Images de page

portation does not have almost this same power. But he has chosen to say that he doesn't have.

Mr. SPRINGER. Will counsel comment on that? Mr. MOLONEY. My name is W. M. Moloney. I am general counsel for the Association of American Railroads.

There are certain Federal statutes today, Mr. Springer, that place in the Secretary of Transportation almost unlimited safety authority in those areas.

I think when the spokesmen for the Department of Transportation were appearing before this committee, I think you took one section of the bill and said now do you have this authority today?

And the answer came back, “Yes," in signals we do, and locomotives we do, and so on.

They pointed out the various areas that the Secretary does have that power today. However, the bill does reach into areas that there is no Federal regulation vesting him with this broad authority.

Mr. SPRINGER. When you say it vests him with new authority, will you indicate those areas where you believe new authority vests.

Mr. MOLONEY. Rather than indicate all the activities I could illustrate the areas.

For instance, the track, roadway structures other than signalingyour buildings, your shops, the design of freight cars, size, shape, form, and fashion except to the extent that the Safety Appliance Act and its provisions may apply.

Mr. SPRINGER. Is that all?

Mr. MOLONEY. As I said, I was using that as an illustration. In the conduct of our operations themselves, that is our operating rules, how we run our operations, the Secretary does not today have the authority to tell us how to run those operations.

Mr. SPRINGER. Will you indicate what operations specifically then he would have jurisdiction of that he does not have jurisdiction of now?

Mr. MOLONEY. Commonly known as our "Operating Rules," I think Mr. Goodfellow could explain the nature of those rules better than I could.

Mr. SPRINGER. At the present, you set up the Operating Rules, is that right?


Mr. SPRINGER. And the Secretary does not set up the Operating Rules, is that true?

Mr. MOLONEY. That is correct. Mr. SPRINGER. Are there any other items? Mr. MOLONEY. As far as the railroads are concerned; yes, the qualification of employees.

Mr. SPRINGER. That is two.

Mr. MOLONEY. I think to a large extent we have covered our track, maintenance of our roadway.

Mr. SPRINGER. That is three.

Mr. MOLONEY. I am not sure I have named them all, Mr. Springer. I have tried to.

Mr. GOODFELLOW. Design of equipment would be four.
Mr. SPRINGER. That is four. Is there anything else?
Mr. MOLONEY. As far as the railroads are concerned-
Mr. SPRINGER. What about scheduling of trains and equipment?

Mr. MOLONEY. That would be the operation of our industry as I told you. You heard the Secretary say that to the extent that that might enter into safety he would be given authority under this bill. He does not have it today.

The length of trains was discussed with him, crew consist, all of these matters of our operation, I attempted to cover that when I designated our operations.

I might point out that the bill goes beyond the railroad industry because we are not the only one that use equipment, the shippers use equipment, too.

Mr. SPRINGER. Would he be able to tell you, for instance, how many employees you would have on a caboose?

Mr. MOLONEY. I suppose he would if he had control over the crew consist which they say he would have to have under the bill if he were going to properly enforce the safety regulations.

Mr. SPRINGER. Would he have control over whether or not there are one, two, or three in the cab?

Mr. MOLONEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPRINGER. That would be part of his concept?
Mr. MOLONEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. I presume also, depending on the length of the train, and the number of switchmen that would be necessary to handle so many cars?

Mr. MOLONEY. That would mean the train crew consist which covers the front end, the rear end, and the middle.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now the safety features with reference to the entire train are already subject to an act which is in existence, is that right?

Mr. MOLONEY. I did not hear you.

Mr. SPRINGER. The safety features of the equipment are already contained in the present law.

Mr. MOLONEY. The locomotive almost entirely, 100 percent.
Mr. SPRINGER. What about freight cars?
Mr. MOLONEY. Freight cars, the Safety Appliance Act applies there.
Mr. SPRINGER. The same is true of passenger cars?
Mr. MOLONEY. The Safety Appliance Act applies to passenger cars.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Goodfellow, just one thing further. Mr. Bloom has come up with an idea here, NARUC, in which he would like to have appointed a board. Were you here when he was testifying?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. Called the National Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, which would be made up of nine members. Three from the State regulatory agencies, three from management, and three from labor.

They would have the power and the right to advise and consult and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters relating to the activities and functions of the Department in the field of railway safety.

Then they are authorized to do two more things here: To review research projects, review programs submitted or recommended to it by the field of railroad safety, and recommend to the Secretary for prosecution any project which they believe shows promise of making valuable contributions.

Second, to review priority of standards proposed to be issued by the Secretary under the provisions of this act.

What do you think of this idea ?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. I think it would depend entirely on the Secretary. I didn't see that this advisory board had any authority except to recommend to the Secretary that he do something,

Mr. SPRINGER. We had this kind of feature in the Oil Safety Act.

Mr. GOODFELLOW. Any time you get management, labor, and regulatory bodies sitting down together, usually something good comes out of it.

But with the Secretary having the law empowering him to establish any standards or any safety regulations he wants to, I don't see that this board wolld be of any use, because certain Secretaries might not pay any attention to the board.

Mr. SPRINGER. Do you believe that if such law is passed that that is a wise provision?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. Pardon? Mr. SPRINGER. If we assume the law is going to be passed, would you like to see such a provision in it? Mr. GOODFELLOW. I think it would be very helpful.

Mr. SPRINGER. In looking at the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's page 7 of the Railroad Regulations, do you have a Joint Committee on Grade-Crossing Protection?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. We have a committee on the AAR which concerns itself with grade-crossing protection. We have been working with the Department of Transportation on this matter. The Secretary some months ago, I guess it was last fall, asked if we would furnish members for a joint committee.

I think it was a month ago he said they were about ready, and we are getting ready to appoint some people to a real joint committee with the Department of Transportation,

Now the first committee I told you--we have a committee in our engineering department that works with anybody that wants to work with us on crossings like the States or the AASHO (American Association of State Highway Officials).

Mr. SPRINGER. What kind of grade-crossing protection do you recommend ?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. Well, the most popular grade-crossing protection and the most effective one and the most economical one is a short-arm gate, with flasher lights and the short-arm gate that comes down automatically.

Mr. SPRINGER. What about grading?
Mr. GOODFELLOW. You mean-
Mr. SPRINGER. Approaches.

Mr. GOODFELLOW. Fixing up approaches? You mean a profile of the crossing?

Yes; we work with them. We work with the local highway departments on that kind of thing,

Mr. SPRINGER. Do you have standards?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. I am not sure, Congressman, whether there is a standard for that or not.

Mr. SPRINGER. It must be high. Let me read you the language. Page 7, rule 2 of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Protection for Crossings of Grade, from B-2 on page 7.

The proposed protection in general shall conform with the recommended standards of the Joint Committee on Grade-Crossing Protection of the Association of American Railroads, subject to such modifications as may be directed by this Commission. The carriers affected shall install and maintain the protective devices. What is he referring to?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. He is referring to the short arm gates and the flasher lights and that kind of thing.

Now we do not have a standard profile for a crossing because almost every crossing is different.

In the language that we would have there all we would say is get the best profile that is available in the area of the crossing. What they are speaking of for standards are the short arm gates and flasher lights and that type of protection.

Mr. SPRINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Keith.
Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to correct an impression that I think you may possibly have created which I believe is wrong. You said that the various bodies are appointed by the State legislature or legislatures. I don't believe that is a fact. It is by the executive branches of Government rather than the legislative branches.

Mr. GOODFELLOW. All States are not the same. I guess it varies. The State I was in, the body was set up by the legislature. The members were appointed by the Governor.

Mr. Keith. I thought your testimony said appointed by the State legislature. Mr. GOODFELLOW. I think I did say that.

Mr. KEITH. It would be a little better if it was the executive branch responsibility, individual rather than collective.

You said in your statement that, “We fully agree with the National Transportation Safety Board statement where they report 'primary responsibility for railroad safety should rest on management and labor," and it is really up to the Congress and, I say, the executive branch to make certain that that responsibility is assumed, and that is the purpose of this legislation, I assume.

My questions have been to see what efforts the executive branch has made in drafting this legislation to make certain that the expertise in management and labor has been utilized.

Were you present when I questioned earlier witnesses on that?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. Yes; I am familiar with your questions and their answers.

Mr. KEITH. Do you generally concur that there has not been very much done on the part of the executive branches so far as management, at least, is concerned in the drafting of this legislation?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. I certainly agree with him. I was at probably two-thirds of the meetings that were held to tell us that there was to be a bill and I concur with what our people said that we did not have very much to say about what went into the bill.

Mr. KEITH. What action have you taken as the chief executive of the Association of American Railroads to overcome this weakness in this development of which I spoke!

Did you initiate any correspondence to say things are going slowly, we have not heard from you, we feel that we should be consulted ?

Or did you take any action insofar as labor was concerned to join forces with them to protect your joint interest?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. I can only say that I wrote no letters to either the Federal Railroad Administrator or the Secretary of Transportation, but I kept in very close touch with him and by telephone asked when we were going to see the bill. As you remember, our witnesses said, “We saw the bill when it came to the Congress."

But as far as labor is concerned, we have high hopes, although we hare had no real progress to report. We have a committee made up of five railroad presidents and five railroad labor union presidents. We have had three meetings and we have set ground rules, we have done some talking, we have discussed the various matters.

One of the things high on our agenda is safety, but I must say we have not come up with anything concrete yet as to how we shall approach the area of safety. But since Mr. Leighty invited us to meet with them, and we did meet with them, I have hopes that from this we can build cooperation and realize this responsibility of labor and management to get this safety matter controllable by us so that the Federal Government does not have to concern itself with it.

Mr. Keith. When did you last meet? When did the committee last meet?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. The committee last met on the 24th of May.
Mr. KEITH. When, prior to that?
Mr. GOODFELLOW. April 11.
Mr. KEITH. When is your next scheduled meeting?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. The next scheduled meeting is the last Friday in July, whatever date that is.

Nir. KEITH. Would you say generally speaking that the committee's actions have been positive in nature?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. I think they have been very positive and I think they hare been very fruitful.

Ihese things do not go fast because this is an entirely new situation to have these men sitting down together.

Mr. KEITH. It is an entirely new situation?

Mr. KEITH. I think it is very encouraging that it is taking place. It is unfortunate that it did not exist earlier to face this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Watson.
Mr. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Goodfellow, I notice that on the first page of your statement you say that American railroad management is more deeply concerned than anyone else with all aspects of railroad safety.

Of course I would agree with you on that, both from a humane standpoint and from an economic standpoint, because, after all, you feel the impact of it. I know, as a country lawyer, you have made one of your railroads feel an economic impact in at least one case.

You are not implying by that statement that the brotherhoods are not equally concerned about safety because it is their lives and their interests that are so often involved.

So you would agree that the brotherhoods are equally concerned about safety, too?

Mr. GOODFELLOW. Yes, I would agree that they were equally concerned.

« PrécédentContinuer »