Images de page
PDF
ePub

may not be proper to permit the reports to be introduced as evidence in litigation, they should have wide use otherwise. This could be accomplished by eliminating the words "or be used" on page 12, line 7, of H.R. 16980.

In our view, were Section II (c) stricken entirely the use of the reports would be adequately handled by the common law. At common law the reports themselves would not be admissible because they would be considered hearsay. However, the reports certainly could be used for further investigatory and discovery purposes. Witnesses or experts who contributed their services in investigations and/or providing expert opinions would be called to testify and otherwise be utilized in private litigation, notwithstanding they had performed a parallel service which eventuated in the official report of the investigating agency.

In our view, as at common law, it is proper to exclude the reports themselves from evidence as hearsay because otherwise the conclusions of the report might substitute for the independent judgment of the jury. Except for that limitation, the reports ought to be used for all other purposes, as indicated. Trusting this answers your inquiry, I am, Sincerely yours,

AL H. CHESSER, Chairman, RLEA Safety Committee.

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.C., May 23, 1968.

Mr. AL H. CHESSER,
Chairman, RLEA Safety Committee and National Legislative Representative,
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHESSER: It seems to me that it would be helpful if the record in our hearings on H.R. 16980 was clarified in several particulars.

What is your interpretation of that portion of section 3(a)(2) (which gives the authority to the Secretary to issue rules governing the use, etc., of rail facilities and equipment) specifically lines 11 and 12 on page 3, which include the phrase "the equipment and facilities required therefor"? Are the facilities and equipment required the equivalent of shop facilities employed in the maintenance of rolling stock and locomotives?

Is it your interpretation and proposal that railroad shop facilities be covered under this bill or would such facilities be included under the bill which is currently being considered by the Labor Committee?

In connection with this same subsection, perhaps you or Mr. H. C. Crotty, President, Maintenance of Way Employees, might care to elaborate as to whether the words of lines 11 and 12, "the equipment and facilities required therefor" include the trucks to which Mr. Crotty referred in his prepared statement on pages 16 to 18. His testimony was to the effect that the passage of the legislation would give the Department of Transportation the needed authority in this field of safety, but his remarks do not include the specific section upon which he is relying for the grant of this authority.

In addition, while you did not comment upon it, Administrator Lang testified that the Hours of Service Act of 1916 was not being repealed by this bill as the Department was giving the matter further study in the thought that later on they might come up with a recommendation.

In such connection, I wonder whether your interpretation of the language in Section 3(a)(2) giving the Secretary the power to prescribe rules, regulations, and minimum standards governing the use, etc." of rail facilities and equipment as well as the language of 3(a)(3) giving the Secretary authority governing practices, methods, and procedures of rail carriers, is not broad enough to encompass the authority to establish Hours of Service.

There may be further items on which we should like clarifying comment as we make further study of your helpful testimony as well as that of Mr. Crotty. Sincerely yours,

HARLEY O. STAGGERS,

Chairman.

Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,

RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D.C., June 7, 1968.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to yours of May 23 asking our interpretation of various sections of H.R. 16980. I will answer your inquiries in the sequence set out in your letter.

The second and third paragraphs of your letter make certain inquiries with respect to lines 11 and 12 on page 3 of Section 3 (a) (2) of the Administration bill and appear particularly concerned with the question whether railroad shop facilities are comprehended thereby.

At the outset, I might say it is difficult to explain precisely the intentions of the language involved. As we interpret it, however, Section 3 (a) (2) up to the clause reading "and the equipment and facilities required therefor" was intended to give the Department of Transportation authority to regulate all phases of use, inspection, maintenance, etc., of rail facilities and equipment as earlier defined in the Act. The language, excluding the above-quoted clause, alone would seem sufficient to us to give the Department of Transportation power to regulate shop facilities. Apparently, however, out of an abundance of caution the draftsman of 3(a) then included the quoted phrase in order to assure the Department's right to control the shop facilities used for testing, maintenance, etc. In short, we believe shop facilities are covered by 3(a) (2) and in fact out of excessive zeal they appear to be covered twice. As you know, the Railway Labor Executives' Association feels there is a simpler way of reaching this entire problem.

You also inquire whether, in our view, shop facilities would be covered by the bill currently being considered by the Education and Labor Committee, H.R. 14816, the so-called Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. As we understand the latter bill, the Secretary of Labor is given broad authority to regulate working conditions in industry at large without any emphasis upon any particular industry. If there were no more involved in the labor bill, obviously there could be overlapping where both the Department of Transportation and the Department of Labor might be regulating the same shop or industrial conditions. However, H.R. 14816 contains an exception precluding the Department of Labor from regulating where other Federal agencies have "statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health". Therefore, if both bills were passed in their present form the grant of authority to the Department of Transportation under 3(a) (2) which, as indicated, we believe covers shop facilities, would preclude the Department of Labor from exercising authority in this case.

You also asked whether we desire to elaborate on the question whether lines 11 and 12 in referring to "the equipment and facilities required therefor" include the trucks used by the railroads to haul men and equipment to site for repair work, to which Mr. Crotty referred in his prepared statement on pages 16-18. In our view, 3(a) (2) would give the Department of Transportation authority over these items by reason of the broad definition of equipment and facilities contained in the definition section of the bill.

Finally, you make certain inquiries with respect to the Hours of Service Act and particularly why that Act was not repealed by the proposed bill (Section 13(a)) and whether, nevertheless, the Secretary could get into hours of service questions under the language of 3(a) (2) and (3) of the proposed legislation. In our view, it was desirable to exclude hours of service from the impending legislation. In the first place, as you know, we fought many long and hard years to obtain any hours of service legislation to offer some protection to employees. While that existing law may not be perfect, at least it does afford some protection. Considerable concern has been expressed by some of the Brotherhoods about tampering with this existing law.

This leads to the question, of course, whether under the Administration proposal the Department of Transportation could still get into hours of service questions under 3(a) (2) and perhaps 3(a)(3). If 3(a) (2) and (3) are examined in isolation, perhaps one can, as certain witnesses did, so construe their language. However, in context, and particularly with the hours of service law being the isolated exception from the general repealer of all existing safety acts (Section 13(a)), we would seriously doubt that a court ought properly to construe 3(a) (2) and (3) as extending the Department's power so as to include hours of service

questions. In any event, resolution of the question might be helped by inclusion of an explanatory statement in the legislative history accompanying any final legislation.

Trusting that the above answers your inquiries of May 23, I am,
Sincerely yours,

AL H. CHESSER,

Chairman, RLEA Safety Committee.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 23, 1968.)

FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RAILROAD SAFETY

THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley O. Staggers (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order for the continuation of H.R. 16980, and related bills.

Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Harold Crotty. I am hopeful that we can complete Mr. Crotty's testimony, and perhaps some of the others so that we can get on to Mr. Menk if we can, of the Association of American Railroads. Unfortunately for our schedule the House convenes at 11 a.m.

Mr. Crotty, you may proceed. Would you identify all the gentlemen with you, for the record, please.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD C. CROTTY, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES; ACCOMPANIED BY WINFIELD M. HOMER, ECONOMIST; SHELDON BERNSTEIN, COUNSEL; AND ERNEST H. BENSON, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE

Mr. CROTTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to. I am accompanied here at the table by our economist, Mr. Homer; our counsel, Mr. Bernstein, and by our national legislative representative, Mr. Benson.

My name is Harold C. Crotty. I am president of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees with headquarters

The CHAIRMAN. Before you start, sir, may I interrupt you?

Mr. CROTTY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood that you do have a full statement, and that you were going to summarize it. Is this true?

Mr. CROTTY. My statement is relatively short, Mr. Chairman. I did intend to read it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. Go ahead.

Mr. CROTTY. My headquarters in Detroit, Mich., is at 12050 Woodward Avenue. Our brotherhood represents the employees who build, repair, and maintain the tracks, bridges, and other structures on all major railroads in the United States and on most of the smaller lines. I do appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in support of this legislation. In my statement, I shall confine myself to three areas of railroad safety that would be affected by passage of this bill: (1)

the regular inspection of tracks, bridges, and structures of the railroads to insure that they are maintained in safe condition; (2) the providing of adequate flagging protection from moving trains for employees working on tracks and bridges; and (3) the transportation of employees.

TRACK AND BRIDGE INSPECTION

Inasmuch as the employees represented by our organization are those who maintain the carriers tracks and bridges, I am making these comments in their behalf. In addition, I am testifying in the interests of the traveling public and other railroad workers whose lives are endangered by unsafe conditions of roadway.

The proposed legislation gives the Department of Transportation needed authority in areas of railroad safety. Legislation dealing directly with railroad track and bridge inspection has been before Congress at various times through the years.

There has never been any question concerning the extreme desirability of legislation prescribing authority over railroad track and bridge inspection. In a letter dated February 9, 1935, addressed to the Honorable Burton K. Wheeler, chairman, Committee on Interstate Commerce, U.S. Senate, expressing the views of the legislative committee of the Interstate Commerce Commission on S. 543, introduced in the Senate on January 10, 1935, Mr. Frank McManary, chairman of the legislative committee of the Commission, said:

The purpose of the bill is desirable: Federal inspection of tracks and bridges, and Federal supervision of maintenance practices of the carriers, could bring about material improvement in the condition of tracks and bridges, which would increase safety of railroad operation.

Investigation of railroad accidents by our Bureau of Safety has disclosed conditions of tracks and bridges which should have been discovered and corrected before attention was directed to them by the occurrence of an accident.

Federal inspection might have disclosed such conditions, and the fact that tracks and bridges, as well as methods followed by carriers in their inspection and maintenance practices, were subject to Federal supervision, would be powerful incentive to responsible officers to see to it that tracks and bridges were maintained in proper condition.

The need is even greater today. As evidenced by the National Transportation Safety Board release on April 10, 1968, the frequency of train accidents is increasing at an alarming rate. The current Federal regulatory authority does not encompass many areas related to the causes of many railroad accidents, and therefore the Department of Transportation does not have sufficient tools with which to correct the problem.

The release shows that total train accidents have increased from 4,149 in 1961, to 6,793 in 1966, up to 63.7 percent, and according to preliminary figures increased to 7,089 in 1967, up 71 percent over 1961. Train accidents per million train miles increased 59.1 percent during the same time periods. With the chairman's permission, I would like to read briefly from the report and ask that the text of the April 10 release by the National Transportation Safety Board be inserted into the record. (See p. 151.)

I would like to quote, Mr. Chairman, just briefly, and then ask that it be inserted in its entirety in the record.

Derailments, the single most important cause of train accidents, increased from 2,671 in 1961 to 4,447 in 1966, up 66.5 percent, and the

« PrécédentContinuer »