This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at |http : //books . google . com/
k TRUCK SAFETY ACT OF 1978.
95-2
HEARING
BEFOEE THE
STANFORD
'•'BRAR/ES
COMMITTEE ON. COMMERCE.
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
U NITED STATES SENAIE
NIXETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
OX
a 2970 ..
TO PROMOTE COMMERCIAL MOTOR A^HICLE SAFETY, TO PRE-
VEXT INJCBY TO COMMERCUL MOTOR VEHICLE OPEHATORS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
SEPTEMBER 8, 1078Q
4^ Serial No. 95-132
Printed for tbe use of the
Committee on CommeTce. Science, atid Transportatioii
2M02O
U.S. GOVEENME?JT PHINTIKG OFFICE
WASHINGTON t;l»76 y
Digitized
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada. Chairman
WARRBN O. MAONUSON, Washington JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
ERNEST F. ROLLINGS, South Carolina TED STEVENS, Alaska
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii BARRY GOLDWATBR, Arizona
ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Illinois BOB PACKWOOD, Oregon
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky HARRISON H. SCHMITT, New Mexico
JOHN A. DURKIN, New Hampshire JOHN C. DANFORTH, Missouri
EDWARD ZORINSKY, Nebraska
DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., Michigan
Aubrey L. Sarvis, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Edwin K. Hall, General Counsel
Sallie Adams, Professional Staff Member
Malcolm M. B. Sterrbtt^ Minority Staff Director
Ronald Johnson^ Minority Staff Counsel
CiNDT Douglass^ Minority Staff Counsel
(II)
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS
Page
Opening statement by the Chairman 1
Text of S. 2970 3
Agency comments:
National Transportation Safety Board 22
Interstate Commerce Commission 22
Department of Transportation 23
LIST OF WITNESSES
Fields, C. H., assistant director, National Affairs, American Farm Bureau
Federation 151
Prepared statement 154
Ginsburg, Susan, safety and health director, Professional Drivers Council
(PROD) ; accompanied by Arthur L. Fox, counsel; Bill Berryhill; Ar-
mand (Bud) Mayer; Milt McLarty ; Bailey Wharton; Robert Doyle;
George Zojicek; and Paul Georg 112
Prepared statement of Ms. Ginsburg 130
Prepared statement of Mr. Georg 138
Prepared statement of Mr. Zojicek 139
Questions of the Committee and the answers thereto 140
Hardy, Heber, chairman, Nevada Public Service Commission, National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners ; accompanied by Paul
Rodgers, general counsel; and Margo James, director, congressional
relations 59
Prepared statement 63
Hassell, John S., Jr., Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administra-
tion; accompanied by Howard Anderson, Associate Administrator for
Safety; Robert A. Kaye, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety;
and George Parker, Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration 33
Prepared statement 44
Questions of the Committee and the answers thereto 46
Kauffman, John, vice president and director of transportation, the Ameri-
can Paper Institute and National Forest Products Association 155
Letter of October 23, 1978 161
King, Hon. James, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board-— 48
Questions of the committee and the answers thereto 54
Lacey, Hugh F., Private Truck Council of America, Inc., General Traffic
manager of Josi^ph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. ; accompanied by Richard
Henderson, director of operations ; and William Quinlan, special counsel- 102
Prepared statement 105
O'Hara, Bartley, legislative attorney. International Brotherhood of Team-
sters; accompanied by George Mernick 107
Questions of the Committee and the answers thereto 111
Shay, Harold A., vice chairman, American Trucking Associations, Inc. ;
accompanied by Ken Stinger, legislative counsel : Will Johns, safety
director ; Nelson Cooney, general counsel ; and Larry Stern, Stern's
Transport 85
Prepared statement 89
Questions of the Committee and the answers thereto 98
(m)
Digitized by
Google
IV
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS
Page
Aders, Robert O., ou behalf of Food Marketing Institute, statement 163
Baker, Susan P., M.P.H., associate professor, School of Hygiene and Public
Health, The Johns Hopkins University, letter with attachments of Sep-
tember 1, 1978 172
Chomski, Joseph, attorney. Birch, Horton, Bittner and Monroe, letter
of October 6, 1978 160
Gold, Charles, analytical engineer, Smithers Scientific Services, Inc., letter
of October 5, 1978 124
Hall, Gerald N., president. Motor Transit Co., letter with enclosure of
September 27, 1978 129
Harkins, William E., line haul driver. Interstate Motor Freight, letter 191
Koegel, James J., corporate attorney, Jones Motor, letter of November 14,
1978 124
^IcCamant, William C, executive vice president. National Association of
Wholesaler-Distributors, statement '. 165
Mc^lorris, Donald L., on behalf of Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., statement- 116
Miller, Robert, statement 168
Patrick, K. L., director of safety. Western Wood Products Association,
letter of September 5, 1978 192
Percy, Hon. Charles H., U.S. Senator from Illinois, statement 25
Reeves, Kinzey, executive vice president, Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., letter
of September 19, 1978 126
Rolston, K. S., executive vice president, American Pulpwood Association,
statement 171
Sheehy, Donald R., president, Jones Motor, statement 120
Steele, Harold B., president, Illinois Agricultural Association, letter of
September 5, 1978 190
Digitized by
Google
TRUCK SAFETY ACT OF 1978
FBIDAY, SEPTEMBEB 8, 1978
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met at 9 :45 a.m. in room 235 of the Russell Senate
Office Building, Hon. Howard W. Cannon (chairman of the commit-
tee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT BT THE CHAIBMAN
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Today, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Trans-
portation begins a hearing on S. 2970, the Truck Safety Act of 1978.
This legislation, introduced by Senator Percy, would greatly
strengthen the power of the Federal Government in the truck safety
area.
Yesterday, this committee heard testimony on more limited aspects
of the truck safety — the issue of regulation of truck length. Today's
hearing concerns the broader question of how to regulate the multitude
of heavy-duty commercial vehicles on this Nation's highways.
This Nation and its economy are highly dependent on trucks to ship
goods through the coimtry. Approximately 4^/^ million interstate truck
drivers share the Nation's highways with other drivers.
In the report entitled, "Tlie Federal Motor Carrier Safety Pro-
gram : Not Yet Achieving What the Congress Wanted," the General
Accounting Office — GAO — noted that trucks and buses were involved
in approximately 20 percent of highway accidents resulting in deaths
in this country.
The GAO report also stated that over one-third of the 54,800 trucks
and buses inspected by Federal personnel during 1974 and 1975 were
unsafe and taken off tjfie road until repaired. The GAO found that the
number of Federal inspectors was inadequate to carry out sufficient
inspections in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety area. Thus, the safe-
ty aspects of trucking are of particular concern to the committee.
Recently, there was further confirming evidence of potential serious
hazards on the highways as a result of unsafe trucks. In early August,
the Department of Transportation's — DOT — Bureau of Motor Car-
rier Safety, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania State Police, con-
ducted an intensive roadside inspection campaign near Berwick, Pa.
According to DOT's preliminary report, some 80 inspectors conducted
visual inspections of all trucks passing on the highway. If nothing was
(1)
Digitized by
Google
obviously wrong on initial visual inspection, the vehicle was imme-
diately waved on. However, if the inspectors found something obvi-
ously wrong, then the vehicle was pulled over for more thorough
inspection.
These more thorough inspections yielded some startling results.
Out of 711 vehicles, 54 percent were actually put out of service until
the violations were fixed.
The DOT emphasized that these defects were significant enough
safety defects, such a faulty or virtually inoperative braking systems,
that in the judgment of the inspectors they were likely to cause acci-
dents.
The trucks put out of service averaged 4^/2 such defects.
Also, the DOT found 24 drivers violating the Federal regulation
that limits their time behind the wheel.
Despite the scope of these truck safety problems, S. 2970 goes beyond
the issue of truck safety to apply to the safety of operation of all com-
mercial motor vehicles over 10,000 poimds gross vehicle weight rating.
Thus, this legislation would address the regulation of buses, farm
equipment, and all other commercial vehicles above 10,000 gross vehi-
cle weight.
In the course of these hearings, the committee will be particularly
interested in analyzing the adequacy of the Federal regulation of the
commercial motor vehicles and what, if anything, is necessary in order
to strengthen these programs.
The committee is also concerned about how Federal programs in-
teract with State regulation of commercial motor vehicles and whether
this relationship is operating smoothly and effectively.
As part of this overall examination, the committee will seek to deter-
mine whether the funding and manpower allocated to these programs
is adequate to carry out these important functions.
The committee will also focus on how priorities are set in the regu-
lation of commercial vehicles and what method of initiating investiga-
tions of improper behavior in this area would be most effective.
In examining these issues, the committee is fortunate to be receiv-
ing testimony today from an extremely wide spectrum of witnesses
drawn from the Federal Government, State agencies, private truck-
ing organizations, farm representatives, the Teamsters Union, and
private experts.
[The bill and agency comments follow :]
Digitized by
Google
95th congress
2d Session
S.2970
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 20 (legislative day, Februabt 6) , 1978
Mr. Percy introduced the following bill ; which was read twice and referred pp
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
A BILL
r r r
To promote commercial motor vehicle safety, to prevent injury
to commercial motor vehicle operators, and for other
purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representor
2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may he cited as the "Truck Safety Act of
4 1978".
5 Sec. 2. The Congress finds that, because ownmercirf
6 motor vehicles pose a risk to public safety due to their
T extensive use and substantial size and weight, because
8 existing regulations pertaining to the safe operation of com-
9 mercial motor vehicles are inadequate, and because existing
10 laws fail to protect driver-employees from discrimination
II
Digitized by
Google
2
1 arising from their efforts to promote compliance with safe
2 operating procedures, it is, therefore, in the puhlic interest
3 to enhance commercial motor vehicle safety and to reduce
4 highway fatalities, injuries, and property damage which
5 may be attributed to these causes.
6 Sec. 3. It is declared to be the purpose of this Act to
7 promote and protect the American public from the hazards
8 of unsafe commercial motor vehicle operations, to provide
9 drivers of commercial motor vehicles with safe and healthy
10 working conditions, and to insure prompt and continuous
11 compliance by all persons subject to this Act with the rules
12 and regulations issued hereunder.
13 Sec. 4. For the purposes of this Act —
14 (1) the term "Secretary*' means the Secretary of
15 Transportation;
16 (2) the term "person" means one or more individ-
17 uals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business
18 trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of
19 persons using or operating commercial motor vehicles
20 in commerce;
21 (3) the term "commerce" means trade, traffic, or
22 transportation within the jurisdiction of the United
23 States between a place in a State and place outside of
24 such State, or which affects trade, traffic, or transporta-
Digitized by
Google
j[ don between a State and any place outside of sack
2 State;
3 (4) the term "employer" means any person 6n-
4 gaged in a business affecting commerce who owns^ leases^
5 or operates commercial motor vehicles in connec-
6 tion with that business, or assigns employees to operate
7 them in commerce, but such term does not include the
8 United States, or any State, or political subdivision of
9 a State;
10 (5) the term "State" means a State of the United
11 States, tbe District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
12 Puerto Bico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or
13 Guam;
14 (6) the term "commercial motor vehicle" means
15 any self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the high-
16 ways in commerce principally to transport people,
17 commodities, or equipment in commerce ; and
18 (7) the term "Board" means the National Trans-
19 portation Safety Board.
20 APPLICABILITY
21 Sec. 5. This Act shall apply to the safety of operation
22 of all commercial motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds QVWR
23 (gross vehicle weight rating). It shall also apply to the
24 maximum hours, qualifications, working conditions, and
Digitized by
Google
6
4
1 duties and responsibilities of all persons who operate sueh
2 commercial motor vehicles.
3 DUTIES
4 Sbg. 6. (a) Each employer shall provide to each of his
5 employees safe vehicles and working conditions that are free
6 from recognized hazards which cause or are likely to cause
7 death or physical harm, and shall comply with the safety
8 and health standards promulgated under this Act.
9 (b) Each employee shall comply with the safety and
10 health standards and rules, regulations, and orders issued
11 pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions
12 and conduct.
13 BEGULATOEY AUTHORITY AND STANDARDS
14 Sec. 7. (a) In carrying out the provisions of section
15 1655 (e) of title 49, United States Code, in accordance with
16 section 5 of this Act, the Secretary shall establish, maintain,
17 and momtor safety rules and regulations necessary to assure,
18 to the extent practicabte, that —
19 ( 1 ) conamercial motor vehicles be so maintained as
20 to enable their safe operation ;
21 (2) the du^tion, frequency, and scheduling of the
22 responsibilities of drivers of commercial motor vehicles
23 does not unduly contribute to driver fatigue or to a
24 driver's inability to operate safely ; and
25 (3) the health and physical condition of drivers of
Digitized by
Google
5
1 commercial motor vehicles be adequate to enable them
2 to safely drive the vehicles they customarily operate.
3 (b) The Secretary shall regulate the working conditions
4 and operating practices of employees when operating com-
5 mercial motor vehicles and shall establish, maintain, and
6 monitor safety and health rules and regulations necessary to
7 assure, to the extent technology pennits, that no employee
8 will suffer injury or material impairment of health or func-
9 tional capacity due to his exposure to such working condi-
10 tions during his working life.
11 (c) All rules and regulations issued under this section
12 shall be promulgated in accordance with section 553 of
13 title 5, United States Code (without regard to sections
14 556 and 557 of such title) .
15 (d) In promulgating, modifying, or revoking rules and
16 regulations under this Act, the Secretary shall not in any
17 material way reduce (i) the protections currently afforded
18 employees operating conmiercial motor vehicles, or (ii)
19 the safety and maintenance requirements provided by safety
20 and health rules and regulations of commercial motor vehicle
21 equipment.
22 (e) The Secretary shall conduct, directly or indirectly,
23 the research, development, demonstrations, and training
24 activities necessaiy to develop rules and regulations under
25 this section, to design and develop improved enforcement
Digitized by
Google
8
6
2 procedures and technologies, and to familiarize all affected
2 persons with such rules and regulations.
3 BBCOBDKEEPING, INSPECTIONS, AND INVESTIGATIONS
4 Sec. 8. (a) The Secretary is authorized to require, by
5 regulation issued pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United
6 States Code, that persons subject to this Act establish and
7 maintain such records, and make such reports as are nee-
8 essary to insure compliance with this Act so that reliable
9 information can be developed concerning health and safety,
10 vehicle conditions, employee qualifications and conduct,
11 vehicle inspection and maintenance practices, and the safe
12 operation of vehicles. In addition, where appropriate, any
13 such regulation may prescribe the manner, t3rpe, and fre-
14 quency of examinations by medical authorities or other
15 tests which shall be provided by the employer to employees
16 exposed to such hazards in order to permit the Secretary,
17 employer, and employees, to most effectively determine
18 whether the health and safety of such employees is adversely
19 affected by such exposure.
20 (b) The Secretary is authorized, to the extent necessary
21 to carry out his responsibilities under this Act, to conduct
22 investigations and inspections, compile statistics, make re-
23 ports, hold hearings, require by subpena or otherwise the
24 production of documents, records, and property, and take
25 depositions. Whenever practicable, investigations and inspec-
Digitized by
Google
J tions under this subsection shall be conducted without ad-
2 vance notice. Subject to regulations issued by the Secretary,
3 representatives of the employer and his employees shall each
4 be accorded an opportunity to be present and participate in
5 any workplace inspection authorized under this su))section.
5 (c) Any person, including an employee or employee
7 representative, who believes that a safety or health standard,
8 requirement, or regulation issued under this Act is being
9 violated, or has been violated within the preceding ninety
10 days, may request an investigation by filing a w^ritten com-
11 plaint with the Secretary setting forth with reasonable par-
12 ticularity the nature of the violation. Whenever the
13 Secretary determines from the complaint that there are no
14 reasonable grounds to believe that a violation exists or may
15 have occurred, he shall timely notify the complainant in writ-
16 ing of his determination and the reasons therefor. Whenever
17 the Secretary determines that there are reasonable grounds
18 to believe that a violation exists or has occurred, he shall
19 conduct an investigation as soon as practicable, shall timely
20 notify the complainant of his findings, and shall take such
21 further action as may be appropriate for carrying out the
22 purposes of this Act. The Secretary shall not disclose the
23 identity of complainants unless he determines that such dis-
24 closure is necessary to prosecute a violation. If disclosure
25 becomes ncccssaiy, the Secretary shall take every measure
Digitized by
Google
10
8
2 to assure that the complainaut is uot subject to haiassment,
2 intimidation, or financial loss as a result of such disclosure.
3 CITATIONS, ORDEKS, AND PENALTIES
4 Sec. 9. (a) If, upon inspection or investigation, the
5 Secretary finds that a material health or safety violation
6 exists or has occurred, he shall timely issue a citation. Each
7 citation shall be in writing and shall describe with reasonable
8 particularity the nature of the violation found and the section
9 of the Act, rule, standard, regulation, or order which has
10 been violated. The citation shall fix a reasonable time for
11 abatement of the violation, and shall assess a civil penalty
12 not to exceed $2,500 for each offense. If the Secretaiy de-
13 termines that a substantial health or safety violation exists
14 or has occurred which could reasonably lead to, or has re-
15 suited in, serious personal injury or death, he may assess a
16 civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each offense. Each
17 day of such violation determined by the Secretary under this
18 section shall constitute a separate offense. In determining
19 the amount of the penalty, the Secretary shall take into ac-
20 count, but need not make specific findmgs of fact conceni-
21 ing, the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
22 violation committed and, with respect to the person found
23 to have committed such violation, the degree of culpability,
24 past history of compliance, and other matters as justice and
Digitized by
Google
11
9
i public safety require. In each case, the assessment shall be
2 reasonably calculated to induce further compliance.
3 (b) The Secretary shall further require any persons
4 served with a citation to post it or notice thereof in such
5 place or places and for such duration as the Secretary mfty
6 deem appropriate to aid in the enforcement of the Act.
J (c) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations estajb-
8 Ushing penalty schedules designed to induce timely compli-
9 ance for persons failing to comply promptly with the require-
10 ments set forth in citations and orders. <
U (d) Any person who knowingly and willfully violates
12 any standard, rule, regulation, or order under this Act or
13 who knowingly and willfully makes any false statement or
14 representation required under this Act shall, upon conviction,
16 be subject for each ofifense to a fine not to exceed $25,000,
16 or imprisonment for a teim not to exceed one year, or both.
IX (e) All penalties and fines imposed under this section
18 shall accrue and be payable to the Highway Trust Fund.
19 ENFORCEMENT AND REVIEW
20 Sec. 10. (a) If, after investigation, the Secretary issues
21 a citation or order under this Act, he shall timely serve a
22 copy upon the violator either by certified or registered mail
23 or by personal service, together with notice that the violator
24 lias fifteen working days within which to notify the Secre-
Digitized by
Google
12
10
1 tary that he wishes to contest the citation or order. If within
2 the fifteen working days from the receipt of the dtation or
3 order issued by the Secretary the viohitor feiils to notify the
4 Secretary that he intends to contest the citation or oiider, it
5 shall be deemed final and shall not be subject to review by
6 any court or agency.
7 (b) If a violator notifies the Secretary that he intends
8 to contest a citation or order issued under this Act, the Sec-
9 retary shall promptly advise the National Transportation
10 Safety Board of such notification, and the Board shall afford
11 the violator an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with
12 section 554 of title 5, United States Code. The commence-
13 ment of proceedings under this subsection shall not, unle^ss
II ordered by the Board, operate to stay the citation or order.
15 The Board shall thereafter issue an order based on find-
16 ings of fact, affirming, modifying, or vacatmg the Secre-
17 tary's citation or order, or directing other appropriate re-
18 lief, and such order shall become final and not subject to
19 review thirty days after its issuance. The Board shall pro^
20 inulgate reasonable rules of procedures for the conduct of
21 such proceedings: Provided, however, That such rules give
22 an opportunity to affected persons to participate as paities.
23 (c) Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by
24 an order of the Board issued under this section may obtain
25 review of such order in any United States court of appeals
Digitized by
Google
13
11
1 for the circuit in which the violation is alleged to have oc-
2 curred or where the violator has his prmcipal place of busi-
3 ness, or in the court of appeals for the District of Columbia
4 circuit, by filing in such court within thirty days following
5 the issuance of such order a written petition praying that the
6 order be modified or set aside. A copy of such petition shall
7 be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Board
8 and to the other parties, and thereupon the Board shall file in
9 the court the record of the proceedings as provided in section
10 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon such filing, the
11 court shall have jurisdiction of the proceedings and of the
12 question determined therein, and shall have power to grafat
13 such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems jitot
14 and proper, and to make and enter upon the pleadings, tes-
15 timony, and proceedings set forth in such record a decree
16 affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, the
17 order of the Board and enforcing the same to the extent that
18 such order is affirmed or modified. The commencement of
19 proceedings under this subsection shall not, unless ordered by
20 the court, operate as a stay of the order of the Board. No
21 objection that has not been urged before the Board shall
22 be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to
23 urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary
24 circumstances. The finding of the Board with respect to ques-
25 tions of fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial
Digitized by
Google
14
12
1 evidence on the record considered as a whole. Upon the filing
2 of the record with the court, its jurisdiction shall be exclusive
3 and its judgment and decree shall be final, except that the
4 same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the
5 United States, as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United
5 States Code. Petitions filed under this subsection shall be
gj heard expeditiously.
8 (d) The Secretary may also obtain review of any final
9 order of the Board by filing a petition for such relief in the
10 iJnited States court of appeals for the circuit in whiich the
U alleged violation occurred or in which the violator has his
12 principal place of business.
18 (e) Any fine or assessment modified or abated by the
14 Board or a court under this section shall be returned with
15 interest to the violator.
16 (f) The Secretary may obtain enforcement, including
17 injunctive relief, of any uncontested citations or orders issued
18 under this section by applying to the United States district
19 court for the district where the violation occurred or where
20 the cited paiiy has his principal ofiice or residence. All find-
21 ings of fact, conclusions of law, fines, penalties, and orders,
22 issued by the Secretary or the Board shall be conclusive and
23 shall not be subject to review under this subsection. In addi-
24 tion to granting enforcement, the district court shall assess
Digitized by
Google
15
' - 13 - ^
1 an appropriate penalty for noncompliance and award such
2 further relief as justice and public safety require.
3 Sec. 11. Except as provided in section 518(a) of title
4 28, United States Code, relating to litigation before the
5 Supreme Court, the General Counsel of the Department of
6 Transportation may appear for and represent the Secretary
7 in proceedings before the Board and m any civil litigation
8 brought under this Act but all such litigation shall be subject
9 to consultation with and the concurrence of the Attorney
10 General.
11 EMPLOYEE SUITS
12 Sec. 12. (a) No employer shall discharge or in any
13 manner discriminate against an employee because such em-
14 ployee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be
15 instituted any proceeding under, or relating to, any standard,
16 requirement, or regulation issued under this Act, or has testi-
17 fied, or is about to testify, or has participated in any way,
18 in such proceeding.
19 (b) No employer shall discharge or in any manner dis-
20 criminate against an employee for refusing to operate equip-
21 ment subject to motor canier safety regulations in violation
22 of hours of service regulations or because of the employee's
23 reasonable apprehension of serious injury to himself or the
24 public due to the unsafe condition of such equipment. The
Digitized by
Google
16
14
1 unsafe conditions causing the employee's apprehension of
2 injury must be of such a nature that a reasonable person,
3 under the circumstances then confronting the employee,
4 would conclude that there is a bona fide danger of an accident
5 resulting from the unsafe condition. In order to qualify for
6 protection under this subsection, the employee must have
7 sought from his employer, and have been unable to obtain,
8 correction of the unsafe condition.
9 (c) Any employee who is discharged or in any manner
10 discrimmated against in violation of this section shall be
11 entitled to (i) reinstatement to his fonner position and to
12 be made whole for lost compensation and benefits, (ii) com-
13 pensatory damages, and (iii) where appropriate under the
14 circumstances, exemplary damages.
15 (d) Suits to enforce the provisions of this section may
16 be brought in the United States district court in the district
17 in which the employer owns or leases facilities or in the
18 United States district court in the district within which the
19 employee has been discriminated against or has received
20 notice of discharge. No suit may be instituted to enforce such
21 provisions more than six months after written notice of dis-
22 charge is received by the employee concerned, or more than
23 six months after the discriminatory practices have been dis-
24 continued, whichever is later.
25 (e) Whenever an order is issued under this section.
Digitized by
Google
17
15
1 the court at the request of the complainant, may assess
2 agamst the person committing the violation a sum equal to
3 the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses, including
4 attorney's fees, reasonably incurred by the complainant for,
5 or in connection with, the institution and prosecution of such
6 proceedings.
7 STATE ENFORCEMENT
8 Sec. 13. (a) (1) Any State agreeing to adopt, and
9 to assume responsibility for enforcing, the standards, re-
10 quirements, and regulations issued under section 7 of this
11 Act shall submit a plan which shall be approved by the
12 Secretary if, in his judgment, the plan is adequate to
13 promote the objectives of this Act, and the plan —
14 (i) designates a State agency responsible for ad-
15 ministering the plan through the State;
16 (ii) provides a right of entry and inspection com-
17 parable to the Secretary's right under section 8(b)
18 of this Act;
19 (iii) contains satisfactory assurances that such
20 agency has or will have the legal authority, resources,
21 and qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement
22 of such rules and regulations ;
23 (iv) gives satisfactory assurances that such State
24 will devote adequate funds to the administration of such
25 plan and enforcement of such nilcs and regulations;
Digitized by
Google
18
16
1 (v) requires employers, owners, and lessees of
2 commercial motor vehicles to make all reports pursuant
3 to this Act to the Secretary ; and
4 (vi) provides that such State agency will adopt
5 uniform reporting requirements and use uniform forms
G for recordkeeping, inspections, and investigations as may
7 he established and required by the Secretary.
8 (2) If the Secretary rejects a plan submitted under
9 the foregoing paragi'aph, he shall provide the State a written
10 explanajtion of his action and shall permit the State to modify
11 and resubmit its proposed plan for approval.
12 (b) The Secretary shall, on the basis of reports sub-
13 mitted by the State agency, and on his own inspections, make
14 a continuing evaluation of the manner in which each State
15 having a plan approved under this section is carrying out
16 such plan. Whenever the Secretary finds, after afifordmg due
17 notice and opportunity for conmaent, that a State plan
18 previously approved is not being followed, or that it has
19 become inadequate to assure the enforcement of rules and
20 regulations issued under this Act, he shall notify the State of
21 his withdrawal of his approval of such plan and upon receipt
22 of such notice, such plan shall cease to be in effect. The State
23 may, however, retain jurisdiction in any case commenced
24 before the withdrawal of the plan whenever the issues
Digitized by
Google
19
17
1 involved do not direcdy relate to the reasons for the with-
2 drawal of approval of the plan.
3 (c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated out
4 of the Highway Trust Fund a sum not to exceed $100,000,-
5 000 for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1979, and
6 each fiscal year thereafter, to provide incentive assistance
7 to States to develop and institute enforcement plans under
8 this section. No State shall receive under this section diir-
9 ing any fiscal year grants exceeding 80 per centum. of the
10 cost during such year of developing and implementing its
11 plan. The Secretary is authorized to allocate amounts ap-
12 propriated under this subsection pursuant to an equitable
13 fonnula to those States administering plans under this
14 section.
15 SAFETY KEPOBTS
16 Sec. 14. The Secretary shall make a comprehensive
17 written report to the Congress by July 1 of each year
18 concerning his efforts during the preceding calendar year,
19 and his current plans to increase motor vehicle and driver
20 safety. The report shall include, but not be limited to, an
21 evaluation of the Departanent of Transportation's commercial
22 motor vehicle safety program, an outlining of problem
23 areas and appropriate steps to allemte them, and any
24 recommendations for closer coordination and cooperation
Digitized by
Google
20
j^ among agencies of the Federal Government and between
2 the Federal Government and the States to enforce the stand-
3 ards, requirements, and regulations issued pursuant to .this
4 Act.
5 Sec. 15. Section 304(a) of the Independent Safety
6 Board Act of 1974 is amended by striking "and" at the
7 end of clause (8), striking the period at the end of clause
8 (9), and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the
9 word "and" and inserting after such clause (9) the
10 following:
11 " (10) review or appeal in accordance with section
12 10 of the Truck Safety Act of 1978 an order issued by
13 the Secretary of Transportation under section 7 of such
14 Act.".
15 Sec. 16. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend
16 or modify the National Labor Relations Act or the Railway
17 Labor Act.
18 Sec. 17. Nothing in this Act shall diminish the existing
19 functions, powers, and duties of the Literstate Commerce
20 Commission which shall consider the public safety and a
21 carrier's record of compliance with safety regulations as a
22 principal criteria in determining whether to confer operating
23 authority upon motor carriers pursuant to part II of the
24 Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 301, et seq.).
25 Sec. 18. Nothing m this Act shall prevent any State
Digitized by
Google
21
19
1 agency or court from asserting jurisdiction under State law
2 over any safety or health issue involving commercial motor
3 vehicles with respect to which standard, rule, or regulation
4 the Secretary has not addressed under this Act.
5 AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
6 Sec. 19. There are authorized to be appropriated to
7 carry out this Act for eac^h fiscal year such sums as the Con-
8 gress shall deem necessary.
9 EFFECTIVE DATE
10 Sec. 20. (a) Except as provided in this section, the
11 provisions of this Act shall take eflfect immediately on the
12 date of enactment.
13 (b) The Secretary shall, by regulation promulgated pur-
14 suant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, take all
15 steps necessary to bring all orders, determinations, rules and
16 regulations into conformity with the purposes and require-
17 ments of this Act as soon as practicable.
18 (c) All orders, determinations, rules, and regulations is-
19 sued under section 204 (a) (1), (2), (3), (3a), (5) of
20 the Department of Transportation Act shall be continued
21 under this Act until such time as they may be modified by
22 the Secretary.
23 (d) Judicial proceedings pending upon the date of en-
24 actment of this Act shall not be affected by the provisions of
25 this Act
Digitized by
Google
22
National Transportation Safety Board,
Washington, D.C., July It, 1978.
Hon. Howard W. Cannon,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
U.8, Senate, Washington, B.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman : Thank you for your letter of May 12, 1978, which re-
quested our comments on S. 2970, a bill, *'To promote commercial motor vehicle
safety, to prevent injury to commercial motor vehicle operators, and for other
purposes."
The purpose of this bill is to provide enforcement of motor carrier safety
regulations by authorizing the Secretary to issue citations and assess civil pen-
alties against motor carriers who violate safety regulations; to encourage em-
ployees of motor carriers to relate carrier violations to the Secretary by provid-
ing statutory and judicial protection of such employees against adverse actions
by their employers ; and to provide for an appeal to the National Transportation
Safety Board of any civil penalty imposed by the Secretary.
Two distinct aspects of enforcing motor carrier safety regulations are con-
tained in this bill. The first involves violation detection. The second pertains to
the need for an administrative method to take civil penalty action against vio-
lators.
With respect to violation detection, the Department of Transportation is lim-
ited by the small number of Bureau of Motor Carrier Inspectors (133 inspectors
for S^^ million trucks and 4 million motor carrier employees), and the use of
judicial process as the only means of imposing penalties on violators of motor
carrier safety regulations. Thus, the Board shares the Congressional concern
about the present enforcement authority and capability of the Department of
Transportation and believes that motor carrier safety regulations issued in the
public interest are of minimal consequence unless violations can be detected
and prompt and effective penalties can be invoked. A more effective system ap-
pears necessary. Relying on employees' allegations, however, could pose prob-
lems. Inherent in any system relying upon employee revelations is the potential
problem of irresponsible allegations which could overload the system and make
it unworkable. In any event, it may be necessary to increase the number of
inspection personnel.
With respect to the need for an administrative method to take civil penalty
action against violators, the Board believes the system proposed in the bill has
merit. The appellate review provisions of the bill will safeguard carriers against
arbitrary or capricious use of the civil penalties. The Board is not now involved
in a hearing process similar to that proposed by S. 2970, and has no current au-
thority to hear and decide cases involving civil penalties. We d-o, however, hear
on appeal cases involving suspensions or revocation of certificates issued by the
Federal Aviation Administration and revocation of licenses and papers issued
by the U.S. Coast Guard, and would have no objection to being the appeal agency
for motor carrier violation penalties in the manner set forth in the bill, provided
we receive increased funding for tlie personnel required to accomplish such
hearings. The present staffing of the Safety Board, while marginally adequate
for its current responsibilities, will be inadequate if the additional resiwnsibility
proposed in S. 2970 is given to the Safety Board.
The Safety Board appreciates the opportunity to present its views on this bill.
Sincerely,
James B. King,
Chairman.
Interstate Commerce Commission,
Washington, B.C., August 11, 1978.
Hon. Howard W. Cannon,
Chairman. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
U.S. Senate, Washington, B.C.
Dear Chairman Cannon : Thank you for this opportunity to comment on S.
2970, the "Truck Safety Act of 1978."
Initially, I would note that this legislation is principally directed toward the
Secretary of Transportation. I should say, however, that while the Interstate
Com rce Commission is no longer responsible for the promulgation or enforce-
•f safety regulations, we are still vitally concerned with safety on our
> highways.
Digitized by
Google
23
We favor the prc^posed legislation and are pleased that section 17 of the bill
provides that nothing in the proposed Act shall diminish the existing functions,
powers, and duties of the I.C.C. This language ai^iears to give adequate assur-
ances that this Commission will continue to be empowered to consider safety in
the motor carrier licensing process.
It is our understanding that it is contemplated by this section that a carrier's
safety compliance record shall be considered by the Commission as a "principal"
criterion in determining whether to grant operating authority whenever that
record is in issue. Under existing law and procedures, safety is one of a number
of important factors which are involved in the licensing process.
The Commission welcomes input from all participants in our licensing pro-
ceedings regarding the fitness of a particular ai^licant to fulfill the respon-
sibilities of a common carrier. Recognizing the importance of safety to the
public, the Commission has encouraged participation by the Department of Trans-
portation in proceedings where safety is at issue. We will continue to welcome
comments from the Department on carrier safety compliance, in order to make
fully informed and complete judgments on operating rights applications.
If I may be of any further assistance, please contact me.
•Sincerely yours,
A. Daniel O'Neal, Chairman.
Commissioner Stafford was absent and did not participate.
Office of the Secbetabt of Tsanspobtatioii,
Washington, D.C., September 6, 1978,
Hon. Howard W. Cannon,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
U.8. Senate, Washington, D.C,
Deab Mb. Chaibman : This is in reply to your request for the views of this
Department concemiug S. 2970, a bill : '*To promote commercial motor vehicle
safety, to prevent injury to commercial motor vehicle operators, and for other
purposes."
The safety of transportation operations is of paramount concern to this De-
partment, and we support the intent of S. 2970 to strengthen Federal safety regu-
lation of commercial vehicles. We do, however, have reservations about certain
provisions of the bill and also would propose some technical amendments to
assure that the bill will achieve its intended objectives.
The subject matter of the bill is commercial motor vehicle safety. As commer-
cial motor vehicles include buses as well as trucks, we would recommend that the
name of the act be changed to the "Truck and Bus Safety Act of 1978."
Section 5 makes the bill applicable to commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds
GVWB (gross vehicle weight rating). We believe that it should also apply to
vehicles under 10,000 i)ounds GVWB that are used to transport hazardous ma-
terials or passengers for hire. This amendment would make S. 2970 conform with
regulatory practice under current law.
Section 5 should also be amended so that S. 2970 covers the same categories
of persons as now are subject to our jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce
Act (ICA). Under the ICA, DOT has jurisdiction over the qualifications and max-
imum hours of service of employees of motor carriers when their work activity
affects safety of operations in interstate commerce. Included within this cover-
age are persons such as mechanics, loaders, drivers' helpers and any other em-
ployee^ when their work activity affects the safety of operations. The change we
recommend would be consistent with section 7(a) (1) of the bill which requires
the Secretary to ensure that motor vehicles are maintained to assure their safe
operation. In order to assure overall safety of operations, including maintenance,
regulatory authority should extend to all employees when their activities affect
safety of operations rather than just to persons who operate motor vehicles.
Section 7(b) would require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regula-
tions concerning the healthfulness of motor carrier employees' working con-
ditions. The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, within this Department, already
has authority to regulate in the area of health and safety for those employees
when their duties affect safety of operations. The Bureau has instituted rule-
making to define clearly the health and safety matters it will regulate and en-
force. We believe that this approach to delineating the responsibilities of the
Bureau in this important area is preferable to the approach in S. 2970, since it
Digitized by
Google
24
enables DOT and other interested Federal agencies to develop the most effective
and efficient overall system for assuring employees' health and safety. We
recommend, therefore, that section 7(b) be deleted.
We recommend that section 8(a) be changed to make it mandatory rather
than discretionary for the Secretary to require maintenance of records. The
keeping of records is the only way to ensure compliance with the purposes of the
legislation. However, to keep the recordkeeping and reporting burden on em-
ployers to a minimum and to maintain the reliability of national statistics on
occupational injuries and illnesses, it would be DOT's intent under this legis-
lation to utilize existing recordkeeping and reporting programs where available
and to the extent practicable. We also recommend that, in the first sentence of
section 8(a), "hours of service and work" be added to the list of purposes for
which records were kept. This would help emphasize the importance of prevent-
ing the operation of motor vehicles by tired drivers.
As a technical matter, lines 13, 16 and 19 of section 8(a) refer to "any such
regulation," "such hazards" and "such exposure". As written, it is not clear what
is being referenced. The lines should refer to a "regulation of the Secretary
under this Act," "a hazard or hazards" and "exposure to such hazard or hazards."
Section 9 should be amended to provide a procedure for the issuance of com-
pliance orders. The compliance order has proven to be an effective tool for im-
proving safety under both the ICA and the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act.
The Department strongly supports the establishment of civil penalties, to be
imposed by the Secretary of Transportation, for violation of motor carrier safety
regulations. Dependence on criminal penalties, as under current law, does not
provide sufficient flexibility for an effective enforcement program. We view this
as a very important change and one which is long overdue. We would like to see
the legislation clarified, however, so that the citation procedure would be in
accord with our current practice of issuing citations only on the basis of a super-
visor's review of an investigator's inspection report. We find that this procedure
is best suited for dealing effectively with alleged violations of safety regulations.
We also believe that, rather than involving the National Transportation Safety
Board in the appeals process, Section 10 of the legislation should provide for a
review procedure within the agency, utilizing administrative law judges and
following the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. This approach
provides guarantees of due process while also facilitating efficient administration
of the program.
We also support the protection of employees provided by Section 12 of the bill
against retaliatory firing or other discrimination based on their having filed
complaints about or refusing to work under unsafe conditions. These basic rights
of employees should be fully protected. We would recommend, however, that this
protection provide for investigation and administrative enforcement action by
the Secretary of Labor, as is the case under many other statutes. The private
right of action proposed in S. 2970 should be retained as an alternative course
of action — an employee would elect one procedure or the other.
Section 13 of S. 2970 would establish a Federal program of assistance to
States which file a plan acceptable to the Secretary of Transportation for State
enforcement of Federal regulations. We are not able to endorse this provision
at this time. We are planning to initiate a demonstration project in this area
during the coming year. The results of that effort should be evaluated before a
new Federal assistance program is established.
We note our understanding that in amending section 5 of the bill to make juris-
diction under this Act co-extensive with our jurisdiction under the Interstate
Commerce Act, this legislation will in no way affect the continued exemption
of employees regulated by DOT with respect to maximum hours from the pro-
visions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, pursuant to section 13(b) (1) of that
Act.
Finally, we would suggest that an additional section be added to the bill
reading as follows : "Nothing in this Act shall affect the authority provided by
law to the Secretary of Labor for the protection of occupational safety and
health."
This would clarify that the responsibilities of the Department of Labor would
not be affected by this bill.
If S. 2970 were amended as described above, the Department of Transportation
would support its enactment.
Digitized by
Google
25
The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the
Administration's program, there is not any objection to the submission of this
report for the consideration of the Committee.
Sincerely,
Linda Hf.i.lkb Kamm.
The Chairman. In light of the number of witnesses that are sched-
uled to testify, I hope that all witnesses will summarize their oral
statements, as their written statements will be printed in the record
in full. If the witnesses will summarize, this will allow for more
detailed questioning by the committee.
Due to an unavoidable conflict, Senator Percy will not be able to
appear this morning. However, he has sent a letter reiterating his
support for S. 2970 and submitted a statement that will be made a part
of the record in full.
[The statement follows :]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D,C„ September 6, 1978,
Hon. HowABD W. Cannon,
Chairman^ Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
U.8. Senate,
Washington, D,C.
Deab lif b. Ghaibman : On behalf of myself, and Senator Kennedy, I want to
express our gratitude to you for convening Friday's session on the Truck Safety
Act legislation (S. 2970) which we have introduced. As I earlier indicated might
be the case, I am forced because of a prior commitment to be out of town on
Friday. However, in view of the importance of this subject, I would ask your
indulgence in Introducing into the record of Friday's proceedings testimony which
I have prepared concerning this measure.
On my return to Washington, I will be pleased to respond to any questions you
may have regarding either my testimony or the legislation itself. I look forward
to working directly with you, and with other members of the Commerce Com-
mittee, in trying to expeditiously advance this vital legislation.
Warmest personal regards.
C^ables H. Pebct,
U.S. Senator.
Enclosure.
Statement of Hon. Chables H. Pebcy, U.S. Senatob fbom Illinois
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you for your expeditious action in convening
today's hearing, and I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony to the
Senate Commerce Committee concerning the Truck Safety Act of 1978. I intro-
duced this legislation on April 20, 1978, together with my distinguished colleague
Senator Kennedy. The purpose of this measure is to provide much-needed improve-
ments in the Nation's truck safety programs.
At the outset, let me share with you information I received just yesterday from
the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. Last
month, BMCS investigators, assisted by the Pennsylvania State Police, conducted
one of the largest and most concentrated safety checks on commercial interstate
drivers and vehicles. The results of this test — conducted in Berwick, Pa., during
the period August 7-11, were startling :
Of the 676 total number of inspections during this one-week period, 352 or
52 percent of the vehicles were placed out of service. The inspectors found 2,743
total violations, 567 of which were so flagrant that the vehicles were placed out
of service. They were not permitted to be moved until repairs were completed.
The major category of out-of -service vehicle defects were faulty brakes, account-
ing for a whopping 60 percent of such violations ; in 65 cases, the brakes were
either missing or inoperative. Other major problem areas were : faulty lights and
suspension, and defective tires and exhaust systems.
Not only were the trucks in violtaion of safety regulations, but some 271 of the
drivers were violating hours-of -service rules. A total of 25, or 3 percent, of these
drivers were taken out of service for undue extentions of their hours of service.
And 56 of the drivers did not meet the driver qualification standards.
Digitized by
Google
26
The reports were analyzed and broken down Into three main groups of car-
riers : (1) those authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission, which made
up 70 percent, consisting of 214 leased operators and 259 company operators;
(2) private carriers, which made up 28 percent; and (3) carriers of exempt
commodities, which made up 2 percent.
Violations were spread throughout all three groups. Of those vehicles author-
ized by the ICC for hire, 55 i)ercent were put out of service, while 15 of the
drivers were barred. Of the private carriers, 50 percent of the trucks and 8 driv-
ers were taken out of service. And of those trucks carrying exempt commodities,
63 percent were found imminently hazardous and 2 of the drivers were grouoded.
(The entire report is attached to my testimony.)
Most significantly, an informed source at the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
told my staff that these Berwick, Pa., figures are "not a fiuke." "The number of
vehicles that have to be placed out of service due to severe safety violations has
increased sharply over the past year and is a problem all over the country," the
BMCS official noted. He attributed the rise to fewer federal inspections in recent
years, and to economic pressures on individual carriers caused by high inflation.
Legislation to enhance the effectiveness of truck safety has been introduced
in the last three Congresses. These safety inspection findings, just released by the
Department of Transportation, point out that we cannot afford to wait much
longer. Without remedial legislation, the situation on this Nation's highways
is steadily worsening.
The American public is increasingly disturbed over inadequate truck safety.
The news media are helping citizens to be better informed about tUs serious
problem, with in-depth reports by William Gaines, Frederick Lowe, and Howard
A. Tyner of the Chicago Tribune ; Edward O'Brien and Art Kaufman of the St.
Louis Globe-Democrat; Brian Ross of NBC Television Nightly News; Robert
Sherrill writing in the New York Times Magazine and Reader's Digest, and
so many others.
Last year, 6,614 Americans died in truck accidents. That is nearly a 21 percent
increase in the 2-year period since 1975. In a collision with a heavy truck, a car
rider has only a ^3 percent chance of living ; a motorcycle rider has an even more
dismal 15 percent chance of surviving the accident.
These figures mean that truck accidents kill, on the average, one American
every 80 minutes. Some Americans used to be afraid to fiy in airplanes; now
many are understandably afraid to drive to the airport.
Many drivers go out of their way to point out unsafe conditions when authori-
ties inspect their trucks. The drivers want and deserve safe vehicles. But a few
truck companies — an unscrupulous minority — ignore their drivers' warnings and
send these death-traps-on-wheels out on the road anyway. Likewise, a few reck-
less truck drivers seem perfectly willing to violate even basic safety standards.
It's time we got them off the road. Federal and State vehicle safety programs
must be improved to prevent such drivers from posing a danger to both the
general public and other truckers.
The Chicago Tribune and the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, in exceptionally well-
investigated task force reports completed over the past 18 months, helped to
pinpoint the problem areas with respect to safety enforcement problems that this
bill is intended to correct. These investigations indicated several inadequacies in
federal truck safety regulations that severely limit the effectiveness of enforce-
ment efforts. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in the civil fine procedure.
Currently, the use of civil fines can only be directed at the failure of truckers
to properly maintain a daily log. Civil fines are not appMcable to any other ^iola-
tion of safety regulations, such as the failure to keep brakes in good repair or
the use of poorly adjusted ventilation systems. In these cases, the BMCS can only
bring formal criminal prosecution in court or initiate an administrative hearing.
This has proved to be a time-consuming and difficult process. For instance. In
1973, the latest year for which data are available. BMCS detected over 40,000
safety violations during nationwide road checks of 22,644 vehicles and drivers.
Yet during all of 1973 and 1974, Bureau investigators were able to develop only
1,027 cases warranting court or administrative action. The majority of these
cases were not accepted by the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
The effectiveness of the Bureau's safety program could be greatly enhanced by
expanding civil forfeiture authority to include all types of substantial violations
of safety regulations.
Digitized by
Google
27
Moreover, the maximum amount for fines for safety violations has not been
revised since ld57. They are now seriously out of line with Pnes for violation of
other Federal regulations. Low penalties, coupled with the lengthy process of
criminal enforcement, do little to discourage future violations. It is imperative
tliat we raise these fines and set realistic time limits for the prosecution of cases
and processing of fines.
Another factor working against greater safety is that the Interstate Commerce
Act provides no restraints upon employers for possible reprisals against employees
who report safety violations. There have been many instances where drivers have
been fired for refusing to operate vehicles in violation of Federal truck safety
laws. The unfortunate result has been to dissuade employees from directing
Government officials to what are at times fiagrant abuses of safety regulations.
As a result, the Government has lost a prime ally in its effort to protect truckers
and the public.
Through the years, Congress has enacted legislation that makes it unlawful for
an employer to discriminate or discharge employees for seeking enforcement of
legislation or for cooperating with the Government. One of these laws, the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Act, protects nearly every worker in America except
those of the trucking industry. It was not applied to truckers because, it was
argued, the Department of Transportation already had authority to regulate
trucking industry safety practices. As a result, drivers were denied the OSHA
protections against employer recrimination for their attempts to secure safe
working conditions.
In other areas, the BMCS has only 133 inspectors for some 5 million trucks on
the road today. Obviously safety depends, therefore, on the effective operation
on motor carrier safety programs by individual States. The States are in the
best position to detect and prevent safety violations due to their greater person-
nel and resources. Yet, the 1977 GAO report found that :
"Since the Federal motor carrier safety program does not provide funding to
the states, no effective incentive to promote increased cooperation from the states
exist"
If States were given an incentive — ^for example, reimbursement lor a percen-
tage of the cost of operating adequate truck safety programs — much could be
done to prevent speeding, tailgating, and the overloading of trucks. With this
incentive. States could operate both more permanent and portable scales to pre-
vent loads which make vehicles dangerous to drive, and which destroy our road-
ways. Increased enforcement personnel on the roads would not only slow trucks
down, but automobiles as well. If the 55 mph speed limit were adhered to, traffic
fatalities would drop greatly.
S. 2970 builds upon and focuses the general authority given the Department
of Transportation to regulate safety. It directs the DOT's safety function toward
those areas which have caused the most serious safety problems in the ten-year
period since DOT was created. It's provisions would greatly enhance the effective-
ness and efficiency of DOT in ensuring truck safety. Specifically the bill :
Expands the scope of violations for which civil fines may be imposed, and
raises the maximum fine from $500 to $2,500 for each substantial violation
and $10,000 for extremely serious safety violations.
Enlarges the scope of Federal safety regulation by Including any truck
over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating in interstate commerce (inter-
state trucks) and affecting interstate commerce (intrastate trucks).
Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to regulate the working con-
ditions and operating practices of employees, to ensure that trucks are so
maintained as to prevent accidents, and to conduct research into new en-
forcement techniques and training programs.
Authorizes the Secretary to arrange to conduct on-the-job inspections and
investigations.
Gives trucking employees the right to require DOT investigations of vio-
lations of safety regulations.
Requires the DOT to serve citations upon alleged violators of safety
laws who are then given 15 days to notify DOT of their intent to contest
the citation.
Authorizes an administrative adjudicatory hearing before the National
Transportation Safety Board in cases of contested citations.
Provides for judidal review and enforcement of NTSB dedsions and
orders.
Digitized by
Google
28
Protects tracking employees from discharge (Mr discrimination tor their
attempts to promote greater trucking safety.
Authorizes DOT to establish p^ialty schedules designed to induce timely
compliance with the law.
Authorizes funds to be appropriated from the highway trust fund for
the purpose of offering financial incentives to States to implement truck
safety programs which have been approved by the Secretary.
Requires the Secretary to submit a yearly report to (Congress outlining his
progress in increasing truck safety on the Nation's highways.
Though heavy trucks account for less than 1 percent of all motor vehicles od
the road, they are responsible for over 9 percent of all traffic fatalities. This sit-
uation will not improve by itself. The number of trucks and buses on the roads
is expected to double in the next 15 years. Highways should not be deathtraps —
they were constructed for the safe, enjoyable use by all Americans. The pro-
posed legislation is essential to protect the driving public, and the consumers
and businesses of this nation.
Truck accidents not only hurt consumers by increasing the costs of transport-
ing goods. They also hurt businesses. Ck>mpanies have been forced to dose down
as a result of high jury awards stemming from truck accidents. A major bakery
in California was recently subject to a $2 million judgment resulting from a
single truck accident. The firm was forced out of business leaving over 100
workers jobless.
This measure S. 2970, would establish a truly effective truck safety program.
At the same time, it would reduce the load on our already over-burdened courts
by encouraging compliance. By requiring uniform reporting procedures, it should
also substantially reduce paperwork burdens.
In designing the legislation, Senator Kennedy and I have worked clos^
with the various elements of the truck industry. The International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, the Professional Drivers Council, and the American Trucking
Associations have assisted us greatly. Their diligence and shared interest in
public safety has been inspiring. As a result of this cooperation, the Truck Safety
Act of 1978 strikes a delicate balance between the concerns of both labor and
industry.
I might add at this point that I am aware of some of the points of concern that
the American Trucking Associations will address today. My staff recently had
an opportunity to sit down with the distinguished members of their SCORE
Committee who are acutely concerned with safety matters and who will pass
on their recommendations to the ATA Executive Committee. I am confident,
based upon the discussions that have already taken place, that we can accom-
modate a large number of the legitimate concerns that have been articulated,
after careful study and review, by the representatives of the ATA. I want to
commend that organization on the attention it has accorded to this important
legislaticm.
As for the Teamsters and the Professional Drivers Council, both groups have
been invaluable in supplying my staff and me with much-needed information and
advice concerning this bill. They have helped to identify many safety problems
and the special precautions needed to protect truckers who are rightly concerned
about the safety of their vehicles. Out of the combined efforts of both these
groups, this legislation has been significantly improved.
I am also interested in receiving the views of the Independent Truckers as
well as those many other interested groups and individuals which have indicated
a desire to be heard on this subject.
Congress must act decisively to alleviate the hazardous situation that now
exists. Timely passage of this legislation will mean that the law and related
safety regulations are strictly enforced. This was the intent of Congress and
this is what all Americans have a right to expect.
DOT Roadside Safety Inspection
(August 7-11, 1978, Berwick, Pa.)
introduction
The following report is a statistical analysis of data completed during one of
the largest and most concentrated safety checks on commercial interstate drivers
and vehicles.
Digitized by
Google
29
The Federal Highway Admiiiistration*8 Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety In-
T^estigators from the Northeastern States conducted complete inspections on 676
operational vehicles on the roadside near Berwick, Pa. These inspections were
performed on both sides of the highway during the hours of 5:30 a.m. and
8 :30 p.m.
The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) was assisted by the Pennsylvania
State Police, who were responsible for stopping the vehicles on the highway. Prior
to a complete inspection by the BMCS safety investigators, most of the vehicles
were given a quick visual and audible check to determine if the vehicle contained
X)Ossible safety deficiencies. This selection procedure is used in order to receive
maximum benefit from the Bureau's limited field staff. Other vehicles were given
a complete inspection without this preliminary quick visual and audible check.
Vehicles found to be in imminently hazardous conditions were placed out of
service and could not be moved until repairs were completed.
Similar roadside inspections will be conducted at other locations on a continu-
ing basis.
Summary of key findings
Total number of inspections 676
Total number of vehicles placed out-of -service (O/S) (52%) 382
Total number of drivers placed out-of -service (O/S) 25
Total violation 8
Total number of violations 2,743
Total number of out-of-service violations 567
Total vehicles inspected^ vehicles and drivers placed out-of-service* violations per
carrier type and average number of violations per vehicle
Authorized f or-hire :
Total (70%) 473
Total O/S (55%) 248
Total drivers O/S 15
Total violations , 1,783
Average number violations per vehicle 3. 7
Private :
Total (28%) ^ 187
Total O/S (50%) 94
Total drivers O/S 8
Total violations 878
Average number violations per vehicle 4. 6
Exempt :
Total (2% ) 16
Total O/S (63% ) 10
Total drivers O/S 2
Total violations 82
Average number violations per vehicle 5. l
Major categories of out-of-service vehicle defects
Brakes 340 Exhaust 40
Lights . 44 Wheels, rims 11
Suspension 30 Others 62
Tires 40
Driver violations
Total number of hours of service violations 271
Total number of O/S hours of service violations 25
Total number of driver qualification violations 56
1 The total vehicles inspected during this S-day roadside InBpection are not necesRarily
indicatlye of the actual motor carrier population per carrier type (authorized-for hire,
priyate and exempt).
35-692—78-
Digitized by
Google
30
TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND DRIVERS OUT-OF-SERVICE
Total number of vehicles
Inspected
Out-of-service
Total number
of drivers:
out-of-service
Type of Carrier
Number
Percent
Number Percent
Authorized for hire
473
70
28"
2
248
127
121
94
10
55
"so'
63
15.
Owned
Leased
Private
Exempt
259 .
214 .
187
16
5
10
8:
2
Total
676 .
352
25'
Out of the 076 total inspections during the 1-week period, 352 (52 percent)
of the vehicles were placed out-of-service and 25 (3 percent) of the drivers were^
placed out-of-service.
The reports were analyzed and broken down into three main groups of carriers :
(1) those authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which,
made up 70 percent (2) private carriers, which made up 28 percent; and (3)
carriers of exempt commodities which made up 2 percent. Of those authorized br
the ICC, 214 were leased operators and 259 were company operators.
MAJOR OUT-OF-SERVICE VEHICLE DEFECTS
Authorized for hire
Private
Defect
Owned
Leased
Total
Exmipt
Brakes:
1. Missing or inoperative
2. Bral(e lininjs/pads
3. Drums or discs
4. Hoses:
^a) Worn, chaffed, cut ....
25
3 .
25
22
i"
31
12
16
7
4
19
47
3 .
1
56
25
37
18
13
31
15
2"i;
15
18..
15 ..
11 -.
3 ..
18
1 -.
1 -.
1 ..
3^^
fb) Crimped, leaking, broken
13
5. Leaking brake chamber
21
6. Air tank reservoir
7. Airloss
8. Low air pressure warning device
9. Brakes did not hold 5 mm
11
9
12
Z
10. 1 noperative parking brake
1 .
i"
1
2
11. Othir
Lights:
1. Headlamps
1
2. Stop lamps
3. No lights at all
10
16
26
14
1 -.
z
4. other
1
1 .
Tires:
1. Tread depth Ha
2. Tread depth ^4
3 .
3. Tread depth
4
5
8
3
10
4 .
5
14
5 .
21
4. Flat
3 ..
5 ..
8 .
5. Cut. owrn. exoosed fabric
6
6. otSh\r.:...^: .'::;;:;:::::;:....:
Suspension:
1. Broken leafs, U-bolts
2
11
t
2. Air suspension leaks
3. Other
I
Exhaust:
1. Leaks
2. other
15
15
1
1
4
30
1 .
3
6 .
8
I
Wheels. Rims:
1. Cracked wheels, rims, discs
2
2 .
2. Missing bolts/nuts
2
3. Other
Digitized by
Google
31
OMVEft HOURS OF SERVICE VIOLATIONS
Type of carrier
Violitioin Otft-of-sarvkt
Auttwrized for hire.
Owned
Leased __.
Private
Exempt
153
IS
63
5
90
10
106
8
12
2
Tow.
271
25
Driver qualification violations
Type of carrier : Vioimtian9
Authorized for-hire 19
Owned 7
Leased 12
Private M
Exempt 1
Total 56
AUTHORIZED FOR HIRE CARRIERS « 473 (70 PERCENT)
Type
Total aumber Total namber
ofvehidw vioiatioos
Total mimber
violations 0/S
Total nwnbv
drivers 0/S
Owned _
Leased
. 259
214
846
937
191
213
5
10
Total
- 473
1.783
404
15
VIOLATIONS/OUT OF SERVICE
Part Ho,
Out of
Description Owned service
Leased
Out of
service
Total
ToM
out of
servioa
391 . Medical certificate.
392 Driver actions
393 _._. Ufhtini
Brakes
Fuel systems
Tires
396 Suspension _
Steering
Wheels
Exhaust
395 Maxioium driviiif
and on-duty tme.
Dally lofs
Hazardous matarials
7
12
19
21
23
44
242
10
267
17
509
27
260
121
241
113
501
234
9
3
6
6
15
9
27
8
62
20
89
2S
36
11
24
10
60
21
10
2
6
2
16
4
15
4
11
5
26
9
15
15
24
16
14
31
13
5
16
10
29
IS
50
74
124
t
13
1
11
24
1
Digitized by
Google
82
Private oarriera « 187 (28%)
Total number of violations 878
Total number of violations O/S 149
Total number of drivers O/S 8
VIOLATIONS/OUT OF SERVICE
Part No.
Description
Total
violations
Total out
of service
391
. Medical certificates..
Minimum age.
. Orfver actions
. Lighting
Brakes
Fuel systems
Tires..
. Suspensioa
Steering
Wheels. ...-..-..-.
Exhaust
. Maximum driving
and on-duty time.
Dally logs
36
3
17
269
223
2
36
22
5
9
9
20
86
7
392
393
IS
J96
100
2
u
8
196
2
8
8
Hazardous materials ......
Exempt carriers =
Total number of violations
= 16 (2%)
82
Total number of violations O
Total number of drivers O/S
/S
16
. 2
VIOLATIONS/OUT OF SERVICE
Part No.
Description
Total
violations
ToMoutof
ssrvict
391
Medical certificates..
Minimum age
1
1
2
25
15
6
2
1
1
2
10
392
Driver actions
393
. Lighting
Brakes
Fuel systems
2
8
396
395
Tires _
. Suspension
Steering
Exhaust -
Wheels
. Maximum driving and on-duty time
Daily logs
1
I
?
2
Hazardous materials
An attempt was made to determine the number of owner-operators or inde-
pendents and their experience during this roadside inspection. The chart on the
following page summarizes the experience of those reports that were determined
probable owner-operators. An owner-(^[)erator or independent is a person who
owns a vehicle or vehicles (tractor and/or trailer) and drives it himself, trans-
porting exempt commodities or operating under contract or lease to a certified
or permitted carrier. (It should be understood that an owner-operator can simul-
taneously be a "fleet lessor" if he leases other vehicles, owned by him, to the
same or another motor carrier.)
Digitized by
Google
33
ProkmUe awmer-opermi^n equmU 1€$
Total nmnber of Tiolations 75S
Total niimber of rioUtioiis O/S Ifli
Total number of TeUctes O/S i56 percent) 9S
Total nnmbtt of driren O/'S (5 percoit) 8
VI01A110IIS9DUT OF satvicc
PHrtNo. Docrptea liablMi TotiiaS
»_ ItotfoleHliicalB € •
Ummmm^lt I §
3S2_ Or.fcr xtioBi. 16 •
an-. lMf*H^ 2» 24
Bra«a». _ IM a
FsdsystMB 1 §
T«»_ SI IS
3K Sispc«s. .j« 25 f
" ~ § 4
Wwiti 17 4
395_ MiwidrmMMJo-^MtyteML-. U t
DaiTlocs 61 t
_ 11 1
The Chairmax. Our first witness will be Mr. John S. HasselL Jr.,
De puty Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration
(F±iW A), accomp anied bv Howard Anderson, Associate Administra-
tor for Safety of FHWA^ and Dr. Robert Kaye, Director of Bureau
of Motor Cairier Safety.
Gentlemen?
8TATEMEHT OF JOHH S. HASSELL, JB., DEFUTT ADMIHISISATOS,
FEDEHAL HIGHWAY ADXIHISTEATIOH; ACCOMPAHIED BY
HOWAKD ASBEBSOE, A8S0CIAXE ADMIHISTHATOB lOE SAFETY;
SOBEBT A KAYE, BIBECTOE, BUBEAIT OF KOTOB CABBIEB
SAFETY; ABB GEOBfiE FABKEB, CHIEF, CBASH AYOIBAHGE BI-
YISIOB, BATIOBAL HIGHWAY TBAFFIC SAFETY ABMIBISTBA-
TIOB
!Mr. Hassftj^ Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the administra-
tion's concern with truck safety, and to detail some of the action we're
taking to meet this issue.
In line with your request, we will submit a prepared stat^nent for
the record, and I will summarize some of the high points of the state-
ment.
We will also discuss S. 2970, which we believe to be an important
proposal to increase commercial vehicle safety.
Digitized by
Google
34
Accompanying me today are Mr. Howard Anderson, Associate Ad-
ministrator for Safety of the FHWA ; Dr. Robert Kaye, Director of
Motor Carrier Safety; and Mr. George Parker, Chief of the Crash
Avoidance Division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration (NHTSA).
The Federal Government has the responsibility for safeguarding
the motoring public from unreasonable risk from persons or firms that
utilize the public highways in furtherance of business enterprises.
This responsibility is shared by State governments.
Our approach to this statutory function involves several statutes
and departmental programs.
Federal highway statutes require that safety be built into the high-
way physical plant. The Highway Safety Act of 1966 provides finan-
cial assistance to States to enable them to upgrade their highway
safety programs. These safety programs are designed to regulate mo-
tor vehicle registration, driver training and licensing, police services,
and other aspects of highway operations and control.
Under the safety provisions of part 2 of the Interstate Commerce
Act, the hours of service and qualifications of commercial vehicle
drivers, the safety of operations, and equipment standards for trucks
and buses engaged in interstate or foreign commerce are directly
rc^ilated by the DOT.
IJnder the latter statute, the FHA's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
and its predecessor's at the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
have promulgated and enforced the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Re^ilations for more than 40 years through field inspections, audits,
enforcement investigations, and civil and criminal prosecutions.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations apply to more than
150.000 business entities that operate some 3 million trucks and buses,
utilizing between 8.5 and 4 million drivers in interstate or foreign
commerce.
Generally, the rules apply to operations utilizing vehicles with more
than four tires on the pavement and with a gross vehicle rating of
10,000 pounds or more.
The ICA does not apply to commercial vehicles in intranstate com-
merce, transportation of schoolchildren, recreational vehicles, and local
farm veliicles.
Our estimates are that something on the order of 50 percent of the
commercial vehicles on the road are not covered by the statute. These
are primarily dump trucks, service vehicles, tow trucks, local cartage
vehicles, transit buses, Govemmentz-owned vehicles, and personal trans-
portation vehicles.
Over the last four decades, the program has relied to a large degree
on voluntary compliance, using a spot -check strategy to identify firms
that do not comply.
The recent growth in the truckinir industry utilization of a highway
system that has relatively fixed mileage has increased the number of
trucks in the traffic stream. In addition, the national 55-mile-an-'hour
speed limit, which has caused all vehicles to travel at similar speeds,
has made the tnicks in the stream more visible to all motorists.
^ Over the last 2 years we have undertaken special programs to iden-
tify carriers, to audit carriers that have not had previous contact with
Digitized by
Google
35
BilLS, to coQdact special road checks, to interest Sutes in adopting
Federal rules, and to provide training to State enforcement facials.
At this time research is underway in many areas, such as developing
automatic wei^iing systems, analyzing problems relating to truck ride
quality, investigating highway operation of heavy trucks, studying
many of the other highway safety involved issues involving all ve-
hicles, including trucks.
In addition. Congress has enacted for the next fiscal year a demon-
stration program to test the value of utilizing State enforcement
officers in several States to provide assistance in the enforcement of
motor vehicle safety regulations. Hopefully, this will allow us to deter-
mine the value of an alternative to a laige Federal enforcement force
of inspectors and investigators to meet the rapid growth in trucking.
Specifically, addressing our \iews on S. 2970, we believe this bill
represents a very important legislative initiative. The DOT supports
several provisions of this bill which are designed to strengthen Federal
safety regulation of commercial vehicles.
In particular, we consider the provisions of the bill wliich would
establish civil penalties in meaningful amounts to be ver>' important
and necessary, and we strongly support these provisions.
Criminal penalties require the establishment, to the satisfaction of
the court, that the violation was knowingly and willfully committed,
thereby frustrating the imposition of penalties in cases where it is
extremely difficult to show that the violator knew he was subject to the
i"egulations and tliat he knew and permitted a particular act of omis-
sion to take place. In many venues the cases may be several years old
before they are presented to a judge because of heavy caseloads.
The number of coimts presented and tlie level of fines assessed are
subject to the subjective judgment of the U.S. attorney and the judge,
who may or may not feel strongly about what may be viewed as viola-
tions of administrative law concerning a drivers excess hours, a de-
fective vehicle, or a drivers qualifications. The existing criminal
penalties can amoimt to little more than a routine cost of business.
Criminal prosecutions, with minimal fines and processing in
crowded court dockets, have not been successful as deterrents to un-
safe practices.
Where we have had latitude to use civil penalties we have found
them more effective, and we feel that this proHsion will be particu-
larly successful.
The provision of the bill to assign to the National Transportation
Safety Board — XTSF5 — the function of a review panel is not appit>-
priate. We would prefer review by administrative law judges follow-
ing the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act which
would pro\nde full due-process guarantees while also facilitating uni-
formity and effective program administration.
Section 7(b) would require the Secretary of Transportation to issue
regulations concerning the healthfulness" of the motor carrier em-
ployee's working condition. BMCS already has authority to regulate
in the area of health and safety for these employees when their duties
affect the safety of operation. BMCS has recently instituted rulemak-
ing to more clearly define the health and safety matters that it will
regulate and enforce.
Digitized by
Google
36
We believe that tliis approach to delineating the responsibilties for
the Bureau is preferable to the approach in S. 2970.
In section 12 of the bill, we support the provisions provided to pro-
tect employees against retaliatory firing or other discrimination based
on their having nled complaints. These basic rights of the employees^
we feel, should be fully protected.
Section 13 would establish a Federal program of assistance to the
States. We suggest that it would be more appropriate to wait until the
end of the demonstration program that I previously mentioned before
we go into a general program. The demonstration program should
determine the need for a Federal assistance program, and what form
it should take.
We do not support the provision in section 14 that requires annual
submission of reports to Congress.
This administration is currently trying to reduce the number of pro
forma reports which are generating so much paperwork within the
Government.
Finally, we believe the legislation should be amended to clarifv that
it will in no way affect the present authority of the Secretary of Labor
under the Occupational Saiety and Health Act to regulate the working
conditions not covered in the bill.
In summary, we believe the modified version of this bill will go a
long way in meeting the shortcomings of the present legislation in this
area, yet not foreclose options nor commit the Government to an a&
yet untested financial assistance program. Certainly, the risk and
traffic loss of life and property associated with commercial vehicle
collisions require urgent attention, and whatever can be done to im-
prove the deterrent capability of the Government to effect reduced risk
should be undertaken.
We stand ready to do our part within the law and resources avail-
able to us.
This concludes my prepared remarks. My associates and I will be
happy to answer any questions you might have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hassell.
To what do you attribute the very marked increase in truck accident
deaths?
It was up 25 percent in 1977 over 1975.
Mr. Hassell. There are several factors involved in that increase,
including the increasing number of vehicle miles by the trucks, and
other factors.
I think Mr. Anderson may have some more specifics on that, based
upon their studies.
The Chairman. You said the increase in vehicle milcvS. I'd like to
ask if the percentage increase in vehicle miles was as great as the per-
centage increase in deaths.
Mr. Anderson. There was a larger increase in deaths than there was
in vehicles on the road and also vehicle miles of travel.
However, at the same time, the speeds of all the vehicles on the roads
have gone up in the last 2 or 3 years approximately 5 miles an hour,
which certainly has a great effect on it. Senator, and I think this is
probably the biggest contributing factor, together with the additional
vehicles on our highways.
Digitized by
Google
37
The Chairmax. When rem say they went np 5 miles — from what to
what?
Mr. AxDERSOx. The average speed right after the imposition of the
55-miIe-an-hour speed limit was right aromid 56 miles an hour, 57. It is
up to around 59, 1 think it is. now — 59 or 60.
The Chairmax. You attribute at least part of that increase in deaths
to not obeying the 55-mile- an-hour speed limit.
ilr. AxDERsox. By all vehicles on the hi^hwav, not just the trucks.
The Chairmax. Sir. Hassell. you said that tie DOT opposes section
13 until the results of that demonstration project are completed.
When do you anticipate the project will be completed ?
Mr. Hassell. We plan to set it up to run initially for 1 or 2 vears with
two or three States, and it should be imderway'very shortly — set up
and to commence in the coming fiscal year. And we would expect
some results at the end of a year.
The Chairmax. So it won't be within a period of 1 year fix)m right
now.
Mr. Hassell. No, sir.
The Chairmax. Now, what mechanisms are now in place at DOT to
work with various State entities which work in the truck safety area t
In other words, is there an exchange of information and data on the
numbers of violations and inspections, or do the Federal Government
and States each go their separate way f
Mr. Hassell. Tliere is an extensive interchange of information. I
wouldn't characterize it, though, as far as we possibly could go. We
are working on various ways to improve that exchange of information
on drivers and vehicles and'their operations.
Do you have anything?
Mr. AxDERSox. We do have cooperative agreements with all the
States in the United States of varying degrees. Thev have adopted our
regulations in varying degrees. Some have adopted them in total. In
those States where they have adopted them in total, such as in your
bordering State of Idaho^ we have a veiy, very close working relation-
ship, not only in the enforcement activities jointly but also in exchange
of information. So it varies from total exchange of information to
probably down to 50 percent.
Mr. Hasseix. We, the DOT, have recently initiated several activi-
ties, such as the fatal accident reporting system, which enables us to
more fully exchange information on the causes and the factors involved
in fatal accidents with all of the States which are all included in that
reporting system.
The Chairman. Yesterday, as you know, we were considering the
issue of possible mandatory truck lensrth and the cramped quarters that
many of the drivers have to endure. Yet it was kind of surprising to me
that apparently there weren't any statistics available at this time from
DOT or anyone else, as to what the basic causes of these accident
•deaths are.
Dont you go into that and try to fix a cause? Doesn't the NTSB try
to fix a cause as to what the cause was !
Mr. Hassell. DOT investigates manv fatal truck accidents, as we're
talking about in this case, through BMCS. The results of those, as well
us the NTSB's investigation, are used in developing modifications to
rules and regulations as part of our system.
Digitized by
Google
38
Unfortunately, the data stream that is coining in has been fairly^
recently initiated and is only in effect — it's several years old now, and
the ability to analyze those and |^ve the kind of quantitative informa-
tion you were specifically requesting is still in its mf ancy. We expect to
have, though, the ability to do that in the fairly short term, another
year of work, because of building the data base necessary.
The Chairman. In the GAO report that you and I both referred to,,
foremost among the suggestions was to develop positive financial in-
centives to encourage State enforcement of motor carrier regulations.
What steps have been taken, if any, to implement the recommenda-
tions?
Mr. Hassell. We are using such things as the Federal funds avail-
able for general highway purposes.
Part of the package that the administration submitted this year was
to allow the States to utilize their Federal aid highway funds for such
things as equipment for weighing stations and other provisions.
We have extensive training programs with all of the States where
we participate in training activities and we hope that through this
demonstration project we talked about a little bit earlier to even fur-
ther expand that activity.
The Chairman. What steps has the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
taken to modernize the hours of service regulation, to keep pace with
changes in the on-road conditions? I'm advised that the hours of serv-
ice regulations are based on a 30-year-old study by the Public Health
Service.
Mr. HAssELii. There is a request for comments out and proposed rule-
making at this time. Mr. Anderson, have you got any further details?
Mr. Anderson. We have the proposed rulemaking out at the present
time, Senator, and we have presented — it's still in an advanced notice
stage — ^we have presented three alternatives for the industry to con-
sider and comment upon. And we have received a goodly amount of
comment. Our hearings are scheduled throughout the country, starting
next week. The first ones will be, I think it's New York, isn't it?
The CHAmMAN. What are the three alternatives? Can you briefly
describe them ?
Mr. Anderson. Do you want to describe them ?
Dr. Kate. There are three plans, Senator, and they're rather com-
plicated. Perhaps it might be well if you want to have a copy of this
mserted in the record.
The Chahiman. We'd be glad to have a copy, but why don't you just
bofl down very briefly for me the basic essence of the three plans,
so we know what we're talking about.
Dr. Kate. In plan 1, we are suggesting 60 hours on 7 consecutive
days, with the 36-hour extended rest period. And the duty tour limits
would be 12 hours, as opposed to the present 15-hour limit. And then
we're suggesting that
The Chairman. You're saying that currently a driver can drive 15
consecutive hours?
Dr. EIaye. No, no, Senator. Under our present rule. Senator, the
driver can drive 10 hours in a 15-hour on-duty period. If he is on duty
15 hours, he cannot drive, but he must take 8 consecutive hours off.
That's our present nile, which came into effect in 1930, approximately..
Digitized by
Google
39
We're also suggesting in plan 1 that there's a dri\4ng limitation of 10
hours or 450 miles. And then we're talking about drivmg relief periods
of 30 minutes every 2^/^ hours to give the driver a break from just con-
stantly driving.
In plan 2, we^re talking about the same 60 hours and 7 days, and for
15 consecutive hours, and 11 hours or 500 miles, and 30 minutes off
every 3 hours.
And plan 3 deals with what we call a sleeper-berth operation, where
the combination of two drivers could be 8 consecutive hours and 30
minutes for each change of duty status, and other specifics.
Basically, what these plans are designed to do is to give the driver
more time off than he's now getting under the existing rules, so that
the rest element and the fatigue element might be addressed through
this proposaL Now, this is only a proposal, and we have a fourth plan,
incidentally. Senator, which says, if you don't like these three, what do
you suggest would be the plan.
The Chairmax. In this proposed rulemaking, do you go into any-
thing relating to the size of the working space, the cab, the interior cab
space?
Dr. Kaye. Not in the hours of service advance notice, no, sir.
The Chairmak. Do you have that in some other procedure i
Dr. Kayb. Yes, we have an advanced notice out. It's called minimum
cab space, which was addressed yesterday at the hearing.
The Chaikb«lan. When do you expect that rulemalang process to
wind up?
Dr. Kate. I think Mr. Anderson indicated that we are going to do
some research measurements on our own, and hopefully by the end of
the year we'll have more information and perhaps be better able to ad-
dress the questions you asked yesterday and try to come up witli some-
thing. We're hoping — let me just make an estimate: within 6 or 9
months.
The Chairman. So that you'd say by midsummer of next year, you
ought to be able to come up with something, some intelligent informa-
tion for us in that area ?
Dr. Kates. Much better than we have now, yes, sir, that's our antici-
pation.
Mr. Andersox. The studies I mentioned yesterday, Senator, that is
being done on the cab-over versus the engine in front. I checked on it
last night, when the research is going to be done. It's going to be done
the last of December for the draft report, and our research division
expects a final report by the first of March.
The Chairman. Very good.
How many inspectors would the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety re-
quire to provide adequate enforcement of the existing regulations?
Mr. Hasseli^ That is a very difficult question to address, Mr. Chair-
man. The size of the driver force, the fleet and the number of drivers
makes it a very difficult problem to adequately provide enough Federal
inspectors. At this time T think any estimate that we would give would
be a pure guess. It is, though, behind the reason we're looking at our
demonstration project to supplement the Federal force. We are con-
cerned about the size of the present inspector force and have been rec-
ommending some increases over the last few years, which have been
Digitized by
Google
40
accepted. But we're still working in an area here were we have a very
small inspector force and a very lar^ number of vehicles and drivers.
The Chairman. I suppose it woiild be impossible for you to say at
this time how many administrative law judges would be required to
handle the proceedings resulting from adequate enforcement^ too,
wouldn't it?
Mr. Anderson. Well, at the preseht time we do have administrative
law judges that process our hearings for drivers. (Jenerally, it's just
one judge that handles most of our cases. Now, I think if there's any
indication, I think, of that, the drivers versus the others, I would say
maybe half a dozen law judges could handle our workload.
The Chairman. Does DOT support an extension of the existing his-
torical exemptions for certain carriers that carry perishable goods?
Mr. HAssEUi. We havent addressed that in that statement. Do you
have aiiything on that ?
Dr. Kaye. Senator, if you're speaking of what they call exempt car-
riers that are exempt from economic regulations, there is no carrier in
interstate and foreign commerce that is exempt from the safety regula-
tion pro forma. If I understand your question correctly, you're speak-
ing of the economic ICC regulation vis-a-vis the DOT safety regula-
tion. There is no exemption from the DOT safety reflation.
The Chairman. Does DOT favor basic uniformity among all the
States when driving conditions mav differ substantially, for example,
in the West as compared to the nortneastem part of the United States ?
Mr. Hassell. The present program does recognize those kinds of
differences, because the State program is a very important part of the
Federal program. We examine it as part of our Federal program.
We feel that the requirements in the bill, S. 2970, will provide the
needed level of uniformity at this time.
The Chairman. So that you do favor basic uniformity ?
Mr. Hassell. In the basic requirements, correct. But the application
and the specifics become better handled through the State approach
Jbhat we have been using, with State enforcement of the specifics.
The Chairman. It's quite clear to me that you certainly have got
different conditions that exist. For example, you referred to one of my
neighboring states a few mihutes ago. Regarding the issue we were on
yesterday, trucks can pull three trailers at one time in my State. Yet
m many of the Eastern States, you're limited to trailer length so that
they could not carry more than one, and even then not a verv long one.
And yet, our accident record out there is better than most oi the States
that nave much lower limits.
Mr. Hassell. It's a very important difference Senator, between the
environments that those vehicles operate in. You're quite correct, there
is a distinctive difference between the States, and that's the reason why
we favor some variations and allow for that in the program that we
presently have.
The Chairman. When you say you favor basic uniformity, you're
going to have to be very careful that you don't put them in a straight-
jacket.
Mr. Hasshll. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Does DOT support the broad scope of S. 2970 to in-
clude buses and all commercial vehicles?
Digitized by
Google
41
Mr. Anderson. Yes; very much so. At the present tune, as an exam-
ple, we are not in the bus area, not permitted to enforce the Fedei-al mo-
tor carrier safety regulations on the private carrier of passengers^
such as the church groups that travel or such as the groups that were
killed in Martinez, the 29 youngsters killed there about a year ago.
That bus was not imder our jurisdiction. And we feel that they shoi^d
be complying with the saf ^y regulations also.
The Chaikbian. How substantial an increase does that represent
over the situation today ?
Mr. Anderson. In nuinbers of vehicles, we presently have under our
jurisdiction around 3 million vehicles aiid if we expanded that as in the
present bill, it would be aroimd 6 million.
The Chairman. Just about double.
Mr. Anderson. Just about double.
The Chairman. Would you comment on the alleged uneven i-egula-
tion of the larger carriers as compared to the smaller operators i
Mr. Hassell. Mr. Anderson, vou'd be better qualified to address
that.
Mr. Anderson. Why don't you go ahead ?
Dr. Kaye. If I understand your question correctly, Mr. Chairman,
you probably are speaking about the lar^r vehicles aJnd those 10,000-
pound gross vehicle weight or less, is that it ?
The Chairman. No; I'm talking about the larger carrier lines as
compared to the smaller individual operators. The charge is frequently
made that the regulations are enforced unevenly as between those two
classes of carriers.
Dr. Kaye. Yes; I've heard complaints along this line. But I can as-
sure you that our 133 vehicle inspectors do not select carriers by size.
We select them as they come through the inspection la^ne, inspection
stations, ports of entry. And we do not concentrate necessarily on pri-
vate versus contract versus conunon, although we've heard a number of
times where they say, this big organization's truck pulled through and
others didn't. I have yet to see any evidence of that other thajn hear a.
complaint. We even inquired of our safety investigators. They are un-
der no quota system, tney are under no selecting system. They take
them and call them as they see them.
Mr. Hassell. You described in the screening spot-check activity the
typical way that the injectors do operate. Because of the large volume
of vehicles and the number of vehicles that they have to hajndle individ-
ually, it becomes important to use the screening technique rather than
a blanket total chexiking procedure, and they have very definitely been
directed to be uniform in their application. And where there may be ap-
pearance, it has to do with the circumstances of that particular check-
ing operation.
The Chairman. Does DOT support iBxtending the regulation* by
DOT to the farm trucks and farm vehicles ?
Mr. Anderson. We do cover at the present time some of the farm-
type products. We do cover for instance, the hauling of cattle and so
on that cross the State line. We do have jurisdiction of the interstate
carrier at the present time. We do not have the normal farm-to-market
hauling, though. However, under this law we would be covering those
vehicles that are over 10,000 pounds gross weight.
Digitized by
Google
42
The Chairman. Do you support that or do you not ?
Mr. AxDERSON. Yes ; we do.
The Chairman. Do you think it oug-ht to be extended into that area?
Mr. Anderson. We do.
The Ciiair3ian. How frequently does DOT set up a strike force such
as the recent effort in Pennsylvania f
Mr. Anderson. We have m the past month carried out four of them.
One of them operated in your State near Wendover, Utah, in the Utah
area, tliough. We anticipate doing these regularly, four, five, and six
a month, depending upon the availability of our staff.
The findings in Wendover and in St. George, Utah, were very
similar to those up in Pennsylvania.
The Chairman. Were the percentages of violations as high as those
in Pennsylvania ?
i\f r. Anderson. The one in St. George was just as high. The one in
Wendover, maybe because it went through Nevada, was not as high.
The Chairman. Well, I wag bom in jSt. George, so be careful what
you say.
Don't you think that those results are pretty shocking, the results
of that kind of a test ?
]Mr. Anderson. Extremely.
Mr. Hassell. Very.
The Chairman. Does DOT set priorities for inspection efforts ac-
cording to the density of commercial traific or according to the tradi-
tional Federal resfions?
Mr. Hasselt.. Dr. Kaye, why don't you describe that ?
Dr. Kate. The DOT's program is generally one of an annual pro-
gram submitted to the field, and each region operates within its own
areas of jurisdiction and assigns its staff to go on inspections, serve
safety regulations, and all that sort of thing. These road checks have
been going on ever since we got into the business in 1935, more or less.
But tliey've been given greater emphasis now on what we call a strike
force in one or more regions combining forces to get more of an effort
and more of a result.
With regard to the location and the time, as Mr. Anderson pointed
out, it's essentially one of priorities, programing, and what is it that
they can do and how they can combine it. But there are road checks, I
would say, going on throughout this country, most every month some-
place or most every week someplace. It may be just one region doing
it with two or three fellows in conjunction with State enforcement
officers. We always work in conjunction with the public service com-
mission, the State highway patrol, or whoever's in charge of safety
within the States when we do our safety inve^igations.
The Chairman. Are they traditionally coming up with these kinds
of results? You've tx)ld us about three of them and indicated that all
-^ . .... got
50-percent chance of being in an accident because of that truck.
Dr. Kate. Tn the past 2 years. Senator, the out-of-service number
has increased significantly. *
The Chairman. Why is that ?
Digitized by
Google
43
Dr. K[ate. There probably are several reasons why. One is that
there's an increased density of the traffic. No. 2, there may be some
relation to fatigue, which we're looking into and giving it a higher
priority on the hours of service.
The Chahuiax. But the fatigiie wouldn't have any relation to
whether the truck is in a safe condition or not; would it?
Dr. K[ate. What I was building up to, was an overall package on
the situation. The trucking industry, in the past years, like other in-
dustries, has suffered some financial problems as well, and when they
do, my guess is that if something has to give it would be in the safety
maintenance area. And that is probably why the trucks are getting a
little bit in worse shape.
Twenty to 25 percent used to be what we considered common out of
service findings of those vehicles selected. You know we pick out those
that are most likely candidates, so we can't say that ever>' other truck
on the road is a potential imminently hazardous vehicle. It's those
trucks that we select as likely candidates for out-of -service. So the
figure is great, but it's not precise to that extent, and it's a serious
problem.
The Chairmax. Well, how do you make a determination as to who
is a likely candidate ? You've got a truck coming down the road. How
does your inspector eyeball that and say, well, that truck is a likely
candidate ? Does he look at the name tag ?
Dr. Kate. No. I have witnessed a number of road checks. It's amaz-
ing to me the sixth sense that these gentlemen have. I've seen spanking
new trucks come up to the weigh inspection stations, and the inspector
would say, now apply your brakes, now release them. And he would
then say, move over, I want to check them. I would ask, why he did
that, because that truck just pulled off the assembly line? He said, I
can detect something in the air line of the brake. But I wouldn't have
noted that.
But these inspectors are most likely — ^they have the capacity or
capability of selecting trucks for inspection and generally find them
out of service candidates. It's the training that they have that I don't
possess. But they are schooled well.
The Chairman. When they take them out of service, what precisely
do they do? I'm thinking now in terms of St. Greorge or Wendover.
You're a long way from no place. You're just at a weigh station out
there on the highway, on the interstate highway, and your inspector
selects that truck and says, OK, that truck is out of service. What's
the driver going to do ?
Dr. Kate. The driver has no choice but to remain there until that
vehicle is repaired there on that spot. Now, the fact that he may have
produce or something else on his truck that is probably spoiling — ^is
not our concern ; safety is. We will not permit that truck to go. So the
i-epair facility has to come to the truck to repair it at that spot, to get
it rolling again. Just like the driver. When the driver's out of hours, he
has to take his 8 hours. Sleep in the cab right there. So we don't permit
them to go beyond that point. And we don't have to do too many of
those Senator, before the word gets out that you better have your
trucks in better shape if you're going through that inspection point,
because they're likely to get delayed. Time is money for them, and to
Digitized by
Google
44
wait and have a vehicle inspection, they're not cnamoi-ed at all with
that proposition, and it has quite an effect.
The Chairman. What kind of problems do you find, other than the
brakes ? Wliat are some of the most common ?
Dr. Kaye. The brakes are practically two-thirds of the out-of -serv-
ice vehicles brake related : Hoses, brake lining, and that sort of thinff.
I would say lights are probably the second and perhaps tires for third,
and they run the gamut down the list. But basically, we're concerned
with those that are most obviously essential for the safety of that
vehicle.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you, gentlemen. We'll have some
questions for you for the record we'll submit, and you can supply %he
answers.
Mr. Hassell. Surely, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows :]
Statement of John S. Hassell, Jr., Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, Department or Transportation
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before
yon today to discnss the Administration's concern about truck safety and detail
some of the actions we are taking to meet this issue. We wiU also discuss S.
2970, which we believe to be an important proposal to increase commercial ve-
hicle safety. Accompanying me today are Howard L. Anderson, Associate Ad-
ministrator for Safety, Dr. Robert A. Kaye, Director, Bureau of Motor Car-
rier Safety.
The Federal Government has a responsibility for safeguarding the motoring
public from unreasonable risks from persons or firms tliat utilize the public
highways in furtherance of business enterprises. This responsibility is shared
with the State governments. Our approach to this statutory function involves
several statutes and departmental programs.
Federal highway statutes require that safety be built into the highway physi-
cal plant ; the Highway Safety Act of 1966 provides financial assistance to States
to enable them to upgrade their highway safety programs designed to regulate
motor vehicle registration, driver training and licensing, police services, and other
asi>ects of highway operations and control. Under the safety provisions of Part
JI of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), the hours of service and qualiflcatioDS
of commercial vehicle drivers, the safety of operations, and equipment standards
for trucks and buses engaged in interstate or foreign commerce are directly
regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT).
T'nder the latter statute, the F'ederal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) and its predecessor's activity at the
Interstate Commerce Commission have promulgated and enforced the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) for more than 40 years, through
field inspections, audits, enforcement investigations, and civil and criminal prose-
cutions.
The FMCSR apply to more than 150,000 business entities, that operate some S
million trucks and buses, using between 3.5 and 4 million drivers in interstate
or foreign commerce. Generally, the rules apply to operations utilizing vehiclee
with more than four tires on the pavement and with a gross vehicle rating of
10.000 pounds or more. The ICA does not apply to commercial vehicles in intra-
state commerce, transportation of school children, recreational vehicles, and local
farm vehicles. Our estimates are that sojnething on the order of 50 percent of the
commercial vehicles on the road are not covered by the statute. These are pri-
marily dump trucks, service vehicles, tow trucks, local cartage vehicles, transit
buses, government-owned vehicles, and personal transportation vehicles.
Over the past four decades, the Motor Carrier Safety Program has relied on
a large degree of voluntary compliance by persons and firms sul)ject to the statute,
and many motor carriers have made significant investment in safety. We have
utilized a "spot check" strategy to identify those firms that could not or wonld
not expend the necessary funds to achieve substantial compliance. More recently*
the selection of carriers for audit or investigation has been influenced by corn-
Digitized by
Google
45
plaints from drivers, ex-employees, labor unions, public interest groups, and the
general public.
The issue of truck safety has received more public and media attention in re-
cent months because of the phenomenal growth in the trucking industry that
utilizes a highway system of relatively fixed mileage. The number of trucKS
in the traffic stream is increasing, and because the national 55 m.p.h. speed limit
law causes all vehicles to travel at similar speeds, those trucks have become more
visible.
Accordingly, over the last 2 years we have undertaken special programs to (1)
identify carriers since registration is not required of private and exempt com-
modity carriers ; (2) to audit carriers that have not had previous contact with
the BMCS; (3) to conduct special road checks of tank vehicles which pose a
siieciai risk if transi)ortiug hazardous materials; (4) to interest States in adopt-
ing the Federal rules; and (5) to provide training to State enforcement officers.
In support of FHWA truck enforcement and safety efforts, research is under-
way to (1) develop automatic weighing-in-motion systems that may be easily
installed on bridge birders; (2) analyze problems relating to truck ride quality ;
(3) investigate highway operation of heavy trucks related to their performance
in traffic, e.g., accident analyses, aerodynamics, splash and spray, off-tracking,
handling, special downgrade control problems, and other pertinent subjects ; and
(4) study many other safety related issues that apply to all vehicles using the
highway systems including trucks.
Additionally, we proposed and Congress enacted a demonstration program, to
begin next fiscal year, to assess the value of continuous safety inspection and
weighing activity oy State enforcement officers in two or three States. This
test is to determine the value of an alternative to a large Federal force of in-
spectors and investigators to meet the rapid growth in trucking.
Specifically addressing our views on S. 2970, we believe this bill represents a
very important legislative initiaitve. The DOT supports several of the provisions
of this bill, which are designed to strength Federal safety regulation of com-
mercial vehicles.
We particularly consider the provisions of the bill which would establish civil
I)enalties in meaningful amounts to be very important and necessary, and we
strongly support those provisions. Criimnal penalties require the establishment,
to the satisfaction of the court, that the violation was knowingly and willfully
committed, thereby frustrating the imposition of penalties in cases where it is
extremely difficult to show that the violator know he was subject to the regula-
tions and that he knew and permitted a particular action or omission to take
place. In many venues, the cases may be several years old before they are pre-
sented to a judge because of heavy case loads. The number of counts presented
and the level of fines assessed are subject to the subjective judgment of the
U.S. Attorney and the judge, who may or may not feel strongly about what may
be viewed as violations of administrative law concerning a driver's excess hours,
a defective vehicle, or a driver's qualifications. The existing criminal penalties
can amount to a little more than a routine cost of business. Criminal penalties,
with their minimal fines and the necessity of processing them in crowded court
dockets, have not been successful as deterrents to unsafe practices.
Presentation of certain types of counts, particularly those involving vehicle
defects, is very difficult using criminal procedures, because of scattered venue.
A particular carrier might have 10 vehicles placed out of service over a period
of time and, under criminal procedures, because of the locations at which Vie
vehicles were inspected, it is likely that as many as 10 separate and distinct
cases would have to be prepared and presented in separate courts thereby
greatly weakening our chances of successful prosecution.
On the other hand, in those instances in which the BMS is able to use its
existing but limited civil forf^ture procedures, a relatively consistent level of
penalties is maintained, and sanctions are related to a combination of past efforts
to obtain compliance, the nature and seriousness of the violations, the cause of
the violations, and the ability of the defendant to pay. I should mention, how-
ever, that we have civil penalty authority only with respect to reporting and
filing violations.
With respect to other provisions of the bill, we do not believe that the assign-
ment to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the function of a
review panel is appropriate. We do not feel that the NTSB is the proper fourm
to review the orders of the Secretary involving the punishment of violations.
35-692—78 (
Digitized by
Google
46
While it is true that the XTSB is currently set up to review findings relating
to the qualifications of aircraft pilots, the findings in such cases are based on
fact, whereas review of the level of proposed penalties involves the exercise
of technical assessments as to the level of penalty that will assure future compli-
ance. This section would have the effect of placing the NTSB in command of the
safety programs envisioned by this Act, rather than allowing the Secretary of
Transportation to be the paramount authority. We recommend that the legis-
lation provide for a review procedure within the agency, using Administrative
Ijaw Judges and following the requirements of the Administrative Procedure
Act. Such an approach would provide full due process guarantees, while also
facilitating uniformity and effective program administration.
Section 7(b) would retiuire the Secretary of Transportation to issue regula-
tions concerning the healthfulness of motor carrier employees* working con-
ditions. The BMCS, within this Department, already has authority to regulate
in the area of health and safety for those employees when their duties affect
safety of operation. The Bureau has instituted rulemaking to define clearly the
health and safety matters it will regulate and enforce. We believe that this
approach to delineating the responsibilities of the Bureau in this important area
is preferable to the approach in S. 2970, since it enables the DOT and other
interested Federal agencies to develop the most effective and efficient overall
system for assuring employees* health and safety. We recommend, therefore,
that section 7(b) be deleted.
Upon reconsideration of section 8, we believe that the authority given to the
Secretary to require record-keeping should remain at a minimum to relieve the
burden on industry and employees. We are reviewing other aspects of section 8
and may wish to submit further comments to the Committee at a later time.
We also support the protection of employees provided by section 12 of the
bill against retaliatory firing or other discrimination based on their having filed
complaints about or refusing to work under unsafe conditions. These basic
rights of employees should be fully protected. We would recommend, however,
that this protection provide for investigation and administrative enforcement
action by the Secretary of Labor, as is the case under many other statutes. The
private right of action proi)osed in S. 2970 should be retained as an alternative
course of action — an employee would elect one procedure or the other.
Section 13 of S. 2970 would establish a Federal program of assistance to
States which file a plan acceptable to the Secretary of Transportation for State
enforcement of Federal regulations. We do not endorse this provision. We are
planning to initiate a demonstration projects in this area during the coming year.
The results of that effort should be evaluated before it can be determined
whether a new Federal assistance program should be established.
Nor do we support section 14 which requires the annual submission of a rejwrt
to Congress. This Administration Is currently trying to reduce the number of
"pro forma'* reports which are generating so much paperwork within the
Government.
Finally, we believe the legislation should be amended to clarify that it will
in no way affect the present authority of the Secretary of Labor under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act to regulate the working conditions not
covered by this bill.
In summary, we believe a modified version of this bill will go a long way
in meeting the shortcomings in the present legislation in this area, yet not fore-
close options nor commit the Government to an as yet untested financial assist-
ance program.
Certainly, the risks and tragic losses of life and property associated with com-
mercial vehicle collisions require our urgent attention, and whatever can be
done to improve the deterrence capability of the Government to effect reduced
risks should be undertaken. We stand ready to do our part, within the laws
and resources made available to us.
This concludes my prepared statement. My associates and I would be happy
to answer any questions you might have.
TTliP following information wns snbsoqiicTitly received for the
record.]
QrESTIOXS OF THE COMMITTEE AM) THE ANSWERS THERETO
QucHiion. You characterize the interchange of information with the States a;*
extensive in the area of truck safety. Please describe in detail what types oif
nformation are available from the States to DOT. and vice versa.
Digitized by
Google
47
Answer. Some States that aro active in the motor rarrier safety field rontinely
transmit information to Fe<leral Motor Carrier Safety Offices. Notification of
accidents, truck accident invest it^ation reports, and truck inspection reports are
some examples. All States c« operate in providing any information available to
them when requested. The inforinal contacts made on an individual basis be-
twt^en Federal and Stat? official-, n^ well as institutional contacts at training
sessions and joint meetings, are anr»ther sniirce where information is coop-
eratively exchanged. All Federal information is available to State officials on
re<iuest and many pub'ications. like annual statistical summaries, copies of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety or Hazardous Materials TransiH)rtation Regula-
tions, are furnished to the States. The results of the last survey of types of
State information received by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety produced the
following :
State State reports furnished BMCS as of Sept 30, 1977 Agency reporting
Arizona Arrest citations, driver/vehide violations ACCand AHP.
Arkansas do ATC.
Colorado Fatal truck and bus accident investigations, hazardous materials Colorado Department of Rev-
incidents, enue, CHP.
Florida Vehicle inspection reports PSC.
Georgia do Georgia Department of Pub-
lic Safety.
Idaho Accident investigation reports, vehicle inspection reports ISP, ISP (weigh station).
Indiana Vehicle inspection reports, per cooperative agreement IHP.
Iowa NotlfKation of hazardous materials accidents— accident investiga- IHP and IDOT.
tions and vehide inspection, per cooperative agreement
Kansas Vehide inspection reports, accident investigation reports, per KHP. Kansas Department of
cooperative agreement Revenue.
Kentucky Vehide inspection reports KDOT.
Maryland Accident notifcation— vehide Inspection reports IfcSP.
Minnesota Vehicle inspection reports MHPand MDOT.
Missouri Accident investigation reports, per cooperative agreement MHP.
Nel>raska Fatal acddent investigation reports, per cooperative agreement. .. Department of Roads.
New Jersey Serious aaident notifcation NJSP.
North Carolina Vehide inspedion reports PSC.
North Dakota do NDHPand PSC.
Ohio Vehkle inspection reports to ICC, which then forwards to FHWA PUCO.
regional office.
Oregon Vehicle inspection reports OSP.
Rhode Island.. Notification of serious accidents — vehicle inspections RISP.
South Carolina Vehicle inspection reports Not reported.
South Dakota Vehicle contact report TC2 SDHP.
Tennessee Vehide inspection reports PSC.
Texas Acddent investigation reports— vehicle insp«:tion reports Texas Department of Public
safety.
Utah Fatal acddent investigation reports UDOTand FSC.
Washington Accident investigation reports Vi^P.
Wyoming Accident investigation reports— weekly summary of accidents WHP.
Question. What are the present dolUirs and manpower that are directed to
truck safety inspection at the Federal level?
Answer. Truck safety is addressed through several Federal programs, includ-
ing safety features built into the highway system, several motor vehicle manu-
facturer standards, safety iirogram standards administered by States under
Federal funding and safety i)rojects under highway safety grants. Some part of
these activities inures to the benelit of truck safety.
With respect to truck safety inspection at the Federal level, funds specifically
appropriated to the Motor Carrier Safety Program in FY 1979 amount to
$12,300,000. An increase of 20 positions was also authorized in this fiscal year,
making the total authorized full-time positicm strength 267.
It must also be noted that the Federal Highway Administration provides logis-
tic support, administrative services, and l(*gal support. Some parts of these
services are compensated for by a transfer of funds from the Motor Carrier
Safety appropriation to the General Operating Expense account in FHWA.
Quv-9Uon. S. 2070 sets a 10.000 Gross Vehicle Weight limitation on the coverage
of commercial vehicles. Do you believe that such a limitation is justified, and
if so. on what basis?
Answer. Existing Motor Carrier Safety authority covers all commercial ve-
hicles regardless of gross weight. However, smaller vehicles have been accorded
administrative exemptions. We believe this limitation is justified on the Imsis
that small vans and pickup trucks are more similar to automobiles than to
Digitized by
Google
48
medium and heavy commercial vehicles, and can best be regulated under State
automobile licensing, inspection, and traffic surveillance, except for vehicles trans-
porting hazardous materials which should be covered.
Question. In your testimony, you supported the notion of extending coverage
of BMCS to buses and farm trucks and other farm equipment above 10,000 gross
vehicle weight. Why do you believe such extension of coverage would be useful?
On what basis, if any, do you believe that present exemptions for the operation
of farm equipment can be made, and do you believe they are justified?
Answer. Since existing authority covers buses and large farm vehicles, we do
not view S. 2970 as extending coverage. We believe the safety of persons being
transi)orted for hire and the trend away from small individual farms to large
holdings by agribusiness would make such exemptions questionable. An employee
of agribusiness who is unqualified and operating a malmaintained vehicle is as
large a risk as a vehicle being operated in a commercial enterprise. All of these
operations should be statutorily covered, with provision for continuing adminis-
trative relief for small farui vehicles, vanpools, ond others where their exemption
will not affect the overall safety regulatory program.
The Chairman. Next is the Honorable James King, Chairman of
NTSB.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAHES KINO, CHAIBHAN, NATIONAL TBANS-
POBTATION SAFETY BOABD
Mr. King. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here
today to testify on S. 2970, the Truck Safety Act of 1978, a bill to
"promote commercial motor vehicle safety, to prevent injury to com-
mercial motor vehicle operators, and for other purposes."
I want to thank the committee for holding these hearings in tlxis
critical safety area. Section 2 of S. 2970 addresses several important
issues in commercial motor vehicle safety, particularly the substan-
tial size and weight of heavy trucks in comparison to the passenger
vehicles with whom they share the highway and the inability of exist-
ing regulations to insure that carriers and drivers inspect their ve-
hicles and maintain them in a safe condition.
Although only approximately 6 percent of the trucking industry
accidents are chargeable to mechanical defects — ^the motor vehicle
carrier safety strike team on road inspections indicated that 30 per-
cent of the vehicles inspected were placed out of service as being
imminently hazardous.
The California State Highway Patrol inspected approximately
lle5,000 combination vehicles and found approximately 237,000 ve-
hicle defects.
So I think it's become clear that the present enforcement hasn't
been sufficient to persuade carriers and drivers to inspect their vehicles
and make sure that they are safe before putting them on the road.
The Safety Board has also recognized commercial vehicle mainte-
nance as a critical issue and has made a reduction in the nimiber of
maintenance-related commercial interstate motor vehicle accidents one
of its goals for the immediate future.
Recognizing the deficiencies of the present system, S. 2970 proposes
several constructive ideas. Two of the bill's approaches appear very
promising.
First, the system of civil penalties proposed could be flexible and
tailored to meet the seriousness of the violation. Second, the bill would
encourage employees and others who are aware of unsafe conditions
Digitized by
Google
49
to report them and to try to protect legitimate whistle blowers from
discrimination or retribution.
We at the NTSB do have some concerns about the mechanical and
procedural aspects of the bill.
The bill would establish and quasi- judicial system of appellate re-
view of citations and orders issued by the Secretary of Transportation
under section 9. Appeals by violators would be heard by the NTSB,
The Board would have no objection to acting in this capacity. We do,
however, want the committee to be aware of the substantial staff in-
creases which would be required to hear these appeals.
Presently we have 6 law judges who process approximately 600
aviation cases a year, including 300 which require hearings. Of those
cases, 1*20 are appealed to our full Board. Under this bill, there are
approximately 9 million trucking employees who could file or report
violations.
The Chaurmax. How many?
Mr. Kino. We have 9 million, according to the ATA figures that
were given in a 1977 annual compilation that were reported to us that
were involved in the trucking industry, sir.
I can supply for the record, if you d like. Senator, the exact citation
and page.
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record:]
•*Vehicle Facts and Hgnres — ^1977** compiled by the Motor Vehicle Mannfactur-
ers Association of the United States, Inc., from the Bnrean of Gensns and
American Trucking Association data. Page 69.
Mr. King. If approximately only one-quarter of 1 percent filed com-
plaints, approximately 2*2.500 would have to be investigated by the
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, and if 80 ])ercent of those could be
settled, the approximately 4,500 cases remaining could be appealed to
our board.
With this workload, we could be faced with adding approximately
50 administrative law judges, plus the additional supporting clerical
staff, and additional attorneys to handle cases appealed to the full
Board.
Although these are only estimates, we do believe that they are not
unreason^le, in li^ht of the experience of the Occupational Saf^y
and Health Administration where a similar employee complaint sys-
tem is utilized.
We understand that they receive approximately 24,000 safety and
health complaints each year, all of which must be investigated to verify
the existence of the violations.
In calendar year 1977, approximately 4,500 cases were referred to
their administrative law judges for decisions. To handle these cases,
they are presently employing 47 administrative law judges. There is
no doubt that this bill would require a sizable number of additional
employees by both the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and our own
Board if this bill were enacted.
Most of these employees would be here in Washington, Senator and
not out on the road.
Although we recognize that the existing BMCS enforcement pro-
gram is inadequate and that there exists a serious safety problem, it
Digitized by
Google
50
appears appropriate to speculate as to whether the additional man-
power which would be required by this bill could not be better utilized
by seeking to improve the existing system.
There is a need to devise a simpler and effective violation reporting
system. This would increase the current, number of Bureau of Motor
Carrier safety inspection personnel and to make certain that they are
at field locations where they can investigate and inspect with efficiency
and dispatch.
Eecent efforts by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety to use strike
teams of inspectors could and should be increased, and attention
focused on carrier operators who have demonstrated a practice of
condoning safety violations.
Thank you for having me here today, Senator. I am available for
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. King.
The NTSB previously expressed support for the administrative
solution proiX)sed in S. 2970, which would vest authority to decide
cases involving truck safety violations with the NTSB.
In your statement today, you say your staff has certain reservations
about the mechanical and procedural aspects of the bill. Do you favor
the procedures set forth in S. 2970 ?
IVIr. King. First the Board will definitely be able to handle that.
I'm merely saying that it would take a substantial increase in person-
nel. The effect of that increase is the question which, Senator, I tliink
that we're weighing before you in a public manner. I'm saying yes
we can carry this out. But I'm asking, could that personnel be more
effectively used on the highways through BMCS strike force teams ?
We feel that this question sliould be looked at very carefully.
If you're asking can the NTSB do the job proposed in S. 2970, are
they willing, are they qualified — are they capable of doing this — ^the
answer is yes.
We should imderstand what that means. What I'm saying is that
if we use the same resources and allocate them out into the field rather
than for the bureaucratic paper things that sometimes I see, then we
should consider what the tradeoffs are.
My instincts right now. Senator, that I think for dollar value the
American people and the truckers of this country would be a lot safer
with some more folks out there knowing that they're going to be
caught, rather than developing elaborate appeal procedures that may
even be an overlapping of existing judicial systems.
The Chairman. So you're really suggestmg that we modify the
procedures that are proposed here in the bill.
Mr. Kixo. I'm saying that those consider at if )ns should be weighed.
Senator. And a.^ain, 1*11 yield to whatever tJie committee decides and
the Congress decides. I'd like to surface those concerns, sir.
The Chairman. How much additional fmiding and manpower do
you estimate would be required to carry out your duties if this bill
were passed ?
Mr. King. We see ai)proxiniately 50 law judges to handle these
cases. That's an approximate figure. Senator. And then there is the
staff that would be required to support them. Our six judges have seven
people suppoiting them in the office alone.
Digitized by
Google
51
I'm playing with very small figures, but using the Occupational
Safety and Review Commission as a model we think we would need at
least 140 people for this task, and that would be a minimum figure.
The Chairman. Could you give me an estimated dollar figure off
the top of your head ?
Mr. King. I'd have to have my calculator. I could respond for the
record to that, Senator.
The Chairman. All right.
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record :]
The Safety Board would require approximately 140 additional positions for
appeUate review of citations and orders issued by the Secretary of Transporta-
tion pursuant to this act. These positions would consist of 50 law judges and
50 clerical support positions to hear the appeals ; 25 attorneys to handle the ap-
peals to the full Board as we currontly handle aviation enforcement cases ; and
15 other administrative and clerical positions to support the level of activity gen-
erated by this additional responsibility. The Board would require an additional
appropriation of approximately $6,500,000 if this bill is enacted.
The Chairman. The NTSB has focused on commercial vehicle main-
tenance as a critical safety priority. Now what practical steps has the
board taken to implement this goal ?
Mr. KiNQ. Senator, up until now, our response on investigations was
governed by the legislation, which basically had us responding to
catastrophic accidents. Then if we had anj^ filler time we would decide
on a professional level, on an ad hoc basis, which other accidents to
investigate.
This year's budget which was just submitted, Senator, reflects on
some of the areas that we would like to be involved in.
First, Senator, I should indicate that we have 16 full-time people
in highway accident investigation. That includes the entire profes-
sional staff, including supervisory, to meet merely the catastrophic
kinds of accidents that do occur. We have investigated approximately
40 heavy truck accidents since 1968.
The Chairman. Did you say 16 people ? Are you saying that only
in relation to
Mr. King. Highways, sir.
The Chairman. How many do you have in the field of aviation
accidents?
Mr. King. In aviation, we have approximately 138, sir.
The Chairman. This bill would authorize $100 million to be spent
on State truck safety programs, similar to others, such as pipeline
safety. Do you believe that these kinds of programs could result in
adequate enforcement to protect the public safety ?
Mr. King. Well, when we talk about pipeline, my immediate paral-
lel is, I like the idea of the Federal Government working in coopera-
tion with the States. Unfortunately, our dealings with OPSO have
been disappointing. The response has been so limited, I hate to use
that as a parallel for our conversation.
I would like to think that if the BMCS, which has been responsive
as far as their resources have permitted them, if an organization of
that type were given additional resources and had some control over
the type of events that went on in the State, I could see that as a very,
very productive operation, sir.
Digitized by
Google
52
The Chatrmax. Do you perform spot checks such as we've heard
about here in the field of aviation ?
Mr. King. No, sir. That's FA A's responsibility.
The Chairman. You engage in investigations ?
Mr. King. Yes, sir. We make recommendations after the investiga-
tions if we feel that problems are surfacing.
For example, we have found over a period of our investigations that
a substantial number were brake-related. I believe that the gentleman
who testified just before me mentioned Martinez, where 29 children
were killed. That was an investigation that the NTSB had conducted
and we found out that was a mechanical difficulty that included
brakes. And an inspection of that particular vehicle would, in all
probability, have detected the equipment that failed.
That's the sort of thing I thinK we're addressing.
The Chairman. Why are so many people in your organization as-
signed to aviation, as compared with the highways ?
Mr. King. I think that the first thing is that our roots are clearly in
aviation. We came out of the CAB. We became an independent board
in 1974. The other area, too, is that really, in aviation, that's been the
one area, one mode of travel that is most clearly Federal in jurisdic-
tion. There doesn't seem to be any question of Federal primacy.
When you're talking about highways, Senator, as you know, you're
talking about the local police and vou're talking about State legisla-
tures, you're talking about county sheriffs, you're talking about county
police departments. I'm thinking about the Allegheny County police
outside of Pittsburgh. You have a county force, you have highway pa-
trols. State police, you have this bordering, if you will, a jurisdic-
tional question.
There is no clearcut jurisdiction for the Federal folks to be involved.
So we're heavy in those areas where we have a clear mandate. We're
supposed to have a performance, where we have a mandate to investi-
gate all major accidents in relation to aviation, and this we've done.
And T think the agency has carried it out with credit.
The Chairman. Are you satisfied that your agency or any other
agency can assess the causation of motor vehicle accidents, for ex-
ample, compared with accidents involving airplanes or railroads?
Mr. King. It's very difficult for two reavsons : One is, for example,
if we go into a major investigation, aviation investigation, we can
usually freeze the site — you know, rope it off. We can secure it. We can
basically shut it down and then methodically go at the invCvStigation.
We have cockpit voice recorders, flight recorders, data flight re-
corders. We have certain sorts of fixed materials and instruments in
aviation that really aren't available on the highway.
The other thing in the highway mode is that![ quite often, by the
time we hear abont it, the accident is passed. The wreckage has been
removed. A lot of the on-site sorts of things are gone, a number of the
witnesses are scattered.
So a lot of our work is based on trying to analyze the after-the-fact
information. We will co out and try to obtain original information,
but again, in this kind of a situation, it's an extremelv expensive and
time-consuming operation, and we have to really make a decision
whether it is worth the resource allocation.
Digitized by
Google
53
The Chairicax. How do you select which truck accidents you
investi^te?
Mr. KiNa In Marion, N.C., a fair-sized truck was pulling a trailer
with a piece of construction equipment on it. The trailer bribes failed
on a hill, the truck looped out and hit an oncoming van with a tennis
team from a small college from South Carolina and killed the entire
team.
That's the sort of thing that we move on right away. There's just no
question*
The propylene explosion in Spain — we feel that's an area we should
be concerned about because of the bulk handling of hazardous ma-
terials. Could that sort of thing happen in the United States? What
are the ramifications of it? What should we be knowledgeable about?
We sent a team there without question. We did the same in Mexico*
We reacted to the recent propane turnover in California just last
week. It was in an unpopulated area and wasnt catastrophic. It was
permitted to bum itself out.
So those are the kinds of things we're responding to.
The Chaibman. Do you compile statistics on your findings and
reconunendations in the truck safety area ?
Mr. King. Our statistics, our total sample of accidents is so small
that we almost have to deal with cases individually.
What we do is we take our accident investigation and parallel it as
best we can to other statistical bases to see whether then there seems to
be a profile. And we will base recommendations on that many times.
Or in some cases, the event may be purely episodic and we're there in
many cases, as you know, Senator. There's a question as to whether a
particular product or a highway or a situation is safe, and we're there
as an independent body to assure the public and the Congress that
there will be a full impartial hearing conducted by professionals and
that our recommendations, we don't have any axe to grind and, quite
frankly, we don't have any backside to cover, either.
The Chaibman. In your statement, you made a reference to OSHA
in trying to determine what numbers oi people 3'ou required.
Now OSHA has jurisdiction over a vastly greater area than that
covered by this bill. Do you believe that the experience of OSHA is
transferable to the much narrower issues at hand here ?
Mr. King. There are substantial numbers. Senator, in the trucking
industry. And the other thing, in the trucking industry, you have a
much more highly organized bargaining unit which is, you know,
when we talk about OSHA, we're talking about a much larger blanket,
which is true as far as actual employee base. But you are also talldng
about a different sort of thing with different kinds of people interact-
ing, and I believe that this is a much more sophisticated audience than
the audience OSHA deals with.
The Chairman. What kind of an investigative force do you believe
would be necessary to perform adequate enforcement on the highways
of the truck safety regulations ?
Mr. Kino. I think my colleagues from the BMCS were correct in
fudging the question.
The Chairman. So we're going to have a double fudge.
Digitized by
Google
54
Mr. King. Let's say we could add a little flavor to it, Senator. I'd like
to think that this might have a little heavier chocolate in it.
There are a number of people out there who are responsible for
handling highway safety. One of the things, as you look across, there
doesn't seem to be a coordinated effort. There are efforts being made,
but there has been a shortage of resources. The BMCS has always been
short of the personnel that they need to carry out their responsibilities.
That if that could be done, if they had, as you suggested, some lever-
age with the State officials and if they were tied in so that there was
some relationships there and we started to have that kind of a coordin-
ated efforts, there's an awful lot of folks out there who are addressing
themselves to this issue.
What I'm saying is that I think what you'd want to see is how it
could be started, how you'd pull it together with the resources that are
there.
Right now it would be a manager's nightmare. And what I'm sug-
gesting is that it should be looked at by the folks who are responsible,
come back with a management approach, and then report it back to you
and say, here's what the problems are and here's what we think it
would take for proper execution, and what level of delivery you could
expect at given levels of funding.
The Chairman. Of course, we're a little late to start looking at the
problem, aren't we ?
Mr. King. Well, I don't think we're ever too late.
The Chairman. I'm not suggesting we're too late. I'm suggesting
we're later than we ought to have been.
Mr. King. Well, I would say I'm glad to see that we're acting.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.
We may have some questions for you for the record.
Mr. King. Thank you, again, Senator, for having me here.
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record :]
National Transportation Safety Board,
Washington, D.C., October 24, 1978.
Hon. Howard W. Cannon,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, B.C.
Dear Senator Cannon: Your letter of September 20, forwarded questions
regarding my testimony and the testimony of other witnesses concerning S. 2790,
the Truck Safety Act of 1978.
Our responses to the questions are enclosed. We found it possible to provide
brief but, I hope, adequate answers to all questions with the exception of question
4. That question dealing with truck accident investigation required an in-depth
response which was developed as a result of a discussion by our staff. Several
accident reports are enclosed.
I appreciate the opportunity to amplify my testimony and hope the information
I provided will prove helpful to our interests in safety.
Sincerely,
James B. Kino, Chairman.
Enclosures.
Question 1. In your testimony on S. 2970, you stressed the need to devise a more
effective violation reporting system. How would the National Transportaticm
Safety Board (NTSB) suggest this goal be achieved?
Digitized by
Google
Answer. The need to devise a simpler and more efficient violation reporting
system refers to my earlier statement that S. 2970 would encourage employees
and others aware of unsafe conditions to report them. The bill itself contains a
number of provisions intended to improve violations reporting and processing.
My comments were intended to reinforce the direction taken by the bill.
Question 2. The NTSB makes recommendations on a wide variety of safety
questions, and in that capacity has broader exposure to the various Federal safety
programs. On the basis of this experience, how many inspectors does the NTSB
estimate would be required to enforce effectively regulations on the books as of
September 8, 1978 for truck safety.
Answer. An estimate of the number of inspectors required to enforce effectively
regulations on the books for truck safety would require a detailed study which
NTSB has not performed. The most similar Federal safety program is the
inspection and enforcement program of the Federal Aviation Administration
which now employs 800 inspectors whose efforts art* applied to about 200,000
aircraft. However, these numbers cannot be applied in proportion to the approx-
imately 3 million vehicles under BMCS regulations in interstate commerce. The
regulations are of different complexity and the States already have a role of
assistance in enforcing the motor carrier regulations. It is not known what lev^
of enforcement action would be required iu order to gain voluntary comidiance
of truck safety regulations.
Question S, In your testimony, you suggest that tbe experience from the
Occupational Health and Safety Administration is transferable to the Truck
Safety Act area, despite the fact that the detection and burden of proof Is
probably less ambiguous in the truck safety area. On the basis of that transfer-
ability, you make arithmetical projections as to the number of personnel which
would be required to implement the relevant provisions of S. 2970.
Answer. We assume that this Committee seeks our view as to whether the
ose of OSHA information is appropriate, in light of the indicated difference in
their Act and S. 2970. Our selection of OSHA and OSHA Review Comm. was
predicated on the single fact that its detection of violations is based on employee
complaints as they would be under S. 2970. Whether the volume of complaints
would be similar is conjectural but, in our view, OSHA is the only similar system
available for comparison.
Accepting the premise that an appeal rate of approximately 20% would not be
unreasonable, based on our own ex];)erience, we made a second projection as to
a number of cases which would require hearings. It is from this figure estimating
that one AU could handle 80 cases per year, that we estimated the number of
ALJ's which would be required. Perhaps the difference you refer to would
dicate fewer than 50 AM's. However, a projection based on our own experi-
ence with aviation and marine enforcement cases would indicate a much higher
number of ALJ's, since our 6 laW judges have only .300 cases per year or 50
per ALJ. In our view, any estimate is only an educated guess. However, It is
our experience that hearings to afford due process require considerable resources.
If backlogs of cases develop the system will be compromised.
Question 4- Would you provide the Committee with the procedures that the
NTSB goes through when it investigates a truck accident? Please supply
examples of such reports.
yote: This response has l>een extended somewhat to reflect discussion with
conmiittee staff.
Answer. Criteria followed in the selection of major highway accidents by the
Safety Board are based on the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974. All cata-
strophic accidents are authorized to be investigated. A catastrophic accident is
one of high public visibility due to a large number of fatalities, or is spectacular
or includes a significant amount of property damage. Also, the Safety Board
maintains a list of safety issues that are represented by their occurrence in a
large number of accidents, under Congres-sional study, or a matter of public-
industry concern.
Notification of serious accidents is often received while the vehicles and the
States, county or local law enforcement agencies are still at the scene. When the
Safety Board decides to investigate the accident, the local law enforcement
agency's cooperation and particii>ation is requested. The agency is asked to take
Digitized by
Google
56
additional steps to protect and document perishable evidence at the accident
scene. The local chief medical examiner or coroner is contacted and requested
to perform autopsies which shall include test for the presence of alcohol and/or
drugs.
Investigation teams are dispatched from the appropriate NTSB field office
and the Investigator-in-Charge (IIC) is dispatched from Washington.
Safety Board teams investigating a major highway accident are composed of
an Investigator-in-Gharge ; a human factors highway safety specialist; a dvil
engineer — ^highway; and an automotive engineer. The team is organized into
three basic units: (1) Human Factors Group; (2) Vehicle Factors Group; and
(3) A Highway/Environmental Group. Bach group is under the chairmanship
of a NTSB highway safety specialist. Chart 1 illustrates this arrangemeit
According to the DOT/NTSB Interagency Agreement, the Safety Board IIO is in
charge of the investigation and if the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMGS) or
the National Highway Traffic Saffety Administration (NHTSA) wish to par-
ticipate in the Investigation, they are welcome. Cooperation is developed with
the local law enforcement agency.
The first on-site action is the Organization Meeting which is chaired by the
NTSB IIC or a Safety Board Member,* if one is present. The investigative plan
is developed and the groups go to the accident scene for orientation before
beginning their tasks.
The Human Factors Group interviews drivers and witnesses to verify Iden-
tities, injuries, and obtain written statements. The coroner is requested to
provide autopsy and death certificate reports. Driver records are checked.
In cases of suspected driver culpability, a background check is conducted of
the drivers employment, his training, and driving reputation.
Occupant-vehicle contact points are carefully examined to explain injuries
and/or ejections. Occupant restraint systems are examined.
The Vehicle Group conducts a detailed in-depth investigation of ttie involved
vehicles. Some of the major items covered include : vehicle identification ; vehicle
damage and deformation documentation; witness statement examination; tires;
physical evidence at the scene; and speed. Systems checks are made on the
steering mechanism, brakes, suspension, electrical components, and driyetrain.
Maintenance and operational records are also investigated.
The Highway /Environmental Group documents the environment and sur-
roundings of the accident location. Documentation includes recording the existing
cross section of the highway, characteristics of the pavement surface, alignment
and meteorological factors. This documentation requires the examination of
construction and maintenance records. Traffic control devices are surveyed,
skid marks, debris, spilled materials, and other physical evidence of the
accident is also investigated.
When the investigation is completed, a final meeting is held to make sure that
everyone has all available information.
Before leaving the scene, the IIC meets with the State or local law enforcement
agency, highway department personnel, etc., to share information and data.
Each Group chairman, with the cooperation of his personnel, prepares a report
of the facts determined by their investigation ; an analysis of these facts ; con-
clusions as to their relation and the probable cause of the accident; and sug-
gestions for NTSB safety recommendations.
The ICC holds a report outline meeting with the group chairman and in-
terested parties to develop an outline and to determine the scope of the final
report.
The draff of the final report is prepared by the IIC. It is then formally con-
sidered by the Safety Board, probable cause is determined and the report is
released to the public.
Contained in the report will be the NTSB recommendations which will be di-
rected to governmental agencies and the private sector. These recommendations
will be for safety improvements which will help to prevent the future occurrence
of this type of accident. The NTSB hns follow-up procedures to keep track of
recommendations and their compliance rate.
* Rafpty Board Membprs are on a rotntinf? *'Go Team" T.lst.
Digitized by
Google
57
NATIONAL TRAMS TORTATION SAFETY BOARD
MAJOR HICtlUAY ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION
ORGANIZATION
Fiao niASE
INVESTIGATOR-IN-CHARCE 1
OFFICE
or
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
BUREAU OF 1
TECJWOLOJY.t-
HUMAN FACTOR'S
CROUP
(NTSB CHAIRMAN)
-I
POLICE AGENCY UITH
JURISDICTION
bMCS REPKESENTATIVE*
«- NHTSA REPRESENTATIVE*
STAl-E DUIVER LICENSE
ADMINISTRATION
REPRESENTATIVE
CORONER'S OFFICE
REPRESENTATIVE
BEPRFSENTATIV E
, AUii'ORITIES
FIELD OFFICE
LIAISON
VDilCLE FACTORS CROUP
(NTSB Cl(AIRIVa<)
— [ IIMCS REPRESENTATIVE* |
NH?SA REPRESENTATIVE*!
VEHICLE MANUFACTURER
kLPilLJENTATIVE
VEHICLE COMPONENT
MFC. REPRESENTATIVE
STATE MOTOR VEHICLE
ADMINISTRATOR REPRESEKTATIVE
CARRIER'S REPRESENTATIVE
HIGHWAY-ENVIRONMENT GROUP
(NTSB CHAIRMAN)
I
-
STATE DOTij
REPRESENTATIVE
FHWA DIVISION
REPRESENTATIVE
PAVEMENT INDUSTRY
REPRESENTATIVE
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE
MANUFACTURER
TRAFPIC CONTROL
LOCAL POLICE
* Vhtii thay cboot* or art rcquattad to porcielpoto
Chabt 1
Question 5, In your testimony, you cited history and clear jurisdiction as the
reasons that the NTSB allocates more manpower to the investigation of aviation
Accidents as compared with highway accidents. Do you favor this allocation of
NTSB resources? Please explain the reasons for your position, or do you be-
lieve it would be useful for NTSB to expand its programs in the truck safety
Area?
Answer. The Board's resources are allocated to the aviation and highway
modes according to the merits of each and the requirements of the statute. We
do not believe that it is desirable to reduce resources in one field to serve an-
other. It would not be desirable for NTSB to further expand relatively that
part of its highway safety program which related to truck safety. Among
highway accidents investigated by NTSB since its inception, more than 50 per-
cent related to truck safety. There has already been a strong emphasis on truck
accidents. Nearly all of these accidents involved trucks in interstate commerce.
The system of investigating aircraft accidents has been tailored over time to
the needs in that mode. Expansion of Safety Board functions to cover other
modes has permitted some economics in use of specialists common to all modes ;
hat further significant use of the resources developed for aviation investiga-
tion to support other modes is impractical because specialied skills are involved.
Hence, we feel that a direct increase in surface resources at the exi)ense of
aviation would be imwise as the Board is so small that economics of specializa-
tion in aviation become relevant. A decrease can have a more than proportionate
impact on capabilities. Since there was no change in aviation responsibility, but
an increase in other modes, incremental resources for the latter should be
considered.
Question 6. In testimony the Department of Transportation states S. 2970
should provide for a review procedure within that agency (DOT, utilizing ad-
ministrative law judges following the requirements of the Administrative Pro-
.cedures Act). This approach provides guarantees of due process while also faeili-
Digitized by
Google
58
tating eflacient administration of the program. Do you believe that such an
approach would be more efficient and more appropriate than the review provi-
sions of S. 2970, as presently drafted? Please explain.
Answer. We do not believe such an approach would be more efficient nor more
appropriate than the review provisions of S. 2970. If the DOT proposal to pro-
vide the review procedure within the DOT itself were to be accepted, it is unclear
if the decisions of the law judges would be the final order of the Secretary which
could be appealed to the Courts, or whether there would be permitted an appeal
to the Secretary or his designee. If the law judges were organizationally located
in DOT and their decisions were final (i.e. appealable directly to the Courts),
alleged violators would be deprived of final administrative review, with power to
affirm, modify, or vacate their sanctions. Based on the Board's experience, the
function of final administrative review tends to greatly reduce the number of
cases appealed to the courts. If, on the other hand, the DOT proposal envisions
that final action would be taken by the Secretary or his designee, we believe
the benefits of the due process safeguards envisioned by requiring Administra-
tive Procedures Act hearings would be weakened by returning the final decision
to the same administrative enforcement agency (albeit at a higher organisational
level) which issued the original citation or order. Under this arrangement, even
if there were no actual loss of objectivity or independence in having the head of
the agency issuing the citation review the validity of his subordinates' enforce-
ment actions, the appearance of such lack of objectivity would be strong. Thus,
in either event, a complete separation of the enforcement function from the
hearing and review function by assigning each function to a different agency,
as currently provided for in S. 2970, would seem to be preferable.
Question 7. You spoke of truck regulation as a "manager's nightmare" and
suggested that the responsible persons come back with a management approach.
What sort of approach would the National Transportation Safety Board favor?
Answer. In saying that "right now it would l)e a manager's nightmare", we were
referring to the situation at present in obtaining adequate enforcement of truck
safety regulation on highways. There was a problem in coordination of data and
a shortage of resources. Further, work is being done with State officials who are
conducting some enforcement action under agreements with the Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration. This situation is com-
plex. NTSB cannot design an overall approach to enforcement. That is the task
of the responsible i)ersons in the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. A total manage-
ment approach in difficult to apply to that situation because many jurisdictiiHiSt
thousands of carriers, and the different mechanisms for applying penalties.
The previous BMCS approach to obtaining enforcement with cooperation of
States was based on agreements with the States and a low funding level of
efforts. We intended to say that a full management design of an approach to this
problem would include a broader scale study which could be reported to Congress
as a basis for a broad approach to the enforcement problem.
Question 8. The figures for the number of trucks on the road presented by
different persons during the course of the hearings differ widely. Please supply the
figures which you used for the various types of trucks and their sources for the
Committee.
Answer. The number I mentioned dealt with trucking employees. The figure
". . . approximately 9 million trucking employees ..." was obtained from the
American Tnicking Association's (ATA) Research Review, Number 196, March
15, 1978. It cites 1976 trucking employment as estimated by ATA's Department of
Interstate Cooperation, and includes "drivers, helpers, dock hands, clerks, execu-
tives, mechanics and the like." The actual number cited in the Research Review
is 9,098,000.
The Chairman. Mr. Heber Hardy, chainnan of the Nevada Public
Service Commission, \ntional Association of RejO^iilatory Utility Com-
missioners.
Digitized by
Google
59
STATEMENT OP HEBEB HABDT, CHAIBHAN OF NEVADA PUBLIC
SEBVICE COMMISSION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP BEGULA-
TOBY TITILITY COMMISSIONEBS; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL
BODOEBS, OENEBAL COUNSEL; AND MABOO JAMES, DIBECTOB,
CONOBESSIONAL BELATIONS
Mr. Hardy. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Heber
P. Hardy. I am the second vice president of the National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, commonly known as the
NARUC.
I am also chairman of the Xevada Public Service Commission, and
have served as a member of such commission since February 1971.
I am accompanied at the witness table today by Paul Rodgei-s,
NARUC general counsel; and Margo James, NAkUC, director of
congressional relations.
Members of the NARUC appreciate your invitation to make their
views known on S. 2970, a bill proposing the Truck Safety Act of 1978.
NARUC would like to offer qualified support for the principle em-
bodied in S. 2970. The history of motor carrier safety regulation gen-
erally recognizes that motor carrier safetv warrants special regulatoiy
attention at both the Federal and State levels, to be distinct from the
general highway safety regulations such as traffic and speed laws
and periodic inspection appropriate for automobile and small com-
mercial vehicles. Therefore, I say qualified support, because recent
experience has also shown that the effectiveness or any program which
se^s to divide nationwide regulatory responsibilities between Federal
and State agencies is diminished in direct proporton to the pervasive-
ness of Federal control.
While the present bill would have the effect of revesting authority
with the Secretary of Transportation over interstate motor carrier
safety and enabling the States to share the responsibilities of enforce-
ment, the legislation is deficient in two significant respects.
First, section 4, paragraph 3, pages 2 to 3, defines commerce in
such a manner as to invoke the full power of the Federal Government
under the commerce clause of the Constitution and, thereby, would
bring within the scope of the bill the safety of operations of intrastate
motor carriers, which is now under State jurisdiction.
Second, section 13, pages 15 through 17, injects excessive Federal
control into the matter of State enforcement of the safety standards
which may be promulgated under the bill.
Our first objection is based on the knowledge that once the full power
of the commerce clause is invoked for the benefit of a Federal agency,
there is virtually no activity which may not be touched by the agency.
Thus, where section 4(3) extends the scope of the act to cover not only
interstate transportation but that which affects trade, traffic, or trans-
portation between a State and any place outside of such State, it is
evident that the State commissions will lose much of their traditionally
exclusive jurisdiction over intrastate activities.
Digitized by
Google
There is no evideijce that State mmlaHoD of intrastate motor car-
rier safety has produced a discreditafale record.
The next paragraph of my prepared testimoDy makes a major point :
The safety of longViistance interstate carriers cannot he controlled by
one State alone. We thus sripport Federal efforts to legnlate such
oi>eration£-
I would also like to comment on the remarks of other witnessK re-
garding? the joint Federal-State partnership for road inspections. TVe
hare eiffht inspectors in the State of Xerada, for instance, compared
to one DOT inspector. However, there are no Federal inspectors m the
State of Nevada at the present time since the one assi^ed recent^
died- We have periodically and faithfully cooperated with the DOT
in road checks. As a matter of fact, while at the Wendover inspection
DOT Inspector Bill Murphy passed away in the eveninf .
So the States do cooperate and do reconmiend that this cooperation
}/e continued.
The second ooncevr. of the XARUC i> that section 13 requires the
Secretary of Transportaticn to fully monitor minute details of each
.State's enforcement proffram. There is a vast difference between set-
ting imiform standani: for motor carriers to be enforced by the States,
and settinfir f=tandards which regulate the States themselves.
Under the bill, a State would not onhr lose financial assistance were
5t unable to meet poter.tially arb^traiy V'^derfil OTiielines, but would
lose the very right to protect its citizens from a carrier's violation of
Federal safetv standards.
The XARtT believes that each State knows best the allocation of
resources, qualifications for State employees, and level of inspection
effort necessary to meet its individual needs. Too nuich Federal over-
sight mav effectively preclude State participation.
I woufd like to bring to your attention the fact that all of the States,
including Nevada, participate in the Federal-State program estab-
lished under the Xatural Gas Pipeline Safetv Act of 1968. We feel the
program is effective and think there's a goo^ cooperative effort going
on.
However, the Office of Pipeline Safety Operations, which promul-
gated the standards for the DOT. has correctly viewed this act as
requiring only that it determine and promulgate substantive regula-
tions for natural gas pipelines, not for State agencv qualification. Its
oversight of the >tate programs has been limited to insuring on a
State-by-State basis that the standards are being enforced. TTiis is
carried out through periodic field investigations.
As I indicated earlier, all of the States as well as Puerto Rico and
the District of Columbia are involved in enforcing natural gas pipe-
line safety standards.
I have included in my prepared testimony evidence of the impressiTB
record which exist*? regarding the results of that cooperative effort.
However, the Federal Sailroad Safety Act of 1970. another cooper-
ative program modeled after the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
is a different story. The Federal Government has imposed such' rigid
standards that the results have not been nearly as gooa. Today, 8 years
after the passage of that act. only 24 States'are participating in the
railroad safety program.
Digitized by
Google
61
The primary reason for this has been the unduly burdensome quali-
fications required of State inspectors and the inflexibility of the FRA
in its approach to State qualifications. They have rigid requirements
for State track inspectors : 6 years of experience in the field or comple-
tion of a 21/^-year training course.
A typical problem set forth in the prepared testimony is that of the
State of Oregon, where a question as to the salary to be paid arose. The
State finally worked out the problem, but after considerable difficulty,
since the Federal Government required a considerably higher salary
for that position than the one originally set by the State civil service
commission. Thus one State was able to break down a barrier erected
by the FRA to State participation ; others have not.
Accordingly, the rf ARUC respectfully urges that section 13 of S.
2970 be revised to reflect the concept of the NARUC proposed Motor
Carrier Safety Act which was introduced in the 9l8t Congress and in
the 92d Congress.
A copy of the text is attached to my prepared testimony. In essence,
the NAKUC proposed act would require the DOT to establish mini-
mum standards which the participating States would be required to
adopt. The States would enforce these standards under a grant pro-
gram, based upon their willingness to participate and cooperate with
the minimum standards set forth in the act.
In conclusion, the XARUC looks forward to the opportunity to
work with the committee in fashioning legislation which would
strengthen the Federal-State partnership m the field of motor carrier
safety.
We thank you very much for the opportunity to present our views
to your distinguished committee.
The Chairman. Thank you for a fine statement.
In your statement you expressed the belief that the States are doing
an adequate and effective job in motor carrier safety regulation. Now,
this bill contains a provision which would authorize $100 million
from the highway trust fund for State truck safety programs.
Is this additicmal funding necessary, if the States are already doing
a good job in that area ?
Mr. Hardy. I think the Congress must examine carefully what kind
of "carrot" is offered the States to get their participation.
I believe there is some need for some Federal participation in fund-
Right now, for instance, our eight inspectors probably do much,
much more as far as safety enforcement than the DOT does in the
State of Nevada, because DOT simply doesn't have tiie inspectors
there. And in fairness, I suppose we ought to be omipensated some-
what for participating in road checks on a regular basis. Our inspec-
tors will stop carriers for safety checks as well as commodity checks.
When they find problems, if they are serious Plough, they'll put the
truck out of service, particularly if it's carrying hazardous materials.
If they're not that serious, they file a report with the DOT or the ICC,
whichever is appropriate, and a f ollowup is done.
The NARUC position is that there ought to be ^rant-in-aid pro-
gram of assistance to the States, but not necessarily $100 millicm.
That seems like a lot of money to the folks out in Nevada.
35^92 O - 79 - 5
Digitized by
Google
62
The Chairman. In how many States is the State utility commis-
sion agency responsible for regulating intrastate truck safety t
Mr. Hardy. Are you speaking of the economic regulatory commis-
sion?
The Chairman. The State utility commission, such as your commis*
sion. How many of those commissions in how many States are respon-
sible for regulating intrastate truck safety ?
Mr. Hardy. The large majority of States have this responsibility
although some of them, such as New York and California, have inde-
pendent departments of transportation. Nevada does not, although
there's a possibility of having our DOT made a part of the highway
department. Nevertheless the State legislature must resolve the prob-
lem of allowing the PSC to retain some of its safety jurisdiction if
Srimary jurisdiction is to rest with the State DOT. At present
fevada enforces most motor carrier safety problems through the regu-
latory agency.
The Chairman. Is there an area in your data about the respective
truck safety programs in each of the 50 States ?
Mr. Hardy. I'm not totally familiar with the other States.
Mr. Rodgers, could you answer that?
Mr. Rodgers. We have a list of the States that are engaged in intra-
state motor carrier safety regulation and we'd be glad to provide the
tables, the information we have, for the committee. If the committee
wishes more, we could send questionnaires to our member commissions.
The Chairman. Do you nave information about the number of in-
spectors and how they're trained and this sort of information ?
Mr. Rodgers. Yes, sir; we should have that information in our "1976
Annual Report on Utility and Carrier Regulation."
The Chairman. Would you supply that for the record^ for us?
Now, in your statement, Mr. Hardy, you cited the Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety Act as a model for Federal-State relationships. Yet
that program has been severely criticized for its unevenness by some.
Now, how do you think that necessary nationwide uniformity may
be best achieved without undue intinision to the States ?
Mr. Hardy. I'm not so sure that absolute uniformity is necessarily
the highest goal, as you indicated earlier.
I can only speak from experience in the State of Nevada. The Nat-
ural Gas Safety Act has worked extremely well. They don't have in-
spectors in the State. We do. Our man attends seminars and training
sessions on a cooperative basis. I think it's working out extremely well.
I also think that, with a stepped-up program it would work extremely
well for motor carrier safety regulations.
I can't respond to the unevenness of enforcement of natural gas
safety programs because I'm not familiar with that particular
problem.
The Chairman. NARUC does not have a firm position on this issue
of the $100 million to be provided for the State truck safety program.
Mr. Hardy. The NARUC has taken the position that a grant-in-aid
program, as set forth in the NARUC bill, would be appropriate. Since
the States would assist the Federal Government in carrying out its
functions, the States should receive Federal financial assistance.
» See p. 71.
Digitized by
Google
63
The Chairman. Now, getting back to these checks that were made,
for example, in Wendover, Utah, and St. George, Utah. Both of them
are outside your State, but both of them have an impact there, because
those highways cross through Nevada.
Did any of your inspectors work in cooperation with those tests ?
Mr. Hardy. The Wendover operation I would suspect was carried
out on the Nevada side, because our inspectors were there.
The Chairman. I see. From the Nevada side. And you had your
State inspectors there.
Mr. Hardy. Yes; I believe we had two out of the eight Nevada
inspectors there.
The Chairman. WTiat about the Utah one being on the Utah side,
and then you had no inspectors there.
Mr. Hardy. We did not participate. We very often participate in
southern Nevada on interstate 15. I believe we do this at least twice
a year and sometimes more during a period of need. It's been a very
cooperative program. The DOT sets up a proposed schedule for these
road checks, and our inspectors make sure tney're there. Our inspectors
are very positive about the cooperative approach in field enforcement.
I would to a large degree support the statement of the previous wit-
ness, that a greater emphasis ought to be on field enforcement.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Hardy,
Mr. Rodgers.
[The statement follows :]
Statement of the National Association of Reoulatoby Utility €k)icia8sioinEB8
Mr. Chairmaii and members of the committee, my name is Heber P. Hardy, and
I am the Second Vice President of the National Association of Regulatory UtiUty
Commisioners, commonly know as the "NARUC." I am also the Chairman of the
Nevada PubUc Service Commission and have served as a member of such Com-
mission since February 15, 1971.
I am accompanied at the witness table today by Paul Rodgers, NARUC General
Counsel, and Biargo James, NARUC Director of Congressional Relations.
The NARUC is a quasi-governmental nonprofit organization founded on
March 5, 1889. Within its membership are the governmental agencies of the
50 States and of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
engaged in the regulation of utilities and carriers. Our chief objective is to serve
the consumer interest by seeking to improve the quaUty and effectiveness of
public regulation in America. Significantly, the vast majority of NARUC members
are engaged in the safety regulation of motor carriers.
The members of the NARUC appreciate your invitation to make their views
known on S. 2970, a bill proposing the Truck Safety Act of 197a
The NARUC would like to offer qualified support for the principle embodied
in S. 2970. The history of motor carrier safety regulation generally recognizes
that motor carrier safety warrants special regulatory attention at both the
Federal and State levels to be distinct from general highway safety regulations
such as traflSc and speed laws nad periodic inspection appropriate for automobiles
and small commercial vehicles. Therefore, I say ''qualified support** because rec^it
experience has also shown that the effectiveness of any program which seeks to
divide nationwide regulatory responsibilities between Federal and State agencies
is diminished in direct proportion to the pervasiveness of Federal control.
While the present bill would have the effect of revesting authority in the
Secretary of Transportation over interstate motor carrier safety and enabling
the States to share the responsibilities of enforcement, the legislation is deficient
In two significant respects. First, Section 4(3), pages 2-3, defines "commerce" in
such a-manner as to invoke the full power of the Federal Government under the
Commerce Clause of the Cmistitution and, thereby, would bring within the scope
of the bill the safety of (q)erations of intrastate motor carriers which \s, now
Digitized by
Google
64
under State jurisdiction. Second, Section 18, pages 15-17, injects excessive Federal
control into the matter of State enforcement of the safety standards which may
be promulgated under the bill.
FEDERAL SAFETY JURISDICTION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO INTERSTATE MOTOR GABBIEB8
Our first objection is based on the knowledge that once the full power of the
Commerce Clause is invoked for the benefit of a Federal agency, there is yirtoally
no activity which may not be touched by that agency. Compare : United Statet v.
Employing Plasterers, 347 U.S. 186, 74 S. Ct. 462, 98 L. Ed. 618 (1954), and
Hospital Building Co, v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738^ 96 St. Ct. 1848,
48 L.Ed. 2d 388 (1976).
Thus, where Section 4(8) extends the scope of the Act to cover not only
interstate transportation but also that which "affects trade, trafilc, or trans-
portation between a State and any place outside of such State", it is evident Uiat
the State commissions will lose much of their traditionally exclusive jurisdiction
over intrastate activities. There is no evidence that State regulation of intra-
state motor carrier safety has produced a discreditable record.
I suspect the real problem, the problem most effectively solved by Federal
legislation, is the safety of long distance, interstate trucking operations over
which the States are unable to exercise full control. For example, maximum hours,
qualifications and working conditions of interstate drivers, as a truck moves from
State to State, cannot be completely controlled by one State alone. To the extent
the bill addresses these issues, the NARUC lends its support. However, the
NARUC strongly urges that the language be redrafted to restrict Federal
jurdisdiction to interstate (q)erations alone.^
THE PROPOSED FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP FOB INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
SHOULD RE STRENGTHENED
The second concern of the NARUC is that Section 13 requires the Secretary of
Transportation to fully monitor minute details of each State's enforcement pro-
gram. There is a vast difference between seitting uniform standards for motor
carriers, to be enforced by the States, and setting standards which regulate the
States themselves. Under the bill a State would not only lose financial assistance
were it unable to meet potentially arbitrary Federal guidelines, but would lose
the very right to protect its citiasens from a carrier's violation of Federal safety
standards.
The NARUC believes that each State knows best the allocation of resources,
qualifications for Sta>be employees, and level of inspection effort to meet its indi-
vidual needs. Too much Federal oversight may effectively preclude State partici-
pation. Perhaps this point is best illustrated through comparison of two existing
Federal/ State cooperative safety programs.
Under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
§1671, et seq., the Secretary of Transportation is required to issue Federal
standards for natural gas pipelines and, upon agreement with the States, allow
for State agency enforcement. The Oflace of Pipeline Safety Operations, which
promulgated the Standards for DOT, has correctly vi'ewed this Act as requiring
only that it determine and promulgate substantive regulations for natural gas
pipelines, not for State agency qualification. Its oversight of the State programs
has been limited to insuring, on a State by State basis, that the standards aro
being enforced. This is accomplished through periodic subjective inspection in
the field, rather than through rigid Federal guidelines. If there is doubt that a
State is performing adequately, its participation may be terminated after
hearing.
^ This amendment may be accomplished by :
(1) Striking from Section 4(8), page 2, line 24, and lines 1-2, page 8, the FoUowing :
", or which affects trade, traffic, or v^ansportation between a State and any place oulme
of such State" ;
(2) Striking from Section 4(4), page 8, line 4, ''a business affecting" ; and
^ (8) Striking from Section 4(4), page 8, Une 6, "business" and inserting in lieu thereof
"commerce".
Also, the following sentence should be added at the end of Section 18, page 10, line 4:
"Nothing in the Act shall be construed to interfere with the exclusive exercise by each
State of the power of safetji regulation of intrastate commerce by motor carriers on the
highwavs thereof." Note: Similar language is contained in Part II of the Interstate
Commerce Act. 40 U.8.C., Sec. 802(b) (1).
Digitized by
Google
65
In 1977 all of the States, Puerto Rico and the District of Colombia were
Involved in enforcing natural gas pipeline safety standards. This required a
State commitment of $5 million. By 1982 these State expenditures are expected
to increase to $8 million. During the year State inspectors conducted over 14,000
inspection of more than 2,800 gas operations resulting in the correction of over
4,200 deficiencies.
Under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as amended, 45 U.S.G. 431-441,
which was modeled after the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, the Federal Rail-
road Administration has promulgated Just such rigid standards as would be
imposed under section 13. The result has be^i disastrous. Today, eight years
after the passage of that Act, only 24 States are participating in the railroad
safety program. The primary reason for this has been the unduly burdensome
qualifications required of State inspectors and the inflexibility of the FRA in its
approach to State qualification.
Before a State track inspector is considered qualified to perform any inde-
pendent inspections, he must have 6 years of experience in the field or complete a
2^ year training course ! While we consider these requirements unreasonable on
their face, the argument advanced by the FRA is that the program requires
uniformity and the qualifications remain in effect.
A good example of the problems this has caused comes from Oregon which
became a participant in 1974. The Rail Safety Division in that State found that
in order to attract persons meeting the FRA qualifications for State track
inspectors it would have to offer an annual salary of between $19,000-120,000.
However, the State Civil Service Commission regulation placed a limit on
salaries for such a position of $14,000-|15,000. This impasse was overcome only
after extensive negotiations between the two State agencies resulting in the
reclassification of the job to the level of professional civil engineer. Thus, one
State was able to break down the barrier erected by the FRA to State participa-
tion — others have not
Accordingly, the NARUC respectfully urges that Section 13 of S. 2970 be
revised to reflect the concept of the NARUC proposed Motor Carrier Safety Act
which was introduced in the 91st Congress ' and the 92nd Congress '. A copy of
the text appears in the Appendix to this Statement.
In conclusion, the NARUC looks forward to the opportunity of working with
the Committee in the fashioning of legislation which will strengthen the Federal-
State partnership in the field of motor carrier safety.
Thank you for your attention.
Extract From the 83rd NARUC Annual Convention Proceedinob
Pages 798^806 (1971)
motor carrier safety act
(H.R. 3322 by Rooney (D.-Pa.) ; S. 1912 by Magnuson (D.-Wash.) ; 92nd
Congress]
JustiflcatUm
The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C, Sees. 401 et seq.; 80 Stat 731)
provides for grants-in-aid to assist a State in conducting a highway safety pro-
gram which meets Federal minimum standards. The Governor of the State is
responsible for administering the program, including the determination as to
which State agencies are to participate therein and receive Federal funds.
The Act is drawn in broad terms and applies to all vehicles that trav^ the
highways.
Howevw, the history of motor carrier safety regulation generally recognises
that motcM- carriw safety warrants special regulatory attention at both the
Federal and State levels to be distinct from general highway safety regulations
such as trafl9c and speed laws and periodic inspection ai^ropriate for auto-
mobiles and small ccmimercial vehicles.
The enactment of the proposed Motor Carrier Safety Act would provide Fed-
eral grants4n-aid directly to the State commissions in administering their motor
'Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1969—8. 1920 by Magnoson (D-Waih.) ; H.K. 12149 by
52Si?SL^S:^'^llif«^ti55?^ ^^ ^^^^ (D-Md.)"^; 8Ut NAEtC Animal Con^tton l^
eeedlnga, VV, 178-185 (1969).
/»i3KfK S^I^S J?5S^ 4^^*~^?? ^22 by Rooney (D-Pa.) : 8. 1912 to Magnoaon
(D-Wash.) ; 83rd NARlfC Annual Convention Proceedhigi, mi. 798-806 (1971).
Digitized by
Google
66
carrier safety programs and in enforcing Federal and State safety laws con-
cerning highway transportation. The grants-in-aid would be paid by the Depart-
ment of Transportation to the State commissions whose safety and enforcement
programs meet minimum Federal standards.
Furthermore, the adoption of the proposed Act would provide financial
assistance to further implement Public Law 89-170 (79 Stat. 648) which, as
amended by the law creating the Department of Transportation, authorized the
Department to make cooperative agreements with the various States to enforce
the safety laws and regulations of the Federal and State governments concerning
highway transportation. Pursuant to Public Law 89-170, the agencies of 48
States have executed cooperative agreements with DOT to enforce such safety
laws.
The proposed Motor Carrier Safety Act is the same as the NARUC proposed
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1969 which was introduced in the Ninety-first
Congress as S. 1920 by Magnuson (D.-Wash.), H.R. 12149 by Rooney (D.-Pa.).
and H.R. 12266 by Friedel (D.-Md.). Representative Rooney on February 2,
1971, automatically reintroduced this legislation in tlie Ninety-second Congress
as H.R. 3322.
The text of the proposed Act reads as follows :
A BILL to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to provide assistance to the States in
establishing, developing, and administering State motor carrier safety programs to
insure the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles, and for other purposes
Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
Sec. 1. This Act may be cited as the "Motor Carrier Safety Act."
Sec. 2. Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, is amended by
inserting after section 205 thereof a new section 205a as follows :
"Motor Carrier Safety
"Sec. 205a (1). Policy, Purpose and Assistance to the States.
**(A) The Congress declares that public policy requires measures to reduce
the causes of death, injury and damage resulting from the operation of com-
mercial motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce on the Nation's high-
ways, and finds that a program of joint Federal-State cooperation in tile
enforcement of safety regulations pertaining to such vehicles is needed to achieve
this end.
"(B) In furtherance of this policy the Secretary is authorized to cooperate
with appropriate State commissions in establishing, developing and admin-
istering a State motor carrier safety program designed to insure the safe opera-
tion of commercial motor vehicles on the highways by regulating the safety of
operation and equipment, and the qualifications and maximum hours of service
of employees, and in providing for the effective enforcement of such programs.
"Sec 205a (2). Definitions,
"As used in this section —
"(A) The term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of Transportation.
"(B) The term 'motor carrier' means any person operating in commercial
service in interstate or foreign commerce on the public highways a motor vehicle
with six or more wheels and (i) a gross weight in excess of 10,000 pounds or
(ii) designed to transport more tlian one ton of cargo or more than six
passengers including the driver.
"(C) The term 'motor carrier safety program' means a range of activities
specifically designed to insure the safe operation of motor carriers on tlie public
highways, including qualification and maximum hours of service of employees,
and safety of operation and equipment.
"(D) The term 'State' means each of the several States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
"(E) The term 'State commission' means the State department, commission,
agency, oflScer, or ofiScial authorized by State law to adopt or enforce regulations
governing the safety of operation of motor carriers.
"(F) The term 'national organization of the State commissions* means the
national organization of the State commissions referred to in section 202(b)
and 205(f) of the Act.
"Sec 205a (3). Federal Assistance fob Motob Cabbieb Safety Pbookams.
"The Secretary is authorized to make grants for the purpose of establishing,
increasing and maintaining motor carrier safety programs administered by
Digitized by
Google
67
state commissions to reduce the causes of death, injury and property damage
on the highways, and to develop Federal-State cooperation in the conduct or
these programs.
"Sec. 205a (4). Minimum Proobam.
"The Secretary- shall establish by order a minimum motor carrier safety pro-
gram to be used in determining the eligibility of a State to receive grants under
this section. The safety aspect of such motor carrier programs may be based, to
the extent the Secretary finds appropriate, on existing motor carrier safety
regulations and hazardous material regulations.
"Sec. 205a (5). Minimum Motob Cabbieb Regulations and Enfobcement.
"(A) The Secretary shall formulate minimum motor carrier safety regula-
tions, minimum hazardous material regulations and minimum standards for the
enforcement of such regulations, after consultation and cooperation with the
State commissions, the national organization of the State commissions, and the
National Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee provided for in subsection
205a(8)(A), which he shall promulgate within two years after this Act takes
effect Five years after this Act takes effect, the State commissions which liave
adopted regulations at least equal to those minimum motor carrier safety regula-
tions and minimum hazardous material regulations and have established enforce-
ment procedures at least equal to those minimum enforcement standards, may
receive grants under this section unless the Secretary finds for good cause shown,
and publishes his reasons for such finding, that a later effective date is in the
public interest. The Secretary may, for good cause and after consultation and
cooperation with the above parties, by order amend or revoke any such minimum
motor carrier safety regulation, hazardous material regulation or enforcement
standard established by him under this section.
"(B) A State commission may adopt such additional or more stringent safety
regulations applicable to motor carriers as are not incompatible with the mini-
mum motor carrier safety regulations and minimum hazardous material regula-
tions promulgated and adopted by the Secretary pursuant to subsection 205a
(5) (A), if such regulations adopted by the State commission are reasonable, do
not constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce, and are required to
better protect the public safety.
"Sec. 205a (6). Gbant Authobization.
"(A) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to State commissions for a
lieriod of two years after this Act takes effect in the amount up to 100 per
centum of the cost of planning, developing, and establishing minimum motor
carrier safety programs in States requiring such assistance, and thereafter,
grants in an amount not to exceed 50 per centum of the cost of maintaining
and further developing effective and continuing motor carrier safety programs.
The Secretary shall make the grants authorized by this subsection only upon
application by the State commission. Whenever a State shall have two or more
State commissions, as determined by the chief legal officer of the State, the State
shall organize a 'Governor's Council' composed of the Governor, or his representa-
tive, and one representative of each State commission, each of whom shall have
one vote, and decisions of the Council shall be by majority vote. Each grant
application shall describe the long range program proposed by the applicant
State to carry out the basic purposes set forth in this section and shall be in
such form and contain such additional information as the Secretary may require.
The Secretary may approve an application for grant only to State commission
which :
"(1) have a State commission or commissions, and in the event of two or
more State commissions, the motor carrier safety program for such State shall
be coordinated by and through the Governor's Council ;
"(2) have on file with the Secretary an approved motor carrier safety pro-
gram with regulations, including enforcement procedures, conforming to the
purposes and requirements of this section ;
"(3) submit an annual work plan satisfactory to the Secretary which shall
disclose the total estimated cost of the annual program ;
"(4) have regulations which, in the Secretary's determination, do not consti-
tute an unreasonable burden on motor carriers ;
"(5) provide assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that Federal funds made
available under this section will be so used as to supplement and, to the extent
practical, increase the amount of funds that the applicant would make available
for motor carrier safety in the absence of such Federal funds ; and
Digitized by
Google
68
"(6) provide assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that its expenditure of
State funds not derived from Federal sources, for its motor carrier safety pro-
gram, will be maintained at a level which does not fall below the average level
of such expenditures for its last two full fiscal years preceding the date of enact-
ment of this section.
"(B) The Secretary shall not disapprove any State's application under this
subsection without first providing the State commission concerned reasonable
notice and opportunity in a hearing to present its views. Each State commission
receiving a grant under this section shall submit an annual report on its program
containing such information as the Secretary requires.
"(C) Upon application by the national organization of the State commissions
submitted on or before September 30th of any calendar year, the Secretary shall
pay out of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act, or other available funds,
the sum of $20,000, plus such additional sums as he deems justified, to such
national organization, to pay, during the ensuing calendar year, the reasonable
cost of coordinating the activities of the State commissions, to assist them in the
maintenance and improvement of motor carrier safety programs, and to render
assistance to such commissions in other regulatory matters.
"(D) Funds authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year to carry out
this section shall be used to aid the State commissions* to conduct the motor
carrier safety programs approved in accordance with such section and shall be
apportioned by the Secretary among the several States on or before January 1
next preceding the commencement of each fiscal year. Such funds for each fiscal
year shall be apportioned among the several States in the following manner :
"One-half in the ratio which the population of each State bears to the total
population of all the States as shown by the latest available Federal census ; and
"One-half in the ratio which motor carriers use the public highways within
the State, based on the reportable miles operated by them in the State for motor
fuel tax purposes or on the other appropriate criteria, bears to the total motor
carrier use of the public highways within all the States;
*'Providedf That no State shall receive less than one-fourth of 1 i)er centum
of each year's apportionment or $50,000, whichever is the greater.
"(E) On or before January 1 next preceding the commencement of each fiscal
year, the Secretary shall certify to each State commission the funds which he
has apportioned hereunder to each State for such fiscal year. As soon as practi-
cable after the apportionment has been made for each fiscal year, the State
commission of any State desiring to obtain financial assistance shall submit to
the Secretary for his approval the State's motor carrier safety program for the
use of the funds apportioned for such fiscal year. The Secretary shall act <m
each State program as soon as practicable after it has been submitted. The
Secretary may approve any program in whole or in part. His approval of any
program shall be deemed a contractual obligation of the Federal Government
for the payment of its apportioned contribution thereto. If a State commission
elects not to accept the funds apportioned to it, such funds shall be reapiK>r-
tioned in accordance with the above formula, among the other States whose
State commissions are eligible to receive Federal funds under this section.
"(F) The Secretary may, in his discretion, from time to time as work pro-
gresses make payments to a State commission for the annual program costs
incurred by it. These payments shall at no time exceed the Federal share of the
program costs incurred to the date of the voucher covering such payment.
After completion of an annual program and approval of the final voucher by
the Secretary, the State commission shall be entitled to payment out of the ap-
propriate funds apportioned to it of the unpaid balance of the Federal share
on account of such program. Such payments shall be made to such official or
officials or depository as may be designated by the State commission and au-
thorized under the laws of the State to receive public funds of the State.
"(G) State personnel, compensated in whole or in part from Federal funds
received under this section, shall be authorized, while engaged in the conduct
of the motor carrier safety program, to enforce the safety and economic laws
of the State concerning highway transportation.
"Sec. 205a (7). Research, Training and Development.
"In order to encourage training, research and development in the motor car-
r ' safety field, the Secretary is authorized to conduct research and develop-
] It and in addition is authorized —
Digitized by
Google
60
"(A) to make cantiniiiiiir studies and undertake apiNroacfaes, tedmiqnes, aj9-
• terns, equipment, and devices to improre motor carrier safety ;
''(B) to enter into contracts with public agencies, institutions of higher edu-
cation, private organizations and individuals to conduct research, demcmstration,
or special projects pertaining to the purposes described in this secticm, including
the development of new or improved i^MProacdies, techniques, systems, equip-
m^it and devices to improve motor carrier safety ;
"(C) to provide instructional assistance to the States for the programs author-
ized under this section, and special workshops for the presentation and dissemina-
tioc of information resulting from research, demonstrations, and special projects
authorized by ttns subsection ;
"(D) to carry oat a program of collection and dissemination of information
obtained by the I>epartment or other Federal agencies. State and public agencies,
institutions of higher education, or private organizations engaged in projects
under this subsection, including information relating to new or improved ap-
proaches, te<4miques, systems, equipment, and devices to improve motor carrier
safety ; and
"(E> to make grants to the national organization of the State commissions, or
oth»' national organizations representing State governments or State officials, to
pay up to 50 per centum of the costs of providing training to officials or employees
of State commissions relative to the conduct of their motor carrier safety
programs.
"Sexx 203a (8). Xaitosal Motob Camtfb Safett Anvisoar Commxtizz;
CoOFEMATlOTf.
"(A) There is established in the Departm^it of Transportation a National
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory C^ommittee. composed of the Secretary or an
officer of the Department appointed by him. who shall be Chairman, the Federal
Highway Administrator, and 20 manbers appointed by the Secretary, five of
whom shall be State commissioDers nominated by the national organization <jt
the State commissions. The remainder of the appointed members, having due
regard for the purposes of this subsection, shall be selected from among repre-
sentatives of puUic and private int^ests, contributing to, affected by, or cwi-
cemed with the conduct of motor carrier safety programs, including national
orgnnizatiocs of motor carrier vehicle manufacturers, owners, and operators, as
well as research scientiicts and other individuals who are ei^^rt in this field.
Members of the Committee who are not officers or nnployees of the United States
^laU, while attraiding meetings or ccmferences of such Committee or otherwise
engaged in the buaness of such C<»nmittee. be oititled to receive ccHnpensation at
a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding SlOO per dion. including travel
time, and while away from their homes or regular jdaoes ot business they may be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lien of subsistence, as authorized
by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in the Govoimient serv-
ice employed intermittently. Payments under this section shall not render mem-
bers of fbe Committee employees <»- (rfficials of the United States for any purpose.
'The National Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee liiall advise, consult
with, and make recommendations to. the Secretary on matters relating to the
activities and functions of the Department relative to the c<mduct of motor car-
rier safety programs. The Committee is authorized <1 ) to review training, re-
seardi or dev^opmeot projects or programs submitted to or reccnnmended by it
relative to the eonduet of motor carrier safety programs and recommend to the
Secretmiy any such projects which it believes show prc^nise of making valuable
contributions to the strengthening of such motor carrier safety programs in tie
public interest; and (2) review, prior to issuance, regulations and standards
proposed to be issued by order of the Secretary under the provisions of subsections
205a. (4) and 20^ (Tj) of this sectioc and to make recommendati<His thereon.
Such reeomniendati<ms shall be puldi^ied in connection with the Secretary's
determination or order.
mie Naticmal Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee shall meet from
time to time as the Secretary i*all direct but at least once each vear.
"(B) Hie Secretary shall provide so^ staff and faciUti^ to the Nati<mal
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Conamittee from among the personnel and facili-
ties of the Department of Transportation as are necessary to earrv out the func-
tions of such Committee.
"(C) The Secretary is autlKnized and directed to asast co« e and eon
with other Federal defiartmcsitB and agpnrtes. State and loeax sm
Digitized by
Google
70
vate industry, the national organization of tlie State commissions, and other
interested parties, in order to carry out the provisions of this section.
"Sec. 205a (9). Administration and Reporting.
"(A) The Secretary shall carry out the provisions of this section through the
Federal Highway Administration.
"(B) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Secretary from enforcing any
other provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act relating to motor carriers in
those States which have not adopted the minimum motor carrier safety regula-
tions and the minimum hazardous materials regulations.
"(C) The Secretary shall submit to the President for transmission to the Con-
gress on or before January 1 of each year a report on the activities carried on
pursuant to the provisions of this section during the preceding full fiscal year
and recommendations for future legislation, if any.
"Sec. 3. Authorization of Appropriations.
"(A) For the purpose of carrying out section 205a (6) of the Interstate Com-
merce Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sums of
$ for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $ for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and for the succeeding fiscal years such sums as
the Congress may hereafter authorize. The unexpended balance of sums appro-
priated under this section for any fiscal year shall remain available for expendi-
ture during the next succeeding fiscal year in addition to amounts otherwise
available to carry out this section in such year.
"(B) For the purpose of carrying out section 205a (7) of the Interstate Com-
merce Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to remain available until
expended the sums of $ for the fiscal year ending Jime 30, 1972 ; and
$ for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
71
[The following information was referred to on p. 62:]
i!li
liji
11
T
Hi
Digitized by
Google
72
rtrurt tMwrttrm
■W ».»,K^ >W H I
. e^sJl *t fi.1«l*M
^H* ■tllli.d«« k
1,1m
■Ml. iMT. JUf., A. Ill 1/1,
Km, Vl^il «it« »h*t
u 1^
m*- «>«* i«vi^ «
Kjm. t4>. r^ ev
Md. n^ Ufl, t^-^t-a
hnlfli Tl
e^ 11* A. )*«•' ««<i«ril 1
^ct. >al, I.A, IWII, 1—iifc
KM: M4, p.ji. tvU
HK-t- l#>-*-tl#
»«^. [^> B^ «ll* 11+
, a. u-i|ii; 1-1.4
titi« -fit at I* nwiHPi e
11/
i.e. >A. it*t., a.M-iiiii+,i
. Itl^IJfe lltlllt;^ lAri
*.Ji.i:.t. *»-»
jLrLlEt4 IIJlLt
ftlli* h/vM ftM. Ill
^. Hilda, Tltl- Ur Ck- it
tmm. ^T'-llA. HfiDKl^ tkarvt^ Ikit
2/
I''
1/ II
IS/
Mi^WM
vahirlas incl»da« In r a — carrlara.
j[y Aa of 11/1 S/T«.
U/ auraau of Vahicla ll*««latiea.
a/ Vanont »>iaey of Tranapor tat ian. Dapartaaat of •«•. Mil. '
Carriar Sarvicaa. Stata offlca BallUaf. Naatpaliar. Vanoa
12/
I for c
Digitized by
Google
73
i
!|=
II
u
6
-
II
J
1,1.!
m
s
El I
i
^ )
1
I
I =
i' M
IE !t
i I
E
i t
I
I £3
ii !!
i= i=
1= !l
:i
i H
I II
I i
f f
i i
i i
i I
- i
1= _
n
■I
If !
I I
i »
I i
>ih
II
U
if
11
H
^^ i
.iJ
Pi
il
m
Digitized by
Google
74
ULHl - l^.M-r
I t.l»t - (II.Hi
It t^tH ^ «M,4«
' til, HI
I I.IHT - I 111 HI
i «,nt - til,*!*
* t^m - njt^w
iiiiiiT r lu.aTi
t ■.«« ^ tllrlM
» ■,4« -r III. If*
* b.pHI - IU.»>
ti:«,iH ■' 1^1, m
I14,IW - 111, Hi
tU.4l
1 1.«
IlL.ITF . kit. 411
I *,M4 - llli^Mi
I - »ll.«
« i.UI
fl».l»
lllfUlW
t T.IU
fli.rr^
• t.»*P
« 1,*" '
ll),tf«
«l«,fc"
l»^«v
il*^i»
|1T,M
ii**«*
f *.*li
|IM»
111 .111
t 1rt»
*ll,Et»
■ ». liT
»I4.1%4 '
IIJ,»1T
tll*»ll
«UkTH
Jl^.KI
TvUmr iKlivMi.
frutlap lifTVPm Ut l>«p .
»ifelJe UlllT Eww rtH iMir I.
Pdiltf naitf y(fw(Llr««r If-
■Uf« mi<i* ■
Digitized by
Google
75
Digitized by
Google
76
ti.aM iu,«*
l.PH f t,V»
^ffiS®*-
U.flW I 4, HO
tl«, fXH f 1>. «»
Mltq t^ir^tlw
• • ttatM of AUaka. taatucky. Bw Males. Wrtk CarslUa. M^a Mioi* Zal«a« will ipoa n sitter ■
(1) Calltornla - Motlc* of ItaUstataMnt LC-«T4A r«««lr«d.
(21 lOM -
«. tlali» at ll4»Ulii^ <■■ fri:
•acy to typa 'Liquid eav«ra«a' la Cte afvar rlfht Han d o
Lb Ll^Lt.;] M»d«Ta Ifv^nHTt*! H ^or Pi^ian «1 |*«* * *i* i j ky
■ LiW«d -kr b« iQ^Vil. Pjjti-* m*UT»n> ||»lt> w « w <hlA M
r mivIK fS.OM aiid «S.MO.
All vahlelaa ii
rlar fr«l«ht flO.W
1wn4|l] r^..l^M.
k. ntla* af
(«) U«bl«aa - "Ml It
(SI «M Vlxfla tnek carrlara.
' (•» IOC - MvllM **lr i» 'm^mw wmm •* noT^tj with a
(T) vanaat AfaMy sf m»*p*rti«t— Dapartaaat •! ftaa, Mil, Mta
Digitized by
Google
77
MS
Iatro4ttctio« - JJMlt ABOPTlOi Of UHfirtaa WOTQI (AMtgl StvmKA
Cali^wa I - S of Tabl* Tf rrflccC the ut«&iE of Stitt at'i^cr *Japtlt€in pi t%« U^lfofs t9f«rpi«t« Ptotar
TW f«* ftT Ovlfliul Mat t Ilr«ti94 9I ICC v^^ttn^rLtf^ Cnluaa 2, aod Uw Faa for 34i*f1»feaT4l i«t^t(t^t)e4 aC
tec AftfbBftcy. C0ILSB 1, trt |H7F<ti4«4 bf 4t cn. >«£. leiMI. Tile r«> fat |lt« lt«u«K« af aa IJtitlfk-
CKlaai atamf far tba Upifam l4««itf if;«TiaB Clfc Carif, FOtv D« Cfrlvn i, and t^ faa tox ibc aiiltiiBaat dF
tm 14-m^titii^mtian. momlkmw (fc* li*v <i>f t«£i aiMf) fpr (ll« CJb Ord, r«T« 0, CAlWw I, ir« loraTnal bf
4> Cfft. Ska^ 1023.32 **« It2» $S.
Catuami I - 14 «f Tablt '* r«'f lact tb* CTtaoC ^f 3tala a.tracf sdeptlen ol C^t MtoJal Ifata ltt*4dr4a
Cavarniai DipvtaEia^m of latartttta Hater CaTfktr] &x««7^t Trea ICC Htfulitlon ^^Aich if'ra idfipiad bv tika
tIAJilJC on )iDv«»bcr 14^ )!«• < lfltt toUMi: Akmi t Caft^aatian frotagdiMi ^ pp. 24T'ZliJ. fha Taa foT kai 1 1 1 rAtSM
«f Opcratiao, CoIqaa ?, ij pTevid«id fvr In Wclloi Z.3 of tit Hotd*! iXaoAmrit. Tlia fit tor tha ii^Miaaca ^
OB ld*ncif ii^atUa ti^Ap far tkr Uaifor* Idamtlf t<4tioa Cib Cird. Fafa D 1^ Calmn 9^ Bit* iJla ft* for tb«
• ifitiwaiit wi mm t4aat i f Icali oa aiMbir fi* Llau fff Mcb tlUVl f«T tk* CabCdrdp fa>M D^ I , CoIiUd LP^ 11
prvviflad fOf U $*ctioa 1.2 Ja4 1.3 of tirt 1*04*1 fUadar^t.
CaiiAB 11 of Titbla ^t TtfI«Ct» Ebi »*^*mi itaz^t 4ft*DCtt» T«4vCt ib* aAOuAt of aqi* f«0 a^^if[.#4 In
CvlW^i f " $t T» t OM 1# ia arforMac* tfttk raclprocltjr ofrataanti *itii oibfT ItaLti. ft«^ Lprof t tjr «■ to
t CC ^TCftu La (ad CArTl^f* ia ^ratttaJ b]r at CFt, iac. t4M. tW. taclpt-oclc^ For LntarXafo carrLcn* aicapc
f<W ICC ragulatiM, it tov*«a«d ^ StAia laa
[blfMA II «f T«bt* 79 r«fl«ct« tk* astaat Stat* acaaclas ra^lra carriars
I4«iiti^iaa ck« v*k|et#E akicli tlMT ialaaJ 14 aparau wltJIia tW T**pm.ii' Stata* duriat tba aatuiaf f—r
p^raiLaat » «« Cr«, be. ltZS.52(4). for tCL r«fat«t*4 carrUfi aM S*cttv^» 4-2(4) af tha Nodal ttata
ItaDdardt far laitritac* carriars aaaaFt. Iroa tCC rt^tladM^
Coliaiat a ' 20 ol TaiU ^* tfflv.\ t** «4r.rtLt fCaU tfav^U* tccvpv 'pa* ICC rafoUtad Carrion
[idcBCKlad ia tb« T*M« «t ~tf-k tat*r>iata carrj^rra oraaFl froa IOC ra^ilttion iHtmtklt*t aa "I'"!. ««4
latraiTkta t^at-riarB fi4»Kiift*J aji "^".1 (aj t>* ■^atfara Hotar CarrJar iedLIr tajjurif aad Pronart/ Ba«j|«
LLabilltir Cam^ficata of Ia«utaac», Paca ti. {%) Tka UaLfara Hfrt»r Carrier to^JJ^ Enjiirf ai^^ PF«a#rtr
D^MEt l-iaki^itr TBi4)f«a<:* ta^oT ««■««( ^ Fara Fi (cj fka Uolfera Hsivf CartI,** >#dklr IdIV aai rfopatljr
l^Hg* Liakilitjr Swr + i^y l«Bd . Tora ti [d) Tb* Itaifara HataT CaRlar COtib Cvnlflf^fr *tf Iftauraae*, Jara H;
Fa) Tb* yaifsc-B H4C«f CaiTlar Carta raHiraac* ^JOrf—t^ i<M« t; <fl TlW VaJifor^ HftlW Carrl^f taffo
iirttf loa^ , Fi3«-a J; Ul T^a Uaifora totior of CaikCa 1 lat Ua, «f llai«r Citrlar laav^aa^* 4PaliCl*t^ 'ora f;
«^ (^> TW Uatfara Boiic* of CaoeailaCloa Of Hbtfrr CJrrias fc,r*ty l«a4», f«4 L.
Tta C*«C of th*H fat** la vfai.«i ia vba agiaaiii to *t Sft^ PhI 1011. far ICC ra|ala1a4 carritrv,
jg^ j_B uear^ratad bf fofi^rivca la t%m fcJiS lEaia SraaJir** CoiraralBf Oyvraliaas Oif latora'Lala HaCgr
C«rn|*ra Uawt froa ICC tavalaUaa. tla umC aa ll Pff ^ bi.r M, ttn, adatla^ a roaalvtlda r*c«a»Bii^
fit> thm fvata a|aBCi«» a^Nr* ibaaa fvna iar ^traAala awl#T Carrlat 4^f»iI*b«, 0#lfc mOC Jatal
(Oi^TW*ttga Pracaadiaja , »> £3* (Itni.
Tka 1liCi«a*]; Oatfariaca «f Siaia ttaa^vaftaiioa 3#«cl4ti«t* fBCiffJ baa ada^ta^ a -^'^-1 '^^-'^ a£f for
<b« tJBBlaH«l^c4aa «f hfrlK U* 1^ }7« t THt ■*■«: lawmt CiWT^Haa rracaaJmn^ pf 412-41* (IM'jI.
iK^TSbat *l*o parapsrad a w*tl »fata aatar raf'Har act JWU* wmc: *aM,1 ^tiat Ipj rrocaadiaf, ff . «70-
4») [lf?l)3.
TW ^A3C kia fvAlHikfi Pablic Lav tl-iyt aaJ ST aari l mti* far Oa arattaw * af la'aralata ttotor C*r7Mf< at
UhiH pmt car* rhi* la • »f pa** ceapiirTai aa af t^trtw^r/'^^'l*^^ , al^hAlK La* *f"lt# ^1 vf tk*
ItlMarii afa^iad tfcit*c-Mir Ca ra^^ra a«^laaca af LAa Javf*l»*aa af lJkt-#ratat« «^vf*1,l*aa Of »afar
cairi^ra «JiTk a data W i*i f|li*« Bad BaAatai.aiat tJa i a a* ra<dr4fr of Ik* CdtrtLf icAF^a aa4 |H-r«ita Jiiaaad
W Lka StC, O) rrvlLtafii* ^i* iJaatifpiaf *ati,£lat »1 09«r«'tla( ■»i<4"r »<:1 cattLf i£«E«t **i ^r*it]»
Ic] tiliU *^ «ai»1aiAl«t prIlMri af arraatif aFfactiv* im.twr*mC« <rt ap4Hflcatl^> $% a Hlf -ikJw**?'
^^ar rmlaa 1^ ra^UUaaLa af tke JCC, akd Ei> filtjk|: te*i|li*tl«» af Lac^l a^rai* ffrr »rrt^* of prwraa.
uTaUitiaa. tka .^JMillaClaa iaclarfal^ £■} JlHMatl«»f ta lafaa^ntaeMH of tka ataadaf^f ^L€^ U*m
kaaa mmi* br tka c^Kf:* aaJ tW uaC; ffc) TkO M#cl St««a § *f t t § H €mm *tai ^4r*(i4>aa *f tatarafOCa
itoifar« Idaatificaclao Cak Card. Fara • ar Fara 1-1. aar ka parckasad froa tka MMOC at .S94 aack.
Digitized by
Google
78
e»rriT» (ICC INy»Ut««l
PM tar
OrifiMl
••ttatntia
MglatcatioM
.rrt«r» tICC ■— y»t
mtmmttn mc
10.00 u./
20.00
19.00 f/
S.M/I.M
S.OO 1/
2.00 S^
S.OO V
S.OO V
10.00 Z/
S.4S V
4.00
S.OO
11.00
1.00
S.OO i2/
1.00
2V
as.oe
as. 00
io-.o6ili
^.»s.«o V
S.M^
2.00 2^
S.M
s.oov
10.00 2/
S.OO ^
S.OO
l.OO
Digitized by
Google
79
= I
. t. ■
. I. s
, X. >
=«;
ac X. •
K. I. a
ac t, •
ac. X. •
K. u •
ac I. •
ac X. •
ac c •
ac. c a
I!;.*
i
Sir
- !.
ac x, s ; ac X. •
a* wm
ac I, •
, C
iC f. •
M, *. S
ac X. •
at. f .
ac *. •
M, *. •
ac. X, •
ac I. •
ac «
ac c
ac a.
ac c •
ac c
, c
. C
ac c
ac c
-•^- !
Digitized by
Google
80
euM !■■■«■■■ rafaU«« «• latvMtaM mmtwimn •# ■*!!• koMS. . _ ^ ^
A tMBUtMy fM o« JS-OO pw »*Mr Mit la *art«« Mirlara i*«r« l««al «a^«lU la la thoaa etataa »ltk «*1* ArhauM* aaM aot tava
■ liitpiaail i|rii-i-T ■rlJMta af My—* *• l*Ma« U tlM ton af a aMll *Mal t* ka afflaai to tka rl«ht «aor of tka vaklelo.
nf- IC will aoeaM tka afpllcatlaa foni. kat kaa act a«ario« It.
tf • iaaa«« vaiOoU kaa kao> ratlatara« ky tka laaaac «ltk tka VaarfU MC ky tka pwckaaa of tka r««.la* fS.M ata^. tka laaaaa wmg rafiMa*
tta vaiOoU to tta laaaaa'a aaM wltk a fl.fO Mltlyla ra«latratlaa mm* l«a«tUleatiaa atai^. or laaaaa nay toaaa eok aar« far laaaaa- a vikloU.
■laM a ft.OO rafiotsatlaa m* l«a«tlflootlaa ata^ U tka apaoa alloeatad «ar SaartU. tyya la tka apfar Urt-kaa« aona* of tka eak mt4
•ftag laaao ar laaa* ■■« aaa tka aaa» ear« tk r oa » aa t tka aatlra raflatratlaa parta< «*ora tka mmm vahleU la aakaa^MMly aaa* to trip
/ Kwrnw lay trip panlta at (1.00 aa«k (la Itaa of ataava) ara avallakla to raflatara* carrlara to allaw far flaaiklllty of oparati
/ tM.W far tcaatori tS.OO tar ravOas tnak.
f «ko awaat of tka f aa raiaeai ty raalpraelty la .»M.
f «ko ■■■aot of tka raclpraoal fao la .4M. fl.«S or fa.4t.
ffS.W tt a Ta-
■a «ka>«a tm i
«ko ataiv fao <
rlara froo raelprecal atataa
«ko ataap fao a«aata tka fao «ka««a4 • Babnaka damdlad carriar by anotkar ttata.
rlara. tka atai^ fao la .IM.
aarrior ahoaa vaklalao ara H e— aat la racl y aaeal ttatao.
iar«a for raflatrotloo ar ataapa for corrlora of raclproeal (tatoa.
f fao valval ar rataaal Car aorrlora roaMaat ar 4aaiella< la raclproeal (tatao.
taiV faoa tor aarrlara kaaai la CaliforaU. Mlsaeorl, Martk Carolina. OfclahoM or Nlckl«aa wltk vahlelaa kaaa yUtoa la o
■a. If aeaplato aakafcla of aqnlpMat aa tka vahlelaa la flla«.
i^ Uot aaly ravilra« If ataapa obtaiaatf wltkeat diarva tkrou^t raclpr<
A fer-hlra oarrtar angafad aitelaalvaly la lataratata or forat«n tn—irca «*e eioaaoa tka Itata llaa. Md
.^ <oaa oot koH a »«lld raalatratlen fraa Mila Coaalaaloo. >ay aa aa altamativa to all othor ra«aUaMata apply for tlafllo Trip
tiaarlt ramlta. «all« for too Aaya. tOr a ena-'way trip into or Oot of tha Itata. Ika foa la flQ.OO aa« tka paralt «U1 ka laa«a« •«
porta of ontiy apea praaaotatlao of an Usoraaea policy or a eartlficata of iaaaraaea In tka olnlMB awunta of flS.OOO.OO, flOO.OOO.M
Uoblllty aM flO.OOO.OO proparty aaoa«a.
llMlf *'*" ■oaalatorv Faa Cardt A for-kira earriar rftttttft^ "itt »tf C9WiMt«l »• anfaga U lataratata or foralfn oovarca aerooa
or katoaa n polata la tliia ttata and polata oatalda of tkla ttata oay. aa aa altamatlva to otkar optlona. porchaaa alnfla trip ragalatoay
faa car«a. «all4 for flva (S) 4ayo. aathorlrln* a ona-My trip lata, oot of or acroaa tMa ttata for a foa of flQ.OO aa*. Boah
rofoUtary faa car«a ouat ko pwr«kaaa« U aAvaaca froo tkla Caakiaaien'a Olyivia of flea cnly, an« no rafoad will ko allowod for aoaaat
oarda. Ika card akall ka carried la tka vahicla operating under tkla type of penlt. afcall ke under tke control and direction of tko
■otor oarrlor iaaalnf aai» and akall be uaed aaly wltkia the acope of authority of that aetor carrier. At tka and of aack calendar
■antk. a report akall ke prepared and aent to the Ceakiaaieo. ahowint tha card n«a*er, datoe uaod. origin and daatiaation of ahlfMSt
•I.OO
In addition to the identification cah cord and ataap. proof of payaent of regulatory feaa auat alao ke carried.
Ion. Ihe follo»ln« optlOM
Maoulatorv Peaa i In addition to the identification cah cord and ataap. proof of payaent of regulatory f<
Bagalatory faoa are beead on tka licanaed groaa weight plua additional tonnage of eedi power unit or cool
•ro available aa ta ragnlatory feeai
Indicated by a colored idantification ataiv with groaa weight ataaped thereon which la to ko
I and aervea aa both tke .identification ataap and proof of regulatory fee peyaatt.
Indicated by a rleater llegvlatoxy Fee Card «*iieh auat be carried In tha power unit la addltiaa
to the Ideatlficatlen cab card and idantification ataap. taid card aay ke uaod on any power unit or coi^iaatiea operated by tha
carrier. On vahieloa whick ara to uaa the rloator Card, the carrier ahould order froo thle Ceaaiaaioa auffieient f I.OO colored
Ideatiflcatiea atanpa to go en each vahlcle'a idantification cab card «4iicb. repeat, aui ^ carried in addition to the rloati
Poo Card, toat or atolan fleeter cards are a total laaa to the carrier and will only be replaced by peyaent of full
Oatioa l i tinale Cab Card threuah Denartaant of Motor Vehlclea i On aquipMnt eligible for prorate, carriera who ha^
raaiatored with thia ceaalaaion. and «Mio have been aaaignad a regiatration nuidber. aay apply for Aaaigned kegnlatory
Ideatlfieatlaa ataapa on the tingle Cab Card application to the Oepartaaat of Motor Vehiclee. Iha regulatory fee wili ao prutoa oa
tko «D1C pertloa of tha aingle cab card. In addition, tke applicant will receive a eelorod ideatifieation ataap whidi la to ko
ptacod on a MXOC idantification cab card and carried with the tlaglo Cab Card.
Mhoro it la dealrad to nae rloatar Regulatory Fee Carda with the tingle Cab Carde. the appllcatiaa to the Oepartaaat of Motor Tahieloo
ahoald agii wnc feoe. and application for idantification atanpa and floater regulatory foe carda rtuwld ke aada directly to tke wnc.
Ja tkla caae, tka egnlpaent will eerry the tingle Cab Card, a MMK Idantification cab card with attached identification ataap aad •
floater ragnlatory fee eard.
" ranee not required anleaa advertiaing aa Inaurad carrier.
eerrlora required to regiator vehieloa with PtC and pay fl.OO faa for each vehicle, eacept «dtere reciproelty applloa.
wwK naa asapUte reciprocity with Arkanaaa, Kentucky. Ohio and wlacoaain and Chargao ao foe to their denieiliarlaa for vahlclaa
lleaaaad la their reepective ttatoa.
iy Ooatroet carriera flO.OOt eoaona carriera tZO.OOi and fl.OO (touth Dnkota). fl.SO (Perth Dakota), and fS.OO (Plorlda. OaorgU.
Loolalaaa and Vanneaaoe) rociproeal.
21/ A Hlnnoaeta carrier la not required ta purchaaa ataapa. but the Iowa ragiatratian nui*er auat ke written in Iowa aquara on tke cab oard.
ii/ Ike Indiana PdC chargea fS.OO per atanp for carriera baaed la rlorido. Oaorgia. Tannaaaae and Louiaiana. and 11.00 per ataap far carriera
baaed la Hlnneeota. iha nc ehazgaa no faoa to carrier* baaed in Oklahoaa. Arisona. Arkansas. California. Illinoia. Iowa. Keatoeky,
Maryland. Maasadiuaotta. Michigan. Nisaissippl. Missouri, pabraska. Pew Jersey. Morth Carolina. Ohio. Oklahoaa. rennaylvania, Boutk
Carolina, tooth Dakota, Tones. Virginia, wast Virginia and Wisconsin.
U/ tJ.OO for straight truck or passenger vehicles, and tS.OO for truck tractor vehicle.
»/ M feea ara charged to carriers of reciprocal ttatea, nor ara aueh carriera required to obtain Oklahoaa ataapa.
g/ Mcept cab carda.
i*/ laltial regiatration fee — renowod annually for flS.OO.
J^ Do not noe Fora D or D-l Cab Card — An Idantifieatica card ia required for eeeh out-of-state lieansed vehicle.
n/ Beaponaibility of another Dopertaont - not tCC.
JJ/ Toramt Agency of Tranaportation. Depertaent of tua. »ail, waterways and Motor Carrier tervicoa. ttata Office tuilding. Nontpelior. Iforaeat PSdM.
Digitized by
Google
81
-
rx.M-
TBI
-
srnsT
*—
■-
■zsr
,^,^,,■■71
-^■^
-
-- 1
^
[
!
1
1
f
i
I
i
!
1
1
1
1
1
!
1
'i
p.
*H
*•
*H
h.
H.
1.
•»
tmm
f-»
mt
»
■n.
tM
*H
h.
W V:
1
^
1
tw
1
i
1
i
*>*
n*
**'
Vm
mm
"Z
*»
=
r
s:
E
^
^
^
Tw
r
^
5:
P»
^y
^i'
="
•«•
^
MB
=
~
E
*«•
E
^
1M
E
«M
E
=
W^
V
1
~
r
§
z
§
f
^
I
i"
ta J^
5
^
1^
Li
E
^r
^
^V
1
S'
2!*
Ph
'mar
M
f4*
»«•
■"
*"
m
ttIK
* Me
^
|j^
IV
=
~j*^
^^.Uf
>
•»*V
"%
E
3*^
1^
1 ^u^
^r
2"
>*;a^
4w
if**
s
ffif
!"
1^
is
-
Cf
r
Cu
>«!.
•-
S5«
^-c^
.-
^
9H'
"1
•^4/
^
•^AJ
Ik*
>
^
taUf
.iiii
^
**^
>^
^
W
P"
M*
tw
S
*^
P
W
iw
m
a<
F-« •
1
H
§
1
H
***
l«P
~
*W'
Pt>
— j»^
H
Iw
s
»ta*
•^
VVP
1
=
=*
■-J*
i
i
taj^
>—
r
1
=
s
m
ar
Digitized by
Google
82
Footnotes - TabU tO - *CI?ICT KATE JUKISDICTIOW OVIK CMTAIN TIUFFIC Of MOTOH COMMON AMD CQXTKAq CAKKIEKS
^ Wtmm or* omapt.
y P«trola«ai eoiMeditioa. h«ovy hauling coanoditioo.
y MS.
y Pootnot* net »■•«.
^ Poetnot* net ao««.
y Oepmdo en ■!«• of vehlclo.
§/ U«lt««.
y PlMMblM.
^ Certain eoenan carrlera filing ratea with thla Cemlaalon have eatabliahe« rate* under the "collective
rate eaklnf proceaa fer years. Bo«fever. recently the Michigan Attorney Oeneral'a office filed suit
In court against a group of salt (cwon) carriers and attorneys for fixing transportation prlees, etc.
Itie Nlehlgan MC response la based on this and because there are no previsions applicable on Michigan
Intrastate traffic siaiUr to See. S-A of the XCC Act.
22/ With qualifications I see exaaptions under lee. 2 of Art. 479.2.
12/ Kates filed.
22/ Para-to-Barket is exenpt.
14/ Hot all operatienst only those outside an exeapt sone.
^y Wille the law apparently requires filing of schedule of rates fer all servlee. we do not rehire a
filing of charter rates.
\y Llalted eoModlties.
J2/ lUte jerisdictien is Halted to the filing of the contract, stating the eoapensatlon to be paid, and a
prohibition against charging rates other than those on file.
ly Livestock.
If/ Kxeept within city liaits and five ailes thereof, except when for schools or churdtes.
jy Includes all coaaoditles except bulk eoaaodities in tank trucks, household goods, and dangerous and
explosive articles.
|1/ Kxeept froa fata to first aarket when sold in South Carolina.
\\/ oarbage collection.
21/ Trash, wrecked or disabled aotor vehicles, and heavy equipaent.
21/ PetroleuB and petreleua products, bulk ceaant.
IS/ Sue express.
Yt/ Oil field equipaent and supplies.
22/ cotton only.
23/ Covered under the heading "General Coaaoditles."
22/ Within Hew York City ceeasrcial sone. outside of upstate ceeasrcisl sooes.
•jy Petroleias and ceaent.
2^ Mobile hoaea. heavy steel and aetal products.
22/ Veraont Agency of Transportation, Departaent of Bus. Rail. Naterways and Motor Carrier Services. State
Office Suilding. Montpelier, Veraont 0S602.
22/ Intrastate only.
22/ Solid wnsta.
Digitized by
Google
83
! ti
ill
il
litt
i
m
:1
-;;^~
' =
. :
«
sl
^^!
:(
-!
n
Digitized by
Google
84
t^mrltr* IMtlali
*r Clu«l^ ■( ^ttlatlttimiul
CluilH •! l^ir$iw%tmm-i
H Li.e, Hit ^ 4H-
j.iLE. ML B ttm-
A.t. 41. 1>
at* I. f>r«. opta M4|'-'H«k
, U^t-lAl i;i« l»l
•Mm tm%r
r,(, 411- W t ja].«]
Ol. ITI. v«
cfc. tr^^ tJL ^T.
iii.ii'T jj/
4» V
ArtlELl fl
Mm. #M*m tw It*
riiMnimt r«
aw -»-i.aiL -*-!«*
«.lu Itow* CwFtH Art, 4*.JT-L
r.c-.«M, Fuu.. &. «i>]ja]]
fit IV
414 iv
TiM.p *■. ». t». «.
Ji£ !^T,iiia- *-"*^^
a.Qi, E,6, w~ia
^ UiLr**UI* ^Iji brtW^I*^ - (.tat.
^ il,a» tnvrnllai nwii tri»Eh ^^wn*Mwt-
i-Litr k« L*<tmii* M*'«M*>i. vhtEh bill r««)»ivi *,ik«TMT ri«i[|i« ta^ CMf If •Itb u««i
y rt«ar> twin—- — i»T int^t a^^n uJ ■Mi'An *»Tfi*f>4 and PD^^i ^ai
Ul/ tflLft*MtB « '
• ar in.Ma vakUla*
aarrlara — >cM>a>Ma a^kM
' i^t*it ruf^-hlx^ KtH ^wtiMWt^ i m n j tai M» 4w*ir>#i:h ana ^ivata earrlan (or furvaaaa a( aatar K
' w^ttr mt Ttm^lKimm iwipiriaa u ptetar ^naHa^T vi« !>> Oapartaant.
' tHirtfi a«T Tatk cut *ii^M»*ia «**** v^i
^^bt wf ^tF*Et '■■rrk'r >ritl*ta< ici ka^L tatal aawiBa carrlar vakUlaa.
Mm ml ll/llh'Tt,
VarkM* Aa^ACi ar Triiwaari- 1 i»< , ^l^ri^^t aall. MatanMya ana |Wt«r Carrlai Sarrlaaa.
imitmttti* tnl-fi imiTiriti f^fLvtiraa - ^*»mm.
laL^ikiti-i.! afltVl taianta-ii PffLl-taraa - L.lll.
Digitized by
Google
86
The Chairman. Mr. Harold Shay, vice chairman of American
Trucking Association.
All riffht, Mr. Shay.
STATEMENT OF HABOLD A. SEAT, VICE CHAIBHAN OF AHEBICAN
TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BT KEN
STINOEB, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL; WILL JOHNS, SAFETY DIBEC-
TOB; NELSON COONET, GENEBAL COUNSEL; AND LABBT STEBN,
STEBN'S TBANSFOBT
Mr. Shay. Mr. Chairman, members of your committee, I want to
express my appreciation to appear before you this morning on behalf
of the legislation being discussed.
My name is Harold Shay. I'm a vice chairman of the American
Trucking Associations, Inc., and a past president of the ATA AflBli-
ated Local and Short -Haul Carriers National Conference.
I'm president of Shay's Service in Dansville, N.Y., which is a local
and short-haul carrier primarily in the western New York State area.
With me today I have Lawrence Stem, Nelson Cooney, Will Johns,
and Ken Stinger.
Mr. Stem is president of Stem's Transport in Bradley, N.J. He's
also State vice president of the American Trucking Associations —
ATA — and he is here today in his capacity as chairman of the Safety
Committee on Research and Environment.
My more detailed statement that you have will explain this to you.
But it's known as our score committee, made up of top management
people in the safety and environmental effort.
The remaining members of my party are staff members of ATA.
Before J begin my testimony on the bill before you. I would like to
state that the trucking industry has a long history of safety activity and
safety programs. Today ATA has a complete safety service that fur-
nishes thousands of materials to the trucking companies throughout
the Nation. In fact, we have one of the largest safety organizations of
any industry in the Nation.
That organization is outlined in my comprehensive statement, and I
will not take the time to repeat particulars of it.
Suffice it to say that we're concerned about safety. ATA is on record
before Congress for increased enforcement of the existing safety reg-
ulations. Increased enforcement is necessary for control of drivers and
also to assure that vehicles are in safe operating condition.
The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety currently has only 133 safety
inspectors throughout the country to enforce safety regulations. It
usually focuses combined efforts on large motor carrfers but, however,
is not limited to this. But it does have limited manpower that can be
utilized to cover the maximum number of drivers and vehicles.
A recent roadside inspection conducted by the Bureau of Interstate
80 in Pennsylvania demonstrated the need for more manpower to cover
a large spectrum of drivers and vehicles.
The Chaik^iax. Wouldn't that also demonstrate the importance
of a little more awareness of your organization to try and do some self-
policing?
Digitized by
Google
86
Mr. Shay. Well, I think, in answer to your question, we hav© a
great variance in the industry, and I can't speak for all operato/:a
I'm speaking primarily for the regulated sector of the industry, and
I believe that we have done a favorable job in the regulated area. We
have no control over the independents, or do we have any great in-
fluence over the private carrier.
Speaking of the inspection on Interstate 80 — it demonstrated the
need for manpower to cover the inspection of drivers and vehicles.
In that inspection 382 vehicles were placed out of service because of
their unsafe condition. "While these 382 vehicles represent a small
portion — ^I think this is important — of an estimated 34,000 trucks
which pass the inspection point, about 1 percent of the total were in
violation. So there is a need for more enforcement so that every unsafe
truck and driver can be taken out of service if necessary. That is why
we've taken a long, hard look at S. 2970.
We're in favor of the bill. We want one that is workable. ATA ap-
preciates the frank and open posture that Senator Percy and his staff
have taken on this proposed legislation. For the past several months
ATA has been one of the many interest groups and organizations
that had discussions on the bill with Senator Percy's staff.
ATA also appreciates the opportunity to comment on S. 2970 before
this committer, to which the bill has been referred for possible action.
In my comprehensive statement you will find detailed comments on
the individual provisions of the bill. There you will find some strong
opposition to some provisions which we feel would be costly to ad-
minister, costly for the motor carrier, and add little to the goal of
safety.
I'd like to spend a few remaining moments with you today on what
we feel is right with the bill and what we think would truly improve
safety on the highway and trucking operations.
The emphasis should be placed on two goals: One, the stron^r
enforcements, and two, the establishment of a national commercial
driver register.
S. 2970, properly drawn and amended, could increase Federal and
State enforcement capabilities so that more commercial trucks and
drivers would be kept in compliance with the motor carrier safety
regulation.
By the present provisions of the bill, the heavier intrastate com-
mercial vehicles would come under Federal regulation for the first
time.
Also, the bill pmvides for the States to enforce comparable safety
regulations under an approved plan, and for that purpose, a total of
$100 million would be authorized each fiscal year out of the highway
trust fund on an 80/20 matching basis.
For the best safety enforcement, however, we ur^e the committee
to consider amending sections 9, 10. and 11 of the bill to embrace the
more effective approach of placing vehicles and drivers out of service
instead of emphasizing an OSHA-type approach to issnina: citations,
overwhelming fines, and allowin^r appeals to another Federal entity.
The present approach of S. 2970 would greatly expand the Federal
bureaucracy in order to hear and review contested citations and would
be costly to the motor carrier.
Digitized by
Google
Our experience has taught us that the red-tasging of vehicles and
drivers by an inspector on the highway — ^we've neard this this morn-
ing with previous testimony — therebv putting them out of service
until correction of the unsafe condition is acoomplished. is a more
effective approach to enforcement of safety regulations.
This approach will be costly for carriers who oix^rate unsafely and
will be most effective for encouraging safe operation. We suggest that
the conunittee explore further the merits of this approach.
The other primarv improvement which this committee should con-
sider is the establishment of the commercial driver register. A na-
tional commercial driver register would work like this: It would
require that all commercial drivers be registered with DOT. Whereas
the current National Driver Register contains only the names of
drivers whose driving privileges have been suspended for one reason
or another, it would establi>li a system for compiling information
about all mo^dng violations of the commercial drivers. It would elimi-
nate the potential for utilization of false identification and more than
one operator license by an individual with a bad driving record.
The purpose of the commercial driver record would he to establish
a central registry containing information about driver employment
and driver records, so that the Federal, State, and local officials and
employers could effectively monitor driving performance.
Through such monitoring: commercial drivers who are unsafe could
have their licenses revoked or suspended by the respective States, as
it would be deemed appropriate. Employers could take corrective ac-
tions, if necessary.
Prospective employers would be fully knowledgeable about the
dri^dng record of this prospective employee. We strongly recommend
tliat tliis committee consider the establishment of a national com-
nnercial driver register arid amend S. 2070 to reflect this.
And I thank you for your time and we certainly, with my col-
leagues, will field any questions you may have. Senator.
The Chaiemax. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Shay.
Just one obser\'ation before I have to leave for a vote, and then
111 be back for a few question*^. You were indicating that one of the
t>roblems occur? because of the private carriers, and so on. and others
'Who help drive these statistics up. In the onsite strike force inspec-
tion, the private carriers did slightly better than the ICC-regulated
Carriers. How do you accoimt for that ?
Mr. Shat. I think there are many criteria for this. Speaking spe-
t:^fically about the private carrier, of course. I believe that the very
^ge of his equipment. I believe, his susceptibleness to the inspection
rnay not put the ratio as hi^h of those who were inspected. I think
trhat the regulated carrier who not by design at all is more frequently
Hnd in a larger ratio or a larger i^ercenta^re of Lis fleet is inspei:ted
trlian nonregolated.
The Chairmav. We are in the second half of a vote: we will recess
"for approximatelv 10 minutes, while I go and vote.
FKecesa.]
The Chairhax. The committee will come to order.
]Mr. Shay, in your statement you strongly endorse the establL-hment
of a national commercial driver register. Has the ATA or any c-cher
group analyzed the cost of the development of sue?, a prosr Q '
Digitized by
Google
88
Mr. Shay. I'm going to refer that question, if I may, Senator, to
Will Johns, who is the technical person on the ATA staff.
Mr. Johns. I am not a person highly knowledgeable in the finances
of that type of thing, Senator. We do know that it would cost several
million dollars to run such an operation. I think that it would be
comparable to the cost of the current national driver register. It would
be, thoufi:h, focused
The Chairman. What is that ? Do you know what the cost of that is?
Mr. Johns. No, sir, I don't know what the cost is today.
The Chauiman. In your statement, you say, "We note the extension
of coverage to intrastate operations for the first time on transporta-
tion of other than hazardous materials is a hefty increase in coverage,
even though limited to vehicles over 10,000."
Do you have any views as to the appropriateness of such an increase
in jurisdiction?
Mr. Shay. Well, here, asfain, I think this is a statistical data and
I again will go back to Will and ask if we don't estimate that there
are about 6 million of these vehicles.
Mr. Johns. About 6 million of these vehicles is our best estimate.
Nobody knows the exact number of commercial vehicles in this
country ; however, there are about 25 million trucks of all types regis-
tered. Our best estimate is that 10 million of these would be in com-
mercial operations.
The Chairman. Well, do you believe that the potential safety bene-
fits of such added coverage would be commensurate with the addi-
tional duties?
Mr. Johns. Yes, we do. The figures indicate that the interstate
carriers have a record of approximately 2,500 fatalities per year and
that the total fatalities for truck operations of all kinds is about 6,600.
So we estimate that there would be a potential benefit of savings of
lives of approximately 4,000.
The Chairman. In your statement, Mr. Shay, you state that civil
penalty provisions are unjustifiable. Earlier, the deputv administra-
tor of FHA strongly argued for increased civil penalty authority.
The administrator also stated that the present criminal penalties
were inadequate.
Would you comment on his views on this issue?
Mr. Shay. As a matter of judgment, Senator, on our part we know
how effective it is to be red-tagged and put out of service. We also feel
that should the mistake be made of freeing the entry into the tru(i-
insr business that we are going to have more and more individuals who
will not financially be able to take such a burden and they will just
disappear, whether the fine will be collected or not. But we do know,
and I think in the testimony of Dr. Kaye he referred to it this morn-
ing on the red-lining that the word soon gets around that your vehicle
is goinsr to be put on the side of the road, and we think it would be a
more effective tool than a civil penalty.
The Chahiman. Well, why should the Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safetv focus on safety violations only through the indirect issue of
recordkeeping violations ? Wouldn't it be much more appropriate to
have civil penalties that are directly related to safety defects that have
been discovered in the course of a safety inspection ?
Digitized by
Google
89
Mr. Shay. Well, ITl answer in this way, Senator. I believe a person
as far as I'm concerned, my personal opinion, I've spent most of my
lifetime in this business, is that the inspection of a motor truck reveals
many things and they're put out of service many times. It's not an ac-
cident going someplace to happen.
Let me be more specific A broken spring leaf. It may have hap-
pened 5 minutes ago and would not contribute to an accident nor the
cause of an accident in the next 100,000 miles. These type of viola-
tions — and if it is going to be based on inspection, I just feel that it's
too severe, and there are other ways to effectively track the situation.
Now, I'd be happy to refer to Mr. Ciooney, one of our staff people, if
he'd like to comment on that also, Senator.
Mr. CooxEY. We believe that a motor carrier if he's consistently
violating the law will show up in the recordkeeping and that's the one
who should be loaded with citations and penalties. We have an ex-
ample on page 21 of penalties and fines ranging from $200 to $10,750.
So they are substantial. And you go to the carrier now and go through
his records and find he's just not maintaining the vehicle properly.
What Mr. Shay said is correct, that there is really no need to levy a
fine on a carrier when you stop him on the highway and find a viola-
tion of a light broken or something like that. It's more important that
he get it corrected. The enforcement official should then go back and
check the records. If he finds the same carrier over and over again and
will find a steady stream of violations which would be based on im-
position of a citation penalty, it then can be substantial.
The Chatrmax. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate
your being here.
Mr. Shay. Thank you.
[The statement and questions and answers follow :]
Statement of Habold A. Shay oy Behalf of American Trucking
Associations, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee :
My name is Harold A. Shay, and I am a Vice Chairman of American Tmcidiig
^asociations. Inc. (ATA), 1616 "P" Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. ATA
Ui Hie national trade association of the motor carrier industry representing aU
t^pes of motor carriers, with aflUiated associations in every State and the
tMistrict of Columbia.
My personal inTolvement in the trucking industry spans 30 some years. I am
fehnesident of Shay's Service in Dansville. New York, a medinm-sLzed carrier
ppemting in western New York State, primarily in local and shori haul operations.
ATA appreciates this opportunity to present its views to this Committee on
B. 2970. We have a deep and abiding interest in all matters affecting safety.
nHiiidi stretidies as far back as the early 1930's when ATA was formed. Today.
AfTA offers comfdete fleet safety services and famines thousands of safety ma-
terials to trucking companies throughout the nation.
Over the years. ATA has developed one of the largest safety organizations of
any industry. At the top is the ATA Safety Committee on Research and Environ-
ment (our SCORE Committee), whi^ is composed of over thirty trucking com-
pany executives who monitor safety problems and the various ATA safety p<^cy
matters.
Next is our Council of Safety Supervisors which is composed of more than 3,000
aafety technicians employed by trucking companies. The Council has 47 state
^upteis and eight specialised chapters concerned with specific areas of opera-
tions such as those involving tank trucks, household goods moves, extra heavy
liaiils and M field rigs.
Digitized by
Google
90
Our safety people conduct numerous industry progrrams. including : Monitoring
the safety of truck operations on the highways through industry cooperative road
patrols; teaching safety to truck drivers, including independents, at truck stops;
and monitoring vehicle condition through our voluntary roadside inspection
program.
Just two weeks ago, ATA held its National Truck "Roadeo" in St. Louis. Two
hundred and thirty-seven truck driving champions competed for national driving
titles. The champions earned the right to participate in the National Truck
Roadeo by winning titles at 42 state truck Roadeos conducted by our Council of
Safety Supervisors.
Despite our extensive voluntary safety efforts, the trucking industry recog-
nizes tlie need for governmental safety controls. We recognize that some motor
carriers and some drivers will not voluntarily establish or adhere to minimum
procedures and controls essential for safety. Thus, the trucking industry has
supported legislation and regulation since 1935 when the Motor Carrier Act
initially estal)lished federal safety control over interstate truck operations.
Since that time we have been strong and continuing supporters of the educa-
tional and enforcement activities of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, first
under the Interstate Commerce Commission and presently under the Depart-
ment of Transportation. This agency, though small and operating on a limited
budget, has been highly effective in its work.
As a result of industry safety programs and the efforts of the Bureau of
Motor Carrier Safety, the truck safety record is excellent. A typical tractor-
semitrailer combination travels 100,000 miles or more per year. Despite such
high mileages, these vehicles are generally in excellent condition. Bureau of
Motor Carrier Safety accident data show that vehicle condition is a causative
factor in only six percent of the accidents involving heavy trucks.
Accident statistics of the National Safety Coimcil show that there were
46,700 traffic deaths in the United States in 1976. Data from the Bureau of
Motor Carrier Safety for 1976, the latest year available, shows that less than
percent of these fatalities (or 2,520) resulted from interstate truck open-
tions. This reflects well on the safety of operations of the tractor-semitrailer
combinations in this country, especially in view of their high mileages and
constant exposure to adverse driving conditions, such as weather, traffic con-
gestion, visibility and drinking drivers in other vehicles.
A study by ATA of the states, which were sampled by National Safety Coandl
for its accident data, shows that tractor-semitrailer combinations have an
accident involvement rate of 3.25 per million miles compared to a rate of 11.05
for vehicles other than trucks.
Despite this good record, there are problem areas. It Is too easy for an indi-
vidual to get behind the wheel of a truck without being qualified to operate the
truck. It is also too easy for an individual to hide a bad driving record. These
problems need to be resolved for improvement of truck safety.
Since 1958, ATA has been a strong supporter of the "one driver-one license"
concept and the classified driver license system. Under the claiisified system,
an individual is tested and licensed for a particular class of vehicle and
cannot legally operate vehicles of a more complex type or larger size. For ex-
ample, if an indi\idual is classified to drive a single unit truck, commonly
referred to as a straight truck, he is not allowed to drive a five-axle tractor-
semitrailer combination.
When an individual is permitted by the state licensing system to drive a
vehicle for which he is not qualified, an accident is almost certain to happen.
Three years ago, one of our National Truck Driving Champions, James Gar-
inger, suffered a crippling spinal injury. His truck was forced over the side of a
mountain by another tractor-semitrailer combination operated by an inde-
pendent driver who bad Just recently purchased his vehicle and had no training
or experience to qualify him as a truck driver. He did have a general license
which permitted him to legally operate a tractor-semitrailer.
As of this date, 26 states have adopted the classified licensing system. It in
essential to safety that all states have such a system.
The "one driver— one license" concept also specifies that an individual sbonld
not be permitted to have more than one license. This is important for cootiol
of those persons who are unsafe. If an individual has only one license, til
moving violations and accidents will be on the record for that license. If the
Digitized by
Google
91
individual has more than one license, his violations and accidents may be
spread over more than oue record so that no one record is imrticularly bad.
Recently, the National Transportation Safety Board released a highway
accident report detaiUng its investigation of an accident that involved a trac-
tor-semitrailer combination and a school bus in Rustburg, Virginia, on March S,
1977. Three of the occupants of the school bus died as a result of the collision.
The truck driver was an independent. The investigation showed tliat the driver
had a valid North Carolina chauffer's license with no restrictions, a valid
Florida driver's license, and had previously held a Maryland chauffer's license
and a South Carolina driver's license. Neither of the two valid licenses were
classified licenses. From June, 1960, through March, 1977, this driver had at
least 38 traffic violation convictions In eight states. Twenty-nine of his viola-
tions were against his North Carolina license, one violation agalst his South
Carolina license, and eight violations against his Florida license. While this
is an extreme case, it Is not Isolated and there are numerous other Instances
of drivers of cars and trucks spreading their violations over more than one
license.
The problem of multiple licensing occurs because states do not have a good
line of communication with each other or with the National Driver Register
of the U.S. Department of Transportation. A person may obtain a license even
though he has one In another state, or despite a bad driving record. Also,
licenses are obtained through false Identifications. The requirements of some
states may even result in multiple licensing. For example, if an individual
resides In one states and drives commercially In another, he may be required
to have a license from each state. The problem of multiple licensing can be
alleviated to some extent if the states adopted the classified licensing system
and established a better line of communication for control of licensing.
A more effective course of action would be the establishment of a National
C<Hnmerclal Driver Register. The National (Commercial Driver Register would
differ from the National Driver Register currently In the Department of Trans-
portation, as follows :
1. It would require that all commercial drivers be registered with the U.S.
Department of Transportation, whereas the current National Driver Register
contains only the names of drivers w^hose driving privileges have been sui*-
pended or revoked.
2. It would establish a system for compiling information al>out all moving
violations of a commercial driver.
3. It would eliminate the potential for utilization of false identification and
more than one operator's license by an individual with a bad driving record.
The purpose of the CDR would be to establish a central registry, containing
information about driver employment and driving record so that federal, i^te
and local officials and employers could effectively monitor driving performance.
Through such monitoring commercial drivers who are unsafe coukl have their
lic^ises revoked or suspended by their respective states as would be deemed
app«H>riate. Employers could take corrective action as necessary, ProHfiectlre
employers would be fully knowledgeable about the driving record of prospective
employees.
The registry should consist of an individuars name, photo, fingerprints and
mie state motor vehicle operator's license. This would assure that an individual
wcmld have only one registry certificate and number, and that moving viola-
tions would be ctiarged to one operator's license only.
The development of information about employment would lie thr/mi^i in-
formation provided by employers.
Informaticm about moving violations would come from copies of pr^Uee cita-
tions for which the individual had Ijeen convicted or forfeited collateral. Folic*;
jurisdictions throughout the country would provide the infonnatif/n abont
moving violations. Thus information hundreds of mile« from the state f^
license or an employer's business Uxration would lie available Vf hUlU; llcf^sing
officials and employers.
The National Commercial I^river Register would further re^juire that CDU
officials provide citation information to state licencing f^ificials on a timely
basis.
If this tsytfUm were established, it would eliminate the practice of drirern
caacetkhng bad records by spreading m^/ving violations among two w vum:
licenses. It woold strengthen the -one driver— one license^ coiv^ept. Finally,
Digitized by
Google
92
It would make the Driver Qualifications Regulations of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations more effective.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that this Committee consider the estab-
lishment of a National Commercial Driver Register as an amendment to S. 2970.
This brings us to consideration of Senate bill S. 2970, which has been
introduced by Senator Percy and is presently before this Committee. Over the
past several months, ATA has been one of many interested groups and orga-
nizations that have had discussions with the Senator's staff on S. 2970. We
have benefitted from that dialogue since we have learned more directly the
goals Senator Percy is attempting to achieve in this bill. After study, we made
numerous, and what we consider to be constructive, suggestions for amendment
to S. 2970 based on our long experience in trucking. We are hopeful that
Senator Percy will amend his bill where he agrees with our suggestions and
we submit our suggestions at this time to this Committee for its consideration.
ATA is formally on record supporting enforcement of the existing Federal •
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety and we have so testified before Congress in the past. Increased en-
forcement is necessary for control of drivers and to insure that vehicles are in safe
operating condition. The Bureau currently has only 133 safety inspectors
throughout the country to enforce its regulations. Its compliance efforts are
usually focused on the large motor carriers so that its limited manpower can
be utilized to cover the maximum number of drivers and vehicles. There is a
strong need for more enforcement so that every unsafe truck and driver are ,
taken out of service.
While the basic purpose of S. 2970 is to gain an improvement in highway ,
safety, the bill is not sufficiently focused on improved safety enforcement, i
Instead the bill has diluted this important objective by requiring substantial
resources to be expended on a variety of new rulemaking proceedings and on
the bringing of, or defending against, causes of action which would arise from
the employer-employee litigation provisions. By focusing the Bureau's attention
on a broad-based review of current regulations, less governmental resources—
not more — will be available for increasing truck safety compliance. And by
stimulating litigation and complaints, more private-sector resources will have
to be expended in preparing defenses — and less will be available for increasing
safety compliance.
Other provisions which cause concern are those which would require motor
carriers to develop and maintain costly new motor carrier procedures and
record-keeping to protect against unreasonable employee lawsuits ; those which
would permit the issuance of citations and the assessment of substantial civil
penalties for unintentional record-keeping and other insul>stantial safety regu-
lation violations; and those w^hich would require a many-fold increase in the
safety records required to be kept by motor carriers.
Many other sections of the legislation need to be looked at closely, and
appropriate refinements made to avoid consequences of questionable validity.
For example, the definitions section needs to be revised to assure coverage is
complete, and additional language needs to be added to the federal pre-emption
provisions to protect well functioning state laws and regulations now on the
books.
Finally, while ATA does not object conceptually to the federal aid for state
enforcement provisions, we are unaware of any input from the states regard-
ing its soundness or providing national alternative approaches. If enforce-
ment is to be the goal — as it should— we think it is vital that the plan enacted
be acceptable to the states. Involvement by the states in hearings such as these
being held today, will prove beneficial in both the drafting and implementa-
tion of any legislation Congress might enact on truck safety.
ANALYSIS OP SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
Stections 7, 2, and 3: Congressional finding; purpose
While these provisions are perhaps not as substantive as the rest of the bill,
they are important as an expression of Congressional intent to be relied upon
in administrative and judicial proceedings arising from enactment of the lefcis-
lation. For that reason, ATA requests: That Section 2 be revised to eliminate
the unnecessary conclusory rhetoric contained therein, without changing the
basic thrust of the findings ; and that Section 3 be revised to assure that the
Digitized by
Google
statement of purpose coincides with the intended effect of the legislation, which
is broader in some respects and narrower in other respects than Section 3
would indicate.
For example, existing motor carrier safety regulations have not been demon-
strated to be "inadequate" as written in Section 2. The current regulations
consist of hundreds of pages of detailed regulations covering everything from
accident reiK)rting to windshield wipers. Additionally, the Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety is actively engaged in many new rulemaking proceedings in such
diverse areas as cab size and dimensions and hours of service. While it may
he argued that there should be stronger enforcement of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations, it is wrong to conclude that these regulations are
inadequate.
Similarly objectionable are the Section 2 findings which appear to imply that
commercial motor vehicles pose a grave safety risk primarily due to their exten-
sive use and substantial size and weight and that there are no existing protec-
tions for employees who are discriminated against for efforts to promote safety.
Roth of these findings are incK)mplete on their face and should not be included
as firm "Congressional findings".
Certainly Section 2 can be revised easily to include a general Congressional
finding that it is in the public interest to enhance commercial motor vehicle safety
and reduce highway fatalities, injury and property damage. Nothing is lost in
such a revision and the i)Ossibility of a misconception of Congressional intent
would be eliminatcKl.
Section 3 should he revised to fit the declaration of purpose more closely to the
thrust of the legislation. General statements of pun)ose have been relied on by
federal agencies as a justification for remilatory action where no other delega-
tion of authority has been made by the C<mgress.
This legislation is directed at Department of Transportation regulation of
oommorcial motX)r vehicle safety. But the statement of puri>ose can be interpreted
as j?oing far beyond this. Section 3 should contain language referring directly
to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Kegulations in existence and to be issued
lander the proposed Act by the Secretary of Transportation.
Section 3 should also state that the purpose of the Act is to promote the safe
cind healthy working conditions of all employees, not just drivers. No justification
appears which provides a basis for distinguishing between drivers and other
motor carrier employees. In this sense, the statement of purpose in Section 3 is
much more restrictive than necessary.
JSeotion 4: Definitions
Section 4 contains an expansive definition of "employer" but omits any defini-
"Hon of "employee". Such a definition is important and should cover, in addition
to drivers, all those whose employment affects commercial motor vehicle opera-
tion, e.g., mechanics, freight handlers and others.
Coverage of all employees by a single federal entity is essential to achieving
effective compliance. Omission of a definition of "employees" will encourage
agency jurisdictional disputes regarding the coverage of employees other than
drivers, and the net result for motor carriers could well be a duplicative set of
federal safety and health regulations. Currently the Occupational Safety and
Health Act recognizes that OSHA jurisdiction does not extend to those areas
regulated by other federal agencies. Inclusion of such a definition Is consistent
with the principle of avoiding dual regulation as expressed In that Act.
It is important to point out that many motor carrier employees, In addition to
drivers, are engaged In activities relating to safety. The safety involvement of
mechanics and loaders is readily apparent. Less apparent, but just as Important,
are those who keep and maintain safety records, those who check out driver
qualifications, and those who advise on purchasing equipment. Safety respon-
sibilities run through a large cross-section of a safety-conscious motor carrier
employment.
The definition of employee should Include, for the purposes of this act only,
independent contractors. This legislation can be construed as generally Including
independent contractors as employers under the Act. But in many instances the
responsibility for safety compliance for a leased vehicle operated by an in-
dependent contractor has l>een legally imposed upon the lessee motor carrier.
Because of this it is Important that the employee definition also cover independent
contractors.
35-692—78
Digitized by
Google
04
Independent contractors who contract with regulated carriers are not and
should not be considered as employees for purposes other than this legislation.
Current Internal Revenue Service regulations recognize that leased operators are
self-employed independent contractors and not employees for the purposes of
tax law, and no suggestion is made herein that that determination should be
affected in any way.
Sections 5 and 6 : Applicability and duties
Our comments above relative to the coverage of motor carrier employees other
than drivers apply as well to the second sentence of Section 5. An amendment
thereto is necessary to indicate that the legislation applies to all employees
engaged directly or indirectly in the operation of commercial motor vehicles.
Moreover, while ATA does not take exception to the 10,000 pound gross vehicle
weight rating coverage limitation provided in the first sentence of Section 5,
we must point out that this limitation does exempt large numbers of smaller
commercial motor vehicles from coverage under the Act. As a conceptual matter,
complete safety regulation is a laudable goal. But as a practical matter, un-
limited commercial motor vehicle application would severely dilute the enforce-
ment resources available to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. We note the
extension of coverage to intrastate operation for the first time on transportation
of other than hazardous materials is a hefty increase in coverage even though
limited to vehicles over 10,000 pounds G VWR.
Section 6 in earlier drafts contained only a general duty clause for employers.
The bill now includes a new subsection 6(b) providing a duty clause for em-
ployees which requires compliance with standards, rules, regulations and orders
issued pursuant to the Act. The addition of this subsection is laudable because
it recognizes that a compliance duty should be required of employees as well as
employers. We would further suggest that the duty provisions in subsection 6(a)
be combined with that in subsection 6(b) so as to require the same standards of
compliance for both employers and employees. Combining the two subsections by
primarily utilizing the language of Section 6(b) would not adversely lessen the
duty compliance obligations of either employers or employees. It would eliminate
the general duty clause which has caused many problems in application under
the Occupational Safety and Health Act A fairer and more rational enforce-
ment of safety regulations is accomplished under specified rules, rather than any
vague duty to act safely.
Section 7 : Regulatory authority and standards
Section 7 would require the Secretary of Transportation to review and revise
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations to assure proper maintenance, safe
scheduling and healthy, capable drivers.
While emphasizing the items specified in subsections 7(a) (1) to (3) provides
no difficulties per se, the language in subsection 7(a) (2) including "duration,
frequency and scheduling" and "driver fatigue" could involve the Department of
Transportation in labor issues unrelated to safety, such as assigning certain
drivers to certain routes. Rather than specifically delineating these items, it
would be preferable to leave subsection 7(a)(2) in general terms. With such
language the Secretary would be able to determine what involvement from a
safety standpoint is necessary and desirable, without infringing upon items more
traditionally the subject of labor-management negotiations.
There is no dispute that the current "hours-of-service" regulations are safety
related. They detail how long a vehicle may be operated by an individual
without a rest break. However, the language as currently written in subsection
7(a) (2) could be used as a justification for involvement in union driver seniority
rules — a matter better left to labor-management negotiations.
Subsection 7(a) also needs amendatory language to assure that the Secretary
would look to the Federal Highway Administration to carry out the legislati<m.
It is important to clearly establish that the Federal Highway Administration
through the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety is authorized to carry out the pro-
visions of this Act. Much practical expertise in motor carrier safety compliance
currently in the Bureau would be lost if another group were chosen to administer
this bill. By referring to 49 U.S.C. 1655(e), the "bill presently authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to carry out the provisions of the Act Adding a
reference to 49 U.S.C. 1655(f) as well would properly tie implementation into
the Federal Highway Administration which regulates motor carrier safety
through its Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.
Digitized by
Google
95
SubSfectidn 7(b) contains a significant problem by requiring employers through
agency rulemaking to implement safety programs "to the extent technology
permits." Recent trucking industry experience with the 121 brake standard of
the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration clearly indicates
that a safety device can be technologically permissible, but practically inoperahlt*.
The industry has experienced massive pro»)lems with the anti-lock portion of
the new brake systems. While the rest of the braking system generally works,
the anti-lock portion often does not or works improi^erly. Wliile anti-lw.*k may
have looked fine as a technological development, the system often cannot remain
operable in normal use. « ^ *
What is needed is a reference to "practicability" in subsection 7(b). Safety
standards should be technologically permissible and able to l>e implemented from
a practical standpoint. The trucking industry sliould not i>e re<iuired to purrliase
eostly and potentially dangerous equipment merely because an exotic, but untried,
technology exists.
Finally, subsection 7(d) should be stricken from the legislation. If enacted,
this subsection could become a source of legal challenge every time the Secre-
tary decides to promulgate or revise a safety regulation. The materiality test
therein begs judicial interpretation.
At one time Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations required that axes !»e
carried on buses for use in case of fire or entrapment. After many years the
Bureau received no reijorts that the axes were ever used for safety imrjHmeH, but
did receive reports of the axes oc<.-asional!y l>eing used by passengers on other
passengers I Could BMCS easily reiieal this requirement— as it did— if subsection
7(d) were in existence ?
Subsection 7(d) could become a major olistacle in achieving the purposes of
8. 2970. and we believe it should be delete<l In Its entirety. In view of the imriHUten
of the Act, the Secretary has more than adequate direction concerning the safety
protections of motor carrier employees.
Section 8: Record-keeping, inspect if mjn and inveMtigaiions
Two significant problems remain in Section H of S. 2970. Subsection 8(b)
would require, '^whenever practicable." that the Secretary conduct motor carrier
iiuqpections without advance notice. While there is no objection to unannounced
^inspections, the "whenever practicable*' requirement is too restrictive. The Hee-
" retary should have permissive authority in this area without being required to
make a finding of practicability. There undoubtedly are cirennurtanoes under
which the Secretary would want to make an unannounced inspection. Bat in
the majority of cases, it would be advantageous to the Secretary's staif to gain
assurance that responsible carrier staff and appropriate records are aTailai>le
to inspectors when they appear. These matters ought to be left to tlie discretion
of the Secretary.
Additionally, we believe that the last sentence of subsection 8(b) sboold be
deleted, lliis section could CTcate serious labor diffieolties regarding who is the
appropriate employee representative in a given situation. These matters slMmld
he left to labor management negotiations.
Finally. ATA has very strong objections to the empk^ee emni^int proeedure
outlined in subsection 8(ci. The Bureau of Motor Carrier SafetF presently
reeeives complaints from motor carrier employees and can take action thereon.
But snbseetion Siei would require the Secretary to devote an inordinate amoont
of resources to this program. This sutiscsction requires the Secretary to conduct
faiTestigations and take other action each and ereiy time he beileres that a
Tic»lation may have occurred. The unnecessarily dnplicatlTe aetkm created by
this subsection could strain agency resources to the detriment of other, more
important compliance efforts as it has in the case of the Oeeqiatiooal Safety
and Health Adndnistration.^
^**08HA thonld hotter aerem «Biploj#« eoapUtots sod Bor« sHeirtiTHy i wgp» ii to
thOL IsproT^Ment «f t mp ectto s ctrategy r ^ uir e m aaaljsls of fsspiMtioaa tptm^enUtA hj
OBplOFee eompteistB. Is wereni OSHA area oAecs. the Mckloc of ewBidatst i*BffttttUmm
kaa btcoie svHciestly laxg« to pnielade oUmt tjpea of Isap^gtioaa cstirel7' ISoaK oT tk*
aobpptSoBa beliig eonsid«r«4 Inctode vayi of HiHt^mg htiUr teCaranllos os tammhtimU^
O cf H op ia g crftnia for wt^/tetluf aa4 prWrfHsteg thoae eoipl aisto ta wMdi OtOA vfll
ic^ond. mm4 cataMlaUag f g a o upw -a a r l ag liadta os the aea^ of emiphktmt t ^ "
Imtrmgemtr TsA Force os Woifcfilaioe 8a2Ky a»i Hcaltk Fteat Kocostmradarta
Digitized by
Google
96
l''nder the present procedure, similar complaints can be acted upon without
losing sif?ht of other important safety issues. Strong action can and is being
taken against serious patterns of violation, and complaints alleging significant
violations can already be dealt with expeditiously.
Finally, subsection 8(c) places no burden upon employees to seek redress from
the employer before filing a complaint with the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.
Most complaints are easily handled by voluntary action, yet the basic thrust of
this subsection seems to cut out that readily available mechanism. Subsection
8(c) should be deleted.
Sections 9, 10, and 11: Citations; civil penalties; enforcement and review
The citation and civil penalty provisions are unjustifiable, especially in view
of the mutiplier effect of the language In Section 9 permitting each day of a
violation to constitute a separate offense. Additionally, the unreasonably high
penalties have not been limited to significant safety violations. Finally, tlie
citation approach puts an unfair burden on the carrier to prove it is not at
fault, an approach which would lead to costly litigation in view of the penalty
amounts involved.
Under current law, civil penalties are available for motor carrier record-keeping
violations. Most safety violations result in record-keeping violations, and large
assessments are already being made under current law. Recent dispoeiti<m8 by
the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of charges for record-keeping vi<^ations
against motor carriers range from $200 to $10,750. (Tani^ort Topics, July 17,
1978, page 18.)
ATA strongly opposes Sections 9 through 11 of S. 2970 as a safety enforcement
device. These sections could well have the effect of penalizing heavily those
carriers which are assiduously trying to improve their safety compliance record
while penalizing less heavily those making little or no safety compliance effort
Normal operations inevitably lead to burned out light bulbs and other insub-
stantial equipment failures. The carriers more regularly checked by the Bureau of
Motor Carrier Safety would be constantly fined large sums of money. Those
operating only a single or a few trucks would not be checked as oft«i and could
even go out of business, not pay the fine, and re-enter the business shortly there-
after. Yet, It is the marginal operator that often creates the most serious safety
hazards.'
A more effective approach would be to codify the Secretary's power to place
drivers and vehicles "out-of -service" should the Bureau's Inspectors detect signifi-
cant safety violations. With this statutory approach and given the increased
enforcement level provided by this legislation, a stronger Incentive for eafety
compliance would be created. iUso, the impact of safety enforcement would be
better equalized among carriers. If a truck is on the road with a substantial
safety defect, it will be stopped from further movement until the defect i9
repaired.
This approach should merit further exploration by the Committee, especially
in view of the face that it would eliminate the need for a great expansion in thi»
governmental services necessary to hear and review contested citations as pro-
vided in Sections 10 and 11 of the bill.
Section 12: Employee suits
Section 12 does not add materially to improved safety compliance, rather
it would stimulate litigation, waste private and governmental resources, and
establish a potential source of disputes among labor representatives. This section
is a version of a concept that has surfaced many times before.
The discharge of, or imfair discrimination against, any employee resulting
from the filing of a reasonable safety complaint is abhorrent to the trucking
industry. In recognition of this, trucking industry labor agreements generally
provide mechanisms for the expeditious handling of such situations.
a A survey of the nation's truck drivers was recently conducted by Dr. D. Daryl Wyckoff
of the Harvard Graduate School of Business. The results of the survey, which will be
Included in a study v\) be published at a later date, were released In June of this yc«r.
Covering more than 10,000 drivers in seven categories, ranging from owner-operators
in the exempt for-hire area to company) drivers working for regulated for-hlre carriers,
X). WyckofTs survey shows that the exempt for-hire driver had the highest rate of report-
able accidents per 100.000 miles annually — 0.70%. The driver for the regulated fOr-hife
common carrier had the lowest — 0.19%. The survey also shows that the voluntary
4»omniiance with lo^ book (drivins: time) and hours-of -service rules also was being violated
bj re owner-operators than other drivers.
Digitized by
Google
97
CadUting these prcnisioiis. as proposed in Section 12. nnfiiirly plmces the
burdoi upon the employer to docnmenc thorooghlj the steps taken with respect
to any and all complaints in preparation for pc^ssible litisiition. AddicionaUy,
the reasonable man standard in sobsection t2(bK while of some help, is stiil
snlBcientlj va^ne that it woold be impoadMe to anticipate in a si^«& specific
case what has to be done. In oor view, the potential for abuse is great.
The proTlsions of Section 12 also allow exemplaiy damages against an
employer who has been found to hare discdiarged nn^drly an employee, but
not against an employee who hris teen found to have filed a frlTcdous complaint.
This is one manifestation of the strong anti-employer bias that exists in this
section.
There are many other specific legal problems in the language of Section 12.
How would this new procedure relate to current onion grievance procedores?
What is the diiference between subsections 12«cni) and 12«,c> lii) ? How woold
these provisions relate to the new DOT safety regolatlons?
Most distorbing to us is the net practical effect of Section 12. The language
will inject a spirit of distrust and litigousness in the safety area, an area in
which the best resolu are obtained via employer-emi^oyee cooperation.
ATA strongly opposes the inclusion of Section 12 in any safety legislatioii
recommended by this Committee.
Seehtm IS: State enforrememt; Sectkm IS: Federal pre^mptkM
Under S. 2970 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations wt wld b e made
applicable to all commercial motor vehicles over 10.000 pounds GTWR i gross
rdiide weight rating t both those in intrastate as well as interstate commerce.
JBach state would have the option of continued federal enforcement or state
enforcement if a state qualified for federal aid to enforce those regulatioiB
Witliin its state.
If the laner election is taken, the state would have to submit a plan applica-
Idon for federal aid. That application would have to specify that the state would
1d<Hi»t the uniform reporting requirements and uniform forms for record-keeping
fco be promulgated by the Federal Department of Transportati^m, and that all
^xg^rta would be made to it.
Among the other specifications whidi would have to be included in the plan
mppUcatiop, the suite would have to show CfDmparable inspection rights, a sta te-
nt of legal authority and an assurance of adequate qualified per^^nneL
A hundred million dollars would be authorized each fiscal year from tbe High-
' Trust Fund, and would be made available to the states on an SO. 20 basis.
The fedoal aid program would act as an incentive for both enforcement and
uniformity. The Highway Trust Fund authorization does not appear exees:«;ve
srben it is considered that a majority of states probably could participate rather
aoic^ly.
Hot there is a problem that needs resolving. A state, preferring to keep its own
eadstliig safety laws and regulations in effect, would be pre-empted by the provi-
Bions of Section IS and would not be eligible to obtain M)/20 nu>ney under the
lyroTisians of Section 13. This could effectively eliminate many state n^uLitioos
^T^iicii are now meritorious and effectively enforced. We do not believe it is in the
liita«8t of furthering safety compliance that these programs should be eliminated.
^nierefore. an amendment is necessary to Section IS which wi>uld permit state
Ikwb in effect on the date of enactment to remain in effect. An additional anivnd-
■Bent is needed to Section 13 to permit such states to qualify for federal aid where
Uie state meets the other qualification criteria set out in the 8ectit>n. The^^e chaitges
wvnld insure that existing and effective state regulations would continue to be
enforced.
We also snegest that the Committee solicit the views of the states regarding this
ItiglslatlTe proposaL especially with respect to Sections 13 and IS. l^eir partieipa-
tion wonld be vital to implementation of any legislation ultimately enacted.
Fbially. subsection 131 a ) 1 1 > should be amended to require the states to notify
the registrants of commercial motor vehicles of the federal commercial m^ror
Y^rirfde saflety laws and regulations, and to secure from such regisrrants a writr^^a
stateBMDt of familiarity with those laws and regulations. This would be of assist*
anee in sobseqnent enforcement activities by both the Federal Bureau of Motor
Oarrier Safety and the various state agencies operating pursuant to approved
state plans.
Digitized by
Google
98
AMERICAN Trucking Asbociationb, Inc.,
Washinfftony D.C, November S, 1978.
Hon. Howard W. Cannon,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U,8. Senate,
5202 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Cannon : Attached are the answers to the additional questions
submitted for the record concerning S. 2970, the Motor Carrier Safety bill. We
hope these will be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth F. Stinger.
Attachment.
Questions of the Committee and Answers Thereto
I. background information
The work of the bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the U.S. Department of
Transiwrtation has grown increasingly complex since formation of D.O.T. in
11X^7 and thus the Bureau has a serious need for increased manpower to ade-
quately monitor the safety of motor carrier operations and enforce its safety
regulations.
It is responsible for driver qualifications and controls, vehicle requirements,
hazardous materials safety, safety and health of employees, noise control and
cargo security. These areas of responsibility have become more difficult to
handle because of the increased number of drivers and vehicles on the road;
increased volumes and tyi)es of hazardous materials being transported; in-
creased mileages being traveled; greater complexity of vehicle systems such
as brakes; political and media pressures; pressures from the public, employee
groups and employers ; and increased Congressional mandates for control of
safety and environmental matters as well as protection of employees and
cargo.
According to BMCS Staff, the number of carriers for which it has respon-
sibility has increased from 124,000 in 1967 to 150,000 in 1978. Data from the
imblication "American Trucking Trends (1976 Statistical Supplement)" shows
that the average number of power units (truck tractors) per Class I Intercity
Carrier has increased from 129.7 in 1965 to 219 in 1974. Ten miles for Class I.
II and III Motor Carriers has increased from 140,311 million in 1965 to 218,000
million in 1974. ATA does not have ton mile figures for private carriers, the
largest segment of the trucking industry, but the growth is no doubt comparable.
There are 3 to 4 million interstate motor vehicles for which the Bureau is
responsible. Its staff of field inspectors in 1967 was 92 and today is 133. In
comparison the Federal Railroad Administration has just received Congressional
authorization to increase its staff of field inspectors from 500 to 600. The rail-
roads have 1.6 million freight cars that operate on restricted rights of way and
which travel limited mileage annually because they are only loaded on an
average of every 29 days. Trucks, on the other hand, operate in a mix of traffic
that has increased from 80,414,180 passenger cars in 19G7 to 112,675,8.'35 in 1977.
Truck traffic has increased from 15,300.000 in 1907 to 28,334,333 in 1977.
Trucks are loaded every 1 to 4 days. Typical interstate tractor semitrailer com-
binations travel 100.000 miles or more per year. In comparison to rail cars,
trucks are highly sophisticated vehicles and thus there are many more features
that are subject to regulation. There is one truck driver for each truck and so
there are many more employees (in comparison to rails) subject to such
regulations, as hours of service, driving rules, physical condition, skill and
knowledge, licensing, driving record, etc.
The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has traditionally carried out three
functions in relation to its responsibilities: development of regulations, educa-
tion of motor carriers and employees, and enforcement of its regulations. It's
the trucking industry view that the regulations now in effect are sufficient to
assure safe operations of trucks if they are complied with.
The two most effective programs for compliance are the educational actlTitles
of the Bureau and its enforcement activities. In the 1950's and 1960'8 the Bu-
reau's field staff spent hundreds of hours at trucking industry safety meetings
explaining the regulations and what carriers should do to be in compliance. It
also spent hundreds of man hours in the conduct of terminal inspections of
jTacilities and records, and in the conduct of roadside inspections of yehicles
Digitized by
Google
99
and drivers. The Bureau has cut back on its involvemait in industry programs
because of a shortage of maniwwer and also money to cover expenses of its
field force. This has had a negative impact on its educational program. Hundreds
of smaller carriers are not being told that they are subject to the r^ulations
and how to comply with the regulatory requirements.
The Bureau has also cut back on the number of roadside inspections it con-
ducts and this has had a n^witive impact on its ability to remove unsafe drivers
and unsafe vehicles from the highways. Its program of terminal inspections
has suffered to a lesser extent but the program tends to concentrate more on
carriers with larger numl»er8 of drivers and vehicles because of the Bureau's
needs to utilize its manpower efficiently. Obviously, the facilities and records
of a carrier with 100 drivers can be inspected more eflBciently than the records
of 10 carriers with 10 drivers each.
A report by the General Accounting Office titled "The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Program: Not Yet Achieving What the Congress Wanted" (May 16;
1977) recommends that the Bureau increase it«« roadside inspection activity
and be more logical in its selection of terminal facilities for inspections. ATA
believes that the most effective means of improving truck safety is throng
increased educational activity and increased roadside enforcement so that
drivers and vehicles of all sizes and types of operations can be monitored more
<?lo8ely and so that unsafe drivers and unsafe vehicles can be removed from
the highways more promptly.
Oar answers to the questions posed are on the following pages.
n. ANSWERS TO QUESTI0:^8
Question, In your testimony, you state that the BMCS is understaffed to
enforce adequately the existing regulations. In your organixation*s c^inion. how
siany persons would be required for adequate enfore^nent of existing trucking
:xeenliLtionB.
Answer. ATA believes that all three of the compliance activities (education,
TCMidside inspections and terminal inspections ) need to be strengthened through
ad^tional safety investigators and safety inspectors for the Bureau, and addir
tional m<mey to cover travel and other expenses of the added manpower.
1. For educational and terminal inspection activities we believe that the cur-
rent number of investigators needs to be doubled The number has been in a
range of 92 to 133 since 1967 and has never been sufficient. It is imperative that
motor carriers be better educated by BMCS on all rules . . . driver and vehicle,
liaaardoos materials, noise, safety and health and cargo security. This is not
being done at the present. It is imperative aLso that the terminal inspection
program be strengthened so that, the basic compliance program of indiridual
motor carriers can l*e monitored by in-depth checks of records and inspection of
facilities, fright and vehicles.
We estimate that there should be a minimum of 250 investigators for terminal
comi^iance programs and educational activities. These investigators would need
to have an in-depth knowledge of all of the regulations of the Bureau (driver,
Tebide, hazardous materials, noise, etc. ) to monitor compliance and to educate
carriers, drivers state officers and emergency personnel Their pay levels would
be in a pay range of $18,000 and expenses would be an additional S12,000 to
$18,000. Tlie BMCS staff can best estimate salaries and costs based on current
pay and expenses for their investigators.
2. For roadside in.spections we believe that it would be more practical to
utilize indiriduals who can be specialists in inspecting drivers, vehicles and
loads, and do not need the total knowledge essential for educational and tenni-
nal compliance programs. Through use of specialists training costs will be lower
because their responsibility and their knowledge will be more limited. Yet, the
qaaHty of inspections would be high t>ecause of the specialization. The pay scale
can be lower, in the $12,000 range, and thus more individuals could be employed
for a designated budget leveL Through specialization and increased numbers
the focus <m roadside inspections would be sharpened and more inspections
conducted.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration utilizes speciali.sts for ita
National Accident Sampling System teams at pay levels beginning at $10,000.
Hie experience of XHTSA should be studied to determine the practicality of
utilixing individuals with Umited skills at lower pay scales in the BMCS road-
fAda inspection {u-ogram.
Digitized by
Google
100
The conduct of roadside inspections should be of such frequency in number
that there is a high potential of a driver and vehicle being inspected on a given
trip. This will be an incentive to motor carriers, private carriers and owner
operators to make a stronger effort to be in compliance with driver and vehicle
requirements. Today, drivers do not expect such inspections. They know the prob-
ability of an inspection is almost nil and so there is a tendency by some to violate
the regulations, and to delay essential repairs to vehicles.
There are approximately 1,300,000 tractor semitrailers registered in the U.S.
The great majority of these are long haul vehicles operating in interstate com-
merce. Most such vehicles travel 100,000 miles or more per year. With consistency
they are operated 3,000 miles per week, and in a mouth accumulate more mileage
than the average passenger car does in a year.
To effectively monitor these vehicles and the drivers of them on a frequency
basis there should be an inspection force capability to monitx)r each of them at
least once a year. It is estimated that one inspector can inspect 8 vehicles per
day for about 300 days per year. Administrative duties would account for the
additional days of work of an inspector per year. On the assumption of 2400
inspections per individual per year it would be necessary to utilize 500 inspectors
to provide an inspection capability of one inspection per year for tractor semi-
trailers. From a practical standpoint, some such vehicles might be inspected
several times in a year and others not inspected at all. However, the coverage
would be such that drivers would exi)ect to be inspected and would thus do a
better Job of keeping themselves and their vehicles in good condition. They would
not want to chance the possibility of failing an inspection and being placed out of
service along the highway.
Question, In your testimony, you alluded to the "great variance in the indus-
try". How would you suggest improving that uneven safety performance?
Please be specific, keeping in mind that the results of the recent DOT strike
force roadside checks showed that safety violations were widespread among all
types of carriers.
Answer. There is a great variance in the industry in the extent of compliance
with safety regulations. The Bureau does not have the manpower capability to
locate and inspect carrier operations that utilize a very few vehicles. Owner
operators change address frequently and can bejocated only when they are
stopped en route at a roadside inspection. Many private and exempt carriers are
unknown to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and have never been notified
that they are subject to the regulations. The National Transportation Safety
Board recently dealt with the latter problem in a communication to the Burean
of Motor Carrier Safety which concerned investigation of a fatal tnick accident
and the finding that the motor carrier (Ford Construction Co.) was not aware
that It is subject to the BMCS regulations.
Regulated carriers are, on the other hand, known to BMCS because they are
carriers of record because of their certificates of convenience and necessity from
the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Each such carrier has been advised
of its responsibility to comply with the regulations. The majority of such carriers
have been inspected by the Bureau.
Obviously the level of compliance will be higher among those who know of
their responsibility than for those who do not. The level of compliance will he
hiffher for those who know of their responsibility and are more likely to be
insoected than for those who have such knowledge but feel that there is little
likelihood of being inspected.
The August 1978 Roadside Inspection at Berwick. Pennsylvsnia consisted of
Inspections for a 5-dav period, of 676 vehicles. The average trafldr* count of trac-
tor semitrailers at this point is 30.(¥>0 for a 5-dav period according to Pennsvl-
vania Highway OflScials. Of the 676 vehicles 3.i2 were placed out-of-service
because of imminently hazardous defects. This was 52 percent of the vehicles
inspected and slightly more than 1 percent of the vehicles that would pa^fi
the check point in a 5-day period. The Bureau does a complete inspection onlv
on vehicles that look or sonnd bad. This limited insi)ection procedure is a result
of its manpower limitations.
There were more "Authorized For Hire" vehicles inspected than vehicles of
**Privnte" and "Exempt" carriers combined. Yet the "Authorized** carriers are
small in number in comparison with the other types. Wp believe that there sre
reasons for this. One is that owner operators are more likely to "skirt" an In-
iction point than are company drivers. An owner operator takes an alternate
Digitized by
Google
101
roote if his Tehide is in bad condition to aToid the expense in time and money
of being placed ont-of-senice. Tlie company driver loses nothing if his vehicle
is iniq;>ected. In fact, if the vehide is placed ont-of -service the driver will be paid
for the time delay. Another reason that for-hire vehicles may have been in larger
numbers is that the inspection point was near major terminals of several car-
riers and so the frequency of for-hire vehicles at the check point wonld have been
high and it wonld be impossible for drivers to skirt the check point as there was
no alternative ronte to their terminals.
It shonld be noted, however, that the average number of violations per vehicle
for ''Authorised For Hire** carriers was considerably lower than the number
of violations pei; vehicle for the other types of carriers.
It shonld be noted alsi> that Anthorixed For Hire carriers had a better record
of driver compliance, with only 3 percent placed out-of-service, compared to more
than 4 percent for Private carriers and over 10 percent tor Exempt carriers.
Driver qualification violations were at a level of 5 percent for Authorized For
Hire carriers. 20 percent for Private carriers and 10 percent for Exempt carriers.
We b^eve that the foregoing is practical evidence in support of our statement
about the -great variance in the industry**. A recent survey by Dr. Darryl Wycolf
of Harvard University also demonstrated with certainty tlie high levels of com-
pliance of the regulated motor carrier industry. This study is referred to in a
footnote in our testimony.
Question. In your testimony, you oppose giving authority for civil forfeiture
and increasing the penalty provi<don.«. as set forth in S. 2970. You favor more
"red-tagging", which is a more extreme and expensive method. Why do you op-
pose the more flexible civil forfeiture approach, where the fine can be tailored
to the severity of the violation?
Answer. The Tuore flexiMe civil forfeiture approach** is imposed after the
fact of a violation rather than at the time of the violation and so it does not
stf>p an unsafe operation. The civil penalty is imposed at the judgment of the
regulator and thus may have little relationship to whether or not safety was
jeopardized or the past record of the carrier.
For example, a tractor semitrailer may have 27 lit^ts as required by the
BMCS Safety Regulations. Frequently those with smaller bulbs such as marker
lights and clearance lights have a failure due to vibration of the vehicle over a
period of time. Such a failure would not result in the vehicle being placed ont-
of -service but it could, on the judgment of the regulator. re»nilt in a civil penalty,
even though the safety of the vehicle and the public was not jeopardised.
The current gys t e m of civil penalties is more equitable because the penalties
can be imposed only for record keeping violations. In terminal in.<pections the
inspector may find a nnmher of rec«^»rd violations which indicate a deficiency in
the carrier's compliance and safety program. A civU penalty can then be imposed
and is more justifiable because it reflects a pattern of non-compliance rather than
an isolated instance.
The out-of-service provisions are highly eifective. They result in immediate
removal from the highway of unsafe drivers and unfsafe vehicles. It is a costly
penalty because of los«s of driver rime, potential for customer illwill due to delay
c^ fr^^t. posfsible expenses for driver meal and motel costs, repair costs for the
vehicle and tow truck services that can ranjre up to hundreds of dollars.
The civil forfeiture provisions of S. 2970 are extremely inequitable because
they place the burden of proof on the carrier to prove it is not at fault. The
dollar maximimis are unreasonably large. The full cost for both the carriers and
government is excessive. These provisions will cause fines to be imposed most
heavily on those hl^y visible carriers already making a safety comi^iance
effort.
If 8 true that the civil penalty provisions do contain language designed to
permit a flexible application of the level of fine. But that flexibility i<i more
apparent than reaL llie^ provisions would be implemented through a cuml^er-
some administrative and quasi- judicial process. Too much lengthy and costly
litigation would be required for judicial interpretation of these provisions. The
sy stem itself is inflexible, despite the lansrua^e on fines to be imposevl.
Bed tagging requires no new quasi-judicial mechanism and wonld not stimulate
an endless stream of litigation. It is effective because it is harsii. If it is fairly
administered, its safety compliance effects will be swift. Measured by its results
it is a mu<^ more efficient mechanism tlian the civil penalty approacji.
Tlie Chairmax. The next witness is ilr. Hugh Laoey, Private Truck
Council of America.
Digitized by
Google
102
STATEMENT OF HUGH F. LACEY, PEIVATE TEXJCK COTJHCIL OP
AHEBICA, ore, OENEBAL TSAFFIC HANAOEB, JOSEPH T. BYEB*
SON & SON, INC., CHICAGO, HL.; ACCOMPANIED BT BICHABO
HENDEBSON, BIBECTOB OF OPEBATIONS; AND WILLIAM QTJIN-
LAN, SPECL&L COUNSEL
Mr. Lacey. Go(x1 morning, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to first introduce
Mr. Richard Henderson, our director of operations for the Private
Truck Council of America, on my left, and Mr. William Quinlan, our
special counsel, on my right.
I have prepared a statement which is already entered into the record.
I'd like to make some additional comments.
Today I do represent the Private Truck Council of America, the
only national independent organization representing nontransporta-
tion companies which operate trucks in furtherance of primary busi-
nesses other than for-hire transportation. I'm currently a member of
the board of directors and immediate past president. My comments
obviously are directed at Senate bill S. 2970, the Truck Safety Act of
1978.
Our concern is that the thrust of the bill is directed toward the
truck and not toward the driver. In 1976, according to the Bureau of
Motor Carrier safety data, involving almost 26,000 truck accidents
in only 1,500 accidents were there detects which may or may not have
been contributory, or roughly 6 percent. In other words, defect-related
accidents are relatively rare. Conversely truck and car drivers are the
cause of 94 percent or more of the accidents. Unfortunately, passenger
car drivers are at fault about 65 percent of the time.
It must be remembered that the typical truck driver is a professional
whose livelihood depends upon his skill and statistics prove that there
are almost a third less crashes involving trucks than passenger cars per
million miles traveled. Whereas virtually every moment of a truck
driver's time is covered by some regulation, the private automobile
driver is tested only periodically. His activity is not regulated and his
car is rarely inspected.
A measure of the concern that the private truck operators have for
safety on the highways is reflected in the time and money spent in the
selection and training of drivei-s and their continuing education. Un-
fortunately, this is a very complex process involving individuals who
are largely without supervision throughout their working day. There
are many human factors that can contribute to an accident, including
inattention, fatigue, drinking, exce.ss speed, use of drugs, et cetera.
Poor driving skills would include following too closely, not driv-
ing defensively, unsafe passing, poor judgment, et cetera.
These also contribute to accidents. These human factors and driAdnjBT
skills are directly related to the proper selection of the driver and his
training. Those engaged in private truck operations do have onffoing
programs and are constantly on the alert for better means of training
drivers and enforcing adherence to safety rules.
Most private truck operators have as part of their safety programs
an award system for safe driving.
Our concern with the instant bill is that it really adds to the lonff
of rules and regulations presently in effect. As I said before, the
Digitized by
Google
! thrust is aimed at the vehicle and not the driver. The activities of the
/ truck driver today are more closely governed and are covei'ed by more
rules and regulations than any other professional gi'oup except com-
mercial airline pilots. He must be 21 years of age ; be able to speak and
read English; carry a doctors certificate; bo periodically examimMl;
and possess a valid chauffeur's license. He is by law i'e(iuired to ex-
amine his vehicle and tlie lading prior to his dei)artui'e in some detail
and periodically throughout the day. He cannot be forced to drive an
unsafe vehicle. As a matter of fact he is completely protected by union
grievance procedures and, as a last resort, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, should he refuse to drive an unsafe vehicle or if he brings
to the attention of the proper authorities unsafe vehicle or driving
conditions.
I know of no council member who would permit an unsafe vehicle
to leave the terminal. Breakdowns and accidents cost money, result in
bad publicity and certainly run contrary to the professional ethics of
the typical safety director. In most instances the driver is required to
fill out a daily form listing any defects in the vehicle requiring atten-
tion. Many times the driver is informed of the action taken. It is, there-
fore, our sincere opinion that driver education is the major key to
improved highway safety.
Access to the National Driver Register would be most valuable. We
don't need additional laws and regulations. We don't need S. 2970. We
do need greater compliance with existing rules and regulations and we,
"therefore, applaud the efforts of the Bureau of Motor Safety to seek
additional funds to add to its present 133 investigators who have tlie
impossible task of regulating millions of trucks and drivers.
Better driver selection, ^ucation. and better enforc^.ment of exist-
ing laws will bring about safer conditions on the highways.
The vehicles are not the problem; the drivers are.
TTiank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Lacey, in your statement, you say that the Pri-
^vate Truck Council of America supports the nem for increasing Fed-
eral funding for the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety as well as finan-
<5ial assistance to the States to expand their inspection program.
Xow this bill calls for SlOO million to be drawn from the Highway
Trust Fund to assist the States in their safety program. Do you bftlieve
that that level of funding is appropriate or, if not, what level of fund-
ing do vou think would be appropriate ?
Mr. Lacey. The gentleman said. I believe, from Xevada, that this i«
a tremendous sum of money and 1 am unable to comprehend it. I am
concerned and believe thatin the process of transferring funds from
the Federal to the State leveL that you lose quite a bit.
I'm also a bit confused as to how you would determine what the
State would regulate and inspect and Vhat the DOT would regulate
and inspect. If the criteria were to be interstate versus intrastate truck
shipment, I don't really know how this distinction could be easily
detected.
I guess to sum up, Mr. Chairman- 1 believe that if the funds were
avaifable. I'd much prefer to have the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
pnt on more inspectors to do the job.
The Chairmax. It's my iinderstanding that the Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety has only 133 inspectors for the over 4 million trucks on
Digitized by
Google
104
the road today. You say you support increased funding of that bureau.
I wonder if you have any estimate as to how much of an increase in
inspectors you believe would be necessarv to adequately regulate? ^
Mr. Lacey. It's a ballpark fi^re, ana I don't really have any idea.
It would require a tremendous increase in staff to do an adequate job
of inspection and enforcement.
The Chairman. Would you say it would have to be tripled, quad-
rupled, by a factor of 10? Can you give us any kind of an estimate?
Mr. Lacet. I would say at least a tenfold increase, yes, sir.
The Chairman. In your statement you say, I'm quoting, "To re-
peat, the driver causes the accident, not the vehicle."
Now how do you reconcile that statement with the findings of this
inspection recently in Pennsylvania which found numerous serious
truck safety defects across a whole spectrum of commercial motor
vehicles. It seems to me that you're placing an unfair burden on the
driver, when 64 percent of these trucks were found to have serious
enough defects, to have been talcen off the road.
Mr. Lacey. I'm very concerned about this, about that test. I'm
sure it's a factual and good test, Mr. Chairman. I feel, thou^, that
many of the defects uncovered in these types of inspections would not
necessarily contribute to an accident. I get back to my basic fiffure of
6 percent of all the accidents may have been caused by vehicle defects.
I'm also mindful of the fact that nowadays a random inspection of
vehicles coming off the production line would disclose defects that
might sideline that vehicle.
rd also like to point out, Mr. Cliairman, that some of these de-
fects occur enroute, such as lights failure, brake difficulties, other
failure due to metal fatigue, et cetera. All kinds of things that were
not present at the time that the vehicle left ihe terminal do occur on
the road.
The Chairman. I agree with that, but that it makes it all the more
clear to me that you shouldn't be singling out and placing all the
blame on the drivers, when you've got defects in these trucks that do
occur. That high a percentage was really a shocker to me, when I
saw the results of that test.
Mr. Lacey. I was concerned too, believe me.
The Chairman. Yet you heard later testimony that the test was
conducted at Wendover, Utah, and St. George, Utah. It came up with
substantially the same percentage factors.
Mr. Lacey. This is a very serious thing. These vehicles should be
out of operation, in case that defects of this kind are discovered. I
have no argument with that at all. I also say we need more inspectors
to detect more difficulties, such as you have mentioned.
The Chairman. Do you have any specific statistics as to the num-
bers or percentas:e of accidents that are caused that are driver-related?
Mr. Lacey. If 6 percent or less are caused by vehicle defects, sir, 94
percent or more, perhaps are due to driver activity, both truckdrivers
and passenger car drivers.
The Chatrbian. Where do you get those statistics ?
Mr. Lacey. Those are from — ^the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
review of 1976 truck accidents, something like 26,000, less than 1^
of which were caused by vehicle defects.
Digitized by
Google
105
The Chairman". In an earlier statement by the Deputjr Adminis-
trator of the FHA, Mr. Hassell — he said that present sanctions are in-
adequate to stop violations of safety regulations in the truck area. He
also argued for the need for increased civil penalty provisions. In
your statement you raised questions as to the effectiveness of increas-
mg the penalties and fines in the truck safety area. What other ap-
proach would you suggest would be effective in deterring violations of
truck safety regulations ?
Mr. Lacey. senator, I tried to zero-in on driver selection, better
driver education, and continuing educational programs.
You see the problem you have is this : The driver could be the best
driver in the world. He leaves at 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning, and
he's not back until 6 or 7 o'clock that night. He's totally without super-
vision throughout the day.
Now, we do our very best to train our drivers and to encourage
these safety programs, but we really have no way of determining how
"well he does. That's all I'm saying.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. Lacby. Thank vou, sir.
[The statement follows :]
Statement of Hugh F. Lacet on Behalf of the Private Truck
Council of America
My name is Hugh F. Lacey and I am General Traffic Manager for the Joseph
T. Ryerson Company of Chicago, IIa I am currently a member of the Board of
Directors t>f the Private Truck Council of America and its immediate past
President
The Private Truck Council is the only National indep^ident organization
representing non-transportation companies which operate trucks in furtherance
of primary businesses other than f or-hire transportation.
I am pleased to be here to offer Council's conmients on S-2970. I would first
Hke to comment on some of the remarks made by Senator Percy as they appeared
in the Congressional Record on the day that he introduced the bill, April 20,
1978.
We question the Senator's statement that of the 45,000 highway fatalities in
1975, over 20 percait were caused by trucks and buses. To say that of the 45,000
accidents trucks were involved in 20 percent of these accidents is one thing,
and perhaps that is more accurate. Such a percentage of involvement i£r not
surprising because of the high exposure potential of trucks considering the num-
ber of miles driven per year as compared to the average automobile. And the
majority of these miles are driven on the open highway as compared to locally
driven automobile miles.
To say that the truck was the cause of the accidents, we seriously doubt. We
know the accident reporting procedures of the DOT and we know that there is
no way it can always determine clearly and establish that in fact the truck
waa the cause.
All of this is not to minimize in any manner the problem of truck safety, nor
to imply there is nothing further that can be done about it. That is not our policy.
But all we are urging here, is greater care in the use of the statistics and caution-
ing against the coomion mistake of placing the blame in every accid^it on the
tmdc, when in fact the truck might have been properly maintained with the
driver following every rule of the road, yet the accident is unavoidable. A point
often lost sight of is that more than 95 percent of all accidents on the road are due
to driver «Tor. Rriatively few accidents are due to mechanical failures. Most of
these driy^s are drivers of private automobiles, unprofessional, untrained, and
nnn^nilated.
We reepectfnUy take issue with the Senator in his statement that because over
ooe-thiid of the trucks and buses inspected by the BMCS in 1976 were ordered
off the road and because the Bureau inspects less than 1 percent of the trodss a
Digitized by
Google
106
year, that therefore, the numoer of trucks really driving on the road, which shonld'
be ordered off the road is many, many more times greater. Though this contention
is often made, it has no validity whatever. The resources of the BMCS are lim-
ited and when they do conduct insi>ections they use the sensible and reasonable
method of purposely selecting for inspection only those trucks with the obvioas
appearance of being below mechanical par. It is therefore, quite incorrect to
assume that that same rate of out of service vehicles would continue throughout
the entire truck population.
While on the subject of inspection, we wonder to what extent the Bureau's
efforts have been directed to determining the extent of MVSS 121 malfunctions.
And to what extent has MVSS 121 contributed to accidents?
Further, we challenge the General Accounting Office's statement that, "in view
of the limited accident data obtained, the continuing infrequency of safety inspec-
tions and the high rate of trucks taken out of service after inspection, little
assurance exists that most motor carriers are complying with Federal Safety
Regulations". OAO has no basis for making such an assumption.
Before I leave the whole question of accident statistics, reporting, causes,
and inspections, I would like to make one additional observation.
When the DOT collects accident data it is important for them to report the
kind of truck operator involved in the accident, particularly if the driver is what
is known as an owner operator. Sometimes private fleets are confused with the
owner/operator. We do not represent them. And we ask the question to what
extent do they follow the rules of the road?
Senator Percy further discusses at some length, the question of penalties and
fines and proposes a substantial increase in the maximum fines. Maybe some
adjustment is necessary. But, we would also question to what extent have judges
now impose the maximum fines. Merely increasing the penalty or raising the fines
is not the magic answer and its value as a deterrent is questionable.
Another issue brought up has to do with the matter of employees, or truck
drivers, reporting unsafe vehicles or other safety violations to the Govemment.
The Senator indicates that there have been many instances where drivers art
fired for refusing to operate vehicles in violation of Federal Truck Safety Laws.
We seriously question how much evidence there is to support this. I^t's stop for
a minute and look at some of the current driver requirements. It is his legal obli-
gation to inspect the truck for any safety defects before starting out on his trip
and periodically during the trip as well. When discovering a safety defect he
already has an obligation to report it, and does.
The issue of employer reprisal does not exist based on my experience. And,
assuming it did, the driver has recourse through regular imion grievance pro-
cedures, and if that fails, the National Labor Relations Board.
Wnile on the subject of truck driver relations let us remember that he is
among the most regulated of employees. There is a provision in the code for
literally every minute of his working time. And this, contrasted to the driver
of the private automobile who is not subject to any regulation other than
getting an eye examination and license renewed every few years.
Finally, if there is any problem in the area of employer-employee relationships
it is not fear of reprisal on the part of the driver, but rather in management's
difiiculty in disciplining a driver who does not follow the rules. Management is
often frustrated when trying to discipline an unsafe driver because of long,
tedious union grievance procedures.
We do agree with the provision in this bill and the Senator's comments re-
garding the need for increasing Federal funding of the Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety as well as financial assistance to the states to expand their inspection
programs. We support this and have for years, because our basic intention has
always been, that if we had fair and adequate enforcement of the rules that
now exist, if the BMCS could exercise fully the authority it now has, this would
do more to reduce accidents and promote safety than any of the other provisions
In this proposed legislation.
We now direct our comments to the remaining provision of S-2970.
Tlie bill would authorize the Secretary of Transportation or the BMCS to
regulate working conditions and operating practices of employees to insure the
trucks are so maintained as to prevent accidents and to conduct research under
iiew enforcement technicjues and training programs. We again point out that
the DOT already has ample authority to insure that trucks are properly inspected
and maintained.
Digitized by
Google
107
There Is certainly nothing wrong with conducting research into new aiforce-
ment techniques and training programs. As to training, I might o4)serye that
private truck fleets are constantly developing new training approaches and tech-
niques. Any reputable company has good driver selection and training programs.
Good business dictates it. This is all management can do. It can't control him
while driving. It can try to discipline him afterwards if any wrongdoing is
learned of.
Next, the bill would authorize the Secretary to conduct on the job inspections
and investigations. Again, we point out that the BMCS already has the author-
ity to do this, and, in fact does exercise it. The degree to which they exercise it
depends on their resources.
That portion of the bill which gives truck drivers the right to require DOT
investigations of violations of safety regulations, is a clear and unwarranted
intrusion of Government into what is properly the domain of management. And
furthermore, as we have pointed out, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety itself
already has authority and responsibility to conduct on site investigations where
violations of safety regulations are suspected. We fail to see how the process
would be facilitated to any greater degree by giving the drivers the right to re-
quire such investigations. This could in fact work in reverse by guaranteeing that
the drivers have the right to harass their own management, as well as waste the
resources of the Bureau on investigations when they may not really be needed. To
repeat, the driver causes the accidents, not vehicles.
The provision to require the DOT to serve citations upon alleged violators of
safety laws who would then be given 15 days to notify DOT of their intuit to
contest the citation, is merely a procedural penalty change. It gives no pow^r
that the DOT cannot or does not now in effect exercise.
We oppose the two provisions dealing with the National Transportation Safety
Board, one which authorizes an administrative adjudicatory hearing before the
Board in cases of contested citations and the other providing for judicial review
and enforcement of Board decisions, and orders. We urge that the National
Transportation Safety Board be retained as an independent accident investiga-
tory body. To bog the Safety Board down with judicial review proceedings would
only tend to divert the resources influence and effectiveness of that very in^ior-
tant agency away from its primary objective, that of investigating major acci-
dents and determining causes.
We strongly support the measure which would require the Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety to flle an annual report with Congress. Congress certainly has
the right to exercise its oversight responsibility and clearly should do so.
In summary Mr. Chairman, we feel that S-2970 provides little if anything
meaningful toward promoting greater truck safety. We fail to see how any of its
provisions other than those calling for better enforcement would have any real
effect on Safety. To a large extent it is aiming in the wrong direction. It does
nothing to help management foster better safety practices among its drivers.
Briefly and flnally, the existing Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulaticms
are adequate and with sufficient resources for proper enforcement, it could do
the job the public deserves.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Bartley O'Hara, legislative attorney, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters.
STATEMENT OF BABTLET O'HAKA, LEGISLATIVE ATTOElffET, IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHEBHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; ACCOMPANIED
BY GEORGE MERNICE
Mr. O'Hara. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm
Bartley O'Hara. With me is Mr. Greorge Memick. He's on the staff of
the safety and health program of the international union.
Before we start. Senator, we'd like to thank you for your indulgence
and tolerance yesterday in hearing our concerns on S. 3431. Our mem-
bers were tremendously satisfied with it, and again, we'd like to thank
you for it.
Digitized by
Google
108
We're appearing hei-e on behalf of General President Fitzsimmons,
who is unable to be here today.
We believe the bill before the committee is an important step in pro-
viding additional safety protection for truckdrivers. In that regard,
we would like to highlight a number of the important features of the
bill.
First, section 17 requires that ICC continue to consider a carrier's
record of compliance with safety regulations as a principal criterion
for determining whether to control operating authority on motor car-
riers. TVTiile we believe that this may be somewhat blunted by efforts
to remove economic regulations in the motor carrier industry, it is
nevertheless an important improvement in transportation safety.
Next, the bill provides additional statutorjr authority in the area
of truck safety. At the present time the i:)rovisions of the Interstate
Commerce Act as administered by the DOT, are inadequate to meet
the needs of our members. For example, this law docs not contain
provisions authorizing inspection of an employer's premises. In ad-
dition, the most comprehensive of all safety laws, OSHA, is far
superior to the current provisions of the existing statute. Thus this bill,
by effectively OSHAizing motor transportation law, will not only
provide protection, but it may also reduce the jurisdictional problems
between the DOT and the Department of Labor.
In addition, we have a number of concerns with the bill. For ex-
ample, it only applies to the operation of motor veliicles with a gross
weight rating exceeding 10,000 pounds. We believe this is an error,
be-cause it will encourage unsafe operations of a significant number of
vehicles.
In addition, the bill does not spell out time limits within which
safety regulations are to be promulgated by the Secretary of Trans-
portation. To overcome this, we would suggest promulgation of a fiinal
decision on a rule no later than 1 year after a petition is filed. Of
course, exceptions could be made for extraordinary situations. We
have found that delay plays an important role in the promulgation of
certain safety regulations.
To cite but one instance, the step and handhold regulations took
nearly 7 years from the filing date to the effective date.
With regard to State transportation safety plans, it gives us pause,
primarily oecause the OSHA experience has proven to be less than
satisfactory. In addition, we are advocates of uniformity in the safety
area, and this should be an absolute must in the area of truck safety,
due to the interstate nature of the trucking industry.
As to employee suits, section 12, we have but two requeists : First, that
owner-operators be considered employees if they are working on a
lease arrangement with a common carrier and second, that all em-
ployees, union and nonunion alike, be given equal rights.
Finally, we would encourage the committee to authorize sufficient
funds to enforce the law amon^ all carriers. As a general rule, the lar^
carriers receive ample attention from regulatory authorities, but the
small carriers are often overlooked. The major reason for this is lack
of personnel and funds to provide consistent treatment of all carriers.
In closinsr, we would again note that S. 2970 would provide increased
protex?tion for workers in the trucking industry, but we believe the bill
needs improvement in a number of important areas. Thank you.
Digitized by
Google
109
The Chairmax. Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, for your statement
You suggested that deiav is one of the most serious problems in
truck safety. Do tou feel tKat an administrative proceeding like the
one suggested in S. ^2970 would alleviate the delay problem!
Mr. 0*Haka. Senator, I think that in i^viewing the provisions of the
bill, you may want to take a good look at, I believe the operative worvl
in Uie bill is ^^timely."^ But you may want to focus it down a little bit
doser than that, and put some time limits on the pnMmilgation of a
number of these rules. Again, the step and handhold — ^ilr. Memick
may hare some other examples in the same area.
Mr. Merxick. AVell. Senator, we petitioned in a number of areas
for improvements in driver safety rules, to protect his health or his
safety as an employee, to try to proWde better pnHection for him, that
wor^rs in tlie general work force can oMain through the Occuim-
ta<mal Safety and Health Act. We found that almost exclusi\'ely, the
regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety presently are
mimed at protecting the public frcwn the dangers of heavy tnicks, and
ms such are directed to highway safety. AVe find very, very few regii-
^.ations that address the fact that a truck driver is an employee and is
^uititled to protection from the hazards of his workplace. If s in that
aarea that we find very, very significant delays once we petiticm for a
Txrule, before that rule finally beccmies effective.
The Chairman'. AVell now, in your statement you stress the neoil
zfor uniformity in State regulaticms. That s a Wew not shared by all
^he witnesses. On what experience do you base that belief? Would you
explain?
Mr. O^Hara. Well, I suppose we might even go back a step further.
Yesterday we were over here testifying on allowing the States to con-
tinue to have the right to themselves on the truck lengths. We're o^-er
here today talking about imiformity. With ret^rards to the lengths, it*s
just traditionally be^i that way, and we see it not changing. But in
this area, you loiow, as long as we're moWng into a new area, uni-
formity should certainly be an objective. It sliouldn^ be the exclusive
d>iectiYe, but we think that where it can be achieved it should be.
The Chairman. T\liat sorts of things are you talking about? Give
me a few examples.
Mr. O'Hara. For example, you might have in the situation — ^well,
out in your area, in Nevada, where you have a lot of sand and so forth
and so on, you're going to have ditferent road ccmditions than vou are
in South Carolina or Virginia. Obviously, there are going to have to
be some adjustments there.
But again, to go back to the step and handhold, on a particular
piece of equipment uniformity would probably be a major require-
ment, or probably the most important of all are the hours of service.
Some of the other witnesses have testified earlier, those rules, tlie
present rules, are being reviewed now by the DOT.
The CHAmMAN. Those rules are not made independently by tlie
States. This is uniform anyway.
Mr. O'Hara. Yes, sir. But with this bill, at least the way we read
it, there may be an opportunity for some of the States to have tlieir
own hours of service provisicms.
The Cblaibmxn. I see.
85-692— 7»-
Digitized by
Google
no
Now, some industries have historically received exemptions from
the truck safety regulations, including hours of service and record-
keeping requirements. How would you evaluate these exemptions,
and would you consider it a good policy to extend them ?
Mr. O'IIara. On the i-ecordkeeping, I'm not that familiar with
recordkeeping, and I don't really tliink I could give you that intelli-
gent an answer. Senator. And the other area besides recordkeeping
was?
The Chairmax. Hours of sers'ice.
Mr. O'Hara. Hours of service. Again, I would defer to Mr. Memick,
if he had any thoughts on that.
Mr. Merxick. Senator, in the area of exemptions generally, we have
not favored exemptions from the Bureau of Motor Carrier safety rules
in any of these ai*eas, be it the 10,000-pound exemption which we
opposed a few years ago, hours of service for certain classes of drivers
and certain operations, or, for that matter, intrastate operations We
find that too often the temptation is to let the intrastate operations of
the various exempt operations become the dumping group for unsafe
equipment or practices, and that's what we'd like to avoid by installing
just blanket rules that apply to interstate and intrastate.
The Chairman. You said in your statement that large carriers
receive more intensive regulatory attention than do the smaller car-
riers. You heard my question here today, and that was denied. And
incidentally, the spot check in Pennsylvania indicated that the viola-
tions of safety regulations were distributed among all types of
carriers.
I'm wondering on what data you base that assertion ?
Mr. O'Hara. Senator, it's just generally speaking with our people
in the field. The universe that we're talking about is relatively small.
We feel that there should be more inspections, so we're not talking
about every carrier in the country l>eing inspected every day, but just
the physical situation of large carriers. It's verv' easy to go to a large
carrier's terminal and inspect his equipment than it is for a small car-
rier, who may not even have property other than his home to park his
truck.
The Chairman. The ATA suggested that the duty provision in
^subsection 6(a) be combined with that in subsection 6(b), so as to
require the same standards for compliance for both employers and
employees. Would you comment on that proposal ?
Mr. O'Hara. Senator, I think that the areas that you're to be respon-
sible for should apply to you. For ex-ample, if the equipment on the
truck is unsafe, we don't think that the employee should be penalized
for it. We see that as the employer's responsibility. And asrain, I would
say that the way the bill is written now, it pretty much reflects my
answer here.
The Chairman. I don't know if that's getting right precisely at
what they had in mind here. Let me read to you from part of their
statement :
Wn would further suggest that the duty provjjaions in subsection 6(a) be com-
binwl with that in subsection 6(b) so as to require the same standards of com-
pliance for both employers and employees. Combining the two subsections by
primarily utilizing the language of subsection 6(b) would not adversely lessen
Digitized by
Google
HI
the dJirj fr-sij-llaaw <<-!ici:i-:t5 i>f *^:brr ecipl. j*r? or ecipt?T«!s. Ii ^iwU *ti3i:-
under the r*et-::i*ii*»*: >Af«T aui Il^ttirh A ^c. A faiiw- And aon* nft£20ii:fti
enforoeckes: c*f £;Lf€<7 r«e:il«t:"Ei> s» actxonpiLshed coder $p«ciJ6ed ici«s^ itkdfeer
Mr. Meknkk. r^nat^M-. we iiisaCTee ^ca thai on tiiis basis: First
of all. emploT*<ES aoii"t \xy i nicks and don'i dispaioh truoksw It's ibe
employer wLo d^xs that, and it's his ot*li^tioQ. we feel, to see that
when "tiiat vehicle is punrhiLsed and di?i:«atohed. to see that it s a safe
vehicle an*i ii has a safr workplaoe. AVe cenainiv. under the (Xx*upa-
tioiial ?*afeiy ar*'i Health Act, siipport the «?«vi.,-ept of the general duty
clause. We feel it's very, very neeesssary for many situations. When
you hear the onip'iaint that there are so many re£:uiations that we
can't po^liy foilow them ail. t!iat may be true in some instances. On
the. other hand« you c^n't regulate every ^hjgle cirvumstance that's
going to arise in the course of a working day. Tneie are many practices
you and I could loc^ at and. as reasonable {)eopIe<. assume are unsafe.
And I think what the general duty clause accomplL^es is to say, in
Lroad terms, avoid those imsafe practices.
The CnAiE3i-\x. All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. 0"IL\R.v. Thank you. Senator.
[The following information was suhsequently received for the
record.]
Q fLa 'T i oys or the Committez asd the A^swiss Thixtto
Qwe^tiom. In jonr tesdmonj. jnn referred to delay as one of the most serioos
problems in truck safecj. bat that criticism was directed towards mlemaldns
procednres rather than enforcement of existinz re^ulatiossL Wonld yon clarity
your po<4t1on cm delay with respect to enforcement? Do yon fitvor the civil for-
feiture provLviom and the administrative procedures set forth in S. 2970?
Answer. Enforcement by the Bnreaa of Motor Carrier Safety is fairly
expeditious.
It has been oar experience thnt In contacting BMCS the problem is the aTalI>
ability of penioonel to perform inspection procedures.
That is. the Ai^ency has 133 insriectors who are responsible for ensorin? com-
pliance with the Interstate Commerce Act, by some 160.000 motor carriers who
own literally minions of tmck.^
Thus, the problem of enforcement is in our view, not the attitude of the in-
^lectors bat, rather, the immensity of their workload.
We believe the civil forfeiture features of S. 2S70 are adequate. Bat, as we
stated in oar testimony w.' ^lelieve all Administrative actions should be ciiccm-
ftcribed by strict statutory time limits.
Que^ion. How many c^implaints of emidoyee harassment has your imion re-
eeived over the past 3 years * Please set out yf*r-by-year figures i r How does your
imion handle thoi^e complaints?
Answer. The International Union does not believe complaints of employee
barassments. thus we would have no fij^res on this.
If a worker represented by our union believes he — or she — is belnsr treated
nnfairiy, a grievance is filed with the employee representative, usoally a shop
scteward, and the matter is taken up with the employer.
Question. Would yon comment on the proposal made by the American Truck-
ing Aflsodatlon that the Federal Government should establish a national com-
mercial driver register?
Answer. We would ofipose the establishment of a national commercial driver
rei^BteT as it is currently propr^sed because it fails to provide adequate protection
of an individoars ri^ht to privacy.
Mofeorer. we bf-Iieve the national driver re^ster contains an ermneors as-
siimpCion. i.e.. that drivers are the sole problem in highway safety and by estab-
lishing a national driver re^ster the problem will disappear.
Digitized by
Google
112
Question, Would yon comment on the statement made by the Private Track
Council of America that "The vehicles are not the prohlem ; the drivers are."?
Answer. The Private Truck Council has, obviously, given little time or atten-
tion to the conditions affecting workers employed in the Motor Carrier Industry.
For a detailed explanation we would refer to our statement on S. 3431, where
a number of major equipment concerns are explained.
Beyond that, as far as we can determine, the organization making that state-
ment lives in the fond hope that some day this country will return to a system of
Government similar to the reign of EUzabeth I of England (155S-ie03).
The Chairman. The next witness is Susan Ginsburg, safety and
health director of PROD.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN GINSBVBO, SAFETT AND HEALTH DISEC-
TOB, FBOFESSIONAL SBIYEBS COUNCIL (FBOD) ; ACCOMFANIED
BY ABTHUB L. FOX, COUNSEL; BILL BEBBTHILL; ABMAND
(BXTB) HATEB; MILT McLABTT; BAILET WHABTON; BOBEBT
D07LE; OEOBOE ZOHCEE; AND FAUL OEOBO
Ms. Ginsburg. Mr. Chairman, we have quite a group here, and VA
like these gentlemen to introduce themselves before we get started. I'm
Susan Ginsburg. This is Arthur Fox, coimsel to PROD.
Mr. Mayer. My name is Armand Mayer.
Mr. Wharton. My name is Bailey "VVharton.
Mr. Berrytiiix. William Berryhill.
Mr. Doyle. Robert Doyle.
Mr. McLarty. Milt McLarty .
Mr. ZojiCEK. George Zojicek.
Mr. Georg, Paul Georg.
The Chairman. These are members of your organization ?
Ms. Ginsburg. These are members of our organization, also mem-
bers of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and all except
one, drivers for the largest trucking companies in the United States —
all regulated common carriers. They have an average of 19 years of
experience on the road, and, combined 120 years of driving experience.
We thought it appropriate that you hear from thean today.
I have an extensive written statement which we've supplied for
the record. Rather than reading from it, I'd like to pick up on a few
points that were brought up today, perhaps fill in a few olanks.
First, though, I'd like to thank you for holding these hearings at
this late time in the session when there are so many other things to do.
I think the most important thing that you asked about yesterday
continually, and again today, is the facts and figures. So I'd like to
i-ead a few facts and figures that have been developed, but have not yet
been brought out.
The first thing I'd like to say goes to the number of truckdrivers.
This is a very important figure, because of the questions raised by Jim
King of the K TBS as to what it would take to make S. 2970 work. The
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety commonly uses the figure of 8 to 4
million interstate truckdrivers. Mr. King suggested the figure of
9 million drivers in total. Well, this would mean that between 2 and 5
percent of the UjS. population were driving truclffl for a living, and
this is impossible.
Digitized by
Google
113
The figures that are roost reliable^ I think, are those issued by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tell as that there are in the neigh-
borhood of SOOjOOO over-the-road drivers^ That's the general area. We
will supply the exact figures for the last few years for the recoid.
The Chairmax. Wait a minute, now. Go through that again. I want
to Riake sure I understand.
Ms. GixzBUSG. The figures given out h\ the Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety
The Chairmax. I understand what they said, the number of tnidk%
et cetera.
Ms. Gexzrcsg. The Bureau of Labw Statistics tells us that for 1972^
which is when the last census was taken, there were l.Cc^TxXiO local
truckdrivers. 508.000 long-distance truckdrivers. to provide a total
of 2.135.000 truckdrivers.
The figures for 1976 are 1.591,000 local and route drivers. 467,000
long-distance tmckdriven?. for a total of 2.ri6ljXX» truckdrivers.
I think that it's very important to imderstand that you*re dealing
with a limited popualtion. both to understand what tlie enfofcenimt
i'esix>nsibility is and to understand the significance of the number of
people who get killed every year, the number of truckdrivers^ So I
vili read to you the figures that we have compiled cm accidnits and
fatal accidents involving truckdrivers.
A heavy truck is about twice as likely as a car to be a jJace of death
for the person in it. Approximately -LS heavy truck occupants are
killed annually per 10,000 heavy trucks, versus about 2.4 occupants tot
10,000 vehicles for all motor vehicles combined. I exclude nK)toicycles.
A June 1978 study in AVb^consin shows that the 1976 deatli mte per
100.000 workers for injuries incurred on the job was approximately
nine times as high for truckdrivers as for all other workers combined
in that State.
The fatal accident rate for trucks per million miles is twice as high
as that for cars. This takes into consideration the fact that trucks travel
more miles than cars.
From 1975 to 1977. the total numlier of truckdrivers killed on the job
rose 36 percent, accordinsr to the XHTSA's reporting system — and we
are providing all that information for the record in chart form.
In 1975, according to NHTSA. 587 truckdrivers were killed, 715 in
1976, and 799 in 1977. Total fatal accidents involving trucks increased
over 29 percent from 1975 to 1977.
Total fatal accidents involving cars increased slightly over 4 percent ;
5.4. 1 people were killed in truck accidents in 1975. 6,314 in 1977.
These are figures compiled by the National Safety Council. Trucks
are more dangerous than cars and more likely to be involved in fatal
and nonfatal accidents. According to the NSC, tractor-trailers and
other combination vehicles comprise less than 1 percent of all registered
vehicles, but constitute 2.5 percent of all vehicle? involved in accidents,
over 7 percent of those vehicles involved in fatal accidents.
Xow to look at truckdriving as an occupation. This is very important
because one of the things S. 2970 does is to provide truckdrivers with
occupational health safeguards similar to those provided to other
American workers under OSHA,
Digitized by
Google
114
The Nutional Safety Council states that the number of workers
killed on the job in this country, when all occupations are averaged
to;2:ethcr, is about 14 per 100,000. By comparison, the death rate in the
mining industry known as one of the most dan^gferous, is 63 per 100,000.
A conservative estimate, definitely conservative, is that 70 per 100,000
truckdrivers are killed. These were figures for 1976, on-tiie-job, in-
truck accidents. Tlie reason I say conservative is because these figures
are based on the NHTSA's fatal accident reporting systems data on
the number of truckdrivers killed in out-of -State accidents.
The ratio used was with the total number of long-distance drivers-
which does not include those drivers driving long-distance runs in
intrastate operations.
More reasonable is a figure that we have compiled, based on the 1976
estimate of heavy-truckdrivers where we come out with a figure of 78
drivers killexl in 1976 for 100,000 drivers.
Again this compares to 14 out of 100,000 as the national average, and
for miners, 63 out of 100,000. We're dealing with a very dangerous
occupation, perhaps the most dangerous in the United States, in terms
of on-the-job fatal accidents.
Again, I just would like to stress that the number of full-time truck-
drivers we're talking about, is far fewer than those used to provide the
basis for an estimate of the number of AL»T's which would be necessary
at the NTSB or TX)T under S. 2970.
Second, a subject in which you expreSvSed interest, although the bill
does not deal directly with this — ^perhaps it should — is fatigue. You
commented that a 30-year-old study was the basis of the rules. In f act*
the rules were written even before that 30-year-old study, published in
1942, was published, and were not modified even after that study came
out.
The process which is underway of considering the rules was started
in 1971, when the Professional Drivers Council began to file rulemak-
ing petitions with the agency. In 1978, weVe still in the advanced-
notice stage and the agency predicts that it will take several more years
before final rules are published.
Because of the length of time the hours and other proceedings have
taken at the BMCS, we were very encouraged to hear that the agency
plans to take 6 to 9 months to issue rules regarding the cab size prob-
lem. It has taken about a decade for the Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety to promulgate even the simplest rules, such as the step and
handhold rule to which the Teamsters referred earlier.
Another point that was broufi:ht out which I think should be ad-
dressed is the question of whether the bill discriminates among dif-
ferent segments of the industry, or in fact, whether current law or
current practice does.
We do not feel that this is the case. The regulated common carriers
complain that because they're the most visible entity, they are subject
to the most regulation.
Smaller carriers complain that the fines fall disproportionately on
them and the drivers here with me generally feel that in roadside in-
spections, regulated common carriers are favored.
The totnl judgments in criminal cases against all motor carriers
under DOT lurisdiction— some 160,000 according to the BMCS — was
\625inl977.
Digitized by
Google
115
Now, rather than reading from the prepared statement, I think that
it would be appropriate it we heard from a few of the drivers who
are here and then answer quest ions.
The CHAiKifAX. Do these drivers all work for regulated carriers ?
Ms. GiNSBUKG. They will each identify their carrier.
Mr. Mayer. Mr. Chairman, members of your committee, my name is
Armand Mayer. I drive for Yellow Freight, the fifth largest trucking
company in the United States. I've ridden with them on the highway
for 16 years. I'm a member of the Teamsters Local 299, Detroit, Mich.
For years, I was a proud Teamster and I actually looked forward to
TnakiTig my next nm, as my father before me, who drove a truck until
an accident, which was caused because of poor maintenance on an
experimental power steering system, put him out of work.
In the last few years, trucks have become smaller, they*re loaded
more heavily, they run on rougher interstate liighways, and above all,
are given less and less maintenance.
When I'm in my car with my family, the first thing I do when I
approach a truck or a bus is get around it in a hurry. My personal
experience in the last 6 years, one of my best friends, a truckdriver for
Ford Motor Co.. had a heart attack and died at the age of 33 years old.
The doctor said it was because of the stress of so many miles driven.
Unless swnething is done to improve the ride in these trucks and to
improve their conditions, more and more drivers will die at the wheel
and take innocent motorists with them.
Since one of the main points of S. 2970 is to give the BMCS the
power to fine companies who don't meet BMCS parts and maintenance
roles, I would like to tell you about the maintenance at Yellow Freight
System.
There's two classifications of trucks that T have been driving per-
sonally. One is completely worn out to the point that every inch of the
inside and outside vibrates uncontrollably, that it steers uncontrol-
lably, jumps out of gear in one or more gears, and brakes unevenly —
if you can find the brake pedal, which sometimes is so loose that it
drops 6 to 8 inches up and down.
The other type of trucks are the newer ones. 1 year or less old. They
have busted seats, which the company after an argument will spare
you. but only to hook it up for the next guy. They have windshield
washers that are inoperable, instrument lights burned out, lenses and
bulbs missing from the dash warning: light system, safety equipment
scattered loosely on the floor and brakes that are badly out of adjust-
ment*
The average driver takes a quick look at his equipment, and if he
sees nothing drastically wrong, like a missing wheel or a broken
spring, he will lump into the truck and drive off.
One reason is that he's not paid any money for the time he spends
pretrip inspecting his truck. By the way. no one at Yellow Freight has
the job of inspecting trucks. Fuel men are supposed to check tires, oil,
water, licrhts. and so forth. But thev do it haphazardlv. becauf^ Vellow
has added to the workload of these men and cut back on help.
Another reascm whv most drivers don't check the trucks is that when
a truck is written up, it is rarel v fixed.
Systems vary throughout the trucking industry, but this is how it
works at Yellow. After you write up a report, you drop it in a box
Digitized by
Google
116
in the dispatch office. By the time the mechanic walks over from the
garage to the dispatch office, which might be 3 hours, 1 hour, 2 hours,
the truck is 100 miles down the highway, too far to be repaired.
A third reason why the trucks don't get repaired at Yellow is that
the individual terminals are charged for repairs they do and they go
on their profit-loss statements. So they try to send it on to the next ter-
minal and let them handle the cost.
As a resident of Michigan, with 16 years' experience behind a Yellow
Freight truck, I can say that the Michigan Public Service Commission
has Wn of no help at all. We see them on the road watching for over-
loads and checking public service permits but they don't check for
safety.
We never see them in the terminals. When we do call to report ui
unsafe truck, they refer you to DOT. The DOT office in Michigan or
any other branch of the BMCS has never checked my truck.
in my opinion, conditions on the highway today, compared to 11 or
12 years ago, are appalling. I cannot personally understand why tha
driver has to be subjected to bouncing around inside of a tractor cab^
to the point of tears because of the pain.
The jostling in my humble opinion is the major cause of drivei=
fatigue which cauF^es accidents. This bill. S. 2970, is our first opportu —
nity to overcome the dangers of physical abuse to our bodies. In m;^
opinion, when S. 2970 is passed, and it saves one life, or one innocen*^
motorist from dismemberment, then this committee can say "A jofec
well done."
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
[The following information was subsequently received for thi^^
record :]
Statement op Donald L. MgMobbis on Behalf of
Yellow Fbeioht System, Inc.
"Sly name is Donald L. ^NIcMorris. I am President of YeUow Freight Systaxi,
Inc., Overland Park. Kansas. I have spent over thirty years in the tmcklng tn-
dnstry, and I have been President of this Company for the last ten years.
I feel it is important for me to make this statement before yonr Committee
because Armand A. Mayer, one of our drivers at Ann Arbor. Michigan, testifled
in a public hearing before this Committee on September 8, this year. In effect;
he said Yellow does not have a maintenance program. He appeared as a witnew
for PROD. I do not beUeve it would serve any useful purpose for me to explore
his attitude toward the Company or his job. He has been with us since 1963»
and he has a good driving record. He indicates, in a complaint which he has
filed with the National Labor Relations Board, that he serves as BecretBXj'
Treasurer of the PROD group in Detroit.
This Company employs over 1.5,000 people, and about 4,200 of them are road
drivers like Mr. Mayer. We think most of them are reasonably happy with the
Company and with their jobs. We believe the majority of these drivers feel that
management is interested in their health and safety. I feel reasonably comfort-
able in saying to this Committee that the statements made by Mr. Mayer are no*
true, and he does not speak for the vast majority of the employees of this
Company.
This Company has two major types of equipment, city equipment (which
is used for pickup and delivery work in terminal areas) and linehanl or rotd
equipment. As of Friday, September 22, we had 2,763 tractors in service on
the road (all linehaul power units are traded every three years and their averase
ago in service is eighteen months or less) and 10,118 trailers.
We maintain 16 major linehaul shops for repair to road units throaghont
the country. These shops are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We do nol
Digitized by
Google
117
eren Ant than down for the holidays. On Fridaj'. September 22: for exftscpCe.
there were 1.060 people emplojed fnll-tiise in oar mainteix&nce proprtm. Haiadiirg
tbe maintenance and road equipment were 614 mechacks and 1>I serTxeoDec. To
perform the kind of maintenance we do on eqnipaent cwts this C(xcpa:;j' orer
10 cents a mile. Throng Angnst 31, this rear, we tpent f I-UKS-hM oq shop
hitK»r and an additional $14.7^.000 on parts and outside maintenance oc: o^er-
the-road equipmeiit. Ic di.<<-ussiiis thesie maintenance l&s^ixes, I am not i::cl:2dii:^
the coBt of tires or accident repairs.
liaintenance of Unebanl equipment is not charged to the terminal as alleceil
bgr Mr. Majer. He is wrong when he sajs we do not do anj- maintenance, asd :be
terminals du not want the cf.«ts cfaarired to tbem. Ye!!ow Freict.: hss fT\>??s
reTenues of ^iS6i.2083)0 through August 31. tiiis year. We ^pent al^ut 6 i^rceint
of oar total rerenue oc maintenance expenses.
There are 21 road drirers teased at Ann Arbor where Mr. llajer is employed.
That terminal does cot hare a linefaaul shop. However, if a truck arrires frv*=i
the road with any kiiAd of a defect, repair work is d>ne by outside rendt^r^
For example, in June we paid outside vendors at Ann Arbor S2.711.6D: in J'jiy.
|6C780u>l. and in Angitst, $^i.7:i2'J2. Mr. Mayer is dispatched to eitlxer of two
pcrfjita, Effingham, Illinois, or IndianapuUs, Indiana. Both FIBngham and linliaii-
(.polls hare major linehanl shops.
Sefore Mr. Mayer is dispatched from either Indianapolis or El^rgham. the
tractor and trailer are safety inspected at that Uuehaul shi^ This is dvr.e
pmsnant to our Company rulei as well as the regulations of tlie Depairniec:
of Transportation. These 16 linehaul shops, such as Indianapolis and FiB^i^ani
tLVB also restponsible for the pzeveutive mainteiiance prognnm. It is an ongoing
Doaintenance program acd Ls computer-controlled. This prerenriTe xn^inien-
anoe pnigram is zH.-heduled durins specific intervals on each unit. Thi^
road and to keep it in a safe condition. We bellere pre-planned mainteziance is
a •ound investment.
Jir. Mayer told this Committee that Yellow road drivers, in filling out iheir
trip reports, do not point out equipment problems l^ecause we do nor K»;^i:r
them. That is not trr.e. For example. Mr. Mayer. ]»etwt-en June 5 and August SI.
made 53 trips. He commented three times on the equipment, once to descrii-e
a truck as a "roughriding liastard.** and the second time a somewhat sioiiLir
comment in similar language. Only on one report did he say anything that was
of assistance to the shop, and tliat was when he reported that an air eondi:io:iii:g
li^t did not come on and that there was no cold air in the trudii.
ISrery time a driver fills out bis trip report and notes a defect, that rer^ort
is sent to the shop so that repairs can lie made l^efore it is dispatched. Wheu
that trip report arrives at the shop, a repair order is made up to see that tli«^
Item Is corrected. 3kIost of the items, of course, are minor, such as a light or a
problem with the air conditioning. About 30 percent of the repair order? at the
8h<HW originate with the drivers trip reports to as^:i:>t us in early detection of
equipment defects.
nie two most frequent complaints on drivers* trip reports are low power and
laugh-riding. The linehaul tractors are governed tr» of^rare at a m.^x!nium
iqieed of 57 mile* per hour which permits normal operation at the 55-mile-per-hour
speed limit and enough r^-serve power to move with the flow of traflSc on normal
uphill grades. These tractors are equii^ied with the best availaMe air-ride seats.
We continue to look for more driver comfort. Right now. for example, we have
25 experimental air- ride ca^ts in our fleet which provide an even better ride. In
other words, we want to make the ride more comfortable because we kn'^w that a
difrer who operates safe, comfortable equipment generally has a good attinide.
That means he will drive safer, and he will take better care of the equipment.
Kr. Mayer said (even though regulations of the Department of Transportation
require it) that drivers do not bother to pre-inspect their equipment simply l^e-
cause thy are not paid for it. Pre-inspections takes only a few minute?^ Mt>st
driTera do pre-inspect their equipment l)ecau5=e they are safety-minded. Drivers
are well paid. Mr. Mayer, for example, through August 8. thL<! year, eome^i in
wages $19,619-34 at Yellow Ireieht. Add to that a»H>ut 30 percent for fringe
benefits, and I think you would agree with me that it is a pretty good job.
Hiis Company has a good maintenance program and excellent safety record.
In 1976. for example, this Company was awarded the American Trucking As^ociji-
tions* President's Trophy for the best safety program in the industry. In 1977.
we operated a little over 400,000,000 miles and had an accident frequency of 3.04
Digitized by
Google
118
accidents per million miles. Keep in mind that we classify an accident as any-
thing from a brok^i mirror to a serious vehicle accident. In fact, if a track goes
into the ditch and there is no damage to the unit and the driver is not injured, we
still count it as an accident. Through the first six months of this year, we operated
219.000,000 miles. In order to further reduce the accident frequency, this Com-
pany employes 20 full-time safety supervisors who work with the drivers,
principally on matters concerning safety.
I am sure that Mr. Mayer's testimony must have caused you to have questions
al)out Yellow Freight's maintenance program. I recognize that this Committee
has a heavy responsibility insofar as the public is concerned when it comes to
safety, and that the press of business keeps you in Washington. I would be
more than happy for any members of your Committee or staff to visit any of our
linehaul shops so that you can see for yourself that Yellow Freight does a good
job of maintaining its equipment and is continually working to improve that
program. The trip would afford you an opportunity to talk face to face with
our drivers, mechanics, safety personnel and supervisors.
I appreciate, on behalf of the management and employees, this opportunity to
respond to Mr. Mayer's testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Do you have another one or two you want to hear from ?
Ms. GiNSBURG. Yes.
Mr. Wharton. Yes. My name is Bailey Wharton. I am from
Roanoke, Va. I^ a member of Teamsters Ijocal 171. I've been a truck-
driver for 9 years, 7 of them with Jones Motor Co., one of the top 50
carriers in the United States.
But I'm not here to talk to you about statistics. I'm here to talk to
you about the death of one single truckdriver. He was a coworker of
mine, a very close friend, age 32, married, with 3 children, 2, 5, and
8 years of age.
He was building a home. He was one of the best men Jones had at
their terminal. He was well liked by both management and employees.
And was a man who just loved driving a truck. He was a Teamster
member also, and a proud member and he might be here today, except
for one thing. He was killed in an accident on the job, July 22, right
in front of me on Interstate 85, outside of Charlotte, N.C.
I sav he was killed in an accident, and I take issue you would call it
that. The right front tire on his truck suddenly blew out. He jack-
knifed and he crashed.
As a matter of fact, he ran into the back of another tractor trailer.
And I submit some pictures to you that will be able to clarify much
more what I'm saying.
As you can see from those pictures, the man had no chance at all.
You have pictures of the accident and the tire of the blowout.
The Chairman. You can go ahead.
i[r. WiiARTON. In a sense, this was no accident at all. Because Jones
jVIotor Co. knew this eventually had to happen sooner or later. The
tire that blew out on Charlie Helms' truck was a Canadian-made
^'Snpcr Tire." The type tire that the company had previously used on
all its trailers, on the front or steering axis of his tractor, where there
is much more stress on them, once they started using these tires on
tlie front axles, about 5 or 6 months ago, drivers started having
problems.
There were several less serious accidents, due to blowouts on these
tires, before July 22, involving injuries to other motorists, other
drivers, and property damage.
Digitized by
Google
119
These kd to a lot of drivers' complaints about the safety of these
tires. To my knowledge, two of these tires blew out in the York
terminaL You can see by exhibit 6, one of the drivers heard the
York terminal manager. Those statements are notarized and signed
by the drivers. But nothing was done, even though the driver was
complaining.
The company ignored our comnlaints, refused to remove these bad
tires, and on July 22, one more blowout on them took the life of my
friend. Charlie Helms.
The same day that Helms and I had our accident, another driver
went out on Interstate S^ in Oiiio and went over a iOQ-foot embank-
ment but he was able to walk away from it*
Only after Helms died did the company remove all these "Super
Tires'' from their tractors, as you can see from exhibits 5 and 6, when
the guys brought the tires down from Central Springs, Pa,
I know that Jones knew these tires were bad before Charlie Hebns
was killed because I knew the drivers were complaining about them.
And you have orders right there, exhibit 4, 7, and 8.
The Chaikxax. Would thrjse tires have shown when you made a
visual inspection ? Could you have told that there was something wrong
with those tires ?
'SIt. Whaktox. The only way you could tell is when — a knot came
up €m some of those tires the sizeof a footbalL That's when they blow
out.
The CnAnnfAx. How do you suspe^ we get at that tvpe of problem?
The tire defect is not going to sliow up in an inspection. What is the
solution?
Mr. Whaktox. When you have a series of over .50 drivers having
blowouts and cars and trucks being wrecked, that's reason enough to
do something. These are tires that come on the trailers. These aren't
tires that come from the factory.
They take th^m off. put re^^p tires on the trailers, and put these
cheap tires on the steering axles. Just as I said^ they put cheap tires
on the Peering axles.
In the trucking industrv when it comes ri^iit down to it, yon have
two choices: You either drive the tru'^k or you go home on the bus.
IVp been with Jones Motor Co. for almost 7 years, and as of yet,
haven't had a safety nif^tins, I haven't been to a safety meerine vet.
They haven't even had one at our terminal in the 7 years that Fve
been there.
W#» employ at leai?f 10^ rosid driver?. Tm 55*TOT!gly in fiavor of this
bill. S. 2970l becaui* it would give drivers the legal right to refuse
to rake out a truck that's a threat to their safety and everymie else
on the mad.
It's too Tare to h^lp my friend. Helms, now, but the paf^sace of thi^:
bill would definitely keep other drivers, motorists, perhaps one of
you or your families, fmm injury and death.
As TOO can spe, the picture of the truck on the rif»ht, that cnvzld
have been you or perhaps anyone else in this Tocm that that track
hit when the tire blew out.
I urge the committee to reenmnieiid paasaee of this biO so drivers
dmi teire to rhnos^ ererr dav between their life and their job.
The CttAiKMAX. Thank you.
Digitized by
Google
120
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record :]
Statement of Donald R. Sheehy, President, Jones Motor, Spring Citt, Pa*
AND NOW comes Jones Motor, Division of AUejfhnny Corporation, by and
through its President, Donald R. Sheehy, who resi)ectfiilly requests that the
information contained herein l)e included in the record of the above proceedings.
By way of back^rround, on September 8, 1078 one Daily Wharton presented
testimony to the Ck)mmittee wherein, among: other thin^, he voiced his support
of S. 2?)70. Throughout his testimony, however, Mr. Wharton made statements
which, if accepted as fact by the Committee, would give a completely distorted
view of the safety record achieved by Jones Motor throughout its years of serv-
ice as a motor common carrier and our ongoing efforts to make safety an item of
top priority throughout the company.
part i
Mr. Wharton begins his testimony by relating to the Committee an incident
which occurred on July 22, 1978 on Interstate 85 near Charlotte. North Carolina.
As a result of that accident Charles Helms, another Jones road driver, lost his
life and, as Mr. Wharton pointed out through the various exhibits submitted
to the Committee, there was considerable property damage to the equipment
involved. What Mr. Wharton failed to point out is the fact that he was dis-
charged from Jones for his involvement in tliis accident and thus he appeared
before you as a man who had just lost his job and had initiated proceedings
against the company in an attempt to be reinstated.
would give little or no weight to Mr. Wharton's statments, I feel that facts per-
tains to his theory as to the cause of the tragic accident followed by his con-
demnation of the Jones Motor Safety Program. Altliough we hope that you
would give little or no weight to Mr. Wharton's statements, I feel that facts per-
taining to Jones have been placed before your honorable committee in a highly
damaging manner and I ask your indulgence to respond to the specific comments
of Mr. Wharton which in sum are scandalous, imi)ertinent and misleading.
Mr. Wharton testified (see notes of testimony, Friday, 8 September 1978 pp.
101-105) that Charles Helms' death resulted from his front tire blowing out.
This statement is completely unfounded and is an obvious attempt by Mr. Whar-
ton to place the cause of this accident in an area other than where it should
properly lie. The results of both our own on-the-scene investigation and the report
prepared by the North Carolina State Police indicate that the two Jones vehicles
came upon a slower moving tractor trailer unit at a speed which is classified in
the Helms* police report as being excessive. Mr. Wharton, who was traveling-
beliind the Helms' unit, was discharged from Jones Motor for recklessness re-
sulting in a serious accident. Although physical evidence at the scene indicates
that Mr. Helms attempted to stop his vehicle, he was unable to do so resulting*
in his crashing his tractor into the rear of the slower moving unit. At or about
the same time the trailers of Helms and Wharton collided as Wharton unsuccess-
fully attempted to proceed by on the left. Although Mr. Wharton testified that
the accident was caused by Uie blow out of Helms' steering axle tire, he stated
to our investigator immediately after the accident that as Mr. Helms "overtook"
the slower moving vehicle, he "did not see Mr. Helms' unit sway or do anything
unusual". Our analysis of available skid marks supports Wharton's statement
that Helms proceeded in a straight line into the forward vehicle and we submit
that, had the steering tire *'blown out", the Hi»lms tractor would have gone
completely out of control. Thus the physical evidence and Wharton's own state-
ments indicate that a tire failure did not occur.
Not being satisfied with the conclusions reached after a careful analysis of the
facts of the accident, we had the tire in question immediately sent to our General
Offices in Pennsylvania where it was examined by our Vice President of Main-
tenance, a man with years of experience in the trucking industry, and Mr. George
F. Zorn, the Director of Teihnlcal Services of our vendor, the Super Tire Engl*
neerlng Comimny. A copy of Mr. Zorn's analysis is attached as Exhibit A and we
would resp(K»t fully ask that it be made a part of this record.
Prior to our relating the conclusions reached by our Vice President and BIr.
Zorn that there unequivocally was no rapid air loss (i.e. blow out) experienced
by the Helms' tire, it seems appropriate at this time to dispel certain notions pro-
Digitized by
Google
121
pomided I7 lis-. Wluo-rnt pR-tminiup ro 1^ qualitr of tirK iiiiUae>d cm Jrni»
Motor eqaiSBoasL. IxixQ&Xtj. I soimi fciiic rlua WIultuoi « tefCimoi^ n^ciz]; ?/• nur
switdtiiofi: ir&iier rirefc to our vrhcutr §:u3tsiitg axie^ is ciauiikeuiis iMlat And a dfsr
^TiTTuJfc <£ llj. 'HTh&rrra. > rrfastdticfna tdlorus to ]Mji<« Joneft liccor l«>fcirc> tou
in tlie wcith: jituRiut l.fi^T ILg-ciil^ luit-'iaiiied itiid zxiisk'adjiig a.pe WharrfiL's-
conuDeots ppliiTiTif to rm ^ iucnrcicii ai cnzr York. Pfoai^Jr&iaa r«rmizi£j txta tbe
fact liiMl wt hMTe iutt a aerk* of f^-f? iifo* CLrirc^i. iiftnxif: kuow odis. B(«ck fitaxe>^
meBta. as veil at (dien rrcLiaiiied litrcffQ^idii: Lji^ teHCiiD'iZ!j ant tfical^T vfiid ^
aitj faaau m Imcl. y*n. ikif XFpt iC VHsannuiLy lias r^ts cffoied ti* ttie c<izziiziin<v as
it cosksiderf IfyiKiatitiL wLi!± vlL iiavt- a rerr mt.oiz^ 2ZL|iac*t cil uat coozn- irack-
int: ixMica"T7. 'ri^utt. ii ic^ .lA^iiiia^iiT n}*a« l« ;/« jMit'^ i«e£f :«!%> rfm wikki rpallj hii]^
l«sied duxiiK du> sifimakr f<f JiJ:t ^r^Oid as weli a» iiifi£« <a. tiie iveord ilie strides
we bare aiwlfc ic iiialrrnf salcsj ax iieni ef t(i;> jinoritj ai itaset Jloirn-.
As to lir. ZuTL s JTtn^TC^. jcic m-iil xkiic iae MaiciDaes: t±iai tiu* Beams' txxr air
loss <<rTirr«*c «-;i**?^j>ei.: "' -i:.;*": vL^l in*- H«*jil «> Tftjurif jficiar:** «irimc> f.'ir-
ficn ol»>s.?t omfSLix t ^t: ix •Jj*- rrt iii*^ Ti*e nrf fn;Ell<Q««d & rajao tir 3am ms^ Mr.
frjTcid mmA tlje "i^j^ sia^-v iJis -mr^d ixav^ i«cxi iti'TTrtiwd. I^k* riptsLiJig itunt. ht*^-
e^cr. is 'C2iif«rzL hz»G mafzaj^ v.U: no nd«rK-ail da3.ar«- vliawvn-M- uid 25 sDrt
tbii IT <^Viad !*"'*• :«*KL ir.;irriiMi /-clI't irr^ifr :>i«- tire •■rii.* ix ii fnI^T :xJ&aT«td rrm^
ti'jQ. Szsip^ fcatftd Lbe> n: wv^rr«« if iik»> HriiLS irft^i^c- cnw&Ml im/ and midfr
the ric»w*r sK-riir '*^j'-j-.. "■"*• T»-«;*?••'r^u-:T tftt Ti^ti j .-:: stt'ilcIt csmftidK- tbt
fttMHgyK «f Mr, Z.ni. -■-i-i?^ <[^caa'iiHki::» ■■nere idorj':*: Vi iiK«i» </ otr Vi«- P:«t-
dent <* Mtii**-!^:!!'* Ii. ljL'^ 1. 1 ij.-f dipeirrec tisai lLj* rlre rie sear if. aa
imWptrtf ir leeiar A«.*rLTicrx f tfr aittirw*. '.'irf ro^iHiaTrtx. rtmc ««4«TTa:aj** jn-
hlWr ii*> frfCL :»»^iix t''> : • i2j~>Dd^ tjlJ' rejr^r: wiix tkis rMB;«B»e: b'.^nf:*r. in*-
media: eir «i»ti. rwir*4< '^ *2ft*' U •••^r*T/«T * frwtiTigy •«•<• will f'^Traj^d f^ijtrf* 74^- rbe
Jooes Mcffjc*- has had a 'kmz fg^sTKttTiy rHarkaxAq* «itJ:t Super T'j*- EstffjmMTJif
Cotafmrnj az»d I TF-tzJt tit rcsL^flf if I dJd Zt't «:ia:>'«:iiif: ^ib that reJaiiraH&ip t«>
refute the aSecatkui <c€ Mr. WhaiTiuB «la(^r»2 l*e fSates that vf £;^ -cAisf
"<in«p* tin^ 7M^*w 7^?* Fiff r*i»i>?-aig Cfl!E.;«tz:?- de«L£xis aiid fnrrisi>«i :tw»< oe-
n^ aBd lahcfs? ti& sa vt tiiv- Hdanil±iP<nirer« tLmLz±»r«sz the Uzitred Star«» aai
Canada is agf ^ ida ag*- -vTt±( all T^Aisr^l TerrJaty-erF and irtd^j^rrr ^candaTds. ^njtg
Tire prw5&!S thf- Mkr<ids for The alf9«» vtd& a!3 fcrvecicia] desica and pn«diK«>fa
bein^ sv^ffied fcy the aoainEfarrsPw. Onrpeastlj-. a« m^H as at the rrm* -if the
Hrimir a gc Ms Bt- h«i ti* Of *^T«ar and Hif^t-^-aie l^re C«n;*iT5L as m«5l a* thftr
Tarioos ^rssftroEf avS fm^^fiarSes. hare vor^zsi? ajcreessesits vtth Sx^pt Ttr^ t^
massfhcts*** tzpca TV? 1:2*9 m'fl'flM >•?• saizfrfaTtiipd at Tari'*n« V*2at:?atf i-e.
PwiasjH azta. M aij^aa d. ^*5^ and Canaida « df yjrflJg t«pre pexidwUre «**d-
vles: tat pesL?&;>9 f:f w**?* th* ti?^ was Bade. S«j«?r T^ie a dtis e j- that idHtrkil
molds and <gra!5Tj ^^ctTTi ps^ r.^l ^ ^e » "•»?» In5-**=ie=:ted_ T%e pnorrcs tfr» at
if«ie here- •■nere «5«rfflca!;7 'jpdj?r*d f^r ««e «. «t««*sr ax!)«s. W'hwe tise tsr«s
were maA? ias ssr^isr t» do -vtth ^^alrty or pnee for ^Ike ^ p eic^lte ai^jcti are the
aanie ai an sar^fa^r^Tiir Iwatfoci
The types 'f *f?^s -afirf t-y J':e« lf^*r rx^ f-i ; *s. ' Ji V- f -"end -« tbns$as<&
•f lawit. T2fr« << f^hw- *-!ci=k« farr5*r« ttrnr^«^«srt var^'wos ptrts '^ tie
the Hatemerti d Mr. ^"harrc^i rfcx-Serefy 7=Lf*'r^'d«3. Ir a*^--:c.. J«<a««^ xa'^
tnanr« ??*yy^rr»;« y*«ard:rx tT^«d ^v^wr t^ trr*^ r»^«?K=*Et a?^ ri-aA »-«•
striBflBct »ha* D O T. . '** | J r*s»y:j -wiiff* ve f**i i« s- in55eiti-:c. c^ «r wlH-
i BgnLai ti» pfw«i4»- rfe *<!!^ #*r^5cae£t d^sf-ite the iry T f gjg d -c^^'C
PrtOT- to talfar i^trvt wftfc Mr. WfcarMc's fta-reBRts lebti^re ti* <kt 5a5Hy
proersB. fsoe f ' Ji t a et eraapce --f wiL»r:«i's exaKo»atidL €--«:?sa^?d az-l :iLr*-
jBfared f*5!tJa«2y say #*crrfr>?^ '^l:^ r-.'.*»— -rree -iat wfcireTiHr 'liTsarr^'s zarrnK.
hi« iesrisKK.7 ^*s:.d be fr-z:;^^^ 4fsr?a;4ML Mr. WJartyw. JCa*iP« r*ar «^
the lase day as fe-« a < r i d<a i t a»?^her Jooes dn^*r meirt «=er a -Wi'^-^-c *=:-
f-ankBen^ ^^0^ fBfe^ty* beisr that this wat* cached by a rtre fit^rri* A^TStt^Jy.
the mj'& B M l e frnajw i i hy Wtarrns ^w^ ^ i . e d «a Joly :23rd -^ I-r*-r!Ti** '^^ :•
P e i iaajlta gfa vh«B <?&» of oor drivv?^ did £9 '-^wr a 25-f ~« enhazkaieest. The
ppwniTf^^aia State P'^-Tire fav^stizared the acc i d g it ard stated i* tieir wt^k^
that there w^^re no ^kid aartoiL s> e ^Id gufe of bratirg. that ''he tiTMe aw e ts
PMd e^Bd'^ioa airf ti^ir t|h». driver ran o-^ the r^d«^y. A:i :T:deo^r*i«?^ w-"*t««95
at tfie awB* -Wdrrnred in th«e fiodinzsL ^Te «tttmxft that this oce exi=L??e tTTt*»«
the qaalfry of tisriraocrr rfreired by fhi< Comaittee on Sepceaber S^ and ask
that jom etmhsMZtt^ his charges in Caht of the ficQ eocira!z>*d LtErKs.
Digitized by
Google
122
PABT n
This portion of our response addresses Itself to statements made by Mr.
Wliarton as set forth on page 104 of the notes of testimony. Within one short
paragraph Wharton attempts to erase thirty years of safety at Jones Motor.
So that the record is clear, I feel it incumbent upon me to advise the CJommittee
of just some of the programs instituted and ongoing to insure the health, safety
and welfare of our employees. Although I am very proud of our safety ^ort, I
assure you that ours is not a unique situation and that all carriers affiliated
with the American Trucking Associations continue in a concerted effort to
maximize safety standards.
Mr. Wharton would have jrou believe that he has never had the benefit of
any safety instruction during his seven years with Jones. So that the record
is clear, enclosed you will find Exhibits B through J si)ecifically dealing with
recorded (and, in certain instances, receipted) contacts made by our Safety
Department with Bailey Wharton.
[These exhibits are on file with the committee.]
Exhibit B : Dated 10-23-72. Receipt for Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
Exhibit C : Dated 11-29-72. Receipt for Jones Motor Safety Regulations.
Exhibit D: Dated 0-13-73. Receipt for Jones Motor Hazardous Material
Regulations.
Exhibit E: Dated 4^13-76. Receipt for Jones Motor Drivers' Manual
(Revised).
Exhibit F : Dated 0-11-76. Test results pertaining to night vision and glare
recovery administered to Mr. Wharton.
Exhibit G : Dated 1-21-77. Supervisors report by terminal manager indicating^
discussion with employee relative to accident.
Exhibit H: Dated 4:-29-77. Incident Report— Discussion with Safety Super-
visor Hancock relative to accident.
Exhibit I : Dated 0-9-77. Observation Report reiterating a one-on-one meeting
with Safety Supervisor.
Exhibit J : Dated 0-29-77. Receipt for instruction on Hazardous Materials.
Although the documents above do not set forth in any detail the content of
the instruction given, they do iwint out that Mr. Wharton has received, on a
continuing basis, various types of instruction during his employment at Jones.
Further, the above only relate to documented incidents which we were able
to locate under considerable time pressures. These exhibits alone completely
refute the allegations of Mr. Wharton ; however, his accusations require much
more than simply showing a former employee to be, once again, in error.
As to Mr. Wharton's allegation that there has been no safety instruction at
our Roanoke terminal during the past seven years, be advised that I instructed
our Safety Department to randomly select a group of Roanoke drivers and
itemize the various forms of contact with our Safety Department that occurs
from time to time. Attached is Exhibit K which sets forth the results of this
sampling which, once again, shows Mr. Wharton to be less than accurate in his
statements pertaining to Jones Motor.
As you know, the Department of Transportation and various other Federal
and State agencies require strict compliance with all phases of motor carrier
safety. In addition to following these standards, Jones has embarked on numer-
ous programs to keep current in everyone's mind the primary place of impor-
tance that safety occupies at Jones. In addition to our Vice President of Safety
and Line Haul Operations and our Director of Safety, we have a full comple-
ment of Safety Supervisors and staff personnel throughout our system. In addi-
tion, all line haul supervisors and terminal managers are charged with speciUc
safety resjwnsibilities. Thus, a full-fledged effort is ongoing to keep employees
advised of better ways to insure their job welfare. During 1978 alone this effort
will cost Jones Motor in excess of $400,000.00.
At Roanoke there is a full time safety supervisor who, as are all of our other
supervisors, constantly required to attend workshops and seminars to advise
others of recent safety developments. On an ongoing basis, impromptu safety
sessions are conducted at the terminals and attempts are made to keep aU
employees updated on the safety aspects of their jobs. As an example, thmm
impromptu meetings may concern changes in driving practices due to schools
Digitized by
Google
123
reopening, winter driving practices or reviewing gtatistics with employees of
high frequency accidents and ways to prevent them in the future.
In addition to all D.O.T. required statistics, we keep statistical analyses of
all types of accidents, where they occurred, how they occurred and disseminate
this information at the terminal level. Further, terminal statistics are main-
tained for accident and injury frequencies which are compared to standard
norms. Those terminals below norms are clearly identified on a company-wide
basis with special emphasis being applied to our higher frequoicy locations.
£2ach terminal experiencing a work related injury is assessed a specific charge
against its profit and loss statement and. this year, a program was implementtnl
whereby repeated preventable work injuries will result in discii^inary action
against the employee up to and including discharge. How better to emphasise
safety than to make an employee's job depend on it.
The following are other examples of existing safety programs at Jones
Motor :
1. Observation Reports. — ^These reports are made by Safety Supervi^aors
based on their personal observation of employees in and around the tex^iiiual
as well as on the road. A report form is attached as Exhibit L and could result
in action, either favorable or disciplinary, l>eing taken again<;t a driver.
2. Road Patrol. — Many of the observation reports are compiled as a resnlt
of our road patrols. These patrols are ongoing and utilize company owned radar
equipment. Included are three documents labeled as Exhibit *M selected at
xandom, setting forth radar utilization along with a typical road patrol week-
end schedule.
3- Safety Atcards, — Currently Jones Motor has several award programs
Storking to encourage safe driving. The programs are set foAh in our drivers
snanual and reinforced from time to time by interoffice correspondence such as
Sxbibit N, dated March 14, 1974. In addition to our driver programs, during
0978 on a company basis, Jones has received six safety awards from such hit^v
x«garded organizations as the American Trucking Association and the Penn-
sylvania Motor Trucking Association. Additionally, our insurance carrier saw
:fkt to award us second place in a national safety competition. Next year we
expect to be first
4. Vehicle Inspections. — In addition to all State and Federal requirements.
Jones conducts ongoing inspections of all equipment. At each of our major Une
3iaiil domiciles, safety lanes have been established in each shop where pre-
T^itive maintenance is performed each time a unit arrives at those terminals.
In addition to these Maintenance Department checks, last year our Safety
Departm^it conducted 1,833 vehicle inspections.
5. Personal Injury Program. — ^This program was instituted by our Safety
Department to better educate employees in injury jM^vention. With the assist-
ance of the ATA, a booklet and slide presentation has been prepared and is
being shown throughout our systeuL A copy of a recent booklet distribution is
attached as Exhibit O.
6u Porto CUfUc Reports and Testing. — These tests pertain to visi<m testing of
drivers as was done in the case of Mr. Wharton (see Exhibit F). After results
are analyzed, the driver is advised of deficiencies and also how to cope with
th^se problems.
7. Driver Safetff Manual. — A copy is enclosed for your review.
8. Driver QuaUflcation. — ^A copy of our qualifications for both Road and City
Drivers is attached as Exhibit P. You will find our qualifications to be more
stringent than the Federal Regulations require.
9. Driver Safety Letters. — Over the years on monthly or bi-monthly basis,
we directly correspond with our drives about safety. Attached as Exhibit Q
are five typical examples of sudi correspondence.
10. Terminal Audit Reports.— This ten page Audit Report (Exhibit R) is
comideted at least once a year throughout our system by a safety supervisor.
BSven a cursory glance will show the minute detail covered by this inspection.
I appreciate that the Committee's time is valuable and rather than continue
to Hat specific safety programs, I am enclosing the Jones Motor Fleet Safety
Program Manual which sets forth in detail our nimierous safety procedures.
After you have had a chance to review this response we sincerely hope you
agree that accusations such as those contained in Mr. Wharton's testimony do
not in any way reflect existing safety conditions in the motor carrier industry.
Relative to pending Ic^slation, we urge you to consider the within info'Tnation
as well as the safety record of Jones Motor of which I am justly proud.
Digitized by
Google
124
Jones Motor,
BpHng City, Pa,, November ii, 1978.
Hon. Howard Cannon,
Chairman, U.S. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, B.C.
Deab Senatob Cannon : Donald R. Sheehy, President of Jones Motor, has
asked me to forward to your attention a copy of the engineering analysis pre-
imred by Smitliers Scientific Services, Inc. pertaining to the tire at issue in the
above referenced response to testimony.
If you recall, Mr. Sheehy had asked leave to submit this independent analysis
to further rebut the testimony of Baily G. Whartcm, a former Jones Motor
employee.
We would ask that the report be made a part of the permanent record. Thank
you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
James J. Koboix, Corporate Attorney.
Smithebs Scientifig Services, Inc.,
Akron, Ohio, October 5, 1978.
Re Your Tire Brand No : 18CL445. Smithers* File No : 61T/2598/10a
Mr. David N. Skipper,
Vice President, Maintenance^ Jones Motor Co.,
Spring City, Pa.
Dear Mr. Skipper : We have examined the 11-24.5 Super Traction Premium
Highway Rib Truck tire, serial number JX4F MK2108, that was submitted to us.
This tire lost inflation pressure through an oblong hole approximately six
inches long that was formed when an impacting object scooped out a twenty inch
section of the tread and carcass in the shoulder area on the non-serial side of the
tire. There are diagonal tears in the carcass at each of the oblong hole indicating
that the tire was fully inflated when the injury took place.
We found no defects in material or workmanship in this tire.
To identify positions on the tire, it is considered like the face of a clock with
the serial number at 12 :00 o'clock. On the serial side the numbers run clockwise,
while on the nonserial side they run counterclockwise. The ribs and grooves are
numbered starting from the serial side.
During our examination, the following molded information was observed:
11-24.5, Super Traction Premium Highway Rib, made for Super Tire Engineer-
ing Company, Pennsauken, New Jersey, USA, DOT, J^4F MK2108, Wheel POS
SDT. Made in Canada, 12 PR, Tubeless, Load Range F, Tread 8 Ply Nylon Cord,
Max Load Single 5780 Lbs. @ 85 psl Cold, Sidewall 6 Ply Nylon, Max Load Dual
5070 Lbs. @ 75 psi Cold, Patented Underprobe, Tire Undertread Probe Patented
in the following countries, USA 3739828, Canada 964972, Great Britain 1412851,
Belgium 798221, Greece 49868, Spain 413109, Argentina 194054, Venezuela 80981,
Australia 473671, L-4417-2, 2LCP851. The tire was branded 18CL 446 Jones.
The tread design consists of flve ribs and four grooves. The remaining tread
depth was measured in 32nds of an inch and is recorded below :
Position
140.1
No. 2
No. 3
No.4
12:00
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
3:00
17
17
6:00 -.
17
17
9:00
17
17
The large cut is located in the shoulder area on the non-serial side of the tire
angling through the tire from 1 :80 to 3 :00 o'clock, a distance of approximately
twenty inches. It starts at the surface at 1 :30 o'clock and angles deeper into the
tire until it forms an oblong hole completely through the tire, approximately six
inches long and one and three fourths of an inch wide at its widest point extend-
ing from 2 :00 to 3 :00 o'clock. There are angled tears on the inside of the tire at
both ends of this oblong hole, showing that the tire was fully inflated when this
injury occurred. Because of the size of the cut, it is obvious that a high energy
blow was necessary to damage the tire in this manner. Because of the sise of
the oblong hole in the tire, the deflation of this tire was virtually instantaneous.
Digitized by
Google
125
^ There ia an area of the tire located in the number one and two ril»s at 6:30
o'clock that has been burned for a distance of eighteen inches. There are numer-
ons other abrasions and cuts on the tire and there is a small cut in the innei>-
Uner near the c«iter of the tire at 11 rOO o*clock. This cot appears to have been
made from the inside of the tire and only penetrates the innerllner.
During our examination, the following photographs were taken.
Photo A : Overall view of the tire serial side.
Photo B : Overall view of the tire non-serial side.
Photo C: View of the large cut located on the non-serial side at 3:00
o'clock.
Photo D : Closer view of the same cut.
Photo E : View of the cut from inside the tire. Note the tears at both ends
indicating the tire was fully pressurized when injured.
Messrs. R. M. Hill. R. G. Dunlop and 11. K. Ilochschwender participated in this
^samination and concur with the results stated herein.
If you have any questions rej^arding this examination, we will be happy to di»-
"Onss them iKith you. In any future communications, please refer to Smithers'
aie no: 61T/2598A0a
Please give us a di.sposition for this tire. If we have not heard from you, we
"^111 return this tire to you in two months at your expense.
Very truly yours,
Chables G. Gold, Analytical Engineer.
'Mr. Doyle, My name is Eol3ert Doyle. I'm a resident of Martins-
fcurg, W. Va. I was until last fall a driver for Ryder Truck Lines out
<:>f Hagerstown, lid., where I was a member of Teamsters Local 992.
I'm here today to support Senator Percy's truck safety bill, be-
•Oause I believe it is mu^li needed to upgrade the number and quality
of safety inspections conducted b}' the DOT s Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety.
night now in the industry, some carriers are trying to abide by the
^M(% regulations, but others are profiteering by ignoring or circum-
'Venting these reflations. I've driven for both sorts of companies and
IRyder was definitely of the second type.
As a Ryder driver, IVe been trying to get the law enforced against
amy employer for a variety of flagrant safety violations. A lot of drivers
mre afraid to do this for fear of losing their jobs. But I tried, and
I'm sorry to say I did not get the help I should have from the BMCS,
"which currently lacks both the inspectors and thQ enforcing power
3t needs to do the job.
To give you but one example, I asked for an inspection of Ryder's
Hagerstown terminal in May of 1977 by letter to the BMCS Balti-
more office. I told them when and how they could make an inspection
in such a way as to catch the company in the act of sending units
out on the road with many serious defects.
The two inspections tlie BMCS made between May when I wrote
that letter and September of last year produced little in the way of
results. However, on at least one occasion when inspectors visited our
terminal, the company clearly had advance notice that they were com-
ing. Because our dispatchers made a point of telling us to have our
drivers' logbooks up to date.
Later, I learned from a source within the company that manage-
mient had obtained a copy of the letter I wrote to the Government
asking for an inspection. When we attempted to find out the official
results of these inspection efforts, the BMCS would tell me nothing.
And our only source of information was the company which claimed
that only nitpicking violations had been found.
35-692— 7&-
Digitized by
Google
126
My point is this, Senator : If drivers are to be expected to cooperate
with Federal truck-safety-enforcement efforts, they need to know for
sure that the complaints will be held confidential, that they will be
protected from reprisal, that inspectors will make prompt and thor-
ough investigations of their complaints, and that they will be able to
get full information from the Grovemment about the results of these
investigations, just as other workers have a right to do under OSHA.
We need more inspectors. We need more spot check inspections,
as the Percy bill would provide, but most of all, we need to utilize
better the people in the oest position to enforce truck safety. That
is, the drivers themselves.
Thank you, Senator.
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record :]
Rydeb Truck Lines, Inc.,
Jacksonville^ Fla., September 19, 1978.
Hon. HowABD Cannon,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C,
Deab Senator Cannon : On Friday, September 8, 1&78, a Mr. Robert Doyle ap-
peared and testified before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transporta-
tion, in hearings held on S. 2970, the Truck Safety Act of 1978. I respectfully
resquest that this letter, intended to correct information and erroneous im-
pressions, be made a part of the record.
In Mr. Doyle's introductory comments he points out (Line 15 ff.. Page 105),
that he no longer is an employee of Ryder Truck Lines. His testimony, however,
is in the present tense and would appear that he is presenting himself as a
spokesman for other Ryder employees. In a period of ten years, Mr. Doyle worked
for six different employers, including a period of approximately two and one-half
years when he was self-employed. During the two years and four months that
he was employed by Ryder Truck lines, we have no recor'd or communication
from Mr. Doyle bringing any notice of safety violations to our attention.
His comments fail to disclose that at the end of each trip our drivers
complete a Vehicle Condition Report. The information on this report, and other
items on our equipment, are checked in our safety lane prior to subsequent dis-
patch. This practice, and the related costs of servicing and checking out equip-
ment which exceeds $1,500,000 in base wages per year, contradicts Mr. Doyle's
characterization that our company ignores, or profits by circumventing, such
regulations. To the contrary. Safe, road-worthy equipment is an economic plus.
Our road Safety Supervisors, Shop Supervisors, and our company have bene-
fitted from participating in training sessions aimed at being more effective in
making inspections, with the assistance of experts from the Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety. We reject the insinuations of Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle's testimony did not reflect credit to Ryder's management or concern
for the safety of its equipment, personnel, and cargo. That portion of his testi-
mony that reflects Mr. Doyle's feelings towards Ryder are not subject to
refutation. Inasmuch as his testimony was supported by one example (Line 9,
Page 106), permit us to set the record straight on the one specific instance that
Mr. Doyle presented the Committee. Perhaps the facts on this will put the balance
of his testimony in a more appropriate climate.
Ryder Truck Lines was inspected by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety at
our Hagerstown terminal in 1977. We were also inspected at other terminals
during the same months of the same year. Ryder received no advance notice of
any of these inspections at any of the locations involved. We were, and are still,
of the opinion that among the duties of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety are
unannounced inspections of various truck lines and their equipment. Nothing had
been said to us at that time, nor to this time, that these inspections were the
result of a complaint against us by a Mr. Doyle. I am sure that the presence of
BMCS inspectors at any of our facilities serves as a reminder to all of our
personnel in the Transportation Department to renew their supervision and in-
Btruction to our drivers regarding the proper completion of their logs. Mr. Doyle
Digitized by
Google
127
-^rred when he stated (Une 17 ff.. Page 106), that sudi instructiong were the
vesults of advance notice of an inspection.
Mr. Doyle continued his testimony (Line 22 flf.. Page 106), that management
Jbad obtained a copy of the letter he wrote to the government requesting an in-
spection. He learned this from a "source" within the company. The existence of
that letter, if there was one, was not known to any responsible member of man-
asement at that time or at anytime since. We have never seen such a letter^
nor do we know anyone that has seen sudi a letter, nor do we know of its
existence. ^ m i i
I cannot comment on Mr. Doyle's remarks regarding inability to get official
results of inspection efforts, as I presume that this is public information and can
be obtained by him in an orderly way available to any citizen. He states (Line
1 if.. Page 107) that his only source of information was the "company**, who
told him that only nitiHcking violations had been found by the BMCS. That is
not true. I know no member of Ryder management that has characterized any
violation discerned by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety inspectors at any
location as nitpicking. We accept the violations reported to us for what they
are, a defect that is to be fixed. Further, it has not been our experience that
the BMCS inspectors are engaged in nitiHcking activities.
I realize, with some frustration, it may not always be possible for the Com-
mittee to iiin specific testimony or clarify vague charges from those who appear
before it In this instance, I hope that liaving dealt with the facts, that the
testimony is placed in a different perspective. In short, the specific items that
Mr. Doyle brought out in his testimony are refuted without reservation or
equivocation. «
Thank you.
Sincerely,
KixzzT Reeves,
Executire Vice President.
The Chair3l\x. Several industries, particularly carriers of food
and other i)erishable5. have tesiified that their liistorical exemptions
from regulation should be continued-
Do any of you drivers drive for any of the exempt companies ?
Mr. Beeryhiix. My name is Bill Berrjhill. Xo; I do not drive for
an exempt company, but I was an owner-operator at one time, and
I did operate independent for a short time. I don't feel that anybody
in the trucking industry' should be exempt when it comes to highway
safety.
Asan independent owner-operator, I myself was guilty of violating
laws.
The CHAiR3fAX. Was that on hours of ser\'ice ?
Mr. BotRYHn^L. Hours of ser\-ice. truck safety, the entire works,
in order to earn a living as an independent trucker.
ni explain my driving historj' and then you can better undei^tand
my position here*
I spent some 14 years within the maritime industry, which has
a lot of good safety regulations, and so forth, which I'm sure you're
^miliar with. I was used to having a safe workplace and so forth.
I went to work for a company in Norfolk, Va., some 14 ycai^ ago,
a little more than 14 years ago. I had some trucking experience before
that. It was a tank company. I worked with the company several years
and then I bought my own truck. I went to work for a freight com-
pany hauling a reefer as an owner-operator for that company. I found
that I couldn't maintain my equipment and make payments. If I made
the payments. I couldn^ pay for the proper equipment to keep this
track up. So I ended up going from the reefer busine^ into the tank
hauL In tank haul, I ran into many, many more problems, mainly
Digitized by
Google
128
from the hazardous materials, which ate away my truck. The revenues
I was being paid were nowhere near enough for me to keep this truck
in proper condition to run the highways.
Finally, I filed for bankruptcy, and went out of business. But during
those years in tank haul, I ran across many, many things concerning
the transport of hazardous materials that the public should know
about, and that I feel this committee should know about.
On one occasion, I put a load to a little town up in Maryland called
Havre de Grace. The load was sulfuric acid, at 90 percent strength.
On unloading this truck, I had a dome lid blow from the top due
to faulty workmanship on the part of the company in maintaining
that equipment. I was burned and hospitalized.
The Chairman. Wlien was that ?
Mr. Berryhill. That was in, I would say, 1964-65. I was burned
by the sulfuric acid. It was reported to the Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety by myself, but they were not really interested in what a driver
had to say.
The company, after I was hospitalized and released to my home,
never once called to find out how Bill Berryhill was getting along.
They called because they wanted me to sign some papers. On that
occasion, after almost 3 weeks, my wife told them I was dead, because
that was the kind of answer they deserved, for showing no concern.
I pulled these tank trucks on the highway with the frames literally
eaten away with sulfuric acid. I have pulled many different types of
chemicals, not just sulfuric acid. The frames were eaten away to
where they were thin as matchboxes, matchpads.
I had an axle come out from under one on Interstate 81, pulling a
load of acid.
The Chairman. When was that ?
Mr. Berryhill. This was in 1965.
The Chairman. We're more interested
]Vf r. Berryhh^l. We'll get more current.
The Chairman. We're interested in the problems today rather than
back in the early 1960's.
Mr. Berryhill. But the same laws that apply to these trucks are
Btill on the books insofar as drivers are held responsible but are not
protected against reprisals, and cannot refuse to take an unsafe truck
out. Practically every State does have a law on the books. I found this
out after I almost starved to death on workmen's compensation after
beinor burned. If you have a box here, and it's marked hazardous or
dangerous, such as a tank truck with acid or a freight box with
dynamite on it, you, as a driver — ^regardless of how unsafe that truck
might be — if you get in that truck and move it down the highway,
you have assumed the responsibility. Therefore, you not only cannot
sue your employer for any damages that might have been incurred to
your health or anyone else's but you're subject to arrest. The company
doesn't come down and go to jail ; Bill Berryhill goes to jail.
If it's a good company, they'll come down and defend jfiim and get
me out because they don't want their name smeared all over the
country.
The problems are the same throughout the industry. Later on I
went into freight haul. In freight haul, I thought I was upgrading
Digitized by
Google
129
my job by going to work for a big company. I thought I would have
better working conditions. Instead, it got worse.
I went to Hall's Motor Transit. I worked out of the terminal in
Hagerstown, Md. I found conditions there intolerable and I started
to do something about these conditions. I was elected the shop steward.
I got very poor representation from the union, almost no representa-
tion, until I produced a large group of written grievances. Then I got
a meeting between the company, the union, and myself to negotiate
these grievances. As a result, I was able to change some of the work
rules affecting safety. But as a result the imion became bitter with me,
and so did the company. For the last few years, I've lived with
reprisals, not only from the company, but from the union as well.
A few days ago I held a meeting in Martinsburg, W. Va. I invited
truckers from a four-State area. The newspapers carried my meeting
and I had a very good turnout at this meeting.
We discussed this highway safety bill. I found no one at that meet-
ing, no one that disagreed with what is in this package. And each and
every one of those people were truckdrivors. And I'm here represent-
ing them and many, many others drivers on the east coast.
' '[The following information was subsequently received for the
record:]
Motor Transit Co.,
Mechanicshurg, Pa., September 21, 1978.
Senator Howard Cannon,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator : During a recent hearing on the Truck Safety Act of 1979, one,
WUliam BerrybiU appeared as a representative driver for PROD. In his testi-
mony pages 111 and 112 he made some vague allegations concerning Hall's Motor
Transit.
Mr. Berry hill currently not working as a driver, seems to have become a pro-
fessional witness against the trucking industry. Earlier this year he appeared
before the Senate Constitutional and Public Law Committee for the State of
Maryland with similar wild, unfounded charges and allegations regarding our
oompany.
I am enclosing a copy of my letter of February 24, 1978 to Senator Edward
Conroy, Chairman of that committee refuting the claims of Mr. Berryhill with
actual facts and figures.
Hall's Motor Transit is a certificated common carrier, we have more than 2,500
employees, 375 of whom are over-the-road drivers. We are deeply committed to
compliance with all laws, rules and regulations involved with the operation of
ear oompany, and are most deeply concerned with safety in all its aspects. I can
aasiire you that we will continue in the future our full commitment to high
standards of safety and service to the public.
Very truly yours,
Gerald N. Hall, President,
Enclosure.
Motor Transit Co..
Mechanicshurg, Pa., February 24, 1978,
Senator Edward Conroy,
Chairman, Constitutional and Public Law Committee,
AnnapoUs, Md,
Dear Senator: I am writing to you in reference to testimony that was pre-
sented before your Committee on SD583 by Mr. Berryhill, a former employee of
MaJVn Motor Transit Company.
It is onr understanding Mr. Berryhill testified that Hall's equipment is poorly
maintained, interior noise levels are bad, (no insulation), steering is difficult
and Yiolations of weight restriction.
In regards to maintenance. Hall's employs 152 qualified mechanics under con-
tract with the teamster's union. Onr facilities have been used by Pennsylvania
Digitized by
Google
132
It is in the trucking business." This comment may help to explain why so many-
trucks on our highways today are mechanically hazardous. Indeed, in another
recently published report, the National Transportation Safety Board drew from
its years of experience investigating catastrophic truck accidents and flatly
stated : ". . . it appears that industry cannot be relied upon to Implement the
X)eriodic inspection and routine maintenance necessary to detect and correct
maladjusted brakes . . .".
We don't know why this is so. But we do know it is so. Most of the major
"for-hire" truck freight companies operate only a handful of repair facilities^
employ the minimum number of mechanics and repair only those vehicles which
can't and don't roll. Shop foremen in some companies get a year-end bonus if
they use fewer parts than originally budgeted. And when drivers do jot down
complaints about mechanical defects on DOT-mandated vehicle condition re-
ports, repairs are often recorded as having been made on the form by the shop
foreman — but never, in fact, executed. Such '"pencil repairs" are a universal
phenomenon in the industry. After all, a tractor sitting in the shop is not earn-
ing its keep. "Keep *em rolling" is the creed of the trucking industry, just as
*Think" is for IBM. So long as the trucks are rolling, there is little or no main-
tenance, regardless of need or safety.
One major reason why companies do so little to keep their equipment in safe
mechanical condition may be that there's almost no chance they'll ever get
caught and, if they are caught, there's almost no chance they'll be punished.
And if by chance a fine should be assessed, it can easily be paid out of the much
lArger profits derived from the unlawful conduct. A large segment of the industry
believes that **it pays to cheat." And, unless their hazardous vehicles happen
to kill someone whose estate can win a large judgment against them (or their
insurance companies), they're absolutely right. It does pay in terms of cor-
porate profits. But the public and the drivers pick up the tab; they pay with
their lives and well-being. That price is socially unacceptable and if s time
CJongress put a stop to it.
Now, why is it that truck companies have nothing to fear from law enforce-
ment authorities? Indeed, who are the authorities?
The Federal government began to regulate the trucking industry back during*
the Great Depression when it enacted the Motor Carrier Act and gave the Inter-
state Commerce Commission responsibility for promoting conmiercial motor
vehicle safety as well as an economically sound industry.
Spedflcally, the Congress merely authorized the ICC to issue rules and regula-
tions, should it choose to do so, with respect to "qualifications and maximum
hours of service of employees, and safety of operation and equipment" 4&
U.S.C. § 304 (a) . The statute provided almost no legii^ative criteria.
The ICC's regulatory authority was transferred to the newly-created Depart-
ment of Transportation in 1967, but it has never been clarified or amended. In
brevity, if not ambiguity, it surpasses even the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust
Acts. Perhaps as a result, we have on the books today some equally brief and
equally ambiguous Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) (49
O.F.R. Part 390 et seq. ) which, as a result, are largely unenforceable.
To cite just one example, yesterday this Committee heard testimony about
the dangers of forward mounted fifth wheels which cause excessive weight to
be shifted to the front steering axle, and which also causes steering and
handling diflSculties. The pertinent regulation provides only that the fifth wheel
shall be so located that it will "properly distribute the gross weight of botti the
towed and towing vehicles. . . [and] will not unduly interfere with thhe steering,
braking and other maneuvering of the towing vehicle. . ." 49 C.F.R. § 393.70(b)
(3). What is the meaning of "properly"? What is the meaning of **unduly"? Since
the government has never published any interpretations, guides or criteria, the
regulation remains virtually a dead letter.
Bad as these regulations may be, it doesn't matter much because the DOT
has almost no enforcement tools. While the Congress gave almost every other
regulatory agency civil forfeiture authority to enforce their regulations, it ne-
glected to give such authority to the Department of Transportation for the
enforcement of the truck safety rules. Remember that the DOT is not engaged
in some arcane and meddlesome regulatory process that our country might be
just as well off without. The DOT is charged with responsibility for saving those
thousands of lives lost as a result of avoidable truck accidents — charged with
responsibility for stopping a trend that has made the trucking industry one of
Digitized by
Google
133
the most hazardous occupations in the United States. If ever a regulatory agency
needed and deserved enforcement authority, it is the DOT*s Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety (BMCS).
The Administrative Conference of the United States, the Congress' own General
Accounting Office and about everyone else who has studied the governmental
process agrees that civil forfeiture is absolutely essential to any effective en-
forcement program. Nearly every law enacted J)y the Congress over the last
couple of decades authorizes such penalities. The Coal Mine Health and Safety
Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and laws promoting public safety
including those dealing with hazardous materials, toxic substances, air and
water pollution, and strip mining — all rely on civil penalties for their enforce-
ment.
Unbelievably, for all practical purposes, the DOT lacks such authority. Now
I ask you. If you had to choose lietween the effective enforcement of rules which
safeguarded the working conditions in a soda bottling; plant, and rules which
required those 80,000 lb. tractor semi-trailer combinations to be free of hazr
ardous mechanical defects, which would you pick? If the automatic bottle
washer creates a hazard, someone might get hurt. But if a heavy-duty truck
can't be stopi)ed Ivecause it has no brakes, someone will surely get killed — and
there's a good chance that persons outside the truck will be among the dead.
I should make clear that the 1X)T'8 Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety does have
authority under tho 11>35 Motor Carrier Act to assess civil penalties — ^but only
for recordkeeping violations. In other words, the carrier that fails to file an
accident report may be lined by the IX)T.
But for all other kinds of violations of the DOT truck safety regulations, the
DOT must mount a criminal prosecution of the violator — on the context of the
trucking industry, an irrational and archaic enforcement procedure. To prevail,
the DOT must be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that some dispatcher,
miechanic or driver "knowingly and willfully" violated one of its safety regula-
tions. And, not incidentally, these cases must be brought in federal district courts
by the Justice Department. You can be sure that neither the United States At-
torneys, nor the United States District Judges are eager to get involved in what
they both disparagingly refer to as "traffic court" cases.
The result is that the DOT rarely attempts to prosecute even where it has de-
tected violations. Before the agency could take a case to court, it would have
to perform an exhaustive investigation and somehow collect evidence about the
state of mind of the "accused" to prove that he actually knew about the violation
yet proceeded to engage in it. With only 134 investigators for all of the 50 states,
the DOT simply does not consider it cost effective to undertake such demanding
Investigations and neglect the tens of thousands of dangerous rigs rolling down
the highways. Instead, the agency has abandoned the posture of a law enforce-
ment agency, and presented itself as a friendly, industry counselor trying simply
to inform the industry by warm and friendly speeches on the convention circuit
that there are some safety regulations on the books.
This simply is not enough.
According to the DOT'S own random, roadside inspections, nearly 40 percent
of all trucks are in "imminently hazardous" condition. On any given day on our
nation's highways there are some 2C0,000 trucks. Yet during 1977, for example,
the DOT referred only 166 cases to the Justice Department for prosecution;
Justice declined to handle 2i cases, successfully prosecuted 100 and lost 3.
You will be interested to know that for those found guilty the courts routinely
Impose the minimum fine of $100 per count- Clearly, it pays to go ahead and
Tiolate the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. It is also clear that as
an educator seeking to induce voluntary compliance, the DOT is no box office
success.
There are one or two other ways by which the government could try to ensure
compliance with its safety regulations which I should mention.
They've been used only rarely and with a singular lack of success.
First, the DOT may ask the ICC to withhold, modify or revoke a carrier's
operating authority. The problem here is that the ICC considers itself out of the
safety business; in the eleven years since its safety authority has been trans-
ferred to the DOT, the ICC has responded only two or three times. As a result,
the DOT has virtually abandoned this enforcement route.
The second procedure the DOT could invoke would be an investigatory hearing.
However, the hearing examiner could not assess fines even if he found violations .
Digitized by
Google
134
of the safety regulations; he could only recommend certain affirmative action
whereby the carrier would essentially agree to improve its record of compliance.
As a result, the BAfCS has, itself, announced that "Formal enforcement pro-
ceedings are a last resort They are weapons reserved for use against flagrant
violators of the system- . . . The mainstay of our enforcement is education, tech-
nical assistance, publicity, and appeals to the self-interest of carriers."
The problem is that this is not working and we have a growing crisis on our
hands.
Before leaving the subject of enforcement procedures, I should explain that
sometimes the several states also become involved. In fact, the BMCS must rely
upon State law enforcement authorities in conducting roadside inspections. The
reason is that the Federal government's current jurisdiction extends only to
vehicles which are rolling and have, or will, actually cross state boundaries.
This early definition of "interstate commerce'* is as outmoded as the criminal
enforcement procedure. And because the EKXT investigators lack the authority
to stop vehicles, they must rely upon state police forces to open scales near state
boundaries and require all vehicles to ptop to be weighed and then inspected.
Some states do more. Indeed, a number of them have adopted Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations, lock, stock and barrel. However, enforcement au-
thority is fragmented among a bewildering variety of agencies, including public
utili'ty commissions, transi>ortation departments, highway departments, and
state, county and municipal police. Although we have no data reflecting the State
resources devoted to enforcement of truck safety, we do know that whatever they
may be, they are not achieving results. The average highway patrolman will
certainly stop a truck if it has no headlights in the dead of night or if it is fly-
ing along at 85 mi)h. But when it comes to insx>ection or a mechanical problem
with the truck, he has no more idea whether it is a violation of law than anyone
else.
We do know something, however, about state programs to enforce truck weight
limits — ^programs which are generally given much greater priority than truck
safety programs. In March of this year, the Secretary of Transi)ortation informed
11 states that Highway Trust Funds would be cut off if they didn't do substan-
tially more to enforce weight limits. 14 additional states were issued warnings
by DOT. Although a handful of states have respectable programs for enforcing
both truck weight limits and truck safety regulations, on the whole, state enforce-
ment programs are even weaker than the federal program.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I offer for the record two series of newsx>aper
articles which discuss the truck safety programs of the States of Illinois and
Ohio. They are part of an Appendix of documents which I also offer for the
record and which includes many of the reports to which we have made reference
as well as a small selection of letters we have received from employees of
trucking companies attesting to the existence of safety problems we have out-
lined in our testimony.
Leaving now the subject of government enforcement of truck safety regula-
tions, I would like to focus upon what we consider to be the moj^ egregious
loophole in the existing motor carrier safety statutory scheme. Drivers and me-
chanics are subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations just as
are their employing carriers.
However, drivers and mechanics are also subject to various forms of economic
persuasion — or coercion — depending uiwn your choice of words, from their man-
agement. It is a fact that employees of large trucking companies are routinely
the target of reprisals and recriminations whenever they seek to meet their own
legal and moral responsibility to comply with the safety regulations.
And once a law abiding employee has been fired, he is without legal recourse.
The current law does not forbid such coercive efforts by employers to undermine
the truck safety laws. As a result, any savvy driver will tell you that the un-
written law in his industry is you have to go along to get along. Once again, it
pays to cheat on public safety.
Yet drivers are obviously the government's primary, natural ally in any
effort to detect, inves^gation and enforce the tnick safety regulations. They
want desperately to help but they are unprotected and afraid of the conse-
quences. Suppose you are a comijany driver. You are instructed to complete a
trip which will force you to exceed the limit on driving time— already a tough
10 hours. Or you are ordered out when sick and shotild t>e in bed. Or you are
assigned a mechanically hazardous rig to drive. Your real choice is to comply
Digitized by
Google
135
with the safety regulations and be fired for izsrsiMfrilmryyD. or do t&e >>o and
take the risk of {H-osecation — an almost De^lLptfe risk — and t^Tia^ &n AceideBt.
Hie eonseqnences of the first chcMce are certain aiid isuzKdiare. T!ie c»>nswiii«»ee»
of the second are uncertain and remote. Th«e i> no nml •:*o:r«". T!i<? ceg ra ia Rt^s
of livelihood is too great a penalty to pay f«>r o.^oBpfyiEg with in iEa«if>nfed
and currently unenforceaMe law.
Present day legislation woald never sancti«>2 s^ci c»?wh>:?. T!se driver or
mechanic could be the eyes and ears of the coreriLsi^eET. Better >ti!L rhey cooM
have a powerful influence upc»n their employers asd tz:»lT:<e oxapliiii^je with
truck safety rules in the first instance by in.ik:i:2 :b*-:r o*x!ipiaiii^ dirv<rtly to
management, not law enforcement agencies^. Arid aiazAg^reat wc-oM itave to
listen and take measures to remedy viola Tigris. I»le«fd- if this were rte case,
there would be no need for a sizeable police force • federal ^:sd or state* ro run
around slapping fines on those wiio violate the trsck safe-ry regulatioESL The
pMut is that trucking company employees hold the key :o rmek safety — bur Con-
gress has not yet given them the protection they need to Tise it.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act is only one example » although a
particularly relevant one) where Consress has given esipl»>yees the protection
they need to help in law enforcement and compliance. As I've already explained,
IMofessional drivers of interstate commercial vehioies are soc eligible for the
safeguards of OSHA. including the prohibition of raanagenient reprisals.
Mr. Chairman, we have hundreds, if not thousaadSw of leTters from drivers^
disciplinary letters from suiiervisors, grievances and the tike in our files. In
our Appendix to this testimony we are submitting several merely as examples.
You may ask whether this practice is universal. Believe me. it mi>it assuredly
is.
You may also ask why union employees at least are r.*x pnnected since col-
lective bargaining agreements generally forbid unjust tlisciplioe.
To li^n with, there are thousands of trucking comixjinies and bus companies
whose employees are not represented by unions. Of tho^e who are represented,
most are covered by Team5?ter contracts. Unforruca:e=y. the Teamsters are no
more familiar with the DOTs Motor Carrier Safety Regulations than most truck-
ing companies — and they have shown little more interest in The health and safety
of their members than the top brass of the companies. True, the Union has a
safety department that was established a few years ago. but that department is
active only here in Washington.
The reality is that those who handle m«nbers' grievances are largely ismorant
of truck safety regulations and a good deal more concerned about financial
welfare than physical well-being.
The Teamster bi-partite g^evance committees, which misht appear to hold
some hope, are structurally unable to remedy contract violations and must
necessarily compromise member grievances.
We could describe countless cases where drivers have been fired for collaborat-
ing or filing complaints with the DOT or for refusing to drive when ill or
fatigued or when assigned a unit in hazardous mechanical condition. On occa-
sion, the Teamsters Union will get the driver reinstated, almost invariably with-
out backpay, only to turn around and warn him that if he does it again, he can
forget his job.
Because of time limitations. I will cite just one specific example of the opera-
tion of a Teamster joint labor-management grievance committee. The committee
in question was the National Joint Committee, the grievance pan^ of last resort
under the National Master Freight Agreement. Teamster president Fitzsimmons
and other top Union ofiScials sat on this committee when it decided that Jim
Banyard, a driver for McLean Trucking, has been pr<^)erly fired when he refused
to drive a rig that was seriously overloaded. The company admitted the fact
that Banyard's truck was overloaded ; it further admitted that it was company
policy, on a national basis, to require drivers to iwill overloaded rigs as a condi-
tion of employment The Unicm's leadership evidently found no problem with this
practice — and essentially repealed the contractual language Banyard had relied
npon which forbade companies from requiring their emplovees to violate safety
laws.
The long and short of it is that professional drivers, the government and the
motoring public desperately need legal prohibitions against management reprisals
directed at law abiding employees. That such statutory safeguards do not alreadv
exist is nothing less than a tragic oversight which should be remedied without
further delay.
Digitized by
Google
136
S. 2970
I woiUd like now to comment on the key provisions of S. 2970.
Tlie centerpiece of the bill is Section 12. It eliminates a serious loophole in
existing law by prohibiting employer reprisals against employees who report
violations of safety rules to the Department of Transportation, or who Insist on
critical repairs being made before they will take the truck onto the public high-
ways. Section 12 also gives aggrieved employees the right to obtain necessary
relief.
The second major provision of the bill Is Its provision for civil forfeiture to-
gether with an administrative and judicial review procedure to guarantee
parties assessed civil penalties due process of law. These are contained in
Sections 10 and 11.
These two provisions of the bill are absolutely essential If we are to begin to
get a handle on the rapidly escalating truck safety crisis.
S. 2970 would remedy several other problems which have prevented effective
enforcement of the truck safety regulations.
Section 3(3) re-defines "commerce" in the customary, fully constitutional
manner. This would have two results :
First, all carriers, inter and Intra-state, would be required to observe mini-
mum federal truck safety standards, and employee safety and health. Current
truck safety standards apply only to Interstate carriers, except when trucks
are carrying hazardous materials.
Second, this provision would eliminate a jurisdictional confusion which cur-
rently exists between the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. While the BMCS has Juris-
diction over interstate carriers. OSHA claims jurisdiction over all other carriers
and their employees. All truck drivers and their employers would, under this bill,
fall under the authority of the BMCS.
Pormit me to discuss these two changes a moment longer.
The current distinction between Interstate and Intrastate trucks is frequently
artificial. For Instance, safety rules apply to a truck that has or Is about to cross
a state boundary on a given trip, but not to the same truck the next day if it
should happen to be carrying goods which are in Interstate commerce, but not
cross a state line. If the vehicle Is hazardous. It does not belong on the road
either day.
This same truck, carrying interestate goods, is also likely In many cases to be
travelling on Interstate highways, or on other federally-aided highways within
the state. And, the driver of the truck may well be a resident of another state.
I might also add that the BMCS currently uses civil penalties in its record-
keeping requirements only in the event of violations by common and contract
carriers. Private carriers are not subject to these penalties because of distinc-
tions made for economic purposes in the 1935 Motor Carrier Act But when it
comes to safety, if not to entry, a truck is a truck, and the re-definition of
"commerce" in the bill recognizes this.
Let me turn now to the OSHA-BMCS jurisdictional conflict and the effect of
Section 3(3) on It. As we described above, a truck carrying Interestate goods,
and being driven by an out-of-state driver, may fall within the jurisdiction
of the BMCS one day but not the next. The day the truck and driver are not
not subject to enforcement by the BMCS of its rules, they must meet OSHA
requirements, because under the OSH Act all workers not protected by previously
regulating agencies are subject to OSHA.
S. 2970 would end this overlapping jurisdiction. It would give the BMCS au-
thority over all vehicles, their operation on the highways and their drivers. It
would also delegate clear authority to the BMCS to ensure the health of drivers
due to their exposure to health hazards while operating their vehioles (Sec. 7(b) ).
OSHA would retain Jurisdiction for assuring the health and safety of em-
ployees who work in the warehouses, on the docks and in the maintenance shops.
Although the BMCS has much greater knowledge about motor vehicles, it has
no knowledge of off-highway occupational health hazards. OSHA does, and. in-
deed, has promulgated rules which apply to the working conditions of these
occupational groups.
Section 7 of the bill establishes the BMCS's regulatory authority. As we have
fiaid. Section 7(b) authorizes the agency to regulate the working conditions of
employees. Public safety, not employee safety and health, was the goal of the
Digitized by
Google
137
1935 MCA insofar as it covered troek safety. Today's troA driver snffen from
the long term ill-effects of many occupational hazards, \\-hich may have only an
indirect or no effect on his ability to drive safely. Kidney and spinal damage
from certain suspension systems, lung damage and possiUly cancw- fpc«m diesel
fames are growing problems. Leg bums from hot doghouses are a problem which
the BMCS for a long time refused to deal with since it ostensibly affected
emi^oyee health, not public safety.
Section 7 also restates and clarifies the sultstant-e of the BMCS's current
authority under the ld35 law. That authority was brief and ^ague, and waa
permissive rather than mandatory. It has resulted in brief and vague rules, and
in long delays in takin? action. To require steps and a handhold on truck cabs
several feet'off the ground has now taken over a full deoade. The rule is still
being debated although exhaustive data regarding costly slijis and falls exist.s.
Section 7(e) requires that the BMCS familiarize affected r»ersons under the
bill with its rules. Currently, the BMCS distributes coines of its rules to
carriers, but not to emplr»yees or employee representatives. An amendment to
the bill should add that aff(*cted persons be familiarized with the BMCS'a
''procedures" as well as rules, so that citizens, drivers and carriers would know
what the government expected of them, and where and how to contact BMCS
inspectors.
Section 13 of S. 2970 creates a procedure for delegating authority to enforce
truck safety r^ulations to the States and authorizes limited sums <»f money to
come from the Highway Trust Vuud for state enforcement activities.
Curently, many states are enforcing some federal safety rules without the help
of federal funds. We think they should be given s«»nie help. The Highway
Trust Fund is a highly api>ropriate soun-e for that help, since it has built the
network of highways on wiiich the trucking industry is traveling and on which
drivers and citizens are being killed in truck accidents.
Should the states be required to adopt federal rules, or should HTF monies
be dispensed without requirements, on the assumption that the states will act
of their own accord to set adequate safety levels? Because of the way the cur-
rent law is written, even trucks belonging to interstate carriers are sometimes
used only for intrastate operations. Thus, the same truck will l^e subject to
enforcement by different entities on different days. The same holds true for the
driver. I don't know how the truckers present would answer this question. But I
find it hard to believe that any company that operates nationwide, or even in a
sbigle r^on, would prefer to adjust to ^ or 10 different state laws rather than
a single federal law. We do think there should be uniform federal standards.
In concluding. I would like to address a few of the argument we have heard
in opposition to the truck safety bill.
In a sense, S. 2970 would deputize every truck driver to assist in the enforce-
ment of safety regulations by prohibiting his employer from disciplining him
both for complaining to, or assisting the authorities, and for refusing under
certain narrow circumstances from engaging in conduct which would violate
the regulations. We hear that the industry is most unhappy with Section 12,
and I think it would be appropriate to address several of their arguments.
First, we have already demonstrated why Teamster grievance machinery is a
wholly inadequate mechanism for remedying the problem of employer reprisals
aimed at law abiding drivers. Moreover, the enforcement of absolutely vital
pablic policy should never be delegated to private parties who may have
incentives to tmdermlne that i)olicy.
Second, we are told that management would no longer be able to supervise
its operations because drivers would be authorized to dictate policy by refusing
to perform assignments based upon their construction of the truck safety regnla>
tlons. This dire prediction is patently absurd. It is designed to scare legislators.
In fact, truck company management could continue to threaten employees with
reprisals and even fire whomever they please as they currently do. S. 2970
unhappily would not stop this. Management could still attempt to coerce its
employees to violate the law.
But, we are told, S. 2970 would authorize an aggrieved emi^oye to sue his
company and the industry will be plagued with thousands of nuisance suits
filed by disgruntled employees who have an axe to grind and are only Hnimin p
c^duct violative of the truck safety regulations. This prediction is alsoabsurd
Thick drivers do not have la«<ryers on retainer. A discdiarged driver can barely
meet his mortgage payments, much less pay legal feea Lawyers who are asked
Digitized by
Google
138
to accept cases by drivers on a contingent fee basis are most assuredly g(Ang
to dig into the facts very carefully to determine that they have a solid case
before they agree to take it on. As a result, it is likely that only mi^torious
suits will be brought, as well they should.
When employers are found in a court of law to have deliberately punished an
employee for promoting such a critical public policy as preventing the loss of
life, that employer should be ordered to do more than simply offer to reinstate
the employee and pay his back wages. In the first place, that relief would hardly
compensate the employee for his broken marriage and lost home and other hard-
ships he had to endure during the course of the legal proceedings. Moreover, It
would hardly punish the employer for having engaged in such blatantly anti-social
conduct. Hence, it is vital that exemplary damages a^o be awarded. This is
precisely what S. 2970 would do, no more or less.
One final argument against the bill I have heard is that it would discriminate
among different sectors of the motor carrier industry and it would be costly and
infiationary — the catchword of our times. The only discrimination that would
occur would be the singling out of those sectors of the trucking industry who
violate the law. This is not, of course, a form of legally cognizable discrimination.
The Percy bill would not cost the industry a single penny, much less have an
infiationary impact, if the industry were complying with the truck safety rules.
Those who complain about costs are those whose trucks you don't want to share
the highways with.
The occupational death rate among truck drivers is over 6 times the national
average and significantly higher than that of miners and construction workers —
those traditionally thought to suffer from the highest occupational death rate.
As you know, the Congress moved last year to transfer the mine safety function
from the Department of Interior to the Department of Labor and provided miners
with tough new protections when doing so. We are not at all convinced that the
DOT'S Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety should not also be transferred to the De-
partment of Labor. We are convinced that professional drivers and the public
desperately need, and surely deserve, tough new protections from some of the
most callous conduct imaginable which has been responsible for the loss of many
lives and the infiiction of untold injuries. Certainly, professional truck drivers
are not less deserving of protection than every other American worker. It is high
time that the loophole that has left them without protection be filled.
S. 2970 is a moderate bill which would increase no burdens and impose no new
hardships but which would rather begin to address the long overlooked problem
of truck safety. We are concerned that it may not be nearly enough but we are
convinced that it is a vitally important step in the right direction.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, I would be pleased to answer
any questions you might have, either now or in the future.
Statement op Paul Geobo
My name is Paul Georg. I have been employed by Specter Freight Systems, the
eight largest trucking company in the country, for a period of 12 years as a road
driver. During the entire time I was employed my driving record consisted of one
accident. That accident occured on July 31, 1977, and was a direct result of my
being forced by Spector Freight Systems to take a tractor-trailer combination
unit, carrying 32,000 pounds, out onto the public highways despite my refusing to
drive the truck because the braking system was inoperative.
I say I was forced to take the vehicle out in this condition and will elaborate
briefly because I think it is essential that this committee be made aware of the
tremendous latitude the trucking companies are giv«i with respect to compro-
mizing both the safety and health of the professional driver and the motorhig
public at large. That latitude is granted them. In part, by the unions failure to
protect the job of the driver who is concerned with the enforcement of laws that
are currently on the l)ooks and designed to eliminate abuses in this area. In ImU-
ance let me just add, that the government regulatory agencies must share equally
the guilt in the lack of enforcement and the protection of drivers against reprisals
for their insistance on the company adhering to the law.
TThe professional driver is faced with two alternatives as a result He or she
either drives a defective, overweight, or inadequate vehicle, or refuses to do so at
the risk of losing his job. Hardly an enviable position for anyone to be In, bat
vertheless a fact of life that exist in the trucking industry today.
Digitized by
Google
139
In my particular case, I chose to drive the vehicle I was ordered to drive ratiier
than place my livelihood in jeopardy. The brakes did fail me when I needed them,
as I suspected they would. To avoid hitting a passenger car on the highway, I
swerved sharply off the road.
Today marks my 13th month out of work because of this incident. All the
muscles in my lower back were torn, as I was thrown all over the cab until it
came to a full stop. I have yet to receive full compensation paym^its for my
injuries and loss of work and I am not quite sure that my body will ever again
be able to withstand the severe pounding a driver is exposed to on his regular 10
hour daily tour of duty. My family and I have, in fact, become victims as a result
of the severe financial loses we have encountered.
The power to change and correct these injustices is currently in the hands of
this committee. I feel confident that you will do everything within your power
to protect the vulnerable and unsuspecting public from the barbaric sensitivity
of the trucking companies whose only concern seems to be the profits they can
make regardless of the cost in both lives and human suffering. Thank you.
Statement of Geoboe Zojicek
My name is George F. Zojicek, Jr. I reside at 4273 Shady Lane Way, Forest
Park, Georgia 30050. I am employed by Roadway Express, 2701 Mor^and Ave^
Atlanta, Georgia 30315. I have been employed there since July 6, 1972.
My job description is "Service Man Class A." My duties include lubricatiog
equipment, checking batteries, changing tires, pumping fuel, adjusting brakes,
checking and repairing lights, and other general check-lane service.
Over the last few years, I have been constantiy harassed by the company be-
cause of my involvement in many areas of safety-related items.
Within the last 18 mouths, our work policy or procedures have gone througll
some drastic changes.
There was a time when the people who worked on the service lane would find
defects on a unit — the unit being the tractor and trailer. The unit would be
written into the shop for defects to be repaired.
Under the present conditions, our road units very rarely go into the shop for
repairs.
The drivers write up the book or M-11. The driver notes any safety defects on
the tractor or trailer. This M-11 book will be signed off in most cases by the
foreman as O.K. or O.K. to run.
These defects should be repaired by the mechanic ; and where repairs are made^
only the mechanic should sign the M-11 or driver's write-up, not the foreman.
For example, as our present system works, there are five service lanes at our
shop. The unit comes through the lane to be fed and serviced before it goes on the
road. The lane or service man will be told that he has only so much time to nm
the unit because either the driver of the unit is on the way in or the driver will
be on the clock shortly, causing the company down time. If the lane or service
man finds any safety defects, such as worn tires, worn brake linings, or leaking
wheel seals, the foreman will tell the man to let these items go.
After telling the lane man to run the unit with the defects, the foreman or
supervisor can, and does, inspect the unit on our outbound ready lane.
The ready lane is where the unit goes when it is supposed to be ready for the
driver, and the lane man has written it ready. This unit can be reinspected, and
tiie very man that was told to let these defects go could be issued a warning letter
by the foreman or supervisor. If the lane man were to give the foreman or super-
visor a hard time and request that a unit be shopped for safety defects, you could
be given a reprimand or warning letter for failure to follow instructions. So you
are put in a position where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
By allowing these safety defects to go through does two things. It allows
the garage manager to keep maintenance costs down and give himself a bonus.
It would also increase the profit-sharing check of the foreman or supervisor.
Enclosed, and marked as exhibits "A" through "F", are copies of safety de-
fects or units found by me to Include work order numbers, the defects I found,
and the lane foreman's O.K. or O.K. to run these safety defects.
[These records are on file with the Commerce Committee. They show a wide
range of defects including faulty brakes, oil leaks, and malfunctioning wind-
shield wipers]
Digitized by
Google
140
These defects are O.K.'d to run or O.K. period with the foreman's signature
or initials. , ^ ^ , . . ,
This is a method I have chosen to use in order to keep from being reprimanded
at a later date. I do find these safety defects, but the foreman wiU let them go
anvwav.
In closing, I respectfully request that in the best interest and benefit of the
road driver, as well as the pubUc at large, that a safety bill or act be passed.
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record :]
Questions of the CoMMrrrEE and the Answers Thereto
Question 1. You refer to the Berwick, Pennsylvania spot-check in your testi-
mony. Do you think that the 54 per cent figure for imminently hazardous ve-
hicles is representative of the situation nationwide?
Answer. Yes. Since BMCS inspections cover interstate trucks, it is unlikely
that the figures will vary significantly between states. Moreover, the budgetary
policies of large carriers permit only slight variations in maintenance practices
from terminal to terminal.
The level of trucks found to be imminently hazardous in the Berwick inspection
is higher than in similar inspections over the past few years, which have ranged
from 38 per cent in 1972, to 34 per cent in August 1977. But the recent, higher
figure is comparable with the judgments of people in the industry. On August 14
an article on trucks in the Cincinnati Enquirer recited the following estimates :
"Larry Green, an Ohio State trooper at a truck weight station outside of
Eaton : *At least 55 per cent are running illegally.*
Del Gephart, a former owner of Workforce, Inc., a company that provides
drivers for leased equipment: 'Half of the trucks going down the road are
illegal.'
Dick Nickerson, Boston, Mass., and Emil Drlik, Toledo, tank-truck drivers:
'80 per cent of the rigs on the road are not legal.'
Donald R. Chambers, district manager, McLean Trucking Company: 'Would
you believe 101 per cent?' "
Even the BMCS's 34 per cent figure, which refers to nationwide Inspections,
is extremely high.
Question 2, Several witnesses testified about the inequality of enforcement
efforts, stating that the larger carriers are singled out for stricter regulatory
enforcement. Does your membership have a position on these assertions?
Answer. Yes. PROD's membership, who are drawn from the nation's largest
carriers, feel that the government protects large carriers through leniency in
enforcement efforts. Leniency is understood in two ways, immunity from in-
spections and from penalties.
A universal complaint among truck drivers is that large carrier trucks are
waived through at BMCS roadside checks while owner-operators and smaller
firms are stopped. Company drivers who have stopped and themselves requested
an inspection have been refused. Many truck drivers, including PROD members,
believe that political pull, payoffs or other corrupt practices are involved.
At the State level, drivers for interstate carriers say that state oflScials refer
them to the U.S. Department of Transportation (BMCS) rather than citing
them for an obvious violation, even in states which the BMCS records show
have adopted federal safety rules. State oflScials who do inspect trucks are gen-
erally trained only to look for licence irregularities or overloads, and do not
check equipment for safety violations. Highway patrolmen who are concerned
about safety concentrate on speed, hours and weight violations, which leads
them to focus on owner-operators rather than large carriers.
A second measure of immunity is what happens after the violator is found.
Although inequities unfavorable to large carriers do exist, the bottom line is that
none of the carrier groups is subject to significant enforcement efforts.
Since the BMCS is limited to criminal charges brought by the Department of
Justice as a means of enforcing its rules, knowledge and intent must be shown
in order to prove a violation of law. Whereas large carriers find it difficult to
demonstrate ignorance, smaller firms do so successfully. With these, the BMCS
limits its enforcement activity to sending them a copy of the rules. Larger car-
riers are. in this respect, more likely to be successfully prosecuted. But the
Ukelihood is only relative. Criminal prosecutions in 1977 resulted in a total of
Digitized by
Google
141
, ^___ Xie^vrth^HB. a wiJoosiHe w^n^MttT ^rf >siw
would Iw that iv^^cruiis xf <«auaeiviAi a&<>:or vy^.clies Ak-vit^ In»^«r9f\i$if ^^f
the liBdenl rale* vpoa r(«&stnti«L
A aeemd iBcqniry is ihat pnrtte rtirri^rs^ wbc* auu^ iivi^ *;^:i* l*r(» xH?**^*-
tkHH are cxcBiit froa the cItU pcaaltiw that mar K^ i^n^ airttB^: <\vsi». c%
oi i igf tar rMKdtceiriB^ TiolatkMii& S^ 9>;9 w.Htkl «t;Mi=jiCi^ t^;$ ;£:::f^ir
ezempcioa.
It coDld Iw tzve that there Is scve avareDMS el the BMC$ a»i ;t9 :»ifi{<T roXe^
tmons drireis m lai^e cobbob ctrrier coBpani^^ aad iheref.>t>^ ae^.^r>^ <\^c»-
plaints from theoL and more siKseiiQeiit BVCS iare«t^ii«xi;!(. M>7^ e^^v^
flhoold be made br the BMCS to infora driT«n and eauploji^rs of :be r^W^ a:^!
piocediirea for seeking their enf ortenent.
Qmt$tkm S, Sereral induscries. partimlartr ctrriers of fvx«d axid o?her >^r;sh-
aUJcB, hare testiAed that their historical exempcictts frvNBi iy^!a:k«i ^ouM be
eoiitiiiiMd. What ia yoor positioD oo these exemptiODS?
Answer. No carrier wbo uses the pablic nwd:?— federal-aid or olher— :»^ traa**-
port goods or people should be permitted to isnoie a minimum scaxidard of puM.o
aafotj. It does not make sense frMn the point of riew of saf^K?- tha: an IS wbt'el
track traTeling Cram Los Angeles to San Fimnoiaico would not hare tv^ hare o;^
aratiTa biakes, whereas an IS whe^ truck trareiing frv\m San Franci;$ieo to
Brno would.
Furthenaore, whether a driver is earning garden hoeces or peacbec^ d«v« not
affect his need for sleeps properly inflated tires or for a truck oab fee of tv'x;o
famea» deafening noise and a spine crushing suspension system. Ererj employv^
baa a right to a safe and healthy worki^ce. regardless of what busittt>^ h:s
employer is in. The public has a commensurate right to be assured that trucks
fihjiring the road with tbem are safely operated.
Under current law. the Secretary of Transportation may create exemp;:ons
from safety standards for certain classes of vehicles* and the BMCS has vKuie
ao— for all Tebides under 10.000 lbs., for apiarian industries, for light wvigbt
ttiiicle mail trucks, and others. (See 49 USC 3dlJ2 for general e^emi^tivms and
8petific rules for others.) Nothing in S. 2970 would prohibit the Secretary from
continuing these exemptions applicable to interstate tralBc or adding new out'^
aimed at intrastate trucks.
We do not think that the current exemptions should be allowed, or that new
(mes should be added. However, if the policy of permitting the DOT this latitude
is to be coDtlooed. criteria for granting exemptions should U« estaMisbe^l by
Gongresa. These diould require that those applying for exemptions demonstrato
that they pose neither a public safety nor an occupational safety threat.
QmcMtion 4, Many witnesses at the September 8 hearing, the GAO. and others,
have agreed that the DOT is inadequately staffed to inspect the numln^r t^
vehicles on the road. iThe ratio is one iusi^ector to every S2.riiK> \>*hicK\^^ lA^
How many persons do you estimate would be required to enforce the trm^k
safety regulations cm the books as of September 8« 197S:? {B) How many persona
do you estimate would be required to carry out adequate inspection and enforc^^
ment of the existing truck safety regulations, and implement the lut^visiiHis of
S. 2970?
Answer. Under current law, we would estimate that the number of inspectors
diould be increased tenfold, and this mii^t not do the job.
It is difficidt to say how many inspectors would be needed if S. 2970 were
adopted. The bill is designed to be self -enforcing, in two respects. It includes
a provision for civil penalties designed to 'induce comiiaiance**, and strong
pnkections for employees who report violations and refuse to drive dangerously
defective equipment. In addition, the goal of the bill is to induce states to
lissume responsibility for the enforcement of uniform federal safety stand trdst.
Even with these changes, we would recommend that the number of federal
safety inspectors be doubled immediately. In addition the staft of the BMCS
in Washington should be Increased by 50 per cent.
Question 5. Do you feel that the provision for 80 per cent Federal funding
programs (up to $2 million per State) will significantly improve State 8:ifety
pirograms, if S. 2970 were enacted? Is that amount suflacient?
Answer. To begin with, we would suggest that the $100 million proi>osetl in
the bill be distributed according to an equitable formula develoiied by the
Secretary. Preliminary grants to States may be necessary to develop the neednl
information on which to base safety program grants. The formula could result
in certain states — those with more truck traffic — receiving more f\inds than
others, and in some cases, more than $2 million.
35-692—78 10
Digitized by
Google
142
Any funds granted to states for strengthening truck safety efforts would
result in a higher level of safety on the highways. More information from the
states, however, is necessary before the adequacy of the proposed funding can
be determined.
In our view, $100 million is an absolute minimum. Under S. 2970, participation
by the states in the federal program is voluntary ; less than $100 million may
not result in sufficiently high grants to convince states to participate.
Question 6, Why do you support the provision to vest the judicial authority
in regulatory proceedings with the NTSB, as opposed to the DOT?
Answer. First, the NTSB would be more objective than the DOT, which would
be a party to the proceedings. Objectivity is the essence of a judicial proceeding.
The NTSB is expert as well as impartial, familiar in its role as accident in-
vestigator and agency monitor with trucking industry and BMS practices. Third,
the NTSB has the virtue of being well known for sound and thorough decisions.
Its credibility, expertise and impartiality would lend needed authority to de-
cisions affecting public safety.
Question 7. If the federal forfeiture provision were enacted into law, how
important do you feel granting indei>endent litigating authority to the DOT is?
Answer. First, let me point out that independent litigating authority is limited
under S. 2970 to civil proceedings. Criminal cases would still be handled by the
Department of Justice.
Second, even in civil cases, S. 2970 stipulates that the litigation handled by
the DOT would remain subject to "consultation with and the concurrence or*
the Attorney General.
This limited independence would result in much speedier handling of cases,
to the benefit of the public, industry and employees. FHWA lawyers have stated
that cases which should take six months to complete are currently subject to
delays of two years. The low priority of cases affecting truck and hi^way
safety — Justice Department officials view them as "traffic cases" — also means
that few are sent over to Justice and fewer still are prosecuted. The Department
of Transportation has the expertise and interest to handle a reasonable number
of cases expeditiously.
Question 8, In its testimony, the American Trucking Association suggested
that the duty provisions in subsection 6(e) be combined with that in subsection
6(b), so as to re4iuire the same standards of compliance for both employers and
employees. Would you comment on this proposal?
Answer. PROD is opposed to any change in Section 6 of S. 2970, the General
Duty clause.
In 1971, Congress recognized in law every American worker's right to a safe
and healthy workplace, and every employer's obligation to provide such a work-
place. Although these rights and obligations theoretically exist in the trucking
industry, they have been ignored by employers and government alike.
Some argue that the responsibility for trucking industry regulation should
be vested in the Department of Labor instead of the Department of Transporta-
tion. In 1977, Congress transferred authority for mining industry safety regula-
tion from the Interior Department to the Labor Department.
We do not support such a move at the present time. The DOT has been operating
with severely limited legal tools and resources. If S. 2970 is adopted, giving the
DOT adequate legal tools, the DOT should show both the will and the ability
to ensure a reduction in deaths and injuries from truck accidents, and that
employees are protected from workplace hazards.
One of the legal tools critical to the success of the DOT's efforts is the Duty
clause, as drafted in Section 6. The language here corresponds exactly to Section
5 in the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The significance of this section is
explained in the Legislative History of OSHA, published by the Senate Sub-
committee on Labor, and partially quoted below :
"The committee recognizes that precise standards to cover every conceivable
situation will not always exist. This legislation would be seriously deficient if
any employee were killed or seriously injured on the job simply because there
was no specific standard applicable to a recognized hazard that could result in
such a misfortune. . . .
". . . Under principles of common law, individuals are obliged to refrain from
actions which cause harm to others. Courts often refer to this as a general duty
to others . . . The committee believes that employers are equally bound by this
general and common duty to bring no adverse effects to the life and health of
their employees throughout the course of their employment Employers have
Digitized by
Google
143
bMlthfii! . . .
law to require ti:iiu:jir< :: pc^.r:^ ;i safe *n%i hx^Iriifu: ;\ldks.v ^^ <wipto^8MiU
Over 36 scai<s i^r* jc-:Tiii.:ts K-f itis irp?, AZid *: :ra>: tiirv* l>^jki::il liw;?^ <>»-
tain siiiiltr cZi-ase*. ii.'C-I-ilz^ :--* Wa>hin^oc H<a>y ^^;^•io l\»ti:r:iccs Ace cW
Service C-ocirfcs Ace ii*i ;i* L:c^iores:T-*> aa^i llirNT W\»rltr:j; Acc . . .
canned be MCiIIj 4iii>TrJ wiibcn: :!* fu:>>c cvx>;vr;jL::on ."•? a?e^::^d em?fc>yiw«^
In xhls c«jae:-:I:~ Se-.^::- -'■ ^ ex;yn?ss!T p:av-y> u;x»:i eav:!i i^axj^oyve :fc»
obiic::aiion to acztiij w::2i 5:.i£.iid.2^ ^ad c<lber A^v-Iiv-vtlle n*^;u:r«S2«rii:s iu»ler
tlie act . . ."' « ?f*. li&-'* •
We do noc t*l:*"Te zL&z :r=vt:ni: indTi^trj enipVyvrs sh>xx!d S» fct>ld tv^ a tower
istandard of <*'"ri:i:-c :Li: tijo-san-ds of o:lier eaipl.^Ter? wtio are ex^wt^xl n>
provide safe And b*a!:hr w:rk;'Li-es. This :< rartiv-alarlj rnie siace rhx- 0:1 tbe
Job death ra:e :« =l">1i hitter in :n3:kir? Than in in^\<: orher vwujxjiri.^r^ More-
over, a trockiiig coapazj'^ safety and health rraotioes have direvced and imufciKl^
ate consequeaLes for p-uMic safety. A hasird whioh results in the d<Mth <rf
emplojees often *!«:• results in dtath$ to meaal^rs of the puMio as welL
QucMiiKM 9. T>o jou s-j^^I^rt the 10.C«iXi pound Gross Vehicle WeinAt stamiardi
^nrhidi is set up by S. 2970?
Answer. Xo, we do nor. The pnrpt^se of the Trook Safety Act Is tw\^fv>W. to
-reduce the number of accidents, injaries and deaths caused by or Inrv^vlait
tTiicks and to pr*3\ide job safety and health protections to commercial m^Hor
vehicle drivers, a group effectivt-ly excluded from the rights and oMifailoaiS
established by Congress in the Occupational Safety ar.d Health Act.
Trucks imder 10.000 lbs. G.V.W. represent both a major source of awidents
and a major occupational group. The accidents in this vehicle and driver cate$tv«T
liave been growing raiHdly and should not be ignored.
1S75
I9«^
\m
lff.!!?gf'"-'"
7.335
<3a
«»9&3
7.»$
1»7
li
I lwBt¥td tracta ladtr 10.000 lb 6.V.W., c — mi <i amd priwlK.
: IMi providid ky dM NMioail Hiflmay Tnfc SiMy Adnurisin^
City drivers, route drivers, pick-up and delivery drivers should be provided
«afe and healthy working conditions by employers, and have no le«s a right to
such conditions than drivers of trucks that weigh more. As the figures above
indicate, on the job accidents are a major problem in this segment of the trucking
industry. Having exempted truck drivers from OSHA safety standards^ the
Congress should not shut the door on this group again.
When considering whether to include this specific exemption, it should b^
remembered that the BMCS under the current law already exempts the li|^t
weight interstate tru<^ category from many safety rules. S. 1^70 would permit
these exemptions to remain. As stated in response to question #3, we opjHtse th€)«e
«xemptions.
Question 10, During the testimony on S. 2970, various segments of the trucking
industry disagreed as to how many truck drivers of each different tytv of carrier
they are. Would you supply the Committee with statistics which you cimslder
to be accurate and the sources from which they were drawn ?
Answer. We do not know of any published statistics on the population of
truck drivers broken down by economic type. Estimates do exist tS the total
number of truck drivers, but they vary widely.
While the Bureau of Labor Statistics states that there are 549,000 Unig distance
drivers and 1.049,000 local truck drivers, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
has unofficially estimated that there are 4 million truck drivers subject to their
jurisdiction and an additional 3 to 4 million drivers in intrastate commcriH\ We
are attaching a letter from the BLS explaining the derivation of their population
estimates. No similar explanation has been published by the BMCS and we
therefore consider the BLS estimates more reliable.
A generally accepted estimate of the number of ownor-oiierators la 100,000,
hut recent fluctuations in the industry, shifting drivers from common to contract
status, would make all but the most recent statistics totally unreliable.
Digitized by
Google
144
U.S. Depabtmbnt of Labob,
Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washinffton, D.O., September 29, 1978.
Ms. Susan Ginsberg,
Professional Drivers,
Washington, D.C,
Dear Ms. Ginsberg : Pursuant to your telephone conversation of September 11
with Vance Anthony of my staff, I am providing a description of the method usetf
to estimate employment of long-distance truckdrivers for the Occupational Out-
look Handbook.
Our estimate is based on data obtained from the Current Population Survey
(CPS) , a monthly survey of approximately 56,000 households that is conducted by
the Census Bureau. The occupational titles and definitions used in the CPS are the
same as those in the decennial census reports. I am enclosing a copy of the job
titles included in the occupation truckdriver from the 1970 Census Classified
Index of Industries and Occupations.
The CPS provides an estimate of the total number of truckdrivers, but makes
no distinction between long-distance and local drivers. The method of determin-
ing employment in these occupations has been developed by economists on the
Handbook staff. As you will note, many assumptions were made in developing
the methodology. While our estimate cannot be considered precise, we believe that
if you accept the Census definition of truckdrivers, it is reasonable to accept the
general magnitude of our figure as well.
The procedure for estimating long-distance truckdriver employment essentially
consists of determining the number of long-distance truckdrivers by industry in
1967, summing the total, calculating the ratio of this estimate to the 1967 CPS
estimate of total truckdrivers, and applying a modification of this ratio to the
current CPS estimate for truckdrivers.
The number of long-distance truckdrivers employed by an industry is assumed
to be related to the number and use of trucks in the industry. The 1967 Census
of Transportation provides data on the number of trucks (excluding pickups and
vans), the average number of miles driven, arid their use — ^local, short-haul, or
long-haul driving. Trucks used for short or long hauls were considered used for
an estimate for long-distance truckdrivers.
Two methods were used to translate the number of trucks into an estimate
of long-distance truckdrivers. The first used data on truckdrivers by industry
from the 1970 Census of Population. (It is assumed that the 1970 distribution
fairly represents the 1967 distribution.) The proportion of long-distance trucks
to total trucks in an industry was applied to the number of truckdrivers to yield
an estimate for long-distance truckdrivers.
The second method assumes that the number of long-distance truckdrivers
in an industry is equal to the product of the ratio of the average miles driven by
long-distance trucks in that industry to average miles driven by long-distance
trucks in the "for hire" industry and the number of long-distance trucks in the
industry.
Based on the economists* knowledge of each Industry, one of these estimates
was selected. Summing the individual industry figures yielded a 1967 estimate
of truckdriver employment, which when compared to the 1967 CPS estimate of
truckdrivers, provided a long-distance to total truckdrivers ratio. Applying this
ratio to total truckdrivers reported in later years would effectively assume that
the proportion of long-distance to local truckdrivers had not changed. Data
from Transportation Facts and Trends, published by the Transportation Asso-
ciation of America, however, indicate that the proportion of the Nation's freight
bill resulting from intercity trucking has declined relative to that from local
trucking. To take this fact into account, an index of the local to intercity freight
bill was developed (1967=100) and used to adjust the ratio so it could be applied
to other years estimates of total truckdrivers.
Following this procedure, of the 1,898,000 truckdrivers reported in the CPS In
1977, 549,000 are estimated to be long-distance truckdrivers. Incidentally, our
Digitized by
Google
145
•estimate of the number of local trackdrivers conslstB of the rema inin g IJ^^OOO
-Cenaiia truckdrivers plvta an estimated 300,000 of the 516,000 indiridoals dassi-
^ed by the Census as ''delivery and routemen." The remaining 216.000 persons
in this category perform as saiesworkers as well as drivers and are considered
route drivers for the Handbook. Thus, local truckdrivers would number 1.64d,000
in 1977.
I hope that this information will be of help to you. If you have any questl^^ns
•or if we may be of further assis^nce, please contact Mr. Anthony on 523-111Ql
Sincerely yours,
Neal H. RosErrrHAL.
Actinff Chief, DiviHon of Occupational Outlook.
Question 11, The National Transportation Safety Board estimated their man-
power and the resource needs for carrying out the provisions of S. 2970 on the
basis of comparison with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
-experience. Do you consider such a. comparison valid? Would you supply the
-Committee with wliat you consider to be accurate statistics for on the job in
truck accidents over the past 5 years?
Answer. The comparison with OSHA as a means of estimating XTSB man-
I)ower and other resource needs is misleading. The NTSB's role will l>e limited
to that of hearing appeals resulting from decisions made by the BMCS. This is
41 function of the OSHA Review Commission, not of OSHA itself. Even the ex-
perience of the OSHA Review Commission is not usefully comparable because
a) OSHA extends protections to a far larger population of workers than the
BMCS would under S. 2970 and b) OSHA has many more regulations subject
to violation, complaints, citations and appeals than the BMCS.
In order to avoid creating manpower problems on the scale anticipated by
the NTSB, it is very important to continue to restrict the BMCS*s authority to
those safety and health problems it is equipped to solve.
S. 2970 correctly limits occupational safety and health protections to truck
drivers (sec 7(b) ). Other workers in the trucking industry, including mechanics
and freight handlers, are protected by OSHA. This is true in every area, from
fork lift safety practices to the standard covering exposure to asbestos, oi criti-
cal importance to truck mechanics.
On the other hand, public safety is fully protected under Section 7(a) which
empowers the BMCS to set whatever standards are necessary to require the safe
maintenance of trucks, including standards applicable to mechanics. In this re-
spect, S. 2970 is consistent with and clarifies the BMCS*s current authority, but
does not extend it
Any attempt to increase the applicability of the bill, by including a broad
definition of "employee", would result in manpower problems beyond even those
mistakenly foreseen by the NTSB.
B. There are no reliable statistics for on-the-job truck accidents over the past
5 years. Reliable statistics on the number of on-the-job fatalities are available
from 1975.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes estimates of an occupational injury
and illness rate, measured in lost work days, for an occupational category called
-•trucking, local and long distance" (Standard Industrial Classification 241).
But these figures are not very usefiQ for several reasons. First. SIC 241 includes
all workers in the industry, not only truck drivers. Second, it excludes drivers
who work for companies whose business is primarily other than trucking, and
finally, the group does not measure the accident experience of owner-operators.
The BLS estimate on fatalities in SIC 241 is of limited usefulness for the same
reasons. In 1976, the BLS estimates that 400 workers were killed out of a total
of 1,127,500 employees.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provides reliable infor-
mation on the number of fatal truck accidents. I am attaching a chart including
information about heavy truck fatiil accidents. NHTSA's Fatal Accident Report-
ing System has been active only since 1975.
Digitized by
Google
146
HEAVY TRUCK ACCIDENT FATALITIES,* 1975-77
In percent
1975
1975 to
1976 to
1975 to
1976
1977
1976*
1977 «
1977 »
3,376
3,774
18.1
11.8
32.1
4>077
4,501
17.1
10.4
29.2'
6,130
6,314
11.9
3.0
15.3
2,149
2,357
13.4
9.7
24.4
110
109
8.9
-.9
7.9'
8
6
60.0
-25.0
20.0
355
371
27.2
4.5
33.0
22
28
-8.3
27.3
16.7
412
515
24.1
25.0
55.1
63
75
5.0
19.0
25.0.
512
626
20.5
22.3
47.3.
862
954
19.7
11.2
33.1
715
799
21.8
11.7
36.1
Total fatal accidents involving heavy trucks 2, 858
Total fatalities from heavy truck accidents 3, 483
Total fatalities in all truck accidents 5,477
Fatalities in heavy truck accidents by vehicle:
Passenger car occupants 1,895
l\flotorcyclists 101
Bus occupants 5
Pedestrians and other nonoccupants 279
Emergency and other special-use vehicle occu-
pants 24
Pickup truck occupants 332
Van occupants 60
Small and medium weight truck ^ occupants 425
Heavy truck occupants < 717
Heavy truckdrivers 587
DETAIL OF HEAVY TRUCK OCCUPANT FATALITIES, 1975-77
Heavy trucks:
Single-unit
2-unit
IVIultiunit
42 34 67 -19.0
651 780 832 19.8
24 48 55 100.0
97.1
6.7
14.6
59.5
27.8
129.2
1 Heavy trucks are those trucks weighing more than 26,000 lb.
* Percentage increase over the indicated period,
s Trucks weighing less than 26,000 lb.
< See detail.
Source: NHTSA, Fatal Accident Reporting System.
Question 12, Would you comment on the draft regulations to update the hours
of service regulations recently promulgated?
Answer. Yes, gladly. First, the draft regulations consist only of an advanced
notice, not proposed rules. This indicates that the BMCS plans to extend the
proceeding for a minimum of two years, and probably longer.
Fatigue — with accompanying amphetamine abuse — is a major problem in
trucking. PROD estimates that as many as a third of the fatal truck accidents
are related to fatigue. This is not surprising in view of the astonishingly long
hours driven by truck drivers, and their irregular scheduling. The rules permit
10 hours driving at a stretch in a 15 hour on duty period, which need not run
consecutively, effectively extending work shifts up to 20 hours or longer. Drivers
are allowed 8 hours off between shifts, but they can be called at the 6th hour to
arrive at work on the 8th. Many drivers are expected to be on call at all times,
24 hours a day in order to receive a work call. A driver who arrives home in the-
evening in time for a night's sleep, can be called the following evening to begin
his trip after an active day. Weekly hours can total 60 hours in 7 days or 70
hours in 8 days, with no scheduled days off.
The rules have been in existence for approximately 40 years. A lawsuit by
PROD in 1973 prompted the proceeding which resulted in the current advanced
notice. The proposed rules, however, do not affect the 60 hour week, nor do they
propose advanced notice of trips for drivers. While a lengthening of off duty
time is proposed, so is a lengthening of driving time — to 11 hours.
The slight beneficial modifications which have been proposed are opposed by
the trucking industry, which takes the position that any change will create
dire economic consequences for companies and consumers, and that fatigue does
not represent a serious safety problem today.
While driver members of PROD are deeply concerned about safety and fatigue,
and also feel the need for more time with their wives and children, they and
many other drivers are also concerned that they not be asked to choose between
their life and livelihood.
The BMCS, however, is not authorized to consider the question of fair wages
and hours, but only of public safety. The agency's limited mandate in the area
was created by Congress when it exempted the trucking industry from the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Digitized by
Google
147
The lack of any overtime provisions, or their equivalent, means diat trrxkijic
companies profit by worlcing employees extraordinarily long hours. Since most
drivers are paid by the mile, rather than by the honr, they have a hoilt in inecfi-
tive to speed. An exception to this rule is United Parcel Service, whidi pays by
the hour. Many drivers are paid a percentage of the load, rather than by the
mile. These working conditions have contributed to the threat to public safety
posed by some trucking companies.
We do believe that some changes In the hours rules can and must be made
immediately, and that the BMCS has delayed far too long in proposing new rulesL
We also believe that Congress should take a hard look at its exemption of the
trucking industry from the Fair Labor Standards Act, and at the limited mandate
the BMCS has with respect to hours rules.
Our recommendation is that the Committee consider amending S. 2970 to re-
quire that a study be made of the consequences of including the trucking indus-
try under the FLSA. The study, or group of studies, should examine the
implications for 1 ) public safety, taking into consideration the costs, medical and
otherwise, of highway accidents related to fatigue. 2) employee safety and health
and earning i)ower, and 3) costs to industry and the consumer. The effects of
shifting from mileage pay to hourly pay should be specifically considered.
The Committee may want to establish an interdepartmental task force, includ-
ing representatives from the Federal Highway Administration or DOT, the ICC
and the Department of Labor to be responsible for the study. Whether the Com-
mittee chooses to create an interdepartmental task force or an independent com-
mission, the scope of the hours issue clearly goes beyond the limited authoriix
and expertise of the DOT.
After examining the issues, the Committee may decide that the Fair Labor
Standards Act should be amended, or that trucking industry hours should be
established by Congress, rather than the BMCS.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this vital issue.
Question IS. Do you feel that more extensive (or intensive) investigation into
the causality of fatal truck accidents would produce more reliable statistics?
Answer. Yes, definitely. In depth accident investigations, such as those per-
formed by the NTSB are invaluable in suggesting ways to reduce accidents^
In depth accident investigations are particularly important in truck accidents;
as critical details of the accident are generally not included in normal police
reports, i.e. vehicle weight, position of the cargo in the truck, hours driven by
the driver.
In order to facilitate accident investigations, the Committee should ensure
that the NTSB and the BMCS have the power to impound equipment until it has
been examined by investigators.
Question I4, Would you supply the Committee with a list of the top eight
mechanical difficulties which your membership encounters in their rigs, ranked
according to frequency?
Answer. The following is a list of the top maintenance related mechanical
problems that drivers have :
1. Brakes: (65% or more trucks) — Frayed air lines, brake linings need
replacement, brakes need adjustment, and triple valves rustj and dirty (blocks
air).
2. Steering: (50% of trucks, after 100,000 ndles) — Kingpin bushings wc«ti^
shackle bushings worn, tandem bushings worn, gears in steering box worn or
loose, and universal joint worn. (These problems cause front end darts, erratic
steering, or slack).
3. Lights: (50% of trucks) — ^Replacements needed, and wire shorts (after
200,000 ndles).
4. Suspension: (40-50% of trucks) — Shocks worn, or have been removed
entirely, broken leaf spring, and bushings worn.
5. Tires: (40% of trucks) — Underinflated, and treads worn.
6. Wheels: (15% of trucks) — Loose lugs, and broken studs in brake drums.
7. Exhaust: (varies widely) — Leaking.
The following is a list of the top eight design related mechanical problems
dted by drivers:
1. overloaded front axle.
2. forward mounted fifth wheeL
3. inadequate brakes.
4. placement of recaps on tractor wheels.
Digitized by
Google
148
5. interior cab space too cramped.
6. handling and stability inroblems with doubles.
7. steering system needs securing.
8. visibility: blind spot on right; iced over mirrors.
Question 15, How often do you receive complaints about the transportation
of hazardous materials (e.g., fumes, leakage, faulty container tanks, etc) ?
Answer. PROD does not regularly receive complaints about hazardous mate-
rials operations. We have received individual reports that there are widespread
problems, and one report of a fatality after leakage in an improperly placarded
trailer. We think that the lack of complaints is due not to the lack of problems,
but drivers' lack of knowledge about what they are carrying. The BMCS has
not provided any instruction to drivers in the identification of hazardous mate-
rials or in the rules and procedures surrounding them. Were drivers and dock-
workers to be more aware of the potential problems they would be more likely
to report them.
Question 16, How valid do you consider the trucking industry's daim that
the blame for truck accidents falls primarily upon the so-called ''gypsies"?
Answer. We have not seen any evidence which shows that owner-operators or
small exempt companies are responsible for more accidents per mile or relative
to their total population. Without such evidence, we cannot consider the claim
valid.
Our own experience has been that operating practices vary among carrier
types, with consequences for safety and health :
Owner operators, especially independent, as opposed to lease, drivers, violate
the hours rules, the speed limit and the weight laws more frequently than the
regulated common carriers. But, owner operators are equipped with safer vehi-
cles to begin with than fleet drivers — better suspensions, better steering, seats,
interior cab design. The Kenworth and Peterbuilts are known as the Cadillacs
of trucks.
Large private carriers with their own fleets (not using owner oi)erators)
keep their vehicles in safer condition than do regulated common carriers and
•exempt owner operators, with some exceptions.
Regulated common carriers violate speed, hours and weight laws, but not as
often as owner operators. However, BMCS reports show that regulated common
carriers have the worst maintenance record measured in road side checks of
all three types (exempt, private, common). Not only are common carrier vehi-
cles more frequently found in imminently hazardous condition on the high-
ways, they are also less safely designed than vehicles purchased by owner
operators.
Question 17. Would you supply the Committee with a blueprint for what you
would consider to be an adequate maintenance program for a fleet of five trucks?
Answer. Attached is an exam Die of a reasonable periodic maintenance pro-
gram, preventive, to be performed on a Detroit Diesel. The functions listed would
be done in addition to regular pre- and post-trip vehicle inspections by drivers
and mechanics.
Digitized by
Google
149
Ton lf-104>9 (12/77) • Unit Mo.
Txlnfd la U.S.A. •
toc«tlon__
DETKOIT DTESEL SERVICE TKSTKUCTIOHS
rn Add fuel and oil {do chan^^ oil)
Cud Change all oil flUtn An4 ■.■c«n^*ry fuel filter on units equipped with Racor 1000 FEN;
both fuel fllteil OLhcf tr«cT;«ra.
<-.! J Crease front «t»d^ rive lac„ ^tli t^tpel only.
I I i Check trdnt«f*«ton and dlff erEnC ial lube.
CUD Check coolant prottctloti^ ad tmriy liquid as required.
m Clean windshieM
' ' ■ Check windshield wipers and washers, safety equipaent.
f I I Safety related Iteias.
^ i I Clean out cab
I 1 ■ Advise foreraan of any abuse
, ' ' ^ Check freon coibpressor belts
Ito. J rfl*p«g t^ &tt - 50,000 Nnes i
t t \ Stcaa clean tractor- radiator - batteries with cover removed.
r ' ' Change lube oil and all oil filters.
Advise shop foreman if any of the following conditions are present:
A. Water in filter or oil
B. Ketal cuttings in filter or oil
C. Amount of oil in pan unusually low
■ ■ 1 Change both turi ii er ^U-mii-rtts. Drain water-fuel separators.
I I J Check condition of 11 beltft nd adjust as needed.
I .1 t Inspect air Inctlta ayaten; correct as necessary.
I I J ChtcH «xhauiiE lyatcv for UaVi; repair a« necessary.
CX3 Check for fuel leaks
i. I J Crease tractor completely.
CX3 Check differential and transmission; lube and fill to correct level.
Tnnsnlfidlon Ho, SOW K,0. motor oil MIL-L-2104C;
i]irfar#bHal )4<i. CLS Ut &^-14iQ.
Adviie shop fortfoan trsnamlsslon or differential requires excessive amount of
lube to fill. Check ynJversil jDlnta and yokes for looseness with all brakes released.
. Check housing vents,
LJ-J Check water hoses, oil lines *M air lln«A for chafing and /or leaking; replace as necessary.
dP Check water pump, fitt hub snd idler fot eicttslve wear.
t i J Check radiator for may IrakM
cm Check and add antifnc^c if needed (WINTER ONLY). Advise shop foreman If radiator requires
Cjtcesilvi ascuDC at coelant to fill. DO NOT OVERFILL RADIATOR.
IX] Check biCttrlH ta cotreE^ water level «nd . ' Iddowns ;:'^>lace defectlvA or
Rilislni ell apf< Cheek cablBft for chAfed coadi ions. Kfebovc corrosion and. tighten
all cennettians Check baiLFty box br^ckers
CD Check ill 1*0M TttlecloT wiring, nd light C4b correct an neceBsary,
rJ3 C^'k diimefic awltcH* tt^rn el^elv and «tDp light switch for correct <]p«factiMi»
UU Check aXl inKtTunvtnta ludlnji warnlnifc device* fr tractor proteciiEoii valve for proper operation*
CII3 Check heater AeticsKVT iaj propc Op^fAtlon. Dttertnina that valves vcnrs Opataciva.
!_lJ Check wifidihield wiper ^ncli^dlDB t^ladea for proper opttatldit. Ch«ek cab glass tor *11 defects.
Che^k mirrors {ind t^racketl. Chi'Jzk vlndchleld ther Foe OperAtloA.
UP Cheek clutch Dperation sdjafic to 1/J" beiwecB relc^ic tr-ri-r ';-^ ftont brake disc.
OO Check steering BFctor and stitft bax for correct SAOunt of lube. Add iQ ^.fi- nator oil if
necessary Check conplete steering gear, linkage and liing pins for wear and looseness.
^^ &ralq nolEt^re ffoa steering sector.
nD check an4 «ec torn in 1/16.
GD Check al spT^jif^ for broken plys. and tie bolts. Check all u-bolts snd spring seats for
IdDscnuls
fT3 Tl|ihCea and rrpslr any loose cab mounts, latches, or hinges. Cab hoist & c^b hoist safety
^^ device.
LLJ Check th wheel mount in^t, slide ft slide stops for any cracks or looseness end jaws for
«x«easlvc wear
m Qitfk sir CDBpresior for excessive oil pumping. Check air tank brackets.
on Adjust brdVirt; check brake lining for wear, broken shoe return springs ft cracked brake drums.
Replace bralte Ifufng of S/S" or less. Decernine that 121 is operative.
OO Check It in tires 85 lb» drive; 95 lbs. steering. Date tires. Advise foremen of aiqr
breaks or aevere wear Install all metal valve caps.
' '• I Check all trheeln for cracV^ or loose studs ft nuts.
cm Check all 'u^tels for l^klftg seals. Replace as necessary
CD Check for correct afaty tqulpc^ati 3 reflector flares, 2 fire extinguishers (full and
scaled) atd 1 accident report envelope.
Digitized by
Google
150
/^i* Check for state Inspection being due.
('^f y^ke sure all parts, oil, etc., are properly charged out on work order and fuel sheet.
r^i^'corcect dipstick If it has nore than 2 narks (1 high, 1 low) T ake oil sanple .
Wb, _3_ ifuipPctLlofl - ^ Q ^DOCl Hitei i (Includes all itens on Ho. 1 &' No. 2 Inspections)
I' TZl '<*lghten eoglnc ^"4 t r^rL&Dils^ion aounting bolts
rilTRtplace dry air cleaner.
(H'^Crcase fan hub, water puaip
l7_7Dyno check, vacuus check. Perfora work as necessary.
tJUDReplace mounting gasket f 5S71024 for ^70 oil filter adapter plates. Torque
base plate to A5 to 50 foot pounds.
Kg. 4 Inspection - 180.000 Miles : (Includes all items on No. I, 2, and 3 Inspections)
nncheck turbocharger for excessive radial and end clearance.
1 T.n Replace all engine belts.
( J 'Replace water pump & fan hub.
[ i: J Check alternator.
(.'] r Replace all engine to radiator hoses except Silicone.
IIIJJ Drain transmission; check for excessive cuttings. Install SOW H.D. sotor oil MIL-L-21O4C0
if further repair is not required.
rXI'Drain differential; check for excessive cuttings and slack. Install lube CLS SA£ 85-140
if further repair is not required.
(J~DCheck tandea alijinoi«nt it^'pUc Any Cindea bushings that are worn excessively.
C-LD Check king pins and; bitshfng» for wear
f J.l Tighten differentia rie nounllng bolts.
(JO Check out all wiring, W NOT PATCH Replace if wora«
t_l-JDyno test traclor
A. Check opericJon of fan cTutch.
B. 8V71 WHP with SQHD tandea should be between 220 4 223.
C. Speedo must register within 3 MPH of actual speed 55 MPH 1950 8V71
D. Injector height 65 nm 1.484: 60 m 1.460.
m AFTER INSPECTION IS COMPLETE OR AT END OF DYNO RUK, RECHECK FOR ANY OIL. WATER, OR FUEL LEAKS c
No. 5 Inspection - 240.000 Miles t
l—l—' Drop pan. Check aain and rod bearings; replace as necessary.
t— 1— I Replace fuel punp and injectors.
» I 1 Replace alternator.
(ZO Replace blower and blower drive
This PM has aileage accumulation separately. A 1, 2, 3, or 4 should be worked In addltioa
to the nuabfcr i; both aust be naudcd.
Component replacement status will be given when any PM Is due fro* 2740.
ANY PART THAT SHOWS EXCESSIVE WEAR SHOULD BE REPUCED. SECURE YOUR FOREMAN'S APPROVAL.
ADVISE SHOP FOREMAN OF ANY ABNORMAL WEAR OR DAMAGE TO ANT PART OF DRIVE COMPONENTS 01
CHASSIS FOUND DURING THIS INSPECTION.
TOE WORD CHECK - DETERMINE CONDITION.
SERVICEMAN
Digitized by
Google
151
QMesHom 18, Would you sqih^ the Committee with examples of letters of
x?omplaiiit8 from tmckers who have been **persqaded" to take oat imsafe rigs
tigainst th^r own better judgment (Names maj be blotted oat. I?
Answer. A few of the many letters containing sach complaints have been
:sup|died to the CkMnmittee in an Appnidix with PROD's testimonj.
Thank you for the opportunity to answer qoestioas. We hc^ie our comments
"Will be hkpful to the Committee.
SrsAT Gn^ssrvQ.
Sa/cf jr 994 HrmHk Dirtrior FROD.
The Chairman-. The next witness, Mr. C. H. Fields. a>sist;aiit direc-
tor of national affairs, American Farm Bureau.
STAT£M£HT OF C. H. FIELDS, ASSISTAST SIS£CIOS« TIATTOWAL
AFFAIRS, AMEBIC AH FASM BITBEAU FEDEBATIOS
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not read the entire
statement. I'll submit ft for the record and try to sunmiarize it to save
time, since I know you're probably as hun^rry as I am.
I would like to* state that farmers and ranchers own more than
3 million trucks, many of which come imder the restrktions and
regulations that would be imposed imder S. 2970. However, this is
only part of our concern with this bill.
Farmers have become so dependent upon truck transportation to
move agricultural freight to and from their farms, that any proposal
that would increase the cost of such transportation, reiluce its effi-
-ciency, or lessen the availability of trucks where needed, often for
highly perishable farm products, is a matter of vital concern to our
indu^ry.
Tinicks now haul about three-fourths of all tlie fresh fruit and
vegetables and virtually all of the cattle, calves, hogs and she^ that
move to market. Farmers are more dependent on truck transporta-
tion than ever before in moving necessary production equipment and
supplies to their farms — amoving the product away from the farms to
the confniming markets.
This has b^n brought on, of course^ by the deteriorating situation
of the raDs.
Under the present motor carrier safety regulaticms of the Bureau
•of Motor Carrier Safety, title 49, several important exemptions are
provided for farmer-owned trucks. Of course, they're also provided
in the present act.
Farm vehicle drivers operating trucks with a gross weight under
10,000 pounds are totally ex^npt from driver qualification regula-
tions. Farm vehicle drivers operating strai^t trucks with a gross
weight over 10,000 pounds within a 150-mile radius of the farm are
totally exempt fnnn driver qualifications.
Farm vehicle drivers operating a tractor trailer unit within 150-
mile radius of the farm are exempt, except that they must be 18 years
of age and must have a medical certificate of prescribed form.
reivers employed by custom operators are totally ex^npt while
transporting custom harvesting machinery to or froma farm or while
transporting custom harvested crops to storage or market. And bee-
feepers transporting bees during seasonal movements are exempt frmn
driver qualifications.
Digitized by
Google
152
Now our reading of S. 2970 leads us to the conclusion that Senator
Percy had no intention of permitting a continuation of these farm
exemptions. Section 5 makes it clear that the act would apply to the
operation of all commercial motor vehicles over 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight rating, and to the maximum hours, qualification,
working conditions, and duties and responsibilities of all persons wha
operate such commercial motor vehicles.
The term commerce is defined to mean any trade, traffic, or trans-^
portation within the jurisdiction of the United States between a place
m a State and a place outside a State or "which affects trade, traffic,
or transportation Detween a State and any place outside of such State."*
It's clear he intends to regulate intrastate as well as interstate.
We estimate that at least half of the 3 million plus trucks owned
by farmers are 10,000 pounds GVWR or higher, and that farmers
own millions of trailers, wagons, nurse tanks, combines, and other
self-propelled or towed equipment that would be covered by this bill.
To our knowledge, there is no evidence of a serious safety problwn
with these vehicles and we believe it would be both counterproductive
and extremely irritating to farmers to be forced to comply with these
extensive regulations, which include trip logs, restrictions on hours;
of driving time, and age limits.
Now if the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety's current proposal or
rulemaking on hours of service regulations is re(][uired to be changed
to conform with the requirements of S. 2970, it would mean that
farmers would have to give truck drivers a half hour off after every
214 hours of driving time.
tVhat would happen if that particular time occurred when the
driver was in line at the local grain elevator? You can guess how
farmers would react to a regulation that would limit to 15 hours the
maximum hours of work in any one day, especially at the busy plant-
ing and harvesting time.
We also make comments with regard to increasing the penalties —
I won't go into further detail.
Section 8 provides for inspections of private property, and that
includes farms with all these farm vehicles, wherever practical with-
out advance notice.
This is the type of Federal policing law that has been struck down
by the courts as unconstitutional in the case of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act. We certainly would object to that.
We also have a concern about section 13. More and more we see the
Congress passing legislation which baits the States with Federal
dollars to enforce such legislation by enticing them to adopt federally
approved regulations.
All too often the Federal dollars do not pay the full cost. Of course,
this bill provides that the Federal Government would only pay 80
percent of the cost.
Many members of the Senate, including Senator Percy, have spoken
out against needless regulation and the needless growth of the power
and cost of Government at the Federal level.
We believe this bill would lead to unnecassary and nonproductive
regulation of farmers and other truck owners, which, in turn, would
mean higher costs that would have to be passed along to consumers.
Digitized by
Google
153
Frankly, we sec no need for this legislation. We believe that truck
safety re^ulaticms already in existence are capable of taking care of
the situation if properly enforced.
We urge the committee to reject this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I liave also given to the staff a letter from Mr.
Harold Steele, president of the Illinois Agricultural Association. We'd
like for that to oe included as well in the record.
The CuAiRMAX. All right. That will be included as part of the
record.
Is there any part of this legislation that j'ou approve of, or do you
think the entire legislation should be rejected ?
Mr. Fields. We certainly can^ approve it as written. We certainly
sren't against truck safety or removal of all the exemptions in this
We certainly oppose the bill as it's written. I'm not saying we'd be
against all proposals to improve safety.
We could go along, for example, with funding out of the highway
trust fund to the States to improve safety inspection programs.
I don't think we'd object to that. We think the area of improve-
ment ought to be in the area of enforcement rather than more Federal
regulations against all of us.
The Chadoiax. You pointed out that there are many exemptions
under present regulations for farm-owned trucks and farmer-related
towed equipment.
What are the resnlations, if any, that govern those kinds of trucks?
Mr. Fields. I listed them in detail in the statement. Senator.
They have to do with hours of service. They have to do with driver
qualification.
The Chaibicax. Xo, no. I'm talking about what regulations you do
have, not what are the exemptions.
Mr. Fields. Well, we're subject to all of them. For example, the
hours of service. There's no specific farm exemption in that.
The Chairmax. You said in your statement that you were pointing
out how ridiculous it was to have an hours-of -service limitation because
the farmers frequently have to work 15 hours.
Mr. Fields. I m talking about the one they're proposing now in the
proposed rulemaking, not in the existing one.
Tlie Chaiioiax. What is the existing one ?
^fr. Fields. This bill requires that to be changed further than the
present law proposes. We would come under it.
The Chaik3iax. What are the present hours of service that would
apply to farmer-driven equipment?
^fr. Fields. If you're imder 10.000 pounds and under minimums,
then you don't have it. There's 150-mile limitation. You don't have it.
The Chairmax. You're not governed by the hours of service there,
]Mr. Fields. Right.
The CiiAiRMAx. Xow what I'm saying is what regulations are you
governed by, if any ? Do you have any regulations on the equipment,
farm equipment?
Mr. Fields. We'd be subject to the same equipment safety regula-
tions on over-the-road operations and so forth.
Digitized by
Google
154
The Chairmax. You also said in your statement that in regard to
farmer-owned trucks and farm-related towed equipment, that there
was no evidence of a serious safety problem with these vehicles.
Do vou have any statistics to support that ?
Mr^ Fields. That's why we made that statement. Somebody's got to
produce the evidence.
The Chairman. Additional statistics to support that. Is that what
you're saying?
All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Fields.
[The statement follows :]
Statement of C. H. Fields, Assistant Directob, National Affaibs, The
American Fabm Bukeau Federation
Farm Bureau is a voluntary, nongovernmental organization of more thatt
2.8 milUon fammes in 49 states and Puerto Rico, representing farmers and
ranchers who produce every agricultural commodity produced on a commercial
basis in the United States.
•Farmers and randiers own more than 3 million trucks, many of which would
come under the restrictions and regidations that would be imposed under S. 2970.
However, this is only part of our concern with this bill. Farmers have become
so dependent upon truck transportation to move agricultural freight to and
from their farms that any proposal that would increase the cost of such trans-
portation, reduce its efficiency, or lessen the availability of trucks when they are
needed, often for highly perishable farm products, is a matter of vital concern
to our industry. We believe that this biU would have exactly these effects on truck
transportation.
Trucks now haul about three-fourths of aU fresh fruit and vegetables, and
virtually all of the cattle, calves, hogs, and sheep that move to market. Farmersr
are more dependent on truck transportation than ever before in moving neees^
sary production equipment to supplies to their farms — in large measures as a
result of the deterioration of rail service in many agricultural areas.
Under the present motor carrier safety regulations of the Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety, Title 49, Part 391, several important exemptions are provided
for farmer-owned trucks. Farm vehicle drivers operating trucks with a gross
weight under 10,000 pounds are totally exempt from driver qualification regula-
tions. Farm vehicle drivers operating straight trucks with a gross weight over
10,000 pounds within a 150-mile radius of the farm are totally exempt from
driver qualifications. Farm vehicle drivers operating a tractor-trailer unit
within a 150-mile radius of the farm are exempt, except that they must be 18
years of age and must have a medical certificate of prescribed form. Drivers
employed by custom operators are totally exempt while transporting custom-
harvesting machinery to or from a farm or while transporting custom-harvested
crops to storage or market ; and beekeepers transporting bees during seasonal
movements are exempt from driver qualifications.
Our reading of S. 2970 leads us to the conclusion that Senator Percy had no
intention of permitting a continuation of these farm exemptions. Section 5 makes
it clear that the Act would apply to the operation of all commercial motor ve-
hicles over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). and to the maxi-
mum hours, qualifications, working conditions, and duties and responsibilities of
all persons who operate such commercial motor vehicles. The term "commerce"
is defined to mean any trade, traffic or transportation within the jurisdiction of
the United States between a place in a state and place outside of such state, or
"which affects trade, traffic, or transportation between a State and any place out-
side of such State." The term "employer" is defined to mean any and all persons
engaged in a business "affecting commerce" who own. lease, or operate com-
mercial motor vehicles in connection with that business, or assign employees to
operate them in commerce. The only exemption is for government-owned vehicles
The term "commercial motor vehicle" means "any self-propelled or towed vehicle
used on the highways in commerce. . . ."
We estimate that at least half of the 3 million plus trucks owned bv farmers
are 10,000 pounds GVWR or higher: and that farmers own millions of trailers,
wagons, nurse tanks, combines and other self-propelled or towed equipment
Digitized by
Google
155
that would be roTwrd by this bill. To rnir knowlpdpi* thero is no ovidenno of ^
BeriouK safetv proiilem with tbew vehi(•lp^. uiic} wi- UMiovt- ii woulil N- h.»tli
fouiiten»ru<iuctive aud eitremelv irritating: to ftirniprs to ho forofsi to ooiiii^lx
with iliese extensive recrulationb. wliicL incliidi- irip Uh:^. Ti*>iTu-\un\> n:. l».»ii:->*
of driviiip time and ape limit*.
If the Kiirpau of Motor Carrier Safety's cnrn*TiT i»roTio«:il <ii bmir^ i». <!orvi.»,*
re«nilatii)n8 is retjuired to Ik* chanced to confonu witli xhv r»*«niir»MniMiTs nt s
13170. it would mean thai farmers would have to pivr irurk drivi»r*. a hal:'-li'«iir
off after every i*u. liourt: of drivinp linit-. Wlun w.njUi )iaii|M'i. i:" iha; !»:ir:i.i;l:i:-
time CK-^urred' when the driver was ii: line «i tlit- 1»k*:i1 praii. t'h»v«!or" Voi. .•:.::
pueHK how farmers would n-aot ir. a rt»tnilatioi: Ui;i: vimld liiui' !«• 1.". I"M -- -I',*
xuaxiniuui ln»urs of work ij. any one day. esiieilall> ai ihi- lni>> pl.-inini* m'»i
harv€*6tuif: time.
This hiU eontains other general provisions tiia: ronr-iTi. u«* Wi« rn! im: <i» • :itt»
justification for a 40(>-perrenT inrrea<e in iN'Tuiltii»s < ♦"rmi. S.Vk» io .""j .Vm- r\o}. jf
they have not l»een inrreaseil pine-** lICiT. It is cfTTainl^ li*!': ii» lirncni i? 'rritri'
tion as to what tlie term "sulistantial liealth or s:ih'i\ vhiintidi:" \}r.\\ ■•.•■•ndl
reasouahl.v lead to, or has resulied ii.. wrioiis ]N>rsnn:il iii.iijr\ or jJimiiI." v .11 Im»
construed to mean. In these cast\*^. the uiaiiuiuui ri\il |mmi:i1!\ i*. ^iiiuhi tur i>ai h
offenpe.
Section 8 provides for lnPi»eotions of private proiK»rty. "wJii'iirvrr pni-'i.vi
ble . . . without advance notic«»." This is the tyjM* of fi-dfrn] pnli,-i- piWiT MimI
'Hub been struck down by the courts as unccmstitutionnl In the i'nsi* nf ilii>
Occupational Safety and Health Act.
We alpo have a concern about Set-tion 1^. More and more. ««• soc tJic c.h.mi-i'vv
XttRsinf; lepislation which baitB the statf»s with fi'dcrnl d.ilhirs to mf.-ni' ^n» li
le^slation. by enticing; them to adopt feder:illy-ap]in»vert n-^n In lions All i«»i^ nfirn
the federal dollars do not itay the full cost. This bill ]ircvides that tiuly si» |H>n*i'iit
of the cost wuold come om of the Highway Triisi Kiiin!.
Many memlKTS of the Senate. Indudinp S<*nat<ir Perry, linvc si>okcn on!
ajealnst needless rermlation and the needless: cn»wth of tin- imwi-r aiiil •••»st of
government. We believe this bill would lead t«i unnt^-essary nml inMipr.Mbhtlvo
regulation of farmers and other tnick owners, wliich in turn would nionn hii:lior
costs that w(»uld have to be iiassed along to c<»nsumers.
We see no need for this legislation. We l»elieve the truck safety roj:ulnti«>n«
already in existence are cjjpable of taking care of the sit u;i tion. if propiTly
enforced. We urge this committee to reject this legislation.
We appreciate the (»pi»ortunity to present Farm Hiin»au*s vli«us.
The CiiAiRMAX. The next witness is Mr. .Tolin KaiHTnunu vi»M^ ]Mvsi-
dent and director of transportation, Amorit^an Vn\>ov Instihito aT\d
National Forest Products Association.
STATEMEirr OP JOHN KAUPFMAH, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIREC-
TOB OP TRANSPORTATION, THE AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE
AND NATIONAL POREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION
Mr. KArTFMxVX. Mr. Chairman, my name is John KauffmMn. Tin
thevice president of transportation fortlie AVeverliaens<M('o.,'rM(M)ina,
Wash. I welcome the opportunity to sliaiv witli von llio views of tl)n
forest products industry on S. 2070, tlio pro])osed Triic^k Safety Act.
Our industry could not survive, indeed, could not exist, without sa fe,
efficient tnickin^. Virtually all of our products are transported l»y
trucks during at least one stape of their journey from forest to mill to
customer, and our reliance on trucking is increasing. A numher of our
member companies have transport fleets, some of which liave won
national acclaim for their highway safety performance.
We believe our interests coincicle with the sponsors' of this legisla-
tion and with the public interest, in seeking legislation or regulatory
programs to make our highways safer. However, we oppose S. 2070 as
Digitized by
Google
156
written, for the reasons we will discuss below. While we support the
goals of S. 2970, we feel the data presented to date does not accurately
reflect the actual safety record of the trucking industry. Trucks spend
much more time on the road and accumulate thousands more miles
annually than passenger and other vehicles. The safety record of the
forest products industry clearly demonstrates the commitment of our
industry to truck safety. We have shown that our industry is capable
of policing itself without subjecting itself to the scrutiny of additional
regulatory agencies.
Indeed, a more serious safety problem exists among passenger
vehicles and the nontruck motoring public. The forest products indus-
try fully appreciates and supports the goal of improving safety on
the Nation's highways, as is evidenced by our financial and managerial
commitment to this goal, and by our highway safety record.
The broad objectives of the bill, those of advancing commercial
motor vehicle safety and averting injuries to operators and the general
public, are goals that our industry promotes in our daily business
operations, as the following examples reveal.
The accident involvement rate for the truck fleets of Weyerhaeuser
and other forest products companies, as supporting data will verify,
is even lower than that for all trucks. Weyerhaeuser's private fleets
travelled nearly 56 million miles, while experiencing 1.04 accidents per
million vehicle miles. This compares to a rate of 13.5 accidents per
million vehicle miles for all trucks, and a rate of 22.9 accidents per
million vehicle miles for passenger cars. The Potlatch Corp., Georgja-
Pacific, and others in our industry have maintained equally impressive
safety records throughout the years.
We question the wisdom of extending more Federal Government
regulation and allocating Federal resources to an additional 4 million
intrastate trucks. Instead, better attention should be given to increased
enforcement of existing DOT highway regulations. The statutory
authority already exists, but the manpower is lacking within the
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.
For example, according to a recent press release issued by Senator
Percy's office, the Bureau has only 128 inspectors to enforce the
current regulations on nearly 4 million existinje commercial trucks.
Two specific provisions, sections 7 and 8 of this legislation, cause
the forest products industry particular concern. Section 7, extending
the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to intrastate trucking,
would adversely affect the timber industry. The sparse population in
the timberland harvest areas and along the logging^ routes, and the
seasonal nature of our industry, make trucking operations in and from
the forests unique. Few public hazards are involved because logging
roads are infrequntly used by the driving public, except on weekends
when log-hauling is normally not in progress.
Secondly, weather conditions are a major factor that determine
work schedules in the logging season in the woods. State legislatures
and regulatory asrencies have scrutinized our unique industry problems
and have generally provided exemptions in their transportation safety
codes for the conveyance of certain commodities, generally forestry
and agriculture, ?rom the hours of service regulations imi)osed in that
State.
Digitized by
Google
157
It is our iindei-staiulin^ that no Stntc has cvvv found that sucli
exemptions created a safety problem, nor lias any such exemption ever
been rescinded.
The other provision we wish to biing to your attention, section 8,
circumvents the traditional lahor-niaiiagenient relationship by pro-
viding a mechanism through which an aggrieved individual api)ea1s
directly to Federal or State* agen<ies, raiher than first exhausting all
existing remedies or allowing the employer to address the grievance.
Tiiis ])rovision issubjcrt to ;»iMise and would be counterproductive and
costly, because of the dt»lays and the noed for unnecessary factfinding
by the State and Federal ageiK'ies.
In order to sufHciently ]>r<)t<ct ourselves from unwarranted com-
plaints by anonymcuis (lriv< :s. we would be forced to spend additional
time and resources to maintain records, time that would better be
devoted to ])romoting safety and training programs. We would have to
provide checklists and documents every minute item that was safety
related. We would have to document all our instructions to drivers.
In other words, our m;inagers, supervisors, safety, and maintenance
personnel would have to redirect their efforts toward recordkeeping
rather than manaL^inir and ]>r()moting a reliable safety program.
The. bill would add givjitly to the workloads of the regnlatory agen-
cies, who would have to dii-ect their resources to tracking and arbi-
trating every driver (■()n»])laint. no matter how unfonnded or petty.
It is diflicnll to see how this legislation could possibly reduce exces-
sive ])aperwork, as tlie s[)ons()r of S. i^OTO has asserted. Exactly the
opposit e seems true .
This committee should be aware of a serious problem currently
facing employers in diseiplininir or discharging unsafe or unqualified
drivei-s. We sulnnit that one of the most effective measures this com-
mittee could ado[)t would be to explicitly prohibit any individual or
group from olistructing the enforcement or comidiance of the Bureau
of Motor Carrier Safety regulations.
There are letter alternatives to S. 2070 for impi-oving the Nation's
higliway safety, such as the approach recommended by the chairman,
that of establishing a task force to study carefidly the need for any
new regulations and laws and tlien, as appropriate, asking Congress
to act. Subjects in need of study include :
One, additional I'esearch on the causes of liighway accidents. Ai'e
the.se accidents due to driver error oi- equipment failure ?
Two, what changes are needed in the equipment design ?
And three, examine State piograms to leani which ones ai-e effective
and wdiy.
A task force including carriers, shippers, transportation ecinipment
manufacturers, unions, and regidatoiy agencies should jointly under-
take .such a study, and tlien make appropriate recommendations for
action.
We share youi' concern about hifrlnvav safetv. However, we feel
that the pi'oposed legislation is too broad, that the Federal Govern-
ment would be moi-e effective if it concentrated its efforts on oppor-
tunities to improve existinof hicrhway safety programs and develop-
in."* measures to achieve compliance.
We request the opportunity to submit additional data for the t- -^
35-692—78 11
Digitized by
Google
158
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Kauff man.
You say you oppose section 8, saying it circumvents the traditional
labor-management relationship, permitting aggrieved individuals to
go directly to governmental agencies. However, section 12 requires
that in order to qualify for protection, the employee must have sought
from his employer, but have been unable to obtain, correction of the
imsafe conditions.
Don't you think that that balancing factor would satisfy your con-
cern in section 8 ?
Mr. Kattftman. No, Mr. Chairman. We have a concern because the
bill could be interpreted — because the emphasis could be on encourag-
ing employees to submit anonymous complaints, rather than to pur-
sue the normal manager-employee relationships in arriving at solu-
tions.
The Chairman. But as I understand it, if they submitted anony-
mous complaints, they still could not proceed unless they had com-
plied with the provisions of section 12.
Mr. Kauffman. In the formal application of the bill, I'm sure that
that would be the process. We arrive at this view because to us safety
is a veiT personal matter : That improvements of equipment, inau.irurnt-
ing or implementinir regulations and rules are all beinj? done, will
continue to be done, will be expanded ; but that many accidents, if not
most, accidents, occur because of human error. They occur because the
driver, whether he be the driver of a private vehicle or of a truck,
isn't aware of the hazards. He isn't thinking safety. He isn't driving
defensively.
The most effective measures we're aware of in order to overcome
this are the safety programs that are being carried out in industry, the
relationships between the supervisor and the driver, the regular
monthly meeting programs that are can-ied out using visual aids,
communications, monthly communications to employees. It's the in-
spections, the tracking, the training, the regulatoiy monitoring that
is done by the various companies in our industry.
We want to emphasize this area, and we feeJ that it would be
counterproductive if there was any encouragement to circumvent this.
It would detract from the need to encourage, to motivate our drivers
to think safety every hour that they go on the highway.
The Chairman. You refer to the problem that companies face in
disciplining or discharging unsafe or unqualified drivers. Do you have
statifkics oi- data that indicate that your drivers are deliberately sub-
verting company safety progi'ams or State safety regulations?
Mr. KAirFFMAN. Our experience is somewhat different from that.
What we're aiming for here would be some guidelines or explicit
language that would strengthen the management's ability fo deal with
grievances where safety is involved. A union is obligated to proce6?s
an employee's grievance. We understand that. However, when that
grievance involves such things as disciplinary action taken liecause
a driver has exceeded the speed limit, or cases where a driver has been
found to possiblv have been using some drugs such as Valium, we
think there should be guidelines, that the legislation could l>e explicit
in meeting these needs.
Digitized by
Google
159
The Chairman. It isn't a matter of labor lelations, though. Isn't
that a matter of contractual ixilations between you as an employer and
the imion that you have a contract with ?
Mr. IvAUFFMAN. That's true, Senator. But the day-to-day operation
of that relationship, the steward who is processing that grievance, can
apply or threaten a slowdown, a walkout, and this can detract from
the supervisor, from the manager's encouraging his processing, and
the safety rules and regulations, the Bureau of Motor Carrier safety
rules and regulations. There have been cases and we could document
that.
The Chairman. If you have some* stati>:irs or data tliat Avould in-
dicate tliat drivers or .steward- u) tliat ic^ppct an^ delil>oratelv sub-
verting company safety programs or State safety regulations, I wish
yoiiM supply those to us for tiie leoonl. But other than tliat, I would
think, cei-tainly we are not interested in irc^ttiuir into interfeivnce vnth
the normal eniployer-oiiiplo\((» relation.-hip aiid tlu* contractual obli-
gations that exist, and wliatevf^r nogotiatiop.s you may carry out and
agree to in a contractual form with resi)e( t to discharge of employees
for cause or for various types of reasons. Viw sure you could negotiate
new contracts and write that an ciiiployee ("<\n ])o discharged forcei"tain
i-e^sons.
I>on't you have that kind of a provisio'^ ^
Mr. Kauffmax. We do. Wliat we're lookiiii: for liere is to strengthen
the suj)ervisor's ability to enforce the Bureau of Motor Carrier
regidations.
The CiiAHLMAN. I was impressed by your statistics here on accidents
per million miles. How comprehensive is the data base on which you
ba,^e your accident statistic.-, and wlio coin}Mles those statistics?
Mr. Kauffmax. Those were ATA statistics, ilr. Chairman.
The Ciiairmax. In other wonls. you're showiuir there of 1.04 acci-
dents in your industry per million miles is certainly impressive when
you compare it to a rate of 13.5 accidents per million miles for all
trucks and a rate of 22.02 accidents per million miles for passenger
cars.
Mr. Katjffmax. Mr. Chairman, the 1.04 is a Weyerhaeuser statistic.
That's our company's record.
The Chairmax. I see. And is that pretty comparable for the indus-
try, do you think, or do you know ?
Mr. Kauffmax. I don't have a statistic for the industry'.
The Ciiairmax. But at least that is your own, 1.04, and 13.85 —
vdiere did you get that figure I
Mr. Ivauff3iax. ATA.
The CiiAmMAx. And the 22.0 (
Mr. Katjffmax'. That's also an ATA stati-tii .
The CiiAiRMAX'. Because in the statistics we've iKen looking at here.
they related to deaths, and, of course, the deaths are much higher for
trucks. We can understand that. It's a mnch bigsrf^r vehicle. Tliere's
probably more opj^ortunity when a person ha.- a vf ly hoavy load on his
truck and nms in to someone to cause a death.
Thank you very much for your testimony. We appn*ciate it.
Mr. Kauffm^vx. Thank you, Mr. Cliairman.
[The following information wa.^ suh.->ec|ne.'Uly iv^eivKl for the
record :]
Digitized by
Google
160
Birch, Horton, Bittner and Monroe,
Wufthington, D.C., October 6, 1978.
Senator Howard W. Cannon,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Trarifiportation,
Dirksen Senate Office Buildinfj, Wa,9hington, D.C.
Dear Senator Cannon : On September 8, 1978, you cliaire<l a liearini? on S.
:i970, the Truck Safo-ty Act of 1978. Most of tlie witnes.^es, including a representa-
tive of our industry (John Kauffman of Weyerhaeuser Con>oration speaking
for the National Fort^t Products Association and the American Paper Institute),
submitted truck safety statistics. P.y any objective^ measure, the statistics sub-
mitted by :\Ir. Kauffman showed a slia nil .^-^ lower acrcident frequency than tlie
national average. In questioning Mr. KauiTman, you stated tliat our industry's
accident statistics were impressive and re<]uested further data.
Potlatch Corporation is resi>ondiug to your rec^uest for additional statis^tics on
trucking safety by submitting the records ' f our company, wiiich appear below.
We appreciate the opportunity you have afforded us to add our input to your
hearing record and hope that it serves to promote the goal of improving highv/ay
transi)nrtation safety mthout imposing needless regulation on the nation.
BACKGROUND
Potlatch Corporation, as described in its most recent annual report, is "basi-
cally a company of tree farmers and wood converters." The Company cultivates
forests, harvests timber when it is mature, and converts the raw material at
its mills into two major product lines : solid wood products and bleached fiber
products. Potlatch Corix)rati()n's major operations are conducted in the states
of Arkansas, Idaho and Minnesota, where the majority of our timberlands are
located.
The safety statistics that we cite below cover only the operations of Potlatch
Corporation. The statistics w^ere compiled solely by the Company. We are ceriain
that a search of insurance company records, state highway safety agency re-
ports and a survey of our drivers would confirm their accuracy. The Company
has compiled these statistics for internal purposes, primarily to monitor operat-
ing efiiciency, improve safety i>ractices, moderate costs, and maintain good labor
relations.
Our primary objection to S. 2970 is found in Section 7, which extends Fcnleral
Jurisdiction over truck safety regulations into intrastate commerce. At present.
States regulate such trucking and our experience indicates that the States do an
excellent job. We have found that States are Ix'st suited to understand the
unique problems caused by climate and geographical conditions.
Our largest operations are in Arkansas and Idaho. In Arkansas, we do not have
logging seasons as such, however, wet weather causes curtnilment of trucking
operations from time to time. When this occui^s, we must do extensive overtime
once our road systems are dry in order to transi)ort lumber fiy>m forest to mill.
In Idaho, we have long periods in both the spring and fall when we cannot
oi>erate log trucks. When the roads dry out, particularly during the summer and
eariy fall months, it is necessary for our log transportation operations to work
extended workdays to meet production needs. In both States, the vast majority
of our trucking is conducted on roads that are sparsely traveled country and State
secondary roads. As a result, our trucking operations inherently pose a far
smaller public safety liaz?rd than thv operations of other industries, which are
conducted primarily on well traveled highways
HIGHWAY SAFETY RrX ORD
In Arkansas, our roco'-ds c )v "ring t^'uckine: hot ween fo'-est and mill ind'cati'
the following. Since 1961, our log trucks have driven approximately IG millioTi
miles. We have suffered only one accident involving an injury to a mernber of
the public. The single accident that occurred wns in no way attributable to our
Com]X'iny. Based on the decision of an impartial arbiti-ator. tlie accident was
blamed on driver incompetence and the arbitrator sustained our Company'--
decision to demote the driver. The single accident in question occurre<l in 1977
when the driver was not exceeding 12 hours on duty i>er day.
In Idaho, our Company's trucking operations average approximately 2.5 million
miles per year. Since 1964, our Idaho logging trucks have covered over 30 minioii
Digitized by
Google
161
invr»:vinr i-^:_:«rr> .. f :j_<e ;»-:!:.- A :.»:-\l .'f six i^rrtjv^i-s »vore i^juivd. iKvae «>f
0"r -' - .: > z-'j r- • rS ^*r .r t.-.-rTST-vr.* '. M:z::i?is •:* are TvM as de*
tal.<r- . - -1 --r :' r ..i: -^- r.i 1 1. 1.1 Al'.l.v.c:. ^^e v:?.:: i;:: ":e ao uvunbers
a: iL- :_f. v.- .^..cr ■ : 3I::-Lt>^::-*> rco r.: c->Jii;or;> iri:li :be exceJleot
ijili!'>- i^fV- rf :»-ri:..i.- v- T^rl-.s ai»; r^ x::i i:^';r ir» yoAis^ :be CV'r"ii«uj has
A* : <e L*:"^^: r. j. -. :i->:^': Mr. K .::^'._2i2 vLx^iher Wo\trhat user's xnuHi safiKy
re^.-^-ril -^i- .-.:_. -.-r : iLai ' •".t rv>: f tl- iiivlv.sir: . We Lhvo exAmimxl Mr,
Kiuf^i^ .n'y 'r^-::: ::.- £:_i rrlit^v il.r.: "ur :\^.- r^i. as dt^ Ti^t>l1 alvve, confirms
M< jioi-t :!.:.: :r^ f rv<t ;r>i->?:« iL-l -Try tus ::.^hieTt>ii r. f.ir lv::er ;?5afrtT i^x>rd
Than T'.e La : i^: ..Ti-r:.:r. v,\ i^.^tv :!.;.: o.:r rt-vrxi iis s^ij^rior Ivoau:!^
we l«sy :< j:..-: i ..: . .::, .:.\ ' .-^ f • y >:,:::;...rd5 :i:a! re/.v-reuj^ms. Our
driver- ar-r* we-l ZTLizeC i r fe--: 'i-riX n^ny of v bt-iu are indti^:uient c\\n-
trri't T- vh > d^;»^:-d -i tleir : M-iry :«• work ea^h day that climate permits in
: iCIS: ATT* E POLICY
l*i»tlat b C'-H'' -'*^'- >"'-;i*i- rT'i -:e ;» sirluus cs;vuseii by the NaritMial Forest
l*rndiK-'> ^<> " :ri:i -zi ar.a zl. ArLtri.-in Pai«er Instituie, as dersv^rilied in John
Ka-ffr:.i2'- :t-::::.':.y. A- -:..:.: I y \{t. Kaufflian. Sev'tions T and S of that
bill \tf'<>- ^-r:^c:a^-T2ci' ; r«>l >i:-s : • us. We t«e.:eve i!iat imix^uricn of S. 2l>70 as
presently writteu v,«' ild re-^jlr in his! er t:nA»er <\^sTs without an imivroTement
in log tm-kin? s^iftty.
Sin**' A] ri*. i'.»7^. 'vp hare l-eeTi in resmlar i-«>nTaot >Aith Senator Peivy and
his s^afiT iv^p.TiliziZ >. i^*7M. We ^lave explained < iir ii«n.erns to him and have
.subinirred p. -^erie-; <'f ];r :-s^.1 ;;r:t'ndT:.ent< that .ve 1 o-ieve wo'Y.d satisfy many
or all of our prob!ec.< To dJ»te. t!!'»se amendments l:ave not U^n aiveined.
We wi'l snbiiirt T}:eRi to yo'ir Cr'i:-iiiitree upon re*r.:est.
In t)i«» «'venr Tl^a*^ fiir:ljer inforin:;ti«»a from ns would l»e of value to the Oinn-
mittee, we will try to jirr.vide it t^ you. Any s^ich request may l»e made to me
or to Mr. Jeffrey P. Eve<. Manacer. Onvernment Relations, Potlaioh Oivjx^ra-
tion. Two i:i:ib:4r« t(!« >• *'i'VAtT. S.!n Fram*i'se»\ California 94120, telephone
We thank you for your time and c<:»nsideration.
Cordially.
Joseph M. Chomski,
Weterhaefsek Co.
Tacoma, Wa^h.. Ol'fo^^r «5, /PT^.
Hod. Howakd W. Ca-\.\G-\
Chairman. Commit fc on Co/ inm'cc. Sc:' ucc (iH'f Tran^^portaUon,
U.S. Scfiate. Washinffton, D.C.
Ueak Senator Cax>'o.\ : I apK»':i»^Ize for the delay in resix>nding to your letter
of September 2tj. refpiesting eiariticati«^»n of three ix)ints in my testimony on
S. 2970. My travel schedule has kept me away fn>m the oflice.
First, even rhouj^h it is too late to alter the record, I would like to correct
one st.-.tistic. I stated that in 1077 Weyerhaeuser's private truck fleets traveled
56 million niilps aji'i < xi/erienced .".8 reportable accidents, or 1.04 accidents per
million miles. This should have been 56 million miles with 38 accidents, fi>r a
ratio of .OS accidents per million miles.
In response to your first f|nestion. my testimony indicatt»d that SiH^tion J^ if
enacted, would have a tendency to circumvent labor-management relations.
I believe this would be true notwirhstandins: the provisions of Section 12 (hK
The reason is because there is nothing in Section 12 (b> which precludes the
secretary from actiii;: ou t!ip bnsis of an employee complaint filed prior to the
employee having notified the employer of an alleged unsafe condiiton. The only
thing Section 12 fb) does is remove certain protection afforded to the employe**
in the event the employee fails to exhaust his employer remedies.
In response to the second part of your first question. I would like to offer
two examples occurring in WasMngton and Oregon.
Example 1 : There have been Instances where drivers working Monday through
Friday for an employer were found to be driving on the weekends for t>ther
Digitized by
Google
162
employers — "moonlighting". Their union took the position that what drivers
did on the weekends was their own business, and that the five-day-a-week em-
ployer should not interfere. AVe feel this is clearly a violation of the Hours
of Service Regulations under Part 395 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations.
Example 2 : A Weyerhaeuser log truck driver was found to be taking valium
to help control high Mood pressure. Weyerhaeuser believes that Section 391.41
(b)(12) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations classifies this as a
controlled substance, and that the driver was therefore subject to discharge.
The union, however, resisted discharge of the driver for medical reasons, even
though the employer was obligated under the regulations to do so.
In each case above, we are confidenet that the employer would prevail if
the case were contested. However, first line sui)er visors often are intimidated
by threats of reprisals from imions for enforcing the letter of DOT safety
regulations.
You also asked for two or three examples of our company's truck safety pro-
gram. Weyerhaeuser, as well as most companies with private truck fleets, has
a vigorous safety program. For example, we spend over $250,000 annually on
highway safety management. This does not include the nearly 20,000 manage-
ment hours devoted to it. Our comprehensive safety program has reduced our
accident ratio by 12% between 1975 and 1977, and has lead to a level of com-
pliance that by all 1 indications is very acceptable to the various DOT inves-
tigators with whom we deal regularly.
Even though our safety record is low when comjiared to other highway users,
we are continually seeking ways to further improve our safety efforts. For
example, the causes of all our accidents are fully examined, and the findings
distributed through our intra-company safety magazine to all drivers. These
are then discussed at our regular safety meetings, in order to better alert drivers
to potential safety hazards.
. Every facility using private trucks is personally audited at least twice a year
by one of our safety supervisors. They not only audit equipment maintenance
records, driver qualification files, drivers' logs, etc., but also the plants' man-
agement progress in complying with the Department of Transportation regula-
tions. Weyerhaeuser, as a matter of policy, also applies interstate DOT regula-
tions to its intrastate highway operations, which has enhanced the safety and
eflSciency of our fieet.
Question 2. I would think that the most effective measure that could be
taken on the part of the federal and state agencies would be to explicitly forbid
any individual, agent or group acting in their behalf to take any direct or
indirect actions to obstruct or resist the enforcement of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations. In other words, perhaps taking away any hint
of discretion on the part of the employer or the employee would lead to a higher
degree of compliance. Perhaps monetary fines could be levied, or other penalties
imposed on violators.
Question 3. Our source for general statistics relating to national trucking
and the motoring publics' safety performance was obtained from the American
Trucking Association's publication "American Trucking Trends 175", page 8.
The statistics in my testimony were the same as those found on that page.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 2970. If you need any
additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
John G. Kauffman,
Vice President for Transportation.
The Chairman. The committee will now stand in recess, subject to
the call of the Chair.
[IVliereupon, at 1 p.m., tlie committoe was recessed, siil)ject to the
call of the Chair.]
Digitized by
Google
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS
State ME.NT ^r K ?^:xr <\ Adcks o?f R?:haif of Fixh> MAKS=m>**i iNsnTTT^'
I :ii»i Ro^er •>. Aden*. I'Te^iderit of the Fixni Mar'retins lnsrUure ♦-FMl***. FMl
is a i-on-prodT tra.*e associatioii wh*-^ :ilmi^a>c l.lM) mecil'^rs include tH>ch foixl
retailers an.l :Vta»! •.vh..:c-i,.:r*r>. Aii.«tijr Lli«^>e nieuiN^rs are rerailer? and wlwle-
salers of all sizes. Tbe : .-ziber^hi-.^ Ln-liides indep»»r.dt nt ?rr\x> r^ fv."»od chains^ and
Tolnniary aixd «-Oi^r<^rarive wholesalers. Macy oc FMl's memi-ers o;^rate auKor
carrter ij^^^r in r-riva^e «':irri:»ie. irilizin;: the::: in the transportation ct gw>ds
from warehouse to yrore and. when poessil'le, to "baokhauP prodoots from sujv
plier to warehouse. .Vs truck fleet operators, a number of FMI meml*er cotnpamec^.
be they retailers or wtnlesj^Ier?. vill be directly affei*ted by S. t!i*70 l^ecaua^ tiiat
bill conten.plites drai;*:iri«' en^^r'ail'm^mt by the federal §;^vernment ui<>n truok
operation* in or aff*»'tin;j inter>irare ooaimerce.
The suhjecr of safety. ar.d in thi.s <^se truck safety, shoidd not and must not be
denin^ted in any way and so it gc^es ahm^t without sayin? that tlie safety pur-
IMve »;nd-*rlyin2 s. 2:«7t> is laudable indeeii. However, desiHte its exemi>laiT pur-
pose, the *"TTi:tr Safe*'- A«r • f V.«7^" . ffers what ar.^ at best specularire safety
benefits while \einz the prei"ursi>r of unfair, debilitating and possibly imcotQ-
stitutior^al bard»*ns on truck operati^rs including FMI members operatinir private
fl€»ets. Therefore. Fil I stn -nziy o\ (H>ses the bill.
S. 2970 iij but one of a numl«er of re.-ent Ic^slative and administrative inia-
tive-* ' I st»*n<:I»ly desisTi. d :r. iriii rove tn:ck safety. Wterher viewe«.l individuaUj
and/or coIle<-tively. effectuation of these pn>i osals. including S. 21)70. will debili-
tate transportation pro<iucrivity with nothing but c« nj\vture to sus?^st any result-
inc: safety K n. tit. In addiri«in. S. 11 '70 c«^nt^m':«lat. s . i^n-ended and |M>tentiaU:r
devastatinir governmental regulation of truck operation management.
In introd'uici: S. 2:>70. Senator Charles Percy expressed tx"»ncern for the ever>
int-reasing number cf trn«"ks -"tn the hijrhways :
"The Highway l'.<ers Fo mdation pre<licts that, during the next 15 years, the
nnmlter of trucks on the roails vill double. . . . Congress must act decislTely to
bring about an increase in truck safety today. Cong. Rec., Apr. 20, 1978, at j^.
If that prediction i.< true and if. as the Senator's remarks seem to suggest, more
trucks mean more safety prc»blems. it well may l»e federal legislative and adminis-
trative a«^ti'*ns that exa« ert-ate. if not create, the dilemma.
Kffectuation of S. 3431 - and or the BMCS "Hours of Service" proiKtsal * cou>
template further constraints on individual driving time and will serve to dra-
matically iticrt-a.^je the nnmi»er of trucks on the highways. Thus, inadvertently*,
those proiK'sals may. if effectuated, create a less safe highway environment as a
lofrical result ♦^f increasinc the numlM?r of vehicl-.s en the road. In any event,
S. 2070 presents •tough" new methods of enforcing feileral safety regulations. In
.so doing, however, it would create operational havoc and would unfairly e3q>06e
trucking c-ompanies and fleet operators to a morass or harassment, accusation,
investigation. i)aperwork, cost increases, and invasion of privacy. Yet. even the
siionsor of this bill seems to recognize that the main "problem" is related to insuf-
ficient manpower to more fully enforce the existing federal regulations :
". . . BMCS has only 12S inspectors for the over 4 million trucks on the road
today. Comment.s Senator Percy. Cong. Re^-.. Apr. 20, 197S, at i^. S. 604rv,"
»S. 3431; BMCS Docket 310-70-1, Federal Motor Carrier S^ifety Reculatlons, Hours
of Service.
• FMI has submitted its statement In opposition to S. 3431 under separate corer.
•FMI will submit comments in oppi>sition to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.
TJ.S- Department of Transportation. Written comments are due by November 22, 19TS.
FMI will orally, present its views at hearings to be conducteil in Chicago, III. : Los Anceles,
Calif. ; and Washington, D.C
(ir>3>
Digitized by
Google
164
Moreover, while BMCS now has criminal sanctions wliich can be imposed for
safety violations, most violations cited by BMCS inspectors are apparently rela-
tively minor, not warranting criminal prosecution, for in a universe of 40,000
defects in 1973, for that year and the next :
". . . Bureau investigators were able to develop only 1,027 cases warranting;
court or administrative action. Id.'*
This is not to suggest that the concerns for improving safety as expressed as
the foundation for this bill are not viable. However, the provisions and sactions
contemplated by S. 2970 will open a "Pandora's Box" of operational and adminis-
trative nightmares which will unequitably subject trucking companies and fleet
operators to very serious and unwarranted burdens without a counter-balancing
public benefit.
The **Truck Safety Act of 1978" is drafted so as to cover not only interstate
commerce but transportation merely "affecting" interstate commerce. Thus, al!
but the most localized trucking would be subject to is effects. Despite the ostensible
concern with "heavy" trucks, the bill applies to all commercial motor vehicles
over 10,000 pounds GVW. Yet, many panel trucks and other "light" trucks exceed
10,000 pounds GVW. Thus, the jurisdictional impact of S. 2970 is not only
extremely broad, but inexplicably transcends the expressed concern with "lieavy"
truck safety. This "scattergun" approach is not only unnecessary and inappropri-
ate, but will create more federal government responsibility than can be effectively
handled, thereby reinforcing and compounding the "enforcement" problems which,
as discused above, underlie the problem this bill is ostensibly designed to meet.
S. 2970 contemplates providing the Secretary of Transportation with almost
limitless power to prescribe regulations concerning vehicle maintenance, utiliza-
tion of drivers, standards for driver health and driver working conditions, and
operating practices, to the point of "(assuring), to the extent technology permits,
that no employee v^ill suffer injury or material impairment of health or functional
capacity due to his exposure to such working conditions during his working
life." Such unbridled authority bestows virtually infinite governmental license to
intrude upon the management functions of truck operators whether they be in tl.'o
"trucking business" as such or whether they operate trucks incidental to their
other primary business such as is the case with food marketers. Even putting
aside the inconsistency of such unbridled government power to traditional notions
of capitalism as our economic system, S. 2970 creates an extreme potential for
administrative abuse of discretion.
The bill provides federal inspection and investigation authority without notice
and without the need to show probable cause that a significant violation exists.
It allows and even would encourage employees to report employers should viola-
tions allegedly exist. The name of the "reporting" employee would be kept con-
fidential but, should his identity nevertheless become known, the employer would
be prevented from discharging him. While FMI does not sanction violation of
federal safety regulations, these provisions will serve to grant disgruntled
employees a mechanism for harassing and "getting even" with an employer by
making false or trivial reports. There is no penalty for an employee who makes
a false report, a report under a false name, or a frivolous report, yet each report
will subject the employer to myriad "proceedings" requiring the employer to eon-
duct his own investigation, respond, and otherwise "defend" liimseif, therel)v
taking time away from operating his business and incurring financial and
administrative burdens despite the falsity or frivolity of a particular "charge".
Moreover, an employee about to be discharged for incompetence or other viable
reasons could preclude Ins discharge by making a "safety" report and then con-
tending that any subsequent firing was retribution for his making the report,
thereby preserving his undeserved continuation in employment.
The record-keeping requirements roiit<'m!)late(l are also oi>en-en(led and would
add to the already undue and j)erhaj)s uncontrollable morass of "paper" record-
keeping and reporting requirements im]»(»sed on business hv the federal govern-
ment. Even the government is earnestly searching for and incorporating ways to
reduce record -keeping and reporting requirements wherever possible, but S.
2970 would certainly compound the problem. Moreover, the records recpiired
would, in large measure, relate to health and other matters within tlie privacy of
the individual driver, but the bill provides no "privacy" protection. Through free-
dom of information, not only could a businessman o))tain confidential material
concerning his competitors, but the private matters of individual persons would
easily become a matter of public record.
Digitized by
Google
165
There are numerous aspects and ramifications of S. 2970 which are unfortunate
and deserve comment. However, in the interest of brevity, suflSce it to say that
S. 2970 would create far more problems and diflftculties than it would cure. It
almost imposes the federal government as a business manager <m the one hand,
and a **super-union" on the other. While we again stress that we recognisse the
vital importance of truck safety, and while we support those provisions of the
bill calling for study and research in the field, the bill collectively portends un-
fair and unnecessary regulation without offsetting safety benefit.
Statement of William C. McCamant, Executive Vice President, National
Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
Mr. Chairman, my name is William C. McCamant, Executive Vice President
oi the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW). NAW is a fed-
eration of lOJ) national commodity line associations composed of over 40,000
merchant wholesaler-distributor establishments located throughout the 50 states.
Wholesaler-distributors are resixinsible for a large share of our nation's economic
activity. Their sales are estimated by the Commerce I>epartment to have totalled
$532 billion in 1977 and may reach $700 billion in 1978. The firms represented
by NAW account for approximately sixty i)ercent of total industry sales and
sixty percent of the 3.5 million individuals employed in the wholesale trade. As
i6 detailed in the attachment to this testimony, our industrj- is preponderantly
composed of small-to-medium size<l businesses, is highly competitive, and op-
erates on a very slim profit margin — averaging three i)ercent before taxes.
Because of what we believe is a questionable data base foundation from which
important assumptions have been drawn, we cannot support S. 2970.
As an example of the slanted statistics cited as the reason for the drafting
of this legislation, we note Senator Percy, in introducing S. 2970 on April 20,
1978, stated : "Of the 4r),()C0 highway fatalities in 1975, over 20 iiercent were
caused by trucks and busses." We question wbetlier or not trucks and busses
caused 20 percent of the 45,000 cited highway fatalities or whether they were
merely involved in 20 i)ercent of the accidents which resulted in a fatality.
Obviously, there is a major difference l)etween the two concepts. The Senator
continued: "Heavy trucks alone were responsible for 7.8 percent of the fatal
accidents. In 1970, this figure rose to 8.9 percent, despite the fact that heavy
trucks accounted for less than 1 percent of the vehicles on the road. While all
highway fatalities increased by only 1.2 percent lietween 1975 and 1976, those
iuTOlving heavy trucks soared 16.8 percent." I^ter (m in his statement, the
Senator said : "Fatal trucking accidents increased over 18 percent between 1975
and 1976." It is obvious the figures are conflicting — and both cannot l>e true. Ad-
ditionally while claiming heavy trucks account for less than 1 percent of vehicles
on the road, the Senator fails to note that the 1 i)ercent has a tremendously
higher exposure to the possibility of accidents than does the average family
car. On the average, the truck is on the road much longer and covers a far greater
distance yearly than the average passenger vehicle. Such statements regarding
the involvement of trucks and the percentage of accidents versus the number
of vehicles on the road should be carefully factored to take into account the
amount of time and mileage such vehicles accumulate compared to the average
automobile.
Another example of what we believe is the same type of slanting of statistics
is contained in the Senator's statement : "Intrastate trucking accidents are an
even more serious problem. In the State of Illinois alone, in 1976 there were
over 92,000 truck accidents which killed 527 people and injured 18,885 more."
Once again the Senator fails to indicate whether or not the accidents referred
to in his statistics were caused by the trucks or by the other vehicles involved.
We agree statistics can be the tool for becoming aware of an obvious need to
act in a particular legislative area. We do object to statistics being used that
may not accurately reflect a situation and are biased through the inadequacies
of determining causitive factors in only reporting there was an accident. Un-
fortunately, the Senator relied on Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety figures which.
because of reporting procedures and follow-up, cannot always determine whether
the truck or its driver was at fault in the accident or whether the other vehicle
or driver was at fault.
35-692 O - 79 - 12
Digitized by
Google
166
In introducing his case, Senator Percy said : "For instance, in 1973, the latest
year for which data is available, BMCS detected over 40.CC0 safety violations
during nation-wide road checks of 22,644 vehicles and drivers. Yet, during all
of 1973 and 1974, Bureau investigators were able to develop only 1,027 cases
warranting court or administrative action. The majority of these cases were
not accepted by the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution." Reading
that statement without carefully thinking about it would tend to lead one to
believe this is a horrible situation. Fortunately, asking a few basic questions of
the statement calls its entire content into question. For instance, how is it if
there w^ere some 40,000 safety violations found by BMCS, only 1,027 cases were
devloped that warranted either court or administrative action? At the very
least, if the bureau detected what it l)elieved to l>e a safety violation during
those road checks, why was it unable to develop more cases for administrative
action? Why is it the Department of Justice did not accept the majority of those
cases for criminal prosecution? Could it have been that the bureau's evidence
was insuflacient to make a case? Thes are the types of questions which unfor-
tunately are not answered in the Senator's statement.
The above argument regarding the supposedly low number of cases accepted
by the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution is used by the Senator
as the reason to expand the civil forfeiture authority of the bureau for all types
of BMCS regulation violations. This, in fact, is no reason to increase the civil
forfeiture authority of the agency, but is a case for just the reverse of what the
Senator is suggesting. It is implied by the Senator's statement that if civil for-
feiture authority expansion is given to the BMCS, more of the 40,000 safety
violations BMOS claimed it detected would be the subject of civil forfeiture to
the bureau. We ask in all honesty w^here would there be either increased pro-
tection for the general public or tighter enforcement on those driving trucks?
If the Department of Justice refused those violations, it stands to reason there
should not be blanket authority given to a bureau to force civil penalties for
occurrences the Justice Department obviously thought were not acceptable for
criminal prosecution bv the Department.
Even though S. 2970 does contain an appeals process through the National
Transportation Safety Board and through the U.S. Court of Appeals, it is an
extremely long, drawn out process — one which our small business wholesaler
members would find financially prohibitive to enter into, >vhich would lead, in
most cases, to their simply paying the civil penalty levied by the agencv. Even
when they know they are right, attempting to go through the expensive and
time consuming process of an appeal to the National Transportation Safety
Board and then to the Court of Appeals is beyond the resources of many small
businesses. This kind of authority handed to a federal agency, we believe, dimin-
ishes our industry's right to "due process" and would expose wholesaler-dis-
tributors to a levy of civil forfeitures by BMCS for those supposed 40,000 safety
violations the agency claims it detected but which the Justice Department re-
fused to prosecute.
Civil forfeiture authority of the magnitude proposed in S. 2970, even with
the established appeals process, in our opinion tends to foster less carefully
arrived at judgments in any agency's dealings with the industry it regulates.
The agency then becomes, as a matter of practical, real-world experience, both
"judge and jury." We strongly oppose this unrealistic expansion of civil for-
feiture authority to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.
NAW also strongly opposes the attempt of S. 2970, through Section 13, to in-
crease the application of BMCS regulations to intrastate commerce. A good
portion of deMvery trucks used in the wholesale distribution industry falls
within the "10,000 pound GVW and under" exemption and many others fall
within numerous commercial zone exemptions. We do not believe wholesale
distribution firms operating in intrastate commerce (i.e., within a state or within
the boundaries of a commercial zone exemption), should face the burdens cur-
rently imposed on the interstate trucking industry. The complicated driver logs
and other BMCS requirements serve a useful function in over-the-road inter-
*?tate truicking, but we l>elieve no case has been made for the need to extend
this type of over-all, comprehensive, burdensome, regulatory scheme on delivery
trucks operating in intrastate commerce.
Section 13(c) of S. 2970 would authorize a $100 million a year "raid" on the
Highway Trust Fimd. The trust fund comes from taxes paid by the general
public into a fund whose primary purpose has always been the up-grading and
Digitized by
Google
167
rehabilitation of the nation's highway system, with a portion used for state and
community safety programs. The fund lias never had as its purpose the funding
of Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations to regulate trucking in either
interstate or intrastate commerce. In fact, such a major encroachment on the
trust fund would actually reduce safety benefits to the public at a time when
we should not l)e reducing our interest in the nation's highways and would
allow for further deterioration of our roads and bridges. The Trust fund's basic
purpose is for construction and maintenance, not for handing out monies to the
states to encourage them to adopt and enforce federal agency regulations on
tmcks. We also do not find worthwhile the "OSHAizing" of Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety functions. The bill authorizes the Secretary to conduct on-the-job
inspections and investigations. The bureau already has authority to do this and,
in fact, currently does so. Giving BMCS OSHA-type authority over other aspects
of a wholesale distribution firm for which it has absolutely no expertise is, we
believe, uncalled for. Our member firms are already inspected by OSHA and
by the BMCS when involved in interstate commerce. We believe OSHA-type
authority for the BMCS would have our members (some of whom engage in
interstate commerce which brings them under the bureau's regulations) facing
a conflicting set of inspectors with varying qualifications. These inspectors would
be attempting to enforce regulations which were not, in fact, drafted to even
deal with the wholesale distribution industry's use of delivery trucks.
We believe instead of the proposals contained in S. 2970, attempts should be
made to increase the ability of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety to enforce
its existing regulations by simply increasing the number of its relatively few
(128) inspectors. Until the agency can adequately monitor what is currently
occurring in interstate commerce, there should be no thought of attempting to
begin expansion of the authority with which the agency would be unable to
cope by dangling the "Federal dollar carrot" before the states. The lack of bu-
reau manpower would prevent the agency from even beginning to adequately
train inspectors to enforce bureau regulations.
Mr. Chairman, we have enumerated only a few of our objections to S. 2970.
Without being burdensome, we would indicate opposition to : the lack of a defini-
tion of an "employee" in Section 4 of the bill; Subsection 7(b) which requires
employers through agency rulemaking to Implement safety programs "to the
extent technology permits" (which recent experience with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration Brake Standard 121 has indicated is technically
permissible but in real world operation has been unreliable; Subsection 8(c)
which would require the Secretary to conduct an investigation upon the com-
plaint of any employee, whether or not the complaint is based on fact ; to em-
ployee suits allowed in Section 12 which do not materially add to any improved
safety compliance ; and Section 14 which requires DOT to submit a yearly safety
report to (Congress which would be meaningless if it fosters statistics similar to
those used initially by Senator Percy from the bureau as the reasons for the
necessity for S. 2970.
Mr. Chairman, we would strongly urge that in the pursuit of highway safety,
rather than move in the directions outlined in S. 2970, the Federal government
could have a far more positive impact on highway safety through concentration
by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety on enforcement of current BMCS regula-
tions and from Congressional help in giving the bureau more insi)ectors to in-
crease enforcement of the regulations already in existence.
Mr. Chairman, in short, we can find no substantive need for this legislation,
and we urge its rejection by your committee. We appreciate this opportunity to
present the position of the wholesale distribution industry.
Appendix A — Structure and Economic Significance of the Ws^olesale
Distribution Industry
The wholesale distribution industry, in contrast to the manufacturing sector
of, the economy, continues to be dominated by small-to-medium size closely-held,
fftinily-owned businesses. Of the 202,000 merchant wholesaler-distributor corpo-
rations filing tax returns in 1973, 99 percent had assets of less than $10 million.
These smaller firms accounted for about 65 percent of the industry's sales vol-
ume. In contrast, in the manufacturing sector, approximately 2 percent of the
firms controlled about 88 percent of the assets and accounted for approximately
80 percent of sales.
Digitized by
Google
168
The wholesale distribution industry provids year-round employment for 3.5
million individuals. In 1977, average hourly earnings ($6.78) in wholesale trade
exceeded those for all private industry ($5.14), while average weekly earnings
($212) were 15 percent above those for all private industry ($185). In short,
the wholesale distribution industry provides dependable, well-paying jobs
throughout the U.S. economy.
Industry sales in 1977 totalled $432 billion and are expected to reach approxi-
mately $665 billion in constant dollars in 1982, according to Commerce Depart-
ment estimates.
Merchant wholesaler-distributors perform an essential economic function. They
make goods and commodities of every description available at the place of need,
at the time of need. Wholesaler-distributors purchase goods from producers,
inventory these goods, break bulk, sell, deliver, and extend credit to retailers and
industrial, commercial, institutional, governmental and contractor business users.
Wholesaler-distributors are essential to the efficient satisfaction of consumer
and business needs. Further, by the market coverage which they offer smaller
suppliers and the support which they provide to their customers, wholesaler-
distributors preserve and enhance competition, the critical safeguard of our eco-
nomic system. According to a recent NAW survey, the typical wholesaler-distribu-
tor establishes the market conection between 133 manufacturers and 533
business customers. Many of these manufacturers are themselves small business-
men who must rely on wholesaler-distributors to establish, maintain, and nurture
markets for their products. The majority of customers are small businessmen
also, who look to the merchant wholesaler-distributor to provide merchandise
availability, credit, and other critical services.
Statement of Robert Milleb
Good morning, I am Robert Miller, a Teamster and member of PROD Inc., and
former truck driver for Associated Truck Lines of Grand Rapids, Mich. I wish to
thank the members and staff of this sub-committee for giving me, as a member of
PROD, this opportunity to testify on the subject of truck safety.
In my testimony here today I will take you through a series of events, first
with the use of the Teamster Master Freight Contract and the lack of enforce-
ment of the safety provisions in Article 16, to force drivers to drive unsafe
vehicles and thereby using it as a means of ridding themselves of employees who
insist and urge others to insist on safe vehicles to drive on our nation's highways.
I will cover my own discharge for refusing to drive a tractor with only 12"
clearance between the steering wheel and seat back.
Also how my union representatives did very little to get my job back. How
charges filed with the NLRB and OSHA have done nothing to correct the use of
safety violations and refusals to drive this equipment as a tool to discipline and
discharge safety conscious employees who insist on their rights.
I'll also cover events up to now covering my attempts to find a job in teamster
union contract employers.
On July 22, 1977, 1 was called to work and arrived at the terminal in Cold water,
Mich. I was disoatched on tractor No. 1366, a 1972 Louisville model Ford, to go to
Llgoneir, Ind. After doing the necessary paperwork, I went to the tractor ready
line and put my personal belongings in the tractor. I then went on to inspect it
for defects. Finding no visual defects on the exterior of the tractor, I entered
and sat in the seat, and immediately noticed the seat was much too close to the
steering wheel. I attempted several times to move the seat back on the slider and
soon realized that it was back as far as the slider would allow. I then went back
to the dispatch office and told the dispatcher of the problem and asked what I
should do. He said that I should take the tractor to the garage and see if anything
could be done. I returned to the tractor and squeezed behind the wheel and
drove the 100' to the garage and told them of the problem. The shop supervisor
came out and we together attempted to slide the seat to the rear with no results.
He then stated that be doubted if he could drive it as our physical size was much
the same. We then measured the clearance from the steering wheel to the seat
back and found it to be 12". We then went back to the dispatcher and the shop
supervifjor told him of the lack of clearance. The dispatcher asked him if th«»re
was any defects in the equipment. He said there was not. The dispatcher then
Digitized by
Google
169
CftlJHi C-etrrtl r^tsfttrA in Grand Raj ids 4=^i it^M :bea: :bai: I did rx^c w;txii >>
mb«L 43d TijLT I ff?-:: i: wx^-jiid i^ ur^^fe :o dnre v^ :be r\s*d. Tbey ^siked :' :bi?
siK^ L*d ttzz-d ^ZT defei-Ts arid wvw toM ik\ 1 :is^« adris*:^ iih*m liat 1 Ml it
90 far :lii: :: wj.?. Lird : :.:n- :be wii^^L n::LA'>r.: luh^Ursi: d^jiy. Mv twiTs w^ry
that in ar. rorrwDcT >c-v with all ciy w^ijct: iu'*::iui: forw^irvi. I w^^uld i^v*' all
steeriiie i»t:r^'L I'iKiTraii l»is^:oh :ii^:: onVr^i me :o drive :iu> v\^^.I^•U* Nv<
wisfeirx :<k :• r*- =iT ><■. I hx»ked up ;.» ihe irailer I was to i»uli ard deixirtiNi frvna
tlie tersLiLil- Tr^veLnx ^<i1t u^* varvis I It^^-tiase awarv of anvKber prv>i^ie:u I wai*
to coctend «-::h if dni-L-jc :Lis vetuiie. A r\^u|di «-: of niur\>ad iraots ar.vl a r^ry
bompT n*4.i v^immI :ie pr^'Trodiiir steerir^c whe^l :»> »iu:ckiy orvare ju::: tr. ay^
stoma oh arva.
Belk-vinr :ha: a< :l>e T«i:ii>:er BasaL.-e;«i Ajceu: had always >a:vt ' Vv'U :;;:s:
drive a track :ia: j -^ ft-*-l is ur-sdfe IV»:: : ^vf::^«^ :o drive :: but jcv^ ts^ ti^e :o'.e-
pbone and oaii di.sfli:«.!i and ask for auoriier veliiole rha; you can driw safety,
and if yo~ an? '.r.^r. tr^l the union --vill surely get your job ivick." So I did drtvi?
this rrac:«-r «:<*u: a Lalf-niile and kn.»wirc rha: :here wvrv 14 orher :r^c:v*rs vii
the ready ::--e. 1 caUei CeLtral Dis^jitoh aad asked for an. ^t her rraoior. The di:*-
patcber a>k<rd if therv were any defec:> in the iraor-^r. I said the steering wh*>^
mud s*at wt-rv :«•• oK>** and thai for reasons of Itealrh a:-d safety I tvuUl dn\*e
this tract tr a- furrher. He told me then to either drive it or l»e fined. 1 stated
a^ain thit d:e t-. safety hiws aiid Article Iti oi The oi^ntrav r I ov^aKl no: drive that
tracf'r a:.y f-:rth*-r. Hr 'hen >ii:d r • wait rter^. s.»:::e»"!;e would Iv or.:. Aix^:!T ;li^
minute^ iat^-r the teraiina! maiiaeer i.-ame tvir with another driver wh^^ tvvk :h»*
tractor and I wa> drivt^n hack to the teniiiiial by tlie luanaicer. lHiri:uc the trip
back I asked tht* terniicai manaser if this was the way they gin rid of their TROO
memlters and sLmczin^ lie >tate\l "Jiisr one of many ways." AUnit om* month
after my di* harce. d'le t<» si>me incturvs taken .ni the day .^f my di^^iarge and
shortly after. :r was dis4-t*veTvil that the svat in traotor No. i:Wt> ivuld haw Nvn
moved J»ack 'J" simply J»y removing; four U^lts and moving the slider hack aiHl
replacing the U^lts in h«iles ther^ for that purpi^se. I filed a grievance after mj'
di9charge a:.d ••!; 7-27- »» a \ >csl\ level hearing was held at the tenninal The
company state^i that I was discharged for not following Article It^ of the NMKA,
My business aeeut said very little on my behalf. The in>m|>any repre^^ntatix-e^s
stated that they would have tractor 13fiB dispatohe^i into Grand Rspids and
inspect it themselves iiefore making a devisiiMi. i^u July 3l\ 15^77 1 receivevl ;*
letter by certified mail from Associated advising that ^veral j^rswis, all manage*
ment employees had inspected the tractor and finuid no defects and that I was
discharged l^ecause I did not follow the pnxvdures outline^l in Article H* of the
XMFA.
My next >tep in The grievance pnK^edure was the .loint State Committee, a
panel made up «»f 3 employer representatives ai.d 3 union rep^t^s*mrative^ oven
though aliont 6 or 7 »»f each actually hear the grievance alU^wing them to remain
anonymous. My hearing wa-: held S-V2-t%. My business agent and l^x^al 8tvre-
tarjr Treasurer were U'th present as Innh normalb* >it on the iianel although
they are excluded when a hx^l meml»er is involvetl. After assuring me ihai he
bad done much investigating concerning my grievance my business agent pr\>-
oeeded r» read my grievance to the imuel. state that I should U^ put l^ck lo
work and sat down. Thank God. at that time I was asked if I had anything to
add and I did. I told the panel that with my 14 years of aivident fret* driving
that I felt my experience should mean something in deciding the ability to siifely
operate a vehicle under other than nt^rmal cimditit>ns. 1 also cittM the rv^sults
of a lft55 study of -The Ai>plieation Of Human Binly Size Data To Vehicular
Design'* done at the Harvard School of iniblic Health in Bi\<ton. This was the
last available study of this kind and suggesteil minimum cleanuuvs of XX'
between the Steering Wheel and seat back with the slider in the midway jH^si-
tion for any I'.S. Government Vehicles. I also quesiioneil the VH^sition of the
triescoping steering wheel on this mtidel. many of which had l^een weldtHi Ih^
cause through wear they could no longer l>e held in a certain in^siiion. They
asked if I saw the weld and I stated no but that the wheel could not Ih^ movcii,
as it was supposed to when manufactured. I also questioned the seat itself as
wear was known to have made them tilt forward. I also bn>tight up the fact
that Associated was aware of this problem as early as Nov. 4. 1976. and more
Digitized by
Google
170
recently as discharges had already taken place in the ATL system for lack of
clearance in similar model vehicles. I also suggested that being required as an
over the road interstate truck driver to carry and be familiar with the Depart-
ment of Transportation hand book and believing that Part 396.4 (Unsafe Oper-
ations Forbidden) would protect me from reprisals above all else. Nothing I said
made any difference as the panel upheld the discharge.
In this decision it mentioned that I drove this and other similar tractors in
the past. It did not say that in several of the Louis^ille model Ford tractors
there was as much as 6" more clearance than in the tractor in question #1366.
The decision did not tell of the circumstances of the only other time I had driven
tractor 1366 in the 13 months I worked for Associated. In Nov. of 1976 I was
forced to drive this tractor under the same conditions from Ft. Wayne, Ind. to
Grand Rapids, Mich. I drove it under protest only after the dispatcher at Ft.
Wayne noted on my travel order that I felt the vehicle was unsafe to drive.
The trip totaling 64 miles took over 4 hours due to the problems I encountered.
I had much trouble steering on the mostly 2 lane roads and was forced to stop
many times enroute because of abdominal pains caused by the steering wheel
protruding into my stomach.
The decision of the grievance panel was not unexpected as many of them had
set on panels and heard my grievances against the local unions lack of repre-
sentation, the practice of relieving drivers from duty at terminals adding to
the allowable driving hours and to driver fatigue. The decision was as much a
warning to others not to buck the Teamster system, PROD was mentioned at
almost every grievance hearing I attended because of the PROD patches I wore
there and at work.
I know now that the part of the contract dealing with safety is being used
as a weapon against all who dare to protest the unsafe and unhealthy condi-
tions caused by some equipment. Equipment operated by million dollar trucking
firms who can't find a dollar for maintenance. My discharge was just the begin-
ning for my family and I. We have since found that no state or federal laws
cover the interior cab dimensions in tractor. I would never, nor I'm sure would
any member of this committee buy an auto that allowed no clearance between
their stomach and the steering wheel and yet everyday drivers all over this
great country are forced into undersized tractors for the sake of a bigger load,
and even today some genius is experimenting with a vehicle to get the driver
completely out of the way in the CAB UNDER Trailer. So they increase the pay-
load and decrease everything else including the drivers chance of sur>'ival.
When hired by Associated Truck Lines, I was given a booklet that made me
feel good to read through, two paragraphs convinced me that this company was
genuinely interested in driver safety. After my discharge I reread them and
I would like to reread them again. Para. 20 Page 6 regardless of all other
requirements, driver safely take no chances safety on the highway or street
must be given precedence over every other consideration, and Para. 45 Page 15
Accidents do not happen, they are caused by the actions of the driver of one
or more vehicles. You as a driver, can prevent accidents by developing and
following proper defensive driving procedures. We have set forth some of the
practices to be followed to prevent accidents, but no manual could ever cover
all the individual situations which might develop throughout a drivers opera-
tion of his equipment. We expect a driver to exert all possible precautions to
eliminate the possibility of accidents.
I can testify today sir, they didn't mean a word of it.
Believing that I had been discriminated against because of my PROD activity
and insisting on contract compliance by both the company and union, I then
filed charges with the NLRB and hoping that their investigation would show
the discrimination that I'm sure was there. The NLRB did not however issue
a complaint as they found insufl9cient evidence of violation. The only positive
results I have seen since my discharge came from the claims referee judge of
the Michigan Employment Security Commission who ruled that as I had fol-
lowed article 16 of the NMFA on Nov. 4. 1976 by driving tractor 1366 and writing
it up at the end of that trip for lack of clearance that I had done my part and
inso far as the company had not corrected the situation by July 1977, that
I was not guilty of an act of misconduct and was eligible for unemployment
compensation.
In Nov. 1977 I sent a letter to President Carter concerning TnwA Safety and
my discharge, I was soon notified by OSHA that I should file charges also with
Digitized by
Google
171
tbem. which I immediatelj did only to receive a similar answer as that from
the NLRB that there was not enough evidence of a violation, onlj this time it
was based on the fact that there was no evidence to proof I would have been
killed if I liad taken that tractor out on the highway. It seems an awful wai?te
of human life to prove such a thing. What does it take, an incident similar to
the massacre in Cleveland a few years ago to find out how many cars it takes
to stop a loaded tractor trailer?
Since my discharge over one year ago I have felt the rath of the powerful
and corrupt Teamsters Union even more. The XLRB read at this time inves-
tigating charges of blacklisting whi<^ came to light during another XLRB in-
vestigation when a recently fired secretary of Teamstcfr Local 164 presented
testimony that pe<^»ple in Local 164 had attempted to prevent me from finding
work in a Teamster workplace. In Jan. of IfrTS I was .sent a withdrawal card
from Teamster h*tc&\ 164 even though I had paid my dues and wished to remain
in good standing so that I could attend union meetings at the LoeaL I was able
to find a jot) at B&L Motor Freight in Newark. Ohio in late Dec. 77 but before
my 30 day probation period was complete and after Local 161 reoMved my
transfer card from the company I was fired.
I am now working in a different city in frtiio becau.se I can't ask my family
to sacrifice anymore. I'm not beaten, only resting but there are many around
the ccmntry who have l»een throutrh more and lost more. Safety niust not be the
loophole to lie used in the discharge f*f those who firht for justice. The govern-
ment can no longer U»ok to the Teamster contracts to enforce safety on the
highway. Truck drivers should no longer \te hired killers against their wilL
There must l»e law« that cover all possible safety violation* aiid m<ra^ of a!l the
driver him.self mii^t iif»t fafv reprisaN f'-r )>rlijgiDg These vioiations to li^t. We
most have these laws to cr»ver sue* thinss as interior cab dimension^ to allow
a person ample r^iom to ^»fierate safely any vehicle on our «reeT> and highways
especially the 40 ton tractor trailer units capable f*f destroying many lives. We
most not allow the volume of freight to r.rertake the imi»c»rrai*<-e of Lumai. life
any longer. I thar.k you again for the <»pporTunity to be here today before this
sul»Cf>mmittee.
Statement or K. S. Rolsto:c. ErEcmvE Vice Pke*iw3t or tbe AJC£ZiCA3ir
Pnj»woc«D Association
Mr. Chairman. I am K. S. Rolston. Eiecntive Vice President of tbe Americas
Pulpwood As^o^iarion, a national trade ass«-iat:oD of pulpwood pr odijc e is , deal-
ers. consumers, and others dire:-tiy c^irjcenied with the growir^g mnA harvesting
pulpwood — the principle raw material used in the ntanufact^ire <tf pulp- V^per.
paperiM^arr!. and other products.
Onr interest in this legL«latioii. or any legislaticrs that mtttGM rrwdk traiu|ior-
tmtioti. lie's in the fact that all the wood a«€d f<0r inaking inup aad paper ia
transported by truck at j^jcae time Letwees barresong the tree azril tbe palpii:g
process. .S>zie pulpwood is tra:^ •ported hy iroek OBiiy — aH tbe way fron tbe
stump to The milL II oilier ca^es it may be tran.«iPf>rted by tniek froaz. a laxidiag
to a rail head or : drge landii^g for offloadiiig for rail or w^ter a^/r^asus-t. Ajsol
polpwr^ud chi;- pr^xiuced a* residues from other fonsfz prod:xts fMtHiata are
often tTTicked :o pulp ai^d paper mHis. In virtually all caBe& trsciu arv- the Tisal
link in the trar.-^jra'ioii system to ciove (^alpwood to the mifis. Moe:r ctf tbe
trock« Ti*^ f'- przlp-K^ry^ aiid pulpwood cbip faaiadlizig in tAMf^m Unised skates
are owiied r y MLal] ii.depe£jdefit operators whose trsKks art a nk.^«:iax.&al part
of their T.«:i«LLe'?« Imrffic^izjfrz.z.
Truv-ks Ti««<i ••> traitsporr pT];wr^#3 r4:^ge ii. <2^ frr»n :-''c:.paTatiT«iy icaII
frocks wiiL a ^-apacity of hl^^n* 'Jfi/jff} ;-:»-:::id« -; *o lire- i-^ciLi-triil-^T*. Tr^':i:«
are e««ses.:ial to the pulpwoorj Vzzir.z liAi^.rj.
Mem^^-r* of Tb*- Azi.*-r«':a:: I'l-^w-od A^^wxiiTi'-L t.T*r ^".t'.'Zj: ^OLf^ry t^^^atea.
The A««^r-^-s';'<j La« worked 'o 4*^eIo5> ^•sL**r'^ i^%rdtTTi- izAf-r tb^*- t-a^r** of
tbe Anaericai; Vat3oc*a] >*ar,dird- \z.*^i''nz*r ar-'i 'c rw.- ^#"*"a.ii':c-? iit.* *» .' i **3 %s
aeerrtaria* B*-'-a^.«*- of our :i.*<rr»^^ .n **^*-tt tt*- j^-T'' r* tL* •ror-^n '^ "lii^?'
apoeaoTi of rLi« If^zli^laTioc: for «c&f^*^ or. o-r :-:ri.wtT«. Hcwr^r^r w*- fazisiiQC
supfjiort ti:-> >gi#latioE. a« i: i« wrltec ••e*ii-ii^ "«"e f**s tii: :t i« Zi^.r i^ t^* **«
of '^he jwipwrxjd ind^«try. tlif- ♦r:;:r:i.g irfd::.rrTT. c*r
Digitized by
Google
172
Section 7 requires the Secretary to establish, maintain and monitor safety
rules and regulations which could then be enforced by individual states providing
the state agree to do so and submitted a satisfactory plan to the Department of
Transportation.
We strongly question the advisability of having all states operate under the
same set of regulations established by the Secretary of Transporation. Roads
and road conditions as well as truck use vary from state to state and we believe
that each state has developed regulations best suited for its intrastate truck
traffic. If there are specific problems that need attention, these should be dealt
with on an individual state basis. Those states in which there are no specific
problems should not be penalized by having to conform to regulations written to
apply to the entire country.
We are greatly concerned by the recordkeeping provisions of Section 8. The
extensive recordkeeping and reporting required by employers, owners, leasees,
and states would be a severe burden and would be compounded many times by
including all trucks down to a 10,000 pound gross weight, exi>anding intrastate
regulations into new areas such as physical examinations, regulating working
hours, and other working conditions. This would greatly increase the cost of
doing businesss which would ultimately have to be paid for by the consumer and
would not, in our opinion, have any appreciable effect on highway safety. We
agree with President Carter's recent statement that "reducing unnecessary regu-
lation by government of the private business sector is . . . very important".
The cost of recordkeeping and reporting plus the additional cost to the state
for operation and enforcement, and expenditure of $100 million in federal funds,
can hardly be justified at a time when it is imperative that we reduce govern-
ment spending.
In summary, we feel that this legislation with its federal intrusion into intra-
state trucking and burdensome recordkeeping requirements, all resulting in heavy
expenditures by pulpwood truckers, state governments, and the federal gov-
ernment would add to the burden of our industry without providing any real
assurance of increasing safety on our highways.
The Johns Hopkins University,
School of Hygiene and Public Health,
Baltimore^ Md., September 1, 1978.
Senator Howard Cannon,
Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.G.
Dear Senator Cannon : I will be unable to testify before your committee with
regard to S2970, and ask that this letter and enclosures be added to the public
record. I strongly endorse the bill, which would afford greater protection to truck
drivers as well as to the rest of the driving public.
For many years I have been deeply concerned by the lack of regulatory pro-
tection afforded professional drivers. Nationally, 30 percent of all occupational in-
jury deaths reported through Workman's Compensation Claims involve highway
crashes. The problem especially involves drivers of heavy trucks. As the en-
closures indicate, heavy trucks have twice as many occupants deaths per 10,000
vehicles as other vehicles. Even more important, as regards this bill, is the fact
that truck drivers have an injury death rate per 10,000 workers that is many
times higher than the death rate for other occupations.
The safety and health protection offered by S2970 is long overdue. I hope the
committee will give favorable consideration to the bill.
Sincerely,
Susan P. Baker, M.P.H.,
Associate Professor.
Digitized by
Google
173
Professional Drivers: Protection Needed
For a High-Risk Occupation
Susan P. Baker. MPH. Jackson Wong. MSME. and Robert D. Baron
**On the job" motor vehicle deaths
number more than 4.000 annually in the U.S. and com-
prise nearly one-third of all work-related deaths. Yet
the Department of Labor has set no standards relating
to on-the-road safety of the millions of workers whose
jobs entail large amounts of driving, and Department
of Transportation standards affecting occupational
safety cover only drivers in interstate commerce.
Drivers of some commercial vehicles, such as
heavy trucks, arc at special risk of injury because
trucks have usually been exempted for many years
from federal motor vehicle safety standards — such as
standards for brakes and sealbeh»— designed to pre-
vem crashes or protect occupants in crashes.
Observations based on a series of 130 fatal
crashes involving tractor trailers iHustrale the need for
better protection of thb bripe populatioa of htgh-risk
workers. Clarihcation of responsibifaty withm the vsiri-
ous federal igrncies and application of available
knowledge and technology are essential. <Am. J. Pub-
lic Heatob 66:649-454. 1976)
The U.S. Depanmcni of Labor's Occupatioaal Saicty
md Health Act (OSHAi requim employers to provide
places of emptoymeM free fnotn recofnized haxards thai are
"Ubely to cause death ur aenous physical harm. "' The pur-
pose of this paper is to call aueauon to tlie special occupa-
tional hazards of proicsuooai dnvers— especially track dnv-
en and to the fact that no federal safety standards pcnaio
TprcTfrral*> to occupational uo-the-road safety of large
groups of people who (kivc on the job.
The L.S. Bureau of the Census esiimaies that m 1974
there were about 3 iwHina trampon e^jiMpment operatives.
■Khtdii«l.8inlhoauuckdn%crsrraNe I ). la addtfioiu mI-
koRS of other employees have jobs wtech MvoKe subslaoliai
amounts of dnvmg: repavmen. salesmca. polacc. l elcp h o a c
hi mm etc. la employmeai caicgones such as these, how-
ever. « IS Bol known how aan> of the employees adualy
drive on the job.
Cooiparcd w«h other drivers. proCe^sKmal dnvers are at
cxxn mk ai death or ayury oa the highway . pavtfy because
tiK> dme aurv mdes. Oae study, based oa dMa from 24
states, found that drivers of larpe trucks, taus. and buses av-
eraged about .^2X100 miles aooually . compared w«h an aver-
se of SiXK) aules (or drrvcrs aoi drrva^g ua the job.* Raihcr-
morc. analysts of turnpike data vhtnks thiif heavy tracks
have about twice as aany crashes as auluaMibdc i.. per ve-
hicle aale of travd.* Many veJudci ra^gmgirompofcceaM»'
lorcydes k> tractor mulcrs — pose specoi mks hctaair <tf
thev bck of proiecuve ciyabihry
The esact aumber of job-rcimed l^^ay deaths Md m-
juries is art kaowm. Some data arc avaibMe from workers'
compeasatjoe sMiTces. (or eumple. m Maryland Mperceai
of the death ciamH awarded m feKal yeari974 were to track-
ers.* la CaWoratt. truckers atco— id for 7 per oem af *e
work faiahiies m 1973 umpimxd to i per oem of al emplffy-
aiem covered by the Ihorken C r ayr ai iina Act. fanr-
fifiks of the dcadhs arvolved moicv »cfacfes oa «K N^w«y.»
For the Laned Scales, the VatMaoii Sadety Ccamci emnnaies
Digitized by
Google
174
BAKER. ET AL
that in 1974 about 4.100 (31 per cent) of the 13.400 work-re-
lated deaths involved motor vehicles.*
Most of these deaths result from crashes on public
roads. Some OSHA standards protect operators of cranes,
earth-movers, tractors, and other non-highway motor vehi-
cles, but the Department of Labor has not set standards per-
taining to safety on public roads of truck drivers and other
professional drivers.
Within the Department of Transportation (DOT), the
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) has the authority to
set safety regulations pertaining to motor carriers engaged in
interstate commerce or the transport of hazardous materials.
The regulations include such areas as driver qualifications,
hours of service, inspection and maintenance of vehicles,
loading practices, seat belt use. and emergency signals.
There are no comparable federal regulations applicable to
on-the-road job safety of many other professional drivers —
such as truckdrivers empk>yed by companies engaging in
purely intrastate commerce, and many salesmen. k)cal deliv-
erymen, and taxicab drivers.
Also within the DOT is the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA). which sets safety stand-
ards for road vehicles manufactured for sale in the U.S.
These standards are not established for purposes of occupa-
tional safety and. in fact, often are delayed, weakened, or
not applied in the case of vehicles such as vans, trucks, trac-
tor trailers, and buses. In illustration, effective dates for fed-
eral standards for door latches and seat belt installation were
set many years later for trucks than for passenger cars, and
standards to minimize roof crush, side intrusion, and damage
to occupants from impact with interior structures have been
set only for passenger cars (Table 2).
This paper will discuss certain measures that could im-
prove protection of professional drivers against iiuury on the
highway. Most examples are drawn from a series of 150 fatal
crashes involving tractor trailers, reported elsewhere in
greater detail.'* * The crashes occurred in Maryland during
the years 1970-73. and were studied retrospectively using
records from police, medical examiner, and motor vehicle
agencies. With few exceptions, the problems and strategies
described are relevant to smaller motor vehicles.
The discussion will address: ( 1) pre<rash. (2) crash, and
(3) post-crash phases of injury reduction— i.e.. factors that
would reduce: (1) the likeh'hood of crashes. (2) the occur-
rence or severity of injury, and (3) the severity of the con-
sequences.*' " Table 3 lists a variety of countermeasures
relevant to the protection of professional drivers. Some ex-
amples have been selected from the table for ftirther dis-
PRE'CRASH PHASE—Reducing the Ukelihood
of Crashes
Procedures that would ensure timefy detection and cor-
rection of mechanical defects and likely faihire points are
needed. Fifteen of the fatal tractor trailer crashes involved
brake or tire failures or mechankal breakdowns. The BMCS
conducts spot checks of trucks (including tractor-trailers) un-
der its jurisdiction; in 1972, serious mechanical defects were
found in 35 per cent of the trucks selected for roadskle in-
spection." Although the trucks so selected may be espe-
cially likely to have defects and thus not be a representative
sample, the finding identifies one type of hazard facing driv-
ers whose employers fail to provkle safe equipment.
Well-designed equipment is also essential. Recently.
TABI^ 2— ExamplM of Federal Motor Vahlda Safaty Standarda Dalayad or Not AppNad to
FMVSS
ElMttVI
)CMm
PoMngsr
Trucks
Cm
* 10.0001).
105
Parking Brake Systems
1-1-68
-
109.119
( 1 09-(>as8enger cars: 1 1 9-olhef vehicles)
1-1-68
3-1-75
110
Tire Selecllon and Rims
4-1-68
111
1-1-68
2-12-76
117
1-1-72
201
1-1-68
—
202
HMKl Restraints
1-1-69
_
203
Impact Protection lortheOnver
from ttw Steering Controt System
1-1-68
.—
204
1-1-68
—
206
Door Locks and Door Retantton Components
1-1-68
1-1-72
207
1-1-68
1-1-72
208
Occupant Crash Protection (Seat BeHs)
1-1-68
7-1-72
210
1-1-68
7-1-71
212
1-1-70
_
214
1-1-73
216
Roof Crush Strength
8-15-73
—
301
ruw oyvcoiTi inwgniy
1-1-68
—
Digitized by
Google
ITS
Digitized by
Google
176
PROFESSIONAL DfUVERS
TABLE S-ExamplM ol tlittBUi to ftodUM CrMh4taMtd
PflE-CAASH PHASE
Orivw training
litainlwiinM of UrM, braliM, and ottwr wiuipmanl
improwad braiiing capacity
Adaqualapowar
Exhaust tyalamt Itiat pravent CO poMoning
PaftWona to pcavant load shW
Qfaalar radius of curvatura on rampa
Improwsd limino and viaibility of signals
CRASH PHASE
Bumpars and front and structuraa Ittat atlanuata crash loroas
Qraatar dacalarativa distanca at front of vahidas
Incraaaad safety bait uaa
AirtMgs or other passrva rastraiMs
Crash atlanuators in high-hazard locations
POST-CRASH PHASE
Fuel syslams that don't laak or rupture aflar impact
Reinforced oo cu partt contpart i nan ts to prevent erMrapmarit
Escsps hatches v
Orivar training in emergency procedures
Community response systems
two police oificer»— whose "workplaces" were automobiles
rather than trucks — died and two others became ill from car-
bon monoxide poisoning that might have been prevented by
appropriately designed tailpipes."- "
llie problem of loaded weight in relation to a truck's
power (reflected by its ability to maintain speed on a grade)
was indicated in our study of fatal crashes by the finding that
the tractor trailer was the lead vehicle in seven of the eight
rear-end collisions known to have occurred on an upgrade.
Inadequate braking ability (also related to loaded weight)
may have been a factor in other rear-end collisions: the trac-
tor trailer was the rear (striking) vehicle in 23 of 31 cases not
known to have occurred on an upgrade (Table 4). Although
occupants of the car are killed or injured more often than
trtick drivers in these collisions, remedies would benefit oc-
cupants of all vehicles involved.
In 1970. the National Transportation Safety Board rec-
ommended that before increases in gross truck weights were
permitted, standards should specify minimum performance
levels for brakes and a maximum ratio of gross weight to net
horsepower.'* The Board's recommendation was not fol-
lowed when increases in permitted weights were authorized
by Congress in 1974. Measures to negate the adverse effects
of the weight increases are presently being considered in
Congress. Although airbrake standards have been imple-
mented, trucks with hydraulic brakes (comprising about one-
fifth of all new motor vehicles) are still exempted from any
federal brake standard. As a result of present and past in-
adequacies in brake standards, crash-precipitating dis-
crepancies in stopping distances of cars and trucks remain a
substantial problem.
Forty fatal collisions between tractor trailers and other
vehicles occurred on divided highways that were not limited-
access highways. Of these, 16 (40 per cent) involved other
vehicles pulling onto the highway from a side road or turning
left in the path of oncoming tractor trailers. Road designs
that allow vehicles to intersect the paths of fast-moving,
heavily laden, hard-to-stop tractor trailers are analogous to
intersections where roads cross train tracks. Yet while many
rail-highway intersections are being eliminated because driv-
ers cannot always correctly perceive and react to fast-ap-
proaching trains, similar solutions are too rarely applied to
the analogous highway situation. The resulting crashes ex-
emplify the failure of many highways to adequately reduce
the crash risks of vehicles that can legally travel on them.
Possible approaches to the problem include modifying or
eliminating intersections and restricting most high-speed
travel of heavy trucks to limited-access highways.
CRASH PHASE— Reducing the Occurrence or
Severity oflryury
At least eight of the 41 fatally iiyured tractor trailer occu-
pants were ejected. The BMCS requires that vehicles oper-
DirwtionofQrad*
Up
Down
Not on
Grwto
UntoWMm
Tow
Other vehicle stnjck
tMdc of tractor-trailer
Tractor-trailer stnjck
t>acfc of otf>er veftide
7
1
1
2
4
11
3
10
15
24
Total
8
3
15"
13"'
39
***lneludas 6 coMons thai oocuiTod on a grade. dlfecHon urSifwiM. and 7 tor aMch M wssf^
Digitized by
Google
177
PfWTESSlONAL OPfVEM
force standards or regulatkms affecting occupational safety
and heahh."' A recent notice of proposed rutemaking in-
dicates the intent of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety "to
remove all doubt concerning the full exercise" of its statu-
tory authority to prescribe and enforce regulations affecting
occupational safety and health, in activities within the juris-
diction of BCMS. The proposal, if adopted, would eliminate
potential areas of dual regulation under BMCS and OSHA.'*
It would not. however, broaden the spectrum of drivers pro-
tected by federal regulations.
An important difference between coven^ under BMCS
and OSHA regulations is that whereas under OSHA. appli-
cability of standards to "businesses affecting interstate com-
merce"' has been so broadly interpreted that OSHA regu-
lations apply to essentially all employers and employees noi
covered by other federal agencies. BMCS regulations, on the
other hand, have been applied primarily to motor carriers
whose business involves transport of passengers or properly
moving between states or countries: local distribution of
foods manufactured out-of-state, for example, is not neces-
sarily considered interstate commerce." This difference
nuy be largely responsible for the apparent no-man's-land of
drivers ignored by both OSHA and BMCS regulations.
Although it might be argued thai DOT's many programs
and standards aimed at reducing highway deaths and injuries
also protect employeei who drive, this is not iheir special ob-
jective. In fact, as noted above, motor vehicle safely stand-
ards have commonly been "relaxed" for trucks and other ve-
hicles likely to be driven commercially. Often such exemp-
tions have been granted to facilitate enactnf>eni of standards
for the far greater number of passenger cars— but the fact re-
nuuns thai ntany professional drivers have been left with
worse-lhan-avcrage crash protection. Furthermore, at least
one kind of DOT regulation works to the detrimeni of profes-
sional drivers (including many drivers covered by BMCS):
regulations ihai include the tractor m maximum length and
weight limits for tractor trailers make il possible to increase
the legal payk)ad by sacrificing driver protection. Truck trac-
tors of light weight materials and with ' cab-over-engine " de-
signs lacking from-end crash-attenuating structures may be
profitable to carriers, but hazardous lo drivers *' The same
point holds with regard to increases in permitted weights of
loaded trucks.
Thus, in ntany respects professional drivers are often at
extra risk of injury on the highway Taking special steps to
protect them as workers may well be appropriate— just as
some recognized hazards arc banned by federal regulation in
the workplace but not in private homes (cluttered floor areas
and unguarded power saws, for examplci.
The extent of an employer s duty to protect employees
against avotdaMe hazards has been queried with regard to
hazardous routes — whether, for example, an employer s in-
sistence that a driver use "a manifestly dangerous highway
section, rather than use some ahemate safer route, is a
breach of the OSHA duty . "" Smularly . even though pnvate
use of motorcycles, mopeds (mocor-bikesi. and subcompact
cars may be permissible, the demonstrated failure of such ve-
hicles to give ad e q uate protection m crashes'^ ** may raise a
question as to whether employers should provide ihem as
on-the-job transportation.*
Summary
This paper has emphasized environmental approaches
to the problem of occupational highway deaths. In addition,
approaches making drivers of buses, heavy trucks, and haz-
ardous cargo more capable of performing their tasks are
needed. Needs for special training and screening for relevant
medical conditions (especially alcoholism) must be met.*
Modification of the working i'rtri>#>«mrfi/. hovwevcr. is a fiuit-
ful approach that has largely been neglected with respect to
occupational hazards related lo the vehicle and highway en-
vironment. In summary, the following areas are of particular
concern:
1 . There are large /roups of professional drivers wh«tse
on-the-road occupational safely has been addressed
by no federal agency.
2. Trucks have been exempted, often for periods of
many years, from most federal moti>r vehicle safety
standards designed to prevent crashes or protect «k-
cupants in crashes.
3. Failsafe mechanisms and passive protection, al'
though applied in other iKCUpatumal envinmments.
have not been applied to vehiculai "workplace^" to
the extent practical.
4. Highway (including roadside) design often is not re-
sponsive to specuil risks related lo the large and
heavy trucks presently permitted on the highways
We believe that the p<»wer to address these problems c»
isis already, in various federal agencies lurthcrmore. the
technical capability exists, artd often has existed for years or
decades, without being applied What is required tHr*/ is ac-
knowledgment of the prtiblems. clarification of responsi-
bility, development of organizaliorud mechanisms, and. final-
ly, application of available knowledge and lechmilogy. Until
such steps are taken, the worker whose 'w(>rkplacc' is a
motor vehicle is not likely to benefit from the intent of the
Occupatumal Safety and Health Act " to assure so far as
possible every working man artd woman in the NatMMi safe
and healthful working conditif>ns and lo preserve our human
resources ■'
MCKHOWLBDQimmt
This work »»« svpporud by ihe Imurancc \mmitfte Itn Htgh-
way Sidety auid ihc Haryland Medt(.al-I>egal F-oufMbrfKM The npm-
ttm% npresMd are rhose of the aufhnrs »fld no« necessarily ihtMc «yf
Ihc msUfutinm »ffh wtwch ihcy me *\MKtMe4 tit i«f ihr sponsors
'The maUfi:. ycle OcMk rstu per i(Mt mOhnti peiMom imies nf irr/-
el t\ tfm^ki %t^en iiwies rliai td cars " Slwch «f *I»k Mlrrriice is
Aw lo lacfc tA proiectMM »lieii a cratli 'x^ wrs \m nOOHttm. n k «#««-
mafthf ihair atAidcnt rale* Um ^mwmtx -.^ttepntex t4 M^e 'elw-
ctes are (Mgfirsi r<nr mryorcycies '
Digitized by
Google
178
■AKEa ET AL
1. U.S. Coi«ren. OccupMionid Sdiety and Health Act of 1970.
PliMk Uw 91-596. 9ltt Coi«reu. S. 2193. Wuhii«toB. D.C.
December 29. I97S.
2. CarroB. P. S. CbuMificalion of driving exposure and accident
Falct for higbway safety analysis. Accid. Anal, and Prev. 3:81-
94.1973.
3. Mda. D. NHTSA Update of Informatioa on Heavy Track Acci-
denu. Report to National Highway Safety Advisory Com-
mitlec. Dec. 8. 1975. Washington: Dept. of Transportation.
4. Wortaacn's Compensation Commissioa of Maryland. Fdty-
ninth Annual Report. Annapolis. Maryland. 1974.
5. California Department of Industrial Relations. Division of La-
bor Statistics and Research. Work liyuries in Tracking. San
Francisco. 1975.
6. National Safety Council. Accident FacU. 1975 Edition. Chi-
cago. 1975.
7. Baker. S. P.. Wong. J. and Masemorc. W. C. Fatal tractor trail-
er crashes: considerations in setting relevant standards. Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Automotive
Safety. Washington. D.C. U.S. Dept. of Transportation.
NHTSA. 1975.
8. Baker. S. P. Alcohol in fatal tractor trailer crashes. Proceedings
of the 19th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Au-
tomotive Medicine. Lake Bluff. III.. 1975.
9. Haddon. W.. Jr. A logical framework for categorizing highway
safety phenomena and activity. J. Trauma 12: 193-207. 1972.
10. Baker. S. P. Iiqury control. In Sartwell. P. E. Ed. Preventive
Medicine and Public Health (lOth ed.) New Yorii: Appleton-
Century-Crofts. 1973.
11. U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety. Safety Road Checks. Motor Carriers of Property July
t h o ug h D ecember 1972. Washington. D.C. 1973.
Baker. S. P.. Fisher. R. S.. Masemore. W. C. and Sopher.
I. M. Fatal unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning in motor
vehicles. Am. J. Public Health 62: 1463-1467. 1972.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Chrysler Conducts Re-
call: Further NHTSA Action Urged. Status Report 10:18:3-4.
1975.
12.
13.
14. InsuruKC Institute for Highway Safety. Heavier Tracks Bogged
Down. Status Report 9: 17:4. Scptenbcr 27. 1974.
15. Ticmann. N. T. Re<|uired safety belu for drivers in interstate
commerce. Proceedings of National Safety Bch Usage Confer-
ence. Waahliwton. DC: U.S. Dept. of Transportation. 1973.
16. Robcftson. L. S. Motor Vehicle Occupwit Rcstrwnt Use and Ef-
fectivtncM in Real-WorM Cruhes. Washmgtoa: Insunmce In-
stitute for Highway Safety. 1975.
17. Haddon. W.. Jr. Strategy in preventive medicine: passive ver^
sus active approaches to reducing human wastage. J. Tiauma
14:353. 1974.
18. Haddon. W.. Jr. Perspective on a current public health con-
troversy. Am. J. Pubhc Health. 65: 1342-1344. 1975.
19. Haddon. W.. Jr. Reduciiw Truck and Bus Losses— Neglected
Countermeasures. Pub. 710409. Warrendale. Pa.: Society of
Automotive Engineers. 1971.
20. Plenary Exercise of Sututory Authority Over Motor Carrier
Safety and Hazardous Materials. 49 CFR Part 390. Federal Reg-
ister. 40: 136:29729. July 15. 1975.
21. U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety. Operations Manual Vol 6. Chapter III. Interpretatiom
Manual. Interstate vs. IntrasUte Commerce-Property. Patt% I-
17. Transmittal 192. Washington. D.C. August 29. 1«75.
22. Roley . R. W. The Tragedy of "Cab over" Tractors. Uke Bluff.
III.: American Association for Automotive Medicine. Quarterly
4. p. 18. December 1973.
23. Fitzpatrick. J. F.. Sohn. M. N.. Silfen. T. E.. and Wood. R. H.
The Law and Roadside Hazards. Chariottesville. Va.: The
MichieCo, 1974.
24. Haddon. W., Jr. and Baker. S. P. Ii\iury Control. In Preventive
Medicine. (2nd ed) Clarii. D. and MacMahon. B.. Eds. Boston:
Little. Brown and Company. To be published.
25. Robenson. L. S. and Baker. S. P. Motor Vehicle Sizes in 1440
Fatal Crashes. Washington: Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety. 1975.
26. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Government Consid-
ering Moped Use Standard. Status Report 10: 19: 1-4. 1975.
Digitized by
Google
179
(For presentation at the 22nd Conference of the American Association for
Automotive Medicine, Ann Arbor. July 10, 1978.)
Fatal Occupational Injuries Associated With Motob Vehicles
By Trudy A. Karlson, M.S., Graduate Student, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Wis., and Susan P. Baker, M.P.H., Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, School of Public Health and Hygiene, Baltimore, Md.
ABSTRACT
One hundred and sixty one occupational injury deaths to Wisconsin residents
during 1976 were identified from death certificates and from Worker's Compen-
sation records. Thirty-seven percent of the total (59 deaths) were related to
highway motor vehiclefi. T\s-enty percent (33 deaths) were associated with
tracks. Fourteen percent (23 deaths) were truck drivers. The annual per capita
death rate for truck drivers was 65/100,000, about 9 times the rate for all other
Wisconsin workers.
Of the deaths as.sociated with motor vehicles, 39 i)ercent could not be identified
from information coded from the death certificate and 36 percent were not re-
ported to Worker's Compensation. The resulting estimates of truck driver death
rates and of the proiwrtion of all occupational deaths associated with motor
Tehicles are therefore conservative.
The failure of federal agencies adequately to address the problem of occupa-
tional safety for large grouiw of workers who drive on the job is of particular
concern in view of the size of the problem.
THE RIGHT OF ALL WORKERS to a safe working environment has been
establishe<l by federal law. [1 ] This right has not yet become fact, however, for the
many workers who drive on the job and whose working environment is therefore
the motor vehicle and the highway. More than 30 percent of occupational injury
fatalities involve motor vehicles ; annually, there are about 4,000 such deaths in
the United States. [2, 3] W know of no larger group of occupational injury
deaths.
Last year, the International Association for Accident and Traffic Medicine
passed a resolution that "professional drivers, such as those who control taxis,
trucks and buses, should not be denied the benefits of proven safety measures. [4]
With a view of furthering this basic objective, and as a follow-up to previous
studies related to the hazards of occupational motor vehicle use, [3, 5] we under-
took a study of occupational fatalities associated with the highway motor vehicles
in Wisconsin. Our purposes were to estimate the number of such fatalities, to
estimate the annual per capita death rate for truck drivers, and to determine the
limitations of various data l)ases for identifying vehicle-related deaths occur-
ing at work.
METHODS AND DATA SOUBCES
Fatal injuries that occurred at work to Wisconsin State residents were identi-
fied from records at the State Department of Health, Section of Vital Records and
the Worker's Compensation Division of the Wisconsin Department of Industry,
Labor, and Human Relations. These data sources, which exist for different reas-
ons, identify different but overlapping groups of occupational injury deaths. Using
both sources, we found 161 occupational injury deaths to Wisconsin residents dur-
ing 1976. The Section of Vital Records identified 123 occupational injury fatalities
during 1976, consisting of all those whose death certificates were coded as having
a *'yes" response to the question. "Injury at work?". Information on 91 injury
fatalities was obtained from the Worker's Compensation Division monthly reports
of work-related deaths in 1976. Deaths from diseases and unknown causes were
excluded from the study as were injury deaths to non-residents.^ Wisconsin resi-
dents who died out of state were included. Information on occupation, age, injury
event, and date of death was obtained for each case.
Of the 1970 occupational injury deaths, 59 were associated with the use of motor
vehicles. These were primarily associated with highway crashes, but included 6
*The total list of 116 deaths from Worker's Compensation Division included 18 deaths
from diseases and heart attacks, one death of unknown cause, and 6 injury deaths to out-
of-state residents.
Digitized by
Google
180
deaths in loading and unloading cargo and 1 death in the course of vehicle repair.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the number of cases reported by each source. Table 1
shows percentages of underreporting by each source. The Section of Vital Records
did not identify 24 percent (38) of occupational injury deaths of all causes,
generally because death certificates did not indicate injury at work ; nor did it
identify 39 percent (23) of occupational deaths associated with motor vehicles.
The Worker's Compensation Division did not identify 43 percent (70) of all
occupational deaths nor 36 percent (21) of motor vehicle-associated deaths. Of
these 21 deaths, 14 involved trucks. Because worker's families receive financial
benefits only if deaths are reported, this series is likely to include essentially all
work-related injury deaths among workers covered. Not all workers, however,
are covered by Worker's Compensation. Farmers and members of their families
working on the farm are the largest group not covered in Wisconsin, and their
deaths accounted for 49 percent (34) of the 70 fatalities reported to Vital Records.
Self-employed workers also are not covered, which may account for the 6 truck
drivers who died in-state and at work but were not reported to Worker's Compen-
sation. Eight truck drivers who died out-of-state were not reported either, al-
though some of their deaths may have been reported to Worker's Compensation
Boards in other states.' Thus, occupational fatality data based solely on Worker's
Compensation sources underestimate the number of deaths associated with motor
vehicles, especially among farmers, the self-employed, and workers dying out-of-
state. Deaths of truck drivers are likely to be well represented in the latter two
categories.
Our data series, then, is based on vital records, which includes virtually all
deaths but in a substantial proportion of cases does not show that an injury
occurred at work, and Worker's Compensation, which probably has reports on
essentially all work-related injury deaths to those covered, but does not cover all
workers. While the combination yields a much better estimate than either source
alone, it undoubtedly underestimates occupational injury deaths, especially those
related to motor vehicles. For example, self-employed truckdrivers, salesmen,
and farmers who are killed while driving in the course of their work would not
be reported to Worker's Compensation, and their death certificates might fail to
indicate that they were injured at work ; all such cases would have been missed
by this study.
Data from the Wisconsin Area OflSces of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) did not improve our casefinding. Only 53 injury fatali-
ties were reported to them for 1976.
BESULTS
In 1976, highway motor vehicles were associated with 37 percent of all identi-
fied occupational injury deaths to Wisconsin residents (59 out of 161). This is a
minimum estimate since such cases are greatly underreported by both sources of
data. Of the 59 deaths known to involve motor vehicles, 33 (561 percent) were
associated with trucks and 24 (41 percent) with cars (Table 2). In 10 of the 58
cases, information on the injury event was described only as "traflSc accident";
of these, since the injury occurred at work, the 4 deaths to truck drivers were as-
sumed to be associated with trucks and the other 6 with cars.
The 33 deaths involving trucks represent 20 percent of all occupational injury
fatalities. Not all whose deaths were associated with trucks were truck drivers
(Table 3). The others were 4 farmers, 2 garbagemen, 1 mechanic, 1 stone mason,
1 refrigerator serviceman ; the occupation of two others was listed as truck driver
on their death certificates, but in the Worker's Compensation files was given as
"wholesale salesman of petroleum product" and "laborer for a rubbish hauling
company." These were excluded from the *^ruck driver*' category.
'Generally, deaths are reported to the Worker's Compensation Board in the state
where the employer is located. Some Wisconsin residents may work for employers in
other states, and their deaths would not be reported to the Worker's Compensation
Division.
Digitized by
Google
181
TABU L-OCCUPATIONAL IfUUVY DEATHS, BY SOURCE THROUGH WHICH IDEHTinEO AND WHETHER ASSOCIATED
WITH MOTOR VEHICLES (WISCONSIN. ISTC)
Sof tt
Totri
TtttiitfMftilM
Bmnm «f Vital Rkot^s Mrfy
Workers's ONRpeiisatiM onty
Both
P»rc*nt not identifed by BurMii of Vitil Rvcords
Parccnt not ittentifiMl by worfcw's uNnpuisitioii.
S9
102
in
21
23
49
15
38
n
31
15
S3
39
36
15
4S
24
43
TABLE 2.-ltEP0RTING SOURCE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE ASSOCIATED OCCUPATIONAL INJURY DEATHS (WISCONSfN
RESIDENTS. 1976)
Cars
Tnida
O&m
Tolal
Vital records only
r's oofipoMaboa ooty
Total
6
12
14
10
9
2 1
2
23
6
IS
24
xjMp.
The annual per capita occupational injury death rate for truck drivers was
65/100.000, 9 times the rate for other workers in the state (Table 4).' This rate
is the most conservative (i.e., lowest) estimate that can reasonably be made from
our data, and does not adjust for the probably underreporting c^ deaths involving
motor vehicles described above.
Highway crashes accounted for 22 (67 percent oi the 33 truck-related deaths
(Table 3>. The other non-iiighway fatalities resulted from the varied tasks per-
formed by many vehicle operators, such as loading and unloading cargo and
vehicle maintenance and repair. Four truck drivers died loading or unloading
cargo.* Two of these drivers died in separate but identical situations: as they
unloaded concrete blocks from their trucks, the boom built into the trucks fOr
purposes of loading and unloading contacted high-voltage power lines overtiead
and the drivers were electrocuted. A third drivw was killed when cargo fell on
him, the fourth was pinned between the loading dock and his truck.
Cars were associated with 24 deaths, all in highway crashes. As in the case of
trucks, this number must also be consid^^ a minimum estimate for the reasons
given above. Table 5 describes the occupations of those who died in cars. Twelve
of the 24 car drivers had occupations often associated with large amount of driv-
ing, while the occupations of the other 12 suggested that driving was incidaital
to their work.
DISCUSSION
Unlike many occupational illnesses, where lack of a recognised etiology has
often been blamed for workw exposure, (6) injuries associated with motor ve-
hicles required primarily the application of existing knowledge and technology.
•Although loadinsr/unloading is often done by people other than the driver, the occn-
patlonal status in the 4 cases was given on both the death certificate and Worker's
Compensation report as 'track driver." Two other deaths while loadingr/unloading
Invoh-ed men whose occupational status was listed as truck drivers on their deatii
certificates, but not on Worker's Compensation records. One was burned as he transferred
his cargo of crasollne into a storage tank ; the other was kiUed when cargo f eU on him.
« 95 percent confidence limits were 40 to 91 deaths/100,000 truck drivers, per year, and
6 to 9/100,000 for other workers.
3S-692 0-79-13
Digitized by
Google
23
17
6
4
4
1
182
L 3,5,10, 11] To lend impetus to the needed control efforts, documentation of the
size of the problem is required. The present study provides such documentation
for the state of Wisconsin, and many of the identified problems are undoubtedly
widespread in the United States.
Three major findings of the study are (1) existing sources of information on
occupational injury deaths, when used singly, greatly underestimate the number
of motor vehicle related work deaths, (2) the death rate per 100,000 truck drivers
in Wisconsin is about nine times the death rate for other occupations, and (3) 37
percent of all occupational injury deaths were associated with motor v^icles.
TABLE 3.— OCCUPATIONAL INJURY DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH TRUCKS (WISCONSIN RESIDENTS, 1976)
All Truck
Injury event occupants drivers
Highway deaths
Loading/unloading cargo Jt
Other'
All events 33 » 22
1 Includes 1 truck driver who died of CO poisoning, 1 garbageman struck by a car when riding on back of a truck, 1
farmer killed when his pickup burned, and 1 mechanic pinned by the truck box while changing oil.
s There is 1 truck driver in the series whose death was classified as not related to highway motor vehicles : he was killed
by a f ront«end loader that overturned.
TABLE 4.-OCCUPATI0NAL FATALITY RATES (WISCONSIN RESIDENTS, 1976)
Rate per
Estimated Number of liJOjJOO
work force ' deaths i workers (S.E.)
Truck drivers 35,600 23 64.6 (13.4)
All others 1,807,000 136 7.5 (.7)
1 Estimates are interpolations of 1970 census data and 1980 projections published by Wisconsin Department of Industry,
Labor, and Human Relations. The work force estimate is for civilian workers over 14. 2 deaths to people not in this
category have been excluded from this table.
Table S, — Occupations of drivers killed at work while driving cars {Wisconsin
residents, 1976)
Num}}er
Occupations that usually require driving 12
Sales 5
Police 2
Deliveryman 1
Cabdriver 1
4-H agent 1
Serviceman 1
Field service 1
Other occupations (e.g., attorney, secretary, laborers) 12
Failure to note on the death certificate or to code appropriately injuries
occurring at work characterized 24 percent of all occupational injury deaths
identified in this study. In Wisconsin, the death certificate for anyone who dies
following injury is filled out by the physician. Vital records personnel do not
query physicians if this item is unanswered or apparently incorrect. Studies
similar to the present one need to be done in other states, including those with
medical examiner systems, to estimate the size of this problem elsewhere and
to develop means of solving it.
Digitized by
Google
183
EflpedaUj prone to underestimatioii is the number of motor T^iide associated
occupational fatalities. In Wisconsin 39 perc^it of such deaUis could not be
identified throu^^ death certificates. This may be because i^ijsidans do not
associate so-called **trafik; accidents" with deaths at wortL*
In addition to conunonly b^ng unidentifiable throui^ vital records, occupa-
tional deaths associated with motor T^iides are also underr^ported to Worko^s
CompensatioD : 36 percent of such deaths in this study were not known to
Worker's Compensation. Of the 23 truck drivers fatally injured at work, 10
were not reported to Worker's Compensation.
Beinfordng our impression that the estimate of truck driver deaths is low«
data on Wisconsin highway crashes from the U.S. Department of Transporta-
Uon*8 Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) shows that during 1976, 29
occupants of heavy trucks and 73 occupants of pickup trucks and vans were
killed. [12] Our series identified only 13 of these deaths. Le., tru<^ occupants
killed in Wisconsin highway crashes. While some of the truck occupant deaths
not identified by our study may be non-occupational deaths or involved othor
out-of-state residents, it is probable that some were Wisconsin truck drivers.
A survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is an additi<mal source
of estimates of state and national occupational fatalities. This survey covers
a sample of employees who are under the jurisdiction of OSHA (Le., excluding
miners, railway workers, the self-employed, and workers on farms with few»
than 11 employees). Data from the survey are reported only by industry type
and therefore cannot be used to examine deaths due to a particular cause — ^for
example, motor vehicle related deaths. The BLS estinkate of occupational in-
jury and illness deaths in Wisconsin in 1976 was 92. [13] Althou^ the BLS
does not purport to cover all workers, it is of interest that this number is 21
percent less than the 116 injury and illness deaths reported to Worker's Com-
pensation, and 43 percent less than the 161 injury deatiis idoitified by this study.
Nationally, BLS estimated 4,500 injury fataUties in 1976, [14] compared to
12,500 estimated by the National Safety Council, (NSC). [2]
The annual per capita injury death rate calculated for Wisconsin tm^
drivers— about 65/100,00(^— is higher than national rates per 100,000 for other
major high-risk occupations : agriculture — 54, construction — 57, and mining — 63
[2] Although we consider the rate for truck drivers to be an underestimate,
sources of possible overestimation were considered. First, in some cases occupa-
tion might have been mistakenly given as **tru<* driver". However, there is no
obvious reason that this is more likdy to occur than an error in the (^poslte
direction. Second, reports to Worker's Compensation might have involved work-
ers who were not Wisconsin residents. Since they necessarily worked for Wis-
consin employers and had Wisconsin addresses, this is unlikely. All non-residents
were deleted from our sample.
Overestimation of the rate could also occur if the numb^ of truck drivers
in the denominator was underestimated. The estimate of the numb^- of tmdc
drivers in Wisconsin is based on the U.S. Census, and constitutes a proportion
of the Wisconsin workforce (1.9 perc^it) which is similar to corresponding
national BLS estimates (2.0 percent). [15] Greatly dlifer^it from the census-
based estimate of L75 million truck drivers nationally is the estimate by the
U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS)
of 3.5 to 4 million interstate drivers plus a similar number of intrastate drivers.
[16] This estimate is based on the estimated number of commercial trucks
in the U.S. and, if correct, would represent about one out of every 7 m^nbers
of the male workforce. The BLS estimate, which would indicate that one out
of every 30 members of the male woii^orce is a truck driver, seems more credible
and is based on census data rather than vehicles. The BMCS estimates include
an unknown number of farmers and other workers who drive trucks evai thou^
tional groups that we have attempted to exclude when calculating the death rate
Clonal goals that we have attempted to exclude when calculating the death rate
for truck drivers.
*This percentage may not be aa high for deatha in 1077 and sabeeqnent yeara beeanae
of a change in coding achemea that now allows for more accurate ascertainment of motor
vehicle associated occupational inJnrTi deaths.
Digitized by
Google
184
Our third major finding — that 37 percent of the occupational injury deaths
were associated with motor vehicles — was not entirely unanticipated, in view of
NSC estimates that about 4,000 of a total of 12,500 occupational injury deaths,
or 32 percent are related to motor vehicles. [2] Our figure of 37 percent (59
out of 161) for Wisconsin is higher than the NSC 'figure, but it should be noted
that about 10 ** of these 59 deaths might not fall within NSC definitions of motor
vehicle deaths; if these 10 are excluded, then the figure for Wisconsin is 30
percent. The finding that truck drivers comprised 14 percent of all occupational
injury deaths indicates the need for similar studies in other states : a study in
California reported that truck drivers made up 7 percent of all deaths reported
in Worker's Compensation, compared to only 1 iiercent of all workers covered.
[17]
Because motor vehicles are associated with such a large proportion of occu-
pational injury deaths, their prevention should receive the highest priority
in occupational safety. It is therefore of major concern that governmental regu-
lations give little specific attention to workers whose jobs require driving. [3]
Currently, regulations affecting such drivers or their vehicles are promulgated
by three federal agencies : the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) in the Department of Labor, and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) in the
Department of Transportation. Each of these has effectively excluded all or many
truck drivers, as well as others driving on the job, from coverage by some or
all of its regulations.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was the first federal legisla-
tion that affirmed the right of all workers to a safe working environment. It
has not been applied to on-the-road safety, however, because of the Department
of Transportation's prior authority in this area. One clause of the Act states
that "Nothing in this act shall apply to working conditions of employees (where)
ether agencies exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or
regulations affecting occupational safety or health." [1] In the case of trucks
engaged in interstate commerce, BMCS had previous statutory authority to set
cetrain safety regulations (relating, for example, to hours of -service, inspection
and maintenance of vehicles, loading practices, seat belt use, and ^emergency
signals) and therefore preempted OSHA. The judgment of the OSHA Review
Commission on a case pertaining to wheel shocks was that "in order to be ex-
empt from OSHA coverage, it is not necessary that the other agency's regula-
tions be similar to or as stringent as the OSHA standards." [6]
OSHA has some standards designed to protect some operators of non-highway
vehicles such as tractors, cranes, and earth movers, and the BMCS regulations
address the safety of some operators of highway vehicles. There is, however, a
great "no-man's land" of drivers whose occupational safety is Ignored by both
OSHA and BMCS regulations. This is discussed more fully elsewhere, [3, 18,
19] but the crux of the situation as regards highway vehicles is the BMCS
regulations are primarily applied to motor carriers whose businesses involve
moving people or property between states. Thus, there is no federal agency that
addresses the working, on-the-road safety of millions of other drivers — intra-
state truck drivers, deliverymen, servicemen, taxi drivers, salesmen, etc.
Unlike OSHA and BMCS, NHTSA is not charged with occupational safety
as such. It does, however, set vehicle safety standards relating to crash avoid-
ance (e.g., braking ability), vehicle crashworthiness (e.g., occupant compart-
ment integrity, energy absorbing steering columns), and post-crash problems
for private cars, but most of these standards either have not been applied to
trucks, vans, and multipurpose vehicles or have been applied years later than
to cars. [3] In view of the fact that so many of the vehicles exempted from
the standards are used occupationally, and that a large proportion of occupa-
tional deaths occur in such vehicles, vehicle safety standards should be ex-
tended wherever applicable and as soon as possible to all trucks, vans, and
other vehicles currently not required to meet them.
A case in point is the passive restraint standard, requiring automatic crash
protection for front seat passengers In frontal crashes. Federal rulemaking for
the standard for cars began In 1969, 14 years before all new cars must meet the
standard. In view of the demonstrated life-saving potential of passive restraints
[20] and the need for them In trucks 15] and other vehicles, and considering
• See table 8.
Digitized by
Google
185
the length of time required once rulemaking activity begins, it in to l>e hoped
that rulemaking will be initiated shortly for passive restraints in vehicles other
than cars. NHTSA*s new five year plan [21] indicates that many of the federal
motor vehicle standards — including the standard for passive restraints — will be
extended to cover light trucks, vans, and multipurpose vehicles. Huch action Is
urgent, as is extension of the standards to cover heavy trucks, the vehiclen
predominantly involved in deaths to truck drivers.
CONCLUSION
Of 1970 occupational injury deaths to Wisconsin residents in 1^6, 37 percent
were related to highway motor vehicle use. Twenty-three of those killed, or
14 percent of all occupational injury deaths identified, were truck drivers. Their
annual per capita death rate was 65/100,000, about 9 times the death rate of
other workers in Wisconsin. Since the only two sources used to Identify cases
greatly underestimate deaths associated with motor vehicles, the resulting esti-
mates of truck driver death rates and other occupational deaths associated with
motor vehicles are probably low. Further studies are needed to determine rates
elsewhere for truck driver deaths as well as rates for other workers who drive
on the Job, to examine the causes of the deaths, and to identify needed counter-
measures.
Clearly, in terms of both absolute numbers of occupational deaths associated
with motor vehicles and death rates for truck drivers, the problem is enorroouii.
Federal agencies have failed to address the issue. Protection of truck drivers
and all workers who drive on the Job is an urgent priority in occupational safety
and in highway safety.
ACKNOWIXIN»MENT8
The authors would like to thank the staff of the Wiacomrin Division of Healtb*
Bureau of Health Statistics and Section of Vital Records for their help ; it wa«
given often, freely, and graciously. Thanks are doe also to the Riidc Manaipe-
ment Section and Research and Statistics Section of tlie Wljieonnln Depart-
ment of Labor, Industry, and Human Relations, Support of this research was
supplied in part by the Maryland Medical-T.^egal Foimdatioo.
Digitized by
Google
186
.REPORTING SOURCES OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURY FATALITIES
^ 'WISCONSIN RESIDENTS 1976*
Total number of reported fatalities 161
Worker's Compensation
Division
TOTAL 91
Bureau of Vital Records
TOTAL 123
REPORTING SOURCES OF MOTOR VEHICLE ASSOCIATED
OCCUPATIONAL FATALITIES
•WISCONSIN RESIDENTS 1976*
Total number of reported fatalities 59
Worker's Compensation
Division
TOTAL 38
Bureau of Vital Records
TOTAL 36
Digitized by
Google
187
Bjefemescxs
1. U.S. Congress. Occupstioiua Safety and Health Act of 197a Public Law
91-59a 91st C<nifre9S. S. 2193. Washington, D.C.
2. National Safety CoandL Acddait Facts, 1977 Edition. Chicago: National
Safety ConnciL 1977.
3. Baker. S. P.. Wong. J., and Baron, R D. Professional drirers: protection
needed for a hi^^-risk occupation. Am. J. Public Health 66 :649, 1976^
4. Sixth International Conference of the International Association for Acci>
dent and Traffic Medicine (lAATM), Resolutions. J. Traffic Medicine
5:l:7-a 1977.
5. Karlson. T., Baker, S. P.. and Morton, B. Fatally injured truck drivers. Pro-
ceedings of the 21st conference of the AAAM. Morton Grove. Illinois. 1977,
pp. 367-37S.
& Ashford, N. A. Crisis in the Workplace. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Prees. 1976,
pp. 283 and 72-126.
7. Haddon. W.. Jr. A logical frameworic for categorising hi^way safety phe-
nomena and activity. J. Trauma 12 :193, 1972.
8. Haddon, W.. Jr. Reducing the damage of motor vehicle use. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Technology Review 77:8:52, 1975.
9. Haddon, W. Jr., and Baker. S. P. Injury Control, a chapter for Preventive
Medicine. 2nd edition, edited by D. Clark, and B. MacMahon. Boston, Little,
Brown and Company, in preparation.
10. Wigglesworth, E. C. Occupational injuries : an exploratory analysis of suc-
cessful Australian strategies, Med. J. Aust 1 :335. 1976.
11. Haddon. W. Jr. Reducing truck and bus losses — neglected countermeasures.
Pub. 710409. Warrendale. Pa. : Society of Automotive Engineers. 1971.
12. National Highway Traffice Safety Administration. The fatal accident report-
ing system, 1976. Annual Report. Table 1.9. Washington, D.C. Department
of Transportation, 1976.
13. Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey, Wisconsin, 1976. Dept. of Industry,
Labor, and Human Relations, Bureau of Research and Statistics. Risk
Management Section.
14. Reports on Ck?cupational Injuries and Illness for 1976. News Release, Dec. 1,
1977. Office of Information, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C.
15. Revised Occupational Projections, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly
Labor Review, November 1976, pp. 10-22.
16. Comptroller General of the United States. Report to Congress. The Federal
motor carrier safety program: not yet achieving what the Congress
wanted. Washington, D.C, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1977.
17. California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics
and Research. Work injuries in trucking. San Francisco, 1975.
18. Barry, P. and Linden, A. Deaths from farm machinery accidents. Presented
at the 1977 meeting of the American Public Health Association, Wash-
ington, D.C.
19. KarLson, T. and Noren, J. Farm tractor associated fatalities. Univ. of Wis-
consin, Dept. of Preventive Medicine. Madison, Wisconsin, 1977.
20. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Background Manual on the Passive
Restraint Issue. Washington, D.C: Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, Watergate 600, 1977.
21. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Five year plans for motor
vehicle safety and fuel economy rulemaking. Washington, D.C; Dept. of
Transportation, March, 1978.
Digitized by
Google
188
The Johns Hopkins Univeesity,
School op Hygiene and Public Health,
Baltimore, Md., June 9, 1978,
Re Docket Number 78-0
Docket Section,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, D.C,
Gentlemen: NHTSA's Five Year Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety and Fuel
Economy Rulemaking completely fails to address the serious problem of crash
protection for occupants of heavy trucks. Not even the exploratory rulemaking,
as presently envisioned for the next five years, includes research or analyses
directed toward heavy truck crash worthiness. Inattention to the problem is of
special concern because of previous neglect ; in particular, most existing Federal
motor vehicle safety standards for occupant protection (for example, standards
to reduce injuries from impact with the steering assembly or other parts of the
vehicle interior) do not apply to heavy trucks [1-3].
Size of the problem : In 1977, 950 occupants of heavy trucks ^ were killed in
the U.S. (Table 1). To put this figure in perspective, it is similar to the number
of car occupants killed in crashes involving fires [4]. Crash-related fires are
widely acepted as an important problem and have long been addressed by
NHTSA rulemaking.
Increase in deaths : The number of occupant deaths in heavy trucks increased
by 32 percent between 1975 and 1977 (Table 1). During the same two-year pe-
riod, the number of deaths to car occupants increased by only 4 percent, and
deaths to occupants of pickups and vans by 20 percent [6].
Problem more serious for heavy trucks than other vehicles: A heavy truck
is about twice as likely as a car to be soaked with the blood of a dead occupant.
Approximately 4.8 heavy truck occupants are killed annually per 10,(X)0 heavy
trucks, versus 2.4 occupants per 10,000 vehicles, for all motor vehicles combined
excluding motorcycles (Appendix). In the past, use of death rates per mile of
travel had disguised the high death rate per truck. With regard to motor vehicle
safety standards — which apply to vehicles, not "vehicle miles" — deaths and
injuries per vehicle are a more appropriate basis for establishing priorities than
deaths and injuries per mile traveled.
Implications for occupational safety: Heavy trucks, which are the working
environment for well over a million truck drivers, have been exempted from
most occupant protection standards, even though NHTSA has preempted OSHA
in the area of occupational safety as it relates to motor vehicle safety standards
[1-3]. The importance of this neglected area of occupational safety is under-
scored by the high death rate from occupational injuries among truck drivers :
a new study [5] (Attached) shown that in Wisconsin, the 1976 death rate per
100,000 workers from injuries incurred on the job was approximately nine times
as high for truck drivers as for all other workers combined.
Needed standards: A report on fatally injured truck drivers [3] concludes
that:
"As with automobile occupants, prevention of death and reduction of life-
threatening impact injuries to truck occupants depend upon spreading the de-
celerative forces of crashes over space or time, so that injury thresholds are
not exceeded. To help accomplish this, energy-absorbing materials should be
incorporated into vehicle structures that are external to the occupant compart-
ments, and the occupant compartment itself should be designed so that in a crash
it (1) keeps the occupant inside; (2) decelerates the occupant with the vehicle
in such a way that serious injury cannot occur, by appropriately restricting the
distance and direction moved by an occupant in a crash and ensuring that any
surface or structure that can be struck by an occupant contributes adequately
to energy-attenuation; (3) remains sufficiently intact that occupant space is not
comprised, cargo and other objects do not intrude, and escape or extriction is
easy."
The same report stresses the need for passive restraints and for energy-at-
tenuating steering assemblies in heavy trucks. Where solution of these and other
problems requires further research, it should be addressed in NHTSA's explora-
tory rule-making. In some cases, however, it should be relatively easy to modify
and extend existing standards — for example FMVSS 201, which requires occu-
pant protection from impact with the vehicle interior — to heavy trucks, as now
^'Hie term "heary trucks*' wlU be used throughout to denote trucks whose gross
tie weight (GVW) rating exceeds 26,000 pounds.
Digitized by
Google
189
proposed for extension to vans and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less. (Trucks in
the 10,000-26,000 pound GVW category, althougli not the subject of this sub-
mission, are also in need of occupant protection standards.)
In summary : The problem of crash injuries and deaths to occupants of heavy
trucks is substantial and growing larger. Heavy trucks are twice as likely as
other vehicles to be involved in crashes that are fatal to their occupants. Truck
drivers have extremely high occupational injury death rates, relative to other
workers. Despite NHTSA's regulatory responsibility in this area, standards for
ocupant protection generally have not been applied to trucks. NHTSA's Five
Year Plan should be amended to give needed attention to this important source
of death and injury.
Sincerely,
Susan P. Baker, M.P.H.,
Associate Professor,
Appendix: Calculation of Occupant Deaths Per 10,000 Vehicles,
1977, United States
I. For all motor vehicles, excluding motorcycles:
34,600 occupants killed 16]
144 million registered vehicles [9]
34,600/144 mimon=2.4 deaths/10,000 vehicles
II. For heavy trucks:
950 deaths to occupants of heavy trucks (GWV>26,000) [6]
2.0 million heavy trucks, estimated as follows:
(a) In 1972 there were 1.50 million trucks, GWV>26,000 [8]
(b) Since then, during the five years 1973-77, 719,000 new trucks,
GWV>26,000, were registered in the U.S. [7]
(c) Scrappage for all trucks during those five years averaged 40 per-
cent of new registration [7] Assumption that scrappage for heavy
trucks was less (30 percent).
(d) 1.5 million + (70 percent X .719 milUon) =2.0 miUion.
950/2.0 million =4.8 death8i/10,000 vehicles.
TABLE 1.— HEAVY TRUCK OCCUPANT FATALITIES
Trucks greater than 26.000 lb GVWR 1975 1976 1977
Single unit 42 34 68
2 units 651 777 827
More than 2 units 24 48 55
Total 717 859 950
Source: NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS); file not quite complete for 1977.
References and Notes
1. Baker, S. P., Wong, J., and Masemore, W. Fatal Tractor Trailer Crashes:
Considerations in Setting Relevant Standards. "Proceedings of the Fourth
International Congress on Automotive Safety," San Francisco, July 14-16,
1975.
2. Baker, S. P., Wong, J., and Baron, R. D. Professional drivers: Protection
Needed for a High-Risk Occupation. Amer J Pub Health 66 :649-654, 1976.
3. Karlson, T. A., Baker, S. P., and Morton, B. F. Fatally Injured Truck Drivers.
"Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the American Association for Auto-
motive Medicine," Vancouver, Sept. 16, 1977, pp 367-378.
4. In 1976, according to NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS),
942 car occupants died in cars that had fires. This overestimates the num-
ber dying as a result of fires, since an unknown number died of impact
injuries.
5. Karlson, T. A., and Baker, S. P. Fatal Occupational Injuries Associated with
Motor Vehicles. To be presented at the 22nd Conference of the American
Association for Automotive Medicine, Ann Arbor, July 10, 1978.
6. Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), NHTSA.
7. Wards Automotive Year Book, 1977 and 1978.
8. U.S. Bureau of the Census. "Census of Transportation, 1972." Truck Inven-
tory and Use Survey : U.S. Summary, TC72-T52, Washington : Govt. Print-
ing Office, 1973.
9. National Safety Council, "Accident Facts" 1978.
Digitized by
Google
190
Illinois Agmculttjkal Association,
September 5, 1978,
Hon. HowABD W. Cannon,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce^ Science, and Transportation,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Deab Senator €annon : We appreciate the opportunity to express our con-
cerns about S. 2970, the Truck Safety Act of 1978, and to regiffter our opposition
to the proposal as it is being heard in the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation. We believe this legisla'tion will have an adverse
direct effect on farmers and there will be indirect costs that will be incurred by
farmers in moving their products to market and in receiving the production
supplies they must have to run their farms.
As we read section 4(6), this act would apply to all types of farm wagons,
trailers, gooseneck and fifth wheel trailers and nurse tanks. Sec. 5 indicates
that all major commercial motor vehicles in excess of 10,000 pounds would also
be covered. The most recent agricultural census indicates that there are more
than 141,000 trucks, including pickups, on 93,000 farms in Illinois. To our
knowledge there are no statistics which would indicate the exact number of
trucks on Illinois farms with a GVWR of over 10,000 pounds. It is our best
estimate that between 40,000 and 50,000 Illinois farms have 45,000 to 60,000
trucks of over 10,000 i>ounds OVWR. In addition, we estimate there are in excess
of 200,000 trailers, wagons and nurse tanks that would be covered by S. 2970.
To our knowledge there is no evidence suggei^ng such agricultural vehicles have
the same type "safety" problems as over the road tractor-trailers.
We believe it would be both counter productive and extremely irritating to
the farm community to be forced to comply with regulations which would im-
pose trip logs, physical examinations, restrictions upon hours of driving and
certain age limitations.
If the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety's current proposal on hours of service
regulations is adopted, it would mean farmers would be required to give their
truck drivers one-half hour off after every two and one-half hours of driving
time. What would happen if that particular **break" time occurred when the
driver was in line at the local elevator with the farmer's grain? You can imagine
how farmers would react to a regulation which would limit to 15 hours the
maximum work diay in planting and harvefd:ing seasons. I am confident you can
appreciate the frustrations and anger that would be generated by this proposal.
We urge you and your committee to adopt an amendment which would except
farm trucks and vehicles from the provisions of S. 2970.
Farmers are also concerned that their transportation cost will increase as
increased costs are passed along as a result of S. 2970. It is understandable that
there is support for increasing fines for violations of the laws as it relates to the
trucking industry. However, we 'believe a proposed 500 percent increase in fines
is unrealistic. It has been suggested tliat such increases would merely reflect the
overall increase in inflation since the law was originally passed 20 years ago.
According to our calculations, a 500 percent increase would be much more than
the rate of inflation during the past 20 years.
It would appear that language in the bill concerning "a very serious violation
of truck safety regulations" is lacking in clarity as to what exactly constitutes
such a violation and could be extremely costly both to administer and to the
users of truck transportation. A listing of violations that are to be considered
serious must be made available to the carriers so they know how the regula-
tions are to be enforced. It would be helpful for a motor carrier's preventative
maintenance program to know what Is deemed by DOT as "serious violations"
so that such violations might receive top priority in a maintenance program.
We believe the legislation as proposed is lacking in proper balance. It pro-
vides criteria that bufrtnesses must meet, but offers little constructive help for
driver education; driver competence or driver responsibility. At the time S. 2970
was introduced, it was noted in the Congressional Record that "Federal and
State vehicle safety programs must be Improved to prevent such drivers fn)m
posing a damage to both the general public and other truckers." This legislation
seems to offer little to protect Industry or the public from drivers who are un-
safe, who leave safety to others and whose past record indicate such failure and
disregard for their fellow travelers.
We are increa^ngly concerned about the relationship of federal programs to
various ^States as provided in section 18. Repeatedly, we see the Federal Govem-
Digitized by
Google
191
ment enacting legislation which baits the State with Federal dollars to enforce
legislation. Yet in many cases Federal dollars do not pay the full cost. State
governments act in a similar manner with local governments. We believe it is
time for the Federal Government to pay for those programs which it mandates
and likewise the State governments to pay for the programs they are mandating
upon local governments.
Our overall concern with S. 2970 relates to its cost-benefit ratio. Will passage
of this legislation bring about greater benefits than cost, or will this legislation
add to the cost of doing business with very little to be gained in terms of improved
safety?
Mr. Chairman, we urge your committee to oppose the reporting of this legisla-
tion until these and other serious questions can be satisfactorily answered.
Until that time, we oppose passage of S. 2970.
Sincerely,
Harold B. Steele, President.
Line Haul Drtveb fob Interstate Motor Fbeioht,
Member Teamsters Union,
Cincinnati, Ohio,
Gentlemen, I would like to give a brief testimony before this committee and
hope you will give consideration to revise and bring about some changes which
are badly needed in the department of transportation. I strongly feel that the
DOT should be given the authority to fine Companies on the spot for violating
our safety rules and regulations. If I should get stopped for speeding, I would
have to pay a fine or post bond, yet if the trucking companies get caught for
violating the safety rules of the DOT they are either given a warning and
continue the trip or at the most if there is a defect that is bad enough they ground
the rig until it is repaired and not fined for the violations. Then the companies
have nothing to lose by dispatching unsafe equipment.
Being a line haul driver for over sixteen years I have witnessed large numbers
of units being sent out with defects that were dangerous to the safety of our
highways. I have also witnessed some drivers which have been fired for refusing
unsafe equipment, some of them losing from one week to six months pay and
since TEAMSTERS are so weak in these areas of safety, if a driver is reinstated
he very seldom receives back pay. I feel there should be laws enforced to protect
the public from facing these conditions, and it should not be left up to a Union
negiotating conmiittee to determine the safety of our highways. We have received
so little help from the Teamsters in these safety areas it is disgusting to think
about it.
Years ago when the sixty hour work week was entered in the B.M.C.S. it was
intended for a Maximum and today the Company's are using it as a Minimum thus
enforcing the driver to either be in service or remaining in readiness from sixty
to eighty hours per week. There is a rule in the B.M.C.S. says that a driver will
not begin nor continue to run if his ability or alertness is so impaired through
fatigue or illness. I have approximately 75 warning letters which was issued to
drivers for not being available for work when they were ill or fatigued. I am
one along with several others which have been given time off through suspension
for refusing to begin a run that I was not physically fit to begin. We (the drivers)
cannot continue to fight to enforce these safety regulations if this will cost us
time off and possible our jobs.
The Companies pretend to have a maintenance program that looks good on
paper as to how they check their equipment each time it goes through a safety
lane, but the drivers and mechanics see it from the other side of the cover as to
how many trucks are checked and put on the ready lane to run with all maimer
of defects some of which are dangerous. The company doesn't show the side of
the books we see as drivers to the public. As an example the Company I work for
used to check the slack adjusters on brakes to see if they needed adjustment each
time the unit went through the lane, because this takes maybe two minutes more
per unit the Company has stopped this procedure. The only time they check now
is If the unit has been written up.
We badly need some type of program to deal with these problems. The few
drivers that try to promote safety and to compel the companies to go by the roles
that we already have are harassed and s^ven time off and also are given bad
trips and some have lost exceflsive time off without any pay. We get very little
help from Teamsters (of whidi I have been a member over 16 years).
Digitized by
Google
192
I deeply feel that these safety issues to Insure public safety should be governed
and enforced by the government and the states. There are many other issues that
I will not take the lengthy time to express. We need all the help you can give us
in support of these issues of health and safety. Your support would be deeply
appreciated.
If this committee would like for me to give them documental evidence of the
issues which I have spoken about, I will get this information to them. There has
been three investigations of Interstate Motor BYeight System in which they
pointed out violations and there has been hardly any of them corrected as of
this date.
Thanks again for your consideration and help.
Yours truly,
William E. Habkixs.
Westerin' Wood Products Association,
Portland, Oreg., September 5, 1978.
Commerce Committee Room,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
(Attention Truck Safety Device)
Gentlemen : The attached paper is the Western Wood Products Association's
position relative to S. 2970.
Our position is also supported by those listed below :
American Plywood Association ;
Oregon Log Truckers Association ;
Southern Forest Products Association ;
Southern Hardwood Lumber Manufacturers Association.
(Members supply 45 percent of nation's hardwood lumber) .
Timber Operators Council.
Sincerely,
K. L. Patrick, Director, Safety.
Western Wood Products Association is composed of large, medium and small
companies located in the 12 contiguous western states that produce over 40
percent of the nation's softwood lumber. One of the Association's major concerns
is safety and health. The Association strongly supports and assists its members
and others in conducting programs to improve safety and health conditions.
Mr. Percy's Truck Safety Act of 1978 is well-intended, and we must agree with
him that the safety record of the heavy haulers is at its best merely acceptable.
We do not object to what Senator Percy is trying to do, but do object to the
methods he proposes to achieve the end.
Members of WWPA companies either operate or are served by trucks, many of
which are company owned or private contractor operated. Operations consist of
both inter and intrastate travel. These trucks not only serve direct in-house
industry needs, but also carry wood products to the marketplace in many areas
of the United States. For the most part, their activities are unscheduled being
responsive to the frequent fluctuations of supply and demand. Many operations,
such as log truckers, are affected to a great extent by seasonal and unscheduled
weather constraints.
Safety and health in the workplace, whether it be in plant or on the highway
is of paramount importance and concern to companies in our industry. Not only
do we have deep feeling for our employees, but for those who might be affected
by their actions or by the equipment they operate. We" feel that our employees,
as well as those we serve, are assets that we can ill-afford not to protect. We
would be the first to support any legislation or set of rules that would assure us
of increased protection of our employees, and the public. However, Senate Bill
S. 2970 falls short of offering any such assurance, and would only create another
unneeded federal bureaucracy with all of the non-productive jobs and excessive
paperwork which would accompany it. It is ironic and rather anomalous that
at a time when regulatory reform is supposedly a much sought after goal of the
administration, we find ourselves forced to respond to this proposal which ap-
pears to comply with neither the letter nor spirit of President Carter's Executive
Order 12044.
We believe there are already suflScient laws, rules and agencies in existence
to properly cover arid enforce highway safety programs if more cost eflBclent
approaches were taken. We see no evidence that would indicate that adding addi-
Digitized by
Google
193
tional laws would do anything to increase the effectiveness of federal or state
highway safety programs, or to increase the efficiency of the Department of
Transportation. It is our observation that the passage of such a bill would only
add an economic and administrative burden to employers activities that would
be passed on to the consuming public, thereby adding to an already unacceptable
rate of inflation in our country. S. 2970 would be equally counterproductive as
many aspects of Public Law 91-596 have been (the Occupational Safety and
Health Law).
The proposal completely misses the root of the problem. We do not need
additional laws and regulations, but rather better enforcement of the ones
we now have.
It is obvious that some states have worse "track records" than others. A
case in point is the State of Illinois in 1976, which Senator Percy referred
to in his opening remarks that state had 3.6 times as many accidents as occurred
nationwide interstate traffic, 21 percent as many fatalities and 70 percent as
many injuries. Also, if you refer to the 1973 through 1976 report published by
the U.S. Department of Transportation in their section on "Location of Accidents
by Region and State,*' it shows four out of the fifty reporting states contributed
to 30 percent of the combined fatalities and injuries.
If, in fact, there is an inordinate number of truck accidents when measured
against total highway vehicular accidents, then specific programs under existing
laws should be established to detil with the problem in those areas and within
states where problems are most acute. States after providing sufficient justifica-
tion could very well be bolstered by making highway trust fund monies available
to upgrade their programs. To insure foUowthrough, subsidies could be counter-
balanced by the withholding of federal highway funds normally allocated to that
state.
Another type of incentive might be used to motivate the states into better-
ing their safety record, such as setting federal and state performance standards.
A state would then be judged by their performance against those standards.
If progress was not made or if these standards were not maintained, a certain
percentage of the federal highway dollar would be withheld until that state's
performance improved.
The Percy Bill does not take into account that driver's are key figures in
vehicular accident prevention. The bill places all responsibility and account-
ability on the employer for the actions of employees. The employer is held re-
sponsible for the actions of an employee regardless of his past driving record,
his immediate state of health, temporary or physical condition, and his attitude.
The Percy Bill completely sidesteps the establishment of employee or union
responsibility for driver performance standards, physical profiles and such.
Employers cannot be held accountable for aspects of their driver program over
which they have no control.
In the U.S. Department of Transportation's report titled "Analysis and Sum-
mary of Accident Investigation 1973-1976," the section entitled Human Factor
Accidents — ambience indicates that 90 percent of the human factor caused
accidents were in areas which are directly uncontrollable by management.
In the area of Poor Driving Skills inexperience, which is the only employer
controllable area, accounted for 26 percent of the accidents. Over the past
several years unions have gained such a "strong hold" over management, a driver
cannot be fired for minor infractions in driving skills or judgment. Some unions
even go so far as to say that a driver's record should be "wiped clean" on a
yearly basis.
It is doubtful that the figures presented in the preamble to the Percy Bill «u:e
valid. Trucks account for approximately one percent of the total registered
vehicles in our country. The figures presented on highway fatalities gave no con-
sideration to the time or miles driven by trucks, versus time or miles driven by
other highway vehicles. In the absence of such a comparison, it would be difficult
to measure what in fact the degree of the problem might be. As presented there
is total lack of justification enacting the Percy Bill.
Additionally, there is no need to increase the maximum level of fines for safety
violations from 500 per occurrance to $2500. Even in the best managed trucking
operations, it is possible to amass sufficient hours of service qualifications and
maintenance violations at the $600 rate to be debilitating if the present rules were
Digitized by
Google
104
enforced. We also disagree with civil forfeiture methods, which would encourage
more violations to be alleged and cited by highway inspectors. To allow civil
forfeiture proceedings to supplant the criminal proceedings that are now re-
quired would remove a valuable check against unbridled government sanction.
In general, federal regulations are intended as minimum standards for the
states to operate under. Therefore, the responsibility of each state is to enforce
them. States can even add to these regulations where it is advisable to make them
more stringent to meet local conditions. It is DOT's responsibility to ensure state
compliance with federal standards in safety and standards setting. It is, like-
wise, DOT'S responsibility to check for violations and make meaningful sug-
gestions or changes to state regulations.
Presently there are 133 federal investigators in the compliance division of
the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. In addition to these investigators, each
state has personnel who maintain and operate scale houses and a highway patrol.
Getting states into the enforcement effort, as proposed by this bill, would be
counterproductive and would compound the problem of solving issues that the
federal government and states have been unable to agree upon for years, such
as : a national driver register, driver licensing requirements, availability of pre-
vious work history, etc. If the congress could solve these issues it would be far
better than writing counterproductive bills such as S. 2970.
In summary. Bill S. 2970 would create another unneeded federal bureaucracy
with non-productive jobs and excessive paperwork, at a time when the adminis-
tration is suggesting a cutback. The bill is not in keeping with that theme. There
are now suflacient state laws and state agencies to handle and enforce safety
problems. The passage of this bill would result in an economic burden to em-
ployers, cause unwanted harassment and would provide no further me^ns for
controlling the actions of individual employees.
We wish to support the Private Truck Council of America, Inc. relative to their
positton on S. 2970.
o
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
^i*
DEPOSIT
FEB 2 1979
SHIPPED
Digitized by
Google
V 4.0 73/7:85-132
'nnK*MiMyMof19
C.1
3 6106 045 203 747
DATE DUE 1
STANFORD UNWti^Sm LIBRARIES
STAMFORD, CAU|^N^ 9436i-6004
r
Digitized by
Google
DEPOSIT
FEB 2 1979
SHIPPED
Digitized by
Google
Y 4^ 7^7:95-132 ci
iHiiiiiaiiriii
3 6105 045 203 747
DATE DUE 1
STANFORD UNIVERSITY I R/
STANFORD^ GALIFORNIA
Digitized by
Google
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11