Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
From: Fronek, Cathy A [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 4:03 PM To: William Mascaro <[email protected]> Cc: Schroeder, Tina M <[email protected]> Subject: Docket 2016-1, Subject 5, Reclassification of Plastic or Rubber Film or Sheeting, other than Rigid Importance: High Dear Mr. Ringer: Subject: Docket 2016-1, Subject 5, Reclassification of Plastic or Rubber Film or Sheeting, other than Rigid This letter is being written on behalf of Bemis Company, Inc. to express our opposition to the proposal for Reclassification of Plastic or Rubber Film or Sheeting, other than rigid; NMFC Items 156600 and 156830. We see no compelling justification to support this reclassification. It is our opinion this proposal serves only as an attempt to inflate carrier invoices and strongly urge the board to reject this change in classification as proposed. The Board should evaluate and rule only on the basis of the following (4) transportability characteristics:
1. Density - There is not enough information to assess if there is an issue with regard to density of this commodity.
Data for Research Project 1216 had too few data points to adequately represent the average density for NMFC Items 156600 and 156830. (Research only had usable data from 11 manufacturers and 101,738 density observations).
Bemis is one of the largest suppliers of this commodity and our average freight density is 35 LB
2. Stowability - There is no issue with regard to stowability of this commodity
3. Ease of Handling – There is no issue with regard to the general ease of handling of this commodity.
“Some units are marked “Fragile” and/or “Handle with Care”, indicating that some degree of care and attention is required when handling these products”. All freight, regardless of classification should be handled with some degree of care and attention.
4. Liability – There is no basis to support a change in classification for liability reasons
Referencing Project 1216 Notes, “In addition, multiple sources identified claims issues resulting from food or pharmaceutical grade plastic film or sheeting being coloaded with specific products, e.g., hazardous materials and odor-emitting freight.”
This statement has absolutely no merit. There is no evidence to support the carrier’s liability is “greatly increased” due to the risk of “special damages” associated with this commodity. “Claims issues” implies the carrier has paid out claims for damage associated with co-loading. At Bemis, claims initiated for co-loading issues have effectively been thwarted by the carrier community. Any claims submitted for coloading issues have been unsuccessful with no recovery of product costs for any incidents. Therefore, the carrier has suffered no damage and has no basis to support reclassification of this commodity. Further, there is no language within either of the
(2) proposed notes to extend carrier liability for this commodity. In effect, there will be no change to current claims review/approval process.
The support for the proposal is inadequate and Bemis Company urges the CCSB to reject this proposal. Respectfully,
Cathy Fronek Vice President Supply Chain & Logistics
Bemis North America 2200 Badger Rd., Oshkosh, WI 54904 Phone: (920) 527-5698 Cell: (920) 252-3544 [email protected]
1901 Winter Street, PO Box 277, Superior, WI 54880 ••• p: 715.395.8258 ••• f: 715.395.8259 ••• www.CharterNEX.com
January 14, 2016 Commodity Classification Standards Board 1001 North Fairfax Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314-1798 Phone: 703-838-1810 Fax: 703-683-1094 Comments re: Reclassification of Plastic or Rubber Film or Sheeting, other than rigid; NMFC Items 156600 and 156830 – Docket 2016-1, Subject 5 Charter NEX Films, Inc wishes to present the following observations to be taken into consideration during future discussion regarding Docket 2016-1, Subject 5. It is our position that the proposed changes do not reflect the actual characteristics of the freight. We would ask the CCSB to reconsider it’s proposal as not all of these adjustments directly relate to the issues of handling units not meeting density-floor restrictions, or claims issues resulting from food or pharaceutical grade plastic film sheeting being coloaded with specific products. Responsible shippers classify and document their freight correctly. In cases where shippers are not correctly identifying their freight, I would expect the carrier hauling this freight to bring it to the attention of the shipper. Removing the most commonly used freight classification and assigning higher freight classes will not fix the issue of shippers incorrectly classifying freight. Educating shippers and open communication between shippers and carriers about improper documentation will be more effective than changing classifications. Changing the classifications will make the situation more difficult as shippers and carriers will now have multiple steps to go through to determine correct classification. This Plastic or Rubber Film or Sheeting proposal also draws comparisons to changes made to Fiber Optic Cable classification. Docket 2012-3 proposed a change from Class 100 for all Fiber Optic Cable to six different classes ranging from 300-77.5. Note that the Fiber Optic study showed that less than 60% of the density observations would be classified higher if the proposal passed. Although the Plastic or Rubber Film or Sheeting proposal does not specify how many density observations were Food or Pharameutical grade because these statistics are likely unavailable, it is possible that over 96% of this freight would see a freight class increase. It is not in line to compare the Fiber Optic Cable proposal to this Plastic or Rubber Film or Sheeting proposal. Since the last amendment for this product (February 2005, Docket 2005-1, Subject 8) Charter NEX Films, Inc. has not added new or discontinued any packaging configurations. It’s safe to say that the packaging configurations have remained relatively unchanged in this industry for much longer. Rolls are oriented in many different positions to accommodate the customer’s needs. Changing packaging configurations is difficult in this industry because the large heavy rolls may not be easy for a customer to manipulate. This often requires the freight to deliver in a manner that is efficient to load into the next manufacturing process. Since these handling and stowability attributes have not changed, it is not in line to claim that an adjustment to classification is warranted for these reasons.
1901 Winter Street, PO Box 277, Superior, WI 54880 ••• p: 715.395.8258 ••• f: 715.395.8259 ••• www.CharterNEX.com
The research in this proposal showed that the average value per pound is $2.58 for Plastic or Rubber Film or Sheeting. This is right in line with the CCSB’s value guideline for Class 55 ($2.50 per pound). Adjusting these average freight classes up to 77.5 (valued at $12.65 under the CCSB value guidelines) for Food and Pharmaceutical or 70 (valued at $9.50) for Other is 3-5 times the average actual value and is not in line to the true valuation of the freight. A classification change will not fix documentation errors. Handling and stowability has not changed and does not warrant a classification change. Liability and valuation is currently in line and a classification change would be detrimental to both carriers and shippers. Charter NEX Films, Inc. strongly suggests reevealuating the proposal of CCSB Docket 2016-1, Subject 5. The compounding adjustments (documentation changes, packaging changes, raising freight classification assignments, etc.) to the current classification would create a new freight classification that is not reflective of the actual attributes of the freight that will be shipped under it. Thank you for considering our comments, Joseph Schiff Corporate Logistics Manager Charter NEX Films, Inc. 1901 Winter St. Superior, WI 54880 Phone : 715-395-8258 Fax : 715-395-8259
