"(1) The term 'railroad' includes all bridges and ferries used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use by any common carrier operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a contract, agreement, or lease.

"(2) The term 'employee' means an individual actually engaged in or connected with the operation of any train.

"(3) Time on duty shall commence when an employee reports for duty and terminate when the employee is finally released from duty, and shall include:

"(A) Interim periods available for rest at other than a designated terminal;

"(B) Interim periods available for less than four hours rest at a designated terminal;

"(C) Time spent in deadhead transportation by an employee to or from duty assignment;

"(D) The time an employee is actually engaged in or connected with the movement of any train; and

"(E) Such period of time as is otherwise provided by this Act.

"SEC. 2. (a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier, its officers or agents, subject to this Act

"(1) to require or permit an employee, in case such employee shall have been continuously on duty for twelve hours, to continue on duty or to go on duty until he has had at least ten consecutive hours off duty; or

"(2) to require or permit an employee to continue on duty or to go on duty when he has not had at least eight consecutive hours off duty during the preceding twenty-four hours.

"(b) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (a), the number of hours an employee is on duty, there shall be counted, in addition to the time such employee is actually engaged in or connected with the movement of any train, all time on duty in other service performed for the common carrier during the twenty-fourhour period involved.

"(c) Crews of relief trains or wrecked trains may be permitted to remain on duty for a longer period than is otherwise permitted by this section when necessary to clear the track at the scene of a wreck, but only until such time as the track is cleared sufficiently to permit movement of trains.

"(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to an employee during such period of time as the provisions of section 3 apply to his duty and off-duty periods. "SEC. 3. (a) No operator, train dispatcher, or other employee who by the use of the telegraph, telephone, radio, or any other electrical or mechanical device directs or controls the movement of any train or who by the use of any such means dispatches, reports, transmits, receives, or delivers orders pertaining to or affecting train movements

"(1) shall be required or permitted to be or remain on duty for more than nine hours, whether consecutive or in the aggregate, in any twenty-four-hour period in any tower, office, station, or place where two or more shifts are employed; or

"(2) shall be required or permitted to be or remain on duty for more than eleven hours, whether consecutive or in the aggregate, in any twenty-four-hour period in any tower, office, station, or place where only one shift is employed. "(b) For the purpose of subsection (a), in determining the number of hours an employee is on duty in a class of service, and at a place, described in clause (1) or (2) of such subsection, there shall be counted, in addition to the time spent by him on duty in such service at such place, all time on duty in other service performed for the common carrier during the twenty-four-hour period involved.

"(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, in case of emergency the employees described in such subsection may be permitted to be and remain on duty for four additional hours in any period of twenty-four consecutive hours of not exceeding three days in any period of seven consecutive days.

"SEC. 4. (a) Any such common carrier, or any officer or agent thereof, requiring or permitting any employee to go, be, or remain on duty in violation of section 2 or section 3 of this Act shall be liable to a penalty of $500 for each and every violation, to be recovered in a suit or suits to be brought by the United States attorney in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction in the locality where such violations shall have been committed; and it shall be the duty of such district attorney to bring such suit upon satisfactory information being lodged with him.

"(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Transportation to lodge with the appropriate United States attorney information of any violation as may come to the knowledge of the Secretary.

"(c) In all prosecutions under this Act the common carrier shall be deemed to have knowledge of all acts of all its officers and agents.

"(d) The provisions of this Act shall not apply in any case of casualty or unavoidable accident or the act of God; nor where the delay was the result of a cause not known to the carrier or its officer or agent in charge of the employee at the time said employee left a terminal, and which could not have been foreseen. "SEC. 5. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Transportation to enforce the provisions of this Act."

SEC. 2. This Act shall take effect thirty days after the date of its enactment.

B-115503.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., May 7, 1969.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of April 29, 1969, requesting our comments on S. 1938.

The bill, for the purpose of improving the safety of railroad transportation under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, would amend the Hours of Service Act of 1907 entitled, "An Act to promote the safety of employees and travelers upon railroads by limiting the hours of service of employees thereon," 34 Stat. 1415-1417 (45 U.S.C. 61, 62, 63, 64).

We have no special knowledge as to the need or justification for the proposed measure. The bill would not affect the functions and operations of our Office. However, the bill appears to be in the public interest and we have no objection to its favorable consideration by your Committee.

Sincerely yours,

Acting Comptroller General of the United States. Senator HARTKE. The first witness we have this morning is Mr. E. L. McCulloch, the assistant grand chief engineer and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, from Cleveland, Ohio.

STATEMENT OF E. L. McCULLOCH, ASSISTANT GRAND CHIEF ENGINEER AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, B. OF L.E. BUILDING, CLEVELAND, OHIO; ACCOMPANIED BY W. E. SKUTT, ASSISTANT GRAND CHIEF ENGINEER, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, OAKDALE, LONG ISLAND, N.Y.; AND RICHARD H. KRAUSHAAR, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, CLEVELAND, OHIO Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce our general counsel, Mr. Richard Kraushaar, from Cleveland, and my fellow officer, Brother Bill Skutt, assistant grand chief engineer.

If it pleases the committee, I would like to present the prepared statement for the record and give to you at this time a brief oral statement on the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers' position in regard

to S. 1938.

The brotherhood's position, Mr. Chairman, is one in which we feel an amendment to the current act is long overdue. We have gone through a period, particularly since the advent of the mergers in the railroad

industry, whereby our people are being required in many cases to work excessively long hours day after day for long periods of time. It is not unusual for locomotive engineers working local freight assignments to be required to work regularly for 15 to 16 hours a day.

As a matter of explanation, on local freight assignments and switching on minor roads, contrary to through freights, where most of the time is spent going from terminal to terminal, it is common practice on these assignments, in fact it is in many cases daily occurrences, for these crews to cut and run for a terminal to avoid exceeding the present 16-hour law. They are almost without exception on duty from 15 to 15 hours and 59 minutes.

As you know, the carriers have shown considerable persistence in their desire to merge railroads to eliminate terminals, and this has brought about long mileage freight assignments, runs that extend over periods of 250 to 267 miles in length.

As an illustration and just for example only, we have one run between Fort Worth and Houston, Tex., a distance of 267 miles, a run that mandates long hours on duty, usually 12 to 16 hours every day, every trip.

As you are also aware, the elimination of firemen from some runs places the engineer practically by himself under extreme tensions every minute of every mile, working under environmental health conditions that would challenge even the most indifferent health officer, noise conditions of sufficient decibels of sound to shatter the nerves of a jack hammer operator, and with no provisions for relief.

Locomotive engineers are performing what might be considered heroic feats of stamina every day. We sometimes wonder how they endure these long grueling hours. Even more we wonder how the carriers can profess safety of operations while at the same time exploiting our workers beyond normal endurance.

In order to get over the road, our engineers are being denied the right to stop and have warm meals, in an effort to get in short of what we call the 16-hour law.

Now on the other hand, in yard service, many times our people are required to work 15 hours and 59 minutes. They have been instructed by carrier representatives in some locations not to work 16 hours, but to work and show on the register as being on duty 15 hours and 59 minutes, whereby they may return at the expiration of 8 hours of off-duty for another tour of duty.

So, gentlemen, it is almost a necessity if we are going to have any degree of home life, if we are going to have any degree of safety on the Nation's railroads today, to bring about a reduction in the total hours of service.

Our people can no longer keep this up. They are taking enormous risks. Many of our engineers are being sent to doctors for physical examinations, because they are having the so-called unseen heart attacks. And this in our opinion has been brought about by the long hours on duty, fumes from diesel locomotives, other environmental adverse health conditions, something that was not prevalent a few years ago in the steam engine days.

Our work is becoming more exacting, more technical, and to keep a man right under the gun for as high as 15 to 16 hours a day is not conducive to the best interests of safety on the railroads.

Now why does the carrier persist in doing this? The answer is quite obvious. It is cheaper for the industry to keep a man working right up to 15 to 16 hours a day than it is to hire another man. When you take into consideration the health and welfare policies that are now in effect, the taxes the carrier pays, the railroad retirement annuity, it is much cheaper for the carrier to work one man 16 hours a day than it is to hire the second one.

In practically every one of our contracts we have provisions for vacation privileges. Many of our engineers are being restricted to periods of the year when it is not at all conducive to take a vacation. In many cases they can't even get a vacation. They are paid in lieu thereof, which our contracts provide. It isn't a question that our people want to be paid for a vacation; they want the right to take a vacation, but because the industry is so lacking in what we believe is foresight, and in having a sufficient number of employees, so that our people will not be required to work these long hours, our people are being denied their vacations.

We certainly think and we hope that the gentlemen of this committee, in considering this petition for a change in the Hours of Service Act, will take into account the fact that 12 hours is ample time for any human being to be in service for any industry at one time in a 24-hour period.

With this, Mr. Chairman, I will not take any more of your time. I certainly appreciate your kind attention. We will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

(The complete statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF E. L. McCULLOCH, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND ASSISTANT GRAND CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS

My name is E. L. McCulloch. I am National Legislative Representative and Assistant Grand Chief Engineer of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. I have been authorized to testify relative to S. 1938 for Grand Chief Engineer C. J. Coughlin, chief executive officer of the BLE, and for the 35,000 active members of the Brotherhood who are currently employed as locomotive engineers and firemen on the railroads of the United States. I wish to record our support of S. 1938 and similar pending legislation to amend the Hours of Service Law. As the duly designated bargaining representative for the craft of locomotive engineers on most of the railroads in this nation, the BLE represents 97 percent of the individuals employed as locomotive engineers. This union also holds contracts for locomotive firemen on a substantial number of small railroads. I personally have 19 years' seniority as a locomotive engineer with the Missouri Pacific Railroad.

As spokesman for locomotive engineers, the men operating the locomotives and chiefly responsible for the safe movement of trains, BLE vigorously supports the proposed legislation to amend the present Hours of Service Law for railroad employees, an Act passed in 1907-over 60 years ago. During its long existence, BLE has been in the forefront in encouraging the enactment of safety legislation for railroad employees. History records the BLE as one of the major initiators or proponents of much of the safety legislation in the industry, including the Safety Appliance Acts, the present Hours of Service Act, the Accident Reports Act, the Block Signal System Act, the Locomotive Inspection Act, and the Power or Train Brakes Safety Appliance Act of 1958, and has participated in the implementation and enforcement of these enactments. As recently as May 21, 1969, BLE appeared before Congress to testify in support of S. 1933, another needed safety bill for the railroad industry. This latter proposal not only shows BLE's continuing concern with the current safety record on the railroads but also establishes the increasing interest of Congress in railway safety legislation due to the apparently deteriorating safety record on the railroads. We, therefore, urge enactment of S. 1938 for reasons of safety.

But as importantly, the reduction in hours of service for locomotive engineers from a maximum of 16 to 12 hours is needed as social and humanitarian legislation. In other transportation industries in the United States as well as in the railroad industry in other countries, it has been recognized that limiting hours of work at a point below the maximum presently prescribed for railroad operating employees is necessary in providing those employees with adequate, unbroken rest from their onerous and arduous tasks. Testimony presented by the railroads to the Subcommittee On Transportation And Aeronatics in regard to the 1966 bills to amend the Hours of Service Act reveals that over 9 percent of all engineers in the various classes of service for October 1965 worked on an average of 12 or more hours per trip or tour of duty, and slightly over one-half of one percent exceeded 16 hours (p. 387).1 The material submitted also proved that about 30 percent of those engineers in local and way freight worked 12 or more hours per trip or tour of duty in the same period. Some 1.85 percent of that group worked 16 hours or more (pp. 386, 389).

Beginning in the latter part of 1967 and the early part of 1968, the BLE directly and through its general chairmen began to receive written and verbal complaints from its members that they were continuously being required to work excessively long hours, that these periods were the norm rather than the exception and were not due to seasonal fluctuations in forces, that they were being required to work during their vacation, that in some instances they were not being allowed to take days off, that their relief or release periods were not sufficient to provide adequate rest, and that many of them, therefore, felt that they were at the physical breaking point. In other words, they were just plain tired. Part of this change in having to work extended hours over continuous periods of time is probably due to the increased loadings resulting from the Vietnam conflict, and some of this may be attributable to the increased demand for commodities and goods required to operate our industries and to satisfy the wants of the general public. However, as we continuously warned the railroads, the major cause is simply due to a shortage of qualified locomotive engineers. In short, most if not all carriers are now understaffed as to locomotive engineers. And, except for six carriers, they have refused BLE's efforts to provide the necessary corps of trained engineers through modern programs which we have proposed. That the carriers were aware that this shortage of engineers would take place in 1968 and 1969 can be discerned from testimony submitted by them in litigation in which this organization has participated.

The following figures sustain the conclusion that by the Fall of 1968 the anticipated shortage of engineers had taken place and, as a result, engineers in all classes of service were working more hours on the average than at the time of or before the 1966 hearings. At the 1966 hearings, the carriers did testify as to the average weekly hours for enginers in the various classes of service on the Class I railroads during 1964 (p. 383). I ask you to compare that with the average weekly hours for September 1968. The last figures were prepared by BLE's Research Department from the same sources used by the carriers' witnesses in preparing the earlier statistics.

From this, it is apparent that the average number of hours on duty has significantly increased in the last several years. In the last two categories particularly, local freight and yard, the hours on duty are so far out of line with the normal hours worked by other categories of employees in the various industries that immediate rectification thereof is required for social reasons.

That is why BLE is here today. It is critical that something be done immediately, that is enactment of this bill. The BLE is unequivocally in favor of S. 1938 as drafted.

1 Reference herein, unless otherwise indicated, is to the printed Hearings on H.R. 8476 Before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966).