IMO Net‑Zero Framework May Draw FMC Scrutiny of U.S. Shipping

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes · Last updated: 3 September 2026

As first reported by Holland & Knight, the International Maritime Organization's proposed Net‑Zero Framework (NZF) aims for net‑zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by or around 2050 and would combine mandatory emissions limits and GHG pricing across the sector. The NZF proposes a two‑tier cost structure: a Tier 1 price of $100 per tonne of CO2 equivalent and Tier 2 penalties set at $380 per tonne, and it contemplates fuel mandates and an IMO‑administered fund. Those features could raise transportation costs or constrain service on trades with the United States, drawing the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) into oversight under the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA 2022). The IMO sets out the commercial friction points, the FMC tools that matter, and the near‑term milestones to watch.

In the end, it's inflationary. It's going to hit us in our pockets.

Chairman DiBella

What the NZF would change and how its costs are structured

The Net‑Zero Framework would be the first sectorwide regime to combine mandatory emissions limits with an economy‑wide price on shipping emissions. The proposal sets a target of net‑zero GHG emissions from international shipping by or around 2050 and attaches explicit prices to non‑compliance: a Tier 1 charge of $100 per tonne of CO2 equivalent and a Tier 2 penalty of $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. Fuel mandates under some NZF variants would require ships to shift from petroleum‑based fuels to alternatives before those alternatives reach broad commercial scale.

Those mechanics matter because the design determines whether costs are internalized at the shipowner level, passed into carrier tariffs and service contracts, or collected into an IMO‑administered fund. Each path has different implications for supply chains: higher bunker costs can translate into surcharges for shippers, while constrained fuel choices can reduce service resilience by narrowing the pool of available suppliers and refuelling ports.

How the Shipping Act and OSRA 2022 frame U.S. challenges

The Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by OSRA 2022, prohibits common carriers from imposing practices that unreasonably raise transportation costs or reduce service for U.S. importers and exporters. If NZF design or carrier recovery mechanisms produce unjustified surcharges or service reductions on trades involving U.S. cargo, affected shippers could petition the FMC or prompt the Commission to act on its own motion.

The legal friction arises when international environmental rules translate into commercial measures—tariff line items, contract clauses or operational restrictions—that satisfy statutory thresholds for unreasonable conduct. The tension is not theoretical: stakeholders in Washington are already debating whether the IMO’s implementation schedule should depend on demonstrable fuel‑readiness benchmarks or whether mandates should proceed even if compliant fuels are not yet broadly available.

The FMC’s enforcement toolbox and thresholds for intervention

The FMC can invoke its seldom‑used Section 19 authority under 46 U.S.C. §§ 42101–42109 when foreign laws, regulations or carrier practices disrupt or threaten commerce in U.S. foreign trade. The Commission’s implementing rules at 46 C.F.R. Part 550 set the investigative procedure. The analysis identifies potential triggers including differential fees, discriminatory effects on carriers or shippers, burdens on maritime activities, and increased operating or cargo costs.

If the FMC makes a finding, available remedies are significant: the Commission may equalize fees, limit sailings or cargo, suspend tariffs or service contracts, assess civil penalties (including amounts up to $1 million per voyage in appropriate circumstances), and even recommend denial of port entry. The practical bar for intervention will be whether the Commission can link specific carrier charges or service reductions to discrete NZF requirements or recovery practices.

Industry options and the negotiation timeline that matters

Shippers and carriers should prepare three parallel tracks: renegotiate service contracts and tariff language to control pass‑throughs; engage with trade associations and policymakers to press for commercially viable fuel options; and document instances where fuel mandates materially increase costs or constrain service. The analysis recommends explicitly testing contract clauses for environmental surcharges and developing allocation strategies so parties can avoid surprise exposure.

On timing, several near‑term milestones will shape outcomes. Delegates will discuss fuel alternatives and the fund mechanism at the November 2026 intersessional and in the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee, and the resumed extraordinary IMO session is penciled for December 4, 2026. These events are the most likely points at which the framework’s cost‑recovery design and any mandate timelines will become clearer, and they will determine whether Washington treats the NZF primarily as climate policy or as a trade policy matter warranting FMC action.

Case for and against stronger FMC intervention

The bottom line

The IMO Net‑Zero Framework presents a rare convergence of climate ambition and trade law. Its mix of mandatory fuel requirements and explicit price signals—$100 and $380 per tonne CO2e in the scenarios described—creates plausible pathways for costs to flow into tariffs and contracts that affect U.S. commerce. With OSRA 2022 strengthening the Federal Maritime Commission’s remit, Chair DiBella’s comments and the Section 19 framework mean that the NZF could shift from an international climate negotiation into a U.S. regulatory test. Industry participants should document cost impacts, refine contract language, and follow the November 2026 meetings and the December 4, 2026 session closely.

What to watch

• Monitor developments at the IMO intersessional and Marine Environment Protection Committee meetings in November 2026 for decisions on fuel mandates and the fund mechanism.
• Watch the resumed extraordinary IMO session penciled for December 4, 2026, for votes that could finalise cost‑recovery design and adoption timing.