the reasons for the pilot's failure and in my opinion further study into human factors would be warranted. If we can determine what factors caused the pilot not to perform properly, the recommendations made to improve that problem are just as important to air safety as our suggested remedies for mechanical or design failures.

Question 8. Please supply the Committee with copies of any speeches, articles, or other documents which you have written during the last 5 years relating to transportation safety.

Answer 8. Although I have participated in transportation programs, I have no prepared texts.

Question 9. What steps have you taken to prepare yourself to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board?

Answer 9. Most of my time has been spent reading transportation related bills and NTSB accident reports and other material related to transportation safety. Question 10. The following questions relate to the process by which you were selected to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board:

(a) How were you selected to be nominated to serve as a member of the National Transportation Safety Board?

(b) Were any conditions, expressed or implied, attached to your nomination to be a member of the Board?

(c) Did you indicate to White House officials what basic policies and philosophy you would implement and adhere to as a member of the Board? If so, please describe.

(d) Did you initiate the contacts with the White House personnel for this nomination or were you recruited for this job?

(e) What motivated you to accept this nomination?

Answer 10. (a) I was contacted by a member of the White House Staff. (b) None whatsoever.

(c) The White House officials did not ask me any questions concerning policies or philosophies.

(d) I believe President Ford has been making an effort to recruit qualified women into high government positions. I was contacted in that context.

(e) I feel this position is one of the most important in transportation, because NTSB must be made up of strong, independent people to make sure every possible effort is made in safety. I am intensely interested in the field and look forward to the challenge.

Question 11. Under section 304 (b) (7) of the Transportation Safety Act of 1974, Board budget requests and legislative comments are concurrently submitted to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. The purpose of this section is to allow Congress to receive the unfettered views of the Board on issues relating to product safety.

(a) Do you support the purpose of section 304 (b) (7) ?

(b) Will you be prepared to defend the Board's budget request even though it may differ from that of the President?

(c) Do you anticipate recommending any changes in the way in which the Board currently implements section 304 (b) (7) ?

Answer 11. (a) Yes.

(b) When I am a member of the NTSB, and participate in the budget request and therefore have first hand knowledge of the needs, I will certainly defend it totally.

(c) I am not familiar with many details of Board functioning, yet. I honestly don't know how the Board implements this section.

Question 12. What area(s) of transportation safety do you believe are in most need of concentrated board attention? Why?

Answer 12. Highway safety. While all modes of transportation safety are important and we must continue to maintain highest standards in all areas, highway accidents take the most lives and yet get the least attention. Since the accidents on highways are not fatal to large numbers of people at one time, I believe our efforts would be better spent on general accident prevention in this mode of transportation.

The use of pipelines is perhaps the most expanding mode of transportation and I think a special emphasis in this area is important. Since pipelines are carrying potentially hazardous materials and there are new products being introduced for pipeline transportation, we should make every effort to provide as much knowledge as possible of what is potentially dangerous before accidents

occur.

Air safety will always be important because one crash can be fatal to so many. I hope we can continue to improve investigations and safety recommendations in this field.

Question 13. Section 304 (a) (1) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 defines the type of accidents which the Board is required to investigate. Do you believe the criteria spelled out in this paragraph with respect to each mode of transportation are over inconclusive or under-inclusive?

Answer 13. After serving on the Board I would have more experience in dealing with Section 304 (a) (1). At this time the criteria spelled out appear to be sufficient.

Question 14. Do you have a position with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking proceeding on motor vehicle restraint systems (MVSS 208)? Do you believe the NHTSA should promulgate a standard requiring a passive restraint system in all motor vehicles? Why or why not?

Answer 14. While my initial impression of air bags is favorable, I would not want to make a commitment before having much more detail. I have not gone into great depth on other passive restraint systems. I do think this is a legistimate area of study for NTSB for possible recommendations to NHTSA, so I don't believe it would be proper to make a judgement prior to full hearing.

Question 15. Do you favor the enactment of mandatory seat belt laws? (a) In light of the adverse public reaction to the sequential ignition interlock, do you believe the public would accept the enactment of mandatory seat belt laws?

Answer 15. I feel this is in the same category as question 14.

Question 16. Should motor vehicles-in-use be inspected periodically to insure that they are maintained in safe operating condition?

Answer 16. Absolutely. A faulty motor vehicle is potentially dangerous to innocent people and it is everyone's responsibility to drive a vehicle in proper working condition. I believe government has the right to require this standard. Question 17. Section 304 (a) (4) of the Act authorizes the NTSB to initiate and conduct special studies and investigations on matters pertaining to safety in transportation including human injury avoidable. What types of special studies and investigations do you envision the Board undertaking?

Answer 17. I believe the Board should become more active in preventive measures, especially in the fields already mentioned, highway and pipeline. For instance, I would like to know what can be done in the field of alcohol-drinking drivers. In my state, approximately 60% of highway fatalities involve drinking drivers, yet the penalties are not strong enough to deter offenders. The Federal Government would have an enforcement problem, but it is an area that needs study for solutions. Certainly the passive restraint systems and mandatory vehicle inspections are areas to be studied from the standpoint of what the federal government can do. I would like to see something done to keep pipeline knowledge current with expansion from the view of the nature and behavior of substances being carried, quality of pipes, routing of lines and methods of laying the lines as well as the ongoing safety measures to insure against leaks and damage. The same applies to rail and air transportation of hazardous substances. Question 18. The new Act expands the scope of involvement of the Board in marine accidents. What types of accidents and activities should the Board undertake in the marine area?

Answer 18. After serving on the Board, I would know more about working under Section 304(a)(1) (E), but it appears to be complete. Where a Coast Guard vessel is part of the accident, I can see a need for the NTSB to investigate.

Question 19. Congress soon will examine the problem of siting liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities. With respect to LNG sitings, please respond to the following:

(a) The port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands has segregated LNG facilities, due to the severe safety problems related to LNG. The LNG facilities are entirely controlled by the government. Do you believe that we should be segregating LNG facilities?

(b) Should governmental entities select LNG sites and regulate them from a systems approach or should industry be allowed to select its own sites subject to government performance or design standards?

Answer 19. (a) Yes, I do think LNG siting should be away from population centers to avoid safety risks.

(b) I would favor the company being allowed to select a potential site, with the power of a governing body to intervene and veto the site if it is a potential risk that would not be controllable through design standards.

Question 20. The number of accidents and injuries and the amount of economic loss on the Nation's railroads has continually increased since the Department of Transportation was given jurisdiction over railroad safety. What courses of action do you believe would be most effective to reverse this trend (e.g. heavier fines, more safety inspectors, reallocation of resources, etc.)?

Answer 20. It seems to me that the nation's railroads have been in more serious trouble, from all aspects, in the last few years. I can only say I would give full attention to railroad safety standards, especially well-maintained tracks. I believe the NTSB has the responsibility to recommend strong safety measures, and the economic considerations can then be weighed by the regulating authority. Question 21. The Federal Railroad Administration performs the dual function of promoting the development of railroads and setting and enforcing safety standards for railroads. Do you perceive a "conflict of mission" in the commitment of these two functions in a single body?

Answer 21. It seems to me that many regulatory agencies have a dual role. where they must weigh cost considerations against the necessity of particular safety measures. On the other hand, safe transport should be a selling point that encourages economic success.

Question 22. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act revamped the Department of Transportation's regulatory authority with respect to hazardous: materials. As a member of the Board, will you seek close NTSB scrutiny of the hazardous transportation program?

Answer 22. Yes. it is imperative.

Question 23. Do you believe that federal safety standards should be written in terms of performance requirements or design requirements? Why?

Answer 23. I think it depends on the type of vehicle. In air, probably designs are more rigid than in automobiles. For instance, several types of brakes might achieve the end result of safe stopping in all weather. But, in seat belts or engine parts, design might be more rigid. I think the key is a tough testing system, to assure safety performance.

Question 24. Do you believe federal agencies which establish mandatory safety standards should be required to prepare cost-benefit analyses of each standard before it is promulgated? Why or why not?

(a) What are the dangers, if any, of requiring such cost-benefit analyses? Answer 24. I believe federal agencies with the power to regulate should have all the facts available before handling down a rule. I believe they should, therefore, know the benefits and the cost to the manufacturer and to the consumer. (a) I don't see any danger in having all the knowledge available before making a decision. The only danger would be if costs were allowed to unduly influence safety requirements.

Question 25. What is the role of the National Transportation Safety Board in the efforts of the federal government to insure the safe transportation of people and goods?

Answer 25. I believe the National Transportation Safety Board should be the advocate for safety standards in the transportation field. While the regulatory boards have the duty to consider all factors before promulgating a regulation, the NTSB should look at whether it will improve safety.

Senator CANNON. The next witness this morning is Mr. Reuben Robertson, counsel to the aviation consumer action project.

STATEMENT OF REUBEN B. ROBERTSON, COUNSEL TO THE AVIATION CONSUMER ACTION PROJECT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, good morning.

My name is Reuben Robertson, and I am counsel to the aviation consumer action project. We appreciate the committee's invitation to present our views on the pending nomination of Ms. Kay Bailey of Houston to be a member of the NTSB until 1980. President Ford's an

nouncement on February 24 also indicated that he intended to designate Ms. Bailey as vice chairman of the board for a term of 2 years. ACAP is a nationwide, nonprofit organization whose sole function. is promoting the interests of the public in safe, convenient, and economical air transportation. We have been active before the Federal courts and agencies, particularly the FAA, as an advocate for improved safety-not only for passengers as such, but also crewmembers and third persons who are or might be affected by aviation operations.

The NTSB is an agency of vital concern and importance in the overall air safety picture. Its investigations, if they are properly conducted, can bring to light actual or potential breakdowns in the safety system, and its recommendations can spell out procedures for protecting the public from possible injury.

Since its establishment over 5 years ago, ACAP has worked very closely and cooperatively with the NTSB on a variety of important air safety issues. We actively participated, for example, in the Board's hearings into the probable cause of the crash of TWA flight 514 on approach to Dulles Airport in December, 1974, and the Eastern Airlines L-1011 crash in the Florida Everglades.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, ACAP is the only independent organization that has been formally designated or allowed to participate as a party in NTSB accident investigation hearings to be a responsible non-Government spokesman for the interests of the public.

The NTSB, like some other Federal agencies, has recently gone through a very serious crisis of confidence, and it's not unfair to call it a crisis of integrity. When this committee became aware of some of the things going on at the NTSB, it conducted an intensive investigation. The results of that probe became the basis for a strong legislative package that was signed into law in January last year, known as the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974.

The purposes of this act were clear: to strengthen the NTSB, to assure its complete independence, and to protect it from the kind of interferences that had distracted it from the optimal performance of its safety mission. Moreover, it was an explicit demand by the Congress that future nominations to the Board be made in the light of that safety mission and the need for technical competence or a record of outstanding achievement in the cause of transportation safety.

At the very least, this enactment was a strong signal to the President that such considerations would be taken into account in the Senate's review of future NTSB nominations, and indeed this has been underscored by the disapproval of the prior nominee for the vacant seat on the board.

The question has again been put squarely before the committee: whether the legislative effort and concern that led to the Independent Safety Board Act is now to be put aside, by advice and consent to the appointment of a person who has no credentials whatever in the safety field.

We wish to make clear that our opposition is based solely on Ms. Bailey's lack of experience or training in transportation safety, accident reconstruction or investigation, or related areas such as aeronautical or human factors engineering. As able and as personable an individual as she may be, and as skilled a legislator or lawyer

and I think there was evidence this morning that she is an able lawyer-these simply are not sufficient qualifications, in our view, for NTSB membership.

The issues that have to be resolved by the NTSB can be of staggering technical complexity, as the recent TWA crash investigation so clearly demonstrated. Without the strongest technical competence and leadership at the top, the Board simply cannot get the job done as required. And it's particularly important today, at a time when the Board is still trying to recover its prestige and influence, that new appointments be made and approved only on the basis of the outstanding safety and technical credentials.

The sense of the Senate has been clearly and emphatically expressed that the Board's membership should be made up of safety professionals, and we urge this committee to disapprove any NTSB nomination which contravenes that spirit.

Thank you, very much.

Senator CANNON. Do you think that it would be proper for the committee to take that position when the law does not require that all five members have the technical qualifications, even though, as you know, the feeling of this committee was that they should?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I not only think it's proper, but I think it's this committee's obligation under the Constitution and under the statutebecause the statute does say that all the nominations are subject to senatorial advice and consent, not to that of the House, and the House conferees fully understood that when the Independent Safety Board Act was in conference. In my view what the change in the law at the conference means is that it is not an absolute legal requirement that all the nominations be made of people with experience and a full background in the technical areas. And there may be exceptional cases which this committee would want to favorably consider, where someone without those precise qualifications under the statutory definition would come up. But I think this committee, particularly at this time when the NTSB membership is going to be changing, would be acting entirely properly in insisting that we must have people with greater technical background on the Board.

Senator CANNON. Thank you.

Senator Pearson?

Senator PEARSON. I have no questions.

Senator CANNON. Senator Stevens.

Senator STEVENS. Let me see if I understand you correctly. If we had a member of this committee that served 4 years and was a lawyer, do you think that the compromise agreement we made with the House would mean that we shouldn't confirm that person?

Mr. ROBERTSON. No; just the opposite. If the committee felt the nominee were exceptionally able it would be free to report favorably.

Senator STEVENS. Well, what's the difference between service in the State legislature and service here, as far as safety aspects are concerned? She served in the State legislature, as I understand it, and worked on the highway safety laws of her State, just as we've worked on the aviation safety laws of the Nation. Why should she be disqualified by an agreement?

You seem to think that the House agreed that we would not follow the law