BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 600
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 600 (Bonta) - As Amended: March 19, 2013
SUBJECT : Intermodal marine terminals: truck equipment moves
SUMMARY : Restricts an intermodal equipment provider from
unilaterally requiring a motor carrier to return intermodal
equipment to satellite locations unless the requirement is
specified in a written bilateral agreement. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Changes the term "intermodal marine equipment provider" to
"intermodal equipment provider" and defines the new term to
mean "any party authorizing delivery or receipt of physical
possession of equipment with a motor carrier (trucker)
commonly used in the road transport of intermodal freight,
including, but not limited to, trailers, chassis, containers,
and associated devices, but excluding, tractors. This
definition applies to all intermodal equipment providers,
regardless of whether the party participates in the Uniform
Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement."
2)Modifies the circumstances under which an intermodal equipment
provider or an intermodal marine terminal operator is
prohibited from imposing per diem, detention, or demurrage
charges.
3)Extends restrictions placed upon intermodal equipment
providers from unilaterally terminating, suspending, or
restricting the equipment moves of a trucker after a challenge
by a trucker is resolved in the trucker's favor.
4)Requires a trucker to return intermodal equipment to locations
other than where the equipment was received unless the
intermodal equipment provider directs, with reasonable advance
notice, the equipment to be returned to a satellite location
as governed by a bilateral agreement.
5)Prohibits an intermodal equipment provider from unilaterally
requiring a motor carrier to return intermodal equipment to
satellite locations through notifications not specified in the
written bilateral agreement between the intermodal equipment
AB 600
Page 2
provider and the motor carrier.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits, under certain circumstances, marine terminals from
imposing charges on a truck operator for return of equipment
late.
2)Under federal law, pursuant to the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (F4A), basically
prohibits any state from enacting a law relating to rates,
routes, or services of any intermodal all-cargo air carrier
when it is transporting property, pieces, parcels, or packages
between states or within a state by aircraft or motor vehicle
(whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or
subsequent air movement).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : California's intermodal container port facilities
serve as the gateway for international commerce and generate
significant stimuli to the California economy. International
trade is a major force in California's economy, currently
accounting for nearly 25% of the state's economy. With major
port facilities in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas,
California is a major gateway for products entering and leaving
the United States. Many goods moving through California ports,
such as industrial and postconsumer secondary materials,
originated in other states. According to the California Marine
and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council, more than
40% of the total containerized cargo entering the United States,
arrived at California ports; and almost 30% of the nation's
exports flowed through ports in the Golden State.
Most of these goods and material are transported by cargo
containers carried on truck vehicles. Marine terminal operators
at the state's seaports provide these containers under
contractual agreements to truck operators and the goods or
containerized material is then transported from the ports to
warehouses, retail establishments, manufacturing facilities, and
railyards. Accordingly, the movement of freight involves
multiple modes of transit: truck, ship and rail. During a
single move, a container may be handled by all three modes.
Currently, interchange agreements establish the commercial terms
by which intermodal equipment, including trailers, chassis,
AB 600
Page 3
containers and associated devices, changes hands and is returned
to the equipment provider. A motor carrier (trucker) is
typically required to return intermodal equipment to the
location it was originally received. However, an equipment
provider may redirect the return of equipment to another
"satellite location" within the same commercial territory by
either: 1) a written bilateral agreement; or 2) unilaterally by
providing notification via internet posting, e-mail, or shipping
order.
This bill is intended to clarify the rights of intermodal motor
carriers and truck drivers regarding the pick-up and delivery of
intermodal equipment and would prohibit the imposition upon
truckers of equipment diversions to satellite locations by an
intermodal equipment provider. Further, the bill is intended to
establish certain protections and prohibit marine terminals from
penalizing or imposing certain charges on truck operators
related to the transportation of goods from the state's seaports
and the delayed return of empty cargo containers.
Back at the table : SB 45 (Alarcón), Chapter 244, Statutes of
2005, established state law prohibiting certain "late charges"
from being assessed to motor carriers due to events not within
their control which prevent them from returning equipment to
intermodal marine terminals. The author contends that state
intervention is again required indicating that "the intermodal
motor carriers and truck drivers operating at the Ports of Long
Beach, Los Angeles, and Oakland have reported an increasing
number of incidents where intermodal equipment providers have
directed the diversion of equipment to locations far from the
port property and unilaterally set compensation rates that may
be insufficient to even cover basic vehicle operating costs.
With satellite locations potentially miles away from the port
property, the repositioning of intermodal equipment can impose
significant costs on port truck drivers and severely impact the
opportunity of port truck drivers to make additional turns, or
trips to the port."
Opposition : Writing in opposition to this bill, organizations
representing the shippers and marine terminal operators contend
that the federal law (F4A) establishes uniform regulations for
the truckers so that individual states and local governments do
not create their own rules, resulting in a patchwork, regulatory
framework leading to inefficient commerce at the interstate,
intrastate, and international levels. They believe that AB 600
AB 600
Page 4
violates the restrictions of F4A.
They further contend that the pick-up and return locations for
the equipment are generally well established and known by all
parties prior to commencement of the move. They argue that, in
some cases, the return location must be changed to ensure the
proper inventory balance of the equipment. Such circumstances
are addressed in the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and
Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA), a national compact that sets
forth the terms and conditions for the transfer and operation of
equipment under interchange between ocean and rail carriers and
motor carriers.
The Pacific Marine Shipping Association indicates, although they
are opposed to the bill, that they are willing to work with the
author to develop acceptable language authorizing equipment
moves and returns relative to binding and non-binding
agreements. The author has agreed to not move the bill, without
consensus, to the Assembly Floor should it pass out of this
committee.
Related bills : AB 2058 (Pan) of 2012, would have required truck
insurance requirements to be posted by intermodal marine
terminal operators at the California ports. Although that bill
passed out of this committee, it was later amended in the Senate
to pertain to voter paid registrations.
SB 719 (Vargas) of 2011, would have required the California
Department of Motor Vehicles to adopt regulations pertaining to
trucker minimum insurance requirements. That bill was held in
the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
SB 45 (Alarcon) Chapter 244, Statutes of 2005, regulates
detention and per diem charges imposed by intermodal terminals
on intermodal equipment transported by motor carriers.
SB 348 (Alarcon), of 2003, would have prohibited, under certain
circumstances, charges imposed by marine terminals on truck
operators for the late return of specified equipment. That bill
was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger stating that the fees
charged to truckers deserve a full airing through the
legislative process.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 600
Page 5
Support
California Trucking Association (sponsor)
Atlas Marine, Inc.
California Cartage Company, LLC
California Intermodal Associates
California Multimodal, Inc.
California Trucking Association
Charles Diaz Trucking, Inc./Four Seasons Logistics
Commercial Carriers Insurance Agency, Inc.
CTP Transport, Inc.
Desert Express
Devine Intermodal
Duncan and Son Lines, Inc.
Faulkner Trucking, Inc.
Fox Transportation, Inc.
G S C Logistics
Golden State Express
Harbor Division, Inc.
Impact Transportation LLC
Kamal Trucking Corporation
K.K.W. Trucking, Inc.
Lengner & Sons Express
Mutual Express
National Distribution Center LP
O T D Logistics, Inc.
Osterkamp Trucking, Inc.
Pacific Coast Truck & Whse
Phase II Transportation, Inc.
Progressive Transportation Services, Inc.
R F T Express, Inc.
Roadstar Trucking, Inc.
Rocha Transportation
Rodgers Trucking Company
Sacre & Son, Inc.
Southern Counties Express, Inc.
Southwest Truck Service
Three Rivers Trucking, Inc.
United Drayage Company
VPL, Inc.
Yamko Truck Lines
Yandell Truckaway, Inc.
Opposition
AB 600
Page 6
APL Limited
COSCO Container Lines Americas
Hapag-Lloyd
Hamburg Sud
Maersk Line
Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association
Pacific Marine Shipping Association
The California Railroad Industry
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093