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- -2

As amended in 1940, and again in 1952, they specifically disqualified individuals whose hearing was "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 minimum qualifications remain in effect today. The Commission has always considered its statutory responsibility to establish physical and competence qualifications of drivers as a matter of paramount importance.

Its responsibility has become even more vital in recent years because of major changes which have occurred in commercial vehicle operations changes 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" are used to transport all kinds of commodities, including truckloads of explosives, flammables, and other dangerous articles, and are operated for prolonged periods over extensive distances in many types of terrain in all seasons of the year, regardless of weather conditions.

Under these circumstances it is clear that driver qualifications must be maintained at the very highest level in order to safeguard the public.

I emphasize that the developments I have just mentioned have not occurred while highway traffic remained static. On the contrary, they have coincided with a tremendous increase in the use of highways by commercial vehicles of all kinds.

In 1952, for example, approximately 917,000 motor vehicles were being operated by private and for-hire carriers subject to the Commission's safety regulations.

By 1961, this figure had mounted to nearly 1.7 million vehicles. In addition, I should mention that total motor vehicle registrations for trucks, buses, and automobiles rose from approximately 52,650,000 in 1952 to almost 75,900,000 in 1961.

This rapid growth in the number of vehicles, both private and commercial, using our highways has naturally increased accident potentialities.

I invite your attention, in this regard, to the Commission's deep concern over the number and severity of accidents caused by commercial drivers losing control of their vehicles on hills and curves. Such accidents have occurred with marked frequency on interstate movements notwithstanding the present physical standards.

I believe it is also worthy of note that the President personally has urged renewed efforts to reduce the appalling highway accident 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 physical disqualifications, 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. 663).

In that proceeding, a number of organizations interested in assisting the physically handicapped urged the Commission to amend the regulations so as to permit an amputee to demonstrate 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.

I would like to quote from the closing paragraphs of the division's report since the conclusions there expressed appear 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.

I wish to emphasize the meaning of the phrase "strenuous duties of drivers." It means, for example, that a driver must shift gears at least seven times before a speed of 40 miles per hour can be attained with commonly used transmissions-automatic transmissions are almost nonexistent in the larger commercial vehicles.

It means also that at least in an emergency or during adverse weather conditions, a driver must perform certain duties requiring a high degree of physical agility. Some of these duties involve changing tires or installing snow chains, coupling and uncoupling air system hoses and electrical connections, and operating a fire extinguisher at points on the vehicle which are not easily accessible. The dexterity required to perform these and similar strenuous activities 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 Harvard 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 are made available to us, be assured that careful and sympathetic examination of the findings will be made. We hope these can afford a sound basis for modifying our regulations.

I should mention here that an important part of this bill is that it takes away the discretion that the Congress has imposed upon the Commission for more than 25 years. It is the intention of the bill, as I understand it, that a certificate from a doctor or an osteopath, would be considered as qualifying a driver as far as the loss of a limb or as far as their hearing is concerned.

Now 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. And I might mention here that we have had a lot of crossing accidents with trains.

There are some indications in our investigations of these accidents that the driver just didn't hear the whistle of the train. There are also at times serious accidents where a siren from a firefighting vehicle or ambulance was not heard, and we feel that the ability to distinguish sounds when there are conflicting noises is a very important qualification in such an emergency.

Now let me provide two illustrations of occasions when the need for a specified measure of hearing is crucial. The first involves emergency sirens of police cars, ambulances, or fire engines which I just mentioned, warning all other vehicles on the road to clear the

way.

The second relates to rail-highway grade crossings where, as I have also mentioned, many very serious accidents have occurred in the last few years in which the driver of a commercial vehicle that had collided with a train claimed he had not heard the locomotive whistle.

I invite the subcommittee's attention at this time to an often overlooked fact. The Commission's prescription of minimum driver qualifications is not generally applicable to persons employed wholly in local operations even though interstate in nature-within a municipality or the commercial zone thereof.

This is an area in which commercial firms ordinarily operate small vehicles. As a result, competent persons who do not qualify under present regulations for driving in intercity service could be employed in such local service where the hazards to them and the general public are very much less than in long distance, high speed operations. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are unable to favor or support H.R. 827. We note, in particular, that 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 of medicine or osteopathy.

We doubt that many of them 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 individual and independently arrived at decision in terms of the overall public interest.

Moreover, it appears reasonable to assume that the judgment of individual doctors will differ in varying degrees. Under these circumstances, and in all fairness, we feel that mere approval by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy as proposed by the bill would not adequately protect the public interest in safe operations on highways. For the record, however, please be assured that we recognize and are in sympathy with the humanitarian purposes which motivated this bill, and regret that we are unable to support it.

I might say here that it is particularly unfortunate in my situation to have to appear before you, Mr. Chairman, because this is your bill. I will tell the rest of you that I entered the Congress at the same time that your chairman did, some 17 years ago and knew him very well

at that time.

I know that he is, himself, an amputee and I know the circumstances under which that amputation was suffered. He was in the military service and I hope all of you know the story, but of the five occupants of his military plane he is the only one to escape alive.

It makes it pretty hard for me to come up here and oppose a bill which has been submitted by him.

When we started on this I went into it rather carefully because I thought it was Williams' bill, because of my own admiration and affection for him. If there was any possibility of relaxation and still protecting the interest of the public, I was inclined to be sympathetic to the bill. But, Mr. Chairman, after going into it thoroughly I find that in the absence of better evidence than we now have, I just don' feel that we can safely approve the bill.

Now the other part is that Chairman Walrath

Mr. WILLIAMS. At that point let me express the appreciation to you for your personal comments. However, I hope you will not consider this is a personal matter. I think probably I would be here regardless of whether I were disabled or not to sponsor some legislation by which a disabled person might be certificated to operate a motor vehicle in interstate commerce.

That does not necessarily follow I endorse all provisions of the bill. Actually, the bill was introduced two or three Congresses ago at the request of General Maas, whom you know very well, of the President's Committee on the Handicapped. This is not a personal matter with me by any means.

Mr. GoFF. I knew it would not be. Yet, I felt some diffidence about it. You mentioned General Maas. He also served in this House. He was a Marine colonel now a retired major general, who saw a lot of combat in World War II. I know his feeling for the handicapped and I know your feeling for them. I am just glad that Maas is not here to hear me because he has been one of the proponents of this relaxation of our regulations.

It is just one of those situations where we have responsibility in regard to safety and I know you don't take any personal feeling in it and yet you do have a deep sympathy, just as Maas does for those who have had some physical handicap.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe you wanted to cover one other point when I interrupted you.

Mr. GOFF. Yes. Chairman Walrath regrets he could not come up here. He left this morning on a trip, on official business out West.