his employees. He may need to know about recent regulations governing the transportation of farmworkers. He will need to understand State regulations and in some instances Federal regulations concerning the grading, quality and marketing of the products he produces. He should be familiar with Federal price support and adjustment programs affecting the production and marketing of his products.

In the maze of regulatory measures, the farmer who does not unintentionally violate some law or regulation from time to time is exceptional.

Against this background we are opposed to one more regulation, one more requirement-particularly so when it serves no more useful purpose than is proposed by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the present instance.

The Commission's proposal must be weighed against the fact that State highway departments and other State authorities exercise substantial police power in highway safety matters. The total influence of State authority on practices of local truck operators far exceeds anything the ICC does or feasibly can do. Most truckdrivers will be contacted by State authority a hundred times for each time Federal authority relating to safety practices reaches them. In terms of reality and practicality major reliance must be placed upon State and local authority to further effective safety measures.

The hostility of the Commission to the agricultural exemption of section 203 (b) of the Interstate Commerce Act is clear and well documented. We believe it at least conceivable that the authority in S. 1490 would be used to the extent feasible as a means of discouraging exempt haulage or as a means of acquiring data to be used to further the Commission's long-run objective of narrowing the exemption.

We appreciate the opportunity of presenting the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation to this committee.

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL PAINT, VARNISH AND LACQUER ASSOCIATION, INC. The National Paint, Varnish and Lacquer Association, Inc., with headquarters at 1500 Rhode Island Avenue NW., Washington, D. C., is a voluntary nonprofit industry association originally organized in 1888 and comprising today approximately 1,200 members, who are engaged in the manufacture and distribution of paint, varnish, lacquer, and allied products, or of the materials used in such manufacture, and who, collectively, produce about 90 percent of the total national volume of paint, varnish, lacquer, and allied products. They employ all modes of transportation and many operate as private carriers by motor vehicle in interstate and foreign commerce and transport throughout the United States articles within the coverage of the proposed legislation.

The association appreciates the privilege afforded it and the industry to file this statement with your subcommittee. We are of the opinion that the amendments proposed by these bills are unnecessary, would not in any way enhance safety on our highways and would create many problems for the businessmen who operate private trucks in conjunction with their businesses. It is for these reasons that we are impelled to file this statement.

S. 1490 proposes to amend part II of the Interstate Commerce Act to require the filing of statements by motor carriers heretofore subject only to the safety and hours of service regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The information to be filed consists of the name of the carrier, the location or principal address of the carrier, and the number of vehicles owned or operated. We fail to see how the collection of such statistical information can in any way achieve the stated purpose of insuring adequate knowledge of the rules and regulations and promoting compliance therewith. The only result will be to impose the burden of making reports to the ICC on every private truck owner who may, even if only occasionally, make a delivery across State lines. submit that this burden should not be imposed on private truck carriers, that no useful purpose will be served and that therefore this bill should not be acted upon favorably.

We

S. 1491 proposes to amend sections 831-835 of the Transportation of Explosives Act, chapter 39, title 18 of United States Code, so as to extend application of the statute to private and contract carriers. To subject private carriers to the same labeling, packing, and marking requirements as are presently applicable on articles tendered to a common carrier is completely unrealistic. A paint manufacturer transporting liquids which may be covered by the act, from his plant to his own warehouse via his own trucks would be required to package, merk and label in compliance with rules and regulations designed for common carriers.

A paint manufacturer who received raw materials in bulk at a warehouse point would have to comply with these same packaging, marking, and labeling requirements when he transported the raw materials in his trucks to his plant for processing.

The resulting hardships and increased costs should not be imposed on American business and the consuming public when no useful purpose can be served.

Further, section 834 would penalize any infringement of the ICC regulations, whether knowingly or unknowingly committed. Any inadvertent omission of detail in the type of shipments referred to above would subject the persons involved to fine or imprisonment. This is an extremely severe and completely unwarranted treatment of American industry.

We believe the proposed legislation has been too hastily drafted without consideration of the realities of manufacturing and business practices, without a realization of the severity of the penalty sections, and without a clear conception of the possible achievement of the stated purposes.

We firmly believe, for the reasons stated above, that the proposed legislation should not be acted upon favorably.

STATEMENT OF THE VEGETABLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

I am Joseph S. Shelly, secretary of the Vegetable Growers Association of America. The Vegetable Growers Association of America is the only national association of vegetable growers with 42 affiliated associations, having members in 30 States. We appreciate this opportunity of appearing before your committee to voice our opposition to S. 1490.

We consider this Interstate Commerce Commission inspired amendment to section 226 wholly unwarranted and unnecessary and contrary to the best interests of vegetable growers and the consuming public. Let me point out now and make it clear that vegetable growers are not opposed to improving safety conditions on our highways. We are, however, opposed and concerned about the pericious use of safety regulations as a means by which the Interstate Commerce Commission can further spread its hostile bureaucracy upon the exempt carrier.

Let us put the Interstate Commerce Commission's justification statement, submitted with this proposed legislation, to the Chairman of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Commission in its proper context.

Section 226 of the Motor Carrier Act says, "The Commission is hereby authorized to investigate and report on the need for Federal regulation of the sizes and weight of motor vehicles and combinations of motor vehicles and of the qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of all motor carriers and private carriers of property by motor vehicle; and in such investigation the Commission shall avail itself of the assistance of all departments or bureaus of the Government and of any organization of motor carriers having special knowledge of any such matter."

Let me emphasize the words "authorized to investigate and report on the need for Federal regulation ***” Now, let me quote from the justification statement: "Although no data have been accumulated it has been recognized that many serious accidents are traceable to ignorance or disregard of the Commission's regulation by such carriers." This admits that no investigation has been made, nor can I find any confirmation of a study from any other department of the Government. This statement indicates that the Commission has not followed the intent of Congress in that it has not made any investigation of the condition it claims exist. Such a statement, when considered in light of the Commission's attitude, and discriminating action towards exempt haulers, is malicious and contradictory.

The Commission implies in its statement that exempt haulers are the only carriers involved in highway accidents. Similar accident cases may be found among the regulated carriers.

The truth and the key of this request is contained in this sentence: "At present the Commission has no way of knowing who those carriers are" (exempt earriers). This is what the Commission really wants, an opening wedge to extend its regulatory powers to the exempt haulers. The Commission has opposed exemption of agricultural haulers ever since the Motor Carrier Act was written in 1935. This attitude has been expressed in numerous regulations issued by

the Commission. Its opposition to trip leasing legislation passed during the 84th session of the Congress after pending for a period of 3 years is another incident of its biased attitude.

Its desire to control exempt haulers is expressed in statement No. 5, in the Commission's 70th Annual Report on page 162: "We recommend that section 203 (b) (6) be amended so as to limit the exemption of motor vehicles transporting agricultural commodities, fish, and livestock to transportation from point of production to primary market."

There are several reasons why the Vegetable Growers Association of America is opposed to exempt hauler regulation. Vegetable growers are recognized for their policy of producing important food commodities without the assistance of the United States Treasury. What appears as an innocent statement, and here again permit me to quote the Interstate Commerce Commission, "The proposed measure does not contemplate the filing of elaborate reports," usually has a way of pyramiding into longer reports, larger staffs, more office space, larger budgets. One of the greatest and most frequent complaints received from vegetable growers is the continued imposition of the Federal Government in requiring more and longer reports. Vegetable growers share the bottom position of the economic totem pole with other agricultural groups. Their operations are diversified and intensive, requiring heavy capital investments. The highly seasonal and perishable nature of their operations requires the employment of a large number of workers. The vegetable growing business is very technical. All of these aspects of the industry are not without their records. It is this type of bureaucracy with its increase in taxes which annually liquidates a large number of family farms. When do these people complete their records? After the day's field operation which usually ends at dusk, following the evening meal when most other persons are enjoying the relaxation of their living rooms. Vegetable growers do not have large clerical staffs to whom this work can be delegated.

If previous activities of the Commission are any criteria of its dilatory and time consuming procedures, the innumerable delays in approving applications will result in utter confusion and economic ruin to the highly perishable vegetable industry. The cost of such injustifiable delays hindering the movement of perishable vegetables will mean lower returns to the growers and higher prices to the

consumer.

This association opposes such regulation because many of its members haul their own produce to market in their own trucks. In such markets as New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Chicago, St. Louis, to name but a few, many growers must cross State lines. Under this proposed legislation these farmers would be subject to registration, "merely to receive information and educational material to promote better compliance, and thereby help reduce the number of accidents on the Nation's highways." Such a request is utterly ridiculous.

It is a matter of commonsense that a man who has invested thousands of dollars in a truck will not wontedly go down the Nation's highway disregarding all safety rules and regulations, capriciously destroying property and killing persons as the Commission seems to imply. Mere registration of a vehicle with the Interstate Commerce Commission will not necessarily produce safe drivers. May I also point out that these exempt haulers engaged in interstate traffic are subject to the safety regulations of the States within which their vehicles are registered and the State highway patrols of the States over which they travel. If the Commission is so vitally concerned about safety regulations, I assure you that the Vegetable Growers Association of America, and I am certain the other leading farm and commodity organizations, will cooperate with the Commission in disseminating necessary and practical safety information. I am confident that the results will be more effective than by additional forms and fine print to the already burdensome regulations.

We solicit your support in disapproving this malicious and mandatory registration which can mean only more burdensome regulation for agriculture.

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF JOHN V. LAWRENCE, MANAGING DIRECTOR AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.

We do, however, have several comments with respect to certain provisions in this bill. (S. 1491)

In section 832 (a), page 3, lines 18–21 The use of the term "high explosives" is incorrect. They probably mean dangerous explosives. In the list of high ex

91289-57-21

plosives they show black powder which the ICC does not class as a high explosive. They also show blasting caps and detonating fuzes, which are sometimes classed as high explosives and other times are not, depending on quantity. The term "gunpowder" is archaic and no such explosive is listed by the ICC. It was, at one time synonymous with black powder but today it could refer to any number of explosives, some of them high explosives, others not. As used here it would be a so-called low explosive.

In section 834 (e), page 7, lines 18-19, the inclusion of "The Bureau for the Safe Transportation of Explosives and Other Dangerous Articles” is not justified on several grounds.

(a) Since lines 19 and 20 say "utilize the services of carrier and shipper associations", the mentioning of only one such association is redundant and discriminates against other associations.

(b) That "Bureau" is not identified as being a part of the Association of American Railroads.

(c) That "Bureau" has assumed that the mere mentioning of its name in the act has not only given the ICC merely power to utilize its services but also has given it power to suggest practically all revisions in the regulations including those involving motor carriers.

In section 832 (a) the carrying of certain dangerous articles in passenger carrying vehicles must be performed knowingly if violation is to be shown.

In section 832(b) the carrying of nitroglycerin and similarly dangerous explosives, or radioactive materials, or etiologic agents must be performed knowingly if violation is to be shown. In section 833 violators of the Commission's regulation either shippers or carriers, with respect to proper marking and billing must knowingly do so.

In section 834(f), however, violation of the regulations (which are to be binding on all shippers and carriers and which cover packing, marking, loading, handling while in transit, etc.) is not required to be performed knowingly.

Chairman Clarke of the Interstate Commerce Commission, appearing before the Senate committee on S. 1491, stated "* **we believe that a person standing in responsible relation to a public danger should be charged with the knowledge that certain rules and regulations exist for the furtherance of safety, and that a plea of ignorance of the law should not permit him to escape responsibility. To further explain this point, we feel that to remove the word 'knowingly' from all sections of the act would place too great a burden upon the carriers. Any type of explosive could be delivered to him under false marking or billing, and without the word 'knowingly' in the statute, he would be at the mercy of any irresponsible shipper. However, where the knowledge goes to the existence of rules and regulations rather than to the commodity carried, the test should be different. A carrier should know of the existence of such rules and regulations, otherwise he should not be engaging in an activity which places both persons and property in jeopardy. We believe that knowledge of the existence of rules and regulations governing the transportation of such commodities, and an understanding of them, are vital to the protection of employees, carriers, and the public in general."

As this bill is drafted we suggest the possibility that a carrier who had received from a shipper a small shipment of dangerous articles not described as such and who unknowingly carried them might very well run afoul of section 834(f) when, without knowing the nature of the shipment he violated the Commission's regulation in any way.

We strongly suggest that this confusion be cleared up before final enactment of S. 1491.

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS,
Washington, D. C., March 29, 1957.

The Honorable GEORGE A. SMATHERS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Senate Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SENATOR SMATHERS: The attached supplementary statement with respect
to S. 1492 is submitted by the Association of American Railroads on behalf of its
members pursuant to leave granted at the hearing on this and other bills held
on March 21, 1957.

At the hearing, members of the subcommittee evidenced interest in the relationship of the penalties that would be increased by sections 1 and 3 of S. 1492 to the decrease in the value of money that has taken place since the existing

penalties were first enacted. The supplementary statement makes the point that if this is considered the subcommittee should also consider the decrease over the same period in the incidence of the casualties those penalties were designed to help prevent.

Copies of this letter and the attachment are being sent to each member of the subcommittee and to the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is hereby requested that this letter and the attached statement be made a part of the record of the hearings on S. 1492.

Respectfully,

EDWARD G. HOWARD,
General Attorney.

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF EDWARD G. HOWARD, GENERAL ATTORNEY, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

Sections 1 and 3 of S. 1492 would increase from $100 to $500 the mandatory penalty for violations of the Safety Appliance Acts and the Locomotive Inspection Act.

The penalty provisions of the Safety Appliance Acts became law in 1893 and 1910, respectively, and the Locomotive Inspection Act in 1911. One reason advanced in support of the bill is that the value of money has decreased since these penalties were established, so that they no longer have the same deterrent effect that Congress intended them to have. Consumer price indices show that the dollar in 1893 had about 4 times its present value and in 1910-11 about 3 times its present value.

If the penalties are to be revised so as to have the same effect today as in 1893 or 1911, changes in the magnitude of the harm to be deterred thereby are just as significant as changes in the value of the money in which the penalties are expressed. Any amendment of these fines that took into consideration only one of these factors would result in distortion.

The available statistics show that the decrease in railroad casualties from all causes since 1893 has been marked. Since 1911, the decrease in casualties directly caused by locomotive failures has more than kept pace with the decreasing value of the dollar.

In 1893 1 trainman in every 115 on duty was killed and 1 in every 10 on duty was injured. In 1955, by contrast, only 1 in 1,897 was killed an 1 in 27 injured. See statement 4, appendix A, ICC Accident Bulletin No. 124. Since 1893, therefore, the railroads' injury record as respects trainmen has improved by about 21⁄2 times and the fatality record by about 16 times. In 1893, 2.10 passengers were killed and 22.69 were injured per 100 million pasenger miles; whereas in 1955, on a comparable basis, the corresponding figures were 0.08 and 7.90 per 100 million passenger miles. See statement 1, Accident Bulletin cited above, and ICC Annual Transport Statistics. It is clear from these statistics that the operation of railroads today is very much safer than when the first of the Safety Appliance Acts were enacted. Total fatalities are more than 10 times fewer now than in 1893.

The foregoing are overall statistics and do not relate directly to the kinds of defects encompassed by the Safety Appliance Acts. Such direct statistics are available, however, with respect to the defects sought to be reached by the Locomotive Inspection Act passed in 1911. Exhibit 3 attached to my prepared statement submitted to the subcommittee on March 21 demonstrates graphically that the improvement in railroad safety respecting the very defects to which the $100 penalty relates has been very great. In fiscal 1912 there were 1,096 casualties caused by locomotive failures and 856 accidents from that cause. In fiscal 1956 casualties were down to 83 and accidents to 73. Here again the decrease has been more than tenfold.

It follows, therefore, that if the penalty for violations of the Locomotive Inspection Act is to be mathematically adjusted in the manner suggested by the Commission, so that it will today be the equivalent of what it was in 1911, it should be multiplied by 3 (to allow for the depreciation of the dollar) and then divided by 10 (to reflect the decrease in accidents and casaulties resulting from the locomotive defects contemplated by the act). This reasoning suggests that the penalty should today be about $30 rather than $100; and that the proposed increase to $500 would be unjustified.

The railroad industry does not ask that the penalties in question should thus be decreased. It does believe that these considerations prove the proposed inincreases in penalties contained in sections 1 and 3 of S. 1492 to be wholly without warrant.