Washington, D.C. -The implementation date for the IMO Amended regulation on Verified Gross Mass is fast approaching. Carriers, concerned over inaccurate reporting of cargo weights by shippers, sought an international standard which would enable them to more reliably load containers and sail safely in global maritime transit. The regulation placed greater responsibility on the shipper, who already had the obligation to report weights and who has a continuing commercial interest in the safe arrival of their goods. Carriers, shippers, and the principal US regulator were all at the table when this position was developed and NAWE supported this effort. Today, in the wake of those negotiations and faced with the responsibility of implementation, these same negotiators appear to be backing away from the Amendment and endorsing a business as usual approach. There are suggestions that our Members, marine terminal operators who have no continuing commercial or insurable interest in the shipper’s cargo, should bail everyone out of the impending requirements. The shippers appear to be avoiding all responsibility for the safety of carriage of their cargo. It is time to ask, why should the marine terminal hold the legal liability for the safe voyage of ships and marine cargo? And if one thinks there would be no liability extended to the terminal operator, what is the basis for that assumption? And if as noted shippers are avoiding responsibility for the safety of carriage of their cargo are they also absolving themselves of responsibility when cargo is lost at sea? In looking for an answer to this question, it is important to understand that shippers have long had a responsibility to identify contents and weights for shipping containers. The Coast Guard has even cited a US requirement for those who place containers in commerce to certify weights of containers. Yet in recently issued statements there appears to be a broad reliance upon marine terminals to satisfy the IMO’s VGM mandate. Yes, as parties have noted, many terminals weigh containers for the safe operation of the terminal and safety of its employees consistent with an OSHA requirement. Indeed, some facilities are willing to provide these weights, sometimes called gate weights. There are operational and, again, liability questions/issues for terminals that should not be ignored or dismissed. Often the first lift is one that must rely on the weight provided by the shipper. Containers that are unloaded from vessels and rail conveyances are now not susceptible or subject to being gate-weighed as are containers arriving on trucks. To do so would require additional space and cost considerations. Imagine a full train of double-stacked containers arriving and moving through gate scales at the same time as over the road arrivals. Just a year ago, many were critical of marine terminal operators for the congestion that occurred in a number of ports. Now they seem content to add responsibilities to the work of the port operator, they must not be concerned over congestion any longer. Even if marine terminal operators provide the weight they obtain for that portion of containers that are weighed at the gate, will all foreign flag carriers who are regulated by non-US parties and insured by global companies accept such weights without shipper verification? Will container stacks grow on the terminals because the containers can’t be placed into global commerce? Will the regulator or the shipper or the carrier who accepts these containers also accept the liability and other exposure for that occurrence? These are the questions NAWE has posed since the push-back arose over a fairly negotiated global standard. Terminals are places for volume business loading and unloading containers to and from vessels, trains, and trucks from different shippers, from different places of origin and headed to different destinations. In order to meet the SOLAS VGM requirement shippers and carriers may form commercial agreements with marine terminal operators to support the shipper’s responsibility. However, neither the IMO nor the US Coast Guard has suggested that the legal responsibility and liability has or should transfer to the marine terminal operation. Nor should that responsibility and liability be put on the terminal.