JOC

The Port of Long Beach’s board of harbor commissioners has approved a $942 million budget for fiscal year 2013, up 12 percent compared to the fiscal year 2012 budget.

The budget increase reflects the Port of Long Beach’s rising investment in its facilities and infrastructure modernization, the port said in a written statement.

The new budget includes $720 million in capital spending, a 14 percent increase versus the same period last year. The capital investment gain comes mainly from two construction projects that have already begun at the port: the Middle Harbor Terminal Project and preliminary work for the replacement of the Gerald Desmond Bridge, the Port of Long Beach said.

The budget also includes $104 million for environmental infrastructure projects and other programs aimed at improving air and water quality and cleaning soil and undersea sediments.

Separately, the five-member board elected officers for new terms, including Susan E. Anderson Wise as president.

Wise was appointed to the commission in 2008. She will serve as chair of the commission, running board meetings and representing the port to the public and shipping industry.

Thomas Fields was also re-elected as vice president, and Nick Sramek was voted secretary. Commissioners Rich Dines and Doug Drummond will serve as vice secretaries.

All terms begin on July 1.

The American Trucking Associations has applauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to reject two concession requirements in the Port of Los Angeles’ clean-trucks program.

“We are gratified that, at the conclusion of many years of litigation, the highest court in the land unanimously agreed with ATA on these rules,” said Bill Graves, ATA president and CEO, in a written statement. “Our position has always been that the port’s attempt to regulate drayage operators — in ways that had nothing to do with its efforts to improve air quality at the port — was inconsistent with Congress’s command that the trucking industry be shaped by market forces, rather than an incompatible patchwork of state and local regulations.

“The decision is sure to send a signal to any other cities that may have been considering similar programs that would impermissibly regulate the port trucking industry,” he noted.

The nation’s highest court said the two concession requirements — that motor carriers display certain placards on their trucks, and that the companies have off-street parking plans for the trucks — violate federal pre-emption law.

The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday struck down two more concession requirements in the Port of Los Angeles clean-trucks program, further weakening the ability of a port to regulate harbor trucking for environmental or other goals.

The court ruled that the port’s requirement that harbor trucks display designated placards while in service in the harbor is a violation of federal pre-emption law. The court also ruled that the requirement that trucking companies develop off-street parking plans for their vehicles likewise violated federal law.

These decisions represent a partial victory for the American Trucking Associations, which initiated the lawsuit in an attempt to strike down all of the Port of Los Angeles requirements as a violation of federal law that stipulates only Congress can issue regulations affecting the rates, routes and services of motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce.

However, in a possible partial victory for the port, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether the penalty provisions in the port’s clean-trucks program pertaining to non-pre-empted provisions of federal law are in violation of federal law. Specifically, the court declined to deal with the financial capacity and truck maintenance requirements of the clean-trucks program.

The Port of Los Angeles, as part of its clean-trucks program to reduce harmful diesel emissions, had issued a number of concession requirements that harbor trucking companies must meet in order to carry containers to and from marine terminals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit had already struck down the main concession requirement, which was that harbor trucking companies must hire drivers as direct employees. If that requirement had stood, labor unions such as the Teamsters would have had an easier time organizing drivers.

Q: Can you tell me what’s going on about Mexican trucks being allowed to operate in the U.S.?

I read recently that a federal appeals court had approved the Department of Transportation’s decision to allow Mexican trucks to start operating on U.S. highways. Previously, I understand, Mexican trucks couldn’t cross the border into this country, and all international freight had to be transloaded at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Why has the DOT taken this radical step?

Furthermore, I understand the Mexican trucks don’t have to have the safety equipment U.S. trucks are required by law and regulation to have. The trucking industry and the Teamsters union keep saying this will hurt highway safety in the U.S. Won’t it do just that?

A: Think back 19 ½ years ago to when the North American Free Trade Agreement went into place.

Just to remind you, NAFTA is a trilateral treaty between the U.S., Canada and Mexico aimed at reducing trade barriers in North America. It eliminates or reduces tariff barriers and otherwise promotes commerce among the three signatories. And one of its provisions was to allow the trucking equipment of all three countries full access to the roads of the others.

The U.S.-Canada portion of this agreement has long since taken effect pretty seamlessly, as has a big chunk of the U.S.-Mexican portion. But the trucking operations segment has been stalled between the U.S. and Mexico for all these years. One presidential directive after the next has barred implementation, through three administrations in Washington.

Nominally, the big stumbling block has been highway safety. Mexican laws and regulations are considerably more lax than those in the U.S., and concern has been expressed that truckers from that country will compromise highway safety in the U.S. if they’re allowed to operate. Mexico, naturally, has fought back with its own prohibition against U.S. truckers operating there. So the traffic continues to be transloaded.

Now, there’s some validity to this argument, especially if smaller Mexican carriers — owner-operators and such — start coming across the border. But if you think that’s the main reason trucking interests and the Teamsters object, hey, I happen to own this great bridge in New York City that I’d love to sell you.

I won’t say that highway safety is a matter of complete indifference to truckers and Teamsters. Nobody wants accidents, liability problems and all that. But those are, logically, primarily economic reasons, which is scarcely surprising inasmuch as they’re the reasons of those whose interest in transportation operations is primarily economic. You and I may fret about highway safety on the ground that we and our families are driving on those highways, but carriers and truck drivers are a lot more concerned about the dollars and cents involved.

And it’s the dollars and cents of Mexican truckers being allowed to operate in U.S. that most concerns the trucking interests and Teamsters, and has been responsible for the nearly 20-year delay in implementing this provision of NAFTA. Mexico is a developing country with much lower wages and equipment standards, and so its carriers and drivers can compete in the