for the most part, are small business concerns some whom operate one or two trucks. Few of them retain legal counsel and, even if they did, it is doubtful that they would have the financial resources to oppose successfully numerous suits which might be instituted in any number of district courts. If the regulated carriers feel that this primary jurisdiction clause is necessary to protect them from harassment by their competitors, then certainly there should be no objection to extending this same protection to the exempt haulers.

This same thought was expressed most forcefully by Mr. M. T. Richmond, president of the Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route, American Trucking Associations, Inc. in testimony before the subcommittee on June 28, 1961, on "Decline of Regulated Common Carriage," when he said:

"It is the considered opinion of this conference that if motor carriers should be subjected to injunctive proceedings in the Federal courts by persons other than the Interstate Commerce Commission, or its duly authorized agents, that Pandora's box will be opened as far as the interest of the motor carrier industry is concerned. Such a right would place a substantial weapon in the hands of a competitor so as to harass the operations of a motor carrier and would result in endless litigation before the Federal courts." (Record page 213.)

If private suits are not to be brought against regulated or private carriers before the Commission has made an administrative determination that there has been a violation, then in all fairness and equity such suits should not be permitted against carriers operating under the exemptions provided in section 203(b) (4a), (5) or (6) of the act, pending an administrative determination by the Commission.

Therefore, in the interest of fairplay and equity, we respectfully urge that the primary jurisdiction proviso of section 4 be amended so that it clearly applies to the operations of regulated carriers, private carriers, farmers, farmer cooperative associations, and forhire carriers transporting agricultural commodities.

Yours sincerely,

DURWARD SEALS, Traffic Manager.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. CORBER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

My name is Robert J. Corber. I am a partner in the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, 1100 Shoreham Building, Washington, D.C., which is general counsel for the National Association of Motor Bus Owners (NAMBO). My appearance today is as counsel for NAMBO.

NAMBO is the national trade association for the intercity motor bus industry. It represents approximately 1,000 carriers accounting for three-fourths of the intercity motor bus transportation. Its members engage in the transportation by bus of passengers and small package express.

Our testimony relates to S. 1727 and S. 1733. We urge amendment of the former so that it would make the legislation expressly applicable to authorized self-insurer as well as carriers covered by insurance. We are opposed to S. 1733 insofar as it applies to safety violations.

S. 1727

Section 2 of this bill would amend section 202 of the Interstate Commerce Act to bring about uniformity in State requirements applicable to interstate motor carriers. The national organization of State commissions would, under the review of the Interstate Commerce Commission, formulate for promulgation by the Commission uniform requirements for evidencing (1) ICC authority, (2) vehicles employed under ICC authority, (3) currently effective insurance, and (4) local agents for service of process.

The need for uniformity in State requirements on these subjects has long been manifest. A multitude of dissimilar requirements by the States has impeded interstate motor carrier operations and created unnecessary financial, as well as administrative, burdens.

Of particular concern and burden to interstate operators has been divergent insurance prescriptions among the several States. Pursuant to section 215 of the act (49 U.S.C.A. 315) the Commission issues regulations governing personal injury and property damage insurance which must be maintained by carriers engaged in interstate commerce subject to its jurisdiction. The minimium insurance coverage required is $25,000 for bodily injuries or death of one person and $10,000 for damage to property, excluding cargo for which there are separate requirements (49 CFR 174.2(a)). In addition, minimum limits for bodily injuries or death in any one accident are $100,000 for buses seating 7 or less, $150,000 for buses seating 12 or less, $200,000 for buses seating 20 or less, $250,000 for buses seating 30 or less, and $300,000 for buses seating 31 or more passengers (ibid).

The Commission's regulations allow carriers meeting certain rigid standards to qualify as self-insurers. Each self-insurer must, on application to the Commission for approval as a self-insurer, convincingly show its ability "to satisfy its obligations for bodily injury liability, property damage liability, or cargo liability without affecting the stability or permanency of the business of such motor carriers" (49 CFR 174.5(a)). Our research further indicates that all but 11 of the States allow some form of self-insurance.

Since self-insurance is a safe and widely used substitute for commercial insurance this legislation should include provisions for self-insurance among its specifications of forms and procedure evidencing lawfulness of operations. For this purpose NAMBO respectfully urges the committee to amend item (c) of section 2 appearing at line 3 of page 3 of the bill by adding the phrase "or qualifications as a self-insurer under rules and regulations of the Commission." The proposed amendment would cause item (c) to read

“*** (c) filing and maintaining evidence of currently effective insurance or qualifications as a self-insurer under rules and regulations of the Commission * *

The effect of this proposal would be to authorize a requirement that States accept self-insurance qualifications approved by the Commission for interstate operations. States could also be required to accept insurance approved by the Commission.

This proposal was made to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in regard to H.R. 5401, the companion bill for S. 1727, and it was adopted by the committee. See House Report No. 253, 89th Congress, 1st session, page 9. It has the support of the National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners, the American Trucking Associations, Transportation Association of America, and others.

A survey just completed by NAMBO indicates that 22 States declined to accept ICC approved self-insurance or commercial insurance for interstate operations. Only 12 States abide by ICC regulations for interstate carriers. Fifteen States have no insurance regulations for interstate charter operations within their boundaries.

These variegated State insurance regulations are particularly burdensome when applied to interstate charters. Any certificated motor carrier is authorized to engage in the transportation of special chartered parties under section 208 (c) of the act, 49 U.S.C.A. 308 (c), to any place in the United States. This business is important to intercity buses, accounting for about 8 percent of total industry revenues each year. It involves multistate operations, however, and these can be seriously burdened by State laws that change from State to State. A single special or chartered party frequently requires operation in several States outside the regular route territory of the carrier. Thus, the operations traverse States not regularly or continuously served. Under these circumstances, compliance with special State laws in addition to Commission requirements creates financial and administrative waste which reduce needed charter revenues. In many instances, special insurance policies or substantial deposits up to $50,000 may be required even though the carrier operates only a few charters each year into the States imposing these extra requirements. It has been reported to NAMBO that on a number of occasions charter trips have been interrupted and delayed while carriers satisfy State filing prescriptions.

These added State requirements cannot be justified on any theory of safety. The Commission standards have proved in many years of operation to be more than adequate to meet safety considerations.

In view of the unnecessary burdens encountered by interstate operators in meeting State filing requirements, it is the position of NAMBO that the best solution would be to make ICC standards exclusive so that no interstate operator qualified under ICC requirements would be compelled to meet additional standards for States. The proposed legislation does not go that far. It would enable the Commission to approve requirements for States that are different and in addition to the standards it presently applies to interstate operators. Nevertheless, section 2 of S. 1727 will result in uniformity and for this reason it is an improvement which is supported by NAMBO provided it is broadened, as previously suggested, to explicitly include self-insurance under the provisions for evidencing insurance.

S. 1733

The forfeitures prescribed by S. 1733 for failures or refusals to preserve, keep and file certain records and for failures or refusals to comply with safety regulations, appear to NAMBO to be unduly severe insofar as safety regulations under section 204 of the Act (49 U.S.C.A. 204) are concerned. Intercity bus operators have an extraordinarily good safety record and it is being improved each year. Passenger deaths in bus accidents have averaged less than 0.13 per 100 million passenger-miles each year since 1956. All deaths connected with bus operations have been less than 1.2 per 100 million passenger-miles each year since 1949 and the rate has been declining in most years. The passenger fatality rate for buses is currently about one twenty-fifth of that for automobiles, and is less than the rates for railroads and airlines.

The record of bus operator compliance with Commission safety regulations is high, higher than other regulated carriers. In the light of bus carrier safety

1 See ICC Docket No. MC-40, Sub. 1, Safety Regulations.

achievements there is no need for further enforcement powers for the Commission. On the other hand, there is danger that further enforcement measures would unduly burden complying carriers in areas of the safety regulations which are not entirely clear in their meaning and application.

Inadvertent and minor violations of the safety regulations could occur without intention or knowledge of the carriers. The meaning 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.