Answer. Freight cars are inspected daily by the railroads as part of pre-departure inspection. In our monitoring role, FRA inspects freight cars on the average once approximately every five years; locomotives are inpected on the average every fifteen months. Safety appliance inspection Question. How many safety appliance inspections has the FRA made for each of the last four years? In our hearings in 1978, rail labor alleged that there was a trend to cut back on the number of such inspections. If this trend is accurate, what is the reason for the trend? Answer. FRA inspectors performed the following number of safety appliances in each of the past three calendar years. Calendar year figures are not available for 1976. Question. In our hearings in 1978, rail labor testified that "in the proposal entitled, "The Safety System Plan, September 1977", the FRA stated that "800 safety personnel inspectors, professionals, and clericals were necessary to eliminate the increase in train accidents." Is that an accurate characterization of the findings of that system safety plan? If so, what was the basis for this estimate, and have you since modified the findings? What level do you think would be necessary to roll back railroad accidents and on what basis do you justify this estimate? Answer. First of all, the document referred to was actually a staff study which was never released. Although entitled “The System Safety Plan" this was a misnomer; rigorous analysis was not done. It would be premature to estimate the optimum number of inspectors until the actual System Safety Plan is completed in December 1980. We have not asked for additional inspector resources pending the findings of this study. Inspection priorities Question. On what basis are priorities set for inspection? For each of the five inspection categories, (track, human factor, etc.) would you please provide us with the goals you have set for these categories and the effectiveness criteria you have developed to measure progress toward meeting these goals? How did each of these goals and effectiveness criteria turn out against actual experience last year? Answer. Goals and effectiveness criteria are being developed as part of the System Safety Plan which will be available by December 31, 1980. MTB/FRA coordination Question. The Materials Transportation Bureau and the Federal Railroad Administration have inspection personnel. Would you please state how the two agencies coordinate the inspection activities, particularly in the hazardous materials area? Answer. MTB's inspection force deals with violations of packaging requirements. FRA's responsibilities are much broader and include inspection of shipper, tank car manufacturer, and railroad facilities, as well as accident investigation. The different emphasis of the two agencies in the rail hazardous materials area obviates the need for extensive coordination. Grade levels for inspectors Question. It is my understanding that the grade levels for inspectors and inspector supervisors has been lowered. Is this accurate, and what view do you personally have on the effect this will have on the ability to attract inspectors to carry out an effective program? Answer. The journeyman level for our inspector force has been lowered to GS-11. This will have a negative affect on our ability to attract fully qualified inspectors. Goals for ATIP Question. The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that the automated track inspection program must include goals and objectives and measurable criteria for program evaluation. Do you have goals for this program, and if so, would you please state what these goals are? What effectiveness criteria have you developed to evaluate the performance of this program? Has the Inspector General evaluated this program, and if so, would you please provide a copy of their draft or final audit? Answer. The ATIP Program enables FRA to make more efficient use of the inspectors, by identifying key problem areas. It is vital to track inspection in the Northeast Corridor, where any other means of vehicle inspection cannot be used without tying up the Corridor. ATIP vehicles have also been useful in supporting the work of FRA's Office of Financial Assistance, both in evaluating funding requests and in verifying that the rehabilitation work has been properly done. An added benefit of ATIP inspections is that the railroads are provided very detailed information about their track conditions, thereby facilitating the development of their plans for track maintenance and rehabilitation. The IG has completed an evaluation of this program. It is up to them to release the report and submit it to Congress. Once the report is released, we would welcome the opportunity to submit our comments. STATE/FEDERAL COOPERATIVE INSPECTION PROGRAM Evaluation of the State/Federal inspection program Question. What is your evaluation of the state/federal cooperative inspection program? Do you believe this program has proven to be effective? Answer. The full benefits expected of the State Participation Program have not yet been realized. Congress directed FRA to report on the status and effectiveness of the State Participation Program. The report has been submitted to Congress and concludes that the Federal and state inspection efforts must be better integrated. This can only be done if there is a clear understanding of the respective roles of the two inspection forces. FRA must demonstrate its commitment to the program by seeking to put the state inspection forces in the mainstream of the overall inspection effort. At the same time, the states must recognize the need for a coordinated national effort. If these objective can be realized, continued advances in the effectiveness of the State Participation Program can be expected. Evaluation of Louisiana program Question. What is the status of the state/federal cooperative inspection program in the State of Louisiana? Answer. The State of Louisiana submitted an application to participate last summer after a lengthy period of deliberation at the state level. Louisiana has one inspector in the track area. Data Question. What states presently are part of the federal/state cooperative inspection program? Would you provide us the number of inspectors by state and what specific responsibilities these inspectors have? Also, what is the present status of negotiations with the states that are not in the state/federal cooperative inspection program? Answer. The following table lists the states and inspectors in the program as of April 8, 1980: The specific responsibilities of state inspectors are as follows: DUTIES OF RAILROAD SAFETY INSPECTOR 1. Correctly and uniformly apply Federal Standards. 2. Provide instruction to carrier personnel in the requirements of law and regulation and the preparatory steps required to achieve compliance. 3. Display a level of technical competence equal to that of carrier supervisors with whom the inspector works. 4. Conduct thorough accident investigations utilizing extensive background knowledge of railroad equipment, facilities and operations to identify fruitful avenues of inquiry. 5. Effectively communicate by written memorandum the circumstances and significance of alleged violations, setting forth evidence supporting each element of the civil offense. 6. Acquire technical data related to developing problems which may be the subject of future regulation. 7. Evaluate waiver petitions and other requests for special approvals. 8. Investigate complaints and seek remedial action in areas where regulations do not exist. 9. Identify and evaluate serious conditions which may warrant the removal of track or equipment from service. There is no negotiating per se between FRA and states to enter the state participation program. Instead, FRA explains the program's function, certification/agreement procedures and other requirements. FRA offers assistance, guidance, and encouragement to the states. The following is the current status of those states not yet participating. STATUS OF STATES NOT YET PARTICIPATING IN THE STATE PARTICIPATION PROGRAM Arkansas.-State regards rail safety as a Federal function. California. -FRA has received their application to participate in track inspection; recruitment is under way. Colorado.-Lack of interest and funding appropriation. Delaware.-Not interested in joining the program. Georgia.-Continuing to deliberate jurisdictional issues within the State. Idaho.-State legislature has not provided approval. Maine. Withdrew due to State funding constraints. Maine will participate when State funds are approved by the legislature. Mississippi.-Low salary level makes recruitment difficult. Montana.-Budgetary constraints and lack of interest impede this State's partici pation. New Mexico.-Jurisdictional issue still exists between various state agencies. Oklahoma.—Submitted application to participate in track inspections; recruitment in process. South Dakota.-Jurisdictional issue not yet resolved. Tennessee.-Inspectors not qualified. State commission seems to be unwilling to recruit qualified and experienced candidates. Texas.-State legislature has not provided the funding approval for participation. Virginia.-State legislature has not provided approval and has referred the question of participation to a State committee for study. Wisconsin.-State legislature has not authorized funding. Rail safety is not a high priority. Wyoming.-Budgetary constraints have lessened the State's interest in the pro gram. Lack of adequate authority of State program Question. The state/federal cooperative inspection program has frequently been criticized. One area of criticism is that the state inspectors have not been given adequate authority by Washington. For example, the Federal Railroad Administration has only allowed state inspector to enforce in two areas: track and freight car safety. On what basis has the Federal Railroad Administration made a determination that such a limitation is warranted? What evidence is there that the states could not adequately carry out other areas of inspection now being handled solely by the Federal Government? Answer. In the past, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has indicated that some states were interested in expanded participation. Their request has not, however, conveyed a commitment on the part of a substantial number of states. FRA has given considerable thought and study to expanding the state's authority to inspect the remaining areas of freight car safety-Power Brakes and Safety Appliances. FRA believes that if the program achieves full integration with the Federal program, consideration should be given to expanding the State's authority to monitor all freight car safety regulations. This would provide more overall concentration in the area of equipment inspection, which, along with track, account for more than 60 percent of the rail related accidents. However, we must be cautious in making this decision because many states are at various stages of development. The development of many states and the participation by others is curtailed by their legislatures, budget authorization, and recruitment difficulties which continue to impose constraints on growth of participation and expertise. State enforcement power Question. Do you believe that it is appropriate for the states only to be allowed to carry out an enforcement action when the state notifies the Federal Government and the Federal Government does not act within 90 days? Why shouldn't the states be able to enforce against violations immediately rather than waiting for federal action? Answer. The law should not be changed to grant the states initial enforcement responsibility. Such a change is not necessary from an enforcement standpoint. FRA has never failed to take action at the request of a state where such action was within the law. Further, granting the states initial enforcement responsibility would fragment the effort to deal with the carriers on a national basis-a fundamental requirement in a transportation sector primarily interstate in nature. Most importantly, it would significantly complicate matters for the carriers, thereby increasing their legal costs. Rather than dealing with a single agency, they would be faced with a multiplicity of principals. The primary benefit to granting selected states initial enforcement responsibility would be to improve the relative status of state inspectors. FRA believes that the self-esteem of state inspectors is a serious concern, but that granting independent enforcement authority is not the best way to remedy the situation. In its State Participation report, FRA describes the steps it will take to integrate the efforts of the Federal and State inspection forces. We believe that when the states are truly a part of the national rail safety inspection effort status differences that now exist will be significantly reduced. Willingness of States to join inspection program Question. Do you believe limitations in regard to the amount of enforcement and the coverage of the state/federal cooperative inspection program have lessened the states' willingness in joining this program? Answer. The Federal and state inspection efforts have not been well integrated. There needs to be a clear understanding of the respective roles of the two inspection forces. We will demonstrate our commitment to the program by seeking to put the state inspection forces in the mainstream of the overall inspection effort. At the same time the states must recognize the need for a coordinated national effort. If these objectives can be realized, continued advances in the effectiveness of the State Participation Program are assured. Specifically, we promise that: 1. The Office of Safety will select special instructors for on-the-job training. 2. The Office of Safety will issue uniform monitoring procedures to the FRA regional offices. 3. FRA has an obligation to inform the states of its inspection plans, so that the states can see how their activities fit in with the overall Federal effort. 4. FRA must make the state inspection forces a well integrated part of its inspection effort. All relevant communications from FRA headquarters to our regional offices will also be sent to the appropriate state authorities. State inspectors will be encouraged to attend FRA regional track and equipment safety conferences. 5. FRA will solicit state views in shaping policy and providing input to revisions to track and equipment regulations in the same way that the views of our field staff are sought. We ask: 1. The states should permit their trainees to cross state lines in the course of an investigation. 2. Assist us in special assessments, where requested. State inspection of hazardous materials shipments Question. The states have expressed a particular concern about the issue of hazardous materials shipments. In light of this concern, why are you not allowing the states to carry out hazardous materials inspections as part of the state/federal cooperative inspection program? Wouldn't such a high level of interest lead to a likely greater participation by the states? Answer. It is the position of the Department that expansion of the program would be premature and inadvisable. The entry of states into the track and equipment subprograms has, thus far, been gradual. Much work remains to be done to assure that these subprograms functions as an integral part of the national compliance effort. Payment of inspection personnel Question. It has been alleged that the states have had difficulty in adequately funding and paying for competent inspection personnel. Do you have any suggestions as to how this problem could be mitigated? Answer. Low state salary structures are causing a negative impact on recruitment and program stability. Under the program, the Federal government pays 50 percent of the salaries and related expenses of the state inspectors and trainees and 100 percent of the training costs. There must be a stronger commitment by several of the states to make the salaries competitive. Program goals Question. Has the Federal Railroad Administration established goals and target dates for the state participation program? If so, what are these goals and are they being met? How were the goals established? Answer. Goals and objectives for the entire rail safety effort are being developed under the System Safety Plan which will be submitted to Congress by December 31, 1980. Projections of the level of state participation are based on the best available information provided by the states participating in the program and those in the planning process to do so. Evaluation of the State inspection program Question. How does the FRA measure the effectiveness of the state/federal cooperative inspection program? What studies/evaluations have been made of the program? What have been the results of these studies and evaluations? |