Definition of Unreasonable Refusal To Deal or Negotiate With Respect to Vessel Space Accommodations Provided by an Ocean Common Carrier, 57674-57679 [2022-20105]
Download as PDF
57674
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
14. DOE. 2022. DOE Launches New
Initiative from President Biden’s
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to
Modernize National Grid. Available
from: https://www.energy.gov/oe/
articles/doe-launches-newinitiative-president-bidensbipartisan-infrastructure-lawmodernize.
15. Department of Interior. 2021.
Interior Department Approves
Second Major Offshore Wind
Project in U.S. Federal Waters.
Available from: https://
www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interiordepartment-approves-secondmajor-offshore-wind-project-usfederal-waters.
16. DOE. 2022. Biden Administration
Announces Investments to Make
Homes More Energy Efficient and
Lower Costs for American Families
https://www.energy.gov/articles/
biden-administration-announcesinvestments-make-homes-moreenergy-efficient-and-lower.
17. Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation. 2022. NEWS Over
$1.6 Billiton in BIL Funding to
Nearly Double the Number of Clean
Transit Buses in America. Available
from: https://driveelectric.gov/
news/#bil-funding.
18. United States Climate Alliance.
2022. US Climate Alliance Releases
New Tools to Help States Confront
Climate Crisis, Drive Just and
Equitable Transition. Available
from: https://
www.usclimatealliance.org/
publications/2022/8/29/new-toolsscghg-just-transition.
19. United States Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
2022. Hearing on the Toxic
Substances Control Act
Amendments Implementation.
Available from: https://
www.epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/2022/6/toxic-substancescontrol-act-amendmentsimplementation.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
Dated: September 14, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022–20257 Filed 9–20–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Part 542
[Docket No. 22–24]
RIN: 3072–AC92
Definition of Unreasonable Refusal To
Deal or Negotiate With Respect to
Vessel Space Accommodations
Provided by an Ocean Common Carrier
ACTION:
The Federal Maritime
Commission (Commission) is seeking
public comment on its proposed rule
arising from the Ocean Shipping Reform
Act of 2022 requirement that prohibits
ocean common carriers from
unreasonably refusing to deal or
negotiate with respect to vessel space
accommodations. Specifically, the
Commission is proposing to define the
elements necessary to establish a
violation and the criteria it will consider
in assessing reasonableness.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
October 21, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. 22–24, by
sending an email to secretary@fmc.gov.
For comments, include in the subject
line: ‘‘Docket No. 22–24, Definition of
Unreasonable Refusal to Deal or
Negotiate.’’ Comments should be
attached to the email as a Microsoft
Word or text-searchable PDF document.
Only non-confidential and public
versions of confidential comments
should be submitted by email.
Comments received by the Commission
may be viewed at the Commission’s
Electronic Reading Room at https://
www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments, including
requesting confidential treatment of
comments, and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
Public Participation heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to the Commission’s website unless the
commenter has requested confidential
treatment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Cody, Secretary; Phone: (202)
523–5725; Email: secretary@fmc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Introduction and Background
On June 16, 2022, the President
signed the Ocean Shipping Reform Act
of 2022 (‘‘OSRA 2022’’) into law.1 OSRA
1 Public
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Sep 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Law 117–146.
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2022 amended various statutory
provisions contained in Part A of
Subtitle IV of Title 46, U.S. Code. In
Section 7(d) of OSRA 2022, Congress
directed the Federal Maritime
Commission (Commission), in
consultation with the United States
Coast Guard (Coast Guard), to initiate a
rulemaking to define unreasonable
refusal to deal or negotiate with respect
to vessel space accommodations
provided by an ocean common carrier.2
This definition would work in
conjunction with 46 U.S.C.
41104(a)(10), which was amended by
OSRA 2022 to prohibit a common
carrier, either alone or in conjunction
with any other person, directly or
indirectly, from unreasonably refusing
to deal or negotiate, including with
respect to vessel space accommodations
provided by an ocean common carrier.
OSRA 2022 amended Section
41104(a) by replacing ‘‘may not’’ with
‘‘shall not’’ to highlight the mandatory
nature of the entire list of common
carrier prohibitions. OSRA 2022 further
clarified the specific prohibition in
Section 41104(a)(10) on refusal to deal
or negotiate, by noting that this
prohibition includes dealings and
negotiations ‘‘with respect to vessel
space accommodations provided by an
ocean common carrier.’’ The phrase
‘‘ocean common carrier’’ is currently
defined as a vessel-operating common
carrier (VOCC) in the Shipping Act.3
However, other key terms and phrases
in the Shipping Act as amended—
‘‘unreasonably,’’ ‘‘refuse to deal or
negotiate,’’ and ‘‘vessel space
accommodations’’—are not defined.
The common carrier prohibitions in
46 U.S.C. 41104 do not distinguish
between U.S. exports or imports. If
adopted, this proposed rule would
apply to both.4 One basis, but not the
only one, for some of the OSRA 2022
provisions were the challenges
expressed by U.S. exporters trying to
obtain vessel space to ship their
products.5 This export-focus arguably is
also supported by the amendments to
the ‘‘Purposes’’ section of the
2 Codified
at 46 U.S.C. 41104(a)(10), as amended.
46 U.S.C. 40102(18).
4 Section 41104 applies generally to both VOCCs
and non-vessel-operating common carriers
(NVOCCs). However, the specific prohibition that is
the subject of this proposed rule applies only to
VOCCs.
5 OSRA 2022 originated as S. 3580 and the bill
is partially summarized as: ‘‘This bill revises
requirements governing ocean shipping to increase
the authority of the Federal Maritime Commission
(FMC) to promote the growth and development of
U.S. exports through an ocean transportation
system that is competitive, efficient, and
economical.’’ See Congress.gov summary for S. 3580
accessed July 10, 2022.
3 See
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Commission’s overall authority
contained in 46 U.S.C. 40101.
Specifically, Section 40101(4) ratified
the purpose to ‘‘promote the growth and
development of United States exports
through a competitive and efficient
system for the carriage of goods by
water.’’ Congress further highlighted
issues related to U.S. exports and
imports in Section 9 of OSRA 2022.
This section created 46 U.S.C. 41110
and the requirement for ocean common
carriers to provide information to the
Commission to enable the Commission
to publish quarterly statistics on total
import and export tonnage and the total
loaded and empty 20-foot equivalent
units (TEUs) 6 per vessel.
The Commission is also aware of the
long-running U.S. trade deficit in goods
(approximately $1.1 trillion in 2021)
and the imbalance of imports and
exports moving through U.S. ports in
international trade. VOCCs, particularly
those on the major east-west trade lanes
between the U.S. and Asia and the U.S.
and Europe, make operational decisions
regarding the import and export goods
they carry based on both economic and
engineering considerations.
Export loads are, on average, heavier
than import loads. This means that
ships that come into U.S. ports largely
laden with goods cannot safely load the
same number of laden twenty-foot
equivalent units (TEUs) when leaving
the U.S. for foreign ports. A higher
volume of laden exports will result in a
lower vessel utilization rate on the
outbound voyage from the U.S.,
resulting in fewer containers returning
to where the equipment is in highest
demand.
The economics of this trade
imbalance results in very different
revenue returns for import and export
trades. U.S. imports feature higher value
items on average and the rates that
shippers pay to move these goods are
historically higher than the rates paid to
move U.S. exports. For example, the
average rate of a 20-foot dry container
moving from Shanghai to the U.S. West
Coast was $1,740 in January 2019,
$4,270 in January 2021, and $8,130 in
January 2022. The corresponding rate
for a 20-foot dry container moving from
the U.S. West Coast to Shanghai was
$730 in January 2019, $800 in January
2021, and $1,220 in January 2022.7
Further, the inland destination of
6 ‘‘TEU’’ stands for ‘‘twenty-foot equivalent unit’’
A standard marine shipping container measures 20′
long, 8′ wide, and 8.6′ tall. It is the standard unit
of measurement of the capacity of a container ship.
Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) Definition |
UPS Supply Chain Solutions—United States.
7 Data source: Drewry Container Freight Rate
Insight, accessed June 21, 2022.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Sep 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
import containers is often not located
near export customers, which requires
equipment repositioning costs as well as
the opportunity cost of unused
equipment.
Prior to the pandemic, the ratio of
import TEUs to export TEUs moving
through U.S. ports across all trade lanes
was over 50 percent; in April 2019 this
ratio was 59 percent.8 While
containerized imports (measured in
TEUs) increased steadily from May 2020
through April 2022, containerized
exports declined over the same period,
leading to an import-export TEU ratio of
39 percent in April 2022.
Approximately 2.6 million TEUs of all
U.S. imports moved through U.S. ports
in April 2022, versus 1.98 million in
April 2019. Total U.S. exports fell from
1.2 million TEUs in April 2019 to
950,178 in April 2022.9
Trade on some specific lanes is even
more imbalanced. Trade from Asia to
U.S. ports was characterized by an
import/export TEU ratio of 39 percent in
2019, 36 percent in 2020, and 29
percent in 2021. The number dropped
further to 26 percent in the first quarter
of 2022. There is no homogeneity among
carriers, even within trade lanes. On the
Asia to U.S. trade lane, among the
largest carriers, the ratio of exports to
imports ranged from 27 percent to 52
percent in 2019 and ranged from 23 to
44 percent in 2021. Some carriers had
very stable export to import ratios
throughout the pandemic, though most
saw a substantial drop in both the ratio
of exports to imports and the absolute
number of export containers moved,
particularly between 2020 and 2021.
This pattern has continued into the first
quarter of 2022.
While some export markets have been
affected by trade shocks, such as China’s
ban on solid waste imports and other
items, these trade shocks do not fully
explain the drop in total exports carried,
neither do safety concerns over ship
loading. Largely these changes can be
explained by carrier operational
decisions based on equipment
availability and differential revenues
from import and export
transportation.10 VOCCs should offer
service in both directions within the
trade lanes in which they operate in
common carriage, regardless of trade
lane, length of time active in the trade,
or vessel size.
8 Data source: PIERS, S&P Global Market
Intelligence, accessed June 21, 2022.
9 Data source: PIERS, S&P Global Market
Intelligence, accessed June 21, 2022.
10 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/14/
business/economy/farm-exports-supply-chainports.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57675
VOCCs typically maintain
documented procedures and policies
related to their operations. Through its
recently revised VOCC audit program,
Commission staff reviewed a number of
well-documented operating procedures
and policies specifically related to
export cargo. Ocean common carriers
operating in the U.S. trade should have
a documented export strategy that
enables the efficient movement of
export cargo.11 By way of illustration
only, effective export strategies should
be tailored to specific categories, such as
programs, customers, markets, or
commodities, and include documented
policies on export business practices,
including equipment provisioning, free
time, outreach plans for contingencies
and instances of imbalance in
equipment availability, clearly defined
and tracked performance metrics,
identification of key export staff, and
regular internal review of such policies.
The Commission presumes that every
ocean carrier operating in the U.S.
market will have the ability to transport
exports in addition to imports until
further information is provided. In other
words, an ocean carrier may not
categorically exclude U.S. exports from
a backhaul trip without showing how
this action is reasonable.
Common carriers stated they have
seen delays in the movement of export
cargo due to a lack of mutual
commitment between shippers and
common carriers leading to
cancellations of vessel space
accommodation by either party,
sometimes up to the day of sailing. This
contributes to uncertainty for both the
shippers and common carriers.
In addition to the challenges faced by
exporters, there have also been reports
of restricted access to equipment and
vessel capacity for U.S. importers,
particularly in the Trans-Pacific market.
Access to import vessel space was
impacted by congestion, equipment
availability, and VOCC commercial
decisions.12
Finally, it is the Commission’s
experience, and as detailed in the
Commission’s Fact Finding 29 Final
Report,13 that ocean common carriers
and those with whom they contract to
operate and load/unload their vessels,
11 This comports with OSRA 2022 generally, and
specifically with the purpose in Section 41104(4) to
‘‘promote the growth and development of United
States exports.’’
12 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/
business/shipping-container-shortage.html.
13 See generally, Fact Finding Investigation 29
Final Report (F.M.C.), 2022 WL 2063347 at 11, 21–
23, 26, 34–35 (noting difficulties experienced by
non-carrier entities to obtain information such as
earliest return dates and vessel scheduling
information held by ocean common carriers).
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
57676
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
have the best information on the ability
of any particular vessel to accept cargo
for import or export. Shippers generally
do not have access to this information.
Therefore, while the ultimate burden of
proving a violation of Section
41104(a)(10) will remain with the
complainant or the Commission’s
Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations,
and Compliance (BEIC), this proposed
rule includes a mechanism by which,
upon a prima facie case of a violation
of Section 41104(a)(10) being made, the
burden shifts from the shipper (or the
BEIC) to the ocean common carrier. The
ocean common carrier must establish
that its refusal to deal or negotiate with
regard to vessel space, which in some
cases results in a decision not to accept
cargo, was reasonable. It is important to
clarify that this proposed rule concerns
the negotiations or discussions that lead
up to a decision about whether an
import or export load is accepted for
transportation. There will undoubtedly
be situations where an ocean common
carrier and a shipper engage in good
faith negotiations or discussions that do
not result in the provision of
transportation. However, as mentioned
earlier in the preamble, a situation
where an ocean common carrier
categorically excludes U.S. exports from
its backhaul trip will create a
presumption of an unreasonable refusal
to deal.
The Commission also notes that,
consistent with Section 7(d) of OSRA
2022, it has consulted with the Coast
Guard regarding the approach taken by
the proposal. The Coast Guard offered
no objections to the Commission’s
approach.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule describes how the
Commission will consider private party
and enforcement cases where a violation
of 46 U.S.C. 41104(a)(10) is alleged, and
relates to vessel space
accommodation.14 This proposed rule
considers the common carriage roots of
Section 41104(a)(10), as well as the
overall competition basis of the
Commission’s authority.15 The
proposed rule first lists the elements
necessary to establish a violation of
Section 41104(a)(10), and then lays out
the criteria the Commission will
consider in evaluating the
14 The framework for this proposed rule is taken
from Commission precedent on refusal to deal cases
generally and could be applicable outside the
‘‘vessel space accommodation’’ context. This
proposed rule, however, is solely focused on the
OSRA 2022 requirements related to vessel space
accommodations provided by an ocean common
carrier.
15 See Orolugbagbe v. A.T.I., U.S.A., Inc.,
Informal Docket No. 1943(I) at *31–38.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Sep 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
reasonableness of the refusal, including
a burden shifting regime. In proposing
this rule, the Commission acknowledges
that it is impossible to regulate for every
possible scenario and thus, cases that
allege a violation of Section
41104(a)(10) will be factually driven
and determined on a case-by-case
basis.16
A. Elements
Pursuant to OSRA 2022 and
Commission precedent, complainants
must meet three elements to establish a
violation for unreasonable refusal to
deal or negotiate. The Commission
proposes to continue to adhere to those
elements, including in cases where the
allegation relates to vessel space
accommodations by an ocean common
carrier. The elements are derived
directly from the statutory text
established in OSRA 1998 and are: (1)
the respondent is a [ocean] common
carrier under FMC jurisdiction; (2) the
respondent refuses to deal or negotiate
[with respect to vessel space
accommodations]; and (3) that the
refusal is unreasonable.17
B. Definitions
Neither the Shipping Act, as
amended, nor OSRA 2022 define the
phrase ‘‘vessel space accommodations,’’
and this phrase has not been interpreted
in prior Commission matters. Therefore,
the Commission proposes to define
‘‘vessel space accommodations’’
generally as space provided aboard a
vessel of an ocean common carrier for
laden containers being imported to, or
exported from, the United States. This
proposed definition is based on the
common meaning of the words in the
phrase as applied in ocean shipping.
The phrase ‘‘refusal to deal or
negotiate’’ does not lend itself to a
general definition and instead must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In
general, a ‘‘refusal to deal or negotiate’’
presumes that in order for there to be a
refusal, there first must be something to
refuse. In other words, a party has
attempted in good faith to engage in
discussions with an ocean common
carrier for the purposes of obtaining
vessel space accommodations.18 This
good faith attempt is something more
than one communication with no
response or reply. The party must prove
16 See Canaveral Port Authority—Possible
Violations of Section 10(b)(10), 29 S.R.R. 1436, 1449
(FMC 2003). Note that Section 10(b)(10) is the
former Shipping Act section for unreasonable
refusals to deal or negotiate.
17 Id. at 1448.
18 See Canaveral, supra at 1450; cf. Chilean
Nitrate Sales Corp. v. San Diego Unified Port
District, 24 S.R.R. 1314 (1988).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
an actual refusal to even entertain the
proposal or to engage in good faith
discussions. Likewise, an ocean
common carrier’s refusal to deal or
negotiate is only a violation if it is
unreasonable, and as described below,
this analysis will consider whether the
ocean common carrier, in turn, gave
good faith consideration to a party’s
efforts at negotiation.19
As noted above, reasonableness is
necessarily a case-by-case
determination, and the Commission will
continue to adhere to that principle.
However, the Commission believes it is
necessary to provide, and OSRA 2022
requires, criteria that it will use to
assess whether a refusal to deal or
negotiate with respect to vessel space
accommodation is reasonable. These
criteria will be considered for the
reasonableness evaluation for any given
case.
Case law indicates that
‘‘reasonableness’’ of the refusal to deal
or negotiate has historically been
interpreted broadly in this context, with
courts deferring to the Commission’s
reading of that term in administering its
statutes and regulations.20 The
Commission has previously found
reasonable those decisions that are
connected to a legitimate business
decision or motivated by legitimate
transportation factors.21
‘‘Reasonableness’’ can be given its
dictionary definition but is judged on a
case-by-case basis, with particular
attention paid to the relevant
circumstances; the Commission has said
that a just and reasonable practice is one
otherwise lawful but not excessive and
suited to the end in view.22
19 See Canaveral, id. See also Maher Terminals,
LLC v. PANYNJ, 33 S.R.R. 821, 853 (F.M.C. 2014).
20 In fact, the Commission has observed that
‘‘[s]hipping law terms such as ‘unjust,’ or
‘unreasonable,’ are indeed broad and may plausibly
admit consideration of a number of competing
policies. It is well-established, however, that ‘[t]he
primary objective of the shipping laws administered
by the FMC is to protect the shipping industry’s
customers, not members of the industry.’’’ New
York Shipping Ass’n, Inc. v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 854
F.2d 1338, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting Boston
Shipping Ass’n v. FMC, 706 F.2d 1231, 1238 (1st
Cir.1983)).
21 See, e.g., Docking & Lease Agreement By &
Between City of Portland, ME & Scotia Princess
Cruises, Ltd., Order of Investigation & Hearing, 30
S.R.R. 377, 379 (F.M.C. 2004).
22 In Investigation of Free Time Practices—Port of
San Diego, 9 F.M.C. 525, 547 (1966), discussing
Section 17 of the 1916 Act, the Commission noted:
‘‘Reasonable’’ may mean or imply ‘‘just, proper,’’
‘‘ordinary or usual,’’ ‘‘not immoderate or
excessive,’’ ‘‘equitable,’’ or ‘‘fit and appropriate to
the end in view.’’ Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth
Edition. It is by application to the particular
situation or subject matter that words such as
‘‘reasonable’’ take on concrete and specific
meaning. As used in Sec. 17 and as applied to
terminal practices, we think that ‘‘just and
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Transportation-related factors can
include, without limitation, the
character of the cargo, vessel safety and
stability, operational schedules, and the
adequacy of facilities.23 Generally,
however, transportation-related factors
relate to the characteristics of the cargo
or vessel, not the status of the shipper.24
The Commission has found various
situations that inform what refusal to
deal entails. It has found that a common
carrier must avoid shutting out any
person or party for reasons not
connected to legitimate transportationrelated factors.25 A common carrier
must therefore give actual consideration
to the other party’s efforts or attempts at
negotiation.26 For example, a common
carrier’s repeated refusal to respond to
email or telephone requests for
negotiations over an extended period of
time may be viewed as an unreasonable
method of shutting another party out.
Similarly, there must be an affirmative
act by a party to deal or engage in
negotiations with the common carrier.
Commercial convenience alone is not a
reasonable basis for a common carrier’s
refusal to deal or negotiate.27 A common
reasonable practice’’ most appropriately means a
practice, otherwise lawful but not excessive and
which is fit and appropriate to the end in view.
The justness or reasonableness of a practice is not
necessarily dependent upon the existence of actual
preference, prejudice or discrimination. It may
cause none of these but still be unreasonable.
23 For example, in Dart Containerline Co. v. FMC,
639 F.2d 808, 813 (D.C. App. 1981), in considering
whether a diversion of cargo from its naturally
tributary port was unreasonable, the Commission
considered ‘‘any operational difficulties or other
transportation factors that bear upon the carrier’s
ability to provide direct service (e.g., lack of cargo
volume, inadequate facilities)[.]’’ See also
Harborlite Corp. v. I.C.C., 613 F.2d 1088, 1100 (D.C.
Cir. 1988), citing to United States v. Illinois Central
Railroad, 263 U.S. 515, 524, 44 S.Ct. 189, 193, 68
L.Ed. 417 (1924), a case involving common-carriage
principles, for the proposition that rate disparity is
not unlawful if it is ‘‘justified by the cost of the
respective services, by their values, or by other
transportation conditions’’; Credit Practices of Sealand Service, Inc., and Nedlloyd Lijnen, B.v., 1990
WL 427463, at *8 (‘‘Transportation or wharfage
charges are dependent upon the particular
commodity involved; the cost for shipping or
storing bananas, for example, bears no relation to
the fees levied for heavy industrial equipment’’);
Grace Line, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Board, 280
F.2d 790 (1960); Investigation of Free Time
Practices—Port of San Diego, 9 F.M.C. 525, 541
(1966).
24 See, e.g., Credit Practices of Sea-land Service,
Inc., and Nedlloyd Lijnen, B.v., 1990 WL 427463
(F.M.C. 1990); Department of Defense and Military
Sealift Command v. Matson Navigation Co., 19
F.M.C. 503 (1977).
25 New Orleans Stevedoring Co. v. Bd. of
Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, 29
S.R.R. 1066, 1070 (F.M.C. 2002), aff’d mem., 30
S.R.R. 261 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
26 Canaveral Port Authority—Possible Violations
of Section 10(b)(10), Unreasonable Refusal to Deal
or Negotiate, 29 S.R.R. 1436 (F.M.C. 2003).
27 Investigation of Free Time Practices—Port of
San Diego, 9 F.M.C. 525, 541 (1966).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Sep 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
carrier granting special treatment to one
party over another because that party is
a regular customer is likewise likely to
be viewed as unreasonable.28
The Commission also has a history of
recognizing that it is appropriate to
defer to a party’s reasonable business
decisions and not to substitute its
business judgement for that of an entity
conducting negotiations.29 However,
this precedent does not eliminate the
Commission’s responsibility to evaluate
whether a party’s decision-making
practices resulted in a violation of the
Shipping Act.30 The Commission
continues to acknowledge that its ‘‘role
is not to ensure that all interested
parties get the same deal or make a
certain profit. Rather, the Commission’s
role is to ensure that parties are not
precluded from obtaining preferential
treatment due to unreasonable or
unjustly discriminatory reasons.’’ 31 The
Commission further recognizes that an
ocean common carrier does not have a
duty to grant a contract to every
potential party. However, upon
establishing its criteria for granting
preferential terms to parties who are
able to meet those specified terms, the
ocean common carrier then has a duty
under the Shipping Act to apply such
criteria in a consistent and fair manner
without differentiating based on
illegitimate transportation factors.32 An
ocean common carrier may be viewed as
having acted reasonably in exercising its
business discretion to proceed with a
certain arrangement over another by
taking into account such factors as
profitability and compatibility with its
business development strategy.33
C. Shifting Burden From Complainant to
Ocean Common Carrier
This proposed rule also sets forth a
framework for an ocean common carrier
to establish that its efforts to consider an
entity’s proposal or efforts at negotiation
were done in good faith based on the
criteria above. Once a complainant (or
the BEIC) has established a prima facie
case for each of the three elements
28 Chr. Salvesen & Co., Ltd. v. West Michigan
Dock & Market Corp., 12 F.M.C. 135, 146 (1968).
29 See Seacon Terminals, Inc. v. The Port of
Seattle, 26 S.R.R. 886 (F.M.C. 1993); New Orleans
Stevedoring Co. v. Bd. of Commissioners of the Port
of New Orleans, 29 S.R.R. 1066 (F.M.C. 2002), aff’d
mem., 30 S.R.R. 261 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Canaveral Port
Authority—Possible Violations of Section 10(b)(10),
Unreasonable Refusal to Deal or Negotiate, 29
S.R.R. 1436 (F.M.C. 2003); Maher Terminals, LLC v.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 33
S.R.R. 821 (F.M.C. 2014).
30 Seacon Terminals at 898–899; New Orleans
Stevedoring Co., at 1071.
31 Ceres Marine Terminals v. Maryland Port
Administration, 29 S.R.R. 356, 369 (F.M.C. 2001).
32 Id. at 370.
33 Seacon Terminals at 899.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57677
above, the ocean common carrier will
have the burden of production to show
or justify why its refusal was reasonable.
However, the ultimate burden of
persuasion remains with the
complainant to show that the refusal to
deal or negotiate was unreasonable.34
Further, the proposed rule includes a
rebuttable presumption of
unreasonableness for those situations
where an ocean common carrier
categorically excludes U.S. exports from
its backhaul trips from the U.S.
The proposed rule includes a
mechanism for an ocean common
carrier to justify its actions through
means of a certification. Although this
proposal does not require a certification
for this purpose, the Commission is
considering whether to make
certification by a U.S.-based compliance
officer mandatory. The Commission also
notes that, as a preliminary matter, any
justification must be directly relevant
and specific to the case at hand.
Information or data that supports
generalized propositions is not helpful
in determinations of reasonableness for
a specific case. A certification should
document the ocean common carrier’s
decision in a specific matter, the good
faith consideration of an entity’s
proposal or request to negotiate, and the
specific criteria considered by the ocean
common carrier to reach its decision.
Certification in this context means that
an appropriate U.S.-based representative
of the ocean common carrier attests that
the decision and supporting evidence is
correct and complete. An appropriate
representative can include the ocean
common carrier’s U.S.-based
compliance officer.
As to all of the issues discussed in
this document, the Commission seeks
comment and supporting information
regarding its proposal.
III. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
You may submit your comments via
email to the email address listed above
under ADDRESSES. Please include the
docket number associated with this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
and the subject matter in the subject line
of the email. Comments should be
attached to the email as a Microsoft
34 Canaveral Port Authority—Possible Violations
of Section 10(b)(10), Unreasonable Refusal to Deal
or Negotiate, 29 S.R.R. 1436 (F.M.C. 2003).
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
57678
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Word or text-searchable PDF document.
Only non-confidential and public
versions of confidential comments
should be submitted by email.
You may also submit comments by
mail to the address listed above under
ADDRESSES.
How do I submit confidential business
information?
The Commission will provide
confidential treatment for identified
confidential information to the extent
allowed by law. If your comments
contain confidential information, you
must submit the following by mail to
the address listed above under
ADDRESSES:
• A transmittal letter requesting
confidential treatment that identifies the
specific information in the comments
for which protection is sought and
demonstrates that the information is a
trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial
information.
• A confidential copy of your
comments, consisting of the complete
filing with a cover page marked
‘‘Confidential-Restricted,’’ and the
confidential material clearly marked on
each page. You should submit the
confidential copy to the Commission by
mail.
• A public version of your comments
with the confidential information
excluded. The public version must state
‘‘Public Version—confidential materials
excluded’’ on the cover page and on
each affected page and must clearly
indicate any information withheld. You
may submit the public version to the
Commission by email or mail.
Will the Commission consider late
comments?
The Commission will consider all
comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date
indicated above under DATES. To the
extent possible, we will also consider
comments received after that date.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
How can I read comments submitted by
other people?
You may read the comments received
by the Commission at the Commission’s
Electronic Reading Room or the Docket
Activity Library at the addresses listed
above under ADDRESSES.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601–612, provides that whenever
an agency publishes a notice of
proposed rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553, the agency must prepare and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Sep 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis describing
the impact of the rule on small entities,
unless the head of the agency certifies
that the rulemaking will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. 5
U.S.C. 603–605. As the head of the
agency, the Chairman, by voting to
approve this NPRM, is certifying that
this proposed rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Commission’s regulations
categorically exclude certain
rulemakings from any requirement to
prepare an environmental assessment or
an environmental impact statement
because they do not increase or decrease
air, water or noise pollution or the use
of fossil fuels, recyclables, or energy. 46
CFR 504.4. The proposed rule describes
the Commission’s proposed criteria to
determine whether an ocean common
carrier has engaged in an unreasonable
refusal to deal with respect to vessel
space accommodations under 46 U.S.C.
41104(a)(10), and the elements
necessary for a successful claim under
that section. This rulemaking thus falls
within the categorical exclusion for
matters related solely to the issue of
Commission jurisdiction and the
exclusion for investigatory and
adjudicatory proceedings to ascertain
past violations of the Shipping Act. See
46 CFR 504.4(a)(20), (22). Therefore, no
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement is
required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) requires an
agency to seek and receive approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) before collecting
information from the public. 44 U.S.C.
3507. The agency must submit
collections of information in proposed
rules to OMB in conjunction with the
publication of the notice of proposed
rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11. This
proposed rule does not contain any
collections of information as defined by
44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
Regulation Identifier Number
The Commission assigns a regulation
identifier number (RIN) to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda).
The Regulatory Information Service
Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. You
may use the RIN contained in the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda, available at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaMain.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 542
Administrative practice and
procedure, Non-vessel-operating
common carriers, Ocean common
carrier, Refusal to deal or negotiate,
Vessel-operating common carriers,
Vessel space accommodations.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Federal Maritime
Commission proposes to add 46 CFR
part 542 to read as follows:
PART 542—COMMON CARRIER
PROHIBITIONS
Sec.
542.1 Definition of Unreasonable Refusal to
Deal or Negotiate with Respect to Vessel
Space Accommodations Provided by an
Ocean Common Carrier.
542.2 [Reserved]
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305,
40307, 40501–40503, 41101–41106, and
40901–40904; 46 CFR 515.23.
§ 542.1 Definition of Unreasonable Refusal
to Deal or Negotiate with Respect to Vessel
Space Accommodations Provided by an
Ocean Common Carrier.
(a) Purpose. This part establishes the
elements and definitions necessary for
the Federal Maritime Commission
(Commission) to apply 46 U.S.C.
41104(a)(10) with respect to vessel
space accommodations provided by an
ocean common carrier. This includes
complaints brought before the
Commission by a private party or
enforcement cases brought by the
Commission.
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of
this section:
(1) Transportation factors means
factors that encompass the genuine
operational considerations underlying
an ocean common carrier’s practical
ability to accommodate laden cargo for
import or export, which can include,
without limitation, vessel safety and
stability, scheduling considerations, and
the effect of blank sailings.
(2) Unreasonable means an ocean
common carrier’s refusal to deal or
negotiate as prohibited under 46 U.S.C.
41104(a)(10). In evaluating an ocean
common carrier’s actions, the
Commission will consider the following
factors, without limitation, when
deciding whether a refusal to deal or
negotiate under paragraph (c)(3) of this
section is unreasonable:
(i) Whether the ocean common carrier
follows a documented export strategy
that enables the efficient movement of
export cargo;
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
(ii) Whether the ocean common
carrier engaged in good-faith
negotiations, and made business
decisions that were subsequently
applied in a fair and consistent manner;
(iii) The existence of legitimate
transportation factors; and
(iv) Any other factors the Commission
deems relevant.
(3) Vessel space accommodations
means space provided aboard a vessel of
an ocean common carrier for laden
containers being imported to or
exported from the United States.
(c) Elements. In order to establish a
successful private party or enforcement
claim under 46 U.S.C. 41104(a)(10) for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Sep 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
refusal to deal or negotiate with respect
to vessel space accommodations:
(1) The respondent must be an ocean
common carrier as defined in 46 U.S.C.
40102;
(2) The respondent refuses to deal or
negotiate, including with respect to
vessel space accommodations; and
(3) The refusal is unreasonable.
(d) Shifting of burden of production.
The burden to establish a violation of
this part is with the complainant (or
Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations,
and Compliance). Once a complainant
sets forth a prima facie case of a
violation, the burden shifts to the ocean
common carrier to justify that its actions
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
57679
were reasonable. This justification may
take the form of a certification by an
appropriate representative of the ocean
common carrier to attest that the
decision and supporting evidence is
correct and complete. An appropriate
representative can include the ocean
common carrier’s compliance officer.
§ 542.2
[Reserved]
By the Commission.
William Cody,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022–20105 Filed 9–20–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730–02–P
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57674-57679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20105]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Part 542
[Docket No. 22-24]
RIN: 3072-AC92
Definition of Unreasonable Refusal To Deal or Negotiate With
Respect to Vessel Space Accommodations Provided by an Ocean Common
Carrier
AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) is seeking public
comment on its proposed rule arising from the Ocean Shipping Reform Act
of 2022 requirement that prohibits ocean common carriers from
unreasonably refusing to deal or negotiate with respect to vessel space
accommodations. Specifically, the Commission is proposing to define the
elements necessary to establish a violation and the criteria it will
consider in assessing reasonableness.
DATES: Submit comments on or before October 21, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 22-24, by
sending an email to [email protected]. For comments, include in the
subject line: ``Docket No. 22-24, Definition of Unreasonable Refusal to
Deal or Negotiate.'' Comments should be attached to the email as a
Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF document. Only non-confidential
and public versions of confidential comments should be submitted by
email. Comments received by the Commission may be viewed at the
Commission's Electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments,
including requesting confidential treatment of comments, and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note
that all comments received will be posted without change to the
Commission's website unless the commenter has requested confidential
treatment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Cody, Secretary; Phone: (202)
523-5725; Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction and Background
On June 16, 2022, the President signed the Ocean Shipping Reform
Act of 2022 (``OSRA 2022'') into law.\1\ OSRA 2022 amended various
statutory provisions contained in Part A of Subtitle IV of Title 46,
U.S. Code. In Section 7(d) of OSRA 2022, Congress directed the Federal
Maritime Commission (Commission), in consultation with the United
States Coast Guard (Coast Guard), to initiate a rulemaking to define
unreasonable refusal to deal or negotiate with respect to vessel space
accommodations provided by an ocean common carrier.\2\ This definition
would work in conjunction with 46 U.S.C. 41104(a)(10), which was
amended by OSRA 2022 to prohibit a common carrier, either alone or in
conjunction with any other person, directly or indirectly, from
unreasonably refusing to deal or negotiate, including with respect to
vessel space accommodations provided by an ocean common carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 117-146.
\2\ Codified at 46 U.S.C. 41104(a)(10), as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSRA 2022 amended Section 41104(a) by replacing ``may not'' with
``shall not'' to highlight the mandatory nature of the entire list of
common carrier prohibitions. OSRA 2022 further clarified the specific
prohibition in Section 41104(a)(10) on refusal to deal or negotiate, by
noting that this prohibition includes dealings and negotiations ``with
respect to vessel space accommodations provided by an ocean common
carrier.'' The phrase ``ocean common carrier'' is currently defined as
a vessel-operating common carrier (VOCC) in the Shipping Act.\3\
However, other key terms and phrases in the Shipping Act as amended--
``unreasonably,'' ``refuse to deal or negotiate,'' and ``vessel space
accommodations''--are not defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 46 U.S.C. 40102(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The common carrier prohibitions in 46 U.S.C. 41104 do not
distinguish between U.S. exports or imports. If adopted, this proposed
rule would apply to both.\4\ One basis, but not the only one, for some
of the OSRA 2022 provisions were the challenges expressed by U.S.
exporters trying to obtain vessel space to ship their products.\5\ This
export-focus arguably is also supported by the amendments to the
``Purposes'' section of the
[[Page 57675]]
Commission's overall authority contained in 46 U.S.C. 40101.
Specifically, Section 40101(4) ratified the purpose to ``promote the
growth and development of United States exports through a competitive
and efficient system for the carriage of goods by water.'' Congress
further highlighted issues related to U.S. exports and imports in
Section 9 of OSRA 2022. This section created 46 U.S.C. 41110 and the
requirement for ocean common carriers to provide information to the
Commission to enable the Commission to publish quarterly statistics on
total import and export tonnage and the total loaded and empty 20-foot
equivalent units (TEUs) \6\ per vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 41104 applies generally to both VOCCs and non-
vessel-operating common carriers (NVOCCs). However, the specific
prohibition that is the subject of this proposed rule applies only
to VOCCs.
\5\ OSRA 2022 originated as S. 3580 and the bill is partially
summarized as: ``This bill revises requirements governing ocean
shipping to increase the authority of the Federal Maritime
Commission (FMC) to promote the growth and development of U.S.
exports through an ocean transportation system that is competitive,
efficient, and economical.'' See Congress.gov summary for S. 3580
accessed July 10, 2022.
\6\ ``TEU'' stands for ``twenty-foot equivalent unit'' A
standard marine shipping container measures 20' long, 8' wide, and
8.6' tall. It is the standard unit of measurement of the capacity of
a container ship. Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) Definition
[verbar] UPS Supply Chain Solutions--United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is also aware of the long-running U.S. trade deficit
in goods (approximately $1.1 trillion in 2021) and the imbalance of
imports and exports moving through U.S. ports in international trade.
VOCCs, particularly those on the major east-west trade lanes between
the U.S. and Asia and the U.S. and Europe, make operational decisions
regarding the import and export goods they carry based on both economic
and engineering considerations.
Export loads are, on average, heavier than import loads. This means
that ships that come into U.S. ports largely laden with goods cannot
safely load the same number of laden twenty-foot equivalent units
(TEUs) when leaving the U.S. for foreign ports. A higher volume of
laden exports will result in a lower vessel utilization rate on the
outbound voyage from the U.S., resulting in fewer containers returning
to where the equipment is in highest demand.
The economics of this trade imbalance results in very different
revenue returns for import and export trades. U.S. imports feature
higher value items on average and the rates that shippers pay to move
these goods are historically higher than the rates paid to move U.S.
exports. For example, the average rate of a 20-foot dry container
moving from Shanghai to the U.S. West Coast was $1,740 in January 2019,
$4,270 in January 2021, and $8,130 in January 2022. The corresponding
rate for a 20-foot dry container moving from the U.S. West Coast to
Shanghai was $730 in January 2019, $800 in January 2021, and $1,220 in
January 2022.\7\ Further, the inland destination of import containers
is often not located near export customers, which requires equipment
repositioning costs as well as the opportunity cost of unused
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Data source: Drewry Container Freight Rate Insight, accessed
June 21, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the pandemic, the ratio of import TEUs to export TEUs
moving through U.S. ports across all trade lanes was over 50 percent;
in April 2019 this ratio was 59 percent.\8\ While containerized imports
(measured in TEUs) increased steadily from May 2020 through April 2022,
containerized exports declined over the same period, leading to an
import-export TEU ratio of 39 percent in April 2022. Approximately 2.6
million TEUs of all U.S. imports moved through U.S. ports in April
2022, versus 1.98 million in April 2019. Total U.S. exports fell from
1.2 million TEUs in April 2019 to 950,178 in April 2022.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Data source: PIERS, S&P Global Market Intelligence, accessed
June 21, 2022.
\9\ Data source: PIERS, S&P Global Market Intelligence, accessed
June 21, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trade on some specific lanes is even more imbalanced. Trade from
Asia to U.S. ports was characterized by an import/export TEU ratio of
39 percent in 2019, 36 percent in 2020, and 29 percent in 2021. The
number dropped further to 26 percent in the first quarter of 2022.
There is no homogeneity among carriers, even within trade lanes. On the
Asia to U.S. trade lane, among the largest carriers, the ratio of
exports to imports ranged from 27 percent to 52 percent in 2019 and
ranged from 23 to 44 percent in 2021. Some carriers had very stable
export to import ratios throughout the pandemic, though most saw a
substantial drop in both the ratio of exports to imports and the
absolute number of export containers moved, particularly between 2020
and 2021. This pattern has continued into the first quarter of 2022.
While some export markets have been affected by trade shocks, such
as China's ban on solid waste imports and other items, these trade
shocks do not fully explain the drop in total exports carried, neither
do safety concerns over ship loading. Largely these changes can be
explained by carrier operational decisions based on equipment
availability and differential revenues from import and export
transportation.\10\ VOCCs should offer service in both directions
within the trade lanes in which they operate in common carriage,
regardless of trade lane, length of time active in the trade, or vessel
size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/14/business/economy/farm-exports-supply-chain-ports.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOCCs typically maintain documented procedures and policies related
to their operations. Through its recently revised VOCC audit program,
Commission staff reviewed a number of well-documented operating
procedures and policies specifically related to export cargo. Ocean
common carriers operating in the U.S. trade should have a documented
export strategy that enables the efficient movement of export
cargo.\11\ By way of illustration only, effective export strategies
should be tailored to specific categories, such as programs, customers,
markets, or commodities, and include documented policies on export
business practices, including equipment provisioning, free time,
outreach plans for contingencies and instances of imbalance in
equipment availability, clearly defined and tracked performance
metrics, identification of key export staff, and regular internal
review of such policies. The Commission presumes that every ocean
carrier operating in the U.S. market will have the ability to transport
exports in addition to imports until further information is provided.
In other words, an ocean carrier may not categorically exclude U.S.
exports from a backhaul trip without showing how this action is
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This comports with OSRA 2022 generally, and specifically
with the purpose in Section 41104(4) to ``promote the growth and
development of United States exports.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common carriers stated they have seen delays in the movement of
export cargo due to a lack of mutual commitment between shippers and
common carriers leading to cancellations of vessel space accommodation
by either party, sometimes up to the day of sailing. This contributes
to uncertainty for both the shippers and common carriers.
In addition to the challenges faced by exporters, there have also
been reports of restricted access to equipment and vessel capacity for
U.S. importers, particularly in the Trans-Pacific market. Access to
import vessel space was impacted by congestion, equipment availability,
and VOCC commercial decisions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/business/shipping-container-shortage.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it is the Commission's experience, and as detailed in the
Commission's Fact Finding 29 Final Report,\13\ that ocean common
carriers and those with whom they contract to operate and load/unload
their vessels,
[[Page 57676]]
have the best information on the ability of any particular vessel to
accept cargo for import or export. Shippers generally do not have
access to this information. Therefore, while the ultimate burden of
proving a violation of Section 41104(a)(10) will remain with the
complainant or the Commission's Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations,
and Compliance (BEIC), this proposed rule includes a mechanism by
which, upon a prima facie case of a violation of Section 41104(a)(10)
being made, the burden shifts from the shipper (or the BEIC) to the
ocean common carrier. The ocean common carrier must establish that its
refusal to deal or negotiate with regard to vessel space, which in some
cases results in a decision not to accept cargo, was reasonable. It is
important to clarify that this proposed rule concerns the negotiations
or discussions that lead up to a decision about whether an import or
export load is accepted for transportation. There will undoubtedly be
situations where an ocean common carrier and a shipper engage in good
faith negotiations or discussions that do not result in the provision
of transportation. However, as mentioned earlier in the preamble, a
situation where an ocean common carrier categorically excludes U.S.
exports from its backhaul trip will create a presumption of an
unreasonable refusal to deal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See generally, Fact Finding Investigation 29 Final Report
(F.M.C.), 2022 WL 2063347 at 11, 21-23, 26, 34-35 (noting
difficulties experienced by non-carrier entities to obtain
information such as earliest return dates and vessel scheduling
information held by ocean common carriers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also notes that, consistent with Section 7(d) of
OSRA 2022, it has consulted with the Coast Guard regarding the approach
taken by the proposal. The Coast Guard offered no objections to the
Commission's approach.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule describes how the Commission will consider
private party and enforcement cases where a violation of 46 U.S.C.
41104(a)(10) is alleged, and relates to vessel space accommodation.\14\
This proposed rule considers the common carriage roots of Section
41104(a)(10), as well as the overall competition basis of the
Commission's authority.\15\ The proposed rule first lists the elements
necessary to establish a violation of Section 41104(a)(10), and then
lays out the criteria the Commission will consider in evaluating the
reasonableness of the refusal, including a burden shifting regime. In
proposing this rule, the Commission acknowledges that it is impossible
to regulate for every possible scenario and thus, cases that allege a
violation of Section 41104(a)(10) will be factually driven and
determined on a case-by-case basis.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The framework for this proposed rule is taken from
Commission precedent on refusal to deal cases generally and could be
applicable outside the ``vessel space accommodation'' context. This
proposed rule, however, is solely focused on the OSRA 2022
requirements related to vessel space accommodations provided by an
ocean common carrier.
\15\ See Orolugbagbe v. A.T.I., U.S.A., Inc., Informal Docket
No. 1943(I) at *31-38.
\16\ See Canaveral Port Authority--Possible Violations of
Section 10(b)(10), 29 S.R.R. 1436, 1449 (FMC 2003). Note that
Section 10(b)(10) is the former Shipping Act section for
unreasonable refusals to deal or negotiate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Elements
Pursuant to OSRA 2022 and Commission precedent, complainants must
meet three elements to establish a violation for unreasonable refusal
to deal or negotiate. The Commission proposes to continue to adhere to
those elements, including in cases where the allegation relates to
vessel space accommodations by an ocean common carrier. The elements
are derived directly from the statutory text established in OSRA 1998
and are: (1) the respondent is a [ocean] common carrier under FMC
jurisdiction; (2) the respondent refuses to deal or negotiate [with
respect to vessel space accommodations]; and (3) that the refusal is
unreasonable.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at 1448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Definitions
Neither the Shipping Act, as amended, nor OSRA 2022 define the
phrase ``vessel space accommodations,'' and this phrase has not been
interpreted in prior Commission matters. Therefore, the Commission
proposes to define ``vessel space accommodations'' generally as space
provided aboard a vessel of an ocean common carrier for laden
containers being imported to, or exported from, the United States. This
proposed definition is based on the common meaning of the words in the
phrase as applied in ocean shipping.
The phrase ``refusal to deal or negotiate'' does not lend itself to
a general definition and instead must be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. In general, a ``refusal to deal or negotiate'' presumes that in
order for there to be a refusal, there first must be something to
refuse. In other words, a party has attempted in good faith to engage
in discussions with an ocean common carrier for the purposes of
obtaining vessel space accommodations.\18\ This good faith attempt is
something more than one communication with no response or reply. The
party must prove an actual refusal to even entertain the proposal or to
engage in good faith discussions. Likewise, an ocean common carrier's
refusal to deal or negotiate is only a violation if it is unreasonable,
and as described below, this analysis will consider whether the ocean
common carrier, in turn, gave good faith consideration to a party's
efforts at negotiation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Canaveral, supra at 1450; cf. Chilean Nitrate Sales
Corp. v. San Diego Unified Port District, 24 S.R.R. 1314 (1988).
\19\ See Canaveral, id. See also Maher Terminals, LLC v. PANYNJ,
33 S.R.R. 821, 853 (F.M.C. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, reasonableness is necessarily a case-by-case
determination, and the Commission will continue to adhere to that
principle. However, the Commission believes it is necessary to provide,
and OSRA 2022 requires, criteria that it will use to assess whether a
refusal to deal or negotiate with respect to vessel space accommodation
is reasonable. These criteria will be considered for the reasonableness
evaluation for any given case.
Case law indicates that ``reasonableness'' of the refusal to deal
or negotiate has historically been interpreted broadly in this context,
with courts deferring to the Commission's reading of that term in
administering its statutes and regulations.\20\ The Commission has
previously found reasonable those decisions that are connected to a
legitimate business decision or motivated by legitimate transportation
factors.\21\ ``Reasonableness'' can be given its dictionary definition
but is judged on a case-by-case basis, with particular attention paid
to the relevant circumstances; the Commission has said that a just and
reasonable practice is one otherwise lawful but not excessive and
suited to the end in view.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In fact, the Commission has observed that ``[s]hipping law
terms such as `unjust,' or `unreasonable,' are indeed broad and may
plausibly admit consideration of a number of competing policies. It
is well-established, however, that `[t]he primary objective of the
shipping laws administered by the FMC is to protect the shipping
industry's customers, not members of the industry.''' New York
Shipping Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 854 F.2d 1338, 1374 (D.C.
Cir. 1988) (quoting Boston Shipping Ass'n v. FMC, 706 F.2d 1231,
1238 (1st Cir.1983)).
\21\ See, e.g., Docking & Lease Agreement By & Between City of
Portland, ME & Scotia Princess Cruises, Ltd., Order of Investigation
& Hearing, 30 S.R.R. 377, 379 (F.M.C. 2004).
\22\ In Investigation of Free Time Practices--Port of San Diego,
9 F.M.C. 525, 547 (1966), discussing Section 17 of the 1916 Act, the
Commission noted:
``Reasonable'' may mean or imply ``just, proper,'' ``ordinary or
usual,'' ``not immoderate or excessive,'' ``equitable,'' or ``fit
and appropriate to the end in view.'' Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth
Edition. It is by application to the particular situation or subject
matter that words such as ``reasonable'' take on concrete and
specific meaning. As used in Sec. 17 and as applied to terminal
practices, we think that ``just and reasonable practice'' most
appropriately means a practice, otherwise lawful but not excessive
and which is fit and appropriate to the end in view.
The justness or reasonableness of a practice is not necessarily
dependent upon the existence of actual preference, prejudice or
discrimination. It may cause none of these but still be
unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57677]]
Transportation-related factors can include, without limitation, the
character of the cargo, vessel safety and stability, operational
schedules, and the adequacy of facilities.\23\ Generally, however,
transportation-related factors relate to the characteristics of the
cargo or vessel, not the status of the shipper.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For example, in Dart Containerline Co. v. FMC, 639 F.2d
808, 813 (D.C. App. 1981), in considering whether a diversion of
cargo from its naturally tributary port was unreasonable, the
Commission considered ``any operational difficulties or other
transportation factors that bear upon the carrier's ability to
provide direct service (e.g., lack of cargo volume, inadequate
facilities)[.]'' See also Harborlite Corp. v. I.C.C., 613 F.2d 1088,
1100 (D.C. Cir. 1988), citing to United States v. Illinois Central
Railroad, 263 U.S. 515, 524, 44 S.Ct. 189, 193, 68 L.Ed. 417 (1924),
a case involving common-carriage principles, for the proposition
that rate disparity is not unlawful if it is ``justified by the cost
of the respective services, by their values, or by other
transportation conditions''; Credit Practices of Sea-land Service,
Inc., and Nedlloyd Lijnen, B.v., 1990 WL 427463, at *8
(``Transportation or wharfage charges are dependent upon the
particular commodity involved; the cost for shipping or storing
bananas, for example, bears no relation to the fees levied for heavy
industrial equipment''); Grace Line, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Board,
280 F.2d 790 (1960); Investigation of Free Time Practices--Port of
San Diego, 9 F.M.C. 525, 541 (1966).
\24\ See, e.g., Credit Practices of Sea-land Service, Inc., and
Nedlloyd Lijnen, B.v., 1990 WL 427463 (F.M.C. 1990); Department of
Defense and Military Sealift Command v. Matson Navigation Co., 19
F.M.C. 503 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has found various situations that inform what
refusal to deal entails. It has found that a common carrier must avoid
shutting out any person or party for reasons not connected to
legitimate transportation-related factors.\25\ A common carrier must
therefore give actual consideration to the other party's efforts or
attempts at negotiation.\26\ For example, a common carrier's repeated
refusal to respond to email or telephone requests for negotiations over
an extended period of time may be viewed as an unreasonable method of
shutting another party out. Similarly, there must be an affirmative act
by a party to deal or engage in negotiations with the common carrier.
Commercial convenience alone is not a reasonable basis for a common
carrier's refusal to deal or negotiate.\27\ A common carrier granting
special treatment to one party over another because that party is a
regular customer is likewise likely to be viewed as unreasonable.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ New Orleans Stevedoring Co. v. Bd. of Commissioners of the
Port of New Orleans, 29 S.R.R. 1066, 1070 (F.M.C. 2002), aff'd mem.,
30 S.R.R. 261 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
\26\ Canaveral Port Authority--Possible Violations of Section
10(b)(10), Unreasonable Refusal to Deal or Negotiate, 29 S.R.R. 1436
(F.M.C. 2003).
\27\ Investigation of Free Time Practices--Port of San Diego, 9
F.M.C. 525, 541 (1966).
\28\ Chr. Salvesen & Co., Ltd. v. West Michigan Dock & Market
Corp., 12 F.M.C. 135, 146 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also has a history of recognizing that it is
appropriate to defer to a party's reasonable business decisions and not
to substitute its business judgement for that of an entity conducting
negotiations.\29\ However, this precedent does not eliminate the
Commission's responsibility to evaluate whether a party's decision-
making practices resulted in a violation of the Shipping Act.\30\ The
Commission continues to acknowledge that its ``role is not to ensure
that all interested parties get the same deal or make a certain profit.
Rather, the Commission's role is to ensure that parties are not
precluded from obtaining preferential treatment due to unreasonable or
unjustly discriminatory reasons.'' \31\ The Commission further
recognizes that an ocean common carrier does not have a duty to grant a
contract to every potential party. However, upon establishing its
criteria for granting preferential terms to parties who are able to
meet those specified terms, the ocean common carrier then has a duty
under the Shipping Act to apply such criteria in a consistent and fair
manner without differentiating based on illegitimate transportation
factors.\32\ An ocean common carrier may be viewed as having acted
reasonably in exercising its business discretion to proceed with a
certain arrangement over another by taking into account such factors as
profitability and compatibility with its business development
strategy.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Seacon Terminals, Inc. v. The Port of Seattle, 26
S.R.R. 886 (F.M.C. 1993); New Orleans Stevedoring Co. v. Bd. of
Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, 29 S.R.R. 1066 (F.M.C.
2002), aff'd mem., 30 S.R.R. 261 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Canaveral Port
Authority--Possible Violations of Section 10(b)(10), Unreasonable
Refusal to Deal or Negotiate, 29 S.R.R. 1436 (F.M.C. 2003); Maher
Terminals, LLC v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 33
S.R.R. 821 (F.M.C. 2014).
\30\ Seacon Terminals at 898-899; New Orleans Stevedoring Co.,
at 1071.
\31\ Ceres Marine Terminals v. Maryland Port Administration, 29
S.R.R. 356, 369 (F.M.C. 2001).
\32\ Id. at 370.
\33\ Seacon Terminals at 899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Shifting Burden From Complainant to Ocean Common Carrier
This proposed rule also sets forth a framework for an ocean common
carrier to establish that its efforts to consider an entity's proposal
or efforts at negotiation were done in good faith based on the criteria
above. Once a complainant (or the BEIC) has established a prima facie
case for each of the three elements above, the ocean common carrier
will have the burden of production to show or justify why its refusal
was reasonable. However, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with
the complainant to show that the refusal to deal or negotiate was
unreasonable.\34\ Further, the proposed rule includes a rebuttable
presumption of unreasonableness for those situations where an ocean
common carrier categorically excludes U.S. exports from its backhaul
trips from the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Canaveral Port Authority--Possible Violations of Section
10(b)(10), Unreasonable Refusal to Deal or Negotiate, 29 S.R.R. 1436
(F.M.C. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule includes a mechanism for an ocean common carrier
to justify its actions through means of a certification. Although this
proposal does not require a certification for this purpose, the
Commission is considering whether to make certification by a U.S.-based
compliance officer mandatory. The Commission also notes that, as a
preliminary matter, any justification must be directly relevant and
specific to the case at hand. Information or data that supports
generalized propositions is not helpful in determinations of
reasonableness for a specific case. A certification should document the
ocean common carrier's decision in a specific matter, the good faith
consideration of an entity's proposal or request to negotiate, and the
specific criteria considered by the ocean common carrier to reach its
decision. Certification in this context means that an appropriate U.S.-
based representative of the ocean common carrier attests that the
decision and supporting evidence is correct and complete. An
appropriate representative can include the ocean common carrier's U.S.-
based compliance officer.
As to all of the issues discussed in this document, the Commission
seeks comment and supporting information regarding its proposal.
III. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
You may submit your comments via email to the email address listed
above under ADDRESSES. Please include the docket number associated with
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the subject matter in the
subject line of the email. Comments should be attached to the email as
a Microsoft
[[Page 57678]]
Word or text-searchable PDF document. Only non-confidential and public
versions of confidential comments should be submitted by email.
You may also submit comments by mail to the address listed above
under ADDRESSES.
How do I submit confidential business information?
The Commission will provide confidential treatment for identified
confidential information to the extent allowed by law. If your comments
contain confidential information, you must submit the following by mail
to the address listed above under ADDRESSES:
A transmittal letter requesting confidential treatment
that identifies the specific information in the comments for which
protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade
secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
information.
A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the
complete filing with a cover page marked ``Confidential-Restricted,''
and the confidential material clearly marked on each page. You should
submit the confidential copy to the Commission by mail.
A public version of your comments with the confidential
information excluded. The public version must state ``Public Version--
confidential materials excluded'' on the cover page and on each
affected page and must clearly indicate any information withheld. You
may submit the public version to the Commission by email or mail.
Will the Commission consider late comments?
The Commission will consider all comments received before the close
of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, we will also consider comments received after that
date.
How can I read comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the Commission at the
Commission's Electronic Reading Room or the Docket Activity Library at
the addresses listed above under ADDRESSES.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, provides that
whenever an agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, the agency must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis describing the impact of the rule on small entities, unless
the head of the agency certifies that the rulemaking will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
5 U.S.C. 603-605. As the head of the agency, the Chairman, by voting to
approve this NPRM, is certifying that this proposed rule, if adopted,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Commission's regulations categorically exclude certain
rulemakings from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment
or an environmental impact statement because they do not increase or
decrease air, water or noise pollution or the use of fossil fuels,
recyclables, or energy. 46 CFR 504.4. The proposed rule describes the
Commission's proposed criteria to determine whether an ocean common
carrier has engaged in an unreasonable refusal to deal with respect to
vessel space accommodations under 46 U.S.C. 41104(a)(10), and the
elements necessary for a successful claim under that section. This
rulemaking thus falls within the categorical exclusion for matters
related solely to the issue of Commission jurisdiction and the
exclusion for investigatory and adjudicatory proceedings to ascertain
past violations of the Shipping Act. See 46 CFR 504.4(a)(20), (22).
Therefore, no environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement is required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) requires
an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44
U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in
proposed rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of the notice
of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11. This proposed rule does not
contain any collections of information as defined by 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)
and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
Regulation Identifier Number
The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory
and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of
each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the
beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda,
available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 542
Administrative practice and procedure, Non-vessel-operating common
carriers, Ocean common carrier, Refusal to deal or negotiate, Vessel-
operating common carriers, Vessel space accommodations.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Maritime
Commission proposes to add 46 CFR part 542 to read as follows:
PART 542--COMMON CARRIER PROHIBITIONS
Sec.
542.1 Definition of Unreasonable Refusal to Deal or Negotiate with
Respect to Vessel Space Accommodations Provided by an Ocean Common
Carrier.
542.2 [Reserved]
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40307, 40501-40503,
41101-41106, and 40901-40904; 46 CFR 515.23.
Sec. 542.1 Definition of Unreasonable Refusal to Deal or Negotiate
with Respect to Vessel Space Accommodations Provided by an Ocean Common
Carrier.
(a) Purpose. This part establishes the elements and definitions
necessary for the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) to apply 46
U.S.C. 41104(a)(10) with respect to vessel space accommodations
provided by an ocean common carrier. This includes complaints brought
before the Commission by a private party or enforcement cases brought
by the Commission.
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(1) Transportation factors means factors that encompass the genuine
operational considerations underlying an ocean common carrier's
practical ability to accommodate laden cargo for import or export,
which can include, without limitation, vessel safety and stability,
scheduling considerations, and the effect of blank sailings.
(2) Unreasonable means an ocean common carrier's refusal to deal or
negotiate as prohibited under 46 U.S.C. 41104(a)(10). In evaluating an
ocean common carrier's actions, the Commission will consider the
following factors, without limitation, when deciding whether a refusal
to deal or negotiate under paragraph (c)(3) of this section is
unreasonable:
(i) Whether the ocean common carrier follows a documented export
strategy that enables the efficient movement of export cargo;
[[Page 57679]]
(ii) Whether the ocean common carrier engaged in good-faith
negotiations, and made business decisions that were subsequently
applied in a fair and consistent manner;
(iii) The existence of legitimate transportation factors; and
(iv) Any other factors the Commission deems relevant.
(3) Vessel space accommodations means space provided aboard a
vessel of an ocean common carrier for laden containers being imported
to or exported from the United States.
(c) Elements. In order to establish a successful private party or
enforcement claim under 46 U.S.C. 41104(a)(10) for refusal to deal or
negotiate with respect to vessel space accommodations:
(1) The respondent must be an ocean common carrier as defined in 46
U.S.C. 40102;
(2) The respondent refuses to deal or negotiate, including with
respect to vessel space accommodations; and
(3) The refusal is unreasonable.
(d) Shifting of burden of production. The burden to establish a
violation of this part is with the complainant (or Bureau of
Enforcement, Investigations, and Compliance). Once a complainant sets
forth a prima facie case of a violation, the burden shifts to the ocean
common carrier to justify that its actions were reasonable. This
justification may take the form of a certification by an appropriate
representative of the ocean common carrier to attest that the decision
and supporting evidence is correct and complete. An appropriate
representative can include the ocean common carrier's compliance
officer.
Sec. 542.2 [Reserved]
By the Commission.
William Cody,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20105 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P