67970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

1Regulation (EEC) No. 4056/86 included a block 

exemption from E.U. competition laws for liner 

shipping conferences, which allowed them, under 

certain conditions, to fix prices and regulate 

capacity. 

2See Comments Submitted on Behalf of the 

National Industrial Transportation League, by 

Attorneys Nicholas J. DiMichael and Karyn A. 

Booth, Thompson Hine LLP, October 18, 2006, page 

9. 

North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201– 

2272: 

1. Veritex Holdings, Inc., Dallas, 

Texas; to acquire 100 percent of the 

voting shares of Fidelity Resources 

Company, and thereby indirectly 

acquire voting shares of Fidelity Bank, 

Plano, Texas. 

2. WCM Holdings, Inc., and WCM– 

Parkway, Ltd., both of Dallas, Texas; to 

acquire at least 5 percent of the voting 

shares of Veritex Holdings, Inc., and 

thereby indirectly acquire voting shares 

of Professional Bank, NA, both of Dallas, 

Texas. 

C. Federal Reserve Bank of San 

Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice 

President, Applications and 

Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–1579: 

1. SKBHC Holdings, LLC, and SKBHC 

Hawks Nest Acquisition Corp., both of 

Corona del Mar, California; to acquire 

100 percent of the voting shares of 

AmericanWest Bank, Spokane, 

Washington. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, November 1, 2010. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27867 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Notice of Inquiry; An Analysis of the 

European Union Repeal of the Liner 

Conference Block Exemption 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime 

Commission (‘‘FMC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is issuing this inquiry to solicit 

information and comments concerning 

the effects on international liner 

shipping of the European Union’s 

(‘‘E.U.’’) repeal of the liner block 

exemption from competition laws that 

took effect on October 18, 2008. This 

information will assist the Commission 

in its identification, analysis and 

evaluation of any consequences of the 

E.U.’s policy decision on U.S. trades, 

and will be incorporated into the 

Commission’s research for An Analysis 

of the E.U. Repeal of the Liner 

Conference Block Exemption (‘‘E.U. 

Study’’) which is scheduled to be 

completed in late 2011. 

DATES: Responses are due on or before 

January 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit all comments 

concerning this Inquiry to: Karen V. 

Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime 

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 

NW., Room 1046, Washington, DC 

20573–0001. 

Or e-mail non-confidential comments 

to: secretary@fmc.gov. (e-mail comments 

as attachments in Microsoft Word) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Austin L. Schmitt, Director, Bureau of 

Trade Analysis, Federal Maritime 

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001, 

Telephone: (202) 523–5796, E-mail: 

aschmitt@fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submit Comments: Non-confidential 

filings may be submitted in hard copy 

or by e-mail as an attachment (Microsoft 

Word) addressed to secretary@fmc.gov 

on or before January 18, 2011. Include 

in the subject line: ‘‘FMC EU Study— 

Response to NOI’’. Responses to this 

inquiry that seek confidential treatment 

must be submitted in hard copy by U.S. 

mail or courier. Confidential filings 

must be accompanied by a transmittal 

letter that identifies the filing as 

‘‘confidential,’’ describes the nature and 

extent of the confidential treatment 

requested, and states the reason for the 

request (e.g., commercially sensitive 

data). When submitting documents in 

response to the NOI that contain 

confidential information, the 

confidential copy of the filing must 

consist of the complete filing and be 

marked by the filer as ‘‘ConfidentialRestricted,’’ with the confidential 

material clearly marked on each page. 

When a confidential filing is submitted, 

an original and one additional copy of 

the public version of the filing must be 

submitted. The public version of the 

filing should exclude confidential 

materials, and be clearly marked on 

each affected page, ‘‘confidential 

materials excluded.’’ Questions 

regarding filing or treatment of 

confidential responses to this inquiry 

should be directed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Karen V. Gregory, at the 

telephone number or e-mail provided 

above. 

The Federal Maritime Commission is 

seeking information and comments from 

interested parties regarding the impacts 

of the E.U. repeal of the liner conference 

block exemption, Regulation (EEC) No. 

4056/86,1 on the performance of liner 

shipping in U.S. trades. The adoption by 

the European Union of Regulation 1419/ 

2006 (‘‘Repeal’’), on September 25, 2006, 

removed the previous block exemption 

from E.U. competition laws as of 

October 18, 2008. Under European 

Commission Regulation No. 906/2009, 

liner shipping consortia with market 

shares up to 30% retain an exemption 

for certain activities. 

Background 

As the expert agency responsible for 

regulating liner shipping in U.S. trades, 

the Commission has an on-going 

responsibility to keep abreast of changes 

in foreign laws and regulations that may 

impact liner activities in U.S. trades. 

The Commission developed the E.U. 

Study as a means of meeting that 

responsibility, and of determining 

whether or not any impacts on U.S. 

trades that could be related to the E.U.’s 

Repeal warranted Commission action 

with respect to its existing regulations 

and oversight activities under the 

Shipping Act of 1984 as amended by the 

Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. 

In doing so, the Commission was 

cognizant of recommendations made by 

the National Industrial Transportation 

League (‘‘NITL’’) to the Antitrust 

Modernization Commission (‘‘AMC’’) in 

their October 18, 2006 comments. NITL 

told the AMC that, in light of the E.U.’s 

repeal of the liner conference block 

exemption, it would be appropriate for 

the United States government to 

undertake a review of the antitrust 

immunity granted under the Shipping 

Act. NITL stated, in particular, that such 

a review should include an analysis of 

the impact that the changes adopted in 

Europe will have on the shipment of 

goods in U.S. trades.2

On November 23, 2009, in a public 

address to several industry groups, FMC 

Chairman Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. 

announced the Commission’s intention 

to undertake a comprehensive study of 

the impact of the E.U.’s repeal of the 

liner block exemption on U.S. trades. He 

noted that the E.U. study would cover 

a five-year period, from January 2006 

through December 2010, and that it 

would include an analysis of changes in 

liner market structure, competition, 

services offered, vessel capacity, rates 

and surcharges. He also advised that the 

Commission staff was consulting key 

industry and customer groups 

concerning the parameters of the study, 

the proposed research methods, and the 

possibility of future interviews with 

industry representatives. Chairman 

Lidinsky declared that the Commission 

intended to publish a Notice of Inquiry 

(‘‘NOI’’) in late 2010, and stressed the 

importance he attached to participation 

by the shipper community in both the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67971 

3The Europe/U.S. trades are typically separated 

into two sub-groups: (1) The North Atlantic trade, 

and (2) the Mediterranean trade. There has been no 

conference in the U.S./Mediterranean trade since 

February 2006. Consequently there was no 

conference for almost all of the 5-year test period 

(January 2006–December 2010). Further, the U.S./ 

Mediterranean trade involved a good deal of transshipment. For those reasons, the Bureau has 

decided to focus its U.S./Europe research on the 

North Atlantic trade. 

E.U. Study in general and the proposed 

NOI in particular. 

NOI Participation 

The Commission’s research efforts, 

under the E.U. Study, are intended to 

support a detailed analysis of the impact 

of the E.U. repeal on U.S. trades. The 

Commission is currently collecting, and 

will be evaluating data and other 

information on the three main East/West 

trades during the pre- and post-repeal 

periods. The E.U. Study analysis will 

involve comparing changes in the E.U./ 

U.S. trade lane (North Europe/U.S.) 3

over time and, to the extent that useful 

comparative data is available, across 

two Asia-based trade lanes (Far East/ 

U.S. and Far East/Europe). The NOI 

questions below—several of which 

solicit information by specific trade 

lane—are intended to help inform the 

Commission of the experiences and 

views of all industry sectors, groups and 

individuals willing to participate. It is 

anticipated that the comments provided 

could prove useful in the Commission’s 

evaluation of the data it is currently 

collecting. 

If participating respondents believe 

that there is a topic related to the issue 

of the impact of the E.U. repeal of the 

liner conference block exemption on 

U.S. liner trades that is not adequately 

addressed in the NOI questions, they are 

encouraged to identify and address that 

topic in their comments to the NOI. 

To promote maximum participation 

by individual shippers, vessel-operating 

common carriers, ocean transportation 

intermediaries, public port authorities, 

marine terminal operators, etc., the NOI 

questions will be made available via the 

Federal Register and on the 

Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.fmc.gov in a downloadable text 

file. They can also be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s Secretary, 

Karen V. Gregory, by telephone at (202) 

523–5725 or by e-mail at 

secretary@fmc.gov. Please indicate 

whether you would prefer a hard copy 

or an e-mail copy of the NOI questions. 

Non-confidential comments may be sent 

to secretary@fmc.gov as an attachment 

to an e-mail submission. Such 

attachments must be in Microsoft Word. 

The Commission intends that the E.U. 

Study be as thorough as possible, and 

therefore encourages prospective NOI 

participants to address all relevant 

questions with detailed comments. 

There is, however, no requirement that 

participants answer all the NOI 

questions. Participants, if they wish, are 

free to limit their responses to questions 

where they have direct experience or 

specific views. In addition, although 

many of the NOI questions are designed 

to elicit responses from a broad range of 

industry participants, the eight final 

questions are addressed specifically to 

vessel-operating common carriers. 

The Commission anticipates that most 

filed NOI comments will be made 

publicly available. The Commission 

believes that public availability of NOI 

comments is to be encouraged because 

it could improve public awareness of 

the issues being addressed in the E.U. 

Study, and of the various perspectives 

of all interested parties. Nevertheless, 

some commenting parties may wish to 

include commercially sensitive 

information as relevant or necessary in 

their responses by way of explaining 

their liner shipping experiences or 

detailing their responses in practical 

terms. To help assure that all potential 

respondents will provide usefully 

detailed information in their 

submissions, the Commission will 

provide confidential treatment to the 

extent allowed by law for those 

submissions, or parts of submissions, for 

which the parties request 

confidentiality. 

FMC E.U. Study Notice of Inquiry 

Questions 

Identifying Information (Please 

provide the information requested 

below with your NOI response.) 

Name of Respondent: (individual) 

Respondent’s Title/Position: 

Contact Information: Telephone and 

E-mail 

Name and Address of Company or 

Other Entity: 

Type of Company or Other Entity: 

Beneficial Cargo Owner (BCO) 

Ocean Transportation Intermediary 

(OTI) 

Shippers’ Association 

Vessel-Operating Ocean Carrier 

(VOCC) 

Public Port Authority 

Other, please describe (e.g., marine 

terminal operator, trade association, 

government agency, etc.) 

Section A: General Questions 

1. Based on your experience since 

September 2006 (when the European 

Union announced its decision to 

terminate the block exemption for liner 

shipping conferences to take effect 

October 2008), what impacts, if any, 

have you identified on your company’s 

commercial activities, in any trade lane, 

that you would attribute to the 

termination of the E.U. conference block 

exemption? Please explain. If you 

believe there have been such impacts, 

please indicate when that impact first 

occurred. 

2. Based on your experience since 

October 2008 (when the E.U. exemption 

for liner conferences was terminated) 

has any class of shipper or class of 

vessel-operating common carrier 

received a competitive advantage or 

been put at a competitive disadvantage 

as a result of the E.U. decision to 

terminate the exemption? If so, please 

explain. 

3. Based on your experience since 

October 2008 (when the E.U. exemption 

for liner conferences was terminated), 

have differences between U.S. and E.U. 

liner shipping competition regulations 

created any problems for your 

company? If so, please explain. 

4. Does your company view 

cooperation among ocean carriers in 

operational agreements (e.g., vessel 

sharing agreements, alliances, consortia, 

etc.) as generally having a positive, 

neutral or negative impact on the 

availability or cost of liner shipping 

services? Please explain. Does the E.U. 

market share threshold of 30% for such 

operational agreements have any effect 

with respect to that impact? If so, please 

explain. 

Section B: Questions about the North 

Atlantic Trade (North Europe/U.S.) 

5. Approximately what percent of 

your company’s freight earnings (lines, 

OTIs) or shipping expenses (shippers) 

involves international shipping in the 

North Europe/U.S. trade? Does your 

company’s business involve US imports 

(westbound service) only, U.S. exports 

(eastbound service) only, or both? Please 

explain briefly. 

6. How, and to what extent, did the 

recent economic recession (2008–2009) 

affect your company’s liner shippingrelated business in the North Europe/ 

U.S. trade? Please explain. 

7. Based on your experience prior to 

July 2008, when the Trans-Atlantic 

Conference Agreement (TACA) 

disbanded, did the existence of TACA 

have any impact on your liner shippingrelated business in the North Europe/ 

U.S. trade? If so, please explain. 

8. Based on your experience in the 

period from October 2008 to the present 

(i.e., since the E.U. block exemption was 

terminated), has there been any 

significant change(s) in liner services in 

the North Europe/U.S. trade that you 

attribute to the E.U. terminating the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
67972 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 

block exemption? For example, changes 

in: 

a. the level of freight rates and 

surcharges; 

b. the frequency with which rates or 

surcharges are adjusted upward or 

downward (rate volatility); 

c. the assessment of surcharges; 

d. the level of competition among 

ocean carriers; 

e. the service contracting practices or 

terms offered by ocean carriers; 

f. the availability of vessel capacity 

and container equipment; or 

g. the level or quality of liner services 

(including customer service, billing 

accuracy, etc.) 

If so, please identify and explain 

those changes. 

9. For CY 2010 to date, please 

estimate the percentage of your annual 

business (by volume) in the North 

Europe/U.S. liner trade that moved 

under (a) annual (or longer) service 

contracts, (b) shorter-term freight 

agreements, (c) spot rates, and (d) other 

(please specify). Has that changed 

significantly since October 2008? If so, 

please explain. 

10. Following repeal of the E.U. block 

exemption, ocean carriers created a 

global information system under 

Container Trade Statistics, Ltd. (CTS) in 

which a majority of ocean carriers 

serving the North Europe/U.S. trade 

participate. CTS provides certain data 

free on its Web site, including indices 

of the carriers’ aggregated average 

revenue per TEU by month. CTS also 

sells other data. To what extent, if at all, 

does your company access and use CTS 

Europe/U.S. trade data, and (if it does 

so) for what purpose(s)? 

Section C: Questions about the 

Transpacific Trade (Far East/U.S.) 

11. Approximately what percent of 

your company’s freight earnings (lines, 

OTIs) or shipping expenses (shippers) 

involve international shipping in the 

Far East/U.S. trade? Does your 

company’s business involve U.S. 

imports (eastbound service) only, U.S. 

exports (westbound service) only, or 

both? Please explain. 

12. How, and to what extent, did the 

recent economic recession (2008–2009) 

affect your company’s liner shippingrelated business in the Far East/U.S. 

trade? Please explain. 

13. Based on your experience from 

January 2006 to the present, have the 

activities of the Trans-Pacific 

Stabilization Agreement (TSA) or the 

Westbound Trans-Pacific Stabilization 

Agreement (WTSA) had any significant 

impact on your company’s liner 

shipping-related business in the Far 

East/U.S. trades? If so, please explain. 

14. Based on your experience in the 

period from October 2008 to the present, 

have there been any significant 

characteristics of liner services in Far 

East/U.S. trades that you attribute to 

actions taken by TSA or WTSA member 

lines acting collectively? For example: 

a. the level of freight rates and 

surcharges; 

b. the frequency with which rates or 

surcharges are adjusted upward or 

downward (rate volatility); 

c. the assessment of surcharges; 

d. the level of competition among 

ocean carriers; 

e. the service contracting practices or 

terms offered by ocean carriers; 

f. the availability of vessel capacity 

and container equipment; and 

g. the level or quality of liner services 

(including customer service, billing 

accuracy, etc.) 

If so, please identify and explain 

those characteristics. 

15. For CY 2010 to date, please 

estimate the percentage of your annual 

business (by volume) in the Far East/ 

U.S. liner trade that moves under (a) 

annual (or longer) service contracts, (b) 

shorter-term freight agreements, (c) spot 

rates, and (d) other (please specify)? Has 

that changed significantly since October 

2008? If so, please explain. 

Section D: Questions About the 

Europe—Asia Trade (Far East/Europe) 

16. Approximately what percent of 

your company’s freight earnings (lines, 

OTIs) or shipping expenses (shippers) 

involve international shipping in the 

Far East/Europe trade? Does your 

company’s business involve European 

imports (westbound service) only, 

European exports (eastbound service) 

only, or both? Please explain briefly. 

17. How, and to what extent, did the 

recent economic recession (2008–2009) 

affect your company’s liner shippingrelated business in the Far East/Europe 

trade? Please explain. 

18. Based on your experience prior to 

October 2008 (i.e., before the Far East 

Freight Conference (FEFC) disbanded), 

did the existence of FEFC have any 

impact on your liner shipping-related 

business in the Far East/Europe trade? 

Please explain. 

19. Based on your experience in the 

period from October 2008 to the present 

(i.e., since the E.U. block exemption was 

terminated), has there been any 

significant change(s) in liner services in 

the Far East/Europe trade that you 

attribute to the E.U.’s ending of the 

block exemption? For example, changes 

in: 

a. the level of freight rates and 

surcharges; 

b. the frequency with which rates or 

surcharges are adjusted upward or 

downward (rate volatility); 

c. the assessment of surcharges; 

d. the level of competition among 

ocean carriers; 

e. the service contracting practices or 

terms offered by ocean carriers; 

f. the availability of vessel capacity 

and container equipment: and 

g. the level or quality of liner services 

(including customer service, billing 

accuracy, etc.) 

If so, please identify and explain 

those changes. 

20. For CY 2010 to date, please 

estimate the percentage of your annual 

business (by volume) in the Far East/ 

Europe liner trade that moved under (a) 

annual (or longer) service contracts, (b) 

shorter-term freight agreements, (c) spot 

rates, and (d) other (please specify)? Has 

that changed significantly since October 

2008? If so, please explain. 

21. Following repeal of the E.U. block 

exemption, ocean carriers created a 

global information system under 

Container Trade Statistics, Ltd. (CTS), in 

which a majority of ocean carriers 

serving the Far East/Europe trade 

participate. CTS makes certain data free 

on its Web site, including indices of the 

carriers’ aggregated average revenue per 

TEU by month. CTS also sells other 

data. To what extent, if at all, does your 

company access and use Far East/ 

Europe trade data, and (if it does so) for 

what purpose(s)? 

Section E: Comparisons Among Trades 

22. Based on your experience since 

October 2008 (since the E.U. block 

exemption was terminated) are there 

differences in the characteristics of the 

Far East/U.S. trade versus the Far East/ 

Europe or North Europe/U.S. trades that 

you attribute to differences between 

U.S. and European liner competition 

regulations? For example, differences in: 

a. the level of freight rates and 

surcharges; 

b. the frequency with which rates or 

surcharges are adjusted upward or 

downward (rate volatility); 

c. the assessment of surcharges; 

d. the level of competition among 

ocean carriers; 

e. the service contracting practices or 

terms offered by ocean carriers; 

f. the availability of vessel capacity 

and container equipment; and 

g. the level or quality of liner services 

(including customer service, billing 

accuracy, etc.) 

If so, please explain those differences. 

23. Please identify any significant 

similarities and dissimilarities (for 

example, cargo volumes, scope or scale 

of operations, shipper mix, geography, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Notices 67973 

market concentration levels, contracting 

practices, legal requirements, etc.) that 

existed in liner shipping markets in the 

(1) Far East/U.S. trade and the (2) Far 

East/Europe trade during the period 

2006–2010. In your opinion, how (if at 

all) would those similarities and 

dissimilarities likely impact a 

comparison of liner pricing and service 

behavior across those two trades? 

Section F: Additional Questions for 

Vessel-Operating Common Carriers 

FOR VOCCs ONLY: 

24. Please estimate the percentage of 

your liner revenues (globally) that were 

earned in each of the following trade 

lanes during CY 2010 to date: 

a. North Europe/U.S. liner trade ll% 

b. Far East/U.S. liner trade ll% 

c. Far East/Europe liner trade ll% 

d. All other liner trades ll% 

e. Total (all liner trades combined) 100% 

If those percentages changed 

significantly during the 2006 through 

2010 period, please describe and 

explain the change. 

25. In each of the three major EastWest trades, please estimate the percent 

of cargo your company carried for 

beneficial cargo owners (BCO) accounts, 

(b) OTI accounts, (c) other accounts (if 

any, please explain) during CY 2010 to 

date: 

BCO OTI Other 

f. North Europe/U.S. liner trade ........................................................................................................................... ll% ll% ll% 

g. Far East/U.S. liner trade .................................................................................................................................. ll% ll% ll% 

h. Far East/Europe liner trade ............................................................................................................................. ll% ll% ll% 

Has the relative ranking of shipper 

types in these trade lanes changed 

significantly during the 2006 through 

2010 period? If so, please describe and 

explain the change. 

26. In each of the three major EastWest trade lanes, please indicate which 

lanes have tended to be the relatively 

most profitable and which was the 

relatively least profitable for each year 

between 2006 and 2010 (inclusive). 

[Write M for most, and L for least.] 

Far East/U.S. Far East/Europe North Europe/U.S. 

a. 2006 ..................................................................................................... lll lll lll 

b. 2007 ..................................................................................................... lll lll lll 

c. 2008 ..................................................................................................... lll lll lll 

d. 2009 ..................................................................................................... lll lll lll 

e. 2010 ..................................................................................................... lll lll lll 

If those rankings changed 

significantly during the 2006 through 

2010 period, please explain the 

reason(s) for the change. 

27. Based on your experience during 

the period from January 2006 to the 

present, have there been any significant 

changes in the nature of your business 

in the North Europe/U.S. liner shipping 

market related to changes in: 

a. Seasonality of cargo movements; 

b. Commodity values; 

c. Directional cargo imbalances 

(imports vs. exports); 

d. Number of carriers serving the 

trade; or 

e. Minimum scale (# and size of 

vessels) needed to serve the trade 

efficiently 

If so, please identify and explain 

those changes. 

28. Based on your company’s 

experience in the North Europe/U.S. 

trade, please identify any substantial 

changes that occurred in your liner 

business (operations, marketing, pricing, 

etc.) in the two years following repeal of 

the E.U. liner conference exemption (CY 

2009 and 2010) as compared with the 

two years preceding the repeal (2006– 

2007)? If any, please explain. 

29. Based on your experience during 

the period from January 2006 to the 

present, have there been any significant 

changes in the nature of your business 

in the Far East/U.S. liner shipping 

market related to changes in: 

a. Seasonality of cargo movements; 

b. Commodity values; 

c. Directional cargo imbalances 

(imports vs. exports); 

d. Number of carriers serving the 

trade; or 

e. Minimum scale (# and size of 

vessels) needed to serve the trade 

efficiently 

If so, please identify and explain 

those changes. 

30. Based on your experience during 

the period from January 2006 to the 

present, have there been any significant 

changes in the nature of your business 

in the Far East/E.U. liner shipping 

market related to changes in: 

a. Seasonality of cargo movements; 

b. Commodity values; 

c. Directional cargo imbalances 

(imports vs. exports); 

d. Number of carriers serving the 

trade; or 

e. Minimum scale (# and size of 

vessels) needed to serve the trade 

efficiently 

If so, please identify and explain 

those changes. 

Now Therefore, it is ordered that Notice of 

this Inquiry be published in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27891 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Ocean Transportation Intermediary 

License Applicants 

Notice is hereby given that the 

following applicants have filed with the 

Federal Maritime Commission an 

application for a license as a NonVessel-Operating Common Carrier 

(NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder 

(OFF)—Ocean Transportation 

Intermediary (OTI) pursuant to section 

19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as 

amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 

CFR 515). Notice is also hereby given of 

the filing of applications to amend an 

existing OTI license or the Qualifying 

Individual (QI) for a license. 

Interested persons may contact the 

Office of Transportation Intermediaries, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Washington, DC 20573. 

AAA Cargo, Inc. dba AAA Cargo 

Express Inc. (OFF), 14536 Roscoe Blvd., 

Suite 99 & 101, Panorama City, CA 

91402. Officers: Jake J. Son, President, 

(Qualifying Individual), Belen Mercano, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES