Get to know Blank Rome Maritime team members Kierstan Carlson, Holli Packer, and Noe Hamra.
Continue reading “Spotlight on …”RANKINGS
Blank Rome Global Leader: Chambers Global 2025 Ranks Blank Rome Attorneys and Shipping, Energy, International Trade, and Bankruptcy & Restructuring Practices
Chambers Global 2025 recognized Blank Rome as a global leader in Shipping: Litigation, as well as Maritime partner John D. Kimball describing him as “an experienced practitioner who handles complex shipping disputes. His practice sees him work on commercial and environmental litigation, among other disputes.” Read More »
Continue reading “RANKINGS”NEWS
Trump Administration Resource Hub
We invite you to visit our Trump Administration Resource Hub to explore our thought leadership provided by a team of attorneys dedicated to providing comprehensive analysis and actionable insights to help navigate the complexities and opportunities presented by the administration’s Executive Orders, policies, and regulatory changes. Read More »
Continue reading “NEWS”Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Team (“SWERT”)
Blank Rome’s Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Team (“SWERT”) is an interdisciplinary group of Blank Rome attorneys and government relations professionals with decades of experience helping companies and individuals recover from severe weather events, including hurricanes, wildfires, mudslides, snowstorms, earthquakes, and tornadoes. We are ready to assist those in the path of storms and other severe weather events.
Learn more at blankrome.com/SWERT.
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.
Note from the Editor
William R. Bennett III, Editor
Political turmoil in the United States, war in the Middle East, and invasion and occupation in Europe. The time period: 1973–74; which confirms the aphorism that Winston Churchill repeated in a speech he gave in 1948 to the British House of Commons, that “those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” If you were H. G. Wells’ Time Traveler and transported in time from 1974 to 2024 and began reading headlines in the newspaper you would be reasonable to conclude that not much has changed. However, if you were a shipping man in 1974 and joined the Time Traveler, you would notice massive change.
In 1974, vessels built in the United States, Great Britain, and Denmark dominated the list of new ship buildings with no mention of China. Today, vessels built in China dominate the list of new launches. And, in 1974 the largest container ship in the world was the Hamburg Express with a capacity of 2984 twenty-foot equivalent units (“TEUs”). Today, the largest container ship in the world is the MSC Irina with a capacity of 24,346 TEU–a whopping increase of 800 percent. But, the most important changes that have occurred in the maritime industry involve the rules, regulations, and norms of the international maritime shipping community focused on safety, starting with the 1974 SOLAS Convention, which specified minimum safety standards for the construction, equipment, and operation of ships.
Change for the sake of change is rarely beneficial. Thoughtful and purposeful change directed by the stakeholders in any venture typically ends with positive results. The maritime industry is a great example. The rules, regulations, conventions, and industry norms promulgated and promoted by the international shipping community–International Maritime Organization, Flag State, classification societies, owners, managers, etc.,—which primarily focus on safety of personnel, the environment, and the vessel, while also considering the commercial implications of such rules, have been extremely effective since 1974 in reducing harm to personnel, the environment, and vessels and, consequently—in my humble opinion—the maritime industry is a model for other industries to follow when change is necessary.
Hurricanes and Their Cost on the Maritime Industry
Aside from the destruction that flows from it, how does a hurricane along the Gulf Coast affect the maritime industry that operates hundreds of terminals and moves thousands of ocean-going ships and inland tows along its waterways?
With the approach of a hurricane, the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port will begin setting various port conditions advising the public and industry of the storm’s anticipated landfall. Once the port condition reaches category Zulu, no further vessel movements are permitted within the port. By that time, marine terminal operators will have shut down operations and ordered vessels to depart their berths, and ocean-going vessels will have left the port to evade or ride out the storm because such vessels are safer underway than they are moored or anchored. Inland towboats and barges will also move to alternative safe harbors via the intracoastal waterway or inland rivers if time permits. Those that remain hunker down at barge fleeting areas, where extra tiedowns are employed and tugboats often standby to provide extra power to keep the barge fleets intact.
Continue reading “Hurricanes and Their Cost on the Maritime Industry”