8076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices 

Eric P. Straus 

Evandel Ministries Inc. 

Evangel Ministries, Incorporated 

Fort Bend Broadcasting Company Inc. 

Four Corners Broadcasting LLC 

George S. Flinn, Jr. 

Good News Media Inc. 

Grace Communications L.C. 

Harry Media 

Hawkeye Communications, Inc. 

Jem Broadcasting Co., Inc. 

KM Communications, Inc. 

KRJ Company 

La Capra Corporation 

Lancer Media 

Marist College 

Metro Broadcasters-Texas Inc. 

Metro North Communications Inc. 

Michael R. Walton Jr. 

Mid-America Radio Group Inc. 

MTD, Inc. 

Music Express Broadcasting, Corp. 

Music Ministries, Inc. 

Oxford Radio Inc. 

Peace Broadcasting Network 

Penn-Jersey Educational Radio Corp. 

Poor Mountain Broadcasting 

Positive Alternative Radio, Inc. 

Powell Meredith Communications 

Company 

Radio Rosendale 

Ramar Communications Inc. 

Ramsey Leasing, Inc. 

Robert Durango LLC 

Robert M. McDaniel 

Rocky Mountain Radio Company LLC 

Romar Communications, Inc. 

Rosen Broadcasting, Inc. 

S.I. Broadcasting 

Sacred Heart University, Inc. 

Salija Bokram/Michael J. St. Cyr 

Sarkes Tarzian Inc. 

South Shore Broadcasting, inc. 

Southern Cultural Foundation 

Steven Dinetz 

The MacDonald Broadcasting Company 

Tri-County Radio, Incorporated 

William S. Poorman 

Willtronics Broadcasting Co. 

Word Power, Inc. 

WTCM Radio, Inc. 

Yampa Valley Broadcasting Inc. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

William W. Huber, 

Associate Chief, Auctions and Spectrum 

Access Division, WTB. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3583 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Renewal of a Currently 

Approved Collection (3064–0127); 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC). 

ACTION: Notice and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the FDIC may not conduct or 

sponsor, and the respondent is not 

required to respond to, an information 

collection unless it displays a currently 

valid Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. The FDIC 

hereby gives notice that it is seeking 

public comment on the proposed 

renewal of its Occasional Qualitative 

Surveys information collection (OMB 

No. 3064–0127). At the end of the 

comment period, any comments and 

recommendations received will be 

analyzed to determine the extent to 

which the FDIC should modify the 

collection prior to submission to OMB 

for review and approval. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before April 26, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. All 

comments should refer to the name of 

the collection. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/ 

laws/federal/notices.html. 

• E-mail: comments@fdic.gov. 

• Mail: Gary A. Kuiper 

(202.898.3877), Counsel, Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, F–1072, 

550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20429. 

• Hand Delivery: Comments may be 

hand-delivered to the guard station at 

the rear of the 550 17th Street Building 

(located on F Street), on business days 

between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

A copy of the comments may also be 

submitted to the FDIC Desk Officer, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, New Executive Office Building, 

Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this renewal, 

please contact Gary A. Kuiper, by 

telephone at 202.898.3877 or by mail at 

the address identified above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC 

is proposing to renew this collection: 

Title: Occasional Qualitative Surveys. 

Estimated Number of Respondents 

and Burden Hours: 

FDIC document Number of 

surveys 

Hours per survey Number of respondents Burden hours 

Occasional Qualitative Surveys ....................................................................... 15 1 850 12,750 

Total .......................................................................................................... 15 1 850 12,750 

General Description of Collection: The 

information collected in these surveys is 

anecdotal in nature, that is, samples are 

not necessarily random, the results are 

not necessarily representative of a larger 

class of potential respondents, and the 

goal is not to produce a statistically 

valid and reliable database. Rather, the 

surveys are expected to yield anecdotal 

information about the particular 

experiences and opinions of members of 

the public, primarily staff at respondent 

banks or bank customers. The 

information is used to improve the way 

FDIC relates to its clients, to develop 

agendas for regulatory or statutory 

change, and in some cases to simply 

learn how particular policies or 

programs are working, or are perceived 

in particular cases. 

Current Action: The FDIC is 

proposing to renew this information 

collection. 

Request for Comment 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

this collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the FDIC’s functions, including whether 

the information has practical utility; (b) 

the accuracy of the estimate of the 

burden of the information collection, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the information collection on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

All comments will become a matter of 

public record. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices 8077 

1See FMC Petition No. P3–03, Comments of the 

United States Department of Justice on Petition of 

United Parcel Service for an Exemption Pursuant to 

Section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1984 to Permit 

Negotiation, Entry and Performance of Service 

Contracts (Oct. 10, 2003) (‘‘DOJ Comments in P3– 

03’’); Comments of the U.S. Department of Justice, 

FMC Docket No. 4–12 (Dec. 3, 2004) (‘‘DOJ 

Comments in 4–12’’); Comments of the U.S. 

Department of Justice, FMC Docket No. 05–06 (Oct. 

20, 2005) (‘‘DOJ Comments in 05–06’’). 

2See 46 U.S.C. 40501 (formerly Section 8 of the 

Shipping Act). 

3For example, the National Customs Brokers and 

Forwarders Association of America, Inc. 

(‘‘NCBFAA’’) estimates that tariff publication 

expenses can be as much as $240,000 per year. 

NCBFAA Petition at 8. See also Comments of Global 

Link Logistics at 2 (‘‘The cost to a small NVOCC to 

comply with tariff publishing requirements is a 

hardship. At GLL we spend in excess of $200,000 

annually.’’); Comments of A.N. Deringer at 2 (‘‘Our 

tariff rate publishing and management costs are an 

additional expense. The labor needed to produce 

the number of quotes, manage carrier updates, and 

keep our tariff current requires an additional 

investment of over $75,000 annually.’’); Comments 

of C.H. Robinson Worldwide at 2 (‘‘[T]he average 

cost for tariff filings per annum exceeds over 

$130,000.’’); and Comments of NACA Logistics 

(USA) at 2 (‘‘The full costs of establishing a tariff 

Web site, rate tariff publication, maintenance of 

same, internal IT development and the costs of 

personnel assigned to tariff compliance is estimated 

at $100,000 annually in resources. We feel this is 

a high cost for a system that is not utilized by the 

shipping public.’’). 

4 46 App. U.S.C. 1715 (1998). 

5An NSA is essentially a contract between an 

NVOCC and a shipper in which the shipper makes 

a commitment to provide a certain minimum 

quantity or portion of its cargo or freight revenue 

over a fixed time period, and the NVOCC commits 

to a certain rate or rate schedule and a defined 

service level. See 46 CFR 531.3(p) (2005). 

6FMC Docket No. 04–12, 69 FR 75850 (Dec. 20, 

2004). 

7See, e.g., Comments of RS Express at 1–2 (filing 

NSAs is a cumbersome process that is worthwhile 

only for major contracts). 

8 In 1998, OSRA gave VOCCs and their shipper 

customers the right to enter freely into confidential 

service contracts, without the need to publish 

commercially sensitive terms and conditions. 

VOCCs typically enter into long-term contracts with 

large shippers that routinely ship significant 

quantities of cargo. In contrast, NVOCCs enter into 

formal, long term contracts much less frequently. 

The Petition states that in 2007, VOCCs filed 43,699 

original service contracts compared to 762 original 

NSAs filed by NVOCCs for the same time period. 

NCBFAA Petition at 8. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3411 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

[Petition P1–08] 

Petition of the National Customs 

Brokers and Forwarders Association 

of America, Inc., for Exemption From 

Mandatory Tariff Publication 

Comments of the U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Christine A. Varney, Assistant Attorney 

General. 

Donna N. Kooperstein, Chief. 

William H. Stallings, Assistant Chief. 

Molly S. Boast, Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General. 

Michele B. Cano, Attorney. 

Oliver M. Richard, Assistant Chief. 

John R. Sawyer, Economist, Economic 

Analysis Group. 

U.S. Department of Justice, 

Antitrust Division, 

Transportation, Energy & Agriculture 

Section, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: February 5, 2010. 

Comments 

The United States Department of 

Justice (‘‘Department’’) files these 

comments in support of the petition of 

the National Customs Brokers and 

Forwarders Association of America, Inc. 

(‘‘the Petition’’) requesting an exemption 

for non-vessel-operating common 

carriers (‘‘NVOCCs’’) from certain tariff 

publishing and enforcement 

requirements. NVOCC tariff publishing 

requirements impose significant costs 

that limit competition, resulting in 

higher shipping rates. These costs far 

outweigh any justification. The 

Department has long supported 

exempting NVOCCs from all tariffpublishing requirements to produce the 

greatest competitive benefits.1 Granting 

the relief requested by the Petition 

would represent a meaningful step in 

that direction by reducing unnecessary 

burden and enhancing competition. 

A. NVOCC Tariff-Publishing 

Requirements 

Many shippers of overseas cargo, 

particularly smaller ones, book 

shipments through NVOCCs instead of 

contracting directly with the operators 

of ocean-going vessels (‘‘vessel-operating 

common carriers’’ or ‘‘VOCCs’’). NVOCCs 

provide a variety of services for their 

shipper customers. By negotiating 

service contracts with VOCCs for the 

aggregated volume of their shipper 

customers’ cargoes, NVOCCs can obtain 

better rates than individual shippers 

could obtain on their own. In addition, 

many NVOCCs provide intermodal 

combinations of ocean and inland 

transportation services. Some add still 

other services to their transportation 

packages, such as packing, loading, 

labeling, warehousing, customs 

clearance, supply-chain management 

and other logistical services. 

The Shipping Act of 1984 requires 

that each common carrier, including 

NVOCCs, publish tariffs showing all 

‘‘rates, charges, classifications, rules, 

and practices between all points or 

ports.’’ 2 Tariffs must be published for all 

rates that are charged shippers 

regardless of whether the particular rate 

has been individually negotiated and, in 

addition to detailing the rates to be 

charged, must provide information 

about the places between which cargo 

will be carried, each classification of 

cargo in use, any rules that affect the 

total of the rates or applicable charges, 

and samples of contracts and bills of 

lading. The Act provides for substantial 

fines for each instance of noncompliance. 

Tariff publishing requirements place a 

particularly high burden on NVOCCs 

due to the nature of their business. As 

explained in multiple comments filed in 

this proceeding, NVOCCs typically 

handle small to mid-size shipments on 

a spot basis rather than through longterm contracts. Shippers routinely 

contact NVOCCs to negotiate rate quotes 

to move a particular shipment at a 

specific time. NVOCCs in turn deal with 

multiple VOCCs to provide the actual 

transportation, and the VOCCs 

frequently adjust rates and surcharges 

they impose on the NVOCCs. As a 

result, NVOCCs typically tailor their 

charged rates to the specific 

circumstances of each shipment and, 

accordingly, must make frequent tariff 

filings and adjustments to meet the 

regulatory requirements. This is a costly 

and burdensome process.3

The Federal Maritime Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has issued rule changes 

in which it has used its exemption 

authority under § 16 of the 1984 

Shipping Act, later broadened by the 

Ocean Shipping Reform Act (‘‘OSRA’’),4

to relieve NVOCCs from certain tariff 

publication requirements. Most notably, 

the Commission has exempted from full 

tariff-publishing requirements certain 

formal written contracts between 

NVOCCs and shippers (‘‘NVOCC Service 

Arrangements’’ or ‘‘NSAs’’).5 The rule 

allows the contracting parties to keep 

competitively sensitive aspects of the 

agreement (such as price and quantity) 

confidential. However, NVOCCs still 

have to file the agreements with the 

Commission and publish their essential 

terms in tariff form.6 This raises the 

same cost and burden issues NVOCCs 

face under the general tariff publishing 

rules.7 NSAs are not widely used.8

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES