Demurrage Liability, 31882-31883 [2013-12543]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31882
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Government reserves the right to reject any
subsequent offer of the same item or a
substantially equal item at a higher price
during the same contract period, if the
contracting officer finds the higher price to
be unreasonable when compared with the
deleted item.
(3) Price Reduction. The Contractor shall
indicate whether the price reduction falls
under the item (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph
(c)(1) of the Price Reductions clause at
552.238–75. If the Price reduction falls under
item (i), the Contractor shall submit a copy
of the dated commercial price list. If the price
reduction falls under item (ii) or (iii), the
Contractor shall submit a copy of the
applicable price list(s), bulletins or letters or
customer agreements which outline the
effective date, duration, terms and conditions
of the price reduction.
(c) Effective dates. The effective date of any
modification is the date specified in the
modification, except as otherwise provided
in the Price Reductions clause at 552.238–75.
(d) Electronic File Updates. The Contractor
shall update electronic file submissions to
reflect all modifications. For additional items
or SINs, the Contractor shall obtain the
Contracting Officer’s approval before
transmitting changes. Contract modifications
will not be made effective until the
Government receives the electronic file
updates. The Contractor may transmit price
reductions, item deletions, and corrections
without prior approval. However, the
Contractor shall notify the Contracting
Officer as set forth in the Price Reductions
clause at 552.238–75.
(e) Amendments to Paper Federal Supply
Schedule Price Lists.
(1) The Contractor must provide
supplements to its paper price lists, reflecting
the most current changes. The Contractor
may either:
(i) Distribute a supplemental paper Federal
Supply Schedule Price List within 15
workdays after the effective date of each
modification.
(ii) Distribute quarterly cumulative
supplements. The period covered by a
cumulative supplement is at the discretion of
the Contractor, but may not exceed three
calendar months from the effective date of
the earliest modification. For example, if the
first modification occurs in February, the
quarterly supplement must cover February–
April, and every three month period after.
The Contractor must distribute each quarterly
cumulative supplement within 15 workdays
from the last day of the calendar quarter.
(2) At a minimum, the Contractor shall
distribute each supplement to those ordering
activities that previously received the basic
document. In addition, the Contractor shall
submit two copies of each supplement to the
Contracting Officer and one copy to the FSS
Schedule Information Center.
(End of Clause)
Alternate I (Date). As prescribed in
538.273(b)(3), add the following
paragraph (f) to the basic clause:
(f) Electronic submission of
modification requests is mandatory via
eMod (https://eOffer.gsa.gov), unless
otherwise stated in the electronic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 May 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
submission standards and requirements
at the Vendor Support Center Web site
(https://vsc.gsa.gov). If the electronic
submissions standards and
requirements information is updated at
the Vendor Support Center Web site,
Contractors will be notified prior to the
effective date of the change.
[FR Doc. 2013–12566 Filed 5–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–61–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1333
[Docket No. EP 707]
Demurrage Liability
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
Initial regulatory flexibility
analysis and request for comments.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Board is publishing this
initial regulatory flexibility analysis to
aid the public in commenting on the
impact on small rail carriers, if any, of
the proposed rules on demurrage
liability.
DATES:
Comments are due by June 27,
2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy C. Ziehm at (202) 245–0391.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By
decision served on May 7, 2012, the
Surface Transportation Board (the
Board) issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) regarding demurrage
liability. Specifically, the Board
announced a proposed rule providing
that any person receiving rail cars from
a rail carrier for loading or unloading
who detains the cars beyond a specified
period of time may be held liable for
demurrage if that person has actual
notice of the terms of the demurrage
tariff providing for such liability prior to
the carrier’s placement of the rail cars.
Demurrage Liability, EP 707, slip op. at
10 (STB served May 7, 2012). The NPR
did not include an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) pursuant to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, but
instead included a certification that the
proposed rules would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Id.,
slip op. at 17–18. The certification was
based on the fact that rail carriers would
be required to provide a one-time notice
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(electronic or written) to their
customers,1 and the Board noted that
these types of notices are generally
already provided, often electronically. A
review of the 2011 Waybill Sample
reveals that small rail carriers, as
defined by the Small Business
Administration,2 have an average of 10
terminating stations, which generally
equates to 10 customers. As such, the
burden imposed would be to provide
approximately 10 notices of a carrier’s
demurrage tariff, either electronically or
in writing, which is not significant.
Additionally, to the extent that their
existing tariffs conflict with the
proposed rules, rail carriers would need
to update their demurrage tariffs to
conform to the proposed rules.
In response to the NPR, the American
Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association (ASLRRA) submitted
comments in which it questioned the
necessity of imposing the actual notice
requirement on small carriers. ALSRRA
summarily argued that ‘‘small railroads
. . . often communicate with shippers
by telephone,’’ that Class III carriers are
‘‘sometimes less electronically
sophisticated,’’ and that ‘‘small
railroads, particularly those who are
acting as handling lines, may not even
know who the receiver is.’’ 3
The Board continues to believe that
its certification in the NPR is
appropriate because the impact of the
proposed rules would not be significant.
Nevertheless, the Board has decided to
publish the following analysis to
provide further information and
opportunity for public comment on the
impact on small rail carriers, if any, of
the rules. The Board notes that it
already afforded a period of public
comment on the proposed rules and that
this solicitation of comments is limited
to the impact on small rail carriers, if
any, of the rules.
1 The Paperwork Reduction Act and Regulatory
Flexibility Act sections of the NPR assumed that
rail carriers would only need to provide a one-time
notice. See, e.g., NPR at 21 (calculating burden
hours by assuming that it would take ‘‘railroads
eight hours to provide initial notice to its
customers’’). Many commenters asked for
clarification on whether rail carriers would need to
provide notice with each delivery of rail cars, or
whether a one-time notice would suffice. In this
IRFA, we are not deciding this issue, but only
noting that the analyses contained in the NPR were
based on the assumption that rail carriers would
only need to provide a one-time notice.
2 The Small Business Administration’s Office of
Size Standards has established a size standard for
rail transportation, pursuant to which a ‘‘line-haul
railroad’’ is considered small if its number of
employees is 1,500 or less, and a ‘‘short line
railroad’’ is considered small if its number of
employees is 500 or less. 13 CFR 121.201 (industry
subsector 482).
3 ASLRRA’s Comments 3–4.
E:\FR\FM\28MYP1.SGM
28MYP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
In particular, we encourage ASLRRA
to provide comments in response to this
IRFA. Although we appreciate that
ASLRRA submitted comments regarding
the impact on small carriers, its
comments were general in nature. To
fully evaluate ASLRRA’s comments, the
Board seeks more specific information
with which to evaluate the concerns
raised by ASLRRA. Specifically, we
seek further comment on the number of
small carriers that would find electronic
or written communication of notice
more difficult than communication of
notice by phone, and why; and
information on small carriers that
deliver rail cars but are unaware of the
receiver’s identity. Additionally, we
seek comment on the number of
customers served by small carriers. We
also encourage any other information
that is relevant to the burden, if any, the
proposed rules would have on small rail
carriers.
Description of the reasons that action
by the agency is being considered.
The Board instituted this proceeding
in order to reexamine its existing
policies on demurrage liability and to
promote uniformity in the area in light
of conflicting opinions from the United
States Courts of Appeals. In reviewing
the decisions from the Courts of
Appeals, the Board determined that it
was necessary to revisit its demurrage
precedent to consider whether the
agency’s policies accounted for current
statutory provisions and commercial
practices. For a more detailed
description of the agency’s historical
regulation of demurrage, the conflicting
opinions from the Courts of Appeals,
and the Board’s reasons for considering
the proposed rules, see the NPR.
Succinct statement of the objectives
of, and legal basis for, the proposed
rule.
The objectives are to update our
policies regarding responsibility for
demurrage liability and to promote
uniformity in the area by defining who
is subject to demurrage. The legal basis
for the proposed rule is 49 U.S.C. 721.
Description of and, where feasible, an
estimate of the number of small entities
to which the proposed rule will apply.
In general, the rule would apply to
any rail carrier providing rail cars to a
shipper at origin or delivering them to
a receiver at end-point or intermediate
destination who wishes to charge
demurrage for the detention of rail cars
beyond the free time. See Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 May 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
§ 1333.3. The rule will apply to
approximately 562 small rail carriers.
Description of the projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule,
including an estimate of the classes of
small entities that will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional
skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record.
The proposed rules would require
that rail carriers make certain thirdparty disclosures, i.e., provide persons
receiving rail cars for loading or
unloading with notice of the demurrage
tariff in order to hold that person liable
for demurrage charges. See Proposed
Rule § 1333.3. The Board is seeking,
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act, approval from the Office of
Management and Budget for this
requirement. See NPR Appendix B
(description of collections). To provide
this initial notice, rail carriers would
need to update their demurrage tariffs to
conform to the proposed rules to the
extent that their existing tariffs conflict
with the proposed rules. In the NPR, the
Board estimated approximately eight
hours to provide initial notice to the
railroads’ customers. However, the
Board seeks further comment on the
actual time, or costs or expenditures, if
any, of providing a one-time notice of
the demurrage tariff and updating the
demurrage tariff to conform to the
proposed rules, and the extent to which
these costs may differ or vary for small
entities.
Identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
The Board is unaware of any
duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting
federal rules. The Board seeks
comments and information about any
such rules.
Description of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and that minimize
any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities,
including alternatives considered, such
as: (1) Establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2)
clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule
for such small entities; (3) use of
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
31883
performance rather than design
standards; (4) any exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for such small entities.
Under the proposed rule, rail carriers
would be free to choose between
providing notice electronically or in
writing. In response to the NPR, many
commenters suggested that notice be
fulfilled by providing a link to the
notice, rather than the complete text of
the notice of demurrage tariff.
Additionally, as noted earlier, some
commenters also argued that a one-time
notice should fulfill the notice
requirement, as opposed to providing
notice with every shipment. Both of
these suggestions are potential
alternatives to minimize the burden on
rail carriers.
Although the stated goal of the
rulemaking is to ‘‘promote uniformity in
the area,’’ ASLRRA has suggested
establishing a different notice
requirement for small carriers. An
alternative to the proposed rule, as
suggested by ASLRRA, would be to
eliminate the notice requirement for
small carriers that publish their
demurrage tariffs on the carriers’ Web
site. Other alternatives include
eliminating the notice requirement for
small carriers altogether or permitting
small carriers to provide notice in
different forms (e.g., by telephone).
Commenters should, if they advance
any of these alternatives in their
comments, address how such
alternatives would be consistent or
inconsistent with the goal of uniformity
envisioned by the proposed rules.
This action will not significantly
affect either the quality of the human
environment or the conservation of
energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. Comments are due by June 27,
2013.
2. A copy of this decision will be
served upon the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S.
Small Business Administration.
3. Notice of this decision will be
published in the Federal Register.
Decided: May 21, 2013.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice
Chairman Begeman, and Commissioner
Mulvey.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2013–12543 Filed 5–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
E:\FR\FM\28MYP1.SGM
28MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31882-31883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12543]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1333
[Docket No. EP 707]
Demurrage Liability
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
ACTION: Initial regulatory flexibility analysis and request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is publishing this initial regulatory flexibility
analysis to aid the public in commenting on the impact on small rail
carriers, if any, of the proposed rules on demurrage liability.
DATES: Comments are due by June 27, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy C. Ziehm at (202) 245-0391.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By decision served on May 7, 2012, the
Surface Transportation Board (the Board) issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) regarding demurrage liability. Specifically, the Board
announced a proposed rule providing that any person receiving rail cars
from a rail carrier for loading or unloading who detains the cars
beyond a specified period of time may be held liable for demurrage if
that person has actual notice of the terms of the demurrage tariff
providing for such liability prior to the carrier's placement of the
rail cars. Demurrage Liability, EP 707, slip op. at 10 (STB served May
7, 2012). The NPR did not include an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, but instead
included a certification that the proposed rules would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Id., slip op. at 17-18. The certification was based on the fact that
rail carriers would be required to provide a one-time notice
(electronic or written) to their customers,\1\ and the Board noted that
these types of notices are generally already provided, often
electronically. A review of the 2011 Waybill Sample reveals that small
rail carriers, as defined by the Small Business Administration,\2\ have
an average of 10 terminating stations, which generally equates to 10
customers. As such, the burden imposed would be to provide
approximately 10 notices of a carrier's demurrage tariff, either
electronically or in writing, which is not significant. Additionally,
to the extent that their existing tariffs conflict with the proposed
rules, rail carriers would need to update their demurrage tariffs to
conform to the proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Paperwork Reduction Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act
sections of the NPR assumed that rail carriers would only need to
provide a one-time notice. See, e.g., NPR at 21 (calculating burden
hours by assuming that it would take ``railroads eight hours to
provide initial notice to its customers''). Many commenters asked
for clarification on whether rail carriers would need to provide
notice with each delivery of rail cars, or whether a one-time notice
would suffice. In this IRFA, we are not deciding this issue, but
only noting that the analyses contained in the NPR were based on the
assumption that rail carriers would only need to provide a one-time
notice.
\2\ The Small Business Administration's Office of Size Standards
has established a size standard for rail transportation, pursuant to
which a ``line-haul railroad'' is considered small if its number of
employees is 1,500 or less, and a ``short line railroad'' is
considered small if its number of employees is 500 or less. 13 CFR
121.201 (industry subsector 482).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NPR, the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association (ASLRRA) submitted comments in which it questioned
the necessity of imposing the actual notice requirement on small
carriers. ALSRRA summarily argued that ``small railroads . . . often
communicate with shippers by telephone,'' that Class III carriers are
``sometimes less electronically sophisticated,'' and that ``small
railroads, particularly those who are acting as handling lines, may not
even know who the receiver is.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ASLRRA's Comments 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board continues to believe that its certification in the NPR is
appropriate because the impact of the proposed rules would not be
significant. Nevertheless, the Board has decided to publish the
following analysis to provide further information and opportunity for
public comment on the impact on small rail carriers, if any, of the
rules. The Board notes that it already afforded a period of public
comment on the proposed rules and that this solicitation of comments is
limited to the impact on small rail carriers, if any, of the rules.
[[Page 31883]]
In particular, we encourage ASLRRA to provide comments in response
to this IRFA. Although we appreciate that ASLRRA submitted comments
regarding the impact on small carriers, its comments were general in
nature. To fully evaluate ASLRRA's comments, the Board seeks more
specific information with which to evaluate the concerns raised by
ASLRRA. Specifically, we seek further comment on the number of small
carriers that would find electronic or written communication of notice
more difficult than communication of notice by phone, and why; and
information on small carriers that deliver rail cars but are unaware of
the receiver's identity. Additionally, we seek comment on the number of
customers served by small carriers. We also encourage any other
information that is relevant to the burden, if any, the proposed rules
would have on small rail carriers.
Description of the reasons that action by the agency is being
considered.
The Board instituted this proceeding in order to reexamine its
existing policies on demurrage liability and to promote uniformity in
the area in light of conflicting opinions from the United States Courts
of Appeals. In reviewing the decisions from the Courts of Appeals, the
Board determined that it was necessary to revisit its demurrage
precedent to consider whether the agency's policies accounted for
current statutory provisions and commercial practices. For a more
detailed description of the agency's historical regulation of
demurrage, the conflicting opinions from the Courts of Appeals, and the
Board's reasons for considering the proposed rules, see the NPR.
Succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule.
The objectives are to update our policies regarding responsibility
for demurrage liability and to promote uniformity in the area by
defining who is subject to demurrage. The legal basis for the proposed
rule is 49 U.S.C. 721.
Description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply.
In general, the rule would apply to any rail carrier providing rail
cars to a shipper at origin or delivering them to a receiver at end-
point or intermediate destination who wishes to charge demurrage for
the detention of rail cars beyond the free time. See Proposed Rule
Sec. 1333.3. The rule will apply to approximately 562 small rail
carriers.
Description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record.
The proposed rules would require that rail carriers make certain
third-party disclosures, i.e., provide persons receiving rail cars for
loading or unloading with notice of the demurrage tariff in order to
hold that person liable for demurrage charges. See Proposed Rule Sec.
1333.3. The Board is seeking, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
approval from the Office of Management and Budget for this requirement.
See NPR Appendix B (description of collections). To provide this
initial notice, rail carriers would need to update their demurrage
tariffs to conform to the proposed rules to the extent that their
existing tariffs conflict with the proposed rules. In the NPR, the
Board estimated approximately eight hours to provide initial notice to
the railroads' customers. However, the Board seeks further comment on
the actual time, or costs or expenditures, if any, of providing a one-
time notice of the demurrage tariff and updating the demurrage tariff
to conform to the proposed rules, and the extent to which these costs
may differ or vary for small entities.
Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant federal
rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
The Board is unaware of any duplicative, overlapping, or
conflicting federal rules. The Board seeks comments and information
about any such rules.
Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule
that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities, including alternatives considered, such as: (1) Establishment
of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that
take into account the resources available to small entities; (2)
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use
of performance rather than design standards; (4) any exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
Under the proposed rule, rail carriers would be free to choose
between providing notice electronically or in writing. In response to
the NPR, many commenters suggested that notice be fulfilled by
providing a link to the notice, rather than the complete text of the
notice of demurrage tariff. Additionally, as noted earlier, some
commenters also argued that a one-time notice should fulfill the notice
requirement, as opposed to providing notice with every shipment. Both
of these suggestions are potential alternatives to minimize the burden
on rail carriers.
Although the stated goal of the rulemaking is to ``promote
uniformity in the area,'' ASLRRA has suggested establishing a different
notice requirement for small carriers. An alternative to the proposed
rule, as suggested by ASLRRA, would be to eliminate the notice
requirement for small carriers that publish their demurrage tariffs on
the carriers' Web site. Other alternatives include eliminating the
notice requirement for small carriers altogether or permitting small
carriers to provide notice in different forms (e.g., by telephone).
Commenters should, if they advance any of these alternatives in their
comments, address how such alternatives would be consistent or
inconsistent with the goal of uniformity envisioned by the proposed
rules.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. Comments are due by June 27, 2013.
2. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
3. Notice of this decision will be published in the Federal
Register.
Decided: May 21, 2013.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Begeman, and
Commissioner Mulvey.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2013-12543 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
