Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 4183 are substantively identical, with v4 reflecting the bill as referred to the Senate after passing the House. No policy changes were made between v3 and v4.
Federal Maritime Commission Reauthorization Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 16, 2025
Bottom line
The Federal Maritime Commission Reauthorization Act of 2025 strengthens the FMC's regulatory authority, particularly concerning foreign-controlled entities and market practices, while expanding industry advisory input.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. It expands the definition of 'controlled carrier' to include entities linked to nonmarket economy countries or those subject to U.S. trade monitoring. The bill also establishes new advisory committees for ports and ocean carriers, mandates FMC investigation of complaints against shipping exchanges for market manipulation, and modifies data collection and reporting requirements to enhance oversight of ocean common carriers.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for modernizing the FMC's tools to ensure fair competition and protect U.S. shippers in an increasingly complex global maritime trade environment. They contend that expanding the definition of 'controlled carrier' and enabling investigations into shipping exchange manipulation will address critical vulnerabilities in the supply chain and safeguard U.S. economic interests against potentially anticompetitive foreign practices. The establishment of new advisory committees is seen as a way to ensure diverse industry perspectives inform FMC policy.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the expanded definition of 'controlled carrier' could be perceived as protectionist, potentially leading to retaliatory measures from other countries and disrupting international trade relations. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for increased regulatory burden on carriers and shipping exchanges, which might ultimately lead to higher shipping costs for consumers. Some may argue that existing mechanisms are sufficient and that these new provisions could lead to overreach by the FMC.
The bill is relatively short and its provisions are clearly delineated, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 3
Authorization of Appropriations
This section reauthorizes funding for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) at $49,200,000 for both fiscal year 2026 and fiscal year 2027. This ensures the agency has the necessary financial resources to continue its operations and implement its regulatory functions for the specified period.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that consistent and adequate funding for the FMC is crucial for its ability to oversee the maritime industry, enforce regulations, and ensure a fair and efficient ocean transportation system.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the reauthorization of an agency's base funding, assuming the agency's mission is generally supported.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension involves balancing the need for effective regulatory oversight with the overall federal budget constraints. The specific amount reflects a judgment on the resources required for the FMC's expanded mandate.
Sec. 5
Expanded Definition of 'Controlled Carrier'
This section significantly broadens the definition of a 'controlled carrier' to include ocean common carriers that are owned, controlled by, a subsidiary of, or otherwise legally or financially related to a corporation based in, headquartered in, or significantly linked to a country identified as a nonmarket economy, a priority foreign country by the U.S. Trade Representative, or subject to USTR monitoring. This expansion aims to increase oversight of carriers with ties to specific foreign governments.
Sec. 6
Complaints Against Shipping Exchanges and Investigations
This section amends existing law to explicitly require the FMC to investigate complaints concerning alleged market manipulation or other anticompetitive practices by shipping exchanges registered under section 40504. The FMC is also mandated to report the results of any such investigations where findings of manipulation or anticompetitive practices are made to relevant Congressional committees.
Sec. 8
Repeal of Antitrust Exemption for Marine Terminal Operator Agreements
This section repeals Section 40706 of title 46, United States Code, which previously provided an antitrust exemption for marine terminal operator agreements. The repeal means that marine terminal operator agreements will no longer be exempt from antitrust laws, potentially subjecting them to greater scrutiny regarding competitive practices.
Sec. 10
Nondisclosure of Investigation Information
This section adds a new subsection to the law, stating that information and documents developed by the Federal Maritime Commission during investigations shall not be disclosed unless the Commission determines by a majority vote that such information is relevant to an administrative or judicial proceeding and also agrees by a majority vote to disclose it. This provision aims to protect the confidentiality of investigative materials.
Sec. 11
Establishment of New National Advisory Committees
This section establishes two new national advisory committees: the National Port Advisory Committee and the National Ocean Carrier Advisory Committee. These committees, along with the existing National Shipper Advisory Committee, are tasked with advising the Federal Maritime Commission on policies related to the competitiveness, reliability, and efficiency of the international ocean freight delivery system. The Port Committee will have 13 members representing marine terminal operators, port authorities, and longshore/maritime labor. The Carrier Committee will have 9 members representing ocean carriers, including ocean transportation intermediaries.
Sec. 12
Expanded Annual Report and Public Disclosures
This section expands the requirements for the FMC's annual report to Congress. It mandates the inclusion of an analysis of any trade imbalance resulting from the business practices of ocean common carriers, utilizing data collected under section 41110. It also requires the report to include aggregated findings and results of the Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Audit Program. Additionally, it clarifies that public disclosure requirements apply to information concerning anticompetitive, nonreciprocal trade, or other practices by controlled carriers or marine terminal operators.
Sec. 13
Rulemaking on Containerized Freight Indexes
This section directs the Federal Maritime Commission to initiate a rulemaking process within one year of the Act's enactment. The rulemaking will focus on how data is acquired, used, and protected in developing price indexes for containerized ocean freight for U.S. shippers, specifically those published by registered shipping exchanges. The FMC is required to publish a final rule within three years.
This provision expands the definition of 'controlled carrier' to include entities linked to countries identified as nonmarket economies (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(18)), priority foreign countries (under 19 U.S.C. 2242), or those subject to monitoring by the U.S. Trade Representative (under 19 U.S.C. 2416).
Sec. 5(a)(4)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for incorporating existing legal definitions and classifications without reprinting them, but it makes the full impact of the definition less immediately obvious.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this precise referencing ensures consistency with existing U.S. trade policy and targets specific geopolitical and economic concerns regarding state-controlled entities from countries identified for unfair trade practices.
Case against: Critics might argue that the reliance on external, dynamic lists (like the USTR's priority watch list) introduces uncertainty and potential for political influence into the definition, making it harder for carriers to anticipate their regulatory status.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the scope of carriers subject to enhanced FMC oversight, potentially affecting a substantial portion of global shipping capacity linked to specific foreign governments.
This section repeals Section 40706 of title 46, United States Code, which previously granted an antitrust exemption for marine terminal operator agreements.
Sec. 8
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique for removing existing law. While technically straightforward, the policy implications of removing an antitrust exemption are substantial and not immediately apparent from the brevity of the section.
Case for: Proponents would argue that removing the antitrust exemption will foster greater competition among marine terminal operators, potentially leading to more efficient services and lower costs for shippers, aligning with broader antitrust principles.
Case against: Marine terminal operators might argue that the exemption was necessary to facilitate essential cooperation and investment in port infrastructure, and its removal could lead to operational fragmentation or disincentivize crucial collaborations.
Estimated impact: This repeal could significantly alter the competitive landscape for marine terminal operations across U U.S. ports, potentially leading to increased scrutiny of agreements and changes in business practices.
This section mandates that information and documents developed by the Federal Maritime Commission during investigations shall not be disclosed unless the Commission, by a majority vote, determines the information is relevant to an administrative or judicial proceeding and, by a separate majority vote, agrees to disclose it.
Sec. 10
Why it matters:This is a technical amendment to agency procedure. While it clarifies and strengthens confidentiality, the specific dual-majority vote requirement for disclosure is a detail that could be easily overlooked but has significant implications for how the FMC manages information.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision protects sensitive commercial information, encourages cooperation from investigated parties, and prevents the premature release of information that could compromise ongoing investigations or legal proceedings.
Case against: Critics might argue that requiring a dual majority vote for disclosure could create an overly restrictive barrier to transparency, making it difficult for the public or affected parties to gain insight into the FMC's investigative findings and decision-making processes.
Estimated impact: This provision will formalize and potentially restrict the public's access to FMC investigative documents, impacting transparency and accountability, while offering greater confidentiality to investigated entities.