INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. TUCKER, CHAIRMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL J. TIERNEY, VICE CHAIRMAN; MRS. VIRGINIA MAE BROWN, COMMISSIONER; BERNARD F. SCHMID, MANAGING DIRECTOR; J. NEIL RYAN, BUDGET AND FISCAL OFFICER; GEORGE J. LOTITO, ASSISTANT BUDGET AND FISCAL OFFICER; H. NEIL GARSON, SECRETARY; FRITZ R. KAHN, CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL; BERTRAM E. STILLWELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROCEEDINGS; THADDEUS W. FORBES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROCEEDINGS; RICHARD J. FERRIS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS; EDWARD MARGOLIN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ECONOMICS; BERNARD A. GOULD, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENFORCEMENT; ROBERT D. PFAHLER, DIRECTOR, AND MARTIN E. FOLEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF OPERATIONS; EDWARD H. COX, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF TRAFFIC; JAMES T. CORCORAN, CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON OFFICER; AND RICHARD E. BRIGGS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN 1967 APPROPRIATION AND 1968 BUDGET REQUEST Senator ALLOTT. You have sent a letter to the chairman, Mr. Tucker. Mr. TUCKER. Yes, sir. Senator ALLOTT. All right, you have your statement. For the record, let us begin in this way: The 1967 appropriation for salaries and expenses was $28,479,000. The budget estimates for this year were $23,784,000. The House recommended $23,400,000, which is $5,079,000 under last year, and $384,000, under the fiscal year 1968 budget estimates, and you are requesting a restoration in salaries and expenses of $384,000. Mr. TUCKER. Yes, sir. Senator ALLOTT. And then on the "Payment of loan guarantees"that was funded in the supplemental, so we don't have to be concerned about that. APPEAL LETTER Mr. Tucker, we shall place your letter to the Chairman in the record. Will you now proceed with your statement? (The letter follows:) INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Honorable WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Independent Offices Appropriations, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Independent Offices Appropriation Bill (H.R. 9960) for fiscal year 1968 was reported by the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives on May 12, 1967, and the Commission now desires to advise your Subcommittee of the changes which we believe are required in this bill. The President's Budget recommended an appropriation of $23,784,000 for the Commission, but the House Bill provides for only $23,400,000, a reduction of $384,000 in the amount included in the President's Budget. The House Appropriations Committee report states that the amount allowed is the same as provided for the current fiscal year after considering the transfer of all functions in connection with rail and motor carrier safety, locomotive inspection, explosives and dangerous articles to the new Department of Transportation. However, the $23,400,000 provided by the House for 1968 is $9,600 less than the $23,409,600 shown by the Commission for fiscal year 1967 after excluding functions transferred to the Department of Transportation. Of the increase of $374,400 requested, $143,936 was for within-grade salary advancements, other personnel benefits and $56,367 for necessary other objects expenses. These costs, totaling $200,303, less savings of $80,200 due to one less compensable day in 1968 than in 1967, plus the $9,600 reduction below the current fiscal year leave the Commission $129,703 short of continuing into 1968 the program level authorized for 1967. Furthermore, the House Bill does not provide for any of the 28 additional positions requested. Restoration of the 28 additional positions provided in the 1968 budget would require $229,500 for personal services and benefits plus $24,797 for costs of other objects, or an additional total of $254,297 over the amount allowed in the House Bill. Our workload, over which the Commission has little or no control, continues to increase. Even with the 28 additional positions that are included in the budget, we would experience difficulty in maintaining the caseload at a reasonable level. In addition, the action of the House, if approved, would jeopardize the Commission's ability to discharge its statutory responsibilities expeditiously. The following change in H.R. 9960, Independent Offices Appropriation Bill, 1968, is deemed necessary: On page 21, line 5, strike out "$23,400,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$23,784,000". We are looking forward to the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee in support of the Commission's budget request for fiscal year 1968. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM H. TUCKER, Chairman. IMPACT OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. TUCKER. All right. My statement is brief, Mr. Chairman. My name is William H. Tucker. I am the present Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and have been Chairman since January 1 of this year. At the outset, I think we should briefly outline the impact of the new Department of Transportation on our budget. The Chairman referred to an approximate $5 million difference in the figures between last year and this year. That $5 million, Mr. Chairman, relates to the transfer of funds and employees to the Department of Transportation, which is covered in my statement. So I would like to briefly outline the impact of the Department of Transportation on the ICC's budget. The Commission, in short, transferred all of its functions in connection with rail and motor carrier safety, locomotive inspection, and explosives and other dangerous articles along with $5,069,400 and 430 positions to the Department for these functions. Attached to the copies of my statement is a table showing, by function, the number of positions and amounts transferred and therefore excluded from the Commission's budget. The President's budget recommended $23,784,000 and 2,016 positions for the Commission for the functions remaining after the transfers to the Department of Transportation. But as the chairman indicated, the House bill provided only $23,400,000 which was a $384,000 reduction from the President's budget and $9,600 below the adjusted appropriation for the current fiscal year. Senator ALLOTT. Now, by adjusted appropriation you mean with the transfers. Mr. TUCKER. Yes, the chairman is correct. Senator ALLOTT. Adjusted by reason of the 430 positions and the $5,069,400 over to the Transportation Department. Mr. SCHMID. Yes, sir. INTERNAL REORGANIZATION Mr. TUCKER. The transfer of approximately 17 percent of our overall staff and our safety functions to the Department of Transportation necessitated some realinement of our central and field organizational structure. BUREAU REDUCTION The number of bureaus in our Washington, D.C. headquarters was reduced from six to five. This was accomplished by replacing our former Bureau of Operations and Compliance and our former Bureau of Railroad Safety and Service with a single new Bureau of Operations to perform the residual functions of both bureaus following the transfers to DOT. Provision is made in the new bureau structure for continued specialized direction of railroad, motor carrier, water carrier, and freight forwarder activities. CONSOLIDATION OF FIELD REGIONS 6 AND 7 Our field regions were reduced from seven to six through consolidation of former region 6 (headquarters in Portland, Oreg.) with former region 7 (headquarters in San Francisco, Calif.). San Francisco was designated as headquarters for the new region. Because the transfer of Commission personnel to DOT included 37 percent of our operating field staff, the field supervisory structure also required adjustment. Accordingly, those offices formerly designated as district offices of the Bureau of Operations and Compliance now function as other field offices within our basic regional structure. Technical direction of all field programs is provided by program directors headquarters in our six regional offices. These program directors, Mr. Chairman, are set up for the Commission's four field functions; the enforcement, operations, audits and accounts, and a special function involving rail car services. Ordinarily, we might have included rail car services as part of the operation so as only to have three. However, the demands on the Commission in this area and the critical nature of rail car service problems dictated that we ought to continue this area as a specialized program. This organizational change will enable our field staff to perform more effectively and efficiently the remaining regulatory functions. MANDATORY INCREASES The additional $374,400 requested, which the chairman referred to at the outset, included mandatory increases of $143,936 for withingrade salary advancements and other personnel benefits and $56,367 for necessary other objects expenses. These costs, totaling $200,303, less a savings of $80,200 due to 1 less compensable day in 1968 than in 1967, plus the $9,600 House reduction below the current appropria tion, leave the Commission actually $129,703 short of continuing into 1968 the actual program work level which was authorized for 1967. Restorations of the 28 new positions requested this year would require an additional $254,297 for personal services and benefits and related other objects. INCREASED WORKLOAD Of the 28 additional positions eliminated by the House action, 20 were designated for the Office of Proceedings where we undertake the processing of all our cases, Mr. Chairman. In the Office of Proceeding we handle not only all formal cases but most informal proceedings which arise pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act and which relate to any of the carriers under our jurisdiction. There has been a great deal of concern, as the Senator knows, about the unprecedented volume of proceedings the Commission has had to face in recent years. The number of formal cases received in fiscal year 1966 increased 21 percent over those received in fiscal 1965, and 36 percent over those received in fiscal 1964. Currently, we have a pending caseload of about 6,000 cases. Numerically it appears we are experiencing somewhat of a leveling trend in receipts of cases, but the cases, Mr. Chairman, are getting more complex. They are more difficult to process due to the recent trend to consolidating requests for operating authority in a single application rather than multiple applications. The imposition of a filing fee, for example, has reduced the total number of applications, while causing inclusion of multiple requests for related authority into a single application. I might say in that regard that we have been somewhat successful financially because we received over a million dollars from payments. for filing fees in the first year of the fee system's operation. Prior to the initiation of these fees, several separate applications were usually filed by a carrier with each seeking only a limited amount of authority in hopes that some of the applications would be unopposed and thus be granted sooner. Grouping requests in a single application has tended to reduce the number of unopposed cases and increase the amount of opposition to each contested case since more potential protestants are affected by each application. This, of course, increases considerably the amount of work required to dispose of each individual case and thus slows down the total dispositions. PROCEDURAL IMPROVEMENTS The procedural and organizational changes made in recent years, previously reported to the committee, substantially aided the Commission in its case processing procedures. Even these improvements, however, could not cope with the rapid increase in workload and the commission has continued to explore new means to expedite case processing. During fiscal year 1966, we developed a new form for motor carrier licensing applications which requires applicants who intend to rely upon the evidence of public witnesses to have affidavits signed by the prospective witnesses, indicating their willingness to support the application. We have also changed the rules of practice to require applicants in motor carrier licensing cases to notify the Commission within 30 days after protests are filed, that they intend to continue to prosecute their applications. Senator ALLOTT. Now, could I interrupt you there! 1967 CHANGES IN PROCESSING IN MOTOR CARRIER CASES Senator ALLOTT. We have talked over the years here in this committee about the changes in your processing which tend to increase the speed with which these cases were disposed of, and I think it was last year, or perhaps the year before can you correct me? Which one of those was it? You made considerable changes Mr. TUCKER. Last year, Senator. Senator ALLOTT (continuing). In your processes last year, according to my recollection. Mr. TUCKER. In the processing of motor carrier cases. Senator ALLOTT. Yes. Now, are these things that you discussed here you really only refer to a couple of things-a new form for motor licensing applications which requires applicants who intend to rely upon the evidence of public witnesses. Is this in lieu of having public witnesses attend? Mr. TUCKER. No, Senator. This is a situation where unsubstantiated applications would be filed by an applicant for motor carrier authority with the hope that he could find a shipper witness to testify on his behalf. We had many cases over the years where supporting witnesses would never appear at the scheduled hearings. Therefore, the hearing would just "fold up" and we would have wasted a hearing examiner's time and travel. Senator ALLOTT. Almost a nuisance application, would you say? Mr. TUCKER. That is right. This innovation was a substantial help to us, sir, inasmuch as the shipper must sign an affidavit that he intends to support the application, and the application cannot be filed without this affidavit. But, to get down to the specific answer to your question, we still have a hearing and the shipper that signs the affidavit is expected to come in and testify that the service is needed. Senator ALLOTT. I recall a certain application from my own State some time in the last 2 or 3 or 4 years which, at least to me, on the face of it, it did not seem to have too much chance for being granted, and this would be stopped unless the applicant had brought in with his application the affidavits which indicated that he could substantiate or had a good chance of substantiating his application? Mr. TUCKER. That is correct, sir. Senator ALLOTT. Is that a good way of putting it? REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE Mr. TUCKER. Along with that, as the Senator noted, we also require a notice that the applicant intends to prosecute. This procedure is also designed to prevent our sending 99 or 100 hearing examiners out with an itinerary and scheduling 2 or 3 weeks of hearings for these |