Ethiopian Review

Wayne Gerdes – CleanMPG – Mar. 20, 2010

Trucks arriving empty and leaving fully loaded from the Port of Long Beach.

A California congressman has joined a number of national leadership groups in a groundswell of opposition to a campaign by the Teamsters union and allied politicians to change longstanding federal transportation law. The union is seeking taxpayer-funded help in organizing port drayage truck drivers by banning independent owner-operators from ports. The Teamsters hope to attain this by pushing Congress to change the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), which prevents state and local jurisdictions from regulating interstate trucking and commerce.

U.S. Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) this week released a "Dear Colleague" letter opposing the Teamster effort.

"Compliance with air quality standards should be determined on a truck by truck basis without regard to the employee or ownership status of the driver of that truck," Rep. Miller said.

"Our nation’s businesses depend on an efficient, interconnected transportation network that moves commerce fluidly from U.S. marine ports to the network of surface transportation systems of roads and rails," ATA President and CEO Bill Graves said in expressing gratitude to Rep. Miller for his stand. "Federal transportation law protects businesses from a patchwork of local and state regulations that would stifle our nation’s economy."

"We believe that protecting our environment by reducing truck emissions is an important mission that we must undertake, and it is easy to see that our nation’s ports play a vital role in that effort," Rep. Miller’s letter said. "Industry stakeholders, including many small businesses, have shown that they are taking a proactive approach to meeting environmental goals as they have made significant investments in clean equipment. It is important that we do not get distracted by unnecessary provisions and mandates that are not related to environmental goals and could have long term, negative consequences on interstate commerce."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers also oppose any change to the FAAAA. In their letters circulated on Capitol Hill, the organizations say ports already have the ability to implement environmental programs that clean the air. "These (proposed changes) are specifically designed to eliminate competition from small independent businesses in favor of companies that the Teamsters believe could be more easily organized," the letter said.

The American Association of Port Authorities also refused to endorse the Port of Los Angeles position on amending the FAAAA. That organization, which represents more than 140 port authorities, expressly rejected a Port of Los Angeles backed resolution calling for the amendment of the FAAAA. Instead the Association’s Legislative Policy Council passed a resolution stating that ports already have sufficient latitude to ban old, polluting trucks.

The Clean and Sustainable Transportation Coalition – 31 groups that represent exporters, importers and the logistics industries and service providers that support them – also opposes the union effort to change the FAAAA. "These changes, if enacted, could unfairly force out of the industry many hard working small businesses responsible for moving much of the nation’s international commerce," said a letter signed by the Coalition. See below for a complete list of Coalition member groups.

Teamsters’ supporters are circulating a letter that repeats several false claims from the union and promotes the Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program as the model pollution-fighting plan. "In just one year, the program replaced 6,000 older trucks with clean diesel and alternative energy vehicles … which will reduce diesel particulate pollution by an estimated 70 percent," the Teamster letter said. All of this is true, but proves that the L.A. program is working WITHOUT the banning of independent truck owner-operators and the destruction of independent businesses.

The Teamsters are circulating misleading information, including the following statements:

• "Federal legislation … would allow our nation’s major container ports to implement environmental standards above current federal requirements." FALSE. Ports already have the power to implement environmental standards that exceed federal requirements, and nine ports have already done so.

• "The program has been challenged in federal court." FALSE. The L.A. Clean Truck Program is fully supported by the trucking industry. Only the illegal concession requirements, including the owner-operator ban, were challenged in court.

• "An injunction has been issued to temporarily block the City’s ability to directly enforce through concession agreements a ban on motor carriers from bringing dirty trucks into the Port." FALSE. Even with the injunction against banning owner-operators, the Port of L.A. is banning dirty trucks from entering the port.

• "The court injunction also prevents the Port from enforcing economic requirements that will ensure expensive new clean trucks will be properly maintained by ending the practice of improperly designating employees as ‘independent contractors.’" FALSE. The independent owner-operator status is not improper and repeatedly has been upheld by regulators and courts. The suggestion that owner-operators won’t maintain their trucks is also FALSE, as is the claim that failure to maintain the trucks will increase pollution. The new clean trucks are designed to automatically shut down, without even temporarily increasing emissions, if they are not properly maintained.

• "Other ports around the country are unable to implement a comprehensive program given the legal uncertainty and injunction against the program in Los Angeles." FALSE. Nine ports have successful, comprehensive clean air programs. With the exception of the Port Los Angeles, these ports have chosen NOT to ban owner-operators.

• "Federal law needs to be updated to ensure that ports can enact and enforce Clean Truck programs." FALSE. Clean Truck Programs are in place and working successfully in nine ports, and none of those ban owner-operators.

• This is a "growing environmental problem." FALSE. Even the union-organizer Mayor of Los Angeles says that his Port’s Clean Truck Program is reducing emissions by 70 percent and is 3 years ahead of schedule without banning owner-operators. The problem of truck emissions has been solved in nine ports, including Los Angeles.

While the ATA has played “wink wink” when attacking hypermilers with its own weak attempts to lower the countries fuel consumption through its members driving habits, this response makes sense.

And of course an example of the ATA’s two-faced responses regarding just the Port of LA’.

American Trucking Assn. intends to file suit against ports of L.A. and Long Beach

The organization is trying to halt a plan to replace 16,000 diesel-spewing trucks.

Ronald D. White and Louis Sahagun – LA Times – July 26, 2008

The American Trucking Assn. plans to file a lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court on Monday in an effort to block a plan by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to clean up the air by replacing an aging fleet of 16,000 trucks that spew deadly levels of toxic diesel emissions.

For decades, the ports have operated under a system in which individual truck owners transport a large portion of the container cargo that moves to and from the terminals. Because those drivers are legally considered independent operators, they cannot unionize, have no collective bargaining power and generally make so little money that they can afford only the oldest and more heavily polluting trucks.

But a coalition of grass-roots community groups, environmentalists and labor unions forced both ports to change their ways under threat of a separate lawsuit. Under a $1.6-billion cleanup plan, new trucks would be paid for through a $35 cargo fee on containers that move through the ports, which would be charged to the shippers.

The Port of Los Angeles’ plan would set up trucking company franchises in which the drivers would become employees, based on the idea that only large-scale companies would have the wherewithal to maintain the new trucks.

The Port of Long Beach earlier had hoped to avoid a lawsuit by not mandating that drivers become employees, which would have left them responsible for their own maintenance and fuel costs. But like L.A.’s plan, it would require drivers to have special permits to operate at its terminals.

Curtis Whalen, head of the trucking association, stressed in an interview Thursday that his group was not opposed to the ports’ goal of reducing diesel truck emissions by 80% within five years. Whalen added that he also supported the cargo fee, but he said that both ports have overstepped their authority in a way that "could not be tolerated."

The association is expected to argue in its lawsuit that both ports are trying to dictate terms to the nationally deregulated trucking industry, that the ports are making decisions governing interstate commerce and that their plans will make it difficult for small trucking companies to stay in business.

Whalen and other critics also contend that to obtain such operating permits would wrongly require delving deeply into the financial records of private businesses and interfere with the free flow of commerce.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement Friday that stopping the ports’ plans would be an egregious mistake that would cost lives.

"When thousands of lives are cut short every year by toxic emissions from the port, we have a moral mandate to act. The health of our environment and the public is at stake, and it is time to hit the brakes on the 16,000 diesel-spewing trucks polluting our air every day," Villaraigosa said.

The pending legal battle has also forged some uncommon alliances. The Natural Resources Defense Council, which has pressured both ports to clean up their operations, will seek to intervene in the case on behalf of the ports to prevent the plans from being shelved, said David Pettit, a senior attorney in the council’s Santa Monica office.

The Port of Los Angeles said it would have no comment until it had received a copy of the lawsuit. The Port of Long Beach’s executive director, Richard D. Steinke, vowed to move forward.

Rule of thumb… Watch out for both of these organizations.