(3) In which instance or instances has the Federal Maritime Commissiion on its own motion instituted an investigation without a protest first having been filed? (4) Which rules adopted by the Federal Maritime Commission regarding freight forwarders have gone into effect and which have been enjoined by court action? (5) What is the general condition of the docket of the Federal Maritime Commission? Attached is the supplementary material respecting the above questions. ASHTON C. BARRETT. 1. Has the Federal Maritime Commission come to the conclusion since its legislative recommendation in its annual report (for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1962) that it possesses authority to require a uniform system of accounting by carriers? The Commission believes that existing law should be clarified to specifically provide that it may prescribe the form of accounts to be kept by carriers subject to the Intercoastal Shipping Act of 1933. In this regard the Commission is proposing legislation to amend the Intercoastal Shipping Act of 1933 to expressly permit the Commission to require that carriers in the offshore domestic trades keep uniform accounts and permit the duly authorized representatives of the Commission to inspect the accounts and records of such carriers. The legislation will follow similar provisions in the Interstate Commerce Act and the Federal Aviation Act of 1959. Through a system of uniform accounts, which would be available to audit by the Commission's duly authorized agents, it is hoped that the Commission would more efficiently reach decisions of whether to enter upon investigations of rates and could more promptly issue its final decisions in rate cases. The above legislative proposal concerns carriers in the domestic offshore trades only. No proposal has been put forth to require uniform accounts for carriers in the foreign commerce, because of the far-reaching effects such a proposal would have. 2. Do you believe that contract carriers should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal Maritime Commission? At the present time I have no definite views on whether the Federal Maritime Commission should be given specific authority to regulate the rates of contract carriers in the domestic trade and in the foreign commerce. Traditionally, the movement in the ocean trades by carriers who carry normally full shiploads of commodities have, of course, been outside the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal Maritime Commission and its predecessors. Before I reach an ultimate conclusion on this question I would have to examine the data and obtain the views of interested parties in order to see whether or not the absence of regulation has adversely affected the public interest; more particularly, shippers or regulated carriers in the trades. If I am confirmed as a member of the Federal Maritime Commission I shall ask that the Commission consider this matter. 3. In which instance or instances has the Federal Maritime Commission on its own motion instituted an investigation without a protest first having been filed? From August 12, 1961, through June 30, 1963, there have been 172 formal proceedings instituted by the Federal Maritime Commission, 31 of which were based on formal complaints filed before the Commission pursuant to section 22 of the Shipping Act, 1916; 9 rulemaking proceedings and 72 involving dual rate contracts. At least 25 of the remainder were instituted by the Commission without protest or objection being filed or indicated to the Commission. At least five involved increases in rates. During this period the Commission (since its organization) has adjudicated 85 formal regulatory cases. Twenty-five other formal proceedings have been dismissed or discontinued. The present Commission has concluded as many regulatory cases since its creation as its predecessor did in 7 years. As in any investigative activity, the usual basis for opening a case is a complaint or allegation, received from some source. There are instances, of course, where through analysis of records, the press, trade publications, tariffs on file, or conference minutes, that a question arises necessitating investigation. Our investigators are constantly alert for possible violations of the statutes and have developed sources of information that will bring them to our attention. 4. Which rules adopted by the Federal Maritime Commission regarding freight forwarders have gone into effect and which have been enjoined by court action? The Commission, on December 22, 1961, issued General Order No. 4 which deals with the procedure for the licensing of freight forwarders. This order is now in effect. On May 1, 1963, the Commission issued amendment 1 to General Order No. 4 which contained certain substantive rules in connection with the operations of freight forwarders. Of these latter rules, the following were enjoined by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: "Rules 510.21(f), (i), (j), and (1) 'Definitions'; 510.22 (a) —‘Oceangoing common carriers and persons shipping for own account;' “510.23 (j)—'Duties and obligations of licensees,' 510(e), (g), and (h)— 'Compensation and freight forwarder certifications;' and 510.25 (a) —‘Special contracts.'" In addition, the Commission has issued amendments 2 and 4 to General Order No. 4 concerning certain temporary bonding requirements for freight forwarders. These temporary rules are presently in effect. The Commission will, after it has gained the necessary experience under such rules, issue permanent rules with respect to bonds required of freight forwarders. Amendment 3 to General Order No. 4 has also been placed in effect. The purpose of this amendment was to clarify rule 510.8 (c) and to provide for the issuance of a separate license to separately incorporated, even though related, independent ocean freight forwarder firms. It was also the purpose of this revision to require that the shipping public be apprised of all interrelationships between licensed freight forwarders. 5. What is the general condition of the docket of the Federal Maritime Commission? Formal proceedings pending in the Commission as of June 30, 19631 Investigations instituted (on Commission's own motion): 1 This does not cover the very large number of complaints being handled on an informal basis or which are under field investigation by the Commission's Bureau of Investigation. 2 Includes 72 dual-rate proceedings. The Commission since its organization has adjudicated 85 formal regulatory cases; 25 other formal proceedings have been dismissed or discontinued. The present Commission has concluded as many regulatory cases since its creation as its predecessor did in 7 years. COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 555 A BILL TO UNIFY APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY IN CASES OF COLLISION BETWEEN VESSELS, AND IN OTHER MARITIME CASUALTIES S. 556 A BILL TO LIMIT THE LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 99-879 MAY 20 AND 22, 1963 Serial 22 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1963 S. 556, dated May 17, 1963 ... Re amendments proposed on S. 2313 and S. 2314, 87th Congress.. Department of Justice: S. 555, dated May 17, 1963. S. 556, dated May 17, 1963 Department of Labor: S. 555, dated May 23, 1963.11. S. 555, dated May 20, 1963 – S. 556, dated May 20, 1963. Department of State: S. 555 and S. 556, dated May 17, 1963). Statement of ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Boal, Arthur M., Boal, McQuade & Fitzpatrick, 116 John Street, Colby, Leavenworth, Chief, Admiralty and Shipping Section, Civil Deutsch, Eberhard P., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Hibernia Bank Houston, Oscar R., Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, 99 John Street, 6. Matteson, Leonard J., Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, 99 John 81 Standard, William L., Standard, Weisberg & Harolds, 83 Park Row, 39 |