The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has once again refused Maersk’s request to bypass the standard 30-day waiting period before implementing emergency fuel surcharges.
It is the third rejection the Danish carrier has received since the start of the Iran war. In a letter posted on 17 April, the FMC said Maersk had failed to demonstrate adequate cause under the legal requirements governing such requests.
In its April filing, Maersk argued that the war with Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz had caused a sharp spike in bunker fuel prices. The carrier cited data showing that Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) prices at the world’s top 20 ports had surged from $509 per metric tonne on 6 February to $929 per tonne on 9 March.
Earlier, FMC chair Laura DiBella had criticised the company for not providing enough specific detail to justify an accelerated process. Industry observers have suggested that Maersk may have been reluctant to disclose too much commercially sensitive information at a time when annual contract negotiations with major customers were still ongoing.
Maersk later amended its filing, blaming an oversight by its service centre for not publishing the originally intended effective date of 9 April, which was later reset to 17 April.
Speaking to FreightWaves, DiBella said she understood the pressure carriers are under, but noted that shippers are facing the same concerns. She also suggested that carriers should have been better prepared.
In her view, the crisis did not emerge without warning. There had been clear signs that conflict could erupt if negotiations broke down, and some level of risk should have been built into carriers’ planning, at least during the initial 30-day period.
