[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52345-52346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17555]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d1e282e3f28392c3f340d2b202e632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5506303627302134272c153338367b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>.

For further information contact: Amy W. Larson, General Counsel, 
Federal Maritime Commission, 800 N. Capitol St., NW., Washington, DC 
20573-0001. (202) 523-5740. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7116141f1403101d121e041f02141d31171c125f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a5d5f545f485b5659554f54495f567a5c5759145d554c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 19, 2005, a final rule of the 
Federal Maritime Commission (``FMC'' or ``Commission'') exempting non-
vessel-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

[[Page 52346]]

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 non-participating 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:
    <bullet> Competition among NVOCCs;
    <bullet> Competition between NVOCCS and vessel-operating common 
carriers (VOCCs);
    <bullet> Competition among beneficial cargo owners; and
    <bullet> 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 
jointly-offered 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 jointly-offered 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>