South Carolina Intermodal Responsibility Law Raises Hope
Passage of the state’s Safe Intermodal Chassis Act has raised the hope that similar laws can be enacted in Louisiana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and California, according to participants in a panel session, “Intermodal Equipment: The Path to Roadability.”
Also, American Trucking Associations’ Intermodal Conference has petitioned the Federal Highway Administration to adopt a similar proposal.
Nationwide, there are 750,000 intermodal chassis and 86,000 rail trailers, of which 30% to 40% are not roadworthy, said Randy Guillot, president of Triple G Express, New Orleans.
The South Carolina law makes it illegal to tender equipment that does not meet federal motor carriers safety regulations. The law gives the motor carrier or driver the right to inspect equipment and to have repairs made if warranted.
The statute also makes equipment providers financially responsible for repairs and fines incurred by motor carriers as a result of safety defects.
That is a significant provision, Mr. Guillot said, because two-thirds of all out-of-service orders against intermodal truckers are due to problems with the trailer or chassis. That compares with an industry average of 25% of out-of-service orders.
“I’m in business to try and make a buck,” he said. “I can’t continue to repair equipment or pay fines on equipment that I don’t own and do not receive revenue for. That goes against my bottom line.”
Even though safety problems are mostly confined to the chassis or trailer, failed inspections can have a direct impact on an intermodal carrier’s safety rating.
he South Carolina legislation addressed this issue by specifying that the state Department of Public Safety maintain a separate database on roadside inspection reports for power unit defects and for defects on any vehicle tendered to the motor carrier.
According to Rick Todd, president of the South Carolina Trucking Assn., port officials initially opposed the intermodal legislation, fearing it would make their facilities less competitive than others along the Eastern seaboard.
By the same token, Mr. Todd said, the ports saw the bill as an opportunity to address a real problem without risking a strike or other organized activity by truckers that might impede operations.
“We took it upon ourselves that we would be a thorn in their side until this was solved,” he said. “We went to shippers, state police and the governor.”
Has the law made a difference? Mr. Todd said it’s too early to draw any conclusions. However, port officials have responded favorably to truckers’ suggestion that an advisory committee be established to address future problems.
According to Mr. Guillot, intermodal carriers simply lack the clout to change long-standing practices at ocean and rail terminals on their own.
The nature of intermodal equipment, which changes hands frequently and is mixed into pools, makes maintenance more difficult to manage.
Citing industry studies, Mr. Guillot said motor carriers bear between $250 million and $500 million a year in repair costs for intermodal equipment.
