Long Beach passes first portion of SoCal truck re-regulation plan

Long Beach passes first portion of SoCal truck re-regulation plan Port of Long Beach commissioners, following action taken last week by their neighboring counterparts in Los Angeles, unanimously approved the first step of a controversial $1.8 billion truck re-regulation plan Monday.
   The vote ended several weeks of growing speculation that a rift was forming between the two ports over contentious labor and licensing issues of the truck plan. During Monday's board meeting, members of the Long Beach board refuted earlier comments that they would forego the labor and licensing portions of the plan and firmly said they will be moving in 'lock-step' with their Los Angeles counterparts as the plan moves forward.
   The move also highlighted that Los Angeles port commissioners and their Los Angeles City Hall superiors were clearly dictating the direction of the two ports' nearly year-long effort to overhaul the local drayage fleet.
   Monday's vote adopted changes to the Long Beach port's tariff — the port's governing bylaws — to require terminal operators to ban certain model year trucks in a three-phase schedule over the next four years. The first ban would see terminal operators forced to bar all pre-1989 model year trucks starting Oct. 1, 2008. The second ban would take effect Jan. 1, 2010 and see terminal operators forced to ban all pre-2003 trucks. An exemption would be made for 1993 to 2003 trucks that are retrofit with an emission control device. The final ban would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, when terminal operators would be required to bar all pre-2007 model year trucks.
   The tariff changes also require all port-servicing trucks to be registered by June 30, 2008 with a port-maintained data registry. In addition, truck owners must also maintain a radio frequency identification device on the vehicle. The new tariff rules also require terminal operators to install and maintain RFID readers at all facility entry points.
   The original $1.8 billion truck plan was part of the ports' omnibus Clean Air Action Plan adopted last November. The truck plan was formally introduced by the two ports in March, with a scheduled start date of Jan. 1. The plan was set for votes by the port boards several times since the summer but pulled. While jointly developed by the two ports, the individual regulatory components of the CAAP have required each port authority to approve identical language.
   Last month, the two ports decided to pull out the truck ban component of the overall plan and vote on it first. Still left to be decided by the two ports are components that detail funding and implementation of a program to replace the banned trucks.
   Under the overall plan, the ports will determine who can and cannot operate a truck in the ports by issuing operating licenses to port-area trucking firms. The licensing plan will use ports-defined criteria to only allow those trucking firms with 'deep pockets' access to Southern California port facilities, according to statements by port officials. The plan will also charge a terminal access fee to all pre-2007 model year trucks with port-licenses that have not been banned. These funds, in conjunction with port and taxpayer funds, would be used to provide funds to the same licensed trucking firms to replace or retrofit their truck fleets with 2007 or newer model year vehicles.
   One of the most controversial portions of the original plan called for licensing criteria to be used to mandate that all drivers be employees, thus eliminating all independent owner-operators working in the ports. The licensing and employee-only regulations have been the focus of much of the ire of more than 40 transportation organizations that have come out in opposition to the plan.
   The trucking, retail and shipping industries, while agreeing with the clean air components of the ports plan, have blasted the labor and licensing portions, arguing that the ports essentially did not have the authority to ban interstate commerce. The Federal Maritime Commission is examining the ports for violations of federal shipping laws regarding the plan. The Maritime Administrative in late October warned the ports to refocus on the antipollution aspects of the plan and shy away from the labor and licensing aspects.
   On Oct. 25, both ports announced they would vote last week on a scaled-down version of the plan. The goal of the new version was to address, as MarAd suggested, the clean-air components of the plan without the distraction of the labor and licensing components. Long Beach commissioners were to vote on this version on Oct. 29, with plans to deliberate later on the funding mechanisms to pay for replacing the 16,800 trucks in the drayage fleet.
   Shortly before the Long Beach meeting last week, and without notifying Long Beach officials, Los Angeles changed the language of their proposed tariff change. The now differing tariffs forced Long beach to postpone the vote until this week.
   During Long Beach's abortive Oct. 29 meeting to vote on the new tariff rules, Long Beach commissioner James Hankla seemed to make clear that his board was interested in the green portions of the plan and expressed frustration at the delays caused by the employee-only component of the overall plan.
   'The adoption of the CAAP has been delayed specifically because it was tied up with an employee-only mandate,' he told the audience. 'I think that is what has delayed the CAAP to this point, by perhaps as much as six months. That is something that needs to be said, and I am delighted that I am the one who said it.'
   Other commissioners at the meeting agreed with Hankla's assessment.
   Prior to approving the new tariff language on Monday, none of the Long Beach board members expressed these sentiments. Each expressed full and total cooperation between the two ports in moving forward with the plan as redefined by Los Angeles last week.
   Los Angeles Harbor Commission president S. David Freeman spoke to the Long Beach board before they voted Monday, and clearly stated that the labor and licensing components of the plan would be included in the plan. There was no disagreement from the Long Beach board members.