Post by HardTimeTrucker on Dec 18, 2008 0:18:30 GMT -5
The JOURNAL of COMMERCE
FMC Request Will Delay Ports' Clean-Trucks Fee to 2009
December 17, 2008
By Bill Mongelluzzo
LONG BEACH, Calif. -- The Federal Maritime Commission on Wednesday asked the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to provide additional information on the impact of their proposed clean-truck fees, in effect delaying collection of the fees until at least late January.
This is the latest skirmish in what has become a battle between the nation’s two largest container ports and the federal agency that regulates the maritime industry. Los Angeles and Long Beach maintain that the commission has no jurisdiction over their clean-trucks program.
The fees are a cornerstone of the ports’ clean-trucks program, which is designed to reduce truck pollution by 80 percent over the next five years.
The ports intend to charge a $35 per-TEU fee on most truck traffic and will use the revenues to subsidize the purchase by motor carriers of new trucks meeting the ports’ strict emission standards. New clean-running diesel trucks cost about $100,000 each and many trucking companies and owner-operators cannot afford such costs because of the thin margins on which they operate.
The FMC has questioned certain provisions in the clean-trucks programs, especially a requirement by the Port of Los Angeles that motor carriers phase out owner-operators and begin to serve the harbor with their own trucks and employee drivers.
The ports, which are implementing portions of their clean-truck programs under anti-trust immunity granted by the FMC, filed a Port Fee Services Agreement with the commission. The FMC earlier this fall requested additional information on the fee collection, indicating that certain provisions could be discriminatory and could reduce truck competition in the harbor.
Under the Shipping Act of 1984, the FMC must take action within 45 days of receiving the information it requested. During that period, the ports are prohibited from implementing the policy in question.
In this case, the ports had intended to begin collecting the clean-truck fee in October, but put the collection on hold during the 45-day waiting period that was set to end on Dec. 18.
By asking for more information, the FMC is delaying the fee collection into next year.
“The commission’s request for additional information delays the effectiveness of the Port Fee Services Agreement until 45 days after the parties have submitted the requested information and documents,” the FMC stated in a release posted on its Web site.
“Accordingly, as the Port Fee Services Agreement is not yet effective, the Shipping Act prohibits the parties from implementing any program pursuant to the authorities contained in the agreement,” the commission stated.
The ports did not have an immediate response to the FMC action, although it is apparent that the delays are proving to be costly. The ports are foregoing hundreds of thousands of dollars each day the fee collection is delayed.
FMC Request Will Delay Ports' Clean-Trucks Fee to 2009
December 17, 2008
By Bill Mongelluzzo
LONG BEACH, Calif. -- The Federal Maritime Commission on Wednesday asked the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to provide additional information on the impact of their proposed clean-truck fees, in effect delaying collection of the fees until at least late January.
This is the latest skirmish in what has become a battle between the nation’s two largest container ports and the federal agency that regulates the maritime industry. Los Angeles and Long Beach maintain that the commission has no jurisdiction over their clean-trucks program.
The fees are a cornerstone of the ports’ clean-trucks program, which is designed to reduce truck pollution by 80 percent over the next five years.
The ports intend to charge a $35 per-TEU fee on most truck traffic and will use the revenues to subsidize the purchase by motor carriers of new trucks meeting the ports’ strict emission standards. New clean-running diesel trucks cost about $100,000 each and many trucking companies and owner-operators cannot afford such costs because of the thin margins on which they operate.
The FMC has questioned certain provisions in the clean-trucks programs, especially a requirement by the Port of Los Angeles that motor carriers phase out owner-operators and begin to serve the harbor with their own trucks and employee drivers.
The ports, which are implementing portions of their clean-truck programs under anti-trust immunity granted by the FMC, filed a Port Fee Services Agreement with the commission. The FMC earlier this fall requested additional information on the fee collection, indicating that certain provisions could be discriminatory and could reduce truck competition in the harbor.
Under the Shipping Act of 1984, the FMC must take action within 45 days of receiving the information it requested. During that period, the ports are prohibited from implementing the policy in question.
In this case, the ports had intended to begin collecting the clean-truck fee in October, but put the collection on hold during the 45-day waiting period that was set to end on Dec. 18.
By asking for more information, the FMC is delaying the fee collection into next year.
“The commission’s request for additional information delays the effectiveness of the Port Fee Services Agreement until 45 days after the parties have submitted the requested information and documents,” the FMC stated in a release posted on its Web site.
“Accordingly, as the Port Fee Services Agreement is not yet effective, the Shipping Act prohibits the parties from implementing any program pursuant to the authorities contained in the agreement,” the commission stated.
The ports did not have an immediate response to the FMC action, although it is apparent that the delays are proving to be costly. The ports are foregoing hundreds of thousands of dollars each day the fee collection is delayed.