当前位置：新闻动态
Administrative judge rules in truckers' favour in chassis dispute
来源： shippingazette 编辑：编辑部 发布：2023/02/15 11:17:13
MOST restrictions imposed by ocean carriers on what chassis truckers can use for haulage are unreasonable, an administrative judge has ruled, reports New York's Journal of Commerce.
FMC Chief Administrative Judge Erin Wirth ruled that exclusive agreements that prevent truckers from using the chassis provider of their choice are unreasonable and violate the US Shipping Act.
The initial ruling "partially granting summary decision" isn't the end of the battle pitting the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and its Intermodal Carriers Conference (IMCC) against the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA), but it brings that end closer.
The ATA argued that intermodal trucking companies should be able to choose which chassis to use when the ocean carrier is not responsible for the door-to-door logistics. In her decision, Judge Wirth mostly agreed.
The only exception was for agreements that assign a default chassis provider when a motor carrier has no preference. "The assignment of a default provider where a motor carrier does not have another preference may serve the interests of the shipping public," she wrote in her ruling.
FMC Chief Administrative Judge Erin Wirth ruled that exclusive agreements that prevent truckers from using the chassis provider of their choice are unreasonable and violate the US Shipping Act.
The initial ruling "partially granting summary decision" isn't the end of the battle pitting the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and its Intermodal Carriers Conference (IMCC) against the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA), but it brings that end closer.
The ATA argued that intermodal trucking companies should be able to choose which chassis to use when the ocean carrier is not responsible for the door-to-door logistics. In her decision, Judge Wirth mostly agreed.
The only exception was for agreements that assign a default chassis provider when a motor carrier has no preference. "The assignment of a default provider where a motor carrier does not have another preference may serve the interests of the shipping public," she wrote in her ruling.