Major industry groups ask FMC to investigate S. Calif. truck plan

Major industry groups ask FMC to investigate S. Calif. truck plan Two major shipping and freight industry groups have asked the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission to take immediate action against a controversial port trucking re-regulation plan being proposed by Southern California port authorities.
   In what may be the first public salvo of industry action against the $1.8 billion truck plan, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and the National Industrial Transportation League have asked FMC officials to examine the ports' plan for what the groups describe as 'legal, logistical and anticompetitive impacts that will cause immediate economic harm.'
   In the 14-page letter to the federal agency requesting the review, the two groups also detail their assertions that the ports, during development of the truck plan, have violated portions of the federal Shipping Act.
   Last year, in preparation for announcing their joint environmental plans, Long Beach and Los Angeles port officials signed an agreement with the FMC allowing staff from the port authorities to jointly meet to discuss and agree upon transportation infrastructure projects and environmental programs. Typically, the Shipping Act prohibits such actions, unless the FMC grants a request to do so. The FMC holds the signers of such agreements to the specific language therein. In past decisions, the FMC has said a high level of specificity in the agreement language is required to 'eliminate all necessity for interpretation as to the 'intent' of the parties.'
   The PMSA, which represents 90 percent of the West Coast shipping lines, and the NIT League, which represents more than 700 transportation firms, both allege that the FMC agreement signed by the ports in August does not cover certain aspects of the proposed truck plan, and by moving forward the ports have committed multiple violations of the Shipping Act.
   The ports' Clean Truck Program, slated to start Jan. 1, would ban access to the ports' terminals by truckers not obtaining a license from the ports. Trucking companies agreeing to port-defined criteria covering financial, labor, and environmental status would be allowed to buy a license from the ports and continue operating.
   Port-licensed pre-2007 model year trucks would pay a 'truck impact fee' for each gate entry at the terminals. This money would go toward replacing or retrofitting port-licensed trucks to bring them up to the 2007 standard. The ports would also contribute money, and potential bond revenue funds from the state were integral in the plan's funding development. The ports claim that the plan, if fully implemented, would eliminate up to 45 percent of port-generated truck emissions by 2012.
   Trucking firms must also agree to hire only employees, not independent owner-operators, to obtain a port license.
   Originally set to be approved by the ports' policy-setting boards in July, the board commissioners have postponed several self-imposed deadlines to approve the truck plan. Insiders at the ports report that dissatisfaction with the employee-only portion of the plan is growing among some harbor commissioners, though publicly the two governing commissions still express their full commitment to the plan, including the Jan. 1 start date.
   'As currently envisioned, the ports' trucking plan is dressed up as an air quality initiative but its result is an anticompetitive reorganization of the logistics industry,' said John Ficker, president of NIT League. 'There is no question that cleaner air is in everyone's interest and a goal we fully support, however the ports' plan will not accomplish this and is in reality a program designed to serve special interests, not the environment. Even if you have a clean truck you would be barred if you don't follow the ports' new logistics model.'
   In their letter, the PMSA and NIT League point out that the ports' agreement with the FMC 'is entirely silent on one of the most intrusive and anticompetitive portions of the Clean Truck Program — the prohibition of independent owner-operators.'
   Two additional violations of the Shipping Act by the ports are also alleged in the letter.
   The ports' proposed ban on independent owner-operators is an 'unreasonable practice' under the Shipping Act because 'there is no logical relationship between that anticompetitive ban and the environmental objectives of the program,' said the groups in a Wednesday release. The groups also allege that the ports' program violates another section of the Shipping Act because, according to the ports' own economic analysis, it will substantially reduce competition for port drayage services and at the same time drastically increase prices and reduce service by driving drayage companies out of the market.
   'This plan is a formula for a legal and logistical quagmire at the ports,' said John McLaurin, PMSA president. 'We support clear and enforceable statewide standards for all trucks operating in California to be developed and implemented by the State of California. However, this proposal will only result in more congestion at the ports.'
   The PMSA and NIT League letter is only the latest in a string of recent public relations setbacks for the plan, including a somber economic review of the plan and recent criticism by previous advocates.
   On Tuesday, the author of the ports' own economic impact report on the plan told a transportation industry audience that the plan as written could result in chaos within the local port trucking industry.
   John Husing, a prominent Southern California economist, said that truck driver positions, support jobs and back office staff would all suffer under the ports' truck plan. Husing's analysis, which was presented to port officials several weeks ago, found that 376 trucking companies would vanish if the ports' plan was implemented, along with just over 2,250 back office and support jobs. A calculation using numbers in the analysis suggests that at least 4,400 driver positions would be eliminated by the ports' plan. An American Shipper analysis of the plan in July found that 6,150 driver positions would be lost because of the plan, along with close to 1,500 support positions.
   In addition, Husing told the audience that implementation of the program will likely result in more than a 50 percent short-term reduction in the port truck fleet, an 80 percent increase in shipping costs for surviving firms and 'a slowly building crisis as lack of drivers and trucks means containers are not delivered on time.'
   Another hit to the ports came last week, when the Natural Resources Defense Council, once a staunch voice of support for the ports' environmental efforts, blasted Long Beach and Los Angeles port officials for slow action on environmental programs. The group said the ports were breaking their 'green' promises and falling behind in implementing the 'Clean Air Action Plan' — an omnibus collection of air quality programs created by the ports' staff last year. The largest component of the CAAP is the truck re-regulation plan.
   David Pettit, director of NRDC's Southern California Air Program, said in a Sept. 20 statement that while his group originally supported the ports' creation and adoption of the CAAP plan, that was the easy part for the ports.
   'The implementation is where you show commitment,' Pettit said, 'and, unfortunately, the ports are slipping further and further behind.'
   The letter came just days after the ports cancelled the third scheduled attempt to hold a joint meeting of both ports boards to approve the truck plan.
   The NRDC, well known for putting political and legal pressure on the ports regarding environmental issues, cited the commissioners' failure to approve the truck plan as one of four major deadlines within the overall CAAP already missed by the ports.
   'Many supported the [ports'] plan because we believed it was more than just another bureaucratic exercise,' said Adrian Martinez, NRDC project attorney said in the Sept. 20 statement. 'We thought the ports were moving away from a business-as-usual approach that compromises people's health.'