Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

422
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
regulation by several agencies We agree with the position advocated by
Hearing Counsel and are accordingly denying ACL s petition
The language of P L 89777 is clear and unambiguous and leaves no
doubt that its provisions apply to all vessels which embark passengers at
U S ports and which have stateroom accommodations for 50 or more
persons even if the operations of that vessel otherwise fall within the
jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission While the legislative
history of P L 89777 does not reveal any congressional concern with
jurisdictional overlapping it does reveal Congress intent to protect
passengers from default by any passenger vessel and to avoid evasions of
law U S Congo and Admin News 4182 1966 As originally introduced
H R 10327 which became P L 89777 applied to operators of ocean
cruises The House bill defined ocean cruises as an ocean voyage for
hire of
passengers
other than common carrier service The Se ate
rejected the House provision and substituted the present language of P L
89777 In conference the managers of the House bill in accepting the
Senate amendment noted that the House version excluded common
carrier service from the provisions of the bill Therefore while Congress
did not specifically address the matter of jurisdictional overlapping the
legislative history of P L 89777 evidences a congressional intent to
include all earners within its scope without regard to whether they may
be otherwise regulated
Nor does section 33 of the Shipping Act 1916 preclude this Commis
sion s exercise ofjurisdiction overACL pursuant to PL 89777 Not
only was P L 89777 not enacted as part of the Shipping Act 1916 but
as Hearing Counsel have correctly stated section 33 only precludes
concurrent subject matter jurisdiction While ACL as an interstate
common carrier by water is suQiect to Part IIIof the Interstate Commerce
Act 49 U S C A 901 et seq none of its provisions are even similar to
the provisions of section 3 of P L 89777 46 U S C A 817e
In Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company V Federal Maritime
Commission 379 F 2d 100 1967 3 the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia in resolving a similar issue held
Where a person performs functions some of which are subject to regulation under the
Shipping Act and others under the Interstate Commerce Act the same person might be
subject to the jurisdiction of one or the other Commissions depending on the subject
matter to be regulated
As noted earlier Part III of the Interstate Commerce Act to which ACL
is subject does not contain a provision requiring parties subject to that
Part to establish financial responsibility for passenger indemnification as
required by P L 89777 Accordingly this Commission in exercising
jurisdiction over ACL under that Public Law is in no way exercising
concurrent jurisdiction with the ICC Not only does the Interstate
3 That businesses are often rcau1ated by several aovemment aaencies is further supported by Greater Baton Rouge
Port Comm sion v The United States 287 F 2d 86 5thelr 1961
19 F M C