of "on duty" time logged by drivers under the Commission's regulations is not always clear. The requirement in the Commission's regulations that all accidents be reported raises difficult questions in connection with such minor passenger incidents as jamming a finger in a window, tripping over a piece of luggage, and so forth. Exposing the carrier to forfeitures of $200, plus $100 for continuing violations in areas of uncertainty such as these could be grossly unfair and unnecessary for safety, in our view.

I would like to add that section 3 of S. 1727 has similar application to S. 1733 except that it would increase the penalties, as you previously pointed out, Mr. Chairman, $500 and $250 for each day of continuing violation.

Senator LAUSCHE. Your remarks are directed primarily to that phase of S. 1733 dealing with safety regulations?

Mr. CORBER. Yes, that is correct.

Senator LAUSCHE. The other aspects of it you are not in disagreement with?

Mr. CORBER. We would not be.

Senator LAUSCHE. There are too many safety laws and ordinances and regulations that you would have to comply with, and if you had to report on all it would be an excessively burdensome job?

Mr. CORBER. Yes, and we feel it would be unfair if the situation should develop where these extensive penalties were applied for these minor safety infractions that could occur without the intention or the knowledge of the carrier at all.

Mr. SENDER. As to H.R. 5401, do you have any objection to any language or provisions contained in H.R. 5401 as passed by the House?

Mr. CORBER. Now we did not, Mr. Sender, take a position on all provisions of H.R. 5401. I would hesitate to attempt to represent NAMBO as to those provisions on which we did not take a position. We are satisfied with section 2 and we

Senator LAUSCHE. Would you do this: examine H.R. 5401, send in a letter to be included in the record giving your views of H.R. 5401?

Mr. CORBER. We would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. (The information requested follows:)

Hon. FRANK J. LAUSCHE,

STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Washington, D.C., May 11, 1965.

U.S. Senator, Chairman, Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR LAUSCHE: During the course of my testimony before the Surface Transportation Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee on S. 1727, you requested me to advise by letter whether the National Association of Motor Bus Owners accepts H.R. 5401 as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. At the hearings held by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on H.R. 5401, NAMBO directed its attention to sections 2 and 3 of the bill. I am authorized to state that NAMBO supports H.R. 5401 as reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and adopted by the House, insofar as sections 2 and 3 are concerned. The association took no position as to the other sections of the bill and does not do so at this time.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT J. CORBER.

(Complete statement of Robert J. Corber appears in the Appendix.) Senator LAUSCHE. There are no further witnesses, I understand. The meeting will be recessed until Friday, May 14, at 9 a.m. The meeting will be recessed until that hour and day.

(Whereupon, at 9:55 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene on Friday, May 14, 1965, at 9 a.m.)

INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AMENDMENTS

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1965

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room 457, Old Senate Office Building, the Honorable Frank J. Lausche, presiding.

Senator LAUSCHE. Come to order.

The first witness this morning will be Mr. Matt Triggs, assistant legislative director, American Farm Bureau Federation. Mr. Triggs.

STATEMENT OF MATT TRIGGS, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. TRIGGS. We welcome the opportunity to present the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation concerning the bills subject to hearing.

We do not have policy relating to the proposals involved in most of the various bills, with three exceptions, as follows:

REPARATIONS

We favor the enactment of legislation such as sections 5 and 6 of S. 1727, to provide that reparations may be recovered from motor carriers and freight forwarders as from other carriers.

CIVIL PENALTIES

The provisions of section 3 of S. 1727 would extend the civil forfeiture penalty provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act to violations of the motor vehicle safety regulations of the Commission, and would establish a civil forfeiture not to exceed $500 for each offense. The safety regulations of the Commission are set forth in 70 pages of fine print and applicable to most trucks which cross State lines. They include detailed provisions relating to such varied matter as: Maintenance of daily drivers log;

Submittal of accident reports to the Commission;

Experience and qualification of drivers;

Periodic physical examination of drivers;

Copy of physical examination certificate to be carried by driver

at all times:

Prohibition against driving while fatigued;
Requirements for safe loading and securing;

Specified number of lights and reflectors on sides, back, and front of truck tractor and trailer;

Standards for many items of equipment, often quite technical in character;

Maximum on-duty and driving time; and

Inspection and maintenance provisions.

These ICC regulations are not identically the same as State regulations, and they are modified from time to time.

It seems probable that no truck operator is able, no matter how carefully he supervises his operation, to avoid violating the Commission's regulations on occasion.

Many truck operators who know and are in compliance with their respective State laws, and whose safety practices may be beyond reproach, are not familiar with ICC regulations.

It can be said that they ought to be but the fact is that many, perhaps even most, truck operators and truck drivers who operate mostly within one State do not know they are subject to ICC regulations if they cross a State line or what such regulations require of them.

Under these circumstances it seems to us that it would be unduly harsh and unreasonable to establish an absolute penalty to be imposed irrespective of intent and/or generally satisfactory performance of safety responsibilities.

We, therefore, respect fully recommend the elimination of the safety regulations from the civil forefeiture provisions of the bill by appropriate deletions on lines 20-23, page 4.

PRIVATE SUITS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ACT

Part (2) of section 4 of S. 1727 authorizes private petitions for injunctions to enforce the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act relating to operating authority.

The language of section 4, however, protects most carriers from such private remedy to a substantial degree.

Thus the proviso on lines 19-22, page 7, shields the operations of common and contract carriers from private action in that a carrier can assert that this calls for an interpretation of his certificate of convenience or necessity or his permit and is therefore subject to the prior determination of the Commission.

Lines 23-25 of the same proviso would similarly substantially protect private carriers from attack by reserving to the Commission the primary jurisdiction to construe the primary business test.

Who then would be left subject to the full affect of the proposed private action? The major categories of trucks remaining so subject are trucks operated by cooperatives under the authority of section 203(b) (5) and trucks engaged in hauling agricultural, fishery, and timber products under the authority of section 203 (b) (6).

Most exempt carriers and many cooperative carriers are small business concerns, vigorously competing with large common carriers by providing competitive service but typically without legal counsel or knowledge of legal procedures. They are vulnerable to legal action

by their larger competitors who can afford the legal counsel and legal costs involved.

In many instances it seems probably that small operators would be so appalled at legal action being brought against them that they would fail to appear to protect their interests.

Carriers operating under the authority of sections 203(b) (5) and 203(b) (6) sometimes engage in unauthorized operations. So do common carriers, contract carriers, and private carriers.

We do not believe that the question of whether or not carriers are engaged in authorized transportation should be shielded from private action in some cases but not in others. A violation is a violation, regardless by whom committed. It would appear reasonable that all should be treated equally-that there should be no discrimination as between carriers.

We, therefore, respectfully recommend that part (2) of section 4 of S. 1727 be deleted.

In further support of this recommendation we would argue that one of the key responsibilities delegated to the Commission by the Congress is the determination of the scope within which carriers may operate. This is a complex matter, one requiring all the expertise and judgment available to the Commission.

The distinction between what is legal and what is illegal transportation is often finely drawn-requiring intimate experience with the subleties and complexities of the statute and regulatory history to arrive at sound and consistent conclusions.

To delegate this primary responsibility to the courts, even though the Commission retains an authority to intervene in particular cases, appears unwise. No one knows how many private suits may be filed or whether or not it will be possible for the Commission to inquire into or to participate in all such cases.

What may appear in the application for relief (copy of which would be sent to the Commission) to be a simple set of facts and a simple issue of law, may, during the process of adjudication develop as a complex matter indeed.

The opportunity of expressing these views is very much appreciated. Senator LAUSCHE. In summary, as I understand your views, they are that you favor this provision which will give the right to all interested parties to recover reparations for excessive charges? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. You feel that the complexity of the regulations on safety and operations are so manifold that forfeiture ought not to be given as absolutely or given at all?

Mr. TRIGGS. On safety and violations of safety.

Senator LAUSCHE. On safety regulations?

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes.

Senator LAUSCHE. Now then, with respect to private suits for the enforcement of the act, are you completely against the bringing of any private suits for the enforcement of the act?

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes; that is where we are; I am not saying that it might not be possible to write legislative criteria that we could go along with, but policywise we do have that position.

Senator LAUSCHE. You believe that these safeguards which have been provided about a plaintiff having to show a clear and patent