B-125159, DEC. 23, 1955

B-125159: Dec 23, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 10. INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER WE WILL HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO SUCH A DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OR TO ITS PROPOSAL TO DETERMINE THE SUBSIDY ON THE BASIS OF A COMPARISON OF THE DOMESTIC COST OF PERFORMING THE WORK ON A "BETWEEN VOYAGE" SCHEDULE OF WORK DAYS AT SAN FRANCISCO TO THE COST OF THE SAME SCHEDULE IN AN APPROPRIATE FOREIGN SHIPBUILDING CENTER. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION AND RECONDITIONING WORK AND PERCEIVE NO BASIS FOR OBJECTION TO A DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD THAT IT PRESENTS AN . WE WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL TO DETERMINE THE CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDY ON THE BASIS PROPOSED IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 30.

B-125159, DEC. 23, 1955

TO THE HONORABLE CLARENCE G. MORSE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 10, 1955, AND SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 30, CONCERNING THE PROPOSED PROCEDURES AND DETERMINATIONS OF THE BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. FOR CONSTRUCTION DIFFERENTIAL SUBSIDY AID ON CERTAIN RECONSTRUCTION AND RECONDITIONING WORK ON THE SS PRESIDENT CLEVELAND AND THE SS PRESIDENT WILSON. SPECIFICALLY, YOU INFORM US OF YOUR OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION AND RECONDITIONING CONSTITUTES AN "EXCEPTIONAL CASE" WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SECTION 501 (C) OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, AND INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER WE WILL HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO SUCH A DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OR TO ITS PROPOSAL TO DETERMINE THE SUBSIDY ON THE BASIS OF A COMPARISON OF THE DOMESTIC COST OF PERFORMING THE WORK ON A "BETWEEN VOYAGE" SCHEDULE OF WORK DAYS AT SAN FRANCISCO TO THE COST OF THE SAME SCHEDULE IN AN APPROPRIATE FOREIGN SHIPBUILDING CENTER.

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION AND RECONDITIONING WORK AND PERCEIVE NO BASIS FOR OBJECTION TO A DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD THAT IT PRESENTS AN ,EXCEPTIONAL CASE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 501 (C). ALSO, IN VIEW OF THE REPORTED PRACTICAL NECESSITY DICTATING THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE WORK ON A "BETWEEN VOYAGE" BASIS--- WHICH WOULD BE CONSONANT WITH SECTION 606 (6) OF THE ACT- -- WE WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL TO DETERMINE THE CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDY ON THE BASIS PROPOSED IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 30.