Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

AGREEMENT NOS T I685 T 168 T 3130 455
D Introduction ofa Second Tote Vessel
On exception Hearing Counsel point out tha Agreement No T 3130 is
not limited to a single vessel and does not limit Tote to one preferential
call per week but refers instead to 52 vessel calls
per agreement year
In this connection Hearing Counsel request the Commission to take
3 1976 to the
official notice ofareport appearing in Traffic World May
effect that Tote planned to place a second vessel in the Alaskan trade In
order to avoid any future misunderstandings Hearing Counsel recom
mend that Agreement No T 3130 be modified to specify that Tote will
have the right to one preferential vessel call per week rather than 52 per
year
Tesoro requests that the proceeding be reopened to receive additional
evidence concering Tote s plans for the introduction of a second vessel
According to Tesoro the introduction of a new vessel into the trade
would invalidate most if not all of the Presiding Officer s conclusions
and necessitate reconsideration of the entire preferential berthing issue
Both Tote and Anchorage consider Tesoro s request to reopen the
proceeding as an attempt to delay approval of the agreements and to be
without merit While Anchorage generally supports the modification
suggested by Hearing Counsel Tote does not Tote admits the introduc
that while it has no intention of
tion of a second vessel and explains
bunching preferential voyages some flexibiity is needed to compete
and serve the needs of the shipping public Furthermore there are
allegedly numerous events beyond its control such as weather vessel
repairs etc which could occasionally cause a delay and which could
result in Tote s losing a preferential voyage Tote argues that because its
agreement requires 15 days notice for a preferential call it would be
impOssible for a replacement vessel to make that preferential call within
the same week in the event that the primary vessel broke down or was
delayed by weather For these reasons Tote has advised that a concrete
limitation of one call per week is not reasonable for it is far too harsh and
results in total inflexibility
The testimony in the record relating to approval of Agreement No T
3130 is premised on the understanding that Tote would serve Anchorage
with one preferential call per week The Initial Decision of the Presiding
Officer was also based on this assumption Tote now states that it intends
to exercise its right to make its 52 preferential calls as demand merits
The impact ofwhat Tote now proposes is not determinable on the present
record and would require a complete evidentiary review We see no
reason to burden the parties by remanding the proceeding for further
hearings on this limited point instead we intend to hold Tote to the
terms of Agreement No T 3130 and require that it berth its vessels on a
preferential basis approximately one time per week Approximately
means that Tote will be limited to one preferential call per week unless it
is unable by reason of weather conditions an emergency to its scheduled
19 F M C