Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

AUSTASIA CONTAINER EXPRESS 517
POSITION OF ACE
ACE supports the Initial Decision in all respects primarily contending
that the language of section I itself connotes port to port service
legislative history demonstrates that section I requires actual United
States port calls for carriers in both domestic and foreign commerce 18
Detroit is not a port in this instance because it is not being directly
served by any type of water transportation the doctrine of liberal
construction to effectuate a remedial design cannot establish Commission
jurisdiction where all other critical elements are lacking the through
route portion of section 18 bl is inapplicable to through routes not
involving U S ports because the to and from U S ports and foreign
ports phrase of 18 b 1 applies to and modifies the own route and
the any through route tariff fIling requirements the through route
language of section 18 bl was intended to cover only through arrange
ments among water carriers as was section 2 of the Intercoastal Shipping
Act and section 536 16 is inapplicable to its NVOCC service because
the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the inland portion of the intermo
dal movements 19
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As revealed by the thorough and well presented Initial Decision the
legislative histories of Shipping Act sections I and 18 b contain no
statements concerning nonvessel operating carriers or true intermodal
on the bill that
cargo movements The 1916 House and Senate Reports
became the Shipping Act H R 15455 say little other than to repeat the
major recommendations of the Alexander Committee The only jurisdic
tional debates involving foreign commerce concerned Senate Amendment
No I to H R 15455 which excluded all tramp vessels from regulation
See 53 Congressional Record August 29 1916 at 13365 13366 13420
and 13426 The House Committee hearings on an earlier bill H R 14337
are inconclusive if not irrelevant to the question of whether a direct
vessel call at an United States port is necessary for the Commission s
section I jurisdiction to attach 20 If Congress in fact formulated an
IS ACE argues that the absence oflhe word port is insignificant It states that the word port was missing from
the definition ofboth commerce foreign and interstate commerce carriers when section I was first reported out of
Committee the regular routes from pori to port language was expressly added to the interstate definition to
exclude tramp vessels from see regulation Rtl of Genera AtlCl1l1ic 5 S Co 2 U S M C 681 1943 United States
v Stephen Bros Lim 384 F 2d 118 5th Cir 1967 and not to othelWise differentiate the two provisions ACE also
from Canadian
submits that the legislative history cited in the Initial Decision involved vessels carrying U S exports
ports and these vessels almost certainly touched U S ports during their voyage Lack ofa generalized United
States presence argues ACE was not the reason Committee witnesses stated that the Act would not reach these
carriers Rather the testimony stressed the fact that in carrying U S cargo from Canada these vessels did not
physically tOlch U S ports
19
ACE argues that in Disposition ofContainer Marine Lines 11 F M C 476 1 8 and Filing of Through Rates
and Through ROlltes II S R R 574 1970 the Commission expressly recognized its jurisdiction was over port to
port and not inland mtes moreover even if Detroit were considered to be a port in this instance section 536 16
would not require atariffto be filed because that section applies only to throughroutes involving apoint oforigin or
destination beyond aport area
20
The testimony cited by the Presiding Officer was primarily concerned with possible United States losses to
Canadian competition if the American shipping industry were strictly regulated
19 F M C