Mr. JORDAN. Within the State of Illinois. I have seen the report and met with that committee.

Mr. YATES. You have talked with that committee. Is their criticism well founded, in your judgment?

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Hagen, would you like to comment?

Mr. HAGEN. I think the parts that deal with the fact that potentially solvent lines were involved in the DOT report are well founded. I think that the way we are proceeding on the evaluation of the remaining property, provides a basis for assessing the Penn Central properties in the State.

Mr. YATES. Are you telling me that the criticisms are in substantial measure well founded and you are taking steps to correct the criticisms advanced by this group?

Mr. HAGEN. Yes, sir, we hope to do that.

Mr. YATES. I thank you.

Mr. McFALL. There are other criticisms of abandonment in other States besides Illinois. You are also evaluating those, are you not?

Mr. HAGEN. Yes. We have a technical committee of State DOT's and the Northeast Regional Committee and Appalachian Committee. and these groups we meet with and work with on a regular basis. Mr. McFALL. Mr. Conte.

Mr. CONTE. We have had hearings at home?

Mr. HAGEN. Yes; sir.

Mr. CONTE. Very thorough hearings. In fact, you people came to my hometown. I hope, because I have not asked many questions, you don't get the impression that I have lost interest up there.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Conte, there is no question in our mind of your interest. We are aware of your concerns.

Mr. CONTE. I want to expedite these hearings.

Mr. McFALL. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

WITNESSES

ALFRED T. MacFARLAND, ACTING CHAIRMAN

ROBERT C. GRESHAM, COMMISSIONER

A. DANIEL O'NEAL, COMMISSIONER

ROBERT L. REBEIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR

ARTHUR J. CERRA, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL

ROBERT D. PFAHLER, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF OPERATIONS

WILLIAM J. LOVE, CHIEF, SECTION OF RAILROADS, BUREAU OF OPERATIONS

PETER J. SHUDTZ, OFFICE OF HEARINGS

CHARLES C. GEORGE, ACTING BUDGET AND FISCAL OFFICER

Mr. McFALL. We are pleased to have before us the Acting Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Mr. Alfred MacFarland, along with Commissioners Gresham and O'Neal and the other witnesses, whose names have been placed in the record.

Mr. MacFarland, you have a rather short statement which we will put in the record. Briefly tell us why you want $345,000 and 24 positions for your compliance program.

Mr. MACFARLAND. Mr. Chairman, since the statement is fairly short, I believe within about 3 to 4 minutes I may read it, if you permit it. Mr. McFALL. Go ahead.

GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN

Mr. MACFARLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Commission's fiscal year 1975 supplemental budget request.

The request we have submitted includes 24 positions and $345,000 for a compliance program that will insure compliance with the adequacy of rail passenger service regulations issued by the Commission on April 1, 1974. Before getting to the specifics of that request, I would briefly like to touch on the developments that led to it.

In the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1973, Congress clearly indicated its desire that a viable. national rail passenger system be established to provide modern and efficient intercity rail passenger service. As part of the plan to accomplish this objective, Congress authorized the Commission to prescribe regulations to provide adequate service, equipment, track and facilities, and to revise these regulations when necessary. Futhermore. so that there would be no delay, Congress, in the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1973, directed the Commission to promulgate these regulations within 60 days of enactment, which meant that the regulations had to be issued by January 1, 1974.

Pursuant to this statutory requirement, the Commission instituted the rulemaking proceeding Adequacy of Intercity Rail Passenger Service [Ex Parte No. 277 Sub.] for the purpose of developing these regulations. They were adopted by the Commission on December 7, 1973, and became effective April 1, 1974.

The publication of regulations, however, was only a first step. To be truly effective, the Commission also needed a compliance effort that would insure implementation of the regulations. Unfortunately, the President had already established his 1975 budget for the Commission before the regulations were adopted. Thus, the Commission's regular budget did not include the resources needed to mount an effective compliance program in this area. When we appeared before this subcommittee in March of this year, we indicated that the Commission was considering submitting a budget amendment to fund this program in 1975. That amendment was sent to the Office of Management and Budge on May 31, 1974. The review and approval process took longer than expected and the amendment was not transmitted to the Congress until July 31, 1974. By that time, committee action on the regular budget had been completed and the estimate became a supplemental request for 1975.

The regulations issued by the Commission apply to the operations of all intercity passenger trains, whether performed by Amtrak or nonparticipating carriers, and include standards for reservation systems, arrival and departure times, and cleanliness and serviceability of equipment and facilities. The Commission intends to enforce these

regulations, and accordingly has established programs for administrative handling of consumer complaints and for conducting compliance surveys, investigations, and enforcement actions as needed.

The Commission has already used five positions originally earmarked for other activities to establish a passenger service branch to monitor carrier responses to individual consumer complaints and to monitor the overall field staff followup investigations on individual complaints or patterns of complaints identified through the complaint procedure. To date, approximately 2,700 complaints have been received. As presently organized, the passenger service branch receives, reads, and codifies passenger complaints, and monitors the timely response of Amtrak regarding consumer complaints. This branch has identified several major problem areas, such as timely response to complaints of the traveling public: inspection and repair of Amtrak trains by contracting railroads; baggage service on long distance trains; and "standee" conditions in the Northeast corridor.

In most cases the Commission has been required to follow up with the carrier, primarily Amtrak, to insure an answer for the consumer. While some improvements have been noted, the Commission expects. that it will have to remain heavily involved in following up on complaints for some time before the carriers finally implement an effective complaint handling system of their own.

Our compliance and investigation program for rail passenger service is similar to the work conducted by the field staff in connection with railroad freight service. Approximately 500 stations and 2,500 passenger cars are subject to our passenger-related checks. We also intend to conduct ride-on surveys as well as inspections while trains are stopped at stations. However, the fact that our regular staff participates in such passenger activity has a detrimental impact on other existing programs. The field staff, who must ride trains and inspect passenger facilities, cannot perform their regular assignments and still maintain the same level of effectiveness. For instance, an increase in passenger service investigations would adversely affect our important car service programs to improve freight car utilization.

It should be noted that these regulations do not include anything pertaining to track or roadbed standards. The Commission recently has begun a rulemaking proceeding (Ex Parte 277 (Sub 2)), Adequacy of Intercity Rail Passenger Service," in which we are attempting to gather data from all interested parties to assist the Commission in developing adequacy standards for track.

My colleagues and I are ready to answer any questions you may have.

JUSTIFICATIONS

Mr. McFALL. Insert the justifications in the record.

[The justifications follow:]

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Pursuant to the statutory requirement imposed by the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1973, the Commission instituted the rulemaking proceeding Adequacy of Intercity Rail Passenger Service (Ex Parte No. 277 Sub 1) for the purpose of developing required service regulations. They were decided by the Commission on December 7, 1973, and became effective April 1, 1974.

Because the President's 1975 budget was established by that time, the Commission's regular budget did not include the resources needed to initiate an effective compliance program in this area. Therefore, a budget amendment was sent to the Office of Management and Budget on May 31, 1974. The review and approval process took longer than expected, and the amendment was not transmitted to the Congress until July 31, 1974. By that time, Committee action on the regular budget had been completed and the estimate was changed to a supplemental request for 1975.

The enclosed request includes 24 positions and $345,000 for the purpose of operating a compliance program that will insure compliance with the adequacy of rail passenger service regulations issued by the Commission on April 1, 1974. The regulations issued by the Commission apply to the operations of all intercity passenger trains and include standards for reservation systems, arrival and departure times, and cleanliness and serviceability of equipment and facilities. The Commission intends to enforce these regulations by establishing a program for administrative handling of consumer complaints and by conducting compliance surveys, investigations, and enforcement actions as needed.