Images de page
PDF
ePub

these casualty rates can be stated, the casualty rate per million manhours worked is the significant index of employee exposure.

If you will look in attachment C, at the classification, "Transportation, Train and Engine Service," VI(b), you will see that this casualty rate is high and there is no recognizable trend toward improvement. Maintenance of way employees and other transportation employees also show a safety experience which is not improving.

Despite these less than encouraging trends, the record does suggest that we have achieved results through establishing standards and conducting inspections in areas where we are authorized to do so, and by investigating accidents to determine cause.

I have already noted that few accidents are caused by locomotive defects. We must attribute this in part at least to the inspection of locomotives by the field staff of our Bureau of Railroad Safety. Attachment D provides a 6-year record of our efforts in this regard.

It is significant, however, that in the 1961-67 period there has been a steady year-to-year increase in the number of locomotives found defective by our inspectors. While 9.6 percent of the locomotives inspected in 1961 had defects, 12.3 percent of those inspected in 1967 had defects. The percentage of freight cars which our inspection of safety appliances has found defective has similarly shown an increase from 5.1 percent in 1961 to 7.2 percent in 1967.

The intensified efforts of the Bureau of Railroad Safety to secure compliance with the present rail safety statutes now include approaches other than on-the-spot inspections. We are holding conferences with both operating officers and top executives of the railroads in an attempt to correct conditions that have deteriorated into a pattern of noncompliance.

We also secure compliance through the imposition of statutory penalties in court proceedings, but we do not like to think of ourselves as a mere safety policeman on the Nation's railroads. We play that role when we have to, but our thrust today is toward a more positive approach.

THE NEED FOR BROADENED AUTHORITY

It is clear that the present laws are inadequate to deal with many of the technical and operating problems of today. While the Department has responsibility over such things as power brakes, automatic couplers, locomotives, and signal devices, the areas over which it has no authority go to the very heart of the safe operation of a railroad: Track and rail inspection practices, freight car design, inspection and maintenance practices especially as these relate to wheels and other running gear-operating rules and practices, including the use of train radios, and, perhaps most important of all, the design of

passenger cars.

The accident profile in these specific areas is not one to be proud of, especially when one looks at the hard facts of some of the more recent accidents. The National Transportation Safety Board, for example, in its report on the collision of a Boston & Maine commuter train and a tank truck on December 28, 1966, at Everett, Mass., found that the cause of most of the 13 deaths "*** was not the impact of the collision, but the lack of emergency exits in the car, in addition to the

95-388-68-2

inward-opening center rear door that became jammed in a closed position by persons attempting to escape."

The Board also investigated a head-on-collision of two New York Central freight trains in New York City on May 22, 1967, where six men lost their lives. There the Board found a wide variety of inadequacies in rules, operating practices, personnel training, and the use of communications devices.

The statistics cited earlier, moreover, show a continuing increase in the number of railroad accidents and show further that most of these accidents are attributable to causes beyond the reach of present laws. The Everett and New York City tragedies speak for themselves in this regard.

It is significant that the Congress has already legislated broad Federal authority for safety on the airways and the airfields, safety on the highways, and safety on the seas.

In air transportation, the Congress has given the Department authority over the entire aircraft and all the appliances on it that pertain to air safety. It can establish rules and regulations regarding inspection and overhaul of aircraft, the personnel who operate and maintain them, and any practices and procedures necessary to the safety of air

commerce.

The scope of the Department's authority is just as broad over motor carriers. Among other things, it includes the establishment of reasonable qualifications for employees and requirements for safety of operations and equipment.

CURRENT STATE REGULATORY PROGRAMS

The Federal role in railroad safety matters, while limited, has always been the dominant one compared to the activities of the States. The scope of State rules, regulations, and laws dealing with rail safety varies widely, and significantly some States have never exercised any meaningful control over rail safety, even in local matters.

Few State regulatory agencies have had the manpower or funds, moreover, to conduct major rail safety programs. A check of those States most active in the field of railroad safety to determine the number of personnel working on rail safety matters showed that New York had 34: California, 27; New Jersey, 14; Ohio, seven; Tennessee, six; and Michigan, six. Of these personnel, the majority are involved in grade-crossing safety and most of the remainder have some responsibility in the grade-crossing field.

Because of the heavy State involvement in the grade-crossing safety problems, we have already drawn on State regulatory commissions for assistance in the Department's own program to reduce grade-crossing hazards and accidents. We find that the States are also active in such matters as weed and vegetation control to improve sight distances at grade crossings and in the establishment of safe clearance requirements for railroad equipment. Local communities regulate train speeds and noise in somewhat the same manner that they regulate motor vehicle traffic.

Thus, as a practical matter State involvement in rail safety has been. local rather than national in character. Under the legislation proposed here, they would continue to regulate in these areas of local concern, but they would be preempted from independent action in areas of national concern. The impact on State programs should be minimal.

At the same time, the Department's bill would create a new FederalState relationship, in that it would authorize the Secretary to utilize the services of State agencies and to reimburse them for their role in the inspection and surveillance necessary to insure safe railroad operations. Under the Department's bill, Federal and State interest in rail safety would become one of joint concern and joint action.

BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Against this background, a review of our current railroad safety program led us to conclude that the expanded authority being proposed here was in order. Train accidents have been going up in most areas not covered by our program; but have been relatively constant in those which are. Our field inspections show a slow but steady increase in the percentage of equipment found defective. Our overall authority is limited with regard to the important causative factors in railroad safety. State programs are few and of limited coverage.

Thus, we began late last fall to draft the legislation which is now before you. By February, we were satisfied that a bill such as that which we are now proposing could do the necessary job.

So, we were not surprised when the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board wrote me on April 3 of this year to say that their review shows that the railroad accident picture "is extremely serious." After noting the trends toward higher speeds and heavier trains, he also concluded that unless the accident problem was arrested, "*** consideration should be given to supporting or proposing Federal legislation which would provide additional safety regulatory authority for the Department of Transportation in the railroad safety field."

This reinforced our decision to go ahead with the legislation which we now have brought before you.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Let me go on to highlight the more important features of H.R. 16980.

It would repeal most of the present limited and highly specific rail safety statutes enacted over the past 75 years. It would provide in their place a modern, comprehensive statute similar to the aviation, motor vehicle, and highway safety laws. It would give the Secretary of Transportation broad and flexible authority to prescribe regulations to assure the safety of railroad operations for both railroad employees and the public.

To prevent a lapse of existing safety regulations, the bill provides that within 90 days after enactment the Secretary shall adopt as interim regulations the specific safety requirements prescribed in or under the statutes it repeals. The bill further provides that these interim standards are to remain in effect for 2 years unless changed or repealed by the Secretary.

This measure would provide a wide range of penalties to help assure compliance with all safety regulations. It would impose civil penalties of $250 to $1,000 for failure to comply with safety standards, rules and regulations, or for failure to cooperate in the recordkeeping and inspection requirements prescribed by the Secretary. It would

also provide a criminal penalty of up to $10,000 and 1 year's imprisonment, or both, for knowing and willful violations.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary to obtain injunctive relief to enforce safety standards, rules and regulations. It further requires, however, that whenever practicable the Secretary give prior notice to violators to give them an opportunity to come into compliance.

The bill authorizes the States to regulate in specified areas, in a manner that is not in conflict with Federal regulations. These areas include vertical and horizontal clearance requirements, grade crossing protection, the speed and audible signals of trains while operating within urban or other densely populated areas and the installation or removal of industrial and spur tracks.

The bill further provides that other State laws relating to rail safety will continue in force for 2 years following enactment of this bill, unless sooner superseded by the courts, State action, or regulations issued by the Secretary.

Under the bill, the Secretary is authorized to contract with State agencies for the provision of inspection and surveillance services necessary to the enforcement of Federal safety regulations. Reimbursement of State costs may be made from appropriations available for carrying out the rail safety program.

OTHER PENDING RAILROAD SAFETY BILLS

In addition to this bill which the Department of Transportation has proposed, there are three other bills before Congress that deal with railroad safety.

They are H.R. 5934, a bill that would broaden Federal authority over rail safety by supplementing existing statutes with administrative rules and regulations; H.R. 5935, which would increase the penalties assessed under existing statutes; and H.R. 5245, which would amend the Hours of Service Act.

In drafting the Department's bill, we studied both H.R. 5934 and H.R. 5935 carefully. We concluded that they did not go far enough to create the flexibility we believe necessary to improve the rail safety record. Thus, while the bill proposed here embodies the changes sought in those two earlier bills, it is more comprehensive and self-contained. The third bill, H.R. 5245, is in a special category. This bill would amend the present Hours of Service Act so as to reduce the maximum hours a railroad operating employee could work without rest from the present 16 to 12 hours and the maximum hours a telegraphic or dispatching employee could work from the present 13 down to 11 hours. Many members of this committee will recall that the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics held extensive hearings on a similar bill in the 89th Congress. The committee did not report out a bill, and H.R. 5245 was introduced in the first session of the 90th Congress. No additional hearings have been held in the House or Senate, and to my knowledge there has been no committee action on the measure.

The Hours of Service Act is unique among transportation safety laws, in that it prescribes by statute the maximum number of hours an employee can work. Only the Congress can change these requirements. The impact of any such changes upon both employee earnings and carrier operations further complicates the matter.

We have not included the Hours of Service Act among those statutes to be replaced by the general authority proposed in the present bill. Our decision here was predicated in part upon the advice which the Interstate Commerce Commission furnished this committee to the effect that it was unable to establish any direct relationship between railroad accidents and the hours of service limitation. When and if we can show that the present hours of service limitation plays some significant part in railroad accident experience, we will then recommend appropriate changes in the law to the Congress.

PUTTING THE NEW AUTHORITY TO WORK

It should also be clearly understood here that the statutory language which we are proposing would not in itself create any specific regulations. Those regulations currently in force would be continued on an interim basis. We would develop any new or changed regulations only in accordance with the rulemaking processes which are provided for under the Administrative Procedure Act. Thus, no new regulations would go into effect until all interested parties were given an opportunity to participate in their development.

The enactment of this legislation will require the prompt initiation of rulemaking in three major areas. First and foremost, we would move to review the interim regulations and reissue regulations to replace them. This would insure that there was no lapse in our accident reporting procedures or in our locomotive, safety appliances, and signals and train control inspection programs.

Our second important job would be to reveiw any areas of State regulation which were preempted by this legislation and to develop and put into effect Federal regulations in their stead. Our current thinking is that this would require immediate consideration of standards for track inspection procedures and the operation of track motor

cars.

Our third job, and one which would predictably extend over a period of years, would be to explore those areas wherein no regulation, either State or Federal, now exists and to initiate rulemaking in all such areas significant from a safety standpoint.

Our current thinking here is that we would first turn our attention to safety standards in the design of passenger-carrying equipment; next, to inspection and maintenance procedures for freight car wheels and running gear; and, finally, to train operating rules and practices.

We are unable at this point to determine what our total staff requirements for this work will be. Neither can we predict closely the level of Federal support required by the State programs authorized by this legislation.

For this reason we did not include in our bill any specific dollar limits on appropriations. Our bill is at variance in this respect with the committee bill, and we would recommend that section 14 of our bill replace section 14 in the committee bill.

In all of this, it should be understood that the main thrust of this bill is the safety of railroad employees and the public in the operation of the railroads, employees and the public in the operation of the railroads, not employee health per se or what might more generally be thought of as industrial safety.

These latter areas fall more logically within the expertise of other State and Federal agencies. As you know, there is pending before the

« PrécédentContinuer »