61648 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

After careful review of the

methodology that was proposed in the

NPRM and the comments received in

response to that methodology, MARAD

has concluded that the current rule, as

well as the amendments that it proposed

to that rule, cannot adequately apply to

liner vessels the methodology used in

determining guideline rates for bulk

vessels due to the fundamental

difference between bulk and liner

vessels. MARAD’s basic assumption that

large liner cargo parcels take on

significant aspects of bulk shipment was

not supported by the comments. Several

commenters pointed out that even when

large parcels are carried to the same

country or area, the cargo discharging is

typically done at numerous ports in the

region, subjecting the liner operators to

much greater risk of delays than bulk

operators, which typically unload in

one or two ports. In addition, voyages in

the liner preference trades typically

involve multiple shippers and receivers,

each with their own shipment terms.

MARAD believes that expansion of the

scope of part 383, which addresses lessthan-shipload lots of bulk preference

cargo on liner vessels, is not appropriate

at this time and that it would be more

fitting to remove the entire part. This

conclusion is supported by the fact that

the rule has not been utilized since

1995, and that, with the sharp decline

in the number of U.S.-flag general cargo

vessels operating in liner services, it is

very unlikely that any future preference

cargoes will fall within the purview of

the regulations contained therein. In the

absence of a regulation, MARAD can

make an ad hoc determination, if such

a shipment is made in the future, under

its general authority to administer the

cargo preference laws of the United

States.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review); Department of

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory

Policies Procedures; Pub. L. 104–121.

This rulemaking has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866 and

Department of Transportation

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979). It is not

considered to be an economically

significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, since it has

been determined that it is not likely to

result in a rule that may have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million

or more or adversely affect in a material

way the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities. It

is not considered to be a significant rule

under the Department’s Regulatory

Policies and Procedures.

MARAD has determined that this

rulemaking presents no substantive

issue which it could reasonably expect

would produce meaningful public

comment since it is merely removing a

rule that is obsolete, the retention of

which could serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553

(c) and (d), the Administrative

Procedure Act, MARAD finds that good

cause exists to publish this as a final

rule, without opportunity for public

comment, and to make it effective in

less than thirty days after the date of

publication.

This rule has not been reviewed by

the Office Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866.

Federalism

The Maritime Administration has

analyzed this rulemaking in accordance

with the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612,

and has determined that it does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Maritime Administration certifies

that this rulemaking will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

since MARAD has historically

calculated guidline rates for only three

operators in the liner trade.

Environmental Assessement

The Maritime Administration has

considered the environmental impact of

this rulemaking and has concluded that

an environmental impact statement is

not required under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rulemaking contains no reporting

requirement that is subject to OMB

approval under 5 CFR part 1320,

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

This rule does not impose any

unfunded mandates or requirements

that will have an impact on the quality

of the human environment.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR part 383

Agricultural commodities, Cargo

vessels, Government procurement,

Grant programs—foreign relations, Loan

programs—foreign relations, Water

transportation.

Accordingly, 46 CFR part 383 is

hereby removed and reserved.

By Order of the Acting Maritime

Administrator.

Dated: November 14, 1997.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–30370 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Part 586

[Docket No. 96–20]

Port Restrictions and Requirements in

the United States/Japan Trade

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; suspension of

effectiveness.

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime

Commission is suspending the

effectiveness of its final rule assessing

fees on liner vessels operated by

Japanese carriers, in light of agreements

reached between the United States

Government and the Government of

Japan, and among affected commercial

parties and the Government of Japan,

addressing restrictive and unfavorable

conditions affecting U.S. shipping in

Japanese ports.

DATES: Effective November 13, 1997, 46

CFR 586.2 as published at 62 FR 9696,

March 4, 1997, and amended at 62 FR

18532, April 16, 1997, is suspended.

ADDRESSES: Filings and requests for

publicly available information should

be addressed to: Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary, Federal Maritime

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20573, (202)

523–5725.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Panebianco, General Counsel,

Federal Maritime Commission, 800

North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20573, (202) 523–5740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 26, 1997 (62 FR 9696, March

4, 1997), the Commission issued a final

rule pursuant to section 19(1)(b) of the

Merchant Marine Act, 1920, 46 U.S.C.

app. 876(1)(b), to assess per-voyage fees

on Japanese liner carriers, in response to

unfavorable conditions facing U.S.

shipping in Japanese ports. On April 13,

1997 (62 FR 18533, April 16, 1997), the

Commission postponed the effective

date of the final rule (originally set for

April 14, 1997) until September 4, 1997,

to allow the Government of Japan and

affected parties further opportunity to

craft appropriate plans for addressing

the unfavorable conditions identified in

the final rule. On September 4, 1997, the

Commission, having been presented
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61649

1See 47 CFR part 68. For a history of part 68, see

Proposals for New or Revised Classes of Interstate

and Foreign Message Toll Telephone Service

(‘‘MTS’’) and Wide Area Telephone Service

(‘‘WATS’’); Revision of part 68 of the Commission’s

rules to Specify Standard Plugs and Jacks for the

Connection of Telephone Equipment to the

Nationwide Telephone Network; and Amendment

of Part 68 of the Commission’s rules (Telephone

Equipment Registration) to Specify Standards for

and Means of Connection of Telephone Equipment

to Lamp and/or Annunciator Functions of Systems,

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 70 FCC 2d 1800

(1979), 45 FR 20841, Mar. 31, 1980.

with no evidence of meaningful reforms

to Japanese port conditions, took no

action to prevent the rule from

becoming effective.

Over the last several months, and

particularly in recent weeks, U.S. and

Japanese Government negotiators have

worked assiduously to craft agreements

and reform plans to remedy the

unfavorable conditions that prompted

the Commission’s final rule. On October

27, 1997, it came to the Commission’s

attention that these negotiators had

come to terms on certain documents

which, upon ratification, would

constitute a comprehensive agreement

to reform Japanese port practices. Based

on this positive development, the

Commission entered into a consent

order with the Japanese shipping lines,

accepting a compromise payment of

$1.5 million in full satisfaction of the $4

million owed (and overdue) for the

month of September, and agreed to take

no further action in this matter while

the ratification of the agreements were

pending.

On November 10, 1997, Chairman

Creel received a letter from Under

Secretary of State for Economic,

Business, and Agricultural Affairs Stuart

E. Eizenstat and Acting Maritime

Administrator John Graykowski,

conveying final signed copies of

correspondence between Secretary of

State Madeleine K. Albright and

Ambassador Kunihiko Saito reflecting

the arrangements reached by the U.S.

and Japan delegations during the talks.

Mr. Eizenstat and Mr. Graykowski stated

that ‘‘this package represents a

reasonable basis to recommend that the

Commission compromise all the

remaining assessments under Docket

No. 96–20 for October and November

and suspend further assessments and

the requirement for Japanese carriers to

report further vessel calls.’’ Attached to

Ambassador Saito’s letter were copies of

two agreements among the Government

of Japan and commercial interests

regarding the system of prior

consultation.

The Commission is persuaded that the

arrangements reflected in these

documents represent a significant step

in the process of remedying unfavorable

Japanese port conditions. While the

Commission’s ultimate concern is the

improvement of actual shoreside

practices and policies, in this case—

where the issues are complex and the

affected interests are several—the

crafting and achievement of consensus

on workable reform plans is a vital and

commendable part of the process. The

agreed-upon plans address in substance

all of the unfavorable conditions

identified in the Commission’s final

rule, covering both the issues of

licensing of port transportation business

operations and the system of prior

consultation. With regard to the latter,

relevant parties have agreed on reform

of the existing system and the creation

of an alternative process of prior

consultations. We expect that these

changes, when fully implemented, will

remedy those unfavorable conditions

identified in the final rule.

Accordingly, the Commission is now

suspending the effectiveness of the final

rule. This action has the effect of

ceasing both the assessment of fees on

Japanese carriers and the requirement

that they report vessel calls.

The Commission expects that it will

collect information periodically in the

normal course to remain apprised of

changes in port conditions resulting

from implementation of the Agreements.

However, we would note that the

arrangements reached by U.S. and

Japanese negotiators include provisions

for consultation. It is our hope that,

should any disputes or problems arise

in the implementation of these

agreements, they can appropriately be

addressed through diplomatic and

consultative mechanisms. To encourage

such a process, if a complaint relating

to matters contained in this docket is

lodged with the Commission at any time

by interested persons, the Commission

immediately will notify the Secretary of

State of such complaint, and will

request the Secretary of State to seek

resolution of the outstanding matters

through diplomatic channels. At the

same time, however, the Commission

retains its authority to take further

action, should it become necessary to do

so.

Therefore, it is ordered, That 46 CFR

586.2 as published March 4, 1997 (62

FR 9696), and amended by the

Commission April 16, 1997 (62 FR

18532) is hereby suspended.

By the Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–30277 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 68

[CC Docket No. 96–28; FCC 97–270]

Connection of Customer-Provided

Terminal Equipment to the Telephone

Network

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On August 22, 1997, the

Commission released a report and order

adopting final rules to amend the

Commissions rules, which govern the

terms and conditions under which

customer-provided terminal equipment

may be connected to the telephone

network without causing harm to the

public switched network. As a result of

the amendments, manufacturers will be

able to test terminal equipment for

compliance with a single, consistent set

of technical standards accepted in both

the United States and Canada. The

harmonization of terminal attachment

rules in the United States and Canada

will be a model for our harmonization

efforts with other countries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical Information: William

VonAlven, (202) 418–2342 or email at

wvonalen@fcc.gov.

Legal Information: Marian Gordon,

(202) 418–2320 or email at

mgordon@fcc.gov. The address for both

is: Network Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission, 2000 M

Street, NW, Suite 235, Washington, DC

20054. The fax number is: (202) 418–

2345. The TTY number is: (202) 418–

0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

1. In this Report and Order (‘‘Order’’),

we adopt final rules to amend part 68

of the Commission’s rules, which

governs the terms and conditions under

which customer-provided terminal

equipment may be connected to the

telephone network without causing

harm to the network.1 The amendments

we adopt herein are designed to

harmonize United States and Canadian

requirements governing connection of

terminal equipment to the public

switched network (‘‘PSN’’) and to

promote barrier-free trade between

Canada and the United States, in

keeping with the spirit of the North

American Free Trade Agreement