[House Report 106-1003]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Rept. 106-1003
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
PERMITTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN LIMOUSINE SERVICE
_______
October 25, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1689]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1689) to prohibit States from imposing restrictions on
the operation of motor vehicles providing limousine service
between a place in a State and a place in another State, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Amendment........................................................ 1
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
Committee on Government Reform Oversight Findings................ 4
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 4
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 4
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 4
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 5
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 5
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 6
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 6
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 6
Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. REGULATION OF INTERSTATE LIMOUSINE SERVICE.
It shall be unlawful for any State, political subdivision or agency
of a State, interstate agency, or political agency of 2 or more States,
to restrict interstate commerce by the enforcement of any law, rule,
regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of
law that restricts the operation of a motor vehicle providing pre-
arranged ground transportation service if the motor carrier providing
such service--
(1) is registered under chapter 139 of title 49, United
States Code, for the interstate transportation of passengers;
(2) meets all applicable requirements of the State or States
in which the motor carrier is domiciled or registered to do
business; and
(3) was hired pursuant to a contract for--
(A) travel from one State, including intermediate
stops, to a destination in another State; or
(B) travel from one State, including 1 or more
intermediate stops in another State, to a destination
in the original State.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF INTERSTATE TAXICAB SERVICE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as subjecting taxicab service
to regulation pursuant to chapter 135 or section 31138 of title 49,
United States Code.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Act
(1) Motor carrier.--The term ``motor carrier'' has the same
meaning given such term by section 13102(12) of title 49,
United States Code.
(2) Pre-arranged ground transportation service.--The term
``pre-arranged ground transportation service'' means
transportation for a passenger (or a group of passengers)
arranged in advance (or operated on a regular route or between
specified points) and provided in a motor vehicle with a
seating capacity not exceeding 15 passengers (including the
driver).
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the 50 States and the
District of Columbia.
(4) Taxicab service.--The term ``taxicab service'' means
passenger transportation in a motor vehicle having a capacity
of not more than 8 passengers (including the driver), not
operated on a regular route or between specified places, and
that
(A) is licensed as a taxicab by a State or local
jurisdiction; or
(B) is offered by an entity or individual that
provides primarily local, demand response
transportation.
(5) Demand response transportation.--The term ``demand
response transportation'' means passenger transportation
provided pursuant to a request communicated to the driver at a
point in time relatively close to the pick-up time requested by
the passenger, and does not include transportation provided
pursuant to an advance reservation, notice of which is
communicated to a designated driver soon after the reservation
is made and numerous hours or days before the pick up time
requested by the passenger.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 1689 is a bill to prohibit States from imposing
restrictions on the operation of motor vehicles providing
limousine service between a place in a State and a place in
another State. The legislation prohibits a State, local
jurisdiction, public authority or other similar entity from
enforcing any law, ordinance, rule or regulation that has the
effect of restricting the operation of a motor vehicle
providing pre-arranged ground transportation service if the
motor carrier providing that service is registered with the
Secretary of Transportation, meets all applicable State
requirements in the State in which they are domiciled, and was
hired pursuant to a contract for interstate travel.
Background and Need for Legislation
Travel by limousine and sedan, once reserved for only the
wealthy, is an increasingly popular form of transportation.
Because limousine travel is always pre-arranged, business
travelers may secure a fixed rate and certainty in
availability. Further, many businesses keep limousine companies
on retainer to provide after-hours transportation to employees
working overtime as an alternative to other forms of
transportation or in inclement weather.
With the increase in the popularity of limousine
transportation has come questions associated with limousine
trips that cross State lines. Currently, the Department of
Transportation regulates the requirements of interstate
transportation of passengers and property. Additionally, States
and localities regulate the pickup and drop-off of passengers
within their jurisdictions ostensibly to regulate intrastate
transportation of passengers and property on an intrastate
basis, as well as the ``safety'' of out-of-State carriers.
Certain localities and States, such as New York City, have
developed a reputation as vigorously enforcing local ordinances
and regulations to purposely prevent out-of-State carriers from
operating within their borders.
For instance, if a person flies into the airport in Newark,
New Jersey, and wants a limousine to take him to his hotel in
New York city, the limousine would be able to drop him off, but
it would be unlawful for the limousine to pick him up again to
return him to the airport at the conclusion of his trip. Local
New York ordinances require a license or ``medallion'' to pick
up passengers within the city, a prohibitively expensive
license for an out-of-State company which only occasionally
needs to travel in the city. Thus, even if the limousine
operator were able to drop off his client in the city
(something that is increasingly monitored by local
authorities), he would be unable to pick the client up again
for the return trip.
Limousine operators who violate the law face the
possibility of stiff fines, imprisonment, and confiscation of
the vehicle. Similar situations exist in other localities,
including Las Vegas and the District of Columbia. Further, New
Jersey recently enacted legislation restricting the operation
of out-of-State limousine services in New Jersey. Some view
this statute as a reciprocal act for New York's actions against
out-of-State drivers.
Thus, the local law interferes with the ability of an
individual to contract for round-trip service from a point in
one State to a point in another State, and back again. Further,
local actions are leading to retaliatory actions by other
States and localities, presenting a threat to continued
interstate commerce transportation of passengers.
In a related matter, the Committee is aware that in some
States providers of intrastate pre-arranged ground
transportation service between or among points in two or more
local jurisdictions or municipalities must secure permits from
each local jurisdiction or municipality as a prerequisite to
making a pick up in that locality. The Committee notes that
such a requirement for pre-arranged ground transportation
service that is not taxicab service (e.g., limousine service)
could be alleviated by adoption of State legislation
establishing a State licensing requirement, mooting the need
for multiple local permits. The Committee also recognizes that
some States may deem it prudent to grant local jurisdictions or
municipalities the authority to impose a permitting requirement
in regard to movements performed between or among points in the
same local jurisdiction or municipality. However, such matters
remain reserved to the States, and this legislation does not
affect those laws and ordinances.
Hearings
The Committee on Commerce has not held hearings on the
legislation.
Committee Consideration
On September 14, 2000, the Committee on Commerce met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1689 reported to the House
with an amendment by a voice vote.
Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto.
There were no record votes taken in connection with ordering
H.R. 1689 reported. A motion by Mr. Bliley to order H.R. 1689
reported to the House, with an amendment, was agreed to by a
voice vote.
The following amendment was agreed to by a voice vote:
An amendment in the nature of a substitute by Mr.
Blunt, No. 1, narrowing the scope of the bill to cover
only interstate travel of pre-arranged ground
transportation service.
committee oversight findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has not held oversight
or legislative hearings on this legislation.
committee on government reform oversight findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, no oversight findings have been
submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government
Reform.
new budget authority, entitlement authority, and tax expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R.
1689, a bill to prohibit States from imposing restrictions on
the operation of motor vehicles providing limousine service
between a place in a State and a place in another State, would
result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.
committee cost estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
congressional budget office estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 28, 2000.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1689, a bill to
prohibit states from imposing restrictions on the operation of
motor vehicles providing limousine service between a place in a
state and a place in another state, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are James
O'Keeffe (for federal costs), and Victoria Heid Hall (for the
state and local costs).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 1689--A bill to prohibit states from imposing restrictions on the
operation of motor vehicles providing limousine service between
a place in a state and a place in another state, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 1689 would prohibit states, state agencies, or
political subdivisions of states from restricting interstate
limousine service. Providers of interstate limousine services
would continue to be governed by federal regulations on
interstate commerce. H.R. 1689 would not have a significant
impact on the federal budget because it would not expand the
regulatory or enforcement authorities of federal agencies. The
bill would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore,
pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
The restriction on regulatory activities of state and local
governments would be an intergovernmental mandate as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates that the
cost of this mandate, primarily lost revenues from fines and
penalties, would be well below the threshold established in
UMRA ($55 million in 2000, adjusted annually for inflation).
H.R. 1689 contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts are James O'Keeffe (for federal
costs), and Victoria Heid Hall (for the state and local costs).
This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
federal mandates statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
advisory committee statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
constitutional authority statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in
Article I, section 8, clause 3, which grants Congress the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several
States, and with the Indian tribes.
applicability to legislative branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
section-by-section analysis of the legislation
Section 1. Regulation of interstate limousine service
Section 1 clarifies that a State or local government or an
interstate agency may not regulate pre-arranged interstate
ground transportation provided by operators that meet all
applicable licensing requirements under State law and are
registered to transport passengers in interstate commerce
pursuant to chapter 139 of title 49, United States Code.
Interstate ground transportation includes any trip in which
one or more passengers are picked up in one state and taken to
any intermediate or final destination in another state. For
purposes of this rule, an intermediate destination is a
destination where one or more passengers expect to conduct
personal or business activities before continuing their trip. A
destination is an intermediate destination only if the driver
does not perform any service for a second passenger or group of
passengers while waiting to transport the first passenger(s) to
the next destination.
Section 2. Regulation of interstate taxicab service
Section 2 is a savings clause which provides that nothing
in the legislation is to be construed as subjecting taxicab
service to regulation pursuant to the Secretary of
Transportation's authority over interstate commerce.
Section 3. Definitions
Section 3 defines certain terms, including ``motor
carrier,'' ``pre- arranged ground transportation,'' ``State,''
``taxicab,'' and ``demand response transportation.''
changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported
This legislation does not amend any existing Federal
statute.