for the applicant and the Commission, which could be saved without adversely affecting the public interest. It is also stated therein that a total of 851 interlocking directorship applications were filed during the period covered by the Commission's 74th, 75th, 76th, and 77th Annual Reports to Congress (1960 through 1963) and that since only about 2 percent of these applications involved positions in unaffiliated carriers, the time and money consumed in filing and processing approximately 98 percent of these applications could have been saved if the section were revised as recommended, and that a considerable reduction in recordkeeping expenses would have been realized. If enacted, this legislation would not effect the functions of our office or the interests of the United States as a purchaser of transportation. From the broad standpoint, we favor legislation designed to relieve the Interstate Commerce Commission of unnecessary regulatory burdens and to permit more efficacious use of its staff. We therefore would have no objection to favorable consideration of S. 1150 by your committee. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We have your letter of February 18, 1965, in which you asked for our comments on S. 1152. S. 1152, which you introduced at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission to implement its legislative recommendation No. 17, 78th annual report, pages 71 and 72, seeks to cope with the efforts of litigants in damage suits resulting from common carrier accidents to compel testimony from Commission investigators and to compel production of Interstate Commerce Commission records and reports. The same recommendation was made in the 77th annual report; S. 2557, a similar bill, was introduced in the 2d session of the 88th Congress but no further action was taken. S. 1152 proposes to amend section 220 (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 320 (f)), section 8 of the Locomotive Inspection Act (45 U.S.C. 32, 33), and section 4 of the Accident Reports Act (45 U.S.C. 41), to provide that employees of the Interstate Commerce Commission who investigated motor or rail carrier accidents may not be called in subsequent damage suits to give expert or opinion testimony unless the Interstate Commerce Commission or the court in which the suit is brought determines that the evidence is not reasonably available otherwise. Where such testimony is authorized, it is to be given only by deposition pursuant to the Commission's regulations. The sections proposed to be amended now clearly prohibit the use in damage suits of reports to and by the Commission relating to carrier accidents; however, there is at present no statutory prohibition against requiring Commission investigators to testify. If S. 1152 should be enacted, conceivably there would be fewer demands upon the time of the Commission's investigative staff to respond to subpenas to testify or to produce documents and the work of the Commission would proceed in more orderly fashion. While this type of legislation would not directly affect the functions and operations of this Office, we think it is in the public interest and we have no objection to favorable consideration of S. 1152 by your committee. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of February 18, 1965, requesting comments on S. 1153. This bill proposes to give effect to legislative recommendation No. 18 of the Interstate Commerce Commission as set forth on page 72 of its 78th annual report. In justification of the enactment of S. 1153, it is stated at page 2717 of the Congressional Record for February 17, 1965, that the purpose of the attached draft bill is to eliminate from various statutes administered by the Interstate Commerce Commission the mandatory requirement that certain reports, applications, and complaints be made under oath and to authorize the Commission to impose such requirements at its discretion. It is also stated that the oath requirements are, in the opinion of the Commission, both unnecessary and burdensome, because section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, imposes penalties of fine and imprisonment for knowingly making false statements or representations to Federal administrative agencies, and these provisions have been construed to apply to the giving of false information even though not under oath. Also, penalties for knowingly making false statements in carrier reports are contained in section 20(7) (b) and comparable provisions in other parts of the Interstate Commerce Act. S. 1153, if enacted, would not affect the functions and operations of our Office, or the interests of the United States as a purchaser of transportation. However, the bill seems to be in the public interest and, assuming that its enactment would serve to improve the administrative process in the Interstate Commerce Commission, we recommend 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, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the Department of Commerce concerning S. 1153, a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act and certain supplementary and related acts with respect to the requirement of an oath for certain reports, applications, and complaints filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission. This bill would eliminate the requirement that certain submissions to the Commission be made under oath, except when specified by the Commission. The submissions involved are presently required by various parts of the Interstate Commerce Act, as well as section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act and the acts of 1910 and 1911 (generally termed the Accident Reports Act and Locomotive Inspection Act), as amended. In view of the Administration's desire to render existing regulations less burdensome, and in view of the existing penalties imposed by 18 U.S.C. 1001 for false statements made to Federal agencies, this Department recommends enactment of S. 1153. 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, ROBERT E. GILES. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your letter to the Attorney General requesting advice as to whether there are provisions of law to protect the public interest against false statements in the event S. 1153 is enacted into law. S. 1153 would eliminate the present statutory requirements that certain annual reports and applications submitted to the Interstate Commerce Commission be made under oath and to provide the Commission with the discretionary power to require oaths when it determines that such are necessary. Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, imposes a statutory penalty for false statements knowingly made in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, even though not made under oath. Moreover, penalties for knowingly giving or filing false information with the Interstate Commerce Commission are provided under 49 U.S.C. 20 (7) b, 49 U.S.C. 322 (g), 49 U.S.C. 917 (d), and 49 U.S.C. 1021 (d). It therefore appears that the public interest would be adequately protected against false statements if the bill should be enacted. Sincerely, RAMSEY CLARK, Deputy Attorney General. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In your letter of April 7, 1965, you request our comments on S. 1728, a proposal to amend section 222 (b) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 322(b), relating to the service of process in enforcement proceedings. S. 1728 was introduced by you at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission and would implement recommendation No. 21 in the Commission's 78th annual report, page 74. We note that similar proposals were introduced in the 86th, 87th, and 88th Congresses, and that a companion bill, H.R. 5398, has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Section 222(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act now provides that the Interstate Commerce Commission may apply to the district court of any judicial district in which a motor carrier or broker operates for the enforcement of remedies against violations of the act. The present proposal would permit proceedings to restrain or otherwise take action against not only carriers or brokers but also anyone acting in concert with them from violations of the act or of any lawful rule, regulation, requirement, or order of the Commission, and would also allow extra territorial service of process. Motor carrier and broker violators sometimes do not hold operating authority or permits and thus have not designated agents to accept service of process, pursuant to section 221 (c) 49 U.S.C. 321 (c). Also, violations of the Act are sometimes instigated by shippers who sometimes cannot be reached because they are not located within the territorial limits of the same State. See, for example, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Agricultural Cooperative Association, 34 F.R.D. 497 (1964), and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Blue Diamond Products Co., 192 F. 2d 43 (1951), in which the courts have held that the Congress did not give any specific authority for extra territorial service under section 222 (b). This proposal seems to be designed to overcome those obstacles and thus would give greater effectiveness to the enforcement efforts of the Interstate Commerce Commission. If enacted into law, S. 1728 would not directly affect the functions and activities of the General Accounting Office. However, we believe that it is in the public interest, and have no objection to its being favorably considered by your committee. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We have your letter of April 7, 1965, in which you asked for our comments on S. 1731. This bill, which you introduced at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission, implements recommendation No. 25 of the Commission's current legislative program (78th annual report, p. 77), relating to enforcement. S. 1731 would amend section 212 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 312(a), to permit suspension or revocation of motor carrier operating authority for willful or continued noncompliance with the Commission's orders, rules, and regulations, for proven disobedience to a compliance order, and for failure to comply with the Commission's insurance regulations. While this proposed amendment would not directly affect the functions and operations of our Office, we believe it is in the public interest. Accordingly, we have no objection to favorable consideration of S. 1731 by your committee. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of this Department on S. 1731, a bill to amend section 212 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, and for other purposes. The bill has been introduced in previous Congresses at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission and has been recommended by the Commission in its annual report to Congress each year since 1955. The bill would amend sections 212 (a) and 204 (c) of the Interstate Commerce Act so as to 1. Make motor carrier operating authorities subject, under section 212 (a) to suspension, change, or revocation for willful failure to comply with any rule or regulation lawfully promulgated by the Commission; 2. Make the revocation procedure prescribed in section 212(a) conform to the procedure provided in section 410 (f) of the act by eliminating the term "willfully" in the first proviso of section 212(a); 3. Provide in section 212(a) that the Commission may, upon reasonable notice, suspend motor carrier operating authorities for failure to comply with insurance regulations issued by it pursuant to section 215 of the act; and 4. Give the Commission authority under section 204 (c) to investigate whether any motor carrier or broker has failed to comply with any lawful order, rule, or regulation promulgated by the Commission and, after notice and hearing, upon finding such noncompliance to issue an appropriate order to compel the motor carrier or broker to comply therewith. The suspension and revocation authority of the Commission under section 212(a) extends to violations of rules and regulations promulgated under part II of the act. However, although the Commission now prescribes rules and regulations under the authority of other laws, such as the Transportation of Explosives Act, it does not under existing law have authority to suspend or revoke a motor carrier's operating authority for willful or continued noncompliance with such other rules or regulations or to compel compliance therewith. The proposed legislation would close this regulatory gap. Section 212 (a) would be amended under the proposal also to make motor carrier operating rights revocable on proof of disobedience to a compliance order. The Commission must be able, at present, to show such disobedience to have been "willful" before a carrier's authority may be revoked. The proposed change in the proof required for revocation would make motor carrier operating rights revocable in the same manner as freight forwarder operating rights under section 410 (f) of the act. Further, the proposal would amend section 212 (a) so as to empower the Commission to suspend operating authorities of motor carriers and brokers, after notice, but without hearing, for failure to file proof of cargo, public liability, and property damage insurance coverage. This change, too, would be in conformity to section 410 (f) of the act. Finally, the proposed amendment of section 204 (c) would broaden the Commission's investigative and enforcement authority thereunder to apply, not only to failure to comply with provisions thereto, as at present, but also to failures to comply with any other lawful order, rule, or regulation promulgated by the Commission. The Department of Commerce favors enactment of S. 1731. Common carriers, as public enterprises, should obey all applicable regulations, and the continuance of their certificates should be contingent on their compliance record. The Department has endorsed enactment of this legislation in prior Congresses and continues to do so. 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, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We refer to your letter of April 8, 1965, in which you ask for our comments on S. 1732, introduced by you on behalf of the Interstate Commerce Commission. This bill proposes to amend sections 204 (a) and 406(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. 304(a) and 1006(a), by subjecting common carriers by motor vehicle and freight forwarders to civil liability for violations of the act. It has been included in the legislative program of the Interstate Commerce Commission for some years (for example, legislative recommendation No. 15, in its 78th annual report, p. 70), and similar proposals have been introduced in the 86th, 87th, and 88th Congresses, culminating with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of H.R. 9903, 88th Congress, which was favorably reported by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. In our letter of March 29, 1963 (B-120670), we commented on a similar bill, S. 678, 88th Congress, and strongly recommended its favorable consideration by your committee. During June 1961, the Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held hearings on a similar legislative proposal, H.R. 5596, 87th Congress, at which a witness from our Office testified in support of the bill. We still believe that this type of legislation is essential. Motor common carriers and freight forwarders operating in interstate commerce, unlike common carriers by rail and water, from the inception of Federal regulation have been free from any statutory requirement to respond in damages to shippers suffering injury from violations of the Interstate Commerce Act. However, when the Interstate Commerce Commission began to regulate motor carriers it considered that a common law remedy for the exaction of unjust and unreasonable charges had survived the passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (pt. II of the Interstate Commerce Act), and that it was enforcible in any court of competent jurisdiction; the Commission held that its jurisdiction extended to the determination of the reasonableness of past motor carrier rates and charges ancillary to a court action to enforce the common law remedy. This doctrine, expounded in an early case, Bell Potato Chip Co. v. Aberdeen Truck Line, 43 M.C.C. 337 (1944), was followed by the Federal courts as well as the Commission until May 18, 1959, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided T.I.M.E., Inc. v. United States, 359 U.S. 464. In that case, the Court voided the Bell Potato Chip Co. case doctrine by concluding that there was no common law remedy preserved by the Motor Carrier Act which would permit a shipper to challenge in postshipment litigation the reasonableness of the rates charged in accordance with a carrier's filed tariffs. As a result of the T.I.M.E. decision, the United States and other shippers via motor common carrier find themselves without any forum |