55260 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Notices

EA Block Name Minimum

opening bid

E164 ....... B ............ Sacramento-Yolo, CA ..................................................................................................................................... 29,033

E164 ....... C ............ Sacramento-Yolo, CA ..................................................................................................................................... 58,065

E165 ....... A ............ Redding, CA–OR ............................................................................................................................................ 2,500

E165 ....... B ............ Redding, CA–OR ............................................................................................................................................ 4,614

E165 ....... C ............ Redding, CA–OR ............................................................................................................................................ 9,228

E166 ....... A ............ Eugene-Springfield, OR–CA ........................................................................................................................... 3,449

E166 ....... B ............ Eugene-Springfield, OR–CA ........................................................................................................................... 10,345

E166 ....... C ............ Eugene-Springfield, OR–CA ........................................................................................................................... 20,690

E167 ....... A ............ Portland-Salem, OR–WA ................................................................................................................................ 11,551

E167 ....... B ............ Portland-Salem, OR–WA ................................................................................................................................ 34,651

E167 ....... C ............ Portland-Salem, OR–WA ................................................................................................................................ 69,302

E168 ....... A ............ Pendleton, OR–WA ......................................................................................................................................... 2,500

E168 ....... B ............ Pendleton, OR–WA ......................................................................................................................................... 2,642

E168 ....... C ............ Pendleton, OR–WA ......................................................................................................................................... 5,284

E169 ....... A ............ Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA ..................................................................................................................... 2,729

E169 ....... B ............ Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA ..................................................................................................................... 8,187

E169 ....... C ............ Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA ..................................................................................................................... 16,373

E170 ....... A ............ Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA ..................................................................................................................... 17,226

E170 ....... B ............ Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA ..................................................................................................................... 51,676

E170 ....... C ............ Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA ..................................................................................................................... 103,352

E171 ....... A ............ Anchorage, AK ................................................................................................................................................ 2,751

E171 ....... B ............ Anchorage, AK ................................................................................................................................................ 8,251

E171 ....... C ............ Anchorage, AK ................................................................................................................................................ 16,502

E172 ....... A ............ Honolulu, HI .................................................................................................................................................... 5,542

E172 ....... B ............ Honolulu, HI .................................................................................................................................................... 16,624

E172 ....... C ............ Honolulu, HI .................................................................................................................................................... 33,247

E173 ....... A ............ Guam & Northern Mariana Isl. ........................................................................................................................ 2,500

E173 ....... B ............ Guam & Northern Mariana Isl. ........................................................................................................................ 2,648

E173 ....... C ............ Guam & Northern Mariana Isl. ........................................................................................................................ 5,295

E174 ....... A ............ Puerto Rico & Virgin Isl. .................................................................................................................................. 18,120

E174 ....... B ............ Puerto Rico & Virgin Isl. .................................................................................................................................. 54,358

E174 ....... C ............ Puerto Rico & Virgin Isl. .................................................................................................................................. 108,716

E175 ....... A ............ American Samoa ............................................................................................................................................. 2,500

E175 ....... B ............ American Samoa ............................................................................................................................................. 2,500

E175 ....... C ............ American Samoa ............................................................................................................................................. 2,500

[FR Doc. 97–28161 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

Date and Time: Tuesday, October 28,

1997 at 10:00 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Status: This meeting will be closed to

the public.

Items to be Discussed:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2

U.S.C. § 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.

Maters concerning participation in civil

actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and procedures

or matters affecting a particular

employee.

Date and Time: Thursday, October 30,

1997, at 10:00 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, N.W. Washington,

D.C. (ninth floor)

Status: This meeting will be open to

the public.

Items to be discussed:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer,

Telephone: (202) 219–4155.

Marjorie W. Emmons,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–28299 Filed 10–21–95; 3:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 97–18]

APL/MOL/OOCL/HMM Reciprocal Slot

Exchange Agreement, Agreement No.

203–011588; Order To Show Cause

Introduction

This proceeding is instituted pursuant

to sections 10(c) (6) and 11 of the

Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘1984 Act’’), 46

U.S.C. app. §§ 1709(c)(6) and 1710. The

APL/MOL/OOCL/HMM Reciprocal Slot

Exchange Agreement, Agreement No.

203–011588 (‘‘the Agreement’’), an

agreement for the reciprocal chartering

of space aboard vessels operated in the

U.S. foreign trades by the agreement

members, appears to reserve for one

member of the Agreement the carriage of

cargo offered by shippers subject to U.S.

cargo preference laws.

Under section 10(c)(6) of the 1984

Act, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1709(c)(6), it is

unlawful for any conference or group of

two or more common carriers to

allocate shippers among specific carriers that

are parties to the agreement or prohibit a

carrier that is a party to the agreement from

soliciting cargo from a particular shipper,

except as otherwise required by the law of

the United States or the importing or

exporting country. * * *

It appears that the Agreement on its face

presents a violation of section 10(c)(6).

Therefore, pursuant to section 11 of the

1984 Act, the parties to the Agreement

are ordered to show cause why the

Agreement should not be found to be in

violation of the 1984 Act and should not

be disapproved, canceled or modified

accordingly.

Background

The Agreement, entered into by the

parties on August 29, 1997, was filed

with the Federal Maritime Commission

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FMC’’) on

September 2, 1997, pursuant to section

5 of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. app.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Notices 55261

1Section 5 provides, in relevant part, that ‘‘[a]

true copy of every agreement [with respect to

activities subject to the Act as described in section

4] * * * shall be filed with the Commission

* * *.’’ Notice of the filing of the Agreement was

published in the Federal Register on September 15,

1997, 62 Fed. Reg. 48287 (September 15, 1997).

2Section 6(c), 46 U.S.C. app. § 1705, provides,

inter alia, that ‘‘[u]nless rejected by the Commission

* * *, agreements * * * shall become effective

* * * on the 45th day after filing, or on the 30th

day after notice of the filing is published in the

Federal Register, whichever day is later * * *.’’

3APL, MOL and OOCL, parties to the APL/MOL/

OOCL Asia-Atlantic Alliance Agreement

(Agreement No. 203–011467) and the APL/MOL/

OOCL Asia-Pacific Agreement (Agreement No. 203–

011468) under which they reciprocally charter

space and offer global service, are collectively

known as the ‘‘Global Alliance.’’

4The parties have denominated the period from

the Agreement’s effective date to December 31, 1997

as ‘‘the Initial Period,’’ and provided for

continuation of the Agreement by year-to-year

renewals after that date.

5The Agreement further provides that

If the second sentence of this Section 5.1 with

respect to U.S. preference cargoes shall be

determined to violate U.S. law by a court of

competent jurisdiction and any stay upon the order

of such court giving effect to such determination

arising by reason of an appeal of such order shall

have ceased to be effective, then the second

sentence * * * shall be deemed severed * * *.

6The Commission’s decision in MSC is presently

subject to review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the D.C. Circuit.

7Section 9(c) provides that, with certain

exceptions not relevant here, that ‘‘a person may

not, without the approval of the Secretary of

Transportation—(1) Sell, mortgage, lease, charter,

deliver, or in any manner transfer, or agree to sell,

mortgage, lease, charter, deliver, or in any manner

transfer, to a person not a citizen of the United

States, any interest in or control of a documented

vessel * * * owned by a citizen of the United

States * * * .’’

46 U.S.C. app. § 808(c).

8Like Article 5(i) of Agreement No. 203–011171,

the MarAd condition required that none of the

vessel space chartered to non U.S.-citizen parties to

the agreement ‘‘shall be utilized for the carriage of

cargo reserved for United States-flag vessels * * *

unless such cargo is carried pursuant to bills of

lading or contracts of carriage issued [by], or

entered into with, * * * a citizen of the United

States * * * ,’’ in other words, Sea-Land.

§ 1704,1 and became effective on

October 17, 1997.2 This Agreement

authorizes the parties to charter space

on each other’s vessels on a reciprocal

basis and to agree on sailing schedules,

service frequency and port calls in the

trades between ports and points in the

U.S. served via U.S. Pacific Coast ports

and ports and points in the Far East.

The Agreement provides for reciprocal

sale, exchange or use of up to an

annualized average of 500 TEUs of

space per week by Hyundai Merchant

Marine, Ltd. (‘‘Hyundai’’) on vessels

operated by American President Lines,

Ltd. (‘‘APL’’), Mitsui O.S.K. Line, Ltd.

(‘‘MOL’’), and Orient Overseas

Container Line, Inc. (‘‘OOCL’’) and for

use by APL, MOL and OOCL of an equal

amount of space on Hyundai vessels

operating in the trade.3 The parties may

also agree on feeder operations, addition

or withdrawal of capacity, and the

number, type and size of vessels they

will use in the trade. No party may

charter or sub-charter space aboard

another party’s vessel to a third-party

carrier without the consent of the party

operating the vessel.4

The Agreement provides, inter alia, at

Article 5.1, that:

[n]othing in this Agreement shall be

construed as granting a right on the part of

any other party to carry aboard the vessels of

American President Lines, Ltd. cargoes

shipped from or to the U.S. Department of

Defense or Agriculture, or any subsidiary

agencies thereof, or any other agency of the

U.S. Government whose shipments are

subject to cargo preference laws of the United

States to the extent requiring and reserved for

transportation aboard U.S.-flag vessels.5

In response to an inquiry from the

Commission’s staff concerning this

provision, a letter of March 11, 1997

from the Secretary, Maritime

Administration, Department of

Transportation (‘‘MarAd’’) to APL Vice

President Michael Murphy was

provided by filing counsel for the

Agreement parties. This letter states that

APL’s request is granted for a waiver

under section 804(b) of the Merchant

Marine Act, 1936 (‘‘1936 Act’’) for APL

to own, operate or charter up to 18

foreign-flag vessels in line haul service

between U.S. and foreign ports for the

remaining term of APL’s Operating

Differential Subsidy Agreement

(‘‘ODSA’’), Contract MA/MSB–417,

through December 31, 1997 and for the

full term of each of APL’s nine operating

agreements under the Maritime Security

Program (‘‘MSP’’), Contract Nos. MA/

MSP–1 through MA/MSP–9. MarAd

imposed five conditions on the waiver,

which ‘‘will terminate in the event any

of the conditions are not fulfilled,’’

including condition D:

No space on APL’s U.S.-flag vessels that

are subject to space sharing agreements with

any foreign operator shall be utilized for the

carriage of cargo reserved for U.S.-flag vessels

under any statute, resolution or regulation

unless such cargo is carried pursuant to bills

of lading or contracts of carriage issued to, or

entered into with, the shipper of such cargo

by or for a citizen of the United States.

Discussion

In Military Sealift Command v. SeaLand Service, Inc., F.M.C. lll, 27

S.R.R. 874 (1996) (‘‘MSC’’), the

Commission determined that a

provision whose effect appears identical

to that of Article 5.1 of the Agreement

constituted an allocation of shippers

prohibited under section 10(c)(6).6 The

vessel sharing agreements (‘‘VSAs’’)

among Sea-Land Service, Inc. (‘‘SeaLand’’) and three foreign-flag carriers

(P&O Containers Limited (‘‘P&O’’),

Nedlloyd Lijnen, B.V. (‘‘Nedlloyd’’), and

Compania Trasatlantica Espanola, S.A.

(‘‘CTE’’)) involved in MSC provided for

the use of 12 U.S.-flag vessels owned by

Sea-Land to be operated on behalf of all

of the parties to the agreements, and to

replace all U.S.-flag and foreign-flag

vessels previously operated by the

parties in the covered trade. By

chartering space on a U.S.-flag vessel,

P&O, Nedlloyd and CTE gained

eligibility to submit bids for military

and other government preference

cargoes reserved to U.S.-flag vessels.

However, P&O and Nedlloyd agreed in

Article 5(i) of Agreement No. 203–

11171, that they would not use any

vessels or space chartered from SeaLand for carriage of government

preference cargo. CTE was subsequently

added to the VSA, subject to the same

condition. Upon complaint filed by the

Military Sealift Command, Department

of the Navy, a shipper of U.S. preference

cargo, the Commission determined that

the provision constituted an allocation

of shippers prohibited by the first clause

of section 10(c)(6).

However, the Commission further

determined that the provision was not

unlawful because it was required by an

order of MarAd which constituted ‘‘law

of the United States’’ within the

meaning of the ‘‘except’’ clause of

section 10(c)(6). The VSAs required the

approval of the Secretary of

Transportation for the charter or transfer

of a U.S.-flag vessel to a non-citizen

under section 9 of the Shipping Act,

1916 (‘‘1916 Act’’).7 Section 41 gives the

Secretary broad power to prescribe

conditions—violations of which are

crimes punishable by fines,

imprisonment and vessel forfeiture—on

transactions covered by section 9. The

Secretary has delegated to the Maritime

Administrator authority to carry out

sections 9 and 41 of the 1916 Act. 49

CFR 166(a).

MarAd conditioned its approval of

Sea-Land’s charters of its U.S.-flag

vessels and vessel space to foreign-flag

carrier members of the agreements on

the exclusion of the foreign-flag

participants from use of the vessels to

carry U.S. preference cargo.8 MarAd

acted under section 9 on each

individual charter of a U.S.-flag vessel

and incorporated conditions requiring

restriction of U.S. preference cargo to

the U.S.-flag carrier member of the

agreements in each of the ‘‘charter

orders’’ approving the arrangement, as

required by section 41. The Commission

specifically found that the conditional
55262 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Notices

9MarAd has apparently dispensed with

individualized approvals of charters of U.S.-flag

vessels like those at issue in MSC. See 46 C.F.R.

§ 221.13(a)(1) (except as limited by provisions not

relevant here, MarAd ‘‘hereby grants the approval

required by [section 9(c) of the 1916 Act] for the

* * * Charter * * * to a Noncitizen of an interest

in or control of a Documented Vessel owned by a

Citizen of the United States * * *.’’).

10APL participated in the Commission’s

proceeding in MSC as an intervenor, representing

that its interests could be substantially affected by

the Commission’s decision of the allocation issue

because it was a participant in space charter

agreements having similar cargo preference

provisions. APL acknowledged, however, that the

basis for the MarAd orders which allegedly required

such provisions was not the same as that which

required the provision in the VSAs challenged in

that complaint proceeding.

11Section 603, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1173(a), provides

that, upon approval of an application for ODS

under section 601, the Secretary of Transportation

may enter into a contract with the applicant

‘‘subject to such reasonable terms and conditions

* * * as the Secretary * * * shall require to

effectuate the purposes and policy * * * of the Act.

12The March 11, 1997 MarAd letter states that the

Administrator has found ‘‘special circumstances’’

and ‘‘good cause’’ for granting the waiver.

13The section permits the Secretary to enter into

operating agreements for vessels which continue to

operate under ODS contracts subject to part A.

14The new section 804(f) was made effective as

to carriers with existing ODS contracts on the date

on which such a contractor entered into an MSP

contract with MarAd. 46 U.S.C.A. app. § 1222,

Historical and Statutory Notes.

15 In view of the brevity of the Initial Period

during which APL’s operations under the

Agreement will be subject to its ODS contract, we

will not address, or require the parties to address,

the issues of whether conditions imposed on a

section 804 waiver are part of the terms of the ODS

contract; whether violation of a conditional waiver

constitutes a breach of the contract; and whether

the sanctions specified for breach of the contract

constitute ‘‘law of the United States’’ within the

meaning of the except clause.

charter orders issued by MarAd

pursuant to sections 9 and 41 of the

1916 Act had the force and effect of law

because they were compulsory and the

statute provided criminal penalties for

noncompliance. 27 S.R.R. at 889.

The Agreement presently before us

provides for the chartering of space by

non-U.S. citizen carriers on vessels

operated by APL, some of which are

U.S.-flag vessels, as well as the

chartering of space by APL on foreignflag vessels operated by other members

of the Agreement. The Agreement

parties do not represent that APL sought

MarAd approval pursuant to section 9

for use of its U.S.-flag vessels in

operations under the Agreement. The

March 11, 1997 MarAd letter grants

authority to APL only under section

804(b) of the 1936 Act, and does not

refer to sections 9 and 41 of the 1916

Act or MarAd authority under those

provisions.9 Thus, this case apparently

does not involve the 1916 Act authority

exercised by MarAd with respect to the

space charter agreements at issue in

MSC.10

APL presently operates U.S.-flag

vessels under operating-differential

subsidy (‘‘ODS’’) contracts with MarAd

pursuant to Title VI and sections 801

and 804 of the 1936 Act, 46 U.S.C. app.

§ 1171 et seq. and §§ 1211 and 1222.11

The terms of the subsidy contract

between the United States and the

operator of the U.S.-flag vessels are

specified by the statute, under section

603, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1173. The 1936

Act provides that certain breaches of the

contract will result in termination of the

contract and loss of the subsidy. See,

e.g., section 608, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1178

(sale or assignment of the contract

without the Secretary’s approval).

Section 804(a) provides that it is

‘‘unlawful for any contractor receiving

an operating-differential subsidy under

title VI * * * to own, charter, * * * or

operate any foreign-flag vessel which

competes with any American flag

service’’ on a route deemed essential by

the Secretary, except as provided in

section 804(b). Section 804(b), 46 U.S.C.

app. § 1222(b), authorizes the Secretary

to waive the prohibition for a specific

period of time ‘‘[u]nder special

circumstances and for good cause

shown * * *.’’ 12 The March 11, 1997

MarAd letter states that the waiver

granted ‘‘is subject to the * * *

conditions and will terminate in the

event any of the conditions are not

fulfilled * * *.’’

On October 8, 1996, the 1936 Act was

substantially amended by passage of the

Military Security Act of 1996, Pub. L.

104–239, 110 Stat. 3118. Those

amendments denominated the existing

provisions of Title VI providing for ODS

and ODS contracts as ‘‘part A’’ and

created the Military Security Fleet

Program, denominated ‘‘part B,’’ 46

U.S.C. app. § 1187, et seq. Section 1187a

provides, as a condition of including

any vessel in the Fleet, that the owner

or operator of the vessel enter into an

operating agreement governed by the

section’s provisions with the Secretary

of Transportation.13 The operating

agreements thus called for will be oneyear, renewable contracts. Subsection

(c) provides that ‘‘[a] contractor of a

vessel included in an operating

agreement under this part may operate

the vessel in the foreign commerce of

the United States without restriction,

and shall not be subject to any

requirement under’’ certain sections of

the 1936 Act dealing with record

keeping, equitable distribution of

contracts among U.S. ports, and

discrimination. 46 U.S.C. app. 1187a(c).

As MarAd noted in promulgating its

final regulations for the MSP, ‘‘[u]nlike

the operating differential subsidy * * *

program, the MSP has few restrictions

on vessels operating in the U.S.-foreign

commerce * * * .’’ 62 FR 37733 (July

15, 1997).

Section 804 was substantially

amended as well. Section 804(a)

continues to apply to ‘‘any contractor

receiving an operating-differential

subsidy under subchapter VI * * * ’’ 46

U.S.C. app. § 122(a). However, a new

subsection 804(f) provides that nothing

in section 804(a) will preclude a

contractor receiving assistance under

subchapter A or B from ‘‘entering into

time or space charter or other

cooperative agreements with respect to

foreign-flag vessels * * * .’’ 46 U.S.C.

app. § 1221(f)(5).14 It thus does not

appear to be necessary for a U.S.-flag

carrier with an MSP operating

agreement to seek a waiver under

section 804(b) in order to participate in

a space charter or vessel sharing

agreement.

APL’s existing ODS contracts will

expire on December 31, 1997. APL

entered into operating agreements with

MarAd for nine vessels on January 21,

1997. On January 17, 1997, APL filed a

request with MarAd for a waiver under

section 804(b) of the 1936 Act for

operation of up to 18 foreign-flag

vessels. Notice of its filing was

published January 29, 1997. 62 FR 4377

(January 29, 1997). The March 11, 1997

MarAd letter granted APL’s request. The

waiver provides that APL may ‘‘own,

operate or charter’’ up to 18 foreign-flag

vessels. APL’s request and MarAd’s

action preceded the Agreement by some

seven months and five months

respectively. Neither appears to have

been undertaken in contemplation of

the Agreement.

Under the provisions of the 1936 Act,

as amended by the Maritime Security

Act of 1996, no recourse to the Maritime

Administration appears to be required

for APL’s participation in the

Agreement, particularly with respect to

the Agreement’s operation after the

Initial Period.15 The Commission must,

as it noted in MSC, ‘‘[u]nder ordinary

circumstances, * * * consider the text

and any relevant analyses of the

proffered law [said to create an

exception to the prohibition of section

10(c)(6)], and render a conclusion as to

whether the law commanded the actions

that otherwise might fall within section

10(c)(6)’s prohibition clause.’’

In correspondence with the

Commission’s staff and counsel during

FMC review of the Agreement, APL

suggests that the March 11, 1997 MarAd

letter should be considered ‘‘law of the

United States’’ within the meaning of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Notices 55263

16 In initiating this proceeding, we do not

undertake to review the actions of the Maritime

Administrator under his statutory authority. Our

administration of the 1984 Act, however, requires

that we determine whether an agreement filed

pursuant to the 1984 Act requires action by the

Administrator under a statute which authorizes him

to command carrier obedience to orders cognizable

as ‘‘law of the United States,’’ and whether the

Administrator has required the action specifically

taken by the parties in this instance.

the ‘‘except clause’’ of section 10(c)(6).

The Commission in MSC indicated that

it is not the FMC’s role to decide on the

validity of a MarAd order. MSC, 27

S.R.R. at 888. However, the

Commission’s inquiry in MSC included

the threshold conclusion that MarAd

action under the 1916 Act was a

necessary prerequisite for the existence

of the agreements at issue: the U.S.-flag

vessels could not be chartered to the

foreign carrier agreement parties

without MarAd approval. 27 S.R.R. at

876. No party contended otherwise.

Here, no similar nexus between the

Agreement and the statutory authority

of the Maritime Administrator invoked

by APL is evident.16 Thus, inasmuch as

the FMC’s determination must be based

on the statutory provisions relied on,

and the terms of MSP operating

agreements or other forms of action by

MarAd, we would find it particularly

helpful to have MarAd participate as

amicus curiae in the Commission’s

proceeding and will order the Secretary

to invite that participation.

Now therefore, it is ordered That

pursuant to section 11 of the Shipping

Act of 1984, American President Lines,

Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Line, Ltd., Orient

Overseas Container Line, Inc. and

Hyundai Merchant Marine, Ltd. show

cause why they should not be found to

have violated section 10(c)(6) of the

Shipping Act of 1984 by prohibiting

specific carriers that are parties to the

agreement from soliciting cargo from a

particular shipper or shippers;

It is further ordered that American

President Lines, Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K.

Line, Ltd., Orient Overseas Container

Line, Inc. and Hyundai Merchant

Marine, Ltd. show cause why an order

should not be issued disapproving,

canceling or modifying the APL/MOL/

OOCL/HMM Reciprocal Slot Exchange

Agreement, Agreement No. 203–011588;

It is further ordered That this

proceeding is limited to the submission

of affidavits of facts and memoranda of

law;

It is further ordered That the Secretary

by letter inquire whether the Maritime

Administration, Department of

Transportation wishes to participate

amicus curiae in this proceeding. The

Commission would welcome such

participation;

It is further ordered That any person

having an interest and desiring to

intervene in this proceeding shall file a

petition for leave to intervene in

accordance with Rule 72 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 46 C.F.R. 502.72. Such

petition shall be accompanied by the

petitioner’s memorandum of law and

affidavits of fact, if any, and shall be

filed no later than the day fixed below;

It is further ordered That American

President Lines, Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K.

Line, Ltd., Orient Overseas Container

Line, Inc. and Hyundai Merchant

Marine, Ltd. are named Respondents in

this proceeding. Affidavits of fact and

memoranda of law shall be filed by

Respondents and any intervenors in

support of Respondents no later than

December 2, 1997;

It is further ordered That the

Commission’s Bureau of Enforcement be

made a party to this proceeding;

It is further ordered That reply

affidavits and memoranda of law shall

be filed by the Bureau of Enforcement

and any intervenors in opposition to

Respondent no later than January 2,

1998;

It is further ordered That rebuttal

affidavits and memoranda of law shall

be filed by Respondents and intervenors

in support no later than January 20,

1998;

It is further ordered That, should any

party believe that an oral argument is

required, that party must submit a

request specifying the reasons therefore

and why argument by memorandum is

inadequate to present the party’s case.

Any request for oral argument shall be

filed no later than January 20, 1998;

It is further ordered That notice of this

Order to Show Cause be published in

the Federal Register, and that a copy

thereof be served upon Respondents;

It is further ordered That all

documents submitted by any party of

record in this proceeding shall be filed

in accordance with Rule 118 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 46 C.F.R. 502.118, as well as

being mailed directly to all parties of

record;

Finally, it is ordered That pursuant to

the terms of Rule 61 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 46 C.F.R. 502.61, the final

decision of the Commission in this

proceeding shall be issued by April 20,

1998.

By the Commission.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–28068 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or

Bank Holding Companies; Correction

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc.

97-27510) published on pages 54113-

54114 of the issue for Friday, October

17, 1997.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of

San Francisco heading, the entry for

Wendell A. Jacobson, Fountain Green,

Utah, is revised to read as follows:

A. Federal Reserve Bank of San

Francisco (Pat Marshall, Manager of

Analytical Support, Consumer

Regulation Group) 101 Market Street,

San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

1. Wendell A., and Melba B. Jacobson,

Fountain Green, Utah; to acquire

additional voting shares of Bank of

Ephraim, Ephraim, Utah.

Comments on this application must

be received by October 30, 1997.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, October 17, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–28073 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied to the Board for approval,

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part

225), and all other applicable statutes

and regulations to become a bank

holding company and/or to acquire the

assets or the ownership of, control of, or

the power to vote shares of a bank or

bank holding company and all of the

banks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,

including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well

as other related filings required by the

Board, are available for immediate

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank

indicated. The application also will be

available for inspection at the offices of

the Board of Governors. Interested

persons may express their views in

writing on the standards enumerated in

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

proposal also involves the acquisition of

a nonbanking company, the review also

includes whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company complies with the

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking

activities will be conducted throughout

the United States.