Editor’s note: The National industrial Transportation League (NITL) was founded in 1907, and its 600 members range from some of the largest companies in the US to much smaller enterprises. NITL’s members primarily include companies that move their products through our country’s transportation network and are engaged in the movement of goods both domestically and internationally.Peter Gatti, NITL’s Executive Vice President is a transportation veteran having worked for NITL for the past two decades. He has specialized in organizing the international operations of the NITL, particularly on maritime affairs. Gatti currently serves as the Vice Chairman of the Maritime Committee of the International Chamber of Commerce headquartered in Paris, France. Before joining NITL, Gatti served from 1981 through 1985 as the Director/Counsel for Governmental Relations with the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). Prior to his position with AAPA, Mr. Gatti served as a professional staff member with the US House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee from 1976 through 1981. AJOT: The proposed revision of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA) stands to withdraw anti-trust immunity from the Ocean Carriers. How would removal of anti-trust immunity benefit US importers and exporters? It has been argued that 2009/10 was an abnormal event and that the global economy and that of the Transpacific trades in particular are returning to its normal cyclical “peak season” pattern. Do you agree? In your opinion would the removal of anti-trust immunity have and any impact on market conditions that occurred in 2009/10?Gatti: “Technically the proposed legislation would not repeal antitrust immunity from groups of ocean carriers organized in discussion agreements or conferences, but instead would eliminate liner carriers’ current ability to get together and, “discuss, fix or regulate transportation rates” as well as agreeing or discussing capacity and a host of other issues. The point here is that it still permits competitive rationalization of services such as slot chartering, port calls, and other practices under the term “efficiency enhancing agreements.” “In terms of rates and service which impacts pricing of contracts for example, you’re correct that these practices would end under H.R 6167 and while this bill will not advance into law, it does get to the second half of your question.” “The removal of pricing guidelines as currently constituted in discussion agreements would put carriers and their customers on equal footing. A shipper (importer or exporter) would know that the prices they are being offered is not the result of what the TSA believes should be a reasonable return on investment (based on past profits or losses) but what an individual carrier knows it must receive (based on individual costs) in order to do business.” “While conditions in early 2010 were certainly not normal—TSA made it clear back in 2009 that member lines would need to consider pushing for higher rates in their new service contracts regardless of economic conditions. Unexpected volumes came back in January and the rates soared even before the expiration of the then current contracts, which were inked back in 2009. The same conditions, which lead to cargoes being rolled, uniform surcharges being applied as well as contracts being breached could clearly occur tomorrow.” “Without question, the removal of rate making immunity would have had some impact under these unusual conditions. This I believe is why one of the recommendations in FMC Commissioner Dye’s interim investigation report requires TSA to provide verbatim transcripts of their meetings.” AJOT:“The TSA mandate says it does not: jointly set or enforce rates in the Asia-US market; jointly restrict or otherwise manage capacity; share confidential service contract information. However, the manipulation of capacity through lay ups, slow-steaming, equipment shortages and subsequent increases in freight rates would seem to be in c