46 C.F.R. § 525.2

Terminal schedules

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Marine terminal operator schedules. A marine terminal operator, at its discretion, may make available to the public, subject to section 10(d) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 41102(c), 41103, 41106), a schedule of its rates, regulations, and practices.

(1) Limitations of liability. Any limitations of liability for cargo loss or damage pertaining to receiving, delivering, handling, or storing property at the marine terminal contained in a terminal schedule must be consistent with domestic law and international conventions and agreements adopted by the United States; such terminal schedules cannot contain provisions that exculpate or relieve marine terminal operators from liability for their own negligence, or that impose upon others the obligation to indemnify or hold-harmless the terminals from liability for their own negligence.

(2) Enforcement of terminal schedules. Any schedule that is made available to the public by the marine terminal operator shall be enforceable by an appropriate court as an implied contract between the marine terminal operator and the party receiving the services rendered by the marine terminal operator, without proof that such party has actual knowledge of the provisions of the applicable terminal schedule.

(3) Contracts for terminal services. If the marine terminal operator has an actual contract with a party covering the services rendered by the marine terminal operator to that party, an existing terminal schedule covering those same services shall not be enforceable as an implied contract.

(b) Cargo types not subject to this part. (1) Except as set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, this part does not apply to bulk cargo, forest products, recycled metal scrap, new assembled motor vehicles, waste paper and paper waste in terminal schedules.

(2) Marine terminal operators which voluntarily make available terminal schedules covering any of the commodities identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section thereby subject their services with respect to those commodities to the requirements of this part.

(c) Marine terminal operator agreements. The regulations relating to agreements to which a marine terminal operator is a party are located at part 535 of this chapter.

[64 FR 9283, Feb. 25, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 50723, Oct. 1, 2009]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2022 · leading case: Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance v. Federal Marine Terminal, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance v. Federal Marine Terminal, Inc. (2005) nysd · cites it 3× “46 C.F.R. § 525.2 (a)(3) (emphasis added).”

Virginia International Terminals v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. (2014) vaed · cites it 3× “” See 46 C.F.R. § 525.2 (a)(2). Federal Regulations state a schedule of rates applies to any party contracting with a Marine Terminal Operator unless the contracting party can prove an “actual contract with a party covering the services rendered by the marine terminal operator…”

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. v. State (2012) gactapp “intermediary may not fail to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices relating to or connected with receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property”), 46 USC § 40501 (g) (3) (“The Commission shall by regulation prescribe the form and…”

Coutinho & Ferrostaal Inc. v. M/V Federal Rhine (2011) mdd “46 C.F.R. § 525.2 (a)(3). As such, inconsistency between Rukert’s tariff and the parties’ contract does not create ambiguity.”

Buckeye Partners, L.P. v. GT USA Wilmington, LLC (2022) delch · cites it 4× “See 46 C.F.R. § 525.2 (a); Con. Agr. § 21.1. The tariff establishes rates that users of the Terminal must pay for particular services or to conduct specified 12 activities.”

In re: M/V Yochow (2020) txsd · cites it 4× “46 CFR 525.2 (emphasis added). Limitation Petitioners argued that the tariff cannot be enforced against them as an implied contract because they were not, during the voyage in question, “the party receiving the services rendered by the marine terminal operator.”

Buckeye Partners, L.P. v. GT USA Wilmington, LLC (2020) delch “” 46 C.F.R. § 525.2 (a)(2). But “[i]f the marine terminal operator has an actual contract with a party covering the services rendered by the 5 marine terminal operator to that party,” then the “actual contract” controls.”

Red Hook Container Terminal v. South Pacific Shipping Co. Ltd (2021) ca2 “” 46 C.F.R. § 525.2 (a)(3). Here, there is no dispute that the parties had a contract that operated until at least November 22, 2013.”

Pt. Jawamanis Rafinasi v. Coastal Cargo Com (2014) ca5 “See 46 C.F.R. § 525.2 (“If the marine terminal operator has an actual contract with a party covering the services rendered by the marine terminal operator to that party, an existing terminal schedule covering those same services shall not be enforceable as an implied contract.”

cooper/t.smith Stevedoring Company v. State of Ga (2012) gactapp “intermediary may not fail to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices relating to or connected with receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property”), 46 USC § 40501 (g) (3) (“The Commission shall by regulation prescribe the form and…”

— 46 C.F.R. § 525.2(a)(3) — 1 case

Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance v. Federal Marine Terminal, Inc. (2005) nysd “46 C.F.R. § 525.2 (a)(3) (emphasis added).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.