Senator TUNNEY. As a matter of philosophy and I think this is important, I think you can answer the question and I understand your reluctance to answer specific questions on details of previous administration and Department of Transportation. You should be given a free hand to make your own decisions based on the research you are going to be conducting in the future but this is a question of philosophy. Do you feel the Federal Government can have a role through the appropriation of dollars in developing a clean engine for automobiles, or do you feel that it ought to be exclusively the right and the responsibility of private enterprise? Mr. BRINEGAR. No; I think the Federal Government has a role. Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. Senator TUNNEY. And you would not discount the possibility perhaps at much lower spending levels but have an Apollo-type program by the Federal Government to develop a clean engine. Mr. BRINEGAR. I would have to look at the state of the art, but I feel the Government does have a role. [Expansion of the above answer follows:] The production and engineering development for production of clean engines for automobiles, buses and trucks should, indeed, be left exclusively to industry. However, the Federal Government properly has several roles in the research and development of clean engines. These roles include R. & D. in support of regulatory responsibilities, unique operational requirements, and policy formulation and R. & D. to address specific national problems with which the marketplace, for one or more reasons, is unable to cope. It is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to ascertain the technological feasibility and economic costs of automotive emission controls; for example, to promulgate emission standards. Moreover, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to sup. port exploratory development of clean engines to increase the chances of having low pollution cars that meet the public's need for low cost, safe, reliable and secure transportation. Senator TUNNEY. What is your attitude toward research and development? You were president of an important corporation, you are a member of the Young Presidents Club. What is your basic feeling regarding research and development and the amount of money that ought to be allocated for research and development within your department? Your budget is final, obviously there is not going to be enough money for everything but do you feel a certain percentage of any budget and, if so, what percentage ought to go to research and development? Mr. BRINEGAR. I will take the second part. I really can't speak to the percentage because I have to know the total mission of the Department, and the dollar levels. The matter of research and development in the transportation field is very important. I think the Government has an important role. Some of the modes may have lost their viability and their ability to conduct their own research. Some have different incentives. I have had a broad overview of what the Transportation Department is doing in research and I certainly endorse what I see. How I would reorder the priorities depends on how I decide the current effort may be made more responsive to our mission. But there is a clear role, certainly a major amount of money deserves to be put into this. Senator TUNNEY. In your own corporation did you promote research and development? Mr. BRINEGAR. Î certainly did. I worked in the research department for a time. Senator TUNNEY. So in your own corporation Mr. BRINEGAR. I have been a real fan. Sometimes too much so in the eyes of some. Senator TUNNEY. Well, I am happy to hear that. Do you believe that the Federal Aviation Agency within DOT, which is assigned the responsibility to promote growth of air traffic, should have responsibility for environmental regulatory matters relating to aircraft? Mr. BRINEGAR. They certainly obviously have a role. I am not again sure where these responsibilities lay right now. Senator TUNNEY. By law they do have a role. Mr. BRINEGAR. Clearly they do. They do conceptually and I am pleased to hear they do legally. Obviously they have to react on the environmental side of aviation, you can't ignore it. Senator TUNNEY. As you may know the Los Angeles Airport has approximately $14 billion worth of lawsuits against it because of noise pollution. And the law that was passed last year gives to the FAA important responsibility in developing criteria and standards for air traffic noise conditions. Do you feel that you are interested in paying an active oversight role in what the FAA recommends? Mr. BRINEGAR. I certainly am. Senator TUNNEY. And you will get into that in detail. Senator TUNNEY. Because if you do not and if those standards are not strict enough, so as to obviate the perceived necessity to bring lawsuits against the Los Angeles International Airport, that airport could be closed down at some future time. Mr. BRINEGAR. I have read that. Senator TUNNEY. I think it could be so all you would have to have is a victory in some of those lawsuits and I think it is important that we have very strict noise emission standards and that the FAA do the job that has been assigned to them. The highway trust fund has already been used and has already been "violated," if you will, to allow support for State motor vehicle inspection programs, ambulance services, driver license programs and school highway safety classes. Would you support expansion of the amount of money available from the highway trust fund for these types of safety-related services? Mr. BRINEGAR. To say I support expansion, I would have to see what the dollar amounts are, what the staff would recommend as to the nature of the programs, and what we are getting for our money. So, it is hard for me to say in isolation that I would support expansion. It certainly sounds reasonable. [Further information follows:] A. As our proposed Highway and Public Transportation Act of 1973 makes clear, we are not satisfied with the present arrangement of separate funds and we feel very strongly that the Highway Trust Fund should be available for the support of transit investments as well as highway purposes. We feel that this arrangement which provides State and local officials with increased flexibility in their use of Federal funds is unquestionably superior to esablishment of separate trust funds. The single trust fund is an alternative which we are reviewing, but for which we have not now reached any firm conclusions. Senator TUNNEY. Another question which is specific and I would not anticipate that you would be prepared to answer at this time but I certainly would hope that you would look into it, would you support the diversion of funds from the highway trust fund to support highway-railway separation of grade crossings and removal of railway tracks from center cities except where the tracks may be needed for mass transit services? Mr. BRINEGAR. I will have to look into that before I could answer. [Further information follows:] Under existing legislation the use of highway trust fund money for highwayrailway separation at grade crossings is permitted where the crossing involves a Federal-aid highway. The use of such funds for railway track removal is not permitted except in cases where relocation of railway track proves to be the most economical means of eliminating a railway-highway grade crossing. The Department does not now contemplate the proposal of legislation which would permit the use of highway program funds for railway track removal in other circumstances. Senator TUNNEY. Do you believe not building a highway is an alternative which must be considered by the Federal Highway Administration even though the alternative may not be within the jurisdiction of that bureau and I am thinking specifically where a NEPA evaluation may suggest that a proposed highway or highway system is environmentally unacceptable. Mr. BRINEGAR. I certainly do and one of the things that I hope to do is to concentrate more on an interrelated intermodal approach as we look at these alternatives. Senator TUNNEY. Well, Mr. Brinegar, I want to thank you for answering my questions. I indicated when I introduced you yesterday that I thought that you were a man that was fully capable of assuming the responsibilities of Secretary of Transportation and that you had an open mind. And I feel that way today. And I think that your answers to the questions, in some instances, have necessarily been nonspecific. But I do appreciate the fact that you have given us a general indication that you do support a flexible transportation policy which would mean opening up the trust fund. And I would hope that when we get to the question of Amtrak, when you get to that question, when you take on your responsibilities as Secretary, that you will do everything that you can to get the OMB to unfreeze a 9.1 million supplemental appropriation that Amtrak was to have but-and some of this money was going to be used in other areas in the San Joaquin Valley of your home State of California. This money is desperately needed and I realize that the OMB is now the godhead for Government. But it would seem to me that if we are going to get this money, you are going to have to be a very strong advocate of breaking the money free. I just would like to maybe conclude on this question, Mr. Chairman. Did you have any briefings as to what the role of OMB would be relative to the policies of your Department? Mr. BRINEGAR. I have not. Senator TUNNEY. You have not? Mr. BRINEGAR. No. Senator TUNNEY. You do not feel that OMB is a superagency that is going to be moving in and telling you what you can do and what you cannot do within your Department? Mr. BRINEGAR. I do not, and I certainly hope not. Senator TUNNEY. Good. I am happy to hear it. You have got my vote. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. On that point, Mr. Brinegar, there have been a number of questions raised by the committee during the hearings which involve issues for which you quite naturally have not had the opportunity to formulate your position. Let me ask at the end of your first 6 weeks if you are confirmed will you supply the committee with a letter setting forth your position on these questions. Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And if you like, we will supply you from the record a specific list of questions to be answered within 6 weeks. Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You will? Mr. BRINEGAR. I certainly will. The CHAIRMAN. Now-I don't want any executive privilege asserted on that. Mr. BRINEGAR. No, sir, not from me. The CHAIRMAN. All right. OK. Any other further questions? All right, we thank you Excuse me. If you hadn't had any briefings from the Budget, why, you will get it. Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Don't worry about that. But we are very concerned about getting information from the executive departments. And too often we run into what they call executive privilege and this is a matter Congress is going to thrash out this session. Mr. BRINEGAR. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But in this field of transportation it seems to me that there needn't be any executive privilege asserted because we are dealing with matters that should be nonpartisan in their nature, with the transportation problems that we have in these United States. So on that we appreciate your coming, we thank you very much. Mr. BRINEGAR. Thank you, sir. [Whereupon, the nomination hearing was concluded.] The questions referred to by Senator Magnuson and the answers supplied by DOT follow:] AUTO SAFETY Q. Do you believe that the Federal Government has a significant role to play in reducing the carnage on our nation's highways? A. The reduction of traffic crashes and resulting deaths, crippling injuries and property damages arising therefrom will never be accomplished through unilateral action by either the government or the private sector. Responsibility for safer highways, vehicles and drivers must be shared by government, civic organizations, industry, associations of State and local officials, and the highway user. 91-674-73- 5 The cooperation and resources of all segments of society must be united, planned and implemented if we as a nation are to improve the efficiency of our street and highway transportation system. To the extent that national standards, guidelines, research, financial resources, and a focusing point on the problems of highway transportation must be provided, then Federal government has a significant leadership role to play in reducing traffic crashes. I would add that on-the-job accidents have been reduced when top corporate management took an active interest in finding the causes and eliminating them. There is a parallel in traffic safety. When top governmental management at all levels-that is, local, State and Federal agencies-combines its talents with those of the highway users, we'll see the reduction in traffic crashes which the President indicated that he expects. Q. Do you believe that auto safety standards can significantly reduce death and injury? A. Yes. The death rate per 100 million miles driven has declined steadily since 1966 when the national traffic and motor vehicle safety effort was instituted. If the 1966 rate of 5.7 remained at that level more than 70,000 fatalities would have occurred during 1972. The projected (final statistics not yet compiled) figures for 1972 are a fatality rate of 4.6 and 57,000 fatalities. This indicates a savings of approximately 13,000 lives during 1972 and more than 45,000 over the period 1967-1972. Regarding injuries, annual days of bed disability attributable to traffic accidents declined by 39% during the period 1966 to 1971 and days of restricted activity were reduced by 31%. The results are not attributable to auto safety standards alone but result also from increased highway safety activities by Federal, state, and local government. To make a meaningful attack on the problem requires a comprehensive approach-including the car, the driver, and the highway. Q. Can safe highway design help the situation? A. While safe highway design alone cannot completely resolve the carnage on our highways, it can have a significant influence on the nation's accident toll. We know that roads with high design standards have consistently had better accident records than the national average. As an example, the fatal accident rate on the Interstate Highway System, with its high design standards, was 2.6 fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles in 1971. The rate of 4.7 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles for all roads in the nation was almost twice the Interstate rate. The effect of safe design standards are even more dramatic for traffic injury rates is only 84 per 100 million vehicles. The entire Federal-aid system of highways, where highway design standards are controlled nationally, had an injury rate of 172. Non-Federal-aid roads, with the lowest design standards for safety, had an injury rate of 330, almost 4 times as high as the Interstate rate. Q. Do you think the problem of the drunk driver deserves special attention? A. Yes. Data released by the National Safety Council show that the alarming rate of over 150 traffic deaths daily continued during 1972, for a total exceeding the 1971 total of 55,000. Our research findings indicate that half of these deaths involved the use of alcohol including both drivers and pedestrians who had been drinking. Research has also concluded that two-thirds of these fatalities involve the problem drinker who can be identified and who represents a small minority of the driving population responsible for a disproportionately large number of fatal crashes. The suffering and anguish brought about by a drunk driver illustrates only too well a situation which occurs far too often on our streets and highways. The toll of death and injury caused by the drunk driver continues to mount each day. Q. Do you believe that packaging of the occupant of the vehicle so as to avoid the so-called "second collision" can save lives? (a) Is seat belt usage today at a high enough level? (b) Should we pursue the development and use of technologically sound passive restraint systems? A. Field accident data and laboratory tests have proven conclusively that death and injury due to the "second collision" can be ameliorated. In the case of frontal collisions, in which about 20,000 people are killed annually, we estimate losses could be cut in half by universal use of lap and shoulder belts, which would be effective in minor to moderately severe accidents. For the high intensity crashes, air cushions, or improved belts, if worn, offer promise of injury reduction. Human volunteers have verified belt systems in barrier crashes up |