[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 18 (Thursday, January 28, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4382-4385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2046]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

46 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. MARAD-99-5038]
RIN 2133-AB37


Regulations To Be Followed by All Departments and Agencies Having 
Responsibility To Provide a Preference for U.S.-Flag Vessels in the 
Shipment of Cargoes on Ocean Vessels

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is soliciting public 
comment concerning whether MARAD should amend its cargo preference 
regulations governing the carriage of agricultural exports. Your 
comment is welcome on the questions listed below or on any aspect of 
MARAD's oversight of other governmental agencies' ocean shipping 
activities under the Cargo Preference Act of 1954, as amended by the 
Food Security Act of 1985. Such comments will be considered in any 
future decision by MARAD to initiate a rulemaking process applicable to 
the carriage of agricultural export cargoes. Present regulations and 
policies remain in force. This docket does not address the carriage of 
military cargoes.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than March 29, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number that appears at the top 
of this document in your comments and submit your comments in writing 
to:

[[Page 4383]]

Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 7th St., SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. You may call Docket Management at (202) 366-9324. 
You may visit the Docket Room from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An electronic version of this 
document is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues you may call 
Thomas W. Harrelson, Director, Office of Cargo Preference at (202) 366-
5515. For legal issues, you may call Murray Bloom, Chief, Division of 
Maritime Assistance Programs of the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 
366-5320. You may send mail to both of these officials at Maritime 
Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments

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.
    We encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise 
fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your 
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please 
submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to 
Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, at 
the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the 
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send comments containing 
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should 
include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any 
such claim.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a proposed rule (assuming that one is issued), we will 
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking 
action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket Room are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps: Go to the Docket Management 
System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://
dms.dot.gov/). On that page, click on ``search.'' On the next page 
(http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-digit docket number 
shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number 
were ``MARAD-1999-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' After typing the 
docket number, click on ``search.'' On the next page, which contains 
docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the 
desired comments. You may download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
    The Cargo Preference Act of 1954, Pub. L. 83-664, 68 Stat. 832 
(1954), amended the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, by adding Section 
901(b), codified at 46 App. U.S.C. 1241(b) ('54 Act). The '54 Act 
applies:

``[w]henever the United States shall procure, contract for, or 
otherwise obtain for its own account, or shall furnish to or for the 
account of any foreign nation without provision for reimbursement, 
any equipment, materials, or commodities, within or without the 
United States, or shall advance funds or credits or guarantee the 
convertibility of foreign currencies in connection with the 
furnishing of such equipment, materials, or commodities, * * * ''

    Government agencies are required to take such steps as may be 
necessary and practicable to assure that at least 50 percent of the 
gross tonnage of certain government-sponsored cargoes--

`` * * * (computed separately for dry bulk carriers, dry cargo 
liners, and tankers), which may be transported on ocean vessels 
shall be transported on privately-owned United States-flag 
commercial vessels, to the extent such vessels are available at fair 
and reasonable rates for United States-flag commercial vessels, in 
such manner as will insure a fair and reasonable participation of 
United States-flag commercial vessels in such cargoes by geographic 
areas. * * * ''

    The Food Security Act of 1985, Pub. L. 99-198, exempted certain 
agricultural export enhancement programs from cargo preference, but 
increased the U.S.-flag share of humanitarian food aid programs from 50 
to 75 percent.
    MARAD's oversight role in administration of cargo preference is 
founded on section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-
469, which added the following subsection to section 901(b) of the 
Merchant Marine Act, 1936:

    ``Every department or agency having responsibility under this 
subsection shall administer its programs with respect to this 
subsection under regulations issued by the Secretary of 
Transportation. The Secretary of Transportation shall review such 
administration and shall annually report to the Congress with 
respect thereto.'' 46 App. U.S.C. 1241(b).

    The Secretary of Transportation has delegated the authority under 
this provision to the Maritime Administrator. (49 CFR 1.66(e).) MARAD's 
regulations governing administration of cargo preference are located at 
46 CFR part 381. Guidance as to the priority of a completely U.S.-flag 
service over a mixed U.S./foreign-flag service is contained in a policy 
letter issued on June 16, 1986.
    MARAD is requesting comment on whether the regulations governing 
the '54 Act, last revised in 1996, should be updated. Comments are 
requested specifically on the questions presented below:

1. Clarification of Secs. 381.4 and 381.5

    Sections 381.4 and 381.5, which address liner and bulk vessels, 
respectively, relate to the requirement to fix American-flag tonnage 
prior to fixing foreign-flag vessels in order to ensure fair and 
reasonable participation of U.S.-

[[Page 4384]]

flag vessels. MARAD has interpreted these provisions to mean that at 
least 75 percent, as applicable to packaged or bulk agricultural 
products, of the freight generated by each commodity procurement 
transaction must be transported on U.S.-flag vessels. Doing so ensures 
that the shipper agencies meet their preference obligations on a 
current basis during the year. Some shipper agencies have argued that 
the language of the two sections may not support MARAD's 
interpretation, or in any event, should be modified to allow greater 
flexibility. On the other hand, the use of more direct language in 
Secs. 381.4 and 381.5 may serve to quell confusion or doubt as the 
intent of these provisions. Accordingly, we request your comment on 
whether these two provisions should be clarified, and also whether the 
two provisions could be combined or otherwise revised.

2. Foreign-Flag Feeder Vessels

    MARAD's guidance letter of June 16, 1986, summarizes the holdings 
of several long-standing decisions of the Comptroller General (B-
145455, June 12, 1968; B-140872, May 10, 1960; B-165421, Dec. 23, 1968; 
and B-155185, Nov. 17, 1969) and provides that an ocean service which 
provides for U.S.-flag carriage for the entire voyage has preference 
over an ocean service which uses a foreign-flag vessel for a portion of 
the transportation. Only in the absence of all-U.S.-flag service is a 
mixed U.S.-flag/foreign-flag service considered to be in fulfillment of 
the requirements of cargo preference. When two mixed U.S.-flag/foreign-
flag services are vying for the same shipment, the service that makes 
the greater use of U.S.-flag vessels (i.e., the service with the longer 
leg served by U.S.-flag vessels) wins the cargo.
    Shipper agencies note that the guidance sometimes restricts their 
ability to ship cargo expeditiously and comply with cargo preference 
due to the paucity of direct U.S.-flag service and the relative 
abundance of mixed U.S.-flag/foreign-flag service. The shipper agencies 
complain that the added cost of all-U.S.-flag service over mixed U.S.-
flag/foreign-flag service results in less funds being available for 
purchase of commodities. They also note that large, modern U.S.-flag 
container vessels cannot serve many of the recipient developing 
nation's ports, or do so economically due to lack of port facilities. 
Although 75 percent U.S.-flag carriage is statutorily required, there 
may be ways to achieve that required level of U.S.-flag participation 
in these cargoes while allowing better use of U.S.-flag vessels and 
more efficient routing of shipments. Accordingly, we seek your comment 
on whether MARAD may, and if so should, adopt new preference guidance, 
which may be incorporated into a rule, such as one that gives equal 
preference to all-U.S.-flag service and mixed U.S.-flag/foreign-flag 
service, but counts only the ton miles carried by the U.S.-flag vessel 
towards the goal of 75 percent U.S.-flag carriage. In other words, can 
performance by U.S.-flag vessels of 75 percent of the ton miles 
generated by the preference cargoes equate to fulfillment of the 
statutory requirement that U.S.-flag vessels carry 75 percent of the 
preference cargoes in consonance with the determinations of the 
Comptroller General?

3. Basis for Compliance Measurement

    In addition to the 75 percent carriage requirement, the statute 
requires that U.S.-flag vessels be given fair and reasonable 
opportunity to transport such cargoes by liner, tanker and dry bulk 
vessels and by geographic areas. The geographic areas referred to in 
the statute are foreign geographic areas inasmuch as this provision is 
intended to ensure that U.S.-flag vessels participate in the long hauls 
as well as the short hauls.
    The Food for Progress Act provides for the donation of food to 
emerging democratic nations. Section 416 of the Agriculture Act of 1949 
provides for the donation of bulk grain and other surplus agricultural 
commodities. The foreign assistance programs, popularly known as ``PL-
480,'' established by the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance 
Act of 1954, as amended, consist of three titles. Title I provides 
concessional, long-term financing for the sale of U.S. agricultural 
commodities to friendly developing countries. Title II provides for the 
donation of packaged, processed and bulk commodities to least developed 
countries. Title III provides for the donation of food to least 
developed countries on a grant basis.
    Compliance with cargo preference requirements for programs under 
Food for Progress and Section 416 has been measured on a country-by-
country basis for each commodity procurement. Title I shipments are 
monitored by a more restrictive requirement that cargo reservation be 
measured on a purchase authorization basis by vessel type. Unlike other 
PL-480 programs, under Title I requirements, each commodity requires a 
separate purchase authorization. Only with regard to the Title II 
program has MARAD informally acquiesced to measurement of compliance on 
a ``global'' basis by vessel type. This program primarily ships 
numerous smaller parcels on liner vessels, where there is reduced 
likelihood of disadvantage accruing to the U.S.-flag carrier and 
greater difficulty by the program office in meeting compliance by 
country by vessel type.
    We invite your comments on whether these compliance regimes should 
be maintained as is, and memorialized in regulations, standardized or 
consolidated or otherwise revised. Should performance in meeting 
preference standards for the Title II program be changed to a country 
by vessel type basis so as to conform to the requirements for other PL-
480 programs?

4. Definition of ``Liner'' Vessel and ``Transshipment'

    While the statute specifies that U.S.-flag carriers be given a fair 
and reasonable opportunity for the carriage of food aid cargo by liner, 
tanker and bulk vessel, the term ``liner'' does not connote or 
adequately define what is a liner vessel. The term ``liner'' relates to 
a type of service instead of a type of vessel. A vessel engaged in 
liner service, which is regularly scheduled service available for 
common carriage, may be a general cargo vessel, a breakbulk vessel, a 
container vessel or a tug/deck barge combination. Cargo shipped under 
liner service requirements for humanitarian aid programs are contracted 
for under booking notices, whereas freight for dry bulk or tanker 
vessels are subject to charter parties or contracts of affreightment. 
Use of the term ``liner'' in the statute, without further definition in 
the regulations, has led to administrative difficulties in adequately 
recording shipments subject to cargo preference. Therefore, we welcome 
your comments regarding whether MARAD should amend its regulations to 
define what type of vessels constitute or should be included under the 
term ``liner'' vessels for the purpose of measuring compliance under 
cargo preference.
    Ocean transportation has changed dramatically since the cargo 
preference regulations were last revised. Containerization with hub and 
spoke networks, alliances and consortia now dominate the non-bulk 
trades. The commercial world and insurance underwriters now 
differentiate between ``transshipment'' and ``relay'' between vessels 
of the same transportation network manager. Should MARAD recognize and 
define ``relay'' versus ``transshipment?'' What should be those 
definitions? Should they apply only to containerized cargoes? What 
impact

[[Page 4385]]

would this have on preference cargo transportation?

5. Definition of Commercial Terms

    The use of special government-defined terms of sale and 
transportation for preference cargoes sometimes creates confusion in 
the marketplace and increases costs. Commercial suppliers and carriers 
use commercial terms for the majority of their business but must use 
non-standard government terms when dealing with the U.S. Government. 
For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Agency 
for International Development (AID) have defined the term ``FAS'' (free 
along side) to mean delivery to a point of rest in a terminal rather 
than the International Commercial Terms (Incoterms) definition of ``FAS 
(* * *named port)'' as ``alongside the vessel on the quay or in the 
lighters at the named port of shipment.'' As a result, MARAD interprets 
the government definition to not require that a vessel physically call 
at the port whereas the commercial Incoterm definition requires a 
physical vessel call. Similarly, USDA and AID use other non-standard 
terms, such as ``Intermodal-Plant'' and ``Intermodal-Point'' with 
different buyer/seller/carrier responsibilities than the commercial 
Incoterm ``EXWorks (. . .named place).''
    We welcome your comments on whether MARAD should require the use of 
commercial terms for cargo preference transactions. Would this clarify 
the sales and transportation requirements? Would it simplify the 
process and reduce overall government costs?

6. Commercial Practices

    The use of non-commercial practices in government cargo preference 
transportation contracts may be reducing competition and increasing 
costs. For example, USDA and AID transportation contracts do not follow 
the general commercial practices of ``freight earned upon loading'' and 
``freight payable on loading,'' or ``free-in and out'' for dry bulk 
charters. As a result, the ocean carrier has to finance the costs of 
moving these government agricultural cargoes. Those added financial 
costs to the carrier are reflected in higher freight rates borne by the 
Government.
    Should MARAD require the use of commercial practices in the 
transportation of preference cargoes? If so, what commercial practices 
should be implemented? Would such commercial practices simplify the 
transportation contracts and reduce costs to the Government?

7. Other Issues

    This request for comments concerning the desirability of rulemaking 
is not limited to the foregoing. MARAD also seeks comments and/or 
suggestions concerning other issues that may affect the implementation 
of the cargo preference statutes and whether MARAD's regulations should 
be amended or modified in light of such issues.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    If a rule is actually promulgated, we may consider it an 
economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 
12866. In the event that MARAD decides to proceed with a rulemaking, we 
will prepare a preliminary regulatory evaluation that reflects the 
comments to this advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

Federalism

    MARAD has analyzed this advance notice of proposed rulemaking in 
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 12612 and has determined that any rule that might be subsequently 
promulgated would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Maritime Administration will evaluate any future proposed rule 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to 
certify whether any rule that might be promulgated subsequent to this 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Companies providing 
the carriage of preference cargoes generally are not small entities.

EIS

    Any rule that might be subsequently promulgated would not be 
expected to significantly affect the environment. Accordingly, an 
Environmental Impact Statement may not be required under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    We would evaluate any rule that might be promulgated to determine 
whether it would be expected to significantly change the current 
requirement for the collection of information.

    By order of the Maritime Administrator.

    Dated: January 25, 1999.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-2046 Filed 1-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P