How New FMC Moves, A Safer Suez, And A Court Ruling Could Reshape Your Supply Chain

Big policy moves rarely arrive one at a time. We dig into a trio of shifts changing how shippers, carriers, and NVOCCs plan: the FMC’s latest civil penalty settlements, early signs of a safer Suez Canal, and a targeted court decision that trims—but doesn’t topple—the detention and demurrage billing rule. Each story stands on its own, but together they point to a strategic truth: regulatory literacy is becoming a real advantage.

We start with the $1.35M in FMC civil penalties and why that matters beyond headlines. These compromise agreements—without admissions—highlight where enforcement is focused: operating in line with published tariffs and making sure rates and charges are actually on the books. We also clarify a crucial detail that shapes incentives: penalty money goes to the U.S. general fund, not to the FMC. That keeps enforcement about standards, not collections, and it nudges everyone toward cleaner documentation, clearer contracts, and fewer “exceptions” that don’t survive scrutiny.

From there, we pivot to routing strategy. After years of detours around the Horn of Africa, some carriers are testing a return to the Suez Canal. The upside is real—shorter transit times, better schedule reliability, improved equipment balance—but risk remains dynamic. We walk through how to scenario-plan Suez vs. Cape, protect mariner safety, and reset inventory buffers without overpromising to customers.

We also break down the pause on Section 301 China port fees. Even with limited pass-through to shippers, the policy signaled that vessel build origin and control can carry costs on U.S. trades. That’s already influencing fleet allocation and future order books. Treat the pause as a lever that can move again. Build contracts that define surcharge handling, give yourself alternatives, and keep a live read on carrier exposure.

Finally, we unpack the DC Circuit’s narrow ruling on the FMC billing rule. The court vacated the “who may be billed” section for lack of clarity, but left the rest intact: the 20 data fields, timing rules, and documentation guardrails still apply. The result is better invoices, simpler disputes, and fewer black-box charges—if you use the framework. We outline what to validate before paying, how to challenge errors, and where the FMC may go next.

If this helped you see the road ahead more clearly, follow the show, share it with your team, and leave a review. Got a question or a topic you want us to tackle next? Send it our way and let’s dig in together.

🎧 Listen to this week’s episode:
👉 www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com/podcast

💡 Have a question or a topic you want us to tackle next? Send it our way.

#maritime #shipping #FMC #Suez #OSRA #detention #demurrage #tradepolicy #supplychain #ByLandAndBySea #TheMaritimeProfessor

Chapters

• 0:00 Opening And What’s On Deck
• 1:36 FMC Secures $1.35M In Penalties
• 5:20 Why Civil Penalties Matter And Where They Go
• 8:09 Carriers Test A Return To Suez
• 13:35 Section 301 China Port Fees Paused
• 22:15 Who Really Paid And What Changes Next
• 26:20 Detention And Demurrage Court Decision

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:00

Ready to go. You're listening to By Land and By Sea, powered by the Maritime Professor. Talk about carriers finally eyeing a return to the Suez Canal. That's good news. A pause in the section 301 China port fees. We're going to talk about what people are saying about that. And a major court decision. It's kind of shaking up detention and demurrage. I want you to pay attention. It's not, it didn't get released this week, but I don't know. We got to talk about it. Look, are we just getting used to this faster pace? It's all coming so rapid fire, right? Look, stick around here. Let me break a few things down for you plainly, clearly, and with an eye toward what it all means next. Hi, welcome back to By Land and By Sea, an attorney breaking down the weekend supply chain, presented by the Maritime Professor. Me. I'm Lauren Beegan, founder of the Maritime Professor, former FMC International Affairs Attorney and founder of Squall Strategies. And I'm your favorite maritime attorney, right? By land and by sea is your go-to resource for navigating the regulatory side of global ocean shipping. As always, this podcast is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. There is no attorney client privilege created by this video or this podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. So let's get into it because as you know, ocean shipping moves the world. All right. Well, the first story, let's just start out on the regulatory front. The Federal Maritime Commission made an announcement this week that it has secured$1.35 million in civil penalty settlements. Those came from Hyundai Globus and Olympiad Line for Shipping Act violations. Now, I wanted to raise this because this is an interesting trend that we've seen from the FMC in recent years. And what is that, three to five to maybe even seven years? That the FMC has been announcing these quite significant civil penalties. Previously, they they they certainly had civil penalties, but I think that they now are getting into a world of it feels like the civil penalties are helping to, well, they're cracking down, right? That that's that's essentially what it comes down to. But they're the civil penalties are also helping to encourage compliance because of the the size of these civil penalties. Plus, I mean, just the everything, right? Everything is more expensive. So it's all kind of moving a little bit faster. But these agreements were reached with a VOCC and an N VOCC. So I'm gonna read off of what the FMC actually said in their announcement and then kind of break it down from there because I wanted it to be accurate and precise to what the FMC is saying here. So these were compromise agreements. I want to make sure that these were compromise agreements that ended up in this$1.35 million in civil penalties. So the first compromise agreement was reached with Hyundai Globus. This is a VOCC headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. It operates in the U.S. foreign trades and globally. The compromise agreement resolved allegation that Hyundai Globus violated the shipping act through activities that included, and the FMC lists these out, providing service in the liner trade that was not in accordance with the rates, charges, classifications, rules, and practices contained in the tariff. So I want to point that out because that is if you put it in the tariff, you have to work within the guidelines of your tariff, right? Providing service in the liner trade that was not in accordance with the rates, charges, classification, rules, and practices. So I'm I'm highlighting this civil penalties case so that you can see what the FMC is going after, right? Or prioritizing or putting as part of their compliance. Um, and then two, they also had providing services as a common carrier without publishing the appropriate tariff showing all of its active rates and charges. So FMC staffed alleged that these practices persisted for over a year and involved numerous shipments. And Hyundai Globus made a payment of$1.3 million in compromise of these allegations. And I, yeah, so this is the 1.3 of the 1.35. So the second compromise agreement, so that was Hyundai Globus. The second compromise agreement was reached with NBOCC, Olympiad Line, for allegations that Olympiad violated the shipping act by providing service in the line of trade that was not in accordance with their rates, charges, classification, rules, and practices contained in their published tariff. It says Olympiad made a payment of$50,000 in compromise of these allegations. Now, this is the part that I really wanted to point out. The parties compromised and agreed to the payment of civil penalties, but did not admit to the violations of the shipping act or commission regulations. So even though the FMC is announcing this in their announcement, what they were being accused of, it remains accused of, and that these agreements are compromise agreements for civil penalty payments, but does not admit fault. And I think that that's an important piece that the FMC put in this because when you read it, you just kind of say, oh my gosh, they didn't do these things. It's not an admission of guilt. It's not saying that they didn't do these things. But there's obviously something going on that they were able to make a compromise agreement. But but it's not clear exactly what that was. And the compromise agreement is not this is what the FMC is putting out. The second part on the very end of this announcement on this new on this press release is that the FMC is starting, I've been noticing that they're starting to be very clear in the end when they do collect these penalties to let the public know that these penalties are not actually enjoyed, I guess I could say, or or collected by the FMC for the FMC. So these penalty payments, and this is what they say, penalty payments are deposited into the U.S. general fund of the United States. The Federal Maritime Commission receives no portion of these payments. That's true. That's true. I've said it a few times, probably not enough. The FMC has such a lean budget comparatively, right? The FMC in general is about the$30 to$40 million range for their 100 to 130 employees that they have. Most of that is salary based. Most of that is salary that's in that 34 to 30 to 40 million dollar budget. The amount of authority and the things that the FMC is being asked to do these days is growing exponentially. And yet the budget of the FMC is not quite matching that. And so perhaps this could be an opportunity for the FMC to actually have some additional funds coming into the FMC to help support further compliance and further investigations and further ensuring that there is a fair and efficient movement of the goods, right? That's their mission, the fair and efficient movement of goods for the benefit of the U.S. importer, exporter, and consumer. I think that this is important, and that's why I'm spending a little bit more time on it. These penalty payments do not go to benefit the FMC. On the flip side of that, though, it could also be said that this makes the FMC even more independent and neutral in their investigations because it's not a money grab for the FMC. It's not funds that they get to, like I said, enjoy. It's money that goes toward the U.S. general fund. But the FMC, just through their natural, normal competition regulatory investigative authority, is recouping these fees, these civil penalties, as part of their mission. So I wanted to point that out. So the 1.35 million, another multi or or partially multi-million dollar civil in civil penalty case, but also to let you know and to remind you that these are not FMC funds that are coming in. And so while it might be seen that they're being more active and they certainly are bringing in more civil penalties these days, but it doesn't go into their piggy bank. It it goes into the general fund. And so, like I said, perhaps it can be argued that that's making them more neutral and more independent in their thought, but there it is, until that changes. All right, the story second story that I wanted to bring up the Suez Canal. It's been a while since it was back in the news for anything other than kind of some scary things going on over there. Uh, but there's some positive movement in routing. So we've recently seen that there's been a slow return to the Suez. And I almost don't even want to call it a full return. Uh well, or or a return in the complete sense. We've seen a few new commercial vessels going through the Suez Canal. And I think that this is really encouraging. We've saw CMACGM sending three different vessels through the canal recently, successful transits. It's being said that this is part of, and I don't want to go into geopolitics, right? But but part of the ceasefire with Gaza and Israel and everything that's happening there is helping to reduce the danger of going through the Suez Canal. Obviously, the Houthi rebels, and there's been some sanctions that have been renewed in this area. But this is certainly an encouraging new step. As you know, we have been going around the Suez for almost two years now, I think. I think it was January. We've been going around the Suez Canal. So most ocean carriers have been going around the Horn of Africa, which has its own weather challenges. It's a longer transit, you know, fuel and that sort of thing is all part of it too. Anytime you change routing, remember it's not just the vessel moving around, but it's also operational equipment, where it's located, where it is, you know, how it kind of moves around itself. So all of those things have been things that the industry, the the ocean carrier specifically, have had to kind of figure out on the fly when this first happened. Now we're seeing an intention of a return to normal. So 2025, the the Suez Canal Authority is projecting$4.2 billion in revenue, which is up from their 2024 number, which is about$3.9 billion. To put that in 2023. So 25 was is projected 4.2, 2024 was 3.9. 2023 was about 10 billion dollars. So they dropped to a third of that, which makes sense, right? I mean, nobody was going through there for the most part. Nobody was going through there. So they're they're getting back. There's also some operational plans that have been announced too. Zim was talking about operational planning to resume container vessel transits through the Suez Canal, just to try to get that normalcy back in. So we'll see, we'll see if this holds. I I love it. I think this is fantastic, right? We'll get back to these faster transit times, you know, perhaps vessel schedules and predictability in there going around the Sioux or excuse me, the the Horn of Africa. Like I said, there's some weather considerations that are in that area. And it's not without its its uh challenges going around Somalia as well, right? It's still kind of an unstable zone. There's still some piracy happening in there. So yeah, this'll this will be great to have if we can get back to normal. Aren't we seeking the the true normal? But we we've had to adapt to what new normal is every every few days, it feels like over the past five-ish years of the ocean carrier, ocean shipping world. But this would be wonderful if we can get back to the Suez Canal in a non-dangerous way, right? Because I also want to point out it's the mariners who didn't sign up for the military, the the war risk. You know, the mariners, they're they're doing their job, they're they're sailing these vessels, and this shouldn't be one of the considerations being shot at going through. And that's why the ocean carriers, appropriately and rightly, were so quick to not go through the Suez Canal. They wanted to keep the mariners safe. I love that things are starting to feel safe enough that now perhaps they can return into the Suez Canal. All right, next story. Let's talk about section 301. So we talked about a list a little bit, but what we've since seen is an actual pause, right? So this was agreed to that we were going to be pausing with that uh November 1st discussion between Presidents Trump and Xi, China and the US. This was on the table. And if you listen to my podcast, I was talking about this a lot in October, right? We had the October 14th, these port fees, these Section 301 China port fees went into effect. And then all of a sudden, we saw maybe 10 to two weeks later that all of a sudden the China and US are going to be meeting and they're going to be talking and they're going to be discussing. In October, we also saw China mirror the port fee proposal. So they didn't elevate it, they didn't step it up, they just strictly mirrored, which I thought also showed me that they were willing to talk and that they wanted to maybe perhaps work this out. November 1st, we saw that one-year pause intention, but it still had to have a little bit of a notice and comment period. And so that's what we saw. It wasn't actually intended to stop until November 10th. And so I had broken this down before that there wasn't a lot that Chinese linked ocean carriers could do during that time. And so a November 1st to November 10th ended up being just the U.S., I mean, you could almost say siphoning off money from Chinese linked ocean carriers, because the ocean carrier themselves, right? Chinese linked, so Chinese operated or Chinese built vessels were being charged a port fee at a higher rate than if it was just simply Chinese built. So Chinese operated had a higher rate than just simply Chinese built, which is quite a few, right? A significant portion of all vessels out there are Chinese built. And so you were hitting the the now the vessel build is an important factor in where you go and secure your vessels from. I want to be clear though, because it's mixing thoughts, because you can't just go buy a vessel off the shelf and put it into service a year later or a month later or a day later, right? You can't just go buy it and you drive it off the lot. There is a longer-term planning here. But what I'm also seeing is that this may or may not go away. I think that this is something that's interesting because it's reshifting, it's it's it's re-jiggering all of the vessels that were Chinese built out of US service. And I went into length a few episodes back on this. Those vessels, I don't see them coming back into U.S. service because it takes a lot of operational disruption, blank sailings, you know, all of that, to move vessel and swap vessels in and out of US service. And so by having the U the Chinese built vessels now, perhaps doing the European to Asia service instead of doing US to Asia service, we're not going to see that likely come back. I think that it's also going to be part of the well, maybe as I'm ordering other vessels, the vessel owners, maybe as I'm ordering new vessels, maybe I will try to go for a non-China built just in case, right? Maybe in the short term it will enter into it, might not be an absolute, I'm only buying non-Chinese. I think that we probably will still continue to see a Chinese-built vessel order books. But I think that we're also going to see some of these non-Chinese built, you know, allies of the United States. And hopefully, you know, at some point and hopefully sooner rather than later, perhaps the US will be a US shipbuilding entity that you could buy large commercial vessels in in a kind of a quicker fashion from. And so that's kind of what this is. It's I think I see it as a short-term. Okay, we we reprioritize vessel build origins. And then we start to maybe impact how the new order books are done. And then, right, there's a graduated element to it. Maybe when the US is ready to be taking large-scale commercial ocean going supply chain vessels orders, then maybe the intention comes over here and it'll remain with our allies. But that's kind of what I see. So November 10th came and went. We did see that the pause actually went into effect. Now you might have been surprised to see that there was actually some messaging in the trades that people were upset about that. A lot of a lot of retailers and and you know, beneficial cargo owners that cargo owners themselves were saying, you know, they they they enjoyed, they applauded the pause to the Section 301 because it was just another fee that it hadn't been passed down to the shipper yet, but it wasn't, it was, it was feared to potentially be passed down to the shipper. Fortunately, we didn't see, I hadn't heard of anybody receiving actually a pass-through charge. The ocean carriers kind of collectively across the board, both China-linked and non-China linked, said that they weren't going to be passing it through. The shippers that I've talked to and associations that I've talked to have also kind of confirmed that, that it didn't get actually passed down into the pockets of any of the shippers. So I think that this is, it was, it could be potentially surprising that people were actually upset that it did get paused, but I want to break that down a little bit. Look, there was a lot of promise that these China port fees would go to fund shipbuilding in the U.S. and the shipbuilding revitalization and the maritime industrial development. We still got a lot of money. We still got a lot of money in this short time frame. And like I said, when it the pause went announced November 1st, but then went to November 10th, there wasn't a lot that ocean carriers that were China operated could do. They weren't going to be leaving the U.S. trades. They weren't going to be passing it through to the shippers because nobody else had been and nobody else was planning on doing that. And they also were just kind of, you had to wait until November 10th. So from that November 1st, we will be pausing to November 10th. We were still collecting money for this. We were still collecting money in these China port fees. Perhaps a few, maybe slow steam so that they arrive November 11th, right after, who knows? But the it was still a like a 10-day window that money and fees were being collected. So I say that to kind of emphasize we still got a lot of money. Tens of millions of dollars was coming in off of this, maybe even higher than that. I haven't even seen a final number, but we still got a lot of money in this China port fees, Section 301, then I think that we can get started with that, right? And so we are, I think that those who said, look, this was supposed to fund. I also don't think that this pause is a guaranteed to be pause for an entire year. That's the intention, and I think that is the full intention and the honest intention, but I also think that it might be the first lever pulled should something start to go awry with any negotiated deal that came from that November 1st deal. And I say that because we didn't see a lot of impact to these shippers. We didn't see a lot of pass-through charges, and yet the impact and the the effect on China specifically, right, through their ocean carriers, but but to the Chinese government, because these ocean carriers are kind of owned and run by the Chinese government there, right? They're part of the controlled carriers that the FMC designates on their controlled carriers list. I think that this is all it's important to watch because it can be fluid. I think it's you can rely on it for a quite a while, but I also think that you should keep a close eye on the Section 301 China port fees because I wouldn't be surprised if that was one of the first levers pulled. So I think it's a pause, not a retreat. I think it still lingers as a threat. And I think that we're paused. We are paused. We've been paused for about 11 days now, right? So, so it it paused on November 10th. And I think that we just uh keep watching this one. I just have a feeling that that we should keep watching this one, particularly maybe in the spring or the summer, when some of those ag promises are are kind of starting to come to light. And even some of the ag promises that were supposed to be for some of the crops from 2025. I'll be interested to see how that all plays out. But all this to say, watch, watch, stay tuned here. I will continue to watch this. I think that this is China port fees is a very interesting corrective action, but also with larger geopolitical implications. All right. The the last story that I want to cover here today has to do with detention and demurrage. Oh, detention and demurrage. But it's the FMC's billing rule. So we've talked about this billing rule quite a bit. I think I even might have mentioned previously, but I wanted to bring it up. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision vacating a piece of that final rule. So we've talked about the FMC issued this rule in February of 2024. It went into effect May 28th, 2024, right shortly after the final rule was issued, or kind of right around that same time. I think it was actually April, the World Shipping Council, a trade association for vessel operating common carriers, and this is the FMC, is kind of, I'm reading off their recap of what happened, filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, seeking to have a few different pieces overturned. And so one of those pieces, and kind of just explaining it now, one of those pieces was direct contractual relationship with the billing party. And this is where we talked about this quite a bit. It was a party, the FMC had limited billing to either a party with direct contractual relationship or the consignee, but not both, and nobody else. And one of the things that was really at issue here was motor carriers because the World Shipping Council was saying, look, sometimes there's a direct contractual relationship with motor carriers. And the FMC said, nope, motor carriers are out. And I'm paraphrasing this whole thing, obviously. And so what the court basically said was, you know, they went through the whole process of litigation and this appeal in the DC circuit in the uh U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. And they basically said, look, FMC, we kind of get what you're saying, but you didn't really say it well. It's it's actually kind of confusing. And the court even was saying, look, you kind of disagreed with yourself, and we just want a little bit more clarity. And so, in the absence of precise clarity here, again, paraphrasing this whole thing, I want to be fair, but I also want to be kind of plain language about this. I said, in the absence of more clarity and just kind of why aren't motor carriers who are sometimes directly contracting with ocean carriers, why aren't they included? Because your rule says direct contractual relationship. So isn't that isn't that isn't that one of the categories? That's kind of what the court said. Look, we it doesn't quite square off. And so because it doesn't, we're gonna vacate this. So I bring up the language that the FMC announced on this, and I think that I want, I'm gonna read part of it because I think it's important the way that they couch it and the way that they put it out there. They said sure. So it was section CF 46 CFR 541.4. They set aside just that one, which had specified who a demerge or detention invoice may be sent to. That section of the rule had limited invoicing to either the person for whose account the billing party provided ocean transportation or storage of cargo, and who contracted with the billing party for the ocean transportation or storage of cargo, that's that direct contraction relationship, or the consignee. I always add in, but not both, and nobody else. But that's that's the kind of the rest of that rule. The FMC says it's important for the shipping public to be aware that apart from this specific section 541.4, the rest of the rule remains in effect. And I'm gonna echo that. The court only vacated, which means they only got rid of one little part. It's this direct contractual relationship, who you can send the bill to. Everything else, so like the 20 invoice requirements, the the you know, the 3030-30, all of those other parameters, all those other guardrails that the FMC had put in place, remain fully applicable. So the DD rule did not get overturned. Just a section, just a small little piece, because the court agreed with the World Shipping Council that it didn't totally make sense and it was a little difficult to apply. Here's what I want to note from what the FMC said here. It said the FMC notes that the court's decision does not preclude the commission from addressing who may be invoiced for demerge or detention in a future rulemaking. Instead, the court noted that the FMC might elect to maintain the same policy concerning who may be invoiced, so long as it provides a fuller explanation of its reasons supporting that policy. And then they the FMC goes on to say these matters may be addressed in a future rulemaking. So I've had the question recently: do I think that this is going to come back up in a rulemaking in the short term? I do think that the FMC is probably watching detention diverge and its kind of adoption and application within the real world, the Wild West out there. You know, I think that they've been watching closely how well or not well this detention diverge rule has been received, feedback on how it's going, how it's not going. But also I want to make note under the Trump administration in the first term, they had a for every one new agency action, two actions had to be repealed. That was elevated to for every one new agency action, 10 actions had to be repealed. The FMC, as we've often talked about, remains kind of in more of a guardrails approach to the industry. They tend to take a more hands-off approach. They have case law determine the specifics, but when it comes to regulations, they prefer to be a little less lighter touch to the industry. And so to say that the FMC needs to repeal 10 industry actions, uh, excuse me, uh 10 agency actions, I should say, is a lot. It's a lot for the FMC specifically. And so I say I don't know if DD is going to come up. I just don't think it's going to come up this year. That's my gut. We'll see. It's my hunch. I don't think it's going to be coming up in 26 because we still have charge complaints hanging in the wings. We still have an interim process for how charge complaints are supposed to be handled. And charge complaints were brought about by the OSEA Shipping Reform Act of 2022. It's now 25. It'll be 26. But they still have to do that. They still have to do that final rule. Because one of the questions is what's the scope of a charge in a charge complaint, right? For the most part, it's been detention and demurrage, but could it also be for other superfluous or or controversial charges? Former FMC Chairman Dan Mafey, way back when, had said he thought that it could be more, but but that was one commissioner, right? That was one commissioner of the five saying he thought that maybe it could be applied to other charges, but that it would have to be determined and put through a whole formal rulemaking process. We haven't had that yet. So I see that as a priority. I don't know if it's the priority, but a priority. And they got to get that done. There's no time limit necessarily that I know of, but they got to get that done in the short term. We also have a few advisory committees possibly popping up with the FMC reauthorization plan, excuse me, the reauthorization, basically budget. They are going to likely have a ports advisory committee and an ocean carrier advisory committee. So those are also things that the FMC has on its docket. Those don't necessarily play into that one to 10 ratio. It really is more of these rulemakings, but this is a long-winded way of basically saying, do I think we're going to see another DD rulemaking or revision? I don't think we're going to see it soon. I think we will see it. I think it's guaranteed to be seen at some point. I think the FMC is making these notes and making these adjustments. Perhaps they could do a corrective rule action that wouldn't trigger a one to 10, but I'm not exactly sure. And I'm interested to see where it goes. But all this to say, keep watching. Keep watching all of this. I think that this is really interesting. I think it unfortunately now this kind of kicks us back into a little bit of gray area on who can be invoiced. But don't worry. I say don't worry because one of the 20 invoice requirements is also who's being built, listing out who the invoice is being sent to. And so you'll get a little bit more clarity on who actually has received that invoice. Whereas before, right, the Wild, Wild West, before, where it was, I used to say you could have a$5,000 written on a bar napkin, you slide it across the table, and and this is kind of how we how so what's this form? Demerge. Okay, what container? When? What are the what's the time frame? Like this just says$5,000. So this is your demerge bill, right? We've moved past that. We are now in a cleaner invoicing world for detention demerge, thanks to this final rule. So while the specific who may be billed might still Be worked out. I think we do have a, we've come a long way from where we were. We've come a long way from where we were just a few years ago. So look, I think we'll keep watching this. I think that the FMC, I think you should all pay attention to the 20 invoice requirements, right? The intention really was to make the process less chaotic, simpler, more perhaps routine, so that if you are receiving a bill, you can check the work, right? It's linking what rule, what tariff, what rate, so that you can actually go back and say, okay, this container was there from this period. Okay, we're using that rate. Oh, they did some math wrong. You right? It's to intend checking your work opportunities. And so I'm gonna keep watching this. I think that this is a big deal, but I don't think that it erases the whole work that's been done on this detention and demerge rule. I also think that there's more to do. Don't get me wrong, this is not the end all be all, but it is a great, great step for the industry to get some clarity. We'll see. All right. Well, this week and the the past few weeks, right? This has been wild. This has been each end of each story, has been important. And look, we bring it all together to show the maritime supply chain, it's evolving fast. Regulatory literacy is honestly becoming a competitive advantage. And when you understand the rules, you make better decisions, don't you? Look, if you like this episode, be sure to follow, subscribe, and leave a review. Want to go deeper on these topics or bring this kind of insight to your team, visit themaritimeprofessor.com. We do corporate trainings, tailored briefings, on-demand webinars, all designed to make these complex regulations practical and easier to understand. And if your organization needs help navigating the legal or strategic side of ocean shipping regulations, have a squall strategies. That's where I provide consulting services, regulatory guidance. It's my law firm, policy support for clients. This podcast is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Look, if you need an attorney, contact an attorney. And until next time, this is Lauren Beegan. I'm the Maritime Professor, and you've just listened to By Land and By Sea. See you next time.