By Land and By Sea
By Land and By Sea
S3.E12 - FMC releases RFI#2 of the MTDI (and a broad discussion of MTDI)
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 there is no attorney-client privilege created by this video. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. **
#ByLandAndBySea
oh, I got soul coming through, flying free, skies to blue, all the ways it makes a room. I got soul coming through, won't stop in the beat and, on top of the world, can't walk to the beat when you see me coming. Make some room. Oh, everywhere I go, I'm in the spotlight. This is a good life. Oh, I'm living for it. This is what it looks like On the tips of the world.
Speaker 1:The FMC is busy. This week they dropped their second request for information, the RFI, for the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative, the MTDI. We've talked about this a lot. This is out of Commissioner Carl Benzel's office. So what does it say? What's it asking? We're going to dive in.
Speaker 1:Hi, welcome, by land and by sea. An attorney breaking down the weakened supply chain presented by the maritime professor me. I'm Lauren Began, founder of 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 and for educational purposes only. It should not be construed to be legal advice. There's no attorney-client privilege created by this video or this podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney.
Speaker 1:So before we get into the discussion of the day, let's go through my top three stories of the week. All right, story number one we are getting closer to have this list ticked off, right? So we've been watching the open rulemakings and waiting on this RFI. So what are we still waiting on? Right? What's come out and what are we still waiting on? So, what we're still waiting on we have two open rulemakings that we're still waiting on. There's defining unreasonable refusal to deal or negotiate with respect to vessel space accommodations provided by an ocean common carrier. The last time we saw movement on this was last summer, so July 2023, remember that was the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking phase. This is definitions, right? Defining unreasonable refusal to deal and negotiate. I encouraged everybody to look at this. I mean, I always encourage everyone to look at all the rulemakings, but this one particularly. Go, check out those definitions to see if they jive with what your operations and your approach to supply chain management is. This is important, right? Anytime, definitions are coming into the industry through their regulatory agency, right, the Federal Maritime Commission. You better pay attention. You want to make sure that this makes sense for you. The other one that we're waiting on is another definitions rulemaking. It's defining unfair or unjustly discriminatory methods. We're still waiting on independent language right, a standalone rulemaking. The FMC said that they included some of this in the unreasonable refusal to negotiate that other rulemaking we were just talking about, but they still, as I understand it, still intend to have a separate rulemaking, kind of as Congress directed them to.
Speaker 1:There were three different rulemakings. The third one is already closed up. Right, the billing practices of detention to merge. Well, maybe not totally closed up, we do have a final rule released. It is set to go into effect May 28th. There's a little hiccup here. I don't know what all this means, but we're going to be talking about it in a little bit. I say I don't know what all this means. I'm not sure exactly if this is going to affect anything. There's been a petition filed against the final rule for some technical corrections. Maybe it'll stall things, maybe it won't, but for now all we know is that May 28th is when the billing practices of detention and demurrage goes into effect. Everything except for the contents of invoice, because that has some solicitation from the industry. Right, it's part of the Pay Per Reduction Act, so that has to go through OMB. That's why we're waiting on that section. Contents of invoice to be approved from OMB. Everything else, as of now goes into effect May 28th. We're going to talk about that in a minute. Why I say as of now? And the last thing that we were waiting on was this request for information on the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative. We had one released last August. Now we have a second one that came out right just this week. We're going to talk about that in the meat and potatoes of the day, but this is pretty cool.
Speaker 1:There's a lot happening with the FMC. I think we're probably going to see that unreasonable refusal to negotiate come out again pretty soon, I would assume. Who knows, right, my, my feeling is that that one's probably going to be coming out in like May or June, because they've had since last July to figure out this unreasonable for us to negotiate. This one, though, chairman Maffei has said is particularly tricky because they want to get it right without causing undue hardship or undue knock on effects, and so they want to be purposeful with how they approach this one. This is the defining unreasonable for us to negotiate. With respect to vessel space accommodations. Again, go take a look at it. There's been some movement over the fall of some comments filed back and forth. I still think you can take a look at it. You can still submit comments, right? I mean, well, technically it's too late to submit comments, but the FMC has kind of a history of really still accepting late filed comments. So something to consider. So take a look. All right.
Speaker 1:Story number two, speaking of rules, the JOC published and this is what I was talking about an article on the world shipping council filing a petition before the district Columbia court of appeals and, as the article says, seeking clarification over the US Federal Maritime Commission's official rulemaking on detention. To merge about billing port truckers working on behalf of ocean carriers. Now, interesting, right. So they're wondering about the direct contractual relationship of port truckers working on behalf of the ocean carriers, because right now, as the rule states, you have to have direct contractual relationship, right, or you have to have or you have to be the consignee. You can't be both. You can't issue the invoice to both and you can't issue the invoice to anybody else. And that's paraphrasing, of course, but that's what the final rule essentially says and for the most part, the direct contractual relationship was kind of alluding to, like the BCO shipper to the ocean carrier, the ocean carriers, or certainly the world shipping council, on behalf of the ocean carriers, um is saying look we, we, we want a little clarity here. What about if we directly contract with the truckers? Can we then send it to the truckers? 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 voice of international liner shipping. So, like I said, they kind of represent the ocean carriers in this matter, or they certainly are promoting themselves as the voice of the ocean carriers as it relates to this petition.
Speaker 1:So, as the article points out, the rule itself has broad support among motor carriers. Right, we know that We've talked about that. That truckers, for the most part, seem to like this detention to merge rule. It makes it so that they don't get hooked with a bill that they don't know much about. That was the point, right, the FMC was trying to make that direct contractual relationship, so, if there were any problems, whoever negotiated the contract can also see if there's any problems with it right off the bat, because they should know the contents of what the discussion or the agreement was. What the FMC did say, though, is, even though they're not issued to the trucker. The trucker can still negotiate, pay it, but they're not issued to the trucker, meaning the trucker's not on the hook for that payment. So the D&D billing requirements, like I said, requires a direct contractual relationship or the consignee, but not both, and nobody else is paraphrased of what that section of the rule says, so to be the only person that can be issued an invoice.
Speaker 1:So that's what the World Shipping Council is asking. What about truckers that were contracted by the ocean carrier? I'm assuming that this is where probably a door-to-door move and the ocean carrier is contracted to take care of some of the intermodal parts. Right, that seems to be where this might apply, but from the article. I'm going to read directly from the article now.
Speaker 1:But the World Shipping Council pointed out that the rules language doesn't jibe with its preamble, which allows ocean carriers to bill truckers in some cases as well. The preamble itself states the rulemaking doesn't prohibit a vessel owning common carrier VOCC from issuing a demerger detention invoice to a motor carrier when a contractual relationship exists between the VOCC and the motor carrier for the motor carrier to provide carriage or storage of goods to the VOCC. So that's what I was reading from the article and the article was also quoting from the preamble of the rulemaking and that was the preamble saying from issuing a D&D invoice to a motor carrier when a contractual relationship exists between the VOCC and the motor carrier. That's what the World Shipping Council according to the article. I haven't actually taken a glance at the petition yet, but that's what the article is saying. Is that the World Shipping Council is saying look, you said that this was fine, but then it's not exactly clear in how the rule is drafted. It continues on to say the article is quoting the rule, again the preamble of the rule.
Speaker 1:I believe a primary purpose of this rule is to stop demergent detention invoices from being sent to parties who did not negotiate contract terms with the billing party. The rule states that concern is not present where a motor carrier has directly contracted with a VOCC. So it seems pretty clear from that language. And then trying to slice and dice that into the actual draft final language I shouldn't say draft the actual drafted final language of the D&D rule that goes into effect May 28th. That's why I say this is going to be interesting, because I don't know if this is going to pause anything, right, if the FMC needs to take another look at it. This could potentially be something that is so I mean significantly adverse. That they that they stop or they could issue some guidance on it. Right, I mean they have. They have just over a month, about five or six weeks, that maybe they issue some guidance on it. Maybe that's enough for the DC Court of Appeals and maybe we just proceed on for the May 28th. Right now, obviously not legal advice, but right now, may 28th is the date, right, I mean that's what the FMC has put out there. I think that we'll certainly receive, as an industry, we'll receive some guidance on whether that date's going to be changing based on this filing. But as of right now, that's what we know. So stay tuned. This is interesting, right, there's been a lot of interesting stuff happening at the FMC. I love that everybody's paying attention. It gets chaotic, it gets a little complicated, but that's why you're here, right, to help you break it down. All right.
Speaker 1:Story number three another article out of the JOC. This is on Gemini's hub and spoke model aims to eliminate blank sailings from Hoppig Lloyd. So the article says, as you recall, the Gemini cooperation, which I should mention, hasn't been filed with the FMC, right? So I've been watching for it in the agreements library. It hasn't been filed with the FMC, so it's difficult to ascertain the specifics of the cooperation agreement. Right, I always like to go to the direct text. Again, apologies that I wasn't able to go to the petition direct text on that last article. I will be in the future or I will be shortly.
Speaker 1:This Gemini cooperation I want to go to the agreement, but there is no agreement filed with the FMC. But that's okay, right? Maybe that's okay. Maybe it doesn't actually need to be filed with the FMC. It would be filed with the FMC if it needs limited antitrust immunity, but if it doesn't need that limited antitrust immunity meaning its cooperation agreement maybe doesn't rise to the level of antitrust concern maybe we won't see an agreement at the FMC. It's all I mean. So things also coming to my mind 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 forget the 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 of the block exemption of the European union, so maybe they kept their, their thresholds low enough that they don't need the limited antitrust immunity of the FMC. Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. Just kind of thinking out loud. All right, so the Gemini cooperation doesn't actually launch until February 2025. So we have a lot of time, right.
Speaker 1:We're learning more about the intention, though, as Michael Angel of the JOC is reporting. One of those intentions is to eliminate blank sailings, which is when a vessel blanks a port of call, right, so they skip it. When they skip a port of call, they blank a port of call. So sometimes this is done for operational schedule reasons, right? I think a lot of times it's done for that. Sometimes it's often been asserted that maybe it happens for cost reasons, but this cooperation actually seeks to eliminate it, so thereby inherently increasing reliability, right. And the blankings are something that shippers often get frustrated with, because if they have something that's supposed to be going out, or certainly if something that's coming in now, they have to figure out how to get it there when otherwise the vessel was just supposed to show up. So the elimination of blankings, I mean it's a good thing, right? I mean it seems like it could be a good thing, or at least an intention too. I think nobody loves blankings, but I think the intention to trying to remove the blankings that seems cool. So, as JLC reports, the senior VP of Hoppag, lloyd, spoke at the Coalition of New England Companies for Trade, so Connect. They just had their conference up in Newport, rhode Island, and said that they expect to have this is the senior VP of Hapag. They expect to have enough containers positioned at major hub ports to keep their ships full on those mainland trades, thereby eliminating the need for unexpectedly canceling voyage due to lack of demand. That's blankings. That's pretty cool. I'll keep watching this. I'm intrigued by this Gemini cooperation and exactly what it is, and the hub and spoke model and how we'll use the benefits that they're asserting. Cool, all right.
Speaker 1:Well, let's get into the meat and potatoes of the day. We're talking about the RFI, the second RFI out of the MTDI alphabet soup, right? So the request for information RFI out of the Maritime Transportation Data of the MTDI alphabet soup, right? So the request for information RFI out of the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative, mtdi. But before we get into the RFIs, let's start from the beginning. Let's make sure that we're all on the same page, right? So what was this MTDI?
Speaker 1:So, commissioner Bensel, december 2021, almost three years ago, began holding meetings with maritime and intermodal stakeholders. These were one-hour meetings that were held roughly every week. They ran from December 2021 to June 2022. I mean they were pretty cool. I used to watch them. They were live streamed. You could watch them on YouTube. I think actually at one point I was driving over to Home Depot and I had it on in my car and I was listening. It was really interesting. I almost kind of miss them.
Speaker 1:The every week engagement with the stakeholders. They culminated with a data summit that was in June and through this effort it was called the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative. So Commissioner Carl Bensel focused on the data initiative on three key objectives. So one was cataloging the status quo and maritime data elements, metrics and transmission and access. Two, identifying key gaps in data definitions and classification. And three, developing recommendations for common data standards and access policies and protocols. Like I said, the meetings were held. Virtually. For the most part they were recorded and made available on the FMC's YouTube channel. You can actually still go watch these. Especially, it was just really interesting to have the stakeholders grouped off and chatting. I mean, in this engagement it was a very kind of casual conversation. There was prepared comments and prepared questions but it turned into kind of a general conversation.
Speaker 1: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 Flexport and CH Robinson. He spoke with maritime labor. He spoke with standards bodies, including DCSA, the Digital Container Shipping Association, and NIST, national Institute of Standards Technology. He spoke with technology platforms providers, companies, so that was NYSEX and Cargologic. Other US government agencies, the USDOT Department of Transportation, cbp Department of Commerce, usda. He spoke with railroad stakeholders. He spoke with MTOs, both terminal and port reps. Look, he covered a lot of ground with this initiative. I mean, it was the collective information that was gathered was so interesting that, if you haven't yet, that is just such a good education on conversation within these stakeholder groups and some of the problems that they had and probably still to a certain extent have with the supply chain just from two years ago. So in total, the MTDI process and this was the beginning of what then turned into a report and now the RFI. So in total, the MTDI process from the FMC's MTDI landing page, which I'm going to note that landing page in the show notes held about 18 public meetings with more than 80 supply chain experts and practitioners participating. Each meeting was recorded and is available for viewing on the FMC's YouTube channel, including each sitting commissioner.
Speaker 1:In at least one MTDI meeting, commissioners were provided the opportunity to provide feedback and input, hosted a maritime transportation data summit that included attendance from nearly every MTDI participant as well as interested members of the public. They collected and aggregated responses to the four questions asked of the MTDI meeting participants. So that was what I was saying that they had prepared questions that then they they prompted for the conversation. They lost my spot, okay. So they collected and aggregated responses to the four questions. They conducted in-person and remote meetings with the European Union and international stakeholders to keep international partners updated and engaged. They conducted follow-ups to the public meetings, with in-person and remote meetings with private sector stakeholders on demand to keep private sector stakeholders updated and engaged. And then they engaged in ongoing collaboration with federal partners and stakeholders, including, like I said, other federal agencies DOT, department of Commerce, department of Ag and other important maritime stakeholders, agencies such as US Department of Homeland Security, coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection. So once all of these meetings had occurred, right, so there was all of this work and a snapshot of the industry from the maritime transportation data lens had been taken, commissioner Carl Bensel's office got to work and produced the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative MTDI Recommendations and Views Report, which is actually titled Recommendations on Maritime Transportation Data Systems Requirement.
Speaker 1:Sometimes MTDI is sometimes referred to as MTDS, which is that Maritime Transportation Data Systems. I think for ease we're just going to keep calling it the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative MTDI, and we'll just call the report the report right. So I just want to be totally clear. When you go looking for the report that you might see a little discrepancy on the name versus how it's sometimes talked about. So just so you know, that's what it is. So in the executive summary of the MTDI report, commissioner Carl Bunsell outlines what the report sought to accomplish. So this is reading off of the executive summary from Commissioner Carl Bunsell.
Speaker 1:The final recommendations generated through the MTDI process call for the establishment of the MTDS Maritime Transportation Data Systems. In broad terms, the MTDS would establish a system of information on planned ocean carrier voyages, information on vessel transits with real-time position of vessels and real-time estimates of arrival. Harmonization of standards for public information related to terminal access for cargo retrieval and standardize the method of charactering cargo status for cargo retrieval from MTOs. The recommendation also proposes to extend similar in-transit visibility and terminal status information requirement to intermodal rail carriers servicing ocean carrier shipments. This final recommendation also addresses transparency, ease of access and coordination of information. Concerns the wide variety of carriers, terminals and affiliate service providers, and unique market and geographical considerations. Ensures that almost every port complex is unique in operations and the process of coordinating the thousands of companies doing business at a port. As such, the MTDS, or MTDI, like we're saying recommendation would recognize the role of the port authority in providing public access to ensure that they provide information from ocean carriers servicing the port, mtdos operating at the port, intermodal rail carriers servicing ocean carrier intermodal shipments through the port, as well as other general port-wide information, such as that relating to scheduling, berthing, pilotage and other port-wide operation conditions. Additionally, the recommendations for the MTDS MTDI proposes that the FMC issue voluntary guidelines on potential activities surrounding intermodal services activities impacting intermodal ports. So that's what he sought to do.
Speaker 1:Right, it gets pretty complicated. The report itself, though, is pretty 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 because it's very well delineated, meaning that there's a section on FMC jurisdiction authority, there's a section on methodology of the MTDI process, a breakdown of recommendations by each kind of interested area, so shipper, ocean carrier, mtdi excuse me MTO, intermodal rail and ports coordination. So the report also comments on other considerations. They kind of throw in a few different things, right Green shipping initiative, smart container, next gen, door to door logistics, cybersecurity and enforcement and federal support. So other things that came up during all these conversations that were important to include, but a little bit accessorial to the main point of the MTDI but still important to talk about. And then the appendices are simply the broken out, larger form of the stakeholder recommendations. So that takes us up to April 2023, which is when that report came out and we're still just getting into the background, right.
Speaker 1:So when the report was released, and then at the end of summer 2023, so on August 16th, the FMC Commissioner Carl Benzel's office right posted the first RFI, the first request for information on regulationsgov, and the Federal Register opened up an opportunity for supply chain stakeholders and interested members of the public to comment on the process, on the report that was released. On the report that was released and according to Commissioner Carl Pencil's statement about the RFI release. He said the purpose of the RFI is to solicit further public review and comment on the proposed processes and definitions identified in the MTDI report. He said your input will help better standardize information sharing throughout the supply chain. He said my intention, after receiving additional feedback from the public, is to identify the key requirements for a reliable maritime transportation system of information. This includes harmonized information sharing, clear standards for understanding container availability, earliest return dates and other key metrics that arise when cargo is transferred between nodes, and information on fees and charges. All of these issues were raised in the 18 MTDI public meetings, as well as my subsequent meetings with individual stakeholders and the National Shipper Advisory Committee.
Speaker 1:He continues on. Make no mistake, supply chain congestion is a constant and continuing inefficiency. Recent pandemic-related congestion costs our nation trillions of dollars in lost economic opportunity and higher prices, but only highlighted what is, in fact, an ongoing problem. The recommendations proposed in the MTDI seek to ameliorate what is a system inadequate for providing supply chain transportation. Further public input will help refine what was issued earlier this year. So that's it.
Speaker 1:He's using these RFIs as a way to drill down deeper. He wants to get to the heart of the problem, right. So in the first RFI the questions were broken into two separate sections of the industry. So they were broken into transportation service providers and importer exporters. So really only two sections, right. They had ocean carriers, mtos, licensed motor carriers, railway, railroad operators who transport international maritime cargo as the transportation service providers, and the second category was importers exporters, which for example, were BCOs and shippers. So that was the first RFI.
Speaker 1:That one's closed. You probably still comment on it, but it's closed, right. So now we're at RFI 2. And I say you could probably still comment on it because, like I said at the beginning, the FMC wants to take important comments. They want the feedback from the industry. So they are less likely to turn away late filed comments unless the trains left the building, right, I mean unless this whole project was concluded that then they're not going to be receiving those. But there's always a chance, right? So if you feel strongly about RFI 1, go for it. Rfi 2 is what's out there, though. Rfi 2, request for information number two is out. It was released just two days ago and the comments are due by June 17th.
Speaker 1:The FMC is requesting additional engagement from industry stakeholders by issuing 25 additional questions that try to get at the heart of some of the data inefficiency. So I'd like to read the background section of the new RFI because I think it does a good job of identifying the RFI number two in the MTDI's general purpose. So it says background containerized cargo in international trade moves between the control of numerous entities. While some key data elements are readily shared between supply chain participants, the lack of timely and accurate access to some data elements can lead to inefficiencies. The lack of timely and accurate access to some data elements, as was seen during COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the lack of data standardization reduces the ability to move cargo in an effective way. The lack of data standardization ability could ease the flow of data and potentially provide positive results, including fewer and shorter duration instances of congestion, quicker movement of import and export shipments, assessment of fewer storage fees and a reduction in non-government cargo holds, thereby improving supply chain effectiveness and efficiency.
Speaker 1:So this request places particular emphasis on data accuracy. Right, that's what they want to know. They want to know about data accuracy. A common theme revealed by the MTDI this is reading from the RFI release was the information and container pickup return was difficult to gather accurately or predict, and the MTDI participants cited challenges such as determining who should provide the information, information changing frequently and changes not being conveyed to shipping entities. These points have been reiterated to the Commission via numerous avenues, including through the National Shipper Advisory Committee. The Commission created the prior request for information to understand some of the data challenges the entities throughout the supply chain face. The purpose of this, the second RFI, is to continue the process of gathering information to inform possible future commission activities, with a focus on information related to containers moving through marine terminals.
Speaker 1:The purpose of these questions is to seek information about data accuracy, not information about specific customer partners, and commenters should not name specific customers partners when responding. That's very important as they drill down into the data information. They need to keep it general, they need to keep it thematic, they need to keep it away from specifics. Right, because the FMC doesn't want to get into the specific who did what when but they'd like to see themes of problems, right, and that's things that they can address. So the 25 questions broken down themes of problems right, and that's things that they can address. So the 25 questions broken down by stakeholder groups right.
Speaker 1:Vessel operators and MTOs is the first one. Importers is its own section this time and exporters is its own section. So, vos and MTOs, how do you communicate? These are some of the 25 questions. How do you communicate the vessel schedule and any changes regarding the vessel schedule to the BCOs? What share of vessels changed their schedule within the last week prior to arrival? What are the primary reasons for changes to that vessel schedule? How do you communicate early return date and any changes to it? What are the primary reasons for an early return date or changes to an early return date? I should say what share of early return date changes within a week prior to the window. I should say what share of early return date changes within a week prior to the window. And how do you access information related to the availability of intermodal and related to in-transit services of intermodal? And are there any metrics or pieces of information that are not clearly defined or missing entirely from the marine supply chain? Kind of a catch-all on that last one, um, then we scoot over.
Speaker 1:So that was MTOs and VOs. Then we scoot over to what were the primary causes of penalty. This is importers. What were the primary cause of penalty fees for missing a container pickup window? What pickup information, such as vessel schedule or container availability is most likely to change or be conveyed differently? Who do you rely on to obtain information pertaining to container pickup? How do you find out about a vessel change? How many days prior to the vessel arrival do you need the date to be finalized? How often do you attempt to pick up a container that you believe to be available but it's not? How frequently do you attempt to retrieve a container but necessary equipment is not available, and are there any metrics or pieces of information that are not clearly defined? I think that last catch all is a great one, and then exporters right Kind of the same idea.
Speaker 1:The questions are what were the primary causes of penalty fees for missing a container return window? What container return information, such as vessel schedule or ERD, is most likely to change? Who do you rely upon to obtain information pertaining to container return? How do you learn that a vessel schedule has changed? How many days prior to the container return window do you need the ERD date to be finalized? How do you attempt to export a container within what you believe to be the return window? How often, and you end up being too early or too late? How frequently do you attempt to export a container but necessary equipment is not available and are there any metrics or pieces of information not clearly defined?
Speaker 1:So, as you can see, a lot of this is trying to get at the specific pain points of the supply chain from a specific operational level. I'm really interested to see the comments coming in on this. I think there are going to be some comments filed that take this opportunity to air some dirty laundry. But look, be careful, right, because I really think that this is supposed to be a collaborative approach. This is really a position of cooperation, right it's supposed to be. We are fixing the supply chain together, right it's. We're cleaning up the data entries, we're cleaning up the data information, and kind of an emotional response, because that can be a little bit deflating of your points. And I really think that if you kind of try to approach these comments with a spirit of building and clearing up confusion or inconsistencies, that's really going to help the commission to review the comments. See the points you're trying to make, but, again, not legal advice. There's a lot that has happened over the past few years and the FMC, through this MTDI initiative, is trying to really get at the heart of some of these pain points that have existed forever but certainly remain in the current supply chain. So look, that's today. This was the RFI number two.
Speaker 1:As always, the guidance here is general and for educational purposes only. It should not be construed by legal advice directly related to your matter. You need an attorney, contact an attorney, but if you have specific legal questions, feel free to reach out to my legal company, skoll Strategies. Otherwise, for the non-legal questions, the e-learning and general interesting 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 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 our website, themaritimeprofessorcom. So until next week. This is Lauren Began.