Notice of Inquiry; Solicitation of Views on Requests To Develop and Release Container Freight Rate Indices for U.S. Agricultural Exports Based on a Sampling of Service Contracts Filed With the FMC, 31013-31015 [2012-12666]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices
Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street SW., Room 4–C322,
Washington, DC 20554. You shall also
transmit a copy of your response via
email to Joy M. Ragsdale, Joy.Ragsdale@
fcc.gov and to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh,
Terry.Cavanaugh@fcc.gov.
If you have any questions, please
contact Ms. Ragsdale via U.S. postal
mail, email, or by telephone at (202)
418–1697. You may contact me at (202)
418–1553 or at the email address noted
above if Ms. Ragsdale is unavailable.
Sincerely yours,
cc: Johnnay Schrieber, Universal Service
Administrative Company (via email)
Rashann Duvall, Universal Service
Administrative Company (via email)
Andrew O. Schiff, Assistant United
States Attorney, United States
Department of Justice (via email)
Theresa Z. Cavanaugh
Chief Investigations and Hearings Division,
Enforcement Bureau.
ECS’ Clients
State
Dermott Public School District ....................................................................................................
Citrus County School District ......................................................................................................
Eckerd Halfway House/E-Ku Sumee ..........................................................................................
Hendry County School District ...................................................................................................
Kuna Joint School District ..........................................................................................................
Middleton School District #134 ...................................................................................................
The Winchendon School ............................................................................................................
Northwood Children’s Services ..................................................................................................
Prairie Academy .........................................................................................................................
Poplar Bluff School District .........................................................................................................
Red Cloud Community School District .......................................................................................
SAU 41—Hollis Brookline Schools .............................................................................................
Beaufort County School District .................................................................................................
Middle Ohio Education ...............................................................................................................
Penns Valley Area School District ..............................................................................................
Bedford County School District ..................................................................................................
Banquete Independent School District .......................................................................................
Cleburne Independent School District ........................................................................................
Leander Independent School District .........................................................................................
Teague Independent School District ..........................................................................................
Arkansas ............................
Florida ................................
Florida ................................
Florida ................................
Idaho ..................................
Idaho ..................................
Massachusetts ...................
Minnesota ...........................
Minnesota ...........................
Missouri ..............................
Nebraska ............................
New Hampshire ..................
North Carolina ....................
Ohio ....................................
Pennsylvania ......................
Tennessee ..........................
Texas ..................................
Texas ..................................
Texas ..................................
Texas ..................................
Total .....................................................................................................................................
[FR Doc. 2012–12663 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
[Docket No. 12–07]
Notice of Inquiry; Solicitation of Views
on Requests To Develop and Release
Container Freight Rate Indices for U.S.
Agricultural Exports Based on a
Sampling of Service Contracts Filed
With the FMC
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of Inquiry.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Federal Maritime
Commission (‘‘FMC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
is issuing this Notice of Inquiry (‘‘NOI’’)
to solicit public comment on informal
requests the Commission has received
from some large U.S. exporters and
intermediaries to develop and release
container freight indices for U.S.
agricultural exports. The Commission is
seeking written comments and
information from U.S. exporters,
intermediaries, ocean carriers, and any
other interested parties on (1) Whether
and to what extent the shipping public
would find targeted U.S. export rate
indices beneficial; (2) whether the
Commission should extract rate
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
information from service contracts or
whether suitable alternatives exist; (3)
the positive and negative influences on
the export commodities and ocean
transportation marketplaces of the
greater transparency such indices might
provide; and (4) whether, these indices,
if developed, should be commodity
specific for different prescribed routes
or whether more broadly based indices
would meet U.S. exporters’ needs.
DATES: Responses are due on or before
July 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Karen
V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime
Commission, 800 North Capitol Street
NW., Room 1046, Washington, DC
20573–0001. Or email non-confidential
comments to: secretary@fmc.gov (email
comments as attachments preferably in
Microsoft Word or PDF).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of
Trade Analysis, Federal Maritime
Commission, 800 North Capitol Street
NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001,
Telephone: (202) 523–5796, Email:
skusumoto@fmc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submit Comments: Non-confidential
filings may be submitted in hard copy
or by email as an attachment (preferably
in Microsoft Word or PDF) addressed to
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31013
Total amount
converted
$6,809.24
678,288.69
5,670
39,031.19
3,523.67
4,299.25
8,316.00
24,797.66
4,673.99
7,672.77
2,254.52
1,765.18
9,730.00
23.01
10,966.83
23,215.94
18,655.72
7,231.32
31,872.31
3,190.56
891,987.85
secretary@fmc.gov on or before July 9,
2012. Include in the subject line: ‘‘FMC
Export Index—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
‘‘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 email provided
above.
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
31014
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices
Background
Published containerized freight rate
indices have proliferated in the past
several years. In chronological order of
their initial year of publication, these
include the China Containerized Freight
Index (CCFI, 1998), Drewry Freight
Insight Index (2006), Shanghai
Containerized Freight Index (SCFI,
2009), Container Trade Statistics Index
(CTS Index, 2009), the Transpacific
Stabilization Agreement Index (TSA
Index, 2011), and the Drewry-Cleartrade
World Container Index (WCI, 2011).
Each of these indices includes one or
more U.S. trade routes, but most of them
focus only on the U.S. import leg. The
two exceptions are the CTS Index,
which issues a lagged monthly index of
U.S.-Europe rates benchmarked to 2008,
and the WCI, which last year began
providing coverage of container rates for
freight shipped from Los Angeles to
Shanghai and Rotterdam among the 11
route-specific indices it provides
weekly. Most of these indices were
developed in the wake of recent rate
volatility in the major international liner
shipping markets. In principle, the
availability of credible rate benchmarks
allows shippers and ocean carriers an
opportunity to manage freight rate risk.
Last fall the Commission issued a
proposed rule for freight index-based
service contracts to provide flexibility
and certainty to ocean carriers and their
customers. The final rule went into
effect in March and makes clear that
service contracts can reference freight
indices or other outside terms, so long
as they are readily available to the
contracting parties and the Commission.
Beginning this year, the Commission
has received informal requests from
several large U.S. agricultural shippers,
intermediaries, and derivative brokers to
consider issuing an index based on
service contracts filed with the
Commission because they have not
found the available indices for U.S.
export routes useful for the level of
market intelligence they need, for
adjusting rates in contracts, or for
hedging freight rate risk. These large
U.S. exporters, as well as the
Agricultural Marketing Service at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
have expressed an interest in having
access to reliable container freight rate
indices that are specific to U.S.
agricultural export commodities. They
assert that the U.S. export market likely
would be quick to adopt index-based
contracting because many exporters
already are accustomed to hedging risk
exposure in the bulk shipping markets
and because freight rates represent a
much larger portion of the delivered
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
value of their products, which means
even quite small freight rate movements
can have a large impact on the delivered
value. These agricultural exporters also
point out that they have excellent
visibility into bulk shipping rates
through the Baltic Dry Indexes, but have
no similar visibility into container
shipping rates for exports.
Some U.S. agricultural exporters have
told Commission staff that a properly
constructed index would help them
increase exports by allowing them to
use contracting and hedging strategies to
increase the certainty of their
transportation costs. These U.S.
agricultural exporters have said that
ocean carriers generally are reluctant to
offer them service contract rates that are
valid for more than 30 to 60 days, and
that this inability to lock in a rate
hinders their ability to sell agricultural
exports for delivery more than 60 days
into the future out of fear that changing
transportation costs will make the sale
uneconomic. Releasing an appropriately
designed index could provide a marketbased approach to this problem by
allowing shippers to protect themselves
through contracting and hedging
strategies in private markets. U.S.
agricultural exporters and derivative
brokers also have told the Commission
that the lack of a reliable container rate
index for export grain shipments in
particular disadvantages container
shipping relative to bulk shipping
because of the superior pricing
transparency afforded by the Baltic Dry
Indexes.
In response to the exporter requests,
Commission staff inquired whether and
why the indices currently published
were not meeting U.S. shippers’
exporting needs. These agricultural
exporters raised concerns about the
present export indices’ transparency in
the way the underlying data are
collected. They also claimed there is
poor correlation between the general
rate trends represented in these indices
and the actual rates U.S. exporters incur
for the ocean transportation of specific
agricultural products.
Other parties, on the other hand, have
raised questions or concerns about the
concept of the Commission sampling
service contract data for commodityspecific freight rate indices. For
example, they have asked: (1) Whether
commodity-specific indices can be
aggregated in a manner to protect
confidential individual service contract
rates; (2) whether release of such indices
would further or contravene the
purposes of the Shipping Act; (3)
whether release of indices would benefit
U.S. exporters or instead advantage their
foreign competitors; (4) whether any
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
benefits to exporters would be sufficient
to justify the commitment of
Commission resources to developing
and releasing the indices; and (5)
whether issuance of such indices is
better left to private index publishers.
The Commission is interested in
evaluating whether more targeted
indices utilizing information in the
service contracts filed with the
Commission could materially assist U.S.
agricultural exporters while furthering
the Commission’s governing statutes
and the Administration’s goal of
promoting U.S. exports. One of the
stated purposes of the Shipping Act is
to ‘‘promote the growth and
development of United States exports
through competitive and efficient ocean
transportation and by placing a greater
reliance on the marketplace,’’ 46 U.S.C.
40101(4) and, in January 2010, the
President launched a National Export
Initiative with the goal of doubling U.S.
exports over the next five years. Later,
on March 11, 2010, the President issued
Executive Order No. 13534 and has
directed the use of every available
federal resource in support of that effort.
Following the requests from large
agricultural exporters and others,
Commission staff has conducted some
initial testing of the technical feasibility
of using service contract data filed with
the Commission to develop a container
rate index for a few targeted major U.S.
export commodities such as grains,
cotton, hay, and frozen meat, and has
assessed the resource implications. To
fully protect the identity of individual
shippers and ocean carriers, data
extracted from service contracts would
be aggregated at an appropriate level
prior to making public an average rate
or index. The Commission wishes to
stress that this concept is still in its
formative stages and wants to hear the
views of all parties before deciding
whether or not to produce it.
The Current Inquiry
At this time, the Commission is
seeking written comments and
information from U.S. exporters,
intermediaries, ocean carriers, and any
other interested parties on whether it
would be useful, advisable, and
appropriate for the Commission to
publish a few targeted export indices
based on an aggregated sampling of
service contract data. The Commission
is particularly interested in: (a)
Understanding whether and to what
extent the shipping public would find
U.S. export rate indices beneficial; (b)
assessing whether it should extract rate
information from service contracts or
whether suitable alternatives exist; (c)
determining the positive and negative
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices
influences on the export commodities
and ocean transportation marketplaces
that greater price transparency via such
indices might provide; and (d) gathering
views on whether these indices, if
developed, should be commodityspecific for different prescribed routes
or whether more broadly based indices
would meet the needs of U.S. exporters.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Questions
1. Is there anything that prevents
private index developers and publishers
from developing indices of the kind
being sought by U.S. agricultural
exporters?
2. Has your company used or
considered using any existing freight
rate index to adjust rates in its export
service contracts or to hedge freight rate
risk? If so, what is your company’s view
on the products it used or considered?
3. Would it be appropriate to use
service contract data filed confidentially
with the Commission to develop indices
of the kind being sought by U.S.
agricultural exporters (assuming the
data is aggregated so as to protect the
identity of individual shippers and
ocean carriers before being released to
the public in the form of an average rate
or index)?
4. Should these indices be optimized
for use in service contracts, for use in
financial hedging instruments, or both?
5. What kind of competitive issues
would the public release of a broadly
based or route and commodity specific
rate index create for U.S. export
shippers or ocean carriers?
6. If developed using service contract
data filed with the Commission, should
a U.S. export rate index be route and
commodity specific or should it be more
broadly based? If the former type of rate
index would be more useful to your
business, explain what type of
commodity, specific route, publication
frequency, or other index-related factors
are most needed.
7. Should either or both parties to a
service contract have the option of not
having their contract rates incorporated
into an index?
8. If made available by the
Commission, how would an export rate
index affect your company’s export
sales?
9. If made available by the
Commission, how likely is your
company to use an export rate index in
its service contracts to adjust rates?
10. Has your company or related
subsidiary traded in freight derivatives?
If so, describe that experience and the
outcomes obtained?
11. If a U.S. export rate index is made
available by the Commission, how likely
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:31 May 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
is your company to trade in a
derivatives market based on that index?
12. What impact would trading in a
freight derivative market based on a U.S.
export rate index have on the physical
U.S. export container market?
Along with comments, respondents
should provide their name, their title/
position, contact information (e.g.,
telephone number and/or email
address), name and address of company
or other entity and type of company or
entity (e.g., carrier, exporter, importer,
trade association, index publisher, etc.).
Responses to the NOI will help the
Commission decide whether it would be
useful, advisable, and appropriate for
the Commission to publish a few
targeted export freight rate indices based
on an aggregated sampling of service
contract data filed with the
Commission, and if so, what type of
indices would best serve the needs of
U.S. exporters.
To promote maximum participation,
the NOI questions will be made
available via the Federal Register and
on the Commission’s Web site at
www.fmc.gov in a downloadable text
file. They can also be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s Secretary,
Karen V. Gregory, by telephone at (202)
523–5725 or by email at
secretary@fmc.gov. Please indicate
whether you would prefer a hard copy
or an email copy of the NOI questions.
Non-confidential comments may be sent
to secretary@fmc.gov as an attachment
to an email submission. Such
attachments should be submitted
preferably in Microsoft Word or 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 benefits and drawbacks of
establishing rate benchmarks for major
U.S. exports. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31015
By the Commission.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–12666 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730–01–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Federal Open Market Committee;
Domestic Policy Directive of April 24–
25, 2012
In accordance with § 271.7(d) of its
rules regarding availability of
information (12 CFR part 271), there is
set forth below the domestic policy
directive issued by the Federal Open
Market Committee at its meeting held
on April 24–15, 2012.1
The Federal Open Market Committee
seeks monetary and financial conditions
that will foster price stability and
promote sustainable growth in output.
To further its long-run objectives, the
Committee seeks conditions in reserve
markets consistent with federal funds
trading in a range from 0 to 1⁄4 percent.
The Committee directs the Desk to
continue the maturity extension
program it began in September to
purchase, by the end of June 2012,
Treasury securities with remaining
maturities of approximately 6 years to
30 years with a total face value of $400
billion, and to sell Treasury securities
with remaining maturities of 3 years or
less with a total face value of $400
billion. The Committee also directs the
Desk to maintain its existing policies of
rolling over maturing Treasury
securities into new issues and of
reinvesting principal payments on all
agency debt and agency mortgagebacked securities in the System Open
Market Account in agency mortgagebacked securities in order to maintain
the total face value of domestic
securities at approximately $2.6 trillion.
The Committee directs the Desk to
engage in dollar roll transactions as
necessary to facilitate settlement of the
Federal Reserve’s agency MBS
transactions. The System Open Market
Account Manager and the Secretary will
keep the Committee informed of
ongoing developments regarding the
System’s balance sheet that could affect
the attainment over time of the
Committee’s objectives of maximum
employment and price stability.
1 Copies of the Minutes of the Federal Open
Market Committee at its meeting held on April 24–
25, 2012, which includes the domestic policy
directive issued at the meeting, are available on the
Board’s Web site, www.federalreserve.gov. The
minutes are also published in the Federal Reserve
Bulletin and in the Board’s Annual Report.
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31013-31015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12666]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
[Docket No. 12-07]
Notice of Inquiry; Solicitation of Views on Requests To Develop
and Release Container Freight Rate Indices for U.S. Agricultural
Exports Based on a Sampling of Service Contracts Filed With the FMC
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
informal requests the Commission has received from some large U.S.
exporters and intermediaries to develop and release container freight
indices for U.S. agricultural exports. The Commission is seeking
written comments and information from U.S. exporters, intermediaries,
ocean carriers, and any other interested parties on (1) Whether and to
what extent the shipping public would find targeted U.S. export rate
indices beneficial; (2) whether the Commission should extract rate
information from service contracts or whether suitable alternatives
exist; (3) the positive and negative influences on the export
commodities and ocean transportation marketplaces of the greater
transparency such indices might provide; and (4) whether, these
indices, if developed, should be commodity specific for different
prescribed routes or whether more broadly based indices would meet U.S.
exporters' needs.
DATES: Responses are due on or before July 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal
Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Room 1046,
Washington, DC 20573-0001. Or email non-confidential comments to:
secretary@fmc.gov (email comments as attachments preferably in
Microsoft Word or PDF).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau
of Trade Analysis, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol
Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, Telephone: (202) 523-5796,
Email: skusumoto@fmc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submit Comments: Non-confidential filings may be submitted in hard
copy or by email as an attachment (preferably in Microsoft Word or PDF)
addressed to secretary@fmc.gov on or before July 9, 2012. Include in
the subject line: ``FMC Export Index--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 ``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 email provided above.
[[Page 31014]]
Background
Published containerized freight rate indices have proliferated in
the past several years. In chronological order of their initial year of
publication, these include the China Containerized Freight Index (CCFI,
1998), Drewry Freight Insight Index (2006), Shanghai Containerized
Freight Index (SCFI, 2009), Container Trade Statistics Index (CTS
Index, 2009), the Transpacific Stabilization Agreement Index (TSA
Index, 2011), and the Drewry-Cleartrade World Container Index (WCI,
2011). Each of these indices includes one or more U.S. trade routes,
but most of them focus only on the U.S. import leg. The two exceptions
are the CTS Index, which issues a lagged monthly index of U.S.-Europe
rates benchmarked to 2008, and the WCI, which last year began providing
coverage of container rates for freight shipped from Los Angeles to
Shanghai and Rotterdam among the 11 route-specific indices it provides
weekly. Most of these indices were developed in the wake of recent rate
volatility in the major international liner shipping markets. In
principle, the availability of credible rate benchmarks allows shippers
and ocean carriers an opportunity to manage freight rate risk.
Last fall the Commission issued a proposed rule for freight index-
based service contracts to provide flexibility and certainty to ocean
carriers and their customers. The final rule went into effect in March
and makes clear that service contracts can reference freight indices or
other outside terms, so long as they are readily available to the
contracting parties and the Commission.
Beginning this year, the Commission has received informal requests
from several large U.S. agricultural shippers, intermediaries, and
derivative brokers to consider issuing an index based on service
contracts filed with the Commission because they have not found the
available indices for U.S. export routes useful for the level of market
intelligence they need, for adjusting rates in contracts, or for
hedging freight rate risk. These large U.S. exporters, as well as the
Agricultural Marketing Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), have expressed an interest in having access to reliable
container freight rate indices that are specific to U.S. agricultural
export commodities. They assert that the U.S. export market likely
would be quick to adopt index-based contracting because many exporters
already are accustomed to hedging risk exposure in the bulk shipping
markets and because freight rates represent a much larger portion of
the delivered value of their products, which means even quite small
freight rate movements can have a large impact on the delivered value.
These agricultural exporters also point out that they have excellent
visibility into bulk shipping rates through the Baltic Dry Indexes, but
have no similar visibility into container shipping rates for exports.
Some U.S. agricultural exporters have told Commission staff that a
properly constructed index would help them increase exports by allowing
them to use contracting and hedging strategies to increase the
certainty of their transportation costs. These U.S. agricultural
exporters have said that ocean carriers generally are reluctant to
offer them service contract rates that are valid for more than 30 to 60
days, and that this inability to lock in a rate hinders their ability
to sell agricultural exports for delivery more than 60 days into the
future out of fear that changing transportation costs will make the
sale uneconomic. Releasing an appropriately designed index could
provide a market-based approach to this problem by allowing shippers to
protect themselves through contracting and hedging strategies in
private markets. U.S. agricultural exporters and derivative brokers
also have told the Commission that the lack of a reliable container
rate index for export grain shipments in particular disadvantages
container shipping relative to bulk shipping because of the superior
pricing transparency afforded by the Baltic Dry Indexes.
In response to the exporter requests, Commission staff inquired
whether and why the indices currently published were not meeting U.S.
shippers' exporting needs. These agricultural exporters raised concerns
about the present export indices' transparency in the way the
underlying data are collected. They also claimed there is poor
correlation between the general rate trends represented in these
indices and the actual rates U.S. exporters incur for the ocean
transportation of specific agricultural products.
Other parties, on the other hand, have raised questions or concerns
about the concept of the Commission sampling service contract data for
commodity-specific freight rate indices. For example, they have asked:
(1) Whether commodity-specific indices can be aggregated in a manner to
protect confidential individual service contract rates; (2) whether
release of such indices would further or contravene the purposes of the
Shipping Act; (3) whether release of indices would benefit U.S.
exporters or instead advantage their foreign competitors; (4) whether
any benefits to exporters would be sufficient to justify the commitment
of Commission resources to developing and releasing the indices; and
(5) whether issuance of such indices is better left to private index
publishers.
The Commission is interested in evaluating whether more targeted
indices utilizing information in the service contracts filed with the
Commission could materially assist U.S. agricultural exporters while
furthering the Commission's governing statutes and the Administration's
goal of promoting U.S. exports. One of the stated purposes of the
Shipping Act is to ``promote the growth and development of United
States exports through competitive and efficient ocean transportation
and by placing a greater reliance on the marketplace,'' 46 U.S.C.
40101(4) and, in January 2010, the President launched a National Export
Initiative with the goal of doubling U.S. exports over the next five
years. Later, on March 11, 2010, the President issued Executive Order
No. 13534 and has directed the use of every available federal resource
in support of that effort.
Following the requests from large agricultural exporters and
others, Commission staff has conducted some initial testing of the
technical feasibility of using service contract data filed with the
Commission to develop a container rate index for a few targeted major
U.S. export commodities such as grains, cotton, hay, and frozen meat,
and has assessed the resource implications. To fully protect the
identity of individual shippers and ocean carriers, data extracted from
service contracts would be aggregated at an appropriate level prior to
making public an average rate or index. The Commission wishes to stress
that this concept is still in its formative stages and wants to hear
the views of all parties before deciding whether or not to produce it.
The Current Inquiry
At this time, the Commission is seeking written comments and
information from U.S. exporters, intermediaries, ocean carriers, and
any other interested parties on whether it would be useful, advisable,
and appropriate for the Commission to publish a few targeted export
indices based on an aggregated sampling of service contract data. The
Commission is particularly interested in: (a) Understanding whether and
to what extent the shipping public would find U.S. export rate indices
beneficial; (b) assessing whether it should extract rate information
from service contracts or whether suitable alternatives exist; (c)
determining the positive and negative
[[Page 31015]]
influences on the export commodities and ocean transportation
marketplaces that greater price transparency via such indices might
provide; and (d) gathering views on whether these indices, if
developed, should be commodity-specific for different prescribed routes
or whether more broadly based indices would meet the needs of U.S.
exporters.
Questions
1. Is there anything that prevents private index developers and
publishers from developing indices of the kind being sought by U.S.
agricultural exporters?
2. Has your company used or considered using any existing freight
rate index to adjust rates in its export service contracts or to hedge
freight rate risk? If so, what is your company's view on the products
it used or considered?
3. Would it be appropriate to use service contract data filed
confidentially with the Commission to develop indices of the kind being
sought by U.S. agricultural exporters (assuming the data is aggregated
so as to protect the identity of individual shippers and ocean carriers
before being released to the public in the form of an average rate or
index)?
4. Should these indices be optimized for use in service contracts,
for use in financial hedging instruments, or both?
5. What kind of competitive issues would the public release of a
broadly based or route and commodity specific rate index create for
U.S. export shippers or ocean carriers?
6. If developed using service contract data filed with the
Commission, should a U.S. export rate index be route and commodity
specific or should it be more broadly based? If the former type of rate
index would be more useful to your business, explain what type of
commodity, specific route, publication frequency, or other index-
related factors are most needed.
7. Should either or both parties to a service contract have the
option of not having their contract rates incorporated into an index?
8. If made available by the Commission, how would an export rate
index affect your company's export sales?
9. If made available by the Commission, how likely is your company
to use an export rate index in its service contracts to adjust rates?
10. Has your company or related subsidiary traded in freight
derivatives? If so, describe that experience and the outcomes obtained?
11. If a U.S. export rate index is made available by the
Commission, how likely is your company to trade in a derivatives market
based on that index?
12. What impact would trading in a freight derivative market based
on a U.S. export rate index have on the physical U.S. export container
market?
Along with comments, respondents should provide their name, their
title/position, contact information (e.g., telephone number and/or
email address), name and address of company or other entity and type of
company or entity (e.g., carrier, exporter, importer, trade
association, index publisher, etc.).
Responses to the NOI will help the Commission decide whether it
would be useful, advisable, and appropriate for the Commission to
publish a few targeted export freight rate indices based on an
aggregated sampling of service contract data filed with the Commission,
and if so, what type of indices would best serve the needs of U.S.
exporters.
To promote maximum participation, the NOI questions will be made
available via the Federal Register and on the Commission's Web site at
www.fmc.gov in a downloadable text file. They can also be obtained by
contacting the Commission's Secretary, Karen V. Gregory, by telephone
at (202) 523-5725 or by email at secretary@fmc.gov. Please indicate
whether you would prefer a hard copy or an email copy of the NOI
questions. Non-confidential comments may be sent to secretary@fmc.gov
as an attachment to an email submission. Such attachments should be
submitted preferably in Microsoft Word or 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 benefits and drawbacks of establishing
rate benchmarks for major U.S. exports. 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. 2012-12666 Filed 5-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P