18532 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 185

Environmental protection, Food

additives, Pesticides and pests.

40 CFR Part 186

Environmental protection, Animal

feeds, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: April 4, 1997.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. In part 180:

a. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

b. Section 180.431 is amended as

follows:

i. In paragraph (a) by revising the

introductory text, and adding new

entries to the table.

ii. In paragraph (b) by removing the

text, and adding a paragraph heading.

iii. In paragraph (c) by the

redesignating the text as paragraph (b),

by adding a new paragraph heading, and

by reserving it.

iv. By adding paragraph (d) with a

paragraph heading only and reserving it.

§ 180.431 Clopyralid; tolerances for

residues.

(a) General. Tolerances are

established for combined residues of the

herbicide clopyralid (3,6-dichloro-2-

pyridinecarboxylic acid) in or on the

following commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

* * * * *

Corn, field, fodder ..................... 10.0

Corn, field, forage ..................... 3.0

Corn, field, grain ....................... 1.0

Corn, field, milling fractions ...... 1.5

* * * * *

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.

* * *

(c) Tolerances with regional

registrations. [Reserved]

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.

[Reserved]

PART 185—[AMENDED]

2. In part 185:

a. The authority citation for part 185

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 348.

§ 185.1100 [Removed]

b. By removing § 185.1100 Clopyralid.

PART 186—[AMENDED]

3. In part 186:

a. The authority citation for part 186

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342, 348 and 701.

§ 186.1100 [Removed]

b. By removing § 186.1100 Clopyralid.

[FR Doc. 97–9372 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

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: Amendment to final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime

Commission is amending the final rule

in this proceeding to provide that fees

shall not be assessed on vessels for

which fees have been assessed within

the preceding seven days, or in the case

of vessels calling at ports in Hawaii,

within the preceding forty days.

DATES: Effective Date: April 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests for publicly

available information or additional

filings 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 March

4, 1997, the Commission published a

final rule in this proceeding assessing

per-voyage fees, effective April 14, on

Japanese liner carriers in response to

restrictive and unfavorable requirements

for the use of Japanese ports (62 FR

9696). On April 4, 1997, Nippon Yusen

Kaisha (NYK), one of the three Japanese

carriers subject to the imposition of fees,

submitted a ‘‘Request for Clarification’’

of the final rule to the Commission’s

General Counsel. In its request, NYK

urges that the Commission make certain

modifications to the final rule with

regard to the assessment of fees. The

request will therefore be treated as a

petition for amendment of the Final

Rule.

NYK’s request centers on the

application of the final rule as written

to two particular NYK trans-Pacific

service strings. The final rule, 46 CFR

586.2, states:

(c) Assessment of fees. A fee of one

hundred thousand dollars is assessed each

time a designated vessel is entered in any

port of the United States from any foreign

port or place.

NYK operates a weekly service with the

rotation: Japan/Taiwan/Hong Kong/Los

Angeles/Portland/Vancouver/Seattle/

Japan. Under the final rule, vessels in

this string would be subject to a

$100,000 fee first when they enter Los

Angeles from Hong Kong, then another

fee when they arrive at Seattle from

Vancouver. NYK suggests that this sort

of ‘‘double assessment’’ was not

envisaged by the Commission when it

promulgated the rule. It also states that

such double assessments could lead

NYK to drop a U.S. port from its

rotation.

NYK also offers bi-monthly sailings to

Honolulu in the following pattern: Far

East/Honolulu/Central America/

Honolulu/Far East. Under the rule, NYK

would be subject to fees on both the

eastbound and the westbound legs of

this voyage. NYK indicates that this

could cause it to drop one Hawaiian

port call from its rotation. NYK points

out that the Commission, in levying the

fee, adopted an approach designed to

‘‘eliminate the concern that the fee

could lead to lines dropping or

consolidating port calls in the U.S.’’

NYK suggests an amendment to the rule

that would be in keeping with this

intent, addressing the issues raised by

the two above-described service strings.

NYK proposed adding the following to

paragraph (c):

provided that no fee is assessed against a

designated vessel (1) if that vessel has

previously been assessed a fee under this rule

within the past ten days, or (2) for a vessel

calling in the state of Hawaii, has previously

been assessed a fee under this rule within the

past forty-five days.

The proposed amendment is in

keeping with the Commission’s

sensitivity to avoiding unnecessary

adverse effects to U.S. ports and

shippers. The proposed amendment

would prevent NYK from being

subjected to two fee assessments for one

set of west coast port calls based on its

unique service structure, heading off the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18533

possibility of an unintended impact on

service for the U.S. Pacific northwest. It

would also take into account Hawaii’s

unique position and reliance on

maritime commerce, ensuring that ports

and commerce in that state are not

disadvantaged by the rule. The

proposed exceptions are narrowly

crafted, and do not undermine the larger

objectives of the rule, that is, addressing

the restrictive and unfavorable

conditions facing U.S. commerce and

U.S. companies in Japan’s ports which

result from the laws and policies of the

Government of Japan. It does not appear

that service strings or vessel calls other

than those listed above would be

affected by this proposed language.

We would also note that, except with

regard to the two NYK services noted

above, further analysis by the

Commission since the issuance of the

final rule supports and reconfirms our

earlier finding that carriers are unlikely

to drop port calls or divert services in

response to the Commission’s fee.

Moreover, it has been widely reported

in the press that the Japanese carriers

have informed their customers that their

current services will continue without

interruption. Therefore, we would

reaffirm that the likelihood of any

undue harm to U.S. ports and shippers

from the Commission’s action appears

exceptionally low.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 586

Cargo vessels, Exports, Foreign

relations, Imports, Maritime carriers,

Penalties, Rates and fares, Tariffs.

Therefore, pursuant to section 19(1)(b)

of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, 46

U.S.C. app. 876(1)(b), as amended,

Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 75

Stat. 840, and 46 CFR part 585, part 586

of Title 46 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 586—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 586

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. app. 876(1)(b); 46

U.S.C. app. 876(5) through (12); 46 CFR Part

585; Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 26

FR 7315 (August 12, 1961).

2. In § 586.2, paragraph (c) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 586.2 Conditions unfavorable to

shipping in the United States/Japan trade.

* * * * *

(c) Assessment of fees. A fee of one

hundred thousand dollars is assessed

each time a designated vessel is entered

in any port of the United States from

any foreign port or place; provided,

however, that no fee is assessed against

a designated vessel if:

(1) That vessel has previously been

assessed a fee under this section within

the past seven days, or

(2) For a vessel calling in the state of

Hawaii, that vessel has previously been

assessed a fee under this section within

the past forty days.

* * * * *

By the Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9811 Filed 4–14–97; 1:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–W

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; delay of effective

date, requirement for reporting, and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime

Commission is delaying the effective

date of its final rule assessing fees on

liner vessels operated by Japanese

carriers, in light of recent commitments

made by the Government of Japan

addressing restrictive and unfavorable

conditions for the use of Japanese ports.

DATES: Effective April 13, 1997, delay

until September 4, 1997, the effective

date of the rules published March 4,

1997 (62 FR 9696), as amended by the

Commission April 11, 1997 in a rule to

be published April 16, l997. Status

reports and comments are due July 1,

1997, and August 5, 1997.

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 March

4, 1997, the Commission published 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 pervoyage fees on Japanese liner carriers,

effective April 14, 1997, in response to

restrictive and unfavorable requirements

for the use of Japanese ports. An

amendment to the final rule was issued

by the Commission on April 11, 1997,

providing that fees would not be

assessed twice in a seven day period (or,

for port calls in Hawaii, in a 40 day

period). In light of commitments made

by the Government of Japan in recent

bilateral talks with the United States

Government addressing the unfavorable

conditions identified in the final rule,

the Commission has decided to suspend

the effective date of the rule.

The Commission issued its final rule

after a comprehensive inquiry into

restrictions and requirements facing

U.S. carriers and U.S. commerce in

Japanese ports. The fees were deemed

necessary in light of the Commission’s

identification of a number of conditions

unfavorable to shipping warranting

action under section 19:

• Shipping lines in the Japan-U.S.

trades are not allowed to make

operational changes, major or minor,

without the permission of the Japan

Harbor Transportation Association

(‘‘JHTA’’), an association of Japanese

waterfront employers operating with the

permission of, and under the regulatory

authority and ministerial guidance of,

the Japan Ministry of Transport

(‘‘MOT’’).

• JHTA has absolute and

unappealable discretion to withhold

permission for proposed operational

changes by refusing to accept such

proposals for ‘‘prior consultation,’’ a

mandatory process of negotiations and

pre-approvals involving carriers, JHTA,

and waterfront unions.

• There are no written criteria for

JHTA’s decisions whether to permit or

disallow carrier requests for operational

changes, nor are there written

explanations given for the decisions.

• JHTA uses and has threatened to

use its prior consultation authority to

punish and disrupt the business

operations of its detractors.

• JHTA uses its authority over carrier

operations through prior consultation as

leverage to extract fees and impose

operational restrictions, such as Sunday

work limits.

• JHTA uses its prior consultation

authority to allocate work among its

member companies, by barring carriers

and consortia from freely choosing

operators and by compelling shipping