As these issues become clearer and clarification is received, further information will be published. In the meantime, this article provides a factual summary of the proposed actions as currently understood.IntroductionA report from the office of the U.S. Trade representative (“USTR”) was published on 16 January 2025 (link here) entitled “Report on China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance”. In that report, the U.S. determined that the maritime industry was of key strategic importance and China had gained a significant foothold in the industry.This was discussed in our earlier articles which can be found here.During March 2025, the USTR held hearings asking affected parties to participate and make representations. These would then be taken into consideration when the final decisions were madeas what action the U.S. government would take in response.The USTR has now published their proposed action (here) which takes into account some of the concerns that were raised in the March hearings.These are far reaching proposals which may have a material impact on members’ business. The implications are far from clear at present and there are a number of ambiguities to be resolved, not least the definition of “vessel operator”. As these issues become clearer and clarification is received, further information will be published.In the meantime, the following is a factual summary of action to be taken as currently understood.What is being proposed?The proposals cover a number of issues including reliance on logistical software and manufacture of port cranes. There are four broad areas that concern ship owners and operators directly.i) Owners and operators domiciled in China;ii) Owners and operators that have Chinese built ships;iii) Owners and operators of vehicle carriers; andiv) Owners and operators of LNG carriers.[1]In each case, owners and operators are defined as the entity that appears in the Vessel Clearance Statement (CBP Form 1300). The entity on the CBP Form 1300 is the party listed on the Certificate of Financial Responsibility (Water Pollution) (or ‘COFR’) under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1980. Under the COFR regime, where there are multiple operators, the parties can generally agree to designate any of those ‘operators’ as the responsible party. If a similar approach is adopted under the proposals, this may provide some ability to choose the identity of the ‘operator’.Owners and Operators connected to ChinaThe definition of owners and operators connected to China is very wide and includes where an ‘owner’ or ‘operator’:i) Declares itself as Chinese[2] on the vessel entrance or clearance statement;ii) Has headquarters, or its parent has headquarters or their principal place of business is the PRC;iii) Is owned by, or controlled by citizen(s) of the PRC;iv) Is owned, controlled by an entity which is subject to the jurisdiction of or under the direction of the PRC which means :a.the entity is a national or resident of the PRC;b.the entity is organised under the laws or has its principal place of business in the PRC;c. 25 % of the voting interest, board seats or equity is held directly or indirectly by any combination of the government of the PRC, Hong Kong, or Macau.d. 25% of the entity’s voting interests, board seats or equity interests is held directly or indirectly by a combination of people that fall within the above three categories;v) Is owned or controlled by an entity listed as a Chinese Military Company.This definition may capture a large number of companies, although see above about the identity of ‘Operator’.ImplicationsFor those companies within the above definition, from 14 October 2025, a fee of US$50 per net ton of the arriving ship will be due for each port call in the U.S. up to a maximum of 5 charges per year, per vessel.These fees will rise year on year for the next three years on 17 April