The US Federal Maritime Commission has unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers seeking to waive the standard 30-day notice period for new surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East.
The decision means CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services will have to wait until early April before they can apply the charges to US-related shipments.
The carriers filed their notices in early March, as required under US shipping law, following the outbreak of conflict after US and Israeli attacks against Iran on Feb. 28. Alongside those notices, they asked the FMC for permission to introduce the surcharges immediately, arguing that they were already facing sharply higher operating costs linked to fuel, insurance and network disruption.
The FMC declined.
Chair Laura DiBella said carriers requesting special approval to shorten the notice period must show how the increased costs are directly tied to the dollar value of the surcharge being proposed. In her view, simply stating that costs have gone up — without data showing what those costs are, how long they may last, and what mitigation steps are being taken — does not amount to good cause.
She also said carriers should specify a duration for any surcharge so that it remains reasonably connected to the underlying cost increase.
The four carriers are pursuing different charging structures. Zim’s surcharge applies across all US trades, while the surcharges from CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk apply specifically to US-Middle East traffic.
Maersk plans to charge $1,800 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU and 45-foot container, and $3,800 for refrigerated and special equipment. Hapag-Lloyd is proposing $1,500 per dry TEU and $3,500 per reefer container.
CMA CGM said it would impose an emergency conflict surcharge on both exports and imports involving the Middle East and Africa at $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU, and $4,000 for reefer and special containers.
Zim, meanwhile, is seeking a war risk surcharge of $25 per TEU and $50 per FEU on all US shipments. The carrier said the war has increased costs across its network and at its headquarters in Haifa, Israel.
In correspondence with the FMC, attorney Wayne Rohde of Cozen O’Connor — representing three of the carriers — said those added costs include higher war-risk insurance premiums, tighter P&I coverage, rerouting and schedule adjustments, increased equipment repositioning expenses, and reduced productivity caused by employees having to shelter repeatedly during missile alerts.
Although the surcharge notices were filed individually, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim all used the same law firm in the process.
The carriers argued that, without a waiver, they would have to absorb the extra costs for nearly a full month before recovering any of them from customers.
Those requests were filed between March 2 and March 5, shortly after the war began. According to an FMC spokesperson, they are the only such requests the agency has processed so far.
The issue has drawn close scrutiny from US shippers. In mid-March, the FMC urged cargo owners to review their freight bills for any conflict-related surcharges that had not been formally reviewed by the agency. In a March 11 statement, the commission said it was closely monitoring shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz and any carrier pricing actions connected to the conflict.
The decision also comes in the shadow of earlier criticism. In early 2024, the FMC faced backlash after allowing one carrier to waive the 30-day notice period for surcharges linked to diversions away from the Suez Canal during Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. A later economic analysis questioned whether that surcharge had been justified, given that carriers were also avoiding Suez Canal toll costs by sailing around the Cape of Good Hope.
The Agriculture Transportation Coalition welcomed the FMC’s latest decision. Executive director Peter Friedmann said none of the recent carrier filings explained what actual costs were being incurred or how the surcharge levels had been calculated. While acknowledging that carriers have made efforts to support US agricultural exporters, he said the coalition was shocked by the way the requests had been drafted and by the lack of transparency shown toward customers and the regulator alike.
