1243. Discontinuing divisions of court in district of Kansas. 1244. Increasing limit on subsistence expenses and mileage reimbursement to 1245. Lease of Federal Correctional Institution, Sandstone, Minn., to Minnesota. 1247. Expenses of Education and Labor Committee in conducting studies and 1248. Authorizing clerk of House of Representatives to approve payment of 1249. Establishment of Joint Senate and House Recording Facility. 1250. Authorizing additional employee in disbursing office of House. 1251. Relief of Isabel M. Meade, widow of Hugh A. Meade. 1252. Contested election cases of Browner v. Cunningham, Fuller v. Davies, and 1253. Relief of Ruth Bankhead, mother of Amorette Bankhead. 1254. Authorizing program of useful public works for development of Alaska. 1255. School facilities at Parker Dam project. 1256. Adjusting boundary between Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Cherokee-Pisgah-Nantahala National Forests. 1257. Amend laws providing for membership of United States in certain inter- 1258. Amending reserve retirement provisions of Public law 810, 80th Congress. 1259. Conference report on bill amending law rel. to cotton acreage allotments AMENDING SECTION 205 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, RELATING TO JOINT BOARDS JULY 6, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. BECKWORTH, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT To accompany S. 2551 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 255) to amend section 205 of the Interstate Commerce Act, relating to joint boards, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. This proposed legislation has the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission, as will appear from letter attached dated July 1, 1949. This bill would make two amendments to section 205 of the Motor Carrier Act (pt. II of the Interstate Commerce Act). This bill is identical with S. 2216 of the Eightieth Congress. A hearing before the Senate committee was scheduled on S. 2216 for April 2, 1948. At that time a statement was filed by counsel for the National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners, on behalf of the State commission membership of the association, supporting the bill. No one appeared in opposition to it. Counsel for rail and motor carriers present before that committee on April 2 for hearings on other legislation stated, in response to an inquiry by the chairman, that they had no objection to S. 2216. In 1940 section 205 was amended to provide that the failure of a joint board member to participate in any hearing of the board, after notice thereof, should be considered a waiver of action on the part of the State from which such member was appointed. As the law was later administered, such failure of attendance of one member of a joint board is given effect to terminate the status of the remaining members or member, and of the board itself, as to the matter before the board. There has been some question concerning the legality of action taken by a single member, where only one member attends a hearing. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the jurisdiction of the board where some members are not present, and to permit the members present to proceed with the hearing, and to make its decision. and recommendation to the Commission, in the matter involved in such hearing. It is proposed in S. 255 to add to the provision requiring all decisions and recommendations by joint boards to be by majority vote the proviso set forth in lines 20-23 of page 2 of the bill, which reads as follows: Provided, however, That in any matter where only one member shall participate in a hearing such member shall constitute a quorum and make recommendation of an order thereon. Section 205 (b) also provides that the failure of a duly appointed member of a joint board to participate in any hearing on a matter referred to such joint board, after notice thereof, shall be considered to constitute, as to the matter referred, a waiver of action on the part of the State from which such member was appointed. S. 255 would add to this provision the following (lines 15-19 of p. 3): but shall not affect the duty and power of the remaining members or member of said joint board, if any, to proceed with said hearing, to consider such matter, and to make recommendation of an order thereon. ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE JOINT BOARD PROVISIONS OF THE ACT Section 205 requires the Interstate Commerce Commission to refer certain classes of cases arising under the act to joint boards composed of members nominated by the State commissions of the States in which the motor-carrier operations involved are conducted, or proposed to be conducted. Where no more than three States are involved, such reference is mandatory. It is optional, where more than three States are involved. The purpose of the statute was to enable State commissions to have a part, through joint boards, in the administration of the act. Joint board members are commonly State commissioners. In acting upon a matter referred to it, a joint board exercises the powers of a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission, or an examiner of the Commission. It may report its conclusion to the Commission, with or without a recommended order. If it recommends an order the same is treated like an order recommended by a Commissioner or examiner, under section 17 of the act. It is served upon the parties to the case, and automatically takes effect, if a review is not sought by exceptions filed by any party, or is not made by the Commission, upon its own motion. Section 205 of the Interstate Commerce Act recognized the motorcarrier industry as a local industry, where operations do not extend beyond three States; and left such operations subject to the primary control of the local commissions, through joint boards nominated by them, with provisions for review by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Section 205, as originally enacted, contained a provision authorizing the Interstate Commerce Commission to "designate an examiner or examiners to advise with and assist the joint board." Under that provision, from the time the act was passed, it became the practice of the Commission to assign an examiner to sit in a joint board hearing. Cases referred to such boards were assigned for hearing with a view of conserving time of the Commission's examiner. An examiner would arrange a series of joint board hearings. Notices of hearings would be given, but it was not practicable to consider the convenience of the joint board members in making such assignments. Sometimes a joint board member, because of conflicting arrangements, would not be in attendance at a scheduled hearing. His nonattendance would result in an adjournment, thus causing delay and expense to the Commission and to parties. The Commission, accordingly, in 1940, asked to have section 205 amended by the inclusion of a provision now a part of section 205 (b) as follows: The failure of a duly appointed member of a joint board to participate in any hearing on a matter referred to such a joint board, after notice thereof, shall be considered to constitute, as to the matter referred, a waiver of action on the part of the State from which such member was appointed. This was believed to obviate the necessity for adjournment of the joint board, by reason of nonattendance of a member. During the period following enactment of this amendment and until 1947, if a joint board member failed to attend, the other member or members proceeded with the hearing and recommended the decision. In 1946, however, the legality of such procedure was challenged in a case where one attending member of a joint board held the hearing and made the recommended order. The Commission sustained the validity of the proceedings, but the Commission's ruling was not altogether explicit. Within the Bureau of Motor Carriers of the Commission this question continued to be considered, with the result that the Director of the Bureau recommended to the Commission that the joint board practice be changed. It was recommended that the Commission should hold that a joint board could not act through a single member. In a memorandum from the chief attorney, it was urged that a change in the practice of the Commission was desirable to avoid affording grounds for reversal in litigation involving Commission orders which might be anticipated under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Commission thereafter took action on this recommendation and advised each member of each existing joint board "that one-half or less than one-half the membership of a joint board will not be considered to constitute a majority of a joint board. This means that joint board members from two States must be present at the hearings of matters referred to two-State and three-State joint boards." The result has been that in any case involving two States referred to a joint board consisting of two members, if one member fails to attend a scheduled hearing, his nonattendance not only operates to waive his membership upon the board, but it operates to terminate the status of the other joint-board member as well, as to the matter before the board, and terminates the existence of the board, insofar as that matter is concerned. The enactment of this bill is plainly desirable and necessary to avoid a substantial impairment of the motor-carrier act. The committee recommends passage of this bill, without amend ment. Hon. ROBERT CROSSER, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CHAIRMAN CROSSER: Your telephone request of this date, asking for comments on S. 255, introduced by Senator Reed, to amend section 205 of the Interstate Commerce Act, relating to joint boards, has been referred to our legislative committee. After careful consideration by that committee I am authorized to submit the following comments in its behalf: Section 205 of the Interstate Commerce Act requires that when operations of motor carriers or brokers conducted or proposed to be conducted involve not more than three States this Commission shall refer certain regulatory matters connected therewith to a joint board nominated by the regulatory commissions or officials of the interested States. Where more than three States are involved such reference is optional Although a few joint boards composed of members of more than three States have been constituted, very few matters have been referred to joint boards having more than three members. Under section 205 (b) all decisions and recommendations by joint boards must be by majority vote. It occasionally happens that only one member of a two-State or three-State joint board will attend the hearing, and there has been some question concerning the desirability or legality of action taken by a single member under such circumstances. Presumably for this reason it is proposed in S. 255 to add to the provision requiring all decisions and recommendations by joint boards to be by majority vote the following proviso set forth in lines 21-24 of page 2 of the bill: "Provided, however, That in any matter where only one member shall participate in a hearing such member shall constitute a quorum and make recommendation of an order thereon." Section 205 (b) also provides that "the failure of a duly appointed member of a joint board to participate in any hearing on a matter referred to such joint board, after notice thereof, shall be considered to constitute, as to the matter referred, a waiver of action on the part of the State from which such member was appointed." S. 255 would add to this provision the following (lines 15-19, p. 3): "but shall not affect the duty and power of the remaining members or member of said joint board, if any, to proceed with said hearing, to consider such matter. and to make recommendation of an order thereon.' The purpose of this proposed amendment presumably is to render inapplicable to joint-board procedure the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ayrshire Collieries Corp. v. United States (331 U. S. 132), in which it was held that two members of a statutory three-judge court have no authority to make decisions, although they are in agreement, without participation of the third member of the court. We have no objection to the enactment of S. 255. WALTER M. W. SPLAWN, CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as passed by the Senate, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (b) Whenever there arises in the administration of this part any matter that the Commission is required to refer to a joint board, or that the Commission determines, in its discretion, to refer to a joint board, the Commission shall, if no joint board eligible to consider said matter is in existence, create a joint board to consider |