S. Hrg. 103-268
NOMINATIONS OF JAMES E. HALL, TO BE A
MEMBER OF TTIE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD; LOUISE FKANKEL STOLL, TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND
PROGRAMS; AND FRANK EUGENE KRUESI, TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPOR-
TATION POUCY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION ^__^=^.^=^=
Y4.C 73/7; S. HRG, 103-268
HoninatioDS of Janes E. Hall* to be... -.^.^
.IING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
AUGUST 2, 1993
Printed for the use of the Comimttee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
''^H 7 /S54
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ■•^*«^i/iL5?*-'>^ii.- ,
70-913CC WASHINGTON : 1993 '*''^ ^^^iDr^tl"*
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing OtTice
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-041756-2
S. Hrg. lOa-268
NOMINATIONS OF JAMES E. HALL, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD; LOUISE FRANKEL STOLE, TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND
PROGRAMS; AND FKANK EUGENE KRUESI, TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPOR-
TATION POUCY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION _ ^_^___^^___
Y 4. C 73/7: S. HRG, 103-268
Honinations of Janes E. Hall* to be...
.IING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
AUGUST 2, 1993
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE '''^^-^i/i^if-.,*., , . '
70-913CC WASfflNGTON : 1993 ^^'^^''^i.^'^irt^.I ,^
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washiington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-0A1756-2
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ERNEST F. ROLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE. Hawaii
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky
J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN C. DANFORTH, Missouri
BOB PACKWOOD, Oregon
LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota
TED STEVENS, Alaska
JOHN McCain, Arizona
CONRAD BURNS, MonUna
SLADE GORTON, Washington
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
HARLAN MATHEWS, Tennessee
Kevin G. Cuktin, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Jonathan Chambeks, Republican Staff Director
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Opening statement of Senator Ford 1
Opening statement of Senator Rollings 2,21
Opening statement of Senator Mathews 4
Opening statement of Senator Pressler 2
List of Witnesses
Hall, James E., Nominee to be a Member of the National Transportation
Safety Board 5
Biographical data and prehearing questions and answers 7
Kruesi, Frank Eugene, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, Department of Transportation 26
Prepared statement, biographical data, and prehearing questions and
answers 28
Lloyd, Hon. Marilyn, U.S. Representative from Tennessee 38
Prepared statement 38
Moseley-Braun, Hon. Carol, U.S. Senator from Illinois 22
Sasser, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Tennessee 3
StoU, Louise Frankel, Nominee for Assistant Secretary for Budget and Pro-
grams, Department of Transportation 39
Biographical data and prehearing (questions and answers 40
Appendix
Feinstein, Senator, prepared statement of 49
Questions asked by Senator F*ressler and answers thereto by Mr. Hall 49
(ID)
NOME^ATIONS OF JAMES E. HALL, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPOR-
TATION SAFETY BOARD; LOUISE FRANKEL
STOLL, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
BUDGET AND PROGRAMS; AND FRANK EU-
GENE KRUESI, TO BE ASSISTANT SEC-
RETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1993
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room
SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Wendell H.
Ford, presiding.
Staff members assigned to this hearing:
Mr. Hall: Carol J. Carmody and Rebecca A. Kojm, professional
staff members; and Emily J. Gallop and Susan Adams, minority
professional staff members.
Ms. Stoll: Donald M. Itzkoff, senior counsel, and Rebecca A.
Kojm, professional staff member; and Emily J. Gallop and Susan
Adams, minority professional staff members.
Mr. Kruesi: Samuel E. Whitehorn, senior counsel, and Rebecca A.
Kojm, professional staff member; and Emily J. Gallop and Susan
Adams, minority professional staff members.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FORD
Senator Ford. The committee will come to order.
It is a pleasure that I chair the hearing today to confirm Jim
Hall to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board.
It is always nice to confirm a fellow who talks like I do.
Jim's skills as a lawyer and a governmental official will be ad-
vantageous as a member of NTSB. He has a long history of govern-
ment service, both on the State and Federal levels. During his em-
ployment with the Office of the Governor in Tennessee, he worked
extensively on transportation and safety issues, and, in my opinion,
he will bring solid judgment to an agency charged with determin-
ing the probable cause of transportation accidents. Mr. Chairman,
your comments, please.
(1)
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOLLINGS
The Chairman. Today the committee is holding a hearing on the
nomination of James E. Hall of Tennessee to serve a full 5-year
term on the National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB is
one of the most important agencies in the Government. It has the
responsibility for investigating transportation accidents, determin-
ing probable cause, and then recommending measures which will
prevent future accidents. A Board member must be thorough, pa-
tient, intellectually curious, and p£iin staking in the investigation.
Also, a Board member must be independent and strong-minded
enough to come up with recommendations which may meet with re-
sistance from industries or Grovemment agencies.
Mr. Hall's experience and education prepare him well for this
job. I note with interest that, when he was working for the Gov-
ernor of Tennessee, he pushed for enactment of the Drug Free
Youth Act to address a major highway safety problem. I share his
concerns about the dangers of substance abuse and its implications
for transportation safety.
I look forward to Mr. Hall's statement and responses to ques-
tions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He has his two Sen-
ators here to introduce him, and I am sure he will want to recog-
nize his family who are in the audience, when it comes his turn.
So, I look forward to the testimony. Senator Pressler, do you
have a statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRESSLER
Senator Pressler. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
The individuals appearing before this committee have been nomi-
nated to fill positions that are important to carrying out our Na-
tion's Federal transportation policies. I am particularly interested
in learning the views and, more importantly, the qualifications of
these individuals. I am very interested in transportation safety is-
sues and will have a number of safety-related questions.
The National Transportation Safety Board is one of the most crit-
ical agencies affecting transportation safety. The NTSB performs
this role by conducting independent accident investigations and for-
mulating safety improvement recommendations.
The NTSB covers not only air safety, but also the safety of our
highways, the safety of moving hazardous materials, and the safety
of all transportation modes throughout our country that the public
depends upon.
Mr. Chairman, the law governing the NTSB specifically address-
es the composition of the Board, including the qualification of its
members. The law's provision regarding organization reads:
The Board shall consist of five members, including a chairman. Members of the
Board shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate. Not more than three members of the Board shall be of the same political
party. At any given time, no less than three members of the Board shall be individ-
uals who have been appointed on the basis of technical qualification, professional
standing and demonstrated knowledge in the fields of accident reconstruction, safety
engineering, human factors, transportation safety, or transportation regulation.
The law further states that the Board shall, "investigate and re-
port on accidents involving each of the following modes of transpor-
tation: aviation, highway and motor vehicle, railroad ar,d tracked
vehicle, and pipeline."
Finally, the Board's responsibilities include "the investigation
and reporting on the safe transportation of hazardous materials."
Mr. Chairman, the role of the NTSB is important, indeed. FVank-
ly, if the FAA had followed the directives issued by the NTSB,
eight distinguished South Dakotans, many of whom were close
friends of mine, may be alive today.
In my view, any nominee to the NTSB deserves this committee's
careful scrutiny. To ensure the highest standards of transportation
safety it is essential for the Board to be composed of members with
the level of expertise as required by law. Therefore, I will be re-
viewing closely Mr. Hall's qualifications.
Mr. Chairman, transportation safety, whether on the ground or
in the air, is one of my highest priorities as a member of this com-
mittee. I look forward to hearing Mr. Hall's views on a number of
issues concerning transportation safety. I also look forward to hear-
ing from Frank Kruesi and Louise Stoll.
Senator Ford. Thank you.
Senator Sasser.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SASSER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
TENNESSEE
Senator Sasser. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Sen-
ator Pressler.
It is my great pleasure and honor today to be here and to intro-
duce Jim Hall, who has been nominated by the President to serve
on the National Transportation Safety Board. I might say that as
a member of the Senate Appropriation Subcommittee on Transpor-
tation, I am very well aware of the National Transportation Safety
Board's enormous and I think very serious responsibilities.
Our countrv relies heavily on the Board for its expertise and im-
partiality to help provide for safety in all modes of transportation.
The exhaustive investigations and reports of the NTSB offer the
type of preventive medicine that can save lives and provide for the
safe and efficient movement of people and goods here, which is es-
sential to commerce.
Now, Mr. Chairman, given the Board's critical mission, I could
not have been more pleased when I heard that President Clinton
has chosen Jim Hall to fill this seat on the Board. I want to com-
mend President Clinton for what I think is an inspired selection of
such a very capable and accomplished individual.
I have known Jim Hall for many years. He is not an ideolog. He
has an open mind when tackling a problem. And he will not come
to the Board representing any particular industry or interest
froup. I think that is important. His impartiality and keen eye for
etail and cause and effect, I think, fit perfectly with the Board's
role.
Jim Hall has been an exemplary public servant from his early
days as a member of the staff of the U.S. Senate in the office of
Senator Albert Gore, Sr., to his tour of duty in Vietnam, and to his
many years of service in the Tennessee State government. He has
always put the people's interest first.
Jim Hall reminds me of a famous quotation from Franklin Dela-
no Roosevelt, who said, "Those who serve government serve the
people as a whole." And I have been particularly impressed with
Jim Hall's work as director of the Tennessee State Planning Office.
He directed the State of Tennessee's first comprehensive antidrug
effort, and was instrumental in pushing for enactment of the Drug-
Free Youth Act.
In addition, he took a lead role in developing and implementing
the State of Tennessee's $35 million comprehensive solid waste
management and planning program, which is one of the most seri-
ous problems facing the State government in Tennessee, and I
think around the country, of what is to be done with solid waste.
His impressive background also includes participation in the
oversight and cleanup oi the national nuclear weapons complex and
various clean water initiatives. He is a graduate of the University
of Tennessee Law School. He brought his legal expertise to bear on
corporate and labor law. And he also served as counsel to the Sen-
ate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations when Senator
Edmund Muskie of Maine was chairman of that subcommittee
many years ago.
Mr. Chairman, the National Transportation Safety Board is fa-
mous for its go-teams which stand ready to move 365 days a year
to investigate an accident. I think Jim Hall's entire career has been
on a go-team, and he has been ready to step forward at a moment's
notice to meet the country's needs.
I am particularly pleased to see an individual who has served ex-
tensively at the State level in government now asked to take a verv
critical and crucial role here in our National Government. I think
those of us in the National Government can learn much from what
has happened in the State governments around the country.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would just sav that Jim Hall has
the President's full confidence and he certainly has my full con-
fidence. And I urge the committee to report favorably on his nomi-
nation.
I thank you for allowing me to appear here this afternoon and
say a few words on behalf of Jim Hall.
Senator Ford. Thank you, Senator Sasser.
Senator Mathews.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MATHEWS
Senator Mathews. Thank you. Senator Ford and to the ranking
member. Senator Pressler.
It is my privilege to join the senior Senator from Tennessee today
to introduce Jim Hall, who has been nominated to the National
Transportation Safety Board. My enthusiasm for Mr. Hall's nomi-
nation comes after observing a career that, for two decades, has
demonstrated unique talents, which I believe would serve the coun-
try well.
Specifically, Jim Hall would bring to the National Transportation
Safety Board a level of creative thought too rarely seen in Govern-
ment service. While particular skills are an asset to any position,
the ability to provide the Board innovative ideas and strategies will
ultimately be the critical standard by which we measure this nomi-
nation.
Mr. Chairman, in 40 years, I have known few people in public
service who can boast a record of an innovation and success equal
to that of Mr. Hall. Three years ago, I watched in wonder as he
undertook the task of developing a solid waste plan for the State
of Tennessee. After dozens of meetings with local officials, environ-
mentalists, and business interests, Jim Hall surprised the doubters
by quietly fashioning a compromise out of the controversy. As a re-
sult of his efforts, 49 Tennessee counties, for the first time, have
a program to manage their solid waste.
In response to the President's education summit in 1989, Jim
Hall organized more than 600 community meetings across Ten-
nessee to gain public input about schools. Largely oecause of his
extraordinary effort to generate public support, Tennessee today is
implementing one of America's most comprehensive education re-
form programs.
His career in public service is filled with examples that defy tra-
ditional approaches to solving problems. He organized and man-
aged the redesign of Tennessee's drug enforcement, drug treat-
ment, and drug education program. He was the principal architect
of efforts to reform and modernize a juvenile justice program that
Attorney General Reno last week called "a model for the Nation."
He participated in the planning and the implementation of the
largest road construction program in our State's history.
Mr. Chairman, most public servants would be content to be asso-
ciated with any one of these accomplishments. To my colleagues in
the Senate, I suggest that this outstanding record of accomplish-
ment is indicative of the creativity which we can expect from Jim
Hall as a member of the National Transportation Safety Board.
To Jim, to his wife, Annie, and his children, Molly and Katie, I
offer my strongest support for this nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Ford. Thank you very much, Senator Mathews.
Mr. Hall, I am not sure that you want to make a statement after
the glowing statements that you have heard. But we will allow you
to do that.
You may proceed. As we all know. Senator Mathews is a member
of this committee. But, Senator Sasser, if you wish to stay around
or go back to trying to put the budget together, it is your choice.
Senator Sasser. Mr. Chairman, I would like to stay here, but, as
a matter of fact, we do have a budget meeting that convenes in
about 5 minutes, so I am going to have to go to that.
Senator Ford. We all bid you success, sir.
Senator Sasser. Thank you.
Senator Ford. Mr. Hall, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF JAMES E. HALL, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER
OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a privilege to appear before
you today as you consider my nomination to become a member of
the National Transportation Safety Board. I sincerely appreciate
the committee's efforts and the committee staffs efforts in schedul-
ing my confirmation hearing as quickly as you did. And I would
also like to take this moment to thank Senator Sasser and Senator
Mathews for their kind introductions and support.
I would like at this time, with the permission of the chairman
and Senator Pressler and Senator Mathews, to introduce my fam-
ily, my wife, Annie Hall, and my daughters, Molly and Katie Hall.
If they would please stand up. I am very proud of them. I am
pleased to have them here with me today.
Senators, I am honored by the confidence that the President has
placed in me with this nomination. The National Transportation
Safety Board is the premier accident investigatory body in the
world, and one in whose work I, like all travelers, have utmost con-
fidence. This confidence and respect is a result of many years of
hard work by NTSB investigators and Board members. And I as-
sure you that, if confirmed, I will dedicate myself totally to ensur-
ing that these investigative standards are maintained, that NTSB
safety initiatives are advanced and that safety recommendations
are communicated throughout the transportation network.
As you know, working in a collegial atmosphere. Board members
determine the probable cause of transportation accidents, and for-
mulate recommendations to prevent their recurrences. These deci-
sions are based on the factual material gathered and analyzed by
a highly competent staff, having technical expertise in all areas of
technology and accident investigation.
Throughout my career in government I have been involved in
complicated and technical fields. The experience and background
includes complex areas such as environmental remediation at nu-
clear weapons facilities, and development of the comprehensive
solid waste management program for the State of Tennessee. This
involvement has taught me how to tackle multifaceted problems by
drawing on the expertise and research technicians, and then mak-
ing decisions based upon their and my own abilities.
In addition, during my tenure with the Governor of Tennessee,
I worked closely with the Tennessee General Assembly to promote
highway safety. For example, I was charged with developing Ten-
nessee's first comprehensive antidrug effort and steering through
enactment legislation requiring the suspension of driving privileges
for youths ages 13 to 17 who violate alcohol and drug laws.
As you know, the Safety Board has key safety recommendations
in the area of youth and alcohol, as well as administrative license
revocation. Consequently, I can bring a unique perspective to the
Safety Board in that I have actively worked to establish and imple-
ment actual policies embodying safety recommendation goals and
objectives in my home State.
As I will dedicate myself to the critical safety issues on our Na-
tion's highways, I, too, will concentrate on the other transportation
modes of aviation, marine, pipeline, and rail, being committed to
working closely with the industry groups, citizens organizations,
and public agencies active in these areas.
In closing, let me state that I hope that my background dem-
onstrates to the members of the committee my commitment to pub-
lic service, as well as outlining my qualifications for this position.
If confirmed, I promise each of you my best efforts.
Thank you. Senator.
[The biographical data and prehearing questions and answers of
Mr. Hall follow:]
Biographical Data
Name: Hall, James Evan; address: 12 Highdown Court, Signal Mountain, TN
37377; business address: Senate Dirksen Building, SD-506, Washington, DC 20510.
Position to which nominated: Member, National Transportation Safety Board;
date of nomination: July 13, 1993.
Date of birth: December 21, 1941; place of birth: Union Citv, TN.
Marital status: Married; full name of spouse: Anne Impink Hall; names and ages
of children: Mary Elizabeth, 17; and Catharine Anne, 15.
Education: West High School, 9/55-6/59, Diploma, 6/59; University of Tennessee,
9/59-6/64; and University of Tennessee College of Law, 9/64-6/67, L.L.B.
Employment: 10/67-10/69, U.S. Army, U.S. Armv Officer; 2/70-1/71, U.S. Senator
Albert Gore, Sr., Legislative Assistant; 1/71-7/72, Muskie Election Committee, Polit-
ical Coordinator, 7/72-6/74, U.S. Senate Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee,
General Counsel; 6/74-08/76, Franklin L. Haney Co., In-House Counsel; 3/80-11/76,
Carter-Mondale Election Committee, Tennessee State Coordinator; 12/76-3/80,
Franklin L. Haney Co., In-House Counsel; 3/80-11/80, Carter-Mondale Re-Election
Committee, Tennessee State Coordinator; 01/81-12/85, Self-Employed, Attomey-at-
Law; 1/86-11/86, Friends of McWherter, Campaign Manager, 11/86-1/87, State of
Tennessee, Transition Director; 01/87-12/92, Governor Ned McWherter, Executive
Assistant to Governor & Director of State Planning; and 01/93-7/93, U.S. Senator
Harlan Mathews, Chief of Staff.
Government experience: Federal: 10/67-10/69, U.S. Army officer; 2/70-1/71, U.S.
Senator Albert Gore, Sr., Le^slative Assistant; 7/72-5/74, U.S. Senate Intergovern-
mental Relations Subcommittee, General Counsel; 5/74-2/76, WAE Service, U.S.
Senate; 1/77-2/81, WAE Service, White House, Advanceman; 10/77-3/82, WAE Serv-
ice, U.S. Senate; and 1/93-7/93, U.S. Senator Harlan Mathews, Chief of StafT. State:
11/86-1/87, Appointed by Governor-Elect McWherter to head tnansition; and 01/87-
1/93, Appointea by Governor McWherter as Executive Assistant for Policy and Plan-
ning ancf Executive Director of the Tennessee State Planning Office.
Political affiliations: 1984, Southern Co-ordinator, John Glenn for President; 1986
& 1990, Campaign Manager, Ned McWherter for Governor (Friends of McWherter);
1992, State (Jo-ordinator, Tennessee Clinton/Gore Campaign; and 1988 & 1992, Del-
egate, Democratic National Convention, State Chapter Leader, Democratic Leader-
ship Council.
Contributions: 1983, Albert Gore for Senate, $1,000 (11/83); John Glenn Presi-
dential Committee, $500 (11/6/83); Marilyn Lloyd for Congress, $100 (10/28/83); Ed
Vickery for Superintendent, $25 (10/24/83).
1984, C.L Robinson for State Representative, $30 (5/12/84); Re-Elect Marilyn
Lloyd for Congress, $450 (6/15/84 & 8/17/84); Ward Crutchfield for State Senator,
$150 (6/26/84 & 9/28/84); David Cocke Campaign Committee, $25 (9/18/84); National
Democratic Women, $10 (9/24/84); Hamilton County Democratic Women, $20 (10/20/
84).
1985, Ward Crutchfield for State Senator, $25 (5/17/85); Re-Elect Dalton Roberts,
$100 (8/19/85); C.B. Robinson Campaign Committee, $25 (10/31/85); Democratic Sen-
atorial Campaign Committee, $25 (10/31/85); Friends of Commissioner Paul A.
McDaniel, $50 (10/31/85); Friends of David Price, $200 (11/8/85); Re-Elect Congress-
woman Marilyn Lloyd, $25 (11/25/85).
1986, Re-Elect Commissioner Brenda Bailey, $100 (1/21/86); Bart Gordon Con-
gress Committee, $19.86 (2/5/86); Bill Knowles for Hamilton County Court Clerk,
$25 (2/8/86); Re-Elect Representative Rufus Jones, $500 (3/11/86); Tennessee Demo-
cratic Party, $400 (4/15/86); Friends of Marilyn Lloyd, $100 (6/30/86); Roy Herron
for State Representative, $70 (9/22/86).
1987, Albert Gore, Jr. for President Committee, $1000 (5/21/87); Ward Crutchfield
for State Senator, $100 (7/2^87).
1988, Bryant Millsap for Congress, $250 (1/12/88); Friends of Dalton Roberts,
$100 (4/8/88); College Young Democrats, $25 (5/10/88); Hamilton County Democratic
Women, $100 (10/1^8); Dudley Taylor for Congress, $100 (10/18/88).
1989, Friends of Jack Reynolds, $100 (10/12/89); Carol MUler for State Represent-
ative, $200 (9/6/89); H.Q. Evatt for Sheriff, $100 (10/12/89).
1990, Tennessee Federation of Democratic Women, $25 (3/2/90); C.B. Robinson
Committee, $100 (5/22/90).
1991, Ronnie Stein for Council at Large, $50 (2/7/91); Walter Williams for City
Judge, $50 (2/iy91); BUI Clinton Committee, $125 (10/25/91).
1992, None.
8
1993, Tennessee Democratic Party, $1000 (4/4/93); Committee to Re-Elect Betsy
Bramlett, $25 (4/4/93).
Memberships: Sigma Chi Fraternity; Phi Alpha Delta Fraternity; American Le-
gion; Chattanooga Bar Association; D.C. Bar Association; Tennessee Bar Associa-
tion; University of Tennessee Alumni Association- CSAS Boosters Club; St. Timo-
thy's Episcopal Church (former Senior Warden); VFW; and United Way Campaign,
Chattanooga, TN (former State government chairman).
Honors and awards: First Amy Certificate of Achievement, Ft. Meade, MD;
Bronze Star for Meritorious Achievement, U.S. Army, Vietnam; Tennessee Demo-
cratic Party for Outstanding Service Award; Middle Tennessee Drug & Alcohol Rec-
ognition of Service; and 23rd Judicial District Outstanding Service Award.
Published writings: None.
Prehearing Questtions Asked by the Commerce Committee and Answers
Thereto by Mr. Hall
general
Question. What experience have you had which you believe prepares you to serve
as a member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)? To what extent
will your experience dealing with state and local governments help you in this posi-
tion?
Answer. I believe my extensive experience at senior levels in both state and fed-
eral government qualifies me for service on the National Transportation Safety
Board. In addition, my legal background wUl be useful in the role as an appellate
body as well as it's investigative and administrative functions.
My background in state government has afforded me experience as well as oppor-
tunities to serve as a spokesperson for the Governor and his administration in many
different areas. Included in my state government background is hands-on experience
in the area of highway safety. At the federal level, I have participated in the legisla-
tive process ana I believe this knowledge will assist me in the duties for which I
have been nominated.
Question. What do you believe are the major problem areas in transportation
safety, and those most in need of attention?
Answer. The Safety Board's "Most Wanted" list provides a framework for address-
ing some of the major problem areas in transportation safety and I would initially
focus my attention on working toward the adoption of these key safety recommenda-
tions. For instance, lives will be saved if states enact laws to administratively re-
voke the licenses of drunk drivers at the time of accidents as recommended by the
Safety Board. Improved airport signing as recommended by the NTSB would save
and reduce transportation risks at our national airports. These are just two exam-
ples of areas which need attention.
Question. Is there a particular area within the NTSB's jurisdiction on which you
will concentrate your attention, if confirmed?
Answer. Under the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974, the NTSB is charged
with improving transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting special
studies, and developing recommendations to prevent accidents and I would give
each mode equal attention. However, based on my experience in Tennessee, the role
of alcohol and drug involvement in accidents and the transport of hazardous mate-
rials on our highways and railroads are two areas of special interest to me.
Question. Much time has been spent finalizing drug and alcohol testing require-
ments for the different transportation modes. Do you believe any changes should be
made to the existing requirements?
Answer. Although not familiar with the specific requirements under consider-
ation, I do know tnat the NTSB "Most Wanted" list includes recommendations on
establishing a uniform, industry-wide policy on the collection, processing, and test-
ing of toxicological specimens. It would appear to me that drug and alcohol testing
requirements would oe warranted under the Safety Board proposal; however, I am
not in a position at this time to assess whether changes are warranted in the De-
partment of Transportation proposal.
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
Question, Has your experience with highway safety in Tennessee suggested any
areas in hi^way safety which you believe deserve special attention by the NTSB?
Answer. Based on my experience in Tennessee, I have some identified problems
concerning highway law enforcement. I believe the NTSB could be more proactive
in encouraging states to vigorously train local law enforcement and local court per-
9
sonnel on highway safety laws. Such training could lead not only to more effective
enforcement, but also to more uniform enforcement of critical safety laws across the
country. In addition, where Federal monies are used for highway safety pilot pro-
grams there should be some uniform mechanism to assess and share the results
with communities throughout the Nation.
Question. The Committee is committed to reducing fatalities and iryuries at the
Nation's railroad/highway grade crossings. What initiatives and efforts in this area
would you support?
Answer. It is my understanding that over 691 people were killed in grade cross-
ing accidents in 1992, a slight increase from 689 in 1991. Obviously, the NTSB
needs to support the committee's commitment to reduce these fatalities. I intend to
look at existing initiatives and to work with the Board members and this committee
on examining safety programs in this area.
fflGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION
Question. As Congress considers the Administration's high-speed rail proposal, in-
terest in high-speed ground transportation continues to increase. What do you be-
lieve should be the appropriate role of the NTSB in helping to ensure the safety
of new high-speed rail ana magnetic levitation (maglev) technologies, in advance of
such systems becoming operational? If confirmed, what will you suggest in this
area?
Answer. As the committee knows, our Vice President and my former U.S. Senator
has been very active in the area of transportation technology development including
high-speed rail and maglev. Clearly the NTSB should keep a focus on the future
and work to anticipate transportation safety problems during the developmental
stage of these new technologies. However, it would be premature for me as this time
to make any specific recommendations in this area.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
Question. Please provide the Committee with an overview of issues you believe
are important to helping to ensure safety in the trucking and intercity bus indus-
tries. If confirmed, how will you contribute to improved motor carrier safety? What
do you believe is the appropriate for new technology applications, including the In-
telligent Vehicle-Highway Systems program, in this arear
Answer. It has been brought to my attention that in 1992, the Safety Board com-
pleted a study which found that brakes on many heavy vehicles on our highways
are out of adjustment, resulting in severely degraded stopping capability. Dozens of
recommendations were issued to the Federal Highway Administration and the Na-
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I also understand the Safety Board
has also investigated the highway safety hazards caused by wheels separating from
trucks and intercity bus industry safety problems. As I stated in my previous re-
sponse, however, it would be premature for me at this time to make any specific
recommendations in this area with respect to improving motor carrier safety
through rVHS applications.
AVIATION
Question. What do you consider to the principal obstacles to aviation safety in to-
day's environment? How would you improve aviation safety?
Answer. It is obvious to me that aviation safety has dramatically improved over
the past twenty-five years as a result of the creation of the National Transportation
Safety Board and it's work in cooperation with the private and public sector. As the
Committee is aware, there are a number of items still on the NTSB "Most Wanted"
list that identify obstacles to aviation safety and would work to gain the acceptance
of these recommendations as a first step. Obviously, given the miportance of avia-
tion to our domestic economy and the leadership role we play in the international
aviation market, this area deserves and will receive my close attention.
Question. A frequent "contributing factor" in NTSB's determinations of the causes
of aircraft accidents is the area of human factors, involving pilots, air traffic control-
lers, and ground crews. How do you view the impact of thin factor? Are you aware
of work which has been done in tne field? What more can be done?
Answer. It is my understanding that one of the Safety Board's members. Dr. John
Lauber, has worked extensively on human factors issues and is an acknowledged
expert in the field. I look forward to working with Mr. Lauber and other knowledge-
able individuals in this area to gain additional information on and insight into the
importance of this factor in transportation safety. And as previously stated, I believe
it would be premature of me to make recommendations in this area at this time.
10
Questions Asked by Senator Pressler and Answers Thereto by Mr. Hall
Question. What are your recommendations or suggestions for ensuring that safety
concerns raised by the NTSB are given the utmost consideration and review by the
DOT and its modal agencies?
Answer. As a nominee, I hesitate to assess the overall relationship between the
NTSB and the DOT at this point. NTSB records show that more than 80 percent
of the recommendations issued to the DOT have been implemented. K a situation
arises where the DOT and its modal agencies are not seriously reviewing NTSB rec-
onmiendations and moving toward their implementation, then changes in the exist-
ing relationship would be warranted.
Question. Clearly, the Iowa incident reveals what I have called "gridlock" between
the NTSB and the FAA. How often do DOT*s modal agencies comply with safety rec-
ommendations to the NTSB's satisfaction?
Answer. As I mentioned, the overall record with DOTs modal agencies is com-
mendable with eight out of ten recommendations issued by the NTSB being accept-
ed. The continuing downward trend in the number of transportation accidents and
deaths over the past quarter century is also a testament to the NTSB and the modal
agencies transportation safety programs. However, if upon examination, it appears
to me that there is gridlock between the NTSB and the FAA, I would wore with
the other Board meinbers and the FAA to eliminate the gridlock.
Question. How can disagreements that create agency "gridlock" be resolved more
expeditiously?
Answer. Having extensive senior level experience in government policy and plan-
ning at both the state and national level, I nave successfully woriked through situa-
tions where the improvements being sought were threatenea by gridlock. This back-
ground and experience should enable me to woric effectively at the NTSB to avoid
gridlock.
Question. The FAA admitted that it took an accident to issue a directive along
the lines of an NTSB recommendation. To your knowledge, it this a common prac-
tice? How often have other DOT modal agencies not taken action prior to a fatal
accident?
Answer. At this time, I do not have any personal knowledge of the facts sur-
rounding the Iowa incident or what is, or is not, common practice at the FAA. If
confirmed, I wiU attempt to obtain this information in order to insure that future
occurrences of this kind are avoided.
Question. In your opmion, what is the current administrative relationship be-
tween the NTSB, the DOT, and the DOT'S modal agencies? As a member of the
NTSB, what changes, if any would you make?
Answer. At this time, I do not have any personal knowledge of the working rela-
tionship between these agencies and therefore am unable to recommended any
changes. If I find relationship is not effective in accomplishing the mission of the
NTSB, I would work with the Board Members and the agencies involved to make
necessary changes.
Question. What role do you feel the DOT should play in its relationship with the
NTSB?
Answer. Obviously, given the missions of the DOT and the NTSB it is imperative
that they work in a cooperative fashion to insure the safety of our transportation
system. As I mentioned above, if problems are identified then they must be cor-
rected. I am aware that the DOT acceptance rate for NTSB safety recommendations
has improved over the years through the result of committed efforts of the Safety
Board and I would dedicate myself to working toward further improvements. The
Secretary of the Department of Transportation has also pledged to work with the
NTSB and I am confident that through his leadership, the modal administrators
will adopt similar stances.
Question. What is the Administration's position on these issues? Do you agree
with the Administration's position?
Answer. I am familiar with a letter sent to you by DOT's Deputy Secretary and
General Counsel discussing these matters. I believe comments contained in the let-
ter reflect the Administration's position, and I concur with these remarks at this
time. The remarks I refer to in the May 19,. 1993 letter are as follows:
"We share Secretary Pena's firm belief and the fundamental premise that the De-
psulment of Transportation is committed first and foremost to safety in the day-to-
dav operations of all modes of transportation. He strongly supports the NTSB in its
role in the area and intends to monitor the response of all DOT agencies to the
NTSB's recommendations."
Question. What are some ways that the DOT could best utilize its departments
or other DOT resources to promote and enforce transportation safety?
11
Answer. At this point, I cannot assess how efiectively the Department of Trans-
portation uses its resources to promote and enforce transportation safety, or wheth-
er those allocations are the best utilization of its resources. This wiU be one of the
areas in which I hope to concentrate my efforts.
Question. Seemingly, the FAA measures safety by accidents that have already oc-
curred. As the Dubuque incident demonstrates, it took an actual catastrophic event
to pressure the FAA to act. Should the FAA be keeping score this way? What are
your plans or recommendations for ensuring the NTSB s safety concerns are prop-
erly addressed by the DOT?
Answer. As I mentioned earlier, I am not familiar with all the facts surrounding
this accident. One of my missions at the NTSB will, however, be to make sure that
the FAA and the other modal agencies are properly addressing its recommendations.
Question. Is the DOT and its other modal agencies more oflen quick to act on
NTSB recommendations after the fact — aft«r a catastrophe occurs?
Answer. Only after service as a Board Member will I be able to with any the nec-
essary knowledge to make an effective determination on what factors prompts the
DOT to respond to NTSB recommendations.
Question. If you could change the procedure of the FAA in deciding on a course
of action to alleviate a safety problem, what changes would you make? For illus-
trative purposes, what would those changes be in the context of the NTSB's and
FAA's actions following the 1991 incident in Utica, New York? What changes would
you suggest for other modal agencies?
Answer. Again althou^ I have read the transcript of the Senate hearing on the
relationship between the FAA and NTSB, I presently am not sufficiently familiar
with the facts in this case to suggest changes.
Question. Are you familiar witn the relationship between the FAA and the NTSB?
In your view, is this relationship too "cozy?"
Answer. I am not familiar enough at this junction with the day to day relation-
ship between the FAA and the NTSB to characterize the relationship; however, it
is clear to me that the NTSB and FAA must work cooperatively to insure improve-
ments in transportation safety. The joint efforts of the NTSB and the FAA have led
to a reduction in aviation fatalities over the years and I believe an effective relation-
ship can lead to further improvements in commercial and smaU aircraft safety.
Question. Over the past ten years, what modes of transportation has the NTSB
issued the most recommendations for changes to enhance transportation safety?
How oft«n have those recommendations been carried out? Is there a particular agen-
cy that typically is not responsive to NTSB recommendations?
Answer. I asked the NTSB staff to provide me with the material you requested
on a ten year basis. According to NTSB statistics, between 1982 and 1992, 1,378
recommendations were issued to the FAA and eighty-three percent were accepted.
More than ei^ty-five percent of the 163 recommendations issued to the Federal
Highway Administration were accepted. More than eighty-five percent of the 74 rec-
ommendations issued to the National Highway Trafuc Safety Administration were
accepted. More than seventy-one percent of the 131 recommendations issued to the
Federal Rail Administration were accepted. More than eighty-five percent of the 108
recommendations issued to the Research and Special Programs Adininistration were
accepted. Ninety percent of the 12 recommendations issued to the Federal Transit
Administration were accepted. More than seventy-two percent of the 467 rec-
ommendations issued to the Coast Guard were accepted. And finally, 100 percent
of the 7 recommendations issued to the Maritime Administration were accepted.
Senatx)r Ford. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I onlv have a couple of ques-
tions. I have known you for a long time and we have had conversa-
tions as it relates to your nomination to the Board, so I will limit
my questions. Just for the record, what skills do you have as a law-
yer and Government official which will be helpful in your role as
a member of the National Transportation Safety Board?
Mr. Hall. Well, sir, of course, I have my degree from the Univer-
sity of Tennessee, and for a period of time, had the opportunity in
private practice to be active in the corporate and real estate areas
of the legal field. I believe that my training and background will
assist me in terms of the work that the Board is charged with as
an appeal body on licenses that are revoked or rescinded in mari-
time, aviation, and other areas.
12
In addition, I think the unique perspective that I can bring to the
Board, Senator, is the background from State government. I have
had the opportunity in the Governor's office to work with the var-
ious commissioners in the State of Tennessee to review a number
of Federal programs to see how they have been implemented, and
how best we can go about making some of these programs more ef-
fective.
As was mentioned earlier, my expertise specifically was in the
area of transportation safety on the highways, trying to deal with
the No. 1 killer of young people in Tennessee which is highway ac-
cidents involving youth and alcohol. I present those backgrounds
and credentials to the committee, and hope that I will have the op-
portunity to serve.
Senator Ford. It is difficult to specialize when accident inves-
tigations are assigned randomly, but do you have any particular in-
terest in any of the Board's responsibilities?
Mr. Hall. Well, as mentioned earlier, I coming from a back-
ground in Tennessee State government the area of transportation
safety on our highways interests me. The aviation field is ex-
tremely important to the economic well being of our State. In Ten-
nessee we have hubs for both Northwest and American Airlines, as
well as Federal Express. Tennessee is crisscrossed with a number
of pipelines, additionally we have a large amount of hazardous ma-
terials that are transported across our State. So, those are areas
that I hope to gain more expertise in and look at as a member on
the Board.
Senator Ford. Senator Pressler.
Senator Pressler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I said in my opening statement, and the law governing the
NTSB specifically addresses the composition of the Board including
the qualifications of its members. The law's provisions regarding
these qualifications reads: "At any given time no less than three
members of the Board shall be individuals who have been ap-
pointed on the basis of technical qualification, professional stand-
ing, and demonstrated knowledge in the fields of accident recon-
struction, safety engineering, human factors, transportation safety,
or transportation regulation."
Do you feel that your background puts you in that category?
Mr. Hall. No, Senator, I do not think I am an expert m any one
of those areas. I think that, as was mentioned earlier, I have had
the opportunity to work on a number of complicated and complex
matters in which I have had to look to technical and research ad-
vice in order to make decisions. I feel that my knowledge of the
NTSB and the type of staff that is there, that working with that
staff I would be in a position to meet the requirements of the stat-
ute in terms of membership on the Board, but I do not profess to
have an expertise in any of those areas.
Senator Pressler. I am not necessarily picking on you, but as
I review the qualifications of the current members of tne Board, I
think if you are confirmed, we will have less than three members
of the Board who meet those qualifications. Is that a fair state-
ment?
Mr. Hall. Well, sir, I do not think I would be in a position to
make that decision. I have read the biographies of the four mem-
13
bers of the Board, and they certainly have outstanding qualifica-
tions, each and every one of them. And I have had the opportunity
to make a courtesy call on each of them. As you know, there are
a number of individuals there that do have transportation back-
grounds and expertise in those areas that you mentioned.
Senator Pressler. Yes. As you know, I have been concerned
about transportation safety issues for some time. We have had
pipeline breakages in our State, airplane crashes, and all kinds of
problems during this last year. And the public, the traveling public,
has been increasingly concerned as to whether or not the National
Transportation Safety Board is functioning well in its relationship
with the FAA and in relation to other areas.
I am not picking on you necessarily, but there is a specific re-
quirement in the law that at least three members of the Board
meet certain professional qualifications. As I review the back-
grounds of the current members of the Board — and this is my opin-
ion, because you were appointed by the President, and are not re-
sponsible for who else is on the Board. I want you to understand
that I have serious concerns. I think we are below the law's mini-
mum requirement for not less than three members to be appointed
on the basis of professional qualifications, in my judgment, based
on what I have seen so far.
And I do not know if you can provide me with any additional in-
formation, or maybe the administration can, but it appears to me
that we are down to two members, at most, who have technical
qualification, professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge
in the fields of accident reconstruction, safety engineering, human
factors, transportation safety, or transportation regulation.
What is your thinking on this?
Mr. Hall. Well, sir, I do not think, Senator, with all respect, that
I am in a position to comment on that. I assume that is another
individual's responsibility. You know, I am committed to do the job
and I think I am qualified to do the job.
Senator Pressler. OK. I have many other questions, but I want
you to know up front that the law's membership requirements are
a serious matter to me. while I think you are a fine person and I
do not have any personal animosity to impose, I also have a very
serious problem as to whether or not we are meeting the law's re-
quirements regarding membership. I have been concerned that in-
dividuals be appointed with experience and with safety back-
grounds. But aside from my views, this also is what the law reads.
Mr. Hall. Well I would say, if I could comment further, that my
perspective and background is a result of the excellent work done
by the Members of Congress on the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.
The State of Tennessee took that legislation wnich you passed here
in Washington and it was my responsibility to develop a program
to implement that legislation at the State and local level.
As a result, we investigated the impact of alcohol and drugs in
the State of Tennessee and looked at how it related to transpor-
tation safety. We initiated legislation with the Governor's leader-
ship, and with the cooperation of the general assembly passed that
legislation, and that legislation has had a positive impact in saving
lives of young people in the State of Tennessee. I think that is
what the National Transportation Safety Board is all about, saving
14
lives and making our modes of transportation safe, and I think I
have a strong record in that area.
As far as, again, the credentials of the other Board members and
the evaluation of my credentials in regard to that statute, that is
not my responsibility.
Senator Pressler. Well, I am sure that you did a lot of fine
work. But in terms of technical qualification, I think we would both
agree that you would be one of the members or one of the ap-
pointees who would be outside of this definition.
Mr. Hall. Well, I have tried to be candid about that in terms of
my own opinion in that regard. I do not know that it is up to me
to make that determination. As I said, I am very impressed with
the work the Board has done in its past 25 years and with the
qualifications and technical expertise that is available on the
Board's staff.
Senator Pressler. In your view, are the DOT's modal agencies
more quick to act on recommendations after the fact, after a cata-
strophic accident occurs? How can we ensure that after-the-fact ac-
tion is not the norm?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I think it would be presumptuous for me at
this time, not having experience as a Board member, to comment
on that, other than I think the record of the National Transpor-
tation Safety Board in a number of areas indicates that there has
been a good working relationship in many of those areas, and I
would be committed to working closely with each one of those agen-
cies. And if there are problems, I would have no problem at all in
trying to address those and make the process more effective.
Senator Pressler. Now, if you could change the procedures of
the modal agencies in deciding on a course of action to alleviate a
safety problem, what changes would you make?
Mr. Hall. I do not think at this point in time, Senator, not hav-
ing served at the Board and had working, hands-on experience
with that, that I could give you an answer to that question.
Senator Pressler. OK What actions would you take to provide
greater assurances that the DOT and its modal agencies give
NTSB recommendations their highest priority?
Mr. Hall. Well, as I just stated, I would not have any rec-
ommendations at this time. However, I would assure you that I
would be actively involved to be sure there is close cooperation and
to be sure that any recommendations that are advanced are imple-
mented.
Senator Pressler. What is the NTSB's definition of an "unsafe
condition"?
Mr. Hall. I am not aware that there is a formal NTSB definition
of an "unsafe condition."
Senator Pressler. What would your definition of an "unsafe con-
dition" be?
Mr. Hall. Well, I think that anything that would cause a mode
of transportation to become hazardous would be one definition. But,
you know, that is probably a pretty subjective matter.
Senator Pressler. For example, the National Commission To
Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry is about to report on
the costs of certain safety rules. You will be one of the Nation's key
decisionmEikers in terms of deciding where costs override additional
15
safety measures. You obviously have thought a great deal about
this. You are going into one of the most important safety jobs for
the people of this country. Give us your philosophy of what an un-
safe condition is, or at what point the costs of implementing new
safety regulations override the results?
Mr. Hall. I do not believe that that is a matter that I have a
philosophy on. I think at the Board you are basically charged with
looking at a specific accident, and as a result of that accident mak-
ing specific recommendations, and I do not think that cost is nec-
essarily a factor that the National Transportation Safety Board
considers. That possibly would be done in the agencies. I think we
are supposed to specifically look at the problems and recommend
measures that we think would be corrective actions.
Senator Pressler. I was very concerned about an aviation acci-
dent that occurred in Dubuque, lA, last April. The National Trans-
portation Safety Board had issued at least two warnings or two let-
ters to the Federal Aviation Administration based on a NTSB in-
vestigation of a prior accident over Utica, NY. The Dubuque acci-
dent resulted in the death of the Governor of my State. I am not
pointing fingers of blame; however, how can the NTSB urge prompt
action by the FAA in response to NTSB recommendations?
Also, I cited in some earlier hearings, a period over several years
that FAA had taken to finalize its recommendations on refueling.
Is the relationship between the NTSB and the FAA a correct one;
do you feel?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I have attempted bv attending Mr. Henson's
hearing and reading public information that is available in regard
to that accident, to gain as much knowledge as I can in my present
position, not being a Board member about that accident.
As I mentioned to you earlier when I had the opportunity to
make a courtesy call on you, I knew the Governor of South Dakota
as a result of going with the Governor of Tennessee to some Gov-
ernors' conferences. And therefore while I could not call him a per-
sonal friend, the tragedy impacted on me because when it hap-
pened, it was someone whom I knew, had met with, and had con-
versations with. So, I certainly understand your concern about that
accident, both from a professional and a personal standpoint.
I think it would be, again, inappropriate for me, not being on the
Board, or being familiar with the materials that might be available
to the Board, to draw any conclusions other than to pledge to you.
Senator, that my commitment would be, if a recommendation is
made, to do everything I could to see that that recommendation
was implemented as expeditiously as possible.
My experience with government at the State level and the Fed-
eral level is that usually, like many things in private life, you have
to be on top of the situation and you have to stay after it. And I
think that is why we have a Board, to make these recommenda-
tions and then to follow up with the modal agencies and to try to
see that these recommendations are implemented.
Senator Pressler. As I have mentioned to you, I am very con-
cerned by what I have called gridlock between the FAA and the
NTSB. What are your suggestions for alleviating such agency inac-
tion?
16
Mr. Hall. I have not have an opportunity to observe whether
there is or is not gridlock. I can only pledge to you that if there
is gridlock, that I would be very active in all of my efforts to allevi-
ate it. And my experience with State government is that any time
you are dealing with more than one agency, that there is a poten-
tial for gridlock and it is the responsibility of individuals who have
leadership positions to be sure that does not happen.
Senator Pressler. Now, according to the working draft issued
July 19, 1993, by the National Commission To Ensure a Strong and
Competitive Airline Industry, the commissioners outlined several
major findings regarding the cost of safety regulations.
Some of these findings include:
Federal regulations in airworthiness directives impose a massive cumulative cost
burden on airlines which has never been quantified by the Government; major rules
since 1984 have added $3.5 to $7.5 bilUon to past or future airline costs, based on
an aggregation of FAA's original estimates of costs for specific rules; Congress, DOT,
and ^\A all contribute to this burden. Congress or DOT mandates can preordain
the outcome of cost-benefit analyses; Given the extremely high level of safety in the
airline industry which can make it increasingly expensive to achieve even incremen-
tal safety improvements, Federal regulators must do a better job of ensuring that
additional requirements meet rigorous cost-benefit tests; Industry often warns of
high costs while the FAA believes it is not provided with accurate data on costs
early enough to make an informed judgment before proposing a rule.
What is your feeling on cost-benefit tests regarding safety?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I am not familiar with the work of that Com-
mission, other than what I have read in the newspaper, and have
not had the opportunity to read the report in its entirety. My posi-
tion, as I see it, on the National Transportation Safety Board would
be to protect the safety of the citizens of this country, and if
charged with that responsibility, that would be the basis under
which I would operate.
Senator Pressler. How is the cost benefit measured in terms of
safety by the NTSB?
Mr. Hall. I do not have that information at this time. Senator.
Senator Pressler. Does the NTSB agree with the cost-benefit
analysis of DOT'S modal agencies? What are your views?
Mr. Hall. Well, as I stated earlier, I do not think at this point
in time I have sufficient information to answer that question. That
is certainly an area that I look forward to looking at if I have the
opportunity to serve on the Board.
Senator Pressler. As a member of this committee, I am trying
to get an understanding of your views, what you believe, and of
what you think, because you are going to be one of the key people
that we will be counting on in the United States in the area of
transportation safety. Obviously in preparing for this hearing and
this job, you have thought these issues through. Obviously, the
Commission places high emphasis in weighing costs versus benefits
when it comes to issuing safety regulations. Do you agree with this
type of analysis?
Mr. Hall. Senator, my imderstanding, again, of my role at the
National Transportation Safety Board is that we would be making
specific recommendations in the safety area. And as far as I am
concerned, I am going to be charged with the safety of the public,
and will do my very best to ensure that any recommendations that
the Board can make that would make any of the modes of transpor-
17
tation safer are recommendations that are given consideration and
advanced.
Senator Pressler. Well, give me your view — ^how do you view
the Board? I mean, what do you see as your principal role, in a
very broad sense?
Mr. Hall. In a very broad sense, I would look to the fact that
the Board was created 25 years ago by Congress as an independent
board to advance safety in the various modes of transportation.
And I would strive. Senator, to maintain that independence, to look
at the matters in each one of these modes as they are brought to
my attention, to rely, as I mentioned earlier, on the technical ex-
pertise of the members of the NTSB staff, and then to work with
the other board members on making specific recommendations to
advance safety across the transportation modes.
It is very similar, I think, to the position that I had in the Grov-
ernor's office in Tennessee, in which we would attempt to inves-
tigate, evaluate, make decisions, and see that those decisions are
implemented.
Senator Pressler. My colleague. Senator Inouye, has worked
with the FAA for more than 2 years in efforts to ensure the en-
forcement of existing safety regulations requiring that pilots be
able to see during emergencies involving hazardous quantities of
continuous cockpit smoke. This action is based on evidence that
such smoke incidents may have caused or contributed to several ac-
cidents in recent years in which hundreds of lives were lost. Boeing
has publicly stated that they alone have lost seven jets where
smoke in the cockpit was a suspected cause. To date, the FAA has
not dealt with this safety problem. Seemingly, they choose instead
not to define "dense continuous smoke" as hazardous quantities of
smoke."
Now, Senator Inouye has become frustrated and has introduced
legislation, S. 787, to enforce this regulation by means of an air-
worthiness directive. What is your view of this and will you make
this issue a priority for the NTSB's consideration?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I will certainly make any item that any
Member of this committee or any U.S. Senator brings to my atten-
tion that concerns, in their opinion, safety in any of the transpor-
tation modes a priority of mine. I do not have enough information
on that specific item to comment further.
Senator Pressler. But aside from a Senator bringing an issue
to your attention, what is your general view on the continuous
smoke issue — an issue that has been written about and has been
controversial in the industry?
Mr. Hall. Again, Senator, I have not had the opportunity to
serve on the Board and have all of the information and all the facts
that I would need to comment on that subject.
Senator Ford. Larry, is it all right if some of the other Senators
ask questions and then come back to you?
Senator Pressler. All right, fine, yes. But I have some more
questions. I will come back.
Senator Ford. That will be fine. You have had about 20-some-
odd minutes now, and I wanted to get around to other Senators.
Senator Hutchison, do you have some questions of Mr. Hall?
18
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Hall, why did you seek the appointment
to the National Transportation Safety Board?
Mr. Hall. Well, basically, Senator, I became familiar with the
work of the NTSB as a result of my responsibilities in Tennessee
with the youth and alcohol problem in the transportation safety
area, and as a result of the experience I had when the Governor
asked me to work with and review the NTSB work on what we call
the 1-75 fog crash, which occurred north of Chattanooga near
where I live, where there was multiple loss of lives.
Public service has been something extremely important to me,
and I have pursued it every time it has been available to me,
whether it was service in Vietnam, service on the U.S. Senate staff,
or service with Tennessee State government. This opportunity to
serve on the National Transportation Safety Board provides an
area where I think I can as a result of my qualifications and back-
ground make a contribution.
Senator HuTcmsoN. Have you been following the NTSB since
that first experience that you had, and tried to stay up with the
issues that they deal with?
Mr. Hall, Senator, I have been familiar with the NTSB since
they came to our State when we had a major explosion in Waver-
\ey, TN. I believe there have been three investigations in the State
of*^ Tennessee and I have also followed some of the work of the
Board. I had not, however, studied it in detail until I received this
nomination.
Senator Hutchison. Did you seek the nomination or were you
sought out?
Mr. Hall. No, ma'am, I sought the nomination.
Senator Hutchison. Let me ask you a couple of specific ques-
tions. Senators Danforth, Exon, Mikulski, and Lautenberg have in-
troduced S. 738, the High Risk Drivers Act of 1993, which creates
an incentive grant program to combat the major causes of young
driver crashes, particularly alcohol, which is an area that I under-
stand you are very concerned about. This bill provides grants to
States which take certain steps, including enacting a 0.02 blood al-
cohol content standard for drivers under 21, a minimum 6-month
license suspension for minors convicted of purchasing or possessing
alcohol, and a minimum $500 penalty for selling alcohol to a minor.
Would you support this bill as a member of the NTSB?
Mr. Hall. Certainly, if the legislation is enacted I would support
it. Senator. Let me just say, based on my personal background in
the State of Tennessee, that in many cases if we would be more
proactive in the implementation of laws already on the books, we
can make as effective an impact in terms of saving lives as we can
with new legislation.
I, however, think that the legislation you have referred to is
good. Just yesterday I read in the Washington Post that six young
people in East Tennessee were killed in an accident involving alco-
hol. I think what we have got to do, however, at the same time is
to be sure that our juvenile court system and our local law enforce-
ment officials receive adequate training and education in terms of
the importance of the implementation of the laws.
The National Highway Transportation Safetv Administration has
for a number of years put into States across the country, including
19
Tennessee, pilot programs. It was disappointing to me in the Gov-
ernor's office to find out that there really is no clear way to evalu-
ate the results of those programs and then to share pilot programs
that were working with communities throughout the country.
So, I think implementation at the local level and at the State
level of laws is extremelv important and I think that it is an area
where the Safety Board can take more initiative, working with
Congress and working with, obviously, State and local govern-
ments.
Senator HuTCfflSON. I really relate to your view that we should
try to do things at the local level rather than enacting a Federal
statute for everything. The NTSB has looked into this area and
found that only 7 percent of licensed drivers are young, but 15 per-
cent of the driver fatalities occur in this group. In addition, more
than one-half of adolescent driver fatalities occur at night, despite
the fact that 80 percent of adolescent driving is done during day-
light hours.
The NTSB research has found that most States do allow a driver
under the age of 21 to legally drive with alcohol in his or her sys-
tem, even though most States, if not all, do not allow sale of alcohol
to persons under 21. NTSB has recommended that States enact a
zero blood alcohol content law and make it illegal for drivers under
21 to drive with any blood alcohol in their system.
So, this Federal statute that is being recommended goes along
with that, with the incentives that the Federal Government is so
famous for giving, and I would like to see us really focus even more
on that. I think NTSB has done good research. You are obviously
interested in it, and this might be an opportunity for you to really
get in and try to make a better awareness around the Nation of
this critical problem with our young people.
Another area I would like to ask you about is drug testing, ran-
dom drug testing and alcohol testing for transportation profes-
sionals in the motor carrier, airline, and railroad industries. Do you
support this?
Mr. Hall. Yes, Senator, I do support that. And if I might, I
would like to comment just a little on your previous statement, in
that that is an area that I have great concern with and have
worked in, and it is an area where I think we need to be sure that
if we are going to be putting restrictions on young people, that
older drivers have the same restrictions or face the same tests.
You know, one of our great problems in this Nation is cynicism
at all levels. And one of the things that we tried to do in Tennessee
was to try to be consistent across the board in these areas. And my
interest in this area is personal as well. I have a 17-year-old and
a 15-year-old. My elder daughter was recently in an accident in a
vehicle I had purchased because it had airbags. And the airbags ex-
ploded and she was not injured at all in that accident.
Senator Hutchison. They did not work?
Mr. Hall. You know, these are the types of personal things —
what, ma'am?
Senator Hutchison. The airbag did not work? It exploded.
Mr. Hall. No, it did work.
Senator Hutchison. It did work?
20
Mr. Hall. And as a result, she was not injured. So, these things
are very personal to me, and I think that in this area that is where
you must have individuals that have a personal commitment to fol-
low through and see that these things are done.
Senator Hutchison. Let me switch to aviation, because although
you are a surface person, basically, you are going to find, if you do
win this appointment, that a lot of the NTSB time and resources
are in the area of aviation. And the relationship with NTSB and
the FAA is very important. And Senator Pressler, as he was press-
ing his point I could not help but think that although you have
quite a long Democratic background, you are going to understand
what it feels like to be a Republican because the NTSB has a bully
pulpit but it does not have the votes. And you are going to be able
to talk a lot, but you do not have the leverage.
And I was sittmg there thinking about that, because it is a very
important relationship. But I think sometimes that the NTSB
makes recommendations and puts them on a shelf and sometimes
the FAA does too, and there is not very much followup. How do you
feel about the followup possibilities on the recommendations that
are made, particularly those that are the first priority? And do you
think it is sufficient or do you think that more could be done?
Mr. Hall. Well, again. Senator, since I do not have the specifics
let me just give you, if I could, my general feeling on that subject.
And let me say that if I do have the opportunity to serve in this
position by favorable action of this committee and the Senate, one
of the first things I would like to do is call on you as a former vice
chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board and learn
from your experience on that Board, as well as a number of other
distinguished citizens who have been recommended to me who
have had the opportunity to serve on that Board.
I just feel generally that implementation is the one thing in Gov-
ernment that gets left out, and that in many cases, if we could
place more effort and time on implementing, whether it is the laws
on the books, rules, regulations, or recommendations, and to see
those through, we would do a better job £ind we could improve our
performance in many areas. And that is something that I would
like to do.
And I would hope, the Board has a way of looking to see whether
their accepted recommendations are actually being implemented.
And I do know that the NTSB, particularly in the area of adminis-
trative revocation, has been active at the State government level in
lobbying. So, I would think it is certainly appropriate that the
Board should want to see not that it is just making its rec-
ommendations, but following through on those recommendations
and seeing how they are doing.
Senator Hutchison. I have got a couple of other questions, but
is Senator Mathews?
Senator Ford. You go right ahead. I think Senator Mathews has
given up his time to the two Senators here.
Senator Hutchison. OK,
Mr. Hall. And I might add, if I could, just one other thing. Sen-
ator, and that is my mother, my father, and my brother were all
Republicans. [Laughter.]
And so I do have some feeling.
21
Senator Hutchison. Well, you are going to find out.
Mr. Hall, And I grew up in east Tennessee and I am sure, if you
do not already know, that that is an area of our State that is well
populated with members of the Republican Party.
Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask you another two or three
questions about the aviation side. Have you heard complaints
about the air traffic control system? Just either since you were
nominated or before that in the aviation community, nave you
heard complaints about the sufficiency and the technology of the
air traffic control system?
Mr. Hall. Yes, Senator, I have heard the complaints. I really
have not looked into it in any detail, but I have heard the com-
plaints.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me ask you this, do you have an
opinion about whether the Airport Trust Fund expenditures are
sufficient at this point for doing what we need to be doing in the
air traffic control system, as well as in our airport infrastructure?
Mr. Hall. No, Senator, I do not. And let me say, again, I guess
maybe expressing a sentiment that Senator Sasser mentioned as a
way of advancing my own nomination here, I think one of the
things that I can oring to the Board is a fresh perspective. I do not
have any preconceived opinions or any associations with any indus-
try groups with anything as a result of my law practice or my back-
ground, I think that would prejudice me in trying to come to the
very best conclusions that I could independently.
Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask one last question. Do you
think that the money collected from passengers, the tax that every-
body pays when they buy an airline ticket, should be totally ear-
marked for airport improvements, as opposed to other potential
uses for that money?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I would say, on first reflection, that I think
that many times Government runs into a credibility problem where
funds are collected for one purpose and then used for another.
However, at the same time, having worked in the Grovemor's office
and having an executive view of working with budgets, it is dif-
ficult sometimes when you have a large number of taxes that are
earmarked, to be able to operate general government. But I think
where a representation is made that generally it should be followed
through on.
Senator Hutchison. So, you do think that the passenger tax
should be earmarked just for airport improvements?
Mr. Hall. No, just for — improvements, no, ma'am. I am not fa-
miliar exactly what all it is earmarked for now. But I am saying
whatever the statute says that it is earmarked, for I assume is how
it should be utilized.
Senator Hutchison. OK No further questions.
Senator Ford. Mr. Chairman, your comments, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROLLINGS
The Chairman. Today I welcome to this committee hearing
Frsmk E. Kruesi, nominated to be Assistant Secretary for Transpor-
tation Policy, and Louise Frankel Stoll, nominated for the position
of Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, at the Depart-
ment of Transportation.
22
If confirmed, Mr. Kruesi would bring an important perspective to
DOT, having worked for many years in Chicago. His experience as
chief poHcy officer for the mayor and in other various positions that
he has held with city, county, and State government would be help-
ful to him in this new position for which he has been nominated.
I am sure that, given his experience, he recognizes the importance
of transportation policy to the Nation's economy and in positioning
our country to compete more effectively with the rest of the world.
The United States has a world-class transportation system that
must be maintained. Recently, we have been reminded of its impor-
tance to the Nation's economy as we have witnesses the destruction
and dislocation brought on by the floods in the Midwest. This coun-
try also must look to new technologies to provide improved trans-
f)ortation services. Tasks such as these are challenging, particu-
arly given the current fiscal constraints we must confront. If con-
firmed, Mr. Kruesi will be faced with these important issues as the
first Assistant Secretary whose principal task is to focus on our do-
mestic transportation needs.
Ms. Stoll is well prepared to assume the responsibility at DOT
for budget and prog^ram issues. She has served in high-level budget
and agency management positions with the city and county of San
Francisco and, most recently, as a senior executive with broad re-
sponsibilities in a private-sector firm. With the important and var-
ied safety and program responsibilities of the various modal agen-
cies at DOT, her public-sector and private-sector experience makes
Ms. Stoll particularly qualified to assume this responsibility.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of each of these nomi-
nees.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just talked to
Senator Pressler. He has another round, Jim, and we have a Sen-
ator in the audience that would like to present another nominee,
and I would like to accommodate all my colleagues. And so if you
would not mind, I would like to get Senator Moseley-Braun from
Illinois to the desk and she can make her statement as it relates
to the nominee to follow, and then we will get back to you, Jim.
You may sit there.
And, Carol, you may come up here to the front. I apologize for
keeping you so long.
STATEMENT OF HON. CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Moseley-Braun. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear
before this committee to introduce Frank Kruesi, and thanks to the
members of the committee for deferring your second round of ques-
tions so that I could make this introduction.
I have personally known Frank Kruesi for over two decades. I
may be dating both of us, but I have known him for quite a long
time. We were both at the University of Chicago at the same time.
We were both long time Hyde Park residents and neighbors. He
worked as a legislative staffer in the Illinois Greneral Assembly
while I was a member of that body. We worked together on issues
23
such as eliminating the sales tax on food and medicine, child abuse
issues, nursing home reform, and transportation, finance and fund-
ing.
He later served as the executive officer of the Illinois Cook Coun-
ty State's Attorneys Office, working to improve the criminal justice
system. While he was there — and he laughed when I reminded him
of this, but while he was there we had a lengthy correspondence
on the somewhat esoteric subject of jury selection and the voir dire.
More recently, Frank was the chief policy officer for the city of
Chicago, helping shape Chicago's Federal legislative program. In
that post, because Chicago is one of the Nation's largest cities and
one of its most important transportation hubs, he has been exten-
sively involved in transportation issues. Frank knows transpor-
tation both as a matter of public policy, as well as a matter of prac-
tical implementation,
Illinois and Chicago sit at the intersection of many modes of
transportation, including aviation — we have, as you know, the
world's busiest airport — rail, highways, and waterways. We have it
all, Eind in abundance. Frank's goal was and is to serve the people,
to maintain the existing transportation infrastructure, and to de-
velop and expand the system to serve the future, all in the context
of a decreasing share of Federal funds.
Frank Kruesi's work on the Lake Calumet airport proposal, the
Chicago downtown light rail circulator, the new O'Hare inter-
national terminal, the issuance of Chicago's first ever motor fuel
tax bonds for capital improvements, the upgrade of Chicago's tran-
sit authority stations, and the adoption of new and relatively inex-
pensive street resurfacing techniques called scarification, as well as
intermodal systems for the Port of Chicago and its shipping indus-
try, demonstrates an extensive understanding of both the law and
of the need to maintain our existing infrastructure.
He knows the importance of planning and preparing for the fu-
ture. As a policy advisor to the second-largest city in the country
in a State that is a major transportation center for our country,
Frank understands how transportation policy affects communities.
He knows about the real world impact of public policy and how it
affects real people.
He has been on the fi-ont line in carrying out and implementing
Federal programs and fostering intergovernmental cooperation.
This is extremely important experience because Federal transpor-
tation programs directly impact all Americans. His experience will
bring the kind of sensitivity that is necessary for the position of As-
sistant Secretary for Policy for the Department of Transportation.
Throughout his many years of public service, Frank Kruesi has
served the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago well. He is high-
ly regarded everywhere he has worked. He is known to be thought-
ful, well versed, and creative, and a real problemsolver. Through-
out his career, he has been able to bridge the gap between the pub-
lic sector and academia, and the business community I might add,
and to make the best public use of everything that private and
philanthropic organizations have to offer.
I know that he will also serve this Nation well as Assistant Sec-
retary for Policy for this Department. I heartily endorse him and
24
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on
behalf of a man of great knowledge and experience, Frank Kruesi.
Thank you.
Senator Ford. Thank you, Senator. And Frank Kruesi, we will
ask you to step back and we will finish with Mr. Hall. We will have
kind of a piecemeal operation here today,
Mr. Kruesi. I am not sure I have einything else I need to say,
Senator, after that. [Laughter.]
Senator Moseley-Braun. Thank you.
Senator Ford. Well, if a lot of us just be quiet, the others would
talk nice about us, and we will be all right. [Laughter.]
Senator Moseley-Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and mem-
bers of the committee.
Senator Ford. Mr. Hall, if you will come back up. I believe Sen-
ator Pressler has another round.
Senator Pressler. Mr. Hall, I very much appreciate the experi-
ence you have had working against alcohol abuse. What is your
view on our Federal drug and alcohol testing policies in regard to
transportation?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I again have not had the opportunity work
with that policy in great detail, but I basically support alcohol and
drug testing in the transportation area, particularly where individ-
uals are operating equipment in which other individuals are de-
pendent upon the operators' faculties.
Senator Pressler. The DOT has issued a proposed rule on ran-
dom alcohol testing. What are your views on random alcohol test-
ing of people who operate transportation equipment?
Mr. Hall. I am not familiar, again, with that rule. Generally my
feeling would be, again, where £m individual is responsible for the
safety of others, I would be in support of random testing.
Senator Pressler. Would you please review that DOT rule and
answer my question for the record? Could you do that?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
I have requested the DOT to provide me with a copy of the rules and companion
notices on the proposed rulemaking and plan to review them as soon as received.
However, I did contact the NTSB about its position on the rules [a copy of the com-
ments submitted to the DOT in April of the year may be found in the appendix of
this hearing]. If confirmed, I will work with the other Safety Board members to gain
acceptance at the DOT of the improvements being sought in the proposed rules.
Senator Pressler. A constant complaint voiced against some of
the agencies from the aviation community is the lack of regulatory
consistency between the various FAA regions. Each region appears
to have its own interpretation of regulations.
What are your views on regulatory inconsistencies between FAA
regions? Are such claims legitimate? And if so, do such inconsist-
encies jeopardize aviation safety?
Mr. Hall. Again, Senator, I do not have at this time the working
knowledge in that area to be responsive to the question. However,
again, as with all these items that you are mentioning, I would be
glad to work with you to address any specific concerns to be sure
that the system is working.
25
Senator Pressler. Are you aware of the problem of the inconsist-
ency between the various regions? Could you give us some descrip-
tion of the problem?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I am not. I do not have any personal knowl-
edge of that. No, sir.
Senator Pressler. Let me ask a couple of questions on railroad
safety. What are your views and suggestions for improving rail
safety mechanisms such as improved lighting systems or other
safety designs for railroad traffic?
Mr. Hall. Senator, again I do not have any specific views on that
subject because I have not had the opportunity to look at that area
closely. However, I look forward as a member of the board, if con-
firmed, to look in each of those areas and try to exercise the re-
sponsibilities that I have been charged with.
Senator Pressler. I have some other questions on rail safety,
but I am afraid we would go down the same route.
Let me turn to the issue of pipeline safety. While hazardous liq-
uid pipelines are essential to the transportation of energy re-
sources, they also have caused significant problems both to humans
and the environment. In my home State, pipeline problems have
forced homes to be evacuated, and I am sure that is true in all
States. In fact, pipeline problems have even caused an entire ele-
mentary school in South Dakota to be relocated. Most recently, a
leak went undetected for a number of months very close to the
water supply for our State's largest city, Sioux Falls.
Assuming you are confirmed, what would be your goals for im-
proving the safety of the hazardous liquid pipeline network of ap-
proximately 1.8 million miles?
Mr. Hall. Well, Senator, I would want to work with the other
members of the Board and with the technical staff in this area to
implement any existing regulations and to look at the system and
evaluate it, and hopefully make recommendations that would make
the system safer.
Senator Pressler. But you have no specific recommendations or
goals in that area?
Mr. Hall. No, sir, not at this particular time, not having had the
opportunity to serve on the Board and work in that area exten-
sively I do not. I think it would be premature or presumptuous for
me right now to have any specific recommendations.
Senator Pressler. Last year, my legislation to increase the num-
ber of hazardous liquid pipeline inspectors by 12 was included in
the reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act. One of my objectives
was to provide technical assistance and training to State pipeline
inspectors because of the large number of accidents.
What are your views on how these positions can improve the
safety performance of pipelines?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I compliment you on the initiative in that
area. I am not familiar with the legislation. However, as a member
of the Board, I would be committed to work with you in that area.
Senator Pressler. What are your views regarding State pipeline
inspection programs?
Mr. Hall. My general view is they are obviously very, very im-
portant, and the cooperation and coordination in that area between
26
Federal inspectors and State inspectors I think is important as
well.
Senator Pressler. Now, only a few States have hazardous liquid
pipeline inspection programs. In your view, should all States have
a State hazardous liquid pipeline inspection program?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I do not know, but that is an area I look for-
ward to examining and discussing with you or making rec-
ommendations in the future.
Senator Pressler. What are your views on the new technological
advancements including leak detection systems on pipelines? Is
this technology being used by pipeline companies sufficiently? If
not, what can be done to expand the usage? Is further research
needed? And as a member of the NTSB, what will you do about
this?
Mr. Hall. Again, as a member of the NTSB I would look forward
to looking into those areas, and making recommendations. And as
we discussed previously, work for implementation of any rec-
ommendations that the Board deems appropriate in that area.
Senator Pressler. Both hazardous liquid and natural gas pipe-
lines can be found in populated areas as well as environmentally
sensitive areas. In your view, should the pipelines located in those
areas be rerouted or are there other safety steps we can take?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I again do not have enough information in
that area to m^e recommendations. Generally, as we both know,
pipelines criss-cross a lot of areas that are presently populated, and
every effort should be made to work on future pipeline construction
to be sure that it avoids where possible populated areas, and at the
same time ensure, so that we do everything that we can to be sure
that the existing pipelines are as safe as possible.
Senator Pressler. Thank you. I think that concludes my round
of questions. I may have one or two additional questions for the
record.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. Senator.
Senator Mathews [presiding]. Thank you. Senator Hutchison, do
you have additional questions?
Senator Hutchison. No questions.
Senator Mathews. Does any other member have any other ques-
tions?
[No response.]
Senator Mathews. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mathews. Mr. Kruesi, if you would return we would af-
ford you an opportunity to make your opening statement and then
open the session for questions.
STATEMENT OF FRANK EUGENE KRUESI, NOMINEE TO BE AS-
SISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY, DE-
PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Kruesl Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as you
consider my nomination the position of Assistant Secretary of
Transportation for Transportation Policy.
I am honored by the trust and confidence bestowed upon me by
the President and Secretary Pena in nominating me for this new
27
position. I also want to express my personal appreciation to Sen-
ator Carol Moseley-Braun for introducing me to this distinguished
committee.
I have known and worked closely with Senator Moseley-Braun,
as she indicated, long before she was elected to the U.S. Senate,
while she served on the Illinois General Assembly and I was legis-
lative aide to then-State Senator Richard M. Daley, and during her
service as Cook County Recorder of Deeds, when I was the execu-
tive officer of her office's law firm, the Cook County State's Attor-
ney Office. I am proud to count her as a friend and to count myself
as an admirer of her long and pathbreaking public service.
Allow me to briefly summarize my background and experience
for this committee, and I will make it very brief because Senator
Moseley-Braun said far more articulately than I could have what
I have done in transportation.
Although I have never worked for the Federal Grovemment I
have worked with the Federal Government in the course of mv du-
ties over the past 16 years for Richard M. Daley, first as his legis-
lative aide in the Illinois State Senate, then as the executive officer
during his 8 years as Cook County State's Attorney, and most re-
cently as the chief policy officer of the city of Chicago throughout
his 4 years as mayor.
Mayor Daley has been my teacher £ind my friend. From him I
have learned and have been constantly reminded to always think
of the consequences of governmental decisions and actions on peo-
ple, and from him I learned to experience what is really going on
and to continually think of how to make government work better
for people.
While I have much to learn, I believe I would bring a useful per-
spective to this position gleaned fi'om my experience. I have been
privileged to serve the public in State, county, and municipal gov-
ernments. I have worked in the legislative, judicial, and executive
branches of government. From time to time I have taught courses
on aspects of American Government. From these varied perspec-
tives I have gained a broad understanding of the development, im-
plementation, and review of governmental policies in a wide range
of areas, including transportation.
During the past 4 years as chief policy officer for the city of Chi-
cago I have been immersed in transportation matters from a local
perspective. Chicago long has served as a transportation hub of our
Nation and sits at the intersection of many modes of transpor-
tation— aviation, roadways, public transit, rail, and waterways. I
have worked to maintain and enhance the city's existing transpor-
tation networks, and to develop ways to build on those foundations
with varied projects. Senator Moseley-Braun summarized those
projects, and so I will not do so again.
My transportation experience has been largely locally focused,
but has encompassed many modes. While contributing to these
transportation projects I have come to appreciate the impact of
Federal transportation policies on the development of Chicago, the
region, and the Nation. This impact is even more profound because
of recent Federal legislative initiatives that are fundamentally
changing the ways transportation planning and development will
occur throughout our Nation for years to come by forging inter-
28
modal linkages and by better integrating efforts to enhance trans-
portation safety, effectiveness, efficiency, and sensitivity to the en-
vironment.
I have no illusion that sound policy can be developed and imple-
mented in a vacuum. On the contrary, it requires reaching out to
Congress, to transportation experts around our Nation, to the
States and communities most immediately affected by decisions,
and to the industries and labor that work day-in and day-out to
provide their customers the highest quality transportation services
in the world.
If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity help develop and
implement these initiatives — to work together with the committee,
the Congress, labor and industry, the public, the academy, and
State and local governments.
If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to remember
that the Federal Government, no less than State and local govern-
ment, exists to serve people, and to keep in mind that its decisions
affect people's lives for better or worse.
If confirmed, I would always strive to help shape American
transportation policies that enrich the lives of Americans and that
contribute to the prosperity of America.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to schedule this
hearing today. I would be pleased now and in the future to answer
any questions that you might have. But before we get to that, I
would like to introduce my fiance, Barbara Grochalla to this com-
mittee.
[The prepared statement, biographical data, and prehearing
questions and answers of Mr. Kruesi follow:]
Prepared Statement of Frank Eugene Kruesi
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as you consider my
nomination to the position of Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Transpor-
tation Pohcy. I am honored by the trust and confidence bestowed upon me by the
President and Secretary Pena for this new position.
Allow me to briefly summarize my background and experience for this Conmiittee.
Although I have never worked for the feaersJ government, I have worked with the
federal government in the course of my duties over the past sixteen years for Rich-
ard M. Ualey, first as his legislative aide in the Illinois State Senate, then as his
Executive Omcer during his eight years as Cook County State's Attorney, and most
recently as the Chief Policy Officer of the City of Chicago throughout his four years
as Mayor.
Mayor Daley has been my teacher and my friend. From him I learned — and have
been constantly reminded — to always think of the consequences of governmental de-
cisions and actions on people. And from him I learned to get out and experience
what is really going on and to continuously think of how to make government work
better for the people.
While I have much to learn, I believe I would bring a useful perspective to this
position gleaned from my experience. I have been privileged to serve the public in
state, county, and municipal governments. I have worited in the legislative, judicial,
and executive branches of government. From time to time, I have taught courses
on aspects of American government. From these varied perspectives, I have gained
a broad understanding of the development, implementation, and review of govern-
mental policies in a wide range of areas, including transportation.
During the past four years, as Chief Policy Officer for the City of Chicago, I have
been immersed in transportation matters from a local perspective. Chicago long has
served as a transportation hub of our nation and sits at the intersection of many
modes of transportation, including aviation, roadways, public transit, rail, and wa-
terways.
I have worked to maintain and enhance the city's existing transportation net-
works and to develop ways to build on those foundations with varied projects. Allow
29
me to touch on some of these initiatives. In aviation, I was active in efforts to select
a site in Chicago for a third regional airport, obtain Congressional approval to au-
thorize imposition of Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), construct a state-of-the-art
International Terminal and People Mover light rail system at our nation's busiest
airport, and develop the work plan for master planning of both OTIare and Midway
airports. In roads, I worked on Chicago's first-ever motor fuel tax bonds for $76 mil-
lion in capital improvements, adopting the relatively inexpensive street resurfacing
technique called scarification, and on expanding roadway, sidewalk, and parking
beautification programs. In public transit, I worked on the innovative ly-funded
downtown light rail circulator now in its engineering stage, on upgrading hating
around newly-renovated and disabled-accessible Chicago Transit Authority stations,
and on the commuter rapid transit link from Midway Airport and its surrounding
conmiunities to the Loop. In rail, I helped to develop initiatives with other public
agencies and rail carriers to improve the upkeep and maintenance of rights-of-way
and to renovate Chicago's Uni6n Station. Finally, for maritime, I have worked to
gain legislative support for the Port of Chicago's on-going modernization program
and trade expansion efforts. So, although my transportation experience has been
largely locally-focused, it has encompassed many modes.
While contributing to these transportation projects, I have come to appreciate the
impact of federal transportation policies on the development of Chicago, the region,
and the nation. This impact is even more profound because of recent federal legisla-
tive initiatives that are fundamentally changing the ways transportation planning
and development will occur throughout our nation for years to come by forging
intermodal linkages and by better integrating efforts to enhance transportation's
safety, effectiveness, efficiency, and sensitivity to the environment.
I have no illusion that sound policy can be developed and implemented in a vacu-
um. On the contrary, it requires reaching out to Congress, to transportation experts
around our nation, to the states and communities most immediately affected by de-
cisions, and to the industries and labor that work day-in and-day-out to provide
their customers the highest quality transportation services in the world.
If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to help develop and implement
these initiatives — to work together with this Committee, the Congress, labor and in-
dustry, the public, the academy, and state and local governments.
If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to remember that the federal
government, no less than state and local government, exists to serve people and to
keep in mind that its decisions affect people's Uves, for better or worse.
If confirmed, I would always strive to help shape transportation pwlicies that en-
rich the lives of Americans and that contribute to the prosperity of America.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to schedule this hearing today.
I would be pleased, now and in the future, to answer any questions you might
have.
Biographical Data
Name: Kruesi, Frank Eugene; address: 1813 Paul Spring Road, Alexandria, VA
22307; business address: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Position to which nominated: Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, De-
partment of Transportation; date of nomination: July 22, 1993.
Date of birth: July 12, 1950; place of birth: Marblehead, MA.
Marital status: Divorced; names and ages of children: Elizabeth Ann Kruesi, 10;
and WiUiam Shepardson Kruesi, 7.
Education: University of Chicago, 9/72-6/77, MA and Ph.D. candidate; Middlebury
College, 9/68-5/72, BA; Union College, 6/7/69-^7/70; and The Lennox School, 9/66-
5/68, High School Diploma.
Employment: 6/93-Present, Secretary of Transportation, Special Advisor to the
Secretary; 5/89-5/93, Richard M. Daley, Chief PoUcy Officer; 12^80-^/89, Cook Coun-
ty Staters Attorney, Executive Officer; 12/88-^/89, 12/82-2/83, 7/80-12/80, Richard
M. Daley Campaign Committee, Issues Director; 1/87^/87, Thomas P. Hynes Cam-
paign Committee, Issues Director; 4/77-8/80, Illinois State Senate Majority Leader-
ship, Legislative Development; Fall 1979, Rosary College, Political Science Lecturer,
Winter 1978, DePaul University, Political Science Dent., Lecturer; 10/75--4/77, Illi-
nois Governor's Commission for Revision of the Mental Health Code, Legislative De-
velopment; 6/75-10/75, Illinois Governor's Commission on Individual Liberty and
Personal Privacy, Legislative Development; Fall 1974, Loyola University, Political
Science Department, Lecturer; and 1972-74, Hyde Paric Bank & Trust, Part-time
teller.
30
Government experience: 6/93-Pre8ent, Secretary of Transportation, Special Advi-
sory to the Secretary; 5/89^/93, Richard M. Daley, Mayor of Chicago, Chief Policy
Officer, 12/80-5/89 Cook County State's Attorney, Executive Officer, 4/77-8/80, Rich-
ard M. Daley/Thomas P. Hynes, Illinois State Senate Majority Leadership, Legisla-
tive Development; 10/75—4/77, Illinois Governor's Commission for Revision oT the
Mental Health Code, Legislative Development; and 6/75-10/75, Dlinois Governor's
Commission on Individual Liberty and Personal Privacy, Legislative Development.
Political affiliations: Registered Democrat since first eligible to vote (1972); 12/88-
5/89, 12/82-2/83, 7/80-12/80, Richard M. Daley Campai^ Committee, Issues Direc-
tor; and 1/87-4/87, Thomas P. Hynes Campaign Committee, Issues Director. No fi-
nancial contributions.
Memberships: St. James Episcopal Cathedral, Chicago, IL; Grace Episcopal
Church, Hinsdale, IL; and St. Paul and the Redeemer Episcopal Church, Chicago,
Llj,
Honors and awards: None.
Published writings: None (in my own name).
Question Asked by the Commerce CoMMirrEE and Answers Thereto by Mr.
Kruesi
general QUALIFICATIONS/RESPONSIBILmES
Question. Your office was recently created by the Secretary of Transportation. K
confirmed, your responsibilities would appear to be extremely broad. What do you
see as the priorities of the office?
Answer. My number one objective will, of course, be to provide sound policy ad-
vice to the Secretary. That advice must be based on careful research and analysis,
consultation with affected interests, and consideration of national priorities, such as
deficit reduction.
More specifically, we must continue to develop effective approaches to the key
firoblems facing the transportation sector. In my view, some of tne top priorities are:
1) increasing investment in transportation infrastructure; (2) assuring the competi-
tiveness of our transportation industry, both domestically and internationally; (3)
continuing to improve transportation safety, especially highway safety; and (4) as-
suring that environmental protection is an integral part of all transportation pro-
grams and projects.
Question. In your role in Chicago, Dlinois, as Chief Policy Officer For Mayor Rich-
ard Daley, you experienced first nand the needs of a big city's transportation sys-
tem. How wiU that experience help you in addressing tne needs of small commu-
nities?
Answer. I originally moved to Chicago in 1972 to begin my graduate studies and
have spent my adult life there. However, I have first-nand experience with much
smaller communities, as well. I grew up in small towns and mid-sized cities, includ-
ing Pittsfield, Massachusetts; Schenectady, New York; and Erie, Pennsylvania, at-
tended college for four years in Middlebury, Vermont and spent many summers in
the Adirondack Mountains of upstate New York outside of the small town of Cor-
inth. In addition, for the four years I worked for the Illinois General Assembly, I
lived for several months each year in Springfield. And, of course, there are few bet-
ter ways to become sensitized to the challenges and opportunities facing small com-
munities than to hear them firsthand from their legislative representatives.
Question. As we all have witnessed, the floods in the Midwest have devastated
vast areas and greatly affected the Nation's transportation system. Roads and
bridges are under water, and many have been washed out. Several small airports
also are under water. Rail service has been severely disrupted. If confirmed, what
role will you play in restoring the transportation system in this area? When do you
anticipate knowing the full extent of the damage? What amount of funds wiU be
available to tackle the problems under the current program, exclusive of any emer-
gency aid that is forthcoming?
Answer. I anticipate that my direct role in the restoration of transport service in
the flood affected area will be relatively small, although Secretary Pea has enlisted
everyone in his office to pitch in throughout this massive natural disaster. Other
parts of the Department, however— the Coast Guard, FHWA, FRA — will have major
roles, both in channeling Federal financial aid and in providing operational and
technical assistance.
For example, FHWA engineer teams are already doing damage assessment work
in the area, as are Coast Guard personnel with respect to the navigation channels.
I believe it will be several weeKs before we have a good estimate of the damage
to the transportation infrastructure. First of all, the damage covers a very large
31
area in several states. Much of the damage is presently hidden by the flood waters
and we are told that the flood waters can be expected to subside only very slowly.
Even then, the ground will be saturated and it wUl not be until normal soil moisture
levels are retiched that the threat to heavy structures and levees can be confidently
assessed.
In addition to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for flood relief
funding, H.R. 2667 (which contains $10 million for the Coast Guard; $125 million
for FI^A and $21 million for FRA's I^cal Rail Freight Assistance FVogram) other
DOT funding may be available for flood assistance.
State and local authorities have a great deal of flexibility in programming funds
made available under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and can
use some of these resources to restore and repsdr highway and public transportation
facilities damaged by the flood, and the Department is committed to assisting in this
huge undertaking.
As flood damage to airports is assessed, the FAA's field offices will work with local
authorities to bring available Airport Improvement Program resources to bear on
the problems identuied.
Question. Alcohol and drug use remain problems for transportation safety. Alco-
hol-related deaths on our highways continue to plague the nation. What steps do
you believe are needed to address this problem? When will the Department (DOT)
finalize rules on alcohol testing of transportation workers?
Answer. The vast majority of the nation's alcohol-related hi^way deaths occur
in crashes of private automobiles and trucks, where the DOT has no direct jurisdic-
tion over the drivers involved. In recent years, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has had success in working with state and local govern-
ments as well as with non-governmental organization in reducing the alcohol-relat-
ed highway death toll. There were 17,699 hi^way fatalities involving alcohol in
1992, down from 19,900 in 1991. While progress is gratifying, there is still a long
way to go and there is no easy route. We need increasing pressure along she lines
we have been following to get stiffer penalties for drunk driving, to enforce existing
laws like the age 21 drinking law, and to convince p>eople that drinking and driving
is not acceptable.
The Notices of Proposed Rulemaking implementing the Omnibus Transportation
Ernployee Testing Act of 1991 were finally issued under the previous Administration
in December, 1992. Comments to the docket and the public meetings became avail-
able in March. As you might expect, the issues raised by these proposed rules affect-
ing so many people in so many industries were thorny. A team of senior representa-
tives of all the DOT Operating Administrations, including people from the Policy Of-
fice, has been working to resolve these issues. I understand that as of the end of
July, they have worked the problem down to a handful of key decisions that need
to be made. Policy stafT tells me that it would normally take another six to twelve
weeks to finish the paperwork, get approval from 0MB, and publish the final rules
in the Federal Register.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
Question. If confirmed, what do you perceive to be the appropriate role of your
office in relation to other offices of DOT in fostering intermodal synergies in freight
surface transportation and intercity passenger transportation? What will you seek
to accomplish specifically in these areas if confirmed?
Answer. It is my belief that the appropriate role for the Policy Office in the Office
of the Secretary of Tremsportation is to develop and enunciate a transportation pol-
icy framework that is explicitly intermodal. This means that we will work with
other DOT policy and program offices and with the Bureau of Transportation Statis-
tics in OST to develop and implement systemwide p>erformance data collection, plan-
ning tools, evaluation techniques and program structures. This wiU bring to the
transportation policy and program management process a multimodal perspective
that will highlight and focua attention on the intermodal synergisms that are a nec-
essary part of a truly integrated, multimodal transportation system. As your ques-
tion suggests, it is in the freight and intercity passenger components of the system
where great progress is possible, and I will be directing specific attention to these
areas.
If confirmed, I will be working to bring about the development of the systemwide
data, planning and evaluation tools that I have already mentioned. I also believe
that we need to look at changes to existing programs that could allow funds to flow
to their most efficient transportation uses, unhindered by some of the structural
barriers which now exist. Moreover, I think that some changes may be possible in
the Department's organizational structure that would improve our ability to fiinc-
32
tion in a more intermodal fashion. Though I would need to examine these areas in
more detail before being more specific, I believe that progress is needed in all of
them and would hope to oe able to bring that progress about.
Question. Please provide your views concerning the requirements for capital in-
vestment in the nation's surface transportation infrastructure. How can dot ensure
that its public sector investment decisions are made wisely?
Answer. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Ad-
ministration (FTA) recently published their first joint report on highway, bridge,
and transit needs. Prior to this report, they each independently produced reports for
their own modes. The combined report provided estimates of highway, bridge, and
transit needs for two alternatives: maintaining current conditions and improving
conditions.
These needs estimates are based on analyses conducted by FHWA and FTA. How-
ever, most of the decisions on where investment funds are actually spent are made
by State and local agencies. To assure that these funds are spent in a cost-effective
manner, the Department of Transportation has planning and project development
process criteria that require the consideration of alternatives and evaluation of im-
pacts. In addition, since State and local governments must share a substantial part
of the investment costs, they are motivated to spend their funds effectively as well.
I would like to begin a process to evaluate the manner in which the Department
develops transportation needs estimate and to develop new approaches that address
needs on a multimodal basis. This effort would also look at the manner that invest-
ment decision are made at the State and local level needs.
Question. What is your view as to the effectiveness of the Staggers Rail Act of
1980, the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, and the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982?
Under what circumstances do you believe DOT should participate in economic regu-
latory matters pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission?
Answer. Although their economic circumstances differ substantially, the railroad,
trucking, and bus mdustries have benefited from partial deregulation. The railroads
have become stronger financially, have upgraded their track and equipment, and
have been able to provide better service at lower rates to most shippers. The truck-
ing industry has been at the forefront of a virtual revolution in how U.S. businesses
conduct their overall logistics operations, with total annual savings estimated at
nearly $40 billion dollars. However, the intercity bus industry has been shrinking
since well before the 1982 legislation. Competition from the ubiquitous private auto-
mobile and affordable air travel will continue, but the 1982 reforms offer the bus
industry a better chance to meet this competition.
As in the past, DOT will continue to participate in selected Interstate Commerce
Commission proceedings that embody issues of national importance to transpor-
tation policy.
Question. How do see Amtrak's role evolving over the next decade? To what ex-
tent, an under what conditions, should competition in the provision of high-speed
rail services be encourage?
Answer. We believe that Amtrak should continue to operate the national rail pas-
senger system and that one of our goals should continue to be to achieve operating
seli^sufiiciency through operating cost reductions and revenue enhancements. Over
the next decade, we believe there should be significant service improvements as Am-
trak acquires new equipment and our proposed high speed ground program IS im-
plemented. Under current statutes Amtrak would be involved in any high-speed rail
services developed over intercity routes that it currently serves. The Rail Passenger
Services Act provides that no other party may provide service without the consent
of Amtrak. It would be the responsibility of the State sponsor to select the proposed
operator for high speed rail service that develops on routes not now served by Am-
trak.
With respect to the question on the desirability of competition in the provision of
high speed^rail service, competition would provide a spur for increased efficiency
and improved service. However, these considerations must be weighed against any
adverse system effects of having different operators for different segments of the
system. Also, if the best routes were operated by different carriers, Amtrak would
have no potential to ever attain operating self-sufliciency.
Question. As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is the agency responsible for the implementation of highway and vehicular
safety regulations and programs. What is your opinion of the appropriate policy role
of this agency, particularly regarding consumers and industries directly affected by
the agenc/s decisions? What kind of relationship do you believe should exist be-
tween the office which you have been nominated to directed and NHTSA?
Answer. NHTSA's policy role is well defined in its enabling legislation, chiefly the
Highway Safety Act of 1966, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act,
33
and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. These legislative
mandates spell out procedures for development and implementation of safety regula-
tions and related programs. Over the years, NHTSA has developed open and produc-
tive relationships with the industry it regulates, with consumers, and with numer-
ous, safety groups. I understand from DOT career staff that NHTSA is held in high
esteem as being fair and reasoned in its actions and decisions and deeply committed
to improving highway safety.
The relationship between NHTSA and the OST Transportation Policy Oflice
should be one of mutual respect and open exchange. The Policy Office should be par-
ticularly focused on assuring that safety approaches in all transportation modes are
mutually reinforcing and consistent, would expect my staff to be well informed on
all facets of transportation safety. I hope to develop a personal relationship with the
yet-to-be-named NHTSA Administrator that will allow us and our staffs to be mutu-
ally supportive.
AVIATION
Question. Will your office be responsible for domestic aviation issues such as air
traffic control modernization, research and development? Other economic issues,
such as slots, noise, peak -hour pricing, revenue diversion, would appear to fall ?.ore
within the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation. If confirmed, what
role will you have with respect to these issues?
Answer. My office will have policy oversight with respect to such issues as air
traffic control modernization, research and development, safety, noise, peak hour
pricing, CRS policy, and airport revenue diversion.
The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs will have oversight
with respect to international air service negotiations and agreements, certain as-
pects of slots, the Essential Air Service Program, fitness determinations, certifi-
cations etc.
While there is probably a grey area where we may both have interests, I think
it is small and we wiU simply give our policy advice to the Secretary jointly.
A good way to think about the dividing line between the two offices in the avia-
tion area is the following:
Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy: all matters affecting the statutory
grant and operational programs of the FAA.
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs: all matters affecting
Essential Air Service, international air commerce, the airline industry, licensing and
certification and fitness.
Question. The Secretary recently announced that the Departments of Defense and
Transportation would begin to review the many issues surrounding the global posi-
tioning system. What role will your office leave in this process? To what extent do
ou intend, if confirmed, to see the views of the industry on the issues that must
e addressed before a fully developed system can be deployed?
Answer. The Policy office is chairing the Department of Transportation delegation
in the discussions with the Defense Department. Secretary Pena has expressed a
strong commitment to assuring the maximum utilization of GPS technology for
transportation and other civilian sector purposes, consistent with maintaining the
national security functions of the system, and the DOT delegation is pursuing this
objective.
Certainly the views of industry and the full user community are essential to these
deliberations. To a very considerable degree, industry has already spoken on this
matter-spoke with its checkbooks. Investments in GPS technologies is occurring
rapidly, and to some degree, the DOD/DOT consultations are a matter of keeping
up with the private sector activity.
The Coast Guard maintains a civilian information.
Regarding the Department's contract with industiy on their needs for GPS serv-
ices, the Coast Guard and the Research and Special Programs Administration joint-
ly chair a Civil GPS Services Interface Committee. This committee has been meet-
ing at least twice a year add has attendees from other Federal agencies, industry,
and private user groups, and representatives of international interests. Department
radio-navigation experts also attend conferences and symposiums such as those of
the Institute of Navigation and the Positioning, and Navigation Symposium. The
U.S. GPS Industry CouncU, which represents manufacturers, also attends these
meetings and provides information on their needs and exchanges information with
DOT experts. DOT experts also participate on IVHS America panels where informa-
tion is exchanged on land user applications of GPS technology. The Coast Guard
also runs a GPS Information Center in Alexandria, Virginia, which includes a com-
I
34
puter bulletin board service, which keeps the industry apprised of GPS develop-
ments within the government.
In addition, the Department's operating administrations maintains regular con-
tacts with their constituencies or GPS-related issues.
The Department wUl build on established mechanisms to assure industry and
user views are fully known and considered.
MARITIME POLICY
Question. If confirmed, to what extent will you pursue maritime policy initiatives
to address the decline of the U.S.-flag fleet?
Answer. Maritime revitalization remains a major priority for the Department of
Transportation and for this Administration. As ^ou may well know, the issue is cur-
rently being addressed in the National Economic Council, which is examining alter-
native approaches and working with the Department of Defense to determine the
iinplications for national security if the current decline continues.
Within the Office of the Secretaiy in the Department, overall responsibility for the
maritime revitalization effort rests with the Assistant Secretary for International
and Aviation Affairs.
The domestic side of maritime policy focuses on infrastructure, such as ports and
the inland waterway system, and on the domestic barge industry.
The areas of tramtional interest have been financing and user charges (including
fuel taxes and the harbor maintenance trust fiind), intermodal issues, competition
issues related to barges vs. railroads vs. trucks, and domestic safety regulations.
Because of the close interrelationship between the international and coastal oper-
ations of U.S. oceangoing carriers and the strong influence of international agree-
ments, issues affecting U.S. "Tilue water" carriers such as American President Lines
and Sea-Land have been handled by the international side. Examples of such issues
are maritime reform. Federal Maritime Commission rulings, and the GATT negotia-
tions.
Senator Mathews. Thank you, Mr. Kruesi. Just a couple of other
questions here that occurred to me.
The FAA and the NTSB, as has been pointed out this afternoon,
are two very important agencies in the area of transportation safe-
ty. And botn of them at one time I beHeve were a part of the De-
partment of Transportation, although maybe NTSB started out to
be independent and remained so. In your role here as the chief pol-
icy officer for DOT, do you see a way that vou can have a positive
influence on the work of these two agencies?
Mr. Kruesi. Let me say. Senator, that I have had personal expe-
riences with both the FAA and the NTSB. The FAA because, of
course, the city of Chicago owns and operates both O'Hare and
Midway Airports, and the NTSB because I was involved very close-
ly with them about a year and a half ago on the occasion of the
investigation of a natural gas explosion that occurred in the city of
Chicago and killed four people. One of my staff people was directlv
responsible for the linkage of the NTSB and the gas company with
the city of Chicago in that case, and I must say that I have great
respect for the quality of their investigation, the thoroughness of it,
the speed of it, and the quality of their recommendations.
And so I come into this post, if I am fortunate enough to be con-
firmed, with a great deal of respect for NTSB. And let me just say
from the beginning, I think they are absolutely a first-rate organi-
zation and very thoughtful.
I also have great respect for the FAA which, again, I have
worked with and for David Hinson, whom I knew in his capacity
as the president of Midwav Airlines and I know now as the nomi-
nee for the Administrator for the FAA.
I think it is clear that when two agencies are responsible for
overlapping jurisdictions, have responsibilities that are similar and
35
yet somewhat different, there are going to be points of disagree-
ment. And the real question there is to make sure that agencies
that do interact in that way are able to work with respect and with
speed in evaluating and assessing recommendations. And when
there are points of disagreement, to make those points clear, to un-
derstand the rationale for them, and to see if there is common
ground that can be reached. There are going to be different per-
spectives, but the bottom line is that both the FAA and NTSB have
as key goals, safety and the protection of human life. And that, I
think, should make the relationship work more easily than in the
past, perhaps.
I will also say that Secretary Pena in his testimony before this
committee last January made it clear that his No. 1 priority as Sec-
retary of Transportation is safety. And one thing that I can assure
you is that his concern is my concern, and it will be the concern
of the FAA and I know is the concern of the NTSB. So, we are com-
mitted to making the relationship work, and I will plan to be work-
ing to review the recommendations, because I do not know the spe-
cifics of individual concerns of individual cases. But I do know that
both agencies are full of extremely able people committed to public
safety and to safety in the skies.
Senator Mathews. In a lot of areas now we are using tradition
as a stepping stone rather than a limitation. As we begin to look
at what transportation may look like in the future, we are talking
about a high-speed rail system for this country, we are talking
about intelligent highways. How do you view these and how do you
see us moving in the next few years? What input can you have in
paving a way for us in some of these areas?
Mr. Kruesi. Senator, there is no question that those are very ex-
citing developments in the transportation systems, as are safetv
enhancements which result in safer skies, although there are still
too many accidents, as are safety precautions on the highways, al-
though there are still far too many people that are killed every
year.
The bottom line is that transportation, to the extent it stays at
the cutting edge of technology and is able to integrate new tech-
nology into the transportation system, will result in a system that
is more effective, safer, more efficient, more cost effective, and
moves people better and enhances the economy.
I think there is no question that the Federal involvement in
these programs, in the way it was pointed in ISTEA, is extremely
important to the future of this Nation. And I will do everything I
can, if confirmed, to move those programs along. They are very im-
portant.
Senator Mathews. Thank you. Let me defer to my colleagues.
Senator Pressler.
Senator Pressler. I. would defer to Senator Hutchison.
Senator Mathews. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Just one point for the record. The NTSB
was formed from the old CAB when it was determined by Congress
that we should separate the safety function from the marketing
function for aviation.
Let me just ask you if your office would be responsible for ana-
lyzing the cost implications of instituting high-speed rail service?
36
Mr. Kruesi. It will certainly, Senator, be working closely with
the Federal Railroad Administration in that matter. So, yes, we
will be involved in that.
Senator Hutchison. Do you have a view of whether high-speed
rail is something that the Federal Grovemment should be support-
ive of, either through the issuance of or the allowance to use tax
exempt bond authority for those or through direct grants?
Mr. Kruesi. Senator, I am not sure I can tell vou today specifi-
cally the nature and the extent of that support, but I believe it is
very important that in appropriate areas the Federal Grovernment
work on and be supportive of high-speed rail development. That
clearly is the one mode of transportation that in other countries
has moved people well, efficiently, effectively, and with environ-
mental consciousness. And I think that is an important reason in
selected high-speed corridors why that needs to be looked at closely
and improvements encouraged bv the Federal Government.
Senator Hutchison. I think that as we do move in the direction
of looking at that that density should be a factor, and cost-benefit
analysis should also be a part of your consideration.
Mr. Kruesi. I absolutely agree with that. Senator.
Senator Hutchison. Do you support the prompt implementation
of random drug testing for transportation professionals, which was
enacted in 1992?
Mr. Kruesi. Senator, yes, I do. I will say this. In the city of Chi-
cago, the question of random drug testing is one that I was in-
volved in in questions relating to police, firefighters, and operators
of heavy equipment. It is a very difficult question, but the bottom
line is, when public safety is involved it is extremely important
that there be random drug testing, I believe, when that affects the
operation of equipment that can endanger the lives of people and
property.
The question of the extent of testing, the frequency of it, I think
are things that I need to look at, and I would be happy to do so,
and I intend to do so, in fact. But I have no doubt that it is very,
very important that it proceed and continue.
Senator Hutchison. I appreciate that. I am very impressed with
your qualifications for this job.
Mr. Kruesi. Thank you. Senator, I appreciate it.
Senator Hutchison. No further questions.
Senator Mathews. Senator Pressler.
Senator Pressler. As Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, what will your No. 1 priority be?
Mr. Kruesi. My No. 1 priority. Senator, will be to advise the Sec-
retary on matters relating to the advancement of transportation,
the transportation networks in this country, to try to make sure
that we are developing a system that is safer, a system that con-
nects better, and a system that is more environmentally conscious.
Senator Pressler. What is your position on the essential air
service program?
Mr. Kruesi. I strongly support essential air service. The Sec-
retary has indicated his strong support of it as well. I grew up in
a small town that actually had no certificated carriers, and I un-
derstand full well the difficulties that imposes on people who need
to travel.
37
Senator Pressler. Do you think the Federal Government is
meeting its safety responsibihties in transportation poHcy to the
American public, to the traveling public?
Mr. Kruesi. I think, Senator, that overall the transportation sys-
tem in this country, and particularly air transportation, is clearly
the safest in the world. There is no question that there is room for
improvement, but there is no question that someone who travels a
great deal by plane particularly has every reason when getting on
that plane to feel safe — that things are under control with respect
to the mechanical condition of that plane and the skilled pilots and
others who are involved in operating it, as well as in the air traffic
svstem. And, therefore, we are as travelers very much relying on
the functioning of Government and of industry to have done a good
job.
I think overall the Government has done a good job. There clear-
ly have been problems, and I look forward to working to try to im-
prove those. But the record has been very good in this country, I
think, and has gotten better. There is always room for improve-
ment.
Senator Pressler. What is your position on random testing for
drugs and alcohol on persons who operate trains and so forth?
Mr. Kruesi. Well, as I say. Senator, I very much believe in ran-
dom drug testing. The specifics of what that program should be like
is an open question, but I certainly very much support that.
Senator Pressler. Is the safety level also the highest in the
world regarding private aircraft?
Mr. Kruesi. The safety level for noncommercial general aviation
is clearly not as high as it is for commercial.
Is it the best in the world?
My understanding is it is.
Can that be improved?
Yes, it absolutely can be improved.
Senator Pressler. How can we improve it?
Mr. Kruesi. I think one example of that is the kinds of concerns
that you have expressed. Senator, how do we make sure that safety
concerns identified by NTSB and others that are brought to the at-
tention of the FAA are reviewed carefully, thoroughly, quickly, and,
when necessary, acted upon? And I certainly look forward to seeing
how that can be continually improved. There is always room for im-
provement.
Senator Pressler. Thank you very much. I think you are a very
forthcoming witness, and I feel you have a good judgment of the
issues. I thank you very much.
Mr. Kruesi. Thank you very much. Senator. I appreciate it.
Senator Mathews. Are there any further questions?
[No response.]
Senator Mathews. Thank you, Mr. Kruesi.
Mr. Kruesi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mathews. If I could take a moment, we have a congress-
woman from the State of Tennessee, from Mr. Hall's hometown in
Chattanooga, TN, who would like to address the committee very
briefly on Mr. Hall's behalf.
Congresswoman Lloyd, we are ready, if you would come around.
38
I think the committee will know Congress woman Lloyd. She is
from the 3rd District, I believe it is, in the State of Tennessee, and
a member of Congress for a number of years. She makes a great
contribution. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARILYN LLOYD, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM TENNESSEE
Ms. Lloyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask permission that my statement be included in the record.
I am here to support the nomination of James Evan Hall to the
National Transportation Safety Board. I think he has the experi-
ence as executive to the Governor of Tennessee and through his
leadership in the cabinet, as well as being chief of staff for Senator
Harlan Mathews. I think he has very unique qualifications. He is
a native of Chattanooga, TN. I have known him about 25 or 30
years. I have worked with him through the years. He is a man of
character, intelligence, and professionalism, which I think will be
an asset to the NTSB.
I think he will bring an aggressive attitude to the Board, with
a true interest in public service. I think that Jim's career in public
service has given him a combination of administrative as well as
legislative experiences on both the State and national level. He will
do well in his service, and I highly recommend him. I know that
he will serve his covmtry well.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lloyd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Lloyd
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. James Evan Hall's nomination to be a
member of the National Transportation Safety Board. Mr. Hall's experience on the
Governor of Tennessee's cabinet and as Chief of Staff for Senator Harlan Mathews
makes him uniquely qualified for a position on the Board.
Jim is a native of Chattanooga, TN, and a long time personal friend. I have
worked with him extensively over the past several years and believe his character,
intelligence, and professionalism will be an asset to the NTSB. He will bring a fresh
agcressive attituoe to the Board with a true interest in pubUc safety.
Jim's career in public service has given him a combination of administrative and
legislative experience on both State and National levels. As Executive Assistant to
the Governor, he demonstrated his commitment to public safety in his work on the
Drug Free Youth Act of 1989: a statute which joins the sanction of drivers license
suspension for drug and alcohol offenses by juveniles with rehabilitation and edu-
cation programs.
At a federal level Jim has worked as Counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee
on Intergovernmental Relations and on the staff of Senator Al Gore. Most recently
he has served as Chief of Staff and Transition Manager for U.S. Senator Harlan
Mathews. As a memJber of the Governor's cabinet Jim had responsibilities for direct-
ing tiie Governor's Alliance for a Drug Free Tennessee, the Solid Waste Manage-
ment Act of 1991, and negotiating oversi^t and cleanup agreements with the De-
partment of Energy for the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Nuclear Weapons Complex.
Jim holds a degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law and prior to
his public career, maintained a private legal practice in Chattanooga.
I confidently recommend Jim Hall both professionally and personally and encour-
age the committee to approve his nomination without delay.
Senator Mathews. Thank you, Congresswoman Lloyd.
I believe we have one additional nominee, and that is Ms. Louise
Frankel Stoll.
She is the President's nominee for Assistant Secretary for Budget
and Programs, Department of Transportation. Ms. Stoll, if you
would tsJce the table, we are prepared for you to make your open-
ing statement.
39
STATEMENT OF LOUISE FRANKEL STOLL, NOMINEE FOR AS-
SISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS, DE-
PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Stoll. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Senators Pressler and Hutchison, thank you very
much for the opportunity to appear before the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee today, and for working my
confirmation hearing into this very busy week for Congress.
I would like at this time to introduce three members of my fam-
ily who are here today, my husband. Marc Monheimer, and my two
daughters, Miriam Stoll and Malaika Stoll. They are today rep-
resenting our entire family, which is scattered around the United
States. We have three other young adult offspring on the west
coast.
I am moved and honored to have been nominated by the Presi-
dent for the position of Assistant Secretary for Budget and Pro-
grams at the Department of Transportation. It is an understate-
ment to say that the position is challenging. My role, as you know,
would be to advise the Secretary on the allocation of resources, to
prepare the Department's annual budget request and carry it
through the Office of Management and Budget, and defend it be-
fore the Congress. And then, to evaluate the program activities of
the Department of Transportation. That these functions can be
stated succinctly belies the complexity of the tasks.
For the Department of Transportation, performing these func-
tions requires an understanding of the purpose, programs, and
structure of a number of large and complex administrative and
operational units, including the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Admin-
istration, the Federal Transit Administration, the U.S. Coast
Guard, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Research and
Special Programs Administration, as well as the Office of the Sec-
retary. It requires extensive interaction with hundreds of people
both inside and outside of the Government.
Each of these organizations and offices has a mission, goals and
objectives, policies and plans, and a host of regulations containing
the cans, the cannots and the must dos of its industry or discipline.
It is through the vehicle of the budget, the plan and controlling
mechanism for resource allocation, and through the budget process,
a series of negotiations and compromises, that the goals and poli-
cies of the Department are translated into programs, and given the
definition that enables them to be prioritized and implemented.
Later, it is through the program evaluation side of this function
that the effectiveness of these programs is reviewed and a correc-
tive course for the next round of budgeting determined.
Because the Assistant Secretary may be dealing with the proc-
esses of three fiscal ye^rs simultaneously, the field of action can
grow immensely complicated and relationships become cranky.
Budget meetings are rarely places where people smile. Keeping
budget business productive sometimes seems to call for the at-
tributes of scholar, psychologist, poker player, judge, boxer, weight
lifter, standup comic, £ind marathon runner, all rolled into one.
40
If confirmed, I would come to the position of Assistant Secretary
for Budget and Programs at the Department of Transportation
aware of the challenges, proud to serve and enthusiastic to be^n
the work at hand. I am in harmony with the goals of this adminis-
tration for our country and with Secretary Pena for the Depart-
ment of Transportation.
I believe the Department has a critical role to play in promoting
the economic growth and well being of our Nation. I believe that
transportation is the engine of economic growth and that the safe
and efficient movement of people and products is key to the quality
of life for all of us.
Over the next years, we need to invest in the maintenance and
selective expansion of our transportation infrastructure; in trans-
portation technology, so we leave for our children an effective and
environmentally sound transportation system for the 21st century;
in operational improvements and intermodal projects which extend
the use of our current transportation infrastructure and address
the varied needs of our population from safe bicycle paths to smart
highways; from light rail transit systems to high-speed rail cor-
ridors; from efficient management of locks along the St. Lawrence
Seaway to safety and rescue operations on our waterways; from
safe aircraft to safe commercial space launches.
To this position I bring a formal educational background in pub-
lic policy and finance; a professional life that includes senior man-
agement positions in both the public and private sectors, in trans-
portation budgeting at the city and county level, and in construc-
tion management of large infrastructure projects, including trans-
portation projects, and the experience gained from holding local
elected office.
I pledge my commitment to extensive and collegial consultation
with you and your staiffs, to fair and courteous deliberations in bal-
ancing competing interests and needs, to open and welcome inclu-
sion of both the career staff, who carry the institutional knowledge
of our Department, and the Presidential appointees, who carry the
philosophical and policy thrusts of this administration. In times in
which we must address deficit reduction, the budget decisions we
face are tough indeed. I will be seeking your counsel and the help
of this committee and of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for
the courtesy you have shown me by offering me the opportunity to
address you today.
I would be pleased to answer questions.
[The biographical data and prehearing questions and answers of
Ms. Stoll follow:]
Biographical Data
Name: Stoll, Louise Frankel; address: 73 Plaza Drive; business address: O'Brien-
Kreitzberg, 188 the Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Position to which nominated: Assistant Secretaiy for Budget and Programs.
Date of birth: June 6, 1939; place of birth: New York City.
Marital status: Married; full name of spouse: Marc H. Monheimer; names and
ages of children: Miriam Stoll, 32; Malaika Stoll, 25; and Abraham Stoll. names of
stepchildren: Paul Monheimer, 36; and Ellen Monheimer, 35.
Education: University of Cahfomia, Berkeley, 1962-63 and 7/75-1/79, Ph.D.; and
University of Chicago, 1/57-6/61, MA and BA.
41
Employment: 3/85-Present, CBrien-Kreitzberg and Associates, Inc., Senior VP
and No. Cal. Reg. Manager; 8/80-3/85, City & County of San Francisco, Public Utili-
ties Commission, Budget Director; 11/7-81/80, City & County of San Francisco,
Clean Water Program (Greely Hanson), Manager, Govt Affairs; 5/71-6/78, Beriieley
Unified School District, Elected School Board Member, 1977-78, University of Cali-
fornia, Part-time Research Assistant; and 1962, McComb Community College, Part-
time English Instructor.
GJovemment experience: Budget Director, San Francisco PubUc Utilities Commis-
sion; Manager, Government Affairs, San Francisco Clean Water Program; and Di-
rector, Berkeley Unified School District (elected oflicial).
Political affiliations: I am a life-long Democrat and was an alternate delegate from
California to the 1972 Democratic National Convention. Throughout mv adult life
I have made modest contributions to democratic candidates for the California State
Legislature and governorship, U.S. Congress, U.S. Senate, and the Presidency. Dur-
ing the November 1992 election campaign, I served on the Northern California Jew-
ish Community's Steering Committee to Elect President Clinton, which organized a
voter registration campaign, placed advertisements in the press, and organized
fundraising events. In 1988, I chaired the Conunittee to Defeat Measure J, an anti-
Israel measure in Berkeley, which had been placed on the ballot through the initia-
tive process.
1982 Metzenbaum for Senate $40
1983 National Democratic Committee 200
1984 Local candidates for non-partisan ofiices 300
Women's Campaign Fund 200
1985 W.H. Shorenstein Dinner (DNC) 150
Local candidates for non-partisan offices 50
1986 Local candidates for non-partisan offices 350
1987 Art Agnos for Mavor 100
Local candidates for non-partisan offices 100
1988 Dukakis for President 200
Local candidates for non-partisan ofTices 250
McCarthy for Senator 50
Dukakis Campaign 500
DNC Fed. Account 500
Tom Bates for Assembly 50
1989 Local candidates for non-partisan offices 150
1990 Democratic Agenda for the 90's 500
Friends of Tom Bates 180
Kopp for Senate Committee 25
East Bay Demo Voter Project 250
Local candidates for non-partisan office 350
1991 Mel Levine for Senate 1,000
Friends of Loni Hancock 100
Emily's List 200
1992 Clinton/Gore Campaign 500
East Bay Jewish Community Committee for Clinton/Gore 250
Boxer for Senate 250
Feinstein for Senate 250
1993 Kathleen Brown for Governor 500
Committee to Re-elect Senator Edward Kennedy 500
Friends of Barbara Boxer 100
Memberships: Director, Berkeley Unified School District, 1971-78 (elected at
laT^e); Board Member, Hillel Foundation, University of California, 1991 (non-profit);
Board Member, Jewish Federation of the Greater East Bay, 1989-92 (non-profit);
Member, National Legal Affairs and Middle East Committees; Anti-Defamation
League of the B'nai B'rith (non-profit); Member, Central Pacific Region Board, Anti-
Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith (resignation pending confirmation); Member,
Western Region Board, American-Israel Public Affairs Committee; and (AIPAC),
1991-July 1, 1993 (resignation pending confirmation).
Honors and awards: Graduated with Academic Honors from the University of Chi-
cago, 1960. Held CJeneral Motors and University scholarships for full costs of tuition,
room and board, and books.
Woodrow Wilson Fellow in Philosophy, University of Chicago, 1961.
Mayor's Fiscal Advisory Award for streamlining and revitalizing the $500 million
Public Utilities Commission budget processes for the City and County of San Fran-
cisco, 1984.
42
Public writings: "Communicating During Negotiations and Strikes, The Board
Members' Role, a coauthored chapter in the Public School Employer and Collective
Bargaining, Terhayden and Schapiro, 1977; Op-Ed pieces: Northern California Jew-
ish Bulletm, July 1989, March 1990; Portland-Oregonian, June 1991; National Jew-
ish Post and Opinion, April 1992 (These related to then current issues in the
press — West Bank settlements, loan guarantees for Israel, role of the PLO in the
peace process, etc.); and Guest Editorials in the Berkeley Gazette (now defunct
newspaper) during my terms as school board member (These dealt with many as-
pects ofeducational policy over which the School Board had jurisdiction).
Questions Asked by the Committee and Answers Thereto by Ms. Stoll
general qualifications/responsibilmes
Question. You have been nominated to be the Secretary of Transportation's key
advisor on budgetary issues. What experiences have you had that you believe qual-
ify you for this position?
Axiswer. I believe I am well quaUfled academically and as a consequence of my
professional and civic management experience for this position.
My undergraduate studies in philosophy at the University of Chicago disciplined
me to read precisely and think critically; my PhD from the University of Cali/omia,
Berkeley, grounded me formally in pubuc policy, finance and management.
As a local-elected official for nearly 8 years (Berkeley, California, School Board),
I developed and oversaw the implementation of policy for all aspects of an urban
school district. I developed a pragmatic approach to change and learned resp>ect for
and patience with the public process; the arts of listening, building coalitions,
chainng public meetings, and lobbying for funds at the state and federal levels.
My public sector management responsibilities for the City and County of San
Francisco required me to work with over 50 government agencies, including the Fed-
eral Transit and Highway Administrations, other departments within the Depart-
ment of Transportation and related federal agencies. Serving as Director of the San
Francisco PUC's $500 million budget, which includes the San Francisco Municipal
Railway, placed me squarely in the budget, finance and policy arenas of transpor-
tation, in which I acquired a high degree of knowledge and competency.
furtf
company
f)loyee nationwide construction management ftrm which specializes in managing
arge public works projects. As Vice President and Senior Vice President in the firm,
located in our San Francisco headquarters, I first managed corporate business de-
velopment for the entire company, and more recently managed the second largest
of tne company's five regions, encompassing northern California, Oregon, and the
Chicago and Midwest areas.
In tne course of this work, I have been involved with many of the largest trans-
portation projects and districts in the United States, including rail, hignway and
airport projects; managed a staff of 150 people; and had a major role in the growth
of the firm from annual revenue of $22 million to $80 million (my region's annual
revenue was $20 million last year).
I am a member of the Corporate Senior Managers Operating Committee and, as
Regional Manager, I am accountable for all aspects of management: operation and
quality control of all construction projects; profit and loss; p>ersonnel and business
development. From my private sector experience, in addition to developing substan-
tial working knowledge of the planning, funding, construction, and operation of
transit projects, I have honed tne skills of efficient management, prioritizing re-
source allocations, and nurturing the partnership between the public and private
sectors of our economic universe.
In summary, my academic and much of my professional life is on target from the
perspective of the budget, public policy and transportation experience requisite for
the position of Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs for the Department of
Transportation. In addition, as a conseouence of the elected office I held and both
my public and private sector professional experience, I have acquired solid negotiat-
ing and management skills which have been recognized and acknowledged by my
employers. Managing complex budget processes in support of public policy deci-
sions— and doing it with efhciency, accuracy, grace, and humor is my business. Car-
rying out these responsibilities in transportation, and at the highest level of govern-
ment and public service, would be my privilege.
Question. If confirmed, what do you hope to accomplish as Assistant secretary?
What will be your highest goals and priorities?
43
Answer. My highest priorities will be to serve the F*resident and the secretary,
ensuring that the Administration's initiatives are supported in the budget and de-
fended through the appropriations process.
More specifically, my goal is to ensure that the budget process supports the Sec-
retary's efforts to reallocate resources in recognition of transportation s role in pro-
moting economic growth. This includes support of research and technology develop-
ment, environmental concerns and also infrastructure investment needea to mfiin-
tain our transportation system and move it into the next century.
Question. Under the President's economic plan, how do you see the funding prior-
ities of the Department of Transportation changing?
Answer. The Administration is going through a challenging process of planning
the FY 1995 and future budgets within the constraints of the Congressional budget
resolution. Tough choices wiU be made.
The Department of Transportation is going throu^ a process of reassessing prior-
ities. The Secretary has asked the Administrators to review their programs with an
eye toward eliminating what DOT no longer needs to do and cutting back and
changing work practices in areas where we can operate more efficiently.
We can generally categorize this rethinking in the following ways:
• Eliminating or reducing low priority programs and facilities
• Doing business more efiiciently
• Eliminating or reducing programs where objectives can be achieved through
other means
• Belt-tightening
• Expanding User Fees
Areas of increase wiU reflect the role transportation plays in economic growth.
Therefore, I think you will also see the Department providing greater emphasis on
research and technology development, infrastructure investment — especially transit
and passenger rail, and the environmental linkages with transportation.
Question. If Federal funds for transportation safety and development programs
under DOT's jurisdiction are reduced in the coming years, what alternatives would
you advocate to ensure the continuation of adequate program levels?
Answer. First of all, safety and research and development programs are central
priorities for the Department and, hence, would be key areas to protect in the face
of budget reductions.
The alternative approach would be for the Department to rethink how it currently
does business. This might focus on reducing or eliminating low priority programs
and facilities, doing business more efficiently, and reducing DOT programs where
objectives can be achieved through other means.
Question. What role do you believe the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Pro-
grams should play in reviewing and modifying regulatory and legislative initiatives
proposed by the modal administrations within DOT?
Answer. First of all, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Pro-
grams must ensure that legislative and regulatory proposals support the budget and
policy positions of the Department.
While the Secretary is concerned primarily about the extent of sequential review
within the Department, there is a role for Budget £ind Programs to review regula-
tions with an eye toward the soundness of economic analysis behind the rule and
the efficiency of the proposed rule.
With regard to legislation, the Programs Office coordinates the development of
legislative initiatives within DOT. The Office plays an honest broker role, making
sure that proposals are fully vetted within the Department and that policy issues
are raised to the appropriate level for resolution. The Assistant Secretary works
with the General Counsel to help achieve 0MB clearance on proposed departmental
legislation initiatives.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
Question. Graham Claytor, President of Amtrak, has suggested that one cent of
the Federal fuel tax should be earmarked for a rail passenger service trust fund to
support additional high-speed rail initiatives. What is your view of this proposal?
Answer. This issue deserves policy discussion and carefiil consideration before
policy decisions are made.
In assessing this proposal, we must weigh the investment needs against the issue
of who pays and who benefits.
I recognize that the 600+ freight railroads contribute a large share of the current
Federal fuel taxes paid by all railroads. While the freight railroads that carry Am-
trak service would likely derive some economic benefit from incremental improve-
44
ments for high-speed service, it is not clear that these benefits would justify use of
frei^t railroad revenues to support a trust fund for high-speed rail improvements.
Similarly, it would be a challenge to convince highway users that a portion of the
revenue they pay should support raU.
This proposal would need very careful review before a decision were made on
whether all motor fiiel tax payers should support the development of high-speed
rail.
raCHWAY/RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS
Question. Both the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Railroad
Administration have important roles in administering the policies intended to im-
prove railroad/highway grade-crossing safety. Do you see any inter-agency coordina-
tion issues in this area which may have impeded effective federal action in the past?
If confirmed, are there budgetary and other program initiatives that you wiU under-
take in this area?
Answer. Most of the funds available to handle this issue are administered by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rather than the Federal RaUroad Admin-
istration (FRA). Under ISTEA, in FY 1993 approximately $262M of Surface Trans-
portation Program funds are available to States to eliminate or improve grade cross-
ings on any public roads, not just Federal-Aid Hirfiways.
In addition, other Federal-Aid Highways funds may be spent on public crossing
improvements or eliminations in conjunction with highway construction projects. In
FY 1991, this contributed an additional $63M to crossing safety efforts.
While problems of coordination were cited several years ago, cooperation has in-
creased in recent years, and appears to be continuing.
For example:
• Although the Rail/Highway Crossing Program is administered by the FHWA,
the FRA has a major role to play in the process. The selection of crossing improve-
ment projects is based on crossing inventory data developed by FRA.
• The Associate Administrators for Safety of both FHWA and FRA meet monthly
along with their staffs to coordinate efforts to improve safety conditions at grade
crossings. Topics such as the Florida whistle ban (some communities there forbid
the use of warning whistles as trains approach crossings). Operation Lifesaver (the
public awareness campaim), and new technologies are discuased.
• In July, FRA and FHWA sent a joint memo to their fiek^ offices regarding new
rules about stop signs at crossings.
In addition to the meetings mentioned above, numerous meetings have also been
held to coordinate the grade crossing aspects of the Highspeed Rail Corridor Pro-
gram in Section 1010 oHSTEA. Approximately $5M annually is devoted to eliminat-
ing grade crossings in corridors selected for high-speed passenger rail service. Also
under this section, FHWA provides $300,000 annually for Operation Lifesaver (as
a drawdown from Federal-Aid Highways), with FRA providing $100-150,000 annu-
ally.
The two agencies are also cooperating on the Northeast Corridor Improvement
Project (NECIP) a Under NECIP, Federal -Aid Highway funds may be used to elimi-
nate public crossings, and FRA funds may be used to eliminate private crossings.
This approach would be copied under the Department's High-Speed Ground Trans-
portation initiative, pending in Congress.
One other new initiative is found within FRA's FY 1994 budget submission to
Congress: a request for eirfit Highway-Rail Crossing Specialists. One specialist
would be placed in each FRA region to promote and facilitate corridor improvement
programs, keep the railroads and relevant highway authorities focused on crossing
problems, and serve as liaisons for Operation Lifesaver.
If confirmed, I would continue to support the efforts that are already underway
in this area, but would also be open to considering other approaches that look prom-
ising.
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE HIGHWAY SYSTEMS (IVHS)
Question. Federal commitment to investment in Intelligent Vehicle Highway Sys-
tems (IVHS) programs has grown rapidly over the past three years. What is your
view of DOT'S administration of this program? If confirmed, what initiatives will
you undertake in this area as the IVHS program moves further into the deployment
stage?
Answer. DOTs IVHS activities relate to the responsibilities of FHWA, FTA, and
NHTSA. As such, each agency is responsible for those parts of the Department's
IVHS program that reflect its statutory responsibilities.
45
To ensure close cooperation, DOT has formed an IVHS Coordinating Group, which
consists of senior officials from the operating administrations and the Office of the
Secretary. This group makes the major policy decisions and oversees the general di-
rection of the rVHS program. There is also a lower-level IVHS Working Group that
coordinates program budgeting and planning, explores major IVHS program issues,
analyzes policy options, and makes recommendations to the Coordinating Group.
rVHS is also subject to the Transportation System Acquisition Review Council
(TSARC) process which provides oversight of the procurement aspects.
DOT works closely with IVHS America, a federal advisory committee made up of
private sector, public sector and academic oi^anizations and individuals interested
in rVHS. DOT used input from IVHS America to develop its Strategic Plan (sent
to Congress in December 1992) and its more detailed program plan currently under
development.
I understand that a review of IVHS management is in process, managed by the
Volpe Center, and I will review the findings oi the study.
There is, as you can see, an extensive oversight and management structure, but,
if confirmed, I plan to review that structure carefully to be sure DOTs IVHS activi-
ties are being managed as efficiently and effectively as possible. I will support the
major IVHS initiatives outlined in the President's "Rebuild America" proposal. Some
of the important areas address commercial vehicles, the automated highway system,
and converting defense technologies to civilian use. I will support appropriate fund-
ing as the program develops.
MARITIME POLICY
Question. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, to what
extent wiU you be involved in formulating maritime policy initiatives to address the
decline in the U.S. -flag fleet?
Answer. The Administration has already gone through a process, coordinated by
the National Economic Council to formulate options to address revitalization of the
maritime industry.
The maritime policy issue is pending with the President for his decision. Assum-
ing a poUcy decision is made, my job will be to work with Departmental and Admin-
istration officials to develop appropriate funding proposals and to ensure that future
DOT budgets implement that decision.
AVIATION
Question. Some people argue that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
with its need to modernize the air traffic control system, does not have sufficient
resources available to eiccomplish that goal. Do you believe that the FAA does not
have sufficient resources to modernize the system? Does the Federal budget process
properly provide funding for FAA's operations and capital programs?
Ajiswer. For FY 1994, the President's budget proposed a funding level of $9.2 bil-
lion for the FAA. This included $2.5 billion to support FAA's continuing efforts to
modernize and improve air traffic control and the supporting airway facilities. (The
annual funding for Facilities & Equipment has more than tripled in the past 10
years: FY 1984 enacted $750 million; FY 1994 President's Budget request at $2,524
billion. Funding for FAA Operations has increased by 77 percent: $2,587 billion in
FY 1984 to $4,576 biUion in the FY 1994 President's Budget.)
These funds support a comprehensive investment plan to provide new facilities
with modem equipment and enhanced controller automation which will ensure that
the system is capable of handling the volume of air traffic predicted for the 1990*8
and beyond.
These investments will increase safety and productivity and will reduce FAA's
costs. Most importantly, these investments will result in savings to the airlines.
Our goal is to find room for such investments in the budget while at the same
time ensuring that FAA's operational needs will not be slighted by the budget proc-
ess. Even under the so-called discretionary 'Tiard-freeze', FAA's critical operational
and investment needs would be taet even if it meant making some tough choices
elsewhere in the operations area.
We must formulate a budget that meets the overall caps established by Congress
and the President, but we also must put the safe and efncient operation of the na-
tion's aviation system foremost. These goals are both achievable.
At the same time we need to find ways to meet our operational needs more effi-
ciently and at less cost.
Senator Mathews. Thank you, Ms. Stoll.
Let me start with our colleagues on this round.
46
Senator Pressler.
Senator Pressler. I thank you very much.
I think we have a very well-quahfied nominee here. I would just
ask you, what priorities will you set for yourself in your new job?
Ms. Stoll. My first priority is, of course, to serve as advisor on
the allocation oi fiscal resources to both the Secretary and to the
President, to the administration. More specifically, I am committed
to ensuring that the priorities which the Department of Transpor-
tation ana the administration wish to move forward are crafted
and developed in as intelligent and rational a way as possibly.
Senator Pressler. Thank you very much.
That is my only question.
Senator Mathews. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
I do believe that you are eminently qualified for this position. I
do not want to ask you policy decisions, really, because I think you
are going to be more of the person that implements the policy by
finding tne money and making sure that it is spent well. I just
wanted to say that you do have such good private sector experi-
ence, and I found that when I became State treasurer, my private
sector experience allowed me to cut my budget 10 percent across
the board and give money back at the end of the fiscal year.
I just wondered if you felt that because you have had this experi-
ence, plus the public sector as well, if it is in your goals to be look-
ing for ways to maybe be more efficient and look at our Govern-
ment. And, obviously, the transportation budget is one of the larg-
est in all of the Federal Grovernment, but would you see in your
role the ability, perhaps, to create efficiencies that might — we will
not earn $20 million as you did in your own division in your com-
pany, but perhaps you could look for savings and make some sug-
gestions within the Department and even to the Senate about ways
that we could become more efficient?
Ms. Stoll. Senator, it is a subject close to my heart. We will,
first of all, be confronting the need for enormous reallocation inter-
nally. If we are going to participate in the major effort of deficit
reduction and if we are looking forward to only level dollars to
spend over the next years, and if we want to do the things that we
are committed to doing, which is advancing our technology, main-
taining and improving our infrastructure, moving us forward from
the point of view of the economy and toward the 21st century, then
we are clearly going to have to make tough choices.
Among the cnoices that I hope I can assist our Department to
move and lead our Department toward figuring out how to elimi-
nate low-priority projects or activities that are now going on in
order to move resources toward the new activities and figuring out
how to do business more efficiently. You are right, coming from the
private sector, where you are confronted with a bottom line and
profit-and-loss goals atl the time, and where you stand or rise on
your ability to make a profit and work efficiently, such choices are
second nature. This is what you sleep with at night and what you
bring to work in the morning.
We are obviously looking to see how we can achieve the same
kinds of end results in the projects that we want to continue with,
and meet our goals but in a more efficient way. There are ways of
47
doing this. There are techniques of doing this which I bring from
the private sector, and also from my pubHc sector experience.
Years ago, I was the budget director of the San Francisco Munici-
pal Railway. At that time, we were confronted with similar budget
difficulties, and we were able, through the use of attrition, to re-
duce our staff and continue our high level of service, still serving
the people well. I will be looking at all of these things, and I bring
the experience and background to be able to do it.
Senator Hutchison. I think you certainly do, and I am very
pleased to see the qualifications that you have for this very, very
tough job. I think you stated all the things that this job is very
weU, and I thought to myself you have had a few jobs that required
all of those skills already. So, I wish you well.
Ms. Stoll. Thank you.
Senator Mathews. Senator Pressler.
Senator Pressler. No further questions.
Senator Mathews. I have just one concluding question for the
nominee. Vice President Gore is going through an examination of
Government, the National Performance Review, looking at
reinventing Government. If that is going to work, it appears to me
that we have got to do that in each Department, also. Each one of
us who is responsible for an area, such as yours in transportation,
we are going to have to do the same thing.
You have alluded to some things that you hope to do. Do you see
yourself as having a responsibility to follow through on some of
these things?
Ms. Stoll. Yes, I do.
There is already a committee functioning and hard at work in
the Department of Transportation reviewing all of our activities
from the point of view of eliminating duplication of effort and in-
creasing efficiency in meeting our go£ils and objectives.
I will be taking part in that review and bringing to bear, I hope,
judgment that can assist in carrying to implementation good ideas.
Senator Mathews. Are there any other questions?
[No response.]
Senator Mathews. We thank you for coming this afternoon.
Ms. Stoll. Thank you very much.
Senator Mathews, If there is no further business to come before
the committee, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Prepared Statement of Senator Feinsttein
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am very pleased to introduce
Louise Stoll to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Budget and Programs.
Ms. Stoll is Senior Vice President and regional Manager for a 600-person national
construction and management engineering firm whose revenues total approximately
$70 million a year. I am veiy familiar with this firm, O'Brien-Kreitzberg, because
they managed the rehabilitation of the San Francisco Cable Car System while I was
Mayor. They delivered the project on time and on budget. She ably managed one
of ihe company's largest regions, overseeing their administration and business de-
velopment.
Before joining OTirien-Kreitzbei^ seven years ago, Ms. Stoll served as Budget Di-
rector for the San Francisco FHiblic Utilities Commission. Her excellent skills in fi-
nancial management and public policy are well known and admired. With the PUC,
she managed a budget of $500 million a year for operations and capital improve-
ment.
In summary, Louise Stoll wUl be an outstanding asset to the new administration
and the Department of Transportation. She will provide the expertise and leader-
ship in the finance and transportation areas for which she was nominated. I strong-
ly endorse her nomination. Thank you.
Questions Asked by Senator Pressler and Answers Thereto by Mr. Hall
Responses of James E. Hall to questions submitted by Senator Larry Pressler
Question. In your view, should legislation be enacted to mandate DOTs modal
transportation agencies to respond to NTSB recommendations?
Answer. The Independent Safety Board Act requires the Secretary' of Transpor-
tation to respond to each Safety Board recommendation formally and in writing not
later than ninety days after receiving the recommendation.
Question. As a member of the NTSB, how will you work to promote the enforce-
ment of federal regulations affecting transportation safety? If so, how?
Answer. When the enforcement, or lack thereof, of federal transportation safety
regulations is an issue in an accident under investigation by the NTSB, I would that
issue bring the forefront of deliberations. Transportation safety regulations, which
often take years to finalize, must be enforced and the failure to comply with safety
regulations must be penalized. While not having regulatory or enforcement powers,
the NTSB through its investigations, studies and recommendations, can draw atten-
tion to the effectiveness of safety regulations.
Question. During your confirmation hearing, I asked you to review the DOTs pro-
posed rule on random alcohol testing. Please let me know your views on the pro-
posed rule. What, if any, changes would you recommend.
Answer. I have requested the DOT to provide me with a copy of the rules and
companion notices on the proposed rulemaking and plan to review them as soon as
received. However, I did contact the NTSB afiaut its position on the rules and am
•attaching a copy of the comments submitted to the DOT in April of this year. If con-
firmed, I will work with the other Safety Board members to gain acceptance at the
DOT of the improvements being sought in the proposed rules.
Question. In addition to the UOTs proposed rule, please review the DOTs overall
policies on drug testing. Please let me know whether you are satisfied by these poli-
cies— please include anv specific policies you would like the NTSB to review ftirtner.
Answer. The NTSB has investigated countless accidents in which public safety
was jeopardized by drug and/or alcohol use or abuse and the NTSB has taken a lead
role on this issue. The specific changes in the DOT proposed drug testing rules,
which are described in the attached letter, appear reasonable to me and they should
(49)
50
be implemented. My personal opinion, as 1 mentioned earlier, is that Safety Board
recommendations in this area should be accepted and implemented.
Question. During your nomination hearing, you were commended for your work
in developing Tennessee's comprehensive anti-drug effort. Such an agenda is very
commendable. I was very interested to hear about your state's program that in-
cluded the suspension of driving privileges. As a member of the NTSB, would you
support encoura^ng all states to enact smiilar anti-drug programs.
Aiiswer. Yes. Tennessee's program has been very successful and I plan on advo-
cating the adoption of similar administrative license revocation laws throughout the
country.
PIPEUNE SAFETY
Question. Would you please review the NTSB's actions, if any, in regard to the
Midwestern flooding. Has damage or disruption to pipelines in the Midwest resulted
from the flooding? fi" so, what actions are tne NTSB taking to alleviate damages and
unsafe conditions?
I contacted the NTSB and learned that the National Response Center has notified
the Safety Board about a couple of accidents due to the flooding. The flooding condi-
tions, however, prevent the initiation of any investigations at this time. I am further
informed that the Research and Special Programs Administration will shortly issue
an advisory to owners and operators of hazardous licpid and natural gas pipeline
facilities concerning the floocung and suggesting the implementation of safety pre-
cautions.
RAILROAD
Question. Would you review the NTSB's findings and position on railroad lifting
systems and let me know if you ap^e with that position?
Answer. A cursory review by NTSB staff failed to discover any findings or posi-
tions on railroad lighting systems.
Question. What are your views and suggestions, if anv, for improving rail safety
mechanisms, such as improved lighting systems and other safety designs for rail-
road traffic?
Answer. Improvements in warning devices at grade crossings and campaigns
aimed at education drivers about the risks posed by grade-crossings are just two of
the ways the existing system can be improved.
Question. What, if any, are your plans to effect railroad safety?
Answer. My initial efforts will concentrate on improving the acceptance rate of
NTSB railroad safety recommendations. Over the past ten years, the Federal Rail-
road Administration has accepted roughly seventy-one percent of the safety rec-
ommendations issued by the NTSB and I think that rate can be improved.
Question. Do you believe the federal government needs to make an investment to
improve our nation's rail infrastructure, particularly in rural areas? In your view,
do you think such an investment will inaprove raU safety?
Answer. Coming from a rural state, 1 do believe that investments in our rail in-
frastructure are needed and, that these investments cannot help but lead to rail
safety improvements.
letter from carl w. voctt, chairman, national transportation safety board
April 14, 1993.
Department of Transportation,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington. DC 20590
Dear Sir: The National Transportation Safety Board had reviewed the Depart-
ment of Transportation's (DOT) proposed rules "Limitation on Alcohol use bv Trans-
portation Workers" and "Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug ana Alcohol
Testing programs. Similarly, we have reviewed the following compamon notices of
proposed^ rulemaking: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), "Alcohol Misuse Pre-
vention Program for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities"; Federal
Highway AcEninistration (FHWA) "Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Com-
mercial Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program; Controlled Substances and Alco-
hol Use and Testing; Commercial Driver's License Standards; Driving of Motor Ve-
hicles; Hours of Service of Drivers"; Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), "Alco-
hol Testing; Amendments to Alcohol/Drug Regulations"; Federal Transit Administra-
tion (FTA), "Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in Transit Operations"; Research and Spe-
cial Programs Administration (RSPA), "Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program"; and.
51
United States Coast Guard (USCG), "Chemical Drug and Alcohol Testing of Com-
mercial Vessel Personnel; Collection of Drug and Alcohol Testing Information." The
National Transportation Safety Board offers the following comments on the pro-
posed rules and companion notices of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Transportation requested comments on less costly alternatives
to the current random drug testing programs for aviation, motor carrier, rail, mass
transit, pipeline and maritime industries. The Safety Board believes the testing rate
should be set at the lowest rate that will provide deterrence. Any change in the cur-
rent testing rate should be based on credible, peer-reviewed research in the trans-
portation industry or in comparable workplace settings. Pending evaluation of such
research, we believe the current random testing rate should not be changed.
Regarding drug testing in motor carrier operations, the National Transportation
Safety Board haa recommended in Safety Recommendation H-90-22 that the Federal
Hi^way Administration:
Establish a demonstration project(s) to deter the use of alcohol and other
drugs by drivers of medium and heavy trucks that includes alcohol and other
drug testing at special roadside sobriety check-points, truck inspection lanes,
and truck weigh stations.
The purpose of this recommendation was to encourage the FHWA to explore a low
cost alternative to the current motor carrier random testing program and to conduct
the testing where it should have the greatest deterrent effect. The FHWA is in the
process oievaluating roadside testing in four States. Therefore, we recommend that
no changes in motor carrier testing programs occur until the demonstration projects
are complete and fully evaluated. If the results are positive, a roadside drug testing
program should be developed.
Other Safety Board recommendations regarding drug testing are included in Safe-
ty Recommendations 1-89-4 through -12 that have been proposed to the Department,
a copy of which is enclosed. Safety Recommendation 1-89-10 has been closed as no
longer applicable because of Congressional action.
The National Transportation Safety Board is pleased that the Department and its
operating administrations are proposing rules for transportation workplace alcohol
testing. We support the DOT proposal lo use breath as the primary specimen and
breath testing as the primary method for all categories of employer alcohol testing
(pre-employment, random, reasonable suspicion, and postaccident). The Safety
Board believes that breath testing, when used, should include a second test; and the
second confirmatory breath test device should produce hard copy results of the tests.
The Safety Board believes that the alcohol testing rules proposed by the Depart-
ment and its operating administrations specified above are very complex and may
be difficult for transportation industries and their workers to understand. Further,
the proposed rules lack uniformity across transportation modes. Therefore, we be-
lieve they will be difficult to apply.
The proposed DOT and modal regulations provide for a prohibition against using
alcohol before reporting for duty. The FAA proposed rules prohibit alcohol use 4
hours before reporting for duty or during the period after receiving a notice to report
for duty. The FAA rules require an 8 hour abstinence period for fhght crewmembers,
but proposed a 4 hour rule for others performing safety sensitive functions. Ihe FTA
proposes to prohibit alcohol use 4 hours before reporting for duty.
Studies suggest that a 4 hour abstinence period may he too short. The mean blood
alcohol concentration (BAC) of alcohol positive persons in fatal accidents is in the
0.15 percent to 0.17 percent range, depending on transportation mode. This suggests
that an abstinence period longer than 8 hours before reporting for duty may en-
hance safety. While we would prefer a longer abstinence period, the Safety Board
supports an 8 hour rule if it is consistently applied across aU modes of transpor-
tation.
The proposed rules set a blood alcohol concentration of 0.04 percent or greater as
the rule violation level. The rules also prohibit a person from performing a safety
sensitive function until the BAC is less than 0.02 percent. Permitting a person witn
any positive BAC to perform a safety sensitive function in any mode of transpor-
tation is inconsistent with the results of research in many transportation modes
that indicate "that there is no lower threshold level below which impairment does
not exist for alcohol." (DOT HS 807 280) Further, there is evidence, in aviation and
highway research, of a "hangover effect" on performance many hours after a per-
son's BAC has returned to zero. The Safety Board believes that the proposed rules
setting 0.04 percent BAC as the offense level sends the wrong message about the
permissibility of alcohol use in all modes of transportation. We believe that the only
safe BAC is a zero (0.(X) percent) BAC. All the proposed rules should specify a zero
SAC when reporting for duty to perform safety sensitive functions.
52
DOT and its operating administrations should propose a uniform system of sanc-
tions for violations of the alcohol rules. The proposed rules provide for different
sanctions for the same violations in different transportation modes. For example,
work suspension periods for a positive alcohol test vary substeintially among the
modes of transportation. Persons with a BAG of 0.04 percent and below cannot per-
form a safety sensitive function in aviation for 8 hours, until the next duty period,
or until the BAG is less than 0.02 percent. The FTA proposes similar reflations.
In commercial motor carrier operations, under current regulations, a driver with
any measurable alcohol can be placed out of service for 24 hours. Under one option
of the proposed FHWA rules, a driver with any measurable alcohol is prohioited
from safety sensitive functions until the driver's BAG is below 0.02 percent; a driver
with a 0.02 percent BAG or greater, but less than 0.04 percent, is prohibited from
safety sensitive functions for 24 hours. The Seifety Board believes that tmy alcohol
is impairing and that there may be a residual adverse effect after the BAG returns
to zero. The proposed rules should be consistent among aU modes. The Board sug-
gests that all DOT administrations adopt the current FHWA rule that removes a
driver with a positive BAG from service for 24 hours. Under no circumstances
should a person with a positive BAG perform a safety sensitive function.
Similarly, the proposed rules carry vastly different sanctions for refusal to submit
to a test. For example, the USGG considers refusal as reason for a suspension hear-
ing, the FHWA considers it grounds for a 1 year suspension, and the FTA considers
remsal a grounds to prohibit a person from duty. The different sanctions for refusal
to submit to a test could result in inequitable treatment of persons engaging in the
same behavior (refusing a test) in the different modes. The Safety Board believes
the penalty for test refusal should be consistent. We recommend that the FHWA
susjpension period be used.
Tlie proposed postaccident testing rules are inconsistent among the modes of
transportation. Tne Safety Board has recommended that specimen collection take
place "within four hours following a qualifying incident or accident." We hope that
specimen collection can be completed within 2 hours in all transportation modes as
proposed by DOT. The Safety Board believes that all modes should require a notifi-
cation to the modal Administrator when a postaccident test specimen is not collected
within 2 hours of the accident. Notification requirements should not be further dele-
fated by the Administrator and the notification should include reasons for the delay,
urther, there should be no limit on the time for testing if 2 hours has elapsed.
Testing should be completed as quickly as possible after the accident with the objec-
tive of^obtaining specimens witmn either the 2 hours proposed or the 4 hours rec-
ommended by the Safety Board in Safety Recommendation 1-89-8 (see enclosure).
The Safety Board is concerned about the proposed postaccident prohibitions on al-
cohol use for an 8 hour period unless the person has been tested. We suggest that
all proposed rules be revised to prohibit any alcohol use by any person performing
a safety sensitive function for 24 hours afler an accident unless they have been test-
ed. In all modes, an uninjured person who leaves the accident scene without submit-
ting to an alcohol test snould oe considered to have refused the test. Leaving the
accident scene without submitting to a test should carry the same sanctions as test
refusal carries.
Postaccident specimen collection for alcohol testing varies across the modes of
transportation. The Safety Board has recommended changes in postaccident speci-
men collection for drug testing that can also apply to alcohol. These changes are in-
cluded in Safety Recommendations 1-89-4 through -12 (see enclosure). The Safety
Board continues to believe that postaccident and postincident testing for both alco-
hol and other drugs should be separate from other testing (pre-employment, ran-
dom, and reasonable suspicion testing) in all modes of transportation. With regard
to postaccident alcohol testing, the Safety Board encourages alcohol breath testing
for persons who survive the accident. This should not preclude the Department from
rewriting the postaccident drug testing regulations to require blood specimen collec-
tion. In that manner, investigators would have the most reliable test specimens for
both alcohol and other drug use.
The proposed regulations also vary regarding return to duty testing. The Safety
Board believes that all persons who test positive, refuse to submit to testing, or who
return from rehabilitation should be subject to return to duty testing in all modes
of transportation. Persons with an identified alcohol abuse problem snould be sub-
ject to close supervision, including frequent, unannounced tests, for an appropriate
geriod. This is consistent with Safety Recommendation H-90-20 that the Safety
oard issued to the FHWA (see enclosure).
In conclusion, the Safety 8oard suggests that alcohol testing policy be consistent
among all modes of transportation. The Department should strive for a uniform al-
cohol testing policy in critical areas much as blood alcohol concentration (BAG), ab-
53
stinence prior to duty, sanctions, and postaccident abstinence. Implementation and
enforcement should be tailored to the specific mode of transportation.
The FAA requested comments on employee training and on the population per-
forming safety sensitive functions that should be covered by the proposed rules. The
Safety Board believes that training or information and education programs on the
effects of alcohol and other drugs on operations are essential. We have rec-
ommended such programs in Safety Recommendations H-90-21 issued to the FHWA
and A-92-110 issued to the FAA (see enclosures). Such information and education
efforts are a necessary part of an accident prevention program. With regard to per-
sons performing safety sensitive functions, the Safety Board believes that any per-
son whose performance has the potential to affect operational safety should be cov-
ered. In the aviation area, for example, covered functions should include p>ersons
performing maintenance and fueling operations.
The National Transportation Safety Board believes that the proposed rules should
be revised and implemented as quickly as possible. Where the modal administra-
tions such as FAA and FHWA rely on State laws for additional enforcement. States
should be encouraged to enact laws that are consistent with the final rules. Further,
the Department and appropriate modal administrations may need to draft model
lemslation to assist States in enacting laws that support the Federal regulations.
The National Transportation Safety Board appreciates the opportunity to com-
ment on these proposed rules.
Sincerely,
Carl W. Vogt,
Chairman.
BOSTON PUBLIC UBRARJ
3 9999 05982 136 1
ISBN 0-16-041756-2
9 780160
'41
7566
0000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11