The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission's four-member board will hold a closed door meeting Wednesday to discuss a $1.8 billion trucking re-regulation plan proposed by the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
The FMC, an independent regulatory agency of the federal government responsible for regulating ocean transportation within U.S. foreign commerce, was asked in October by three transportation industry organizations to investigate the two neighboring Southern California ports' plan. However, the nature of Wednesday's meeting and possible outcome remains unclear.
The truck plan was first introduced by the two ports in March, with a scheduled start date of Jan. 1, 2008.Under the original plan, part of the ports' omnibus Clean Air Action Plan adopted in November 2006, the ports were to determine who could and could not operate a truck in the ports by issuing operating licenses to port-area trucking firms. The licensing plan would 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. Through the use of a multi-year rolling ban introduced each Jan. 1 over the next five years, older trucks would be banned outright from operating in the ports. The plan was also supposed to set up a system to 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 the 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 opposed the plan.
Earlier this month, both ports' governing boards approved changes to their individual tariffs -- the rules governing the ports -- to begin the rolling ban on trucks starting Oct. 1, 2008. Both ports are expected to vote on the remaining portions of the original plan by the middle of December.
In late September and early October, three major industry groups called for the FMC to investigate the ports'trucking plan.The Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference, an affiliate of the American Trucking Association that represents 37,000 U.S. motor carriers, expressed its opposition to ports' truck program in a letter sent Oct. 4 to the head of the FMC. The IMCC restated its intentions to sue the ports' if the truck plan was implemented as then proposed, and also offered support for September letters to the FMC from two shipping and freight industry groups calling for a federal review of the ports' truck plan.
In late September, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and the National Industrial Transportation League asked FMC officials to examine the ports' truck plan for what the groups describe as "legal, logistical and anticompetitive impacts that will cause immediate economic harm. "In the 14-page letter, the two groups also detail their assertions that the ports, during development of the truck plan, have committed multiple violations of the Shipping Act, regulation of which falls under the FMC's responsibility.
In its letter to the FMC, the IMCC said the fact that port officials "would attempt to require the total restructuring of a federally deregulated industry that has successfully adapted to meet the ever increasing maritime freight demands generated by today's global marketplace -- and done so operating under often inefficient operating procedures which these same ports have done virtually nothing to improve -- is abhorrent."
Since the letters, FMC staff members and commissioners have met repeatedly with both industry and port officials. However, the FMC has characterized the meetings as "information gathering" and would not go as far as describing them as part of the investigation the industry groups called for.
A representative for the FMC declined to comment on possible outcomes of the FMC commissioners' Wednesday meeting.
|
