Statement of Chairman Laura DiBella on Special Permissions

The Shipping Act and Commission regulations require a 30-day notice period before an increase in the rates and charges in a filed tariff become effective. 46 CFR 520.8. This notice period gives shippers crucial time to adjust to changes and explore their options. However, under 46 CFR 520.14, a carrier can request that the Commission shorten this time period. The standard for granting a request for "special permission" to implement an increase with less than 30 days' notice is that the carrier must demonstrate good cause for the requested exception to the rules.

The authority to evaluate whether good cause has been shown was formerly delegated to the Director of the Commission's Bureau of Trade Analysis. In a 2025 rulemaking, the agency withdrew this delegation, meaning that special permission requests are now evaluated and ruled upon by majority vote of the Commissioners.

There are certainly circumstances that warrant granting special permission requests. Sudden shocks to the supply chain can be difficult for both carriers and shippers to absorb. At the same time, granting an exception to the way the Shipping Act allocates risk between shippers and carriers is a significant matter, requiring careful deliberation.

Recently, several carriers requested special permission to implement, on less than 30 days' notice, war risk or conflict surcharges connected to the ongoing situation in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. There are undoubtably increased costs and uncertainties for both carriers and shippers in these circumstances. However, after careful consideration, I voted to disapprove these special permission requests because I did not believe that good cause for an exception had been shown.

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. This transparency would assure shippers that surcharges are being used solely to adjust to unpredicted circumstances. In the event a carrier prefers not to provide transparency on its surcharges, it can instead wait the full 30 days before such surcharges are implemented. This approach to assessing whether good cause has been shown will better balance the risks borne by shippers and carriers, and will increase shipper confidence that carriers are calculating surcharges reasonably.

Laura DiBella is a Commissioner with the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission. The thoughts and comments expressed herein are her own and do not necessarily represent the position of the Commission.