Proposed Rule2026-09450
Rulemaking Procedures
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 13, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Maritime Commission
Abstract
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or the Commission) is proposing to revise its rulemaking procedures. The changes would: consolidate informal rulemaking and rulemaking petition requirements into subpart D, clarify ambiguities, remove unnecessary, overly restrictive requirements (such as ex parte requirements), and allow for the FMC to integrate its rulemaking procedures into the Executive Order 12866 centralized regulatory review process, as directed by Executive Order 14215. This proposal would also make conforming changes associated with the FMC's transition to eRulemaking. The FMC invites public comment on all aspects of this proposed rule.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26976-26984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09450]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Part 502
[FMC-2025-0074]
RIN 3072-AD06
Rulemaking Procedures
AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or the Commission) is
proposing to revise its rulemaking procedures. The changes would:
consolidate informal rulemaking and rulemaking petition requirements
into subpart D, clarify ambiguities, remove unnecessary, overly
restrictive requirements (such as ex parte requirements), and allow for
the FMC to integrate its rulemaking procedures into the Executive Order
12866 centralized regulatory review process, as directed by Executive
Order 14215. This proposal would also make conforming changes
associated with the FMC's transition to eRulemaking. The FMC invites
public comment on all aspects of this proposed rule.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the FMC on or
before June 12, 2026.
ADDRESSES: To view background documents or comments received, you may
use the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket
No. FMC-2025-0074. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments. This notice of proposed rulemaking
with its plain-language, 100-word-or-less proposed rule summary will be
available in this same docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Eng, Secretary; Phone: (202)
523-5725; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3d0c6c0d1c6d7c2d1dae3c5cec08dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f380969081968792818ab3959e90dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Legal Authority
The Federal Maritime Commission is an agency of the United States
Government responsible for regulating the U.S. international ocean
transportation system for the benefit of U.S. exporters, importers, and
consumers. The FMC administers subtitle IV (Parts A through D) of Title
46, United States Code, to ensure a competitive and reliable
international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S.
economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices. It
is authorized by 46 U.S.C. 46105 to prescribe regulations to carry out
its duties and powers.
B. Formal Versus Informal Rulemaking
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides the general
procedures for agency rulemaking. Most rulemakings are conducted under
the ``informal rulemaking'' procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553. In limited
circumstances, federal agencies must engage in ``formal rulemaking,''
which has heightened procedural requirements. The formal rulemaking
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557 are only triggered when Congress
explicitly requires rulemaking ``on the record after opportunity for an
agency hearing.'' \1\ None of the statutes that the FMC administers
require a rulemaking hearing ``on the record.'' Therefore, the
Commission follows the informal, notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553, which does not require trial-type
procedures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corp., 406 U.S. 742,
757 (1972) (``Sections 556 and 557 need be applied `only where the
agency statute, in addition to providing a hearing, prescribes
explicitly that it be on the record.' ''); United States v. Florida
E. Coast Ry., 410 U.S. 224, 251 (1973).
\2\ This is also true historically. E.g., Report of the Board on
Motion to Dismiss: Carrier-Imposed Time Limits on Presentation of
Claims for Freight Adjustments, 4 F.M.B. 29 (1952) (holding that the
Administrative Procedure Act's formal rulemaking requirements were
not applicable to the proceeding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 553 requires: (1) publication of a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register, (2) opportunity for public
participation by submission of written comments, and (3) publication of
a final rule in the Federal Register, generally not less than 30 days
before the rule's effective date. An agency may, but is typically not
required to, offer an opportunity for oral presentation of comments in
informal rulemaking.\3\ It was once more common for the FMC and its
predecessor agencies to hold in-person hearings during informal
rulemaking proceedings.\4\ That practice, however, is no longer
routine. The purpose of a hearing in informal rulemaking ``is to permit
the agency to educate itself and not to allow interested parties to
choose the issue or narrow the scope of the proceedings . . . to allow
interested parties to make useful comment and not to allow them to
assert their `rights' to insist that the rule take a particular form,''
and in making its final determination, the agency ``can look beyond the
particular hearing record.'' \5\ Written comments generally achieve
this same goal through more economical and more efficient methods while
also providing interested
[[Page 26977]]
members of the public more equal access to the rulemaking proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Occasionally advanced procedural requirements beyond those
required by 5 U.S.C. 553, such as oral submissions and cross-
examination, may be required by Due Process if critical issues
cannot be otherwise resolved. Implementation of these procedures,
however, does not require full adjudicatory procedures under 5
U.S.C. 556 and 557. O'Donnell v. Schaffer, 491 F.2d 59, 62 (D.C.
Cir. 1974).
\4\ See e.g., Report of the Commission: Bills of Lading--
Incorporation of Freight Charges, 3 U.S.M.C. 112 (1949) (public
hearings before examiner for proceeding under section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act); Report of the Board on Motion to
Dismiss: Carrier-Imposed Time Limits on Presentation of Claims for
Freight Adjustments, 4 F.M.B. 29 (1952) (public hearings before an
examiner for proceeding under section 4 of the Administrative
Procedure Act).
\5\ Pac. Coast Eur. Conf. v. United States, 350 F.2d 197, 205
(9th Cir. 1965).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ex Parte Communications in Informal Rulemaking
In adjudicatory contexts, ``ex parte communication'' mean a
communication ``[o]n or from one party only, usually without notice to
or argument from the adverse party,'' Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed.
2019). In a rulemaking context, an ex parte communication is a
``[written or oral communication [ ] regarding the substance of an
anticipated or ongoing rulemaking between . . . agency personnel and
interested persons; and that are not placed in the rulemaking docket at
the time they occur.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 79 FR 35988, 35993 (June 25, 2014) (reflecting the
Administrative Conference of the United States Recommendation 2014-
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's current regulations generally prohibit most
informal communications between the Commission and interested persons
concerning all FMC proceedings. Section 4 of the Government in the
Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409 (Sept. 13, 1976) expanded upon the
original ex parte requirements located in section 5 the Administrative
Procedure Act by establishing specific prohibitions against interested
persons outside the agency as well as agency members, administrative
law judges, and employees involved in the decision process from
engaging in ex parte communications. In the agency's implementing
regulations the Commission determined that the prohibition on ex parte
communications should apply to informal rulemaking proceedings.\7\ That
policy was supported by several contemporaneous court decisions which
expressed the view that ex parte communications in informal rulemaking
proceedings were inherently suspect.\8\ Accordingly, it has long been
the agency's practice to prohibit meetings with individual stakeholders
on issues that are the topic of pending informal rulemaking
proceedings.\9\ In 1981, however, in Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d
298 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit significantly clarified and liberalized treatment of
this issue. In that case, the court considered the ``timing, source,
mode, content, and the extent of . . . disclosure'' of numerous written
and oral ex parte communications received after the close of the
comment period to determine whether those communications violated the
governing statute or due process. Id. at 391. The court held that,
because the agency docketed most of the ex parte communications and
none of the comments were docketed ``so late as to preclude any
effective public comment,'' the agency satisfied its statutory
requirements. Id. at 398. The court also declined to prohibit ex parte
communications in informal rulemakings on constitutional due process
grounds, and even held that not all ex parte communications must
necessarily be docketed (implicitly concluding that whether such
communications require docketing depends on case-specific
circumstances). Id. at 402-04. Today, Sierra Club is considered the
most definitive opinion on ex parte communications in informal
rulemakings and is often cited by courts for the proposition that ex
parte communications in informal agency rulemaking are generally
permissible.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Extraneous and Ex Pare Communications, 42 FR 14110 (March
15, 1977). (A commenter on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
suggested that the agency's rule should make clear that the ex parte
requirements were not applicable to informal rulemaking. The
Commission flatly rejected this suggestion, stating: ``The proposed
limitation is too narrow and could permit ex parte activity in
proceedings intended [by the Government in the Sunshine Act] to be
covered.'').
\8\ See, e.g., Home Box Office v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 567 F.2d
9, 51-59 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding that ex parte communications that
occurred after the NPRM violated the due process rights of the
parties who were not privy to the communications because the written
administrative record would not reflect the possible ``undue
influence'' exerted by those stakeholders who had engaged in ex
parte communications); Nat'l Small Shipments Traffic Conference v.
ICC, 590 F.2d 345, 351 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (finding ex parte
communications ``violate[d] the basic fairness of a hearing which
ostensibly assures the public a right to participate in agency
decision making,'' foreclosing effective judicial review); Sangamon
Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 269 F.2d 221, 224 (D.C.
Cir. 1959) (finding that undisclosed ex parte communications between
agency Commissioners and a stakeholder were unlawful because the
informal rulemaking involved ``resolution of conflicting private
claims to a valuable privilege, and that basic fairness requires
such a proceeding to be carried on in the open'').
\9\ See, e.g., Action for Children's Television v. Fed. Commc'ns
Comm'n, 564 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (upholding the agency's
decision not to issue proposed rules and finding no APA violation
for ex parte discussions where the agency provided a meaningful
opportunity for public participation and the proceeding did not
involve competing claims for a valuable privilege).
\10\ See, e.g., Tex. Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. Fed.
Commc'ns Comm'n, 265 F.3d. 313, 327 (5th Cir. 2001) (``Generally, ex
parte contact is not shunned in the administrative agency arena as
it is in the judicial context. In fact, agency action often demands
it.''); Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 23 Ct. Int'l Trade 549, 569
n.16 (1999) (noting that the decision at issue ``constitutes an
exercise of `informal' rulemaking under the [APA] and, as such, is
not subject to the prohibition on ex parte communications set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 557(d)(1) (1994)''); Portland Audubon Soc. v. Endangered
Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534, 1545-46 (9th Cir. 1993) (``The
decision in [Sierra Club] that the contacts were not impermissible
was based explicitly on the fact that the proceeding involved was
informal rulemaking to which the APA restrictions on ex parte
communications are not applicable.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently, in 2014, the Administrative Conference of the United
States (ACUS), the body charged by Congress with recommending agency
best practices, provided guidance to agencies indicating that a general
prohibition on ex parte communications in informal rulemaking
proceedings is neither required nor advisable. Ex Parte Commc'ns in
Informal Rulemaking Proceedings (2014 ACUS Recommendation), 79 FR
35988, 35994 (June 25, 2014). ACUS concluded that ex parte
communications in informal rulemaking proceedings ``convey a variety of
benefits to both agencies and the public,'' although it acknowledged
that fairness issues can arise if certain groups have, or are perceived
to have, ``greater access to agency personnel than others.'' Id.
However, in balancing these competing considerations, ACUS urged
agencies to consider placing few, if any, restrictions on ex parte
communications that occur before an NPRM is issued because
communications at this early stage are less likely to cause harm and
more likely to ``help an agency gather essential information, craft
better regulatory proposals, and promote consensus building among
interested persons.'' Id. ACUS further recommended that agencies
establish clear procedures ensuring that all ex parte communications
occurring after an NPRM is issued, whether planned or unplanned, be
disclosed.
Based on the developments in case law related to ex parte
communications and the Commission's own experiences in proceedings, the
Commission has determined that it is appropriate to revisit the
agency's strict prohibition on ex parte communications in informal
rulemaking proceedings.
D. Rules of Particular Applicability
The APA distinguishes between rules of ``general applicability''
and rules of ``particular applicability.'' See 5 U.S.C. 551(4). Rules
of particular applicability are rules that only impact the pre-existing
legal rights or obligations of persons identified in the rule. A rule
of general applicability, by contrast, impacts the legal rights or
obligations of anyone within the agency's jurisdiction engaging in
activities covered within the scope of the rule. Unlike rules of
general applicability, the APA does not require rules of particular
applicability to be published in the Federal Register.
[[Page 26978]]
E. Petitions for Rulemaking
Under the APA, federal agencies are required to ``give . . .
interested person[s] the right to petition for the issuance, amendment,
or repeal of a rule,'' 5 U.S.C. 553(e). An agency is not required to
grant a petition for rulemaking.\11\ The APA generally does not
establish procedures agencies must observe in connection with petitions
for rulemaking. It does, however, require agencies to respond to
petitions for rulemaking ``within a reasonable time,'' id. at 555(b),
and to give petitioners ``prompt notice'' when a petition is denied in
whole or in part, along with ``a brief statement of the grounds for
denial,'' id. at 555(e). Agency denial of a rulemaking petition is
subject to judicial review under an extremely deferential version of
the arbitrariness and capriciousness standard.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ WWHT, Inc. v. F.C.C., 656 F.2d 807, 813 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
(``[a]lthough the legislative history accompanying section 4(d)
makes it plain that an agency must receive and respond to petitions
for rulemaking, it is equally clear from the legislative history
that Congress did not intend to compel an agency to undertake
rulemaking merely because a petition has been filed'').
\12\ Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 527-28 (2007)
(removing doubt over the reviewability of denials of petitions for
rulemaking; stating that ``[r]efusals to promulgate rules are thus
susceptible to judicial review, though such review is `extremely
limited' and `highly deferential' '').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. eRulemaking
In October 2002, the eRulemaking Program was established as a
cross-agency E-Gov initiative under section 206 of the 2002 E-
Government Act (Pub. L. 107-347). The General Services Administration
(GSA) manages the eRulemaking Program and is responsible for the
development and implementation of <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> (the public-access
side) and the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) (the agency-
access side). The Commission began using FDMS for its rulemaking
program in 2022. While the FMC had previously made rulemaking materials
available online to the public through the Commission's Electronic
Reading room on <a href="http://FMC.gov">FMC.gov</a>, by using <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> the public can
comment on rulemakings directly through the system rather than having
to email comments to the FMC Secretary. In addition to the benefit to
the public, FDMS provides significant benefits to the agency such as
adding and managing dockets electronically and running deduplication to
identify near-duplicate comments and mass mail campaigns. The FMC's
rulemaking regulations, however, have not been updated to reflect this
procedural advancement.
G. Centralized Regulatory Review
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
issued in 1993, requires ``significant regulatory actions'' to be
submitted for review to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 58 FR
51735, Oct. 4, 1993. A ``significant regulatory action,'' as defined by
the Executive Order, is generally any regulatory action that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
<bullet> Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more; or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments
or communities;
<bullet> Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
<bullet> Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
<bullet> Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,
recently amended Executive Order 12866 to make its centralized
regulatory review requirements applicable to the FMC and most other
similarly-structured agencies. 90 FR 10447 (Feb. 18, 2025). The FMC's
current prohibition on ex parte communications at 46 CFR 502.11, which
applies to communications between federal agencies in informal
rulemakings, is in direct conflict with this mandate.
III. Summary of Proposed Changes
A. Consolidation of Procedures for Petitions for Rulemaking and
Informal Rulemaking Into Subpart D
While most FMC rulemaking procedures are currently located within
subpart D, there are additional applicable procedural requirements,
such as ex parte communication requirements, scattered throughout part
502. The FMC is proposing to consolidate petition for rulemaking and
informal rulemaking procedures into subpart D. The one exception would
be that alternative dispute resolution provisions in subpart U would
not be transferred and would remain applicable to informal rulemaking
proceedings. Consolidation would result in minor instances of
duplication of regulatory text but would make it much easier for
readers to locate requirements for petitions for rulemaking and
informal rulemaking proceedings. This can be particularly useful for
individuals who do not routinely engage in these types of proceedings.
The proposed changes also reflect the fact that informal rulemaking
proceedings are fundamentally different than adjudicatory proceedings,
which is the primary focus of most of part 502.\13\ Most importantly,
the Administrative Procedure Act does not require formal, trial-like
proceedings for petitions for rulemaking or informal rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ E.g., Carrier-Imposed Time Limits for Freight Adjustments,
4 F.M.B. at 35 (``We consider that rule making under section 204(b)
of the 1936 Act and within the framework of the Administrative
Procedure Act as here proposed is something different from
investigation of actual or suspected violations of the 1916 Act
pursuant to section 22 thereof.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FMC does not engage in formal rulemaking as it is not required
by any of the statutory provisions that authorize Commission
rulemaking.\14\ Although not currently in use, the Commission would
retain formal rulemaking procedures in the FMC's regulations in the
event that any future FMC rulemaking is required to be conducted ``on
the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.'' Current
procedures would remain in their current form and location within part
502 outside of subpart D but would be revised as necessary to reflect
that their application is limited to formal rulemakings conducted under
sections 7 and 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The FMC is
accordingly proposing to revise Sec. 502.1 (Scope of rules in this
part), Sec. 502.14 (Public hearings), paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec.
502.61 (Proceedings), and Sec. 502.115 (Service in rulemaking and
petition proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See United States v. Florida East Coast Railway, 410 U.S.
224 (1973); see also Pacific Coast European Conference v. FMC, 350
F.2d 197, 205 (9th Cir. 1965) (sections 7 and 8 of the
Administrative Procedure Act were inapplicable to hearings required
by section 14b of the Shipping Act as the statute did not require a
hearing ``on the record'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant language from Sec. 502.14 and Sec. 502.61(a) would be
incorporated into subpart D. Consistent with current agency practice,
the FMC would not incorporate the requirement of Sec. 502.61(d) that
requires the Commission to establish dates by which the initial and
final decisions will be issued in an order instituting a proceeding. It
is impracticable to establish dates by which a final rule will be
issued in a notice of proposed rulemaking in informal rulemaking and is
not required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The Commission's best
estimates for timeframes in rulemaking activities are announced to the
public in
[[Page 26979]]
the Fall and Spring Unified Agenda. In accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act, within a reasonable time of filing, the
Commission makes a final determination and promptly notifies the
petitioner of the final action taken by the Commission.
Section 502.1 would also be revised to reflect potential
application of additional subparts to formal rulemaking. This
regulation has not been kept up-to-date as various subparts have been
added to part 502.
B. Allowance of Ex Parte Communications in Informal Rulemakings
For the reasons discussed earlier in the document, the proposed
revisions to Sec. 502.1 would make the ex parte communication
requirements of Sec. 502.11 inapplicable to informal rulemaking.
Consistent with applicable caselaw and ACUS's recommendation, the FMC
is proposing to remove limitations on ex parte communications in
informal rulemakings prior to a notice of proposed rulemaking.
Communications, or a summary of those communications in the case of
oral communications, received by the agency after the close of the
public comment period would be required to be promptly placed into the
docket and be made available to the public.
The Commission is proposing an additional change to the current ex
parte regulation at Sec. 502.11. Paragraph (a) directs readers to see
the definition of ``proceeding'' at Sec. 502.61. Section 502.61,
however, does not define the term ``proceeding''. Rather, Sec. 502.61
describes how a proceeding is commenced at the Commission. The FMC is
proposing to remove this cross-reference. In its place, the Commission
is proposing to insert at the end of Sec. 502.1 a cross-reference to
the Administrative Procedure Act's definitional section, 5 U.S.C. 551,
which includes a definition of ``agency proceeding'' at 5 U.S.C.
551(12). The Commission believes it is important to specifically cite
this definition in the regulatory text at the front of the part as the
Commission is aware that from time to time persons have expressed the
misconception that rulemaking is not a ``proceeding'' for purposes of
part 502. Consistent with longstanding practice, the revised regulation
would also identify non-adjudicatory investigations as ``proceedings.''
C. Rules of Particular Applicability
The Commission is proposing to remove the requirement that, in the
event that replies or succeeding rounds of comments are permitted in
either an informal rulemaking of particular applicability or a petition
for the amendment or repeal of a rule of particular applicability, the
commenter must serve copies of their comment on all prior participants
in the proceeding. Such service is not required under the APA. This is
a pre-internet procedure from a time when the only option other than
direct service was physically coming into the agency's reading room in
Washington, D.C., to review supporting documents not published in the
Federal Register. All comments to proposed rulemakings, replies to
public comments (when permitted by the agency), and petitions (when
public comments are solicited) are now posted to the applicable docket
at <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> and are available for inspection by the person(s)
named in the rule as well as the general public.
D. Petitions for Rulemaking
In conjunction with the consolidation of requirements into subpart
D, the Commission is proposing to make certain substantive revisions to
procedures for petitions for rulemaking.
As a matter of law, any change to the effective date of a rule is
itself an action that is required to go through the Administrative
Procedure Act's rulemaking process.\15\ To alert those seeking a
modification to an effective date of a rulemaking action of this
requirement, the Commission is proposing to revise its subpart D to
clearly state that any request for a modification to the effective date
of a final rule must be made through a petition for rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1 (D.C.
Cir. 2017) (``EPA's stay, in other words, is essentially an order
delaying the rule's effective date, and this court has held that
such orders are tantamount to amending or revoking a rule.''); see
also FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009)
(``The [APA] makes no distinction, however, between initial agency
action and subsequent agency action undoing or revising that
action.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking petitions would no longer be required to be verified.
Verification of petitions for rulemaking is not required by the
Administrative Procedure Act and is unnecessary. The purpose of
verification is to ensure that the information stated in such verified
document is true and correct and makes sense for adjudicatory
proceedings. However, in rulemaking ``[t]ypically, the issues relate
not to the evidentiary facts, as to which the veracity . . . would
often be important, but rather to the policy-making conclusions to be
drawn from the facts.'' \16\ As is general practice across the
Government, the Commission does not require verification of public
comments submitted on rulemakings and petitions for rulemaking. There
is no need for a higher standard for the rulemaking petition. In
addition: (1) verification of any statements concerning legal authority
for an existing rule, or for new rulemaking, must be undertaken
independently by the agency regardless of whether a petition for
rulemaking is verified; and (2) statements of facts asserted in the
rulemaking petition, if necessary, can be verified through agency fact-
gathering, including through the solicitation of public comments on the
petition, and further verified, if necessary, in the rulemaking itself
if the petition is granted. While the burdens imposed by Sec. 502.6
are minimal, they could potentially dissuade someone from filing a
petition for rulemaking. Documents, exhibits, or other papers or
written materials written in a language other than English would still
be required to be accompanied by an English translation thereof, duly
verified under oath to be an accurate translation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ American Airlines, Inc. v. C.A.B., 359 F.2d 624, 630 (D.C.
Cir. 1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is proposing to remove the requirement that a
petition for rulemaking for the amendment or repeal of a rule of
particular applicability must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons subject to the requirements of the rule. Such service is not
required by the APA, and a petition for rulemaking, if granted, does
not affect the legal rights or obligations of the named party/parties--
only the proceeding rulemaking, if finalized, has the potential to do
that. The Commission may seek information from the party/parties
subject to the rule of particular applicability during consideration of
the petition if the Commission believes it would aid in the
Commission's determination to accept or deny the petition for
rulemaking.
The Commission is proposing to expand upon the previous requirement
that the petition show the ``nature of the relief desired'' and require
that the petition set forth the text or the substance of the proposed
rule or amendment of the proposed rule. Draft regulatory text can be
indispensable to understanding and evaluating a petition. For this
reason, the Commission considered requiring proposed regulatory text
for all petitions. Ultimately, however, this idea was rejected for two
reasons. First, doing so might be a barrier to a less sophisticated
participant in the rulemaking process. Second, in some situations it
might be unnecessarily cumbersome.
The Commission is also proposing to prohibit the filing of
confidential information in a petition for rulemaking.
[[Page 26980]]
We are not aware of any recent incidents where this has been an issue.
The proposal is based on purely policy concerns. Confidential filings
at this stage have the potential to stifle public participation in the
process.
Finally, the Commission is proposing to eliminate filing fees for
rulemaking petitions. The Commission attempted to eliminate these fees
in 2016 while updating various other user fees. 81 FR 59141 (Aug. 29,
2016). The Commission stated in the 2016 rule that it was eliminating
rulemaking petition filing fees to align with the practice of other
agencies and to enhance access to the rulemaking process by making it
fairer and more open. Unfortunately, to effectuate this change the
Commission inadvertently only amended the regulatory text at 46 CFR
502.51(a), which pertained to the required filing fee for rulemaking
petitions. Because the Commission did not make a corresponding change
to 46 CFR 502.94, the regulation which establishes fees for petitions
in the absence of more particular language in other portions of part
502, persons filing rulemaking petitions inadvertently became subject
to the fee provisions of Sec. 502.94(a). The Commission continues to
believe that these fees should be eliminated for the same reason it
stated in 2016. No change is required to Sec. 502.94 as part of this
rulemaking because the proposed changes to Sec. 502.1 make Sec.
502.94 inapplicable to subpart D.
E. e-Rulemaking and Public Commenting Procedures
The proposed revised regulations would codify that public dockets
for petitions for rulemaking and informal rulemaking proceedings are
now posted at <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. Rulemaking dockets would no longer be
posted to Proceedings on <a href="http://FMC.gov">FMC.gov</a>. Copies of proposed and final rules
and regulations of the Commission would continue to be available
without the requirement of a FOIA request by contacting the Office of
the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission in accordance with Sec.
503.22.
Because public comments on rulemaking proceedings are available to
the public at any time on <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, the Commission is proposing
to remove the requirements that copies of comments must be served on
all prior participants in rulemaking proceedings in instances where
replies or succeeding rounds of public comment are permitted (Sec.
502.57; see also Sec. 502.53(a)). Corresponding proposed edits are
being made in Sec. 502.115. This is not a requirement of the APA and
is a hold-over from when members of the public needed to visit the
agency's physical reading room to review comments. Service of comments
on prior rulemaking participants would still be required under Sec.
502.115 for formal rulemaking proceedings.
The current regulatory text of Sec. 502.53(b) would not be
incorporated into the revised regulations in subpart D. Not only is the
cross-reference it contains to a regulation that no longer exists, but
petitions to intervene are inherently inapplicable to informal
rulemaking, regardless of whether they are rules of general or
particular applicability. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 502.68 would be
revised to include a statement that in formal rulemaking proceedings
involving rules of particular applicability, interested persons who
wish to participate must file a motion to intervene.
The proposed regulations state that late comments would only be
considered to the extent practicable. While the Commission is proposing
to revise its ex parte policies to allow for communications following
the close of a comment period, they are still generally disfavored in
most instances. Typically, late-filed comments merely re-state issues
that have been raised by previous commenters. A late-filed comment
raising significant new issues runs the risk of causing significant
delays in the rulemaking process and the further that the agency is in
the drafting and review process, the more difficult it is to
incorporate such comments. Agencies are required to conduct a variety
of in-depth analysis for which the data inputs need to have a cut-off
point if the project is ever to be finalized. The agency recognizes,
however, that sometimes there are significant circumstances beyond a
commenter's control that lead to missing a comment deadline.
F. Miscellaneous Changes
The Commission is proposing to eliminate the parenthetical rule
identification number at the end of affected paragraphs where they
appear (for example ``[Rule 11]''). The CFR citation is sufficient to
identify these requirements and retaining them imposes significant
difficulty when updating and reorganizing regulations within part 502.
This information will be removed from the other parts of 502 in future
rulemakings as changes are made to the relevant sections.
IV. Public Participation and Requests for Comments
The FMC invites public comment on all aspects of this proposed
rule, including the regulatory text and the preliminary regulatory
analyses. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the
public record and will be made available for public inspection at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Such information includes personally
identifiable information (``PII'') (such as your name and address). Any
PII that is submitted is subject to being posted to the publicly
accessible <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> site without redaction. The
Commission will not accept anonymous comments on this action.
The Commission may withhold from public viewing information
provided in comments that it determines may impact the privacy of an
individual, is offensive, or raises copyright or other legal concerns.
For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is
available via the link in the footer of <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
How do I submit confidential business information?
The Commission will provide confidential treatment for identified
confidential information to the extent allowed by law. If you would
like to request confidential treatment, pursuant to 46 CFR 502.5, you
must submit the following, by email, to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0576606677607164777c456368662b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d0e181e0f18091c0f043d1b101e531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>:
<bullet> A transmittal letter 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
V. Rulemaking Analysis
Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
[[Page 26981]]
approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has been designated a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this regulation.
Executive Order 14192
This action is not an ``E.O. 14192 regulatory action'' as defined
under E.O. 14192.
Impact on Small Entities
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires the agency to prepare
and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis'' which will ``describe the impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.'' Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a
rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
This proposed rule impacts all persons subject to the FMC's
jurisdiction. The Commission presumes all Vessel Operating Common
Carriers (VOCCs), Passenger Vessel Operators (PVOs), and Marine
Terminal Operators (MTOs) to be large business entities. These
organizations are generally very large companies with more than 500
employees and millions of dollars in revenues. The FMC presumes that
all Ocean Transportation Intermediaries (OTIs) and Non-Vessel-Operating
Common Carriers (NVOCCs) are small entities.
This proposed rulemaking would not impose a significant impact
(positive or negative) on these small entities. The changes proposed
relieve unnecessary regulatory burdens imposed by the current
regulations and make it easier for interested parties to locate and
understand the agency's procedural requirements related to rulemaking
and rulemaking petitions. These are very important benefits--especially
for entities that do not regularly participate in the rulemaking
process. The substance of the requirements would remain mostly the
same; as a result, these changes are not expected to result in
significant time or monetary savings for the public.
If you think that your business or organization qualifies as a
small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES)
explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this
rule would economically affect it. Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),
we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule.
If the proposed rule would affect your small business or organization
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This amendment does not contain any collection of information
requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520). See 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rule meets the applicable standards in Executive Order 12988
(Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rulemaking is exempt from additional environmental review
under 46 CFR 504.4(a)(4). The rule consists solely of the promulgation
of procedural rules pursuant to 46 CFR part 502.
List of Subjects 46 CFR Part 502
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to
justice, Investigations, Lawyers, Maritime carriers, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the Federal Maritime Commission
proposes to amend 46 CFR part 502 as follows:
PART 502--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 502 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 504, 551, 552, 553, 556(c), 559, 561-569,
571-584; 591-596; 18 U.S.C. 207; 28 U.S.C. 2112(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701;
46 U.S.C. 40103-40104, 40304, 40306, 40501-40503, 40701-40706,
41101-41109, 41301-41309, 44101-44106, 46105; 5 CFR part 2635.
0
2. Revise Sec. 502.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 502.1 Scope of rules in this part.
(a) The rules in this part govern procedure before the Federal
Maritime Commission, hereinafter referred to as the ``Commission,''
under 46 U.S.C. subtitle IV, the Administrative Procedure Act, and
related acts. They shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every proceeding. To this end, all persons
involved in proceedings conducted under the rules of this part shall be
required to consider at an early stage of the proceeding whether resort
to alternative dispute resolution techniques would be appropriate or
useful.
(b) Informal rulemaking proceedings conducted under section 4 of
the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), including petitions
for rulemaking, are governed only by subparts D (Rulemaking) and U
(Alternative Dispute Resolution) of this part. Where rulemaking is
required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for a
hearing, such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
556 and 557, and the procedure shall be governed by subparts G-J, L, N,
and U of this part as the Commission determines applicable (Time,
Service of Documents, Subpoenas, Disclosures and Discovery),
(Presentation of Evidence) (Oral Argument; Submission for Final
Decision) (Alternative Dispute Resolution).
(c) Subparts R (Nonadjudicatory Investigations) and S (Informal
Procedure for Adjudication of Small Claims) of this part do not apply
to proceedings under section 7 or 8 of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
(d) The definitions in 5 U.S.C. 551 are applicable to this part. As
used in this part, proceeding means an agency proceeding as defined at
5 U.S.C. 551(12) or a nonadjudicatory investigation.
0
3. Amend Sec. 502.11 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``as defined in Sec. 502.61'' in paragraph (a);
and
0
b. Removing the words ``[Rule 11.]'' in paragraph (g).
0
4. Revise Sec. 502.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 502.14 Public hearings.
The Commission may call informal public hearings not required by
statute to be made on the record to obtain information necessary or
helpful in the determination of its policies or the carrying out of its
duties. The Commission may require the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence to the extent permitted by law. Informal public
hearings will be conducted under the rules in this part where
applicable.
0
5. Revise subpart D to read as follows:
Subpart D--Rulemaking
Sec.
502.51a Commencement of rulemaking proceedings.
502.51b Petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
502.52a Notice of proposed rulemaking.
502.52b Public docket.
502.53a Where and when to file comments.
502.53b Ex parte communications.
[[Page 26982]]
502.54a Informal public hearings.
502.54b Negotiated rulemaking.
502.55a Contents of rules.
502.55b Authentication of rulemakings.
502.56a Rules of particular applicability--compliance with rules of
the Commission.
502.56b Suspension, amendment, etc. of rules.
502.57a Waiver of the rules
Sec. 502.51a Commencement of rulemaking proceedings.
Rulemaking proceedings are commenced by the Commission, either on
its own motion or on the basis of a petition for rulemaking.
Sec. 502.51b Petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
(a) Who may petition. Any interested person may petition the
Commission for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. A request
to modify the effective date of a final rule must be made through a
petition for rulemaking.
(b) Format of petition. A petition for rulemaking must be in
writing and clearly indicate that it is a petition for rulemaking. In
addition, the petition must include a statement setting forth the text
or the substance of any proposed rule or amendment desired or
specifying the rule the repeal of which is desired, and stating the
nature of his or her interest and his or her reasons for seeking the
issuance, amendment or repeal of the rule. Petitioners are encouraged
to include in their submission any data, studies, or reports that
support their petition. Any document, exhibit or other paper written in
a language other than English must be accompanied by an English
translation thereof, duly verified under oath to be an accurate
translation. Petitioners may not include confidential information in a
petition for rulemaking.
(c) How to file. A petition shall be electronically filed with the
Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, by emailing the petition to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e291878190879683909ba2848f81cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6615030514031207141f26000b0548010910">[email protected]</span></a> (preferred method), or by mailing an original hard
copy to ``Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 N Capitol Street
NW, Washington, DC 20573-0001.'' The Secretary shall acknowledge, in
writing, receipt of a complete petition and refer it to the appropriate
persons within the agency. Petitions and related documents shall not be
filed with or separately submitted to the offices of individual
Commissioners, or any other employee or office of the agency. The
agency may reject and return an incomplete petition.
(d) Docketing. A petition for rulemaking becomes a proceeding when
the Commission assigns a formal docket number to the petition. A copy
of the docketed petition for rulemaking will be posted on the FMC's
website and on the Federal rulemaking website at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. The Commission will publish a notice of docketing
in the Federal Register informing the public that the Commission is
reviewing the merits of the petition for rulemaking. The notice of
docketing will include the docket number and explain how the public may
track the status of the petition for rulemaking.
(e) Public engagement. Public engagement is not required prior to
the Commission's disposition of a petition for rulemaking. The
Commission may solicit public comment or engage in other forms of
public engagement if it believes that such action(s) will aid in the
Commission's determination of whether to accept or deny the petition.
(f) Agency response. Within a reasonable time of filing the
Commission will make a final determination and promptly notify the
petitioner of the final action taken by the Commission. If the
Commission finds that the petition contains adequate justification, a
rulemaking proceeding will be initiated. If the Commission finds that
the petition does not contain adequate justification, the petition will
be denied by letter or other notice, with a brief statement of the
ground for denial. The Commission may consider new evidence at any
time; however, repetitious petitions for rulemaking will not be
considered.
(g) Associated rulemaking. Unless a rule is required by statute to
be made on the record after opportunity for agency hearing, if the
Commission decides to grant a rulemaking petition, such rulemaking will
be conducted under the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of 5
U.S.C. 553.
Sec. 502.52a Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Except where otherwise required by law or when the Commission finds
that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest, whenever the Commission proposes to
issue, amend, or repeal any rule of general application other than an
interpretive rule; general statement of policy; or rule of agency
organization, procedure, or practice; or any matter relating to agency
management or personnel, the agency shall first publish in the Federal
Register a notice of the proposed rulemaking in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(b).
Sec. 502.52b Public docket.
(a) The Commission maintains an electronic public docket for each
rulemaking and each petition for rulemaking. Public dockets for
petitions for rulemaking and informal rulemaking proceedings are
available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
(b) Each docket contains copies of every document published for the
project, public comments received, summaries of public meetings or
hearings, regulatory assessments, and other publicly-available
information. The Commission may post only a single representative
example of identical comments in the public docket, or break-out and
post only the non-identical content.
Sec. 502.53a Where and when to file comments.
(a) Where to file. File comments in accordance with the directions
provided in the applicable Federal Register notice. No replies to
written submissions will be allowed unless, because of the nature of
the proceeding, the Commission indicates that replies would be
necessary or desirable for the formulation of a just and reasonable
rule. The comment process is not a vote. The Commission attempts to
formulate the best policy, which is not necessarily the most popular
policy. Therefore, the most effective comments explain the commenter's
reasons for their position on each piece of a rulemaking action and
provide supporting evidence.
(b) When to file. Comments should reach the Commission by the
deadline set out in the rulemaking document on which you are
commenting. The Commission is not required to consider comments filed
after the deadline and will only consider such comments to the extent
practicable.
(c) Nonconforming comments. The Commission may reject comments, or
portions of comments, that are not filed in conformance with the
instructions provided in the applicable Federal Register notice.
(d) Confidential information. You may not submit information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information ``CBI'') to <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. Comments
submitted through <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. To file a comment containing confidential
information, email the Secretary of the Commission, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6714020415021306151e27010a0449000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3340565041564752414a73555e501d545c45">[email protected]</span></a>,
a public version and a confidential version of comment. The
confidential version must include a cover page marked ``Confidential-
Restricted,'' and the specific confidential information
[[Page 26983]]
must be conspicuously and clearly marked on each page. If
confidentiality will end as of a date certain or upon the occurrence of
an event, this must be stated on the cover page.
(e) False statements.
(1) It is a violation of federal law to knowingly and willfully
make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation including false statements about your identity or your
authority to submit a comment on someone else's behalf, in relation to
the development of such federal regulations, including through comments
submitted on <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> (see 18 U.S.C. 1001). By clicking the
submit button on <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> or by hitting ``send'' when emailing
the Commission, you are verifying that you are not making any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation
regarding your identity or your authority to submit on someone else's
behalf with regard to the comment you are submitting, and that you are
not using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of
another person, real or fictitious, in connection with any comment you
are submitting.
(2) Individuals whose names or identifying information have been
attached to comments they did not submit may email the Secretary,
Federal Maritime Commission to request that the comment be anonymized
or removed from the online rulemaking docket.
Sec. 502.53b Ex parte communications.
(a) Definition. For purposes of this section, ex parte
communication means a written or oral communication, outside of written
comments submitted to the public docket during the comment period,
regarding the merits or substance of a rulemaking between a
Commissioner or employee of the Federal Maritime Commission and a
member of the public after the Commission's issuance of a notice of
proposed rulemaking or interim final rule.
(b) Policy. Ex parte communications occurring in informal
rulemaking proceedings are not prohibited, but do need to be disclosed.
(1) Written ex parte communications. The Commission shall promptly
place in the rulemaking docket and make available for public
inspection: the date and location of the communication; the names and
titles of all persons who attended or otherwise participated in the
meeting (including via phone or video); and, except as provided by
paragraph (c) of this section, all written ex parte communications
received after the close of the public comment period.
(2) Oral ex parte communications. The Commission shall promptly
place in the rulemaking docket, and make available for public
inspection: the date and location of the communication; the names,
titles, and contact information of all persons who attended or
otherwise participated in the meeting (including via phone or video);
and, except as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, a summary of
all oral ex parte communications received after the close of the public
comment period.
(c) Confidentiality. A member of the public engaging in ex parte
communications must inform the Commission at the time of the ex parte
communication of any information for which they are asserting
confidentiality. If the presenter asserts confidentiality, the
presenter must submit to the Commission within three business days of
the communication both a public version and a confidential version of
document (or summary memorandum in the case of oral ex parte
communications). The confidential version must include a cover page
marked ``Confidential-Restricted,'' and the specific confidential
information must be conspicuously and clearly marked on each page. If
confidentiality will end as of a date certain or upon the occurrence of
an event, this must be stated on the cover page.
502.54a Informal public hearings.
The Commission may call an informal public hearing for the purpose
of rulemaking or a petition for rulemaking where such proceedings will
aid in the Commission's final determination. Such hearings shall be in
addition to any publication of notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register required under section 4 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). The Commission may impose such procedural
requirements on a hearing proceeding as it deems necessary for fairness
and efficiency.
Sec. 502.54b Negotiated rulemaking.
The Commission, either upon petition of interested persons or upon
its own motion, may establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to
negotiate and develop consensus on a proposed rule, if, upon
consideration of the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 563, use of such a committee
is determined by the Commission to be in the public interest.
Sec. 502.55a Contents of rules.
The Commission will incorporate in any publication of proposed or
final rules a concise and general statement of their basis and purpose.
Sec. 502.55b Authentication of rulemakings.
All rules issued by the Commission shall be signed by the
Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission in the name of the Commission.
Sec. 502.56a Rules of particular applicability--compliance with
rules of the Commission.
Person(s) subject to a rule of particular applicability (i.e.,
named in the rule) shall notify the Commission during business hours on
or before the day on which such rule becomes effective whether they
have complied therewith, and if so, the manner in which compliance has
been made.
Sec. 502.56b Suspension, amendment, etc. of rules.
To the extent allowable under law, the rules in this subpart may,
from time to time, be suspended, amended, or revoked, in whole or in
part. Notice of any such action will be published in the Federal
Register.
Sec. 502.57a Waiver of the rules.
Except to the extent that such waiver would be inconsistent with
any statute or other legal requirement, any of the rules in this
subpart may be waived by the Commission to prevent undue hardship,
manifest injustice, or if the expeditious conduct of business so
requires.
0
6. Amend Sec. 502.61 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``for a rulemaking (Rule 51),'' in paragraph (a);
0
b. Inserting the word ``formal'' after ``a proceeding for a'' in
paragraph (b); and
0
c. Removing the words ``[Rule 61.]'' in paragraph (d).
0
7. Amend Sec. 502.68 by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
Sec. 502.68 Motion for leave to intervene.
(a) * * * In formal rulemaking proceedings in which respondents are
named, interested persons who wish to participate must file a motion to
intervene.
* * * * *
0
8. Revise Sec. 502.115 to read as follows:
Sec. 502.115 Service.
Service on all prior participants in a formal rulemaking proceeding
must be shown when submitting comments or replies beyond the initial
round, including those involving petitions for declaratory order,
petitions general, proceedings under section 19 of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 42101) (part 550), and proceedings under section
13(b)(6) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 41108(d)) (part 560). A
list of all participants may be
[[Page 26984]]
obtained from the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission.
By the Commission.
David Eng,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-09450 Filed 5-12-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 13, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.