Thursday, April 1, 2010

House Panel to Discuss Changes to Trucking Deregulation Language

The House of Representatives Transportation Subcommittee on Highways and Transit has set May 5 as the date for a hearing to discuss possible changes to a key portion of federal trucking deregulation legislation.

The panel plans to take testimony from proponents and opponents of language in the Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1994, or F4A, that grants federal supremacy on the regulation of "routes, rates, and service" related to interstate trucking and commerce.

Officials from the ports of Los Angeles, New York/New Jersey and Oakland have joined with a group of elected officials, labor organizations, and environmental groups to demand changes to the F4A language that would provide local government authorities with the power to set trucking and commerce regulations.

Opponents, including the trade group representing leaders of the rest of the nation's ports, argue that the changes would create a patchwork of local regulations like that that existed before trucking deregulation.

The challenge to the existing language of the F4A began with Los Angeles officials after the port lost a court injunction battle with the American Trucking Associations over the port's Clean Truck Program. The court, in granting the injunction against portions of the port's truck plan – including a requirement that all port drayage drivers be per-hour employees – cited language from the F4A that states that federal law preempts local law in the case of interstate commerce. The port and the ATA head back to court to argue the entire case on April 20.

Proponents of the F4A language change are pleading their case directly to the chair of the House panel, Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., and asking Oberstar to insert the change into a multi-year "must pass" surface transportation bill currently working through the House. This would eliminate the more difficult task of changing the F4A directly.

Oberstar has yet to weigh in publicly on the proposed F4A changes.

Grand Alliance, Maersk Boost Transpac Capacity

The Grand Alliance and shipping line Maersk have announced they will add at least six additional vessels to their transpacific routes over the next two months, boosting the total per-steaming transpacific capacity by more than 32,000 TEUs.

The moves, along with additional indicators such as three months of across the board cargo volume growth at most United States West Coast ports, have lent credence to the argument that the transpacific lanes are beginning to recover from the global economic meltdown.

Last week, Grand Alliance partners Hapag-Lloyd, Nippon Yusen Kaisha and Orient Overseas Container Line announced that starting in May they will add a direct call at the deepwater Vietnamese port of Cai Mep to their South China Sea Japan Express, or SCX, service. This will boost the service to eight 6,000 TEU vessels.

The eastbound SCX service port rotation will be: Cai Mep, Vietnam; Laem Chabang, Thailand; Singapore; Kobe; Nagoya; Tokyo; Sendai; and Los Angeles. The westbound rotation will be Oakland; Tokyo; Nagoya; Kobe; Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Shekou, China; and, Cai Mep.

Grand Alliance members Hapag-Lloyd, NYK and OOCL announced this week that they will revert their CCX service, which had been turned into an inter-Asia loop as part of the Alliance's winter program, back into a transpacific service.

Since December the CCX service's single 4,600-TEU vessel has been confined to inter-Asia service at five Asian ports. Starting May 4, the service will expand to a transpacific rotation utilizing five 6,000-TEU vessels. Along with Grand Alliance members, APL will also utilize slots on the service.

The eastbound CCX rotation will be: Qingdao; Ningbo; Shanghai; Busan; and, Los Angeles. The westbound rotation will be: Oakland; Busan; Qingdao; Ningbo; and, Shanghai.

Ocean carrier Maersk also announced this week that it will add the Vietnamese port of Cai Mep as an additional call on its TP6 eastbound service rotation and begin using at least one 9,000-TEU vessel as part of the 14 vessel fleet allotted to the service.

The reconfigured TP6 eastbound service, utilizing a slow-steaming schedule, will increase from a 16-day whole rotation transit to 22 days. The TP6 westbound rotation, also utilizing a slow-steaming schedule, will tighten from a 28-day full transit to a 25-day full transit.

The TP6 eastbound rotation will include: Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia; Cai Mep, Vietnam; Yantian, China; Hong Kong; and, Los Angeles. The TP6 westbound service will include: Los Angeles; Yokohama; Nagoya; Shanghai; Ningbo; Xiamen; Hong Kong; Yantian; and, Tanjung Pelepas.

On the TP6 westbound rotation, Vietnam will be served via feeder service following transshipment at Hong Kong.

SoCal Ports' Meeting Cautiously Optimistic About Cargo Recovery

The Port of Long Beach's annual "Pulse of the Ports" event Wednesday offered two predominant points of view: those that see the recent three-month uptick in Southern California port cargo traffic as short term inventory-filling increases and those that believe the increases are signaling a more permanent long-term cargo volume recovery.

Both camps, however, agreed that growth of any kind is good news after suffering through 2009 – a year many are calling the worst in the shipping industry since the advent of containerization.

Joseph Magaddino, chair of the Department of Economics at California State University, Long Beach told the more than 500 attendees that, “While the recession is over, the recovery remains weak.”

One of seven panelists to address the crowd, Magaddino said that the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles might see some growth in 2010, it will not be enough to counter the number of jobs lost in the sector since the global economic collapse began in late-2007. Magaddino, who said there are more than 300,000 logistics sector employees in the region, pegged the sector job losses at 50,000.

Port of Long Beach Executive Director Richard Steinke pointed out that history has proven that the shipping industry always rebounds and that port officials are "cautiously optimistic about an upward trend.”

"By a lot of estimates, about $20 billion was lost by the ocean carriers," said Steinke, "so as you move to 2010, people are replenishing inventories. Our last three months of volumes at the Port of Long Beach have been up, so there’s a little bit of optimism." He predicted modest growth for the port in 2010.

Speaker Fred Malesa, vice president for international intermodal for BNSF, also saw the recent upturn in volumes as a good sign.

"The prognosis for the patient – the trade sectors – looks pretty good," Malesa said. "It's heading in the right direction. 'Cautious optimism' is a fair description of where we are."

However, panelist Wolfgang Freese, president of Hapag-Lloyd (America), pointed out that the shipping industry is concerned that the three-month uptick is merely a short-term increase as warehouses replenish depleted stocks.

And while praising the advantages of Long Beach/Los Angeles and other West Coast ports, Freese said that cheaper alternatives are available and could mean greater market share loss, especially in Southern California, if expenses passed along by the ports are not addressed.

More encouraging were reports by Peter Peyton, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 63, showing that dockers in Southern California are being assigned more work. Peyton said that union casuals, typically the last to receive assignments in the union hierarchy, are now receiving three to four days a week of work – up from two to three days a week at the same time last year.

Peyton's on-the-ground statements were backed up by Frank Capo, vice president of customer service and sales for Total Terminal International who said that vessel volumes in Southern California were increasing, albeit modestly. Last week, the Southern California Marine Exchange, which serves as the air traffic controller for the Southern California ports, also confirmed that vessel calls were up slightly over last year, including calls by container vessels.

Overseas Group and Global Express Services Announce Merger

Two self-described "mid-major" freight forwarders, Overseas Group and Global Express Services, have announced a merger of the two firms.

Commemorated at a signing ceremony in Hong Kong nearly two weeks ago, the two privately held firms publicly announced the merger Tuesday.

Freight forwarder Overseas Group is unrelated to international bulk carrier Overseas Shipholding Group, more commonly known as OSG.

Following the merger transition, both firms will maintain their individual management teams, while Globe Express Chairman and CEO Ziad Korban will serve as the merged firm's CEO and Global Express President-The Americas will retain his title on the merged firm's executive team.

The names of other members of the merged firm's executive team were not released.

Gilbert Khoury, President of Overseas Group, said, “very little overlap exists within our companies, each with its own unique areas of expertise both in terms of business segments and trade lanes served, along with geographic presence. Leveraging these non-competing strengths will enable the combined company to rapidly build size and scale, expand its corporate network and thus better serve its clients.”

Overseas Group has focused primarily on American exports to Europe and the Middle East, while Globe Express has focused primarily on Asian imports to the United States.

The newly merged firm is currently working to streamline back office operations, develop a mutual corporate identity, and maintain consistency in service during the merger.

Financial terms of the deal were not released, and based on statements issued by Global Express, it is unclear if the merged firm will eventually operate under a new name.

Fidley Watch: Foreign Aid

In May of last year, the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the awarding of a contract to build the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV), a 242-foot research ship designed to operate in seasonal Arctic sea ice and open waters surrounding Alaska.

The Foundation touted the project, funded by NSF through the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), as its first major award under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which, the foundation website notes, “…is an unprecedented effort to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century.”

The vessel is to be built at an American shipyard in the Midwest, utilizing American labor, thereby stimulating the economy of that part of Wisconsin.

On the West Coast, Seattle’s Markey Machinery is interested in providing the package of winches and scientific handling systems for the vessel. Markey has manufactured and sold deck machinery for more than 100 years, and has been working on the NSF project since 2005, in close partnership with a Seattle-based Naval Architecture Firm.

Baline Dempke, president of Markey, believes the company was the front runner to win the order, worth more than $3 million, until last fall, when a foreign manufacturer “…waltzed in at the 11th hour and somehow convinced the shipyard to go with their equipment.”

In October of last year, Marinette asked Markey to consider submitting a revised (less expensive) bid, to which Markey agreed. Two days later, the shipyard changed its mind, telling Markey, “We have no issues with the current technical-commercial offer at this time.” Markey nevertheless submitted an unsolicited best-and-final reduced price offer.

Last month, Dempke received a letter from Marinette Marine, informing him that Marinette had removed Markey from the submittal to the client, selecting the foreign manufacturer “based on …considerable risk analysis.” Marinette assured Dempke that “MMC understands the importance of the American Reinvestment Recovery Act and has engaged in considerable review and dialog with our integrator and UAF on the topic of Buy American.”

While the foreign manufacturer who has been assigned the contract maintains an office and service facility in the United States, all of the company’s engineering and manufacturing is performed in Europe and Asia.

“I don’t mind losing orders on price,” says Dempke. “But in this specific instance, being funded by the US taxpayer, and seeing this money go to a foreign firm, is just beyond my comprehension.” This raises the question of whether there was ever the intention to use a US systems integrator for the Alaska Region Research Vessel. “I can’t help but feel that if the competition had been conducted in such a way that we had an equal opportunity at a best-and-final offer we may well have won the work based on price alone,” he says.

The damage doesn’t end there, Dempke notes. “The systems required for this project are developmental, meant to set the stage for systems to come. It would have been developmental for us, and also for the foreign manufacturer… so now in a way the American taxpayer is funding a foreign company’s research and development.”

Dempke has contacted his elected representatives, including Senators Murray and Cantwell, with no meaningful response.

“In the mid 1990’s Senator Cantwell used Markey Machinery’s vacated factory at 79 South Horton Street in Seattle as the backdrop for a news conference about the decline of manufacturing in America,” says Dempke, from his newly renovated 20,000 Square foot facility. “Markey Machinery is currently midway through a Lean Manufacturing process, which will be followed by the process necessary to become ISO-9001 Certified,” he says. “We are expanding and creating jobs during a time when nobody else is. We feel that this particular project could serve as the turning point for our future as suppliers to the Oceanographic market, and we believe that if we lose this work that we will suffer lasting negative effects to our basic business model and ability to provide jobs for American workers.”

Dempke says, “While Marinette’s inclusion of foreign deck-machinery may meet the contractual requirements of the ARRA, it most definitely must not meet the intent of the Act.” He notes that at least three other American companies could have been tasked with the Research and Development to create the systems for the project, and wonders why this group of American suppliers wasn’t part of a competitive group used to further American technology, while also achieving the lowest possible price? Of note is the fact that, as of January 1st, 2009, Marinette Marine has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Italian enterprise Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani S.p.A.

“Of at least four possible US suppliers of this equipment, only we were solicited to participate, says Dempke. “And then kicked to the curb.”

Chris Philips, Managing Editor

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

UN Adopts 200-Mile Clean-Fuel Zone Around US/Canada Coasts

The United Nation regulatory agency for international shipping has approved new rules that establish a 200-nautical-mile zone around United States and Canadian coasts as an area in which stringent international air pollution emission standards will apply for ocean-going vessels.

The International Maritime Organization, which sets rules for safety, security and environmental issues related to international shipping, adopted the new rules Friday in London.

The new rules amend current IMO regulations regarding vessel emissions and formally establish the 200-mile-out North American Emission Control Area in which emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter from ships will be subject to more stringent controls.

The control zones cover the entire Pacific Coast of the US and Canada from Cook Inlet in Alaska to the Mexican border, the entire US Gulf Coast, and the East Coast of both countries up to northern tip of Labrador in Canada. Also covered under the new rules are the eight major Hawaiian Islands and some French territories off the eastern coast of Canada. Expansion to include all US territories, all Hawaiian islands and the West coast of Alaska may be proposed by the U.S government for consideration by the IMO in the future.

Under the new rules, ships traveling within the emission control areas face progressively more stringent emission thresholds between July of this year and 2015 for SOx and NOx.

Typical bunker fuel being used today by ocean-going vessels has a sulfur content of between 75,000 and 100,000 parts per million of sulfur. Under the new rules, vessels traveling within the 200-mile control area will have until July of this year to use fuel with no more than 15,000 parts per million. Sulfur content of fuel used in the control areas must be no greater than 10,000 parts per million by the end of the year and no more than 1,000 parts per million by 2015.

The new rules also require engine modifications to reduce NOx emission by up to 80 percent by 2016. Particulate matter emitted by vessels is expected to drop as the cleaner burning fuel and NOx control systems are implemented.

Despite emission standards under the rules that take effect this year, the IMO will not begin enforcing the control areas until August 2012.

The IMO rules, when fully implemented, will also supersede the current 24-mile clean-fuel zone around the state of California adopted last year by state lawmakers.

Key Cargo Industries Spent $165M to Lobby Feds In 2009

The four main sectors of supply chain transportation – air, rail, sea and truck – spent a total of $165 million on lobbying the federal government in 2009, according to disclosure records just released from the federal government. The four transportation sectors, comprised of 471 client companies or trade groups, used the lobbying funds to hire 1,687 lobbyists in 2009.

By comparison, only three industries spent more on lobbying the federal government last year: the pharmaceutical/health product industry spent $264 million, the business association industry spent $183 million (with $144 million spent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), and the oil/gas industry, which spent $168 million in 2009.

The air transport sector, with 195 clients, spent $85.3 million on 747 lobbyists in 2009. Fed-Ex and United Parcel were the two air sector companies with the largest lobbying bill, spending $16.3 million and $8.4 million, respectively, in 2009. The Air Transport Association of America was the highest spending air transport sector trade group, expending just under $5 million in 2009 on federal lobbying.

The rail sector, with 66 clients, paid out $46.5 million in 2009 to hire 343 lobbyists. Class I railroads Norfolk Southern, BNSF, and Union Pacific, were the top lobbying companies in the sector, spending $6.3 million, $6.2 million, and $5.6 million, respectively. The Association of American Railroads was the top lobbying trade group for the industry, spending $10.6 million in 2009.

The sea transport sector, with 181 clients, spent just over $24.7 million to hire 430 lobbyists during 2009. Overseas Shipping Group and AP Moller-Maersk were the top cargo shipping lines, spending $1.2 million and $610,000, respectively, during 2009 on federal lobbying. Unlike other industries, the sea transport sector utilizes trade groups for lobbying to a much greater extent. Five of the top ten spenders on federal lobbying in the sector are trade associations. The two leading trade groups for the sector were the Cruise Lines International Association and the American Association of Port Authorities, which spent $2.2 million and just under $1 million, respectively, on federal lobbying in 2009.

The trucking sector, with 29 clients, spent $8.7 million to hire 167 federal government lobbyists in 2009. Trucking firm Con-Way, Inc., was the top lobbying company in the sector, spending $850,000 during 2009. The American Trucking Associations and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association were the two leading trade groups in the sector, spending $1.8 million and just over $1 million, respectively, for lobbying in 2009.

Also included in the transportation sector were miscellaneous transportation groups, which spent $17.7 million in 2009. Transportation industry employee unions, not classified in the overall transportation sector, spent another $11.6 million last year to lobby federal lawmakers.

House Bill Seeks 21% Increase in Truck Max Highway Weight

A group of Congressional lawmakers is attempting to move legislation through Congress that would increase the federal maximum weight carried by freight trucks on interstate highways from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds, a more than 21 percent increase.

First introduced to the House in March 2009 by Maine Democrat Rep. Michael Michaud, the bill, H.R. 1799, was co-sponsored by 23 Democrats and 30 Republicans. The last action on the bill was March 30, 2009, when it was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for discussion.

Despite almost a year of inaction, supporters in the House are now looking at attaching the proposed legislation to other "must-pass" transportation funding legislation in an effort to force passage of the new weight limits.

The bill has also found support in the Senate from Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who has said he will take up the bill after the spring recess.

Supporters of the bill argue that heavier trucks would translate into fewer trucks on the highways and thereby reduce overall diesel pollution and traffic congestion.

Bill opponents point to the safety issues behind a 21 percent increase in truck weights. Heavier trucks take longer to accelerate from a stop, longer to reach passing speeds, and according to some opponents of the bill, present problems with stopping and maneuverability while on the highway. In addition, opponents say, heavier trucks would lead to more frequent and more costly increases in highway infrastructure maintenance.

Truck drivers, according to some trade groups, seem to be squarely lined up against the bill – mainly because the last increase in federal maximum weights never translated into higher per-load wages for drivers.

Commuters also appear to be against the bill. A recent American Automobile Association survey of 3,000 members found that 90 percent of respondents opposed permitting heavier trucks on the highways.

Grand Alliance Adds Vietnam Port, Additional Vessel to Trans-Pac Service

Grand Alliance partners Hapag-Lloyd, Nippon Yusen Kaisha and Orient Overseas Container Line announced last week that they will add a direct call at the deepwater Vietnamese port of Cai Mep to their South China Sea Japan Express, or SCX, service.

Expected to start in May, the SCX service port rotation will be: Cai Mep, Vietnam; Laem Chabang, Thailand; Singapore; Kobe; Nagoya; Tokyo; Sendai; Los Angeles; Oakland; Tokyo; Nagoya; Kobe; Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Shekou, China; Cai Mep.

The GA partners will ad an additional 6,000 TEU vessel to the SCX service, bringing the total deployment to eight 6,000 TEU vessels.

CORRECTION: NY/NJ Port Chief Joins Calls to Overturn Trucking Deregulation Law

FOR THE RECORD: In a March 16 article entitled NY/NJ Port Chief Joins Calls to Overturn Trucking Deregulation Law, PMM Online incorrectly compared gross wages for Long Beach and Los Angeles drayage drivers to net wages for New York/New Jersey port drivers. A 2009 Rutgers University study mentioned in the article found that average net income for NY/NJ drayage drivers was $28,000 per year. We should have stated that the two most widely cited studies of the LA/LB drayage drivers, conducted in 2004 and 2007 by Cal State Long Beach researchers, found average annual net income for drivers 24.7 percent higher and 32.4 percent higher, respectively, than those found in the Rutgers study. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

On March 25, Rutgers University Professor David Bensman wrote to PMM Online:

"Your article of March 16, entitled NY/NJ Port Chief Joins Calls to Overturn Trucking Deregulation Law contains a reference to a research report that I did at Rutgers University in 2009. Your reporter incorrectly states that my research contradicts the findings of two studies done at the San Pedro ports. Any fair-minded reader of the three studies will see that the three reports are in agreement with each other. Your article makes it appear that there is a conflict because it compares the gross earnings of port drivers in Los Angeles and Long Beach with the net earnings of drivers in Newark and Elizabeth. This is clearly misleading. The gross earnings cited for LA and Long Beach drivers do not reflect the fact that drivers are paying for diesel fuel, tolls, tires, maintenance, licenses, and many other expenses. When these are deducted, the owner operators are earning no more than $11 per hour."

Response from PMM Online Editor Keith Higginbotham:

Professor Bensman is correct in pointing out my error in comparing gross wages for Long Beach and Los Angeles drayage drivers to net wages for New York/New Jersey port drivers. This was not done in an attempt to mislead, but was simply a mistake of pulling the wrong wage data from the two Cal State Long Beach drayage studies. I apologize for any confusion this may have created.

However, despite the incorrect citations, it does not change the point made in the article that Professor Bensman's findings regarding wages for New York/New Jersey port drivers are not consistent with the two Cal State Long Beach studies of the drayage driver wages in Southern California.

This is not to question the efficacy of Professor Bensman's research – there is no doubt his findings are an accurate sampling of wages for the NY/NJ group he surveyed. However, it would be incorrect to state that his study and those conducted in 2004 and 2007 in Southern California are consistent on the topic of net wages for drivers. In fact, his NY/NJ findings skew rather dramatically from the results in Southern California.

The two Cal State Long Beach studies cited in the Rutgers study are “Study of Port Drayage at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,” Cal State Long Beach, Kristen Monaco & Lisa Grobar, 2004; and, “Incentivizing Truck Retrofitting in Port Drayage: A Study of Drivers at the Ports of Los Angeles, and Long Beach,” Cal State Long Beach, Kristen Monaco, 2007. 

The two authors are both widely respected senior research academics at the METRANS Transportation Center, a transportation research partnership between Cal State Long Beach and the University of Southern California.

Professor Bensman's study found that NY/NJ drayage drivers earned an average net annual income of $28,000 (in 2008 dollars, when his surveys were conducted).

In the 2004 Cal State Long Beach study, Grobar and Monaco, on page 13, state “We asked drivers to report their pay in 2003 net of truck expenses. The average driver earned $29,903 in 2003…”

In 2008 dollars this equates to an average annual net income of $34,934. This is 24.7 percent higher than what the Rutgers study found.

In the 2007 Cal State Long Beach study, Monaco states on page 23, “We also asked owner operators to report their earnings over the past 12 months net of truck expenses. The mean net annual income reported is $34,749…”

In 2008 dollars, this is an average annual net income of $37,079. This is 32.4 percent higher than what the Rutgers study found.

It is my contention that such disparities between the three studies' findings of average annual net income – NY/NJ wages nearly 25 percent lower compared to one Cal State Long Beach study and just over 32 percent lower compared to another – certainly fall within any credible definition of "inconsistent." Certainly anyone experiencing a nearly 25 percent reduction or increase in annual net income (or 32 percent for that matter) would consider this a significant difference.

New High-Speed Hull for Fast Passenger Craft

If your passenger routes are not limited to low-speed, low-wake zones, you may want to consider a newly developed hull from Allyn, Washington-based designer, Foonman Enterprises- the new Foonman X-1. We had an opportunity to witness the testing phase on a calm day on a waterway that had a mix of shallow and deep water in Kitsap County, Washington.

The Foonman X-1 appears to have a tunnel hull and pickle-fork design like an unlimited hydroplane, but with a roomier passenger area. The boat is 14 feet long, but looks and feels longer. The hull is very flat right under the passenger area - surprisingly flat. There is some resemblance to a Venetian Gondola, but the resemblance stops there. After the initial tank testing, the freeboard will be lowered in the next generation of the vessel. Test runs operating with an older, off the shelf propulsion package attained speeds of better than 46 knots, and a fresher propulsion package would seem to be able to easily push the Foonman past 50 knots. 

The vessel’s stability is exceptional, and comparable to a much larger craft. One usually would sacrifice stability in a boat to gain potential speed. We were puzzled by the physics of the design, and we asked chief naval architect, Walter Forslund about this. He says the stability is a result of a specially designed, asymmetrical fourth hull, perpendicular to the other three. Forslund says removal of the fourth hull would only gain about 0.5 percent better resistance, which translates to a fraction of that in kph. Even though the vessel doesn’t need all that extra stability, passenger comfort makes it worth the slight sacrifice in speed.

Speed in deep water is very good, although the wake produced at speeds of more than 35 knots is enough to swamp any small vessel in the wake wash zone. The Foonman is definitely designed for offshore or low-traffic areas.

Lead designer Forslund notes that it has a comparable cruising speed as a military-spec fast attack craft, but is considerably more fuel efficient.

In the shallow water sections, one could “feel” the bottom, although the hull seemed to be largely immune to the vacuum created by high speed craft in shallow water. 

Overall, the new Foonman is worth a look if you want speed and need some measure of stability, and can live with a high wake-wash boat. Rumors are swirling through the maritime community that Philips Publishing Group will be entering this design at the Pacific Maritime Magazine Quick and Dirty Boat Competition at the Seattle Maritime Festival in May. We feel that the Philips Racing Team has never been more poised for a win at the event.