![IANA [Logo]](/images/iana_logo200.gif){kind=logo}
Email this page
Printer FriendlyLegislation & Regulations
Please click the links below and at left to view recently introduced federal legislation, regulatory documents and announcements, and information on transportation security and other topics of interest to the intermodal community:
Click here to view the most recent updates to Federal and State Legislative Activity
The page contains: the Most Recently Active Bills; A Summary Grid of recent legislative activity in all states; A Summary Map highlighting states that have relevant legislation; Most Active States ranked in order of the amount of legislation in that state; and, a "Categories of Interest" box linking to a list of legislation in the areas of Idling/Emissions, Overweight Containers, or Roadability.
Chronology of Federal Maritime Commission Events – Update, FMC Docket 06-10
Summary of FMC Decisions re. the Complaint filed against Sinotrans by Transport Express
The Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) approving the settlement agreement proposed by the parties recognized that none (emphasis added) of the allegations made in the complaint, regarding alleged violations of the Shipping Act, were admitted. The ALJ approved the proposed settlement agreement only on the grounds that acceptance would save the parties the time and expense required by litigation, that the settlement did not appear to violate any law or policy, and that it protects the public interest.
OCEMA's motion to file an amicus brief was denied on the basis that the ALJ's decision was consistent with the FMC's policy to encourage settlements which avoid litigation. Thus, in its Order served February 16, 2007, the FMC concluded that to grant OCEMA’s motion would compel unnecessary litigation that was contrary to agency law and precedent.
Contrary to quotations and information being published by the ATA, and its affiliate, the IMCC, at no stage of the proceeding did the agency find that any of the allegations in the complaint had merit or that the FMC had jurisdiction over the UIIA. In fact, in its Notice served concurrently with the Order denying the OCEMA motion, the FMC indicated that the ALJ's Decision became aministratively final because under the agency's regulations, the time within which the ALJ's Decision could be reviewed had expired. (Hardly the “victory” that is being proclaimed in the trade press.)
In sum, the FMC made no findings regarding the merits of the complaint, the validity of the claims asserted, or its jurisdiction over the UIIA. The FMC's Order was predicated on procedural grounds and not findings of facts or conclusions of law.
Filings in this case can be obtained through the Federal Maritime Commission Website at www.fmc.gov. [Select the Electronic Reading Room tab, then Docket Activity Logs from the drop down menu, and Docket 06-10 from the Docket Logs option.] If you have problems accessing any of the documents, please contact Stacie Fagan at: stacie.fagan@intermodal.org
As a service to our members, UIIA participants and other interested parties, the following represents the chronology of a recent filing that was made with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) involving a dispute between Transport Express Inc. and Sinotrans Container Lines Inc.
October 24, 2006 – Transport Express, Inc., a Calif. Motor Carrier, and the Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference (IMCC), an affiliated conference of the American Trucking Associations, filed a complaint asking the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to rule that actions taken in 2005 by Sinotrans, an ocean carrier, canceling its interchange agreement with Transport Express, violated the Shipping Act of 1984. Transport Express, Inc. and the IMCC file the details of their complaint, called a Memorandum of Facts and Argument. The FMC opens Docket 06-10 to review the complaint. Click here to view Docket 06-10.
November 7, 2006 – The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) submitted a petition with the FMC to intervene or file an amicus brief in the proceeding to correct statements that were made by the Complainants in the original petition. Incorrect information had been provided regarding the scope and administration of the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA), of which both Transport Express and Sinotrans are participants. Transport Express and the IMCC subsequently filed opposition with the FMC, to IANA’s petition to intervene in the proceeding.
November 27, 2006 – Transport Express, the IMCC, and Sinotrans filed a settlement agreement with the FMC, that would include: no admission as to the correctness of the allegations or to the alleged violations of the Shipping Act on the part of Sinotrans, a payment to Transport Express for damages, and payments to both Complainants for reimbursement of legal costs. (It is anticipated that the FMC will be acting on the settlement agreement shortly.)
January 12, 2007 – Administrative Law Judge Clay Guthridge approves the settlement agreement, saying it "would save the parties the time and expense required to litigate the action to a conclusion." The Administrative Law Judge dismisses the IANA Petition submitted on November 7, saying that IANA's petition is moot. Click here to view.
February 5, 2007 – The Ocean Carriers Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) submits a motion to file an amicus brief to address the issue of the FMC's jurisdiction to hear disputes under equipment contracts between motor carriers and equipment providers. In the motion, OCEMA notes that the ALJ's Initial Decision did not discuss the issue of jurisdiction and an absence of action by the Commission would not definitively create FMC precedent on the question of whether the FMC has jurisdiction to hear interchange disputes.
February 16, 2007 – Order denying OCEMA's motion to file an amicus brief is denied on the grounds that such a brief would present no basis for reviewing the initial decision approving the settlement and that granting the motion would compel further litigation of a proceeding which the parties themselves have moved to terminate.
February 16, 2007 – Notice is given that the decision of the ALJ has become administratively final, as the time within which the Commission could determine to review the January 12, 2007 initial decision has expired.
