<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The federal watchdog agency said the US Maritime Administration has financial levers to help the domestic shipbuilding industry but doesn’t know their effectiveness.</div>

The federal watchdog agency said the US Maritime Administration has financial levers to help the domestic shipbuilding industry but doesn’t know their effectiveness.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">US shipbuilding capacity is hampered by underutilized and poorly funded government incentives, a federal watchdog agency said as it urged the US Maritime Administration (Marad) to take a more active role in programs aimed at reviving the domestic maritime industry. After a year-and-half study on the US commercial maritime industry, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that US shipbuilders face challenges in reviving their industry due to competition from other modes of transportation, fewer economies of scale than overseas shipbuilders and aging infrastructure. President Donald Trump has promoted domestic shipbuilding during his second term, and his administration is on track to tax Chinese tonnage starting Oct. 14. The GAO, often referred to as the congressional watchdog, suggested encouraging Jones Act vessels to move more goods between US ports, providing US shipbuilders with larger and more consistent order books, and partnering with foreign shipbuilders to modernize US yards. While government financial programs aim to offset some of the costs of building ships in the US, “the programs’ administration does not follow leading practices for assessing program performance,” the GAO said, adding that Marad needs to look more closely at its incentives. “The Maritime Administration cannot determine to what extent the programs are effective in growing the US maritime fleet because it has not established measurable goals for, or assessed the performance of, these programs,” the report said. The GAO report, funded through a 2023 defense spending bill, arrives after <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-signs-order-for-us-shipbuilding-but-stays-mute-on-port-fees-5980539">President Trump’s April executive order</a> aimed at restoring US shipbuilding through steps such as developing a maritime action plan, establishing a trust fund for the US maritime industry, and collecting harbor maintenance fees on US imports that move through Canada and Mexico first. That effort will also be funded through <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">new tariffs to be collected starting in October</a> on Chinese-operated or -built ships that enter US ports. <h3>Programs under scrutiny </h3>For its part, Marad administers four programs aimed at domestic shipbuilding, but their effectiveness remains unclear, the report said. For example, the Federal Ship Financing Program, which offers loan guarantees for US-built ships, only executed guarantees for two vessel owners totaling $400 million over the last five years, the report said. While the guarantee is “a low-volume program, but has a high impact,” Marad has become more risk averse about which loans it will guarantee, the GAO report said, disincentivizing some companies from using the program. Another incentive, the Small Shipyard Grant Program, allows shipyards to buy new equipment. Congress appropriated about $20 million to the program annually since 2018, but it only received $8.75 million in funding for the 2024 fiscal year. However, the GAO found that shipbuilding and repair companies have requested about $50 million in grant funding. While the grantees said they benefitted from the program, the GAO said the program’s overall effectiveness is unclear because Marad “does not have measurable goals and does not assess the performance of the program.” Marad is supposed to collect data on how the grant improved shipyard operations, but the GAO found the data reporting is spotty. “Maritime Administration officials follow a multistep process for awarding grants to shipyards that apply to the Small Shipyard Grant program, but they do not document their decision rationale for why they award or do not award grants,” the GAO said, as it urged Marad to delve more deeply into its incentive programs. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US shipbuilding capacity is hampered by underutilized and poorly funded government incentives, a federal watchdog agency said as it urged the US Maritime Administration (Marad) to take a more active role in programs aimed at reviving the domestic maritime industry. After a year-and-half study on the US commercial maritime industry, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that US shipbuilders face challenges in reviving their industry due to competition from other modes of transportation, fewer economies of scale than overseas shipbuilders and aging infrastructure. President Donald Trump has promoted domestic shipbuilding during his second term, and his administration is on track to tax Chinese tonnage starting Oct. 14. The GAO, often referred to as the congressional watchdog, suggested encouraging Jones Act vessels to move more goods between US ports, providing US shipbuilders with larger and more consistent order books, and partnering with foreign shipbuilders to modernize US yards. While government financial programs aim to offset some of the costs of building ships in the US, “the programs’ administration does not follow leading practices for assessing program performance,” the GAO said, adding that Marad needs to look more closely at its incentives. “The Maritime Administration cannot determine to what extent the programs are effective in growing the US maritime fleet because it has not established measurable goals for, or assessed the performance of, these programs,” the report said. The GAO report, funded through a 2023 defense spending bill, arrives after President Trump’s April executive order aimed at restoring US shipbuilding through steps such as developing a maritime action plan, establishing a trust fund for the US maritime industry, and collecting harbor maintenance fees on US imports that move through Canada and Mexico first. That effort will also be funded through new tariffs to be collected starting in October on Chinese-operated or -built ships that enter US ports. Programs under scrutiny For its part, Marad administers four programs aimed at domestic shipbuilding, but their effectiveness remains unclear, the report said. For example, the Federal Ship Financing Program, which offers loan guarantees for US-built ships, only executed guarantees for two vessel owners totaling $400 million over the last five years, the report said. While the guarantee is “a low-volume program, but has a high impact,” Marad has become more risk averse about which loans it will guarantee, the GAO report said, disincentivizing some companies from using the program. Another incentive, the Small Shipyard Grant Program, allows shipyards to buy new equipment. Congress appropriated about $20 million to the program annually since 2018, but it only received $8.75 million in funding for the 2024 fiscal year. However, the GAO found that shipbuilding and repair companies have requested about $50 million in grant funding. While the grantees said they benefitted from the program, the GAO said the program’s overall effectiveness is unclear because Marad “does not have measurable goals and does not assess the performance of the program.” Marad is supposed to collect data on how the grant improved shipyard operations, but the GAO found the data reporting is spotty. “Maritime Administration officials follow a multistep process for awarding grants to shipyards that apply to the Small Shipyard Grant program, but they do not document their decision rationale for why they award or do not award grants,” the GAO said, as it urged Marad to delve more deeply into its incentive programs. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

US shipbuilding incentives need more oversight: GAO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Longer transits around southern Africa, restructured alliance networks and bottlenecks in Asia continue to cause ships to arrive outside their scheduled European arrival windows.</div>

Longer transits around southern Africa, restructured alliance networks and bottlenecks in Asia continue to cause ships to arrive outside their scheduled European arrival windows.

<div class="phx-topic">Container lines are making another round of changes to services to mitigate persistent congestion at European ports, avoiding maxed out terminals and overwhelmed inland rail and waterway networks. Longer transits around southern Africa, restructured alliance networks and bottlenecks in Asia are causing ships to arrive outside their scheduled European arrival windows. Strong peak season demand is piling on the pressure with the wave of incoming volume adding to congestion and forcing carriers to divert some services away from the congested import gateways. Mediterranean Shipping Co. has adjusted its Asia-Europe services to mitigate the delays, omitting some ports and adding others, while congestion at London Gateway is seeing CMA CGM’s Safran service from Europe to the East Coast of South America calling at Southampton instead. Maersk was scheduled to return its north-south NeoSamba service to London Gateway after moving it to Southampton in early June because of congestion but has decided to maintain the Southampton call. “The current diversion from London Gateway to Southampton will be extended by an additional four weeks, to maintain high service reliability during peak demand periods and to avoid port congestion,” Maersk told customers in its July market update this week. HMM is reporting yard density of 80% and above at several terminals in Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp with full berths and vessels arriving late. Data this week from port visibility provider Portcast shows 11 vessels waiting to berth at Antwerp-Bruges, nine at Hamburg and seven at Rotterdam. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="5eb289f4-4310-4545-b840-86a556bf3fac"></dynamic-object></div>Kuehne + Nagel’s visibility tool SeaExplorer noted that port congestion in North European ports of Antwerp, Hamburg and Bremerhaven was extending transit times, with delays in berthing, operational disruptions and high yard utilization over 92% identified as key factors. Disruption is also extending into inland transport networks. Ocean Network Express is warning of long wait times for trucks and barges in North European hubs, with some terminals suspending the redelivery of empties, while Maersk warned customers of rail disruption in Hamburg from July 2 until July 9. “During this period, no rail transport to or from the Port of Hamburg will be operationally feasible, and customers are kindly asked to change their ocean bookings from Hamburg to Bremerhaven where possible,” the carrier noted. <h3>Low water limits barge loading </h3>Intermodal transport operator Contargo said average waiting times for the handling of its barges this week were 78 hours in Antwerp and 64 hours in Rotterdam. Contargo also warned that low water levels on the Rhine were limiting barge loading and generating low water surcharges. In the north of Italy, major infrastructure works are scheduled on the national railway line serving ports of Genoa, La Spezia and Vado Ligure. At the Port of Genoa, no rail services will be available between Aug. 2 and 31, with Maersk not accepting rail cargo from July 21. In the first four months of 2025, total Asia-Europe volume was up 9% year over year at 6.13 million TEUs, with the Asia-North Europe segment rising 6.6% to 3.72 million TEUs and Asia-Mediterranean surging 12.14% to 2.4 million TEUs, according to the latest volume data from Container Trades Statistics. While Asia-Europe volume data for June is not yet available, carriers and forwarders are reporting robust cargo bookings through the summer months. At the same time, carriers have deployed a record amount of capacity on the North Europe corridor in July while also increasing blank sailings on the trade lane. Freight-all-kinds (FAK) rate increases for Asia-North Europe were imposed from July 1 by MSC ($4,300 per FEU) and CMA CGM ($4,100/FEU), pushing rates on the trade lane up almost $500 to $3,350/FEU, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Data from visibility provider eeSea shows carriers on Asia-North Europe will deploy a record 1.15 million TEUs in capacity in July and blank 85,727 TEUs. In August, the deployed capacity will drop to just over 1 million TEUs while 104,790 TEUs will be cut from the trade. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="6a5146cf-79d1-41fa-85fb-c1916fc625ac"></dynamic-object></div>Carriers are taking the opposite approach on Asia-Mediterranean, where a record 882,845 TEUs of capacity will be deployed in August, up 50,000 TEUs compared with July, eeSea data shows. Blank sailings will decline from almost 80,000 TEUs in July to 20,000 TEUs in August. “Strong demand from Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean is forecast for the rest of July in line with seasonality ... we encourage customers to book as early as possible in order to secure space,” advised Maersk in its July update. Forwarders are giving their customers the same advice. “To avoid delays caused by congestion, blank sailings, and container shortages, it is recommended to book space at least one to two weeks in advance for Asia and EU ports,” Taiwan-based forwarder Dimerco Express Group noted in a July market report. Dimerco said some China origins were beginning to apply overweight surcharges to Asia-Europe containers as carriers prioritized light cargo and high-cube containers to improve ship utilization. “Early booking is strongly recommended for heavy cargo in small containers,” the forwarder warned. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Container lines are making another round of changes to services to mitigate persistent congestion at European ports, avoiding maxed out terminals and overwhelmed inland rail and waterway networks. Longer transits around southern Africa, restructured alliance networks and bottlenecks in Asia are causing ships to arrive outside their scheduled European arrival windows. Strong peak season demand is piling on the pressure with the wave of incoming volume adding to congestion and forcing carriers to divert some services away from the congested import gateways. Mediterranean Shipping Co. has adjusted its Asia-Europe services to mitigate the delays, omitting some ports and adding others, while congestion at London Gateway is seeing CMA CGM’s Safran service from Europe to the East Coast of South America calling at Southampton instead. Maersk was scheduled to return its north-south NeoSamba service to London Gateway after moving it to Southampton in early June because of congestion but has decided to maintain the Southampton call. “The current diversion from London Gateway to Southampton will be extended by an additional four weeks, to maintain high service reliability during peak demand periods and to avoid port congestion,” Maersk told customers in its July market update this week. HMM is reporting yard density of 80% and above at several terminals in Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp with full berths and vessels arriving late. Data this week from port visibility provider Portcast shows 11 vessels waiting to berth at Antwerp-Bruges, nine at Hamburg and seven at Rotterdam. Kuehne + Nagel’s visibility tool SeaExplorer noted that port congestion in North European ports of Antwerp, Hamburg and Bremerhaven was extending transit times, with delays in berthing, operational disruptions and high yard utilization over 92% identified as key factors. Disruption is also extending into inland transport networks. Ocean Network Express is warning of long wait times for trucks and barges in North European hubs, with some terminals suspending the redelivery of empties, while Maersk warned customers of rail disruption in Hamburg from July 2 until July 9. “During this period, no rail transport to or from the Port of Hamburg will be operationally feasible, and customers are kindly asked to change their ocean bookings from Hamburg to Bremerhaven where possible,” the carrier noted. Low water limits barge loading Intermodal transport operator Contargo said average waiting times for the handling of its barges this week were 78 hours in Antwerp and 64 hours in Rotterdam. Contargo also warned that low water levels on the Rhine were limiting barge loading and generating low water surcharges. In the north of Italy, major infrastructure works are scheduled on the national railway line serving ports of Genoa, La Spezia and Vado Ligure. At the Port of Genoa, no rail services will be available between Aug. 2 and 31, with Maersk not accepting rail cargo from July 21. In the first four months of 2025, total Asia-Europe volume was up 9% year over year at 6.13 million TEUs, with the Asia-North Europe segment rising 6.6% to 3.72 million TEUs and Asia-Mediterranean surging 12.14% to 2.4 million TEUs, according to the latest volume data from Container Trades Statistics. While Asia-Europe volume data for June is not yet available, carriers and forwarders are reporting robust cargo bookings through the summer months. At the same time, carriers have deployed a record amount of capacity on the North Europe corridor in July while also increasing blank sailings on the trade lane. Freight-all-kinds (FAK) rate increases for Asia-North Europe were imposed from July 1 by MSC ($4,300 per FEU) and CMA CGM ($4,100/FEU), pushing rates on the trade lane up almost $500 to $3,350/FEU, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Data from visibility provider eeSea shows carriers on Asia-North Europe will deploy a record 1.15 million TEUs in capacity in July and blank 85,727 TEUs. In August, the deployed capacity will drop to just over 1 million TEUs while 104,790 TEUs will be cut from the trade. Carriers are taking the opposite approach on Asia-Mediterranean, where a record 882,845 TEUs of capacity will be deployed in August, up 50,000 TEUs compared with July, eeSea data shows. Blank sailings will decline from almost 80,000 TEUs in July to 20,000 TEUs in August. “Strong demand from Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean is forecast for the rest of July in line with seasonality ... we encourage customers to book as early as possible in order to secure space,” advised Maersk in its July update. Forwarders are giving their customers the same advice. “To avoid delays caused by congestion, blank sailings, and container shortages, it is recommended to book space at least one to two weeks in advance for Asia and EU ports,” Taiwan-based forwarder Dimerco Express Group noted in a July market report. Dimerco said some China origins were beginning to apply overweight surcharges to Asia-Europe containers as carriers prioritized light cargo and high-cube containers to improve ship utilization. “Early booking is strongly recommended for heavy cargo in small containers,” the forwarder warned. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Asia-Europe

Ocean carriers adjust calls as congestion chokes European hubs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The push and pull of US support for decarbonization efforts puts a question mark over potential project cargo demand. </div>

The push and pull of US support for decarbonization efforts puts a question mark over potential project cargo demand.

<div class="phx-topic">The US government is sending mixed messages about support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, dialing up concerns about the segment’s future — and whether it will create a surge of project cargo and breakbulk activity. The Senate’s July 1 passage of the Congressional budget reconciliation bill on tax and spending — also known as President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — included the retention of a key tax credit for the CCS buildout. Lawmakers approved a version of the legislation that would preserve and expand the incentive known as the 45Q tax credit, which many later-stage CCS projects rely on. But the incentive’s rescue comes just weeks after the May 30 cancellation of 24 federal awards totaling nearly $3.7 billion for projects that primarily include CCS and decarbonization initiatives. The US Department of Energy (DOE) pulled the awards after determining that the projects “failed to advance the energy needs of the American people.” Tip Meckel, senior research scientist at the Gulf Coast Carbon Center, told the Journal of Commerce that although federal grants have been in the crosshairs, the future of CCS development depends even more so on the 45Q incentive. “I think overall there’s a sense that the impact on CCS may not be as big as everyone was thinking,” he said. While the $3.7 billion in funding had been approved for several projects that have yet to get off the ground, Meckel said the tax incentive is essential to projects that are well under way, and thus closer to the project cargo stage. “What passed in the Senate version of the bill was essentially what most people who support CCS were hoping for,” he said, explaining that the legislation maintains the tax credit writ large while increasing the credit’s value for certain projects. The bill will next advance to the House for final consideration. <h3>‘A foundational driver’ </h3>The 45Q credit was introduced in 2008 and increased significantly under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). But the incentive has met both resistance and support from Republican lawmakers, including some who proposed changes to the Senate bill that would do away with the incentive altogether. Madelyn Morrison, director of government affairs for the Carbon Capture Coalition, said in a July 1 statement that the Senate’s approved version of the bill retains “mission-critical elements” of the tax credit. “45Q is the foundational market driver for domestic carbon management deployment, and we appreciate the Senate Finance Committee and key Senate champions for advocating for improvements that strengthen the credit’s long-term effectiveness,” Morrison said. Carbon capture and storage is a climate mitigation strategy backed by the oil and gas industry and has been of particular interest to liquefied natural gas (LNG) companies that are pursuing CCS to power their facilities. CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide emitted from power plants and factories and storing it underground. Carbon capture and storage projects could generate a significant source of project and breakbulk cargo to move and install components such as pipelines, chemical plant equipment, compressors, heavy machinery and raw materials. <h3>Pulled funding sends message </h3>While the July 1 Senate vote marked a win for CCS development, the $3.7 billion funding pullback signaled a shot across the bow. The federal cuts included nearly $332 million for ExxonMobil to develop a world-scale blue hydrogen and CCS plant at its refinery complex in Baytown, Texas, and $540 million for Calpine to retrofit its natural gas-fired power plants in Baytown and Sutter County, California. But as Meckel pointed out, the lion’s share of the terminations was made to awards approved between the Nov. 5 US presidential election of Donald Trump and his Jan. 20 inauguration. That means the withdrawn awards represent a small subset of CCS projects, many of which are in the early stages of development. “The number is big, but the amount of money that had been allocated to date was actually quite small. So it was more of a savings on the books than an actual recovery of money that had been allocated,” he said. That’s not to say federal funding isn’t a concern, as additional cuts could be forthcoming. In total, the DOE has been reviewing 179 awards totaling over $15 billion for large-scale commercial energy projects, according to a May 15 memo from the department. Meckel said taking back federal monies for CCS and other clean energy projects could send a message that the US government has become an unreliable partner for energy development. “It decreases US competitiveness when we’re not pursuing these very forward-thinking energy projects, because in all likelihood the companies that are interested are going to develop them somewhere else,” he said. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

The US government is sending mixed messages about support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, dialing up concerns about the segment’s future — and whether it will create a surge of project cargo and breakbulk activity. The Senate’s July 1 passage of the Congressional budget reconciliation bill on tax and spending — also known as President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — included the retention of a key tax credit for the CCS buildout. Lawmakers approved a version of the legislation that would preserve and expand the incentive known as the 45Q tax credit, which many later-stage CCS projects rely on. But the incentive’s rescue comes just weeks after the May 30 cancellation of 24 federal awards totaling nearly $3.7 billion for projects that primarily include CCS and decarbonization initiatives. The US Department of Energy (DOE) pulled the awards after determining that the projects “failed to advance the energy needs of the American people.” Tip Meckel, senior research scientist at the Gulf Coast Carbon Center, told the Journal of Commerce that although federal grants have been in the crosshairs, the future of CCS development depends even more so on the 45Q incentive. “I think overall there’s a sense that the impact on CCS may not be as big as everyone was thinking,” he said. While the $3.7 billion in funding had been approved for several projects that have yet to get off the ground, Meckel said the tax incentive is essential to projects that are well under way, and thus closer to the project cargo stage. “What passed in the Senate version of the bill was essentially what most people who support CCS were hoping for,” he said, explaining that the legislation maintains the tax credit writ large while increasing the credit’s value for certain projects. The bill will next advance to the House for final consideration. ‘A foundational driver’ The 45Q credit was introduced in 2008 and increased significantly under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). But the incentive has met both resistance and support from Republican lawmakers, including some who proposed changes to the Senate bill that would do away with the incentive altogether. Madelyn Morrison, director of government affairs for the Carbon Capture Coalition, said in a July 1 statement that the Senate’s approved version of the bill retains “mission-critical elements” of the tax credit. “45Q is the foundational market driver for domestic carbon management deployment, and we appreciate the Senate Finance Committee and key Senate champions for advocating for improvements that strengthen the credit’s long-term effectiveness,” Morrison said. Carbon capture and storage is a climate mitigation strategy backed by the oil and gas industry and has been of particular interest to liquefied natural gas (LNG) companies that are pursuing CCS to power their facilities. CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide emitted from power plants and factories and storing it underground. Carbon capture and storage projects could generate a significant source of project and breakbulk cargo to move and install components such as pipelines, chemical plant equipment, compressors, heavy machinery and raw materials. Pulled funding sends message While the July 1 Senate vote marked a win for CCS development, the $3.7 billion funding pullback signaled a shot across the bow. The federal cuts included nearly $332 million for ExxonMobil to develop a world-scale blue hydrogen and CCS plant at its refinery complex in Baytown, Texas, and $540 million for Calpine to retrofit its natural gas-fired power plants in Baytown and Sutter County, California. But as Meckel pointed out, the lion’s share of the terminations was made to awards approved between the Nov. 5 US presidential election of Donald Trump and his Jan. 20 inauguration. That means the withdrawn awards represent a small subset of CCS projects, many of which are in the early stages of development. “The number is big, but the amount of money that had been allocated to date was actually quite small. So it was more of a savings on the books than an actual recovery of money that had been allocated,” he said. That’s not to say federal funding isn’t a concern, as additional cuts could be forthcoming. In total, the DOE has been reviewing 179 awards totaling over $15 billion for large-scale commercial energy projects, according to a May 15 memo from the department. Meckel said taking back federal monies for CCS and other clean energy projects could send a message that the US government has become an unreliable partner for energy development. “It decreases US competitiveness when we’re not pursuing these very forward-thinking energy projects, because in all likelihood the companies that are interested are going to develop them somewhere else,” he said. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Breakbulk News

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Mixed US policy on carbon capture clouds project cargo demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While vessels on the lead West India-US East Coast networks have continued to sail full, forwarders have linked the “sold-out” experience to capacity cutbacks and consequent cargo rollovers. </div>

While vessels on the lead West India-US East Coast networks have continued to sail full, forwarders have linked the “sold-out” experience to capacity cutbacks and consequent cargo rollovers.

<div class="phx-topic">Major container lines on the India-US East Coast route have drastically downgraded their peak season booking rate increase targets in July amid persistent demand headwinds Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce said carriers have applied moderate rates in the $500-$600 range per container rather than the $1,500-$3,000 per box originally slated to hit spot rates starting July 1. The pullback on pricing pushes parallels similar actions by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/excess-capacity-sinks-planned-july-1-rate-increase-in-eastbound-trans-pacific-6036946">ocean carriers on the Asia-North America trade lane</a>. “Most lines have set their rate quotes slightly up, but there is little buoyancy in the market for them to push prices higher than the levels they have already attempted,” said a Mumbai-based forwarder executive on condition of anonymity. “Cargo bookings are very slow.” Sources said carriers are effectively adjusting spot rates on a sailing-by-sailing or weekly basis to fill vessels, with asking prices from West India to New York now oscillating between $2,400 and $3,000 per FEU. “Some customers seem to be holding back on shipment plans, pending clarity on tariffs,” a sales executive at a European carrier told the Journal of Commerce. Still, several carriers have lined up another round of rate hikes — albeit at a lower scale — from July 15 in anticipation of stronger demand. While vessels on the lead West India-US East Coast networks have continued to sail full, forwarders have linked the “sold-out” experience to capacity cutbacks and consequent cargo rollovers. A significant portion of the declared capacity is also being blanked in July, with six void calls for West India reported across three weekly connections — the Indamex run by CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd’s TPI and Ocean Network Express’ WIN. Industry sources believe US import frontloading from China during the 90-day tariff reprieve may have slowed Indian shipment sourcing and that a pickup in westbound volumes would hinge on the tariff framework of a trade deal between Washington and New Delhi. India-US West Coast spot rates have flattened in the meantime due to the recent peak, with allocations on extended Asian routings for direct or transshipment loading improving in the last week. Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s cancellation of a July 1 peak season surcharge of $3,600 per TEU and $4,000 per FEU validates that correction. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Major container lines on the India-US East Coast route have drastically downgraded their peak season booking rate increase targets in July amid persistent demand headwinds Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce said carriers have applied moderate rates in the $500-$600 range per container rather than the $1,500-$3,000 per box originally slated to hit spot rates starting July 1. The pullback on pricing pushes parallels similar actions by ocean carriers on the Asia-North America trade lane . “Most lines have set their rate quotes slightly up, but there is little buoyancy in the market for them to push prices higher than the levels they have already attempted,” said a Mumbai-based forwarder executive on condition of anonymity. “Cargo bookings are very slow.” Sources said carriers are effectively adjusting spot rates on a sailing-by-sailing or weekly basis to fill vessels, with asking prices from West India to New York now oscillating between $2,400 and $3,000 per FEU. “Some customers seem to be holding back on shipment plans, pending clarity on tariffs,” a sales executive at a European carrier told the Journal of Commerce. Still, several carriers have lined up another round of rate hikes — albeit at a lower scale — from July 15 in anticipation of stronger demand. While vessels on the lead West India-US East Coast networks have continued to sail full, forwarders have linked the “sold-out” experience to capacity cutbacks and consequent cargo rollovers. A significant portion of the declared capacity is also being blanked in July, with six void calls for West India reported across three weekly connections — the Indamex run by CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd’s TPI and Ocean Network Express’ WIN. Industry sources believe US import frontloading from China during the 90-day tariff reprieve may have slowed Indian shipment sourcing and that a pickup in westbound volumes would hinge on the tariff framework of a trade deal between Washington and New Delhi. India-US West Coast spot rates have flattened in the meantime due to the recent peak, with allocations on extended Asian routings for direct or transshipment loading improving in the last week. Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s cancellation of a July 1 peak season surcharge of $3,600 per TEU and $4,000 per FEU validates that correction. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

Container lines pull back on India-US pricing push

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The fresh capacity carriers rushed into the US’ busiest trade lane in April and May is no longer needed, sending rates on a downward spiral and forcing carriers to shelve proposed price hikes.</div>

The fresh capacity carriers rushed into the US’ busiest trade lane in April and May is no longer needed, sending rates on a downward spiral and forcing carriers to shelve proposed price hikes.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers have failed to implement a planned general rate increase (GRI) in the eastbound trans-Pacific this week, with vessel capacity on the route exceeding forward demand that has been in steady decline for weeks. And in yet another sign that the peak shipping season will be muted, carriers have also dropped plans to impose a peak season surcharge (PSS) on fixed-rate contracts to the US West Coast. That comes as spot rates paid by importers and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates charged to forwarders continue to sink. “They went up quickly. It looks like they’re going down just as quickly,” Kurt McElroy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex, said. “There’s not enough demand.” Carriers have announced PSSs of $1,000 per FEU to the US East Coast from July 1–14, according to carrier rate announcements shared with the Journal of Commerce, who spoke to eight forwarders and two carriers for this story. At least one container line is rolling PSSs into quarterly rates, but at approximately half the amount, two shippers said on the condition of anonymity. Rate activity in the largest US trade lane <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/importers-try-to-push-cargo-to-contract-rates-as-trans-pac-spot-market-surges-5244311">contrasts sharply with last year</a>, when spot rates surged as high as $10,000 per FEU to the East Coast and $8,000 to the West Coast in early July, while carriers were also able to impose a series of PSSs throughout the summer and fall. This year, uncertainty about the Trump administration’s trade policy resulted in massive frontloading of fall and holiday merchandise as US retailers rushed to bring in goods during a 90-day reprieve from so-called reciprocal tariffs. The pause on tariffs from most countries expires July 9, while a similar reprieve on China-sourced goods ends Aug. 14. That frontloading likely means weaker imports during the traditional August through October peak shipping season, said Christian Sur, executive vice president for ocean freight contract logistics at the forwarder Unique Logistics International. Last year, July to October volume was strong, but with all of the frontloading, especially from China, no one expects the volume to be as strong this year,” Sur said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8c13a3e-9f5a-412f-8741-adbf5e1a7779"></dynamic-object></div>As a result, spot rates have been sinking rapidly over the past month. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, pegged spot rates from North Asia to the West Coast at $2,200 per FEU as of July 1, down 15% on the week. Rates to the East Coast were $4,300 per FEU, 12% lower. Rate benchmarking platform Xeneta had the West Coast spot rate at $2,800 per FEU as of June 26, with the East Coast at $5,473 per FEU. Spot rates listed on some rate indexes can lag the rates importers and forwarders are actually paying by a week or longer. This week, most imports from Asia are moving at $4,400 to $4,500 per FEU to the East Coast and $2,400 to $2,500 per FEU to the West Coast, McElroy said. Retailers and forwarders who shop around can secure even lower prices from some carriers, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders. Some carriers are quoting sub-$4,000-per-FEU spot/FAK rates to the East Coast and sub-$2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, Monroe said. <h3>Tariffs a fading concern? </h3>Carriers ending PSSs on fixed-rate accounts for both importers and forwarders to the West Coast and limiting their PSSs to the East Coast to two weeks from July 1–14 indicate that going forward, no one is making bookings based on tariff deadlines, Sur said. “Tariffs are quickly becoming a non-issue,” he said. Ample vessel capacity for the coming months has also made shipper concerns about securing space this summer less of an issue than it was in past years. Data from maritime visibility provider eeSea shows that the recent addition of vessel capacity by trans-Pacific carriers has brought total capacity to 1.57 million TEUs in July, the highest for any month since 2021. Some 8.6% of that capacity is poised to be blanked. In August, the total capacity is scheduled to slip to 1.48 million TEUs, with 7.7% of the capacity scheduled to be blanked. Even with the blank sailings, the total capacity offered in the eastbound trans-Pacific will be almost 20% higher in July than July 2024 and 10.6% higher in August year over year, according to eeSea. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="c3135e8b-9bef-4f08-a278-5c853b855a74"></dynamic-object></div>Carriers rushed fresh capacity into the eastbound trans-Pacific in April and May when the Trump administration announced the pauses on higher tariffs. But once that surge in bookings was over, overcapacity took hold, sending rates on a downward spiral. A carrier source said the eastbound trans-Pac may witness additional blank sailings in the coming months. “Volumes are starting to go down and rates are falling because a lot of capacity was brought on,” the source said. “If management starts seeing the rates decline very quickly, they might remove the capacity.” <h3>August–October volumes difficult to forecast </h3>Projecting import volumes for the traditional August through October peak shipping season remains a hazy task, forwarders and carriers say. “This is a time when it is hard to predict where we are headed,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. Still, Khachatryan said he does not detect huge demand building among importers. “The market is still soft and is likely to remain so at least through July,” a second carrier executive said. “But we can’t say beyond that. We’re in a wait-and-see mode.” A logistics manager for a large retailer told the Journal of Commerce she is still waiting on the company’s second-half forecast, but July and August look softer than last year. The source said July will be the retailer’s peak season. The retailer is still paying a $500 PSS into the West Coast, but that is down from $2,000 per FEU originally. Despite the frontloading by most retailers, there is still fall and holiday merchandise scheduled to be shipped. While import volumes will be down from last fall’s double-digit year-over-year increases, they won’t fall off the cliff. Ben Coleman, president of the forwarder Teampower Logistics, said there are clients with seasonal merchandise still scheduled to ship and others who will seek to rebuild their inventories. Another forwarder said the several months of frontloading did not rob the eastbound trans-Pacific of all its cargo this fall. “There are still retail goods that have to be moved,” the source said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Ocean carriers have failed to implement a planned general rate increase (GRI) in the eastbound trans-Pacific this week, with vessel capacity on the route exceeding forward demand that has been in steady decline for weeks. And in yet another sign that the peak shipping season will be muted, carriers have also dropped plans to impose a peak season surcharge (PSS) on fixed-rate contracts to the US West Coast. That comes as spot rates paid by importers and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates charged to forwarders continue to sink. “They went up quickly. It looks like they’re going down just as quickly,” Kurt McElroy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex, said. “There’s not enough demand.” Carriers have announced PSSs of $1,000 per FEU to the US East Coast from July 1–14, according to carrier rate announcements shared with the Journal of Commerce, who spoke to eight forwarders and two carriers for this story. At least one container line is rolling PSSs into quarterly rates, but at approximately half the amount, two shippers said on the condition of anonymity. Rate activity in the largest US trade lane contrasts sharply with last year , when spot rates surged as high as $10,000 per FEU to the East Coast and $8,000 to the West Coast in early July, while carriers were also able to impose a series of PSSs throughout the summer and fall. This year, uncertainty about the Trump administration’s trade policy resulted in massive frontloading of fall and holiday merchandise as US retailers rushed to bring in goods during a 90-day reprieve from so-called reciprocal tariffs. The pause on tariffs from most countries expires July 9, while a similar reprieve on China-sourced goods ends Aug. 14. That frontloading likely means weaker imports during the traditional August through October peak shipping season, said Christian Sur, executive vice president for ocean freight contract logistics at the forwarder Unique Logistics International. Last year, July to October volume was strong, but with all of the frontloading, especially from China, no one expects the volume to be as strong this year,” Sur said. As a result, spot rates have been sinking rapidly over the past month. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, pegged spot rates from North Asia to the West Coast at $2,200 per FEU as of July 1, down 15% on the week. Rates to the East Coast were $4,300 per FEU, 12% lower. Rate benchmarking platform Xeneta had the West Coast spot rate at $2,800 per FEU as of June 26, with the East Coast at $5,473 per FEU. Spot rates listed on some rate indexes can lag the rates importers and forwarders are actually paying by a week or longer. This week, most imports from Asia are moving at $4,400 to $4,500 per FEU to the East Coast and $2,400 to $2,500 per FEU to the West Coast, McElroy said. Retailers and forwarders who shop around can secure even lower prices from some carriers, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders. Some carriers are quoting sub-$4,000-per-FEU spot/FAK rates to the East Coast and sub-$2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, Monroe said. Tariffs a fading concern? Carriers ending PSSs on fixed-rate accounts for both importers and forwarders to the West Coast and limiting their PSSs to the East Coast to two weeks from July 1–14 indicate that going forward, no one is making bookings based on tariff deadlines, Sur said. “Tariffs are quickly becoming a non-issue,” he said. Ample vessel capacity for the coming months has also made shipper concerns about securing space this summer less of an issue than it was in past years. Data from maritime visibility provider eeSea shows that the recent addition of vessel capacity by trans-Pacific carriers has brought total capacity to 1.57 million TEUs in July, the highest for any month since 2021. Some 8.6% of that capacity is poised to be blanked. In August, the total capacity is scheduled to slip to 1.48 million TEUs, with 7.7% of the capacity scheduled to be blanked. Even with the blank sailings, the total capacity offered in the eastbound trans-Pacific will be almost 20% higher in July than July 2024 and 10.6% higher in August year over year, according to eeSea. Carriers rushed fresh capacity into the eastbound trans-Pacific in April and May when the Trump administration announced the pauses on higher tariffs. But once that surge in bookings was over, overcapacity took hold, sending rates on a downward spiral. A carrier source said the eastbound trans-Pac may witness additional blank sailings in the coming months. “Volumes are starting to go down and rates are falling because a lot of capacity was brought on,” the source said. “If management starts seeing the rates decline very quickly, they might remove the capacity.” August–October volumes difficult to forecast Projecting import volumes for the traditional August through October peak shipping season remains a hazy task, forwarders and carriers say. “This is a time when it is hard to predict where we are headed,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. Still, Khachatryan said he does not detect huge demand building among importers. “The market is still soft and is likely to remain so at least through July,” a second carrier executive said. “But we can’t say beyond that. We’re in a wait-and-see mode.” A logistics manager for a large retailer told the Journal of Commerce she is still waiting on the company’s second-half forecast, but July and August look softer than last year. The source said July will be the retailer’s peak season. The retailer is still paying a $500 PSS into the West Coast, but that is down from $2,000 per FEU originally. Despite the frontloading by most retailers, there is still fall and holiday merchandise scheduled to be shipped. While import volumes will be down from last fall’s double-digit year-over-year increases, they won’t fall off the cliff. Ben Coleman, president of the forwarder Teampower Logistics, said there are clients with seasonal merchandise still scheduled to ship and others who will seek to rebuild their inventories. Another forwarder said the several months of frontloading did not rob the eastbound trans-Pacific of all its cargo this fall. “There are still retail goods that have to be moved,” the source said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Port News

North American ports

Excess capacity sinks planned July 1 rate increase in eastbound trans-Pacific

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The complaint from Dollar General alleges the carrier sold more of its capacity in the high-flying spot market of 2021, leaving shippers under fixed-price contracts in the lurch.</div>

The complaint from Dollar General alleges the carrier sold more of its capacity in the high-flying spot market of 2021, leaving shippers under fixed-price contracts in the lurch.

<div class="phx-topic">Yang Ming made available about one-quarter of the container ship space it agreed to provide to discount retailer Dollar General in 2021, forcing the discount retailer to book freight at higher spot rates as the ocean carrier sold capacity to forwarders, according to a complaint made to the US Federal Maritime Commission. The complaint, filed last week, marks the latest instance of shippers claiming their freight was bumped during the COVID-19 container surge. Dollar General’s complaint marks <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/two-us-shippers-latest-to-allege-carriers-bumped-contract-cargo-to-spot-market-5921997">at least the fifth</a> filed <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/yang-ming-settles-fmc-complaint-with-importer-5194345">since 2022</a> against Yang Ming over its service contract commitments. Dollar General is seeking $14.77 million in damages; Yang Ming did not respond to a request for a comment. Dollar General claims that its service contract with Yang Ming included a commitment to ship 2,226 containers during the 2021 service year. The carrier was to provide 130% of weekly, prorated capacity for those containers as long as Dollar General provided shipment forecasts about a month ahead of time. Despite Dollar General providing rolling forecasts of its anticipated shipments, it said Yang Ming failed to meet its capacity commitment during 11 of 14 weeks in 2021. Ultimately, Dollar General only secured space for 616 containers under its service contract, forcing it “to seek carriage from other sources at higher rates, or else forgo shipments entirely,” it said in the complaint. “Yang Ming knew before the beginning of the 2021 shipping year that it had overcommitted space to its service contract customers and would not be able to satisfy the signed minimum quantity commitments — yet it continued to finalize and execute contracts anyway,” Dollar General alleged. The complaint cites Yang Ming internal data that shows at the beginning of the 2021 shipping year the company allocated about 40% of its vessel capacity to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), with the remainder sold to non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), primarily in the spot market. However, “Yang Ming ultimately allocated less than 30% of its total capacity to its BCO customers while allocating approximately 70% to its NVO customers,” Dollar General alleged in the complaint. Larger BCOs were also favored over smaller BCOs, the complaint alleges. Dollar General cited an internal email at Yang Ming that it came into possession of, saying some of the carrier’s major BCOs “are receiving almost 400 TEUs above what we agreed to give them.” Despite a request from a local Yang Ming representative to reallocate that space to smaller BCOs, “every single customer ... knows what is happening. Someone is getting the space and it is the [fixed] accounts that are paying the most,” according to one Yang Ming email cited in the complaint. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Yang Ming made available about one-quarter of the container ship space it agreed to provide to discount retailer Dollar General in 2021, forcing the discount retailer to book freight at higher spot rates as the ocean carrier sold capacity to forwarders, according to a complaint made to the US Federal Maritime Commission. The complaint, filed last week, marks the latest instance of shippers claiming their freight was bumped during the COVID-19 container surge. Dollar General’s complaint marks at least the fifth filed since 2022 against Yang Ming over its service contract commitments. Dollar General is seeking $14.77 million in damages; Yang Ming did not respond to a request for a comment. Dollar General claims that its service contract with Yang Ming included a commitment to ship 2,226 containers during the 2021 service year. The carrier was to provide 130% of weekly, prorated capacity for those containers as long as Dollar General provided shipment forecasts about a month ahead of time. Despite Dollar General providing rolling forecasts of its anticipated shipments, it said Yang Ming failed to meet its capacity commitment during 11 of 14 weeks in 2021. Ultimately, Dollar General only secured space for 616 containers under its service contract, forcing it “to seek carriage from other sources at higher rates, or else forgo shipments entirely,” it said in the complaint. “Yang Ming knew before the beginning of the 2021 shipping year that it had overcommitted space to its service contract customers and would not be able to satisfy the signed minimum quantity commitments — yet it continued to finalize and execute contracts anyway,” Dollar General alleged. The complaint cites Yang Ming internal data that shows at the beginning of the 2021 shipping year the company allocated about 40% of its vessel capacity to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), with the remainder sold to non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), primarily in the spot market. However, “Yang Ming ultimately allocated less than 30% of its total capacity to its BCO customers while allocating approximately 70% to its NVO customers,” Dollar General alleged in the complaint. Larger BCOs were also favored over smaller BCOs, the complaint alleges. Dollar General cited an internal email at Yang Ming that it came into possession of, saying some of the carrier’s major BCOs “are receiving almost 400 TEUs above what we agreed to give them.” Despite a request from a local Yang Ming representative to reallocate that space to smaller BCOs, “every single customer ... knows what is happening. Someone is getting the space and it is the [fixed] accounts that are paying the most,” according to one Yang Ming email cited in the complaint. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Yang Ming hit with new FMC complaint over service contracts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">New research into digital crane systems raises concerns of an information gap at the intersection of technology and operational risk for project cargo shippers.</div>

New research into digital crane systems raises concerns of an information gap at the intersection of technology and operational risk for project cargo shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">During a major power project discharge in northern South America earlier this year, a digitally-controlled vessel crane failed due to a sensor fault. The issue, although small in technical scope, locked the crane’s operations entirely. With no technician available locally and the onboard crew unable to isolate the fault, the vessel sat idle for several days until a specialist arrived. While ground equipment and rigging crews waited, auxiliary engines ran continuously, consuming fuel and generating emissions — all without a single piece of cargo moving. Incidents such as this — while not yet widespread — raise important questions about the project cargo sector’s growing reliance on digital lifting systems, especially as the global fleet shifts toward automation and sensor-driven control systems.  This scenario is part of the research I am conducting as part of a doctoral study at the University of Houston. The study examines how digital crane systems affect operational resilience, what dependencies they create, and whether shippers, forwarders, and engineering, procurement and construction companies (EPCs) have adequate visibility into those risks when selecting a vessel.  <h3>Opportunity meets operational dependency  </h3>While the industry continues to embrace AI, digital workflows and automation in logistics planning and optimization, it is often onboard — at the level of the crane — where these technologies have the most immediate and practical impact. Multipurpose vessels (MPVs) equipped with modern cranes — especially fully electric or highly automated models — introduce new performance advantages but also new dependencies. Systems now rely heavily on embedded sensors, electronic controllers, and diagnostic software. When these systems work, they enable precision lifting and better control. But when they fail, even a minor component issue can result in a full operational standstill if appropriate support is not available. This challenge is especially relevant for MPVs that have recently undergone crane retrofits. In these cases, advanced equipment may be paired with crews trained in crane operation but having limited hands-on experience with digital diagnostics or system-level troubleshooting — particularly when the technology is new to the fleet or differs significantly from prior configurations. Carrier vetting tools such as RightShip are widely used to assess safety, flag status and emissions history. Yet most charterers still lack structured visibility into the type, age and support model of onboard cranes, which are critical to the execution of any heavy-lift project.  Many vessel operators maintain service agreements with crane manufacturers such as Liebherr, MacGregor or NMF. However, the nature of these agreements — whether they include 24/7 response, local technician access or remote diagnostics — is rarely visible to the chartering party. As a result, it is difficult for project cargo stakeholders to assess how a vessel will respond in the event of a system fault during port operations. This represents an information gap at the intersection of technology and operational risk — particularly for shippers working under tight schedules or emissions compliance requirements. <h3>Downtime, delay and emissions impact </h3>Prolonged crane downtime can have wide-ranging effects, including financial due to extended laytime, self-propelled modular transporter standby, loss of berth for the ship, pilotage costs, and potential liquidated damages. Schedule-related effects are possible, including disruption to tightly sequenced infrastructure or power installation windows. And there are environmental impacts through continued fuel use during idle periods, often counted toward “Scope 3” emissions. My research does not argue against digitalization — on the contrary, it acknowledges the efficiency and safety gains that automated systems bring. Rather, it seeks to explore whether gaps in support infrastructure and crew readiness are creating new vulnerabilities that shippers and forwarders are not currently equipped to evaluate. The research framework builds on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), adapting it for maritime operations. A pilot survey conducted among vessel operators and project logistics managers suggests the following: <ul><li>Shippers rarely receive details on the specific type or age of crane systems at the time of the fixture. </li><li>Crew diagnostic capability varies widely depending on vessel and crane configuration. </li><li>Service agreements with original equipment manufacturers are common, but charterers often lack insight into their scope or responsiveness. </li></ul>These data points help explore how perceived performance, crew effort expectancy and facilitating conditions affect confidence in using digitalized vessels for heavy-lift operations. The study also examines whether digital dependency contributes to environmental, social and governance (ESG) exposure via avoidable fuel use during unplanned idle periods. New dimensions of the surveys for this research, developed based on operational feedback, include distinguishing between electric, electro-hydraulic and traditional crane systems; assessing crew familiarity with crane diagnostic tools and reset protocols; and capturing whether retrofitted vessels present unique support challenges. Digitalization in maritime crane systems is a long-term trend that promises continued efficiency and safety. But with that evolution comes increased dependency on systems that require specialized support. For project cargo stakeholders, the ability to assess not just lifting capacity but also system resilience and support infrastructure will become critical to ensuring safe, timely and sustainable operations. Marco Poisler, also a DBA candidate at the University of Houston Bauer College of Business, can be reached at <a href="mailto:corporate@utcoverseas.com">corporate@utcoverseas.com</a>. </div>

During a major power project discharge in northern South America earlier this year, a digitally-controlled vessel crane failed due to a sensor fault. The issue, although small in technical scope, locked the crane’s operations entirely. With no technician available locally and the onboard crew unable to isolate the fault, the vessel sat idle for several days until a specialist arrived. While ground equipment and rigging crews waited, auxiliary engines ran continuously, consuming fuel and generating emissions — all without a single piece of cargo moving. Incidents such as this — while not yet widespread — raise important questions about the project cargo sector’s growing reliance on digital lifting systems, especially as the global fleet shifts toward automation and sensor-driven control systems.  This scenario is part of the research I am conducting as part of a doctoral study at the University of Houston. The study examines how digital crane systems affect operational resilience, what dependencies they create, and whether shippers, forwarders, and engineering, procurement and construction companies (EPCs) have adequate visibility into those risks when selecting a vessel.  Opportunity meets operational dependency  While the industry continues to embrace AI, digital workflows and automation in logistics planning and optimization, it is often onboard — at the level of the crane — where these technologies have the most immediate and practical impact. Multipurpose vessels (MPVs) equipped with modern cranes — especially fully electric or highly automated models — introduce new performance advantages but also new dependencies. Systems now rely heavily on embedded sensors, electronic controllers, and diagnostic software. When these systems work, they enable precision lifting and better control. But when they fail, even a minor component issue can result in a full operational standstill if appropriate support is not available. This challenge is especially relevant for MPVs that have recently undergone crane retrofits. In these cases, advanced equipment may be paired with crews trained in crane operation but having limited hands-on experience with digital diagnostics or system-level troubleshooting — particularly when the technology is new to the fleet or differs significantly from prior configurations. Carrier vetting tools such as RightShip are widely used to assess safety, flag status and emissions history. Yet most charterers still lack structured visibility into the type, age and support model of onboard cranes, which are critical to the execution of any heavy-lift project.  Many vessel operators maintain service agreements with crane manufacturers such as Liebherr, MacGregor or NMF. However, the nature of these agreements — whether they include 24/7 response, local technician access or remote diagnostics — is rarely visible to the chartering party. As a result, it is difficult for project cargo stakeholders to assess how a vessel will respond in the event of a system fault during port operations. This represents an information gap at the intersection of technology and operational risk — particularly for shippers working under tight schedules or emissions compliance requirements. Downtime, delay and emissions impact Prolonged crane downtime can have wide-ranging effects, including financial due to extended laytime, self-propelled modular transporter standby, loss of berth for the ship, pilotage costs, and potential liquidated damages. Schedule-related effects are possible, including disruption to tightly sequenced infrastructure or power installation windows. And there are environmental impacts through continued fuel use during idle periods, often counted toward “Scope 3” emissions. My research does not argue against digitalization — on the contrary, it acknowledges the efficiency and safety gains that automated systems bring. Rather, it seeks to explore whether gaps in support infrastructure and crew readiness are creating new vulnerabilities that shippers and forwarders are not currently equipped to evaluate. The research framework builds on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), adapting it for maritime operations. A pilot survey conducted among vessel operators and project logistics managers suggests the following: Shippers rarely receive details on the specific type or age of crane systems at the time of the fixture. Crew diagnostic capability varies widely depending on vessel and crane configuration. Service agreements with original equipment manufacturers are common, but charterers often lack insight into their scope or responsiveness. These data points help explore how perceived performance, crew effort expectancy and facilitating conditions affect confidence in using digitalized vessels for heavy-lift operations. The study also examines whether digital dependency contributes to environmental, social and governance (ESG) exposure via avoidable fuel use during unplanned idle periods. New dimensions of the surveys for this research, developed based on operational feedback, include distinguishing between electric, electro-hydraulic and traditional crane systems; assessing crew familiarity with crane diagnostic tools and reset protocols; and capturing whether retrofitted vessels present unique support challenges. Digitalization in maritime crane systems is a long-term trend that promises continued efficiency and safety. But with that evolution comes increased dependency on systems that require specialized support. For project cargo stakeholders, the ability to assess not just lifting capacity but also system resilience and support infrastructure will become critical to ensuring safe, timely and sustainable operations. Marco Poisler, also a DBA candidate at the University of Houston Bauer College of Business, can be reached at corporate@utcoverseas.com .

Logistics Technology News

Port infrastructure

Crane digital dependency creates risk gap for project cargo handling

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Container market participants should be open to a better way to support their overall risk management, particularly with the amount of new tonnage scheduled to hit the market in the near future.</div>

Container market participants should be open to a better way to support their overall risk management, particularly with the amount of new tonnage scheduled to hit the market in the near future.

<div class="phx-topic">This piece follows <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/near-constant-disruption-giving-new-momentum-to-freight-futures-5979859">Peter Tirschwell’s update</a> on the freight forward agreement (FFA) market. While I agree with many points raised and was personally involved in many of the 2011 discussions, there is a wider point that needs to be raised and deepened. Let’s start with a basic premise of risk management: If you own an asset, you have a long position for that asset. In the case of container shipping, assuming the carrier is also the vessel owner (directly or disponent), then that asset is the long position (or more precisely, the vessel’s nominal TEU capacity is the long position, as TEUs are the primary revenue-earning unit). Let’s also assume a vessel’s capacity is 20,000 TEUs and it does five round trips per annum on an Asia-Europe service that requires 10 vessels. The combined asset or long position is 1 million TEUs per annum. The enduring question is how to earn revenue to at least cover the 1 million TEUs at margin cost and normal profit (or at higher revenue but lower volume). On the supply side, you could sell slots to others, preferably on a used/unused basis either as a slot charter or as part of a vessel-sharing agreement/alliance. The downside of the latter is clearly the requirement to purchase reciprocal slots. Let’s assume you sell off 20,000 slots per annum to a small competitor. You have covered 2% and only have 980,000 TEUs to cover! On the demand side, you have many contracts, with the promise, estimate or best effort of the counterparty to honor the volumes in the agreed time windows. But let’s say you have 50% contract coverage (we’ll include your 2% of slot sales). You will have contracted at above-normal profit, giving you a further 15% cover for your 1 million slots. However, we’ll subtract 5% for BCO/NVO underperformance with no fault on either party. You are back to 60% coverage and still require cover for the remaining 40%. Your standard assumption would be to look at historical indicators such as GDP (which may or may not correlate to actual trade and TEUs), purchasing managers’ indices and (hopefully) talk to key customers, and look at other inputs the clever economists will consider. These will be plugged in to spit out a number with an upside and downside tolerance that will show a correlation between all these indicators and likely volume trends. But what about trade wars, Houthi militants, COVID-19 and any other number of white or black swan events? Any of these can affect demand in the short to long term and defy standard assumptions. So in reality, your 40% capacity long position has just one strategy: optimism. <h3>Be risk ‘aware’ </h3>I would advise taking a few preliminary steps. The first is to benchmark the container FFA market with other futures markets. Start with the Baltic for dry and wet bulk. While helpful, there are many dissimilarities in the physical market versus container to make this only of passing interest. Try more of the commodities such as metals, but in any case, understand more deeply what is in play, what risks you carry and how to manage them. Also, look in-house with your treasury teams to more deeply understand your foreign exchange trading and fuel hedging. The good news is you have at least some good risk management practices, knowledge and controls in place. Second, get to know how the exchanges function. There have been concerns raised about counterparty risk. The exchanges/indexes of choice are ICE/NYSHEX and Baltic/Freightos, which will obviate this concern. The exchanges will manage liquidity on margin calls and overall exposure. The days of relying solely on less-credible indices are long gone, and players like Xeneta and others are well established and reliable. Finally, ensure your organization is well prepared. The benefit of the existing indices is they fall relatively easily into existing carrier trade profit and loss (PnL). This makes it easy for visibility and transparency for PnL owners and allows for direct allocation of the costs to manage and the eventual revenue streams. Be very clear about the amount of FFA exposure you want in total and by quarter and at what PnL level. Be sure to implement strict controls at the PnL level to avoid creating undue risk at the overall level. If it were my money, I’d keep an enterprise level of 5% of my overall TEU capacity as a maximum. I realize some or all of this may fall on deaf ears for those who are naturally cautious and/or risk averse. My suggestion is to be “risk aware” and be open to a better way to support your overall risk management, particularly with the amount of new tonnage scheduled to hit the market in the near future. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>. </div>

This piece follows Peter Tirschwell’s update on the freight forward agreement (FFA) market. While I agree with many points raised and was personally involved in many of the 2011 discussions, there is a wider point that needs to be raised and deepened. Let’s start with a basic premise of risk management: If you own an asset, you have a long position for that asset. In the case of container shipping, assuming the carrier is also the vessel owner (directly or disponent), then that asset is the long position (or more precisely, the vessel’s nominal TEU capacity is the long position, as TEUs are the primary revenue-earning unit). Let’s also assume a vessel’s capacity is 20,000 TEUs and it does five round trips per annum on an Asia-Europe service that requires 10 vessels. The combined asset or long position is 1 million TEUs per annum. The enduring question is how to earn revenue to at least cover the 1 million TEUs at margin cost and normal profit (or at higher revenue but lower volume). On the supply side, you could sell slots to others, preferably on a used/unused basis either as a slot charter or as part of a vessel-sharing agreement/alliance. The downside of the latter is clearly the requirement to purchase reciprocal slots. Let’s assume you sell off 20,000 slots per annum to a small competitor. You have covered 2% and only have 980,000 TEUs to cover! On the demand side, you have many contracts, with the promise, estimate or best effort of the counterparty to honor the volumes in the agreed time windows. But let’s say you have 50% contract coverage (we’ll include your 2% of slot sales). You will have contracted at above-normal profit, giving you a further 15% cover for your 1 million slots. However, we’ll subtract 5% for BCO/NVO underperformance with no fault on either party. You are back to 60% coverage and still require cover for the remaining 40%. Your standard assumption would be to look at historical indicators such as GDP (which may or may not correlate to actual trade and TEUs), purchasing managers’ indices and (hopefully) talk to key customers, and look at other inputs the clever economists will consider. These will be plugged in to spit out a number with an upside and downside tolerance that will show a correlation between all these indicators and likely volume trends. But what about trade wars, Houthi militants, COVID-19 and any other number of white or black swan events? Any of these can affect demand in the short to long term and defy standard assumptions. So in reality, your 40% capacity long position has just one strategy: optimism. Be risk ‘aware’ I would advise taking a few preliminary steps. The first is to benchmark the container FFA market with other futures markets. Start with the Baltic for dry and wet bulk. While helpful, there are many dissimilarities in the physical market versus container to make this only of passing interest. Try more of the commodities such as metals, but in any case, understand more deeply what is in play, what risks you carry and how to manage them. Also, look in-house with your treasury teams to more deeply understand your foreign exchange trading and fuel hedging. The good news is you have at least some good risk management practices, knowledge and controls in place. Second, get to know how the exchanges function. There have been concerns raised about counterparty risk. The exchanges/indexes of choice are ICE/NYSHEX and Baltic/Freightos, which will obviate this concern. The exchanges will manage liquidity on margin calls and overall exposure. The days of relying solely on less-credible indices are long gone, and players like Xeneta and others are well established and reliable. Finally, ensure your organization is well prepared. The benefit of the existing indices is they fall relatively easily into existing carrier trade profit and loss (PnL). This makes it easy for visibility and transparency for PnL owners and allows for direct allocation of the costs to manage and the eventual revenue streams. Be very clear about the amount of FFA exposure you want in total and by quarter and at what PnL level. Be sure to implement strict controls at the PnL level to avoid creating undue risk at the overall level. If it were my money, I’d keep an enterprise level of 5% of my overall TEU capacity as a maximum. I realize some or all of this may fall on deaf ears for those who are naturally cautious and/or risk averse. My suggestion is to be “risk aware” and be open to a better way to support your overall risk management, particularly with the amount of new tonnage scheduled to hit the market in the near future. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Be open to new ways to support your risk management strategy

World

Asia

China

Purchasing managers’ index (PMI) datasets are compiled from questionnaire responses from a survey panel of senior purchasing executives (or similar) from about 400 companies. For each variable, the index is the sum of the percentage of “higher” responses and half the percentage of “no change” responses. PMIs range from 0 to 100, with a reading above 50 indicating an overall increase compared to the previous month and readings below 50 indicating an overall decrease. S&P Global compiles the China PMI in conjunction with Caixin. [S&P Global](https://ihsmarkit.com/products/pmi.html)

World, US, Asia, China and EU manufacturing PMIs (S&P Global)

World, US, Asia China, EU US PMI Manufacturing (PMI) by S&P Global Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Easing freight rates and demand suggest a “wait-and-see” approach by US importers as the July 9 end of the temporary reprieve on so-called “reciprocal” tariffs nears.</div>

Easing freight rates and demand suggest a “wait-and-see” approach by US importers as the July 9 end of the temporary reprieve on so-called “reciprocal” tariffs nears.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers are keeping trans-Atlantic capacity at high levels ahead of next week’s expiration of President Donald Trump’s 90-day pause on so-called “reciprocal” tariffs. Easing freight rates and demand, meanwhile, suggest a “wait-and-see” approach by US importers. The pause ends on July 9 as trade negotiations continue between the US and the European Union. Market expectations are for the 10% across-the-board tariffs on all US trading partners to be applied to the EU and be accompanied by some level of tariffs on automobiles, steel and aluminum. Trump has also suggested he could extend the pause on reciprocal tariffs while talks continue. With no certainty over the outcome of the trade talks, carriers are keeping capacity available to handle any increase in shipments once there is greater clarity around tariff levels. Data from ocean visibility provider eeSea shows that carriers will deploy 344,811 TEUs of capacity in July on the westbound trans-Atlantic, the highest in the past 12 months, then easing slightly to 327,226 TEUs in August. Just 24,840 TEUs will be blanked in July, while no blank sailings have yet been announced for August. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="739d3923-220d-4e28-bddd-a3113b21dddf"></dynamic-object></div>Meanwhile, Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said the decline in short-term rates slowed in May and June after they fell 21.6% in the first quarter. The North Europe-North America rate is now down 37% compared with the beginning of the year, at $1,206 per FEU, according to Xeneta. “It comes on the back of falling demand in January to April, down from last year by 0.5%, with deployed capacity on this trade growing from 75,000 TEUs per week in mid-February to 89,000 TEUs per week now,” Sand told the Journal of Commerce. “Looking into the early days of July, we anticipate a slide in rates to the extent of $40 to $50 per FEU,” he added. “At the same time, carriers have announced that capacity could increase to as much as 95,000 to 97,000 TEUs/week in July and August.” The spot market assessed by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, show that rates from North Europe to the East Coast of North America have remained at $1,700 per FEU since May 16. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="588a0a38-fc1c-473a-a9b5-5d71ec3b54dc"></dynamic-object></div>Casper Ellerbaek, global head of ocean freight at DHL Global Forwarding, said “some degree” of frontloading could be seen on westbound trans-Atlantic routes in some sectors, but noted that with the uncertainty surrounding the trade lane, it was hardly conclusive. “This does not warrant drawing any conclusions or making assessments about the general development of demand,” Ellerbaek told the Journal of Commerce. Imports from North Europe to the US came in at 196,580 TEUs in May, down from the peak so far this year of 212,730 TEUs in March, according to PIERS, also part of S&amp;P Global. US imports from the Mediterranean hit a 2025 high in April of 170,360 TEUs, but PIERS data for May shows a 19% drop in volume to 137,710 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean carriers are keeping trans-Atlantic capacity at high levels ahead of next week’s expiration of President Donald Trump’s 90-day pause on so-called “reciprocal” tariffs. Easing freight rates and demand, meanwhile, suggest a “wait-and-see” approach by US importers. The pause ends on July 9 as trade negotiations continue between the US and the European Union. Market expectations are for the 10% across-the-board tariffs on all US trading partners to be applied to the EU and be accompanied by some level of tariffs on automobiles, steel and aluminum. Trump has also suggested he could extend the pause on reciprocal tariffs while talks continue. With no certainty over the outcome of the trade talks, carriers are keeping capacity available to handle any increase in shipments once there is greater clarity around tariff levels. Data from ocean visibility provider eeSea shows that carriers will deploy 344,811 TEUs of capacity in July on the westbound trans-Atlantic, the highest in the past 12 months, then easing slightly to 327,226 TEUs in August. Just 24,840 TEUs will be blanked in July, while no blank sailings have yet been announced for August. Meanwhile, Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said the decline in short-term rates slowed in May and June after they fell 21.6% in the first quarter. The North Europe-North America rate is now down 37% compared with the beginning of the year, at $1,206 per FEU, according to Xeneta. “It comes on the back of falling demand in January to April, down from last year by 0.5%, with deployed capacity on this trade growing from 75,000 TEUs per week in mid-February to 89,000 TEUs per week now,” Sand told the Journal of Commerce. “Looking into the early days of July, we anticipate a slide in rates to the extent of $40 to $50 per FEU,” he added. “At the same time, carriers have announced that capacity could increase to as much as 95,000 to 97,000 TEUs/week in July and August.” The spot market assessed by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, show that rates from North Europe to the East Coast of North America have remained at $1,700 per FEU since May 16. Casper Ellerbaek, global head of ocean freight at DHL Global Forwarding, said “some degree” of frontloading could be seen on westbound trans-Atlantic routes in some sectors, but noted that with the uncertainty surrounding the trade lane, it was hardly conclusive. “This does not warrant drawing any conclusions or making assessments about the general development of demand,” Ellerbaek told the Journal of Commerce. Imports from North Europe to the US came in at 196,580 TEUs in May, down from the peak so far this year of 212,730 TEUs in March, according to PIERS, also part of S&P Global. US imports from the Mediterranean hit a 2025 high in April of 170,360 TEUs, but PIERS data for May shows a 19% drop in volume to 137,710 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Trans-Atlantic ocean trade readies for end to 90-day pause on US tariffs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The procedural reauthorization bill would provide funding for the agency for the next three fiscal years and add more outside expertise on ports and ocean carriers.</div>

The procedural reauthorization bill would provide funding for the agency for the next three fiscal years and add more outside expertise on ports and ocean carriers.

<div class="phx-topic">A bill reauthorizing the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) for another three years has been introduced in the House of Representatives, with the proposed legislation also adding more outside expertise to the agency for help on ocean carriers and ports and allowing for a complaint process covering freight indices. Representatives John Garamendi (D-Calif.), along with Dusty Johnson (R-SD), Mike Ezell (R-Miss.) and Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), introduced the bill last week to reauthorize the FMC through 2029, Garamendi’s office said in a statement Monday. The bill, which includes funding for the agency, aims to build on Garamendi and Johnson’s work on the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22), the statement said. “Ocean shipping is a critical aspect of America’s national, food and economic security,” Johnson said in the statement. That’s why our Federal Maritime Commission must be equipped with the proper tools to keep the industry operating above bar.” The reauthorization bill, which is a standard procedure for many federal agencies, outlines funding for the FMC through the next three fiscal years. The FMC’s budget will increase from $49.2 million in 2026 to $57 million in 2029, representing an average 5% annual increase over that time. Along with the funding, the bill includes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-house-bills-keep-shipping-reform-effort-alive-even-after-freight-rate-plunge-5241752">tweaks to OSRA-22 that Garamendi and Johnson had been pushing for</a>. The reauthorization bill proposes the creation of a 13-member national port advisory committee. The committee would be comprised of five members from marine terminal operators, five from port authorities and three members of the longshore workforce. It also includes a new ocean carrier advisory committee with six members from ocean carriers and three from ocean forwarders or non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs). The bill also includes new regulations for freight index providers such as the Shanghai Shipping Exchange. OSRA-22 required that within three years of its passage, shipping exchanges be registered with the FMC and that their underlying rules and regulations for any service contracts using their indices be published. The new bill would also allow the FMC to investigate any complaints about “alleged incidents of market manipulation or other anticompetitive practices” by shipping exchanges. The legislation also extends the deadline for shipping exchanges to register with the FMC until two years after the reauthorization’s passage. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A bill reauthorizing the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) for another three years has been introduced in the House of Representatives, with the proposed legislation also adding more outside expertise to the agency for help on ocean carriers and ports and allowing for a complaint process covering freight indices. Representatives John Garamendi (D-Calif.), along with Dusty Johnson (R-SD), Mike Ezell (R-Miss.) and Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), introduced the bill last week to reauthorize the FMC through 2029, Garamendi’s office said in a statement Monday. The bill, which includes funding for the agency, aims to build on Garamendi and Johnson’s work on the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22), the statement said. “Ocean shipping is a critical aspect of America’s national, food and economic security,” Johnson said in the statement. That’s why our Federal Maritime Commission must be equipped with the proper tools to keep the industry operating above bar.” The reauthorization bill, which is a standard procedure for many federal agencies, outlines funding for the FMC through the next three fiscal years. The FMC’s budget will increase from $49.2 million in 2026 to $57 million in 2029, representing an average 5% annual increase over that time. Along with the funding, the bill includes tweaks to OSRA-22 that Garamendi and Johnson had been pushing for . The reauthorization bill proposes the creation of a 13-member national port advisory committee. The committee would be comprised of five members from marine terminal operators, five from port authorities and three members of the longshore workforce. It also includes a new ocean carrier advisory committee with six members from ocean carriers and three from ocean forwarders or non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs). The bill also includes new regulations for freight index providers such as the Shanghai Shipping Exchange. OSRA-22 required that within three years of its passage, shipping exchanges be registered with the FMC and that their underlying rules and regulations for any service contracts using their indices be published. The new bill would also allow the FMC to investigate any complaints about “alleged incidents of market manipulation or other anticompetitive practices” by shipping exchanges. The legislation also extends the deadline for shipping exchanges to register with the FMC until two years after the reauthorization’s passage. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Congress seeks reauthorization of FMC through 2029

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The groups want the US customs agency to rule that tariffs should be assessed according to a good’s origin port, not a secondary port through which it might have been transshipped. </div>

The groups want the US customs agency to rule that tariffs should be assessed according to a good’s origin port, not a secondary port through which it might have been transshipped.

<div class="phx-topic">A wide-ranging coalition of shipper and logistics service provider groups is urging US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to clarify whether goods transshipped before the Trump administration imposed tariffs on most nations on April 5 will be subject to those additional costs. At issue is whether goods that departed from their origin ports prior to the April 5 deadline, but were then transshipped at another port en route to their US destination ports, are subject to the tariffs, issued under the president’s authority through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In a letter dated June 27, 94 shipper, customs broker and forwarder organizations, including the National Retail Federation, Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Industrial Transportation League and National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, said communication between CBP and the trade community has offered “differing and sometimes contradictory responses.” The groups assert that previous CBP rulings dictate that relay legs or diversions of cargo shouldn’t impact the duty levels of goods, citing, in particular, the “sale for exportation standard” that underpins transactions between buyers and sellers of goods. “Numerous CBP rulings clarify that CBP relies on documentary evidence, such as invoices, purchase orders and/or bills of lading, when confirming that the ultimate destination for goods always was the United States and there was never a contingency of diversion,” the letter said. “The sale for exportation standard is consistent with and supports the finding that relay vessels originating in the initial country of export should meet the in-transit exception and eligibility should be based on the initial country of loading and export.” The transshipment issue has been a thorn in the side of importers trying to navigate the IEEPA tariffs, as CBP’s original guidance on April 4 wasn’t clear, according to a range of trade compliance experts. Subsequent guidance issued by CBP on May 15, which included a set of frequently asked questions, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scheduling-linked-to-10-tariffs-causing-confusion-angst-for-us-importers-6009281">included details on how transshipment would impact tariff exemptions</a>. <h3>Seeking better communication </h3>Import groups argue that transshipment is often out of the hands of the cargo owners responsible for paying tariffs. In the letter, the groups asked for guidance around the IEEPA tariffs to be conveyed via a consistent channel to avoid confusion among the trade community. “With the proliferation of communication channels, it is vital for the trade community to have one consistent and reliable repository of information regarding updates and changes to trade practices, policies and procedures,” the letter said. The groups also asked CBP and DHS to avoid cutting agency resources to execute and enforce changing tariffs. The IEEPA tariffs are currently caught up in a legal dispute, with the US Court of International Trade (CIT) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/federal-court-ruling-blocking-tariffs-resets-shipping-outlook-6013402">ruling in late May</a> that President Donald Trump had overstepped his authority in using the act to justify his tariffs. But a US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed the CIT’s order, preserving the tariffs until a hearing on the case is held. The US Supreme Court on June 20 declined to fast track a case brought by two toy importers challenging the tariffs. Trade attorneys speaking at the American Association of Exporters and Importers in Washington, DC, on Friday said they expect the dual challenges to IEEPA tariffs — the CIT challenge and the toy importers’ case — to take a minimum of six months to be resolved, and likely longer. The Trump administration, meanwhile, said last week it will likely extend the reprieve on the reciprocal tariffs that are due to expire July 9 on all countries except China, Mexico and Canada. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A wide-ranging coalition of shipper and logistics service provider groups is urging US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to clarify whether goods transshipped before the Trump administration imposed tariffs on most nations on April 5 will be subject to those additional costs. At issue is whether goods that departed from their origin ports prior to the April 5 deadline, but were then transshipped at another port en route to their US destination ports, are subject to the tariffs, issued under the president’s authority through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In a letter dated June 27, 94 shipper, customs broker and forwarder organizations, including the National Retail Federation, Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Industrial Transportation League and National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, said communication between CBP and the trade community has offered “differing and sometimes contradictory responses.” The groups assert that previous CBP rulings dictate that relay legs or diversions of cargo shouldn’t impact the duty levels of goods, citing, in particular, the “sale for exportation standard” that underpins transactions between buyers and sellers of goods. “Numerous CBP rulings clarify that CBP relies on documentary evidence, such as invoices, purchase orders and/or bills of lading, when confirming that the ultimate destination for goods always was the United States and there was never a contingency of diversion,” the letter said. “The sale for exportation standard is consistent with and supports the finding that relay vessels originating in the initial country of export should meet the in-transit exception and eligibility should be based on the initial country of loading and export.” The transshipment issue has been a thorn in the side of importers trying to navigate the IEEPA tariffs, as CBP’s original guidance on April 4 wasn’t clear, according to a range of trade compliance experts. Subsequent guidance issued by CBP on May 15, which included a set of frequently asked questions, included details on how transshipment would impact tariff exemptions . Seeking better communication Import groups argue that transshipment is often out of the hands of the cargo owners responsible for paying tariffs. In the letter, the groups asked for guidance around the IEEPA tariffs to be conveyed via a consistent channel to avoid confusion among the trade community. “With the proliferation of communication channels, it is vital for the trade community to have one consistent and reliable repository of information regarding updates and changes to trade practices, policies and procedures,” the letter said. The groups also asked CBP and DHS to avoid cutting agency resources to execute and enforce changing tariffs. The IEEPA tariffs are currently caught up in a legal dispute, with the US Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling in late May that President Donald Trump had overstepped his authority in using the act to justify his tariffs. But a US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed the CIT’s order, preserving the tariffs until a hearing on the case is held. The US Supreme Court on June 20 declined to fast track a case brought by two toy importers challenging the tariffs. Trade attorneys speaking at the American Association of Exporters and Importers in Washington, DC, on Friday said they expect the dual challenges to IEEPA tariffs — the CIT challenge and the toy importers’ case — to take a minimum of six months to be resolved, and likely longer. The Trump administration, meanwhile, said last week it will likely extend the reprieve on the reciprocal tariffs that are due to expire July 9 on all countries except China, Mexico and Canada. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Shipper groups urge CBP to clarify tariff transshipment confusion

Use code SKSGW995 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

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code SKSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

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

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SkSW25 at checkout to save 25% on a SIlver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - 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

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSGW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Loup Logistics provides direct access to nearly 80,000 rail-owned containers across North America, significantly expanding UP’s transloading options.</div>

Loup Logistics provides direct access to nearly 80,000 rail-owned containers across North America, significantly expanding UP’s transloading options.

<div class="phx-topic">A subsidiary of Union Pacific Railroad has launched a new transloading service that will transfer imports into rail-owned 53-foot containers for inland hauls, presenting new competition to rival BNSF Railway. Loup Logistics said Tuesday the “port-to-door” service will be available at any US port. Union Pacific currently relies on partners such as Hub Group, Schneider National and STG Logistics, among others, for transloaded freight. But Loup provides direct access to nearly 80,000 rail-owned containers across North America, significantly expanding UP’s transloading options. Formed in 2017, Loup works with non-asset intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) to provide a door-to-door domestic intermodal product. Loup’s service removes the burden of securing drayage and chassis, making it an appealing option for IMCs seeking turnkey solutions for their shippers. Loup will partner with the non-asset IMCs to offer the port-to-door product to its existing domestic shippers. Logistics powerhouse J.B. Hunt Transport Services, a partner of BNSF, has aggressively expanded its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tpm23-intermodal-providers-banking-on-transloading-surge-5217461">transloading operations</a> in Los Angeles and the Seattle-Tacoma area in recent years. J.B. Hunt will also be a key partner in transloading through <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tpm25-bnsf-believes-barstow-hub-can-improve-service-to-smaller-markets-5955620">BNSF’s Barstow International Gateway</a>, which is due to open in 2027. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A subsidiary of Union Pacific Railroad has launched a new transloading service that will transfer imports into rail-owned 53-foot containers for inland hauls, presenting new competition to rival BNSF Railway. Loup Logistics said Tuesday the “port-to-door” service will be available at any US port. Union Pacific currently relies on partners such as Hub Group, Schneider National and STG Logistics, among others, for transloaded freight. But Loup provides direct access to nearly 80,000 rail-owned containers across North America, significantly expanding UP’s transloading options. Formed in 2017, Loup works with non-asset intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) to provide a door-to-door domestic intermodal product. Loup’s service removes the burden of securing drayage and chassis, making it an appealing option for IMCs seeking turnkey solutions for their shippers. Loup will partner with the non-asset IMCs to offer the port-to-door product to its existing domestic shippers. Logistics powerhouse J.B. Hunt Transport Services, a partner of BNSF, has aggressively expanded its transloading operations in Los Angeles and the Seattle-Tacoma area in recent years. J.B. Hunt will also be a key partner in transloading through BNSF’s Barstow International Gateway , which is due to open in 2027. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Surface

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Union Pacific subsidiary jumps into transloading with ‘port-to-door' service

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The trade group of ocean carriers is exempt from US antitrust scrutiny under an agreement it filed with the FMC five years ago, but the agency is now questioning that arrangement. </div>

The trade group of ocean carriers is exempt from US antitrust scrutiny under an agreement it filed with the FMC five years ago, but the agency is now questioning that arrangement.

<div class="phx-topic">The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is reviewing why the World Shipping Council should fall under US shipping law, a probe that could end the antitrust exemption for the WSC’s ocean carrier members to discuss cooperative matters. The FMC announced Thursday it was investigating the “working arrangement” between WSC’s members and whether that agreement violates US shipping law. Under US shipping law, ocean carriers or other regulated entities must file agreements to cooperate on commercial matters, exempting them from antitrust claims. WSC filed its cooperation agreement with the FMC in 2020, two decades after it was formed. The FMC ordered the WSC to show why the agency has “jurisdiction over the agreement and should not cancel the agreement as outside the agency’s jurisdiction.” The WSC agreement does not cover rates, operations, capacity or other strictly commercial matters. However, the group said it filed the agreement so members could discuss other issues such as safety, environmental and legal matters that could fall under FMC jurisdiction. But the FMC questioned that view in its Thursday order. The agency said the WSC may not be a regulated entity under the Shipping Act because it does not provide ocean transportation services. While its members are ocean carriers, within the confines of the agreement filed with the FMC, the members are not acting under their capacity as regulated carriers, the agency said. “An entity engaged only in the discussion and lobbying activities under the agreement would not qualify as an ‘ocean common carrier’ under the Shipping Act because it is performing none of the functions that define a common carrier,” the FMC said. The agency conceded that the WSC’s work on cargo screening may fall under the type of operational activities that are covered in FMC-filed agreements. But the agency said courts have previously ruled the WSC’s type of agreement “was meant as a narrow catch-all closely related to other explicitly operations-focused agreement categories” in US shipping law. While FMC agreements allow carriers and others to avoid antitrust scrutiny, “a trade association not involved in providing ocean transportation service does not appear to be engaged in the type of conduct Congress intended to immunize from scrutiny by antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs,” the FMC’s order said. <h3>Two months to reply</h3>The FMC has given the WSC two months to reply to the order, with the agency’s final decision expected next March. WSC said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that its 2020 agreement was filed “in accordance with its legal obligation (under US shipping law) and with the encouragement of the FMC.” “As a global trade association, the World Shipping Council takes its regulatory compliance responsibilities very seriously,” WSC said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a> </div>

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is reviewing why the World Shipping Council should fall under US shipping law, a probe that could end the antitrust exemption for the WSC’s ocean carrier members to discuss cooperative matters. The FMC announced Thursday it was investigating the “working arrangement” between WSC’s members and whether that agreement violates US shipping law. Under US shipping law, ocean carriers or other regulated entities must file agreements to cooperate on commercial matters, exempting them from antitrust claims. WSC filed its cooperation agreement with the FMC in 2020, two decades after it was formed. The FMC ordered the WSC to show why the agency has “jurisdiction over the agreement and should not cancel the agreement as outside the agency’s jurisdiction.” The WSC agreement does not cover rates, operations, capacity or other strictly commercial matters. However, the group said it filed the agreement so members could discuss other issues such as safety, environmental and legal matters that could fall under FMC jurisdiction. But the FMC questioned that view in its Thursday order. The agency said the WSC may not be a regulated entity under the Shipping Act because it does not provide ocean transportation services. While its members are ocean carriers, within the confines of the agreement filed with the FMC, the members are not acting under their capacity as regulated carriers, the agency said. “An entity engaged only in the discussion and lobbying activities under the agreement would not qualify as an ‘ocean common carrier’ under the Shipping Act because it is performing none of the functions that define a common carrier,” the FMC said. The agency conceded that the WSC’s work on cargo screening may fall under the type of operational activities that are covered in FMC-filed agreements. But the agency said courts have previously ruled the WSC’s type of agreement “was meant as a narrow catch-all closely related to other explicitly operations-focused agreement categories” in US shipping law. While FMC agreements allow carriers and others to avoid antitrust scrutiny, “a trade association not involved in providing ocean transportation service does not appear to be engaged in the type of conduct Congress intended to immunize from scrutiny by antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs,” the FMC’s order said. Two months to reply The FMC has given the WSC two months to reply to the order, with the agency’s final decision expected next March. WSC said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that its 2020 agreement was filed “in accordance with its legal obligation (under US shipping law) and with the encouragement of the FMC.” “As a global trade association, the World Shipping Council takes its regulatory compliance responsibilities very seriously,” WSC said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com

US shipbuilding incentives need more oversight: GAO

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Trans-Atlantic ocean trade readies for end to 90-day pause on US tariffs

Congress seeks reauthorization of FMC through 2029

Shipper groups urge CBP to clarify tariff transshipment confusion

Recent Commentary

Crane digital dependency creates risk gap for project cargo handling

Be open to new ways to support your risk management strategy

Top 5 Most Read Stories