-Turnpike projects, so the funds generated by this [2009 toll] increase will largely be used by PennDOT to help finance off-Turnpike road and bridge projects and the state's 74 mass-transit operations." (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 72.) In a December 30, 2008 press release by the PTC, the PTC's CEO stated that "[i]n fact, more than 90 percent of the toll-increase proceeds will benefit non-Turnpike road and bridge projects and transit operations." (Id. ¶ 73.) In 2013, the General Assembly again amended the Public Transportation Law and Vehicle Code through legislation known as Act 89. See Act of Nov. 25, 2013, P.L. 974, No. 89; Doc. No. 1 ¶ 46. Act 89 amended the PTC's annual payment obligations to PennDOT. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 53.) Pursuant to Act 89, the PTC and PennDOT amended the LAFA in 2014, entering into an Amended Funding Agreement scheduled to terminate in October of 2057. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 47.) The statutory scheme established by Act 44/89 provides for annual payments made by the PTC to PennDOT that currently total $ 450 million annually through fiscal year 2022 and reduce to $ 50 million annually through 2057. See 75 Pa. C.S. §§ 8901 ; Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 51-54. Under Act 44/89, the PTC's annual payments to PennDOT through fiscal year 2057 will total $ 9.65 billion. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 55.) The PTC obtains the funds necessary to make the annual Act 44/89 payments from Turnpike tolls and from bonds it issues, the interest and principal of which are paid from tolls. (Id. ¶¶ 59-61.) Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the PTC's Act 44/89 payments to PennDOT, interest, and bond expenses are classified by the PTC as "non-operating expenses." (Id. ¶ 62.) As alleged by Plaintiffs, the largest portion of PTC's revenues derive from tolls, which are pledged to secure the PTC's outstanding Senior Revenue Bonds, also known as Turnpike Revenue Bonds. (Id. ¶ 63.) Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that, according to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Auditor General's 2016 Performance Audit of PTC ("2016 Performance Audit"), beginning in 2015, the PTC's Act 44/89 payments have been solely dedicated to "non-highway purposes," including transit. (Id. ¶ 69.) The PTC Act 44 Financial Plan Fiscal Year 2018 ("Act 44 Plan FY2018"), dated June 1, 2017, describes the change in funding obligations imposed by Act 89 as follows: Act 89 substantially altered the Commission's funding obligations to PennDOT. While the Commission's aggregate payment obligation remains at $ 450 million annually, beginning July 1, 2014, none of the payments are dedicated to highways and bridges. Instead, all $ 450 million is allocated to support transit capital, operating, multi-modal and other non-highway programs. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 70) (quoting Act 44 Plan FY2018). Pursuant to Act 44/89, PennDOT deposits the annual payments from the PTC into the Public Transportation Trust Fund ("PTTF"). See 74 Pa. C.S. § 1506(b)(1). Monies from that fund are then distributed among four programs: the "operating program," the "asset improvement program," the Multimodal Transportation Fund ("MTF"), and "programs of statewide significance." See 74 Pa. C.S. §§ 1506(e)(1)-(3), (6) ; Doc. No. 1 ¶ 71. The statute directs that of the $ 450 million transferred to the PTTF, $ 30 million must be deposited in the MTF. 74 Pa. C.S. § 1506(b)(1), (e)(6). The statute further provides that 95% of the funds transferred to the PTTF annually from PennDOT, after the transfer of $ 30 million to the MTF, are utilized in connection with the "asset improvement program." Id. §§ 1514, 1506(e)(2). Funds expended in connection with the "asset improvement program" are used for "improvement, replacement or expansion of capital projects" related to public transportation. Id. § 1514(a)(1). The relevant statute provides that southeastern Pennsylvania's public transportation agency, ("SEPTA"), and the Port Authority of Allegheny County receive the majority of such funds, with other mass transit agencies in the Commonwealth receiving the remaining funds. See id. § 1514(e.1). The statute provides that as to the "asset improvement program," "[e]ligible applicants ... may apply for financial assistance for improvement, replacement or expansion of capital projects." Id. § 1514. Such applicants may include "[a] local transportation organization," Commonwealth agencies and instrumentalities, and any "person responsible for coordinating community transportation program services." Id. § 1514(a). A "capital project" is defined as: A system or component of a system for the provision of public passenger transportation. The term includes vehicles; infrastructure power; passenger amenities; storage and maintenance buildings; parking facilities; the land on which any capital project is situated and the land needed to support it, whether owned in whole or in part; overhaul of vehicles; debt service; and the cost of issuance of bonds, notes and other evidences of indebtedness which a local transportation organization or transportation company is permitted to issue under any law of this Commonwealth. Id. § 1503. A significantly smaller amount of the funds transferred from the PTC to PennDOT and deposited in the PTTF is dedicated to the "operating program" and "programs of statewide significance." Id. §§ 1513, 1516, 1506(e)(1), (3). The $ 30 million deposited in the MTF finances transportation improvement programs including those related to bicycle and pedestrian safety, aviation, rail freight, passenger rail, and ports and waterways. Id. § 2104(a). "Eligible program[s]" under the MTF include: "(1) A project which coordinates local land use with transportation assets to enhance existing communities[,] (2) A project related to streetscape, lighting, sidewalk enhancement and pedestrian safety[,] (3) A project improving connectivity or utilization of existing transportation assets[, and] (4) A project related to transit-oriented development[.]" Id. § 2101. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that some of the projects approved under these statutory provisions (and funded with Act 44/89 toll revenues) include the following: a. Development of Three Crossings, a mixed-use development consisting of residential units, office space, and a transportation facility with vehicle and bicycle parking, bicycle repair, electric-vehicle charging stations, kayak storage, and transit station in Pittsburgh (Allegheny County); b. Construction of an underpass under U.S. 22, connecting the Lower Trail with Canoe Creek State Park (Blair County); c. Rehabilitation of nine stone-arch bridges along the SEPTA regional railway line (Regional project); d. Replacement of the roof at Collier Bus Garage (Allegheny County); e. Sidewalk installation along North Main Street in Yardley (Bucks County); f. Installation of approximately 1,800 feet of ADA-compliant sidewalk along the south side of Union Deposit Road between Shield Street and Powers Avenue at the Union Square Shopping Center in Susquehanna (Dauphin County); g. Extension of internal road, including final design, survey, permit modifications, bid documents, construction, storm water, street lights, project administration, legal expenses, audit expenses, and contingencies in Windy Ridge Business and Technology Park (Indiana County); h. Improvements to roadways in 12,000 acres of parks, including widening shoulders, paving, signage installation, and bicycle marking in the Allegheny County Parks; i. Addition of eight curb ramps, new asphalt, four decorative crosswalks and a surface sign at an intersection in Latrobe (Westmoreland County); j. Phase II Construction of Erie Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Maintenance and Paratransit Bus Storage Facility (Erie County); k. Improvements to the Erie International Airport terminal building (Erie County); l. Creation of a multi-use trail and installing associated signage from the West End neighborhood linking existing bike routes to a multi-use path that connects to The Pennsylvania State University (Centre County); m. Creation of a pedestrian island at the intersection of Park Avenue and McKee Street in State College to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians and cyclists and accommodate the accessibility needs of vision-impaired residents (Centre County); n. Construction of a new two-way industrial access road, realigning a portion of the Nittany & Bald Eagle Railroad Main Line to accommodate the access road, and constructing new sidings and operating tracks for First Quality Tissue's two existing facilities and a proposed new facility (Clinton County); o. Construction of an 85-car unit train loop track in the Keystone Regional Industrial Park to connect with an existing Norfolk Southern main line track and serve a Deer field Farms Service grain elevator facility in Greenwood (Crawford County). (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 84.) Plaintiffs assert that these funded programs have "no functional relationship to the Pennsylvania Turnpike," and that the PTC does not possess the financial resources to make the Act 44/89 payments currently and in the future without continually increasing toll rates and debt. (Id. ¶¶ 84-85, 88.) Plaintiffs' complaint sets forth "Actual (through 2016) and Expected Toll Increase Resulting from Act 44/89" as contained in an Auditor General Performance Audit as follows: TABLE 2 Actual (through 2016) and Expected Toll Increase Resulting from Act 44/89 Calendar Year 2009 through 2044 Year Cash E-Z Pass Cash E-Z Pass 2009 25.0% 25.0% 2027 3.5% 3.5% 2010 3.0% 3.0% 2028 3.0% 3.0% 2011 10.0% 3.0% 2029 3.0% 3.0% 2012 10.0% - 2030 3.0% 3.0% 2013 10.0% 2.0% 2031 3.0% 3.0% 2014 12.0% 2.0% 2032 3.0% 3.0% 2015 5.0% 5.0% 2033 3.0% 3.0% 2016 6.0% 6.0% 2034 3.0% 3.0% 2017 6.0% 6.0% 2035 3.0% 3.0% 2018 6.0% 6.0% 2036 3.0% 3.0% 2019 6.0% 6.0% 2037 3.0% 3.0% 2020 6.0% 6.0% 2038 3.0% 3.0% 2021 5.0% 5.0% 2039 3.0% 3.0% 2022 5.0% 5.0% 2040 3.0% 3.0% 2023 5.0% 5.0% 2041 3.0% 3.0% 2024 5.0% 5.0% 2042 3.0% 3.0% 2025 5.0% 5.0% 2043 3.0% 3.0% 2026 4.0% 4.0% 2044 3.0% 3.0% (Id. ¶ 90.) Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that between 2006 and 2018, tolls paid by cash have increased over 200% for all classes of vehicles as follows: TABLE 3 2006-2018 Increase in Tolls Mainline Roadway East to West Complete Trip Delaware River Bridge (NJ Border) to Gateway (Ohio Border) Vehicle Toll Gross Vehicle 2006 Toll 2018 Toll (Cash) Increase Class Wt. (1000 lb.) 1 1-7 $21.25 $47.55 223% 2 7-15 $31.25 $69.85 223% 3 15-19 $39.00 $84.35 216% 4 19-30 $45.25 $101.15 223% 5 30-45 $63.75 $141.85 222% 6 45-62 $80.75 $177.90 220% 7 62-80 $115.25 $254.70 220% 8 80-100 $150.75 $333.85 221% 9 Over 100 $861.00 $1,836.40 213% (Id. ¶ 93.) Plaintiffs' complaint further alleges that each year since 2011, the PTC's toll revenues have consisted of an amount over 200% of the cost to operate, maintain, and upgrade the Turnpike as follows: TABLE 4 PTC Cost of Turnpike Gross Toll Revenue Toll Revenue as a % Services of Cost of Services 2007 $369,855,000 $617,616,000 166.99% 2008 $372,959,000 $619,150,000 166.01% 2009 $393,364,000 $638,244,000 162.25% 2010 $378,426,000 $718,038,000 189.74% 2011 $359,870,000 $763,856,000 212.26% 2012 $387,506,000 $797,779,000 205.88% 2013 $412,484,000 $821,740,000 199.22% 2014 $438,981,000 $866,066,000 197.29% 2015 $459,780,000 $934,252,000 203.20% 2016 $471,132,000 $1,031,620,000 218.97% 2017 $517,103,000 $1,114,976,000 215.62% (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 95.) Based on these alleged numbers, Plaintiffs contend that Turnpike tolls do not represent a "fair approximation of the use of the Turnpike facilities provided, they are excessive in relation to the benefits conferred, and they significantly exceed the costs incurred by PTC to operate and maintain the Pennsylvania Turnpike System." (Id. ¶ 96.) Further, Plaintiffs maintain that "PTC's tolls unduly burden interstate commerce by causing the Pennsylvania Turnpike System to be used as a revenue-generating facility designed to underwrite expenses incurred by PennDOT in providing services and facilities throughout the Commonwealth that have no functional relationship to the Pennsylvania Turnpike System." (Id. ¶ 97.) Plaintiffs' complaint cites the 2016 Performance Audit, which states that "[a]nnual costly toll increases place an undue burden on Pennsylvanians." (Id. ¶ 98.) Plaintiffs' complaint also cites the 2016 Performance Audit's statement that at some point "the average turnpike traveler will be deterred by the increased cost and seek alternative toll-free routes," as well as its conclusion that "[t]he toll prices potentially are already nearing the point where certain consumers will find it too costly and avoid using the Pennsylvania Turnpike." (Id. ¶ 99.) Plaintiffs' complaint notes that the 2016 Performance Audit recommended that the PTC "[s]eek immediate relief from the legislature to further reduce or eliminate Act 44/89 required payments to PennDOT." (Id. ¶ 100.) Plaintiffs' complaint further alleges that the enforcement of Act 44/89 "is an official state action that impedes travelers' use of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System," asserting that the right to move freely by automobile "is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and finds ample support in the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the economic burdens of Act 44/89 payments fall "exclusively on travelers paying the toll," while the economic benefits from Act 44/89 payments "fall substantially on others who do not pay the toll." (Id. ¶¶ 101-04.) Plaintiffs' complaint concludes that the PTC's "imposition of a toll inflated to guarantee the Act 44/89 payments to PennDOT to support facilities and services having no functional relationship to use of the Turnpike impairs Plaintiffs' and potential class members' constitutional right to travel." (Id. ¶ 105.) Plaintiffs' complaint alleges a violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, asserting that the Clause "prohibits state actions that unduly burden interstate commerce," and "requires that user fees like tolls: (1) may not discriminate against interstate commerce and travel; (2) must reflect a fair approximation of the use of facilities for whose benefit they are imposed; and (3) may not be excessive in relation to costs incurred by the imposing authority." (Id. ¶¶ 120-21.) Plaintiffs' complaint maintains that: PTC's imposition of tolls for use of the Pennsylvania Turnpike constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause because: a. the tolls do not reflect a fair approximation of the use of Pennsylvania Turnpike facilities by those upon whom the tolls are imposed; b. the annual toll revenues collected by PTC are excessive and currently represent over 200 percent of the actual cost of making the Pennsylvania Turnpike System available to users; and c. more than half of the annual toll revenues [collected] by PTC [ ] are used to pay for services and facilities having no functional relationship to the operation and maintenance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System. (Id. ¶ 122.) Plaintiffs' complaint further alleges that the provisions of Act 44/89 are unconstitutional facially or as applied, and that Defendants, "acting under color of state law, have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and putative class members of the right to engage in interstate commerce in violation of their rights under the Commerce Clause." (Id. ¶¶ 123-24.) Plaintiffs' complaint also alleges a violation of the constitutional right to travel, asserting that the "U.S. Constitution protects individuals' right to travel," which Plaintiffs allege Defendants are impairing, in that the imposition of an "excessive" toll: a. unconstitutionally limits travelers' access to the Pennsylvania Turnpike; b. unduly burdens and impedes motorists' right to travel freely through the Commonwealth; and c. is currently discouraging both business and private travelers from using the Turnpike. (Id. ¶¶ 127-28.) Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Defendants, "acting under color of state law, have imposed and continue to impose tolls that act as an unconstitutional impediment to Plaintiffs' and class members' right to travel." (Id. ¶ 129.) As relief for these alleged constitutional violations, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment holding that: (1) the PTC's imposition of excessive tolls for the use of the Pennsylvania Turnpike by motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce in amounts specifically calculated to provide funds to support facilities and services having no functional relationship to the operation and maintenance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System constitutes an undue burden on commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause; ... [and] an unjustified impairment on their constitutional right to travel; [and] (2) the provisions of Act 44, as amended by Act 89, that direct the PTC to: (a) make payments to PennDOT to support facilities and services provided by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania having no functional relation to the operation and maintenance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and (b) fund those payments with sums generated through the imposition of tolls upon users of the Pennsylvania Turnpike that do not represent a fair approximation of the use of Turnpike facilities, violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, both facially or as applied. (Id. at 38-40.) Plaintiffs' complaint also seeks a permanent injunction enjoining "Defendants PTC, its Commissioners, and its Executive Officers from imposing constitutionally excessive tolls upon users of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System;" the "PTC from issuing any further bonds or incurring any additional debt for the purpose of making Act 44/89 payments;" the "PTC from using toll revenues to make payments of interest or principal on outstanding bonds issued for the purpose of meeting its Act 44/89 obligations;" and "Defendants Leslie S. Richards, in her official capacity as Secretary of PennDOT, and Tom Wolf, Governor of Pennsylvania, from enforcing Act 44/89 and from demanding or receiving Act 44/89 payments." (Id. at 41-42.) Plaintiffs' complaint further seeks a judgment against Defendants PTC and its Commissioners and Executive Officers in favor of Plaintiffs that awards "them refunds of all payments of tolls imposed upon their use of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System in excess of what was reasonably necessary to pay for the cost of operating and maintaining the Pennsylvania Turnpike." (Id. at 42.) Finally, Plaintiffs seek an order certifying this proceeding as a class action and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. (Id. ) B. Procedural History On March 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action complaint against the PTC Defendants and the Commonwealth Defendants in their individual and official capacities. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction with supporting brief (Doc. Nos. 19, 20), in connection with their complaint. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction with supporting brief, (Doc. Nos. 22, 23), to which Defendants objected (Doc. No. 25). On April 13, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. No. 33.) At the same time, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction should not be consolidated with the trial on the merits of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2). (Doc. No. 34.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion to Withdraw Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 40), which the Court granted by Order dated April 24, 2018 (Doc. No. 42). On May 15, 2018, three separate motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint were filed by certain Defendants: (1) Craig Shuey, Chief Operating Officer of the PTC (Doc. No. 49); (2) the Commonwealth Defendants (Doc. No. 50); and (3) William K. Lieberman, Vice Chair of the PTC (Doc. No. 53). On the same date, the PTC Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (Doc. No. 52). The motions have been fully briefed. (Doc. Nos. 51, 54, 55, 56, 66, 70, 71, 72, 76-80). On May 15, 2018, the Pennsylvania Public Transportation Association, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, and the Port Authority of Allegheny County filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Defendants (Doc. No. 57), with three supporting Declarations (Doc. Nos. 58-60). The Court granted the Motion by Order dated May 22, 2018. (Doc. No. 63.) Subsequently, on June 13, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel (Doc. No. 73), with a supporting Declaration (Doc. No. 74), and brief (Doc. No. 75). On June 21, 2018, the Commonwealth Defendants filed a Motion to Stay briefing on the Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel until the Court's disposition of the pending motions to dismiss (Doc. No. 81), with a brief in support (Doc. No. 82). The Court granted the Motion to Stay briefing and consideration of the Motion to Certify Class by Order dated June 25, 2018. (Doc. No. 83.) On June 28, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability (Doc. No. 84), with a brief in support thereto (Doc. No. 85), and a statement of facts (Doc. No. 86), with supporting Declaration (Doc. No. 87). On July 20, 2018, Defendants Shuey and Lieberman filed briefs in opposition to Plaintiff's motion (Doc. Nos. 93, 94). On the same date, the PTC Defendants filed a brief in opposition to the motion (Doc. No. 88), as well as an answer to statement of facts (Doc. No. 89). The Commonwealth Defendants also filed a brief in opposition (Doc. No. 90), an answer to statement of facts (Doc. No. 91), and a supporting Declaration (Doc. No. 92), on the same date. On August 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in further support of their motion (Doc. No. 97), as well as responses to the answers to statement of facts filed by the Defendants (Doc. Nos. 98, 99). On November 28, 2018, the PTC Defendants and the Commonwealth Defendants filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority. (Doc. No. 102.) On November 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Notice (Doc. No. 103), as well as a Supplement to their Statement of Material Facts in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 104). The Commonwealth Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs' Supplement to their Statement of Material Facts on December 10, 2018. (Doc. No. 105.) II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Motion to Dismiss Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide the defendant notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Phillips v. Cty. Of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must present facts that, accepted as true, demonstrate a plausible right to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires "only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," a complaint may nevertheless be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for its "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inference that can be drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010). The Court's inquiry is guided by the standards of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Under Twombly and Iqbal, pleading requirements have shifted to a "more heightened form of pleading." See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). To avoid dismissal, all civil complaints must set out "sufficient factual matter" to show that the claim is facially plausible. Id. The plausibility standard requires more than a mere possibility that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. As the Supreme Court instructed in Iqbal, "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' - 'that the pleader is entitled to relief.' " Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ). Accordingly, to determine the sufficiency of a complaint under Twombly and Iqbal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has identified the following steps a district court must take when determining the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) : (1) identify the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify any conclusory allegations contained in the complaint "not entitled" to the assumption of truth; and (3) determine whether any "well-pleaded factual allegations" contained in the complaint "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents." Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) ). A court may also consider "any 'matters incorporated by reference or integral to the claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders, [and] items appearing in the record of the case.' " Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1357 (3d ed. 2004) ). B. Motion for Summary Judgment Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is warranted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law, and it is genuine only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). At summary judgment, the inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Id. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In making this determination, the Court must "consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Schs., 486 F.3d 791, 794 (3d Cir. 2007). The moving party has the initial burden of identifying evidence that it believes shows an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004). Once the moving party has shown that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's claims, "the non-moving party must rebut the motion with facts in the record and cannot rest solely on assertions made in the pleadings, legal memoranda, or oral argument." Berckeley Inv. Grp. Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 201 (3d Cir. 2006) ; accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the non-moving party "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial," summary judgment is warranted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence that the non-moving party must provide, a court should grant a motion for summary judgment when the non-movant's evidence is merely colorable, conclusory, or speculative. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505. There must be more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the non-moving party and more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Further, a party may not defeat a motion for summary judgment with evidence that would not be admissible at trial. Pamintuan v. Nanticoke Mem'l Hosp., 192 F.3d 378, 387 (3d Cir. 1999). C. Facial Versus As-Applied Constitutional Challenges "A party asserting a facial challenge 'must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which [an act] would be valid.' " Heffner v. Murphy, 745 F.3d 56, 65 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387, 405 (3d Cir. 2011) ). "This is a particularly demanding standard and is the 'most difficult challenge to mount successfully.' " Id. (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) ). "By contrast, '[a]n as-applied attack ... does not contend that a law is unconstitutional as written but that its application to a particular person under particular circumstances deprived that person of a constitutional right." Id. (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264, 273 (3d Cir. 2010) ). The United States Supreme Court "typically disfavor[s] facial challenges" because "[t]hey 'often rest on speculation,' can lead courts unnecessarily to anticipate constitutional questions or formulate broad constitutional rules, and may prevent governmental officers from implementing laws 'in a manner consistent with the Constitution.' " See John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 230, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010) (quoting Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008) ). "If a litigant decides to bring both types of challenge, a court's ruling on one might affect the other." Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 862 F.3d 310, 321 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Heffner, 745 F.3d at 65 n.7 ), cert. granted in part, Knick v. Twp. of Scott, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1262, 200 L.Ed.2d 416 (2018). "But if a litigant loses an as-applied challenge because the [C]ourt rules as a matter of law that the statute or ordinance was constitutionally applied to her, it follows a fortiori that the law is not unconstitutional in all applications." Id. at 321 (citing Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732, 741 (2d Cir. 2010) ). III. DISCUSSION As noted above, Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that Act 44/89 violates both (1) the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the constitutional right to travel. The Commonwealth Defendants and the PTC Defendants' motions to dismiss both argue that Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim on either ground. The Court first addresses Defendants' challenges to Plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause claim. A. Plaintiffs' Claim that Act 44/89 Violates the dormant Commerce Clause 1. Applicable Legal Standard The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution grants Congress the authority to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States." U.S. CONST. ART. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Commerce Clause also contains an implied requirement, known as the "dormant" Commerce Clause, that "states not 'mandate differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.' " Cloverland-Green Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pa. Milk Mktg. Bd., 462 F.3d 249, 261 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 472, 125 S.Ct. 1885, 161 L.Ed.2d 796 (2005) ). The Supreme Court recently discussed the two principles that govern the authority of a State to regulate interstate commerce: "[f]irst, state regulations may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and second, States may not impose undue burdens on interstate commerce." South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2080, 2090-91, 201 L.Ed.2d 403 (2018). The Court stated that laws "that discriminate against interstate commerce face 'a virtually per se rule of invalidity.' " Id. at 2091 (quoting Granholm, 544 U.S. at 470, 125 S.Ct. 1885 ). However, "[s]tate laws that 'regulat[e] even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest ... will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.' " Id. (quoting Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) ). As the Supreme Court noted, "these two principles guide the courts in adjudicating cases challenging state laws under the Commerce Clause." Id. Further, the Supreme Court has recognized that "[w]here state or local government action is specifically authorized by Congress, it is not subject to the [dormant] Commerce Clause even if it interferes with interstate commerce." White v. Mass. Council of Constr. Emp'rs, Inc., 460 U.S. 204, 213, 103 S.Ct. 1042, 75 L.Ed.2d 1 (1983). In making such an authorization, "Congress must manifest its unambiguous intent." Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 458, 112 S.Ct. 789, 117 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992). Stated differently, congressional " 'intent and policy' to sustain state legislation from attack under the Commerce Clause" must be " 'expressly stated.' " Sporhase v. Nebraska, ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941, 960, 102 S.Ct. 3456, 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (quoting New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331, 343, 102 S.Ct. 1096, 71 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982) ). However, "[t]here is no talismanic significance to the phrase 'expressly stated,' " as it "merely states one way of meeting the requirement that for a state regulation to be removed from the reach of the [d]ormant Commerce Clause congressional intent must be unmistakably clear." South-Central Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82, 91, 104 S.Ct. 2237, 81 L.Ed.2d 71 (1984). 2. Arguments of the parties a. Commonwealth Defendants In arguing that Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim that Act 44/89 violates the dormant Commerce Clause, the Commonwealth Defendants maintain that: (1) Congress has specifically authorized state transportation authorities to use toll revenues for any purpose for which federal transportation funds may be used; and (2) even in the absence of specific congressional authorization, Act 44/89 does not impose a burden on interstate commerce that is "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits" such that Act 44/89 violates the dormant Commerce Clause. (Doc. No. 51 at 17-30.) In arguing that Congress has specifically authorized the state statutory scheme such that Act 44/89 is invulnerable to constitutional attack on dormant Commerce Clause grounds, the Commonwealth Defendants point to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ("ISTEA"), federal legislation that permits public transportation authorities to use toll revenues from toll facilities initially for debt service on bonds and for operation and maintenance of the toll facilities, and secondarily (to the extent additional funds are available) for "any other purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State" under Title 23 of the U.S. Code. (Doc. No. 51 at 18-19) (citing 23 U.S.C. § 129(a)(3)(A).) Pursuant to ISTEA and a 2015 amendment through the Fixing America's Surface Transportation ("FAST") Act, the Commonwealth Defendants argue that, under Section 1109(b) of the FAST Act, codified at 23 U.S.C. § 133(b), Congress has specifically authorized Turnpike toll revenues to be used for: (1) any of fourteen categories of projects described in 23 U.S.C. § 133(b) ; (2) any of the categories of projects described in pre-FAST Act § 133(b); and (3) any of the broad categories of transportation alternatives set forth in pre-FAST Act § 101(a)(29). (Id. at 20-21.) The Commonwealth Defendants maintain that the projects that Plaintiffs assert should not be funded with Turnpike toll revenues (as described in paragraph 84 of their complaint) are all projects that fit within the broad authorization of ISTEA, as amended by the FAST Act. (Id. at 21-22.) The Commonwealth Defendants admit that two projects cited by Plaintiffs - airport terminal improvements and construction of a train track in an industrial park - may not be covered by Section 133(b), but maintain, however, that Plaintiffs allege only that these projects can receive funds from the MTF (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 79), not that the projects were paid for with funds transferred from the PTC and PennDOT, as the MTF receives, in addition to the $ 30 million from the PTC transfer to PennDOT, funds from vehicle and driver fees (Doc. No. 51 at 22) (citing 74 Pa. C.S. § 1904(b)(3)); 2018-19 GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE BUDGET at H49 (Feb. 6, 2018) (indicating that $ 74-$ 80 million is deposited in the MTF annually from driver and vehicle fees). Similarly, the Commonwealth Defendants argue that, as to Plaintiffs' apparent challenge to the use of Act 44/89 funds to pay for programs of statewide significance such as intercity passenger rail and bus services (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 83), even if such programs are not authorized to receive funds under Title 23, the programs receive the majority of their funding from sales tax funds, as opposed to Act 44/89 transfer payments (Doc. No. 51 at 23). In sum, the Commonwealth Defendants maintain that given the multiple sources of funding for the projects mentioned by Plaintiffs, even if Section 133(b) does not authorize any of those projects, Plaintiffs have not and cannot plead that Act 44/89 toll revenues are utilized for such programs. (Id. ) In further support of their position, the Commonwealth Defendants point to a relatively recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. New York State Thruway Authority, 886 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2018) (hereafter " ATA II"), which held that ISTEA foreclosed a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the use of toll revenues for transportation purposes unrelated to the tolling facilities that generated those revenues on the ground that Congress expressly authorized that use in ISTEA. (Doc. No. 51 at 23-24.) The Commonwealth Defendants further argue that, even if the Court should find that Congress did not expressly authorize the challenged use of Turnpike toll revenues, removing them from potential dormant Commerce Clause attack, Plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause claim still fails because Act 44/89 does not impose "discriminatory burdens on interstate commerce." (Id. at 25.) In so arguing, the Commonwealth Defendants maintain that the applicable standard for evaluating any potential burden imposed by Act 44/89 on interstate commerce is provided by Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970), which states that in determining if a challenged statutory scheme violates the dormant Commerce Clause, the Court is to assess "whether the [state statute] imposes a burden on interstate commerce that is 'clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.' " C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 390, 114 S.Ct. 1677, 128 L.Ed.2d 399 (1994) (quoting Pike, 397 U.S. at 142, 90 S.Ct. 844 ). The Commonwealth Defendants maintain that, when analyzed under the Pike test, the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint do not support a reasonable inference that the usage of Turnpike tolls for other Commonwealth transportation projects burdens interstate commerce. (Doc. No. 51 at 26.) The Commonwealth Defendants argue that in crafting the allegations of their complaint and their dormant Commerce Clause challenge, Plaintiffs impermissibly rely on Supreme Court jurisprudence relating to user fees, as set forth in Northwest Airlines v. Kent, 510 U.S. 355, 114 S.Ct. 855, 127 L.Ed.2d 183 (1994), as opposed to the Pike test. (Id. at 26-27.) Nevertheless, the Commonwealth Defendants maintain that even when analyzed under the jurisprudence relied on by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' complaint still fails to state a claim for a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. (Id. at 27.) In Northwest Airlines, the Supreme Court stated that a "levy is reasonable ... if it (1) is based on some fair approximation of use of the facilities, (2) is not excessive in relation to the benefits conferred, and (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce." Northwest Airlines, 510 U.S. at 369, 114 S.Ct. 855 (quoting Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Auth. Dist. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S. 707, 716-17, 92 S.Ct. 1349, 31 L.Ed.2d 620 (1972) ). The Commonwealth Defendants argue that, in evaluating "fair approximation of use" and relationship to benefits conferred, Plaintiffs improperly focus narrowly on the Turnpike while ignoring the fact that the Turnpike is part of a larger transportation system in Pennsylvania, and that "[t]hose who pay tolls to use the Turnpike benefit from not only access to the Turnpike itself but from the maintenance, operation, and improvement of the entire transportation system, of which the Turnpike is only one part." (Doc. No. 51 at 27.) The Commonwealth Defendants point to Supreme Court precedent that they maintain has upheld fees imposed for the use of a state's highways, even when those "fees do not 'reflect with exact precision every gradation in use' of those highways." (Id. at 28-29) (quoting Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. Bd. of R.R. Comm'rs, 332 U.S. 495, 504, 68 S.Ct. 167, 92 L.Ed. 99 (1947), overruled on other grounds, Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Smith, 496 U.S. 167, 110 S.Ct. 2323, 110 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) ). Accordingly, the Commonwealth Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' focus on the cost of Turnpike tolls as compared to the cost of operating and maintaining the Turnpike is impermissibly narrow, maintaining that "the fact that plaintiffs (or other putative class members) might not use other state transportation facilities funded with Turnpike toll revenues does not render the tolls they pay unconstitutionally excessive." (Id. at 29-30.) For all of these reasons, the Commonwealth Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim for a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. b. PTC Defendants The PTC Defendants similarly argue that Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim for a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause because Plaintiffs rely on the Evansville / Northwest Airlines test, as opposed to the Pike test, which the PTC Defendants maintain is the correct test for evaluating whether the allegations of Plaintiffs' complaint state a claim for violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. (Doc. No. 56 at 13-22.) Second, the PTC Defendants maintain that, assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs' complaint states a claim for violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, because Congress has specifically authorized the PTC to collect toll revenues in excess of those needed to operate the Turnpike, the PTC Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause claim. (Id. at 23-30.) As to their first argument, the PTC Defendants maintain that the correct test in the Third Circuit for evaluating dormant Commerce Clause challenges is that set forth in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970). (Id. at 11-12.) The PTC Defendants argue that the Evansville / Northwest Airlines test is inapplicable to this case, as Northwest Airlines is a case primarily concerning statutory interpretation, or whether certain user fees are prohibited by a particular statute. (Id. at 13-14.) Moreover, the PTC Defendants point out that at the conclusion of the Supreme Court's opinion in Northwest Airlines, the Court addressed whether the fees at issue also violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and concluded that they did not because express congressional authorization insulated the particular state statute from dormant Commerce Clause attack. (Id. at 14-15.) The PTC Defendants note that at the same time, the Supreme Court concluded that, even if its determination as to congressional authorization was incorrect, any dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the user fees at issue failed based on the test first articulated in Evansville-Vanderburgh. (Id. at 15.) However, the PTC Defendants maintain that the Supreme Court has never treated that conclusion as the holding of the case, and, therefore, there is no basis to expand the Evansville-Vanderburgh analysis beyond the scope of that case. (Id. at 15-16.) In support of their argument that Pike provides the correct test against which to measure the allegations of Plaintiffs' complaint, the PTC Defendants note that Pike has been recently applied by the Supreme Court in dormant Commerce Clause cases, pointing to Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328, 353, 128 S.Ct. 1801, 170 L.Ed.2d 685 (2008) and United Haulers Association, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U.S. 330, 346, 127 S.Ct. 1786, 167 L.Ed.2d 655 (2007). (Id. at 16.) The PTC Defendants quote a Second Circuit case, Selevan v. New York Thruway Authority, 584 F.3d 82, 96 (2d Cir. 2009), which acknowledged that "the [Supreme] Court has not used the Northwest Airlines test to evaluate the constitutionality of a highway toll," and further note that the Third Circuit has similarly never utilized the Evansville / Northwest Airlines test to evaluate a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to a highway toll, but instead has utilized variants of Pike's balancing test. (Id. at 15-16) (citing Wallach v. Brezenoff, 930 F.2d 1070 (3d Cir. 1991) and Yerger v. Mass. Tp. Auth., 395 F. App'x 878 (3d Cir. 2010) ). The PTC Defendants then turn to an analysis of the allegations of Plaintiffs' complaint under the Pike test. They note that in Pike, the Supreme Court explained that "where the statute addresses a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." (Doc. No. 56 at 18) (quoting Pike, 397 U.S. at 142, 90 S.Ct. 844 ). The PTC Defendants argue that the benefits of Act 44/89 to Pennsylvania citizens, as expressed in Act 89 itself, are significant, citing the findings of the General Assembly in enacting Act 89. The PTC Defendants maintain that this "multi-faceted funding assistance" provided by Act 44/89 to various transportation programs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania promotes the health, safety and welfare of Pennsylvania citizens. (Id. at 21.) As to the second part of the Pike balancing test - whether the burden imposed on interstate commerce by the statute is "clearly excessive" in relation to local benefits conferred by the statute - the PTC Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' complaint fails to "identify any differential burden placed on interstate commerce by the [PTC's] toll practices." (Id. at 21-22.) On this point, the PTC Defendants quote Norfolk Southern Corporation v. Oberly, 822 F.2d 388, 406 (3d Cir. 1987), where the Third Circuit stated that "[t]he 'incidental burden on interstate commerce' appropriately considered in Commerce Clause balancing is the degree to which state action incidentally discriminates against interstate commerce relative to intrastate commerce. It is a comparative measure." Id. The PTC Defendants maintain that where tolls equally burden intrastate and interstate commerce (or, in other words, in-state and out-of-state drivers are charged identical tolls), no differential burden exists for purposes of Pike balancing. (Doc. No. 56 at 22.) Accordingly, for these reasons, the PTC Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' complaint fails to set forth facts that support a reasonable inference that Act 44/89 violates the dormant Commerce Clause. (Id. at 22.) As noted above, the PTC Defendants argue that, in the event that Plaintiffs' complaint is not dismissed for failure to state a claim under the dormant Commerce Clause, they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause claim because Congress has specifically authorized the PTC's toll structure as established in Act 44/89. (Id. at 23.) Like the Commonwealth Defendants, they analogize the instant case to American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. New York State Thruway Authority, 886 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2018) (" ATA II"), where the Second Circuit held that Congress - through ISTEA - authorized the New York State Thruway to collect and expend toll revenue on non-Thruway-related projects. Similar to the Commonwealth Defendants, the PTC Defendants point to ISTEA as the source of congressional authorization for the PTC's toll structure, as established in Act 44/89, arguing that, as the Second Circuit stated in ATA II, "ISTEA freed states from their obligation ... to repay the federal government should they continue to collect tolls after retiring outstanding debts, and granted them greater flexibility to operate toll facilities and use toll revenues for a variety of transportation projects." ATA II, 886 F.3d at 242 (footnotes omitted). In concluding that ISTEA specifically authorized a toll structure that permitted the expenditure of toll revenues on non-tolled road projects, the Second Circuit in ATA II described ISTEA's departure from the prior statutory framework as follows: [S]ection 1012(a) authorized state public authorities to collect highway tolls without repaying the federal government, so long as those funds "will be used first for debt service, for reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the project, and for the costs necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the toll facility." Once a state certified adequate maintenance, it could use any excess toll revenues "for any purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated by a State under [Title 23]." Id. at 242 (quoting § 1012(a)(3), 105 Stat. at 1936-37). The PTC Defendants point to record evidence of the PTC's entry into an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Agreement") pursuant to ISTEA permitting the PTC to use "toll revenues resulting from the operation of the toll facility" - defined as the entire Pennsylvania Turnpike System, including "any future system extensions" - "first for debt service," and further providing that "the [PTC] is entitled to use any toll revenues in excess of amounts required under [ISTEA, § 1012(a) ], for any purpose for which [f]ederal funds may be obligated by a State under Title 23, United States Code." (Doc. No. 55 ¶ 24.) Thus, the PTC Defendants maintain that based on ISTEA § 1012(a) and the FHWA Agreement negotiated pursuant to it, Congress has expressly authorized the PTC to utilize toll revenues on (1) debt service and (2) for "any purpose for which [f]ederal funds may be obligated by a State under Title 23, United States Code." (Doc. No. 56 at 25-26.) The PTC Defendants maintain that the PTC's use of toll revenues to satisfy Act 44/89 obligations is fully compliant with this authorization. (Doc. No. 56 at 26.) The PTC Defendants explain that the PTC makes its annual $ 450 million payment to PennDOT by "(1) transferring $ 50 million in funds from operating revenues and (2) incurring 30-year subordinated debt to fund the remaining $ 400 million due." (Id.) (citing Doc. No. 55 ¶ 12). The PTC Defendants note that the PTC "makes debt service payments of principal and interest to subordinated bondholders, also out of operating revenue" to service that debt. (Id. ) (citing Doc. No. 55 ¶¶ 13-14). The PTC Defendants maintain that both uses of funds are expressly authorized and constitutionally permissible under the FHWA Agreement. (Doc. No. 56 at 27.) Pointing to record evidence, the PTC Defendants maintain that "[a]ll but $ 50 million in annual Act 44/89-related toll revenue expenditures are for service on the [PTC]'s subordinated debt obligations," (Id. at 27) (citing Doc. No. 55 at ¶ 12), a purpose permitted by the plain language of the FHWA Agreement entered into pursuant to ISTEA Section 1012(a), which does not restrict the types of "debt service" for which toll revenues can be dedicated (Id. at 27). As to the remaining $ 50 million transferred annually from the PTC to PennDOT, the PTC Defendants maintain that Section 1012(a) of ISTEA, as well as the FHWA Agreement, permit the PTC to utilize toll revenues for "any purpose for which [f]ederal funds may be obligated by a State under Title 23, United States Code," providing that the "State certifies annually that the tolled facility is being adequately maintained." (Id. at 27) (quoting ISTEA § 1012(a)). The PTC Defendants point to record evidence that they maintain supports their position that the PTC has made the necessary certifications of adequate maintenance to the FHWA for the period ending May 31, 2016. (Id. at 27-28) (citing Doc. No. 55 ¶ 27). The PTC Defendants admit that the certifications have not been made on a yearly basis due to the limited capacity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Audits, but argue that nothing in ISTEA or the FHWA Agreement sets a date by which audits must be performed, and moreover, the Secretary of Transportation, the individual "charged with enforcement of 'the limitations on the use of revenues described in' Section 129(a)," has not found the PTC in non-compliance with those limitations. (Id. at 28) (citing Doc. No. 55 ¶ 30). Therefore, the PTC Defendants maintain that they are "entitled 'to allocate excess toll revenues ... for any project eligible to receive federal assistance under Title 23.' " (Id. at 28) (quoting ATA II, 886 F.3d at