« PrécédentContinuer »
Secretary Boyd. Of course in the Natural Gas Pipeline case you have a situation where the gas comes of the wellhead and moves in an unbroken line through the gathering lines to the transmission lines to the distribution lines and then to the ultimate consumer.
It is a completely different situation than a city trolley line or even BART which is certainly a major extension of a city trolley or subway line where you don't have that tie.
Now, when I was in law school I remember reading a case which went to the Supreme Court which held that an elevator operator in the Empire State Building was affected by interstate commerce for the purpose of some wage and hour law. I don't know whether that has been overruled or not but that struck me as a rather broad construction of interstate commerce because lessees in the building were national companies and the fact that John Doe may ride the BART line from Walnut Creek to his office on Market Street where he is an employee of United States Steel I don't think would mean that the BART operation affects interstate commerce. I am not prepared to give that broad a construction.
Mr. BROTZMAN. My time is rather short and I can discuss this at some length because I do foresee some differences, Mr. Secretary, in relation to these two bills. One more question. What does a densely populated area mean? Secretary Boyd. I don't know. Mr. BROTZMAN. That is on page 4, line 25. This is also some language that we struggled with in relation to the other bill. I talked with you trying to get some help and I want to know whether you have given thought to what this language means?
Secretary Boyd. I haven't given thought to that in connection with this legislation because this is something which as far as we can foresee would be left to the States.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Who is going to determine that? Someone has to determine whether or not the State is going to operate in a manner that doesn't conflict with your position.
Secretary Boyd. I don't know. I am sure that if, as, and when the Department becomes concerned with that definition it would be based on some sort of a population per square mile which is the standard figure.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Do you have anything that would help us now in this direction?
Secretary Boyd. No, sir; nothing.
Mr. BROTZMAN. This is one of the things that we were concerned with relative to the gas lines as you know and we were trying to come up with some kind of formula in regard to that bill and didn't get one. I wondered if you had anything at your disposal that would help us to do something in this regard?
Secretary Boyn. No, sir.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Secretary, in just jotting down your figures for personnel which would be added to the Department for purposes of administering this law, I have come to these figures. They may not be accurate. In 3 years you would have 14 track, bridge, and tunnel inspec
tors, 15 running gear inspectors, and 10 operator and radio rules inspectors.
Is that correct, for a total of 39 inspection employees?
Mr. Brown. Whose standards will they be applying in their inspection of the various areas of their responsibility?
Secretary Boyd. The Departments.
Secretary Boyd. They will come from regulations which have been
Secretary Boyd. They will be developed first of all through staff work in the Department in conjunction with discussions with railroad management and with railroad brotherhood representatives. After that, the Department will issue a proposed regulation, publish it in the Federal Register, and request comments within a period of time depending upon the complexity of the regulation, 30, 60, or 90 days. After that, the comments will be evaluated and assessed and, depending on the impact of those comments, the final regulation will be issued.
Mr. BROWN. This relates, for instance, to all running gear. You will develop the standards for running gear based on conversations with the railroad executives and railroad labor, is that correct?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Excuse me, sir. One thing I want to make clear is that, while the legislation will provide for broad coverage, it doesn't necessarily mean and I don't think we contemplate that every aspect of railroad operation is going to become subject to a regulation of the Department.
Mr. Brown. What do you think might be omitted, sir?
Secretary Boyd. It is entirely possible.
Secretary Boyd. I have no idea. I am not technically competent and we have not been in a position to make the kinds of studies necessary to give you answers to questions of that type.
Mr. Brown. Who will make that kind of study?
Mr. BROWN. If my figures are correct, I notice that you have five in technical research development.
Secretary Boyd. We have five in the technical staff of regulation writing and five in the technical staff of the R. & D. program. These men will collaborate and we will use such other sources as we have at the Department.
Mr. Brown. I want to separate the regulation writing from the technical and research and development. Will the regulation writing people be journalism people?
Secretary Boyd. The technical people will be technical in the sense of competent to consider the operation, design, and useage of the rail
road, not technically writers in the sense of being graduates of a school of journalism.
Mr. Brown. I am trying to get the distinction between the regulation writing and technical and R. & D. people.
Are you telling me that there will be 10 people who will have technical competence in railroad equipment and operation, or are you telling me that there will be five people who have technical competence and five others who will be in the writing?
Secretary Boyd. I am telling you there will be 10. They will have different responsibilities but they will be in touch with each other. They will be discussing similar subjects but they will have different purposes in their employment.
Mr. Brown. But they will have technical competence in the track, bridge, and tunnel area, running gear area and in operation of railroads.
Secretary Boyd. That is correct, yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Well, I am a little hard pressed to understand how the Department is going to develop technical competence beyond that which now exists within the industry and within both management and labor—who negotiate these problems of safety and operationand develop a competence that is superior to that which exists within the industry at the present.
Secretary Boyd. I don't want to give the impression that I think the Federal Government has got some sort of mysterious knowledge which isn't given to other people to understand.
Mr. BROWN. Apparently not. If we have any knowledge, it will have to be drawn from the industry.
Secretary Boyd. No; that is not correct. We expect it to come from the industry. However, there is a great deal in the way of research which leads to an understanding of an operation which is not available to the average individual working for the railroad.
We would expect to have people who were, by experience and by training, some of which will undoubtedly have to be provided by and through the Department to be specialists in various areas.
Mr. Brown. In other words, you anticipate that the Department will get into the research and development activity of railroading through independent research from the railroad industry in such areas as running gear, bridge and tunnel construction, and that kind of thing?
Secretary Boyd. Yes, sir.
Now, it is entirely possible that we will contract with the railroad industry or various elements of the industry to carry out various research projects. It is also entirely possible that we will contract with the Illinois Institute of Technology which does a great deal of work, or at least a fair amount of work for the railroad industry.
Mr. Brown. Do the budget figures in this legislation reflect that outside contract work or do they merely reflect the personnel that· Secretary Boyd. The total budget figures? Are you talking about the figures in the authorization ?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Secretary Boyd. Well, I want to reiterate what I said last week. Those were put in by the committee, by Mr. Staggers, when he introduced the legislation.
Mr. Brown. I understand, and the recommendation of someone from the Department of Transportation.
Secretary Boyd. We did not have clearance from the Budget Bureau for these figures.
Mr. Brown. There is nothing in the budget at the present for this particular legislation? This means that the legislation would be an overwrite over the Federal budget at present; is that right?
Secretary Boyd. No; that doesn't necessarily follow. Mr. Brown. In what regard does it not follow? Mr. Lang. Mr. Brown, if I might, the total money figures that were submitted as authorization ceiling, to be written into the bill were based on our expectation of the cost of carrying forward our present program plus the additional cost associated with the personnel that we have been discussing here just a moment ago.
Is you will recall from my previous testimony, our currently authorized strength in the Bureau of Railroad Safety is 246 positions. Our strength for that operation runs a little under $4 million dollars. We are talking here now about the possibility of adding over a period of 3 years up to a total of 69 additional personnel over and above the 246 we already have and that, of course, would raise the cost of this program somewhat above the $3.85 million at which it is currently running.
In fact, our estimates here based on these figures that we have discussed a moment ago in terms of additional personnel, would move that budget at the end of the first year up to the neighborhood of $4.35 million; the second year, $4.8 million; and the third year, $5.2 million.
These are our preliminary estimates of what we might be asking for in our budget request for the first, second, and third year. We further anticipate at the present time that the program would continue at that third-year level which, as I say, works out to roughly $5.2 million as opposed to our present budget of $3,850,000.
Mr. Brown. Then, if I understand this correctly, you are really talking an increase of $14 million?
Mr. LANG. No, an increase of $1.4 million over the present $3.8 million per year.
Mr. BROWx. You have lost me someplace.
Let me ask the question this way in the record. Is the money estimate, the cost of this legislation in the budget for fiscal year 1969?
Mr. LANG. I would have to answer it this way: Part of it is in the sense that once this legislation was enacted, all of the present authority under which we fund our present program in the amount of roughly $3,850,000 a year would have to be comprehended by this new authority so that the first dollar job so to speak that we have to pick up is that $3.8 million to continue our present program.
Secretary Boyd. That is in our budget request.
Mr. Watson. It is our understanding that you have your $3,800,000 for your present employees?
Secretary Boyd. That is correct.
Mr. WATSON. This bill calls for $5 million. I have difficulty in understanding the figures. The $5 million additional is for the 69 employees?
Mr. LANG. No, $5 million total including the $3.8 million necessary to carry the present program.
Mr. Watson. So you would actually only need an additional $1.2 million for this program?
Mr. Lang. In this authorization our present thinking is that we would actually ask only for somewhere in the neighborhood of $4.35 million in the first year; $5 million would be a ceiling. Mr. Brown. Let's go back to the beginning of this question.
In addition to personnel which you have to submit to the committee, does that include the research and development work which will be done outside in order to develop the Department of Transportation competence for writing regulations under section 3 of the legislation?
Mr. LANG. No, sir; that does not include a provision for research funding. However, I should point out that we have two existing sources of funds for the kind of studies that we contemplate should or might be made in connection with this expanded authority. We have our so-called "railroad research” appropriation.
Mr. BROWN. Which is how much? Mr. LANG. Which is $200,000 this year, virtually all of which we are planning or have already committed ourselves to use for questions associated with safety, specifically. We also do research on railroad problems under our high-speed ground transportation research and development authority,
Mr. BROWN. That amount?
Mr. Lang. That total amount is very much larger, about $12 million, I think, in our 1969 budget. Only a small share of this is focused explicitly on railroad problems and of those only some are related directly to safety, but we do use that authority where we can and where it's appropriate for the rest of the research and development program to do some additional investigation of questions that are specifically associated with safety.
Mr. Brown. Do you anticipate a request for further funding to develop competence in this area of rulemaking and regulation writing with reference to the equipment and operation of the railroads?
Mr. LANG. At the present time we don't anticipate that that would be necessary, a request for additional funding beyond that already available to us under these other two appropriations.
Mr. BROWN. When do those other two appropriations sources terminate?
Mr. Lang. The High-Speed Ground Transportation Research and Development Authority terminates at the end of the next fiscal year.
Mr. BROWN. 1969?
Mr. Lang. But, we have a request pending before the Congress to extend that authorization for 2 additional years.
Mr. Brown. Just a couple of other quick questions.
Why the differences in the penalties under section 6 of this pro. posed legislation and those in gas pipeline safety legislation?