S3.E13 - FMC's Final Rule on D&D Billing Requirements - Part 3 - MTO Invoicing Questions

Topic of the Week (4/26/24):

There have been some questions about MTOs and their requirements for issuing invoices - let's dive into it a bit. 

Federal Maritime Commission D&D Final Rule text:

https://lnkd.in/gKYbbWvF

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 - Happy 68th Birthday to the shipping container!

John D. McCown's post:

https://lnkd.in/gkRgwFg7

2 - Federal Trade Commission votes to ban noncompetes.

Matthew Leffler, the Armchair Attorney® has been following this:

https://lnkd.in/gX3xdqGd

3 - Baltimore opens a limited access shipping lane

https://lnkd.in/gm3Y4hU2

-------------------------------

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 there is no attorney-client privilege created by this video or podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. **

#ByLandAndBySea

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:14

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

Speaker 1: 0:24

I got soul coming through. Won't stop in the beat and on top of the world Catwalk to the beat when you see me coming, make some room. Everywhere I go, I'm in the spotlight. This is a good life I'm living bold. This is what it looks like. I'm a victim of the world.

Speaker 1: 0:56

So the FMC's final rule on detention and demurrage is settling into the industry and there's some really interesting conversations and questions emerging from the general industry on how this is going to work right. For the most part it's pretty straightforward, but there's some gray areas. We've talked about a few of those previously, but we're going to start diving into some of those questions, and today one such question is about MTOs, marine Terminal Operators, the ports and how their requirements for invoicing D&D, how that's going to work. Let's dive into it a little bit more today. Hi, welcome to, by Land and by Sea, an attorney breaking down the weekend supply chain presented by the Maritime Professor me. I'm Lauren Beacon, founder of the Maritime Professor and Squall Strategies, and I'm your favorite maritime attorney. Join me every week as we walk through both ocean transport and surface transport topics in the wild world of supply chain. As always, the guidance here is general, for educational purposes only. It should not be construed to be legal advice and there is no attorney-client privilege created by this video or this podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. So before we get into the discussion of the day, let's go through my top three stories of the week.

Speaker 1: 2:12

All right, well, story number one happy 68th birthday to the containerized cargo box. Yes, yes, the box, the container cargo box that we know and love today, was only generated, the idea it was only started into effect 68 years ago. The idea, born by a trucker, malcolm McLean, became the foundation on which, I mean, almost all global trade is built on. What an invention, right Can you believe? We've only been using a containerized cargo box for 68 years. That's wild. So 1956 was when Malcolm McLean first used the box.

Speaker 1: 2:52

And to put a little perspective into it, because sometimes we talk about this when we talk about the Key Bridge. The Key Bridge in Baltimore was only built in 1972. So sometimes it comes up right, why wasn't the bridge more prepared for a vessel strike? And I don't want to go too far down that line, but I mean vessels at the time had only been carrying cargo boxes for 18-ish years, right 1956 to 1972. Almost 20 years, but not quite. It was 16 years. I got my math wrong. 16 years different. And they were. Look, those vessels were nowhere close to as big as they are now. I mean, what a thing, right? So I don't know. That's just something to put it all into perspective, right?

Speaker 1: 3:34

I'm going to link the post by John McCowan. He actually wrote a chapter about McLean. He worked closely with him for many, many years and he wrote a chapter in a book that he wrote about Malcolm McLean's life and how Malcolm McLean got to the idea of having a box for shipments. So really interesting stuff. Go check out the show notes and go check out that chapter from John McCown. All right, story number two Did you see that non-competes might be on the way out?

Speaker 1: 4:05

This is a little bit tangential to the otherwise ocean shipping that we normally cover, but I thought that this was pretty interesting and something that we do want to cover, because many in all industries, right, but certainly in the ocean shipping or just shipping logistics world non-competes come into play. So what is a non-complete? It's basically like a restrictive covenant on a contract right when one party agrees to not enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition with that original party. That's requiring the non-compete right, so you can't compete once you leave this company is the overall, overly simplistic gist of what the non-competes are. That's what we're talking about. So what happened? So, just this week, the Federal Trade Commission so that's another independent regulatory agency similar to the FMC the Federal Trade Commission voted in a three to two vote to ban non-competes and they put it out in a final rule. But be careful, this isn't a slam dunk yet it has an effective date of 120 days from publication in the federal register, and so that's just like any rule, right. Even though they voted on it on that day, the 120 days doesn't start until it gets posted in the federal register. It's kind of like the modern day version of getting put in the newspaper, right. So it got put in the Federal Register so, roughly, the end of August would probably be the effective date. It probably hit the Federal Register either today or yesterday, since this vote just happened this week. Usually it takes a few days, but likely that puts us at like the end of August. But don't count your chickens just yet, because this is likely to get appealed, which would likely cause this rule to be paused.

Speaker 1: 5:50

It's been reported that the Chamber of Commerce has said that they will be filing a petition to the rule. We'll see if that happens. This is really interesting, though Matt Leffler, the armchair attorney, posts about this quite often. He's been following this quite closely for some time. He was just chatting about it today with Dooner on what the truck. So go take a look at that. Follow Matt Leffler and the armchair attorney if you want to really follow the details. But he posted recently about this and he kind of talked about what he sees and how this is going to be moving and he said look for existing non-competes. This is how the rule will likely get put into practice, what the rule actually said. So this is from his post.

Speaker 1: 6:33

It said for existing non-competes, the final rule adopts a different approach for senior executives than for other workers. It says for senior executives, existing non-competes can remain in force. Existing non-competes with workers other than senior executives are not enforceable after the effective date. The final rule defines the term senior executive to refer to workers earning more than $151,164, so just over $151,000, who are in policy-making positions right, so it's policy making position and making over 151, is that senior executive? And so, matt, this is Matt's language. And what if it doesn't go to plan? Well, lawyers are the swords of the century and a great battle is at hand. If the chamber or others sue, they will challenge this rule in federal court. During the challenge, this rule is likely to be enjoined, and he says lawyers speak for paused.

Speaker 1: 7:25

Continuing Matt's post here. Until a final ruling is made, there are three levels of federal courts to wade through district court, appellate court and Supreme Court. And so, look, I think Matt's pretty right here. I think that this probably does have Supreme Court potential. But, like I said, step one, what happened this week was the final rule was voted on and released out of the Federal Trade Commission 120 days for effective date. So it's not in place yet. Right, that's the end of August. This is just beginning. Really interesting beginning, though right, we'll have to see how this ultimately plays out, but a really, really interesting start here. But follow Matt Leffler and the armchair attorney to follow, kind of, the developments on these non-competes. All right.

Speaker 1: 8:09

Story number three Great news A limited access channel has been opened in the Baltimore Harbor following the collision and collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. So yesterday, april 25th, five cargo vessels were able to transit through the Fort McHenry Limited Access Channel. That's what they're calling it, the Fort McHenry Limited Access Channel. These were five cargo vessels that were otherwise stuck on the port side of the bridge collapse right. So once the bridge went down, part of the story was oh my gosh, what about the ships that are already at port, right, that are berthed at port? So they finally were able to get out.

Speaker 1: 8:47

So just a few days earlier, april 22nd, us Coast Guard Sector Maryland announced that a 300-foot-wide and 35-foot-deep limited access channel to the Port of Baltimore was set to open, and that happened yesterday. So this is a 300-foot-wide, 35-foot-deep limited access channel and the announcement said that the captain of the port planned to establish the Fort McHenry limited access channel. I'm going to read off their announcement for commercially essential vessels on Thursday, april 25th, until 6 am, monday April 29th or Tuesday April 30th if weather adversely affects vessel transits. So they're only opening this for about four days well, three days actually. As with the other temporary channels, this new channel will be marked with lighted aids to navigation and will be limited to transit at the direction of the captain of the port and based on the prevailing weather conditions. So yesterday, good weather five vessels were able to get out.

Speaker 1: 9:50

The Fort McHenry Limited Access Channel will have a controlling depth of 35 feet, like we said, a 300-foot horizontal clearance and vertical clearance of 214 feet. Due to the adjacent power lines, the controlling depth and available width may increase based on pending survey analysis. So it might actually get bigger, but for now that was what they needed. Deep draft vessels utilizing the channel will require a Maryland state pilot and two escort tugs ahead and astern of centerline. The Maryland pilots will impose a three-foot under keel clearance requirement for all vessels and limit transits to winds being less than 15 knots Due to this channel I'm continuing to read the announcement due to the channel's proximity to the grounded MV dolly and effects of a passing vessel, all transits must be at or below five knots. Now remember the dolly was going about seven or eight knots when it was going through the channel. Additionally, each vessel requesting to transit this channel must provide their length, breadth, depth and total displacement to be assessed for potential impacts to the MV Dolly for planning purposes. And then it keeps going on. So that's what's going on, right, that's pretty good. And actually the Dredging Contractors of America said that, based on this, this 35 foot depth, 300foot wide channel that should be able to handle about 42% of the vessels by size that normally transit through the port, including many of the roll-on roll-'s. Just a testament to, you know, the system really coming together and the maritime community working together here and getting this done, and certainly no short order from dredging contractors of America have been working very hard with all of the assets coming in. So all right.

Speaker 1: 11:38

Well, let's get to the meat and potatoes of the day. What are we talking about here? The Federal Maritime Commission previously released the final rule on detention and demurrage. They said that the effective date of the rule will be May. You're asking for information from the public. It has to go through this regulatory process, this Paperwork Reduction Act. So this new rule defines billing practices. Let's just take a quick break here and make sure that we go through. Everybody's on the same page for this D&D rule right.

Speaker 1: 12:22

The new rule defines billing practices for detention to merge with the main purpose of simplifying and identifying what is being billed by whom. So through this final rule the FMC clarifies who may be invoiced, information to be included in the invoices, the timeline for invoicing and requirements for clear invoice dispute processes. So there's a lot of clarity that comes from this rule. But what we see is that the FMC really kind of erred on the side of staying in the guardrails instead of getting into the real nitty and I don't think that ever really happened. Right, that's kind of the over-exaggerated, but it wasn't a violative of any rules at the time to now having some parameters on what needs to be included on an invoice. That certainly came through with OSRA 22,. But now through this rulemaking, this final text, we have a lot more clarity on what needs to be in those invoices. But we also have clarity on what is a properly issued invoice, and so that goes to the direct contractual relationship for properly issued invoices. And they added consignee when the ultimate recipient of cargo or final delivery.

Speaker 1: 13:44

So what I wanted to talk about today is there's a few questions that are being asked from the industry, kind of just generally popping up about what this means for different areas and different aspects of the supply chain. And so one of those questions was about MTOs. And what about MTOs when they send their bills to the ocean carriers to be paid or vice versa, when the MTOs are collecting the D&D charges on behalf of the VOCC right? So sometimes the MTO will send over to VO to collect and sometimes the MTO will collect on behalf of. So there's a lot that's kind of happening here and I don't know if I have a really, really clear answer.

Speaker 1: 14:30

But I want to walk through the language with you today. Again, all of this is not legal advice. This is just general educational purposes. If you have specific legal questions on how you and your specific instance applies in this situation, contact an attorney. I can't tell you that enough. If you have specific, direct legal questions, contact an attorney so that they can walk through your specific instance and how that applies to what we're going to be talking about today. But for our purposes today we're talking about MTOs generally, and so here's the language from the final rule discussion. Essentially, what I see them saying is it kind of depends on an agent relationship, and so let's walk through the language discussion here.

Speaker 1: 15:15

So it said the need for consistency and demerge of detention invoicing further supports requiring MTOs to comply with this rule. And again I've taken this a little bit out of context, but this is from the final rule release and the discussion part, so not the actual text of the final rule but the discussion part of what the FMC released. And they said to comply with this rule because billed parties should be able to expect a standardized set of information in a demurrage or detention invoice, regardless of whether it comes from a carrier or an MTO. So what this is saying is that the shipper or whoever is being billed for the invoice should have an expectation of a clear invoice that has all of the information that this final rule is requiring. So they're saying we don't care whether it's coming from an MTO or a carrier, we want what the billed party receives to be clear and to contain these 20 different data points that we've outlined in the invoice contents requirements. So, continuing on from the discussion, language requiring standardized practices from MTOs also addresses the confusion raised in comments about what actual role MTOs play in invoicing for demerger detention.

Speaker 1: 16:28

Some MTOs told Congress that they do not issue their own D&D invoices, separate from carriers. Some MTOs have told the commission that they do not send traditional demerge or detention invoices but instead issue demerge receipts or disclose charges. One MTO contended to the commission that it does not send D&D invoices to BCOs or truckers and that it is the VOCCs who charge BCOs to merger detention. But the same MTO also said that MTOs sometimes collect merger detention on behalf of the VOCCs. So other MTOs said that they do send D&D invoices. Yet even if those MTOs agreed that they do send D&D invoices, they disagreed with the idea that these invoices should be subject to the same regulation as other billing parties. So I think the FMC went into all of that detail to kind of highlight how difficult it is to ascertain exactly what usually happens right. And so here's continuing on with the language.

Speaker 1: 17:27

These inconsistent statements by MTOs highlight the need for clear rules governing all D&D billing parties so that billed parties receive accurate information to facilitate faster payment and dispute resolution. Allowing MTOs to escape the basic requirements of this rule by artfully styling their D&D invoices as receipts or disclosures would undermine the statute, frustrate the commission's express intention to simplify and clarify demerge and detention invoicing for billed parties and leave in place the confusing status quo that spurred Congress to pass OSRA 2022. I mean, the FMC almost seems a little mad. They're saying look, we want to make sure that the billed party gets the accurate information and gets all of the information in a clear and consistent way so that not only is it faster payment but it's faster to dispute resolution.

Speaker 1: 18:19

Continuing on here from some of the recopied text from the final rule discussion further, the logic of the MTO argument against regulation is not persuasive. If, as some MTOs claim, they do not invoice shippers, bcos and truckers for D&D, the rule would not affect their practices. In any event, if MTOs do send invoices, however, they should abide by the same rules as any other billing party. So saying if they send those invoices, the invoice has to be consistent. If they do have contractual privity, they should be able to obtain any information necessary to issue a compliant invoice through their contract. So they're saying look, direct contractual relationship, they should have all the information that they need.

Speaker 1: 19:02

But the FMC continues if MTOs do not have the information required to issue invoices consistent with these rules, they should not send invoices. So if they don't have all the invoice requirement, all the invoice information that's required in this rule, they should not be the one sending the invoice. They said if they still need to send these invoices, they should obtain all of the required information like any other billing party, right? They're saying this invoice needs to be consistent and clear, as outlined in the 20 different parts that are required in the invoice contents. Continuing on, if they the MTOs cannot obtain that information and they still wish to collect a charge, they should forward the invoice to a billing party with whom they have a contractual relationship and that can comply with this rule and collect the demerger detention charge after providing the billing party accurate information about the charge. So that's where they're kind of pointing to that, well, if you want someone else to charge it or send it in an invoice, send them all the information. If you don't have all the information, send them what you have. But they are still going to be on the hook to provide all accurate information that complies with this rule. So they forward the invoice to the billing party with whom they have that contractual relationship and then they need to comply with the rule.

Speaker 1: 20:19

So it's still not exactly clear if MTOs can push their D&D charges to the VOCCs, right, because they're just saying whoever they have the contractual relationship kind of assumes that that's the VO, but let's talk through it a bit. So, like I said, it looks like they're still allowing for this opportunity and we see it a little bit later in the discussion. So it said that the FMC it looks like the FMC is calling these agent relationships and so either party who is invoicing for the other would need to determine the nature of that relationship, that agent relationship. But the ultimate invoice going to the shipper, no matter what, it seems, is the FMC saying that ultimate invoice needs to comply with the final rule on all these billing requirements. Right? The shipper or whoever is the billed party needs to have that reliability and consistency of clarity that this rule provides, that administrative clarity of those 20 data points that need to be part of the invoice requirements. So, reading from the text, the discussion text, it says MTOs collecting demerger detention on behalf of other parties. So they identify the issue, saying MTOs have raised questions about I'm going to paraphrase this a bit MTOs have raised questions about when they are collecting emergency detention charges on behalf of VOs and VOCCs and BCOs. So the FMC clearly says FMC response said in the scenario described above it is assumed that the MTO would be acting and there was a scenario described of a terminal and when they bill so it said it is assumed that the MTO would be acting as an agent of the VOCC and VOCC or BCO.

Speaker 1: 21:54

Whether an MTO must comply with this rule in this case depends upon the contractual duties of the MTO as an agent. They say traditional rules of agency remain applicable under the Shipping Act. So then they go on to quote a restatement third of agency. So this is a legal text and they say as defined by the common law, the concept of agency posits a consensual relationship in which one person, to one degree or another or respect or another, acts as a representative of or otherwise acts on behalf of another person with power to affect the legal rights and duties of the other person. The principal has a right to control the actions of the agent, but a principal's failure to exercise the right of control does not eliminate it. So they're kind of positioning this principal and agent relationship right. So they go on to kind of apply it to the situation. So while the circumstances of each case must be known to make any particular determination as to whether the agency relationship exists, it is fair to assume, based on the restatement's description of agency, that the majority of instances where MTOs collect merge or detention charges on behalf of another party likely create an agency relationship. Thus, except to the extent that a principal VOCC or NVOCC has not delegated their obligations under 46 USC 41104, the agent MTO must assume those obligations when acting to collect a merger detention charges.

Speaker 1: 23:25

Of course, the exact principal agent relationship is open to negotiation between the principal and agent. This is all getting a little bit legalese so I'm going to continue but I'm going to break it down. So what they're kind of saying is look, it depends on the agent, the agent MTO and the principal relationship. And it said an agent is free to negotiate the specific acts they will or will not undertake on behalf of the principal, acts they will or will not undertake on behalf of the principal. They can talk about look, what am I going to be doing in this agent-principal relationship if the MTO is going to be providing the invoice or if the principal is going to be providing the invoice and the MTO just gives them the information. That's part of that agent-principal relationship. So it said, continuing on, mto is responsible for providing all of the invoice elements in this rule while in another MTO principle demerge and detention billing relationship that the MTO complies with only certain elements. So that's what they're saying is that the agency relationship can change and the parties can determine that.

Speaker 1: 24:26

But then here's the kicker, right at the end, and that the invoice must be sent back to the principal for completion. So if the MTO agent decides they're only going to be complying with part of the rule, they're kind of saying, look, it doesn't matter because what goes to the build party has to be a properly issued invoice. So they're saying the invoice must be then sent back to the principal if the MTO is only doing part of it, for completion of the other elements, before the invoice is issued to the build party. So that says to me that it can be one or the other issuing the invoice, but that the invoice that goes out has to have all required information and of course properly issued invoice has to have that direct contractual relationship. So there's another section in the final text that discusses the FMC, saying MTO should invoice shippers directly when they have all the information that is otherwise needed in this rule and when they don't, then they pass. That information's still a little bit murky but I think it's important, right, they go through all the different scenarios when the MTOs may or may not and when they're telling the commission that sometimes they do issue the invoice and sometimes they don't. And I'm going to restate this section. The inconsistent statement by the MTOs highlight the need for clear rules governing all demersion detention billing parties so that billed parties receive accurate information to facilitate faster payment and dispute resolution. That really is the kicker for me. I think that the FMC is saying look, no matter what, the bill party needs this reliability and this accurate information. So, changes to current MTO practices this is another section of the discussion of the final rule.

Speaker 1: 26:29

The FMC outlines MTOs the issue. Mtos argued that this rule would upend settled practices and increase confusion and congestion of ports, and the FMC's response to that reading again, current billing practices and the lack of transparency in those practices have raised concerns about whether current practices allow for a competitive and reliable American freight delivery system. The changes to current practices this rule requires are meant to change the settled practices that do not ensure accuracy, clarity and visibility of charges. This rule seeks to improve upon existing practices that do not provide adequate information for the efficient invoicing of charges. They're saying look, we're trying to clean all this up, so whatever that operational application is that you're having problems with. We need to clean this up. And so here's where they continue. Further, these changes provide clarity on how billed parties access the dispute resolution process. Requiring targeted information may ultimately lead to fewer disputed bills and therefore streamline the demurrage and detention billing process.

Speaker 1: 27:31

As discussed further in this preamble, the commission is delaying implementation of the rule by 90 days. The commission believes that this is sufficient time to allow MTOs and other regulated parties to make the necessary changes to their business operations in order to comply with the rule. So they're saying look, this might be tough, but we're giving you 90 days. Get to work, change your system, change your billing practices, your operational side of things, so that you're ready when this goes into effect. And so he said 90 days. Again, the content the invoice contents requirement doesn't go into effect necessarily on May 28th. And I say necessarily because that's waiting on OMB approval. So we'll see what the FMC releases as that final effective date. They could still have that final effective date because technically they've given notice of that going into effect. They just don't have the actual date. They could still have that final effective date because technically they've given notice of that going into effect. They just don't have the actual date, so that one we'll have to see, but I would say plan for May 28th, just in case. It certainly wouldn't be a bad practice to be early prepared in case that date does slide for the contents of the invoice Remember that's the Paperwork Reduction Act, that's with OMB. The rest of the rule goes into effect May 28th, as of now.

Speaker 1: 28:45

Another section that I want to highlight here is burden on MTOs to comply with the rule and security concerns. The FMC says the issue here is MTOs argued that applying these rules to MTOs would force them to expend significant resources to overhaul their websites and create additional security measures. The FMC's response is MTOs did not submit estimates of or proposals for what work would be needed or would cost to modify their systems to comply with this rule. One MTO explained they have already invested significant resources to modify their system to incorporate the information from carriers required by OSRA 2022. So they said at least one MTO. They said one MTO, but at least one MTO said that they've already updated their systems because in OSRA 22, the law that went into effect June 16, 2022, there were 13 invoice requirements under that law. So it says this. Certainly, reading again, this certainly suggests it is reasonable to expect MTOs to modify their systems to comply with this rule.

Speaker 1: 29:46

It is not clear why MTOs could do this for their VOCC customers' invoices but not their own invoices. So that's what the FMC is saying. Look, we're sorry that this is going to be perhaps a pain point, but at least one has already done it and they think that this shouldn't be too much of a upheaval. So what does all that say? I think and it's going to be very, very fact, specific, right, very, very fact, specific and intensive on how it applies. And that's why, like I said, this is not legal advice, this is just general discussion. But it seems to me as a general thought that MTOs and VOCCs can shift from one to the other, that the practice of one collects on behalf of the other if they don't have all the information. But no matter what, the invoice that goes to that final customer, that shipper, the build party has to have all the information that's required under this rule. What that's going to look like operationally, right? And I think that's where that agent relationship is going to come into play. I think it kind of goes back to well, what does your contract say? What is that agent relationship? What are the terms of how you work with each other? So we'll see. We'll see how that goes into effect, but something to consider, something to look into yourself, right?

Speaker 1: 31:12

Most of the texts that I just read is right out of the discussion of the final rule. So go take a look, talk to your attorney, your specific attorney, about it and see how it relates to your specific instance. There's a few other questions that are out there and I'm going to continue to collect questions on the gray areas and do my best to decode. So if you have questions around this, again, this isn't legal advice unless we're in a direct engagement. But for our purposes, this is just general discussion. This is not legal advice. We're just. This is an exercise in trying to figure out what it says, and so some of the other questions that I want to be looking into that I've just heard as general questions are well, what about this World Shipping Council petition that's been filed in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit? They talk about in the petition filing exceeding authority. The FMC is exceeding their authority, but it's also been reported that the World Shipping Council is saying in the petition that the VOCC and directly contracted port trucker. How does that work? Right, because that's the directly contracted, direct contractual relationship with the port trucker. How does that work right, because that's the directly contracted, direct contractual relationship with the port trucker. How does that work for billing? Can they bill? Because that's a direct contractual relationship, but it's not necessarily clear under the final rule text. I think we could look into that one a little bit more. I'm certainly going to be following that one along.

Speaker 1: 32:37

There was also a question about NVOCCs and the 30, 30, 30, the 30 calendar days. There's an added 30, right? We've talked about that. When an NVOCC goes from build party to billing party so they can be part of that chain of they switch. The billing party sends the invoice to the NVOCC. The NVOCC then has 30 days to issue it out as the billing party to the ultimate bill party recipient. But what happens if there's a dispute that goes through the NVOCC? That we know. But what about the dispute process?

Speaker 1: 33:12

Website publicly accessible website requirement that's in this final rule. Does the NVOCC have to have that publicly accessible website? I don't know. That one's going to be an interesting one. We're going to dive into that one a little bit more to see if we can see any more clarity from the text and if there's any general implementation guidance that comes out from the FMC. But there might be some hints in the text, so we'll dive into that one.

Speaker 1: 33:36

I've also heard people questioning what about warehouses and drainage providers? Can they be actually sent the invoice? They can't be issued the invoice right, that's what it said is, it can't be issued. But can they be sent? Can they just be on the email chain so that if they did want to pay the invoice, they can? Good question, right, that's a good question. That's an interesting question. I don't see why not, but I'm cautious to say that and I'd like to look into it a little bit more.

Speaker 1: 34:05

Again, all of this is not legal information, legal advice directly related to your matter. This is just general, educational information, general discussion. But that's it for today. Tune in every week as we continue to break down this D&D rule periodically, right, and we're going to continue to provide updates on some of the other hottest topics in ocean and surface transportation. As always, the guidance here is general and for educational purposes only. It should not be construed to be legal advice directly related to your matter.

Speaker 1: 34:35

If you need an attorney, contact an attorney, but if you do have specific legal questions, feel free to reach out to me at my legal company, squall Strategies. Otherwise, for the non-legal questions, the e-learning and general industry information and insights, come find me at the Maritime Professor. If you like these videos, let me know, comment, like and share. If you want to listen to these episodes on demand, or if you missed any of my 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 by the maritime professor. And while you're at it, check out the website maritimeprofessorcom. So until next week, this is lauren beagan, the maritime professor and you've just listened to by land and by sea. See you next time.