1

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Parts 531 and 532

Docket No. 17-10

RIN: 3072-AC68

Amendments to Regulations Governing NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements and 

NVOCC Service Arrangements

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Availability of Finding of No 

Significant Impact.

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) proposes to amend its 

rules governing Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) Negotiated Rate 

Arrangements and NVOCC Service Arrangements. The proposed rule is intended to modernize, 

update, and reduce regulatory burdens.

DATES: Submit comments on or before January 29, 2018.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Commission is also seeking 

comment on revisions to two information collections. See the Paperwork Reduction Act section 

under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices below. Please submit all comments relating to the 

revised information collection requirements to the FMC and to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) at the address listed below under ADDRESSES on or before January 29, 2018. 

Comments to OMB are most useful if submitted within 30 days of publication.

Petitions for review of the Commission’s finding of no significant impact (FONSI) under 

NEPA must be submitted on or before December 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and petitions for review of the FONSI, 

identified by the Docket No. 17-10 by the following methods:

Issued: November 29, 2017
2

 • Email: secretary@fmc.gov. For comments, include in the subject line: “Docket 17-10,

Comments on Proposed NSA/NRA Regulations.” For petitions for review of the FONSI, include 

in the subject line: “Docket 17-10, Petition for Review of FONSI.” Comments and petitions for 

review should be attached to the email as a Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF document. 

Only non-confidential and public versions of confidential comments and petitions should be 

submitted by email.

 • Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20573–0001.

Comments regarding the proposed revisions to the relevant information collections should 

be submitted to the FMC through one of the preceding methods and a copy should also be sent to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for Federal Maritime Commission, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by 

Fax: (202) 395-5167; or by e-mail: OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments, including requesting 

confidential treatment of comments, and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the 

Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that 

all comments received will be posted without change to the Commission’s website, unless the 

commenter has requested confidential treatment.

 Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go 

to the Commission’s Electronic Reading Room at: http://www.fmc.gov/17-10, or to the Docket 

Activity Library at 800 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20573, between 9:00 a.m. to 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: (202) 523-5725. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding submitting comments

or petitions for review of the FONSI, or the treatment of confidential information, contact Rachel 
3

E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary. Phone: (202) 523-5725. Email: secretary@fmc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact Florence A. Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis. Phone: (202) 523-5796. 

Email: tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. For legal questions, contact Tyler J. Wood, General Counsel. 

Phone: (202) 523-5740. Email: generalcounsel@fmc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Background

A. NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs)

B. NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRAs)

C. NCBFAA Petition for Rulemaking and Overview of Comments

III. The Commission’s Proposed Rule

A. Overview

B. Remove the NSA Filing and Publication Requirements 

C. Authorize Amendments of NRAs and Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking

IV. Public Participation

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Executive Summary

The Commission proposes to amend its rules at 46 CFR Part 531 governing NVOCC 

Service Arrangements to remove the NSA filing and publication requirements. The Commission 

also proposes to amend its rules at 46 CFR Part 532 to permit NRAs to be modified at any time. 

In addition, an NVOCC may provide for the shipper’s acceptance of the NRA by booking a 

shipment thereunder, subject to the NVOCC incorporating a prominent written notice to such 

effect in each NRA or amendment.

II. Background
4

The Shipping Act of 1984 (the Shipping Act or the Act) expanded the options for pricing 

liner services by introducing the concept of carriage under service contracts filed with the 

Commission. Pub. L. No. 98-237, § 8(c). Liner services could be priced via negotiated contracts

between ocean common carriers and their shipper customers, rather than solely by public tariffs.

Per the Shipping Act and FMC regulations, ocean freight rates, surcharges, and accessorial 

charges had to be published in tariffs or agreed to via a service contract filed with the 

Commission. Contemporaneous with the filing of service contracts, ocean carriers were required 

to make publicly available a statement of essential terms in tariff format.

The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (OSRA) amended the Shipping Act of 1984 as it 

related to service contracts. Pub. L. No. 105-258, § 106. No longer did contract rates need to be 

published in the tariff publication, and the essential terms publication was limited to: origin and 

destination port ranges, commodities, minimum volume or portion, and duration. Nevertheless, 

though the Shipping Act and its amendments provided for more efficiency and flexibility for 

ocean common carriers through the use of service contracts, similar relief was not extended to 

NVOCCs, which were still required to publish tariffs and adhere to those tariffs when transporting 

cargo. 

A. NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs)

In 2003, NCBFAA filed a petition to seek exemption from some of the tariff requirements 

of the Shipping Act of 1984. See Docket No. P5-03, Petition of the National Customs Brokers and 

Forwarders Association of America. Inc. for Limited Exemption of Certain Tariff Requirements of 

the Shipping Act of 1984. In response, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) in which it determined that it had the statutory authority to exempt NVOCCs from the 

provisions of the Shipping Act, subject to certain conditions. 69 FR 63981, 63985. (Nov. 3, 2004). 

The Commission distinguished itself from other agencies who, pursuant to the findings in Maislin 
5

Industries, U.S. Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116, 126 (1990) and MCI 

Telecommunications Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994) had lacked 

exemption authority. 69 FR at 63985. The Commission determined that in order to ensure there 

was no substantial reduction in competition among NVOCCs, the exemption had to be available to 

all NVOCCs compliant with both section 19 of the Shipping Act and the conditions of the 

exemption. Id. The Commission proposed that “the exemption be conditioned on the same 

statutory and regulatory requirements and protections applicable to VOCCs’ service contracts: 

namely, filing of executed agreements; publication of essential terms of those agreements; and 

confidential treatment, similar to that set forth in 46 CFR part 530.” 69 FR at 63986. The 

Commission also proposed the required publication of the essential terms of all NSAs in 

automated systems and the confidential filing of the text of those NSAs with the Commission. 69 

FR at 63987. The Commission further proposed “making applicable to carriage under an NSA, 

those provisions of the Shipping Act that would be applicable to service contracts.” Id. The 

Commission’s final rule provided a limited exemption, Non-Vessel Operating Service 

Arrangements (“NSAs”), similar to service contracts, with required filing and publication 

requirements. (46 C.F.R. Part 531) Non-Vessel Operating Service Arrangements, 69 FR 75850 

(Dec. 20, 2004). To “ensure that the exemption as proposed [would] not result in a substantial 

reduction in competition,” the Commission limited the exemption to individual NVOCCs acting in 

their capacity as carriers. 69 FR at 75851. The Commission also decided to allow affiliated 

NVOCCs to jointly offer NSAs. 69 FR at 75852.

B. NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRAs)

In 2008, the NCBFAA filed another petition with the Commission. This petition sought an 

exemption from mandatory rate tariff publication. See Docket No. P1-08, Petition of the National 

Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America. Inc. for Exemption from Mandatory 
6

Rate Tariff Publication (filed July 31, 2008). The proposal sought to exempt from the provisions 

of the Shipping Act of 1984 the requirement for NVOCCs to publish and/or adhere to rate tariffs 

“in those instances where they have individually negotiated rates with their shipping customers 

and memorialized those rates in writing.” NCBFAA Petition in Docket No. P1-08, at 10. 

By Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") issued May 7, 2010, the Commission 

proposed that the use of NRAs would be allowed, subject to conditions, including (1) a 

requirement for NVOCCs to continue publishing standard rules tariffs with contractual terms and 

conditions governing shipments, including any accessorial charges and surcharges, (2) a 

requirement to make available NVOCC rules tariffs to shippers free of charge; (3) a requirement 

that NRA rates must be mutually agreed to and memorialized in writing by the date the cargo is 

received for shipment; and (4) a requirement that NVOCCs who use NRAs must retain, and make 

available upon request to the Commission, documentation confirming the terms, and agreed rate, 

for each shipment for a period of five years. NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements, 75 FR 

25150, 25154. (May 7, 2010). In the NPRM, the Commission also determined that under Section 

16 of the Shipping Act the exemption could be granted as doing so "would not result in substantial 

reduction in competition or be detrimental to commerce." 75 FR at 25153. 

The Commission subsequently granted the exemption, relieving NVOCCs from the burden 

and costs of tariff rate publication when using this new class of carrier rate arrangements. NVOCC 

Negotiated Rate Arrangements, 76 FR 11351 (Mar.2, 2011) (2011 NRA Final Rule). In 

determining whether to grant the exemption the Commission considered: competition among 

NVOCCs; competition between NVOCCs and VOCCs; among VOCCs; as well as competition 

among shippers. 76 FR at 11352. The Commission determined that granting the exemption would 

not result in a substantial reduction in competition in any of the above categories. 76 FR at 11352-

11353. Analyzing whether granting the exemption would be detrimental to commerce, the 
7

Commission determined that such NRAs would be beneficial to commerce because the exemption 

would “reduce NVOCC operating costs and increase competition in the U.S. trades.” 76 FR at 

11353. The Commission also determined that “NVOCCs entering into NRAs continue to be 

subject to the applicable requirements and strictures of the Shipping Act, including oversight by 

the Commission.” 76 FR at 11354. 

As a condition to offering NRAs, NVOCCs were required to provide their rules tariffs to 

the public free of charge. 76 FR at 11358. The Commission also determined not to allow for 

amendment of an NRA after receipt of the cargo by the carrier or its agent. Id. Consistent with the 

Petition’s focus upon negotiated rates only, the Commission determined not to permit NRAs to 

include non-rate economic terms, such as rate methodology, credit and payment terms, forum 

selection or arbitration clauses, or minimum quantities. 76 FR at 11355.

C. NCBFAA Petition for Rulemaking and Overview of Comments

NCBFAA petitioned the FMC on April 16, 2015, to initiate a rulemaking to eliminate the 

NSA provisions in 46 CFR Part 531 in their entirety, or alternatively, eliminate the filing and 

essential terms publication requirements for NSAs. Consolidated with that request, NCBFAA also 

asked the Commission to expand the NRA exemption in 46 CFR Part 532 to include economic 

terms beyond rates, and to delete 46 CFR 532.5(e) that precludes any amendment or modification 

of an NRA. 

On April 28, 2015, the Commission published a Notice of Filing and Request for 

Comments. 80 FR 23549 (Apr. 28. 2015). Comments were received from Mainfreight, Inc. 

(Mainfreight); ABS Consulting (ABS); Mohawk Global Statistics (Mohawk); Global Logistics 

Solutions (GLS); World Shipping Council (WSC); DJR Logistics, Inc. (DJR); Crowley Latin 

America Services, LLC and Crowley Caribbean Services, LLC (Crowley); New York New Jersey 

Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association, Inc. (NYNJFFF&BA); National Industrial 
8

Transportation League (NITL); CaroTrans International, Inc., (CaroTrans); Vanguard Logistics 

Services (USA), Inc., (Vanguard); Serra International, Inc., (Serra); C. H. Powell Company 

(Powell); BDG International, Inc., dba Seagull Express Lines, (BDG); John S. James Co. (James); 

and UPS Ocean Freight Services, Inc., UPS Europe SPRL, and UPS Asia Group Pte., Ltd. 

collectively submitting one comment (UPS). The comments represent a broad cross-section of 

industry stakeholders, including licensed NVOCCs and freight forwarders, a major trade 

association representing beneficial cargo owners, and vessel-operating common carriers (VOCCs). 

However, the Commission did not receive comments directly from beneficial owners of cargo 

shipped by NVOCCs under either NRAs or NSAs.

A majority of the OTI comments expressed general support for the petition. Commenters 

supported either the elimination of 46 CFR Part 531 in its entirety, or eliminating the filing and 

essential terms publication requirements for NSAs. Many supported allowing economic terms 

beyond rates in NRAs, as well as the modification of NRAs at any time, upon mutual agreement. 

The World Shipping Counsel, while not opposing the Petition, urged even-handed 

regulatory relief with respect to VOCCs as well. WSC cites prior requests that VOCCs have made 

for changes to the Commission’s regulations governing service contract amendment filings. 

WSC’s comments were supported by Crowley. 

NITL, while supporting the negotiation of economic terms between NVOCCs and 

shippers, as well as the elimination of the filing and essential terms publication requirement of 

NSAs, did not support the elimination of Part 531 in its entirety. UPS also opposed any 

restrictions upon, or the elimination of, Part 531, expressing support for the continued use of 

NSAs. 

On August 2, 2016, the Commission granted NCBFAA’s petition to “initiate a rulemaking 

with respect to the revisions discussed in the petition.” However, because the Commission was in 
9

the process of a separate rulemaking to amend portions of Part 531 related to NSAs (Docket No. 

16-05, Service Contracts and NVOCC Service Arrangements), the Commission delayed initiating 

the requested rulemaking until after the rulemaking in Docket No. 16-05 was concluded.

III. The Commission’s Proposed Rule

A. Overview

NCBFAA has proposed deleting in its entirety the NSA exemption in 46 CFR Part 531, or 

alternatively, eliminate the filing and essential terms publication requirements for NSAs. 

NCBFAA also sought to expand the NRA exemption in 46 CFR Part 532 to allow inclusion of 

economic terms beyond rates into NRAs. NCBFAA Petition at 14. NCBFAA argues that, 

whereas the NSA exemption currently benefits few NVOCCs, NVOCCs and shippers often seek 

to negotiate one-on-one on a broad range of service terms including: rate or service amendments; 

liability; minimum volumes or time/volume rates; liquidated damages; credit terms; service 

guarantees and/or service benchmarks; measurements and penalties; surcharges; GRIs or other 

pass-through charges from the carriers or ports; rate amendment processes; EDI services; and 

dispute resolution. Id. at 8. NCBFAA urges that “each of these terms are relevant to some extent 

to every rate and service negotiation between an NVOCC and an existing or prospective customer. 

Yet, none of the items on this list can properly be included in an NRA.” Id. at 9. NCBFAA 

contends that “the FMC should now look to meld the features of NSAs and NRAs into a single 

arrangement.” Id. at 13. 

Mainfreight, ABS, Powell, Mohawk, and John S. James support the elimination of 46 CFR 

Part 531. Mainfreight states that granting the petition “would eliminate a regulatory burden that, 

over time, has come to represent a significant hurdle to the profitability and sustainability of the 
10

NVOCC business model.” Mainfreight at 1.1 ABS states that the petition “clearly reflects how 

shippers negotiate and contract with NVOCC’s today and it will greatly simplify the process and 

make it easier for NVOCC’s [sic] and shippers to cooperate and eliminate burdensome and not 

needed requirements and associated costs.” ABS at 1. Powell believes that NRAs and NSAs are 

“two imperfect methods for memorializing NVOCC rates,” and supports the petition’s argument

to eliminate the NSA exemption. Powell at 1. John S. James Co. likewise supports the petition 

from the NCBFAA to eliminate NSAs and expand the use of NRAs. James at 1.

Mohawk commented that given the current limitations on NRAs, which allow no 

provisions “that cover free time, demurrage, per diem and other similar components related to the 

transport of goods,” both Mohawk and its clients had a desire for NRAs to include more terms and 

provisions. Mohawk at 2. BDG asserts that since BDG is “able to privately negotiate rates with 

our customers without publishing them in a tariff; it is difficult to understand why other economic 

terms that we also negotiate have to be treated differently and filed as NSAs.” BDG at 2.

Global and NYNJFFF&BA support either eliminating the filing of essential terms 

publication requirements of NSAs or eliminating Part 531 in its entirety. Global at 2; 

NYNJFFF&BA at 3. Global states that it has not used NRAs or NSAs and finds the provisions 

confusing. Global believes that combining NRAs and NSAs as one exemption would be more 

efficient and beneficial to “allow negotiated agreements to be fully comprehensive and cover rates 

and service arrangements.” Id. at 1. NYNJFF&BA insists that if existing restrictions on NRAs 

were removed, there would no longer be a commercial need for NSAs. NYNJFF&BA at 3.

 1 Mainfreight asserts that regulatory relief also is needed to stem a decline in the NVOCC share of the ocean freight 

business. Id. FMC review of current PIERS data for January 2014 through July 2017 indicates that NVOCC cargo as 

a share of U.S. ocean trades continues to increase overall, exceeding 50% for all U.S. import trades.
11

NITL does not support eliminating Part 531. While advocating generally for greater 

flexibility for NVOCCs in the commercial marketplace, NITL “believes that NSAs should remain 

as an option for any shippers and NVOCCs that desire the increased formality of the NSA 

requirements.” NITL at 6. 

UPS urges that NSAs be preserved regardless of any changes to the NRA regulations to 

improve flexibility of the latter. UPS at 4. UPS states that “NSAs are the only method by which 

larger-volume NVOCCs can maintain an equal playing field with the Vessel Operating Common 

Carriers (VOCCs),” id. at 3, pointing out that “many NSAs are longer term, multi-year large 

volume contracts between NVOCCs and their shipper customers, often including multiple 

affiliated companies as additional shippers or consignees, [and] often covering global trade lanes.” 

Id. at 2. Whereas NRAs “may not be the most suitable format for certain types of transactions.” 

id., UPS believes that preservation of NSAs allows pricing and service benefits “for shippers of all 

sizes, bringing the benefits of the Commission’s [NSA] exemption to the marketplace.” Id. UPS 

urges the Commission to allow the continued use of NSAs for “those NVOCCs that are now 

successfully using them, and for the benefit of their shippers.” Id. at 2.

The World Shipping Council urges that the issues raised by the NCBFAA Petition “are 

most logically and equitably considered alongside requests that vessel operating common carriers 

have made for changes to the Commission’s regulations governing service contract amendment 

filing.” WSC, at 1. WSC thus proposes that service contract amendments be permitted to be filed 

within 90 days of the filing of the underlying commercial agreement. Id. at 9. WSC asserts that 

the NCBFAA Petition provides an opportunity for the Commission to address changes to its NRA 

and NSA regulations at the same time that it considers changes to its VOCC service contract 

amendment filing regulations. Id. at 8. Crowley supports WSC’s comments, and states that the 

Commission should “initiate a rulemaking proceeding which would amend the FMC’s regulations 
12

to permit amendments to service contracts and NSAs to be filed within a specified period of time 

after the parties agree on the amendment.” Crowley, at 5.

Some commenters claim that the NSA exemption benefits few NVOCCs, citing the low 

volume of filed NSAs and higher costs and filing formalities attendant to NSAs. However, UPS’ 

description of NSAs as comprising “multi-year large-volume contracts” with its shipper 

customers, containing “hundreds or even a thousand or more individual rates” establishes a 

compelling factual parallel between the content of NSA and service contracts first anticipated by 

the Commission in creating an exemption for NSAs. Indeed, the exemption was expressly 

“conditioned on the same statutory and regulatory requirements and protections applicable to 

VOCCs’ service contracts: namely, filing of executed agreements; publication of essential terms 

of those agreements; and confidential treatment, similar to that set forth in 46 CFR part 530.” 69 

FR at 63986. 

Like service contracts, NSAs can contain non-rate economic terms, such as rate 

methodology, credit and payment terms, forum selection or arbitration clauses, or minimum 

quantities, which delineate the contractual terms and conditions binding both the carrier and 

shipper signatories. These latter provisions were excluded from application in NRAs. 76 FR at 

11355. Indeed, in the Commission’s 2011 Final Rule as to NRAs, a number of commenters therein 

insisted upon the need for a rate-based NRA exemption notwithstanding the ability of NVOCCs to 

contractually enter into NSAs. These concerns were premised largely upon the perspectives of 

their customers, shippers who “do not want or need to engage in a formal contract process.” 76 FR 

at 11353.2

 This outlook continues to hold sway today. See, e.g. DJR comments, at 1 (“We will 

 2 See also supporting attachments to NCBFAA’s seminal Petition in Docket No. P1-08, including Verified Supporting 

Statement of Anthony Kozlowski, at 2; Verified Support Statement of Edward M. Piza, at 2; Verified Supporting 

Statement of Cas Pouderoyen, at 2. As summarized by Ms. Paulette Kolba of Panalpina:
13

limit our comments to the NRA filing as we have never been able to secure a NSA from one of 

our clients. They rejected the idea stating that they did not want to be committed to a long term 

contract should our service levels fail to meet their requirements.”) Other commenters likewise 

have shared the view that the contractual formalities of NSAs are deemed too time consuming and 

burdensome, Serra at 1; Vanguard at 2; Powell at 1; and that “[c]hasing down signatures on 

amendments” had proven problematic. Mohawk at 2. 

UPS insists that elimination of NSAs would create competitive conditions unfair to those 

larger NVOCCs who have invested heavily in building up procedures and business methods for 

this type of contracting. UPS points to the success of its own efforts and focus upon marketing 

NSAs, where more than one-third of their container volume in a major US trade lane is now 

shipped under NSAs. NITL likewise echoes the commercial importance of these contractual 

distinctions between NRAs and NSAs, and urges that “NSAs should remain as an option for any 

shippers and NVOCCs that desire the increased formality of the NSA requirements.” Id. at 6.

Consistent with recent Executive Orders,3 the Commission’s mission is best fulfilled by 

recognizing and facilitating the further development of emerging business models, including the 

more contractually complex and service-oriented NSAs. Whereas NSA contracts bear service 

provisions and terms more equivalent to VOCC service contracts, that differentiation (from 

 

We realize and appreciate the ruling allowing NVOCCs to issue NSAs (NVOCC Service 

Arrangements) to our customers. NSAs, however, have proven to have limited value, especially 

to the small and medium sized companies who do not want to get involved in signing a legal 

contract. They are perfectly happy with the written quotation and rarely understand the need for 

the NSA. The main benefit of NSAs that we see is in being able to customize rates and services to 

the unique conditions of some customers.

Verified Supporting Statement of Panalpina, Inc. at 4.

3 See e.g. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Jan. 30, 2017 and 

Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (Feb. 24, 2017).
14

NRAs) was at the heart of creating an exemption for a rate-based vehicle for NVOCC shippers, 

whom the Petitioner previously described as “most of whom are LCL shippers,” 4 “who do not 

want to sign formal written contracts,” id. at 9, or just do not like the formality of NSAs, id. The 

Commission perceives little value, therefore, in mandating a narrowing of NVOCCs’ choices for 

contracting with their customers, when it appears that substantial volumes of cargo are now 

moving successfully under the NSA contract model. UPS, at 2. Rather, where those contracting 

models may be substantially improved without compromising carrier duties or conditions intended 

for the protection of the shipper, the Commission has been unafraid to consider further loosening 

of the restrictions or limitations previously established upon an exemption. The Commission is 

persuaded that it can do so here by removing unnecessary or burdensome regulatory impediments 

upon the further development of NSAs, without eliminating the NSA provisions in Part 531 in 

their entirety. 

In doing so, the Commission also re-affirms its intention, first stated in Docket No. 10-03, 

that NRAs should facilitate a new business model conducive to those NVOCCs who could not 

then, and cannot now, utilize NSAs. While some NVOCCs may wish to issue a NSA to obtain a 

volume commitment from their shipper customer, many small and medium enterprises continue to 

work on a quotation basis, without need to engage in a formal contract process. 76 FR at 11353. 

See also DJR at 1; NYNJFF&BA at 3 (NSAs are not “practical particularly for our smaller 

members when moving lower or less frequent freight volumes.”) For such NVOCCs, and their 

customers, NRAs continue to provide a lower cost, competitive niche in today’s commercial 

marketplace, made possible by a Commission-issued exemption from the otherwise-applicable 

requirements of the Shipping Act. 

 4 NCBFAA Petition in Docket No. P1-08, at 6.
15

The Commission invites further public comment, particularly from shippers currently 

using NRAs, on how expanding the NRA exemption to allow inclusion in NRAs of non-rate 

economic terms may impact their commercial business operations. Non-rate economic terms 

could include but are not limited to such terms as: service amendments; per-package liability 

limits; provision of free time, detention or demurrage charges; provisions for arbitration, dispute 

resolution or forum selection; minimum volumes or time/volume rates; liquidated damages; credit 

terms and late payment interest; service guarantees and/or service benchmarks, measurements and 

penalties; surcharges, GRIs or other pass-through charges from the carriers or ports; rate 

amendment processes; and EDI services, etc. 

B. Remove the NSA Filing and Publication Requirements

NCBFAA argues that the NSA exemption benefits few NVOCCs. As NSAs must be filed 

with the Commission, and essential terms of NSAs also need to be published in tariffs, NCBFAA 

opines that NSAs are more burdensome than regular rate tariffs. NCBFAA Petition at 7-8.

NCBFAA also argues that continuing the filing requirement for NSAs does not appear to provide 

any regulatory benefit. Id. at 12-13.

A substantial majority of the NVOCC commenters support the NCBFAA position. 

Commenting on NSAs, Mohawk states “the filing burden and rules of use run parallel to tariff 

filing. NSAs by their nature are more restrictive than the NRA we have opted to use. They require 

30 days advanced filing to increase rates, and must be maintained electronically,” Mohawk at 2.

Serra asserts that NSAs, due to the filing requirements, are “far too time consuming and costly 

both for ourselves and our customers.” Serra, at 2. Carotrans and Vanguard insist that “NSAs are 

often of little utility to most NVOCCs due to the formality, burden, and cost of its publication and 

filing requirements.” Carotrans, at 2; Vanguard, at 2. NYNJFF&BA summarizes the current 
16

requirements surrounding NSAs as “more formal, more costly, and more time-consuming to put in 

place.” NYNJFF&BA, at 3. NITL supports “the elimination of the filing and essential terms 

publication requirement of NSAs,” NITL at 5, but recommends continuation of provisions that 

would require “NVOCCs to provide NSA contract terms to the Commission upon its request.” Id.

The OTI commenters have made a substantial case that continuing the filing requirement 

for NSAs does not appear to offer any regulatory benefit. NCBFAA suggests that these filing 

requirements may be impeding broader commercial acceptance of NSAs by shippers and 

NVOCCs, noting that approximately 2,300 NVOCCs have instead taken advantage of the NRA 

exemption. Petition at 7. UPS takes no issue with removing the filing and essential terms 

publication requirements so long as NSAs are not eliminated nor any material additional 

restrictions imposed upon NSAs. UPS, at 4. NITL also supports elimination of these 

requirements, asserting that the Commission “does not (and need not) rely on these submissions to 

fulfill its enforcement duties.” NITL, at 5.

WSC cites the need for “even-handed regulatory relief” with respect to VOCCs as well. 

WSC, at 9. While the WSC does not oppose most issues in the petition, WSC does oppose 

eliminating the filing requirement for NVOCCs because it would create a disparity between 

NVOCCs and VOCCs. WSC asserts that the NCBFAA Petition provides an opportunity to 

consider changes to the VOCC service contract amendment filing regulations at the same time the 

Commission addresses Petitioner’s request for changes to the NRA and NSA regulations. Id. at 8. 

Specifically, WSC cites prior requests that VOCCs have made for changes to the Commission’s 

regulations permitting contract amendments to be filed subsequent to the execution of such 

contract amendments. WSC’s comments were supported by Crowley. 

As noted, the Commission previously approved initiating a separate rulemaking to amend 

portions of Parts 530 and 531 related to service contracts and NSAs, Docket No. 16-05, Service 
17

Contracts and NVOCC Service Arrangements. In granting the NCBFAA Petition, the Commission 

delayed initiating the requested rulemaking until after the rulemaking in Docket No. 16-05 was 

concluded. A final rule in Docket 16-05 was published on April 4, 2017. 82 FR 16288. The relief 

granted by the Commission in Docket 16-05 allows amendments to service contracts, including 

multiple service contract amendments, to become effective during a 30-day period prior to being 

filed with the Commission. The Commission therefore has substantially met WSC’s specific 

request for regulatory relief for VOCCs. Any further relief to VOCCs for service contracts may be 

undertaken by the Commission after it has had an opportunity to analyze the impact of the 30-day 

filing period on VOCC operations and shipper feedback.5

The Commission proposes to exempt NSAs from both the SERVCON filing requirement 

and also the requirement that the NVOCC publish, in tariff format, the essential terms of any 

NSA. See 46 CFR 531.9. The essential terms requirement for NSAs currently mirrors those 

provisions set forth for VOCC service contracts, 46 CFR § 530.12, while recognizing that the 

VOCCs’ statutory obligation of disclosure to labor organizations for work covered by a collective 

bargaining agreement extended solely to service contracts, not NSAs. See 46 U.S.C. 40502 and 46 

CFR § 530.7. Inasmuch as most NVOCCs are not subject to collective bargaining agreements 

with shoreside labor unions, the Commission solicits public comments why the essential terms 

publication requirement should not now be removed as an unnecessary burden upon the use of 

NSAs. Shippers, who were identified by the Commission as the beneficiaries of essential terms in 

the original 2003 NSA rulemaking, have not since commented on the continuing utility of 

 5 While the VOCC commenters to the subject Petition did not expressly request relief from the current service contract 

filing requirements as to essential terms, the Commission would invite the VOCC community to submit an 

appropriate request for relief. 
18

essential terms publications, and thus maintaining the essential terms publication requirement 

appears to provide little regulatory benefit.6

In removing the NSA filing and essential terms publication requirements, the Commission 

seeks to preserve the NVOCC’s current range of pricing and contracting choices, while 

eliminating the filing and publication costs currently associated with NSAs. According to the 

commenters, this regulatory relief is likely to make NSAs a more attractive pricing and contracting 

tool and thereby encourage increased use of NSAs. The Commission is mindful that NSAs, 

comprising both rate and service provisions, may remain impractical for smaller NVOCCs or 

shippers moving lower or less frequent freight volumes. It has been shown, however, that 

substantial volumes of cargo are already moving under this contract model, and that the NVOCC 

members of Petitioner NCBFAA would prefer the flexibility of including both service and raterelated items in their contract offerings if relieved of the filing and publication burdens of same. 

Appropriate regulatory relief thus will allow parties to increase the use and reliance upon NSAs as 

a means to more efficiently engage in the movement of U.S. import and export cargo, while 

continuing to protect NSA shippers from potential financial harm for non-performance.

 6 As noted in the Commission's earlier rulemaking, the most critical elements of both VOCC service contracts and 

NVOCC NSAs are the important statutory protections provided to shippers that ensure against detriment to 

commerce. See 69 FR 53969. To ensure consistency with VOCC treatment, the Commission will continue applying 

to carriage under an NSA, those provisions of the Shipping Act that would be applicable to service contracts which 

relate to protecting shippers. These include the prohibited acts contained in sections 10(b)(1), (2), (5) and (9), 46 

U.S.C. 41104(1), (2), (5) and (9).
19

C. Authorize Amendments of NRAs and Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking 

NCBFAA has proposed deleting 46 CFR 532.5(e) and expanding the NRA exemption in 

46 CFR Part 532 to allow modification of NRAs at any time upon mutual agreement between 

NVOCCs and their customers. NCBFAA Petition at 14.

Mainfreight, ABS, Mohawk, GLS, DJR, NYNJFFF&BA, NITL, CaroTrans, Vanguard, 

Serra, Powell, and BDG support the NCBFAA petitioner’s request to allow modification of 

NRAs, at any time, upon mutual agreement. DJR states that, under current NRA requirements, 

either “the NVOCC faces the serious loss of revenue and potentially being put out of business by 

issuing long period NRAs, or the NVOCC issues 1 day or 1 week NRAs which increases the 

NVOCCs’ operational expense and floods the shipper with constantly changing pricing.” DJR at 

2-3. NYNJFFF&BA also supports the NCBFAA recommendation that NRAs be allowed to be 

amended at any time after the receipt of cargo. NYNJFFF&BA states “if NRAs can be amended in 

conjunction with the shipper’s agreement the NRA will become more directly responsive to 

competitive market conditions and business practices prevalent in the current marketplace.” 

NYNJFF&BA, at 3.

CaroTrans supports allowing modification of NRAs, as it believes it will improve 

efficiency and prevent the current “nonsensical” and “inefficient” approach to modification, which 

entails terminating the current NRA and entering into a new one. CaroTrans at 3. Serra and Powell 

also support allowing amendment of NRAs after the cargo is received if the shipper and the 

NVOCC both agree in writing. Serra at 2; Powell at 1-2. NITL supports “allowing a shipper and 

NVOCC the power to modify an NRA at any time but only to the extent that the modification is 

based on a mutual written agreement between the parties and, such agreement should not be in the 

form of the NVOCC’s tariff, bill of lading, or other shipping document that is not subject to 

mutual negotiation.” NITL, at 5.
20

Due to their smaller cargo volume, recent history has shown, and the commenters’ 

statements support that NRAs tend to be transactional in nature and are generally short term. With 

their singular focus upon rates, NRAs are more aligned with the “spot market.”7 This relationship 

heightens, rather than diminishes, the need for NRAs to respond to an ever-changing marketplace. 

It appears appropriate, and in keeping with the Commission’s commitment to reduce regulatory 

burden where feasible, to therefore permit NRAs to be extended or amended upon acceptance or 

agreement by the shipper customer. In initially creating NRAs, the accelerating need for parties to 

have greater flexibility to more quickly respond to fast-paced market rate fluctuations does not

appear to have been fully anticipated. The NVOCC and its customer should not be compelled to 

create a new NRA in every instance simply because the rules do not currently provide for 

amendment. 

While not expressly included in the NCBFAA Petition, the Commission proposes a further 

change to enhance the use and competitiveness of NRAs. As noted in the comments of DGR 

Logistics, the requirement at 46 CFR 532.5(c) that an NRA “be agreed to” by the shipper prior to 

receipt of cargo by the common carrier or its agent may itself pose logistical and regulatory 

challenges to the NVOCC. See DGR, at 2. Rather than continuing a persistent practice requiring 

that shipper acceptance in all cases be memorialized through a formal writing or e-mail, the 

Commission proposes also to allow NRAs to be more flexibly created, or be amended, upon the 

shipper’s acceptance in the form of a request for booking pursuant to the NRA.8

 This practice 

more closely corresponds to the manner in which an NVOCC encounters shipper acceptance when 

 7 UPS has described NRAs as “flexible and confidential rate offerings designed to react quickly to a very fluid

marketplace”. Comments of UPS in Docket No. 10-03, NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements, at 4.

8 Towards this same result, NCBFAA recently submitted comments in Docket No. 17-04, Regulatory Reform 

Initiative, requesting changes to the NRA rules to “make it clear that a shipper’s tendering or booking of cargo 

constitutes acceptance of an NRA,” NCBFAA Comments at 12.
21

responding to a written rate quote under standard tariff rates and rules, i.e. by communicating its 

agreement solely in terms of instructing the NVOCC to book the cargo for shipment thereunder.

To ensure continued protection of the shipper and avoid confusion or potential disputes as to this 

new means to conclude an NRA, the Commission proposes that each NVOCC that seeks to 

recognize shipper acceptance of an NRA through the act of booking must incorporate a prominent 

written notice to that effect on each such NRA or amendment. As this additional NRA 

methodology is intended to be optional to the NVOCC and its shipper customers, the Commission 

will not eliminate the requirement that a shipper’s agreement to an NRA should otherwise be in 

writing or by e-mail. The Commission invites public comment on the desirability of permitting 

NRA acceptance by booking, and whether the Commission should require particular wording in 

order to more prominently give notice as to the NVOCC’s practice with respect to booking.

IV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are 

correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your 

comments.

You may submit your comments via e-mail to the e-mail address listed above under 

ADDRESSES. Please include the docket number associated with this notice and the subject matter 

in the subject line of the e-mail. Comments should be attached to the email as a Microsoft Word or 

text-searchable PDF document. Only non-confidential and public versions of confidential 

comments should be submitted by email.

You may also submit comments by mail to the address listed above under ADDRESSES.
22

How do I submit confidential business information?

The Commission will provide confidential treatment for identified confidential information 

to the extent allowed by law. If your comments contain confidential information, you must submit 

the following by mail to the address listed above under ADDRESSES:

 • A transmittal letter requesting confidential treatment that identifies the specific information in 

the comments or which protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade secret 

or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.

 • A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the complete filing with a cover page 

marked “Confidential-Restricted,” and the confidential material clearly marked on each page. You 

should submit the confidential copy to the Commission by mail.

 • A public version of your comments with the confidential information excluded. The public 

version must state ‘‘Public Version—confidential materials excluded’’ on the cover page and on 

each affected page, and must clearly indicate any information withheld. You may submit the 

public version to the Commission by e-mail or mail.

Will the Commission consider late comments?

The Commission will consider all comments received before the close of business on the 

comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also 

consider comments received after that date. If the Commission receives a comment too late to 

consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), the Commission will consider 

that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read comments submitted by other people?

You may read the comments received by the Commission at the Commission’s Electronic 

Reading Room or the Docket Activity Library at the addresses listed above under ADDRESSES. 
23

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we may continue to file relevant 

information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some commenters may submit late 

comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601–612) provides that 

whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare and make available 

for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rulemaking will not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603, 605.

The Commission recognizes that the majority of businesses affected by these rules qualify 

as small entities under the guidelines of the Small Business Administration. The rule as to Part 531 

(NSAs) poses no economic detriment to small business. In this regard, the rule pertains to an NSA 

entered into between a NVOCC and a shipper, which is an optional pricing arrangement that 

benefits the shipping public and relieves NVOCCs from the burden of the statutory tariff filing 

requirements in 46 U.S.C. 40501. In that the proposed rule would eliminate the requirements that 

NVOCCs file NSAs with the Commission and publish essential terms of such NSAs, the 

regulatory burden on NVOCCs utilizing NSAs would be reduced. The rule as to Part 532 (NRAs) 

would establish an optional method for NVOCCs to amend an NRA, and to garner shipper 

agreement to an NRA or amendment thereto, to be used at the NVOCC’s discretion. In that the 

proposed rule would eliminate the prohibition on amendments to NRAs after an initial shipment is 
24

received by the carrier and would permit NVOCCs to more flexibly create and amend such NRAs, 

the regulatory burden on NVOCCs utilizing NRAs would be reduced. 

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA) requires an agency to 

seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting 

information from the public. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in 

proposed rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 

CFR 1320.11.

The information collection requirements for part 531, NVOCC Service Arrangements, and 

part 532 NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements are currently authorized under OMB Control 

Numbers 3072-0070: 46 CFR Part 531, NVOCC Service Arrangements, and 3072-0071: 46 CFR 

532 - NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements, respectively. In compliance with the PRA, the 

Commission has submitted the proposed revised information collections to the Office of 

Management and Budget.

The proposed rule would eliminate the requirement that NVOCCs file NSAs with the 

Commission and the requirement that NVOCCs publish the essential terms of NSAs. Public burden 

for the collection of information pursuant to Part 531, NVOCC Service Arrangements, as revised, 

would comprise 79 likely respondents and an estimated 3,328 annual instances. Given that the 

proposed rule eliminates the NSA filing requirement as well as the essential terms publication 

requirement, the burden estimate has been significantly reduced from 831 hours (2016 estimate) to 

127 hours, a difference of 704 hours.

The proposed rule would also permit NRAs to be modified after the receipt of the initial 

shipment by the carrier, and permit shippers’ acceptance of the NRA by booking a shipment 

thereunder, subject to the NVOCC incorporating a prominent written notice to such effect in each 
25

NRA or amendment. No new information collection or reporting requirements are proposed with 

respect to Part 532, NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements, as revised. 

Comments are invited on:

• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Whether the Commission’s estimate for the burden of the information collection is accurate;

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the 

use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this 

document, by any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

National Environmental Policy Act

Upon completion of an environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that the 

proposed rule will not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required. 

This FONSI will become final within 10 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register 

unless a petition for review is filed by any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 

of the document. The FONSI and environmental assessment are available for inspection at the 

Commission’s Electronic Reading Room at: http://www.fmc.gov/17-10, and at the Docket 

Activity Library at 800 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20573, between 9:00 a.m. to 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: (202) 523-5725.
26

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” 

to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Regulation Identifier Number

The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action 

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). 

The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of 

each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to 

find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 531

Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons stated in the supplementary information, the Federal Maritime Commission 

proposes to amend 46 CFR part 531 as follows:

PART 531—NVOCC SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS

1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 40103.

2. Revise § 531.1 to read as follows:

§ 531.1 Purpose

The purpose of this part is to facilitate NVOCC Service Arrangements (“NSAs”) as they 

are exempt from the otherwise applicable provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984 (“the Act”). 

3. Amend § 531.3 by:

a. Revising paragraph (c);
27

b. Removing paragraphs (d) through (g), (m), and (n);

c. Redesignating paragraphs (h) and (i) as paragraphs (d) and (e), respectively; 

d. Redesignating paragraphs (k) and (l) as paragraphs (f) and (g), respectively; 

e. Redesignating paragraphs (o) and (p) as paragraphs (h) and (i), respectively;

f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (f) and (j).

The revisions to read as follows:

§ 531.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

(c) Amendment means any change to a NSA which has prospective effect and which is 

mutually agreed upon by all parties to the NSA.

* * * * *

(f) Effective date means the date upon which an NSA or amendment is scheduled to go into 

effect by the parties to the NSA. An NSA or amendment becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern 

Standard Time on the beginning of the effective date. The effective date cannot be prior to the date 

of the NSA or amendment.

* * * * *

(j) Rules tariff means a tariff or the portion of a tariff, as defined by 46 CFR 520.2, 

containing the terms and conditions governing the charges, classifications, rules, regulations and 

practices of an NVOCC, but does not include a rate.

4. Revise § 531.4 to read as follows:

§ 531.4 NVOCC rules tariff.

(a) Before entering into NSAs under this Part, an NVOCC must provide electronic access 

to its rules tariffs to the public free of charge.
28

(b) An NVOCC wishing to invoke an exemption pursuant to this part must indicate that 

intention to the Commission and the public by a prominent notice in its rules tariff.

§ 531.5 [Removed and reserved] 

5. Remove and reserve § 531.5

6. Revise the Subpart B heading to read as follows:

Subpart B – Requirements

7. Amend § 531.6 by:

a. Removing paragraphs (a), (f), and (g):

b. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs (a) through (d),

respectively;

c. Revising the introductory text of newly redesignated paragraph (a);

d. Revising the newly redesignated paragraph (c)(1) paragraph and adding 

paragraph (c)(5);

e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 531.6 NVOCC Service Arrangements.

(a) Every NSA shall include the complete terms of the NSA including, but not limited to, 

the following:

* * * * *

(c) Other requirements. (1) For service pursuant to an NSA, no NVOCC may, either alone

or in conjunction with any other person, directly or indirectly, provide service in the liner trade 

that is not in accordance with the rates, charges, classifications, rules and practices contained in a 

NSA.

* * * * *
29

(5) Except for the carrier party’s rules tariff, the requirement in 46 U.S.C. 40501(a)-(c) that 

the NVOCC include its rates in a tariff open to public inspection in an automated tariff system and 

the Commission's corresponding regulations at 46 CFR Part 520 shall not apply.

(d) Format requirements. Every NSA shall include:

(1) A unique NSA number of more than one (1) but less than ten (10) alphanumeric 

characters in length (“NSA Number”); and

(2) A consecutively numbered amendment number no more than three digits in length, 

with initial NSAs using “0” (“Amendment number”).

* * * * *

§ 531.7 [Removed and reserved] 

8. Remove and reserve § 531.7

9. Revise §531.8 to read as follows:

§ 531.8 Amendment.

(a) NSAs may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. 

(b) Where feasible, NSAs should be amended by amending only the affected specific 

term(s) or subterms.

(c) Each time any part of an NSA is amended, a consecutive amendment number (up to 

three digits), beginning with the number “1” shall be assigned.

(d) Each time any part of a NSA is amended, the “Effective Date” will be the date of the 

amendment.

§ 531.9 [Removed and Reserved]

10. Remove and Reserve § 531.9.

§ 531.10 [Amended].

11. Amend § 531.10 by removing paragraphs (c) and (d).
30

12. Revise § 531.11 to read as follows:

§ 531.11 Implementation.

Generally. Performance under an NSA or amendment thereto may not begin before the day 

it is effective.

13. Revise § 531.99 to read as follows

§ 531.99 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Commission has received OMB approval for this collection of information pursuant to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. In accordance with that Act, agencies are 

required to display a currently valid control number. The valid control number for this collection 

of information is 3072-0070. 

Appendix A to Part 531 [Removed]

14. Remove Appendix A to part 531.

PART 532—NVOCC NEGOTIATED RATE ARRANGEMENTS

15. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 40103.

16. Amend § 532.5 by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows:

§ 532.5 Requirements for NVOCC negotiated rate arrangements.

* * * * *

(c) Be agreed to by both NRA shipper and NVOCC, prior to receipt of cargo by the 

common carrier or its agent (including originating carriers in the case of through transportation). 

Shipper acceptance of the NRA may be demonstrated through a signed agreement or written 

communication, including e-mail, from the shipper. Shipper acceptance of an NRA may also be 

demonstrated by booking a shipment after receiving the NRA terms from the NVOCC if the 
31

NVOCC incorporates a prominent written notice that booking constitutes acceptance of the NRA 

terms in each NRA or amendment. 

(1) To comply with paragraph (c ), the NVOCC shall incorporate the following text in bold 

font or by use of all uppercase letters: "SHIPPER MAY ACCEPT THIS NRA OR NRA 

AMENDMENT BY BOOKING A SHIPMENT AFTER RECEIVING THE TERMS HEREOF." 

(2) Reserved.

* * * * *

(e) May be amended after the time the initial shipment is received by the carrier or its 

agent (including originating carriers in the case of through transportation), but such changes may 

only apply prospectively to shipments not yet received by the carrier or its agent.

By the Commission.

Rachel E. Dickon

Assistant Secretary