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. 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. As 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. BROWN. 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 proposed legislation and those in gas pipeline safety legislation? Secretary BOYD. We tried to track the existing penalties in the railroad field. That gave us the $250 minimum. Mr. BROWN. You see no relationship between penalties in the railroad field and penalties in the natural gas pipeline area? Secretary BOYD. I don't think we would object but we don't see any reason to do it. Mr. BROWN. You don't object to what? Secretary BoYD. To having them made the same. Mr. BROWN. In other words, to raising it to a maximum of $400,000. Secretary BoYD. Actually here you have got an unlimited maximum. Mr. BROWN. And a daily fee for the relationship between those two. Secretary BOYD. You have got a daily fee in the Senate version of the gas pipeline of $1,000 and you have the variation in this one between $250 and $1,000. Mr. BROWN. Those are for each violation as I understand. Does this imply a daily charge of $1,000? Secretary BOYD. If the violation is a continuing one and I read from line 4, "Each day of such violation shall constitute a separate offense." Also in both bills there is a provision for compromise authority. Mr. BROWN. One other area of comparison. What about the methods of financing the operation of railroad safety in the Department? In the Senate version of the gas pipeline safety legislation there was a provision whereby the Department would finance the operation of the inspection of gas pipelines through a direct assessment on the industry. I noticed that that is not included in the railway safety legislation. Secretary BoYD. I will have to review that and ascertain whether or not this was something the administration sought or something the Senate put in the pipeline bill. I can't answer that at the moment. Mr. BROWN. I have no further questions. I don't want to intrude on Mr. Skubitz' time but I would like to ask about the licensing of employees. I am still unsure whether you do or do not intend to license employees of the railroad under provisions similar to the licensing provisions which are provided in the aviation industry. Secretary BOYD. The answer is "no," we do not. Mr. BROWN. Then that is in conflict with the testimony given by Mr. Lang. Secretary BOYD. That is not in conflict with the testimony given by Mr. Lang. Mr. BROWN. If I may, Mr. Secretary, let me read my question to Mr. Lang: I have a couple of other questions relating to the Department of Transportation employees and the railroads. If this bill should be passed in its present form, does the Department anticipate the licensing of railroad employees in the same nature that they are licensed in the aviation industry?" Mr. Lang responded: We anticipate that this might be desirable for selected classes of employees and selected kinds of work. We went on to explore this with this exchange. Mr. BROWN. What kinds of employees do you have in mind, engineers or brakemen or 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. In other words, if this bill is passed, all these people would be licensed under some kind of Federal regulation? Mr. LANG. No, sir, that does not necessarily follow. If in our study of these matters and as a result of rule making procedures it developed that it was desirable to issue certificates to certain classes of employees, then we might. And these would be the prime possibilities in that regard, the ones you mentioned. Secretary BOYD. I think Mr. Lang clarified his testimony last week. you may not have been here. Mr. BROWN. I may not have been, but I wasn't aware that I had missed any of the hearings. Would you want to clarify it again, Mr. Lang, or am I reading it incorrectly? Mr. LANG. No, sir. You were here, Mr. Brown, when I said last week that I thought on reviewing that record myself, not only that section which you just read but a couple of other sections of the record in connection with the first day's hearings, that my testimony on this question was less than clear. We tried to clear it up last week. Again I would reiterate here that our present intention is not to "license" employees such as engineers or brakemen. Our intentions with respect to those classes of employees, and only where it is shown to be necessary in the interest of safety, would be in establishing minimum qualifications that they would be required to meet in order to perform this kind of work. Of course the Secretary discussed this matter earlier this morning. The kind of think we do have in mind as a possibility is certifying employees who would in effect be carrying out the specific requirements established under regulations issued in accordance with this authority to be conferred in this legislation. These would be men such as locomotive or equipment inspectors or track inspectors. Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much. Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Mr. Skubitz. Mr. SKUBITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Boyd, two things always happen to the low man on the totem pole. One, all the questions he had to ask have been asked and, two, you always run out of time. I note that a substantial number of train accidents occur at grade crossings. Does this bill give you authority to make changes at grade crossings if you so deem it necessary? Secretary BoYD. No, sir. Well, I should say literally "Yes," although it is one of the exempted provisions in section 4 beginning at line 19. I should say furthermore that the business of grade crossing safety is something that affects the highway operation to the same or greater extent than it affects the rail operation and for the past 7 or 8 months we have had a task force operating in the Department comprised of members from the Federal Railway Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, State highway officials, the Association of American Railroads, and possibly some others, to try to work on the whole issue of railroad crossing safety or grade crossing safety. Mr. SKUBITZ. Since a substantial number of accidents happen at grade crossings would you have the authority under this act to determine whether the railroads should build an overpass or an underpass? Secretary BOYD. No; I don't think so. Our intent has certainly been to reserve that to the States. Mr. SKUBITZ. The bill says the States may do those things. It doesn't say they shall? Secretary BOYD. I don't think there is any way that we can force the construction of an elevated structure over a railroad. Mr. SKUBITZ. If you deem it is necessary from the standpoint of safety why can't you? You can regulate the design of a car, modify a car, or direct the weight of rails. Secretary BoYD. Well, it just hasn't occurred to us that that power would be involved in this legislation. I think it is more likely that what we could do if it became necessary would be to require the closing of a grade crossing. Mr. SKUBITZ. The reason I raise the question is that in my home in Pittsburg it gets rather irritating sometimes to sit at 10th Street for 20 minutes and wait for a train to go by. As a citizen I have often. thought of writing my Senator and demanding that he introduce legislation requiring the railroads to build an overpass. Secretary BOYD. That is authority which we are not seeking and we don't think is involved in this legislation. Mr. BROWN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SKUBITZ. Yes. Mr. BROWN. Are you suggesting that you abandon the State road or county road because of the interstate nature of the railroad and the noninterstate nature, if I may, of the local road? Secretary BOYD. I just took a possible example off the top of my head to show the direction which I thought, if there was regulatory authority in this area, that regulatory authority might go. I have no idea that we could do that. I tried to give an example that we wouldn't have the authority to force the construction of a grade separation structure. I will limit my answer to that and not try to give any other example. Mr. SKUBITZ. I have another question. If the Department of Transportation deemed that these long trains were dangerous from the standpoint of safety, under this bill would you have the authority to say, "Well, you can't have a train with over 50 cars on it or 100," or could you say to them, "You have to have more men on the train," more brakemen, more engineers or more of anything else? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. SKUBITZ. From the standpoint of safety? Secretary BoYD. Yes, sir. Mr. SKUBITZ. You could go that far? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. BROWN. Would you yield? Mr. SKUBITZ. I yield. Mr. BROWN. May I ask a question on that because this cuts to one of the questions I had asked. You said earlier, Mr. Secretary, that you wouldn't set standards. Mr. FRIEDEL. Have you yielded, Mr. Skubitz? |