Page images
PDF
EPUB

carrier. At any given time in the same circumstances a truck operated by a private carrier is as likely to be involved in an accident as a truck operated by a for-hire carrier. No good reason was suggested, and none can be perceived, why the same regulations governing maximum hours of service of drivers and safety of operation and standards of equipment of motor vehicles should not be made applicable to all types of carriers. As has been pointed out, this is not the situation under the laws and regulations of the several States, and this is primarily due to the fact that the State laws do not authorize the regulatory commissions and officers to impose as strict regulations on private carriers as on for-hire carriers. In many instances the utility commissions of the States have no jurisdiction whatever over private carriers. The necessity for applying the same type of regulations to private carriers as are applied to carriers for-hire, and the failure of the States to do so, are strong if not conclusive factors leading to the conclusion that there is need for Federal regulation of private carriers of property to promote safety of operation.

As pointed out above, 28 States do not in any way regulate the maximum hours of service of drivers employed by private carriers of property. Long hours of driving which are dangerous per se are prevalent in the private-carrier industry. The laws of some States permit boys as young as 16 years of age to drive trucks on the busy highways of the country, and many States permit boys under 21 years of age to do so. Few, if any, of the States require a driver of a private truck to pass a physical examination demonstrating, among other things, that he has good eyesight.

To find on this record that there is no need for Federal regulation of private carriers of property to promote the safety of operation and to that end prescribe qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees and standards of equipment, would be to recognize that the practices existing in the industry and permitted by the laws of the several States are safe. Many of such practices are clearly unsafe, and, as they are permitted by the laws of the several States, the record not only justifies but requires a finding that there is need for Federal regulation. We so find.

REGULATIONS

As stated above, by our report and order in Ex Parte No. MC-2 we prescribed maximum hours of service for drivers employed by common and contract carriers in the transportation of passengers and property in interstate and foreign commerce. By our reports and orders in Ex Parte No. MC-4, we prescribed rules and regulations governing qualifications of drivers, safety of operation, and

standards of equipment applicable to common and contract carriers engaged in interstate and foreign commerce. These regulations, by formal notice and otherwise, were called to the attention of all witnesses appearing in this case with the request that testimony be introduced as to what changes, if any, should be made in such regulations to make them reasonably applicable to the operations of private carriers of property. Unfortunately, the majority of the witnesses paid no attention to this important phase of the matter and dealt solely with the question of whether or not in their opinion there is need for Federal regulation. Certain private carriers did, however, submit testimony as to changes which should be made in the regulations referred to above in order that they might be reasonable for private carriers of property. Such evidence will now be discussed.

FARM TRUCKS

Wherever the term "farm trucks" is used in this report it means motor vehicles controlled and operated by any farmer and used in the transportation of his agricultural commodities and products thereof or in the transportation of supplies to his farm. Section 203 (b) (4a). A very large number of the trucks operated by private carriers of property are farm trucks. Evidence was submitted to the effect that approximately 25 percent of all the commercial vehicles registered in the several States are farm trucks. If this estimate be reasonably accurate, then approximately 1,000,000 trucks are so engaged. The evidence is overwhelming that a very large number of commercial vehicles are owned and operated by the farmers of the country. The evidence is also clear that under the same traffic and road conditions trucks of the same size present the same hazard to safety irrespective of ownership. The farm trucks, however, are generally operated under conditions very different from those under which the trucks of common, contract, and private carriers, engaged in the ordinary types of transportation, are operated. Farm trucks are used to a very large extent in transporting property from one place on a farm to another, and in this type of operation the truck does not travel over the public highways. Of course, these farm trucks are also used to transport products of the farm to market. Generally speaking, this is not a year-round operation, and to a large extent it is confined to the harvest season. When transporting products from the farm to market, the farm trucks to a large extent use country roads on which traffic is relatively light. The market towns, however, are located on the main highways, and farm trucks which transport property from the farm to market use such highways to some extent. The extent of such use is, however, small compared to the use of the main highways by the trucks oper

ated by common and contract carriers and by private carriers engaged in the general types of transportation. The primary and generally the sole business of for-hire carriers is that of transportation. Every effort is made to keep the trucks constantly in use, and beyond doubt the average yearly mileage is many times that of the farm truck. Moreover, the operations of the for-hire carriers are principally over the main highways of the country and over the city streets where traffic is heavy and the exposure to accidents is great. The operations of the delivery trucks of private carriers of property resemble much more closely the operations of the for-hire trucks than they do the operations of the farm trucks. A manufacturer or a distributor does not, as a rule, operate motor vehicles in the transportation of property unless the volume of business justifies the constant use of such motor vehicles. The great majority of private carriers of property, other than the farmers, operate on the main highways of the country and frequently in the heavy city traffic.

The number of accidents in which any given vehicle is likely to be involved depends to a large degree upon its exposure to conditions productive of accidents. The number of miles a vehicle is operated in a given period, the roads over which it is operated, and traffic density on such roads are important factors in accident frequency.

While the laws of every State regulate the operation of motor vehicles to a greater or less extent, the State legislatures have not deemed it wise in most instances to subject the farm trucks to the same restrictions as other trucks. Such laws have been challenged frequently as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but have been uniformly upheld by the State and Federal courts as a reasonable exercise of legislative discretion based primarily upon the different circumstances surrounding the operation of farm trucks which have been indicated above.

Typical of this line of decisions is that of the Supreme Court in Continental Baking Company v. Woodring, 286 U. S. 352. This case arose under a Kansas statute which among other things imposed a duty on the Kansas commission to insist that motor vehicles be maintained "in a safe and sanitary condition," to prescribe qualifications of operators as to age and hours of service, and to require the reporting of accidents. The statute also laid a tax upon motor vehicles for the use of the highways of the State. The statute contained certain exemptions, one of which applied to "the transportation of livestock and farm products to market by the owner thereof or supplies for his own use in his own motor vehicle."

The constitutionality of the statute was challenged on the ground that exemptions, such as the one referred to, violated the equal pro

tection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. On this point, the court said (at page 372):

The exemption runs only to one who is carrying his own livestock and farm products to market or supplies for his own use in his own motor vehicle. In sustaining the exemption, the District Court referred to the factual basis for the distinction. "The legislature knew," said the court, "that as a matter of fact farm products are transported to town by the farmer, or by a non-exempt 'contract carrier' employed by him. The legislature knew that as a matter of fact the use of the highways for the transportation of farm products by the owner is casual and infrequent and incidental; farmers use the highways to transport their products to market ordinarily but a few times a year. The legislature rightly concluded that the use of the highways for carrying home his groceries in his own automobile is adequately compensated by the general tax imposed on all motor vehicles." 55 F. (2d) at p. 352. And the court properly excluded from consideration mere hypothetical and fanciful illustrations of possible discriminations which had no basis in the actual experience to which the statute was addressed. The court found a practical difference between the case of the appellants "who operate fleets of trucks in the conduct of their business and who use the highways daily in the delivery of their products to their customers," and that of "a farmer who hauls his wheat or livestock to town once or twice a year." The legislature in making its classification was entitled to consider frequency and character of use and to adapt its regulations to the classes of operations, which by reason of their habitual and constant use of the highways brought about the conditions making regulation imperative and created the necessity for the imposition of a tax for maintenance and reconstruction. As the Court said in Alward v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 509, 513, 514: “The distinction between property employed in conducting a business which requires constant and unusual use of the highways, and property not so employed, is plain enough." See, also, Bekins Van Lines v. Riley, 280 U. S. 80, 82; Carley & Hamilton v. Snook, 281 U. S. 66, 73.

This decision is precisely in point in the matter here under consideration. The exemption contained in the Kansas statute is almost identical with the exemption contained in section 203 (b) (4a) of the Motor Carrier Act and with the definition of farm trucks employed in this report. In the decision, the Supreme Court found that, because of the circumstances surrounding the operation of farm trucks, it was a reasonable exercise of legislative discretion for the Kansas legislature to relieve the farmers from the regulations and duties imposed upon for-hire carriers and other types of private carriers. In prescribing such regulations we exercise a quasilegislative function, and we may use our discretion in prescribing less stringent rules for farm trucks where this is justified by the circumstances and conditions surrounding their operation. For the reasons indicated, it is deemed unnecessary to prescribe as strict regulations for farm trucks as those already prescribed for motor vehicles operated by common and contract carriers or as those hereinafter prescribed for vehicles operated by other private carriers of property.

Representatives of certain farm associations of the country and individual farmers submitted testimony in this proceeding. The majority of such witnesses took the position that the farmers of the country were greatly interested in the matter of highway safety and that the operations of farm trucks should be subjected to reasonable regulation. They did not ask that the farm trucks be exempted from such regulations as we might prescribe, but merely that certain changes in such regulations be made to fit the special conditions of the farmers.

A. Twenty-one year age rule.-Rule 1.28 of the safety regulations promulgated by us for common and contract carriers, by order dated May 27, 1939, in Ex Parte No. MC-4, prohibits anyone under 21 years of age from driving a truck in interstate or foreign commerce. The witnesses representing the farmers all agreed that the farm boys generally operate the farm trucks. They pointed out that from an early age these boys perform work on the farm and frequently operate the motorized farm machinery. These witnesses were unanimous in expressing the opinion that the farm boy of 18 years of age or more, because of his training, is a strong self-reliant boy, familiar with machinery and capable of driving the small farm trucks. The predominant number of farm trucks are so-called 12and 2-ton trucks which weigh approximately 10,000 pounds when fully loaded. The great majority of these farm witnesses testified that in their opinion no boy under 18 years of age should be permitted to operate a truck on the highways of the country, and likewise expressed the opinion that, if individuals between 18 and 21 years of age were permitted to drive farm trucks, their activities should be limited to driving the smaller types of trucks and that they should not be permitted to drive either the large trucks or any combination of vehicles. The testimony of witnesses representing the farming industry received support, in part at least, from the testimony of State regulatory officials and enforcement officers. The evidence referred to above concerning the conditions surrounding the operation of farm trucks justifies a finding that a rule permitting an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 to drive a farm truck of a manufacturer's rating not in excess of 2 tons is just and reasonable.

B. Medical examination.-Ruling 1.31 of the safety regulations prescribed by the said order of May 27, 1939, provides that on and after January 1, 1940, no new driver may be employed by a common or contract carrier unless the driver passes a physical examination by a qualified doctor of medicine. Representatives of the farming industry testified that, because of the conditions surrounding the operation of farm trucks, a physical examination for drivers is not

« PreviousContinue »