Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 52345 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.1D, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

proposed rule is categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

Regulations 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued 

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 

Stat. 5039. 

2. In § 117.451, paragraphs (c), (d), 

and (e) are redesignated paragraphs (d), 

(e), and (f) and a new paragraph (c) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 117.451 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 

* * * * * 

(c) The draw of the SR 1 (West Larose) 

Bridge, mile 35.6 west of Harvey Lock, 

at Larose, shall open on signal; except 

that, from August 15 through May 31, 

the draw need not open for the passage 

of vessels Monday through Friday 

except Federal holidays from 7 a.m. to 

8 a.m.; from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.; and from 

4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

Kevin L. Marshall, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist. 

[FR Doc. 05–17510 Filed 9–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

46 CFR Part 531 

[Docket No. 05–06] 

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier 

Service Arrangements 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime 

Commission is requesting comments on 

possible changes to its exemption for 

non-vessel-operating common carriers 

(NVOCCs) from certain tariff publication 

requirements of the Shipping Act of 

1984. 

DATES: Submit original and 15 copies of 

comments (paper), or e-mail comments 

as an attachment in WordPerfect 10, 

Microsoft Word 2003, or earlier versions 

of these applications, no later than 

October 6, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to: 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, Federal 

Maritime Commission, 800 North 

Capitol Street, NW., Room 1046, 

Washington, DC 20573–0001. 

Secretary@fmc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy W. Larson, General Counsel, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 800 N. 

Capitol St., NW., Washington, DC 

20573–0001. (202) 523–5740. 

generalcounsel@fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 19, 2005, a final rule of the 

Federal Maritime Commission (‘‘FMC’’

or ‘‘Commission’’) exempting nonvessel-operating common carriers 

(‘‘NVOCCs’’) from certain tariff 

publication requirements of the 

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

became effective. 69 FR 75850 

(December 20, 2004). The rule was 

issued pursuant to the Commission’s 

authority under section 16 of the 

Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. app. 1715. The 

exemption enables individual NVOCCs 

to offer NVOCC Service Arrangements 

(‘‘NSAs’’) to NSA shippers, provided 

that such NSAs are filed with the 

Commission and their essential terms 

are published in the NVOCC’s tariff. The 

rule defines an NSA as ‘‘a written 

contract, other than a bill of lading or 

receipt, between one or more NSA 

shippers and an individual NVOCC in 

which the NSA 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.’’ 46 CFR 531.3(p). 

Since the publication of the proposal 

that led to the final NSA rule, the 

52346 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Commission has heard from participants 

in the NVOCC industry that it would be 

useful if the exemption permitted NSAs 

to be jointly offered by unaffiliated 

NVOCCs. At its meeting of August 3, 

2005, the Commission determined that 

it would seek further comment on the 

issue. The Commission now seeks 

comment on the following specific 

questions: 

1. In what manner could two or more 

unaffiliated NVOCCs jointly offer NSAs? 

Would two or more NVOCCs use a 

single document to offer their services 

as carriers to other NVOCCs acting as 

shippers? Would two or more NVOCCs 

offer identical services or rates in 

separately-filed NSAs? Are there other 

possibilities? 

2. How would rates and defined 

service levels for such jointly offered 

NSAs be determined? 

3. Would unaffiliated NVOCCs jointly 

offering NSAs keep the terms of such 

NSAs confidential from nonparticipating NVOCCs? From other 

shippers (including NVOCCs)? 

4. How would such an exemption 

meet the statutory requirements of 

section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1984? 

Would such an exemption cause a 

substantial reduction in: 

• Competition among NVOCCs; 

• Competition between NVOCCS and 

vessel-operating common carriers 

(VOCCs); 

• Competition among beneficial cargo 

owners; and 

• Other competition? 

5. Would such an exemption cause 

detriment to commerce by any general 

or specific adverse economic impacts on 

the carriage of cargo in the U.S.-foreign 

trade or U.S. commerce generally? 

6. What might be the benefits or harm 

to beneficial cargo owners of jointlyoffered NSAs? 

7. Do any issues with regard to 

NVOCC financial responsibility arise 

stemming from jointly-offered NSAs? 

For example, should a joint bond or 

higher individual bond be required for 

NVOCCs that jointly offer NSAs? If so, 

how should the amount be determined? 

8. Would there likely be any specific 

benefits or harm to small NVOCCs if 

jointly offered NSAs were permitted? 

9. If jointly offered NSAs are allowed, 

should there be limits on the number (or 

combined market share) of the NVOCCs 

participating in a single joint NSA? If so, 

how should the relevant market be 

defined? Should the Commission or the 

parties determine the market share? 

Should NVOCCs be required to obtain 

Department of Justice business review 

letters prior to offering jointly offered 

NSAs? 

10. What would be the likely impact, 

if any, of joint NSAs on individual rates 

offered by the participating NVOCCs in 

the same trade? In other trades? 

11. Should the contract details which 

must be made publicly available 

(‘‘essential terms’’) be more extensive 

for jointly offered NSAs than for other 

NSAs? For example, should the 

Commission require that the identities 

of each of the NVOCC carrier parties to 

the jointly offered NSA be made public? 

12. Are there any additional 

procedures (e.g., registration, reporting, 

monitoring, measuring) that should be 

considered to ensure that each jointlyoffered NSA does not result in a 

substantial reduction in competition or 

detriment to commerce? 

13. Should the Commission require 

some type of notification to the VOCC 

carrying the cargo moving under a 

jointly offered NSA? If so, describe what 

form such notification should take and 

when it should be required. 

14. How would bills of lading be 

issued for cargo moving under a joint 

NSA? 

15. Please describe any other matters 

that may be relevant to the 

Commission’s consideration of this 

issue. 

In order best to facilitate the 

Commission’s consideration of the 

issues raised in this Notice of Inquiry, 

commenters should provide detailed 

responses, and should supply examples 

whenever feasible. 

By the Commission. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–17555 Filed 9–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 697 

[Docket No. 0104130930–5226–03; I.D. 

032301C] 

RIN 0648–AP18 

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative 

Management Act Provisions; American 

Lobster Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes new and 

revised Federal American lobster 

(Homarus americanus) regulations in 

response to recommendations by the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (Commission) in Addenda 

II and III to Amendment 3 of the 

Interstate Fishery Management Plan for 

American Lobster (ISFMP). The 

proposed lobster management measures 

are intended to increase protection to 

American lobster broodstock throughout 

the stock’s range, and would apply to 

lobsters harvested in one or more of 

seven Lobster Conservation 

Management Areas (LCMA). In addition, 

NMFS proposes measures that would 

clarify existing Federal lobster 

regulations. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time on or before October 17, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to Harold C. Mears, Director, 

State, Federal, and Constituent 

Programs Office, Northeast Region, 

NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside 

of the envelope ‘‘American Lobster 

Proposed Rule Comments.’’ Comments 

may be sent via email at 

Lob0305@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line ‘‘American Lobster 

Proposed Rule Comments.’’ Comments 

may also be sent via fax (978) 281–9117, 

or via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

at www.regulations.gov. 

Copies of the American lobster 

proposed rule, its Draft Environmental 

Assessment/Initial Regulatory Impact 

Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (DEA/IRIR/IRFA) are available 

from Harold Mears, Director, State, 

Federal and Constituent Programs 

Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Ross, NMFS, Northeast Region, 

(978) 281–9234, fax (978) 281–9117. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Statutory Authority 

These proposed regulations would 

modify Federal lobster conservation 

management measures in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) under the 

authority of section 803(b) of the 

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative 

Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), 

16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., which states that, 

in the absence of an approved and 

implemented Fishery Management Plan 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) and, after consultation with the 

appropriate Fishery Management 

Council(s), the Secretary of Commerce 

may implement regulations to govern