The Federal Maritime Commission has, for the second time in a month, refused Maersk’s request to shorten the notice period required to introduce an emergency bunker surcharge tied to the Iran war and the resulting spike in fuel costs.
In a letter published on its website, the FMC said Maersk had once again failed to demonstrate “good cause” for bypassing the statutory 30-day period between publication of the surcharge and its implementation. The regulator had already rejected an earlier joint request by Maersk and other lines on 4 March. Maersk submitted its second request on 11 March.
The decision was welcomed by some in the industry who expressed concern that carriers could use the conflict to push through surcharges without providing enough evidence to justify them, particularly at a time when some lines have been trying to recover from weaker freight rates and lower profits.
Maersk, which reported a profit of $2.73 billion in 2025, argued in its second filing that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran had disrupted tanker traffic and driven bunker prices sharply higher. The company said the price of very low sulfur fuel oil at the world’s 20 busiest ports had climbed from $509 per metric ton on 6 February to $929 per ton by 9 March.
The carrier said it could not absorb the full effect of that increase and warned that bunker prices were likely to remain elevated and volatile due to uncertainty over the duration of hostilities and the broader impact on oil markets. In a separate statement issued on 18 March, Maersk said it intended to introduce a temporary fuel surcharge of up to $400 per container on long-haul services and as much as $600 for refrigerated units.
But FMC Chair Laura DiBella made clear in a 23 March statement that general claims about higher costs are not enough. She said a carrier seeking special permission to cut the waiting period must show how those increased costs are directly linked to the dollar value of the proposed surcharge, how long they are likely to last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them. Without that level of detail, she said, “good cause” is not established.
The FMC also denied a similar request from Turkish carrier Turkon on 1 April, signalling that the regulator is taking a strict line on emergency war-related surcharges unless carriers can provide specific and documented justification.
