The settlement is based upon a motor carrier registration process, referred to as a Registration and Agreement, which will replace the Port's Concession Agreement.
Both the port and ATA emphasized that the new registration apparatus, which includes an agreement by carriers to provide the port necessary operating information, will allow the port to strictly oversee and enforce motor carrier compliance with federal, state, and port safety, security, and environmental regulations.
In particular, motor carriers registering to operate at the port must agree to enter all truck and driver information into the Port's Drayage Truck Registry and to equip each truck with a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag or other technological device to allow the port to monitor and control truck entry to port facilities.
Motor carriers must also certify, among other things, that any truck dispatched to the port will comply with all federal, state, and port safety, security and environmental regulations -- including the port's Clean Trucks Program. Similarly, motor carriers will acknowledge responsibility for ensuring that all drivers dispatched to the port possess a valid commercial drivers' license and a Transportation Worker Identification Card.
The Registration further acknowledges the right of the port to deny entry to any truck or driver that does not meet these regulatory requirements.
The Registration and Agreement also contains a carrier's acknowledgement that its trucks are subject to inspections while on port property to ensure safety, security, and environmental compliance. It also authorizes the port to gain access to the Intermodal Association of North America's virtually real-time database to ensure that motor carriers have appropriate insurance coverage.
ATA President and CEO Bill Graves expressed satisfaction that ATA and the port could reach an agreement. "We have always strongly supported the environmental objectives of the port and supports strict compliance with and adherence to all safety and security laws and regulations," said Graves. "We never disagreed with their objectives, only with certain provisions of the Concession Agreements which we believed were unnecessary for the accomplishment of those objectives."