Images de page

Mr. FRIEDEL. Do you have anything to add in reference to the Denver statement ?

Mr. BROTZMAN. No, I haven't.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Secretary, the questions regarding the interpretation of the bill which I had in mind last week I find were asked of you by other members of the committee.

There is one, however; namely, section 10(c), which provides that:

The Secretary is authorized to advise, assist, and cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies and States and other interested public and private agencies and persons, in the planning and development of (1) Federal rail safety standards.

My question is: Why do you need the advice of others? I can realize that you need to directly consult with them, but why advise with others?

Secretary Boyd. Mr. Chairman, that language was taken verbatim out of the natural gas pipeline bill, and the same reasons would apply here as in that case, and I believe that was adopted by the committee.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Would you object if it were consult with others": rather than “advise"?

Secretary Boys. I don't see any great problem with that. In fact, I don't know what the problem is that led to the question being raised in the first place. So it is difficult for me to try to respond because, as best I can recall, Mr. Chairman, there was absolutely no controversy over this in connection with the gas pipeline bill.

Mr. FRIEDEL. I thank you. That is all I have on that.
Mr. Springer.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Secretary, do you have a copy of the bill before you?

Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. Let's turn to page 3. I believe most of the committee regards 3 as what I would call the guts of this bill.

Going to subparagraph (1), at the present time the Interstate Commerce Commission has which one or all of these standards, governing the use?

Secretary Boyd. There is none now to my knowledge.
Mr. SPRINGER. Of use, right. Design?
Secretary Boyd. No, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. Materials?

Secretary Boyd. Wait a minute. I am mistaken here. You mean the Bureau of Railroad Safety?

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes; under the present law.
Secretary Boyd. We have them all in connection with signal systems.
Mr. SPRINGER. I beg your pardon.

Secretary Boyd. We have all this authority, use, design, materials, workmanship, installation, construction, and performance of signal systems.

Mr. SPRINGER. That is what you have in the present?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now what you are asking for is minimum standards of use, design, materials, workmanship, installation, construction, and performance of railroad facilities and equipment?

Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.

· Mr. SPRINGER. You are asking for all of those powers which they do not now have?

Secretary Boyd. Except as to the signal systems.

Mr. Lang advises me, sir, that we also have for all practical purposes the same authority in connection with locomotives.

Mr. SPRINGER. As you want here?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. You already have with reference to locomotives?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. But you don't have it with reference to the remainder?
Secretary Boyd. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now, let's go to paragraph (2) "rules, regulations, and minimum standards governing the use, inspection, testing." Do you have those now?

Secretary Boyd. Also with locomotives and signal systems.

Mr. SPRINGER. You have inspection and testing, don't you, for other than signal systems?

Mr. LANG. Mr. Chairman, if I might, we have all this kind of authority with respect to signal systems, locomotives, and certain selected other things such as safety appliances, but the safety appliances are only a small part of the total vehicle. Mr. SPRINGER. You don't have it with regard to maintenance?

Mr. Lang. If I might again, Mr. Springer, we also can make regulations regarding maintenance on signal systems, locomotives, and safety appliances.

Mr. SPRINGER. What about servicing?
Mr. Lang. The same would apply.
Mr. SPRINGER. What about repair?
Mr. Lang. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. What about overhaul ?
Mr. LANG. The same would apply in these limited areas.

Mr. SPRINGER. This would apply to all the rolling stock, what you are asking for?

Secretary Boyd. And the roadbed.
Mr. SPRINGER. I beg your pardon.
Secretary Boyd. And the roadbed.

Mr. SPRINGER. You don't have anything on the roadbed at the present time?

Secretary Boyd. No, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. “Including frequency and manner thereof and the equipment and facilities required therefor.” What does that include?

Secretary Boyd. That is really an explanatory phrase dealing with the rules, regulations, and standards authority concerning use, inspection, testing, maintenance, servicing, repair, and overhaul. Mr. SPRINGER. All right.

That language in line 10 refers to the language in lines 18 to 23 on page 2:

Rail facilities and equipment include, without limitation, trackage, roadbed and guideways, and any facility, building, property, locomotive, rolling stock, device, equipment, or appliance used or designated for use in rail commerce, and any part or appurtenance of any of the foregoing.

Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. This means then that you have complete inspection of the yard and the land and the storage. Anything the railroad has you would then have jurisdiction of, right?

Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. I just want to be sure that we understand how far you are going and what you intend.

Secretary Boyd. As it relates to safety and to the extent it is not covered by the occupational safety bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. You mean that is pending?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. Well, suppose that bill doesn't pass?

Secretary Boyd. I don't really think it would make much difference in the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation.

Mr. SPRINGER. What I am trying to get here, Mr. Secretary, is whether what you are requesting for Federal safety regulation would cover everything that it owns.

Secretary Boyd. Everything that what?
Mr. SPRINGER. Everything the railroad owns, that it uses?
Secretary Boyd. Related to safety. Insofar as it relates to safety, yes.
Mr. SPRINGER. Well, your inspection would cover that?

Secretary Boyd. Yes. There is no intention of this bill to cover anything other than the rolling stock and those parts of the operation which are related to it, which would include the signal system, the roadbed, the maintenance shops and things of that nature. It is very difficult, however, to draw language which would be limiting to that extent.

Mr. SPRINGER. "And any part or appurtenance of any of the foregoing."

When you say any "appliance used or designated for use in rail commerce", that can be stretched pretty far. If someone had an accident in the 12th Street Station in Chicago of the New York Central, suppose an employee falls

Secretary Boyd. That is not the purport of this bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. Well, if you say that isn't the purport of this bill, then everything else but the office building, is that about right? Is the warehouse covered ?

Secretary Boyd. No. What we are concerned with, with this legislation, is the operation of the railroad as a railroad.

Mr. SPRINGER. Let's go again. What if the office building is in the station?

Secretary Boyd. It would depend. If somebody fell under a train, I think that would be an area in which we would be interested.

Mr. SPRINGER. Suppose they are overcrowded and all fall down the stairway. I tried to get down some steps there and a lot of people were coming down. Do you take jurisdiction over that?

Secretary Boyd. That is not the intention of this bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. What I am trying to find out is what you have in mind. Let me outline it as best I can. The railroad operation with which we are concerned is that which relates to the use of rolling stock and all of the activities which surround that use of the rolling stock; for example, the maintenance operation, the signal systems, and the roadbed, and the way it is maintained.

Right now you used the words "rail facilities" to include without limitation, and any facility, building.

Secretary BOYD. Right.

Mr. SPRINGER. Do you think the Supreme Court will interpret that the 12th Street Station is not under this language.

Secretary Boyd. No; I don't think it would.
Mr. SPRINGER. You don't think the Supreme Court would !
Secretary Boyd. No, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. I am rather inclined to believe that, with the way that they interpret these Federal statutes, that they would interpret anything using the word building. If you had 25 or 30 people hurt and a couple killed in a panic down those stairways, I am inclined to believe that on a suit the Supreme Court would say that word “building" included that.

Secretary Boyd. Mr. Springer, I don't want you to think that I am sort of stuck on one wing here, but the fact is that this language is almost verbatim from the natural gas pipeline bill, and very similar language is used in the Federal Aviation Act. There has been no question so far as I know of the Federal Aviation Administration or its predecessor, the Federal Aviation Agency, or the Civil Aviation Administration, which had the same act going back to 1938 of taking safety jurisdiction in connection with the terminal.

Mr. SPRINGER. Well, I will give you an example.

If someone in Kennedy Airport got his foot caught between the plane and the compressor that goes out, do you think that that is safety? That is in the terminal.

Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir. I think that is safety, Of course, there you have the question possibly—I don't know-of the operation of the plane. If the operation of a train were involved, I think that this bill if enacted would cover that situation. However, there has been no effort, no expression of desire, nor to my knowledge any feeling on the part of anyone that the Federal Aviation Administration has any jurisdiction over the escalators, the elevators, the baggage chutes, the counters, the seats in the terminal, or anything in the terminal. Yet it contains similar language.

Mr. SPRINGER. Well, I am just trying to get your impression of what you want so that the committee will understand.

Now you use the words on line 10, page 3, "overhaul of rail facilities and equipment."

What do you visualize there?

Secretary Boyd. Well, as Mr. Lang pointed out, that would involve essentially the same thing as is true in the Federal Aviation Administration where, for example, engines are required to be overhauled after a specified number of flight hours.

I don't contemplate that we would operate on an hourly use basis, but it is possible. In connection with the comments made by the chairman earlier about the high-speed train and our concern about the impact of braking on the wheels, it may well be that under this bill we would require an inspection of the wheels for damage due to heat buildup after so many hours of use.

Mr. SPRINGER. Including the frequency and manner thereof and the equipment and facilities required therefor.

Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. In other words, the roundhouse, or whatever it is, would be under your jurisdiction, is that right?

Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now, if that is all true, let's go to page 3 beginning with line 13:

(3) rules, regulations, or minimum standards, governing qualifications of employees, and practices, methods, and procedures of rail carriers as the Seeretary may find necessary to provide adequately for safety in rail commerce.

Secretary Boyd. This again is similar to the Federal Aviation Act. It is not verbatim, but it is similar.

Mr. SPRINGER. You don't have any what I would call Airways Labor Act, do you?

Secretary Boyd. No; the aviation commercial operations insofar as labor is concerned are conducted under the Railway Labor Act.

Mr. SPRINGER. Insofar as airways are concerned, it is under the Railway Labor Act?

Secretary Boyd. Well, whatever labor relations there are in the airlines in commercial aviation in interstate commerce are conducted under the Railway Labor Act.

Mr. SPRINGER. All right.
Now, do you issue a license to a pilot?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. Do you contemplate issuing a license to the engineer?
Secretary Boyd. No, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. Do you think you have such power!
Secretary Boyd. I don't see it in this bill. Now, we would-

Mr. SPRINGER. “* * * regulations, or minimum standards governing qualifications of employees, and practices * * *.”

Under this could you set up-
Secretary Boyd. Yes; clearly.

Mr. SPRINGER. Could you set up a physical qualification such as, we will say, eyes?

Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. A physical examination ?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now, isn't it true that safety has been, under the Railway Labor Act, a matter of negotiation between employer and employee?

Secretary Boyd. I am not sure that I can answer that, Mr. Springer. I would think the railroad management and the brotherhoods would have to give you the answer to that.

Mr. SPRINGER. Your counsel knows whether that is true or not, don't you, counsel ? Don't you know that?

Mr. Tidd. I assume, Mr. Springer, that they do contract in areas in which safety factors are involved, but I would not think that they are contracting in contravention of existing railway safety statutes. They may be contracting as to safety standards in areas not covered by statute.

Mr. SPRINGER. All I am trying to find out is whether you are going beyond that or not. That is what I am trying to find out.

For instance, I take it from what you say that you could set age, you could set qualifications for engineers and firemen. Whether you say


« PrécédentContinuer »