« FöregåendeFortsätt »
needed direction from the Congress as to the type and scope of economic regulation it desired for the
it desired for the motor carrier industry. This direction was desperately needed, for in its absence were faced with deregulation by administrative
Now, two years later, we need another directive.
Commerce Commission to administer the law as written and as
Status Report of the 1.c.c.'s and D.O.T.'s
Implementation of the
Last year, eleven charges were made against the Interstate Commerce Commission for malfeasance, misfeasance or procrastination in implementing the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. Nothing in the past year has occurred to lessen those charges.
The 1.c.c. has kept on a steady course of attempting to implement policies which Congress did not enact, but which the 1.c.c.
hoped it would have enacted.
of last year's charges, the most glaring deficiency in 1.2.c. administration continues to be its unlawful implementa
tion of the entry provisions of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980
This has been discussed in the body of my statement.
remaining charges levelled against the 1.C.C. last year can be
updated as follows:
Lack of Canadian and Mexican Reciprocity
Only at the express urging of the Congress did the
1.C.C. finally initiate an investigation proceeding on the
Canadian aspect of this problem.
As a result of proposed
Senate Resolution 317 and the requests of individual Congressmen and Senators, the 1.c.c. put a hold on the granting of Canadian carrier applications and instituted an investigation (Ex Parte No. MC-157) into Canadian law and policy as it affects applications
of American carriers seeking Canadian operating authority.
The trucking industry participated extensively in the 1.C.C. proceeding. We demonstrated that entry control is tighter in
Canada and, by that fact alone, a competititive disadvantage is
A decision in the investigation proceeding is expected shortly, but we are not at all certain that the I.C.C. will
deal with the real issue of competitive equity in any meaningful
In view of the lack of understanding by the Commission
of the true nature of the problem, we continue to consider a legislative remedy as necessary.
Insofar as the Mexican side of the problem is concerned, the I.C.C. early on placed a moratorium on grants of authority to Mexican carriers. Since Mexico flatly bans u.s. carrier operations in that country, the 1.C.C. may well elect to ban Mexican carrier operations in the United States. The U.s. Department of Transportation and other Federal agencies have recommended
such a course of action.
However, since so much time has
elapsed in this relatively uncomplicated area, we hesitate to
predict what the 1.c.c. will ultimately decide.
Undue Enhancement of Private Carriage
The I.C.C. continues to expand the opportunities of
private carriage in excess of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. Last year, we pointed out that the 1.C.C. unduly broadened the scope of compensated intercorporate hauling
authorized by the provisions of section 9 of the Act.
for-hire segment of the trucking industry had supported this
section of the law, but felt compelled to challenge in court
the 1.c.c.'s implementation of the section on two counts.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
agreed with us on the first count that the Commission was in error in holding that even individuals and partnerships who are not corporations can utilize the intercorporate hauling provisions and that such a conclusion violated the unambiguous language of the Act.1 By a decision dated June 8, 1982, the 1.2.c. has
corrected this aspect of its implementation.
Unfortunately, the court rejected our principal attack
upon the Commission's determination that a private corporation
could set up a wholly-owned subsidiary whose only business would be transportation. We had argued that, since Congress did not eliminate the existing requirements of private carriage, such an interpretation violates the statutory requirement that private carriage must be performed by and in furtherance of a non
The Court decided that if Congress
meant to include such a limitation on intercorporate hauling
to inform the Commission, and the Judiciary of their intentions
in a manner more explicit than the mere juxtaposition of the new
section to an old one that is so limited." American Trucking Associations at 853.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. I.C.C., 672 F.2d 850 TIIth Cir. 1982).
83 - 7
The court's rejection of this challenge presents the dilemma of controlling an administrative agency hellbent on
interpreting a Congressional law in a very liberal manner.
discretion afforded the agency by the courts leaves us with
only limited possibilities of curtailing the most far-flung
The rejection of this challenge significantly enhances the utilization of compensated intercorporate hauling and poses a serious threat to the continuation of a regulated transportation
system in this country.
Those who will be most adversely
affected by this onslaught of private carriage are small
shippers, small communities, and occasional shippers (both
individuals and businesses).
It is they who are most, if not
entirely, dependent upon the transporation services provided
by a regulated system.
Still another example of the I.C.C.'s undue efforts
to expand private carriage is its decision to permit for the
first time private carriers to utilize owner-operators.
Historically, this has been considered for-hire carriage. By its decision of February 17, 19822 and without any direction from
Congress, the I.C.C. has decided to dilute the distinction
between for-hire and private carriage. A court challenge of the decision is pending. 3 A stay of the effective date of
2 Ex Parte No. MC-122 (Sub-No. 2), Leave of Equipment and Drivers to Private Carriers, 132 M.C.C. 351 (1982).
Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. 1.C.C., No. 82-5247 and Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. I.C.C., No. 82-8133 (U.S. Court of Appeals, llth Cir.).