Question: If I ship by common carrier, how may I determine the carrier's rights to transport my goods? Answer: Since some illegal for-hire trucking is being conducted by purported common carriers, you should first determine whether the carrier has a certificate from the Interstate Commerce Commission to engage in interstate transportation for hire and, if so, whether his rights in the certificates encompass the commodities and destinations with which you are concerned. Such determination should also be made when using intrastate carriers. Question: How may I obtain such data? Answer: By checking with the carrier himself and by seeing the official certificate or by checking with the district supervisor of the Interstate Commerce Commission or your appropriate State officials. ADDITIONAL MATTER SUBMITTED Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will reply to your letter of April 19, 1965, inviting comments on S. 1727, a bill to provide for strengthening and improving the national transportation system, and for other purposes. Passage of this bill would (1) authorize cooperative agreements with the various States in enforcement of economic and safety laws and regulations pertaining to highway transportation, (2) provide for uniform registration of motor carrier certificates, identification of vehicles, and the designation of service agents in the State, (3) provide for filing of evidence of satisfactory insurance, (4) increase civil liabilities for violation of transportation laws, (5) establish provisions for the enforcement of violations of the Interstate Commerce Act by civil suits in the courts, and (6) provide for the recovery of reparations against motor carriers and freight forwarders. While we have no objection, from the standpoint of agriculture, to passage of this bill, we call attention to a possible inequality of treatment of persons holding certificates or permits issued by the Intertsate Commerce Commission and those not holding such certificates or permits. Our comments are directed to the provisions of this bill in section 4, "Service of Process and Civil Suits for Enforcement of Interstate Commerce Act." Under the proposed section 222 (b) (1) court action for a restraining order may be brought by the Interstate Commerce Commission against any motor carrier or broker or other person involved in a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act or any rule, regulation requirement, or order of the Commission. Under section 222 (b)(2) like court action may be brought by any injured party against any person, other than a motor carrier that has a certificate or permit of some sort from the Commission, who is in clear and patent violation of the provisions of the act requiring certificates, permits or broker licenses. Our interpretation of these provisions is that the Commission may proceed against any broker or motor carrier, while other persons can proceed only against brokers and against motor carriers who have not theretofore come under Commission regulation. This could be corrected by eliminating the parenthetical clause beginning after the word "person" in the first line of the proposed section 222 (b) (2). The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D.C., June 30, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to S. 1727, 89th Congress, a bill to provide for strengthening and improving the national transportation system, and for other purposes. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Department of the Army the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense thereon. The purpose of the bill is to assist in controlling illegal interstate motor carrier transportation and to require motor carriers and freight fowarders to pay reparation to shippers charged unlawfully high rates and otherwise to amend various sections of the Interstate Commerce Act. Section 1 of the bill would authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission to make cooperative agreements with the States to enforce State and Federal economic and safety regulations governing highway transportation. Section 2 would provide for uniform State registration of ICC motor carrier certificates. Section 3 provides for the extension of the civil forfeiture provisions of the act to cover unlawful operations by motor carriers and certain violations of the Commission's motor carrier regulations, and also it would increase the amounts of civil forfeitures. Section 4 would permit the Interstate Commerce Commission in enforcement proceedings, regardless of where a carrier or other party is served, to obtain service of process and to join any other party or parties necessary to the proceedings, and would permit any injured person to apply to the courts for enforcement against illegal motor carriers operating in "clear and patent violation" of the Interstate Commerce Commission certificate or permit law, rules and regulations. Sections 5 and 6 of the proposed legislation would amend parts II and IV of the act to permit shippers to recover reparations from motor carriers and freight forwarders for unlawfully high rates charged by them. S. 1727 is identical to companion bill H.R. 5401 and substantially the same as S. 2796 of the 88th Congress. It is similar to S. 2560, 87th Congress, which had the support of the Department of Defense and was passed by the Senate. S. 1727, 89th Congress, and S. 2796, 88th Congress, however, include an additional provision amending parts II and IV of the Interstate Commerce Act to permit shippers to recover reparations from motor carriers and freight forwarders for unlawfully high rates charged by them. In this respect, the proposed legislation incorporates the reparations provisions proposed in S. 1732, 89th Congress, H.R. 2594, 88th Congress, H.R. 5596 and S. 676, 87th Congress, S. 3389, 86th Congress, and S. 378, 85th Congress. The Department of Defense is interested in strengthening the national transportation system by the policing of "gray" areas and unlawful operations. The amendments proposed in S. 1727 are considered salutary measures intended to accomplish this, and have the support of the Department of Defense. Inasmuch as the proposals in sections 1 through 4 are not vital to Department of Defense operations, it is believed proper to defer to the views of the Interstate Commerce Commission on these sections of S. 1727. With respect to sections 5 and 6 concerning reparation awards from motor carriers and freight forwarders, enactment of S. 1727 will specifically authorize and establish procedures for the reparation awards with respect to motor carrier and freight forwarder operations subject to parts II and IV, comparable to those now provided in parts I and III of the act. Since the passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (pt. II), the Interstate Commerce Commission has interpreted the act as leaving shippers the right to sue in the courts for damages resulting from unlawful rates on a determination by the Interstate Commerce Commission that the rates sued on were unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, in T.I.M.E. Inc. v. United States of America and Davidson Transfer and Storage Co., Inc. v. United States of America, 359 U.S. 464, 3 L. Ed. 2d 952, decided May 18, 1959, held that under the statute, the recovery of reparations or damages arising from the application of unreasonable rates on past motor carrier shipments is precluded. The effect of this ruling is to deprive shippers, including the United States, of a right to damages resulting from unlawful rates on past shipments. Under the recent Supreme Court interpretation a tariff rate filed by a motor carrier or freight forwarder, regardless of how unreasonable or unlawful it may be, is required by law to be charged by the carrier and paid by the shipper, so long as the tariff rate remains in effect. By reason of the Supreme Court ruling, shippers are now denied the right to a determination as to the justness and reasonableness of rates on past motor and freight forwarder shipments or to recover reparation or damage for the excess paid over and above the reasonable rates. This situation does not exist in rail and water charges. The Interstate Commerce Act give shippers a legal right to reparation for unreasonable rail and water charges collected by the carrier. Enactment of the proposed legislation would, in this respect, place on a uniform footing all four classes of carriers under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. In these circumstances, the Department of Defense favors the early enactment of S. 1727. The fiscal effects of this legislation cannot be accurately estimated. The General Accounting Office has reported, however, that the U.S. Government suffers a substantial loss because of inability to recover charges on motor carrier shipments in excess of those based on reasonable rates. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures presecribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours, STEPHEN AILES, Secretary of the Army. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for our comments on S. 1727 and H.R. 5401, bills to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to provide for strengthening and improving the national transportation system, and for other purposes. From the standpoint of national defense preparedness, the Office of Emergency Planning favors measures designed to strengthen the national transportation system upon which we must rely in time of emergency. The provisions of the subject bills would clearly aid in the control of illegal interstate motor carriage and thus strengthen the motor carrier segment of the national system. We therefore generally favor these bills. We note that H.R. 5401 as passed by the House of Representatives, is different from S. 1727 as introduced in the Senate. The Office of Emergency Planning defers to the views of the Interstate Commerce Commission on the relative merits of the two bills. From the standpoint of the administration's program, the Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, BUFORD ELLINGTON, Director. APRIL 5, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on S. 1142, a bill to amend sections 20a and 214 of the Interstate Commerce Act. This bill has been examined, but since its subject matter does not directly affect the activities of the Department of Justice we would prefer not to offer any comment concerning it. Sincerely, RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. MARCH 15, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on S. 1144, a bill to repeal the Medals of Honor Act applicable to outstanding acts of heroism involving railroads and motor carriers. This bill has been examined, but since its subject matter does not directly affect the activities of the Department of Justice, we would prefer not to offer any comment concerning it. Sincerely, RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. MARCH 22, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on S. 1145, a bill to amend section 1(22) of the Interstate Commerce Act so as expressly to include within the exemption provided therein the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, and joint ownership or joint use of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, and terminals incidental thereto, and for other purposes. This bill has been examined, but since its subject matter does not directly affect the activities of the Department of Justice we would prefer not to offer any comment concerning it. Sincerely, RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. MARCH 18, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on S. 1148, a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to enable the Interstate Commerce Commission to utilize its employees more effectively and to improve administrative efficiency. This bill has been examined, but since its subject matter does not directly affect the activities of the Department of Justice we would prefer not to offer any comment concerning it. Sincerely, RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of June 23, requesting further comments of this Department on S. 1150 as it has been reported out of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. S. 1150 is a bill to amend section 20a (12) of the Interstate Commerce Act to eliminate the necessity for prior approval of the Commission for a person to hold the position of officer or director of more than one carrier when such carriers are in a single integrated system of carriers lawfully operated under common control, and for other purposes. A similar bill was H.R. 5241 which passed the House and is also before your committee. Originally the bill had two provisions. One provision would eliminate the section 20a (12) requirement for Interstate Commerce Commission approval of directors or officers serving more than one carrier subject to part I of the Interstate Commerce Act where the carriers were operated lawfully under common control or management. The other provision would make it unlawful without authority of the Commission for a director, officer, or partner of a firm to hold the position of officer or director of a carrier subject to part I of the act when any other director, officer, or partner of the same firm holds the position of officer or director of another such carrier except where the carriers are lawfully operated under common control or management. The purpose of this provision is to close a loophole in the present regulation of interlocking directorships where different persons representing the same firm may serve on two or more carriers. The Department finds no problem with the first provision of the bill that would eliminate regulation of interlocking directorships or officers of two or more carriers lawfully operating under common control. It would appear that the public interest aspects of such common control would have been decided in the action by the Commission approving such common control, and not in the continuing surveillance of the nomination of officers and directors. |