[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5834-5835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3265]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5835]]
DEPARTMNET OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Ex Parte No. 533]
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
[Docket No. 96-04]
Noncontiguous Domestic Trade Tariffs
AGENCIES: Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation;
Federal Maritime Commission.
ACTION: Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) and the
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) seek comments on how
best to implement the provisions of the ICC Termination Act of 1995
involving tariff filing and rate reasonableness in the noncontiguous
domestic trade (49 U.S.C. 13701 and 13702). 1
\1\ The two agencies are handling this matter simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments are due on March 11, 1996. Replies are due on March 25,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Participants must send an original and 10 copies of their
comments, referring to STB Ex Parte No. 533/FMC Docket No. 96-04 to:
Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Surface Transportation
Board, 1201 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20423, and 10
copies to Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 N. Capitol St.,
N.W., Washington, DC 20573.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Keats, Office of the General
Counsel, STB, (202) 927-6046 or C. Douglass Miller, Office of the
General Counsel, FMC, (202) 523-5740. [TDD for the hearing impaired:
(202) 927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law
104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (ICC Termination Act), abolished the Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC). The Act assigned responsibility over certain
functions formerly handled by the ICC to either the Secretary of
Transportation or the newly-established STB. Section 2 of the ICC
Termination Act states that: ``Except as otherwise provided in this
Act, this Act shall take effect on January 1, 1996.''
Historically, the Interstate Commerce Act and the laws administered
by the FMC gave both agencies jurisdiction over operations in the
``domestic offshore trade'' (also referred to as the ``noncontiguous
domestic trade''). The ICC, under 49 U.S.C. 10521, had jurisdiction
over motor carrier operations in the domestic offshore trade, while the
FMC, under the Intercoastal Shipping Act, 1933 (1933 Act) (46 U.S.C.
843-848), had jurisdiction over water carriers operating in the trade.
Because section 33 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (1916 Act) (46 U.S.C. 832)
foreclosed the FMC from regulating operations that were already subject
to ICC jurisdiction, the ICC asserted jurisdiction over joint motor/
water rates in the domestic offshore trade, while the FMC asserted
jurisdiction over ``port to port'' water carrier operations. See
Trailer Marine Transport Corp. v. FMC, 602 F.2d 379 (D.C. Cir. 1979);
Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Auth. v. ICC, 645 F.2d 1102 (D.C. Cir.
1981).
The ICC Termination Act alters this regulatory scheme. By their
terms, new 49 U.S.C. 13501 and 13521 give the Board jurisdiction over
port to port water carrier transportation in the noncontiguous domestic
trade. Moreover, the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13702 require that, with
certain exceptions, water carriers operating in the noncontiguous
domestic trade file tariffs with the Board. Finally, 49 U.S.C. 13701
provides that water carrier services in the noncontiguous domestic
trade are subject to rate regulation by the Board. All of these
provisions, standing alone, would appear to establish that, as of
January 1, 1996, carriers operating in the noncontiguous domestic trade
would need to file tariffs at the Board, and at no other Federal
agency.
Under section 335 of the ICC Termination Act, however, repeal of
the 1933 Act and section 33 of the 1916 Act does not become effective
until September 30, 1996. Given that fact, and the ``Except as
otherwise provided in this Act'' language of section 2 of the ICC
Termination Act, there is some ambiguity as to whether, at least until
September 30, 1996, water carriers operating in the noncontiguous
domestic trade must file their tariffs at the Board or the Commission,
2 and as to which agency shall be responsible for rate regulation
during this interim period. The consequences of filing are not
insubstantial, from either a regulatory or a practical perspective: FMC
tariffs are filed electronically through an established Automated
Tariff Filing and Information System, which the STB cannot practicably
access or replicate; and the ICC Termination Act, through 49 U.S.C.
13701, established a zone of rate freedom that does not appear in the
1916 Act or the 1933 Act.
\2\ As noted, section 33 of the 1916 Act, as amended by section
205 of the ICC Termination Act, precludes the FMC from exercising
concurrent power or jurisdiction over any matter within the power or
jurisdiction of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transfer of jurisdiction over carriers in the domestic offshore
trades from the FMC to the STB also may impact programs that will not
be transferred. For example, there is a question regarding whether
agreements currently filed pursuant to section 15 of the 1916 Act
remain in effect until the repeal of the 1916 Act on September 30,
1996. Whether the FMC has jurisdiction to accept new agreements up to
September 30, 1996 is also an issue. Similar questions may arise with
regard to terminal operators and forwarders.
The Board and the Commission, therefore, request public comment on
how the two agencies can, consistent with the ICC Termination Act and
section 33 of the 1916 Act, best administer their respective statutes
during the transition period ending September 30, 1996, in a manner
that is most efficient and least disruptive to the industry and the
shipping public.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Board and the Commission certify that this action will not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. No new
regulatory burdens are imposed, directly or indirectly, on such
entities. The purpose of the decision is simply to seek comment on how
best to make the transition to a new regulatory regime.
Environmental And Energy Analysis
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or conservation of energy resources.
Decided: February 8, 1996.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary, Surface Transportation Board.
By the Commission, Chairman Creel, Comissioners Hsu, Scroggins,
and Won.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-3265 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P (1/2); 6730-01-P (1/2)
