Frequently Asked
Questions

The current system is an anomaly: the practices in the United States differ from those worldwide. Operationally, under the U.S. system, ocean carriers are currently providing road vehicles (chassis) over which they rarely have physical control. Shippers, consignees, and motor carriers generally have physical use and control over chassis. Aligning provision, control, and use will result in greater efficiency and better chassis management practices throughout the supply chain. It will allow motor carriers to reduce time lost through the interchange process, encourage multiple sources of supply, and provide environmental benefits to the public at large.

Each ocean carrier will decide whether, where, or when it wants to change the way chassis are currently provided based on its own unique operational and commercial circumstances. Some ocean carriers may choose to continue operating exactly as they do today. Others may change in some locations, but not in others. For this reason, it is important to contact the carrier you work with for specific details. It is clear that this process will take some time to fully develop.

Because operating parameters may differ significantly by terminal, transportation mode (rail versus marine), or region (coastal versus inland, Northeast versus Southeast, etc.), chassis may be provided in numerous ways based on what is most efficient. As is the case today, alternative chassis providers include cooperative pools (e.g., CCM and alliance pools), neutral pools, leasing companies, motor carriers, terminal pools, and others. OCEMA surveys indicate there will continue to be multiple sources and a stable supply of chassis.

No, chassis are not going away. Where change occurs, they will simply be provided by entities other than ocean carriers. In fact, greater efficiencies in chassis provision are expected to improve availability and mitigate future shortages caused by systemic failures. OCEMA studies indicate that chassis will generally stay in the same locations they are in today. If shortages do occur they will almost certainly be the result of spikes in demand unrelated to any provisioning system.

This is the system used in most of the world and it should also be available in the U.S. Whether a drayman can efficiently use its own chassis at a specific terminal may be an operational matter dependent on the way the terminal is configured (e.g., wheeled versus grounded). However, many of the changes being contemplated by individual carriers facilitate drayman-owned or leased chassis use. Experience to date indicates that many truckers and other stakeholders will be able to achieve much more efficient use of chassis than under the traditional U.S. approach.

With regard to shipper service contracts having express obligations to provide chassis, OCEMA members will respect their contractual obligations. It is possible that some may seek to reach a mutually agreeable amendment of existing contract provisions with customers as they change their provisioning system, or reach agreement in the next contract with the customer, as each member sees fit. However, this is a confidential contractual issue between each individual ocean carrier and its customers.

The changes will generally allow draymen to arrange for their own chassis and to use them as they best see fit. Given improvements in operational efficiency — including reductions in congestion, idle time, and reduced repositioning moves — the new approach will reduce diesel emissions associated with intermodal transportation.

In the case of carrier haulage (“store-door” move), inland transportation costs will continue to be negotiated between the ocean carrier and the shipper. In the case of merchant haulage (port-to-port move with shipper arranging for drayage), the agreement to move the container and who pays for the chassis will be between the shipper and its trucker. Whether there is any cost impact will be determined by commercial, operational, and other factors between shippers, ocean carriers, and motor carriers.

There should be no adverse effect on safety and compliance — in fact, it may facilitate compliance. The change in provisioning should better align physical control and equipment operation to the regulatory processes controlling it. FMCSA roadability regulations for commercial motor vehicles generally place inspection, maintenance, and reporting requirements on motor carriers for operations with trailing units. The changes in the provisioning model should simplify compliance.

In cases in which another entity, such as an ocean carrier or leasing company, provides a chassis to a motor carrier, compliance with FMCSA regulations applicable to intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) should not be affected. In cases in which the motor carrier operates its own chassis, this will align with general FMCSA requirements for trailing equipment.

There is no “one size fits all” approach to providing chassis. For commercial and operational reasons, each ocean carrier will independently determine the best approach to take based on its individual customer service requirements, commercial factors, and operational circumstances. Information provided on this website offers useful context on actions taken to date and future implementation scenarios for OCEMA members changing provisioning models.