enroute NATIONAL MOTOR FREIGHT
damage on an already overburdened highway system, and create
safety problems as drivers struggle
with rigs and trailers that are more
challenging to operate.
ATA spokesman Clayton Boyce
reiterated the group’s position that
longer and heavier truck-trailer
combinations would make trucking
operations more efficient and productive, thus reducing fuel usage and
benefiting the environment. By
removing thousands of trucks from
the road, the industry would save
more than 20 billion gallons of diesel
fuel over 10 years and cut carbon
emissions by more than 227 million
tons over that time, ATA says.
Boyce said the equipment’s use
would be consistent with accepted
highway and bridge design and
meet the most stringent safety standards. He rejected as “specious”
OOIDA’s opposition to a nationwide speed limit and speed limiter
setting, saying “speed limiting saves
fuel no matter who is driving. It
doesn’t matter who the company is
or who is behind the wheel.”
You say yes, I say no
The fight over speed limits and bigger equipment represents just one
area of disagreement between the
two groups. There are plenty of others as well. For example, ATA backs
a DOT proposal that requires truckers to equip their vehicles with electronic recorders if they are found to
have a 10 percent or higher violation rate of the hours-of-service
rule during each of two government
compliance reviews conducted over
two years. By contrast, OOIDA
opposes the use of electronic
recorders of any type to replace
paper logs. The National
Transportation Safety Board, for its
part, believes on-board recorders
should be mandated for the entire
industry. (The DOT is expected to publish
a rule on the issue by mid-year.)
In California, the ATA is aggressively
fighting a plan by the Port of Los Angeles to
phase out, over the next five years, owner-operators who provide drayage service at
the port’s terminals, shuttling goods
between ports, intermodal rail ramps, and
shipping docks. The port’s so-called Clean
Truck program requires a phased-in implementation of new or retrofitted low-emission tractors by Jan. 1, 2012, and mandates
that by that time, all drivers be employees
of port-approved carriers that own the
tractors. The plan’s critics argue it will force
owner-operators and smaller truckers away
from the port and create an acute shortage
of draymen because most can ill afford to
buy new tractors or retrofit existing ones.
ATA won a major victory March 20 when
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit struck down the port’s requirement
that harbor truckers replace by year’s end
20 percent of their owner-operators with
employee drivers. The appellate court ruled
the port’s policy represented state or local
regulation of interstate trucking and violated federal law. It remanded the case to the
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles “for an
appropriate preliminary injunction.” ATA
said in a statement that it was “extremely
pleased” with the ruling.
OOIDA, which has remained silent on
the issue even though owner-operators
would be most affected by the port policy,
was unavailable for comment when DC
VELOCITY went to press. But in comments
made several weeks prior to the March 20
ruling, Spencer said the ATA’s arguments
were trumped by the imperative of having
a workable drayage model that is in compliance with clean air laws. “What ATA is
doing is seeking to maintain the status quo,
and that dog don’t hunt,” he said. OOIDA
does not represent truckers who perform
drayage at the nation’s ports, although its
membership includes truckers who operate
to and from ports throughout the country,
including Los Angeles.
ATA and OOIDA have also been at odds
over an initiative to allow Mexico-based
truckers to operate in U.S. commerce
beyond designated border commercial
zones. OOIDA bitterly opposed the initiative, saying such a move would potentially
