Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, Ninety-eighth Congress, First Session, on Oversight of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, November 1, 1983

Front Cover
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 80 - members of the Committee, my name is Philip R. O'Connor and I am Chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to appear at this hearing to discuss the effects of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982. I am representing today both the Illinois Commerce Commission and the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Page 57 - Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana X Maine X Maryland X Massachusetts X Michigan X.. Minnesota X
Page 66 - take into account" for "accord great weight" to evidence of unprofitability. Section 16 of the Bus Act also instructs the ICC to consider "whether the transportation is the last motor carrier of passenger service to such point and whether a reasonable alternative to such service is available.
Page 112 - North Carolina ... North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah .... Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin
Page 68 - end of all federal and state economic regulation of the intercity bus industry. Thank you again Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to comment on the first year under the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982.
Page 114 - New Jersey Motor Bus Association, Inc. My name is Samuel B. Jamieson, Jr. and I am Vice President of Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., commonly known as Short Line of Mahwah, NJ
Page 111 - Nebraska Nevada _ New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico „ New York 2 ... North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon
Page 113 - a rebuttable presumption that any rate, rule, or practice applicable to transportation provided by a motor common carrier of passengers entirely in one State imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce if the Commission finds (i) that such rate, rule, or practice results in the carrier charging a rate for such transportation which is lower than the rate such carrier charges for comparable interstate transportation of passengers
Page 57 - New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma
Page 110 - Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New

Bibliographic information