to operate on daylight saving time. As a matter of fact, I am not sure whether they consider themselves on daylight saving time or on eastern standard time— it all depends on to whom you are talking. A similar situation exists at Winamac and Logansport, where these two communities operate on eastern standard time year round despite the fact that they are both in the central time belt.

Another problem affecting the Pennsylvania Railroad and other railroads is the frequent change from one time belt to another. For example, on our trains between Chicago and Louisville, they operate out of Chicago in the winter on central standard time until they get to Winamac, then Winamac to Logansport are on eastern standard time, Frankfort just south of Logansport is on central standard time and Indianapolis is on eastern standard time, the next two stops, Columbus and Seymour, are on central standard time, and Jeffersonville and Louisville are on eastern standard time. The lack of uniformity results in the train leaving Indianapolis at 1:42 p.m., arriving at Columbus at 1:30 p.m., arriving at Seymour at 1:50 p.m., then it would appear to take 2 hours and 10 minutes to go the next 50 miles to Louisville.

The widespread use of daylight saving time and the requirement that railroads operate on standard time, requires the complete revision of schedule pages in employee timetables twice each year. On the eastern region of the Pennsylvania Railroad this requires the revising of 202 schedule pages of the employees timetable and numerous other revisions on 200 additional pages where time is specified in general operating rules. For the revisions necessary account 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 expenses, approximate $50,000. There are two other regions on the Pennsylvania that will issue similar employee timetables, and for all three regions the cost to the Pennsylvania approximates $300,000 each year. With a uniform time law it would be necessary 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 employee timetable, the Pennsylvania Railroad would save approximately $60,000 annually in the printing and distribution of public schedules, now a necessity under the present law, and as a result of lack of uniform application by everyone within the various time zones.

The adoption of a uniform time law (maintaining fixed boundaries) will save the Pennsylvania a far greater amount than the $210,000 quoted above, since considerable expense is involved in efforts to resolve freight and passenger schedules, and in the dissemination of information using the two schedules referred to above. This could easily reach $250,000 for the Pennsylvania Railroad and could exceed $2 million for the entire railroad industry.

As a result of inquiries made on numerous other railroads, it develops they, too, have their problems.

For example, the Burlington Lines point out the following:

1. During the daylight saving period, while trains are operated on central standard time, dining cars generally on trains leaving Chicago start serving meals 1 hour earlier than normal or actually on daylight saving time. On trains crossing the time zone in western Nebraska the following morning, breakfast is served 1 hour earlier, or 5:30 a.m. mountain standard time, to avoid a 2-hour time extension between meals. On the California Zephyr operated through Colorado on mountain standard time and into California on Pacific daylight saving time, the meal periods are adjusted accordingly which results in considerable passenger confusion.

2. Generally, labor contracts specifying any given time for starting and ending a tour of duty do not indicate whether standard or daylight saving time is intended and during the daylight saving period the time prevailing locally is used. On transcontinental trains, such as the California Zephyr, some difficulty has been experienced where the train leaves Chicago where daylight saving time is in effect, then through Iowa, Nebraska, and Colorado where central standard time and mountain standard time are in effect and into California under Pacific daylight saving time. There have been a number of instances where claims for extra compensation have been presented.

The Milwaukee Road finds itself in a position wherein they have only 3 hours of a business day to do business between Chicago and Seattle and indicate that it would be highly desirable if all the time zones were changed on the same day and continue that way until the end of summer, then revert to standard time.

The Great Northern in 1961 experienced considerable confusion when three of four States served by them either had different starting dates or different terminating dates.

Problem common to all railroads is the complication that arises from the application of labor contracts that provide for the starting of a switch engine and certain personnel by standard hours or require the abolishment or reestablishment of positions when necessary to change the tour of duty to adjust for the change in people's time. Likewise, perhaps of less importance, is the inconvenience to railroad workers themselves in trying to live with their families on a daylight time basis and work on a standard time basis. Although, I guess most of us have become accustomed over a period of years to being able to make proper allowances for the time a specific activity calls for.

All in all, the picture is one of unnecessary confusion, extra expense and inconvenience to railroad patrons much of which could very easily be taken care of by the establishment of a uniform time applicable to all within the same time zone.

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 the attached "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.

As pointed out to the committee earlier, the position of the railroad industry is to urge and support action which will bring about the same standard of time within time zones of fixed boundaries. If there is to be an annual changeover from standard to so-called daylight time, there should be a common changeover date applicable to all time zones, or at least to the eastern, central, mountain, and Pacific zones. Furthermore the change should be applicable to the entire zone and not merely a portion thereof.

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. 2335 and H.R. 2532] would result in the maximum uniformity. These bills would carry even greater economic benefits to the railroads than the $2 million specified earlier in this testimony, which would be brought about as a result of not having to pay certain employees 8 hours' pay for 7 hours' work when the spring changeover occurs and not have to incur an additional hour's work at overtime rates when the fall changeover takes place.

While not as economically beneficial to the railroads, either H.R. 6284 or H.R. 11407 would receive the support of this industry since they would eliminate some of the objectionable factors presented in this testimony.

The main difficulty with H.R. 4702 [the bill which I understand is recommended by the Interstate Commerce Commission] is that it would, in effect, involve the change of time zone boundaries to achieve daylight saving time. This would continue to cost the railroad industry a substantial part of $2 million with which it is now burdened. One of the sound provisions of H.R. 4702, however, is that which requires the observance of Federal time standards by all persons. Notwithstanding the weak points of H.R. 4702, it is more positive in its approach than is H.R. 11483, which would not impose Federal time standards at State and local levels, but would hope that these would voluntarily become acceptable through persuasion.

While H.R. bills 11206 and 11310 would be of some help they would merely eliminate that segment of the confusion that exists through the various effective periods of daylight saving time, and correct only a minor facet of the current problem. Also they do not include any enforcement provisions, which would seem to be essential if they are to have any effect.

STATEMENT OF DIFFICULTY BEING EXPERIENCED BY RAILROADS BECAUSE OF LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN TIME

(Based upon experiences on 22 selected railroads)

1. DINING CAR SERVICE

In many cases, the workday of the dining car crew is extended in order to take care of meal periods, resulting in increased dining car labor costs. As an example, passengers arriving Chicago from the west on central standard time travel

ing east from Chicago on daylight time, might have their meal as much as 2 hours early unless the diner served later than normal to compensate for the time differential. Passengers from the east through Chicago would be served their meal as much as 2 hours late unless the diner was open for service earlier than normal.

2. PASSENGER TRAIN SCHEDULES

At a transfer point such as Chicago, with western railroads operating on standard time, eastern railroads adjust their schedules by delaying departure of their trains to the east in order to maintain through connections. This results in a later arrival at east coast cities resulting in an inconvenient arrival time for business purposes. Westbound schedules must be advanced 1 hour in the east to maintain connections to the west, resulting in an awkward departure time from east coast cities.

With the west coast observing daylight time and many intermediate points between Chicago-St. Louis observing standard time, the maintenance of normal schedules results in a late arrival and early departure at west coast points. Changes in schedules to compensate for the time change result, in some cases, in inconvenient departures from intermediate key cities.

The change to and from daylight time often results in the necessity for publishing a new timtable for each change in time, and this is multiplied when all areas do not observe daylight time during the same period. This results in increased expenses in publishing timetables for each change.

One railroad reported difficulty has been experienced in complying with requests of the Post Office Department on mail handling on trains operating both in standard and daylight time.

3. FREIGHT TRAIN OPERATIONS

Because of market practices, perishable freight must be delivered or placed for inspection by specific times. Perishables originating in standard time areas and terminating in daylight time areas must be handled from origin to destination in 1 hour less time than normal, or the closing time for billing and diversions and train departure time must be advanced 1 hour to compensate.

Livestock must also be handled to meet market requirements and the difficulties experienced on perishable traffic are also experienced in the handling of livestock.

Schedules on freight trains must be adjusted to meet local requirements. Difficulty arises when a train originates in a standard time area going into a daylight time area. The scheduling of the train 1 hour earlier is not always the answer as consideration must be given to requirements of local shippers at origin as well as intermediate points, and the departures must be coordinated with schedules from connections for through movements.

4. LABOR

Railroad employees, working on standard time, are not always able to participate in community activities if the community observes daylight time. Employees as well as labor organizations have requested working hours on the basis of community time rather than railroad time. Another complaint involves the confusion and possible error involved when employees live in a community observing one time and such employees must report to work on another time.

5. COMMUNICATIONS

Nearly all railroads reported confusion in communicating with distant on-line points. One railroad reported that during periods of daylight time, the communications between home office and the west end of its property were limited to 3 hours each day. Many other railroads advised of limits of 5 and 6 hours for communications between various sections of their property.

6. SUMMARY

Nearly all roads reported confusion and difficulty in one form or another because of the lack of uniform time. The following items of difficulty were reported:

(a) General confusion in passenger timetables.

(b) Lengthened dining car meal service at increased labor costs.

(c) Difficulty in scheduling passenger trains to accommodate origin, intermediate, and destination requirements.

(d) Extra expense of printing timetables.

(e) Difficulty in handling mail to meet post office requirements.

(f) Necessity for rescheduling freight trains to meet delivery times for market on perishables and livestock, also for interline service.

(g) Operating employees may work on standard time, nonoperating employees on daylight time, resulting in confusion and inconvenience.

(h) Revision of switching crew schedules to meet requirements of local industry.

(i) Confusion, particularly train and enginemen, involved in working on standard time and using daylight time at home.

(j) Reduced communication time between stations on the same property. Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Roeper. Mr. Van Deerlin?

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LONG. Mr. Glenn?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. Roeper, I can see where this situation has certainly caused confusion and many difficulties to the railroads. Has it also led to any dangerous situations where the interest of life and property may have been involved?

Mr. ROEPER. It could develop into a dangerous condition due to a misunderstanding because half the time our people are talking standard time and they received all of their railroad instructions in standard time.

On the other hand as soon as they look away from the railroad documents or the railroad instructions they are thinking daylight saving time, and it would be very easy for a person or an individual, even though they are experienced railroaders, to get the two times mixed and this difference could have a serious effect on operations and the safety of operations, particularly in those railroads who operate their trains on the time basis rather than on a signal basis.

Mr. GLENN. Thank you very much. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LONG. Mr. Curtin?

Mr. CURTIN. No questions.

Mr. LONG. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Roeper. It is a comprehensive statement and we are obligated to you for coming in and presenting your views and those of your association.

Mr. ROEPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LONG. Mr. Redding, we would like you back, sir. Proceed in your own order, please.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. REDDING, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY, COMMITTEE FOR TIME UNIFORMITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS PYNE, RETIRED HEARING EXAMINER, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

Mr. REDDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I will be very, very brief. First, I would like to identify myself as Robert E. Redding, vice president and general counsel of the Transportation Association of America, and as the executive director of the Committee for Time Uniformity. I have submitted to your clerk and would respectfully request inclusion in the record of a letter, dated June 18, 1964, submitted on behalf of the

Transportation Association of America in which we express our general support of the objectives of the Committee for Time Uniformity.

Mr. LONG. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The information referred to follows:)

Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
Washington, D.C., June 18, 1964.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. STAGGERS: Your subcommittee has scheduled hearings on June 1819, 1964, involving proposed legislation to modernize the Standard Time Act of 1918.

On behalf of the board of directors of the Transportation Association of America, I would like to support the enactment of time uniformity legislation by the 88th Congress.

As you know, TAA is a nonprofit national transportation policy organization whose membership consists of representatives of transport users, investors, and carriers of all modes, including air, freight forwarder, highway, oil pipeline, railroad, and water carriers. All of these interests participate actively in our continuing efforts to establish sound national policies for the maintenance of a strong transport system under private enterprise.

After a careful study of the time problem by all TAA panels, the board of directors in October 1961 approved a policy position that there should be uniformity of time, whether standard or daylight, and uniformity in the change dates within each time zone. This proposal was approved by the Air Transport, Highway, Pipeline, and Railroad Panels, and not opposed by the other panels. Its purpose is to reduce present confusion and excessive expense for common carriers and users of their services resulting from varying time standards and time changes throughout the United States.

Following the development of a policy position in support of greater time uniformity, TAA contacted a number of government agencies-Federal, State, and local-as well as many business, agricultural, and other interests to acquaint them with the problem. These efforts culminated in the scheduling of a uniform time conference in August 1962, attended by representatives of all such interests, at which it was decided to form an ad hoc Committee for Time Uniformity. The Honorable Robert Ramspeck, national chairman of the committee, will testify before your subcommittee and explain its functions in greater detail. TAA, as a member of the CTU, heartily endorses its objectives and will continue to cooperate with all interested agencies and interests to achieve greater time uniformity.

With respect to the 10 bills currently pending before your subcommittee, TAA favors the enactment of either H.R. 4702 or H.R. 7891, as recommended by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Our belief is that designating the time to be observed in all standard time zones and advanced time subzones the exclusive measure of time for Federal, State, and local purposes would achieve improved time uniformity for the common carrier modes, as well as the shippers, suppliers, and passengers they serve. By authorizing the establishment of advanced time subzones, flexibility of administration is preserved, daylight saving time can be provided where desired, and standard time would prevail in all other areas. We take no position of the identity of the Federal agency to administer this improved legislation; however, we do not object to the ICC continuing to administer such legislation.

We note that both bills are neutral on daylight saving time. We would point out, however, that several bills under consideration, H.R. 6284, H.R. 11206, H.R. 11310, and H.R. 11407, provide for daylight saving time and, if enacted, would make possible more time uniformity than now exists.

We do suggest, however, that the 1-year period provided in section 6 of H.R. 4702 (also sec. 7 of H.R. 7891) for the establishment of advanced time subzones following enactment may prove to be too short. A 2-year period for the completion of such action would appear to be more reasonable, particularly inasmuch as the existing observance of daylight saving time would continue until any revisions become effective.