Comment Log Display

December 5, 2007

Chairwoman Mary Nichols and Board Members
California Air Resources Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: “Port Truck” Regulatory Proposal

Dear Chairwoman Nichols and Members of the Board:

I am writing on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs
Council to express our general support for the proposal and to
urge you to make some technical changes to the proposed regulatory
language that will ensure that it has the best chance to be
effective. Our comments are based on our long history in the
industry and our knowledge of how drayage services are operated in
and around the ports and rail facilities.  

The Teamsters have long been concerned about the air quality
impacts of the trucks servicing our ports, both for the
neighboring communities and the drivers themselves.  As such we
applaud the Board for tackling this important issue.  Our comments
on the draft regulation itself focus on enforcement and
workability.  We have submitted specific amendments to staff and
they are attached here as well.

The thrust of the suggested amendments is to ensure that the motor
carrier is responsible for compliance regardless of the business
model it utilizes.  In other words, regardless of whether the
motor carrier drayage port truck drivers as employees or
independent contractors, the motor carrier must be held
responsible for compliance with this regulation.  This is true for
other areas of the law governing motor carriers, such as safety of
operations, and it must be the standard here.  Unfortunately, the
current draft doesn’t sufficiently cover this concept.  Our draft
amendments to the definitions of “motor carrier” and “drayage
truck driver” as well as other suggested changes attached hereto
are designed to better ensure that the motor carrier is ultimately
responsible.

Our suggested amendments are also designed to make certain that
rule covers all drayage trucks entering the ports and to ensure
effective enforcement.  For instance, we believe that the
definition of “drayage truck” should include lighter trucks than
those currently listed.  Additionally, we believe that the rule
should specify that only motor carriers in compliance with the
rule should be permitted to be hired for drayage services and only
drayage trucks that are in compliance with the rule should be able
to enter ports or rail facilities for drayage services.  

On behalf of the Teamsters, I respectfully urge you to adopt the
suggested changes to the regulatory language.  Thank you for your
consideration of these very important issues.

Sincerely,


Shane A. Gusman