Mr. DAVIS. I do not believe, sir, that we have.

Senator HARTKE. But you sent a letter to the States telling them they could not tax them. Why didn't you just let the States fight that out themselves?

Mr. DAVIS. Sir, I have not seen that letter, but if we did, perhaps Mr. Caldwell can cover it. It is my view, sir, that we were telling the States that we could not confer upon them that authority because we did not have it ourselves.

Senator HARTKE. Is that presently being contested?

Mr. DAVIS. Sir, there has been placed before me a letter to Mr. Bloom, dated March 15, 1971, Mr. Bloom, the chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and it was stated quite clearly to him what I stated to you. The letter ends by saying that our statement does not affect the rights of a State or State agency to impose fees on the interstate operators under any authority that the State might possess.

Senator HARTKE. Mr. Swidler was here and he made a suggestion that you permit the States to set more stringent standards than have been set by the Federal standards. What is your opinion on that?

Mr. DAVIS. Sir, it is our view that a situation in which one State provides or creates requirements for an interstate pipeline and then another State provides another set of requirements for the same interstate pipeline would not represent a very good condition. So I do not feel that it would be a good idea for the States to have authority to levy requirements upon companies for interstate pipelines. I feel, as the act provides, this is an area in which the Federal Government should discharge its responsibility. I do feel, however, that there is room for amendment of the act, but not in the manner proposed, to have one State change the requirements for a pipeline that runs through several States.

I think that this would create a chaotic condition for a transmission pipeline operator.

Senator HARTKE. Can you tell us how many accident reports you received by telephone pursuant to your regulations?

Mr. CALDWELL. We do not have that number available, sir. I can furnish it to you.

(The following information was subsequently received for the record :)

The information requested is as follows: From the beginning of the telephonic reporting requirement on February 9, 1970, to December 31, 1970, we received telephonic notices of 333 leaks in distribution lines and 156 leaks in transmission lines. From January 1, 1971 through October 30, 1971, we received telephonic notices of 460 distribution line leaks and 195 transmission line leaks.

Senator HARTKE. How many deaths and injuries in 1971 to date? Mr. CALDWELL. As reported under part 191, which again is the criteria for the significant leaks involving injuries and fatalities for the first 6 months of calendar year 1971-I do not have the third quarter-we have 31 fatalities and 243 injuries for the total gas industry. Senator HARTKE. Did you investigate all those cases involving fatalities and injuries?

Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir; we did not.

Senator HARTKE. How many did you investigate?

Mr. CALDWELL. I do not have that before me, sir. When you say did we investigate, I assume you mean the Office of Pipeline Safety. In

the area of accident investigation, we have a very close relationship and communication with the State agencies and the National Transportation Safety Board. If one or the other organizations is going to get involved, we certainly respect their area of responsibility and their integrity and rely on them to investigate. We try not to overlap because we just do not have that kind of manpower.

Senator HARTKE. Am I incorrect if I say that you only investigated one accident this year?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, no, sir; my records show that we have investigated five, sir. One in Miami Beach, one in Baltimore, one in New Jersey, one in Pennsylvania, and another in New Jersey. There were 13 deaths and 98 injuries in three of the five accidents we investigated.

Senator HARTKE. Senator Beall.

Senator BEALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for either General Davis or Mr. Caldwell. Representatives of the State have testified, that they thought there ought to be greater opportunity for State control of the situation. Are you satisfied that the Federal regulations are sufficient to provide the kind of safety or the kind of protection that is necessary for the consumers?

Mr. DAVIS. Senator Beall, I do not think we know the answer to that question at this particular time, sir. I personally have studied the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, very carefully, and I think I am going to have to go out and see a lot that goes on in the field before I am able to provide you with what I would consider to be a proper answer to that question.

Senator BEALL. In answering that question for yourself, it would appear that the States have some experience perhaps in this whole matter that the Federal Government does not have, since they have been involved in regulating pipelines to a greater or lesser extent as the case may be from State to State. Does your Department frequently consult with the several States to determine what the regulations should be and to determine the degree of participation that one might expect from the States in this regard?

Mr. DAVIS. The answer, sir, is a very strong yes. As I expressed earlier to the chairman, sir, it is our philosophy that we should place very great reliance on the State operation. As a matter of fact, sir, although I am not prepared to give an unqualified response today, in the back of my mind I feel that we should place even greater responsibility from a statutory standpoint in the States and less responsibility in the hands of the Federal Government. But I do not really know

Senator BEALL. Do you mean from an enforcement standpoint or from the promulgation of standards?

Mr. DAVIS. I mean in an overall standpoint, sir. I believe, sir, that we should be engaged in the interstate pipeline business. I believe that we should have our Federal standards. I think we should change our Federal standards from time to time as our knowledge increases. But I feel that for implementation there should be a strong Federal Government-State agency relationship in which we place a lot of reliance on the States in their implementation. Otherwise I believe that our manpower requirements would be far too great.

Senator BEALL. How would you feel about letting the States go ahead at this time and propose more stringent standards than the Federal Government? What would this do to your program?

Mr. DAVIS. Sir, I addressed myself already to that portion of your question that pertained to the interstate pipelines. But to the other pipelines, there is no bar to their providing more stringent requirements than we have provided.

Senator BEALL. With regard to the 1,000 leaks that were mentioned earlier that were reported, I am somewhat new to this subject matter, and the word "significant" leak and "bad" leak has been used here. When is a leak significant and when is it not significant?

Mr. DAVIS. I paid a lot of attention to this, and I believe I can cover this immediately, sir, by reading to you the requirements for making the report. Basically the requirement is, No. 1, a report is made if the leak caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; if it required the taking of any segment of a transmission pipeline out of service; if it resulted in gas igniting; if it caused estimated damage to the property of the operator or others or both of a total of $5,000 or more; or in the judgment of the operator was significant even though it did not meet the criteria that I have read. And that relates to the telephonic notice of certain leaks.

Now, we break this down, as the chairman referred to it earlier, in the case of the distribution system. The operator of a distribution system serving more than 100,000 customers shall report in writing, on form DOT-F-7100.1, a leak that required notice by telephone, as I have described earlier, a leak that because of its location required immediate repair or other immediate action to protect the public, such as evacuation of a building, blocking off of an area or rerouting of traffic, or when additional related information is obtained after a report.

We require a report, in other words, under conditions that we think represent a danger to the public of such magnitude that we might learn something from it and cause us to amend our regulation.

Senator BEALL. Are you satisfied that the 1,000 reports that you got are all of the so-called significant leaks or bad leaks?

Mr. DAVIS. I am positive that the thousand that were reported were significant, but I am not satisfied that all others were not significant. Senator BEALL. What do we do about that situation?

Mr. DAVIS. Sir, we are going to have to look and see and determine whether we should change these regulations and require additional reporting in the manner that was brought out by the chairman, perhaps. Perhaps in another manner.

Senator BEALL. What I am getting at is you are relying almost totally on the willingness of the people who had the leaks in their system to report the leaks to you, are you not?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Senator BEALL. So, since you do not have enough people to enforce the regulations you now have, you really do not know whether you are getting at the problem, do you?

Mr. DAVIS. Well, sir, I would say a significant leak would not go unnoticed, and I believe that, since it would not go unnoticed, those responsible for it would be more likely to report it since they are familiar and do have these regulations.

Senator BEALL. I will not be argumentative. But I am still not sure that I understand what a significant leak is. Still it seems to me almost any gas leak is significant.

Mr. CALDWELL. Let me go one step further and tell you what our plans are. As I said earlier, when we established the leak reporting requirements, we had to make a decision based on our best information and judgment to try to get a sampling of leaks to determine their cause. When you set up a new system-we are developing an automatic data processing system for each and every leak. First of all, we want the significant leaks, and No. 2, we have to arbitrarily draw a line to get a representative sampling and keep the number manageable. Again it was an educated guess—or an uneducated guess, however you want to put it-that we would get a small number to look at to start with.

After the end of this reporting year, which will be January, we will have 2 years' reporting experience. We have a plan underway to evaluate our leak reporting system and see if, as the General said, we are getting the types of leaks reported that we feel we should in order to better monitor and develop our regulations.

So the program is under review, but we had to get some operating experience so that we know where we stand.

Senator BEALL. Granted you have to have the experience in order to move ahead and establish regulations, but I trust you also plan to move ahead in enforcing those regulations, do you not?

Mr. DAVIS. Senator, we have limited personnel, but the act requires enforcement. I have asked Mr. Caldwell to create a system in which the people in his office based here in Washington are divided up into teams, and these teams are scheduled for enforcement-monitorship trips to carry out our enforcement function within our limited resources to the best of our ability.

Senator BEALL. To what extent is your ability limited by your

resources?

Mr. DAVIS. It is limited, sir, by the number of people that we have. Senator BEALL. I know that, but how does this seriously affect your ability to carry out the stated purpose of the Act?

Mr. DAVIS. Only, sir, from the standpoint of enforcement, because this takes people out. We would like, sir, to establish field offices. Senator BEALL. You need more money, is that the point? Mr. DAVIS, No, sir.

Senator BEALL. You do not?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. What we need is more people and we need the people stationed out in the field near the gas operators that they can visit and inspect.

Senator BEALL. You have the money to get the people?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir, we are

Senator BEALL. Then you do need more money?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir, we need the authorization for the people, the authorization for the money, and the money.

Senator BEALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HARTKE. Do vou consider the Baker case closed?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. We are awaiting the printed testimony of the hearing from the State of Oklahoma, and it is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that it is perhaps due on November 15.

Senator HARTKE. Thank you.

The committee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.)

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS

POSITION OF ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESPONSE

ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES,
Washington, D.C., January 21, 1972.

Subject: Gas pipeline safety bills, H.R. 5065, S. 980 and S. 1910.

Hon. VANCE HARTKE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This comment of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL) is directed toward a proposal advocated in testimony before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation on November 9, 1971, in hearings on "Gas Pipeline Safety," dealing specifically with H.R. 5065, S. 980 and S. 1910.

Each of these three bills would make technical amendments to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968. In the form in which it passed the House, H. R. 5065 would extend for two years, until August 12, 1972, the time during which the states may qualify to enforce Federal safety standards established pursuant to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, would make it mandatory upon the Secretary of Transportation to pay to the states grants-in-aid of up to 50 percent of the cost of state safety programs, and would authorize the appropriation of funds for enforcement of the Act. S. 980 and S. 1910 deal with similar subject matter, and the Subcommittee held joint hearings on the three bills.

Each of the three bills deals solely with the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, and the hearings have been referred to as "Gas Pipeline Safety" hearings. On November 9, 1971, two witnesses, the Honorable Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Safety and Consumer Affairs, and the Honorable John H. Reed, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board in their testimony in support of this legislation, also recommended an amendment which would add a new section dealing with a completely new subject which did not appear in any of the bills as introduced, or in H.R. 5065 as that bill passed in the House. The proposed amendment is as follows:

"Section 6(f) (3) (A) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655 (f) (3) (A) is amended by deleting the words 'and pipeline'."

The proposed amendment, if adopted, would amend the Department of Transportation Act to make it possible for the Secretary of Transportation to transfer the existing functions of the Federal Railroad Administrator relating to oil pipeline safety to the Office of Pipe Line Safety, which presently has jurisdiction only over gas pipeline safety. Although the bills which are the subject of the hearing were introduced to amend the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, the proposed amendment to the bills would amend an altogether different statute, the Department of Transportation Act. The proposed amendment would affect the oil pipeline industry, which is not and has never been subject to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, and which heretofore has not been concerned with the Gas Pipeline Safety hearings. It is now submitted that the proposed amendment should not be adopted in haste, and without full consideration of complications it would create, affecting the oil pipeline industry. In this connection, it should be pointed out that while H.R. 5065 was before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the Acting General Counsel of