A federal Judge has officially ruled that the Port of Los Angeles' trucking re-regulation program can move forward, including provisions allowing the port to bar independent owner-operator truckers from servicing the port.
Judge Christina Snyder signed the judgment on Friday, making final her August ruling favoring the port and finding against the American Trucking Associations.
The core of the truck program is an environmental effort seeking to bar older, less efficient trucks from port drayage service and thereby reduce port-generated diesel emissions. The truck plan, however, also includes a non-environmental access license component. Under this component, trucking firms wishing to enter the port would be required to obtain an access license from the port and meet certain port-defined criteria. One of the most contentious of these criteria is a mandate that all trucking firms be staffed by per-hour truckers instead of per-load independent owner-operators. More than 80 percent of the current port drayage fleet is handled by owner-operators.
The ATA sued the port in 2007 arguing that while the group supported the environmental portions of the plan such as the ban on older trucks, the access license component violated federal law.
Various portions of the access license scheme, including the employee-only mandate, were eventually enjoined by Snyder. Snyder's final judgment on Friday dissolved the injunction.
The port will most likely have to wait until its next board meeting, scheduled for Sept. 27, before taking action to implement the previously enjoined portions of the truck program.
The ATA plans to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and ask the appellate panel to keep the injunction in place until a full hearing before the Ninth Circuit can be completed.
Friday, September 17, 2010
SoCal Ports' August Box Volumes Up Nearly 25% on Import Gains and Export Losses
The Southern California ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles continued to rack up solid container volume growth, with each port reporting nearly 25 percent gains in August compared to the same period last year. Imports accounted for nearly all of the monthly gains, but these gains were offset at both ports by minor declines in export traffic for the month.
The Port of Long Beach handled a total of 611,002 TEUs in August, a 23.9 percent gain over August 2009. Port officials reported handling 311,240 loaded inbound TEUs in August, a 24.5 percent increase over the year-ago period. These gains were offset slightly by a 3.5 percent decline in loaded outbound containers, with the final tally for August loaded outbound boxes ending at 126,039 TEUs.
The neighboring Port of Los Angeles handled a total of 763,837 TEUs in August, a 24.7 percent increase over the same period last year. As with Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles realized nearly all of their monthly gains in the form of imports. Los Angeles officials report handling 399,150 loaded inbound TEUs in August, a 23.3 percent increase over August 2009. The port also handled 147,609 TEUs in August, a 1.8 percent decline over the same period last year.
Comparing total container traffic in the first eight months of this year to the same period in 2009, Long Beach is up 10.7 percent and Los Angeles is up 17.9 percent.
The Port of Long Beach handled a total of 611,002 TEUs in August, a 23.9 percent gain over August 2009. Port officials reported handling 311,240 loaded inbound TEUs in August, a 24.5 percent increase over the year-ago period. These gains were offset slightly by a 3.5 percent decline in loaded outbound containers, with the final tally for August loaded outbound boxes ending at 126,039 TEUs.
The neighboring Port of Los Angeles handled a total of 763,837 TEUs in August, a 24.7 percent increase over the same period last year. As with Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles realized nearly all of their monthly gains in the form of imports. Los Angeles officials report handling 399,150 loaded inbound TEUs in August, a 23.3 percent increase over August 2009. The port also handled 147,609 TEUs in August, a 1.8 percent decline over the same period last year.
Comparing total container traffic in the first eight months of this year to the same period in 2009, Long Beach is up 10.7 percent and Los Angeles is up 17.9 percent.
Long Beach Trade Center to Host Panama Canal Panel
Last year, the Center for International Trade and Transportation (CITT) at California State University, Long Beach concluded a 10-year run of annual CITT Town Hall meetings that brought transportation experts together to offer their perspectives on critical topics. The well-attended and highly-praised town hall meetings evolved over their life into an important must-attend event for those in the Southern California international trade and shipping community.
On Oct. 6 at the Carpenter Center for the Performing Arts in Long Beach, the CITT will launch the evolutionary follow-up to the town hall meetings called Point/Counterpoint.
This new event will bring together experts who will offer insight, education and information, not debate, about a specific topic of current interest. The topic for the inaugural Point/Counterpoint event is “Panama Canal Expansion: The Battle for Jobs and Cargo. Who Wins? Whose Loses? Who Decides?”
“Generally, a point/counterpoint discussion is like a debate; however the CITT Point/Counterpoint series is an educational forum and the desired outcome is not to have a winner or loser of the debate, but rather to gain salient information from all angles." said CITT Executive Director Marianne Venieris.
The CITT has scheduled a pair of speakers with knowledge of both the Panama Canal expansion and the shipping industry in general – Paul Bingham from Wilbur Smith Associates in Virginia, and Mary Brooks from Canada’s Dalhousie University in Halifax – to review the facts surrounding the canal’s expansion as well as challenge existing assumptions concerning implications for West Coast ports, cargo volume, and jobs.
"The Panama Canal expansion is one of those issues that everybody talks about, yet nobody is clear on the implications for the Southern California Ports," Venieris said.
"When the expanded Canal opens, importers will have to be aware of other trends that are emerging that could threaten cargo growth through the ports of LA and LB," she said. "On the other hand, some of these trends could end up favoring west coast ports."
The expanded Panama Canal is scheduled for opening in 2014, which coincides with the canal’s 100th anniversary. The expansion will result in the construction of two new sets of locks – one on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic side of the canal. The expansion also entails the widening and deepening of existing navigational channels. The improvements will make it possible for ships to take significantly larger loads through the canal from East Asia to U.S. Gulf ports and ports along the Eastern Seaboard, which could impact West Coast port activity.
"The issue is how much of an advantage does the Panama Canal give shippers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot in getting their goods to their final destinations," said Venieris. "It’s important for our ports because if there are no containers coming in, there’s no business and then there’s no money. It’s not only the ports that will be affected, but also the railroads, trucking, warehouses…pretty much all businesses involved in international trade.”
For more information, visit www.ccpe.csulb.edu/citt , call 562/985-2872, or email Point-Counterpoint@ccpe.csulb.edu.
On Oct. 6 at the Carpenter Center for the Performing Arts in Long Beach, the CITT will launch the evolutionary follow-up to the town hall meetings called Point/Counterpoint.
This new event will bring together experts who will offer insight, education and information, not debate, about a specific topic of current interest. The topic for the inaugural Point/Counterpoint event is “Panama Canal Expansion: The Battle for Jobs and Cargo. Who Wins? Whose Loses? Who Decides?”
“Generally, a point/counterpoint discussion is like a debate; however the CITT Point/Counterpoint series is an educational forum and the desired outcome is not to have a winner or loser of the debate, but rather to gain salient information from all angles." said CITT Executive Director Marianne Venieris.
The CITT has scheduled a pair of speakers with knowledge of both the Panama Canal expansion and the shipping industry in general – Paul Bingham from Wilbur Smith Associates in Virginia, and Mary Brooks from Canada’s Dalhousie University in Halifax – to review the facts surrounding the canal’s expansion as well as challenge existing assumptions concerning implications for West Coast ports, cargo volume, and jobs.
"The Panama Canal expansion is one of those issues that everybody talks about, yet nobody is clear on the implications for the Southern California Ports," Venieris said.
"When the expanded Canal opens, importers will have to be aware of other trends that are emerging that could threaten cargo growth through the ports of LA and LB," she said. "On the other hand, some of these trends could end up favoring west coast ports."
The expanded Panama Canal is scheduled for opening in 2014, which coincides with the canal’s 100th anniversary. The expansion will result in the construction of two new sets of locks – one on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic side of the canal. The expansion also entails the widening and deepening of existing navigational channels. The improvements will make it possible for ships to take significantly larger loads through the canal from East Asia to U.S. Gulf ports and ports along the Eastern Seaboard, which could impact West Coast port activity.
"The issue is how much of an advantage does the Panama Canal give shippers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot in getting their goods to their final destinations," said Venieris. "It’s important for our ports because if there are no containers coming in, there’s no business and then there’s no money. It’s not only the ports that will be affected, but also the railroads, trucking, warehouses…pretty much all businesses involved in international trade.”
For more information, visit www.ccpe.csulb.edu/citt
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Long Beach Trade Center To Host Panama Canal Panel
Last year, the Center for International Trade and Transportation (CITT) at California State University, Long Beach concluded a 10-year run of annual CITT Town Hall meetings that brought transportation experts together to offer their perspectives on critical topics. The well-attended and highly-praised town hall meetings evolved over their life into an important must-attend event for those in the Southern California international trade and shipping community.
On Oct. 6, the CITT will launch the evolutionary follow-up to the town hall meetings called Point/Counterpoint. This new event will bring together experts who will offer insight, education and information, not debate, about a specific topic of current interest. The topic for the inaugural Point/Counterpoint event is “Panama Canal Expansion: The Battle for Jobs and Cargo. Who Wins? Whose Loses? Who Decides?”
“Generally, a point/counterpoint discussion is like a debate; however the CITT Point/Counterpoint series is an educational forum and the desired outcome is not to have a winner or loser of the debate, but rather to gain salient information from all angles." said CITT Executive Director Marianne Venieris.
The CITT has has scheduled a pair of speakers with knowledge of both the Panama Canal expansion and the shipping industry in general--Paul Bingham from Wilbur Smith Associates in Virginia, and Mary Brooks from Canada’s Dalhousie University in Halifax--to review the facts surrounding the canal’s expansion as well as challenge existing assumptions concerning implications for West Coast ports, cargo volume, and jobs.
"The Panama Canal expansion is one of those issues that everybody talks about, yet nobody is clear on the implications for the Southern California Ports," Venieris said.
"When the expanded Canal opens, importers will have to be aware of other trends that are emerging that could threaten cargo growth through the ports of LA and LB," she said. "On the other hand, some of these trends could end up favoring west coast ports."
The expanded Panama Canal is scheduled for opening in 2014, which coincides with the canal’s 100th anniversary. The expansion will result in the construction of two new sets of locks — one on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic side of the canal. The expansion also entails the widening and deepening of existing navigational channels. The improvements will make it possible for ships to take significantly larger loads through the canal from East Asia to U.S. Gulf ports and ports along the Eastern Seaboard which could impact West Coast port activity.
"The issue is how much of an advantage does the Panama Canal give shippers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot in getting their goods to their final destinations," said Venieris. "It’s important for our ports because if there are no containers coming in, there’s no business and then there’s no money. It’s not only the ports that will be affected, but also the railroads, trucking, warehouses…pretty much all businesses involved in international trade.”
For more information, visit www.ccpe.csulb.edu/citt , call 562/985-2872, or email Point-Counterpoint@ccpe.csulb.edu.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Federal V. State Law in Maritime Cases
By Marilyn Raia
It is often said there should be uniformity in the law governing maritime cases no matter where they are tried. Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution gives judicial power to the federal courts to hear maritime cases. Federal statutory law allows certain types of maritime cases also to be tried in state courts, which supposedly are to follow federal maritime law, not state law, when the cases are decided. However, legal issues arising in maritime cases often are decided differently depending on whether the case is tried in federal or state court and whether federal or state law is applied. This article addresses four examples of the many maritime issues that have not been resolved consistently by the federal and state courts. It appears some courts have become entrenched in their approaches making it doubtful true uniformity will ever be achieved.
Overtime Wages for Seamen
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA], 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., first enacted in 1938, applies to, among others, employees who are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods in commerce. The FLSA addresses the right of employees to overtime pay when they work more than eight hours in one day. The FLSA also exempts certain types of employees from the overtime pay requirement. Among the types of exempt employees are “seamen”. 29 U.S.C. § 213(b) (6).
The labor laws in some states, for example, Washington, are consistent with federal law and provide an express statutory exemption from overtime for seaman. The labor statutes in other states, for example, California, do not provide a statutory exemption from overtime for seamen. A collective bargaining agreement with the seamen’s unions can override the federal and state overtime requirements. However, for the non union maritime employer, the lack of uniformity can be problematic. Equally problematic can be the contradictory results in suits for overtime in state and federal courts.
In Coil v. Jack Tanner Towing Co, Inc., 242 F.Supp.2d 555 (S.D. Ill. 2002), seamen who worked on tugboats on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers sued their employer for overtime pay. The seamen worked primarily in Illinois waters transporting grain that had originated outside Illinois. The district court held they were exempt from overtime under the FLSA, which preempted state labor laws. The district court further held states may not apply their respective laws if those laws would “interfere with the proper harmony and uniformity of existing admiralty law.”
Under similar facts, a California state appellate court reached the opposite conclusion, holding state labor law preempted federal law and awarding overtime to a seaman. Karmin v. Marine Express, Inc., 2009 WL 2625873 (Cal. Ct. of App. 2009) involved a tugboat operator who transported goods and personnel originating outside of California to oceangoing vessels docked or anchored in San Francisco Bay. He sought overtime pay for hours worked in excess of eight per day. The California court of appeal reversed the trial court, holding California overtime law applied and preempted federal statutory law because Karmin was a California resident and worked in interstate commerce in California waters. The court of appeal also imposed a monetary penalty on the employer for having paid Karmin in accordance with federal maritime law.
Assumption of the Risk Doctrine
As a defense in a maritime case, defendants often allege the plaintiff’s action should be barred because the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury or property damage when engaging in the activity giving rise to the injury or property damage. In maritime cases, the federal courts have rejected the assumption of risk defense and instead use a comparative fault analysis. Under a comparative fault analysis, a party’s recovery is reduced in proportion to his share of fault in causing the injury or property damage. Some states, such as Oregon, have statutorily abolished the assumption of risk doctrine. Other states, such as Washington and California, recognize the primary assumption of the risk doctrine as a potential bar to recovery depending on the circumstances.
In Manning v. Gordon 853 F. Supp. 1187 (N.D. Cal. 1994), a yacht owner sued another yacht owner in federal court for property damage suffered when their yachts collided as they rounded a course mark in a race. The defendant yacht owner asserted the assumption of risk doctrine as a defense. He argued that when the plaintiff entered the race, he knew his yacht would encounter high speed maneuvers and be in close proximity to other yachts and accordingly assumed the risk of damage to his yacht. The federal court struck the defense as “invalid under the general maritime law of the United States.”
In reaching its conclusion, the federal court in Manning considered a California state court decision reaching the opposite result, that is, holding assumption of the risk was a valid defense in an action for personal injuries sustained during a yacht race. In Stimson v. Carlson 11 Cal.App. 4th 1201 (1993), the plaintiff crewmember on yacht suffered an injury to his arm and wrist during a race when the captain executed a course change and jibe without warning the crew. The plaintiff was able to avoid the boom but was struck by the mainsheets attached to it. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant holding the personal injury action was barred by the assumption of risk doctrine. It reasoned a swinging boom is an inherent risk in the sport of sailing and the defendant yacht captain did not have a duty to eliminate that risk or protect a crewmember from it. The court further held when an inherent risk of a sport is involved, the defendant is liable only if intentionally injuring a participant in the sport or engaging in reckless conduct outside the ordinary range of the sport. Failing to announce a course change was held neither intentional nor reckless.
The defense of assumption of the risk has been rejected by the federal courts in other maritime contexts including suits for personal injuries under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for negligent yacht repairs. At the same time, the assumption of the risk defense has been recognized by the California state courts in suits involving other marine contexts such as waterskiing and jet skiing.
Punitive Damages Under the Jones Act
A third example of the disparity of results in cases tried in federal and state court involving the same legal issue can be found in Wagner v. Kona Blue Water Farms, LLC, 2010 AMC 1217 (D. Hi 2010), and Larson v. Kona Blue Water Farms, LLC, 2010 AMC 1230 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2010). Wagner was filed in federal court in Hawaii and Larson was filed in state court in California.
In Wagner, the federal court held punitive damages are not recoverable in a personal injury action brought by a seaman against his employer under the Jones Act. It reasoned punitive damages are non-pecuniary damages not provided for in the Jones Act and precluded by the federal statute on which the Jones Act is based. In Larson, which involved the same employer, a California state trial court held punitive damages were recoverable in a personal injury action brought by a seaman against his employer under the Jones Act. It reasoned it was not bound by federal authorities on the issue and the recovery of punitive damages was not specifically precluded by the Jones Act.
Safe Berth
Under federal law, a wharfinger/marina owner has a duty to exercise reasonable diligence to determine the condition of a berth and if possible remove any dangerous obstructions. Reasonable diligence may require dredging to maintain adequate water depth in the berths. [See Pacific Maritime Magazine, A Wharfinger’s Duties, September 2009].
In Red Shield Insurance Company v. Barnhill 2009 WL 1458022 (N.D. Cal. 2009), a federal court applied state law to achieve a result contrary to federal law. Red Shield involved an action for damage to a floating home that grounded due to accumulated silt and mud in its sporadically dredged berth. The federal court, which heard the case pursuant to its admiralty jurisdiction, stated it could not find any federal maritime law on point. Instead, it found for the defendant, applying California state law, which only requires marina owners to maintain common areas in a marina, and holding the berths were not common areas.
While countless courts give lip service to the need for uniformity in the law governing maritime cases, the desired uniformity is not yet, and may never be, a reality. The same issues may be decided differently by federal and state courts depending on the law they apply, resulting in uncertainty for those in the maritime industry.
Marilyn Raia is of counsel in the San Francisco office of Bullivant Houser Bailey. She specializes in maritime and transportation matters and can be reached at marilyn.raia@bullivant.com.
New Heavy-Duty Trucks Seeing More Engine Problems
All those late-model clean trucks at places like the Southern California ports may be cutting harmful emissions, but the truck engines may be leaving some owners fuming, according to a J.D. Powers and Associates study released last week.
The group's 14th annual US Heavy-Duty Truck Engine and Transmission Study found that 51 percent of owners of one-year-old heavy-duty truck engines in 2010 report experiencing some type of problem. However, prior to two rounds of revisions in emission standards that were implemented in 2004 and 2007, only 26 percent of owners of two-year-old truck engines experienced some type of problem.
“Clearly, the emissions requirements have put a burden on engine manufacturers, and the result is that today’s engines – although environmentally improved – are more problematic,” said Todd Markusic, senior director of the commercial vehicle practice at J.D. Power and Associates. “Given the quality issues that arose from the last emission standards redesign in 2007, the new emissions standards in 2010 will no doubt create another challenge for engine manufacturers, but those that best handle the integration of these new standards will have a competitive advantage.”
The study, which looked at heavy-duty trucks nationwide, also found that that the number of engine problems increased by 55 percent, on average, after 50,000 miles of usage--up to 80.5 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) from 51.9 PP100. As a result, satisfaction with engines decreases by nearly 40 points (on a 1,000-point scale) after 50,000 miles.
The most-commonly reported engine problems found by the study were issues with electronic control module calibration (cited by 14 percent of owners) and exhaust gas recirculation valve (13 percent).
The J.D. Powers' study was based on the responses of 1,682 primary maintainers of one-model-year-old heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks. The study was fielded in February and March 2010.
The group's 14th annual US Heavy-Duty Truck Engine and Transmission Study found that 51 percent of owners of one-year-old heavy-duty truck engines in 2010 report experiencing some type of problem. However, prior to two rounds of revisions in emission standards that were implemented in 2004 and 2007, only 26 percent of owners of two-year-old truck engines experienced some type of problem.
“Clearly, the emissions requirements have put a burden on engine manufacturers, and the result is that today’s engines – although environmentally improved – are more problematic,” said Todd Markusic, senior director of the commercial vehicle practice at J.D. Power and Associates. “Given the quality issues that arose from the last emission standards redesign in 2007, the new emissions standards in 2010 will no doubt create another challenge for engine manufacturers, but those that best handle the integration of these new standards will have a competitive advantage.”
The study, which looked at heavy-duty trucks nationwide, also found that that the number of engine problems increased by 55 percent, on average, after 50,000 miles of usage--up to 80.5 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) from 51.9 PP100. As a result, satisfaction with engines decreases by nearly 40 points (on a 1,000-point scale) after 50,000 miles.
The most-commonly reported engine problems found by the study were issues with electronic control module calibration (cited by 14 percent of owners) and exhaust gas recirculation valve (13 percent).
The J.D. Powers' study was based on the responses of 1,682 primary maintainers of one-model-year-old heavy-duty (Class 8) trucks. The study was fielded in February and March 2010.
Veteran LA Port Commissioner Resigns
Port of Los Angeles Harbor Commissioner Joseph Radisich resigned suddenly from the five-member port governing board on Monday without explanation.
Radisich, a member of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, was appointed to the port board by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and confirmed by the City Council in September 2005.
The departure of Radisich is the second resignation of a Los Angeles port board member in the less than two months. In July, Harbor Commission Vice President Jerilyn Lopez-Mendoza, another Villaraigosa appointee, stepped down from the port board to pursue a new private sector job.
Radisich, whose resignation takes effect Tuesday, has not commented publicly on why he resigned. City officials have said that a search for a replacement on the port board will begin immediately.
Last week, Villaraigosa appointed his former chief of staff Robin Kramer to fill Lopez-Mendoza's vacant seat. She awaits confirmation by the City Council.
The choice of Kramer to fill Lopez-Mendoza's seat has drawn the criticism of some port-area activists who had hoped a local resident would be appointed to the port board.
The appointment of Radisich in 2005 drew similar criticism at the time when it was claimed that Radisich did not live in the port-adjacent San Pedro community. During his confirmation hearing before the City Council, Radisich said he had moved from Manhattan Beach back to San Pedro.
During his tenure on the port board, Radisich was involved in the development and approval of the port's omnibus environmental tome, the Clean Air Action Program, and subsequent CAAP programs such Clean Truck Program.
Radisich served as International Vice President, Mainland, of the ILWU from 2006 to 2010. A longtime leader in the labor community, Radisich also served as president of the Southern California District Council of the ILWU and vice president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. He has also as national strategic coordinator for recent ILWU negotiations, served as vice president of ILWU Local 13, and as a founding member of the ILWU political action committee.
Radisich, a member of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, was appointed to the port board by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and confirmed by the City Council in September 2005.
The departure of Radisich is the second resignation of a Los Angeles port board member in the less than two months. In July, Harbor Commission Vice President Jerilyn Lopez-Mendoza, another Villaraigosa appointee, stepped down from the port board to pursue a new private sector job.
Radisich, whose resignation takes effect Tuesday, has not commented publicly on why he resigned. City officials have said that a search for a replacement on the port board will begin immediately.
Last week, Villaraigosa appointed his former chief of staff Robin Kramer to fill Lopez-Mendoza's vacant seat. She awaits confirmation by the City Council.
The choice of Kramer to fill Lopez-Mendoza's seat has drawn the criticism of some port-area activists who had hoped a local resident would be appointed to the port board.
The appointment of Radisich in 2005 drew similar criticism at the time when it was claimed that Radisich did not live in the port-adjacent San Pedro community. During his confirmation hearing before the City Council, Radisich said he had moved from Manhattan Beach back to San Pedro.
During his tenure on the port board, Radisich was involved in the development and approval of the port's omnibus environmental tome, the Clean Air Action Program, and subsequent CAAP programs such Clean Truck Program.
Radisich served as International Vice President, Mainland, of the ILWU from 2006 to 2010. A longtime leader in the labor community, Radisich also served as president of the Southern California District Council of the ILWU and vice president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. He has also as national strategic coordinator for recent ILWU negotiations, served as vice president of ILWU Local 13, and as a founding member of the ILWU political action committee.
Bay Area Ports Set to Gain Electric Auto Imports
The Bay Area ports could gain a boost in imported vehicles at the expense of Southern California ports if start-up electric car maker Coda finalizes a deal to contract final assembly work on the vehicles at a car plant in Benicia.
Coda is hoping to import nearly finished electric cars built in China and perform final assembly in a West Coast plant. The Santa Monica-based firm had been looking at setting up a final assembly plant in Los Angeles County, but has now reached a preliminary agreement with Amports Inc., which operates a 645-acre automobile assembly plant about 30 miles from the Port of Oakland in Benicia.
The Benicia deal could take several weeks to finalize, according to Amports officials. Amport already performs final assembly work for Ford, General Motors and Toyota.
Coda hopes to import and finish 14,000 of the $45,000 cars by the end of next year, with initial customer deliveries beginning this December. After state and federal subsidies, the price of the Coda vehicles could fall into the low $30,000s.
In addition to looking at Los Angeles County, the firm also looked at a plant in Oxnard, north of Los Angeles. This plant was determined to have insufficient infrastructure to support the 14,000 cars goal.
Coda has estimated that the assembly work would support up to 100 local jobs.
Coda is hoping to import nearly finished electric cars built in China and perform final assembly in a West Coast plant. The Santa Monica-based firm had been looking at setting up a final assembly plant in Los Angeles County, but has now reached a preliminary agreement with Amports Inc., which operates a 645-acre automobile assembly plant about 30 miles from the Port of Oakland in Benicia.
The Benicia deal could take several weeks to finalize, according to Amports officials. Amport already performs final assembly work for Ford, General Motors and Toyota.
Coda hopes to import and finish 14,000 of the $45,000 cars by the end of next year, with initial customer deliveries beginning this December. After state and federal subsidies, the price of the Coda vehicles could fall into the low $30,000s.
In addition to looking at Los Angeles County, the firm also looked at a plant in Oxnard, north of Los Angeles. This plant was determined to have insufficient infrastructure to support the 14,000 cars goal.
Coda has estimated that the assembly work would support up to 100 local jobs.
Long Beach Port Approves New Lease for Departing Tenant
The governing board for the Port of Long Beach on Monday approved a short-term lease with California United Terminals that set terms for the terminal operator to vacate its Long Beach Pier D and E terminal by the end of the year.
CUT, a subsidiary of Hyundai Merchant Marine, had been envisioned as the major tenant for a reconfigured Pier D and E being developed by the port, but in July CUT announced it would be leaving Long Beach to take space at the neighboring Port of Los Angeles' APM terminal.
Last year, CUT's lease was shifted to a month-to-month basis when their regular lease expired.
The short-term lease approved on Monday will replace the month-to-month lease and run through December 31, 2010 with a base rent paid to the port of $8.5 million. While CUT will remain responsible under the new terms for the security and maintenance of the entire 154-acre parcel, the short-term lease rent is based on the 120-acre contatiner terminal portion of the property.
The port has the discretion to extend the new lease past the December 31 date on a monthly basis at a minimum rent rate of $2 million per month.
The new lease also set terms for repairs to the terminal that must be performed by CUT no later than Nov. 30, 2010, and specifies the removal of all CUT equipment, including gantry cranes, by the end of the new lease term.
CUT first signed on with the Port of Long Beach in 1979.
CUT, a subsidiary of Hyundai Merchant Marine, had been envisioned as the major tenant for a reconfigured Pier D and E being developed by the port, but in July CUT announced it would be leaving Long Beach to take space at the neighboring Port of Los Angeles' APM terminal.
Last year, CUT's lease was shifted to a month-to-month basis when their regular lease expired.
The short-term lease approved on Monday will replace the month-to-month lease and run through December 31, 2010 with a base rent paid to the port of $8.5 million. While CUT will remain responsible under the new terms for the security and maintenance of the entire 154-acre parcel, the short-term lease rent is based on the 120-acre contatiner terminal portion of the property.
The port has the discretion to extend the new lease past the December 31 date on a monthly basis at a minimum rent rate of $2 million per month.
The new lease also set terms for repairs to the terminal that must be performed by CUT no later than Nov. 30, 2010, and specifies the removal of all CUT equipment, including gantry cranes, by the end of the new lease term.
CUT first signed on with the Port of Long Beach in 1979.
