These regulations are revised from time to time as our experience requires. The last revision of our rules was as of December 31, 1966, and we expect to make further revisions as circumstances dictate, particularly at the conclusion of our commission's derailment investigation.

In addition to the general regulations, the commission has found it advisable on many occasions to issue specific safety regulations to meet specific problems affecting a single carrier.

One example of this was the formulation of a proviso to prevent recurrences of an accident where a loaded commuter passenger train collided with a bumper block at the end of the track in the Philadelphia terminal of the Reading Co. The hot metal movement case mentioned earlier was another instance of action taken beyond the area of the general rail regulations.

Thus far in my statement, I have described in general terms the contribution made by our commission in the field of rail safety. It is my understanding that other States make a similar contribution, and that still other States are active in rail safety but to a lesser degree. Consequently, if Congress determines to enact comprehensive rail safety legislation, the public interest requires that it be based on two main principles.

First, the legislation must not only preserve the right of the States to continue to engage in rail safety regulation which does not conflict with national purposes, but also must encourage the States to commit their creative energies in this important field.

Second, the legislation must stimulate a vibrant Federal-State partnership in rail safety which draws fully upon the vast resources of both.

To permit the achievement of this lofty goal, we have prepared proposed amendments to H.R. 16980 which are attached as an appendix to this statement. We respectfully request that this appendix be published in the record of this hearing.

Adoption of our proposed amendments would authorize each State to implement a comprehensive rail safety program designed to reduce accidents, and deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. Such a program would be compatible with the minimum safety standards prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to section 3 of the bill.

The State program would complement the Federal program in two important aspects. First, it would permit State safety regulation in those areas unregulated by the Federal Government, with particular focus on those matters of local concern inappropriate for uniform Federal rulemaking. Second, the Federal program would be further complemented by permitting the State, in a matter governed by a Federal standard to adopt a more stringent standard provided it is reasonable, does not constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce, and is required by the public interest.

Prior to adopting the more stringent standard, the State would have to give 90 days' notice to the Secretary of Transportation, who could at any time nullify the standard if he found it to be in violation. of one of the three requirements I have just mentioned.

The Congress, by permitting State governments to continue to study the applications of their safety regulations and to make the modifications therein they deem appropriate, would inspire a cross

fertilization of ideas and techniques which would undoubtedly improve the rail safety record.

The States have frequently been recognized in their role as "testing laboratories" of the governmental process, whereby innovation and experiment may be undertaken and later retained or rejected as the results dictate. Our program would stimulate the use of these productive abilities.

It is particularly important that the States be permitted to adopt standards more stringent than the Federal minimum standards where necessary to protect the public against unique hazards of local origin. Roadbed conditions would be an especially important area for the application of an overlay of State expertise.

The prescription of preemptive Federal minimum standards which exclude State participation could easily subject the public to greater hazards than it now faces. A staff of safety experts in Washington, no matter how proficient or dedicated, could not possibly fashion minimum safety standards which would be adequate in all circumstances in a country as diverse and as large as this one.

Consequently, the participation of State expertise is required to deal effectively with these unique safety problems if the public interest is to be protected to the maximum extent practical under this legislation.

The State program we propose would also include concurrent jurisdiction for the States to perform accident investigations, and to conduct inspections and tests to determine compliance with Federal and State safety standards. Violations of Federal standards would be reported to Federal representatives for enforcement.

We further propose that those State agencies requiring financial assistance to conduct comprehensive rail safety programs receive Federal funds up to 50 percent of the cost of the programs if approved by the Secretary.

The provision of financial assistance to such State agencies, on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis, will not only invigorate State participation but will also permit the Congress to implement its national safety program for far less than what it would otherwise cost for the Federal Government to assume the entire financial burden. In other words, the use of matching funds would in effect pull State money into a Federal program.

I think with the difficulty we are having in balancing the national budget that you would be glad to have State funds go into a program of this kind and thereby reduce the amount of money that would be required to carry out a full-fledged safety program, and this is one of the ways that you can accomplish it.

We further propose a small grant to the national organization of the State agencies to pay the cost of coordinating the activities of the State agencies with the Department of Transportation, and assisting the State agencies in the establishment and conduct of safety programs, and rendering them technical assistance in other regulatory matters. In order to strengthen the administration of the act, we propose the creation of a 10-member National Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters relating to the activities and function of the Department in the field of railroad safety. The committee would be

chaired by the Federal Railroad Administrator with the remaining members appointed by the Secretary to represent the State agencies, railroad management, and labor.

The act specifically provides three from labor, three from industry, and three from public utility commissions in the various States of the Union.

In conclusion, we believe the public interest will best be served by the Federal and State governments joining together in a strong effort to attack the problems of rail safety. Such an effort will revitalize intergovernmental relationships and will result in comprehensive safety regulation with a minimum expenditure of Federal funds. We believe implementation of our proposal will achieve this beneficial goal.

President Johnson in his state of the Union address of last year announced his objective of achieving a "total working partnership" between Federal and State Governments.

We look forward to fulfilling our responsibilities in this relationship. Now, that concludes my formal statement.

You have a copy of the rules. I believe that we have left 100 copies for your use.

In addition to that, I have two copies, that I would like to give the reporter, of the record of accidents involving the facilities or operations of transportation and service utilities and contract carriers which is prepared every year by our Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. A large part of that report is devoted to railroads and there is a very, very interesting report upon the accidents that occur in Pennsylvania.

They are broken down as to employees that are injured, they are broken down as to passengers that are injured, nonemployees, trespassers, accidents that are occurring through equipment; those that occur at grade crossings. They are broken down as to how many occurred in each month; they are broken down as to the hours of the day in which they occurred during the year to determine what hours they happen, to see if that give us any information. There is a lot of interesting material.

If the committee would like to have more copies, we would be glad to send down more copies of our annual report. We do not have the reports prepared for 1967; they are in the process. But we have the reports for many, many years going back to when they were first prepared.

I also would like to do this. All of our States have had the opportunity and have gone over the prepared statement that I have just read but we received two telegrams and a prepared statement from another commission and I would like to have permission to have them placed in the record.

One telegram is from the State corporation commission of Kansas and another telegram is from the California commission, and another is a statement from the Minnesota Public Service Commission.

I would like to have them made a part of the record.
The CHAIRMAN. They will be made a part of the record.
(The documents referred to follow :)

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., June 5, 1968.

PAUL RODGERS, General Counsel, NARUC, Washington, D.C.:

Please put in record of hearings on H.R. 16980 and S. 3426 that California Public Utilities Commission has no position on bills at this time. Bills require comprehensive study by agencies involved. California commission will study. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, WILLIAM W. DUNLOP, Secretary.

[Telegram]

TOPEKA, KANS., June 4, 1968.

PAUL RODGERS,
General Counsel,

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners:

This commission is gravely concerned with the increasing number of train accidents and the inadequacy of our present statutes which restrict authority over freight and passenger cars to certain safety appliances. The Kansas Corporation Commission respectfully urges that we be allowed to participate in the formation of minimum rail safety standards to achieve maximum rail safety and strongly urge the passage of H.R. 16980.

DALE E. SAFFELS,

Chairman, State Corporation Commission.

STATEMENT OF THE MINNESOTA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

The Bill before the 90th Congress, Senate File 3426 and companion Bill in the House, is attempting to vest the Secretary of Transportation with authority over many things that presently the Minnesota Public Service Commission has state authority to do.

Section 219.031, Subdivision 2, Paragraph 4, M.S. provides that every common carrier operating in the State of Minnesota shall: (4) submit a report of all accidents, wrecks and casualties occurring in the state in such manner and form and at such times as prescribed by the Commission. All reports shall be open to public inspection but shall not be admissable in evidence in any suit or action for damages, growing out of such accident, wreck or casualty. Under this section of law the Commission requires the railroads to report all accidents by telephone or telegraph within 24 hours of its occurrence and requires a typewritten report of the accident within 48 hours.

Under various sections of Chapter 219, M.S., the Legislature has vested with the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to highway crossings, whether at grade or by separation, including the allocation of costs of the installation of grade separations, the authority to allocate the cost of highway railroad grade crossing signal protection, authority to authorize the establishment of new crossings, authority to relocate crossings, authority to order the closing of existing crossings, the authority to order the reconstruction of separations that may be found unsafe or inadequate. Under this authority the Commission has established standards for signal protection to be provided at highway railroad grade crossings, including standards of circuit controls for such automatic protection as may be ordered installed by the Commission.

In regard to Clearances: Section 219.46, M.S. establishes the vertical and lateral clearances that shall be maintained alongside of and over trackage operated on by trainmen in the State of Minnesota. This governs the installation of permanent structures as well as temporary encroachments or obstructions. Section 219.46 established the centers at which tracks may be constructed and maintained. The statute definitely sets by feet and inches the clearances. It authorizes the Commission to grant exemptions to the clearance requirements where such exemptions will not materially increase the hazard to trainmen required to operate over the tracks past such encroachments as may be authorized. Chapter 219 M.S. authorizes the Commission to regulate or establish standards of crossing construction, including type of crossing, the grade of the road over the crossing, the crossing signs to be installed at the crossing and the type of protection to be installed in the event additional protection is deemed necessary. Section 219.56 M.S. establishes the standards to which cabooses shall be

constructed and gives to the Commission the jurisdiction necessary to enforce the section.

Chapter 219, M.S., invests in the Commission the authority to authorize or deny the carrier's request for authority to abandon side tracks, yard tracks, industry tracks or all such tracks that are opened to the public use and offered to the public.

The abandonment of loading platforms and station facilities must be approved by the Commission under Chapter 219, M.S.

Section 219.40 provides among other things that no road may be laid out so as to cross a railroad at grade without first obtaining the approval of the Public Service Commission.

Section 219.383 M.S. authorizes the Commission to establish the rate of speed at which trains and engines may be operated over highway railroad grade crossings in cities or villages.

The jurisdiction of the Commission in regard to matters pertaining to highway railroad grade crossings, the speed of trains and the blocking of crossings, has been held by the Supreme Court of the State as being supreme and superior to any ordinance to the contrary that may be adopted by any village, city or municipality.

The above enumeration is not intended as being all inclusive. There are other provisions of the Minnesota Statutes regulating the railroads in Minnesota and empowering the Commission to enforce the statutes by rule. The regulation of railroads in Minnesota is primarily by statute which spell out the particular duties. Such regulation is not by rule under general powers given to the Public Service Commission. Thus, such statutory regulation is a direct mandate from the Legislature speaking for the people of Minnesota.

However, Section 218.041 M.S. confers upon the Commission the following duties: "With respect to all common carriers under this chapter, the Commission shall investigate the management thereof, the manner in which their businesses are conducted, and the adequacy of the services they are affording the public; prescribe uniform systems of keeping and rendering accounts and the time within which such systems shall be adopted; direct the repair and reconstruction or replacement of any inadequate or unsafe trackage, structure or facility; and make all appropriate orders relating to continuation, termination, modification or extension of services and facilities with a view to properly promoting the security and convenience of the public."

Through the years the Public Service Commission has enforced these statutory requirements to the best of its ability, and fairly. The Public Service Commission thinks that the situation is under control and the various governmental agencies in Minnesota, such as counties, cities and villages, have become familiar with the law and the rules; and the Commission thinks that the safety of the people is adequately covered by such statutory provisions, coupled with the existing federal regulatory statutes imbedded in the Interstate Commerce Act.

The Public Service Commission is opposed to the transfer of these parochial and local matters to the national government. The Public Service Commission feels that it has adequately protected the safety of the people of Minnesota. If occasion arises for the implementation of these statutes because of changing conditions, the Legislature of the State of Minnesota is available to meet the problems. The last sessions of the Legislature had many instances of such implementation for the protection and safety of the people. The Commission, likewise, is not unaware of the safety problems. Therefore, this Commission recommends that the pending legislation before the Senate and House do not pass.

Mr. BLOOM. I want to thank you very much for the opportunity of presenting this statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

The appendix that you have here will be made a part of the record. (The document referred to follows:)

APPENDIX

NARUC PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 16980, PROPOSING THE FEDERAL RAILROAD SAFETY ACT OF 1968

Section 2 is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following: (10) "State" means each of the several States and the District of Columbia.