Office                of Inspector Inspector General General
 

Review of the
 

Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute 


Resolution Services 


Processing of Informal Dockets 


OR11-01 


March 2011 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Office of Inspector General 

Washington, DC 20573-0001 

March 16, 2011 

 

Office of Inspector General 

Dear Chairman Lidinsky and Commissioners; 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has completed its review of the agency’s informal docket 

processing procedures and timeframes. The objective of the review was to assess how efficiently 

the Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services (CADRS) processed informal 

dockets opened in fiscal years 2005 through 2009. 

We found that CADRS has made recent strides in closing backlogged cases, starting with the 

decision by the former director to contract with a retired FMC employee to focus on open 

dockets and the efforts of the current director to convert these dockets into final decisions. 

Adjudicated dockets with decisions issued between fiscal years 2005 – 2009 resulted in 

reparations to consumers totaling $189,739. CADRS also adopted operating procedures that 

should help to ensure that dockets are processed uniformly. Written procedures are especially 

important as CADRS considers staff additions to enhance its outreach mission. 

Notwithstanding recent improvements, the OIG believes that further enhancements in processing 

efficiencies are possible. Many applicants have struggled with the informal docket application, 

resulting in withdrawn applications or extra staff time to assist applicants. CADRS also lacked 

an effective means to keep the informal dockets moving, and to close them. 

The OIG made six recommendations to improve docket processing. These involve all areas of 

the docket lifecycle. Perhaps most importantly, we recommended that the Commission simplify 

the filing process and that CADRS implement a formalized case management system. We do not 

envision that a complex or expensive system is needed, since the agency opens, on average, less 

than 10 dockets per year. I am pleased to report that management has already taken steps to 

address the findings and has begun to implement the OIG’s recommendations. 

Fieldwork for the review was performed from July 2010 through December 2010, and followed 

the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency Inspection Standards, issued in January 2005. 

We would like to thank CADRS’ staff for its assistance throughout the review. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

/Adam R. Trzeciak/ 

 Inspector General 
Review of the 

Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services 

Processing of Informal Dockets 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has completed its review of the agency’s informal docket 

processing procedures and timeframes. The objective of the review was to assess how efficiently 

and effectively the Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services (CADRS) 

processes informal dockets. The OIG has already begun a review of other program areas within 

CADRS, to include complaints processing (ombuds services) and alternative dispute resolution 

activities. The results of those efforts will be issued under a separate cover following this 

review. 

Background 

Section 11(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 41301(a)) allows any person to file a 

complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), claiming a violation occurring in 

connection with the foreign commerce of the United States, and to seek reparation for any injury 

caused by the violation. 

There are two processes/procedures in CADRS available to consumers when seeking resolution 

of shipping-related concerns. In the first procedure, an ombuds/ADR service, CADRS acts as a 

neutral third party to facilitate the discussion between willing parties in working towards a 

resolution of their problems. With this service, there is no judgment or decision issued by the 

agency. The solution is what the parties agree to themselves. 

The second procedure is the “informal docket.” This is similar to a small claims proceeding in a 

court with requirements for filing, service, responses, etc. No personal appearance is required. 

There is a $67 filing fee to be paid by the complainant. The claim must allege a violation of the 

Shipping Act and damages cannot exceed $50,000. Claims must be filed within three years from 

the time the alleged cause of action occurred. 1

The informal docket is filed with the FMC’s Office of the Secretary (OS), which reviews the 

submission, assigns an Informal Docket number and refers the claim to the Director of CADRS 

for appointment of a settlement officer. The OS may assist parties to comply with filing 

requirements and may also request CADRS staff to provide assistance. 

Following appointment, the settlement officer prepares and serves a “Notice of Filing and 

Assignment.” The Notice, accompanied by a copy of the claim, is served on the respondent. 

Commission regulations require that a respondent consent to the informal docket procedure 

within 25 days of being served. Failure to respond, or to indicate consent or refusal, is 

conclusively deemed to indicate consent. Should the respondent refuse the informal docket 

procedure, or elect to adjudicate under Subpart T of 502, the claim is assigned to an 

                                                           

1

 Informal docket procedures are governed by Subpart S of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure 

(Informal Procedure for Adjudicator of Small Claims), found at 46 CFR 502.301 – 502.304. 
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for formal adjudication of small claims. Subpart T provides a 

more formal process than does Subpart S. 

Settlement officer decisions are equivalent to court judgments, and, like judgments, collectability 

is not guaranteed. However, in cases where respondents possess a bond (e.g., licensed ocean 

transportation intermediaries), a decision for the claimant can be used to collect against the bond. 

The settlement officer’s decision is final unless, within 30 days from the date of service of the 

decision, the Commission exercises its discretionary right to review the decision. Also within 30 

days of the final decision, any party may file a petition for reconsideration. Such petition shall 

be directed to the settlement officer and shall act as a stay of the review period. A petition will 

be subject to summary rejection unless it specifies a change in material fact or in applicable law, 

identifies a substantive error in the final decision or addresses a material matter in the decision 

upon which the petitioner has not previously had the opportunity to comment. 

Objectives, Scope and Methodology 

The objectives of our review were to assess informal docket processing efficiency and 

effectiveness. Specifically, we reviewed docket processing steps from receipt in the Office of 

the Secretary to settlement officer decision. We initially reviewed all informal dockets opened in 

fiscal years 2007 and 2008 (n = 9). Based on observations we made during this review, we 

expanded the scope to include fiscal years 2005, 2006 and 2009. We report milestone statistics 

from fiscal year 2010 dockets (n = 8) but we did not substantively review any 2010 docketed 

files. For fiscal years 2005 – 2009, we reviewed 44 informal dockets. 

We identified key steps common to each docketed case and compared the times required to 

complete each step. While not an exhaustive list, we believe the following steps, the 

corresponding dates and the interval of time between them, shed light on processing efficiencies 

and impediments. We identified, for each case, the following milestones and corresponding 

dates: 

a. Filing date 

b. Filing forwarded date 

c. Assignment (and reassignment) of the settlement officer 

d. Notice of Filing and Assignment served on the respondent 

e. Settlement Officer decision served 

f. Commission review of decision 

Although there are other milestones, these are most useful when looking at processing 

timeframes for comparison purposes. Each is briefly discussed below. 

The filing date (a) is the date that the docket is received in the Office of the Secretary. OS 

reviews each filing before forwarding it to CADRS to ensure it meets basic requirements. 

2
The filing forwarded date (b) represents the date the submission was sent to the CADRS 

director. When compared to the filing date above, it provides insight into how long OS requires 

to perform its review. 

The assignment (and reassignment) (c) date(s) provide (i) a measure of how long the filing is 

maintained with the CADRS director before it is assigned a settlement officer, and (ii) the 

number of cases that are reassigned within CADRS. Reassignments can slow case processing 

because momentum is lost, requiring a new settlement officer to come up to speed on what has 

been done by the prior settlement officer. 

The Notice of Filing and Assignment (d) is the letter sent to the respondent (with a copy to the 

complainant), identifying the settlement officer and requesting respondent’s reply to the 

complaint. The document must be served on the respondent; otherwise, the informal proceeding 

cannot begin. 

The Settlement Officer decision (e), which has been reviewed for legal sufficiency by the 

CADRS director, represents the effective culmination of the proceeding when served on the 

parties. Delays can result when this review identifies legal problems or does not occur timely. 

Parties can, within 30 days of service, file a motion for reconsideration with the settlement 

officer, but we found this rarely occurred. 

The Commission decision (f) is issued within 30 days from the date of service of the decision 

and reflects whether the Commission will review the decision. Of the 44 dockets opened 

between fiscal years 2005 – 2009, only three decisions were reviewed by the Commission, 

adding 129, 220 and 313 days to the case lifespan.2

We supplemented our review of the informal docket files with interviews of former and current 

CADRS staff. Appendix B contains a spreadsheet displaying lifecycles and milestones for 52 

dockets from fiscal years 2005 – 2010. 

The review followed President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency Inspection Standards, 

issued in December 2005. 

Disclosure of Management’s Request to Suspend the Evaluation 

In September 2009, a new counsel / chief investigator joined the OIG. This attorney had 

previously worked in CADRS from approximately 2006 - 2009. In July 2010, the attorney 

attended two meetings associated with the OIG’s review of CADRS: an entrance conference 

with CADRS staff where the review objectives, scope and methodology were discussed by the 

inspector general (IG), and a meeting with a former FMC employee who processed informal 

dockets while head of the Office of Consumer Complaints, the CADRS-predecessor office. 

Management was concerned that this attorney’s association negatively impacted the IG’s 

impartiality and asked that the review be terminated until such time that another auditor could be 

found to lead the evaluation. The IG disagreed with management’s conclusion that the IG was 

no longer neutral and its proposal to stop the evaluation, and instead recused counsel from 

                                                           

2

 See Informal Docket nos. 1867, 1887 and 1894, respectively. 

3
further involvement in the review. The FMC’s managing director filed a complaint with the 

Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Integrity Committee (IC) against the 

IG when the IG did not honor management’s request to terminate / suspend the evaluation. The 

IC decided in favor of the inspector general and dismissed the complaint.

Findings and Recommendations 

The purpose or intent of the informal docket is identified in CADRS’ October 2009 procedures 

document: The Informal Docket procedure was developed by the Commission some years ago to 

provide a quick, inexpensive means of deciding matters that are essentially “small claims.” It 

provides a means to seek redress for injury caused by Shipping Act violations, without the 

encumbrance of the legal procedures inherent in filing a complaint under the Commission’s 

formal procedures, and without the need to be represented by an attorney.

The OIG’s evaluation focused on processing steps and timeframes for informal dockets opened 

in fiscal years 2005 through 2009. While recognizing that each docket is unique, we focused on 

policies and procedures used by CADRS, and to a limited extent, the Office of the Secretary, to 

process, adjudicate and close docketed cases. From a case-processing perspective, much can be 

learned by examining each case to determine why some cases take longer than others. Delays 

can have a tangible impact on case outcomes because businesses may close or move, documents 

can be lost or discarded and memories of events may fade with time, making it more difficult for 

complainants to collect reparations. In many instances, justice delayed is justice denied. 

We found that CADRS has made recent strides in closing cases, commencing with the decision 

by the former director to contract with a retired FMC employee to focus on open dockets at 

various stages of adjudication and the efforts of the current director to convert these dockets into 

final decisions.3

 Adjudicated dockets with decisions served between fiscal years 2005 – 2009 

resulted in reparations to consumers totaling $189,739. CADRS has also developed internal 

operating procedures that should help to ensure that dockets are processed with greater 

uniformity. Written procedures are especially important as CADRS considers the addition of 

staff to enhance its outreach mission. 

Notwithstanding recent improvements, the OIG believes that the Commission’s goal, to provide 

pro se litigants a quick and less burdensome alternative to its formal procedures, was not met. 

Many applicants struggled with the informal docket filing process, resulting in withdrawn filings 

or additional agency staff time required to assist claimants to understand the procedures they 

must follow. CADRS new operating procedures appear to recognize this outcome and instruct 

settlement officers to assist complainants to file the informal docket, but the procedures alone do 

not go far enough. 

                                                           

3

 When the OIG began its evaluation, CADRS had a backlog of approximately 25 informal docket cases that were 

pending issuance. In November 2009, the agency entered into a contract with a former employee of the Office of 

Consumer Complaints (the predecessor office to CADRS) who, during his tenure, worked on complaints and 

informal dockets. Purchase Order (PO) FMC-FMC-10-00010 was issued on November 6, 2009, for services to be 

provided to the FMC in accordance with “Training and Guidance on Settlement Officer Duties and 

Responsibilities...” The PO was amended once to add additional funds. Purchase orders totaled to $20,240. 

4
The informal docket process has generally not provided “quick” resolution to complainants 

alleging Shipping Act violations. Forty percent of all dockets filed between FY 2005 - FY 2009 

were open 25 months or longer. Many of these have been kept open with little or no adjudicative 

activity performed. While some delays are the result of factors not directly controllable by the 

settlement officer (e.g., inability of the settlement officer to effect service on the respondent or 

non-responsiveness by one or both parties), other delays are controllable. Delays, we believe, 

could have been better managed. 

Dockets where service could not be effected remained open, even though CADRS’s efforts to 

locate the respondent after initial efforts failed were limited. The three-year statute of limitations 

expired on some of these dockets, however filing a claim before the expiration tolls the statute. 

Keeping the docket open, especially on dockets where the statute has expired, enables CADRS to 

serve a respondent, if found. But CADRS did not routinely keep complainants apprised of case 

status – resulting in complainant frustration, evidenced by requests for updates and filing fee 

refunds. 

Regardless of the causes of delays, dockets should not remain open indefinitely. CADRS did not 

have effective internal mechanisms to keep the informal dockets moving, and to close them. 

CADRS focus was on processing consumer complaints, a.k.a. ombuds assistance, as these often 

involve escalating penalties to the complainants or lost or misplaced cargo. We do not question 

whether CADRS emphasis is in the right place. But this emphasis has impacted docket lifespan. 

Unless CADRS actively seeks to keep the dockets moving, they will “take a back seat” to 

ombuds services, and continue to age and backlog. 

Moving forward, CADRS has to review processes with an eye on customer service. There are 

not so many informal dockets that the office cannot keep them moving and provide more 

individual attention to complainants to keep them apprised of the status of the docket. It is not 

unreasonable for complainants, having filed their complaint and paid the $67 docket filing fee, to 

expect a decision from the agency in a timely manner, or at least an explanation as to why a 

decision is delayed or not forthcoming. 

CADRS lacked a case management system that effectively tracks the dockets, alerts decision 

makers when they begin to age, and keeps them moving forward (or closes them at the proper 

time).4

 Court districts around the country rely on such systems to move complicated cases to 

keep backlogs from developing. We believe that there are lessons to be learned from these 

districts. 

Table 1 provides an overview of the dockets processed by CADRS. The fiscal year identifies the 

year that the filings were received in OS. 

                                                           

4

 Case management refers to a subset of law practice management and covers a range of approaches and 

technologies used by law firms and courts to leverage knowledge and methodologies for managing the life cycle of a 

case or matter more effectively. These generic processes often utilize contemporary technologies to assist in 

meeting operational demand and help to keep the cases current. 

5
Table 1. Status of Dockets received in Fiscal Years 2005-2010 

(As of 9/30/10) 

Fiscal 

Year 

Dockets 

Received 

Dockets Open 

on 9/30/10 

2005 12 3 

2006 11 1 

2007 5 0 

2008 4 2 

2009 12 7 

2010 8 6 

TOTAL 52 19 

Table 1 shows that CADRS opened 52 informal dockets over the most recent six fiscal-year 

period, for an average of between eight and nine dockets per year. Thirteen (13) of the 19 cases 

still open on September 30, 2010, were received in FY 2009 or earlier; four (4) dockets opened 

in FY 2005 and FY 2006 were still open as of September 30, 2010. There were 33 docketed 

cases closed by September 30, 2010. 

Finding 1. A number of Submissions are Rejected before a Docket is Opened 

The OIG reviewed the status for 18 informal docket submissions received in OS for the six 

month period March 2009 through August 2009. Of the 18 filings received, 14 (78 percent) were 

determined to be “deficient” and were returned to the complainant. Of these 14, five (5) made 

needed changes / additions and were assigned a docket number. 

OS reviews each filing to assess compliance with FMC requirements. For example, OS 

determines whether (i) the complaint is signed and notarized, (ii) the complainant has standing to 

file the complaint, i.e., has the legal right to seek relief, (iii) the filing fee is paid, (iv) the filing is 

in the proper format, (v) a Shipping Act violation is alleged (to include Act section and violation 

description), and (vi) the filing is timely (within three years from the alleged violation). 

Although filings that do not comply with one or more of the requirements may be returned to the 

complainant, OS officials told us that the most common cause of returned filings, the so-called 

“fatally flawed” filings, is the failure of the complainant to cite the specific violation of the 

Shipping Act. For example, of 14 fatally-flawed filings, eight (8) were flawed due to a missing 

or incomplete Shipping Act citation; three (3) were identified as “completely deficient” (which 

included Shipping Act citation deficiencies with other errors/omissions), two (2) lacked 

supporting documentation and one (1) was not notarized. 

The OIG reviewed the docket filing package that is sent by OS to the complainant. 5

 We noted 

that the filing package is seven pages, consisting of a short transmittal letter which provides OS 

                                                           

5

 Appendix A contains the package OS currently sends to complainants. 

6
contact information (email address and phone) to assist the complainant with filing questions, a 

two page information sheet describing, in detail, the information needed to be considered a valid 

claim; two pages comprising Subpart S, Informal Procedures for Adjudication of Small Claims; 

and Exhibit No. 1 to Subpart S, Sec. 502.304(a) – the form used by the complainant to identify 

the respondent, to quantify the claim and to swear that the claimant has legal standing to file the 

claim (two pages). OS told the OIG that sometimes complainants cut and paste examples of 

correct filings into their own filing, whether or not the example is germane to their claim. 

The OIG believes that OS has taken steps to help complainants to complete the filing. For 

example, providing a telephone number to call for 1:1 assistance is good customer service. We 

also learned that OS staff is participating in a Commission review of all Sec. 502 processes, 

including the filing process. We have some observations to offer the review team as it considers 

possible revisions to the filing process. It seems to us that the nomenclature, “informal 

complaint” or “informal claim,” (found on pages 1 and 2, respectively, of the instruction sheet 

provided to all complainants) conveys a “casual” process, akin to simply stating a grievance and 

providing some documentation. Although Commission literature uses “informal” to distinguish 

it from the formal process before the ALJ, the informal process is not informal; it is similar to a 

small claims proceeding in a court with requirements for filing, service, responses, etc. We feel 

that the agency may inadvertently be sending the wrong message by calling it “informal.” While 

we leave this to the review team to consider, perhaps “small claims procedure” would be more 

descriptive and, possibly, result in closer scrutiny and more attention paid by complainants to the 

filing procedures. 

We also noted some limited use of jargon in the package that may confuse some complainants. 

For example, we identified several references to the requirement to include “tariff” information 

in the filing. It may be prudent to include a parenthetical after tariff, for example, “price list, 

schedule of charges or fees,” to explain this and other terms that may be unfamiliar to the 

complainant. 

Finally, we also noted that the informal docket package is not available for download from the 

agency’s website. Placing the seven page package on the web would not result in less confusion 

or “fatally flawed” filings, but it would be a more efficient way to serve the public, while 

reducing agency costs. Ideally most of the package could be completed electronically, reducing 

paperwork requirements. 

Until October 2009, CADRS operated without documented operating procedures. This caused 

ambiguity among the staff when it came to assisting complainants to file the informal docket, as 

discussed below. If CADRS’ policy is to assist complainants, including helping them to 

complete the docket filing, improvement in the number of fatally flawed submissions are 

expected. We also support OS efforts to document causes behind “fatally flawed” filings and 

recommend that these results be periodically reviewed as a basis for making changes to the filing 

process. 

7
Finding 2. CADRS Docket Procedures provide needed Processing Guidance but more is 

Needed 

In October 2009, CADRS issued its first operating policy and procedures document for staff to 

follow when processing informal dockets. It identifies the duties of the settlement officer and 

assigns responsibility to the settlement officer to manage the docket and to follow up with 

Commission staff, as necessary, to keep the informal docket moving. The new procedures also 

require that service be made on the parties within five days following assignment by the CADRS 

director. Additionally, select documents are to be provided to the office’s administrative staff to 

enable that person to maintain a log with major docket milestones. The OIG believes that these 

procedures are steps in the right direction. 

On the other hand, we noted that the new procedures contain very little in the way of docket 

timeframes or deadlines. The settlement officer now has the responsibility to “keep the docket 

moving,” but it is not clear how this is to be accomplished, as many underlying causes for delays 

are not addressed, or are outside of the settlement officer’s control. For example, one significant 

cause of delays is the assignment of the settlement officer once the reviewed filing is received in 

CADRS (from OS). As finding 3(B) illustrates, for fiscal years 2005 – 2010, the average time 

between docket receipt in CADRS and settlement officer assignment, was 32 days. Another 

cause of delay was competing demands placed on settlement officers, specifically ombuds 

complaints. If settlement officers are left to set their own priorities, the OIG believes that 

dockets will fall behind ombuds complaints. These and other causes for delays are discussed 

below. 

The OIG noted that the procedures also instruct the settlement officer to advise the parties on 

how to comply with procedural matters – specifically to assist parties to properly file a claim. 

Staff we spoke with indicated that, in practice, this has led to assisting complainants to identify 

specific Shipping Act sections or with other substantive assistance at any point in the docket 

process. While the procedures note that the “Commission’s staff historically has assisted parties 

in properly filing a claim...” the majority of CADRS’ settlement officers we spoke with had 

concerns about assisting claimants while, at the same time, serving as impartial adjudicators. 

CADRS’ procedures include some steps to promote neutrality. For example, the procedures note 

that ombuds complaints filed in CADRS that convert to informal dockets should not be assigned 

to the same CADRS staff that processed the complaint, as ombuds services often involve 

advocacy, as the CADRS acronym implies. But some CADRS’ attorneys felt that this did not go 

far enough. For example, assisting complainants while assigned as the settlement officer, they 

believed, was tantamount to acting as that complainant’s attorney, rather than as a neutral 

adjudicator. Similarly, legal assistance provided to respondents, according to some in CADRS, 

also establishes an inappropriate attorney / client relationship. In either instance, this creates an 

improper role for neutral adjudicators and at least in appearance, this impacted their ability to 

impartially process cases. 

While we could not identify disparate treatment from the docket file, it is likely that some 

claimants were treated differently, depending on the settlement officer assigned to the docket, 

e.g., some settlement officers, to include those who did not believe assistance violated neutrality, 

8
were likely to be more helpful to complainants needing assistance to file a claim than were 

others. The OIG does not take a position on whether CADRS should assist either or both parties. 

Rather, we emphasize the importance of having a uniform set of guidelines for staff to follow 

when interacting with parties. Again, documenting these expectations in the procedures 

document is a step in the right direction. Moving forward, the procedures should clearly identify 

the kinds of assistance that should be provided to complainants / respondents to eliminate 

ambiguity and establish goals for processing documents to assess timeliness of settlement officer 

decisions. 

Finding 3. Delays in Processing Informal Docket Filings 

To begin the analysis of docket processing timeframes, we prepared a spreadsheet of 52 dockets 

opened between FY 2005 and FY 2010 along with the corresponding milestone dates and docket 

lifecycles, identified above in the “Objectives, Scope and Methodology” section of this report. 

We relied on the official informal docket file maintained by OS for the information, 

supplemented by discussions with settlement officers. Table 2 provides summary statistics 

identifying the age in months of 52 informal dockets, segregated by whether the docket was 

opened or closed by September 30, 2010: 

Table 2. Aging Analysis of Informal Dockets 

FY 2005 - FY 2010 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

FY 

2008

FY 

2009

FY 

2010 Total 

12 11 5 4 12 8 52 

 Months 

1 - 6 0 / 2 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 2 3 / 0 3 / 5

7 - 12 0 / 4 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 3 / 2 3 / 8

13 - 24 0 / 1 0 / 3 0 / 1 0 / 0 7 / 3 0 / 0 7 / 8

25 - 36 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 2 2 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 0 2 / 6

37 - 48 0 / 0 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 2

49 - 60 0 / 0 1 / 3 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 1 / 3

61 - 72 3 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 3 / 1

 

Total 3 / 9 1/10 0 / 5 2 / 2 7 / 5 6 / 2 19 / 33

 Open as of 9/30/10 (n=19) 

 Closed by 9/30/10 (n=33) 

Review of Table 2 shows that there were 52 dockets opened between FY 2005 and FY 2010. 

Thirty-three (33) of these dockets were open for between 1 and 72 months but were closed by 

9
September 30, 2010. The remaining 19 dockets were open between 1 and 72 months, and were 

still open on September 30, 2010. Looking at fiscal year 2005 as an example, there were 12 

dockets opened that year. Two (2) dockets opened in that year were closed in under 6 months; 

one docket opened in that year stayed open for between 61 and 72 months. Three dockets 

opened in fiscal year 2005 were still open on September 30, 2010. Looking at just the 44 

dockets opened between FY 2005-FY 2009, 33 were open one year or more; just under one-third 

of these (10) remained open three years or more. 

Appendix B provides a “case-by-case” summary of docket lifespan in calendar days, for dockets 

opened in fiscal years 2005 – 2010, from receipt in OS to settlement officer decision. The 

average case lifespan was 678 calendar days. Removing FY 10 dockets increases the average 

lifespan to 766 days. 

A. OS Review for Minimum Filing Requirements 

The OIG review of the lifespan of a docket began with the receipt in OS. As discussed above, 

OS reviews docket filings for content, timing and payment of fees. Our analysis of the amount 

of time required by OS to complete its review produced varied results. For example, in FY 2005, 

OS completed its review, on average, in 10.6 days, with a range of one to 76 days. Yet, the very 

next year, that average review required 28.6 days with a range of two days to 143 days. OS staff 

explained that extremes in review times were likely the result of assisting complainants to file 

their claim, as there was often substantial exchanges with the complainant before the filing met 

the filing requirements. 

One of the observations frequently made by CADRS staff was that OS, prior to the 

implementation of its new procedures, sent dockets to CADRS that they believed were not 

thoroughly reviewed, requiring CADRS to either return the docket to OS or to work with the 

complainant to complete the filing requirements. 

OS officials told the OIG that, during FY 2006, in order to address the increase in both the 

number of filings and OS staff time required to work with complainants to perfect deficient 

filings, the Secretary split the responsibility for working with filers between the OS and CADRS. 

In situations where a complainant who had filed a deficient complaint had previous 

communication with CADRS staff, CADRS staff was to work with the filer to help it perfect the 

filing. In situations where there had been no previous communication with CADRS staff, and a 

filing was deficient, OS staff would work with the filer. The goal was to improve perfection time 

by increasing the number of Commission staff working with filers procedural matters relating to 

the docket submission. However, a noticeable improvement in review time did not occur until 

FY 2007. 

During the spring of 2009, OS amended its complaint assistance procedures. The “split review” 

approach adopted in FY 2006 was discontinued. All reviews for filing compliance are now 

performed by OS staff. A “check list” was developed and is used to return deficient filings and 

provide guidance on how to perfect filings. OS will not assist complainants with substantially 

incomplete submissions nor will it forward them to CADRS for assistance. Rather, these are 

returned to the complainant with the filing fee and an explanation of the deficiency. Filings that 

10
are substantially complete will be reviewed and forwarded to CADRS after consulting with 

CADRS. 

With the new procedures in place, the OIG focused on the most recent fiscal year in our analysis 

of processing times, as this would be the most indicative of the impact of the new procedures on 

review timeframes. We noted significant improvement in FY 10, with the average OS review 

time falling to 5.5 days. 

The OIG believes that OS new processing procedures will help to maintain reduced review 

times, especially with the increased interaction between OS and CADRS. 

Docket 1866(I) illustrates what can happen when dockets are submitted to CADRS when the 

submission is not perfected. In this instance, CADRS attempted to assist the applicant to provide 

missing information, but the applicant instead requested a refund of her filing fee: 

1866(I) The claimant filed a complaint with the OS on April 12, 2005. Although the 

filing included exhibits depicting damaged goods, records of conversations between the 

claimant and the respondent, a detailed description of the alleged violation and the bill of 

lading, the file did not identify which section of the Shipping Act the individual alleged 

was violated. A docket number was nonetheless assigned by OS but service was not 

attempted by CADRS. Three months after filing the claim (July 2005), the claimant 

requested a refund. No refund was made and no explanation was provided to the 

complainant. The docket remained open until June 2010. 

This docket was not served because the claimant failed to complete the filing satisfactorily. A 

docket number should not have been assigned by OS. In this instance, CADRS informed the 

claimant of the deficiency but the complainant did not respond with the missing information. In 

a June 2010 memorandum closing the docket, the settlement officer cited the missing Shipping 

Act citation as justification for closing the docket. We believe CADRS did try to assist this 

applicant but we could not determine why the docket remained open for five years. 

Under OS’ new procedures, filings like 1866(I) would most likely be processed because it 

contained enough substantive information to enable CADRS to proceed. Both the CADRS 

director and OS told the OIG that communication between the offices serves to identify those 

filings that can be opened with information supplied. This new process should help to ensure 

that only complete docket filings are sent to CADRS, eliminating some of CADRS’ need to 

assist the complainant. 

B. Assignment of Settlement Officer 

When the OS completes a review of the file, it is forwarded to CADRS to begin the adjudication 

process. The first step in CADRS is the director’s assignment of a settlement officer to the 

docket. CADRS’ new procedures do not assign a timeframe standard for this step. Several 

dockets were assigned soon after they were forwarded to CADRS. In other instances, the delays 

were lengthy. For example, in fiscal years 2005 – 2010, settlement officers were assigned 

11
dockets, on average, 32 days after the docket was received in CADRS. Summary information 

for each year is provided in Table 3: 

Table 3. Average Days for Settlement Officer Assignment 2005-20106

Fiscal 

Year 

Dockets 

Received 

Average Days to 

Assign Docket to 

Settlement Officer

2005 5 62 

2006 3 88 

2007 5 7 

2008 3 36 

2009 6 12 

2010 5 17 

Average 32 

The OIG notes that in fiscal year 2006, the average is skewed by one docket. In this year, there 

were three filings where we identified sufficient information in the file to calculate assignment 

times. The time from receipt in CADRS to assignment on these three filings was one, six and 

256 days, which resulted in an average of 88 days. Appendix B provides specific assignment 

timeframe information for 27 dockets. As indicated, we could not identify assignment 

memoranda in the docket files for all filings in our universe. 

The results indicate that CADRS has exhibited modest improvement over prior years, but 

additional improvement is still possible. Nevertheless, FY 2010 data is encouraging. Another 

concern is the inconsistency of documentation maintained in the official file folders for the 

dockets we reviewed. For example, we noted missing assignment memoranda in about half of 

the official docket files that would identify assignment of the settlement officer by name and 

date. Conversely, files routinely contained the Notice of Filing and Assignment and settlement 

officer decision, when applicable. 

C. Failure to Effect Service Results in Aging, Open Cases 

FMC regulations require that the respondent be served with the complaint. We identified 

instances where service could not be made on some respondents, but this was not a cause for 

delays in many cases. For example, of the 44 dockets opened between FY 2005 and FY 2009, 

36 complaints (82 percent) were served on the respondent and six (6) were not served because 

the respondent could not be located. The two (2) remaining dockets were missing Shipping Act 

citations and were not served.7

 Only on one of the six complaints that could not be served on the 

respondent was an address subsequently found. (See 1868(I) below.) 

                                                           

6

 Averages are computed based on a review of 27 assignment notices in the file. The remaining 25 files contained 

no formal assignment memorandum in the docket file. 7

 It is not clear why these dockets were assigned a docket number without a Shipping Act citation identified. 

12
CADRS now relies on overnight mail service and, on occasion, will seek the assistance of an 

area representative to track down a respondent. The most common reason for not effecting 

service is CADRS’ inability to locate the respondent, i.e., bad address. For example, unlicensed 

operators may have gone out of business. Some may have set up operations at a new address 

using a different name. Presumably, FMC licensees would have accurate contact information on 

file with the FMC and could be located using file data. However, CADRS staff told the OIG that 

even this is no guarantee of service. Sometimes, licensed companies fail to inform the FMC of 

address changes. 

In instances when CADRS could not effect service, we noted that the docket file remained open 

to allow for the receipt of information that may become available at a future date that would 

permit service to proceed. CADRS staff explained that if the file is closed, and the three year 

statute of limitations expires, CADRS could not serve the respondent even if the respondent was 

found. But there is no formal policy regarding service and no procedures regarding what actions 

CADRS will take during the period the file remains open, including what will be communicated 

to the complainant, how long the docket will be kept open without service, whether refund 

requests will be honored and under what circumstances, and how quickly CADRS will react 

when an address becomes available. 

Besides being unable to provide consumers a quick adjudication of their claim, these 

complainants were frequently “put on hold” pending new information regarding respondent 

whereabouts. While we identified numerous instances where CADRS communicated with 

claimants to explain delays, we also identified instances where no updates were provided, even 

after several requests by complainants: 

1865(I) An informal docket submission was received in OS on June 16, 2005. OS sent 

the package to CADRS on June 24, 2005. Attempted service of the Notice of Filing and 

Assignment was made on August 3, 2005. Between September 23, 2005 and May 3, 

2006, the complainant sent the settlement officer seven e-mails asking for an update on 

the case. Eight (8) months after the initial request, the settlement officer responded (May 

5, 2006) that the respondent could not be served. CADRS explained that service must be 

effected before an investigation can be opened and asked the complainant if he had a 

recent address for the respondent. It appears that CADRS made additional attempts to 

serve the respondent after this dialog. 

Over three years later, on September 23, 2009, the complainant contacted CADRS again 

asking for an update on service of the docket, as it appears from the file no updates were 

provided by CADRS since May 2006. On September 25, 2009, CADRS responded that 

it had already informed the respondent years earlier that the respondent could not be 

served and that CADRS planned to dismiss the case. On September 28, 2009, the docket 

was reassigned to another settlement officer. The docket was still open as of September 

30, 2010.

It appears that this complainant may not have understood service requirements and how a lack of 

service can stop a case in its tracks. The complainant’s unanswered requests likely added to his 

13
confusion. We also question how three years could pass without communication with the 

complainant. 

CADRS appears to have lost track of 1874(I) and, when service was subsequently attempted 

years later, the respondent could not be served: 

1874(I) An informal docket was filed in OS on January 31, 2006. The docket was 

transmitted to CADRS on February 2, 2006. On May 3, 2006, the complainant contacted 

CADRS asking for the docket status. CADRS responded that same day that it would 

check on the status. On October 16, 2006, the CADRS director appointed a settlement 

officer. On November 9, 2006, the complainant e-mailed again, to inform that she had 

not heard back from CADRS and to request a refund of the filing fee. We identified a 

Notice of Filing and Assignment in the file dated November 20, 2009, almost four years 

after the filing was received and three years after a settlement officer was appointed. On 

December 14, 2009, CADRS informed the complainant that the complaint could not be 

served and that that the file would be closed within three weeks. This docket was closed 

on June 28, 2010. No refund was processed. 

When new information becomes available regarding a respondent who previously could not be 

served, service on the respondent should be a priority. On docket 1868(I), a respondent was 

located years after initial service attempts failed. A complaint filed with CADRS on another 

matter identified the respondent and an updated address. An FMC area representative visited the 

respondent and CADRS staff spoke with him about the new complaint. The information was 

shared with the settlement officer on 1868(I) but service was not timely made: 

1868(I) This docket was received on August 30, 2005 in OS. According to records in 

the file, service was attempted on the respondent on December 22, 2005. There was no 

documentation in the file identifying activity until May 17, 2007, when the docket was 

reassigned within CADRS. In July 2007, the settlement officer was informed of the 

respondent’s location, but for reasons not specified in the file, service was not attempted 

until months later on March 13, 2008, but unsuccessfully. No activity was recorded in 

the docket file after that date. The docket remained open as of September 30, 2010.

Service problems clearly derailed this docket initially. However, when an address became 

available as a result of another CADRS docket, the settlement officer on 1868(I) did not serve 

the respondent quickly. The companion docket that revealed the new location, conversely, was 

successfully served. The complainant who filed 1868(I) missed out as a result, while the 

complainant on the companion docket received a settlement officer decision. 

Service delays are a relatively small part of processing delays in CADRS, but they are to blame 

for some of the more egregious (e.g., aged) dockets in CADRS. While these delays may be 

understood by some complainants, others appeared not to understand them. We found no 

mention in the complainant information package of potential delays that will result from the 

inability to effect service or any explanation of service requirements generally. In fact, language 

provided in Sec. 502.304(e) in the informal docket package, may unintentionally mislead some 

complainants. For example, the regulations state that “(f)ailure of the respondent to indicate 

14
refusal or consent in its response will be conclusively deemed to indicate such consent.” This 

misleads because the respondent may have been served but did not respond – which indicates 

consent, or may not have been served and did not respond - which does not indicate consent. In 

other words, two non-responses indicate two entirely differently outcomes. Better 

communication with complainants on the instruction sheet provided would help. 

CADRS also should establish a policy regarding service deadlines and actions CADRS will take 

if a docket is kept open to allow for future service. Based on discussions with staff, experience 

indicates that, with rare exception, if service is not effected within the first few months, chances 

are the respondent will not be identified at all and service will not occur. If CADRS determines 

to leave these dockets open, it should explain the decision to complainants, who may be delaying 

other remedies pending the docket outcome in CADRS. 

D. Delays Caused by Assignment of Non Attorneys as Settlement Officers 

It was difficult to assess whether the assignment of non attorneys impacted processing delays. 

All cases we reviewed were assigned to attorneys. However, we did make some observations 

that may shed light. 

There is considerable precedence going back to the early 1990s when it was primarily non 

attorneys who served as settlement officers. The contractor recently hired to help with the 

backlog of informal dockets is not an attorney. Also, it is difficult to argue with the productivity 

of the contractor who was able to process approximately 25 dockets in eight months, albeit with 

no other assigned responsibilities. 

On the other hand, informal dockets are the equivalent of small claims cases. As such, legal 

training is desirable. For example, a settlement officer without legal training may have difficulty 

discerning among admissible and inadmissible forms of evidence. Also, staff told us that when 

complainants call, they often begin talking about their docket with the adjudicator. To maintain 

neutrality, substantive ex parte communications are discouraged. However, because the 

Commission’s procedural rules do not apply to informal dockets, ex parte communications are 

not prohibited. Further, CADRS staff told the OIG that cases today are more complex than they 

were 10 years ago, and legal training is needed to address more complex issues. 

E. Competing Demands in CADRS 

In fiscal year 2005, the then CADRS director assigned six informal dockets to two of the 

agency’s Administrative Law Judges during a period of unusually high activity. Informal docket 

1857(I) through 1861(I) were assigned on March 11, 2005 and the respondent was served within 

two weeks. The sixth case did not contain information in the file regarding the ALJ assignment 

date, but it was served on the parties on April 12, 2005. 

The former CADRS director told us that when he assigned the informal dockets to the ALJ 

office, its case load was not demanding, enabling it to focus on the informal dockets. For the six 

15
cases assigned to the ALJ’s, the average processing time (from receipt in the ALJ to settlement 

officer decision) was five months, with a range of two months to 10 months.8

 

Five other cases opened in FY 2005 and early FY 2006 were processed by one CADRS 

employee who, by prior agreement with the CADRS director, was able to work from home one 

day per week and focus her efforts on processing multiple dockets assigned to her rather than on 

complaints, e.g., ombuds services. This employee told the OIG that this enabled her to increase 

her (docket processing) efficiency. All CADRS staff indicated that having dedicated time to 

focus on informal dockets would enable staff to more efficiently and effectively process them. 

The five CADRS-processed cases are summarized below: 

1863(I) Open as of September 30, 2010. This informal docket is discussed further in the 

next finding. (Note: the settlement officer prepared a notice of Intent to Issue a Default 

Judgment eight months after the filing was received in OS.) 

1867(I) A filing was submitted to OS on August 18, 2005. The Notice of Filing and 

Assignment was served on February 2, 2006, 5.5 months after the filing was submitted. 

The settlement officer issued her decision on September 25, 2006, 7.5 months after 

assignment of the docket. Status: Closed. 

1870(I) A Notice of Filing and Assignment was served on December 22, 2005. The 

respondent was served January 9, 2006 and did not respond. An Intent to File Default 

Judgment was issued May 8, 2006, about five months after assignment. Status: Closed

1873(I) The respondent was served on February 15, 2006. On May 4, 2006, the 

settlement officer served a notice of Intent to File a Default Judgment. On August 3, 

2006, the settlement officer emailed the complainant asking for support for the amount 

claimed so that she could render a decision. The complainant was not responsive to this 

request and to one subsequent request made three months later. The settlement officer 

dismissed the docket January 29, 2007, the several month delay resulting from the 

complainant’s failure to respond. Status: Closed

1875(I) A Notice of Filing and Assignment was made on March 21, 2006. Within two 

months, the settlement officer filed an Intent to Issue a Default Judgment. This generated 

communication among the settlement officer, complainant and the respondent between 

June-September, 2006. The settlement officer issued a decision on October 10, 2006. 

Status: Closed

These outcomes support what several CADRS staff told us in interviews regarding the 

processing of case files: to process informal dockets efficiently, it is best to have dedicated time 

away from ombuds complaints. These complaints often concern “real time” problems that 

frequently result in increasing monetary liability the longer they remain unresolved. 

Consequently, complainants are frequently more vocal, and call or email often. For example, 

many complainants in dispute with an ocean transport company incur daily demurrage charges to 

                                                           

8

 All ALJ’s serving as settlement officers are no longer employed by the FMC. Consequently we could not discuss 

docket processing observations and timeframes with them. 

16
store goods. Any delay results in increased charges to the complainant. These problems, 

according to staff, demand immediate attention. Dockets, on the other hand, involve less urgency 

because complainants allege violations of the Shipping Act and while many seek damages, the 

amounts claimed in damages generally do not fluctuate with time. The OIG noted that, 

notwithstanding staff priorities, all staff performance standards require issuance of informal 

docket decisions within six months. 

The OIG identified a wide variation in the number of ombuds complaints received in CADRS. 

For example, according to the FMC Annual Reports, CADRS processed between 509 (FY 2007) 

and 943 (FY 2005) ombuds complaints for fiscal years 2005 – 2009. We leave it to the 

discretion of the director as to what constitutes heavy ombuds complaint workload, necessitating 

dedicated time to work on dockets. 

F. Informal Dockets were not Adequately Tracked 

As we reviewed the files and met with CADRS staff to identify causes of processing delays, a 

common theme emerged: dockets, once opened, were not adequately tracked. CADRS staff told 

the OIG that CADRS used a log in the past, primarily to identify cases and settlement officers. 

However, staff also indicated that the log was not used to track or manage docket progress. 

There were no deadlines imposed on the settlement officers. 

We identified a number of dockets that remained open for months (or years) that should have 

been closed sooner. For example, as Appendix B illustrates, the lifespan of dockets opened 

between fiscal years 2005 – 2009 averaged 766 calendar days. When dockets stay open for 

lengthy periods, often without explanation from the FMC, complainants become frustrated, 

evidenced by the number of consumers who request a filing fee refund. Dockets involving 

thousands of dollars may become stale and the claimant’s ability to collect on the judgment can 

be negatively impacted. With a formalized method to monitor dockets, it is far easier to identify 

the stage each is in when the docket begins to age to prevent it from “slipping through the 

cracks:” 

1891(I) The complainant filed an informal docket on April 28, 2008, which was then 

forwarded to CADRS on May 1, 2008. We did not identify a Notice of Filing and 

Assignment in the case file. There was, however, a May 7, 2010 decision by the 

settlement officer, two years after the filing date. The settlement officer concluded that 

the FMC did not have jurisdiction, as the complaint involved the shipment of goods 

between foreign ports. 

Since we did not identify a Notice of Filing and Assignment in the docket file, we could not 

determine if and/or when the docket was assigned to a settlement officer. Clearly this 

complainant should have been notified upon submitting the filing that the complaint was not 

within FMC’s jurisdiction. Instead the complainant paid the $67 filing fee and waited two years 

for a response that could have been received, along with a refund, before the docket was filed. 

Often the informal dockets involve allegations with substantial monetary implications. 

17
1872(I) The Notice of Filing and Assignment was filed on this docket January 13, 2006. 

A decision was served 4.5 years later on July 8, 2010. The decision notes that “the record 

as it exists does not permit a resolution of the claim (and) reparations of $28,067.48 are 

denied.” 

The OIG reviewed the CADRS log for the time period which indicated the case was reassigned. 

Based on the wording in the July 8, 2010 decision, we could not determine whether any attempt 

was made to contact the parties to obtain documentation that could have enabled the new 

settlement officer to consider reparations. 

1878(I) The complaint was received in OS on April 27, 2006, sent to CADRS on May 

5, 2006, and served on the respondent November 27, 2006. The complainant was 

seeking reparations of $35,304. The docket remained open as of September 30, 2010. 

We could not determine why 1878(I) has not been adjudicated. It appears from the file that the 

respondent was served, evidenced by a dated return receipt. Based on discussions with the 

settlement officer, there was a dialog ongoing between the complainant, respondent and the 

settlement officer, accounting for about one year of the docket lifespan. 

1882(I) The delayed issuance of this docket likely impacted the claimant’s ability to 

collect on the settlement officer’s recommended award of $4,206. By the time the 

decision was issued, the respondent was out of business and the claimant was not able to 

collect his full award. The informal docket was filed October 2, 2006, assigned to a 

settlement officer on October 16, 2006, and reassigned on January 17, 2007. A decision 

was not issued by CADRS until December 4, 2008. 

Delays in issuing a decision on some of these dockets possibly impacted an award. A tracking 

system could have alerted CADRS management to these stalled dockets with the intent to move 

them forward. 

We also noted in some of the dockets we reviewed a lack of communication between CADRS 

and complainants regarding the status of the docket. Some examples of this frustration have 

already been presented above in 1865(I) and 1874(I). In 1864(I), the claimant’s frustration is 

apparent in the length of time required to process the docket and the lack of information on its 

status: 

1864(I) An informal docket was filed on June 8, 2005 and sent to CADRS within one 

week. The next correspondence in the file was the Notice of Reassignment, dated 

February 2, 2006. Draft decisions were provided to the CADRS director on July 26, 

2007 and again on August 30, 2007. 

On January 29, 2008, the complainant e-mailed the settlement officer asking for the 

status of the docket: “I am not trying to hurry anyone up although it is 2.5 years since I 

lodged the docket.” Since the settlement officer did not know the status of the docket, 

she referred the complainant to the CADRS director. The CADRS director assured the 

18
complainant that a decision would be issued in the next week. The decision was served 

on March 5, 2008.9

 

Initial stages of this investigation were slowed because the complainant lived abroad making 

communication cumbersome. Also there were currency exchange issues that had to be sorted out 

to identify the claim in U.S. dollars. We could not determine whether this complainant’s status 

request expedited the decision. 

1863(I) An informal docket filing was received on June 1, 2005 and sent to CADRS the 

following day. A Notice of Filing and Assignment was served on July 18, 2005 and a 

Notice of Reassignment on January 23, 2006. We identified a Notice of Intent to Issue a 

Default Judgment dated February 13, 2006, as it appears that the respondent did not 

answer requests for information from the settlement officer. However, we found no 

information in the file to help us determine the docket status as of the conclusion of our 

fieldwork. We did not identify a decision in the docket file nor was the docket on a 

CADRS log of open cases. After our queries, CADRS management located the docket 

and indicated that it would be processed. This claimant sought reparations but has not 

received a decision as of our report issuance date. 

This docket is the only docket we reviewed that appeared to be removed from CADRS log of 

open cases without a settlement officer decision issued. 

Sometimes cases were not closed, even though CADRS work was complete. Previouslydiscussed instances where service could not be effected, we believe, could fall into this category. 

Other cases that do not involve service complications also fall into this category, as the following 

example illustrates: 

1871(I) A filing was received on December 20, 2005 with assignment made January 5, 

2006. According to records in the file, both parties consented to mediation, and both 

parties agreed to a settlement on January 24, 2007. 

It appears that the parties implemented the settlement agreement on July 18, 2007. 

Without explanation, a decision was not issued in this proceeding until January 25, 2010. 

While the docketed cases presented above are substantively different, all appear to have 

remained open for longer periods of time than necessary. In some instances, it appeared to be an 

administrative oversight that permitted the file to remain open with no impact on the parties to 

the decision. In other instances, delays appeared to have had a material effect and impacted 

consumer perceptions of the agency-administered informal docket process. A case management 

/ tracking system, with deadlines to monitor docket progress, could have assisted management to 

close many of these dockets faster. 

                                                           

9

The complainant asked for reconsideration, resulting in a final decision on April 29, 2009. 

19
Conclusion 

The OIG analysis of informal docket processing procedures in CADRS identified areas where 

improvements are possible to speed up docket processing. In some instances, the changes are 

policy based, in other instances, procedures should be modified. 

An important policy change recently made in CADRS involves the amount of assistance the 

office provides to complainants. According to CADRS’ procedures, informal dockets provide a 

quick means of deciding matters that are essentially small claims, without the need for attorney 

representation. Yet, the filing submission, the first step, is too difficult for some “pro se” 

complainants to complete – at least without the assistance of the OS and/or CADRS staff. The 

level of assistance varied depending on which attorney was assigned the docket, as some 

CADRS attorneys indicated that this assistance violated attorney ethics and rules of professional 

responsibility. As many applicants have difficulty with the requirement to identify specific 

Shipping Act violations by section of the Act, the FMC should consider revisions to this 

requirement – specifically allowing claimants to describe the violation in lieu of citing the 

Shipping Act. Other amendments to the filing instructions to better explain service requirements 

and consequences, putting the filing submission package on the internet and renaming the 

“informal claim” process should also be considered by the Sec. 502 review team. 

If the informal docket process is to be streamlined, there will have to be tradeoffs made with the 

ombuds complaints process. We believe that dedicating up to one-quarter of a staff year, away 

from complaints, may be needed during periods of high ombuds complaint activity to allow staff 

to focus on the dockets. Allowing staff to “telework” one day a week seemed to enable staff to 

work on dockets more efficiently and effectively by removing office distractions. Holding 

settlement officers accountable to meet deadlines through the annual performance appraisal 

would also highlight the importance this activity has in CADRS. 

Too often informal dockets remained open in the hopes of getting service, yet experience 

indicates that service is not likely after initial unsuccessful attempts. As long as the docket stays 

open, complainants likely felt that the docket was being actively worked, when it generally was 

not. A lack of communication with complainants on some dockets increased complainants’ 

frustration levels to the point of asking for refunds. CADRS should enhance its communication 

with complainants to explain docket status, especially when service cannot be effected. It is not 

unreasonable to suspect that some, given the potential for lengthy delays, may want to explore 

other legal options – and the sooner this is done, the better it may be for the complainant. 

CADRS should enhance its procedures, to include guidance on how long to hold dockets open, 

what to communicate to complainants and when, and what actions to take when a docket is held 

open pending service. 

CADRS should implement a case management system that would better track the status of 

dockets as they move through their lifecycle. While case management in a generalized sense 

involves collection and storage of the myriad of documents in an adjudication proceeding, the 

FMC may simply need a management tool to help it move cases forward by setting deadlines and 

flagging dockets that exceed them. Too often, informal dockets were not given the same priority 

20
as ombuds complaints and were not as aggressively monitored. Each major stage in the lifecycle 

of an informal docket should be subject to a flexible due date, but whose slippage should be 

known and approved by the CADRS director. Informal dockets lasting more than one year 

should require justification to remain open. We found no mechanism to move these cases, which 

contributed to the backlog, requiring the agency to spend thousands of dollars to eliminate. 

Recommendations

1. The FMC should amend the rules to allow complainants to describe allegations of 

Shipping Act violations rather than require them to identify Shipping Act sections of the 

law. 

2. OS should identify and summarize patterns of problems on “fatally-flawed” filings to 

determine if changes to the informal docket filing package provided to complainants 

should be amended. 

3. OS should change the name of the “informal” docket to nomenclature that better 

encompasses its legal stature, review instructional materials to identify vague terms and 

jargon, and include a discussion of service and its potential impact when not carried out, 

on the OS instruction sheet provided to complainants. 

4. CADRS should amend its internal operating procedures to, at a minimum, (i) provide 

clearer guidance on the types of assistance settlement officers can provide to 

complainants and respondents, and (ii) establish timeframes for processing dockets that, 

when exceeded, require each missed deadline to be signed off on by the CADRS director. 

Dockets remaining open past one year should be reviewed and a compelling argument 

made to the director why the case should remain open. 

5. During periods when informal docket activity is high, CADRS director should dedicate 

one CADRS attorney as settlement officer. This individual should be permitted to set 

aside at least one day per week to focus on informal dockets. 

6. CADRS director should implement a case management system that would assist CADRS 

management to track cases, process them efficiently and close them timely. 

 

21
22

Appendices: 

Appendix A - Informal Docket Submission Package 

Appendix B - Spreadsheet of Docketed Activity: FY 2005 – FY 2010 

 
 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Office of the Secretary 

 800 North Capitol Street, N.W. 

 Washington, DC 20573-0001

Phone: (202) 523-5725 

Fax: (202) 523-0014 

E-mail: Secretary@fmc.gov

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the filing of an informal complaint with the Federal 

Maritime Commission. To assist you in preparing an informal complaint, guidelines and the 

applicable regulations are shown on the following pages. Samples of informal complaints are 

also enclosed. If you have any questions after reviewing this information, please do not hesitate 

to contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 523-5725 or by email at Secretary@fmc.gov. 

APPENDIX A
2 

PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINES. FAILURE TO FOLLOW 

THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAN RESULT IN THE RETURN OF YOUR COMPLAINT.

Information to Assist in Filing Informal Claims (Small Claims) 

Enclosed is a copy of Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) regulations 

governing the filing of an informal claim with the Commission. This procedure may be used to 

seek reparations (i.e., damages) from another party (the Respondent) for economic injury 

not exceeding $50,000 caused by violations of the Shipping Act of 1984.1 Also enclosed are 

examples of informal claims that you may find helpful. 

Informal Claims procedures are governed by Subpart S of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (Informal Procedure for Adjudication of Small Claims), found at 46 CFR 

502.301 - 502.305 (copy attached). Exhibit No. 1 to these rules provides a format you must use 

for submitting your claim. Please be sure that your complaint alleges violation(s) of the Shipping 

Act of 1984 and is limited to a claim of $50,000 or less. 

Your claim must comply with the Commission’s rules. Particularly note the following: 

1. Follow the format shown in Exhibit No. 1 (see attached). Exhibit No. 1 is not a form, 

and you may not simply sign and submit the exhibit. The information shown in 

brackets [ ] is to guide you regarding what information you must provide. 

For example, in a properly filed complaint, Paragraph I might read: 

“The claimant is a corporation operating as an import-export 

trading company with its principal place of business at 123 Elm 

Street, North Bergen, New Jersey.” 

For your guidance, you are considered the “Claimant” and the person or company that 

you believe harmed you is considered the “Respondent.” 

2. The claim must state a section of the Shipping Act you allege was violated. For example, 

Section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41102(c)) prohibits common carriers and 

ocean transportation intermediaries from failing to establish, observe, and enforce just and 

reasonable regulations and practices relating to or connected with receiving, handling, 

 

1

 The Shipping Act of 1984, as amended, is available at http://www.fmc.gov/about/StatutesAndRules.asp
3 

storing, or delivering property. Please note that an overcharge may only be claimed if you 

have been charged more than the applicable tariff or service contract rate. For a complete list 

of prohibited acts and other possible violations of the Shipping Act, please see 

http://www.fmc.gov/about/StatutesAndRules.asp

3. The claim must be properly signed and sworn (i.e., verified). Usually, this is 

accomplished by using a notary public. It may also be met by making one of the following 

statements and signing the name afterward. 

a. If you are located in the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify or state) under 

penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” 

b. If you are located outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify or state) 

under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct.” 

4. The claim must be signed and dated.

5. An original and two (2) copies of the claim and supporting documentation must be 

submitted. 

6. Claims must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued. (i.e., the 

date the Shipping Act violation occurred). 

7. The filing fee of $67.00, payable to the Federal Maritime Commission, must be included. 

8. The claim and filing fee must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 

Commission, Washington, DC 20573. 

9. Please note that a Respondent may object to the Subpart S procedure within 25 days of being 

served. Should Respondent refuse the Subpart S procedure, the claim will be assigned to an 

Administrative Law Judge for adjudication under Subpart T of the Commission’s rules. 
4 

TITLE 46--SHIPPING 

CHAPTER IV--FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

PART 502--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE--Table of Contents 

Subpart S--Informal Procedure for Adjudication of Small Claims 

Sec. 502.301 Statement of policy. 

(a) Section 11(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984 permits any person to file a complaint with 

the Commission claiming a violation occurring in connection with the foreign commerce of the 

United States and to seek reparation for any injury caused by that violation. 

(b) With the consent of both parties, claims filed under this subpart in the amount of 

$50,000 or less will be decided by a Settlement Officer appointed by the Federal Maritime 

Commission Alternative Dispute Resolution Specialist, without the necessity of formal 

proceedings under the rules of this part. Authority to issue decisions under this subpart is 

delegated to the appointed Settlement Officer. 

(c) Determination of claims under this subpart shall be administratively final and 

conclusive. [Rule 301.] 

Sec. 502.302 Limitations of actions. 

(a) Claims alleging violations of the Shipping Act of 1984 must be filed within three 

years from the time the cause of action accrues. 

(b) A claim is deemed filed on the date it is received by the Commission. [Rule 302.] 

Sec. 502.303 (Reserved) 

Sec. 502.304 Procedure and filing fee.

(a) A sworn claim under this subpart shall be filed in the form prescribed in Exhibit No. 1 

to this subpart. Three (3) copies of this claim must be filed, together with the same number of 

copies of such supporting documents as may be deemed necessary to establish the claim. Copies 

of tariff pages need not be filed; reference to such tariffs or to pertinent parts thereof will be 

sufficient. Supporting documents may consist of affidavits, correspondence, bills of lading, paid 

freight bills, export declarations, dock or wharf receipts, or of such other documents as, in the 

judgment of the claimant, tend to establish the claim. The Settlement Officer may, if deemed 

necessary, request additional documents or information from claimants. Claimant may attach a 

memorandum, brief or other document containing discussion, argument, or legal authority in 

support of its claim. If a claim filed under this subpart involves any shipment which has been the 

subject of a previous claim filed with the Commission, formally or informally, full reference to 

such previous claim must be given. 

(b) Claims under this subpart shall be addressed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal 

Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Such claims shall be accompanied by remittance 

of a $67 filing fee. 

(c) Each claim under this subpart will be acknowledged with a reference to the Informal 
5 

Docket Number assigned. The number shall consist of a numeral(s) followed by capital ``I'' in 

parentheses. All further correspondence pertaining to such claims must refer to the assigned 

Informal Docket Number. If the documents filed fail to establish a claim for which relief may be 

granted, the parties affected will be so notified in writing. The claimant may thereafter, but only 

if the period of limitation has not run, resubmit its claim with such additional proof as may be 

necessary to establish the claim. In the event a complaint has been amended because it failed to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it will be considered as a new complaint. 

(d) A copy of each claim filed under this subpart, with attachments, shall be served by the 

Settlement Officer on the respondent involved. 

(e) Within twenty-five (25) days from the date of service of the claim, the respondent 

shall serve upon the claimant and file with the Commission its response to the claim, together 

with an indication, in the form prescribed in Exhibit No. 2 to this subpart, as to whether the 

informal procedure provided in this subpart is consented to. Failure of the respondent to indicate 

refusal or consent in its response will be conclusively deemed to indicate such consent. The 

response shall consist of documents, arguments, legal authorities, or precedents, or any other 

matters considered by the respondent to be a defense to the claim. The Settlement Officer may 

request the respondent to furnish such further documents or information as deemed necessary, or 

he or she may require the claimant to reply to the defenses raised by the respondent. 

(f) If the respondent refuses to consent to the claim being informally adjudicated pursuant 

to this subpart, the claim will be considered a complaint under Sec. 502.311 and will be 

adjudicated under subpart T of this part. 

(g) Both parties shall promptly be served with the Settlement Officer's decision which 

shall state the basis upon which the decision was made. Where appropriate, the Settlement 

Officer may require that the respondent publish notice in its tariff of the substance of the 

decision. This decision shall be final, unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of 

the decision, the Commission exercises its discretionary right to review the decision. The 

Commission shall not, on its own initiative, review any decision or order of dismissal unless 

such review is requested by an individual Commissioner. Any such request must be transmitted 

to the Secretary within thirty (30) days after date of service of the decision or order. Such request 

shall be sufficient to bring the matter before the Commission for review. 

(h) Within thirty (30) days after service of a final decision by a Settlement Officer, any 

party may file a petition for reconsideration. Such petition shall be directed to the Settlement 

Officer and shall act as a stay of the review period prescribed in paragraph (g) of this section. A 

petition will be subject to summary rejection unless it: (1) Specifies that there has been a change 

in material fact or in applicable law, which change has occurred after issuance of the decision or 

order; (2) identifies a substantive error in material fact contained in the decision or order; (3) 

addresses a material matter in the Settlement Officer's decision upon which the petitioner has not 

previously had the opportunity to comment. Petitions which merely elaborate upon or repeat 

arguments made prior to the decision or order will not be received. Upon issuance of a decision 

or order on reconsideration by the Settlement Officer, the review period prescribed in paragraph 

(g) of this section will recommence. [Rule 304.] 
6 

 Exhibit No. 1 to Subpart S [Sec. 502.304(a)]-- 

Small Claim Form for Informal Adjudication 

and Information Checklist 

Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC.

Informal Docket No. _______ 

 _______________________________________________________________________ 

(Claimant) 

 vs. 

 _______________________________________________________________________ 

(Respondent) 

I. The claimant is [state in this paragraph whether claimant is an association, corporation, 

firm or partnership, and if a firm or partnership, the names of the individuals composing the 

same. State the nature and principal place of business.] 

II. The respondent named above is [state in this paragraph whether respondent is an 

association, corporation, firm or partnership, and if a firm or partnership, the names of the 

individuals composing the same. State the nature and principal place of business.] 

III. That [state in this and subsequent paragraphs to be lettered A, B, etc., the matters that 

gave rise to the claim. Name specifically each rate, charge, classification, regulation or practice 

which is challenged. Refer to tariffs, tariff items or rules, or agreement numbers, if known. If 

claim is based on the fact that a firm is a common carrier, state where it is engaged in 

transportation by water and which statute(s) it is subject to under the jurisdiction of the Federal 

Maritime Commission]. 

IV. If claim is for overcharges, state commodity, weight and cube, origin, destination, bill 

of lading description, bill of lading number and date, rate and/or charges assessed, date of 

delivery, date of payment, by whom paid, rate or charge claimed to be correct and amount 

claimed as overcharges. [Specify tariff item for rate or charge claimed to be proper]. 

V. State section of statute claimed to have been violated. (Not required if claim is for 

overcharges). 

VI. State how claimant was injured and amount of damages requested. 
7 

VII. The undersigned authorizes the Settlement Officer to determine the above-stated 

claim pursuant to the informal procedure outlined in subpart S (46 CFR 502.301-502.305) of the 

Commission's informal procedure for adjudication of small claims subject to discretionary 

Commission review. 

Attach memorandum or brief in support of claim. Also attach bill of lading, copies of 

correspondence or other documents in support of claim. 

 (Date) 

(Claimant's signature) 

(Claimant's address) 

(Signature of agent or attorney) 

(Agent's or attorney's address) 

VERIFICATION

State of _______________, County of ___________, ss: _____________________, 

being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he or she is 

The claimant [or if a firm, association, or corporation, state the capacity of the affiant] and is the 

person who signed the foregoing claim, that he or she has read the foregoing and that the facts 

set forth without qualification are true and that the facts stated therein upon information received 

from others, affiant believes to be true. 

 ____________________________ 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the State of , County of 

__________, this day of , 20 . (Seal) 

 

 (Notary Public) 

My Commission expires,________________________ 
Informal Dockets 10/1/04 ‐‐ 9/30/10

# ID #

(a)

Date

Rec'd by

OS

(b)

Sent to

CADRS

(c)

Transmit'l

from

CADRS

Director to

SO

(d)

Notice of

Filing &

Assgn't

(Comp. &

Respon.)

(c) Notice

of

Reassign't

(e)

SO's

Decision

Motion to

Recon.

Comm.

Notice

to

Review

SO's

Dec.

(f)

Comm

Dec.

Informal

Docket

Lifespan

(days)

SO'

Decisi

Com

Decis

FY 05

1 1857(I) 12/28/04 12/29/04 3/11/05 3/28/05 5/25/05 7/6/05 8/2/05 N/A N/A 190 2 1858(I) 12/30/04 1/4/05 3/11/05 3/28/05 5/25/05 7/7/05 N/A N/A N/A 189 3 1859(I) 1/24/05 1/26/05 3/11/05 N/A 7/6/05 1/20/06 N/A N/A N/A 361 4 1860(I) 2/14/05 2/15/05 3/11/05 3/16/05 N/A 5/4/05 6/1/05 N/A N/A 79 5 1861(I) 2/8/05 N/A 3/11/05 3/16/05 7/6/05 1/20/06 N/A N/A N/A 346 6 1862(I) 3/28/05 4/4/05 N/A N/A 5/25/05 6/8/05 N/A N/A N/A 72 7 1863(I) 6/1/05 6/2/05 N/A 7/18/05 1/23/06 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,947 8 1864(I) 6/8/05 6/14/05 N/A N/A 2/2/06 3/5/08 3/18/08 N/A N/A 1,001 9 1865(I) 6/16/05 6/24/05 N/A 8/3/05 10/6/09 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,932 

0 1866(I) 4/12/05 6/27/05 N/A N/A N/A 6/28/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,903 1 1867(I) 8/19/05 8/26/05 N/A 2/2/06 N/A 9/25/06 11/8/06 2/16/07 5/3/07 402 2 1868(I) 8/30/05 9/2/05 12/16/05 12/22/05 3/13/08 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,857 

FY 06

1 1870(I) 11/29/05 N/A 12/19/05 12/22/05 N/A 5/8/06 N/A N/A N/A 160 2 1871(I) 12/20/05 12/23/05 N/A 1/5/06 1/5/06 1/25/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,497 3 1872(I) 1/6/06 1/11/06 N/A 1/13/06 N/A 7/8/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,644 4 1873(I) 9/12/05 2/2/06 N/A 2/2/06 N/A 1/29/07 N/A N/A N/A 504 5 1874(I) 1/31/06 2/2/06 10/16/06 11/20/09 N/A 6/28/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,609 6 1875(I) 1/26/06 N/A N/A 3/21/06 N/A 10/10/06 N/A N/A N/A 257 7 1876(I) 10/20/05 12/15/05 N/A 5/1/06 8/31/07 6/22/07 11/20/07 N/A N/A 610 8 1877(I) 4/10/06 4/27/06 4/28/06 5/12/06 6/2/06 11/19/07 N/A N/A N/A 588 9 1878(I) 4/27/06 5/5/06 N/A 11/22/06 N/A 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,617 

0 1879(I) 5/25/06 6/6/06 N/A 4/4/07 N/A 4/1/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,407 1 1881(I) 7/18/06 7/20/06 7/26/06 7/28/06 N/A 8/5/08 N/A N/A N/A 749 

FY 07

1 1882(I) 10/02/06 10/10/06 10/16/06 N/A 1/17/07 12/4/08 N/A N/A N/A 794 

11111
2 1884(I) 11/09/06 11/14/06 11/15/06 11/17/06 N/A 1/25/10 N/A N/A N/A 1,173 

3 1886(I) 04/11/07 4/20/07 5/11/07 5/16/07 N/A 4/28/09 N/A N/A N/A 748 4 1887(I) 07/11/07 7/20/07 7/25/07 3/10/08 7/25/07 8/27/09 N/A 10/1/09 7/6/10 778 5 1888(I) 08/14/07 8/21/07 8/21/07 N/A 7/8/08 7/17/08 N/A N/A N/A 338 

FY 08

1 1889(I) 1/16/08 1/18/08 1/18/08 3/24/08 4/15/08 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 988 2 1890(I) 4/22/08 5/1/08 6/23/08 7/1/08 N/A 7/8/10 N/A N/A N/A 807 3 1891(I) 4/28/08 5/1/08 N/A N/A N/A 5/7/10 N/A N/A N/A 739 4 1892(I) 1/14/08 5/1/08 6/27/08 7/2/08 8/21/08 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 990 

FY 09

1 1893(I) 10/1/08 10/22/08 11/19/08 1/6/09 3/23/09 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 729 2 1894(I) 12/23/08 1/6/09 N/A 2/4/09 3/9/09 5/7/10 N/A 5/10/10 9/13/10 500 3 1895(I) 3/16/09 3/19/09 3/26/09 5/9/09 N/A 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 563 4 1897(I) 12/17/08 3/19/09 3/26/09 12/14/09 N/A 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 652 5 1899(I) 4/15/09 4/29/09 4/30/09 5/21/09 N/A 7/13/10 N/A N/A N/A 454 6 1900(I) 5/21/09 6/1/09 N/A N/A N/A 7/13/10 N/A N/A N/A 418 7 1901(I) 6/19/09 6/19/09 N/A 7/29/09 9/17/09 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 468 8 1902(I) 6/23/09 7/10/09 N/A 8/5/09 8/28/09 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 464 9 1903(I) 7/23/09 7/27/09 8/14/09 9/1/09 N/A 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 434 

10 1904(I) 7/31/09 8/4/09 8/14/09 8/18/09 N/A 1/25/10 N/A N/A N/A 178 11 1905(I) 7/1/09 8/4/09 N/A 8/21/09 1/28/10 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 456 12 1906(I) 8/5/09 8/14/09 N/A 8/20/09 9/14/09 12/8/09 N/A N/A N/A 125 

FY 10 Average 2005 ‐ 2009 766

1 1907(I) 10/28/09 11/2/09 N/A N/A 12/16/09 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 337 2 1908(I) 12/9/09 12/15/09 N/A 1/5/10 2/26/10 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 295 3 1909(I) 12/17/09 12/18/09 2/4/10 2/17/10 N/A 7/22/10 N/A N/A N/A 217 4 1910(I) 1/25/10 2/2/10 2/18/10 2/24/10 N/A 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 248 5 1911(I) 3/5/10 3/18/10 3/24/10 3/25/10 N/A 8/13/10 N/A N/A N/A 161 6 1912(I) 4/5/10 4/6/10 4/14/10 4/22/10 N/A 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 178 7 1913(I) 7/23/10 7/28/10 8/5/10 8/6/10 N/A 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 69 8 1914(I) 9/16/10 9/21/10 N/A N/A N/A 9/30/10 N/A N/A N/A 14 

TotalAverage 678
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Memorandum

 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

TO : Inspector General           DATE:  March 10, 2011

FROM :    /Vern W. Hill, Director/

    Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services

    /Karen V. Gregory, Secretary/

    Office of the Secretary

SUBJECT :    Review of the Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services Processing of

Informal Dockets  

We have reviewed the findings and recommendations contained in the instant review.  Please note

that the Office of the Secretary has responded to Recommendations 1‐3, and the Office of Consumer

Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services has responded to Recommendations 4‐6.   

Recommendation 1.  The OIG recommends that the FMC should amend its rules to allow

complainants to describe allegations of Shipping Act violations rather than require them to identify

Shipping Act citations in the law.

Response:  As the OIG is aware, at its December 8, 2010 meeting, the Chairman directed that a Team

be formed to review and present for Commission consideration and decision, recommendations that

will modernize and improve the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 46 C.F.R. Part 502.

While the 502 Team is tasked with review of and making recommendations for revisions, only the

Commission can direct revisions to its rules. The team is working to provide the Commission with

recommendations that will ensure revised rules are modern, efficient and user‐friendly, while

preserving the integrity of the Commission’s processes.  One of the key areas of focus in this review is

on the rules relating to 46 C.F.R. Part 502.301 – Informal Procedure for Adjudication of Small Claims.    

The team is reviewing this section of the rules with an eye towards reducing burden, streamlining the

process and making the rules clearer and more user‐friendly.  As this recommendation is related to

on‐going work of the 502 Team and subject to Commission decision, this matter is considered

completed.
2

Recommendation 2.  The OIG recommends that OS should identify and summarize patterns of

problems identified on “fatally flawed” applications to determine if changes to the informal docket

filing package provided to complainants should be amended.

Response:  The OS compiles this information on an on‐going basis and has found that the majority of

returned “informal docket” submissions are returned because the Complainant either has not stated a

Shipping Act violation or has not adequately described allegations of Shipping Act violations, thus not

meeting the statutory requirement for filing a complaint. This information has been provided to the

502 Team.  

While the instructional docket filing package was recently reviewed and updated to, among other

things, address this issue, in cooperation with CADRS, the OS will review the instructional package and

determine if additional clarification would improve the instructions. However, as this

recommendation also is related to on‐going work of the 502 Team and subject to Commission

decision, this matter is considered completed.   

Recommendation 3.  The OIG recommends that OS should change the name of the “informal” docket

to nomenclature that better encompasses its legal stature, review instructional materials to identify

vague terms and jargon, and include effects of service problems on the instructional package.

Response:   Exhibit 1 to Subpart S, 502.304(a) uses the phrase “Informal Docket No. ‐‐‐” as the

numbering system for the adjudication of Small Claims.  As noted in response to Recommendation 1

above, only the Commission can direct revisions to its rules.  This issue has been relayed to the 502

Team for consideration.  At such time as the Commission may make such a change to its rules, the OS

will change its numbering system for this type of filing and update the instructional package to be

consistent with those changes. As this recommendation also is related to on‐going work of the 502

Team and subject to Commission decision, this matter is considered completed.  

Regarding the recommendation on the effects of problems encountered during service of complaints,

issues of service are also under consideration by the 502 Team.  The OS will work with CADRS to

develop language based on the Commission’s current rules and practices, and update the instructional

package by May 31, 2011.

Recommendation 4.  The OIG recommends that CADRS amend its internal operating procedures to (i)

provide clearer guidance on the types of assistance settlement officers can provide to complainants

and respondents, (ii) establish timeframes for processing dockets that, when exceeded, require

missed deadlines to be signed‐off on by the Director of CADRS, and that dockets remaining open

longer than one year be reviewed and a compelling argument made to the CADRS director why the

case should remain open.   

Response:  (i) Guidelines are in place and regular discussions with staff are conducted to address

issues related to assistance to be provided to complainants and respondents in Informal Docket

proceedings.  The current procedures will be reviewed and modified as necessary to reinforce a policy

of “consumer assistance.”  Procedures will be reviewed and provided to CADRS staff to address both
3

communications which take place prior to the submission of an Informal Docket filing and subsequent

thereto.   By rule, the ex parte communication prohibitions do not apply to Informal Docket matters;

nevertheless, the issues of “neutrality” and “acting as attorney for” require constant consideration,

although they do not lend themselves necessarily to “black and white” procedures.  (ii)  Current

guidelines regarding timeframes for processing Informal Dockets in CADRS will be reviewed and

modified or adopted to insure timely processing of all filings.  Staff will be advised of the guidelines

and expectations and the Director of CADRS will be responsible to ensure that Informal Dockets

proceed to Decision appropriately.  The OIG Report correctly states that current performance plans

for attorneys in CADRS (those generally assigned as Settlement Officers) provide that Informal

Dockets are to proceed to decision within six months.  This will continue to be the goal of CADRS, and

the Director of CADRS will monitor the activities of CADRS staff to ensure that cases are timely

processed and that there are appropriate reasons for matters to continue beyond the desired

timeframe.  There are many legitimate reasons for matters to be delayed beyond the desired

timeframes.   These include incomplete or insufficient filings, problems with service of process, and

failure of cooperation or participation by filing or responding parties.  Some of these procedural issues

are to be addressed in the Commission’s review of its Rules of Procedure currently in progress.   

Changes in the rules regarding notice and service and sufficiency of filings will serve to improve the

timely and efficient processing of Informal Dockets.  Corrective action under this recommendation is

considered completed.

Recommendation 5.  The OIG recommends that during periods when informal docket activity is high,

the Director of CADRS should dedicate one attorney as settlement officer, permitted to set aside at

least one day weekly to focus on informal dockets.

Response:  This recommendation appears to seek to address a perceived conflict discussed in the

Report regarding competing demands of CADRS staff to process ombuds complaints and Informal

Docket assignments.  It is true that CADRS staff, particularly the attorneys in CADRS, have

responsibilities for both ombuds complaints and Informal Dockets assigned to them as Settlement

Officers.  It becomes the responsibility of CADRS staff and their supervisor to both prioritize and

monitor the case activity to meet the requirements of the assignments.  Certainly the workload of

personnel will be adjusted for particular needs and additional resources sought if the assignment

workload exceeds the time limitations of the CADRS staff as a whole or of an individual staff member.  

The suggestions of the OIG for dedicating an attorney, or providing dedicated time to work on

Informal Docket assignments, will certainly be among the possible actions to be taken to ensure that

all assignments, and particularly Informal Dockets, are accomplished within established timeframes.   

However, generally it will continue to be the practice within CADRS that all attorneys, or other dispute

resolution specialists with Informal Docket responsibilities, will be assigned an Informal Docket

caseload.  If needs require, other personnel within the agency can be assigned as Settlement Officers

for Informal Dockets by the CADRS Director as provided for by the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.  

Corrective action under this recommendation is considered completed.

Recommendation 6.  The OIG recommends that a case management system would assist

management to track cases, process them efficiently, and close them timely.
4

Response:  It is agreed that an effective case management system would assist in the efficient

processing of Informal Dockets.  CADRS currently has a database system for the tracking of progress of

Informal Dockets which includes information as to parties, dates of filing, assignment, notice, and

decision.  It also allows for comments or information regarding the processing of the case.  All CADRS

personnel have access to the database and are required to update it on a timely basis.  It is reviewed

at least monthly by the CADRS Director to monitor the status and progress of all assigned Informal

Dockets.  The database currently used, with appropriate modifications, will be incorporated into the

CADRS database presently used for the ombuds complaints.  There will be a single CADRS database

system which will include each of the CADRS activities, to better monitor all assignments and

workload of CADRS staff.  This will improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of CADRS, and as

pertinent to Informal Dockets, insure that cases are not unassigned, unattended, or otherwise

delayed or delinquent without reason.  The improved and comprehensive database system is

currently being tested, and should be in operation within 60 days.   

The Report identified a backload of Informal Dockets and discussed several cases as examples of

delayed processing of Informal Dockets received in Fiscal Years 2005 – 2010.  It was reported that of

52 cases received, 19 remained open as of September 30, 2010.  As of this date, only 10 of the 19

remain open, and 5 of the 10 open cases were received in FY 2010.  The remainder of the reported

backlog will be resolved within the next few months.  With an effective case management system,

CADRS intends to remain current and to provide an effective and timely Informal Dockets process for

use by the industry and public to resolve transportation disputes.  Corrective action under this

recommendation is considered completed.

If you have any questions regarding the above responses, please let us know.

     

cc: Ronald D. Murphy, Audit Followup Official

Kathleen L. Keys, Special Assistant to the Managing Director