Federal Maritime Commission Chairman Mario Cordero says he is willing to discuss the agency’s concerns with Port Authority of New York/New Jersey and OCEMA member carriers, leaving the door open for future approval of a revised agreement.
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has rejected a proposed discussion agreement between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and a group of ocean common carriers, saying that it failed to meet “the clear and definite disclosure standard required by law.”
OCEMA is a group of 19 marine carriers that discuss issues having to do with intermodal equipment such as container chassis.
The port and OCEMA told the FMC they wanted to form what they were calling the Port of New York/New Jersey Equipment Optimization Discussion Agreement in order to “collect and exchange information, engage in discussions, and reach agreement on measures to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of loaded and empty intermodal equipment through the Port of New York and New Jersey.”
Among other things, they wanted to discuss issues such as the development of one or more chassis pools at marine terminals and/or inland intermodal facilities in the New York/New Jersey area.
OCEMA and the port authority noted there are also “issues of common interest relating to cargo throughput, safety, intermodal equipment supply and efficiencies, congestion relief, port and terminal infrastructure, financing of improvements and clean air or other environmental initiatives” that might be raised in their discussions.
Mario Cordero, chairman of the FMC, said that rejection of the proposed agreement “should not be viewed by port management or carrier executives of companies doing business at the port as the Commission being opposed to the establishment of a discussion agreement.”
OCEMA and the port authority had proposed a similar agreement last June, but after the FMC requested additional information in August, it was withdrawn before the current version was filed in November.
The FMC said many of the issues it identified in August were “left unaddressed and unresolved in the filing made in November,” and as such, the commission rejected the agreement earlier this week.
Cordero, however, said he was “amenable to meeting with the PANYNJ management team and OCEMA to discuss the commission’s concerns with the previous filings, as well as to explore how to create a narrowly tailored agreement that delivers specific efficiencies,” leaving the door open for future approval of a revised discussion agreement between the two.
FMC nixes discussion agreement between PANYNJ, carriers
