Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

AGREEMENT NOS 97183 9731 5 353
will facilitate the Commission s decision in both proceedings Respondents
have replied in opposition to that motion as has Hearing Counsel
Respondents argue that Petitioner has waited too long to ask for
consolidation of the two proceedings and that the issues of law and fact
are not closely related
Petitioner in that motion has also asked for oral argument in this
proceeding whether or not the two proceedings are consolidated but only
if a grant of oral argument would not delay the Commission s decision in
this proceeding beyond November 1 1976 Respondents oppose that
request also The grant of oral argument in this proceeding would delay
decision beyond November 1 1976 Consequently oral argument is not
granted
The decision on whether or not to consolidate two proceedings pending
before this Commission is a matter committed to the discretion of the
Commission In Docket No 7614 Petitioner and Respondents have ftled
affidavits and memoranda and Hearing Counsel have filed a memoran
dum
Ifthe Commission were to consolidate Docket Nos 7530 and 7614
at this late date the Commission would wish to hear oral argument from
the parties regarding the applicability of the evidence adduced in each
proceeding Time does not permit the Commission to hear that argument
before November 1 1976 the date upon which both Petitioner and
Respondents request that the Commission decide Docket No 75 30
Consequently the Commission will not consolidate Docket Nos 7530
and 7614
The merits of the approval or disapproval of Agreement Nos
9718 3
and 9731 5 will now be discussed
Petitioner has excepted to the ultimate decision of Administrative Law
Judge Kline that the agreements be approved at all It is the position of
Petitioner that the agreements should be disapproved Respondents have
excepted to the limitation on the number of vessels operated pursuant to
Agreement No 9718 imposed by Administrative Law Judge Kline as a
condition ofapproval of the agreements It is the position of Respondents
that the agreements should be approved as submitted Hearing Counsels
position is that of Respondents
Administrative Law Judge Kline ultimately found that Respondents had
a monopoly by means of the agreements in question that the implemen
tation of those agreements by Respondents resulted in unfair competition
with adverse consequences to certain U S flag carriers and that the
agreements secured important public benefits Administrative Law Judge
Kline ultimately concluded that the agreements unless modified so as to
reduce the number of vessels operated pursuant to Agreement No 9718
from eight to six were unjustly discriminatory or unfair as between
carriers detrimental to the commerce of the United States and contrary
to the public interest
In making those findings and conclusions the Presiding Officer erred
19 F M C