FMC to Enter ‘Twilight Zone’

Joseph Bonney | Jul 28, 2011 3:55PM GMT

When Federal Maritime Commission Chairman Richard Lidinsky looks across the U.S.-Canada border, he sees a “twilight zone.”

Lidinsky is referring to what he describes as a blind spot in FMC oversight of service contracts. He says the FMC has origin-to-destination visibility of intermodal shipments via U.S. ports but not for the land leg of shipments via Canadian or Mexican ports.

He said West Coast members of Congress want the FMC to look into whether U.S. ports are unfairly disadvantaged by shipments via Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and that the same issues apply to other ports in Canada and Mexico.

No complaint has been filed, Lidinsky emphasized. He said the FMC merely has been asked to examine the situation. He said questions may include the impact of issues such as the harbor maintenance tax, different levels of container inspections and possible subsidy of rail moves.

“We’re not trying to build a wall,” he said. “We’re just trying to clarify the situation to ensure there’s a level playing field. I realize it’s awkward to do this kind of thing with our largest trading partner and neighbor, but it’s a regulatory situation that should be clarified, and the sooner we can do it, the better off we’ll be.”

Lidinsky said the FMC may take one of three paths – a formal fact-finding inquiry, a wide-open notice of inquiry, or a narrowly focused investigation. He said he’ll consult with other FMC members on which course to take and expects a decision soon after Labor Day.

-- Contact Joseph Bonney at jbonney@joc.com. Follow him on Twitter @josephbonney.

If US ports are "unfairly disadvantaged" they have no further to look than their own unions and government regulators. Prince Rupert wasn't supposed to work - all of the so-called experts said that. Well, not only is it working - it is clearly superior to the alternative(s) which historically experienced major port congestion creating delays for shippers equalling days and even weeks. Why not ask those shippers whose cargo transits via Prince Rupert if they feel they are being "unfairly disadvantaged" by the service they recieve through that port.

Can it ever be about the customer - just once ???

- By DANANTHONY on 7/29/11

let's do another fact finding mission that made a few headlines, did nothing, and was never released. you wonder why the deficit is so big? we pay taxes, one would think a report would be released about the disaster of 2010

- By nybcoZATO on 7/29/11

The FMC needs to look at a globe, a topographic map showing the Rocky Mountains from Mexico to Alaska, plus CN and CP rail maps. The grade CN uses to Prince Rupert is less than1.8 percent. Canadian timber is easier harvested using mechanized tree harvesters than in America, due to the slope. Location is not theory, Prince Rupert has the best geoeconomic location for Shanghai and all the ports north of Shanghai.
Port Churchill, Manitoba has the best location for Russia via the Arctic Ocean.

In both cases only one railroad serves the Port.

I am attending the Canada Maritime Conference in Montreal.

consultmilne

- By pete milne on 7/28/11

The FMC has little to do, so looking at things that it can't control is one way of lapping up time. They have little or no business in Service Contracts save that they are filed with them. By Law resolution to issues in Service Contracts are court issues.
And of course with all else that is going on, someone in Congress wants the FMC to look into Prince Rupert. Makes perfect sense.

- By 105DRVR on 7/28/11

The only disadvantage is the fact the Prince Rupert is 3 days sailing time and 1,160 nautical miles closer to China than southern California. Are we now going to regulate and legislate geography too???

- By jgiblin on 7/28/11