ATA Sues to Block Driver Plans at L.A. and Long Beach Ports

By Eric Miller, Staff Reporter

This story appears in the Aug. 4 print edition of Transport Topics

American Trucking Associations last week asked a federal court to block emission-reduction plans by the California ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that include concessionaire requirements the group said “unlawfully re-regulated the federally de-regulated trucking industry.”

The lawsuit, filed July 28 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, said the ports’ separate clean-trucks plans adopted earlier this year — one of which bans independent drayage operators — go beyond cleaning the ports’ air.

“The concession plans would impose invasive regulatory requirements upon virtually all aspects of the business of a federal motor carrier, including truck maintenance, on-street and off-street parking, employee wages, employee benefits, hiring practices, truck signage, recordkeeping, auditing, frequency of service to the ports and even upon sale or transfer of the motor carrier’s business,” the ATA lawsuit said.

ATA represents a federation of its members, affiliated state trucking associations, conferences and organizations that includes more than 37,000 motor carriers. Meanwhile, West Coast port operators reached a tentative contract agreement with the International Longshore Workers Union.

The ATA lawsuit asks the federal court to issue a permanent injunction blocking the ports from enforcing concession requirements set to take effect Oct. 1. These require-ments, the lawsuit said, have “the effect of regulating the prices, routes, or services of motor carriers” performing drayage at the ports.

The Los Angeles plan requires drayage concession holders to use employee drivers only, not independent owner-operators. It calls for transitioning from the current situation, with mostly independent operators, to 100% larger licensed carriers over a five-year period (3-24, p. 1).

The Long Beach concession plan, which does not ban owner-operators outright, will be “in reality, meaningless,” because most drayage operators commonly work in both ports, the lawsuit said. An independent operator in Long Beach would be “shackled by a prohibition against serving the Port of Los Angeles.”

“We don’t believe any port entity, or any other local entity for that matter, can set contractual barriers to entry into motor carriage transport,” Curtis Whalen, IMCC executive director, told Transport Topics. “While the Long Beach plan is less egregious, it’s still a barrier.”

IMCC members would be “directly and adversely affected” by the concessionaire requirements, the lawsuit said.

In a statement, Los Angeles port officials said they will “vigorously oppose any action that will delay cleaning up the air so that Angelenos can begin to breathe easier.”

“The health of our environment and the public is at stake, and it is time to hit the brakes on the 16,000 dirty diesel-spewing trucks polluting our air every day,” Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement.

Both ports’ clean-truck plans are scheduled to go into effect Oct. 1; they include a $35 per 20-foot cargo container fee to fund a $1.6 billion plan to help carriers purchase new cleaner-running trucks or retrofit current equipment. Both plans aim to reduce diesel emissions at the ports by 80%. Beginning Oct. 1, no pre-1989 trucks will be allowed in the ports, and by 2012, all trucks would be required to meet 2007 diesel emissions standards.

A spokesman for the Port of Long Beach also said officials plan to implement their new plan beginning Oct. 1, unless the court orders otherwise. “We’re encouraging the industry to sign up because there’s no telling when, or if, the judge will rule,” said spokesman Art Wong.

The ATA litigation is not aimed at and should not interfere with the ports’ clean-air efforts, ATA President Bill Graves said.

“Despite the additional costs that our industry will incur, we strongly support the ports’ efforts to reduce truck emissions, and our lawsuit does not challenge any aspect of those efforts,” Graves said July 28.

Under the plans, the cost of applying for a concession is $2,500 in Los Angeles and $250 in Long Beach, which the ports said they would refund if a court blocks enforcement of the clean trucks plan.

Port of Los Angeles officials said that larger, better capitalized carriers would have a greater interest in maintaining their equipment than individual owner-operators. Port officials also said they believed larger carriers would do a better job of lowering diesel emissions and would be more likely to find ways to send fewer trucks into the ports.

However, ATA said the ports “cannot justify forcing trucking companies and thousands of independent owner-operator truck drivers to fundamentally change their business models or stop serving the ports altogether under the halo of a ‘clean-trucks’ plan.”

“The concession portion of the plan has nothing to do with clean air,” Whalen said. “An employee driving a clean truck or a dirty truck has nothing to do with clean air.”

“There are many, many drivers that make a good living and want to stay owner-operators,” Whalen said.

A California Trucking Association spokeswoman, Julie Sauls, said her group supports the ATA lawsuit. “Unfortunately, the ports chose to adopt a concession plan and employee mandates that run counter” to the goal of reducing emissions, “without disrupting California’s robust goods movement system,” she said. “If the ultimate goal is to reduce emissions from trucks, then why would clean trucks be prohibited from entering the ports?”