The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports again postponed a new surcharge meant to incentivize the movement of dwelling containers (see 2110280031), this time by one month, the two ports announced July 29. The ports had planned to begin imposing the fee in November 2021 but have postponed it each week since. The latest extension delays the effective date until Aug. 26. The ports said they will "reassess fee implementation after monitoring data over the next month."
Ian Cohen
Ian Cohen, Deputy Managing Editor, is a reporter with Export Compliance Daily and its sister publications International Trade Today and Trade Law Daily, where he covers export controls, sanctions and international trade issues. He previously worked as a local government reporter in South Florida. Ian graduated with a journalism degree from the University of Florida in 2017 and lives in Washington, D.C. He joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2019.
The Federal Maritime Commission is making headway on implementing the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 and is preparing two new rules that will further revise or clarify how its regulations apply to carrier and shipping practices.
The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports again postponed by a week a new surcharge meant to incentivize the movement of dwelling containers (see 2110280031), the two ports announced July 22. The ports had planned to begin imposing the fee in November 2021 but have postponed it each week since. The latest extension delays the effective date until July 29.
CBP is making progress on its new vessel entrance and clearing system (VECS) and hopes to release a pilot program “later this year,” said Brian Sale, CBP’s branch chief for vessel operations. The agency will release a Federal Register notice this week announcing a new Vessel Agency Account type within the Automated Commercial Environment, Sale said, which will allow users to eventually participate in the pilot.
The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports again postponed by a week a new surcharge meant to incentivize the movement of dwelling containers (see 2110280031), the two ports announced July 15. The ports had planned to begin imposing the fee in November 2021 but have postponed it each week since. The latest extension delays the effective date until July 22.
Ongoing labor negotiations between West Coast ports and their dockworkers’ union are unlikely to cause major disruptions, said David Bennett, chief commercial officer of Farrow, a customs broker and logistics provider. But that doesn’t mean shippers should expect the negotiations to wrap up anytime soon. “I don't think we'll have a contract before September, to be honest with you,” Bennett said during a July 14 webinar hosted by the Journal of Commerce.
Some of the Federal Maritime Commission’s proposed changes to its rules for Carrier Automated Tariffs (see 2205090006) are unnecessary and could place too heavy a burden on industry, two trade groups and a logistics company said in comments this month. The commenters were especially critical of a proposed change that would add more requirements to container documentation, and said they wouldn't support a proposal that would allow a non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) to cross-reference the terms in a vessel-operating common carrier’s (VOCC) tariffs.
The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports again postponed by a week a new surcharge meant to incentivize the movement of dwelling containers (see 2110280031), the two ports announced July 8. The ports had planned to begin imposing the fee in November 2021 but have postponed it each week since. The latest extension delays the effective date until July 15.
The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports again postponed by a week a new surcharge meant to incentivize the movement of dwelling containers (see 2110280031), the two ports announced June 24. The ports had planned to begin imposing the fee in November 2021 but have postponed it each week since. The latest extension delays the effective date until July 1.
A Federal Maritime Commission proposal that would require container documentation to include the names of all non-vessel operating common carriers in a shipping transaction would create too large of a burden on industry, two logistics companies said in comments this month. One company said it wouldn’t be able to comply with the change, forcing it to regularly violate the regulation.