Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33479

development of regulatory policies that

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies

that have federalism implications’’ is

defined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that have

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.’’ This final rule

directly regulates growers, food

processors, food handlers and food

retailers, not States. This action does not

alter the relationships or distribution of

power and responsibilities established

by Congress in the preemption

provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4).

VIII. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of this final

rule in the Federal Register. This final

rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by

5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 10, 2000.

James Jones,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), (346a)

and 371.

2. In § 180.482, by alphabetically

adding the following entries to the table

in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows.

§ 180.482 Tebufenozide; tolerances for

residues.

*****

(a) General. (1) ***

Commodity

Parts

per million

*****

Almond hulls ..................................... 25

*****

Tree nut crop group including pistachios ........................................... 0.1

*****

[FR Doc. 00–13071 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Part 515, 545

[Docket No. 00–06]

Interpretations and Statements of

Policy Regarding Ocean

Transportation Intermediaries

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Interpretive rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime

Commission amends its regulations for

interpretive statements of policy to

interpret a section of its regulations

regarding ocean transportation

intermediaries to clarify the claim

settlement procedures.

DATES: This rule is effective June 23,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Panebianco, General Counsel,

Federal Maritime Commission, 800

North Capitol St. NW, Room 1018,

Washington, DC 20573–0001; (202) 523–

5740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

8, 1999, the Federal Maritime

Commission published a final rule and

interim final rule to add new regulations

at 46 CFR part 515 to implement

changes made by the Ocean Shipping

Reform Act of 1998 (‘‘OSRA’’), Public

Law 105–258, 112 Stat. 1902, to the

Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘Shipping Act’’),

46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq., relating to

ocean transportation intermediaries

(‘‘OTIs’’). 64 FR 11156–11183. Section

515.23(b) sets forth the claim settlement

procedure for claimants seeking to

pursue a claim against an OTI. The

Interpretive Rule seeks to clarify the

Commission’s intention with respect to

this procedure, as there have been

reported misunderstandings in the

industry as to the responsibilities

inherent in this requirement.

Section 515.23(b)(1) sets forth the

claim settlement procedures and

provides, in part, that:

If a party does not file a complaint with the

Commission pursuant to section 11 of the

Act, but otherwise seeks to pursue a claim

against an ocean transportation intermediary

bond, insurance or other surety for damages

arising from its transportation-related

activities, it shall attempt to resolve its claim

with the financial responsibility provider

prior to seeking payment on any judgment for

damages obtained.

It is the Commission’s intention that a

claimant seeking to settle a claim in

accordance with this section should

promptly provide to the financial

responsibility provider all documents

and information relating to and

supporting its claim for the purpose of

evaluating the validity and subject

matter of the claim. The information

relevant to the claim settlement

procedure includes documents such as

bills of lading, as well as the existence

of pending court claims or judgments

obtained.

In addition, the financial

responsibility provider is allowed to

evaluate the validity of the claim during

the settlement process in § 515.23(b)(1).

However, if the parties do not reach a

settlement of the claim, the financial

responsibility provider, in accordance

with section 19 of the Shipping Act, 46

U.S.C. app. 1718 (1999), and 46 CFR

515.23(b)(2), must pay on a final

judgment and may only inquire into the

extent that the damages claimed arise

from the transportation-related activities

of the OTI, under section 3(17) of the

Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. app. 1702(17).

Furthermore, if settlement of the

claim is not reached, the financial

responsibility provider may not

unilaterally reduce the amount awarded

in a final court judgment; Congress has

determined that, at that point, a

financial responsibility provider must

pay on a final judgment for damages

arising from the transportation-related

activities of the OTI, and the

Commission cannot nullify that

statutory requirement. However, the

financial responsibility provider and the

claimant are not precluded from

mutually agreeing to compromise the

amount awarded in a final judgment. In

the event that the financial

responsibility provider believes that a

judgment against its OTI bond principal

was obtained fraudulently, or that the

claim underlying the judgment is itself

fraudulent, the financial responsibility

provider is not precluded from

challenging a judgment if permitted in

the jurisdiction where it was obtained.

33480 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Relevant Federal Rules That May

Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the

New Rule.

The Commission is not aware of any

other federal rules that duplicate,

overlap, or conflict with the final

rulemaking.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 515

Exports, Freight, Freight forwarders,

Maritime carriers, Non-vessel-operating

common carriers, Ocean transportation

intermediaries, Licensing requirements,

Financial responsibility requirements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

46 CFR Part 545

Antitrust, Exports, Freight forwarders,

Maritime carriers, Non-vessel-operating

common carriers, Ocean transportation

intermediaries, Licensing requirements,

Financial responsibility requirements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the Federal Maritime

Commission amends 46 CFR chapter IV,

subchapter B, as set forth below:

PART 515—LICENSING, FINANCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS,

AND GENERAL DUTIES FOR OCEAN

TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES

1. The authority citation for part 515

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553, 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46

U.S.C. app. 1702, 1707, 1709, 1710, 1712,

1714, 1716, and 1718; Pub. L. 105–383, 112

Stat. 3411; 21 U.S.C. 862.

2. In § 515.23, revise the introductory

text to read as follows:

§ 515.23 Claims against an ocean

transportation intermediary.

The Commission or another party may

seek payment from the bond, insurance,

or other surety that is obtained by an

ocean transportation intermediary

pursuant to this section. (See also

§ 545.3 of this chapter.)

* * * * *

PART 545—INTERPRETATIONS AND

STATEMENTS OF POLICY

1. The authority citation for part 545

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. app.

1706, 1707, 1709, 1716, and 1718; Pub. L.

105–383, 112 Stat. 3411; 46 CFR 515.23.

2. Add § 545.3 to read as follows:

§ 545.3 Interpretation of § 515.23(b) of this

chapter—Payment pursuant to a claim

against an ocean transportation

intermediary.

A claimant seeking to settle a claim in

accordance with § 515.23(b)(1) of this

chapter should promptly provide to the

financial responsibility provider all

documents and information relating to

and supporting its claim for the purpose

of evaluating the validity and subject

matter of the claim.

By the Commission.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–13088 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 51 and 54

[CC Docket No. 95–20, FCC 99–387]

Computer III Further Remand

Proceedings: Bell Operating Company

Provision of Enhanced Services;

Clarification

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Clarification of final rule.

SUMMARY: This document grants in part

and denies in part a petition to

reconsider the Commission’s Computer

III Remand Order, stating that the Bell

Operating Companies (BOCs) should no

longer be required to file servicespecific Comparably Efficient

Interconnection (CEI) plans for

information services that are offered on

an integrated basis through the

regulated entity and obtain approval of

those plans prior to initiating or altering

their intraLATA information services.

This document clarifies that BOCs are

obligated to post on their websites a

complete copy of all their CEI plans.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann

Stevens, Attorney, Common Carrier

Bureau, Policy and Program Planning

Division, (202) 418–1580. Further

information may also be obtained by

calling the Common Carrier Bureau’s

TTY number: 202–418–0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Order

adopted December 9, 1999, and released

December 17, 1999. The full text of this

Order is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th

Street, SW., Room CY–A257,

Washington, DC. The complete text also

may be obtained through the World

Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/CommonCarrier/ Orders/fcc99–

387.wp, or may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc. (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Bell Atlantic and SBC submitted

comments on July 12, 1999 and CIX and

BellSouth Corporation filed replies to

the comments to the Commission’s

request for comment on its certification.

In this present Order , the Commission

promulgates no additional final rules,

and our action does not affect the

previous analysis.

Synopsis of Order on Reconsideration

1. In this Order, we address a petition

for reconsideration or clarification of the

Computer III Remand Order, CC Docket

No. 95–20, FCC 99–387, filed by

Commercial Internet eXchange

Association (CIX).

2. The Commission concluded in that

order that although the BOCs must

continue to comply with their CEI

obligations, they should no longer be

required to file or obtain pre-approval of

CEI plans and plan amendments before

initiating or altering their intraLATA

information services. Instead, we

required the BOCs to ‘‘post on their

publicly accessible Internet page, linked

to and searchable from the BOCs main

Internet page, their CEI plan for any new

or altered intraLATA information

service offering, and to notify the

Common Carrier Bureau upon such

posting.

3. CIX filed a petition for

reconsideration or clarification of two

aspects of two aspects of the Computer

III Report and Order, 64 FR 14141 (3/24/

99). CIX first asks that the Commission

establish that incumbent LECs must

disclose in advance and via their web

sites the planned deployment of digital

subscriber line access multiplexers

(DSLAMs) on a wire-center basis, and

provide adequate prior notice on the

status of line conditioning for a given

customer or group of customers.

Information on the deployment of

broadband telecommunications, CIX

continues, should be available to all

competing information services

providers (ISPs), and should not be used

as a means to favor the incumbent’s

affiliated ISP. CIX also asks that the

Commission clarify that the BOCs are

obligated to post a complete copy of all

their CEI plans on their websites, so that

all ISPs have ready information

available concerning interconnection

with the BOC’s ‘‘last mile’’ network.