Images de page
PDF
ePub

Mr. SPRINGER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you, Mr. Springer.
Mr. Kornegay?

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, it is nice to see you are here this morning. I have some questions I would like to ask you in connection with the National Transportation Safety Board, which was created as a result of the Transportation Act of 1966.

Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. One of its functions, of course, is to investigate and review safety measures for all railroads and of all modes of transportation?

Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Now, did that board, that is, the National Transportation Safety Board, file some sort of a report back about April 1 of this year in connection with safety governing the various modes?

Secretary BOYD. I expect you are referring to its report to the Congress, Mr. Kornegay. I believe that is about the time it filed its report to the Congress.

Mr. KORNEGAY. And the report did not go into the Department? Secretary BoYD. We got copies of it.

Mr. KORNEGAY. But it was directed to the Congress?

Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. I will have to check, but I believe the Department of Transportation Act provides for direct reports to the Congress by the Safety Board.

Mr. KORNEGAY. To the Congress.

Now, the Chairman of that is Mr. O'Connell, I believe.
Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. He wrote a letter recently, on April 3, to Mr. Lang, who is Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. He goes on to point out the situation with reference to accidents on the railroads and the rather drastic increase in derailments and other accidents.

Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. And damage to goods being transported and damage to railroads. He concluded by saying that:

We believe that the primary responsibility for improved railroad safety should rest upon railroad management and labor. However, we reiterate here that if it appears that they cannot or will not accept the challenge promptly to arrest the worsening railroad accident picture, 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. That is a fair statement of the conclusion of the paragraph; is it not? Secretary BoYD. Verbatim.

Mr. KORNEGAY. The Department is, of course, sponsoring and pushing the bill which we have under consideration here at the present time?

Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. This is an administration bill, and the Department is the spokesman for the administration.

Mr. KORNEGAY. My question is, Has the Department and/or the Administration come to the conclusion that the management and the

brotherhoods cannot or will not accept the challenge to improve this safety picture?

Secretary BoYD. Let me only say this, Mr. Kornegay. We were working on this legislation a long time before Mr. O'Connell wrote that letter, and I don't think our preparation of this legislation was any contention of the railroad management or brotherhoods not accepting the challenge.

I think there is an unfortunate belief on the part of many of these people that somehow or other an effort to seek Federal safety regulatory authority impugns their integrity and their honor. I don't know whether any of you gentlemen happen to know C. R. Smith, who is the Secretary of Commerce, who for some 35 years was the head of American Airlines or W. A. Patterson, who for a similar period of time was head of United Air Lines, two fairly substantial businesses.

I happen to know both of these men very well, and I have talked to them a great deal about safety. And they never felt that their honor or integrity was in the least impugned because they operated under a framework of Federal safety regulations. In fact, they welcome it.

Now, I don't mean to say that they didn't have differences on particular regulations, but I will say that they welcomed this regulation as being beneficial not only to them but to the American public.

And I think this business of saying, of assuming that because I am subjected to regulation means that therefore I am some sort of a criminal or a bum, just doesn't follow. The fact of the matter is the American public has a major interest in transportation safety.

The railroad industry in this country is a major industry, and the Lord knows we need the railroad industry. We need it to be healthy, and we need it to be safe.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I agree with that. My point, though-and I think you have answered the question quite well-is: Has anything happened since this report or this letter to Mr. Lang that causes you now to espouse this legislation? And you answered that it was in process before this letter.

Secretary BoYD. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. And you haven't had any experience with either management or the brotherhoods that would change your thinking in connection with pushing this legislation?

Secretary BOYD. No, no, not at all.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, certainly based on the statistics that Mr. you have answered the question quite well-is: Has anything happened to the committee, there seems to be a radical increase in the number of accidents. The figures indicate defects in trackage have caused a substantial increase in the number of accidents from 1961 to 1966. Secretary BOYD. That is correct, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. While I didn't hear all of the testimony about checking tracks and didn't have the opportunity to ask questions, isn't it pretty well established that tracks and track beds and ties, and that sort of thing, have been an increasing factor in the cause of the number of accidents?

Secretary BOYD. I believe so. I believe Mr. Lang could answer that better than I could.

Mr. LANG. That is correct, Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Is that, Mr. Lang, brought about as a result of failure to adequately and properly inspect and repair the tracks and the track beds? Or is it brought about by increased speed or frequency of use, if you know?

Mr. LANG. I can't give you a definitive answer to that, Mr. Kornegay. But my judgment is that all of these factors have been at work in producing a deterioration in actual experience.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Well, the general reputation of the railroads has been that it has been one of the safest modes of transportation we have, and rightly so. They have their own rights-of-way, their own roads. They are certainly not congested, as are the highways. I can see the increase in the figures, and indications are that the increase is rather abrupt.

Thank you very much.

Mr. LANG. Thank you, sir.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Watson?

Mr. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boyd, there are just two or three questions.

You cited a moment ago the fact that there has been a rather substantial increase in the number of derailments and also in the number of collisions. I am sure in your studies you have gone so far as to ascertain whether or not this increase is attributable to, one, equipment deficiencies, or, two, employee negligence.

Would you give us those figures?

Secretary BOYD. We submitted in connection with Mr. Lang's testimony a series of analyses, which was identified as attachment B, to his testimony. And I believe that they cover pretty much the points which you have just raised. The figures show that during the period 1961 through 1966 the cause of accidents related to negligence of employees, as reported, rose from 1,225 to 1,999. For the same period of time, the cause related to defects or failures of equipment went from 1,474 in 1961 to 1,843 in 1966 with defects or improper maintenance of way and structure from 587 in 1961 to 1,428 in 1966.

There was an increase in all other causes from 863 in 1961 to 1,523 in 1966.

Mr. WATSON. So that, interpreting your figures, the causes of these increases in derailments and collisions are about equal between equipment deficiencies and employee negligence, either in inspections or failures or omissions to act?

Secretary BOYD. I would say roughly the same.

Mr. WATSON. All right, sir. Now the next question is, when we have a collision or derailment due to negligence of the employee, what does your Department propose to do about it; force the carrier to fire the employee? What action would you take?

Secretary BOYD. It would depend on the regulation. There is no way to generalize on this that I know, Mr. Watson. The employee, if he were found guilty of violating a regulation, would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000.

Mr. WATSON. And you would assess that against him? Is that the primary deterrent that you would have in mind? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir.

Mr. WATSON. Would you allow that employee, after assessing the civil penalty against him, to continue? These are some basic questions that I think the employee should know about.

Secretary BOYD. Well, of course, the answer is going to depend on the way the regulations are drawn and the magnitude of the violation. Now we are assuming that there is a finding of a violation, to begin with. It would seem to me that there might be major differences between violations; in the same way as there is between simple negligence and gross negligence. And it would also, I think, depend on what was the accident that was caused and what was the effect of the accident, as well as where did the accident occur, how many people were either directly involved or potentially in danger.

Mr. WATSON. Certainly you have given it more than just casual thought. What do you think would remove the employees; simple negligence, gross, willful, or what? You have certainly thought about this?

Secretary BOYD. We don't have any authority to remove employees. Mr. WATSON. In other words, under this act, even though the accident may result in the loss of many lives, you would have no authority whatsoever to remove that employee, although the negligence of that employee was responsible for the accident?

Secretary BOYD. That is correct.

Mr. WATSON. So as a basic matter, other than the simple penalty or what have you, you would not remove the cause so far is it relates to employees?

Secretary BOYD. That is correct; although, as I think Mr. Menk testified, the railroads are intensely interested in safety and I don't believe that they would be willing to ignore a situation which they thought jeopardized the operation of the railroad, regardless of what the Department of Transportation did or did not do.

Mr. WATSON. Of that I am convinced, and it leads me to the next question.

In view of these figures that you have cited, do you know of any recommendations that have been made either by your Department or by the ICC, to the carriers which they have not in good faith made an effort to implement?

Secretary BOYD. No. However, I should point out to you, Mr. Watson, that the great bulk of these accidents are in areas where the Department currently has not had any jurisdiction, therefore no authority nor any reason to know for itself what was involved.

Mr. WATSON. I am sure you have had some dialog or contact with carriers on a semiofficial basis rather than purely on the basis of the authority of power. I am sure Mr. Lang pointed out that you discussed even this legislation with them prior to it. What I want to know is, if all of this is so bad, why hasn't someone talked with the railroads about it to se if they can do something about it?

Secretary BOYD. I don't think there is any question but what we have engaged in many conversations with the railroads; and I don't think there is any question that the railroad people tell you that they, themselves, are concerned about their derailments particularly.

Mr. WATSON. All right, sir.

Secretary BOYD. And we have discussed this with them. I don't know that we have had any solutions for them. We were both aware of the problem and it has been discussed.

Mr. WATSON. Now let's get down to some further statistics. Since you have looked into this and apparently have discussed it on a casual basis with the carriers, and I assume with the employees' representatives, what specific acts of employee negligence and equipment deficiencies have you found?

Secretary BOYD. Well, I just related the gross.

Mr. WATSON. What was the actual negligence? You say it was due to employee negligence. What was that?

Secretary BOYD. I can give you categories. I cannot tell you that a particular accident occurred because an employee did not throw a switch; but the categories have to do with observance of signals and orders, the use of airbrakes, the use of handbrakes, the use of switches, and other uses including excessive speed; but I have no knowledge of any particular accident, Mr. Watson. I couldn't give you any information on any railroad accident.

Mr. WATSON. So far as you know, you are unaware of any recommendation which you, or even the ÍČC, have made on an unofficial basis to the carriers and/or to the employees that has not been implemented?

Secretary BoYD. That have not been implemented. I would like to ask Mr. Lang to answer this question.

Mr. LANG. Mr. Watson, I think I can give you a pretty clearcut example of an area in which recommendations have been made to the carriers in the past where some would say they probably have not followed them up.

These are recommendations that have been made specifically in connection with the formal investigation on our part or previously on the part of the ICC of a railroad accident as authorized by the existing Accident Reports Act.

Here a number of investigations have been made of accidents under that authority that involved collisions between trains and track motor cars carrying maintenance-of-way employees principally. In a great many of these accident reports the Commission, or more recently our Bureau of Railroad Safety, have pointed out in the recommendations sections of those reports that the carrier has either failed to create or put in force adequate rules, safety rules covering the operation of these track motor cars, or has failed to enforce these rules adequately. So that, accidents have occurred which in many cases are the result of man failures.

I think I might insert parenthetically that perhaps our use of the word "negligence" here is unfortunate. It shouldn't be given, I don't think, a legalistic connotation. I think it is probably better to speak here of man failures as opposed to equipment or track failures rather than employee negligence which connotes something a little bit more drastic than I think we are really talking about here.

Mr. WATSON. Of course, I can understand the legal difference, but it is a failure in any event.

Mr. LANG. Yes, sir.

« PrécédentContinuer »