SUPPLY CHAIN INNOVATION INITIATIVE

Washington, DC 20573

December 5, 2017

The Honorable Michael A. Khouri

Acting Chairman

Federal Maritime Commission

800 N. Capitol St., NW

Washington, DC 20573

Dear Acting Chairman Khouri and fellow Commissioners,

As provided in the Commission’s Order of February 1, 2016, it is my privilege to present to the 

Commission the Final Report on the Commission’s Supply Chain Innovation Teams initiative. Working 

closely with our six Supply Chain Innovation Teams has been enlightening and worthwhile. I have included 

with this report a list of the FMC Import and Export Innovation Leaders, Port Authority Advisors, Trade 

Association Supporters and Academic and Business Advisors that participated in the project.

To the concern of many, the international freight delivery system for U.S. exports and imports 

strains against the current demands placed upon it. Even single events, such as a storm or a labor dispute 

that impacts one node in the supply chain, can have systemic consequences that impose significant costs 

on the U.S. economy. Without a stronger and more dependable international commercial supply chain, 

the United States may fail to realize our greatest potential for robust economic growth and 

competitiveness.

Just prior to hosting the Commissions’ Gulf Ports Forum in 2014, I had returned from leading a 

discussion group of shipping executives at the Danish Maritime Forum in Copenhagen. I shared with the 

New Orleans group that, in Copenhagen, we found no easy answers to the international problem of supply 

chain inefficiency. Rather, the Copenhagen group determined that solutions require continual adaptation 

to the dynamic requirements of global trade.

There were two notable outcomes of the FMC port forums that led to the Commission issuing the 

Order to launch the Innovation Teams I was proud to lead. The first was that there is no single solution 

to the challenge of greater international supply chain performance. Second, the industry, especially 

trucking interests, wanted the Federal Maritime Commission to continue its leadership role in facilitating 

communications among all stakeholders in the international transportation system. 

By the very nature of our mission, the Commission is in a unique position to draw American 

business leaders together to actively assess solutions to international supply chain challenges. Our 

primary responsibility to enforce ocean transportation competition for the benefit of the American 

consumer extends our commercial understanding beyond the maritime sector to the needs of American 

shippers. Very simply, there is no other agency that has the same commercial perspective and credibility 

across all sectors of transportation service providers involved in the international movement of ocean 

containers. 
As you know, six FMC Supply Chain Innovation Teams—three focusing on import trades and three 

focusing on export trades—began deliberations last year. At the outset, I challenged each Team to meet 

one clear goal: Step “out of your enterprise silo” and develop one commercial operational innovation to 

increase American international supply chain reliability and resilience. Presented with this challenging 

task, the Teams made substantial progress in relatively few meetings. 

Our Teams, as the attached Final Report explains, determined that greater visibility of critical 

information across the American freight delivery system was the one operational innovation that would 

most increase U.S. international supply chain performance. It was not about information technology per 

se – but an effort to (a) achieve changes in perspective and in behavior to “harmonize” the operation of 

the freight delivery system and to (b) increase systemic efficiency and performance. Without the right 

information, supply chain actors are essentially “flying blind.”

The Port of Los Angeles, which participated on our Import Teams, has undertaken an important 

supply chain information pilot project in conjunction with General Electric. Their willingness to unilaterally 

undertake this innovative effort as a way to increase supply chain efficiencies is commendable. I am 

closely following the progress of this project. The Federal Maritime Commission Agreement authority 

under the Shipping Act of 1984 may be useful if other ports in the country wish to become part of a this 

effort. 

Based on these last eighteen months of working with some of the sharpest and most 

knowledgeable industry leaders in the country, I believe that a National Seaport Information Portal is the 

key to increasing the performance of the U.S. international freight delivery system. In this regard, the 

Innovation Teams’ work will be recognized as an important step toward providing a critical and timely 

boost to American economic growth.

In closing, I would like to express my appreciation for the interest in, and support from, our House 

and Senate oversight committees for our Supply Chain Innovation Teams initiative. 

 I would also like to thank the Commission staff members whose participation was invaluable to 

the project. These include Robert Blair, Joel Graham, Roy Pearson, Dylan Richmond, Christine 

Stavropoulos, and Susan Uhlendorf.

 Finally, a well-deserved thanks to the remarkable industry leaders who devoted their time and 

resources to this project.

Respectfully submitted,

 Rebecca F. Dye, Commissioner
Table of Contents

I. THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION’S ROLE................................................... 1

II. COMMISSIONER DYE’S CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 3

A. International Supply Chain is a complex ecosystem .................................................... 3

B. Small Teams/Process Innovation.................................................................................. 5

C. Value Proposition: Visibility of Critical Information................................................... 5

D. National Seaport Information Portal............................................................................. 5

III. COMMISSIONER DYE’S RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 6

IV. INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN AS COMPLEX SYSTEM.................................... 6

V. FMC SUPPLY CHAIN INNOVATION TEAMS............................................................ 14

VI. INCREASED RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE THROUGH VISIBILITY OF 

INFORMATION............................................................................................................... 17

A. Critical Information, Not Just More Data ................................................................... 19

B. National Seaport Information Portal........................................................................... 21

VII. UNRESOLVED SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES.................................................................... 23

A. Export Supply Chain Mapping and Research............................................................. 23

B. Extended Terminal Gate Programs............................................................................. 23

C. Export Container Availability and Booking Integrity ................................................ 23

VIII. PORT DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS.................................................................................. 24

IX. FMC INNOVATION LEADERS..................................................................................... 27

X. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 29

XI. SUPPLY CHAIN ORDER ............................................................................................... 32
1

I. THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION’S ROLE

For over one hundred years, the United States has relied on the Federal Maritime 

Commission (and its predecessor agencies) to enforce competition in the U.S. international ocean 

transportation of goods. The Commission does so by implementing and enforcing the Shipping 

Act and other statutes.1 The purpose of the Shipping Act, among other things, is to “provide an 

efficient and economic transportation system in the ocean commerce of the United States that is, 

insofar as possible, in harmony with, and responsive to, international shipping practices.”2

Congress likewise charged the Commission with “promot[ing] the growth and development of 

United States exports through competitive and efficient ocean transportation and by placing a 

greater reliance on the marketplace.”3

In addition to its programmatic responsibility to ensure an efficient ocean commerce 

system, the Commission has working relationships with most key stakeholders in the commercial 

supply chain. The Commission enforces the Shipping Act’s competition regime, which involves 

the activities of ocean carriers, ports, marine terminal operators, and ocean transportation 

intermediaries, for the benefit of American consumers.4It also regularly interacts with exporters 

and importers, drayage trucking companies, chassis providers, railroads, and port labor. In so 

doing, the Commission has developed an informed perspective on the commercial realities of the 

freight delivery system. 

This expertise has enabled the Commission to play an important role in addressing various 

supply chain-related issues. In addition to holding port forums in 2014,

5

the Commission expedited 

the implementation of amendments to port and terminal agreements aimed at enhancing the 

efficient flow of cargo.6In February 2016, the Commission hosted a listening session with U.S. 

Coast Guard officials to address exporter uncertainty about implementing the International 

Maritime Organization’s new rules on verified container weight.7 More recently, the Commission 

relaxed regulatory requirements for service contract filing.8 And when Hanjin Shipping Company

declared bankruptcy in September 2016, negatively impacting chassis availability, drayage 

 

1 See 46 U.S.C. §§ 301-308, 40101-44106.

2 46 U.S.C. § 40101(2).

3 46 U.S.C. § 40101(4). 

4 See, e.g., 46 U.S.C. §§ 41102, 41104, 41106, 40301-40307, 40901-40904. 

5 See Part II, infra.

6

International Ocean Transportation Supply Chain Engagement 3 (Fed. Mar. Comm’n Feb. 1, 2016) (order), 

available at https://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/Page/OrderSupplyChainEngagement.pdf [hereinafter Supply Chain Order]

(citing The Los Angeles and Long Beach Port Infrastructure and Environmental Programs Cooperative Working 

Agreement (FMC No. 201219), West Coast MTO Agreement (FMC No. 201143), Pacific Ports Operational 

Improvements Agreement (FMC No. 201227), Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (FMC No. 202-

011284), and Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Terminal Operator Administrative and Implementation Agreement (FMC 

No. 201178)). 

7 Fed. Mar. Comm’n, Listening Session on SOLAS Scheduled for February 18, 2016, The Federal Maritime 

Commission Newsroom, Feb. 10, 2016,

https://www.fmc.gov/listening_session_solas_amendments/?F_All=y&Archive=y. 

8 Final Rule, Amendments to Regulations Governing Service Contracts and NVOCC Service Arrangements, 82 Fed. 

Reg. 16288-16297 (Apr. 4, 2017), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-04-04/pdf/2017-06557.pdf. 
2

trucking, and marine terminal operations, the Commission provided guidance and information to 

affected Americans.9

Consequently, when supply chain actors expressed frustration about bottlenecks in the 

American freight delivery system to the Commission at port forums in 2014, the “bottom-line” 

was not whether the FMC should become involved, but rather how it could best add value. The 

agency considered, but rejected, options such as exploring additional regulations, establishing an 

advisory committee, and convening a stakeholder summit. 

From the outset, the Commission recognized that additional government regulations were 

not the answer. The port forum participants had already indicated that they had little appetite for 

governmental prescriptions or requirements.10 Further, the Commission understood that the 

complex nature of the freight delivery system meant that any new regulation carried a substantial 

risk of unintended negative consequences. In particular, the Commission did not want to duplicate 

or impede efforts by local port performance task forces to address supply chain bottlenecks or to 

second-guess the decisions of port officials.11

In short, the Commission found it more appropriate to serve as a catalyst for stakeholderidentified commercial solutions. It could assist by bringing industry leaders together in small teams 

to “roll up their sleeves” and actively engage in order to develop commercial improvements in the 

U.S. international supply chain. 

This approach was reflected in a February 1, 2016, Commission Order that directed 

Commissioner Rebecca Dye to engage supply chain stakeholders in discussions to identify 

commercial solutions to unresolved supply chain issues that interfere with the smooth operation 

of the United States international supply chain.12 It also authorized the Commissioner to form “a 

supply chain innovation team, composed of leaders from all commercial sectors of the U.S. 

international supply chain, to develop commercial solutions to port congestion and related supply 

 

9 Fed. Mar. Comm’n, Statement Regarding Status of Hanjin Shipping, The Federal Maritime Commission 

Newsroom, Sept. 1, 2016, updated Sept. 8, 2016,

https://www.fmc.gov/NR16-17/?CategoryId=20&Month=9&Year=2016&Archive=y; Fed. Mar. Comm’n, FMC 

Establishes Protocol for All Public Communications Related to Hanjin Shipping Disruptions, The Federal Maritime 

Commission Newsroom, Sept. 2, 2016, 

https://www.fmc.gov/NR16-18/?CategoryId=20&Month=9&Year=2016&Archive=y.

10 Fed. Mar. Comm’n, U.S. Container Port Congestion & Related International Supply Chain Issues 70 (2015), 

available at http://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/Page/PortForumReport_FINALwebAll.pdf [hereinafter FMC Congestion 

Report]. 

11 Id. at 69 (“Local task forces and work groups at several ports have made encouraging progress in identifying port 

congestion challenges and in providing forums for members of their port community to be heard, discuss their common 

interests, and search for workable solutions.”); see also id. at 73. 

12 Supply Chain Order, supra note 6, at 4. Although the Order focused on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 

stakeholder interest led to the inclusion of other ports, such as New York/New Jersey, Houston, Charleston, and 

Seattle/Tacoma.
3

chain challenges.”13 Although the team meetings would be nonpublic, Commissioner Dye would 

provide periodic updates as well as a preliminary and final report.14

II. COMMISSIONER DYE’S CONCLUSIONS

Although presented with a challenging task – improving the reliability and resilience of a 

complex, international freight delivery system of vital importance to the Nation’s economy – the 

Supply Chain Innovation Teams made substantial progress. Their work can be continued and 

refined in concept, and it supports the following conclusions:

A. International Supply Chain is a complex ecosystem

1. The United States international supply chain is a complex, dynamic ecosystem, and the 

operational interdependence of the actors within it renders the system vulnerable to

cascading disruption.

2. The simultaneous interactions within and without the system make it difficult to 

develop solutions to individual supply chain challenges in isolation from each other.

3. Major systemic challenges include:

The lack of direct customer relationships between actors in this system (such as 

shippers and terminals) impedes cooperative problem-solving, exacerbates disruptions 

(decreasing systemic reliability) and makes recovering from disruptions more difficult 

(decreasing systemic resilience). Where direct customer relationships exist between 

actors in the system, there is a commercial vehicle to harmonize the supply chain by 

addressing disruptions.

Note that marine terminals, shippers, and chassis providers have customer relationships 

with carriers, but not with each other.15 The absence of direct customer relationships 

makes it more likely that a marine terminal and a shipper or chassis provider may work 

at cross purposes. 

Team members pointed out that there may be tension between a terminal’s desire to 

increase container throughput velocity and a shipper’s need for a reasonable window 

within which to retrieve or deliver its container.

 

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Port of Long Beach Business Development Division. 
4

4. Lack of mutual commitment or “skin-in-the-game” is an impediment to realizing the 

full benefits from customer relationships that exist in the system, including regarding 

service contracting and export container availability. In this regard, one Export 

Innovation Team recommended a “premium customer” option to deal with the problem 

of export container availability and carrier booking integrity.

16

5. Other complications include diverse port and terminal business models, varying 

governance structures and priorities, and differing state and federal government 

regulatory approaches.

6. In a system as complex and interdependent as the 

U.S. international supply chain, U. S. port directors 

strive to exert influence and develop port 

efficiencies beyond the terminal gates.17

 

“Treat everybody as 

your customer.” 

Port Director Interview 

16 See Part IV, infra. 

17 In conjunction with the Supply Chain Innovation Initiative, Commissioner Dye interviewed the directors of 

major U.S. container ports. See Part IV, infra.
5

B. Small Teams/Process Innovation

1. The best approach to international supply chain system innovation is from a broad 

systems perspective within small teams of industry leaders that “step out of their 

enterprise silos” and consider upstream and downstream freight delivery operations.

2. Small, multi-stakeholder teams of industry leaders are essential to promote active 

engagement among supply chain actors and create conditions that support process 

innovation. They can be adapted as a model for continued FMC discussions and for 

commercial supply chain planning projects around the country.

3. Moreover, as one of the Export Teams demonstrated, the small-teams approach can be 

used to address specific supply chain challenges, for example, the link between export 

container availability at booking and no-show bookings.

C. Value Proposition: Visibility of Critical Information

1. Increasing visibility of critical information among supply chain actors is the process 

innovation that would provide the greatest improvement to performance of the 

American international supply chain. 

2. Many supply chain inefficiencies result from poor information availability, inaccurate 

information, or untimely information. Without timely, critical information, supply 

chain actors are “flying blind.”

3. Access to critical information will compensate for supply chain complexity and 

promote behavioral “self-correction” in the system.

4. Most important, visibility is enhanced when accurate, timely, critical information, not 

maximum data, is shared throughout the freight delivery system.

D. National Seaport Information Portal

1. Critical information may be shared via a national seaport information portal that is 

adaptable for use by any port in the country. The portal would display standardized, 

critical information via dashboards that are customizable, real-time, and secure.

2. The Port of Los Angeles/General Electric supply chain information project is an 

excellent example of ways in which supply chain actors can leverage critical 

information and technology.

3. The goal of a National Seaport Information Portal is to change operational behavior of 

actors in the commercial freight delivery system, providing a boost to the performance 

of the American freight delivery system.
6

4. The Commission’s Agreement authority under chapter 403 of title 46, United States 

Code, could be useful to allow ports to cooperate within a National Seaport Information 

Portal.

III. COMMISSIONER DYE’S RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of these conclusions, and as authorized by the Commission’s Order of February 1, 

2016, Commissioner Dye recommends that:

A. The Commission engage with U.S. seaports and other supply chain actors, trade 

associations, academic organizations, and others experts, to promote the commercial 

development of a National Seaport Information Portal for the collection and dissemination 

of critical supply chain information;

B. The Commission continue to sponsor working groups using the small teams approach to 

address commercial supply chain challenges, especially to support further development of

the Export Teams’ recommendation for a premium customer option concerning container 

availability;

C. The Commission promote and encourage academic and industry-sponsored commercial 

supply chain research;

D. The Commission promote and encourage supply chain mapping efforts, especially for U.S. 

exports; 

E. The Commission continue to actively engage with port directors and others on a regular 

basis to encourage development of commercial solutions to supply system challenges; and 

F. The Commission accept this final report, make it publicly available, and discontinue the 

International Ocean Transportation Supply Chain Engagement proceeding.

IV. INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN AS COMPLEX SYSTEM

The complexity of the U.S. commercial supply 

chain and the interdependence of its actors not only 

make the system vulnerable to cascading disruption,18

but also make possible solutions to these operational 

challenges less obvious. This situation was made 

evident by serious bottlenecks at the Nation’s largest 

 

“If any one element of 

the supply chain breaks 

down, the whole supply 

chain stops.” 

Port Director Interview 

18 See, e.g., Thomas J. Goldsby, Deepak Iyengar & Shashank Rao, The Definitive Guide to Transportation 7 (2014) 

(“When one level in the supply chain experiences delays and problems, it impacts the abilities of downstream members 
7

seaports in recent years.19 In 2013-2014, severe winter weather caused the closure of terminals and 

a backlog of containers at the Port of New York and New Jersey and other ports.20 Moreover, in 

July 2014, the labor agreement covering most West Coast port workers expired and was not 

renewed until February 2015.21 Although port work continued during that time, backed-up vessels 

sat at anchor in the San Pedro Bay and loading and unloading of cargo was delayed.22

These supply chain disruptions had adverse economic consequences, such as increased 

transportation costs, decreased revenue, and reduced United States international competitiveness.23

Cargo delays increased freight distributions costs, forcing 

shippers to increase order fulfillment lead times and 

inventory levels.24 Moreover, shippers lost revenue due to 

slowed production, missed opportunities, increased stockouts, and delayed introduction of new products.25 Cargo 

bottlenecks also led to spoiled and untimely agricultural 

exports.26 Shippers diverted their cargo away from 

gridlocked ports and terminals to other ports, including 

Canadian ports.

27 Supply chain delays increased the costs 

of ocean carriers.28 Truckers were particularly susceptible to the effects of disruptions in the 

freight delivery system because delays directly reduced driver and truck productivity.29

 

“The trucker is a key 

part of the supply 

chain; if drivers aren’t 

healthy, the industry 

isn’t healthy.”

Port Director Interview 

of the supply chain to serve their customers. For this reason, the larger economy is affected when transportation 

disruptions occur.”).

19 Although the phrase “port congestion” is often used in this context, this is not to say that cargo bottlenecks that 

occur at ports are necessarily caused by ports or marine terminal operators.

20 FMC Congestion Report, supra note 10, at 59, 69, 75; Fed. Mar. Comm’n, Rules, Rates, and Practices Relating to 

Detention, Demurrage, and Free Time for Containerized Imports and Exports Moving through Selected United States 

Ports 26 (2015), available at https://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/Page/reportdemurrage.pdf; see also Port of New York & 

New Jersey, Port Performance Task Force: A Collaborative Effort for a Collective Change 4, 9, 22 (2014), available 

at https://www.panynj.gov/port/pdf/pptf-final-report-june-2014.pdf.

21 See, e.g., Chris Dupin, ILWU, PMA Reach Contract Agreement, American Shipper, Feb. 23, 2015, 

https://www.americanshipper.com/main/news/news-flash-ilwu-pma-reach-contract-agreement-59534.aspx; Bill 

Mongelluzzo, West Coast Ports Claw Back Market Share Lost to Diversions, Journal of Commerce, Sept. 24, 2015, 

https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port-los-angeles/west-coast-ports-claw-back-market-share-lostdiversions_20150924.html.

22 See, e.g., Dupin, supra note 21; Eric Kulisch, West Coast Port Backlog Could Take Weeks to Unwind, American 

Shipper, Feb. 11, 2015, https://www.americanshipper.com/main/news/west-coast-port-backlog-could-take-weeks-tounwind-59440.aspx.

23 FMC Congestion Report, supra note 10, at 78.

24 Id.; Kulisch, supra note 22 (noting that importers and exporters complained to Congress of delayed shipments and 

extra transportation costs and fees). 

25 FMC Congestion Report, supra note 10, at 78; Kulisch, supra note 22; Joseph Bonney, Federal Reserve Report 

Notes US West Coast Port Delay Impact, Journal of Commerce, Jan. 13, 2015, https://www.joc.com/node/2906001

(noting that retailer Lululemon Athletica told investors that congestion would cost it $10 million in revenue).

26 Supply Chain Order, supra note 6, at 2; Kulisch, supra note 22.

27 FMC Congestion Report, supra note 10, at 78; Mongelluzzo, supra note 21.

28 FMC Congestion Report, supra note 10, at 78.

29 Id.
8

In response to the bottlenecks at several major seaports, the Commission held a series of 

regional port forums in San Pedro, California (West Coast Port Forum), Baltimore, Maryland 

(Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Port Forum), Charleston, South Carolina (South Atlantic Port 

Forum), and New Orleans, Louisiana (Gulf Coast Port Forum), between September and November 

2014. Each forum was hosted by at least one Commissioner and operated as a listening session 

with panels of port officials, ocean carriers, truckers, warehouses, shippers, marine terminal 

operators, stevedoring companies, ocean transportation intermediaries, and port labor. The 

participants shared their views on the causes and consequences of supply chain problems, 

responded to the concerns of other participants, and suggested solutions.30

The Commission’s report on the forums, Port Congestion & Related International Supply 

Chain Issues: Causes, Consequences, and Challenges, emphasized the importance of port

efficiency to America’s ocean-borne commerce, and more broadly, to the U.S. economy as a 

whole. At the Gulf Ports forum, the participants advocated for national-level efforts by experienced 

executives from all segments of the freight delivery system to develop commercial solutions to 

supply chain problems.31 At that forum, Commissioner Dye also suggested a dedicated port and 

supply chain planning framework that would involve all international supply chain commercial 

stakeholders.

Recognizing the Commission’s unique substantive expertise and experience with the U.S. 

international transportation system, FMC port forum participants pressed the Commission to 

remain involved in commercial supply chain efficiency efforts.32 Truckers had on several 

occasions requested greater Commission involvement.Although the congestion crisis had receded, 

the Commission determined that it should actively assist commercial efforts to deal with 

unresolved supply chain problems.

A reliable and resilient freight delivery system is vital to the United States’ economic 

health. As pointed out by Rose George in Ninety Percent of Everything, her illuminating account 

of the container shipping industry, “nearly everything” moves by sea.33 Presently, the United States

is the number one importer and number two exporter in the world.34 The value of U.S. merchandise 

imports and exports in 2016 amounted to $2.2 and $1.4 trillion, respectively, giving the United 

States 13.9 percent of the world’s total imports of merchandise and 9.1 percent of the world’s total 

exports.35 As of 2016, international trade in goods made up 19 percent of the Nation’s gross 

 

30 See generally FMC Congestion Report, supra note 10, at 6-8.

31 See id. at 69-70, 73-74, 78. 

32 Id. at 73, 74. 

33 Rose George, Ninety Percent of Everything 3 (2013).

34 Cent. Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, United States, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/geos/us.html (last visited Nov. 17, 2017).

35 World Trade Org., Trade Profiles 2017 380-81 (2017), available at

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/trade_profiles17_e.pdf; see also U.S. Bureau of Econ. Analysis, U.S. 

Dep’t of Commerce, U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services June 2017, at Exs.1, 5 (2017), available at

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2017/pdf/trad0617.pdf.
9

domestic product.36 Approximately 41 percent of this foreign trade by value, and approximately 

68 percent by weight, moved by water.37 Containerized ocean-borne cargo made up 25 percent of 

U.S. trade by value in 2016.38 According to the American Association of Port Authorities, “U.S. 

seaports generated nearly $4.6 trillion in total economic activity and more than $321 billion in 

federal, state, and local taxes in 2014.”39 In short, 

“[m]aintaining the effectiveness and reliability of 

America’s global supply chain is critically important to the 

Nation’s continued economic vitality.”40

International trade by sea is not expected to slow 

down. Trade carried by sea has quadrupled since 1970, and 

“[i]n 2011, the 360 commercial ports of the United States 

took in international goods worth $1.73 trillion, or eighty 

times the value of all U.S. trade in 1960.”41 This trajectory has continued apace, as total TEU42

volume has increased 17 percent since 2010. In 2016, the United States imported 20.8 million 

TEUs of cargo and exported 11.6 million TEUs. In fact, the Nation has set a record every year 

since 2011 in terms of total TEUs. The year 2017 is likely to see even higher container volumes

move through U.S. ports. In the first half of 2017, total U.S. containerized cargo increased by 4 

percent compared to the same period in 2016.43

Higher import and export volumes have led to steadily busier U.S. container ports. Since 

2010, container volumes at the Port of Long Beach have increased by about 8 percent.44 Los 

Angeles moved a record of over 8 million TEUs in 2016,45 and is on pace to surpass those totals 

 

“Supply chain 

optimization is key 

to the ability to stay 

competitive.”

Port Director Interview 

36 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, USA Trade Online, https://usatrade.census.gov/.

37 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, USA Trade Online, https://usatrade.census.gov/; cf. Bureau of 

Transp. Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Freight Facts and Figures 2015 16 (2015), available at 

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/FFF_complete.pdf. 

38 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, USA Trade Online, https://usatrade.census.gov/.

39 Am. Ass’n of Port Auth., Export, Jobs & Economic Growth, 

http://www.aapa-ports.org/advocating/content.aspx?ItemNumber=21150 (last visited Nov. 17, 2017); Martin Assoc., 

The 2014 National Economic Impact of the U.S. Coastal Port System (2015), available at http://aapa.files.cmsplus.com/US%20Coastal%20Ports%20Impact%20Report%202014%20methodology%20-

%20Martin%20Associates%204-21-2015%20(2).pdf; see also A. Strauss-Wieder, Inc., The Economic Impact of the 

New York-New Jersey Port Industry i (2014), available at

http://nysanet.org/wp-content/uploads/NYSA_Economic_Impact_2014V2 (noting that port industry operations led to 

190,100 direct jobs, 336,600 total jobs in the region, $21.2 billion in personal income, nearly $53.5 billion in business 

income, and close to $7.1 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues).

40 Supply Chain Order, supra note 6, at 2.

41 George, supra note 33, at 3. 

42 Containerized trade is commonly measured in Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units, or “TEUs.” One TEU is 

approximately twenty feet long, eight feet wide, and eight-and-a-half feet tall. Most marine/intermodal containers are 

forty feet in length, or 2 TEUs. 

43 IHS Markit—PIERS data.

44 Port of Long Beach, Yearly TEUs, http://www.polb.com/economics/stats/yearly_teus.asp (last visited Nov. 17, 

2017).

45 The Port of Los Angeles, TEU Statistics (Container Counts), https://www.portoflosangeles.org/maritime/stats.asp

(last visited Nov. 17, 2017).
10

in 2017.46 Ports on the U.S. East and Gulf coasts have seen even more robust growth since 2010. 

The Port of New York-New Jersey, the third-largest U.S. port by container traffic, increased its 

containerized volume by 18 percent from 2010 to 2016.47 The Port of Savannah saw container 

traffic increase by 29 percent,48 Norfolk by 40 percent,49 and Charleston by 46 percent.50 On the 

Gulf Coast, the Port of Houston moved 20 percent more containers in 2016 than it did in 2010.51

And in October 2017, Los Angeles set a world record with the call of the MAERSK EVORA, which 

loaded and unloaded a total of 24,846 TEUs during its visit to the port, the most containers ever 

moved in a single port call.52

All this activity supports American businesses and jobs. Almost 408,000 American 

companies exported or imported goods in 2015, and nearly 98 percent of U.S. exporters and 97 

percent of U.S. importers were small- or medium-sized businesses.53 Exports of manufactured 

goods supported approximately seven million American jobs in 2015, and exports of agricultural 

products, natural resources, and used products supported hundreds of thousands of additional 

jobs.54 The importance of the international freight delivery system to U.S. employment can be seen 

at seaports, where cargo activity is vital to regional employment.55

The economic significance of the U.S. international commercial supply chain is rivalled by 

its complexity. The American international supply chain is a freight delivery system that 

distributes cargo from one point to another. Physical transportation of cargo is central to this 

process, but the supply chain can also include activities such as manufacturing, finance and 

financial compliance, communications, human resources, and marketing.56 Additionally, every 

company in America’s freight delivery system has its own individual supply chain. For the 

purposes of this report, however, “supply chain” refers to the U.S. international ocean container 

freight delivery system.

 

46 Id.

47 Port of New York and New Jersey, 2016 Trade Statistics (2017), available at

https://www.panynj.gov/port/pdf/2005-2016-Historical-Trade-Stats-summary.pdf.

48 Georgia Ports Auth., By the numbers, 

http://www.gaports.com/Portals/2/Market%20Intelligence/Monthly%20TEU%20Throughput%20September%20201

7.pdf (last visited Nov. 17, 2017).

49 The Port of Virginia, Port Stats, http://www.portofvirginia.com/about/port-stats/ (last visited Nov. 17, 2017).

50 South Carolina Ports, Statistics, http://www.scspa.com/about/statistics/ (last visited Nov. 17, 2017). 

51 Port Houston, Statistics, http://porthouston.com/portweb/about-us/statistics/ (last visited Nov. 17, 2017).

52 Peter Buxbaum, Container Record Broken at Port of Los Angeles, Global Trade, Oct. 31, 2017, 

http://www.globaltrademag.com/global-logistics/container-record-broken-port-los-angeles.

53 Int’l Trade Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, U.S. Trade Overview 2016 10 (2017), available at

https://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/build/groups/public/@tg_ian/documents/webcontent/tg_ian_005537.pdf.

54 Int’l Trade Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Jobs Supported by State Exports 2015 2, 6 (2016), available at

https://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/build/groups/public/@tg_ian/documents/webcontent/tg_ian_005503.pdf; Int’l Trade 

Admin., U.S. Trade Overview 2016, supra note 53 at 9.

55 The American Association of Port Authorities states that “[s]eaport cargo activity supports the employment of 

more than 23 million people in the United States – an increase of 9.8 million since 2007.” Am. Ass’n. of Port Auth., 

supra note 39.

56 Intermodal Transportation: Moving Freight in a Global Economy 40-42 (Lester A. Hoel, Genevieve Giuliano & 

Michael D. Meyer eds., 2011).
11

This system consists of interrelated organizations that continually affect one another, 

simultaneously and sometimes in unforeseen ways. It is international in scope and includes 

shippers (exporters and importers, also known as “beneficial cargo owners” or BCOs),57 ocean 

transportation intermediaries such as freight forwarders and non-vessel-operating common 

carriers,58 port authorities,59 marine terminal 

operators, port labor, carriers such as ocean carriers 

(shipping lines), rail carriers (railroads), and motor 

carriers (trucking companies),60 warehouses, and 

chassis providers. Each of these supply chain actors 

has a specific role to play, as described by the 

Government Accountability Office below:61

 

“The supply chain system 

works 7 days a week, 24 

hours a day.”

Port Director Interview 

57 The Shipping Act defines “shipper” as “(A) a cargo owner; (B) the person for whose account the ocean 

transportation of cargo is provided; (C) the person to whom delivery is made; (D) a shippers’ association; or (E) a 

non-vessel-operating common carrier that accepts responsibility for payment of all charges applicable under the tariff 

or service contract.” 46 U.S.C. § 40102(22). 

58 See 46 U.S.C. § 40102(16), (18), (19); 46 C.F.R. § 515.2(m). 

59 Ports are often divided into “operating ports” which “actually administer or contract directly for the services 

provided to ocean carriers and cargo owners, including stevedoring (the loading and unloading of ships),” and 

“landlord ports,” which lease terminals to marine terminal operators. Intermodal Transportation, supra note 56, at 51. 

The Shipping Act’s definition of “marine terminal operator” is broad enough to include operating and landlord ports. 

See 46 U.S.C. § 40102(14).

60 The Commission exercises programmatic oversight over common carriers, and the Shipping Act distinguishes 

between non-vessel-operating common carriers and “ocean common carriers,” i.e., vessel-operating common carriers. 

46 U.S.C. § 40102(6), (16), (17).

61 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, West Coast Ports, at App. II (2016), available at

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680719.pdf. 
12

Although these actors tend to focus on their own companies and industries, they also work 

closely with one another. With respect to a single shipment, an importer may interact with an ocean 

carrier, railroad, trucker, port authority, marine terminal operator, and various government 

authorities. The intricacy of the relationships in the freight delivery system is apparent from the 

following: 62

 

62 Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory: Supply Chain Mapping. 
13
14

V. FMC SUPPLY CHAIN INNOVATION TEAMS

The FMC Supply Chain Innovation Teams initiative focused on two concepts: teamwork 

and incremental process innovation.63 This initiative involved small, committed Teams of major 

company leaders exchanging ideas and debating creative proposals for supply chain 

improvements.64 In refining this approach (and continuing throughout the course of the initiative) 

Commissioner Dye consulted a variety of academic and business resources and experts in supply 

chain management, process innovation, transportation research, and business teams.65 For 

example, Commissioner Dye consulted with Dr. Dean Egli and his colleagues at the Johns Hopkins 

Applied Physics Laboratory; the University of Denver Transportation Institute; MIT’s Center for 

Transportation and Logistics; the New York Shipping Exchange; and Strategic Mobility 21.

This research emphasized: (a) the importance of stakeholders moving beyond individual 

organizational silos, (b) the effectiveness of small teams (five to twelve individuals), and (c) that 

the smooth and predictable flow of cargo is more important to the effectiveness of the supply chain 

than maximizing velocity in any given segment of the chain.66 It also highlighted the need for 

visibility within a supply chain and the problems associated with data overload. 

Adapting academic research on high performing teams,67 Commissioner Dye organized 

small teams of committed, experienced industry leaders from a broad range of supply chain 

segments that would meet in-person to identify supply chain challenges and develop and 

implement process innovations. As compared to other approaches, the small, multi-stakeholder 

teams offered several advantages:

• Teams small enough to ensure direct, meaningful, creative interaction among members, 

but large enough to include all relevant supply chain voices;

 

63 “Process innovation” involves “new or significantly improved methods, equipment or skills used to perform [a] 

service.” The Innovation Policy Platform, Product and Process Innovation, 

https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/product-and-process-innovation (last visited Nov. 17, 2017). 

“Incremental innovation concerns an existing product, service, process, organization or method whose performance 

has been significantly enhanced or upgraded.” The Innovation Policy Platform, Radical and Incremental Innovation, 

https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/radical-and-incremental-innovation (last visited Nov. 17, 2017).

64 See, e.g., Patrick Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (2002).

65 A selected bibliography is included in this Report.

66 See generally Walter Isaacson, The Innovators (2015); Stanley McChrystal, Team of Teams: New Rules of 

Engagement for a Complex World (2015); Jeanne Liedtka, Robert Rosen & Robert Wiltbank, The Catalyst (2009); 

Jim Rice, How Many Supply Chain Innovations Are Truly Revolutionary? Supply Chain 24/7, Jan. 19, 2014, 

http://www.supplychain247.com/article/how_many_supply_chain_innovations_are_truly_revolutionary; Lencioni, 

supra note 64.

67 See, e.g., Lencioni, supra note 64.
15

• Participation from across the length of the supply chain, thereby encouraging members 

to look at the supply chain systemically 

rather than from within individual company 

and industry silos; 

• Participation by industry executives who not 

only have valuable perspectives to 

contribute but who would also be able to 

implement changes within their respective 

organizations; and 

• Non-public discussions to encourage candid 

engagement - balanced by periodic public 

reports by Commissioner Dye at open 

Commission meetings and other public forums.

Teams were directed to focus on process innovations. Research has shown that most 

innovation in supply chain management is not revolutionary but rather incremental: it builds on 

existing achievements, methods, and technologies and takes the form of incremental advances over 

time.68 Consequently, the Teams were not focused on 

so-called radical or disruptive innovation.69 Rather,

Commissioner Dye encouraged the Teams to take 

advantage of past successes and focus on 

“transformation” or progressive innovation - realistic, 

actionable improvements to current processes or 

operations.70 The Teams were expected to align 

supply chain processes among all key actors, focusing 

on improving reliability and resilience of the overall 

freight delivery system. 

Per the Commission’s February 1, 2016, order, Commissioner Dye began organizing a 

Supply Chain Innovation Team in 2016. Due to high levels of industry interest, Commissioner 

Dye ultimately convened six Teams, each with seven to twelve members drawn from a crosssection of relevant supply chain actors, including importers, exporters, public port authorities, 

marine terminal operators, shipping lines, ocean transportation intermediaries, drayage trucking 

companies, railroads, chassis providers, and longshore labor. Because the import and export legs 

of America’s international supply chain differ significantly, the Commissioner divided the 

 

“If a supply chain actor 

stays in its silo, it risks 

becoming an 

impediment rather 

than a catalyst of 

cargo movement and 

the attendant 

economic growth.”

Port Director Interview 

“Problems are solved by a 

combination of people 

sitting down, talking 

about solutions, and 

focusing on the tactical 

and the strategic.”

Port Director Interview 

68 Rice, supra note 66; see also The Innovation Policy Platform, Radical and Incremental Innovation, supra note 

63 (noting that “[i]ncremental innovation is the dominant form of innovation”).

69 A disruptive innovation “is an innovation that has a significant impact on a market and on the economic activity 

of firms in that market.” The Innovation Policy Platform, Radical and Incremental Innovation, supra note 63. 

70 Cf. Lars Jensen, Line Shipping 2025: How to Survive and Thrive 12 (2017) (“When we are looking towards 

2025, transformation is a more apt description than disruption.”).
16

initiative into an import phase (phase one) and an export phase (phase two). Each phase involved 

three Teams. Because different types of ports face different challenges, the Teams included both 

landlord ports and operating ports,71 as well as large ports and midsize ports.72 A general 

breakdown of the makeup of the Teams is as follows:

The Supply Chain Innovation Teams Initiative launched in May 2016 with two days of 

Import Team meetings at the Commission’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. Commissioner 

Dye asked the Teams to step outside of their enterprise silos and focus on the global supply chain 

from a systemic perspective, that is, to think in terms of a complex system that consists of 

interrelated components that continually affect one another. She directed them to a common goal: 

develop one “actionable” supply chain process innovation that would increase U.S. commercial 

supply chain reliability and resilience.

The Commissioner excluded two subjects from the initiative: infrastructure investment and 

port performance metrics. Commissioner Dye also emphasized that the Teams were not being 

asked to draft policy papers or offer general industry suggestions devoid of specific 

implementation recommendations. 

The Import Teams met separately and independently from May 2016 to August 2016 in 

Washington, D.C., and elsewhere. The Commission also held various cross-team meetings among 

terminal operators, drayage companies, and chassis providers in September 2016 to work through 

issues specific to them. The results of these cross-team meetings were reported back to the full 

 

71 See supra note 59, defining landlord and operating ports. 

72 Every port that participated in the initiative is among the top-ten containerized ports in the United States. See 

Part IV, infra.

73 The Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma are separate entities, but they are both members of the Northwest 

Seaport Alliance, a marine cargo operating partnership established under FMC Agreement No. 201228, Port of 

Seattle/Port of Tacoma Alliance Agreement.

74 Seattle and Tacoma are landlord ports.

Phase One Phase Two

Supply Chain Involved U.S. Import U.S. Export

Nature of Shippers Large Retail Goods 

Companies

Agriculture / Commodity Exporters 

Port Size Very Large

(Los Angeles / Long Beach 

/ New York-New Jersey)

Midsize to Large

(Charleston / Houston / SeattleTacoma73)

Port Ranges Pacific Southwest and

Northeast Atlantic 

South Atlantic, Gulf, and 

Pacific Northwest

Port-Terminal Relationship Landlord Ports Operating and Landlord Ports74
17

Teams. During the course of the meetings, Commissioner Dye regularly updated the Commission 

at public meetings on the Teams’ progress, and the Commission established a webpage on its 

website to keep other interested parties informed.

The three Import Teams reconvened in Washington, D.C., for two days of meetings in 

October 2016, completing phase one. In December 2016, Commissioner Dye gave an interim 

status report to the Commission. The Commissioner reported that the Import Teams had: (1) 

decided to focus on improved supply chain visibility; (2) developed lists of critical information 

needed to improve operations; and (3) explored the concept of a national information portal. 

The three Export Teams met on July 11-12, 2017 in Washington, D.C. They adopted the 

goal developed by the Import Teams – better information visibility throughout the freight delivery 

system – and created lists of critical information needed to improve the reliability and resiliency 

of the export supply chain. The Export Teams also explored the concept of a national supply chain 

information portal and various practical considerations about how one might be implemented. 

They discussed a number of related supply chain issues as well, and one of the Teams held a 

follow-up meeting in September 2017. 

VI. INCREASED RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE THROUGH VISIBILITY OF 

INFORMATION 

Once Commissioner Dye “set the table” for Team discussions, the Teams agreed that 

increasing supply chain visibility was the operational innovation that would most improve supply 

chain reliability and resilience. Because enhanced visibility depends on the availability of timely 

and accurate critical information, both the Import and Export Teams identified supply chain actors’

unmet critical information needs and the operational improvements that would likely result from 

timely access to that information. The Teams also explored using information technology to make 

this critical information available via a national supply chain information portal.

At the outset, Commissioner Dye challenged the Import Teams to identify one specific 

actionable process innovation – building on past success – that they could collectively implement. 

Each Team member was to ask: “what can other supply chain actors do to allow me to increase 

my reliability?” The Teams were not expected to provide a “quick fix” to supply chain gridlock. 

Rather, they were to select a particular challenge and a realistic 

solution that could begin increasing supply chain reliability and 

resiliency. With this guidance, the Import Teams decided to 

focus on enhancing the visibility of timely and accurate critical 

information via a national information portal. The Export 

Teams subsequently adopted this focus in phase two of the 

initiative. 

“There is no one 

lever for fixing 

port problems.”

Port Director Interview 
18

In settling on improved supply information visibility as a goal, the Import Team members 

discussed a number of issues that they believed constrained the fluidity of cargo movement and 

interfered with making critical information available. The Teams also debated numerous other 

potential supply chain issues, such as appointment systems, equipment availability, and terminal 

gate hours.

The Import Teams nonetheless recognized that 

many problems were related to a lack of critical 

information. Shippers described the time period 

between a ship’s arrival at a port and the container being 

drayed out of the port as a “black box.” That is, shippers 

lacked information about the status of their containers 

once they reached the port or terminal. And even when 

information was available, Team members complained 

about its timeliness and accuracy. As one participant put 

it, “if you’re flying blind, you can only conform your behavior to what little you know.”

The Import Teams decided that increased access to information would enable supply chain 

actors to better align their business practices and more quickly “self-correct” when circumstances 

change. When information is visible, the solutions to problems are more self-evident. For example, 

better access to timely information could allow chassis providers to better forecast demand, leading 

to a more stable, less imbalanced, and better positioned chassis supply. Likewise, with more key 

information, marine terminal operators would have more 

lead time to allocate labor and equipment, and trucks could 

better schedule container pickups and dual moves. Marine 

terminal operators assured of chassis availability could also 

inform shippers of cargo pickup times with greater precision 

and certainty.

The Export Teams subsequently embraced the 

Import Team’s focus on information. The saw a lack of 

timely information as a major impediment to export supply chain actors’ planning ability. More 

complete and accurate information could lead to not only better forecasting, but a greater 

coordination between supply chain actors and better utilization of assets such as land, chassis, 

containers, and human resources.

In addition to the Teams’ work on supply chain visibility, the initiative gave rise to other 

benefits. The size and composition of the Teams allowed the Team members to gain greater insight 

into sources of supply chain inefficiencies and the business realities of other actors. And during 

their meetings, the participants engaged in give-and-take about myriad issues related to supply 

chain efficiency, reliability, and resilience. 

“A big challenge is 

access to information, 

obtaining information 

and distributing it to 

shippers.”

Port Director Interview 

“We need to avoid 

creating new choke 

points when 

reacting to existing 

choke points.”

Port Director Interview 
19

The insights gained by Team members into the business realities facing other supply chain 

actors were an invaluable benefit to the Innovation Teams. The diversity of supply chain 

challenges discussed by the Teams illustrates a key finding of this Report: the systemic complexity 

of the American freight delivery system makes it difficult to develop solutions in isolation.

Discussions of one complexity leads invariably to another interconnected challenge. 

A. Critical Information, Not Just More Data

Having identified supply chain visibility as the central focus, the members of the Import 

and Export Teams worked to identify each supply chain actor’s critical information needs. Because 

supply chain visibility requires the timely availability of accurate information, the participants 

deliberated on how to provide the right information, to the right person, at the right time, in order 

to more fully integrate and harmonize the supply chain system. 

The Teams were encouraged to look beyond data to critical, actionable information. Data 

involves the capture and recording of raw numbers about an event, condition, or entity based on 

observations that are collected according to some specific standard. Information, however, is the 

result of organizing and analyzing multiple data points 

in ways that produce meaningful patterns that allow 

users to understand, plan for, and act upon the events, 

conditions, or entities being studied. Team members 

noted that they often had access to data. Ports, 

terminals, and ocean carriers have large databases, which may be useful for their own business 

purposes. In some instances, importers collect fifty or more real-time data points, from cargo 

booking confirmation at origin to acceptance of return equipment by the destination terminal. But 

Team members recognized that raw data from different sources does not always assist them in 

interacting effectively with other actors and making key operational decisions. In some cases, too 

much non-critical data impede planning. Consequently, what they wanted was information that 

“moves the needle” – information that supports effective action.

The Teams emphasized that for critical information to be actionable, it had to be available 

and provided at the right time.75 As for availability, the issue was who had ready access to that 

information and could provide it to others. In some cases, it was less about creating new 

information and more about being smarter with the data that stakeholders already collect. As for 

timeliness, participants noted that even when they received information, such as changes to gate 

openings or closures, it often came too late for them to adjust accordingly. This did not mean that 

the Team members necessarily thought that “real time is always the right time.” Rather, they 

wanted information to be made available in time for the relevant actor to make use of it in planning 

operations or in reacting to changed circumstances.

 

75 Participants also noted that to be actionable, information must be accurate, and they critiqued the accuracy of 

various sources of information. 

“We measure everything.”

Port Director Interview
20

Based on their discussions, the Teams determined that they needed to identify: (a) the 

critical information needs of each supply chain actor; (b) which other actor had (or could develop) 

that information; and (c) the timing and most appropriate format for delivery of the information. 

The Import Teams developed “critical information grids” to structure further discussions. 

The Teams produced lists of the high-priority information needs of key supply chain actors. 

For example, importers were primarily concerned with information regarding container 

availability for pickup. This depends on information about, among other things: (i) vessel arrival; 

(ii) container off-loading; (iii) container yard storage; (iv) container documentation; (v) Customs 

and Border Protection hours and activities; (vi) terminal gate hours; and (vii) chassis availability. 

Exporters, for their part, were primarily concerned with empty container availability and how early 

a loaded export container could be returned to the marine or rail terminal. 

The Export Teams emphasized the variety of different information needs. For instance, an 

exporter of a temperature-sensitive agricultural product needs different information at different 

times than an exporter of nonperishable goods. 

Although the Teams only met a few times, and the development of critical information 

needs could be further refined, it was apparent that the concept of critical information could be 

used, in conjunction with an information portal, to develop actor-specific dashboards. Based on 

the Teams input during their initial meetings, examples of critical information that could be useful 

in these dashboards include:
21

B. National Seaport Information Portal 

Both the Import and Export Teams recognized that it was not enough to just identify the 

various supply chain actors’ critical information needs. For the key information to improve 

operations, there must be an effective delivery 

technology. As one participant put it, “information 

technology is the new infrastructure.” Building on the 

critical needs assessment, the Teams raised the 

possibility of developing a supply chain information 

portal to provide that critical information. The Teams’ 

focus was not on simply digitizing business processes; 

it was on what sort of portal would allow supply chain 

actors to align their business processes and change 

behavior. They also considered potential challenges in 

implementation, both technical and financial. 

The consensus was that supply chain visibility could be enhanced by a common portal for 

critical shipment information, possibly organized by dashboards tailored to the needs of each 

supply chain actor. The goal would be for a portal to provide end-to-end supply chain visibility, 

with controlled access to information that is specific to a transaction. The Teams largely agreed on 

the attributes of such a seaport information portal:

▪ Nationally Standardized Information: Focusing on supply chain visibility at a national level 

could incentivize standardization of terminology and information. A common, familiar 

solution to locating and navigating critical information would produce the most downstream 

value for those who operate in multiple gateways.76 That 

being said, regional variation and the diversity of the 

Nation’s ports could make a truly national portal difficult 

to implement. As a consequence, Team members 

mentioned potentially implementing a portal at one port 

before adapting it to ports nationally. The ongoing effort 

at the Port of Los Angeles, which was in part influenced 

by the Supply Chain Innovation Teams Initiative, is an 

example of how information can be leveraged.77

▪ Adaptable/Customizable: A portal and its associated dashboards would need to be 

customizable to take into account the different informational needs of different regions and 

supply chain actors. 

 

76 Team members also noted that a national-level focus could assist in obtaining funding for a portal. 

77 The Port of Los Angeles’ pilot of the project with GE began in November 2016. 

“The winning combo is 

systems process 

management, an 

infusion of information 

technology, and creating 

relationships.”

Port Director Interview

“When it comes to 

port policy, one 

size does not fit 

all.”

Port Director Interview
22

▪ Accessible: A portal would need to be accessible to all relevant actors in the supply chain. 

Some participants suggested that a portal could have “layered” access so that each actor could 

get, and provide, the specific information it needs. Others noted that certain methods of funding 

a portal, such as subscription fees, could affect accessibility, especially for small- and mediumsized shippers. Others noted that shipper association subscriptions could mitigate such 

concerns. 

▪ One-Stop Shop: For a portal to have significant value, it would need to consolidate critical 

information into a single interface. Presently, a supply chain actor often has to check multiple 

websites to obtain critical information. There was some suggestion that the portal function as 

a business intelligence “dashboard” – an at-a-glance management tool that presents critical 

information.

78

▪ Pushes Information: Participants believed that it would be beneficial for the portal to push 

desired information to a user rather than functioning solely as a query service. Others cautioned 

against notifications of every “hiccup” in the supply chain, as that could overwhelm users. 

▪ Interoperable: On the technical front, some Team members advocated making a portal that 

could network with other, existing information systems, especially those of individual ports. 

▪ Secure: The Teams were concerned with the cybersecurity of the portal. 

While supportive of a portal, the Teams also 

raised issues that would need to be addressed in an 

information portal project. At the technical level, the 

Teams noted that the large number of actors in the supply 

chain has contributed to a lack of standardized data and 

inconsistent data codes, reporting fields, and 

terminology. Another concern was whether a portal 

designed for the national level could affect competition 

among ports. 

Additionally, the Teams raised the question of 

who would manage, maintain, and fund a national supply 

chain portal. The Commission had made clear at the 

outset that the Teams should focus on private commercial solutions, taking the government out of 

the managerial equation. The Teams discussed the importance of getting buy-in from all the major 

stakeholders and of defining a value proposition for the portal. Funding was also a major topic of 

discussion because information technology may be costly. The Teams identified options such as 

cargo fees and self-funding the portal, i.e., access to the portal by subscription. All participants 

 

78 See, e.g., TechTarget, Business Intelligence Dashboard Definition, 

http://searchbusinessanalytics.techtarget.com/definition/business-intelligence-dashboard (last updated November 

2010) (“The essential features of a BI dashboard product include a customizable interface and the ability to pull realtime data from multiple sources.”). 

“Ports aren’t 

necessarily out to 

steal each other’s 

business; the goal is 

to create an efficient 

logistics chain for a 

container, and then 

the container will go 

where it will.”

Port Director Interview 
23

recognized that someone would need to pay for the supply chain improvements resulting from a 

national portal. Federal funds, however, were viewed as a potential source for initial funding.

VII. UNRESOLVED SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES

A. Export Supply Chain Mapping and Research

Export supply chain mapping was of particular interest to the Export Teams. The Team

members believed that high-level process mapping of the export supply chains could highlight 

“pinch points” and other areas of concern, enhance forecasting, and allow the development of best 

practices. The Team members suggested the possibility of getting assistance from academia 

regarding process mapping, the overall booking process, and terminal gate issues. 

B. Extended Terminal Gate Programs

During the first phase of the project, the licensed motor carrier members of the Import 

Teams met separately to discuss their common critical information concerns. Following these 

discussions, they met with the Import Team marine terminal operators and chassis providers about 

gate schedules, chassis availability issues, terminal appointments, and truck turn times.

The discussions were valuable to help refine critical information needs for marine terminal 

operators and chassis providers, as well as truckers. The wide-ranging discussions were also 

beneficial for general port operational efficiency purposes.

One Export Team demonstrated how the Innovation Teams approach could be adapted to 

tackle supply chain issues beyond the project’s 

supply chain visibility considerations. In addition 

to identifying their critical information needs, this 

Team took the opportunity to address expanded 

gate hours. The Team members agreed that ports 

and terminals should optimize day, week, and 

time-of-day cargo flow before exploring extended 

gates. And although they did not recommend a 

global best practice for offsetting the costs of 

extended terminal gate hours, the Team members 

explored several options that could be developed 

in the future. 

C. Export Container Availability and Booking Integrity 

This Export Team also used the Innovation Team approach to delve into the related issues 

of export container availability and booking integrity. As this Team and others noted, carriers have 

“Although what works in 

one port won’t necessarily 

work in another, achieving 

stakeholder buy-in for port 

initiatives requires trust 

and transparency and for 

stakeholders to see the 

value of a proposal.”

Port Director Interview 
24

long complained about exporters booking space on ships and then not showing up with the cargo. 

These “ghost” or “no-show” bookings lead to overbooking of ships and create a cascade of 

unnecessary costs in the supply chain. But as shippers have pointed out, they make multiple 

bookings against the same shipment as a hedge against container and vessel space unavailability; 

carriers accept bookings without any guarantee to the shipper that a container or space on a vessel 

will be available.79 As the participants noted, uncertain container and space availability leads to 

defensive overbooking, which itself can contribute to increased rolling of cargo in certain cases.

The participants agreed that solving these problems would require mutual accountability –

both shippers and carriers must not only be good stewards of the supply chain, but each must also 

put some “skin in the game.” The members of this Export Team proposed that:

1. Shippers should provide container fall-down information to carriers and cancel unused 

bookings 7-10 days in advance of the early return date to give ocean carriers the 

opportunity to offer the space and equipment to other shippers.

2. Ocean carriers should establish, on a trial basis, a premium customer option that would 

allow exporters to confirm vessel space and equipment availability and allow carriers to 

rely on a booking. Under this option, in exchange for an exporter paying a reasonable fee, 

an ocean carrier would:

a. Provide the exporter reconfirmation of space/equipment availability 7 days in 

advance of the early return date; and

b. Promise, to the greatest extent possible, that the exporter’s shipments would not be 

split or rolled.80

VIII. PORT DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS

In conjunction with the Supply Chain Innovation 

Teams Initiative, Commissioner Dye interviewed the 

directors of the largest United States container ports to obtain 

additional insight into the issues raised during the Team

meetings and the operations of the Nation’s supply chain.81

U.S. ports are key nodes in the freight delivery system, as the 

 

79 In addition to defensive overbooking, “ghost bookings” may result from commodity production problems, sales 

forecasting problems, and the pursuit of spot rates by shippers. 

80 A shipment is “split” when it is broken up into two or more smaller shipments that are transported on separate 

vessels. A shipment is “rolled” when a carrier moves the shipment to a later date. Selection of the “premium option” 

would not mean that all of a customer’s cargo would need to move on the same ship. Rather, the cargo would simply 

have to make the intended vessel or intended destination complete – without splits or rolls. 

81 The interviews occurred between phase one and phase two of the initiative. 

“The economic 

health of our 

Nation depends on 

the health of our 

ports.”

Port Director Interview
25

U.S. containerized trade is relatively concentrated.82 In 2016, the Nation’s top three container ports 

accounted for almost half of its containerized international trade, and the top ten container ports 

accounted for over 87 percent:83

Port Loaded TEUs (2016) Share of U.S. Total

1 Los Angeles 6,075,304 18.8%

2 Long Beach 4,638,543 14.3%

3 New York 4,458,220 13.9%

4 Savannah 2,865,170 8.8%

5 Seattle-Tacoma 2,344,060 7.2%

6 Norfolk 2,063,773 6.4%

7 Houston 1,787,713 5.5%

8 Oakland 1,649,912 5.1%

9 Charleston 1,597,099 4.9%

10 Miami 771,215 2.4%

All U.S. Ports Combined 32,400,534 100.0%

Commissioner Dye asked each Port Director interviewed for a SWOT (strengths, 

weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis of that director’s port. The port directors emphasized 

that U.S. ports are about more than simply maximizing revenue. They are engines for regional 

economic development, job creation, and developing a competitive environment for world trade. 

Port revenue is frequently reinvested in a port and its community. As one port director put it, “the 

economic health of our Nation depends on the health of our ports.” 

 

82 FMC Congestion Report, supra note 10, at 1-2.

83 IHS Markit—PIERS data. 
26

Much of that reinvestment, the port 

directors stated, is aimed proactively at addressing 

the supply chain inefficiencies that create cargo 

bottlenecks.84 Ports have prepared and are 

preparing for the larger ships coming through the 

expanded Panama Canal. They are exploiting 

existing technologies (e.g., shorthaul rail), 

exploring new technologies (e.g., freight shuttles, 

GeoStamp, active RFID), and enhancing 

workforce development. (e.g., partnering with 

schools and recruiting the next generation of port 

professionals). And while a port might not have 

direct commercial relationships with all stakeholders in the freight delivery system, it is important, 

according to one port director, to “treat everybody as your customer.” 

Consistent with the work of the Supply Chain Innovation Teams, the port directors focused on 

the importance of supply chain actors sharing information and aligning their activities. One port 

director noted that if a supply chain actor stays in its silo, it risks becoming an impediment rather 

than catalyst of cargo movement and the attendant 

economic growth. Heeding that lesson, the Port of Los 

Angeles, for example, borrowed from the work of the 

FMC’s Innovation Teams and focused on information 

sharing – “knocking down fences, both physical and 

virtual.” As another port director mentioned, the 

“winning combo” is process management, an infusion of 

information technology, and creating relationships. And, 

despite the challenges they face, the port directors were 

“bullish on the future” of their ports. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A well-deserved thanks to the remarkable industry leaders who devoted their time and resources 

to this project. Implementation of the work of the FMC Innovation Teams will provide a critical 

and timely boost to American economic growth. A list of the FMC Import and Export Innovation 

Leaders, Port Authority Advisors, Trade Association Supporters, and Academic and Business 

Advisors that participated in the project is included in this Report.

 

84 The port directors pointed out that some of the challenges they face are outside their control, such as geography 

and carrier decisions.

“Regardless of what 

the seas of change 

bring, ports are 

figuring out how 

they can serve all 

their stakeholders.”

Port Director Interview

“What can appear as 

congestion in some cases 

results from ports and 

terminals trying to prepare 

for the future while 

continuing to operate 

efficiently – it’s like changing 

tires on a moving car.”

Port Director Interview
27

IX. FMC INNOVATION LEADERS

Innovation Leaders (Import)

Port of Los Angeles

Port of Long Beach

Port of New York and New Jersey

Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA)

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd (America)

United Arab Shipping (North America)

Maersk Line

Long Beach Container Terminal 

SSA Marine

APM Terminals 

Port Newark Container Terminal NY/NJ

Walmart Stores

Best Buy

IKEA

Electrolux

Hasbro

J Crew Group, Inc.

Abercrombie & Fitch

Gemini Shippers

Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.

ILWU Local 13

ILWU Local 63

BNSF Railway

Union Pacific Railroad

Centric Parts, Inc.

Crane Worldwide Logistics, LLC

Mohawk Global Logistics

A.N. Deringer

APL Logistics

CMI/Cal Cartage

TGS Transportation

Best Transportation

Direct Chassis Link, Inc.

TRAC Intermodal

Innovation Leaders (Export)

South Carolina Ports Authority

Port of Houston Authority

Northwest Seaport Alliance

Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA)

Hamburg Sud North America, Inc.

MOL (America), Inc.

Evergreen Line

APL Logistics

Hapag Lloyd/UASC

Boise Cascade

Toyota Tsusho America

Bunge Limited

Allenberg Cotton

Derco Foods

The Scoular Company

Seaboard Foods

BOSSCO Trading

Anderson Hay and Grain 

Border Valley Trading

JBS, USA

Tyson Foods

Smithfield Foods

Dairy Farmers of America

Pacific Northwest Asia Shippers Association

US Shippers Association 

Lineage Logistics

North Point Development

Double River Forwarding, LLC

E*Dray 

International Bridge, Inc.

Damco 

IMC Companies

BNSF Railway

CSX

Norfolk Southern

Union Pacific Railroad

International Longshoreman & Warehouse 

Union
28

Port Authority Advisors

South Carolina Ports Authority

Port of Houston Authority

Northwest Seaport Alliance

Port of Los Angeles

Port of Long Beach

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Georgia Ports Authority

Virginia Port Authority

Port of New Orleans

Port of Oakland

Academic and Business Advisors

Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics 

Laboratory

MIT's Center for Transportation and 

Logistics

University of Denver, Transportation 

Institute

New York Shipping Exchange

Strategic Mobility 21

Center for Ports & Waterways, Texas A&M 

Transportation Institute

USC Center for Global Supply Chain 

Management

Virginia Tech, Pamplin College of Business

State University of New York – Maritime 

College

Massachusetts Maritime Academy

Freightgate, Inc.

The Tioga Group

Mi-Jack Products, Inc.

Atadex, LLC

Pier Truck

Global Logistics Associates

International Paper

Griffin Creek Consulting

Trade Association Supporters

Retail Industry Leaders Association

National Retail Federation

Agriculture Transportation Coalition

Waterfront Coalition

National Customs Brokers & Forwarders 

Association of America

Intermodal Motor Carriers Association

American Association of Railroads

Coalition for American Gateways and Trade 

Corridors

Intermodal Association of North America

Institute of Container Lessors

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company

International Longshore & Warehouse 

Union

American Association of Exporters and 

Importers

American Association of Port Authorities

N.Y. Shipping Association Inc.

Coalition for American Gateways and 

Corridors 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association

World Shipping Council

Harbor Trucking Association

National Association of Waterfront 

Employers
29

X. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

The books and articles listed below were consulted during various stages of the Supply Chain 

Innovation Initiative. They address maritime supply chain challenges, change leadership issues, 

and strategies to promote innovation from a variety of perspectives.

1. Ashkenas, R., & Spiegel, M. (2015). “Your innovation team shouldn’t run like a 

well-oiled machine”. Harvard Business Review.

2. Baluch, I. (2005). Transport logistics: Past, present and predictions. Dubai, 

UAE: Winning Books. 

3. Bossidy, L., Charan, R., & Burck, C. (2011). Execution: The discipline of 

getting things done. New York, NY: Crown Business.

4. Carlson, C., & Wilmot, W. (2006). Innovation: The five disciplines for creating 

what customers want. New York, NY: Crown Business. 

5. Dallemule, L., & Davenport, T. (2017). “What’s your data strategy?”. Harvard 

Business Review.

6. Egli, D. S. (2014). Beyond the storms: Strengthening homeland security and 

disaster management to achieve resilience. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

7. Federal Maritime Commission. (2015). U.S. port congestion & related 

international supply chain issues: Causes, consequences, & challenges. 

Washington, DC: Federal Maritime Commission.

8. George, B. (2009). Seven lessons for leading in crisis. San Francisco, CA: 

Jossey-Bass. 

9. George, R. (2013). Ninety percent of everything: Inside shipping, the invisible 

industry that puts clothes on your back, gas in your car, and food on your 

plate. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.

10. Goldsby, T. J., Iyengar, D., & Rao, S. (2014). The definitive guide to 

transportation: Principles, strategies, and decisions for effective flow of goods 

and services. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

11. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is 

hard. New York, NY: Crown Business.

12. Hoel, L., Giuliano, G., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2010). Intermodal transportation: 

Moving freight in a global economy. Washington, DC: Eno Center for 

Transportation.
30

13. Isaacson, W. (2015). The innovators: How a group of hackers, geniuses, and 

geeks created the digital revolution. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

14. Jensen, L. (2017). Liner shipping in 2025. Copenhagen: Vespucci Maritime 

Publishing.

15. Johnson Vickberg, S., & Christfort, K. (2017). “Pioneers, drivers, integrators, & 

guardians”. Harvard Business Review.

16. Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

17. Liedtka, J., Rosen, R., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). The catalyst: How you can 

become an extraordinary growth leader. New York, NY: Crown Business.

18. Lohr, S. (2015). Data-ism: Inside the big data revolution. London: Oneworld 

Publications.

19. Mangan, J. Lalwani, C., Bucher, T., & Javadpour, R. (2012). Global logistics 

and supply chain management (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

20. McChrystal, S., & Collins, T. (2015). Team of teams: New rules of engagement 

for a complex world. New York, NY: Portfolio.

21. McKeller, J. M. (2014). Supply chain management demystified. New York, NY: 

McGraw-Hill Education. 

22. Rodrigue, J., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2013). The geography of transport 

systems (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

23. Schilling, M. (2017). “What’s your best innovation bet?”. Harvard Business 

Review.

24. Schrage, M. (2011). “Smart innovators value smaller teams over better 

processes”. Harvard Business Review. 

25. Shearouse, S. H. (2011). Conflict 101: A manager’s guide to resolving 

problems so everyone can get back to work. New York, NY: American 

Management Association.

26. Song, D., & Panayides, P. (2012). Marine logistics: A guide to contemporary 

shipping and port management (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.

27. The Table Group. (2008). Right-sizing your team. Retrieved from 

https://www.tablegroup.com/blog/right-sizing-your-team
31

28. Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York, 

NY: Random House.

29. Transportation Research Board. (2015). Transportation research record: 

Journal of the Transportation Research Board: Marine transportation, port 

operations, and intermodal freight. Washington, DC: The National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

30. Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, MA: 

Harvard Business School Press.

31. Wilson, J. (2016). “Here’s how we should re-think the value chain”. Sourcing 

Journal.

32. Yücesan, E. (2016). Competitive supply chains: A value-based management 

perspective (2nd ed). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
32

XI. SUPPLY CHAIN ORDER

(S E R V E D)

( FEBRUARY 1, 2016 )

(FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION)

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

INTERNATIONAL OCEAN TRANSPORTATION 

SUPPLY CHAIN ENGAGEMENT

ORDER

Pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40101 et seq. (Shipping Act), the 

Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) regulates the U.S. international ocean 

transportation system that supports the transportation of goods by water. The purposes of 

the Shipping Act include the requirements to “provide an efficient and economic 

transportation system in the ocean commerce of the United States that is, insofar as 

possible, in harmony with, and responsive to, international shipping practices,” and also “to 

promote the growth and development of United States exports through competitive and 

efficient ocean transportation and by placing a greater reliance on themarketplace.”

In carrying out its broad responsibilities under the Shipping Act with respect to ocean 

common carriers, U.S. ports, marine terminal operators, ocean transportation intermediaries 

and the American exporters and importers they serve, the Commission has developed an 

understanding of and an expertise in evaluating the U.S. international supply chain. As the 

premier competition agency with oversight responsibilities for the United States foreign 

ocean transportation system, the Commission has extensive experience with global 

maritime and marine terminal innovation and efficiency issues.
33

Maintaining the effectiveness and reliability of America’s global supply chain is 

critically important to the Nation’s continued economic vitality. Approximately $980 billion of 

containerized ocean commerce moves through U.S. ports annually. Unfortunately, 

congestion and related bottlenecks at ports and other points in the Nation’s supply chain 

have become a serious risk to the growth of the U.S. economy, job growth, and to our 

Nation’s competitive position in the world. Past congestion at major U.S. ports has 

highlighted the impact of congestion on the U.S. economy. As a result, the U.S. economy 

suffered billions of dollars in losses to the supply chain.

In addition, congestion problems contributed to hundreds of millions of dollars in 

losses for U.S. agricultural exporters including poultry and meat farmers. Perishable fruit 

and vegetable exporters suffered when their cargo was not loaded onto ships and sent 

overseas within specific time frames.

Although the congestion crisis has receded, unresolved supply chain problems that 

could produce new challenges remain.

In response to those events, and the desire of affected parties to find ways to prevent 

or mitigate similar future occurrences, the Commission hosted four regional port forums 

during the fall of 2014, in San Pedro, CA (West Coast Port Forum), Baltimore, MD (MidAtlantic and Northeast Port Forum), Charleston, SC (South Atlantic Port Forum) and New 

Orleans, LA (Gulf Coast Port Forum). The forums brought together port officials, ocean 

carriers, trucking and warehousing service providers, beneficial cargo owners, marine 

terminal operators, stevedoring companies, ocean transportation intermediaries, and port 

labor to discuss and offer ideas to address port congestion. The comments and suggestions 

offered at those forums were summarized and developed in an FMC report entitled “U.S.
34

Port Congestion & Related International Supply Chain Issues: Causes, Consequences and 

Challenges” that was released in July 2015.

The report identified six major themes from the port forums: investment and planning; 

chassis availability and related issues; port drayage and truck turn times; extended gate 

hours, PierPASS, and congestion pricing; vessel and terminal operations; and supply chain 

planning, collaboration, and communication. Some of these topics involve longer-term

issues such as investment and planning. Others focus on short and medium-term concerns. 

All of them, however, are at the heart of current efforts by various groups to develop the 

flexible, resilient and reliable systems necessary for ensuring well-functioning international 

supply chains.

The Commission has also advanced port and marine terminal efforts to improve 

supply chain efficiency by expediting the implementation of port and terminal amendments 

aimed at enhancing the efficient flow of cargo. For example, several port and marine terminal 

operator agreements on file with the Commission that cover the Pacific Coast ports, commit 

the parties to exploring measures for achieving improvements with regard to congestion, 

efficiency, fluidity, and other operational conditions.*

Given the economic importance of reliable port and terminal operations to the 

effectiveness of the United States international supply chain, and the Commission’s 

mandate to ensure an efficient and economic transportation system for its ocean commerce, 

the Commission has a clear and compelling responsibility to actively assist efforts to improve 

the effectiveness of the global supply chain.

* The Los Angeles and Long Beach Port Infrastructure and Environmental Programs Cooperative Working Agreement 

(FMC No. 201219), West Coast MTO Agreement (FMC No. 201143), Pacific Ports Operational Improvements Agreement 

(FMC No. 201227), Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (FMC No. 202-011284), and Los Angeles/Long 

Beach Port Terminal Operator Administrative and Implementation Agreement (FMC No. 201178).
35

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, That, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 41302, 40302, 41101

to 41109, 41301 to 41309, and 40104, and 46 C.F.R. § 502.281 et seq., Commissioner 

Rebecca F. Dye engage supply chain stakeholders in public or non-public discussions to 

identify commercial solutions to certain unresolved supply chain issues that interfere with 

the smooth operation of the U.S. international supply chain, focusing on the San Pedro Bay 

ports at Los Angeles and Long Beach.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, the Commissioner form a supply chain innovation 

team, composed of leaders from all commercial sectors of the U.S. international supply 

chain, to develop commercial solutions to port congestion and related supply chain 

challenges.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, the Commissioner provide a preliminary report 

and periodic updates to the Commission on the results of efforts undertaken by this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, the Commissioner have full authority under 46

C.F.R. §§ 502.281 to 502.291, to perform such duties as may be necessary in accordance 

with U.S. law and Commission regulations. The Commissioner will be assisted by staff 

members as may be assigned by the Chairman.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, this Proceeding be discontinued upon the 

acceptance of a final report and possible recommendations by the Commissioner, unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission; and

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED, That, notice of this Order be published in the Federal 

Register.

By The Commission.

Karen V. Gregory 

Secretary