Competitive shipping relies upon resiliency, reliability and redundancy. Coupled with the opportunities that geopolitics, European Union and United Kingdom policies and shifts in trade partnerships bring, the Great Lakes hold potential opportunities not seen in the past decades.

The 20th annual Highway H2O Conference drew a crowd to Toronto for three days of discussion about these topics and the future of the bi-national St. Lawrence Seaway. The Seaway’s unique shared governance between Canada and the United States framed the event, reminding attendees that decisions on one side of the border ripple across all the Great Lakes.​ SSGA Director of Transportation & Regulatory Affairs Gary Williams attended and spoke at the event, hosted jointly by the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) and the U.S. Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS).

The attendees reflected the system’s complexity and potential. They included leaders of the two operating entities of the Seaway, including Administrator Mike McCoshen from the GLS and SLSMC President Jim Athanasiou, alongside shippers, freight brokers and forwarders, port and terminal leaders, regulatory and governmental agencies, and other Lakes/Seaway stakeholders. Their conversations carried a common thread: capacity exists on the system today, but realizing its competitive edge will take coordination, investment and a new way of thinking about freight.​

Williams presented about SSGA’s trade revitalization program designed to educate importers and exporters on the advantages of the Seaway and to actively address barriers that keep volumes below the corridor’s true capacity.​ The program is supported by the Ohio Soybean Council, Minnesota Soybean Research & Promotion Council, Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board and Illinois Soybean Association.

At the heart of Williams’ story was the idea that the Seaway is not just an alternative route, but a strategic piece of a diversified transportation portfolio. He outlined how the corridor can complement rail, truck and coastal ocean routes, offering resilience, cost-competitiveness and environmental benefits that appeal to cargo owners looking for redundancy and lower emissions. Yet, he was direct about the challenge: lower current trade volumes can make it harder to build frequent services and justify new infrastructure, even though the physical capacity is already in place.​

Containerization entered the discussion as both a challenge and an aspiration. While some attendees talked about the long-term goal of establishing a dedicated feeder system on the Lakes, Williams urged the group not to wait for a perfect future model. Instead, he encouraged them to build the container market incrementally, leveraging the flexibility of many vessels already entering and leaving the Seaway that can carry containers alongside other cargoes.​

Williams invited stakeholders from across the value chain to join the trade revitalization program and deepen their understanding of the corridor’s potential. He pointed to the upcoming Transportation Go! conference April 8-9, 2026, in Chicago as a next touchpoint, encouraging participants to continue the conversation there and help shape solutions that turn today’s ideas into tomorrow’s sailings.

By Gary Williams, SSG Director of Transportation & Regulatory Affairs

As of Oct. 14, the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) Section 301 tariffs and fees targeting Chinese-built and Chinese-owned vessels officially take effect, marking a pivotal shift in global maritime logistics and port operations.

Under the new rules, China-built vessels will be tracked and assessed a service fee of $46 per ton upon their first U.S. port of entry, with a cap on how many times each vessel can be charged annually. According to USTR documentation, these measures are designed to strengthen U.S. shipbuilding and reduce reliance on Chinese maritime assets.

At the same time, the USTR confirmed that 100 percent tariffs will remain in place on Chinese ship-to-shore cranes, intermodal chassis, and certain cargo-handling equipment, while removing planned duties on shipping containers — a significant outcome for importers and carriers alike. The tariffs on cranes and handling machinery will take effect on Nov. 9.

Most major ocean carriers have indicated their capability to shift fleet deployment strategies to avoid routing Chinese-built ships into U.S. ports, minimizing tariff exposure. Meanwhile, COSCO and OOCL — the two main China-owned container lines — have pledged not to pass the new fees on to customers.

During the ongoing government funding gap, federal agencies have indicated that tariff enforcement and vessel tracking will continue uninterrupted. China, for its part, has implemented reciprocal port fees on U.S.-built and U.S.-owned vessels that mirror the American structure and rates as they rise over time.

Whether or not fees are incurred and passed along at some point will likely never be well known. Shippers do not see the underlying rail rates, ocean carrier allocations, or voyage data that define total freight costs, complicating forecasting and competitiveness. Steam ship lines will set their rates at an equilibrium price that assumes cost off set by rate and volume – same as always. The pricing matrix assures that that shippers and importers would not have any clarity as to the actual math that has gone into a rate.

For SSGA member shippers, the removal of containers from the tariff list represents a notable win. The 100 percent tariff on cranes and chassis remains challenging, especially given the blend of privately owned and steamship-line-operated assets in circulation — but the collective advocacy of U.S. logistics, transportation and agricultural groups helped shape the final outcome into a much more manageable likely outcome than what was imagined when the proposal was first made.

The collaboration of SSGA among other trade associations and exporters, including the American Soybean Association, U.S. Soybean Export Council, Soybean Transportation Coalition, National Grain and Feed Association and the National Retail Federation — played a vital role in ensuring practical input was considered.

For additional details and official documentation, see the USTR October 10, 2025, notice and Section 301 maritime actions.

By Gary Williams, SSGA Director of Transportation & Regulatory Affairs 

With the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) proposed tariffs still set for possible implementation this October, grain trade and other impacted industries continue to await clear answers on critical details. Despite repeated outreach, there has been little response from USTR to specific questions raised by stakeholders. 

In recent coordination calls with the National Grain and Feed Association, the National Retail Federation, port authorities, and other groups, there is a growing consensus that the most effective strategy now is to direct advocacy efforts toward legislators and other key influencers. The goal: to press USTR for feedback, details and clarity before the proposed policy takes effect. 

While USTR has acknowledged some points – such as the idea of removing penalties on carriers that own China-built vessels and inviting comments on potential tariffs for China-built ship-to-shore cranes, containers, and chassis – questions remain unanswered regarding the proposed tariffs on China-built vessels arriving at U.S. ports. 

If implemented, the policy could create winners and losers within the shipping industry. Some carriers, like COSCO and OOCL, whose fleets are largely or entirely China-built, may face significant tariff exposure. Others, with more diversified fleets, might reallocate vessels strategically to limit tariff impacts. However, such rerouting could reduce port calls, potentially creating new challenges in container availability and port congestion. Even carriers able to avoid direct tariffs might still impose additional charges on shippers – similar in concept to corridor fees – as a hedge against operational risk. 

For SSGA members, the stakes are high. With fall harvest approaching, contract terms vary: in some cases, customers pay the prevailing rate for container moves; in others, sellers absorb costs above a base rate. Without clarity from USTR, it is difficult to forecast impacts on demand, profit margins and inventory flow. 

Next week, members of SSGA’s Executive Board, staff and the newly appointed chair of the Competitive Shipping Action Team will meet with legislators and federal agencies in Washington, D.C. This issue will be front and center in nearly every discussion, as SSGA continues to voice the urgent need for answers before any tariff changes take effect. 

By Gary Williams, SSGA Director of Transportation & Regulatory Affairs 

In a favorable turn based upon hearing and considering comment on the initial proposal set forth by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), a revision was released April 17 noting a summary of comments made, and the resulting change in proposal for Section 301 tariffs regarding ship build. 

Among these: 

1. A shift from a flat fee mechanism to a net tonnage basis for any China-built ship starting at $0 from Oct. 14, 2025, increasing to $50 per net ton after 180 days, and increasing thus on an annual basis for three years (or the higher of this or a per container fee). 
2. Now, only the first port of entry will result in a charge being levied instead of a charge at each port stop on a route. This would have meant ports such as Oakland were likely to get dropped and predicted high congestion at ports such as Los Angeles.
3. Any such fee on a vessel would be limited to being assessed five times per year – puts a ceiling on some of the costs attributed to a single vessel plying a regular route.
4. The definition of the affected is now described as any Chinese vessel operator and on any vessel owned by Chinese entity.
5. U.S. vessels enrolled in certain U.S. Maritime Administration programs, vessels arriving empty or in ballast, smaller vessels and specialized export vessels are all exempt.
6. “Credit” remains in place upon order and until delivery for any U.S. built vessel of equal or greater capacity to offset a China-built vessel penalty for a period not to exceed three years.
7. USTR has withdrawn the penalties originally proposed for orders of vessels at Chinese shipyards.
8. Vehicle carriers were added to the list of vessels that would be penalized if China-built.
9. The export tariffs originally proposed for using China built vessels was eliminated, save for LNG exports, which would phase in starting in 2028, and gradually increasing over a period of 22 years. Exporters would need to have reached a threshold of using at least 15% U.S. built vessels by 2047.
10. Ship to shore cranes manufactured, assembled, or using components of Chinese origin (or manufactured anywhere in the world by a Chinese owned entity), are targeted for duties up to 100%. Additional cargo handling equipment of China would also be subject to the same (containers, chassis, chassis parts, spreaders/twist locks). 

The USTR was thorough in providing feedback on summarizing what commenters had said both in support and opposed to the original proposal as written. I read many of the written comments submitted during the comment period and found I agreed with their summations. They further invite comments, which opened April 17, and will close May 8, regarding:    

1. The specific products to be subjected to increased duties, including whether ship to shore cranes, chassis, and containers should be retained or removed (or if anything should be added).
2. The level of increase, if any in the rate of duty. 
3. Whether the increased duties should take place at once in 180 days, or be phased in from six months to 24 months. 

The Section 301 committee will convene a public hearing May 19, 2025. 

Certain positives exist in view of the process. First, USTR was willing to eliminate some of the proposed revisions and considered comments on impacts detrimental to exporters as well as importers. Second, they have worked in a “shock factor” to give at a minimum six months from October 2025 (April 2026) for the supply chain to consider alternatives, and more time for ship build capacity in the U.S. to progress so that there is more of an opportunity to mitigate costs. 

Some calculators have been at work and seemingly $120/container is a working number of what would be expected in costs likely passed along – presumably to be allocated between import and export use of the container, product value carried, etc., and likely embedded in container lines quoted rates, although they might show initially as they have for security fees and alameda corridor fees in the past. 

Whatever the comments made on the next round, it seems they will need to provide a solution or alternative that should be sought to correct for the intended purpose of penalizing China’s believed manipulation to gain control of the ship build market share globally, and to revitalize U.S. ship building capability. USTR’s comments are clear that asking them to “forget the whole thing” is not in their interest.   

We’d like to get your feedback as well. Contact Competitive Shipping action team Chair Tina Lyons or myself with your thoughts, comments or questions.