Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/04/2017-06557/amendments-to-regulations-governing-service-contracts-and-nvocc-service-arrangements
Timestamp: 2018-05-20 21:51:11
Document Index: 393685040

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 530', 'art 531', 'arts 530', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009532', 'art 530', 'arts 531', 'art 530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009515', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009530', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009531', '§\u2009515']

A Rule by the Federal Maritime Commission on 04/04/2017
16288-16297 (10 pages)
Section 530.14 Implementation
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2017-06557 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2017-06557
For technical questions, contact: Florence A. Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. Phone: (202) 523-5796. Email: TradeAnalysis@fmc.gov. For legal questions, contact: Tyler J. Wood, General Counsel, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. Phone: (202) 523-5740. Email: GeneralCounsel@fmc.gov.
In 1998, Congress passed the Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA), amending the Shipping Act of 1984 relating to service contracts. To facilitate compliance and minimize the filing burdens on the oceanborne commerce of the United States, service contracts and amendments effective after April 30, 1999, are required by FMC regulations to be filed with the Commission in electronic format. This eliminated the regulatory burden of filing in paper format, thereby saving ocean carriers both time and money. In addition, OSRA reduced the essential terms that had to be made publicly available.[1] Service contracts and amendments continue to be filed in the Commission's electronic filing system, SERVCON.
In 2005, the Commission issued a rule exempting non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOCCs) from certain tariff publication requirements of the Shipping Act, pursuant to section 16 of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 40103. 69 FR 75850 (Dec. 20, 2004) (final rule). Under the exemption, NVOCCs are relieved from certain Shipping Act tariff requirements, provided that the carriage in question is performed pursuant to an NVOCC Service Arrangement (NSA) Start Printed Page 16289filed with the Commission and that the essential terms are published in the NVOCC's tariff. 46 CFR 531.1, 531.5, and 531.9.
This rulemaking is the first comprehensive review of the FMC's service contract regulations in part 530 since the Commission promulgated implementing rules pursuant to OSRA and the first substantive revisions to the NSA regulations in part 531 since NSAs were introduced by rule in 2005. Given the industry changes that have transpired since these rules were last revised, the Commission has sought extensive public comment throughout this rulemaking process. Most recently, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend parts 530 and 531, and received six comments. 81 FR 56559-56571 (Aug. 22, 2016). Previously, the Commission sought public input through the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 81 FR 10198-10204 (Feb. 29, 2016), and received twelve comments. In addition, public comments were received earlier from the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, Inc. (NCBFAA) and a group of major ocean common carriers in response to the Commission's Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Rules.[2] All the aforementioned comments are available on the Commission's Web site under Docket No. 16-05 through the Electronic Reading Room link at: http://www.fmc.gov/​16-05.
The Commission's primary focus in this rulemaking has been to identify areas appropriate for possible regulatory relief, as well as opportunities to streamline both FMC and industry business processes and leverage Commission technology to facilitate compliance, while maintaining the Commission's ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities. In addition, recent Executive Orders have highlighted the benefits of reducing unnecessary and costly regulations.[3] Although these Executive Orders may not directly apply to the Commission,[4] the Commission respects the purpose of the Executive Orders and is committed to reducing regulatory burdens where feasible. Accordingly, the Commission has carefully considered the appropriate regulatory relief that will allow parties to commercial shipping transactions to more efficiently engage in the movement of U.S. import and export cargo on the high seas, while protecting shippers from potential financial harm. While this rule is deregulatory in nature, the rule preserves the Commission's ability to carry out its mission under the Shipping Act of 1984.
The current regulations regarding service contracts do not define the term “affiliate,” and the Commission periodically receives requests from ocean carriers for guidance regarding the criteria used to determine affiliation with respect to the shipper party to service contracts. Whether an entity is determined to be an affiliate of the contract shipper is an important matter because affiliates, as parties to the service contract, have full access to the rates, terms and conditions of the otherwise confidential contract. In contrast, the Commission's regulations governing NSAs at § 531.3(b) and NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRAs) at § 532.3(e) define the term affiliate, to mean: “two or more entities which are under common ownership or control by reason of being parent and subsidiary or entities associated with, under common control with, or otherwise related to each other through common stock ownership or common directors or officers.” To the extent that a lack of clarity regarding service contract shipper party affiliates stems from the absence of a definition of affiliate in part 530, the Commission sought to address this inconsistency by proposing to adopt the same definition currently published in parts 531 and 532.
The Commission's NPRM requested comment on this issue. In its comments, Crowley supported the addition of the definition “subject to the understanding that carriers would remain free to adopt alternative definitions (e.g., by requiring a minimum level of common ownership).” To this point, WSC, in its earlier comment on the ANPRM, asked the Commission to clarify that the adoption of the definition “does not preclude more specific definitions of that term in service contracts or tariffs, so long as those more specific definitions fall within the scope of the Commission's definition.” WSC cited as an example the inclusion in an individual carrier's service contract of a minimum level of ownership between two shipper entities to be considered affiliates. The Commission confirms that the inclusion of the definition of affiliate in part 530 does not preclude an individual carrier adopting a more narrow definition of affiliate in its service contracts.
UPS raised a separate concern regarding affiliates in its NPRM comments, stating that global logistics Start Printed Page 16290companies commonly employ non-affiliated overseas agents to facilitate the movement of cargo and that those agents have historically been listed as the NVOCC's “affiliates” under service contracts with VOCCs. This enables the local agent to originate bookings under the service contract. In connection with such shipments, UPS states that the overseas agent is listed as the “shipper” on the VOCC's master bill of lading, with the FMC licensed or registered NVOCC listed as the “consignee.” UPS asks the Commission to “consider and address” whether this practice is still compliant as long as the non-affiliated booking agent clearly acts as the agent for the NVOCC and/or the NVOCC appears on the VOCC's master bill of lading as the consignee or notify party.
While NCBFAA supports a 30-day period for filing both service contract amendments and NSA amendments, it tempers its support with a note of caution. NCBFAA advises that VOCCs often announce General Rate Increases (GRIs) and Peak Season Surcharges that are later mitigated prior to their effective dates. NCBFAA requests that the Commission “ensure that any retroactive amendment reflects the actual agreement between the parties at the time that agreement is reached.” The Commission believes that adherence to the agreed upon terms of a service contract provides the shipper with important protections. Carrier abuse of those protections is a serious matter under the Shipping Act and such carrier behavior will be subject to close scrutiny by the Commission, with appropriate Commission action if violations of the Act are found. In addition, a shipper that believes a carrier has breached the agreed-upon terms of a contract may bring an action in the appropriate court or in another forum agreed to by the contract parties.[5]
The Commission also sought comment in the NPRM regarding the concerns of Global Maritime Transportation Services, Inc. (GMTS) regarding the impact of a 30-day period for filing service contract amendments on carrier compliance with § 530.6 and § 515.27, which require carriers to obtain proof that an NVOCC has complied with the Shipping Act and prohibit carriers from serving noncompliant NVOCCs. In its comments to the ANPRM, GMTS asserted that the current requirement for filing a service contract amendment on or before its effective date ensures that full compliance with the tariff, contract, and amendments are determined prior to filing with the FMC. In its comments to the NPRM, WSC maintains that, from both a regulatory and commercial perspective, carriers and shippers are incentivized to manage service contract documentation carefully.
The Commission has also weighed the need to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities to ensure shipper protections and the impact this relief would have on its ability to successfully maintain those protections. On balance, the Commission believes that this change will reduce the filing burdens on the shipping industry while maintaining the Commission's ability to protect the shipping public. Further, by adjusting the date on which amendments can become effective, this change reduces the commercial harm from delayed filings by allowing the parties to apply the rates and terms agreed to in a service contract amendment to the intended shipments. The Commission has therefore determined to amend the definition of “effective date” to mean the date upon which a service contract amendment is scheduled to go into effect by the parties, so long as that date is no more than 30 days prior to the amendment being filed with the Commission.
The Commission sought comment in the NPRM regarding its proposal to amend the regulations to ensure that ocean carriers are aware of the availability of the automated web services process for filing original service contracts and amendments. No comments were received in response to the NPRM on this issue. The Commission has determined not to adopt its proposal to amend the regulations to provide notice of the Start Printed Page 16291availability of the automated web services process because it does not appear to immediately reduce regulatory burdens.
Shippers entering into service contracts must certify their status, and VOCCs are required to obtain proof of an NVOCC's compliance with tariff and financial responsibility requirements. Section 530.6(b) currently allows carriers to obtain such proof by any of the methods in 46 CFR 515.27. Many carriers routinely utilize one of the prescribed methods, consulting the FMC's Web site, www.fmc.gov, to verify whether an NVOCC contract holder or affiliate is in good standing, while other carriers employ more rigorous standards by requiring copies of the NVOCC's bond and the title page of its published tariff.[6] In addition, many VOCCs incorporate the NVOCC's 6-digit FMC Organization Number into the service contract, indicating that the VOCC validated its compliance with the requirements of § 530.6 for shipper parties that are NVOCCs. A carrier that meets the requirements in § 530.6(a) and (b) is also deemed to be in compliance with 46 U.S.C. 41104(12) (section 10(b)(12) of the Shipping Act), which prohibits carriers from knowingly and willfully entering into service contracts with ocean transportation intermediaries that do not meet the Act's tariff and financial responsibility requirements.[7]
In response to regular queries from carriers about the capability of FMC's electronic systems to automatically determine the status of an NVOCC party in a service contract and to verify compliance with § 530.6, Commission staff explored potential options that would leverage technology and the FMC's databases. The Commission asked for comments in its NPRM on whether the FMC should move forward in requiring filings to include the 6-digit FMC Organization Number of any NVOCC parties to a service contract in a new data field created on the SERVCON filing screen. This would reduce a carrier's need to consult the Commission's Web site or use other methods to obtain proof of NVOCC compliance with the relevant requirements before filing service contracts.
The Commission received comments to the NPRM regarding this proposal from WSC, Crowley and UPS, all of which supported an additional dedicated field in SERVCON for entry of an NVOCC's Organization Number to validate whether the NVOCC is in good standing. UPS's comments sought assurance that the practice of reliance on the NVOCC's certification and the FMC's Web site information would continue to provide a “safe harbor” under § 530.6(d) with respect to 46 U.S.C. 41104(12). WSC's support was based on their understanding that “carriers could continue to rely upon existing compliance procedures outside of SERVCON if they so choose.”
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission is permitting the filing of service contract amendments up to 30 days after the effective date of the agreement. Accordingly, as proposed in the NPRM, the Commission is revising § 530.8(a) to reflect this change. The Commission believes that permitting immediate implementation of changes to service contracts upon agreement by the parties rather than delaying implementation until the contract amendment is filed with the FMC, will result in positive benefits affecting the business processes of shippers, carriers, and the maritime industry supply chain as a whole by expediting the flow of commerce. This assertion is also supported by comments in this rulemaking record received by both ocean carriers and shippers.
Option 1 closely reflects current filing procedures, and therefore, requires minimal, if any, reprogramming of SERVCON. Under this sequential amendment filing procedure, SERVCON would process the initial service contract as Amendment “0,” with subsequent amendments to the contract numbered sequentially, beginning with Amendment No. “1.” Each amendment filing would require the filer to enter the effective date of that amendment. Under this option, the only difference from the present process would be that the effective date of the contract entered into the SERVCON system could be up to 30 days prior to the filing date.
Option 2 would allow the consolidation of multiple service contract amendments into a single “batch” filing. This option was considered based on an earlier carrier proposal to aggregate several contract amendments into a single document to effect a monthly filing. As explained in the NPRM, SERVCON is not currently capable of processing multiple amendments consolidated into a single filing, e.g., Amendment Nos. 2 through 10, with multiple effective dates. Thus, this approach would require a substantial amount of reprogramming and considerable expense to enable the system to capture multiple effective dates and multiple amendment numbers. Consolidating several service contract amendments would also prevent carriers from using the Commission's web services technology in accordance with § 530.5, thereby offsetting the advantages of web services, which requires no manual data entry and is intended to streamline processes and reduce the burden of filing.Start Printed Page 16292
NITL also commented on this issue, stating that in light of the technical difficulties associated with filing “batches” of amendments, it agreed with the Commission's sequential filing approach. While Crowley suggests that reprogramming of the SERVCON system would not be required to accommodate “batch” filing of multiple service contract amendments in a single document, the Commission's Office of Information Technology disagrees with Crowley's assessment.
The Commission's current service contract filing system requires filers to specify the effective date when uploading an original service contract or a contract amendment. The Commission's rules do not prohibit the inclusion in an original service contract or amendment of rates and terms that become effective on a date that is later than the contract or amendment's overall effective date. Carriers are reminded, however, of their obligations under 46 CFR 530.12(b) to provide “certainty of terms” in service contracts, including clearly designating all effective dates and the specific terms to which such dates have application. Based on the comments received, the Commission has determined to maintain its existing protocol requiring sequentially numbered amendments to service contracts, i.e., Option 1.
This section of the regulations addresses how service contracts may be amended, corrected, cancelled, and how to treat electronic transmission errors. VOCCs' earlier comments noted that current service contract correction procedures are outdated, and maintained that these procedures are “ill suited” to the manner in which service contracts are employed today. The carriers requested a number of revisions to these requirements. The NPRM sought comment regarding service contract correction requests and corrected transmissions. An item by item discussion follows.
Pursuant to § 530.10(d), carriers may file a “Corrected Transmission” (CT) within forty-eight (48) hours of filing a service contract or amendment into SERVCON, but only to correct a purely technical data transmission error or a data conversion error that occurred during uploading. A CT may not be used to make changes to rates, terms or conditions and, accordingly, its application is limited.
Most service contract filings are uploaded into the Commission's SERVCON system without encountering problems. When electronic transmission errors do occur, however, carriers often do not discover the error until after the initial 48-hour period has passed. Generally, these types of mistakes are attributable to data entry errors on the SERVCON upload screen (e.g., a typographical error is made when entering the amendment number, service contract number or effective date, or the incorrect contract or amendment is attached during uploading).
The Commission's rules at § 530.10(c) permit the retroactive correction of a clerical or administrative error in a service contract if the request for correction is filed in accordance with the Commission's requirements and is submitted within 45 days of service contract filing. Current practices in ocean shipping can result in long transit times due to carriers' global pendulum services or slow steaming, at times leading to the shipper's discovery of a discrepancy between the rate quoted and that filed in its service contract long after cargo has been moved and invoiced on the bill of lading. These administrative or clerical errors therefore might not be detected within 45 days of the cargo being tendered for transportation. In other cases, shippers may initiate internal or outsourced audits of their bills of lading, which detect errors in filed service contracts that differ from rates offered. These audits may occur well after the 45-day period.
Given the foregoing, the Commission's NPRM proposed extending the period in which to file a service contract correction request from 45 days after the contract's filing to 180 days. None of the commenters objected to this proposal, and WSC, Crowley, and NCBFAA support extending the time to file a service contract correction request to 180 days. The Commission believes that extending the time period to file service contract correction requests provides a more efficient solution to address a service contract administrative or clerical error than the costly commercial “work arounds” Start Printed Page 16293described by carriers and used to address an error to remain in compliance with existing regulations.
Ocean carriers requested that the Commission eliminate the affidavit requirement for a service contract correction request and reduce the filing fee, previously set at $315. NITL supported the elimination of the affidavit requirement terming it “unduly burdensome.” If the affidavit requirement were eliminated, however, Commission time spent researching and verifying information would lengthen considerably, and concomitantly, the filing fee would increase commensurate with the additional time required for research and analysis. The Commission has determined that eliminating the carrier affidavit requirement would not be beneficial to the service contract correction process, as the filing party is required to attest with specificity to the factual circumstances surrounding the clerical or administrative error. With respect to the request to lower the filing fee, in the Commission recently reduced the fee in a separate rulemaking, from $315 to $95, to reflect the Commission's streamlined internal processes, which rely upon the affidavits submitted with the requests.[8] The Commission has therefore determined to maintain the existing affidavit requirement as it provides clarity and certainty to the corrections process and results in a lower filing fee for correction requests.
None of the commenters to the NPRM directly sought to revive the carriers' proposal. NITL did, however, mention it in its comment and stated that “[t]he failure to file a contract or contract amendment that is agreed upon between the shipper and carrier can have serious adverse consequences for the shipper.” NITL further noted that “[w]ithout a contract on file the tariff must apply which is often higher.” NITL accordingly emphasized that “there should be a process available to ensure that a shipper is not penalized for a carrier's error in failing to file” a service contract or amendment thereto.
To the extent that the “process” NITL seeks is the carriers' proposal to extend the correction process to include failing to file a service contract or amendment, the Commission reiterates that the Shipping Act requires that service contracts be filed with the Commission. In the past, shippers have expressed confidence in knowing that both the shipper and carrier will honor those commitments found in service contracts filed with the FMC. As discussed above, the Commission recognizes that some flexibility in filing is needed and is allowing amendments to service contracts to be filed within 30 days of the agreement between the parties.
However, other stakeholders indicated that they rely on them for various purposes, such as during a Start Printed Page 16294grievance proceeding under collective bargaining agreements. Given that some stakeholders have indicated they still find them of value, the Commission is not eliminating this requirement.
UPS commented that it supports the “concept of allowing amendments to be filed and essential terms publication to be completed within a reasonable time after the effective date, rather than in advance.” In this regard, 46 CFR 530.12(h) provides that when the published statement of essential terms is affected by filed amendments, corrections or cancellations, the current terms shall be changed and published as soon as possible. We interpret that to mean the essential terms publication associated with an amendment should be contemporaneous with the filing of the amendment with the Commission.
Only two parties commented on the issue of expanding the exempt commodity list. NITL stated that it “believes this matter merits further examination and public dialogue.” NITL did not elaborate or provide any additional information regarding the nature of the dialogue it suggests. Nor did it suggest that this matter be addressed in the current rulemaking.
A second, anonymous commenter identifying itself as an export trading company which trades agricultural products and ships approximately 5,000 TEUs annually, opposes expanding the current exempt list of commodities, citing “the business struggles it would create for ourselves and our customers that would arise if we did not have a service contracts [sic] with carriers.” [9] The company explains that the contracts they enter into with their customers “contain many requirements that are also guaranteed in our service contracts with ocean carriers” and expresses “fear” that without service contracts, rates may only be offered to them on a 30-day basis. As this export trading company's sales timeline is usually 90 days or more forward, they anticipate that the ocean carriers would “gouge” them on price, assessing GRIs and raising rates without notice.
In response to the NPRM, NCBFAA reiterated its earlier comments in response to the Commission's Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Rules, and NCBFAA's petition for rulemaking in FMC Docket No. P2-15.[10] NCBFAA supported the Commission's consideration of regulatory changes focused on reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens and easing compliance by potentially allowing more time to process amendments to service contracts and NSAs, and to correct technical or substantive errors made in filings. More specifically, NCBFAA supports the filing of amendments for NSAs to be delayed up to 30 days after an amendment is agreed to by the parties. UPS also supports the concept of allowing NSA amendments to be filed “within a reasonable time after the effective date,” as does NITL.
NCBFAA also proposes, both in its comments to the NPRM and in its P2-15 petition, to “eliminate NSA filing and publication requirements and broaden the utility of NVOCC Negotiated Rate Agreements (`NRAs').” UPS strongly opposes “phasing out” NSAs in favor of unfiled NRAs. And NITL believes that the Commission “has correctly deferred a decision on proposing more fundamental changes in the NVOCC regulatory realm to a future proceeding.”
The Commission's regulations presently require that an NSA or Start Printed Page 16295amendment be filed on or before the date it becomes effective. The majority of commenters addressing NSA amendments supported the Commission granting NVOCCs the same flexibility in filing NSA amendments that it is granting to carriers in filing service contract amendments. As described in detail above, the Commission has determined to allow the filing of service contract amendments up to 30 days after an amendment is agreed to by the contract parties. The Commission believes that it is appropriate to extend the same regulatory relief to NVOCCs and hereby allow amendments to NSAs to become effective on the date specified by the parties, so long as the amendment is filed no later than 30 days after agreement is reached.
The Commission is adding regulatory language in § 530.5 to apprise service contract filers of the option to use the automated web services when filing contracts and their corresponding amendments. As larger volume filers of NSAs may find web services advantageous, the Commission wishes to avail NVOCCs of this option as well. Therefore, the Commission is adding language to this section to alert NSA filers of their ability to use web services to file NSAs and amendments, should they so choose.
Currently, the Commission's regulations require that an NSA or amendment be filed on or before the date it becomes effective. As discussed above, the Commission will allow up to 30 days for filing NSA amendments after their effective date, and will make corresponding changes to § 531.6. As with service contracts, amendments are to be filed sequentially rather than in “batches.”
Pursuant to § 531.6(d)(4), an NVOCC may not knowingly and willfully enter into an NSA with another NVOCC that is not in compliance with the Commission's tariff and proof of financial responsibility requirements. As more fully discussed above with respect to the revisions in § 530.6, the industry frequently refers to the Commission's Web site, www.fmc.gov, to verify whether an NVOCC contract holder or affiliate is compliant with these requirements.
Therefore, the Commission is: (1) Extending the period to file a Corrected Transmission to remedy an NSA electronic transmission error under § 531.8(c) from 48 hours to 30 days after the NSA or amendment's filing; and (2) extending the period to file an NSA correction request under § 531.8(b) from 45 days to 180 days after the NSA or amendment's filing.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) provides that whenever an agency promulgates a final rule after being 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 a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of the 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. 604-605. The Start Printed Page 16296Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission has determined that VOCCs generally do not qualify as small under the guidelines of the Small Business Administration (SBA),[11] while the majority of NVOCCs and some shippers do qualify as small under the SBA guidelines. The Commission concludes, however, that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
2. Amend § 530.3 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
3. Amend § 530.8 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
4. Amend § 530.10 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (c) and the first sentence of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(c) Corrections. Requests shall be filed, in duplicate, with the Commission's Office of the Secretary Start Printed Page 16297within one-hundred eighty (180) days of the contract's filing with the Commission, accompanied by remittance of a $95 service fee and shall include:
5. Amend § 530.14 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
7. Amend § 531.3 by revising paragraph (k) to read as follows.
8. Amend § 531.6 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) to read as follows:
9. Amend § 531.8 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) to read as follows:
(c) Electronic transmission errors. An authorized person who experiences a purely technical electronic transmission error or a data conversion error in transmitting an NSA or an amendment thereto is permitted to file a Corrected Transmission (“CT”) of that filing within 30 days of the date and time of receipt recorded in SERVCON. This time-limited permission to correct an initial defective NSA filing may not be used to make changes in the original NSA rates, terms or conditions that are otherwise provided for in § 531.6(b). The CT tab box in SERVCON must be checked at the time of resubmitting a previously filed NSA, and a description of the correction made must be stated at the beginning of the corrected NSA in a comment box. Failure to check the CT box and enter a description of the correction will result in the rejection of a file with the same name, since documents with duplicate file names or NSA and amendment numbers are not accepted by SERVCON.
10. Revise § 531.11 to read as follows.
2. The commenting carriers consisted of 30 ocean carriers participating in the following agreements active at that time: The 14 members of the Transpacific Stabilization Agreement; 10 members of the Westbound Transpacific Stabilization Agreement; the 6 members of the Central America Discussion Agreement; the 11 members of the West Coast of South America Discussion Agreement; the 5 members of the Venezuela Discussion Agreement; the 3 members of the ABC Discussion Agreement; the 6 members of the United States Australasia Discussion Agreement; and the 3 members of the Australia and New Zealand-United States Discussion Agreement.
3. Executive Order (EO) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Jan. 30, 2017); EO 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (February 24, 2017).
4. See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (Feb. 2, 2017).
5. See 46 U.S.C. 40502(f).
6. In addition to permitting carriers to consult the FMC Web site to obtain proof NVOCC compliance with the tariff financial responsibility requirements, § 515.27 permits carriers to use any other appropriate procedure to obtain such proof, provided that the procedure is set forth in the carrier's tariff.
7. 46 CFR 530.6(d).
8. See FMC Docket No. 16-06, Update of Existing and Addition of New User Fees, 81 FR 59141-59145 (Aug. 29, 2016). The reduced fee became effective October 1, 2016.
9. Although exempting additional commodities from the tariff publication and service contract filing requirements would not prevent shippers and carriers from entering into service contracts for those commodities, it appears that the commenter is echoing our concern, stated above, that carriers often do not afford shippers of exempt commodities the opportunity to enter into service contracts.
10. NCBFAA filed a petition for rulemaking on April 18, 2015. See Docket No. P2-15, Petition of the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, Inc. for Initiation of Rulemaking (NCBFAA Petition). The Commission has accepted the NCBFAA Petition and, as previously announced, will address the proposals presented therein in a subsequent rulemaking proceeding.
11. See FMC Policy and Procedures Regarding Proper Considerations of Small Entities in Rulemakings 4 (Feb. 7, 2003), available at http://www.fmc.gov/​assets/​1/​Page/​SBREFA_​Guidelines_​2003.pdf.