Long Beach port breaks off talks with ATA over preventing suit
The Port of Long Beach has officially broken off discussions with the American Trucking Association aimed a preventing a threatened federal lawsuit that could halt the Southern California ports' trucking system overhaul plan.
The move, announced in a letter to the ATA earlier this week, means a planned ATA lawsuit over the truck plan would include both the Long Beach and Los Angeles ports.
Rebecca Ames, chief of staff for Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster, said that while the city is willing to listen to any reasonable industry proposals to improve the trucking plan, the ATA proposals did not rise to this level.
The $2.2 billion trucking plan, adopted in slightly differing versions by the neighboring ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, aims to cut diesel pollution through an elaborate system that will replace or retrofit by 2013 the more than 17,000 drayage trucks servicing the ports. The plan bans certain model year trucks from servicing the ports on a progressive yearly basis beginning with pre-1989 trucks on Oct. 1.
The plan also requires motor carriers to obtain an access license from the ports to allow their fleets to service the ports' facilities. To obtain a license, motor carriers must agree to port-defined stipulations ranging from business practices to labor criteria. The ports also plan to impose a $35-per-TEU container tax to provide a majority of the funds to replace the privately owned trucks.
ATA, which has opposed portions of the ports' truck plan since shortly after it was introduced in early 2007, is preparing to sue the ports in federal court alleging the truck plan's licensing component, among other portions of the plan, violates federal interstate commerce laws. ATA is the nation's largest trade association, representing more than 37,000 motor carrier members.
A major point of ATA's contention over the plan's licensing component of the plan has been a labor stipulation requiring motor carriers to hire only per-hour employees. Per-load independent owner-operators comprise more than 80 percent of the ports-servicing drayage fleet.
The employee-only requirement, heavily promoted by Los Angeles Mayor and former union-organizer Antonio Villaraigosa and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was adopted by Los Angeles port commissioners but not by the Long Beach port board. Instead, Long Beach port commissioners adopted language that would allow trucking firms to hire employees, independent owner-operators, or any combination of the two.
Despite ATA's threats of a lawsuit over the truck plan, officials of the association's Intermodal Motor Carrier Conference continued to approach Long Beach and Los Angeles officials to open discussions that might forestall a costly legal fight. While the IMCC received little indication from Los Angeles officials of a willingness to work with the industry to create a workable truck emissions solution, Long Beach officials were more receptive.
In late April, Foster spoke privately with IMCC officials and indicated Long Beach was willing to work with the group to head off a lawsuit. The IMCC told Foster that a solution to the access-licensing component of the plan could be found in the national Uniform Intermodal Interchange & Facilities Access Agreement (UIAA) contract, and that by modifying some of the truck plan language it was possible for an ATA lawsuit over the plan to name only Los Angeles. IMCC officials, at the time, described the conversation with Foster as very positive and encouraging.
However, according to IMCC officials, when they met with port representatives, the discussions stalled within minutes of starting. IMCC officials said City Attorney Dominic Holzhaus, representing the port, declined to discuss the UIAA contract proposal.
Holzhaus declined to comment on the meeting with the ATA other than to say that the port disagrees with a great deal of the proposal the ATA sought to discuss.
According to IMCC officials, two additional attempts by the IMCC to suggest alternative truck plan licensing language based on the UIIA interchange contract and start further discussions with Long Beach officials were declined.
In a letter to Foster last week, IMCC Executive Director Curtis Whalen told the mayor, 'It was quite clear in the short discussion (the IMCC) had that Dominic had already formulated his opinion and it was not open to negotiation or change. It was also quite clear to me that he does not have sufficient background in the UIIA contractual workings to render either an informed — let alone final — judgment on the potential merits of our discussion proposal.'
In the port's letter to the ATA breaking off further discussions, Port of Long Beach Deputy Executive Director Chris Lytle, told Whalen, 'It is apparent that our differences go to fundamental issues and not merely details.'
Lytle made it clear that additional requests from the ATA to discuss the matter would not be entertained.
'We have now met on several times to discuss our respective views, and we do not believe that further meetings on the contents of the Long Beach concession agreement would be productive,' Lytle wrote.
Whalen pointed out in his letter to Foster that with Los Angeles port officials committed to the employee-only component and with the 'discussion door' now closed at Long Beach, 'I will of necessity shift ATA-IMCC focus to the now inevitable litigation phase of the process.' ' Keith Higginbotham
