FR Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
correction published on February 22,
2011 at 76 FR 9714 are withdrawn as of
November 30, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1170
to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400
C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–7659, or (email) patrick.
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick
Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services
Branch, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400
C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–7659, or (email)
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 7, 2011, FEMA published a
proposed rule at 76 FR 1125 and 1126,
and a correction on February 22, 2011
at 76 FR 9714, proposing flood elevation
determinations along one or more
flooding sources in Snohomish County,
Washington and Incorporated Areas.
FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule
because FEMA has issued a Revised
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
featuring updated flood hazard
information. A Notice of Proposed
Flood Hazard Determinations will be
published in the Federal Register and in
the affected community’s local
newspaper following issuance of the
Revised Preliminary Flood Insurance
Rate Map.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.
Dated: November 2, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance
and Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017–25620 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Parts 531 and 532
[Docket No. 17–10]

nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

RIN 3072–AC68

Amendments to Regulations
Governing NVOCC Negotiated Rate
Arrangements and NVOCC Service
Arrangements
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
notice of availability of finding of no
significant impact.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The Federal Maritime
Commission (FMC or Commission)
proposes to amend its rules governing

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:27 Nov 29, 2017

Jkt 244001

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier
(NVOCC) Negotiated Rate Arrangements
and NVOCC Service Arrangements. The
proposed rule is intended to modernize,
update, and reduce regulatory burdens.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
January 29, 2018.
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), the Commission is
also seeking comment on revisions to
two information collections. See the
Paperwork Reduction Act section under
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
below. Please submit all comments
relating to the revised information
collection requirements to the FMC and
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) at the address listed below under
ADDRESSES on or before January 29,
2018. Comments to OMB are most
useful if submitted within 30 days of
publication.
Petitions for review of the
Commission’s finding of no significant
impact (FONSI) under NEPA must be
submitted on or before December 11,
2017.
You may submit comments
and petitions for review of the FONSI,
identified by the Docket No. 17–10 by
the following methods:
• Email: [email protected]. For
comments, include in the subject line:
‘‘Docket 17–10, Comments on Proposed
NSA/NRA Regulations.’’ For petitions
for review of the FONSI, include in the
subject line: ‘‘Docket 17–10, Petition for
Review of FONSI.’’ Comments and
petitions for review should be attached
to the email as a Microsoft Word or textsearchable PDF document. Only nonconfidential and public versions of
confidential comments and petitions
should be submitted by email.
• Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant
Secretary, Federal Maritime
Commission, 800 North Capitol Street
NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001.
Comments regarding the proposed
revisions to the relevant information
collections should be submitted to the
FMC through one of the preceding
methods and a copy should also be sent
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Attention:
Desk Officer for Federal Maritime
Commission, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: (202)
395–5167; or by email: OIRA_
[email protected].
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments, including
requesting confidential treatment of
comments, and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
Public Participation heading of the
Supplementary Information section of

ADDRESSES:

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

56781

this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to the Commission’s Web site, unless
the commenter has requested
confidential treatment.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to the
Commission’s Electronic Reading Room
at: http://www.fmc.gov/17-10, or to the
Docket Activity Library at 800 North
Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC
20573, between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Telephone: (202) 523–5725.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions regarding submitting
comments or petitions for review of the
FONSI, or the treatment of confidential
information, contact Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary. Phone: (202) 523–
5725. Email: [email protected]. For
technical questions, contact Florence A.
Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade
Analysis. Phone: (202) 523–5796. Email:
[email protected]. For legal
questions, contact Tyler J. Wood,
General Counsel. Phone: (202) 523–
5740. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs)
B. NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements
(NRAs)
C. NCBFAA Petition for Rulemaking and
Overview of Comments
III. The Commission’s Proposed Rule
A. Overview
B. Remove the NSA Filing and Publication
Requirements
C. Authorize Amendments of NRAs and
Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking
IV. Public Participation
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary
The Commission proposes to amend
its rules at 46 CFR part 531 governing
NVOCC Service Arrangements to
remove the NSA filing and publication
requirements. The Commission also
proposes to amend its rules at 46 CFR
part 532 to permit NRAs to be modified
at any time. In addition, an NVOCC may
provide for the shipper’s acceptance of
the NRA by booking a shipment
thereunder, subject to the NVOCC
incorporating a prominent written
notice to such effect in each NRA or
amendment.
II. Background
The Shipping Act of 1984 (the
Shipping Act or the Act) expanded the
options for pricing liner services by
introducing the concept of carriage
under service contracts filed with the

E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM

30NOP1

56782

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules

nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

Commission. Public Law No. 98–237,
§ 8(c). Liner services could be priced via
negotiated contracts between ocean
common carriers and their shipper
customers, rather than solely by public
tariffs. Per the Shipping Act and FMC
regulations, ocean freight rates,
surcharges, and accessorial charges had
to be published in tariffs or agreed to via
a service contract filed with the
Commission. Contemporaneous with
the filing of service contracts, ocean
carriers were required to make publicly
available a statement of essential terms
in tariff format.
The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of
1998 (OSRA) amended the Shipping Act
of 1984 as it related to service contracts.
Public Law No. 105–258, § 106. No
longer did contract rates need to be
published in the tariff publication, and
the essential terms publication was
limited to: Origin and destination port
ranges, commodities, minimum volume
or portion, and duration. Nevertheless,
though the Shipping Act and its
amendments provided for more
efficiency and flexibility for ocean
common carriers through the use of
service contracts, similar relief was not
extended to NVOCCs, which were still
required to publish tariffs and adhere to
those tariffs when transporting cargo.
A. NVOCC Service Arrangements
(NSAs)
In 2003, NCBFAA filed a petition to
seek exemption from some of the tariff
requirements of the Shipping Act of
1984. See Docket No. P5–03, Petition of
the National Customs Brokers and
Forwarders Association of America. Inc.
for Limited Exemption of Certain Tariff
Requirements of the Shipping Act of
1984. In response, the Commission
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) in which it determined that it
had the statutory authority to exempt
NVOCCs from the provisions of the
Shipping Act, subject to certain
conditions. 69 FR 63981, 63985. (Nov. 3,
2004). The Commission distinguished
itself from other agencies who, pursuant
to the findings in Maislin Industries,
U.S. Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S.
116, 126 (1990) and MCI
Telecommunications Corp. v. American
Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994) had
lacked exemption authority. 69 FR at
63985. The Commission determined
that in order to ensure there was no
substantial reduction in competition
among NVOCCs, the exemption had to
be available to all NVOCCs compliant
with both section 19 of the Shipping Act
and the conditions of the exemption. Id.
The Commission proposed that ‘‘the
exemption be conditioned on the same
statutory and regulatory requirements

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:27 Nov 29, 2017

Jkt 244001

and protections applicable to VOCCs’
service contracts: Namely, filing of
executed agreements; publication of
essential terms of those agreements; and
confidential treatment, similar to that
set forth in 46 CFR part 530.’’ 69 FR at
63986. The Commission also proposed
the required publication of the essential
terms of all NSAs in automated systems
and the confidential filing of the text of
those NSAs with the Commission. 69 FR
at 63987. The Commission further
proposed ‘‘making applicable to carriage
under an NSA, those provisions of the
Shipping Act that would be applicable
to service contracts.’’ Id. The
Commission’s final rule provided a
limited exemption, Non-Vessel
Operating Service Arrangements
(‘‘NSAs’’), similar to service contracts,
with required filing and publication
requirements. (46 CFR part 531) NonVessel Operating Service Arrangements,
69 FR 75850 (Dec. 20, 2004). To ‘‘ensure
that the exemption as proposed [would]
not result in a substantial reduction in
competition,’’ the Commission limited
the exemption to individual NVOCCs
acting in their capacity as carriers. 69
FR at 75851. The Commission also
decided to allow affiliated NVOCCs to
jointly offer NSAs. 69 FR at 75852.
B. NVOCC Negotiated Rate
Arrangements (NRAs)
In 2008, the NCBFAA filed another
petition with the Commission. This
petition sought an exemption from
mandatory rate tariff publication. See
Docket No. P1–08, Petition of the
National Customs Brokers and
Forwarders Association of America. Inc.
for Exemption from Mandatory Rate
Tariff Publication (filed July 31, 2008).
The proposal sought to exempt from the
provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984
the requirement for NVOCCs to publish
and/or adhere to rate tariffs ‘‘in those
instances where they have individually
negotiated rates with their shipping
customers and memorialized those rates
in writing.’’ NCBFAA Petition in Docket
No. P1–08, at 10.
By Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(‘‘NPRM’’) issued May 7, 2010, the
Commission proposed that the use of
NRAs would be allowed, subject to
conditions, including (1) a requirement
for NVOCCs to continue publishing
standard rules tariffs with contractual
terms and conditions governing
shipments, including any accessorial
charges and surcharges, (2) a
requirement to make available NVOCC
rules tariffs to shippers free of charge;
(3) a requirement that NRA rates must
be mutually agreed to and memorialized
in writing by the date the cargo is
received for shipment; and (4) a

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

requirement that NVOCCs who use
NRAs must retain, and make available
upon request to the Commission,
documentation confirming the terms,
and agreed rate, for each shipment for
a period of five years. NVOCC
Negotiated Rate Arrangements, 75 FR
25150, 25154. (May 7, 2010). In the
NPRM, the Commission also determined
that under Section 16 of the Shipping
Act the exemption could be granted as
doing so ‘‘would not result in
substantial reduction in competition or
be detrimental to commerce.’’ 75 FR at
25153.
The Commission subsequently
granted the exemption, relieving
NVOCCs from the burden and costs of
tariff rate publication when using this
new class of carrier rate arrangements.
NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements,
76 FR 11351 (Mar.2, 2011) (2011 NRA
Final Rule). In determining whether to
grant the exemption the Commission
considered: Competition among
NVOCCs; competition between NVOCCs
and VOCCs; among VOCCs; as well as
competition among shippers. 76 FR at
11352. The Commission determined
that granting the exemption would not
result in a substantial reduction in
competition in any of the above
categories. 76 FR at 11352–11353.
Analyzing whether granting the
exemption would be detrimental to
commerce, the Commission determined
that such NRAs would be beneficial to
commerce because the exemption
would ‘‘reduce NVOCC operating costs
and increase competition in the U.S.
trades.’’ 76 FR at 11353. The
Commission also determined that
‘‘NVOCCs entering into NRAs continue
to be subject to the applicable
requirements and strictures of the
Shipping Act, including oversight by
the Commission.’’ 76 FR at 11354.
As a condition to offering NRAs,
NVOCCs were required to provide their
rules tariffs to the public free of charge.
76 FR at 11358. The Commission also
determined not to allow for amendment
of an NRA after receipt of the cargo by
the carrier or its agent. Id. Consistent
with the Petition’s focus upon
negotiated rates only, the Commission
determined not to permit NRAs to
include non-rate economic terms, such
as rate methodology, credit and
payment terms, forum selection or
arbitration clauses, or minimum
quantities. 76 FR at 11355.
C. NCBFAA Petition for Rulemaking and
Overview of Comments
NCBFAA petitioned the FMC on April
16, 2015, to initiate a rulemaking to
eliminate the NSA provisions in 46 CFR
part 531 in their entirety, or

E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM

30NOP1

nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
alternatively, eliminate the filing and
essential terms publication
requirements for NSAs. Consolidated
with that request, NCBFAA also asked
the Commission to expand the NRA
exemption in 46 CFR part 532 to
include economic terms beyond rates,
and to delete 46 CFR 532.5(e) that
precludes any amendment or
modification of an NRA.
On April 28, 2015, the Commission
published a Notice of Filing and
Request for Comments. 80 FR 23549
(Apr. 28. 2015). Comments were
received from Mainfreight, Inc.
(Mainfreight); ABS Consulting (ABS);
Mohawk Global Statistics (Mohawk);
Global Logistics Solutions (GLS); World
Shipping Council (WSC); DJR Logistics,
Inc. (DJR); Crowley Latin America
Services, LLC and Crowley Caribbean
Services, LLC (Crowley); New York New
Jersey Foreign Freight Forwarders and
Brokers Association, Inc.
(NYNJFFF&BA); National Industrial
Transportation League (NITL);
CaroTrans International, Inc.,
(CaroTrans); Vanguard Logistics
Services (USA), Inc., (Vanguard); Serra
International, Inc., (Serra); C. H. Powell
Company (Powell); BDG International,
Inc., dba Seagull Express Lines, (BDG);
John S. James Co. (James); and UPS
Ocean Freight Services, Inc., UPS
Europe SPRL, and UPS Asia Group Pte.,
Ltd. collectively submitting one
comment (UPS). The comments
represent a broad cross-section of
industry stakeholders, including
licensed NVOCCs and freight
forwarders, a major trade association
representing beneficial cargo owners,
and vessel-operating common carriers
(VOCCs). However, the Commission did
not receive comments directly from
beneficial owners of cargo shipped by
NVOCCs under either NRAs or NSAs.
A majority of the OTI comments
expressed general support for the
petition. Commenters supported either
the elimination of 46 CFR part 531 in its
entirety, or eliminating the filing and
essential terms publication
requirements for NSAs. Many supported
allowing economic terms beyond rates
in NRAs, as well as the modification of
NRAs at any time, upon mutual
agreement.
The World Shipping Counsel, while
not opposing the Petition, urged evenhanded regulatory relief with respect to
VOCCs as well. WSC cites prior requests
that VOCCs have made for changes to
the Commission’s regulations governing
service contract amendment filings.
WSC’s comments were supported by
Crowley.
NITL, while supporting the
negotiation of economic terms between

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:27 Nov 29, 2017

Jkt 244001

NVOCCs and shippers, as well as the
elimination of the filing and essential
terms publication requirement of NSAs,
did not support the elimination of part
531 in its entirety. UPS also opposed
any restrictions upon, or the elimination
of, part 531, expressing support for the
continued use of NSAs.
On August 2, 2016, the Commission
granted NCBFAA’s petition to ‘‘initiate
a rulemaking with respect to the
revisions discussed in the petition.’’
However, because the Commission was
in the process of a separate rulemaking
to amend portions of part 531 related to
NSAs (Docket No. 16–05, Service
Contracts and NVOCC Service
Arrangements), the Commission
delayed initiating the requested
rulemaking until after the rulemaking in
Docket No. 16–05 was concluded.
III. The Commission’s Proposed Rule
A. Overview
NCBFAA has proposed deleting in its
entirety the NSA exemption in 46 CFR
part 531, or alternatively, eliminate the
filing and essential terms publication
requirements for NSAs. NCBFAA also
sought to expand the NRA exemption in
46 CFR part 532 to allow inclusion of
economic terms beyond rates into
NRAs. NCBFAA Petition at 14.
NCBFAA argues that, whereas the NSA
exemption currently benefits few
NVOCCs, NVOCCs and shippers often
seek to negotiate one-on-one on a broad
range of service terms including: Rate or
service amendments; liability; minimum
volumes or time/volume rates;
liquidated damages; credit terms;
service guarantees and/or service
benchmarks; measurements and
penalties; surcharges; GRIs or other
pass-through charges from the carriers
or ports; rate amendment processes; EDI
services; and dispute resolution. Id. at 8.
NCBFAA urges that ‘‘each of these terms
are relevant to some extent to every rate
and service negotiation between an
NVOCC and an existing or prospective
customer. Yet, none of the items on this
list can properly be included in an
NRA.’’ Id. at 9. NCBFAA contends that
‘‘the FMC should now look to meld the
features of NSAs and NRAs into a single
arrangement.’’ Id. at 13.
Mainfreight, ABS, Powell, Mohawk,
and John S. James support the
elimination of 46 CFR part 531.
Mainfreight states that granting the
petition ‘‘would eliminate a regulatory
burden that, over time, has come to
represent a significant hurdle to the
profitability and sustainability of the
NVOCC business model.’’ Mainfreight at

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

56783

1.1 ABS states that the petition ‘‘clearly
reflects how shippers negotiate and
contract with NVOCC’s today and it will
greatly simplify the process and make it
easier for NVOCC’s [sic] and shippers to
cooperate and eliminate burdensome
and not needed requirements and
associated costs.’’ ABS at 1. Powell
believes that NRAs and NSAs are ‘‘two
imperfect methods for memorializing
NVOCC rates,’’ and supports the
petition’s argument to eliminate the
NSA exemption. Powell at 1. John S.
James Co. likewise supports the petition
from the NCBFAA to eliminate NSAs
and expand the use of NRAs. James at
1.
Mohawk commented that given the
current limitations on NRAs, which
allow no provisions ‘‘that cover free
time, demurrage, per diem and other
similar components related to the
transport of goods,’’ both Mohawk and
its clients had a desire for NRAs to
include more terms and provisions.
Mohawk at 2. BDG asserts that since
BDG is ‘‘able to privately negotiate rates
with our customers without publishing
them in a tariff; it is difficult to
understand why other economic terms
that we also negotiate have to be treated
differently and filed as NSAs.’’ BDG at
2.
Global and NYNJFFF&BA support
either eliminating the filing of essential
terms publication requirements of NSAs
or eliminating part 531 in its entirety.
Global at 2; NYNJFFF&BA at 3. Global
states that it has not used NRAs or NSAs
and finds the provisions confusing.
Global believes that combining NRAs
and NSAs as one exemption would be
more efficient and beneficial to ‘‘allow
negotiated agreements to be fully
comprehensive and cover rates and
service arrangements.’’ Id. at 1.
NYNJFF&BA insists that if existing
restrictions on NRAs were removed,
there would no longer be a commercial
need for NSAs. NYNJFF&BA at 3.
NITL does not support eliminating
part 531. While advocating generally for
greater flexibility for NVOCCs in the
commercial marketplace, NITL
‘‘believes that NSAs should remain as
an option for any shippers and NVOCCs
that desire the increased formality of the
NSA requirements.’’ NITL at 6.
UPS urges that NSAs be preserved
regardless of any changes to the NRA
regulations to improve flexibility of the
latter. UPS at 4. UPS states that ‘‘NSAs
1 Mainfreight asserts that regulatory relief also is
needed to stem a decline in the NVOCC share of
the ocean freight business. Id. FMC review of
current PIERS data for January 2014 through July
2017 indicates that NVOCC cargo as a share of U.S.
ocean trades continues to increase overall,
exceeding 50% for all U.S. import trades.

E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM

30NOP1

nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

56784

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules

are the only method by which largervolume NVOCCs can maintain an equal
playing field with the Vessel Operating
Common Carriers (VOCCs),’’ id. at 3,
pointing out that ‘‘many NSAs are
longer term, multi-year large volume
contracts between NVOCCs and their
shipper customers, often including
multiple affiliated companies as
additional shippers or consignees, [and]
often covering global trade lanes.’’ Id. at
2. Whereas NRAs ‘‘may not be the most
suitable format for certain types of
transactions.’’ id., UPS believes that
preservation of NSAs allows pricing and
service benefits ‘‘for shippers of all
sizes, bringing the benefits of the
Commission’s [NSA] exemption to the
marketplace.’’ Id. UPS urges the
Commission to allow the continued use
of NSAs for ‘‘those NVOCCs that are
now successfully using them, and for
the benefit of their shippers.’’ Id. at 2.
The World Shipping Council urges
that the issues raised by the NCBFAA
Petition ‘‘are most logically and
equitably considered alongside requests
that vessel operating common carriers
have made for changes to the
Commission’s regulations governing
service contract amendment filing.’’
WSC, at 1. WSC thus proposes that
service contract amendments be
permitted to be filed within 90 days of
the filing of the underlying commercial
agreement. Id. at 9. WSC asserts that the
NCBFAA Petition provides an
opportunity for the Commission to
address changes to its NRA and NSA
regulations at the same time that it
considers changes to its VOCC service
contract amendment filing regulations.
Id. at 8. Crowley supports WSC’s
comments, and states that the
Commission should ‘‘initiate a
rulemaking proceeding which would
amend the FMC’s regulations to permit
amendments to service contracts and
NSAs to be filed within a specified
period of time after the parties agree on
the amendment.’’ Crowley, at 5.
Some commenters claim that the NSA
exemption benefits few NVOCCs, citing
the low volume of filed NSAs and
higher costs and filing formalities
attendant to NSAs. However, UPS’
description of NSAs as comprising
‘‘multi-year large-volume contracts’’
with its shipper customers, containing
‘‘hundreds or even a thousand or more
individual rates’’ establishes a
compelling factual parallel between the
content of NSA and service contracts
first anticipated by the Commission in
creating an exemption for NSAs. Indeed,
the exemption was expressly
‘‘conditioned on the same statutory and
regulatory requirements and protections
applicable to VOCCs’ service contracts:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:27 Nov 29, 2017

Jkt 244001

Namely, filing of executed agreements;
publication of essential terms of those
agreements; and confidential treatment,
similar to that set forth in 46 CFR part
530.’’ 69 FR at 63986.
Like service contracts, NSAs can
contain non-rate economic terms, such
as rate methodology, credit and
payment terms, forum selection or
arbitration clauses, or minimum
quantities, which delineate the
contractual terms and conditions
binding both the carrier and shipper
signatories. These latter provisions were
excluded from application in NRAs. 76
FR at 11355. Indeed, in the
Commission’s 2011 Final Rule as to
NRAs, a number of commenters therein
insisted upon the need for a rate-based
NRA exemption notwithstanding the
ability of NVOCCs to contractually enter
into NSAs. These concerns were
premised largely upon the perspectives
of their customers, shippers who ‘‘do
not want or need to engage in a formal
contract process.’’ 76 FR at 11353.2 This
outlook continues to hold sway today.
See, e.g. DJR comments, at 1 (‘‘We will
limit our comments to the NRA filing as
we have never been able to secure a
NSA from one of our clients. They
rejected the idea stating that they did
not want to be committed to a long term
contract should our service levels fail to
meet their requirements.’’) Other
commenters likewise have shared the
view that the contractual formalities of
NSAs are deemed too time consuming
and burdensome, Serra at 1; Vanguard at
2; Powell at 1; and that ‘‘[c]hasing down
signatures on amendments’’ had proven
problematic. Mohawk at 2.
UPS insists that elimination of NSAs
would create competitive conditions
unfair to those larger NVOCCs who have
invested heavily in building up
procedures and business methods for
this type of contracting. UPS points to
the success of its own efforts and focus
upon marketing NSAs, where more than
one-third of their container volume in a
2 See also supporting attachments to NCBFAA’s
seminal Petition in Docket No. P1–08, including
Verified Supporting Statement of Anthony
Kozlowski, at 2; Verified Support Statement of
Edward M. Piza, at 2; Verified Supporting
Statement of Cas Pouderoyen, at 2. As summarized
by Ms. Paulette Kolba of Panalpina: We realize and
appreciate the ruling allowing NVOCCs to issue
NSAs (NVOCC Service Arrangements) to our
customers. NSAs, however, have proven to have
limited value, especially to the small and medium
sized companies who do not want to get involved
in signing a legal contract. They are perfectly happy
with the written quotation and rarely understand
the need for the NSA. The main benefit of NSAs
that we see is in being able to customize rates and
services to the unique conditions of some
customers.
Verified Supporting Statement of Panalpina, Inc.
at 4.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

major US trade lane is now shipped
under NSAs. NITL likewise echoes the
commercial importance of these
contractual distinctions between NRAs
and NSAs, and urges that ‘‘NSAs should
remain as an option for any shippers
and NVOCCs that desire the increased
formality of the NSA requirements.’’ Id.
at 6.
Consistent with recent Executive
Orders,3 the Commission’s mission is
best fulfilled by recognizing and
facilitating the further development of
emerging business models, including
the more contractually complex and
service-oriented NSAs. Whereas NSA
contracts bear service provisions and
terms more equivalent to VOCC service
contracts, that differentiation (from
NRAs) was at the heart of creating an
exemption for a rate-based vehicle for
NVOCC shippers, whom the Petitioner
previously described as ‘‘most of whom
are LCL shippers,’’ 4 ‘‘who do not want
to sign formal written contracts,’’ id. at
9, or just do not like the formality of
NSAs, id. The Commission perceives
little value, therefore, in mandating a
narrowing of NVOCCs’ choices for
contracting with their customers, when
it appears that substantial volumes of
cargo are now moving successfully
under the NSA contract model. UPS, at
2. Rather, where those contracting
models may be substantially improved
without compromising carrier duties or
conditions intended for the protection
of the shipper, the Commission has been
unafraid to consider further loosening of
the restrictions or limitations previously
established upon an exemption. The
Commission is persuaded that it can do
so here by removing unnecessary or
burdensome regulatory impediments
upon the further development of NSAs,
without eliminating the NSA provisions
in part 531 in their entirety.
In doing so, the Commission also reaffirms its intention, first stated in
Docket No. 10–03, that NRAs should
facilitate a new business model
conducive to those NVOCCs who could
not then, and cannot now, utilize NSAs.
While some NVOCCs may wish to issue
a NSA to obtain a volume commitment
from their shipper customer, many
small and medium enterprises continue
to work on a quotation basis, without
need to engage in a formal contract
process. 76 FR at 11353. See also DJR at
1; NYNJFF&BA at 3 (NSAs are not
‘‘practical particularly for our smaller
members when moving lower or less
3 See e.g. Executive Order 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Jan.
30, 2017 and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda (Feb. 24, 2017).
4 NCBFAA Petition in Docket No. P1–08, at 6.

E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM

30NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules

nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

frequent freight volumes.’’) For such
NVOCCs, and their customers, NRAs
continue to provide a lower cost,
competitive niche in today’s
commercial marketplace, made possible
by a Commission-issued exemption
from the otherwise-applicable
requirements of the Shipping Act.
The Commission invites further
public comment, particularly from
shippers currently using NRAs, on how
expanding the NRA exemption to allow
inclusion in NRAs of non-rate economic
terms may impact their commercial
business operations. Non-rate economic
terms could include but are not limited
to such terms as: Service amendments;
per-package liability limits; provision of
free time, detention or demurrage
charges; provisions for arbitration,
dispute resolution or forum selection;
minimum volumes or time/volume
rates; liquidated damages; credit terms
and late payment interest; service
guarantees and/or service benchmarks,
measurements and penalties;
surcharges, GRIs or other pass-through
charges from the carriers or ports; rate
amendment processes; and EDI services,
etc.
B. Remove the NSA Filing and
Publication Requirements
NCBFAA argues that the NSA
exemption benefits few NVOCCs. As
NSAs must be filed with the
Commission, and essential terms of
NSAs also need to be published in
tariffs, NCBFAA opines that NSAs are
more burdensome than regular rate
tariffs. NCBFAA Petition at 7–8.
NCBFAA also argues that continuing the
filing requirement for NSAs does not
appear to provide any regulatory
benefit. Id. at 12–13.
A substantial majority of the NVOCC
commenters support the NCBFAA
position. Commenting on NSAs,
Mohawk states ‘‘the filing burden and
rules of use run parallel to tariff filing.
NSAs by their nature are more
restrictive than the NRA we have opted
to use. They require 30 days advanced
filing to increase rates, and must be
maintained electronically,’’ Mohawk at
2. Serra asserts that NSAs, due to the
filing requirements, are ‘‘far too time
consuming and costly both for ourselves
and our customers.’’ Serra, at 2.
Carotrans and Vanguard insist that
‘‘NSAs are often of little utility to most
NVOCCs due to the formality, burden,
and cost of its publication and filing
requirements.’’ Carotrans, at 2;
Vanguard, at 2. NYNJFF&BA
summarizes the current requirements
surrounding NSAs as ‘‘more formal,
more costly, and more time-consuming
to put in place.’’ NYNJFF&BA, at 3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:27 Nov 29, 2017

Jkt 244001

NITL supports ‘‘the elimination of the
filing and essential terms publication
requirement of NSAs,’’ NITL at 5, but
recommends continuation of provisions
that would require ‘‘NVOCCs to provide
NSA contract terms to the Commission
upon its request.’’ Id.
The OTI commenters have made a
substantial case that continuing the
filing requirement for NSAs does not
appear to offer any regulatory benefit.
NCBFAA suggests that these filing
requirements may be impeding broader
commercial acceptance of NSAs by
shippers and NVOCCs, noting that
approximately 2,300 NVOCCs have
instead taken advantage of the NRA
exemption. Petition at 7. UPS takes no
issue with removing the filing and
essential terms publication
requirements so long as NSAs are not
eliminated nor any material additional
restrictions imposed upon NSAs. UPS,
at 4. NITL also supports elimination of
these requirements, asserting that the
Commission ‘‘does not (and need not)
rely on these submissions to fulfill its
enforcement duties.’’ NITL, at 5.
WSC cites the need for ‘‘even-handed
regulatory relief’’ with respect to VOCCs
as well. WSC, at 9. While the WSC does
not oppose most issues in the petition,
WSC does oppose eliminating the filing
requirement for NVOCCs because it
would create a disparity between
NVOCCs and VOCCs. WSC asserts that
the NCBFAA Petition provides an
opportunity to consider changes to the
VOCC service contract amendment
filing regulations at the same time the
Commission addresses Petitioner’s
request for changes to the NRA and NSA
regulations. Id. at 8. Specifically, WSC
cites prior requests that VOCCs have
made for changes to the Commission’s
regulations permitting contract
amendments to be filed subsequent to
the execution of such contract
amendments. WSC’s comments were
supported by Crowley.
As noted, the Commission previously
approved initiating a separate
rulemaking to amend portions of parts
530 and 531 related to service contracts
and NSAs, Docket No. 16–05, Service
Contracts and NVOCC Service
Arrangements. In granting the NCBFAA
Petition, the Commission delayed
initiating the requested rulemaking until
after the rulemaking in Docket No. 16–
05 was concluded. A final rule in
Docket 16–05 was published on April 4,
2017. 82 FR 16288. The relief granted by
the Commission in Docket 16–05 allows
amendments to service contracts,
including multiple service contract
amendments, to become effective during
a 30-day period prior to being filed with
the Commission. The Commission

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

56785

therefore has substantially met WSC’s
specific request for regulatory relief for
VOCCs. Any further relief to VOCCs for
service contracts may be undertaken by
the Commission after it has had an
opportunity to analyze the impact of the
30-day filing period on VOCC
operations and shipper feedback.5
The Commission proposes to exempt
NSAs from both the SERVCON filing
requirement and also the requirement
that the NVOCC publish, in tariff
format, the essential terms of any NSA.
See 46 CFR 531.9. The essential terms
requirement for NSAs currently mirrors
those provisions set forth for VOCC
service contracts, 46 CFR 530.12, while
recognizing that the VOCCs’ statutory
obligation of disclosure to labor
organizations for work covered by a
collective bargaining agreement
extended solely to service contracts, not
NSAs. See 46 U.S.C. 40502 and 46 CFR
530.7. Inasmuch as most NVOCCs are
not subject to collective bargaining
agreements with shoreside labor unions,
the Commission solicits public
comments why the essential terms
publication requirement should not now
be removed as an unnecessary burden
upon the use of NSAs. Shippers, who
were identified by the Commission as
the beneficiaries of essential terms in
the original 2003 NSA rulemaking, have
not since commented on the continuing
utility of essential terms publications,
and thus maintaining the essential terms
publication requirement appears to
provide little regulatory benefit.6
In removing the NSA filing and
essential terms publication
requirements, the Commission seeks to
preserve the NVOCC’s current range of
pricing and contracting choices, while
eliminating the filing and publication
costs currently associated with NSAs.
According to the commenters, this
regulatory relief is likely to make NSAs
a more attractive pricing and contracting
tool and thereby encourage increased
use of NSAs. The Commission is
mindful that NSAs, comprising both
5 While the VOCC commenters to the subject
Petition did not expressly request relief from the
current service contract filing requirements as to
essential terms, the Commission would invite the
VOCC community to submit an appropriate request
for relief.
6 As noted in the Commission’s earlier
rulemaking, the most critical elements of both
VOCC service contracts and NVOCC NSAs are the
important statutory protections provided to
shippers that ensure against detriment to
commerce. See 69 FR 53969. To ensure consistency
with VOCC treatment, the Commission will
continue applying to carriage under an NSA, those
provisions of the Shipping Act that would be
applicable to service contracts which relate to
protecting shippers. These include the prohibited
acts contained in sections 10(b)(1), (2), (5) and (9),
46 U.S.C. 41104(1), (2), (5) and (9).

E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM

30NOP1

56786

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules

nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

rate and service provisions, may remain
impractical for smaller NVOCCs or
shippers moving lower or less frequent
freight volumes. It has been shown,
however, that substantial volumes of
cargo are already moving under this
contract model, and that the NVOCC
members of Petitioner NCBFAA would
prefer the flexibility of including both
service and rate-related items in their
contract offerings if relieved of the filing
and publication burdens of same.
Appropriate regulatory relief thus will
allow parties to increase the use and
reliance upon NSAs as a means to more
efficiently engage in the movement of
U.S. import and export cargo, while
continuing to protect NSA shippers
from potential financial harm for nonperformance.
C. Authorize Amendments of NRAs and
Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking
NCBFAA has proposed deleting 46
CFR 532.5(e) and expanding the NRA
exemption in 46 CFR part 532 to allow
modification of NRAs at any time upon
mutual agreement between NVOCCs
and their customers. NCBFAA Petition
at 14.
Mainfreight, ABS, Mohawk, GLS, DJR,
NYNJFFF&BA, NITL, CaroTrans,
Vanguard, Serra, Powell, and BDG
support the NCBFAA petitioner’s
request to allow modification of NRAs,
at any time, upon mutual agreement.
DJR states that, under current NRA
requirements, either ‘‘the NVOCC faces
the serious loss of revenue and
potentially being put out of business by
issuing long period NRAs, or the
NVOCC issues 1 day or 1 week NRAs
which increases the NVOCCs’
operational expense and floods the
shipper with constantly changing
pricing.’’ DJR at 2–3. NYNJFFF&BA also
supports the NCBFAA recommendation
that NRAs be allowed to be amended at
any time after the receipt of cargo.
NYNJFFF&BA states ‘‘if NRAs can be
amended in conjunction with the
shipper’s agreement the NRA will
become more directly responsive to
competitive market conditions and
business practices prevalent in the
current marketplace.’’ NYNJFF&BA, at
3.
CaroTrans supports allowing
modification of NRAs, as it believes it
will improve efficiency and prevent the
current ‘‘nonsensical’’ and ‘‘inefficient’’
approach to modification, which entails
terminating the current NRA and
entering into a new one. CaroTrans at 3.
Serra and Powell also support allowing
amendment of NRAs after the cargo is
received if the shipper and the NVOCC
both agree in writing. Serra at 2; Powell
at 1–2. NITL supports ‘‘allowing a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:27 Nov 29, 2017

Jkt 244001

shipper and NVOCC the power to
modify an NRA at any time but only to
the extent that the modification is based
on a mutual written agreement between
the parties and, such agreement should
not be in the form of the NVOCC’s tariff,
bill of lading, or other shipping
document that is not subject to mutual
negotiation.’’ NITL, at 5.
Due to their smaller cargo volume,
recent history has shown, and the
commenters’ statements support that
NRAs tend to be transactional in nature
and are generally short term. With their
singular focus upon rates, NRAs are
more aligned with the ‘‘spot market.’’ 7
This relationship heightens, rather than
diminishes, the need for NRAs to
respond to an ever-changing
marketplace. It appears appropriate, and
in keeping with the Commission’s
commitment to reduce regulatory
burden where feasible, to therefore
permit NRAs to be extended or
amended upon acceptance or agreement
by the shipper customer. In initially
creating NRAs, the accelerating need for
parties to have greater flexibility to more
quickly respond to fast-paced market
rate fluctuations does not appear to have
been fully anticipated. The NVOCC and
its customer should not be compelled to
create a new NRA in every instance
simply because the rules do not
currently provide for amendment.
While not expressly included in the
NCBFAA Petition, the Commission
proposes a further change to enhance
the use and competitiveness of NRAs.
As noted in the comments of DGR
Logistics, the requirement at 46 CFR
532.5(c) that an NRA ‘‘be agreed to’’ by
the shipper prior to receipt of cargo by
the common carrier or its agent may
itself pose logistical and regulatory
challenges to the NVOCC. See DGR, at
2. Rather than continuing a persistent
practice requiring that shipper
acceptance in all cases be memorialized
through a formal writing or email, the
Commission proposes also to allow
NRAs to be more flexibly created, or be
amended, upon the shipper’s
acceptance in the form of a request for
booking pursuant to the NRA.8 This
practice more closely corresponds to the
manner in which an NVOCC encounters
shipper acceptance when responding to
a written rate quote under standard
7 UPS has described NRAs as ‘‘flexible and
confidential rate offerings designed to react quickly
to a very fluid marketplace’’. Comments of UPS in
Docket No. 10–03, NVOCC Negotiated Rate
Arrangements, at 4.
8 Towards this same result, NCBFAA recently
submitted comments in Docket No. 17–04,
Regulatory Reform Initiative, requesting changes to
the NRA rules to ‘‘make it clear that a shipper’s
tendering or booking of cargo constitutes
acceptance of an NRA,’’ NCBFAA Comments at 12.

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

tariff rates and rules, i.e. by
communicating its agreement solely in
terms of instructing the NVOCC to book
the cargo for shipment thereunder. To
ensure continued protection of the
shipper and avoid confusion or
potential disputes as to this new means
to conclude an NRA, the Commission
proposes that each NVOCC that seeks to
recognize shipper acceptance of an NRA
through the act of booking must
incorporate a prominent written notice
to that effect on each such NRA or
amendment. As this additional NRA
methodology is intended to be optional
to the NVOCC and its shipper
customers, the Commission will not
eliminate the requirement that a
shipper’s agreement to an NRA should
otherwise be in writing or by email. The
Commission invites public comment on
the desirability of permitting NRA
acceptance by booking, and whether the
Commission should require particular
wording in order to more prominently
give notice as to the NVOCC’s practice
with respect to booking.
IV. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
You may submit your comments via
email to the email address listed above
under ADDRESSES. Please include the
docket number associated with this
notice and the subject matter in the
subject line of the email. Comments
should be attached to the email as a
Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF
document. Only non-confidential and
public versions of confidential
comments should be submitted by
email.
You may also submit comments by
mail to the address listed above under
ADDRESSES.
How do I submit confidential business
information?
The Commission will provide
confidential treatment for identified
confidential information to the extent
allowed by law. If your comments
contain confidential information, you
must submit the following by mail to
the address listed above under
ADDRESSES:
• A transmittal letter requesting
confidential treatment that identifies the
specific information in the comments or
which protection is sought and
demonstrates that the information is a

E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM

30NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial
information.
• A confidential copy of your
comments, consisting of the complete
filing with a cover page marked
‘‘Confidential-Restricted,’’ and the
confidential material clearly marked on
each page. You should submit the
confidential copy to the Commission by
mail.
• A public version of your comments
with the confidential information
excluded. The public version must state
‘‘Public Version—confidential materials
excluded’’ on the cover page and on
each affected page, and must clearly
indicate any information withheld. You
may submit the public version to the
Commission by email or mail.
Will the Commission consider late
comments?
The Commission will consider all
comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date
indicated above under DATES. To the
extent possible, we will also consider
comments received after that date. If the
Commission receives a comment too
late to consider in developing a final
rule (assuming that one is issued), the
Commission will consider that comment
as an informal suggestion for future
rulemaking action.
How can I read comments submitted by
other people?
You may read the comments received
by the Commission at the Commission’s
Electronic Reading Room or the Docket
Activity Library at the addresses listed
above under ADDRESSES.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we may continue
to file relevant information in the docket
as it becomes available. Further, some
commenters may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically check the docket for new
material.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601–
612) provides that whenever an agency
is required to publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare
and make available for public comment
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) describing the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, unless
the head of the agency certifies that the
rulemaking will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:27 Nov 29, 2017

Jkt 244001

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603,
605.
The Commission recognizes that the
majority of businesses affected by these
rules qualify as small entities under the
guidelines of the Small Business
Administration. The rule as to Part 531
(NSAs) poses no economic detriment to
small business. In this regard, the rule
pertains to an NSA entered into between
a NVOCC and a shipper, which is an
optional pricing arrangement that
benefits the shipping public and
relieves NVOCCs from the burden of the
statutory tariff filing requirements in 46
U.S.C. 40501. In that the proposed rule
would eliminate the requirements that
NVOCCs file NSAs with the
Commission and publish essential terms
of such NSAs, the regulatory burden on
NVOCCs utilizing NSAs would be
reduced. The rule as to part 532 (NRAs)
would establish an optional method for
NVOCCs to amend an NRA, and to
garner shipper agreement to an NRA or
amendment thereto, to be used at the
NVOCC’s discretion. In that the
proposed rule would eliminate the
prohibition on amendments to NRAs
after an initial shipment is received by
the carrier and would permit NVOCCs
to more flexibly create and amend such
NRAs, the regulatory burden on
NVOCCs utilizing NRAs would be
reduced.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) (PRA) requires an
agency to seek and receive approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) before collecting
information from the public. 44 U.S.C.
3507. The agency must submit
collections of information in proposed
rules to OMB in conjunction with the
publication of the notice of proposed
rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11.
The information collection
requirements for part 531, NVOCC
Service Arrangements, and part 532
NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements
are currently authorized under OMB
Control Numbers 3072–0070: 46 CFR
part 531, NVOCC Service Arrangements,
and 3072–0071: 46 CFR 532—NVOCC
Negotiated Rate Arrangements,
respectively. In compliance with the
PRA, the Commission has submitted the
proposed revised information
collections to the Office of Management
and Budget.
The proposed rule would eliminate
the requirement that NVOCCs file NSAs
with the Commission and the
requirement that NVOCCs publish the
essential terms of NSAs. Public burden
for the collection of information
pursuant to part 531, NVOCC Service

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

56787

Arrangements, as revised, would
comprise 79 likely respondents and an
estimated 3,328 annual instances. Given
that the proposed rule eliminates the
NSA filing requirement as well as the
essential terms publication requirement,
the burden estimate has been
significantly reduced from 831 hours
(2016 estimate) to 127 hours, a
difference of 704 hours.
The proposed rule would also permit
NRAs to be modified after the receipt of
the initial shipment by the carrier, and
permit shippers’ acceptance of the NRA
by booking a shipment thereunder,
subject to the NVOCC incorporating a
prominent written notice to such effect
in each NRA or amendment. No new
information collection or reporting
requirements are proposed with respect
to part 532, NVOCC Negotiated Rate
Arrangements, as revised.
Comments are invited on:
• Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
• Whether the Commission’s estimate
for the burden of the information
collection is accurate;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected;
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Please submit any comments,
identified by the docket number in the
heading of this document, by any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
National Environmental Policy Act
Upon completion of an environmental
assessment, the Commission has
determined that the proposed rule will
not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment within the meaning
of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and
that preparation of an environmental
impact statement is not required. This
FONSI will become final within 10 days
of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register unless a petition for
review is filed by any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of
the document. The FONSI and
environmental assessment are available
for inspection at the Commission’s
Electronic Reading Room at: http://
www.fmc.gov/17–10, and at the Docket
Activity Library at 800 North Capitol
Street NW., Washington, DC 20573,
between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday

E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM

30NOP1

56788

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules

through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Telephone: (202) 523–5725.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in E.O. 12988 titled, ‘‘Civil
Justice Reform,’’ to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Regulation Identifier Number
The Commission assigns a regulation
identifier number (RIN) to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda).
The Regulatory Information Service
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. You
may use the RIN contained in the
heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda, available at http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaMain.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 531
Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the
supplementary information, the Federal
Maritime Commission proposes to
amend 46 CFR part 531 as follows:
PART 531—NVOCC SERVICE
ARRANGEMENTS

2. Revise § 531.1 to read as follows:

nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

Purpose

The purpose of this part is to facilitate
NVOCC Service Arrangements (‘‘NSAs’’)
as they are exempt from the otherwise
applicable provisions of the Shipping
Act of 1984 (‘‘the Act’’).
■ 3. Amend § 531.3 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (c);
■ b. Removing paragraphs (d) through
(g), (m), and (n);
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (h) and (i)
as paragraphs (d) and (e), respectively;
■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (k) and (l)
as paragraphs (f) and (g), respectively;
■ e. Redesignating paragraphs (o) and
(p) as paragraphs (h) and (i),
respectively;
■ f. Revising newly redesignated
paragraphs (f) and (j).
The revisions to read as follows:
§ 531.3

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) Amendment means any change to
a NSA which has prospective effect and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:27 Nov 29, 2017

Jkt 244001

§ 531.5

[Removed and reserved]

5. Remove and reserve § 531.5
6. Revise the Subpart B heading to
read as follows:

■
■

NVOCC Service Arrangements.

(a) Every NSA shall include the
complete terms of the NSA including,
but not limited to, the following:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Other requirements. (1) For service
pursuant to an NSA, no NVOCC may,
either alone or in conjunction with any
other person, directly or indirectly,
provide service in the liner trade that is
not in accordance with the rates,
charges, classifications, rules and
practices contained in a NSA.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Except for the carrier party’s rules
tariff, the requirement in 46 U.S.C.

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

§ 531.7
■
■

[Removed and reserved]

8. Remove and reserve § 531.7
9. Revise § 531.8 to read as follows:
Amendment.

(a) NSAs may be amended by mutual
agreement of the parties.
(b) Where feasible, NSAs should be
amended by amending only the affected
specific term(s) or subterms.
(c) Each time any part of an NSA is
amended, a consecutive amendment
number (up to three digits), beginning
with the number ‘‘1’’ shall be assigned.
(d) Each time any part of a NSA is
amended, the ‘‘Effective Date’’ will be
the date of the amendment.
§ 531.9
■

7. Amend § 531.6 by:
a. Removing paragraphs (a), (f), and
(g):
■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)
through (e) as paragraphs (a) through
(d), respectively;
■ c. Revising the introductory text of
newly redesignated paragraph (a);
■ d. Revising the newly redesignated
paragraph (c)(1) paragraph and adding
paragraph (c)(5);
■ e. Revising newly redesignated
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 531.6

40501(a)–(c) that the NVOCC include its
rates in a tariff open to public
inspection in an automated tariff system
and the Commission’s corresponding
regulations at 46 CFR part 520 shall not
apply.
(d) Format requirements. Every NSA
shall include:
(1) A unique NSA number of more
than one (1) but less than ten (10)
alphanumeric characters in length
(‘‘NSA Number’’); and
(2) A consecutively numbered
amendment number no more than three
digits in length, with initial NSAs using
‘‘0’’ (‘‘Amendment number’’).
*
*
*
*
*

§ 531.8

NVOCC rules tariff.

(a) Before entering into NSAs under
this Part, an NVOCC must provide
electronic access to its rules tariffs to the
public free of charge.
(b) An NVOCC wishing to invoke an
exemption pursuant to this part must
indicate that intention to the
Commission and the public by a
prominent notice in its rules tariff.

■
■

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 40103.

§ 531.1

§ 531.4

Subpart B—Requirements

1. The authority citation for part 531
continues to read as:

■

■

which is mutually agreed upon by all
parties to the NSA.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Effective date means the date upon
which an NSA or amendment is
scheduled to go into effect by the parties
to the NSA. An NSA or amendment
becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern
Standard Time on the beginning of the
effective date. The effective date cannot
be prior to the date of the NSA or
amendment.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Rules tariff means a tariff or the
portion of a tariff, as defined by 46 CFR
520.2, containing the terms and
conditions governing the charges,
classifications, rules, regulations and
practices of an NVOCC, but does not
include a rate.
■ 4. Revise § 531.4 to read as follows:

[Removed and Reserved]

10. Remove and Reserve § 531.9.

§ 531.10

[Amended].

11. Amend § 531.10 by removing
paragraphs (c) and (d).
■ 12. Revise § 531.11 to read as follows:
■

§ 531.11

Implementation.

Generally. Performance under an NSA
or amendment thereto may not begin
before the day it is effective.
■ 13. Revise § 531.99 to read as follows
§ 531.99 OMB control numbers assigned
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Commission has received OMB
approval for this collection of
information pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. In
accordance with that Act, agencies are
required to display a currently valid
control number. The valid control
number for this collection of
information is 3072–0070.
Appendix A to Part 531 [Removed]
■

14. Remove Appendix A to part 531.

PART 532—NVOCC NEGOTIATED
RATE ARRANGEMENTS
15. The authority citation for part 532
continues to read as:

■

E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM

30NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 40103.

16. Amend § 532.5 by revising
paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows:

■

§ 532.5 Requirements for NVOCC
negotiated rate arrangements.

*
*
*
*
(c) Be agreed to by both NRA shipper
and NVOCC, prior to receipt of cargo by
the common carrier or its agent
(including originating carriers in the
case of through transportation). Shipper
acceptance of the NRA may be
demonstrated through a signed
agreement or written communication,
including email, from the shipper.

nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS

*

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:27 Nov 29, 2017

Jkt 244001

Shipper acceptance of an NRA may also
be demonstrated by booking a shipment
after receiving the NRA terms from the
NVOCC if the NVOCC incorporates a
prominent written notice that booking
constitutes acceptance of the NRA terms
in each NRA or amendment.
(1) To comply with paragraph (c), the
NVOCC shall incorporate the following
text in bold font or by use of all
uppercase letters: ‘‘SHIPPER MAY
ACCEPT THIS NRA OR NRA
AMENDMENT BY BOOKING A
SHIPMENT AFTER RECEIVING THE
TERMS HEREOF.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 9990

56789

(2) Reserved.
*
*
*
*
(e) May be amended after the time the
initial shipment is received by the
carrier or its agent (including originating
carriers in the case of through
transportation), but such changes may
only apply prospectively to shipments
not yet received by the carrier or its
agent.
*

By the Commission.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–25718 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6731–AA–P

E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM

30NOP1