OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY DISABLED PERSONS TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND AERONAUTICS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:50 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, Longworth Building, Hon. John Bell Williams (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. WILLIAMS. Our bill for consideration today is H.R. 827, which would amend the Interstate Commerce Act so as to permit certain disabled persons to operate motor vehicles in interstate commerce. (H.R. 827 along with agency reports follow:) [H.R. 827, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the Interstate Commerce Act to provide that disabled persons meeting certain requirements may not be prohibited from operating motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce under certain rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subparagraph (1) of section 204 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 304) is amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end thereof the following: "; except that no individual who has suffered the loss of a foot, leg, hand, or arm, or impairment or loss of hearing shall be prohibited from operating any motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce under any rule or regulation of the Commission prescribed under this subparagraph or subparagraph (2), (3), or (3a) of this subsection if such individual has been examined by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy admitted to the practice of medicine or osteopathy in a State and such doctor determines that such loss or impairment will not prevent such individual from safely operating such vehicle". EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., May 14, 1963. Hon. OREN HARRIS, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of February 19, 1963, for a report on H.R. 827, a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to provide that disabled persons meeting certain requirements may not be prohibited from operating motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce under certain rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. We are completely in accord with the objective of the bill to allow disabled individuals to operate motor vehicles in interstate commerce to the maximum extent consistent with safety. 1 However, the Interstate Commerce Commission now has the responsibility for setting standards for drivers to assure the safe operation of motor vehicles. We are certain that whenever it is established that certain disabled drivers can safely operate motor vehicles, the Commission will revise its standards accordingly. In general, we do not believe it wise to enact legislation requiring a regulatory agency to take a specific action affecting safety which is already within that agency's authority, responsibility, and expert knowledge. For these reasons, we cannot recommend favorable consideration of H.R. 827. Sincerely yours, PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. Hon. OREN HARRIS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of February 19, 1963, for a report on H.R. 827, a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to provide that disabled persons meeting certain requirements may not be prohibited from operating motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce under certain rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is identical with H.R. 4273, introduced in the 87th Congress. The bill would withdraw the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to prohibit a person from operating a motor vehicle in interstate commerce on the ground that he has lost a foot, leg, hand, or arm, or suffers loss or impairment of hearing, provided that a licensed physician or osteopath certifies that the loss or impairment "will not prevent such individual from safely operating such vehicle." The effect of the bill would be to repeal that portion of regulation 191.2 (49 C.F.R.), of the Commission, which now contains an absolute prohibition against the operation of such motor carriers by such disabled persons. We are in accord with the objective of the bill. It is our understanding that the Commission adopted this prohibition in 1940. Since that time advances in design of prostheses, and training of the disabled in their use, have enabled many amputees to compensate for their disability with sufficient adequacy to permit them to operate commercial carriers with safety. There is a persuasive body of medical opinion substantiating this view. In this regard, it is germane that the strict medical standards applied by the Federal Aviation Agency to applicants for pilot licenses do not contain a blanket restriction of the sort imposed by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The bill is defective in one respect, however. It would apparently make binding on the Interstate Commerce Commission the determination of any physician or osteopath selected by the disabled person that the loss or impairment referred to would not prevent that person from safely operating a vehicle. Such a practitioner's determination is not taken as conclusive as to the applicant's ability to drive safely in the case of nonamputees. In our view, responsibility for this determination should lie with a public body, the Commission, charged by law with the duty to protect the public in this respect. This is not to say that the Commission should not have discretion to utilize the services of private practitioners within the framework of an appropriate procedure established by it. Such a procedure is exemplified by the medical qualification of pilot applicants by the Federal Aviation Agency, which uses some 6,000 private physicians on call throughout the country to make the required examinations in accordance with physical standards prescribed by the agency. We would, therefore, recommend that the Commission license any individual who is able to meet reasonable performance standards, to be established by the Commission, that would assure that his disability will not prevent him from safely operating a motor vehicle. If this cannot be done administratively, we would recommend enactment of leigslation to this end. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely, ANTHONY J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary. Hon. OREN HARRIS, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, Washington, D.C., May 13, 1963. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN HARRIS: This is in response to your letter of February 19, 1963, requesting comments on a bill, H.R. 827, introduced by Congressman Williams, to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to provide that disabled persons meeting certain requirements may not be prohibited from operating motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce under certain rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. This matter has been considered by the Commission and I am authorized to submit the following comments in its behalf: H.R. 827 would amend section 204 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 304 (a)) which, among other things, authorizes the Commission to prescribe reasonable requirements with respect to the qualifications of employees of for hire and private motor carriers operating in interstate commerce. The bill would provide, in effect, that the rules and regulations so prescribed shall not prohibit any individual who has suffered the loss of a foot, leg, hand, or arm, or impairment or loss of hearing from operating any motor vehicle if such loss or impairment is determined by a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy to be of a type which "will not prevent such individual from safely operating such vehicle." The Commission first prescribed minimum qualifications of drivers in July 1937. These initial regulations, general in scope, disqualified from driving in interstate commerce individuals who failed to possess "adequate hearing" or who had incurred a "physical deformity or loss of limb likely to interfere with safe driving." As amended in 1940, and again in 1952, these minimum qualifications were changed so as to specifically disqualify as drivers individuals whose hearing is "less than 10/20 in the better ear, for conversational tones, without a hearing aid" or who had suffered the loss of a "foot, leg, hand, or arm." So revised, these regulations remain in effect today. Over the years the Commission has considered its statutory responsibility to establish physical and competence qualifications of drivers as a matter of paramount importance. This responsibility has become even more vital because of the major and relatively recent changes in commercial vehicle operationschanges which have resulted in greatly increased demands upon the physical stamina of drivers. Included among these changes are the development of heavier and larger vehicles, greater powered engines, complicated gears and other special devices, heavier loads, and higher speeds. These "behemoths of the highways," which are used to transport all kinds of commodities, including truckloads of explosives and other dangerous articles, are operated for prolonged periods over extensive distances in many types of terrain in all seasons of the year, regardless of weather conditions. It is clear, therefore, that due consideration of public safety requires that driver qualifications be maintained at the very highest level. In this connection, it is significant that the rapid development of larger, more powerful tractor-trailer units has been paralleled by a phenomenal increase in the use of highways by commercial vehicles of all kinds. In 1952, for example, at least 917,534 motor vehicles were being operated in interstate commerce by private and for hire carriers subject to the Commission's safety regulations. By 1961, this figure mounted to an estimated 1,695,589 vehicles. In addition, we observe that total motor vehicle registrations (including trucks, buses, and automobiles) in 1937 amounted to 29,706,158. By 1952 this figure had risen to 52,651,835, and by 1961 it was 75,846,532. Continued increases in the number of vehicles, both private and commercial, using our highways manifestly results in increased exposure to accident situations and, in turn, this circumstance requires continued maintenance of the utmost in safety standards. In particular, the Commission is concerned with the number and severity of accidents caused by loss of control of commercial vehicles on hills and curves. Such accidents occur on interstate movements notwithstanding the fact that drivers involved are required to meet present physical standards. It is noteworthy that the President personally has urged renewed efforts to reduce the appalling highway death toll. His public statement of April 9, 1963, was prompted by the approximately 41,000 deaths due to highway accidents in 1962. In prescribing regulations relating to the qualifications of drivers of interstate commercial vehicles, the Commission must give primary and overriding consideration to the safety of the public, including the safety of the drivers themselves. At the same time, and in order to avoid imposing personal hardship through unnecessary disqualification of drivers for physical reasons, we have earnestly endeavored to keep abreast of all medical and technological developments which would provide a basis for reevaluation of our regulations. In this connection, the Commission (division 5) had occasion to consider a proposed modification respecting amputee drivers in 1949. See "Qualifications of Employees and Safety of Operations" (49 M.C.C. 633). In that proceeding, a number of organizations interested in assisting the physically handicapped, including governmental agencies such as the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Federal Security Agency and the President's Committee of the National Employ-the-Handicapped Week, urged the Commission to amend the rule so as to permit an amputee to demonstrate (by an examination promulgated jointly by the Commission and various other Federal and State agencies and private organizations) whether he possessed the requisite mental and physical ability to perform the duties of a driver in a safe manner. Upon careful consideration of the record developed at a public hearing, the Commission concluded that a change in the rule was not then shown to be warranted. The following extract from the concluding paragraphs of the division's report appears to be applicable today: "The lack of competent evidence which would establish that the prosthetic devices now available to amputees are sufficiently durable to withstand the strain of driving motor vehicles, often under unfavorable conditions, or to perform the strenuous duties of drivers as outlined above, or are sufficiently flexible to permit the manipulation of the various buttons, levers, or other controls, leaves us no choice but to find that the proponents of a change have failed to prove that amputees are possessed of the physical ability necessary to drive vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce without being an actual or a potential hazard to themselves or to others. We have seen that all such devices are subject to certain limitations which, in our opinion, are such as to require a finding that they cannot properly be considered as adequate substitutes for natural limbs for the purpose of driving the various types of motor vehicles operated under our jurisdiction. Obviously a failure of prosthesis while an amputee was driving might easily lead to an accident resulting in death or injury, not only to the driver, but to anyone else who might be at that particular place at the time of the failure." The "strenuous duties of drivers" referred to in the above-quoted language includes, for example, the operation of transmissions which require seven gear changes before a speed of 40 miles per hour is attained. The dexterity required to perform this and similar complex functions is a matter of extreme importance in our determination of minimum physical standards for commercial drivers. We are aware, however, of research work in this area being conducted by the Havard School of Public Health under the sponsorship of the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. When the results of this study, because of the complexities involved, are made available to us, careful examination of the findings and recommendations will be made to determine if they furnish a sufficient basis for a modification of our regulations. With respect to the minimum hearing requirements, we are not aware of any information which would warrant a modification of the present standard. To substitute for such a specific standard a doctor's opinion of the adequacy of a driver's hearing would, in our view, be an unwarranted relaxation of the rules. The average physician could not be expected to be familiar with the physical conditions-and in particular the background noises-attendant upon such commercial vehicle operations. Two examples which illustrate the need for a specified measure of hearing are: (1) the emergency siren of an ambu 1 Examples of other functions which (at least in emergencies or during adverse weather conditions) require a high degree of dexterity are: (1) changing truck tires or installing tire chains, (2) coupling and uncoupling air system hoses and electrical connections, and (3) operating a fire extinguisher at points on the vehicles which are not easily accessible. lance or fire engine warning all other vehicles on the road to clear the way; and (2) rail-highway grade crossings where in the last few years a number of very serious accidents have occurred in which the driver of a commercial vehicle that had collided with a train claimed he had not heard the locomotive whistle. In view of these circumstances, we are unable to favor or support H.R. 827. Under this bill the ultimate decision as to the ability of an amputee or individual with subnormal hearing to safely operate heavy-duty tractor-trailer units over long distances would be made by a doctor or osteopath. We doubt that many of these are qualified by experience or training properly to evaluate (1) the unusual technological and operational complexities involved in driving such vehicles or (2) the effect of their case-by-case decisions in terms of the overall public interest. Moreover, it appears reasonable to assume that the judgment of individual doctors will differ in varying degrees. Furthermore, in all fairness we feel that mere approval by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy as proposed by the bill would be inadequate to protect the public interest in safe operations on highways. Finally, we would like to state that we recognize and are in sympathy with the humanitarian purposes which motivated this bill, and regret that we are unable to support it. Sincerely yours, LAURENCE K. WALRATH, Chairman. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Goff, I believe you are prepared to testify on this; are you not? STATEMENT OF HON. ABE MCGREGOR GOFF, VICE CHAIRMAN, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY ERNEST G. COX, CHIEF, SECTION OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY Mr. GoFF. Yes, I am, sir. Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I should mention that I have with me today Director Bertram E. Stilwell, of the Bureau of Operating Rights, who sat with me a few minutes ago; and on my left is Mr. Ernest G. Cox, Chief of our Section of Motor Carrier Safety. We also have here Robert T. Wallace, legislative counsel; Sam Langerman, a legislative attorney. And I have here Milton G. Bilodeau from my office. I thought it would do him good to come up and listen to a hearing. Speaking for the Commission now on H.R. 827: Section 204(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, among other things, authorizes the Commission to prescribe reasonable requirements with respect to the qualifications of employees of for-hire and private motor carriers operating in Interstate Commerce. H.R. 827 would amend this section to provide, in effect, that the rules and regulations prescribed by the Commission thereunder shall not prohibit any individual who has suffered the loss of a foot, leg, hand, or arm, or impairment or loss of hearing from operating any motor vehicle if a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy determines that his loss or impairment is not of a type which will prevent him from safely operating such vehicle. The Commission first prescribed minimum qualifications of drivers in July 1937. These initial regulations, which were general in scope, disqualified individuals who failed to possess "adequate hearing" or who had incurred a "physical deformity or loss of limb likely to interfere with safe driving." 20-733-64 |