Page images
PDF
EPUB

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT E. GILES.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., March 8, 1965.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We refer to your letter of February 19, 1965, in which you request our comments on S. 1146.

This bill, which you introduced at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission to implement legislative recommendation No. 8 set forth in its 78th annual report, page 64, proposes to amend section 5(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 5(1), to exempt therefrom any contract, agreement, or combination for the pooling or division of traffic, service, or earnings between common carriers subject to part II of the Interstate Commerce Act in connection with the transportation of household goods.

S. 1146 would not affect the functions and operations of the General Accounting Office, nor do we have any special knowledge of the need for this proposed legislation. If enacted, the bill would not seem to be productive of any adverse effect on the interests of the United States as a shipper and we, therefore, have no objection to its favorable consideration by your committee.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States.

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Washington, D.C., May 14, 1965.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your inquiry requesting the views of this Department on S. 1146, a bill to amend section 5(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act to eliminate the requirement for approval of pooling arrangements between motor common carriers of household goods, and for other purposes.

The bill would amend section 5(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act, which makes it unlawful for common carriers to enter agreements or combinations for pooling or division of traffic, service, or earnings without approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission, so as to exempt therefrom such agreements or combinations on the part of common carriers of household goods.

In proposing this bill the Interstate Commerce Commission states that its experience has been that the regulation of household goods carriers under the section 5(1) provisions referred to above has not been practical. It appears that the nature of the business is such that great flexibility is required in arranging for intercarrier combinations and traffic pools, and that before such agreements can be filed and approved many are terminated, or changed, or new agreements are entered. The number of carriers in the business encourages competition, which in itself protects the public from abuses of the kind which led to the original pooling provisions in the Interstate Commerce Act.

The Department agrees with the Commission that, recognizing the inherent flexibility of the household goods carriers, the public interest would be served by exempting them from provisions regulating pooling and similar practices. The Departemnt therefore favors the enactment of S. 1146.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely,

DEAN B. LEWIS (For Robert E. Giles).

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., March 8, 1965.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We refer to your letter of February 18, 1965, in which you request our comments on S. 1147.

This bill, which you introduced at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission, would substitute a gross operating revenue basis for one involving the aggregate number of vehicles owned as the test for determining whether proposed unifications, mergers, or consolidation of motor carriers, subject to part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, are within the exemption in section 5(10) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 5(10). The bill implements legislative recommendation No. 9, contained in the Interstate Commerce Commission's 78th Annual Report, page 65, and is similar to S. 674, 88th Congress, and S. 1285, 87th Congress.

S. 1147 would not affect the functions and operations of the General Accounting Office, nor do we have any special knowledge of the need for this proposed legislation. If enacted, the bill would not seem to adversely affect the interests of the United States as a shipper and we, therefore, have no objection to its favorable consideration by your committee.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to S. 1147, a bill to amend paragraph (10) of section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act so as to change the basis for determining whether a proposed unification or acquisition of control comes within the exemption provided for by such paragraph.

S. 1147 would amend part I, section 5(10) to change the criteria for carriers which would not be subject to the prior approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission before a combination or consolidation can be effected. The present laws excepts carriers "where the aggregate number of motor vehicles owned, leased, controlled, or operated by such parties, for purposes of transportation subject to part II, does not exceed twenty." S. 1147 would substitute instead of the latter phrase pertaining to 20 vehicles, the test of operating revenue as follows: "where the aggregate gross operating revenues of such carriers have not exceeded $300,000 for a period of 12 consecutive months ending not more than 6 months preceding the date of the agreement of the parties covering the transaction." The subject bill is the result of recommendations of the Interstate Commerce Commission in each annual report of the Commission since 1957.

The Commission's reason for recommending the change of criteria is that the present test is a difficult one to apply. It states:

"This test has been difficult to apply, and the time and effort spent in establishing the number of vehicles on which jurisdiction depends has, where the question is close, proved to be disproportionate to benefit intended by the exemption. This test has also presented numerous possibilities of evasion. Gross operating revenues, which are readily ascertainable, would provide a more reliable criterion."

For the above reason, the Department of Commerce would favor the enactment of S. 1147.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT E. GILES.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., June 1, 1965.

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. 1147, a bill to amend paragraph (10) of section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act so as to change the basis for determining whether a proposed unification or acquisition of control comes within the exemption provided for by such paragraph.

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.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., March 5, 1965.

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of February 18, 1965, requesting our comments on S. 1148, which would amend section 17 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act to enable the Commission to utilize its employees more effectively and to improve administrative efficiency by permitting the Commission to assign or refer, with certain exceptions, any of its work, business or functions in the matters which have not involved the taking of testimony at a public hearing or the submission of evidence by opposing parties in the form of affidavits to an individual Commission employee of particular classes or such other qualified employees as it may designate. Such employees would also be eligible for assignment to boards through which the Commission performs certain of its work. This bill would implement legislative recommendation No. 10 shown on page 65 of the 78th Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission submitted to the Congress on December 31, 1964.

The enactment of S. 1148 would not affect the functions and operations of our Office, nor would it adversely affect the interests of the United States as a user of transportation. It apparently would enable the Commission to utilize its qualified employees more effectively in the handling of routine or specialized matters with the purpose of contributing to improved overall administrative efficiency and, therefore, we have no objection to favorable consideration of S. 1148.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States.

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., March 18, 1965.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your letter of February 18, 1965, requesting the Commission's views 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.

The Civil Service Commission has no comments to offer with respect to this bill as its subject is outside the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. By direction of the Commission,

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., March 4, 1965.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We have your letter of February 18, 1965, in which you asked for our comments on S. 1149.

This bill, part of the 1965 legislative program of the Interstate Commerce Commission, implements the Commission's legislative recommendation No. 11 (78th annual report, pp. 66, 67). The same recommendation has been made annually since 1961; two bills were introduced to effect it, S. 3420, 87th Congress, 2d session, and S. 675, 88th Congress, 1st session. However, the Congress took no action on these bills.

The purpose of S. 1149 is to relieve the Interstate Commerce Commission of mandatory but said to be no longer necessary valuation requirements by appropriate amendment of section 19a of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 19a. In addition the bill, if enacted, would free the railroads from performing costly and time-consuming tasks now required of them under section 19a.

The amendment proposed in S. 1149 does not relate to the functions and operations of our office. Because it would eliminate some unnecessary work and recordkeeping, we do not object to its favorable consideration by your committee. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL,

.Comptroller General of the United States.

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C., May 17, 1965.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your inquiry requesting the views of this Department on S. 1149, a bill to amend section 19a of the Interstate Commerce Act to eliminate certain valuation requirements, and for other purposes. The bill would amend section 19a by eliminating the requirements that the Commission (1) determine the present value of land; (2) determine the valuation of property held by carriers for purposes other than for use in common carrier service; and (3) ascertain and report the amount, value, and disposition of aids, gifts, grants, and donations and the amount and value of concessions and allowances made by carriers in consideration thereof. Finally, the bill would make optional the section 19a (f) requirement that the Commission keep itself informed of changes in the quantities, costs, and values of the property of carriers following completion of the original valuation of such property.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has indicated that the cost of keeping these records current generally outweighs their utility. We are informed that the concept of reproduction value for ratemaking purposes is generally in disuse by the Commission, except with regard to pipelines. Upon the section 19a (f) requirement being made optional as proposed, the Commission would continue to have the authority to require from pipelines current information about property units for use in developing reproduction cost as an element in determining the rate bases for pipelines. But with the change in 19a (f), the Commission could cease requiring such information from railroads, from whom it is not needed, resulting in savings to the latter carriers and to the Commission as well. For these reasons, this Department supports the enactment of S. 1149. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely,

DEAN LEWIS (For Robert E. Giles).

49-278-65--4

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., March 24, 1965.

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. 1149, a bill to amend section 19a of the Interstate Commerce Act to eliminate certain valuation requirements, 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.

THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C., April 20, 1965.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on S. 1149, to amend section 19a of the Interstate Commerce Act to eliminate certain valuation requirements, and for other purposes.

The proposed bill would eliminate certain requirements relating to the determination of the value of land and other property of common carriers in connection with the establishment of rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The proposed legislation is not of primary interest to this Department and the Department has no comment to make with respect to its general merits. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration's program to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours,

FRED B. SMITH, Acting General Counsel.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., March 8, 1965.

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of February 18, 1965, requesting our comments on S. 1150, which would give effect to legislative recommendation No. 12 of the Interstate Commerce Commission as set forth on page 67 of its 78th Annual Report.

This bill proposes to amend section 20a (12) of the Interstate Commerce Commission Act so as (a) 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 (b) to make it clear that the prohibition against the holding by "any person" of the position of officer or director of more than one carrier, except when such carriers are lawfully operated under common control, applies to the holding of such positions by different members, officers, employees, or directors, of the same firm, copartnership, corporation, association, or joint stock association, or to the representation of a person on the board of directors of more than one carrier through an agent or nominee.

In justification of the enactment of S. 1150, it is reported at page 2716 of the Congressional Record for February 17, 1965, that the filing and processing of formal applications for such authority entail considerable time and expense both

« PreviousContinue »