First Name | Shane |
---|---|
Last Name | Gusman |
Email Address | gusman@bglaw.org |
Affiliation | Broad & Gusman LLP |
Subject | Teamster Comments |
Comment | 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 |
Attachment | www.arb.ca.gov/lists/drayage07/45-carb_port_rule_10-11-07_draft1.doc |
Original File Name | CARB PORT RULE 10-11-07 DRAFT1.doc |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2007-12-05 11:49:31 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.