Harbor Trucking Capacity in Southern California to be Cut in Half

Harbor Trucking Capacity in Southern California to be Cut in Half
March 19, 2008

The harbor trucking capacity in Southern California could experience a shortage of around 8,350 trucks and owner-operators by October due to conflicting Clean Trucks programs and the federal Transportation Worker Identification Credential program.

Addressing the 8th Annual Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference, John Husing, a Southern California economist who studied the harbor trucking scene in 2007, said that at present nearly 16,800 trucks arrive regularly at the ports, but this capacity is expected to be cut in half by this fall for three reasons: many drivers will fail to qualify for the TWIC biometric identification card, Clean Trucks programs of the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are conflicting with one another over the use or non-use of the employee-driver model in the harbor, and all trucks built before 1989 will be banned from the harbor by this fall as they no longer meet the ports’ new emission standards.

Qualifying for the TWIC certification requires drivers to demonstrate proof of legal residency in the United States, a requirement which, according to recent surveys conducted by Husing on behalf on the ports, may drive 15% to 22% of the drivers to not even apply for a TWIC card at all.

Confusion further surrounds the harbor trucking scene. In February, a Clean Trucks program that does not require the use of employee-drivers was approved by the Port of Long Beach. Having paired up with the Teamsters Union and pushing for the unionization of harbor trucking, the Natural Resources Defense Council has threatened to seek legal ramifications against the port over such an issue.

On the other hand, the Port of Los Angeles is expected to release, in the next few weeks, its own version of Clean Trucks program, which is expected to require the use of employee-drivers. Curtis Whalen, executive director of the American Trucking Associations’ Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference, said that thousands of owner-operators will lose their jobs if Los Angeles adopts such an employee-driver model. If the Port of Los Angeles ever releases a Clean Trucks program that requires licensed motor carriers to use only employee-drivers, the trucking industry will take legal action against the port. Whalen stated that ATA could sue the Port of Los Angeles under the federal preemption clause that asserts the federal government’s authority to regulate rates, routes, and services in interstate transportation. ATA could also resort, in its dispute with the Port of Los Angeles, to the Federal Maritime Commission, which holds the responsibility of preventing discrimination in port transportation.

To cope with such an expected shortage, Husing said that more than 1,000 trucks will be added to the harbor later this year. Husing, who previously thought that compromise was within reach, is now no longer optimistic that the ports can work out their differences and agree on a joint Clean Trucks program by the Oct 1st deadline.

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.