Other proponents AMERICAN SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION (J. M. Hood) The proposal with respect to volume rates is regarded as unnecessary. The Commission now has adequate power to consider the lawfulness of such proposals, and in the past it has recognized that differences in cost could warrant reduced rates for higher minimum weights and volume shipments (R. 891). ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS (Jervis Langdon, Jr.) The railroads favor the principle of volume rates, but believe that, under the conditions stated in the Cabinet Committee report, the ICC already possesses the necessary authority to approve them (R. 544). NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION (F. F. Estes) This proposal is desirable. Since coal loads heavy (59.69 tons per railroad car), moves often in multiple cars or trainload lots, requires little switching, and has negligible loss and damage claims, the industry feels that these savings in handling and other railroad costs justify volume rates for coal, particularly where large tonnages are moved to one single destination. Volume rates would be merely a recognition of the more favorable transportation characteristics inherent in the movement of such heavy-loading bulk commodities (R. 867-868). NEW ENGLAND GOVERNORS' COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (Donald W. Campbell) Agreement is expressed with the proposal to encourage volumefreight rates. A rate structure offering tangible incentives to increase the load per car or to increase the number of cars tendered at one time would permit lower rates for the shipper and would also permit a more efficient use of carriers' facilities (R. 863). Additional proponents Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Hunter Holding (R. 1845). National Association of Mutual Savings Banks, R. Stuart Rauch. Jr. (R. 1128). Opponents INTERCOASTAL STEAMSHIP FREIGHT ASSOCIATION (Harry S. Brown) The desirability of this proposal which, in effect, tells the Commission to keep its hands off if a carrier establishes so-called incentive minimum rates or volume rates on individual shipments of property, is questioned. There are many incentive or volume rates in effect today. The proposed weakening of the Commission's power over incentive minimums or volume rates will result in benefiting the very big shipper at the expense of the little shipper (R. 1050). INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (Anthony F. Arpaia) The proposal that undue prejudice and preference should not be predicated on the establishment of rates or charges for individual shipments of property subject to incentive minimum weights or in volume is not clear. Volume of movements bearing on undue prejudice and preference is not clear. As this proposal is now phrased, it might be subject to an interpretation which would excuse undue prejudice and preference of shippers (R. 270). NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (John M. Agrey) This would permit railroads to establish rates subject to a minimum weight greater than can be loaded in one car. The ICC has permitted this provided a reasonable relation in rates between the larger and smaller quantities is maintained. This proposal points up the fact that most of the suggestions are to help the big shipper to the detriment of the small shipper. The only people or communities that would receive volume rates would be those the railroad chose to favor, and it would be harmful to North Dakota, a great grainproducing State. The present administration of the law is proper and right (R. 797–798). PROPERTY OWNERS COMMITTEE (William N. Maddox) This proposal would provide for varying rates, depending upon the volume of the traffic, provided that such rates are established for the purpose of meeting the competition of other modes of transportation. There is no objection to the principle of rates varying with volume. However, such varying rates should be established not only for the purpose of meeting the competition of other modes of transportation, but also to meet competition between commodities, such as coal, which must compete with natural gas and oil. There is one serious danger from the establishment of such rates on coal in that they could result in undue preference and prejudice between mines of varying sizes. Should this particular portion of H. R. 6141 be enacted, it should be modified to provide that any volume rates on coal which might be established shall apply from all coal mines located within a recognized origin group. Actually, there is no need for the enactment of this particular portion of H. R. 6141. The Commission has ample authority under the present provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act to approve and to prescribe lawful rates varying with volume (R. 1072-1073). WATERWAYS FREIGHT BUREAU (Harry C. Ames) The present decisions of the Commission afford the carriers all the freedom they should have in publishing volume or incentive rates, and there is no need for the proposed amendment. The purpose of the proposal is to give carriers a more specific immunity than they now have with respect to the publication of such rates. When rail carriers had a monopoly, the Commission refused to permit lower rates based on a greater volume of traffic to avoid discrimination against small shippers. This rule, however, was relaxed when large shippers could secure cheaper rates by using bargeload water carriers, as indicated in Molasses From New Orleans to Peoria (235 I. C. C. 485) (R. 497-498). Additional opponents Burlington (Iowa) Shippers' Association, Inc., F. L. Partridge (R. 781). Fargo (North Dakota), Chamber of Commerce, J. I. Finsness (R. 1000). Upper Mississippi Waterway Association, Inc., A. C. Mills (R. 1616). VIII. DEFINITION OF COMMON, CONTRACT, AND PRIVATE CARRIERS A. MOTOR Provisions of Interstate Commerce Act Section 203 (a) (14) of the Interstate Commerce Act defines the term "common carrier by motor vehicle" as meaning any person which holds itself out to the general public to engage in the transportation by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce of passengers or property or any class or classes thereof for compensation, whether over regular or irregular routes, except transportation by motor vehicle by an express company to the extent that such transportation has heretofore been subject to part I of the act, to which extent such transportation shall continue to be considered to be and shall be regulated as transportation subject to part I. Section 203 (a) (15) of the act defines the term "contract carrier by motor vehicle" as meaning any person which, under individual contracts or agreements, engages in the transportation (other than transportation by common carriers) by motor vehicle of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce for compensation. Section 203 (a) (17) of the act defines the term "private carrier of property by motor vehicle" as meaning any person not included in the terms "common carrier by motor vehicle" or "contract carrier by motor vehicle," who or which transports in interstate or foreign commerce by motor vehicle property of which such person is the owner, lessee, or bailee, when such transportation is for the purpose of sale, lease, rent, or bailment, or in furtherance of any commercial enterprise. Amendments proposed by H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 Section 10 (a) of H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 would amend section. 203 (a) (14) of the act so as to include within the term "common carrier by motor vehicle" any person previously engaged in transportation as a contract carrier by motor vehicle which the Commission finds is not engaged in such tansportation under the amendments made by section 10 (b) to the definition of a "contract carrier by motor vehicle" as contained in section 203 (a) (15) of the act. Section 10 (b) of H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 would amend section 203 (a) (15) of the act so as to define the term "contract carrier by motor vehicle" as meaning any person who engages in transportation by motor vehicle of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce for compensation (other than transportation by common carriers) on the basis of bilateral contracts for specialized or indivdual service or services equivalent to bona fide private carriage by motor vehicle. Section 10 (c) of H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 would amend section 203 (a) (17) of the act so as to define the term "private carrier of property by motor vehicle" as meaning any person not included in the terms "common carrier by motor vehicle" or "contract carrier by motor vehicle" who transports in interstate or foreign commerce by motor vehicle property of which such person is the owner, lessee, or bailee, provided such ownership, lease, or bailment is not undertaken for the purpose of such transportation." Section 24 (a) of H. R. 6141 of H. R. 6142 provides that any person holding a valid permit to operate as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, as presently defined in the act, must advise the Commission of its election to operate hereafter as a contract or common carrier. The Commission is required, after investigation and opportunity for hearing, to issue to such person a permit or certificate, whichever is appropriate, authorizing the continuance of its operations in conformity with the amended definitions. Section 24 (b) of H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 provides for the issuance, upon application and after investigation and hearing, of a certificate or permit to any person who, when the section becomes effective, is engaged in transportation as a "private carrier of property by motor vehicle," which is exempt but which becomes subject to regulation because of the amendments made by section 10 (c). Purpose of amendments The purpose of the amendments is to redefine the terms "common carrier by motor vehicle," "contract carrier by motor vehicle," and "private carrier of property by motor vehicle" so as to subject motor carriers to regulation more appropriate to their operations. B. WATER Provisions of Interstate Commerce Act Section 302 (b) of the Interstate Commerce Act defines the term "common carrier by water" in a manner similar to the definition for a "common carrier by motor vehicle" contained in section 203 (a) (14) of the act. Section 302 (e) of the act defines the term "contract carrier by water" in a manner similar to the definition for "contract carrier by motor vehicle" contained in section 203 (a) (15) of the act. Amendments proposed by H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 Section 13 (a) of H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 would amend section 302 (d) of the act so as to include within the term "common carrier by water" any person previously engaged in transportation as a contract carrier by water which the Commission finds is not engaged in such transportation under the amendments made by section 13 (b) to the definition of a "contract carrier by water." Section 13 (b) of H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 would amend section 302 (e) of the act so as to define the term "contract carrier by water" in a manner similar to the redefinition of a "contract carrier by motor vehicle" made by section 10 (b). Section 24 (a) of H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 would also require a person holding a valid permit to operate as a contract carrier by water, as presently defined in the act, to advise the Commission of its election to operate hereafter as a contract or common carrier. As in the case of contract carriers by motor vehicle, the Commission would be required to issue to such person a permit or certificate, whichever is appropriate, authorizing the continuance of its operations in conformity with the amended definition. Purpose of amendments The purpose of the amendments is to redefine the terms "common carrier by water" and "contract carrier by water" so as to subject water carriers to regulation more appropriate to their operations. Testimony DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A. MOTOR 1. Common: No testimony by Department of Commerce. General Counsel. The proposed redefinition of contract carrier by motor vehicle will assist the Commission in drawing the line of demarcation between contract carriers and common carriers by motor vehicle. Originally, the contract carrier made arrangements with a single shipper for specialized services which could not be supplied by common carriers. These arrangements were for a relatively long term, on an individual basis, and amounted in essence to a dedication of the carrier to the needs of a single shipper, or perhaps a group of closely related shippers. However, some contract carriers at the present time have so many contracts that they are actually rendering services comparable to those offered by common carriers and are holding themselves out to serve any shipper willing to enter into agreements with them. The ICC underscored this problem in its 67th, 68th, and 69th annual reports. In this last report the ICC recommended corrective legislation (p. 194). The problem has been brought to a head by the decision in Contract Steel Carriers, Inc., v. United States (128 F. Supp. 25). This decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court, severely curtailed the power of the Commission to limit the extent to which contract carriers might solicit business. The decision in this case would seem to make it even more necessary that the term "contract carrier by motor vehicle" be redefined if a definite and distinct line of demarcation is to be drawn between the activities of common and contract carriers. In view of the decision in the Contract Steel case the Depart |