Post by portofconfusion on Sept 18, 2008 14:45:14 GMT -5
Ports, truckers file arguments in clean-trucks appeal
September 18, 2008
By Bill Mongelluzzo
The JOURNAL of COMMERCE
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the American Trucking Associations Wednesday met the deadline set by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to file their arguments in the ports’ controversial clean-trucks program.
The ports, which intend to implement the clean-trucks concession plan on Oct. 1, emphasize the need to stick with that schedule in order to prevent trucks from presenting safety or security threats in the harbor.
The ATA, which is seeking a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the concession programs, argues that state and federal requirements already address motor carrier safety.
Also, pending federal government requirements for issuance of Transportation Worker Identification Credentials to truck drivers are intended to provide sufficient information about the drivers to screen out potential terrorist activities.
The ports on Oct. 1 intend to enforce their new requirement under the clean-trucks program that only licensed motor carriers with port-issued concession agreements be allowed to enter the harbor.
The ATA in August asked a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to issue a preliminary injunction against the concession requirement, charging that the concession is illegal and furthermore would prevent irreparable harm to its motor carrier members.
Judge Christina A. Snyder refused to issue the injunction. While her comments appeared to support ATA’s claims that the concession requirement is preempted by federal interstate commerce statute, she stated that delaying implementation of the concessions would result in threats involving truck safety and driver and cargo security.
The ATA is appealing that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. In addition to citing state and federal requirements involving safety and security, ATA argued that motor carriers do not have the information on the cargo contents of containers that the ports are requesting to screen out potential terrorist activities.
“Knowledge of container contents is the responsibility of the beneficial cargo owner and enforced by Customs. Motor carriers play no role,” ATA stated.
The Port of Long Beach argued that the ATA made a procedural error in appealing the district court’s ruling to the 9th Circuit. ATA should have applied to the district court for an injunction pending appeal, the port stated. Long Beach also charged that ATA is exaggerating the financial harm that enforcement of the concession requirement will cause to its members.
The Port of Los Angeles maintains that, contrary to ATA’s claims, the California Highway Patrol does not have exclusive jurisdiction over motor carrier safety in the state. A port authority, like any property owner, can set requirements for motor carrier safety on its property, Los Angeles argued.
With the Oct. 1 deadline less than two weeks away, Curtis Whalen, executive director of ATA’s intermodal conference, said he believes the 9th Circuit will “act soon” in this case.
In related news, the National Industrial Transportation League on Thursday said in filings told the court that it supports the ATA's motion, and is seeking to participate in the case as a friend of the court to oppose the program.
In a Sept. 16 letter, the association argued that the truck plan would result in "substantial adverse consequences" for cargo owners, which comprise a large portion of its 700 members.
The League cited the ports' own analysis that found the trucks plan would increase rates by 80 percent in the Port of Los Angeles.
The association, based in Arlington, Va., also said that the lower court judge erred in applying the use of a "safety exception" to preempt the application of federal law. It said the concession programs deal extensively with economic regulation of truck practices which have "little or no bearing on operational safety."
In its filing for an amicus brief, the group said that while its interests are similar to ATA, "its members have a unique and distinct perspective as the majority of its members are comprised of shippers that own or control cargo moved by the truckers in the two ports."
September 18, 2008
By Bill Mongelluzzo
The JOURNAL of COMMERCE
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the American Trucking Associations Wednesday met the deadline set by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to file their arguments in the ports’ controversial clean-trucks program.
The ports, which intend to implement the clean-trucks concession plan on Oct. 1, emphasize the need to stick with that schedule in order to prevent trucks from presenting safety or security threats in the harbor.
The ATA, which is seeking a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the concession programs, argues that state and federal requirements already address motor carrier safety.
Also, pending federal government requirements for issuance of Transportation Worker Identification Credentials to truck drivers are intended to provide sufficient information about the drivers to screen out potential terrorist activities.
The ports on Oct. 1 intend to enforce their new requirement under the clean-trucks program that only licensed motor carriers with port-issued concession agreements be allowed to enter the harbor.
The ATA in August asked a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to issue a preliminary injunction against the concession requirement, charging that the concession is illegal and furthermore would prevent irreparable harm to its motor carrier members.
Judge Christina A. Snyder refused to issue the injunction. While her comments appeared to support ATA’s claims that the concession requirement is preempted by federal interstate commerce statute, she stated that delaying implementation of the concessions would result in threats involving truck safety and driver and cargo security.
The ATA is appealing that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. In addition to citing state and federal requirements involving safety and security, ATA argued that motor carriers do not have the information on the cargo contents of containers that the ports are requesting to screen out potential terrorist activities.
“Knowledge of container contents is the responsibility of the beneficial cargo owner and enforced by Customs. Motor carriers play no role,” ATA stated.
The Port of Long Beach argued that the ATA made a procedural error in appealing the district court’s ruling to the 9th Circuit. ATA should have applied to the district court for an injunction pending appeal, the port stated. Long Beach also charged that ATA is exaggerating the financial harm that enforcement of the concession requirement will cause to its members.
The Port of Los Angeles maintains that, contrary to ATA’s claims, the California Highway Patrol does not have exclusive jurisdiction over motor carrier safety in the state. A port authority, like any property owner, can set requirements for motor carrier safety on its property, Los Angeles argued.
With the Oct. 1 deadline less than two weeks away, Curtis Whalen, executive director of ATA’s intermodal conference, said he believes the 9th Circuit will “act soon” in this case.
In related news, the National Industrial Transportation League on Thursday said in filings told the court that it supports the ATA's motion, and is seeking to participate in the case as a friend of the court to oppose the program.
In a Sept. 16 letter, the association argued that the truck plan would result in "substantial adverse consequences" for cargo owners, which comprise a large portion of its 700 members.
The League cited the ports' own analysis that found the trucks plan would increase rates by 80 percent in the Port of Los Angeles.
The association, based in Arlington, Va., also said that the lower court judge erred in applying the use of a "safety exception" to preempt the application of federal law. It said the concession programs deal extensively with economic regulation of truck practices which have "little or no bearing on operational safety."
In its filing for an amicus brief, the group said that while its interests are similar to ATA, "its members have a unique and distinct perspective as the majority of its members are comprised of shippers that own or control cargo moved by the truckers in the two ports."