Task: songer_othcrim

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule for the defendant on grounds other than procedural grounds? For example, right to speedy trial, double jeopardy, confrontation, retroactivity, self defense." This includes the question of whether the defendant waived the right to raise some claim. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated appeals challenge an Interstate Commerce Commission regulation requiring carriers to reimburse owner-operators for a portion of their fuel costs. Having concluded that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority, we set aside the regulation, suspending the effectiveness of our decision for 60 days following the date of issuance of the mandate, and remand to the Commission in order that the parties may accordingly seek leasing agreements and adjustment of rates. Although our ultimate holding is a narrow one, constrained by particular circumstances, we reach it through a broad inquiry into the rulemaking authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and agency rule-making in general. We write with an awareness of the importance of the case to the parties in this and future disputes.
I. BACKGROUND
The regulation in question is Ex Parte No. 311 (Sub-No. 4), Modification of The Motor Carrier Fuel Surcharge Program, 46 Fed.Reg. 50070, 365 I.C.C. 311 (served October 8, 1981) (“the regulation”). Understanding its purpose and effects requires some knowledge of industry practices and the recent history of regulation in the motor carrier field.
A. The Parties
The private parties to this suit represent the three principal segments of the regulated motor carrier industry: carriers, owner-operators, and shippers.
Under existing federal law, most forms of interstate for-hire motor transportation require operating authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC” or “Commission”). The Commission extends operating authority through licenses known as contract carrier permits or common carrier certificates of public convenience and necessity. Carriers, as that term is used here, are parties possessing such a license. Owner-operators are the “independent truckers” of song and legend. They are persons owning one or a few trucks who lack ICC operating authority. Since they cannot transport regulated commodities in interstate commerce in their own right, they rely on two sources of business: (1) they lease their services and equipment to a carrier in order to utilize the carrier’s operating authority, or (2) they make hauls exempt from ICC regulation by transporting agricultural products (49 U.S.C. § 10526), working for a private fleet (49 U.S.C. § 10524), transporting goods intrastate (49 U.S.C. § 10525), etc. Shippers, finally, are the customers of the industry — retailers, manufacturers and others — who have goods to be transported.
In order to haul regulated commodities an owner-operator leases his truck to a carrier, who then hires the owner-operator to drive the truck. These lease arrangements are common, as independent owner-operators account for approximately 40 percent of all intercity truck traffic in this country. H. R.Rep. No. 1812, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1978). Typically, in exchange for extending his operating authority and providing a few other services such as advertising, the carrier takes 25 percent of the gross revenue from the haul, leaving 75 percent to the owner-operator, who bears all of the costs of carrying the freight, including fuel, repairs, tolls and the like. Id. at 5-6. The lease terms vary, but the 75-25 split is very common in industry practice. The ordinary duration of the lease is from three months to one year. D. Wyckoff & D. Maister, The Owner-Operator: Independent Trucker 85 (1975). While most owner-operators are independent contractors, some are classified as employees under the national labor laws and are represented by unions.
B. Genesis of the Regulation
The current regulation is the latest in a series of actions taken by the ICC related to fuel costs. The dizzying increase in fuel prices associated with the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 had a severe impact on the trucking industry, and was in part responsible for owner-operator shutdowns in 1973-74.
The Commission took a number of actions in response to the new pace of fuel-price inflation. In Ex Parte No. 311, Expedited Procedures for Recovery of Fuel Costs, 350 I.C.C. 563 (1975), it established an expedited procedure for regulated carriers to reflect rapidly rising fuel costs in their rates in the event of a future fuel crisis. The Commission entered Special Permission No. 76-350, allowing carriers to increase rates on 10 days’ notice instead of the usual 30 days’ notice.
In the meantime, congressional hearings were initiated at various locations around the country to learn more about owner-operators and their problems. Some of the hearings are published in Regulatory Problems of the Independent Owner-Operator in the Nation's Trucking Industry: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Activities of Regulatory Agencies of the House Comm, on Small Business: Parts I, II, III, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976-78). The Commission in this case relies on a passage from the House report summarizing the findings of these hearings:
From the monies actually received (75 percent or less of the shipping rate) the owner-operator must pay for his own licensing, operation and gas tax permits which vary widely from state to state. They must also pay for the full cost of regular maintenance plus the monthly payment on his tractor and trailer which runs, on the average, of 12 to 18y2 percent interest on a 4-year plan which often is the only credit term available to him. When one recalls that the owner-operator is unable to pass on these expenses to his customer, the gravity of this problem is apparent.
The owner-operator cannot increase his income since it is fixed first by the rate charged for shipping by the carrier and secondly by his 75/25 leasing agreement with the carrier. There is little incentive for the carrier to raise rates because of the competition between licensed carriers. This is especially true, it is remembered, since the carrier gets 25 percent off the top for granting the privilege to work to the independent owner-operator. This added income provides additional income to the carrier. A carrier can lessen the cost squeeze on his rates by giving to a leased operator the same load for 75 percent of the rate and forcing the leasor [sic] to assume all costs.
The owner-operator is caught in a continuing cost crunch. His costs — fuel, lubricants, tires, overnight accommodations, etc. — continue to rise while his income remains inflexible. He is trapped by the regulatory system. If he were able to carry the same load for the full rate, he would be able to compete successfully within the system.
H.R.Rep. No. 1812, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 6-7 (1978).
The spring of 1979 saw another dramatic rise in fuel prices that cut heavily into owner-operator incomes, resulting in more shutdowns that summer. Since most owner-operators paid their own fuel costs, their expenses were rising rapidly, while their revenue was fixed by previous lease agreements and by rates that could only be changed if carriers sought rate increases. The Commission adopted temporary measures to cope with the problems facing carriers and owner-operators.
On June 1, 1979, Special Permission No. 2620 was issued, allowing carriers to file for fuel-related rate increases in surcharge form on ten days’ notice, but requiring the full amount of the surcharge to be passed through to owner-operators that actually paid for the fuel. This measure proved inadequate because many carriers chose not to file for the surcharge or did not file quickly enough to satisfy owner-operators.
On June 15, 1979, the Commission adopted Special Permission No. 79-2800, establishing an average fuel rate increase for the nation, and allowing carriers to file for this average increase in surcharge form on one day’s notice. The surcharge was based in part on a national average of the ratio of the owner-operator’s fuel expenses to total operating revenue, and became known as the “revenue-based” surcharge. It was in effect until the latest regulation replaced it. One key element of this procedure was that regardless of whether the carrier took the full surcharge, it was required to pass through the maximum allowed surcharge to owner-operators. By its own language Special Permission No. 79-2800 was a response to a situation of “extreme urgency” in which “fuel prices are increasing at an alarming rate.” It went on to note that “[bjecause of the extreme nature of the emergency, the Commission finds that it must order that all regulated carriers, whether or not they have taken an X-311 increase, must from this date forward compensate owner-operators fully for all additional fuel expenses incurred by these operators.”
Thereafter, on a weekly basis, the Commission continued to prescribe successively higher fuel surcharges, relating them to a weekly fuel price index using the January 1, 1979 diesel fuel price of 63.5 cents per gallon as a base.
The surcharge program, an emergency scheme enacted in a time of rapidly escalating fuel prices and labor strikes, ultimately created distortions in the rate structure and did not accurately reflect fuel costs. Recognizing that “[t]he surcharge program is intended to be temporary,” the Commission initiated Ex Parte No. 311 (Sub-No. 4), Review of the Motor Carrier Fuel Surcharge Program, in a notice of proposed rulemaking served on April 11, 1980. The Commission proposed four modifications in the program and requested comments. After reviewing comments and holding hearings, it proposed a fifth modification in a notice served on July 31, 1981.
After receiving several hundred comments and hearing oral argument on the five options, the Commission adopted the current regulation, which replaces the revenue-based surcharge with a plan requiring carriers to compensate owner-operators based on a cents-per-mile formula. The regulation froze the percentage of revenue surcharge and allowed carriers to fold the amount of the surcharge into their rate structure.
Unlike its predecessors, the current regulation cannot be described as an emergency measure. It was adopted some eighteen months after the initial notice of proposed rulemaking, and was not adopted in a time of national labor unrest. Fuel prices were relatively stable as well, for the July 31 notice indicated that “[sjurcharges have been employed only in exigent circumstances such as the fuel crisis which began in the spring of 1979. The circumstances which led to the adoption of the surcharge program no longer exist. Petroleum supplies are ample at present and the price of fuel is now relatively stable.”
Furthermore, the regulatory pressures contributing to the plight of the owner-operator had eased since the time they were recognized by Congress in the hearings that ended in 1978. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 made it much easier for an owner-operator to become a carrier himself and avoid having to pay carriers for license privileges. Section 5 of the Act substantially lessens the burden on would-be applicants for certificates of public convenience and necessity under 49 U.S.C. § 10922. See H.Rep. No. 1069, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 12-17, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 2283, 2294-99. The new standard has been applied very liberally in favor of applicants. “During the first year of implementing the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, some 27,000 opposed motor carrier operating rights cases were decided by the ICC. In not a single case did the Commission conclude that the protestant had satisfied its statutory burden of proving that the proposed operations were inconsistent with the public convenience and necessity.” Dempsey, Congressional Intent and Agency Discretion — Never the Twain Shall Meet: The Motor Carrier Act of 1980, 58 Chi.Kent L.Rev. 1, 40 (1981).
C. The Regulation
The regulation, served on October 8,1981, phased out the existing surcharge program and replaced it with a reimbursement plan requiring carriers to reimburse owner-operators on a mileage basis. The rate of reimbursement, initially set at 14 cents per mile, is designed to assure that owner-operators are compensated for all fuel costs above 63.5 cents a gallon incurred while on carrier business. As an option, carriers can avoid the mileage compensation system by providing owner-operators with fuel or credit cards, so that the carrier absorbs all actual costs for fuel above 63.5 cents per gallon. Carriers are provided a means of obtaining a rate increase to offset increased fuel expenses.
Language from the regulation itself best explains its effect. “In establishing current standards for the recovery of fuel increases, the Commission has, in essence, affected one distinct element of the owner-operator’s compensation.” The Commission has overridden privately negotiated payment arrangements between carriers and owner-operators. “The fuel reimbursement plan delineated in this decision in effect separates owner-operator compensation for fuel costs in excess of 63.5 cents a gallon from the lease agreement.” The mileage reimbursement must be paid regardless of the terms of the lease. Furthermore, although the regulation allows changes in the base rate on which the revenue split is made under the lease to prevent double compensation, it forbids change's in leases designed to counteract the effects of the reimbursement plan. “We admonish carriers not to adjust the revenue split in the lease agreement to deprive owner-operators of payments required pursuant to the Commission’s compensation method.” Because of a perceived lack of bargaining power, the Commission concluded “that owner-operators require a measure of protection in this area and that separate agreements will not accomplish this goal.”
The regulation contemplates an ongoing reimbursement plan. For the indefinite future the mandated mileage compensation will be adjusted up or down as fuel prices dictate. The Commission has placed no limits on its power to rethink or recalculate its fuel reimbursement formula in the future, and has thus empowered itself to control compensation in the industry as it wishes.
D. Summary of Factual Circumstances
We decide this case based on the particular circumstances before us. Two key conclusions emerge from the background discussion given above.
First, the stated purpose and actual effect of Ex Parte No. 311 (Sub-No. 4) is to regulate directly compensation paid by carriers to owner-operators. The Commission is not satisfied with leaving compensation in the trucking industry to the private or collective bargaining that reigns throughout most of the American economy, because it believes that owner-operators are victims of inadequate bargaining power and inflexible leases. The fact that the compensation formula is keyed to fuel costs is of little moment, for if this regulation is valid, we fail to see how any other compensation requirement would not also be valid.
Second, this regulation cannot be described as an emergency or stop-gap measure designed to respond to a national or industry-wide crisis. It was adopted after lengthy rulemaking proceedings. There were no fuel or regulatory emergencies facing owner-operators in October of 1981, nor can the agency’s action be attributed to the immediate threat of a strike or other labor unrest. The regulation is not a temporary measure, but instead purports to regulate compensation on a permanent basis.
The authority of the Commission and the validity of this regulation must be determined with these factual circumstances in mind.
E. Issues on Appeal
The appeals come to us under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2342(5) (circuit court review of ICC regulation) and 2112(a) (transfer from other circuits). The regulation is the product of informal rulemaking under section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, and is subject to review under section 10 of the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D):
The reviewing court shall... hold unlawful and set aside agency action... found to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law....
Not surprisingly, the twenty-seven original parties, intervenors and amici curiae have managed to find fault with and defend the regulation under each of these subsections. Those opposing the action taken by the ICC claim, for reasons too numerous to mention here, that the regulation is arbitrary and capricious, that it unconstitutionally impairs existing contracts, that it impermissibly intrudes on the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board in conflict with Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962), and that inadequate notice of the agency’s action was given. Without reaching these arguments, we find that under subsection (C) the regulation is beyond the statutory authority granted to the Commission by Congress.
II. COMMISSION AUTHORITY
No one can doubt that Congress could regulate compensation levels in the trucking industry under its sweeping power to regulate interstate commerce. Nor is there doubt that Congress could delegate that power to the Commission. The question before us is not whether Congress can delegate such authority, but whether it has chosen to do so — a matter of statutory construction by and large. In answering this ultimate question we find it helpful to ask a number of subsidiary questions, all of which shed light on the bounds of an agency’s authority: (1) how broadly has Congress granted rulemaking authority to the agency; (2) how closely related to specific delegations of power is the regulation in question; (3) how dramatically does the regulation affect the private parties at which it is aimed?
These three subsidiary questions are not etched in stone, and are not intended to serve as an exhaustive list of factors that courts are obliged to examine in all disputes concerning rulemaking authority. They do, however, offer some clues of congressional intent if fairly answered.
The first two questions are self-evident in their aim. Obviously, if an agency has been granted sweeping powers, and if the regulation at issue clearly falls within the rule-making prerogatives expressly granted by statute, the court should not hesitate to conclude that Congress has authorized the regulation. On the other hand, if Congress has granted only limited powers to the agency, and the regulation bears little kinship to the rulemaking authority expressed by statute, the validity of the regulation is suspect. These two questions are easier to ask than to answer, and we address them concurrently in the remaining parts of this opinion.
The third question is not so obvious in its aim and we address it here. An inquiry into how dramatically a regulation affects the parties at which it is directed can rarely be answered precisely, and the parties themselves will usually disagree on the regulation’s impact. The reviewing court can do little more than give a gestalt reaction to the question. Nevertheless, we are convinced that the more profoundly an agency’s actions affect private parties, the more likely it is that Congress would disapprove of the action absent a clear and specific authorization by statute.
By any standard Ex Parte No. 311 (Sub-No. 4), despite its unpretentious name, asserts an awesome power over the motor carrier industry. It cannot be described as a mere procedural or housekeeping rule, nor is it a measure aimed at simply promoting or policing fair dealings among private parties. Instead it removes from the control of these parties their private determination of.one aspect of their leasing arrangements, and in effect rewrites each private agreement, to the benefit of one party and the chagrin of the other. The regulation affects tens of thousands of private parties by requiring out-of-pocket reimbursements of hundreds of millions of dollars. By directly regulating private sector compensation, the Commission has taken upon itself a task that Congress does not frequently delegate.
The Government suggests that the Commission’s regulations governing fuel cost reimbursements have been promulgated in response to congressional concern about the “cost crunch” that owner-operators have experienced in recent years. As explained above, the current regulation was promulgated several years after this concern was stated, and the regulatory constraints and fuel-price inflation that prompted the concern had subsided. Regardless, we cannot accept any suggestion that the regulation is valid because it is aimed at an evil perceived by Congress, for here the argument cuts both ways. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress thought the Commission had the power to act directly on owner-operator compensation. If it be asked why, then, Congress did not itself attack the problem by specific legislation, the response is that the fact that Congress recognized a problem but chose not to act directly suggests that it would as likely disapprove as approve of the Commission’s frontal attack on the problem.
In this instance Congress has expressed considerable concern about the plight of owner-operators, and has not hesitated to enact legislation in their favor. However, Congress has never specifically authorized the Commission to require fuel reimbursements to owner-operators or to otherwise directly regulate compensation paid to owner-operators. If the Commission has this authority, it does not exist by virtue of congressional hearings and reports alone. If such power exists it is to be found by examining enacted statutes, a task to which we now turn.
The petitioners would have us strike down any regulation of leasing practices between carriers and owner-operators that is not specifically authorized by statute. The respondents would have us uphold any agency action that has a rational basis, that does not contravene any express statutory mandate, and that does not impermissibly interfere with the jurisdiction of another agency. The truth, we think, lies somewhere in between.
A. General Rulemaking Authority
The Commission contends that it had authority to promulgate the regulation under the general rulemaking authority found in 49 U.S.C. § 10321(a), which provides:
The Interstate Commerce Commission shall carry out this subtitle. Enumeration of a power of the Commission in this subtitle does not exclude another power the Commission may have in carrying out this subtitle. The Commission may prescribe regulations in carrying out this subtitle.
Removed from its statutory and historical context, this provision is practically devoid of meaning, and offers little help in determining whether the Commission is authorized to regulate compensation paid in motor transportation leasing agreements.
As a preliminary approach to construing the scope of this provision, we note that it is the product of the Revised Interstate Commerce Act of 1978. The purpose of this Act was to rewrite the Interstate Commerce Act in modern prose without effecting any substantive changes in the law. The Act succeeds admirably at simplifying the stodgy language of the previous Interstate Commerce Act, but the previous statutes, perhaps because of their baroque prose, give a better feel for the scope of ICC authority than their terse replacement. We have examined these earlier statutes, reproduced in the margin for the avid reader, and find that they give no mention of ICC authority to regulate owner-operator compensation.
Our inquiry does not end simply by noting that the general rulemaking provision does not single out owner-operator leasing and compensation arrangements as subjects for ICC regulation. In the leading case of American Trucking Associations v. United States, 344 U.S. 298, 73 S.Ct. 307, 97 L.Ed. 337 (1953) (“ATA”), the Supreme Court held that the ICC could regulate certain leasing practices between carriers and owner-operators despite the lack of any express delegation of power under the Interstate Commerce Act (“Act”). The respondents rely on language from the case where the Court found that “[o]ur function, however, does not stop with a section-by-section search for the phrase ‘regulation of leasing practices’ among the literal words of the statutory provisions.” 344 U.S. at 309, 73 S.Ct. at 314, 97 L.Ed. at 355. Despite this language, we do not read the case as granting carte blanche to the Commission over leasing practices.
The Commission rules reviewed in ATA required that contracts between owner-operators and carriers be reduced to writing, vest control of the equipment in the carrier, exceed thirty days in length, and fix the compensation of the owner-operator by a manner other than a percentage of the gross revenue. The rules also required inspection of the non-owned equipment by the carrier, testing of the driver’s familiarity with Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and records on the use of equipment. The effect of the rules was to abolish a practice known as “trip leasing.”
The rules were justified as necessary to preserve the express statutory mandates of the Act. Trip leasing was found to encourage violation of statutory safety requirements and limitations on certified authority, and the statutory mandate to provide nondiscriminatory service. The Court also found that the use of leased equipment tended to obstruct normal rate regulation. It found that numerous statutory provisions of the Act were in jeopardy, including sections 216(b) and 218(a) (rate regulation), 204(a)(2) (safety requirements), 204(a)(1) (continuous service), 208(a) and 209(b) (observance of authorized routes and termini), and 216(d), 217(b), 218(a) and 222(c) (prohibition of rebates), and concluded that “practically the entire regulatory scheme is affected by trip leasing.” 344 U.S. at 310-12, 73 S.Ct. at 315, 97 L.Ed. at 355-57.
Under such circumstances, the Commission was held to have the authority to enforce the provisions of the Act under its general rulemaking authority found in section 204(a)(6). However, we read ATA as interpreting the general rulemaking provision to be a limited grant of authority to the Commission to carry out and enforce the express mandates of the Act. The Court did not find the provision to be a grant of power to regulate all aspects of the motor carrier industry, but instead found that “as exercised, the power under § 204(a)(6) is geared to and bounded by the limits of the regulatory system of the Act which it supplements.” 344 U.S. at 313, 73 S.Ct. at 316, 97 L.Ed. at 357.
Other Supreme Court precedents are consistent with this view. In Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36 L.Ed.2d 318 (1973), the Court upheld the authority of the Federal Reserve Board to promulgate the “Four Installment Rule” found in Regulation Z. Such authority was found to exist under the general rulemaking provision of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1604(a) which provides:
The Board shall prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of this subchapter. These regulations may contain... provisions... as in the judgment of the Board are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this subchapter, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith.
In broad language the Court states:
Where the empowering provision of a statute states simply that the agency may “make... such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act,” we have held that the validity of a regulation promulgated thereunder will be sustained so long as it is “reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation.”
411 U.S. at 369, 93 S.Ct. at 1660-61, 36 L.Ed.2d at 329-30. The opinion is clear, however, in recognizing that the regulation was aimed at carrying out specific statutory mandates requiring merchants to indicate the amount and rate of finance charges, 15 U.S.C. § 1638, and aimed at avoiding the uninformed use of credit by consumers, 15 U.S.C. § 1601. As in ATA, the Court found the regulation to be designed to enforce these express mandates:
Congress was clearly aware that merchants could evade the reporting requirements of the Act by concealing credit charges. In delegating rulemaking authority to the Board, Congress emphasized the Board’s authority to prevent such evasion. To hold that Congress did not intend the Board to take action against this type of manipulation would require us to believe that, despite this emphasis, Congress intended the obligations established by the Act to be open to evasion by subterfuges of which it was fully aware.
411 U.S. at 371, 93 S.Ct. at 1661, 36 L.Ed.2d at 330.
Similarly, the Court in Gemsco, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 244, 65 S.Ct. 605, 89 L.Ed. 921 (1945) found that the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor was empowered under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit companies from allowing or requiring their employees to do industrial homework. Speaking of the Gemsco case, the Mourning Court said:
The Act required the Administrator to approve orders which were designed to raise the minimum wage to 40 cents an hour. While the Act did not specifically mention industrial homework, § 8(f) stated that the Administrator’s orders
“shall contain such terms and conditions as the Administrator finds necessary to carry out the purposes of such orders, to prevent the circumvention or evasion thereof, and to safeguard the minimum wage rates established therein.”
[52 Stat. 1065 (1938)]. After hearings, the Administrator determined that homework furnished “a ready means” of evading his orders, and prohibited certain companies subject thereto from employing this means of production. The Court concluded that the Administrator had not exceeded his authority under the Act, noting that a more restrictive interpretation of the enabling provision would have rendered the Act inoperable.
411 U.S. at 370, 93 S.Ct. at 1661, 36 L.Ed.2d at 330.
None of these cases suggests that general rulemaking authority empowers an agency — established to enforce and carry out a congressional act — to promulgate regulations which run far afield from the specific substantive provisions of the act. Our reading of ATA and related cases is that a general rulemaking provision should be read as a kind of necessary and proper clause. It grants considerable powers to enforce the substantive mandates of federal law governing interstate motor transportation, but is tied to and limited by those specific substantive provisions. It does not open whole new horizons on the regulatory landscape. Congress has not delegated wholesale control of all affairs of motor carriers to the Commission, and it would require more than the language of 49 U.S.C. § 10321(a) to warrant a construction of the Act to that effect.
Statutory pronouncements subsequent to ATA strongly enforce a state of the law in accord with our reading of ATA. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 enacts numerous and important changes in the law regulating interstate motor transportation, and represents a shift in attitude on the role of government, and particularly the ICC, in regulating that industry. Section 2 of the Act, 49 U.S.C. § 10101 note, 94 Stat. 793 (1980) gives its purpose: “This Act is part of the continuing effort by Congress to reduce unnecessary regulation by the Federal Government.” Section 3(a) of the Act, id., gives the congressional findings prompting the legislation:
The Congress hereby finds that a safe, sound, competitive, and fuel efficient motor carrier system is vital to the maintenance of a strong national economy and a strong national defense; that the statutes governing Federal regulation of the motor carrier industry are outdated and must be revised to reflect the transportation needs and realities of the 1980’s; that historically the existing regulatory structure has tended in certain circumstances to inhibit market entry, carrier growth, maximum utilization of equipment and energy resources, and opportunities for minorities and others to enter the trucking industry; that protective regulation has resulted in some operating inefficiencies and some anticompetitive pricing; that in order to reduce the uncertainty felt by the Nation’s transportation industry, the Interstate Commerce Commission should be given explicit direction for regulation of the motor carrier industry and well-defined parameters within which it may act pursuant to congressional policy; that the Interstate Commerce Commission should not attempt to go beyond the powers vested in it by the Interstate Commerce Act and other legislation enacted by Congress; and that legislative and resulting changes should be implemented with the least amount of disruption to the transportation system consistent with the scope of the reforms enacted.
(Emphasis added).
The legislative history of the 1980 Act explains the section thus:
Section 3 stresses the importance to the national economy and national defense of a safe, sound, competitive, and fuel-efficient motor carrier system. It also states that, in order to achieve such a system, Congress finds it necessary to revise the statutes governing Federal regulation of the motor carrier industry. The existing regulatory structure has tended in certain circumstances to inhibit innovation and growth and has failed, in some cases, to sufficiently encourage operating efficiencies and competition.
In revising the statute, Congress also intends to give the Interstate Commerce Commission explicit direction for the regulation of the motor carrier industry and to ease that industry’s uncertainty about the future of regulation by the Commission. The Commission is admonished to stay within the powers specifically vested in it by the revised law.
In addition, this section states that Congress intends that the changes in the statutes and any resulting changes be implemented with the least amount of disruption to the transportation system as possible. •
H.R.Rep. No. 1069, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 10-11, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2283, 2292-93 (emphasis added).
ATA is undeniably still good law. ICC v. Brannon Systems, Inc., 686 F.2d 295, 296 (5th Cir.1982). It must, of course, be read in light of subsequent statutory developments.
We conclude that the general rule-making provision imparts power to the ICC only to enforce and carry out the specific substantive mandates enacted by Congress. Our task therefore turns to deciding whether the regulation falls within the ambit of any statutory mandate governing leasing arrangements or compensation that the Commission is authorized to enforce.
B. Regulation of Compensation
The current statutory scheme regulating interstate transportation is hard to sum up in a few sentences, for it represents nearly a century of legislation that has at different times favored railroads, motor carriers, owner-operators and the public.
Unquestionably Congress has granted enormous powers to the Commission to regulate the interstate transportation industry. Most notably, the Commission has been granted authority to regulate prices and market entry, matters normally left to market forces and subject at most to policing under the antitrust laws. Power over pricing exists by virtue of the Commission’s authority to regulate rates charged by carriers. See generally 49 U.S.C. §§ 10701-10786. Power over entry exists under the Commission’s authority to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity and other licenses. See generally 49 U.S.C. §§ 10901-10934. There are, however, no general provisions authorizing the ICC to regulate labor compensation levels, another extremely important economic function.
The Commission maintains that it has authority to regulate compensation under its authority to promote continuous and adequate transportation found in 49 U.S.C. § 11101(b), which provides:
The Commission may prescribe requirements for continuous and adequate transportation and service provided by motor common carriers and freight forwarders subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under subchapters II and IV of chapter 105 of this title and for transportation of baggage and express by such motor common carriers of passengers.
We think that this provision should not be read to authorize ICC regulation of labor compensation.
We note at the outset that this provision was enacted by the Revised Interstate Commerce Act of 1978. As explained above, this act rewrote the Interstate Commerce Act without substantive change. The statutory source of section 11101(b) is section 204(a)(1) of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (part II of the Interstate Commerce Act), 49 U.S.C. § 304(a)(1) (repealed 1978), which provided that it shall be a duty of the
Commission:
To regulate common carriers by motor vehicle as provided in this chapter, and to that end the Commission may establish reasonable requirements with respect to continuous and adequate service, transportation of baggage and express, uniform systems of accounts, records, and reports, preservation of records, qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees, and safety of operation and equipment.
This section was repealed by the Revised Interstate Commerce Act of 1978, except for the clause “qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees, and safety of operation and equipment,” which is scheduled for future codification in subtitle II of title 49. H.R.Rep. No. 1395, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 220, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3009, 3229.
The specific language at the end of section 204(a)(1), limiting regulation of employees to setting “qualifications and maximum hours of service” cannot be ignored. Specific words that follow a general term restrict the apjplication of the general term to things that are similar to those enumerated. General Electric Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 583 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir.1978). This rule of construction suggests that the Commission’s power to promote continuous and adequate service does not extend to setting labor compensation levels, but is restricted to setting qualifications for employment and maximum hours.
The courts have consistently read section

Question: Did the court rule for the defendant on grounds other than procedural grounds? For example, right to speedy trial, double jeopardy, confrontation, retroactivity, self defense. This includes the question of whether the defendant waived the right to raise some claim.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E