leasing damages the transportation structure by reducing safety, having questionable insurance and illusory savings. All of these articles point out the continuing growth and tremendous amount of commodities carried by illegal motor carriers.

(8) A recent decision of a three-judge Federal district court of Florida on June 10, 1959, in the Robert Allen MC-C-2132 specifically illustrates the lack of adequate Federal definitions with regard to modern-day leasing practices of motor vehicles. (9) A recent meeting in the State of Florida on September 16, 1960, by members of both the railroad and trucking industry "to formulate plans to combat a mutual enemy, the illegal freight transporter."

(10) The recent formation of a special committee on enforcement by the American Trucking Associations on October 11, 1960, for the purpose of "how to effectively combat the losses of traffic being suffered by regulated motor carriers because of illegal operations."

(11) The factual situation with regard to the lack of uniformity on State laws and enforcement and suggestions to combat the same disclosed by the annual report of the National Conference of State Transportation Specialists (a subdivision of NARUC) made at Las Vegas, Nev., November 28, 1959.

(12) The Transportation Association of America is presently engaged in making a survey of users, investors, and carriers for the purpose of issuing an educational brochure on the illegal transportation problems.

These events have brought forcibly to national attention the tremendous amount of illegal traffic carried to the serious financial detriment of the authorized carriers. This in turn tends to emphasize the disparities in present transportation laws and to point up the lack of uniformity and undue delays in reaching a final decision under the present Interstate Commerce Act to a great extent defeats the primary purpose of enforcement. There is an old saying "Justice delayed is justice defeated." The current thinking of the transportation industry is enforcement delayed is enforcement defeated. There is a common saying in the industry that under present interstate enforcement programs an unauthorized motor carrier can carry out his illegal transportation activities in interstate commerce for a period of 5 years before he may be forced to cease and desist.

3. Safety regulation

Safety regulation of motor carriers is concerned with (1) the operating condition of, and safety equipment on, the vehicle and (2) the qualifications and working conditions affecting the driver. Although vehicles and vehicle operators engage in regulated, private or exempt carriage in interstate commerce are subject to the safety regulations of the Interstate Commerce Act, the public interest in enforcement of safety regulation in highway transportation has meaning for all highway users whether or not subject to economic regulation. Motor-vehicle accidents continue to rank among the leading causes of death in the United States.97

Special attention is invited to the 1959 report of the Secretary of Commerce, "The Federal Role in Highway Safety" (86th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. 93).

Major safety problems unique to interstate carriers of property include

(1) Flagrant violations of permissible hours of service;

(2) Movement of heavy, bulky freight, as well as cryogenic, explosive, or other hazardous materials, without adequate safety precautions;

(3) Accidental separation of trailers from tractors on the highways;

(4) Insufficient attention to minimum standards of vehicle maintenance, which leads to such accident-productive conditions as brake and tire failures and breakdowns of fuel systems and suspension mechanisms, and

(5) Nonuniformity of rear safety lights.

An ICC safety road check made during May 1960, illustrates the gravity of the lack of continuous and adequate enforcement applicable to interstate carriers of property. This test covered 10,693 power units, including trucks and tractor-trailer combinations. Of this total, 1,212 units (or 11.3 percent) were found unsafe to continue operation and were declared out of service until repaired, principally because of serious defects in some part of the brake systems. More than 19 percent of all units inspected had five or more equipment defects reported. Of 5,534 authorized carriers checked, 2,381 (or 43 percent) had 2 or more defects reported. Of 3,594 private carriers checked, 2,110 (61.5 percent) had 2 or more equipment defects. Of 912 "exempt" carriers, 664 (72.8 percent) had 2 or more defects reported. Of 570 vehicles not classified, 420 (or 73.7 percent) had 2 or more defects reported. Although the ICC report of this safety check discloses substantial improvement, over previous years, in the maintenance of equipment by motor carriers holding ICC operating authority, and some improvement by private carriers, it shows a less favorable record for carriers of "exempt" commodities.

The Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission has provided additional information to show that unregulated carriers may have a poorer safety record than regulated carriers. In that State, due to their low accident rate, certificated motor carriers pay only 50 percent of the current rate paid by unregulated carriers for workmen's compensation insurance.

Although precise details are not available to identify the carrier category (regulated, private or exempt) of trucks involved, accident experience on the New Jersey Turnpike from 1952 through 1957 shows that trucks were involved in 1,508 of 6,048 (25 percent) reported accidents. These truck accidents were above average severity since trucks were represented in 39 percent of the fatal accidents and 43 percent of the fatalities. Trucks also were involved in an abnormally high percentage (30 percent) of rear-end collisions, or 846 out of 2,805 accidents of this type. The accident rate for trucks on this turnpike for this period was 70 percent higher than that of passenger cars.

A more recent survey of accidents on the New Jersey Turnpike indicates that out of 35 fatal accidents between January 1, 1959, and September 30, 1960, 19 involved trucks. According to the summary reports examined, these 19 accidents involved a total of 32 trucks, 10 passenger cars, 1 bus, and 1 pedestrian.

Further evidence as to highway safety hazards found among interstate motor carriers was recently detected in a sample safety inspection of vehicles conducted cooperatively by the Pennsylvania State Turnpike Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission. In its first inspection of vehicles operating on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in that road's 20-year history, during October 30, 31, and November 1, 1960, the ICC spot checked 1,000 vehicles by audio and visual methods to determine possible irregularities. These included only vehicles which stopped at various service areas on the turnpike. No effort was made to determine the number of vehicles which did not stop at any of these service areas.

Based upon those spot checks, it made detailed inspections of 213 vehicles; with 116 of them belonging to authorized carriers; 40 to private carriers; 20 to exempt carriers; and 29 to carriers whose status has not yet been definitely established. Of the 213 vehicles inspected, 115 (or 52 percent) were declared out of service as being too hazardous to operate on the public highways. These included 67 vehicles (or 58 percent) of the authorized carriers; 23 vehicles (or 48 percent) of the private carriers; 10 vehicles (or 50 percent) of the exempt carriers; and 15 vehicles (or 52 percent) of the carriers in unknown status.

Of the 213 vehicles inspected, 94 had 4 or more defects. There also were 176 violations of hours-of-service regulations and 38 violations of medical certificate requirements. Aside from safety enforcement, there were 30 instances of suspected unauthorized transportation.

Although the foregoing findings obviously are inconclusive on the question as to whether regulated or unregulated motor carriers have a poorer safety record, they definitely show that a great many motor carriers operating on the highways unnecessarily jeopardize public safety. From the standpoint of the overall public interest, even strict enforcement of safety regulation of interstate motor carriers would fall short of present needs. Nor should a safety enforcement program be directed against them unless concurrent action is taken regarding all other highway users. Such overall action cannot be achieved under present conditions because, for example, 33 States have no requirement for a periodic safety inspection of the vehicles registered therein. Similarly, although there is a growing concern among public officials responsible for highway safety for the number of accidents that are being attributed to use of substandard brake fluid, current reports show that 22 States do not presently regulate the specifications for this important product.99

4. Summary

98

The laws under which the ICC operates at present are often indefinite, ambiguous, inadequate, and ineffective when measured against the goal of effective law enforcement. Some specific obstacles to enforcement under the Interstate Commerce Act are as follows:

(1) The lack of authority of Interstate Commerce Commission field personnel to make arrests.

See exhibit 4, this chapter, p. 545.

See exhibit 5. During the closing days of the 86th Cong., Representative Kenneth A. Roberts introduced H.R. 13038, a bill to establish Federal safety standards for motor vehicle brake fluids to eliminate a very serious highway safety hazard.

(2) Inability of field personnel to adequately prosecute violators because of the requirements of section 222a of the Interstate Act which requires proof of knowing and willful violation before the illegal operator may be convicted.

(3) Effective law enforcement oftentimes is frustrated by lack of sufficient evidence because the Federal statutes do not give investigators authority to examine books, records, documents, and papers of shippers or of carriers who do not hold interstate authority.

(4) Failure of the present act to give modern definitions of such necessary terms as "motor carrier," "common carrier," "contract carrier," or "lease of motor vehicle" which obviously need defining in the light of present-day transportation customs and practices.

(5) Continuous change both by addition and deletion to the list of "exempt commodities" under section 203b of the Interstate Commerce Act. Without arguing the merits of this list of exemptions, it is obvious that frequent changes of exemptions complicate effective enforcement of any type.

(6) Lack of clear jurisdiction under the present law for the personnel of the Interstate Commerce Commission to freely furnish and interchange pertinent, material, transportation facts, information, and evidence with proper State regulatory bodies where a violation of law exists or is suspected.

As is true of the Interstate Commerce Act, the several State agencies responsible for economic or safety regulation of motor carriers also have statutory problems with regard to indefinite and inadequate statutes. The most practical problems which hinder efficient enforcement of motor carrier laws on the intrastate level are―

(1) Lack of uniformity of the various State laws.

(2) Failure of some of State laws to include specific paragraphs necessary for efficient law enforcement such as powers of arrest, registration of interstate authority, authority to inspect books and records, and ability to prosecute shippers for aiding and abetting.

(3) Failure of some States to employ qualified enforcement personnel.

(4) Inability of some States at present to meet the financial burden of an adequate enforcement program.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Enforce economic and safety regulation or rescind the laws. In the belief that the public interest requires economic and safety regulation of motor carrier transportation we recommend that an effective enforcement program, applicable to interstate and intrastate motor carriers, be developed cooperatively by the Federal and State Governments and the motor carrier industry. Enforcement of highway safety should be broad enough to embrace all highway users.

As a preferable alternative to a strong Federal enforcement agency, this cooperative program should be administered by State agencies with only such minimal Federal guidance and oversight as is essential

to achieve uniform and efficient enforcement of all motor carrier laws. concerned with economic and safety regulation. The program should include the following major areas:

(a) Amendments to Interstate Commerce Act.-Amending part II of the Interstate Commerce Act with special reference to the following points:

(1) Adopting modern definitions of "motor carrier," "common carrier," "contract carrier," and other definition changes necessary to cover buy-and-sell arrangements and present-day leasing customs and practices including requirement for carrying of truecopy of lease in cab for inspection;

(2) Granting State regulatory agencies, with concurrence of the State legislature, authority to enforce this part of the act and all rules and regulations pertaining thereto, including authority to require registration of vehicles in interstate commerce and identification of vehicles in private carriage;

(3) Extending powers of arrest to Federal and State investigators;

(4) Granting U.S. commissioners and State and local courts concurrent jurisdiction, with Federal courts, over trial of civil or criminal violations;

(5) Amending section 222a of the act to permit prosecution and conviction of a carrier without proof of the scienter in the violation, thus holding the violator to the presumption of his knowledge of the existence of the law as in other crimes committed in the conduct of a person's business or profession, extending criminal penalties to shippers who knowingly participate in such violations;

(6) Granting authority to Federal and State officials to examine books, documents, and papers of carriers who do not hold interstate or intrastate authority and users of such carriers and to interchange information between Federal and State regulatory bodies in aid of enforcement;

(7) Requiring uniform bill of lading or other shipping document in vehicle available for inspection. Requiring proof of ownership of vehicle in vehicle; and

(8) Reducing list of exempt commodities.

(b) Establishment of informational clearing house.-Establishing a clearinghouse by the appropriate Federal agency, at a central location for the collection and dissemination of pertinent motor carrier information for the benefit and use of all regulatory bodies. A precedent for such a clearinghouse can be found in the act of July 14, 1960(Public Law 86-660), which directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish and maintain a register of persons whose State vehicle operating licenses have been revoked because they violated certain laws (drunken driving or loss of life attributable to violation of highway safety code). The two functions should be combined.

While recognizing that certain objections exist to Federal financing of State policing activities, if enforcement of Federal economic and safety regulation compromises the ability of any State to finance its own enforcement programs, a suitable method should be devised to permit Federal assistance to such State.

71512-61--36