Images de page
PDF
ePub

APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION

SEC. 14. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and $6,000,000 each for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.

SEPARABILITY

SEC. 15. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., May 28, 1968.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for comments on H.R. 16980, a bill "To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish safety standards, rules, and regulations for railroad equipment, trackage, facilities, and operations, and for other purposes." This bill would authorize the Secretary to promulgate safety standards for locomotives, rolling stock, trackage and roadbed, equipment, appliances, and facilities used in railroad operations in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

In his testimony before your committee on this bill, the Federal Railroad Administrator noted the difficulty of accurately determining at this time either the total staff or the level of Federal support necessary to carry out the work which H.R. 16980 would authorize. Because of this, the Administrator recommended the deletion of the specific limits on authorizations for appropriations now contained in section 14 of the bill.

The Bureau of the Budget concurs in the views of the Railroad Administrator and favors enactment of H.R. 16980, which would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,

WILFRED H. ROMMEL, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

The CHAIRMAN. Our first witness this morning is Mr. A. Scheffer Lang, Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.

Mr. Lang, we are pleased to have you here this morning in what, I think, is your first appearance before this committee.

I cannot refrain, however, from expressing some regret that the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Boyd, is unable to be here this morning to open our discussion. I certainly wish that he could participate in our deliberations for I do not wish him to be in the disturbed position which he says that he is in, to do "everything within his ÏÎegal power" to undo the work of this committee.

I have the greatest difficulty in comprehending the approach which your Department seems to take as to the tripartite form of government which our Founding Fathers established for this country.

Under this, it is my impression that it is the Congress which makes policy decisions and that it is the executive branch which carries them

out.

Unfortunately, it seems to be our repeated experience as was evident when some labor legislation was pending before this committee some months ago that the Department feels that it is up to the Department to dictate rather than suggest what should be done and that if we have a view which differs in any respect, the Department then rushes into print in questionable rhetoric.

Certainly the Department in the comments which the Secretary made in Denver on Friday, May 10, is engaging in a dangerous deception as far as the American people are concerned when it sets up itself as the sole arbiter of what is in the public interest. The day has not yet arrived that our Constitution is so to be interpreted and I can assure you that every member of this committee as well as every Member of this Congress is well aware of his responsibilities in providing for legislation in the public interest. We shall do so here. It is my hope that this morning, Mr. Lang, you are sufficiently acquainted with the natural gas safety legislation that as you go along in your remarks you can point out to us why you with a bill on railroad safety which is so far different from that which you supported on natural gas pipeline safety. There are a number of sections to which this applies but there are several you might have in mind.

have come up

For instance, why in section 5(b) do you appear to be trying to improve a railroad's position in defending itself against accident claims? This language is unprecedented. You surely advocated the opposite in the natural gas safety bill.

Then when you reach section 11(c) you might tell us why you propose to prohibit Department employees from testifying in railroad accident suits and to prohibit Department reports to be admitted as evidence. This is just 180 degrees opposite to the position you took in the natural gas safety bill. There are others.

I give this as a matter of record before starting; I don't mean to put you under any handicaps.

You may proceed.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this question.

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Lang as the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration but this bill, it seems to me, demands the testimony of the Secretary. There are many pertinent questions of policy here which I am not sure, Mr. Lang, could be determined by you. The questions of policy set out in this would have to be backed up by the Secretary insofar as I am concerned and I was deeply chagrined with his remarks in Denver the other day as if this committee had not accepted the responsibility for the gas pipeline safety and he may have gotten some of that since then and chose not to appear.

I am saying to the chairman today that this man should be down here to appear before this committee to defend this legislation if he is expecting to get cooperation because we think we did something in safety in the pipeline bill whether he agrees with us or not. But he is taking a second guess if he is going to stand off after he has actively criticized us as he did then as I read in the newspaper and checked out that those were the words that he used because a member of this committee was present and heard it at the time.

Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that the Secretary ought to come down here and justify this bill and everything in it.

There will be a lot of questions on policy, I think, to be asked on both sides by those who are going to be for this bill all out and those who are for the bill in some parts and probably some of them are not going to be for the bill.

So, this is no reflection on you, Mr. Lang. If he wants a bill, he better come down here and ask for it and stand up and testify for it. That is my thinking on it as of this minute.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Springer.

Mr. Lang, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF A. SCHEFFER LANG, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY LEROY C. CORCORAN, CHIEF COUNSEL

Mr. LANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Allow me to preface my remarks by saying it is my understanding that the Secretary had a longstanding commitment to appear before another congressional committee this morning and thus he could not be available.

Mr. SPRINGER. You tell the Secretary that we will be glad to find the time that is necessary for him to testify.

Mr. LANG. I shall do so.

Mr. Chairman, I am A. Scheffer Lang, Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.

I am here representing the Department of Transportation to testify in support of H.R. 16980, the proposed "Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1968."

I have with me Mr. Leroy C. Corcoran, my Chief Counsel.

As you know, safety is one of the major responsibilities of the Department of Transportation. Public Law 89-670 which created the new Department also transferred responsibility for the administration of the various railroad safety statutes from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Federal Railroad Administration.

Upon being appointed Administrator of the newly created Federal Railroad Administration, I asked the Bureau of Railroad Safety to give me the most complete picture they could of the progress being made in rail safety. I was not happy with what I found:

In the last 7 years the monthly average of train accidents has increased steadily from 341 in 1961 to 608 in 1967. Even when we adjust these figures to account for the effect of inflation on the cost of accidents and thus the number reported to us, this still amounts to an increase in the train accident rate of approximately 66 percent. Unfortunately, this rising trend continues unabated. We believe that the enactment of the proposed legislation would give us both the mandate and the means to reverse it.

The laws which we now administer are limited in scope, designed many years ago to meet specific hazards. The Safety Appliance Acts (45 U.S.C. 1-16) provide for the use of power brakes on locomotives and trains so that brakemen will not be required to use hand brakes to control speed. They also require that cars be equipped with automatic couplers, and secure handholds, steps, and ladders.

The Ash Pan Act (45 U.S.C. 17-21) now largely obsolete with the virtual disappearance of the coal-fueled steam locomotive, provides that any locomotive requiring it must be equipped with an ash pan which can be dumped without the need for an employee to go under the locomotive.

The Locomotive Inspection Act (45 U.S.C. 22-34) requires that locomotives be safe to operate and not a danger to life or limb.

The Accident Reports Act (45 U.S.C. 38-43) provides for the investigation by the Federal Railroad Administration of all serious railroad accidents. It also provides for monthly reports of rail accidents by the carriers to the Federal Railroad Administration.

The Signal Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. 26) provides for regulation by the Federal Railroad Administration of the installation and maintenance of block signal systems, interlockings, automatic train control, cab signals, or other similar appliances.

None of these existing statutes gives the Federal Railroad Administration jurisdiction, however, over such matters as the construction and maintenance of railroad track, or bridges, the design and maintenance of the running gear of freight and passenger cars, or over the qualifications of railroad employees or operating rules and practices. Historically, these existing railroad safety statutes have had a rather piecemeal growth. In years following the Civil War the railroads grew rapidly. Unfortunately, so did accidents to railroad employees. Airbrakes were not in general use, and trains had to be stopped by means of hand-operated brakes located for the most part on the tops of the trains. In those days, cars were also coupled manually by means of the old link and pin coupler, and many employees were maimed or killed between cars doing this coupling work.

The first Safety Appliance Law was enacted in 1893 and became fully effective in 1900. The act was amended in 1903 to extend its coverage, and was amended again in 1910 to require additional safety appliances such as ladders and sill steps. The act was last amended in 1958 by the Power Brake Law, which adopted and made mandatory the rules, standards, and instructions of the Association of American Railroads as the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The Ash Pan Act was enacted in 1908. The Locomotive Inspection Act was enacted in 1911 and later amended. The Accident Reports Act was originally enacted in 1910 and the Signal Inspection Act in 1920.

Railroad technology has come a long way since the enactment of those early statutes. Today they are inadequate to do the complete job. In his letter of April 29, 1968, transmitting the draft of this bill to the Congress, Secretary Boyd, in addressing himself to the existing rail safety statutes, pointed out that:

Only a few of the most obvious of safety problems are addressed and each statute is limited to particular hazards. In contrast, the more modern (transportation) safety statutes established desired safety results, leaving the exact manner of achievement to administrative regulation which can more easily accommodate technological progress.

The declared purpose of H.R. 16980 is "To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish safety standards, rules, and regulations for railroad equipment, trackage, facilities, and operations." The most important features of the legislation lie in the following sections:

Section 3 of the bill would empower the Secretary to promulgate necessary safety regulations and would direct the Secretary to prescribe as interim regulations the requirements of the statutes described above which would be repealed by section 13.

Section 4 of the bill reserves to the States the regulation of certain aspects of railroad safety.

Section 6 of the bill would impose civil and criminal penalties for violations of the act or regulations issued under it.

Section 7 would authorize the Secretary to obtain injunctive relief to enforce standards, rules, and regulations issued under the act. Section 12 would enable the Secretary to contract with State agencies for assistance in carrying out the objectives of the act.

Section 13 would repeal those statutes referred to above which are to be replaced with the broader authority conferred by this act.

THE CURRENT RAIL SAFETY PICTURE

The statistics compiled on railroad accidents are extensive and date back many years. They are a chronicle of safety in the industry. As with all statistics, these can be used and misused, interpreted and misinterpreted, and even form the basis for opposite conclusions. I will try here not to get too deeply into this statistical haze.

The most striking statistic confronting us today is the 76-percent increase in the rate of railroad train accidents over the 1961 to 1967 time span, as is shown in attachment A to this statement.

Our reporting requirements define train accidents as those which cause at least $750 damage to track and/or equipment, whether or not a reportable injury is involved. Since repair costs are up, some accidents come within the reportable category today which would not have in 1961. Even with an allowance for these increased costs, however, we find the train accident rate has increased 66 percent during that period.

Perhaps our greatest concern here is that while we are recording this worsening safety story, we have only limited tools to do anything about it. Approximately 95 percent of the accidents that occur on the Nation's railroads are caused by factors not subject to any control by the Federal agency responsible for promoting railroad safety. To us this is a key factor in the month-by-month increase in train accidents.

Train derailments furnish an example of the problem we face. Attachment A-2 to this testimony shows that in 1966 there was a total of 4,447 derailments reported. Of these, 2,938 were caused by defects in equipment or track, which are among those causes outside our present authority or control.

Under the statutes I have already described, we have full authority over all parts of the locomotive, but our authority over freight and passenger cars is restricted to certain safety appliances and brakes. We have no authority over track standards, maintenance, or inspection.

Attachment B lists the number of train accidents by major cause for the years 1961 through 1966. Among the groups of causes listed, only those dealing with locomotives, brakes, couplers, and signals come under the scope of our present authority; and by and large, these groups have shown the smallest increases.

Railroad employees traditionally have been interested in railroad safety, and for good reason. Employees who move locomotives and cars are exposed to hazards that are peculiar to this industry. Shop employees and office workers face hazards, too, but the major dangers in railroading stem from the movement of trains.

Attachment C shows the trends in casualty rates among the several classifications of railroad employees. Of the various ways in which

« PrécédentContinuer »