FIELD REORGANIZATION

Now, as to field reorganization, while it is not possible, as yet, to evaluate the effectiveness of the Commission's field reorganization, which became effective January 1 of this year, it is gratifying to report that already improvements in operations are in process. We expect that continued operation will result in omre expeditious and efficient performance of our statutory duties and in serving the carriers, shippers, and the public. This will be done through more effective personnel utilization and general management improvement.

CASES CLOSED AND PENDING

During the 1963 calendar year 8,673 cases were closed, by far the highest in our history, which represents an increase of 9.4 percent over the 7,927 cases closed in the 1962 calendar year.

I might state here that back in the first year of the Commission's optration, there was received something like 165 cases, and there were closed 102 cases, so you can get some idea of the increase in the 77 years that the Commission has been in operation.

At the end of the 1963 calendar year, there were 7,042 cases pending as compared with 4,711 cases pending at the close of the 1962 calendar year, an increase of 2,331. Thus, notwithstanding an increase in productivity of 9.4 percent, which was accomplished with practically no increase in staff for proceedings work, our pending caseload increased by about 49.5 percent.

This sharp increase in pending cases resulted primarily from two factors:

(1) The receipt of 2,880 cases received as second proviso applications, seeking to register intrastate motor carrier rights issued by the State, which were filed pursuant to Public Law 87-805, and

(2) The number of regular motor carrier application cases received and reopened in calendar year 1963 increased by 369 or by about 8 percent, a total of 3,249 and I might say, it is these motor carrier cases that involved the greatest volume of cases that we have at the Commission.

Now, during the calendar year 1963, an average of 7.6 months was required to close a case. This is somewhat higher than the 7.1 average during calendar year 1962, but compares very favorably with the 8.6 and 9.1 months for the 1961 and 1960 calendar years, respectively.

HANDLING MOTOR CARRIER OPERATING APPLICATIONS

Improved procedures for handling motor carrier operating authority applications became effective January 1, 1964. These rules, which reflect the recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States for improvements in the handling of licensing applications before the Commission, are designed to tighten up our case processing procedures.

Generally, the rules are expected to eliminate the hearing of unopposed applications, to enable the Commission to more effectively utilize the time of its operating rights hearing examiners and to provide better control over our ever-increasing caseload.

By providing for early identification of those cases which must be orally heard and those which are suitable for disposition on the basis

of written statements and affidavits only, earlier determination of the appropriate methods of processing can be made, thus expediting the handling of both types of cases. The need for improvement in these areas that I have referred to has become more acute with the continuing increase in cases filed.

For example, during the first 9 months of fiscal year 1964, receipts of regular motor carrier applications have increased by 14.1 percent over a like period of a year ago.

SPEEDING APPLICATION PROCESS

Senator ALLOTT. I wonder if we can interrupt at that point. There are several other questions I have preceding that but I wonder if we could have somebody here, maybe yourself, discuss the specific things that have been done to speed up processing of applications beside these things. You will recall we discussed this last year.

Mr. GOFF. Very well, and I think since this is operating rights, Director Stillwell is here.

Could you answer the Senator's question, Director Stillwell?

Mr. STILLWELL. Well, as this workload has grown, and the increase and the application filings have increased each year, we have tried various methods of speeding up the work. The new rules which the chairman spoke about, we hope, will aid us in disposing of this everincreasing workload much quicker.

Those rules will separate by publication in the Federal Register those cases which require oral hearing and those cases which do not. The ones that require oral hearing will, we hope, be such that they will not be withdrawn after they are assigned for hearing, as is the case now in many instances.

We have tried to tighten up the rules so that there is some burden on a carrier who files an application, then waits until a few days before the hearing assigned on it, and who then withdraws it.

CONTESTED CASES

Mr. GOFF. Mr. Stillwell, you might explain to the Senator these contested cases are cases where there are protestants against the rights that are requested and after it is published in the Federal Register then it is open for protest, people who want to file objections and that is where you have the contested case. What you are referring to then, as I understand it, is where there are a number of protests filed and under the old rules a fellow could go right up to the day set for hearing and you had the hearing examiner out in the field to hear it and then the applicant would withdraw it because he thought there would be too many protests.

Mr. STILLWELL. That is right.

We hope by these new rules that will be stopped, and we also used to hear many cases in which no protests were filed because under the old method we merely published them in the Federal Register with the date of hearing.

NEW RULES AND PROCEDURES

Under this new procedure we publish them, protests can be filed and, if no protests are filed, then the case can be handled without an oral hearing and the evidence of the applicants submitted in the form of verified statements.

So far the rules our experience with the new rules has been very good, and a large substantial number of the cases which are being handled on that basis are now being handled without formal hearing. Now, this saves the time of the hearing examiners who formerly held hearings in a lot of these unopposed cases. It also saves the time of the people who practice before the Commission and it saves the time of setting them for hearing.

PROCEDURE IN LATE WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS

Senator ALLOTT. Well, specifically what do you do to keep people from withdrawing their applications at the last minute?

Mr. STILLWELL. Well, under these new rules, we have got a rule in there that they have to be withdrawn by a certain day, and if they are not we will censure them.

Senator ALLOTT. You will what?

Mr. GOFF. That is, the attorney is censured, he is reprimanded if he lets it go to hearing, and these fellows are very jealous of their reputation, and, of course, if that fails and they continue to do it then they are subject to disciplinary action as a practitioner before the Commission.

CASE DIGESTING SYSTEM

I think there are other steps that have been taken, haven't there, Director Stillwell? We have arranged to have hearing examiners devote a higher percentage of their time to conducting hearings instead of preliminary decisions; and one of the steps has been the establishment of a case digesting system to provide a time reply supplement to the Commission's already extensive reference facilities. Under this program, brief synopsis of cases of more than usual significance or novel import are circulated to each examiner each month for inclusion in his reference files.

This system provides examiners with a current summary of recent decision in digested form thus relieving them of the need to pore over thousands of pages of reports each month in order to determine the significance of each decision. Then we have given more stenographic assistance to our examiners.

Shall I continue on with our, with my prepared statement?

SPECIFIC CHANGES CALLED FOR

Senator ALLOTT. Yes. I still have only a very vague idea of what you are doing in this area. I think we on this committee are capable of absorbing what has been done, if we could just hear about it, but I still have a very vague idea, Mr. Chairman, as to what has been done. It is extremely vague.

Mr. GOFF. Well, in the main, I think it is the reduction of the cases that before were set on the itinerary of hearing examiners, and then the hearing examiner was given his list of cases and these places for hearing, and he would go out there and he would appear to hear the case that would be set for certain days, and then either nobody would show up or show up and say they had decided they were going to withdraw it.

Now, that took a lot of time and, of course, the hearing examiner was out in the field, he didn't have any case, the witnesses who had

been subpenaed couldn't be used, and he would lose a day or two. It was quite often the case that people would file these things to see if they could get away with it, and then when there seemed to be considerable opposition, why they would just withdraw at the last minute. Senator ALLOTT. How long before the day set for hearing can they withdraw?

Mr. GOFF. Of course-well, they could withdraw it at the very day of the hearing.

Senator ALLOTT. I mean without a censure.

Mr. GOFF. How about it, Mr. Stillwell?

Mr. STILLWELL. Seven days.

Mr. GOFF. Seven days.

Senator ALLOTT. One week.

All right, let's go on; maybe some of this stuff will clear up.

ADDITIONAL OPERATING RIGHTS REVIEW BOARDS

Mr. GOFF. This is something that I think is important. Two additional operating rights review boards have been created by the Commission to handle matters involving operating authorities of brokers, motor carriers, water carriers, freight forwarders, and express companies. The boards will act in contested cases which have involved taking of testimony at public hearings or submission of evidence by affidavits.

Establishment of these boards is part of our continuing program to delegate to staff units the authority to issue decisions in those cases which do not appear to involve enunciation of broad transportation policy. It is only by such means that we can provide prompt disposition of the relatively routine cases and, at the same time, reserve for Commissioners adequate time for consideration of the complex issues in cases of general transportation interest.

In this category, for example, we now have pending in various stages of proceeding a number of complex railroad merger proposals. And, it is reasonable to expect that others will be filed.

I think I should explain, Mr. Chairman, that this has proved a wonderful help to the Commission, the authority that was given a couple of years ago to establish these employee boards.

CATEGORIES OF CASES

Up to that time contested cases on the hearing of the exceptions to the examiner's report could only be heard by Commissioners.

Now, as you know, we have the Commission divided into three divisions, three different types of cases. There are rate cases and operating rights, motor carrier cases, and the finance cases.

Before this bill was enacted, as you understand, the hearing examiner makes his initial reports, then there are 30 days for either side to take exception to it.

If they do except to it then the matter is in a sense on appeal. It has to go before somebody to determine the exceptions, the objections to the initial decision of the hearing examiner and, of course, if there are no exceptions why the hearing examiner becomes final.

Well, before, the case had to go before one of our divisions, but under this we were able to appoint employee review boards, who, in

routine cases, can be assigned these what we might call appeals from the initial decision of the hearing examiner.

Now, we have, I believe

Mr. SCHMID. Only five review boards.

Mr. GoFF. That is right, I was thinking about the suspension board.

PERSONNEL AND FUNCTION BOARDS OF REVIEW

Senator ALLOTT. How many people do you have on each review board?

Mr. GoFF. Three employees, and we pick three really outstanding able fellows who hear it, who review the report of the hearing examiner.

Of course, they permit argument and filing of briefs, and then their decision is final unless an appeal is taken to a division. It is very interesting to note that after this got underway, there has been a rather low percentage of appeals to the division.

Now, you can see what that does. The Commissioner's time is taken up with more important cases. I stated earlier about the 102 cases that were decided by the Commission in its first year. Those were all heard and considered by the full Commission.

Nowadays, the decision on appeal to the divisions is final, and only in those cases, rare cases, where the Commission itself decides that an issue of general transportation importance is involved go to the full Commission.

TYPE OF CASE BEFORE COMMISSION

Now, an issue of general transportation would be involved in some general rate case that embraces the whole United States or some important motor carrier case that would be of consequence to the whole industry or one of these big railroad mergers. It is only those cases now that go before the full 11-man Commission. It is a relatively very small number and there is no right to go before the Commission. They can file a request, which the Commission must decide within 10 days, whether they are going to accept jurisdiction. The Commission can take any case. With many of these big cases the Commission itself decides from the first it is one that probably will have to be ultimately decided by the full Commission.

But you can see that it cuts down the cases that the Commissioners have to consider.

HANDLING APPEALS ON CASES

Senator ALLOTT. Do I understand you correctly, that the case, if the parties are not satisfied with the report of the examiner, goes to the review board?

Mr. GoFF. Well, except there is a sifting out of cases of more importance that they decide should go to a division.

In other words, it isn't a long chain of appeals, but we decide this case is the kind that would go to a review board, an employee review board.

Now, the only right of appeal from that is to the division.

Now, if we consider it a case that might be of general transportation it goes originally on appeal to a division but that division's decision is final. There is no right to go clear up to the Commission. It

31-706--64-—pt. 1——31