Notice of Inquiry; Solicitation of Views on the Impact of Slow Steaming, 6616-6619 [2011-2482]

Download as PDF emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 6616 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2011 / Notices specification requirements. Based on additional research by EPA’s consulting contractor (Cadmus) and to the best of the Region’s knowledge at this time, there does not appear to be any other manufacturers capable of meeting the City’s specifications. Furthermore, the purpose of the ARRA provisions was to stimulate economic recovery by funding current infrastructure construction, not to delay projects that are already shovel ready by requiring entities, like the City, to revise their design and potentially choose a more costly and less effective project. The imposition of ARRA Buy American requirements on such projects eligible for DWSRF assistance would result in unreasonable delay and thus displace the ‘‘shovel ready’’ status for this project. To further delay construction is in direct conflict with the most fundamental economic purposes of ARRA; to create or retain jobs. The Drinking Water Unit has reviewed this waiver request and has determined that the supporting documentation provided by the City is sufficient to meet the following criteria listed under Section 1605(b) and in the April 28, 2009, Implementation of Buy American provisions of Public Law 111–5, the ‘‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’’ Memorandum: Iron, steel, and the manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality. The basis for this project waiver is the authorization provided in Section 1605(b)(2), due to the lack of production of this product in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality in order to meet the City’s design specifications. The March 31, 2009 Delegation of Authority Memorandum provided Regional Administrators with the authority to issue exceptions to Section 1605 of ARRA within the geographic boundaries of their respective regions and with respect to requests by individual grant recipients. Having established both a proper basis to specify the particular good required for this project, and that this manufactured good was not available from a producer in the United States, the City is hereby granted a waiver from the Buy American requirements of Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111–5 for the purchase semi-rigid protection boards for a hot applied membrane waterproofing system (15,600 sheets each measuring 391⁄2″ × 80″) for a reservoir cover, manufactured in Surrey, British Columbia, specified in the City’s VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Feb 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 waiver request of November 10, 2010. This supplementary information constitutes the detailed written justification required by Section 1605(c) for waivers based on a finding under subsection (b). Authority: Public Law 111–5, section 1605. Dated: February 3, 2011. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. 2011–2749 Filed 2–3–11; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6705–01–P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Issued on: Dated: January 31, 2011. Dennis J. Mclerran, Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 10. Notice of Inquiry; Solicitation of Views on the Impact of Slow Steaming [FR Doc. 2011–2606 Filed 2–4–11; 8:45 am] AGENCY: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ACTION: Federal Maritime Commission. Notice of Inquiry. The Federal Maritime Commission (‘‘FMC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) is issuing this Notice of Inquiry (‘‘NOI’’) to solicit public comment on the impact of slow steaming on U.S. ocean liner commerce. Generally, the Commission seeks public comment as to how the practice of slow steaming has (1) Impacted ocean liner carrier operations and shippers’ international supply chains; (2) affected the cost and/or price of ocean liner service; and (3) mitigated greenhouse gas emissions. DATES: Responses are due on or before April 5, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 1046, Washington, DC 20573–0001. Or e-mail non-confidential comments to: secretary@fmc.gov (e-mail comments as attachments preferably in Microsoft Word or PDF). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Austin L. Schmitt, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001, Telephone: (202) 523–5796, E-mail: aschmitt@fmc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submit Comments: Non-confidential filings may be submitted in hard copy or by e-mail as an attachment (preferably in Microsoft Word or PDF) addressed to secretary@fmc.gov on or before April 5, 2011. Include in the subject line: ‘‘FMC Slow Steaming—Response to NOI’’. Responses to this inquiry that seek confidential treatment must be submitted in hard copy by U.S. mail or courier. Confidential filings must be accompanied by a transmittal letter that identifies the filing as ‘‘confidential’’ and describes the nature and extent of the confidential treatment requested, e.g., commercially sensitive data. When submitting documents in response to the NOI that contain confidential information, the confidential copy of the filing must consist of the complete filing and be marked by the filer as SUMMARY: FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act Meeting Farm Credit Administration. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board). DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on February 10, 2011, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– 4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are: AGENCY: SUMMARY: Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • January 13, 2011 B. New Business • Spring 2011 Abstract of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and Spring 2011 Regulatory Performance Plan • Request of Farm Credit Services of America, et al., to Form a Limited Liability Partnership to Facilitate Agricultural Equipment Financing Activities C. Reports • Office of Management Services Quarterly Report PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2011 / Notices ‘‘Confidential- Restricted,’’ with the confidential material clearly marked on each page. When a confidential filing is submitted, an original and one additional copy of the public version of the filing must be submitted. The public version of the filing should exclude confidential materials, and be clearly marked on each affected page, ‘‘confidential materials excluded.’’ Questions regarding filing or treatment of confidential responses to this inquiry should be directed to the Commission’s Secretary, Karen V. Gregory, at the telephone number or e-mail provided above. Background emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Over the past two years most ocean liner carriers regulated by the Commission have implemented the practice of slow steaming by which the normal service speed of ships is reduced in an effort to reduce bunker fuel costs which account for a high proportion of ship operating costs. Initially, ocean carriers took these measures in response to severely depressed international trade conditions, but slow steaming also is used to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in response to new environmental initiatives and concerns.1 By slow steaming, ocean liner carriers address both of these problems by significantly reducing total bunker fuel consumption and the associated emissions.2 In the U.S. ocean liner trades, the practice of slow steaming appears to be most prevalent in the transpacific trade. Data derived from Alphaliner, for example, shows that more than half of the 45 weekly services operating between U.S. west coast ports and Asia are currently slow steaming, while more than three-fourths of the 15 weekly services operating between U.S. east 1 International shipping reportedly generates about three percent of global carbon emissions. See International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, Second IMO GHG Study 2009, at 7, U.N. Doc. MEPC 59/INF. 10 (Apr. 9, 2009), available at https://www5.imo.org/ SharePoint/blastDataHelper.asp/data _id%3D26047/INF-10.pdf. 2 According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, a 10 percent reduction in speed will reduce emissions by 19 percent per tonmile. See United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Review of Maritime Transport 2010, at 66, U.N. Doc. UNCTAD/RMT/2010 (Dec. 20, 2010), available at https://www.unctad.org/ Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=14218&intItemID =&lang=1&mode=downloads. Similarly, one ocean carrier has found that reducing a ship’s average operating speed by 20 percent may lower its daily fuel consumption by as much as 40 percent. See Press Release, Maersk, Slow Steaming Here to Stay (Sept. 1, 2010), available at https:// www.maersk.com/AboutMaersk/News/Pages/ 20100901-145240.aspx. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Feb 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 coast ports and Asia are doing so.3 In contrast, just 20 percent of the 15 weekly services operating between the United States and North Europe are currently slow steaming. This time last year, the Transpacific Stabilization Agreement (‘‘TSA’’) added authority to its basic agreement that allowed its member lines to discuss and reach agreement on programs to reduce sources of environmental pollution caused by ocean liner operations.4 So far, however, no specific TSA program has materialized under this authority, even though slow steaming has become more prevalent during this time in the transpacific trade and in other U.S. trades. Slow steaming is a complex issue with advantages and disadvantages for both carriers and shippers depending on trade conditions and commodity transported. For example, when carriers are experiencing high bunker costs and low charter rates, slow steaming becomes more attractive to the carrier. When these conditions do not exist, slow steaming does not offer the carrier the same advantages. Thus, in the coming years, potential increases in fuel costs and planned vessel deliveries will weigh in favor of carriers continuing or expanding slow steaming, but a continued recovery in demand and rates will tend to mitigate the trend. While a good deal of commentary and analysis have appeared in the trade press regarding the benefits that carriers derive from slow steaming services, information about how this practice has affected American exporters and importers is limited. In cases where shippers of low-value commodities receive lower rates as a result of the carrier passing along some of the fuel savings achieved through slow steaming, the additional time for transport may not be an issue for these shippers. On the other hand, shippers of high-value commodities may not find slow steaming advantageous because a potentially lower freight rate may not outweigh the added delay in accessing payments for goods rendered. Likewise, shippers of chilled meat and fresh produce may find slow steaming disadvantageous because the resulting longer transit times could lead to increased spoilage and less shelf-time in grocery stores. 3 In addition to the weekly services that call exclusively at either the U.S. west coast or east coast, an additional six pendulum services call at ports on both coasts; two-thirds of these latter services are slow steaming. 4 See Article 5(d) of the TSA’s basic agreement available at https://www2.fmc.gov/agreement_lib/ 011223-045-MC.pdf. (Agreement No. 011223–45) PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6617 These tradeoffs for U.S. importers and exporters assume that carriers pass at least a portion of the cost savings from slow steaming on to their customers. In the U.S. trades, where the vast majority of liner cargo travels under annual service contracts, it is unclear whether ocean carriers’ customers have received those savings—either through adjustments to bunker fuel surcharges or the underlying rates. Finally, slow steaming has efficiency and environmental benefits that should be factored into both carriers’ and shippers’ equations. But an accurate analysis of the impact requires reliable methods to measure and quantify those environmental benefits. Better information and more transparency on emissions savings from slow steaming would allow carriers and their customers to make shipping choices that reduce their carbon emissions—and receive full credit for those measures. The Commission, therefore, has decided to request public comment on the effects of slow steaming practices on ocean liner operations, shippers’ supply chains and their underlying businesses, capacity availability, container availability, ocean freight rates, fuel surcharges, and greenhouse gas emissions. Although slow steaming primarily affects the operations of shippers, carriers and rate discussion agreements, the Commission encourages all interested parties, including ports, maritime terminal operators, trade associations, environmental groups, and other governmental entities to submit comments or to identify any economic and environmental data and studies related to slow steaming. The questions below seek to solicit comments on how slow steaming has affected shippers’ and carrier’s business operations and the environment. Commenters may address any or all of the questions and are welcome to submit comments on the effects of slow steaming not addressed by any of these questions. Questions Directed to Shippers 1. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of slow steaming? 2. How has slow steaming of ocean liner services impacted your overall business costs? How significant are those costs? What measures, if any, has your company taken to mitigate any negative cost impact on your business arising from slow steaming? 3. Has your company benefited from the fuel cost savings that slow steaming makes possible by obtaining, for example, lower freight rates or bunker adjustment surcharges? If so, identify those benefits and explain how significant they are. E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 6618 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2011 / Notices 4. Describe how, and to what extent, the slow steaming of ocean liner services has impacted your company’s supply chain, space availability, and container availability. 5. Are different services, i.e., slow steaming vs. normal steaming, available to your company from different ocean carriers over the same trade lane? Alternately, do any individual ocean carriers offer your company different transit times over the same trade lane with varying rates or other service features? 6. In the past year or so, have ocean transit times lengthened between the major port-pairs used in your company’s ocean shipping operations on account of the slow steaming of services? If so, how much longer have those transit times become and between which port pairs? 7. Do ocean transit times vary significantly among the different services that link the major port-pairs used in your company’s ocean shipping operations? When arranging shipments, what role do differences in transit time play in your carrier or service selection process? 8. If you have service contracts with ocean carriers, were transit times or slow steaming provisions included in those contracts? Was slow steaming consistent with your governing service contract provisions? 9. As a U.S. exporter, has the slow steaming of ocean liner services in the U.S. trades put your company at a competitive disadvantage in overseas markets? If so, please explain. 10. Identify and describe what benefits your company has derived from slow steaming (e.g., more reliable and predictable sailing schedules, a more stable supply chain, etc.). 11. Do you believe slow steaming is sustainable over the long-run? Please explain why or why not. 12. Do ocean carriers provide you with information on fuel, cost, or emissions savings that allow you to calculate and consider the benefits of slow steaming in choosing among transportation options? 13. Discuss whether your company uses slow steaming services to help reduce its carbon footprint on the goods it sells? If so, how substantial are these reductions? How do you measure or quantify these reductions? What type or form of information would better assist you in making choices that reduce your carbon footprint? Questions Directed to Ocean Liner Carriers 1. What does your company see as the advantages and disadvantages of slow steaming? VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Feb 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 2. What proportion of the ships your company operates in the U.S. trades slow steam? What proportion slow steam outbound from the United States? What proportion slow steam inbound to the United States? Please break this information down by trade lane. 3. Do you have plans to increase or decrease slow steaming during 2011 and/or the years that follow? 4. What factors help your company decide to slow steam any given service string? What factors cause your company to decide whether to slow steam in one direction only? 5. In the past year, by how much (i.e., absolute amount and as a percent of the total) has your company reduced its bunker consumption, bunker fuel expenses, and carbon emissions as a result of slow steaming ships in U.S. ocean liner services? 6. Do you make this information on fuel, cost, and emissions savings available and transparent to your customers? If not, do you have plans to, and what is your goal date? If not, why not? 7. Do you offer shippers, over the same trade lane, different transit times by reason of slow steaming vs. normal steaming? 8. Have you passed cost savings along to shippers through adjustments to any bunker surcharge formulas, or by lowering rates? If not, do you have plans to, and what is your goal date? If not, why not? 9. Are there any costs incurred by the ships your company is slow steaming that would not accrue if they were operating at normal service speed and, if so, what are these costs and how significant are they? 10. What factors constrain your company’s ability to slow steam more services or to further slow down ships that are already slow steaming (i.e., super-slow steaming)? 11. How many vessels do you add to service loops that begin slow steaming for part or all of the loop? Are there instances where vessels are not added? 12. Is your company adding new vessels to your fleet to accommodate slow steaming? 13. Are new ship designs incorporating hull and propulsion engine innovations to better accommodate slow steaming? 14. How has slow steaming impacted your company’s on time performance of sailing schedules? 15. Are some shipper accounts more affected by slow steaming than others? If so, please explain. What measures has your company taken to try to mitigate any adverse impact of slow steaming on specific shipper accounts? PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16. To what extent has slow steaming affected your company’s ability to maintain or expand capacity in the U.S. trades and/or its ability to maintain adequate availability of containers at appropriate inland locations? 17. Do you believe slow steaming is sustainable over the long-run? Please explain why or why not. 18. If your company participates in one or more vessel sharing arrangements (‘‘VSAs’’), describe whether and to what extent VSAs are positively or negatively impacted by slow steaming. Questions Directed to Rate Agreements That Establish a Bunker Surcharge Guideline 1. Within the geographic scope of your agreement, what proportion of the ships used by your members slow steam? What proportion slow steam outbound from the United States? What proportion slow steam inbound to the United States? Please break this information down by trade lane. 2. Please explain your method used for developing the bunker surcharge guideline. How can the formula be modified to reflect the savings realized from slow steaming? 3. Has your agreement discussed possible ways to pass cost savings along to shippers? If not, do you have plans to, and what is your goal date? If not, why not? 4. What measures has your agreement taken to try to mitigate any adverse impact of slow steaming on the trade? 5. To what extent has the prevalence of slow steaming within the geographic scope of your agreement influenced the type of discussions that take place or the type of information exchanged under the authorities contained in your agreement? Questions Directed to All Interested Parties 1. What are the major benefits and costs associated with slow steaming? 2. To what extent has the slow steaming of services in the U.S. ocean liner trades reduced greenhouse gas emissions? 3. Discuss the likely long-term prevalence of slow steaming and its potential impacts on the economy and/ or the environment. 4. How important is slow steaming in the overall effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants arising from ocean liner operations? 5. What data sources are available to measure the economic and environmental impacts of slow steaming? E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1 6619 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2011 / Notices Along with comments, respondents should provide their name, their title/ position, contact information (e.g., telephone number and/or e-mail address), name and address of company or other entity and type of company or entity (e.g., carrier, exporter, importer, trade association, etc.). Responses to the NOI will help the Commission ascertain more precisely the impact of slow steaming on U.S. ocean liner commerce, the ocean liner industry, the economy, and the global environment with a view to determining whether, and if so, what additional analyses or action by the Commission may be necessary. To promote maximum participation, the NOI questions will be made available via the Federal Register and on the Commission’s Web site at https:// www.fmc.gov in a downloadable text or pdf file. They can also be obtained by contacting the Commission’s Secretary, Karen V. Gregory, by telephone at (202) 523–5725 or by e-mail at secretary@fmc.gov. Please indicate whether you would prefer a hard copy or an e-mail copy of the NOI questions. Non-confidential comments may be sent to secretary@fmc.gov as an attachment to an e-mail submission. Such attachments should be submitted preferably in Microsoft Word or textsearchable PDF. The Commission anticipates that most filed NOI comments will be made publicly available. The Commission believes that public availability of NOI comments is to be encouraged because it could improve public awareness of the impact of slow steaming on the environment and various segments of the maritime industry. Nevertheless, some commenting parties may wish to include commercially sensitive information as relevant or necessary in their responses by way of explaining their liner shipping experiences or detailing their responses in practical terms. To help assure that all potential respondents will provide usefully detailed information in their submissions, the Commission will provide confidential treatment to the extent allowed by law for those submissions, or parts of submissions, for which the parties request confidentiality. By the Commission. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2011–2482 Filed 2–4–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Title: Project LAUNCH Cross-Site Evaluation. OMB No.: 0970–0373. Billing Accounting Code (SAC): 418422 (0994426). Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is planning to collect data as part of a cross-site evaluation of a new initiative called Project LAUNCH (Linking Actions for Unmet Needs in Children’s Health). Project LAUNCH is intended to promote the healthy development and wellness of children ages birth to eight years. A total of 24 Project LAUNCH grantees are funded to improve coordination among childserving systems, build infrastructure, and improve methods for providing services. Grantees will also implement a range of public health strategies to support young child wellness in a designated locality. Data for the cross-site evaluation of Project LAUNCH will be collected through: (1) Interviews conducted either via telephone or during site-visits to Project LAUNCH grantees, and (2) semiannual reports that will be submitted electronically on a Web-based dataentry system. Information will be collected from all Project LAUNCH grantees. During either telephone interviews or the site visits, researchers will conduct interviews with Project LAUNCH service providers and collaborators in States/Tribes and local communities of focus. Interviewers will ask program administrators questions about all Project LAUNCH activities, including: Infrastructure development; collaboration and coordination among partner agencies, organizations, and service providers; and development, implementation, and refinement of service strategies. As part of the proposed data collection, Project LAUNCH staff will be asked to submit semi-annual electronic reports on State/Tribal and local systems development and on services that children and families receive. The electronic data reports also will collect data about other Project LAUNCHfunded service enhancements, such as trainings, Project LAUNCH systems change activities, and changes in provider settings. Information provided in these reports will be aggregated on a quarterly basis, and reported semiannually. Respondents: State/Tribal Child Wellness Coordinator, State/Tribal Wellness Council Members, State ECCS Project Director, Local Child Wellness Coordinator, Local Wellness Council Members, Local Evaluator, and Local Service Providers. ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES Annual number of respondents Instrument emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Telephone or Site Visit Interview guide ........................................................... Electronic Data Reporting: Systems Measures ............................................... Electronic Data Reporting: Services Measures ............................................... Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 876. In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:16 Feb 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 240 24 24 information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Number of responses per respondent 1 2 2 Average burden hours per response 1.25 4 8 Total annual burden hours 300 192 384 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: OPREinfocollection@acf.hhs.gov. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6616-6619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2482]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Inquiry; Solicitation of Views on the Impact of Slow 
Steaming

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime Commission (``FMC'' or ``Commission'') is 
issuing this Notice of Inquiry (``NOI'') to solicit public comment on 
the impact of slow steaming on U.S. ocean liner commerce. Generally, 
the Commission seeks public comment as to how the practice of slow 
steaming has (1) Impacted ocean liner carrier operations and shippers' 
international supply chains; (2) affected the cost and/or price of 
ocean liner service; and (3) mitigated greenhouse gas emissions.

DATES: Responses are due on or before April 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal 
Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 1046, 
Washington, DC 20573-0001.
    Or e-mail non-confidential comments to: secretary@fmc.gov (e-mail 
comments as attachments preferably in Microsoft Word or PDF).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Austin L. Schmitt, Director, Bureau of 
Trade Analysis, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, Telephone: (202) 523-5796, E-mail: 
aschmitt@fmc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submit Comments: Non-confidential filings 
may be submitted in hard copy or by e-mail as an attachment (preferably 
in Microsoft Word or PDF) addressed to secretary@fmc.gov on or before 
April 5, 2011. Include in the subject line: ``FMC Slow Steaming--
Response to NOI''. Responses to this inquiry that seek confidential 
treatment must be submitted in hard copy by U.S. mail or courier. 
Confidential filings must be accompanied by a transmittal letter that 
identifies the filing as ``confidential'' and describes the nature and 
extent of the confidential treatment requested, e.g., commercially 
sensitive data. When submitting documents in response to the NOI that 
contain confidential information, the confidential copy of the filing 
must consist of the complete filing and be marked by the filer as

[[Page 6617]]

``Confidential- Restricted,'' with the confidential material clearly 
marked on each page. When a confidential filing is submitted, an 
original and one additional copy of the public version of the filing 
must be submitted. The public version of the filing should exclude 
confidential materials, and be clearly marked on each affected page, 
``confidential materials excluded.'' Questions regarding filing or 
treatment of confidential responses to this inquiry should be directed 
to the Commission's Secretary, Karen V. Gregory, at the telephone 
number or e-mail provided above.

Background

    Over the past two years most ocean liner carriers regulated by the 
Commission have implemented the practice of slow steaming by which the 
normal service speed of ships is reduced in an effort to reduce bunker 
fuel costs which account for a high proportion of ship operating costs. 
Initially, ocean carriers took these measures in response to severely 
depressed international trade conditions, but slow steaming also is 
used to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in response to new 
environmental initiatives and concerns.\1\ By slow steaming, ocean 
liner carriers address both of these problems by significantly reducing 
total bunker fuel consumption and the associated emissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ International shipping reportedly generates about three 
percent of global carbon emissions. See International Maritime 
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, Second IMO 
GHG Study 2009, at 7, U.N. Doc. MEPC 59/INF. 10 (Apr. 9, 2009), 
available at https://www5.imo.org/SharePoint/blastDataHelper.asp/
data--id%3D26047/INF-10.pdf.
    \2\ According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development, a 10 percent reduction in speed will reduce emissions 
by 19 percent per ton-mile. See United Nations Conference on Trade 
and Development, Review of Maritime Transport 2010, at 66, U.N. Doc. 
UNCTAD/RMT/2010 (Dec. 20, 2010), available at https://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=14218&intItemID=&lang=1&mode=downloads. 
Similarly, one ocean carrier has found that reducing a ship's 
average operating speed by 20 percent may lower its daily fuel 
consumption by as much as 40 percent. See Press Release, Maersk, 
Slow Steaming Here to Stay (Sept. 1, 2010), available at https://www.maersk.com/AboutMaersk/News/Pages/20100901-145240.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the U.S. ocean liner trades, the practice of slow steaming 
appears to be most prevalent in the transpacific trade. Data derived 
from Alphaliner, for example, shows that more than half of the 45 
weekly services operating between U.S. west coast ports and Asia are 
currently slow steaming, while more than three-fourths of the 15 weekly 
services operating between U.S. east coast ports and Asia are doing 
so.\3\ In contrast, just 20 percent of the 15 weekly services operating 
between the United States and North Europe are currently slow steaming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In addition to the weekly services that call exclusively at 
either the U.S. west coast or east coast, an additional six pendulum 
services call at ports on both coasts; two-thirds of these latter 
services are slow steaming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This time last year, the Transpacific Stabilization Agreement 
(``TSA'') added authority to its basic agreement that allowed its 
member lines to discuss and reach agreement on programs to reduce 
sources of environmental pollution caused by ocean liner operations.\4\ 
So far, however, no specific TSA program has materialized under this 
authority, even though slow steaming has become more prevalent during 
this time in the transpacific trade and in other U.S. trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Article 5(d) of the TSA's basic agreement available at 
https://www2.fmc.gov/agreement_lib/011223-045-MC.pdf. (Agreement No. 
011223-45)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Slow steaming is a complex issue with advantages and disadvantages 
for both carriers and shippers depending on trade conditions and 
commodity transported. For example, when carriers are experiencing high 
bunker costs and low charter rates, slow steaming becomes more 
attractive to the carrier. When these conditions do not exist, slow 
steaming does not offer the carrier the same advantages. Thus, in the 
coming years, potential increases in fuel costs and planned vessel 
deliveries will weigh in favor of carriers continuing or expanding slow 
steaming, but a continued recovery in demand and rates will tend to 
mitigate the trend.
    While a good deal of commentary and analysis have appeared in the 
trade press regarding the benefits that carriers derive from slow 
steaming services, information about how this practice has affected 
American exporters and importers is limited. In cases where shippers of 
low-value commodities receive lower rates as a result of the carrier 
passing along some of the fuel savings achieved through slow steaming, 
the additional time for transport may not be an issue for these 
shippers. On the other hand, shippers of high-value commodities may not 
find slow steaming advantageous because a potentially lower freight 
rate may not outweigh the added delay in accessing payments for goods 
rendered. Likewise, shippers of chilled meat and fresh produce may find 
slow steaming disadvantageous because the resulting longer transit 
times could lead to increased spoilage and less shelf-time in grocery 
stores.
    These tradeoffs for U.S. importers and exporters assume that 
carriers pass at least a portion of the cost savings from slow steaming 
on to their customers. In the U.S. trades, where the vast majority of 
liner cargo travels under annual service contracts, it is unclear 
whether ocean carriers' customers have received those savings--either 
through adjustments to bunker fuel surcharges or the underlying rates.
    Finally, slow steaming has efficiency and environmental benefits 
that should be factored into both carriers' and shippers' equations. 
But an accurate analysis of the impact requires reliable methods to 
measure and quantify those environmental benefits. Better information 
and more transparency on emissions savings from slow steaming would 
allow carriers and their customers to make shipping choices that reduce 
their carbon emissions--and receive full credit for those measures.
    The Commission, therefore, has decided to request public comment on 
the effects of slow steaming practices on ocean liner operations, 
shippers' supply chains and their underlying businesses, capacity 
availability, container availability, ocean freight rates, fuel 
surcharges, and greenhouse gas emissions. Although slow steaming 
primarily affects the operations of shippers, carriers and rate 
discussion agreements, the Commission encourages all interested 
parties, including ports, maritime terminal operators, trade 
associations, environmental groups, and other governmental entities to 
submit comments or to identify any economic and environmental data and 
studies related to slow steaming. The questions below seek to solicit 
comments on how slow steaming has affected shippers' and carrier's 
business operations and the environment. Commenters may address any or 
all of the questions and are welcome to submit comments on the effects 
of slow steaming not addressed by any of these questions.

Questions Directed to Shippers

    1. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of slow 
steaming?
    2. How has slow steaming of ocean liner services impacted your 
overall business costs? How significant are those costs? What measures, 
if any, has your company taken to mitigate any negative cost impact on 
your business arising from slow steaming?
    3. Has your company benefited from the fuel cost savings that slow 
steaming makes possible by obtaining, for example, lower freight rates 
or bunker adjustment surcharges? If so, identify those benefits and 
explain how significant they are.

[[Page 6618]]

    4. Describe how, and to what extent, the slow steaming of ocean 
liner services has impacted your company's supply chain, space 
availability, and container availability.
    5. Are different services, i.e., slow steaming vs. normal steaming, 
available to your company from different ocean carriers over the same 
trade lane? Alternately, do any individual ocean carriers offer your 
company different transit times over the same trade lane with varying 
rates or other service features?
    6. In the past year or so, have ocean transit times lengthened 
between the major port-pairs used in your company's ocean shipping 
operations on account of the slow steaming of services? If so, how much 
longer have those transit times become and between which port pairs?
    7. Do ocean transit times vary significantly among the different 
services that link the major port-pairs used in your company's ocean 
shipping operations? When arranging shipments, what role do differences 
in transit time play in your carrier or service selection process?
    8. If you have service contracts with ocean carriers, were transit 
times or slow steaming provisions included in those contracts? Was slow 
steaming consistent with your governing service contract provisions?
    9. As a U.S. exporter, has the slow steaming of ocean liner 
services in the U.S. trades put your company at a competitive 
disadvantage in overseas markets? If so, please explain.
    10. Identify and describe what benefits your company has derived 
from slow steaming (e.g., more reliable and predictable sailing 
schedules, a more stable supply chain, etc.).
    11. Do you believe slow steaming is sustainable over the long-run? 
Please explain why or why not.
    12. Do ocean carriers provide you with information on fuel, cost, 
or emissions savings that allow you to calculate and consider the 
benefits of slow steaming in choosing among transportation options?
    13. Discuss whether your company uses slow steaming services to 
help reduce its carbon footprint on the goods it sells? If so, how 
substantial are these reductions? How do you measure or quantify these 
reductions? What type or form of information would better assist you in 
making choices that reduce your carbon footprint?

Questions Directed to Ocean Liner Carriers

    1. What does your company see as the advantages and disadvantages 
of slow steaming?
    2. What proportion of the ships your company operates in the U.S. 
trades slow steam? What proportion slow steam outbound from the United 
States? What proportion slow steam inbound to the United States? Please 
break this information down by trade lane.
    3. Do you have plans to increase or decrease slow steaming during 
2011 and/or the years that follow?
    4. What factors help your company decide to slow steam any given 
service string? What factors cause your company to decide whether to 
slow steam in one direction only?
    5. In the past year, by how much (i.e., absolute amount and as a 
percent of the total) has your company reduced its bunker consumption, 
bunker fuel expenses, and carbon emissions as a result of slow steaming 
ships in U.S. ocean liner services?
    6. Do you make this information on fuel, cost, and emissions 
savings available and transparent to your customers? If not, do you 
have plans to, and what is your goal date? If not, why not?
    7. Do you offer shippers, over the same trade lane, different 
transit times by reason of slow steaming vs. normal steaming?
    8. Have you passed cost savings along to shippers through 
adjustments to any bunker surcharge formulas, or by lowering rates? If 
not, do you have plans to, and what is your goal date? If not, why not?
    9. Are there any costs incurred by the ships your company is slow 
steaming that would not accrue if they were operating at normal service 
speed and, if so, what are these costs and how significant are they?
    10. What factors constrain your company's ability to slow steam 
more services or to further slow down ships that are already slow 
steaming (i.e., super-slow steaming)?
    11. How many vessels do you add to service loops that begin slow 
steaming for part or all of the loop? Are there instances where vessels 
are not added?
    12. Is your company adding new vessels to your fleet to accommodate 
slow steaming?
    13. Are new ship designs incorporating hull and propulsion engine 
innovations to better accommodate slow steaming?
    14. How has slow steaming impacted your company's on time 
performance of sailing schedules?
    15. Are some shipper accounts more affected by slow steaming than 
others? If so, please explain. What measures has your company taken to 
try to mitigate any adverse impact of slow steaming on specific shipper 
accounts?
    16. To what extent has slow steaming affected your company's 
ability to maintain or expand capacity in the U.S. trades and/or its 
ability to maintain adequate availability of containers at appropriate 
inland locations?
    17. Do you believe slow steaming is sustainable over the long-run? 
Please explain why or why not.
    18. If your company participates in one or more vessel sharing 
arrangements (``VSAs''), describe whether and to what extent VSAs are 
positively or negatively impacted by slow steaming.

Questions Directed to Rate Agreements That Establish a Bunker Surcharge 
Guideline

    1. Within the geographic scope of your agreement, what proportion 
of the ships used by your members slow steam? What proportion slow 
steam outbound from the United States? What proportion slow steam 
inbound to the United States? Please break this information down by 
trade lane.
    2. Please explain your method used for developing the bunker 
surcharge guideline. How can the formula be modified to reflect the 
savings realized from slow steaming?
    3. Has your agreement discussed possible ways to pass cost savings 
along to shippers? If not, do you have plans to, and what is your goal 
date? If not, why not?
    4. What measures has your agreement taken to try to mitigate any 
adverse impact of slow steaming on the trade?
    5. To what extent has the prevalence of slow steaming within the 
geographic scope of your agreement influenced the type of discussions 
that take place or the type of information exchanged under the 
authorities contained in your agreement?

Questions Directed to All Interested Parties

    1. What are the major benefits and costs associated with slow 
steaming?
    2. To what extent has the slow steaming of services in the U.S. 
ocean liner trades reduced greenhouse gas emissions?
    3. Discuss the likely long-term prevalence of slow steaming and its 
potential impacts on the economy and/or the environment.
    4. How important is slow steaming in the overall effort to reduce 
emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants arising from 
ocean liner operations?
    5. What data sources are available to measure the economic and 
environmental impacts of slow steaming?


[[Page 6619]]


    Along with comments, respondents should provide their name, their 
title/position, contact information (e.g., telephone number and/or e-
mail address), name and address of company or other entity and type of 
company or entity (e.g., carrier, exporter, importer, trade 
association, etc.).
    Responses to the NOI will help the Commission ascertain more 
precisely the impact of slow steaming on U.S. ocean liner commerce, the 
ocean liner industry, the economy, and the global environment with a 
view to determining whether, and if so, what additional analyses or 
action by the Commission may be necessary.
    To promote maximum participation, the NOI questions will be made 
available via the Federal Register and on the Commission's Web site at 
https://www.fmc.gov in a downloadable text or pdf file. They can also be 
obtained by contacting the Commission's Secretary, Karen V. Gregory, by 
telephone at (202) 523-5725 or by e-mail at secretary@fmc.gov. Please 
indicate whether you would prefer a hard copy or an e-mail copy of the 
NOI questions. Non-confidential comments may be sent to 
secretary@fmc.gov as an attachment to an e-mail submission. Such 
attachments should be submitted preferably in Microsoft Word or text-
searchable PDF.
    The Commission anticipates that most filed NOI comments will be 
made publicly available. The Commission believes that public 
availability of NOI comments is to be encouraged because it could 
improve public awareness of the impact of slow steaming on the 
environment and various segments of the maritime industry. 
Nevertheless, some commenting parties may wish to include commercially 
sensitive information as relevant or necessary in their responses by 
way of explaining their liner shipping experiences or detailing their 
responses in practical terms. To help assure that all potential 
respondents will provide usefully detailed information in their 
submissions, the Commission will provide confidential treatment to the 
extent allowed by law for those submissions, or parts of submissions, 
for which the parties request confidentiality.

    By the Commission.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2482 Filed 2-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.