Despite the fast-approaching October start date for a massive truck replacement program at the local ports, motor carriers are largely sitting idle, making it unlikely that it can be smoothly implemented in the coming months.

Los Angeles and Long Beach port officials have worked for more than a year on a clean-air initiative that will reduce emissions by funding the replacement of about 16,000 short-haul diesel trucks in San Pedro Bay. But with just a few months left before the ports will require motor carriers to scrap their oldest rigs, few local trucking companies have begun making plans to turn over their fleets, despite the fact that new trucks often take months to procure.

While some trucking executives cite a general confusion about the program for their lack of movement, many others are expecting a possible lawsuit by the American Trucking Association, an industry trade group, to mire the ports in a legal battle that could derail the program for months, or even years.

“I don’t know of anybody that’s gone out and started gearing up with employee drivers or even company trucks for that matter,” said Brian Griley, president of Southern Counties Express Inc., a Rancho Dominguez-based motor carrier with about 160 trucks in its fleet. “We’re banking on the American Trucking Association being successful in their lawsuit.”

The most controversial provision in the clean-air plan has been adopted only by the Los Angeles port; it will force trucking companies to end the practice of contracting with independent drivers and instead hire employees to operate company trucks.

However, the trucking industry also is opposed to a more basic element in both plans: concession agreements that the ports concede will have the effect of reducing the number of motor carriers that can service the ports. Motor carriers will likely have to open up their books to show they are financially sound, and possibly even get port approval for a change of ownership.

Through the program, the ports will subsidize the replacement of standard diesel trucks with a combination of cleaner-burning diesel models and alternative fuel vehicles, which can cost well over $100,000.

All in all, the agreements would mark a big shift for an industry that has operated freely for decades. Motor carriers and drivers merely had to meet minimum state licensing standards.

While officials at both ports are dismissing concerns the program could cause delays in moving both inbound freight and a growing number of exports driven by the cheap dollar, outside experts are not so certain.

A lawsuit could delay key elements of the program, and if a lawsuit does not materialize or is quickly dismissed, many motor carriers would be unprepared when the program begins.

“It’s definitely a recipe for disaster,” said Kristen Monaco, a trucking expert and professor at California State University Long Beach. “Everyone’s anticipating that the lawsuit will hold everything up for a while. If there’s no lawsuit I think everyone will be shocked and a little unprepared.”

Ports confident

The port complex, which handles about 15 million cargo containers annually and serves as a gateway for nearly half of the country’s imports, is one of the worst polluters in Southern California. The $2.2 billion truck program will put new clean-diesel and alternative fuel rigs on the road, potentially reducing truck emissions by 80 percent.

From the outset, though, trucking companies have been worried about the program’s costs and disruption to the established way of doing business. As the start date draws near, there is increasing anxiety about a possible truck shortage if companies are not prepared or drivers abandon the industry.

Officials at the sister ports, however, said they aren’t worried.

For starters, the program is phased and in the beginning only trucks made prior to 1989 a small fraction of the trucks that serve the ports will be restricted from the harbor.

What’s more, officials believe the goods may be able to be moved with fewer than 16,000 rigs, which would help the industry absorb some truck losses. That’s especially likely given the recent slowdown in imports as the economy has cooled.

“We’re confident the companies are going to come in and bring the number of trucks we need,” said John Holmes, director of operations at the Los Angeles port.

An official at the Long Beach port said the relative sluggishness at which things are moving “is a concern,” but he, too, believes enough companies will be ready in time.

“We are hopeful that (registration) can go relatively quickly,” said Art Wong, the port’s assistant director of communications.

Of course, the biggest unknown is what form any legal action will take, and if it is forthcoming, which port will it target and how successful it may be.

The Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners recently approved the final parameters of its controversial employee driver provision.

Starting Jan. 1, motor carriers operating at the Port of Los Angeles will be required to use employee drivers to transport at least 20 percent of the cargo containers it hauls to and from the port, known as gate moves. That requirement jumps to 66 percent of gate moves the following year and so on until all of the company’s drivers are employees in 2013.

The provision has been opposed by most motor carriers that say it will open the door for unions to organize drivers, pushing up costs and hampering efficiency. Long Beach officials did not include the requirement in its plan, but the Port of Los Angeles adopted the provision, which has the strong backing of labor and environmental groups, as well as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a former union organizer.

L.A.’s insistence on the employee driver requirement has fostered speculation that the American Trucking Association will direct its lawsuit at the Los Angeles port while leaving the Long Beach port alone.

But Curtis Whalen, an executive with the American Trucking Association, said any lawsuit hinges on the concession agreements each port will put forth, and both ports could be targeted.

The trade group believes the concessions will likely prevent many legitimate companies from doing business both through financial soundness requirements and a believed desire by the ports to limit the number of approved motor carriers so enforcing the regulations will be easier.

“They are trying to command and control our industry in a deregulated fashion, which we don’t believe is lawful,” said Whalen, who said the suit will likely be filed in June after both ports have released their final concession agreements.

Many motor carriers surveyed by the Business Journal expressed similar misgivings about the anticipated requirements.

“There are provisions of these agreements that we will certainly have problems with and will likely restrict interstate commerce,” said Randall Clifford, chairman of Ventura Transfer Co., a Long Beach-based motor carrier with about 30 trucks in its fleet.

Clifford said depending on the requirements, he may pull out of port trucking altogether and instead focus on other Southland trucking business.

Monaco, the Cal State Long Beach professor, said that while it’s uncertain how successful any lawsuit would be, the trucking industry is raising legitimate issues and there’s a good chance they wouldn’t be resolved without a protracted legal battle.

“Both sides have lawyers and both sides think their lawyers are correct,” she said.