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