Mr. WEBB. Thank you very much.

I have on my left Gen. Herbert Qualls, who is the Director of our Bureau on Motor Carriers, and I have on my right Mr. Ernest Cox, who is Chief of our Section of Motor Carrier Safety.

SOURCE OF ICC JURISDICTION

Basically, the Commission's jurisdiction stems from two statutes. Part 2 of the Motor Carrier Act enacted in 1935 gives us jurisdiction over interstate transportation by motor vehicle. That includes common, contract, and private carriers, carriers of both passengers and property.

Our second important statute is the Transportation of Explosives Act. That is title XVIII of the United States Code, and we are directed to formulate regulations for the safe transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles for all carriers by land other than pipeline. We also regulate shippers who send their goods by water. I would say, Mr. Chairman, my basic conclusion is that we carry on a vigorous program of enforcement for the carriers subject to our jurisdiction. We do this with only 99 people in the field who work full time on the job.

Senator RIBICOFF. You cover how many trucks and buses?

Mr. WEBB. There are 18,000 motor carriers which are subject to our economic regulation. They operate about 925,000 vehicles. In addition we can identify about 95,000 private carriers and carriers who are not subject to our economic regulation. We think in all there are about 140,000 carriers who operate a total of about 2 million commercial vehicles.

We believe that our program, considering the means at our disposal, has been successful. If that is true, I think it would show the reason is that we have a very clear legislative mandate. We have a very definite responsibility, and we have a power of enforcement.

FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATION VERSUS STATE REGULATION

Senator RIBICOFF. Do you find from the manufacturer's standpoint, the manufacturer of trucks and buses, that he is better off with this type of safety regulation than if he had to be concerned with safety standards in 50 States?

Mr. WEBB. Oh, yes. I think definitely it would be a burden on interstate commerce if interstate carriers had to comply with a multiplicity of State regulations on the subject.

Senator RIBICOFF. Are there any State laws conflicting with Federal regulation in this field?

Mr. WEBB. No. Our jurisdiction over interstate commerce is plenary. As far as intrastate motor vehicle transportation is concerned, we are making excellent progress with the States in getting them to adopt as part of their law our regulations, our own motor regulations which are applicable to interstate commerce. I think maybe about 42 States have adopted in whole or in part our motor carrier safety regulations.

Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, when you require a feature to go on a truck or bus, the manufacturer who manufactures this doesn't then

say, we are going to put this only on a truck or a bus that is in interstate commerce. They put it on all trucks and buses whether interstate or intrastate?

Mr. WEBB. That is right.

Senator RIBICOFF. The basic objective when you come up with a State regulation or safety feature is that it becomes uniform with every truck and bus sold whether it is interstate or intrastate?

Mr. WEBB. That is true.

Senator RIBICOFF. To that extent not only does it have a salutary effect on the buses and trucks within your jurisdiction, but also the buses and trucks outside your jurisdiction?

Mr. WEBB. Yes, that is true.

Senator RIBICOFF. Now, from your standpoint do you feel that you need any further regulatory powers or any further laws, or do you think the laws as they now stand give you all necessary tools to work with?

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE TO CONGRESS BY ICC TO STRENGTHEN ITS REGULATIONS

Mr. WEBB. We have made two legislative recommendations in our annual report to the Congress, Mr. Chairman. One would give us the authority to enforce the safety regulations through a forfeiture proceeding as well as through criminal injunction proceedings. The other legislative recommendation would make our authority over private carriers correspond exactly with our authority over common and contract carriers.

Those are suggestions that we have made to the Congress to strengthen our regulations, but basically and fundamentally we think the laws as they presently stand are sound and workable.

EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION TO PRIVATE CARRIERS

Senator RIBICOFF. Is there opposition to extending your authority to the other carriers, the so-called 95,000 private carriers?

Mr. WEBB. Yes. I am sure that some private carriers would be opposed to an extension of our regulatory authority. Of course, we already have considerable safety authority over them as to qualifications and hours of service of their drivers and the safety of their equipment. But it is not quite as broad as our authority over the regulating of carriers.

SAFETY FEATURE REQUIRED BY ICC ADVISABLE FOR PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES

Senator RIBICOFF. What features that you require on buses and trucks as safety factors do you think it would be advisable to have on private automobiles that are used which are not now subject to your jurisdiction?

Mr. WEBB. I would like if I could to ask Mr. Cox if he could comment on that.

Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, in 1961, largely as a result of a very sizable proportion of rear end collisions involving trucks, the Commission revised completely its truck lighting requirements. We adopted as a part of this program a requirement for simultaneous flashing lamps,

both at the rear and the front of the vehicles to be used as hazard warnings when they were broken down or otherwise disabled. This matter had for some time been incorporated in the Uniform Vehicle Code on a permissive basis, but our rules made it mandatory for the first time.

This is an example, sir, of the type of safety device which serves a valuable and vital purpose, especially as our speeds become very much increased and the need exists for as much warning as possible if things go wrong. That is one illustration of the type of thing that might very well be incorporated with respect to all vehicles.

Senator RIBICOFF. What does that flashing device cost? Do you have any idea?

Mr. Cox. I would estimate, sir, about $6, roughly. This is not a carefully checked figure. I am sure it could be installed for less than $8 or $9.

Senator RIBICOFF. If it came with the car and was put in the car as standard equipment when it was being manufactured, would it cost a lot less?

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. Probably in the range of $3 or less. This is an estimate, sir.

Senator RIBICOFF. What do you think a clock costs that is put in a car, a clock that doesn't work?

Mr. Cox. I have heard so much on that this morning that I begin to wonder how much mine cost. I am sure it is a great deal more than this other useful device. I would hesitate to make a guess without checking but it is obviously more expensive than such a device as this I have just mentioned.

COMPARISON OF SAFETY RECORDS OF REGULATED AND

UNREGULATED TRUCKS

Senator RIBICOFF. Do you have any way of comparing the safety records of the regulated as against the unregulated trucks?

Mr. Cox. No dependable way, sir. For many years the Commission has required reporting of accidents by regulated carriers, those subject to economic regulation. We never have done this with respect to private carriers. We get very few reports from haulers of so-called exempt commodities, so I do not have a sound basis upon which to make such a response. But I would say on the basis of a sizable number of investigations we have made that conditions which germinate and blossom into some serious accidents seem to be very pronounced in the unregulated area.

INSPECTION OF SERIOUS ACCIDENTS AND FOLLOWUP

Senator RIBICOFF. What do you do when you have a large bus in interstate commerce that is involved in an accident or a bad truck crash? Do you send a special inspector to see what took place?

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. As Chairman Webb's statement says, we make about 400 thorough investigations each year from the more serious cases. With respect to those that teach a lesson to be applied by the industry generally we develop-and if the Commission approves it, publish a report for informational, stimulating, and educational

encouragement purposes, and if we find conditions, of course, that can be remedied by regulatory proposals, we follow up on them.

Senator RIBICOFF. Have you issued any new regulations in the last few years as a result of the findings in these reports?

Mr. Cox. Yes, we have. I think the most notable item in this area stems from the fact that some years ago we were plagued, the country was, with a very severe run of runaway truck accidents. One occurred on the streets of San Francisco, on Nob Hill, and killed a number of people. Another one of very serious nature occurred in this little town of Liberty, N.J., and there was another one in Cumberland, Md.

As a result of our investigation of those cases, we initiated a rulemaking proceeding-we did this, by the way, with the cooperation of the regulated industry-and adopted a rule which became effective in 1957 requiring additional means of brake application on tractor-trailer combinations. This requirement, we are convinced, has substantially contributed to a reduction, at least, of the problem.

The requirement has been incorporated in the Uniform Vehicle Code, and it has been adopted by the regulatory commissions of a very sizable number of States.

Senator RIBICOFF. Would you please, Commissioner Webb, file for the record your findings and reports for the last 5 years. Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir; we would be glad to.

Senator RIBICOFF. What I would also be interested to have for the record, if it isn't too complex or complicated, is regulations and requirements of the Interstate Commerce Commission coming into effect as a result of investigations and findings of various types of accidents. I think it could be important and very informative for the committee to see its applicability to the automobile industry.

Mr. WEBB. Yes; we can supply you with a number of examples, and we will.

EXHIBIT 28

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION: EXAMPLES OF MOTOR CARRIER ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

MOTOR CARRIER ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION

REPORT NO. 73

Accident of Aug. 10, 1962, on U. S. Highway 22-30 in Pittsburgh, Pa., involving collision of a tractorsemitrailer combination, owned and driven by Joseph R. Schultz, and operated by Conley Motor Express, Inc., of Pittsburgh, with two passenger automobiles.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

MOTOR CARRIER BOARD NO. 2:

At 1:50 p.m., on that date, the combination

vehicle, hereinafter referred to as the "truck", in extremely unsafe mechanical condition and driven by a man whose license was under suspension, went out of control, swerved into the opposing traffic lanes, and collided with two automobiles.

The accident resulted in the death of the driver of one automobile, the extremely serious injury of her four year old son, the less serious injury of the driver of the other automobile, and property damage estimated at $10,000.

17

Authority to issue and release motor carrier accident investigation reports was delegated to Motor Carrier Board No. 2 by Commission order dated Feb. 7, 1961.