NCBFAA expresses general support for FMC’s NSA rule amendments

Edward Greenberg, the association’s general council, said the Federal Maritime Commission’s revision would offer “much needed flexibility” to non-vessel-operating common carriers when including rate and surcharge changes in their service arrangements.    The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA) said it generally supports the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission’s (FMC) proposed revisions to how non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOCCs) make changes to their service arrangements.
   The proposed revision to the current regulations would allow the filing of amendments for both service contracts and NVOCC service arrangements (NSAs) to be delayed up to 30 days after an amendment is agreed to by both parties.
   “The revision would provide much needed flexibility for VOCCs and, perhaps even more so, for NVOCCs, who are required to constantly monitor and react to all VOCC daily rate and surcharge adjustments, and incorporate those adjustments into NSA amendments,” stated NCBFAA Transportation and General Counsel Edward Greenberg in the association’s filing to the FMC.
   However, the NCBFAA expressed caution that the FMC ensure that the new process is “not abused by carriers springing surprises through delayed implementation on previously announced general rate increases and surcharges.”
   While Greenberg said the NSA rules amendment a “step in the right direction,” he added “complete elimination of this requirement for NSAs is warranted and the commission should promptly initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether there is an appropriate basis to continue to treat NSAs in exactly the same way as service contracts vis-à-vis the need for filing and publication.”
   The NCBFAA continues to urge the FMC to expand the exemption related to negotiated rate arrangements (NRAs) to make them more user-friendly when the parties need to amend them. In addition, the association said NRAs should include “non-economic issues,” such as surcharges, credit terms, minimum quantities, forum selection and arbitration clauses.
   “The existing need to separate the so-called economic from non-economic terms is an arbitrary requirement that served little purpose when first implemented and today interferes with the efficient memorialization of the negotiated rate arrangements between NVOCCs and their customers,” Greenberg said.
   The NCBFAA’s filing to the FMC may be viewed here.