in 1974. The proposed increase of $60 million consists essentially of two major components. The principal increment of $57.2 million is requested for the State and community highway safety program. This provides for full obligation of the 1975 authorization for incentive grant programs. It also allows additional funds for such demonstrated high payoff activities as alcohol countermeasures and selected traffic enforcement programs. In addition, a net increase of $2.8 million is proposed for the Traffic and Highway Safety appropriation. This second increment provides for expansion of effort in research and motor vehicle programs which are, to a large degree, offset by reductions in other program areas.

APPROPRIATION REQUIREMENTS

Total 1975 appropriation requirements of $184.3 million are approximately equal to our fiscal year 1974 appropriations, and substantially below the 1975 program level of $220 million. This stems mainly from the fact that the liquidating cash requirements for the 1975 increase proposed under the State and community grant program will be funded in subsequent years. The funds being requested in 1975 to liquidate grant payments relate predominantly to the payment of obligations incurred in 1974.

HIGHWAY SAFETY TRENDS

We are pleased to report that preliminary estimates indicate 1973 will mark the seventh consecutive year that a reduction has been recorded in the rate of highway fatalities. The preliminary estimates also show that there were 400 fewer lives lost on the highway in 1973 than in 1972. In 1966, the year in which highway safety legislation was initially enacted, the rate of fatalities was 5.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles and we have seen the rate drop to 4.3 in 1973. The recent dramatic reduction in highway travel and the reduced speed limit have contributed to the improvement in the highway safety picture in 1973. However, programs initiated in NHTSA, together with State efforts, and improvement in the Nation's highways, have been mainly responsible for progress over the past several years. Significantly, the reductions have been achieved despite the emergency of factors that aggravate the safety picture such as increases in the number of registered vehicles and licensed drivers. These factors contribute to the average annual increase of 5 percent in vehicle-miles. In addition, increased alcohol consumption and additional bicycles and motorcycles on the streets and highways have had an adverse effect on the problem.

ESTIMATED LIVES SAVED

The beneficial effect of the reductions in the rates of highway fatalities can be most vividly portrayed by showing what would have happened if the 1966 rate had not been averted. Had the 1966 rate remained constant, at 5.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles, there would have been over 65.343 more fatalities than were actually recorded between 1966 and 1973. The number of lives saved is probably greater when you consider that the 5.7 death rate in 1966 had climbed from 5.3 in 1960. These trends will hopefully reduce the staggering

societal losses to our country from lost wages, medical expenses, legal fees, and insurance payments. These other losses associated with highway fatalities and accidents cost billions of dollars annually to our society.

STATE AND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY SAFETY

The proposed obligation level of $133 million for 1975 provides for an increase of approximately 30 percent in the basic grant program. It also contemplates that the States will qualify for incentive grants equal to the levels authorized in the Highway Safety Act of 1973. For basic grants, the 1975 effort is geared to the attainment of improved evaluation of the management of comprehensive State highway safety programs. Concentrated efforts will be made to maximize State investment into demonstrated high payoff areas such as alcohol countermeasures and selected traffic enforcement programs. Efforts will also be keyed to the improvement of evaluative mechanisms which will provide a basis for aggregating effective programs at the national level.

In the incentive grant area, the estimated level of funding is based on a sufficient number of States developing programs which will result in full obligation of the contract authorization for these programs. However, if the States do not develop qualifying programs, the obligation level will be reduced accordingly.

For seat belt incentive grants, a State can qualify for a bonus up to 25 percent of its basic grant apportionment if it enacts legislation requiring all car occupants to wear all seat belts required by State or Federal law. Our criteria provide for a 10-percent bonus for States that enact legislation requiring all front seat occupants to wear lap seat belts. A bonus of 15 percent would be paid to States requiring all occupants-front and rear-to wear lap belts. We are very hopeful that the incentive program will assist materially in reaping the lifesaving potential attributed to safety devices. It has been estimated that between 10,000 to 15,000 lives a year could be saved if vehicle occupants wore all available safety belts.

The States can also earn a bonus up to 25 percent of the basic grant apportionment for making significant reductions in the rate of the annual highway fatalities. Proposed criteria for the payment of this incentive requires a State to have an actual reduction in the rate of fatalities for a base year compared to the average of the 4 preceding years. Other qualifying requirements are imposed to assure that only those States with the most outstanding achievements are rewarded. We also have high hopes for the catalytic potential of this program.

TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAY SAFETY

The resources requested in the fiscal year 1975 budget are needed at least to maintain and hopefully to accelerate the momentum generated thus far in our motor vehicle, traffic safety, research, and consumer programs. The budget request for the most part provides for continuation of programs previously justified before the subcommittee. In addition, provision has also been made for certain new program

initiatives. First, the crash impact data research program is requested to develop advanced measuring, recording and data collection techniques. This effort is essential to crash survivability rulemaking activity. In addition, funds are requested in 1975 for the first year's lease of a compliance test facility and the purchase of associated equipment. The facility will provide NHTSA with an in-house testing capability to strengthen support for motor vehicle programs. For fiscal year 1975 we have also included funds for rental of office space formerly budgeted by the General Services Administration. The assumption of these expenses in 1975 is required by amendments in legislation governing public buildings.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you or members of the subcommittee may have concerning our budget request.

IMPACT OF ENERGY SITUATION

Mr. McFALL. Thank you very much, Dr. Gregory.

The energy situation has been on everyone's mind lately. What has been the impact of reduced driving and lower speed limits on highway traffic fatalities and injuries?

Dr. GREGORY. The data is as follows, Mr. Chairman. Beginning in November, when approximately 12 States early in the game enacted lower speed limits, we began seeing the effects of lower speed brought on by the energy shortage. We saw in November somewhere between a 15 percent and a 20 percent drop among those States which had enacted lower speed legislation. Among those States-and there were somewhere between 35 and 40-which had not enacted such legislation, we saw a drop of about 2 percent, which may have indicated some voluntary reduction in speed or voluntary reduction in total driving.

December looked even better. Again the States which had enacted, and in our judgment enforced, lower speed limits were down close. to 25 percent. The States which had not enacted lower speed limits were approximately 12 percent or about half.

January saw a significant reduction in driving and an increased number of States which had enacted lower speed limits. Here again we saw about a 25 percent reduction in fatalities among those States which had enacted lower speed limits but about 20 percent in those States which had not.

REDUCTION IN SPEED VERSUS REDUCED DRIVING

One can draw the conclusion that January perhaps represented a condition where not only were people not driving 70 or 75 miles an hour, they were probably not driving 55 miles an hour either. In other words, you might take January as the lowest point in total driving. The average in January was approximately 23 percent reduced fatalities nationally.

This was also seen in the month of February. We estimate that, since the energy shortage prompted the reduction in driving and reduced

speed limits, about 2,600 fewer deaths occurred on our highways in that 4-month period than in a similar 4-month period of 1972-73. That has been, of course, rewarding. We are presently trying to find out how much speed has been a factor and how much reduced exposure or less driving has been a factor. We have not yet come to a conclusion, but we are striving to determine that.

Mr. McFALL. There is some indication from the difference among the States that have decreased their speed limits, but it's hard to come to any conclusions, isn't it?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes. The best pure speed data, if you wish, occurred in November, where we saw I think an average 17 percent drop in those States which had lowered their speed limits and a 2 percent drop in those which had not. Again, this cannot be a firm conclusion, but that is the best raw evidence that we have of the factor of speed.

Again, in January it looks as though there was lowered exposure in all States. While it was still roughly a 25 percent reduction in those States that enacted lower speed limits, we saw about a 20 percent reduction in those States which had not.

In February we have a very interesting situation which we have not yet sorted out. Nationally, the reduction in fatalities was 23 percent over February of 1973. In trying to compare the States which had enacted and enforced the lower speed limits, we find about a 30 percent reduction in fatalities. Alternatively, we are looking at only a 3 cent reduction in those States in February which had not enacted and enforced the lower speed limits during that month.

per

It would be wrong to draw any firm conclusions, but I think that the experts who have attributed the lowered fatality solely on the basis of reduced driving are wrong. I think also it would be wrong to say the lower speed limits alone have accounted for this drop.

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FATALITY RATE

Mr. McFALL. You also have to take into consideration the fact that since 1966 there has probably been an increase in average driving speed.

Dr. GREGORY. I think without question that has aggravated the situation. So as you have the extra millions of cars and the extra millions of drivers plus the added speed, we have to remember that we have had increasingly better highways in the form of our interstate system which to some extent would reduce this aggravation. By and large, we have a situation where we think our motor vehicle programs have made the car safer. Certainly, as I have indicated, our efforts have contributed to making the highways safer. The States, as a result of better awareness on the part of the Federal Government and their leadership, have also come through with some adequate programs. That is, people have been alert to this a little bit more. I think the programs that the States have carried out, again with our cooperation, have also eaten into the problem.

When you look at the fatality rate-that is, the number of deaths per hundred million miles going up as it has in the last 3 or 4 years before 1966, if you project that, then even the figures on estimated lives saved that I outlined in my original statement to the subcommittee are conservative.

BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING VEHICLE MILES

Mr. McFALL. How do you get these "hundred million mile" figures? Is it through gasoline sales?

Dr. GREGORY. That is the way it has been done in the past, Mr. Chairman. Total gasoline sales, with an assumed miles per gallon, have been used as a total number of miles driven. This is approximate. By and large, you have a large enough sample if you perform your calculation on a standard basis. I think the drop is significant from the standpoint of the statistics we use. Despite the aggravation of increased vehicles and increased drivers, and so forth, we would like to see exactly what we have seen in the past 4 months, an actual drop in the total number of fatalities.

By the way, our initial calculations in these 4 months would indicate that the rate itself has not risen as some people in the field were predicting. The rate itself seems to at least have held constant and perhaps has gone down as well.

Mr. McFALL. These new cars, with the reduced amount of miles per gallon they get, will have to be included in your formula.

Dr. GREGORY. Yes, sir. Of course, because of the design of the new engines which have a lowered compression ratio and as a result of pollution equipment, we have seen a drop in miles per gallon. However, we have to take a look at the total sample out there. Although the individual model year may get less miles, it doesn't have a dramatic effect on the total miles per gallon of the entire fleet.

RELATIVE SAFETY OF SMALLER CARS

Mr. EDWARDS. On this general point, have you concluded that small automobiles are more dangerous than larger ones?

Dr. GREGORY. Mr. Edwards, you have to look at the problem and say this about the smaller automobile. Under a standard given set of crash situations there is no question, because the laws of physics are as they are. that occupants of a smaller vehicle under the same identical conditions will fare less well than the driver and the occupants of a larger vehicle. That doesn't mean that we can't do a great deal about making the smaller vehicle a lot safer. That, of course, is one of the programs that we are undertaking in the NHTSA today.

Mr. EDWARDS. In the meantime you have this new equation you have to work into your statistics, because people are going to smaller cars. I bought a little Vega the other day. I tell you it's a sharp little car. I love to put it in low and take off.

Mr. McFALL. That is not the way to save gas.

Mr. EDWARDS. I am getting about 20 miles to the gallon on it. I really try to assess myself on this. I have the feeling that I am probably not driving quite as safely as I did in the larger car.

Mr. CARTER. The data would show, sir, that your chances of being seriously injured or killed are about 9 times greater in a subcompact car than in a larger car.

Mr. EDWARDS. That is why you are going to pick up gains then, as you have been, in less travel and slower speeds. But if you write into that equation more small cars for the future I wonder if we still have a long way to go.