The impact of U.S. regulatory changes on international intermodal movements

Transportation Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 1-14

  Shashikumar, N ^a   Schatz, G L ^a  

^a MAINE MARITIME ACADEMY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034259994     PISSN: 00411612     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. 1 Piggyback service refers to the practice of placing the container on a chassis and then loading the chassis and the container together on the flat car, or the railroads' practice of loading highway trailers onto flat cars.
2. 2 David J. DeBoer, Piggyback and Containers, San Marino, CA, Golden West Books, 1992.
3. 3 It has been observed that even a substantial increase in the utilization of intermodal rolling stock could not have compensated for the higher running cost per payload ton of intermodal cargo. For details, see Le T. Thuong, "From Piggyback to Double Stack Intermodalism," Maritime Policy and Management 16.1 (1989): 69-81.
4. 4 R.F. Church, Background Note on the Development of Containerized International Shipping (Chicago: Northwestern Univ. Center, 1968) p. 32.
5. 5 E.A. Morash, S.J. Hille, and E.R. Bruning, "Marketing Rail Piggyback Services," Transportation Journal Winter 1977: 40-50.
6. 6 F.J. Beier and S.W. Frick, "The Limits of Piggyback: The Light at the End of the Tunnel," Transportation Journal Winter 1978: 12-18.
7. 7 Kevin Horn, "Pricing of Rail Intermodal Service: A Case Study of Institutional Myopia," Transportation Journal Summer 1981: 63-78.
8. 8 United States Department of Transportation, Double Stack Container Systems: Implications for U.S. Railroads and Ports (Springfield, Virginia: MTIS, 1990).
9. 9 The control over cargo is a key element of intermodality. For details, see G. Hayuth, Intermodality: Concept and Practice (London: LLP, 1987) p. 14.
10. 10 APL set the trend in negotiations with railroads by teaming up with Union Pacific, and Chicago and North Western railroads to run a dedicated liner train service in 1979. The other major liner operators matched this trend immediately.
11. 11 Intermodalism in the U.S. has advanced into its fourth stage. Only the conventional piggyback services were available during the first stage. The various ship-rail coordinated bridge services evolved during the second stage. The introduction of doublestack movements and the use of earless (road-railer) technology constitute the third stage. The characteristic feature of the fourth stage is the luring of domestic shippers into using intermodal services for better equipment utilization.
12. 12 Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 13 ICC 206 (1908).
13. 13 It took the ICC a full 53 years (from 1916 to 1969) to accept that the U.S. Shipping Act of 1916 did regulate the liner shipping services!
14. 14 Minibridge service refers to a continuous movement on a through bill of lading from a foreign port to an intermediary U.S. port followed by a rail movement to the destination U.S. port usually on the other coast, or vice versa in the case of U.S. exports.
15. 15 Carriers had to indicate the division of revenues between the water and the overland portion of through routes in their tariffs filed with the FMC and the ICC respectively. For details, see Le T. Thuong, "U.S. Antitrust Policy and Liner Conferences in the Intermodal Age," Maritime Policy and Management 10.3 (1983): 181-198.
16. 16 The Svenska standard originated when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FMC's interpretation of the 1961 "public interest" amendment to embody competitive and antitrust principles. The court ruled that an agreement that interfered with the principles of the Sherman Act could be approved only if the proponents of the agreement could bring forth such facts which would demonstrate that a particular agreement was justified by a serious transportation need, or was necessary to secure important public benefits, or in furtherance of a valid regulatory provision of the Shipping Act of 1916. For further details, see Federal Maritime Commission V. Aktiebolaget Svenska America Linien (390 U.S. 238 (1968)).
17. 17 Microbridge service provides direct intermodal service to the interior point and was pioneered by the American President Lines in 1978.
18. 18 The precedent-setting case was the FMC decision on Agreement No. 57-96 of the Pacific Westbound Conference (PWC). FMC's decision in favor of PWC was challenged by Seatrain during the legal battle that ensued. Seatrain, a member of PWC, did not favor this decision because thirteen out of the regular twenty-one members of the PWC were also members of the Far East Conference (FEC),the all-water conference from U.S. Atlantic and Gulf ports to the Far East. Seatrain felt that these members would frustrate its effort to promote intermodalism that would naturally compete against their all-water services. For details, see Thuong 1983, 183.
19. 19 For example, see the FMC decision on Agreement No. 10270-2 by the Gulf Europe Freight Association (GEFA).
20. 20 694 F. 2d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
21. 21 For example, the (1981) FMC disapproval of Agreement No. 3103-67 by the Japan/Korea-Atlantic and Gulf Conference (JKAG) on the grounds that such services could also be provided by individual conference members as well as independents. The types of information required specifically for approval of a conference's intermodal authority were specified in a later case (in 1982), involving Agreement No. 7680-39 by the American-West African Conference (AWAC). For details, see Thuong 1983, 187.
22. 22 For a good discussion of the legislative efforts to solve the intermodal issue, see Thuong (1983, 188-192).
23. 23 This Act is also referred to as the 4R Act.
24. 24 P.L. 96-448 (1980).
25. 25 94 Statutes at Large 793-826 (1980).
26. 26 P.L. 98-237 (1984).
27. 27 For a detailed analysis of the U.S. Shipping Act of 1984 and its controversial provisions, see the following publications by N. Shashikumar: "US Maritime Regulation: History and Evolution of the 1984 Act," Maritime Policy and Management 15.3 (1988): 241-6; "Mandatory Independent Action: A Legislative Paradox," Maritime Policy and Management 15.4 (1988):283-90; "Service Contracts: A Case Study of Unfulfilled Promises," Maritime Policy and Management 16.1 (1989): 13-26.
28. 27 For a detailed analysis of the U.S. Shipping Act of 1984 and its controversial provisions, see the following publications by N. Shashikumar: "US Maritime Regulation: History and Evolution of the 1984 Act," Maritime Policy and Management 15.3 (1988): 241-6; "Mandatory Independent Action: A Legislative Paradox," Maritime Policy and Management 15.4 (1988):283-90; "Service Contracts: A Case Study of Unfulfilled Promises," Maritime Policy and Management 16.1 (1989): 13-26.
29. 27 For a detailed analysis of the U.S. Shipping Act of 1984 and its controversial provisions, see the following publications by N. Shashikumar: "US Maritime Regulation: History and Evolution of the 1984 Act," Maritime Policy and Management 15.3 (1988): 241-6; "Mandatory Independent Action: A Legislative Paradox," Maritime Policy and Management 15.4 (1988):283-90; "Service Contracts: A Case Study of Unfulfilled Promises," Maritime Policy and Management 16.1 (1989): 13-26.
30. 28 Tony Beargie, "NIT League Files Complaint Against TAA," American Shipper Aug. 1994: 6-9.
31. 29 Tony Beargie, "Will FMC Watchdog Bite?" American Shipper Sept. 1994: 24-29.
32. 30 Tony Beargie, "NIT League Vs. FMC," American Shipper Dec. 1994: 23-24.
33. 31 Tony Beargie, "Is NITL Drive Losing Steam?" American Shipper May 1995: 39-42.
34. 32 Tony Beargie, "Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995?" American Shipper Aug. 1995: 12-14.
35. 33 Tony Beargie, "Shipping Law Reform Advances in House," American Shipper Nov. 1995: 12.
36. 34 Tony Beargie, "Shipping Reform Stalls in Senate," American Shipper Dec 1995: 16-19.
37. 35 Tony Beargie, "Senate Starts Anew on Shipping Bill," American Shipper Jan. 1996: 15.
38. 36 Tony Beargie, "AAPA Opposes Shipping Act Bill," American Shipper May 1996: 16.
39. 37 "Shipping Reform Gets Boost from DoT," American Shipper Nov. 1997: 16.
40. 38 Tony Beargie, "Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998?" American Shipper Dec. 1997: 10-12.
41. 39 Tony Beargie and Chris Gillis, "Rate Deal," American Shipper Apr. 1998: 8-12.
42. 40 "NVOs Seek Tariff Exemption," American Shipper Oct. 1998: 20.
43. 41 "FMC Gets Ready for Shipping Reform," American Shipper Aug. 1998: 10-12.
44. 42 Tony Beargie, "Service Contracts," Nov. 1998: 8-12.
45. 43 S.414 Section 7.
46. 44 S.414 Section 4 (a)(1).
47. 45 S.414 Section 8.
48. 46 For details of the 1984 Act's original service contract provision, see N. Shashikumar, "Service contracts: A Case Study of Unfulfilled Promises," Maritime Policy and Management 16.1 (1989): 13-26.
49. 47 S.414 Section 8 (c)(3).
50. 48 S.414 Section 5 (c)(1) and (3).
51. 49 S.414 Section 3 (19).
52. 50 S.414 Section 3 (13).
53. 51 S.414 Section 8 (c)(1).
54. 52 S.414 Section 8 (c)(4).
55. 53 For details on the mandatory independent acton provision of the 1984 Act, see N. Shashikumar, "Mandatory Independent Action: A Legislative Paradox," Maritime Policy and Management 15.4 (1988): 241-46.
56. 54 S.414 Section 5 (b)(8).
57. 55 S.414 Section 3 (17).
58. 56 S.414 Section 19 (a).
59. 57 S.414 Section 19 (b).
60. 58 The survey form was also posted at http://www.conconnect.com/and its availability brought to the attention of members of various electronic discussion groups as well as the readers of the Journal of Commerce and the Containerization International.
61. 59 Bill Mongelluzzo, "COSCO Joins the Club and will Raise Rates May 1," Journal of Commerce April 21, 1999: 1A.
62. 60 See Asaf Ashar, "Misunderstanding the Harbor Tax," Journal of Commerce May 26, 1999: 5A.
63. 70 For example, see Michigan State Global Logistics Research Team, World Class Logistics: The Challenge of Managing Continuous Change (Oak Brook, IL: Council of Logistics Management) p. 82-95.
64. th Shipping Management Seminar, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India, Nov. 2, 1996.