The FMC Denies Ocean Carrier Surcharge Special Permission Applications

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) on March 23, 2026, denied four "special permission" requests submitted by ocean carriers seeking permission to assess certain surcharges with less than the minimum 30 days' notice otherwise required by the Shipping Act and FMC regulation. 46 C.F.R. § 520.8(a). The denials were in response to ocean carrier requests earlier in the month to implement war risk or conflict surcharges on shipping containers in less than 30 days' notice in connection with the ongoing situation in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

The Shipping Act and FMC regulations provide a mechanism to request special permission to "permit increases or decreases in rates, or the issuance of new or initial rates, on less than the statutory notice." 46 C.F.R. § 520.14. In the past, such requests were delegated to the FMC's Bureau of Trade Analysis, but in 2025, the Commission rescinded that delegation, and such requests now require a majority vote of the Commission. Special permission requests remain subject to the same "good cause" standard for deviating from the 30-day notice requirement, 46 C.F.R. § 520.14(a).

The instant special permission requests stated that additional carrier expenses, such as increases in war risk insurance, were already being incurred and that, without permission to assess the surcharges early, the carriers would not be able to start recovering the increased costs already being incurred. See FMC Docket Nos. SP-011974, SP-011975, SP-011976 and SP-011977. Each of the denials explained that the Commission had determined that the ocean carriers had "failed to establish good cause and, therefore, the request to approve the application for special permission to depart from the statutory notice period requirements has been denied."

Following the issuance of the denials, FMC Chair Laura DiBella published a statement further explaining her decision to vote to deny the requests:

In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days' notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge. An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause. Instead, carriers should provide information to support a conclusion that the amount and duration of the surcharge is reasonably related to the increased costs it is intended to address.

In Chair DiBella's view, permitting surcharges with less than 30 days' notice warranted greater transparency from the carriers on the reasonableness and intended use of the surcharges. The FMC's denial of these requests, along with Chair DiBella's statement, are indicative of the Commission's active engagement and oversight over ocean carriers and the international ocean transportation system, a trend that has been addressed in prior Holland & Knight blog posts and reflected in national media reporting.