Federal Maritime

Commission

61st Annual

Report

for

Fiscal Year

2022

Table of Contents

Letter of Transmittal 1

Members of the Commission 3

List Of Acronyms 4

FMC Mission, Strategic Goals, and Functions 7

Strategic Goal 1 7

Strategic Goal 2 8

Year in Review 9

Implementation of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 13

Competition 17

Strategic Goal 1 17

Agreements Filing, Review, and Monitoring 17

Alliance Carrier Market Shares and Activities 20

Market Shares of Alliances 21

Services, Capacity, and Schedule Changes 24

Tariffs/NRAs/NSAs and Service Contracts 25

International Cooperation 27

Competitive Impact of Ocean Carrier Alliance Joint Purchases of Certain 

Covered Services 28

Protecting the Public 31

Strategic Goal 2 31

Licensing and Financial Responsibility 31

Passenger Vessel Operators 33

Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution 34

Enforcement And Compliance 35

Developments in Major U.S. Foreign Trades 39

Containerized U.S. Imports and Exports 41
Commodities Imported and Exported 43

Top Twenty U.S. Liner Cargo Trading Partners 47

Foreign Shipping Practices Act 49

Controlled Carriers and Identification of Otherwise Concerning Practices by 

Specific Ocean Common Carriers 51

Formal Investigations, Private Complaints, and Litigation 53

Formal Proceedings 53

Informal (Small Claim) Proceedings 59

Rulemakings 62

FMC Information Technology 65

FMC Systems/Applications 65

Case Management 65

Website Enhancements 65

Glossary 67

Appendices 71

A. FMC Organizational Chart 71

B. FMC Senior Officials 72

C. Statement of Appropriations, Statement of Custodial Activity, and 

Financial Operations 73
61st Annual Report 1

Letter of Transmittal

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

800 North Capitol Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20573-0001

March 31, 2023

To the United States Senate and House of Representatives:

On behalf of the Commission and pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 46106(a), I am pleased to share 

with you the 61st Annual Report of the Federal Maritime Commission, Fiscal Year 2022.

Sincerely,

Daniel B. Maffei

Chairman
2 61st Annual Report
61st Annual Report 3

Members of the Commission

Fiscal Year 2022

Max M. Vekich

Commissioner

Appointed 2022

Term Expires 2026

Rebecca F. Dye

Commissioner

Appointed 2002

Term Expired 2020

Carl W. Bentzel

Commissioner

Appointed 2019

Term Expires 2024

Louis E. Sola

Commissioner

Appointed 2019

Term Expires 2023

Daniel B. Maffei

Chairman

Appointed 2016

Term Expired 2022
4 61st Annual Report

List Of Acronyms

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

BCL Bureau of Certification and Licensing

BEIC Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations, and Compliance 

BOE Bureau of Enforcement

BOL Bill of Lading

CADRS Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

FMC Federal Maritime Commission

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FSPA Foreign Shipping Practices Act

FTC U.S. Federal Trade Commission

IT Information Technology

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MTO Marine Terminal Operators

NESOI Not Elsewhere Specified or Indicated

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NRA Negotiated Rate Arrangement
61st Annual Report 5

NSA NVOCC Service Arrangement

NVOCC Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier 

OALJ Office of the Administrative Law Judges

OE Office of Enforcement

OFF Ocean Freight Forwarder

OSRA 2022 The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022

OTI Ocean Transportation Intermediary

PEN Pre-Enforcement Notices

PIERS Port Import Export Reporting Service 

PVO Passenger Vessel Operator

Shipping Act The Shipping Act of 1984, as amended

SCO Small Claims Officer

TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit

TSA Terminal Services Agreement

UPR Unearned Passenger Revenue

U.S. United States of America

VOCC Vessel-Operating Common Carrier 

VSA Vessel Sharing Agreement
6 61st Annual Report
61st Annual Report 7

FMC Mission, Strategic 

Goals, and Functions

The Federal Maritime Commission is an independent agency responsible for regulating the 

U.S. international ocean transportation system for the benefit of U.S. exporters, importers, 

and consumers. The FMC has sole jurisdiction over competition, practices, and service in 

the ocean shipping industry. Its mission is to ensure a competitive and reliable international 

ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public 

from unfair and deceptive practices.

Unprecedented shocks to the supply chain during the pandemic challenged the ocean 

transportation industry as the Commission operated to the maximum of its capabilities. 

Historically high shipping rates and unpredictable ocean shipping services resulted in high 

demand for FMC assistance and intervention. The FMC introduced initiatives to meet the 

needs of the shipping public.

In March 2022, the Commission published its Fiscal Year 2022-2026 Strategic Plan, outlining 

strategies and performance measures to achieve and track progress in meeting the FMC’s 

mission. The FMC has two main strategic goals.

Strategic Goal 1

Maintain a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation system.

The FMC carries out the responsibilities of the Shipping Act and the recent amendments 

under the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 to ensure competition and reliability for U.S. 

exporters and importers. The Commission’s oversight of the international ocean transportation 

supply system remains critical with well over $1 trillion in U.S. exports and imports moving 

through it annually.

Under the Shipping Act, carriers and other regulated entities can file agreements with the 

FMC. The FMC ensures that actions taken pursuant to these filed agreements do not result in 

unreasonable increases in transportation costs and/or unreasonable decreases in transportation services. Competition among participants in the U.S. liner trades fosters competitive rates 

and encourages innovation and a variety of service offerings for the benefit of U.S. exporters 

and importers, and ultimately consumers.

To achieve the strategic goal of maintaining a competitive and reliable international ocean 

transportation supply system, the FMC developed two strategic objectives.

Objective 1.1: Ensure no unreasonable increases in transportation costs or decreases 

in transportation service are attributed to anticompetitive practices under FMC-filed 

agreements.
8 61st Annual Report

Objective 1.2: Ensure competition is preserved in the purchase of certain covered services (46 U.S.C. § 40102(5)) through 46 U.S.C. § 40307 authorities.

Strategic Goal 2

Protect the public from unlawful, unfair, and deceptive ocean transportation 

practices.

The FMC has responsibilities related to protecting the shipping public from financial harm 

that may be caused by the commercial activities of regulated entities. To carry out these 

responsibilities, the FMC: licenses ocean transportation intermediaries serving the U.S. trades; 

certifies that passenger vessel operators meet the required financial responsibility levels for 

death, injury, or nonperformance; assists the public with resolving informal complaints related 

to the shipment of goods or to passenger vessel cruises; identifies, investigates, and prosecutes 

unreasonable or unjust practices by VOCCs, OTIs, or MTOs; and adjudicates formal, privateparty complaints or FMC-initiated proceedings alleging Shipping Act violations. Further, 

OSRA 2022 provides new authority to the Commission to promptly investigate and order 

refunds on noncompliant carrier charges.

To achieve its strategic goal of protecting the public from unlawful, unfair, and deceptive 

ocean transportation practices, the FMC developed four objectives.

Objective 2.1:Identify and take action to end unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices.

Objective 2.2:Prevent public harm through licensing and financial responsibility 

requirements.

Objective 2.3: Enhance public awareness of agency resources, remedies, and regulatory 

requirements through education and outreach.

Objective 2.4:Impartially and timely resolve international shipping disputes through 

alternative dispute resolution and adjudication.

Statutory Authority

The principal statutes administered by the Commission, now codified in Title 46 of the U.S. 

Code at sections 40101 through 44106, are:

• The Shipping Act of 1984, as amended, 46 U.S.C. chs. 401-413;

• The Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988, 46 U.S.C. ch. 423;

• Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (1920 Act), 46 U.S.C. ch. 421;

• Sections 2 and 3 of Pub. L. No. 89-777, 80 Stat. 1350, 46 U.S.C. ch. 441; and

• Section 834 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (LoBiondo 

Act), codified at 46 U.S.C. § 3503(b)(1)(C).
61st Annual Report 9

Year in Review

The two most significant developments 

in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 affecting the Federal 

Maritime Commission and the users of container shipping services were the enactment of 

the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA 

2022) and the continuous fluctuation of conditions causing global supply chain congestion.

In the second half of calendar year 2022, U.S. 

consumer demand shifted from goods to services, leading to a drop in import volumes. 

This return to cargo volumes more consistent 

with pre-pandemic trade patterns provided 

the supply chain the opportunity needed to 

begin its recovery. The U.S. domestic transportation and warehousing networks and 

infrastructure that serve international trade, 

while still largely at capacity, are no longer 

overwhelmed at critical levels of containerized 

freight. It became easier to find chassis, secure 

rail and trucking transportation, and identify warehouse space to accept shipments. As 

capacity and velocity throughout the system 

improved, the cost to ship a container quickly 

plummeted from historic highs to levels typical of the pre-pandemic norm.

The Federal Maritime Commission continues to address the consequences of when the 

global supply chain was struggling under the 

worst of conditions. Investigations have continued into allegations made against carriers. 

Formal cases brought during the height of the 

pandemic continue to be adjudicated by the 

Office of the Administrative Law Judges. The 

FMC enforcement bureau remains vigilant in 

addressing questionable fees and surcharges. 

Identifying ways to assist exporters to reach 

overseas markets remains a priority, as does 

the work to reinvigorate the Commission’s 

enforcement and compliance programs. The 

marketplace for ocean transportation services 

might have returned to its pre-pandemic 

normal, but the Commission is not returning 

to its pre-pandemic status quo. Rather, the 

Commission is focusing on what steps must 

be taken to be best prepared to respond to 

the next inevitable disruption to the global 

supply chain.

The root causes of pandemic related supply 

chain congestion and disruption were many, 

complex, interconnected, and global in nature. 

Historic demand for imported items that had 

to be moved via a system that was disrupted 

at every step and stop around the world led 

to higher transportation prices, reduced reliability, and diminished performance. The 

Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022, enacted 

as Public Law 117-146 on June 16, 2022, was a 

substantive response to the aggravation and 

frustration U.S.-based shippers experienced.

Full implementation of OSRA 2022 has 

been the priority of the Commission. Within 

days of the law’s enactment, the Commission 

communicated clearly to the public which 

parts of the law were in immediate effect, 

the necessity of compliance, and the potential consequences for failing to follow the law. 

Similarly, the Commission promptly moved 

forward to identify implementation requirements, the personnel and resources necessary 

to complete those tasks, and the deadlines 

for completing mandates. In the last quarter of FY 2022 alone, the Commission added 

staff authorized by OSRA 2022, moved forward with two rulemakings, issued a Notice 
10 61st Annual Report

of Inquiry, released its plan for data collection, and established a landing page on the 

Commission’s website dedicated to sharing 

all OSRA implementation related developments and materials. Continuing successful 

and timely implementation of OSRA 2022 will 

be one of the major work efforts of the Commission in FY 2023.

In addition to OSRA 2022 implementation, 

the Commission focused on its other two key 

priorities of enforcement and providing assistance to exporters and consumers.

Robust enforcement creates a meaningful 

deterrent to illicit activity. The Commission 

received permission from Congress in FY 2022 

to realign its enforcement program into the 

Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations, and 

Compliance (BEIC). Recruitment has initiated 

new positions within the Bureau, including a 

Senior Executive Service BEIC Director. The 

Commission is committed to building the 

capabilities of BEIC to conduct investigatory 

work to ensure that even the largest ocean 

carriers are complying with the law. Conducting thorough investigations that lead to 

meaningful enforcement actions is our goal 

in the coming fiscal year and into the future. 

Whether the FMC detects potentially illegal 

activity through its own efforts or receive allegations of misconduct, the Commission will 

investigate and act appropriately.

The Commission brought three Orders of 

Investigation against ocean carriers in FY 2022. 

One of these matters resulted in a $2 million 

settlement agreement, while the remaining 

two investigations remained open at the end 

of the fiscal year. These are in addition to 

other formal and small claims (both formal 

and informal) cases heard by the Office of the 

Administrative Law Judges who have seen a 

marked increase in their caseloads, so much 

so that a second Administrative Law Judge 

was hired in FY 2022, and a third will be hired 

in FY 2023.

Charge complaints is another area that 

has generated new and voluminous work 

for the Commission. OSRA 2022 created the 

ability for parties to contest charges by filing 

charge complaints at the Federal Maritime 

Commission. Shippers, truckers, consignees, and third parties who believe they have 

been erroneously billed by a common carrier (both vessel-operating common carriers 

and non-vessel-operating common carriers) 

can challenge the charge. The public has 

responded favorably to this new process, 

and the Commission began receiving filed 

complaints quickly after OSRA 2022 became 

law. After the Commission released its Industry Advisory on Charge Complaint Interim 

Procedures, the number of filed complaints 

increased. Through the Commission’s work 

on charge complaints, hundreds of thousands 

of dollars in contested charges have been 

waived or refunded.

The Commission continued to use the Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (VOCC) Audit 

Program to engage ocean carriers on issues of 

high priority and to make progress in achieving desired results in compliance with relevant 

regulatory and statutory requirements. In FY 

2021, the Commission established the VOCC 

Audit Program to facilitate ocean carriers’ 

compliance with the Commission’s interpretive rule on demurrage and detention. In FY 

2022, the issues of assisting U.S. exporters 

and ensuring compliance with OSRA 2022 

established prohibitions on retaliation were 

added to the topics addressed with ocean carriers. Participation in the program is voluntary, 
61st Annual Report 11

and the Commission has seen positive participation from the ocean carriers with notably 

encouraging results in all matters addressed. 

The Commission will continue to use the 

VOCC Audit Program as a forum to have 

discussions geared toward tangible results 

in achieving desired outcomes in how ocean 

carriers operate in the United States.

Another key effort is considering the Final 

Recommendations presented to the Commission by Commissioner Rebecca F. Dye at the 

conclusion of her work leading Fact Finding 

29. Commissioner Dye made a total of 12 recommendations for steps the Commission can 

take to improve reliability of the system, relations between all parties involved in moving 

international commerce, and accountability 

of regulated entities. The Commission has 

already moved forward with three of the 

final recommendations—establishing the 

International Ocean Shipping Supply Chain 

Program, reviving the Rapid Response Team, 

and establishing an Ocean Carrier Compliance 

Program—and other recommendations are 

being assessed to determine their suitability 

for implementation.

Commissioner Carl W. Bentzel continued 

his work on the Maritime Transportation Data 

Initiative, a project initiated in December 2021 

at the request of Chairman Daniel B. Maffei. 

The goals of the undertaking are to catalog 

the status quo in maritime data elements; 

identify key gaps in data definitions and classifications; and develop recommendations for 

common data standards and access policies 

and protocols. Commissioner Bentzel engaged 

in extensive outreach to representatives of all 

sectors involved in the end-to-end movement 

of an ocean container to inform his work, and 

he held a Data Summit in June 2022. His Final 

Report is anticipated in FY 2023.

The demand for Commission services the 

past two plus years has been both significant 

and unprecedented. Requests for assistance 

have ranged from seeking informal assistance with distressed shipments to formal 

complaints filed before our Administrative 

Law Judge. We have worked diligently to be 

responsive to all contacts we have received 

from the public. This heightened tempo is not 

abating and will continue. Increases in authorizations and appropriations provided by the 

Congress will enable us to address issues the 

public has brought to us.

Consumer assistance has always been an 

important aspect of the Commission’s work. 

Congress’ inclusion of consumer affairs as 

priority in OSRA 2022 has reenforced the 

Commission’s commitment to the Office of 

Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services (CADRS). In FY 2022, CADRS responded 

to almost 1,500 inquires related to issues with 

cargo shipments and cruise voyages. When circumstances warrant, the CADRS staff render 

help that ranges from making a call to have a 

stalled container released from a terminal to 

providing actual mediation. CADRS provides 

an invaluable first stop for frustrated shippers and consumers and renders an important 

service. The Commission added to CADRS’ 

capabilities in FY 2022 by hiring new staff in 

this office, including one person who is an 

export expert and whose assigned priority is 

assisting U.S. shippers reach overseas markets. 

We anticipate increasing demand for CADRS’ 

services and the office is well positioned to 

address that public demand.

The congestion and high shipping costs 

that appeared at the height of the COVID 
12 61st Annual Report

pandemic fell faster than expected. Nonetheless, the past two years revealed the 

vulnerabilities in the domestic freight delivery system that must be addressed. There 

have been several shocks to the ocean-linked 

supply chain over the past two decades. Disruptions to the supply chain will likely occur 

again and, if anything, swings of supply and 

demand will be more pronounced moving 

forward. It is critical that we acknowledge 

that supply chain disruptions are an inherent 

risk of global sourcing. Everyone involved 

in international trade, whether working at a 

company or for a government agency, must 

prioritize being better prepared for the next 

inevitable shock. The Federal Maritime Commission is studying the lessons learned over 

the past 24 months to determine how we can 

adapt our regulatory and competition agency 

to respond with appropriate vigorous and 

comprehensive action.
61st Annual Report 13

Implementation of the Ocean 

Shipping Reform Act of 2022

On June 16, 2022, OSRA 2022 (Public Law 

117-146) was enacted and expanded the FMC’s 

authorities while enhancing protections for 

U.S. shippers. OSRA 2022 is transformative, 

moving the Commission from an agency that 

primarily regulated through adjudications to 

a proactive agency that also engages on active 

challenges with industry, stakeholders, and 

the public through promulgating regulations 

and other means. Executing the requirements 

of OSRA 2022 involves staff across all Commission offices. It is a top agency priority, 

and the additional authority provided under 

OSRA 2022 will greatly assist the agency in 

meeting its strategic goals.

Several provisions of OSRA 2022 made 

significant changes in the law that took 

immediate effect, requiring both the Commission and regulated entities to act quickly to 

ensure compliance. These provisions included 

new requirements related to detention and 

demurrage invoices, as well as prohibitions 

on issuing invoices or otherwise assessing 

charges that did not meet the new OSRA 2022 

requirements.

Accordingly, the Commission used the 

VOCC Audit Program to ensure that the 

largest ocean carriers calling in the U.S. were 

aware of their obligations under OSRA 2022. 

In the summer of 2022, the Commission sent 

letters to executives at the largest 25 carriers 

highlighting new requirements established 

by OSRA 2022 and emphasizing the expectation that carriers will move aggressively to 

come into compliance with all self-executing 

provisions, including detention and demurrage billing requirements. Further, the 

Commission asked all executives to confirm 

their awareness of the provisions of OSRA 

2022 and that the carriers were taking steps 

to comply with all relevant requirements. All 

25 carriers responded in the affirmative.

Additionally, OSRA 2022 contains a number 

of provisions that will result in considerably more protection for U.S. importers and 

exporters. For example, Section 5 of OSRA 

2022 amended 46 U.S.C. § 41102 to expressly 

prohibit common carriers, MTOs, and OTIs 

from taking certain retaliatory actions against 

shippers, agents of shippers, OTIs, or motor 

carriers. This builds on the pre-OSRA 2022 

Policy Statement issued by the Commission 

in FY 2022 regarding the seriousness of antiretaliation measures. As noted in the Policy 

Statement, the Commission will investigate 

thoroughly all allegations of carrier retaliation. In FY 2023, the Commission will continue 

implementing these anti-retaliation provisions.

In addition, Section 10 of OSRA 2022 

provides an avenue to submit complaints 

regarding carrier charges to the Commission (charge complaint), and it already has 

resulted in direct benefits to shippers. Upon 

passage, the FMC assembled a task force of 

its staff to develop a process for complaint 

intake, processing, assessing, investigating, 

and prosecution. The first charge complaint 

was received on July 14, 2022. Guidance on 

this new process and related information 

on charge complaints is available on the 
14 61st Annual Report

Commission’s OSRA 2022 implementation 

webpage. As of September 30, 2022, the Commission received 101 charge complaints, and 

complainants recovered nearly $700,000 in 

refunds or cancelled and waived invoices 

from charges assessed by common carriers.

Since the enactment of OSRA 2022, the 

Commission also moved expeditiously to 

fulfill the requirements of various rulemaking mandates included in the legislation. In 

FY 2022, the Commission worked towards 

issuing an NPRM in early FY 2023 on Demurrage and Detention Billing Requirements, which 

will set forth requirements for billing/invoices 

related to fees, as well as the parameters surrounding billing practices. This rulemaking 

will encompass the FMC’s pre-OSRA 2022 

demurrage and detention guidance.

Two additional rulemakings required by 

OSRA 2022 include Unreasonable Refusal to 

Deal or Negotiate with Respect to Vessel Space 

Accommodations Provided by an Ocean Common 

Carrier and Unfair or Unjustly Discriminatory 

Methods Related to Cargo Space Accommodations. An NPRM for the former was issued 

on September 21, 2022, and the Commission 

received nearly 30 comments from the public. 

The Commission is currently addressing the 

substance of those comments and will issue a 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in FY 2023 with further opportunity for 

public comment.

Other longer-term rulemakings that the 

Commission will continue focusing on 

through FY 2023 center on registration process 

for shipping exchange registries and essential 

terms for service contracts. Working groups 

have already begun researching and developing the proposed rules on those topics.

In addition, OSRA 2022 required the Commission to engage on short timelines in new 

data collections, initiating new research 

regarding chassis pools, and improving its 

website. Specifically, concerns about lack of 

timely and accurate data regarding laden and 

empty containers carried in U.S. international 

oceanborne trade are addressed by Section 9 

of OSRA 2022 and mandate a new data collection by the FMC. In FY 2022, the Commission 

issued the 60-day required public notice for 

this data collection. In FY 2023, the Commission will submit supporting materials to the 

Office of Management and Budget and will 

update an existing IT system to allow carriers 

to submit required data and enable efficient 

processing and publication of the required 

quarterly report on import and export tonnage 

and number of laden and empty containers 

operated by ocean common carriers.

In addition, Section 18 of OSRA 2022 

requires the Commission to issue a request 

for information on whether congestion of the 

carriage of goods created an emergency situation and whether an emergency order for 

data sharing between ocean common carriers, 

marine terminal operators, and stakeholders would alleviate such an emergency. This 

request for information was published in the 

Federal Register on August 15, 2022, which 

was 60 days after enactment of OSRA 2022. 

The comment period closed on September 

14, 2022, and the Commission received 48 

comments from the public. The Commission 

analyzed those comments and determined 

that circumstances did not warrant emergency 

relief at this time. The Commission’s authority 

to issue an emergency order under Section 

18 of OSRA 2022 extends through the end of 

FY 2023.
61st Annual Report 15

Also, OSRA 2022 mandated that the Commission improve its website to streamline the 

process for the public to submit comments, 

complaints, concerns, reports of noncompliance, requests for investigation, and requests 

for alternative dispute resolution. The Commission has secured IT contracting support 

for this effort. A new web portal will deploy 

in FY 2023.

Importantly, the Commission has created a webpage to communicate its OSRA 

2022-related activities to the public on its website. Also, it has issued news releases, industry 

advisories, and provided updates regarding 

OSRA 2022 implementation at Commission 

meetings.
16 61st Annual Report
61st Annual Report 17

Competition

Strategic Goal 1

A primary function of the Commission is 

to maintain a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation system and 

regularly scheduled liner trade by evaluating and monitoring the use of various types 

of agreement authority for anticompetitive 

effects. Competition among participants in 

U.S. liner trades fosters competitive rates and 

encourages a variety of service offerings for 

the benefit of U.S. exporters and importers, 

and ultimately consumers.

The Shipping Act is a federal competition 

law applicable to the international liner shipping industry. It allows ocean carrier and 

marine terminal competitors to meet, discuss, 

and in some cases, cooperate on certain business issues, but first they must file a written 

agreement with the Commission. It contains 

provisions similar to those found in the Sherman Act of 1890, the 1914 Clayton Act, and 

the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, which are 

designed to address a number of discriminatory, predatory, or unfair business practices, 

as well as anti-competitive conduct resulting 

from certain business combinations, acquisitions, or mergers. The Shipping Act creates a 

specialized regulatory regime separate from 

the U.S. Department of Justice’s and the U.S. 

Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement of 

the U.S. antitrust laws. Collective carrier or 

MTO activity is evaluated under the Shipping 

Act when an agreement is initially filed with 

the Commission, and closely monitored thereafter, for any adverse impact on competition 

in the trade.

The Commission reviews agreements 

using traditional antitrust law principles and 

economic models to evaluate the potential 

competitive impact of a proposed agreement 

before it may go into effect. The initial review 

and analysis of a proposed agreement and 

subsequent monitoring of the members’ activities under the agreement, should it become 

effective, are designed to identify and guard 

against possible anticompetitive abuse of the 

filed authority, avoid unreasonable increases 

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

prohibited by the Shipping Act.

As long as an agreement complies with 

the relevant Shipping Act and regulatory 

requirements, other federal antitrust statutes 

generally do not apply. Conversely, if a regulated entity violates the Shipping Act, it would 

be subject to penalties, and may, under certain 

circumstances, also be subject to investigation 

and prosecution under the full array of federal 

antitrust statutes.

Agreements Filing, Review, and Monitoring

Economic analysis is at the heart of maintaining competition and reliability in the 

global shipping supply chain. The FMC 

analyzes collective ocean common carrier and 

marine terminal operator behavior under filed 

cooperative agreements against the backdrop 
18 61st Annual Report

of underlying trade conditions to identify and 

safeguard against unfair and anticompetitive 

practices. Bolstered by OSRA 2022, the Commission’s competition-focused work protects 

the U.S. consumer by improving supply chain 

efficiency and transparency and ensuring the 

supply chain remains competitive for U.S. 

shippers. In FY 2022, the Commission completed a comprehensive review of its existing 

monitoring requirements for all filed agreements, enhancing the reporting requirements 

for many MTO and VOCC agreements to 

ensure the Commission has access to the information required to properly assess potentially 

anticompetitive effects using contemporary 

analytics.

The Commission’s statutory authority and 

regulations require agreements that allow collaboration among ocean common carriers or 

marine terminal operators to be filed with the 

Commission. The Commission staff analyzes 

agreements upon filing for potential anticompetitive effects, and continually thereafter 

monitors concerted carrier activity under all 

filed agreements to detect changes in underlying trade conditions or changes in carrier 

behavior that might result in an unreasonable 

increase in transportation costs or decrease in 

transportation services.

Under 46 U.S.C. §§ 40301–40303, all agreements by or among ocean common carriers 

and/or marine terminal operators that undertake any of the following activities are required 

to be filed with the Commission:

•  fix rates or conditions of service;

•  pool cargo revenue;

•  allot ports or regulate sailings;

•  limit or regulate the volume or character of cargo or passengers to be 

carried;

•  control or prevent competition; or

•  engage in exclusive or preferential 

arrangements.

In FY 2022, the Commission received 66 

agreement filings, including new agreements 

and amendments to, or terminations of, existing agreements. Twenty-two agreements were 

terminated in FY 2022, including vessel sharing arrangements between the 2M Alliance 

and independent carriers SM Lines and Zim, 

an agreement among Port Authorities in the 

Southeast U.S. to operate a chassis pool, and 

a rate discussion agreement among terminal 

operators at the Northwest Seaport Alliance.

There were 353 agreements on file with the 

Commission as of the end of FY 2022, comprised of VOCC agreements, MTO agreements, 

and assessment agreements. The vast majority 

of agreements on file with the Commission are 

VOCC agreements (263) and are dominated by 

basic space sharing agreements that are relatively less competitively concerning than other 

types of agreements, e.g., alliances or global 

vessel sharing arrangements that discuss and/

or coordinate vessel capacity across major 

trade lanes. Additionally, there are 81 MTO 

agreements and nine assessment agreements.

As stated above, agreements filed with the 

FMC that present competitive concerns are 

monitored regularly for actions that might 

result in an unreasonable increase in transportation costs or a decrease in transportation 

service, as well as indicators of prohibited acts 

under OSRA 2022 and the Shipping Act. There 

are roughly 50 agreements on file that Commission staff monitor regularly.

The largest ocean common carriers collaborate in “alliances” or global vessel sharing 

arrangements. There are three alliances with 

agreements on file with the FMC. These 
61st Annual Report 19

Agreement Review Process

• All agreements are reviewed pursuant 

to the standard set forth in 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41307(b)(1).

• Agreements become effective 45 days 

after filing unless the Commission has 

requested additional information to 

evaluate the competitive impact of 

the agreement.

• The Commission has the authority to 

reject a pending agreement filing if it 

determines that the filing fails to meet 

the Shipping Act and Commission 

regulations requiring filed agreements 

to be clear and definite, or if the 

filing is outside of the Commission’s 

jurisdiction.

• The Commission may seek to prevent 

the operations of an agreement 

under 46 U.S.C. § 41307(b) where it 

determines that the agreement could 

reduce competition to the point of 

unreasonably impacting the market, or 

substantially lessen competition in the 

purchasing of certain covered services 

as defined in the Frank LoBiondo Coast 

Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (Pub. 

L. No. 115-282).

• Effective agreements are subject 

to Shipping Act restrictions and 

Commission oversight.

agreements are among the most closely scrutinized by the Commission. These alliance 

agreements allow coordination of capacity, 

but discussion or coordination on rates is 

categorically prohibited. The limited antitrust immunity granted under an alliance 

agreement extends only to activities among 

agreement parties within the scope of the 

filed agreement. Conduct inconsistent with 

the terms of an agreement is illegal and 

exposes members of agreements to criminal 

and civil prosecution under existing statutes.

The FMC’s monitoring program is unique 

− indeed, none of our foreign ocean shipping 

competition counterparts employ a monitoring program like the Commission’s. The 

European Union and competition authorities 

in various Asian nations do not have access to 

the same detailed information that the FMC 

collects from global alliance carriers. During 

the pandemic, when carrier rates increased 

sharply, the FMC closely scrutinized all 

monitoring data to assess whether this was 

the result of collusion among the carriers, 

which would violate the terms of their FMCfiled agreements. The Commission also has 

altered the data it collects from alliance carriers as part of ongoing monitoring twice since 

the onset of the pandemic, most recently in 

Spring 2022, to ensure that the staff has all the 

information needed to fully understand carrier activities and their impacts on the market. 

As the market shifts from scarcity to excess 

supply of carrier capacity, the FMC’s focus 

will be on ensuring that alliance carriers do 

not restrict capacity to artificially increase 

rates. The new monitoring requirements 

permit the Commission to rapidly track and 

anticipate changes in capacity.
20 61st Annual Report

Alliance Carrier Market Shares and Activities

FMC collects quantitative and qualitative 

information from the members of the three 

global alliances (2M, OCEAN, and THEA) to 

assist in the agency’s monitoring process. This 

includes:

•  meeting minutes;

•  blank sailings;

•  delayed sailings;

•  total capacity operated and volumes 

moved; and

•  measures of revenue.

This information is carefully analyzed to 

determine trends in the marketplace and to 

identify potential anticompetitive behavior 

or prohibited practices. The information 

required by the FMC as part of the monitoring program is routinely reviewed and 

revised to ensure the agency has the information required to analyze carrier behavior, 

as conditions in the market change. The most 

recent revision to these requirements occurred 

in May 2022.

The 2M Alliance consists of Maersk Line 

(HQ: Denmark) and Mediterranean Shipping 

Company (MSC; HQ: Switzerland), the largest 

and second-largest ocean carriers by global 

capacity, measured by twenty-foot equivalent 

unit (TEU).

The three ocean carriers that make up the 

OCEAN Alliance are CMA CGM (including 

What Are Alliances? What Are Vessel Sharing Agreements?

FMC statutes and regulations contain no definition of Alliances or VSAs. Generally, 

however, Alliances refer to carriers participating in VSAs that have a global geographic 

scope.

VSAs are agreements between two or more ocean common carriers to share space 

on a service string or trade lane and includes the authority to rationalize capacity. 

This is in contrast to space charter agreements, where carriers provide space for other 

carriers on a service but do not contain capacity rationalization authority.

Alliances are large VSAs. Currently, there are three global alliances — 2M, OCEAN, 

and THEA. Each Alliance filed agreements with the FMC that are available through the 

Commission’s website. Each agreement is slightly different, but discussion of pricing 

or other operational considerations is not authorized in the Agreement. If Agreement 

parties engage in those kinds of unauthorized activities, they would be subject to 

criminal and civil prosecution.

Agreements are not mergers nor joint ventures. Ocean carriers in these agreements 

compete with one another based on price and service. The FMC monitors these 

agreements through submitted data, external data on market activities, and through 

regular conversations with agreement parties.
61st Annual Report 21

its affiliate APL; HQ: France), COSCO (including its majority-owned affiliate OOCL; HQ: 

China), and Evergreen (HQ: Taiwan).

THE Alliance (THEA) is comprised of four 

members: Hapag-Lloyd (HQ: Germany), 

Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM; HQ: South 

Korea), Ocean Network Express (ONE; HQ: 

Japan), and Yang Ming (HQ: Taiwan).

Market Shares of Alliances

PIERS data is used to calculate the market 

shares of the carriers within the global alliances. PIERS data is procured from S&P 

Global and provides a comprehensive source 

of information on U.S. imports and exports. It 

is important to note, however, that the market 

shares below are computed using TEUs transported in the major east-west trade lanes by 

the carriers within the alliances. They reflect 

the totals carried both via alliance services 

and other services offered by those carriers.

Using PIERS data, as shown in Chart 1 

below, the three global alliances captured a 

combined market share of 87.6 percent in the 

transpacific import trade and secured approximately 96 percent of transpacific export trade 

Chart 1: Transpacific Alliance Market Shares, First Half (Jan-June), 2020-2022
22 61st Annual Report

in the first half of 2022. Focusing on the import 

markets, while the OCEAN alliance continued to have the largest share of transpacific 

imports, with nearly 40 percent in the first 

half of 2022, its share has decreased steadily 

over the past few years. THE Alliance carriers, who had a market share of 31.3 percent 

of transpacific imports in 2020, experienced a 

decrease to 21 percent in 2022. The 2M carriers’ 

share increased 10 percentage points from 17 

percent in the first half of 2020 to 27 percent in 

the first half of 2022. And non-alliance carriers 

increased their share of transpacific market 

from 7.4 percent in the first half of 2020 to 12.4 

percent in the first half of 2022.

On the export side, OCEAN increased its 

share of the export market to 47 percent in the 

first half of 2022. 2M had roughly 20 percent of 

the transpacific export market in both the first 

halves of 2021 and 2022, and THE Alliance 

decreased its share slightly between 2020 and 

2021 and the share remained stable between 

2021 and 2022.

In the transatlantic trades, as shown in 

Chart 2, the alliances collectively captured 89 

percent of imports and 88 percent of exports in 

the first half of 2022. The share of non-alliance 

carrier volumes was relatively stable over this 

period. On the import side, 2M carriers grew 

their share of the trade from 41 percent in the 

Chart 2: Transatlantic Alliance Market Shares, First Half (Jan-June), 2020-2022
61st Annual Report 23

first half of 2020 to 46 percent in the first half 

of 2022. Both OCEAN and THE alliances saw 

their share of import volumes decrease on 

this trade. On the export side, both OCEAN 

and THE alliances had larger shares of the 

market vis-a-vis their imports. While THE 

alliance carriers’ market share remained relatively stable over this period, OCEAN carriers’ 

market share decreased by roughly 3.5 percentage points.

Turning next to the individual carriers, we 

see in Chart 3, that there were substantial variations in market shares across the trade lanes 

and by direction of trade (export vs. import).

Not surprisingly, given the increased share 

of 2M carriers noted above, MSC’s market 

share of the transpacific trade increased 

substantially, from roughly eight percent of 

import volumes in the first half of 2020 to over 

15 percent in the first half of 2022. Maersk’s 

share increased as well from nine percent 

in 2020 to 12 percent in 2022. Over the same 

period, there were small decreases in market 

share for Yang Ming, HMM, Hapag-Lloyd, 

Evergreen, and COSCO.

Turning to transatlantic exports, as shown 

in Chart 4, MSC and Maersk have substantially lower shares of the market, 10.6 percent, 

and 9.2 percent respectively. ONE, COSCO, 

and CMA CGM have export market shares 

that are appreciably higher than their import 

market shares.

Chart 3: Transpacific Market Shares, First Half (Jan-June), 2020-2022
24 61st Annual Report

Regarding imports, MSC leads the transatlantic market with a market share of 35 

percent in the first half of 2022, increasing 

from roughly 29 percent in the first half of 

2020. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd saw their 

shares of the import market decrease on the 

order of two percentage points each over 

the same period. Most other market shares 

were stable. MSC has roughly a quarter of the 

export market, notably smaller than its share 

of the import market. Hapag-Lloyd also has 

roughly a quarter of the export market share, 

appreciably higher than its 19 percent share 

of the import market.

Services, Capacity, and Schedule Changes

For FY 2022, OCEAN Alliance launched 

three new services to the U.S., two of which 

serve the U.S. West Coast (PNW11 and PN12) 

and another the U.S. East Coast (USEC8). These 

services are part of the Day 6 OCEAN product that began in May. Due to the operational 

changes related to congestion, THE Alliance 

split a pendulum service calling Asia-USWCAsia-Europe into two separate services, one 

of which sails between Asia and the U.S. West 

Coast (PS7) and the other between Asia and 

Europe. The 2M Alliance announced no major 

Chart 4: Transatlantic Carrier Market Shares, First Half (Jan-June), 2020-2022
61st Annual Report 25

service changes in FY 2022; however, 2M has 

proposed and submitted two notices of service 

changes to be implemented in mid- to lateOctober 2022 involving one merged service 

and one discontinued service to the U.S. West 

Coast.

Each alliance carrier is required to report 

monthly the number of sailings operated, 

the volume of loaded containers (in TEUs) 

carried on the sailings regardless of origin/

destination, and capacity provided in each 

trade lane where that alliance operates (in 

TEUs). Inbound capacity declined over the 

six months from January 2022 to June 2022 

in both the transpacific trade (4 percent) and 

the transatlantic trade (11 percent). Some of 

the decline in trade capacity can be linked to 

the increase in port congestion at U.S. ports 

throughout FY 2022. As congestion persisted 

at U.S. ports, alliance carriers both delayed 

and canceled sailings due to the difficulty of 

keeping the vessels’ schedules.

The amount of capacity removed due to 

blank sailings has increased since the beginning of this fiscal year in both the transpacific 

and the transatlantic trades compared to the 

same period last year. All three global alliances 

have reduced capacity through blank sailings 

due to the ongoing congestion and delays in 

the ocean transportation system. These delays 

substantially impacted schedule reliability 

and led to vessels not being able to complete 

their voyage in the scheduled time frame. 

However, there were a few blanked sailings 

moving into FY 2023 due to low demand and 

Golden Week holidays in China that could 

indicate a future market transition from blankings due to congestion to those due to demand.

The Commission issued new monitoring 

requirements to the three global alliances in 

May 2022. As part of these new requirements, 

alliance carriers now submit delayed sailing 

information each week, retroactive to January 2022. Delayed sailings include voyages 

delayed by at least one day before reaching 

their first port of call in the United States. 

Delayed sailings on alliance services increased 

over the first six months of the year, particularly on services between Asia and the U.S. 

West Coast. Delayed sailings on the transpacific trade ranged between 63 and 99 percent 

as a share of operated capacity in the first half 

of 2022.

Tariffs/NRAs/NSAs and Service Contracts

Tariffs, NRAs, and NSAs

The FMC maintains a listing of all ocean 

carrier tariff websites for the public to use 

in identifying ocean carriers’ rules and rates 

for the transportation of cargo. This includes 

more than 8,600 common carrier tariff locations posted on the FMC’s website—the vast 

majority of which are Non-Vessel-Operating 

Common Carrier (NVOCC) tariffs compared 

to 150 VOCC tariffs. While publishing tariff 

locations makes it possible for the public to 

access the rates and rules of carriers, many 

common carriers rely upon tariff publishers 

to publish their tariffs, often requiring payment for access.

An NPRM was published in May 2022 

proposing to remove the option for common 

carriers to charge a fee to access their tariff. 87 

Fed. Reg. 27,971(May 20, 2022). Commission 
26 61st Annual Report

regulations exempt NVOCCs from rate tariff 

publication when using a confidential NVOCC 

Service Arrangement (NSA) and a Negotiated 

Rate Arrangement (NRA). However, NVOCCs 

must still publish a rules tariff containing the 

terms and conditions governing the charges, 

classifications, rules, regulations, and practices of an NVOCC, regardless of the use of 

NRAs and NSAs. The Commission has concentrated efforts on ensuring that all NVOCCs 

maintain a rules tariff that is publicly available.

Increased demand during the pandemic 

induced multiple new carriers to enter the 

transpacific market. However, in many cases, 

these new services were suspended within a 

short period. Table 1 below tracks the service 

period for these carriers.

Table 1: Pandemic Carrier Entry and 

Exit Date

Vessel Operator Market 

Entry Date

Market 

Exit Date

Iris Logistics, Inc. September 

2021

November 

2022

Lihua Logistics 

Company, Limited

August 

2021

October 

2022

CULines Ocean 

Limited

November 

2021

September 

2022

Oriental Lake 

Shipping 

Operation Limited

August 

2021

July 2022

China SOC Lines 

Limited

November 

2021

March 

2022

Service Contracts

The Shipping Act requires ocean common 

carriers to file service contracts with the Commission. Over time, the number of original 

service contracts filed has increased with the 

rise in spot market or single shipment service 

contracts of a limited duration. Amendments 

to service contracts are affected by changes 

to costs and charges, including fuel costs. 

Although the FMC is directed by statute to 

evaluate service contracts, the large volume, 

the lack of uniform filing requirements, and 

the lack of key data elements prevent the FMC 

from properly leveraging the information in 

service contracts to track developments in 

the industry and to assess for compliance at 

a reasonable scale.

Service contract volumes, particularly for 

amendments, are typically higher in times 

of market transition. The Commission has 

received historic high numbers of service 

contract amendments in the past year (as 

shown in Chart 5), over 90,000 in September 2022 alone, which is the highest single 

month on record. Without major revisions 

to systems and filing requirements, the FMC 

cannot leverage the information contained 

in service contracts to determine whether 

this is driven by changes in fuel prices or 

major downward revisions in contract rates. 

In FY 2023, the Commission will engage in 

a rulemaking to propose adjustments to the 

required elements and filing format of service 

contracts and increase staffing and IT support 

to develop an improved system for receiving, 

processing, and analyzing service contracts.
61st Annual Report 27

International Cooperation

The Commissioners and Commission staff 

attended several meetings with international 

counterparts during FY 2022.

Chairman Maffei and Commissioner Dye 

met with Consultative Shipping Group 

representatives when they attended discussions between the U.S. and the Consultative 

Shipping Group in September 2022. At this 

meeting, Chairman Maffei provided an overview of the Commission’s new authorities and 

implementation of OSRA 2022. Also, Commissioner Dye summarized the findings and 

recommendations provided in the final report 

for Fact Finding Investigation 29, Effects of the 

COVID-19 Pandemic on the U.S. International 

Ocean Supply Chain: Stakeholder Engagement 

and Possible Violations of 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c).

In addition, the Commission hosted several bilateral meetings with international 

counterparts. For example, in December 

2021, Chairman Maffei met with Ambassador Lone Dencker Wisborg, the Ambassador 

of Denmark to the United States, and discussed supply chain challenges, as well as 

ongoing Commission initiatives and priorities. A similar meeting was held with Andreas 

Nordseth, the Director General of the Danish 

Maritime Authority in June 2022. Also, in May 

2022, Chairman Maffei and Commissioner 

Dye met with the co-chairs of the Canadian 

Chart 5: Service Contract Filings
28 61st Annual Report

Supply Chain Task Force to discuss strengthening transportation supply chains between 

Canada and the United States.

Additionally, Commissioner Bentzel represented the Commission in attending the 

U.S.-Republic of Korea Bilateral Maritime 

Meeting hosted by the U.S. Maritime Administration in August 2022. Representatives from 

the U.S. and the Korean government discussed 

topics including maritime strategies, port 

infrastructure, and decarbonization. During 

the meeting, the U.S. and Korean delegations 

identified shared challenges and areas for 

possible cooperation. Commissioner Bentzel 

provided an overview of the Commission, 

its priorities, OSRA 2022, and Commission’s 

implementation of OSRA 2022. In November 

2021, Commissioner Dye attended a meeting 

of the Consultative Shipping Group (consisting of 18 foreign government representatives) 

to discuss mutual supply chain challenges.

In addition, Commission staff met on multiple occasions with international counterparts 

from Canada, Brazil, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. At these 

meetings, Commission staff discussed the 

Commission’s functions and authority, as well 

as challenges to the international supply chain.

Competitive Impact of Ocean Carrier Alliance 

Joint Purchases of Certain Covered Services

On December 4, 2018, the Frank LoBiondo 

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (LoBiondo Act) was enacted as Public Law No. 

115-282 and included in Title VII the Federal 

Maritime Commission Authorization Act of 

2017. Among other changes, the law placed 

restrictions on cooperation between or among 

ocean carriers and MTOs, including removing 

antitrust immunity for certain activities, prohibiting certain joint procurement activities, 

restricting overlapping agreement participation, and modifying the legal standard for 

enjoining agreements to jointly procure certain covered services, including:

•  the berthing or bunkering of a vessel;

•  the loading or unloading of cargo to/

from a vessel, or to/from a point on a 

wharf or terminal;

•  the positioning, removal, or replacement of buoys related to the movement 

of the vessel; or

•  towing vessel services provided to a 

vessel.

The law amended 46 U.S.C § 46106 to 

require that the Commission annually provide 

to Congress: (1) an analysis of the competitive 

impact of ocean carrier alliance joint purchases 

of the covered services mentioned above; and 

(2) a summary of actions, including corrective 

actions, taken by the Commission to promote 

competition.

Analysis of Joint Purchasing 

Agreements

A Terminal Services Agreement (TSA) is 

an agreement between an MTO and a VOCC 

concerning marine terminal services provided 

to and paid for by the VOCC. These services 

include dockage, free time, handling, heavy 

lift, loading and unloading, terminal storage, usage, wharfage, wharf demurrage, and 

checking (the service of counting and checking 
61st Annual Report 29

cargo against the shipping documentation), 

and including any marine terminal facilities 

that may be provided incidentally to such 

marine terminal services. Three agreements 

on file with the Commission have active, 

jointly negotiated TSAs in effect. TSAs from 

two of these agreements were reviewed in 

past years, posed no competitive concerns, 

and did not undergo any changes since FY 

2021; therefore, they were not reanalyzed in 

FY 2022. TSAs from THE Alliance agreement 

(FMC No. 012439) made changes in FY 2022 

and, as a result, these TSAs were analyzed for 

potential anticompetitive impacts.

There are two primary competition concerns 

with respect to joint purchasing arrangements. 

First, if the parties have a significant degree of 

purchasing power in the relevant market, the 

parties may drive the price of the purchased 

services below competitive levels. Second, if 

access to service providers is limited, competing purchasers may be excluded from the 

market. This is most likely where there are 

barriers to entry that prevent new service providers from entering the purchasing market or 

that prevent expansion by existing providers.

The DOJ and the FTC have jointly issued 

guidance on the key metrics that should be 

analyzed when market participants engage 

in joint purchasing, a case of collaboration among competitors. If joint purchases 

account for less than 35 percent of the total 

sales (or output) of the purchased services in 

the relevant upstream market, and the cost 

of the jointly purchased services account for 

less than 20 percent of the buying group’s 

sales revenue in each relevant downstream 

market, the DOJ/FTC generally would consider any such arrangement to fall within the 

safety zone. These two thresholds are general 

boundaries that, if crossed, would likely subject the group to increased antitrust scrutiny.

In the case of joint purchasing agreements 

between ocean carriers and terminal operators 

and/or stevedoring companies, the relevant 

upstream market is the market in which terminal and stevedoring services are sold by 

providers and purchased by ocean carriers. 

The relevant downstream market is the ocean 

transportation services market in which the 

buying groups compete to sell those services 

to shippers.

The above referenced terminal and stevedoring services jointly negotiated by THE 

Alliance were reviewed to ensure conformity 

with the DOJ/FTC guidelines for joint purchasing arrangements.

Safety zone threshold tests were conducted 

using data from the first three quarters of 

FY 2022 (October 2021-June 2022). Data for 

this analysis includes elements submitted 

by the parties as part of ongoing Commission monitoring, as well as information from 

commercially available resources. Staff analyzed the port markets of Los Angeles-Long 

Beach, CA, New York-New Jersey, Oakland, 

CA, Seattle-Tacoma, WA, Jacksonville, FL, and 

Wilmington, NC. In upstream markets, combined purchases of covered services by the 

members of the agreement were less than 35 

percent in each of the relevant markets.

Turning to the second threshold test, members within THE Alliance compete on the basis 

of price with other agreement members in 

downstream ocean transportation services in 

four markets: Asia to/from the U.S. West Coast; 

Asia to/from the U.S. East and Gulf coasts; 

North Europe to/from the United States; and 

the Mediterranean to/from the United States. 

Elevated rates for container shipping have led 
30 61st Annual Report

to higher revenues for shipping lines in FY 

2022 than pre-pandemic. However, throughput rates for terminal services have remained 

steady, leading to these port charges reflecting 

a lower share of total sales revenue than in 

prior years. Data for this analysis comes solely 

from information submitted by the parties as 

part of regular monitoring. In these markets, 

the value of joint purchases was below the 

threshold of 20 percent of the parties’ total 

sales in the relevant markets.

In summary, THE Alliance agreement operates within the safe harbor guidelines for joint 

purchasing arrangements promulgated by the 

DOJ and FTC. FMC will continue to monitor and assess joint purchasing of covered 

services.
61st Annual Report 31

Protecting the Public

Strategic Goal 2

The FMC engages in a variety of activities that protect the public from unlawful, unfair, 

and deceptive practices that lead to financial harm. The Commission: issues licenses for U.S. 

OTIs and registers foreign-based OTIs; ensures financial responsibility of all OTIs through 

bonding requirements; helps resolve disputes about the shipment of goods or the carriage of 

passengers; investigates and prosecutes unreasonable or unjust practices; and issues rulings 

on private party complaints that allege Shipping Act violations. In addition, the FMC ensures 

that PVOs maintain proper financial coverage to reimburse cruise passengers in the event 

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

Licensing and Financial Responsibility

OTI and PVO programs are operated by 

the Commission to protect the public. These 

programs focus on three primary areas: (1) 

OTI licensing and registrations; (2) PVO certifications and monitoring; and (3) entities’ 

financial responsibilities.

Ocean Transportation 

Intermediaries

The number of OTIs has increased substantially since the onset of the pandemic in early 

2020. As of the end of FY 2022, over 9,000 OTIs 

are regulated by the Commission—collectively 

just over 5,000 licensed United States-based 

and more than 4,000 foreign-based NVOCC 

entities. As the demand for ocean transportation services increased, there was a large influx 

of foreign-based NVOCCs into the market.

There are two types of OTIs: NVOCCs and 

OFFs. Both serve as transportation middlemen for cargo moving in the U.S.-foreign 

oceanborne trades. An NVOCC is a common 

carrier that holds itself out to the public to 

provide ocean transportation and issues its 

own house BOL or equivalent document but 

does not operate the vessel by which ocean 

transportation is provided. A U.S.-based OFF 

arranges for transportation of cargo with a 

common carrier (NVOCC or VOCC) on behalf 

of shippers and processes documents related 

to U.S. export shipments. However, an OFF 

does not hold itself out to the public to provide ocean transportation and does not issue 

a house bill of lading or equivalent shipping 

documents.

NVOCCs and OFFs located in the U.S. must 

be licensed by the Commission. To become 

FMC-licensed, an OTI must successfully 

demonstrate the following to the Commission: evidence of a minimum of three-years 

experience providing OTI services in the U.S.; 

the necessary character to render OTI services; 

and proof of financial responsibility. Currently, there are 5,045 licensed NVOCCs and 

OFFs that maintain financial responsibility in 

the form of surety bonds on file with the Commission, valued at $533 million. These funds 
32 61st Annual Report

are available to pay for damage caused by the 

licensee’s OTI-related activities.

Foreign-based NVOCCs that conduct business in the U.S. foreign trades are required to 

register with the Commission and to establish financial responsibility in the form of 

surety bonds. Registrants provide basic corporate contact information for the company. 

If preferred, a foreign NVOCC may choose 

to become licensed. As shown in Chart 6 

below, in FY 2020, there were roughly 1,900 

foreign-based NVOCCs, and in FY 2021 there 

were roughly 2,800. Currently, there are 4,072 

foreign registered NVOCCs and 73 foreign 

licensed NVOCCs that maintain financial 

responsibility in the form of surety bonds 

on file with the Commission, valued at $616 

million.

The Commission’s triennial renewal program for licensed OTIs ensures the accuracy 

of OTI records and timeliness in reporting 

material changes in ownership and operations for the benefit of OTI sureties, carriers, 

and the shipping public. The online userfriendly renewal process prepopulates the 

OTI’s renewal form with information from 

the FMC’s files, providing a streamlined experience. In most cases, the renewal process 

takes only five minutes. Foreign-registered 

NVOCCs must also renew their registrations 

every three years. In FY 2022, approximately 

1,500 OTI licenses were renewed, with most 

reviewed and processed within 48 hours of 

submission. Given the increased number of 

OTIs, there is a corresponding increase in 

workload related to renewal and evaluating 

these regulated entities for compliance.

At the end of FY 2022, the Commission had 

383 Optional Riders on file, with an approximate aggregated value of over $19 million. 

The bond is optional and at the discretion of 

individual NVOCCs.

Chart 6: Trends in OTIs, FY 2020 − FY 2022
61st Annual Report 33

In addition, OSRA 2022 mandates the 

Commission establish guidance and adopt 

regulations for registration of shipping 

exchanges within three years of its June 2022 

enactment. BCL is responsible for this rulemaking and has already begun framing the 

guidance for implementing and complying 

with this new requirement.

Passenger Vessel 

Operators

The FMC oversees a program to ensure 

financial responsibility for PVOs, (commonly 

referred to as “cruise lines”), that have berth 

or stateroom accommodations for 50 or more 

passengers and embark passengers at U.S. 

ports and territories. The requirement for Certificates of Performance issued by the FMC 

ensures financial responsibility for the indemnification of passengers for non-performance 

of transportation and prevents unscrupulous 

or financially vulnerable operators from serving U.S. ports. The PVO program currently 

includes 48 operators and 258 vessels.

As previously presented, Fact Finding 30, 

COVID-19 Impact on Cruise Industry, identified 

commercial solutions to COVID-19-related 

issues interfering with the operation of the 

cruise industry. Under 46 C.F.R. § 540.5 and 46 

C.F.R. § 540.9(l), the Commission can consider 

alternative forms of financial protection using 

a shorter period to determine the required 

amount of a PVO’s financial responsibility. 

In July 2020, the Commission approved a 

Passenger Vessel Operator Financial Responsibility policy to provide limited and temporary 

financial relief for small PVOs whose operations and business were disrupted by the 

response to COVID-19. The FMC determined 

it would look favorably upon requests from 

small PVOs seeking a temporary surety/financial responsibility lower coverage amount 

based upon 110 percent of the PVO’s previous 

month’s UPR rather than the prior two fiscal 

years’ UPR. Operators were required to agree 

to: 1) provide monthly reports to the FMC 

that satisfactorily demonstrate the company’s 

UPR, and 2) comply with the requirements 

and conditions of the alternative form of 

evidence of financial responsibility, or they 

would be subject to the default requirements 

in the Commission’s regulations.

In February 2022, the Commission amended 

its regulations governing non-performance 

by PVOs to establish new requirements for 

refunding cruise passengers for cancelled or 

delayed voyages. Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 

PVOs’ ticket contract policies and procedures 

traditionally refunded passengers in the form 

of future cruise credits in lieu of monetary 

refunds for non-performance. The pandemic 

resulted in considerable uncertainty regarding 

fully operational cruises, yet passengers were 

still being held to their ticket contracts. The 

OTI Program Activity in 

FY 2022

• New OTI applications accepted: 429

• Amended applications accepted: 317

• New OTI licenses issued: 285

• Amended licenses issued: 70

• Licenses revoked or surrendered: 225

• New registrations accepted: 1,582

• Licenses renewed: 1,772

• Registrations renewed: 830
34 61st Annual Report

Commission’s new rule mandated that passengers be fully refunded within 180 days all 

fees, including ancillary fees, paid to the PVO. 

Optionally, passengers could agree to receive 

future cruise credits in lieu of the refund.

Consumer Affairs and 

Dispute Resolution

CADRS provides assistance to the maritime 

industry and the shipping public to resolve 

regulatory and commercial ocean shipping 

problems that involve cargo, household goods, 

and cruises. CADRS provides a variety of dispute resolution services, including ombuds, 

mediation, facilitation, and arbitration. 

CADRS staff has years of experience working in the maritime industry and responds to 

inquiries and guides parties to find mutually 

agreeable solutions while avoiding the cost 

and delay of litigation. Participation is voluntary, and all matters are kept confidential 

unless the parties grant permission to share 

information. Also, CADRS has a dedicated 

export expert and a Rapid Response Team 

that are a resource for exporters experiencing 

an emergency. Ocean carriers have a designated FMC Compliance Officer that directly 

and quickly responds to CADRS in urgent 

time-sensitive matters.

To increase assistance to the ocean shipping 

public and U.S. exporters, the Commission 

bolstered the services of CADRS with more 

resources and staffing. CADRS assists in 

resolving commercial disputes on an informal 

basis, as well as through formal mediation. 

Supply chain strains due to the pandemic 

resulted in increased disputes between entities, 

particularly between carriers and shippers. In 

FY 2022, CADRS responded to 1,496 inquiries 

from the public and seven mediations were 

concluded.

The FMC was contacted by individuals 

with shipping and cruise-related complaints 

referred by several federal and state agencies, 

including the U.S. Surface Transportation 

Board, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the New Jersey State Attorney General, 

and the Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services. Where appropriate, 

Commission staff also referred individuals 

to the Surface Transportation Board’s Rail 

Customer and Public Assistance Program 

for concerns related to railway delays and 

charges. Examples of assistance provided to 

the shipping public included:

•  U.S. exporters obtained refunds of 

freight charges when ocean carriers 

incorrectly applied surcharges and 

containers were held at destination 

ports until resolved.

•  U.S. exporters successfully disputed 

demurrage and detention charges 

resulting in mitigation or cancellation 

of the charges when ocean carriers did 

PVO Program Activity in 

FY 2022

• Aggregate evidence of financial 

responsibility for nonperformance: 

$817 million

• Aggregate evidence of financial responsibility for casualty: $763 million

• New Performance Certificates issued: 

27

• New Casualty Certificates issued: 24
61st Annual Report 35

not adhere to the FMC’s Interpretive 

Rule.

•  Household goods shippers got their 

export shipments booked and loaded 

after lengthy delays due to tight space 

allocations in certain markets or 

delayed release/container availability 

due to port congestion.

•  With the help of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, inspectors resumed 

on-site inspections of agricultural 

shipments which had been suspended 

during the pandemic.

•  MTOs in the Pacific Northwest 

region located and released containers that had not been made available 

for months due to significant port 

congestion. U.S. importers whose 

shipments, moving under a through 

BOL, encountered: significant delays 

due to congestion faced by rail carriers; disputes over dwell fees that were 

assessed by MTOs; and motor carriers unable to find empty container 

appointments and return locations.

Enforcement And Compliance

VOCC Audit Program

The VOCC Audit Program was launched 

in July 2021. This initiative involves the ongoing collection of qualitative and quantitative 

information from the largest ocean common 

carriers, as well as regular meetings with 

carrier representatives regarding the Commission’s key priorities, including detention and 

demurrage. In FY 2022, the FMC began publishing aggregated information on the levels 

and trends of detention and demurrage fees 

charged and collected by carriers. This information is updated quarterly and published 

on our website.

In FY 2022, the program scope expanded 

to include a focus on exports. The VOCC 

Audit Team met with carriers to discuss 

trends in the numbers of exports carried and 

issues impacting exports. Carriers and shippers cited problems with cancelled bookings, 

particularly for exports. In June 2022, the FMC 

began collecting information from the carriers on “fall down,” the share of confirmed 

bookings that are cancelled. As additional 

quarterly data is collected on this metric, it 

will be published on our website.

The VOCC audit meetings with carriers 

have proven to be an effective way to communicate Commission priorities, discuss 

best practices, and gather their questions. 

Following the enactment of OSRA 2022, 

these meetings have been used to: identify 

appropriate points of contact for compliance 

matters and charge complaints filed with the 

Commission; reinforce Commission policy 

statements; and update carriers on upcoming Commission activities. The VOCC Audit 

Program will continue its work in FY 2023, 

focusing on continued challenges impacting 

exports, carrier practices, and preventing antiretaliatory policies.
36 61st Annual Report

Enforcement, Investigations, and 

Compliance

Protecting the shipping public through the 

Commission’s enforcement program is a top 

priority. OSRA 2022 expanded the FMC’s 

authorities in this area, and the Commission 

is focused on increasing enforcement activity 

involving common carrier practices. Through 

investigation and prosecution of violations of 

the law, the Commission achieves industry 

compliance with the Shipping Act, as amended 

by OSRA 2022, as well as other shipping statutes administered by the Commission.

In July 2022, the Commission reorganized 

its investigative and prosecutorial functions, 

forming the BEIC. This newly established 

bureau provides a structure better suited to 

investigate suspected violations and pursue 

enforcement activity when appropriate, while 

still encouraging and emphasizing compliance. Attorneys, investigators, and analysts 

work closely together to prosecute unlawful 

activities on the ocean transportation supply 

chain. As part of this reorganization, the positions of Area Representatives were converted 

to Investigator positions, with new duties that 

focus exclusively on enforcement activities 

under the Shipping Act and OSRA 2022’s new 

authorities. To prepare for this transition, the 

Director, Office of Investigations conducted 

a program evaluation resulting in organizational structure changes, including new 

supervisory and advanced technical roles, and 

created staff development plans to include the 

National Certified Investigator and Inspector 

Training to prepare investigators for the new 

positions.

In FY 2022, U.S. exporters and importers 

dealt with supply chain challenges, including 

congestion, significant demurrage and detention charges, and a lack of appointments, 

equipment, and vessel space. The FMC’s 

enforcement efforts focused on VOCC and 

MTO practices that assess unjust or unreasonable charges which impact and exacerbate 

supply chain problems.

Channeling the Commission’s resources to 

focus on high-impact cases creates a substantial deterrent against similar illegal conduct. 

Three formal proceedings involving unjust 

and unreasonable practices in violation of the 

Shipping Act were initiated. One proceeding 

resulted in a civil penalty of $2 million, and 

two proceedings were ongoing at the end of 

the fiscal year.

In FY 2022, the Office of Investigations 

opened more than 100 investigations related 

to unjust and unreasonable practices with 

respect to demurrage and detention charges, 

unfair or unjust discriminatory methods, 

unlicensed OTI activity and rates, charges, 

classifications, and other practices of VOCCs, 

MTOs, and OTIs that may have violated the 

law.

As of the end of FY 2022, 29 total enforcement cases were pending final resolution. 

In addition, investigators referred nine new 

investigative matters to BEIC’s Office of 

Enforcement (OE) for enforcement action or 

informal compromise, and three matters were 

the subjects of formal proceedings initiated by 

the Commission during FY 2022 via Orders of 

Investigation and Hearing. Moreover, PENs 

were issued to two regulated entities in FY 

2022. Finally, during FY 2022, OE was a party 

to three formal proceedings under 46 CFR Part 

502, Subpart X, of the Commission’s regulations involving challenges to OTI license 
61st Annual Report 37

denial and revocation notices issued by the 

BCL.

The Commission cooperates with other 

federal, state, and local transportation and 

law enforcement agencies through established MOUs which allow the FMC to share 

information and access confidential trade 

information for law enforcement purposes 

and other enforcement activities. The FMC 

also collaborates and partners with other 

agencies on specific transportation-related 

policies, issues, or incidents involving U.S. 

domestic and international liner shipping.

In FY 2022, joint law enforcement activities 

involving FMC included criminal and civil 

investigations of entities licensed or regulated 

by the FMC, as well as violations of export 

and import statutes and regulations. Several 

FMC Investigators participated with the U.S. 

CBP, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other federal 

agencies in annual Multi-Agency Strike Force 

Operations conducted at marine terminals at 

the ports of New York and New Jersey, Oakland, CA, and Seattle, WA. The Investigators 

aided these investigations by providing expert 

knowledge on ocean carrier and OTI practices, procedures, and documentation related 

to shipping transactions. The Commission and 

the CBP also exchanged investigative information to enhance and safeguard the global 

economic competitiveness of the U.S.

The Commission’s compliance audit program reviews the operations of NVOCCs and 

ocean freight forwarders, identifies aspects 

of their practices that are noncompliant with 

statutory or regulatory requirements, and 

provides guidance to bring those regulated 

entities into compliance. The audit program 

also reviews companies that hold themselves 

out as ocean carriers but do not appear to 

conduct vessel operations. During the fiscal 

year, BEIC opened 103 audits and completed 

93 (including audits carried over from FY 

2021), with 10 audits pending as of September 30, 2022.

Enforcement activities for FY 2022 include 

the following type of matters:

•  Investigations: 191

•  Enforcement Activities: 204

•  Compliance Matters: 59

•  Formal Enforcement Proceedings: 3

Charge Complaints

Section 10 of OSRA 2022 established a new 

avenue of relief for shippers and other persons 

called a charge complaint. Upon submission 

of information concerning complaints about 

charges assessed by a common carrier, the 

Commission must promptly investigate the 

charge regarding compliance with certain 

provisions of the Shipping Act and, if the 

charges are found to be noncompliant, the 

Commission will promptly order the noncompliant charges refunded and may impose 

a civil penalty. (46 U.S.C. § 41310). In FY 2022, 

the Commission initiated an interim process 

for receiving and investigating charge complaints, and investigations are underway. The 

Commission is devoting significant resources 

to ensure charge complaints are processed 

quickly, as contemplated by the law. As stated 

above in the section of this report regarding 

implementation of OSRA 2022, as of September 30, the Commission received 101 charge 

complaints, and complainants recovered 

nearly $700,000 in refunds or cancelled and 

waived invoices from charges assessed by 

common carriers.
38 61st Annual Report

Guidance on this new process and related 

information on Charge Complaints are 

available on the Commission’s OSRA 2022 

implementation webpage.

National Shipper Advisory 

Committee

Establishing a shipper advisory board was 

a key recommendation from Fact Finding 

28, Conditions and Practices Relating to Detention, Demurrage, and Free Time in International 

Oceanborne Commerce. The National Shipper 

Advisory Committee (NSAC), comprised 

of 12 import representatives and 12 export 

representatives, was chartered in June 2021, 

and operates under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., and 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 425. Specifically, the Committee will 

advise the Commission on policies relating 

to the competitiveness, reliability, integrity, 

and fairness of the international ocean freight 

delivery system. Commission staff support the 

activities of this committee, including serving 

as the Committee Management Officer, the 

Designated Federal Officer, and two Alternate 

Designated Federal Officers. Members of the 

public may find more information about the 

NSAC (member list, charter, meeting materials, recommendations, and responses) on our 

website.

The Committee has taken an active role 

since its establishment, forming subcommittees related to fees/surcharges, data, and 

equipment. The NSAC issued recommendations at its April 2022 meeting related to 

dwell fees and intermodal oversight, and at 

its August 2022 meeting recommendations 

related to earliest return date and the creation 

of a second advisory committee were issued.
61st Annual Report 39

Developments in Major 

U.S. Foreign Trades

After initial declines in production and 

consumption worldwide at the outset of the 

COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, U.S. 

consumer demand rebounded quickly. As 

shown in Chart 7 below, consumer spending shifted markedly from service to goods, 

with real spending on services not returning to 

their pre-pandemic levels until late 2021. And 

while real spending on durable and nondurable goods has declined in the third quarter 

of 2022, spending on goods is still far in excess 

of its pre-pandemic levels.

This shift to consumer spending on goods 

led to increased demands on the supply chain, 

as items such as apparel, furniture, and other 

durables rely on international sources and 

accompanying ocean transportation. The 

unprecedented demand for imports, coupled 

with intermittent supply chain disruptions in 

2021 due to continued COVID-19 outbreaks 

Chart 7: Real Personal Consumption, 2019-2022

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
40 61st Annual Report

at the factories and ports in China, Vietnam, 

and other major trading partners, led to severe 

port congestion throughout 2021 and into the 

first quarter of 2022. Congestion was lessened, 

but still prevalent, at several East Coast and 

Gulf ports in the latter half of 2022.

Rising prices have been a focus of policymakers, including the Federal Reserve Board, 

since early in 2021. While international price 

indices tend to be more volatile than the Consumer Price Index or Producer Price Index, 

several international price indices hit series 

highs in 2022, including the February 2022 

Import Price Index, which was the highest 

since 1989.

As shown in Chart 8 below, while the Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index 

tend to be more stable, the monthly numbers 

for these indices were in the one percent range 

throughout much of the first half of the year 

and recently decreased as a result of several 

interest rate increases. Despite this, they are 

persistently above the federal target rate 

of inflation. This is not a U.S.-specific phenomenon. There is widespread inflation and 

economic slowdown globally, which drove 

substantial reductions in ocean transportation services.

Chart 8: Price Indices, one month change

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
61st Annual Report 41

Containerized U.S. Imports and Exports

Chart 9 below depicts monthly containerized cargo entering and exiting the U.S. for 

the West, East, and Gulf Coasts (note that 

there is a small amount of trade outside of 

these three coasts, including the Great Lakes). 

Monthly import volumes through ports on 

the Gulf Coast increased steadily throughout 

2022 and are roughly twice their 2019 levels. 

Exports through West and East Coast ports 

continue to lag their sustained highs from the 

first half of 2021. While all are reflecting the 

seasonal downturn that tends to happen with 

exports in the fall months in terms of their 

2022 numbers, it is notable that the Gulf Coast 

export volumes are relatively on par with their 

levels from the prior three years.

While it seems obvious that transpacific 

trade is primarily moving through West 

Coast ports, the volumes of transpacific trade 

moving through East Coast and Gulf Coast 

ports were substantially higher in 2022 than in 

prior years. Also notable from Chart 10 below 

is that the volume (in TEUs) of transpacific 

exports have been dropping steadily yearover-year, while the exports moving through 

East and Gulf Coast ports has remained stable.

Chart 9: Monthly Volumes by U.S. Coast, 2019-2022

Source: PIERS
42 61st Annual Report

Chart 10: Transpacific Trade Quarterly Volumes by U.S. Coast, 2019-2022
61st Annual Report 43

Commodities Imported and Exported

Tables 2 through 7 below present the top 

10 commodities that the U.S. exported and 

imported through East Coast and West Coast 

ports from January through September 2022.

The commodities in the tables represent 

those imported and exported through all 

trades, which includes the major North-South 

trades, featuring agricultural products such 

as bananas, rather than just the East-West 

trades with Asia, which are more heavily 

comprised of manufactured products. Made 

clear by the types of commodities in the tables, 

exports tend to be heavier and lower value 

than imports. In particular, note that the top 

exports for the West Coast are commodities 

such as wastepaper, hay, and scrap metal. The 

weight and value imbalance creates obstacles 

to U.S. exporters, particularly those attempting 

to access the East-West trades. Additionally, 

the higher weights of exports mean that ships 

traveling from the U.S. back to Asia have 

limits on the number of full export containers, 

as the weight capacity of the ship is exceeded 

before all TEUs slots are full.
44 61st Annual Report

Table 2: West Coast – Top 10 U.S. 

Import Commodities

Rank Commodity TEU

1 furniture NESOI 

and parts thereof 1,037,184

2

seats (except barber, 

dental, etc.), and 

parts

349,014

3 new pneumatic tires, 

of rubber 306,944

4

parts & access for 

motor vehicles 

(head 8701-8705)

300,545

5

toys NESOI; scale 

models etc; puzzles; 

parts etc

242,324

6

travel goods, 

handbags, wallets, 

jewelry cases etc

228,297

7

refrigerators, 

freezers etc; heat 

pumps NESOI, pts

174,393

8

articles of plastics 

(inc polymers & 

resins) NESOI

171,062

9

tableware & other 

household articles 

etc., plastics

157,471

10

lamps & lighting 

fittings & parts etc 

NESOI

141,855

Table 3: West Coast – Top 10 U.S. 

Exports Commodities

Rank Commodity TEU

1 waste and scrap of 

paper or paperboard 310,327

2

rutabagas, hay, 

clover & other 

forage products

247,790

3 soybeans, whether 

or not broken 131,375

4 cotton, not carded 

or combed 124,205

5

ferrous waste & 

scrap; remelt scr 

iron/steel ingot

108,827

6

residues of starch 

mfr or sugar mfr or 

brewing etc.

92,950

7 nuts NESOI, fresh 

or dried 92,731

8

motor cars 

& vehicles for 

transporting 

persons

58,990

9 preparations used in 

animal feeding 54,503

10

meat of swine 

(pork), fresh, chilled 

or frozen

41,855
61st Annual Report 45

Table 4: East Coast – Top 10 U.S. Import 

Commodities

Rank Commodity TEU

1 furniture NESOI 

and parts thereof 886,343

2

parts & access for 

motor vehicles 

(head 8701-8705)

315,862

3 new pneumatic tires, 

of rubber 272,215

4

seats (except barber, 

dental, etc.), and 

parts

240,860

5

bananas and 

plantains, fresh or 

dried

188,934

6

toys NESOI; scale 

models etc; puzzles; 

parts etc

154,694

7

travel goods, 

handbags, wallets, 

jewelry cases etc.

142,864

8

refrigerators, 

freezers etc.; heat 

pumps NESOI, pts

138,312

9

floor cover (rolls & 

tiles) & wall cover, 

plastics

132,978

10

articles of plastics 

(inc polymers & 

resins) NESOI

125,484

Table 5: East Coast – Top 10 U.S. 

Exports Commodities

Rank Commodity TEU

1 waste and scrap of 

paper or paperboard 244,284

2

chemical woodpulp, 

soda or sulfate, not 

dissoly gr

236,628

3

motor cars 

& vehicles for 

transporting 

persons

213,352

4

kraft paper & 

paperboard, uncoat 

NESOI, rolls etc

114,040

5

parts & access for 

motor vehicles 

(head 8701-8705)

113,257

6

wood in the rough, 

stripped or not of 

sapwood etc.

103,842

7

meat & ed offal of 

poultry, fresh, chill 

or frozen

102,655

8 furniture NESOI 

and parts thereof 102,218

9 soybeans, whether 

or not broken 101,355

10

motorcycles (incl 

mopeds) & cycles 

with aux motor

100,697
46 61st Annual Report

Table 6: Gulf Coast – Top 10 U.S. 

Import Commodities

Rank Commodity TEU

1 furniture NESOI 

and parts thereof 167,872

2

bananas and 

plantains, fresh or 

dried

104,685

3

parts & access for 

motor vehicles 

(head 8701-8705)

57,297

4

toys NESOI; scale 

models etc; puzzles; 

parts etc.

47,334

5 new pneumatic tires, 

of rubber 42,523

6

seats (except barber, 

dental, etc.), and 

parts

39,678

7

refrigerators, 

freezers etc.; heat 

pumps NESOI, pts

29,932

8

dates, figs, 

pineapples, 

avocados etc., fr or 

dried

29,874

9

motor cars 

& vehicles for 

transporting 

persons

29,870

10

worked monument 

etc. stone & art 

NESOI; granule etc

25,003

Table 7: Gulf Coast – Top 10 U.S. 

Exports Commodities

Rank Commodity TEU

1

polymers of 

ethylene, in primary 

forms

224,441

2

amino-resins, 

phenolics & 

polyurethanes, prim 

form

56,840

3

polymers of vinyl 

chloride etc., in 

primary forms

54,781

4

chemical woodpulp, 

soda or sulfate, not 

dissoly gr

48,779

5 cotton, not carded 

or combed 46,260

6

motor cars 

& vehicles for 

transporting 

persons

36,730

7

travel goods, 

handbags, wallets, 

jewelry cases etc

30,990

8

kraft paper & 

paperboard, uncoat 

NESOI, rolls etc.

30,296

9

meat & ed offal of 

poultry, fresh, chill 

or frozen

27,169

10

oil (not crude) from 

petrol & bitum 

mineral etc.

25,129
61st Annual Report 47

Top Twenty U.S. Liner Cargo 

Trading Partners

The FSPA (46 U.S.C. § 46101(b)(1)) requires the FMC to include in its annual report to 

Congress “a list of the twenty foreign countries which generated the largest volume of oceanborne liner cargo for the most recent calendar year in bilateral trade with the United States.”

The Commission derives its list of top-twenty trading partners from the PIERS database. 

The most recent complete calendar year of available data is 2021. Table 8 below lists the twenty 

foreign countries that generated the largest volume of oceanborne liner cargo in the bilateral 

trade with the United States in calendar year 2021 in TEUs. The figures in the table represent 

each country’s U.S. liner imports and exports combined in thousands of loaded TEUs. Bilateral 

trade with the United States’ top-twenty liner trading partners represented approximately 80 

percent of the Nation’s total liner trade over the past few years. China remained the U.S.’s top 

trading partner in 2021, accounting for nearly 14 million TEUs of the total volume of trade.

Table 8: Top 20 U.S. Liner Cargo Trading Partners, Calendar Year 2021

Rank Country TEUs

1 China (PRC) 13,802,680

2 Vietnam 2,771,036

3 South Korea 1,725,459

4 India 1,566,369

5 Taiwan (ROC) 1,398,772

6 Japan 1,251,087

7 Thailand 1,157,819

8 Germany 1,063,772

9 Indonesia 775,961

10 Brazil 762,182

Rank Country TEUs

11 Malaysia 756,268

12 Belgium 754,312

13 Italy 708,749

14 Guatemala 553,958

15 Netherlands 503,002

16 Turkey 464,603

17 Chile 423,856

18 Spain 417,270

19 United Kingdom 384,343

20 Hong Kong 364,934

Source: PIERS

Note: PIERS continues to report data separately for Hong Kong due to its status as a major transshipment center.
48 61st Annual Report

As the bilateral trade metrics include both 

TEUs imported and exported, they do not fully 

convey the trade flow between the U.S. and 

its major trading partners. While China is the 

largest destination for U.S. exports, its share 

of exports is substantially lower than its share 

of imports. Tree Map 1 below shows the most 

current trade data (January-September 2022) 

between the U.S. and its trading partners by 

direction of trade.

The size of the box in the tree map denotes 

its share of total containerized international 

trade. For example, while a lower share of U.S. 

containerized exports originate in Japan than 

Vietnam, the export share of Japan is greater 

than that of Vietnam. And while Belgium 

is listed as the 12th largest bilateral trading 

partner in 2021 in the table above, the tree 

map shows that this is largely driven by U.S. 

exports to Belgium, not by imports.

Tree Map 1: Share of Trade by Country, January-September 2022
61st Annual Report 49

Foreign Shipping Practices Act

The Commission has the authority to 

address restrictive foreign shipping practices under section 19 of the Merchant Marine 

Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C. ch. 421) and the FSPA 

(46 U.S.C. ch. 423). Section 19 empowers the 

Commission to make rules and regulations to 

adjust or meet conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade of the United States. 

The FSPA directs the Commission to address 

adverse conditions that affect U.S. carriers 

in the foreign trade and that do not exist for 

foreign carriers in the United States.

On March 6, 2020, the Commission received 

a petition from the Lake Carriers’ Association, a trade association made up of owners 

and operators of vessels on the Great Lakes, 

alleging that conditions created by Transport Canada, an agency of the government 

of Canada, are unfavorable to shipping in the 

United States/Canada trade under Section 19. 

In particular, the Lake Carriers’ Association 

asserted that Transport Canada’s proposed 

regulations requiring the installation of ballast 

water management systems on vessels loading or discharging ballast water in Canadian 

waters would drive U.S.-flag vessels from the 

cross-lakes U.S. export trade with Canada. On 

June 16, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice 

of Investigation and Request for Comments. 

The comment period closed on July 22, 2020, 

and the Commission received 21 comments, 

mostly in support of the Petition.

On October 26, 2020, the EPA published 

an NPRM regarding Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance. 

Like the Canadian rule, the EPA’s proposed 

rule intends to reduce the environmental 

impact of vessel discharges, such as ballast 

water. Though similar in intent, it is unclear if 

the EPA’s final rule will ultimately match the 

Canadian rule. The EPA’s approach to Great 

Lakes ballast water contained in their proposed rule did not align with the Canadian 

approach and will not have an effect on the U.S. 

Great Lakes fleet. The NPRM required that 

comments be received on or before November 25, 2020. The EPA is currently reviewing 

comments, and the final rule is not expected 

until 2023. On June 4, 2021, Transport Canada 

issued its final rule. The general approach to 

the regulation of Great Lakes ballast water 

did not change. However, while the effective 

date of the final rule remains 2024, the rule 

delayed implementation until 2030 for vessels 

built prior to 2009.

The Commission continues to monitor 

the situation and remains in contact with 

other federal agencies as it proceeds with its 

investigation.
50 61st Annual Report
61st Annual Report 51

Controlled Carriers and 

Identification of Otherwise 

Concerning Practices by Specific 

Ocean Common Carriers

A controlled carrier is an ocean common carrier that is, or whose operating assets are owned 

or controlled directly or indirectly by, a foreign government. The Shipping Act provides that 

no controlled carrier may maintain rates or charges in its tariffs or service contracts that are 

below a level that is just and reasonable, nor may any such carrier establish, maintain, or 

enforce unjust or unreasonable classifications, rules, or regulations in those tariffs or service 

contracts.

In addition, tariff rates, charges, classifications, rules, or regulations of a controlled carrier 

may not, without special permission of the Commission, become effective sooner than the 30th 

day after the date of publication. The Commission’s staff monitors U.S. and foreign trade press 

and other information sources to identify controlled carriers and any unjust or unreasonable 

controlled carrier activity that might require Commission action.

As of the end of FY 2022, four controlled carriers operated in the U.S. trades. All four 

controlled carriers are subsidiaries of COSCO SHIPPING Holdings Co., Ltd.:

1. COSCO SHIPPING Lines Co., Ltd. – People’s Republic of China

2. Orient Overseas Container Line Limited – People’s Republic of China

3. OOCL (Europe) Limited – People’s Republic of China

4. COSCO Shipping Lines (Europe) GmbH – People’s Republic of China

OSRA 2022 revised the Commission’s annual reporting provisions to require the Commission to identify any “otherwise concerning practices” by ocean common carriers that are 

controlled carriers or “owned or controlled by, a subsidiary of, or otherwise related legally or 

financially, to a corporation based in a country” that is: (1) a non-market economy country, as 

determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce; (2) a priority foreign country, as determined 

by the U.S. Trade Representative; or (3) subject to monitoring by the U.S. Trade Representative under section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, 46 U.S.C. § 46106(b)(7). The Commission did 

not identify any “otherwise concerning practices” by ocean common carriers.
52 61st Annual Report
61st Annual Report 53

Formal Investigations, Private 

Complaints, and Litigation

Adjudicative proceedings before the Commission commence by the filing of a complaint, 

or by order of the Commission upon petition, or upon the Commission’s own motion. Types 

of docketed proceedings include:

• Private complaints: Any person may file a formal complaint alleging violations of 

specific sections of the Shipping Act found at 46 U.S.C. ch. 411. Formal complaints 

are generally assigned to an ALJ who issues an initial decision which is reviewed by 

the Commission.

• Small claims complaints: For claims of $50,000 or less, an informal complaint may be 

filed. The complaint is handled by an SCO for resolution using informal procedures 

that do not tend to include discovery or motions practice.

• Investigative proceedings: The Commission may investigate the activities of ocean 

common carriers, OTIs, MTOs, and other persons to ensure effective compliance 

with the statutes and regulations administered by the Commission. Formal orders of 

investigation and hearing are assigned to an ALJ for an initial decision and may be 

reviewed by the Commission.

Formal Proceedings

In FY 2022, the number of new cases 

received by OALJ tripled and the number of 

cases completed doubled from prior years.

In FY 2021, OALJ received a total of 11 

formal and 6 informal proceedings. At the 

end of FY 2021, nine formal proceedings 

(14-06, 20-12, 20-14, 20-17, 21-02, 21-04, 21-05, 

21-08, and 1971(F)) and three small claims 

complaints (1968(I), 1972(I), and 1973(I)) were 

pending before the OALJ.

In FY 2022, OALJ received a total of 28 

formal and 11 informal proceedings, including:

•  21 private party complaints;

•  three enforcement cases;

•  three licensing cases;

•  one remanded case; and

•  11 informal (small claims) complaints.

In FY 2022, OALJ completed 16 formal proceedings and 9 small claims proceedings (see 

list below). At the end of FY 2022, 20 formal 

proceedings (14-06, 20-14, 21-05, 21-10, 21-11, 

21-16, 22-03, 22-07, 22-11, 22-12, 22-13, 22-16, 

22-17, 22-18, 22-20, 22-21, 22-22, 22-23, 22-25, 

22-26) and five small claims complaints 

(1980(I), 1981(I), 1982(I), 1983(I), and 1984(I)) 

were pending before the OALJ.

The following summarizes the results of 

docketed proceedings completed during FY 

2022 by the OALJ:
54 61st Annual Report

Nnabugwu Chinedu Andrew, Avers 

Logistics Ltd., and CJ Deluz Nigeria 

Ltd. v. Marine Transport Logistics, Inc., 

Alla Solovyeva, and Raya Bakhirev 

[Docket 20-12]

Complainants alleged that Respondents 

violated 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c) by failing in 

various ways to ensure that Complainants 

could retrieve 17 vehicles that, according to 

Complainants, Respondents were supposed 

to have shipped from their U.S. warehouses 

to a port in Nigeria. On January 24, 2022, the 

ALJ issued an Initial Decision and found 

Complainants failed to prove Respondents’ 

alleged actions were unjust or unreasonable 

under 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c). On February 15, 

2022, Complainants filed a “Brief in Support 

of Their Exceptions to the Initial Decision.” 

On September 22, 2022, the Commission 

issued an Order Affirming Initial Decision and 

determined that Complainants’ filing did not 

qualify as exceptions under the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure set forth in 

46 C.F.R. § 502.227(a).

Marie Carew d/b/a Holiday Shipping, 

LLC v. Maersk Line A/S, John Does 

[Docket 20-17]

Complainant alleged that Respondents 

violated 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c) and 46 C.F.R. § 

545.4(d) regarding the shipment of four containers to Nigeria. Respondents asserted a 

counterclaim against the Claimant under § 

41102(a). On November 2, 2021, the ALJ issued 

an initial decision and found in Claimant’s 

favor on the § 41102(c) claim and dismissed 

Respondents counterclaim with prejudice 

because Respondents failed to prove that 

Claimant was acting as an ocean freight forwarder for the shipments at issue. The ALJ’s 

initial decision became administratively final 

on December 3, 2021, when the Commission 

issued a notice not to review the decision.

YSN Imports Inc. d/b/a/ Flame King 

v. Feige "Peggy" Oberlander, U Shippers Group Inc., U Shippers Group 

Management Co., Inc. [Docket 21-02]

Complainant alleged that Respondents 

violated the Shipping Act and the Commission’s regulations by charging unlawful fees. 

On March 25, 2022, the parties jointly moved 

the ALJ to approve a settlement agreement 

and requested the terms be kept confidential. On April 11, 2022, the ALJ approved 

the settlement agreement and dismissed the 

proceeding with prejudice. The ALJ’s order 

became administratively final on May 12, 2022, 

when the Commission issued a notice not to 

review the order.

Greatway Logistics Group, LLC. v. 

Ocean Network Express PTE LTD 

[Docket 21-04]

Complainant alleged that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c), 46 U.S.C. § 41104(a)

(4)(E), and 46 C.F.R. § 545.4(d) regarding 

Respondent’s collection of “demurrage and 

detention charges from nonparties to the bills 

of lading” and “practice of adjustment and 

settlement of claims.” On November 10, 2021, 

the parties jointly moved the ALJ to approve a 

settlement agreement and requested the terms 

be kept confidential. The ALJ issued an order 

on November 30, 2021, approving the settlement and dismissing the proceeding with 

prejudice. The ALJ’s order became administratively final on January 5, 2022, when the 

Commission issued a notice not to review the 

order.
61st Annual Report 55

Eucatex of North America Inc. v. CMA 

CGM (America) LLC and Fenix Marine 

Services Ltd. [Docket 21-08]

Complainant alleged that Respondents 

violated 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c) and 46 C.F.R. 

§§ 545.4 and 545.5 in handling its cargo. On 

October 4, 2021, Complainant filed a notice 

indicating that it was voluntarily dismissing 

the complaint with prejudice, and the Commission issued a notice of discontinuance.

Ocean Network Express Pte. Ltd. and 

Ocean Network Express (North America), Inc. - Possible Violations of 46 

U.S.C. § 41102(c) [Docket 21-17]

The Commission initiated an enforcement 

proceeding against Respondents by issuing 

an Order of Investigation and Hearing for 

possible violations of 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c). 

Respondents were alleged to have overbroadly defined and applied the definition 

of merchant in BOLs to unilaterally impose 

joint and several liability for freight and/or 

charges on a party with whom Respondents 

were not in contractual privity and who had 

not consented to be bound by the terms of 

the BOL. On May 4, 2022, Respondent Ocean 

Network Express (North America), Inc. was 

dismissed from the proceeding. On June 23, 

2022, the remaining Respondent and the 

Commission’s BOE jointly moved the ALJ to 

approve a proposed settlement agreement 

and requested that the settlement terms be 

kept confidential. On June 28, 2022, the ALJ 

approved the settlement and dismissed the 

proceeding with prejudice. The ALJ’s order 

became administratively final on July 15, 2022, 

when the Commission issued a notice indicating it would not review the ALJ’s order.

CCMA, LLC v. Maersk A/S and Ports 

America Chesapeake, LLC [Docket 

22-01]

Complainant alleged that Respondents 

violated 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c) and 46 C.F.R. 

§§ 545.4 and 545.5 by assessing demurrage 

charges against shipments that were subject to a governmental hold imposed by U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, and therefore, unavailable for pick-up. Complainant 

was granted leave to amend the complaint 

to add Maersk A/S as a Respondent and dismiss Safmarine, Inc. from the proceeding. 

On March 29, 2022, the parties jointly moved 

the ALJ to approve a settlement agreement 

and requested that the settlement terms be 

kept confidential. On April 13, 2022, the ALJ 

approved the settlement and dismissed the 

proceeding with prejudice. The ALJ’s order 

became administratively final on May 16, 2022, 

when the Commission issued a notice not to 

review the dismissal.

Foreign Tire Sales, Inc. v. Evergreen 

Shipping Agency (America) Corp.; as 

agent for Evergreen Line, Evergreen 

Group d/b/a Evergreen Line [Docket 

22-05]

Complainant alleged that Respondents 

unjustly and unreasonably exploited customers by substantially increasing their profits at 

the expense of shippers and the U.S. consuming public, which has been forced to absorb 

higher product prices due to the improperly 

increased freight costs, in violation of 46 U.S.C 

§§ 41102(c), 41104(a)(2), and 41104(a)(9)-(10). 

On April 26, 2022, the parties jointly moved 

the ALJ to approve a settlement agreement 

and requested that the settlement terms be 

kept confidential. On May 3, 2022, the ALJ 
56 61st Annual Report

approved the settlement and dismissed the 

proceeding with prejudice. The ALJ’s order 

became administratively final on June 6, 2022, 

when the Commission issued a notice not to 

review the dismissal.

Royal White Cement, Inc. v. CMA 

CGM S.A. and CMA CGM (America) 

LLC [Docket 22-06]

Complainant alleged that Respondents 

breached their contract and violated 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41102(c). On April 12, 2022, Complainant 

filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the 

action with prejudice, and the Commission 

subsequently issued a notice of voluntary dismissal discontinuing the proceeding.

Achim Importing Company Inc. v. 

Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp. 

[Docket 22-08]

Complainant alleged that Respondent 

engaged in unjust and unreasonable practices 

in 2020 and 2021 in handling Complainant’s 

cargo by failing to honor pricing and minimum quantity commitments in its service 

contract with Complainant and profiteering 

during the COVID-19 pandemic, all in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 41102(c), 41104(a)(2), 

41104(a)(5), and 41104(a)(9)-(10), and 41102(b). 

On August 4, 2022, the parties jointly moved 

the ALJ to approve a settlement agreement 

and requested that the settlement terms be 

kept confidential. On August 22, 2022, the ALJ 

approved the settlement and dismissed the 

proceeding with prejudice. The ALJ’s order 

became administratively final on September 

23, 2022, when the Commission issued a notice 

not to review the dismissal.

Fulter Logistics LLC, Revocation of 

Ocean Transportation Intermediary 

License No. 027912NF [Docket 22-09]

The Commission’s BCL notified Respondent that the Commission intended to revoke 

Respondent’s OTI license because it had not 

responded to the Commission’s inquiry and 

lacked the necessary character to provide 

OTI services under 46 C.F.R. § 515.11(a)(2). 

Respondent requested a hearing on the proposed revocation, and this proceeding was 

assigned to the OALJ for adjudication. On 

the day Respondent’s response to the revocation notice was due, Respondent indicated it 

planned to seek an extension of the response 

date but did not file the motion for an extension or further participate in the proceeding 

despite a reminder from the OALJ. The BOE 

subsequently submitted a reply brief in support of the OTI license revocation. On July 

26, 2022, the ALJ issued an order revoking 

Respondent’s OTI license. The ALJ’s order 

became administratively final on August 26, 

2022, when the Commission issued a notice 

not to review the revocation.

C.V. Int'l Services LLC, Intent to Deny 

an Ocean Transportation Intermediary 

Application [Docket 22-10]

The Commission’s BCL notified Respondent on March 11, 2022, that the Commission 

intended to deny its application for an OTI 

license because Respondent lacked the necessary character to provide OTI services as 

required under 46 C.F.R. § 515.11. Respondent requested a hearing on March 28, 2022, 

and the BOE subsequently filed a copy of 

the denial notice and supporting materials. 

Respondent was informed that it had 30 days 

to respond to BOE’s submission but did not 
61st Annual Report 57

further participate in the proceeding despite 

a reminder from the OALJ. The BOE subsequently filed and submitted a reply brief in 

support of its license denial. The ALJ, affirming the denial of Respondent’s OTI license 

application. The ALJ’s order became administratively final on August 26, 2022, when the 

Commission issued a notice not to review the 

denial.

MSRF, Inc. v. HMM Company Limited and Yang Ming Marine Transport 

Corporation [Docket 22-14]

Complainant alleged violations of various 

sections of the Shipping Act in connection 

with pricing and service contract practices 

during the COVID-19 pandemic. The parties 

jointly stipulated to dismiss the complaint 

without prejudice so the Complainant could 

simplify the proceedings by filing separate 

complaints against each Respondent with 

fewer allegations. On August 3, 2022, the 

Commission issued a notice affirming that 

the proceeding had been discontinued.

Pro Transport Charleston, Inc. v. 

Allround Midwest Forwarding, Inc. 

[Docket 22-15]

Complainant alleged that Respondent had 

violated the Shipping Act. On June 27, 2022, 

Complainant filed a notice of dismissal and 

requested that the proceeding be dismissed 

because the parties had reached an agreement. Complainant was notified that the 

parties needed to file a copy of the settlement 

agreement, and the parties complied. The ALJ 

approved the settlement and dismissed the 

proceeding with prejudice. The ALJ’s order 

became administratively final on September 

23, 2022, when the Commission issued a notice 

not to review the order.

Mohawk Global Logistics Corp. DBA 

Mohawk Global Logistics v. MSC 

Mediterranean Shipping Company 

(USA) Inc. as agent for Mediterranean 

Shipping Company, S.A., Geneva 

[Docket 1971(F)]

Complainant filed an informal complaint 

alleging that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 

§41102(c) and 46 C.F.R. § 545.5. On September 

3, 2021, Respondent did not consent to adjudicating the complaint under the Commission’s 

informal procedures (46 C.F.R. Subpart S), so 

the complaint was assigned to the ALJ. On 

November 24, 2021, the parties jointly moved 

the ALJ to approve a settlement agreement 

and requested that the settlement terms be 

kept confidential. On December 9, 2021, the 

ALJ approved the settlement and dismissed 

the proceeding with prejudice. On January 12, 

2022, the Commission issued a notice not to 

review the dismissal.

Crocus Investments, LLC v. Marine 

Transport Logistics, Inc. [Docket No. 

15-04]

Complainants allege that the Respondent, 

an NVOCC, charged excessive cargo storage 

fees and negligently failed to provide promised services in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c). 

On August 18, 2021, the Commission affirmed 

the ALJ’s dismissal of the §41102(c) claim 

because Complainants failed to prove that 

Respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct 

on a normal, customary, and continuous basis 

as required by 46 C.F.R. § 545.4 (Interpretative 

Rule). The Commission concluded that Complainants failed to demonstrate any “manifest 
58 61st Annual Report

injustice” that warranted a departure from 

the general rule that new interpretations of 

the law apply retroactively in agency adjudications. Complainants petitioned the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) for review 

on the grounds that the Commission erred 

in retroactively applying the Interpretative 

Rule and in dismissing the § 41102(c) claim for 

failure to prove Respondents had a normal or 

customary practice of overcharging for storage. The D.C. Circuit denied the petition for 

review.

MAVL Capital v. Marine Transport 

Logistics, Inc. [Docket No. 16-16]

Complainants alleged that the Respondent NVOCC sold and shipped overseas 

two vehicles stored as export/import cargo 

to cover unpaid charges without prior notice 

or due process in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 

41102(c). Respondent justified the sale as 

authorized by its house BOL. The ALJ found 

that Respondent’s BOL established a normal 

and customary practice and that its sale of 

the vehicles violated § 41102(c). The ALJ 

declined to award reparations because Complainant failed to introduce reliable evidence 

substantiating the amounts sought for loss of 

the vehicles and related expenses. On June 

10, 2022, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s 

decision and denied Complainants’ reparations claim for lack of evidence. Complainants’ 

petition for review by the D.C. Circuit was 

pending as of September 30, 2022.

CMI Distribution, Inc. v. Service by 

Air, Inc. [Docket No. 17-05]

Complainant alleged that Respondent Service by Air, Inc. violated several provisions 

of Chapters 405, 409 and 411 of Title 46 by 

acting as an unlicensed OTI in arranging 

ocean transportation from China for Complainant’s shipments and charging rates not 

contained in a published tariff. The ALJ found 

in Complainant’s favor on multiple claims and 

awarded reparations. Both parties filed exceptions to the ALJ’s Initial Decision. Respondent 

argued that it was not subject to the provisions 

at issue and that the ALJ erred in calculating reparations. Complainant also challenged 

the reparations award, asserting that the ALJ 

should have awarded additional amounts. 

On July 26, 2021, the Commission affirmed 

the ALJ’s liability findings but reduced the 

reparations award. Complainant petitioned 

for attorney’s fees. On November 24, 2021, the 

Commission declined to award fees because 

Respondent’s defenses were not objectively 

unreasonable or asserted for improper reasons.

Rana v. Michelle Franklin, D.B.A. 

“The Right Move,” Inc. [Docket No. 

19-03]

Complainant retained Respondent’s 

NVOCC services to move household goods 

and prepaid the associated charges. Complainant alleged that Respondent failed to 

pay the ocean freight charges in violation of 

46 U.S.C. § 41102(a) and sought reparations 

for the expenses that he incurred to release 

the carrier’s hold on his household goods. The 

ALJ determined that Respondent knowingly 

and willfully obtained ocean transportation 

at less than applicable rates using unjust or 

unfair means in violation of § 41102(a) and 
61st Annual Report 59

awarded reparations. The ALJ also sanctioned Respondent for discovery violations 

and inferred that the responses Respondent 

refused to provide would have been adverse 

to its position. Relying on inferences drawn 

from Respondent’s refusal to answer discovery and other evidence, the ALJ found the 

individual Respondent personally liable. On 

May 25, 2022, the Commission affirmed the 

ALJ’s decision and found the Respondent 

liable for reparations under § 41102(a) in her 

business and personal capacity.

Hapag-Lloyd, A.G. - Possible Violations of 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c) [Docket 

No. 21-09]

The Commission issued an Order of Investigation and Hearing initiating an adjudicatory 

proceeding to determine whether Respondents’ 

detention charge practices violate 46 U.S.C. § 

41102(c) and named the Commission’s BOE 

as a party. The ALJ found that Respondent 

Hapag-Lloyd, A.G. knowingly and willfully 

violated § 41102(c), imposed a civil penalty of 

$822,220, and ordered Hapag-Lloyd A.G. and 

its agents to cease and desist from imposing 

detention or demurrage (absent extenuating 

circumstances) when there are insufficient 

appointments available and from violating 

the Shipping Act or the Commission’s regulations, including the rule on detention and 

demurrage charges published at 46 C.F.R. § 

545.5. Subsequently, the parties jointly petitioned the Commission to approve a proposed 

settlement. On June 8, 2022, the Commission 

approved the settlement based solely on the 

facts and circumstances of this particular case 

and subject to the condition that the remedial 

measures Hapag-Lloyd agreed to implement 

do not create a “safe harbor” insulating future 

conduct by Hapag-Lloyd A.G. or any other 

entity regulated by the Commission from 

being found unreasonable or unjust or otherwise in violation of the Shipping Act.

Wan Hai Lines, Ltd. - Possible Violations of 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c) [Docket 

No. 21-16]

The Commission issued an Order of Investigation and Hearing initiating an adjudicatory 

proceeding to determine whether Respondents’ detention charge practices violate 46 

U.S.C. §§ 41102(c), 41302(a) and 41304 and 

named the Commission’s BOE as a party. The 

parties jointly petitioned the Commission 

to approve a proposed settlement. The ALJ 

denied the motion to approve the proposed 

settlement on the grounds that it lacked clarity 

and may not be consistent with § 41102(c) and 

46 C.F.R. § 545.5. The parties jointly appealed 

the ALJ’s decision rejecting the proposed settlement, and the appeal was pending before 

the Commission as of September 30, 2022.

Informal (Small Claim) Proceedings

Service Transfer Inc. v. Sippi Logistics 

Inc. [Docket 1968(I)]

Claimant filed a small claims complaint 

alleging that Respondent violated the Shipping Act. Multiple attempts to serve the 

complaint on Respondent were not successful, and when the Claimant failed to respond 

to follow through on its complaint, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice on 

November 2, 2021. The dismissal became 
60 61st Annual Report

administratively final on December 3, 2021, 

when the Commission issued a notice not to 

review the dismissal.

Tereno SDN BHD v. C.H. Robinson 

International, Inc. [Docket 1972(I)]

Claimant filed a small claims complaint, 

alleging that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41102(c) by charging Claimant for demurrage that accrued due to Respondent’s failure 

to timely respond to a request from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. On January 27, 

2022, the SCO issued an Initial Decision, finding that the evidence did not demonstrate that 

Respondent violated the Shipping Act, and 

dismissing the complaint with prejudice. On 

March 22, 2022, the Commission affirmed the 

Initial Decision.

Pralumex, Inc. v. Maersk Line, Limited, 

USA & Maersk A/S [Docket 1973(I)]

Claimant filed a small claims complaint 

alleging that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 

§§ 41104(8) and (10), and 41102(c) by refusing 

to release Claimant’s container to Claimant’s 

designated consignee and refusing to allow 

Claimant to designate a new consignee. On 

December 14, 2021, Claimant amended its 

complaint to add Maersk A/S as a respondent. 

On February 9, 2022, the SCO issued an Initial 

Decision, dismissing the complaint with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Claimant’s 

shipment was not transported through a U.S. 

port. The SCO denied Claimant’s request for 

reconsideration. The dismissal became administratively final on March 24, 2022, when the 

Commission issued a notice not to review the 

dismissal.

Proteus Commodities Inc. v. Hamburg 

Sud N.A. a Maersk Company [Docket 

1974(I)]

Claimant filed a small claims complaint 

alleging that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41104 by imposing new charges against 

Claimant that were not in accordance with 

Respondent’s tariff rates, charges, classifications, rules, and practices. On August 9, 2022, 

the SCO issued an Initial Decision, finding 

that the evidence did not demonstrate that 

Respondent violated the Shipping Act and 

dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The 

dismissal became administratively final on 

September 9, 2022, when the Commission 

issued a notice not to review the dismissal.

Future Forwarding Company v. Yang 

Ming (America) Corporation [Docket 

1975(I)]

Claimant filed a small claims complaint 

alleging that Respondent had refused to move 

Claimant’s cargo to the agreed-upon destination in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c). Before 

Respondent answered the complaint, Claimant moved to dismiss its complaint because 

the parties had reached a settlement. On April 

18, 2022, the SCO approved the settlement and 

dismissed the proceeding with prejudice. The 

dismissal became administratively final on 

May 19, 2022, when the Commission issued 

a notice not to review the dismissal.

Ringo C. Edwards v. Aeromarine USA, 

Inc. [Docket 1976(I)]

Claimant filed a small claims complaint 

alleging that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41102(c) in connection with shipping Claimant’s custom air rifle from the United States to 

Costa Rica. On June 15, 2022, Claimant moved 
61st Annual Report 61

to dismiss the complaint, stating that there 

had been no formal settlement between the 

parties, but that Respondent had paid him 

the full amount of his claim. On June 30, 2022, 

the Small Claims Officer issued an order, dismissing the proceeding with prejudice. The 

dismissal became administratively final on 

August 2, 2022, when the Commission issued 

a notice not to review the dismissal.

ICU Production Inc. v. Zim Logistics 

(China) Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch and 

Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd 

West Coast Branch [Docket 1977(I)]

Claimant filed a small claims complaint 

alleging that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41102(c) by wrongfully charging Claimant a 

detention and chassis fee. Before Respondent 

answered the complaint, Claimant moved to 

dismiss the complaint because the parties had 

reached a settlement. On May 12, 2022, the 

SCO issued an order approving the settlement 

and dismissing the proceeding with prejudice. 

The dismissal became administratively final 

on June 14, 2022, when the Commission issued 

a notice not to review the dismissal.

Alan Groner, Sole Proprietor d/b/a 

AAA Customs Brokers v. Maersk A/S 

[Docket 1978(I)]

Claimant filed a small claims complaint 

alleging that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41102(c) by unlawfully charging Claimant 

for demurrage. Before Respondent answered 

the complaint, Claimant moved to dismiss the 

complaint because the parties had reached 

a settlement. On June 14, 2022, the SCO 

approved the settlement and dismissed the 

proceeding with prejudice. The dismissal 

became administratively final on July 15, 2022, 

when the Commission issued a notice not to 

review the dismissal.

Max Dobrushin v. Shipco Transport 

Inc. and Seaspace International Forwarders USA Inc. [Docket 1979(I)]

Claimant filed a small claims complaint 

alleging that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 

§§ 41104 and 41102(c) and 46 C.F.R. § 512.32 

by diverting his cargo from California to 

the Cayman Islands, which led to it being 

destroyed. Before Respondent answered the 

complaint, Claimant notified the OALJ that he 

wished to withdraw his complaint. On August 

1, 2022, the parties jointly moved to dismiss 

the claim because they had reached an agreement. On August 10, 2022, the SCO approved 

the settlement and dismissed the proceeding 

with prejudice. The dismissal became administratively final on September 13, 2022, when 

the Commission issued a notice not to review 

the dismissal.

TCW, Inc. v. Evergreen Shipping 

Agency [Docket No. 1966(I)]

Complainant filed a small claims complaint alleging that Respondents violated 46 

U.S.C. § 41102(c) by charging Complainant 

per diem fees on unreturned containers and 

chassis on a weekend and holiday when the 

Port of Savannah (the return location) was 

closed and by invoicing Complainant (a trucking company) instead of the beneficial cargo 

owner. The SCO found that Respondents’ 

charges were unjust and unreasonable under 

§ 41102(c), but its invoicing practices were 

not. The SCO awarded Complainant reparations and ordered Respondents to cease and 

desist from imposing per diem charges when 

equipment cannot be returned on weekends, 
62 61st Annual Report

holidays, and port closures. The Commission determined to review the SCO’s decision 

and requested supplemental briefing. As of 

September 30, 2022, the matter was pending 

before the Commission.

Rulemakings

This year, the Commission moved expeditiously to fulfill the requirements of OSRA 2022 

and the various rulemaking mandates included in the legislation. As noted above in the section 

regarding implementation, since the enactment of OSRA 2022 on June 16, 2022, the Commission has issued two proposed rules: (1) a proposed rule on the unreasonable refusal to deal in 

regard to vessel space; and (2) a proposed rule on demurrage and detention billing practices. 

Additionally, the Commission issued two requests for public comment on information collections, seeking feedback on the benefits of issuing an emergency order on information sharing, 

and secondly, the Commission’s proposed plan for establishing a data collection initiative 

related to an ocean carrier’s import and export performance in the U.S. trades.

Passenger Vessel Financial Responsibility [Docket No. 20-15]

On March 17, 2022, the Commission published a Final Rule implementing changes 

to its PVO financial responsibility requirements. The rule defines when nonperformance 

of transportation has occurred and establishes uniform procedures regarding how 

and when passengers may make claims for 

refunds under a PVO’s financial responsibility instrument when nonperformance occurs. 

This rulemaking was initiated as a result of 

Fact Finding Investigation No. 30: COVID-19 

Impact on Cruise Industry. On August 25, 2021, 

the Commission issued an NPRM with the 

comment period closing on October 25, 2021. 

The Commission received approximately 70 

comments. The Final Rule was published on 

March 17, 2022.

Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties [Docket No. 21-01]

On January 14, 2022, the Commission published this final rule to adjust for inflation the 

civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced 

by the Commission pursuant to the Federal 

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act). The 2015 

Act requires that agencies adjust and publish 

their civil penalties by January 15 of each year.

Carrier Automated Tariffs [Docket No. 

21-03]

The Commission issued an NPRM regarding Part 520, Carrier Automated Tariffs, in May 

2022, seeking public comment on revisions to 

the Commission’s regulations on carrier automated tariffs to require access to tariffs to be 

made free of charge, updating the definition 

of co-loading to add a separate definition for 

less-than-containerload co-loading, and other 

changes to align with statutory requirements. 

The NPRM also maintained the requirement 

that each NVOCC BOL issued to a beneficial 
61st Annual Report 63

cargo owner must be annotated with the name 

of any other NVOCCs to which the cargo has 

been tendered for shipment. Commission staff 

have reviewed public comments received in 

the NPRM and are working toward a proposed final rule in 2023.

Marine Terminal Operator Schedules 

[Docket No. 21-06]

On March 17, 2022, the Commission published a final rule regarding Part 525, Marine 

Terminal Operator Schedules, with an effective date of April 18, 2022. Many of the 

changes modernized outdated requirements, 

clarified existing requirements for MTOs, and 

aligned the definition of an MTO with the statute. The NPRM was issued on September 22, 

2021, and the public comment period closed 

on November 22, 2021. After reviewing the 

public comments received, the Commission 

adopted all of the changes in the NPRM.

Demurrage and Detention Billing 

Requirements [Docket No. 22-04]

On February 4, 2022, the Commission issued 

an ANPRM seeking comment on whether the 

Commission should require common carriers and MTOs to include certain minimum 

information on or with demurrage and detention billings. Also, the Commission stated 

that it was interested in receiving comments 

on whether it should require common carriers and MTOs to adhere to certain practices 

regarding the timing of demurrage and 

detention billings. These changes were recommended by the Fact Finding Officer in 

Commission Fact Finding Investigation 29, 

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the U.S. 

International Ocean Supply Chain: Stakeholder 

Engagement and Possible Violations of 46 U.S.C. 

§ 41102(c). The Commission received 82 comments in response to the ANPRM.

Definition of Unreasonable Refusal to 

Deal [Docket No. 22-24]

OSRA 2022 amended § 41104(a)(10) to 

prohibit a common carrier, either alone or in 

conjunction with any other person, directly or 

indirectly, from unreasonably refusing to deal 

or negotiate, including with respect to vessel 

space accommodations provided by an ocean 

common carrier. On September 21, 2022, the 

Commission issued an NPRM seeking public 

comments on implementing a requirement in 

Section 7(d) of OSRA 2022 to define unreasonable refusal to deal or negotiate with respect 

to vessel space accommodation provided by 

an ocean common carrier. The Commission 

received 25 comments, and Commission staff 

are working on a final rule for Commission 

consideration.
64 61st Annual Report
61st Annual Report 65

FMC Information Technology

Technology remains an integral part of 

enabling the Federal Maritime Commission 

to fulfill its mission. IT infrastructure allows 

streamlined workflow, business functions 

to enhance productivity, access to data, and 

provides improved public access to FMC 

information. The FMC provides automated IT 

systems for use by the shipping public to file:

•  license applications; 

•  carrier and MTO agreements; and

•  commercially sensitive operational 

data reviewed and used by the Commission to conduct mission-critical 

functions.

FMC Systems/Applications 

During FY 2022, the Commission started an 

assessment of the progress of IT modernization initiatives to establish a new baseline for 

future development. Motivated by requirements to protect against cybersecurity threats, 

the Commission began conducting a review 

of each existing system. This analysis, to be 

completed in FY 2023, will inform the decision to continue with customized applications 

or adopt other suitable commercial solutions. 

Case Management 

To meet the goals of OSRA 2022 and the 

FMC's mission, research began during FY 2022 

on potential upgrades to antiquated internal 

case management systems as well as the potential to obtain new ones. Staff must use case 

management systems to track enforcement 

cases, investigatory matters, public inquiries, 

and filings. In addition to expedited response 

times and efficient tracking, new case management systems will allow the Commission 

to produce data to fulfill the various public 

reporting requirements of OSRA 2022. 

Website Enhancements 

In FY 2022, the Commission began a project 

to update its website to improve interaction 

with the public and comply with OSRA 2022 

requirements. The project will enhance public 

interaction with the FMC in a more secure 

environment, as well as provide new tools 

for the Commission to manage comments, 

complaints, concerns, reports of noncompliance, requests for investigation, and requests 

for alternative dispute resolution as required 

by OSRA 2022. When completed, the new 

website enhancements will allow the public to 

easily submit these items to the Commission. 
66 61st Annual Report
61st Annual Report 67

Glossary

Agreement means an understanding, 

arrangement, or association, written or oral 

(including any modification, cancellation, or 

appendix) entered into, by or among ocean 

common carriers and/or MTOs, but does not 

include a maritime labor agreement. 

Bulk cargo means cargo that is loaded and 

carried in bulk without mark or count in a 

loose unpackaged form, having homogeneous 

characteristics. 

Common carrier means a person holding 

itself out to the general public to provide 

transportation by water of passengers or cargo 

between the United States and a foreign country for compensation that:

1. Assumes responsibility for the 

transportation from port or point 

of receipt to the port or point of 

destination; and

2. Uses, for all or part of that transportation, a vessel operating on 

the high seas or the Great Lakes 

between a port in the United States 

and a port in a foreign country, 

but the term does not include a 

carrier engaged in ocean transportation by ferry boat, ocean tramp, 

or chemical parcel tanker, or by a 

vessel when primarily engaged in 

the carriage of perishable agricultural commodities:

i. If the common carrier and the 

owner of those commodities 

are wholly owned, directly or 

indirectly, by a person primarily engaged in the marketing 

and distribution of those commodities; and

ii. Only with respect to the carriage of those commodities.

Consignee means the recipient of cargo 

from a shipper; the person to whom a transported commodity is to be delivered. 

Container means a demountable and 

reusable freight-carrying unit designed to 

be transported by different modes of transportation and having construction, fittings, 

and fastenings able to withstand, without 

permanent distortion or additional exterior 

packaging or containment, the normal stresses 

that apply on continuous all-water and intermodal transportation. The term includes dry 

cargo, ventilated, insulated, refrigerated, flat 

rack, vehicle rack, liquid tank, and opentop containers without chassis, but does not 

include crates, boxes, or pallets.

Controlled carrier means a vessel-operating 

common carrier that is, or whose operating 

assets are, directly or indirectly, owned or 

controlled by a government; ownership or 

control by a government shall be deemed to 

exist with respect to such common carrier if:

1. A majority portion of the interest 

in the common carrier is owned or 

controlled in any manner by that 

government, by an agency of that 

government, or by any public or 

private person controlled by that 

government; or

2. That government has the right 

to appoint or disapprove the 

appointment of a majority of 

the directors, the chief operating 
68 61st Annual Report

officer, or the chief executive officer of the common carrier.

Demurrage is the charge per container for 

the use of ground space at the marine terminal.

Detention is the charge by the ocean carrier 

for use of the container equipment. 

IMO 2020 means an International Maritime Organization rule in effect as of January 

1, 2020, that limits Sulphur content in fuel use 

on board ships. 

Intermodal transportation means continuous through transportation involving more 

than one mode of service (e.g., ship, rail, 

motor, air) for pickup and/or delivery at a 

point beyond the area of the port at which the 

vessel calls. The term intermodal transportation can apply to through transportation (at 

through rates) or transportation on through 

routes using combination rates.

Marine Terminal Operator means a person 

engaged in the United States or a commonwealth, territory, or possession thereof, in 

the business of furnishing wharfage, dock, 

warehouse or other terminal facilities in 

connection with a common carrier, or in connection with a common carrier and a water 

carrier subject to Subchapter II of Chapter 

135 of Title 49, United States Code. This term 

does not include shippers or consignees who 

exclusively furnish marine terminal facilities 

or services in connection with tendering or 

receiving proprietary cargo from a common 

carrier or water carrier.

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier 

means a common carrier that does not operate 

the vessels by which the ocean transportation 

is provided and is a shipper in its relationship 

with an ocean common carrier.

Ocean Carrier Alliance Agreement means 

two or more shipping lines authorized to 

discuss and agree on the supply of vessel 

capacity across multiple trades. Alliance 

agreements may contain other authorities 

such as information exchange, joint procurement of goods or services necessary to operate 

their services, etc. While there are currently 

seven global alliance agreements on file with 

the Commission, only three are jointly/collectively operating container services in the 

U.S. trades. 

Ocean freight forwarder means a person 

that—

1. In the United States, dispatches 

shipments from the United States 

via a common carrier and books or 

otherwise arranges space for those 

shipments on behalf of shippers; 

and

2. Processes the documentation or 

performs related activities incident to those shipments.

Ocean transportation intermediary means 

an ocean freight forwarder or a non-vesseloperating common carrier. 

Per Diem relates to assessorial charges 

beyond demurrage and detention.

Port means a place at which a common 

carrier originates or terminates (and/or transships) its actual ocean carriage of cargo or 

passengers as to any particular transportation movement.

Service Contract means a written contract, 

other than a BOL or receipt, between one 

or more shippers and an individual ocean 

common carrier or an agreement between or 

among ocean common carriers in which the 

shipper makes a commitment to providing a 

certain minimum quantity or portion of its 

cargo over a fixed time period, and the ocean 

common carrier or the agreement commits to 
61st Annual Report 69

a certain rate or rate schedule and a defined 

service level, such as assured space, transit 

time, port rotation, or similar service features. 

Shipper means a cargo owner; the person 

for whose account the ocean transportation is 

provided; the person to whom delivery is to be 

made; a shipper's association; or an NVOCC 

that accepts responsibility for payment of all 

charges applicable under the tariff or service 

contract.

Tariff means a publication containing the 

actual rates, charges, classifications, rules, 

regulations and practices of a common carrier or a conference of common carriers. The 

term practices refers to those usages, customs, 

or modes of operation which in any way 

affect, determine or change the transportation rates, charges or services provided by a 

common carrier or conference and, in the case 

of conferences, must be restricted to activities 

authorized by the basic conference agreement.

Transshipment means the physical transfer of cargo from a vessel of one carrier to a 

vessel of another in the course of all-water 

or through transportation, where at least 

one of the exchanging carriers is an ocean 

common carrier subject to the Commission's 

jurisdiction. 

Vessel-operating common carrier/Ocean 

common carrier means a common carrier that 

operates, for all or part of its common carrier 

service, a vessel on the high seas or the Great 

Lakes between a port in the United States 

and a port in a foreign country, except that 

the term does not include a common carrier 

engaged in ocean transportation by ferry boat, 

ocean tramp, or chemical parcel-tanker.
70 61st Annual Report
61st Annual Report 71

Appendices

A. FMC Organizational Chart
72 61st Annual Report

B. FMC Senior Officials

Chief of Staff, Mary T. Hoang

Counsel to Chairman Maffei, Katharine Primosch 

Counsel to Commissioner Dye, John A. Moran

Counsel to Commissioner Khouri*, John A. Moran 

Counsel to Commissioner Sola, Clark Jennings

Counsel to Commissioner Bentzel, John Young

Counsel to Commissioner Vekich, Cory Cinque*** 

General Counsel, Steven Andersen*; Katia Kroutil**

Secretary, Rachel E. Dickon*; William Cody

Chief Administrative Law Judge, Erin Wirth

Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, Camella M. Woodham

Inspector General, Jon Hatfield

Managing Director, Lucille Marvin

Chief Financial Officer, Director of Enterprise Services, Patrick Moore

Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis, Kristen Monaco

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing, Cindy Hennigan

Director, Bureau of Enforcement, Benjamin K. Trogdon*; Julie Berestov**

Director, Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services, Zoraya de la Cruz

*Departed, **Acting, ***Interim Counsel
61st Annual Report 73

C. Statement of Appropriations, Statement of 

Custodial Activity, and Financial Operations

Statement of Appropriations - Public Law 117-103:

For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission as authorized by section 

201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. § 46107), including services 

as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; hire of passenger motor vehicles 

as authorized by section 1343(b) of title 31, United States Code; and uniforms or allowances 

therefore, as authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States Code, $32,869,000: 

Provided, That not to exceed $3,500 shall be for official reception and representation expenses.

Statement of Custodial Activity:

2022 ($) 2021 ($)

Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures 2,082,000 --

General Fund Proprietary Receipts (User fees) 253,715 216,490

Refunds of Proprietary Receipts (User fees) (480) (250)

Total Custodial Collections 2,335,235 216,240

Financial Operations: For a detailed review of the FMC’s financial operations, including 

expenditures, please refer to the FMC’s Congressional Budget Reports and its Performance 

and Accountability Reports on the Commission’s website.