<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Beneficial cargo owners who ship through the Alameda Corridor can anticipate financial stability at the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA), at least through 2026, based on current trends that include 4 to 5 percent annual increases in container traffic and continued increases in the Consumer Price Index, the combination of which generates ACTA’s revenues.</div>

Beneficial cargo owners who ship through the Alameda Corridor can anticipate financial stability at the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA), at least through 2026, based on current trends that include 4 to 5 percent annual increases in container traffic and continued increases in the Consumer Price Index, the combination of which generates ACTA’s revenues.

<div><div><img></div>An intermodal rail line in California. Photo credit: Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority.Fitch Rating’s affirmation of the <a>Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority</a> (ACTA) bond guarantees shippers will have a viable intermodal corridor connecting to the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex and annual rate increases that have averaged less than $1 per TEU — even as the rise of transloading slows traffic growth.Fitch affirmed ACTA’s $983.6 million in senior bonds at A, $441.7 million in subordinate revenue bonds at BBB+, and $556.9 million in second subordinate revenue bonds at BBB. The ratings agency said the operator of the 20-mile corridor should meet its...

An intermodal rail line in California. Photo credit: Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. Fitch Rating’s affirmation of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) bond guarantees shippers will have a viable intermodal corridor connecting to the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex and annual rate increases that have averaged less than $1 per TEU — even as the rise of transloading slows traffic growth. Fitch affirmed ACTA’s $983.6 million in senior bonds at A, $441.7 million in subordinate revenue bonds at BBB+, and $556.9 million in second subordinate revenue bonds at BBB. The ratings agency said the operator of the 20-mile corridor should meet its obligations for the 20-mile long intermodal corridor without another debt restructuring at least until 2026. Click to enlarge Also, West Coast ports have experienced a 12 percent drop in market share of Asian imports since 2005 due to diversion to US East and Gulf coast and Canadian Pacific Coast ports. Despite these headwinds, Fitch’s ACTA bond ratings are positive. “The ratings reflect a vital rail corridor that handles nearly a third of the throughput for the San Pedro Bay ports,” the agency stated in an announcement on Monday. ACTA’s revenues are affected by annual fluctuations in the ports’ container volumes and supply chain logistics changes that currently favor transloading over intact intermodal rail. John Doherty, ACTA president, said Monday that in 2006 one-third of all containers that left the region by rail were transloaded. Today transloaded containers account for about 50 percent of rail traffic. “This is the new normal,” he said. Transloaded containers do not generate revenue for ACTA. The $2.3 billion Alameda Corridor opened in 2002, eliminating more than 200 grade crossings and enabling the largest US port complex to expand without causing gridlock in vehicular traffic flow throughout the Los Angeles Basin. Along with the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility , the Clean Air Action Plan , and the PierPass extended-gates program, it is considered a visionary project developed more than a decade ago to win community acceptance of port expansion by mitigating the impact of port traffic and pollution in Southern California. With imports from Asia increasing at double-digit rates from 2000 until the economic recession of 2008-2009, ACTA had no problem retiring its debt in the early years. However, the Los Angeles-Long Beach port volume plunged about 20 percent during the recession, directly impacting ACTA’s revenues. Also, beneficial cargo owner (BCO) supply chain strategies began to change. The growth in intact container movements, which generate most of ACTA’s revenues, declined as more BCOs transloaded the contents of marine containers into 53-foot domestic containers. On the other hand, supply chain logistics in Los Angeles-Long Beach appear to have settled into the current pattern. “Shippers that could transload are doing it,” Doherty said. In its last debt restructuring in 2016, ACTA based its revenue projections on the current percentages of transloaded and intact intermodal movements, he said. Click to enlarge ACTA charges a fee for containers that move through the corridor. The fee this year is $24.51 per TEU on waterborne containers. ACTA’s revenues are based on container volume moving through the corridor and the annual rate hikes calculated on increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Doherty said the debt plan targets annual increases in container volume of 4 to 5 percent and fee increases based on increases in the CPI. The CPI increase is running about 2 to 3 percent. ACTA’s debt-payment plan targets a combination of those factors totaling about 7 percent a year. Substantial port container volume growth projected Port container volumes can vary significantly from year to year. Fitch noted that the TEU moving through the corridor in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, declined 4.9 percent, but in the first half of the current fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2017, TEU volume on the corridor increased 12.7 percent. ACTA analyzes container volume projections from the various economic sources that track the US container trades, which call for growth of about 4 to 5 percent in the coming year, Doherty said. Also, economists project continued increases in the CPI as the US economy improves and inflation picks up. ACTA also takes into consideration changing trade patterns since the 2016 expansion of the Panama Canal , which gave a noticeable boost to all-water services from Asia to the Gulf and East coasts. The doubling of Asian imports moving through Houston, New Orleans, and Mobile this past year came at a direct loss to Los Angeles-Long Beach. “It was one for one, what they gained and what we lost,” he said. Also, the increasing penetration of the US market by Vancouver and Prince Rupert , Canada, has affected somewhat Los Angeles-Long Beach, and more so Seattle -T acoma , he said. However, 2017 was a good year for Los Angeles-Long Beach, with TEU moving through the corridor in the calendar year totaling 4,566,283, up 9.8 percent from calendar year 2016, according to ACTA numbers. The growth in container volume generated 2017 ACTA revenues of $107,830,769, up 7.5 percent from 2016. ACTA has adjusted to changing trade and transportation patterns by restructuring its debt four times. ACTA and Fitch project that the 2016 restructuring should carry the corridor to at least 2026 when a spike in payments is due. “We should know by 2022-2023 what will happen,” Doherty said. Fitch pointed out that ACTA’s “heavily back-loaded debt structure” is a risk factor. Other risks that may or may not develop include a recession that causes container volumes to drop or credit problems at the two ports and the railroads that transport intermodal containers on the Alameda Corridor. Doherty said that in 2026 ACTA would also have the option of restructuring its debt and pushing payments further into the future, but all parties would like to avoid that scenario. Under the current plan the debt is scheduled for retirement in 2037. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @billmongelluzzo.

Rail News

Bond rating ensures Alameda Corridor viability as transloads rise

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier is implementing a second surcharge on US trades to recoup higher operating costs driven by the war in the Middle East, and is asking maritime regulators for permission to levy the fee immediately.</div>

The carrier is implementing a second surcharge on US trades to recoup higher operating costs driven by the war in the Middle East, and is asking maritime regulators for permission to levy the fee immediately.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk is making another attempt to win approval from US maritime regulators to waive a 30-day notice period and permit the carrier to immediately implement an emergency bunker fuel surcharge on long-haul US trades to offset rising costs driven by the war in the Middle East. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is expected to vote soon on Maersk’s new request, a spokesperson for the agency said. That comes as the agency on Wednesday rejected requests from two forwarders for a waiver of the 30-day notice period that is required before liners can implement surcharges. The FMC <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers</a> to waive the notice period. How the FMC votes on Maersk’s latest request for special permission to implement surcharges in the hundreds of dollars per container could prove a test case for other carriers seeking to recoup war-driven energy costs from US shippers and forwarders. The FMC’s four commissioners on March 23 unanimously voted to reject separate requests from Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim Integrated Shipping Services to waive the notice period, forcing the carriers to wait until this week to implement the initial surcharges. FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said the carriers should have provided data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” In its initial March 11 filing to the FMC, Maersk asked the agency to waive the notice period for the new emergency bunker fuel surcharge so it could take effect March 25, coinciding with the implementation of similar surcharges on non-US trades, rather than April 8. In its latest petition, the carrier said low-sulfur bunker fuel prices jumped 82% on average, to $929 per metric ton, between Feb. 6 and March 9. The war began Feb. 28. “Maersk cannot absorb the full impact of this dramatic increase,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing Maersk, wrote in the filing to the FMC. “Moreover, bunker fuel prices are likely to remain elevated and volatile given the uncertainty of the duration of hostilities and their impact on the price of oil and bunker fuel.” For dry shipments on long-haul trades, Maersk is seeking an emergency fuel surcharge of $200 per TEU for the head-haul and $100 per TEU for the backhaul. Comparatively, Maersk has implemented a $300-per-TEU surcharge for refrigerated shipments on the head-haul of long-haul shipments and $150 for reefer backhaul cargoes. <h3>Holding the line </h3>The FMC on Wednesday rejected two separate requests to waive the 30-day review period for emergency surcharges. The agency denied a request by Turkon Container Transportation and Shipping to immediately impose a fee on all shipments to and from the Middle East of $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU, and $3,500 for refrigerated and special containers. The agency also denied a request by Vanguard Logistics Services, a non-vessel-operating common carrier, to immediately implement a $75 surcharge on shipments to and from the Middle East. In both cases, the FMC said the parties had failed to establish good cause to have the review period waived.The latest round of requests shows that “carriers are making the same fatal error that led to the prior denials — failing to provide their customers and the FMC specific cost information so they can determine their need for immediate imposition of very specific surcharges,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said in a statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk is making another attempt to win approval from US maritime regulators to waive a 30-day notice period and permit the carrier to immediately implement an emergency bunker fuel surcharge on long-haul US trades to offset rising costs driven by the war in the Middle East. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is expected to vote soon on Maersk’s new request, a spokesperson for the agency said. That comes as the agency on Wednesday rejected requests from two forwarders for a waiver of the 30-day notice period that is required before liners can implement surcharges. The FMC previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period. How the FMC votes on Maersk’s latest request for special permission to implement surcharges in the hundreds of dollars per container could prove a test case for other carriers seeking to recoup war-driven energy costs from US shippers and forwarders. The FMC’s four commissioners on March 23 unanimously voted to reject separate requests from Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim Integrated Shipping Services to waive the notice period, forcing the carriers to wait until this week to implement the initial surcharges. FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said the carriers should have provided data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” In its initial March 11 filing to the FMC, Maersk asked the agency to waive the notice period for the new emergency bunker fuel surcharge so it could take effect March 25, coinciding with the implementation of similar surcharges on non-US trades, rather than April 8. In its latest petition, the carrier said low-sulfur bunker fuel prices jumped 82% on average, to $929 per metric ton, between Feb. 6 and March 9. The war began Feb. 28. “Maersk cannot absorb the full impact of this dramatic increase,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing Maersk, wrote in the filing to the FMC. “Moreover, bunker fuel prices are likely to remain elevated and volatile given the uncertainty of the duration of hostilities and their impact on the price of oil and bunker fuel.” For dry shipments on long-haul trades, Maersk is seeking an emergency fuel surcharge of $200 per TEU for the head-haul and $100 per TEU for the backhaul. Comparatively, Maersk has implemented a $300-per-TEU surcharge for refrigerated shipments on the head-haul of long-haul shipments and $150 for reefer backhaul cargoes. Holding the line The FMC on Wednesday rejected two separate requests to waive the 30-day review period for emergency surcharges. The agency denied a request by Turkon Container Transportation and Shipping to immediately impose a fee on all shipments to and from the Middle East of $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU, and $3,500 for refrigerated and special containers. The agency also denied a request by Vanguard Logistics Services, a non-vessel-operating common carrier, to immediately implement a $75 surcharge on shipments to and from the Middle East. In both cases, the FMC said the parties had failed to establish good cause to have the review period waived. The latest round of requests shows that “carriers are making the same fatal error that led to the prior denials — failing to provide their customers and the FMC specific cost information so they can determine their need for immediate imposition of very specific surcharges,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said in a statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Maersk again asks FMC to waive 30-day review period for emergency fuel surcharge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The first vessel on the carrier’s Caribbean-North America service will call the port next week, offering Canadian exporters more transshipment options to other markets. </div>

The first vessel on the carrier’s Caribbean-North America service will call the port next week, offering Canadian exporters more transshipment options to other markets.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM has added the Port of Montreal to its main north-south liner service for the North American East Coast, the carrier said Wednesday, with the new service also offering a transshipment option for Canadian exporters looking to reach global markets. The CMA CGM Homere is expected to make its first call to the Cast Terminal at Montreal on April 5, according to the carrier’s schedule. The 1,713-TEU ship is part of CMA CGM’s Cagema service with a northbound rotation including Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, New York-New Jersey, Montreal and Port Saint John. CMA CGM said in a statement that Montreal shippers will also be able to access the Indian subcontinent, Mediterranean, Middle East and Oceania ports through the backhaul connection to CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal. In addition, Asian services can be accessed through transshipment at Jamaica’s Kingston port. The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) said in a statement the addition of the Cagema service will open new markets for Canada’s exports. It added that the new service will also offer a new direct connection for refrigerated produce imports into Montreal, so shippers can bypass imports through other US East Coast ports. “The addition of the Cagema service will help increase the port’s competitiveness, diversify the markets served and open up new export opportunities for Canadian companies,” the MPA said. While a small part of its business, the MPA said north-south trades have been one of its faster-growing segments. Trade with Latin America accounted for about 5% of the port’s total container tonnage last year, or approximately 70,000 TEUs, up 12% from 2024, according to data from the port. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

CMA CGM has added the Port of Montreal to its main north-south liner service for the North American East Coast, the carrier said Wednesday, with the new service also offering a transshipment option for Canadian exporters looking to reach global markets. The CMA CGM Homere is expected to make its first call to the Cast Terminal at Montreal on April 5, according to the carrier’s schedule. The 1,713-TEU ship is part of CMA CGM’s Cagema service with a northbound rotation including Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, New York-New Jersey, Montreal and Port Saint John. CMA CGM said in a statement that Montreal shippers will also be able to access the Indian subcontinent, Mediterranean, Middle East and Oceania ports through the backhaul connection to CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal. In addition, Asian services can be accessed through transshipment at Jamaica’s Kingston port. The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) said in a statement the addition of the Cagema service will open new markets for Canada’s exports. It added that the new service will also offer a new direct connection for refrigerated produce imports into Montreal, so shippers can bypass imports through other US East Coast ports. “The addition of the Cagema service will help increase the port’s competitiveness, diversify the markets served and open up new export opportunities for Canadian companies,” the MPA said. While a small part of its business, the MPA said north-south trades have been one of its faster-growing segments. Trade with Latin America accounted for about 5% of the port’s total container tonnage last year, or approximately 70,000 TEUs, up 12% from 2024, according to data from the port. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Montreal shippers get new north-south service from CMA CGM 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision to push back the late-April implementation is in response to industry appeals and the Middle East crisis, which has left Indian ports handling significant rerouted volumes of stranded Persian Gulf-bound containers. </div>

The decision to push back the late-April implementation is in response to industry appeals and the Middle East crisis, which has left Indian ports handling significant rerouted volumes of stranded Persian Gulf-bound containers.

<div class="phx-topic">India will delay by six months the enforcement of a rebooted cabotage policy that sought to revoke the coastal shipping freedom <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/india-scraps-cabotage-rule-opens-domestic-freight-to-foreign-ocean-carriers-5229628">extended to foreign-flag vessel operators in 2018</a>. The incumbent regulatory support has long enabled carriers to freely move laden containers for transshipment and empty boxes for repositioning intra-country. The Ministry of Ports &amp; Shipping, in announcing the reprieve Tuesday, said the decision to push back the late-April implementation is in response to industry appeals and the Middle East crisis, which has left Indian ports handling significant rerouted volumes of stranded Persian Gulf-bound containers. “...Representations have been received from stakeholders, including container liner operators’ associations, highlighting operational concerns arising out of the prevailing geopolitical situation, particularly in the Persian Gulf region, affecting global shipping dynamics such as route planning, insurance costs and vessel deployment,” the ministry said. While the Middle East chaos is an “incidental operational challenge,” it is believed that carrier representatives had already been engaging with policymakers — individually and through industry bodies — to seek a review of the policy U-turn or at least gain more time to get ready for the new operational environment. Local industry analysts view the temporary reprieve more as regulatory posturing as liner heavyweights come forward to diversify their investment interests in India, including reflagging vessels to the local registry. Maersk, CMA CGM, Mediterranean Shipping Co. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-to-invest-1-billion-across-indian-maritime-verticals-6189463">and Hapag-Lloyd</a> have either already added a few ships to the Indian flag or confirmed flag changing plans. “India is emerging as a transshipment hub, and global operators and shipping lines have shown commitment towards flagging container ships in India,” the ministry said in its statement. Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines’ Association (India), welcomed the government’s decision. “The extension of cabotage relaxations was much needed under the current circumstances wherein transshipment at Indian ports has further increased,” Vaswani told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

India will delay by six months the enforcement of a rebooted cabotage policy that sought to revoke the coastal shipping freedom extended to foreign-flag vessel operators in 2018 . The incumbent regulatory support has long enabled carriers to freely move laden containers for transshipment and empty boxes for repositioning intra-country. The Ministry of Ports & Shipping, in announcing the reprieve Tuesday, said the decision to push back the late-April implementation is in response to industry appeals and the Middle East crisis, which has left Indian ports handling significant rerouted volumes of stranded Persian Gulf-bound containers. “...Representations have been received from stakeholders, including container liner operators’ associations, highlighting operational concerns arising out of the prevailing geopolitical situation, particularly in the Persian Gulf region, affecting global shipping dynamics such as route planning, insurance costs and vessel deployment,” the ministry said. While the Middle East chaos is an “incidental operational challenge,” it is believed that carrier representatives had already been engaging with policymakers — individually and through industry bodies — to seek a review of the policy U-turn or at least gain more time to get ready for the new operational environment. Local industry analysts view the temporary reprieve more as regulatory posturing as liner heavyweights come forward to diversify their investment interests in India, including reflagging vessels to the local registry. Maersk, CMA CGM, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Hapag-Lloyd have either already added a few ships to the Indian flag or confirmed flag changing plans. “India is emerging as a transshipment hub, and global operators and shipping lines have shown commitment towards flagging container ships in India,” the ministry said in its statement. Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines’ Association (India), welcomed the government’s decision. “The extension of cabotage relaxations was much needed under the current circumstances wherein transshipment at Indian ports has further increased,” Vaswani told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

International ports

India delays cabotage rewind plan amid carrier pressure, Middle East reroutings

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The agreement is the first of its kind between rail freight companies in Rotterdam is and part of ongoing efforts to share information across the busy multimodal network at Europe’s largest port</div>

The agreement is the first of its kind between rail freight companies in Rotterdam is and part of ongoing efforts to share information across the busy multimodal network at Europe’s largest port

<div class="phx-topic">Six rail companies operating on Rotterdam’s Port Railway Line have signed a pilot cooperation agreement aimed at addressing long delays and cancellations on the crucial corridor linking Europe’s busiest container hub with the hinterland. The rail operators — Rail Force One, HSL Netherlands, DB Cargo Nederland, RTB Cargo, LTE, and Rail Cargo Group — account for 70% of the market using the line that stretches 50 kilometers (31 miles) from the Rotterdam city center to the Maasvlakte terminals. Known as “Track Together,” the shunting agreement is the first such partnership between rail freight operators in the port and is led by the Port of Rotterdam Authority. It launched on Wednesday as a seven-month pilot scheme, and if successful, will be made permanent. “By sharing information more effectively, the platform helps to ensure more efficient operations and a more reliable rail network for all stakeholders,” Jordy Hermes, product design specialist at LTE, said in a statement. Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, handled 14.2 million TEUs in 2025, up 3.1% year over year, with about a quarter of that volume using rail to connect with the hinterland network. But the port faced persistent congestion last year that spilled through to multimodal connections with the hinterland. <h3>Efficient collaboration </h3>Ongoing efforts are being made to improve collaboration and data sharing across the carrier, terminal, barge, road and rail operators, with the Track Together partnership addressing collaboration around railway movements within the port corridor. “[It] will enable transport operators to collaborate more efficiently via the platform in the event of disruptions at the port of Rotterdam, thereby ensuring better utilization of capacity,” said Martin van der Linden, production manager at HSL. Under the shunting agreement, rail operators can take over each other’s journeys at fixed rates in the event of capacity issues in a move intended to prevent train cancellations and long delays. The collaboration also ensures that a contingency plan is immediately available in the event of deviations from standard timetables, enabling trains to be taken over quickly. Terminals in the port will benefit as their tracks are cleared, allowing scheduled trains to run as planned. The agreement outlines how trains are to be transferred, both administratively and physically, and the responsibilities of both the principal operator and the contractor. Journeys between Kijfhoek to the Maasvlakte, including all intermediate stations and terminals, can be booked via the specially developed PortFlow app. During the pilot period, the app developer, port authority and rail operators will meet monthly to review the collaboration. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Six rail companies operating on Rotterdam’s Port Railway Line have signed a pilot cooperation agreement aimed at addressing long delays and cancellations on the crucial corridor linking Europe’s busiest container hub with the hinterland. The rail operators — Rail Force One, HSL Netherlands, DB Cargo Nederland, RTB Cargo, LTE, and Rail Cargo Group — account for 70% of the market using the line that stretches 50 kilometers (31 miles) from the Rotterdam city center to the Maasvlakte terminals. Known as “Track Together,” the shunting agreement is the first such partnership between rail freight operators in the port and is led by the Port of Rotterdam Authority. It launched on Wednesday as a seven-month pilot scheme, and if successful, will be made permanent. “By sharing information more effectively, the platform helps to ensure more efficient operations and a more reliable rail network for all stakeholders,” Jordy Hermes, product design specialist at LTE, said in a statement. Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, handled 14.2 million TEUs in 2025, up 3.1% year over year, with about a quarter of that volume using rail to connect with the hinterland network. But the port faced persistent congestion last year that spilled through to multimodal connections with the hinterland. Efficient collaboration Ongoing efforts are being made to improve collaboration and data sharing across the carrier, terminal, barge, road and rail operators, with the Track Together partnership addressing collaboration around railway movements within the port corridor. “[It] will enable transport operators to collaborate more efficiently via the platform in the event of disruptions at the port of Rotterdam, thereby ensuring better utilization of capacity,” said Martin van der Linden, production manager at HSL. Under the shunting agreement, rail operators can take over each other’s journeys at fixed rates in the event of capacity issues in a move intended to prevent train cancellations and long delays. The collaboration also ensures that a contingency plan is immediately available in the event of deviations from standard timetables, enabling trains to be taken over quickly. Terminals in the port will benefit as their tracks are cleared, allowing scheduled trains to run as planned. The agreement outlines how trains are to be transferred, both administratively and physically, and the responsibilities of both the principal operator and the contractor. Journeys between Kijfhoek to the Maasvlakte, including all intermediate stations and terminals, can be booked via the specially developed PortFlow app. During the pilot period, the app developer, port authority and rail operators will meet monthly to review the collaboration. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

International rail

Surface

Rotterdam rail operators ink deal to tackle delays, reliability

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The World Shipping Council argued unsuccessfully that a section of OSRA-22 aimed at US exports was an overreach by the country’s maritime regulator. </div>

The World Shipping Council argued unsuccessfully that a section of OSRA-22 aimed at US exports was an overreach by the country’s maritime regulator.

<div class="phx-topic">An appeals court has denied a challenge to US shipping law that blocks ocean carriers from unfairly denying vessel space to exporters, ruling that the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has broad latitude to review a carrier’s rates and export policy when it believes such violations occur. A three-judge panel for the District of Columbia appellate court on Tuesday turned down <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dc-court-hears-challenge-to-fmc-rulemaking-on-refusal-to-deal-6078353">the World Shipping Council’s (WSC’s) petition</a> to review a section of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22) that bars ocean carriers from “unreasonably refus[ing] to deal or negotiate ... with respect to vessel space accommodations.” The provision stemmed from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-regulators-warn-container-lines-on-obligation-to-serve-exporters-5251170">the US agriculture industry’s difficulties in getting export space</a> during the COVID-19-era container shipping surge. After OSRA-22 was passed, a July 2024 rulemaking by the FMC sought to clarify how the agency would determine an unreasonable refusal to deal. The WSC claimed the rulemaking exceeded the FMC’s authority because it allowed the agency to review export freight rates, even though it gave up its ratemaking authority in 1984. The rulemaking also requires ocean carriers to document their export policies, which the WSC claimed also oversteps the agency’s powers, and removed references to “business decisions” as a factor in deciding whether an ocean carrier unreasonably refused to deal. However, the court ruled that even if the FMC no longer regulates rates, it can still review ocean freight rates if they appear to be dissuading an export container booking. The ruling said that removing the FMC’s authority to review export rates “would permit any ocean carrier to refuse to deal or to negotiate with impunity, simply by quoting an unrealistically high rate.” “There is no practical difference between quoting a rate of one billion dollars and outright refusing to deal,” the ruling said. The court also turned away the WSC’s argument that a documented export policy was government overreach because it is “prospective” information, not a factual recounting of what occurred in a particular instance. The judges said the FMC has authority under US shipping law to collect information about carrier pricing strategies and export policies. As for the exclusion of business decisions in the rulemaking, the judges said the rulemaking did not explicitly prevent the FMC from considering that factor in whether a shipper was unfairly denied vessel space. The FMC itself said that it could also consider business decisions. “Counsel for the Commission acknowledged that the Commission may not decline to consider a relevant business decision because failure to consider a relevant factor would itself be arbitrary,” the ruling said. “In short, the Commission did not meaningfully change course by dropping its main reference to business decisions.” <h3>Despite loss, WSC notes ‘clarity’ in ruling </h3>In a statement to the Journal of Commerce, WSC Chief Executive Joe Kramek said, “the ruling provides the liner shipping industry with clarity on the factors the [FMC] must consider in reviewing refusal-to-deal cases.” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC), said in a statement the FMC’s refusal-to-deal rulemaking followed Congress’ intent on providing a level playing field for US exporters. “The provision in OSRA-22 and the subsequent FMC implementing regulation was designed to address refusals of ocean carriers to accept booking of many agriculture commodities during the COVID crisis,” Friedmann said. “Congress responded, on behalf of agriculture and other constituents, leading to this provision of OSRA-22. AgTC is pleased with the Court of Appeals decision denying efforts to derail this FMC regulation.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An appeals court has denied a challenge to US shipping law that blocks ocean carriers from unfairly denying vessel space to exporters, ruling that the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has broad latitude to review a carrier’s rates and export policy when it believes such violations occur. A three-judge panel for the District of Columbia appellate court on Tuesday turned down the World Shipping Council’s (WSC’s) petition to review a section of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22) that bars ocean carriers from “unreasonably refus[ing] to deal or negotiate ... with respect to vessel space accommodations.” The provision stemmed from the US agriculture industry’s difficulties in getting export space during the COVID-19-era container shipping surge. After OSRA-22 was passed, a July 2024 rulemaking by the FMC sought to clarify how the agency would determine an unreasonable refusal to deal. The WSC claimed the rulemaking exceeded the FMC’s authority because it allowed the agency to review export freight rates, even though it gave up its ratemaking authority in 1984. The rulemaking also requires ocean carriers to document their export policies, which the WSC claimed also oversteps the agency’s powers, and removed references to “business decisions” as a factor in deciding whether an ocean carrier unreasonably refused to deal. However, the court ruled that even if the FMC no longer regulates rates, it can still review ocean freight rates if they appear to be dissuading an export container booking. The ruling said that removing the FMC’s authority to review export rates “would permit any ocean carrier to refuse to deal or to negotiate with impunity, simply by quoting an unrealistically high rate.” “There is no practical difference between quoting a rate of one billion dollars and outright refusing to deal,” the ruling said. The court also turned away the WSC’s argument that a documented export policy was government overreach because it is “prospective” information, not a factual recounting of what occurred in a particular instance. The judges said the FMC has authority under US shipping law to collect information about carrier pricing strategies and export policies. As for the exclusion of business decisions in the rulemaking, the judges said the rulemaking did not explicitly prevent the FMC from considering that factor in whether a shipper was unfairly denied vessel space. The FMC itself said that it could also consider business decisions. “Counsel for the Commission acknowledged that the Commission may not decline to consider a relevant business decision because failure to consider a relevant factor would itself be arbitrary,” the ruling said. “In short, the Commission did not meaningfully change course by dropping its main reference to business decisions.” Despite loss, WSC notes ‘clarity’ in ruling In a statement to the Journal of Commerce, WSC Chief Executive Joe Kramek said, “the ruling provides the liner shipping industry with clarity on the factors the [FMC] must consider in reviewing refusal-to-deal cases.” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC), said in a statement the FMC’s refusal-to-deal rulemaking followed Congress’ intent on providing a level playing field for US exporters. “The provision in OSRA-22 and the subsequent FMC implementing regulation was designed to address refusals of ocean carriers to accept booking of many agriculture commodities during the COVID crisis,” Friedmann said. “Congress responded, on behalf of agriculture and other constituents, leading to this provision of OSRA-22. AgTC is pleased with the Court of Appeals decision denying efforts to derail this FMC regulation.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Appeals court upholds FMC rules on carrier refusal-to-deal, export policies

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code SSFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSGFTW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

ApolloError

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on an annual Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The Journal of Commerce’s analysis and coverage of North American and global rail news encompasses Class I railroad, intermodal marketing providers, and supporting drayage and truckload services. Reporting on freight railroad news today, journalists track volume, intermodal freight rates, service levels, precision schedule railroading, transloading, regulation, union labor and network investment at domestic and international intermodal terminals.

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Stay updated with our rail transport news and trends. Journal of Commerce covers intermodal news, and port connectivity news in the container rail transport sector.

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s surface transport news and analysis focuses on landside transport movement — from railroad news to trucking news — including full load trucking, less-than-truckload (LTL), refrigerated (or reefer) trucking, flatbed and domestic and international intermodal rail, and how it connects with seaports, inland rail hubs, distribution centers and transloading operations. Reporting on the surface transport sector covers the movement of domestic shipments within the United States and international cargoes transported via domestic equipment including trailers and 53-foot containers.

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

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

Trucking News

Explore the world of ground transport news - from trucks to railroads, intermodal connections, and port ties. Daily insights on US and global shipments.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Error occured during loading content