SoCal ports respond to FMC information request on antitrust agreement
Lawyers for the Southern California ports and West Coast marine terminal operators filed responses Thursday to a Federal Maritime Commission demand for additional information on the two groups' February application for an antitrust immunity agreement.
The four sitting FMC commissioners first considered the agreement last month and decided to request more details before allowing the agreement between terminal operators and the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to take affect. The 15-page response, including voluminous reference materials, has not been made public.
The FMC, which recently announced it would hold commission meetings every two weeks, is expected to quickly take up the response from the ports and terminal operators.
Port officials sought the FMC antitrust agreement to allow the ports and 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 ports' environmental manifesto, the Clean Air Action Plan.'
The agreement is a critical requirement as the ports attempt to hammer out details of their $2.2 billion Southern California drayage overhaul program — a major component of the CAAP — with the terminal operators.
The nearly 50-question FMC request for information, issued April 3, said that while it was not the commission's intention to delay implementation of the agreement the Shipping Act of 1984 'requires the commission to fully analyze the agreement that is now before it.'
The FMC indicated the ports' and terminal operators' request in February lacked clarity, and specifically asked the two ports to provide a 'timeline indicating the planned dates of effectiveness, promulgation, and implementation of important milestones' for the truck plan.
The commission also demanded details on what exactly will be discussed between the ports and terminal operators under the agreement, and asked the ports to provide details on all 'currently adopted programs, legislation, requirements, etc.' that will be implemented under the agreement.
Once the commissioners review the responses from the ports and terminal operators, the FMC will be able to proceed in three ways. The FMC can allow the agreement to move forward, in which case it takes effect within 45 days unless the ports ask for the agreement to be expedited and the commission agrees. The commission can also return to the ports for more information, or seek to stop the agreement through court action.
FMC officials said earlier this month that given the complexity of the ports' and terminal operators' agreement, and based on past FMC decisions in such cases, it is unlikely the commission would accelerate the 45-day time frame if it decided to allow the agreement to move forward. A further request for information is also unlikely, according to FMC officials.
If the agreement is allowed to move forward, it would likely be early summer before the ports' and terminal operators' agreement goes into effect, which may present challenges for the ports.
The first steps of the ports' port trucking re-regulation program 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.
Industry experts watching the development of the truck plan have said the ports would need at least three months before the Oct. 1 start date to finalize operational details of the plan. ' Keith Higginbotham
SoCal ports respond to FMC information request on antitrust agreement
