STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. KELLER, PRIVATE CARRIER CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. APRIL 14, 1952. MY DEAR CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Reference is made to the testimony presented on behalf of the Private Carrier Conference of the American Trucking Associations, Inc., before your committee on March 28, with reference to S. 2357, S. 2362, and S. 2363. There have been several developments since that date which are of concern to private carriers and on April 10, 1952, we respectfully requested permission to include in the record of these hearings these additional views of the Private Carrier Conference. On March 28, 1952, the same date the conference witnesses appeared before your committee, the Legislative Committee of the Interstate Commerce Commission presented certain views with reference to the further amendment of the definition of private carriage as presently set forth in the Interstate Commerce Act. The conference has carefully considered the suggested changes and desires to express its opposition to these changes also, and for substantially the same reasons set forth in our original presentation. The Interstate Commerce Commission's proposals contain the same objectionable features as are included in the original S. 2362 in that the redefinition raises the question of the interpretation of the new definition with the consequent dangers of a reinterpretation of the primary business test. This test has now been clearly established by Commission decisions and has been confirmed by a series of Federal court decisions and by the United States Supreme Court, so that there is no need for a change such as suggested by the legislative committee of the Commission. Any change in the act now would also place an intolerable administrative burden on the Commission which would then be called upon to make thousands of determinations once again as to what is private carriage under the restated primary business test and under the revised language as proposed by the Commission. Although the Private Carrier Conference has not had the benefit of a statement of considerations which led to the proposed amendments of S. 2362 which were made under date of April 1 and which are in the nature of a substitute bill for the original S. 2362, the conference is of the opinion that the new version is more acceptable, if any legislation at all is proposed. The new version does not undertake to write the primary business test into the statute itself and is therefore agreeable with the suggestions made by the conference witnesses. The new version it is believed, also undertakes to liberalize the leasing provisions in accordance with the suggestions made by witnesses for this conference. To this extent, therefore, the conference feels that the objectives sought therein are desirable. The Private Carrier Conference is opposed to the suggestions made by the Regular Common Carrier Conference in its presentation before your committee in which the proposal was made that the law be specifically amended so as to provide that no private carrier be permitted to perform any transportation service "for compensation." This is a direct and sinister challenge to all private carriage to which the Private Carrier Conference is unalterably opposed. The common carriers urged this same contention before the Interstate Commerce Commission and before the Federal courts in several important cases. Each time both the Commission and the courts rejected their contention, recognizing in it the threat to all private carriage and the challenge to freedom of enterprise contained therein. When the United States Supreme Court also rejected this concept, the common carriers sought, as a last resort, to seek this legislation. Our witnesses have pointed out clearly and unmistakably the viciousness of this discredited proposal and the harm it would do to our whole transportation pattern. We earnestly request your committee to also reject this proposal. Respectfully submitted. PRIVATE CARRIER CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN By JOSEPH E. KELLER, Attorney. LETTER FROM L. C. SALTER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED COOPERATIVES, INC., SHEFFIELD, ALA., TO SENATOR SPARKMAN The Honorable JOHN SPARKMAN, The United States Senate, Washington, D. C. APRIL 8, 1952. MY DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: We will greatly appreciate your having recorded with the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce our strenuous objections to the following proposed transportation legislation: S. 2518, S. 2519, S. 2357, and S. 2362. In opposing these bills, we heartily endorse the testimony of Mr. Karl D. Loos, March 27, 1952, before the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, in which capacity Mr. Loos spoke for the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and affiliated farmer cooperative association. As a shipper of some $7 million worth of farm supplies annually, principally fertilizers, to our member associations and their farmers, we feel that any such authority granted to a common carrier or to any group of common carriers as is contemplated by these bills would be most contrary to public interest, and would be a grave error in that it would be an injustice to shippers and consumers. Your cooperation in having our views recorded with the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, ASSOCIATED COOPERATIVES, INC., STATEMENT OF JAMES K. KNUDSON, ADMINISTRATOR, DEFENSE TRANSPORT Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, April 18, 1952. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: By letter of January 12, 1952, you, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, invited the Administrator of this agency to express any views he might care to offer on a group of bills relating to the Interstate Commerce Act, among which is S. 2362, a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to restrict certain operations of private carriers by motor vehicle, and to restrict the leasing of vehicles. It would amend the act by adding a new section No. 229 which would (1) prohibit every private carrier of property by motor vehicle from operating or permitting the operation of its motor vehicles in the transportation of any property, other than that within the scope of its primary business, for compensation (whether or not exempt under sec. 203 (b) of the act), and would authorize the Commission to define the transportation within the scope of such primary business; (2) prohibit (somewhat ambiguously) the operation by any such private carrier of any motor vehicle customarily used in the transportation of property for compensation; and (3) prohibit any common or contract carrier by motor vehicle from operating any such vehicle in the transportation of any property for compensation (whether or not exempt under sec. 203 (b) of the act) unless such vehicle is owned by it or leased from another such carrier holding a certificate or permit issued by the Commission. The foreseeable effect of each of these prohibitions appears to be as follows: The first would put an end to the for-hire transportation for others by private carriers on otherwise empty out-bound or in-bound vehicle movements of those commodities the transportation of which is now partially exempt from the act by section 203 (b) thereof. The first and third prohibitions would stop the privatecarrier practice of leasing his vehicle to a common or contract carrier for use during either an otherwise empty out-bound or in-bound journey of the vehicle; this for the purpose of meeting or reducing the cost of the private carriage. The second prohibition is obviously designed to and would preclude the common or contract carrier or the vehicle owner-operator from leasing his vehicle to a shipper for the transportation by him of his own goods as a private carrier, a device sometimes resorted to as a means of evading or circumventing part II of the act. But it would also interfere, to some extent, with the leasing to shippers of truck rental agency trucks which may customarily be leased to and used by common or con tract carriers. The third prohibition would preclude the practice prevalent among common and contract carriers of augmenting fleets in their ownership to handle traffic exceeding the capacity of such fleets by leasing additional equipment from private carriers, from truck leasing or rental companies, and from owner-operators among which are farmers. In consequence, such carriers would be compelled either to make substantial investments in additional equipment to handle peak traffic requirements or to forego or refuse traffic tendered in excess of that which the carrier can normally transport with its owned equipment. It may reasonably be anticipated that the bill would create a situation wherein the number of highway vehicles available for common and contract carrier use would be materially reduced followed by a substantial decrease in the volume of common and contract carrier services. Such a situation is almost certain to have an adverse effect upon the national defense. It is, therefore, respectfully suggested that consideration of S. 2362 be deferred until termination of the existing emergency. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of the foregoing views. Very truly yours, JAMES K. KNUDSON, Administrator. (NOTE. The letter of Ridgeley Todd, legislative chairman, Vegetable Growers Association of America, on S. 2362 will be found in the hearings on S. 2357 for April 9.) (The statement of Frank A. Leffingwell, secretary-treasurer, Texas Industrial Traffic League, in opposition to S. 2362 may be found in the hearings on S. 2754 for April 9.) DOMESTIC LAND AND WATER TRANSPORTATION S. 2363, Establishing Maximum Sizes and Weights for Motor Vehicles [S. 2363, 82d Cong., 2d sess., by Mr. Johnson of Colorado and Mr. Bricker] A BILL To establish maximum dimensions and weights for motor vehicles operating subject to the Interstate Commerce Act Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 226 of the Interstate Commerce Act is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 226. Motor vehicles subject to part II of this Act shall not exceed the following maximum dimensions and weights, and shall operate within the limitations: Provided, That the Commission, in special cases when it deems it vital, may authorize motor vehicles to operate not in conformance with such limitations. "(a) Width.-No vehicle, unladen or with load, shall have a total outside width in excess of ninety-six inches. "(b) Height.-No vehicle, unladen or including load, shall exceed an overall height of twelve feet six inches. "(c) Length.-(1) No single truck, unladen or with load, shall have an over-all length, inclusive of front and rear bumpers, in excess of thirty-five feet; (2) no single bus, unladen or with load, shall have an over-all length, inclusive of front and rear bumpers, in excess of forty feet, and any bus in excess of thirty-five feet in over-all length shall not have less than three axles; (3) no combination of truck-tractor and semi-trailer, unladen or with load, shall have an over-all length, inclusive of front and rear bumpers, in excess of fifty feet; (4) no other combination of vehicles shall consist of more than two units, and no such combination of vehicles, unladen or with load, shall have an over-all length, inclusive of front and rear bumpers, in excess of sixty feet. "(d) Permissible Loads.-No axle shall carry a load in excess of eighteen thousand pounds. An axle load shall be defined as the total load transmitted to the road by all wheels whose centers may be included between two parallel transverse vertical planes forty inches apart, extending across the full width of the vehicle: Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply in any State permitting by law an axle load as herein defined in excess of eighteen thousand pounds.' UNITED STATES SENATE. COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C., Monday, March 3, 1952. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m. in the caucus room, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Johnson of Colorado, O'Conor, Tobey, Capehart, and Bricker. Also present: E. R. Jelsma, staff director of Subcommittee on Domestic Land and Water Transportation, and F. J. Keenan, assistant clerk of the committee. 743 |