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.