Clean Truck Program Requested Agreement Opposed by the IMCC

Clean Truck Program Requested Agreement Opposed by the IMCC
Sunday, March 16, 2008

An agreement being sought after by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and their terminal operators, aiming at implementing the ports' Clean Truck Programs, has been opposed by the American Trucking Associations' Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference (IMCC), which has filed written comments before the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) calling for the rejection of such an agreement. The agreement would grant anti-trust immunities to both parties, which would enable them to discuss and settle on the criteria and procedures upon which they determine whether trucks, cargos, and equipment are to be admitted or not to any terminal at the port.

The IMCC has opposed the agreement on the basis that it would be unreasonable under the Shipping Act to let port tenants abuse such a “blockade provision”, which would leave the door open for them to enforce an unlawful concession on passers-by. The IMCC has further stated that such an agreement between the ports and their terminal operators should also be rejected on the foundation that it fails to include or mention motor carriers with a lawful right to access the port by authorizing terminal operators to unlawfully block port drayage operators.

On February 19th, the Port of Long Beach approved its own version of the Clean Truck Program, which does not require port trucking companies to use only employee-drivers. On the other hand, the Port of Los Angeles has been on behalf of the idea that port trucking companies should use only employee-drivers, and the IMCC says that including such a requirement in the Clean Truck Program of the Port of Los Angeles is not out of the question. With its own Clean Trucks plan, the California Air Resources Board is already taking certain measures to ban high-polluting trucks.

The IMCC believes that the ports may claim their role as sole proprietors in an attempt to be exempted from preemption by federal law. The IMCC has argued against such a claim stating that the goals of the ports' Clean Truck Programs are not proprietary in nature as they do not take into account the ports’ obtainment of goods, but instead seek to affect broader social regulation such as the income, health, and well-being of truck drivers.

The above comments filed by the IMCC only seek to convince the FMC to reject the requested agreement between the ports and terminal operators. However, they also provide a further insight into the kind of argument to which IMCC can resort in case of any future litigation.