b'8American Journal ofTransportation ajot.com(PRACTICEScontinuedOcean Carrier Alliances from page 6)even though they were not aTotal Owned Chartered Orderbookpart of the case, because the ruledefinesthereasonable- Ocean Carrier Ships TEU Ships TEUShips TEU Ships TEUness of carrier charges. The mainthrustoftheruleis2M Alliancethat although demurrage andRank: 1 Mediterranean Shipping Co. 7364,771,7714492,241,2282872,530,5431291,746,286 detentionarevalidcharges2 Maersk 6954,178,5313442,550,9453511,627,58630373,000 when they work, when theyTotal1,431 8,950,3027934,792,1736384,158,1291592,119,286 do not, there is cause to ques-tiontheirreasonableness, the commission wrote. To beTHE Alliancereasonable,aregulationor5 Hapag-Lloyd 2471,801,7381201,111,479127690,25917349,304 practicemustbetailoredto7 ONE (Ocean Network Express) 2061,531,88090787,587116744,29341571,610 meetitsintendedpurpose.8 Hyundai Merchant Marine 75816,36537555,86638260,49926265,027 Both in the case of demurrage9 Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp. 93705,61451216,34642489,268 and detention and in the caseTotal 6214,855,5972982,671,278 323 2,184,319 84 1,185,941 ofchassispractices,carrier rules must serve to promote freight fluidity. Ocean AllianceAnother similarity is that,3 CMA CGM Group 6003,394,9882391,668,3803611,726,60891819,181 in both cases, the respondents4 COSCO Group 4652,888,0261781,593,0082871,295,01845864,740 arguedthattheCommission6 Evergreen Line 2121,667,391127950,50385716,88849463,442 lacked authority to ruleonTotal1,277 7,950,4055444,211,8917333,738,5141852,147,363 matters involving intermodal chassis,intheIMCCcase,Alliances Total 3,329 21,756,304 1,635 11,675,342 1,694 10,080,962 428 5,452,590andonrailcharges,inthe M.E.Deycase.ItsbeyondSource: Alphaliner 03/22/2023disputethatIEPsandrail-roads are not regulated enti-ties under the Shipping Act.InIMCC,theFMC explained that its jurisdiction doesnotautomaticallystop at the port. Quoting another case,involvingtheNorfolk SouthernRailway,theFMC elaborated: So long as a bill of lading requires substantial carriage of goods by sea, its purpose is to effectuate mari-timecommerceandthus it is a maritime contract. Its character as a maritime con-tractisnotdefeatedsimply becauseitalsoprovidesfor some land carriage. With that, the FMC dis-missed the respondents argu-ment of lack of jurisdiction. Thesamerationalewould appeartojustifytheFMCs exercise of jurisdiction in the M.E. Dey case. C Hassiss upplyOnthesubstanceofthe practicesindispute,the respondents in IMCC argued thatthecontractswiththe IEPs were necessary to ensure the supply of chassis, but the FMCfoundnoevidence demonstrating that MH chas-sischoicehasanynegative effect on the supply of chas-sis. The FMC also noted that, while the respondents insist onpreservingtheirrightto denychassischoice,they simultaneouslyassertthat amotorcarriercanalways bring its own chassis. (The latter point is a contested fact in M.E. Dey.)This,theCommission concluded,suggestsalack ofactualtransportationor functional reasons for deny-ingthechoiceofachassis provider. The respondents do notsufficientlyexplainhow oceancarriercontrolover chassis will ensure sufficient and safe supply of chassis.Carriersareallowed deference to their legitimate business decisions, the FMC (PRACTICEScontinued on page 12)'