The Jersey City Independent"

The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will hear testimony Wednesday on Los Angeles’ Clean Truck Program as local Congressmen renew a call for federal legislation that would allow container ports to implement stronger environmental standards on trucks.

Environmental and labor advocates say the L.A. program could serve as a national model for reducing pollution at and around major ports while providing good jobs for truckers. But a trade group for trucking companies, the American Trucking Association (ATA), has sued the Los Angeles port, claiming federal preemption, and has succeeded thus far in getting a U.S. District Court to issue an injunction of several key program elements.

With that all in mind, 79 members of the House of Representatives, led by New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, sent a letter last week to the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee chairman saying that “federal law needs to be updated to ensure that ports can enact and enforce clean truck programs.” All eight of New Jersey’s Democratic Representatives, including the three that represent parts of Jersey City, signed the letter.

Specifically, the letter calls for a change in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), which allows state and local entities to regulate trucking companies only for “safety” related programs. This stipulation forms the backbone of the ATA’s legal claim of federal preemption in the L.A. case.

This D.C. action comes just two months after the Port Authority announced its intention to replace some of the heaviest truck polluters at area ports and completely phase out older trucks in the coming years. The Port Authority plan calls for financial incentives including small grants and low-interest loans to help truckers pay for upgrading their rigs.

But labor advocates say the Port Authority isn’t going far enough. They say the financial burden of greening the truck fleet should fall on the companies that employ the truckers, not the actual drivers, who are often employed as independent contractors. That’s a key aspect of the L.A. blueprint held up as a model; it’s also one of the provisions that has been stopped by litigation.

Under the L.A. plan, trucking firms would have to secure a five-year “concession,” which is effectively a permit to operate at the port and adhere to several regulations. One of stipulations mandates that companies have their shipments handled by employee drivers within five years. Another requirement for a firm to operate at the port is using a hiring program that gives preferential treatment to local drivers and those with previous service at the ports.

A U.S. District Court judge in California has halted several of these requirements, including the employee mandate and concessions fees, pending the outcome of a trial on the association’s lawsuit, which got underway last month. The port’s ban on certain diesel trucks and the collection of container fees was not affected.

Advocates say this is part of what is keeping the Port Authority and other ports from implementing full-scale reform — fear of legal retaliation from the trucking industry. And they say changing the law is one way to protect port agencies, like the Port Authority, who might have the best intentions but remain wary of federal legal issues.

“Local government, such as ports, need to be part of a layered approach to reduce air pollution in our cities and across the nation,” says Dave Foster, executive director of the umbrella group Blue Green Alliance. “Our coalition looks forward to working with Congress to advance legislation, which will reduce pollution, make our ports healthier communities and create green jobs.”

The hearing is Wednesday, May 5, at 11 am. You can watch it live here.