PAGENO="0001" SECOND SJ~ S PAGENO="0002" PAGENO="0003" I - PAGENO="0004" PAGENO="0005" PAGENO="0006" PAGENO="0007" PAGENO="0008" PAGENO="0009" PAGENO="0010" PAGENO="0011" PAGENO="0012" 8,~ QE~EE~L SIJPPOR!r PRosi~u~i A. BtGt%tory a~atherttV.-~-AUthority foI this program is contained in ]?ublic Law 89-670, section 3, and Public L~w 90-112. 1~. Nci~ure of program anl oatpt~t,-The general support program covers executive direction, policy development, central supervision, and all coordi~ mating functions necessary for the overall planning and administration of the Depa~rtment. Executive direction ~f the Department is vested in the Secretary of Trans- portation, who is also responsible for advising the President on policy and programs affecting the z~ational transportation system as envisioned by the Department of Transpor~tion Act. 1~o fulfill these objectives and to assure that all departmental resources are utilized in an optimum and economical mafluer, the Secretary requires top-level advice and assistance at various echelons through- out the Department. At the secretarial level, advice and general support functions are performed by assistant secretaries whQse major areas of responsibilities cut across all the transportation missions and modes. They cover policy development, public affairs, International affairs and special programs, research and technology, adniinis- tration, and general counsel. At the operating levels, the general support and advice are furnished by the various administrators, and their Immediate assistants. The administrators, who report directly to the Secretary, are expected to carry out their assigned programs with the necessary local support and general guidance from the Office of the Secretary. The Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board is independent of the Secretary and other offices or officers of the Department. The nature of the general support activities performed at the secretarial and the administration levels cover overall management direction of major programs, as well as day-to-day supervision of specific operations. In addition to the concept of vertical suport, the departmental support program is oriented toward facili- tating horizontal coordination among the administrations to assure complemen- tary and interrelated transportation activities. The specific output resulting from the general support program covers a wide range of activities. While it cannot be realistically quantified as a reflection of efficiency, it does include significant numbers of essential related actions, such as policy pronouncements, management studies, information services, financial and budgetary reportings, personnel actions, audits and investigations, speeches, contracting and procurements, handling of congressional and public inquiries, field coordination activities, management conferences and meetings, and myriad other support services required in a large department. C. Responsible offioiais.-The following officials, assisted by their immediate staff, have the major responsibilities under the Department's general support program: The Secretary, Alan S. Boyd. The Under Secretary, John E. Robson. Assistant Secretary for Policy Development, M. Cecil Mackey. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, John L. Sweeney. Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Programs, Don- ald G. Agger. Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Frank W. Lehan. Assistant Secretary for Administration, Alan L. Dean. General Counsel, Stanford Ross. Federal Aviation Administrator, William F. McKee. Federal Highway Administrator, Lowell K~ Bridwell. Federal Railroad Administrator, A. Scheffer Lang. Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Joseph H. McCann. Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Adm. Willard J. Smith. Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, loseph J. O'Connell. Secretary BOYD. The Department was organized a little over a year ago, faced with the task of bringing together under one Department, virtually all Government organizations that had transportation func- tions. In order to effectively accomplish this task, the Department is developing an adequate support program which will facilitate the accomplishment of our transportation objectives. PAGENO="0013" 9 We made a good start under strict controls and fiscal restraints. Our program covers executive direction, policy development, central super~ vision and coordinating functions for the Department. Executive di- rection of the Department is vested in the Secretary, who is also responsible for advising the President on policy and programs affect- ing the national transportation system as envisioned by the Depart- ment of Transportation Act. To fulfill these objectives and to insure that all departmental re- sources will be utilized in an optimum and economical manner, the Secretary requires top-level advice and assistance. At the secretarial level, advice and general support functions are performed by As- sistant Secretaries whose major areas of responsibilities cut across all the transportation missions and modes. They cover policy develop- ment, public a~airs, international affairs, and special programs, re- search and technology, administration and general counsel. At the operating levels, the general support and advice are furnished by the various administrators and their immediate assistants. The administrators who report directly to the Secretary are expected to carry out their assigned programs with the necessary local support and general guidance from the Office of the Secretary. The chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board is independent of the Secretary and other offices and officers of the De- partment., although he does receive administrative support. The nature of the geiieral support activities performed at the secre- tarial and administration level cover overall management direction of major programs as well as day-to-day supervision of specific opera- tions. In addition to the concept of vertical support, the departmental support program is oriented toward facilitating horizontal coordina- tion among the administrations to assure complementary and inter- related transportation activities. The specific output resulting from the general support program cov- ers a wide range of activities. While it cannOt realistically be quantified as a reflection of effici.ency, it does include significant numbers of essential related actions, policy pronouncements, management studies, financial and budgetary reporting, personnel actions, audit and in- vestigations, speeches, contracting and procurement, handling of con- gressional and public inquiries, field coordination activities, manage- ment conferences, meetings, and myriad other general support activities required in a large department. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Secretary, how many people are directly involved in this $165 million expenditure, of which $114 million is in personnel? Secretary Born. A total of 14,815 people, of whom 8,665 are civilian, 6,150 military-Coast Guard. Mr. BRooKs. How many are at the Department of Transportatioi~ level, sir? Secretary Bom. 470. Mr. BROOKS. So we have a tremendous number of those people who are in the subagencies under DOT? Secretary Born. Yes, sir; the vast majority. Mr. BROOKS. Is it contemplated that they might reduce those num- bers of people in the support activities as you get a more coordinated approach to this field? PAGENO="0014" 10 Secretary Bon. I would expect th~re would be so~ne slight adjust- ments, Mr. Chairman, but not a great many. I s~y that because the functions which many of these people are carrying out have got to be L~iandled. I do not want to give the impression that I think we can re- ~Iuce that physical volume by any large amount. Mr. BROOKS. I had intended to ask you for a brief justification of the size and extent of your support program, but 1 believe your previ- ous answer has covered that pretty well. B. BUDGET PROCESSES Would you outline briefly and give us a status report on the e~orts of your Department on the implementation of program budgeting? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. A draft statement has been developed of departmental goals, objectives, programs, and priorities. That state- ment has now been reviewed within the Department, revised and ap- proved for the guidance of the entire Department in its program, planning, and evaluation. It has also been published and circulated, and, if I may,.I would like to submit a copy for the record. Mr. BROOKS. Without objection, it will be accepted for the record. (The stateme~it appears in app. B.) Mr. BROOKS. These are the program categories? Secretary Bom. That is a statement of goals and objectives. We also have the program structure, a copy of which has been provided to the committee. I think this other one is our goals and objectives, which has just been published. Mr. BROOKS. We have the program structure. (A copy of the revised program structure follows:) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM STRUCTURE (Approved by the Secretary and promulgated, January 11, 1968) NoTE-Each of the following program categories has an objective or objectives. The objective in each of the first three categories is multidimensional. That is, it contains four subobjectives: (1) economical movement, (2) safety, (3) esthetic, environmental, and social values, and (4) support of military requirements. Some of these subobjectives may compete directly with one another. For ex- ample, in some cases, the economic movement subobjective might be advanced through greater speed of transit, but only by moving away from the safety sub- objective. Therefore, each sübobjeetive is constrained by the others and trade-offs between them may sometimes be necessary. Moreover, all of the objectives and subobjectives will generally be in compe- tition with one another for resources, and all will be subject to budget constrainta PROGRAM CATEGORY I: URBAN TRANSPORTATION (SMSA) Object'tve.-In urban areas, to- Increase the net direct economic benefits of transportation (which represent benefits for which the user would be willing to pay; for example, increased speed of transit between two points, lower user costs, and increased comfort of travel); Decrease fatalities, injuries, and property losses due to transportation- related accidents; Increase the benefits derived from the preservation and enhancement of esthetic, environmental, and social values; Meet valid military requirements when the Department can do so more effectively or efficiently than other agencies. PAGENO="0015" PAGENO="0016" PAGENO="0017" PAGENO="0018" PAGENO="0019" PAGENO="0020" PAGENO="0021" PAGENO="0022" PAGENO="0023" PAGENO="0024" PAGENO="0025" PAGENO="0026" PAGENO="0027" 23 Mr. BROOKS. What do you consider to be the most pressing problems that need to be overcome for you to have a better utilization of your APP capacity? Secretary Bon). I would ]ike to refer that to Mr. Magrrider. Mr. MAGRUDER. I think the major problem, sir, is getting the man- agement people throughout the ageitcy to unclerstan(l the m~es and the limitations of the computers. There are a great many uses, as you well know, in the personnel field, the finance field, the research field, and so forth. We are interested in getting more education of the various functional plaimers to the state of the APP art. There is also a need, we believe, to minimize the escala- tion of APP requirements in each of the administrations by replacing divided efforts with concerted long-range piaiis based upon time sharing, centralized to the degree that most benefits. Mr. BROOKS. Have you had any problem with personnel at the. pro- graming level or at the input level? Mr. MAGRUDEiL No, sir; I don't believe so, not to the best of my knowledge. The administrations, for the most pait, are well-established ad- ministrations. As the Secretary has pointed out., the Coast Guard, the FAA, and a portion of the FHWTA, which do the major portioti of this work in the field, do have extensive capabilities. We are, at the preseiit time, learning more about theni. I think it is necessary to say that we are relying to a considerable exteiit right now on these portions of the overall departments. Mr. DEAN. Mr. chairman, I think we should add at this point we have set in motion a directive issued by the Secretary in which no pro- curement of an ADP system in excess of $50,000 can l)e undertaken without review by the Office of the Secretary. This assures that any significant system-advance or extension of service-comes to the Secretary, and I have the responsibility for approval. Mr. Magruder and Mr. Fite review each proposal with great care arid we are. attempt- ing to shape all our future extensions of AT.~P to fit into a depart- mental system instead of bits and pieces where you would have unused capacity and excess cost. Mr. BROOKS. That is tile way to do it. 0. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Would you describe to the subcommittee the elements of your per- sonnel management program Secretary Bom. Personnel management is an integral and vital part of the mi~ion of the Department which utilizes personnel re- sources pf nearly 100,000 military and civilians. This is evidenced by such activities as establishment and operation of an executive per- sonnel board which functions at the secretarial level arid has a critical review of all matters relating to supergrade positions and initiation and completion in fiscal year 1968 of a personnel counterpart study to determine the most efficient and economical distribution of avail- able personnel management resources. An Office of Personnel and Training, functioning undler the Assist- ant Secretary for Administration, has as its mission the provision of leadership and professional guidance in the development and imple- PAGENO="0028" / 2~ nientation of po1ii~ies plans,. and progta~s of sufficient depth and ~ope tGassureretraetlo~n, retention, motivation, training, and develop- mei~t of managerial aa~d employee talent capable of performing work in the quantity and of the quality required to meet the objectives of the Department. The Office of Personnel and Training develops issues and interprets basic personnel policies and provides~ leadership in personnel matters, civilian and military; for thô entirIDepartment. It serves as the prin- * cipal source of advice and assistance on personnel to the Secretary and is responsible for, the evaluation of personnel program effective- nes~ throughout the Department. S S in addition, it represents the Department in all personnel matters with. other dei~artments, the Civil Service Commissioil, the Bureau of the Budget, committees of Congress, the White House, including the S preparation of comz~tents, reports, programs, policies, and data re- 5quested or required by such outside sources. Counterpart personnel staffs in the operating administrations are concerned with personnel matters relative to a single mode of trans- portation. They develop appropriate procedures and programs im- plementing dep~rtment personnel policy and furnish operating per- sonnel support for the accomplishment of the Administration's missions. Mr. George Maharay is the Director of Personnel and Training for the Department and is here this morning. S Mr. BRooKs. I want to submit at this time exhibit E, eiititled "High- s. lights of the Department of Transportation Personnel Management," submitted by the Civil Service commission. (Exhibit E follows:) EXHIBIT E-"HIOHLIGHTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERSONNEL PRoGRAM"- ( SUBMITTED BY THE U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) The Commission has not yet inspected the Department of Transportation as a whole. We have conducted inspections in the recent past in three of its com- ponent organizations. These are: The U.S. Coast Guard. The Federal Aviation Administration. The Federal Highway Administration (as the Bureau of Public Roads). Nationwide inspection of Coast Guard (Treasury), March 1.966 * We found the following areas of strength in our review: An aggressive review procedure for the review of personnel resource manage- ment at its field installations. A good recruiting program in which the agency gets high-quality civilian employees. A good program of employee utilization End management improvement. Several areas were found which needed improvement: We found generally weak manpower planning, needs projection, and overall recruiting due to lack of a system to distinguish between military billets and civilian positions. Difficulty in establishing career paths and career ladders. No uniform system to identify training needs. Federal Aviation Administration (formerly Federal Aviation Agency) - A nationwide inspection was completed in late 1966. We found the following areas of strength during our review: Technical training to improve productivity in the work force, which has enabled FAA to reduce the size of its work force while its workload has been increasing. S S ~ PAGENO="0029" 25 ~Ehe agefl~y has taken effective steps ;t~ develop lrealthy relation~bips with Its work force in eznployee-nmnagement relations and employee service activities, The agency has an effective occupational safety program. Tl~e agency has an effective program of communications and services to the public. Several areas were found to need management attention: (1) The agen~y `was not making the most economic and efficie~it use of its manpower resources in the accomplishment of its objectives. (2) Improvements were needed: In position classification. To insure that best qualified candidates are selected for pr~motlon. (3) FAA also needs: To eliminate duplicate staff services such as those in management analysis, budget, and personnel. Oomprehensive supervisory training in personnel managenient for ~tUS U key managers. To take appropriate steps to insure that all employees are aware of their rights to belong to unions and participate in union activities. U U To improve supervisory understanding, and engender a positive attit~de ~~towai~d employee recognition and incentives, The Administrator (General McKee) responded to our findings and recoin- rnejidatjous by establishing a high-level task fOrce to thoroughly stu4y all Of the areas in which deficiencies had been found and to recommend corrective measures and to develop an implementation plan. The Commission and later the Depart- U U meat of Transportation had participating members on the task force to provide continuing monitoring of `the plan. U The plan was submitted to the Commission by the Secretary of Trausport~tlon and the Commission informed him that it found the plan acceptable. Much of ~ the correction was begun before the plan was finally completed. The Commission expects to U reinspect FAA in fiscal year 1969 as a part of the nationwide inspection of the Department of Transportation. Bureau of Pu'lilie Roads The Commission's last nationwide inspection of the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) was concluded in 1964. The new Federal Highway Administration is comprised of the old BPR with added functions (functions of the Corps of Engineers; and Highway Safety). We found the following areas of strength in our review: An outstanding recruiting and training program for its technical employees. U A good program of employee awards and incentives. A good program of manpower utilization and cost reduction in its technical areas which enabled it to cope with an expanded mission. Several areas were found which needed improvement: Supervisory training needed to be improved. The agency was found to have too many people in its personnel functions. Agency management was not making the best use of the management tools available, especially in other than its technical fields. Our upcoming fiscal year 1969 program for a nationwide ins~ction of the Department of Transportation will include a comprehensive survey of the Fed- eral Highway Administration. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Secretary, could you give me some idea of the number of people in the five segments in the Department: the Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Admin- istration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the St. Lawrence Seaway? Do you have an idea of how many people are in each? Secretary Bom. Yes, sir. As of April 30, in the Office of the Secre- tary, there were 521; in the Coast Guard there were 5,695 civilian em- ployees and 36,912 military; in the Federal Aviation Administration, U, 43,821; Federal Highway Administration, 5,201; the Federal Rail- road Administration, 1,063; St. Lawrence Seaway Development Cor- poration, 160; the National Transportation Safety Board, 228, for a total of 56,689 civilian, and 36,912 military--a grand total of 93,601 related to an authorized total personnel of 97,827. PAGENO="0030" 1' IL. >26 Mr>~ ~Th0MESON. Apprô.*im>athly half of the personnel, then, are in the Federal Aviation Administration? Secretary Bom. Yes, sir; just under half. Mr. THOMPSON. ~o you have any idea how many aircraft are in the air at any one time, average, in the United States? Secretary Bom. N~, sir; I am sure General McKee or Mr. Dave ~.Thomas, the Deputy Administrator, can provide those figures. I think> you will find there are rather large differences depending on the time of day andthe day of the week. Mr. TH0M2S0N. I recognize the fact that, of course,~in daytime there would probably be more than nighttime and depending on the weather, and so forth, but, Mr. Thomas, or General McKee, do you have any idea of what an average figure would be if you were to take the flight hours and divide them into the number of hours per day? Mr. THoi~r~s. There are no precise figures available because we do not have flight plans on all the airplanes, but taking fuel consumed and * other factors we have, there are roughly 200,000 flights per day. Most of these are during the daylight hours. They are not evenly distributed * during the day so one would assume there are prthably 20,000 air- planes in the air at one time under peak conditions. Mr. TlxoMmoN. Approximately how many of the 20,000 would you * say are gener~ii~aviation aircraft and how many wOuld be commercial- >~ airline aircraft? Mr. THOMAS. Most of them would be general aviation. The size of >~ the commercial airline fleet is less than 3,000 at the moment. In fact it is about 2,600. The general aviation fleet is over 100,000, so most o~ them would be general aviation and most of them would not be on flight plans. * Mr. THOMPSON. Has any significant progress been made in at- tempting to utilize computers in programing tjie flights, particularly of commercial' aircraft from one city to another, to have a preprogram flight in order that when an aircraft is `to depart., say, from New York City, and is scheduled to arrive in O'Hare or Los Angeles or wherever it may be at a predetermined time, to have that flight controlled all the way and have it coordinated with flights coming in, for example, from Ohicago-ifights coming from New York to chicago, St. Louis to chicago, Dallas to Chicago. Is any development research underway `whereby you would have all of this organized through a computer to preprogram the flights arid fit them together? Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Thompson, we have about a $400 million computer * program underway now which uses the largest and most modern corn- * puters available. It is just coming into being. The first is being installed at Jacksonville. They will go into our air-route traffic control centers. However, as extensive and comprehensive as that program is, it does not now contemplate the prescheduling and guaranteed arrival time. It will handle the aircraft completely throughout their flight, but it will accept them on a randomized basis at each major airport and then sort them into a regularized flow of traffic for the runway, but it does not now contemplate prescheduled and guaranteed arrival times, as I believe you suggest. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, Mr. Thomas, as we get into the area of super- sonic aircraft which, of course, we all recognize is a number of years off, is it not going to be almost essential that the aircraft have a clear- ance to land about the same time it receives its clearance to take off, PAGENO="0031" PAGENO="0032" 28 Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Secretary, I have had some discussions with' some of the officials of various airlines throughout the country and they point out to me that they are extremely safety conscious; that the aircraft they are flying, these jets, are $5, $6, $7 million, and when you get to the jumbo.s they are going up to $15 million apiece; that they do everything possible within their company to maintain safety and in many of the cases the officials feel they are more safety con- scious than the FAA personnel. Another point is that an accident, an aircraft accident, is going to affect monetarily that company's business-not just the loss of the aircraft and the liability. So they are very concerned about aviation safety. I have had some who have expressed the concern that the FAA does have this job but oftentimes they are just trying to find some work to do; that they are out there and the airlines feel as though they are doing a superb job in handling safety themselves and then the FAA people come in and they want to justify their jobs and their positions so, therefore, they are nitpicking in many instances. Secretary Bo~. I would dispute that with all of the vigor that I have, Mr. Thompson. I would certainly call on any airline who feels that progress in safety is being impeded by actions of the Federal Aviation Administration. I would suggest they get in touch with General McKee. Mr. THOMPSON. I did not say impeded. General MCKEE. I have had a contact with all the airlines in the country and I have never had one come in and complain about safety aspects and actions we have taken with respect to their airlines. rrhey are not a bit hesithnt, Mr. Thompson, to complain when they have complaints. I get them every day. Mr. THOMPSON. My point is simply this: That I have been told by several airline executives-not the presidents of the companies- that the safety pi~ograms they themselves have indicate they are more concerned with safety than even the FAA is, and in their opinion, if left to their own devices, their operation would be every bit as safe as it is now with the FAA safety inspectors. Now, the reason I got into this, of course, was in the training of the safety inspectors, and the question I had on whether it would be better for the airlines to do this under contract with the FAA or for the FAA to maintain the fleet of jet aircraft that they do have to train their own safety inspectors, and it was very interesting that most of the airlines feel as though they are extremely safety conscious. General MCKEE. But there is a fundamental issue here, Mr. Thomp- son. You have to remember that the law charges the Administrator of the FAA, whoever he happens to be, with the safety of this opera- tion. Now, the only way that we can get rid of that is for you people up here to ohanoe the law and say the airlines will be completely responsible for t~e safety of their operation. But, when we have an accident, they don't go t.o that airline. The airline president doesn't get investigated; it is the Administrator of the FAA. "Did you do what you were supposed to do? Did you rumi these inspections? Did you assure that that airplane was crash- worthy? Did you assure that that crew passed all the tests ?" I go through this every time there is a major accident. PAGENO="0033" 21-528 0-69--pt. 11-3 PAGENO="0034" 30 ing of local service carriers because, frankly, many times they do not have the ability, but particularly with some of the large carriers- and I know with the pilot and some of the management personnel- they feel as though they have a very definite stake in safety and they are doing everything they can to make their airlines safe because they have a monetary reason for wanting it safe and also, of course, they have a reason of wanting to keep the passengers flying in the aircraft as safe as possible and their own employees. So they are all concerned about safety. But, the point that I question is whether or not the size of the FAA, the physical size, needs to be as large as it is, and are there people who are simply trying to make work? We have to somewhere cut down the cost of this Government. We have two people in the FAA for every one aircraft in the air at any time, ally one time, aiid most of those in the air are not being controlled by the FAA. If it is necessary, it is necessary, but I think it is certainly something that could be reviewed. Secretary BOYD. I think your statistic, though, is completely irrel- evant, Mr. Thompson. The fact that you have two people on the ground for one airplane in the air just doesn't have anything to do with the functioning of the Federal Aviation Administration. You cannot make that sort of relationship stand up. Now, some of the people you saw in the Atlanta Regional Office don't have anything to do with flying airplanes. Mr. TI-IoMPsoN. This is true. Secretary Born. They are concerned about airport development. Mr. Tno~iPsoN. And sometimes they don't have anything to do. Secretary BOYD. Well, I would hope that you wouldn't make a judg- ment based on a superficial walk-through of any building. Mr. THoMPsoN. Mr. Secretary, I believe you understand my con- cern and I think you are just as concerned about safety as I am but at the same time I feel we should always be concerned as to whether our bureaucracy is getting too large. Secretary Bo~n. Surely, but you have got to measure it against something and I would urge you not to measure it against the number of airplanes t.hat are in the air at any one time. Now, in terms of turning safety over to a major airline, because it is a major airline and because you and I know that the president of the airline is interested in s~ ty, and a11 t' I .ers- puts the airline immediately in the po ion of l~ jud~ iry, and prosecutor when it gets into an gument' i1ot~ what is safe. Each airline has its own operating procedures which are based on FAA regulations. Where would the pilots be if they felt very keenly that some portion of the operation was not safe and ought to be changed if the airlines said, "FAA has delegated this to us. You boys go peddle your papers." The first thing you know you have a strike on your hands and in- stead of having somebody trying to figure out what is the safety of the thing, the decision is going to be based on who has got the most economic power, not on what is the safest part of the operation. I think it would be a hideous operation. PAGENO="0035" J fic H. GENERAL AOCOUNTING OFFI T - to move f' ai 1~ I HOW ~ bi1e~ a on thei PAGENO="0036" 32 as much direction, but still if you had more employees would the auto- mobile be a safer vehicle? Secretary Boru Yes, and we need more employees, but you have to bear in mind that the Highway Administration has no operating re sponsibilities It doesn'~t operate the highway system in this country The basic function of the Highway Administration is in the Bureau of Public Roads to handle the Federal trust fund, the highway trust fund grant program, to examine the engineering of the proposed high- way projects and things of that nature. It does not have any operating responsibility. Now, the Highway Safety Office does have major safety respon-. sibilities and it doesn't have enough people. Mr. THOMPSON. How many people do you have in that Office of Highway Safety? Mr. BRIDWELL. Authorized, 619. Mr THOMPSON How many fatalities do we have on the road a year ~ Secretary Bo~. 53,000 for the last 2 years, which really represents an improvement because the exposure was greater in 1967 than it was in 19~6 With the fatality rate remaining constant, it represents an improvement Now, this is a new program It is not like FAA, which got started-its predecessors got started in 1926. This highway pro- gram will build, and it should. There is a tremendous payoff in high- way safety, but we are not going to do it overnight. General MCKEE. Just to give you some figures, in planning air traffic in 1968, our agency operates and maintains 334 flight service stations relaying flight and weather data; 27 air traffic control centers regu- lating movement of interstate traffic; 320 air traffic control towers, and more than 4,000 other major navigation and traffic control facilities. So this is a tremendous operation that we have got all over the country. PART 2-PROtiR~M REVIEW Mr. BRooKs. Mr. Secretary, we would like now to turn to the ques- tion~ on your program breakdown and submit for the record the re- mainder of the exhibits. (The exhibits appear throughout the remainder of the hearing transcript.) Mr. BROOKS. I will insert at this point the exhibit showing the ex- penditures for the Office of the Secretary and related activities. We have discussed these pretty thoroughly in the first part of the hearing. (Exhibit F follows:) PAGENO="0037" tJ~ SI In cB~, PAGENO="0038" £ I g 3 I a 4~ PAGENO="0039" PAGENO="0040" 500 510 511 512 518 520 521 522 ~23 524 530 540 541 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 84i 850 86 100 200 300 400 DEPARTMENT OR AGE$CY Transportation CODE ~PRI)GRAM SUBPROGRAM Office of the Secretary Transportation Research ~CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES * FISCAL YEAR Ujiobligated (3alrlover Appropriatlonor Current Tearflequest Totul - Available ~ 865 55 59 ~ . Ii Total Obligated orRxpended "Inhouse"lnputs Personnel: .~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~` Comp .~ - ~ ~ Benefits Tpavel Expenses: Communications Transportation Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment Land and Structures- Additional Investment Rents 5 13 i~ 1 ~ ~1,O1T ~ 1~ 981 ~ Total -__________ . Funds distributed Contracts Grants Loans Benefits . Other . 676 Totai 5,657 Total I ~6,67l~ Prior Fiscal Year Input-output ratio 1. Input 1. Output 2. Input 2. Output 3.Input 8. Output - I 4. Input 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 TOO Output PAGENO="0041" PAGENO="0042" PAGENO="0043" A. r Jcan( er to :1 1~~_~ l~ Dit G follows:) L oIIsibil!ty; PAGENO="0044" 40 EXInSIT G-FAOT SB rs-FIIDSrnAL AVIATION ADMINI~fl~PIoN PEoa1t~&M FUNDS 100 200 800 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 680 640 650 ~660 700 800 810 811 820 821 830 881 840 841 850 851 830 861 870 871 880 881 OEPARTMENT 02 AGENCY PROGEAM SUBPROGRAM Federal Aviation - Ad~ninistrat~n, Swvmary All Progz'axns CODE CODE CODE ANALYSIN AND tiONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR 1965 "In house" Inputs iinobllgated Carryover ~ Appropriation or C~rren Year Request t Total .Available (Ii~ Lnousandp) Total Obltgated or Expended ~ ~ ~ . ~± ~ ~ - / ~ ~ Personnel: ~__________________ $ lI~93,759 39,l5T ~7,81~6 28 13~ 7,275 2476~ 2I~,899 88,1~oi 13 ,6k6_ 21,793 737,685 2~0,1i49 hip, 781i . 68 ~ 351,301 $~. 088 986 Comp. fleneSts Travel Eósnses Communications Transportation lrinting Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment Land and Structures Additional Investment Rents Total Funds distributed Contracts Grants Loans Benefits Other Total TOtal . Prior Floral Year InpUt.output ratio 1. Input - - - 1. Output - - - 2.lnput - - - 2. Output - - - 3. Input 3. Output - - 4. Input - 4. Output . 5. Input 5. Output - - 6. Output 7, Input 7. Output 8. Indut 8. Output Printed for use of Rouse Government Activities 5ubcommittee, Clislrma~ Tack Brooks PAGENO="0045" iLL~' PAGENO="0046" PAGENO="0047" yes aircraft an tic 1 T Ac r. operationa' res PAGENO="0048" PAGENO="0049" PAGENO="0050" PAGENO="0051" PAGENO="0052" ctivitie~ Subcommittee. Chairman Jack Brooks PAGENO="0053" PAGENO="0054" 50 am confident it is going to become more so in the years ahead and it is going to be important to the country as a whole; it is going to be im- portant to every State and it is going to be important to every com- munity, including small communities. That is the end of my speech, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. General, that is a good statement. I want to ask you two quick quest;ions and we will get you on the way. In the delays incurred by the traveling public on commercial air- lines-I do that very often, almost every other week, I find the delays increasing this year substantially because the major airlines that fly into Texas from this east coast area apparently don't have backup planes anywhere in the world. If there is a mechanical problem on the ground in Philadelphia, the plane is a couple of hours late getting to Atlanta and a couple of hours late getting to Houston. Is this going to be an increasing problem? General MCKEE. It shouldn't be. We would expect the airlines-with the help of FAA and we give them a lot of help, Mr. Thompson-to improve their maintenance procedure so they wouldn't have all these delays. From the economic point of view, I doubt if the airlines want a lot of backup airplanes sitting on the ground. However, the shuttle flights between New York and Washington obligates them to have an airplane standing by for the next load of passengers. Mr. BROOKS. Apparently we have an increasing concentration of airplanes and r~quirement.s for landing facilities. Do you foresee an increasing need for a significant increase in airport construction funds if we are going to meet this need? General McKEE. Yes indeed. The Administration has proposecE an airport bill which is now before the Congress in an effort to our needs. Regardless of how it is funded, Mr. Chairman, there is going to be a tremendous requirement in terms of improvement, of existing airports, in terms of new airports-for example, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are all going to need additional airports. With the demand for air transportation over the country, more and more communities, including small communities, are demanding air service and are de- manding airports and I think it is a good thing for them to have them. We talk about the great urbanization and the concentration of in- dustry aaid whatnot in the big metropolitan areas. What we should be doing as a government is to try to stop this great concentrat.ion in these massive urban areas and get some of this industry spre.ad out around the country. Down in Texas, there are a lot of places there. In Virginia, where I come from; down in Georgia-and many, many other sections of the country. Mr. Ti*IoMPsoN. I am particularly interested in your statement con- cerning the growth of general aviation and also the fact that in order to solve some of our urban problems we are going to have to have in- dustrialization of our rural areas. This is going to put a great.er pres- sure on air transportation and primarily general aviation. What is being done at our large terminals to try to work general aviation in with commercial aviation so that you don't have to have a Cessna Skyline landing on a 12,000 foot runway that is possibly needed for a Boeing 707? General McKEE. We are doing a lot on that, Mr. Thompson. This is so lengthy I would rather not get into it at this time, but we would PAGENO="0055" PAGENO="0056" effectively lementeci, the internal (B-133 127, PAGENO="0057" 53 deciding whether test equipment is to be procured separately or as part of basic equipment systems, GAO concludes that it i~ still possible that common test equipment might again be procured indirectly at higher costs to the Government. Recomnumdatjon GAO recommended that the Administrator, FAA, direct that the revised order pertaining to the procurement of common test equipment (1) describe all the factors that need to be considered in deciding whether test equipment is to be procured separately or as a part of a contract for the purchase of a basic equipment system, and (2) provide that, where test equipment will require no modification or Installation as part of a more complex system, the equipment be purchased directly from the manufacturer unless indirect procurement can he clearly justified. EXHIBIT J---SUMMARY OF GAO REPOR~-"ACQUIBITION AND USE OF AEBOMEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES" (B-158515, APR. 6, 1967) Problem GAO found that the agency was incurring additional rental costs because its medical research facility at the aeronautical center in Oklahoma City, Okla., was larger than needed. Recommendation GAO recommended that, if the FAA Administrator cannot find Government research activities to use the space available in the Oklahoma facility, he deter- mines the feasibility of locating nonresearch programs in the building. Agency action The agency issued space planning procedures requiring independent valida- tion of all space estimates, including those to be used for Special purposes. Efforts have been made to place other Government research facilities in the ~ building but have not been very fruitful. If all efforts to locate research facilities in the building fail, consideration will be given to locate other type activities there. Current 8tatus The Department of Transportation is now studying the possibility of their using the space for research activities but has not concluded their study. No further action will be taken by FAA until the DOT study is completed. FAA should expedite the present studies and take action to use the special purpose space as soon as practical. EXHIBIT K-SUMMARY OF GAO REPORT-"COORDINATION BETWEEN PROCUREMENT OF TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT AND ITS ULTIMATE UTILIZATION-FAA" (B-133 127, NOv. 29, 1966) Problem GAO found that the agency had accumulated sizable overstocks of air navi- gational and traffic control equipment because it had procured the equipment without having firm plans for the installation of the equipment. Because of the inadequacy of procedures for determining stock availability, GAO also found that the agency had purchased equipment from commercial sources, at a cost of about $136,000, when similar equipment stock at its Oklahoma City depot was in excess of reasonably current needs. Recommendation GAO proposed that the agency (1) establish definitive procedures for determnin- lag the amount of air navigational and traffic control equipment to be purchased; ~2) discontinue the practice of procuring air navigational and traffic control equipment on the basis of budget estimates and tentative plans, and pur- chase such equipment as near as possible to the date of actual need for the equipment on specific approved projects; and (3) Identify equipment excess PAGENO="0058" B. PROGRAM CATEGORY i-U.S. COAt PAGENO="0059" 55 EXHIBIT k~a~~FAOT SHEETS O~ COAST GUA1U) P1lO4fl~AM FtTND$ 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 Consolidated FISOAL YEAR 1968 (in thousands ct~ dollars) -Ut ratio Appropriation or Current J Total Year Request Available -~ - c~o 9÷6Q~L~ ~ ~` - 2~5 6~ ~iT ~ ~9-____ AuuLuaes proposea sup~Lemen1a I~rm I1itary~ pafaát inôrëas~ o? ~6I~'(; a~~e ]~ Activlt ¶~Sabcommlttee. Clu~lrzaaa Jack B ~o~ent~r~g forward ~AC&I ap~ropriation) 1 July 1961 and excludes Cl) ~e~erve for obligations to be incurred in su sequent fiscal years (2) `ard fund, and 3 Supply fund. ifl0~ 200 300 400 "In house' Unebligated Carryover Personnel: Comp. Benefits Travel Expenses: Communications Transportation Total Obligated or Expended Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment o i~cn Land and Structures Additional Investment Rents 500 510 511 512 _________ 513 520 ___________ 521 522 523 524 530 540 _______________________ 541 542 550 600 Funds distribui 610 Contracts 620 Grants 630 Loans 640 B~neflts ~ 650 660 700 Total hi Other Total Total 5S .5Q1 1 2 2. Output $5?2 ,9O2~/ Prior Fiscal Year 3. Input 3. Output 4. Input L Output 5 Input 5. Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8. Output PAGENO="0060" t Pr4ntedfor uae of House government ~eti*iflee Subcommittee, Chairman JackBrooke ~g-o~-b coo Fw4ed from "Operating Expenses". Narrative statement of output of General Support Activity is containe~i in kppendix I to fact sheet for Operating Expenses. PAGENO="0061" 500 510 511 512 518 520 521 522 528 524 580 540 541 542 550 600 57 ioo 200 DEI'AtRTMESIT OR AGENCY Transportation CODE ANALYSIS AND COtdROL CODES PROGRAM I ~ Expenses (Exc1u~ive Coast Gua$ J ~ Gene~1 Support) CODE CODE ~ 800 400 Unobligated Carryover EISOAL YEAR 196li Appropriatlonor Current Year Request (in thousands of dollars) Total Total Obligate~ Available or Expended "In house" inputs . Personnel: Comp. Ilenelits ~Travel Expenses: P hated for use of Rouse CovernmeatAetlvlties 5ubcom,olttee, Chairman Jsckflrooke ~5~oo1-h Qp~ if Inclt4es proposed supplemental for military pay act increases of $6,1457 a~id. exclu~des $1,500 comparative transfer to "Research, Development, test, and evaluation". PAGENO="0062" 58 PROGRAM.-OPERATING EXPENSES A. The statutory authority for this program is contained In titles 5, 10, 14, 19, 20, 33, 37, 46, and 50 U.S.C. ~B. The output of this program is outlined on the pages appended hereto as appendix I. 0. The names of the omcials having direct operational responsibility over the program are program directors. They are as follows: Rear Adm. M. A. Whalen, Chief of Staff; Rear Adm. R. W. Goebring, Ohief, Office of Operations; Rear Adm. C~ P. Murphy, Chief, Office of Merchant Marine Safety; Rear Acim. J. D M~0ubbin, Chief, Office of Reserve. APPENDIX 1.-COAST GUARD-OPERATING EXPENSES PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE The Coast Guard emfloys multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and short units, strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in selected areas overseas to carry out the duties specified in title 14, tT~nited States Code. Direct program~ 1. ~9earch and rescRe.-Most Coast Guard operating facilities haVe the capacity fOr promoting safety on or over the high seas and on waters subject to the juris- diction of the United States. The Coast Guard performs any and all acts neces- sary to rescue and rtid persons and save property placed In jeopardy due to marine and aircraft disaster or due to floods and lee conditions (14 U.S.C. 88). Coast Guard activities in the area of search and rescue fall within the national SAR plan and other agreements. WORKLOAD DATA 1966 actual 1967 actual - Searchanci rescue casesrésponded~to by Coast Guard forces 43,366 Value of property assisted (in millions) $2,633 , Lives saved 2, 536 2. Aids to na'vigation.-A network of manned and unmanned ~.. is maintained along our coasts and on our inland waterways t..~ of tenders and shore facilities to insure the safe passage of the mariner. Loran stations are operated in the United States and abroad to serve the needs of the armed services and marine and air commerce (14 U.S.C. 81). WORKLOAD DATA 1966 actual 1967 actual 1968 1969 estimate estimate Loran A coverage(in millions of square miles): Ground wave 10. 53 9. 88 10.32 10.32 Loran C coverage (in millions of square miles): Ground wave 9. 75 10. 8 11. 8 11. 8 Federal floating aids 24.609 24, 770 24,819 24,866 Federal fixed aids and short range electronic aids (radiobeacons)_ - 18, 407 19,673 20, 064 20, 455 Private aids authorized 22, 592 23, 700 24,800 25,900 3. Merchant marine safety.-The Coast Guard insures compliance with Federal statutes and regulations pertaining to the merchant marine industry by reviewhig plans and specifications for the construction or alteration of merchant vessels, by periodic inspections, by conducting marine casualty investigations, and by setting standards, procedures, and practices under which merchant marine personnel are regulated (14 U.S.C. 2). PAGENO="0063" 59 WORKLOAD DATA 1966 1967 1968 1969 actual actual estimate estimate Vessel inspections 43, 530 46, 209 46, 500 47, 004 Foreign vessel examinations 1,544 1,624 1,704 1,780 Casualty investigations 4,610 4,670 4,703 4,790 Recreational boating investigations 651 683 715 747 Vessels documented 61,979 64, 881 67,750 70,750 Vessel plan approvals 37, 685 34, 062 36,786 38,257 Foreign vessel hazardous cargo plan approvals 1 861 3, 214 3,250 3,250 Equipment approval certificate renewals 876 876 911 929 Development and preparation of regulations, standards, and pub- lications (man-hours) 12, 432 13,636 16, 363 17,999 Licenses issued 6, 342 6, 420 6, 510 6,600 Seaman certificates issued 43, 289 44,800 46,200 47,700 Personnel investigations 17,737 18,200 18,600 19,100 Shipment of seamen (number of transactions) 449,796 458,000 447, 000 437, 000 1 1st partial year of implementation. 4. Marine law enforcement.-Vessels, aircraft, and shore units enforce Federal laws on the high seas and waters over which the United States exercises juris- diction. Law enforcement a ctivities include fishery patrols; Campeche, Key, and Alaskan patrols; small-boat boarding; supervision of explosives loadings; enforcement of dangerous cargo regulations; and port control (14 U.S.C. 89, 91). WORKLOAD DATA 1966 1967 1968 1969 actual actual estimate estimate Port safety: Ports in which port security forces are located 37 37 37 38 Vessels on which class A explosives (nonmilitary) were supervised (tonnage) 28, 449 32, 095 32, 000 32, 000 Commercial carriers on which military explosives were supervised (tonnage) 883,425 2,012,199 2,500,000 3,000,000 ~ Commercial vessels and barges on which dangerous cargo was inspected 18, 584 18,650 18, 650 20, 055 Waterf root facilities inspected 31, 322 31,400 31, 400 32, 000 Special interest vessels placed under surveillance 210 250 300 350 Port security cards issued 9, 633 10,000 10, 000 10, 000 Offshore enforcement: Annual area coverage of patrol zones (square miles in thousands): Vessels 3, 565 3,600 3, 600 3, 600 Aircraft 15,819 16,000 16,000 16,000 Foreign vessels observed (daily average) 334 340 350 360 Foreign fishing vessels boarded 35 40 45 50 Boating safety: Number of safety patrols: By vessels 2,020 7, 550 8,850 8,850 By shore units 14,630 24, 050 24, 000 24, 000 Number of motorboats boarded: By vessels 4,020 22,600 26, 500 26, 500 By shore units 61,530 144,300 144,000 144,000 Coast Guard Auxiliary: Motorboats examined 184,404 190,121 237,651 297,063 Persons instructed .. 141,096 151,095 179,584 219,092 5. Oceanography, meteorology, and polar operations-The Coast Guard partici- pates in the national marine sciences program (14 U.S.C. 94), which is coordi- nated by the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Develop- ment. Its facilities cooperate with the Weather Bureau in taking weather observations from vessels manning six ocean stations (14 U.S.C. 90). Icebreaking is performed by specially constructed icebreakers engaged in polar operations with other agencies (14 U.S.C. 2). Also included in this prograni is conduct of the International Ice Patrol (46 U.S.C. 738). PAGENO="0064" 60 WORKLOAD DATA 1966 1967 1968 1969 actual actual estimate estimate Number of upper air meteorological observations 8, 728 9, 010 9, 060 9, 060 Average height (feet) of meteorological observations 58, 500 60, 000 60, 000 68, 000 Aircraft flights serviced by ocean stations 55, 100 68, 970 80, 050 84, 370 Oceanographic stations occupied 963 2,239 3,975 8,500 Miles of ship survey track steamed 9,000 8, 000 8, 000 Miles of aircraft survey track flown 72, 000 75,000 75, 000 80, 000 Tons of cargo delivered to polar regions via escort ships 446, 500 444,200 445, 000 445, 000 Number of oceanographic observations 70 119 200 275 6. General support-Certain facilities of the Coast Guard provide overall direction and support of all Coast Guard programs. Included are radio stations, repair and supply facilities, audi nonoperational services at headquarters and district offices. 7. M'iUtar~, readii~ess and operations.-The Coast Guard operates as a service in the Navy in times of war or national emergency. During peacetime, readiness training is received by major units and facility armament is maintained in a state of readiness (14 U.S.C. 3). Included in this category are Coast Guard operations in Vietnam. WORKLOAD DATA 1966 1967 1968 1969 actual actual estimate estimate Number of cutters required to receive Navy refresher training: High endurance cutters 36 36 31 31 Medium endurance cutters 3 4 6 15 Percentage of cutters completing refresher training: High endurance cutters 67 67 71 71 Medium endurance cutters.. 33 50 67 67 Military operations-Vietnam: Patrol boats 26 26 26 High endurance cutters 5 Personnel 431 1,353 1,353 8. Reserve training.-The Coast Guard maintains trained officers and enlisted personnel in the Ready Reserve who :are available for active duty in time of war, national emergency, and at such other times as the national security may require. The tasks required of the Coast Guard by the Department of Defense upon mobilization determine the requirements. In broad terms, these tasks are divided into port security, vessel augmentation, and other lesser but essential support areas. PAGENO="0065" duty for training): am: 425 12,387 396 5, 060 1,249 23, 324 19,546 1,531,725 ~ ....* ~ *,____ _...__**._~_._ ..,_ .*____* .*_.*~_~_~._ -- n with drill training trainees. REIMBURSAB~ PROGEAM 9. Misce1lc~eo~ services to other accoun,ts.__Tht ous functions for other ag~nc1es and accounts received. 21-528 O-69--pt. 11-5 PAGENO="0066" DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY PROGRAM ~ Construction, and Transportation Coast Guard Tm~vnv~ments .(Direct~) CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES PISCAL YEAR19~3 (in thousands o~ dollars) LU t __________ 1 July 196T and excludes fun&°~°°?n ~`eserve for obligations to be incurred in subsequent fiscal years. 62 "In house" inputs Personnel: Vnobllgated Carryover Appropriatlonor Current Year Request 100 200 ~00 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 524 580 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 Total AvaII~ble Total Obllg~ted or Enpended Supplies a~d Consum- able Materials Land an4 5tru~tureS Additional Investment Rents Total 2 flfl1 p (1 d PAGENO="0067" 63 P1iOGRAM.-ACQUISXTXON, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPBOVEME1~pS A. Authority for this program is found in tItle 14, United States code. B The outputs of this program are the acquisition cons~ruction rebuilding and improvement of vessels aircraft shore facilities, and aids to navigation A complete description of the output for fIscal year 1968 is attached as appendix I. C. At Coast Guard Headquarters level, this program is subdivided into mission- oriented programs. The program directors for these programs are as follows: Rea~~ Adm. R. W. Goehring, Chief, Office of Operations; Rear Adm. D. B. Henderson Chief, Office of Engineering; Rear Adm. W. B. Ellis, Chief, Office of Personnel; and Rear Adm. J. D. McCubbin, Chief, Office of Reserve. APPENDIX I Fi~cai y5ar Program: 1968 25.04. 1. Vessels $40 776, 060 2. Aviation facilities 27, 549,000 3. Shore stations and navigational aids 22,482,000 4. Repair and supply facilities 4~ 767, 000 5. Training and recruiting facilities 7,640,000 6. Alteration of bridges.. 3,800, 000 Total PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE This appropriation provides for the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and improvement of vessels, aircraft, shore facilities, and aids to navigation. Direct program 1. Vessels.-A program to replace overage,, obsolete, and deteriorated vessels of the Coast Guard will be continued in 1968 with the construction of replace- ments for one high-endurance cutter and two small cutters to replace patrOl vessels. Fixed or floating aids will be constructed to replace lightships at priority locations. Three augmentation vessels planhed for construction are two tenders, with associated facilities, for servicing aids to navigation on the Arkansas and lower Mississippi Rivers and an oceanographic cutter. The program also pro- vides for contract design services for a replacement icebreaker. Modernization and imprOvement of existing facilities includes improvements on icebreakers, rehabilitation of six high-endurance cutters, installation of balloon tra~king radar on fonr high-endurance cutters, installation of 20 Loran-C receivers and four Navy navigation satellite systems on large cutters and icebreakers for the ocean- ography program. 2. Aviation faciiities.-Under this activity the program provides for the ~c- quiution of 10 replacement aircraft and nine helicopters-six for it~ebreaker op. erations and three for SAR support. Plans for reconfiguration of medium-range search aircraft will also bO developed. In addition the program also calls for the establishment of an air station at Chicago, Ill., and replacement of hangar facilities at the air station in Barbers Point, Hawaii. 3. shore stations and navigational aids.-The program under this activity provides for the establishment of and changes to aids to navigation marking river and harbor improvements effected by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and other urgent needs. Other projects are included to (a) establish two new' sta- tions at Jonesport Maine and Sassafras River Kennedyville Md (b) replace and improve facilities at Fire Island and Alexandria Bay, N.Y., and Wrights- vine Beach, N.C.; (c) continue consolidation of units at Governors Island, N.Y.; (d) èonstruct mooring facilities at Panama City, Fla.; (e) make improvements at a Loran station located outside the continental United States (f) provide housing for Coast Guard personnel and their dependents in areas where living accommodations are inadequate; and (g) `facilitate the survey and design Qf future major construction projects In addition improvements will be made in the communications facilities, 12th Coast Guard District, and 10 manned light stations will be converted to automatic operation. 4. Repair and supply facilities.-The expansion of support facilities in 1908 includes the consolidation of units at base, Milwaukee, Wis., and relocation of facilities at base, Mobile, Ala. Construction of a pier at New London, Conn., is the first step of a project to consolidate two repair facilities, now separately PAGENO="0068" 64 located, at a new and larger base site. Existing facilities at the Coast Guard yard will be improved with the rehabilitation of the barracks rearrangement and extension of the fabricating shop. Improvements will be made in the sewage disposal systems at base Ketchikan Alaska and Coast Guard yard to meet regulations for control of water pollution. 5. Training and recruiting fa~ciiitie&-The program for improving facilities at the Coast Guard Academy will contintie with the construction of an auditorium- recreation ball and renovation of the cadet barracks Chase Hall A 300 000-gallon water storage *tank will be constructed at training center, Oape May, N.J. Other construction Includes three barracks-One at training center, Alameda, Calif., and two at Reserve training center, Yorktown, Va. 6. Alteration of bridges.-In its new role as a part of the Department of Trans- portation the Coast Guard will be required to budget for the Federal Govern ment's share of the cost of altering railroad and public highway bridges to permit free navigation of navigable waters of the United States In 1968 four iailroad bridges located near Morgan City La and Chicago Ill (Oalumet River) will be altered. PAGENO="0069" 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 881 Printed for eec of Reese Government Activittee Subcommittee, Chairmen JackBreoks ~j Comparative transfer from Operating Expenses PAGENO="0070" 66 PEOGRAM.-RESEAROH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION A. The statutory authority for the program is found in title 14, United States Code. B. The output of research, development, test, and evaluation cannot be easily quantified but is reflected in improved effectiveness in other programs. Listed below is a description of the research, development, test, and evaluation program, and performance. This appropriation provides for administration and conduct of basic and ap- plied scientific research development test and evaluation with maintenance rehabilitation, lease, and Operation of facilities and equipment. 1 ~Searc1i and rescue -The program for search planning will be continued in 1969 and further expanded to include sensor systems for locating distressed vessels processes for converting distress information into an optimum search plan and methods of improving aerial delivery of survival equipment 2. Aids to navigation.-Additional effort will be applied in 1969 to develop- nient of lightweight buoys for protected waters. The initial developmental stages of a high precision all-weather harbor approach and evaluation of the long- range OMEGA navigation system in relation to future loran requirements will also be instituted in 1969 while continuing buoy moorings, light source, and sound-package development. 3. Marine safety.-The program under this activity includes investigation of construction standards in new fields such as nonmilitary submersibles and nu- clear plants as well as expanded efforts in study of firefighting agents lifesaving devices and investigation into methods of avoiding casualties associated with carrying toxic chemicals, loose cargoes, elevated temperature cargoes, and other dangerous or exposive substances in bulk quantities In addition the program also calls for continuation of research efforts with interagency groups such as SOLAS subdivision and stability panel, the NAS advisory committee on toxic chemicals interagency fircfightmg studies and a wave motion study in connection with structural strength of vessels. 4. Marine la~w enfoceement.-Under this activity, the program provides for research efforts in the control of pollution by oil or other wastes of our navigable waters. The program includes a feasibility study of airborne sensors for detection, booms and gelhng agents for control, and containers for defuehng of wrecks A companion project will be instituted for design of systems to reduce pollution by the Government's own facilities, including Coast Guard cutters. 5. Oeeanograpky, meteorology, and polar operations.-This program calls for refinement of data collection packages, development of iceberg tracking capability, and increased support of the National Oceanographic Data Center, as well as including research in connection with data collection on Coast Guard offshore structures, vessels, and buoys, exclusive of their actual servicing and operating costs. The national data buoy system program initiates the developmental phase of a national system to collect oceanographic environmental data through a world- wide system of buoys. The overall program in 1969 will be monitored by the Marine Sciences Council. 0. Rear Adm. 0. B. Smeder, Assistant Chief of Staff for Research and De- velopment is the official having direct operational responsibility over this program. PAGENO="0071" 500 510 511 512 - 513 520 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 82( 67 100 200 300 400 DEPARTMENT O~A0EMC~ PROGRAM sue~icOGRAM Transportation OGRst Gvart~ ~tetire~ 1~a~?. CODE CODE GODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR 1968 (in thousands o±~ d.o11ar~) tlnobtlgated Carryover Approprlatlonor Current Year Reqeeat Total Available Total Obligated or E*pende4 "In house" inputs Personnel: Conip, Benefits Travel Expenses: Communications Trans Printi Supplies and Consum- able_Materials Capital Equipment Land and Structures Additional Investment Rents , Total ~i8,ppp -`___________ Funds distributed Contracts Grants S toans Benefits Other Total - Total S Prior Flueal 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 S S ~ Year S ~ S S [~ S S S S 5S 00-041-h Gee - Input-output ratio j~~?j 5. Input 5. Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8. Output Printed for uae of Haute Government Aelivitiec S ~ Subcommittee. Chairmen lack Brooke PAGENO="0072" 68. PROGBAM._RnT1R~ PAY A. The statutory authoritY for this program is outlined in titles 10 and 14, United States Code. This appropriation provides for retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve, members of the former lighthouse and lifesaving services and for payments to survivors pursuant to t~ie Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan. 13. The output of this support program is the paying of retired personnel (13,219 at the end of fiscal year 168). The appropriation is $48 million. C. The name of the official having direct operational responsibility over the program is Rear Adm. W. B. Ellis, Chief, Office of Personnel. PAGENO="0073" 69 DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY PROGRAM SUBPROGRAM Transportation Coast Guard Sup9ly Fund CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YE4E 196o (in tbousa~ds of dollars) tinobligated Appropriatipn or Current Carryover Year Requeat `In house"_inputs _________________ Personnel: Comp. _________________ lienefits Travel Expenses:* Totdl Available Communications Transportation Total Obligated Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials Cap~ Lam it res Additional Investment Rents ~25 .920 100 200 800 400 000 510 511 512 518 520 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 680 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 880 881 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 Loans Benefits ~±L___________ 25,920 111111 Funds distributed - - Contracts Grants 0 Other Total Total Input-output ratio 1. Input 1. Output 2. Input 2. Output Prior Floral Year 3. Input 8. Output 4. Input 4. Output 5. Input 5. Output - 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7.Output - - * 8.Input - - -~-- ~~0~ 8. Output - - - Friated far use of Uouoe Government Aetivitl~e 5abcsmmittee, Chairman lack Brooks os-dii-t ~r5 PAGENO="0074" 70 PR0GRAM.-U.S. COAST GUARD SUPPLY Fuxn A. The statutory authority for the Coast Guard supply fund is 14 United States Code 650. B. The Coast Guard supply fund will experience sales of about $25 million in 1968 to other Coast Gtulrd appropriation accounts and military members with a small amount of sales to other agencies. Operating on a capital authorization of approximately $9.2 million, these sales (and replenishment costs) represent an inventory turnover of almost three times each year. The costs in 1968 will be distributed 16 percent for uniform clothing 53 percen~t for commissary provisions and 31 percent for general stores and technical materials. The. supply fund permits stocking of materials to meet operational demands and providing of uniform issues of clothing along with the economies normally associated with revolving fund operations. C. Capt. H. J. McCormack, Comptroller (Acting), U.S. Coast Guard, has direct operating responsibility over the supply fund. PAGENO="0075" 8 8 PAGENO="0076" 72 PROGRAM-COAST GUARD YARD FUIcD A. AuthoritY for this program is found in title 14, United States Code. B Tb's fund finances industrial operations at the Coast Guard Yard Curtis Bay, Md. (14 U.S.C.) The yard finances its operations out of advances received from Coast Guard appropriations and from other agencies for all direct and indirect costs. 1968 e8timG~te 29 30 16 16 3 Total 100 Analysis by recipient of yard services (percent) Coast Guard Other government agencies 10 Total 100 C. At Coast Guard headqUarterS leyel, the program director is Rear Adm. D. B. lienderson, Chief, Office of Engineering. He has direct operational responSi- bility over the program. Analysis by type of work (percent). Vessel repairs and alterations Vessel construction Small boat repairs and construction Buoy fabrication Fabrication of special items Miscellane0~ PAGENO="0077" 700 Printed for use effluent Governesent Activities Subcommittee. Chairman Jack Brooks PAGENO="0078" 74 Secretary BoYD. it is* a great pleasure to present Admiral Smith, Commandant of the Coast Guard. STATEMENT OP A])M. WILLARD J. SMITH, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD Admiral SMITH. I have a short prepared statement here that will give you a rundown. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the bulk of the Coast Guard's statutory authority lies in title 14, United States Code, which charges us with the responsibility for saving lives and prop- erty, providing navigational aids to maritime commerce, enforcing maritime law, including safety of ports and waterfront facilities; main- taining a state of military readiness to serve as part of the Navy in time of war or national emergency; and prOmoting the safety of the Ameri- can merchant marine, in addition, title 50, United States .Code pro- vides the authority for the Coast Guard Reserve training program. As you can see, the Coast Guard is ~reatIy concerned with safety in the marine environment and with being "always ready" to assist in the Nation's military efforts. We carry out these responsibilities through a series of programs as delineated in the budget. Our search and rescue program objective is primarily safety and might be thought of as the corrective side rather than the preventive side of safety. This program utilizes vessels, aircraft, rescue stations, radio stations, and rescue coordination centers located so as to afford the greatest protection and the least delay in responding to calls for assistance from water and airborne commerce. Our merchant marine safety and law enforcement programs also have a primary interest in safety, but from the preventive side. The merchant marine safety program pursues this through the develop- ment of standards for ship construction and equipments, and for tech- nical competence of merchant marine personnel. These standards are enforced through inspection, testing, and licensing procedures. The law enforcement program also uses standards and inspection methods to promote the safety of U.S. ports and waterways. In addition, edu- cation is employed extensively as a tool in promoting safety in the realm of the recreational boatman. In this respect, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, our volunteer civilian arm, has been most helpful and effective. Our aids to navigation program objective is primarily economic efficiency and thus directs its efforts toward assisting the expeditious and safe movement of all types and classes of watercraft and aircraft. We currently have responsibility for about 45,000 Federal aids and 24,000 private aids. The Coast Guard participates in the national marine sciences pro- gram which is coordinated by the National Council on Marine Re- sources and Engineering Development. This national program is supported by our oceanography, meteorology, and polar operations program to operate in consonance with national objectives, thereby contributing to these ends in virtually all of the maritime areas, in- cluding the Arctic and Antarctic. Our military preparedness and operations program and the Re- serve training program permit the Coast Guard to respond to the PAGENO="0079" 75 Nation's military requirements. As you may be aware, the toast Guard is currently supporting the effort in Southeast Asia by providing a squadron of five large nigh-enduraiice cutters, 26 smaller patrol craft, operating aids to navigation, supervising the offloading of explosives, and investigating incidents involving U.S. merchant seamen. These efforts currently require approximately 1,400 Coast Guard personnel in that part of the world. To give several other general measures of the size of the Coast Guard, onboard personnel strength as of April 30 of this year consisted of 36,912 military and 5,695 c~ vilians for a total of 42,607 persoiinel. Funds available for fiscal year 1968 totaled $522,902,000, including trusi funds, and provided for operating expenses, capital investment, and pay- ment of retired personiiel. r1~O carry out our programs, we operate 347 ships, 2,309 boats, 161 aircraft~ and 1,289 shore units. You will be interested in the direction we are moving to participate in the future. One is involvement in safety on the Continental Shelf which will come under extensive development in due course. Much of this will be an extension of the work we are already doing in mer- chant marine safety, search and rescue, and aids to navigation. An- other extension of our present capabilities is the safety of nonmilitary submersibles. The use of these underwater craft is expanding and it appears that this is related to the mystique of the Continental Shelf as well as the explosion in use of the Nation's waterways and seacoasts for recreation. The recreational boat safety bill (H.R. 15223 and S. 3015) has been introduced to help us cope with the safety problems this growth carries with it. The fight against pollution of our water resources also indicates greater Coast Guard involvement in develop- ment of preventive and corrective measures related particularly to oil pollution by ships, and in enforcement activities. Also, an, extension of our efforts in domestic icebreaking in the Nation's northern ports, rivers, and lakes appears to be increasingly necessary. Our initial steps are being taken in research and develop- ment with greater use of present resources. We have also undertaken a departmental polar transportation requirements study, and other Fed- eral agencies with activities in the polar regions are assisting. In addi- tion tO this cooperative effort, we are spearheading development of a departmental national navigation plan which will bring order to pro- liferating navigation systems by the elimination of duplication, over- lap, and frequency spectrum crowding. A final item is our national data buoy systems project. In November 1967 the Coast Guard was selected by the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development to undertake the research, development, testing and evaluation necessary for the implementa- tion of a national data buoy system. The broad mission of this system is to collect marine environmental data synoptically, then transmit it rapidly and reliably to processing centers and users. The associated research and development will be our first major effort undertaken with management by our newly established Office of Coast Guard R. & D. Accordingly, and for the first time, our fiscal year 1969 budget now before Congress requests the establishment of a separate appropriation for research, development, test ~ nd evaluation. This generally covers our program in the broad sense, Mr. Chair- man. PAGENO="0080" 76 Mr. BRooKs. I had occasion a couple of weekends ago to inspect our Coast Guard station in Texas on the coast, and it was in good order. It was w~fl organized and all the men were busy. Admiral SMITH. Thank you. Mr. BROOKS. It is a very interesting job down there. It is very pleasant most of the time, except when the water is rough and they have to go out in it. Admiral SMITH. That is when our calls come in. Mr. BROOKS. That is right. I have one other question. I have recently seen in the paper that the `Coast Guard has approved some new lifejackets, but some of the stories indicated the jackets were somewhat bulky, and though quite safe for beiug thrown overboard at sea, I wonder if they would be practical for boating in inland waterways, lakes, et cetera, and if you might not consider the advisability of researching and approving some type of lifejacket that children and others could wear while boating, for example, and for water sports that would not be too bulky to encourage people to wear them while they are in the boats-some- thing that would give them an affirmative buoyancy without being of the same design that would keep them afloat in high seas out in the middle of the gulf, or the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. Admiral SMITH. We have been looking at this matter for a number of years and currently we have this very thing under consideration As a matter of information, at the present time there is a wide spectrum of lifesaving devices that are approved by the Coast Guard that are available to the merchant marine and the recreational boater. Mr~ BROOKS. That have been approved? Admiral SMITH. Yes; have been approved by the Coast Guard for use as a safety item. One of the problems has been the very thing you mentioned-in order to get the desired safety requirements and flota- tion some of these jackets have been so bulky that the recreational bOatman has been reluctant `to use them. One of the things that we are considering now is the matter of whether we can approve an inflatable device This is one way of getting a compact device. There are a number of jackets that are appearing on the market now that not only have some flotation built into them but they are also very good protective clothing when you are on the water. This would be a good combination. Mr. BROOKS. Would you give us a report on that for the record? It is an increasing problem in the United States, as millions of people have more free time, and they spend a lot of it on wator. Admiral SMITH. Yes, sir; we will furnish a copy for the record. (The information follows:) LIrE5AvING DzVICES The Coast Guard study of recreational boating safety, conducted in late 1967, revealed that in the case of accidents which prove fatal by drowning, lifesaving devices will be of little use unless being worn when the victim falls into the water. The study disclosed the statistic that in 1966, of 459 fatalities in which it was known that lifesaving devices were in the boat, 360 cases showed that the devices were not used This suggests a need for increased educational efforts directed toward recognition of the time-proven concepts that in small open bosts, life, preservers should always be worn by children and nonswimmers and that when rough weather is encountered on any type of boat, or when in hazardous waters, life preservers should be worn by everyone. PAGENO="0081" PAGENO="0082" 78 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 528 524 540 541 542 550 600 610~ 620 630 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 821 880 881 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 EZIIZBIP M-~-1~&cT SHEfiTS-FEDER~&L HIGHWAY AuMxNIsT1~xow PROGRAM ~11NDS F'unds distributed Ooittracts Grants Loans Benefits Other ~ARTMEN~ 08 ~E*Qy j~rns~oriaon-~eaera.I J1i~hw0~v Mminintratioi~. CODE PROGRAM SUBPROGRAM S Suznnra~ (411 Fun~s~L~ CODE dODEV S S V ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES~ PISCAL YEAR 1968 V"'~ house" inputs Personnel: Comp Bexteilts Travel Expenses: Communications Transportation Prln~lng Unobllgated Carryover V VVV V Appropriatlonor Current YearRequest V V V V VS Total Available Total Obligated or Enpen4ed $ 51 561 L~,25~ V - ~~5~VLVV V V 93_~ 968 V V Supplies and Consum- ~~VMaterla1s V V 1,091 Capital Equipment S Land and Structures -~ Additional In~restment S V 12! ,29I~VVVVV Rents V V 3,273 V Total V - 192 ,95~ V Total V 5 V~ V V V $8)113,228 V Prt~ V V V - - S Input-output ratio ~tnput - 1. Oitput V 2.Input - - - 2. Output 3. Input V 3. Output .Input 4.Output V 5.bput - - V - - - - - - - V__________ - - - V - - 5. Output V V - - S 6. Input - 6. Output V 7. ~Inl?9t~~ - ~V - -~ - - V 7 Output V - - - 8.Znput - - V - V V8~ Output V V - - Total 1!~8oo 7.877.888 27.S86 7. 920 .27b 00-041-h sea PAGENO="0083" (D~ PAGENO="0084" -z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ø~ c~ ~` o~ ~; ~i v~ ~t ~ at oi * ~ at ~ ~i ~i ~ ~ ~& t* ~ 0 `_n U U ~5 a It1 C q . t~ ~ -~ Li ~ I ~ ~ 71 x, ~ ~ fl A) l*~) ~~1 ~ ~ i~i ror\) ~ ~ ~ -p-- ~ ~ ~ p,I~ ~ ft~ 0> F~ C CO rt~H 8 PAGENO="0085" PAGENO="0086" responsibil4tti over the program i of Public Roads. PAGENO="0087" PAGENO="0088" 84 BUEnAU or PuBLIc ROADS PROGBAM.-EIGUWAY BEAUTIFIOATION A. I~tatutory or admini3trative authority for the program Three major programs were authorized by the Highway Beautification Act of October 22, 1965, as follows: 1. Title I: Control of outdoor advertising, which provides that just compen- sation shall be paid upon removal of certain signs, displays, and devices. Seventy-five percent of the cost of this program is to be paid from Federal funds. 2. Title ii: Control of junkyards, which provides for Federal participation of 75 percent for screening costs in connection with junkyards, and that just com- pensation be paid to the owner for the relocation, removal, or disposal of certain junkyards. 3. Title Ill: Lan4scaping and scenic enhancement, prorides for the use of highway trust fund moneys to landscape the highway right-of-way; and an amount equivalent to 3 percent of the funds apportioned to a State for Federal- aid highways shall be allocated to that State out of the funds appropriated to be used for the cost of landscaping and roadside development, including' acquisition and development of publicly owned and controlled rest and recrea- tion areas and sanitary and other facilities reasonably necessary to accommodate the traveling public. Matching State funds are not required. Pitle IV of the act authorized appropriation of funds for administrative expenses to carry out the outdoor advertising, junkyards, and landscaping and scenic enhancement provisions of the act. B. Output Seventeen States have signed agreements to control outdoor advertising along interstate and Federal-aid primary system highways. Negotiations are presently underway with 31 additional States. Twenty States' have signed agreements to i~ontrol junkyards adjacent to interstate and Federal aid primary system highways Negotiations are presently ~ri progress with the remaining States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Since October 1965,' authorization has been granted for the screening of 1,395 jttnkyards and for `the removal of 114 others. Since October 1966, authorization has been granted for the acquisition of 5,406 scenic easements adjacent to Federal-aid highways, the construction or improve- metit of 509 roadside rest and recreation areas, as well as 753 projects to land- scape selected areas along hundreds of miles of Federal-aid highways. C. Offleia~Z hai,ing direct operating respon8ibility oi~er the program P. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads. PAGENO="0089" It z 0 0 C) 0 C) L~j q . . ~- q ~- c\) H ~ H 4:- 0~ f~ 4~_ ~ C) t~i 0 C) c~-~ ~ ~.Ii ~i r~ ~ ~ 0~. .~ H I-u C; ~ 0) PAGENO="0090" 86 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU PROGEA~M.-TRAFFI0 AND mGHWAY SAFETY A. Statutory or administrative authority for the programS This program includes all operating and contract expenses incurred under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 80~-56~, and the Highway Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-564, except for the program of grants to States to improve the highway safety programs under the provisions of section 402 of the latter statute. B. Output Outputs can be identified and quantified along the line of: number of stand- ards issues; vehicle ~production volumes with safety improvements; research contracts let; defect recall campaigns requested by the Bureau; and others. However, a more important class of output measure would relate the various program activities to deaths prevented, injury reductions, and property damage avoided. Although the program is still in its early stages, there already are indi- cations along them lines. For example, the newly adopted standard on the energy- absorbing steering shaft might be capable of reducing driver deaths by upwards of 70 percent. The National Highway Safety Bureau is working toward a position where it will be possible to quantify some of these types of outputs more precisely than now possible, and to identify number of deaths averted or disablements mini- mized through the use of the collapsible steering column and other safety measures such as shoulder harnesses, better braking systems, and improved emergency medical service. Accurate determination of the costs and benefits will become possible some years from now when improved data systems are in opera- tion, coupled with better methods of accident investigation. 0. Of/icia~ havinti direct operating responsibility for tbe program William Haddon, Jr. M.D., Director, National Highway Safety Bureau. - PAGENO="0091" PAGENO="0092" onsibility for~the program' reau of Motor Carrier Safety. PAGENO="0093" PAGENO="0094" 90 BUREAU ox' PUBLIC ROADS PnOGRA~I.-FOREST HIORWATS (LIQUIDATION OF CONTuACT AUTHOiIIZATION) A. ~Itatutdry or administrative authority for the program The forest highway system, which is approximately 25,600 miles in length, is composed of main and secondary roads within or adjacent to the national forests. It is located in 40 of the 50 States and in Puerto Rico Approximately 13 100 miles of the system are located in the 12 most westerly States and in South Dakota. About 12,500 miles are located in 20 Eastern States and in Puerto Rico~ The authority is contained in the Biennial Highway Acts. (Public Law 89-574, 23 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) B. Output Actual and estimated progress of the program over a period of 5 years is summarized below (dollars in thousands): Fiscal year Miles completed Expenditures 1964 ~r 1965 1966 1967 1968, estimated 492 419 307 303 290 $33,277 32,500. 31,304 28,947 34, 115 C. Official having direct operating responsibility over the program P. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads. PAGENO="0095" PAGENO="0096" 92 BUic1~AU OF PuBLIC ROADS PEOGRAM.-PUBLIO LA,~DS IIIOUWAYS (LTQUiDATIOI~ OF ~O~TRAC~t AtJflIORIZATION) A. Statutory or adnvtnLstrative authority for the pro gra.n~ Pfiblic lands are unappropriated or unreserved public lands, nontaxable Indian lands, or other Federal reservations. Authorizing legislation provides that funds shall be used to assist State~s with large areas of pu~lic lands in the improve~ ment of sections of nlaln roads-principally on the Federal-aid highway system- which States otherwise may find difficult to finance. Authority for this program is contained in the Biennial High~vay Acts. (Public Law 89-574) (23 tL$.C. 101 et seq.) B. Ou~tp~t Actual and estimated progress of the program for a 5-year period is summarized below (dollars in thousands) Fiscal year Miles completed Expen ditutes 1964 1965 1966 - 1967 1968, estimated 66 105 101 135 100 $4,708 6,562 11,290 10,105 10, 424 Total - 507 43,089 C. O/7toiaZ having direct operation responsibility for the program F. 0. Turner, Thir~etor, Bureau of Public Roads. PAGENO="0097" 541 542 550 600 610 62O 680 640 650 660 93 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 871 880 881 Printed for use of House Government Activities Subcommjttoe~ Chairman sack Brooks 89-e41-1~ ~ 21-528 O-69--pt. 11-7 PAGENO="0098" 94 BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS PROGRAM.-REPAIB AND RECONSTRUCTION OF HIOHWAtS A. ~tatu'tory or administrative authority for the program The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966 provided an annual authorization of $50 million to be financed 60 percent from the Highway Trust Fund and 40 percent from the General Fund, effective `July 1, 1966. For projects in Alaska, the 1964 amendments to the Alaska Omnibus Act In- creased the Federal share payable from 50 percent to 94.9 percent for the repair and reconstruction of areas damaged by the earthquake of March 1964 and sub- sequent seismic waves. The Pacific Northwest Disaster Act of 1965 provided an additional $50 million authorization for fiscal year 1965 and an additional $20 million authorization for fiscal year 1966. Costs are originally incurred for these activities under the Federal-Aid High- ways (trust fund) appropriation. Appropriations are obtained under the pro- gram repair and reconstruction of highways in order to provide repayment to the Highway Trust Fund for cash disbursements which were temporarily made from that fund against General Fund program authorizations. B. Output Mileage and disbursements made through June 30, 1967, are reflected below (dollars in thousands): Total Less Required Miles cumulative amounts reimburse- retained ment to - to HTF HTF from Underway Complete June 30, 1967 general fund Pacific Northwest Disaster Relief Act of 1965: 415 000 $34, 415 Fiscal year 1965 authorization, $80,000,000_ - - 172. 7 3, 350. 0 $64, $30, Fiscal year 1966 authorization, $50,000,000_ - * 78. 7 353. 9 18,239 18, 239 1964 amendments to the Alaska Omnibus Act authorization, $15,000,000 (1) (1) 2, 044 2,044 Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966, annual au- thorization ($50,000,000 authorization financed 60 nercent highway trust fund, 40 percent gen- eral fund) 104.0 1,238.6 3,771 2,262 1,508 Total required to reimburse the highway trust fund 37,968 Fiscal year 1968 appropriation 15,098 Balance 22,870 ~ I I Mileage for Alaska Omnibus Act included in the 2 authorizations under Pacific Northwest Disaster Relief Act of 1965 C. Offlciai having direct operating responsibility for the program F. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads. PAGENO="0099" 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 518 520 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 95 DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY PROGRAM S~SPROORAM TranslDortation-Feaeral State & Cormnutaty thghway Pighw~y Adnrtni~tratiop S~et~r Pro~rams ~ CODE CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR 1968 ijnobllgated Carryover Appropriation or Current Year Request Total Available Total Obligattd or Expended ~ ~ "Iii house" inputs Personnel: Comp. Benefits Travel Expenses: Communicatiens Transportation Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment Land and Structures Additional Investment * Rents Total Funds_distributed Contracts Grants Loans Benefits Other Totaf Total tt2~c2 020 Input-output I 1 100 1. Input (120 1. Output 2. Input 2. Output $265,o39Y Prior Fiscal Year 3. Input 3. Output 4. Input 4. Output 5. Input 5. Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8. Output Printed for use of noose Government Activities Subcommittee. Chalcman Jack Brooks if Included $2L~O,O39 thousand unavailable due to Sec. 1~Ol limitation. aO-041-h sex PAGENO="0100" 96 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAinrEy BUREAU PROGRAM.-STATE AND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION) A. statutory or administrative authority for the program This program includes the making of grants to States to be used by those States and their political subdivisions to enlarge or improve their highway safety programs in accordance with section 402 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-564. Included is the cost of administration directly related to carrying out the provisions of that s~tion of the act. B. Out~oo1e These outputs can be quantified In terms of dollar amounts allocated by States and political subdivisions to various functional areas of highway safety effort. It is also possible to develop numerical measures such as driver education pupil hours, but these measures will require a considerable amount of refinement and validation before they attain maximum value. The most difficult output measure to quantify is the reduetion in traffic deaths, injuries, and property damage which will result from the new national effort. When the national data base has been developed and the data systems are operational, it will be possible for the first time to make valid scientific analyses of these benefits. U. Official having direCt operating responsibility for the program William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Director, National Highway Safety Bureau. PAGENO="0101" 97 DEPARTMENT QR AGEPjCY PROGRAM I ransportatjon-lederal - - SUBPROGRAM 174 -.....~ Adm~1intyn-Lj~. .i CODE CODE kNALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR 1968 "In hot Personnel: Comp. Benefits inputs ~- Unobligated Appropriatlonor Cucre~t Carryover Year Request Travel Expenses: Total Available Communications Transportation Total Obligated or Expended Printing _____ Supplies and Consum- able Materials ~- ~_- 21 Capital Equipment Land and Structures Additional Invest Rents 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 IL ii Total Fi uontrt Grantl Loans Benefi Other Total Total 27 27 Input-output ratio -~ 1. Input 1. Output 2. Input 2. Output $5 ,72Lt!j 3. Input Prior Fiscal Year 3. Output 4. Input 4. Output 5. Input 5. Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8. Output -_____________ - _____________ Printed far use of House Government Activities Subcommittee. Chairman Jack Brooks 09-641-b GPO ~/ Includes $1,I~O3 thousand available against which no obligations will be incurred in 19613. PAGENO="0102" 98 BTmEAU OF PtTBLIO ROADS P1IOaRAM._INTEEAMEE1CA1c HIGHWAY A. $tatutory or a4miaistrative authority for the program The Central American Section of the Inter-American Highway comprising 1,555 miles, is being constructed in cooperation with the Republics of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. These Republics generally pay one-third of the cost of highways through their countries, and have assumed responsibility for future maintenance. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1146) authorized an additional appropriation of $32 million of which $30 million has been appropriated to complete the highway to acceptable standards. B. Output The following table reflects the amount of work, by countries, provided by the $32 million authorization (in thousands of dollars) _- -.. --- ,-,- --- --,,- *. .,~ _.. _.._,, ...... _.. ~ Fiscal years --.,-, -- .,,-~ ...,-,. ,-..-.,-- .--,,, ..,.-...-.-----..-- ,.-,-,....,...,..,---~..-,- ,~--,., ..,~, ..... .,-,., 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Total --,-.-, ..-. --..-..~.---.- Guatemala 1,194 3,610 3,383 8,187 ~Nicaragua 860 860 Costa Rica 153 310 13,561 1,617 2,000 17,641 Panama 5,270 42 5,312 Total 7,477 3,962 13, 561 5,000 2,000 32,000 ..,-.--.. .- -...-....,-,.. ~.....,,. .,,. ~ ~-.,...-. --,. .-....--. ... ... _,.,.... ,......,. ,-.. ...,,.-- ~ ..- .-.-,. ~ C. Official having direct operating authority for the program F. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads. PAGENO="0103" 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 660 700 Total 800 t~'55 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 DEPARTMENT OR ~OGEN~Y PROGRAM SUBPROGRAM iranspoz~tatiori~iev3.era1 ~j~hwayAdministration~. Cliamizal Memorial ~ighway CODE CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES - FISCAL YEAR 1968 Unobiigate~ Carryover Appropriatloner Current Year Request Total Available Total Obligated or Expended "In_house"_inputs Personnel: ~- Coznp. , Benefits Travel Expenses: Communications Transportation Printing - . Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment . Land and Structures Additional Investment Rents . Total $ ~,opo S Funds distributed Contracts Grants Loans S 600 610 620 630 640 Benefits Prier Fiscal Year atlo 4. Input 4. Output 5. Input 5. Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Output S. Input - Printed for see of House Government Activilie. Subcommittee. Chairman Jack Brook. 00-04111. Oco PAGENO="0104" 100 BuRzAu or PUBLIc ROADS PROGRAM.-CHAMIZAL MEMO~iIAL EIOJIWAY A. Btatutory or admini8trative authority for the program Public Law 89-7~l5 (80 Stat. 1477) dated November 8, 1966, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to construct a border highway in the city of El Paso commencing at a point approximately two blocks west of Santa Fe Street in El Paso and proceeding along the International Boundary as rectified to the international Bridge at Zdragosa Road aibout 121/2 miles east. The act author- izes $8 million in Federal funds for this project. B. Output Approximately 123~ miles of highway. U. Official ha'ving direct operating respon&ibiiity for the program F. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads. PAGENO="0105" jol Pri ted for use of Rouse Government Activities Subcommittee, Choiceness Jack Brooke ~2nc1udes $200 thousand against which no obligations will be incurred in l96b. PAGENO="0106" 102 DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY PROGRAM SUSI'ROQRAM TraneDortati on-.Federal JIl ~h~y Aiiml ni n1~i~nt j ~tr~ M~ noeflnnoniio Anors~nt C CODE CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR 19613 Unobligated Carryover Appropriation or Current Year Request Total Available Total Obligated or Expended "In house" Inputs Personnel Comp. leneflts Travel Expenses: Communications Transportation Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment Land and Structures Additional Investment Rents Total ~00 200 300 400 600 610 511 512 513 520/ 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 Funds distributed Contracts - Grants Loans Benefits Other Total Total Input-output ratio 1. Input 1. Output 2. Input 2. Output 3. Input Prior Fiscal Year 3. Output 4. Input 4. Output 5. Input 5, Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8. Output Priasied far use of Stases Government Activities Subcommittee, Chairman Jack Brooks 00-641-1 i/ Inc3~ut1eB $232 thousand against which no obligations will be incurred in 1968. PAGENO="0107" 0 ~ 0 3 00 ~ 00 00 00 ~ ~ 00 00 00 OC 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~-` 0 ~ 0 ~ © }-` 0 ~` 0 0 u~u ~~HUU ~ ~ ~ `~o ~ o\c) c~ ~ -EA- OD ~ F~ HZ 2 r 2 C 2 C C C 0 C 0 C LTJ 0 n I < ~j ~ PAGENO="0108" 104. Mr. BmowELL. Thank you, Mr. Ohairman. Secretary Born. Mr. Bridwell is an old and valued associate of mine. Mr. B1mwELL. Mr. Chairman, the Highway Administration is made up of three component units, the Bureau of Public Roads, the National Highway Safety Bureau, and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. It is the responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration to pro- vide leadership and programs for the development of the Nation's highway transportation system, balanced with other modes of trans- portation, that effectively serve national, regional, and local require- ments for the movement of people and goods. This system includes as interacting elements the roadway, the right of way and related struc- tures, individual vehicles, the user, the control system and the environ- ment. Objectives of the Federal Highway Administration encompass planning, research, design, and construction of the national highway network, within the Bureau of Public Roads; development and admin- istration of highway and vehicle safety programs within the National Highway Safety Bureau; and surveillance of safety practices of oper- ators of commercial highway vehicles within the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. The greater part of these activities are carried out in close cooperation with States and local communities. The Federal Highway Administration `has 6,094 permanent posi- tions and $4.3 billion appropriations authorized in fiscal 1968. Of these totals, 5,297 permanent positions and $4,242 million appropriations are applicable to the Bureau of Public Roads. 619 permanent positions and $46 million to the National Highway Safety Bureau; and 178 permanent positions and $1.8 million to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. On-board strength of th~ Federal Highway Administration as of April 30 was 5,200 employees, and total funds available for fiscal 1968 are $8,113,228,000, including trust funds. The Federal Highway Administration was established without any increase in personnel above what would have been necessary for its three constituent units had they remained separate. The new activi- ties of the administration comprise the Office of the Administrator, the Office of Policy Planning, and the Office of Science Adviser, for all of which funds and positions were obtained through economies resultAng from consolidation of common functions of the three Bu- reaus. Major programs of the Federal Hi~hwav Administration are being developed to reduce the losses in death, injury, and uroperty damage on the `Nation's highways by developing and applying effec- tive safety performance standards for motor vehicles, drivers, apd the highway plant; stimulate increased performance, service and reliabil- ity in the highway transportation system to assure convenient move- ment of'passengers and property by the most efficient means consistent with public safety; and accentuate, in present and future hb~hwav systems, the social, economic, and aesthetic contributions which will make the system more harmonious `with its physical and cultural en- vironments and will improve the overall ouality of living. This, in brief, describes the responsibilities and major programs and nresent personnel and appropriations information for the Fed- eral Highway Administration. PAGENO="0109" 105 Mr. BROOKS. Thank you Mr. Briciweli. I want tó~ `ask you one ques- tion. Would you furnish for the recoth tour comme~its on the exam- pie of your traffic and highway safety program, wherein your people apparently feel that the newly adopted standard on the energy absorb- ing steering shaft might be capable of reducing driver deaths by as much as 70 percent? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir; I will be glad to furnish that for the record. Mr. BROOKS. It will be of particular interest tothose of us who drive. Mr. BRIDWELL. I can understand that. (The information requested follows:) For more than a year the National Highway Safety Bureau has been a principal sponsor of very important work at the TJ'OLA Medical School. In this work, teams consisting of surgeons and other physicians, `and englneei~s ai~e doing in-depth investigations of major highway crashes in the Los Angeles area. The workup includes not only extensive photography and other permanent documentation, but also detailed correlation of clinical a'nd `autopsy findings wi'th information from the crashed vehicles themselves. Thus, as the research data accumulate it is increasingly `possible to detbrmine, for given impact `speeds and directions, the ways in which the crash forces reach the bodies of the occupants, the injuries produced or prevented, and, especially, `the influence of change's in design directed at ameliorating `the forces of imp'act. In the area of the committee's Interest, the head of the UCLA Trauma Research Group, Dr. Alan M. Nahum has estimated that the reduction in the incidence of fatal injuries to drivers in front-end crashes of vehicles equipped with th~ new energy ahsor'bing steering assemblies is in the vicinity of 70 percent. Al- though a considerable amount of research work still needs to `be done, `th~re is already considerable evidence that these devices do in fact represent such a breakthrough. In illustration, the attached figure's, from the UCLA work, compare the incidence of fatal, dangerous, and other Injuries to drivers in comparable crashes of vehicles with, and without~ such energy absorbing devices. As can be `seen, the shift away from the more serious results is dramatic indeed. The principle fo these `devices, which are `still only in `their first g~eneration, and which will be greatly improved during the coming months, i's to cushion the forward deceleration of the driver, much in the manner of a fire net, and to sub- stitute such performance for the rearward moving and spearlike steering shafts, and their related hardware, that have characterized `thIs aspect of vehicle design and construction In the more than seven decades since the first automobiles appeared on our `road's. PAGENO="0110" PAGENO="0111" ~iO7 Mr. ERmwELL. Mr. Chairman, may I just sä~y that the `cla~fin, or the tentative claim is based on approximately 200 accidents in which a special team made up of physicians and engineers investigated the causes and results of these accidents selected for in-depth analysis? It is based upon their professional, but nevertheless somewhat subjective, judgment that more deaths or more severe injuries would have oc- curred had this particular safety component of these cars not been `present. Mr. BROOKS. This would be interesting and we would appreciate that for the record. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you have any idea of the relative safety, say, per mile traveled, on the Interstate Highway System as related to the rela- tive safety per mile traveled on the old Federal highway system before you had the new standards? Are the Interstates more safe? Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Thompson, subject to correction, the safety rec- ord of the Interstate System on the average is 3.1 deaths per 100 mil- lion vehicle-miles. The average for all other roads on the Fedei~al sys- tem is 6.4. Mr. THOMPSON. In other words, by establishing basically certain standards and limited access, and so forth, you made travel much safer on the highways, and by cutting down your curvy roads. Mr. BRIDWELL. The significant features of the Interstate System that are not generally applicable to other types of highways are the control of access, no side entrances either by roads or driveways, the divided highway; that is, Opposing lanes of traffic being divided by some sort of center strip and the geometrics of gentle curves, very minor grades in terms of up or down on hills. D. PROGRAM CATEGORY 4-FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much, Mr. BridwelI. Mr. Secretary, could we now hear from the Federal Railroad Ad- ministration? I will put exhibit N in the record here. (Exhibit N follows:) PAGENO="0112" PS DI (DID c-I-rn cc ID ~I-( ; ~1 cc') DI CD L-bf I-s. U ()(D ~ I-,. I-j ~ 1-' CD ~ a') 10(1 olD (Dcc PS. 1-b a I-I (1- a 0) I I 1~ PAGENO="0113" 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 DEPARTME$T OR AGENCY I IltOGItAM SUBPROGRAM Tm at jon-Federal Su~ort ~rog~a~Q~f'jce of' output ratio - 2. Input - - Printed for use of House Government Activities Subcommittee, Chairman .Iackflrsoks *Services of Other Pederal Agencies. 1 CODE CODE CODE ~ALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR Unobligated Carryover "In housi Personnel: Comp. Benefits Travel Expenses: Appropriation or Current Year Request Total Available Communications 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 528 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 700 Total Obligated $557,000 Transportation - Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials 39 .000 25.000 Capital Equipment 12.000 Land and Structures Additional Investme Renl~ 2.000 Total 13.000 1~. 000 .000 Funds Contracts Grants Loans - Benefits ~---~ ~,( Other ~ Total Total c - 1. Output ~l5bO0,0Q0 2. Output 3. Input 3. Output 4. Input 4. Output 5. Input Prior Fiscal * - 5. Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8.Ou - la-Gus-b oro `21-528 0-69--pt. 11-8 PAGENO="0114" 1i1~O DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY I P~OGRAM - SUBPROGRAM Trans~ortati on-Federal I 100 ~Rp4]~roa~ 4dn~ini~ stratipri ~ail~road Safety CODE C DE CODE 200 ANALYSIS ANU CONTROL CODES 300 400 FISCAL YEAR tJnobftgated Appropriationo~, Current Total Total Obligated Car5~over Year Request Available or Expended 500 "In house" inputs _________________ _________________ _________________ __________________ 510 PerSonnel: __________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ 511 Conip. _______________ _______________ $2,69Lt , 000 _______________ 512 Benefit _______________ _______________ _Q~Q~Q_ 513 Travel ______________ ______________ lt1~0,O00 _______________ 500 Expenses: _________________ _________________ _________________ __________________ 521 Communications _______________ _______________ 38,000 _______________ 522 Transportation _______________ - 4~ OQO, - ________________ 523 Printing _______________ _______________ 9,000 ________________ 524 Supplies and Consutn- able Materials ______________ ______________ 5,000 _______________ 530 Capital Equipment _________________ _________________ 5~ 000 __________________ 540 Land and Structures _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ 641 Additional Investment __________________ __________________ _____________ __________________ 642 Rents __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ 550 `i~l ______________ ______________ $3,391,000 _______________ 600 Funds distributed - 610 Contracts _______________ _______________ 3,000 _______________ 620 Grants _________________ _________________ ________________ __________________ 630 i.oans _________________ _________________ ________________ _________________ - 640 ~Bene~1ts _________________ _________________ _________________ __________________ 650 ~er* _______________ _______________ 61t,000 _______________ 660 ~i~ai ______________ ______________ 61,000 _______________ `700 Total _____________ _____________ ~ Ii6l~.,0OO ______________ Prior Fiacal Year 800 Input-output ratio - 810 1.Input -~ -~ - - - ______________ - 811 1. Output -- _____________ - ______________ - ______________ - ______________ - 820~ 2. Input ____________ - _____________ _____________ _____________ -- 821 2.Output ____________ - _____________ - _____________ - _____________ * 830 3.Input _______ - ________ - _______ - ________ 831. 8. Output ____________ - _____________ _____________ - _____________ - 840 4. Input -_____________ - - _____________ * 841 4. Output ____________ - _____________ _____________ _____________ - 850 5.lnput -~ _____________ - _____________ - _____________ - ________ -. 851 5. OutOut ______________ - ______________ - -~ - 860 i~Input _____________ - _____________ - _____________ _____________ - 861 6. Output ______________ - -~ ______________ - _________ - 870 7. Input ______________ - ______________ - ______________ - 871 7. Output ______________ ______________ -- 880 8.Input ____________ ___________ - ____________ ____________ - 881 8. Output - _____________ - - - Prinied for use of House Government ActlvltloeSubeommlttee. Cbslrmaa ~sck Brooks 5O-84i-l~ urn *Services -of Other Federa]~ Agencies. PAGENO="0115" fl~l BtRtAU OF RAILROAD SAF'F~1'Y ~ A. Profjra~m a~uthority In accordance with Public Law 89-670 responsibility for administering the various railroad safety laws was transferred on April 1, 1~7, from the Inter- state Oommerce Commission to the federal Railroad Administration The Federal Railroad Administration's Bureau of Railroad Safety performs assigned c1uth~s in connectIon with the administration and enforcement of certain specific Federal statutes relating to common carriers engaged in interstate com- merce `by railroad. B. Program benefits The statutory and regulatory safety authority involving enforcement activities of the Federal Railroad Administration are: 1. &sfety appliance law.-Power brakes are required on locomotives and trains so th:at brakemen will not be required to use the bandbrake for the purpose of controlling the speed of trains. Cars must be equipped with automatic couplei~s so that cars can be coupled automatically by impact and can be uncoupled with- out the necessity of men going betwepn the ends of the cars. Cars must be equip- ped with secure grab Irons or handholds on their sides and ends for use in coupling and uncoupling, and with secure sill steps. Oars of certain types must be equipped with secure ladders, running boards, and roof handholds. F)ach car must have an efficient handbrake. Federal Railroad Administration regulatiOns fIx the standard height of drawbars on freight cars; the percentage of power- braked cars required in any train: the rules, standards, and instructions for installation inspection maintenance and repair of power or train brakes and the number, dimensions, location, and manner of application of other safety appliances required by law. (45 U.~.C. 1-16 and related regulations (49 C'FR, pts. 231 and 232, formerly 131 and 132).) 2. The locomotive inspection law as modified by Reorgaínization Plan No. 3 of 1.965 -This law applies to all types of locomotives used on common carrier lines It provides that it shall be unlawful for any carrier to use or permit to be used on its line any locomotive unless such locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts thereof (1) are in proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which :put, (2) may `be en~iployed in the active service of such carrier without un- necessary peril to life or limb, and (3) have been inspected from time to time in accordance with the provisions of this law, and are able to withstand such test or tests as may be prescribed. The law requires that the~ carriers file at stated intervals a sworn report of inspection for all its locomotives The Bureau of Railroad Safety is authorized to make such inspections of locomotives as it may deem desirable or necessary and is authorized to order out of service any locomotive found to be not in conformance with the requirements of :the law. Accidents resulting from failure from any cause of a locomotive or its parts or appurtenances, resulting in serious injury or death to one or more persons, must be rbported forthwith in writing to the Federal Railroad Administration by the carrier owning or operating the locomotive. The Bureau of Railroad Safety investigates all such accidents and prepares a full and detailed report of the cause of the accident. The law authorizes the Federal Railroad Adnlinistra- tion to make public these reports in such manner as it deems proper. Neither the report nor any report of the investigation nor any part thereof shall be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in `mid report or investigation (45 U S C 22~-34 and related regulations (49 OFE, pt. 191, formerly 91).) 3 Inspection of mail cars to determine their construction adaptability design and condition. (45 U.S.C. 37.) 4 Accident Reports Act -This law authorizes the Federal Railroad Adminis tration to investigate and issue reports concerning collisions, derailments, or other accidents resulting in serious injury to person or to property of a railroad. Under prescribed `regulations, railroads are required to report by telegraph to the Federal Railroad Administration any eo1li~ion or derailment on its line resulting in deaths or serious injury to one or more persons. Investigations are made of such of these accidents as are of general interest to the public or when an investigation may lead to increased safety. This law also requires every common carrier `to make a monthly report of all collisions. derailments, or other accidents resulting in death or injury to any person or damage to equipment or roadbed, arising from the operation of such railroad, under prescribed rules. The phrase "arising from the operation of such railroad" PAGENO="0116" 112 includes all activities o1~ the railroad which are related to the performance of Its transportation business Failure to make a report of each accident within 30 days after the end of the month in w inch the accident occurred is a mis clemeaner. (45 U;S.C. 3&-43 and related regulations (40 CFR, pt. 225, formerly 125).) 5 Hours of service law -This law restricts the time on duty of employees engaged in or connected with the movement of trains engaged in Interstate corn merce. The law makes it~ unlawful for enginernen, firemen., conductors, trainmen, switchtenders etc to be or remain on duty longer than 16 continuous or aggre gate hours in any 24-hour period, and after 16 hours on duty certain off-duty periods are prescribed. With respect to employees who use the telegraph or tele- phone to dispatch report transmit receive or deliver orders pertaining to or affecting train movements, the law restricts their oil-duty periods to 9 hours in any 24-hour period at offices continuously operated, or to 13 hours at offices operated. only during the daytime. In case of emergency, certain limited addi- tIonal service is permitted for this class of employees. The provisions of this law do not apply to the crews of wrecking or relief trains. Exceptions are made in certain instances of casualty, unavoidable accident, or act of God. (45 U.S.C. 61-64 and related regulations (49 CFR, pt. 161, formerly 61).) 6. E~ignal inspection law.-This law gives the Federal Railroad Administra- tion authority, when foufid necessary in the public Interest, to order any railroad to install the block signalsystem~interlockIng, automatic train stop, train control, cab signal de~ ices or other similar appliances methods and systems intended to promote the safety of railroad operation. The FedeTal Railroad Adnrinistration is also authorized to and has prescribed rules standards and instructions for the installation inspection maintenance and repair of such systems It is also authorized to inspect silch systems or devices and to determine whether they are in proper c `ndition to operate and provide adequate safety. Railroads may not discontinue or materially modify any existing signal installation without prior approval of the Federal Railroad Administration (45 U.S.C. 34, 49 U S £ 26 and related regulations (49 C1~ R pts 233 234 and 236 formerly 133,134, and 136).) 7. Transportation of eeplosives and other dangerous articles law: The Bureau of Railroad Safety conducts investigations and inspections relating to the transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles by railroad This law authorizes formulation of regualtions for the safe transportation withiii the limits of the )u]~isdict1on of the United States of explosIves and other danger ous articles, including radioactive materials, etiological agents, flammable liquids flammable solids oxidizing materials corrosive liquids compressed gases, and poisonous substances, which shall be binding upon all carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce which transport such articles by land, and upon all shippers making shipments of such articles via any carrier engaged in inter- state or foreign commerce by land or water. (18 U.S. Code 831-834 and related regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations, parts 171-179, formerly 71-79.)) U. Program directov Director Mac E. Rogers is the official having direct operational responsibility over the program. PAGENO="0117" 113 IIBPARTMENT OR ~1GENC1 SUBPROGRAM Transportation-Federal Jilgli-bpeed Ground 1Lailroad Adxninis~r~tion 91rcins~pnrtrstin~ CODE CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR Unobligated Carryover Appropriation or Current Year Request Total Available Total Obligated or Ropeoded ~ ~ ~ "In_house"_inputs Personnel: Comp. Benefits $ 600,000 36,000 Travel Expenses: . 22, OQO Communicatiqns Transportation Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment Land and Structures . 11 ,ppo ocio 9,000 ~ .--~r00O--* ~ 000 Additional Investment Rents Total Funds distributed Contracts Grants Loans . , 696,000 ~. ` 037 000 ~-_-. ~ Benefits Other * 530~000 ~2l~567,000 Total $22 26~ 000 100 200 800 400 500 510 511 612 518 520 521 522 523 524 530 *540 541 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 Input-output ratio 1. Input 1. Output 2. Input 2. Os~tput 3. Input Prior Fiscal Year 3. Output 4. Input 4. Output 5, Input 5. Output 6, Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8. Output Printed for use of Rouse Governmest Activities Subcommittee, Chairmen Jack Brooks *Service s of Other federal Agencies. PAGENO="0118" 114 OFFIOR OF~ Hioii SPEItD GROUND TRANSPORTAFION A. Program authority The High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-220) authorized the Secretary to "undertake research and development in high-speed ground transportation" and "to contract for demonstrations to determine the contributions that high-speed ground transportation could make to more efficient and economical intercity transportation systems." A proposal to extend the act is now pending with Congress. The northeast corridor transportation project was formalized as a distinct entity by the Secretary of Commerce in September 1964 as the result of an earlier interagency task force proposal and preliminary studies which pointed out the need for comprehensive planning to meet the transportation needs of the corridor through 1980. The project continues to be funded through the trans- portation research appropriation. When the Office of High Speed Ground Trans- portation was establtshed to implement the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, the northeast corridor project was placed within that Office. With the establishment of the Department of Transportation, the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation ~ras placed within the Federal Railroad Administration. B. Program benefits The Northeast corridor transportation project represents the first major effort by the Federal Government to establish procedures whereby regional transporta- tion facility proposals can be considered on a comprehensive and systematic basis. The specific objective of this project is to determine intercity transporta- tion facility requirements for the Northeast corridor through 1980 and beyond. The project will consider by a modeling and simulation effort the alternative transportation patterns which could be brought into being in the corridor during the next 25 years. Each of these patterns will be analyzed to determine its bene- fits, direct and indirect, and the resources which it requires. The existing system of transportation in the corridor will be the starting point in the consideration of alternatives. The alternatives, fully described in terms of benefits, costs, and other considerations, will be transmitted to the Secretary of Transportation. Procedures have been formulated to provide intermediate and long-run fore- casts of the volumes of freight and passenger traffic to be carried by all trans- portation systems, not only those now in use, but also those offering improved ~services such as the New York-Washington rail demonstration and new, ad- vanced systems such as vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and tracked air cnshion vehicles. The project has deveb regional transportation have been used wherever required for much of th being used to simulate user and operator costs on the basis of these comF Forecasts of populatiot three subareas of the eor have been made. Systems engineering a~ the corridor have been estimates of cost in the the network simulation, being started. The high-speed groun is focused on the ~futurE It iS particularly concer because the problems 0: there today in their mos have developed on the r ridor shows unmistakabl~ in less than the next tw~i does not improve at all will still be spent on nel The specific objectives~ development are: ped a system of models for analyzing and evaluating investments. Although existing data and techniques possible, significant innovations in technique have been analysis. A network model has been developed and is he flow of traffic throughout the region. Estimates of tnd benefits can be derived for the alternative systems uter simulations. income, and economic activity in the corridor and for ~idor, necessary for estimating transportation demands, id cost analysis work on several proposed systems for completed and will make it possible to use realistic exercise of the model structures~ Preliminary runs of demand models, and regional impact models are now I transportation research and development program improvement of transportation in urbanized regions. ied with the northeast corridor of the United States, slew movement and congested facilities are found aggravated state. In addition, information which we eed for transportation facilities in the northeast cor- that capacity requirements there will have to double decades. This means that even if systems performance Ln the next 20 years, $5 to $6 billion of public money v Intercity facilities. of the high-speed ground transportation research and PAGENO="0119" 115 1. To advance the technology, of ground transportation, including both rail- roads and more advanced systems; 2. To conduct research and development to make possible the design and demonstration of advanced ground transportation equipment, systems and services. 3. To develop cost and performance data on proposed systems. The range of research and development runs from relatively close-in sys- tems, largely represented `by advanced rail technology to systems which are possible in the next 15 to 25 years. The R. & D. on many of these systems, particularly `the more advanced, would almost certainly not `be done wit'hout Federal Government sponsorship. The large number of alternative advanced concepts, their large scale, and their dependence on extensive public action for adoption, inhibit private industry from going forward with research and development on their own. It is simply unlikely t'hat a'ny new systems such as automated highways or guided air cushion vehicles can be developed solely through private action. With Federal Government direction and support, pri- vate industry has shown that it will respond with meaningful and substantial participation, including the expenditure of their own money. The high-speed ground transportation demonstrations are designed to meas- ure and evaluate the public response to new equipment, faster speeds, `varia- tions in fares, increased safety and comfort, and `more freqtient service. A project has been established by the Penn Central Railroad to demon- strate high-speed railroad passenger service between New York `City, N.Y., and Washington, D.C. The demonstration is intended to provide information about patronage response to improved intercity rail passenger service. The in- formation obtained will be used for the determination of transportation needs of the northeast corridor. The data will be useful in projecting the impact on patronage of further changes in rail passenger transportation and will pro- vide important information about the costs of rail passenger service. It should also be usefut to the railroad and `to the State and local transportation plan- ning agencies. Under the terms of the contract, the Penn `Central Railroad, has completed substantial u'pgrading of track, structure, `and terminal facilities' between Washington and New York, ordered 50 high-speed MU cars which are being tested for acceptance, and assisted A. `T. & T. in developing and installing public telephones in the cars. Suburban parking stations at tan- ham, Maryland and Metro Park, N.J., will be built and grade crossings im- proved or eliminated in sections of Maryland and Delaware. `A demonstration using new gas-turbine-powered trains with advanced tech- nical features is scheduled for operation between Boston and New York. The Government has contracted with United Aircraft Corporate Systems Center for lease and `maintenance of two trains for the test period. The service wilt be operated by the New Haven Railroad. `The demonstration will test market response to a substantially improved service including a reduction of 1 hour in transit time below the present best schedule, new meal service techniques, and reservations for coach passengers. A more far-reaching objective of the project is to test a revenue service equipment designed to (1) negotiate curves at speeds faster than equipment of conventional design, with increased pas- senger comfort, and (2) produce significant savings in operation and main- tenance `costs through application `of aircraft-type, `free-gas-turbine power and mechanical transmission. A comprehensive survey of airport ground access travel has been completed covering users of the three Washington-Baltimore `airports. Further studies will determine the desirability of conducting an airport access demonstration using either conventional roadbed and equipment or an available advanced transportation system. To measure public response to these demonstrations an integrated data sys- tem has been developed utilizing datatag reports from Penn `Central Railroad and New Haven Railroad, onboard sample surveys on Penn' `Central Railroad and a sample household survey of travel by all modes in the northeast cor- rid'or. Anatysis of these data will provide `valuable inputs to the northeast corridor transportation project. U. Progrem~ director Dr. Ro'bert A. Nelson, Director, Ofike of High-Speed Ground Pransportati~n. PAGENO="0120" 500 510 511 512 5~L8 520 521 522 528 ~24 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 680 640 650 660 `700 800 810 811 820 821 880 831 - 840 841 B50 851 860 861 87O 871 880 881 116 200 400 DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY PI~bGRAM SUBPROGRAM ~rana~iorto±1 on FE. CODE CU I~ra1, Pal lroa~ A~m. Railroad Reseprgh. I copE ~ ANALYSIS ~ND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR 1968 Unobi Car] ~ted over ~ Appoopriation or Current Year Request ~ , Total Available ~ ~ ~ Total ObligatoEl or Enpondod . "In house" Inputs 1?ersonnelt Comp. ~eneflts Travel Expenses: Cpmmupications Transportation Printing Supplies and Constun- able Matanjals Capital Equipment Land and Structures Additional Investment I~ents Total Contracti Grants Loans distributed Benefits Other Total Total Input-output ratio 1. Input 1. Output 2. Input 2. Output .l..-~ - ~D~UU.UUU 3 Input Prior Fiscal Year 3. Output 4. Input 4. Output 5. bout 5. Output 6. lout 6. Output 7. Output 8. Input 8: Output Printed for use of Mouse Government Activitlee S ibcommittee, Chairman Jack Brooks PAGENO="0121" U7 Orrion OF THZ SECRETARY PROGRAM-RAILROAD RESEARCh A. ~1tatwtory or adniini8tra~tive authority for the program The Secretary of Transportation and his Modal Achninistrations are legis- latively required to promote and undertake research and development relating to transportation and safety of the traveling public and employees. See Public Law 89-670, section 4(a) and 9(q). B. Ou~tpa~t The FRA fiscal year 1968 appropriation provides for contractual research to deal exclusively with railroad safety matters. Emphasis will be placed on con- ducting research studies relating to railroad safety. ReSearch studies for fiscal year 1968 are focused mainly on railroad highway grade~crosslng technology and development of new railroad accident statistical procedures. FRA railroad research activities for fiscal year 1968 were (a) Entered into a contract with the States of Maryland and Delaware to develop, test, and install track activated advance warning signals on highway approaches to 2G rail grade crossings located on the high speed rail corridor between Washing ton, D.C., and New York. The demonstration project will test the elTecti'veness of new sophisticated railroad timing circuits and train-activated advance warn- ing signals. Railroad research funds expended for this project are $50,000, and (`b) Entered into a contract, amounting to $35,000 with the Texas Transportation Institute for a study on the reporting of rail highway grade crossing accident data. PEA review of several studies designed to identify factors which contrihute to hazardous conditions at grade crossings reveal that the data reported on the FRA form T. and its supplement, lack adequacy for meaningful accident pre- vention analysis. An improved data file and reporting form is necessary to `be~ able `to conduct accident analysis studies at the national and State level and to `better meet legislative responsibilities. C. Official having direct operational re8po*sibility The Director of the Office of Policy and Program An~tlysis has responsibility for the expenditure of rail and research funds. PAGENO="0122" $00 810 811 820 821 830 881 84~ 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 - Communications S Transportation Unobligated Catryover Appropriation or Curren Year Request t Total Available Prining Stipjlies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment . 1, 331~0Q~ Land and Structures Additional Investment Rents 1~6,ooc Total -~ k71 OOC Funds distributed Contracts 750.000 Benefits - - - Other Total ~otal~/ -~ - 8. Output - - ~I T 1,~Lx. .1-414.-4.. ~/ Insurance claims and indemnities ~ ~ ~ ~ ft~~ ~oa~flnanced from revenues. 118 DR1°ARTME3IT OR Aó1~NcY $ROGRAM SUBPROGRAM Federal R4lroad Pransporbation A~n14iistration Alpska Railroad CODS CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND C~NTR~t CODES FISCAL YEAR 1968 Total Obligated or Expended "In house" Inpu Personnel: Comp. 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 524 530 ~40 541 54~ 550 600 610 ~20 630 640 650 660 700 ~t O121~flflCi Ro7ort 2 Grabts Loans Input-output ratio 1. Input 1. Output 2. Input Prior Fiscal Year 2. Output 3. Input 3. Output 4. InpUt 4. Output 5. Input 5. Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input PAGENO="0123" 1:19 OFi?IOE OF TUE SEcnmPA1r~ PEOGRAM.-ALASKA RAILEO4D A. S~tatutory or adminiatrat ire authority for the progrq~rn~ The act of March 12, 1914, as amended (38 Stat. 305~. B. Output Alaska Railroad expenditures currently amount t4 $14 million to $15 million per year. These expenditures are derived from eari~ings. The output resulting from these expenditures is the transporting of about~ 11/2 million tons of freight between various points along the line of the railroad,~ from Whittier and Seward to Anchorage and Fairbanks. Most of this freight is~ incoming and is consigned to either Anchorage or Fairbanks. Freight-ton miles currently equal about 175 millio~ annuafly. In addition, the Alaska Railroad is transporting about 85,000 passengers per year for a passenger- mile total of about 8 million to 9 million. Most Alaska Railroad freight is consigned to the military. For example, during fiscal year 1967, more than 55 percent of total tons of ~freight hauled were for the account of Alaska military agencies. This amount of military freight accopnted for ine-third of the Alaska Railroad's total revenue for that fiscal year. The Alaska Railroad leases tugboats and barges aiiid water terminal facilities to the Yutana Barge Lines, which operates on the ~ranana and Yukon Rivers north of Fort Yukon and south to Marshall. The wat~rs of these rivers are open to navigation for only about 4 months each year. Th~re is no passenger service. C'. Official having direct operational reuponsibility John B. Manley, General Manager, the Alaska Railroad, Post Offlce Box 7- 2111, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. Secretary BOYD. It is a great pleasure to present A. SchefFer Lang, who has vast experience in the railroad industry, and who has about as many problems as anybody you will talk to t~day. Mr. BROOKS. He has a great area of challenge.! Mr. Lang? Mr. LANG. Mr. Chairman, members of the ~ommittee, the Federal Railroad Administration is composed of three j~rogram elements. These are: The Bureau of Railroad Safety, the Ah~ska Railroad, and the Office of High Speed Transportation, Let me speak briefly to the func- tionsof each one. The Bureau of Railroad Safety administers a series of statutes under which we are authorized to make and enforce regulations regarding safety of the operation of the railroads. The njiost important of these relate to the condition and design of locomotive$, signals and train con- trol systems and safety appliances. We have in the Bureau an au- thorized strength of 246 positions of which ~pproxim~ately 180 are deployed in the field, inspecting carrier property for adherence to our regulations. Funds appropriated for the Bur~au of Railroad Safety in fiscal 1968 were $3,414,000. The Alaska Railroad operates roughly 500 ipiles of railroad in the State of Alaska, which was built with funds prOvided by the Congress. It is owned by the U.S. Government. The railrbad has approximately' 780 permanent employees, and varying num1~ers of temporary em- ployees, particularly during the summer montl~s when we go into our heavy maintenance season. The Alaska Railroad is self-supporting. It m~ets all of its operating expenses out of its operating revenues, and it futther covers or has very nearly covered in the past few years its deprechLlion charges. We hope within the next couple of years to be covering o~ir depreciation as well PAGENO="0124" 1~o as our operating expenses and therefore be able to continue our own c~i~pital improvement program without any kind of appropriations The Office of High Speed Ground Transportation, the third program element of the Fede/ral Railroad Administration, administers the high- speed ground research and development, and demonstration programs authorized by the High speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, and also the northenst corridor transportation systems planning study that was begun in the Department of Commerce back in 1963. This office has an authorized strength of 56 permanent employees. Approximately $21 million is available for obligation in 1968, includ- ing considerable carryover funds that had not been obligated from previous years' appropriations. In addition to the three program elements, we have a small support staff including an office of policy and program analysis, a chief coun- sel's office, a public affairs officer, and a very small administrative office that is essentially a liaison organization working with the ad- ministrative units in~other parts of the Department that provide most of our actual administrative support. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. TAng, would you furnish for the committee an analysis of how you have reacted to the railroad safety recommenda- tions of this committee in 1966 ~ Mr. LANG. I would be glad to do that. Mr. BROOKS. You probably have a copy of it and you can furnish that for the record. Mr. LANG. Yes, sir. (The information reuested follows:) How THE DOT HAS REACTED TO THE RAILROAD SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS or TIlE BRooKs COMMITTEE IN 1966 (25TH REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERN- MENT OPERATIONS, UNION CALENDAR No. 632, H. REP'r. No. 1452) III. RECOMMENDATIONS As a matter of information all former railroad safety functions of the Inter- state Commerce Commission were transferred to the Department of Transporta- tion at its formation April 1, 1967. Certain actions have been taken and several others are under consideration to develop effective railroad safety programs to be administered by the Federal Railroad Administration. With regard to specific recommendations of the aforementioned report, the following actions have been initiated: A. IOC should completely reorient the railroad safety program to emphasize enforcement. To accomplish this result the following specific recommendations are made: 1. The "crossbreeding" of safety and car-service inspectors should be aban- doned. The "crossbreeding" of safety and car-service inspectors was abandoned effec- tive April 1, 1967. Safety inspectors are now working in their special areas of expertise. 2. Funds presently ~1located to support a topheavy supervisory force should be reallocated to the employment of additional technically qualified safety in- spectors for work In the field enforcing the safety inspection laws. * FRA's Bureau of Railroad Safety is undergoing an extensive reorganization designed to fully utilize its engineering and technical knowledge in the Wash- ington office to analyze and determine root causes for ever-increasing train ac- cidents and to provide meaningful solutions for improving railroad safety matters. This realinement of the Washington staff was not designed to interrupt or in- terfere with our field safety inspector's day-to-day enforcement activities, but rather as a strong support function and One that has been lacking for years in PAGENO="0125" 121 that we will be able to impart , technical research kno~w1edge to keep our ~e1d force aware and abreast of technological problems tha~ may be contributing to the constant annna~ rise in train accidents. ~ We have not and do not plan any appreciable degree of change in our present highly qualified staff of 22 regional supervisory personnel. All of the ~upervisory positions at the regional office level are filled by prsoi~nel with many years of practical experience in the field of railroad safety and itre made up of a regional director and two regional supervisors in each of the seven regions. In addition, due to the size of the territory comprising region No. 5, 4re have a field supervisor located in Kansas City, Mo. One supervisor in each of the regions is responsible for safety appliance hours-of-service inspections, locOmotive inspections, and signal and train control inspections, respectively. We would also like to call to your attention that the majority of the super- visors are working supervisors, who in addition to their supervisory respon- `obilities perform regular inspections accident investigation work and other re lated duties in the same manner as our regular field inspE~ctors. The regions in turn report to the Bureau of Railroac1~ Safety's Washington of- fice where we feel we have the capabilities in technical~ and enforcement knowl- edge to properly analyze the results of our field inspectio4s. / 3. The safety inspection program should be headed bjy a technically qualified, experienced safety inspector supported by a minimal staff of highly qualified specialists. Individual safety inspection programs conducted by~ the Bureau of Railroad Safety in its General Safety Division, Locomotive Sa~ety Division, Signal and Train Control Division and the soon-to-be-established I~azardous MaterialS Divi- sion are all headed by recognized experts in their part~icular fields of endeavor and are supported by an absolute minimal staff of qualjfied specialists. 4. In the regions, safety inspectors should be free frOm conformity with office type procedures, from putting in their time on a 9-to-S b*sis, from filing projected itineraries, and from any other administrative requi$ments which prejudice the:ir ability to exercise their responsibilities as safet~ inspectors in any way. Safety inspectors are free from cOnformity with office-t~pe procedures and rarely spend more than 1 or 2 days per month in their respecl4ve offices. In general, we expect our inspectors to abide by regular assigned offi~e hours on the few days spent wholly in their offices. Exceptions are made, however, if the `inspector has performed or plans to perform special night duty. We finkl it necessary to continue to require itineraries of anticipated travel to permit us to contact inspectors for emergency assignments such as serious train accident i~vestigations, complaints, etc. The individual inspector is at liberty to revise his t~avel plans as he sees fit, while on itinerary, to properly perform his duties; ho~4ever, when time permits he is required to advise of changes in travel for the afnrenamed reasons. B. The ICC accident-reporting procedures should b overhauled so that the categories and classifications have direct affirmative v lue to safety inspectioI~ and to railroad-accident-prevention programs. A research contract was recently let to Texas Tran ortation Institute for a study of grade-crossing reporting procedures including the use of form "T" and supplement to "1" reports now presently required by F A reporting rules. (Esti- mate 18 months for TTI to complete their study and is ue a report of findings.) Other studies are under consideration to review all FRA accident reporting ~procedures; however, we are unable to furnish firm ompletion dates at this time. C. The ICC should actively promote the adoption of~ ifective employee safety programs on all American railroads. Lack of jurisdictional authority has seriously limite our efforts to promote the adoption of effective employee safety programs. n exception to this rule was the recent adoption of an employee safety progr m by a class I railroad through combined efforts of encouragement by Washin ton BRS staff members working in close cooperation with the carrier and our, egional field staff. Proposed legislation recently introduced by the Depa tment of Transportation (HR. 16980) would give the Department authority to set standards for effec- tive employee safety program's on all Amerlcan railroads. P. The penalties provided for violations of safety statutes should be used more effectively. Anticipated benefits under the Claims Collection Act f 1966 may prove to be a very effective deterrent in the violations of safety statute PAGENO="0126" 122 The ?ederal Railroad Safety Act of 1968 (ER. 16980) should also be of great value in effectively determining penalties for violations of safety regulations. B. Regarding grade-crossing accidents: 1. Through a technical evaluation, ICC should deveIo~ for future statistical study the yarious characteristics common to the 220,000 grade crossings in the United States. 2. Future grade-crossing accidents should be evaluated on the basis of the characteristics determined under 1 above so that more effective statistical data can be attained as to those grade-crossing characteristics and combinations thereof which constitute the greatest potential danger. 3. Reflective markings should be placed on the sides of freight cars as well as other railroad rolling stock. 4. The ICC should seek a workable solution to the impasse with regard to the enforcement of safety standards at rail-highway grade crossings. Su.bparagraphs 1, 2, 8, and 4 are now under study by a DOT joint action group, inside the Department of Transportation, to work with interested parties throughout the country to improve safety at rail-highway grade crossings. (See attachment A. ) Progress reports can be supplied to the committee as benefits a\re established. This joint action program. was established by Secretary Boyd on August., 1967. ATTACHMENT A RAILWAY-HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PROGRAM 1. Make available to all States guidelines for diagnosing hazards, based on cur- rent information available to the Federal Highway and Railroad Administrations. 2. Request State highway departments to select one grade crossing for each 4,000 miles of Federal-aid highway for the testing of the most suitable known or proposed system of protection. 3. Encourage railroads to rehabilitate existing protective devices and sites under their jurisdictions. 4. Improve accident data collection and enforcement of traffic sfety regulations * at grade crossings. 5. Identify those crossings that are heavily used by commercial vehicles trans- porting hazardous cargo an~d upgrade the protection or reroute this class of traffic to diminish this hazard. 6. Identify crossings frequently used b~ school buses and work with school ~officiais to reroute school bus traffic or to improve the ctossing protection. 7. Examine the possibility of closing or limiting the use' of existing crossings or preventing the opening of new ones, and develop recommendations for any needed administrative oz legislative steps. S Initiate a study of present Federal and State motor carrier safety regula tions and laws pertaining `to the ~mandatory stopping of certain vehicles at railway-highway grade crossings. 9. Intensify the accident investigation program of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and Bureau of Railroad Safety to study adequately the croseing accidents involving, federally regulated carriers. 10. Undertake a research and development program to develop more effective ~neasures and devices to reduce the occui~rence of rail-highway grade-crossing accidents. 11. Initiate a study to determine the logical division of responsibility for the protection against grade-crossing accidents now shared by the railroads and the public and develop suitable administrative and legislative recommendations in this regard, including the questions of liability and cost sharing. Mr BROOKS Secondly, I know that the Department is currently enga.ged in some kind of contractual arrangement with the Pennsyl- vania Railroad for high-speed rail transportation between Washington and Boston. It is my understanding that `it is running well behind the * anticipated schedule, and that there are a number of problems un- * answered. I wonder if you would give us a status report on this and what the major obstacles are. Mr. LA~O. Would' you like me to speak to that right now, Mr. Ohair- man? PAGENO="0127" i23~ Mr. BROOKS. ~You can do that for the record in the interest of time. Secretary BOYD. I think with your permission, Mr. Chairman, 1 might tell you that Mr. Lang testified along with some of the other members of his office before a Senate appropriations subcommittee last week on this very point, and it might be worthwhile to submit the transcript of that testimony in the. record here. I think it will cover all of the questions you asked. Mr. BROOKS. Does it also cover the difficulties of deadheading that train into Washington? The public story was that they were going to start one of their turbine-powered fast trains, and apparently it did not work at all. They did not even drive it down here. You might cover that, if you would. Secretary Bom. That is the turbo train? Mr. BROOKS. It was not the turbo train. It was another new design that they had. Mr. LANG. These are the so-called Metroliners which are designed to operate on the Penn Central between Washington and New York' in electrified territory. Mr. BRO0KS~. Yes, and also cover, if yOU would, at what speed you figure this should have seat belts and what efforts you have made in your research in the way of easily accessible emergency exits, inflam- mable material, retardation and things of that nature. If you will give us that in the same analysis, we would be grateful. Mr. LANG. We would be glad to do so. (The information requested follows:) HIGH-SPEED RAIL TRANSPORTATION RUNNING BEHIND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE (On p. 123 of the transcript, Secretary Boyd suggested that it might be worthwhile to submit the report on the Washington-New York rail passenger service demonstration project which is dated May 31, 1968. A copy of this report. follows:) GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY TASK FORCE REPORT ON THE WASHINGTON-NEW Yonn RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOREWORD At the request of the Secretary of Transportation, and with the concurrence of the senior managements of the Penn Central, Budd, Westinghouse Electric, and General Electric Cos., a Government-industry task force was formed on April 17, 1968, to identify those problems delaying the initiation of the North- east corridor Washington-New York rail passenger demonstration service, to order these problems as to importance measured against the various objectives of the demonstration, and to report the proposed solutions of these problems within 30 days. The following individuals comprised the task force: J. J. Wright and G. R. Weaver (with C E Ingersoll as alternate) of the Penn Central J A Miller and N. W. Fesmire of the Budd Co.; B. W. Wyman (with J. 0. Dwyer as alternate) and C. B. Lewis of the General Electric Co.; W. P. Bollinger and F. B. Gunter of Westinghouse Electric; and, representing the Department of Transportation, K. L. Lawson and L. A. Goldmuntz, with J. S. Jordan serving as the administrative assistant to the ta'sk force. The task force was organized into variou~ groups, as indicated in figure 1. These groups were staffed and assisted by Government and industry personnel. We wish to thank officials of the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for making available the services of Neal A. Blake, Cohn 0. Simpson, Henry V. Hermansen, Henry J. Buck, Harry Runyan, and David Stephens. Many industry consultants were particularly help- ful, such as Jack Irvin, Bruce Erlichman, and Edmundas Vambutas. Kenneth B. Ullman of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation also participated. PAGENO="0128" 124 Finally the principal contractOl~s were very cooperative in helping to plan and conduct certain critical experiments in making available key personnel and project records on short notice, and in contri~utlng to the content of this report. CONCLUSIONS AND REOOi[MENDAPIONS The task force has cotapleted its review and considers that, while there are problems remaining, a reliable demonstration, as defined in the Department of Transportation contract with Penn Central, could be initiated in 7 months subject to the prompt implementation of certain task force recommendations. It is our estimate tli~t ~r~th extremely vigorous and carefully coordinated management in all phi~nes of ~b~s pro~eet_Governmeflt railroad equipment suppliers-it may be po~s~i~ to ~prove on this scbedule The corollary possibility also exists Limited iu~éveñu~ operations that would not meet the frequency requirements of the demonstration project, but that could serve a useful purpose in training opera- tional and maintenance personnel could be started within the next 3 months. Such preliminarY operations had been planned as an integral part of the demonstra- tion project for some time. The task force found that many of the individual problems delaying the den'- onstration had been identified by the various contractors and that substantial resources are now dedicated to the prompt resolution of these problems. However, the task force finds that managements In the project_Government, railroad, ca rbuilder, equipment suppliers-were overly optimistic with respect to the planning and scheduling requirements of a project of this magnitude and complexity. The Metroliflers are the most sophisticated railroad equipment yet attempted anywhere and properly ~o We are dealing with a train consisting of six or eight locomotives that can draw more current than any other railroad load; that contains approximately 70 miles of wire and 25,000 electronic com- ponents. The major remaining technical problems are: (1) Electronic maintainability; (2) Wheel thermal stress under specified deceleration when using air- brakes alone; (3) pantograph-catenary current collection stability at high speed during winter months, particularly under the remaining light wire; and (4) Acceptability of ride quality. To achieve a full demonstration within 7 months, we feel it necessary to imple- ment right now certain maintainability and reliability programs, to proceed rapidly with specified pantograph-catenarY experiments so that an early decision can be reached on modifications such as additional car busing and to continue the current ride improvement experiments with high priority. EZeotros'Lc m,aiuta~tnctbiUty / During the course of the study, electronic reliability calculations indicated that the mean time between failures (MTBF) of an electronic component in an eight-car train was 10 hours.1 This is a preliminary number based on the failure rate data available to the task force. Attempts are being made to verify the failure rate data. MTBF numbers must be used with caution until the failure modes of equipment are thoroughly analyzed. These could not be completely developed in time for this task force report. Nevertheless a preliminary failure mode analysis indicates that the proba bility of meeting the present demonstration schedule is greater than 99 percent with a good lead car sifice both an eight-car and six-car train can pull two dead (freewheeling) cars at 100 miles per hour. Furthermore, in case of a failure in lead car electronics or train line control, there is still a probability of at least 99 percent of meeting the demonstration schedule by utilizing the backup power system. Thus, the redudancy of multiple powered cars and the emergency power sys- tem lead to a high probability of reasonable schedule accomplishment if cars are properly maintained. Nonequipmeflt factors, however, may limit schedule performance. The major implication of the MTBF for the Metroliner is in maintenance. It is aggravated by scant fault indication equipment One should add to the train 1 There are approx1mat~ly 3,000 electronic components per car with an average failure rate of 4 X 10-6 hours. PAGENO="0129" 125 additional fault indicator systems that ~wo~ld make maintenance simpler. One should also design automatic diagnostic equipment for these trains. Since the demonstration schedule calls for a 1-hour turnaround, some such equipment is " mandatory. It is recommended that a task force be establlshed immediately to (a) de- termine which failures should and can be displayed; (b) determine which failures should and can be diagnosed rapidly with repairs effected at the New York, Philadelphia, and Washington terminals; (c) identify which failures can be repaired only at depots; (d) design trainborne and `stationary equipment to aid this diagnosis; (e) list the spares to be stored at terminals and depots; (f) identify the electronic failure mechanisms that are most deleterious to schedule probability; (g) recommend quick fixes, if any are required, that may be implemented within a 6-month period; (h) recalculate the schedule prob- ability; and (i) report back within 45 days. The major equipment suppliers should be involved in train maintenance, at least for a period of time, which we understand is the railroad's intention. Wheel thermal capabilities At 120 miles per hour (110+10 percent safety factor) the maximum decelera~ tion available based on maximum dry rail adhesion is about 2 miles per hour/ second. This will produce a peak heat load of approximately 400,000 ft. lb's./sec- end if the braking is accomplished by air alone, According to Schrader,2 this is a hazardous heat rate input, leading to thermal cracks even in class A wheels The number of applications of this heat rate necessary to develop a thermal crack is a function of the metallurgical composition of the wheel and Its quenching. r The railroad has already directed a change from class C to class A wheels before revenue service commences. The railroad has further indicated that a change order will be issued to add dynamic brake `to the controller emergency brake position so that the maximum thermal rate input to a wheel would be 280,000 ft. lbs./second in a Westinghouse propelled car and 220,000 ft. lbs./ second in a GE-propelled car, which may be reasonable for the limited number of times an emergency brake application is expected. These rates could be exceeded only if there was a penalty or alertor brake application, or if there was a major power circuit failure disabling the dynamic brakes, an air brake pipe failure, or deliberate dumping of the air brake pipe by the engineer or conductor at a train speed of 120 miles per hour. In the case of penalty, or alertor brake application, we recommend that dy- namic braking be included with air for the same reasons that the railroad ha~ added dynamic braking to the controller emergency brake position. The remain- ing cases would seem to be sufficiently rare so that operational procedures might be used to record their occurrences and perform appropriate inspection during regular maintenance periods. These thermal rate inputs under emergency braking could be reduced further if the deceleration rates could be reduced, which would seem possible since, even at 120 miles per hour, the stopping distance is approximately 1 mile, which seems well within railrOad practice. It might also be possible to alter signal spacing to accommodate lower deceleration rates. Actually, the specified braking rates are not obtained in practice (due, presumably, to brake fade). We recommend that the railroad, with Government support (if the railroad so desires), review the metallurgical aspects of thermal cracking, the retai~da- tion characteristics' of friction brakes, and braking criteria with a view toward specifying among class A wheels those with minimum cracking susceptibility. We recommend that the railroad review procedures to determine if it Is feasible to reduce deceleration rates. We further recommend that, until these reviews are completed, it would be prudent to limit speed in revenue service to 120 miles per hour. Pantograph-catenary current collection Simulations' and experience indicate that, winter or summer, light or heavy wire, up to speeds of 120 miles per hour, a physical separation of the pantograph from the catenary will not occur for periods' of more than one-third of a second. The electrical Interruption will be less than this because of arc conduction. Phe 2 "The Effect of Brake Shoe Action on Thermal Cracking and on Failure of Wrought Steel- Railway Car Wheels," Wetenkamp, Sidebottom, Schrader. University of Illinois Bulletin, June 1950. 21-528 0-69-pt. 11-9 PAGENO="0130" 126 train propu~lsion system ean- tolerate these interruptions. However, the lights may flicker, adding to passex~ger discomfort. The wear on pantograpbs and catenary due to arcing and high-speed operation would seem to require pantograph shoe. servicing twice as often as under present conditions, a problem which the railroad feels can be accommodated. The re- maining problem seems to be a railway power problem in. that the in-rush current upon reestablishment of pantograph-catenary contact is much greater than the normal or even the accelerating train current and seems to have tripped railway substation impulse relays. The railroad and their consultants do not consider this a major issue, and it is probably soluble by relay changes'. However, to limit passenger discomfort ~f or the demonstration project and to prepare for future high-speed programs, the task force recommends: (a) A prompt review of the possibility of busing six- and eight-car trains as compared to the two-car pairs which are presently bused. Operation would then be with two, three, or four pantographs up feeding the bus In parallel. Busing seems to be the most promising short range fix to current collection problems for the demonstration project. (b) An early determination of the necessity of busing by designing an experiment to run six- and eight-car trains under artificially sagged or hogged wire, whichever would simulate worst case operation. Acceptability of ride quality It has been generally conceded that the ride quality of Metroliners needs improvement. The ride quality group, therefore, initiated comparative Metro- liner versus Congressional ride experiments. Based on the ride quality experiments performed on Metroliners and a Con- gressional ear over improved and standard track, one cannot conclude that the ride quality of the Metroliner at 110 m.p.h. is at the present time superior to the Congressional at 80 m.p.h. Generally, the lateral and vertical accelerations ex- perienced in the Metroliner over the trucks are greater than the accelerations over the Congressional trucks. However, lateral and vertical accelerations experi- enced at the center of the Metroliner are less than those experiencd at the center of the Congressional tested. The resonant mounting of the main transformer (EEl tons under the ceilter of the car) should~ be tuned to the car bending frequency (6~-8 cycles per second) to minimize this source of ride discomfort. Experiments to date have not yet indicated the success of this technique. The Budd Company is continuing to investigate this problem. Preliminary data seems to indicate that high-frequency vibrations (above 10 cycles per second) are contributing to the accelerations experienced and, hence, to ride discomfort. These accelerations may be the consequence of track-wheel interactions which are then transmitted through the trucks to the car body. An air bag suspension system could accommodate this source of passenger discom- fort and might Warrant further consideration. There is some evidence of compressor or motor alternator vibration exciting the car body, and this should be reduced before a final evaluation can be made of track, truck, car~body inter- action. Nevertheless, enough data has been obtained to indicate that the truck'.s in- fluence on lateral acceleration (to which humans' are most sensitive) can be improved, and the truck manufacturer has such a program underway. One of the critical, nontechnical factors that can delay the demonstration proj- ect has to do with the timely recognition and resolution of questions concerning engineering changes, testing, maintenance, equity, and the like. It seems evident that a tight schedule can be attained only if the several managements take timely action. An example of a question that has gone without resolution for a prolonged period and might add delay to the inception of the demonstration project has to do with actual versus specified braking performance. One type of propulsion equip- ment cannot achieve a dynamic braking effort of 1.4 miles per hour/second with- out major modifications, which would be time consuming. Should higher peak in- verse voltage thyristors become available, there would be no modifications re- quired, simply a substitution of parts. It is estimated that these components will be available within 18 months. Then the equipment would meet the initial specifi- cation. It is the opinion of the task force that, for the demonstration program with top speeds of 120 miles per hour, the 1.1 miles per hour/second dynamic braking effort is sufficient. Provisional acceptance of the 1.1 miles per hour/sec- ond dynamic braking effort is possible with the understanding that, if higher peak inverse voltage thyristors with specified reliability are not available in 2 years, the manufacturer could modify his equipment. PAGENO="0131" TECHNICAL TASK FORCE ORGANIZATION Figure 1. PAGENO="0132" 128 DIrrIcULP~ OP DEAD.HEADING MEraOLINEB INTo WASHINGTON Two metroliner cars were brought to Union Station, Washington, February 8 and were open to the public for inspection. Special invitations were njso sent to Members of Congress. The cars were not operated on their own power as they had not been tested and were there for display purposes only. AT WHAT SPEEDS SHOULD HIGH-SPEED TRAINS HAVE SEAT BELTS? `The nature of train operation is such that violent decelerations are extremely rare. It is practically impossible to brake a train at more than 0.2g and with automatic train controls the probability of collision is very low. Grade crossing collisions seldom result in injury on board the train. This matter has been discussed with personnel of the National Highway Safety Bureau. The present plans for new bus safety standards calls for no passenger seat belts, although a seat belt for the driver niay be required. The high seat backs in the demonstration cars and the resilient plastic backs will prevent the passenger from being-thrown against sharp objects. In the specifications for the demonstration cars, the question of seat belts was considered. The decision not to include them was based upon the estimate of the probability of accidents in which seat belts could prevent injury. EASILY ACCESSIBLE EMERGENCY EXITS ON PASSENGER C~u~s A recent comment on passenger train emergency exits is in the report of the National Trahaportation Safety Board which was released on March 7, 1968. It concerned a Boston & Maine passenger car which collided with a fuel oil truck at an Everett, Mas~, grade crossing. The collision resulted in the death of 11 of the 28 passengers and two of the three crewmen. Smoke and heat from the burning interior of the forward coach section caused the passengers to seek escape through the doorway at the rear end of the train. 1~he doorway was jammed with passengers which prevented the door from open- ing inward. The sealed double-pane windows could not be broken and by the time help arrived- most of the people had been overcome by heat and smoke inhalation. A~uthority for the design of passenger cars does not fall within the province of our regulationsL This, however, would change if the railroad safety bill of 1968, H.R. 16960, were passed. FIRE RETARDATION ON METROLINERS Re fire resistance of interior construction and furnishings, "Metroliners." (a) The wall panels are similar to those used in Budd built MU cars recently put in service on Penn Central and Reading. The material is known as Melamine, which actually melts rather than burn, when subjected to intense heat. (b) The specs for the cars (section S8.10) states as follows: (1) Seat and back cushions shall be of foam material having a fire resist- ance equal or superior to that in class I synthetic foam materials as described ininilitary specification MIL-R-20092-E. (2) Seat covering shall have a fire retarding treatment. Mr. THOMPSON. Is yoi~r Department in any way involved in rapid transit planning? Mr. LANG. No, sir; not directly. Mr. THOMPSON. Strictly high-speed rail between major cities? Mr. LANG. Intercity service. Secretary Bo~n~. We' will be taking over the urban mass transit func- tions, which now are lying in HtTD, on the 1st of July. We have no organization at the present time to deal with that. The reorganization plan provides for the establishment of an Administrator for Urban Mass Transit, who will work on a horizontal coordination with Mr. Lang. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much. E, PROGRAM CATEGORY 5-ST. LAWRENOR SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mr. Secretary, could we hear from. the St. Lawrence Seaway Devel- opment Qrporation on exhibit 0? (Exhibit 0 follows:) ,. PAGENO="0133" 120 Ex~nnIT 0-FAcT Srn~rs-ST. LAw1U~NcE S~AWA~ Th~VJ~LOPMENT CO1~POEATION P~OGflAM FVNDS *In~1udes $L~,QOO,OOO Interest payment. 89-64~-h G~o PAGENO="0134" 130 OR AGENCY - St * Lawrence Seaway 100 ~ve]~p~nent C~rpnratiQfl ~ 200 ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES 300 FISCAL YEAR Unebligated Appropriation or Current Total Total Obligated Carriover Year Request Available or Expended 500 "In house" Inputs _______________ 510 Personnel: __________________ 511 CoinP. ____________ ____________ _$3fl,000 512 ~~eñts 29,000 513 Travel _____________ 520 Expenses: _______________ 521 Communications ______________ 522 Transportation _____________ _~ 6,ooo 523 Printing _____________ _____________ 18,000 ___________ 524 Supplies and Consum- able Materia~__ ______________ ______________ 10,000 580 Capital Equipment ________________ 540 Land and Structur ______________ 541 Additional Investment ________________ 542 _______________ __________ _____________ 7,000 550 ~ Other _____________ ______________ 26,000 ___________ _____________ __________ ___________ 45~1,000 600 Fundsdistributed _____________ 610 Contracts ______________ 620 Grants __________ 630 Loans ________________ 640 Benellts ______________ 650 Other _______________ 660 Total _____________ _____________ ~$531 .000 __________ ~00 Total _____________ Prl~je~ocal _________ 800 Input-output ratio _____________ 810 ~ut -~ - ____________ - 811 1. Output - _____________ - 820 2. Input ___________ - __________ - ___________ - 821 2. Output ______________ - _____________ - 8303.InPut _______ - ______ - 831 . Output ____________ - _________ - ___________ * 840 4. Input ___________ - ___________ - __________ - 841 4. Output - _________ - 850~~put ___~___~ 851 5. Output - _____________ - ___________ - 860 6 Input ______ 861 6. Output ________ ______________ - ____________ - _____________ - 8~0 7.Input __________ - __________ - - 871 7. Output - ___________ - 880 8.Input _________ - - _______ - 881 8. Output ______________ - ______________ - ______________ - Printed far isa at Rouse Generuaaat Activities subcommittee, Chairmen 3aekBrauks 00-441-h urO PAGENO="0135" 131 ~PEPA8TMENT OR A5ENCY 5'ROGItAM SUEPRoORtis bt. Lawrence beaway Operation and Maintenance. Pey~e1opment Corporation nF $eawey CODE CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES S FISCAL YEAR Appropriation or Current Year Request Total Available ~1,~O2.OOn ~~11 ,~5h, ~oo Prior Fiscal Year "In house" inputs Persolinel: Unobilgated Carryover Comp. Benefits Travel Expenses: Communications Transportation Total OblIgated or Expended Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials 1C% Ct Capital Equipme Land anti Additional investment Rents T5cihal Funds Contracts 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 ted Grants c Loans Benefits Other Total Total Input-output ratio 1. Input 1. Output 2. Input 2. Output 3. Input 3. Output 4. Input 4. Output 5. Input 5. Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8. Output Printed for use of House Government ActivitIes Subcommittee, Chairman Jackflrooke *Int~rest Payments S 59-041-h sex PAGENO="0136" 132 ST. LAWRRNCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT O0RPORATION STATUTORY OR ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY Public Law 358, 83d Congress, approved May 13, 1954, authorized the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to construct that part of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the U.S. territory between Lake Ontario and St. Regis, N.Y., to consummate necessary arrangements with the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada relative to construction and operation of the seaway, to cooperate with Canada in the control and operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway and to negotiate with Canada for an agreement on tolls. Public Law 85-108, approved July 17, 1957, authorized the Corporation to participate with the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada in the ownership and operation of a toll bridge company and to provide services and facilities necessary in the maintenance and operation of the seaway. OUTPUT THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVES The Corporation is self-supporting through tolls assessed shippers using the seaway facilities. All operating costs are paid from toll revenues and net operat- ing income returned to the Treasury in payment of interest and principal. Areas served by the seaway will become more Industrialized as a result of cheaper transportation and agricultural production will more economically move to foreign markets. Also djrect access to overseas trade has been and will continue to be enhanced in addition to providing for U.S. defense needs by moving strategic resources for production. OFFIOIAL WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT HAVING DIRECT OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OVER THE PROGRAM Joseph H. McCann, Administrator of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Secretary Bom. I would like to present Joe McCann, who has been with the St. Lawrence Seaway since 1960. He has problems of not enough movement through the seaway. Mr. MCCANN. I too, have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. Why don't you submit it for the record and give us about 3 minutes of what you think is the gist of it ~ Mr. MCCANN. Yes, sir. (The statement fol'ows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. MCCANN, ADMINISTRATOR, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I am pleased to appear here to describe the activities of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Our Corporation was created by Public Law 358, enacted in May of 1954. In 1966, Public Law 89-670 created the Department of Transportation and amended the Seaway Act so that the Administrator of our Corporation now reports directly to the Secretary of Transportation. Previously, the Administrator reported to the President or the head of such agency as he might designate. The Corporation was created to construct deepwater navigation works in the U.S. territory in the international section of the St. Lawrence River. iln addi- tion, the legislation authorized us to operate and maintain these works in co- ordination with the Seaway Authority of Canada. It is with the Canadian Au- thority that we now establish rules and regulations as well as toll rates. There are two key words in the title of our agency; they are corporation and de- velopment. We were organized as a corporation because we are financed by bonds, not appropriated funds, and we are expected to repay our debt with interest, plus operation and maintenance costs, from revenues. Congress believed we should use business techniques in our operating and financial procedures, avoid- ing many of the procedures that relate to the use of appropriated funds. The second key word in our title is development. The Corporation must generate sufficient traffic to meet interest charges plus its normal expenses. PAGENO="0137" 133 Therefore, our Corporation Works with maritime interests throughout the Great Lakes to promote the expanded use of the waterway. In a broad sense, our area of concern consists of a 2,400-mile system of waterways extending from Duluth, Minn., to the Atlantic. Our objectives `are I~o obtain maximum tonnage through the waterway so that we can repay our bonded debts and, equally important, con- tribute to the economic vitality of the Great Lakes region. Within our organization are 163 full-time employees. Of these, all but 35 are em- ployed in the operation and maintenance of facilities. The investment of the U.S. Government in the St. Lawrence Seaway is $131.7' million. In addition, the Corporation has deferred approximately $11.6 million in interest charges which brings the total bond and interest debt to $143.3 milliOn. In 1967, the Seaway Corporation earned from tolls more than $6 million. This represents 27 percent of the total tolls collected by the Canadian and American agencies. Our total expenses, including depreciation, came to $8.8 million. Our accounting system differs from that of the normal Government agenc~y. We are subject to the Government Corporation Control Act which ~provides `for con- gressional control of our financial operations through annual audits by the General Accounting Office. Our accounting system is on an accrued cost basis, rather than an obligation basis. The Comptroller General, in referring to our system several years ago, stated that we had an excellent accounting system and internal audit program. Interest repayment is a major program of the Corporation. In 1967, the Cor- poration paid the Treasury $4 million. In 1966, we had paid $5.2 million toward our interest requirements. Since 1959, the Corporation has paid the Treasury a total of more than $29 million in interest payments. A second major program of the Corporation is the rehabilitation of Eisenl~ower and Snell Locks. It has been anticipated that more than $13 million will be spent to complete the rehabilitation program. Legislation has been submitted to Congress requesting that this program be financed by appropriated funds. The problem includes replacing deteriorated concrete and remedying structural cracking at both locks. The Corporation also has sough~,t to stimulate promotional programs among the Great Lakes ports. In support of these programs, the Corporation has lit- erature, motion pictures, speakers, and technical-aid materials in distribution throughout the world. Another major program is the expansion of the seaway shipping season. Since the opening of the seaway, we have moved our official closing `date from November 30 to December 6. While our official opening date remains* April 15, we seek to open as close to AprIl 1 as possible each year. Further, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized by the Public Works Committee of the U.S. Senate to study the possibilities of year-round navigation as well as the need to build additional facilities. In summary, I would like to emphasize that the seaway operates with funds it collects from the payment of tolls by vessels using i'ts facilities. From a ton- nage standpoint, `the waterway is nearing its goal of 50 million tons `and should surpass the figure either this year or next. Financially, we need an additional 25 percent in revenue to fully meet our obligation. However, in our 9 years of operation's, we have always covered all of our operating expenses while, at the same time, returning the impressive amount of more than $29' million to the U~S. Treasury. Mr. MCCANN. The Corporation was created to construct deepwater navigation works in the U.S. territory of the St. Lawrence. Now tha~t we are in operation, we work in close cooperation with the Canadian Seaway Authority of Canada. With `them we establi'sh rules and regu- lations `as well as toll rates. In the Corporation there are two key words-corporation and development, We are organized as a corpora- tion because we are financed by bonds. We do not operate on appro- priated fund's. We are expected to repay our debt with interest within 50 years. Mr. BROOKS. Are they tax-free bonds? Mr. MCCANN. Yes, sir; they `are Treasury bond's and we borrow money from the `Treasury at the current rate of interest. Then the second key word is development. We must generate sufficient traffic PAGENO="0138" 134 to meet these interest charges plus our noimal ex~penses. Within our organization as of April 30, there were 160 full-time permanent em- ployees. All but 35 of these are employed in the operation and main- tenance of the facility. In 1967 the Corporation earned from tolls a little more than $6 million. This represents 27 percent of the total of the tolls collected by the Canadian and American agencies. Our total expenses, including depreciation, came to $8.8 million. I think our ac- counting system differs from that of the normal Government agency. We are subject to the Government Corporation Control Act which provides for congressional control of our financial operations through annual audits by the GAO. Our accounting system is on an accrued-cost basis rather than on an obligation basis. Of course, the interest repayment is a major program of the Corporation. In 1967 the Corporation paid the Treasury $4 million. In 1966 we paid $5.2 million toward our interest, requirements. Since 1959 the Corporation has paid the Treasury a total of more than $29 million in interest payments. One of our major problems with the seaway now is the rehabilitation of the Eisenhower and Snell locks. It has been anticipated that more than $13 million will have to be spent to complete this rehabilitation program. Legislation has been submitted to Congress requesting that `this pro- gram be financed by appropriated funds. The problem includes replac- ing deteriorated concrete and remedying some structural defects. Mr. BROOKS. Would you give us for the record an analysis why that concrete is deteriorating? I would not want to have any misconception that the $29 million they paid in interest to the Federal Government was not what you call a net profit, since we had borrowed that money and given it to the seaway for its use. Mr. MCCANN. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. They were paying us for what we paid for the money. Mr. MCCANN. That is right. Mr. BROOKS. Are they making a profit now? Mr. MCCANN. No, sir. We are running behind now. In order to break even, which is what we are attempting to do, we would need about a 25-percent increase in either revenues or traffic at this moment. Mr. BROOKS. Traffic has not been increasing? Mr. MCCANN. Yes; we are going up very rapidly now. We are going up faster than was anticipated. We started from a lower base than was anticiapted so this threw us behind. Mr. BROOKS. There' is one other problem that I wish you would answer for us for the record-that is, the controversy over damages in New York from overflow and wave action as ships pass through the channel. There was mention of that last week at a hearing in New York. If you would give us an analysis of that we would appreciate it. Mr. MCCANN. I think this would be the port of New York which we would have no connection with. We are strictly the St. Lawrence Seaway Inland Waterway. Secretary BOYD. I think the Coast Guard might be the more appro~ pri'ate agency to provide tha~t. Mr. BROOKS.. Very well. Please give us an analysis of that. (The information requested follows:) PAGENO="0139" 135 Question. Would you give us for the record an cmalysis why that concrete is deteriorating? Answer. As yet, there are no substantiated theories that explain the cleteriora- tion problem completely. The comprehensive investigation conducted by the Corps of Engineers has established that the terminal cause of deterioration is severe frost action; however, the root activity which rendered the concrete vulnerable to frost action has not yet been clearly delineated. There are several factors which singly or in some combination could have acted to render the concrete vulnerable to frost action, and study of these by the Corps of Engineers Waterways Experi- ment Station in Vicksburg, Miss., is continuing. The Corps of Engineers has reached the following tentative conclusions: (a) Deterioration was the result of frost damage. (b) For reasons not yet comple~teiy understood, the concrete was rendered vulnerable to frost damage. (1) The severe climatic environment in the Massena, N.Y., area, where the U.S. seaway locks are located; and (2) the use of natural cement-portland cement blend and the accompanying slower attainment of minimum strength and frost-resistant levels are being considered as ~ontributing factors. Whether this vulnerability was due to early~age freezing, freezing after the first season of subjection to hydrostatic pressures, or a combination of these, or to some other single fq etor or combination of factors must yet be determined. Question. There is one other problem that I wish yoi~ would answer for the record. That is the controversy over damages in New York from overflow o~nd wave action as ships pass through the channel. Answer. A public hearing on the speed of large vessels on the St. Lawrence Seaway was held on June 3, 1968, at Alexandria Bay, N.Y., by Congressman Rob- ert C. McEwen. Top-level representatives of the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Seaway Corporation, the Canadian Seaway Authority, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern Judicial District of New York were in attendance to hear the complaints of shore- property owners along the international section of the St. Lawrence fliv~r from St. Regis, N.Y., westward to Cape Vincent, at the head of the river and the outlet of Lake Ontario. In addition to numerous complaints from the Thousand Islands area, complaints were heard from Wilson H~ill residents and the St. Regis Indian Reservation. The Federal officials explained their various roles in controlling vessels through the seaway and responded openly to all matters and questions raised by the hearing participants. A great deal was learned on all sides concern- ing the problems presented by speeding vessels through the seaway and possible means of control. A ipimber of witnesses stated that the problems were created by a small percentage of seaway vessels and that the situation was already much improved in the 1968 navigation season. Of course, these are general observations without benefit of transcript review. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN THE ST. LAWRRNCE RIVER In response to complaints from property owners a review of the speed regula- tions for the St. Lawrencg~ River has been conducted with other Federal ageni~ies having responsibilities in this area. The waters of the St. Lawrence River on the U.S. side of the international boundary are under the general supervision of the District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo, N.Y. The commander, 9th Coast Guard District, has been designated in title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, section 207.611, as the duly authorized representative of the district engineer for enforcement of the vessel speed limit regulations. On December 13, 1967, the 4istriet engineer agreed with the Commander, 9th Coast Guard District, that direct meaSures by the Coast Guard to detect and suppress violations of the vessel speed limit regulations on the St. Lawrence River would be more effective than the procedure Previously followed by reporting violations through the chain of cotamand to the district engineer. This former procedure was unsatisfactory and ineffectual because of the delays Involved in presenting the evidence and details of the viola- tion to an authority with power to act against an offender. This direct action by the Coast Guard should be instrumental in eventually reducing th~ number of violations. The district engineer and the Commander, 9th Coast Guard District, also agreed to review from time to time the effectiveness of enforcement measures and to explore other related matters. A conference was held in Syracuse, N.Y., on November 13, 1967, to explore solutions to this problem. The participants included representatives of the St. PAGENO="0140" 136 Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the U.S. attorney, and the Coast Guard. The conference agreed to pursue a number of activities, including the following: "a. Notices to shipmasters written in their own language clearly setting forth the speed regulation of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, 207.611(b), and also urging their cooperation in maintaining vessel speeds throughout the St. Law-j rence Seaway low enough to prevent damaging shore property should be drafted and given wide dissemination. This effort may be undertaken by both the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the st. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation and Canadian counterparts. "b. Notices should be prepared and transmitted to all U.S. pilots clearly setting forth their responsibility to see that ships that they are navigating comply with speed regulations. They should be advised of the consequences, both administrative and criminal, for noncompliance with the regulations. "c. SImilar notices should be prepared and distributed to U.S. operators of tour boats. "d. Arrangements should be established for advising Oanadian pilots an~ tour boat operators of the criminal consequences which may attend violation by them of U.S. speed regulations." Local notice to mariners and a notice to operators of small passenger vessels for hire on the St. Lawrence River have been issued by the Commander, 9th Coast Guard District, advising of the vessel speed limit regulations and caution- ing vessel operators, masters, and pilots to navigate consistent with these regulations. The Coast Guard has taken several additional steps directed to effective en- forcement of existing speed regulations and, at the same' time, to remind masters and pilots of applicable speed regulations. On May 8, 1968, a doppler speed control radar was installed for evaluation at Alexandria Bay Coast Guard Station. The preliminary evaluation of its use appears favorable. It is planned to continue the evaluation and development of this device looking to early operational use. Speed signs have also been posted at `several prominent locations along the riverbanks where speed restrictions apply. The Commander, 9th Coast Guard Dis- / trict, has sent letters to the Great Lakes Pilots Association and other users of the St. Lawrence Seaway in an effort to elicit their cooperation in avoiding excessive speeds not only in areas where speed limits apply but also in areas where no speed limits are presently established. In an effort to alleviate the effects of the wake from the Coast Guard rescue boats at Alexandria Bay, a smaller craft is being assigned to the station. Although this new craft will have relatively high speed, the physical characteristics of the boat are such that it will generate considerably less wake. A high priority is assigned to the delivery of this boat. An information and educational program is also being developed directed to the recreational boating pub1i~, calling attention to the speed regulations and the adverse wave effects on shore property and other craft. And, finally, enforce- ment is being continued through patrols and in conjunction with other assigned missions to the fullest extent of the capability of forces assigned in the area. A review of administration of speed violation reports is also underway, particularly with respect to reckless and negligent operation of a motorboat and negligence of licensed U.S. merchant marine personnel. These actions, to- gether with those of other interested parties in the St. Lawrence River area, should significantly reduce, if not virtually eliminate, the hazard to life and property caused by excessive vessel speed. Mr. McCAN~t. Then as to your question for the reason for deteriora- tion, we do not have a reason yet. We are working on this. Mr. BROOKS. You are still looking for that inspector? Is there anything further, Mr. McCann? Mr. MCCANN. No; I think we have covered everything. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much for your courtesy in being here. F. PROGRAM CATEGORY 6-NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Mr. Secretary, could we hear from the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Mr. O'Connell? Exhibit P covers this area. (Exhibit P follows:) PAGENO="0141" 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 ~30 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 880 831 840 841 137 Ezi~trorr P-FACT SIIEETS-NATIONAL TflAI~SPO1tivA~XON SA]~EDT ~OA~RI) PiloGRA~ FUNDS DEPARTMENtOR AGENCY * PROGRAM SUBPROGRAM National £ransportation Safety 1~ard Summary CODE CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR Unobligated Carryover Appropriation or Current Year Request Total Available Total Obligated or Expended ,. ~. "In house" inputs Personnel: Comp. ~$3,l5l.60o 23)#,)+pO 255,000 103 ~900 13,000 70,000 Benefits Travel Expenses: Communications Transportation Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment Land and Structures Additional Investment Rents ~t~C Other - 21,000 20,000 6 ,000 1,100 226,000 ~~102,000 ~ ~ , ~ -___________ . Total Fu~tds distributed Contracts Grants Loans ` Benefits Other 88,000* Total 28,000 Total Z~j3o,ooo Prior Plural Year Input-output ratio 1.Input 1. Output - 2. Input - - 2.Output - 3. Input - - - 3.Output - - - - - 4.Input - - lIMP 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 4. Output 5. Input 5. Output 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8. Output 8Ps41-h ups PAGENO="0142" 188 DEPARTMENT oR A~ICY 1~ROGRAM - SDBPROGRAM L\Iational Transportation ?rogram Execution and Spfety ~oard S~ipport CODE CODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR Uoqbligated Carryover Appropriation or Current Year Request Total Acallable Total Obligated or Expended "In house" inputs Personnel: Comp. Beitefib Travel Expenses Communications Transportation Printing itl2k rnn F~ 700 (`10 Supplies and Consum- able Materials - Capital Equipment - Land and Structures - Additional Investment - ~Other Servic s 1 - con l7~ 700 Total 100 200 p300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 528 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620' 630 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 380 881 2 (`100 Funds distributed 10 ~(Y'1 Conttacts Grants Loans 7A non Benefits Other Total Total Input-output ratio - - - - - 1.Input - 1.Output - aL~,ooo Prior Fiscal Year 2. Input 2. Outpul 3. Input 3.Outpul 4. Input 4. Outpul 5. Input 5. Outpul 6. Input 6. Outpul 7. Input 7, Output 8. Input 8. Output Printed for sue of Rouse GoveramentA,tivltles Subcommittee. Chairmen JaekBroska PAGENO="0143" 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 524 530 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 830 831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 139 DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY Nat1a1Tr~nspor~ation CODE PROGRAM SUBPROGRAM ~ CO E CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES . FISCAL YRAR Unobligated Carryover Appropriation or Current Year Request Total Available ~ $333,500 25,200 Total Oblig$ed or Expended "In house" inputs Personnel: Comp. Benefits Travel Expenses: Communications 15,100 ` - 1,500 Transportation 100 Printing 100 Supplies and Consum- able Materifils 300 Capital Equipment 200 Land and Structures Additional Investment Rents Total $376,000 Funds distributed Contracts Grants Loans Benefits Other Total Total $376,000 Prior Fiscal Year Input-output ratio 1.Input LOutput 2. Input 2. Output S. Input - - - - - - * - - - - -~____ - - - - - - - ` Output Input - --_________ Output - - , Input .Output - 6. input .- 6. Output - .- 7.Input - 7.Output - 8.Input - 8.Output . - Printed for esue of House Government Activities Subcommittee, Chairman Jack Brooks 09-841-b GpO PAGENO="0144" 140 PROGRAM ExEcuTIoN AND SuPPoRT Question 1. What is the statutory or administrative authority for this program? Answer 1. The authority to conduct this program emanates from the Depart- inent of Transportation Act of 1966, which created the Safety Board, and the specific delegations of authority from the Chairman of the Safety Board to the executive director. Question 2. A brief and concise statement, not in eecess of two typewritten pages of output the Government receives as the result of eependitures in ta~ funds listed on the fact sheet for that particular program. Answer 2. The output of the program execution and support activity includes management direction in the form of policy pronouncements, procedures, in- structions, budget and financial material including budget documents, all per- sonnel material, processing, printing, and distribution of all Safety Board documents, and a wide range of special projects dealing with overall manage- ment and administration. Due to the wide range of products produced in this program, specific quantifica- tion would be very difficul't. However, the following are representaGve examples of output. The budget officer, in addition to preparing all material associated with the bud~et process, is responsible for developing a wide range of budgetary proce- dures for control of funds; answers replies from a wide variety of sources regard- ing budget matters; and prepares written instructions for Safety Board use. The personnel manager must process all personnel actions, prepare procedures neces- sary to implement the personnel program, interview and recruit personnel, and assist the executive director in a wide range of special studies. Management direc- tion requires the formulation of a wide range of policy and procedural docu- ments and studies. All tasks associated with the procurement of equipment and associated administrative services for the entire Safety Board must be performed. Documents and records services, including the processing and servicing of approximately 5,000 accident files per year, answering approximately 10,000 acci- dent inquiries and the printing and distribution of approximately 90,000 copies of various Safety Board publications and documents per year. This output is developed, coordinated, and reviewed by the executive director, who is responsible for overall management direction. Question 3. What is the name and title of the official ha'ving direct operati'vi~g responsibility over the program? Answer 3. Ernest Weiss, executive director. PAGENO="0145" 141 PóLIc~ FORMTJLATION, DECISION, LEGAL, AND INrOEMATION Question 1. What is the statutory or administrative authority for this program f Answer 1. Authority for this program activity emanates from the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Question 2. A brief and eo~wise statement, not in eocess of two typewritten pages, of output the Government receives as the result of ewpenditures in ta~v funds listed on the fact sheet for that particular program. Answer 2. The output of the decision, legal, and information activity includes a broad range of materials, such as approved Safety Board documents, legal decisions, opinions, orders, and other legal documents, such as contracts, comments on legislation, proposed and final rules, etc., prepared by the Office of General Counsel; and press releases, speeches, articles, and other public affairs material prepared and released by the Office of Public Affairs. Specific quantification and measurement of end products for this activity Is difficult; however, the following is offered as examples of the approximate number of major end products that will be produced in fiscal year 1968; The five-member Safety Board will bear, review, and approve approximately 120 major end products, including accident reports, procedural documents, rules, appeals, and so forth. In addition, they will be required to make numerous speeches, participate in Safety Board hearings, and conduct a broad range of duties conimensurate with the station of Presidential appointees. It is estimated that the Office of General Counsel (four attorneys) will prepare and execute approximately 47 opinions and orders; will review ap- proximately 14 initial accident reports, and will prepare approximately 225 associated major legal type end products. The Office of Public Affairs will write and release approximately 100 major speeches, press releases and, other related documents, and provide public in- formation support to the Safety Board at all public bearings and at major aircraft sites. In addition, they will respond to many requests for information and perform other public affairs activities. Question 3. What is the name and title of the official having direct `operating responsibility over the program? Answer 3. Joseph J. O'Connell, Jr., chairman, National Transportation Safety Board. 21-528 O-69-pt~ 11-10 PAGENO="0146" 142 DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY IROG8AM SUBPROGRAM National Transportation Aviation Accident Investi - Sefety Bganl gation & Prevention CODE MODE CODE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL TEAR "In house"_inputs Personnel: Comp. Benefits Unobilgated Carryover Appropriation or Current Year itequest Total Available ~J2,382 ,800 172,300 37,700 11 ,l~OQ 2,200 18,500 ~ 1,i0~ 150,000 $2,95L~,ooo . Total Obligated or Expended Travel Expenses: , , Communications Transportation Printing Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equipment Land and Structures Additional Investment Rents E~UlC Other ~ata1 . Funds_distributed ~Contracts Grants Loans Benefits Other Total Total 28,000* 28,000 $2,982,000 100 200 300 400 500 510 511 512 513 520 521 522 523 524 580 540 541 ~42 550 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 100 800 810 811 820 821 830 1831 840 841 850 851 860 861 870 871 880 881 3. Input Prior Fiscal Year 5. Input 5. Output 8. Output _____________ - _____________ - __________ - - 4._Input _____________ - _____________ - _____________ - - 4.Output _________ - _________ - _________ - 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 6. Input 8. Input 8. Output Printed for use of flouse Government Activities Subcommittee. Chairmen JackBrooks ~Trust Fund, - PAGENO="0147" 143 AvIATIoN ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND PREVENTION Question 1. What is the statutory or administrative authority for this program? Answer 1. The authority for this program is derived from title VII of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Question 2. A brief and concise statement, not in ecocess of two typewritten pages, of output the Government receives as the result of e~rpenditures in ta~v funds listed on the fact sheet for that partciular program. Answer 2. The output of the Aviation Acident Investigation and Prevention activity is in the form of: (a) accident reports publicly distributed containing the probable cause of the accident; (b) air safety recommendations for regu- latory or other actions regarding safety of flight; (c) Safety promotional ma- terial publicly distributed: (d) Accident statistics; (e) Special safety studies. The Bureau will investigate approximately 1,000 aircraft accidents in fiscal year 1968. It will analyze and determine the probable cause of approximately 6,000 aIrcraft accidents. The Bureau will produce about 6,000 accident reports for public distribution, approximately 35 safety recommendations, and an annual set of statistics and special statistical studies. Question 3. What is the name and title of the official having direct operative responsibility over the program? Answer 3. Mr. Bobbie H. Allen, Director, Bureau of Aviation Safety. PAGENO="0148" 144 bRTM~$t.OR AGENCY Natljna.L ir%nsPortatiOfl afet~ ~ ~PBOGXbAM burlace . Accident S SUBPROGRAM ~ J?revSntlOr4 COD~ voles I ANALYSIS AND CONTROL CODES FISCAL YEAR t1~obBgated Carryover Appropriation or Current Year Request Total Total Obligated Available or Expended $162,200 -- 11, 30Q 3,500 . "In house" inputs Personnel: Comp. flenefits Travel Expenses: Communications Transportation Printing ient ures estment Supplies and Consum- able Materials Capital Equ Land and St Additions Rents Total Funds Contracts Grants 100 200 800 400 500 510 511 512 518 520 521 522 528 524 580 540 541 542 550 600 610 620 680 640 650 660 700 800 810 811 820 821 830 881 840 841 850 881 860 861 870 871 880 881 Loans Benefits ~177,000 Other Total Total Input-output ratio 1. Input 4ti 77 (sCiCi 1. Output 2. Input 2. Output 3. Input Prior Fiscal Year 3. Output 4. Input 4. Output 5. Input 5. OutpUt 6. Input 6. Output 7. Input 7. Output 8. Input 8. Output Printed fsr see of House Goversesest Activitie Subcommittee, Chairman Jack Breaks PAGENO="0149" 145 BUREAU oi~' SURFACE ThANspoR~r4LTIoN SAFETY Question 1. What is the statutorij or administrative authority for this programt Answer 1. The authorit~r for conducting this ptogram is the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Question 2~ A brief and concise statement, not in e~ocess of two typewritten pages, of output the Government receives as the result of ea'penditures in taa funds listed on the fact sheet for that particular program. Answer 2. The output of the Bureau of Surface Transportation Safety is in the form of formal accident reports, recommendations for improving surface transportation safety and special studies and reports on the subject. The Bureau of Surface Transporta~jo~ Safety will prepare approximately 15 accident reports and studies in fiscal year 1968. Question 3. What is the name and title of the official having direct operative responsibility over the program? Answer 3. Mr. Henry H. Wakeland, Director, Bureau of Surface Transporta~ tion. PAGENO="0150" ~uuu U~H UUHUU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O~t4~) ~. t~o t~j ~ ~ ~ ~ Ufl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -~1~~u ~ auuu~ ~ ~ ~!~I* ~tI~ ~~r' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (D~~ ~ Ui m~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~r~- ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ (D~ C) - - - - - - ~ (g(D ~ ~ rip~ ~: ~ Uio ~ C) g~ Co ~C) C) ~:H-~ - ~ - , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~a\ ~ ~ LI_L ~H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ §~ k ~ PAGENO="0151" 147 CERTIFICAPE AND LICENSE APPEALS Question 1. What is the statutory or administrative authority for this program? Answer 1. The authority for conducting this program emanates from the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and the Depatment of Transportation Act of 1966. Question 2. A brief and concise statement, not in ececess of two typewritten pages, of output the Government receives as the result of e~vpenditures in tar funds listed on the fact sheet for that particular program. Answer 2. The output of the certificate and license appeals activity is in the form of Examiners' initial decisions, orders, and other related legal docu- ments. The five hearing examiners will have approximately 210 appeals presented for hearing in fiscal year 1968. Question 3. What is the name and title of the official having direct operative responsibility over the program? Answer 3. Joseph C. Caldwell, Jr., Chief Hearing Examiner, Office of Hearing Examiners. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir; this is Mr. O'Connell, who had a long, distinguished career in ~the Federal Government, starting with the Treasury Department, becoming Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and now, after a lapse of a few years, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Mr. BRooKs. He is so good they got him back. We are glad to see you. I Your statement will be inserted in the record in full and we~would appreciate your highlighting it for the committee. (The statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMIL~NT OF JOSEPH J. O'CONNELL, JR., CHAIRMAN. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Joseph J. O'Connell, Jr., Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. The National Transportation Safety Board, headed by five members appointed by the President, was created when Congress passed the Transportation Act of 1966, which simultaneously established the Nation's first Department of Transportation. However, unlike the other functioning segments of the Federal Government that were brought together under the Department of Transportation, the new Safety Board is autonomous. The act states specifically that the Safety Board, in the exercise of its functions, powers, and duties, shall be "* * * independent of the Secretary (of Transportation) and other offices and officers of the Depart~ ment." Furthermore, the Safety Board is directed to report to the Congress annually on the conduct of its functions under the act and also to make recom~ mendations for legislation as it may deem appropriate. The new Safety Board is charged with a continuing review of general safety in all modes of U.S. transportation. This includes marine, railroad, highway, and pipeline functions as well as all civil aviation. The overall objective of the Safety Board is to improve the safety of the American traveler. The Safety Board came into operating existence on April 1, 1967, at which time it took over the entire personnel and procedures of the Bureau of Safety of the Civil Aeronautics Board. The Board seeks to carry out its mission in five basic program areas. Briefly, these five areas can be summarized as follows: a. Policy formulation, decision, legal, and information.-The objective of this program is to provide for the general formulation of policies and programs on a Safety Board-wide basis. This includes the formulation and development of policy and program objectives by the five-member board, providing legal advice and assistance to all Safety Board components; rendering decisions on matters of business presented to the five-member board and providing information serv- ices concerning the Safety Board's activities. In fiscal year 1968 a dollar cost of $l~76,O00 and 22 positions were authorized for this program. The major workload generated by this program in fiscal year 1968 will include: the hearing of approximately 120 major end products including accident reports, PAGENO="0152" 148 procedural documents, rtiles, certificate appeals, etc., by our five-member Safety Board. In addition,, they will make numerous speeches, participate in safety Board hearings, and conduct a broad range oj~ duties. The Office of General Counsel will prepare and execute approximately 47 opinions and orders, review approximately 14 accident reports and will prepare approximately 225 associated major legal type documents. The Office of Public Affairs will write and release approximately 100 major speeches, pres~ releases, and other related documents. Of major interest to us in this area is the fact that the five board members participate fully in the development, review and approval of the wide variety of policy and program decisions emanating from the Safety Board, thus assuring a coordinated approach with regard to the development of our policies and programs. b. Program e~vecution and support.-The objective of this program is to pro- vide the resources necessary for the overall management coutrol, execution, and day-to-day operation of Safety Board-wide management programs. This central- ized management direction results in a consolidation of critical administrative and management functions in one program, thus reducing redundancy and elim- inating waste. In fiscal year 1008 a dollar cost of $414,000 and 18 positions were authorized for this program. The major workload generated by this program in fiscal year 1968 will include: Preparation by the budget officer of a wide range of mate,~rial associated with the budget process; preparation by the personnel manager of all documents, reports, letters and paperwork actions associated with the Safety `Board's personnel program; a wide range of documents, reports, directives, etc., associated with the management direction of the Safety Board. In addition, approximately 5,000 accident files are processed, approximately 10,000 accident inquiries are answered, approximately 200,000 pieces of mail are processed, and approximately 90,000 copies of various Safety Board publications and documents will be printed and distributed. Of major interest to us in this area is the fact that the small administrative staff assigned to this program have the opportunity to fully coordinate and integrate the major management and administrative functions of the Safety Board into a unified management program under strong central direction. c. Aviation accident investigation and prevention.-The objectives of this pro- gram is to assure the American traveler the optimum degree of safety possible in aircraft usage and to vigorously promote accident prevention and safety promotion activities. These objectives are accomplished by investigating civil aircraft accidents, making public reports, concerning said accidents and their causes, by promulgating safOty recommendations intended to prevent similar occurrences, and by con4ucting special studies and projects which will further an awareness in accident prevention and safety promotion. In fiscal year 1968 a dollar cost Of $2,954,000 and 187 positions were authorized. The major workload generated by this program in fiscal year 1968 will Include the investigation of approximately 1,000 aircraft accidents, the analysis and determination of probable causes of approximately 6,000 aircraft accidents, the production of approximately 6,000 accident reports for public distribution, approx- imately 35 safety recommendations; and numerous statistical compilations and special studies. Of major interest to us in this area is the fact that this program produced 35 specific recoipmendations in 1967 which in turn will improve the level of aircraft safety for the American flying public. A summary list of `these recom- mendations is provided fec the record. d. $urf ace accident investigation and prevention.-The objective of this pro- gram is to assure the American travqler in all surface modes of transportation the optimum degree of safety possible and to vigorously promote accident preven- tion and safety promotion. The objectives are accomplished by concentrating on the review and analysis of selective and significant accidents; that is, those accidents which are technically unusual or catastrophic in nature, and which are investigated by other Government agencies. Once the review and analysis are completed, determination of probable cause and safety recommendations are developed. In fiscal year 1968, a dollar cost of $177,000 and 22 positions were authorized. The major workload generated by this program in `fiscal year 1968 will include the analysis of approximately 15 major surface mode accidents, and the prepara- tion and distributjon of reports and safety recommendations associated With these accidents. PAGENO="0153" 149 Of major Interest to us in this area is the fact that this progrim produced 31 recommendations in 1967 which in turn will improve the level of surface trans- Portation safety. A summa~~y of these recommendations is bOing provided for the record. e. Certificate and license appeals-The objective of this program is to comply with title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, in conducting formal hearings and such other proceedings as may be required. The great bulk of these proceedings include the hearing of safety enforcement actions involving petitions from applicants denied various types of certificates, by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. The objectives of this program are accomplished by providing respondents a hearing before a qualified hearing examiner and rendering a decision based on the facts of the case. In fiscal year 1968, a dollar cost of $181,000 and 10 positions were authorized. The major workload generated by this program in fiscal year 1968 will include the, presentation for hearing and the processing of approximately 210 appeals from FAA certificate actions. Our total budget for fiscal year 1968 is $4,102,000 and 259 positions. With these resources we will have contributed to transportation safety through the process described above. Some recent examples of recommendations in the areas of aviation, marine and railroad safety, in the form of letters to other agencies, are available if the committee would like to include them in the record. Mr. O'CoNNEia~. Thank you, sir. The Transportation Board, headed by five members appointed by the President, was created by the Trans- portation Act of 1966. Somewhat unlike the other functional segments of the Federal Government which were brought together under the Transportation Act, the new Safety Board is autonomous. The act specifically requires that the Board in the exercise of its powers, duties, and functions do so indepe~ident of the Secretary of Transportation and the other offices and officers of the Department. I emphasize that because it is in the statute, it does tend to color our relations with the other elements of the Department; not to say they are not completely harmonious, but the statute does require us, because of the nature of our job, to operate one step removed from the modal agencies in particular. Mr. BRooKs. Do they handle your budget? Mr. O'CONNELL. No. I might say in that connection, we quickly agreed with the Secretary that the two detailed matters which were rather important to be kept with us in furtherance of that independence was our budget and our hiring of personnel. So our budget is not reviewed in the Department. Our personnel actions are not. Mr. BROOKS. I)oes Mr. Dean audit you? Mr. O'CONNELL. Only to the extent we ask him to. Mr. BROOKS. Do you ever ask him.? Mr. O'CONNEt~L. Yes; we are going to use that agency for help. We are using a great deal of the support activities of the Department. You touched on one of the two specific areas in which both the Department and we have been quite meticulous, and that is budget and personnel. The new Safety Board is chafged with a continuing review of general safety of all modes of U.S. transportation. This includes marine, railroad, highway, and pipeline functions as well as civil aviation. The overall objective of the Safety Board is to improve the safety of the American traveler. The Safety Board came into existence on April 1, 1967, at which time it took over the entire personnel of the Bureau of Safety of the Civil Aeronautics Board. The Board seeks to carry out its functions in five basic program areas. Briefly, these are as follows: One, policy formulation, decision, and legal information. That includes the Board itself, its immediate PAGENO="0154" 150 staff, our General Counsel's Office~ and Public Information Office. That represents 22 positions and a total yearly cost of $376,000. Program support and education which is basically the management control and execution of day-to-day operation of the Board, constitutes $414,000 of cost but only 18 positions. A great share of that total cost isprinting and other services, which make that total $414,000. The third area is accident investigation-aviation accident investi- gation and prevention. The objective of this program is to assure the American traveler the optimum degree of saf~ty and to promote acci- dent prevention. These objectives are accomplished mainly by inves- tigating civil aviation accidents, making public reports concerning such accidents and their causes and by promulgating safety regula- tior[sintended to prevent similar occurrences, as well as by conducting special studies and projects which will further make people aware of accident prevention and safety promotion. This activity in 1968 con- stituted a dollar cost of $2,954,000 and 187 positions. The fourth area is our surface accident investigation and prevention work. The objective is to assure the American tr~ive1er in all surface modes of transportation the optimum degree of safety possible and vigorously promote accident prevention. The objectives are to concentrate on review and analysis of signif- icant accidents; that is, those accidents which are technically unusual, and which are investigated by other Government agencies. Once the review and analysis is completed the determination of probable cause and safety recommendat4ons are developed by our Board. In fiscal 1968, $177,000 and 22 positions were involved. The major workload generated in this program will include the analysis of 15 major sur- face mode accidents and the preparation and distribution of reports and safety recommendations associated with these accidents. Of major interest to us in this area is the fact that this program produced 31 recommendations in 1967, which in turn we believe will improve the level of surface transportation safety. A summary of these recommendations is available and I would with your permission offer it for the record. (The information appears in appendix C.) Mr. O'CONNELL. The last area which is rather small but important is the certificate and license appeal. The objective of this program is to comply with title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 in conducting formal hearings in such proceedings as may be required. The great bulk of these proceedings include the hear~n~ of safety enforcement cases involving petitions from applicants denied various types of cer- tificates. The objectives of these programs are accomplished by pro- viding respondents a hearing and running a decision based upon the facts of the case. In fiscal 1968 this area cost us $181,000 and there are 10 positions involved. Five are hearing examiners. Our total budget for fiscal 1968 was $4,102,000, and total authorized positions of 259. With these resources we have contributed as best we could to transportation safety through the processes described above. Some' recent examples in aviation, marine, and railroad safety in the forms of letters to other agencies I have with me, and with your per- mission I would like to offer them for the record. PAGENO="0155" 151 Mr. BROOKS. Without objection. (The information appears in appendix D.) Mr. O'CONNELL. That completes my statement. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much. Do you feel that your exper- tise gathered in the CAB in meticulously investigating accidents and. safety procedures has been helpful as you look into accidents and safety matters affecting other modes of transportation? `Mr. O'CONNELL. We have found that is true. We cannot transport all of the techniques and all of the things that are available, but some of them are. Some of the basic techniques are needed and have not, in all frankness, been as much used as they should have been in other modes of transportation. Quite recently, we conducted a rather unusual type of investigation of a catastrophic bridge collapse over the Ohio River where 46 people were killed. We used the technique we use in aviation accidents includ- ing the reconstruction of the bridge in mockup, and we even bor- rowed one of our aviation experts in order to help us organize the in- vestigative team in investigating a bridge collapse. That is one ex- ample, and I hope as time goes on we will develop more. Mr. BROOKS. Are there any questions, Mr. Thompson? Mr. THOMPSON. I have no questions. I would like to say that I have been tremendously impressed with the old CAB and the way they would go in and investigate aircraft ac- cidents and particularly the way they would reconstruct the pattern of events, how they occurred and what failed, from the meager evidence that was available. I think certainly you have done a superb job in pointing out what has failed in many instances. This enabled the manufacturers and other people to take the neces- sary precautions to see that it does not happen again. I am delighted to see that you are able to use this in other fields, such as the bridge collapse. Mr. O'CONNELL. As you know, we inherited a good and going organi- zation from the CAB and we are trying to follow what they were doing. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. O'Connell, we certainly enjoyed having you here and we appreciate your testimony. Mr. O'CONNELL. Thank you. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Secretary, I want to submit to you for the record some questions from Congressman Moorhead who is particularly interested in the status of the mass transportation proposal: where it will fit into the organizational chart, who will be in charge, under whom or what will research on mass transit be handled, and finally, how will mass transit in a particular city be related to general city* planning within that city? Secretary Bom. I would be happy to provide answers for the record. (The questions submitted by Mr. Moorhead follow:) 1. What is the status of the urban mass transit program? Answer. On February 26, 1968, the President submitted to the Congress "Re- organization Plan No. 2 of 1968" providing for the transfer of the urban mass transportation program to the Secretary of Transportation. No action was taken to disapprove the plan by either House of Congress within 60 days of the trans- mittal of the plan. Thus the provisions of the reorganization plan will take effect at the close of business on June 30, 1968, the date set out in the plan under au- thority of section 906(c) of title 5 of the United States Code. PAGENO="0156" 152 2. Where is it to fit into the Department of Transportation? Answer. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968 establishes an Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration within the Department of Transportation. The Ad- ministration is to be beaded by an Urban Mass Transportation Administrator who is to be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Administrator is to perform such duties as t'he Secretary of Trans- portation shall prescribe. 5. What Administration is in charge? Answer. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration created by the plan rather than an existing administration will be in charge. The new Administra- tion will `be one of the major operating units of the Department and its Adminis- trator will ropprt directly to the Secretary of Transportation. 4. Who is the immediate director of the program? Answer. The urban mass transportation program in its current location in the Department of Housing and Urban Development is under the direction of a Director, Urban Transportation Administration. The position is vacant and direction is being exercised by the Deputy Director, William B. flurd. The Director of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration reports to the Assistant Secretary of HUD for Metropolitan Development. The President has designated the Honorable John E. Robsón, Under Secretary `of Transportation, to be the interim' Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. 5. Under whom does he serve? Answer. Same as No.4. 6. Who will be in charge of mass transit research? Answer. The mass transportation research programs will be under the direc- tion of the Administrator of the new Urban Mass Transportation Administration when this program is transferred to the Department of Transportation. 1. What is the status of the research program? Answer. The 1966 amendments to `the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 authorizes a project to study and prepare a program of new system's of urban transportation and directed that the findings and recommendations be reported to the President for `stibmission to the Congress. The report was transmitted to the Oongress by the President on June 12, 1968. 8. How wW urban mass transit planning be coordinated with comprehensive urban planning? Answer. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968 reserves to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development authority to undertake projects and to `make studies that concern (1) the relationship of urban transportation systems to comprehensively planned development of urban areas Or (2) the role of trans- portation planning in overall urban planning. A report to the Congress on urban transportation organization by the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation (see appendix B) outlines the `respective functional responsibilities and relationship of `the two Departments in the field of comprehensive planning and urban transportation planning. Specific procedure's for coordinating their respective roles in urban transportation and comprehen- sive'development are currently being developed in detail. Mr. BROOKS. I want to thank you very'much for being here today, you and your staff, and' appreciate your cooperation and your concern about these very significant and challenging problems. Secretary Bo~m. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. The committee is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:35 o'clock p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.) PAGENO="0157" APPENDIXES APPENDIX A.-WRITTEN RESPONSES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE I. GENERAL QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE AGENCY AS A ~*HOIJE1 A. Justification of Personnel Not Chargeable to specific Programs 1. What are the total funds available to your agency for fiscal year 1968? TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR FISCAL YEAR 19681 APPROPRIATIONS, CONTRACT AUTHORIZATIONS AND UNOBLIGATED BALANCES [In thousandsJ Proposed Program Fiscal year Less NOA pay supple- 1967 Total enacted supple- mental unobligated available Public Law Transfers mental balances 90-218 Federal funds: Office of the Secretary $13, 350 $150 $3, 224 $16, 724 $2, 500 $534 Coast Guard 521,965 6,457 16,180 544,602 21,651 91 Federal Aviation Administra- tion 903, 435 14, 768 372,244 1, 290,447 201, 224 237 Federal Highway Administra- tion 2 202, 112 89 $85, 000 237, 091 524,292 9,000 Federal Railroad Administ~a- tion 16,044 50 12,513 28,607 2,000 National Transportation Safety Board 4, 000 109 4, 109 .7 Total, Federal funds 1, 660,906 21, 623 85, 000 641, 252 2, 408, 781 236, 375 869 Trust funds: Coast Guard 15 27 Federal Highway Administra- tion 4, 857, 500 2, 740, 436 National Transportation Safety Board 28 Total, trust funds 4, 857, 543 2,740, 463 7, 598, 006 .___ Total, Department of Transportation 6, 518, 449 21, 623 85, 000 3, 381, 715 10,006, 787 236, 375 869 1 Excludes public enterprise and intragovernmentaP funds. 2 Does not assume trust fund financing for forest and public lands highways. Office of the Secretary Coast Guard Federal Aviation Administration Federal HI~hway Administration Federal Railroad Administration St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation National Transportation Safety Board Total Coast Guard military personnel - Total 97,827 93,601 119 positions transferred from OST to FRA for northeast corridor project. 2 End of year_employment ceiling imposed by BOB is 57,700. As necessary, the answers to these questions include information which is covered in greater detail by each operating administration. 42 7, 597,936 28 2. How many employees does your agency employ? SUMMARY OF FULL-TIME PERMANENT POSITIONS Authorized On board fiscal year 1968 Apr. ~0, 1968 669 1521 6,259 5,695 45,824 43,821 6,094 5,201 1,109 11,063 187 160 259 228 260,401 ~56,689 37,426 36,912 (153) PAGENO="0158" 154 3. What is the geographical extent of your operations? The Department services all of the 50 States, in addition to the District of * Columbia. There are many overseas locations being serviced, such as Berlin, London, Paris, Rome, Guam, Manila, Tokyo, Vietnam, etc. 4. Under your program budgeting breakdown, do you have a support program covering the operations of your office as well as other policymaking personnel? Yes. 5. How much money is available in fiscal year 1968 for expenditures under this support program? For the Office of the Secretary the funds available in fiscal year 1968 are $13,690,000 (see attachment 1) broken down as follows (in thousands of dollars): Research and development: General transportation research $6, 021 Research information planning 653 Subtotal, research and development_ 6,674 Administration 7,016 Total available in fiscal year 1968, Office of the Secretary 13, 690 6. Briefly justify expenditures for the support program in terms of the nature and extent of your operations and responsibilities. The Department was established April 1, 1967. For the first time, nearly all major governmental organizations in the field of transportation were brought together under one Department and under one Secretary. These funds provide for the overall coordination and direction of the various transportation programs. B. Budget processes 7. Has your program breakdown been approved by the Bureau of the Budget? Yes. The departmental program structure was approved by the Bureau of the Budget before it was promulgated on January 11, 1968. 8. Does your program structure flow generally along functional lines of the agency? The basic functions of transportation, such as the provision of urban trans- portation and interurban transportation, form the basis of the program structure. 9. Has the program budgeting concept been fully implemented within your agency as yet in operational terms? A major part of the program-budget concept has been implemented within the Department, but there are still some gaps and a great need for improve- ment in quality. Thus far, departmental goals and objectives have been identified; a program structure has been developed; program benefits and outputs are being identified; an annual program-budget review and development procedure has been established; program memorandums and program and financial plans are being developed on a program category basis; and analytical work has been undertaken. 10. To what extent do you believe that your new budget concept will im- prove the efficiency of agency operations? We believe that over the long run, full and effective implementation of the PPB concept will greatly improve the efficiency of the agency operations in the broad, most significant meaning of the term "efficiency," that is, attain- meet of the greatest benefits with a given cost. The PPB system institutionalizes and facilitates the planning and analytical process. As we improve our capability to do more and better planning and analyses, we cannot fail to improve our overall departmental efficiency. C. Accounting systems development 11. Has the GAO given its approval of your accounting system? * Approval has been given in part. The table below sets forth the status of the various systems as reported by the Comptroller General to the Congress. PAGENO="0159" 155 STATUS OF APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MAY 30, 196d Department or agency ~ Systems subject to approval . Status of systems submitted for review Agency target date for sub- mission or resubmission 2 -~ In process of review Returned or withdrawn -~ Approved 1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Complete systems: Departmental: Departmentwide accounting con- cepts, principles, and standards 1 (3) Office of Secretary: Appropriated funds 1 (3) Workingcapitalfund 1 (3) Coast Guard 1 Dec. 29, 1951 (3) Resubmission (4) Federal Aviation Administration: Agencywide accounting concepts, principles, and standards 1 Jan. 27, 1967 Integrated complete accounting system and ancillary accounting systems 1 (5) Federal Highway Administration 1 - (6) Bureau of Public Roads 1 June 30, 1966 Resubmission June 29, 1967 (6) Federal Railroad Administration 1 (3) Alaska Railroad revolving fund,.. 1 Sept. 25, 1957 Subtotal, formal submissions - 10 (1) (4) Subtotal, informal submissions Total 10 (1) (4) Segments of systems: None -- 1 Because of subsequent legislation and refinements in prescribed requirements, most of the accounting systems that have been approved in the past now need reexamination and appropriate revision in the light of current requirements. 2 A recent change in General Accounting Office requirements (announced Apr. 25, 1967, and published as an official change to our GAO Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies on May 15, 1967) calls for submission of the accounting principles and stand~rds underlying the system for approval in advance of requesting approval of the system in operation, along with specific time-phased work plans identifying the projects to be carried out to implement the system. The GAO currently is working with departments and agencies with the objective of establishing firm dates and work plans in the near future. However, these steps had not, in most cases, been finalized at June 30, 1967, and, with some exceptions, appropriately revised target dates are therefore not reflected on this schedule. / 3 These systems will eventually be submitted to the Comptroller General for approval. The short time the Department r has been in existence has not permitted sufficient progress on systems development plans to enable establishment of definitive target dates for the submission of these systems. 4 General Accounting Office staff is conducting a review of the financial management system of the U.S. Coast Guard with primary emphasis on the adequacy and effectiveness of internal reporting to meet the informational needs of manage- ment. This review has been completed and a report thereon is now being drafted. 2 Pursuant to a working arrangement between officials of the General Accounting Office and the Federil Aviation Admin- istration (FAA), individual segments of systems are first submitted to the GAO site audit staff for Informal review and evaluation before formal approv~l is requested. Upon receipt of clearance based on such advance review, the I2AA will transmit these segments, either individually or in related groupings, to the Comptroller General for formal approval. Under this working arrangement, it is mutually agreed that such informal submission of substantially all segments of the system, adequately documented and tested in operation, by the target date of Dec. 31, 1967, will be considered to have fulfilled FAA's initial commitment for submission of its accounting system. It is believed that4hi~ procedure will result in the most expeditious completion of the accounting systems approval process In this case. 6 The Federal Highway Administration plans eventually to incorporate the accounting for all its bureaus and offices *nto 1 integrated system through expansion and adaptation of the system'approved for the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR). `The modifications to the approved BPR system necessary to accomplish this objective will be subject to review and ap- proval in accordance with the Comptroller General's letter of June 30, 1967, approving the BPR system. 12. Is the accounting system basically established in terms of accrual costs as the GAO `and this subcommittee have recommended? Yes. 13. What is the target date for completely implementing an accrual accounting system throughout the agen~cy? During fiscal year 1969. 14. Is your accounting system output-oriented so that it will be on the same basis as budgeting and planning? Yes. While not fully implemented, a completely integrated financial manage- ment system is planned. 15. What basis do you use for establishing the charges for products or services provided to other agencies, and how are these handled in your accounting system? Generally actual costs which are identified as reimbursements in the accounting system. 16. Are capital assets, such as building and equipment items, formally recorded in the accounting system, and upon what basis are they depreciated? PAGENO="0160" 156 Capital assets are reco~rde~l in the accounting system and generally depreciated on the basis of tiseful life, 17. Are the costs of the agency's physical assets considered in establishing the charges for services to other agencies? Generally, yes. 18. Are agency accounting reports used regularly in program management? Generally, yes. 19. Are agency accounting policies summarized in an accounting manual with which you staff accountants must comply? No. Provision for a departmental manual is included in the Department's financial management system plans. Work on this will begin in fiscal year 1969. However, the administrations have developed appropriate manuals. P. Maeagement Information S~ystem 20. Pb you have an automated management information system for your agency? No, There are certain portions of the Denartment that have automated systems within a specific area such as interstate highway progress, personnel, and auto- mated merchant vessels renorting (AMVER). ,The~e sy~tems have not been significantly modified or expanded from a departmental view. 21. In general, what functional areas are included in the management Infor- mation system? (Examples: Financial, planning, and program budgeting, inven- tory. personnel, et cetera.) Departmentwide, we are currently developing a management informatiOn sys- tem for the Secretary that is primarily program oriented. In addition, develop- ment is commencing on a DOT manpower information system with preliminary plans calling for relating manpower to programs, costs, et cetera. Each of the administrations have systems that are further discussed in their resnected replies. 22. Briefly describe the state of development of your system and how it operates. The department system is in the early planning stages. Preliminary plans call for `an evolutionary approach utilizing as much as possible, the current systems within the administrations, expanding and modifying them as required to satisfy departmental needs. 23. Did you perform a "requirements" analysis of the entire agency, or just ~, selected areas? ` Our long-range plans `will call for a department'wide `analysis of need. Unfor- tunately, there are specific needs for management information that must be satis- fled on a piecemeal basis because of priority. 24. To what extent have you considered the need o'f other agencies fo'r exchang- ing information with your agency in the development of your system? Secretary Boyd established an Information Management Steering Committee chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary on March 14, 1968. As part of the charter, the committee will be responsible for "developing, coordinating, and providing for `administration of `a national transportation information system." This effort will include coordination with transportation related agencies such as ICC. CAB, and Commerce. The committee will define "DOT's role in the system." 25, Are you developing a standard data base of information for the entire agency? ~[`his is a long-range goal `of both the Information Management Steering Com- mittee and the management information development efforts. 26. In reporting statistical information, what standards for coding are you using? Where standards are called for, such as in BOB A-83 on the computer manage- ment information system, we utilize them. 27. Have you explored all of the information reciuir'ements common to your ageti'cy which might exist within the data base of other agencies'? The Transportation Department's establi~hment brought together many transportation related agencies, bureau's, and other organizational subcomp~nents. In addition, staffing effi~rts' have brought together varied expertise and Govern- mental (~ederal, State, and local) backgrounds. This' has placed us in an advantageous position ip being aware of other agency data base capabilities. Oh occasion. DOT has utui~ed this for satisfying specific requirements. The Information Management Steering Committee will investigate other agencies' data base capabilities ~s part of its charter for developing plans for a trans- portation information `system. PAGENO="0161" L~7 28. Are your performing the work in-h'o'u~e, o~ ar~ yott utilizing contractor personnel? The Office of the Secretary is utilizing in-house capability as is the majority of the administrations. One exception Is thO FHWA which is making extensive use of contractor personnel for its MIS development, ~»=9. What main benefits do you feel your management information system will provide in the management of your agency's activities? Management information is a tool of planning and control. DOT's system WiJ1~ aid in planning programs, et cetera, giving a measure of the performance find adherence to the plan. 30. What is your estimated dollar `cost for the completion and operation of the basic parts of yong management information system? It is too early in the planning to make a reliable estimate of the cost of developing and implementing the DOT information system. 31. At what level is the determination made concerning what is needed in the management information system? ~n general, the decision will be a cost benefit one made at the Assistant Sec're~ tary of Administration level. The specific content and outputs of the developed system will be determined by the users of that system. E. Internal Auditing 32. Do you have a centrally organized internal fludit system within your agency which operates independently of department and agency operation? ~ No. The Department of `Transportation presently maintains a decentralized in- ternal. audit system under the general guidance of a Director of Audit located in, the Office of the Secretary. This decentralized audit system has been approve~1 as being most feasible during the initial stages of the Department's' existence. It is also in consonance with the Department's decentralized organizational structure and operational programs assigned to the FAA, the FIIWA, the Coast Guard, and other smaller administrations. Although `the Director of Audit and the decentralized internal audit staffs, with the exception of FHWA, report to an o'ffi'cial who has responsibility fo'r some audited operations, independent and objective audit action, has not been inhibited. The present decentarilization audit system further reflects enough flexibility to permit organizational changes that may be w'arran'ted in the interests of ~ greater `economy and efficiency. The' following factors are illustrative: (a) Separate internal audit staffs have not been established in `the newer and smaller administrations (e.g., `FRA, SLSDC, and NTSB). These ad- ministrations are centrally audited by the Office of Audit, OST. (5) An aggressive evaluation program h'as been established by the Office of Audit, OST, to ascertain whether or not audit services within the De- partment meet the needs of management and whether they are compatible with highest professional auditing standards. In this regard, all internal audit reports issued by the administrations are reviewed by the Office of Audit and special field evaluation is made of each administration's audit function. (c) During the first year of the Dej~artment's operations, two significant internal audit organizational changes have been effected or approved. In FIIWA, the internal audit function has been transferred from the juris~ diction of `the field FIIWA Administrators, to the central direction of the Office of Audit and Investigations. In FAA, a similar centralization of in- ternal audit has been approyed by the Department, and GAO was officially notified. (d) A formal "counterpart" study of all audit resources in the Depart- ment is planned early next fiscal year. This study may result in eonsollda-~ tion of certain audit functions that are flOW being carried out at different organizational levels. 33. Is your internal audit staff made up of persons with e'xperience in account- ing and auditing? The internal audit staffs of the Department are made up principally of pei~- sons with experience in `accounting and auditing. 34. Is the scope of review by the internal audit staff limited in any way? With the exception of the Coast Guard, the scope of review by the internal audit staffs within the Department is not limited. The Coast Guard's present financial management limitation placed upon its internal `audit scope, has been specifically identified in a recent evaluation by the Office `of Audit, OST, and the matter is now undej~ discussion with the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard. 21-528 0-69-pt. 11-11 PAGENO="0162" 158 35. Are all reports and recommendations of the internal audit staff submitted in full directly to the head of the agency? All final audit reports and recommendations prepared by the Office of Audit, OST, are submitted in full to the Secretary and all Assistant Secretaries. In the administrations, audit reports and recommendations are generally submitted di- rectly to the respective Administrators and pertinent summaries thereof are periodically prepared by the Office of Audit, OST, for the Secretary and Assist- ant Secretaries. 36. Is the audit staff responsible to or subject to direction by any official who is also primarily responsible for an activity which might be audited? With the exception of FHWA, the departmental audit sta~'fs report to officials who are also responsible for some activities audited. However, this arrangement has in no way affected the independence or objectivity of the audits performed, nor has it prevented direct access to the head of the organizations where war- ranted Within the Office of the Secretary the audit responsibility to the Assistant Secretary for Administration has actually enhanced the importance and recogni- tion of the audit functions through his close relationship with the Secretary and other Assistant SecrE~taries. 37. Are the personnel assigned to the internal audit function adequately protected from recriminations and arbitrary personnel action that might result from an adverse effect of their reports upon other agency employees? Yes. 38. Are all reports and recommendations of the internal audit staff available to the Comptroller General and to appropriate congressional committees? All departmental reports and recommendations are available to representatives of the Comptroller General and the appropriate congressional committees upon request. The GAO further has free access to all workpapers and other data supporting the audit reports. F. Automatic Data Processing 39. Do you have a central organization in your agency which is responsible for APP management? Yes. Under the guidance of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the Director of Management Systems is the Data Systems Division which has the functional responsibility for APP management. 40. Will you describe its functions? Its function is, broadly speaking, to provide review, development, and leadership of a comprehensive departmental data handling system covering all ADP requirements, resources, applications, and standards. 41. Who has the responsibility for deciding whether or not the use of a computer for a particular function within your agency is justified? This is a joint responsibility. The administrators are empowered io approve systems costing $25,000 or less as a complete system. All others are reviewed at the secretarial level with approval vested in the Assistant Secretary for Administration. 42. On what basis is the decision made? Are there documented systems studies available for review in all cases? The decision is made on the basis of in depth quantitative analysis All studies are documented and on file for review. 43. Can you cite instances in which a request for a computer system was disapproved for lack of adequate justification?* Yes. We recently disapproved the purchase of a large-scale machine by one of our administrations because of the lack of adequate justification. The National Highway Safety Bureau proposed the purchase of an IBM 7094 computer for UCLA at a cost of approximately $600,000 for use in highway safety research. The alleged rationale was that (1 )~ a considerable number of programs ~f continuing research value had been written for this computer, (2) the relation of the computer to UCLA's auto driver simulator. This proposal was rejected on the grounds that: (a) Obsolescence of the 7094 computer. (b) actual DOT utilization would be no more than one shift. The Bureau was asked to renegotiate with UCLA for a contract for actual use of up to one shift and reprograming for a later generation computer which would be compatible with DOT's long-range system planning. 44. Assuniing the use of a computer has been fully justified by a proper study. are there procedures for determining whether the requirement can be satisfied by using (sharing) equipment already installed in your agency? Will you describe the procedures? PAGENO="0163" 159 Yes, there are. Once the requirement has been established, the administrations are required to attempt a solution by sharing and provide complete documentation when both agelicywide and Government-u ide sharing cannot solve the problem Sharing is also addressed again during the review, at the secretarial level. Also each administration participates in the Government-wide ADP sha ring exchange program. 45. To what extent have you been successful in getting the users to share equipment instead of acquiring their own? We have had very good success in consolidating and sharing of ADP facilities by our administrations. For example (1) Data processing facilities of Coast Guard and FAA have been con- solidated in honolulu at an annual saving of about $22,500 per year. (2) FAA is time sharing with Coast Guard in New York, thereby obviating the need for purchasing outside son j~5 (3) There is a technical feasibility for FHWA to perform data processing for Coast Guard in San Francisco. We are now attempting to work out a modest augmentation of the FHWA configuration so that this installation can act as a service bureau for other agencies in downtown San Francisco under the general auspices of GSA. (4) The FAA has assumed monitorship of the GSA time-sharing program in Alaska. The technical feasibility of FAA to use the Alaska Railroad's computer in Anchorage has been established if a moderate augmentation of the Alaska Railroad configuration can be effected. Certain legal and funding problems are being addressed. (5) It has also been possible to arrange for all data processing require- ments of the NTSB and OST to be met with the facilities of the Coast Guard, FAA, and FHWA. 46. Do you review the GSA lists of available excess equipment before going to the open market to acquire equipment? Yes. The excess equipment Jists are addressed twice: (1) during the initial systems study, and (2) during the equipment selection process. 47. Who makes the determination that excess equipment can or cannot do the job? Except for the very small systems which our administrations can approve, the evaluation is made at the secretarial leveL 48. What has been your experience in making use of excess equipment? As a new department, none at all. How-ever, when exee~ equipment was not available from GSA, one of our administrations did save $43,000 by negotiatiiig for used equipment with the manufacturer using the Federal Supply Schedule as a guide. It w-as reported in our initial submission of BOB Circular A-79 re- port on ADP equipment. 49. Assuming it is necessary to acquire equipment from `the commercial market, do you normally invite all qualified suppliers to submit proposals. What are the exceptions? Yes. The only exception has been an interim procurement on a lease basis to augment a system until a full systems study could be made, to support a coin- petitive RFP. In this case, all manufacturers were called in, the situation ex- plained, and they accepted. To improve the competitive climate with DOT, the Data Systems Division has inaugurated a program of systematic briefings of ADP managers throughout DOT by all principal manufacturers so that full range of what's on the market will be known. Control Data and Univac have givemi briefings to date. 50. Who makes the final selection of equipment, awl on what basis is the die- cision made? We have drafted procedures for selection by a board composed of knowledge- able individuals from throughout DOT. Their recommendations are then pre- sented to the Assistamit Secretary for Administration for a final approval. It is made omi evaluation of 5 major areas: (1) software, (2) vendor support, (3) tech- nical characteristics, (4) systems performance, and (5) cost. The system that is evaluated to be the miiost advantageous to the Government is the one chosen. 51. Describe your program for evaluating the actual results of computer use against resuIt~ anticipated when the use of the computer was approved. There is a continuous mimonitorship at the secretarial level. However, we haste under developmnent a mnore formalized approach using a detailed questionnaire. 52. Tn gemieral, have your computers produced the benefits that w-ere expected? Yes. PAGENO="0164" 160 53. How many computers do you now have, and how many of these are pur- chased? We have a total of 06 main frames of whIch 55 are purchased and 11 are leased. 54 Who makes the decision on whether computers are purchased or leased~ On what basis are the decisions made? This is a function of the selection team who base their decisions on a quanti tative analysis of the lease versus purchase studs which is required in all cases. The recommendation is sent to the Assistant Secretary for Administra- tion for final approvaL 55. Is your agency now using any leased ADP equipment? If so, how much longer do you expect to u~ it? Yes. As long as it remains cost/beneficial to the Government to retain the equipment by this method. 56. Have you made use of third-party leasing arrangements? If so, what has been your experience with these arrangements? No, but we are investigating this area. 57. To what extent hav~e you developed standard systems of applications which are used by your computer installations? We are in the process of studying common systems for implementation DOT- wide. We have one presently under study, a manpower personnel system. 58. Will you describe the steps you have taken for the development of standard data elements for use by your Department under the program recently estab- lished by Bureau of the Budget Circular A-86. It is departmental policy to use standard data elements whenever possible. Our Office of Transportation Information Planning and our Data Systems Division along with our Data Processing Systems Council are addressing them- selves to this area. 59. What do you consider to be the most pressing problems that need to be overcome for you to make better and more efficient use of computers in your agency? There are two of about equal significance: (1) Education of various functional managers; that is, personnel, finance, research, planning, etc., to the state of the ADP art so that the management function is able to enjoy the capabilities and power of the machine and use it in the most consequential ways. * (2) To minimize escalation of AD'P requirements in each administration `by replacing a divided effort with a concerted long-range plan based upon time sharing centralized to the degree affording the most benefits. A gen- eral concept of such a system has been developed and a contract with a qualified systems engineering organization to verify cost/benefits is con- templated. G. Personne' managem~ent 00. Where is the responsibility placed for manpower plnnning in your agency? Responsibility for manpower planning rests with the Commandant and ad ministrators and for OST with the Assistant Secretaries The Office of Personnel and Training under the Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for coordinating and providing leadership for manpower planning as well as for the conduct of a departmentwide program in those areas that cut across operating administration lines Manpower planning activities within the Department at the present tune range from relatively sophisticated programs in the Federal Aviation Administration and U S Coast Guard to a bare beginning in those new administrations established with the creation of the Department of Transportation. 61. What manpower requirements are forecast for your agency and how are these determined? Manpower requiremetits are forecast in major program areas (e.g., Coast Guard officer requirements, air traffic control requirements) based on such factors as predicated growth in gross national product and commercial and gen- eral aviation. 02. Is the work in your agency organized with some consideration of the effect on' positlon classification so that the mission can be accomplished with the mini- mum number and cOst of positions? Effect on position classification is a primary consideration in the manner in which wOrk is organized in the Department of Transportation. We have in I~be final stages of `development a Department of Transportation organization and position management control system based on the criteria and guidelines con- PAGENO="0165" 161, tallied in Bureau of the Budget clrcnlitrs A-44 (revi~ed) dated ~ugiist 1~, 1966, and A-64 (revised) dated June 28, 1965, and seeti~on 125(f) of Public Law 88-426 (Salary Reform Act of 1964). This system of organization, budgetary, and po$i~ tion management control provides for critical management review at all levels of the organization. In addition, we have an executive personnel board which func- tions as a critical review on all matters relating to superg~ade poaltions. 63. Is the classification of positions in your agency in accord with applicable Civil Service Commission standards? We have plans for implementing lnternal.cyclic classification audit and revIeW programs Which, coupled with periodic onsite inspectionS by the Civil Service Commission, will insure that classification of positions is In accord ivith applicable Civil Service Commission standards. The Civil ServicO Commission l~as sched- uled a nationwide review of personnel management (including position classi- fication) in the Department of Transportation to commence in fiscal year 1969 64. Has the agency established career possibilities to assist In development and advancement of employees? Individual elements of the department (e.g.,FAA and FHWA) have e~tabiisbed a number of career development programs which assist employees In preparilig for advancement. We have not yet had the time or resources to establ~sb compre- hensive career programs which cut across the entire department. Within the next fiscal year we will be establishing various personnel procedures which will make it easier for employees to secure career development assignments in different parts of the department. We are already assigning Coast Guard officers to civiliat~ DOT elements in part to take advantage of their sk~lls and expertise but also as a means of making them better officers. 65. Would you describe what means your agency~ uses to recruit quality per- sonnel? Recruiting programs vary in scope and size dependirigon the needs of the com- ponent doing the recruiting. The Coast Guard, for example, has an outstanding program to recruit engineers through a student coop program. Under the coop plan, a student alternates semesters at a university with periods of trainee engi- neering work in various parts of the Coast Guard organization, both in Washing- ton and in the field. 66. Does your agency emphasize promotion of employees on the basis of merit? Every component of the department has a merit promotion progr5m iti opera- tion. The operations of these programs will be one of the most important subjects selected for systematic evaluation during fiscal year 1969. 67. How does your agency consider employee complaints, grievances, and appeals? Complaints, grievances, and appeals are handled through individual systems which have been designed to fit the needs of the various elements of the depart- ment. In fiscal year 1969, we will be developing departmental procedures which will set an overall framework for handling such problems. These procedures will allow flexibility where the size of the organization or geographic dispersion of employees make adjustments necessary. 68. Is personnel management considered to be an integral part of the mission of your agency? Personnel management is an integral part of the mjssion of the Department of Transportation as evidenced by such activities as the operation of an executive personnel board which functions as a critical review on all matters relating tO supergrade positions; initiation in fiscal year 1968 of counterpart Studies to determine the most efficient and economical distribution of a7ailable resources; completion of an occupational study for the Alaska Railroad; participation with~ thu Civil Service Commission in classification standards studies, etc. 69. How does your agency treat equal employment opportunity and employ- ment of the handicapped? / Equal employment opportunity without regard to discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin is a keystone DOT policy. A separate Office of Equal Opportunity, reporting directly to the Secretary, was estab'lislted to provide central leadership and independent program evaluation. Equal oppor- tunity is regarded as a prime responsibility of all levels of management. The Director of Personnel and Training is responsible for developing programs which assure equal opportunity in all phases of DOT personnel operations. Employment of the handicapped is an important program in the Department. To cite just one example: Since 1964 the Bureau of Public Roads, Coast Guard, and FAA have appointed 96 mentally retarded persons in a wide variety ~f PAGENO="0166" 1E~2 routine jobs such as card punch operator, messenger, and library aid. These appointments were made at the GS-1 level Our experience is that most such appointments work out very welL H. G.A.O Audit Reports 70. Has the General Accounting Office issued any audit reports on the overall operations of your agency that is reports not directed at a functional program of the agency, but rather at the management and administration of the agency? No. 71. If so, to what exent have the recommendations contained in these reports been carried out? Not applicable. II. QUESTIONS ON OPERATIONS AT THE PROGRAM LEVEL Activity 1 (Office of the &3cretary): General Admisviiitration 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? This program covers policy development, central supervision, and coordinating functions necessary for the overall planning and direction of the Department. It includes the immediate secretarial offices, Assistant Secretaries, General Ctmn- sel, as well as staff aSs stance and supervision of general management and administration in the Department, and general support services for the Office of the Secretary. Authority for this program is contained in Public Law 89-670, section 3, and Public Law 90-112, title I. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? The persons having responsibility for this program at the operative levels are: Assistant Secretary for Policy Development: Cecil Mackey. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs: John L. Sweeney. Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Programs: Donald G. Agger. Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology: Prank W. Lehan. Assistant Secretary' for Administration: Alan L. Dean. General Counsel: John E. Robson. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? Salaries and expenses, etc $6,916, 000 Capital equipment 100,000 Petal 7,016,000 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The output generated by this program is essentially management direction and guidance in the form of policy pronouncements, procedures, instructions, evalua- tions financial and personnel actions and other necessary activities to facilitate the continuing development of the Department and to assure its efficient operation. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? The ciuantification of this output would be difficult and time consuming, and would not necessarily reflect the efficiency of the general administration activity of the Department. However, such output includes many hundreds of activities relating to policy pronouncements, management studies, financIal and budget presentations, personnel actions, audits and investigations, speeches, procure- ments of furniture fixtures and space handling of congressional and public inquiries field coordination visits periodic management meetings and ~ wide range of other activities. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? The principal operations that are involved in producing this output are policy development research and technology international affairs administration public affairs, and legal. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? The general ~employmeat categories in this program are economists, attorneys, budget analysts, personnel specialists, management analysts, accountants, audi- tors, and various technical and clerical categories. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-~-quota and nOn- quota-are involved? PAGENO="0167" 1(38 General admi'ni.stration-Grade $fructure.~ flsoc~l year 1968 aiuthori~ed Executive levels 9 GS-8 - 26 GS-18 16 GS-7 GS-17 11OGS-6 30 GS-16 ~____~- 6 GS-5 - 22 GS-15 158 GS-4_ GS-44 63GS-3 1 GS-13 27GS-~2 1 08-12- 12 GS-1 1 os-li 8 Ungraded ~- `I 05-10 05-9 37 Total -- 481 1 ~ nonquota. 9. What capital equipment, such as APP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? There is no capital equipment presently involved in the accomplishment of this program. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? It is expected that the expenditures and benefits of this program will grkw at modest levels consistent with the appropriation of necessary funds to permit attainment of the full potential of the Department. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiency carried out? The personnel responsible for the various parts of the program are coordinat$ at the secretarial level through periodic meetings, communications, and liaison, to assure that the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other* than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Other than the annual budgetary review, there exists a review program to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve the program objectives. This review program includes independent audit, functional evaluations, and periodic masurements of accomplisibment. 13 To your knowledge does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? Although the general administration mechanisms per se are not unique to this Department, their relation to the overall transportation objective does not duplicate or parallel work done by any other agency. 14 Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? At this stage of the Department's development, after 1 year of existence, we believe ~hat our organizational structure Is suitable to assure accomplishment of the program efficiently and effectively. Continuous evaluation and reassignments are being made during the Department's evolutionary period 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is' the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? There are no outstanding GAO reports on this prog~ram. 16 What significant problems if any are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The most significant problems presently encountered in accomplishing the pro gram objctives relate primarily to adequacy of funding tnd positions recruit ment of qualified staff and limited number of authorized supergrades 17 Do you administer any grants loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program'? If so is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? We generally do not administer any grants loans or other disbursed funds related to this program. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, bow would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction or by cutting or curtailing certain activities'? If appropriations were reduced we would probably absorb the cut by curtailing certain activities. 19 If additional funds were available what would you do with the new money? PAGENO="0168" 1f~4 If additional funds were available, more emphasis would be placed upon acquisi- tion of staff, facilities and necessary travel. Activity 2 (Office of the secretary): Transportation ~6esearch 1. What is the nature o~ and authority for this program? The transportation research program has as its primary objective the develop- mqnt of information and the conduct of analyses upon which transportation policies and programs can be formulated which will best contribute to the goal of a safe and efficient national transportation system. The activities under this program fall into three mayor areas of interest. (a) General transportation research-This activity includes technical, economic and other studies in the field of transportation research. (b) Northeast Corridor transportation projects-This activity covers re- search designed to develop intercity transportation plans and programs for the Northeast Corridor region for 1980 and beyond. (c) Transportation information planning-This activity coVers research for planning and developing a comprehensive program to Improve the reliability, compatibility, availability, and utility of information relating to the Nation's transportation system. The authority for the activities of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology in the transportation research program is generally derived from Public Law 89-670 (Department of Transportation Act), sections 2 and 4. The collection of transportation data statistics and other information relevant to the improvement of the national transportation system is authorized by Public Law 89-220 (High Speed Ground Transportation Act), section 4. The responsi- bility for chairing the principal committees governing the interagency aircraft noise abatement program was transferred to the Department from the Office of Science and Technology by correspondence dated August `25, 1967, from D. F. Hornig, Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? Frank W. Lehan, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. Cecil Mackey, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? General transportation research $2, 600,000 Northeast Corridor transportation 3 200 000 Transportation information planning 600 000 Other 274, 000 Total 6, 674, 000 No capital equipment is `required or involved. 4 and 5. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Can you quantify this output in anyway? For the most part, the work under, the transportation research program In fiscal year 1968 comprises projects which will not be completed until fiscal year 1969 or beyond. Those efforts which are coordinative or evaluative in nature do not represent discrete projects with discrete outputs The program does generate basic economic statistical data analysis of transportation systems and invest ment criteria which are used in the development of transportation policies and programs. In the area of transportation data research for example systems for the col leetion processing and dissemination of rail and motor truck freight iou data will be developed tested and put into operation over the span of a year or two Phe output for fiscal year 1968 in this and `omilar eases can oiily be described in terms of deciSions made RFPs advertised arid the like Similar1~ technicaF studies to develop concepts and define requirements for follow-on sys. tems (e.g., air traffic control systems), though initiated this year, will not be completed until next year. In the area of noise abatement a major responsibility is the overall coordina tion of Government activities in aircraft noise reduction through the interagency aircraft noise abatement program (TANAP). Of the research projects undertaken by the TANAP, some are jointly funded by the participating agencies with this Department taking its proportionate share, while others are independently funded. Outputs of these kinds do not readily admit of quantification. PAGENO="0169" 16~~ ~ ~ 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in prodw~1ng thisoutput? Research requirements are first defined and clarified by in house personnel Individual projects when identified are competitively awarded to contractors for the actual conduct of the research. Staff `personnel exercise technical super- vision during the course of the contract and insure that results obtained are integrated into the policy decision process. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? There are 52 positions authorized in the following general employment cate- gories: Engineers (mechanical, chemical, radiological, etc.), requirements of- ficers, physicists, secretaries, aud typists. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? GS-16 (nonquota) 1 GS-9 16 GS-15 14 GS-8 2 GS-14 16 GS-7 3 GS-13 5 GS-6 1 GS--10 ins-s 3 9. What capital equipment, such as AD'P, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? We do not rely on capital equipment to fulfill this program. Such ADP research requirements as arise are accomplished through our normal contract procedures. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? As can be expected, when offices have just beéñ recently established and 5~re in the process of staffing, expenditures, particularly on research contracts, are constrained to keep in balance with the capacity of these offices to effectively plan and monitor research projects. Some growth in expenditures, therefore, can be anticipated as these offices staff up to authorized levels. Future benefits from projects initiated in fiscal year 1968, particularly in trans- portation data research, offer promise of being disproportionately high in rela- tion to future costs. As the rail freight flow data system, for example, goes into operation, the benefits from this system grow from essentially zero to sonic higher value and continue to grow as industry and~ Governmnet make increasing use of the flow data. From a utility standpoint, two things can be said abOut this flow data. Relative to any prior similar data, its utility should be significantl~ enhanced inasmuch as its fori and content will more closely match current user requirements. In addition, the user will be getting timely data perhaps for the first time. In relatio~i to benefits., which will have increased significantly with time, costs should decrease from the higher level associated with the system development phase to sOme lower level required to maintain the system in operation. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole J~, being efficientl~r carried out? The various elements of this research program are coordinated by the Offices of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and the Assistant Secretary f or Research and Technology. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the am nual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? . -. Procedures are being evolved by which all departmental research and d'e~elop- ment, including the transportation research program, will be monitored On a continuing basis and periodically reviewed in depth on a selOctive basis. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No; however, it complements related activities of several other governmental agencies. Work in transportation data research is closely coordinated with re- lated activities in the Bureaus of Budget and Census, HEW, HUD, ICC, and CAB The Office of Transportation Information Planning for example has rep resent5tion on the advisory committee (to the Bureau of Census) on small area * data. ` The work in noise abatement is itself largely coordinative in nature The JANAP for example functions to ensure that the aircraft noise reductiob pro grams of the several participating activities are non duplicative and comple PAGENO="0170" 166 mentary. Land use criteria developmetit projects are undertaken jointly with HIJD. The Office of Research and Development has general responsibility to monitor all research and development within the Department and concurrently maintain an awareness of related research being undertaken elsewhere in Government or private industry in order to: (1) insure that intra-departmental research is not unnecessarily duplicative, and (2) departmental research is planned to comple- ment and benefit from related research wherever conducted. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried oat most efficiently and effectively? Yes. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The problems encountered, at this point in time at least, are limited to those attendant to the full establishment of an organization and the staffing of that organization with adequately skilled and experienced scientific and engineering talent. Once the organization is properly staffed, other problems may become apparent; however, it appears umneaningful to attempt forecasting them at present. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commepsurate with the magnitude of the outlays? We do not administer any grants or loans related to this program. Our research funds are dispersed by contract. Our administrative staff we believe is an appropriate number for adequately reviewing research proposals and monitoring research contracts. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Our actions in this case would depend on the timing and size of the appropria- tion reduction. Most likely we would absorb cuts by an overall reduction iii our research projects, however greater cuts might be made in one project or another depending on our assessment of priorities at the time. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? If additional funds were available, we would apply them to. many problems related to the role of transportation in our society that at present are beyond our financial capability. Activity 3 (OffIce of the ~c~ecrctary): Working Capital Fund 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? Section 9(j) Of the Department of Transportation Act authorized the Secre.- tary to establish a working capital fund for expenses necessary for the mainte- nance and operation of such common administrative services as he shall find ~o be desirable in the interest of economy and efficiency in the Department. The working capital fund was established effective July 2, 1967, and at present con- sists of the financing of the editing, printing, and distribution function for all headquarters elements of the Department. 2~ Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? Alan L. Dean, Assistant Secretary for Administration, OST. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal year 1968? Since this is a revolving fund the money available is dependent upon the vol ume of work produced, total cost of operations, and subsequent billings to cus- tomer elements It is estimated that total cost of operations during fiscal year lOdS will be $2,500,000. The acquisition value of the capital equipment is $499,132 and net book value is $302,175. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The output generated by this program consists of the furnishing of editorial services production and procurement of all printing and distribution of printed matter for all headquarters elements of the Department Printing and distribu hon of the departmental telephone directory and locator service is also financed from the working capitai fpnd. 6. Oan you quantify this output ina~1~ây~?~ PAGENO="0171" ~167' H This -program consisfs -of approximately 15,000 clistonier orders of varying types and sizes annually. The output required for these orders consists of an- proximately 5,000 hours annually for furnishing of editorial service; produc- tion of approximately 130 million pres~ units (8 by 101/2) annually; approxi- mately 50,000 hours annually for distributioh service; and frocurement of printing from the Government Printing Office. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? The principal operations involved consist of editing and proofreading; manu- scrlpt preparation; hot metal composition, production of negatives; production of both metal and paper plates; presswork; complete bindery operations; prep- eration and maintenance of mail lists and distribution of printed matter; and procurement of printed matter from GPO. 7. How many employees are involved In the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? A total of 126 employees are authorized for `this program. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and- noi~i- quota-are involved? There are no supergrades involved in this program and the grade structure is as follows: GS employees: Wage board employees-Con. G~-15 1 WP-20 3 GS-14 1 WP-19 6 GS-13 2 WP-17 4 GS-12 7 WP-16 - 4 GS-11 7 WP-15 1 GS-9 4 WP-14 8 GS-7 12 WP-13 2 GS-5 8 WP-12 7 GS-4 7 WP-9 14 GS-3 10 WP-8 1 GS-2 9 WP-7 -- 1 WP-6 1 Total 68 WP-5 2 WP-4 2 Wage board employees: WP-23 1 Total 58 WP-22 1 9. What capital equipment, such. as ADP, if any, do- you rely upon to fulfill this program? Capital equipment consists entirely of printing, binding, and related eq~uip~ient, with a total acquisition value of $499,132. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? It is anticipated that additional common -administrative services will be established and/or transferred to the working capital fund in the future, such as ADP services; visual aids; building management; communications; duplic-at- lug and copying; mall and messenger services; motor pool management; and supply service and warehousing. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? - - Personnel responsible for various parts of the program are coordinated at the level of the Director of Administrative Operations, OST. - 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more `effective and efficient ways to athieve these program objectives? In addition to periodic internal audits performed by the Office of Audit, OST, the program is reviewed on a con-tinning basis by the Office of Administrative Operations. Operating efficiencies for each work process are reviewed monthly and comparisons are made with established and approved standards. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being dnne by any other agency? PAGENO="0172" 168 This program does not duplicate work being performed by any other agency. However, it is parallel to work being performed by the Government Printing Office and other Departments which have a departmental printing plant, au- thorized and operated ubder the guidance of the Joint Committee on Printing. 14. Is your organizati'onal struotnre such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes. The program is being carried out under the guidance of the Chief, Publish- ing and Graphics Division, reporting directly to the Director of Administrative Operations. script preparation; hot metal com.postion, production of negatives; production 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. This program was established on July 2, 1967, and no GAO reports have yet been rendered. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? There are no significant problems at the present time. 17 Do you administer any grants loans or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No grants, loans, or other disbursed funds are administered under this program. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absor1~ the cut- by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Appropriations are not directly Involved in this program However should the appropriations for the various customer elements be reduced, a reduction in customer requirements could result. In this event, the work force would be reduced, commensurate with the workload. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Not applicable to the working capital fund. PROGRAM CATEGORY 1. U.S. COAST GUARD Aotivit~ 1. Operating 13J o~p eases 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard a~id Coast Guard Reserve, not otherwise provided for, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; maintenance, operating, and repair of aircraft; recreation and welfare; and uniforms or allowances there- for as authorized by law: (5 U.S.C. 5901; 80 Stat. 299). The authority for this program is contained in titles 5 10 14, 19 26 33 87 46 and 50 United States Code. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? The program directors are in charge. They are as follows: Rear Adm. M. A. Whalen, Chief of Staff. Rear Adm. R. W. Goehring, Chief, Office of Operations. Rear Adm. C. P. Murphy, Chief, Office of Merchant Marine Safety. Rear Adm. J. D. McCubbin, Chief, Office of Reserve. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? $366,951,000. Plant Vessels (AprIl 1, 1968) High endurance and oceanographic cutters 36 Medium endurance cutters 25 Icebreakers 10 Patrol boats 82 feet 70 Patrol boats 95 feet Buoy tenders ~- 129 Other 42 Total 347 PAGENO="0173" 169 Boats: Over 45 ~eet_~- 45-foot btioy boats 18 44-foot motor life boat (MLB) 73 40-foot utility and buoy 212 36-foot MLB and other -~ 83 30-foot utility Other ,, 668 Total ~ Aids to navigation: j~1xed: Manned lights 258 Unmanned lights 11,089 Fog signals Day beacons 7, 260 Radio beacons 220 Floating: Buoys Aircraft: 0-130 long-range search 13 HU11I3E medium-range search____. -` 68 HH52 short-range recovery 68 Other 12 Total Shore units (includes subunits): Air stations (plus 1 aIr detachment)-~ 26 Bases 30 Search and rescue and law enforcement stations - 1q64 Light stations___- 231 Training centers and Academy -~ 5 Recruiting offices Loran A stations Loran C stations 16 Loran A-C stations 8 Loran monitor stations 10 Radio station - 15 Total 5'97~ 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? 5. Oa~i 3~ou qualify this output in any way? 6. Would you describe the principle operations that are involved in producing1 this output? COAsT GUARD-OPERATING EXPENSES PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE The Coast Guard employs multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units, stra- tegically located along the coasts and inland waterways of the United StateS and in selected areas overseas to carry out the duties specified ~n tItle 14, United States Code. Direct program-i. $earclv and rescue.-Most Coast Guard operating facilities have the capacity for promoting saftey on or over the high seas and ion waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Coast Guard performs any and all acts necessary to rescue and aid persons and save property placed in jeopardy due to marine and aircraft disaster or due to floods and ice conditions (14 U.S.C. 88). Coast Guard activIties in the area of search and rescue fall within the national SAR plan and other agreements. PAGENO="0174" 170 WORKLOAD DATA - 1966 1967 1968 1969 actual actual estimate estimate Search and rescue cases responded to by Coast Guard forces 43, 366 45, 576 47,784 49,341 Value of property assisted (rn millions) $2,633 $2, 746 $2, 800 $2,900 Lives saVed 2, 536 2,657 2,790 2,884 2. Aids to navigation.-A network of manned and unmanned aids to navi- gation is maintained along our coasts and on our inland waterways through the use of tetiders and shore facilities to insure the safe passage of the mariner. Loran stations are operated in the United Stains and abroad to serve the needs of the armed services and marine and air commerce (14 U. S.C. 81). 1966 actual 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Loran Acoverage(in millions of square miles): Ground wave 10.53 Loran C coverage (in millions of square miles): Groundwave Federal floating aids Federal fixed aids and short range electronic aids (radiobeacons).. Private aids authorized 9,75 24,699 18,407 22. 592 9.88 10.8 24, 770 19, 673 23, 700 10.32 11.8 24,819 20, 064 24,800 10.32 ~ 11.8 24,866 20,455 25, 900 3. Merchant marine safety.-The Coast Guard insures compliance with Federal statutes and regulations pertaining to the merchant marine industry by review- mg plans and specifications for the construction or alteration of merchant vessels, by periodic inspections by conducting marine casualty investigations and by setting standards, *procednres, and practices under which merchant marine personnel are regulated (14 U.S.C. 2). WORKLOAD DATA .*. -- ~ -~ -~-~ ._ ~ ..._~ .. ~_. 1966 actual ~ .*_ 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Vessel inspections Foreign vessel examinations Casualty investigations Recreational boating investigations Vessels documented Vessel plan approvals Foreign vessel hazardous cargo plan approvals Equipment approval certificate renewals Development and preparation of regulations, standards and pub- lications (man-hours) Licenses issued Seaman certificates issued Personnel investigations Shipment of seamen (number of transactions) 43, 530 1, 544 4,610 651 61,979 37, 685 1 861 876 12,432 6,342 43, 289 17,737 449, 796 46,209 1, 624 4,670 683 64, 881 34,062 3,214 876 13, 63~ 6,420 44, 800 18,200 458, 000 46,500 1,704 4,703 715 67, 750 36,786 3,250 911 16, 363 6,510 46,200 18,600 447,000 47,004 1, 780 4,790 747 70, 750 38, 257 3,250 929 17,999 6,600 47,700 19,100 437, 000 1 1st partial year of implementation. 4. Marine law enf orcemen&-Vessels, aircraft, and shore units enforce Federal laws on the high `seas and waters over which the United States exercises jurisdic- tion. Law enforcement activities inciudb fishery patrols; Campeche, Key, and Alaskan patrols; small-boat boarding; supervision of explosives loadings; en- forcement of dangerous cargo regulations; anU port control (14 U.S.C. 89, 91). PAGENO="0175" patrol zones (square miles in thou- - 3,565 3,600 15,819 16,000 L ~ 340 40 Is: - _ad: 4,020 - 61,530 fl~d -- (H1(~ ~ P V Ci Boa I' Coas I~ternat~, - -`-~`, - - WORKLOAD C -- PAGENO="0176" PAGENO="0177" 173 Grade 8trueture of oivilia~v personnel employed by Ooast G~uard Grades and ranges Number `~rades and ranges Number US-is, $27,055 GS-4, $4,995 to $6,489 849 US-ill, $20,982, to $26,574 3 GS-,% $4,466 to $5,807 518 GS-15, $18,404 to $23, 921 46 GS-~-2, $4,108 to $5,341 64 US-14, $15,841 to $20,593 71 US-i, $3,776 to $4,910 4 GS-18, $13,507 to $17,557 123 Grades established by the Corn- GS-12, $11,401 to $14,899 199 mandant of the Coast Guard: US-il, $9,657 to $12,555 318 Lighthouse keepers and light 05-10, $8,821 to $11,467 28 attøndants 21 08-9, $8,054 to $10,475 362 Academy faculty 29 GS-8, $7,384 to $9,598 33 Ungraded ~. 1,489 05-7, $6,734 to $8,759 372 GS-6, $6,137 to $7,982 156 Total 6,259 05-5, $5,565 to $7,239 552 9. What capital equipment, such as AD?, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? In addition to those listed in appendix I, the Coast Guard has major AD? installations as follows: five primarily administrative applications (~iccounting, supply support functions, etc.) ; one engineering functions; one educational func- tions (Academy) ; one Amver (automated merchant vessel reporting systeni). 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Moderate growth in expenditures and benefits are expected in rough propor- tion to the increase in gross national product and the increase in population. ii. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program. as a whole is beitig efficiently carried out? fleadquarters office chief (program director) level. 12. Is there a continual review within the agency, other thtin the annual budg~ - etary review, to deterrnin~ more effective and efficient ways to achieVe these program objectives? Yes. Program managers are continually reviewing the program exectition on a routine basis as well as on specfic occasions required by constraints being imposed in the form of limitations on obligations, expenditures, and personneL The proposal of new initiatives as well as periodic "crisis" situations (i.e., deploy- ments of facilities to meet contingency requirements, etc.) also require additional program reviews. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? This program does not duplicate work being done by any other agency but some Coast Guard work in our areas of responsibility is similar to work being done by other agencies as follows: Our aids to navigation systems serve the mariner as FAA. systems serve the airman; we conduct oceanographic activities in areas not covered by Navy and ESSA. 14. Is your `organi~ational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Our organizational structure has met our needs in the past; however, the intro- duction of PPBS has resulted in certain changes to date and will probably result in some further changes to match organization to program structure as it is evolving in the Department. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? Refer to questions 70 and 71. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The erosion of the dollar has led to shortages of funds (inc to higher 1)riceS than estimated at the beginning of the budget process. The impo'~ition of limitations on obligations and expenditures has delayed moclerriizatiomi of certain facilities. The backlog of manitenamice on our aging facilities continues to mount. The reenlistment rates of our persominel are low creating serious problems in main- taining the required number of trained technical personnel. 21-528 0-69--pt. 11-1 2 PAGENO="0178" 174 17. Do you administer ahy grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to tl:us program~ If so is the size of your administrative staff commensurate u ith the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18 If your appropriations were reduced how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain `activities? By curtailing certain activities. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Additional funds over ~and above those currently approiriated would be `ipplied to the highest priority areas currently agreed upon with the Depart mont More particularly the highest priority would generally be reflected in the restoration of such reductions from the President's 1969 budget as the House Appropriations Committee may effect, or that may be made in `the event a `general retrenchment were ordered from the 1969 programs now before the Congress. Activity 3 (U.S. Coast Guard): Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? This program is for necessary expenses of' acquisition, construction, rebuilding, ~ind improvement of aids to navigation shore facilities vessels `md aircraft `including related equipment, and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109. Funds remain available until expended. Authority for this program is found in title 14. 2. Whq is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? At Coast Guard Headquarters level, this program is subdivided into mission- oriented programs. The program directors for these prograhm are as follows: Rear Adm. R. W. Goehring, Chief~ Office of Operations Rear A'dm. D. B. Henderson, Chief, Office of Engineering Rear Adm. W. B. Ellis', Chief, Office of Personnel Rear Adm. J. D. McCubbin, Chief, Office of Reserve / 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? New obligation authority for fiscal year 1968 is $107,014,000 under this prO- gram. See answers to question 1 in activity 1 for capital equipment available. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? 6. Would you describer the principal operations that are involved in producing `this output? ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS, COAST GUARD PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE This appropriation provides for the acquisition, construction, rebuilding, and improvement of vessels aircraft shore facilities and aids to navigation Direct program~-1. Vessels.-A program to replace overage, obsolete, and deteriorated vessels of the Coast Guard will be continued in 1968 with the con- struction of replacements for one high endurance cutter and two small cutters to. replace patrol vessels. Fixed or floating aids will be constructed to replace lightships at priority locations Three augmentation vessels planned for con strii~tlOn are two tenders, with associated facilities, for servicing aids to navi- gation on the Arkansas and lower Mississippi Rivers and an o~eanographic cutter The program also provides for contract design services for a replacement Icebreaker. Modernization and Improvement of existing facilities includes im- provements on icebreakers rehabilitation of six high endurance cutters mnstalla tion of balloon tracking radar on four high-endurance cutters, installation of 20 Loran-C receivers and four Navy navigation satellite systems on large cutters and icebreakers for the oceanography program. 2. Aviation faoUities~-Under this `activity the program provides for the ac- quisition of 10 replacement aircraft a I nine helicopters--six for Icebreaker op- eration~ and three for SAR s' ` m for reconfiguration of medium-range - - addition the program also calls for laceix PAGENO="0179" 175 3. 81 here stations and stavlgafioñal aids,-Tb~ program under this activity pro- vides for the establishment of and changes to aids to navigation marking river and harbor improvements effected by the U.S. Corps of Efigineers, and other urgent needs Other projects are included to (a) establish two new stations ilt Jonesport Maine and Sassafras River Kennedyville Md (b) replace and improve facilities at Fire Lsland and Alexandria Bay, N.Y., and Wrightsville Beach N C (c) continue consolidation of units at Governors Island N Y (4) construct mooring facilities at Panama City Fla (e) make improvements at a Loran station located, outside the continental United States; (f) provide hous- ing for Coast Guard personnel and their dependents In areas where living accom- modations are inadequate and (g) facilitate the survey and design of future major construction projects. In addition improvements will be made in the coni- munications facilities 12th Coast Guard District and 10 manned light stations will be converted to automatic operation. 4. Ropa4r and supply faoWties.-Phe expansion of support facilities In 1968 includes the consolidation of units at base, Milwaukee, Wis., and relocation of facilities at base, Mobile, Ala. Construction of a pier at New London, Conn., is the first step of a project to consolidate two repair facilities, now separately lo- cated at a new and larger base site Existing facilities at the Coast Guard yard will be improved with the rehabilitation of the barracks, rearrangement, and ex- tension of the fabricating shop. Improvements will be made in the sewage dis- posal systems at base Ketchikan Alaska and Coast Guard yard to meet regu lations for control of water pollution. 5. Training and recruiting facilities.-The program for improving facUlties at the Coast Guard Academy will continue with the construction of an audi- torium--recreation hall and renovation of the cadet barracks. Chase Hall. A 300,- 000-gallon water storage tank will be constructed at training center, Cape May, N.J. Other construction includes three barracks-one at training center, Alameda, Calif.~ and two at Reserve training center, Yorktown, Va. 6. Alternation of bridges-In its new role as a part of the Department of Transportation the Coast Guard will be required to budget for the Federal Gov- ernment's share of the cost of altering railroad .and public highfay bridges to permit free navigation of navigable waters of the United States. In 1968, four railroad bridges located near Morgan City, La. and Chicago, Ill. (Calumet River) will be altered. Fiscal year Program 1968 N,O.A.. 1. Vessels $40, 776,000 2. Aviation facilities 27,549,000 3. Shore stations and navigational aids 22,482,000 4. Repair and supply facilities 4, 767,000 5. Training and recruiting facilities 7, 640,000 6. Alteration of bridges 3, 800,000 107,014,000 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? The total number of employees is 438, including 11 military personnel and 277 full-time permanent civilian personnel. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? GS- Number GS- Number GS-2 2GS-11 54 GS-3 * 15 GS-l2 15 (15-4 29GS-13 13 GS-5 23 GS--14 4 GS-6 4 GS-15 1 GS-7 -- 40 GS-9 76 Total 127$ I Pius 1 wageboard. No supergrades are Involved. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? See question 3. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? / PAGENO="0180" 176 A growth in expenditnre~in this pr~grarn cali be expected,f0 more near1~ match actual replacements to requirements for replacement, and for augmentation of facilities in rough proportion to the increase in gross national product 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? The program directors named in question 2 are responsible for program coordi- nation. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Continual program review is accomplished routinely by Headquarters review of project proposals, drawings, specifications, and estimates. Constraints in the form of limitations on obligations, expenditures, and personnel require revieW of the program. Reductions and reallocation of resources also lead to review. In addition some projects contain a value engineering clause in the contract 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? The Coast Guard engages in construction, repair and modernization of facili- ties `necessary to meet the requirements of our mission performance. The pro- gram does not duplicate the capital inv'estment programs of other agencies. We frequently can anci do "add on'~ our requirements to DOD construction contracts and capital equipment procurement contracts. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and eff~tJ~vely? Our organizational structure has met our needs in the past. However, the introduction of PPBS has; resulted in certain changes to date, and further changes will probably result, to match organization to program structure as it evolves in the Department of Transpontation. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendatioiis the report contains? No final GAO reports on this program exist to which the Coast Guard has not responded. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The erosion of the value of the dollar has led to shortages of funds due to construction bids higher than estimated at the beginning of the budget process, several years before the bid opeming date. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? The Truman-Hobbs Act provides that the Federal Government shall share the cost of altering bridges to remove obstructions to free navigation of navigable waters of the United States. Disbursements are reimbursements to the bridge owner. It is now administered by the Coast Guard through an administrative staff including navigation specialists, bridge engineers, and managers. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Certain activities-projects-would l~e curtailed to absorb a cut in the appro- priation. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Additional funds, over and above those currently appropriated, would be applied to the highest priority areas currently agreed upon with the Depart- ment. More particularly the highest priority would generally be reflected in the restoration of such reductions from the President's fiscal year 1969 budget as the House Appropriations Committee may effect, or that `may be made in the event a general retrenchment were ordered from the fiscal year 19(39 program now before Congress. Activity 3 (17.3. Coast Gaard): Research Development, Test, and EvaZaation 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? This program is for necessary expenses for basic and applied scientific re- search, development, test, and evaluation; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3t09 maintenance rehabilitation lease and operation of facilities and equip- ment. Funds remain available until expended. Authority for this program is found in title 14. PAGENO="0181" 177 ~ .2. Who is the persOii primarily h~ charge of this program at the o~rative level (name and title)? Rear ~din 0 R Smeder Assistant Chief of Staff for Research and Develop ment. 3 Row much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? New Obligation Authority of $15 million was transferred from OE funds for RD P & F in fiscal year 1968 No capital equipment is charged to this program. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? PROGRAM AND PERPORMANCE This appropriation provides for administration and conduct of basic and applied scientific reseaTch development test and evaluation with maintenance rehabilitation lease and operation of facilities and equipment 1 ~earoli and rescue -The program for search planning will be continued in 1969 and further expanded to include sensor systems for locating distressed vessels, processes for' converting distress information into an optimum search plan, and methods of improving aerial delivery of survival equipment 2. Aids to na'vigation.-Additional effort will be applied in 1969 to detelop- ment of lightweight buoys for protected waters. The initial developmental stages of a high precision all-weather harbor approach and evaluation of the long~ range OMEGA navigation system In relation to future loran requirements will also be instituted in 1969 while continuing buoy moorings, light source, and sound-package developmentS 3, Marine safety.-The program under this activity includes investigation of construction standards in new fields such as nonmilitary submersibles and nu- clear plants as well as expanded efforts in study of firefighting agents lifesaving devices and investigation into methods of avoiding casualties associated with carrying toxic chemicals, loose cargoes, elevated temperature cargoes, and other dangerous or explosive substances in bulk quantities In addition the program also calls for continuation of research efforts with interagency groups such as SOLAS subdivision and stability panel the NAS advisory committee on toxic chemicals, interagency firefighting studies, and a wave motion study In connec- tion with structural strength of vessels. 4. Marine law enforcement.-TJnder this activity, the program provides for re- search efforts in the control of ~pollution by oil or othet' wastes of our navigable waters. The program includes a feasibility study of airborne sensors for dhtec- tion booms and gelhng agents for control and containers for defueling of wrecks A companion project will be instituted for design of systems to reduce pollution by the Government's own facilities, including Coast Guard cutters. 5. Oceanography, meteorology, and polar operations-This program calls for refinement of data collection packages development of iceberg tracking capability and increased support of the National Oceanographic Data Center, as well as including research in connection with data collection on Coast Guard offshore structures, vessels, and buoys, exclusive of their actual servicing and operating costs. The National Data Buoy System program initiates the developmental phase of a national system to collect oceanographic environmental data through a world- wide system of buoys. The overall program in 1969 will be monitored by the Marine Sciences Council. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? The outputs of this program cannot be quantified but will reflect improved effectiveness in other programs. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved In producing thls output? Same as 4. 7. Row many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? The total number of employees is 37, includIng 29 mIlitary and eight civilians. 8 What is the ~ e structure and how 11 PAGENO="0182" 178 No supergrades are involved. 0. What capital equipment., such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? No capital equipment is charged to this program. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably hi the future? A growth in RD.T & E~ is expected consistent with growth in state-of-the-art technology and improved evaluation of Coast Guard programs indicating fruitful areas for application. Also, an expanded program is expected during fiscal year 1969 for the national data buoy project. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the pro- gram coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently car- ried out? Efficiency of the R.D.T. & E. program is reviewed and coordinated iii head- quarters at the program directors level with assistance from the Assistant Chief of Staff for R. & D. In the Coast Guard, R. & D. is actually a support program. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes, review of R.D.T. & E. is a continual program as lower priority items are reviewed to obtain resources to meet higher priority items. Expenditure limita- tions, personnel ceilings, and budgetary limitations require a continual review of projects to insure effective and efficient procedures are utilized in order to maxi- m.i~ benefits. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? We engage in R.D.T. & E. program in an effort to improve the effectiveness of Coast Guard equipments and mission performance only; duplication of efforts by other agencies does not exist. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Basically the R.D.T. & E. program is being carried out efficiently and effec- tively. The structure of the R.D.T. & N. organization is being augmented and revised to become more responsive to PPBS and the Department. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The present level of R.D.T. & E. program ($1.5 million) is small and too lim- ited to realize the benefits available from current technological capabilities. Ex- pansion of the R.D.T. & N. program will require increased resources to improve effectiveness of other Coast Guard programs. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut- by, an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? In most cases a reduction in funds would be absorbed by curtailing individual projects unless the seopo of a project could be reduced and still provide mean- iiigful outputs. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Additional funds, over and above those currently appropriated, would be ap- plied to the highest priority areas currently agreed upon with the Department. More particularly the highest priority would generally be reflected in the restora- tion of such reductions from the President's fiscal year 1969 budget as the House Appropriations Committee may effect, or that may be made in the event a gen- eral retrenchment were ordered from the flsca.l year 1969 program now before Congress. Activity 4: Coast GuarZ thipply Fund 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? The Coast Guard supply fund, in accordance with 14 U.S.C. 650, finances the Procurement of uniform clothing, commissary provisions, general stores and technical materials. This revolving fund is reimbursed from cost of goods sold. PAGENO="0183" 179 2. Who is the lerson primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title) ? Capt. H. J. McCornmack, Oomptroller (acting), IIT.S. Coast Guard. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? The capital authorization of the fund is approximately $9,200,000. Obligations for inventory replenishnients in fiscal year 1968 are estimated to be $25,920,000. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? 6. Can you describe the Principal operations that are involved in producing this output? (Answer to questions 4, 5, 6): Costs of approximateb' $25 million to be iii- curred under this fund in 1968 are divided 16 Percent for uniform clothing, 53 percent for conimissary provisions, and 31 percent for general stores and tech- nical niaterials including electronics. Sales are estmiated to be $25 million, which is an increase of $1,012,0(~) over 1967. rThis increase results froni an increase in aids to navigation material and phasing out of and replacement of electronic equipment. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? None. Personnel operating supply fund are funded from other Coast Guard appropriations. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-_quota and non- (lUOta-are involved? Not applicable. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this Program? The supply fund does not own any capital equipment: however, one IBM 1440 and two Honeywell 11-120 computer installations are partially employed in supply fund accounting and reporting. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow ap- preciably in the future? Moderate growth is expected with expansion of the service (uniform, com- missary, and general stores). Also. replacement of technical materials which are not common to DOD requiremen.t~ will generate additional growth. 11. At. what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? headquarters office chief (program director) level, offices of comptroller amid engineering. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? The items stocked in the fund are subjected to l)eriodic reporting and review which includes considerations as to whether they should be continued in fund as well as level of stocking. 13. To your knowledge, does this program dupliêate or parallel work being done by any other agency? This program parallels work done by any agency having a similar fund. The Coast Guard utilizes other agencies' programs where possible and adequate sup- port can be l)rovided thus avoiding duplication. In some instances, the Coast Guard supply fund Supports other agency needs. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? The program meets these nleasures to reasonable extent ann, as conditiomis change and evolve, adjustments are worked out in the organization structure. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO reeommnendatioiis the report contains? No. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facIng in accomplishing the pro- gram objectives? Funding for support of equipment outfits of new vessels and aircraft as well as new generation replacemptit equipments on existing facilities is causing some strain and a review of the adequacy of present capitalization. PAGENO="0184" 180 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriatioim were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction or by ci~ttieg or curtailing certain activities? A reduction in appropri&tion.s would nut necessarily be reflected in the supply fund. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Not applicable. Activity 5: Coast G~uard yard fand 1. What is the nature of and authority for `this program? This finances Industrial operations at the Cbest Guard yard, Curtis Bay, Md., using advances received from Coast Guard appropriations and from other agen- cite. Authority is contained in `title 14, United States Oode. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge `of this program at the operative level (name and title)? At headquartetu level, the program director is Hear Adm. D. B. Henderson, Chief, Office of Engineering. 3. How much money and capital equipment Is available under this program for fiscal 1968? Estimated obligations for fiscal year 1968 under this program are $17,130,000. Capital equipment consists of industrial buildings and shop equipment. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing thIs output? PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE This fund finances industrial operations at the Coast Guard yard, Curtis Bay, Md. (14 U.S.C.). The yard finances its operations out of advances received from Coast Guard appropriations and from other agencies for all direct and indirect costs. Analysis by type of work (percent) e8~tn~te Vessel repairs and alterations 29 Vessel construction 80 Small boat repairs and construction 16 Buoy fabrication__- 6 Fabrication of special items 16 Miscellaneous 3 Total .-~ 100 Analysit by reeipientTof yard services (percent): Coast Guard 90 Other Government agencies 10 Total 100 7 How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of emplOyment categories do they fall? The total number `of employees is 1,214, including 29 military personnel and 1,185 full-time permanent civilian personnel. 8. What i's the grade structure and bow many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? Number Number GS-2 ~- 2 OS-li 29 GS-3 21 GS-12 11 05-4 16 GS-13 9 OS-S 220S-14 3 OS-fl 10 05-7 - 26 Total GS~. 199 05-8 6 Wage Board 986 05-9 40 05-10 4 Total 1185 PAGENO="0185" 181 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? Sec question 3. 10. Do you except the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? No growth is expected in this program. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? The program director named in question 2 is responsible for program coordina- tion. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine ~more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Continual program review is accomplished routinely by headquarters review of project proposal, drawings, specifications, estimates, and requests for funds. Constraints in the form of limitations on.obligations, expenditures, and personnel require review of the program. Reductions and reallocation of resources also lead to review. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? This program does not duplicate the work of any other agency. However, it does roughly parallel the work done in Navy shipyards. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yard organizational structure has met our needs in the past. Improvements in management technology and ADP may result in changes to improve yard operations. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No final GAO reports on this program exist to which the Coast Guard has not responded. S 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? S The erosion of the value of the dollar has led to the shortages of funds due to costs higher than estimated at the beginning of the budget process, several years before the start of actual work. S S 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? if so, is the size of your administrative staff conunensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? This program does not involve any grants, loans, or other kinds of Federal aid. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-~- by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certaiti activities? Certain construction projects would be curtailed to absorb a cut in our appro- priations and resulting cuts in work orders to the yard. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you (lo with the new money? Additional funds, over and above those currently appropriated, would be applied to the highest priority projects in the unit development plan for the yard. Some of these are: Recondition cranes Nos. 1, 2, and 5 $323, 000 Increase length, drydoek No. 1 287,000 Construct recreatiofl building 325,000 Modernize utilities `tOo, 000 Construct medical-dental building 3(~4, 000 Activity C (TIC. Coa~tt Guard) : Retired Pay 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? This appropriation provides for retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse and Life- saving Sevices, and for payments to survivors pursuant to the retired service- man's family protection plan. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? Rear Adm. W. B. l~lll1s, Chief, Office of Personnel. PAGENO="0186" 182 3. How much money aild capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? $48;000,000. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Pay retired'persennel (1~,219 at the end of fiscal year 1968). 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Number of personnel on retired pay (i3~219 at the end of fiscal year 1968). Appropriation $48 million. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that, are involved in producing this output? This is a support progra~n to pay retired personnel 7 How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type / of employment categories do they fall? None per se Retired pay is accomplished as a collateral effort by clisbuising personnel. This program is a support function. 8.. What is the grade structure. and how mauy super grades~-quota and non- quota-are involved? None. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP~ if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None per se. However, ~DP is utilized to the limited extent necessary to pay retired personneL 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of t-he program to gro* appreciably in the futur~? The expenditures will Increase with the annual Increase In personnel on the retired rolls and cost of hyIng increases authorized pursuant to 10 U S C 1401(a). . . - 11. At what level are ~the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? Headquarters Chief of Office (Chief Office of Personnel) 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the animal budgetary review to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program ob~ject1ves? The program objective to pay retired personnel Is reviewed in audits and In budget process. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? This program pays retired personnel of the Coast Guard Coast Guard Re serve former members of Lighthouse and Lifesaving Services and retired serviceman's protection plan. As such it is not a duplication of another agency's efforts. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program Is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? yes. 15 Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program'? If so what is the status of theGAO re~ommendatlons the report contains? None. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? None~ 17 Do you admlnisisr any grants loans or other disbursed funds related to this program'? If so is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitu4e of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-- by an overall reduction or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? This a legislated program. If reductions ~were made retirements would be delayed. - 19 If additional funds were available what would you do with the new money? Unprogramed funds would go into reserve for savings and be permitted to lapse. PAGENO="0187" 183 / PIiOGRAM OAThGOR~ 2.-rEDERAL AVXAPION ADMIvISTEATIOx (Note: These questions are answered separately for each of the t~llowing program areas: A. Grants4n.-aid for airports, B. Civil supersonic transport development, C. Bureau of National Capital Airports, P. Aviation war risk insurance, and B. Operations, facilities and equipment, and research and development.) Activity A: G'raata-in-Aid for Airports 1, What is the nature of and authority for this program? The Federal Airport Act of 1946 as amended provides for the grant of funds to sponsors for airports development to encourage, in conformity with the na- tional airport plan the establishment of a nations~ ide system of public airports adequate to meet present and future needs of civil aeronautics. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level? George S. Moore, Associate Administrator for Operations. 3. How much~ money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? Funds available for fiscal year 1968 total $140,784,000. No funds are included for acquisition of capital equipment Approximately $888 million was available for programing in fiscal year 1968. The balance was already committed to projects. - 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Grant agreements whereby the Federal Government pays a specified percent- age of allowable airport development project costs. Sponsors bear the remain- ing costs. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Yes, in terms of numbers of grant agreements made and projects completed. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? Determine sponsor lInd project eligibility; advise and assist sponsors in development of plans, specifications, and priorities; effect grant payments and monitor sponsor's activity to require ~contractor compliance with specifications. 7 How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? None. Personnel who administer this program are paid from the operations appropriation and are reported under the operations program heading. 8. What is the grade structure and hoW many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? None. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to ful~Ill this program? ADP equipment is used to produce airport facility and program management data. 10. Do you expect expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? The current authorization for the grants in aid for airports program expIres as of fiscal year 1970. The National Airport Plan for 1968 prescribes a total requirement at over $2 billion for airport facilities for the fiscal year period 1969-73. To meet this need, there is now under consideration a long-range plan for expansion and improvement of the Nation's airport system. 11 At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? At all levels of the organization from Washington headquarters to the regional offices to the area offices. 12 Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes FAAP pro3ects are audited by Office of Audit Evaluation programs are administered by Airports Service in Washington and by regional directors in the field. In addition, operations of the program are subject to review in internal management audits and appraisals and, as needed, detailed reviews of organiza- tion, functions, work methods, procedures, records, reports and staffing criteria. PAGENO="0188" 184 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? We are not aware of any duplication. Other agencies operate grant-in-aid programs for other purposes, however. 14. Is your organizational structure such that your program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? We consider the present organization to be effective and efficient. It provides for and fosters a high degree of service to the public by the field offices. Decision- making authority is centralized at regional or Washington level only to the extent necessary to assure program objectivity, consideration of factors transcending the geographical limits of an area office's jurisdiction, or to provide for program inputs beyond the capabilities of the field office. The present organizational structure is flexible internally so that improvements in work processes and alterations in program activities can take place without upsetting the basic pattern. Such improvements and changes are taking place as conditions warrant; however, no change in the basic pattern is anticipated. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. Comments have been submitted on all GAO audit reports. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing your program objectives? Four of our most significant problems are as follows: a. To guide future developnient of our civil airports, there is need for a long-range-system blueprint which identifies the total development needed at each airport in relationship to its particular role and essentiality to the civil system. Present Federal planning is a limited purpose effort which falls short of thatrequirement. b. In an important sense, the Federal-aid airport program is intended to induce development of the ground segment of the civil aviation system at a pace commensurate with the growth of other elements of the system. In recent years, the fumis available have been unequal to the task. As the result, the magnitude of unaccomplished airport development is rapidly compound- ing and acting to severely constrain the balance of the system. c. There is growing need in our major metropolitan areas for the imple- mentation of a regional system of multiple airports. Such areas are n:or~ mally composed of a great number of separate political jurisdictions, each possessing the power to deny airport development within its boundaries. Because of the lack of a political body duly empowered to 1)1811 and there- after to implement regional airport systems in the total area's best, welfare, critically needed airport development is not occurring in many such areas. d. Community objection to aircraft noise is jeopardizing the continued existence of several major airports. Noise-or concern about noise- is also adversely affecting local willingness to accept expansion of airport capacities to alleviate congestion or to agree to development of new airports in what are otherwise desirable locations. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your adniinistrative staff comnmnensura!te with the magnitude of the outlays? The grant-in-aid for airports appropriation is applied in its entirety to a pro- gram of grants for airport development. Support for administering the grant pro- gram is provided in the operations appropriation, as part of the administation of airports category. - That portion of the administration of airports category which is applied di- rectly to administering grants can only be segregated from total man-years by computation. In actual practice most of the personnel in the airports program contribute day by day and hour by hour to any of several activities within this airports category. An analysis of the numbers of man-years involved in the administration of the airports program was made in November 1967, at the request of Congressmen Mark Andrews amid Tom Kleppe. It was estimated that 186 man-years were devoted to administering FAAP. This figure included man-years directly applied to FAAP workload, professional and clerical, and a pro rata share of supervisory, planning, and administrative activities in the airports program organization at all levels of the FAA structure. Considering the scope and urgency of the airport development needs of the Nation (almost $4~ million was requested for eligible development in the re- PAGENO="0189" 185 cently announced fiscal year 1969 program for whieh $74.7 million was allocated), it is believed that the magnitude of the outlay more than Justifies the size of staff applied to the program. 18 If youi appropriatioxi were reduced how would you absorb the cut-b~ an overall reduction or by c~itting and curtailing certain activities? The grant in aid for airports budget request for fiscal year 1970 reflects a redu tion from the $75 million authortaed by the Federal Airport Act to $65 million This reduction is a response to the overall need to reduce Federal expenditures The need for Federal assistance is for between $300 million and $400 milll~n a year. Therefore, it is necessary to apply considerations of relative priority based on national needs when developing the Federal aid airport program for each year If the appropriation were further reduced the FAA would give first priority to completion of airport development already begun as stage construction proj- ects A number of communities with development needs urgent to the uational system of airports applied for and have received or are programed to recejve assistance for the first stages of projects which will take several years to com- plete. These projects were entered into on the good faith and mutual belief that there would be Federal funds available for the future stages. These projects are not only important to the Nation; it would work a serious hardship on the com- munities involved if further aid were denied Therefore available funds would be programed first to those sponsors. Beyond the previously started stage construction projects available funds would be applied to meet airport development needs based on the priority rating system which has been used In the past two programs The application of this priority system might be affected by the requirements of the Federal Airport Act for State apportionment and territorial apportionment of funds. However, in general, as many projects would be funded as funds would permit, applying a priority rating based on the needs of the Nation. 19 If additional funds were available what would you do with the new money~ The answer to this question is the converse of the answer to question No. 18. If additional funds were available, a greater dent could be made in the total airport development needs of the Nation. As stated in answering the previous question, the total of requests for airport development is many times larger than the current authorization of $75 miUion and larger yet than the $65 million in the fiscal year 19(39 budget Consequently the question of what to do with more money is one of determining which of the many needed projects are of high enough relative priority to warrant receiving aid ahead ot other worthy projects The priority rating system currently in use would be the basic tool for determining which projects to include In the prograni. Activity B (FAA): Civil E~1uper8on~io Tra~uspoi-t Development 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? To develop a safe superior commercial supersonic transport aircraft that will be economically profitable for the industry to build and operate. The authority of the Administrator under section 312(b) of the Federal Avia- tion Act to develop and construct a civil supersonic aircraft was transferred to the Secretary of Transportation by section 6(c) (1) of the Department of Trans Portation Act (Public law 89-670) The act became effective on April 1 1967 By departmental order DOT 11001 also effective April 1, 1967 the Secretary of Transportation delegated the authority for the supersonic transport program back to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (49 C FR 1.4(b) (2)). 2 Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level `~ Maj (len J C Maxwell U S Air Force director of supersonic transport development. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal year 1968? Funds available for 1968 total $285,617,000, including $11,000 for acquisition of capital equipment. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program.? Engineered designs technical operations data, and economic information re quired to fabricate prototype SST aircraft. 5 Can you quantify this output in any way? No. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? PAGENO="0190" 1S6V Formulate SST~deslgn ~ibjeetives; select sources and contract for the develop- ment and testing of components evaluate4nht results ~wovide technical InfOrma tion to industry coordinfite data with Department of Defense (DOD) and Na tional Aeronautics and space Administration (NASA) and monitor progress 7. how many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories~lo they fall? The program for fiscal year 1968 includes 127 permanent positions. In addition, the program provides for two man years of intermittent employment 8 What is the grade structure and how many si~pergrades-quota and non quota-are Involved? V Data for fiscal yeay 1968 Is as follows: Grade: YU~ib~r special - 2 Scientific 1 GS-18 12 GS-17 14 GS-16 17 GS-15 41 GS-14 20 GS-13 13 05-12 and below 37 Total_~__~~. 127 1 The 13 supergrade positl~ns are all nonquota. / 9. What capital equipment such as ADP, if any, :00 you rely upon to fulfill the program? V V The Government contracts with both Boeing and GE reqnlre the manufacturers to provide all facifities necessary for the performance of their efforts, except for those which may be furnished by the Government from existing sour~es. The Boeing Co. utilizes virtually all commercial facilities. Less than 1 percent of the facilities to be used by Boeing are Government owned. A large amount of the existing facilities at the GE plant are Government owned Therefore in the case of GE approximately 60 percent of the facilities used are commercial with the remaining 40 percent furnished by the Government V Agreements on the use of these GOvernment facilities pertain only to the pro- totype development contract New agreements will be negotiated if the nianu V facturers propose to use Government facilities for the SST production program. In addition Government capital equipment owned by the Air 1~ orce and NASA that is the NASA Langley and Ames Research Center wind tunnels and corn V puters, are relied upon tO assist both the Government and the manufacturers. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably In the future? With the advent of the actual construction of prototypes in the next fiscal year, expenditures will increase and, in turn, the direct and indirect employment re- sulting from this increa~ed activity will be realized This is of course a short V term benefIt. In the bug term, once production commences and the airplanes begin to roll off the production line many thousands of additional jobs and the favorable balance of trade through sales to foreign airlines will result These long term benefits will be the direct result of a successful Government supported V prototype program. 11 At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole ~5 being efficiently carried out? Washington headquarters. 12 Is there a contin*tal program review within the agency other than the V annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achteve these program objectives? Yes-by Office of Audit and by internal evaluation efforts. V / 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being clone by any other agency? V No. However, FAA works jointly with DOD and NASA to derive benefits of their, experience in the field of supersonic flight and, in turn, to furnish useful data developed by FAA~ V V V 14. Is your organization structured such that the program is being carried out V most efficiently and effectively? PAGENO="0191" 187 The organization~of the Department and the FAA is structured to permit the SSP Office to carry out its mission in an efficient and effective manner. Specif- ically, General Maxwell's SST Office reports directly to the Administrator of the FAA who in turn reports to the Secretary of Transportatj~n This permits top-level administrative attention to the progran~ its needs and/or problems and results in a fast-responding command link. 15 Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program'? If so what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. Comments have been submitted on all GAO audit reports. 16 What significant problems if any are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The major problem faced in accomplishing the SST program objectives has been to design a prototype aircraft with sufficient performance to warrant actual `construction. The technological problems encountered are not unique to this airplane development and we would expect, through further design effort, the Boeing Co. will correct the deficiencies in the prototype design and enter proto- type construction early next year. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriation.s were reduced, how would you `absorb the cut-by an overall reduction or by cutting or curtailing certaIn activities? `The recently announced SST program delay encountered `due `to continuing the prototype development and des'ign period before entering major hardware construction does reduce our requirement for fiscal year 1969 funding Consid ering funds appropriated in previous years, airline risk `contributions made during fiscal year 1968, plus the cost sharing of the manufacturers, a sub- stantial fiscal year 1969 budget cut could be absorbed without `adversely affecting the program. 19. If additional funds were available~ wh'at would you dO with the money? If additional funds were made available to the SST program it would lessen our requirement for `fiscal year 1970 new appropriations but it wothd not change the pace of the program appreciably through. fiscal year 1969. Activity C (FAA) : Bureau of National Capital Airports 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program?. To plan, construct, and operate federally owned clvii airports serving Wa~h- ington and vicinity. The authority for the Washington National Airport is contained in the act of June 29, 1940 (54 Stat. 686), as amended. The authority for Dulles Inter- national Airport is contained in the act of September 7, 1950 (64 Stat. 770), as amended. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level? Arven H Saunders Director Bureau of National Capital Airports 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? Total funds available for 1968 by appropriation are as follows: Amount Appropriation: (in thousands) Operation and maintenance, National Capital airports $8, 650 Construction, National Capital airports 6,783 Total A total of $338,000 is included above for acquisition of capital equipment. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Engineering management operation and maintenance of Washington Na tional Airport and Dulles International Airport. S ~ Can you quantify this output in any way'? Only in terms of ever-increasing kinds of volume of operational activities arising from the continuously upsurging air traffic at Washington National Airport and normal increases in utilization of Dulles International Airport. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? Construction, operation, and maintenance of the physical facilities provided for users of the airports; contracting and contract supervision with airlines, PAGENO="0192" 188 eoncessionair~S, and otl~e~ terminal tenants; operation of police, fire, pro- tection, and first aid services; cooperation with city, county, State, and Federal authorities on airport matters. 7. How many einploye~s are involved in the program and~ in what general type of employment categories do they fall? The program for fiscal year 1968 includes 777 permanent full-time positions. Of this number, 763 are for operation and maintenance and 14 are for construc- tiOn activities. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? Data for fiscal year 1967 are as follows: Gra4e: Number Special ~. 1 GS-17 11 08-16 11 05-15 05-14 10 OS-13 20 GS-l2andbelow 2737 Total 1 The super.grade positions are quota. 2 Includes 414 wage board employees. 9. What capital equipment such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? The Bureau uses a wide variety of structures building and grounds main I tenance equipment firefighting equipment and other specialized service equip ments associated with fond concession operations, power distribution and main- tenance of other municipal-type utility services. The Bureau a annual purchases of capital equipment have in recent years been in the neighborhood of $200,000 to $400,000. We believe this level will be main- taiped In the near futui~e or until such time as additional mobile lounges are purchased for use at Dulles International Airport. The equipment that is now being purchased consists principally of general and special purpose vehicles such as police cruisers, tractors, trucks, snowplows, and sweepers, all of which are necessary for the operation of the airports. Some small purchases are made annually for the replacement of typical office equip- ment such as typewriters and adding machines, but the Bureau expends no funds for APP equipment. The ADP equipment that is used in the operation of the Bureau's accounting sys~ms Is purchased and maintained by the FAA beadquar- ers o~ce. The Bureau utilizes the APP equipment on a shared basis with other Washington offices and s6rvices. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Airport benefits as measured in revenues and the number of passengers and airctaft handled will continue to grow appreciably in the future. On a combined basis, revenues will grow from $10.3 million in fiscal year 1967 to an estimated $20 million in fiscal year 1974, a 94 percent increase; passengers handled will grow from 9.8 million in fiscal year 1967 to an estimated 20 million in fiscal year 1974, a 104 percent increase; and aircraft operations will grow from 512,000 in fiscal year 1967 to an estimated 677,000 in fiscal year 1974, a 32 percent Increase. Operating and capital expenditures are also expected to grow over the same fiscal year 1967-74 period, because of the rapiçl increase of air traffic in and out of the Washington area. See also question No. 19. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? All levels within the BNCA organization. Airport managers report individually to BNCA Director who reports to the Administrator 12. Is there a continual program review `within the agency, other than the ~ annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? yes. independent audlts of BN'OA activities are made by the Office of Audit. In addItion, the operations of the Bureau are subject to, periodic management ~ PAGENO="0193" 189 retiew ol! organization structure, work methods, procedures, records, rep~rts, and staffing criteria. 13. To your knowleage, does this program duplical~e or parallel work being done by an~ other agenc3t? No. 14. Is your organizational st~ucture such that the program is belng ct~rried out most efficiently and effectively? The Bureau has just been reorganized. The reorganization resulted in sig- nificant decentralization of functions from the Bureau headquarters to the two airports. Although the new organization is still in the "shakedown" phase, it seems to be working well and has overcome a number of problems previously caused by overcentralization. It is probably as good an organization as ean~ be achieved within the overall organizational framework of FAA. however, there is no question that the Bureau could operate much more effectively as a Govern- ment corporation. Legislation to establish the Bureau on this basis has been before the Congress for several years but has never been passed. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. Comments have been submitted on all GAO audit reports. 1(3. What significant problems, if any, are you facing In accomplishing the program objectives? Aside from the need for incorporation mentioned above, perhaps the most- significant problem faced by the Bureau today is community reaction against the use of Washington National Airport by jet aircraft. This reaction has been manifested in numerous complaints by the public concerning aircraft noise, pos- sible `air pollution, congestion at the airport. and allegations of safety hazards. It has culminated in the formation of a citizen's group devoted to closing the airport which threatens to jeopardize any attempt to improve or modernize the airport facilities even on a minimal basis. An equally significant problem is the fact that Diilles International Airport, while growing at a steady pace, has not been as fully utilized as anticipated. This problem complicates the problems at Washington National Airport and, in turn, is comupli-ated by inability to establish faster `access to the airport by road, rapid rail, or helicopter. Most of these possibilities are out of our hands and under the control of other agencies. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the `size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? We would hope that any reduction imposed by the Congress would recognize the fact that the costs of operating the airports are recovered through user charges and concession arrangements and that capital investments are also amortized in the same way. If a cut were imposed, how we would absorb it would depend upon the severity of the reduction. Since the bulk of the Bureau's operating funds are fOr, per- sonnel costs, we would probably attempt to `absorb any reduction in operating appropriations by an overall reduction in service levels, unless the cut were severe enough to make it necessary to curtail entire activities. Most of our i~ct1Vi- ties render essential public services, It would, therefore, be difficult and prob- ably unwise, to cut ou.t any single activity entirely. In the case `of a reduction in our construction `appropriation, we would react by deleting the lowest priority improvement projects in our fiscal program. In our judgment, either of these actions would be unfortunate, from the public point of view, in the light of the fact that the airports are self-sustaining enterprises. Under the revolving fund concept that would be established if the Bureau were incorporated, this' fact would be evident and requests for fippropriat.ions would beeome primarily requests to utilize funds earned by the airports. 19. If additional funds were available, what. would you do with the new money? Again, this question can only be answered in the light of the amount contem- plated. Getting Dulles International Airport fully activated to accept larger jet aircraft and providing for its expansion when its present design capability is exceeded about 1973 are No. 1 priorities, as is the need for providing and pro- tecting the fastest and easiest Possible access to that airport. 21-528 0-69--pt. 11-13 PAGENO="0194" 190 At the same time, addthonal Investments are needed at Waehingtoi~ National Airport to replace or Improve the 28-year old facilities if the airport is to con tinue at the present level of aircraft operations wh:ich, even under controlled conditions will increase annual passenger levels from 10 million in fiscal year 1968 to 15 million in fiscal year 1975. Activity D (FAA): Aviation War Risk Insurance 1. What is the nature of a.nd authority for this program? The program provides insurance against war risk for American aircraft or qualified foreign~fiag aircraft operating under Department of Defense or Depart- ment of State contracts. Provision is also made for insurance of any aircraft in the event of war betweeym any of the following powers: United States, Great Britain or any of the Commonwealth, France, and Russia. This program is authorized by title XIII of the Federal Aviation Act and is effective until September 7, 170. 2. Who Is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operating level? Nathaniel H. Goodrich, General Counsel, FAA. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? Approximately $55,00~. No capital equipment. No appropriation is made for payment of claims since these are reimbursed by either the Department of Defense or the Department of State. Other claims, in the event of war among the named great powers, would be reimbursed by premium charges to be imposed when needed. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Nonpremium insurance policies Issued to carriers operating under Defense and State Department contracts Premium type insurance i's issued to become effec tive In the event of war between the major powers. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Yes; 180 aircraft were insured during fiscal year 1967. As of April 30, 1968, the following coverages were in effect: [Dollar amounts in millionsj Basisfor coverage / Number of aircraft covered Total contingent liability Department of Defense contracts State J~epartment contracts Premium insurance 493 43 54 $34, 790 3,781 2, 227 In addition, two claims were adjudicated in fiscal year 1968. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? The administrative operation consists of processing applications for coverage issuing policies, evaluating claims, and maintaining associated records. Also Involved is the related legal advisory service. 7. How many employees are involved in the program, and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? One full-time permanent career employee. S. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? One GS-7. No supergrades. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None. 10. Do you expect the expenditures and the benefits of the program to grow appreciably In the future? No. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? At the working level Sad by the first line supervisor. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review to determine more effective and efficient Ways to achieve these program objectives? PAGENO="0195" nt problems, if any, are yc LdS are appropr peration8, Faoilitje8 and Eqnip 5 and equipment and development Total PAGENO="0196" 192 A total of $88,052,000 is included above for acquisition of capital equipment. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The program output involves the primary reasons for being of the FAA It involves airmen and aircraft certification air traffic and all other safety rulemaking procedures aircraft navigation aids communications equipment development installation operations and maintenance of such equipment con trol of air traffic; surveillance and inspection of all airmen and aircraft opera- tions (Air Carrier-General), safety* compliance inspections, violations, and accident investigations, etc.; also all logistics services, administrative services, and other `supporting services. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Yes. Records are kept and available re: a. Airmen and aircraft certification and registration. b. Air traffic control statistics of terminal and en route operations and aircraft flight plans handled. c. Facility commissioning availability and failure rates. 0. Accidents, violations, near miss information. e. Air carrier, general aviation operations. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? Development and promulgation of safety regulations; establishment of safety standards; controlling the flow of air traffic, providing a variety of advisory services to airmen., air agencies, and others; gathering and distributing aero~ nautical weather information; supporting defense requirements; compiling and publishing aeronautical information; inspecting aeronautical operations and enforcIng safety regulations; designing, procuring, installing and maintaining ground facilities in support of agency programs; conducting related research, development, test and evaluation of equipment and systems' to meet aeronautical needs. 7. How many employees are involved in the progra.m and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? The program for fiscal year 1968 includes a total of 44,018 permanent full-time positions distributed by appropriation as follows: Operations 41,671 Facilities and equipment 1, 164 Research and Develop~nent 1,183. In additieq, the program provides for 657 man-years of part-time temporary, and intermittent employment. Of this total, 539 man-years are funded under the Operations appropriation 9 man years under Facilities and equipment and 109 man-years under "Research and development." 8. What `is the g~rade structure and how many supergrades-quota and nonquota-are involved? Data for fiscal year 1968 `is as follows: Grade: ` 1'~uniber Statutory Special 19 Scientific - 15 GS-18 16 GS-17 132 GS-16 194 GS-15 817 GS-14 2,208 GS-13 5,039 GS-12 35, 783 Total 44,018 `Of the total 132 supergrade posItions, 107 are quota and 25 are nonquota. 9. What capital equipment, s'uch as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? In order to accomplish its program, the FAA uses a wide variety of air navi- gation, communications, and air traffic control equip~nent in addition to the more conventional data processing equipment, training aids, classroom and laboratory equipment passenger motor vehicles and trucks printing and reproduction equipment, and operating, working, and test equipment used in operation and maintenance of buildings, facilities and grounds, hangars, and airports. PAGENO="0197" ructure such that the progr of your' a PAGENO="0198" 194 merits to meet added work1oac1~ operatio~t o~ new facilities, and expansion of traffic control services ; expansion and improvement of terminal area air traffic control services anti navigation facilities ; and speeding the development of con- trol facilities, devices, ~id procedures essential to improvement of air traffic and resolution of air navigation problems. PROGEAM CATJ3IGOEY 3-FEDERAL HIGHWAY AflMINI5TRATION Activity 1 : Fet~Zerc&l-Aid Highway.~ 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? Giants are made to State for construction `tnd impro~ement of 1~edera1 aid higbwa~ a Authorizations are provided in the Federsi Aid Highway Act of 1956 ~nd subsequent highway legislation to co~ er 90 percent of the costs of completing the 41 000 mile National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and to match State funds on a 50-50 basis for the primary, secondary, and urban pro- gram'~ The Federal share of project costs is increased in those States with large areas of public domain~ Payments to the States for work done are made out of the highway trust fund into which are deposited certain Federal excise tax re èeipts on motor fuel, ti)~es and tubes, tread rubber, trucks, buses, trailers, ~truck use, truck parts and accessories, and on lubricating oil used in highway vehicles. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961 authorized additional appropriations for the interstate program and also provided increased revenues to finance these increased authorizations, The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966 provided $1 bil- lion for each of the years 1968 and 1969 to continue the Federal-aid primary, ~econdary and urban programs and pros ided increased authori7ation for the In terstate System for 1968-72 inclusive All authorizations are available for obliga tion in the year prior to the year for which authorized for appropriation as liq- uidatlfig cash. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? F. C. Turner, Directdr, Bureau of Public Roads. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? Unused contract authority of $7.6 billion is available, for obligation in 1968. Obligations are planned at $4.1 billion in 1968. A liquidating cash appropriation from the highway trust fund in the amount of $3,770 872 000 has been enacted for fiscal year 1968 A supplemental liquidating cash appropriation of $400 million has passed the House and is pending in the Senate If this supplemental bill is enacted it would increase cash availability to $4 170 872 000 durIng fiscal year 1968 Capital assets consist of office furniture and equipment and land and buildings at the Fairbanks Research Station at Langley, Va. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? 1. Construction and improvement of Federal-aid highways, and 2. Planning and research activities. This covers engineering and economic surveys and investigations; planning of future highway programs and the financing thereof: stpdies of the economy, safety, and convenience of highway usage and the desirable regulation and equitable taxation thereof and research ~nd development necessary in connection with the planning design construetion find maintenance of highways and highway systems and the regulation and taxation of their use. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? As of March 31 1968 almost 25900 miles of the 41 000 mile Interstate System were open to traffic Approximately 91 percent (23 587 miles) was built or im proved under the Federal-aid interstate program, most of it under the 90 percent Federal, 10 percent State matching program launched in 1956. Poll roads, bridges and tunnels incorporated in the system totaled 2,305 miles. In addition to the sections open to traffif~, 5,678 miles were under construction with interstate funds, and engineering or right-of-way acquisition was in progress on another 8,494 miles. Thus some form of work was underway or completed on 40,064 of the 41,000-mile system-about 98 percent of the total system mileage. Construction projects involving 221,005 miles in the regular Federal-aid program (primary secondary and urban) have been completed since July 1 1956, at a total cost of $18.32 billion; and contracts involving 15,394 miles at a cost of $884 billion were authorized or hnderway on March 31, 1968 In add tion $1.39 billion of engineering and right-of-way acquisition work had been completed, and $729 million was underway. PAGENO="0199" ___n COIflL - fl expressed of a comprehe PAGENO="0200" 196 Quota Nonquota Total Quota Nonquota Total Level 1V GS-18 1 GS-17 4 1 GS-16 18 5 GS-15 GS-14 GS-13 GS-12 GS-1l G$-10 GS-9 GS-8 GS-7 1 1 5 23 98 243 718 780 345 3 228 17 308 GS-3 GS-2 GS-l Public Law 313 FC-3 FC-4 FC-5 FC-6 FC-7 FC-9 FC-10 FC-12 FC-13 173 49 6 1 8 13 35 90 17 1 1 1 1 GS-6 GS-5 GS-4 193 331 323 Wage board - 44 - 4,057 Total 9. What capital equi$nent, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? ADP equipment in the Washington headquarters office of Federal Highway Administration, and a highway research laboratory at Langley, Va. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Increased authorizations are proposed for the fiscal years 1~70 through 1974 Benefits will accelerate as the result of the expansion of the Federal aid highway program With the completion of the Interstate System alone it is estimated an $11 billion savings per year wi~I accrue to highway users from reduced vehicle operating expenses, from less traveltime consumed, and from lower accident costs. Lives that otherwise would be lost in traffic accidents will amount to 8,000 saved a~inually. The whole economy of the United States is directly dependent upon motor vehicle transpOrtation. Tremendous contributions can be made to the overall economic, social, and cultural goals of the community and its people as the result of an adequate transportation system. 11. At what jevel are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? The program is headed by the Director of Public Roads aided by a deputy and six staff assistants in the Washington headquarters. This staff is responsible for policy formulation and general direction of public roads operations The field organizfitlon consists of nine regional offices located across the country, each supervising the Federal-aid program in from four to eight States. There is a djvislon o~ce in every State and in Puerto Rico and the District of Oolumbia. It is through this field organization that relations with the State highway departments are carried on. Ooordlnation is carried out at both headquarters and field level. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes there are continuing reviews by the Director and his staff to Increase efficiency and effectiveness of operations In addition a cost reduction program is conducted on a continuing basis through project by project reviews of State plans and estimates. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No. The program expedites the work of State and local authorities in provid-. lug needed highway facilities. 14. Is your orgautsational structure such that the program is being carried outmost efficiently aild effectively? Yes. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? There are three outstanding GAO reports as follows: 1. Draft report titled, "Need for Improved Controls Over Appraisal Reports Supporting Right-of-Way Costs for the Federal-Aid Highway Program in the State of Rhode Island." PAGENO="0201" Ivision office is )raisal reviews -~ ~o adcV I 1 0 F ~tatu~ e dure WJ procedu tr ter E~tat TI Li to ~ -~ made nent. of action I unsettled right-of-way cases, the ~----- timize PAGENO="0202" 198 major problem. Environmental considerations also create problems in some cases. 17 Do you administer any grants loans or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? This is a grant-in-aid program, and the staff is cons'dered adequate. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or b~ cutting or curtailing certain activities? Overall reduction in accord with the funding legislation. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Expedite the program in accord with the authorizing legislation. Aoticity 2 (Federal Higlw'ay Administration): Highway Beautification 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? Three major programs were authorized by the Highway Beautification Act of October 22, 1965, as follows: 1. Title I: Control of outdoor advertising, which provides that just compen~ sation shall be paid uponf removal of certain signs, displays, and devices. Seventy- five percent of the cost of this program is to be paid from Federal funds. 2. Title II: Control of junkyards, which provides for Federal participation of 75 percent for screening costs in connection with junkyards and that ~just compensation be paid to the owner for the relocation, removal, or disposal of certain junkyards. 3. Title III: Landscaping and scenic enhancement, provides for the use of highway trust fund moneys to landscape the highway right-of-way; and an amount equivalent to 3 percent of the funds apportione4 to a State for Federal- aid highways shall be allocated to that State out of the funds appropriated to be used for the cost of landscaping and roadside development including acqui sition and development of publicly owned and controlled rest and recreation areas and sanitary and other facilities reasonably necessary to accommodate the traveling public. Matching State funds are not required. Title IV of the act aUthorized appropriation of funds for administrative ex- penses to carry out the outdoor advertising, junkyards, and lanscaping and scenic enhancement provisions of the act. Authorizations under titles I, II, and UI above, expired on June 80, 1967, and no obligations have been incurred since that date except costs of administering contracts awarded in fiscal years 1966 and 1967. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the qperative level (name and title)? P. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal year 1968? An appropriation of $1,236,096 is available for carrying out the provisions of title IV for necessary costs of administration related to the projects initiated during fiscal years i9~36 and 1967 pursuant to the provisions of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. There is no capital equipment involved. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Administering the provisions of title 23, United States Code, sections 131, 136, and 319(b) ,to protect the public investment in the Nation's highways; promote the safety and recreational value of public travel; and preserve and enhance the natural scenic beauty along the highways. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Seventeen States have signed agreements to control outdoor advertising along Interstate and Federal aid primary system highways Negotiations are presently underway with 31 additionalStates. Twenty States have 8igned agreements to control junkyards adjacent to Inter- state and Federal-aid primary system highways. Negotiations are presently in progress with the remaining States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Since October 1965, authorIzation has been granted for the screening of 1,39o junkyards and for the removal of 114 others. since October 1965, authorization has been granted for the acquisition of 5,406 scenic easements adjacent to Federal-aid highways, the construction or improve- ment of 509 roadside rest and recreation areas, as well as 753 projects to land- scape selected areas along hundreds of miles of Federal-aid highways. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved In producing thiS output? PAGENO="0203" 199 Negotiations with all of the States to enter into agreements for the control of outdoor advertising and junkyards, and providing the States assittance in the landscaping and scenic enhancement of their highways. 7. flow many employees are involved, in the program and in whait general type of employment categories do they fall? There are 98 permanent positions authorized for this program. A large major- `~ ity of the employees in this program are landscape architects. The remainder of the staffing consists of appraisers and supporting clerical personnel. 8. What is the grade sfructure and ho~ many supergrades-quota and n6n- quota-are involved? Ouota Nonquota Total Quota Nonquota Total GS-17 1 1 GS-8 1 GS-16 1 GS-15 GS-14 1 6 15 GS-7 GS-6 GS-5 2 6 5 GS-13 29 GS-4 6 GS-12 14 GS-3 GS-11 GS-1O GS-9 3 1 GS-2 - 1 Total 98 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Legislation is being proposed to provide contract authorizations totaling $85 million for each of the fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts Of the program coordinated to determine If the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? The program is administered through the Washington headquarters, Office of the Highway Beautification Coordinator. 12 Is there a continual program review within the agency other than th~t annual budgetary review to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Progress of the program is continually reviewed by the Washington headquar ters, Office of the Highway Beautification Coordinator. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the Status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? None. 16. What significant problema, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? Authorizations have not yet been provided for carrying out the program needed to accomplish the objectives of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. 17 Do you administer any grants loans or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? This is a grant program. administered in cooperation with the States. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Overall reduction. 19. If additiOnal fun4s were available, what would you do with the new money? Accomplish the ob)ectlves of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 as rapidly as possible. PAGENO="0204" 200 Activity ~1 (Federal Highway Administration): Traffic and Highway Safety 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? This program includes all operating and contract expenses incurred nuder the National Traffic and Mbtor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-563, and the Highway Safety ACt of 1966, Public Law 89-564, except for the program of * grants to States to improve the highway safety programs under the provisions of section 402 of the latter statute. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? Wifliam Haddon, Jr., M.D., Director, National Highway Safety Bureau. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program f~r fiscal 1968? An appropriation of $21,034,000 was enacted for fiscal year 1968. No capital equipment other than normal office equipment is involved. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The outputs generated by this program fall into two broad categories: those required to fulfill tue purposes of the National Praffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and those required under the Highway Safety Act. Outputs responsive to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act include: (1) Performance standards to enhance the safety characteristics of new automotive vehicles and the components including tire~ to reduce the occurrence of accidents, deaths, and injuries during and immediately following the crash. (2) Research, development, testing, and evaluation for the purpose of deter- mining the causes of accidents, deaths, and injuries and developing effective countermeasures therefor. (3) Standards and procedures for tire grading and labeling to assure conform ity to minimum safe performance standards promulgated under the act. (4) Recommendations Including results of feasibility studies and preliminaiy plans, specifications, and drawings for a facility or facilities to conduct research, development, and testing with respect to automotive vehicles and relating to the safety of machinery used on highways or in connection with the maintenance of highways. (5) Maintenance and operation of the National Driver Register that provides information to States to aid them in eliminating dangerous and unsafe drivers from the Nation's streets and highways. Outputs under the provisions of the Highway Safety Act include: (1) The development of methods to improve the quality of driver education. processes. (2) Development of Improved accident investigation procedures with particu lar emphasis upon more reliable techniques of determining causation, and the development of an urgently needed data bank of information as to driver and vehicle involvement in crashes, deaths, and injuries. (3) Performance of research related to all elements of State and political subdivision traffic and highway safety programs, for the purpose of improving driver performance; pedestrian safety; techniques of accident investigation to determine probable causes vehicle registration operation and Inspection high wa~V lighting; and surface treatment to improve safety; traffic control; vehicle codes and laws; surveillance of traffic for detection and correction of high or potentially high accident locations; and emergency services. (4) Research to improve the process of used car inspection and to encourage periodic inspection of used motor vehicles. (5) Demonstration projects that facilitate the introduction into practice at State aud local levels of new and improved highway safety techniques. Initial emphasis is on demonstrations in the emergency medical service and driver ex- amination areas. (6) Development o~ safet.y professional manpower, safety technical man- power, and safety management manpower. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Outputs can be identified and quantified along the line of number of standards Issued, vehicle production volumes with safety improvements, research contracts let, defect recall campaigns requested by the Bureau, and others. However, a more important class of output measure would relate the various program activities to deaths prevented, injury reductions, and property damage avoided. Although the program is still in its early stage, there already are in- dications along these lines. For example, the newly adopted standard on the PAGENO="0205" 2011 energy absorbing steering shift might be capable ~f rednoing dr1~er lde'áths by upward of 70 percent. The National Highway Safety Bureau is working toward a position where it will be possible to quantify some of these types of outputs more precisely thab now possible and to identify number of deaths averted or disablements minimized through the use of the collapsible steering column and other safety measures such as shoulder harnesses better braking systems and Improved emergency medi cal service. Accurate determination of the costs and benefits will become possible some years from now when improved data systems are in operation, coupled with better methods of accident investigation. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved In producing this output? The principal operations that are involved in producing the program outputs identified above are: (a) The development of performance standards for new cars and equip~ ment and compliance checking procedur~s. (b) Development of performance standards for used cars and equipment and compliance checking procedures, involving State motor vehicle inspection programs. (C) Performance of research, development, and testing as a basis for the formulation and promulgation of vehicle and equipment standards. (d) The conduct of research to develop better understanding of driver performance particularly as it relates to accident causation. (e) The conduct Of demonstration projects to further the translation into practice of advanced highway safety systems and techniques. (f) Development of a qualified pool of safety specialists manpower of all types. (g) creation of a nationwide bank of driver, vehicle, and accident data. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? There are 619 authorized positions for this program. The staffing consists of safety standards engineers and highway management specialists primarily Other fields represented in the staffing are research scientists, medical officers, psycholo- gists, mathematical statisticians, operations research analysts, data systems en- gineers, and supporting administrative and clerical personnel. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? Quota Nonquota Total Quota Nonquota Total Level Ill Level IV Level V GS-18 2 6 GS-17 7 12 GS-16 - 13 16 GS-15 - GS-14 GS-13 GS-12 GS-11 1 1 1 8 19 29 130 108 56 36 18 GS-l0 GS-9 GS-8 GS-7 GS-6 GS-5 GS-4 GS-3 GS-2 - 1 17 15 33 5~ 58 14 15 4 Total 619 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you reiy upon tc~ fulfill this program? At the present time, only the national driver register program involves the use of capital equipment. Specific information pertaining to driver license revocations is stored and retrieved in the IBM 360 system operated by the Federal Highway Administration. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Both the expenditure and benefits of the program should grow appreciably in the future. The benefits as may be expected will be a reflection of the funding levels that are provided as additional year production models go into everyday use on our streets and high~Tays. Improvements in vehicle safety and high~ay safety program practice should lead to a substantial reduction of accidents, deaths, `and injuries. In order to achieve these benefits, as rapidly as possible within a rapidly expanding state of the art, increased funding leveis will be necessary over the next several years. This will be needed to support advanced research and' testing in motor vehicle and highway safety, to provide better PAGENO="0206" 2O~ enforcement of promulgated standards so as to assure a greater degree of compliance, and to provide a nationwide store of data that will serve as a basis for determining the ft~ctors involved in crash causation and measuring the effec tiveness of countermeasures once these are introduced into practice. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the pro- gram coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? The various parts of the program are coordinated at several levels throughout the organization. The Bureau Director is assisted by a Deputy Director, an Office of the Principal Scientist an Office of Research and Program Synthesis and an Office of Plans and Programs Implementation in directing and evaluating the effectiveness of principal operating elements of the organization. The Highway Safety Programs Service, headed by a Director and Deputy Director, is respon- sible for the grant administration including the development of program stand- ards and the furnishing of technical assistance to States and their subdivisions. The National Highway Safety Institute which Is responsible for all research and development activities of the Bureau is headed by a Director who is responsible for its operation. Within the Bureau there is alSo the Motor Vehicle Safety Per- formance Service, headed by a Director and Deputy Director, which is responsible for development and implementation of standards under the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Bureau Director and Deputy Directors the two Directors of the Services, Sand the Institute Director constitute an executive planning committee which represents an additional organizational device for securing effective coordination among the Bureau components in both the planning and program execution stages. 12. Is there a continpal program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program Objectives? The Bureau, during the limited time since its inception, has confronted a huge number of problems, including the necessity for initially meeting rigorous statu- tory deadlines, staffing and organizing, and identifying needs that have to be met. Program reviews have accordingly been limited to those necessary at sev- eral stages in the cycle for overall budget planning, budget preparation, and pro- gram execution. In the meantime, the development is underway of a system of program review within the Bureau to develop more detailed program work schedules, an improved system of reporting that will enable the Bureau to meas- ure how well it is meeting its work schedules, and a management information system that will tell management where the problems are and how they can best be met. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? There is no duplication of work done by any other Federal agency. HEW is en- gaged in handling generic aspects of related problems such as tabulation of death certificates including deaths in traffic crashes Certain efforts of the Bureau of Public Roads have safety aspects; these are coordipated by the Federal High- way Administrator to insure that they are mutually supporting. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? The Bureau work structure is well suited to the efficient and effective accom- plishment of its assigned programs, and is working well. 15 Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program'? I~ so what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains?* There are no outstanding GAO reports on this program. 16 What significant problems if any are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The major problems in making major progress in attainment of the objectives of the program have been 1. The scarcity of personnel adequately qualified in the disciplines re- quired to carry out a completely new type ~f program who are available at Federal salary levels. 2. The requirement to devote a significant amount of available staff time alid effort to compliance with the statutory requirements of the acts for submission of specific reports to the Congress. 17 Do you administer any grants loans or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? PAGENO="0207" PAGENO="0208" 204 Yes. The Bureau has established work goals consisting of major work items deemed necessary to assure a balanced program. Reports of major work items are furnished by staff members and reviewed quarterly. 0. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in prothic- 1ng~ this output? The Bureau is organized into two principal operational units. (a) Departnwetal.-DeVelOP and maintain a body of safety and hazard- ous material regulations, to foster and guide safety programs, process data as to motor carrier compliance records, report to the ICC on the safety posture ~of 18,000 certIficated carriers, and to the Department of Defense on carriers proposing to transport explosives or other dangerous articles, de- velop accident data, trends and cause factor for 45,000 accident reports from tb~e certificated carriers, evaluate field safety compliance reports, examine in depth accident investigation reports, identify probable causes, and publish reports with a prevention lesson. Authorizes the use of nonspecification containers intended for u~e in transporting hazardous materials the waiver of certain disqualifying re- quirements concerning medical and physical Impairments of drivers and the conditional use of certain safety appliances and devices. (b) Field.-Inspects motor carrier facilities and vehicles; examines mo- tor carrier records and documents; inspects carrier practices; investigates motor carrier accidents; examines safety programs; investigates complaints of violations, the discovery of noncompliance and unsafe practices; and reports dangerous characteristics of vehicles or practices. 7. How many employeEs are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categOries do they fall? The staff is composed primarily of investigators engaged in the investiga tion of motor carrier accidents The staff also involves a small number of other professional and specialist personnel engaged in analytical activities related to motor carrier safety. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? Grade Quota Nonquota Total GS-17 I -* 1 GS-15 1 GS-14 3 GS-13 21 GS-12 2 GS-11 3 GS-9 87 GS-8 2 Grade Quota. Nonquota Total GS-7 10 GS-6 3 GS-5 20 GS-4 12 GS-3 11 GS-2 2 -~ --~- - Total 178 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? The Bureau relies on the FHWA central computer system for data processing needs. 10. Do yOu expect thO expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Yes. The FHWA has Under current consideration a joint Federal-State grant- in-aid program which will be designed to enlarge participation by the States in the total heavy-commercial truck and bus safety field regardless of the character of the commerce involved. The safety direction and enforcement then could be made to cover all heavy-commercial vehicles. If adopted, the Federal role and mission would shift from inspections, examina- tions, and enforcement to one of promulgation of uniform safety regulations; establishment of a uniform program to implement the regulations, developing and monitoring educational and promotional programs; and providing liaison and guidance to the States 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being effi- .ciently carried out? Coordination of the Bureau's overall program is performed at several levels: The regional safety officers supervise the activities of the safety investigators in their respective regions Each region is provided required work goals and uniform instructions to accomplish the'. Bureau's program objectives. The prog- PAGENO="0209" 205 rem of the progran~ is examined and evaluated at the reglo~al and headquarters levels to assure a total coordinated effort. 12 Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the an nual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes There is a continuing review of reports received from the field staff and the motor carrier industry to identify problem areas, trend in commercial vehicle accidents, areas of noncompliance, and the need for regulatory changes. This review is necessary for the Bureau to carry out its program objectives-prevent- ing or reducing the severity of accidents in commercial motor carrier operations 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? While the States do have safety responsibility for intrastate commercial vehlcle~, the Bureau s work in interstate field complements and does not dupli cate State activities. We deal with basic accident cause factors peculiar to motor carrier operations, examine motor carrier records and operation in the States, and provide leadership and a solid `base of uniform motor carrier safety Stand- ards. The States look to us for leadership and minimum motor carrier safety regulations. 14. I's your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes. The headquarters staff is organized into two divisions; one having re- sponsibility for the formulation of regulations and the other division provides technical guidance to the field staff and performs reviews of field reports as a means of appraising the effort's of the `field staff. The productivity of our safety effort is due to a clear legislative mandate a well defined area of responsibility, and an organization structure designed to effectively carry out our program objectives. 15 Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program ~ If so what Is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. 16. What significant problem's, if any, are you facing in aeeomplishii~g the program objectives? There has been developed a body of rules and regulations designed to reduce highway casualties attributable to commercial motor carrier operations. These rules and regulations are basically sound. However, the limited amount of re- sources devoted to effectively administering them has made it necessary to rely heavily on voluntary compliance by the motor carrier industry in the accident reducing effort. 17. Do you administer any gran'ts, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut- by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? The appropriation reductions would have to be absorbed through reduction of staff personnel in all program activities. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Increase the number of investigators in the field as a means of inspecting a greater number of vehicles and investigating more accidents involving motor carrier vehicles and thereby increasing `the level of compliance with motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations. Activity 5 (FederaZ Highway Adnththtration): Forest Highways 1* What is the nature of and authority for this program? The forest highway system, which is approximately 25,600 miles in length i's composed `of main and secondary r~ads within or adjacent to the national for- ests. It is located in 40 of the 50 States and in Puerto Rico. Approximately 18,l~00 miles of the system are located in the 12 most westerly States and in South Dakota. About 12,500 miles are located in 26 Eastern States and in Puerto Rico. The authority is contained in the Biennial Highway Acts. (Public Law 89-574) (23 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? F. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads. 21-528 0-69--pt. 11-14 PAGENO="0210" 206 3. ~ow much moneyand capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? Unused contract authority of $774 million ~s available for obligation in 1968 Obligations are planned at $36 million in 1968 A liquidating cash appropriation of $32 million is available in fiscal year 1968 Capital equipment including equipment depot buildings, construction equipment and necessary furniture `and fixtures totals $2.2 million. 4. Would you describe t1~e outppt generated by this program? Conatruction and improvement of a system of highways within or adjacent to the national forests. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Actual and estimated `progress of the program over a period of 5 years is sum- marized below. IDollar amounts in thousandsj Fiscal year Miles completed Expenditures 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968' 492 419 307 303 290 $33,277 32,500 31,304 28,947 34,115 Total 1,811 160,143 1 Estimated. 6. Would you des~ribe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? Forest highway projects are jointly selected by the States, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Public Roads on the basis of their contribution to meeting traffic requirements within or adjacent to the national forests. AuthOrizations are apportioned by States on the basis of a formula which uses as factors the national forest area and value in each State. Contract authorizations of $33 million are available for each of the fiscal ~years 1968 and 1969. Funds can be obligated in the year prior to the year for which authOrized for a~ppropriation as cash. 7, How many em'pioy~es are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? There is a total of 448 permanent positions authorized for this program. The program is staffed with highway, structural, and other civil engineers, engineering technicians and support personnel. 8. What is the grade structure and how many super grades-quota and non- quota-are involved? Number Number GS-13 3 OS-S 75 08-12 22G5-4 45 ~GS~-11 700S-3 36 OS-b GS-2 11 46 Wage board 44 08-8 -- GS-7 55 Total - 448 GS-6 41 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? Electronic computer equipment is utilized in design and construction. Survey- ing, drafting, and drilling equipment, as well as trucks, are utilized in performing required activities. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Expenditures are estimated to continue at their present level. The benefits, how- ever, will increase proportionately to `the use by the public of recreational facili- ties being developed in J~rest areas. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the pro- - gi'ani coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently car- ried out? PAGENO="0211" 207 The prOgram is administered through the Washington headquarters Office of Engineering and Operations~ Federal Highway Projects Division and regional and division offices in the field Coordination is carried out at both headquarters and field level, 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? The annual program in each State is jointly developed by the State highway department, the regional foresters, and the regional Federal highwa~ adminis- trators. It is, therefore, subject to annual review at conference between these parties. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No. It is, however, Supplemented by State and Federal-aid work as well as some county cooperation. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? None. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? It has been necessary to limit releases of obligational authority in order to remain within restricted levels of cash appropriatjon~ 17 Do you administer any grants loans or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? One hundred percent Federal funds may be provided by this program. The States are not required to participate in the financing, but are encouraged to participate to help overcome the small annual apportionment which in some States is not sufficient to construct a normal- or economical-size project. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Overall reduction to each State for which funds are apportion~. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Overcome the backlog of needs over current authorizations. Activity 6 (Federal Highway Administration): Public Lands Highways 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? Public lands are unappropriated or unreserved public lands, nontaxable Indian lands, or other Federal reservations. Authorizing legislation provides that funds shall be used to assist States with large areas of public lands in the improve- ment of sections of main roads-principally on the Federal-aid highway system- which States otherwise may find difficult to finance. Authority for this program is contained in the Biennial Highway Acts (Public Law 89-574; 23 U.S.C. 101 et seq.). 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? F. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roada 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? Unused contract authority of $33.6 million is available for obligation in fiscal 1968 It is planned to obligate $14 million in 1968 A liquidating cash appropria tion of $9 million is available in fiscal year 1968. No capital equipment i~ involved. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Construction and improvement of highways through public lands in those States with large areas of such lands. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Actual and estimated peogress of the program for a 5-year period is sum- marized below: PAGENO="0212" IDollar amounts in thoUsandsj ~ Fiscal year Miles Expenditures completed 1964 l965. 1966 1967 19681 TotaL 66 105 101 135 100 $4,708 6,562 11,290 10,105 10,424 507 43,089 1 Estimated. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in produc- ing this output? Authorizations for this program are allocated to the States for specific proj- ects on the basis of needs. The States prepare the plans, specifications, and es- timates for each of the projects. .Aiter approval of the plans by the Bureau of Public Roads, the State advertises for bids and awards contracts for construc- tion of the projects. The State reimburses the contractor on a monthly basis for work performed. The Federal Government reimburses the State on a monthly basis for its share-of the expenditure. The Bureau of Public Roads provides the overall monitoring and supervision of the program as the State proceeds with `each - project. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and In what general types of employment categories do `they fall? - There is a. total of 23 permanent positions authorized f~r this program. The program is staffed with highway, structural, and other civil engineers, engineer- ing technicians, an4 support personnel. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quOta and non- quota-are involVed? GS-12 GS-11 GS-1O GS-9 GS-8 GS-7 05-6 1GS-5 405-4 2 - GS-3 2 2 GS-2 1 - Wageboard 2 8 - 2 Total 23 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None, except accounting processes by ADP facilities 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appre- ciably In the future? No. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out ? The program is admI~nistered through the Washington headquarters, Office of Engineering and Operations Project Coordination Division, and regional and division offices in the field.. Coordination is carried out at both headquarters and * field level. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the ~innual budgetary review to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? - Progress of the program is continually reviewed and coordinated by the Wash- ington headquarters Office of Engineering and Operations Project Coorthna tion Division. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? - None. However, this program supplements the Federal-aid program and to some extent the forest highways program. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? - Yes. PAGENO="0213" 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO reconulnenciations the report contains? None 16 What significant problems if any are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? It has been necessary to limit releases of obligational authority in order to remain within restricted levels of cash appropriations. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program'? If so is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? 100 percent Federal funds are provided by this program, with permissive par- ticipation of State moneys when they deem advisable and so request. 18 If your appropriations were reduced how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Overall reduction to each State for which funds are allocated. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Allocate it to the States for additional highway construction, Each year the total applications received from the States far exceed the availability of funds. Activity 7 (Federal Highway Administration): Repa4r aild Reconstruction of Highways 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? The Federal Aid highway Act of 1fi66 provided an annual authorization of $50 million for the repair and reconstruction of highways damaged by disasters over a wide area, such `as by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, et cetera, to be financed 60 percent from the highway trust fund and 40 percent from the general fund, effective July 1, 1966. For projects in Alaska, the 1964 amendments to the Alaska Omnibus Act in- creased the Federal share payable from 50 percent to 949 percent for the repair and reconstruction of areas damaged by the earthquake of March 1964 and sub sequent seismic waves. The Pacific Northwest Disaster Act of 1965 provided an additional $50 million authorization for fiscal year 1965 and an additional $20 million authorization for fiscal year 1966. Costs are originally incurred for these `activities. upder the Federal-aid high- ways (trust fund) appropriation Appropriations are obtained under the pro gram repair and reconstruction of highways in order to provide repayment to the highway trust fund for cash disbursements which were temporarily made from that fund against general fund program authorizations. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? F. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads. 3 flow much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? The authorization for fiscal 1968 is $50 million. The general fund appropriation provided $15,097,772 in 1968 for reimbursement to the highway trust fund to cover expenditures temporarily made therefrom in fiscal year 1966. No capital equip- ment is involved. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Repair and replacement of Federal-aid highways damaged by floods and other natural disasters. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Mileage and disbursements made through June 30, 1967, are reflected below. PAGENO="0214" 210 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Miles Total cumula- Less amounts Required reim- - tive disburse- retained by bursement to Underway Complete ments to HTF HTF from June 30, 1967 general fund Pacific Northwest Disaster Relief Act of 1965: Fiscal year 1965 authorizatiOn, $80,000,000 - 172.7 3,350.0 $64, 415 $30,000 $34, 415 Fiscal year 1966 authorization, $50,000,000~ - - 78.7 353.9 18,239 18,239 - . * 1964 amendments to the Alaska Omnibus Act au- thorization, $15,000,000 (1) (1) 2,044 2,044 Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966, annual au- *thorizatlon ($50,000,000 authorization financed 60 perCent highway trust fund, 40 percent general fund) 104.0 1,238,6 3,771 2,262 1,508 Total required to reimburse the highway trust fund ~ 968 Fiscal year 1968 appropriatIon: 15,098 Balance ---- 22,870 I Mileage for Alaska Omnibus Act included in the 2 authorizations under Pacific Northwest Disaster Relief Act of 1965 4%. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved In producing this output? The repair and reconstruction of highways is a grant-in-aid program admiuis- tered in a manner similar to the Federal aid highway program following a decla ration of emergency by the Governor of a State. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? None. Administered under program for Federal-aid highways. - 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? None. 9. What capital equipment, such as APP, if any~ do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Only within authorized level of $50 million annually, depending upon extent of nattiral disasters In any year. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? The program is headed by the Director of Public Roads, aided by a deputy and nix staff assistants In the Washington headquarters. This staff is responsible for policy formulation and general direction of Public Roads operations. The field organizatior~ consists of nine regional offices located across the country, - -each supervising the Federal-aid program in from four to eight States. There isa division office in ev~ry State and in PuertO Rico and the District of Columbia. It is through this field organization that relations with the State highway depart- ments are carried on. Coordination is carriod out at both headquarters and field level. 12 Is there a continual program review within the agency other than the annual budgetary review to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Progress of the program is continually reviewed and coordinated by the Wash- ington headquarters, Office of Engineering and Operations, Project Coordination Division. 13 To your knowledge does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of tile GAO recommendations the report contains? None. PAGENO="0215" 211 ~ ~ 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? None. ` 17 Do you administer any grants loans or other disbursed funds related to this program ~? If so is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? The appropriation is to reimburse the highway trust fund. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut--by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Appropriation reduction results in delay in making reimbursement to the highway trust fund. 19 If additional funds were available what would you do with the new money? Not applicable. Activity 8 (Federal Highway Adm'inistratior,~): fitate and Community Highway safety Programs 1. What is the nature of a~id authority for this program? 1"his program includes the making of grants to States to be used by those States and their political subdivisions to enlarge or improve their highway safety pro grams in accordance with Section 402 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-564. Included is the cost of administration directly related to carrying out the provisions of that section of the act. 2 Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? William Haddon Jr M D Director National Highway Safety Bureau 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? Unobligated balances of contract authorizations for fiscal years 1967, 1968, and 1969 total $165 million. However, the appropriation act placed a $25 million limitation on obligations during fiscal year 1968. A liquidating cash appropriation of $25 million was enacted in fiscal year 1968. No capital equipment is involved in thi.s program. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The outputs generated by this program are: A comprehensive hIghway safety program developed by each State, based upon performance standards developed in this program and financed in part through matching Federal funds At least 40 percent of the Federal funds must be spent by political subdivisions of the State. The Federal program also includes the giving of technical assistance to the States in their highway safety programs. These are the direct. outputs. The sought for results of the outputs are substantial reduction in traffic deaths in juries and property damage. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? These outputs can be quantified in terms of dollar amounts allocated by States and political subdivisions to various functional areas of highway safety effort It is also possible to develop numerical measures such as driver educn,tion pupil hours, but these measures will require a considerable amount of refine- ment and validation before they attain maximum value. The most difficult out- put measure to quantify is the reduction in traffic deaths injuries and property damage which will result from the new national effort. When the national data base has been developed and the data systems are operational, It will be possible for the first time to make valid scientific analyses of these benefits 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are Involved In producing this output? The principal operatlon.s that are involved in producing these outpu.ts are: a. Assisting the States in developing comprehensive highway safety pro- grams built upon performance standards for State and community highway safety programs. Such standards have already been issued covering: periodic motor vehicle inspection; motor vehicle registration; motorcycle safety; driver education; driver licensing; codes and laws; traffic courts; alcohol in relation to highway safety identification and surveillance of accident locations traffic records emergency medical services highway design construction, and maintenance; and traffic control devices. In addition, standards are being coordinated in such areas as: pedestrian safety; police traffic services; school bus safety; and accident cleanup programs. b. Review and analysis of comprehensive project proposals submitted by the States or by political subdivisions through the States and the making of grants to fund approved projects in accordance with their program~. PAGENO="0216" ; ~ 212 C. Evaluation of efforts and progress being made by the States and ~om- munltles in meeting the programs developed in accordance with the stand- : ards. These evaluations necessitate visits to the States by personnel of the Highway Safety Programs Service and highway safety program specialists ~ssigned to Federal Highway Administration regional offices. d. Giving the States on-the-scene technical assistance and also assistance through the facilities of the National Highway Safety Institute. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? Staffing for this program is shown under the heading "Traffic and Highway Safety." 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? This program includes all National Highway Safety Bureau positions that are assigned to the Highway Safety Programs Service and the highway safety specialists positions and supporting staff that are assigned to each of the Federal Highway Administration Regional Offices. All positions for this program are shown under the heading "Traffic and Highway Safety." 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? We rely upon the FHWA servicing organizations, which use computers in their accounting work. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Both the expenditures and benefits of this program should increase very sub- stantially in the future. A recently completed study of program needs In this area indicated that the States will need substantially greater funds to expand their highway safety program levels and institute the new programs required. present indications are that through the combined efforts of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1960 Public Law 89-563 and the High way Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-564, a major reduction of traffic deaths is within the realm of possibility. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program: coordinated to determine if the program as a whol~ is being `efficiently carried out? The various parts of the program are coordinated at several levels throughout the organization. The Bureau Director is assisted by a Deputy Director, an Office ot' the Principal Scientist, an Office of Research and Program Synthesis and an Office of Plans and Programs Implementation in directing and evaluating the effectiveness of principal operatfng elements of the organization. The Highway Safety Programs Service, headed by a Director and Deputy Director, is respon- sible for the grant administration including the development of program standards and the furnishing of technical assistance to States and their subdivisions. The National Highway Safety Institute which is responsible for all research and development activities of the Bureau is headed by a director who is responsible for its operation Within the Bureau there is also the Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, `headed by a Director and Deputy Director, which is responsible for develeq~xnent and implementation of standards under the National Traffit~ Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Bureau Director and Deputy Director, the two Directors of the Services, and the Institute Director constitute an executive planning committee which represents an additional organizational device for securing effective coordi- natioli among the Bureau components in both the planning and program exe- cution stages. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the actual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? The Bureau, during the limited time since its inception, has confronted a huge number of problems, including the necessity for initially meeting rigorous statu- tory deadlines, staffit~ and organizing, and identifying needs that have to be met. Program reviewS have accordingly been limited to those necessary at sev- eral stages In the cycle for overall budget planning, budget preparation, and program execution. In the meantime, the development is underway of a sys- tem of program review within the Bureau to develop more detailed program work schedules, ~an improved system of reporting that will enable the Bureau to measure how well It is meeting its work schedules and a management in formation system that will tell management where the problems are and how they can l*st be met. PAGENO="0217" 213 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being clone by any other agency? There is no duplication of work done by any other Federal agency. The work, however, complements and is complemented by certain efforts of the Bureau of Public Roads. Very close coordination of these efforts is a matter of continuing policy to assure that the full resources of the two organizations are effectively utilized without duplications. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? The Bureau work structure is well suited to the efficient and effective ac- complishment of its assigned programs. As time progresses, there might have to be changes in organization to reflect shifts in program emphasis. For exam- pie, at some future date the emphasis will shift from standards development activities to standards enforcement. At that time, changes probably will be re- quired in the organization, at least in the staffing distribution. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is time status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? There are no outstanding GAO reports on this program. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The estimates by the States of Federal grants-in-aid to implement the highway safety program standards issued under the provisions of the law are far in excess of the funds available for obligation. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with time magnitude of the outlays? This is a grant program in it.s entirety. It differs substantially from most other Federal grant-in-aid programs in that it has to deal with many admini~ strative units in State and lo~*al governments (police, education, highways, pub- lie health, driver licenses, enforcement, court systems, and others). The experi- ence to date strongly indicates severe understaffing to carry out this budget pro- gram. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut- by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? The cut would have to be absorbed by reducing further the grant-in-aid funds contributing to State and community highway safety programs. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Additional funds would be utilized in increasing grants-in-aid to States and communities to more adequately assist them to implement meaningful programs. Activity 9. (Federal Highieay Administration): Inter-American Highway 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? The Central American section of the Inter-American Highway, comprising 1,555 miles, is being constructed in cooperation with the Republics of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. These Republics gener- ally pay one-third of the cost of highways through their countries, and have as- sunieci responsibility for future maintenance. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1146) authorized an additional appropriation of $32 million, of which $30 million has been appropriated, to com- Plete the highway to acceptable standards. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title) ? F. C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? An appropriatiomi of $5 million is available in fiscal year 1968. No capital equip- nient other than normal office equipment is involved. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Construction of the Central American section of the Inter-American Highway. n. Cami yOu quantify this output in amiy way? The following table reflects the amounts of work, by countries, provided by the $32 million authorization PAGENO="0218" 214 [Dollar amounts inthousands~ Fiscal ~1965 1966. 1967 years 1968 1969 Total Gi~atemala 1, 194 3,610 3,383 8, 187 Nicaraaua 860 860 Costa ~ica . 153 310 13,561 1,617 2,000 17,641 Panama 5,270 42 5,312 Total 7,477 3,962 13, 561 5, 000 2,000 32, 000 ,. ~-, _.*.~-- .~,._.. --, _,. .,. ,_._*_ -- -~ 6; Would you describe the principle operatiotis that are involved in producing this output? Since 1930, the United States has been helping build the Inter-American High- way, a 3,100-mile route from Laredo, Tex., to Panama City. Mexico has built its section of the highway ~vitb its own funds and engineers. For the Cenrtal Ameri- can portion, the United States has provided construction funds, generally matched one-third by the countries involved. The Bureku of Public Roads has managed these funds and provided engineering assistance. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? There are 42 permanent positions authorized for this program. Highway engi- neers, with a small number of clerical support personnel, comprise the entire staff of this program area. 8. What is the grade structure and how many super grades-quota and non- quota-are involved? Nuncber Nuniber GS-15 1GS-7 GS-14 --~~-- 6G5-6 1. GS-13 3Q5_5 2 GS-12 7 GS-4 GS-11 2G5-3 1 o~-io Unclassified 16 GS-9 -, - - GS-8 Total 42 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow ap- * preciably in the future? No additional expenditures, but major economic benefits. President Johnson on April 23, when signing the GAS amendment, attributed the success of the Cen- tralAmerican CommoirMarket to the Inter-American Highway. 11. At what level are the persontiel responsible for the various parts of the pro- gram coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently car- ried out? The program is administered through the Washington headquarters Office of Engineering and Operations, Foreign Projects Division, a regiOnal office in San Jose, Costa Rica; and division offices in the Central American countries. Coordi- nation is carried out at both headquarters and field level. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency other than the annal budgetary~ review to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectivfis? Progress of the program Is continually reviewed and coordinated by the Washington headquarters Office of Engineering and Operations Foreign Projects Division. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No.. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes, 15 Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program'? If so what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains'? No. PAGENO="0219" 215 16. What signficant problems, if any, are you facing In accomplishing the pro- gram objectives? None. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or Other disbursed funds related to this program " If so is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? Joint grant in aid and country financed program Staff is adequate to effi ciently administer the program. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, bow would you' absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Overall reduction. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? No additional funds beyond the $32 million authorized by the Federai~Aid Highway Act of 1962 will be required. Activity 10 (Federal Highway Administration,): Chamizal Memorial Highway, 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? Public Law 89-795 (80 Stat. 1477) dated November 8, 1966, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to construct a border highway in the city of El Paso commencing at a point approximately two blocks west of Santa Fe Street in El Paso and proceeding along the international boundary as rectified to the Inter national Bridge at Zaragosa Road about 121/2 miles east The act authorizes $8 million in Federal funds for this project. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? F. C. Turner, Director, Bureau~ of Public Roads. 3~ How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? An appropriation of $4 million is available in fiscal year 1968 No capital equipment is involved. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Construction of a border highway along the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande River in connection with the settlement of the Chamizal boundary dispute be- `tween the United States and Mexico, pursuant to the American.Mexico Chamizal Convention Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 184). 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Approximately 121/2 miles of highway. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? The State of Texas has the Initiative in making all of the engineering surveys and designs, initiating action for right-of-way acquisition and utility adjustments, planning the letting of the construction contract, and making monthly payments to the contractor as the work is put in place. The Federal Government reimburses the State on a monthly basis for its share of the expenditure The Bureau of Public Roads provides the overall monitoring and supervision of the program as the State proceeds with the project. 7 How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? No Federal employees are involved. This project will be~ let to contract by the State of Texas. 8. What is the grade structure and how many `supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? Not applicable. 9 What capital equipment such as ADP if any do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None involved. 10 Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to giow appreciably in the future? The program will be completed with the approval of the $4 million appropria tion requested for fiscal year 1969. 11 At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? The project has been set up for accomplishment by the Bureau of Public Roads and the State of Texas in `a `manner as nearly identical to normal Federal-aid procedures as is practicable under the legislation. The responsibility for adminis- PAGENO="0220" 216 tering the project has been delegated to the Regional Federal Highway Adminis- trator and he in turn has delegated this authOrity to the Division Engineer In Tezas. 12. Is there a continital program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Progress of the program is continually reviewed and coordinated by the Washington headquarters, Office of Engineering and Operations. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? None. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administratIve staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? This is a grant-in-aid. program~ The Bureau of Public Roads staff is adequate to administer the program. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? By curtailing or deferring construction of the highway. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? It is estimated the $8 million authorization will complete the Federal financing of this project. Activity 11 (Federal Highway Administration): Alaskan Assistance 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966 authorized $14 million a year for 5 fiscal years for maintenance of the Federal-aid system and for the construction of access and development roads on a Federal-aid system in Alaska. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? F. C. Turner, Directoi~, Bureau of Public Roads~ 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program fOr fiscal 1968? An appropriation of $5 million is available in fiscal year 1968. No capital equip- ment is involved. 4. WeqId you describe the output generated by this program? Upgrading existing highways on the Federal-aid system in Alaska through constructive maintenance and improvement, and construction of access and devel- opment roads on a Federal-aid system in Alaska. 5. Can you quantify this output jn any way? This new program anticipates that the appropriations will be used to construct an access and development road system to serve industrial, recreational, residen- tial, commercial, or resource development areas. The State of Alaska has pre- pared a tentative program of construction projects over the next 5-year period to be financed from the Alaska assistance funds. However, since Alaska's eco- nomic and resource development situation is changing almost daily and as the priority of projects may change in the near future, it may become both necessary and desirable to revise the currently planned program of projects. It is proposed that the amount earmarked for maintenance not be spent on average everyday maintenance activities, but rather that it be utilized in a manner that will upgrade the presently inadequate and unsafe 1~ederal-aid system. Many secondary highways were originally constructed to a standard insufficient to accommodate present-day traffic on a year-round basis. Maintenance money will be used to upgrade approximately 500 miles of secondary highways on present alinements~ 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? PAGENO="0221" 217 The State of Alaska has the initiative in proposing projects, programing the individual projects year by year making all of the engineering surveys and de signs planning the letting of construction contracts all In the same manner as for regular Federal projects and for handling the maintenance The Bureau of Public Roads provides the overall monitoring and supervision of the prograri as the State proceeds with each project. 7. How many employes are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? No Federal employees are involved Alaskan assistance is a grant in aid pro gram and will be handled through the State of Alaska similarly to regular Federal-aid procedures. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? Not applicable. 9 What capital equipment such as ADP if any do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? The authorizing legislation provides a program level of $14 million per year. It is not possible at this time to predict the level of appropriations in future years. No funds are requested for this program in the 1969 budget. 11 At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? The responsibility for administering the program has been delegated to the regional Federal Highway Administrator who In turim has delegated this au- thority to the division engineer in Alaska. 12 Is there a continual program review within the agency other tha~i the annual budgetary review to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Progress of the program is reviewed and coordinated by the Washington head quarters, Office of Engineering and Operations. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? None. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? None. 17 Do you administer any grants loans or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? Yes, this is a grant-ln~aid program. The Bureau of Public Roads staff Is ade- quate to administer the program. 18 If your appropriations were reduced how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Overall reduction. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Expedite the authorized program. PROGRAM CATEGORY 4. FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTEAflON Activity 1: Raifroad Safety 1. What is the nature of, and authority for, this program? The Bureau of Railroad Safety performs assigned duties in connection with the administration and enforcement of certain specific Federal statutes relating to common carriers engaged in interstate commerce by railroad. These laws are (I) the transportation of explosives and other dangerous ar tides (18 U S C 831-835) (2) the Safety Appliance Act'4 (45 U S C 1-16) (3) the Ash Pan Act (45 U.S.C. 17-21); the Locomotive Inspection Act (45 U.S.C. PAGENO="0222" 218 22-34 (as modified by Reorganization Plan No. 8 of 1965)); (5) Investigation of Safety Devices (45 U.S.C. 36; (6) The Accident Reports Act (45 U.S.C. 38-43); (7) the Medals of Honor Act (49 U.S.C. 1201-1203); (8) the Hours of Service Law (45 U.S.C. 61-64) ; and (9) the Signal Inspection Law (49 U.S.C. 26). 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? Mac E. Rogers, Director, Bureau of Railroad Safety. 3. How much money abd capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? The sum of $3,414,000~ We are uncertain what capital equipment includes. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? See questionS. 5. Can you quantify this output in anyway? Progrcon activities Pi8cal year 1967 Inspections: act Locomotive (units Inspected) 107,900 S~afety appliances (freight, passenger, and locomotives, SA only)~. 1,673,738 Train brake test observations 8,654 Indate test observations 3, 200 Hours of service 781 Accident and casualty cases 85,628 Signal devices (including records of tests) 175,000 Hazardous materials Investigations 1,288 Accident (serious train) 54 Formal reports published 84 Investigated but no formal report 20 Preliminary investigations 101 Locomotive accidents (including casualties) 174 Complaints: Locomotive 04 Safety 387 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are Involved in producing this output? Bureau output is produced by on-the-ground inspections and investigations conducted by members of the field technical staff and the Director's staff to- tether with the review, analysis, and tabulation of reports filed with the Director's office. 7. How many employees are Involved in the program and in what general type of e~np1oyment categories do they fall? The current authorized Bureau force is 246 employees assigned as shown * * on attachment No. 2. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? PAGENO="0223" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION B'J}&EAU OF RAILROAD SAFETY STAFFING CHART Office of the Director Permanent Positions: Grade Number CS-18 1 CS-16 1 CS-14 1 Below 05-13 Total 10 ~, .~ Engineering and Accident Ana1~s~s Division General Safety Division Locomotive Safety Division ft, Pa rmanont Pot it ions: Grade Number __1_~__ GS-14 2 5 Below CS-lB... 16 Total.... Signal & Train~ Control Divisiofl Permanent Positions: Grade Numh&r CS_is I GS~l4 I CS-13 3 Below CS-l3... 74 Total.... Field Stafflnc, (63) itazardOus Materials Division Pcrn;anent Positions: Grade Number 05-14 1 GS-13 5 Below CS-13... 85 Total..., Field Staff Inc,(82) Permanent Po~itions: Grade Number CS_is . . GS~l4 . 1. 05-13 . 4 Below GS-l3..~. .24 Total.... 30 Field Staff Inc. (23) Permanent Positions Grade CS-IS GS-14 I 08-13 Below GS-13... 2 Total.... ~ - Technical D~rcction end i~egional Directors Communication. I Permanent Positions: Administrative Direcc~on __________ C)mde 1~.mbnr `. and Communication, C8l4 7 Remaining Field Staff of 173 Included In ~ivision Totals.j NOTE: Staffing of 246 is same for both currant and hud3et year. All of the ~taffing is funded £Tom the Bttreau of Rafl road Safety Appropriation. * 24 PAGENO="0224" 220 9. What capital eqni~ment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? / ADP support services are provided by FHWA in connection with the tabula- tion of accident statistical tabulations. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Enactment of pending railroad `safety. legislation will result in an increase in program expenditures and hopefully a substantial increase in program bene- fits in the form of reduced accident occurrences. 11. At what level ar~ the personnel responsible for the various parts of the pgr~aln coo~dlnated t~ d~termihe'if the program as a whole is being efficiently catriad out? Bureau, divisional, and regional. 12. Is ther~ a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes, as evidenced by the recent Bureau reorganization. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? It is believed that the present Bureau organizational structure provides op- timum efficiency and effectiveness However it is constantly undergoing review to keep abreast of maintenance and inspection changes within the rail industry. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? None that we are aware of. `16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The major problem confronting the Bureau in the promotion of rail safety is the absence of authority in the areas involved in the vast majority of railroad accidents; i.e., track structure, running gear of freight and passenger cars, operating rules, etc. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the' magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. [f your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Any reduction in allocated funds would necessitate a proportionate overall reduction in Bureau program activties and/or a severe restriction on travel of field employees. 19. If additional funds were, available, what would you do with the new money? Any additional available funds would be channeled in the direction of strength- ening the headqua'rterstechnical staff. Activity 2 (Federal Railroad Administrcttioa): High $peed Ground Tran8porta- tion~ 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? Not answered. - 2, Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level? Dr. Robert A. Nelson, Director, Office of High Speed Ground Transportation. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1908? $22,263,000. Equipment: Four fully instrumented rail research cars. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? Not answered. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Figures are available in the budget and annual and special reports on total obligations and expenditures, number of technical reports published, and number of contracts. However, these alone do not adequately describe `the benefits of the R. & D. output or of the potential results `and findings of the demonstrations insofar as these projects will affect the direction of research and Investment for many years in the future. / ~ ~ /~/~//~/ PAGENO="0225" 221 G~ Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? Most of the modeling and research and the demonstrations are under contract with private R. & D. firms, the railroads, university research centers, and other Government agencies. In-house operations consist of planning, contract review and control, systems iin.alysis, determination of new or changed research pm- gram directions coordination of the demonstrations data analysis, and develop ment of interest by private industry in investing funds and research for the improvement of high speed ground transportation. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? Fifty-six permanent employees are authorized. About a dozen individual con- sultants are on the roll primarily on an intermittent basis. Major professional fields are: Engineering, economics, operations research, transportation, inter- governmental relations and `statistics. 8. What is the grade structure and how many super grades-quota and non- quota-are involved? GS-17 . 11 GS-16 23 GS-15 - -- 15 GS-14 -- 14 GS-13 and below -- 23 Total 56 1 21 quota, 2 nonquota. 9. What capital equipment, such as APP, if any, do you rely itpon to fulfill this program? Four rail research cars with full instrumentation, which measure over 10 variables while in motion, are used extensively. A modest IBM data processing system is used on a rental basis for analyzing trip information in regard `to the demonstrations. Research firms and other Government agencies use their equipment in fulfilling contracts and agreements. The Penn Central Railroad is obtaining 50 MU cars for the New York to Washington, D.C., demontration. Two turbine trains are being leased from United Aircraft Corp. for use on the Boston-New York demonstration. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Emphasis will continue to shift from railroad R. & D. to unconventional systems R. & D. and advanced technology. As R. & D. activity progresses and techno- logical feasibility is determined, the knowledge gained can be used to design prototype hardware for full-scale testing. This will involve the acquisition of a suitable site and construction of a facility to develop and test advanced systems such as the tube vehicle and tracked air cushion vehicle and the applica- tion of the linear electric motor. As technology advances it may become desirable to conduct demonstrations using new transportation systems in areas where market analyses Indicate a fair test of public response. The refinementf and implementation of the Northeast corridor transportation planning capa:bility will produce increasing benefits but at about the present level of exuenditure. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? Continual coordination at office, division and contractor level is performed as a basic function of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other tha~n the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No, nor is the program duplicated by State, local, or private organizations. Cooperative projects are planned or underway with NASA in air cushion researcb,~ 21-528 0-69-pt. 11-15 PAGENO="0226" 222 the States of Maryland and Delawate in grade crossing safety, and the cities of New York and Chicago in tunneling technology. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? The Office of High Speed Ground Transportation comprises three divisions- Engineering Research and Development, Demonstrations, and Transport Sys~ems Planning (NEC project). This structure providos an effective combination of specifically defined responsibilities, span of control, and relative simplicity of coordination. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. 16. What significant problems, if any,. are you facing in accomplishIng the program objectives? Finding and hiring high-quality technical personnel. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? Yes-contracts (no grants: or loans). Yes. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, bow would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certaIn activities? By selective cutting and curtailing. 19. `If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? A. Put greater emphasis on certain present R. & D. activities. B. Speed up other current R. & D. activities. C. Begin work on promising research projects for which funding is not now available. Activity 3 (Federal Railroad Admin4stration): Railroad Research g,~j4 Development Program Proposal 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? The Secretary of Transportation and his modal administrations are legisla- tively required to promote and undertake research and development relating to transportation and safety of the traveling public and employees. See Public Law 89-670, sections 4(a) and 9(q). 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title;)? The Director of the Office of Policy and Program Analysis has responsibility for the expenditure of rail and research funds. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? $200,000. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The FRA fiscal year 1968 appropriation provides for contractual research to deal exclusively with railroad safety matters. Emphasis will be placed on con- ducting research studies relating to railroad safety. Research studies for fiscal year 1968 are focused mainly on railroad-highway grade crossing technology and development of new railroad accident statistical procedures. 5. Can you quantify this output In any way? FRA railroad research activities for fiscal year 1968 were (a) entered into a contract with the States of Maryland and Delaware to develop, test, and install track-activated advance-warning signals on highway approaches to 20 rail grade crossings located on the high-speed rail corridor between Washington, D.C. and New York. The demonstration project will test the effectiveness of new sophisti- cated railroad timing circuits and train-activated advance-warning signals. Railroad research funds expended for this project are $50,000, (b) entered into a contract, amounting to $35~000 with the Texas Transportation Institute for a study on the reporting of raihhighway grade-crossing accident data. FRA review of several studies designed to identify factors which contribute to hazardous ~conditions at grade crossings reveal that the data reported on the FRA form T, and its supplement, lack adequacy for meaningful accident prevention analysis. An improved data file and reporting form is necessary to be able to conduct accident analysis studies at the National and State level and to better meet legis- lative responsibilities. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved In producing this output? PAGENO="0227" 228 Identifying those areas of the grade ~rosning problem where insufficient re- search effort has been expended to improve public safety `at rail-hIghway grade crossin~ and do not effectively cope with the expanding use of grade crossings. !These areas are in hardware research, data collection and analysis, hazitrd ratings, uniformity of State laws and regulations, cost-sharing responsibilities, and Federal-financing programs. / 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? The Chief, Policy Analysis Division, and his staff presently provide those staff resources that are necessary to support tile railroad safety research program. However, with staffing of the Science and Technology Division~ 0. P. & P. A. to be completed early in fiscal year 1969, a total of five positions will be actively involved in structuring the railroad research program. Chief, Science and Technology Division Research engineer (electronics) Research engineer (safety) Research engineer (mechanical) Research engineer (civil) In addition, staff time and support Is to be provided by positions within the Office of Policy and Program Analysis. Senior policy analyst Transportation specialist Transportation economist Program analyst 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? Full-time assignments: Number Staff support: Nu~nber GS-15 3 GS-15 3 GS-14 2 GS-14 1 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grew appreciably in the future? The railroad research program could expand considerably over the next few years, The woefully short supply of capital within the railroad industry for many years has had its major impact on railroad research funds. As a conse- quence, rail technology has not progressed and has not allowed the rail industry to assume a more responsive role in the nation's transportation network. 11,. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole Is being efficiently carried out? Director's level. The railroad safety research and development program Is coordinated by the Federal Railroad Administrator and the Director of the Office of Policy and Program Analysis. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve, these program objectives? Yes. 13. To your 1~nowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any othe'r agency? It does not. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what Is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? - None. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The lack of qualified rail-c~-~'~"1 nology Divisior ~ Offic' 17. Do you*~ this program? the magnitude ir the outays ~ (a) Yes. (b) Yes. PAGENO="0228" 224 182 If your appropriations were reduced, how would you abso~b the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activit~es? Overall reduction. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Stimulate more industry and supplier interest and invest in research and development work. Activity ~ (Federal Railroad Administration) Alaska Railroad Subpart A. Operation and Maintenance 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? Act of March12, 1914 (38 Stat. 305). 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? ~1ohn Ill. Manley, General Manager. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? The E,ailroad has an apportionment of $16.321 million for fiscal 1968, of whicb $3,883 million was approved for the capital improvements and replacement pro- gram; the remainder to be utilized by operations and maintenance. Capital equip- ment, at April 30, 1968, had a value of $117,411,000. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The railroad's output generated by the 0. & M. program is revenue tons and revenue passengers. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? The railroad has quantified this output in standard railroa4 terminology. 6. Would you describe the principle operations that are involi~ed in producing this output? The principal operations of the railroad are departmentalized under its opera- tions division as follows: (a) transportation_responsible for ~he operation of freight and passenger trains; (b) ~ngineering_re5p0n5~ for maintenance of way; (c) motive power and equipment_responsible for mair~teflaflce and re- pairs; (d) communications responsible for communications fa~ñlities and (e) support activities such as the division of administration, persounel, traffic, real estate and special agents (security). 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? Average employment is equivalent to approximately 880 ma~1-year5. In order to keep employment to a minimum and to utilize scarce skills, a number of these personnel work both in the 0. & M. program and the capital i4lprovements and replacement program. employment categories are train and ~nginemen, white collar nonoperating employees, or Army and Air Force wage board `blue collar employees. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergradeS-~_~lu0ta and non- quota-are involved? The railroad does not have any supergradeS. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? Capital equipment employed by the railroad in its operations consists of land, buildings, structures and facilities (roadbed and track), and equipment (rolling stock, machine shop, office equipment including IBM 1440 computer). 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the )~rogram to grow appreciably in the future? The railroad's expenditures increase as railroad revenues increase and de- cline in like manner. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole ~s being efficiently carried out? At all supervisory levels, and such reports are evaluated in Alaska by the General Manager, Assistant General Manager, and Comptroller. Final review is in FRA. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agem~y, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? There is a continuing program review of revenue and expense by management. PAGENO="0229" 225 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being by any other agency? This program does not duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? We think so, to the best of our ability. The organizational structure would be changed if potential improvements become apparent. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? The work of the GAO team currently conducting a management survey is, not completed. A letter report from the Seattle region, dated April 23, 1968, is cur- rently bOing replied to. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? The same problems of any commercial common carrier; the challenge to pro- duce revenues in excess of costs and still perform the developmental functions of the railroad. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with `the magnitude of the outlays? The railroad disposed of its powerplant to the C'hugach Fllectric Cooperative, April 14, 1960. This is being sold for $2,350,710, of which $1 million was paid at date of sale; the remaining balance to be paid over a 25-year period. There are no special problems attached to administering this receivable. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an `overall reduction, or by `cutting or curtailing certain `activities? We have not asked for 0. & M. appropriations since 1939, nor capital im- provements since 19541, with the exception of the costs of repairing earthquake damage in 1964. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you dO with the new money? If the additional funds were sufficient, we would begin a location survey and an economic feasibility study of an extension of the railroad from Dunbar to Bornite, and north from the proposed railroad through the Anaktuvuk Pass to the `oil `an'd gas fields `on the northern `slopes of the Brooks Range. SUBPART B. CAPITAL `IMPROVEMENTS AND REPLACISMENT PROGRAM-ALASKA RAILROAD 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? Senate Report 1761 (84th Congress, second session). 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? John E. Manley, General Manager. 3. How much money and capital equipment Is available under this program for fiscal 1968? The railroad has an apportionment of 16.321 millions of dollars for fiscal 1968, of which 3.883 millions of dollars was approved for the capital improvements and replacement program; the remainder to be utilized by operations and main- tenance Capital equipment at April 30 1968 had a value of $117 411 000 A por tion of the capital equipment available for operations and maintenance of the railroa4 is `also used in this program. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The railroad's output generated by this program is numbers.of buildings, struc- tures and facilities, and equipment produced or purchased each year. 5. Can you quantify `this output in any way? The output is quantified as noted above. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are Involved in producing this Output? Prucipal operations in the capital improvements and replacement program consists of upgrading buildings, structures and facilities with present work forces and purchasing and/or upgrading equipment. The latter process is carried out in-house. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? Same force structure applies to this program as to the 0. & M. program. PAGENO="0230" 226 8. What is the grade structure and how many super grades_HqUOta and non- quota-are involved? The railroad does not have any supergrades. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rel~ upon to fulfill this program? Capital equipment employed by the railroad in its operations qonsists of land, buildings, structures and facilities (roadbed and track), and eq9ipment (rolling stock, machine shop, office equipment including one IBM 1440 computer). 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the peogram to grow appreciably in the future? The increase in expenditures related to this program would relate to any in- crease in our depreciation or retirement.rates. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the varidus parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? Any postponement of this program would put the railroad in the position of having an excesive amount of deferred maintenance which, Qf course, could result in the lowering of safety standards or types of services offered. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? There is a continuing program review of revenue and expense ~y management. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel ~vork being done by any other agency. This program does not duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? We think so, to the best of our ability. The organizational structure would be changed if potential improvements became apparent. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program~? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? The work of the GAO team currently conducting a management survey is not completed. A letter report from the Seattle region, dated April 23, 1968, is cur- rently being replied to. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the pro- gram objectives? The same problems of any commercial common carrier; the challenge to pro- duce revenues in excess of costs and still perform the developmental functions of the railroad. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff co4imerisurate with the magnitude of the outlays? Not applicable. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how uould you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? We have not asked for 0. & M. appropriations since 1939, nor capital improve- ments since 1956, with the exception of the costs of repairing earthquake damage in 1964. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do wltl~ the new money? If the additional funds were sufficient, we would bring a ioc~it1on survey and an economic feasibility study of an extension of the railroad from Dunbar to Bornite, and north from the proposed railroad through the Ai~aktuvuk ?ass to the oil and gas fields on the northern slopes of the Brooks Range. PROGRAM CATEGORY 5-ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? The act approved May 13, 1954, attthorized the St. Lawrence Seaway Develop- ment CorpQration to construct that part of `the St. Lawrence S~away In the U.S. territory between Lake Ontario and St. Regis, N.Y., to consummate necessary arrangements with the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada relative to construction and operation of the seaway, to cooperate with Canada in the con- trol and operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway and to negot~ate with Canada for an agreement on tolls. The act approved ~luly 17, 1957, autho*ized the Corpora- tion to participate with the St. Lawrence Seaway AuthoritY ~f Canada in the PAGENO="0231" ~27 ownership and operation of a toll bridge ceeipany and to provide services and facilities necessary in the maintenance and operation of the seaway. 2 Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level? Joseph IL McCann, Administrator. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? The Corporation's investment in seaway facilities at the start of fiscal year 1968 is $131.1 million. Unused borrowing authority at that time was $14.6 mil- lion Revenues for the fiscal year 1968 are estimated at $63 million 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The seaway was constructed in 1958 and has since been operated on a toll basis by this Corporation and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Yes, the following table shows cargo tonnages shipped through the seaway and revenues accrued to Canada and the United States from 1959 through 1967. Revenue Year Tonnage -~ S United States Canadian 1959 20,600,000 $3,200, 000 $6, 900,000 1960 20, 300, 000 3, 100, 000 7, 100, 000 1961 23,400,000 3,400, 000 8, 100, 000 1962 25,600,000 3,700, 000 8,900,000 1963 30,900,000 4,400,000 10,700,000 1964 - 39,300,000 5,600,000 13, 500, 000 1965 43,400,000 6,400, 000 15, 500, 000 1966 49,200,000 7, 100, 000 17, 300, 000 1967 44, 000, 000 6, 100, 000 16,300,000 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? Operation and maintenance and administration of the seaway facilities. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? As of April 30, 1968, 170, of which approximately 120 are blue-collar trades crafts and laborers (ilicluding lock operating crafts) and the rest are engineer- ing, administrative, and clerical. S 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades~-quota and non- quota-are involved? One supergrade; GS-17; five office heads at OS-iS or GS-14 level; division chiefs range from 05-12 to 05-14; journeymen from 05-7 to OS-il.; clerical from GS-2 to 05-6. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? S None. 10. Do you expeet the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciaPly in the future? S Since the seaway is approaching its designed capacity of 50 million tons of cargo a year, twIning seaway leeks to handle the increased traffic anticipated In future years is being considered. S - 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? S At the top policy level by the Office of the Administrator through division heads. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and- efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No. S -14. Is your organizational structure su~h that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? * Yes. S 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. PAGENO="0232" 228 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in a~eompllshing the program objectives? Our most significant problem at present is to obtain additional financing for the lock rehabilitation program estimated at $13.1 million. In July 1967, legis- lation was proposed to finance the work from an appropriatio~i. The Congress has not acted upOn this proposal. Should the Corporation be re~uired to finance such cost by issuing revenue bonds under the current law the b~rrowiflg author ity would be reduced from $14.6 million to about $1.5 million, ~nd the Corpora- tion's outstanding debt would be increased by a like amount, lr~ addition to the added interest cost for such borrowings. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed ~unds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff con~mensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you ab~orb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? The Corporation does not operate under appropriated fui~ds. See ~tnswer No. 16. 19. If additional funds were available, wh~tt would you 4* with the new money? See answer No. 16. PROGRAM CATEGORY 6-NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFE* BOARD Aotivit~j 1: Prograím Ea~ecution and ~~upport 1. What is the nature of and authority foi this program? The program combines the resources for overall management control, execu- tion, and day-to-day operation of Safety Board-wide programs ir~cluding manage- ment direction, personnel management, programing, budgeting ai~d financial man- agement, analytical staff support, communications, services for property manage. ment, records and documents management, and other general adjninlstrative sup- port activities. The authority to conduct this program emanates from the Depart- ment of Transportation Act of 1966, which created the Safety Board, and the specific delegations of authority from the Chairman of the Safety Board to the executive director. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at tl~e operative level (name and title)? Ernest Weiss, executive 4irector~ 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal year 1968? A total of $414,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 1968. Capital equipment is limited to personal property and other minor equipment requi~ed for program operation; e.g., file cabinets, furniture, office machines, etc.-$19,800 was allo- cated for this type of equipment in fiscal year 1968. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this progran~? The output includes management direction in the form of policy pronounce- ments, procedures, instructions, budget and financial material including budget documents, all personnel material, processing, printing, and distribution of all Safety Board documents, and a wide range of special proje~ts dealing with overall management and administration. By delegation, the E~ecutive Director is responsible for the overall management direction of the Board's programs. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Due to the wide range of products produced In this program specific quan- tification would be very difficult. However, the following ai~e representative examples of output. The budget officer, in addition to preparing all material associated with the budget process, is responsible for developing a wide range of budgetary procedures for control of funds; answers replies fro~n a wide variety of sources regarding budget matters, and prepares written instri~ctions for Safety Board use. The personnel manager must process all personnel actions, prepare procedures necessary to implement the personnel program, interview and recruit personnel and assist the Executive Director in a wide range o~ special studies. Management direction requires the formulation of a wide range of policy and procedural documents and studies. All tasks associated with th~ procurement of equipment and associated administrative services for the entire Safety Board must be performed. This program provides document~ and ~~ecords services, including the processing and servicing of approximately 5,000 ~iccident files per year, answering approximately 10,000 accident inquiries, and the printing and PAGENO="0233" 229 distribution of approximately 90,000 copies of various Safety Board publications and documents per year. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? The principal operations involved are management formulation, control and review of program areas, the design of budgetary appropriation processing and coordination control systems, management direction, personnel operations, paper- work and records processing, maintenance of control and accountability ai~tborlty for expenditure of funds. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? Eighteen employees are authorized for this program and fall intothe following personnel categories: executive management, budget and personnel management, office services, clerical. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-ore involved? The grade structure includes one GS-18 (quota supergrade), two GS44's, one GS-13, two GS-12's, one GS-9, two GS-T's, one GS-6, two GS-5's, three GS-4's, and three GS-2's. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, If any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? Limited personal property, supplies, etc., plus the rental of approximately 700 hours of computer time per year. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? S Yes; expenditures will increase due to various administrative support costs furnished by the DOT for which the Safety Board will reimburse them. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole Is being efficiently carried out? S At the Executive Director level. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes;. the program is reviewed periodically. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No; it does not. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? We feel that it is; however, we will constantly strive to improve the effective- ness of all program areas. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. S 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? S Lack of adequate personnel ceilings and available funding plus the growing pains of a new organization and the selective recruitment of key personnel. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude'of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how could you absorb the eut-~ by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? And reduction in funds would require a curtailment of program activities. 19. If additional funds were available what would you do with the new money? Increase activities in the areas of safety promotion and accident prevention, and conduct more special studies, which would lead to improved support of the accident prevention and safety promotion programs of the Safety Board. Activity 2 (NTSB) : Policy Formulation, Decision; Legal a'nd Infermiatiofl 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? The nature of this program is to provide for the formulation of general policies and programs of the National Transportation Safety Board; giving legal advice and assistance to the Safety Board as well as to operating bureaus and offices; PAGENO="0234" 230 rendering decisions in cases coming before the Safety Board, sncl~ as determining accident causes, and rendering public information services on all authorized functions performed by the Safety Board. Authority for this p~~ograrn activity emanates from the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? The responsible official for overall top management direction and coordination of this program is Joseph J. O'Connell, Jr., Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? The sum of $376,000 was appropriated for fiscal year 1968 for this program. Capital equipment Is limited to~ personal property; for example, furniture, office machinces, et cetera. Two hundred dollars was allocated for this type of equip- ment In fiscal year 1968. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The output of this activity includes a broad range of mater~al such as ap- proved Safety Board documents, legal decisions, opinions, or~lers and other legal documents such as contracts, comments on legislation, proposed and final rules, etc. prepared by the Office of General Counsel; and press releases, speeches, articles and other public affairs material prepared and released by the Office of Public Affairs. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? Specific qUantification and measurement of end products are di4lcult; however, the following are offered as examples of the approximate number of major end products that will be produced in fiscal year 1968: The five-member Safety Board will hear, review, and approve approximately 120 major end products Including accident reports, procedural documents, rules, appeals, etc. In. addition, they will be required to make numerous speeches, par- ticipate in Safety Board hearings, and conduct a broad range of duties commen- surate with the station of Presidential appointees. It is estimated that the Office of General Counsel (four attorpeys) will-pre- pare and execute approximately 47 opinions and orders; will review approxi- mately 14 initial accident reports, and will prepare approxim~tely 225 asso- ciated major legal-type end products. The Office of Public AffairS (two professional employees) will write and re- lease approximately 100 major speeches, press releases and other related docu- ments, and provide public information support to the Safety Board at all public hearings and at major aircraft sites. In addition, they will respond to many requests for information and perform other public affairs activities. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? The principal operations involved are primarily those of rese~trch, documen- tation, preparation, coordination, review, and approval of the broad range of material described above. There are written procedures which j~rovide for the orderly presentation of this material to the Safety Board; for preparing and is- Suing legal documents; and for the control and release of public affairs material. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? There are 22 positions authorized for fiscal year 1968. They fall jnto the follow- ing types of employment categories: Presidential appointees, attorneys, public affairs specialists, and secretarial personnel. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? The grade structure includes five Presidential appointees (one level III and four level IV's), one GS-17 (quota supergrade), five GS-15's, o~e GS-14, one GS-13, one GS-12, one GS-11, four GS-10~s one GS-8, one GS-7, and one GS-6. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None. - 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow ap.. preciably in the future? There should be a slight growth rate, and benefits from the program should increase appreciably as officials gain additional knowledge coI~cerning these assignments and improved management techniques are introduce~l and through ongoing program reviews. PAGENO="0235" 231 11. At what level are the personnel respoñ~ible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if tl~e program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? At the Chairman, Safety Board, and executive director level. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes, all major Safety Board programs are reviewed periodically. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? We feel that it is; however, we will constantly strive to improve the effective- ness of all program areas. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing tlle program objectives? The lack of needed personnel ceilings and available funding, plus the ex- pected growing pains of a new organization and the selective recruitment of key personneL 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Any reduction in funds would require a curtilment of selected program ac- tivities. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Increase activities in safety promotion and accident prevention, conduct more special studies, and devslop more safety recommendations. Activity 3 (NT~B): Aviation accident investigation and prevention 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? The Safety Board is required to investigate accidents involving civil aircraft occurring in the United States and its territories to determine the probable cause of all such aircraft accidents, to make public reports on accidents and. their causes, to make safety recommendations intended to prevent similar occur- rences, and to ascertain what will tend to reduce or eliminate the possibility of aircraft accidents. The authority for this program is derived from title V~I of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? Bibbie It. Allen, Director, Bureau of Aviation Safety. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal 1968? $2 954 000 There are no major items of capital equipment other than personal property such as furniture office machines some metallurgical analysis ~equip- ment, and flight and cockpit voice recorder readout equipment. There was no allocation for this type of equipment in fiscal year 1968. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The output of this program is in the form of (a) accident reports publicly distributed containing the probable cause of the accidents; (b) air safety rec- ommendations for regulatory or other actions regarding safety of flight; (O) safety promotional material publicly distributed; (d) accident statistics; and (e). special safety studies. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? The Bureau will investigate approximately 1,000 aircraft accidents in fiscal year 1968. It will analyze and determine the probable cause of approximately 6000 aircraft accidents (see question 13 below for explanation of quantitative data). It will produce about 6,000 accident reports for public distributlon.~ approximately 35 safety recommendations, and an annual set of statistics. PAGENO="0236" 232 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are invol~red In producing this output? The principal operations involved are: (a) the findings of facts, conditions, and circumstances of the accident through Investigation; (b) the analysis of facts to determine probable cause; (c) the preparation of accident r~ports for public distribution; (4) the extraction and compilation of statistical data regarding the accident; (e) the development of air safety recommendations for remedial or preventive action to avoid accidents, and special safety studies. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? The fiscal year 1968 personnel ceiling Is 187 employees. Emplojyment categories include air safety investigators, engineers, metallurgists, technical specialists, administrators, and clerical personnel. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-4-quota and non- quota-are involved? The grade structure includes one GS-18 (quota supergrade), one GS-17 (nonquota supergrade), four GS-16's (including one nonquota), 15 GS-15's, 24 GS-14's, 55 GS-13's, 15 GS-12's, 19 OS-il's, two 05-9's, one GS-8, five GS-7's, 19 05-6's, 13 05-5's, 12 GS-4's, and one 05-2. 9. What capital equipment, such as AD'P, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? The Safety Board owns no capital equipment in the form of thachthes such as automatic data processing equipment, but does contract outside the Board ap- proximately TOO hours of ADP time per year to produce selected;aircraft accident data. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow ap- preciably in the future? At the current program level of operations, expenditures are not expected to grow appreciably. It is anticipated that the benefits derived from the program will increase greatly due to increased emphasis on accident prevEsition and safety promotion activities. The increase in benefits derived from thi~ reemphasis will be achieved primarily by the reorganization and redirection of e~isting resources. 11. At what level are the personnel `responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole ts being efficiently carried out? At the bureau director level, with further review at the executive director level. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to achieve these program objectives? Yes; the program is reviewed continuously, at every echelon of supervision. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? There is no duplicate work performed. The Federal Aviaticti Administration does investigate certain types of aircraft accidents, but under a delegation from/ the Safety Board. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? Yes. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this progran~? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? Lack of manpower and nonpersonnel funds to expand ADP a~pllcations, to In- crease training of personnel, to expand flight/voice recorder re~clout capabilities, and the metallurgical analysis service resulting in the inability to conduct more extensive accident prevention, safety promotion, and special studies. 17. Do you administer any' grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff co~nmensurate with the magnitude of `the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Any reduction would mean we would be able to conduct avi1ition accident in- vestigations with less intensity. We would have to stretch out the time require~l to find probable cause on those aviation accidents fOr which w~ conduct investi- PAGENO="0237" 233 gations er for which we have delegated the investigation to the ~`eder~i Aviation Administration. We would have to conduct fewer safety promotion projects and studies. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? With additional funds, more personnel could be employed to assist In carrying out duties that become increasingly complex as the technology of aviation changes; more training would be provided to keep personnel abreast of tech- nological de~ elopments in the new aircraft ADP services would be expanded particularly in the area of analytic engineering studies; additional equipment would be purchased to enhance the Safety Board's capability for performing flight recorder and voice recorder analyses. Activity 4 (NTSB): Bureau of B~nrf ace Transportation Bat ety 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? The Safety Board is authorized to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation or the various modal administrators of the various agencies of the Department that will tend to prevent surface transporta- tion accidents and increase surface transportation safety; conduct special stud lés in transportation safety and accident prevention; insure that reports of investiga- tions adequately state the circumstances of the accidents Involved where the safety Board is required to determine probable cause; request from the Secre~ tary or administrators notification of transportation accidents and reports of accidents; make recommendations to the Secretary or administrators concerning rules, regulations, and procedures for the conduct of accident investigation; request the Secretary or administrators to initiate specific accident investiga- tions or conduct further investigations, participate in departmenal accident investigations when deemed appropriate; and make public every safety recom- mendation as well as reports and studies associated with the above activities. The authority for conducting this program is the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? Mr. Henry H. Wakeland, Director of Surface Transportation Safety. 3. How much money and capital equipment is available under this program for fiscal year 1968? $177,000 was made available in fiscal year 1968 for the surface transportation safety functions. There are no major items of capital equipment other than furniture and office machines acquired in prior fiscal years. No new capital equip- ment is scheduled for procurement in fiscal year 1968. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? The output of this program is in the form of formal accident reports, recom- mendations for improving surface transportation safety and special studies and reports on the subject. 5. Can you qualify this output in any way? The Bureau of Surface Transportation Safety will prepare approximately 15 accident reports and studies in fiscal year 1968. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? The principal operations involved in the output are the selection of certain meaninkful (from a safety standpoint) accidents and conducting a thorough analysis of any p~revious investigative work if it has been performed, in order to determine probable cause and make specific recommendations which will improve safety. The emphasis here is on selectivity of accidents to be analyzed in order to assure that only those accidents with far-reaching or significant safety ramifications can be examined by our small staff. The thrust is on~ accident prevention and safety promotion and not accident investigation per se. 7. Ilow many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? The fiscal year 1968 appropriation provides for 22 positions The employment categories include safety investigators statisticians systems analysts one U S Coast Guard officer on detail, and clerical personnel. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergracles.-quota and non- quota-are involved? The grade structure includes: one GS-17 (quota supergrade), one GS-i6 (quota supergrade), five GS-1S's, two GS-14's, one U.S. Coast Guard com- mander, four GS-13's, one GS-7, four GS-6's, and three GS-fi's. PAGENO="0238" 234 9. What capital equipment, such as APP, if any, do you rely ~ipon to fulfill this program? The Safety Board owns no capital equipment such as automatic data process- ing equipment The contracting for APP services has not been reqi~ired so far in this program in fiscal year 1968. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? Yes. Hopefully we will Increase the professional staff by 100 pei~cent over the next 3 fiscal years. As the staff increases, it will provide additionct resources to devote to improving and increasing accident prevention and safety promotion activities. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the varlou~ parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a Whole is being efficiently carried out? At the bureau director level and executive director level. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ~ays to achieve these program objectives? Yes, there are periodic reviews of the program. 13. To your knowledge, does this program~duplicate or parallel work being done by any other agency? No, it does not duplicate work done by other agencies; however, jt does parallel accident investigation activities performed by other Government agencIes in that the Safety Board selects specific accidents they have investigated and analyzes them further in order to develop recommendations which will lead to improved safety conditions and enhance safety promotion and acci~jent prevention. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? We feel `that it is. However, we will constantly strive to improve the effectiv& ness of all program areas. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? None. 16. What significant problems, if any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? Lack of a sufficient number of qualified professional personnel. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed f~~nds related to this program? If so4 is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you abs~rb the cut-by an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities?. Any reduction would mean that surface accident investigations and safety promotion and accident prevention studies and projects would have to be curtailed. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do' with the new money? Acquire additional professional personnel. Activity 5 (NThB) : Certificate an~t lAcense Appeals 1. What is the nature of and authority for this program? This activity of the Safety Board has the responsibility for complying with title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, in copducting fdrmal hearings and such other proceedings as may be required by the ~atioual Trans- portation Safety Board in the exercise of its functions pursuant to the Depart- ment of Transportation Act of 1966. These formal proceedings include safety enforcement actions involving petitions for review under section 602 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, from applicants denied airman certificates by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and appeaLs under section 609 of the act~ from orders of the Administrator of the l~'ederal Aviation Administration, suspending or revoking certificates issued to airmen and air carriers for alleged violations of safety standards or for lack of qualifications to hold such certificates. 2. Who is the person primarily in charge of this program at the operative level (name and title)? Mr. 5oeeph (3. Oaldwell, 1r., chief hearing examiner, Oi~lce of Hearing Examiners. PAGENO="0239" 235 & How much money and capital eqttipnient i~ available under this program for fiscal year 1968? $181,000 was made available in fiscal year 1968 for the certificate and license appeals function. There are no major items of capital equipment other than furniture and office machines acquired in prior fiscal years. No new capital equip- ment is scheduled for procurement in fiscal year 1968. 4. Would you describe the output generated by this program? * The output generated in the form of examiners' initial decisiohs, orders, and other related legal documents. 5. Can you quantify this output in any way? The five hearing examiners will have approximately 210 appeals presented for hearing in fiscal year 1968. 6. Would you describe the principal operations that are involved in producing this output? The principal operations relating to this program are the receipt, docketing, preparation for the hearing of appeals., hearing, and the issuing of initial dcci- sions thereon by the examiners. 7. How many employees are involved in the program and in what general type of employment categories do they fall? Ten employees. The employment categories include hearing examiners and clerical personnel. 8. What is the grade structure and how many supergrades-quota and non- quota-are involved? The grade structure includes five hearing examiner 08-16's, supergrades; one GS-7, and four GS-6's. 9. What capital equipment, such as ADP, if any, do you rely upon to fulfill this program? None. 10. Do you expect the expenditures or the benefits of the program to grow appreciably in the future? No, expenditures will remain relatively constant. However, through improved management practices and program reviews, increased benefits will be derived. 11. At what level are the personnel responsible for the various parts of the program coordinated to determine if the program as a whole is being efficiently carried out? At the chief hearing examiner level, with administrative review at the execu- tive director level. 12. Is there a continual program review within the agency, other than the annual budgetary review, to determine more effective and efficient ways to.. achieve these program objectives? Yes, the program is reviewed periodically. 13. To your knowledge, does this program duplicate or parallel wotk being done by any other agency? No, it does not. 14. Is your organizational structure such that the program is being carried out most efficiently and effectively? We feel that it is; however, we will constantly strive to improve the effective- ness of all program areas. 15. Are there any outstanding GAO reports on this program? If so, what is the status of the GAO recommendations the report contains? No. 16. What significant problems, If any, are you facing in accomplishing the program objectives? An Increasing workload. 17. Do you administer any grants, loans, or other disbursed funds related to this program? If so, is the size of your administrative staff commensurate with the magnitude of the outlays? No. 18. If your appropriations were reduced, how would you absorb the cut-by~ an overall reduction, or by cutting or curtailing certain activities? Any reductions below our present staffing levels would require a. reduction in the intensity and a stretching out of the time required to process material. 19. If additional funds were available, what would you do with the new money? Attempt to secure an .additional examiner and clerical support. PAGENO="0240" PAGENO="0241" Goals MAY 1968 DEPARTMEP (237) 21-528 0 - 69 - pt. 11 - 16 PAGENO="0242" 238 "The Department of Transportation is not an end to our transportation problems; it is a beginning in the search for new solutions. But it gives us, for the first time, a logical frai~iework for seeking those solutions." ALAN S. Bo~n Secretary o/ Tran.sporta~iOfl PAGENO="0243" 239 ( `% THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION J WASHINGTON. D.C 20590 May 13, 1968 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Secretarial Officers All Modal Administrators SUBJECT: Goals and Objectives for the Department of Transportation This goals and objectives document is the initial step in providing the framework and guidelines necessary for effectively planning the Department of Transportation's programs and policy actions. It also identifies the major problems, programs and priorities which must be considered and implemented in the Department's plans. All of you have been involved in developing these statements through discussions and presentations which have taken place over a period of several months. In addition it also contains the benefits of coninents and reconanendations which your key people have made during numerous briefings. It is recognized that forces affecting transportation decisions are dynamic and ever changing; consequently, this document will be reviewed and evaluated on a regular basis and changes will be made as the situation demands. fi~c/4i lan S. Boyd PAGENO="0244" / 240 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction vii 1. Goals and Objectives 1 Economic Efficiency in Transportation . . . . 2 Optimal Use of Environmental Resources . . . 4 Safety 5 Support of Other National Interests . . . . 7 IL Problems, Programs, and Inter~re1ationships 11 A. Problem Areas 11 13. New Program Requirements 12 C. Inter.relationships and the DOT Role . . . . 15 III. Program Priorities 19 A. Mass Transportation 20 B. Safety 20 C. Environmental, Aesthetic, Community Effects 20 D. Terminals 21 E. High Speed Ground 21 F. Marine Sciences 21 G. Research and Development 21 V PAGENO="0245" 241 INTRODUCTION The role of the Deparl:ment of Transporta~j0~ is to de- velop and coordinate an efrective national transportation system that serves the needs and interests, of all parts of the country and segments of the economy. To carry out this responsibility and achieve maximum results, it is vit~al that the Departme~~~ * Establish goals and objectives which will direct and coordinate the total transportation resources 0/the United States; * Provide leadership in identifying and Solving transportation problems and issues; * Provide an effective administration o/ transpor. tation programs including the coordination of intermodal and interagency programs; * Establish a level o/ priorities among the various alternative programs which will result in maxi- mum achievement 0/the goals and objectives. Accordingly, the Purpose of this document is to establish the Departmental goals and objectives and provide the basic framework for carrying out its related responsibilities of guiding and coordinating the research and development and other program activities of the various modal opera- tions into a cohesive and integra~e~ national transportation System. - Section I defines the goals and objectjve~ and descrjb~ policy implication,5 The major problem areas which must be faced under the various goals and objectives are dis- cussed in Section II as well as a review of some of the more significant current programs and a listing of areas vu PAGENO="0246" 242 where future research and development efforts sl~ould be concentrated. Section III establishes a level of program priorities to be used in the allocation of transporta$ion resources. viii PAGENO="0247" 243 I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goals and objectives give purpose, Scope and direction to planning. They are most important to the Department of Transportation since they form the focal point for co- ordinating and shaping the resources and activities of the various modal administrations into an integrated and ef- fective national transportation system. The following goals and objectives have been established for the Department: * Economic Efficiency in Transportation * Optimal Use of Environmental Resources * Safety * Support of Other National Interests The above Departmental objectives, although only four in number, are purposely designed to be broad enough to permit flexibility in developing an integrated national transportation system yet comprehensive enough to provide criteria which can be used in establishing objectives for individual modal or intermodal programs. The role of the Departmental objectives is to form the framework around which the operating activities can plan specific programs and direct ~research and development in such a manner that the sum total of the DOT effort is channeled toward the same end-the development of an integrated national transportation system. 1 PAGENO="0248" 244 ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY IN TRANSPORTATION To provide that mix of transportation alternatives, including modal systems, related facilities and manpower,1 research and development, etc., which results in maximur~ benefits such as service, convenience, comfort, capacity, dnd speed for a given cost. 1. BENEFITS AND COSTS Transportation is a service and as such the quai~tity and quality must take into account the benefits that the con- sumer is willing to pay for as well as the cost of ~roviding them: For example, speed can always be incre~sed in a given mode of transportation if enough resource~ are de- voted to that purpose. Also, more reliability, comfort, and convenience in transportation can be obtained by aMocating more resources for these purposes. Economic efl~ciency is increased, however, only if the resulting addition to the total benefits is greater than the addition to total c~sts. Cost-benefit analysis in the government sector ~s a sub- stitute for the supply and demand mechanism provided by the market place in the private sector. It is 1~his simi- larity of the role that benefits versus costs has to the profit motive that gives value to the objective of economic efficiency. Although the Department of rfransportation, alpng with all government agencies, is committed to cost-bene~1t ailaly- sis, it recognizes the limitations in quantifying afl factors. The various factors influencing transportation programs must be quantified wherever possible; however~ the in- tangible benefits and unquantifiable costs must be described fully so their impact can be considered in the ultimate decision. These intangibles include political, $cial and other considerations which must be taken into~ account. Cost-benefit analysis is only a tool and not a subs~itute for management decisions. 2 PAGENO="0249" 245 2. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Department assumes that the private sector of trans- portation is basically efficient and that the forces of com- petition and the cold calculus of profit maximization do a good job of allocating resources to the satisfaction of con- sumers' watits. However, there are some demands to which the market simply cannot respond. For instance, the market alone will not provide highways or navigational aids in optimal amounts, if at all. The policy of the DOT is to insure that these transportation goods and services are supplied by the public sector within the criteria of economic efficiency. Another of the DOT's major policy criteria is to make certain that it is not carrying out functions which could better be performed by the private sector. This is es- pecially true of the DOT research and development support in the areas of aviation and high speed ground transpor- tation. The DOT will also continue to develop its planning and program analysis process, so that programs can be compared with each other on, a total national transportation system basis and the benefits and costs considered and resources allocated on a cross-modal basis. In shaping policies that affect the framework in which the private sector operates and in making representations before regulatory agencies, Department action will be to facilitate, not obstruct, the operation of the market. Po- tential areas of application of this policy include mergers, subsidies, rate regulation, development of high speed ground transportation, etc. The Department policy must also entourage improved transportation planning practices and coordination at the State and local level. Related to this policy is the respoi~- sibility to distribute transportation planning information and to circulate the results of its own transportation re- search efforts as widely as possible. The DOT will also review and coordinate the dissemination of foreign trans- portation research and development data. 3 PAGENO="0250" 246 OPTIMAL USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES To increase the benefits derived from the preservdtion and enhancement of the environmental,~ aesthetic and s~,cial fac. tors of transportation. 1. BENEFITS AND COSTS The transportntion system has a considerable ~apacity to impact the aesthetic and physical qualities of the en- vironment and the intangible qualities that are a~sociated with a community in which people live. Air ar~d water pollution, the noise of jet aircraft and the disrupti~ve effect of a freeway on an urban neighborhood are somel obvious examples of the social and environmental imp~ct costs which must be considered in transportation 4eci*sions. Highway beautification, regional development ro~ds and the preservation of historical sites are example~ of the system's potential for beneficial effects. These qualities are of real value to people and joint development must be taken into account when considering resource a~location and relocation problems. Environmental effects ~enerated by the activities of firms in the transportation industry must also be considered and evaluated against th~ benefits derived. 2. PoLIcY IMPLICATIONS Since the market mechanism does not readily respond to the environmental effects of transportation, private transportation does not take environmental facto4~s in ac- count to an optimum extent. Action on the pai~t of the Department and other governmental agencies, t~ierefore, is necessary to minimize the adverse effects of t$nsporta- tion. In fact, this is the area where the governr~ient role is very important-to protect the rights of the consumer of the private sector when they cannot readily h~lp them- selves. The noise problem with jet aircraft is an excellent example. The noise generated by jet planes has 4 adverse impact on the people living under the flight paths to the extent, for example, that the value of their property may 4 PAGENO="0251" 247 decrease. Yet, there is no way in which the market mech- anism will compel the firms operating the planes to com- pensate the people for these costs. As a result, DOT policy will support governmental regulation which will have the affect of minimizing the adverse conditions. Most transportation problems involving physical, en- vironmental and social factors have their primary impact within confined and local areas. In these instances, the Department's policy will be to encourage the State and especially local governments to resolve these problems themselves, such as in the case of utilizing urban concept teams. Examples of areas where this policy applies in- clude airport location, urban highway development, re- gional highways, highway beautification, air and water pollution, use of trust funds, etc. SAFETY. To minimize the loss of human life, property and human suffering through injury from transportation-related accidents. 1. BENEFITS AND COSTS The notion of minimizing injury, loss of life, and damage to property must remain in the forefront of all transpor- tation system planning. Safety implies the absence of accidents and as a result, DOT efforts toward achievement of the safety objective will concentrate on accident preven- tion. Since accidents are impossible to eliminate completely, DOT will also work on the mitigation and amelioration of accidents. Many expenditures which contribute to efficiency may also contribute to the prevention of accidents. Design features of highways which increase speed and capacity may also contribute to safer movement. Aids to navigation which facilitat.e the fast movement of air and water traffic also contribute to safer movement. 5 PAGENO="0252" 248 The establishntent of design standards for aut~nnobiles to minimize injury to the occupants in the event of ~a crash, is directed towards mitigating the effects of 4cidents. Search and rescue programs, and other programs ~o assist victims of accidents may be viewed as efforts to anileliorate the effects of accidents. Reduction of the probability of loss of life, inj~iry and property damage, can always be achieved, but the costs of such achievement cannot be ignored. These costs ~iay take the form of increased expenditures, or of a redaction in some other desirable characteristic of transportatibn, such as speed. A judgment must be made by the Department as to the extent to which society's resources should be ex- pended to reduce the loss of life and human injury in transportation. It must then be reflected appropriately in regulatory decisions and the allocation of resourk~es. 2. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Most transportation that is offered by commor~ carrier, including pipelines, falls within the regulatory purview of the Department with respect to safety. Much of the Department's significant activity in transportation safety is in the realm of influencing the framework jn which private transportation and State and local authokit.ies op- erate through education, regulation and approval $f funds. Research and development, is conducted by the DOT to specify requirements that are needed to maintain adequately high safety standards of design and constructiOn in f a- cilities and equipment, as well as the qualification and enforcement of operators. The policy of the Department will be to provi4e leader- ship in developing guidelines so t.hat State and l~caI pro- grams in safety education, regulation and enforce~ent will be as uniform and effective as possible throu~hout the country. 6 PAGENO="0253" 249 SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONAL JNTE!~ESTS To further all other objectives of the Federal Government whenever they are affected by transportation or the DOT can perform a particular task more effectively and efficiently. 1. BENEFITS AND COSTS Because of the vital role that transportation plays in the nation's economic and social activity, it has far reaching benefits which must be considered when pursuing the na- tional goals and objectives. Areas where transportation has its greatest impact include: National Defense Economic Growth Social Development Advancement of Scientific Research The DOT is engaged in many programs that support the national defense effort including the Coast Guard Patrol activity in Vietnam, participation by the FAA with the Air Defense Command of the Air Force in common aviation systems relating to air traffic control and aircraft identification, and anti-submarine warfare operations by the Coast Guard. Transportation can also have great impact on the eco- nomic development of the Inited States. It is felt most heavily in regional development programs such as the Appalachia Project and the Northeast Corridor where the experience and capabilities of the DOT are used to plan, design and develop the transportation portion of the overall program. The impact that transportation has on the bal- ance of payments should also be considered in support of~ national economic growth. Social development through transportation is opening up new areas for participation by DOT. It embraces such ideas as providing free transportation to work for the underprivileged, special transportation construction pro- jects using disadvantaged people and transporting inhabit- ants from a job shortage area to areas where labor is needed. 7 PAGENO="0254" 20 Advancement of the state of the art in other ~cientific areas can also be enhanced by related DOT rese~rch and development. One of ~the most applicable area~ is the marine nautical sciences. Here, the Coast Guard is en- gaged in a major R&D effort in the development of Ocean Data Buoy System hardware. This will contril~ute sig- nificantly in understanding the physical environment of the oceans and will assist many other activities o~itside of the DOT. In supporting other national interests, one of tl~ie major cost considerations is the impact that these outside pro- grams will have on directly related transportatIon pro- grams. Costs in these cases include budgetary funds, R&D capability and equipment, facilities and manpow~r avail- ability. 2. PoLIcY IMPLICATIONS The Department will lend support to other national objectives where they are transportation related. Also, to be considered are tasks which may not be trans?ortation related, but which the Department has a capacity to per- form more efficiently or effectively than other agencies of the Government. For, instance, the Department may take accou~it of as- sistance to the urban poor by encouraging pla~ining of urban transportation systems which make provision for easy and low-priced access to places of work f~r unem- ployed ghetto residents. The Department may wish to encourage the provision of transportation to poor and undeveloped rural areas for the same purpose, although the provision of such transportation might not be justified on strict economic efficiency grounds. In ti~e design of the Interstate Highway Systeth, provi- sion is made for clearances of bridges and overpas~es which would not be necessary except for the need to accdmmodate military traffic such as outsized missiles and other' weapons. The Coast Guard always maintains a capability to assist in national defense. Beyond this, the Coast Gu~rd has a capability to perform marine operations that is unique 8 PAGENO="0255" 251 among non-defense agencies. For this reason, the Coast Guard engages in a variety of missions such as enforcement of treaties and boundaries at sea, and oceanographic re- search efforts, which could not be discharged by any other agency without wasteful duplication of the Coast Guard's facilities. The DOT policy in this case is to support these projects to the degree allowed by the allocation of DOT resources. 9 PAGENO="0256" I - PAGENO="0257" 253 ~II PROBLEMS, PROGRAMS AND INTER-RELATIONSHIPS The Department of ~Tmnsportation i~ ~sponsible for identifying the major transportation- problems and issues so that appropriate action can be taken to solve them. The purpose of this section therefore, is to (a) identify the major broad problem areas, (b) highlight the critical issues and related new program requirements and (c) describe the complex inter-relationships of the DOT goals and objectives and problem areas. A. Problem Areas - The goals and objectives of the Department of Trans- portation represent the qualities and characteristics which the Department will strive to incorporate within the na- tional transportation system. As such, these goals and objectives are of a long-term nature and should not change. To achieve these goals and objectives, certain problems must be overcome and new programs must be developed and these of necessity will continue to change. In fact, this dynamic aspect of transportation is why planning is important and why periodic assessment of the problems and appropriate modification of the total Departmental plan and individual program objectives is necessary. The basic problems of transportation are complex and deep-rooted in nature* and cover1 a broad spectrum of in- terests, activities, jurisdictions and modal responsibilities. For planning and analytic purposes, however, they can be grouped into a relatively manageable list of broad problem areas which encompasses most of the specific current issues facing the DOT today. 11 21-528 0 - 69 - p1. 11 - 17 PAGENO="0258" 254 Transportation Problem Areas Urban Congestion Community Effects Terminal/Port Development Aesthetics Intercity Movement Source of Funds Safety Program Management Pollution Defense Support Noise Social/Economic Development Many of the above basic transportation proble~n areas are not being pursued in the light of their inter-relation- ships within the national transportation system, They also do not show the influence of common R&D techniques and consolidated transportation planning statistics and are not taking advantage of sharing common test facil~ties and equipment. It was to take this overall view of the national transpor tation system and of all its interactions that the Departmen was established. However, to develop an effective and cohesive Department: * New programs must be initiated which are directly aimed at solving the critical problems required in developing a cohesive national transportati4~rn system. * Procedures and techniques must be established j~or harnessing the specialized capabilities within the Department, so that their full/orce may be brought to bear on intermodal problems and issues. B. New Program Requirements The activities now being carried on by the Department reflect, in very large measure, decisions taken and programs initiated before DOT existed. Programs and the research efforts that are currently going forward do not yet portray the full impact of the existence of DOT. It is vit~i1, there- fore, to identify the major issues associated with th~ various objectives so that priorities may be established, R&D ini- tiated and programs implemented. The following outline summarizes the major is~ues, cur- rent programs and R&D needs by DOT objective. Al- 12 PAGENO="0259" 255 though the listing of programs is not all inclusive, it does present a good cross-section of the major DOT activities and interests involved in the pur~uit of the DOT objectives. Program Summary 1. EcoNoMic EFFICIENCY -Major I8eues: Mass Movement Future Highway Terminal at Peak Hours Needs Congestion Airport Access Rapid Growth of Airport Air Traffic Development Development and Use of HSGT Freight Movement Port/Harbor Development State and Local Urban Planning Interfaces Project Financing -Current Pro grame: Highway Construction TOPICS Program Urban Concept Teams Airport Access High Speed Ground Projects Northeast Airport CorrLdor Development Enroute Facilities Highway Air Traffic Control Beautification Landing Aids C. G. Aids to Navigation Supersonic Transport -Rc~D Needs: Mass Transit Integration of Computer Intermodal Systems Technology Federal/State/ to Local Planning Program Traffic Control Techniques Financing New Management Methods 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -Major Issues: Air Pollution Water Pollution Noise Abatement Highway Beautification ~oint Development -Current Programs: Noise Abatement Oil Pollution Highway Prevention Beautification 13 PAGENO="0260" 256 -Rd~D Needs: Noise Soniè Vehicle Air Abatement Boom Pollution 3. SAFETY -Major Issues: Highway/Vehicle! Aviation Grade C~osslng Operator Safety Accidents Recreational Search and Boating Pipe~ine Rescue Saf~ty Safety Hazardous Education Motor Materials and Carrier Regulation Saf~ty -Current Programs: Highway/Vehicle Aviation Grade Crossing Safety R&D Program Program Coast Guard Recreational Search and Boating Program Rescue -Rc~D Needs: Highway/Vehicle Aviation HSGT Safety Safety Safety Safety Education and Pipeline Safety Regulation for All Modes 4. NATIONAL INTERESTS -Major Issues: Allocation of Resources to- Vietnam and Other Aeronautical Military Support Sciences Marine Sciences Other Non-DOT Areas -Current Programs: Coast Guard Patrol in Vietnam and FAA/AF Enforcement of U.S. Boundaries and Common Treaties at Sea Systems -Rd~D Needs: Data Buoys 14 PAGENO="0261" 257~ C. Inter-relationships and the DOT Role In developing transportation in the United States into, a total national transportation system, the goals and ob- jectives tend to become inter-related. In the same manner, the various problem areas related to the different modes of transportation impact one another and make the plan- fling of an integrated transportation system most difficult and complex. For example, one cannot solve the economic efficiency problem of urban congestion without considering the com- munity impact, the interfaces of the urban system with intercity modes of travel, safety and pollution of the air and water. In selecting the site for an airport, considera- tion must be given to airport access, the impact that the airport noise has on the surrounding environment, the relationship it has to the safety of the community and provisions for financing and management. To address problems of this magnitude it is necessary to work across several modes of transportation, provide leader- ship to a wide variety of interest groups and ~develop new methods of system design, management and financing. Goals and objectives are most necessary* to provide the framework for putting the above actions in the proper perspective and to insure that the total thrust of transpor-. tation resource allocation is coordinated and focused into a cohesive plan toward a common end. Table I shows the inter-relationships of the various goals and objectives with each other and the' areas where the various modes within the Department of Transporta- tion are involved. This summary table, although not all inclusive, does point out the magnitude and complexity of the transportation problem and the catalytic role that the goals and objectives play in carrying out the purpose and responsibility of the DOT. The DOT in general, and the Office of the Secretary in particular must take the lead in developing certain pro- cedures and techniques which will combine and focus the 15 PAGENO="0262" Table I. PROBLEMS AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS Goals and Objectives Modes Basic Problem Areas Economic Environmental National Efficiency Impact Safety Interests FAA1 FHWA2 FRA3 CG4 UMTA5 Urban Congestion - X X X x x x - x Terminal/Port Development X X X X X X X X X Intercity MovemEnt - X X X X X X X - X Safety X - X - X X X X X Pollution X X X X X X X X X Noise X X X X X X X - x Oommunity Effects - X X X X X X X - X AesthetIcs X X - X X X X - X Source of Funds ~- X X - X X X X - X Program Manage- ment X X X X X X X X Defense Support X - X X X X X - Social/Economic Development X X X X X X - X 1FAA =Federal Aviation Administration. 2FHWA =Federal Highway Administration. ~FRA =Federal Railroad Administration. 4CG =Coast Guard. 5UMTA Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Transferred to DOT July 1, 1968. PAGENO="0263" 259 specialized talents within the DOT in the critical prQblem areas. Examples where this special DOT expertise might be applied include: * New ideas in financing and administrating trans- portation projects. * More effective means of encouraging private in- dustry to apply advanced technology in developing new and innovative transportation systems and equipment. * The development of a methodology which will enable the DOT to bring to bear the experience and capability o/the total Department in solving intermodal problems. * The development, collection and dissemination of transportation statistical, economic and other in- formation relevant to domestic and international transportation planning. * Leadership in directing and coordinating advanced research and technology in critical and priority areas to insure achievement of the DOT goals and objectives. * Development of a strong posture in international transportation by providing the guidelines and supporting data to protect and expand U.S. trans~ port ation interests involved with foreign com- petition. * Facilitation of freight movement by providing the proper emphasis and technological/systems anal. ysis support on an intermodal basis. * Coordination of hazardous material, common classification and regulation so that intermodal shipments are transported safely and efficiently. 17 PAGENO="0264" PAGENO="0265" 261 Ii' PROGRAM PRIORITIES Because of the various constraints of funding, time, manpower and other problems in resource allocation, an order of priority must be established as a basis for pro- gram selection. Accordingly, the following problems will receive high priority and program emphasis for the fore- seeable future. * Mass Transportation * Safety Highway/Vehicle Aviation Recreational Boating Railroad Pipeline Hazardous Material * Environmental, Aesthetic and Community J-~ighway Impact Noise Pollution Joint Development * Terminals Passenger and Cargo * Development of High Speed Ground Transpor. tation Passenger and Cargo * Marine Sciences * Research and Development 19 PAGENO="0266" 262 All of the above high priority problems will be vigor- ously pursued. However, in selecting the individual pro- grams within these major categories, each prograth will be judged on its merits within a cost/benefit framework. A. Mass Transportation This priority problem area, which has both efficiency and safety considerations, involves mass movement of people, improved traffic flow and use of improved vehicles. This problem has been singled out because it is deep-rooted and solving it will have far reaching effects on other related but less serious problems. Solution of this problem will require devoting time, manpower and money to the development of organization, administrative, political, financial and technological inno- vations. It will involve new ideas and corn%pts, as well as interface with federal, state and local agencies. B. Safety The Department of Transportation is dedicated to the improvement of the transportation safety record of the country. Although safety will be attacked across the board, high priority will be given to decreasing the number of deaths on the highways. Highway fatalities have been increasing at a greater rate than other modes over the last several years, and therefore, require intensified attention and concentration. In doing so, the DOT must attack the two basic problem areas of vehicle/operator and highway safety in much the same manner as the aviation industry has proceeded in the past. Also within the safety area, important problems of some- what lesser ~priority are aviation, recreational boating, rail- road safety including new high speed ground transportation operations, pipeline safety and shipments of hazardous materials. C. Environmental, Aesthetic, Community Effects High priority must be given to reducing the adverse aesthetic, environmental, and sociological impacts of our PAGENO="0267" 26~ national transportation system, and, where possible, pro- viding positive impacts in these areas, Highway impacts in dislocation and deterioration of property are particu- larly important probl~ms. Airport and highway noise and the sonic boom are also priority problems in this area, as are air pollution and water polluti&n from ships, boats and offshore oil rigs. Finally, the need for beautification and scenic enhancement requires. greater emphasis. D. Terminals Terminal problems involving both passenger and cargo require increasing attention. Congestion at air terminals and the facilitation of passengers and cargo at the modal interfaces at air, sea, and intra-urban terminals are the priority fields of attention in this area. E. High Speed Ground The increasing density of several major corridors-e.g., the Northeast Corridor and Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis-combined with increasing air, automobile and motor carrier congestion in these areas, provides a growing prior- ity for improved high speed ground transportation systems for passengers and cargo. F. Marine Sciences The Coast Guard will continue to devote a major Share of its R&D funds for the development of an advanced data buoy system for marine and meteorological research, which has great potential benefits for many industries, science and national defense. G. Research and Development Research and development is an important factor in each of the above priority programs. However, to give it special attention and highlight the various dimensions of research and development support required, it is listed as a separate priority. It includes such aspects of R&D as the develop- ment of transportation systems and equipment; economic 21 PAGENO="0268" 264 and systems analysis to develop new systems concepts and vital decision and policy making data; and the special role of providing leadership and encouragement for private industry R&D. Table II illustrates the role that research and develop- ment must play in future transportation plans and the areas of special modal interests and responsibilities. 22 PAGENO="0269" Table II. PRIORITIES AND R & D Priority Programs Research and Development Modes FAA1 FHWA2 FRA3 CG~ UMTA5 i Hardware Demonstration Economic/ Systems Analysis Financial & Management Techniques Mass Transportation --- X X X X X X X - Safety X X X X X x x x x Environmental, ~ etc. x X x - x x X X Terminals/Ports X X X X x x x x x HSGT X X X X - x x - x Marine Sciences __~ X X X - - - - x - ~FAA =Federal Aviation Administration. 2FHWA =Federal Highway Administration. ~FRA =Federal Railroad Administration. CO =Coast Guard. S ~ UMTA Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Transferred to DOT ruly 1, 1968. PAGENO="0270" APPENDIx 0.-SUMMARY O~' SAFETY RECoMMENDATIoNS-NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD (MAY 1967-DECEMBER 1967) NATIONAL TBANSPORTAT~ON SAFETY BoARD-SUMMARY OF SAI1~TY RECOMMENDATIONS, MAY 1967-DECEMBER 1967 1. Aviation `safety recommendations (summary list). 2. Surface transportation safety recommendations (summary list). 3. Safety recommendation letters. AVIATION SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for remediai action During 1967 the Board forwarded 35 safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration. A breakdown of these recommendations according to type of aircraft and operations is shown in the following table: Air carrier: Turbojet 5 Turboprop 3 Piston-engine 2 General aviation: Turbojet 1 Piston-engine 17 I~otorcraft 2 Miscellaneous 5 Total 35 Following is a summary of each safety board recommendation together with corrective action taken. Air carrier-Twrbojet aircraft It was recommended that on the Boeing 707, 720, and 727 model aircraft, a positive-type locking device be required on the rudder pedals. The FAA has advised that the manufacturer is preparing service bulletins for the installation of a rudder positive lock device on these aircraft. It was recommended that on Boeing aircraft the manufacturer's production, repair, and inspection of the yaw damper coupler be reviewed and improved testing procedures be implemented. The FAA sent instructions to all FAA regions for the evaluation of production test procedures and for the users maintenance manual test procedures. The FAA also conducted a detailed inspection of the manufacturer's productIon and repair station facilities. On the BAO 1-11 the Board recommended that a fireproof barrier be provided at the fuselage topskin between fuselage stations 936 and 958 and the aluminum alloy wall separating the hydraulic bay and the auxiliary power unit air intake plenum chamber be replaced with suitable fireproof material; addltionall~, as a precautionary measure, recommended that until such time `as suitable barriers were provided the in-flight use of the APU be restricted. The FAA concurred In this recommendation and worked closely with the manfifacturer to provide add!- tional fireproof barriers. In addition, the carriers have prohibited the In-flight use of the APU until the modifications were completed. On the General Electric JT805 engines, installed in 011-880 aircraft, It was recommended that compliance with GE service bulletins be made mandatory to preclude failure of the seventh- and eighth-s'tag~ discs. Reevaluate DC-9 auxiliary power unit exhaust inatallation FAA advises that there was no design deficiency, but a maintenance bulletin was issued to alert all DO-9 operators. At~r carrier-Tnrboprop aircraft On the Convair 580 it was recommended that the pitch lock capability of the Allison acre products propeller with respect to rate of blade angle change be (266) PAGENO="0271" 2~7 reliably established and correlated with maxImum blade angle change rates that might be encountered and if a deficiency wa~ found to exist that it be corrected. Also that the quality control system and procedures of the Allison Division of General Motors Corp as it pertains to propeller manufacture and service be reevaluated. FAA issued an airworthiness directive to correct the blade angle change rate and the manufacturer corrected, to the satisfaction of the ~peclal Production Certification Board, the quality control deficiencies that had been rioted. On L-188 aircraft it was recommended that National Airlines i~aaintenance procedures and practices be revised to assure that acceptable standards of air- worthiness are maintained. ~FAA advised this was accomplished, and deviations have been corrected. On the Allison propjet Convair it was recommended that the electrical system be evaluated based upon a study of potential hazard. The FAA conducted a detailed analysis and reevaluation of the electrical system They determined that the system complied with applicable regulations and that adequate prQ- tection was provided to the electrical bus. Air carrier-Pi8ton engine aircraft All operators of the Convair 340, 440, 580 model aircraft be alerted tO the possibility of improper heater installation and to review the electrical system on these aircraft to determine the need for modification of ~the circuit protective devices. The operator involved In the accident Issued a directive to inspect all their aircraft for proper heater installation. The FA~. is in the process of is- suing an alert bulletin on the proper procedures for the heater installation and also an FAA engineering review is being made to determine the need for modF~ flcation of the circuit protective devices. On the Douglas DC-3 It was recommended that the fuel hose connector In fuel feedline aft of the rear spar be inspected for condition. FAA published a bulletin covering the inspection of all DC-3-type aircraft modified with auxiliary fuel tanks. General aviation~-~Jet On the Guifstream aircraft it was recommended that a red warning light with adjoining placard be Installed to warn that the flight safety switch is placed in the emergency position and that the cruise pitch locks must be removed man- ually FAA substituted amplified information in the Gulfstream flight manual rather than implement the provisions of the basic recommendation. General aviation-Piston engine aircraft On Beechcraft model 18 aircraft it was recommended that all wing spar and wing attach fittings be inspected by radiographic and magnetic particle methods prior to further flight. The FAA issued an airworthiness directive requiring all Beecbcraft~ model 18 aircraft be grounded and Inspected as recommended. On all Beechcraft model 18 aircraft it was urged that Airworthines~ Direc- tive 65-7-2 be reevaluated and the inspection of the `Hartzell propeller blades be accomplished at intervals adequate to Insure continued airworthiness. On the Beechcraft C-45H aircraft a mandatory inspection to detect ~fatlgue cracks of the wing lower spar cap was re4ommended An airworthiness directive requiring the recommended inspection was issued by the FAA On the Beech~raft model 95-B55 it was that the fuel system be reevaluated. The FAA has undertaken a reevaluation of the fuel system. On the Beech King Air It was recommended that certain modifications bO made mandatory to prevent the recurrence of engine Induction system icing flevisions to the flight manual have been issued to all owners and modifications were In- corporated in aircraft. - On the Piper PA-28 aircraft it was recommended that an airworthiness di- rective be published requiring an internal inspection of the main fuel tanks for evidence of peeling or flaking of the tanks sealant compound. FAA Is In the process of issuing an airworthiness directive requiring a periodic inspection o~ the fuel tanks as recommended. It was recommended that spin characteristics on the Piper' PA-30 aircraft by reevaluated with respect to recovery techniques. The FAA initiated a re- evaluation program w1~lch is stil.in process. On the Aero Commander it was recommended that a one-time inspection on all high-time/short-haul wing spar caps be made. The FAA issued an airworthi- ness directive requiring the recommended Inspection. PAGENO="0272" 268 It was recommended that all general-aviation airplanes equipped with solid- type visors be surveyed to determine the extent to which vision is impaired. FAA concurred, will conduct a survey and issue an advisory circular if an un- safe condition is found. On Beech D-18 it was recommended that a visual Inspection of aircraft ele- vator trim tab be conducted prior to each flight. FAA issued an inspection aid calling attentIon to this item at each 100-hour inspection. It was recommended that operating regimes on the Beech D-18 be reviewed and reevaluated to preclude failure of the wing spar. The FAA issued telegraphic AD-67-16-1 requiring inspection. On the Oessna 188 it was recommended that the FAA issue an airworthiness directive to counteract single-failure rudder pedal. The FAA Initiated a pro- gram in conjunction with the manufacturer to preclude further rudder pedal failures and they feel that this action will obtain the safety objective of the rec- omthendation. Recommended reevaluation of the landing gear extension system of the Mooney M-20ç and M-20E. The manufacturer initiated a corrective program which was concurred in `by the FAA to correct the problem. In addition, the FAA deter- mined that lubricants other than that specified were being used. An inspection aid emphasizing the use of proper lubricant has been issued. Recommended that the Piper PA-SO aircraft be tested to determine configura- tion and pilot input required to precipitate flat-spin mode; and detei~mine if ade- quate recovery control is available. The FAA concurred in this' recommendation and immediate coordination was established with NASA and Piper for wind tunnel tests. During the interim period, while the solution was being Investigated, an alert has been issued to all FAA inspectors. The FAA has also issued an ad- visory circular to all pilots and operators warning against stalls and emphasiz- ing the use of proper techniques in demonstration of minimum control speeds. On Piper PA-28 and PA-32 recommended inspection of three-point suspension of float-attach bolts. The Safety Board, FAA, and the manufacturer, investigated this matter and Piper issued instruction to change all bolts with higher strength. On Piper PA-23/250 recommend an AD to cheek Bendix fuel flow dividers, FAA, in conjunction with the manufacturer, investigated and corrective action will be taken if appropriate. ~eneraI aotation-Roto'roraft On the Space Gyroplane It was recommended that the manufacturing process and quality control procedures of the manufacturer's rotor blades be inspected `by the FAA. The FAA issued an AD on the -inspection of Space Gyroplane rotor blades presently in use and informed the Board that the manufacturer is not now manufacturing rotor blades, but if manufacturing activities are resumed, the rotor blades-will be individually inspected by the FAA inspectors. For all Hiller UH-12 helicopters it was recommended that the flight manuals be revised to include the proper procedures for engaging the mercury drive clutch and a placard mounted near the engine/rotor tachometer specifying the maximum acceptable engagement times. The FAA did not believe that a change in the manual was necessary. MisceTtaneoss It was recommended that the -neutron activation system for bomb detection be added to the FAA's "Bomb Detection System Study." The method suggested by the Board was noted by the FAA. It was recommended that a safe and uniform set of standardized basic procedures be established by FAA for ground equipment operation. FAA issued a maintenance bulletin o-n proéedures for ground equipment. The minimum fire protection standard for nonejectable cockpit voice recorders was recommended to be increased to afford more protection to the tape during post-crash fires. FAA is requesting information from the recorder manufacturers to provide-the basis for rulemaking, contemplated to increase protection for the voice recorder tape. It was recommended that air carriers provide information to passengers, prior to takeoff, on the location of emergency exit windows and ~n procedures necessary for use of these exits. FAA is presently conducting a study on improved briefing of passengers with respect to the location of emergency exits and aircraft evacuation procedures. Placement of an obstruction light -on -an -unlighted tower in the approach zone, Syracuse Airport was recommended. This matter has been taken up by FAA with the Niagara Power Co. - PAGENO="0273" 269 SURFAOR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS During 1967, the Board issued a total of 31 recommendations to the Congress, the Federal Highway Administration the Federal Railroad Administration the (~oast Guard State authorities and to private carriers A breakdown accord ing to mode of surface transportation follows: Marine accidents In the Board's report on the Daniel J. Morrell casualty in Lake Huron, it was recommended to the Coast Guard that vessels built prior to 1948 and over 400 feet in length be strengthened. Alternatively, operations of these vessels should be curtailed during adverse weather and sea conditions. It was also recommended that a progressive structural renewal be implemented on an individual ship basis after completion of a special inspection program then in progress. - Railroad accidents The Safety Board, in its report on the Ne~v York Central collision of May 22, 1967, recommended to the railroad industry that it undertake a reappraisal, a self assessment and corrective action to remedy inadequacies in company oper ating rules and procedures presonnel training organization use of modern technology, and application of modern techniques, The Board, in addition to the above, recommended to the Federal Railroad Administration and the Congress that the conditions found to occur in the New York Central accident should be considered in connection with their review ~f railroad safety legislation now pending in the Congress. Railroad-highway accidents The Board in its review of the grade crossing accident which occurred in Sacramento, Calif., recommended to the Department of Transportation and to the industry that they include in their current and future study of grade-crossing accidents, the problem presented by "booby-trap" crossings. The Board recommended that agencies for law enforcement consider adequate enforcement at grade crossings to be as important as enforcement at signals governing highway intersections. The Board recommended that the Federal Highway Administration study the problem of questionable audibility of external sound signals now utilized for warning drivers of motor vehicles at grade crossings. The Board recommended that the Department of Transportation prepare broadly acceptable grade crossing hazard ratings or other objective criteria of grade crossing protection needs so as to formalize comparisons of the grade crossing values on a broader basis than local judgments and surveys. The Board recommended that the Congress and the Department of Transporta- tion review the application of Federal funds for grade-crossing safety protection by the States, and consider whether legislation should be sought to extend the use of Federal funds beyond the Federal highway system. The Board recommended that the Secretary of Transpin-tation seek legislation to authorize the Federal Railroad Administrator to prescribe regulations requiring: (a) Emergency means of escape from railroad passenger catu. (b) Emergency lighting for railroad passenger cars. The Board recommended that the Federal Railroad Administrator initiate studies and action that will insure that, in emergency, passengers can reliably * escape from regular exits of passenger-carrying railroad cars. The Board recommended that the Department of Transportation include in its grade-crossing protection study and action program the problem of moter vehicles stalling on railroad tracks and methods of warning approaching trains to prevent a collision. It was recommended to the Federal Highway Administration that it consider the existing regulations to require an emergency means within motortruck cabs for the release of braking systems activated by the loss `of air pressure; require motor vehicles of unusual size and those carrying hazardous cargo to use grade crossings offering a minimum risk; to require that emergency flares be carried on all motor trucks for use in, providing visual warnings in emergencies and require drivers of such trucks to demonstrate knowledge of and use of such signals. 21-528 0-69-pt. 11-18 PAGENO="0274" 270 HiØ~way accidents The Board has recommended ~to the Federal Highway Administration that It work with State highway departments to examine the need for and feasibility of developing methods and procedures for advance warning to motorists of areas of reduced visibility. The Board recommended to the Department that it undertake an augmented program to: 1. Inform and instruct shippers and manufacturers of the requirements of the regulations concerning the proper packaging of dangerous cargo. 2 Include on the shipping documents proper identification and certification of dangerous cargo offered for shipment. 3. Pursue a vigorous enforcement program against those persons who fail to comply with such regulations. 4. Continue their efforts to develop improved methods for mom clearly setting forth on shipping documents the degree of hazard connected with the cargo being shipped. 5. Continue to work toward improving the content of the placard system for baza~dous material shipments to impart to all concerned the nature and degree of danger involved, and especially to those who may, in case of an emergency, be called upon to undertake police and firefighting responsibilities. It was recommended that the FITWA review the adequacy and goals of its accident investigation methods, techniques, and procedures, and in so doing give consideration to the establishment of a small corps of Investigators trained to investigate accidents on a highly selective basis with the prime purpose of developing methods, techniques, and procedures for collection of data that will be helpful in accident prevention programs. This approach accepts the proposition that the basic responsibility for the overall investigative process in motor vehicle accidents is, and should continue to be, that of State and local enforcement officers. The Board recommended that the FHWA (and other administrations in the Department) consider utilization of the facilities of the National Aircraft Acci- dent Investigation School, and develop a training program and curriculum to provide basic training for FIIWA accident investigators and for State and local enforcement officers at their option. PAGENO="0275" APPENDIX D.-~LEmRS FROM fflE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAPETY BOARD TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES MARCir 26, 1968. Hon. WILLIAM F. MCKEE, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Departm~~ of Transportation, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL MCKEE: In our investigation and analysis of general aviation accidents, we consider all relevant aspeets of meteorological facilities, services, and procedures Our analysis of aircraft accident data covering general aviation during the year 1966 has recently been published. Among other things, this analytical summary reveals that weather was shown as a direct cause in only 2.4 percent of all such accidents and 6 percent of these were fatal. However, it also shows that weather was cited as a related factor more frequently than any other (751 accidents or 13.1 percent of the total and, of these, 22 percent were fatal). Similar figures could be quoted for previous years. In the light of such statistics, it is incumbent upon all concerned to seek ways and means of improving the record. Based upon all the information at our disposal, it is our conviction that im- proved meteorological facilities, services, and procedures could have reduced substantially the degree of hazard involved in these general aviation operations. Our recommendations relative to such improvements are attached hereto. Sonic of these recommendations have been stated by the Board previously. Many of the others are not original with the Board; some were highlighted by the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA)/Federal Aviation ~Ad- ministration (FAA) /lndustry survey conducted last year. Nevertheless, we feel it imperative that an effort be made to identify areas of the aviation weather service that are in need of improvement so that the responsible agencies ihay undertake effective corrective action. The Board is aware that implementation of this entire program would involve very substantial increases in funds available for such purpose. We are also aware that there are overall budget considerations which would make t1~e rapid implementation of such a program unrealistic in terms of early complete accomplishment. However, as a long-range program we believe our recommendations are worthy of adoption. We also believe some of the improvements suggested are susceptible of accomplishment without basic change in existing programs, but rather by more affirmative attention to them. Recommendations Nos. 6, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are examples of the sort of thing we have in mind as subject to improve- ment along the lines just mentioned. In view of the memorandum of agreement between the FAA and ESSA dated August 2, 1965, and in the interest of facilitating coordination between your two agencies, a similar letter transmitting our recommendations is being forwarded to the Administrator of ESSA. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH J. O'CONNELL, Jr.. Chairman. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS. FOR IMPROvEMENTS IN THE AVIATION WEATHER SERVICE 1. Increase ~the number of aviation weather observing sites. There are many gaps in the network both in the contiguous United States and in Alaska. Even taking into account the Supplementary Aeronautical Reporting Stations (SAWRS), there is still only about one observing station for each nihe airport~ and only a portion of them are open on a 24-hour-per-day basis. 2. A vigorous program of quality control of aviation weather observations should be developed. A basic requirement of the aviation community Is. detailed, accurate reports. (271) PAGENO="0276" 272 a Cloud-height measuring equipment shonid be provided at all aviation weather observing stations. The practice of estimating cloud heights is simply not con- ducive to pro~1cling accurate information or to safe aircraft o~erations. 4. Additional efforts should be made to standardize the location of weather instruments at airports. We have in mind particularly, standard locations for representative measurements of wind and cloud heigh.t over the airport and cloud information from that areq along the approach path where "decision height" is involved. 5. Methods should be developed for measuring and forecasting low-level wind shear fn the terminal area. 6. In order to insure more accurate visibility observations, adequate visibility reference markers (particularly nighttime markers) should be provided for the guidance of observers. A survey of copies of visibility reference marker charts should reveal those locations where inadequac~es exist, and corrective action should be taken thereafter. These inadequacies have been revealed on numerous occasions during aircraft accident investigations such as at Preeland, Mich Barnes Airport Westfield Mass Miles Qity Mont Ardmore Okla and Oincinnati, Ohio. 7. Oontlnued efforts should be made to expand the upper air. observing network and to increase the number ot rawinsonde ascents to four per day Gaps in the network are numerous and two ascents per day are certainly not optimum for aviation purposes. 8. The weather radar network should be expanded, particularly west of approximately 1000 west longitude, and weak, obsolete, war-surplus equipment should be replaced with up-to-date, long-range weather radar sets. 9. It is recognized that it is generally impractical to base a staffing plan on the "bad weather" situation. It appears, however, that some revisions or expansions are required, so that a continuous weather watch could be maintained and improved pilot briefing services provided at those locations manned by one person during certain hours. There are many locations where a single person is faced with a mountainous workload during bad weather, and making aviation weather observations in an accurate and timely manner may have to take a lower priority than other assigned duties. 10. Continue the expansion of the runway visual range (RYE) program inclpding the multiple installation of transmissometers. When more than one transmissometer is installed along an instrument runway, appropriate pro- cedures will be required to standardize the extent and type of RYE information to be provided to the pilot; for example, information from the touchdown zone, rollout area; and/or center of the runway complex. It is also clear that in the low-visibility ranges, additional research is required into the means to adequately assess RYE. 11. A means of measuring slant visibility or slant visual range which a pilot would experience on an approach to landing would certainly enhance air safety 12. In view of the enthusiastic support by the users of the pilot-to-forecaster experimental programs at Kansas City and Washington, It is suggested that ser1ous~ consideration be given to establishing an operational program. on a na- tional basis. 13. The transcribed weather broadcasts (TWEB) network should be ex- panded to provide coast-to-coast coverage. 14. The pilots automatic telephone weather answering service (PATWAS) should be greatly expanded to provide Its service to many additional areas, par- ticularly those areas where live weather briefing may not now be available. 15. There is a need for more pilot weather briefing facilities. 16. Substantial improvements in weather briefings could be realized by the provision of facsimile equipment for all weather briefing facilii~,ie5. This Would also assist in the desired standardizatIon of pilot weather briefing procedures. 17. Additional efforts should be made to improve and standardize weather briefing displays. 18. Provisions should be made for additional telephone lines to weather brief- ing facilities. In this connection, arrangements could be. made for the caller to receive (when the briefers are occupied) a recorded announcement to stand by for a briefing. Receipt of such an announcement would certainly be an improve- ment over a busy signal and in many cases would lead to a pilot receiving a slightly delayed briefing instead of being tempted to depart with no information. 19. In order to assist the Safety Board in accident investigations and for ~SSA/FAA quality control purposes, audio recording of pilot weather briefings is advocated. PAGENO="0277" 273 20. Aviation stands `to benefit from information derived from weather satel- htes Accordingly it is considered that special efforts should be made to devise refined t~'chniques and procedures for providing aviation oriented weather satel lite Information on a national `basis. 21. The terminal forecasting program should be expanded. Terminal fore- casts are currently available on a routine basis for only about 5 percent of the airports in the United States. 22. There continues to be a need for improved delineation of aviation fore- cast area boundaries. A revision of the present system of delineation should be considered in order to define more precisely the area boundaries-perhaps a reassignment of areas of forecast responsibility to make the boundaries con- tiguous with State boundaries. 23. We adhere to the belief that a centralized clear air turbulence (CAT) fore- casting center should be established, similar to the severe local storms (SElLS) unit. Certainly safety, efficiency, and economy would be enhanced by such an establishment. 24. Continued efforts should be made to improve the procedures for obtain- ing and disseminating inflight weather information. 25. We are concerned with instructions to forecasters regarding the modifers to be used for inflight advisories~ (SIGMETS) containing clear air turbulence (CAT) forecasts. Forecasters are directed to use the phrase "moderate or greater" in CAT forecasts and may only use "severe" or "extreme" in CAT reports. These instructions (In chapter D-22 of the Weather Bureau Operatlon~ Manual) appear to be contrary to preceding instructions (in that manual) which call for SIGMETS to be issued when (among other things) "severe" or "extreme" turbulence are expected. Unfortunately, "moderate or more turbu- lence" includes all intensities except "light." Furthermore, It seems unfair and certainly, not very helpful to the pilot not to be apprised of the forecasters' thinking and intent in regard to the category of turbulence to be anticipated. 26. There has always been a requirement for more accurate aviation weather forecasts, particularly for the terminal area, and research into improved fore- casting methods should continue to be pursued. Research should also be con- ducted to develop objective methods for measuring or forecasting the intensity of icing and turbulence. MAuCH 14, 1968. Hon. WILLIAM F. MCKEE, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL MCKEE: The Safety Board has become increasingly aware in recent months of the very rapid expansion in the oRerations of the air-taxi operators, and within that group a similar burst of activity on the part of the scheduled air-taxi operators. Also of interest to us, and in the same general area, is the rapidly expanding use of such operators by the Post Office Department In the contract carriage of mail. A description of the nature and present scope of the operations of this group will serve as a background against which the safety Qf such operations, a matter of real concern to the Safety Board, can be appraised. There are, as y~ou know, more than 3,800 air-taxi operators in the United States. As of October 1, 1967, scheduled air-taxi operators totaled 165, an In- crease of 42 percent over the 116 reported only 11 months before. Another indica- tion of the rapid rate of growth of this segment of the industry can be gleaned from the fact that there were only 12 scheduled air-taxi operators 4 years ago, and that during the same period the number of aircraft utilized by them increased from 72 to 685. Although this figure may not be entirely precise, it is our information that during the calendar year 1967 scheduled air-taxi operators carried over 3 millIon passengers. It is worthy of note that at least two certificated airlines have contracted with scheduled air-taxi operators to operate a segment of the certificated car- riers' routes and that there are some 42 Interllneagreements between certificated airlines and scheduled air-taxi operators for the onward carriage of airline passengers. In this connection, it is also worthy of note that In the contractual arrange- ments for the operation of route segments by air-taxi operators there are no affirmative references to the safety of such operations (other than requirements PAGENO="0278" 274~ for insurance coverage hnposed; by the certificated carrier-and these could hardly be said to contribute to safrty) N~r do the interline arrangements evidence concern as to aafety by anything oTher than protection against airline liability through insurance. The Post Office Department has, within the past year~ become a very impor- tant contributor to, the expansion of this segment of aviation through its con- tracts for the carriage of mail. Some indication of the rate of growth in this area can be gleaned from the fact that in 1966 the Post Office Department paid air-taxi operators about $180,000 for carrying mail; In 1967 the amount was in the neighborhood of $3,500,000; and in 1968 the Post Office expects the figure to go as high as $8 `million. By the end of 1967 there were in the neighborhood of 80 mali routes being operated by some 35 air-taxi operators. The Post Office Department expects to have from 180 to 200 routes in operation by June 1008, presumably with a corn- mensurate increase in the number of air-taxi operators involved. In contrast to the contractual arrangements between air-taxi operators and air carriers, the Post Office Department has `imposed safety requirements in its contracts which go substantially beyond those presently required by the Federal Aviation Administration under part 135 of the Federal Air Regulations and they are intending to make such requirements more stringent almost immediately since they are far from eatiSded with the safety record of their contractors in recent months. (Four aircraft losses between Novemlber 25, 1967, and January 28, 1968, wIth attendant loss of mail and lives.) By and large, it is our understanding that the contractual safety requirements imposed and to be Imposed -by the Post Office Department are intended to reach a level of safety in operations `at least equal to what may come out of thç next proposed modification of part 135. Certainly, such contractual requirements are far more stringent than are re- quired of `air-taxi operators generally, or of scheduled air-taxi operators in par- ticular, by the existing Federal Air Regulations, and any substantial amendment in the existing part 135 cannot be looked for (because of rulemaking require- ments) for at least 0 month's, `and more probably a year. The Board is well aware that the FAA has been addressing itself to this emerging problem with a high sense of its importance and urgency, and as we `both know the Post Office Department has quite recently expressed concern about the safety of their contract operations in a series of meetings with both the FAA and the NPSB. It is our understanding that the FAA is disposed to cooperate with the Post Office Department not onlr'in advising with them as to the type of contractual sa1~ety provisions they might wisely impose, but also to assist in the implemen- tation of the Post Office Department's program by some type of surveillance over the operators `to see to it that the contractual obligations imposed upon them in the- interest of safety are in fact being complied with. This we applaud. But this brings us to the proposition that at this point `the Post Office Depart- ment, with the help of the FAA, is imposing a higher level of safety regulation on air-taxi operators carrying mail than the Government imposes on the, same, or other, air-taxi operators who are carrying passengers for hire. Three million passengers carried for hire by scheduled air-taxi operators in 1967 is not only a respectable number, involving a dollar volume many times that of'the $3,500,000 Post Office expenditure during the same year, but of much more significance from the standpoint of our present, discussion, has Involved a death and injury toll which cannot be viewed with anything approaching equanimity. Preliminary figures indicate that there were some 84 deaths in, air-taxi opera- tions in 1967, of which 61 were passengers and 23 were crew. Figures for 1966 indicate a passenger fatality in air-taxi operations of 32, about one-half the level of 1967. The area we are `talking about Is so new and so rapidly changing that compara- tive statistics are not worth much. However, the 1967 toll in absolute numbers is of sufficient magnitude to justify concern and affirmative action. This rapid growth is being encouraged by the Federal Government both by ex- panded authority through the Civil Aeronautics Board and the expanding con- tract operations of the Post Office Department. Then, too, the contracts between certificated carriers and air-taxi operators, as well as interline agreements be- tween the two, would indicate a growing belief by at least some certificated airlines that the air-taxi operator fulfills a need. All in all, it can safely be assumed that the expansion is desirable and should be both encouraged and helped. PAGENO="0279" It Is of concern to us that this record rate of growth, hOwever deslr~able it may be, is being accompanied by a preoccupation with economic growth and very little, if any, attention is bOing paid to the safety obligation imposed by the equally rapid change in the role of this class of carrier. It seems clear that we cannot wait 6 months to a year for the evolution of a more modern regulatory scheme through the upgrading of part 135. In recent months, as the FAA has observed appreciable laxity in operating techniques of certificated carriers, it has acted pi~omptly and sent teams in to re- view practices and to force an upgrading of them. We are of the view that the technique could be used in the area under discussion, although admittedly the assignment would be radically different, as will be developed later. In this connection, it might be observed that air-taxi operators, including scheduled air-taxi operators, are conceived of organizationally within the FAA as being essentially a part of general aviation. This was once true and may still be true for the bulk of air-taxi operators, but it is by no means true for sched- uled air-taxi operators or those under contract with the Post Office Department. This would suggest that not only should these carriers be classified as air car- riers, but should be treated as such both within the structure of FAA and, in the longer pull, from the standpoint of safety requirements. Another analogy of possible use in FAA consideration of this problem is its Project 85 which, as recently as in September 1967, was set up on a test basis to encourage accident prevention in general aviation. The essence of this pro- posal, as we read it, is to upgrade the operations involved not by surveillance but by helping and by teaching. It is suggested that if Project 85 were narrowed down so as initially to make its principles specifically (and solely) applicable to scheduled air-taxi operators and air-taxi operators under contract to the Post Office Department, the possibility for success of the venture would be substan- tially enhanced. Experience with this more limited group could provide valuable information as a prelude to expansion to other general aviation areas later, as resources permit. It is also suggested that personnel presently assigned as air carrier inspectors (whose job it is, basically, to monitor highly sophisticated and, it can be as- sumed, highly effective operations related to safety) could effectively be utilized in implementing such a program. Certainly 165 scheduled air-taxi operators and 35 or more air-taxi operators under contract with the Post Office Department (most of whom are within the 165) would be a manageable number for intensive effort, where 90,000 members of the general aviation fraternity might not be. Summing all this up, the Board is of the view that concerted and speedy action by both industry and Government is require4 to adequately cope with the situation described. A suggested program follows: I. BY THE INDUSTRY A. Organized groups of scheduled air-taxi operators are urged to devote their energies to the safety of their operations to an extent more reasonably related' to the amount presently being expended for the enhancement of their economic op- portunities. For example, it would not seem either beyond the capabilities of these organizations or adverse to the intelligent self-interest of their members were they to institute programs devised to give expert guidance to operators in setting ~tp operating rules and establishing desirable operating practices in areas in- volving safety (a large portion of accidents in this field are attribUtable to de- ficiencies in operations; that is, inadequate maintenance, inadequate training, and so'forth). B. Scheduled airlines are urged to take affirmative action commensurate with their responsibility for the safety of passengers being carried by scheduled air-taxi operators pursuant to interline agreements or specific contracts for the operation of route segments. Here, if the carriers are unwilling, for whatever reason, to assume affirmative responsibility for safe operations of air-taxi operator.s with whom they have either interline agreements or specific contracts to operate route segments, serious consideration should be given to having ti~ie CAB condition its approval of any such contractual arrangements on~ the existence of contractual undertakings by each air-taxi operator to comply with a set of safety rules comparable or at least equal to the then contractual arrange- ments between the Post Office and its airmail carriers. PAGENO="0280" 276 II. BY TIlE GOVERNMENT A. The Federal Aviation Administration should launch immediately a program addressed to the scheduled air taxi operators and the operators under contract with the Post Office Department which would involve not only surveillance Of the conventional type but also the teaching of this group bow better to perform a basically common carriage operation, with emphasis on associated safety aspects. This program shtnild include sending in FAA teams to review and accomplish the necessary upgrading of their safety practices; and B. That the FAA place the safety supervision of scheduled air-taxi operators and Post Office contract operators organizationally under FAA staff associated with the handling of air carrier safety operations, and proceed promptly to establish safety programs and standards for them commensurate with their current and long-range status, activities, and importance in aviation. Admittedly, the programs recommended herein for action, by the Federal Aviation Administration, the `air carriers, and `the air-taxi operators, are beyond the scope of what the administration and the industry have been either equipped or expected to do, and mi~lTt not even be favorably received by the group of air- taxi operators such programs would be intended to help. However, the need is real and immediate and it is our view that the situation will not wait either for "as usual" industry practices or for the ordinary regu- latory process to catch up to it. Sincerely, JOSEPH J. O'CoNNELL, Jr., Chairman. JUNE 3, 1968. Adm. WILLARD J. SMITH, `Commandant, TLE~. Coast Gsard, Washington, D.C. DEAR ADMI,RAL SMITH: The Board shares your concern and that of the Depart- ment of Transportation regarding recreational boating safety. We are analyzing the individual accident reports involving loss of life, and also your annual report of boating stati'stics for 1967. President Johnson's consumer message announced the proposed'Recreatioflal Boating Act of 1968, and we will be interested to follow its legislative progress. The National Transportation Safety Board will be willing t~ assist you `and the Department in any way we can to support this program, or others needed `to improve boating `safety. After the Lake Michigan accident last August, the thought occurred `to us that a larger number of marine boards of investigation would serve several useful roles in promoting recreational boating safety. More public information and safety education result from such public investigations than from the routine one-man investigations. Secondly, the final report of marine boards of investiga- tion receives much wider distribution in the marine industry. We appreciate the fact that these proceedings require more time of senior officers, but they are moire apt to produce recommendations to prevent future accidents. The need for additional emphasis on recreational boating safety pre- ventive programs is apparent from the relatively large number of fataities in this field in comparison with those experienced by commercial vessels. For example, in the calendar year 1967, most of the 4,113 recreational boating acci- dents occurred on small open boats, as follows: Number of Size of boat involved boats involved ~ Cumulative Cumulative percent, Fatalities percent boats fatal Number of persons injured Cumulative percent injured Less than 16 feet 1, 501 28. 5 677 51. 6 442' 32. 4 16 to less than 26 feet - 1,884 64. 2 298 74.4 564 73. 7 26 to less than 40 fçet 716 77. 8 76 80. 1 148 84. 5 40 to less than 65 feet 157 80. 7 25 82. 0 23 86. 2 65 feet and over 22 81.2 1 82. 0 86. 2 Unknown 994 100.0 235 100.0 188 100.0 Total 5,274 1,312 1,365 The predominance of accidents in such small boats warrants, we believe, selec- tion of several such ac~idents, or a series of them at or about the same date, for marine boards of investigation. A few selected geographical areas of densely populated ~plea~sure boats such as the Great Lakes, Gulf and Florida Coasts, In- PAGENO="0281" 277 land Waterways, California, Pacific Northwest, or east coast, seem to have the most potential for accidents of this type The recent capsizing of a 14 foot outboard boat on May 26 off the coast of Maine with loss of eight lives is an example of this type ot accident Should ~everal accidents occur in such areas involving a number of small open boats you may wish to consider convening marine boards to review them during the current boating season. Lessons learned from such accidents in small .boats, extensively publicized, could serve a useful accident prevention and safety promotion purpose in the fast growing but haz- ardous sport. Sincerely yours, J05RPR J. O'CONNELL, Jr., Chairman. APRIL 3, 1968. Hon. A. SCHEFPER LANG, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. LANG: The National Transportation Safety Board's review of data covering the last several years for train accidents shows progressively worsen- ing trends in rates, occurrences, deaths, and damage. Furthermore, and especially disturbing, many train accidents in recent years have involved hazardous or poisonous materials, resulting in fires, or the escape of poisonous or hazardous materials followed by evacuation of populated areas. The latter collateral factors, coupled with a rising accident rate, increase the probability of catastropric oc- currences. Total train accidents1 increased from 4,149 in 1961 to 6,793 in 1966, up 63.7 percent, and according to preliminary figures increased to 7,089 in 1967, up 71 percent over 1961. Train accidents per million train-miles increased from 7.09 in 1961 to 11.29 in 1966, up 59.2 percent. Deaths in train accidents Increased from 158 to 214, or by 35.4 percent. Reported loss and damage to lading in train accidents (which excludes rough handling) increased from $9.3 million to $f8.6 million during the 1961~-66 period, or up 100 percent; such loss and damage was up from $15,800 to $30,900 per million train-miles, or up 95.6 percent. Track and equipment damage reported in train accidents Increased from $50~4 million to $99.0 million, up almost 100 pet-cent; such track and equipment damage was up from $86,200 to $164,500 per million train-miles, or up 90.9 percent. Derailments, the single most important cause of train accidents, increased from 2,671 in 1961 to 4,447 in 1966, up 66.5 percent, and the rate of derailments per million train-miles increased from 4.57 in 1961 to 7.89 in 1966, up 61.7 percent. Derailments, as the largest single cause of the 6,793 traIn accidents in 1966, ac- counted for 4,447 or about 65 percent of all train accidents in 1966, and over 80 percent of the damage to track and equipment. Collisions, the next most fre- quent cause, accounted for 1,552 or 23 percent of 1966 train accidents. The Interstate Commerce Commission's "Accident Bulletin," now under in- risdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration, reflects in detail the primary causes of derailments, comparing 1961 with 1966. (See exhibit A.) Defects in or improper maintenance of way and structures accounted for 21.6 percent of all derailments in 1961 and this increased to 31.2 percent in 1966. Further, both in numbers and in proportion of total derailments, those caused by defects in or improper maintenance of way and structures have become an increasingly sig- nificant factor in derailments, increasing by 140 percent and by 44.5 percent respectively. Defects in or failure of equipment, on the other hand, though still the largest group of causes of derailments, had declined as a proportion of derailment causes from 47.5 percent in 1961 to 84.~ percent in 1966. Derailments charged to negligence of employees accounted for 12.3 percent of all derailments in 1961 and 12.4 percent in 1966, almost the same proportion, although the number of derailments caused by employee negligence increased by 68.1 percent. Statistics as to derailments resulting from defects in or improper maintenance of way and structures, which resulted in train accidents, are set forth in detail in exhibit B. It clearly shows how progressively deteriorating track conditions are causing derailments. The railroad accident picture is extremely serious. Furthermore, higher speeds, longer and heavier trains, and the growing carriage of deadly and hazardous materials may well increase the already serious consequences of unsafe ~practices. 1 Excludes train-service and nontrain accidents. PAGENO="0282" 278 We are sure y6u are aware of the disquletingpleture dascr~bed in this letter, and concur in the vtiew we hold that every reasonable step be taken to arrest and reverse the trend toward increasing Incidence of train accidents Recognizing that there are limits both to your resources and your authority nonetheless we recommend that all available resources at your disposal ~e applied to reverse these accident trends. Increased attention to accident lnve~tigations and the issuance of more published accident investigation reports are several possibilities~ others are increased inspections addressed to the worst areas of accident cause and to railroads where a disproportionate number of accidents occur. Collaterally, we recommend that the Federal Railroad Administration Initiate studies which would go beyond the data provided In current~accident reports, with particular attention being given to derailments. Studies should include such factors as level of maintenance, types of inspection techniques used by rail- roads, influence of operating rules on accident causation, and employee respon- sibility for unsafe practices Other areas deservitig of attention or review include the use- and value of railroad emplèyee safety incentives, research and develop- meilt to determine how management and employees, individually or jointly, can Improve safety techniques and reduce accidents and the possible borrowing and adaptation of successful safety practices from other transportation modes. The results of such studies should lead to initiation of new or augmentedaction programs by the Federal Railroad Administration to improve railroad safety. We are aware that current regulatory authority does not encompass many areas related to the causes of many railroad accidents. Our concern about the state of railroad operations vis~a-vis safety was indicated in the recommenda- tions accompanying our report on the railroad collision in New York City, where we stated that there is clear need for a reappraisal, a self-assessment and cor- rective action by the railroad industry. We believe that the primary responsibility for improved railroad safety should rest upon railroad management and labor. However, we reiterate here that if it appears that they cannot or will not accept the challange promptly to arrest the worensing rfiilroad accident picture, consideration should be given to support- ing or proposing Federal legislation which wotild provide additional safety regu- latory authority for the Department of Transportation in the railroad safety field. Sincerely, JOsEPH J. O'CoNNELL, Jr., Chairman. EXHIBIT A Proportion of primary Derailments per Number of derailments causes of derailments million train-miles to total derailments 1961 1966 Trend 1961 1966 Trend 1961 1966 Trend (percent)(percent~percentXpercent) (percent) Primary cause of derailments: Defects in or improper maintenance of way and structures 577 1,388 +140. 0 21. 6 31. 2 +44. 5 0.99 2.31 +133, 0 Defects in or failure of equiphient~-_ 1,268 1, 550 +22. 2 47. 5 34. 9 -26. 5 2. 17 2. 58 +18, 9 Negligence of employees 329 553 +68. 1 12. 3 12. 4 +. 8 - 56 .92 +64. 3 Other 497 956 +92. 4 18.6 21.5 +15.6 . 85 1. 59 +87,1 Total derailments 2,671 4,447 +66. 5 4. 57 7.39 +61. 7 EXHIBIT B 1961 1966 Trend (percent) Number of Proportion Number of Proportion Number of Proportion derailments of total derailments of total derailments of total derailments derailments derailments (percent) (percent) Defects in or failure of tie and/or tie- - plates_- 27 4. 7 107 7. 7 +296 +63, 8 Improper track alinement 15 2.6 55 4.0 +266 +53. 8 Defects in or failure of frogs and/or switches 93 16.1 267 19.3 +187 +19.9 Improper superelevation of track 24 4 2 60 4 3 +150 +2 4 Defects In or failure of rails and/or rail joints 326 56. 5 661 47. 6 +103 -15. 8 Other 92 15.9 238 17. 1 +159 +7. 5 ~ TOtaL- 577 100.0 1,388 100.0 +140 PAGENO="0283" APPENDIX E-REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON URBAN TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION (Prepared jointly by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation, February 24, 1968) INTRODUOTION On March 2, 1966, when he proposed the establishment of a Department of Transportation, the President said: "The Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development must cooperate in decisions affecting urban transportation * * *. The future of urban transportation * * * depends upon * * * rational planning. If the Federal Govern- ment is to contribute to that planning it must speak with a coherent voice, The Department of Housing and Urban Development bears the principal responsi- bility for a unified Federal approach to urban problems Yet it cannot perform this task without the counsel, support, and cooperation of the Department of Transportation." The President at that time proposed no specific changes in Federal organization or programs for fostering the development of urban mass transportation. Rather, he announced that he would ask the two Secretaries to recommend within 1 year after the creation of a Department of Transportation "the means and pro- cedures by which the cooperation can best be achieved-not only in principle, but in practical effect." During the congressional hearings on the Department of Pranspo~tation bill, it was pointed out that- "Mass transportation is a very new Federal interest. Program decisions have impacts on interstate transportation and on national transportation policy as well as on general urban planning and development. Some of the effects are F only beginning to emerge. The Federal mass transit assistance program consists of complex and interrelated functions which should be identified and analyzed before `decisions are made on their final assignment, whether individually or as an entity, to the Department of Housing and Urban Development or to the Depart- ment of Transportation." The Congress endorsed this view and provided in the Department of Transpor- tation Act for a joint study and report to the President, for submission to the Congress, on the "logical and efficient organization and location of urban mass transportation functions In the executive branch" (sec. 4(g) Public Law 89-670). Significantly the Congress recognized the complex nature of urban transporta tion by indicating that the basic objectives of any policy and program changes should be the development of urban transportation systems that "most effectively serve both national transportation needs and the comprehensively planned de velopment of urban areas." Shortly after the actiVation of the Department of Transportation on April 1, 1967, we began the study called for by the President and the Congress. The Bu- reau of the Budget was advised periodically of the progress of the study. The report briefly summarizes the deliberations of officials of the two Departments over the past year. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We have, from the start, been in agreement on the guiding philosophy of the study The approach has been to test each alternative by the public interest criteria laid down by the ~Jkngress in recognizing that any reorganization of Federal mass transit programs should contribute tangibly to the expectatioü of improvement in the economic and social circumstances in which all Americans live. / It was recognized that it is difficult to make distinctions between national transportation and urban transportation because transportation systems and operations are inextricably interrelated. Transcontinental rail and motor freight movements typically begin and end in city factories and warehouses. Intercity air (279) PAGENO="0284" 280 travelers begin their jonrney~ 1y autotnobile, taxi, or bus from urban residences or omees and end at th~wnlx~wn hotels or offices via eonnecting surface transport- often the mQst time-consum1n~ portions of their journey On the other hand, the key role played by urban transportation systems In shaping the structure of cities and in influencing the rate and nature o1~ their growth-and their great impact on the qualIty of city life as measured by noise air pollution vibration congestion inconvenience and impairment of esthetic values and cultural amenities-thas long been recognized and is being given increa~ing attention. Transportation will support the realization of urban goals and objectives only to the extent that transportation systems and Invest meats are consistent with sound urban development4 Thus any set of recommendations must foster two goals that of an efficient transportation system, and that of sound urban development. These considera- tions and their implications have led us to certain conclusions as to the nature and scope of the reorganization and adjustments in interdepartmental relation- ships required in the area of urban mass transportation. We are in agreement on tWo major actions: (a) the transfer of the Federal mass transit operating programs to the Department of Transportation, and (b) the strengthening and extension of the urban planning assistance and coordination role of the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development. We therefore recommend that there be transferred to the Secretary of Trans- por~ation such functions and authorities as he may need to provide effective leadership in urban transportation matters. Interdepartmental agreements will also beused to treat specifiCally and in detail the ways in which the Departments will ~work together in the relating of transportation to urban development, includ- ing the formulation, as needed, of standards, criteria, rules, and regulations. We call attention to the fact that there is already set forth in the Department of Transportation Act (sec. 4(g)) a strong statement of congressional policy to guide the Departments In evolving arrangements for program coordination. The two Departments have already begun the task of developing agreements essential to the success of the reorganization at both Federal and local levels. It is our intention that these recommendations have the following effects: 1. The recommended changes will strengthen the Department of Housing and Urban Development's program coordination, including coordination of urban transportation programs, by concentrating in the Department of Housing and Urban Development technical and financial assistance for comprehensive planning. 2. By concentrating the capital grant and loan programs for urban trans- portation in the Department of Transportation, assure most effective employ- ment of its expertise in systematic analysis of transportation problems. Rail- transit programs, for example, will benefit by integration with intereity rail transportation activities. The consolidation of staff and funding for these programs at the Federal level should prevent duplication of activities and assure a more appropriate allocation of funds in accordance with the urgency and magnitude of problems in each program area. 3. Integrate all technical and financial aids available for urban transporta- tion with those currently available to meet national transportation needs and will locate the responsibility in a single Federal agency. The improved coordination made possible by these changes should substantially increase the effectiveness of both systems and thus meet one of the two objectives laid down by Oongress in section 4(g) of the Department of Transportation Act which is that urban transportation policies and programs be shaped to provide a maximum contribution toward meeting national transportation needs. 4. Assure the consistency of urban transportation systems and project plans with comprehensive development plans, enhance the coordination and approval role assigned to the Department of Housing and Urban Develqp- ment for comprehensive urban planning, and increase the constructive con- tribution of urban transportation to the achievement of community goals and objectives in accordance with the other principal objective of section 4(g) of the Department of Tr~hsportation Act. In summary, these changes should materially help to (a) balance program interests through the comprehensive planning process; (b) recognize the Depart- ment of Housing and flrban Development as the coordinating agency for Federal programs affecting urban ai~eas; (c) consolidate technical and financial assistance br transportation programs in the Department of Transportation with a resulting PAGENO="0285" 281 increase In efficiency and economy; and, (d) fprther structure Federal grant-in- aid programs for transpol tation to foster initiatr~ e and decisionmaking respon sibilities in local agencies directly representing the area affected b~ federally aided programs. The remainder of this report Is devoted to the development of the positlons~ summarized above and to the relationship of the recommendations to current Federal programs. IDENTIFICATION OF FUNCTIONS The first task of the Departments was to identify the "complex and interrelated functions" affecting urban transportation that were referred to during the hear- ings on the Department of Transportation Act. After a careful examination, of existing Federal transportation programs, we recognized four major functions as being essential to the successful implement'itlon of sound urban development and urban transportation programs. They are: (1) plannIng; (2) research and demonstrations, (3) capital investment, and (4)' operations. It should be stressed that most of these functions are not the direct respon- ~ibilities of the Federal Government. The Federal Government, for example, offers technical and financial assistance to State and local planning agencies, but it does not actually prepare plans for urban transportation facilities. The Federal Government does not directly participate in the operation of urban transportation systems. It can and does, on the other hand, perform trans- portation research, both through in-house and contract efforts. Demonstrations are assisted both financially and technically, but not ordinarily performed by the Federal Government. In the case of the high-speed ground transportation program collaboration is largely between the Federal Government and private industry, in this case the railroads, rather than between the Federal and State Government's. The functions listed above are thus activities which must be carried on some- where if we are to achieve public purposes in the field of urban transportatiOn. They may be performed by any level of government. In some instances they, may be performed by private enterprise, or by government and business cooperatively. Further analysis disclosed `that one of these major functions, research and demonstrations, is more commonly performed as an adjunct of the other three functions than a's an independent activity or end in Itself. Research and demon~ stration grants may be made to test proposed new or improved operating pro- cedures and to demonstrate the feasibility for broader application. We also concluded that there are three important kinds of urban and tran'~ portation planning. They are: (1) comprehensive planning; (2) systems plan- ning; and (3) project planning. These distinctions are important because they facilitate the resolution of the organizational issues with which this report is concerned. In summary, in rearranging Federal urban transportation responsibilities, we must provide for: 1. Planning: (a) Comprehensive development planning. (b) Systems planning. (c) Project planning. 2. Research and demonstrations. 3. Capital Investment. 4. Operation. Each of these functions must be carried out if transportation facilities and sevices satisfactory in themselve'~ and compatible with other public service sys tems as well as with comprehensive community development plans and objec- tives are to be achieved. Each of them, except for administration and operatiops in which there is presently no Federal participation, will now be treated in some- what greater detail. 1. Planning (a) The comprehensive plan To warrant the commitment of public resources, an urban transportation pro- gram, like any other Well-founded and orderly program of public investment, should originate in and be consistent with officially approved and publicly sup- ported comprehensive community development plans. The policy expressed in this statement has been repeatedly endorsed by the Congress. It is entirely consistent with `the workable program requirements of the Housing Act of 1949; it was the rationale of the section 701 planning program of the Housing ACt of 1954, and PAGENO="0286" 2~2 ~ the statutory planning requirements associated with various grant programs ad- I ministered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Urban transportation planning must begin, therefore, with the formulation and adoption of bread community goals and objectives to which all development in the area concerne~i and all project plans should conform. It means decisions. by local. people, through their local organs of government, as to what kind of place they want their eommunit~ to become. It means decisions on the kinds, amounts, and quality of public facilities and services that are to be provided and the * standards, scheduling, and constraints to be imposed thereon. It means deciding whether, when, where, and how much is to be done. It means moving away from the imposition of decisions from above and means moving toward a new Federal- State-local cooperative relationship. Comprehensive plannilig Includes land-use planning and the formulation and adoption of policies to implement such plans, including decisions on the location of airports, transportation corridors, public parks, schools and hospitals, sewage systems, and so forth. The comprehensive planning process entails surveys of existing land use and forecasts of future use, reflecting the employment of zoning, taxing, and other land-use policy instruments. This planning also requires con- siderátion of transportation problems and needs, since transportation decisions influence (often decisively) other location decisions, the overall design of the community, and the realization `of community goals and objectives. Comprehensive plans involve evaluation of alternatives-including alternative transportation networks and service levels. Similarly comprehensive plans must consider available resources and priorities in their application. Comprehensive planning of `this order is not always achieved `at the present time. Often important determinants of land use are not taken into account explicitly in the planning process at the local level. Despite the creation of metropolitan planning agencies through the 701 program, comprehensive plans do not always make explicit the application of general goals and objectives in terms of positive performance standards or constraints to be honored in subsequent system and project planning, nor do they always provide a realistic framework for decision- makers. Since the Department of Housing and Urban Development exercises the pri- mary Federal responsibility for technical and financial assistance for compre- hensive planning, the tranSportation elements of the comprehensive plan should be vested in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. An augmented 701 plar~ning program will be essential to meet this objective. As part of jts ~~esponsibility, the Departthent of Housing and Urban Development should per- form or contract for research on planning methodology; conduct t~r make grants for the conduct of demonstrations relating to comprehensive planning objectives grant scholarships for the training of planners; sponsor conferences and other activities to improve the skills of planners and the quality of planning functions; seek to develop mechanisms by which communication between citizens, elected officials, and planning `technicians can be facilitated, including devices to carry approved plans into action and finally should review locally approved compre hensive. plans for conformity with its technical standards and requirements as a basis for consideration of further Federal aid in whatever functional area the comprehensive plan may call for action. We wish to emphasize that in the comprehensive planning process, local people, acting through their officials, should make the basic choices on location of urban highways and public mass transit corridors, airports, terminals, parking, and other ancillary transportation facilities in urban areas, consistent with regional an:d national transportation plans and goals. We recognize further that the com- prehensive planning responsibilities in urban areas having populations of 50000 or more should generally be lodged in an officially desighated comprehensive planning agency for the area concerned. In order to strengthen the comprehensive planning process in urban areas, the Department of Housing and Urban Development should exercise Its leadership in providing technical and financial assistance to areawide planning agencies. (b) system plannin~g Transportation system planning as conceived in this report is a phase of plan- fling that effects a connection or transition between the comprehensive plan and transportation project plans. Both Departments have interests and responsibilities in this activity and must play active and constructive roles. The division of re- `,ponslbilities can be stated simply but the working out of detailed planning criteria, funding arrangements, controls of research, training, and other related PAGENO="0287" 283 programs is e~ceedingI~ difficult and left to the more ~exib1e . administrative `igreements mentioned earlier in this report We agree that more effective arrange ments are needed and can be developed. (c) Project planning~ Project planning, as the term is used in this report, means the preparation of detailed plans, designs, drawings, specifications, cost estimates, and solutions of field problems involving engineering and construction. techniques fo~ specific construction projects. With respect to highways, for example, project plans in- clude geometric design, route alinement within approved corridors, specifications and cost estimates; with respect to airports, project plans include the number and direction of runways, tower and hangar locations, and gates and other op- erating appurtenances as well as engineering specifications and cost estimates. Locally, project plans should be prepared `by the agency which is to develop and operate the facilities or services in question. Before transmittal to the Federal program agency, they should be submitted to appropriate local planning agencies for determination of conformity wi'th community deveiopment plans." Plans involving projects that extend beyond the local jurisdiction would also be submitted to regional or State planning agencies for review. These project plafl~ are the how of problem solving in the various broad areas of publicly sponsored activities-transportation, education, urban renewal, recreation, etc. Eligibility for Federal aid for all transportation projects should be deter- mined on the basis `of a consistent technical review. This review should consider local preferences concerning design specifications as they are developed in the comprehensive and transportation system planning process. It should also reflect research developments as they occur, for example, in highway safety, air pollution abatement, and reductions in noise and vibration levels. The two departments will work together closely on criteria and planning for relocation in the interest of consistent treatment of persons and enterprises dis- placed by federally aided transportation projects. 2. Research and demonstrations As already noted, research and demonstration activities tend to be adjuncts of the other major functions. Existing statutes provide a basis for federally assisted or directly coordinated research and demonstration projects bearing on the various aspects of planning, investment, and oper~tions of urban trans- portation programs. This means the social and economic aspects of transporta- tion as well as transportation technology and other "internal effects." The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation will develop, jointly, a program of projects and priorities for urban-related transportation research, development, and demonstrations. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be concerned especially with (a) those portions of the program designed to reveal or evaluate the im- pact of transportation on urban areas and to delineate those general character~ istics of transportation systems expected to have an important impact on the urban environment; and the Department of Transportation with (b) those portions which deal with component, subsystem and. system. development, en- gineering, and testing. This will normally mean that the Department of Trans- portation will have primary res~ionsibi1lty in the area of "internal systems and program effects and requirements," the Department of Housing and Urban Development having primary responsibility in the area of "external personal and community effects and requirements." The precise division of responsibility, details of financing, the development of program criteria, and the coordination of joint or related activities should be worked out in agreements between us or by other administrative devices. 3. Capital investment All Federal financial assistance for urban transportation capital investment programs would be located in the Department of Transportation. Insofar' as the problems of capital investment in urban transportation facilities and equipment at the Federal level can be solved by organizational changes, we are convinç~ed that transfer of the mass transportation grant and loan programs to the Depart- ment of Transportation will achieve the desired result. Some of the basic problems are not primarily in the realm of Federal organi zation. They arise from the nature of and differences among current statutory policies and programs. More study will be needed to evaluate the effects of differ- ences in allocation formulae,. cost-sharing ratios, authorizations and appropria. PAGENO="0288" 284 tiOns and other terms an4 conditions of capital assistance ~n loc~al ~p1anning and decisionmaking as well as on the competitive and financial viability of urban transportation tysteins. Under section 4(g)- of the Department of Transportation Act we are required to carry on a continuing review of urban transpoitation policies and programs and to report annually to the President and the Congiess making recommendations~'for any desirable policy and program changes. This is ample authority to enable us to un4ertake.constructive program analysis and to develop recommendations for changes in Federal policies that will improve the allocation of Federal resources in transportation and their benefits and effects on urban development. 4~ ~ At ~t1~ ptese4 i~ne t~te isslfttl~ l~derai partk4pation in the operation ot urbart transportation systems Federal policy both congressional and executive is explicitly against Federal intervention in the operation of local transporta tion services Present statutory authority for transportation research and for demonttration and training aid is broad enough to allow some involvement in nianagement training and to permit federally sponsored evaluation of the admin i~trative arid service practices of local systems. 0