number of passengers and, as a consequence, some communities may suffer. However, we believe that it is in the public interest to publish timetables in local times and we see nothing in the proposed bills which would disturb that practice.

With a view toward greater convenience to the public and with an eye on airline economy, we are in favor of any legislation designed to establish a uniform date for time conversion. We believe that H.R. 6785, H.R. 7867, and H.R. 6481 will achieve such uniformity. While others of the pending bills would accomplish this, we believe these bills would result in a balancing of the need to consider the requirements and desires of communities affected by time changes and the very pressing need for a uniform conversion date which I have emphasized. Our second point concerns the need for time uniformity within closely associated business and transportation areas. An airport_usually serves a large geographical area which may extend across State boundaries. In fact, in some instances, a community airport may be physically located in another State. Washington, D.C., and Cincinnati, Ohio, are good examples. We are pleased that these bills recognize this point in establishing standards for the guidance of the Interstate Commerce Commission when it defines the boundaries of primary zones or subzones so that persons and businesses within a given community of interest will be operating on the same time standard.

Third, the airlines must make use of Greenwich time for air traffic control purposes. As a result certain internal operational procedures must also be keyed to Greenwich time. The Federal Aviation Agency has established Greenwich time as the standard for air traffic control. This, of course, was done in the interest of safety-in order that there could be absolutely no question that pilots, dispatchers, and traffic controllers were all on a common time basis for flight clearances and that, of course, is worldwide. We believe that H.R. 6785, H.R. 7867, and H.R. 6481 would leave this undisturbed but we mention our need to use Greenwich time so that our right to do so will be protected under any legislation that may be adopted.

Certain of our member airlines also apply Greenwich time to internal functions which may involve the safety of life and property in the air. None of this, I may add, Mr. Chairman, would concern the public directly. For example, some airlines use Grenewich time as a standard for radio, telephone, or teletypewriter messages in order to eliminate misunderstanding among personnel located in many different time zones. Since these are wholly internal functions and in no way involve the general public, we submit there is no reason for restricting the practice.

In summary, the airlines urge Congress to provide for the establishment and observance of a uniform system of time standards and measurement for the United States. We strongly support uniformity in time conversion dates, and urge that any time boundaries take into account the needs of the entire community and not just an entity thereof. In the interests of safety, we request that Congress make clear that no interference with the use of Greenwich time for air traffic control and other operational purposes is intended.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Slichter.
Mr. Younger?

Mr. YOUNGER. No.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Pickle?

Mr. PICKLE. I have no questions.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Devine?

Mr. DEVINE. No questions, thank you.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Gilligan.

Mr. GILLIGAN. Thank you, no, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Slichter.

Next is Mr. Carl V. Lyon, assistant general solicitor of the Association of American Railroads.

STATEMENT OF CARL V. LYON, ASSISTANT GENERAL SOLICITOR, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

Mr. LYON. My name is Carl V. Lyon. You have my title and I represent the Association of American Railroads. I would like to have my entire statement submitted for the record and I will give you a very quick statement in behalf of our industry.

No. 1, we support the principle of uniform time. We have for many years and we do not care whether it is standard or whether it is daylight time. All we want is uniformity. For many years, we have been coming before this committee and committees of the Senate exhorting uniformity in time and have not gotten it. This year, we are prepared to support the bills that are now before you even though, as has been pointed out to you, they take only a small step in the right

direction.

S. 1404, as passed by the Senate, with the amendments, is acceptable to us. It should be understood as far as we are concerned, at least, that this will not save us a lot of money. It will eliminate a lot of confusion, it will make it much simpler for our employees to deal with the public, and will make it much simpler for the public to deal with us and understand what we are trying to do.

I think that the provision in the bill for having the Interstate Commerce Commision promote uniformity in the time around the country is a sound one. I think that they will be able to make some progress and I hope that the committee will leave this provision in the bill.

In so far as penalties and enforcement are concerned, the railroad industry is like every other industry. If we are going to have penalties and enforcement as mentioned by previous witnesses, then they should be applicable to all, and not just to the railroad industry. So long as any decision is left to the State and local communities as to whether they will go on daylight saving time the railroad industry will have to stay on standard time. The law at the present time requires us to be on standard time. Even if this requirement were to be eliminated, unles there is a wide takeover by the Federal Government in this field, we would continue to operate our trains on standard time.

The State as a minimum size, referring to Mr. Moss's comment, I think would be quite good. But I would not want to see these bills saddled with an albatross that would cause nothing to be done simply to go for something that would be better. I do not know whether it can be achieved, but I think the committee should bear this in mind. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we do support, as members of the Committee for Time Uniformity, the bills that were prepared initially by the Committee for Time Uniformity. We also suport the amendments made by the Senate to S. 1404. We think that this is a good step in the right direction.

Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Lyon follows:)

STATEMENT OF CARL V. LYON, ASSISTANT GENERAL SOLICITOR, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

My name is Carl V. Lyon. I am Assistant General Solicitor of the Association of American Railroads (AAR), with headquarters in Washington, D.C. The AAR is a voluntary, nonprofit organization. Its membership comprises railroads that operate 96 percent of the total mileage of all railroads (excluding switching and terminal companies) in the United States and have operating revenues approximating 98 percent of the total operating revenues of all the railroads in the United States.

My appearance here today is to express the views of the association and its members in support of H.R. 6785 and S. 1404, "to establish uniform dates throughout the United States for the commencing and ending of daylight saving time in those States and local jurisdictions where it is observed, and for other purposes." S. 1404 in the form passed by the Senate is identical with H.R. 6785, and three other House bills (H.R. 6481, H.R. 7867, and H.R. 11743) except for two amendments adopted by the Senate. We support the Senate amendments. For many years the railroad industry has suported efforts to establish greater uniformity in the observance of time within standard time zones throughout the United States. The Interstate Commerce Commission has repeatedly recommended to the Congress that legislation be enacted to accomplish this purpose. Over the years bills of every conceivable form and type have been introduced in an effort to obtain this result. The railroad industry has consistently approved the principle of uniform time observance within established time zones and has specifically declined to express a preference either for daylight saving time or against it. We adhere to that principle now.

Section 2 of the Standard Time Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C.A. sec. 262) requires that the operations of railroads be governed by standard time. In ever increasingly large numbers the communities served by the railroads have adopted daylight saving time during a portion of the year. The adoption of daylight saving time in some areas is statewide. In others the option is left with individual communities to adopt the standard of their choice. While the prevailing dates of observance are from the last Sunday in April until the last Sunday in October there are numerous variations both as to commencement dates and expiration dates. All of these practices require adjustments in railroad schedules and methods of operations with consequent inconvenience, confusion, and expense. Neither S. 1404 nor H.R. 6785 would solve all of these problems. But they would help-particularly in the elimination of some of the unnecessary confusion and inconvenience. They embody a reasonable and realistic first step in the right direction and hopefully will pave the way for the adoption of greater uniformity in the future.

The adverse impact of existing time practices is felt in inconvenience and frustration to the public, in hardship and perplexity to railroad employees, and in general economic waste. It creates problems for managing and conducting freight operations as well as passenger services.

Perhaps the most serious of these difficulties is that which affects the public and the relations of the railroad industry with the public. In today's competitive transportation world, it is of vital importance to maintain a favorable relationship with business patrons. Unquestionably when the many and varying time changes are made in the spring and early summer each year and continuing until late fall numbers of travelers become upset and disgruntled at the maze of time disarray which confronts them in dealing with long-distance public transportation agencies. Unfortunately, much of the annoyance and disgruntlement is directed against the carrier and its employee who have no choice but to do their best to make sense out of confusion which is not of their own making and which is beyond their power to change.

They

Attachment A to this statement is a copy of pages 18 and 19 excerpted from the August 1965 issue of the Official Guide of the Railways of the United States. These pages attempt to list the States, cities, and towns observing daylight saving time during last year and the periods in which such time was in effect. illustrate the variety of times being observed. Each year it is a challenge for the railroad employee to familiarize himself with, and master, the many nuisances inherent in the lack of time uniformity which prevails throughout the country. Challenging as this yearly task is, it is a small matter compared to the burden of unraveling the complexities in an understandable way for the occasional traveler. Related to this is the major problem of maintaining and operating a sensible scheduling program which will be understandable to the employee and explainable to the patron, and more importantly meet the demands of commerce.

Because parts of the country maintain the same standard of time year round and other parts change to daylight saving time for various periods of the year, the problem of scheduling trains to meet the needs and demands of the public and of the marketplace becomes most troublesome. This occurs, for example, in providing service from the South to the North. Most States and communities in the southern part of the United States continue to observe standard time. Most States and communities in the northeastern part change over to daylight saving time each year. To meet the needs of the northern communities schedules must be changed. In some cases this has made it impossible or impractical to entirely maintain some important through train connections. An example from last summer is the Silver Meteor, which arrives in Washington, D.C. at 6 a.m., eastern standard time, from Miami and intermediate southern points. From the last Sunday in October to the last Sunday in April this important train makes connections with the Pennsylvania Railroad's Pittsburgh and Buffalo trains which, during the observance of standard time in the East, depart from Washington, D.C. at 7 a.m., eastern standard time. During the summer months, however, the Pittsburgh and Buffalo trains, in order to meet the needs of those communities, depart at 7 a.m., daylight saving time which is actually 6 a.m. eastern standard time or about an hour before the Silver Meteor arrives in Washington, D.C. A similar problem existed at the St. Louis gateway. Most of the southwestern part of the country observes standard time throughout the year. Trains serving the area reflect that fact and eastbound trains arriving at St. Louis are scheduled on standard time. In order to protect and meet these schedules Pennsylvania eastbound trains Nos. 4 and 30 continue to leave St. Louis on standard time but as a result arrive in New York City 1 hour later than the preferable schedule time.

In terms of economic waste the adoption by the Congress of H.R. 6785 or S. 1404 would accomplish very little at the outset insofar as the railroad industry is concerned. It would, however, eliminate at once a considerable amount of confusion and perplexity among employees and members of the public which results from the varying effective dates of daylight saving time observance. If the Interstate Commerce Commission is successful in promoting uniform time observance thoughout each standard time zone, as the two bills would direct, there could be elimination of substantial economic waste. But unless or until such success is attained most of the additional and unnecessary costs which accrue to the industry would still have to be met. These costs stem principally from the necessity twice each year of reprinting both employee and public timetables. We are hopeful that enactment of either of these two bills would stimulate and hasten the adoption of greater uniformity throughout the country on a much broader scale. It is hoped that this initial step will demonstrate the wisdom of

greater uniformity by Federal action in this regard and that greater advances toward a sane time policy will follow shortly thereafter.

When uniform time bills were being considered during 1963 and 1964 some review was made on the Pennsylvania Railroad to estimate what costs might be saved in the event time uniformity were to become a reality.

On the eastern region of the Pennsylvania Railroad alone, it was estimated that the changeover required the revising of 202 schedule pages of the employee timetable and numerous other revisions on 200 additional pages where time is specified in general operating rules. For the revisions incident to the adoption of daylight saving time effective April 26, 1964, the printing bill alone was $33,784, while labor, in the preparation of the changes, cost $15,000. These costs, together with distribution expense, approximate $50,000. There are two other regions on the Pennsylvania that issue similar employee timetables, and for all three regions the cost to the Pennsylvania approximates $300,000 each year. While adoption of H.R. 6785 or S. 1404 would not eliminate these expenditures the accomplishment of our long-range goal of uniform time observance within established time zones (with respect to which such legislation would be the first step) would make it possible to revise these employee instructions only once a year, in lieu of twice a year as now required. This would mean a savings of $150,000 per annum to the Pennsylvania Railroad.

In addition to the $150,000 savings related to the employee timetable, the ultimate accomplishment of the goal would enable the Pennsylvania Railroad to save approximately $60,000 annually in the printing and distribution of public schedules. Because of the underlying consideration, work, and activity involved in resolving the complex freight and passenger schedule changes the total unnecessary outlay was estimated to easily reach $250,000 per year on the Pennsylvania and could exceed $2 million per year for the entire railroad industry. Early in 1962, a survey of problems arising because of the lack of uniform time was conducted of 22 principal class I railroads operating throughout the United States. The results of that survey are summarized in attachment B, hereto, entitled "Statement of Difficulty Being Experienced by Railroads Because of Lack of Uniformity in Time." In short, it demonstrates that the confusion, expense, and inconvenience resulting from lack of time uniformity are general and widespread.

Of the bills pending before this committee, those that would make the observance of standard time mandatory the year around for all purposes (H.R. 2424, H.R. 5055, and H.R. 10573) would result in the maximum uniformity and would result in the greatest economic benefits for the railroad industry. Practically all of the unnecessary expense and confusion described herein would be eliminated by enactment of such legislation. Likewise, the large bulk of railroad problems in this regard would be solved by enactment of H.R. 76 which would place the entire Nation on daylight saving time and require its observance from the last Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October of each year. We support these proposals and would welcome their approval.

However, in recognition of the strong broad based support that exists for the proposals embodied in H.R. 6785 and S. 1404 and the need for some positive action on this subject we specifically and respectfully urge that H.R. 6785 or S. 1404 be approved by this committee and enacted.

There is no question that substantial confusion and economic waste result from our present time observance laws and practices. As transportation and communication systems are constantly improved, the need for a concomitant improvement in such an ordinary and basic function as time observance will become more necessary rather than less. The proposals embodied in these two bills represent a minimal and reasonable first step in the right direction.