<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While Ocean Network Express is waiving detention penalties tied to the coronavirus, other ocean carriers have not shown as much flexibility when cargo owners cannot return empty boxes during the supply chain disruption.</div>

While Ocean Network Express is waiving detention penalties tied to the coronavirus, other ocean carriers have not shown as much flexibility when cargo owners cannot return empty boxes during the supply chain disruption.

3630071_FI.png

<div>Shippers and truckers are raising the alarm on how blank sailings linked to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will cause a rash of detention penalties between $100 to $200 per day if it remains difficult to return empty containers to terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach.While Ocean Network Express (ONE) is waiving detention fees, according to a Feb. 25 advisory from the company, other steamship lines haven’t provided such amnesty, say motor carriers. Container lines may be reluctant to waive such fees, considering the volume slump caused by COVID-19 is costing them $300 to 350 million weekly, according to...

Shippers and truckers are raising the alarm on how blank sailings linked to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will cause a rash of detention penalties between $100 to $200 per day if it remains difficult to return empty containers to terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach. While Ocean Network Express (ONE) is waiving detention fees, according to a Feb. 25 advisory from the company, other steamship lines haven’t provided such amnesty, say motor carriers. Container lines may be reluctant to waive such fees, considering the volume slump caused by COVID-19 is costing them $300 to 350 million weekly, according to consultancy Sea-Intelligence Maritime Consulting. There are limits to the leniency carriers will show, however, with ONE saying it won’t reimburse for storage or escalating fees. That resistance is causing trucker and cargo owner frustration about being penalized for factors they argue are beyond their control. “From an administrative standpoint, the other steamship lines are making it an onerous process to dispute detention/per diem right now,” said Robert Loya, vice president of CMI West, a drayage provider in Southern California owned by NFI Industries. Most of the container terminal operators in the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex began to manage the return of empty boxes last month in order to avoid yard congestion. “If you fill up a terminal with empties, you don’t have enough space to handle the containers that are coming in. That’s the issue,” said Ed DeNike, president of SSA Containers. Some terminals last month began notifying beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) they would only issue appointments to return empty containers if the trucker retrieved a full container, known as a dual transaction. Other terminals began to refuse returns of all empty containers. Several terminal operators told JOC.com that is necessary because of the reduction of outbound vessel capacity needed to return the empties to Asia, and available terminal space is becoming scarce. Blank sailings have also reduced import volumes so much that work shifts in Los Angeles-Long Beach have been canceled over the past couple of weeks, ostensibly to save on longshore labor costs. According to a schedule of gate closures shared with JOC.com, individual terminals in Los Angeles-Long Beach have announced 25 day or evening work shifts that will be canceled this week from Monday through Friday. The semantics game on fee waivers Photo credit: Noatum Logistics. During the Federal Maritime Commission’s investigation into detention and demurrage, ocean carrier sources told JOC.com it’s common to extend free time when a terminal is completely closed. If a hurricane shuts down a terminal, for example, a BCO shouldn’t lose a free day to pick up or return containers. The coronavirus detention discussion, however, is more complicated because restrictions, such as a dual transaction requirement, are different than closures. Even eliminating one shift isn’t the same as a shutdown; limited access is different than no access. Even if one terminal isn’t accepting an empty, that doesn’t mean an ocean carrier can’t push back on detention. “That assumes it’s the only location taking the empty [box]. If the steamship line gives you three locations and one is closed or not taking the empty, you’ve got two other options,” Loya said. “What is happening right now, though, is the first may not take the empty, the second has no available appointments, and the third requires a dual transaction.” BCOs and truckers can argue that it’s unreasonable to charge detention/per diem. An ocean carrier, however, can counter that drayman has a responsibility to book an appointment before the slots fill up, or to schedule a dual transaction, thus penalties shouldn’t be waived. Address disruptions in service contracts What a BCO can do to dispute detention/per diem penalties depends on the contract. If the ocean carrier bills the motor carrier under merchant haulage, then the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA) is an avenue to resolve the dispute. If the ocean carrier bills the BCO under a door delivery, the UIIA doesn’t apply. Lori Fellmer, vice president of logistics and carrier management with BassTech International, recommends BCOs address disruptions in their service contract. Even if the coronavirus is an extraordinary event, there have been enough disruptions in Southern California that a BCO should negotiate the issue. “Not every BCO has the leverage to get language into a contract,” Fellmer said. “But you can have these conversations with your steamship lines, even if it’s not in your contract. Unfortunately, a steamship line can, at any moment, publish something in a tariff that puts the BCO on the hook if all else fails.” Keeping documents is also crucial to fighting a detention/per diem penalty, sources say. They recommend saving emails, taking screenshots if a portal shows no available appointments, and following up phone calls with an email summarizing the contents of the conversation. “We always ask the recipient in a follow-up email to let us know if there is anything we misunderstood,” said Rachael Acker, logistics manager with Wolverine Worldwide, Inc. “That way, both sides have a common understanding of what was discussed on the phone call.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @arijashe .

North American ports

US truckers, shippers resist coronavirus-linked detention fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The maker of wind energy components has invested in its first heavy cargo deck carrier, one of four such vessels built by Dajin’s own shipbuilding division that the company will take delivery of this year. </div>

The maker of wind energy components has invested in its first heavy cargo deck carrier, one of four such vessels built by Dajin’s own shipbuilding division that the company will take delivery of this year.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Dajin Heavy Industry, a Chinese maker of wind energy components, has moved into ship ownership with the launch of the first of what could be a fleet of 20 heavy deck carriers to deliver wind farm equipment to sites globally.   The 40,000-deadweight metric ton (dwt) King One has started sea trials and will make its first commercial voyage early next year, Dajin said last week. The ship is the first of four deck carriers built by Dajin’s own shipbuilding division that the company will take delivery of this year. Building wind farm components and transporting them on its own fleet of ships rather than on chartered vessels mirrors the business developed by Chinese port crane maker Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries, which controls a fleet of specially converted ships. Longer term, Dajin said it envisions a fleet of between 10 and 20 super-large heavy deck carriers of varying tonnage. It has not confirmed whether all those ships will be dedicated to transporting Dajin’s own cargo or put onto the commercial charter market. With free deck space of 130,000 square feet, King One has been specifically designed and developed to transport oversized equipment for the offshore wind, oil and gas sectors, including multiple large-diameter monopolies for offshore wind farms. The ship has also been designed with a strengthened deck to transport wind farm towers in an upright position rather than horizontally, a concept that could significantly reduce transportation costs, Dajin said. Dajin has already supplied wind farm components to developments in Europe, including the delivery of 36 monopiles for RWE’s Thor offshore wind farm in Denmark. It is also scheduled to complete the delivery at the end of this year of monopiles for the 1.1-gigawatt Inch Cape offshore wind farm about 10 miles off the east coast of Scotland. Dajin has also agreed to lease 25 acres at Denmark’s Odense port as a lay-down and marshalling area for monopiles and other components for offshore wind projects in the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Dajin Heavy Industry, a Chinese maker of wind energy components, has moved into ship ownership with the launch of the first of what could be a fleet of 20 heavy deck carriers to deliver wind farm equipment to sites globally.   The 40,000-deadweight metric ton (dwt) King One has started sea trials and will make its first commercial voyage early next year, Dajin said last week. The ship is the first of four deck carriers built by Dajin’s own shipbuilding division that the company will take delivery of this year. Building wind farm components and transporting them on its own fleet of ships rather than on chartered vessels mirrors the business developed by Chinese port crane maker Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries, which controls a fleet of specially converted ships. Longer term, Dajin said it envisions a fleet of between 10 and 20 super-large heavy deck carriers of varying tonnage. It has not confirmed whether all those ships will be dedicated to transporting Dajin’s own cargo or put onto the commercial charter market. With free deck space of 130,000 square feet, King One has been specifically designed and developed to transport oversized equipment for the offshore wind, oil and gas sectors, including multiple large-diameter monopolies for offshore wind farms. The ship has also been designed with a strengthened deck to transport wind farm towers in an upright position rather than horizontally, a concept that could significantly reduce transportation costs, Dajin said. Dajin has already supplied wind farm components to developments in Europe, including the delivery of 36 monopiles for RWE’s Thor offshore wind farm in Denmark. It is also scheduled to complete the delivery at the end of this year of monopiles for the 1.1-gigawatt Inch Cape offshore wind farm about 10 miles off the east coast of Scotland. Dajin has also agreed to lease 25 acres at Denmark’s Odense port as a lay-down and marshalling area for monopiles and other components for offshore wind projects in the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Energy projects

Breakbulk News

Maritime

China’s Dajin Heavy dips toe into MPV ownership for wind farm cargoes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Breakbulk and project carriers continue to be upbeat for cargo prospects through the end of the year and into 2026. </div>

Breakbulk and project carriers continue to be upbeat for cargo prospects through the end of the year and into 2026.

<div class="phx-topic">A slip in multipurpose vessel (MPV) charter rates is being viewed by specialist brokers as a “minor correction” rather than an indication of a market downturn, given that carriers are reporting robust cargo demand. The Toepfer Multipurpose Index dropped 0.5% in October, down to $12,690 per day, the third consecutive monthly decline. In its October report, shipbroker Toepfer Transport said the slide was due to “subdued activity in both the time charter and freight markets.” It added, however, that the “very slight downward movement” should be seen “more as a minor correction than a general trend.” Susan Oatway, senior research analyst for breakbulk and project cargo for S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, said that optimism is high among breakbulk and project cargo carriers, but “some shippers remain cautious about the start of 2026.” Uncertainty around what comes next, for the US in particular, has stalled some projects. However, globally there is an expectation that 2026 will see “growing demand in renewables, oil and gas and power generation,” according to Oatway.   Oatway’s outlook for MPV freight rates is that they will remain steady for the first quarter of 2026, but as demand starts to pick up after Chinese New Year, an uptick in rates is expected. “Much depends on whether the ceasefire in the Middle East holds, allowing Red Sea transits to restart,” she said. “This would have a significant effect on capacity, keeping rates at current levels.”   S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. <h3>Carriers channel optimism </h3>Breakbulk and project carriers continue to be upbeat for cargo prospects through the end of the year and into 2026. Speaking at the recent Breakbulk Americas conference, Dea Chincuanco, president of MPV operator dship Carriers Americas, said the carrier had seen “steady cargo movements” in the second and third quarters. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said. Chincuanco noted an increase in trade route shifts, with more sourcing from India, Thailand and Vietnam, tempered by delays for some shipments. “It would be phenomenal if some of the delays from this year project into next year,” she said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="a5da87bf-3ea9-46e4-992a-eda35b2c7a8c"></dynamic-object></div>Ben Collins, global project cargo manager at Mediterranean Shipping Co., said the carrier is “pretty positive for the next 12-18 months,” although he conceded carriers “have to be bullish.” “If we talk [the market] down, then it becomes the reality,” he said. Henrik Hansen, general manager for the Americas at MPV operator AAL Shipping, saw project positivity even further out: “When we look at our three-year outlook, the feedback from clients is that the projects are coming,” he said. Vedran Muratbegovic, senior vice president/industrial at carrier Wallenius Wilhelmsen, agreed that approved projects are now moving. “We have to trust those closest to the cargo and what they are telling us,” he said. Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A slip in multipurpose vessel (MPV) charter rates is being viewed by specialist brokers as a “minor correction” rather than an indication of a market downturn, given that carriers are reporting robust cargo demand. The Toepfer Multipurpose Index dropped 0.5% in October, down to $12,690 per day, the third consecutive monthly decline. In its October report, shipbroker Toepfer Transport said the slide was due to “subdued activity in both the time charter and freight markets.” It added, however, that the “very slight downward movement” should be seen “more as a minor correction than a general trend.” Susan Oatway, senior research analyst for breakbulk and project cargo for S&P Global Market Intelligence, said that optimism is high among breakbulk and project cargo carriers, but “some shippers remain cautious about the start of 2026.” Uncertainty around what comes next, for the US in particular, has stalled some projects. However, globally there is an expectation that 2026 will see “growing demand in renewables, oil and gas and power generation,” according to Oatway.   Oatway’s outlook for MPV freight rates is that they will remain steady for the first quarter of 2026, but as demand starts to pick up after Chinese New Year, an uptick in rates is expected. “Much depends on whether the ceasefire in the Middle East holds, allowing Red Sea transits to restart,” she said. “This would have a significant effect on capacity, keeping rates at current levels.”   S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Carriers channel optimism Breakbulk and project carriers continue to be upbeat for cargo prospects through the end of the year and into 2026. Speaking at the recent Breakbulk Americas conference, Dea Chincuanco, president of MPV operator dship Carriers Americas, said the carrier had seen “steady cargo movements” in the second and third quarters. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said. Chincuanco noted an increase in trade route shifts, with more sourcing from India, Thailand and Vietnam, tempered by delays for some shipments. “It would be phenomenal if some of the delays from this year project into next year,” she said. Ben Collins, global project cargo manager at Mediterranean Shipping Co., said the carrier is “pretty positive for the next 12-18 months,” although he conceded carriers “have to be bullish.” “If we talk [the market] down, then it becomes the reality,” he said. Henrik Hansen, general manager for the Americas at MPV operator AAL Shipping, saw project positivity even further out: “When we look at our three-year outlook, the feedback from clients is that the projects are coming,” he said. Vedran Muratbegovic, senior vice president/industrial at carrier Wallenius Wilhelmsen, agreed that approved projects are now moving. “We have to trust those closest to the cargo and what they are telling us,” he said. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Project cargo

Slide in MPV rates seen as a blip, not a breakdown, as projects keep flowing

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">On the eve of IMO’s London gathering this week, Washington has pledged to retaliate against nations supporting what it says is a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations.” </div>

On the eve of IMO’s London gathering this week, Washington has pledged to retaliate against nations supporting what it says is a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations.”

<div class="phx-topic">US opposition to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) shipping decarbonization plans has escalated dramatically, with the White House now threatening sanctions on countries who vote in favor of measures to cut shipping’s carbon emissions. Washington’s threats of retaliation against the IMO come as its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/deep-divisions-linger-as-imo-gathers-for-pivotal-decarbonization-talks-6094699">readies to meet Oct. 14–17 in London</a> to vote on the decarbonization regulations, including the proposed net-zero framework that was agreed in principle by a majority of IMO members in April. A joint statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Friday called the greenhouse gas-cutting measures a global carbon tax on American consumers that would not be tolerated. “The NZF [net-zero framework] proposal poses significant risks to the global economy and subjects not just Americans, but all IMO member states to an unsanctioned global tax regime that levies punitive and regressive financial penalties, which could be avoided,” the statement said. If the net-zero framework is adopted, all large ships operating globally, including cruise ships, will be required to slash emissions by 17% by 2028, with steadily increasing emission reduction targets after that, or pay a fee. Shipping currently accounts for 3% of global carbon emissions. The US has long opposed measures aimed at placing a price on carbon emissions, and on the eve of the pivotal IMO meeting, its threats of retaliation against member states backing the net-zero framework were spelled out in the statement. “The United States will be moving to levy these remedies against nations that sponsor this European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations,” the US statement said. “We will fight hard to protect our economic interests by imposing costs on countries if they support the NZF. Our fellow IMO members should be on notice.” The US actions would include sanctions on officials “sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers,” imposing visa restrictions and revising quotas of maritime crew visas, and imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated or flagged by countries supporting the net-zero framework. Flag states supporting the IMO measures may have their registered vessels blocked from calling at US ports, with the US also evaluating the imposition of financial penalties on the flag states. <h3>Leveling the global playing field </h3>The targeting of vessel flag states is an indication that the US is targeting Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands that are home to almost half of the world’s registered gross tonnage, which could play a crucial role during this week’s MEPC meeting. While much has been made about the need for a two-thirds majority vote in favor of the framework for it to pass, those voting yes will also need to control at least 50% of the world’s gross tonnage. Vessels flagged in Marshall Islands, Liberia and Panama constitute more than 45% of global tonnage. In a brief statement responding to the US threats, the European Commission said it supported the IMO’s “ambitious global measures to decarbonize the shipping sector and ensure a global level playing field.” “The EU views the net-zero framework as a significant milestone and calls for its adoption at the IMO,” the European Commission said. It has taken several years for the IMO to get to this point, but the heavily compromised net-zero framework agreement has polarized the shipping industry. Last week, seven shipowner associations <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/deep-divisions-linger-as-imo-gathers-for-pivotal-decarbonization-talks-6094699">urged member states “to make history” by approving the net-zero framework</a> that includes the world’s first industrywide carbon pricing measure. Besides the US, opposing the adoption of the framework in its current form are Greek shipowners representing mostly the tanker and gas carrier fleet and classification societies the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and DNV. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US opposition to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) shipping decarbonization plans has escalated dramatically, with the White House now threatening sanctions on countries who vote in favor of measures to cut shipping’s carbon emissions. Washington’s threats of retaliation against the IMO come as its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) readies to meet Oct. 14–17 in London to vote on the decarbonization regulations, including the proposed net-zero framework that was agreed in principle by a majority of IMO members in April. A joint statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Friday called the greenhouse gas-cutting measures a global carbon tax on American consumers that would not be tolerated. “The NZF [net-zero framework] proposal poses significant risks to the global economy and subjects not just Americans, but all IMO member states to an unsanctioned global tax regime that levies punitive and regressive financial penalties, which could be avoided,” the statement said. If the net-zero framework is adopted, all large ships operating globally, including cruise ships, will be required to slash emissions by 17% by 2028, with steadily increasing emission reduction targets after that, or pay a fee. Shipping currently accounts for 3% of global carbon emissions. The US has long opposed measures aimed at placing a price on carbon emissions, and on the eve of the pivotal IMO meeting, its threats of retaliation against member states backing the net-zero framework were spelled out in the statement. “The United States will be moving to levy these remedies against nations that sponsor this European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations,” the US statement said. “We will fight hard to protect our economic interests by imposing costs on countries if they support the NZF. Our fellow IMO members should be on notice.” The US actions would include sanctions on officials “sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers,” imposing visa restrictions and revising quotas of maritime crew visas, and imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated or flagged by countries supporting the net-zero framework. Flag states supporting the IMO measures may have their registered vessels blocked from calling at US ports, with the US also evaluating the imposition of financial penalties on the flag states. Leveling the global playing field The targeting of vessel flag states is an indication that the US is targeting Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands that are home to almost half of the world’s registered gross tonnage, which could play a crucial role during this week’s MEPC meeting. While much has been made about the need for a two-thirds majority vote in favor of the framework for it to pass, those voting yes will also need to control at least 50% of the world’s gross tonnage. Vessels flagged in Marshall Islands, Liberia and Panama constitute more than 45% of global tonnage. In a brief statement responding to the US threats, the European Commission said it supported the IMO’s “ambitious global measures to decarbonize the shipping sector and ensure a global level playing field.” “The EU views the net-zero framework as a significant milestone and calls for its adoption at the IMO,” the European Commission said. It has taken several years for the IMO to get to this point, but the heavily compromised net-zero framework agreement has polarized the shipping industry. Last week, seven shipowner associations urged member states “to make history” by approving the net-zero framework that includes the world’s first industrywide carbon pricing measure. Besides the US, opposing the adoption of the framework in its current form are Greek shipowners representing mostly the tanker and gas carrier fleet and classification societies the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and DNV. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

White House sanctions threat ups ante ahead of pivotal IMO meeting

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The move would substantially increase costs and reduce capacity for vehicle and equipment makers such as Ford and Caterpillar who rely on vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels to export their products, stakeholders say.   </div>

The move would substantially increase costs and reduce capacity for vehicle and equipment makers such as Ford and Caterpillar who rely on vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels to export their products, stakeholders say.  

<div class="phx-topic">Vehicle carrier operators and trade groups are condemning moves by the US Trade Representative (USTR) to more than triple port call fees for all foreign-built vessels calling at US ports starting Oct. 14. The move would substantially increase costs and reduce capacity for vehicle and equipment makers such as Ford and Caterpillar who rely on vehicle carriers and roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessels to export their products, stakeholders said.   “USTR drops the bomb at the last minute, not realizing how badly this will hurt US exporters,” Andrew Abbott, CEO of Atlantic Container Line, the US affiliate of Italy’s Grimaldi Group, told the Journal of Commerce. In a 32-page docket published Friday, the USTR said the port levy would increase to $46 per net ton compared with the $14 per net ton set in June when the USTR switched its fee assessment to a tonnage tax from a cargo tax. This means an average-sized vehicle carrier or ro/ro vessel will face a bill of about $1.2 million when it makes its first call at a US port. USTR will cap the fee at five calls per year for the same vessel. Justifying the three-fold increase in port fees, USTR general counsel Jennifer Thornton said in Friday’s announcement that “a number of comments made in the consultation period raised concerns that the proposed service fee rate of $14 per net ton is too low.” But most of the 69 submissions listed on the USTR website during the June–July industry comment period either wanted the port fee scrapped or levied only on Chinese-built vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels. <h3>Customers to take the hit </h3>Vessel operators including Wallenius Wilhelmsen, the world’s largest car carrier operator, and Höegh Autoliners said the fees would likely be passed on to customers where feasible. The revised charges will increase Wilhelmsen’s annual port fee bill to about $1 billion, assuming 300 to 350 voyages to the US per year, while Höegh Autoliners will likely face a $225 million hit. Senior executives from the two Norwegian companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce. Knut Arild Hareide, CEO of the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association, to which the two companies belong, told the Journal of Commerce the group was “closely monitoring the situation and currently reviewing the latest developments.” Mitsui OSK Lines’ Frontier Ace and Glorious Ace, with calls scheduled for Oct.14 at Brunswick’s Colonel’s Island terminal in Georgia, will be among the first vehicles subject to the port call tax. Abbott warned previously that Grimaldi would likely cut its services and US port calls because even with the original fee of $14 per net ton, the cost would be unsustainable. “These fees will harm US automobile and tractor manufacturers who rely on vehicle carriers for both imports to support their American manufacturing operations, as well as some $20 billion in exports,” Joe Kramek, president and CEO of the Washington, DC-based World Shipping Council (WSC), told the Journal of Commerce Saturday. <h3>‘Collapse’ of US short-sea shipping </h3>Florida-headquartered Accordia Shipping, which operates ro/ro services between the US and the Caribbean, said the new fees could cause the collapse of short-sea services from the US, hurting exports and likely costing jobs. In written comments on the changes submitted to the USTR Friday, Farid Escobar, Accordia Shipping’s legal affairs liaison, said the company’s 3,829 net ton ro/ro Minchah will have to pay $176,134 per US port call under the revised $46 per net ton fee. The increase from the earlier $14-per-net-ton proposal “would render short-sea, export-based ro/ro operations economically untenable, dismantling trade lanes that sustain US manufacturing exports, regional supply-chain resilience, and maritime employment,” Escobar said in the filing. “Our operations consist of over 99% outbound US exports — US-manufactured and US-origin vehicles, construction equipment, and heavy rolling machinery — destined for neighboring Caribbean nations,” he added. Tiffany Smith, vice president for global trade policy at the National Foreign Trade Council, said the inclusion of all non-US-built car carriers “is a massive divergence from the objective of the [Section] 301 investigation.” “Imposing broad-based penalties on all operators, including US allies, would do nothing to constrain China’s dominance of the maritime sector and would have harmful effects on US industries that rely on ro/ro vessels,” Smith said. Other changes in Friday’s announcement include the possibility of levying port fees on vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels below 10,000 deadweight metric tons. USTR has opened a public consultation on the proposal, which closes Nov. 10. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Vehicle carrier operators and trade groups are condemning moves by the US Trade Representative (USTR) to more than triple port call fees for all foreign-built vessels calling at US ports starting Oct. 14. The move would substantially increase costs and reduce capacity for vehicle and equipment makers such as Ford and Caterpillar who rely on vehicle carriers and roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessels to export their products, stakeholders said.   “USTR drops the bomb at the last minute, not realizing how badly this will hurt US exporters,” Andrew Abbott, CEO of Atlantic Container Line, the US affiliate of Italy’s Grimaldi Group, told the Journal of Commerce. In a 32-page docket published Friday, the USTR said the port levy would increase to $46 per net ton compared with the $14 per net ton set in June when the USTR switched its fee assessment to a tonnage tax from a cargo tax. This means an average-sized vehicle carrier or ro/ro vessel will face a bill of about $1.2 million when it makes its first call at a US port. USTR will cap the fee at five calls per year for the same vessel. Justifying the three-fold increase in port fees, USTR general counsel Jennifer Thornton said in Friday’s announcement that “a number of comments made in the consultation period raised concerns that the proposed service fee rate of $14 per net ton is too low.” But most of the 69 submissions listed on the USTR website during the June–July industry comment period either wanted the port fee scrapped or levied only on Chinese-built vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels. Customers to take the hit Vessel operators including Wallenius Wilhelmsen, the world’s largest car carrier operator, and Höegh Autoliners said the fees would likely be passed on to customers where feasible. The revised charges will increase Wilhelmsen’s annual port fee bill to about $1 billion, assuming 300 to 350 voyages to the US per year, while Höegh Autoliners will likely face a $225 million hit. Senior executives from the two Norwegian companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce. Knut Arild Hareide, CEO of the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association, to which the two companies belong, told the Journal of Commerce the group was “closely monitoring the situation and currently reviewing the latest developments.” Mitsui OSK Lines’ Frontier Ace and Glorious Ace, with calls scheduled for Oct.14 at Brunswick’s Colonel’s Island terminal in Georgia, will be among the first vehicles subject to the port call tax. Abbott warned previously that Grimaldi would likely cut its services and US port calls because even with the original fee of $14 per net ton, the cost would be unsustainable. “These fees will harm US automobile and tractor manufacturers who rely on vehicle carriers for both imports to support their American manufacturing operations, as well as some $20 billion in exports,” Joe Kramek, president and CEO of the Washington, DC-based World Shipping Council (WSC), told the Journal of Commerce Saturday. ‘Collapse’ of US short-sea shipping Florida-headquartered Accordia Shipping, which operates ro/ro services between the US and the Caribbean, said the new fees could cause the collapse of short-sea services from the US, hurting exports and likely costing jobs. In written comments on the changes submitted to the USTR Friday, Farid Escobar, Accordia Shipping’s legal affairs liaison, said the company’s 3,829 net ton ro/ro Minchah will have to pay $176,134 per US port call under the revised $46 per net ton fee. The increase from the earlier $14-per-net-ton proposal “would render short-sea, export-based ro/ro operations economically untenable, dismantling trade lanes that sustain US manufacturing exports, regional supply-chain resilience, and maritime employment,” Escobar said in the filing. “Our operations consist of over 99% outbound US exports — US-manufactured and US-origin vehicles, construction equipment, and heavy rolling machinery — destined for neighboring Caribbean nations,” he added. Tiffany Smith, vice president for global trade policy at the National Foreign Trade Council, said the inclusion of all non-US-built car carriers “is a massive divergence from the objective of the [Section] 301 investigation.” “Imposing broad-based penalties on all operators, including US allies, would do nothing to constrain China’s dominance of the maritime sector and would have harmful effects on US industries that rely on ro/ro vessels,” Smith said. Other changes in Friday’s announcement include the possibility of levying port fees on vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels below 10,000 deadweight metric tons. USTR has opened a public consultation on the proposal, which closes Nov. 10. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Ro/ro cargo

Car carrier sector slams USTR’s decision for threefold increase in port fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">At first blush, the fees targeting US entities would affect Matson, Maersk Line and APL, part of the CMA CGM group.</div>

At first blush, the fees targeting US entities would affect Matson, Maersk Line and APL, part of the CMA CGM group.

<div class="phx-topic">(Updated to add comment from Matson). China on Friday outlined new port fees targeting ships operated or owned by US companies. The plan mirrors the one the White House is set to implement Tuesday that targets Chinese tonnage. In a statement urging the US government to change course, China’s Ministry of Transport said starting Oct. 14 — the same day the US port fees go into effect — it would begin charging US-operated ships or those where US shareholders control more than a 25% stake. China’s retaliatory fees, which start in the first year at 400 renminbi ($56) per net ton, would hit the likes of US-owned Matson harder than US fees would hit Cosco Shipping. The measures, which mirror those imposed on Chinese-owned or -built ships calling at US ports, were announced by the Transport Ministry in a two-page statement. The fees also apply to US-flagged ships and US-built vessels. The ministry said the fees are being introduced in direct retaliation to the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) moves to impose port fees on Chinese-owned, -controlled or -built ships, adding the US fees “seriously violate the relevant principles of international trade and the Sino-US maritime agreement and causes serious damage to maritime trade between China and the United States.” “We urge the United States to immediately correct its wrong practices and stop its unreasonable suppression of China’s maritime industry,” a ministry spokesperson said. Under China’s plan, the targeted US ships will be charged $56 per net ton from next week, increasing to $90 per net ton from April 17, 2026; $123 from April 17, 2027; and $157 from April 17, 2028. “If a ship calls at multiple Chinese ports on the same voyage, the special port fee for the ship shall be paid only at the first port of call, and the subsequent port of call shall not be charged,” the Transport Ministry said. “The same ship shall be charged no more than five voyages within a year.” By comparison, the USTR fee schedule will charge the targeted Chinese vessels $50 per net ton and the higher of $18 per net ton or $120 per container discharged. <h3>Maersk, Matson and APL under the gun </h3>At first blush, the fees targeting US entities would affect Matson, Maersk Line and APL, part of the CMA CGM group. “Furthermore, this could also apply to vessels owned by Seaspan,” Lars Jensen, a maritime analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor, said in a LinkedIn post Friday. “Seaspan’s ultimate owner is Poseidon, where it seems that just over 25% of the ownership is US-based. “This could be quite an impact as it means that the more than 100 vessels owned by Seaspan, and chartered by a variety of major container lines, would now be subject to fees in China in addition to the fees in the US for their Chinese-built vessels,” Jensen added. Matson told customers in an advisory Friday it had no plans to change its service schedule and would not pass on the cost of China’s new port fees to customers via a surcharge. “We remain fully committed to providing...service offerings from China and the trans-Pacific market to the US,” the carrier said. The China port fees would apparently not apply to Israel’s Zim Integrated Shipping Services because, while there is a substantial US shareholding, the almost 19% would not cross the required threshold. The Transport Ministry said the fees will be collected by the maritime administration agency responsible for the port that is the ship’s first call. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

(Updated to add comment from Matson). China on Friday outlined new port fees targeting ships operated or owned by US companies. The plan mirrors the one the White House is set to implement Tuesday that targets Chinese tonnage. In a statement urging the US government to change course, China’s Ministry of Transport said starting Oct. 14 — the same day the US port fees go into effect — it would begin charging US-operated ships or those where US shareholders control more than a 25% stake. China’s retaliatory fees, which start in the first year at 400 renminbi ($56) per net ton, would hit the likes of US-owned Matson harder than US fees would hit Cosco Shipping. The measures, which mirror those imposed on Chinese-owned or -built ships calling at US ports, were announced by the Transport Ministry in a two-page statement. The fees also apply to US-flagged ships and US-built vessels. The ministry said the fees are being introduced in direct retaliation to the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) moves to impose port fees on Chinese-owned, -controlled or -built ships, adding the US fees “seriously violate the relevant principles of international trade and the Sino-US maritime agreement and causes serious damage to maritime trade between China and the United States.” “We urge the United States to immediately correct its wrong practices and stop its unreasonable suppression of China’s maritime industry,” a ministry spokesperson said. Under China’s plan, the targeted US ships will be charged $56 per net ton from next week, increasing to $90 per net ton from April 17, 2026; $123 from April 17, 2027; and $157 from April 17, 2028. “If a ship calls at multiple Chinese ports on the same voyage, the special port fee for the ship shall be paid only at the first port of call, and the subsequent port of call shall not be charged,” the Transport Ministry said. “The same ship shall be charged no more than five voyages within a year.” By comparison, the USTR fee schedule will charge the targeted Chinese vessels $50 per net ton and the higher of $18 per net ton or $120 per container discharged. Maersk, Matson and APL under the gun At first blush, the fees targeting US entities would affect Matson, Maersk Line and APL, part of the CMA CGM group. “Furthermore, this could also apply to vessels owned by Seaspan,” Lars Jensen, a maritime analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor, said in a LinkedIn post Friday. “Seaspan’s ultimate owner is Poseidon, where it seems that just over 25% of the ownership is US-based. “This could be quite an impact as it means that the more than 100 vessels owned by Seaspan, and chartered by a variety of major container lines, would now be subject to fees in China in addition to the fees in the US for their Chinese-built vessels,” Jensen added. Matson told customers in an advisory Friday it had no plans to change its service schedule and would not pass on the cost of China’s new port fees to customers via a surcharge. “We remain fully committed to providing...service offerings from China and the trans-Pacific market to the US,” the carrier said. The China port fees would apparently not apply to Israel’s Zim Integrated Shipping Services because, while there is a substantial US shareholding, the almost 19% would not cross the required threshold. The Transport Ministry said the fees will be collected by the maritime administration agency responsible for the port that is the ship’s first call. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Port News

Container lines

Trans-Pacific

International ports

Container Shipping News

China returns fire with retaliatory port fees targeting US-affiliated ships

Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY AND SAVE!

Upgrade to Gold using code TPMGW595 to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD: Upgrade to Gold using code TPMGW595 to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD: Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The latest port news from the Journal of Commerce spans the globe from North Carolina and Florida to Shanghai and Singapore. Port news includes port automation, terminal construction projects, the future of decarbonization and net-zero shipping, dredging, port hinterland connectivity, labor, disruption, port congestion and cargo flow.

Marine terminals

Longshore labor

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

China’s Dajin Heavy dips toe into MPV ownership for wind farm cargoes

Slide in MPV rates seen as a blip, not a breakdown, as projects keep flowing

White House sanctions threat ups ante ahead of pivotal IMO meeting