Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 19 February 2006

Btw, my NetscapeTV is listing now that MSNBC is playing 'Meet The Depressed' at 1:00 a.m. EST. If that is right, if you didn't see the Mary Matalin Smackdown of Maureen Dowd and David Gregory this morning, this is a must see (if this TV listing is correct!

;-)

THANKS!

I put it on now, just in time to see Mary Matalin. :-)

Good timing!

It is MUST see...Dowd is a Witch.

That magnolia (or whatever) on Mary's dress.....not such a great fashion statement, eh?

....... years ago (30+ years)

It doesn't matter. Get a rope!

:) HA!

I'll get a rope, if you get a joint.

LOL.

A bit of maritime fun. If you read this (and some of the links), you will learn more about the agencies and rules relating to US Maritime Law than probably 999 out of 1,000 people.

I looked because I wasn't sure how Dave Sanborn's proposed position as Administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation would "fit" in the regulatory scheme of a Dubai buy-out of P&O's interests in US Port operations.

Maritime Administration is NOT the same as The Federal Maritime Commission.

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is an independent regulatory agency responsible for the regulation of oceanborne transportation in the foreign commerce of the U.S. The principal statutes or statutory provisions administered by the Commission are: the Shipping Act of 1984, the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988, section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and Public Law 89-777.

SIGNALS(TM) provides detailed information on the regulations and activities of the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), and related developments in the ocean freight industry. For past issues, please consult our index.
February 4, 2004
FMC Prepares to Act on China Issues
The FMC Commissioners met January 21st to discuss China-US trade issues. The Commission discussed long pending petitions filed by Chinese controlled carriers China Ocean Shipping Company, China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd. and SINOTRANS Container Lines Co., Ltd. The petitions seek exemption from the 30-day waiting period required for controlled carriers to revise rates in their tariffs. The Commission has recently been urged by the U.S. Maritime Administrator and the Under Secretary of State for Business, Economics and Agricultural Affairs to grant the Chinese Carriers these exemptions. These exemptions are a key part of the recently signed U.S.-China bilateral Maritime Agreement. The FMC will accept comments until February 23, after which a meeting will be scheduled for further discussion of the petitions. Chairman Blust said in a press release that he looks "forward to the swift conclusion of these proceedings."
Definition and current list of "Controlled Carriers," prepared by the FMC
http://www.fmc.gov/home/UpdatedControlledCarrierList.asp
http://www.dpiusa.com/signals/040204.html
April 6, 2004
Commission Grants Exemptions to Chinese Controlled Carriers
The Federal Maritime Commission has granted the petitions of three Chinese controlled carriers. According to Section 9 ocean carriers that are owned or controlled by a foreign government (controlled carriers) are required to publish all rates in their FMC tariffs 30 days before their effective dates. China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd., and SINOTRANS Container Lines Co., Ltd. are now exempt from this requirement.
COSCO and China Shipping, in Petition No. P3-99 and Petition No. P4-03, respectively, sought permanent exemptions from Section 9 of the Shipping Act. The Commission found the requests for permanent exemption to be inconsistent with the Shipping Act, however, it granted these exemptions effective April 1, 2004 without a time limit or expiration date. Petition No. P6-03 filed by SINOTRANS did not request a permanent exemption; it was also approved as of April 1.
These Chinese controlled carriers are now able to file new or reduced rates in their tariffs without waiting 30 days. Tariff amendments that increase costs to shippers will still require 30 days notice. Only after the signing of the new bilateral Maritime Agreement between the U.S. and China did the FMC finally deal with these long-standing petitions. Both the US Maritime Administration and the US Department of State urge the FMC to grant the petitions, citing commitments made by the USA within the bilateral agreement.
FMC Asks for Comments on Chinese Trade Issues
After nearly six years FMC Docket No. 98-14 Shipping Restrictions, Requirements and Practices of The Peoples Republic of China is still very much alive. At their March 31 meeting the FMC Commissioners decided to issue a Notice of Inquiry requesting comments from interested parties in order to measure the actual effectiveness of the recently signed bilateral Maritime Agreement between the US and China.
http://www.dpiusa.com/signals/040406.html
June 7, 2004
FMC Chairman Participates in World Trade Week in California
The Shipping Act of 1984 empowers the Commission to make rules and regulations to address conditions unfavorable to shipping in foreign trades. The Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 allows the Commission to address adverse conditions affecting U.S. carriers in foreign trades that do not exist for foreign carriers in the United States. These two controlling statutes provide the FMC with the authority to act as needed to ensure US trading partners maintain open and fair systems for ocean borne trade. The Commission has a long history of assessing foreign shipping practices, and taking action to address conditions unfavorable to US trade. Its on-going investigation into the US-China trade, Docket 98-14, is the most recent of many similar investigations, which have include US trade with Japan, Italy, Brazil, Korea, Taiwan, and many of the countries in South and Central America.
The US-China trade has become an important focus for the FMC in recent years as trade has grown. In 2002 over 26 percent of US exports of containerized cargo to the Far East Region were destined for China, and nearly half of all US imports from the region originated in China. Chairman Blust noted the recently implemented bilateral Maritime Agreement between the US and China, and said "it is my sincere hope and my expectation that we will hear from US ocean common carriers and NVOCCs that it is now possible for them to do business in China without undue burdens, in the cooperative spirit of the new US-China bilateral Maritime Agreement." ...
Without giving any indication of how or when the FMC might rule on this matter, Chairman Blust said "we at the Commission recognize the significance of any action or inaction on our part on this matter. As with any matter before the Commission, the authority to take the actions requested and the implications to the industry of doing so will be considered carefully." In his closing remarks Chairman Blust emphasized the mandate given to the Commission by Congress will drive its policies. The FMC "will continue to strive for fairness and equality among industry components while monitoring to ensure our industry remains competitive." [emphasis added]
http://www.dpiusa.com/signals/040607.html
July 6, 2004
FMC Docket No. 01-06: Deadline Extended on Mississippi Tug Franchise Issue
The FMC announced it will extend the deadline for the initial decision for Docket No. 01-06 Exclusive Tug Franchises Marine Terminal Operators Serving the Lower Mississippi River. The new deadline is July 1, 2005, and a final decision can be expected by October 31, 2005. ...
In a similar investigation ending in February 2003, Floridas Port Canaveral paid $750,000 to settle FMC Dockets 02-02 and 02-03, which alleged the port had violated the Shipping Act of 1984 by entering into an exclusive contract for tug services with Seabulk International, and had refused to consider applications by other tug operators to serve the port. Port Canaveral also agreed to open tug services to competition, ending the monopoly enjoyed by Seabulk International at the port for more than 40 years.
FMC Commissioner Anderson Confirmed by US Senate and Sworn In
A. Paul Anderson was officially sworn in to the office of Federal Maritime Commissioner June 3, 2004 by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. President George W. Bush initially appointed Commissioner Anderson to a recess appointment on August 22, 2003 and later re-nominated Commissioner Anderson for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2007. Commissioner Andersons nomination was confirmed by the Senate unanimously on May 5, 2004.
http://www.dpiusa.com/signals/040706.html
August 4, 2004
FMC Commissioner Brennan Reappointed for 5-Year Term
FMC Commissioner Joseph E. Brennan was recently sworn in for another five-year term. President George W. Bush nominated Brennan in March, and the U.S. Senate confirmed this appointment in May. Commissioner Brennans first term began in 1999 following nomination by President William J. Clinton. His new term will expire September 30, 2008.
http://www.dpiusa.com/signals/040804.html
November 4, 2004
Carriers Implement Security Surcharges
Many carriers have recently filed Carrier Security Surcharges in their FMC tariffs to cover the cost of compliance with new security regulations. Charges range from US$6 to US$10 per container, with effective dates ranging from early November to mid-December. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) [ IMO's FAQ ] and its members implemented an International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS code) in July 2004 to improve port and vessel security against international terrorism. The new regulations subject ocean carriers to increased costs for vessel security risk assessments and vessel certification. Carriers have implemented the Carrier Security Surcharges to cover the cost of compliance with these new regulations.
http://www.dpiusa.com/signals/041104.htm
September 5, 2001
FMC Delays Action on China Issues: Petitions by Controlled Carriers Remain Pending
The closed door meeting of FMC Commissioners on August 15, 2001 resulted in no new action on Docket 98-14, the Commissions on-going investigation into restrictions on the operations of non-Chinese carriers in China. The FMC also did not rule or comment on the Petitions filed by two Chinese flag carriers for partial exemption from the FMCs controlled carrier regulations: China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) and China National Foreign Trade Transportation (Group) Corp. d/b/a SINOTRANS. As controlled carriers, both COSCO and SINOTRANS are subject to much more stringent FMC requirements than non-controlled carriers. COSCO already enjoys a limited exemption from the Section 9 of the Shipping Act, and has petitioned for exemptions from the Controlled Carrier Act. SINOTRANS seeks the same limited exemption from Section 9 of the Shipping Act already enjoyed by COSCO, which enables COSCO to publish rates with less than 30 days notice.
http://www.dpiusa.com/signals/010905.html
Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, January 08, 2004
COSCO to enhance Pacific line
The China-US Maritime Agreement is another factor behind the increased capacity, according to the spokesman. "The Agreement gives Chinese shipping companies a level playing field with foreign liners," he [COSCO Container Lines spokesman] said.
The China-US Maritime Agreement was signed in December during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit. The previous one expired in September 1998.
The lack of the Agreement created many limits to the operation of Chinese shipping companies, the spokesman said. For example, Chinese liners have to submit a report one month before their price changes. "It makes us slow in a market full of fluctuations," he said.
He said COSCO can not afford to miss the opportunity offered by increasing Sino-US trade. Sino-US trade rose by nearly 30 per cent to US$113.7 billion in the first 11 months. The maritime industry is a major vehicle for the prospering trade ties. In his trip to United States last month, Premier Wen also visited Conley Terminal of Boston Port where COSCO ships are berthed.
COSCO has brought thousands more containers with valuable products to the port and has helped keep 9,000 people working in Massachusetts maritime industries, the spokesman said. Besides capacity expansion, COSCO is moving to buy more terminals in United States. COSCO will work with PSA Corp for terminals on the US East Coast.
PSA and COSCO just inaugurated their first joint venture terminal, the US$94.34 million COSCO-PSA Terminal, in Singapore.
On the locations being considered for COSCO-PSA ventures worldwide, Wei Jiafu, COSCO president said they would choose hub ports in the Mediterranean and US east coast. COSCO Pacific, a unit of COSCO, plans to spend US$350 million over the next 12 months to buy ports in China and the United States.
"Long Beach container port in the United States is in the list", the firm's management has told analysts.
http://english.people.com.cn/200401/08/eng20040108_132091.shtml

And now for a little twist, admiralty/bill of lading law. THIS stuff is where the rubber meets the road - money money money - commerce commerce commerce.

Cases for Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2004:
No. 02-1028 Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby
Oh my, what a fascinating case. From the 11th Circuit's opinion: "This case, the facts of which began in Australia and ended in Alabama, is about Himalaya clauses, Clauses Paramount, COGSA, the package limitation defense, FBLs, FIATA, and the like. In short, it is a bill of lading case." I'm going to punt on this one and place my bets on the ample skills of Carter Phillips (arguing for the petitioner) and the fact that the Court reverses 70% of the time. REVERSE.
http://scotus.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_scotus_archive.html
Facts: James Kirby hired International Cargo Control (ICC) as a shipping intermediary to arrange a shipment of goods from Australia to Alabama. ICC issued Kirby a bill of lading (a contract that set shipping terms). The bill invoked liability limitations provided by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). The bill also included a Himalaya Clause, which extended ICC's limitations of liability to companies ICC hired. ICC hired Hamburg Sud to transport the goods. Hamburg Sud issued ICC a bill of lading that also invoked COGSA protections and included a Himalaya Clause. Hamburg Sud carried the goods on a ship to Georgia and subcontracted Norfolk Southern Railroad to transport the goods inland to Alabama. The train derailed and Kirby sued Norfolk Southern to recover the $1.5 million in damages he claimed the derailment caused his goods. The district court ruled Norfolk Southern could limit its liability to Kirby on the basis of the Himalaya clause in the Hamburg Sud contract. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the Hamburg Sud bill did not limit Norfolk Southern's liability to Kirby because Kirby was not bound by its terms.
Question Presented: 1. Did federal law govern the interpretation of the ICC and Hamburg Sud bills of lading (contracts)? 2. Was Norfolk entitled to the protection of the liability limitations in both bills?
Conclusion: Yes and yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that federal law controlled the interpretation of both bills, because they were maritime contracts and the dispute was not inherently local. The Court also held that the 11th Circuit misinterpreted the bills as not protecting Norfolk.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1783/

I saw the repeat and I concur with your assessment. :-)

Mary has just HORRIBLE fashion sense. Someone should send her name to "WHAT NOT TO WEAR"!

That pin was just................................

If I wrote what I think about it, I'd get banned. LOL

Thanks to you. :-)

bttt

bttt

How the hell am I supposed to argue with that? Cripes, you didn't even throw a gratuitous insult. Allow me, "You argue like a girl."

What's wrong with a "BTTT" ?

I know, I know, there isn't anything in the world, that you desire more, than a FLAME WAR with me, but it ain't gonna happen. :-)

I just loved Mary Matalin's Monster-Size Smackdown of Gregory and Dowdy. Awesome performance. She hit all the right points in her arguments, and she threw in some perfect zingers. I wanted to give her a high five!

What's wrong with a "BTTT" ?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Why must you pick a fight?

I know, I know, there isn't anything in the world, that you desire more, than a FLAME WAR with me, but it ain't gonna happen.

There are plenty of things I would like more, but you are right, from time to time I enjoy a rhetorical spitting match. But it's not so much a flame war I desire with you, it's to send you off on a barrage of figuratively "crazed" attack - to incite you to imprudent typing.

It would all be in fun, from my end, and my hope would be that you took it seriously while I lounged about in mirth and comfort. Perhaps some day it will come about, and I will be more wily at that time.

'til we cross paths again, I thank you for taking the time to peruse the maritime materials.

Mary has just HORRIBLE fashion sense. Someone should send her name to "WHAT NOT TO WEAR"! That pin was just................................

LOL........ I was waiting for David Gregory to lean over to her and tell her that if she (Mary) didn't do well in the interview, Dick Cheney was going to use her "magnolia" pin as a target next time.

;-)

It was beautiful. And to be fair (and sometimes I hate to), Mr. PotatoHead Timmy gave Mary quite a lot of time to talk.

It is MUST see...Dowd is a Witch.

Funny you say that. Maureen at times looked like she was just shrinking (evaporating like the Wizard of Oz witch) in her seat as Mary nailed her. I was actually feeling a little sorry for her.

I know Dowd's "on the other side," but I do think she is funny and quite smart at times.

No........ pardon me, nopardons.

;-)

Yeah, Russert alloted a lot of time for Mary. I liked how she mocked the press, and her zingers really put Dowd in her place! She looked positively dazed.