Federal Maritime

Commission

54th Annual

Report

for

Fiscal Year

2015

Table of Contents

Letter of Transmittal 1

Members of the Commission 3

FMC Mission, Strategic Goals and Functions 5

Strategic Goal 1 5

Strategic Goal 2 6

Statutory Authority 6

Year in Review 7

Efficiency and Competition 9

Strategic Goal 1 9

Agreement Filings and Review 9

Types of Carrier Agreements 10

Competitive Impact and Monitoring 13

Tariffs, Service Contracts, NSAs, & MTO Schedules 14

Port Congestion 15

International Cooperation 18

Protecting the Public 21

Strategic Goal 2 21

Licensing 21

Revisions to Licensing Rules 23

Leveraging Technology 23

Passenger Vessel Program 24

Consumer Affairs and Education 25

Enforcement, Audits and Penalties 27

Inter-Agency Cooperation 28

Developments in Major U.S. Foreign Trades 31

Worldwide 31

Asia 32

Australia and Oceania 32

Indian Subcontinent and Middle East 33

North Europe 33

Mediterranean 34
Africa 35

Latin America 35

Top Twenty U.S. Liner Cargo Trading Partners 37

Top Twenty U.S. Liner Cargo Trading Partners (CY 2014) 38

Foreign Shipping Practices Act 39

Controlled Carriers 40

Formal Investigations, Private Complaints and Litigation 41

Formal Investigations 41

Private Complaints 43

Litigation 47

Procedural Rule Updates 49

APPENDICES 51

A - FMC Organization Chart 51

B - FMC Senior Officials 52

C - Statement of Appropriations, Obligations and Receipts 53

D - Civil Penalties Collected 54
54th Annual Report 1

Letter of Transmittal

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

800 North Capitol Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20573-0001

March 31, 2016

To the United States Senate and House of Representatives:

On behalf of the Commission, I am pleased to submit the 54th Annual Report covering activities of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) for fiscal year 2015, pursuant 

to section 103(e) of Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, and Section 208 of the Merchant 

Marine Act of 1936, now codified and amended at 46 U.S.C. § 306(a).

This Report highlights the Commission’s major accomplishments and initiatives 

undertaken during the fiscal year to support its mission and strategic goals to maintain an efficient and competitive international ocean transportation system, protect the 

shipping public, and resolve shipping disputes. The Report recaps continuing trends, 

as well as new forms of cooperation evaluated and overseen by the Commission. Two 

new developments emerged during the fiscal year: greater cooperation among carriers 

and marine terminal operators to provide transportation services and address supply 

chain congestion challenges; and emergence of what appears to be a new round of carrier consolidation in liner shipping.

Enforcement efforts to address Shipping Act violations collected over $2 million, and 

promotes a secure, efficient, and fair maritime transportation system. The Commission 

constantly looks for ways to reduce costs, both internally and externally. Under our 

multi-year IT strategy, we are leveraging technology to improve delivery of services to 

the shipping public. To make government efficient and responsive to industry needs, 

we updated rules and regulations to adapt to changing industry conditions, reduce 

regulatory burden, improve transparency, and streamline business processes.

The FMC is the regulatory agency responsible for maintaining competitive and reliable 

practices in the $980 billion international ocean transportation industry. We manage this 

responsibility with a small but effective staff of 125 employees. As international shipping 

increases, the FMC will continue to ensure that the needs of the business community 

and U.S. consumer are met in the most efficient manner possible. It is my sincere belief 

that we are the agency best experienced to help industry participants solve existing and 

future congestion problems at America’s ports, and this will continue to be one of our 

top priorities.

It is our honor and privilege to protect the American people from anticompetitive, 

deceptive, and unfair practices in international ocean shipping. As more cost savings 
2 54th Annual Report

are sought by international carriers, our role in evaluating and overseeing the competitive impact of regulated parties’ cooperation, including operational alliances is more 

important than ever.

Every member of our FMC team is dedicated to achieving our mission with the highest level of excellence, and we stand ready to provide any further information you may 

require.

Sincerely,

Mario Cordero

Chairman
54th Annual Report 3

Members of the Commission

 William P. Doyle

Commissioner

Appointed 2013

Term Expires 2018

Mario Cordero

Chairman

Appointed 2011

Term Expires 2019

 Michael A. Khouri

Commissioner

Appointed 2009

Term Expires 2016

 Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr.

Commissioner

Appointed 2009

Term Expired 2012

 Rebecca F. Dye

Commissioner

Appointed 2002

Term Expired 2015
4 54th Annual Report
54th Annual Report 5

FMC Mission, Strategic 

Goals and Functions

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC 

or Commission) is an independent agency 

responsible for the regulation of oceanborne 

transportation in the foreign commerce of the 

United States for the benefit of U.S. exporters, 

importers, and the U.S. consumer.

The FMC’s Mission is:

•  To foster a fair, efficient and reliable 

international ocean transportation 

system and to protect the public from 

unfair and deceptive practices.

The FMC’s Vision is:

•  Fairness and Efficiency in the U.S. 

Maritime Commerce.

Strategic Goal 1

Maintain an efficient and competitive international ocean 

transportation system.

The FMC ensures competitive and efficient 

ocean transportation services for the shipping 

public by:

•  Reviewing and monitoring agreements among ocean common carriers 

and marine terminal operators (MTOs) 

serving the U.S. foreign oceanborne 

trades to ensure that they do not cause 

substantial increases in transportation 

costs or decreases in transportation 

services;

•  Maintaining and reviewing confidentially filed service contracts and 

Non-Vessel-Operating Common 

Carrier (NVOCC) Service Arrangements to guard against detrimental 

effects to shipping;

•  Providing a forum for exporters, 

importers, and other members of the 

shipping public to obtain relief from 

ocean shipping practices or disputes 

that impede the flow of commerce;

•  Ensuring common carriers’ tariff rates 

and charges are published in private, 

automated tariff systems and electronically available;

•  Monitoring rates, charges, and rules 

of government-owned or –controlled 

carriers to ensure they are just and 

reasonable; and

•  Taking action to address unfavorable 

conditions caused by foreign government or business practices in U.S. 

foreign shipping trades.

 FMC Mission

To foster a fair, efficient and 

reliable international ocean 

transportation system and to 

protect the public from unfair 

and deceptive practices.
6 54th Annual Report

Strategic Goal 2

Protect the shipping public from 

unlawful, unfair and deceptive 

ocean transportation practices and 

resolve shipping disputes.

The FMC protects the public from financial harm, and contributes to the integrity and 

security of the U.S. supply chain and transportation system by:

•  Helping resolve disputes involving 

shipment of cargo, personal or household goods, or disputes between cruise 

vessel operators and passengers;

•  Investigating and ruling on complaints 

regarding rates, charges, classifications, and practices of common 

carriers, MTOs, and Ocean Transportation Intermediaries (OTIs), that 

violate the Shipping Act;

•  Licensing OTIs with appropriate 

character and adequate financial 

responsibility;

•  Identifying and holding regulated 

entities accountable for mislabeling 

cargo shipped to or from the United 

States; and

•  Ensuring that cruise lines maintain 

financial responsibility to pay claims 

for personal injury or death, and to 

reimburse passengers when their 

cruise fails to sail.

Statutory Authority

The principal statutes administered by the 

Commission, now codified in Title 46 of the 

U.S. Code at sections 40101 through 44106, are:

•  The Shipping Act of 1984, as amended 

by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 

1998 (Shipping Act)

•  The Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 

1988 (FSPA)

•  Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 

1920 (1920 Act)

•  Sections 2 and 3 of Pub. L. No. 89-777, 

80 Stat.1350
54th Annual Report 7

Year in Review

World economic output continued to 

expand during the fiscal year, producing a 3 

percent growth rate in worldwide container 

trade. This means that worldwide container 

trade grew for the sixth consecutive year. As 

the fiscal year came to a close, however, 243 

containerships lay idle — or 4 percent of the 

total containership fleet capacity, reflecting 

continuing global overcapacity. In contrast, 

131 ships or 1 percent of all container ships 

lay idle at the end of fiscal year 2014.

As the expert regulatory agency for liner 

shipping in U.S. trades, the Commission 

facilitates growth in ocean commerce by 

helping to ensure fair, efficient, and reliable 

maritime transportation services while minimizing regulatory burden. Trade growth gives 

businesses engaged in international ocean 

commerce the confidence to hire more American workers. The Commission supports these 

efforts by actively seeking ways to facilitate 

the competitiveness of our Nation’s ports and 

its liner shipping system, and by providing 

maritime businesses regulatory relief.

The congestion problems that developed 

in late FY 2014 were unabated during FY 

2015. The Commission remained vigilant in 

using its authorities and expertise to support 

affected industry stakeholders and promote the smooth flow of ocean commerce. 

It examined various approaches to reducing 

congestion adopted at many major ports in the 

United States. Following on the heels of the 

four Port Forums the FMC held in 2014 in different gateways throughout the United States, 

the Commission released a report entitled 

“Rules, Rates, and Practices Relating to Detention, Demurrage, and Free Time for Containerized 

Imports and Exports Moving Through Selected 

United States Ports” in April 2015; followed in 

July 2015 by “U.S. Container Port Congestion & 

Related International Supply Chain Issues: Causes, 

Consequences & Challenges,” a separate report 

that summarized the problems, potential solutions, and remaining challenges as identified 

and discussed by participants at the FMCsponsored port forums.

The FMC continues to closely monitor 

carrier alliances among the world’s largest carriers covering major geographic trade regions, 

to identify any indication that they may be a 

contributing factor in the chronic congestion 

at the West Coast ports, and perhaps at other 

port facilities.

As a direct result of complaints from stakeholders about PierPass operations, costs, and 

quality of services, and pursuant to the FMC’s 

statutory mandate to monitor agreements 

to ensure that once an agreement becomes 

effective under the Shipping Act, behavior 

under the agreement authority does not subsequently result in an unreasonable increase in 

transportation cost or unreasonable decrease 

in transportation service, this fiscal year saw 

continued and more aggressive monitoring 

of PierPass. The Chairman called on PierPass to be more transparent about the cost to 

operate off-peak shifts and the revenue collected from the traffic mitigation fee (TMF). 

He demanded openness in the supply chain 

and urged PierPass to critically self-assess 

its performance along five key dimensions: 
8 54th Annual Report

sun setting the program, service level quality, fairness, transparency, and performance 

metrics. The Chairman reiterated his request 

that PierPass submit its books for an independent third-party audit, a request that is 

motivated by stakeholder concerns for further 

transparency. At the close of the fiscal year, 

Commission staff were scheduling on-site 

meetings with PierPass officials and stakeholders for early FY 2016.

A total of 365 carrier agreements and 157 

MTO agreements remained active at year end, 

while 258 new agreements were filed during 

fiscal year 2015. With respect to marine terminal agreements, in 2015 two new agreements 

of significance were filed and are now in effect: 

the Northwest Seaport Alliance and the Pacific 

Ports Operational Improvements Agreement. 

The second of these agreements authorizes 

the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management 

Association, the West Coast MTO Agreement, 

and most vessel-operating carriers and MTOs 

serving U.S. West Coast ports to discuss and 

exchange information, and reach agreement 

on measures to address and improve efficiency of operations at U.S. West Coast port 

facilities with a stated purpose of reducing 

congestion, particularly severe at the Ports 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach. In July 2015, 

the FMC issued a Section 15 Order to obtain 

information related to the terminal operations 

of the agreement.

The Commission was also active internationally, furthering its key role in the international 

trade arena, participating in the U.S.-Japan 

Maritime Bilateral Meeting, meeting with 

counterparts of the European Union and the 

People’s Republic of China, and participating 

in discussions at the Organisation of Economic 

Co-operation and Development.

Finally, the FMC used this year to look 

inward. Pursuant to Executive Order (E.O. 

13579), and the Commission’s Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Rules, the 

Commission reviewed existing rules and regulations and streamline a number of regulations 

as needed in the interest of making government efficient and responsive to the industry’s 

needs. Most notably, the Commission issued 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) proposing revisions to its Ocean Transportation 

Intermediary regulations after considering 

extensive comments submitted to its earlier 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPR). The NPR was drafted to address 

commenters concerns and changing industry conditions, improve regulatory oversight 

and transparency, streamline FMC business 

processes, and reduce regulatory burdens 

on the industry. In addition, the Commission considered recommendations to revise 

its regulations for ocean common carrier and 

marine terminal agreements and its rules governing service contracts and NVOCC service 

arrangements. Issuance of rulemakings to seek 

public comment on updating regulations in 

these two regulatory areas is planned during 

FY 2016.

The following presents a detailed summary 

of the Commission’s activities during fiscal 

year 2015.
54th Annual Report 9

Efficiency and Competition

Strategic Goal 1

Maintaining an efficient and competitive international ocean transportation system and 

enhancing liner trade through the use of various types of agreement authority is a primary 

function of the Commission. An efficient and competitive transportation system facilitates 

commerce, economic growth, and job creation. Competition among participants in U.S. liner 

trades fosters competitive rates and encourages a variety of service offerings for the benefit 

of U.S. exporters and importers, and ultimately consumers.

The Shipping Act allows competitors to meet and discuss (and in some cases agree on) 

certain business issues, but first they must file a written agreement with the Commission. 

The Commission reviews agreements using traditional antitrust law and economic models 

to evaluate the potential competitive impact of a proposed agreement before it may go into 

effect. The initial review and analysis of a proposed agreement and subsequent monitoring 

of the members’ activities under the agreement, should it become effective, are designed to 

identify and guard against possible abuse of the filed authority, avoid unreasonable increases 

in transportation costs or decreases in transportation services, and address other activities 

prohibited by the Shipping Act.

The Shipping Act is itself a federal competition law applicable to the industry of international 

liner shipping. It contains provisions similar to those found in the Sherman Act of 1890, the 

1914 Clayton Act, and the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 concerning various prohibitions of 

discriminatory or unfair business practices and standards regarding business combinations. 

The Shipping Act creates a separate regulatory regime from antitrust under which collective 

carrier or MTO activity is both evaluated when the agreement is initially filed and closely 

monitored thereafter for any adverse impact on competition in the trade.

So long as the regulated entities comply with the statutory and regulatory proscriptions 

of the Act, then the other federal antitrust statutes generally do not apply. Conversely, if a 

regulated entity violates the Shipping Act, they would be subject to penalties set forth in the 

Act, and may under certain circumstances be subject to investigation and prosecution under 

the full array of federal antitrust statutes.

Agreement Filings and Review

Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Shipping Act, 

all agreements by or among ocean common 

carriers to fix rates or conditions of service, pool 

cargo revenue, allot ports or regulate sailings, 

limit or regulate the volume or character of 

cargo (or passengers) to be carried, control or 

prevent competition, or engage in exclusive 

or preferential arrangements, are required to 
10 54th Annual Report

be filed with the Commission. Except for certain exempted categories, agreements among 

MTOs, and agreements among one or more 

MTOs and one or more ocean common carriers also must be filed with the Commission. 

Generally, an agreement becomes effective 

45 days after filing, unless the Commission 

requests additional information to evaluate 

the competitive impact of the agreement. All 

agreements filed with the Commission are 

reviewed pursuant to the standard set forth 

in section 6(g) of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. § 

41307(b)(1). Effective agreements are exempt 

from U.S. antitrust laws, and instead subject 

to Shipping Act restrictions and Commission 

oversight.

In fiscal year 2015, the Commission received 

258 agreement filings, an increase of 38 percent over the previous year. This was the 

largest number of agreements filed (both 

new agreements and amendments to existing agreements) during a 12 month period 

since 2006. 

Types of Carrier Agreements

Conference agreements are distinguished 

from all other types of agreements because 

they allow members to collectively discuss, 

agree, and fix freight rates and practices.

Rate discussion agreements (RDAs) also 

focus on rate matters, but unlike conferences, 

any consensus on rates is non-binding on the 

members.
54th Annual Report 11

Operational agreements do not contain authority to discuss or fix rates. They 

include vessel-sharing agreements (VSAs), 

joint service agreements (JSAs), cooperative 

working agreements (CWAs), and discussion 

agreements.

•  VSAs typically authorize some level of 

service cooperation with the goal of 

reducing an individual line’s operating costs.

•  Under JSAs, two or more carriers operate a combined service under a single 

name in a specified trading area.

•  Many CWAs deal with unique operational considerations relating to 

acquisitions, sharing of administrative 

services, or internet portal management. Other CWAs include agency, 

sailing, trans-shipment, and equipment interchange (including chassis 

pooling) agreements.

•  Discussion agreements allow members to discuss matters of mutual 

interest other than rates. Typically, 

these agreements focus on macro-economic, regulatory, safety or security 

issues.

MTO agreements are agreements between 

MTOs (operated by both public and private 

entities) that provide facilities, services, and 

labor for the interchange of cargo and passengers between land and ocean carriers, and for 

the receipt and delivery of cargo from shippers and consignees.

Conference or price-fixing agreements 

have become largely irrelevant to U.S. liner 

shipping, particularly in light of the periodic 

excess capacity conditions in U.S. liner trades. 

No new carrier conference agreement has been 

filed with the Commission in 15 years. The 

three remaining conferences cover only U.S. 

military or government cargoes. At this time, 

no changes in the membership or activities 

of these conferences 

are anticipated.

While the number 

of RDAs on file with 

the Commission have 

declined 60 percent 

over the last 5 years 

from 36 to 22 agreements, RDAs remain the 

primary pricing forum in U.S. trade lanes.

At the end of the fiscal year, operational 

agreements accounted for 93 percent of all 

carrier agreements on file. VSAs account for 

the vast majority in this category - 90 percent, 

and 84 percent of all carrier agreements on 

file during FY 2015.

A broad view of the types of agreements 

filed during the past year shows a trend 

towards greater cooperation among carriers 

and MTOs under cooperative working agreements to provide transportation services and 

address concerns with cargo movement. In 

addition, operational cooperation among carriers under VSAs and CWAs jumped during 

the fiscal year with 26 new agreements filed.

Significant filings of this type involve some 

of the largest carriers and cover multiple 

geographic regions, including a new cooperative arrangement among CMA CGM, China 

Shipping Container Line (CSCL), and the 

United Arab Shipping Company (known as 

the “Ocean 3 Alliance”); and the addition of 

Evergreen to the CKYH Alliance. Cooperation 

between members of different carrier alliances also expanded under new or amended 

No new 

conference or 

price fixing 

agreement has 

been filed in 15 

years.
12 54th Annual Report

agreements, most likely necessitated by 

increasingly larger vessels that require multiple participating carriers to optimize vessel 

capacity utilization.

The inception of what could prove to be 

a period of consolidation within the liner 

shipping industry emerged during the fiscal 

year. Hapag Lloyd and Hamburg Sud completed their purchases of the liner shipping 

assets of Chilean Compañía Sud Americana 

de Vapores (CSAV) and Compañía Chilena 

de Navegación Interoceánica S.A. (CCNI). In 

addition, at the close of the fiscal year, preliminary discussions regarding a new merger 

between COSCO and CSCL were emerging, 

and the proposed purchase of APL by CMA 

CGM was separately being explored.

In addition to the substantial number of 

agreement filings related to container shipping in 2015, slot charter agreements among 

Roll On-Roll Off (RO/RO) carriers grew 

significantly. A number of RO/RO carriers 

developed global slot charter agreements to 

allow more efficient and rapid access to space 

for the movement of vehicles and other RO/

RO cargo. This trend is expected to continue.

Two new MTO agreements of significance 

were filed during the fiscal year. The Ports 

of Seattle and Tacoma formed the Northwest Seaport Alliance allowing the two 

competing ports to act as a single entity for 

marketing and infrastructure development, 

jointly operate container facilities, and jointly 

discuss rates. The Pacific Ports Operational 

Improvements Agreement authorizes the 

Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association, the West Coast MTO Agreement, and 

most vessel-operating common carriers and 

MTOs serving U.S. West Coast ports to discuss and exchange information, and reach 
54th Annual Report 13

agreement on measures to address congestion 

and improve operations at U.S. West Coast 

port facilities. Prior to and at the time of filing 

this agreement, port congestion was particularly severe at the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach.

Competitive Impact and Monitoring

While systematically monitoring ocean 

common carrier and MTO activities and commercial conditions in the U.S. foreign trades, 

the Commission took the following specific 

measures to assess the competitive impact 

of certain agreements. Notable during the 

fiscal year were the relatively high number 

of unique or “special” reporting requirements 

developed by the Commission for several 

new agreements or amended agreements 

where the market share of the parties and/or 

the expansive operational cooperation contemplated under the agreement warranted 

heightened oversight.

Pacific Ports Operational Improvements 

Agreement: This new agreement allows carriers and MTOs to jointly discuss and reach 

agreement on measures to address congestion at U.S. West Coast ports. To complete 

a competitive impact analysis and establish 

appropriate monitoring requirements, the 

Commission issued a Section 15 Order to 

obtain certain commercial information from 

the agreement parties related to terminal 

operations. The Commission’s review also 

included evaluation of information received 

from the agreement parties in response to 

questions raised by staff and Commissioners during the review period; removal of 

agreement authority to address Commission 

concerns, including proposed authority to 

impose fees and charges on third parties; and 

consideration of public comments received on 

the Agreement.

The Los Angeles and Long Beach Port 

Infrastructure and Environmental Programs Cooperative Working Agreement: 

The agreement was amended to allow the 

two neighboring ports to jointly discuss and 

reach agreement on measures aimed at expediting the flow of containers through the ports. 

Under its agreement monitoring program, 

the Commission reviews reports of activities 

authorized by this amendment.

West Coast MTO Agreement: Expanding 

on previous monitoring efforts, during the 

fiscal year the Commission commenced a 

more in-depth examination of the activities 

conducted by the parties to assess their potential competitive impact including examining 

complaints received regarding the PierPass 

program under the agreement.

Oakland MTO Agreement: The Commission issued a Request for Additional 

Information (RFAI) regarding a proposed 

amendment to establish OAKPASS, a program 

that would allow MTOs to offer Saturday gate 

access. The cost of providing these extra gates 

would be recovered by imposing a fee on shippers and truckers using the Monday through 

Friday daytime gates. Responses to the RFAI 

will permit the Commission to conduct an indepth analysis of the proposed program under 

the section 6(g) standard of the Shipping Act, 

to address public comments received, and 

to establish appropriate monitoring requirements, if warranted.
14 54th Annual Report

Port of Seattle/Port of Tacoma Alliance 

Agreement: This new agreement allows the 

two ports to jointly operate, through the Northwest Seaport Alliance, container and other 

cargo facilities to help improve the competitiveness of the Puget Sound gateway. Special 

ongoing monitoring requirements were developed and imposed on the agreement parties 

to assist the Commission in monitoring the 

competitive impact of the agreement.

The COSCON/KL/YMUK/HANJIN/ELJSA 

(CKYHE) Slot Allocation and Sailing Agreement: Evergreen joined a pre-existing vessel 

sailing alliance among COSCO, K Line, Yang 

Ming and Hanjin covering multiple geographic regions. Following a competitive 

impact analysis of the amended agreement, 

special reporting requirements were issued 

and tailored to the specific authority contained 

in this operational agreement.

Consolidated Chassis Management Pool 

Agreement: The Commission continued to 

closely monitor new developments and the 

availability of chassis equipment under the 

agreement as ocean carriers divest themselves 

of their chassis fleets and discontinue providing chassis service.

Transpacific Stabilization Agreement 

(TSA): Under the terms of the 2003 settlement 

agreement between the Commission and the 

TSA parties, biannual meetings are conducted 

with representatives of the TSA to review and 

closely examine major developments in the 

liner trade between the U.S. and Asia. Under 

the Commission’s ongoing agreement monitoring program, TSA is also required to file 

regular reports on its members’ commercial 

performance and activities in the trade.

Tariffs, Service Contracts, NSAs, & MTO 

Schedules

Tariffs

The Shipping Act requires common carriers and conferences to publish their tariffs 

containing rates, charges, rules, and practices, 

electronically in private systems. For ease of 

public access, the Commission publishes the 

web addresses of those tariffs on its website. 

At the close of the fiscal year, 5,500 tariff location addresses were posted. Of that number, 

5,163 tariff addresses were for NVOCCs.

The Commission provides regulatory relief, 

allowing licensed and foreign registered 

NVOCCs to “opt out” of the requirement to 

file rate tariffs providing they use NVOCC 

Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRAs) 

exclusively. At the end of the fiscal year, nearly 

1,800 NVOCCs had filed prominent notices 

or a rule in their respective tariff indicating 

that they had invoked the exemption – up 98 

percent from 900 in FY 2014. It is anticipated 

that NVOCCs will continue to take advantage of this opportunity, thereby significantly 

reducing the number of rate tariffs that the 

Commission must review to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Service Contracts

Service contracts are an alternative to transportation of cargo under tariff rates. Between 

90 and 95 percent of the total cargo moving 
54th Annual Report 15

in the U.S. liner trades moves under service 

contracts, not tariffs. Service contracts enable 

the parties to tailor transportation services 

and rates to their commercial and operational needs and to keep these arrangements 

confidential. During the fiscal year, the Commission received 51,109 new service contracts, 

compared to 44,208 in fiscal year 2014; and 

653,315 contract amendments, compared to 

573,208 in fiscal year 2014.

NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs)

Commission rules allow NVOCCs to offer 

transportation services pursuant to individually negotiated, confidential service 

arrangements with customers, rather than 

under a published tariff. For the first time 

since NSAs became available for use, the 

number of NSAs filed during the fiscal year 

plummeted 41 percent. This significant reduction in NSA filings was the result of one of 

the largest volume filers discontinuing the 

use of NSAs during the fiscal year. Of the 

1,780 NVOCCs registered with the Commission to file NSAs, only 244 (about 13 percent) 

have done so. Those 244 NSA users represent approximately 4 percent of all registered 

NVOCCs.

Marine Terminal Schedules

An MTO may make available to the public 

a schedule of rates, regulations, and practices, 

including limitations of liability for cargo loss 

or damage, pertaining to receiving, delivering, 

handling, or storing property at its marine 

terminal. Any such schedule made available to 

the public shall be enforceable by an appropriate court as an implied contract without proof 

of actual knowledge of its provisions. During 

the fiscal year, 266 MTOs filed Form FMC-1, 

which reports the electronic location of an 

MTO’s terminal schedule, with 158 MTOs 

electing to voluntarily publish their actual 

terminal schedules. The internet addresses 

of these MTO terminal schedules are posted 

on the Commission’s website.

Port Congestion

International trade through U.S. ports 

now accounts for one-third of our nation’s 

economic output (GDP) and this figure is 

expected to reach two-thirds by 2030. International trade supports U.S. jobs, and in 2010 

(the latest available data) nearly 25 percent 

of all U.S. manufacturing and agricultural 

jobs were supported by U.S. exports. Because 

international trade and GDP are thoroughly 

linked, modern efficient ports are essential 

to facilitate international trade and to maintain a healthy and vibrant U.S. economy. 

Service Contracts and 

NSAs filed in 2015

• Newly filed service contracts: 

51,109

• Amendments to service contracts: 

653,315

• Newly filed NSAs: 901

• Amendments to NSAs: 1,790
16 54th Annual Report

Maintaining the efficiency and effectiveness 

of America’s global supply chains is exceptionally important to the nation’s continued 

economic vitality. Unfortunately, congestion 

at ports and other points in the nation’s intermodal system has become a serious risk factor 

to the growth of the American economy and 

its competitive position in the world economy.

During the latter part of fiscal year 2014 

and extending into FY 2015, the Commission 

hosted discussion forums around the country 

to hear firsthand the port congestion problems 

that ports, their customers, and other partners 

in the U.S. intermodal system were facing as 

a result of problems brought on by contemporary developments in liner shipping. Four 

separate one-day public listening sessions 

were held in different regions of the country, 

each lead by at least one FMC Commissioner. 

Forums were held in Los Angeles, Baltimore, 

New Orleans and Charleston.

The sessions were extremely well attended 

and, at most venues, there was standing room 

only. The energetic discussions that took place 

were transcribed and posted on the Commission’s website along with public comments 

submitted on the port congestion issue. By 

the time the fourth forum concluded in early 

November 2014, over one thousand pages of 

transcripts had been compiled. Participants 

gave detailed accounts of what they saw as 

the chief causes of congestion in several of 

the nation’s major container ports, came with 

reports of new solutions being applied, and 

Participants at the Mid-Atlantic Port Congestion Forum in Baltimore on October 1, 2014
54th Annual Report 17

shared new ideas. The Commission’s dispute resolution specialists also participated 

in the Baltimore and Charleston port forums 

and rendered assistance to parties seeking to 

resolve port congestion related demurrage 

and per diem disputes in 250 matters.

Building on these efforts, the Chairman 

made addressing the challenges of port congestion his top priority for calendar year 2015. 

Several examples of supply chain participants 

cooperating and working together under the 

authority of the Shipping Act were reflected in 

a number of cooperative working agreements 

filed in 2015 that had as their central focus, 

improving port productivity, innovation and 

efficiency. (A description of these agreements 

is found in the Efficiency and Competition section of this Report).

By and large, participants at the FMC-organized port forums recognized that long-term 

fixes to the system’s infrastructure issues are 

needed, but they also saw an urgent need 

for short-term solutions. Following the port 

congestion forums, to address some of the 

shorter-term issues identified, the FMC publically released two staff reports. The first 

dealt with congestion costs in the form of 

substantial demurrage and detention fees 

being incurred unavoidably by cargo interests. This study was fast-tracked to address 

voluminous complaints heard leading up 

to, during, and continuing after, the forums. 

Entitled, “Rules, Rates, and Practices Relating 

to Detention, Demurrage, and Free Time for Containerized Imports and Exports Moving Through 

Selected United States Ports” the report detailed 

Commissioner Rebecca Dye with the Gulf Coast Port Authorities at the Gulf Coast Port Forum 

on November 3, 2014
18 54th Annual Report

possible actions ocean carriers, terminal operators, and port authorities can take to help 

minimize congestion and attendant demurrage and detention fees, and noted possible 

actions that cargo interests and motor carriers 

can take. It also identified possible actions the 

Commission could take concerning free time, 

detention and demurrage practices.

The second report, “U.S. Container Port Congestion & Related International Supply Chain 

Issues: Causes, Consequences & Challenges,” 

organized and further developed stakeholders’ discussions at the port forums around 

seven major themes that emerged – investment and planning; chassis availability and 

related issues; vessel and terminal operations; 

port drayage and truck-turn-time; extended 

gate hours, PierPASS and congestion pricing; and collaboration and communication. 

It also addressed current and possible future 

challenges caused by congestion at U.S. port 

gateways, and commented on the causes and 

effects of congestion in order to encourage 

further discourse on potential solutions.

As the fiscal year drew to a close, plans were 

being laid to ensure the FMC remains engaged 

with this serious issue. Ports and terminal 

operators will be challenged in the foreseeable 

future to find ways to accommodate bigger 

ships and larger container exchanges per visit, 

likely resulting in occasional chassis dislocations, trucking shortages, and local congestion.

International Cooperation

Global Regulatory Summit Part II

Maritime regulators from the United 

States, the People’s Republic of China, and 

the European Commission met and conferred 

in Brussels, Belgium, in June 2015 to consider 

the evolving international maritime landscape. 

Officials discussed their differing regulatory 

frameworks and the potential effects of carrier 

cooperation on international trade. The EU 

delegation was led by Cecilio Madero Villarejo, 

the Deputy Director General for Antitrust, and 

Mr. Hubert de Broca, Head of Unit, Directorate 

General for Competition, Antitrust-Transport, 

Post and Other Services; and the Chinese delegation was led by Mr. Li Hongyin, Deputy 

Director-General, Bureau of Water Transport, 

Ministry of Transport. FMC Chairman Mario 

Cordero led the U.S. delegation.

OECD

The FMC’s General Counsel participated in 

a discussion at the Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development (OECD) on 

the topic of “Competition Issues in Liner Shipping.” The Working Group was organized by 

the Directorate for Financial and Enterprise 

Affairs, Competition Committee. The General 

Counsel discussed the developments in the 

ocean shipping industry since 1984, and the 

regulatory oversight of the segment to ensure 

robust competition.

U.S.-Japan Bilateral Maritime Meeting

September 2015, Chairman Cordero and 

FMC Chief of Staff participated in a U.S.-

Japan Bilateral Maritime Meeting, hosted by 

the Japanese Ministry of Transport in Tokyo, 

Japan. Maritime Administrator Paul Jaenichen 

headed the U.S. Delegation. U.S. and Japanese officials discussed many mutual issues 
54th Annual Report 19

and shared insights on the global maritime 

landscape. Officials discussed such topics as 

the global alliances, the Panama Canal expansion, environmental issues, liquefied natural 

gas (LNG)-fueled vessels, port development, 

anti-piracy measures, and education efforts 

aimed at increasing visibility of the maritime 

industry. Participants agreed that coordination on these maritime issues is valuable for 

promoting mutual interests in international 

ocean transportation and commerce.

Trade In Services Agreement 

Negotiations

On behalf of the Commission, the OGC 

acted as a maritime technical advisor to two 

ongoing trade negotiations, Trade in Services 

Agreement (TiSA) and Transatlantic Trade and 

Investment Partnership (T-TIP).

U.S. Delegation Meeting with Mr. Toshiya Morishige, Vice-Minister for International Affairs, 

MLIT
20 54th Annual Report
54th Annual Report 21

Protecting the Public

Strategic Goal 2

The FMC engages in a variety of activities that protect the public from financial harm, 

including licensing and registering of ocean transportation intermediaries; helping resolve 

disputes about the shipment of goods or the carriage of passengers; investigating and prosecuting unreasonable or unjust practices, and ruling on private party complaints alleging Shipping 

Act violations. These activities contribute to the integrity and security of the nation’s import 

and export supply chains and ocean transportation system. In addition, the FMC ensures that 

passenger vessel operators maintain proper financial coverage to reimburse cruise passengers 

in the event their cruise is cancelled or to cover liability in the event of death or injury at sea.

Licensing

Ocean Transportation Intermediaries are 

transportation middlemen for cargo moving 

in the U.S.-foreign oceanborne trades. There 

are two types: NVOCCs and ocean freight 

forwarders (OFFs). An NVOCC is a common 

carrier that holds itself out to the public to 

provide ocean transportation, issues its own 

house bill of lading or equivalent document, 

but does not operate the vessel by which 

ocean transportation is provided.

An ocean freight forwarder domiciled in the 

U.S. arranges for the transportation of cargo 

with a common carrier on behalf of shippers 

and processes documents related to those 

shipments. Both NVOCCs and OFFs must 

be licensed by the Commission if they are 

located in the U.S. and must establish financial responsibility.

 NVOCCs doing business in the U.S.-

foreign trades but located outside the U.S. 

(foreign NVOCCs) may choose to become 

FMC-licensed, but are not required to do 

so. If not licensed under the FMC’s program, foreign-based NVOCCs must register 

with the Commission and establish financial 

responsibility.

NVOCCs wishing to serve in the U.S.-

China trade may file an Optional Rider for 

Additional NVOCC Financial Responsibility, 

to meet the Chinese government’s financial 

Licensing Activity in FY 2015

• New OTI applications accepted: 376

• Amended applications accepted: 314

• New OTI licenses issued: 250

• Amended licenses issued: 100

• Licenses revoked: 293

• Licenses voluntarily surrendered: 72
22 54th Annual Report
54th Annual Report 23

responsibility requirements. This rider adds 

additional financial liability to meet the bond 

aggregate amount of $125,000.

The rider amount is available to pay fines 

and penalties for activities in the U.S.-China 

trades imposed by the Chinese government. 

This rider is accepted as a convenience to the 

U.S. During the fiscal year, 50 China Bond 

Riders were received and 23 were terminated. At the close of the fiscal year, 440 U.S. 

NVOCCs had China Bond Riders.

Revisions to Licensing Rules

On October 10, 2014 the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPR), 79 FR 61544, significantly amending 

its regulations governing OTIs for the first 

time since it promulgated implementing regulations under the Ocean Shipping Reform Act 

of 1998, Public Law 105-258, 112 Stat. 1902 

(OSRA). The proposed rule was published following an ANPR published in May 2013. After 

considering extensive comments submitted 

to the ANPR, the proposed rule was revised 

to address commenters concerns and adapt 

to changing industry conditions, improve 

regulatory oversight, improve transparency, 

streamline FMC business processes, and 

reduce regulatory burdens on the industry. 

Among other revisions, most significantly the 

rule proposed to:

•  require licenses and registrations be 

renewed every three years;

•  require the FMC to develop a userfriendly, online renewal process;

•  require common carriers to verify OTI 

licenses and registrations, tariff publication and financial responsibility, 

and that the Commission develop a 

single location for such verifications 

on its website; and

•  provide for a new expedited hearing 

procedure to streamline the current 

procedures for denial, revocation, or 

suspension of an OTI license.

At the close of the fiscal year, the Commission was preparing to consider and vote on a 

draft Final Rule to be implemented in FY 2016.

Leveraging Technology

Improving service delivery through technology is a critical priority for the FMC. Due 

to historical budgetary constraints, the FMC 

had been unable to migrate from its legacy 

applications and aging architecture. While 

the Commission’s budget remains lean, it 

is committed to establishing a more robust 

IT infrastructure. The Commission’s multiyear strategy, encompassed in the FMC’s 

Information Technology Capital Plan, will 

enhance its cybersecurity efforts and better 

manage current and future business demands.

The cornerstone of the Commission’s IT 

upgrade effort is development and implementation of its Enterprise Content Management 

(ECM) platform, designed to capture, manage, 

store, preserve, and deliver information supporting key Commission processes. The ECM 
24 54th Annual Report

will enhance both internal and external interface with its electronic systems and databases 

and will eliminate duplicate data entry that is 

inherent in the current legacy systems.

In FY 2015, the FMC completed a cloud 

migration of its in-house file server based 

data management system. In addition, all 

Commission employee workstations were 

upgraded to the latest Microsoft operating 

system and Office 365. A cloud-based training 

solution was procured to give all employees 

access to high quality, job-relevant, training 

courses as well as eBooks and audio books. By 

leveraging these cloud services, the Commission is better able to support the President’s 

policy on Enhancing Workplace Flexibilities 

and Work-Life Programs by extending telework to a greater number of employees. 

The Commission also upgraded its server 

hardware to improve the operating efficiency 

of the internal and external applications used 

by FMC staff and the maritime industry. In 

addition, the Commission launched its disaster recovery site to support access to critical 

applications in the event of an emergency.

Passenger Vessel Program

The Commission administers the passenger 

vessel operator program as described under 

46 U.S.C. §§ 44102-44103, which requires evidence of financial responsibility for vessels 

that have berth or stateroom accommodations 

for 50 or more passengers and embark passengers at U.S. ports and territories. Certificates 

of performance cover financial responsibility 

used to reimburse passengers in the event 

their cruise is cancelled. Certificates of casualty are required to cover liability that may 

occur for death or injury to passengers or 

other persons on voyages to or from U.S. ports.

At the close of the fiscal year, 223 vessels 

owned by 48 passenger vessel operators were 

certified under the Commission’s program. 

The combined evidence of financial responsibility for nonperformance of transportation 

for all cruise vessels in the program is $590 

million. Under the Commission’s program, 

$750 million in aggregate financial responsibility for casualty coverage is evidenced. In 

FY 2015, 18 new performance certificates 

and 19 casualty certificates were issued. No 

PVO Program Participants

• 48 PVOs are certified under the 

Commission’s program

• 223 vessels are certified

• 19 new Casualty Certificates issued 

in FY 2015

• 18 new Performance Certificates 

issued in FY 2015

PVO Program Coverage

• $590 million aggregate evidence 

of financial responsibility for 

nonperformance

• $750 million aggregate evidence of 

financial responsibility for casualty
54th Annual Report 25

reimbursements for unperformed cruises 

were necessary under the FMC’s program 

during the fiscal year.

On April 2, 2015 the maximum coverage 

requirement increased to $30 million per 

cruise line with an adjustment to the cap thereafter every two years based on the Consumer 

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

The Commission offers information and 

guidance to the cruising public on passenger rights and obligations regarding monies 

paid to cruise lines that fail to perform voyages, as well as other cruise difficulties such 

as itinerary changes. A new cruise brochure 

was designed and published during the fiscal 

year that provides information and resources 

to help passengers avoid problems that 

may commonly arise during a cruise vacation. This brochure was widely distributed 

to travel agents and associations, and other 

federal agencies working in partnership with 

the Commission to educate and protect the 

cruising public.

Consumer Affairs and Education

Dispute Resolution

Through its Office of Consumer Affairs and 

Dispute Resolution Services (CADRS), the 

Commission provides alternative dispute resolution (ADR), ombuds, and mediation services, 

to assist parties in resolving international 

ocean shipping disputes, including a Rapid 

Response Team especially focused on addressing problems exporters may encounter. Such 

services are available to the shipping public at 

any stage of a dispute, regardless of whether 

litigation has been filed at the FMC or another 

jurisdictional forum. The Commission’s ADR 

services help parties avoid the expense and 

delay inherent in litigation, and facilitate the 

flow of U.S. foreign commerce. During the 

fiscal year, the FMC:

•  Closed 574 ombuds matters: 152 household goods matters; 328 cargo other 

than household goods matters; 93 

cruise matters; and 1 other Shipping 

Act matter.

•  Provided mediation services in 5 

matters.

•  Collaborated with Miami-Dade Consumer Protection to render assistance 
26 54th Annual Report

to consumers whose shipments were 

in jeopardy after tendering shipments 

and payment to an unlicensed OTI that 

deposited the cargo with a licensed 

OTI, but failed to tender freight. 

CADRS negotiated with the licensed 

entity to ship the cargo to destination 

at no further cost to consumers.

•  With the Commission’s Area Representatives (ARs), actively assisted 

individual cargo owners victimized 

by the shutdown of a major household goods company operating to 

Central America. As a result of this 

effort, many cargo owners were able 

to locate and retrieve their personal 

effects from warehouses in various 

port areas.

•  Published an informational article on 

the importance of using FMC-licensed 

and bonded OTIs in The Compass, a 

trade association publication for the 

Florida Yacht Brokers Association.

•  Presented to various industry and consumer trade associations regarding 

regulatory compliance, best practices, 

and the use of alternative dispute 

resolution to resolve regulatory and 

commercial ocean transportation 

disputes.

Area Representatives

Area Representatives represent the FMC at 

regional field offices located in Southern California, South Florida, New Orleans, New York, 

Houston and Seattle. They resolve complaints 

CADRS Deputy Director Jennifer Gartlan addressing the International Association of Movers’ 

Annual Meeting, October 10, 2014
54th Annual Report 27

and disputes between parties involved in 

international oceanborne shipping (often 

coordinating with CADRS staff), investigate 

alleged violations of the shipping statutes, and 

participate in local maritime industry groups. 

ARs provide advice and guidance to the shipping public, collect and analyze information 

of regulatory significance, and assess industry 

conditions.

During the fiscal year, ARs were actively 

involved in reaching out to the public, consumer groups, trade associations, and other 

government agencies to achieve regulatory 

compliance and protection for the shippers 

of household goods and personal effects. The 

ARs were instrumental in the publication of 

public service announcements (PSAs) for each 

major port area, warning consumers against 

the use of unlawful transportation providers 

and intermediaries. They also made presentations to interested industry audiences in their 

regions, explaining OTI licensing requirements, proposed changes to the Commission’s 

OTI rules on bonding and license renewals, 

and OTI compliance with tariff filing requirements and provisions applicable to NRAs.

Enforcement, Audits and Penalties

The Commission’s Bureau of Enforcement (BOE) and the ARs investigated and 

prosecuted possible illegal practices in many 

trade lanes, including the Transpacific, North 

Atlantic, Middle East, South American and 

Caribbean trades. These market-distorting 

activities included various forms of unfiled 

agreements, rebates and absorptions, misdescription of commodities, and unlawful use of 

service contracts, as well as carriage of cargo 

by and for untariffed and unbonded NVOCCs.

At the beginning of the fiscal year, 10 enforcement cases were pending final resolution by 

BOE, the Bureau was party to 4 formal proceedings, and there were 14 matters pending 

for which BOE was providing internal legal 

advice. The ARs referred 18 investigative matters to BOE for enforcement action or informal 

compromise; 17 were compromised and settled, administratively closed, or referred for 

formal proceedings; and 11 enforcement cases 

were pending resolution at fiscal year’s end. 

Three formal proceedings were initiated; 4 

formal proceedings were completed; and 3 

were pending at the end of the fiscal year.

Major investigations undertaken or completed during the fiscal year addressed VOCCs 

seeking to operate pursuant to agreements 

that were not filed with the Commission, 

as well as deceptive or fraudulent practices 

of certain OTIs operating in the China-U.S. 

inbound trades. Of note, BOE’s efforts in pursuing inquiries regarding certain car carriers 

in the Japan/South Korea/China-U.S. trade, 

Europe-U.S. trade and in other U.S. trades, culminated in an additional $135,000 settlement 

with Siem Car Carriers AS relating to unfiled 

carrier agreements. Penalties of $537,500 were 

also compromised with United Arab Shipping 

Co. with respect to allegations of unlawful 

rebates paid in the U.S.-Middle East trades. 

Civil penalties were also pursued in several 

noteworthy formal proceedings before the 
28 54th Annual Report

Commission’s Administrative Law Judges 

that are summarized in the Formal Investigations section of this report.

Cumulatively, the Commission collected 

$2 million in penalties in FY 2015. Most of 

these investigations were resolved informally, 

some with compromise settlements and civil 

penalties. A list of parties and penalties can 

be found in Appendix D.

BOE’s compliance audit program, conducted from headquarters primarily by mail, 

e-mail and telephone, reviews the operations 

of licensed OTIs to assist them in complying with the statutory requirements and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. The 

audit program also reviews entities holding 

themselves out as VOCCs, where there is no 

indication of actual vessel operations. At the 

beginning of the fiscal year, 14 audits were 

pending. During the fiscal year, 183 audits 

were commenced, 163 audits were completed 

(including audits carried over from fiscal year 

2014), and 34 remained pending at the close 

of the fiscal year.

Inter-Agency Cooperation

The Commission works regularly with 

a number of other federal, state, and local 

transportation and law enforcement agencies, either through established memoranda 

of understanding (MOU) or collaborations to 

address specific transportation related issues 

or incidents in both the U.S. domestic shipping 

arena and international liner shipping.

CADRS advanced the MOU between the 

FMC and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
54th Annual Report 29

Administration (FMCSA) through continued 

participation in the FMCSA’s Moving Fraud 

Task Force and Moving Fraud Partnership 

initiatives. CADRS staff also participated 

in FMCSA’s Moving Season Kickoff Event, 

giving a panel presentation on cooperative 

efforts and innovations to protect consumers 

against international moving fraud.

Interaction between BOE, the ARs, and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) on the exchange 

of investigative information continues to be 

beneficial to all parties. Cooperation with 

CBP included staff interactions and joint field 

operations to investigate entities suspected 

of violating both agencies’ statutes or regulations. Such cooperation also has included local 

police and other government entities, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI), and Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), when necessary.

BOE completed its third year under a 

formal MOU with the Census Bureau, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, providing FMC 

with access to the Census’ Automated Export 

System (AES) database. The completed MOU 

accommodates Census’ ongoing concerns for 

data security by limiting such use of confidential U.S. export shipment data only for 

FMC law enforcement purposes. BOE also 

commenced membership in the Homeland 

Security Investigations-led National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center 

(IPR Center), a partnership of 21 Federal and 

international agencies targeting intellectual 

property- and trade-related crimes.

The ARs continued to work closely with 

a number of law enforcement agencies, 

including local police jurisdictions in New 

York, New Jersey, South Florida and Houston, 

in matters relating to international shipping, 

such as the export of stolen motor vehicles. 

They also participated in various enforcement initiatives sponsored by Federal law 

enforcement agencies: the U.S. Department of 

Justice, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF); 

FBI; the Department of Homeland Security 

(including CBP and ICE); the Joint Terrorism 

Task Force (JTTF); Department of Commerce; 

Coast Guard; Export-Import Bank; and the 

FMCSA. These activities included criminal 

and civil investigations of entities licensed or 

regulated by the Commission, interdiction of 

illicit imports and exports, consultation on carrier practices, procedures and documentation 

relating to shipping and international trade, 

FMC and Federal Partners 

Work to Protect the Public:

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration

• Federal Bureau of Investigation

• Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (DOJ)

• Customs and Border Patrol (DHS)

• Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (DHS)

• Joint Terrorism Task Force

• Census Bureau (DOC)

• U.S. Coast Guard

• U.S. Export-Import Bank
30 54th Annual Report

and coordinated action seeking to protect the 

shipping public from deceptive and unfair 

practices.

Three AR offices participated in a large 

multi-agency strike force operation, jointly led 

by the Coast Guard and CBP, which included 

a dozen federal agencies and numerous local 

police jurisdictions engaged in the inspection 

of hundreds of intermodal ocean containers 

at port terminals in New York/New Jersey to 

uncover violations of safety, cargo declaration 

and licensing regulations.
54th Annual Report 31

Developments in Major 

U.S. Foreign Trades

Worldwide

The world’s container trade expanded by 3 

percent in fiscal year 2015 compared to a more 

robust growth rate of 5 percent in 2014. As the 

fiscal year came to a close, 243 containerships 

lay idle, representing 4 percent of the total 

fleet capacity measured in TEUs (twenty-foot 

equivalent container units). In contrast, 131 

ships or 1 percent of the containership capacity lay idle at the end of fiscal year 2014.

The world’s container shipping industry remained as concentrated during fiscal 

year 2015 as it had been in prior years. The 

top three container operators controlled 38 

percent of the world’s containership capacity; the top five controlled 47 percent; and 

the top ten controlled nearly 64 percent. A.P. 

Moller-Maersk A/S (15 percent), Mediterranean Shipping Company SA (13 percent) 

and CMA CGM S.A. (9 percent) continued to 

hold the top three positions in terms of vessel 

capacity deployed.

Container volumes in the U.S. liner trades 

expanded by 2 percent to 31.5 million TEUs, 

compared to 31 million last year. The U.S. 

share of the world’s container trades was 

nearly 17 percent. U.S. container imports 

continued to grow, expanding 6 percent to 

20 million TEUs, compared to a revised figure 

of 18.8 million in 2014. This was the second 

consecutive year that U.S. imports surpassed 

the record of 18.6 million reached in fiscal 

year 2007. U.S. container exports lost ground 

decreasing 5 percent to nearly 11.5 million 

TEUs. As a result, the U.S. container imbalance 

continued to worsen; for every 100 loaded 

containers exported from the U.S., 175 were 

imported, compared to 156 imported in fiscal 

year 2014.

Worldwide

• Worldwide container trade expanded 

only 3% vs. a 5% growth rate last 

year.

• New signs of global vessel 

overcapacity indicated as number of 

container ships that lay idle nearly 

doubled at year’s end.

• The world’s top 3 operators controlled 

38% of the worldwide vessel capacity.

U.S. Liner Trades

• Container volumes in the U.S. 

liner trades (imports and exports 

combined) grew for the 6th 

consecutive year.

• U.S. container imbalance worsened 

this FY with imports continuing to 

outpace U.S. exports; a 5% drop in 

U.S. exports further widened the gap.
32 54th Annual Report

The world’s containership fleet continued 

to expand with nominal capacity growing 

by approximately 9 percent. At the end of 

the fiscal year, 5,143 containerships, with a 

total fleet capacity of 19.7 million TEUs, were 

available to serve the world’s container trades 

and there were orders worldwide for 511 new 

containerships with an aggregate capacity of 

4.1 million TEUs – an increase of 21 percent 

over the existing fleet capacity. Vessels with 

nominal capacities exceeding 10,000 TEUs 

comprised 22 percent of the existing containership fleet capacity and 73 percent of the 

orderbook fleet capacity at year-end, reflecting the increasing size of containerships being 

ordered.

Asia

In terms of container cargo volumes, Asia 

remains our largest trading region. In fiscal 

year 2015, Asia was responsible for 62 percent of U.S. container trade volumes (exports 

and imports combined). Northeast 

Asia accounted for 53 percent 

of all U.S. container cargo from 

this region and Southeast Asia 

accounted for nearly 10 percent. Roughly 69 percent of all 

U.S. container imports originated from Asia and the region 

received 51 percent of all U.S. 

container exports. Nearly half 

of all containers originating from 

or destined to Northeast and Southeast Asia 

are handled at the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach.

The U.S. imported 13.7 million TEUs of 

merchandise from Asia, which is a 6 percent 

increase over the previous fiscal year. On the 

export side, the U.S. sent nearly 5.9 million 

TEUs of goods to Asia, a decrease of 7 percent 

over the last year.

The Transpacific Stabilization 

Agreement, a 15-member discussion agreement with voluntary 

pricing authority is the major 

agreement in the transpacific 

trade. TSA covers the inbound 

and outbound transpacific 

container trade lanes, and its 

geographic scope also includes 

parts of the Indian Subcontinent (Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri 

Lanka, but not India). During the fiscal year, 

TSA’s share of the U.S. inbound and outbound 

Asia container trades was approximately 90 

and 91 percent, respectively.

Australia and Oceania

The Oceania trade includes the nations and 

territories of Australia, New Zealand, Papua 

New Guinea, Western Samoa, and other South 

Pacific islands. As in many of the U.S. liner 

trades, the increase in the value of the U.S. 

dollar against foreign currencies affected the 

container cargo market making U.S. exports 

less attractive. Compared to the preceding 

fiscal year, U.S. container exports to the region 

declined by 4 percent, while imports to the 

U.S. jumped nearly 10 percent. Notwithstanding the decline in U.S. exports to this region, 

Nearly 70% of 

all U.S. containerized 

imports are from Asia; 

and more than half of 

all U.S. containerized 

exports are shipped to 

Asia.
54th Annual Report 33

container exports continued to exceed imports 

by a ratio of 1.37 to 1. Meat and wine, the top 

commodities from the region, accounted for 

nearly 36 percent of the total import cargo 

volume. The top two carriers, Hamburg Sud 

and ANL Singapore Pte. Ltd. (a subsidiary 

of CMA CGM), moved close to 50 percent 

of the total liner cargo volume in each trade 

direction. As parties to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if ratified, trade in container cargo 

between the U.S. and Australia and New Zealand will likely benefit from the reduction or 

elimination of tariffs and quotas on many 

products.

Two main rate discussion agreements cover 

the trade between the U.S. and Australia and 

New Zealand. Seven carriers with a combined 

market share of 80 percent participate in the 

United States/Australasia Discussion Agreement

covering the outbound trade; and five carriers 

with a combined market share of 94 percent 

participate in the Australia and New ZealandUnited States Discussion Agreement covering the 

inbound trade. All carriers serving the trade 

provide direct service through vessel sharing 

and space charter agreements.

Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa, and 

other South Pacific islands are served by five 

carriers operating under the Pacific Islands Discussion Agreement. Collectively these carriers 

hold a market share of 76 percent.

Indian Subcontinent and Middle East

The Indian Subcontinent and Middle East 

regions together accounted for over 6 percent 

of total U.S. container volumes in fiscal year 

2015. U.S. container trade with the Indian 

Subcontinent alone (exports and imports combined) grew 7 percent over last year, while the 

container market between the U.S. and Middle 

East (exports and imports combined) grew by 

nearly 3 percent.

The U.S. imported 801,000 TEUs from the 

Indian Subcontinent and 201,000 TEUs from 

the Middle East - 10 percent and 15 percent 

increases respectively over the prior fiscal 

year. The U.S. exported 458,000 TEUs to the 

Indian Subcontinent and 578,000 TEUs to the 

Middle East, an increase of almost 3 percent 

and a decrease of slightly more than 1 percent, 

respectively, over the preceding fiscal year.

In this region, TSA is the rate discussion 

agreement covering part of the U.S. inbound 

and outbound container trades. Its geographic 

scope covers the Indian Subcontinent countries of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, 

but not India or the Middle East. For the fiscal 

year, TSA’s market share for imports from and 

exports to this trade region were 86 and 89 

percent, respectively. There are no other rate 

discussion agreements covering the trades 

between the U.S. and India or the Middle East.

North Europe

During the fiscal year, the strength of the U.S. 

dollar against European currencies affected 

container cargo growth in the U.S. liner trade 

with North Europe. Compared to the preceding period, container exports to North Europe 

declined by nearly 6 percent, while container 
34 54th Annual Report

imports to the U.S. rose by nearly 9 percent. 

In both trade directions, half of the containers 

were moved by the top three ocean carriers, 

which in ranking order were MSC, Hapag 

Lloyd, and Maersk Line. The deployment of 

vessel capacity expanded by over 

30 percent in each trade direction, and the average vessel 

capacity utilization rate during 

the fiscal year reportedly was 

91 percent inbound and 64 percent outbound. Freight rates in 

the stronger inbound direction 

were reported to range between 

$1,500 and $2,000 per container, 

while outbound rates remained 

depressed at $1,200 per container and below.

A number of significant changes to services 

offered in the trade are worth noting. In January 2015, UASC entered the trade through a 

new vessel sharing arrangement with CMA 

CGM and Hamburg Sud under the CMA 

CGM/HSDG/UASC Vessel Sharing Agreement. 

Together the three carriers deploy 15 vessels 

in a weekly pendulum service between ports 

in North Europe, the U.S. Atlantic, and Asia. 

In May 2015, independent of its alliance with 

Maersk Line, MSC introduced a new weekly 

loop service with eight vessels operating 

between ports in North Europe and 

the U.S. Pacific Coast through 

the Panama Canal. Jointly, MSC 

and Maersk Line added a fourth 

weekly loop service with four 

vessels between U.S. Atlantic 

and North Europe ports under 

their alliance, the Maersk/MSC 

Vessel Sharing Agreement. Similarly, members of the G6 Alliance 

Agreement introduced a fourth 

weekly loop service with four vessels operating in the transatlantic trade. Both groups of 

carriers announced that their new weekly loop 

services would be suspended for the winter 

slack season until April 2016. In August 2015, 

CMA CGM also temporarily suspended its 

Liberty Bridge service, which it operated with 

four vessels in a weekly transatlantic loop.

Mediterranean

After a strong rebound in both trade directions during last fiscal year, conditions in the 

container cargo market were mixed in the 

U.S./Mediterranean trade during fiscal year 

2015. U.S. container exports tumbled nearly 

12 percent, while container imports from the 

region grew 4 percent. Import containers 

exceeded export containers by a ratio of 2 to 1. 

The top imported commodities included wine, 

furniture and ceramic tiles. Paper, cotton and 

wood pulp were among the top U.S. export 

commodities. MSC and Hapag Lloyd moved 

about half of the total container cargo in each 

trade direction.

In terms of service changes, in January 2015, 

CMA CGM terminated its weekly loop service 

and entered into a vessel sharing arrangement with UASC, Hanjin Shipping Co., and 

CSCL under the Hanjin/UASC/CMA CGM/

CSCL Vessel Sharing and Slot Charter Agreement. 

Together these carriers deploy 12 vessels in a 

weekly pendulum service operating between 

ports in the Indian Subcontinent, Middle East, 

Top 3 carriers carry 

over half the cargo 

shipped in the U.S./

North Europe trade. 
54th Annual Report 35

Mediterranean and the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

via the Suez Canal. In April 2015, CMA CGM 

independently initiated a new weekly loop 

service with six vessels between U.S. Gulf and 

Mediterranean ports and later added three 

more vessels to expand the service to ports in 

the Caribbean and South America. Under their 

alliance, MSC and Maersk Line consolidated 

their service strings into two weekly loop 

services between ports in the Mediterranean 

and the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf, respectively, 

and two pendulum services between ports in 

the Mediterranean, Asia, and the U.S. Pacific 

Coast. By the end of the fiscal year, vessel 

capacity deployed was reduced by 8 percent 

in the outbound direction and increased by 7 

percent in the inbound direction.

Africa

The Republic of South Africa is the largest U.S. liner trading nation on the continent, 

accounting for about 25 percent of the total 

container cargo. The volume of container 

cargo shipped between the U.S. and all nations 

in Africa (exports and imports combined) fell 

6 percent during the fiscal year. Compared 

to the preceding year, U.S. exports to Africa 

dropped nearly 10 percent, while imports 

from the continent grew almost 4 percent. Notwithstanding the drop in U.S. exports to this 

region during the fiscal year, U.S. container 

exports continued to substantially exceed 

imports. For every container moving inbound, 

2.4 containers moved outbound. The major 

export commodities remained unchanged and 

included automobiles (mostly used), poultry, and grocery products, while cocoa bean 

and citrus fruit were among the top import 

commodities.

Almost 70 percent of the container cargo 

in the trade was carried by MSC and Maersk 

Line (including Maersk Line’s subsidiary, Safmarine). Under the Southern Africa Agreement, 

MSC and Maersk Line share space on each 

other’s ships in the America Express (AMEX) 

service between the U.S. Atlantic Coast and 

the Republic of South Africa with calls at Cape 

Town, Port Elizabeth, and Durban.

Latin America

Central America and the Caribbean

U.S. export cargo volumes to Central 

America increased by nearly 5 percent to 

611,000 TEUs, while U.S. import cargo volumes decreased by almost 4 percent to 751,100 

TEUs. Paper and paperboard (including 

waste paper) accounted for the largest share 

of U.S. containerized exports. Other major 

export commodities included fabrics, yarns, 

and raw cotton. Grocery products, used 

automobiles and apparel were also significant 

exports. Fresh fruit made up the majority of 

all U.S. imports from the region with bananas 

accounting for close to three quarters of all 

fresh fruit shipped to the U.S. The second largest commodity imported from this region was 

clothing and apparel.

Five of the largest regional carriers in the 

U.S./Central America trade participated in the 

Central America Discussion Agreement (CADA): 
36 54th Annual Report

Seaboard Marine, Crowley Latin America 

Services, King Ocean Services, Dole Ocean 

Cargo Express, and Great White Fleet Liner 

Service Ltd.

In the liner trade between the U.S. and the 

Caribbean, U.S. exports, mainly consisting 

of food, consumer goods, and manufactured 

products increased 

almost 8 percent 

to 512,000 TEUs. 

Imports to the 

U.S. decreased 

nearly 3 percent 

to approximately 

166,000 TEUs.

Carriers operating in the U.S./

Caribbean trade participated in three rate 

discussion agreements covering discrete 

trades: (1) the Aruba Bonaire and Curacao Discussion Agreement, (2) the Bermuda Discussion 

Agreement, and (3) the Caribbean Shipowners 

Association.

South America

U.S. containerized trade with South America (exports and imports combined) was 

nearly 2 million TEUs during the fiscal year, 

relatively unchanged from the previous year. 

U.S. exports to the region slightly exceeded 

U.S. imports. In addition to general merchandise, other top export commodities to South 

America included auto parts, petroleum resins, 

chemical woodpulp, and polymers. On the 

U.S. import side, bananas/plantains, sawn 

wood, coffee, plywood, and granite were the 

commodities moving in greatest volume.

Several carriers providing service to the 

West Coast of South America are members 

of the West Coast of South America Discussion Agreement (WCSADA). Previously, the 

membership of WCSADA consisted of eight 

regional and four global carriers. However, as 

a result primarily of mergers and acquisitions, 

by fiscal year’s end WCSADA membership 

had dwindled to seven, including three 

regional carriers (Seaboard Marine, Trinity 

Shipping, and King Ocean Services) and four 

global carriers (CMA CGM, Hamburg Sud, 

Hapag Lloyd, and MSC).

In addition to service from members of 

WCSADA, a number of independent carriers 

serve the trade including Dole Ocean Cargo 

Express and Great White Fleet, that mainly 

transport proprietary cargo such as fresh 

fruits and vegetables. WCSADA also faces 

competition from Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line, 

Maersk Line, Evergreen, Mitsui O.S.K. Line, 

and Zim, that often use transshipment hubs 

in Mexico, Panama, and the Caribbean. Several regional carriers also serve the trade and 

compete for cargo. There were no active rate 

discussion agreements in the trade between 

the U.S. and the East Coast of South America.

The trade gap 

between imports/

exports shipped in 

the U.S./Central America and the Caribbean 

trade narrowed by 

almost 30% the FY.
54th Annual Report 37

Top Twenty U.S. Liner Cargo 

Trading Partners

Pursuant to the Foreign Shipping Practices Act (FSPA), the FMC must include in its 

annual report to Congress “a list of the twenty 

foreign countries which generated the largest 

volume of oceanborne liner cargo for the most 

recent calendar year in bilateral trade with the 

United States.” 46 U.S.C. § 306 (b)(1).

The Journal of Commerce’s Port Import 

Export Reporting Service (PIERS) database 

was used to derive the Commission’s list of 

top-twenty trading partners. The most recent 

complete calendar year for which data are 

available is 2014. The table on the next page 

lists the twenty foreign countries that generated the largest volume of oceanborne liner 

cargo in bilateral trade with the United States 

in 2014. The figures in the table represent each 

country’s total U.S. liner imports and exports 

combined in thousands of loaded TEUs.

For calendar year 2014, there was a 3 percent year-to-year increase in bilateral trade 

with the United States’ top-twenty liner 

trading partners. The top-twenty liner cargo 

trading partners has remained the same since 

2009. For the second year in a row, several 

changes in ranking occurred among the toptwenty countries. India rose above Vietnam 

in the rankings to occupy 6th place, reflecting a year-to-year liner volume increase of 

over 12 percent. Belgium and Luxembourg 

also rose in the rankings to 9th place, trading places with Brazil which slipped to 10th 

place. Brazil was one of five countries that 

experienced lower liner cargo volumes (the 

others being Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia and 

Honduras). The lower volume of liner cargo 

trade with Malaysia and Honduras enabled 

Chile to climb above them, rising two places 

in the listing to 17th place. (Although Hong 

Kong reverted to Chinese control in July 1997, 

PIERS continues to report data separately for 

Hong Kong because it is a major transshipment center).

India, Belgium & Luxembourg, and 

Chile climbed up in the rankings while 

Vietnam, Brazil, Malaysia and Honduras slipped down the rankings.
38 54th Annual Report

Top Twenty U.S. Liner Cargo Trading Partners 

(CY 2014)

Rank Country TEUs 

(000)

1 China (PRC) 11,861

2 Japan 1,409

3 South Korea 1,329

4 Taiwan (ROC) 1,134

5 Germany 930

6 India 885

7 Vietnam 877

8 Hong Kong 697

9 Belgium & 

Luxembourg

622

10 Brazil 589

11 Indonesia 576

12 Italy 553

13 Thailand 514

14 Netherlands 500

15 United Kingdom 435

Rank Country TEUs 

(000)

16 Guatemala 410

17 Chile 361

18 Malaysia 342

19 Honduras 335

20 Australia 332
54th Annual Report 39

Foreign Shipping Practices Act

The Commission has the authority to 

address restrictive foreign shipping practices 

under section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act 

of 1920 and the Foreign Shipping Practices Act 

of 1988. Section 19 empowers the Commission to make rules and regulations governing 

shipping in the foreign trade to adjust or meet 

conditions unfavorable to shipping. The FSPA 

directs the Commission to address adverse 

conditions that affect U.S. carriers in foreign 

trade and that do not exist for foreign carriers 

in the United States.

The Commission, both through Commission 

action and through its Office of the General 

Counsel (OGC), informally pursued several 

matters involving potentially restrictive foreign practices. This included interpretations 

of existing legislation, foreign legislation and 

administrative law, and regulations of nondomestic carriers’ terminal handling charges. 

No formal FSPA action by the Commission 

was necessary.
40 54th Annual Report

Controlled Carriers

A controlled carrier is an ocean common 

carrier that is, or whose operating assets are, 

owned or controlled directly or indirectly 

by a foreign government. The Shipping 

Act provides that no controlled carrier may 

maintain rates or charges in its tariffs or service contracts that are below a level that is 

just and reasonable, nor may any such carrier establish, maintain, or enforce unjust or 

unreasonable classifications, rules or regulations in those tariffs or service contracts. In 

addition, tariff rates, charges, classifications, 

rules, or regulations of a controlled carrier 

may not, without special permission of the 

Commission, become effective sooner than 

the 30th day after the date of publication. The 

Commission’s staff monitors U.S. and foreign 

trade press and other information sources to 

identify controlled carriers and any unjust or 

unreasonable controlled carrier activity that 

might require Commission action. In fiscal 

year 2015, five controlled carriers operated 

in the U.S. trades:

1. American President Lines, Ltd. and APL 

Co., Pte. – Republic of Singapore

2. COSCO Container Lines Company, Ltd. 

- People’s Republic of China

3. China Shipping Container Lines Co., 

Ltd. and China Shipping Container 

Lines (Hong Kong) Company, Ltd. - 

People’s Republic of China

4. Hainan P.O. Shipping Co., Ltd. – People’s Republic of China

5. United Arab Shipping Co. SAG – State 

of Qatar
54th Annual Report 41

Formal Investigations, Private 

Complaints and Litigation

Adjudicative proceedings before the Commission are commenced by the filing of a 

complaint, or by order of the Commission 

upon petition, or upon its own motion. Types 

of docketed proceedings include:

•  Private complaints: Any person 

may file a formal complaint alleging violations of specific sections of 

the Shipping Act found at 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 411. Formal complaints are 

generally assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who issues an 

initial decision which is reviewed by 

the Commission.

•  Small claims complaints: For claims 

of $50,000 or less, an informal complaint may be filed. The complaint 

is handled by a settlement officer for 

resolution using informal procedures 

that do not tend to include discovery 

or motions practice.

•  Investigative proceedings: The 

Commission may investigate the 

activities of ocean common carriers, 

OTIs, MTOs, and other persons to 

ensure effective compliance with the 

statutes and regulations administered 

by the Commission. Formal orders of 

investigation and hearing are assigned 

to an ALJ for an initial decision and 

maybe reviewed by the Commission.

In FY 2015, 9 new private party complaints 

were filed and 1 new formal investigation 

was instituted. The Office of Administrative 

Law Judges (OALJ) issued 12 initial decisions, 

including 2 partial dismissals, 2 initial decisions on default, 5 initial decisions approving 

settlement, and 1 voluntary dismissal. The 

Commission issued 7 notices finalizing the 

ALJ’s decisions in private complaint cases 

and 3 notices finalizing the ALJ’s decisions 

in formal investigations. Two docket matters 

were adjudicated in the Commission’s favor 

during the fiscal year in United States Courts 

of Appeals by the Office of General Counsel.

The following summarizes the results of 

docketed proceedings concluded during FY 

2015 by the ALJs and the Commission.

Formal Investigations

Oceanic Bridge International, Inc. – 

Possible Violations of Section 10(a)

(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 [Docket 

No. 14-02]

On February 21, 2014, the Commission 

issued an Order of Investigation and Hearing 

to determine whether Oceanic Bridge violated 

section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41102(a), by knowingly and willfully obtaining ocean transportation at less than the rates 

and charges otherwise applicable by accessing 

services contracts on which it was not a signatory or named affiliate. Oceanic Bridge did not 

file an answer, respond to an order to show 

cause, or respond to BOE’s motion for decision on default. On October 21, 2014, the ALJ 
42 54th Annual Report

issued an Initial Decision on Default finding 

that Oceanic Bridge violated section 10(a)(1) 

on 49 shipments and assessing a civil penalty 

of $392,000. On November 21, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice Not to Review and 

the decision became administratively final.

Metro Freight Services, Inc. d/b/a 

Maritime Express Lines – Possible 

Violations of Section 19(e)(3) of the 

Shipping Act of 1984 and 46 C.F.R. Part 

515, LLC, [Docket No. 14-13]

On September 29, 2014, the Commission 

issued an Order of Investigation and Hearing to determine whether respondent Metro 

Freight Services, Inc. d/b/a Maritime Express 

Lines (Metro Freight), a licensed OTI, violated 

the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. § 40904(c), by failing to notify the Commission promptly after 

the death of its qualifying individual (“QI”) 

and failing to seek and obtain approval of a 

replacement QI and whether it violated the 

Act by receiving freight forwarder compensation from a common carrier for shipments in 

which Metro Freight had a direct or indirect 

beneficial interest. On February 19, 2015, the 

ALJ issued an Initial Decision approving the 

settlement agreement between the BOE and 

Metro Freight. On March 23, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice Not to Review and 

the decision became administratively final.

Huntington International, Inc., JC 

Horizon Ltd., and Judy Lee – Possible 

Violations of Sections 10(a)(1) and 19 

of the Shipping Act of 1984 [Docket 

No. 14-05]

On June 4, 2014, the Commission issued an 

Order of Investigation and Hearing to determine: (1) whether Huntington International, 

previously licensed as an OTI violated provisions of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 40901, 

40902, 40904, § 41102(a), and 46 C.F.R. Part 

515, by continuing to operate as an OTI after 

its license had been revoked, by collecting 

freight forwarder compensation on shipments 

in which Judy Lee, an officer and director of 

the company, had a beneficial interest, and by 

sharing compensation with JC Horizon and 

Judy Lee; and (2) whether JC Horizon and Judy 

Lee violated 46 U.S.C. § 41102(a) by knowingly 

and willfully obtaining ocean transportation 

at less than the rates and charges that would 

otherwise apply by directing Huntington 

International to pay to Respondents monies 

derived from freight forwarder compensation 

paid by ocean common carriers that transported Respondent JC Horizon’s shipments. 

On July 7, 2014, Respondents Judy Lee and JC 

Horizon filed an Answer denying the allegations, asserting affirmative defenses, and filing 

a counterclaim under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Respondent Huntington International 

did not enter an appearance in this proceeding. 

On September 10, 2014, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision granting BOE’s motion to dismiss 

claims against Huntington International with 

prejudice and approving a settlement agreement with a $300,000 monetary payment from 

the remaining respondents. On October 15, 

2014 the Commission issued a Notice Not to 

Review and the decision became administratively final.
54th Annual Report 43

Private Complaints

Yakov Kobel and Victor Berkovich 

v. Hapag-Lloyd A.G., HapagLloyd 

America, Inc., Limco Logistics, Inc., 

and International TLC, Inc. [Docket 

No. 10-06]

This proceeding was initiated by a complaint filed with the Commission on July 

6, 2010, alleging that Respondents violated 

various sections of the Shipping Act. After discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and briefing, 

on February 14, 2012, an Initial Decision was 

issued dismissing the complaint. On July 12, 

2013, the Commission issued an Order Vacating Initial Decision In Part and Remanding 

for Further Proceedings. On July 30, 2014, the 

ALJ issued an Initial Decision on remand finding that the Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41102(c) of the Shipping Act, and ordering 

that the Respondents be jointly and severally 

liable to the Complainants for a reparation 

award of $126,072. On August 12, 2014, the 

Commission served a notice that it would 

review the decision. Exceptions to the ALJ’s 

decision were filed on September 22, 2014. 

On May 26, 2015, the Commission entered 

an order imposing liability on several respondents, including Limco Logistics, Inc., and 

International TLC, Inc. Limco requested that 

the Commission reconsider its decision. At the 

end of the fiscal year, the matter was pending 

before the Commission.

Maher Terminals, LLC v. The Port 

Authority of New York and New Jersey 

[Docket No. 12 02]

On March 30, 2012, Maher Terminals, LLC, 

filed a complaint alleging that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“PANYNJ”) 

violated the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 

41102(c), 41106(2), 41106(3), and 41106(1), 

because PANYNJ: (a) has and continues to fail 

to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices relating to 

or connected with receiving, handling, storing 

or delivering property; (b) gave and continues 

to give an undue or unreasonable prejudice or 

disadvantage with respect to Maher and gave 

and continues to give an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage with respect to 

Maersk, APM, MSC, PNCT, NYCT, and Global, 

and other marine container terminal operators 

and ocean carriers; (c) has and continues to 

unreasonably refuse to deal or negotiate with 

Maher; and (d) has and continues to agree 

with another marine terminal operator or 

common carrier to boycott and/or unreasonably discriminate in the provision of terminal 

services to a common carrier. PANYNJ filed a 

motion to dismiss arguing that the proceeding 

should be dismissed for a number of reasons, 

including failure to plead a plausible violation of the Shipping Act. On January 30, 2015, 

the ALJ issued an Initial Decision granting 

the motion to dismiss, which dismissed all 

pending claims in the proceeding. Maher filed 

exceptions to the Initial Decision and the proceeding is pending before the Commission.
44 54th Annual Report

Streak Products, Inc., and SYX Distribution, Inc. v. UTi, United States, Inc. 

[Docket No. 13-04]

On April 12, 2013, Streak, a shipper, filed 

a complaint alleging that UTi violated three 

sections of the Shipping Act: (1) 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41104(2) by charging Streak rates greater 

than those stated in its published tariff; (2) 

46 U.S.C. § 41104(4) by charging Streak rates 

greater than those it charged other shippers; 

and (3) 46 U.S.C. § 40501 by failing to keep 

open to public inspection in its tariff system 

tariffs showing all its rates, charges, classifications, rules, and practices between all points 

or ports on its own route and any through 

transportation route that has been established. 

Leave was granted to amend the Complaint to 

include Streak’s affiliate SYX Distribution. On 

September 10, 2014, the ALJ entered an Initial 

Decision approving the parties’ Confidential 

Settlement Agreement and General Release. 

On October 15, 2014 the Commission issued a 

Notice Not to Review and the ALJ’s decision 

became administratively final.

Global Link Logistics, Inc. v. HapagLloyd AG [Docket No. 13-07]

On September 10, 2013, Global Link, an 

NVOCC, filed a Complaint alleging that 

Hapag Lloyd, a VOCC, violated the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 41102(c), 41104(3), and 

41104(10) when it refused to renegotiate rates 

established by a service contract during the 

life of the contract. Hapag Lloyd moved to 

dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a 

claim. On April 17, 2014, the ALJ issued an 

Initial Decision granting the motion to dismiss, 

holding that the Complaint failed to state a 

claim of violation of the Act. On May 27, 2014, 

Global Link filed exceptions to the Initial Decision. On April 14, 2015 the Commission issued 

an Order approving a settlement agreement 

between the parties and the proceeding was 

dismissed.

Edaf Antillas, Inc. v. Crowley Caribbean Logistics, LLC; IFS International 

Forwarding, S.L.; and IFS Neutral 

Maritime Services [Docket No. 14-04]

On April 28, 2014, Edaf Antillas filed a 

complaint with the Commission alleging that 

Respondents violated the Shipping Act by 

permitting non-compliant cargo to be placed 

in a container with compliant cargo causing 

delay of Edaf Antillas’s shipment and by failing to correct the problem in a timely manner 

after the container arrived in Puerto Rico. On 

November 6, 2014, the ALJ granted a motion 

to dismiss in part, but found that the Complaint stated a claim that Respondents failed 

to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices relating to 

or connected with receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property in violation of 46 

U.S.C. § 41102(c). On December 8, 2014, the 

Commission issued a Notice Not to Review 

the dismissal.

Complainant Edaf Antillas failed to file 

its brief on the merits, and the ALJ issued an 

order to show cause to which Edaf Antillas 

did not respond. On April 15, 2015, the ALJ 

issued an Initial Decision dismissing the proceeding for failure to prosecute. The Initial 

Decision also addressed the applicability of a 

new provision in the Shipping Act permitting 

an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party. 

On May 18, 2015, the Commission issued a 

Notice Not to Review the dismissal. Prevailing 
54th Annual Report 45

Respondents filed petitions for attorney fees 

to be decided by the ALJ pursuant to 46 C.F.R. 

§ 502.254.

Santa Fe Discount Cruise Parking, Inc., 

d/b/a EZ Cruise Parking, Lighthouse 

Parking, Inc., and Sylvia Robledo d/b/a 

81st Dolphin Parking v. The Board of 

Trustees of the Galveston Wharves 

and the Galveston Port Facilities Corporation [Docket No. 14-06]

Respondents operate the cruise terminal 

at the Port of Galveston. Complainants operate parking facilities near the Port where 

they provide parking for passengers who 

embark on cruises from the cruise terminal. 

As part of their service, Complainants provide 

transportation to the Port. On June 16, 2014, 

Complainants filed a complaint alleging that 

Respondents’ tariff imposing charges on Complainants’ shuttles transporting passengers to 

and from the terminal violated three sections 

of the Shipping Act. On November 21, 2014, 

the ALJ granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss claims under two sections of the Act, but 

denied dismissal of claims under 46 U.S.C. § 

41106(2), finding that the Complaint stated 

a claim that Respondents gave an undue or 

unreasonable preference or advantage or 

imposed an undue or unreasonable prejudice 

or disadvantage with respect to Complainants. 

On December 23, 2014, the Commission issued 

a Notice Not to Review the partial dismissals and the decision became administratively 

final. At the close of FY 2015, the ALJ’s Initial 

Decision on the remaining claim was pending.

Econocaribe Consolidators, Inc. v. 

Amoy International, LLC, [Docket No. 

14-10]

On August 11, 2014, Econocaribe Consolidators, Inc. filed a complaint alleging that 

Respondent Amoy International, LLC violated 

numerous sections of the Shipping Act and 

Commission regulations in connection with 

shipment of auto parts detained by Chinese 

customs. On September 9, 2014, Amoy filed its 

Answer denying the allegations. The parties 

engaged in discovery, filed numerous motions, 

and briefed the merits of the proceeding. The 

parties eventually reached a settlement agreement that they submitted for approval. On 

September 2, 2015, the ALJ issued an Initial 

Decision Approving Joint Settlement and 

Granting Motion to Dismiss. The time to file 

exceptions or for the Commission to review 

to the decision had not expired at the close 

of FY 2015.

Mark Barr v. Ocean Trade Lines, Inc. 

[Docket No. 14-14]

On November 13, 2014, Mark Barr filed a 

complaint alleging that Ocean Trade Lines 

violated the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 

41102(c), 41104(2), 41104(3), and 41104(4), by 

failing to publish a tariff and to adhere to tariff 

publishing requirements and by failing to 

adhere to just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory practices regarding its cancellation and 

refund policies with respect to international 

ocean transport of Complainant’s yacht. On 

November 19, 2014, the Commission’s BOE 

filed a motion seeking leave to intervene. On 

February 19, 2015, the ALJ issued an Initial 

Decision approving the settlement agreement. 
46 54th Annual Report

On March 23, 2015, the Commission issued a 

Notice Not to Review and the decision became 

administratively final.

Baltic Auto Shipping, Inc. v. Michael 

Hitrinov a/k/a Michael Khitrinov and 

Empire Unite Lines Co., Inc. [Docket 

No. 14-16]

On November 28, 2014, Baltic filed a complaint alleging that on several thousand 

shipments between November 2007 and January 2012, Empire, an NVOCC, violated several 

sections of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 

41102, 41104, 40501, and 46 C.F.R. Part 515, by 

charging rates not set forth in a tariff, charging 

Baltic rates greater than rates charged other 

shippers, and by failing to provide Baltic with 

shipping documents. Baltic sought a reparation award. All shipments began and almost all 

were delivered more than three years before 

Baltic filed its complaint. Empire moved for 

a summary decision dismissing the claim for 

a reparation award, arguing that the claim 

was barred by the statute of limitations. On 

September 15, 2015, the ALJ held that based 

on the material facts not in dispute, Baltic’s 

claims accrued more than three years before 

Baltic filed the complaint and were barred. It 

was also determined that no other relief was 

warranted, and the complaint was dismissed. 

The time to file exceptions to the decision had 

not expired at the close of FY 2015.

Okoye Christian Ogochukwu v. 

Emeka Onyechi d/b/a Donem International, LLC, [Docket No. 1945(F)]

Complainant alleged violations of the 

Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), related to 

shipment of nine pieces of medical equipment 

to Nigeria. Respondent received the equipment in Africa, but would not release it to 

Complainant’s consignee until storage fees 

were paid. On April 8, 2015, the ALJ issued 

an initial decision approving a settlement 

between the parties. On May 11, 2015, the 

Commission issued a Notice Not to Review 

the dismissal and the decision became administratively final.

Smartstone Private Limited v. General 

Noli USA, Inc. and Savino Del Bene 

Freight Forwarders (India) PVT LTD 

[Docket No. 1946(F)]

On August 5, 2014, Smartstone Private 

Limited filed an informal complaint against 

General Noli USA, Inc. and Savino Del Bene 

Freight Forwarders (India) Pvt. Ltd. The 

complaint alleged that Respondents violated 

the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 41102(c), and 

41106(2). Smartstone asserted that the Respondents released a shipment of granite slabs 

shipped from Bangalore, India, to Houston, 

Texas, without obtaining the original bill of 

lading. In their Answer, Respondents denied 

the allegations in the complaint and raised 

14 affirmative defenses. On July 16, 2015, a 

joint motion seeking approval of a settlement 

agreement, dismissal of the complaint, a stay 

of the briefing schedule, and a confidential 

settlement agreement were filed by the parties. 

On July 22, 2015, an Initial Decision Approving Proposed Settlement Agreement was 

issued. On August 24, 2015, the Commission 

issued a Notice Not to Review and the decision became administratively final.
54th Annual Report 47

ShemiTrans, LLC v. Rose Containerline, Inc. [Docket No. 1950(F)]

On May 18, 2015, ShemiTrans filed a small 

claims complaint alleging violation of the 

Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c). Rose Containerline filed an objection to small claims 

adjudication. ShemiTrans then filed a request 

to dismiss the proceeding voluntarily. The 

Chief Judge assigned the proceeding to an 

ALJ for formal adjudication. On July 9, 2015, 

the ALJ granted the request for voluntary dismissal. On August 11, 2015, the Commission 

issued a Notice Not to Review and the decision became administratively final.

Litigation

The following docket matters were litigated during the fiscal year in United States 

Courts of Appeals by the OGC on behalf of 

the Commission.

Chief Cargo Services, Inc. v. Federal 

Maritime Commission, [Docket No. 

10-08], United States Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit

On November 1, 2013, Chief Cargo Services, 

Inc., filed a petition for review of the Commission’s Order in FMC Docket 10-08, Bimsha 

International v. Chief Cargo Services, Inc. & 

Kaiser Apparel, Inc., upholding the ALJ’s 

initial decision holding that by the release of 

three shipping containers, without requiring 

presentation of the original bills of lading, 

Chief Cargo failed to fulfill its obligations as 

an NVOCC, thereby violating section 10(d)

(1) of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c). 

The ALJ also ordered Chief Cargo to “cease 

and desist releasing cargo without requiring presentation of an original bill of lading.” 

On April 24, 2014, Chief Cargo filed its Joint 

Appendix, Brief, and Special Appendix. Chief 

Cargo questioned the jurisdiction of the Commission to hear and adjudicate Bimsha’s claim 

of violations of the Shipping Act; argued that 

the Commission improperly found violations 

of the Shipping Act; and argued that the 

Commission improperly issued a cease and 

desist order. On June 20, 2014, the Commission and the United States filed a joint brief. 

Oral Argument was held on September 30, 

2014, and the Second Circuit handed down 

an opinion affirming the Commission, and 

denying the petition on October 2, 2015.

The Auction Block Co. v. City of 

Homer, [Docket No. 12-03], United 

States Court of Appeals for Ninth 

Circuit

On April 2, 2012, Complainants, the Auction Block Company (Auction Block) and 

Harbor Leasing, LLC (Harbor Leasing) filed 

a complaint with the Commission against 

Respondents, The City of Homer (City) and 

the Port of Homer (Port), alleging violations 

of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 40101 et seq. 

Complainants alleged that the City and Port 

were MTOs that violated the Shipping Act 

through unreasonable prejudice or preference, refusal to deal, and unfair practices, 46 

U.S.C. §§ 41106(2)-(3), 41102(c). In a May 20, 

2013 Initial Decision, the ALJ dismissed all of 

Complainants’ claims against Respondents 

with prejudice, finding that the Commission 

lacked jurisdiction. On August 12, 2014, the 

Commission upheld the Initial Decision of 

the ALJ dismissing Auction Block’s complaint 
48 54th Annual Report

for lack of jurisdiction. On August 22, 2014 

the Auction Block Company filed a Petition 

for Review of the Commission Order with 

the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit heard oral 

argument in May 2015, and issued a decision 

affirming the Commission and denying the 

petition three weeks later.

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. v. The 

Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey [Docket No. 11-12], United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

On August 5, 2011, nine vessel-operating 

common carriers filed a complaint alleging 

that the Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey (PANYNJ) violated the Shipping Act 

by imposing a cargo facility charge. Eight 

complainants withdrew from the proceeding, 

leaving only Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. (“K” 

Line). On February 5, 2014, the ALJ dismissed 

the Complaint because “K” Line willfully 

failed to provide discovery. On March 31, 2014, 

“K” Line filed exceptions to the dismissal, and 

the Commission entered an order affirming 

the dismissal on November 20, 2014. “K” Line 

filed a Petition for Review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. With the briefing deadline pending, 

“K” Line withdrew the petition.

Lisa Anne Cornell and G. Ware Cornell, Jr. v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. 

(Corp), Carnival plc, and Carnival Corporation, [Docket No. 13-02], United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit

On January 30, 2013, complainants filed a 

complaint alleging that Respondent cruise 

ship lines refused to permit them to sail on 

their cruise ships in violation of section 10(b)

(10) of the Act, 46 U.S.C. § 41104(10). The 

controversy stemmed from a dispute over a 

refund of money paid to a fine arts auction 

company that operates on the cruise ships 

after Lisa Cornell cancelled a purchase of 

works of art. Complainants had been involved 

in litigation for several years in Florida courts 

with the auction company, an affiliate of the 

cruise lines. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment. 

On July 23, 2013, the ALJ issued a summary 

Initial Decision dismissing most claims, but 

found that respondent Princess violated section 10(b)(10) and entered a cease and desist 

order. The ALJ found that Complainants did 

not meet their burden of offering evidence 

that they had suffered actual injury as a result 

of the violation. On August 14, 2013, both 

parties filed exceptions to the decision. On 

August 28, 2014, the Commission issued an 

Order reversing in part, affirming in part, and 

vacating in part the Initial Decision and dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the 

ground that Princess Cruise Lines and other 

respondents did not violate the Shipping Act. 

The Complainants filed a Petition for Review 

in the D.C. Circuit, and the parties filed briefs. 
54th Annual Report 49

Oral argument was scheduled for October 2, 

2015. At the end of the fiscal year, the matter 

was pending before the D.C. Circuit.

Maher Terminals, Inc. v. The Port 

Authority of New York and New Jersey 

[Docket No. 08-03], United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit

Maher leases land and facilities at the Elizabeth Port Authority Marine Terminal from the 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

(PANYNJ) for use as a marine terminal. On 

June 3, 2008, Maher filed a complaint alleging that PANYNJ violated the Shipping Act, 

46 U.S.C. §§ 41106(2) and (3) and 41102(c), 

because PANYNJ: (a) gave and continues to 

give an undue or unreasonable prejudice or 

disadvantage with respect to Maher as compared to APM Terminals North America, Inc. 

(APM), another marine terminal operator; (b) 

gave and continues to give an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage with respect 

to APM; (c) continues unreasonably to refuse 

to deal or negotiate with Maher; and (d) continues to fail to establish, observe, and enforce 

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

handling, storing, or delivering property. In 

January 2013, the Commission granted partial 

summary judgment to the Port, finding that 

some of Maher’s requested relief was barred 

by the Commission’s statute of limitations. 

Maher appealed this decision to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

The Commission’s OGC filed a motion to dismiss, and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal 

in June 2013. The Commission subsequently 

denied Maher’s motion for reconsideration 

of the summary judgment order, and again 

successfully defended its decision before the 

D.C. Circuit, which dismissed Maher’s second 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction in July 2014, by 

granting the Commission’s motion to dismiss. 

While the summary judgment issue was pending on appeal, the ALJ rejected Maher’s claims 

on the merits in an Initial Decision dated April 

25, 2014 determining that PANYNJ did not 

violate the Act and dismissed Maher’s claims. 

The Commission issued a decision affirming 

the ALJ December 17, 2014. The claimants filed 

a Petition for Review in the D.C. Circuit in 

February 2015. The parties filed briefs, and at 

the end of the fiscal year, the matter was still 

pending before the D.C. Circuit.

Procedural Rule Updates

The Commission updated several of its procedural rules this year concerning proceeding 

and information requests at the Commission.

Dismissals of Actions, Final Rule, 

Docket No. 14-12 (79 FR 76901)

The Commission amended its rules governing dismissals of actions by complainants, 

by order of the presiding officer, and by 

respondents when complainant fails to prosecute to reflect the Commission’s intent to 

adhere to its long-standing policy of reviewing settlements by adding language to clarify 

that when a voluntary dismissal is based on a 

settlement agreement, the agreement must be 

submitted for approval by the Commission.
50 54th Annual Report

Service of Private Party Complaints 

and Documents Containing Confidential Materials, Direct Final Rule, 

Docket No. 15-01 (80 FR 14318)

The Commission amended its rules to 

clarify instructions to parties in proceedings 

concerning service of documents and filing of 

confidential documents.

Access to Commission Information 

and Records; Freedom of Information Act, Direct Final Rule, Docket No. 

15-05 (80 FR 52638)

The Commission amended its regulations 

governing access to Commission information 

and records and its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act to update 

and revise procedures for processing FOIA 

requests, to modify the criteria for a FOIA 

request to qualify for expedited processing, and to extend the administrative appeal 

deadline.

Time and Service in Adjudicatory Proceedings, Direct Final Rule, Docket 

No. 15-09 (80 FR 57305)

The Commission amended its rules concerning time and service in adjudicative 

proceedings to improve consistency across 

various processes and increase efficiency for 

parties to proceedings.

Attorneys Fees, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, Docket No. 15-06 (80 FR 

38153)

The Commission proposed to amend its 

rules governing the award of attorney fees in 

Shipping Act complaint proceedings, and its 

regulations related to Commissioner terms 

and vacancies. The propose changes would 

implement amendments made by the Howard 

Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014.
54th Annual Report 51

APPENDICES

A - FMC Organization Chart
52 54th Annual Report

B - FMC Senior Officials

Chief of Staff Mary T. Hoang

Counsel to Commissioner Dye Edward L. Lee, Jr.

Counsel to Commissioner Lidinsky Jewel Jennings-Wright

Counsel to Commissioner Khouri John A. Moran

Counsel to Commissioner Doyle David J. Tubman, Jr.

General Counsel Tyler J. Wood*

Secretary Karen V. Gregory

Chief Administrative Law Judge Clay G. Guthridge

Director, Office of Consumer Affairs & Dispute Resolution Services Rebecca A. Fenneman

Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Howard F. Jimenez**

Inspector General Jon Hatfield

Managing Director Vern W. Hill

Deputy Managing Director Vacant

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing Sandra L. Kusumoto

Director, Bureau of Enforcement Peter J. King

Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis Florence A. Carr

*Assumed position in April 2015

**Assumed position in June 2015
54th Annual Report 53

C - Statement of Appropriations, Obligations 

and Receipts

Appropriations

For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission, as authorized by § 201(d) of 

the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. § 307), including services as authorized 

by 5 U.S.C. § 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 1343(b); and 

uniforms or allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. §§ 5901-5902, $25,660,000. Provided, 

That not to exceed $2,000 shall be available for official reception and representation expenses.

Public Law 113-76 $25,660,000

Total Budgetary Resources $25,660,000

Obligations and Unobligated Balance:

Net obligations for salaries and expenses 

for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015

$25,642,375

Statement of Receipts:

Deposited with the General Fund of the Treasury for the Fiscal 

Year Ended with September 30, 2015:

Publications and reproductions, fees and 

vessel certification, and freight forwarder 

applications

$247,302

Fines and penalties $2,052,500

Total general fund receipts $2,299,802
54 54th Annual Report

D - Civil Penalties Collected

Sea Central Shipping Corp. $85,000

Unipac Shipping Inc. $75,000

Ri-Time Logistic Corp. $35,000

JHJ International Transportation Co Ltd. $65,000

CTS International Logistics Corp Ltd. $50,000

Hughes International LLC. $75,000

Oceanic Bridge International Inc. $75,000

Blue Cargo Group LLC. $105,000

C. H. Robinson Project Logistics Inc. $25,000

Oriental Logistics Group Ltd. $100,000

Sea Gate Logistics Inc. $80,000

Falcon Maritime and Aviation Inc. $85,000

City Ocean International Inc., et al. $325,000

United Arab Shipping Co. (S.A.G.) $537,500.00

Hyundai Logistics (USA) Inc $100,000.00

Metro Freight Services Inc. $100,000.00

Siem Car Carriers AS $135,000.00

Total: $2,052,500.00