Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

370 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
the Chairman of CENSA and the Chairman of this Commission at the
time Petitioner tiled the instant motion it is not necessary that Petitioner
be allowed an opportunity to reply to the formal disclosures contained in
this Report Therefore Petitioner s third request for relief contained in its
motion will be denied
Tn first item of relief requested by Petitioner in its motion to wit that
Respondents Exceptions and Reply to Exceptions be stricken will also
be denied It is not necessary to decide in this proceeding relying only on
the affidavits filed by Petitioner and Respondents what part if any
Respondents or their counsel had in causing the two Aide Memoires
referred to above to be transmitted to this Commission IfRespondents
had caused ex parte communications to be made to the Commission
regarding this proceeding the Government in tn Sunshine Act P L94
409 would permit the Commission to disapprove Respondents agree
ments or to strike Respondents Exceptions and Reply to Exceptions
However that statute changes the law and will not be effective until
March of 1977 There being no other authority cited to the Commission
Petitioner s motion for an order to show cause will be denied
In the final hours of the effort to prepare this Report the Commission
received
1 A letter dated September 27 1976 from executives of American
Export Line Inc American President Line Lykes Brothers Steamship
Company Inc Pacific Far East Line Inc Sea Land Service Inc
States Steamship Company United States Lines Inc and Waterman
Steamship Corporation all U S flag carriers not party to this proceeding
urging the Commission to extendits interim approval of Agreement Nos
97183 9731 5 and 9835 2 to March 6 1977 so as to permit those
carriers to more effectively negotiate with Respondents with a view
towards establishing a revenue pool in the transpacific trades
2 A letter dated October 18 1976 from executives of each of
Respondents complaining of the September 27 1976 letter from the U S
flag carriers referred to above and urging the Commission to disregard
that letter
3 A letter dated October 22 1976 from counsel for Petitioner urging
that the Commission not continue its interim approval of Respondents
agreements as urged by the U S flag carriers in their September 27 1976
letter and in tn alternative urging the Commission if it should approve
Respondents agreements on November 1 1976 to stay the effective date
of that order pending the outcome of negotiations regarding a revenue
pool in the Pacific
4 A document filed October 26 1976 from counsel for Respondents
entitled Reply to Petitioner s Requests to Stay Final Approval Pending
Negotiation Of A Bilateral Pool Or To Aqjudge The Rights Of Nonparties
Contingent Upon Reconsideration
5 A document filed October 26 1976 entitled Reply to Petitioner s
Request To Treat Respondents Motion Entitled Modification Of Ob jec
19 F M C