S4.E29 - Season Finale: Maritime Voices, Industry Debates, FMC Budget, and What’s Next - By Land and By Sea

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I got soul coming through, flying free.
Skies are blue, all the wavesit makes a room.

(00:22):
I got soul coming through,won't stop in the deep end On
top of the world.
I got good night.
Oh, I'm living bold.
This is what it looks like Onthe tip of my word.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

(00:58):
It's that time of the year again.
We're about to go on summerbreak, but before we head out,
there are a few major things tocover that happened over the
past two weeks.
There's a TransportationAdvisory Committee that doesn't
have maritime voices.
There was an FMC CommissionerDye budget hearing where she was

(01:19):
justifying the FMC's budgetrequest.
It was the full FMC's budgetrequest.
It was the full FMC's budgethearing.
And there was also I have acomment on the recent industry
news that maritime has hit thedoldrums.
Personally, I talked about thistwo weeks ago.
Personally, I think that itmight just be a reloading phase,
but we're going to dive into ita little bit more.
Hi, welcome back to, by Land andby Sea, an attorney breaking

(01:41):
down the weakened supply chainpresented by the Maritime
Professor.
I'm Lauren Began, former FMCInternational Affairs Attorney
and founder of the MaritimeProfessor and Squall Strategies
by Land and by Sea is your go-toresource for navigating the
regulatory side of global oceanshipping and me well, I'm your
favorite maritime attorney.
As always, the guidance isgeneral, for educational

(02:02):
purposes only.
It should not be construed tobe legal advice and there is no
attorney-client privilegecreated by this video or this
podcast.
If you need an attorney,contact an attorney.
This is plain language,maritime created so that anybody
, not just lawyers or industryinsiders, can understand what's
happening in the world ofshipping.
So let's dive into this week'sepisode because, as you know,

(02:23):
ocean shipping moves the world.
All right Again.
Programming announcement.
Before we dive in, this will bethe last episode of this season.
We always take a little summerbreak during the month of August
.
By Land and by Sea will be onpause until September, so there
won't be any new episodes untilafter August.
Thank you for tuning in eachweek, for your questions,

(02:46):
feedback and support and forbeing part of this community.
I'll be back in September withmore maritime updates,
regulatory insights and supplychain stories and guests.
I'm going to be adding inguests, more guests.
I've had a few guests, butlet's add in some more guests.
It's going to be my fifthseason doing this show by Landon
by Sea.
I have loved getting to know somany of you really out in the

(03:08):
wild.
I've gotten to meet you atthese conferences.
I love it.
It is so fun.
Thank you so much for yoursupport and for tuning in.
Be on the lookout for some morefun updates in our fifth season
.
Can you believe it?
I feel like I'm just gettingstarted here, so let's dive into
today's episode though.
Story number one a newTransportation Advisory Board

(03:29):
launched initiatives and someother comments about it.
So last week, the US Departmentof Transportation held the
inaugural meeting of a newlyestablished Transportation
Advisory Board, and that's allit was.
That's all.
It was called TransportationAdvisory Board.
The tab, I don't knowTransportation Advisory Board.

(03:51):
It's being promoted as a keyfederal advisory group charged
with guiding Department ofTransportation, federal DOT, on
infrastructure modernization,innovation and investment across
all modes of transportation.
They said all modes, didn'tthey?
All modes of transportation.
This new board, as it wasannounced on DOT's website and
the Federal Register, is focusedon four main priorities.
So those are developingstrategic recommendations for

(04:14):
infrastructure modernization andexpansion.
Identifying key investmentopportunities in transportation
technology and innovation.
Providing insights intoregulatory and policy
improvements to enhanceefficiency and reduce
bureaucratic obstacles.
And the fourth one is advisingon public-private partnerships
to maximize funding and impact.
So you can go if you want tolearn more about this.

(04:35):
It's transportationgov USDOTAdvisory Board.
Look, I think that this firstone was a great conversation.
It was live streamed, it wasvirtually streamed out so you
could watch it and then youcould watch it on record later
if you didn't catch it live.
I thought that this was a greatstart.
They went around the room, theyexplained their sector of the

(04:57):
transportation world kind of allthe different members on this
transportation advisory board.
I love the idea right Anytimethat you have private engagement
, stakeholders of the industry,experts in the field dealing
directly with the publicservants that are working at
these agencies, I love it.
I think that's perfect.
But as they went around theroom and Secretary Duffy stayed

(05:21):
in the room for the first gosh20 minutes, half hour and
actually engaged with themembers as they presented the
sector and piece of the industrythat they came from, different
initiatives that they might beinterested in or concerned about
Secretary Sean Duffy stayedwith them, was part of the
conversation.
It was not just a bring in thesecretary, have a small chat and

(05:43):
then leave.
He actually stayed.
He outlined the things that hehoped this advisory board would
get done, some of the differentdirectives that he hoped that
they would engage in, advice andconsent and ideas that he
wanted from these members.
They all kind of came up.
It was quick, right, but it wasmore engagement than I usually

(06:04):
see with kind of the politicalswooping into some of these
advisory committees.
So I loved it.
I thought that that wasfantastic.
He listened, he stayed.
Voices in the room.

(06:25):
This new transportation advisoryboard that said that they were
having multimodal, all modes oftransportation, does not include
a dedicated maritime voice.
Look, the board understandablyfocuses heavily on aviation and
bridges and roads.
Of course, right, when youthink about transportation,
except for us mariners.
But when the average Americanthinks about transportation,
they're probably thinking carson the road, maybe the bridges,

(06:47):
definitely the aviation incurrent times because of the
problems that we keep hearingabout with the aviation sector.
But it has to include maritime.
It has to, right.
I mean, I'm preaching to thechoir here.
Most of the people who listento this podcast are maritime
people.
But look, maritimeconsiderations are integral to
the broader transportationecosystem and these include

(07:09):
obvious links like bridges.
Right, because what does abridge go over Maritime, it goes
over water, but there's alsoless obvious connections, such
as flight path restrictionsaround maritime ports.
If we're talking about aviation, we also need to make sure that
we're including some of thesemaritime ports that are right
next to airports that might havecargo crane heights near
airports that need to be takeninto consideration.

(07:31):
I also would like to bring upthe elision that happened with
the MV Dolly and the Key Bridge.
So collision is when two movingitems hit each other and two
moving things hit each other.
Elysion is when one is fixedand the other is moving, and so
that's what happened.
Right, the MV Dolly hit anon-moving bridge, so it's an
elision.
But the elision of the MV Dollywith the Key Bridge it

(07:52):
underscores obviously thatwasn't necessarily a maritime
navigation safety thing, but itkind of was.
I mean, if there had beenperhaps more updated dolphins
around the base of the bridge,maybe that would have made a
difference.
And I'm not going to go intothe MV Dali, I'm just trying to
raise the issue that itunderscores how critical bridge

(08:15):
clearance, perhaps bridge, Iguess, protection and the
maritime navigation that goesall around, because that's worst
case scenario on a vesselhitting a bridge.
And so this is all coming backto my point of a transportation
advisory board that does nothave maritime included is a big,
big miss.

(08:37):
However, I don't want to losethe good for the perfect.
I want to make sure that, look,every sector, every
transportation mode is probablysaying something similar that
might have been missing.
I think that there might havebeen.
Buses might not have beenincluded as well.
I think I saw somebody say that, admittedly, maritime is a

(08:59):
whole category, but look, I lovea federal advisory committee.
I think that they are socrucially important to engaging
with the private, or the privateentities engaging with the
public entities.
I think that this is soimportant for the Department of
Transportation to hear from theindustry stakeholders, but it's
so important that they hear fromthe maritime side too.

(09:20):
But again, I'm not going tolose the good for the perfect
here.
This situation illustrates whymaritime stakeholders need
representation in alltransportation policy
discussions.
Ignoring maritime voices risksoverlooking these vital safety
and infrastructure issues thatmight not be automatically
thought of if the maritimevoices aren't in the room.
Right, if you're thinking aboutaviation, you're probably not

(09:41):
thinking about maritime, but Ican tell you that that airport
that's next to a maritime portis definitely thinking about
maritime and the things that areinvolved there.
That's where we get these fixedarm ships or cranes coming into
the conversation.
You see that down at PortEverglades, you see that up here
in Port Boston.
There's other ports around thecountry that have similar
restrictions.
So these are just things that Iwould love to see maritime

(10:04):
added to this TransportationAdvisory Board, but I'm excited
to see where they go.
I am cheering them on, you know.
But I want to say that therewas something that was very
encouraging with this new groupand this new presentation of
this Transportation AdvisoryBoard is that it was live
streamed.
This inaugural meeting was livestreamed and I can't say this

(10:25):
enough.
But that is real timetransparency and should be used
as a model for other advisorybodies generally.
Currently, the MITSNAC, which isstill waiting to get started
with the new administration, butthe Maritime Transportation
System National AdvisoryCommittee, only opens for a
small portion of their fullmember meeting for public
comment and public engagement.

(10:47):
Admittedly, they never quiteget a lot of engagement or
submissions to appear before theMitzvah in their full meeting.
But look, maybe it's becauseit's not entirely virtually
streamed and it's hard to kindof know what happens there if
you aren't there in the room oryou're not part of it.
Look, it's always a struggle, Iwant to say it's always a
struggle to get publicengagement.

(11:07):
There are so many examples ofcomments, comment periods from
agencies asking for submissionsand then they get low numbers of
comments filed.
That's the trouble, alwaysright.
But this transparency isessential and I think the
transparency has been aconsistent focus of mine across

(11:28):
maritime regulatory bodies andsomething that I always point
out when I see it done well,because I think that it's a
fantastic thing.
I've talked about them a lot,but the Federal Maritime
Commission's National ShipperAdvisory Committee is leading by
great example because they arealways live streaming their full
membership meetings Once aquarter.
You can almost bet on NSAChaving a public meeting where
you can tune in and see whatthey're talking about and see

(11:50):
what initiatives theirsubcommittees are working on.
It is so great to see thatlevel of engagement because
they're expanding beyond justthe members of the committee and
engaging with everybody elseadmittedly maybe small numbers,
but everybody else who might beinterested allowing this
interested public to be a fly onthe wall during these important
discussions and to just have aperspective on what they are

(12:13):
talking about or how theseadvisory committees work,
something that I would love tosee across the board for all
advisory committees.
But look, of course, subgroupsand working committees naturally
conduct detailed preparatorywork and those aren't live
streamed, necessarily.
Nsac doesn't live stream those.
But it's these full meeting,these full committee meetings
that really I think it shouldbecome a new standard to live

(12:35):
stream them, because it reallybuilds that trust and courage
engagement.
It's so important to open thosevirtual doors and allow the
public usually people who arejust curious and trying to learn
more about the agency or thework of the advisory committee.
But let's keep thattransparency coming.
Great job with theTransportation Advisory
Committee by also engaging inthis live stream.

(12:56):
But let's get maritimeconnected to it right.
I don't want the perfect I keepsaying this I don't want the
perfect to be the enemy of thegood on this.
So I applaud their work and I'mgoing to continue to cheer them
on while watching their virtualmeetings.
I also want to take a minute totalk a little bit more about
the MidSnack, not from atransparency perspective, but I
do want to mention well, I guessit's a little bit transparency
connected in a good way.

(13:17):
So MTSNAC, as I said, is theFederal Advisory Committee that
advises the Secretary ofTransportation, so Secretary
Sean Duffy, through the MaritimeAdministration.
So right now it's actingMaritime Administrator Sanghee.
Eventually, hopefully, it'llbecome Steve Carmel, who is, on
deck, nominated to be theMaritime Administrator but has
yet to be confirmed, so he's notactually in the role yet.

(13:39):
I've long advocated formid-snack recommendations.
So all of these advisorycommittees create
recommendations.
They are then voted on by thefull membership and they're then
usually posted somewhere.
They're supposed to be publicdocuments.
They're usually postedsomewhere so that you can see
them prominently displayed.
One thing that I have I thinkI've mentioned it on here is

(14:05):
that sometimes that can be hardto find and that's something
that I think that while MidSnackwas recently updated the links
for the minutes on the MidSnbasically landing page for MARAD
they updated the minutes sothat now those links have been
fixed and you can actually go inand see the recommendations
that have been made through thelast few meetings.
At the very end there that thelinks were unfortunately not

(14:27):
quite working.
But look, those recommendationsare labors of love and a crucial
element for the engagement ofthe private industry and the
public agency.
I'd love to see therecommendations put separately
somewhere on the same page thatyou can actually sort by
recommendation and not justhaving to go look through all of
the minutes to go find theserecommendations.

(14:47):
Because these recommendationsare truly a labor of love.
They represent kind of hours ofbehind the scenes conversations
from the private industryengaging with other members and
stakeholders of the privateindustry to try to help inform
what the next steps for thepublic sector should be, what
the next steps for the advisoryagency should be, and so having

(15:12):
those recommendations front andcenter, I think would just be a
good thing for continuity, forhistorical purposes, but also
for that engagement passiveengagement albeit, but
engagement with the publicgenerally so that they know what
they're up to right.
Many of the ideas that areactually in core elements of the
new maritime policy push forthis administration are actually

(15:34):
directly in line with MITSACrecommendations.
But unless you go through allthose minutes it's hard to find
that right.
I'm not saying that theydirectly came from those
recommendations, but wouldn't itbe nice to see that the ideas
that are supported and beingpresented by this administration
are actually supported byindustry through this Federal
Advisory Committee and maybe, ifthey need a little boost, you

(15:55):
could reference them and saylook, this Federal Advisory
Committee, made up of manymultiple sectors and a diversity
of interest in the maritimeindustry, generally have the
same recommendation.
That's my vision.
That's where I would hope thatthis would go.
We'll see.
Who knows, I don't know.
I think that that would be kindof cool to have the
recommendations, because you cango over to the NSAC website and

(16:16):
find their recommendationspretty clearly outlined and
pretty front and center.
Yeah, so I look.
I want to just also mention, aswe're talking about MidSnack I
guess it's my soapbox momentwe're still only in story number
one, but as we're talking,since we're talking about
MidSnack, as we're talking aboutMidSnack, I also want to

(16:38):
mention there was a significantchange proposed under the SHIPS
Act that I think.
I think my opinion here is thatit politicizes, or threatens to
politicize, midsnack membership.
So again, midsnack you may havenot heard of it this last
charter I am a member ofMidSnack this last charter we
did some fantastic things.

(16:58):
We got some great engagementwith the industry.
I hope that you go look atthese minutes because you'll see
that the recommendations arevery much in line with some of
the things that the industry orthat the administration is
trying to push through.
That is industry supported.
But this amendment, thismodification under the SHIPS Act
would shift appointmentauthority, so who gets to select
the members for at least six ofthose members of this otherwise

(17:21):
20-ish member body?
From the Secretary ofTransportation, which is
actually through MARAD but donereally at the staff level inside
MARAD offices, it would changethe member filling role from
that MARAD staffing officestaffer office to now
congressional leaders, majorityand minority leaders.

(17:42):
The fear that I have here isthat this potentially turns
these appointments intopolitical rewards instead of
expertise-based selections andinstead of somebody
self-nominating or submittingtheir application for nomination
and consideration.
It's risking the possibilitywhere you know easily could see

(18:03):
that the largest donor gets.
Why don't you join thiscommittee?
I'm going to put your name upfor this committee.
So instead of somebody havingthat kind of internal drive to
serve, now you have, like I said, a political reward potentially
not maybe all, but a politicalreward being given out and that
could erode some of theeffectiveness and potentially
the independence of this group.

(18:25):
It's something that I think weneed to watch closely.
I'm hoping that the languagegets changed or modified somehow
before the SHIPS Act goesthrough, because there's so many
good things.
There's so many good things inthe SHIPS Act and if that's
where we end up with MITSNAC,then so be it.
But look, I think that the waythat MARAT has actually been
creating membership through thenomination process, through the

(18:47):
staffers, it's hard to get thatsame level of lobbying I guess
the word is to a staffer than itis to get to the majority and
minority leaders in Congress,where you maybe already have a
full budget to lobby to try toget to that impact level.
I only want to say I'mconcerned about it and it's

(19:12):
something that I continue towatch, and me and probably four
other people have noticed this,so I wanted to raise it just so
that it's for consideration foranybody that might have anything
to do with the SHIPS Act.
I think that this one is neededto have a little tweaking on it
.
I'm happy to chat with anybodyabout that, but I think that
it's been done well so far andcreated an independent and

(19:34):
effective committee.
So that's it All right, let'shit story number two.
Let's keep rolling here.
That was a long story, numberone.
Story number two the US CoastGuard finalizes cybersecurity
requirements for the maritimetransportation system.
The maritime industry is facingincreasing cybersecurity
threats and to address this.
The US Coast Guard hasfinalized a rule adding minimum

(19:54):
cybersecurity requirementsdesigned to help safeguard the
MTS the Marine TransportationSystem against current and
emerging cyber threats thatcould cause transportation
security incidents.
So I will say I think that theCoast Guard has perhaps been a
little slow to get these inplace, but the industry has been
engaged in cybersecuritymatters since that major cyber
attack happened on Maersk in2017.

(20:17):
So here we are, almost 10 yearslater, and we have
cybersecurity requirements,baseline requirements.
But look, the second best timeis now right.
The first best time is probablybefore.
The second best time to havethis in place is now, and here
we are, so I'm happy to seeCoast Guard getting these in
place.
The final rule applies to ownersand operators of US flag
vessels facilities and outercontinental shelf facilities

(20:37):
required to have security plansin place.
It requires them to develop andmaintain both a cybersecurity
plan and a cyber incidentresponse plan.
So the cybersecurity planincludes specific security
measures that are outlined inkind of three different major
categories Account securitymeasures, which is like
automatic account lockouts afterfailed attempts, changing
default passwords, kind ofbaseline things that all annoy

(21:00):
us these days but also keep ussafe in our even Gmail right
Every however long you have tochange your password.
That's part of what is abaseline requirement for
cybersecurity plans.
Device security measuresincluding maintaining an
approved hardware software list,disabling executable code by
default on critical systems,keeping an accurate inventory of

(21:21):
network systems and documentingnetwork maps and configurations
.
So getting a little technicalthere.
And then the third category,data security measures ensuring
logs are securely captured andstored with limited access, and
deploying encryption to protectdata and confidentiality.
So kind of baseline things thatyou would assume are already
happening probably alreadyhappening, but at least now
there's a requirement to makesure that they are happening.

(21:43):
Coast Guard regs also say owneroperators must also prepare a
cyber incident response planoutlining how to respond to
cyber incidents and designatinga cybersecurity officer or a
CISO responsible forimplementation, annual audits,
personnel training, kind ofmaking sure that this stays top
of mind.
So this went into effect.
The effective date of this isJuly 16th.

(22:04):
It does have kind of agraduated implementation piece
to it, but if you have anythingto do with this, if you think
that this applies to you, gotake a look at it, go check this
out, make sure that you'recompliant, and this is important
because I think that this showsthat obviously, cybersecurity
is a thing there are these cyberresponse teams out of the Coast

(22:26):
Guard.
So if you think that you mighthave been a victim of
cybersecurity and it doesn'thave to just be ports or
directly maritime I mean, it hasto be maritime-related for it
to be a Coast Guard-relatedthing but they have these CPT,
these cyber response teams thatcan go and check your systems in
case you think that you mightbe having a cyber incident, or
you thought that you may havealready had one, or you just

(22:48):
want to scrub your system andmake sure that you are safe.
So I love this.
I think that this is fantastic.
I'm happy to see that thecybersecurity requirements and
programs are being outlined bythe Coast Guard in the
protection of all of ourmaritime assets.
All right, speaking ofprotection of assets, so story
number three TAPA Americaslaunched a new freight broker

(23:12):
security standard to combatcargo theft.
So TAPA Americas, or theTransported Asset Protection
Association, is anindustry-driven organization
that develops global standardsand best practices aimed at
preventing cargo theft.
Their standards are I mean, Ikeep hearing widely respected
and used by shippers, carriersand logistics professionals.

(23:33):
You can get certified in thesestandards for TAPA, for
Transported Asset ProtectionAssociation.
In my mind, they really are onthis cargo theft side of things,
but they just recentlyannounced the release of its
landmark TAPA freight brokerrequirement standard.
So it's a critical newframework designed to protect
high-value cargo and reducesupply chain risks in today's

(23:54):
increasingly complex but alsoincreasingly cargo theft aware
and, unfortunately, cargo thefthits happening to the supply
chain.
It's specifically tailored forfreight brokers.
There's other standards thatTAPA offers and you can actually
go to the TAPA website andcheck that they have other
standards that are free to lookat and review, but it offers a

(24:15):
structured, tiered approach tosecurity protocols that align
with the needs of shippers andcarriers.
For anyone involved in theshipment of goods, cargo theft,
I don't have to tell you, is aserious risk and something worth
paying close attention to, andI think that this is something
that you should look at.
Look, I shared thisannouncement on LinkedIn this
week and what I actually said onmy post was Tapa Americas has

(24:37):
standards related to cargo theft, which basically means they
have baseline things that youshould do to help protect your
cargo during its movement.
I encourage you to take a lookand spend some time on the
website.
It can be a little technical.
It can be a little technical,but don't get discouraged.
If it seems that way, try totrench through, try to keep
reviewing it, because once youget past that initial look of

(24:58):
this oh this seems technicalyou're actually going to find
things that help you in there.
You're going to find that it'sactually not as technical or
complicated as it seems.
I really encourage you to takea look at the freight broker
standard if you have anything todo with freight brokerage and
go take a look at the rest ofwhat TAPA has to offer, because
I think that TAPA's Americareally has some great baseline

(25:18):
things to do to help protectyourself as members of the
supply chain industry.
All right, story number four DOTis seeking industry input for
the 2025 National FreightStrategic Plan.
So anytime you hear strategicplan, sit up straight, pay
attention, get involved, becausethese don't happen often.

(25:38):
So this is the 2025 update ofthe National Freight Strategic
Plan.
They, department ofTransportation, us Department of
Transportation, published arequest for information in the
Federal Register, which isinviting stakeholders, industry
professionals and the public tohelp shape this National Freight
Strategic Plan.
Update the NFSP.
I'll just say the NationalFreight.

(25:59):
I'll just say the whole thing.
National Freight Strategic Planis a major policy document that
sets national priorities,strategies and objectives for
the movement of freight acrossall transportation modes,
including highway, rail, airpipeline and, of course,
maritime.
And I'm saying of coursemaritime because this is the

(26:19):
same DOT that might have leftthe maritime off of that
Transportation Advisory Board.
But here we are.
It's back for the NationalFreight Strategic Plan.
All right From the RFI directly.
I wanted to read from thespecific request for information
.
They give a little background onthe National Freight Strategic
Plan.
It says the nation's freighttransportation system is a
complex network of almost 7million miles of highways,
railways, navigable waterwaysand pipelines.

(26:40):
The components of this networkare linked through hundreds of
seaports, airports andintermodal facilities.
This system accommodates themovement of raw materials and
finished products from theentire spectrum of the ag,
manufacturing, energy, retailand other sectors of the United
States economy.
It goes on to say in September2020, dot issued the National
Freight Strategic Plan.

(27:02):
This is the update from the2020 version.
So, continuing on, the 2020National Freight Strategic Plan
defined DOT's vision and goalsfor the national multimodal
freight system, assessed theconditions and performance of
the freight system and barriersto freight system performance,
and define strategies to achieveits vision and goals.
The plan was developed througha multi-agency effort involving

(27:23):
extensive consultation withfreight stakeholders in both the
public and private sectors.
Dot has used this plan to guidenational freight policy
programs, initiatives andinvestments, to inform state
freight plans, to identifyfreight data and research needs,
and provide a framework forincreased cross-sector,
multi-jurisdictional andmultimodal coordination and
partnerships.
So that's from the RFI.

(27:46):
What is DOT seeking input onhere?
New and emerging trendsimpacting freight movement and
supply chain since the 2020 plan.
So what's happened in the pastfive years?
Trends impacting freightmovement and supply chain since
the 2020 plan.
So what's happened in the pastfive years?
It has been a busy five years.
Five years ago was 2020.
All right, the COVID years.
So five years from now, all thethings that have changed?
They're asking for new andemerging trends, major
challenges and bottlenecksfacing freight infrastructure,

(28:09):
innovative strategies andtechnologies to improve safety,
efficiency and resilience, theintersection of freight movement
with climate and environmentalgoals, and ways to enhance
coordination among federal,state, local and private sector
partners.
This matters because thisNational Freight Strategic Plan
influences long-term federalpolicy and funding decisions.
That includes grants,permitting and priorities for

(28:31):
port, waterway and intermodalinfrastructure.
Grants permitting andpriorities for port, waterway
and intermodal infrastructure.
If the maritime perspectiveisn't well represented during
this call for information, lookcritical issues like port
congestion, inland waterways,international trade choke points
could be overlooked Wheneveragencies ask for feedback.
Start getting ready, startgetting your thoughts together.

(28:51):
They're accepting writtencomments, data and
recommendations fromstakeholders until August 14th
2025.
This is a real opportunity foreverybody that has a piece of
national freight strategicpolicy.
But also just I'm calling onthe maritime sector here.
Right, we want to be part ofthe conversation.
We might have gotten overlookedwith the freight advisory board

(29:15):
that I talked about earlier.
Let's not get overlooked onthis National Freight Strategic
Plan.
Let's get our voices together.
Let's get going, let's get ourRFI comments in on this.
Look, if we care about thefuture of America's freight
network and we definitely do, wedefinitely do we have to ensure
the maritime voices are heard.
Let's weigh in, get ready, getyour comments going, get them in

(29:36):
All right.
Story number five HouseTransportation and
Infrastructure was busy lastweek and this week.
So last week they had a hearingwith Department of
Transportation Secretary SeanDuffy.
We were talking about DOT quitea bit today.
Look, last week the House T&ICommittee had a hearing
featuring Secretary Sean Duffycovering the Department of
Transportation's priorities andfiscal year 2026 budget requests

(29:58):
.
So, while the hearing covered abroad range of transportation
topics, several key maritimerelated issues stood out.
So Secretary Duffy reaffirmedstrong support for the American
maritime industry.
He emphasized the critical roleof the Jones Act in preserving
US maritime jobs and economicoutput.
You may have seen thismentioned if you follow LinkedIn
and you follow some of themaritime voices on LinkedIn,

(30:19):
because when Sean Duffy madethis statement that the Jones
Act plays a critical role inpreserving US maritime jobs and
economic output, these maritimevoices were celebrating.
They were celebrating the JonesAct mentioned because the
maritime voices in the US liketo see as kind of a general
statement, like to see the JonesAct supported by Department of

(30:43):
Transportation and MaritimeAdministration.
I mean it's something thatthose agencies are responsible
for.
Yeah, that you might have seenthe celebrating on LinkedIn from
that.
But also Sean Duffy in thehearing acknowledged the
administration's commitment torevitalizing US shipbuilding as
part of the president'sexecutive order.
We've been talking a little bitabout we haven't heard a lot

(31:05):
about shipbuilding.
I guarantee you it's stillmoving forward.
It is still moving forward.
Secretary Duffy talked aboutthat and he also indicated
ongoing efforts to superchargefunding and remove barriers to
domestic shipbuilding.
Port infrastructure also came up.
Secretary Duffy recognized thechallenges faced by ports in
securing timely and efficientgrant funding, specifically

(31:25):
mentioning improvements underwayto streamline the PIDP, so the
Port Infrastructure DevelopmentProgram.
He pledged to acceleratepermitting and grant processes
so vital port projects can moveforward faster, supporting
economic growth and nationalsecurity.
And the Secretary alsoaddressed workforce concerns.
He stayed more on the aviationside, but he did highlight

(31:47):
efforts to expand and retain airtraffic control or workforce
and underscoring the broaderneed for investment in
transportation infrastructure,which includes ports, waterways
and intermodal connections andensure the resilience and
competitiveness of America'stransportation system.
So committee members of theHouse T&I Committee raised
concerns about delays in thegrant awards right, that's why
it was a major issue here andinfrastructure projects

(32:10):
impacting port and maritimecommunities.
Admittedly, maritime was notthe top priority.
There was a lot of talk aboutaviation and roadways and
highways and bridges.
But maritime did come up andSecretary Duffy said that he was
committed to workingcollaboratively with Congress to
improve transparency andexpedite funding.

(32:30):
The hearing reflected a sharedrecognition that maritime
infrastructure is essential tothe nation's supply chain and
economic security.
Overall it was a great hearing.
Secretary of Department ofTransportation did a great job.
Sean Duffy did a great job.
The committee seemed wellinformed on the topics, which I
always love to see, because youdon't always see that in some of
these committees.
I thought that the congressmandid a good job of being prepared

(32:53):
, having relevant questions,having targeted questions,
having questions that actuallyrelated to the jurisdiction of
Department of Transportation.
There was obviously clearly alot of discussion about air
traffic controllers and agingairports and aging air traffic
controller systems, but maritimewas sprinkled in, and so I
thought that it was, overall, apretty good hearing and worthy

(33:14):
of watching to see what's goingon at DOT.
Pretty good hearing and worthyof watching to see what's going
on at DOT.
All right, story number six.
This is a longer update.
I meant to do this episode lastweek, and then we just kept
having things trickle in ofthings that I wanted to cover,
and then I saw that we wereabout to have the FMC's budget
request hearing this week, andso, when this episode was going

(33:36):
to air last week, I wanted tomake sure that we captured it
before we went on break.
So here we are.
This is story number six.
This was added on to theepisode that was supposed to air
last week and now here we aredoing the whole thing this week.
So the House hearingtransportation and
infrastructure, like I said,they were well actually, no,
this was another subcommittee,this was Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation.

(33:57):
So the House and theirsubcommittees were busy.
This week is how I guess Ishould frame that.
But this week, earlier thisweek, future of U FMC's
requested $40 million budget forFY2026.

(34:21):
We still don't have her named asthe chairman.
I, you know, I think thatCommissioner Dye is fantastic.
I would love to see her be thechairman of the FMC.
She has been there for over 20years now.
She has such long history withthe ebbs and flows of the FMC
and did a great job representingthe FMC at this budget hearing.

(34:42):
I'll note that the name wasnamed, part 1.
This is just an aside which mademe think okay, well, what's
Part 2?
Are they going to have aconversation with the Democrats
of the FMC, right?
Are they somehow splitting this?
We're going to haveCommissioner Dye in the majority
, with the one seat, and theminority with the two seats of
the Dems.
And then it got me thinking alittle bit more.
No, usually what happens inthis Coast Guard and Maritime

(35:06):
Transportation hearing is thatthey have both FMC and MARAD.
They only had FMC and so myhunch is that part two is
probably just the MARADconversation.
So for MARAD's budget we hadDOT budget with Secretary Sean
Duffy the week before.
I think this part one is FMCand the part two will then be
the MARAD conversation.

(35:27):
But the key highlights from thishearing budget justification
and agency efficiency.
So Commissioner Dye emphasizedthat this flat so it's a flat
$40 million request, sounchanged from last year is
essential for salaries,operational needs and
modernizing the agency'soutdated IT infrastructure.
The last time that the IT wasreally updated in a significant

(35:48):
way was under former ChairmanMario Cordero, who's now the
Executive Director of Long Beach.
When he was there we had awhole overhaul and we actually
got like like updated computers,because we had some pretty old
computers when I was workingthere.
It infrastructure is alwayssomething that is a concern and
something that needs to becontinually updated, and so I
think that that was somethingthat she brought up as part of

(36:09):
the $40 million request and whyit needed to be $40 million.
I'll also have you know that alot of that $40 million is staff
and salaries, and it reallydoesn't go that far.
They don't have a lot of peoplethat work there.
The FMC is small but she notedthat it's agile and it has kind
of reorganized or reconfigured,I guess I would say its

(36:32):
enforcement and competitionoffices, which makes it better
equipped to act swiftly and be alittle bit more I don't even
want to say thorough buteffective in its competition
review, the competitionauthority watchdog.
It's watching the supply chainand the anti-competitive or

(37:00):
monopolistic behavior which issaid another way, is the
competition happening in theocean shipping side of things.
So in the hearing thecongressman really hammered on
the flat budget request, saying,well, if you have all this
authority and all these newauthorities and it was OSRA 22,
and we gave you all this newstuff to do and you're saying
that you're doing great with thebudget, well then, maybe that's

(37:21):
it.
Maybe you don't need any moremoney, even if it's a flat
budget.
Look, of course CommissionerDye had to be supportive of it,
right?
This is something that the FMCis asserting.
They had guaranteed that theyhad to work closely with the
administration when they'resubmitting these budget requests
.
In a world of doge and cutsacross the board of the federal

(37:45):
government, to have a flatbudget request, I think actually
is saying something positiveabout the FMC than it is,
because the FMC potentiallycould have submitted a lesser
budget.
They really run lean, I'mtelling you.
They run so lean.
So having a flat budget, yeah,they should have supported, they

(38:07):
should have put forward and hadadministrative support for a
higher budget.
But look, that's what we're athere In this world where
everybody is kind of budgetcutting, with the FMC able to
put forth a flat budget fromlast year, this $40 million.
I think that says good things.

(38:28):
But look, let me be clear andlet me say what Commissioner Dye
probably couldn't say yes, theFMC needs more money.
The FMC needs more money.
They have gotten so good atdoing more with less, but
they've been doing that for like20 years.
They need more money.
$40 million, that's the entireagency.

(38:50):
That is a line item for otheragencies and that is half as
much as grants are given out $40million.
Think of that.
You have some projects thathave $10 million and you have
some projects that have $200million.
This entire agency has $40million.
When I was there and we weregoing through federal furlough

(39:13):
times and these federal furloughFridays, we were cutting
magazine subscriptions.
If that gives you an indicationof just how lean this agency
runs, anyways.
So let's look at the numbershere to kind of illustrate this
point, because this is prettyremarkable and I really want to
hit on this because, like I said, this is something that I think

(39:36):
needs attention.
The FMC has, through thisconversation of the hearing, it
was said that the FMC has lost26 employees due to the early
retirement buyouts or this wholeprocess of kind of reduction of
force.
So they're dropping from what Ithink was about 140.
I think that's where we I thinklast year or the year before we
were hearing that in some ofthe budget hearings that they

(39:57):
were right around that 140,maybe 150 mark.
So if they lost 26 employees,we're starting to look at maybe
the 115, 120 is what theirnumbers are.
That's where they kind of hover.
They kind of for the past 20years, have hovered around this
115, 120 full-time employeesnumber.
If we look at that from alarger perspective, so the

(40:22):
global ocean shipping economy isvalued at approximately six
trillion dollars annually, whichmeans I mean this is an
exaggeration, but this is kindof not totally an exaggeration
if each fmc staff member, ifeach FMC staff member, is
responsible for a part of thatglobal ocean shipping economy.
You are looking at $50 billionper person that the FMC is

(40:54):
overseeing this US connection tothe global ocean shipping
economy that they are thecompetition authority for and
they only have 115, 120 peoplemaybe and they're only getting
$40 million to do their job andthey're being given all of this
new authority under ASRA.
They're being under this budgetreauthorization.

(41:15):
They're going to havepotentially two new advisory
committees a ports advisorycommittee, a seaports advisory
committee and an ocean carriersadvisory committee, which is
going to take staff to manageand administer and kind of
facilitate.
They're being asked to do morewith the same amount, but

(41:40):
they've been doing that foryears.
They've gotten really good atit, but that doesn't mean that
they don't need more money,right?
So look, I went back.
So I remembered when I wasthere in kind of the mid 2010s.
I looked back at 10 years ago,so the fiscal year 2015,.
Their budget request was $25.7million.
Now they're up to $40 million.
Their budget request was $25.7million.
Now they're up to $40 million.
That increase over just 10years is $14.3 million and I

(42:02):
don't want to diminish we'restill talking about millions of
dollars here but it's onlyincreased by $14.3 million and
it's kind of a modest rise,considering the scale and
complexity and the amount ofpeople that know what the FMC is
, who they are and what they do,and the amount of shippers that
know what they do and who theyare and that are filing
complaints rightfully so,because this is the venue to

(42:23):
file some of those complaintsand yet their budget hasn't
really risen to the occasionthat they're being asked to rise
to.
And so, like I said, thingsthat Commissioner Dye maybe
perhaps couldn't have said whileshe was on the hearing the
other day, I think that theseare things that need to be part
of the larger conversation.

(42:45):
Other things that came up in thehearing, though OSRA 22
implementation progress.
Commissioner Dye reportedstrong progress implementing
OSRA 22, of course, includingfinal rules on detention,
demurrage, billing andunreasonable physical deal.
She mentioned that thelitigation is ongoing for some
of those rules, but carriers arealready complying and
enforcement is active and thedetention demurrage rule has

(43:05):
become kind of commonplace inthe overall world we went from I
always say this a world of thewild, wild west, where you could
have a bar napkin that says$2,000 on it and sent across the
table and say here's yourcharge for demurrage.
So now there are 20 invoicerequirements so that you can
actually check the work of thedemurrage bill or demurrage or
detention bill, so that you canactually make sure that it lines

(43:28):
up, that it makes sense.
So she talked about that.
Charge complaints Since Osra'spassage, over $5 million in
disputed charges have beenrefunded or waived, many
voluntarily, because of this FMCcharge complaints process which
was directly created under OSRA22.
So the Commission plans tointroduce the new rulemaking to

(43:48):
streamline these challenges evenfurther and formalize rapid
charge resolutions.
We've talked about that in thepast.
I think we're going to get alittle bit more into charge
complaints.
Is it all charges?
Is it only D&D charges?
But what I want to remind youis that one of the executive
orders that came with this newadministration is that there is
a 10 to 1 repeal.
Under Trump 1, there was a 2 to1 repeal.
Under the current Trumpadministration there's a 10 to 1

(44:10):
, which what that means is thatfor every one new government
agency action or rulemaking, theagency has to repeal 10
government actions orrulemakings.
The FMC runs lean on that too.
They don't really have 10agency actions to repeal.
So I think they have to getstrategic on what they're going
to be repealing, because theydon't have a lot of fluff there

(44:32):
in things that they can repeal.
They have always taken a morelighter approach to monitoring
and regulating the global oceanshipping world that deals with
the US.
So as they approach this chargecomplaints, rulemaking, know
that they have to be verycareful with when and how they

(44:52):
do that, because they're goingto have to repeal some stuff too
.
Flag convenience investigationthat came up.
Commissioner Dye detailed theongoing investigation into this
flag's convenience.
So what are those?
They're foreign flag vesselsoperating under countries that
have more minimal regulation,the concern being that lower
oversight could potentiallyjeopardize vessel reliability
and safety, undermining US flagoperators or undermining just

(45:21):
the overall safety and securityand fairness and just general
favorableness of global oceanshipping.
So this is something that Ithink also falls squarely under
the Foreign Shipping PracticesAct and Section 19 of the
Merchant Marine Act of 1920.
We've talked about both ofthose before, but that's what
gives them their authority totake corrective action on unfair
, unfavorable shippingconditions.
These flags of convenience arebeing purported to be part of

(45:42):
something they're investigating.
Right, they haven't said thatit is for sure, but something
that they're investigating.
Is there some sort ofcorrective action that the FMC
should and could be taking herein flags of convenience FMC is
looking into it, andCommissioner Dye talked about
that.
Flags of convenience FMC islooking into it and Commissioner
Dye talked about that.
Foreign competition and carrierdominance Lawmakers pressed

(46:03):
Commissioner Dye about foreignstate-backed carriers,
particularly those subsidized byChina.
They talked about thecontrolled carriers list and
they raised concerns about faircompetition and national
economic security.
Commissioner Dye confirmed thatfive of the six controlled
carriers currently registeredActually I think that they are
all.
I think that that's.
I want to pause there.
Either way, most, if not all,of the controlled carriers on

(46:24):
the FMC list are Chinese-backedand noted that the commission
was actively monitoring formarket manipulation and
anti-competitive behavior.
That's what this controlledcarrier list is all about.
So 50% or more, so more thanhalf, either owned or controlled
by a government entity and boom, you get landed on the
controlled carriers list.
So that's what we're talkingabout here, and what happens is,

(46:46):
if you are more than 50% ownedor operated or controlled by a
government and sometimes it canbe a collection of governments
but a government or governmentsthe concern is that there might
be unfair subsidization of thatotherwise competition private
business, and so you get landedon this controlled carriers list
so that you can be kind ofwatched by the FMC to watch for

(47:08):
market manipulation andanti-competitive behavior,
dropping of rates in not aneconomically supported way but
in a subsidized by a governmentway.
That's kind of the intentionthere.
So staffing and leadershipchallenges of course came up
right.
The FMC is still reeling fromthe impact of the federal
deferred resignation program,like we talked about.
It led to a nearly 20%reduction in staff, which the

(47:29):
number that they were talkingabout was 26 staffers.
They are still currentlywithout a chair, with the
departure of Chairman Sola, whojust left June 30th, so just
almost a month ago.
Two vacant commissioner seats,so both of those are Republican.
So, as we've talked about fivecommissioners at the FMC three
of the leading party, two of theminority party we only have one

(47:52):
of the majority party andthat's Commissioner Dye.
So the two missing seats thatwe have are Republican seats,
majority party, and that'sCommissioner Dye.
So we are the two missing seatsthat we have are Republican
seats.
However, commissioner Dyereassured Congress at this
subcommittee hearing that theagency remains fully operational
and is still coordinating withthe OMB and OPM to hire key
replacements, particularly inenforcement and economic
analysis.
She also talked aboutbipartisan support and

(48:13):
reauthorization momentum.
That came from the conversation.
Generally, members from bothsides of the aisle, including
Representatives Johnson,garamendi and Carvajal,
reaffirmed strong support forthe FMC's mission.
I keep getting asked do youthink that the FMC is going to
stick around?
They're having this reductionin force, they're having a flat
budget.
They don't have a chairman.

(48:34):
They've been missing thisRepublican spot.
Now they have two Republicansmissing.
Is all of this consistentoversight, this increased
funding or the need forincreased funding here and this

(49:04):
reauthorization package tobolster the agency's future
Bottom line here?
The FMC is small, they'restrategic, but they're essential
.
If Congress wants strongerenforcement, supply chain
resiliency and fairer globalcompetition, this is the agency
to fund.
I call for Congress to increasethe budget.
Maybe the FMC will get abirthday surprise and they'll

(49:26):
have a higher budget than the 40million flat request.
But either way, fund it fullyat the requested level.
Maybe even give more.
120 people, right?
I mean, that's kind of what Ialways say is basically the
number that the FMC has and it'sreally not a lot.
This last piece I want to getinto story number seven industry
critique and White Houseresponse, the debate over

(49:46):
federal maritime efforts.
So last week, and I want to bea little bit careful here
because I also don't want tofall victim to the same critique
that I'm giving out.
But last we had John Conrad ofGCaptain posted a pretty sharp
critique on Twitter or Xchallenging the federal
government's handling of recentsupply chain and maritime issues
, and I think that it'simportant to still challenge

(50:07):
where things are or aren'thappening, and he was capturing
widespread frustration acrossthe industry.
Look, I get it.
I talked about somethingsimilar the week before on my
podcast.
There was word of personnelchanges.
The industry hadn't heard muchabout maritime progress in a
while.
The FMC, as I keep saying, isdown to just three commissioners

(50:27):
of the otherwise five thatthey're supposed to have.
I'm starting to get worried too.
I mentioned it and I just saidwe need some wins on the
maritime side.
But I do want to say I kind ofthink that John might have gone
a little far here, but he mighthave done it on purpose, right.
Maybe we've certainly seen thesame kind of bombastic approach
taken with the Trumpadministration to try to pull
out answers or to try to getbetter results.

(50:49):
Maybe that's what was happeninghere.
But this for my personalcomfort.
This felt like it might havegone a little too far.
So John Conrad's tweet voicedconcerns about what he described
as an absence of leadership anddecisive action, fueling the
conversation about delays andoperational challenges affecting
ports, shipbuilding andmaritime operations.
And I'm not going to go throughthe whole list, but even though

(51:12):
parts are perhaps off base, Ithink that it's worth still
taking a look at because it doeskind of have a nice summary of
all the things that we'rewatching and waiting for.
But but it was, it was.
It was critical.
So to know a few.
He mentioned that Ian Bennett,the President's Special
Assistant for Shipbuilding atthe White House, was fired.
That's actually something thatI know not to be true, and he

(51:34):
did reference another reportsaying that he was fired.
Look, he wasn't fired as far asI know, and I have pretty
reliable knowledge that thatdidn't happen.
He left, he's not, he's nolonger there, he's in the
private sector, but he wasn'tfired, and so I saw that.
Okay, not great.
Conrad also mentioned thatnobody had seen or heard from

(51:56):
Secretary Duffy's new actingmaritime administrator.
I strongly disagree with thatone.
I actually shared a message onLinkedIn in response to that
post where I said look, I thinkthe acting administrator Sang-Yi
has been very present and madepositive impacts.
He was visiting Hanwha Phillyshipyard recently.
He met with ports.
I clearly remember seeing aLinkedIn post of a meeting with

(52:17):
acting administrative Sang-Yiand Kerry Davis of the American
Association of Port Authorities.
He also met with Gene Siroccopretty quickly after becoming
the acting administrator and healso awarded maritime service
honors to deserving mariners.
I've noticed that in his shorttime as acting he has been very
public about his activities andthat he's been getting out there
in the field.
I did say at the conclusion ofthis post I'm concerned about

(52:40):
the news of the White Houseshipbuilding office being closed
.
That was part of what JohnConrad had said.
I knew of some of the recentpersonnel changes, but I didn't
think that it would mean theclosure of the office.
So later that day the storycontinues.
Conrad made the ex-post.
The conversation took anotherturn when White House Deputy
Press Secretary Anna Kellyreplied to this tweet.

(53:00):
She replied on Twitter, whichalso was a little wild to have
the direct White House responsevia Twitter, but it was, I mean,
fantastic, right Transparency.
She called Conrad's post totalfake news based on anonymous
sources.
She clarified that theshipbuilding Office will
continue to operate under theOffice of Management and Budget,
omb, she emphasized.

(53:21):
This comes on the heels of therecent $43 billion shipbuilding
investment included in the majorinfrastructure legislation
known as the One Big Beautiful.
Bill Kelly challenged Conraddirectly, asking if he had even
covered that.
So there was a little tensiongoing back and forth, she said.
Kelly further tweeted we'vebeen saying this to reporters

(53:42):
who have asked but John Conradclearly didn't do his due
diligence Embarrassing, which Ithought that was a little kind
of funny because she had theexclamation point.
But look, this sharp rebukeunderscores the heated nature of
public discourse around federalmaritime policy and the
friction between industry voicesand government representatives,
and maybe not even that far.
I don't agree with John'sapproach here to blast on this

(54:05):
shaky list some of these thingsas truth, especially when I knew
that two or three of them assoon as this post was listed,
that this was something that Iknew to be the opposite of what
he was asserting.
But that's kind of John'sapproach and that's OK.
It was effective because we gotclarity on the shipbuilding
office.
Now I want to reflect a littlebit on this because last two

(54:30):
weeks ago on this podcast I didshare some of my own
frustrations with the pace andvisibility of maritime, federal
maritime efforts.
But also I kept a positive tonewith it because we risk
unraveling some of our progressif we throw stones among our
friends.
Right, I appreciate pushingeach other and holding each
other accountable that'sessential.
But I know that Ian was notfired.

(54:51):
I know and the work under theexecutive order on maritime
dominance is still very muchongoing, not only at the White
House through the NationalSecurity Council and that's the
part that had some peopleconcerned about the personnel
changes but I know that it'songoing, with MARAD, dot, us
Coast Guard and otherscontinuing to do their part on
this executive order.
My point two weeks ago was moreabout needing greater

(55:12):
visibility or a clearer publicupdate on these efforts.
To say that acting maritimeadministrator saying he isn't
doing anything is, I mean,patently unfair, really
potentially harmful to themomentum we're building too.
I think that he's only beenthere right seven or eight weeks
and we can have honest and weshould have honest critiques,
but over sensationalizingfrustrations among friends

(55:36):
trying to work together iscounterproductive.
I do appreciate John Conrad'spassion, though.
He has a clear passion and Iwill not take that from him and
I certainly won't cast him asidefor this because I know that he
wants the maritime industry tosucceed as much, if not more,
than most.
Right?
He created an entire industry,entire platform, g-captain

(55:58):
watching the maritime industryand reporting on it.
It is so crystal clear that hewants this industry to succeed.
But we also have to give creditwhere it's due and be cautious
about reporting on verifiedrumors as fact.
So we need to keep thisconversation truthful,
constructive and focused on realprogress so together we can
strengthen this vital industry.

(56:20):
On that same note, I also wantto report, or I also want to
respond to an article last weekthat the Lodestar ran.
So the Lodestar published anarticle titled Strange Going Ons
at the USFMC Is it Still Fitfor Purpose?
Okay, not a great title, right?
It seemingly implies that theFMC doesn't hold relevance
anymore.

(56:40):
I mean, just look at that title.
But it also said and impliedthat recent departures of FMC
investigators could impact howthe FMC handles complaint cases.
The article referencedsomething it called a West Coast
Investigatory Panel, suggestingthat this was a concerning

(57:01):
development, along withimplications of an East Coast
Investigatory Panel.
Taking caution For a little bitof background here before we
dive in, this is talking aboutarea reps, area representatives
who were turned intoinvestigators under part of what
the FMC kind of reorgrestructuring was.

(57:22):
I believe that's what theseinvestigatory panels are
referring to.
But let's set the recordstraight here there is no West
Coast investigatory panel at theFMC.
There's also no East Coastinvestigatory panel.
So that is patently false.
That is not a thing.
These are simply not accuratedescriptions and they're being

(57:44):
asserted as like the title ofthese panels.
They're not a thing.
West Coast Investigatory Panel,east Coast Investigatory Panel
it's not a thing at the FMC.
So descriptions that areinaccurate on how the FMC
operates or structures ininvestigatory and enforcement
processes, we have to beaccurate.
We have to be accurate withthese things.
Fmc investigators werepreviously known as these area

(58:04):
representatives.
Like I said, their primary rolewas, and kind of still remains,
even as investigatorsenforcement, compliance,
outreach and providingon-the-ground industry expertise
, on-the-ground industryexpertise.
Recently these roles wererenamed to investigators, like I
said.
But this reorg did not createseparate investigatory panels or
regional factions and actuallyat the National Shipper Advisory

(58:29):
Committee you might have seen,there was a discussion about
whether these investigatorsshould return to headquarters in
DC or remain in the field, andI think that's what this whole
article is starting to.
Not even certain.
I think that's kind of whatthey're talking about here.
But that internal operationaldiscussion does not reflect any
regional divisions orinvestigative panels at the FMC.
Right, that's not.
These investigators were notcomposed of West Coast panels.

(58:53):
It's simply an operationalmatter concerning how best to
maintain effective industryoutreach and regulatory
oversight.
Right, should the investigatorsstay out in the field or should
they go back to DC?
Perhaps they should stay out inthe field?
I think that there is value tokeeping investigators and area
reps out in the field, butthings were being reorged kind
of federal government-wide right, so documented complaint cases

(59:15):
at the FMC are not handled byinvestigators.
That is something that thisarticle also gets wrong.
These formal complaints aremanaged through established
legal procedures involvingadministrative law judges and
small claims officers.
We've talked about that.
If you want to file a complaintat the FMC, you want to file a
lawsuit.
It will go throughadministrative law judges or
small claims officers as kind ofyour first stop.

(59:35):
The suggestions that ifinvestigators are leaving the
agency or departing the agencycould somehow influence case
adjudication and their abilityto review cases and cases filed
at the FMC completelymisunderstands how FMC's case
and jurisdictional judicial sideof things, like how that whole

(59:58):
process works.
That's not what theinvestigators are there for.
They do not review the cases asthey come in, as these lost,
like, as these complaints arefiled with these FMC.
They don't take the lawsuits.
I'm bringing this up right afterthe tweet discussion because,
again, I think it's essentialfor industry, press and
stakeholders to have accurateinformation.

(01:00:20):
Mischaracterizations can causeconfusion, misunderstandings and
they can undermine the veryregulatory oversight we all rely
on.
I think it's so important tostay clear, focused and informed
.
Look, maritime is aninteresting industry.
We're resilient when things getcomplicated or take a turn or
get shaky.
Maritimers don't go running.
We dig in.
We recommit to the cause.

(01:00:41):
It's time for us to do that.
We've been given thisopportunity of a lifetime to
reinvigorate Maritime.
Let's keep pushing, but let'skeep pushing together.
Let's quit with the cheap shots.
Let's make sure that we haveour facts straight before we
publish stories that drawconclusions.
We can't have material,incorrect summaries leading the
discussion.
We need to make sure that whenwe throw shots, that they are

(01:01:02):
critiques that help push thingsforward.
And admittedly, the tweet diddo that on some front, so it got
the job done.
But let's just be careful here.
Right, we're all among friends.
Maritime as a whole is amongfriends.
We're all trying to get thisdone, so let's use these next
few weeks, as Congress is ontheir recess, to reset our own

(01:01:22):
maritime interests.
Let's come back in Septemberready, refocused and reunited.
Maritime is ready.
Let's go On that note.
I'll mention again myprogramming note.
This is my last episode beforea short summer break by Land and
by Sea will return in September.
Thanks for listening and beinga part of this community.
I really, truly appreciate eachand every one of you.

(01:01:42):
Enjoy your summer and I'll seeyou back here with new episodes
in September.
If you like these episodes, besure to follow, subscribe and
even leave a review.
Want to go deeper on thesetopics or bring this kind of
insight to your team?
Visit themaritimeprofessorcomto explore corporate trainings,
tailored briefings and on-demandwebinars, all designed to make
complex maritime regulationspractical and easy to understand

(01:02:03):
.
And if your organization needshelp navigating the legal and
strategic side of ocean shippinghead over to Squall Strategies,
that's where I provide myconsulting services, regulatory
guidance and policy support forclients working with the federal
government across the globalsupply chain.
As always, this podcast is foreducational purposes only and is
not legal advice.
If you need an attorney.
Contact an attorney.
Until next time, I'm LaurenBegan, the Maritime Professor

(01:02:25):
and you've just listened to, byLand and by Sea.
See you next time.

All Episodes

S4.E29 - Season Finale: Maritime Voices, Industry Debates, FMC Budget, and What’s Next

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}S4.E29 - Season Finale: Maritime Voices, Industry Debates, FMC Budget, and What’s Next