Make MTOs Share More Cargo Information, Motor Carriers Tell FMC
The Federal Maritime Commission should issue an emergency order requiring carriers and terminal operators to share more information on cargo availability with shippers and other carriers, more than a dozen motor carriers and logistics companies said. The companies, most of which move freight at the Port of New York and New Jersey, said inadequate information sharing has created an emergency that is hurting their operations and restricting cargo from moving efficiently.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The motor carriers and logistics providers were responding to an August request for comment by the FMC, which is considering issuing an emergency order under the Ocean Shipping Reform Act to require ocean carriers and marine terminal operators to share certain cargo data directly with shippers, rail and motor carriers (see 2208120023). The FMC, which is accepting comments through Sept. 14, said the order could help speed up the loading, unloading and the transportation of cargo.
The motor carriers -- including RPM Courier Systems, A1 Dedicated Transport and STG Intermodal -- said the emergency order should require marine terminals to “clearly indicate the number of appointments available” for the movement of freight and notify shippers, motor carriers and ocean carriers “when those appointment slots are fully booked.” Terminals should also be required to notify shippers and carriers whenever they place restrictions on the free flow of empty container returns, the companies said, because those restrictions “may adversely affect the motor carriers’ ability to return the container.” These notifications should be “posted and archived on a platform that is readily accessible” to shippers and carriers, they added.
RPM Courier Systems said it’s “unable to secure appointments for an extended period of time,” adding that its drivers get “shutout of empty returns midday due to lack of terminal capacity.” The company also said its drivers are “repeatedly unable to access a terminal due to traffic metering,” which leads to demurrage and detention fees. “This is unacceptable and needs to be remedied,” the motor carrier said.
Other companies also wrote about problems their drivers face. A1 Dedicated Transport said its drivers have been “caught on the street with empties they cannot return” because of “last-minute” decisions by marine terminal operators to suddenly stop accepting empty containers from a particular ocean carrier. The company said it has spent “many hours” trying to secure appointments “in the hope that existing [appointments] are canceled by other truckers that would free up an [appointment] to schedule.”
STG Intermodal specifically pointed to the chassis shortage, which has “driven tenured port commercial vehicle operators out of the industry.” San Antonio Broker Services said it pays “astronomical rents” to hold empty containers and chassis for ports. “The volume of dollars that we have lost as a small company because of all of the irresponsibility of the [steam ship line (SSL)] will never be made up,” the motor carrier said.
The Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers said more information sharing from ocean carriers would help move cargo. Ocean carriers should share information detailing how many of their containers are on their last free day before accruing a demurrage fee, the association said. “While not a precise predictor of how many containers will be picked up or returned on a given day, this information is certainly a helpful indicator of the potential number of containers that will be picked up or returned,” the group said. “OCs sharing this data at least 48 hours in advance would provide heightened visibility to [multimodal transport operators (MTOs)], especially those terminals that require appointments.”
Like other commenters, the association also said marine terminals that require appointments for entry don't share enough information about the number and type of daily appointments available. “This often leads to the unfair assessment of fees, especially when the [port’s] billing department believes that a return location was made available,” the group said, “but in reality, the number of returns was strictly limited, and the majority of those who needed an appointment could not get one.”