Page images
PDF
EPUB

19638

intoxicating liquor. This, through the normal legislative process, was reduced to 3 days, and that is the law in Ohio today. I was also cosponsor of the point system law in Ohio, which concerns itself with moving traffic violations. If you get 12 points in 1 year, you are grounded. This was designed to remove habitual and accident-prone drivers from the public streets and highways.

So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that although this, perhaps, may be a step in the right direction-and I certainly hope so, because there is little opposition to automobile safety legislation-we are attacking probably less than 10 percent of the serious problem. But we are not in any meaningful sense of the word attempting to do anything about the incapable, the incompetent, or the irresponsible driver.

I am hopeful the Advisory Board amendment will be adopted and that this legislative effort accomplishes results in reducing to annual traffic toll of nearly 50,000 persons. With this in mind, although I do have some reservations because the primary cause of accidents is not included, I expect to support the bill.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HARVEY).

Mr. HARVEY of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of this legislation. But I do so with considerable reluctance.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it is well that we realize that these compulsory standards in the manufacture of automobiles are not being forced upon the industry; but, rather, that they have come before our committee and said that they want these standards, and that they feel they are desirable.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, the only function that was left to our committee was that of actually drafting or wording the language to authorize the Secretary to promulgate these standards.

Mr. Chairman, I believe in this respect that our committee labored very long and very diligently. I would certainly congratulate the chairman of our committee and all the members thereof upon attacking a very tough assignment. But, nevertheless, I have great reluctance in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I might say that I come from primarily an automobile district in the State of Michigan. I have a substantial number of union workers in my district who belong to the UAW-CIO and who make their living in the production of automobiles and in the production of automotive parts.

Mr. Chairman, many of these workers have written to me, as have the automobile executives themselves. I believe some of this concern from those in the auto industry comes about because of the very vast discretion that is turned over to the Secretary in this particular bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is something that I cannot think of any way to get around. We must empower him with the authority to get out these particular standards. Whether the Secretary truly understands when we talk of the model year-whether

he truly understands when we talk of the leadtime necessary in new model production and comprehends these things are tremendously important, not only to the automobile industry but to all of our country. What the Secretary does and what he says in these regulations will affect directly the lives and the earnings of 1 out of every 7 Americans in the 50 States of America.

In my district, I am sure that not only one out of seven but the majority of the people are either directly or indirectly dependent upon the auto industry. So it is very vital to them.

But, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the chairman that this House in supporting this legislation has to be mindful of the fact that no matter whom we have in the position of Secretary, I believe we must assume that this person is going to act reasonably and that he is going to act wisely.

Mr. Chairman, having these things in

mind and in view of these considerations, I expect to support the legislation.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. WATSON].

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill and the companion piece, H.R. 13290, from the Public Works Committee will actually make a significant contribution to the reduction of daily upon the highways of America. the tragic losses that we are experiencing

But at the same time I hope that none of us will be so deceived as to believe that the passage of these bills will solve the problem of highway loss and highway accidents. It will not. In fact, I share-as has been expressed by a number of my colleagues their concern that maybe it might have just the opposite effect.

Are we, through the passage of this bill-and I strongly support it-going to create the impression in the mind of the driver that we are going to give him an accident-proof automobile? Certainly you can never produce an accident-proof automobile.

Of course, the industry can and should show more concern to the development of safety devices for the automobile, but at the same time I believe my colleagues and our able chairman-and certainly no committee has worked harder, and certainly no chairman has worked harder than he to bring out the best possible legislation-but I am sure that all of them will agree that, as the industry testified before the committee, they said that many times they have tried to put in some safety innovations and the public rejected those innovations.

We, the public, are responsible if the automobiles are so defective or have failed to provide adequate safety devices. We are responsible in part. The public has been more interested in speed, Mr. Moss, than they have been in safety. The public has been more interested in the streamlining of the design of an automobile than its safety features.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I do not question, as I stated in my remarks, pub

lic responsibility, but I challenge that there has been any meaningful effort on the part of the American automotive industry to sell safety as vigorously as they have sold speed and horsepower.

Mr. WATSON. No doubt I would share the feeling of the gentleman in that regard, but at the same time, although we both admit that more could have been done by the industry, we must accept the fact that there have been safety improvements the padded dash, the visor, elimination of the protruding instruments on the panel, power brakes and steering. seat belts, and things such as that. There have been some safety improvements in the automobile, but more remains to be done.

I would like to renew a statement that I made earlier that I believe the passage of this bill will contribute significantly to the reduction of the great loss of life that we have on the highways. But rest assured of one thing, there is only so much that a governmental agency can do in the matter of highway safety. We still have the man behind the wheel. The individual must face up to his or her responsibility as a safe driver, that he not only has the life and safety of the occupants of his car, but the life and safety of the occupants of the other vehicles as they are traveling along the highway.

I am optimistic about this legislation. Frankly, I believe that it will help immeasurably, but at the same time if we really want to get the job done we must encourage stricter law enforcement, rigid adherence to the law, and firm convictions for the reckless and for the drunken driver, as well as greater emphasis upon driver training and driver education.

These bills will help immeasurably, but if the American public wants to reduce the carnage on the highways of America,

then the individual driver must realize that he primarily is responsible for the 50,000 lives that we are losing yearly; the 4.5 million people who are suffering injuries, and the $9 billion in property damage that we suffer throughout the

course of a year.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATSON. I yield to the gentle

man from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Will it be within the scope of the Advisory Council to do something about driving while intoxicated? As previous speakers have stated this is one of the worst contributions to automobile accidents.

Mr. WATSON. As far as the Advisory Council is concerned, they are to work with the Secretary, the Secretary having the ultimate authority, in the promulgation of safety standards for the automobile itself-and not for the operation or not for the operator. Production is one part of it, but the operation is the most important factor.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PICKLE] whatever time he might require. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I recommend passage of this measure because the principles are sound and they are needed in the public interest.

I found in the discussion of this legislation that the manufacturing industry

has welcomed the opportunity to help
establish fair and reasonable motor ve-
hicle standards. I have found that the
Governors of the States welcome the op-
portunity to establish fair and reason-
able standards with respect to the opera-
tion of highway safety programs.

One provision that we have established
in this legislation and in the legislation
that follows (HR. 13290) is the medium
of the Advisory Committee. I should like
to point out to this House that this is one
time that this kind of committee must be
made to work in an effective manner.
There has been a feeling down the street
over the years that an advisory commit-
tee provided in legislation is just some-
thing to be suffered with. We are trying
to provide in this legislation that we
give these people the industry, the
States, and the public a voice in estab-
lishing the standards, and then the pub-
lic interest will be helped, as it should
be.

I would like to recommend passage of the motor vehicle and traffic safety legislation that is before us today, and especially call to the attention of my colleagues a provision of this legislation and a provision in H.R. 13290 that I feel is of

paramount importance.

I am making reference to the establishment of the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee H.R. 13290-and the Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Com

mittee-H.R. 13228.

As recommended in the highway safety bill, the "Committee shall advise, consult with and make recommendations to, the Secretary on matters relating to his activities and functions in the field of highway safety." As established under the motor vehicle safety bill, the Secretary "shall seek the advise and recommendations of the Advisory Committee before establishing, amending, or revoking any motor vehicle safety standards." Since the effects of this legislation will bring the control of at least minimum Federal standards down into the very heart of State and local powers, I feel that the proposed Advisory Committee must be more than a paper organization.

If I could have my way, I would make it

much stronger.

This is one advisory committee that must be made to function, and I am hopeful that, with the establishment of the Committee, it will not only serve a useful purpose, but that a proper StateFederal relationship will be established and maintained.

Traditionally, such functions as motor vehicle registration, driver licensing, vehicle inspection, and traffic enforcement have been left to the individual States. If we allow the Federal Government to have control of this responsibility, then the lure or appeal of grant money-without their full approval-could lead to a Federal police system, which I am sure no one wants.

It has been under the States' leadership, direction, and financing that many of the highway safety programs were established and carried out. Whatever programs we have made over the years have been through State leadership, not

Federal leadership.

19639

Vol. I

In my home State, for example, an effective annual vehicle inspection law has been on the books for many years. Our highways are reportedly the best of any State, and our department of public safety has long been recognized as perhaps the most effective in the Nation.

I insist that the establishment of the National Highway Safety Committee and the Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Committee will mean a continuation of the progressive State efforts in the field of highway safety.

It seems to me that it would be logical and proper to call on the State experts, such as Col. Homer Garrison, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, to help formulate highway safety plans. Not to take proper advantage of the knowledge and experience of such men as Colonel Garrison-or the various States would appear to be wasteful.

The increasing number of deaths on our highways has given birth to this legislation. I strongly assert that even though such laws are necessary to curb this death toll, I trust that they would not lead to only minimum participation by our States.

Somehow, the feeling has developed throughout these hearings that "since the States have failed to take proper steps by establishing uniform safety standards, the Federal Government must now step in and do it for them." This simply is not the case. It is better to say that neither has done a sumcient job, but the plain truth is that the States have done the only job. By and large the States have done a good job. I do admit that we have reached a point where we must have a clear delineation of authority between the Federal and State Governments if we are to establish much needed minimum standards, but I do not subscribe to the position that each State has done a poor job in this field of traffic safety. Indeed the number of deaths and injuries per million miles traveled during the past 5 years in my State-and I believe most Stateshas declined percentagewise most substantially. This credit should be given the States. If we are to have a meaningful highway safety program or motor vehicle safety standards in the years to come, it must be with the continued leadership of the States.

that it is not now feasible to test retread tires for performance in the manner in which the performance of new tires is tested. The committee report recognizes the existence of these technical problems. The usefulness of retread tires has been well established for various purposes, and standards can be developed which will insure safety to the public. The Secretary certainly would be empowered to do so under the bill.

Mr. MOSS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. STAGGERS. The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'BRIEN] is recognized for whatever time he might consume. Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 13228.

Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Committee to a section of H.R. 13228 which is, simultaneously, a major safety proposal and a tribute to people in my State of New York and in other States who have been striving to develop a prototype safety car.

The language to which I refer is in section 106 which directs the Secretary of Commerce to procure, by negotiation or otherwise, experimental and other motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for research and testing purposes.

The committee report makes crystal clear, despite the considerable latitude given the Secretary, that we expect and strongly desire that the utilization of experimental vehicles and equipment will be well underway within a year and that the Secretary will "coordinate his actions to the fullest extent possible with appropriate State programs."

Our committee was greatly impressed by what my own State of New York, under the able leadership of Senator Edward Speno, has already done in developing plans for a prototype safety car.

It would be wasteful, indeed, if the Federal Government turned its back on what New York has and is accomplishing in this field.

Senator Speno and able legislators from several other States testified eloquently on this subject.

I was impressed, particularly, by the Speno argument that in the field of automobile safety, the future must be explored.

The best span to the future is development of and continuous experiment with an actual vehicle or vehicles. That is

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the the most effective way of determining gentleman yield?

Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MOSS. I should like to ask the chairman a question. Because tire manufacturing and retreading processes involve different techniques, I should like to ask the chairman whether the Secretary would have authority under this bill to establish safety standards for retreaded tires in the form of minimum safe procedures for retreading tires?

Mr. STAGGERS. I would like to call the gentleman's attention to the language on page 32 of the report, which states that in establishing standards for tires, the Secretary will have to consider the distinction between new tires and retreads. The National Bureau of Standards has informed the committee

the best bold new ventures into the safety of tomorrow.

I hope that the Secretary, when he undertakes the great new responsibilties given him under this bill will cooperate with New York and other States in this area and consult with Senator Speno and other pioneers in the safety car field.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] whatever time he might require.

19640

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill. It is an excellent one. It would provide adequate protection to the American public, and yet it would not do undue violence to an industry which is so important to the district that I have the honor to represent.

Mr. Chairman, I want to add a brief background explanation about section 116 of the bill which I proposed and which, as the report states, the committee adopted out of an abundance of caution to make sure that the antitrust laws will not be affected by this act.

In our hearings the automobile manufacturers requested the inclusion in the bill of a provision explicitly recognizing the need for manufacturers to cooperate reasonably within the framework of the antitrust laws for limited and specified purposes in the areas of safety and standards. However, the Department of Justice advised in letters dated April 6 and June 2, 1966, which I request be printed at the end of these remarks, that such a provision was unnecessary because the antitrust laws do not prohibit cooperative efforts to develop safety devices or to exchange information concerning standards where such efforts

seem necessary and constructive and are not accompanied by unduly restrictive collateral agreements—that is, such efforts are to be judged under the "rule of reason" and do not constitute per se violations of the antitrust laws-and, also, because under the Noerr doctrine the antitrust laws do not prevent manufacturers from consulting and cooperating for the purposes of presenting industry positions on standards to governmental agencies.

The extent of permissible cooperative activities under the antitrust laws as thus interpreted by the Department gives sufficient latitude for industry cooperation to play a significant role in safety development. Accordingly, and since manufacturers are entitled to rely on this interpretation by the Department as to what cooperative activities are permissible, there is no need for including in this bill a provision spelling out what cooperative activities industry may engage in in the safety and standards field under the antitrust laws. I therefore offered, and the committee adopted, section 116, which is the same as section 113 of the bill passed by the Senate, to make sure that nothing in this bill changes the antitrust laws and that manufacturers can rely on the Department's advice as to the meaning of those laws. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

June 2, 1966.
Honorable WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC. 20510

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: At your request, the Department of Justice hereby offers its comments on the amendments to the draft bill on auto safety proposed by the auto

mobile industry. These amendments in effect constitute a new draft bill. In the course of these comments we shall make various comparisons between this draft and S. 3005 in the form originally proposed by you. (We are commenting in a separate letter on proposed bill S. 3005.) For purposes of ready identification, in the following we shall refer to the latter as the "Administration bill" and to the amendments proposed by the industry as the "industry proposal."

A. SUMMARY OF THE INDUSTRY PROPOSAL

Under the industry proposal the Secretary would be required to establish regulations, in accordance with section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, making effective as a federal motor vehicle safety standard:

(1) any motor vehicle safety standard that has been adopted by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC), and

(2) any other motor vehicle safety standard, provided (1) he first allows such initial time (not exceeding two years from the date of enactment of the Act) as he considers reasonable for motor vehicle manufacturers to propose and for the VESC to adopt a particular motor vehicle safety standard, (11) after determining with respect to a particular subject either that no standard exists or that existing standards or compliance therewith is inadequate, he then proposes an appropriate standard to the VESC, and (1) the VESC fails to act upon the request within 180 days or such longer time as the Secretary specifies or acts by issuing a standard which the Secretary determines is inadequate to protect the public against unreasonable risk of accidents or death or injury to persons resulting therefrom.

The Secretary would be required to follow a number of criteria enumerated in section lishing safety standards findings of fact and 102(h) and to include in any order estab

conclusions on all relevant matters, presumably including compliance with the various criteria set forth. A standard would become effective no sooner than 180 days nor later than two years after the date on which it was issued, except that for good cause shown the Secretary might specify a later date.

The automobile manufacturers would be authorized individually or collectively to formulate and propose safety standards for consideration by the VESC and the Secretary. They would also be authorized “individually or collectively" to comply voluntarily with such a proposed standard until legally binding Federal or State standards covering the same subject matter have become effective. Joint cooperation in designing, testing, and

producing motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment for the purpose of complying with the standards proposed by them would also be authorized. However, the Act would provide that nothing therein contained should be deemed to exempt from the antitrust laws of the United States any conduct that would otherwise be unlawful under such laws.

Whereas the Administration bill would also authorize the Secretary to formulate standards to protect the public against accidents or death, injury, or property damage resulting therefrom, the industry proposal would provide that the authority of the Secretary to establish standards is limited to protecting the public against death and personal injury. His authority to formulate standards designed to protect the public against property damage caused by accidents would be eliminated.

Under the Administration bill it would be unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with standards prescribed by the Secretary. However, under the industry bill it would only be an offense

to "knowingly and willfully" perform one of these acts. The industry bill would also provide that sellers relying in good faith on a certificate provided by the manufacturer or importer to the effect that the vehicle or equipment is believed to conform to all applicable Federal safety standards shall not be liable under the Act. The proposed industry bill would also impose a $100,000 limitation upon the penalty which may be imposed for "any related series of violations" of the Act.

The industry bill would also add a new requirement that before any violation of the title is reported by the Secretary to the Attorney General or any United States Attorney for institution of an injunction proceeding, the person against whom the proceeding is contemplated shall be given notice and opportunity to present his views, either orally or in writing, with regard to such contemplated proceeding, and, except where knowing and willful conduct is involved, such person shall also be given a reasonable opportunity to take corrective measures to achieve compliance.

A different standard for judicial review would be provided. Under the Administration bill findings of the Secretary as to facts, if supported by substantial evidence, would be conclusive. The industry proposal provides that findings of the Secretary with respect to questions of fact "shall be sustained if based upon a fair evaluation of the entire record of the proceedings on which the Secretary based his order."

There are a number of other respects in which the industry proposal differs from the Administration bill. These will be taken up in the course of our discussion of the industry bill.

The spokesman for the industry, John 8. Bugas, Vice President of Ford Motor Company, sought to justify the amendments sponsored by industry in a statement before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on April 26, 1966, as follows:

"We urge only the adoption of reasonable amendments designed to assure state and industry participation in the standard-setting process and to assure fair standard-setting procedures and criteria, a full opportunity for judicial review, and an enforcement system under which those who act in good faith and with due care are not punished, while the penalty for others is appropriate to the degree of blame that can be fairly charged to the person proceeded against.

"Finally, while the uncertainty of antitrust interpretations in this area continues to give us concern, we believe we can make progress within the framework of the present antitrust laws if the final bill explicitly recognizes the need for manufacturers to cooperate reasonably with one another in areas related to the limited purposes of developing and evaluating improved vehicle safety characteristics, formulating proposed minimum safety performance standards for adoption by the Federal Government and the states, and complying with those standards until legally binding standards are issued." (3-4) In our opinion, the industry proposal suffers from at least six basic shortcomings.

First, by imposing requirements for working through the VESC the bill would in practice delay the introduction of new safety devices and leave the timing on introduction of new devices largely in the hands of the industry.

Second, it would require the Secretary to act in accordance with criteria which in some instances are unnecessary and in others are overly protective to industry interests and fall to take adequate account of the Importance of rapid employment of new safety devices.

Third, the proposal might grant an implied immunity from the antitrust laws for various

activities, which should not be immunized 19641

from antitrust scrutiny.

Fourth, amendments relating to judicial review of action taken by the Secretary and the procedure to be followed by the Secretary require unnecessarily cumbersome and timeconsuming proceedings that can hamper the effectiveness of the standards.

Fifth, the proposal would severely narrow the category of acts prohibited by the statute and reduce the penalties to be imposed for violations.

Sixth, it would limit the power and discretion of the Secretary in a number of undesirable ways, most important of which would be elimination of his power to adopt standards to protect against property damages caused by accidents.

(1) The Required Reference to VESC: The industry proposal would require prior action by the VESC before the Secretary would be permitted to promulgate standards. The Secretary would be limited to establishing standards previously adopted by the VESC; or standards previously recommended by the Secretary to the VESC upon which it had failed to act; or standards after VESC had acted by adopting standards determined by the Secretary to be inadequate. Before he would even be permitted to recommend a standard on a particular subject to the VESC, the Secretary would be required to allow such initial time (not exceeding two years from the date of enactment of the Act) as he considered reasonable for motor vehicle manufacturers to propose and for the VESC to adopt a particular motor vehicle safety standard. Section 102 (d), (e).

Since the Secretary would be authorized to establish other standards on a particular subject only if he determined there were no existing standards or existing standards were inadequate, he might well be barred from issuing any standard on a given subject except a standard adopted by the VESC, unless he were willing to find that the VESC standard was inadequate. Section 102(d).

In support of its proposed modification of the Administration bill to require prior action by the VESC before the Secretary could promulgate standards, the industry spokesman argues that it is desirable to bring both the states and the automobile industry into the standard-making process.

Obviously the states and the industry undoubtedly have certain expertise which should not be ignored. However, it is not necessary to adopt the industry proposal to accomplish this purpose. The Administration bill in its present form already provides for state and industry participation in section 105.

The industry proposal requires more than prior consultation by the Secretary with the states and industry; prior action by the automobile manufacturers and the VESO is required before the Secretary would be permitted to act.

To appreciate the possibilities for delay in the formulation of standards and introduction of safety devices which this scheme would permit, it is necessary to consider how the VESC operates. The Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact does not in itself contain standards for safety equipment. Rather, it sets up the procedures and machinery for interstate cooperation in the formulation of such standards. The compact establishes an interstate agency, the "Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission," consisting of one member designated by each party state. Commission is empowered to recommend "rules, regulations or codes embodying performance requirements or restrictions" for items of motor vehicle equipment.

The

The compact outlines the steps for the Commission to follow in developing its recommendations. First, it must study the need for establishing or changing performance re

« PreviousContinue »