« PreviousContinue »
INCREASE REQUESTED FOR 1972
Mr. McFall. On page 4 you indicate a total request of $88,980,000 compared to a fiscal year 1971 appropriation of $45,546,000, an increase of about 100 percent. Would you comment generally about the need for an increase of this magnitude ?
Mr. Toms. One of the major expenditures of course is the Alcohol Safety Action program. This amounts to a considerable amount of the increase.
Mr. McFall. How much is that portion of the increase? Mr. Scort. The total request is $31 million. Mr. McFALL. A $25 million increase over last year? Mr. Toms. Yes. Mr. McFall. That gives you $20 million in increases that you ought to detail.
Mr. Toms. All right. In addition to the $25 million? Mr. McFALL. Yes. Mr. Toms. Part of it, as I remember it, is the compliance facility. Mr. McFALL. How much is for the compliance facility—$10 million Mr. Toms. $9.6 million. Mr. McFall. That is about $35 million. But you have 10 more to go. Mr. Toms. These are positions and programs for our defects area, such as the control arm we showed you. We have some additional people in other motor vehicle programs, such things as our vehicle handling and our lighting, structures, passive safety. There are people in certain elements of our traffic safety program
who deal with codes and laws and enforcement, driver education and these sorts of things.
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1972 INCREASE
Mr. McFall. Would you provide for the record a breakdown of this increase indicating how much is for annualization of personnel
, new positions, pay increases, contract research and so forth?
(The information follows:)
Mr. McFall. Why do you need an increase of $73,000 for within grade promotions in 1972 when your average grade is going down?
WITHIN GRADE PROMOTIONS
Mr. Toms. Dana, can you answer that for the chairman?
Mr. HENEGHAN. The within grade promotions as such do not affect the average grade. Additional funds for within grades are needed where an employee might be in a fourth step of a grade 7 and in the budget year might move to the fifth step of a grade 7. This is the nature of the additional money for within grade promotions, to cover salary step advancements coming due employees under the Classification Act.
Mr. McFall. Even though your average grade level has declined?
Mr. HENEGHAN. That is right, sir. The computation of the average grade does not take into account the step in the particular grade.
DISTRIBUTION OF REQUEST BETWEEN GENERAL FUNDS AND THE HIGHWAY
Mr. McFall. As you indicate on page 11, part of your total request is derived from the Highway Trust Fund. Would you provide for the record a breakdown of your $89 million 1972 estimate, shown on page 12, between general funds and trust funds!
Mr. Toms. I would be very pleased to, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McFall. In last year's hearings, on pages 274 and 275 you supplied a breakdown of your contract program. Would you provide a similar breakdown for the record indicating the allocation of your 1971 program and your requested fiscal 1972 program levels? Mr. Toms. Yes, we will. (The information requested follows:)
Fiscal Year 1971 1972
Program Direction and Coordination....
Committee on Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS)..
Accident Investigation and Information Analysis....
Accident Investigation Teams...
3,213 4,250 ( 2,065) ( 2,050)
515) 700) 408) 500 225) 1,000)