GirderGroup

FMC Demurrage and Detention Billing Rules: What OSRA 2022 Requires on Every Invoice

The Ocean Shipping Reform Act put the Federal Maritime Commission's rules on the container charges that quietly drain importers. The 2024 rule turns a billing dispute into a records contest.

Dwayne ThompsonEngineering, standards & trade editor · Kingston
July 29, 2024 · 7 min read
A container port with stacked shipping containers, illustrating FMC demurrage and detention rules.
A container port with stacked shipping containers, illustrating FMC demurrage and detention rules. · Image: Girder Group

On 26 February 2024 the Federal Maritime Commission published a final rule that dictates what a demurrage or detention invoice must contain and how quickly it must be issued and disputed; it took effect on 28 May 2024 (Federal Register, 2024). The practical effect is that these charges, long a source of opaque, hard-to-contest bills for importers, are now governed by a documentation standard. Which means they are won or lost on records.

Key takeaways

  • The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 directed the FMC to tighten demurrage and detention practices.
  • The 2024 rule sets minimum information every invoice must carry and timeframes for issuing and disputing charges.
  • For importers, contesting a charge now depends on having the container timeline and terminal records to match.
  • A portion of the rule (which party may be billed) was later subject to court review; the invoice-content and timing duties are the durable core.

What the rule requires

The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA 2022) gave the FMC a mandate to address demurrage and detention, the charges levied when containers or equipment are held beyond free time. The Commission’s resulting rule requires that invoices carry specific minimum information and that they be issued, disputed, and resolved within defined timeframes (FMC). An invoice missing required content is contestable on its face.

The rule reframes these charges as an accountability exercise: a billing party must be able to justify the charge with the underlying facts, the timeline, the availability, the free-time calculation, and the billed party has a defined window and basis to dispute it (Federal Register). Both sides now argue from records rather than assertions.

A later court review set aside one provision concerning which party may be billed; the invoice-content and timing requirements are the stable core an importer should build around. As with financial recordkeeping, the enduring lesson is that the party with the better contemporaneous records prevails.

“These charges are now governed by a documentation standard, which means they are won or lost on records.”

What this means operationally

Capture the container timeline yourself. Availability, last-free-day, gate-out, and return events are the facts that confirm or defeat a charge.

Check every invoice against the required content, and dispute within the rule’s window when information is missing.

Keep terminal and carrier records aligned to your own, so a dispute is a comparison, not an investigation.

Treat free-time calculation as an auditable record, not a number to accept.

What every invoice must contain

The 2024 rule specifies the minimum information a demurrage or detention invoice must carry. Under 46 CFR Part 541, each invoice must include: the bill-to party and the appropriate person to be billed; the container or equipment number; the invoice date and invoice number; the appropriate rate and basis for the charge; the amount of free time; the start date and end date of the charge; total charges; and the terms and timing for disputing the invoice (Federal Register, 2024).

The invoice must be issued within 30 days of the last date for which a charge is being billed. An invoice issued late is contestable. Once issued, the billed party has at least 30 days to dispute the charge in writing; the billing party must acknowledge the dispute within 30 days and resolve it within a reasonable time. Silence is not a resolution.

A separate provision, which was later vacated by a federal court, would have restricted who could be billed to the merchant of record or the entity that contracted for the use of equipment. The invoice-content requirements and timing obligations are the parts of the rule that survived and that importers and brokers should build their dispute procedures around.

How AI could address the gap

A demurrage dispute is a reconciliation: match the charge against the container’s real timeline and the rule’s required content. Doing that by hand, across thousands of containers, is where importers simply pay rather than fight.

AI-assisted systems can reconcile invoices against captured container events automatically, flag charges that lack required information or contradict the timeline, and assemble the dispute package within the rule’s window. The decision to contest stays with the trade team; the standing reconciliation is what makes contesting affordable, the operational case we model for a detention dispute.

Building the platforms, portals, and systems that make these obligations provable is what Girder Group does.

Dwayne Thompson

Engineering, standards & trade editor · Girder Group · Kingston

Dwayne Thompson writes on compliance engineering, standards (NIST), and trade and logistics regulation (CBP, DOT, FMC), from Girder Group's Kingston desk.

Meet the desk

Work with Girder Group

The systems that make these obligations provable.

Girder Group builds the platforms, portals, and cloud systems that regulated organisations run on. Talk to the firm behind this research.

Start a conversation

Stay informed

New research in your inbox.

Briefings on recordkeeping and AI governance, published as the rules develop. We never share your address.

Unsubscribe anytime.