Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

40
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Section 5517 e section OS as proposed provides for the assessment
of a 15 penalty against the tenninal operator for wrongfully advising the
motor carner that cargo is ready and available While four parties argue
that a 15 penalty is inadequate with one suggesting that it be increased
to 65 afifth party contends that any increase in penalty would tend to
slow down the movement of cargo by encouraging over zealous verifica
tion and reverification of simple facts We cannot agree with the ftfth
party Considering that the purpose of this section is to deter erroneous
notiftcation of available cargo and that generally considerable reliance is
placed upon the tenninal operator s word we agree that an increase in
penalty is appropriate Consequently the penalty provided in section
5517 e has been increased to 30
It has also been suggested that this section require written verification
that notift ation was made to facilitate motor carriers proof that
notiftcation was given Such a requirement in our opinion is an
unnecessary burden on the terminal operator It would not expedite
movement of cargo but would merely reenforce any claims by motor
for a motor
creates a reasonable
carriers Additionally the fact that it is a costly operation
carrier to make a second trip to the piers
presumption that a motor carner would not arnve at the piers without a
prior notiftcation to do so
Section 5517t section 06 outlines the time allowances applicable to
containers handled as a single unit and to noncontainerized cargo under
an appointmentJnonappointment system Two parties argue that the
allowances prescribed in this section should confonn to those established
by the ICC Not to do so they urge will only serve to confuse shippers
and to create unnecessary complications in billing for and collection of
detention charges Hearing Counsel argue that the ICC detention time
provisions serve different objectives than those of this proposed rule We
agree
The ICC rules pennit reimbursement to the motor carner for all delays
at marine tenninal facilities for which the motor carner is not responsible
However this reimbursement comes to the motor carrier from his
principal who pays the charges Our rules which establish penalties for
unreasonable delays for which the tenninal operator is responsible are
designed to have the responsible tenninal operator pay for the detention
of the motor carner The key to our rule is the relationship of the trucker
to the terminal operator and not ofthe trucker to its principal
Further we are persuaded that certain beneftts will override any
confusion that may occur from having two divergent detention charges
With the time stamped gate pass the trucker will be able accurately to
compute the amount owed him by his principal Further that amount is
subject to be offset in an amount equal to the detention charges collected
from the tenninal operator This arrangement may also have the effect of
we have
encouraging importers exporters to use the Port Accordingly
into our fmal rule
incorporated section 5517t as proposed
19 F M C