|
Post by petedabroker on Dec 2, 2008 9:54:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pothole on Dec 3, 2008 10:02:34 GMT -5
i opened this up but don't understand what we need to do here? what does it mean?
|
|
|
Post by dieseljockey on Dec 3, 2008 12:38:03 GMT -5
I believe the FMC will appear in court this Friday. I sent the FMC my comments by email on the LA clean truck plan. If we sit silent without comment those jerks who are pushing the LA clean truck plan to get rid of owner/operator truckers will succeed.
|
|
|
Post by petedabroker on Dec 3, 2008 15:45:23 GMT -5
Your comments should be sort of like this: With reference to petition P2-08
Our concerns regarding this petition are simple. If the FMC lifts the start date related to collection of payment of a container sur-charge, basically the FMC has agreed that part of their jurisdictions are not to enforce such tariff filings. It should also be noted that other firm, who plan on filing for such authority,to believe it is not necessary to gain the FMC approval, and valid waiting time.. It might also add to the fact that the FMC overall position has no validation, related to the Ports of California thus creating even more questions related to the FMC's jurisdiction. It seems very clear that the Ports of California and their lessees should gain no more favor than any other port/other leaser, and have no less rules and regulations than others. It would seem to be favoritism at its least, and validation of FMC authority is questionable at it's worst.
My personal opinion:
What they are asking of the FMC is to give up the waiting period for the implementations of the container charge. It basically is a standard policy that all new charges or increases are given a period to make certain the Shipping Act of 1984 is being enforced. If they gain this concession, on the surface it might look like that is the only thing they want, but it has far more reaching results than just that.
|
|