The CHAIRMAN. I might explain this as the chairman. I made the statement to Assistant Secretary Sweeney that under Public Law 84801 that requires every new program to carry with it a specific authorization for every new program. So we went back to him and he supplied these figures which I put in the bill. It was then introduced by

me.

Mr. LANG. I stand corrected then, Mr. Brotzman.

Mr. BROTZMAN. This is the kind of thing I keep going through here. All we are trying to do is to understand the bill to try to make reasonable judgments.

The CHAIRMAN. Your time has expired.

Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Brotzman has asked a couple questions that I wanted to get into on this $5 or $6 million figure.

Do I understand, Mr. Lang, that you have no figure on the cost to the Department of Transportation of this legislation and no estimate of what this will cost the railroads and therefore the public ultimately? Mr. LANG. We have no firm figures on the cost to us although as I indicated when I answered Mr. Springer's earlier question, having misunderstood it, we do not anticipate that there would be any large increase in the cost of operating our Bureau of Railroad Safety program over that which we have today.

Now as far as the second question is concerned, that was also a question asked by Mr. Springer.

Mr. BROWN. I was here when Mr. Springer asked the question. I just want you to say yes or no, you know or you don't know how much it is going to cost.

Mr. LANG. I do not know.

Mr. BROWN. And there is nothing in the budget for it?

Mr. LANG. That is correct, sir, there is nothing in the budget.

Mr. BROWN. And you have no justification for the $5 or $6 million figure?

Mr. LANG. We have not furnished such.

Mr. BROWN. That is exactly what I wanted to know.

Mr. SPRINGER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. SPRINGER. The part that mystifies me is that you set standards for requirements of rail facilities and all equipment which I take it would go to the whole matter of design.

Now it seems to me that if you are going to go into this thing that you are going to OK certain construction of cars, that you are going to set up standards which are going to change a lot of other things, it is the same thing you ran into in the automobile bill. Of course you will go into the whole question of construction, and this is what bothers me on this question of whether or not you are going to substantially increase rail cost.

From the testimony vou have given, I take it you think a great deal of equipment is outmoded. That is why I hope if you come back tomorrow you will tell us what this is going to cost the rail industry which it ultimately is going to cost the public.

Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. I have a couple of other questions. If this bill should be passed in its present form, does the Department of Transportation an

ticipate the licensing of railroad employees in the same manner they are licensed in the aviation industry?

Mr. LANG. We anticipate that this might be desirable for selected classes of employees and selected kinds of work.

Mr. BROWN. What kinds of employees do you have in mind-engineers, brakemen, and inspectors of rights-of-way?

Mr. LANG. All of those. Those are precisely the categories in which this might prove to be desirable.

Mr. BROWN. Porters?

Mr. LANG. No, sir; I cannot imagine that.

Mr. BROWN. Inspectors of equipment?

Mr. LANG. Very definitely.

Mr. BROWN. If this bill is passed, these people would be under some Federal licensing?

Mr. LANG. No, sir; that does not necessarily follow. If in our study of these matters and as a result of rulemaking procedures it developed that it was desirable to issue certificates to certain classes of employees, then we might. And these would be the prime possibilties in that regard, the ones you mentioned.

Mr. BROWN. Would you set the standards? Would the Federal Government actually participate as a third party with the railroad management and the railroad unions at labor negotiations?

Mr. LANG. Absolutely not.

Mr. BROWN. But you would have the right to approve the safety provisions of the employment contract labor and management agree to at bargaining.

Mr. LANG. I don't think to say we would have the right to approve it is the right way to state the matter.

Mr. BROWN. But, according to your previous testimony, you could prohibit an employee from performing his work if he did not meet the standards that the Department of Transportation set under section 3(a) (3)?

Mr. LANG. That is correct.

Mr. BROWN. Well, does that not mean in effect that you would have the right to approve the contract negotiated between labor and management with reference to the safety standards that were included in that contract?

Mr. LANG. No, sir; I don't think it means that at all. It does mean that the carriers and their employees could not agree to qualifications that were less stringent than any that had been established by regulation.

Mr. BROWN. So, in effect, you would have a veto on the contract— not the authority to approve, but the right to veto if you say the contract does not meet the safety standards established by the Federal Government.

Mr. LANG. If you want to call this in effect a veto, you can do so. All it means is that the carriers and their employees could not agree to a man performing a particular class of work if he did not meet the qualifications that have been established.

Mr. BROWN. To my way of thinking, that is a veto of the negotiated contract.

I have just one other point, Mr. Chairman, because it relates to the penalties that you set in this regulation and those set in the pipeline safety_regulation.

Do I understand that the railroad could be assessed up to $10,000 for failure to comply with any of the standards that you set?

Mr. LANG. For knowing and willful violation.

Mr. BROWN. And in the pipeline safety bill the proposal was $400,000, was it not?

Mr. LANG. I do not recall the figure but it was a very high number. Mr. BROWN. I think it was and I would like to ask for your rationale of the difference.

Mr. LANG. I think the types of violations which we anticipate, using these types of penalties in connection therewith, are considerably less serious by and large in terms of their implications for life and limb of large numbers of people than those which might result from the failure in the gas pipeline.

Mr. BROWN. Are you familiar with the statistical background of accidents in the pipeline area as compared to the accidents you have cited in the railroad area?

Mr. LANG. I cannot claim to be.

Mr. BROWN. I wonder if the Secretary is?

The CHAIRMAN. This will conclude our hearings for today. If you would stand by, tomorrow we will have other witnesses. I would expect to have you and Mr. Boyd back at some later date and we will let you know at the time when we can have you back.

With regard to the answers to the questions that have been posed, if you can get those answers for us.

Tomorrow we have other scheduled witnesses and we will keep our schedule as we have set it up.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask if it is anticipated that the Secretary will testify on this legislation?

The CHAIRMAN. To the best of my knowledge. If it is possible, we will have this gentleman back, Mr. Lang. I am sure it will be possible for Mr. Boyd to be here.

The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 22, 1968.)

FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RAILROAD SAFETY

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley O. Staggers (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

This is a continuation of the hearings on H.R. 16980 and related bills, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish safety standards, rules and regulations for railroad equipment, trackage. facilities, operation, and for other purposes.

Our first witness this morning is the Honorable Richard D. McCarthy, Congressman from New York.

Mr. McCarthy, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD D. McCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to be here this morning to testify regarding the railroad safety bill, of which I am a cosponsor, along with the distinguished chairman. I think that anyone who has looked into this would agree that there is a need for new and better safety regulations in the railroad industry. I became interested in this subject after two accidents occurred in my district, which is mainly the suburbs of Buffalo, N.Y.

On February 18 of this year, a tank car of the Penn Central Railroad ruptured during unloading at the railroad yard, in the village of Sloan, N.Y., spilling the entire contents, 10,000 gallons of styrene, into a drainage ditch in the village.

The styrene, in turn, seeped into the sewer system of the village, causing hundreds of residents of the village to flee their homes. They were forced to evacuate. According to an official of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the styrene in the area was toxic, and caused dizziness, and eye and ear irritation to many of the residents of the village.

In checking into this matter further, I found that there was little that could be done about this incident.

The styrene did not come under the hazardous materials regulations administered by the Bureau of Railroad Safety, nor did it come under the regulation of any other piece of legislation now on the books, so that the Federal Government was paralyzed, couldn't do anything about this incident.

Then almost a month later, on March 20 of this year, another accident occurred at the same place, involving a two-car derailment, and another car ruptured, spilling approximately 500 gallons of volatile methyl acetone. The substance leaked into the ground in the same vicinity as the first accident, but fortunately, this time it did not get into the sewer system.

The people in the areas affected were lucky that the accidents did not present more severe hazards than they did, but the fact remains that these and other similar accidents were totally unnecessary.

So I began to wonder about the whole question of railroad safety. As I began to investigate, I found out many of the shocking facts that I am sure you on the committee are already aware of.

The fact that train accidents have been increasing at the alarming rate of 71 percent since 1961; that deaths have increased by 35 percent; that track and equipment damage has increased by almost 100 percent; and that derailments, which occur more frequently than any other accident and which figured in the two that happened in my district, increased by 61 percent since 1961.

Lethal materials and noxious chemicals that did not exist 50 years ago are constantly being transported through the Nation's communities at the fantastic speeds of modern rail transportation in cars and on tracks and over railroad bridges that are not subject to Federal inspection.

And we have noticed in our investigation that since the merger of the Pennsylvania and New York Central, they are stepping up their operations, they are moving these trains faster through heavily inhabited areas, and of course, many of these trains have cars containing these chemicals.

I believe very strongly that we must put railroad safety regulation on an equal footing with the regulation of auto and aviation industries. I might say that in this connection, in the House Public Works Committee, we are considering regulations that would affect navigation, particularly as it relates to the carrying of oil.

I think that we have established the principle that the National Government does have an interest, and an obligation to set certain minimum standards for safety, and I think the mode of conveyance is secondary.

The idea is to protect the passengers and the general public, so we have moved in this direction, in automobiles and aviation and in marine navigation, and now your committee is considering railroad transportation.

I think it is perfectly consistent with what we have done.

I further believe that we must provide the necessary safeguards to protect railroad workers and the lives and property of the general public from unnecessary railroad accidents by granting the Secretary of Transportation the broad powers necessary to achieve the maximum in safety precautions for all our citizens.

I think this bill does it. I don't have any specific amendments. I think the bill as it now stands would be certainly adequate to the situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy, for coming and giving us the benefit of your views, and especially of the two accidents that you know of personally that have happened in your district.