Answer. A determination of the effectiveness of inspection efforts both State and Federal has been undertaken as part of the System Safety Plan effort. This work will be completed by the end of the year. An FRA report on the effectiveness of the State Participation Program was forwarded to Congress March 19, 1980. The conclusion reached was that states must be brought into the mainstream of the overall inspection effort. Program management has been improved by streamlining the flow of information to the states and clarified program direction. In addition, FRA is seeking out state inspector candidates with engineering degrees or technical experience not only those with railroad backgrounds. There is also a new on-the-job training effort establishing a cadre of FRA instructors for new state trainees. An FRA report comparing the Pipeline and Railroad Safety Grant Programs is also available. We feel that the main reasons for greater participation in the Gas Pipeline Safety Program are as follows: 1. Historically, many states had their own pipeline safety laws and inspectors long before MTB's Office of Pipeline Safety Regulation came into being. Since its origin, a major function of the Federal pipeline program has been to encourage states to adopt the Federal regulations, which were initially based on industry standards and a few standards from individual states. The FRA did not find a comparable situation of existing widespread state participation at the start of its program. 2. Any valid comparison of the two programs is difficult because the railroad system is primarily interstate, while the pipeline system is 80 percent interstate. Only 14 states participate in interstate pipeline inspection because of the preference to maintain this review on the Federal level. However, there are 30 states participating in the Grants-in-Aid for Railroad Safety Program involving interstate movement. 3. Since 80 percent of the pipeline network is intrastate, the benefits from pipeline safety regulation are more confined within a state's limits. Conversely, most train movements are interstate and inspection/regulation in one state carries over to other states. If one state allocates funds to inspect railroad equipment, other states will also benfit from the action. Since many states are unwilling to pay for benefits to other states, some states consider the Federal government to be a more appropriate agent to regulate rail equipment safety. 4. Some state legislatures feel that railroad safety is a Federal responsibility and that inspections should be performed by existing Federal forces. Therefore, these legislatures have passed stringent funding constraints, thus ensuring non-participation by their state. However, with only 16 Federal pipeline inspectors, the states cannot rely on a Federal presence to ensure pipeline safety. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Hon. HOWARD W. CANNON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CANNON: As Chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, I would like to express my support for an appropriation authorization in the amount of $3.5 million for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, and an additional $3.5 million for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, to carry out State safety programs under Section 206(d) of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C., Section 435(d)). The provisions of such financial assistance to State agencies, on a matching basis, will reduce the need for establishing a large Federal field staff and thereby permit the Congress to implement its national safety programs for far less than what it would otherwise cost for the Federal Government to assume the entire fiscal burden. In other words, the use of matching funds would in effect pull State money into the Federal programs. The tragic loss of life and the infliction of personal injury and property damage on the Nation's railroads is still unnecessarily high. In 1978 alone, 1,646 people lost their lives on the railroads and another 72,545 were injured. Accordingly, I believe that the modest appropriation authorization request of $3.5 million annually will be money well spend to increase the safety of our railroads. In addition, I respectfully urge that the above legislation contain two amendments to strengthen the State role in cooperating with the FRA in the enforcement of Federal safety standards. Under Section 207 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1979 (45 U.S.C., Section 436), a participating State agency may only report violations to the FRA and the State agency is helpless to correct the violations, no matter how dangerous they may be, unless FRA takes no action for 90 days, in which case the State agency can seek injunctive relief in Federal district court. I respectfully urge that the 90 day waiting period be eliminated to afford an independent enforcement mechanism to State agencies in the Federal district courts and thereby significantly strengthen State participation in the rail safety program. This amendment may be made by revising Section 207 of the 1970 Act (45 U.S.C., Section 436) to read as follows: "(a) In any case in which the Secretary has failed to access the civil penalty applicable under Section 209 of this title with respect to a violation of any railroad safety rule, regulation, order, or standard issued under this title, or otherwise required by law, within 60 days after the date on which notification was received by the Secretary from a State agency participating in investigative and surveillance activities under the provisions of Section 206 of this title, that State agency may apply to the district court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the violation occurred for the assessment and collection of the civil penalty included in or made applicable to such rule, regulation, order, or standard. The provisions of this section shall not apply in any case in which the Secretary has affirmatively determined in writing that no violation has occurred. "(b) A State agency participating in investigative or surveillance activities under the provisions of Section 206 of this title may, with respect to a violation that occurred within the State of any railroad safety rule, regulation, order, or standard issued under this title, or otherwise required by law, apply under Section 210 of this title to the district court of the United States within the jurisdiction in which the violation occurred for injunctive relief to restrain any further violation thereof or to enjoin compliance therewith." Secondly, the NARUC believes the Nation's rail safety program can be further improved by authorizing the States to participate in investigative activities in connection with all Federal rail safety laws and regulations. The FRA interprets the State participation program under Section 206(a) of the Federal Railroad Safety Act as only applying to regulations adopted thereunder. State agencies are not authorized to carry out investigative and surveillance activities with respect to other Federal rail safety laws adopted before or after the 1970 Act. The earlier safety laws include the Safety Appliance Acts (45 U.S.C., Sections 1-16), the Ash Pan Acts (45 U.S.C., Sections 17-21), the Boiler Inspection Acts (45 U.S.C., Sections 22-34), the Signal Inspection Act (49 U.S.C., Section 26), and the Hours of Service Acts (49 U.S.C., Sections 61-66). A subsequent safety law is the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C., Sections 1801-1812). Such an interpretation results in an inefficient use of State inspectors when they are present on railroad property to enforce the 1970 Act, but are not permitted to check for compliance with pre- or post-1970 safety laws. Such an expansion of the State participation program would eliminate this inefficiency and assure maximum use of State personnel. This amendment may be accomplished by adding at the end of Section 206 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 a new subsection to read as follows: "(g) Nothwithstanding any other provision of this title or any other law, a State agency may also participate, in the manner set forth in this section, in carrying out investigative and surveillance activities in connection with railroad safety laws and regulations in effect on the date of enactment of this title or enacted or adopted after such date." Your support for these amendments will be deeply appreciated. Sincerely, SUSAN M. SHANAMAN, Chairman. |