Category: Maritime Alerts

New USTR Measures Target Chinese Maritime Sector: What You Need to Know

Matthew J. Thomas, Kathleen H. Shannon, Keith B. Letourneau, Douglas J. Shoemaker, Natalie M. Radabaugh, and Holli B. Packer ●

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) issued a detailed notice on April 17, 2025, regarding actions and proposed actions in response to China’s alleged targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance. The measures, USTR argues, will “disincentivize the use of Chinese shipping and Chinese-built ships, thereby providing leverage on China to change its acts, policies, and practices, and send a critically needed demand signal for U.S.-built ships.” Below, we break down the key elements of the notice and their potential impacts. 

Background

The USTR launched an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Trade Act”) following a petition received by five national labor unions on March 12, 2024. The petition alleged that China’s policies unfairly harm U.S. commerce by targeting dominance in critical maritime-related sectors. Following a review, USTR determined that these practices displace foreign firms, reduce opportunities for U.S. businesses, and weaken supply chain resilience due to dependencies on China’s controlled sectors. As a result, in the closing days of the Biden administration, USTR issued a determination that these actions are unreasonable and actionable under the Trade Act.

The investigation revealed that China’s dominance strategy restricts U.S. competition, undermines supply chain security, and creates vulnerabilities in critical economic sectors. In response, on February 21, 2025, the USTR issued a Federal Register notice proposing certain responsive actions, including service fees and restrictions on certain maritime transport services, which resulted in the USTR convening a two-day public hearing and receiving nearly 600 public comments from industry stakeholders. USTR published its determination on responsive actions on April 17, 2025, Notice of Action and Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance, Request for Comments. 

To read or download the full client alert, please visit our website.

Navigating the New Tariff Terrain: How Trump’s Latest Policies Impact Global Trade and Shipping

Matthew J. Thomas, Keith B. Letourneau, Douglas J. Shoemaker, and Holli B. Packer ●

President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”) on April 2, 2025, titled Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits. This EO introduces significant changes to the tariff landscape, imposing unprecedented tariff increases on most U.S. trading partners, which will have far-reaching implications for global trade and shipping. Below, we break down the key elements of the new tariff policies and their potential impacts. 

Key Elements of the Executive Order

Global Tariff Implementation. The EO imposes a 10 percent global tariff on all imports into the United States, which became effective on April 5, 2025. For 57 countries identified in Annex I of the EO, an additional increase in tariffs for these countries was initially scheduled to take effect April 9, 2025, and has since been put on pause as negotiations take place, but that pause will not apply to sector tariffs. For additional information on the impact of the new tariffs announced in the April 2, 2025, EO, check out Blank Rome’s Recent Alert: Liberation Day: President Trump Unveils Global, Reciprocal Tariffs – What You Need to Know.

Product Exemptions. Annex II of the EO outlines various tariff exemptions, including certain mineral commodities, petroleum products, and pharmaceuticals. Among others, it also exempts items subject to Section 232 tariffs of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, including automobiles and automobile parts, and steel and aluminum goods, from both the global tariff and increased reciprocal tariffs. Goods from Canada and Mexico that meet the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) requirements are also excluded from these tariffs. However, imports that fail to qualify for duty-free treatment under USMCA remain subject to the 25 percent tariffs introduced in March 2025 (10 percent for energy and potash) under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).

End of De Minimis Exemption and Chinese Tariffs Generally. The EO ends the de minimis exemption for goods valued at less than $800 from China and Hong Kong, effective May 2, 2025. Following administration’s latest announcement on April 9, 2025, tariffs imposed on Chinese goods surged to 145 percent. (Click here for President Trump’s April 2 amendment to the de minimis EO on China.) China has responded with a 125 percent tariff on U.S. goods.

To read or download the full client alert, please visit our website.

USTR Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation of China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors

Matthew J. Thomas, Kathleen H. Shannon, and Natalie M. Radabaugh ●


The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced its proposed actions under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”), in connection with its Investigation of China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance (the “Proposed Action”) on February 21, 2025. 

In short, the Proposed Action includes a variety of recommended remedies, including (1) imposing significant port fees on Chinese vessel operators and other operators of Chinese-built vessels, and operators with orders for new vessels being built in Chinese yards, and (2) implementing requirements for mandatory use of U.S.-flag and U.S.-built vessels to carry fixed percentages (increased annually) of U.S. exports. 

At this time, the Proposed Action is not final and USTR is seeking public comment by March 24, 2025, as discussed further below. Given the role that ocean transportation plays in the economy, the Proposed Action would have far-reaching effects to the extent it is adopted. Accordingly, vessel owners and operators and other interested parties in the industry should consider commenting on the Proposed Action and/or appearing at the upcoming hearing with respect to how the Proposed Action may affect them and their industry. In addition, at a minimum, shipowners, operators, charterers, and shippers should start considering their operations, contracts, and how the Proposed Action may affect them. 

To read or download the full client alert, please visit our website.

Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System: What You Need to Know About the Coast Guard’s Final Rule

Dana S. Merkel, Vanessa C. DiDomenico, and Holli B. Packer ●


The U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”) published a final rule on January 17, 2025, addressing Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System (the “Final Rule”), which seeks to minimize cybersecurity related transportation security incidents (“TSIs”) within the maritime transportation system (“MTS”) by establishing requirements to enhance the detection, response, and recovery from cybersecurity risks. Effective July 16, 2025, the Final Rule will apply to U.S.-flagged vessels, as well as Outer Continental Shelf and onshore facilities subject to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (“MTSA”). The USCG is also seeking comments on a potential two-to-five-year delay of implementation for U.S.-flagged vessels. Comments are due March 18, 2025.

Background

The need for enhanced cybersecurity protocols within the MTS has long been recognized. MTSA laid the groundwork for addressing various security threats in 2002 and provided the USCG with broad authority to take action and set requirements to prevent TSIs. MTSA was amended in 2018 to make clear that cybersecurity related risks that may cause TSIs fall squarely within MTSA and USCG authority.

Over the years, the USCG, as well as the International Maritime Organization, have dedicated resources and published guidelines related to addressing the growing cybersecurity threats arising as technology is integrated more and more into all aspects of the MTS. The USCG expanded its efforts to address cybersecurity threats throughout the MTS in its latest rulemaking, publishing the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on February 22, 2024. The NPRM received significant public feedback, leading to the development of the Final Rule.

Final Rule

In its Final Rule, the USCG addresses the many comments received on the NPRM and sets forth minimum cybersecurity requirements for U.S.-flagged vessels and applicable facilities.

To read or download the full client alert, please visit our website.

CBP Modifies First Offshore Wind Ruling

Jonathan K. Waldron, Matthew J. Thomas, Jeanne M. Grasso, and Stefanos N. Roulakis

Stakeholders in offshore wind construction projects, including vessel owners and operators, project developers, and equipment manufacturers, should ensure that their plans for offshore wind development take into consideration the implications of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP”) most recent Jones Act ruling. While a previous ruling issued by CBP in January 2021 changed course by ruling that “pristine sites” were subject to the Coastwise Merchandise Statute (commonly referred to as the Jones Act), CBP has modified this ruling generally in line with past precedent. Nonetheless, CBP’s modification creates some changes for Jones Act compliance in the offshore wind sector.

On January 27, 2021, CBP ignited controversy in its first Jones Act ruling on offshore wind since the passage of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). The NDAA, through an amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), clarified that the Jones Act applied to renewable energy projects on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”), and stakeholders expected that the same cabotage rules which have applied to mineral energy development projects would equally apply to offshore wind. Nonetheless, in HQ H309186, CBP deviated from decades of precedent by ruling that the lading of “scour protection” materials by a non-coastwise qualified vessel at a U.S. coastwise point (i.e., a port or place in the United States), and unlading of these materials at a pristine site on the OCS, would violate the Jones Act. Reversing course after comments from industry stakeholders, CBP issued a modification, which held that the “Jones Act does not apply to activity occurring at the pristine seabed on the OCS, which has been CBP’s longstanding position on the issue.” HQ H317289 (March 25, 2021). While CBP’s reversal appears to be consistent with “longstanding” precedent on pristine sites, the modification itself raises questions about the applicability of the Jones Act in certain contexts as discussed further below.

BACKGROUND

Decades after extending federal law (including the Jones Act) to the OCS for mineral-related energy development projects, Congress enacted the 2021 NDAA, which included a provision confirming that the Jones Act applies to all offshore energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf, including wind energy. While most offshore wind projects were planned with Jones Act compliance in mind, this has generally been a welcome development for all stakeholders, with the hope that it would bring needed clarity and certainty to renewable energy development projects offshore.

However, CBP’s first shot out of the gate in January missed the mark, although the agency should be lauded for issuing a correction in short order last month. In the initial ruling, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock (“Great Lakes”) proposed to transport and unlade “scour protection” materials (i.e., rocks) to protect wind turbine generator (“WTG”) foundations in conjunction with the construction of the Vineyard Wind Project located on the OCS off the southeast shore of Martha’s Vineyard. Great Lakes proposed unlading the materials at the WTG sites on the OCS in layers and at different phases of the WTG installation process using both coastwise and non-coastwise vessels under various scenarios.

Please click here for the full client alert.

BIMCO Adopts New Clauses and Contracts

Keith B. Letourneau, Matthew J. Thomas, and Zachary J. Wyatte






New Development

The Baltic and International Maritime Council’s (“BIMCO”) Documentary Committee adopted several new clauses and contracts at its recent meeting held on January 25, 2021. Included were: (1) a new charter sanctions clause, (2) a clause promoting transparency and dialogue between owners and charterers, and (3) tug, barge, and floating hotel contracts. Given the prevalence of U.S. sanctions against myriad governmental and private-party actors worldwide, the scourge of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the construction advent of new offshore wind farm structures, each of these clauses and contracts warrant consideration by maritime law practitioners and commercial operators alike.

Sanctions Clause for Container Vessel Time Charter Parties 2021

In recognizing the complexity of international sanctions regimes, coupled with the fact that they consistently change as the number of new restrictions continues to increase, BIMCO issued a sanctions clause for charter parties in the container trade in an effort to assist interested parties in complying with the worldwide sanctions regulations. This new clause was designed as part of an initiative to create a library of sanctions clauses that reflect the individual needs and characteristics of different trades and operations, as well as provide greater understanding of the responsibilities assumed by owners. It is the last step in a triad of sanctions clause updates, which comes more than a year after BIMCO’s revised standard sanctions clauses for time and voyage charters. As the various shipping subsectors possess separate risks associated with different market realities, BIMCO tailored this clause to address the characteristics of the container industry, specifically to address: (1) transactions with a “Sanctioned Party,” and (2) voyages involving a “Sanctioned Cargo.”

Please click here for the full client alert.

New Legislation to Apply the Jones Act to Offshore Renewables

Jonathan K. Waldron, Joan M. Bondareff, and Stefanos N. Roulakis

Jonathan K. WaldronJoan M. BondareffStefanos N. Roulakis





Stakeholders in offshore wind construction projects, including vessel owners and operators, project developers, and equipment manufacturers, should ensure that their plans for offshore wind development comply with the Jones Act. While most stakeholders already assume in their planning that the Jones Act applies, new pending legislation, if enacted, would confirm that the Jones Act does indeed apply to offshore wind construction.

NEW DEVELOPMENTS

The House of Representatives passed legislation, H.R. 4447, the Expanding Access to Sustainable Energy Act of 2019, on September 24, 2020, which included a provision from Representatives Garamendi and Lowenthal (“Amendment 33”) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) that would confirm the Jones Act applies to all offshore energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”), including wind energy. While most projects were planned with Jones Act compliance in mind, this is a welcome development for all stakeholders, as it will bring needed clarity to renewable energy development offshore.

BACKGROUND

The Coastwise Merchandise Statute, commonly known as the Jones Act, has evolved over time. The U.S. cabotage laws date back to the founding of the Republic and were enshrined in their current form in the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. These were originally laws that dealt with transportation issues for domestic voyages. However, as time progressed and production of marine resources became feasible, the U.S. Congress passed OCSLA, which extended federal law to installations on the OCS.

Please click here for the full client alert.

EPA’s Long-Anticipated VIDA Proposed Rule Now Available

Jeanne M. Grasso and Dana S. Merkel

NEW DEVELOPMENT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) made available its long-anticipated standards for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”) on October 6, 2020. Signed into law on December 4, 2018 as part of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018, VIDA established a new framework for the regulation of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels in an attempt to bring consistency and certainty to the regulation of discharges from U.S.- and foreign-flag vessels.

The first step in implementing VIDA requires EPA to develop federal performance standards for “marine pollution control devices,” which includes any equipment or management practice (or combination thereof) to manage incidental discharges from vessels. After some delays, EPA posted its notice of proposed rulemaking on October 6, available here, to set standards for 20 types of vessel discharges incidental to normal operations. The program implemented under VIDA will replace EPA’s Vessel General Permit and certain U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”) regulations for ballast water a few years from now, after the USCG finalizes regulations to implement EPA’s standards, including compliance, monitoring, inspections, and enforcement.

BACKGROUND

VIDA was the culmination of years of discussion, debate, and litigation concerning discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels. Although back in the 1970s EPA initially exempted these discharges from the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permitting program due to the burden of permitting every vessel entering U.S. waters, a federal court ruled in 2006 that EPA must issue permits for vessel discharges. In response, EPA developed the 2008 Vessel General Permit (“VGP”). The 2008 VGP was eventually replaced by the 2013 VGP, which contained some more stringent requirements, such as numeric limits on ballast water discharges, a requirement to use environmentally acceptable lubricants, and new monitoring requirements for ballast water, bilge water, and graywater.

Please click here for the full client alert.

Electronic Recordkeeping—The Maritime Industry, Including in the United States, Sails Forward

Jeanne M. Grasso and Dana S. Merkel

NEW DEVELOPMENT

Long-awaited amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) entered into force on October 1, 2020, which expressly permit the use of electronic record books for certain MARPOL required logs. Although the United States reserved its decision regarding adoption of the amendments when they were approved by the International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) in May 2019, the United States ultimately accepted their adoption in accordance with the tacit acceptance procedure. Nonetheless, it is yet unclear how the amendments will be implemented in the United States or what additional security safeguards the United States may require. Bottom line, this is a significant and welcomed development.

BACKGROUND

Electronic record books have been the subject of much debate and consideration at the IMO and within the United States for a number of years. During MEPC 74 in May 2019, amendments were approved, revising MARPOL Annexes I, II, V, and VI to allow the use of electronic record books approved by the vessels’ Administration for the Oil Record Book (“ORB”), Cargo Record Book, Garbage Record Book, and Annex VI air pollution prevention recordkeeping requirements. In adopting the amendments, the IMO stated the use of electronic record books “should be encouraged as it may have many benefits for the retention of records by companies, crew, and officers.” These amendments entered into force on October 1, 2020, although a number of flag States believed the previous MARPOL language provided them with the discretion to allow the use of electronic record books and had already approved their use on vessels for some years. Even so, the permissibility of using electronic record books to meet MARPOL requirements is now clear.

Please click here for the full client alert.

Latest Developments on Maritime Legislation in the 116th Congress

Jonathan K. Waldron, Joan M. Bondareff, and Dana S. Merkel

As the 116th Congress begins to slowly come to an end, and Congress leaves town without passing a relief bill during the summer recess, the maritime industry can benefit from several bills that have been added to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), in particular those on the House side. Following is a synopsis of a few key items to watch for.

NEW DEVELOPMENT

Numerous bills have been added to the NDAA that impact the maritime industry or provide critical COVID-19 relief to the industry. Although each of these bills was proceeding independently, they were recently added to the NDAA, which has passed reliably every year for 56 years, in an effort to move them forward. The maritime industry-related legislation added to the NDAA included:

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020

The Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020 (“CGAA”), which has been in progress for over a year, was attached to the NDAA in full on the House side. The CGAA includes a number of significant authorizations for new cutters and icebreakers, including construction of a new Polar Security Cutter to replace aging icebreakers, acquiring a new National Security Cutter and four Fast Response Cutters, and acquiring a Great Lakes icebreaker. We are monitoring the appropriations bills for FY2021 to determine whether funding is provided for these ongoing and significant procurements.

Please click here for the full client alert.