Mr. O'CONNELL. At the time we wrote the letter and at the time I wrote the speech, we did not have in our possession that information that led us to believe that we could then recommend legislation. Since then, the Department has recommended legislation and we support the legislation.

Mr. WATSON. Has that additional data been presented to you and, if it has been, what is the nature of the data that causes you to change your mind?

Mr. O'CONNELL. No data has been submitted to me from the Department since the time we wrote the letter.

Mr. WATSON. The essence of your testimony is that earlier you thought that a study should be initiated before we launch into the Federal field in this area, but now, since the Department of Transportation says we need this bill, you go along with them. I think that is a fair statement, isn't it?

Mr. O'CONNELL. May I look at my letter just to be sure that I know what I am talking about?

Mr. WATSON. Surely.

Mr. O'CONNELL. I guess what you said is a fair statement.

Mr. WATSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATSON. Yes.

Mr. KORNEGAY. If I recall correctly, the Secretary testified that the Department has been working on the legislation since sometime last fall, and if that is the case, of course, they started on it before these statements were made by you, about which Mr. Watson and I have queried you. It appears to me that certainly the Department has not given the railroads, both management and the brotherhoods, time to follow your advice and try to do something about the safety picture. Now, the figures present a rather dismal picture. I said several times in these hearings with reference to safety that the figures are well pinpointed in this record. The statistics have been presented by one witness after another.

My point is that the causes of these accidents have been well pinpointed, and the only people I know of that can really do something about it are the people who work on the railroads and the people who run the railroads.

I am not quarreling with you but it does appear to me that you are rather inconsistent to take the position that you have in speeches and in reports and then come in here and endorse far-reaching legislation that seems to have support of no one expect the Government. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Springer, do you have any further questions? Mr. SPRINGER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

If not, I want to thank you, Mr. O'Connell, and the two who accompanied you, for being here.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. George I. Bloom, chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and member, executive committee, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

Mr. Bloom, you may proceed as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE I. BLOOM, CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, AND MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL RODGERS, NARUC COUNSEL; AND MERLE A. FORST, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION, PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

Mr. BLOOM. Chairman Staggers and members of the committee, my name is George I. Bloom. I am a member of the executive committee of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). I am also chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

The NARUC is a quasi-governmental nonprofit organization founded in 1889. Within its membership are the governmental bodies of the 50 States engaged in the regulation of carriers and public utilities. Our chief objective is to serve the public interest through the improvement of Government regulation.

We appreciate very much this opportunity to make our views known on H.R. 16980, which proposes authorization for the Secretary of Transportation to establish safety standards governing railroads.

I am not here to quarrel with the intent of this proposed legislation. We of the NARUC have long been vitally concerned with the subject of rail safety.

But, I respectfully urge that the public utility commission in Pennsylvania, and the agencies of the other States, be allowed to participate in the formulation of minimum rail safety standards, and continue to retain our jurisdiction in the enforcement of such standards in the respective States because the best results can be obtained from such a partnership.

It is my conviction that State regulation in this all-important field should not be disturbed as long as it does not conflict with the Transportation Department's goals and meets minimum safety standards.

I trust that your distinguished committee will not regard me as immodest when I say that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has an outstanding railroad safety program. Our philosophy of safety-backed up by strong, progressive rules and regulations which will be distributed to you-would be destroyed by total Federal preemption.

In the best interests of the traveling public and railroad employees, I submit that this should not be allowed to happen. Instead, Pennsylvania and the other State members of the NARUC should be made partners with DOT to achieve maximum rail safety.

The Pennsylvania's PUC's railroad division in the Transportation Bureau has been, and is now, manned by seasoned engineers and safety investigators. We have 16 engineers a number considerably higher than that of any Federal inspection contingent ever used in the Statewho give top priority to every type of rail safety.

Contrast our working staff, if you will, with that assigned the rail safety division of DOT which we understand totals 150 inspectors to cover all 50 States. Because of conventional budgetary limitations, it is doubtful if DOT will ever be able to field an adequate enforcement staff on its own.

However, by combining Federal and State manpower resources under our partnership concept, which I will discuss more fully later, I believe we can raise enforcement to a satisfactory level with minimum expenditure of Federal funds.

Secretary of Transportation Alan S. Boyd, in sending the Department's proposed legislation to Congress, said that the time has come to revise the outmoded legislative structure supporting rail safety.

So far as the Pennsylvania Commission is concerned-and I say this without derogation-Secretary Boyd could not have been talking about the regulatory agency which I happen to head.

Pennsylvania was aware of the need to streamline and tighten rail safety standards years ago. It has done something about it, and continues to do something about it. This may not be the case in some other States-but all the more reason for a coordinated Federal-State safety improvement program.

I would like to mention a few specific actions taken by the Pennsylvania commission which will show, indisputably, that the Commonwealth has a rail safety program which should be emulated-not lost. Let me cite some examples of just why this is so.

Disturbed by an increase in the frequency of derailments, our commission instituted a full-scale investigation of every railroad that operates in Pennsylvania.

In order to find out why trains mostly freights are being derailed, we held hearings in 1967 and 1968, with a further hearing set for next week. When the hearings are completed, the commission will consider further changes in the rules, and promulgate whatever regulations are necessary to bring these accidents to the irreducible. minimum.

Concerned with safety of railroad employees as well as passengers, our commission directed a Pittsburgh area carrier to install special powered trainline airbrakes on cars used to move molten steel. This was known in Pennsylvania as the Hot Metal Movement case which the commission won in behalf of railroad worker safety after long and difficult litigation.

Spurred by the State rail brotherhoods, the PUC some years ago inaugurated and is continuing a railroad yard improvement and cleanup program. This program ushered in a new era in Keystone State yard safety, as the brotherhoods will well attest.

The commission has also adopted a rule which reduces the danger of injury, or worse, to employees riding in the cabin car or caboose. Train consists, under this proviso, now are such that an occupied caboose can no longer face the danger of being crushed between other cars in case of sudden stop or accident.

The Pennsylvania commission just last week suffered a setback on one of its most important safety actions when the State supreme court ruled that the State had no authority to issue orders aimed at preventing rear end train collisions.

The decision invalidated our order requiring railroads to flag halted or slow moving trains. Under the hairline 4 to 3 opinion, the court held that the Federal Government had sole authority in this area of railroad safety, even though it does not exercise any authority in this field. This we find extremely regrettable, since the State superior court held in our favor earlier. We still believe that our regulation was valid.

95-388-68- -24

Further, we have in Pennsylvania a Hazardous Substances Transportation Board, set up to keep an eye on transportation of explosives and flammables by motor vehicle. We recently suggested to the board a revision in its rules to provide maximum protection for rail employees by making its motor rules conform with our commission's rail rules. We requested that trucks hauling hazardous substances stop at all railroad crossings; no exceptions of any kind. Such a precaution had not originally been proposed in the board's regulations.

I would like to also point out that the NARUC sponsors a national conference of State transportation specialists. Greater emphasis than ever has been placed this year on seminars at which State regulatory personnel get signifiant instruction in all phases of transportation. Their knowledge is funneled to the State commissions for regulatory innovations in all areas, including safety.

May I digress for a moment from my prepared text to point out a couple of routine letters that came over my desk that I picked out and laid aside.

This is a letter to the president of the Pennsylvania Central dated May 24:

DEAR MR. PERLMAN: On May 26, 1968, Penn Central Freight Train E-5 was derailed on a track of the Akron and Susquehanna branch approximately one mile west of Columbia, Pennsylvania.

Immediately following the derailment two members of the Commission staff proceeded to the scene to make an informal inspection. The train consisted of 47 loads, 196 empties and two diesel units Numbers 4821 and Numbers 4870. A total of 13 cars were derailed at four separate locations in the train. Men riding in the caboose were injured. The probable cause of the derailment according to an official of the carrier was improper train handling on the part of the engine. However, the inspection by the staff engineers disclosed that some sections of the track had no rail anchors, other sections did not have a sufficient number of anchors and in at least one location there was an accumulation of these anchors. At several locations there were buckets of spikes indicating that some maintenance work was anticipated.

Please refer to Rules 13 and 14 of this Commission's Railroad Regulations and to your own CE-78, 'Specification for Construction and Maintenance of Track', and after investigation advise this Commission of the track in the area of derailment and adjacent thereto meets these requirements.

Also refer to our Regulation Number 15 concerning requirement for track inspection and promptly forward to us a copy of the inspection report submitted by the track inspector in this area for a period of two weeks preceding the derailment.

I think you can see from this letter and what we have asked for that the Pennsylvania Commission takes an active interest in these derailments and in railroad safety. I think that this letter is probably as good evidence as I could possibly produce.

This is another letter that was directed under the date of May 21 after a complaint had been brought to my attention to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. I don't have the letter that I wrote. I have the reply, but it is a letter in which I wrote to the head of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad calling attention to a grade crossing that was in very, very bad condition.

I suggested to him that we were getting very tired of being harassed by these complaints and having the company fix one at a time and that it would be much better if they would make a complete inspection of every grade crossing in Pennsylvania to determine what its condition. is, and to start in on a general repair job of every grade crossing, and

that I would rather suggest this to him in this manner than to take formal action by the commission requiring them to do it.

I received this letter in return:

This will acknowledge your letter dated May 8, 1968, calling to my attention the need for remedial work at B. & O. crossing No. 135W, Oak Lane, Folcroft Borough, Pa.

At the time of your writing, timbers for replacement of this crossing had already been delivered to the site and I wish to report that work started yesterday, May 20, to effect a complete renewal. Spot repairs had been undertaken at this crossing in October and November of last year but proved to be ineffective. Therefore, complete renewal was scheduled. I share with you the desire to avoid continuing complaints of bad conditions on grade crossings and I can assure you that it is not our intent to ignore our obligation to maintain grade crossings to an acceptable condition.

Our company has included in its annual budget an item for rebuilding crossings, and for the year of 1968 we plan to completely renew a total of 53 crossings of public highways within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These renewals are to be performed in addition to carrying out spot repairs as are charged to be performed by division forces as developed by routine periodic inspection.

Notwithstanding our standard procedure I am heeding your specific suggestions and am directing all division engineers having territory within the Commonwealth to conduct a special inspection of all grade crossings.

This is another example of what the Pennsylvania Commission is doing in the way of safety.

Now, I have presented this outline to the hope that your distinguished committee will be persuaded that the job of rail safety can best be done by joining Federal and State hands.

You will note in the Commission's railroad regulations, appended to my written statement, and which I believe have been distributed, 18 rules under the service and facilities section covering accidents, equipment, inspection, and maintenance. In addition, there is a separate section delineating minimum requirements for new construction. These 25 pages of regulations represent knowledge about railroad safety gained in over a half century of public utility regulation in Pennsylvania. It would be tragic, in the view of our commission, to chop down this sturdy oak of rail safety regulation and the performance by the Pennsylvania Commission and other commissions throughout the United States.

Please permit me to list here some of the subjects covered by our safety regulations:

1. Accidents.

2. Protection of crossings at grade.

3. Construction, alteration, or relocation of crossings.

4. Installation of bridge or tunnel warnings.

5. Installation of self-illuminating lamps on certain switch stands. 6. Walkways and railings on bridges and trestles.

7. Safety equipment on track cars.

8. Track anchors.

9. Restricted speed on tracks undergoing maintenance.

10. Track inspection.

11. Flag protection against following trains. That is the case I referred to that was reversed by the supreme court of our State. 12. Blind cars.

13. Pusher engine behind cabin cars.

14. Overhead and side clearances.

15. Other conditions and obstructions adjacent to tracks.