that they are ‘“‘fit, willing, and able” to carry on the 
business of forwarding. The statute further provides 
that no person may be licensed who is controlled 
directly or indirectly by an exporter from the United 
States, or who has a beneficial interest in export 
cargoes. Freight forwarders are also subject to the 
general regulatory provisions of the Shipping Act of 
1916, as “other persons” subject to the Act. 
In addition to responsibilities relating to the regu- 
lation of competition and trade practices, FMC is 
also responsible for assuring the financial capability 
of certain carriers to meet various legally-specified 
liability requirements. Basically these responsibilities 
relate to passenger vessels serving U.S. ports and, 
with respect to pollution liability, to almost all ves- 
sels over 300 gross tons using U.S. waters. Under the 
terms of Public Law 89-777, owners, operators and 
charterers of passenger vessels with accommodations 
for 50 or more persons must establish and maintain 
with FMC evidence of their financial responsibility 
to meet liability obligations to passengers or others 
for death, injury, or nonperformance on voyages to 
or from the United States. Certificates (required for 
operation in the U.S. commerce) are issued to car- 
riers that apply to the Commission and are found 
financially responsible to meet these liability obliga- 
tions. 
Financial responsibility obligations are also im- 
posed on the owners and operators of all U.S. and 
foreign vessels of over 300 gross tons (except public 
vessels and certain non-self-propelled barges) under 
the provisions of Section 311(p)(1) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act. Financial responsibility 
in this area is designed to assure adequate resources 
to meet liability obligations associated with a spill 
or other illegal polluting discharge. Carrier obliga- 
tions under this law are also assured by an FMC 
certification program. Although this program has 
been in effect since April 3, 1971, with respect to 
oil spills, it has not yet been expanded to cover spills 
of other hazardous substances. Before implementa- 
tion of the expanded program, the Environmental 
Protection Agency must specifically identify the sub- 
stances to be included and establish various pollution 
standards for these materials. The development of 
EPA standards in this area is reportedly now nearing 
completion. 
Special liability requirements are imposed on ves- 
sels carrying Alaska North Slope oil under the terms 
of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 
1973 and assuring financial responsibility up to these 
limits is also within FMC authority. In implementing 
this program, FMC has required carriers engaged in 
the Alaska trade to maintain evidence of financial 
responsibility to meet the liability requirements of 
both the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and 
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. 
It is interesting to note that a similar requirement 
relating to vessel financial responsibility for oil pollu- 
tion liability in conjunction with deepwater offshore 
ports was vested with the Department of Transporta- 
tion under the terms of the Deepwater Port Act of 
1974. Once one or more deepwater ports become 
operational, this provision will fragment Federal 
responsibility in this area unless new overriding 
legislation is enacted to deal comprehensively with 
the oil spill liability issue. Comprehensive legislation 
on oil spill liability is now being considered by the 
Congress, but it is not yet clear where overall respon- 
sibility for assuring financial responsibility will be 
vested. ; 
Major Current issues 
Jurisdictional problems relating to the authority of 
ICC and FMC are likely to continue as prominent 
regulatory issues as containerization and other 
unitized cargo handling operations continue to ex- 
pand. The increasing use of through bills of lading 
and single rates for movements having both inter- 
national and domestic components will continue to 
tax the traditional domestic trade/foreign trade divi- 
sion of responsibility between these agencies. Both 
agencies generally support the concept of intermodal 
development, and both are represented, along with 
the Civil Aeronautics Board, on the nonstatutory 
Interagency Committee on Intermodal Cargo 
(ICIC). But despite this support for the concept of 
intermodalism, fragmented regulatory authority re- 
mains an impediment. Although the ICIC has suc- 
ceeded in improving some of the commercial aspects 
of intermodal carriage, progress in resolving juris- 
dictional disputes among the three parent agencies 
has been limited. 
In the past the FMC and various marine confer- 
ence carriers have supported legislation which would 
allow FMC to grant antitrust immunity under the 
Shipping Act to certain intermodal arrangements in 
order to facilitate intermodal development. Under 
such legislation, arrangements receiving immunity 
would be subject to FMC approval and regulatory 
authority. Both the Justice Department and ICC 
have opposed such legislation. Justice, which has 
been a frequent critic of the U.S. policy of granting 
antitrust immunity to shipping conferences, does not 
want to see this policy extended, and ICC feels that 
intermodal development has not been unduly re- 
tarded under existing law and, therefore, sees no 
need for new legislative authority. 
Another regulatory issue of growing importance is 
V-25 
