<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The American Trucking Associations today asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deny a reque</div>

The American Trucking Associations today asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deny a reque

<div>The American Trucking Associations today asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deny a request from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for a 21-day delay in the court-imposed deadline for filing their responses in the case involving the ports' clean-truck truck concession plans.The 9th Circuit had set a filing date of Nov. 5 for the ports to file their arguments on the legality of the concession requirements. The clean-trucks program is intended to reduce port-related truck pollution by 80 percent over the next five years.The ATA noted in its filing that the ports on Oct....

The American Trucking Associations today asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deny a request from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for a 21-day delay in the court-imposed deadline for filing their responses in the case involving the ports' clean-truck truck concession plans. The 9th Circuit had set a filing date of Nov. 5 for the ports to file their arguments on the legality of the concession requirements. The clean-trucks program is intended to reduce port-related truck pollution by 80 percent over the next five years. The ATA noted in its filing that the ports on Oct. 1 implemented the clean-trucks concession requirements. ATA considers the concession requirements to be unlawful and burdensome on harbor trucking companies. With the concession requirements in effect for the past four weeks, any further delay would cause additional harm to its member companies, ATA stated. Motor carriers since Oct. 1 have had to sign port concession agreements in order to serve the harbor. The concessions include payment of a one-time processing fee and an annual $100 per-truck registration fee. Additionally, the concessions include strict requirements for off-street parking of trucks, a maintenance program, driver credentialing and the filing of financial information with the ports. According to the ATA, these requirements violate federal preemption law regarding the regulation of motor carrier rates, routes and services. The trucking group in September sought a preliminary injunction against implementation of the concession requirements in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The district court denied the request, citing safety and security reasons. ATA then filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, where it was denied emergency relief. The 9th Circuit, however, instructed all parties to file additional information for the court to consider. ATA filed its briefs by the court-imposed Oct. 8 deadline and interveners representing importers and exporters, terminal operators and environmentalists filed briefs by their deadline of Oct. 20. The 9th Circuit gave the ports a deadline of Nov. 5 to file their arguments, but the ports have asked for a 21-day extension of the deadline. In its motion to the 9th Circuit to deny the deadline extension, ATA stated, "Defendant-appellees now attempt to delay this schedule by three weeks despite already having 28 days to prepare their answering brief regarding the same issues that the parties have briefed twice before -- once before the lower court and once more before this court in the emergency motion." Port officials could not be reached for comment.

Maritime

Court asked to deny ports filing delay in trucks case

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While fuel prices have historically served as a tailwind for modal conversion, in and of itself, it is insufficient to guarantee success, writes Ted Prince.</div>

While fuel prices have historically served as a tailwind for modal conversion, in and of itself, it is insufficient to guarantee success, writes Ted Prince.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Rising diesel prices have given encouragement to intermodal enthusiasts who view this as preceding inevitable success. Yes, fuel disproportionately increases truck cost-per-mile more than rail; however, this optimism is not new — it has been extant since the fuel crises of 1973 and 1979. While fuel prices have historically served as a tailwind for modal conversion, in and of itself, it is insufficient to guarantee success. Intermodal success ultimately depends less on fuel and more on demand patterns, balance, drayage dynamics, and loading characteristics. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6198450_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Microeconomics states that substitute goods are perceived by consumers as similar. They have the same or similar performance characteristics, have the same or similar occasion for use, and they are sold in the same geographic area. Whereas trucks can go anywhere, intermodal cannot, so while truck can always substitute for intermodal, the converse is not true. Intermodal has a lower cost-per-mile than truck; however, it has a higher fixed cost. So a general rule-of-thumb is that intermodal is cheaper for long distances. This threshold frequently varies between 600 and 1,200 miles. Intermodal also results in lower emissions. Unfortunately, this aspect seems less important than in the past. (Most shippers’ sense of green is cost.) Intermodal, like truckload, has been subject to a number of inflationary pressures. And while many are similar, they vary in their materiality to delivered cost. Rather, when considering how intermodal competes with truckload, you need to consider the nature of the cargo, specifically: demand, balance, and load configuration. Is volume the same day-in and day-out throughout the year? If so, it will be very attractive to truck that puts a premium on closely aligning supply and demand. The more asymmetrical the demand, the better it is for intermodal to absorb the surge and withstand the trough. The timeframe can be anywhere from seasonal to day-of-the-week. Consider a shipper with ten loads per week. Are there two loads every weekday, or one on Wednesday, two on Thursday, and seven on Friday? The latter is much more attractive to intermodal. <h3>Loaded vs. empty miles </h3>Traffic balance reflects the difference in loaded and empty miles over the portfolio of loads. Markets that are imbalanced command a pricing premium to compensate for evacuation of capacity to or from the next load. The greater the imbalance, the greater the premium charged on the loaded portion. Loaded miles generate revenue; empty miles don’t. However, for trucks, empty miles cost almost as much as loaded miles. Traditionally, there is a much wider cost disparity in intermodal loaded and empty cost. This is attributable more to rail pricing. In an extreme case, intermodal can support 100% empty miles. Examples would include Chicago-Boston (load-empty) and Los Angeles–Chicago (empty-load). Although intermodal can withstand empty imbalance more effectively than truck, there is an additional balance issue for the intermodal drayage pickup/delivery. The same truck economics apply, so a drayage roundtrip with two loads will have a lower cost than one that is empty in one direction. Rail miles are usually greater than truck miles. This extra time and distance increases door-to-door transit times versus a more direct truck route, slowing intermodal shipments. Also, whereas truck is always a straight line, intermodal has three distinct segments. Terminal location and schedules determine the effective rail market area. Having to dray in the opposite direction of the freight is a challenge. (e.g., Cargo from Cedar Rapids trucked east to Chicago to go west to Los Angeles.) The final factor is how the load and customer interface are configured – and its impact on drayage. A 2,000-mile length of haul will entail 72 to96 hours for a single driver, who may well be sleeping in their truck when hours of service expire. However, a drayage move is only three to five hours. When considered as a percentage of their transaction time, multiple hours spent at the dock may be acceptable to the truck driver but not the intermodal drayman. The same intermodal obstacle applies to multiple stops. And, in some cases, the multiple stops may be extended over hundreds of miles. Intermodal’s sweet spot is a single-stop drop-and-hook move. Live loading (“stay with”) is more problematic for the drayage driver, and “first come – first served” is even more dreaded. This reduces the addressable market suitable for conversion. There is no doubt that fuel prices will help intermodal volume; however, the successful operators will be those that recognize intermodal’s strong suits and play to them. Customers looking for truck alternatives will find collaborative ways to make their cargo work for intermodal. That will ensure a growth future. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com.</a></div>

Rising diesel prices have given encouragement to intermodal enthusiasts who view this as preceding inevitable success. Yes, fuel disproportionately increases truck cost-per-mile more than rail; however, this optimism is not new — it has been extant since the fuel crises of 1973 and 1979. While fuel prices have historically served as a tailwind for modal conversion, in and of itself, it is insufficient to guarantee success. Intermodal success ultimately depends less on fuel and more on demand patterns, balance, drayage dynamics, and loading characteristics. Microeconomics states that substitute goods are perceived by consumers as similar. They have the same or similar performance characteristics, have the same or similar occasion for use, and they are sold in the same geographic area. Whereas trucks can go anywhere, intermodal cannot, so while truck can always substitute for intermodal, the converse is not true. Intermodal has a lower cost-per-mile than truck; however, it has a higher fixed cost. So a general rule-of-thumb is that intermodal is cheaper for long distances. This threshold frequently varies between 600 and 1,200 miles. Intermodal also results in lower emissions. Unfortunately, this aspect seems less important than in the past. (Most shippers’ sense of green is cost.) Intermodal, like truckload, has been subject to a number of inflationary pressures. And while many are similar, they vary in their materiality to delivered cost. Rather, when considering how intermodal competes with truckload, you need to consider the nature of the cargo, specifically: demand, balance, and load configuration. Is volume the same day-in and day-out throughout the year? If so, it will be very attractive to truck that puts a premium on closely aligning supply and demand. The more asymmetrical the demand, the better it is for intermodal to absorb the surge and withstand the trough. The timeframe can be anywhere from seasonal to day-of-the-week. Consider a shipper with ten loads per week. Are there two loads every weekday, or one on Wednesday, two on Thursday, and seven on Friday? The latter is much more attractive to intermodal. Loaded vs. empty miles Traffic balance reflects the difference in loaded and empty miles over the portfolio of loads. Markets that are imbalanced command a pricing premium to compensate for evacuation of capacity to or from the next load. The greater the imbalance, the greater the premium charged on the loaded portion. Loaded miles generate revenue; empty miles don’t. However, for trucks, empty miles cost almost as much as loaded miles. Traditionally, there is a much wider cost disparity in intermodal loaded and empty cost. This is attributable more to rail pricing. In an extreme case, intermodal can support 100% empty miles. Examples would include Chicago-Boston (load-empty) and Los Angeles–Chicago (empty-load). Although intermodal can withstand empty imbalance more effectively than truck, there is an additional balance issue for the intermodal drayage pickup/delivery. The same truck economics apply, so a drayage roundtrip with two loads will have a lower cost than one that is empty in one direction. Rail miles are usually greater than truck miles. This extra time and distance increases door-to-door transit times versus a more direct truck route, slowing intermodal shipments. Also, whereas truck is always a straight line, intermodal has three distinct segments. Terminal location and schedules determine the effective rail market area. Having to dray in the opposite direction of the freight is a challenge. (e.g., Cargo from Cedar Rapids trucked east to Chicago to go west to Los Angeles.) The final factor is how the load and customer interface are configured – and its impact on drayage. A 2,000-mile length of haul will entail 72 to96 hours for a single driver, who may well be sleeping in their truck when hours of service expire. However, a drayage move is only three to five hours. When considered as a percentage of their transaction time, multiple hours spent at the dock may be acceptable to the truck driver but not the intermodal drayman. The same intermodal obstacle applies to multiple stops. And, in some cases, the multiple stops may be extended over hundreds of miles. Intermodal’s sweet spot is a single-stop drop-and-hook move. Live loading (“stay with”) is more problematic for the drayage driver, and “first come – first served” is even more dreaded. This reduces the addressable market suitable for conversion. There is no doubt that fuel prices will help intermodal volume; however, the successful operators will be those that recognize intermodal’s strong suits and play to them. Customers looking for truck alternatives will find collaborative ways to make their cargo work for intermodal. That will ensure a growth future. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com.

Truckload

North-American rail

International rail

Surface

Jump in diesel prices alone not enough to boost intermodal fortunes: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With more than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel imported via the Strait of Hormuz that has been effectively closed since the war started on Feb. 28, suppliers are feeling the pinch.</div>

With more than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel imported via the Strait of Hormuz that has been effectively closed since the war started on Feb. 28, suppliers are feeling the pinch.

<div class="phx-topic">Suppliers in the world’s largest bunkering hub of Singapore are under growing stress with analysts reporting less than a month’s supply remaining and no replenishment in sight from one of its most important fuel supply lines. More than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel is believed to be imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war in the Middle East started on Feb. 28. Although Singapore remains able to refuel ships, the clock is ticking on the available supply, according to Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&amp;P Global Energy. "If the current supply-demand imbalance persists, we expect a rapid acceleration in stock drawdowns as existing inventories — currently sufficient for about three weeks of typical demand — begin to deplete,” he said. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Katsoulas said the Singapore market was under “significant stress,” with recommended lead times for ocean carriers replenishing very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) currently stretching to more than a week in some cases. “Prompt availability is extremely tight,” he said. “We are seeing reports of suppliers already prioritizing existing term contracts and resisting new tenders for the next months.” The immense scale of Singapore’s bunkering industry underlines the problem facing fuel suppliers in the port should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed. Singapore sold 56.2 million metric tons (mt) of bunker fuel in 2025, up 3.2% year over year, according to data from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA). That was more than five times the bunker sales at the world’s second-largest ship refueling hub of Rotterdam, with sales driven by strong high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) demand as VLSFO sales dropped off. Traders in Singapore have been sourcing oil from areas outside the Middle East, such as Brazil and Russia, according to reports. The US in March issued a 30-day waiver allowing the purchase of previously sanctioned Russian oil and gas, and Singapore is taking advantage of that by increasing imports to support bunker availability. <h3>Fuel prices drop off mid-March highs </h3>The scarcity of supply since Feb. 28 has pushed up bunker fuel prices in Singapore, but there has been a decline in price since the mid-March highs. On April 1, VLSFO in Singapore was selling at $873.50 per metric ton, up 70% since Feb. 27 but far below its March 16 high of $1,119/mt, according to the Ship &amp; Bunker platform. HSFO has followed a similar path, up 60% from Feb. 27 at $695/mt, but 35% down from the March 9 price of $1,073/mt. Bucking the trend is low sulfur marine gas oil (MGO), used by carriers in emission control areas such as the coasts of North America, the Caribbean, the Baltic and North seas, and the Mediterranean. MGO prices in Singapore on April 1 were at $1,836/mt, not far off the March 23 high of $1,940, but 160% above the pre-war price, Ship &amp; Bunker data showed. In Rotterdam, VLSFO was trading at $716.50/mt on April 1, up almost 50% from Feb. 27. HSFO was at $661.50, up 50% since before the war, while MGO was 85% higher at $1,331/mt, Ship &amp; Bunker’s latest pricing showed. Katsoulas said Rotterdam was currently the most stable and well-supplied bunkering point compared to the hubs east of the Suez Canal. “It is shielded from the immediate Middle East disruptions, and as a result, Singapore is trading at a massive $140 to $250 per ton premium over Rotterdam prices,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said bunker fuel in Singapore was available at prices almost double pre-conflict levels, but the prices were trending slowly downwards after the initial spike of 200%. “With no visible end to the crisis, however, carriers are almost certainly drawing up another set of contingency plans,” Sand said in a market update Thursday. “The coming weeks will show whether slow steaming and alternative routing can hold the line, or whether blank sailings become the next lever carriers reach for.” <h3>Emergency surcharge prices rise </h3>One of the contingency plans being aggressively pursued by carriers are emergency bunker fuel surcharges piled on top of existing quarterly fuel cost recovery mechanisms. For instance, Maersk from March 25 has been charging $400 per FEU on long-haul head-haul routes and $600/FEU for reefers, while CMA CGM since March 27 has been charging emergency fuel surcharges of $265/TEU, and $320/TEU for reefers. Ocean Network Express set long-haul head-haul surcharges at $160/TEU, with $210/TEU for reefers, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. has implemented a range of fuel surcharges covering specific regional routes. Maersk this week again asked US maritime regulators to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-again-asks-fmc-to-waive-30-day-review-period-for-emergency-fuel-surcharge-6197792">waive the 30-day notice period</a> required before liners can implement surcharges so it could immediately roll out emergency fuel surcharges on long-haul US trades. The Federal Maritime Commission <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period</a> and is expected to rule on the second request soon. Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Hapag-Lloyd, last week put a price on the Middle East war, telling reporters that the carrier <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">was shouldering added operating costs of $40 million to $50 million a week</a>. Most of that was driven by higher bunker fuel prices and rising insurance premiums in the Middle East. “Our intention is not to make a profit (from surcharges),” Habben Jansen told reporters during a media briefing. “We are trying to limit the charges to the extra costs we need to recover. We are trying to ring-fence the problem as much as possible.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Suppliers in the world’s largest bunkering hub of Singapore are under growing stress with analysts reporting less than a month’s supply remaining and no replenishment in sight from one of its most important fuel supply lines. More than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel is believed to be imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war in the Middle East started on Feb. 28. Although Singapore remains able to refuel ships, the clock is ticking on the available supply, according to Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&P Global Energy. "If the current supply-demand imbalance persists, we expect a rapid acceleration in stock drawdowns as existing inventories — currently sufficient for about three weeks of typical demand — begin to deplete,” he said. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Katsoulas said the Singapore market was under “significant stress,” with recommended lead times for ocean carriers replenishing very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) currently stretching to more than a week in some cases. “Prompt availability is extremely tight,” he said. “We are seeing reports of suppliers already prioritizing existing term contracts and resisting new tenders for the next months.” The immense scale of Singapore’s bunkering industry underlines the problem facing fuel suppliers in the port should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed. Singapore sold 56.2 million metric tons (mt) of bunker fuel in 2025, up 3.2% year over year, according to data from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA). That was more than five times the bunker sales at the world’s second-largest ship refueling hub of Rotterdam, with sales driven by strong high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) demand as VLSFO sales dropped off. Traders in Singapore have been sourcing oil from areas outside the Middle East, such as Brazil and Russia, according to reports. The US in March issued a 30-day waiver allowing the purchase of previously sanctioned Russian oil and gas, and Singapore is taking advantage of that by increasing imports to support bunker availability. Fuel prices drop off mid-March highs The scarcity of supply since Feb. 28 has pushed up bunker fuel prices in Singapore, but there has been a decline in price since the mid-March highs. On April 1, VLSFO in Singapore was selling at $873.50 per metric ton, up 70% since Feb. 27 but far below its March 16 high of $1,119/mt, according to the Ship & Bunker platform. HSFO has followed a similar path, up 60% from Feb. 27 at $695/mt, but 35% down from the March 9 price of $1,073/mt. Bucking the trend is low sulfur marine gas oil (MGO), used by carriers in emission control areas such as the coasts of North America, the Caribbean, the Baltic and North seas, and the Mediterranean. MGO prices in Singapore on April 1 were at $1,836/mt, not far off the March 23 high of $1,940, but 160% above the pre-war price, Ship & Bunker data showed. In Rotterdam, VLSFO was trading at $716.50/mt on April 1, up almost 50% from Feb. 27. HSFO was at $661.50, up 50% since before the war, while MGO was 85% higher at $1,331/mt, Ship & Bunker’s latest pricing showed. Katsoulas said Rotterdam was currently the most stable and well-supplied bunkering point compared to the hubs east of the Suez Canal. “It is shielded from the immediate Middle East disruptions, and as a result, Singapore is trading at a massive $140 to $250 per ton premium over Rotterdam prices,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said bunker fuel in Singapore was available at prices almost double pre-conflict levels, but the prices were trending slowly downwards after the initial spike of 200%. “With no visible end to the crisis, however, carriers are almost certainly drawing up another set of contingency plans,” Sand said in a market update Thursday. “The coming weeks will show whether slow steaming and alternative routing can hold the line, or whether blank sailings become the next lever carriers reach for.” Emergency surcharge prices rise One of the contingency plans being aggressively pursued by carriers are emergency bunker fuel surcharges piled on top of existing quarterly fuel cost recovery mechanisms. For instance, Maersk from March 25 has been charging $400 per FEU on long-haul head-haul routes and $600/FEU for reefers, while CMA CGM since March 27 has been charging emergency fuel surcharges of $265/TEU, and $320/TEU for reefers. Ocean Network Express set long-haul head-haul surcharges at $160/TEU, with $210/TEU for reefers, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. has implemented a range of fuel surcharges covering specific regional routes. Maersk this week again asked US maritime regulators to waive the 30-day notice period required before liners can implement surcharges so it could immediately roll out emergency fuel surcharges on long-haul US trades. The Federal Maritime Commission previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period and is expected to rule on the second request soon. Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Hapag-Lloyd, last week put a price on the Middle East war, telling reporters that the carrier was shouldering added operating costs of $40 million to $50 million a week . Most of that was driven by higher bunker fuel prices and rising insurance premiums in the Middle East. “Our intention is not to make a profit (from surcharges),” Habben Jansen told reporters during a media briefing. “We are trying to limit the charges to the extra costs we need to recover. We are trying to ring-fence the problem as much as possible.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Singapore bunker supply continues to run down as Middle East war drags on

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier is implementing a second surcharge on US trades to recoup higher operating costs driven by the war in the Middle East, and is asking maritime regulators for permission to levy the fee immediately.</div>

The carrier is implementing a second surcharge on US trades to recoup higher operating costs driven by the war in the Middle East, and is asking maritime regulators for permission to levy the fee immediately.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk is making another attempt to win approval from US maritime regulators to waive a 30-day notice period and permit the carrier to immediately implement an emergency bunker fuel surcharge on long-haul US trades to offset rising costs driven by the war in the Middle East. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is expected to vote soon on Maersk’s new request, a spokesperson for the agency said. That comes as the agency on Wednesday rejected requests from two forwarders for a waiver of the 30-day notice period that is required before liners can implement surcharges. The FMC <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers</a> to waive the notice period. How the FMC votes on Maersk’s latest request for special permission to implement surcharges in the hundreds of dollars per container could prove a test case for other carriers seeking to recoup war-driven energy costs from US shippers and forwarders. The FMC’s four commissioners on March 23 unanimously voted to reject separate requests from Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim Integrated Shipping Services to waive the notice period, forcing the carriers to wait until this week to implement the initial surcharges. FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said the carriers should have provided data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” In its initial March 11 filing to the FMC, Maersk asked the agency to waive the notice period for the new emergency bunker fuel surcharge so it could take effect March 25, coinciding with the implementation of similar surcharges on non-US trades, rather than April 8. In its latest petition, the carrier said low-sulfur bunker fuel prices jumped 82% on average, to $929 per metric ton, between Feb. 6 and March 9. The war began Feb. 28. “Maersk cannot absorb the full impact of this dramatic increase,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing Maersk, wrote in the filing to the FMC. “Moreover, bunker fuel prices are likely to remain elevated and volatile given the uncertainty of the duration of hostilities and their impact on the price of oil and bunker fuel.” For dry shipments on long-haul trades, Maersk is seeking an emergency fuel surcharge of $200 per TEU for the head-haul and $100 per TEU for the backhaul. Comparatively, Maersk has implemented a $300-per-TEU surcharge for refrigerated shipments on the head-haul of long-haul shipments and $150 for reefer backhaul cargoes. <h3>Holding the line </h3>The FMC on Wednesday rejected two separate requests to waive the 30-day review period for emergency surcharges. The agency denied a request by Turkon Container Transportation and Shipping to immediately impose a fee on all shipments to and from the Middle East of $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU, and $3,500 for refrigerated and special containers. The agency also denied a request by Vanguard Logistics Services, a non-vessel-operating common carrier, to immediately implement a $75 surcharge on shipments to and from the Middle East. In both cases, the FMC said the parties had failed to establish good cause to have the review period waived.The latest round of requests shows that “carriers are making the same fatal error that led to the prior denials — failing to provide their customers and the FMC specific cost information so they can determine their need for immediate imposition of very specific surcharges,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said in a statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk is making another attempt to win approval from US maritime regulators to waive a 30-day notice period and permit the carrier to immediately implement an emergency bunker fuel surcharge on long-haul US trades to offset rising costs driven by the war in the Middle East. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is expected to vote soon on Maersk’s new request, a spokesperson for the agency said. That comes as the agency on Wednesday rejected requests from two forwarders for a waiver of the 30-day notice period that is required before liners can implement surcharges. The FMC previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period. How the FMC votes on Maersk’s latest request for special permission to implement surcharges in the hundreds of dollars per container could prove a test case for other carriers seeking to recoup war-driven energy costs from US shippers and forwarders. The FMC’s four commissioners on March 23 unanimously voted to reject separate requests from Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim Integrated Shipping Services to waive the notice period, forcing the carriers to wait until this week to implement the initial surcharges. FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said the carriers should have provided data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” In its initial March 11 filing to the FMC, Maersk asked the agency to waive the notice period for the new emergency bunker fuel surcharge so it could take effect March 25, coinciding with the implementation of similar surcharges on non-US trades, rather than April 8. In its latest petition, the carrier said low-sulfur bunker fuel prices jumped 82% on average, to $929 per metric ton, between Feb. 6 and March 9. The war began Feb. 28. “Maersk cannot absorb the full impact of this dramatic increase,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing Maersk, wrote in the filing to the FMC. “Moreover, bunker fuel prices are likely to remain elevated and volatile given the uncertainty of the duration of hostilities and their impact on the price of oil and bunker fuel.” For dry shipments on long-haul trades, Maersk is seeking an emergency fuel surcharge of $200 per TEU for the head-haul and $100 per TEU for the backhaul. Comparatively, Maersk has implemented a $300-per-TEU surcharge for refrigerated shipments on the head-haul of long-haul shipments and $150 for reefer backhaul cargoes. Holding the line The FMC on Wednesday rejected two separate requests to waive the 30-day review period for emergency surcharges. The agency denied a request by Turkon Container Transportation and Shipping to immediately impose a fee on all shipments to and from the Middle East of $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU, and $3,500 for refrigerated and special containers. The agency also denied a request by Vanguard Logistics Services, a non-vessel-operating common carrier, to immediately implement a $75 surcharge on shipments to and from the Middle East. In both cases, the FMC said the parties had failed to establish good cause to have the review period waived. The latest round of requests shows that “carriers are making the same fatal error that led to the prior denials — failing to provide their customers and the FMC specific cost information so they can determine their need for immediate imposition of very specific surcharges,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said in a statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Maersk again asks FMC to waive 30-day review period for emergency fuel surcharge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The first vessel on the carrier’s Caribbean-North America service will call the port next week, offering Canadian exporters more transshipment options to other markets. </div>

The first vessel on the carrier’s Caribbean-North America service will call the port next week, offering Canadian exporters more transshipment options to other markets.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM has added the Port of Montreal to its main north-south liner service for the North American East Coast, the carrier said Wednesday, with the new service also offering a transshipment option for Canadian exporters looking to reach global markets. The CMA CGM Homere is expected to make its first call to the Cast Terminal at Montreal on April 5, according to the carrier’s schedule. The 1,713-TEU ship is part of CMA CGM’s Cagema service with a northbound rotation including Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, New York-New Jersey, Montreal and Port Saint John. CMA CGM said in a statement that Montreal shippers will also be able to access the Indian subcontinent, Mediterranean, Middle East and Oceania ports through the backhaul connection to CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal. In addition, Asian services can be accessed through transshipment at Jamaica’s Kingston port. The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) said in a statement the addition of the Cagema service will open new markets for Canada’s exports. It added that the new service will also offer a new direct connection for refrigerated produce imports into Montreal, so shippers can bypass imports through other US East Coast ports. “The addition of the Cagema service will help increase the port’s competitiveness, diversify the markets served and open up new export opportunities for Canadian companies,” the MPA said. While a small part of its business, the MPA said north-south trades have been one of its faster-growing segments. Trade with Latin America accounted for about 5% of the port’s total container tonnage last year, or approximately 70,000 TEUs, up 12% from 2024, according to data from the port. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

CMA CGM has added the Port of Montreal to its main north-south liner service for the North American East Coast, the carrier said Wednesday, with the new service also offering a transshipment option for Canadian exporters looking to reach global markets. The CMA CGM Homere is expected to make its first call to the Cast Terminal at Montreal on April 5, according to the carrier’s schedule. The 1,713-TEU ship is part of CMA CGM’s Cagema service with a northbound rotation including Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, New York-New Jersey, Montreal and Port Saint John. CMA CGM said in a statement that Montreal shippers will also be able to access the Indian subcontinent, Mediterranean, Middle East and Oceania ports through the backhaul connection to CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal. In addition, Asian services can be accessed through transshipment at Jamaica’s Kingston port. The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) said in a statement the addition of the Cagema service will open new markets for Canada’s exports. It added that the new service will also offer a new direct connection for refrigerated produce imports into Montreal, so shippers can bypass imports through other US East Coast ports. “The addition of the Cagema service will help increase the port’s competitiveness, diversify the markets served and open up new export opportunities for Canadian companies,” the MPA said. While a small part of its business, the MPA said north-south trades have been one of its faster-growing segments. Trade with Latin America accounted for about 5% of the port’s total container tonnage last year, or approximately 70,000 TEUs, up 12% from 2024, according to data from the port. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Montreal shippers get new north-south service from CMA CGM 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision to push back the late-April implementation is in response to industry appeals and the Middle East crisis, which has left Indian ports handling significant rerouted volumes of stranded Persian Gulf-bound containers. </div>

The decision to push back the late-April implementation is in response to industry appeals and the Middle East crisis, which has left Indian ports handling significant rerouted volumes of stranded Persian Gulf-bound containers.

<div class="phx-topic">India will delay by six months the enforcement of a rebooted cabotage policy that sought to revoke the coastal shipping freedom <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/india-scraps-cabotage-rule-opens-domestic-freight-to-foreign-ocean-carriers-5229628">extended to foreign-flag vessel operators in 2018</a>. The incumbent regulatory support has long enabled carriers to freely move laden containers for transshipment and empty boxes for repositioning intra-country. The Ministry of Ports &amp; Shipping, in announcing the reprieve Tuesday, said the decision to push back the late-April implementation is in response to industry appeals and the Middle East crisis, which has left Indian ports handling significant rerouted volumes of stranded Persian Gulf-bound containers. “...Representations have been received from stakeholders, including container liner operators’ associations, highlighting operational concerns arising out of the prevailing geopolitical situation, particularly in the Persian Gulf region, affecting global shipping dynamics such as route planning, insurance costs and vessel deployment,” the ministry said. While the Middle East chaos is an “incidental operational challenge,” it is believed that carrier representatives had already been engaging with policymakers — individually and through industry bodies — to seek a review of the policy U-turn or at least gain more time to get ready for the new operational environment. Local industry analysts view the temporary reprieve more as regulatory posturing as liner heavyweights come forward to diversify their investment interests in India, including reflagging vessels to the local registry. Maersk, CMA CGM, Mediterranean Shipping Co. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-to-invest-1-billion-across-indian-maritime-verticals-6189463">and Hapag-Lloyd</a> have either already added a few ships to the Indian flag or confirmed flag changing plans. “India is emerging as a transshipment hub, and global operators and shipping lines have shown commitment towards flagging container ships in India,” the ministry said in its statement. Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines’ Association (India), welcomed the government’s decision. “The extension of cabotage relaxations was much needed under the current circumstances wherein transshipment at Indian ports has further increased,” Vaswani told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

India will delay by six months the enforcement of a rebooted cabotage policy that sought to revoke the coastal shipping freedom extended to foreign-flag vessel operators in 2018 . The incumbent regulatory support has long enabled carriers to freely move laden containers for transshipment and empty boxes for repositioning intra-country. The Ministry of Ports & Shipping, in announcing the reprieve Tuesday, said the decision to push back the late-April implementation is in response to industry appeals and the Middle East crisis, which has left Indian ports handling significant rerouted volumes of stranded Persian Gulf-bound containers. “...Representations have been received from stakeholders, including container liner operators’ associations, highlighting operational concerns arising out of the prevailing geopolitical situation, particularly in the Persian Gulf region, affecting global shipping dynamics such as route planning, insurance costs and vessel deployment,” the ministry said. While the Middle East chaos is an “incidental operational challenge,” it is believed that carrier representatives had already been engaging with policymakers — individually and through industry bodies — to seek a review of the policy U-turn or at least gain more time to get ready for the new operational environment. Local industry analysts view the temporary reprieve more as regulatory posturing as liner heavyweights come forward to diversify their investment interests in India, including reflagging vessels to the local registry. Maersk, CMA CGM, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Hapag-Lloyd have either already added a few ships to the Indian flag or confirmed flag changing plans. “India is emerging as a transshipment hub, and global operators and shipping lines have shown commitment towards flagging container ships in India,” the ministry said in its statement. Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines’ Association (India), welcomed the government’s decision. “The extension of cabotage relaxations was much needed under the current circumstances wherein transshipment at Indian ports has further increased,” Vaswani told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

International ports

India delays cabotage rewind plan amid carrier pressure, Middle East reroutings

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code SSFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSGFTW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on an annual Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Jump in diesel prices alone not enough to boost intermodal fortunes: analyst

Singapore bunker supply continues to run down as Middle East war drags on

Maersk again asks FMC to waive 30-day review period for emergency fuel surcharge