Clayton Boyce, American Trucking Associations vice president of public affairs, criticized officials of the City of Los Angeles, the Port of Los Angeles and the Natural Resources Defense Council for misleading the public and press
about the purpose and results of ATA's lawsuit against the Concession Plans of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
 
"These parties continue to mislead the citizens of Los Angeles and Long Beach by claiming that ATA is trying to kill the Ports' Clean Truck Program," Boyce said. "ATA has supported the Clean Truck Program, including the Ports container fee for financing the replacement of older trucks, the banning of older trucks and the Ports Drayage Registry, and continues to do so. ATA has opposed only the Ports' Concession Plans, especially the Los Angeles ban on independent owner-operators."
 
The deception goes beyond public relations "spin" and may have two purposes, Boyce said: to lower public expectations for the Ports' unsuccessful defense of the lawsuit; and to distract from the reason that Los Angeles, but not Long Beach, bowed to union influence and banned owner-operators. Requiring that drivers be trucking company employees will allow unions to organize the drivers. "In short, the public's health, safety and security are not at risk in the ATA litigation," Boyce said. "This litigation is about removing unconstitutional and illegal red tape, and about protecting the rights of the owners of small businesses that the Port of Los Angeles has trampled."
 
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District ruled unanimously on March 20 that all or part of the Concession Plans are an unconstitutional interference in interstate trade. "The judges' opinion made very clear that ATA does not oppose the environmental components of the Ports' regulations. The judges' opinion also pointedly criticized the Port of Los Angeles' owner-operator ban, which would rob thousands of small business owners of their livelihoods. Owner-operators are drivers who own or lease their own trucks. They are small business owners, and many small trucking businesses must contract with owner-operators to serve their customers," Boyce said.
 
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association President John R. McLaurin, in an article posted this week at www.foxandhoundsdaily.com and headlined "Being Wrong Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry," also criticized the Port. "Events leading up to the Ninth Circuit decision highlighted some of the worst and most vicious qualities about California's political process. The Court focused on the ports 'concession agreements' and did not address the environmental components of the program - something never challenged by the American Trucking Associations," McLaurin wrote. "Proponents of the (Clean) Truck Program vilified the ATA for filing their lawsuit - calling the action 'immoral'," he said. McLaurin also noted that ads in local newspapers attacked the Mayor of Long Beach, who refused to include the union-inspired ban on independent owner-operators in the Long Beach Concession Plan.
 
The Los Angeles Times reported last week that the owner-operator ban was "pushed aggressively by the Teamsters and by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. The measure was also backed by Change to Win, a Washington, D.C.-based labor coalition that contributed $500,000 to (Mayor) Villaraigosa's campaign" for a telephone users' tax, the Times said.
 
The ATA legal challenge to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles' Concession Plans does not and was never intended to affect the Ports' environmental, safety or security programs. ATA is not challenging the Ports' mandatory truck-retirement program that will result in vehicles with higher emission levels being phased out. ATA is not challenging the Drayage Truck Registry provisions, which will allow the Ports to monitor compliance with the retirement mandate and also support security goals. ATA supports the container fee, which will raise revenue to help more quickly replace older, higher-polluting trucks, Boyce explains.
 
The Court of Appeals understands that the ATA lawsuit was not about blocking environmental, safety or security efforts, Boyce says. After identifying requirements for "tracking driver information in the Drayage Truck Registry, ensuring compliance with state and federal safety standards, keeping driver records in the federal TWIC program, and ensuring compliance with state and federal security requirements," the court noted "ATA does not object to the purport of those elements."
 
Tuesday the attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) was quoted as saying that "it is possible the (Clean Truck) fees could be tossed out and that would 'kill' the program," according to The Cunningham Report newsletter. Last week, the NRDC claimed the Court of Appeals decision "places in jeopardy the clean air goals at the ports, as well as every port infrastructure expansion project that relies on clean trucks." Those claims aren't supported by the facts. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Geraldine Knatz have made similar incorrect claims, Boyce points out.
 
"These officials are not being intellectually honest but are manipulating public opinion," Boyce says. "Public health, safety, and security are not at issue in the ATA litigation. The case is about adding billions of dollars of unnecessary regulatory costs on an industry and economy that are already struggling."