May 6, 2022

Chairman Daniel Maffei

Commissioners Carl Bentzel, Rebecca Dye, Louis Sola, Max Vekich

Federal Maritime Commission

800 North Capitol Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20573

Subject: Recommendations that NSAC has voted to approve and submit to the Commission

Dear Chairman Maffei and Commissioners Bentzel, Dye, Sola, and Vekich:

I am writing to formally notify you that the members of the National Shipper Advisory Committee (NSAC) have 

drafted, debated, voted upon, and subsequently approved two recommendations for the consideration of the 

Federal Maritime Commission. The recommendations are summarized below, but the full content of each 

recommendation is attached to this letter as well.

Recommendation 1: A recommendation to codify regulation in concert with the Interpretive Rule incentivizing 

the movement of cargo that prohibits any unreasonable application of charges on containers for Dwell Fees while 

shifting the burden of proof to vessel operators and/or marine terminals and strengthening requirements for proper 

dispute resolution.

Recommendation 2: A recommendation to expand the scope of the Federal Maritime Commission to include 

oversight over all carriers, subcontractors, rates, demurrage, detention, storage under any other name, terms and 

conditions, and modes reflected on any Bill of Lading issued by an ocean carrier. Additionally, this recommendation 

requests that the FMC begins mandating the provision of accurate transit, cargo location, and container 

pickup/return locations by carriers to shippers and their nominated forwarders and/or brokers. Finally, in the event

of a conflict between the terms of the Uniform Intermodal Interchange Access Agreement (UIIA) and the FMC’s 

oversight and Interpretive Rule, it is recommended that the terms of the FMC shall prevail.

On behalf of the National Shipper Advisory Committee, I would like to thank each of you for the opportunity to serve 

both the Commission and our nation. We are further appreciative for your review and consideration of our 

recommendations both herein and still to come.

Should the Commission have any questions related to these two recommendations, please contact either myself or 

Mr. Rich Roche ).

Sincerely,

Brian Bumpass

Chairman, National Shipper Advisory Committee

Director of Logistics & Transportation

Brenntag North America, Inc.
National Shipper Advisory Committee to Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) 

Subcommittee: Fees and Surcharges 

Recommendation

Review of Port Imposed or Terminal Imposed Excess Dwell Fees as to whether payment of such charges can be extended 

to the account of the cargo.

Purpose. Supply chain disruption and port congestion has brought about higher demurrage and detention charges that 

take on many forms, a variety of names, and an unlevel playing field in which they are applied. Some West Coast Ports, 

and some Marine Terminal Operators (MTOs) have created new charges in addition to standard demurrage tariffs that 

target dwelling containers and are subject to a variety of schedules. 

Dwell Fees. Originally created in October 2021 with input from Port Envoy John Porcari, the ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach announced a Container Dwell Fee designed to incentivize long-dwelling containers to be removed from ocean 

terminals. This charge was intended to be imposed on Ocean Carriers. Subsequently other MTOs announced their version 

of a dwell fee which was intended to be for Beneficial Cargo Owners (BCO’s). While the LA/LB charge has been continuously 

postponed (citing its effectiveness by threat only), SSA and other MTO’s have charges in effect that are currently being 

assessed prior to container release. 

The list of MTOs that are imposing such new Dwell Fees include:

Long Beach / ITS Temporary Storage Charge, effective January 10, 2022 

Long Beach Container Terminal LBCT Temporary Storage Charge, effective Jan 15, 2022 

Long Beach / SSA & Pier A Temporary Storage Charges, effective Dec 15, 2021 

Long Beach / TTI On-Terminal Storage/Terminal Congestion Fee, eff Jan 10, 2022 

Oakland - SSA OICT Extended Dwell Time Fee, effective Dec 20, 2021 

Seattle – SSA Terminal 5, 18, 30 Temporary Storage Charge, eff Dec 1, 2021 

Seattle / Tacoma Husky Terminal Long Stay Rehandling Charge, effective Nov 1, 2021 

Seattle/ Tacoma Washington United Long Stay Rehandling Charge, effective Nov 1, 2021 

SSA’s announcement included: "The importer of record in the shipping documents will be responsible for paying or 

arranging payment of the Extended Dwell Time Fee by check, money order, wire transfer, or any other methods, and 

pursuant to instructions provided by Operator through the Forecast website. Once the fee has been paid, the container will 

show as available in Operator’s container tracking system. Appointments on import lanes may not be made until the fee 

has been paid and the container is showing as available on the [Forecast] web site." This unilateral announcement does 

not take into consideration dwell time caused by a variety of conditions beyond the control of the importer, but assigns 

payment to importers, nonetheless. 

When these terminals are overloaded, they can hold cargo for weeks on end in what they refer to as the ‘brush pile’, but 

do not compensate the importer when holding their cargo, yet they assess the extended dwell without regard to the cause, 

even when it may be carrier haulage or equipment issues at fault. When the same terminals are not accepting empties 

back in, thereby exacerbating the chassis shortage, they are helping create the extended dwell they are now charging for. 

Importers do not enjoy a direct relationship with MTOs imposing these additional fees. Instead, it is the ocean carriers who 

have that direct customer relationship. Extended dwell is often caused by congestion on terminal, inadequate chassis 

supply, lack of appointments, closed yard areas, long lines, and lengthy delays for truckers at the gates, or a variety of 

reasons outside the control of the importer. In such cases the application of such charges should not be borne by the 

importer who cannot be incentivized by the application of these punitive charges to collect the cargo from the terminal 

any sooner. 
While such charges may be appropriate from the marine terminal operator to the vessel operator, the pass-through from 

the vessel operator to the importer, or the direct billing from the MTO to the importer is frequently an area of abuse. 

We would also note that under the present conditions, payment of such charges is required prior to cargo release, where 

the burden of proof is on the account of the cargo, regardless of any dispute, and where there is no clearly defined dispute 

protocol or appeals process to correct improperly applied charges. It is pay first, argue later, with little hope of recovery. 

Recommendation. For these reasons, we, as the unified National Shipper Advisory Committee, hereby recommend that 

the Federal Maritime Commission codify regulation in concert with the Interpretive Rule incentivizing the movement of 

cargo that prohibits any unreasonable application of charges on containers for Dwell Fees while shifting the burden of proof 

to vessel operators and/or marine terminals and strengthening requirements for proper dispute resolution.

Full Committee Vote:

Yea: __________

Nay: __________

Full Committee Signatory:

________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Mr. Brian Bumpass, Chair Date
National Shipper Advisory Committee to the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)

Subcommittee: Demurrage, Detention, & Freight Charges

Recommendation

Expanding the Scope of the Federal Maritime Commission to Include Oversight of Rail Carriage and Related Charges for 

Through Bills of Lading

Purpose. The purpose of this recommendation is to offer ample justification to expand the scope of the Federal Maritime 

Commission.

Definition. The term “through Bill of Lading” refers to any Bill of Lading including rail carriage as an extension to marine 

carriage.

Applicability and Scope. This recommendation, if accepted and implemented, would expand the scope of the Federal 

Maritime Commission to have oversight over (1) all rail carriage, (2) demurrage (including any charges labeled “rail 

storage”) and detention (including any charges labeled “per diem”) at rail ramps, and (3) commercial terms and conditions 

as they apply to shippers and carriers (ocean, rail, and motor) for all shipments with an ocean Bill of Lading including rail 

transportation until the final destination defined within the Bill of Lading. This would be the case for both import and 

export shipments.

Justification. Currently, the Federal Maritime Commission (hereafter, “FMC”) has oversight over ocean transportation, 

related parties, and related terms and conditions per the Shipping Act of 1984. Moreover, the FMC has assumed oversight 

of demurrage and detention at marine terminals per the interpretive rule outlined in 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and §545.5, but 

this oversight is specifically outlined to be at “marine terminals”.

Many shippers, both importers and exporters, tender cargo to ocean carriers from inland points against rates inclusive of 

rail and/or motor carriage which are quoted by the ocean carriers and subsequently filed with the FMC. 

There is currently no adequate dispute resolution process available to shippers when disputes involving the rail portion of 

cargo movement, including demurrage/rail storage and detention/per diem at rail ramps, invariably arise. More 

importantly, there is currently no direct governmental oversight over the rail portion of these shipments nor over their

operational execution. 

Without governmental oversight, and specifically oversight by the Federal Maritime Commission, the interpretive rule 

outlined in §545.5 is not applied to any demurrage/rail storage or detention/per diem assessed at rail ramps by rail 

operators, terminal operators, and/or ocean carriers against through Bills of Lading.

As the United States Congress is considering an update to the Shipping Act of 1984 with the current draft of the Ocean 

Shipping Reform Act and the FMC is evaluating an evolution of language in the interpretive rule with the recently 

announced advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, we must also consider this current gap of oversight involving rail.

The spirit of the FMC’s oversight should be founded at the Bill of Lading level through to the final destination defined by

the shipment parties within the Bill of Lading and not solely focused on the marine portion of cargo movement and fee 

structures. The Bill of Lading issued by ocean carriers is the contract of international carriage. As such, if the FMC has 

oversight over the parties to the Bill of Lading, it should also have oversight over the entirety of terms and conditions to 

the Bill of Lading. Indeed, the FMC currently has oversight over all rates filed by ocean carriers and NVOCCs including rates 

that have rail carriage in their composition.

Moreover, rail operators are not direct vendors to shippers. Instead, they act as subcontractors to ocean carriers and 

facilitate non-marine carriage on behalf of ocean carriers against through rates offered by the ocean carriers and against 

through Bills of Lading issued by the ocean carriers. Consequently, equitable protection of shippers across all Bill of Lading 

terms can only be assured under the direct oversight by the Federal Maritime Commission. 
To further complicate matters, the National Shipper Advisory Committee has been provided with multiple examples of 

carriers discharging cargo at a different import port of entry than listed on the Bill of Lading. While this practice is 

acceptable in certain circumstances (i.e. force majeure, congestion avoidance, etc.), the change is not always 

communicated to the shippers or their nominated forwarders and/or brokers. Consequently, a customs broker can file an 

entry at the original port of discharge, but this entry is nullified if the cargo discharges elsewhere. Per the examples 

provided to this Committee, this scenario has resulted in demurrage for the importer even on carrier door moves as the 

carrier cannot pull the cargo until the original entry is withdrawn and the new entry is submitted.

For these reasons, we, as the unified National Shipper Advisory Committee, hereby recommend that the Federal Maritime 

Commission be given oversight over all carriers, subcontractors, rates, demurrage, detention, storage under any other 

name, terms and conditions, and modes reflected on any Bill of Lading issued by an ocean carrier. Additionally, we 

recommend that the FMC begins mandating the provision of accurate transit, cargo location, and container pickup/return 

locations by carriers to shippers and their nominated forwarders and/or brokers. Finally, in the event of a conflict between 

the terms of the Uniform Intermodal Interchange Access Agreement (UIIA) and the FMC’s oversight and Interpretive Rule, 

it is the recommendation of this Committee that the terms of the FMC shall prevail.

Full Committee Vote:

Yea: __________

Nay: __________

Full Committee Signatory:

________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Mr. Brian Bumpass, Chair Date