FMC mum on details of SoCal truck plan meeting
The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission's governing board held a scheduled closed-door meeting Wednesday to discuss a trucking re-regulation plan proposed by the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
Following the meeting, FMC officials declined to comment on the nature or content of the meeting.
Industry speculation is that the four-member FMC board may soon issue an official position on the ports' trucking plan, which is set to be implemented in mid-December by the ports' governing authorities.
The FMC, an independent regulatory agency of the federal government responsible for the regulation of ocean transportation within U.S. foreign commerce, was asked in October by three transportation industry organizations to investigate the ports' truck plan. FMC staff have since conducted fact finding trips to the two ports, and officials from both the ports and industry groups have met with FMC commissioners regarding the truck plan.
The two ports' truck plan — first introduced in March and part of the ports' omnibus Clean Air Action Plan adopted last November — seeks 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 allow only those trucking firms with 'deep pockets' access to Southern California port facilities, according to statements by port officials.
Under the original plan, the ports would use a multiyear rolling ban introduced each Jan. 1 over the next five years to bar older trucks 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 come out in opposition to the plan.
Earlier this month, the governing boards of both ports approved changes to their individual tariffs — the rules governing the ports — to begin the rolling ban on trucks starting Oct. 1, 2008. The ban schedule deviated from the plan as proposed in March, and it is still unclear what other details of the original plan may be changed before the mid-December vote.
The plan, while drawing support from unions wishing to organize the port-area truckers, has received near universal scorn from the transportation industry. Transportation industry groups, though supportive of the environmental goals of the plan, have raised concerns over what they see as the ports' efforts to effectively re-regulate the trucking industry.
In late-September and early-October, three major industry groups called for the FMC to investigate the ports' $1.8 billion trucking plan.
The Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference, an affiliate of the American Trucking Association that represents 37,000 motor carriers in the U.S., 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 anti-competitive 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 responsibility of the FMC.
While acknowledging the subsequent meetings with port and industry officials, the FMC has characterized the meetings as 'information gathering' and declined to describe them as part of the investigation the industry groups have called for.
A representative for the FMC said the commissioners have no further meetings scheduled regarding the ports' truck plan. However, the commissioners are not required to call a meeting in order to issue an official statement of position on the truck plan.
