Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

38
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
since all motor carriers have received notice that the cargo is ready every
vehicle which arrives at the pier should be served We disagree While
have some
the fear of abuse of discretion by the terminal operator may
theoretical merit the practicalities of the situation dictate that terminal
operators will want cargo removed from their facilities as rapidly as
possible Therefore it is doubtful that vehicles will be turned away
capriciously if service of those vehicles is feasible Moreover a rule
which would require a facility to exceed its capacity would not be
workable
Once the terminal has decided to turn away
the motor carrier with a
preference slip there is nothing in the rules that requires the terminal
operator to reconsider his decision Therefore a motor carrier cannot
insist on being admitted and serviced to completion This situation should
allay the fears of one party who was concerned as to who would pay for
the overtime incurred if a motor carrier could successfully insist on
completed service
Additionally to complement the requirements of sections 5512 a I
and 5516 we have adopted as part ofour final rules Hearing Counsel s
proposed modification to the last sentence of section 5514t to wit
The preference slip shall be attached to the gate pass when said gate pass is issued
on the motor
and all notations recorded on the preference slip shall be duplicated
carrier s copy of the delivery order or dock receipt
Section 551 7 a section GI as originally proposed assessed a 15
penalty against a terminal operator for refusing service to a motor carrier
possessing complete documentation An unjustified refusal to serve a
motor carrier results in confusion at the pier loss of valuable time to the
motor carrier and a loss of revenue for everyone concerned Conse
quently the terminal operator must be given the incentive to minimize or
avoid such confusion Having reviewed the comments we conclude that
the avoidance of this confusion can best be achieved by increasing the
penalty from 15 to 30 rather than by introducing a sliding scale of
penalties up to 60 as suggested by one party This rule does not
contemplate that penalties be compensatory but rather that the charge
will encourage accuracy and efficiency Accordingly our final rules
provide a 30 penalty for denial of service due to the fault of the terminal
operator
Section 551 7b section 02 assesses a 15 penalty against the motor
carrier for failing to meet an appointment We have rejected one party s
suggestion that this section be amended to provide that amotor carrier be
excused from any penalty for such failure if it is due to the reasons as
provided in section 551g To do as this party urges would only cause
endless dispute over the cause of the missed appointment If the purpose
of these rules is to be achieved the motor carrier must act responsibly in
its dealings on the pier
However we do fmd merit in another party s observation that section
19 F M C