April 19, 2024 • 32 mins
Topic of the Week (4/12/24):
The Federal Maritime Commission is BUSY! This week they dropped their second request for information (RFI) for the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative (MTDI) out of Comm’r Carl Bentzel's office. What does it say and what is it asking? Let’s dive in.
The Maritime Professorᵀᴹ presents By Land and By Sea - an attorney breaking down the week in supply chain
with Lauren Beagen (Founder of The Maritime Professorᵀᴹ and Squall Strategiesᵀᴹ)
Let's dive in...
1 - Checking in on what's left of the Federal Maritime Commission open rulemakings and MTDI stakeholder engagement.
2 - World Shipping Council files a petition before the DC Court of Appeals for clarification of Federal Maritime Commission D&D Billing Requirements rule about issuing invoices to port truckers directly contracted by the ocean carrier.
JOC.com:
https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-seek-clarity-dd-billing-truckers-under-new-fmc-rules_20240418.html
3 - Gemini Cooperation (A.P. Moller - Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd AG) eliminating blank sailings?!
JOC.com:
https://www.joc.com/article/geminis-hub-and-spoke-model-aims-eliminate-blank-sailings-hapag-lloyd_20240415.html
-------------------------------
The Maritime Professorᵀᴹ is an e-learning/educational based company on all things maritime and supply chain - we provide employee trainings, e-content/e-courses, general trainings/webinars, and executive recruiting. Make sure to sign up for the email list so that you will be alerted to when the e-learning content is available, but also, being on the email list will give you exclusive access to promo/discount codes!
Sign up for our email list at https://lnkd.in/eqfZJShQ
Look for our podcast episodes - NOW AVAILABLE:
https://lnkd.in/g4YUbxjs
** As always the guidance here is general and for educational purposes only, it should not be construed to be legal advice and the
🎙 Thanks for tuning in to By Land and By Sea by The Maritime Professor! If you enjoyed today’s episode, don’t forget to subscribe ⭐ and leave a review 📝.
📚 Want to dive deeper into maritime topics? Join our live webinars 🎧, explore our e-courses 💻, and expand your industry knowledge with online learning 🌍.
🚢 Need customized corporate training? We offer expert-led sessions tailored to your team’s needs!
🔗 Visit www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com to learn more and stay ahead in globa
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
oh, I got soul coming through, flying free, skies to
blue, all the ways it makes aroom.
(00:21):
I got soul coming through,won't stop in the beat and, on
top of the world, can't walk tothe beat when you see me coming.
Make some room.
Oh, everywhere I go, I'm in thespotlight.
This is a good life.
Oh, I'm living for it.
(00:43):
This is what it looks like Onthe tips of the world.
The FMC is busy.
This week they dropped theirsecond request for information,
(01:04):
the RFI, for the MaritimeTransportation Data Initiative,
the MTDI.
We've talked about this a lot.
This is out of CommissionerCarl Benzel's office.
So what does it say?
What's it asking?
We're going to dive in.
Hi, welcome, by land and by sea.
An attorney breaking down theweakened supply chain presented
by the maritime professor me.
I'm Lauren Began, founder ofMaritime Professor and Squall
(01:27):
Strategies, and I'm yourfavorite maritime attorney.
Join me every week as we walkthrough both ocean transport and
surface transport topics in thewild world of supply chain.
As always, the guidance here isgeneral and for educational
purposes only.
It should not be construed tobe legal advice.
There's no attorney-clientprivilege created by this video
or this podcast.
If you need an attorney,contact an attorney.
(01:48):
So before we get into thediscussion of the day, let's go
through my top three stories ofthe week.
All right, story number one weare getting closer to have this
list ticked off, right?
So we've been watching the openrulemakings and waiting on this
RFI.
So what are we still waiting on?
Right?
What's come out and what are westill waiting on?
So, what we're still waiting onwe have two open rulemakings
(02:09):
that we're still waiting on.
There's defining unreasonablerefusal to deal or negotiate
with respect to vessel spaceaccommodations provided by an
ocean common carrier.
The last time we saw movementon this was last summer, so July
2023, remember that was thesupplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking phase.
This is definitions, right?
Defining unreasonable refusalto deal and negotiate.
I encouraged everybody to lookat this.
(02:30):
I mean, I always encourageeveryone to look at all the
rulemakings, but this oneparticularly.
Go, check out those definitionsto see if they jive with what
your operations and yourapproach to supply chain
management is.
This is important, right?
Anytime, definitions are cominginto the industry through their
(02:50):
regulatory agency, right, theFederal Maritime Commission.
You better pay attention.
You want to make sure that thismakes sense for you.
The other one that we'rewaiting on is another
definitions rulemaking.
It's defining unfair orunjustly discriminatory methods.
We're still waiting onindependent language right, a
standalone rulemaking.
The FMC said that they includedsome of this in the
unreasonable refusal tonegotiate that other rulemaking
(03:11):
we were just talking about, butthey still, as I understand it,
still intend to have a separaterulemaking, kind of as Congress
directed them to.
There were three differentrulemakings.
The third one is already closedup.
Right, the billing practices ofdetention to merge.
Well, maybe not totally closedup, we do have a final rule
(03:31):
released.
It is set to go into effect May28th.
There's a little hiccup here.
I don't know what all thismeans, but we're going to be
talking about it in a little bit.
I say I don't know what allthis means.
I'm not sure exactly if this isgoing to affect anything.
There's been a petition filedagainst the final rule for some
technical corrections.
Maybe it'll stall things, maybeit won't, but for now all we
(03:52):
know is that May 28th is whenthe billing practices of
detention and demurrage goesinto effect.
Everything except for thecontents of invoice, because
that has some solicitation fromthe industry.
Right, it's part of the Pay PerReduction Act, so that has to
(04:15):
go through OMB.
That's why we're waiting onthat section.
Contents of invoice to beapproved from OMB.
Everything else, as of now goesinto effect May 28th.
We're going to talk about thatin a minute.
Why I say as of now?
And the last thing that we werewaiting on was this request for
information on the MaritimeTransportation Data Initiative.
We had one released last August.
Now we have a second one thatcame out right just this week.
(04:39):
We're going to talk about thatin the meat and potatoes of the
day, but this is pretty cool.
There's a lot happening with theFMC.
I think we're probably going tosee that unreasonable refusal
to negotiate come out againpretty soon, I would assume.
Who knows, right, my, myfeeling is that that one's
probably going to be coming outin like May or June, because
(05:02):
they've had since last July tofigure out this unreasonable for
us to negotiate.
This one, though, chairmanMaffei has said is particularly
tricky because they want to getit right without causing undue
hardship or undue knock oneffects, and so they want to be
purposeful with how theyapproach this one.
This is the definingunreasonable for us to negotiate
(05:24):
.
With respect to vessel spaceaccommodations.
Again, go take a look at it.
There's been some movement overthe fall of some comments filed
back and forth.
I still think you can take alook at it.
You can still submit comments,right?
I mean, well, technically it'stoo late to submit comments, but
the FMC has kind of a historyof really still accepting late
(05:47):
filed comments.
So something to consider.
So take a look.
All right.
Story number two, speaking ofrules, the JOC published and
this is what I was talking aboutan article on the world
shipping council filing apetition before the district
Columbia court of appeals and,as the article says, seeking
clarification over the USFederal Maritime Commission's
(06:09):
official rulemaking on detention.
To merge about billing porttruckers working on behalf of
ocean carriers.
Now, interesting, right.
So they're wondering about thedirect contractual relationship
of port truckers working onbehalf of the ocean carriers,
because right now, as the rulestates, you have to have direct
contractual relationship, right,or you have to have or you have
(06:31):
to be the consignee.
You can't be both.
You can't issue the invoice toboth and you can't issue the
invoice to anybody else.
And that's paraphrasing, ofcourse, but that's what the
final rule essentially says andfor the most part, the direct
contractual relationship waskind of alluding to, like the
BCO shipper to the ocean carrier, the ocean carriers, or
certainly the world shippingcouncil, on behalf of the ocean
(06:53):
carriers, um is saying look we,we, we want a little clarity
here.
What about if we directlycontract with the truckers?
Can we then send it to thetruckers?
So just a little aside, right,the World Shipping Council,
according to their webpage,about us, is the we are the
quote, we are the united voiceof international liner shipping.
So, like I said, they kind ofrepresent the ocean carriers in
(07:16):
this matter, or they certainlyare promoting themselves as the
voice of the ocean carriers asit relates to this petition.
So, as the article points out,the rule itself has broad
support among motor carriers.
Right, we know that We'vetalked about that.
That truckers, for the mostpart, seem to like this
detention to merge rule.
It makes it so that they don'tget hooked with a bill that they
(07:37):
don't know much about.
That was the point, right, theFMC was trying to make that
direct contractual relationship,so, if there were any problems,
whoever negotiated the contractcan also see if there's any
problems with it right off thebat, because they should know
the contents of what thediscussion or the agreement was.
What the FMC did say, though,is, even though they're not
(07:58):
issued to the trucker.
The trucker can still negotiate, pay it, but they're not issued
to the trucker, meaning thetrucker's not on the hook for
that payment.
So the D&D billing requirements, like I said, requires a direct
contractual relationship or theconsignee, but not both, and
nobody else is paraphrased ofwhat that section of the rule
says, so to be the only personthat can be issued an invoice.
(08:21):
So that's what the WorldShipping Council is asking.
What about truckers that werecontracted by the ocean carrier?
I'm assuming that this is whereprobably a door-to-door move
and the ocean carrier iscontracted to take care of some
of the intermodal parts.
Right, that seems to be wherethis might apply, but from the
article.
I'm going to read directly fromthe article now.
But the World Shipping Councilpointed out that the rules
(08:43):
language doesn't jibe with itspreamble, which allows ocean
carriers to bill truckers insome cases as well.
The preamble itself states therulemaking doesn't prohibit a
vessel owning common carrierVOCC from issuing a demerger
detention invoice to a motorcarrier when a contractual
relationship exists between theVOCC and the motor carrier for
the motor carrier to providecarriage or storage of goods to
(09:05):
the VOCC.
So that's what I was readingfrom the article and the article
was also quoting from thepreamble of the rulemaking and
that was the preamble sayingfrom issuing a D&D invoice to a
motor carrier when a contractualrelationship exists between the
VOCC and the motor carrier.
That's what the World ShippingCouncil according to the article
.
I haven't actually taken aglance at the petition yet, but
(09:27):
that's what the article issaying.
Is that the World ShippingCouncil is saying look, you said
that this was fine, but thenit's not exactly clear in how
the rule is drafted.
It continues on to say thearticle is quoting the rule,
again the preamble of the rule.
I believe a primary purpose ofthis rule is to stop demergent
detention invoices from beingsent to parties who did not
(09:48):
negotiate contract terms withthe billing party.
The rule states that concern isnot present where a motor
carrier has directly contractedwith a VOCC.
So it seems pretty clear fromthat language.
And then trying to slice anddice that into the actual draft
final language I shouldn't saydraft the actual drafted final
(10:09):
language of the D&D rule thatgoes into effect May 28th.
That's why I say this is goingto be interesting, because I
don't know if this is going topause anything, right, if the
FMC needs to take another lookat it.
This could potentially besomething that is so I mean
significantly adverse.
That they that they stop orthey could issue some guidance
(10:30):
on it.
Right, I mean they have.
They have just over a month,about five or six weeks, that
maybe they issue some guidanceon it.
Maybe that's enough for the DCCourt of Appeals and maybe we
just proceed on for the May 28th.
Right now, obviously not legaladvice, but right now, may 28th
is the date, right, I meanthat's what the FMC has put out
(10:50):
there.
I think that we'll certainlyreceive, as an industry, we'll
receive some guidance on whetherthat date's going to be
changing based on this filing.
But as of right now, that'swhat we know.
So stay tuned.
This is interesting, right,there's been a lot of
interesting stuff happening atthe FMC.
I love that everybody's payingattention.
It gets chaotic, it gets alittle complicated, but that's
(11:12):
why you're here, right, to helpyou break it down.
All right.
Story number three anotherarticle out of the JOC.
This is on Gemini's hub andspoke model aims to eliminate
blank sailings from Hoppig Lloyd.
So the article says, as yourecall, the Gemini cooperation,
which I should mention, hasn'tbeen filed with the FMC, right?
So I've been watching for it inthe agreements library.
(11:33):
It hasn't been filed with theFMC, so it's difficult to
ascertain the specifics of thecooperation agreement.
Right, I always like to go tothe direct text.
Again, apologies that I wasn'table to go to the petition
direct text on that last article.
I will be in the future or Iwill be shortly.
This Gemini cooperation I wantto go to the agreement, but
there is no agreement filed withthe FMC.
(11:54):
But that's okay, right?
Maybe that's okay.
Maybe it doesn't actually needto be filed with the FMC.
It would be filed with the FMCif it needs limited antitrust
immunity, but if it doesn't needthat limited antitrust immunity
meaning its cooperationagreement maybe doesn't rise to
the level of antitrust concernmaybe we won't see an agreement
at the FMC.
It's all I mean.
(12:17):
So things also coming to mymind is the block exemption out
of the EU is not getting renewed, so that's happening in the
next gosh, it's April, right.
Sometime this month, I forgetthe exact date.
Uh, maybe that's part of it,right?
Maybe they're thinking okay,well, uh, we don't have the
limited antitrust protection ofthe block exemption of the
(12:38):
European union, so maybe theykept their, their thresholds low
enough that they don't need thelimited antitrust immunity of
the FMC.
Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.
Just kind of thinking out loud.
All right, so the Geminicooperation doesn't actually
launch until February 2025.
So we have a lot of time, right.
We're learning more about theintention, though, as Michael
(12:58):
Angel of the JOC is reporting.
One of those intentions is toeliminate blank sailings, which
is when a vessel blanks a portof call, right, so they skip it.
When they skip a port of call,they blank a port of call.
So sometimes this is done foroperational schedule reasons,
right?
I think a lot of times it'sdone for that.
Sometimes it's often beenasserted that maybe it happens
(13:21):
for cost reasons, but thiscooperation actually seeks to
eliminate it, so therebyinherently increasing
reliability, right.
And the blankings are somethingthat shippers often get
frustrated with, because if theyhave something that's supposed
to be going out, or certainly ifsomething that's coming in now,
they have to figure out how toget it there when otherwise the
vessel was just supposed to showup.
So the elimination of blankings, I mean it's a good thing,
(13:45):
right?
I mean it seems like it couldbe a good thing, or at least an
intention too.
I think nobody loves blankings,but I think the intention to
trying to remove the blankingsthat seems cool.
So, as JLC reports, the seniorVP of Hoppag, lloyd, spoke at
the Coalition of New EnglandCompanies for Trade, so Connect.
They just had their conferenceup in Newport, rhode Island, and
said that they expect to havethis is the senior VP of Hapag.
(14:07):
They expect to have enoughcontainers positioned at major
hub ports to keep their shipsfull on those mainland trades,
thereby eliminating the need forunexpectedly canceling voyage
due to lack of demand.
That's blankings.
That's pretty cool.
I'll keep watching this.
(14:31):
I'm intrigued by this Geminicooperation and exactly what it
is, and the hub and spoke modeland how we'll use the benefits
that they're asserting.
Cool, all right.
Well, let's get into the meatand potatoes of the day.
We're talking about the RFI,the second RFI out of the MTDI
alphabet soup, right?
So the request for informationRFI out of the Maritime
Transportation Data of the MTDIalphabet soup, right?
So the request for informationRFI out of the Maritime
Transportation Data Initiative,mtdi.
But before we get into the RFIs, let's start from the beginning
(14:52):
.
Let's make sure that we're allon the same page, right?
So what was this MTDI?
So, commissioner Bensel,december 2021, almost three
years ago, began holdingmeetings with maritime and
intermodal stakeholders.
These were one-hour meetingsthat were held roughly every
week.
They ran from December 2021 toJune 2022.
I mean they were pretty cool.
I used to watch them.
They were live streamed.
(15:13):
You could watch them on YouTube.
I think actually at one point Iwas driving over to Home Depot
and I had it on in my car and Iwas listening.
It was really interesting.
I almost kind of miss them.
The every week engagement withthe stakeholders.
They culminated with a datasummit that was in June and
through this effort it wascalled the Maritime
Transportation Data Initiative.
So Commissioner Carl Benselfocused on the data initiative
(15:35):
on three key objectives.
So one was cataloging thestatus quo and maritime data
elements, metrics andtransmission and access.
Two, identifying key gaps indata definitions and
classification.
And three, developingrecommendations for common data
standards and access policiesand protocols.
Like I said, the meetings wereheld.
(15:57):
Virtually.
For the most part they wererecorded and made available on
the FMC's YouTube channel.
You can actually still go watchthese.
Especially, it was just reallyinteresting to have the
stakeholders grouped off andchatting.
I mean, in this engagement itwas a very kind of casual
conversation.
There was prepared comments andprepared questions but it
turned into kind of a generalconversation.
(16:17):
So in these meetings,commissioner Bensel spoke with
OTIs, rate forwarders and NBOCCs, ocean carriers, including
Hoppig Lloyd, mscc, one, costco,zim, et cetera Right, you get
the idea.
Large aggregators, so Flexportand CH Robinson.
He spoke with maritime labor.
He spoke with standards bodies,including DCSA, the Digital
(16:37):
Container Shipping Association,and NIST, national Institute of
Standards Technology.
He spoke with technologyplatforms providers, companies,
so that was NYSEX and Cargologic.
Other US government agencies,the USDOT Department of
Transportation, cbp Departmentof Commerce, usda.
He spoke with railroadstakeholders.
He spoke with MTOs, bothterminal and port reps.
(16:59):
Look, he covered a lot ofground with this initiative.
I mean, it was the collectiveinformation that was gathered
was so interesting that, if youhaven't yet, that is just such a
good education on conversationwithin these stakeholder groups
and some of the problems thatthey had and probably still to a
(17:20):
certain extent have with thesupply chain just from two years
ago.
So in total, the MTDI processand this was the beginning of
what then turned into a reportand now the RFI.
So in total, the MTDI processfrom the FMC's MTDI landing page
, which I'm going to note thatlanding page in the show notes
held about 18 public meetingswith more than 80 supply chain
(17:41):
experts and practitionersparticipating.
Each meeting was recorded andis available for viewing on the
FMC's YouTube channel, includingeach sitting commissioner.
In at least one MTDI meeting,commissioners were provided the
opportunity to provide feedbackand input, hosted a maritime
transportation data summit thatincluded attendance from nearly
every MTDI participant as wellas interested members of the
(18:03):
public.
They collected and aggregatedresponses to the four questions
asked of the MTDI meetingparticipants.
So that was what I was sayingthat they had prepared questions
that then they they promptedfor the conversation.
They lost my spot, okay.
(18:24):
So they collected andaggregated responses to the four
questions.
They conducted in-person andremote meetings with the
European Union and internationalstakeholders to keep
international partners updatedand engaged.
They conducted follow-ups tothe public meetings, with
in-person and remote meetingswith private sector stakeholders
on demand to keep privatesector stakeholders updated and
(18:48):
engaged.
And then they engaged inongoing collaboration with
federal partners andstakeholders, including, like I
said, other federal agencies DOT, department of Commerce,
department of Ag and otherimportant maritime stakeholders,
agencies such as US Departmentof Homeland Security, coast
Guard and Customs and BorderProtection.
So once all of these meetingshad occurred, right, so there
was all of this work and asnapshot of the industry from
(19:09):
the maritime transportation datalens had been taken,
commissioner Carl Bensel'soffice got to work and produced
the Maritime Transportation DataInitiative MTDI Recommendations
and Views Report, which isactually titled Recommendations
on Maritime Transportation DataSystems Requirement.
Sometimes MTDI is sometimesreferred to as MTDS, which is
(19:30):
that Maritime TransportationData Systems.
I think for ease we're justgoing to keep calling it the
Maritime Transportation DataInitiative MTDI, and we'll just
call the report the report right.
So I just want to be totallyclear.
When you go looking for thereport that you might see a
little discrepancy on the nameversus how it's sometimes talked
about.
So just so you know, that'swhat it is.
(19:52):
So in the executive summary ofthe MTDI report, commissioner
Carl Bunsell outlines what thereport sought to accomplish.
So this is reading off of theexecutive summary from
Commissioner Carl Bunsell.
The final recommendationsgenerated through the MTDI
process call for theestablishment of the MTDS
Maritime Transportation DataSystems.
In broad terms, the MTDS wouldestablish a system of
(20:15):
information on planned oceancarrier voyages, information on
vessel transits with real-timeposition of vessels and
real-time estimates of arrival.
Harmonization of standards forpublic information related to
terminal access for cargoretrieval and standardize the
method of charactering cargostatus for cargo retrieval from
MTOs.
The recommendation alsoproposes to extend similar
(20:37):
in-transit visibility andterminal status information
requirement to intermodal railcarriers servicing ocean carrier
shipments.
This final recommendation alsoaddresses transparency, ease of
access and coordination ofinformation.
Concerns the wide variety ofcarriers, terminals and
affiliate service providers, andunique market and geographical
(20:58):
considerations.
Ensures that almost every portcomplex is unique in operations
and the process of coordinatingthe thousands of companies doing
business at a port.
As such, the MTDS, or MTDI,like we're saying recommendation
would recognize the role of theport authority in providing
public access to ensure thatthey provide information from
ocean carriers servicing theport, mtdos operating at the
port, intermodal rail carriersservicing ocean carrier
(21:20):
intermodal shipments through theport, as well as other general
port-wide information, such asthat relating to scheduling,
berthing, pilotage and otherport-wide operation conditions.
Additionally, therecommendations for the MTDS
MTDI proposes that the FMC issuevoluntary guidelines on
potential activities surroundingintermodal services activities
impacting intermodal ports.
(21:42):
So that's what he sought to do.
Right, it gets prettycomplicated.
The report itself, though, ispretty straightforward, and I
encourage you to go check it out.
It is about 65 pages long,inclusive of appendices, but you
can breeze through it becauseit's very well delineated,
meaning that there's a sectionon FMC jurisdiction authority,
there's a section on methodologyof the MTDI process, a
(22:04):
breakdown of recommendations byeach kind of interested area, so
shipper, ocean carrier, mtdiexcuse me MTO, intermodal rail
and ports coordination.
So the report also comments onother considerations.
They kind of throw in a fewdifferent things, right Green
shipping initiative, smartcontainer, next gen, door to
door logistics, cybersecurityand enforcement and federal
support.
So other things that came upduring all these conversations
(22:26):
that were important to include,but a little bit accessorial to
the main point of the MTDI butstill important to talk about.
And then the appendices aresimply the broken out, larger
form of the stakeholderrecommendations.
So that takes us up to April2023, which is when that report
came out and we're still justgetting into the background,
right.
So when the report was released,and then at the end of summer
(22:48):
2023, so on August 16th, the FMCCommissioner Carl Benzel's
office right posted the firstRFI, the first request for
information on regulationsgov,and the Federal Register opened
up an opportunity for supplychain stakeholders and
interested members of the publicto comment on the process, on
the report that was released.
(23:09):
On the report that was releasedand according to Commissioner
Carl Pencil's statement aboutthe RFI release.
He said the purpose of the RFIis to solicit further public
review and comment on theproposed processes and
definitions identified in theMTDI report.
He said your input will helpbetter standardize information
sharing throughout the supplychain.
He said my intention, afterreceiving additional feedback
from the public, is to identifythe key requirements for a
(23:31):
reliable maritime transportationsystem of information.
This includes harmonizedinformation sharing, clear
standards for understandingcontainer availability, earliest
return dates and other keymetrics that arise when cargo is
transferred between nodes, andinformation on fees and charges.
All of these issues were raisedin the 18 MTDI public meetings,
as well as my subsequentmeetings with individual
(23:52):
stakeholders and the NationalShipper Advisory Committee.
He continues on.
Make no mistake, supply chaincongestion is a constant and
continuing inefficiency.
Recent pandemic-relatedcongestion costs our nation
trillions of dollars in losteconomic opportunity and higher
prices, but only highlightedwhat is, in fact, an ongoing
problem.
The recommendations proposed inthe MTDI seek to ameliorate
(24:14):
what is a system inadequate forproviding supply chain
transportation.
Further public input will helprefine what was issued earlier
this year.
So that's it.
He's using these RFIs as a wayto drill down deeper.
He wants to get to the heart ofthe problem, right.
So in the first RFI thequestions were broken into two
separate sections of theindustry.
(24:34):
So they were broken intotransportation service providers
and importer exporters.
So really only two sections,right.
They had ocean carriers, mtos,licensed motor carriers, railway
, railroad operators whotransport international maritime
cargo as the transportationservice providers, and the
second category was importersexporters, which for example,
were BCOs and shippers.
So that was the first RFI.
(24:55):
That one's closed.
You probably still comment onit, but it's closed, right.
So now we're at RFI 2.
And I say you could probablystill comment on it because,
like I said at the beginning,the FMC wants to take important
comments.
They want the feedback from theindustry.
So they are less likely to turnaway late filed comments unless
the trains left the building,right, I mean unless this whole
project was concluded that thenthey're not going to be
(25:18):
receiving those.
But there's always a chance,right?
So if you feel strongly aboutRFI 1, go for it.
Rfi 2 is what's out there,though.
Rfi 2, request for informationnumber two is out.
It was released just two daysago and the comments are due by
June 17th.
The FMC is requesting additionalengagement from industry
stakeholders by issuing 25additional questions that try to
(25:42):
get at the heart of some of thedata inefficiency.
So I'd like to read thebackground section of the new
RFI because I think it does agood job of identifying the RFI
number two in the MTDI's generalpurpose.
So it says backgroundcontainerized cargo in
international trade movesbetween the control of numerous
entities.
While some key data elementsare readily shared between
(26:02):
supply chain participants, thelack of timely and accurate
access to some data elements canlead to inefficiencies.
The lack of timely and accurateaccess to some data elements,
as was seen during COVID-19pandemic.
Additionally, the lack of datastandardization reduces the
ability to move cargo in aneffective way.
The lack of datastandardization ability could
(26:31):
ease the flow of data andpotentially provide positive
results, including fewer andshorter duration instances of
congestion, quicker movement ofimport and export shipments,
assessment of fewer storage feesand a reduction in
non-government cargo holds,thereby improving supply chain
effectiveness and efficiency.
So this request placesparticular emphasis on data
accuracy.
(26:51):
Right, that's what they want toknow.
They want to know about dataaccuracy.
A common theme revealed by theMTDI this is reading from the
RFI release was the informationand container pickup return was
difficult to gather accuratelyor predict, and the MTDI
participants cited challengessuch as determining who should
provide the information,information changing frequently
(27:11):
and changes not being conveyedto shipping entities.
These points have beenreiterated to the Commission via
numerous avenues, includingthrough the National Shipper
Advisory Committee.
The Commission created theprior request for information to
understand some of the datachallenges the entities
throughout the supply chain face.
The purpose of this, the secondRFI, is to continue the process
of gathering information toinform possible future
(27:34):
commission activities, with afocus on information related to
containers moving through marineterminals.
The purpose of these questionsis to seek information about
data accuracy, not informationabout specific customer partners
, and commenters should not namespecific customers partners
when responding.
That's very important as theydrill down into the data
information.
They need to keep it general,they need to keep it thematic,
(27:57):
they need to keep it away fromspecifics.
Right, because the FMC doesn'twant to get into the specific
who did what when but they'dlike to see themes of problems,
right, and that's things thatthey can address.
So the 25 questions broken downthemes of problems right, and
that's things that they canaddress.
So the 25 questions broken downby stakeholder groups right.
(28:20):
Vessel operators and MTOs is thefirst one.
Importers is its own sectionthis time and exporters is its
own section.
So, vos and MTOs, how do youcommunicate?
These are some of the 25questions.
How do you communicate thevessel schedule and any changes
regarding the vessel schedule tothe BCOs?
What share of vessels changedtheir schedule within the last
week prior to arrival?
What are the primary reasonsfor changes to that vessel
schedule?
How do you communicate earlyreturn date and any changes to
(28:42):
it?
What are the primary reasonsfor an early return date or
changes to an early return date?
I should say what share ofearly return date changes within
a week prior to the window.
I should say what share ofearly return date changes within
(29:07):
a week prior to the window.
And how do you accessinformation related to the
availability of intermodal andrelated to in-transit services
of intermodal?
And are there any metrics orpieces of information that are
not clearly defined or missingentirely from the marine supply
chain?
Kind of a catch-all on thatlast one, um, then we scoot over
.
So that was MTOs and VOs.
Then we scoot over to what werethe primary causes of penalty.
This is importers.
What were the primary cause ofpenalty fees for missing a
container pickup window?
What pickup information, suchas vessel schedule or container
availability is most likely tochange or be conveyed
differently?
Who do you rely on to obtaininformation pertaining to
(29:29):
container pickup?
How do you find out about avessel change?
How many days prior to thevessel arrival do you need the
date to be finalized?
How often do you attempt topick up a container that you
believe to be available but it'snot?
How frequently do you attemptto retrieve a container but
necessary equipment is notavailable, and are there any
metrics or pieces of informationthat are not clearly defined?
I think that last catch all isa great one, and then exporters
(29:51):
right Kind of the same idea.
The questions are what were theprimary causes of penalty fees
for missing a container returnwindow?
What container returninformation, such as vessel
schedule or ERD, is most likelyto change?
Who do you rely upon to obtaininformation pertaining to
container return?
How do you learn that a vesselschedule has changed?
How many days prior to thecontainer return window do you
need the ERD date to befinalized?
(30:13):
How do you attempt to export acontainer within what you
believe to be the return window?
How often, and you end up beingtoo early or too late?
How frequently do you attemptto export a container but
necessary equipment is notavailable and are there any
metrics or pieces of informationnot clearly defined?
So, as you can see, a lot ofthis is trying to get at the
specific pain points of thesupply chain from a specific
(30:33):
operational level.
I'm really interested to seethe comments coming in on this.
I think there are going to besome comments filed that take
this opportunity to air somedirty laundry.
But look, be careful, right,because I really think that this
is supposed to be acollaborative approach.
This is really a position ofcooperation, right it's supposed
to be.
We are fixing the supply chaintogether, right it's.
(30:56):
We're cleaning up the dataentries, we're cleaning up the
data information, and kind of anemotional response, because
that can be a little bitdeflating of your points.
And I really think that if youkind of try to approach these
(31:19):
comments with a spirit ofbuilding and clearing up
confusion or inconsistencies,that's really going to help the
commission to review thecomments.
See the points you're trying tomake, but, again, not legal
advice.
There's a lot that has happenedover the past few years and the
FMC, through this MTDIinitiative, is trying to really
get at the heart of some ofthese pain points that have
(31:40):
existed forever but certainlyremain in the current supply
chain.
So look, that's today.
This was the RFI number two.
As always, the guidance here isgeneral and for educational
purposes only.
It should not be construed bylegal advice directly related to
your matter.
You need an attorney, contactan attorney, but if you have
specific legal questions, feelfree to reach out to my legal
(32:02):
company, skoll Strategies.
Otherwise, for the non-legalquestions, the e-learning and
general interesting informationand insights, come find me at
the Maritime Professor.
If you like these videos, letme know, comment, like and share
.
If you want to listen to theseepisodes on demand, or if you
missed any previous episodes,check out the podcast by Land
and by Sea.
If you prefer to see the video,they live on my YouTube page by
Land and by Sea, presented bythe Maritime Professor.
And while you're at it, checkout our website,
(32:24):
themaritimeprofessorcom.
So until next week.
This is Lauren Began.
oh, I got soul coming through, flying free, skies to
blue, all the ways it makes aroom.
(00:21):
I got soul coming through,won't stop in the beat and, on
top of the world, can't walk tothe beat when you see me coming.
Make some room.
Oh, everywhere I go, I'm in thespotlight.
This is a good life.
Oh, I'm living for it.
(00:43):
This is what it looks like Onthe tips of the world.
The FMC is busy.
This week they dropped theirsecond request for information,
(01:04):
the RFI, for the MaritimeTransportation Data Initiative,
the MTDI.
We've talked about this a lot.
This is out of CommissionerCarl Benzel's office.
So what does it say?
What's it asking?
We're going to dive in.
Hi, welcome, by land and by sea.
An attorney breaking down theweakened supply chain presented
by the maritime professor me.
I'm Lauren Began, founder ofMaritime Professor and Squall
(01:27):
Strategies, and I'm yourfavorite maritime attorney.
Join me every week as we walkthrough both ocean transport and
surface transport topics in thewild world of supply chain.
As always, the guidance here isgeneral and for educational
purposes only.
It should not be construed tobe legal advice.
There's no attorney-clientprivilege created by this video
or this podcast.
If you need an attorney,contact an attorney.
(01:48):
So before we get into thediscussion of the day, let's go
through my top three stories ofthe week.
All right, story number one weare getting closer to have this
list ticked off, right?
So we've been watching the openrulemakings and waiting on this
RFI.
So what are we still waiting on?
Right?
What's come out and what are westill waiting on?
So, what we're still waiting onwe have two open rulemakings
(02:09):
that we're still waiting on.
There's defining unreasonablerefusal to deal or negotiate
with respect to vessel spaceaccommodations provided by an
ocean common carrier.
The last time we saw movementon this was last summer, so July
2023, remember that was thesupplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking phase.
This is definitions, right?
Defining unreasonable refusalto deal and negotiate.
I encouraged everybody to lookat this.
(02:30):
I mean, I always encourageeveryone to look at all the
rulemakings, but this oneparticularly.
Go, check out those definitionsto see if they jive with what
your operations and yourapproach to supply chain
management is.
This is important, right?
Anytime, definitions are cominginto the industry through their
(02:50):
regulatory agency, right, theFederal Maritime Commission.
You better pay attention.
You want to make sure that thismakes sense for you.
The other one that we'rewaiting on is another
definitions rulemaking.
It's defining unfair orunjustly discriminatory methods.
We're still waiting onindependent language right, a
standalone rulemaking.
The FMC said that they includedsome of this in the
unreasonable refusal tonegotiate that other rulemaking
(03:11):
we were just talking about, butthey still, as I understand it,
still intend to have a separaterulemaking, kind of as Congress
directed them to.
There were three differentrulemakings.
The third one is already closedup.
Right, the billing practices ofdetention to merge.
Well, maybe not totally closedup, we do have a final rule
(03:31):
released.
It is set to go into effect May28th.
There's a little hiccup here.
I don't know what all thismeans, but we're going to be
talking about it in a little bit.
I say I don't know what allthis means.
I'm not sure exactly if this isgoing to affect anything.
There's been a petition filedagainst the final rule for some
technical corrections.
Maybe it'll stall things, maybeit won't, but for now all we
(03:52):
know is that May 28th is whenthe billing practices of
detention and demurrage goesinto effect.
Everything except for thecontents of invoice, because
that has some solicitation fromthe industry.
Right, it's part of the Pay PerReduction Act, so that has to
(04:15):
go through OMB.
That's why we're waiting onthat section.
Contents of invoice to beapproved from OMB.
Everything else, as of now goesinto effect May 28th.
We're going to talk about thatin a minute.
Why I say as of now?
And the last thing that we werewaiting on was this request for
information on the MaritimeTransportation Data Initiative.
We had one released last August.
Now we have a second one thatcame out right just this week.
(04:39):
We're going to talk about thatin the meat and potatoes of the
day, but this is pretty cool.
There's a lot happening with theFMC.
I think we're probably going tosee that unreasonable refusal
to negotiate come out againpretty soon, I would assume.
Who knows, right, my, myfeeling is that that one's
probably going to be coming outin like May or June, because
(05:02):
they've had since last July tofigure out this unreasonable for
us to negotiate.
This one, though, chairmanMaffei has said is particularly
tricky because they want to getit right without causing undue
hardship or undue knock oneffects, and so they want to be
purposeful with how theyapproach this one.
This is the definingunreasonable for us to negotiate
(05:24):
.
With respect to vessel spaceaccommodations.
Again, go take a look at it.
There's been some movement overthe fall of some comments filed
back and forth.
I still think you can take alook at it.
You can still submit comments,right?
I mean, well, technically it'stoo late to submit comments, but
the FMC has kind of a historyof really still accepting late
(05:47):
filed comments.
So something to consider.
So take a look.
All right.
Story number two, speaking ofrules, the JOC published and
this is what I was talking aboutan article on the world
shipping council filing apetition before the district
Columbia court of appeals and,as the article says, seeking
clarification over the USFederal Maritime Commission's
(06:09):
official rulemaking on detention.
To merge about billing porttruckers working on behalf of
ocean carriers.
Now, interesting, right.
So they're wondering about thedirect contractual relationship
of port truckers working onbehalf of the ocean carriers,
because right now, as the rulestates, you have to have direct
contractual relationship, right,or you have to have or you have
(06:31):
to be the consignee.
You can't be both.
You can't issue the invoice toboth and you can't issue the
invoice to anybody else.
And that's paraphrasing, ofcourse, but that's what the
final rule essentially says andfor the most part, the direct
contractual relationship waskind of alluding to, like the
BCO shipper to the ocean carrier, the ocean carriers, or
certainly the world shippingcouncil, on behalf of the ocean
(06:53):
carriers, um is saying look we,we, we want a little clarity
here.
What about if we directlycontract with the truckers?
Can we then send it to thetruckers?
So just a little aside, right,the World Shipping Council,
according to their webpage,about us, is the we are the
quote, we are the united voiceof international liner shipping.
So, like I said, they kind ofrepresent the ocean carriers in
(07:16):
this matter, or they certainlyare promoting themselves as the
voice of the ocean carriers asit relates to this petition.
So, as the article points out,the rule itself has broad
support among motor carriers.
Right, we know that We'vetalked about that.
That truckers, for the mostpart, seem to like this
detention to merge rule.
It makes it so that they don'tget hooked with a bill that they
(07:37):
don't know much about.
That was the point, right, theFMC was trying to make that
direct contractual relationship,so, if there were any problems,
whoever negotiated the contractcan also see if there's any
problems with it right off thebat, because they should know
the contents of what thediscussion or the agreement was.
What the FMC did say, though,is, even though they're not
(07:58):
issued to the trucker.
The trucker can still negotiate, pay it, but they're not issued
to the trucker, meaning thetrucker's not on the hook for
that payment.
So the D&D billing requirements, like I said, requires a direct
contractual relationship or theconsignee, but not both, and
nobody else is paraphrased ofwhat that section of the rule
says, so to be the only personthat can be issued an invoice.
(08:21):
So that's what the WorldShipping Council is asking.
What about truckers that werecontracted by the ocean carrier?
I'm assuming that this is whereprobably a door-to-door move
and the ocean carrier iscontracted to take care of some
of the intermodal parts.
Right, that seems to be wherethis might apply, but from the
article.
I'm going to read directly fromthe article now.
But the World Shipping Councilpointed out that the rules
(08:43):
language doesn't jibe with itspreamble, which allows ocean
carriers to bill truckers insome cases as well.
The preamble itself states therulemaking doesn't prohibit a
vessel owning common carrierVOCC from issuing a demerger
detention invoice to a motorcarrier when a contractual
relationship exists between theVOCC and the motor carrier for
the motor carrier to providecarriage or storage of goods to
(09:05):
the VOCC.
So that's what I was readingfrom the article and the article
was also quoting from thepreamble of the rulemaking and
that was the preamble sayingfrom issuing a D&D invoice to a
motor carrier when a contractualrelationship exists between the
VOCC and the motor carrier.
That's what the World ShippingCouncil according to the article
.
I haven't actually taken aglance at the petition yet, but
(09:27):
that's what the article issaying.
Is that the World ShippingCouncil is saying look, you said
that this was fine, but thenit's not exactly clear in how
the rule is drafted.
It continues on to say thearticle is quoting the rule,
again the preamble of the rule.
I believe a primary purpose ofthis rule is to stop demergent
detention invoices from beingsent to parties who did not
(09:48):
negotiate contract terms withthe billing party.
The rule states that concern isnot present where a motor
carrier has directly contractedwith a VOCC.
So it seems pretty clear fromthat language.
And then trying to slice anddice that into the actual draft
final language I shouldn't saydraft the actual drafted final
(10:09):
language of the D&D rule thatgoes into effect May 28th.
That's why I say this is goingto be interesting, because I
don't know if this is going topause anything, right, if the
FMC needs to take another lookat it.
This could potentially besomething that is so I mean
significantly adverse.
That they that they stop orthey could issue some guidance
(10:30):
on it.
Right, I mean they have.
They have just over a month,about five or six weeks, that
maybe they issue some guidanceon it.
Maybe that's enough for the DCCourt of Appeals and maybe we
just proceed on for the May 28th.
Right now, obviously not legaladvice, but right now, may 28th
is the date, right, I meanthat's what the FMC has put out
(10:50):
there.
I think that we'll certainlyreceive, as an industry, we'll
receive some guidance on whetherthat date's going to be
changing based on this filing.
But as of right now, that'swhat we know.
So stay tuned.
This is interesting, right,there's been a lot of
interesting stuff happening atthe FMC.
I love that everybody's payingattention.
It gets chaotic, it gets alittle complicated, but that's
(11:12):
why you're here, right, to helpyou break it down.
All right.
Story number three anotherarticle out of the JOC.
This is on Gemini's hub andspoke model aims to eliminate
blank sailings from Hoppig Lloyd.
So the article says, as yourecall, the Gemini cooperation,
which I should mention, hasn'tbeen filed with the FMC, right?
So I've been watching for it inthe agreements library.
(11:33):
It hasn't been filed with theFMC, so it's difficult to
ascertain the specifics of thecooperation agreement.
Right, I always like to go tothe direct text.
Again, apologies that I wasn'table to go to the petition
direct text on that last article.
I will be in the future or Iwill be shortly.
This Gemini cooperation I wantto go to the agreement, but
there is no agreement filed withthe FMC.
(11:54):
But that's okay, right?
Maybe that's okay.
Maybe it doesn't actually needto be filed with the FMC.
It would be filed with the FMCif it needs limited antitrust
immunity, but if it doesn't needthat limited antitrust immunity
meaning its cooperationagreement maybe doesn't rise to
the level of antitrust concernmaybe we won't see an agreement
at the FMC.
It's all I mean.
(12:17):
So things also coming to mymind is the block exemption out
of the EU is not getting renewed, so that's happening in the
next gosh, it's April, right.
Sometime this month, I forgetthe exact date.
Uh, maybe that's part of it,right?
Maybe they're thinking okay,well, uh, we don't have the
limited antitrust protection ofthe block exemption of the
(12:38):
European union, so maybe theykept their, their thresholds low
enough that they don't need thelimited antitrust immunity of
the FMC.
Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.
Just kind of thinking out loud.
All right, so the Geminicooperation doesn't actually
launch until February 2025.
So we have a lot of time, right.
We're learning more about theintention, though, as Michael
(12:58):
Angel of the JOC is reporting.
One of those intentions is toeliminate blank sailings, which
is when a vessel blanks a portof call, right, so they skip it.
When they skip a port of call,they blank a port of call.
So sometimes this is done foroperational schedule reasons,
right?
I think a lot of times it'sdone for that.
Sometimes it's often beenasserted that maybe it happens
(13:21):
for cost reasons, but thiscooperation actually seeks to
eliminate it, so therebyinherently increasing
reliability, right.
And the blankings are somethingthat shippers often get
frustrated with, because if theyhave something that's supposed
to be going out, or certainly ifsomething that's coming in now,
they have to figure out how toget it there when otherwise the
vessel was just supposed to showup.
So the elimination of blankings, I mean it's a good thing,
(13:45):
right?
I mean it seems like it couldbe a good thing, or at least an
intention too.
I think nobody loves blankings,but I think the intention to
trying to remove the blankingsthat seems cool.
So, as JLC reports, the seniorVP of Hoppag, lloyd, spoke at
the Coalition of New EnglandCompanies for Trade, so Connect.
They just had their conferenceup in Newport, rhode Island, and
said that they expect to havethis is the senior VP of Hapag.
(14:07):
They expect to have enoughcontainers positioned at major
hub ports to keep their shipsfull on those mainland trades,
thereby eliminating the need forunexpectedly canceling voyage
due to lack of demand.
That's blankings.
That's pretty cool.
I'll keep watching this.
(14:31):
I'm intrigued by this Geminicooperation and exactly what it
is, and the hub and spoke modeland how we'll use the benefits
that they're asserting.
Cool, all right.
Well, let's get into the meatand potatoes of the day.
We're talking about the RFI,the second RFI out of the MTDI
alphabet soup, right?
So the request for informationRFI out of the Maritime
Transportation Data of the MTDIalphabet soup, right?
So the request for informationRFI out of the Maritime
Transportation Data Initiative,mtdi.
But before we get into the RFIs, let's start from the beginning
(14:52):
.
Let's make sure that we're allon the same page, right?
So what was this MTDI?
So, commissioner Bensel,december 2021, almost three
years ago, began holdingmeetings with maritime and
intermodal stakeholders.
These were one-hour meetingsthat were held roughly every
week.
They ran from December 2021 toJune 2022.
I mean they were pretty cool.
I used to watch them.
They were live streamed.
(15:13):
You could watch them on YouTube.
I think actually at one point Iwas driving over to Home Depot
and I had it on in my car and Iwas listening.
It was really interesting.
I almost kind of miss them.
The every week engagement withthe stakeholders.
They culminated with a datasummit that was in June and
through this effort it wascalled the Maritime
Transportation Data Initiative.
So Commissioner Carl Benselfocused on the data initiative
(15:35):
on three key objectives.
So one was cataloging thestatus quo and maritime data
elements, metrics andtransmission and access.
Two, identifying key gaps indata definitions and
classification.
And three, developingrecommendations for common data
standards and access policiesand protocols.
Like I said, the meetings wereheld.
(15:57):
Virtually.
For the most part they wererecorded and made available on
the FMC's YouTube channel.
You can actually still go watchthese.
Especially, it was just reallyinteresting to have the
stakeholders grouped off andchatting.
I mean, in this engagement itwas a very kind of casual
conversation.
There was prepared comments andprepared questions but it
turned into kind of a generalconversation.
(16:17):
So in these meetings,commissioner Bensel spoke with
OTIs, rate forwarders and NBOCCs, ocean carriers, including
Hoppig Lloyd, mscc, one, costco,zim, et cetera Right, you get
the idea.
Large aggregators, so Flexportand CH Robinson.
He spoke with maritime labor.
He spoke with standards bodies,including DCSA, the Digital
(16:37):
Container Shipping Association,and NIST, national Institute of
Standards Technology.
He spoke with technologyplatforms providers, companies,
so that was NYSEX and Cargologic.
Other US government agencies,the USDOT Department of
Transportation, cbp Departmentof Commerce, usda.
He spoke with railroadstakeholders.
He spoke with MTOs, bothterminal and port reps.
(16:59):
Look, he covered a lot ofground with this initiative.
I mean, it was the collectiveinformation that was gathered
was so interesting that, if youhaven't yet, that is just such a
good education on conversationwithin these stakeholder groups
and some of the problems thatthey had and probably still to a
(17:20):
certain extent have with thesupply chain just from two years
ago.
So in total, the MTDI processand this was the beginning of
what then turned into a reportand now the RFI.
So in total, the MTDI processfrom the FMC's MTDI landing page
, which I'm going to note thatlanding page in the show notes
held about 18 public meetingswith more than 80 supply chain
(17:41):
experts and practitionersparticipating.
Each meeting was recorded andis available for viewing on the
FMC's YouTube channel, includingeach sitting commissioner.
In at least one MTDI meeting,commissioners were provided the
opportunity to provide feedbackand input, hosted a maritime
transportation data summit thatincluded attendance from nearly
every MTDI participant as wellas interested members of the
(18:03):
public.
They collected and aggregatedresponses to the four questions
asked of the MTDI meetingparticipants.
So that was what I was sayingthat they had prepared questions
that then they they promptedfor the conversation.
They lost my spot, okay.
(18:24):
So they collected andaggregated responses to the four
questions.
They conducted in-person andremote meetings with the
European Union and internationalstakeholders to keep
international partners updatedand engaged.
They conducted follow-ups tothe public meetings, with
in-person and remote meetingswith private sector stakeholders
on demand to keep privatesector stakeholders updated and
(18:48):
engaged.
And then they engaged inongoing collaboration with
federal partners andstakeholders, including, like I
said, other federal agencies DOT, department of Commerce,
department of Ag and otherimportant maritime stakeholders,
agencies such as US Departmentof Homeland Security, coast
Guard and Customs and BorderProtection.
So once all of these meetingshad occurred, right, so there
was all of this work and asnapshot of the industry from
(19:09):
the maritime transportation datalens had been taken,
commissioner Carl Bensel'soffice got to work and produced
the Maritime Transportation DataInitiative MTDI Recommendations
and Views Report, which isactually titled Recommendations
on Maritime Transportation DataSystems Requirement.
Sometimes MTDI is sometimesreferred to as MTDS, which is
(19:30):
that Maritime TransportationData Systems.
I think for ease we're justgoing to keep calling it the
Maritime Transportation DataInitiative MTDI, and we'll just
call the report the report right.
So I just want to be totallyclear.
When you go looking for thereport that you might see a
little discrepancy on the nameversus how it's sometimes talked
about.
So just so you know, that'swhat it is.
(19:52):
So in the executive summary ofthe MTDI report, commissioner
Carl Bunsell outlines what thereport sought to accomplish.
So this is reading off of theexecutive summary from
Commissioner Carl Bunsell.
The final recommendationsgenerated through the MTDI
process call for theestablishment of the MTDS
Maritime Transportation DataSystems.
In broad terms, the MTDS wouldestablish a system of
(20:15):
information on planned oceancarrier voyages, information on
vessel transits with real-timeposition of vessels and
real-time estimates of arrival.
Harmonization of standards forpublic information related to
terminal access for cargoretrieval and standardize the
method of charactering cargostatus for cargo retrieval from
MTOs.
The recommendation alsoproposes to extend similar
(20:37):
in-transit visibility andterminal status information
requirement to intermodal railcarriers servicing ocean carrier
shipments.
This final recommendation alsoaddresses transparency, ease of
access and coordination ofinformation.
Concerns the wide variety ofcarriers, terminals and
affiliate service providers, andunique market and geographical
(20:58):
considerations.
Ensures that almost every portcomplex is unique in operations
and the process of coordinatingthe thousands of companies doing
business at a port.
As such, the MTDS, or MTDI,like we're saying recommendation
would recognize the role of theport authority in providing
public access to ensure thatthey provide information from
ocean carriers servicing theport, mtdos operating at the
port, intermodal rail carriersservicing ocean carrier
(21:20):
intermodal shipments through theport, as well as other general
port-wide information, such asthat relating to scheduling,
berthing, pilotage and otherport-wide operation conditions.
Additionally, therecommendations for the MTDS
MTDI proposes that the FMC issuevoluntary guidelines on
potential activities surroundingintermodal services activities
impacting intermodal ports.
(21:42):
So that's what he sought to do.
Right, it gets prettycomplicated.
The report itself, though, ispretty straightforward, and I
encourage you to go check it out.
It is about 65 pages long,inclusive of appendices, but you
can breeze through it becauseit's very well delineated,
meaning that there's a sectionon FMC jurisdiction authority,
there's a section on methodologyof the MTDI process, a
(22:04):
breakdown of recommendations byeach kind of interested area, so
shipper, ocean carrier, mtdiexcuse me MTO, intermodal rail
and ports coordination.
So the report also comments onother considerations.
They kind of throw in a fewdifferent things, right Green
shipping initiative, smartcontainer, next gen, door to
door logistics, cybersecurityand enforcement and federal
support.
So other things that came upduring all these conversations
(22:26):
that were important to include,but a little bit accessorial to
the main point of the MTDI butstill important to talk about.
And then the appendices aresimply the broken out, larger
form of the stakeholderrecommendations.
So that takes us up to April2023, which is when that report
came out and we're still justgetting into the background,
right.
So when the report was released,and then at the end of summer
(22:48):
2023, so on August 16th, the FMCCommissioner Carl Benzel's
office right posted the firstRFI, the first request for
information on regulationsgov,and the Federal Register opened
up an opportunity for supplychain stakeholders and
interested members of the publicto comment on the process, on
the report that was released.
(23:09):
On the report that was releasedand according to Commissioner
Carl Pencil's statement aboutthe RFI release.
He said the purpose of the RFIis to solicit further public
review and comment on theproposed processes and
definitions identified in theMTDI report.
He said your input will helpbetter standardize information
sharing throughout the supplychain.
He said my intention, afterreceiving additional feedback
from the public, is to identifythe key requirements for a
(23:31):
reliable maritime transportationsystem of information.
This includes harmonizedinformation sharing, clear
standards for understandingcontainer availability, earliest
return dates and other keymetrics that arise when cargo is
transferred between nodes, andinformation on fees and charges.
All of these issues were raisedin the 18 MTDI public meetings,
as well as my subsequentmeetings with individual
(23:52):
stakeholders and the NationalShipper Advisory Committee.
He continues on.
Make no mistake, supply chaincongestion is a constant and
continuing inefficiency.
Recent pandemic-relatedcongestion costs our nation
trillions of dollars in losteconomic opportunity and higher
prices, but only highlightedwhat is, in fact, an ongoing
problem.
The recommendations proposed inthe MTDI seek to ameliorate
(24:14):
what is a system inadequate forproviding supply chain
transportation.
Further public input will helprefine what was issued earlier
this year.
So that's it.
He's using these RFIs as a wayto drill down deeper.
He wants to get to the heart ofthe problem, right.
So in the first RFI thequestions were broken into two
separate sections of theindustry.
(24:34):
So they were broken intotransportation service providers
and importer exporters.
So really only two sections,right.
They had ocean carriers, mtos,licensed motor carriers, railway
, railroad operators whotransport international maritime
cargo as the transportationservice providers, and the
second category was importersexporters, which for example,
were BCOs and shippers.
So that was the first RFI.
(24:55):
That one's closed.
You probably still comment onit, but it's closed, right.
So now we're at RFI 2.
And I say you could probablystill comment on it because,
like I said at the beginning,the FMC wants to take important
comments.
They want the feedback from theindustry.
So they are less likely to turnaway late filed comments unless
the trains left the building,right, I mean unless this whole
project was concluded that thenthey're not going to be
(25:18):
receiving those.
But there's always a chance,right?
So if you feel strongly aboutRFI 1, go for it.
Rfi 2 is what's out there,though.
Rfi 2, request for informationnumber two is out.
It was released just two daysago and the comments are due by
June 17th.
The FMC is requesting additionalengagement from industry
stakeholders by issuing 25additional questions that try to
(25:42):
get at the heart of some of thedata inefficiency.
So I'd like to read thebackground section of the new
RFI because I think it does agood job of identifying the RFI
number two in the MTDI's generalpurpose.
So it says backgroundcontainerized cargo in
international trade movesbetween the control of numerous
entities.
While some key data elementsare readily shared between
(26:02):
supply chain participants, thelack of timely and accurate
access to some data elements canlead to inefficiencies.
The lack of timely and accurateaccess to some data elements,
as was seen during COVID-19pandemic.
Additionally, the lack of datastandardization reduces the
ability to move cargo in aneffective way.
The lack of datastandardization ability could
(26:31):
ease the flow of data andpotentially provide positive
results, including fewer andshorter duration instances of
congestion, quicker movement ofimport and export shipments,
assessment of fewer storage feesand a reduction in
non-government cargo holds,thereby improving supply chain
effectiveness and efficiency.
So this request placesparticular emphasis on data
accuracy.
(26:51):
Right, that's what they want toknow.
They want to know about dataaccuracy.
A common theme revealed by theMTDI this is reading from the
RFI release was the informationand container pickup return was
difficult to gather accuratelyor predict, and the MTDI
participants cited challengessuch as determining who should
provide the information,information changing frequently
(27:11):
and changes not being conveyedto shipping entities.
These points have beenreiterated to the Commission via
numerous avenues, includingthrough the National Shipper
Advisory Committee.
The Commission created theprior request for information to
understand some of the datachallenges the entities
throughout the supply chain face.
The purpose of this, the secondRFI, is to continue the process
of gathering information toinform possible future
(27:34):
commission activities, with afocus on information related to
containers moving through marineterminals.
The purpose of these questionsis to seek information about
data accuracy, not informationabout specific customer partners
, and commenters should not namespecific customers partners
when responding.
That's very important as theydrill down into the data
information.
They need to keep it general,they need to keep it thematic,
(27:57):
they need to keep it away fromspecifics.
Right, because the FMC doesn'twant to get into the specific
who did what when but they'dlike to see themes of problems,
right, and that's things thatthey can address.
So the 25 questions broken downthemes of problems right, and
that's things that they canaddress.
So the 25 questions broken downby stakeholder groups right.
(28:20):
Vessel operators and MTOs is thefirst one.
Importers is its own sectionthis time and exporters is its
own section.
So, vos and MTOs, how do youcommunicate?
These are some of the 25questions.
How do you communicate thevessel schedule and any changes
regarding the vessel schedule tothe BCOs?
What share of vessels changedtheir schedule within the last
week prior to arrival?
What are the primary reasonsfor changes to that vessel
schedule?
How do you communicate earlyreturn date and any changes to
(28:42):
it?
What are the primary reasonsfor an early return date or
changes to an early return date?
I should say what share ofearly return date changes within
a week prior to the window.
I should say what share ofearly return date changes within
(29:07):
a week prior to the window.
And how do you accessinformation related to the
availability of intermodal andrelated to in-transit services
of intermodal?
And are there any metrics orpieces of information that are
not clearly defined or missingentirely from the marine supply
chain?
Kind of a catch-all on thatlast one, um, then we scoot over
.
So that was MTOs and VOs.
Then we scoot over to what werethe primary causes of penalty.
This is importers.
What were the primary cause ofpenalty fees for missing a
container pickup window?
What pickup information, suchas vessel schedule or container
availability is most likely tochange or be conveyed
differently?
Who do you rely on to obtaininformation pertaining to
(29:29):
container pickup?
How do you find out about avessel change?
How many days prior to thevessel arrival do you need the
date to be finalized?
How often do you attempt topick up a container that you
believe to be available but it'snot?
How frequently do you attemptto retrieve a container but
necessary equipment is notavailable, and are there any
metrics or pieces of informationthat are not clearly defined?
I think that last catch all isa great one, and then exporters
(29:51):
right Kind of the same idea.
The questions are what were theprimary causes of penalty fees
for missing a container returnwindow?
What container returninformation, such as vessel
schedule or ERD, is most likelyto change?
Who do you rely upon to obtaininformation pertaining to
container return?
How do you learn that a vesselschedule has changed?
How many days prior to thecontainer return window do you
need the ERD date to befinalized?
(30:13):
How do you attempt to export acontainer within what you
believe to be the return window?
How often, and you end up beingtoo early or too late?
How frequently do you attemptto export a container but
necessary equipment is notavailable and are there any
metrics or pieces of informationnot clearly defined?
So, as you can see, a lot ofthis is trying to get at the
specific pain points of thesupply chain from a specific
(30:33):
operational level.
I'm really interested to seethe comments coming in on this.
I think there are going to besome comments filed that take
this opportunity to air somedirty laundry.
But look, be careful, right,because I really think that this
is supposed to be acollaborative approach.
This is really a position ofcooperation, right it's supposed
to be.
We are fixing the supply chaintogether, right it's.
(30:56):
We're cleaning up the dataentries, we're cleaning up the
data information, and kind of anemotional response, because
that can be a little bitdeflating of your points.
And I really think that if youkind of try to approach these
(31:19):
comments with a spirit ofbuilding and clearing up
confusion or inconsistencies,that's really going to help the
commission to review thecomments.
See the points you're trying tomake, but, again, not legal
advice.
There's a lot that has happenedover the past few years and the
FMC, through this MTDIinitiative, is trying to really
get at the heart of some ofthese pain points that have
(31:40):
existed forever but certainlyremain in the current supply
chain.
So look, that's today.
This was the RFI number two.
As always, the guidance here isgeneral and for educational
purposes only.
It should not be construed bylegal advice directly related to
your matter.
You need an attorney, contactan attorney, but if you have
specific legal questions, feelfree to reach out to my legal
(32:02):
company, skoll Strategies.
Otherwise, for the non-legalquestions, the e-learning and
general interesting informationand insights, come find me at
the Maritime Professor.
If you like these videos, letme know, comment, like and share
.
If you want to listen to theseepisodes on demand, or if you
missed any previous episodes,check out the podcast by Land
and by Sea.
If you prefer to see the video,they live on my YouTube page by
Land and by Sea, presented bythe Maritime Professor.
And while you're at it, checkout our website,
(32:24):
themaritimeprofessorcom.
So until next week.
This is Lauren Began.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.