Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526185
label
Common Carrier Conference - Irregular Route, New Orleans, LA, March 10, 1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526185
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Common Carrier Conference - Irregular Route, New Orleans, LA, March 10, 1969
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Interstate Commerce Commission. 1887-1995
Legislation
Transportation
Trucking
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526185
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-03-31
month
3
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-03-01
month
3
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
2e6c5d32047e2565
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D26, folder "Common Carrier Conference -
Irregular Route, New Orleans, LA, March 10, 1969" of the Ford Congressional Papers:
Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Distribution; 10 capies Mr. Ford
office Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE COMMON CARRIER CONFERENCE IRREGULAR ROUTE
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1969
FOR RELEASE AT 9:30 AM. MONDAY
"THE CHALLENGE AND THE OPPORTUNITY"
I am delighted to be here. As you know, every man's life is alternately
filled with pleasures and duties. My appearance here is a pleasurable break in
my official routine, which contains more duties than I care to contemplate.
The other day I ran across this definition of duty: "Duty is what the
normal man looks forward to with distaste, does with reluctance, and boasts
about forever after. "
Your very capable executive director, Henry van Daalen, has suggested that I
"talk transportation" this morning -- not as a duty but simply because this is the
topic you are most interested in. I will discuss transportation problems to some
extent, but I would like also to touch on the broad sweep of problems that face
us as a people and a Nation.
This is, of course, a special kind of audience. When some people hear
the name of your organization - Common Carrier Conference, Irregular Route --
they don't have the slightest idea what it means.
That reminds me of a story Henry told the other day about the friend
of his who said to him one evening: "You know, Henry, you're common, you're a
carrier, and you're irregular. I don't know how you could get much worse than
that." Of course that was said in jest.
Needless to add, Henry is a very uncommon fellow who is doing fine work
in a very tough job.
Speaking of tough jobs, I would point ogt there are some other fellows
who recently were handed mighty difficult assignments - the men who have
accepted appointment to President Nixon's Cabinet.
And of all those difficult assignments, one of the toughest definitely
is that given to John Volpe, the Secretary of Transportation.
When the Department of Transportati on was created, responsibility for many
aspects of land and air transportation was placed in one man's hands -- the DOT
Secretary.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Digitized from Box D26 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
DOT has been nexistence for nearly two years, but the department has
not yet laid down clear guidelines for effective cooperation between the groups
representing the various transport modes within DOT. DOT also must greatly
improve upon its relations with other departments of the Federal Government which
influence national transportation policy and with the regulatory agencies involved.
So John Volpe is faced with a great challenge -- both in seeking to improve
the functioning of DOT as a part of the federal government structure and in
dealing with the tremendous transportation problems posed by the fantastic growth
of this country.
It is estimated, for instance, that if the demand for transportation
continues to match America's anticipated economic growth we will have to double
our transportation capacity in less than 20 years.
To do this, we have to know where we are and where we are going. We have
to decide how best to get to where we want to go. We have to formulate a national
transportation policy and then see to it that our day-by-day actions point toward
the achievement of our desired objectives.
There may be some who now see an opportunity for a legislative breakthrough
in transportation -- an Omnibus Transportation Act as a vehicle to implement a
national transportation policy.
We all know that Congress has been dealing with transportation on a
fragmented basis. We know that the return on investment does not make the
regulated transportation industry attractive to new capital and that the industry
should be made more responsive to the nation's needs for movement of products and
people.
Shall I engage in high-flown rhetoric and raise fond hopes?
A look at the past may indicate what is likely to happen in the months
ahead.
Every Congress brings forth resolutions aimed at producing a full-blown
transportation plan for the country, a plan which would articulate an overall
policy to be carried out by the administration.
Realistically, the history of omnibus transportation bills is not a success
story.
Remember the efforts which began with the Kennedy Administration? A broad
bill to open competition to all modes of transportation on terms of equality was
submitted. At least that was the announced purpose of the bill. Deregulation it
came to be called.
-3-
The very idea of such open competition and a minimum of government
regulation appealed immediately to the shipping public. And the prospect of
getting the ever-reviled Interstate Commerce Commission out of theact appealed
to many others as well.
Then came the congressional committee hearings and the opportunity for
everyone to endorse the principle he claimed to espouse. It soon became evident
that everyone had reservations of one sort or another.
Shippers liked the idea of deregulation if it would mean lower tariffs.
But who would make sure of this? The only machinery at hand was the poor old ICC.
So when all the testimony was in, it became apparent that the shipping
public was all in favor of deregulation
as long as it was closely regulated.
I am not making an attempt at humor.
The various elements of the transportation industry were wildly enthusiastic
about getting the ICC off their backs -- as long as it kept an eye on the rest of
the industry.
And so the villain of the first act became the hero of the last act.
One Congress came and went with only hearings and meetings to show for it.
When another Congress came along so did the deregulation legislation, and
the whole scenario was run through once more.
At the end of the first session of the 88th Congress the House Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce thought it had finally put together an omnibus
transportation bill that would work. It was carefully checked out with the rail-
roads, the trucking interests and the barge lines, as well as with the freight
forwarders and shippers.
Nobody was happy with everything, but each seemed to feel that on balance
his interests were well served. So the Committee reported a new bill, H.R. 9903.
You know what happened. It was sunk without a trace in the House Rules
Committee. And the torpedo that did it was fired by the seaports.
Oren Harris of Arkansas, a most able and conscientious legislator, who was
then House Commerce Committee chairman, vowed that he would never entertain
another omnibus bill. Congressman Harris is now Judge Harris, but the Committee
has continued to abide by that decision.
Omnibus legislation dealing with transportation probably is doomed before
it is born. Apparently no detailed plan can keep up with the rapid changes, and
the needs for and means of transportation. So we must handle it as we go.
-4-
There is certainly need for a well-thought-out and well-expressed national
policy on transportation, but it is bound to be very general in its terms. And
making sure that legislation considered by the Commerce Committees will promote
even the most explicit policy is enough to tax the patience of a Job and the
wisdom of a Solomon.
And now as I stand here before this audience I feel compelled to comment
on what I am sure is the item of chief interest to you -- truck weight and size
legislation.
Richt now DOT is in the process of examining the question. DOT officials
have met with officials of the American Trucking Association, who have presented
their case. But at this time there is no indication what position DOT will
take.
It also is too early to take a reading in the Congress. But I will make
some comment about the situation in the House.
We all remember that the chief reason the size and weight bill ran into
trouble in the House last year after passing the Senate was that it contained
no length limitation. And so the bill died in the House Rules Committee.
It might be anticipated that the House Public Works Committee this year
will try to write a length limitation into the bill.
The task of formulating a length limitation acceptable throughout the
country is most complex. I am informed that in the West and Midwest lengths of
100 to 105 feet would be accepted while in the East and South a 65-foot length
scares people to death.
So the length limit problem is a very sticky one, and I don't pretend to
know the answer.
Looking at the size and weight bill at this time, I can only conclude that
we must wait and see what develops.
Neither would I make any prediction on legislation to take cattle out of
the agricultural exemption. That bill has not yet been introduced in the House,
but judging from past experience with legislation of this type it will have a
rough time.
I say that because making changes in the agricultural exemption is like
trying to abolish the National Guard. As I mentioned, the whole omnibus
transportation bill foundered on it a few years ago.
-5-
Last year the co-ops were restricted to 15 per cent of non-agricultural
hauling, and the government business was excluded from that amount under terms
of Public Law 90-433. The bill did not really go to the heart of the exemption
matter. The fact simply was that some of the co-ops were set up to carry
agricultural stuff but actually were munitions haulers for the government.
I am happy to note that this Conference supports the concept of a strong
Interstate Commerce Commission. That happens also to be my view.
I talked earlier about the need to improve coordination within the
Department of Transportation and that department's relations with other agencies
of the Federal Government.
I think it is also appropriate at this time to renew our determination that
the Highway Trust Fund will be kept inviolate -- that the funds paid into the
Highway Trust Fund by highway users will be used only for highway purposes.
I urge, too, that the interstate highway program move ahead smoothly and
not be subject to freezes and to movement by fits and starts as it has in recent
years.
We have enough problems on the domestic scene -- federal, state and local --
without the Federal Government helping to create more problems.
In speaking of our domestic problems, may I call your attention to what
might be described as a political phenomenon.
It is simply this: That if you will observe closely, you will see that
President Nixon is seeking to make good on all the campaign promises he made
in the field of domestic policy as well as foreign affairs.
About half of the directives the President has sent to government agencies
and departments to date are based on pledges he made during the campaign.
For the most part, they deal with the need to reorganize the work of the
Federal Government and to return more money and power to the states and to the
private sector in this country.
Nixon legislative proposals also are in the works, aimed at implementing
President Nixon's campaign promises.
To carry out some of his plans to reorganize the Federal Government,
Mr. Nixon needs special authority only the Congress can give -- authority which
Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Truman enjoyed before him.
The Senate has already passed a bill to invest Mr. Nixon with such power,
and the House will act soon.
-6-
Some observers are complaining that the governmental pace in Washington
has slowed.
I think most Americans approve. I believe that after eight years of
experimentation, Americans want good, sound, efficient government which produces
results -- not just more spending programs.
There will be a Nixon program. It is being shaped now -- and very carefully.
It will be a solid program designed to bring the American people together and to
move us forward as a Nation.
There will be a shift in emphasis -- policy changes flowing from my
party's basic philosophy of government.
The problems the Nixon Administration inherited upon assuming office pose
a tremendous challenge for the new President and his administrative team.
But I also see a great opportunity at this point in time. an opportunity
to swing America around and use the dynamic thrust of the free enterprise system
to propel us toward new greatness as a people.
Without the help of the men in this room and of other concerned Americans,
President Nixon can do little. With the help of the people, he cannot fail.
Let us rise to the challenge. Let us lay aside conflicting political
loyalties and dedicate ourselves to the building of a new and better America.
Let us usher in an age of reason in America -- an era of conciliation and
reconciliation and of generosity of spirit.
This is a time of great challenge for America but also a time of glowing
opportunity -- an opportunity to move in new directions under new leadership to
vanquish the problems which surround US.
Let us accept the challenge with clear vision and clear heads. Let us
seize the opportunity with stout hearts and a determination that we will move
forward as a people -- together.
Let us take as a motto the wise words of the Greek philosopher Plutarch,
who said: "Many things which cannot be overcome when they are taken together
yield themselves when taken little by little."
We shall go forward in faith. And we shall prevail. For faith is the
talisman of greatness for America, and America is strong in faith.
# # #
AM AUDREDD DI AEP. GERALD M. rund, K-NICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE COMMON CARRIER CONFERENCE -- IRREGULAR ROUTE
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1969
9:30
BUSENASE AT 10:30 AM. MINDAY
"THE CHALLENGE AND THE OPPORTUNITY"
I am delighted to be here. As you know, every man's life is alternately
filled with pleasures and dutibus. My appearance here is a pleasurable break in
my official reutine, which contains more duties than I came to contemplate.
The other day I ran across this definition of duty: "Duty is what the
normal man looks forward to with distaste, does with reluctance, and bonsts
about forever after. "
Your very espable executive director, Menry van Bealen, has suggested that I
"talk transportation" this morning -- net as a duty but simply because this is the
topic you are most interested in. I will discuss transportation problems to some
extent, but I would like also to touch on the broad sweep of problems that face
us as a people and a Nation.
This is, of course, a special kind of audience. When some people hear
the name of your organisation -- Common Carrier Conference, Irregular Route --
they don't have the slightest idea what it means.
That reminds me of a story Henry told the other day -- about the friend
of his who said to him one evening: "You know, Menry, you're common, you're a
carrier, and you're irregular. I don't know how you could get much worse than
that." Of course that was said in jest.
Needless to add, Henry is a very uncommon fellow who is doing fine work
in a very tough jeb.
Speeking of tough jobs, I would point oft there are some other fellows
who recently were handed nighty difficult assignments -- the men who have
accepted appointment to President Nixon's Cabinet.
And of all these difficult assignments, one of the toughest definitely
is that given to John Volps, the Secretary of Transportation.
When the Department of Transportati on was created, responsibility for many
aspects of land and air transportation was placed in one man's hands -- the DOT
Secretary.
&
DOT has been insexistence for nearly two years, but the department has
not yet laid down clear guidelines for effective cooperation between the groups
representing the various transport modes within DOT. DOT also must greatly
improve upon its relations with other departments of the Federal Government which
influence national transportation policy and with the regulatory agencies invelved.
So John Volpe is faced with a great challenge -- both in seeking to improve
the functioning of DOT as a part of the federal government structure and in
dealing with the tremendous transportation problems posed by the fantastic growth
of this country.
It is estimated, for instance, that if the demand for transportation
continues to match America's anticipated economic growth we will have to double
our transportation capacity in less than 20 years.
To do this, ve have to know where we are and where we are going. We have
to decide how best to get to where we want to go. We have to formulate a national
transportation policy and then see to it that our day-by-day actions point toward
the achievement of our desired objectives.
There may be some who now see an opportunity for a legislative breakthrough
in transportation -- an Omnibus Transportation Act as a vehicle to implement a
national transportation policy.
We all know that Congress has been dealing with transportation on a
fraguented basis. We know that the return on investment dees not make the
regulated transportation industry attractive to new capital and that the industry
should be made more responsive to the nation's needs for movement of products and
people.
Shall I engage in high-Flown rheteric and raise fond hopes?
A look at the past may indicate what is likely to happen in the months
shead.
Every Congress brings forth reselutions sined at producing a full-Blown
transportation plan for the country, a plan which would articulate an overall
policy to be carried out by the administration.
Realistically, the history of omnibus transportation bills is not a success
story.
Remember the efferts which began with the Kennedy Administration? A broad
bill to ppen competition to all modes of transportation on terms of equality was
submitted. At least that was the announced purpose of the bill. Deregulation it
cama to be called.
-3-
The very idea of such open competition and a minimum of government
regulation appealed immediately to the shipping public. And the prospect of
getting the over=ráviled Interstate Commerce Commission out of the act appealed
to many others as well.
Then came the congressional committee hearings and the opportunity for
everyone to endorse the principle he claimed to espouse. It soon became evident
that everyone had reservations of one sort or another.
Shippers liked the idea of deregulation if it would mean lower tariffs.
who
But/would make sure of this? The only machinery at hadd was the poor old ICC.
So when all the testimeny was in, it because apparent that the shipping
public was all in favor of deregulation
as long as it was closely regulated.
I am not making an attempt at humor.
The various elements of the transportation industry were wildly enthusisstic
about getting the ICC off their backs -- as long as it kept an eye on the rest of
the industry.
And so the villain of the first act became the hero of the last act.
One Congress came and went with only hearings and meetings to show for it.
When another Congress came along so did the deregulation legislation, and
the whole scenario was runthhrough once more.
At the end of the first session of the 88th Congress the House Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce thought it had finally put tegether an canibus
transportation bill that would work. It was carefully checked out with the rail-
roads, the trucking interests and the barge lines, as well as with the freight
forwarders and shippers.
Mobody was happy with everything, but each semmed to feel that on balance
his interests were well served. So the Committee reported a new bill, N.R. 9903.
You know what happened. It was sunk without a trace in the House Bules
Committee. And the terpodo that did it was fired by the sesports.
Oren Marris of Arkansas, a most able and conscientious legislater, who was
then House Commerce Committee chairman, vound that he would never entertain
another contibus bill. Congressmen Harris is now Judge Marris, but the Committee
has continued to abide by that decision.
Ounibus legislation desling with transportation probably is docued before
it is born. Apparently no detailed phan can keep up with the rapid changes, and
the needs for and means of transportation. so we must handle it as we to.
There is certainly need for a well-thought-out and well-expressed national
policy on transportation, but it is bound to be very general in its terms. And
making sure that legislation considered by the Commerce Committees will promote
even the most explicit policy is enough to tax the patience of a Job and the
wisdom of a Solemen.
And now as I stand here before this sudience I feel compelled to comment
on what I am sure is the item of chief interest to you -- truck weight and sizes
legislation.
in
Right now DOT is/the process of examining the question. DOT efficials
have met with officials of the American Trucking Association, who have presented
their case. But at this time there is no indication what position DOT will
take.
It also is too early to take a reading in the Congress. But I will make
some comment about the situation in the House.
We all sumember that the chief reason the size and whight bill ran into
trouble in the House last year after passing the Senate was that it contained
no length limitation. And so the bill died in the House Rules Committee.
It is expected that the House Public Works Committee this year will try
to write a length ldmitation into the bill.
The task of formulating a length limitation acceptable throughout the
country is most complex. I on informed that in the West and Midwest lengths of
100 to 105 feet would be accepted while in the East and South a 65-foot length
scares people to death.
So the length limit problem is a very sticky one, and I don't protend to
know the answer.
Looking at the size and weight bill at this time, I can only conclude that
we must wait and see what develops.
Neither would I make any prediction on legislation to take cattle out of
the agrie: ltural exemption. That bill has not yet been introduced in the House,
but judging from past experience with legislation of this type it will have a
rough time.
I say that because making changes in the agricultural exemption is like
cursing the National Guard. he I mentioned, the whole canibus transportation
bill foundered on it a few years ago.
-5-
Last year the co-ops were restricted to 15 per cent of non-agricultural
hauling, and the government business was excluded from that amount under terms
of Public Law 90-433. The reason did not really go to the heart of the exemption
but the fact that some of the co-ops were set up to carry agricultural stuff
but actually were only munitions haulers for the government.
I am happy to note that this Conference supports the concept of a strong
Interstate Commerce Commission. That happens also to be my view.
I talked earlier about the need to improve coordination within the
Department of Transportation and that department's regations with other agencies
of the Federal Government.
I think it is also appropriate at this time to renew our determination that
the Highway Trust Fund will be kept invielate -- that the funds paid into the
Highway Trust Fund by highway users will be used only for highway purposes.
I urge, too, that the interstate highway program move shead smoothly and
not be subject to freezes and to movement by fits and starts as it has in recent
years.
We have enough problems on the demestic scene -- federal, state and local --
without the Federal Government helping to create more problems.
In spesking of our domestic problems, may I call your attention to what
might be described as a political phenomenon.
It is simply this: That if you will observe closely, you will see that
President Nixon is seeking to make good on all the compaign premises he made
in the field of domestic policy as well as foreign affairs.
About half of the directives the President has sent to government agencies
and departments to date are based on pledges he made during the campaign.
For the most part, they deal with the need to reorganize the work of the
Federal Government and to return more money and power to the states and to the
provate sector in this country.
Nixon legislative proposals also are in the works, sined at implementing
President Mixon's campaign promises.
To carry out some of his plans to reorganize the Federal Government,
Mr. Nixon needs special authority only the Congress can give -- authority which
Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhewer and Truman enjoyed before him.
The Senate has already passed a billte invest Mr. Nixon with such power,
and the House will act soon.
-6-
Some observers are complaining that the governmental pace in Washington
has slowed.
I think most Americans approve. I believe that after eight years of
experimentation, Americans want good, sound, efficient government which produces
results -- not just more spending programs.
There will be a Nixon program. It is being shaped now -- and very carefully.
It will be a solid program designed to bring the American people together and to
move us forward as a Nation.
There will be a shift in emphasis -- policy changes flowing from my
party's basic philosophy of government.
The problems the Nixon Administration inherited upon assuming office pose
a tremendous challenge for the new President and his administrative team.
But I also see a great opportunity at this point in time.-- an opportunity
to swing America around and use the dynamic thrust of the free enterprise system
to propel us toward newwgreatness as & people.
Without the help of the men in this room and of other concerned Americans,
President Nixon can do little. With the help of the people, he cannot fail.
Let us rise to the challenge. Let us lay aside conflicting political
loyalties and dedicate ourselves to the building of a new and better America.
Let us usherein an age of reason in America -- an era of conciliation and
recenciliation and of generosity of spirit.
This is a time of great challenge for America but also a time of glowing
opportunity -- an opportunity to move in new directions under new leadership to
vanquish the problems which surround us.
Let us accept the challenge with clear vision and clear heads. Let us
seize the opportunity with stout hearts and a determination that we will move
forward as a people -- together.
Let us take as a motto the wise words of the Greek philosopher Plutarch,
who said: "Many things which cannot be overcome when they are taken together
yield themselves when taken little."
We shall go forward in faith. And we shall prevail. For faith is the
talisman of greatness for America, and America is strong in faith.
# # #
Common Carrier Conference ET
goveg, Rte Am
Chim. Aske
friends of
753-7160
March M Now Orleans
Hotel Monte Leone
Common Sarrier Conf
2
amstrucking
Heary van Dallen
logic: Transportation
HewBerry x dele 364
Internation Comm Act (1887=?)=RR's
placed under ICC
1935 Congress passed "Act'I "of The
motor trucks ander regul
asuabe des for hime 1 Since Ren
periodic around 's= = In 58- a lot
Jogen storms etc. pland unles reful
They at interputation van Jemps
hadben received for regal - Terms
wanted u #
= Partol Phicles for the candy regul
are not
larty 90 - 433 dealting
og, coop & Pausport Pren
The cosps has Geenlyingsted as regess
ds conception help- The Farmes
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
90-433 Adamto transp -The coop
tonnage ICC now I settingly
15% then Totalgross
The gd rules on This
pt now- The am Trude Aain
tom Sup So fry. to oftain regul
The transport of ord, livestock
-
This consurver ded. They's
5 Sw 748-Seal =
to Therasypp father logislations
wgt w/tho nate Cattlemen to Assin
Wehe toy, LogetSome mate stability
7 Expect vide hill to be certro ty
2 Expect Repr Staggers (3) to into
Sey Magneson
Companion bill in the House &
=Sey = calflement recogn the Dase That
ivestock carriers are an samepoor
is aproblem
today that The motor carriers where 1935
= Nontgetthe legion conlege The shippers
(attenaen) agree
20 of the livestock carrier are going
out of bijnessea yr
Sizet Wsight Bilf when
Dana thief exterest
St passage the Senate + wasresty
out in the He
Schevengel
GERALD ALD LIBRARY FORD
The baser issues
2 Size +WayatBEll - bery,
I The concept regul by ICC
wast to see what Nolps
has to say
uhe Suppr The a
strong ICE a
Nixonlast Durks named ER-Pp.
= The IC.C. dept to the Engress
Jackson of Calp I
relects durman for amounton mfrs
ford could engh the welds
hosp The Hiway Trust Ford concept
attempt telee Hisvay Two T
Eap it inviote - baty Phese was
Juset for unrelated purposes
to I types
Insury of with and transf
private cancer -lyest
2
Contract carrier - smellest
3
I
Common canned Reg, Rte
(1
(
1
- dug in
commodities-
H RegRte CC 1 only cart.nte a pull
GERALD FORD
$ Ing Rte CC B Tenefrial franchise
(
mostly speciad commodittes 1
5,789 5 Bill to table approps. tosty
Aderance off The Budgeth
Calendar No. 1005
90TH CONGRESS
}
SENATE
{
REPORT
2d Session
No. 1026
VEHICLE WEIGHTS AND
DIMENSIONS
REPORT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
TO ACCOMPANY
S. 2658
(II)
MARCH 27, 1968.-Ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-589
WASHINGTON : 1968
Calendar No. 1005
90TH CONGRESS
SENATE
REPORT
2d Session
No. 1026
VEHICLE WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS
ЛИА STHOKIW 3
MARCH 27, 1968.-Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman
STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine
HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii
REPORT
ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska
J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware
B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina
GEORGE MURPHY, California
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho
[To accompany S. 2658]
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana
HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico
The Committee on Public Works, to which was referred the bill
JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland
WILLIAM B. SPONG, JR., Virginia
(S. 2658) to amend section 127 of title 23 of the United States Code
RICHARD B. ROYCE, Chief Clerk and Staff Director
relating to vehicle weight and width limitations on the Interstate
M. BARRY MEYER, Counsel
System, in order to make certain increases in such limitations, having
BAILEY GUARD, Assistant Chief Clerk (Minority)
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and
RICHARD E. GERRISH, Minority Staff Director
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
JOSEPH F. VAN VLADRICKEN, LEON G. BILLINGS, J. B. HUYETT, Jr., and
RICHARD D. GRUNDY, Professional Staff Members
I. PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
(II)
S. 2658 as reported with amendments will facilitate a more efficient
and economic use of the Interstate System and insure that the vehicles
using that system will not unreasonably or unnecessarily impair its
serviceability or durability. The limits established by S. 2658 are
intended to set the maximums which most closely strike the balance
between productive use and reasonable life of pavement, subsurface,
and structures. Of course, weights and widths of vehicles are only
one factor to be considered in the durability of highway life. Proper
design, construction and maintenance, and the effects of climate are
also extremely importent.
The proposed legislation continues the congressional policy of
providing limits regarding maximum permissible use of weights and
dimensions on the Interstate System in order to adequately protect
the Federal investment. This determination is based on the condition
that such maximums will be properly implemented and enforced by
the States, which continue to bear the ultimate responsibility for
permitting vehicles to operate within these weight and width ranges.
The committee most emphatically reaffirms that the responsibility for legal
maximum allowable limits and control of sizes and weights of vehicles
operating on the Interstate System, as well as on all the other road systems
of the United States, rests with the individual States. The legislation is
(1)
2
3
not intended as a Federal determination that such weights should be
on such standards were to be presented to the Congress not later
permitted, nor does it imply that roads other than those on the Inter-
than March 1, 1959.
state System are capable of carrying such loads. It is a statement of
On August 18, 1964, the Secretary of Commerce transmitted to
policy that permitting such weights will not do violence to the Federal
the Congress the requested study and recommendations (H. Doc.
interest in the development of a nationwide network of major traffic
354, 88th Cong., 2d sess.).
service highways.
On November 15, 1967, Senator Magnuson, on behalf of himself
II. COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
and 21 other Members of the Senate, introduced S. 2658, which would
amend section 127, title 23, United States Code, by providing for
As reported by the Committee on Public Works, the bill would be
changes in vehicle weights and dimensions as follows: single axle,
amended by changing the permissible tandem weight from 36,000
20,000 pounds; tandem axle, 36,000 pounds; and overall gross weight
pounds to 34,000 pounds, by changing the constant factor in the gross
as arrived at by application of the following formula:
weight formula from 40 to 36, and by changing the definitions of the
variables in the formula to give emphasis to interior axle spacings as
W=500
well as the overall wheelbase. The effect of these amendments is to
reduce the weights which could be permitted pursuant to this legisla-
where W=overall gross weight of the vehicle plus load, L=overall
tion while at the same time providing for significant increases over
wheel base or the distance in feet between the centers of the first and
present limits. The committee amendments are consistent with the
last axles in the vehicle or vehicle combination, and N=number of
weight recommendations of the Department of Transportation and the
axles.
American Association of State Highway Officials.
IV. HEARINGS
III. BACKGROUND OF THE LEGISLATION
Following the announcement of hearings, the committee received
Until July 1, 1956, the regulation of motor vehicle weights and
a number of requests for appearances from interested groups. Four
dimensions was a matter solely within the province of the individual
days of hearings were held on the subject. The organization witnesses
States. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 established maximum
who appeared were:
permissible weights and widths for vehicles operating on the Inter-
American Trucking Associations.
state System. Though it constituted a departure from the policy of the
American Association of State Highway Officials.
past, this action was taken by the Congress in order to protect the
National Association of Motor Bus Operators.
Federal investment in interstate highways and to insure the safety of
American Transit Association.
the traveling public. Preexisting Federal-aid statutes were silent on
American Automobile Association.
American Farm Bureau Federation.
the subject.
The language of the 1956 act, now section 127, title 23, United
The Department of Transportation presented its views, as did two
States Code, "Highways," provides that the maximum allowable
State senators and the following U.S. Senators:
weight and dimensions for vehicles on the Interstate System are:
Hon. Frank E. Moss.
Hon. Thomas Kuchel.
Per single axle, 18,000 pounds;
Hon. Clifford Hansen.
Per tandem axle, 32,000 pounds;
Hon. Warren Magnuson.
Overall gross weight, 73,280 pounds;
In addition, a number of statements were received for the record;
Width, 96 inches;
among these were expression of views by the National League of Cities,
or
the Association of American Railroads, as well as from manufacturers
the corresponding weights and dimensions permitted under State
and producers of the many products transported by trucks.
law or regulation in effect on July 1, 1956, whichever is greater.
Among the major issues presented to the committee were those
Any State which by law permits use of the Interstate System by
dealing with highway safety, economic impact, effect of increases
vehicles with maximum weight and width greater than those estab-
on road systems and structures and the contributions of the various
lished under the provisions of section 127 will continue to be penalized
user beneficiaries.
by the loss of apportioned funds for any fiscal year during which the
Evidence presented to the committee with regard to highway safety
violation occurs.
did not demonstrate a meaningful relationship between the sizes and
The basic standards adopted by the Congress were those which had
weights under consideration and the incidence of traffic accidents.
been adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials
There is, however, a relationship between the physical capabilities
during the period 1944-46.
of large vehicles and highway safety involving such matters as horse-
As a companion measure to the enactment of the limitations on
power-weight ratios, braking capacity, and linkage and coupling
the sizes and weights of motor vehicles, the Congress in the 1956 act
devices. The Department of Transportation requested inclusion of
also directed the Secretary of Commerce to take all action possible
authority to set national standards with regard to these factors.
to expedite the conduct of a series of tests, later known as the Illinois
The committee, in not including such authority in the bill as reported,
road tests, for the purpose of determining the maximum desirable
in no way intends to indicate that these are not important factors or
dimensions and weights for vehicles operating on the Federal-aid
that they are not worthy of consideration. However, authority for
highway systems, including the Interstate System. Recommendations
such controls already rests with the Department of Transportation.
4
5
The act creating the Department of Transportation, Public Law
While not subject to the jurisdiction of this committee, the
89-670, transferred to the Department all of the authority over
question of the contribution to the trust fund made by the various
safety of motor vehicles operating in interstate commerce which had
classes of users was raised. Trucks of all sizes now contribute in excess
previously been administered by the Interstate Commerce Com-
of $1,700 million to the trust fund annually. Whether this is sufficient
mission. In addition, the Department administers the National
and whether the level of contribution should be raised as a result of
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-563,
the enactment of S. 2658 is a subject for analysis, determination, and
pursuant to which performance standards for vehicles and equipment
recommendation by other committees of the Congress.
are establisehd by the Department. Further, the Highway Safety
In addition to the 4 days of hearings on the legislation, the com-
Act of 1966, Public Law 89-564, authorizes and directs the Secretary
mittee more recently completed 3 days of exhaustive and intensive
to insure that each State will have a highway safety program which
hearings devoted to the subject of highway bridges. While the hearings
will insure safe use of our highways.
were not intended as a further exploration of the impact of vehicular
The committee believes that this existing authority is broad enough
sizes and weights on bridges, that subject is thoroughly interwoven
to provide for effective control of these important safety requirements
with anything dealing with bridge safety. Questions relating to the
for large motor vehicles and that it should be exercised. Should experi-
impact of large vehicles on bridge life, and the impact of large vehicles
ence prove that a gap in authority exists, prompt legislative action will
on older bridges, most of which are not located on the Interstate
be taken by the appropriate committees of Congress to correct the
System, were thoroughly explored. With the knowledge gained
situation.
through these bridge hearings, the committee was greatly assisted in
V. EFFECT OF THIS LEGISLATION
its deliberations on S. 2658.
As a result of those additional hearings we have serious question
The beneficial effects on the economy which will result from imple-
concerning the capability of many of the older noninterstate struc-
mentation of the increases recommended by the committee are amply
tures to support vehicles of the dimensions and weights presently,
supported by the testimony presented. Larger payload capacity will
permitted to operate under existing State legislation. These bridges
facilitate more productive, economic, and efficient passenger and
many of which are more than a generation old, were designed to serve
freight transportation by highway. It will be the responsibility of
a community whose transportation needs did not reflect the demands of
Federal and State regulatory agencies to insure that savings achieved
today's highly developed economy. As a result of the hearings, we
by reason of the movement of larger vehicles are passed on to the con-
direct the appropriate Federal agencies, in cooperation with State and
sumers and work to the advantage of the public in general. It will be
local agencies, to determine without delay the capacity of existing
the further responsibility of such agencies to insure that the benefits
bridges to bear the added weights contemplated by S. 2658 as reported.
of improved highway transportation are accorded to all communities
This information will assist the States in considering legislation to
in the United States, large or small.
implement the use of the sizes and weights which would be permitted
The most difficult problem inherent in consideration of S. 2658
under the bill as reported.
concerned the impact of increased weights and widths on the existing
road systems and structures. The testimony presented to the com-
VI. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
mittee made it quite clear that the Interstate System is designed and
The bill, as reported, adopts the basic recommendations made by
built to accommodate vehicles with weights and dimensions recom-
the Department of Transportation and is amply supported by the
mended in the bill as reported by the committee. This is not the case
data contained in House Document 354, 88th Congress, second
with many of our existing primary and secondary roads. It will,
session, which was filed with the Congress on August 19, 1964, as
therefore, be the responsibility of each of the States to determine the
a result of a series of tests conducted for the purpose of determining
acceptability of the maximums permitted by S. 2658, as amended,
maximum desirable dimensions and weights of vehicles operated on
and if acceptable how they will be implemented. The laws of a number
the Federal-aid systems.
of States relating to this subject and in effect over the past 12 years
S. 2658 would permit any State to increase single-axle weights to
include weights and dimensions at levels equal to or above those
20,000 pounds, tandem-axle weights to 34,000 pounds, and width of
proposed by S. 2658, as amended. In addition, a number of States now
vehicles to 102 inches.
designate road systems which carry different maximum axle or gross
The increase in width would be of benefit in that it would provide
loads or both.
improved safety and operating conditions. Among the factors to be
The Department of Transportation recommended that the limits
considered as gains from an increase of 6 inches over the existing
set forth in S. 2658, as amended, be applied to all Federal-aid systems.
96-inch width limitation are:
In view of the foregoing and the fact that a congressionally established
1. Greater lateral stability for all vehicles.
limit could be interpreted as a finding that such weights and dimen-
2. Greater steering and braking stability of vehicles when
sions could be accommodated on the other Federal-aid systems, the
cornering, or! under severe wind or emergency conditions.
committee would continue to restrict the application of the bill to
3. Additional space for spring mountings and frame members
the Interstate System. Each State will have to examine the needs of
for better spring systems.
its own economy, the capacity of its existing road system and the costs
4. Greater space for larger tires and more tire and brake
of maintenance which will be entailed in making the decisions relating
ventilation.
to any increase of the size and weights of vehicles which may operate
5. Greater width for efficient storage of 4- and 8-foot standard
within its borders.
modular sizes of merchandise.
6
7
6. Greater potential for comfort or more passengers per trip
In keeping with the policy established by the original language of
in motorbus transportation, as well as improved stability resulting
the size and weight limitation contained in the Federal-Aid Highway
from increased wheel treads, reduced vibration and shock both
Act of 1956, State laws in effect as of January 1, 1968, which permit
to cargo and pavement as a result of more efficient suspension
greater weights or dimensions than contained in this legislation,
system, and lower unit ground pressures resulting from use of
would continue in effect. The original "grandfather date" was July 1,
larger tires with lower inflation pressures.
1956, and our new date merely reaffirms the validity of State laws
which have been controlling motor vehicle sizes and weights for the
S. 2658, as amended, would also replace the existing gross weight
past 12 years. This provision also confirms the authority of each
limit of 73,280 pounds by a formula designed to protect bridges and
State to issue so-called special permits which are needed to permit
other structures from unreasonable overstresses.
movements of loads of unusual weights or widths.
Based on the weight formula
The following table shows the essential proposals as made by S. 2658
as reported, the administration's recommendation and the general
AASHO policy and compares these to the present law:
Present law
S. 2658, as amended
Administration
AASHO
as included in S. 2658, as amended, the following table indicates the
recommendation
range of permissible gross loads for vehicles in regular operation:
000.01
Single exte
18,000 lbs
20,000 lbs
20,000 lbs
20,000 lbs.
Tandem exte
32,000 lbs
34,000 lbs
34,000 lbs.
34,000 lbs.
Distance in feet between the
Maximum load in pounds carried on any group of 2 or more consecutive axles
LN
Gross weight
LN
extremes of any group of 2
73,280 lbs
W=500
LN
W=500
W=500
or more consecutive axles
2 axles
3 axles
4 axles
5 axles
6 axles
7 axles
8 axles
9 axles
+12N+36
+12N+36
4
34,000
Width
96 ins
102 ins
102 ins
102 ins.
5
34,000
Coverage
Interstate System
Interstate System
All Federal-aid systems. All systems.
6
34,000
Grandfather clause
July 1, 1956
Jan. 1, 1968.
Jan. 1, 1968
7
34,000
Penalty
Loss of apportion-
Same
Same
8
34,000
42,000
ment.
9
39,000
42,500
10
40,000
43,500
11
44,000
1 Presently the laws of some of the States do permit higher maximum weights and dimensions than were provided for
12
45,000
50,000
in
the 1956 act. Such greater limits were in effect on July 1, 1956:
13
45,500
50,500
Single axle: 26 States allow more than 18,000 pounds; 15 of these States allow 20,000 pounds or more.
14
46,500
51,500
Tandem axle: 24 States allow more than 32,000 pounds; 8 of these States allow 36,000 pounds or more.
15
47,000
52,000
Width: 3 States allow widths of 102 inches or more.
16
48,000
52,500
58,000
2 Based on the 1964 BPR report (H. Doc. No. 354, 89th Cong. 2d sess.).
17
48,500
53,500
58,500
8 Where W=overall gross weight on any group of two or more consecutive axles to the nearest 500 pounds, L=distance
18
49,500
54,000
59,000
in feet between the extreme of any group of two or more consecutive axles, and N=number of axles in the group under
19
50,000
54,500
60,000
consideration.
20
51,000
55,500
60,500
66,000
4 Where W represents overall gross weight on any group of two or more consecutive axles to the nearest 500 pounds,
21
51,500
56,000
61,000
66,500
L represents distance between centers of the extreme axles of any group of two or more consecutive axies to the nearest
22
52,500
56,500
61,500
67,000
foot, and N represents number of axles in the group under consideration.
23
53,000
57,500
62,500
68,000
5 Where W=maximum weight in pounds carried on any group of two or more axles, including any and all weight tolerances,
24
54,000
58,000
63,000
68,500
74,000
=distance in feet between the extremes of any group of two or more consecutive axles, and N=number of axles in the
25
54,500
58,500
64,500
69,000
74,500
group under consideration.
26
55,500
59,500
65,000
69,500
75,000
6 Interstate System plus other roads with 12-ft. lanes.
27
56,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,500
28
57,000
60,500
65,500
71,500
76,500
82,000
29
57,500
61,500
66,000
71,500
77,000
82,500
30
58,500
62,000
66,500
72,000
77,500
83,000
31
59,000
62,500
67,500
72,500
78,000
83,500
32
60,000
63,500
68,000
73,000
78,500
84,500
90,000
33
64,000
68,500
74,000
79,000
85,000
90.500
34
64,500
69,000
74,500
80,000
85,500
91,000
35
65,500
70,000
75,000
80,500
86,000
91,500
36
66,000
70,500
75,500
81,000
86,500
92,000
37
66,500
71,000
76,000
81,500
87,000
93,000
38
67,500
72,000
77,000
82,000
87,500
93,500
39
68,000
72,500
77,500
82,500
88,500
94,000
40
68,500
73,000
78,000
83,500
89,000
94,500
41
69,500
73,500
78,500
84,000
89,500
95,000
42
70,000
74,000
79,000
84,500
90,000
95,500
43
70,500
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,500
96,000
44
71,500
75,500
80,500
85,500
91,000
96,500
45
72,000
76,000
81,000
86,000
91,500
97,500
46
72,500
76,500
81,500
87,000
92,500
98,000
47
73,500
77,500
82,000
87,500
93,000
98,500
48
74,000
78,000
83,000
88,000
93,500
99,000
49
74,500
78,500
83,500
88,500
94,000
99,500
50
75,500
79,000
84,000
89,000
94,500
100,000
51
76,000
80,000
84,500
89,500
95,000
100,500
52
76,500
80,500
85,000
90,500
95,500
101,000
53
77,500
81,000
86,000
91,000
96,500
102,000
54
78,000
81,500
86,500
91,500
97,000
102,500
55
78,500
82,500
87,500
92,000
97,500
103,000
56
79,500
83,000
87,500
92,500
98,000
103,500
57
80,000
83,500
88,000
93,000
98,500
104,000
58
84,000
89,000
94,000
99,000
104,500
59
85,000
89,500
94,500
99,500
105,000
S. Rept. 1026, 90-2-2
60
85,500
90,000
95,000
100,500
105,500
8
9
The following tables show the present weight laws in effect in the
TANDEM-AXLE LIMIT ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM
various States:
[In pounds]
SINGLE-AXLE LIMIT ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM
[In pounds]
Present State limits
Statutory
Tolerance
Legal limit
limit
Present State limits
Statutory
Tolerance
Legal limit
limit
Alabama
36,000
3,600
39,600
Alaska
34,000
34,000
Arizona
32,000
32,000
Alabama
18,000
1,800
19,800
Arkansas
32,000
32,000
Alaska
20,000
20,000
California
32,000
32,000
Arizona
18,000
18,000
Colorado
36,000
36,000
Arkansas
18,000
18,000
Connecticut
36,000
720
36,720
California
18,000
18,000
Delaware
36,000
36,000
Colorado
18,000
18,000
District of Columbia
38,000
38,000
Connecticut
22,400
448
22,848
Florida
40,000
4,000
44,000
Delaware
20,000
20,000
Georgia
36,000
4,680 4,
40,680
District of Columbia
22,000
22,000
Hawaii
32,000
32,000
Florida
20,000
2,000
22,000
Idaho
32,000
32,000
Georgia
18,000
2,340
20,340
Illinois
32,000
32,000
Hawaii
24,000
24,000
Indiana
32,000
32,000
Idaho
18,000
18,000
Iowa
32,000
960
32,960
Illinois
18,000
18,000
Kansas
32,000
32,000
Indiana
18,000
18,000
Kentucky
32,000
1,600
33,600
Iowa
18,000
540
18,540
Louisiana
32,000
32,000
Kansas
18,000
18,000
Maine
32,000
32,000
Kentucky
18,000
900
18,900
Maryland
40,000
40,000
Louisiana
18,000
18,000
Massachusetts
36,000
36,000
Maine
22,000
22,000
Michigan
26,000
26,000
Maryland
22,400
22,400
Minnesota
32,000
32,000
Massachusetts
22,400
22,400
Mississippi
32,000
32,000
Michigan
18,000
18,000
Missouri
32,000
32,000
Minnesota
18,000
18,000
Montana
32,000
32,000
Mississippi
18,000
18,000
Nebraska
32,000
1,600
33,600
Missouri
18,000
18,000
Nevada
32,000
32,000
Montana
18,000
18,000
New Hampshire
36,000
36,000
Nebraska
18,000
900
18,900
New Jersey
32,000
1,600
33,600
Nevada
18,000
18,000
New Mexico
34,320
34,320
New Hampshire
22,400
22,400
New York
36,000
36,000
New Jersey
22,400
1,120
23,520
North Carolina
36,000
2,000
38,000
New Mexico
21,600
21,600
North Dakota
32,000
32,000
New York
22,400
22,400
Ohio
32,000
32,000
North Carolina
18,000
1,000
19,000
Oklahoma
32,000
32,000
North Dakota
18,000
18,000
Oregon
32,000
32,000
Ohio
19,000
19,000
Pennsylvania
36,000
1,080
37,080
Oklahoma
18,000
18,000
Rhode Island
36,000
36,000
Oregon
18,000
18,000
South Carolina
32,000
32,000
Pennsylvania
22,400
672
23,072
South Dakota
32,000
32,000
Rhode Island
22,400
22,400
Tennessee
32,000
32,000
South Carolina
20,000
20,000
Texas
32,000
32,000
South Dakota
18,000
18,000
Utah
33,000
33,000
Tennessee
18,000
18,000
Vermont
36,000
36,000
Texas
18,000
18,000
Virginia
32,000
32,000
Utah
18,000
18,000
Washington
32,000
32,000
Vermont
22,400
22,400
West Virginia
32,000
1,600
33,600
Virginia
18,000
18,000
Wisconsin
32,000
32,000
Washington
18,000
18,000
Wyoming
36,000
36,000
West Virginia
18,000
900
18,900
Wisconsin
19,500
19,500
Wyoming
18,000
18,000
Number of States at-
32,000 lbs
27
32,001 to 36,000 lbs
16
Number of States at-
36,001 lbs. and over
8
18,000 lbs
25
18,001 to 20,000 libe
11
Total
51
20,001 lbs and over
15
1 On designated highways 1 pair of tandems permitted 32,000 lbs.
Total
51
10
11
HIGHEST PRACTICAL WEIGHT BY STATES
Department suggests additions to S. 2658 to insure the safety of
(In pounds]
large trucks, also recommended in the report, and further recom-
mends extension of the maximum limitations to the entire Federal-
Highest
Highest
State
practical
State
practical
aid system.
gross weight
gross weight
We wish to emphasize the close relationship between S. 2658 and
the administration's proposed highway user charges for heavy vehi-
Alabama
73,280
Montana
76,800
Alaska
189,000
Nebraska
73,280
cles. Since passage of S. 2658, as introduced or with the amendments
Arizona
76,800
Nevada
76,800
Arkansas
proposed by the Department of Transportation, would result in
73,280
New Hampshire
73,280
California
76,800
New Jersey
73,280
higher costs and reduced life of the highway system, we concur with
Colorado
76,000
New Mexico
86,400
Connecticut
73,000
New York
71,000
the view of the Department that increased user charges are an essen-
Delaware
73,280
North Carolina
73,280
District of Columbia
tial complement to this legislation.
70,000
North Dakota
73,280
Florida
73,271
Ohio
78,000
The Bureau of the Budget would favor enactment of S. 2658 if
Georgia
73,280
Oklahoma
73,280
Hawaii
73,280
Oregon
76,000
amended as recommended in the report of the Department of
Idaho
76,800
Pennsylvania
73,279
Illinois
Transportation.
73,280
Rhode Island
73,280
Indiana
73,000
South Carolina
73,280
Sincerely,
Iowa
73,280
South Dakota
73,280
Kansas
73,280
Tennessee
73,280
WILFRED H. ROMMEL,
Kentucky
73,280
Texas
72,000
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
Louisiana
74,000
Utah
79,900
Maine
73,280
Vermont
73,280
Maryland
73,280
Virginia
70,000
Massachusetts
73,000
Washington
76,000
Michigan
196,000
West Virginia
73,280
Minnesota
73,280
Wisconsin
73,000
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,
Mississippi
73,280
Wyoming
73,950
Missouri
73,280
Washington, D.C., March 13, 1968.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
1 Maximum gross weight for 6-axle twin trailer combination; higher maximum gross weight possible with increase in
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
number of axles.
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
VII. AGENCY VIEWS
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views
of this Department concerning S. 2658, a bill to amend section 127 of
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
title 23 of the United States Code relating to vehicle weight and
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
width limitations on the Interstate System, in order to make certain
Washington, D.C., March 12, 1968.
increases in such limitations.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
This proposal would increase the vehicle weight and width which
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
a State may lawfully permit on the Interstate System without loss of
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
its apportionment of Interstate funds. The increase in weights would
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for
be from 18,000 to 20,000 pounds on a single axle, 32,000 to 36,000
comments on S. 2658, a bill to amend section 127 of title 23 of the
pounds on a tandem axle, and from an overall gross weight of 73,280
United States Code relating to vehicle weight and width limitations
pounds to one produced by the application of the formula:
on the Interstate System, in order to make certain increases in such
limitations.
This bill would increase the vehicle weights and widths which a
W=500 (N-1+12N+40)
State may lawfully permit on the Interstate System without loss of
where,
its apportionment of interstate funds. The increase in weights would
W=overall gross weight of the vehicle plus load.
be from 18,000 to 20,000 pounds on a single axle, 32,000 to 36,000
L=overall wheelbase or the distance in feet between the centers
pounds on a tandem axle, and from an overall gross weight limit of
of the first and last axles of the vehicle or vehicle combina-
73,280 pounds to one produced by the application of a gross load
tion.
formula (providing a means of approximating the maximum desirable
N=number of axles.
loads to be carried on highway bridges). The increase in width would
be from 96 to 102 inches plus additional width necessary for safety
The increase in width would be from 96 to 102 inches plus additional
devices and tire bulge.
width necessary for safety devices and tire bulge due to loads.
As indicated by the Department of Transportation in its report on
The weights and width presently contained in section 127 are
S. 2658, an increase in permissive vehicle size and dimensions sug-
based principally on the maximums prescribed by the States when
gested in the 1964 report on "Maximum Desirable Dimensions and
this provision was enacted 12 years ago. Sufficient scientific informa-
Weights of Vehicles Operated on the Federal-aid System," would
tion was not available at that time to determine the relationship of
bring with it gains in the economical use of highway transport. The
the weights and width of vehicles to the physical characteristics of
the highway.
12
13
In the same act that contained section 127, the Congress recognized
to limit the maximum height of vehicles to 13 feet, 6 inches, also as
the need for additional information in this regard. Section 108(k) of the
recommended in the 1964 report (sec. 127(a)(1)).
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, as amended (70 Stat. 374, 72
To make these limitations effective, we concur with the S. 2658
Stat. 983), directed the Secretary of Commerce to expedite procedures
provision which, like the present 23 U.S.C. 127, requires the cutoff
to determine future maximum desirable dimensions and weights for
of future Federal-aid highway funds to noncomplying States (secs.
vehicles operating on the Federal-aid highway systems and to report
127 (a) and (b)).
his conclusions to the Congress. This report was made and trans-
Our recommendations regarding weights and dimensions does depart
mitted to the Congress on August 18, 1964, and has been published
from the 1964 report in a few respects. That report recommends set-
as House Document 354, 88th Congress.
ting certain Federal limits on the overall length of vehicles and vehicle
With certain exceptions explained below, the Department of Trans-
combinations. S. 2658 does not do so, and we agree with that approach
portation believes that the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
at this time. While there is a regional trend developing on this subject,
of that 1964 report remain applicable today. The report recognizes
presently there is no nationwide consensus regarding appropriate ve-
that an increase in permissive vehicle weight and dimension would
hicle lengths. The Department is presently conducting studies in this
bring with it gains in the economical use of highway transport. The
area. Until the studies have been completed and sufficient objective
report additionally points out, however, the adverse effects which
data reviewed, we think this question is best left to the individual
flow from such an increase, not only on the serviceability and life of
States to decide in the light of their particular geographic and traffic
pavements and structures, but also with regard to highway traffic and
needs and problems.
safety considerations. With this in mind, we have reviewed the
At this time we also think it appropriate to extend the limitations
increases in allowable vehicle weight and width proposed in S. 2658.
in maximum vehicle weight and dimension to the entire Federal-aid
In the interest of achieving what we believe to be a fair balance
system, and not merely impose them on the Interstate System alone
between the benefits and the burdens from such increases, we offer
(sec. 127(a)). One of the goals of our highway program is to achieve
the following suggestions regarding the proposed bill which, with the
uniformity in permissible vehicle weight and dimension across the
exception noted below, follow the lines of the 1964 report. We have
Nation. This has obvious advantages to the transport industry. How-
also enclosed a draft bill for your consideration which would incor-
ever, we should avoid the incongruous circumstances-now extant in
porate our suggestions; the parenthetical references in this report are
certain States-where road systems designed to lower standards are
to that draft.
permitted to carry heavier vehicles than the Interstate System. This
First, we have no objection to increasing the single axle limit to
not only jeopardizes the extensive Federal investment in the primary
20,000 pounds as proposed by S. 2658, but the permissible load on a
and secondary systems, but also encourages other States to follow
tandem axle should be raised to 34,000 pounds, rather than the
suit with a resultant destruction in uniform standards. Extending the
36,000 pounds presently specified in S. 2658. Similarly, we concur in
maximum weight and dimension requirements to all systems would
the proposal to increase the permissible width of vehicles to 102 inches.
end this problem while, at the same time, retain a State's entitlement
This limit, however, should include tolerances but exclude safety
to set lower standards on the primary and secondary systems in the
devices of types approved by the Secretary (sec. 127(a)).
interests of safety and the preservation of roads and structures.
We believe, however, that the formula for computing the maximum
Finally, the 1964 report recommends that the allowance of vehicles
gross weight of vehicles should be along the lines recommended in the
of increased weight and dimension on the highways be coupled with
1964 report, which would permit a somewhat lesser rise over the pres-
the establishment of appropriate safety standards. Consequently,
ent limitations in 23 U.S.C. 127 than is proposed by S. 2658. The
we recommend that S. 2658 be amended to add authority for the
formula we suggest would read as follows:
Secretary of Transportation to develop and prescribe performance
standards applicable to the larger vehicles and vehicle combinations
(sec. These standards would be issued after consultation
with the States and such other public and private organizations as
the Secretary deems appropriate, and would prescribe:
where W represents the overall gross weight on any group of two
(a) Minimum performance standards specifying a ratio of
or more consecutive axles to the nearest 500 pounds, L represents
gross weight of a vehicle or vehicle combination to the net engine
the distance between centers of the extreme axles of any group of
horsepower available for movement of the vehicle or vehicle
two or more consecutive axles to the nearest foot, and N repre-
combination;
sents the number of axles in the group under consideration
(b) Minimum performance standards for the braking system
(sec. 127
of a vehicle or vehicle combination; and
We would include a grandfather clause, permitting States which
(c) Minimum performance standards for the strength and
already authorize vehicles on the systems above these limits to con-
operation of the linkage and coupling systems between compo-
nents of a vehicle combination.
tinue to be able to do so (sec. 127(a)(2)). An additional express excep-
These standards would be required to be reasonable, practicable
tion should be added, however, to permit the use of certain transit
type buses in urban areas (sec. 127(b)). We also think it appropriate
and in terms of objective criteria.
14
15
The Secretary would be required to prescribe such standards
within 2 years following the enactment of this legislation (sec.
not in excess of that derived by application of the follow-
127(c)(1)). Thereafter, following a period specified in our suggested
ing formula:
amendment, which the Secretary could enlarge for good cause (sec.
LN
127(c)(2)), a State which authorized vehicles not meeting those
W=500
standards to use the Federal-aid systems within its boundaries would
have its apportionment of Federal-aid highway funds reduced 10 per-
cent for any fiscal year in which it permitted such below-standard
where W represents overall gross weight on any group of
operations (sec. 127(c)(3)). However, no State's apportionment would
two or more consecutive axles to the nearest 500 pounds;
be reduced under this provision in the same fiscal year in which a
L represents distance between centers of the extreme
reduction under section 402(e) of title 23 (relating to other aspects
axles of any group of two or more consecutive axles to the
of the highway safety program) had been applied to it. The Secretary
nearest foot; and N represents number of axles in the
would also have authority to suspend the application of this provision
group under consideration; or
to a State for such period as be deemed necessary, as well as to review
"(2) the corresponding weights and dimensions per-
and revise the standards as technology end his knowledge in this area
mitted for vehicle or vehicle combinations using the
increased. We also suggest the inclusion of a savings clause to insure
public highways of such State under laws or regulations
that nothing in this act would detract from any authority or duties
established by appropriate State authority in effect on
required or imposed on the Secretary or the Federal Highway Adminis-
January 1, 1968, whichever is the greater.
trator by any other act (sec. 127(c)(4)).
"(b) Any amount which is withheld from apportionment
The Department of Transportation would favor the enactment
to any State pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall
of S. 2658 subject to the comments and recommendations outlined
lapse. Subsection (a) of this section does not deny apportion-
above.
ment to any State allowing the operation within such State
The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the
of vehicles or vehicle combinations that could be lawfully
administration's program there is no objection to the submission of
operated within such State on January 1, 1968, or the opera-
this report for the consideration of the Committee.
tion within an urban area as defined in section 101(a) of this
Sincerely yours,
title of any transit-type bus meeting the requirements of
JOHN L. SWEENEY,
section 4483(c) of title 26, United States Code, that could be
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
lawfully operated within such area while engaged in scheduled
bus service ou January 1, 1968.
A BILL To provide for more uniform standards for the weights and
"(c)(1) In the interest of safety and the efficient utiliza-
dimensions and the safety and performance of vehicles using the
tion of the Federal-aid highway systems the Secretary, after
Federal-aid systems, and for other purposes
consultation with the States and such other public and
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
private organizations as he deems appropriate and no later
United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
than two years following the enactment of this Act, shall
Section 127, of title 23 of the United States Code is hereby
develop and publish in the Federal Register reasonable
amended to read as follows:
and practicable performance standards providing objective
"Sec. 127. VEHICLE WEIGHT AND DIMENSION LIMITATIONS,
criteria applicable to vehicles and vehicle combinations
SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.-
having more than two axles or an overall gross weight in
"(a) No funds authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal
excess of 14,000 pounds, which shall prescribe:
year for expenditure upon the Federal-aid systems shall be
"(A) minimum performance standards specifying a
apportioned to any State within the boundaries of which any
ratio of gross weight of a vehicle or vehicle combination
Federal-aid system may lawfully be used by a vehicle or
to the net engine horsepower available for movement of
vehicle combination with:
the vehicle or vehicle combination;
"(1) weight in excess of twenty thousand pounds
"(B) minimum performance standards for the braking
including tolerances carried on any one axle, or with
system of a vehicle or vehicle combination; and
a tandem-axle weight in excess of thirty-four thousand
"(C) minimum performance standards for the strength
pounds including tolerances, or with an overall width in
and operation of the linkage and coupling systems
excess of one hundred and two inches excluding tire bulge
between the components of a vehicle combination.
due to loads and safety devices approved by the Secre-
"(2) The Secretary shall determine the effective date of
tary, or with an overall height in excess of thirteen feet,
six inches, or with an overall gross weight including
any standard prescribed under this subsection, which date
shall be not less than one nor more than two years after the
tolerances on a group of two or more consecutive axles
beginning of the fiscal year next following its publication
in the Federal Register unless the Secretary finds, for good
cause shown, that a later date is in the public interest and
publishes his reasons for such finding. The Secretary may
16
17
revise, amend or revoke any standard prescribed under this
SEC. 3. The analysis of chapter 1 of title 23 of the United
subsection by notice published in the Federal Register, but
States Code is amended by revising the caption of section
the effective date of any revision or amendment shall not
127 to read as follows:
be less than one nor more than two years after the beginning
of the fiscal year next following its publication in the Federal
"Vehicle weight and dimension limitations, safety and perform-
ance standards"
Register, unless the Secretary finds, for good cause shown,
that a later date is in the public interest and publishes his
VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS
reasons for such finding.
"(3) After the effective date of any standard prescribed
The Committee on Public Works recommends the enactment of
under this subsection, 10 per centum of funds authorized to
S. 2658, as amended, in the interest of promoting the most productive,
be appropriated for any fiscal year for expenditure upon the
economic and efficient use of our highway system by passenger and
Federal-aid systems shall be withheld from apportionment to
freight carriers. The committee believes that the benefits to be derived
any State within the boundaries of which any segment of any
from the increased sizes and weights of motor vehicles which would
system may lawfully be used by vehicles in violation of that
be permitted by the legislation would offset the increased maintenance
standard. No withholding from the amounts which would
and construction costs for our highway system. This legislation will
otherwise be apportioned to such State shall be made
establish the proper maximum dimensions and weights for the long-
pursuant to the preceding sentence where a reduction in
term use of the Interstate System. The committee further believes that
apportionment under section 402(c) of this title is applied to
highway safety will not be jeopardized as a result of the proposed
that State for the same fiscal year. Where he determines it to
maximum allowable sizes and weights. It further emphasizes that the
be in the public interest the Secretary may suspend, for such
ultimate decisions related to vehicle dimensions and weights will be
periods as he deems necessary, the application of this sub-
made by the States individually after consideration by the State
section to any State. Any amount which is withheld from
legislatures of all the relevant factors. Since the legislation establishes
apportionment to any State pursuant to this subsection shall
a maximum level of use consistent with protection of the Federal
lapse.
investment in the National System of Interstate and Defense High-
"(4) Nothing in this section shall diminish any authority
ways, and no changes can be made in existing highway operations
conferred upon the Secretary or the Federal Highway
without the affirmative action of the States, the committee recom-
Administrator pursuant to any other act.
mends the adoption of S. 2658 as amended.
SEC. 2. Section of title 23, United States Code, is
hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
CHANGES IN EXISTING Law
"The term 'single axle' means an assembly of two or
more wheels, whose centers are in one transverse vertical
In compliance with subsection (4) of the rule XXIX of the Standing
plane or may be included between two parallel trans-
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as re-
verse vertical planes forty inches apart extending across
ported are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
the full width of the vehicle.
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
The term 'tandem+axle' means any two or more con-
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
secutive axles whose centers are more than forty inches
but not more than ninety-six inches apart and are
TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE
individually attached to and/or articulated from a
common attachment to the vehicle including a con-
Chapter 1-FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
necting mechanism designed to equalize the load be-
*
*
*
tween axles.
"The term 'overall gross weight' means the weight of
§ 127. Vehicle weight and width limitations-Interstate System.
a vehicle or vehicle combination without load plus the
No funds authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year under
weight of any load thereon.
section 108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 shall be
The term 'vehicle' means a mechanical device in-
apportioned to any State within the boundaries of which the Inter-
tended primarily for highway transportation of any
state System may lawfully be used by vehicles or combinations thereof
person or property therein or upon, or by which such
with weight in excess of [eighteen] twenty thousand pounds including
device may be drawn upon a highway, except devices
tolerances carried on any one axle, or with a tandem-axle weight in ex-
moved by human power or used exclusively upon sta-
cess of [thirty-two] thirty-four thousand pounds including tolerances,
tionary rails or tracks.
[or with an overall gross weight in excess of seventy-three thousand
The term vehicle combination' means a truck-
two hundred and eighty pounds,] or with a width in excess of [ninety-
tractor and semitrailer either with or without a trailer,
six inches,] one hundred and two inches plus additional width necessary
or a truck with one or more trailers.'
for safety devices and tire bulge due to loads, or with an overall gross
18
weight including tolerances on a group of two or more consecutive axles
in excess of that produced by application of the following formula:
W=500
where W=overall gross weight on any group of two or more consecutive
axles to the nearest 500 pounds, L=distance in feet between the extreme
of any group of two or more consecutive axles, and N=number of axles
in the group under consideration; or the corresponding maximum
weights or maximum widths permitted for vehicles using the public
highways of such State under laws or regulations established by ap-
propriate State authority in effect on [July 1, 1956,] January 1, 1968,
whichever is the greater. Any amount which is withheld from appor-
tionment to any State pursuant to the foregoing provisions shall lapse.
This section shall not be construed to deny apportionment to any
State allowing the operation within such State of any vehicles or
combinations thereof that could be lawfully operated within such
State on [July 1, 1956.] January 1, 1968. [With respect to the State
of Hawaii, laws or regulations in effect on February 1, 1960, shall be
applicable for the purposes of this section in lieu of those in effect on
July 1, 1956.]
lo
ai
al
RB
to
ai
be
bus trigisw
basitoilame
ed Ilada to
[mostrigie]
-X9
to
to
Leadoni
90TH CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
2d Session
No. 1636
VEHICLE WEIGHT AND WIDTH LIMITATIONS-
INTERSTATE SYSTEM
JULY 3, 1968.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. FALLON, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 2658]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 2658) to amend section 127 of title 23 of the United States Code re-
lating to vehicle weight and width limitations on the Interstate Sys-
tem, in order to make certain increases in such limitations, having con-
sidered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Page 2, line 19, strike out "public highways of" and insert in lieu
thereof "Interstate System within".
Page 3, line 2, after "operated" insert "upon the Interstate System".
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The 1956 Highway Act set forth existing maximum sizes and weights
of vehicles that could be operated on the Interstate System. It also
provided that if the laws of any State at that time permitted the
operation of larger vehicles, then those State laws could remain in
effect as to the Interstate System.
S. 2658 as it was referred to the committee amends section 127, title
23, to revise the permissible sizes and weights of vehicles operated on
the Interstate System as is fully explained below. In addition, the
Senate bill would have validated, for the purposes of section 127, title
23, any State law permitting the operation on any public highway of
FORD
98-006
GERALD
LIBRARY
2
3
vehicles exceeding the new maximum dimensions if that State law was
enacted before January 1, 1968.
Per single axle, 18,000 pounds;
The committee believes that the State laws in effect in 1956, which
Per tandem axle, 32,000 pounds;
were protected by the 1956 Highway Act, should continue to be pro-
Overall gross weight, 73,280 pounds;
tected, but that this protection should not be extended to State law
Width, 96 inches;
enacted after 1956 insofar as the Interstate System is concerned.
or
The committee amendments in effect, therefore, continue the grand-
the corresponding weights and dimensions permitted under State
father clause contained in the 1956 Highway Act, and eliminate the
law or regulation in effect on July 1, 1956, whichever is greater.
proposed grandfather clause, which was contained in S. 2658 as it
Any State which by law permits use of the Interstate System by
1956. was referred to the committee, with respect to State laws enacted after
vehicles with maximum weight and width greater than those estab-
lished under the provisions of section 127 will continue to be penalized
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
by the loss of apportioned funds for any fiscal year during which the
violation occurs.
S. 2658 as reported with amendments will facilitate a more efficient
The basic standards adopted by the Congress were those which had
and economic use of the Interstate System and insure that the vehicles
been adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials
using that system will not unreasonably or unnecessarily impair its
during the period 1944-46.
serviceability or durability. The limits established by S. 2658 are
As a companion measure to the enactment of the limitations on
intended to set the maximums which most closely strike the balance
the sizes and weights of motor vehicles, the Congress in the 1956 act
between productive use and reasonable life of pavement, subsurface,
also directed the Secretary of Commerce to take all action possible
and structures. Of course, weights and widths of vehicles are only
to expedite the conduct of a series of tests, later known as the Illinois
one factor to be considered in the durability of highway life. Proper
road tests, for the purpose of determining the maximum desirable
design, construction and maintenance, and the effects of climate are
dimensions and weights for vehicles operating on the Federal-aid
also extremely important.
highway systems, including the Interstate System. Recommendations
The proposed legislation continues the congressional policy of pro-
on such standards were to be presented to the Congress not later than
viding limits regarding maximum permissible use of weights and
March 1, 1959.
dimensions on the Interstate System in order to adequately protect
On August 18, 1964, the Secretary of Commerce transmitted to the
the Federal investment. This determination is based on the condition
Congress the requested study and recommendations (H. Doc. 354,
that such maximums will be properly implemented and enforced by
88th Cong., second sess.):
the States, which continue to bear the ultimate responsibility for
H.R. 14474 was introduced by Mr. Kluczynski, of Illinois, and sev-
permitting vehicles to operate within these weights and width ranges.
eral other Members. S. 2658, the bill here, was passed by the Senate
The committee most emphatically reaffirms that the responsibility for
and referred to the Public Works Committee before the committee
legal maximum allowable limits. and control of sizes and weights of
scheduled its hearings on this subject. Thus the hearings covered
vehicles operating on the Interstate System, as well as on all the other
both the original bill, H.R. 14474, and S. 2658.
road systems of the United States, rests with the individual States.
A substantial amount of testimony was received from both propo-
The legislation is not intended as a Federal determination that such
nents and opponents, and lengthy statements were submitted for the
weights should be permitted, nor does it imply that roads other than
record.
those on the Interstate System are capable of carrying such loads. It
Among the major issues presented to the committee were those
is a statement of policy that permitting such weights will not do
dealing with highway safety, economic impact, effect of increases
violence to the Federal interest in the development of a nationwide
on road systems and structures and the contributions of the various
network of major traffic service highways.
user beneficiaries.
Evidence presented to the committee with regard to highway safety
BACKGROUND OF THE LEGISLATION
did not demonstrate a meaningful relationship between the sizes and
Until July 1, 1956, the regulation of motor vehicle weights and
weights under consideration and the incidence of traffic accidents.
dimensions was a matter solely within the province of the individual
States. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 established maximum
EFFECT OF THIS LEGISLATION
permissible weights and widths for vehicles operating on the Inter-
The beneficial effects on the economy which will result from imple-
state System. Though it constituted a departure from the policy of the
mentation of the increases recommended by the committee are amply
past, this action was taken by the Congress in order to protect the
supported by the testimony presented. Larger payload capacity will
Federal investment in interstate highways and to insure the safety of
facilitate more productive, economic, and efficient passenger and
the traveling public. Preexisting Federal-aid statutes were silent on
the subject.
freight transportation by highways. It will be the responsibility of
Federal and State regulatory agencies to insure that savings achieved
The language of the 1956 act, now section 127, title 23, United
States Code, "Highways," provides that the maximum allowable
by reason of the movement of larger vehicles are passed on to the con-
sumers and work to the advantage of the public in general. It will be
weight and dimensions for vehicles on the Interstate System are:
the further responsibility of such agencies to insure that the benefits
4
5
in the United States, large or small.
of improved highway transportation are accorded to all communities
6. Greater potential for comfort or more passengers per trip
The most difficult problem inherent in consideration of S. 2658
in motorbus transportation, as well as improved stability resulting
concerned the impact of increased weights and widths on the existing
from increased wheel treads, reduced vibration and shock both
road systems and structures. The testimony presented to the com-
to cargo and pavement as a result of more efficient suspension
built to accommodate vehicles with weights and dimensions recom-
mittee made it quite clear that the Interstate System is designed and
system, and lower unit ground pressures resulting from use of
larger tires with lower inflation pressures.
mended in the bill as reported by the committee. This is not the case
S. 2658, as amended, would also replace the existing gross weight
with many of our existing primary and secondary roads, It will,
limit of 73,280 pounds by a formula designed to protect bridges and
therefore, be the responsibility of each of the States to determine the
other structures from unreasonable overstresses.
acceptability of the maximums permitted by S. 2658, as amended,
Based on the weight formula
and if acceptable how they will be implemented. The laws of a number
LN
of States relating to this subject and in effect over the past 12
include weights and dimensions at levels equal to or above years those
proposed by S. 2658, as amended. In addition, a number of States now
as included in S. 2658, as amended, the following table indicates the
loads or both.
designate road systems which carry different maximum axle or gross
range of permissible gross loads for vehicles in regular operation:
The Department of Transportation recommended that the limits
Distance in feet between the
Maximum load in pounds carried on any group of 2 or more consecutive axles
set forth in S. 2658, as amended, be applied to all Federal-aid systems.
extremes of any group of 2
or more consecutive axles
2 exles
3 axles
4 axles
5 axles
6 axles
7 axles
8 axles
9 axles
In view of the foregoing and the fact that a congressionally established
limit could be interpreted as a finding that such weights and dimen-
4
34,000
sions could be accommodated on the other Federal-aid systems, the
5
34,000
6
34,000
committee would continue to restrict the application of the bill to
7
34,000
8
34,000
42,000
the Interstate System. Each State will have to examine the needs of
9
39,000
42,500
its own economy, the capacity of its existing road system and the costs
10
40,000
43,500
11
44,000
of maintenance which will be entailed in making the decisions relating
12
45,000
50,000
13
45,500
50,500
within its borders.
to any increase of the size and weights of vehicles which may operate
14
46,500
51,500
15
47,000
52,000
16
48,000
52,500
58,000
17
48,500
53,500
58,500
18
49,500
54,000
59,000
ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
19
50,000
54,500
60,000
20
51,000
55,500
60,500
66,000
21
51,500
56,000
61,000
66,500
The bill, as reported, adopts the basic recommendations made by
22
52,500
56,500
61,500
67,000
the Department of Transportation and is amply supported by the
23
53,000
57,500
62,500
68,000
24
54,000
58,000
63,000
68,500
74,000
data contained in House Document 354, 88th Congress, second
25
54,500
58,500
64,500
69,000
74,500
26
55,500
59,500
65,000
69,500
75,000
session, which was filed with the Congress on August 19, 1964, as
27
56,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,500
a result of a series of tests conducted for the purpose of determining
28
57,000
60,500
65,500
71,500
76,500
82,000
29
57,500
61,500
66,000
71,500
77,000
82,500
maximum desirable dimensions and weights of vehicles operated on
30
58,500
62,000
66,500
72,000
77,500
83,000
31
59,000
the Federal-aid systems.
62,500
67,500
72,500
78,000
83,500
32
60,000
63,500
68,000
73,000
78,500
84,500
90,000
S. 2658 would permit any State to increase single-axle weights to
33
64,000
68,500
74,000
79,000
85,000
90,500
34
64,500
69,000
74,500
80,000
85,500
91,000
20,000 pounds, tandem-axle weights to 34,000 pounds, and width of
35
65,500
70,000
75,000
80,500
86,000
91,500
36
vehicles to 102 inches.
66,000
70,500
75,500
81,000
86,500
92,000
37
66,500
71,000
76,000
81,500
87,000
93,000
The increase in width would be of benefit in that it would provide
38
67,500
72,000
77,000
82,000
87,500
93,500
39
68,000
72,500
77,500
82,500
88,500
94,000
improved safety and operating conditions. Among the factors to be
40
68,500
73,000
78,000
83,500
89,000
94,500
41
69,500
73,500
78,500
84,000
89,500
95,000
considered as gains from an increase of 6 inches over the existing
42
70,000
74,000
79,000
84,500
90,000
95,500
96-inch width limitation are:
43
70,500
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,500
96,000
44
71,500
75,500
80,500
85,500
91,000
96,500
1. Greater lateral stability for all vehicles,
45
72,000
76,000
81,000
86,000
91,500
97,500
46
72,500
76,500
81,500
87,000
92,500
98,000
2. Greater steering and braking stability of vehicles when
47
73,500
77,500
82,000
87,500
93,000
98,500
48
cornering, or under severe wind or emergency conditions.
74,000
78,000
83,000
88,000
93,500
99,000
49
74,500
78,500
83,500
88,500
94,000
99,500
3. Additional space for spring mountings and frame members
50
75,500
79,000
84,000
89,000
94,500
100,000
51
76,000
80,000
84,500
89,500
95,000
100,500
for better spring systems.
52
76,500
80,500
85,000
90,500
95,500
101,000
53
77,500
81,000
86,000
91,000
96,500
102,000
tilation. 4. Greater space for larger tires and more tire and brake ven-
54
78,000
81,500
86,500
91,500
97,000
102,500
55
78,500
82,500
87,500
92,000
97,500
103,000
56
79,500
83,000
87,500
92,500
98,000
103,500
5. Greater width for efficient storage of 4- and 8-foot standard
57
80,000
83,500
88,000
93,000
98,500
104,000
modular sizes of merchandise.
58
84,000
89,000
94,000
99,000
104,500
59
85,000
89,500
94,500
99,500
105,000
60
85,500
90,000
95,000
100,500
105,500
6
7
The following table shows the essential proposals as made by S. 2658
as reported, the administration's recommendation and the general
The following tables show the present weight laws in effect in the
AASHO policy and compares these to the present law
various States:
SINGLE-AXLE LIMIT ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM
Present law 1
[In pounds]
S. 2658, as amended
Administration
AASHO
recommendation
Present State limits
Statutory
Tolerance
Legal limit
Single axle.
18,000 lbs
limit
Tandem axie
20,000 lbs
32,000 lbs
20,000 lbs
34,000 lbs
20,000 lbs.
Gross weight
34,000 lbs
W=500
LN
34,000 lbs.
73,280
lbs
W-500
LN
LN
Alabama
18,000
1,800
19,800
№1
W=500
Alaska
20,000
20,000
N-1
Arizona
18,000
18,000
+12N+36
+12N+36
+12N+32
Arkansas
18,000
18,000
Width
96 ins
California
18,000
18,000
Coverage
102 ins
Grandfather clause
Interstate System
102 ins
Interstate System
102 ins.6
Colorado
18,000
18,000
July 1, 1956
Same July 1. 1956 (in effect)
All Federal-aid systems All systems.
Connecticut
22,400
448
22,848
Penalty
Loss of apportion-
Jan. 1, 1968
Delaware
20,000
20,000
ment.
Same
District of Columbia
22,000
22,000
Florida
20,000
2,000
22,000
Georgia
18,000
2,340
20,340
in 1 the Presently Single 1956 act. the Such laws greater of some limits of the were States in effect do permit on July higher 1, 1956 maximum and are weights continued and dimensions than were provided for
Hawaii
24,000
24,000
Idaho
18,000
18,000
Tandem axle: axle: 26 24 States States allow more than 18,000 pounds; 15 of these States allow 20,000 by this pounds bill.
Illinois
18,000
18,000
Width: 3 States allow widths allow of more 102 inches than 32,000 or more. pounds; 8 of these States allow 36,000 pounds or or more. more.
Indiana
18,000
18,000
Iowa
18,000
540
18,540
3 2 Where Based on the 1964 BPR report (H. Doc. No. 354, 89th Cong. 2d sess.).
Kansas
18,000
18,000
feet between W=overall the gross weight on any group of two or more consecutive axles to the
Kentucky
18,000
900
18,900
consideration. in extreme of any group of two or more consectuive axles, and N=number nearest of axles 500 pounds, in the group L=distance under
Louisiana
18,000
18,000
Maine
22,000
22,000
represents 4 Where W distance represents between overall gross weight on any group of two or more consecutive axles to the nearest 500
Maryland
22,400
22,400
foot, L 5 Where and N represents number centers of axles of in the the extreme group axles under of consideration. any group of two or more consecutive axles to the pounds, nearest
Massachusetts
22,400
22,400
Michigan
18,000
18,000
L=distance maximum in feet weight between in pounds carried on any group of two or more axles, including
Minnesota
18,000
18,000
in ances, the group under consideration. the extremes of any group of two or more consecutive axles, any and and N=number all weight of toler- axles
Mississippi
18,000
18,000
Missouri
18,000
18,000
6 Interstate System plus other roads with 12-ft. lanes.
Montana
18,000
18,000
Nebraska
18,000
900
18,900
Nevada
18,000
18,000
New Hampshire
22,400
22,400
New Jersey
22,400
1,120
23,520
New Mexico
21,600
21,600
New York
22,400
22,400
North Carolina
18,000
1,000
19,000
North Dakota
18,000
18,000
Ohio
19,000
19,000
Oklahoma
18,000
18,000
Oregon
18,000
8,000
Pennsylvania
22,400
672
23,072
Rhode Island
22,400
22,400
South Carolina
20,000
20,000
South Dakota
18,000
18,000
Tennessee
18,000
18,000
Texas
18,000
18,000
Utah
18,000
18,000
Vermont
22,400
22,400
Virginia
18,000
18,000
Washington
18,000
18,000
West Virginia
18,000
900
18,900
Wisconsin
19,500
19,500
Wyoming
18,000
18,000
Number of States
18,000
25
18,001 to 20,000
11
20,001 lbs and over
15
Total
51
8
9
TANDEM-AXLE LIMIT ON INTERSTATE SYSTEM
HIGHEST PRACTICAL WEIGHT BY STATES
[In pounds]
Hn pounds]
Present State limits
Statutory
Tolerance
Legal limit
Highest
Highest
limit
State
practical
State
practical
gross weight
gross weight
Alabama
36,000
Alaska
3,600
39,600
34,000
Arizona
34,000
Alabama
73,280
Montana
76,800
32,000
Arkansas
32,000
Alaska
89,000
Nebraska
73,280
32,000
California
32,000
Arizona
76,800
Nevada
76,800
32,000
Colorado
32,000
Arkansas
73,280
New Hampshire
73,280
36,000
Connecticut
36,000
California
76,800
New Jersey
73,280
36,000
720
Delaware
36,720
Colorado
76,000
New Mexico
86,400
36,000
District of Columbia
36,000
Connecticut
73,000
New York
71,000
38,000
Florida
38,000
Delaware
73,280
North Carolina
73,280
40,000
4,000
Georgia
44,000
District of Columbia
70,000
North Dakota
73,280
36,000
680
Hawaii
40,680
Florida
73,271
Ohio
78,000
32,000
Idaho
32,000
Georgia
73,280
Oklahoma
73,280
32,000
Illinois
32,000
Hawaii
73,280
Oregon
76,000
32,000
Indiana
32,000
Idaho
76,800
Pennsylvania
73,279
32,000
Iowa
32,000
Illinois
73,280
Rhode Island
73,280
32,000
960
Kansas
32,960
Indiana
73,000
South Carolina
73,280
32,000
Kentucky
32,000
lowa
73,280
South Dakota
73,280
32,000
1,600
Louisiana
33,600
Kansas
73,280
Tennessee
73,280
32,000
Maine
32,000
Kentucky
73,280
Texas
72,000
32,000
Maryland
32,000
Louisiana
74,000
Utah
79,900
40,000
Massachusetts
40,000
Maine
73,280
Vermont
73,280
36,000
Michigan
36,000
Maryland
73,280
Virginia
70,000
26,000
Minnesota
126,000
Massachusetts
73,000
Washington
76,000
32,000
Mississippi
32,000
Michigan
1 96,000
West Virginia
73,280
32,000
Missouri
32,000
Minnesota
73,280
Wisconsin
73,000
32,000
Montana
32,000
Mississippi
73,280
Wyoming
73,950
32,000
Nebraska
32,000
Missouri
73,280
32,000
Nevada
1,600
33,600
32,000
New Hampshire
32,000
36,000
36,000
New Jersey
1 Maximum gross weight for 6-axle twin trailer combination; higher maximum gross weight possible with increase in
32,000
1,600
New Mexico
33,600
number of axles.
34,320
New York
34,320
36,000
North Carolina
36,000
36,000
North Dakota
2,000
38,000
COMMITTEE VIEWS
32,000
Ohio
32,000
32,000
Oklahoma
32,000
32,000
32,000
The Committee on Public Works recommends the enactment of
Oregon
32,000
32,000
Pennsylvania
36,000
Rhode Island
1,080
37,080
S. 2658, as amended, in the interest of promoting the most productive,
36,000
36,000
South Carolina
economic and efficient use of our highway system by passenger and
32,000
32,000
South Dakota
32,000
32,000
freight carriers. The committee believes that the benefits to be derived
Tennessee
32,000
32,000
Texas
32,000
32,000
from the increased sizes and weights of motor vehicles which would
Utah
33,000
33,000
Vermont
be permitted by the legislation would offset the increased maintenance
36,000
36,000
Virginia
32,000
32,000
and construction costs for our highway system. This legislation will
Washington
32,000
32,000
West Virginia
32,000
Wisconsin
1,600
33,600
establish the proper maximum dimensions and weights for the long-
32,000
32,000
Wyoming
term use of the Interstate System. The committee further believes that
36,000
36,000
highway safety will not be jeopardized as a result of the proposed
Number of States at-
maximum allowable sizes and weights. It further emphasizes that the
32,000 lbs.
27
32,001 to 36,000 lbs
ultimate decisions related to vehicle dimensions and weights will be
16
36,001 lbs. and over
8
made by the States individually after consideration by the State legis-
Total
51
latures of all the relevant factors. Since the legislation establishes a
1 On designated highways 1 pair of tandems permitted 32,000 lbs.
maximum level of use consistent with protection of the Federal in-
vestment in the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways,
and no changes can be made in existing highway operations without
the affirmative action of the States, the committee recommends the
adoption of S. 2658 as amended.
CHANGES IN EXISTING Law MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-
ported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :
10
SECTION 127 OF TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE
§ 127. Vehicle weight and width limitations-Interstate System
[No funds authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year under
section (b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 shall be ap-
portioned to any State within the boundaries of which the Interstate
MINORITY VIEWS
System may lawfully be used by vehicles with weight in excess of
eighteen thousand pounds carried on any one axle, or with a tandem-
The undersigned present the following views not because we are
axle weight in excess of thirty-two thousand pounds, or with an over-
against the proposed legislation, but because it is apparent as the
all gross weight in excess of seventy-three thousand two hundred and
following will show, that not all the facts and factors were considered
eighty pounds, or with a width in excess of ninety-six inches, or the
which relate to obvious problems which will result if the States take
corresponding maximum weights or maximum widths permitted for
advantage of what the committee is authorizing or, interpret commit-
vehicles using the public highways of such State under laws or regu-
tee action as endorsement of a policy on weight, width, and length
lations established by appropriate State authority in effect on July 1;
limits.
1956, whichever is the greater. Any amount which is withheld from
It is apparent that there is a deplorable lack of agreement among the
apportionment to any State pursuant to the foregoing provisions shall
engineers and experts as to the desirability of allowing greater weights
lapse. This section shall not be construed to deny apportionment to
and dimensions of motor vehicles.
any State allowing the operation within such State of any vehicles
The lack of any limitation on length will cause serious traffic
or combinations thereof that could be lawfully operated within such
hazards.
State on July 1, 1956. With respect to the State of Hawaii, laws or
The increase in allowable width, from 8 feet to 81/2 feet, will cause
regulations in effect on February 1, 1960, shall be applicable for the
serious traffic hazards.
purposes of this section in lieu of those in effect on July 1, 1956.]
Although the bill applies to the Interstate System, it will affect all
No funds authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year under
other highways which must be used to enter or exit from the Inter-
section 108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 shall be ap-
state System.
portioned to any State within the boundaries of which the Interstate
Since it is conceded that heavier vehicle weights will damage high-
,System may lawfully be used by vehicles or combinations thereof with
ways and cause additional expense, the bill should not be enacted until
weight in excess of twenty thousand pounds including tolerances oar-
additional user taxes are imposed upon the beneficiaries of this bill.
ried on any one axle, or with a tandem-axle weight in excess of thirty-
The action of this committee which makes possible the increasing of
four thousand pounds inçluding tolerances, or with a width in excess
truck sizes and weights on the National System of Interstate Defense
of one hundred and two inches plus additional width necessary for
Highways can be and, no doubt will be, described by knowledgeable
safety devices and tire bulge due to loads, or with an overall gross
people as an ill-advised attempt at satisfying special interest.
weight including tolerances on a group of two or more consecutive
This legislation becomes "special" when there is evidence that less
axles in excess of that produced by application of the following
than 300,000 trucks out of 15 million trucks will apparently be able to
formula:
take advantage of it. Some will reçognize it as "special" because the
80 million passenger car drivers and 15 million light truck owners will
W=500
Missi
have to share in the major cost of the bill. And there will be a "bill."
The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that it will cost
where W=overall gross weight on any group of two or more con-
$2,800 million for new construction and upgrading of older highways
seoutive axles to the nearest 500 pounds, L=distance in feet between
if every State takes advantage of this new authorization.
the extreme of any group of two or more consecutive axles, and N=
This legislation is much more important than we have recognized
number of axles in the group under consideration; or the sorrespond-
to date because an analysis of activities of Government expenditures for
ing maximum weights or maximum widths permitted for vehicles
road building in the Public Works Committee indicates $232 billion
using the Interstate System within such State under laws or regular
has been invested in highway networks in the United States. Passage of
tions established by appropriate State authority in eff ect on anuary 1,
this bill may seriously jeopardize this investment and make much of
1968, whichever is greater. Any amount which is withheld from appor-
our highway system obsolete. Many people and government representa-
tionment to any State pursuant to the foregoing provisions shall lapse.
tives interested in highways recognize this including the mayors in
This section shall not be construed to deny apportionment to any State
their recent U.S. Conference of Mayors. They passed a resolution
allowing the operation within such State of any vehicles or combina-
opposing provisions of this bill in its present form.
tions thereof that could be lawfully operated upon the Interstate Sys-
There was hasty consideration and inadequate testimony when the
tem within such State on January 1, 1968.
bill was considered on the Senate side. It has had a very similar experi-
ence on the House side thus far. When the bill was in the subcommittee,
ni won
Members who were opposed to the passage because they did not have all
ai bezoqozq egriedo Off ni
the facts were given unequivocal assurance that they would have full
(11)
12
13
and adequate opportunity to discuss the bill, the effects of the legis-
lation and a chance to consider any and all amendments. The assurance
The results of their study will not be available for congressional con-
sideration for some time. Thus, it is apparent we are legislating to
was given also that every Member would have an opportunity to ex-
press his views and to ask questions.
increase legal weights before we have received information on the
The record clearly shows that the full committee passed the bill after
capabilities of bridges to withstand such weights.
less than 40 minutes of discussion and that many Members with ques-
This legislation affects only the Interstate System described as the
tions, with suggestions and with pertinent observations had very little
best highway system ever built. This is true but we should not forget
that truck movements do not begin or end on the Interstate, and that
or no opportunity to be heard. Many members of the committee felt like
they didn't have "their day in court." In addition, no member of the
they must use, in order to serve the public, the other streets and roads
as well.
committee had a chance to review the entire record of the hearings
These streets and roads are not built to the same standards as the
nor the special questions addressed to the American Trucking As-
the committee.
sociations, Inc., and their answers with an addendum by a member of
Interstate, yet some would sluff this off, saying: "This is not our
problem, that is a question for each State." Yet we know State legis-
lators will be just as hard pressed to beat back the intensive lobbying
It should be noted that much of the stimulus for increasing existing
size and weight limits has come from the West, Truckers there say
efforts by large truckers on this issue.
they were put at a disadvantage when the 1956 act was passed
Since the 1956 legislation, 48 States have increased sizes and weights.
limiting them to 18,000-pound single and 32,000-pound tandem axle
This indicates the impracticality of adopting standards only for the
loadings. Many of the Eastern States already permitted heavier axle
Interstate System. Limiting standards to the Interstate System pro-
loadings and, under the terms of the grandfather clause, could con-
vides heavy trucking a continuing opportunity and incentive to pursue
tinue these heavier weights.
their checkerboard tactics under which greater maximums permitted
Without delving into the record, the arguments of the wéstern
in some States are used to bring pressure on the legislatures of neigh-
truckers seem to have merit. However, the facts do not bear out the
boring States for similar concessions.
validity of their position. Bureau of Public Roads tables conclusively
Such a ceiling on all Federal-aid systems was requested by the De-
demonstrate that for the last 25 years truckers in the Western States
partment of Transportation, AASHO and aaa, and this bill should
provide for such a ceiling. This would be adopting good public policy
have parts. consistently carried heavier payloads than their eastern counter-
and certainly would be advisable for the industry.
Another reason Congress should be concerned with this situation is
It is difficult to comprehend why this legislation has been approved
when opposition has been expressed by such respected groups as the
that the Federal highway trust fund pays the bill. We do have a right
American Automobile Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors
and obligation to be concerned over the increased deterioration of the
and State highway. departments. For the Public Works Committee
roads. Failure to establish ceilings on all Federal-aid systems in which
we have invested billions and billions of dollars is just poor business.
to reject the counsel of these organizations is unfortunate and it is
strange, indeed, that we are rejecting the much sought after counsel
Finally, there is the issue of safety. Testimony by the American
of AASHO (American Association of State Highway Officials) whose
Trucking Association showed that heavy trucks accounted for 1.54
official policy is 20,000-pound single axles and 32,000-pound tandem
percent of vehicle registrations in 1964, traveled 5.33 percent of all the
axles. These are the true experts-the men who must build and main-
miles operated in this country, but were involved in 11.6 percent of the
fatalities.
advice on trucks.
tain these highways-yet 'we say in effect, "Sorry, we won't heed your
It is reasonable to assume that this record will continue to worsen if
The president of AASHO, John O. Morton, has testified and rightly
we permit bigger and heavier trucks on our Nation's highways and if
pointed out interstate bridges are designed for a 32,000-pound axle
we permit this legislation to pass with an increase in permissible width
loading. This limitation applies to bridges on our Interstate System.
from a flat 96 inches to 102 inches plus safety gear, which means 108-
inch widths, an increase of 12 inches.
loads." He said "A road network is useless if its bridges cannot handle. the
We will have 9-foot wide trucks on our Interstate System which
The record is replete with other examples of why we should not
has 12-foot lanes, or a safety clearance of 18 inches on each side.
pass this legislation now and before we have considered all of the
Imagine trying to steer a car through an opening with only 18 inches
facts and factors that relate to deterioration and maintenance costs.
to spare on either side at 65 miles per hour.
The testimony of Francis C. Turner, the respected Director of the
Hardly appreciated or even known by members of the committee, is
Bureau of Public Roads, is impressive. He says increasing permissive
the fact that apparently this bill would permit triple-trailer trucks.
weights from the present 32,000-pound limit to 34,000 pounds would
It would allow trucks almost double the present permissible weight.
overstress the Interstate System bridges by 32 to 36 percent.
According to the law as we know it, the ceiling is now 73,280 pounds
The Department of Transportation and the State highway depart-
and according to the formula in the bill as we understand it now, the
bill would permit trucks to operate weighing 138,000 pounds. Some
ments are currently engaged in a study of all highway and railroad
bridges. Their study will determine the capabilities of bridges to safely
believe there is no ceiling at all.
It is the feeling of the minority that the committee should heed the
accommodate the weights encountered under today's traffic conditions.
weight, width, and length requests. It is not the feeling of the minority
14
that we should not heed the requests for increasing the weight, width,
and length. Indeed a growing, expanding society like ours must grow
and progress, but it is our view that we should do this only after we
have considered all of the facts and factors that relate to the many
evident problems that testimony has shown so clearly.
The attitude of the Bureau of the Budget as expressed in their re-
port is as follows, "We wish to emphasize the close relationship be-
tween S. 2658 and the administration's proposed highway user charges
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMEN
for heavy vehicles. Since passage of S. 2658, as introduced or with
CLEVELAND AND McEWEN
the amendments proposed by the Department of Transportation,
would result in higher costs and reduced life of the highway system,
We are opposed to S. 2658 in its present form and at the present time.
we concur with the view of the Department that increased user charges
We concur in some respects with the minority views of Congressmen
are an essential complement to this legislation."
McCarthy, Schwengel, Everett, and Kee.
By letter dated April 22, 1968, the Secretary of Transportation
Our present opposition to S. 2658 in its present form may best be
recommended the enactment of legislation providing for, "A more
expressed in the form of certain reservations which we have. We do
equitable distribution of the costs of the program borne by different
not feel that adequate time and study have been given to resolving these
classes of users." Among other things, the heavier trucks would be
required to pay additional highway user taxes. Since it is conceded
reservations. 1. There is lack of agreement among the engineers and experts as to
that permitting heavier and larger vehicles will create additional
the desirability of allowing greater weights and dimensions of motor
expenses, S. 2658 should be deferred until the enactment of legislation
under which the beneficiaries of S, 2658-the relatively few operators
vehicles. 2. The lack of any limitation on length could cause serious traffic and
of large trucks and truck-trailer combinations-will be required to
safety hazards.
pay, in the form of increased highway user taxes, their fair share of
3. The increase in allowable width, from 8 feet to 81/2 feet, could
such additional costs.
cause serious traffic and safety hazards.
Hopefully, the Members will have some second thoughts on this
4. Although the bill applies to the Interstate System, it will affect
matter and will consider our suggestion to give more thought to the
all other highways which must be used to enter upon or exit from
problem and the need with the view of legislating more intelligently
the Interstate System.
and adequately on the subject of increased width, weight and length.
5. Since it is conceded that allowing heavier vehicle weights will
ROBERT A. EVERETT.
damage highways and cause additional expense, the bill should not be
100g
tami
FRED SCHWENGEL.
enacted until additional user taxes upon the beneficiaries of the bill
RICHARD D. McCARTHY.
are fully considered.
MI
JAMES KEE.
It is quite true that this legislation is permissive and does not force
the several States to adopt these increases. As a practical matter, how-
0.11 01
ever, the Congress by giving its stamp of approval to these increases
would in effect be paving the way for increases by many of the States.
of Hiw biosou
JAMES C. CLEVELAND.
11 bire THO
ROBERT C. McEwEN.
08
(15)
Hiw
по 81 to вопвтвэӏэ TO
tinereq blrrow
OF bas
Transportation HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
90TH CONGRESS
REPORT
2d Session
No. 1667
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE TRANSPORTATION
EXEMPTION
JULY 10, 1968.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 752]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (S. 752) to amend sections 203(b)( (5) and 220 of
the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amend-
ment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of S. 752 is to clarify the meaning of the exemption
from the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act provided for the
transportation by motor vehicles operated by an agricultural coopera-
tive association, particularly when such vehicles are used to perform
transportation for nonmembers.
This clarification is accomplished through amendment to section
203(b)(5) of the act restricting such transportation where the non-
members are neither farmers, cooperative associations, nor federations
thereof to that which is (1) incidental to the association's primary
transportation operation and necessary for its effective performance,
and in no event in excess of 15 percent of its total transportation serv-
ice and including within such percentage transportation performed
for the United States; and (2) amending section 220 of the act to grant
the Commission specific authority to examine the books and records
of such cooperative as they pertain to their transportation services.
98-006
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
2
3
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
member and nonmember business transacted by such
association.
The agricultural cooperative transportation exemption set forth
in section 293(b)(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act provides as
Inasmuch as section 203(b)(5) is modified only by the terms of the
follows:
definition of a cooperative association as defined in the Agricultural
Section 203(b) "Nothing in this part except the provisions
Marketing Act, it will be perceived that the problems arising in con-
of section 203 relative to qualifications and maximum hours
nection with transportation by such an association for nonmembers
stem from item No. 3, above; namely, that the association may deal in
of service of employees and safety of operation or standards
services for nonmembers in an amount up to the value of the business
of equipment shall be construed to include * (5) motor
transacted with members and from the fact that business done for the
vehicles controlled and operated by a cooperative association
as defined in the Agricultural Marketing Act, approved June
United States is not included in determining the volume of such non-
member business.
15, 1929, as amended, or by a federation of such cooperative
associations, if such federation possesses no greater powers or
In the last Congress, Public Law 89-170 was enacted, culminating
purposes than cooperative associations SO defined;"
many years of effort to provide the Interstate Commerce Commission
with improved tools to combat illegal carriage. This legislation in-
Under this section, motor vehicles controlled and operated by
cluded the transportation message recommendations for cooperative
agricultural cooperatives, or by a federation of such cooperatives,
State and Federal enforcement agreements, civil forfeiture penalties,
are exempt from the Commission's economic regulation provided
increased penalties, and, in addition, contained provisions for uniform
the cooperatives meet certain qualifying criteria as defined in the
State registration of motor carrier certificates.
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929 (12 U.S.C. 1141j). The original
At that time some consideration was given to the problem of those
exemption from regulation for agricultural cooperatives was included
operators performing general transportation services under the guise
in the Motor Carrier Act of 1935. In 1940, this exemption was ex-
of being exempt agricultural cooperatives. The Interstate Commerce
panded to include a federation of such cooperative associations, if
Commission made certain recommendations for legislation and
such federation possesses no greater powers or purposes than coopera-
extensive hearings were held by the Senate committee on this problem.
tive associations SO defined.
Following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929 (12 U.S.C.
Circuit in Northwest Agricultural Cooperatives Association V. Interstate
1141j), defines the cooperatives entitled to the exemption under section
Commerce Commission (350 F. 2d 252 (1965), certiorari denied, 382
203(b)(5) as follows:
U.S. 1011 (1966)), which reversed the position taken by the Inter-
As used in this act, the term "cooperative association"
state Commerce Commission in 1961 in the Machinery Haulers
means any association in which farmers act together in
Association V. Agricultural Commodity Service (86 M.C.C. 5), the
processing, preparing for market, handling, and/or market-
Commission recommended that something be done to limit the scope
ing the farm products of persons so engaged, and also means
of the cooperative exemption since it appeared that the case had
any association in which farmers act together in purchasing,
stimulated expansion of the transportation of non-farm-related.
testing, grading, processing, distributing, and/or furnishing
traffic being handled by these cooperatives for nonmembers. The
farm supplies and/or farm business services: Provided, how-
information stated that certain farm cooperative associations were
ever, That such associations are operated for the mutual
even soliciting through newspaper advertisements and by letters to
benefit of the members thereof as such producers or pur-
traffic managers for all kinds of freight on backhaul movements. In
chasers and conform to one or both of the following require-
the case of one organization, Agricultural Transportation Association
ments:
of Texas, the Department of Defense advised that they intended to
First. That no member of the association is allowed more
continue to use their services for the movement of military traffic,
than one vote because of the amount of stock or membership
even after the ICC had found the organization to be engaging in
capital he may own therein; and
for-hire transportation without appropriate authority, until review
Second. That the association does not pay dividends on
of the ICC decision was completed in the court. The Commission's
stock or membership capital in excess of 8 per centum per
decision that this operation was unlawful was upheld by a three-
annum.
judge court decision in Agricultural Transportation Association of
And in any case to the following:
Texas V. United States (274 Fed. Supp. 528).
Third. That the association shall not deal in farm products,
The Commission's recommendations for legislation were submitted
farm supplies, and farm business services with or for non-
in the 90th Congress as H.R. 6530 and as S. 752. Following hearings
members in an amount greater in value than the total amount
last year by the Senate committee on S. 752, all parties at interest,
of such business transacted by it with or for members. All
including the Department of Agriculture, the agricultural cooperative
business transacted by any cooperative association for or on
organizations and farm groups, worked out language acceptable to
behalf of the United States or any agency or instrumentality
all which substantially amended the bills as introduced and is con-
thereof shall be disregarded in determining the volume of
tained in the form of S. 752 as it passed the Senate and was referred
to this committee, and is the text of the bill here being reported.
H. Rept. 1667
H. Rept. 1667
4
5
WHAT THIS BILL DOES
be within the 15-percent limitation, such transportation must also
The bill is in two sections. The first section amends section 203(b) (5)
be shown to be incidental and necessary for the exemption to apply.
of the Interstate Commerce Act by adding clarifying and limiting
The court in that Northwest decision defined "incidental and neces-
language to the exemption therein contained. This clarifying and
sary" as follows:
limiting language is in itself limited by three provisos. The second
TOILD On the uncontradicted facts, Northwest's transpor-
section of the bill amends section 220 of the Interstate Commerce
tation of nonfarm products and supplies was incidental and
Act by adding an additional subsection (f) to specifically authorize
necessary to its farm-related transportation both in character
the Commission to inspect the books and records pertaining to motor
and in amount-incidental because limited to otherwise
vehicle transportation of cooperatives and federations required to give
empty trucks returning from hauling member farm products
the notice called for in the second proviso of section 1 of this bill.
to market, and producing a small return in proportion to
The first section of the bill amends section 203(b)(5) but is not in-
Northwest's income from trucking farm products and farm
tended to alter existing law defining cooperative associations or
supplies; necessary because it is not economically feasible
federations of such cooperative associations. The definitions and limi-
to operate the trucks empty on return trips and because the
tations set forth in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929 (12 U.S.C.
additional income obtained is no more than that required
1141j) and in section 521 of the Internal Revenue Code would continue
to render performance of the cooperative's primary farm
to apply.
transportation service financially practicable.
The bill adds further limitations to those presently contained in
section 203(b)(5) with respect to the interstate (motor) transportation
The committee intends by the phrase "incidental to its primary
which may lawfully be performed by a cooperative association or
transportation operation and necessary for its effective performance"
federation of cooperative associations without first obtaining a certifi-
that a cooperative's transportation for nonmembers must have the
cate or permit under the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act.
direct relationship above described to the cooperative farm-related
The first section begins by exempting from the additional limitations
transportation.
contained therein interstate (motor) transportation by a cooperative
The second maximum limitation is that such "other" nonmember
or federation "for nonmembers who are neither farmers, cooperative
transportation shall in no event exceed 15 percent of the cooperative
associations, nor federations thereof for compensation." A cooperative
or federation's total interstate transportation services in any fiscal
association or federation may continue to transport its own property,
year, measured in terms of tonnage. This same percentage is used in
its members' property, the property of other farmers, and the property
section 521(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as a limitation
of other cooperatives or federations in accordance with existing law,
on nonmember, nonproducer purchases. The Department of Agricul-
except insofar as the third proviso of the first section may be applicable
ture further recommended that the 15 percent be measured in terms
with respect to the limit on member/nonmember transportation.
of interstate tonnage transported, rather than in terms of revenue,
The next phrase in the first section excepts "transportation other-
inasmuch as the cooperatives do not generally collect revenues in the
wise exempt under this part." The committee intends by this phrase
transportation of their own goods.¹
that cooperatives or federations may transport agricultural and other
Two additional pertinent exemptions contained in sec. 203(b) of
commodities exempt under section 203(b)(6) of part II of the Inter-
the Interstate Commerce Act are 203(b)(4a), which exempts motor
state Commerce Act, in accordance with existing law, ecxept insofar
vehicles controlled and operated by any farmer when used in the trans-
as the third proviso of the first section may be applicable with respect
portation of his agricultural (including horticultural) commodities
to the limitation on member/nonmember transportation.
and products thereof, or in the transportation of supplies to his farms;
Section 1 of the bill next sets forth two maximum limitations on the
and, 203(b)(6), which exempts motor vehicles used in carrying live-
interstate (motor) transportation which may lawfully be performed
stock, fish, or agricultural (including horticultural) commodities. (not
by cooperatives or federations for nonmembers who are neither
including manufactured products thereof) listed as exempt in that
farmers, cooperative associations nor federations thereof for compen-
subsection.
sation, and excepting transportation otherwise exempt under part II
The 15 percent maximum limitation on tonnage is of the total
of the Interstate Commerce Act. These maximum limitations on
interstate transportation services of a cooperative or federation in any
"other" nonmember for-hire transportation are: (1) such transporta-
fiscal year of such cooperative or federation. In other words, the base
tion shall be limited to that which is incidental to its (the cooperative
to which the 15 percent is applicable is all of the interstate (motor)
or federation) primary transportation operation and necessary for its
tonnage transported by a cooperative in any fiscal year. Included in
effective performance; and (2) shall in no event exceed 15 percent of
the base would be any interstate (motor) tonnage transported by a
its total interstate transportation services in any fiscal year, measured
cooperative of its own property, its members, of nonmember farmers,
in terms of tonnage. The committee intends, as indicated by the lan-
of other cooperatives or federations, exempt commodities, and "other"
guage, that such "other" transportation must meet both tests to be
1 Sec. 521(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the tax treatment of farmer cooperatives meeting
lawful, that is, be both incidental and necessary and within the 15-
the requirements of that section reads as follows:
"TRANSACTIONS WITH NONMEMBERS.-Exemption shall not be denied any such association which
percent limitation. In other words, even if a cooperative were, for
markets the products of nonmembers in an amount the value of which does not exceed the value of the
products marketed for members, or which purchases supplies and equipment for nonmembers in an amount
example, to haul only 1 percent "of other" transportation, and thus
the value of which does not exceed the value of the supplies and equipment purchased for members, provided
the value of the purchases made for persons who are neither members nor producers does not exceed 15 per-
H. Rept. 1667
cent of the value of all its purchases."
H. Rept. 1667
6
7
nonmember transportation. The "other" nonmember transportation
transported would be exempt under section (b) (6). As heretofore
which may not lawfully exceed 15 percent of the tonnage would
indicated, transportation for nonfarm business of a member of a
include any transportation for the U.S. Government, and any trans-
cooperative (such as for his "construction business") would be con-
portation of "other" freight. The committee intends that transporta-
sidered to be nonmember transportation; and, under the first proviso,
tion would be considered "other" transportation if it were for the
U.S. Government property transported would also be considered to
nonfarm business of a cooperative member farmer or nonmember
be nonmember.
farmer. In the example earlier cited on nonfarm business, gasoline
Section 2 of the bill amends section 220 of the act to authorize the
transported for a cooperative member would be included within the
Commission to have access to and authority to inspect, examine, and
15 percent maximum limitation if it were for use in his "construction
copy any and all accounts, books, records, memorandums, corre-
business."
spondence, and other documents pertaining to motor vehicle transpor-
The first proviso of section 1 of the bill makes clear that (interstate
tation of a cooperative or federation which is required to give notice
motor) transportation performed by a cooperative on behalf of the
under section 1 of this bill. A proviso to section 2 provides that the
United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof shall be
Commission shall not have authority to prescribe the form of any
deemed to be transportation performed for a nonmember. As hereto-
accounts, records, or memorandums to be maintained by a cooperative
fore indicated, such transportation for the Government is subject to
or federation.
both the "incidental and necessary" and 15 percent maximum tonnage
This language grants the Commission this authority only in the
limitation. However, if the traffic transported for the Government is
case of those cooperatives who are "required to give notice" and only
of agricultural commodities exempted under section 203(b)(6), such
as to their transportation activities.
tonnage would fall within the total, but not be subject to the 15 per-
cent maximum limitation.
HEARINGS
The second proviso requires a cooperative or federation which
Hearings were held on H.R. 6530 and S. 752 by the Subcommittee
performs interstate (motor) transportation for nonmembers who are
on Transportation and Aeronautics on July 1, 1968. The bill is sup-
neither farmers, cooperative associations, nor federations thereof,
ported by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the National Asso-
except transportation otherwise exempt under this part, to notify
ciation of Railroad & Utilities Commissioners, the National Council
the Commission of the cooperative's or federation's intent to perform
of Farm Cooperatives, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the
such transportation prior to the commencement thereof. In other
American Trucking Associations, and the Association of American
words, a cooperative would be operating unlawfully if it failed to file
Railroads. The bill is opposed by certain farm cooperatives, the
notice with the ICC before transporting nonexempt property for the
Bureau of the Budget, and by the Department of Defense insofar as
U.S. Government for nonfarm shippers; or in connection with the
it pertains to the elimination of the exemption of business done with
nonfarm business of member farmers or nonmember farmers.
the Government in the calculation of percentages.
The third proviso clarifies that in no event shall any such coopera-
tive association or federation, required to give notice to the Com-
COST OF THE LEGISLATION
mission, transport interstate for compensation in any fiscal year of
It is not believed that the enactment of this proposed legislation will
such association or federation a quantity of property for nonmembers
result in any significant increased cost to the Government. The pro-
which, measured in terms of tonnage, exceeds the total quantity of
visions of this bill will enable the Commission more effectively to
property transported interstate for itself and its members in any fiscal
carry out its present enforcement efforts in this area. The committee
year of the cooperative.
recognizes, however, that the Commission initially will have to devote
Under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929, a cooperative may
resources to develop rules and regulations for the administration of
not deal in "farm products, farm supplies, and farm business services
the clarifying and restricting provisions of this proposed legislation,
with or for nonmembers in an amount greater in value than the total
and to the enforcement thereof. It is expected that the Commission
amount of such business transacted by it with or for members." This
to fully utilize the State-Federal cooperative enforcement agreement
provision applies to the total business activities of a cooperative. The
provisions of Public Law 89-170 to lessen any budgetary impact in
Department of Agriculture referred to the concern expressed by the
the enforcement of this proposed legislation.
regulated motor carrier industry that in a case where the only non-
member business of a cooperative is transportation, the cooperative
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
could assert it would be free to engage in transportation for non-
members in an amount equal in value to the total business of all
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
kinds conducted by the cooperative for members. Therefore, the
Washington, D.C., June 28, 1968.
Department suggested a provision along the lines of the third proviso
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
to limit nonmember transportation business to an amount not to
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
exceed member transportation business.
House of Representatives.
Transportation for a nonmember under this proviso would be
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will reply to your request of June 7,
considered nonmember transportation whether or not the commodity
1968, for a report on S. 752, a bill to amend sections 203(b)(5) and 220
of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, and for other purposes.
H. Rept. 1667
H. Rept. 1667
8
9
This bill would amend section 203(b)(5), known as the agricultural
tion. For the convenience of the committee, a copy of the July 24,
cooperative transportation exemption, in order to limit and clarify the
1967, report containing the suggestions is enclosed. All of these
scope of the exemption and to assist the Interstate Commerce Com-
suggestions are now embodied in S. 752, as passed by the U.S. Senate,
mission in its enforcement operations. Specifically, there would be
and as presently before your committee for consideration.
added to section 203(b)(5):
One additional provision is incorporated in the bill before you. That
Provisions under which the interstate transportation that could
provision is a specific limitation on the amount of interstate transpor-
be performed by a cooperative association or federation of co-
tation (except motor transportation otherwise exempt) which a coop-
operative associations, for nonmembers who are neither farmers,
erative association or federation of such associations may perform for
cooperative associations nor federations thereof for compensation
nonmembers who are neither farmers, cooperative associations, nor
(except motor transportation otherwise exempt) would be limited
federations thereof. Such interstate transportation, which the Depart-
to that which is incidental to its primary transportation operation
ment recommended be limited to an amount which is incidental to
and necessary for its effective performance, but in no event more
the primary transportation operation of the cooperative or federation
than 15 percent of its total interstate transportation services in
and necessary to its effective performance, is also made subject to a
any fiscal year, measured in terms of tonnage.
specific limitation of 15 percent of the total interstate transportation
A provision that transportation performed by a cooperative
services of the cooperative or federation.
association or federation for or on behalf of the United States or
The inclusion of a specific percentage limitation on the indicated
any agency or instrumentality thereof shall be deemed to be
traffic apparently stemmed from a concern on the part of regulated
transportation performed for a nonmember.
motor carriers that the limitation imposed by the terms "incidental"
A provision that a cooperative association or federation which
and "necessary" might permit a cooperative association or federation
performs interstate transportation for nonmembers who are nei-
to transport a significant volume of such traffic, perhaps up to 50
ther farmers, cooperative associations, nor federations thereof
percent of its total interstate volume. The 15-percent limitation should
(except motor transportation otherwise exempt) shall notify the
allay any such concern. The Department does not object to this
Interstate Commerce Commission of its intent to do so prior to
limitation.
the commencement thereof.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the
A provision that in no event shall a cooperative association or
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's
federation which is required to give notice to the Commission
program.
transport interstate for compensation in any fiscal year of such
Sincerely yours,
association or federation a quantity of property for nonmembers
ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary.
which, measured in terms of tonnage, exceeds the quantity trans-
ported interstate for itself and its members in such fiscal year.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
The bill would also amend section 220 of the Interstate Commerce
Washington, D.C., July 24, 1967
Act by adding a new subsection which would authorize the Commission
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
or its agents to have access to and authority, under its order, to inspect,
Chairman, Committee an Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
examine, and copy (but not prescribe the form of) accounts, books,
House of Representatives.
records, memorandums, correspondence, and other documents per-
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request of
taining to motor vehicle transportation of a cooperative association
March 13, 1967, for comments with respect to H.R. 6530, a bill to
or federation of cooperative associations required to give notice to the
amend section 203(b)(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act to clarify
Commission pursuant to the third provision described above.
this exemption with respect to transportation performed by agricul-
The Department supports enactment of S. 752 in its present form.
tural cooperative associations for nonmembers.
In its original form, S. 752 was identical to H.R. 6530, introduced in
This proposed legislation would, if enacted, limit the exemption of
the House of Representatives on March 2, 1967. These bills, if enacted,
motor vehicles controlled and operated by a cooperative association
would have severely limited the scope of the exemption and would
as defined in the Agricultural Marketing Act, approved June 15,
have impaired the efficiency and economy under which transportation
1929, as amended, or by a federation of such cooperatives. The
is conducted by cooperatives in accordance with existing provisions
exemption from economic regulation would no longer apply to
of law.
such motor vehicles when used in the transportation, for nonmembers
In its report to your committee under date of July 24, 1967, the
for compensation, of property of any kind except farm products,
Department expressed opposition to H.R. 6530. At the same time,
farm supplies, or other farm related traffic. This provision for total
however, the Department pointed out that there would appear to
elimination of certain kinds of cargo from the benefits of exemption
be merit in legislation which would clarify the scope of the exemption
would impair the efficiency and economy under which transportation
and assist the Interstate Commerce Commission in its enforcement
is conducted by cooperatives in accordance with the existing provisions
of the motor carrier provisions of the act.
of law.
To accomplish these objectives, the Department report suggested
The Department does not favor enactment of this legislation.
a number of clarifying provisions for inclusion in amendatory legisla-
H. Rept. 1667
H. Rept. 1667
10
11
The interpretation of the cooperative exemption in section
any property other than its own or that of its members, farm products
of the Interstate Commerce Act has been the subject of much liti-
and farm supplies for nonmember farmers, and commodities exempt
gation. In a number of cases before the Interstate Commerce Com-
under section 203(b)(6) of the Interstate Commerce Act. The ICC
mission and the courts, the Department of Agriculture has consistently
would thus have a record of those cooperatives which intend to trans-
taken the position that the language of the Interstate Commerce Act,
port the type of property which has been the subject of controversy.
when read in conjunction with the language of the Agricultural
Second, to further assist the ICC and to meet one of the problems
Marketing Act of 1929, should be given a liberal construction; that
with respect to which Commission representatives have expressed
cooperatives should not be so limited in their motor carrier operations
concern, we believe the Commission or its agents should be given
that efficient operation on behalf of farmer members would be stifled;
express authority to have access to the books, records, and accounts
that it was clearly the intent of the statute that a cooperative, in the
pertaining to the motor vehicle transportation of those cooperatives
conduct of its motor carrier operations, be permitted to transport in
which transport property in accordance with their notice to the Com-
addition to its own and its members' property, incidental quantities of
mission.
property belonging to others; and that backhauls of nonmember
Third, we believe the quantity of this noncooperative traffic de-
property of a character which would otherwise be subject to regula-
scribed above which a cooperative could transport in any year should
tion, should be permitted, provided the transportation of such property
be limited to a quantity which is incidental to the primary transpor-
remained incidental to the transportation of property of the coopera-
tation operation of the cooperative and necessary to its effective
tive and its members.
performance. Such a limitation, we believe, flows from application of
Generally, the courts have ruled in favor of the Department's
the decision in the Northwest case referred to previously. The amount
interpretation of the statutes and against the more restrictive inter-
of such property which cooperatives should be authorized to transport
pretations which others have advocated. The decision of the Ninth
in order to achieve efficiency of operation will vary depending upon
Circuit Court of Appeals (350 Fed. 252 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S.
the nature of the business of the cooperative, the geographic area
1011 (1966)), involving the Northwest Agricultural Cooperative
where it operates, and the availability of other backhaul traffic.
Association supports the Department's view. In this case the court
Fourth, to clarify a question which has arisen in the past and which
held that a cooperative "does not lose its status by engaging in activity
appears to be one of concern to the regulated motor carrier industry,
other than its primary statutory activity, so long as the other activity
we believe that transportation operations which a cooperative carries
is incidental to the primary one and necessary to its effective per-
out for nonmembers should not exceed the transportation operations
formance." Pursuant to the court's decision a cooperative would be
which it carries out for members. Under the Agricultural Marketing
permitted to engage in the transportation of so-called nonfarm related
Act of 1929, a cooperative may not deal in "farm products, farm sup-
property to the extent that such transportation activity is incidental
plies, and farm business services with or for nonmembers in an amount
to its primary activity of transporting its own or member property
greater in value than the total amount of such business transacted
and necessary to the effective performance of that activity.
by it with or for members." This provision applies to the total business
We should like to emphasize that our position in cases involving the
activities of a cooperative. Apparently, there is concern that in a case
cooperative exemption has not been dictated solely by the belief-that
where the only nonmember business of a cooperative is transportation,
this is the proper legal interpretation of the statutes, but also by the
the cooperative would be free to engage in transportation for nonmem-
conviction that the public interest would be appropriately served.
bers in an amount equal in value to the total business of all kinds
Clearly, the interests of the cooperatives and their farmer members
conducted by the cooperative for members. A provision which would
are served through the greater operating efficiencies made possible
equate nonmember transportation business with member transpor-
under the "incidental and necessary" test of the Northwest decision.
tation business would alleviate this concern.
Further, to the extent that the motor carrier operations of the co-
There has also been concern expressed that under the language of
operatives are efficient, the interests of the marketing system and of
the Agricultural Marketing Act cooperatives could transport property
consumers are served. At the same time, Department statistics clearly
for the U.S. Government or any of its agencies without limit. We
indicate that the impact upon the regulated common carrier industry
question, however, whether any such result was intended. Any doubt
of transportation by the cooperatives of property which might other-
could be removed by a specific provision that transportation of prop-
wise be transported by the common carriers is quite negligible.
erty for the U.S. Government or any of its agencies is to be considered
Accordingly, we believe it would not be in the public interest to adopt
nonmember business.
the restrictive approach provided for in H.R. 6530.
We believe that legislation which embodies the views set out above
Although the Department is opposed to H.R. 6530, there would
would constitute an appropriate prescription of the intended scope of
appear to be merit in legislation which would clarify the scope of the
the cooperative exemption, and would provide a mechanism which
exemption and assist the ICC in its enforcement of the motor carrier
would materially assist ICC in its enforcement of motor carrier opera-
provisions of the act. Our views may be summarized as follows:
tions. It would give appropriate recognition to the interests of the
First, we believe it would be appropriate for a cooperative to be
agricultural community, the common carrier industry, and the public.
required to notify the Interstate Commerce Commission if it intends
to transport for hire in motor vehicles which it controls or operates,
H. Rept. 1667
H. Rept. 1667
12
13
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the
by the Interstate Commerce Commission. On August 10, 1965, the
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Northwest
program.
Agricultural Cooperative Association, Inc. V. Interstate Commerce Com-
Sincerely yours,
mission (350 F. 2d 252, cert. den. 382 U.S. 1011 (1966)) judicially
ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary.
established the right of agricultural cooperative association truck-
lines to backhaul nonfarm commodities for nonmembers. The court
limited the legitimate extent of such traffic to that which is incidental
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
and necessary to the farm-related transportation of the cooperative.
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Since that decision, the Department of Defense has utilized the trans-
Washington, D.C., July 1, 1968.
portation services of agricultural cooperative associations where their
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
use is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
S. 752, as introduced on January 31, 1967, would amend section
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
203(b)(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act to expressly state that in
providing for-hire transportation to nonmembers, the agricultural
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views
cooperatives exemption applies only when the commodities trans-
of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 752, an act to amend sections
ported consist of farm products, farm supplies, or other farm-related
203(b)(5) and 220 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, and
traffic. The effect of such an amendment would be to eliminate the
for other purposes.
present exemption except in those situations where the backhaul
This act is similar to H.R. 6530 in that it would restrict the statutory
traffic is farm related. The amendment of section 203(b)(5) of the act
exemption from economic regulation given to transportation by
proposed in S. 752, as passed by the Senate on June 4, 1968, on the
agricultural cooperatives.
other hand, would place no such restriction as to the type of com-
Unregulated transportation by cooperatives is extremely minor
modities that may be handled for nonmembers, but would limit
and limited in comparison to total for-hire truck and rail transporta-
presently authorized nonmember traffic including transportation
tion and does not appear to have been abused or to have had any
performed for the U.S. Government to an amount not to exceed 15
adverse effect on the regulated carriers. Such transportation provides
percent of the total interstate tonnage handled by such cooperatives
revenues that are essential to the efficient operation of the coopera-
during any fiscal year. Additionally, in order to assist the Interstate
tives while also providing significant benefits and economies for
Commerce Commission in the enforcement of the cooperatives exemp-
the users.
tion, S. 752 as passed by the Senate requires that cooperatives shall
Although we would have no objection to an amendment clarifying
that transportation for the U.S. Government is "nonmember busi-
give the Commission prior notice of its intent to perform transporta-
tion for nonmembers and for such purpose, make available all accounts,
ness," we continue to believe, as expressed in our comments on H.R.
books, and records for Commission examination.
6530, that the present exemption properly recognizes and carefully
In letter to the Senate Committee on Commerce dated July 24,
balances the needs of agriculture, the regulated for-hire carriers and
1967, this Department opposed enactment of S. 752, as introduced,
the public interest. We would therefore be opposed to enactment of
on the basis that the proposed amendment would totally deprive the
S. 752.
Department of Defense of the use of transportation facilities of bona
Sincerely yours,
fide farm cooperatives and thus remove an effective element of price
WILFRED H. ROMMEL,
and service competition. For this reason the Department of Defense
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
continues to oppose S. 752, as passed by the Senate.
While the amendments proposed in S. 752, as passed by the Senate,
appear to have merit in that they should clarify the scope of the exemp-
JULY 2, 1968.
tion and materially assist the Interstate Commerce Commission in
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
its enforcement, this Department is particularly concerned with the
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
provision which would place a 15-percent limitation on nonmember
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
traffic. It is not known at this time whether this specific limitation
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the
considered together with the provision subjecting U.S. Government
views of th the Department of Defense with respect to S. 752, 90th
traffic thereto would materially reduce the ability of farm cooperatives
Congress, an act to amend sections 203(b)(5) and 220 of the Inter-
to furnish transportation services to the Department of Defense.
state Commerce Act, as amended, and for other purposes. The Secre-
However, to the extent that this or any other percentage limitation
tary of Defense has assigned to the Department of the Army the
would produce such a result, this Department strongly objects.
responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense
This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense
on this act.
in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
Section 203(b)(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C.
exempts agricultural cooperative associations, as defined
in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929, from economic regulation
H. Rept. 1667
H. Rept. 1667
14
15
The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the
the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof shall be deemed
administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of
to be transportation performed for a nonmember: Provided further,
this report for the consideration of the committee.
That any such cooperative association or federation which performs inter-
Sincerely yours,
state transportation for nonmembers who are neither farmers, cooperative
STANLEY R. RESOR,
associations, nor federations thereof, except transportation otherwise
Secretary of the Army.
exempt under this part, shall notify the Commission of its intent to per-
form such transportation prior to the commencement thereof: And pro-
CHANGES IN EXISTING Law MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
vided further, That in no event shall any such cooperative association or
federation which is required hereunder to give notice to the Commission
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
transport interstate for compensation in any fiscal year of such asso-
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-
ciation or federation a quantity of property for nonmembers which,
ported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
measured in terms of tonnage, exceeds the total quantity of property
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
transported interstate for itself and its members in such fiscal year;
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS
SEC. 220. (a) The Commission is hereby authorized to require
DEFINITIONS
annual, periodical, or special reports from all motor carriers, brokers,
SEC. 203. (a)
lessors, and associations (as defined in this section); to prescribe the
manner and form in which such reports shall be made; and to require
from such carriers, brokers, lessors, and associations specific and full,
(b) Nothing in' this part, except the provisions of section 204
true, and correct answers to all questions upon which the Commission
relative to qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees
may deem information to be necessary. Such annual reports shall
and safety of operation or standards of equipment shall be construed
give an account of the affairs of the carrier, broker, lessor, or associa-
to include (1) motor vehicles employed solely in transporting school
tion in such form and detail as may be prescribed by the Commission.
The Commission may also require any motor carrier or broker to file
children and teachers to or from school; or (2) taxicabs, or other motor
vehicles performing a bona fide taxicab service, having a capacity
with it a true copy of any contract, agreement, or arrangement
between such carrier and any other carrier or person in relation to
of not more than six passengers and not operated on a regular route
or between fixed termini; or (3) motor vehicles owned or operated
any traffic affected by the provisions of this part. The Commission
by or on behalf of hotels and used exclusively for the transportation
shall not, however, make public any contract, agreement, or arrange-
of hotel patrons between hotels and ocal railroad or other common
ment between a contract carrier by motor vehicle and a shipper, or
carrier stations; or (4) motor vehicles operated, under authorization,
any of the terms or conditions thereof, except as a part of the record
in a formal proceeding where it considers such action consistent with
regulation, and control of the Secretary of the Interior, principally
the public interest: Provided, That if it appears from an examination
for the purpose of transporting persons in and about the national
of any such contract that it fails to conform to the published schedule
parks and national monuments; or (4a) motor vehicles controlled
and operated by any farmer when used in the transportation of his
of the contract carrier by motor vehicle as required by section 218(a),
agricultural (including horticultural) commodities and products
the Commission may, in its discretion, make public such of the pro-
thereof, or in the transportation of supplies to his farm; or (5) motor
visions of the contract as the Commission considers necessary to
disclose such failure and the extent thereof.
vehicles controlled and operated by a cooperative association as
defined in the Agricultural Marketing Act, approved June 15, 1929,
as amended, or by a federation of such cooperative associations, if
(g) The Commission or its duly authorized special agents, accountants,
such federation possesses no greater powers or purposes than coopera-
or examiners shall, during normal business hours, have access to and
tive associations so defined[[;] but any interstate transportation
authority, under its order, to inspect, examine, and copy any and all
performed by such a cooperative association or federation of cooperative
accounts, books, records, memorandums, correspondence, and other docu-
associations for nonmembers who are neither farmers, cooperative asso-
ments pertaining to motor vehicle transportation of a cooperative associa-
ciations, nor federations thereof for compensation, except transportation
tion or federation of cooperative associations which is required to give
otherwise exempt under this part, shall be limited to that which is inci-
notice to the Commission pursuant to the provisions of section 203 (b) (5)
dental to its primary transportation operation and necessary for its
of this part: Provided, however, That the Commission shall have no author-
effective performance and shall in no event exceed 15 per centum of its
ity to prescribe the form of any accounts, records, or memorandums to be
total interstate transportation services in any fiscal year, measured in
maintained by a cooperative association or federation of cooperative
terms of tonnage: Provided, That, for the purposes hereof, notwithstanding
associations.
any other provision of law, transportation performed for or on behalf of
H. Rept. 1667
H. Rept. 1667
Transportation 90-433
90th Congress, S. 752
July 26, 1968
An Act
To amend sections 203(b) (5) and 220 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as
amended, and for other purposes.
B'e it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That at the end of
Interstate
section 203 (b) (5) of the Interstate Commerce Act delete the semicolon
Commerce Act,
and add the following language: but any interstate transportation
amendment.
performed by such a cooperative association or federation of coopera-
54 Stat. 921.
tive associations for nonmembers who are neither farmers, cooperative
49 USC 303.
associations, nor federations thereof for compensation, except trans-
portation otherwise exempt under this part, shall be limited to that
which is incidental to its primary transportation operation and neces-
sary for its effective performance and shall in no event exceed 15 per
centum of its total interstate transportation services in any fiscal year,
measured in terms of tonnage: Provided, That, for the purposes hereof,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, transportation performed
for or on behalf of the United States or any agency or instrumentality
thereof shall be deemed to be transportation performed for a non-
member: Provided further, That any such cooperative association or
federation which performs interstate transportation for nonmembers
who are neither farmers, cooperative associations, nor federations
thereof, except transportation otherwise exempt under this part, shall
notify the Commission of its intent to perform such transportation
prior to the commencement thereof: And provided further, That in
no event shall any such cooperative association or federation which is
required hereunder to give notice to the Commission transport inter-
82 STAT. 448
state for compensation in any fiscal year of such association or federa-
82 STAT. 449
tion a quantity of property for nonmembers which, measured in terms
of tonnage, exceeds the total quantity of property transported inter-
state for itself and its members in such fiscal year.
SEC. 2. Section 220 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended,
Accounts, etc.
is further amended by adding the following immediately after sub-
of motor carri-
section (f):
ers, access and
inspection au-
"(g) The Commission or its duly authorized special agents, account-
thority.
ants, or examiners shall, during normal business hours, have access to
and authority, under. its order, to inspect, examine, and copy any and
49 USC 320.
all accounts, books, records, memorandums, correspondence, and other
documents pertaining to motor vehicle transportation of a cooperative
association or federation of cooperative associations which is required
to give notice to the Commission pursuant to the provisions of section
203 (b) (5) of this part: Provided, however, That the Commission
shall have no authority to prescribe the form of any accounts, records,
or memorandums to be maintained by a cooperative association or
federation of cooperative associations."
Approved July 26, 1968.
(over)
FORD LIBRAND
Pub. Law 90-433
July 26, 1968
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
HOUSE REPORT No. 1667 (Comm. on Interstate & Foreign Commerce).
SENATE REPORT No. 1152 (Comm. on Commerce).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 114 (1968):
June 4: Considered and passed Senate.
July 15: Considered and passed House.
to
losseds non
01 betteril ad Inde May ship
runing ati of el
as DL linds sti 101 vus
Insalf (its Intol all to
to m
10 noisivory yes ni
TO (na adi to Harled no TO
A 901 honrioting of bernesh ad Usils lonsili
TO dogs you babiver9
essdmomana not annoting Abide noliarrabol
anoitazabal 100 918
Hade Junq Jqmaza agenza
done morng of to adi
at ind'T babining tossada of
ai noitarisbet to down your Hada on
of evig of hertipert
TO done to 1097 least THE m той
III cheques to as
behoqannd to Lator sits agented
lessit done III best Ham
80 ,10A to 022 a
to
gniwolfol adi yd bebname (1)
sinsga laisage 10 adl (a)"
888008 sesulend famous garmb ,Made TO atna
bus VIS Ygoo bas of all
bas alamoses Its
# to stoidev
el anoitaisessa to to
to anoiaivoto od) of adi of svig of
add sell'l hag to (4)
you to and add admissing of on ovail Unde
10 # vd of to
,8001 as
(TOVO)
GPO 98.139
ICC Form No. 1001
March 1954
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
8/31/67
To:
ROOM
Lewis Berry
FROM:
ROOM
James T. Corcoran
2121
THROUGH MAILS AND FILES
ACTION
AS REQUESTED
NOTE AND FILE
DRAFT OF SUGGESTED REPLY
NOTE AND FORWARD
FOR COMMENT
NOTE AND RETURN
FOR CORRECTION
PREPARE REPLY
FOR SIGNATURE
PREPARE FOR MY SIGNATURE
FOR YOUR APPROVAL
PREPARE REPLY FOR SIGNATURE OF CHAIRMAN
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
RECOMMENDATION
IMMEDIATE ACTION DESIRED
SEE ME
INITIALS
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
COMMENTS:
I think you find the enclosed
statements very interesting.
Joint Rates The Rtes &
FORD & LIBRARY 07V835
SERVIS AGRICULTURE & AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WASHINGTON 25, D.C.
Transportation
Honorable Warren C. Magnuson, Chairman
Committee on Commerce
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This will reply to your letter of February 9, 1967, inviting comments on
S. 751, a bill "To authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission, after
investigation and hearing, to require the establishment of through routes
and joint rates between motor common carriers of property, and between
such carriers and common carriers by rail, express, and water, and for
other purposes."
There are gaps in the Commission's authority in this area. The only
provisions in the Interstate Commerce Act for through routes and joint
rates between motor common carriers of property and between such car-
riers and other carriers of property subject to the Act are permissive,
not mandatory. The bill would make it the duty of common carriers of
property by motor vehicle, by railroad and/or express, and by water,
who are subject to the Act, to establis such routes and rates; and
would give the Commission jurisdiction over the lawfulness of such rates
under other provisions of the Act.
The Department favors enactment of this bill.
Movement of basic farm commodities by motor is exempt from economic
regulation under Section 203(b)(6) of the Act. Movements of bulk
commodities by water are exempt from economic regulation pursuant to
Section 303(b) of the Act. The bill would not affect farm commodities
moving under these exemptions. It would, however, affect the movement
by motor and water of manufactured agricultural commodities. In recent
years motor common carriers have voluntarily established a great number
of joint routes and rates. There is, however, need for establishment of
a greater number of joint services, particularly among motor common car-
riers. We believe that this bill is harmonious with the National Trans-
portation Policy and that authority is needed by the Interstate Commerce
Commission to correct possible future inequities in this area.
DEPARTMENT
INTERTMENT
FORD LIBRARY 0.75899
Growth Through Agricultural Progress
20
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no chiestion to the Dress
entation of this : from the stando 158.07 the
program.
will
reemon
Drvil
LIBRARY
DEPARTMENTO )
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
August 2 8 1967
Honorable Warren G. Magnuson
Chairman, Committee on Commerce
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This will reply to your letter of May 17, 1967, inviting comments on
S. 1768, a bill "To authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission, after
investigation and hearing, to require the establishment of through routes
and joint rates between motor common carriers of property, and between
such carriers and common carriers by rail, express, and water, and for
other purposes."
The bill would amend section 216(e) of the Interstate Commerce Act to
provide criteria by which the Interstate Commerce Commission could
prescribe through routes and joint rates. This bill treats the same
subject as S. 751, which is presently being considered by your Committee,
but in a different manner.
The Department recommends that this bill not be enacted.
There are gaps in the Commission's authority in this area. The only
provisions in the Intorstate Commerce Act for through routes and joint
rates between motor common carriers of property and between such carriers
and other carriers of property subject to the Act are permissive, not
mandatory. While this bill would establish criteria for joint rates, the
bill is neither as comprehensive in its treatment of carriers as S. 751
nor does it provide the degree of protection to the public afforded by
S. 751.
Movement of basic farm commodities by motor is exempt from economic regu-
lation under section 203(b)(6) of the Act. Movements of bulk commodities
by water are exempt from economic regulation pursuant to section 303(b)
of the Act. The bill would not affect farm commodities moving under these
exemptions. It could, however, affect the movement of manufactured agri-
cultural commodities. While there has been voluntary establishment of
some through routes and joint rates, we believe that there is need for
statutory authority for the Interstate Commerce Commission to deal with
the problems which it has listed as the reasons for the enactment of
So 751. We believe that enactment of S. 751, rather than this bill, is
in the public interest.
LIBRARY
2
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there 1s no objection to the
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's
program.
Sincerely yours,
Orville L. Freeman
SECRETARY
LIBRARY
9 AUG 1987
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY. OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
File
AUG 28 1967
Honorable Warren G. Magnuson
Chairman, Committee on Commerce
S1768
United States Senate
Washington; D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This .is in reply to your request for the views of this Department
concerning S. 1768, a bill
"To authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission, after
investigation and hearing, to require the establishment
of through routes and joint rates between motor common
carriers of property, and between such carriers and
common carriers by rail, express, and water, and for
other purposes."
This proposal is similar in many respects to S. 751, a proposal of the
Interstate Commerce Commission, which this Department has supported.
We note, however, that S. 1768 differs from S. 751 in a number of areas.
Since we are in accord with the substance of the rate coordination
approach advanced in both bills, we will confine our comments to those
areas of S. 1768 which differ from S. 751.
(1) Unlike S. 751, S. 1768 imposes no duty on common carriers of
property to establish reasonable through routes and joint
rates. While S. 751 requires such action from carriers under
Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act upon reasonable request,
it is our understanding that the Commission has now offered an
amendment to require that such a request be made to Part II and
Part III carriers. S. 1768, however, imposes no such obligation
upon reasonable request or otherwise.
(2) A "long-haul" provision prevents the Commission from requiring
a carrier to embrace, without its consent, a joint route sub-
stantially less than the entire length of its route and of any
intermediate carrier which lies between the termini of a proposed
through route, unless the inclusion of such lines would result in
an unreasonably long through route and unless the through route
proposed is needed to provide adequate and more efficient or more
economic transportation. Under this concept, reasonable preference
would be given to the originating carrier.
(3) No through route and joint rate would be established by the Com-
mission for the purpose of assisting any carrier to meet its
financial needs.
2
(4) No joint rate would be prescribed except, in the absence of an
acceptable agreement among participating carriers, upon a finding
by the Commission that the rate is adequate to support and sus-
tain the joint service.
(5) The carriers involved would have to be financially and otherwise
fit.
(6) In the event of failure by a carrier to pay divisions and inter-
line settlements promptly, the Commission would be required to
order the prompt settlement of such payments. Upon failure of a
carrier to make such payments, the aggrieved carrier would have
the right to cancel the joint rate and through route arrangement
pursuant to Commission regulations. In other cancellation situa-
tions, the burden of proof in cancelling such arrangements would
be upon the proposing carrier when the matter is suspended by the
Commission for investigation.
This Department recognizes that the Supreme Court's very recent action
of May 29, 1967, in United States V. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co.,
sustaining the Commission's approach to railroad "open tariffs" may
serve to encourage more intermodal joint rates. At the very least, it
will prevent discrimination among carriers by providing that service
offered in an open tariff proposal must be made available to all --
shippers and carriers -- similarly situated. At the same time, the
Department recognizes that the Commission should also be authorized to
require joint rates and through routes where necessary in the public
interest. Particularly is such authority needed in the small shipment
area where service and rates are shown to be less than satisfactory.
The Department, while in accord with the substance and form of S. 751,
also is aware that appropriate revisions can be made to meet particular
conditions and situations which obtain in the motor carrier industry.
In this respect, we recognize the merit in concepts (5) and (6) above
which S. 1768 advances; we have no objection to them. We have a number
of comments, and in certain instances objections, as to the remaining
aspects of this bill.
The Department is of the opinion that certain of the proposals mark a
substantial and unnecessary change in the principles of economic regula-
tion. Most important, in our opinion, is the fact that S. 1768 imposes
no duty to provide joint rates and through routes upon reasonable request
therefor. Such a holding out is basic to common carrier activity and
should rest equally on all modes if true coordinated service is to be
effected.
With regard to the long-haul provision, while we recognize that similar
language obtains in section 15(4) as to railroads, we question whether
preservation of such an approach is really conducive to effective joint
3
rate service. Inordinate protection of the long-haul by, for example,
a narrow statutory construction of the exceptions to the rule may well
result in an effective barrier to needed joint rate service. More-
over, we would note that section 15(4) has additional exceptions not
contemplated by the long-haul provisions of S. 1768. Section 15(4)
permits the prescription of joint rates except as provided in section 3
(the provisions dealing with undue preference and prejudice). and except
where one of the carriers is a water carrier. On balance, however, we
would have no objection to the "long-haul" provision if an exception for
section 3 (section 216(d) in Part II) concepts is included. We see no
need, however, to go beyond such action and include further protection
for water carriers.
Item (3) is consistent with present language in section 15(4). We have
no objection to its inclusion subject to the understanding that it would
not prevent the Commission from establishing divisions which would finan-
cially aid a weaker carrier. Such authority is often a principal element
in resolving divisional disputes. It permits the Commission to develop
a financially stable industry.
Item (4) would, in effect, preclude the Commission from prescribing a
joint rate that is not compensatory. However, the Commission has the
power to prescribe noncompensatory rates in other situations under
existing law. It is not clear why a distinction should be drawn here
intermodally or in an intramodal situation involving motor carriers
of freight. We would, therefore, favor the omission of the language
"is adequate to support and sustain the joint service;" on line 25 of
sheet 3.
In sum, the Department would favor S. 751, rather than S. 1768. We
would have no objection, however, to the amendment of S. 751 by the
provisions of concepts (5) and (6), of concept (2) as modified above,
and of concept (3) subject to our understanding of its intent.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Adminis-
tration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report
for the consideration of the Committee.
Singerely yours,
John
Assistant
L. Secretary Sweeney for
Public Affairs
Common Carrier Transportation Conference Irregular Route
ATA BUILDING
1616 P STREET, N.W.
COMMON
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
CARRIER
TELEPHONES
202-387-3200
202-387-2012
NO, VIRGINIA, THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS
The passage of S.752 by the House of Representatives represents the result of a two-year effort to
cure a cancerous situation in interstate commerce.
The drain of traffic in this area to erstwhile transporters is another symbol of a trend in some areas
of policy making toward the deregulation of the motor common carrier industry in the United States.
Carried to its total conclusion, a policy of this nature can be the most uneconomical development in
transportation this country could experience.
The fundamentals of the National Transportation Policy as expressed in the Interstate Commerce
Act were never conceived to do anything except bring on the development of our entire economic
system to its full potential, not for the benefit of the railroads, the motor carriers of property or
persons, nor the barge lines. But rather so that every citizen, every manufacturing establishment,
every service industry, could stand in equal opportunity in the movement of goods and persons. To
coin a phrase, this is a "gut" situation. Only by support of this policy will there be the continuous,
and shall we say, the magical development of American business which brings increasing prosperity
to our citizens.
Let it be here recorded, however, that the great advances which have been hammered out are so
much the result of the work of our leadership, that there results a debt which is difficult to repay.
These leaders heat the furnace of performance to a white hot heat which melds our society, and our
industry, into the world of opportunity which we must have to achieve the growth so necessary to
those elements of superproductivity which all of us instinctively expect future generations.
We have become so accustomed to living in a rising productivity, that we sometimes forget that the
future lies in an area so advanced from present activity, that we are but little children in our attempts
to solve problems which today seem so complex but tomorrow will seem simple by comparison.
We repeat - these developments do not just happen. They are the natural results of contributions
by those who give more than they get. They do the work that must be done. They solve the problems
which must be solved. They give the time which must be given least those things which most of us
take for granted, saying unconsciously "Let George do it", go by the wayside.
There is no Santa Claus. No, indeed, because if you look cautiously, behind every success you will
find someone who performed the duty. Elbert Hubbard said, "Civilization is one long, anxious search"
for individuals to carry the message to Garcia. We have a few of them in our industry and we are
grateful. Would that we had more.
Henry A.S. van Daalen
July 16, 1968
AMERICAN
TRUCKING
CCKING
LIBRAR,
NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
HARLEY O. STAGGERS, W. VA., CHAIRMAN
SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL, MD.
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, ILL.
TORBERT H. MACDONALD, MASS.
SAMUEL L. DEVINE, OHIO
JOHN JARMAN, OKLA.
Transportation Congress of the United States
ANCHER NELSEN, MINN.
JOHN E. MOSS, CALIF.
HASTINGS KEITH, MASS.
JOHN D. DINGELL, MICH.
GLENN CUNNINGHAM, NEBR.
PAUL G. ROGERS, FLA.
JAMES T. BROYHILL, N.C.
LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, CALIF.
JAMES HARVEY, MICH.
house of Representatives
J. J. PICKLE, TEX.
ALBERT W. WATSON, S.C.
FRED B. ROONEY, PA.
TIM LEE CARTER, KY.
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
JOHN M. MURPHY, N.Y.
G. ROBERT WATKINS, PA.
DAVID E. SATTERFIELD III, VA.
DONALD G. BROTZMAN, COLO.
Room 2125, Rapburn House Office Building
DANIEL J. RONAN, ILL.
CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR., OHIO
BROCK ADAMS, WASH.
Mashington, D.C. 20515
DAN kuykendall, TENN.
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, N.Y.
JOE SKUBITZ, KANS.
RAY BLANTON, TENN.
FLETCHER THOMPSON, GA.
W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY, JR., GA.
JAMES F. HASTINGS, N.Y.
PETER N. KYROS, MAINE
BOB ECKHARDT, TEX.
March 5, 1969
ROBERT O. TIERNAN, R.I.
RICHARDSON PREYER, N.C.
W. E. WILLIAMSON, CLERK
Memorandum to: Paul Miltich, Office of Honorable Gerald Ford
From:
Lewis E. Berry, Minority Counsel
Re:
Common Carrier Conference
Here are a few notes which I hope will help in putting
together an appropriate speech.
At the present time there are no trucking bills intro-
duced, at least the kind that come to this committee. The weight
bill is elsewhere. No doubt some old timers will be back, however,
for further consideration:
1. The freight forwarder bill died of strangulation
last time. Freight forwarders are regulated by Title IV of the
Interstate Commerce Act. They are presently allowed to make
negotiated contracts with truck lines for hauls up to 450 miles.
This means they do not pay the filed tariff but whatever they can
get agreement on. The bill would have allowed them to do the same
with railroads. At first it looked as though nobody would care much.
Then some shipping associations got stirred up and thought they must
have similar privileges and wanted the bill so amended. This brought
the Trucking Association into the act, and it suggested that the whole
scheme be eliminated because it never was so hot for truckers either.
So it died. Freight Forwarders are singing the blues and want a
new game.
2. The Barge Mixing Rule was a complicated mess which
affected all three modes. For years the unregulated barges (those
which avoided certification by hauling only exempt bulk products
according to the formula which defined bulk products as those so
defined by custom in 1939 and carrying no more than three such
products in one entire tow--one barge or twenty) had made a practice
of turning their barges over to regulated carriers on a separate
contract for pushing them to specified points. Then the unregulated
fellow picked them up again and delivered them. The ICC said it was
GERALD
LIBRARY
-2-
no good. The court agreed. The barges said it would kill them
dead. So the bill, S. 1314, was intended to make such arrangements
legal. But it went much further and changed the definition on
bulk products and vessels so that any three bulk products would
be carried on each barge. When truck and tailroads got wind of
this the balloon went up and they combined their forces to stop it.
By that time it was not possible for the barge folks to backpedal
to a safer position. The barge people are around again so the
issue will be tested once more no doubt.
3. A bill to require through routes and joint rates
was pushed as a help to small shippers. There are many such arrange-
ments now but not among truckers--mostly between trucks and railroads.
The bill would require such lash-ups. The House didn't give it
much consideration, but we may see it again soon.
government
The bill to take cattle out of the agricultural exemption
has not as yet been introduced in the House. Judging from past
records it will have a tough time.
LEB:bb
Enclosures
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD