1

Executive Summary of Fact Finding 29

Presented as part of the record submitted by Commissioner Dye to the Subcommittee on 

Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation

June 15, 2021

In March 2020, the Commission voted to establish Fact Finding 29, designating me as 

the Fact Finding Officer and authorizing me to identify operational solutions to cargo delivery 

system challenges related to COVID-19. 

To aid in my efforts as Fact Finding Officer, the Order also authorized the creation of 

Supply Chain Innovation Teams, which the Commission previously used to positive effect in past 

fact finding investigations to examine issues related to supply chain visibility, chassis availability 

and chassis pools in the Memphis rail heads, and demurrage and detention charges.

Even before COVID-19 reached the United States in early 2020, the global supply chain 

was disrupted by COVID-19 related impacts as the virus spread throughout China. Widespread 

closures and quarantines in China shuttered factories, which impacted freight flows, port 

operations, and ocean carrier service offerings. 

In the earliest days of COVID-19 related impacts to the supply chain in the United States, 

import cargo volumes dropped precipitously and ocean carriers cut services. And those imports 

that were delivered contributed to congestion at U.S. ports, particularly on the West Coast, 

because the import loads that were not being picked up for final delivery due to business 

shutdowns. The congestion was exacerbated by empty containers waiting to be repositioned. 

Making headway in addressing what was becoming an untenable situation was my first 

priority, and I worked with port directors around the country to find available cargo storage 

locations for U.S. companies whose businesses were shutdown. The Innovation Teams also 

worked to ensure that the delivery of personal protective equipment (PPE) and other essential 

goods were prioritized. 

After identifying immediate steps that could be taken to address COVID-19 related port 

congestion in the San Pedro Bay, I then engaged nine Innovation Teams to determine what 

underlying behaviors or policies of carriers or marine terminals could be changed to improve 

efficiencies at U.S. seaport gateways for international ocean freight. The Innovation Teams 

reached consensus on four key measures to improve efficient cargo movement, especially as 

the challenges created by COVID-19 changed in light of import surges:

1. Truckers should be directed to return empty containers to the terminal where they were 

picked up, allowing them to make dual moves and reduce the number of chassis 

required.
2

2. Notice of terminal gate closures should be given no less than three days, and preferably 

seven days, before gate closing. At no time should a closure occur mid-shift.

3. Notice of blank sailings should be given not only to beneficial cargo owners, but also 

posted prominently on a carrier’s website, at least seven days in advance. Notice of 

bypassed ports should be posted at least 72 hours in advance.

4. Carriers and terminals should immediately resolve the confusion for exporters regarding 

Export Cargo Receiving Timelines, also called Earliest Return Dates.

Shippers on the Innovation Teams also requested that the Commission waive certain 

service contract filing requirements to allow shippers to use service contract provisions

immediately, due to impediments to contract filing created by COVID-19 restrictions. The 

Commission granted the waiver in April 2020 and later extended it into 2021. This relief was 

made permanent by the Commission on June 2, 2021.

In the months following the first phase of Fact Finding 29, we used the teams approach 

to examine conditions at the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach, the Port of New York and New 

Jersey, and the Port of New Orleans. This was in addition to countless individual interviews I 

conducted with other shippers, marine terminal operators, truckers, shipping intermediaries, 

and carrier CEOs to understand the challenges they faced to manage logistical operations as 

trade volumes surged. 

I continue to encourage all U.S. international supply chain leaders to focus on the four 

port process goals identified in the first phase of Fact Finding 29 and to continue to work with 

the Commission to find workable solutions to these challenges. I am pleased that several 

carrier CEOs have made progress on solutions to identified operational challenges, and I will 

continue to work directly with them as this Fact Finding Investigation continues.

Based on information obtained in the initial phases of the fact finding, I became 

concerned that vessel-operating common carriers in alliances who call on the Port of New York 

and New Jersey or who call on the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles may be 

employing practices and regulations that violate 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c). As such, in November, 

the Commission approved a Supplemental Order to Fact Finding 29 expanding my authority as 

the Fact Finding Officer beyond teams and commercial solutions. 

The Supplemental Order allows me to investigate ocean carriers operating in alliances 

and calling on the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach, or the Port of New York and New Jersey to 

determine if the policies and practices of the lines related to detention and demurrage, 

container return, and container availability for U.S. export cargoes violate 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c). 
3

This law enforcement aspect of Fact Finding 29 is aimed at potential unreasonable 

demurrage and detention charges and is currently underway, and it may result in civil penalty 

proceedings or other formal enforcement actions.

FACT FINDING 29 TO DATE

PHASE ONE: NATIONWIDE INNOVATION TEAMS 

During the first quarter of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic escalated in the United 

States and internationally, the Federal Maritime Commission considered ways to respond to 

urgent cargo delivery dislocations in the U.S. international ocean freight delivery system. At 

that time, the most pressing problems included obstacles to delivery of critical personal 

protective equipment and the need for storage of cargo diverted due to business shutdowns. 

On March 31, 2020, the FMC issued an Order authorizing me to conduct a fact finding 

investigation to identify and seek solutions to U.S. international ocean supply chain

vulnerabilities surrounding the pandemic. That Order, Fact Finding No. 29, International Ocean 

Transportation Supply Chain Engagement, authorized me, as Investigating Officer, to form 

multi-industry Innovation Teams that included all actors of the ocean freight delivery system,

including liner shipping companies (i.e., ocean carriers), railroads, public port authorities,

marine terminal operators, beneficial cargo owners, ocean transportation intermediaries, 

drayage trucking companies, longshore labor representatives, and chassis providers.1

Initial FF 29 Approach

Like previous FMC Innovation Teams, teams organized under Fact Finding 29 were

composed of business leaders whose senior level corporate positions included responsibility 

and influence over their companies’ operations and who were well positioned to implement

recommendations developed by the innovation teams.

Fact Finding 29 was conducted during a period when travel and in-person group 

meetings were constrained by pandemic-related medical concerns, Fact Finding 29 teams met 

virtually to focus on the changing dynamics that various ocean carriers, exporters, importers, 

shipping intermediaries, truckers, seaports, longshore labor, and marine terminals were 

1 Order: International Ocean Transportation Supply Chain Engagement, 85 Fed. Reg. 19146 (April 6, 

2020)
4

experiencing as the pandemic’s impact changed over time. During this phase, I held nine 

meetings with fifty-one different participants. 

When the first ten multi-industry teams began meeting in mid-April 2020, they were 

presented with three basic questions:

2

1. What can the FMC do to help?

2. What can various supply chain actors do to help?

3. What “over the horizon” problems need addressing?

In terms of identifying expected problems, the various multi-industry teams listed one 

immediately pressing issue, another pending concern, and two potentially longer-term 

challenges. 

• Immediate: PPE shipments and other essential goods

• Pending: Port congestion and adequate off-dock storage 

• Longer-Term: Future drayage trucking availability for recovery and vessel and 

equipment capacity (Supply/Demand Balance)

Personal Protective Equipment, Essential Goods, and Off-Dock Storage 

The first challenge the system faced was triaging cargo so that urgently needed goods,

especially personal protective equipment (PPE) and other essential goods would be given 

delivery priority. An additional challenge was ensuring that non-essential goods that could be 

moved inland would flow quickly. 

Marine terminals advised that they would be better able to manage cargo flows if they 

had specific, timely, and accurate information from shippers about which shipments contained

PPE, which non-urgent containers shippers were prepared to be picked-up, and which 

containers shippers would not be able to pick-up, and so needed go into some form of off-dock 

storage.

Fortunately, the urgency of moving PPE shipments – and ensuring PPE availability for 

essential workers at terminals and warehouses – was rapidly and effectively addressed. So, 

too, at least initially, was the need to identify additional off-dock cargo storage options at 

destination or in-route for cargo that was delayed or abandoned. 

2

 Members of the public who were not participating on a team were encouraged to provide 

advice by writing to FF29@FMC.GOV. Press Release: Fact Finding 29 Supply Chain Innovation 

Teams to Begin Work (April 6, 2020).
5

Drayage Trucking and Supply/Demand Balance 

Another concern raised by the teams was the adequacy of future drayage services. 

Drayage truckers, many of whom had at first lost work as cargo volumes declined, would be 

needed when volumes returned. Drayage truckers fit all the team participants’ definition of 

“essential workers.” 

All the innovation teams raised concerns about the future balance of vessel capacity and 

equipment (containers and chassis) against forecast demand. At this time, ocean carriers were

reducing excess capacity to control costs and shippers wanted to ensure there would be 

adequate capacity as demand recovered. 

Providing Timely Information 

Underlying many of the teams’ concerns, and a topic that resurfaced often in their

discussions, was the fundamental importance to all supply chain actors of timely and accurate 

information. For the purposes of adequate operational planning, reliable supply and demand 

forecasting, and timely notification procedures, accurate and timely information exchange is 

crucial. Ultimately, carriers depend on shipper information, terminals depend on carrier

information, and shippers and truckers rely on carrier and terminal information on gate 

closures, container returns, and appointments.

When supply chain actors are constantly re-evaluating and revising their operational 

plans, it creates chaos in the freight delivery system. Timely, reliable information exchange is

especially crucial in periods of heightened uncertainty and rapid operational readjustment. 

Direct FMC Action

With respect to actions the Commission could itself take, some shippers on the teams 

noted that conditions associated with doing business in a global pandemic might lead to 

inadvertent non-compliance with FMC contract filing requirements. At that time, Commission

regulations required carriers to file original service contracts (as opposed to amendments) with 

the Commission “before any cargo moves pursuant to that service contract.”3 

As Fact Finding Investigative Officer, I recommended to the Commission that we issue a 

waiver to allow carriers to file their service contracts up to 30 days after contract terms had 

3 Final Rule: Service Contracts, 86 Fed. Reg. 21651, 21658 (Apr. 23, 2021). 
6

been agreed to. The Commission voted to accept that recommendation in April 2020. 4 The

relief granted was originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2020, but in order to provide 

continued stability and certainty to ocean carriers and shippers, the Commission extended 

regulatory relief for contract filing until June 2021.5 In April 2021, the Commission issued a final 

rule, effective June 2, 2021, making this relief permanent for all service contracts while ensuring 

that shippers were not harmed by carrier filing errors.6

PHASE TWO: REGIONAL INNOVATION TEAMS

Another point raised during the initial fact finding discussions was the need for a 

regional approach to the Fact Finding 29 investigation. As the volumes and cargo mixes 

handled at ports differ, so do terminal operations and local conditions, the innovation teams 

recommended that the investigation create teams to discuss challenges by specific port range 

or major port. That recommendation was adopted, and I held regional team meetings specific 

to challenges in Southern California, New York/New Jersey, and New Orleans. 

Southern California Region

Due to the massive cargo volumes that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handle, 

and the relatively large number of terminals serving those two ports, the regional review began 

with the neighboring San Pedro Bay ports. 

The team discussions and interviews identified four areas of concern:

1. Empty Container Returns (dual moves and chassis availability)

2. Terminal Gate Closure Notifications

3. Blanked Sailings and Bypassed Port Notifications

4. Export Cargo Receiving Timelines (Earliest Return Dates and Loading)

These four areas were the ones where team participants felt commercial improvements 

could generate the most “bang for the buck.” They likely would not require major new 

expenses or significant operational changes. Improving drayage efficiency and chassis 

4 The Order granting the exemption can be found on the Commission’s website at 

https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/docs/20-26_ord_grnt_exempt.pdf/.

5

 The Order extending the exception can be found on the Commission’s website at 

https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/docs/20-06/Extension_Temporary_Extension_FINAL.pdf/. 

6 86 Fed. Reg. at 21651. 
7

availability were areas that ports, terminals, carriers, and shippers all agreed would be critical 

as trade volumes recovered. 

Having pinpointed the main supply chain challenges at Los Angeles and Long Beach, our 

teams also proposed ways to address them. First, carriers in alliances needed to work closely 

with their terminals to: (1) operate in ways that better facilitate dual drayage moves, and (2) 

more closely coordinate and more broadly disseminate various notifications.

With respect to the ways in which alliance members could work closely with their 

terminals, specific recommendations offered by the team participants included:

• Truckers ideally should be able to return empty containers to the terminal where they 

were picked up. That would allow them to make dual moves, reduce costs, reduce the 

number of chassis required, and enhance efficient appointments. At a minimum, 

carriers should provide sufficient notice – three days for example – to allow truckers to 

plan moves and secure appointments.

• Notice of terminal gate closures should be given no less than three days, and preferably 

seven days, before gate closings. At no time should a closure occur mid-shift.

• Advance notice of blank sailings should be given not only to beneficial cargo owners, but 

also posted prominently on a carrier’s website, at least seven days in advance. Notice of 

bypassed ports should be posted at least three days in advance.

• And, finally, carriers and terminals should collaborate more closely regarding Export 

Cargo Receiving Timelines with the goal of eliminating conflicting or confusing 

information.

Second, shippers should promptly cancel any unused multiple bookings and/or terminal 

appointments to reduce “no show” rates and related inefficiencies. It was noted that blank

sailings, port bypasses, and cancelled service strings increase shipper uncertainty about space 

availability. That can lead shippers to make multiple bookings and related terminal 

appointments that compound existing inefficiencies. Unused bookings and appointments 

thwart planning and result in under-utilization of scarce assets. It was specifically 

recommended that:

• As soon as a shipper is aware that its extra bookings and extra terminal appointments 

will not be used, they should immediately notify their lines and terminals so that other 

shippers can take advantage of those opportunities. 
8

As Fact Finding Officer, I continue to stay in touch with supply chain parties in Los 

Angeles and Long Beach to monitor and encourage more dual moves and better 

communications. Given their cargo volumes, Los Angeles and Long Beach are where the 

challenge is greatest, and change is most needed.7

North Atlantic Region

The next region that Fact Finding 29 focused on was the North Atlantic’s major port, the 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Based on team meetings and discussions with various supply chain parties, the two 

central observations of the Fact Finding 29 teams were that: (1) operations and cargo flow at 

the Port of New York and New Jersey have been minimally impacted by COVID-19, and (2) the 

leadership at the bi-state organization has prioritized improving the container return process to 

further increase efficiencies and better serve shippers and truckers.

Interviews with port users revealed that, despite being situated in an early COVID-19 

hotspot, Port Authority leadership had responded effectively to the initial challenges that 

arose. Port users reported that as a result of this effort, facilities in the two states are working 

well. Especially helpful was the early and active intervention of port leadership with the local 

and state governments. Also cited was the effectiveness at the time of stakeholder 

cooperation under the Council on Port Performance (CPP).

The teams began their New York/New Jersey efforts by assessing which, if any, of the 

four operational challenges identified during the examination of the San Pedro Bay ports might 

be applicable to the situation in New York and New Jersey. Ultimately, the only common 

challenge identified was the need to make progress in returning containers in a manner that 

facilitates a “double move.” Senior port executives advised that achieving that goal was a high 

priority and the CPP was working to improve the process.

The Fact Finding 29 team members recommended greater ocean carrier participation in 

port performance discussions as a step toward achieving better drayage outcomes, and in 

trying to achieve progress in returning containers.

8

7

 On June 17, 2020, the Commission issued a press release summarizing the findings of the San 

Pedro Bay discussions. The press release can be found on the Commission’s website at 

https://www.fmc.gov/commissioner-dye-announces-findings of san-pedro-bay-discussions/. 8 In May 2021, however, two of the largest trucking organizations in the Northeast suspended 

their participation in the Council on Port Performance, citing lack of carrier action taken on CPP 
9

As with the stakeholders in Los Angeles and Long Beach, I continue to stay in touch with 

supply chain parties in the New York/New Jersey area to monitor and encourage improved 

efficiency and better communications. 9

Gulf Coast

The third region incorporated into Fact Finding 29 was the U.S. Gulf Coast – and, in 

particular, the Port of New Orleans. 

Aside from challenges arising from the frequent visitations last summer by hurricanes, 

users of the Gulf Coast ports expressed concerns with port channels, barge traffic, blanked 

sailings, and bypassed port calls. Stakeholders at Gulf Coast ports also raised issues with 

demurrage and detention.

As rising cargo volumes have increasingly put pressure on port and terminal 

performance, demurrage and detention charges have tended to increase. Shippers and 

trucking companies have asserted that those increases often have little or nothing to do with 

creating effective incentives. They view such non-incentive charges as, in effect, little more 

than a forced subsidy for continued inefficiency.

Again, as with the previous two regions, I remain in contact with stakeholders in the 

Gulf Coast region to monitor and encourage progress.

PHASE THREE: INFORMATION AND EVIDENTIARY DEMANDS 

During the first two phases of Fact Finding 29, I held over twenty team meetings with 

eighty different participants representing shippers, carriers, ports, terminal operators, ocean 

transportation intermediaries, drayage providers, and trade associations. Throughout the 

process, I routinely followed-up with team participants and stakeholders in the areas reviewed 

above. 

Following those meetings, it became apparent that some of the problems facing supply 

chains at the beginning of the pandemic diminished. In particular, on the West Coast, 

stakeholders gradually experienced fewer issues with blank sailings. 

recommendations on empty container returns. Michael Angell, “NY-NJ truck groups quit port 

task force over empty container woes,” The Journal of Commerce Online, May 12, 2021. 

9

 On July 17, 2020, the Commission issued a press release summarizing the findings from phase 

two. It can be found at https://www.fmc.gov/dye-covid-19-supply-chain-investigation-shiftsfocus-to-ny-nj-in-phase-two/. 
10

Other issues, however, remained outstanding and, in some cases, deteriorated.

Stakeholders using the Port of New York and New Jersey and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach have expressed growing concern with carrier practices regarding the return of empty 

containers. Stakeholders expressed frustration regarding poor notice of where and when empty 

containers can be returned. Others have mentioned instances of terminals refusing to receive 

empty containers, requiring dual transactions or not having appointments for the return of 

empty containers. Issues regarding the return of empty containers have been discussed in the 

trade press.10

Many have charged that empty container return practices, and other carrier practices, 

have not only resulted in increased operating costs, but in many cases result in demurrage and 

detention charges due to terminals unwilling to accept empty containers. Some stakeholders 

have also complained that increasingly demurrage and detention charges are not administered 

in a manner that incentivizes freight fluidity. Similar concerns have been expressed in the trade 

press.11 The demurrage and detention issues were of particular concern given that the 

Commission issued guidance on the reasonableness of demurrage and detention practices in 

May 2020 based on my recommendation as Fact Finding Officer in Fact Finding 28.12

Three issues emerged in the fall of 2020 that I believed warranted additional scrutiny, 

especially given the rapid increase of trade volumes: 

1. Container return practices – in particular, practices that impact the efficient drayage of 

empty containers to marine terminals for carrier pickup.

2. Demurrage and detention practices – in particular whether carriers’ policies, practices 

and procedures align with the principle, central to the Commission’s interpretive rule on 

demurrage and detention, that detention and demurrage charges and policies should 

serve the primary purpose of incentivizing the movement of cargo and promoting 

freight fluidity.

3. Practices related to container availability for U.S. exports: in particular, reports that 

carriers were declining to ship U.S. agricultural commodity exports. 

To indicate a shift in focus of the Fact Finding 29 investigation, at my request, the 

Commission issued a supplemental order: (1) emphasizing the Commission’s concern with the 

above-identified issues, especially as they pertain to the Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long 

10 For example, “Import surge clogs Southern California warehouses,” Bill Mongelluzzo, Journal 

of Commerce, August 5, 2020.

11 For example, “LA-LB truckers urge suspension of detention and demurrage,” Bill 

Mongelluzzo, Journal of Commerce, November 6, 2020. 12 Final Rule: Interpretive Rule on Demurrage and Detention Under the Shipping Act, 85 Fed. 

Reg. 29638 (May 18, 2020). 
11

Beach, and Port of New York and New Jersey, and (2) endorsing the use of compulsory 

information demands.13

Since that time, I have not only continued to speak with stakeholders, but the Fact 

Finding has also solicited information and evidence from shippers, truckers, intermediaries, and 

their trade associations and required carriers and marine terminal operators to provide 

information and evidence on demurrage and detention, empty container return, and export 

container availability.14 This phase of the investigation is ongoing, but there is reason to believe

that not all regulated entities may acted reasonably as required by 46 U.S.C. § 41102(c), 

including with respect to demurrage and detention in light of the May 2020 guidance. 

Preliminary Findings from FF29

Staff is reviewing the information and documents provided by stakeholders and in 

response to information demand letters. Some initial findings to date include: 

1. The Commission solicited information and evidence from shippers, drayage 

providers, and intermediaries via a dedicated email inbox. The subject matter of the 

“complaints” are as follows, listed in order of most-frequent to least-frequent:

a. Appointments

b. Empty Container Returns

c. Customs

d. Chassis

e. Earliest Return Dates (ERDs)

f. Congestion/Long Lines

g. Availability of Containers for Export

h. Dispute Resolution

i. Terminal Closure

j. New Fees

k. Shut Out/Locked Out

2. Demurrage and detention amounts collected have generally increased from 2019 to 

2020. 

3. Demurrage and detention refunds and waivers have generally decreased from 2019 

to 2020, but this does not necessarily account for free-time extensions. 

13 The Order can be found on the Commission’s website at 

https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/docs/FFno29/FF29_41102(c)_%20Supplemental_Order.pd

f/. 

14 The Commission issued a press release regarding these information demand letters in 

February 2021, which is available at https://www.fmc.gov/information-demand-on-detentiondemurrage-practices-to-be-issued/. 
12

4. Few carriers have made significant changes to demurrage or detention tariffs, 

practices, or policies since the effective date of the Commission’s interpretive rule 

on demurrage and detention, and many indicated that their past practices were 

compliant with the Commission’s guidance.

5. Some carriers have, however:

a. Made information about their demurrage and detention practices more 

easily accessible and understandable.

b. Clarified that demurrage will not accrue while a container is at an offterminal customs examination site. 

c. Preemptively cancelled demurrage or detention charges incurred because 

there is a change in ERD caused by vessel delays or blank sailings after an 

empty container has left a terminal for loading. 

d. Invoice demurrage and detention charges to their customers directly rather 

than to truckers, for customers using merchant haulage. 

6. Several carriers assert that they provide notice of return location by at least 1:00 pm 

the day before, but this deadline does not appear to be firm. 

7. Most carriers, but not all, require shippers or truckers to request a free time 

extension and provide documentation if there are problems with empty container 

return. 

8. In some instances, carriers have provided off-dock or off-terminal space to facilitate 

empty container returns.

9. Agricultural exports have generally increased in 2020 compared to 2019. 

10. Carriers ship empty containers back to Asia for a number of reasons, including to 

balance heavy agriculture commodity shipments with lighter empty containers for 

vessel safety and to enable carriers to fulfill contractual obligations to U.S. 

importers. Liner services are designed to meet the demand of high volume headhaul 

trade. 

11. Whereas in “normal” years peak season for imports and exports do not coincide, the 

unusually long import peak in 2020 and early 2021 resulted in an overlap that 

resulted in competing demands for the same containers. 

12. Proposals to alleviate challenges to export container availability include container 

depots, collapsible containers, digitized two-way committed contract practices or 

products, and increasing container supply.