Mr. ONSTAD. No. 1, we only propose that for title VI.

No. 2, the process that exists today which is already established in the criminal justice system already takes care of that. Namely, there is no way you are going to get to bring to trial or let alone return an indictment on a situation that does not involve a serious safety type of violation.

The U.S. attorneys don't handle the cases and they won't handle the cases. It happens all the time. In any number of regulatory agencies that exist in the Government today.

Mr. ANDERSON. It seems that if only the penalties are increased without stepped-up enforcement the economic incentive to comply will not be increased greatly. Do you have any plans to step up enforcement activities?

Mr. ONSTAD. Well, Mr. Chairman, the budget which we have now pending before the Congress has, I believe in it 128 new inspectors, and over the 2-year period we will have hired a total of 91 new inspectors with the thought of increasing enforcement capability.

We also have a new computer program which is in the works which is designed to give every individual right down to the GADO level the capability to handle very quickly enforcement matters. A lot of their time is spent filling out the essential paperwork to move those cases through the system.

This will be computerized and they are getting new word-processing equipment and we have an experiment going on with new word-processing equipment in the southern region. We are hiring new personnel and we are equipping them with new tools, and we are giving new procedures. The whole thing goes to enforcement and, more than that, you can go back to the administrator's March 16, 1979 speech and we have been on a consistent course of increased enforcement since that day.

There has been a logical progression, the speech, the policy statement, the new part 13, the new handbook and requests for this legislation.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Bond, you suggested that it might not be necessary to raise the civil penalties for private pilots. I thought civil penalties apply to a large number of different types of persons and companies, mechanics, pilots, manufacturers, and shippers are examples.

Do you think we need increased civil penalties for any violators other than air carriers and commercial operators?

Mr. BOND. I think that I suggested to the committee that a $25,000 fine might not be necessary for enforcement to private pilots. I didn't mean to say that there should be no rise in the $1,000 number today. I think maybe there ought to be.

As for the other part of the question, the other participants in the system, would you like to address that part?

Mr. ONSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I missed a couple of those that you listed, air carriers?

Mr. ANDERSON. Persons, companies, pilots, mechanics, manufacturers, shippers.

Mr. ONSTAD. The last part of your question was?

Mr. ANDERSON. Do you think we need increased civil penalties other than air carriers and commercial operators?

Mr. ONSTAD. Yes, sir, manufacturers, for example, quality control violations; take the Boeing Aircraft Company, $1,000 for a qualitycontrol violation when you have a $50 million 747 moving down a line is no deterrent.

There are repair stations who should fall under this, and if I had more time I could think of other institutions or individuals who should fall under an increased level of civil penalty, yes, sir.

Mr. ANDERSON. We have a vote on the House floor.

I have two more questions to submit to you for the record. [Questions submitted by Mr. Anderson, and responses thereto, follow:]

Question 1. Mr. Onstad, in your answer to Mr. Goldwater were you suggesting that FAA has never lost a case in which it has imposed a certificate suspension? Statistics which you gave the staff show that in 1979 FAA suspensions were reversed by NTSB in 22 cases, and in 17 other cases FAA withdrew the case after it was appealed to NTSB.

Response: No. What I referred to were cases in which FAA had issued press release of proposed actions against air carriers for regulatory violations. In the time I have been with the FAA, there has not been a case of which I am aware where the FAA issued a press release concerning regulatory violations and subsequently lost the case.

Question 2. Would you expect all civil penalties to increase under your proposal? For instance, would the violator who now receives a $200 civil penalty be likely to receive a higher penalty in the future?

Response: As we have repeatedly stressed, the increased civil penalty authority we seek is to enable us to deal with serious regulatory violations. The civil penalty amounts we propose for the typical violator should not change with increased civil penalty authority, except to the extent necessary in the future to account for the decreased deterrence of penalties attributable to inflation.

Mr. ANDERSON. We will recess now and resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

Mr. BOND. Thank you very much for holding these hearings. [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. ANDERSON. The subcommittee will come to order.

Our next witness is the Honorable Francis H. McAdams, member of the National Transportation Safety Board, accompanied by David C. Zimmerman, Deputy General Counsel, and Frank T. Taylor, Director, Bureau of Accident Investigation.

We are going to have a rough afternoon because of a bunch of

votes.

We have your statement; it will be made a matter of record, so you may read it or summarize it.

[Statement referred to follows:]

69-632 0-80--5

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS H. MCADAMS, MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM PLEASED TO APPEAR TODAY ON BEHALF OF

THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD TO PRESENT TESTIMONY

ON H.R. 7488, A BILL WHICH AMENDS THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT: OF

1958 WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL

PENALTIES. BEFORE BEGINNING MY TESTIMONY, I WOULD LIKE TO

INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE SAFETY BOARD'S STAFF WITH ME TODAY.

ON MY RIGHT IS MR. DAVID ZIMMERMAN, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL,

AND ON MY RIGHT IS MR. FRANK TAYLOR, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION.

THE BOARD'S COMMENTS ON H.R. 7488 SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN

THE CONTEXT OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD WHICH, TO THE EXTENT

PERTINENT TO THE BILL, ARE PRIMARILY TWOFOLD: THE INVESTIGATION

OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS AND THE ADJUDICATION OF ENFORCEMENT

AND MEDICAL CASES. OUR COMMENTS ARE BASED ON OBSERVATIONS MADE

DURING OUR PERFORMANCE OF THE ABOVE FUNCTIONS TO DATE AND ON

OUR VIEW OF HOW PASSAGE OF THE BILL WOULD AFFECT THESE FUNCTIONS

IN THE FUTURE.

AS A GENERAL MATTER, THE BOARD ENDORSES THE OVERALL PURPOSE

OF THE BILL, WHICH IS TO STRENGTHEN THE POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT

AVIATION ACT AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER. THE BOARD IS

COGNIZANT THAT THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF DETERRENCE IS A HIGHLY

SUBJECTIVE ONE ON WHICH REASONABLE PERSONS CAN DIFFER. MOREOVER,

ANY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, REGARDLESS OF THE LIMITS ON THE SIZE

OF THE FINES THAT CAN BE IMPOSED, IS ONLY AS EFFECTIVE AS THE

MANEK IN WHICH THAT PROGRAM IS ADMINISTERED. NEVERTHELESS,

A STRONG ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT AMENDING SECTION 901 TO

INCREASE THE MAXIMUM CIVIL PENALTY FOR EACH VIOLATION FROM

$1,000 TO $25,000 IS WARRANTED IF THERE IS TO BE AN EFFECTIVE

DETERRENT AGAINST SAFETY VIOLATIONS. IT IS LIKELY THAT SOME

COMMERCIAL OPERATORS ARE WILLING TO PAY CIVIL PENALTIES, WHICH ARE

SMALL IN COMPARISON TO THE OPERATOR'S REVENUES, AS A COST OF

DOING BUSINESS WHILE CONTINUING TO OPERATE ILLEGALLY. THE

ABILITY TO IMPOSE A LARGER PENALTY, WITH A GREATER

ECONOMIC IMPACT, SHOULD ENHANCE EFFORTS TO DETER THIS TYPE OF

OPERATOR.

AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE BOARD HAS OBSERVED DURING

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS AN INEFFECTIVE USE BY THE FAA OF ITS

CURRENT CIVIL PENALTY AUTHORITY. THE MOST RECENT AND GRAPHIC EXAMPLE,