FMC seeks more info on SoCal truck plan

FMC seeks more info on SoCal truck plan The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission wants more information before it will allow the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to collaborate with marine terminal operators on the details of a $2.2 billion drayage overhaul program.
   The request comes after the ports' February filing of an antitrust agreement with the FMC. If permitted to take effect by the FMC, the agreement would allow the Southern California ports and marine terminal operators to meet, discuss and agree upon various programs falling under a broadly defined scope of 'security and environmental programs, such as the Transportation Workers Identification Credential and the Clean Air Action Plan.' The ports require the agreement to hammer out details of their truck plan — a major component of the CAAP — with the terminal operators.
   The FMC issued the lengthy request for information to the attorneys for the two ports and Southern California marine terminal operators Thursday, saying that while it was not the intention of the commission to delay implementation of the agreement the Shipping Act of 1984 'requires the commissioner to fully analyze the agreement that is now before it.'
   To complete the analysis, the FMC is seeking the answer to nearly 50 detailed questions, many dealing with the potential impacts of the truck plan on such things as the national economy, local workers and security within the ports.
   The ports' trucking plan, approved last month, calls for the creation of a concession scheme that would require ports-servicing trucking firms to obtain a ports-issued license to gain access to any of the two ports facilities. To obtain an access license, a trucking firm must meet a lengthy list of ports-defined criteria covering everything from maintaining proper documentation to allowing the ports to approve potential buyers of a trucking firm. The two ports split on a contentious labor component of the plan, with the Long Beach version allowing trucking firms under the plan to hire drivers as employees or independent owner-operators. The Los Angeles Harbor Commissioners retained a stipulation in their version banning independent owner-operator drivers and providing that trucking firms must hire drivers as per-hour employees.
   The first steps of the truck plan are to take effect on Oct. 1, when nearly 3,000 pre-1989 trucks of the nearly 17,000-truck drayage fleet will be barred from entering the ports. The FMC request for information has stopped the clock on the ports' truck plan process and may make meeting the scheduled implementation date very difficult to meet.
   Industry experts watching the truck plan's development have said the ports will need at least three months before a start date to finalize operational details of the plan.
   The FMC, by requesting specific information, also highlights what the ports have yet to detail within the truck plan.
   Among other items, the commission is asking for a 'timeline indicating the planned dates of effectiveness, promulgation, and implementation of important milestones' for the truck plan, indicating that the ports have not clearly defined these items in their filing with the FMC.
   The FMC is also unclear on what would be discussed among the ports and marine terminal operators under the plan, and is asking the ports to provide details on all 'currently-adopted programs, legislation, requirements, etc.' that would be implemented under the agreement.
   Many of the 16 main questions in the FMC request are broken into even more detailed sub-questions, such as a question seeking information about the impacts of the two ports adopting two separate versions of the plan. The single item is broken into nine individual questions, requesting everything from simple details of how the two ports' versions of the plan differ to who will be eligible for an access license under the two differing versions.
   Additional details sought by the FMC that the ports' truck plan does not detail include:
   ' Whether trucking firms wishing to work both ports would require and have to pay for separate access licenses, one from each port.
   ' A description of the staff resources required by the ports to 'successfully implement, administer and monitor' the plan.
   ' A description of short- and long-term disruptions to drayage supply due to such truck plan elements as the banning of older trucks.
   ' How much cargo would likely divert to other ports because of the plan.
   ' What would happen to a trucking firm that does not comply with the trucking plan.
   ' How long-haul trucks visiting the port would be handled under the plan.
   ' Reasons a truck might be denied access to a port terminal.
   ' Who would be responsible for turning away trucks that do not comply with the plan regulations.
   ' How drivers and the public would be notified of details in the plan.
   ' How the public would be informed of any clean air goals met by the port.
   ' Details of the truck plan funding mechanisms.
   ' Compare and contrast the port plan with the currently adopted state truck plan.
   ' How failing to meet the ports' air goals would affect the overall clean air program.
   The ports do not have a time frame for responding, but once they do the FMC can take up to 45 days to allow the agreement to take effect. The commission could return to the ports for more information or seek to stop the agreement through injunctive relief.
   If the ports quickly respond to the FMC request, it would likely be mid-May before the ports-terminal operators agreement goes into effect. ' Keith Higginbotham