CrossDock Exclusive: Interview with Chairman of Federal Maritime Commission

CrossDock Insights sat down with FMC Chairman Laura DiBella for a wide-ranging conversation covering the agency’s priorities for small and mid-size American shippers, the Maritime Action Plan, ongoing Section 19 investigations, enforcement actions, and the agency’s operational capacity.

Chairman DiBella, approximately one month into her chairmanship, shared her perspective on how her ground-level experience in port operations and economic development is shaping the FMC’s direction.

You came to the FMC as a board director, which is unusual compared to many of your predecessors, and you bring a lot of operational expertise in maritime commerce.

You’re about a month into the chair, with multiple ongoing investigations, active litigation, and what many would call one of the most ambitious maritime policy agendas in decades. How has your hands-on experience shaped how you’re going to approach all of this?

First off, I feel extraordinarily blessed to be in this position at this time, with where the world is and the focus on maritime. I could not ask for a better situation to be in.

My experience, particularly my on-the-ground experience, is not only on the economic development side at the local and state level, but also as port director and as the harbor pilots’ executive director. In that role, I worked with the pilots in all of Florida’s seaports and in and out of Florida seaports.

I got to see a part of the industry that few outside of unlimited master mariners get to see. It was an incredible experience to have cross-functional knowledge, but the difference is in applicability. I understand the applicability of policy, what can work and what cannot, because I worked at the ground level where the rubber truly meets the road.

Things always look good on paper, but when you try to apply them to the real world, it’s difficult. That’s often where the government does not get it 100% right: the implementation phase. I’d love to be that resource in supporting everything that involves the maritime action plan, and help shape these initiatives from a high-level overview to a tangible working solution on the ground.

That’s how I see my role, collaboratively with the FMC and personally as well.

You’ve described the FMC as action-driven and more like a consumer protection agency. In your first 100 days, you’ve clearly hit the ground running. What’s the one thing you want American shippers to know, in terms of where the FMC is going to have their back?

It’s very apparent to me that small and mid-size shippers often feel overlooked in this entire equation. Coming from the economic development world, we know that 98% of all businesses are small. If we, as an agency, are only focused on the big players, we’re missing a huge part of our economy.

Ensuring that small and mid-size shippers know we are here for them, that we are here to advocate for them, and that we are available to them, is one of the important messages I hope is conveyed. We’re going to take steps to ensure those small and mid-size shippers have access to us, where perhaps they did not believe they did before.

The Maritime Action Plan just came out, and it’s sweeping. It spans issues from port fees to maritime prosperity zones, a strategic commercial fleet, and trust fund mechanisms, and it involves multiple agencies. What is the FMC’s lane in executing the President’s Maritime Action Plan and supporting the broader maritime dominance agenda?

Much of the lane in the Maritime Action Plan is predominantly MARAD. We fully support our partners at the Maritime Administration and their functions, because what we do on the regulatory side, shaping policy through regulation, is going to help them.

Our origins, when the FMC was formed, were to protect the U.S.-flagged fleet, in addition to cargo. With the U.S.-flag fleet being where it is now, a smaller subset than it was when we were created, we’re working toward the other half of the equation again.

We go hand in hand with the actionable aspects of the Maritime Action Plan, but not necessarily in a lead role. More in a supporting role.

One of the specific items in the Maritime Action Plan proposes port fees, potentially ranging from one cent to 25 cents per kilogram on foreign-built vessels. You’ve described the FMC as a consumer protection agency, so there’s an inherent balance between long-term national security goals and short-term cost pressures on shippers and ultimately consumers. How do you see that balance?

It’s about understanding the full picture, and short-term versus long-term.

I’ll reference tariffs as an analogy. From an economic development standpoint, I saw the impact of tariffs from a different side. It’s more of a long-term play: short-term pain for long-term gain. I saw on-the-ground results of tariffs when it comes to reshoring, onshoring, and related outcomes.

How these proposed fees will be implemented is yet to be seen. But I can go back to my experience on the ground and say: if you do X, this is how the market will behave, and what we may need to do from an incentive standpoint, including some kind of offset, to help shippers bear the brunt of changes that could ultimately make them better off in the end.

In short, helping alleviate short-term pain so these policies can be successful.

How do you perceive the China risk, especially from an operational standpoint? When you look at controlled carriers, many are PRC-designated. It’s geopolitical, but from an operational risk standpoint for American shippers and consumers, how do you view this China conversation?

It’s one that we’re very much on top of. We’re staying very alert in every regard. We’re continually learning more and more about just how vertically integrated they are throughout the entire supply chain. So it’s about how best we can protect the U.S. shipper from the FMC standpoint as it relates to Chinese control globally and throughout the network, but also whether there are ways we can combat this, not in a war sort of way, but in a way that could help balance out the equation for us and others, so that there’s less nervousness or fear around that situation.

Some voices have raised concerns that the proposed port fees could lead some carriers to reduce U.S. service. Do you see that as a potential concern, or is that view overstated?

I don’t know if I can give a definitive opinion yet. My knee-jerk reaction is NO. This is more MARAD’s lane, but I don’t think it will result in less coming to the United States.

The U.S. consumer is the biggest consumer in the world. Shipping is only going to increase exponentially over the next 50 years. I can’t imagine this will dramatically change current volumes into the United States.

They may change in form, maybe they’ll make attempts to come in through our neighboring countries, not necessarily by ship directly, but come in by ship initially and then through by truck or rail. But we have other methodologies to combat those types of things. I just don’t see how it’s going to move the needle that much.

On the Spain port denial issue: the second comment period just concluded, with more than 8,000 comments. What does the path from here to a conclusion look like, and what remedies is the agency considering?

I can’t speak to the outcome yet. Now that the second round is closed, the comments are being reviewed and will be handled accordingly. So it’s wait and see.

What I can say is what could happen. This is not exhaustive, but if we determine there were unfair practices toward the U.S. shipper happening in Spain, the FMC could deny entry for Spain-flagged vessels at our seaports, deny cargo, impose fines, and take other actions. Those are examples, not a statement of what we will do. But our authority allows us to take punitive action to ensure those practices don’t continue.

The FMC hasn’t used Section 19 at this scale since the late 1990s dispute with Japan, and now you have multiple investigations underway. What changed in the global maritime environment that makes this the right time to bring this tool back?

Two things happened at the same time.

First, COVID exposed the fragility of the supply chain in every way. And even beyond COVID, the Ever Given getting stuck in the Suez Canal showed how an incident across the world could disrupt us in a dramatic way. That five-day shutdown was a nightmare for many.

Second, the “just-in-time inventory” model we relied on worked until everything started running short and empty, driven by COVID-era surplus purchasing. It turned what we thought the world was completely on its head. It hasn’t reverted back, and it never will, because it forced everyone to rethink supply chains and all that goes with it.

It encouraged onshoring, reshoring, and friend-shoring. It’s benefiting the global south: India, Vietnam, and South America. The entire supply chain is changing. That brought awareness at the FMC level that we need to look beyond our continental borders and pay attention to areas that could be equally or more disruptive than COVID or the Ever Given.

Shipping should be viewed through a wide lens. It’s not a single-port discussion. It’s an entire network and equation.

I’m very glad this tool is being put into action again. The information we take away from these investigations will be extraordinarily helpful for us, the shipping community, partner federal agencies, and the maritime community at large.

The investigation into the chassis usage restriction is underway, and shippers are watching it closely. I know it’s early, but what would a successful outcome look like from your perspective?

I would like to see it come to some sort of conclusion. First, that everybody has been heard, and we’ve exhausted our resources to ensure both large and small shippers are heard.

We want to work within the four corners of our charter to help and bring in partner agencies that may have jurisdictional authority as needed.

A successful outcome is where everyone is content, not necessarily thrilled. No matter how we come down, somebody will not be happy. I want people to be content that there is a framework in place and everyone knows how to work within it moving forward.

I’ve been hearing about it a lot since I started, and one thing I hear often is: “When is this going to be over?” I get it.

You recently announced the largest penalty in FMC history, $22.67 million, involving MSC. For small and mid-size shippers reading this, what should they take away from that action? Is this a signal of a new enforcement posture, or was this a case-specific outcome?

It’s not a one-off. Statutorily, we go back three years, so our caseload right now reflects the most chaotic time in shipping history. That will be the case for the next several years as we process these matters.

I don’t want to promise huge numbers, but there will be significant cases that shed light on what was happening on the ground then.

What I hope it tells the community, large and small, is: we do mean business. We are here to help, represent, and ensure fairness, and the reliability and efficiency of the movement of cargo.

It's a big world, and we can all play in the sandbox together in a wonderful way. I believe a lot has changed thanks to what has happened over the past several years. My hope is that we’re not going to be slapping penalties left and right moving forward, but this is going to send a message that the FMC is playing its role and ensuring that this situation never happens again.

One of your first public actions as Chairman was the joint statement with Commissioner Vekich calling the HMT land-border loophole urgent, and estimating that closing it could redirect up to half of U.S.-bound containers currently entering through the Canadian West Coast. The Maritime Action Plan also proposes a land port maintenance tax. Where do you see the FMC’s role here: analysis and advocacy, or enforcement as well? And how do you see coordination with partner agencies working in practice?

You may see us creeping into that more. It does fall within our purview. If we see unfair practices happening in other seaports to the detriment of our ports, we will look into those situations.

Closing the loophole could prompt different behavior elsewhere that may force us to take a look. So I see us, once again, not necessarily expanding our role, but taking that wider-lens view that we talked about before.

The FMC has roughly 120 people and a budget of about $40 million, while carrying what many see as the most ambitious mandate in its history. FY 2024 was the busiest year on record for the ALJ office. You’ve added two temporary ALJs, charge complaints are accelerating, and there are multiple investigations ongoing. How do you plan to execute on this agenda within a constrained staffing and budget environment?

More money and more people would help [smiles]. But given the constraints, it’s about operating as efficiently as possible.

I’m no stranger to lean operations. I’ve run two public-private partnerships and one government agency, and I know how to make a lot out of a little.

If we deploy certain technologies and applications, we can streamline administrative work so our highly intelligent, ambitious staff have more time for substantive work. We can also borrow support from other agencies where possible.

Things are only going to get busier because the focus on maritime is so great. I remain positive that we will continue to get support in the form of an increased budget and personnel allocation. I absolutely want to deploy AI and anything that can streamline administrative aspects and reduce the burden on staff.