【導(dǎo)讀】Preparedfor. March2020. Copyright. Disclaimer. SteveMeyrick. ManagingDirector. TEL+61242271484FAX+61242271515. Email:. Mobile:0419498904. 0. TableofContents

　　

【正文】 Feeders ownership, use, joint purchase of services ? Equipment exchange – ownership, leasing, empty exchange ? Computerised data exchange systems ? Joint documentation and bill of lading ? Cost and revenue sharing ? Joint purchase of vessel fuel (bunkers) ? Coordination of inland activities – transport and depots ? Dedicated management for daily operations of the consortia Liner Shipping Competition Policy: NonRatemaking Agreements Study (Stage 1) 8 ? Ascertaining how issues, such as the use of members? services/assets, the adjustment of capacity, the selling of unused space to third parties, carriers entering/exiting, and geographical limits, are dealt with in consortia agreements, . whether there exist any preferential obligations and/or restrictions. A number of interesting conclusions can be drawn from the European situation which helps set the scene for the APEC region situation. Firstly, it appears that the European Commission petition regulators are currently unaware of the extent and scope of carrier nonratemaking (operational) agreements on trades to/from Europe which is the reverse of the United States (Federal Maritime Commission) situation where publicdomain filing is a requirement. Secondly, the European Commission petition regulators appear to currently accept the existence of carrier operational agreements in principle provided that the agreements result in greater efficiencies and these benefits are being passed on to users. 3. EXISTENCE OF NONRATEMAKING AGREEMENTS Potential for nonratemaking agreements As a starting point, there are theoretically a whole range of potential nonratemaking agreements which reflect the span of operational activities and assets of carriers. It is also possible that nonratemaking agreements are not just standalone agreements but could be part of overarching ratemaking agreements. Furthermore, there could be nonratemaking agreements which are between a group of carriers as one party and a nonliner pany as the other party. Table 1 provides a checklist of twenty areas of liner shipping activities performed by carriers which could be the subject of potential nonratemaking agreements. Liner Shipping Competition Policy: NonRatemaking Agreements Study (Stage 1) 9 TABLE 1: POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES FOR NONRATEMAKING AGREEMENTS Liner shipping activity area Potential subject and scope of agreement 1. Container equipment Interchanging containers, ?grey? box pool, joint leasing 2. Road (truck) chassis equipment Interchanging chassis?, chassis pools, joint leasing 3. Empty container depots Joint use of facilities / joint contract with operator 4. Inland container ports / terminals Joint use of facilities / joint contract with operator 5. Inland trucking services Joint dispatch / use of truckers (hauliers) 6. Inland rail services Joint use / sharing of shuttle (block) trains 7. Inland barge services (if waterways exist) Joint use / sharing of barges 8. Container freight stations (consolidation) Joint use of facilities / joint contract with operator 9. Marine terminals Joint use of facilities / joint contract with stevedore 10. Mainline (linehaul) vessel services Joint use / sharing of vessels 11. Feeder (relay) vessel services Joint use / sharing of vessels 12. Sales and marketing / customer service Joint anisation / shared operations 13. Bookings Joint anisation / shared operations 14. Documentation (bills of lading, etc.) Joint anisation / shared operations 15. Administration (invoicing, finance, claims) Joint anisation / shared operations 16. Operations offices and related IT Joint anisation / shared operations 17. Web portals, schedules, track amp。 trace Joint anisation / shared operations 18. Security, Xray facilities Joint anisation / shared operations 19. Groupage services (LCL) Joint anisation / shared operations 20. Secondary warehousing amp。 distribution Joint anisation / shared operations Liner Shipping Competition Policy: NonRatemaking Agreements Study (Stage 1) 10 The ?flavour? of these potential nonratemaking agreements is very much about achieving efficiencies of operation, increased productivity / asset utilisation, and reducing the level of capital investments needed to offer shipping services. The expectation, to be verified by the field research, is that nonratemaking agreements will mostly exist for vessel operations and little or none will exist for those more mercial activities where there is more direct interfacing with customers (. unique selling points and petitive advantages can occur which allow for individual carrier branding). This checklist was used for field research and consultations to systematically establish the presence and type of nonratemaking agreements in container trades connecting the APEC member economies. Scope of requirements to register nonratemaking agreements It is anticipated that the scope of the regulatory requirements in the various APEC member economies will vary from the necessity for carriers to register both conference and nonratemaking agreements with a government agency (in order to be exempt from national petition law) to no requirements to register agreements. There may well be the middle ground of requirements to register conference rate agreements for exemption purposes but no clear position regarding nonratemaking (operational) agreements. A further layer of requirements can be the necessity, or not, to publicly disclose any filed agreements. A bination of literature research and field work confirmed a variation in the requirements to register nonratemaking agreements in the APEC region with specific feedback reported upon for: ? The United States ? Canada ? Australia ? Singapore ? People?s Republic of China (PRC) ? Japan ? Republic of Korea. United States Regulatory framework for nonratemakin