opinion: Myra Holladay SIMS and Florida Import and Compliance Association, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant-Appellant.
  No. 86-3055.
  United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
  Dec. 2, 1987.
  Eric J. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
  William C. Owen, Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, George N. Meros, Tallahassee, Fla., amicus: Fla. Auto. Dealers Ass’n.
  Susan Greco Tuttle, Moffitt, Hart & Miller, Tampa, Fla., amicus: Import Auto. Dealers of Florida, Inc.
  Edward T. O’Donnell, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole, Miami, Fla., amicus: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
  Robert P. Smith, Jr., Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.
  Before TJOFLAT and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and EATON , District Judge.
  Honorable Joe Eaton, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
  HATCHETT, Circuit Judge.
  The State of Florida, and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, appeal from the district court’s declaration that Florida Statute § 320.02(9) is unconstitutional because it is preempted under the supremacy clause and violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. We affirm in part and remand.
  FACTS
  On April 30, 1985, Myra Holladay Sims imported from Europe an automobile popularly known as a “gray market” automobile. “Gray market” automobiles are imported automobiles which are not designed or manufactured to comply with United States emissions and safety standards. Florida Import and Compliance Association (FICA) is a trade association whose members are directly involved in the importation of gray market automobiles.
  Two federal statutes govern the importation of foreign manufactured automobiles into the United States. The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7522, and the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1397, bar the importation of motor vehicles that do not comply with the applicable federal emissions and safety standards. Specifically, the Clean Air Act prohibits
  the sale, or the offering for sale, or the introduction, or delivery for introduction, into commerce, or (in the case of any person, except as provided by regulation of the Administrator), the importation into the United States, of any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, manufactured after the effective date of regulations under this part which are applicable to such vehicle or engine unless such vehicle or engine is covered by a certificate of conformity issued (and in effect) under regulations prescribed [by this statute].
  42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). Also, under section 7522(b)(2), the statute provides that
  [t]he Secretary of the Treasury and the Administrator [of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ] may, by joint regulation provide for deferring final determination as to admission and authorizing the delivery of such a motor vehicle or engine offered for import to the owner or consignee thereof upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to ensure that any such motor vehicle or engine will be brought into conformity with the standards, requirements, and limitations applicable to it under this part. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, if a motor vehicle or engine is finally refused admission under this paragraph, cause disposition thereof in accordance with the customs laws unless it is exported, under regulations prescribed by such Secretary, within ninety days of the date of notice of such refusal or such additional time as may be permitted pursuant to such regulations, except that disposition in accordance with the customs laws may not be made in such manner as may result, directly or indirectly, in the sale, to the ultimate customer, of a new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine that fails to comply with applicable standards of the Administrator under this part.
  Similarly, the Safety Act provides that “[n]o person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle [unless it is in conformity with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards].” 15 U.S.C. § 1397(a)(1)(A). In addition, that statute provides as follows:
  [T]he Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary [of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT)] may, by ... regulations, provide for authorizing the importation of such motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment into the United States upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to ensure that any such motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment will be brought into conformity with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this subchapter, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States.
  15 U.S.C. § 1397(b)(3).
  Despite general prohibitions against the importation of nonconforming motor vehicles into the United States, Congress, under the above provisions, authorized the importation of gray market vehicles upon the furnishing of a bond or other means of assuring that federal environmental and safety laws are not unlawfully circumvented. The EPA, the DOT, and the Treasury Department promulgated regulations governing the importation of gray market vehicles. See generally 19 C.F.R. §§ 12.73, 12.80; 40 C.F.R. Part 85, Subpart P and 49 C.F.R. Part 571. Under these regulations, a gray market vehicle is conditionally admitted into the United States for the limited purpose of enabling the importer to comply with federal emissions and safety laws. The importer must post an entry bond with the United States Customs Service (Customs) for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle plus the customs duty. See Automobile Importers Compliance Association, Handbook of Vehicle Importation, 21 (1984). In addition, the importer must sign a statement indicating that the motor vehicle “is not covered by a certificate of conformity with federal motor vehicle emission standards but will be brought into conformity with such standards.” 19 C.F.R. § 12.73(b)(5)(x) (1986). Finally, the importer must declare that the vehicle “was not manufactured in conformity [with] all applicable safety standards, but it has been or will be brought into conformity.” 19 C.F.R. § 12.80(b)(l)(iii). The entry bond serves as a means to enforce the importer’s obligation to comply with the requirements of federal emission and safety standards. Thus, Customs will not release the bond until it receives assurance from the EPA and the DOT that the importer has complied with the standards. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 12.73c and 12.80e.
  When Sim’s automobile arrived at port in Jacksonville, Florida, she complied with all of the applicable federal regulations governing the importation of gray market automobiles, which included posting a bond in the requisite amount. Sims was exempt from conforming her automobile to the applicable federal emission standards and received a letter from the EPA releasing the EPA obligation on the bond. In complying with the Safety Act and the DOT regulations, Sims completed the requirements under 19 C.F.R. § 12.80(b)(l)(iii).
  In 1984, the Florida legislature passed the following statute concerning automobile titling and registration:
  Before a motor vehicle which has not been manufactured in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act and the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act can be sold to a consumer and titled and registered in this state, the motor vehicle must be certified by the United States Customs Service or the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to be in compliance with these federal standards. A vehicle which is registered pursuant to this subsection shall not be titled as a new motor vehicle.
  Act approved June 11, 1984, ch. 84-155, § 3, 1984 Fla.Laws 457, 458 (codified as amended at Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) (1985)). This provision prevents the owner of a gray market vehicle from acquiring title and vehicle registration in Florida until the owner has obtained the required documentation from the federal government.
  Subsequent to the passage of Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9), Sims unsuccessfully sought to title and register her automobile at the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DMV). The DMV refused to title and register Sims’s automobile because she did not produce release letters from the DOT and Customs certifying compliance with federal standards. Sims had not received a bond release letter from the DOT because of the excessive number of forms the DOT had to review.
  Following refusal to title and register the automobile, Sims and the FICA filed suit in United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida alleging that the state’s enforcement of section 320.02(9) violated the supremacy and commerce clauses of the United States Constitution: (1) the Clean Air Act and the Safety Act preempt the state’s authority to require compliance with federal emission and safety standards, and (2) enforcement of section 320.02(9) places an impermissible burden on foreign and interstate commerce. The district court concluded that the Clean Air Act and Safety Act preempt the state’s authority to enforce section 320.02(9) and that enforcement of the statute would violate the commerce clause. The district court declared section 320.02(9) unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The state brings this appeal from the district court’s ruling.
  On September 29, 1986, we heard oral arguments addressing whether Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) violates the supremacy and commerce clauses of the United States Constitution. On February 18, 1987, we requested “all counsel of record” to submit supplemental briefs addressing (1) standing, (2) Florida’s sovereign immunity under the eleventh amendment, and (3) mootness. The parties complied with our request.
  DISCUSSION
  A. Standing
  The state of Florida alleges that Sims and the FICA lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) because they have failed to show (1) a judicially cognizable injury traceable to the enforcement of the statute, and (2) the likelihood of redress if the Florida statute is declared preempted or in violation of the commerce clause. “[T]he question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2205, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). In order to satisfy the requirements of standing, a plaintiff must allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and a likelihood of redress by the requested relief. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982).
  Sims and the FICA allege that the state’s enforcement of Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) violates the supremacy and commerce clauses of the United States Constitution because it prevents the owner of a “gray market” vehicle from acquiring title and registration in Florida prior to release of the entry bond and final admission of the vehicle into the United States.
  We note that whether the appellees have sufficiently alleged standing is not determined by the likelihood that they will prove what has been alleged. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Warth, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. at 2206, requires the courts to “accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and ... construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.” See Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979). In satisfying the initial requirement under the Article III doctrine relating to standing—an allegation of “a distinct and palpable injury,” Warth, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. at 2206. Sims and the FICA’s complaints allege that the state’s enforcement of section 320.02(9) unlawfully prevents the titling and registering of gray market vehicles in Florida. In assuming, as we must, the truth of the allegations, the state’s unlawful refusal to issue titles and registrations to owners of gray market vehicles constitutes a distinct, palpable, and personal injury to Sims and the FICA.
  Also, Sims’s and the FICA’s complaints contain assertions sufficient to establish the second requirement necessary to show standing—the likelihood of redress by the requested relief. Absent the state’s enforcement of section 320.02(9), Sims and other owners of gray market vehicles would immediately have their vehicles titled and registered in Florida. Federal statutes do not prohibit the titling and registering of gray market vehicles prior to final admission; similarly, the DOT does not prohibit the operation of gray market vehicles on public highways prior to the issuance of a release letter Only the EPA, under Title 40 C.F.R. § 85.1507 (1985), requires that gray market vehicles “be stored and ... not ... operated on the public highways [prior to] final admission.” The state’s argument is that since Sims and other owners of gray market vehicles are prohibited by section 85.1507 from operating such vehicles on the state roads until final admission is granted, they have no reason to seek titling and the registration of these vehicles. Such a contention amounts to mere speculation as to the owner’s need for, or the reason for which the owner seeks titling and registration. Moreover, Fla.Stat. § 320.02(1) does not prohibit the registration of vehicles that are not operated on Florida roads. We cannot conclude that titling and registration of a gray market vehicle are necessary only for the operation or sale of the automobile. In this case, we also find that Sims and the FICA have sufficiently alleged a distinct, palpable, and personal injury in the state’s enforcement of Fla.Stat. § 320.02(1). “There is [a] casual connection between the asserted injury and the conduct being challenged.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 770, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3334, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (noting Simmon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 41, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1925, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976)). We hold that this lawsuit presents a “case or controversy” as required by article III of the United States Constitution and does not constitute a “hypothetical case.” Sims and FICA have standing to bring this lawsuit.
  B. Preemption
  Sims and the FICA successfully challenged the constitutionality of Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) in the district court. The district court held that the Clean Air Act and Safety Act preempt the state’s authority to require compliance with federal emission and safety standards. Federal preemption of state law is derived from the supremacy clause of article IV, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads as follows:
  This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The Supreme Court in Michigan Canners and Freezers Association, Inc. v. Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Board, 467 U.S. 461, 104 S.Ct. 2518, 81 L.Ed.2d 399 (1984) stated the three ways in which federal law may preempt state law.
  Federal law may preempt state law in any of three ways. First, in enacting the federal law, Congress may explicitly define the extent to which it intends to preempt state law. [Citation omitted.] Second, even in the absence of express preemptive language, Congress may indicate an intent to occupy an entire field of regulation, in which case the states must leave all regulatory activity in that area to the federal government. [Citations omitted.] Finally, if Congress has not displaced state regulation entirely, it may nonetheless preempt state law to the extent that the state law actually conflicts with federal law.
  Michigan Canners, 467 U.S. at 469, 104 S.Ct. at 2523.
  In Howard v. Uniroyal, Inc., 719 F.2d 1552, 1555 (11th Cir.1983), we “acknowledge[d] the well established principle that the touchstone of preemption analysis is congressional intent....” Additionally, “[t]he intent of Congress to pre-empt a state law may be either express or implied, and ‘is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.’ ” Howard, 719 F.2d at 1556 (citing Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525, 97 S.Ct. 1305, 1309, 51 L.Ed.2d 604 (1977)).
  The Clean Air Act contains the following preemptive provision regarding state enforcement of federal emission standards:
  No state or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt of attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicles engines subject to [the vehicle emission standards of the Clean Air Act]. No state shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.
  42 U.S.C. § 7543(a). The express language in section 7543(a) indicates Congress's intent to exclusively regulate the control of emissions from new motor vehicles prior to the initial sale. See Michigan Canners, 467 U.S. 461, 104 S.Ct. 2518.
  The state contends that Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) simply ensures that new automobiles coming onto Florida’s highways comply with the Clean Air Act; it does not establish new or conflicting emission standards. Although this contention may be based on proper and wholesome intentions, nevertheless, Congress specifically stated that “[n]o state ... shall adopt or attempt to enforce any [federal or state] standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles” prior to the initial sale. 42 U.S.C. § 7543(a) (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with the district court’s ruling and hold that “[enforcement of the Clean Air Act before [the] first sale [of new motor vehicles] is the sole and exclusive prerogative of the federal government.”
  The Safety Act likewise contains a preemptive provision which reads in part as follows:
  Whenever a federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchap-ter is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a state shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the federal standard.
  15 U.S.C. § 1392(d). Unlike the preemptive provision contained in the Clean Air Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1392(d) precludes states from enforcement of safety standards only when such standards are not identical to federal standards.
  The district court held that prior to the first sale ¡of a motor vehicle, “[t]he states are absolutely barred from acting in any manner whatsoever in” enforcing federal safety standards and that “the role of the states in enforcing the federal laws and regulations is confined solely to the period after the first sale of an automobile.” We disagree.
  Section 1392(d) does not expressly preclude states from requiring proof of compliance with federal safety standards before obtaining title and registration for gray market automobiles. In Hillsborough County, Florida v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 714, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 2376, 85 L.Ed.2d 714, 722 (1985), the United States Supreme Court stated that “[t]he question whether the regulation of an entire field has been reserved by the federal government is, essentially, a question of ascertaining the intent underlying the federal scheme.” Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to establish uniform federal safety standards. See H.R. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 17 (1966), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1966, p. 2709. Section 1392(d), as originally enacted, restricted federal enforcement of safety standards to the initial sale of new vehicles and permitted state enforcement of safety standards identical to corresponding federal standards after the first sale of new vehicles. S.Rep. No. 1301, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1966 U.S.Cong. & Admin.News 2709, 2720.
  Also, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Truck Safety Equipment Institute v. Kane, 466 F.Supp. 1242 (M.D.Pa.1979), held that state safety standards identical to federal standards were preempted because the intent of Congress was to preclude states from presale enforcement of federal safety standards. The court in Kane, however, noted that the standards derived under the Pennsylvania system required independent testing and the payment of fees to cover the cost of such testing. Kane, 466 F.Supp. at 1245-46. Unlike the Pennsylvania regulations examined in Kane, Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) does not impose additional requirements on the importer of a gray market vehicle than those imposed by the applicable federal standards.
  In 1982, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued an opinion in an attempt to interpret the extent to which section 1392(d) preempted state enforcement of federal safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Interpretation Regarding Preemption and Presale State Enforcement of Safety Standards, 47 Fed.Reg. 884 (Advisory Letter) (1982). In its interpretation, the NHTSA stated:
  [I]t is the position of the NHTSA that any state requirement which necessitates that manufacturers pay fees in order to obtain approval under a state standard identical to an FMVSS [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard], and any imposition of requirements for approval which has the effect of prescribing the sale of equipment certified under the Act to a standard such as FMVSS 218 would be preempted by operation of the Act and of the agency’s action in adopting the federal standard in question.
  47 Fed.Reg. at 885.
  Recently, the Fifth Circuit in Direct Automobile Importers Association, Inc. v. Townsley, 804 F.2d 1408 (5th Cir.1986), examined a Texas statute similar in language to Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) and stated:
  H.B. 1805 places no burden on the manufacturer, which was clearly the concern behind the interpretation. H.B. 1805 does not involve the payment of any fees, nor does it have the effect of prescribing the sale of federally certified equipment. Indeed, H.B. 1805 does not require any certification except federal certification by federal authorities. As best we can tell, the original pre-1982 amendment provision was enacted to assure uniformity of standards for manufacturers so vehicles and equipment meeting the federal standards could be sold freely in any state. See remarks of Senator Magnu-son (one of the NHTSA’s sponsors), 112 Cong.Ree. S14230 (daily ed. June 14, 1966) (remarks of Senator Magnuson). The Texas statute H.B. 1805, does not impair this objective since it creates no independent state standard or certification of the automobiles.
  Townsley, 804 F.2d at 1414. The same rationale holds true in this case regarding Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9). As noted above, Fla. Stat. § 320.02(9) neither imposes additional requirements or burdens on the manufacturer or importer, nor involves the payment of additional fees. Additionally, section 320.02(9) does not have the effect of prescribing the sale of federally certified equipment, or impairing the objective of Congress in establishing uniform federal safety standards to permit the free marketability of vehicles in all states.
  In 1982, Congress amended section 1392(d) by adding the following sentence to the end of the provision: “Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any state from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a federal safety standard.” 15 U.S.C. § 1392(d) (1982). The Senate issued a report on the amendment which reads in part as follows:
  The committee intends that states are not preempted from enforcing safety standards identical to federal standards which they have adopted. States may not require [state] certification or approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, state enforcement may be carried out according to applicable state laws. States may undertake independent testing, and also may require manufacturers to submit adequate test data concurrent with the first sale or thereafter.
  S.Rep. No. 505, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 6, reprinted in 1982 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3169, 3174.
  In Georgia Automobile Importers Compliance Association, Inc. v. Bowers, 639 F.Supp. 352 (1986), the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia addressed the constitutionality of Georgia statutes O.C.G.A. §§ 40-2-25.1, 40-3-29.1, and 16-9-110 (1985) in light of 15 U.S.C. § 1392(d) (1982). In reviewing the legislative history of section 1392(d), the district court noted several statements made on the floor of the House of Representatives when the bill was passed indicating congressional intent. Representative Wirth stated that “[a] recent court case and NHTSA opinion have changed the scope of traditional state enforcement.” 128 Cong. Rec. H3438 (daily ed. June 14, 1982) (remarks of Rep. Wirth). Representative Moorhead considered the amendment to affirmatively declare states as having a role in enforcing federal safety standards. See 128 Cong.Rec. H3439 (daily ed. June 14, 1982) (remarks of Rep. Moorhead). In addition, Representative Dingell stated in regard to section 1392(d), as amended, that “states may undertake independent testing of vehicles or equipment and may require manufacturers to submit adequate data concurrently with the first sale within a state, or thereafter.” 128 Cong.Rec. H3440 (daily ed. June 14, 1982) (remarks of Rep. Dingell).
  We agree with the court’s conclusion in Townsley that “the legislative history shows an intent to preempt state presale enforcement of federal standards where the sale of federally certified equipment is impaired by an independent state compliance system.” Townsley, 804 F.2d at 1415. Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) does not create an impairment to the enforcement of federal safety standards or frustrate the intent of Congress in establishing uniformity of standards for manufacturers of vehicles; consequently, we hold that 15 U.S.C. § 1392(d) (1982) does not preempt Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) (1985).
  C. Commerce Clause
  The district court concluded that since Fla.Stat. 320.02(9) prevents owners of gray market vehicles from titling and registering their vehicles prior to presenting proof of compliance with federal emission and safety standards, the marketability of gray market vehicles is limited and prevents their free introduction into the stream of commerce.
  The commerce clause of the United States Constitution reads in part as follows: “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states_” U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 3. In determining whether Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) is violative of the commerce clause, we must (1) determine exactly what interest the statute purports to protect, (2) determine whether the statute burdens commerce, and if so, to what extent, and (3) balance the weight and nature of the interests protected by the statute against the extent to which it imposes a burden on commerce. See generally Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662, 101 S.Ct. 1309, 67 L.Ed.2d 580 (1981).
  In addressing the extent to which states may create laws affecting commerce, the Supreme Court has held that:
  The commerce clause does not ... invalidate all state restrictions on commerce. It has long been recognized that, ‘in the absence of conflicting legislation by Congress, there is a residuum of power in the state to make laws governing matters of local concern which nevertheless in some measure affect interstate commerce or even, to some extent, regulate it.’ [Citation omitted.] The extent of permissible state regulation is not always easy to measure. It may be said with confidence, however, that a state's power to regulate commerce is never greater than in matters traditionally of local concern. [Citation omitted.] For example, regulations that touch upon safety — especially highway safety — are those that ‘the Court has been most reluctant to invalidate.’ [Citations omitted.] Indeed, ‘if safety justifications are not illusory, the Court will not second guess legislative judgment about their importance in comparison with related burdens on interstate commerce.’ [Citation omitted.] Those who would challenge such bona fide safety regulations must overcome a ‘strong presumption of validity.’ [Citation omitted.]
  Kassel, 450 U.S. at 669-70, 101 S.Ct. at 1315-16.
  The objective of Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) is to ensure that gray market vehicles comply with federal emission and safety standards before receiving titles and registration in Florida. Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) advances a legitimate and local concern for the health and safety of the state’s citizens in that it attempts to prevent the sale and operation of vehicles in Florida that are not considered safe for persons and the environment under federal standards.
  We must now determine the extent to which Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) burdens commerce. Section 320.02(9) imposes restrictions on the importation of gray market vehicles into the United States. We agree with the district court that:
  The statute prevents the titling and registration of vehicles which in turn limits the marketability of the cars. To force an importer to use a different port of entry, for example, Savannah, Georgia, or Mobile, Alabama, in order to receive registration and titles from the relevant state authorities without having to endure the trials and tribulations that Florida has erected in their path destroys the common market of commerce for the entire United States as established by the Constitution. It is precisely this type of state action that the Commerce Clause was designed to prevent; thus the statute is constitutionally infirm.
  Accordingly, in weighing the local concerns of section 320.02(9) against the burden on commerce, we find that Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) does violate the commerce clause. Although Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) requires no greater compliance than compliance with applicable federal standards, Florida’s titling and registration statute imposes a burden on foreign and interstate commerce. The Florida Statute directs the stream of commerce in gray market vehicles from Florida to other states for those owners who have legitimate reasons for registering and titling their vehicles before being able to use them on the roads of Florida.
  D. Immunity
  Sims and the FICA filed suit in the district court against the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and the Attorney General seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9). Thereafter, Sims and the FICA filed a motion (which was not contested) to dismiss the Attorney General as a defendant in the case. The Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, was never included as a party defendant. Thus, the only remaining party defendants in the present action are the State of Florida and one of its agencies— the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. “It is clear ... that in the absence of consent a suit in which the state or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is prescribed by the eleventh amendment.” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).
  The state of Florida, in responding to the constitutional challenge to Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9), failed to plead the defense of sovereign immunity under the eleventh amendment and did not initially raise the issue on appeal. Nonetheless, “[T]he eleventh amendment defense sufficiently partakes of the nature of a jurisdictional bar so that it need not be raised in the trial court.” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 678, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1363, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). Moreover, Florida’s constitution requires “specific, clear, and unambiguous language in a statute to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.” Manatee County v. Town of Longboat Key, 365 So.2d 143, 147 (Fla.1978). In our review of Florida law, we have found no legislative enactment waiving the state’s sovereign immunity under the facts and issues in this case.
  The state of Florida asserted the defense of sovereign immunity in this case only after this court requested that the parties brief the issue. Sims and the FICA contend that this court unwarrantedly raised the eleventh amendment defense, citing Patsy v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 515 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 2567 n. 19, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982): “[W]e have never held that [the eleventh amendment defense] is jurisdictional in the sense that it must be raised and decided by this court on its own motion.” Although we do not interpret Patsy as prohibiting this court from raising the issue of sovereign immunity, we do recognize the inequity in allowing the state to now assert the defense of sovereign immunity without affording Sims and the FICA an opportunity to effectively counter the defense at this stage in the litigation. After reviewing Florida law on sovereign immunity and the procedural position in which the parties are caught we remand (as we did in Patsy) this issue to the district court to determine whether Sims and the FICA should be granted leave to add an appropriate party in light of the state’s untimely and compelled assertion of the sovereign immunity defense.
  E. Mootness
  Amicus curiae Mercedes Benz of North America, Incorporated, raised the issue of mootness in this case because Myra Sims has now received final admission of her automobile. The FICA remains a party in the present action with a continuing interest in the outcome. Moreover, the state concedes that Sims and the FICA’s claim is not moot: “The issue ... is one that is capable of repetition yet evading review.” We agree with this conclusion and accordingly hold that the present action is not moot.
  CONCLUSION
  In summary, we affirm the district court’s finding that Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) vi-dates the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7522 because Congress has reserved to the federal government the sole and exclusive prerogative of enforcing federal emission standards. We also affirm the district court’s ruling that Fla.Stat. § 320.02(9) violates the commerce clause, U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Also, we remand to the district court the sole issue of whether Sims and the FICA should be granted leave to add an additional party or parties in this case. Accordingly, we affirm in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
  AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED
  . Sims purchased the used 1976 Mercedes Benz 450 SEL from Ulrich Kieserwalter of Bonn, West Germany.
  . The definition of "new car" under the Clean Air Act as it relates to gray market automobiles is not based on whether the automobile has previously been sold prior to its importation into the United States:
  (3) Except with respect to vehicles or engines imported or offered for importation, the term ‘new motor vehicle’ means a motor vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser; and the term ‘new motor vehicle engine' means an engine in a new motor vehicle or a motor vehicle engine the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to the ultimate purchaser; and with respect to imported vehicles or engines, such terms mean a motor vehicle and engine, respectively, manufactured after the effective date of a regulation issued under section 7521 of this title which is applicable to such vehicle or engine (or which would be applicable to such vehicle or engine had it been manufactured for importation into the United States).
  42 U.S.C. § 7550(3) (emphasis added).
  . Title 19 C.F.R. § 12.80(b)(l)(iii) reads as follows:
  (b) Requirements for entry and release.
  (1) [E]ach vehicle ... offered for introduction into the Customs territory of the United States shall be denied entry unless the importer or consignee files with the entry a declaration, in duplicate, which declares or affirms one of the following:
  (iii) The vehicle or equipment item was not manufactured in conformity [with] all applicable safety standards, but it has been or will be brought into conformity. Within 120 days after entry, or within a period not to exceed 180 days after entry, if additional time is granted by the Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("Administrator, NHTSA”), the importer or consignee will submit a true and complete statement to the Administrator, NHTSA, identifying the manufacturer, contractor, or other person who has brought the vehicle or equipment item into conformity, describing the exact nature and extent of the work performed, and certifying that the vehicle or equipment item has been brought into conformity, and that the vehicle or equipment item will not be sold or offered for sale until the Administrator, NHTSA, issues an approval letter to the district director stating that the vehicle or equipment item described in the declaration has been brought into conformity with all applicable safety standards.
  19 C.F.R. § 12.80(b)(l)(iii).
  . The importer of a vehicle, more than five years old and imported for personal use and not for resale, is entitled to a once-in-a-lifetime exemption from the Clean Air Act’s emission standards. The exemption is granted automatically by the EPA, but the importer is still required to comply with the requirements of the Safety Act and the DOT. In addition, the importer is not permitted to sell the vehicle for two years after importation. See generally United States EPA, Automotive Imports — Fact Sheet 76 (1983).
  . In July, 1985, the DOT had 14,000 compliance forms to review.
  . In addition to complying with our request, the parties bombarded the court with frequent, profuse, numerous, and sundry motions and pleadings. The motions not directly ruled upon in this opinion are denied.
  . The DOTs February, 1985, general report to the appropriations committees included the following:
  Claims have been made and evidence presented to the agency that there are many vehicles supposedly brought into conformance with the safety standards that, upon inspection, are not in conformance with the standards. There are several reasons for the presence of noncomplying vehicles in the mainstream of the vehicle population, some of which are fully lawful. Nonconforming vehicles in the general vehicle population because of unlawful activity are of concern to NHTSA and form the basis of many penalty recommendations. The reasons for nonconforming vehicles being present in the general vehicle population are:
  3. The vehicle was entered under bond conditional upon its being brought into conformity within 120 days after entry or within 180 days when an extension is granted. The vehicle cannot be sold prior to release of the bond but can be used on the highways prior to completion of the modifications and its subsequent release. However, more than 7 states do not allow a vehicle to be titled and registered until the vehicle has been released by NHTSA.
  NHTSA, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment, 19 C.F.R. § 12.80 (Feb. 1985).
  . Section 85.1507 reads as follows:
  Storage and Prohibited Operation or Sale of Vehicles or Engine Conditionally Admitted A motor vehicle or engine conditionally admitted pursuant to section 85.1503, section 85.1504, or section 85.1505 shall be stored and shall not be operated on the public highways or sold until such vehicle or engine has been granted final admission. Failure to comply with this provision shall constitute a violation of section 203(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
  . A possible alternative need the owner of a gray market vehicle may have for a certificate of title is the securing of bank financing to assist in the purchasing of the automobile.
  . The district court additionally noted that section 7543(d) of the Clean Air Act further indicates Congress’s intent to exclusively enforce federal emission standards relating to new automobiles before their initial sale since the statute specifically allows the state to regulate automobile use and operation subsequent to the initial sale. Title 42 U.S.C. § 7543(d) reads as follows: "Nothing in this part shall preclude or deny to any state or political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to control, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement of registered or licensed motor vehicles." [Emphasis added.]
  . Texas statute, H.B. 1805 provides as follows: Before a motor vehicle not manufactured for sale or distribution in the United States may be registered and titled in Texas, the applicant shall furnish to the designated agent: (1) a bond release letter, with all attachments, issued by the United States Department of Transportation acknowledging receipt of a statement of compliance submitted by the importer of the vehicle and that the statement meets the safety requirements of 19 C.F.R. 12.80(e); and (2) a bond release letter, with all attachments, issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency stating that the vehicle has been tested and shown to be in conformity with federal emission requirements; and (3) a' receipt of certificate issued by the United States Department of Treasury showing that any and all gas guzzler taxes due on the vehicle under the provisions of Pub.L. No. 95-618, Title II, Section 201(a) (16 U.S.C. A. 4064) have been fully paid; or (4) proof satisfactory to the agent that the vehicle was not brought into the United States from outside the country. [Emphasis added.]
  . Section 40-2-25.1 provides that:
  (a) No application shall be accepted and no certificate of registration shall be issued to any motor vehicle which was not manufactured to comply with federal emission and safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles as required by ... the ‘Clean Air Act,’ ... and as required by ... the ‘National Traffic and Motor Safety Act,’ ... unless and until the United States Customs Service or the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have certified that the motor vehicle complies with such applicable federal standards and unless all documents required by the Department of Revenue for processing an application for a certificate of registration or title are printed and filled out in the English language or are accompanied by an English translation.
  O.C.G.A. § 40-2-25.1(a) (1985).
  . Section 40-3-29.1 states that:
  [N]o application shall be accepted and no certificate of title shall be issued to any motor vehicle which was not manufactured to comply with federal emission and safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles as required by ... the ‘Clean Air Act’ ... and as required by the ‘National Traffic and Motor Safety Act,' ... unless and until the United States Customs Service or the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have certified that the motor vehicle complies with such applicable federal standards and unless all documents required by the Department of Revenue for processing an application for a certificate of registration or title are printed and filled out in the English language or are accompanied by an English translation.
  O.C.G.A. § 40-3-29.1 (1985).
  .Section 16-9-110 provides that:
  (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation knowingly to sell, transfer, or otherwise convey any motor vehicle which was not manufactured to comply with federal emission and safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles as required by ... the ‘Clean Air Act,’ ... and the ‘National Traffic and Motor Safety Act,’ ... unless and until the United States Customs Service or the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have certified that the motor vehicle complies with such applicable federal standards.
  O.C.G.A. § 16-9-110(a) (Supp.1985).
  . Sims and the FICA moved this court to allow the addition of Charles J. Brantley as a party defendant, or in the alternative, to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the district court so that they might seek to add Brantley as a party defendant. The matters to be weighed in ruling on such a motion can better be considered in the district court.