« PreviousContinue »
intodonc liquor. This, through the he truly understands when we talk of the normal 10 Blative process, was reduced to leadtime necessary in new model produc3 days, and that is the law in Ohio today. tion and comprehends these things are
as also cosponsor of the point system tremendously important, not only to the law in Ohio, which concerns itself with automobile industry but to all of our moving tramc violations. I you get 12 country. What the Secretary does and points in 1 year, you are grounded. This what he says in these regulations will afwas designed to remove habitual and fect directly the lives and the earnings accident-prone drivers from the public of 1 out of every 7 Americans in streets and highways.
the 50 States of America. So, Mr. Chairman, It seems to me that In my district, I am sure that not only although this, perhaps, may be a step in one out of seven but the majority of the the right direction-and I certainly hope people are either directly or indirectly so, because there is little opposition to dependent upon the auto industry. So automobile safety legislation-we are at. It is very vital to them. tacking probably less than 10 percent of But, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the serious problem. But we are not in the chairman that this House in supportany meaningful sense of the word at
ing this legislation has to be mindful of tempting to do anything about the in
the fact that no matter whom we have capable, the incompetent, or the irre in the position of Secretary, I believe we sponsible driver.
must assume that this person is going to I am hopeful the Advisory Board
act reasonably and that he is going to amendment will be adopted and that ec
act wisely. this legisiative effort accompushes results
Mr. Chairman, having these things in in reducing to annual traffic toll of nearly
mind and in view of these considera50,000 persons. With this in mind,
tions, I expect to support the legislation.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I although I do have some reservations
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from because the primary cause of accidents
South Carolina (Mr. WATSON). is not included, I expect to support the
Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman. I bebill.
lleve that this bull and the companion Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
plece, H.R. 13290, from the Public Works yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Committee will actually make a signil-
icant contribution to the reduction of of Michigan. Mr. the tragic losses that we are experiencing Chairman. I rise also in support of this
daily upon the highways of America. legislation. But I do so with consider
But at the same time I hope that none able reluctance.
of us will be so deceived as to believe that First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it the passage of these bills will solve the is well that we realize that these com- mblem of highway loss and highwaV AC. pulsory standards in the manufacture cidents. It will not. In fact, I share AS of automobiles are not being forced upon has been expressed by a number of my the industry; but, rather, that they have colleagues their concern that maybe it come before our committee and said that might have just the opposite ettect. they want these standards, and that they Are we, through the passage of this feel they are desirable.
bw-and I strongly support it going to Consequently, Mr. Chairman, the only create the impression in the mind of the function that was left to our committee driver that we are going to give him an was that of actually drafting or wording Accident-prool automobile? Certainly the language to authorize the Secretary you can never produce an accident-proof to promulgate these standards.
automobile. Mr. Chairman, I believe in this respect Of course, the industry can and should that our committee labored very long and show more concern to the development very diligently. I would certainly con- of safety devices for the automobile, but gratulate the chairman of our commit- at the same time I believe my colleagues tee and all the members thereof upon and our able chairman-and certainly no attacking a very tough assignment. But, committee has worked harder, and cernevertheless, I have great reluctance in tainly no chairman has worked harder supporting this legislation.
than he to bring out the best possible legMr. Chairman, I might say that I come islation, but I am sure that all of them from primarily an automobile district in will agree that, as the industry testified the State of Michigan. I have a sub- before the committee, they said that stantial number of union workers in my many times they have tried to put in some district who belong to the UAW-CIO and safety innovations and the public rejected who make their living in the production those innovations. of automobiles and in the production of We, the public, are responsible if the automotive parts.
automobiles are so defective or have Mr. Chairman, many of these workers failed to provide adequate safety devices. have written to me, as have the automo- We are responsible in part. The public bile executives themselves. I believe has been more interested in speed, Mr. some of this concern from those in the Moss, than they have been in safety. auto industry comes about because of the The public has been more interested in very vast discretion that is turned over the streamlining of the design of an to the Secretary in this particular bill. automobile than its safety features.
Mr. Chairman, this is something that Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
uc responsibilty, but I challenge that has welcomed the opportunity to help 1909 there has been any meaningful effort on cablish fair and reasonable motor vethe part of the American automotive in- hicle standards. I have found that the dustry to sell safety as vigorously as they Governors of the States welcome the ophave sold speed and horsepower.
portunity to establish fair and reasonMr. WATSON. No doubt I would able standards with respect to the operashare the feeling of the gentleman in that tion of highway safety programs. regard, but at the same time, although One provision that we have established we both admit that more could have been in this legislation and in the legislation done by the industry, we must accept the that follows (H.R. 13290) is the medium fact that there have been safety improve of the Advisory Committee. I should Uke ments the padded dash, the visor, elimi- to point out to this House that this is one nation of the protruding instruments on time that this kind of committee must be the panel, power brakes and steering. made to work in an effective manner. seat belts, and things such as that. There There has been a feeling down the street have been some safety improvements in over the years that an advisory committhe automobile, but more remains to be tee provided in legislation is just somedone.
thing to be suffered with. We are trying I would like to renew & statement that to provide in this legislation that we I made earlier that I believe the passage give these people the industry, the of this bill will contribute significantly to States, and the public voice in estabthe reduction of the great loss of life that lishing the standards, and then the pubwe have on the highways. But rest as- lic interest will be helped, as it should sured of one thing, there is only so much be. that a governmental agency can do in I would Uke to recommend passage of the matter of highway safety. We still the motor vehicle and tramic safety legishave the man behind the wheel. The in- lation that is before us today, and espedividual must face up to his or her re- cially call to the attention of my colsponsibility as a safe driver, that he not les
leagues a provision of this legislation and only has the life and safety of the OC- A provision in H.R. 13290 that I feel is of cupants of his car, but the life and safety
paramount importance. of the occupants of the other vehicles as
I am making reference to the estabthey are traveling along the highway. Ushment of the National Highway Safety
I am optimistic about this legislation. Advisory Committee-H.R. 13290—and Frankly. I believe that it will help im- the Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Commeasurably, but at the same time if we mi
mittee-H.R. 13228. really want to get the job done we must
As recommended in the highway safety encourage stricter law enforcement, rigid
bill, the "Committee shall advise, conadherence to the law, and firm convic
sult with and make recommendations to, tions for the reckless and for the drunken
the Secretary on matters relating to his driver, as well as greater emphasis upon
activities and functions in the Deld of driver training and driver education.
highway safety." As established under These bills will help immeasurably, but
the motor vehicle safety bill, the SecreIf the American public wants to reduce
tary "shall seek the advise and recomthe carnage on the highways of America, then the individual driver must realize
mendations of the Advisory Committee
before establishing, amending, or revokthat he primarily is responsible for the
ing any motor vehicle safety standards." 50,000 lives that we are losing yearly:
Since the effects of this legislation will the 4.5 million people who are surering
bring the control of at least minimum injuries, and the $9 billion in property
Federal standards down into the very damage that we suffer throughout the
heart of State and local powers, I feel course of a year.
that the proposed Advisory Committee Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
must be more than a paper organization. gentleman yield?
If I could have my way, I would make it Mr. WATSON. I yield to the gentle
much stronger. man from Iowa.
This is one advisory committee that Mr. GROSS. will it be within the
must be made to function, and I am scope of the Advisory Council to do some
hopeful that, with the establishment of thing about driving while intoxicated? As previous speakers have stated this is
the Committee, it will not only serve a one of the worst contributions to auto
useful purpose, but that a proper State
Federal relationship will be established mobile accidents.
and maintained. Mr. WATSON. As far as the Advisory
Traditionally, such functions as motor Council is concerned, they are to work with the Secretary, the Secretary having
vehicle registration, driver licensing, ve
hicle inspection, and trafic enforcement the ultimate authority, in the promulga
have been left to the individual States. tion of safety standards for the automobile itsell-and not for the operation or
or If we allow the Federal Government to
have control of this responsibility, then not for the operator. Production is one part of it, but the operation is the most
ost the lure or appeal of grant money-with
e out their full approval—could lead to a important factor. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
1 Federal police system, which I am sure yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. no one wants.
It has been under the States' leaderPICKLE) whatever time he might require.
ship, direction, and financing that many Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I recom
of the highway safety programs were esmend passage of this measure because
tablished and carried out. Whatever the principles are sound and they are
programs we have made over the years needed in the public interest.
have been through State leadership, not I found in the discussion of this legis
Federal leadership. lation that the manufacturing industry
er trainie will help
gants to nerica. mendat
In my home state, for example, an et- that it is not now feasible to test retread lective annual vehicle inspection law has tires for performance in the manner in been on the books for many years. Our which the performance of new tires is highways are reportedly the best of any tested. The committee report recognizes state, and our department of public the existence of these technical problems. safety has long been recognized as per. The usefulness of retread tires has been haps the most effective in the Nation. well established for various purposes,
I insist that the establishment of the and standards can be developed which National Highway Safety Committee and will insure safety to the public. The the Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Com- Secretary certainly would be empowered mittee will mean a continuation of the to do so under the bill. progressive State efforts in the field of Mr. MOSS. I thank the gentleman. highway safety.
Mr. STAGGERS. The gentleman from It seems to me that it would be logical New York (Mr. O'BRIEN] is recognized and proper to call on the State experts, for whatever time he might consume. such as Col. Homer Garrison, director of Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise the Texas Department of Public Safety. in support of H.R. 13228. to help formulate highway safety plans. Mr. Chairman. I call the attention of Not to take proper advantage of the the Committee to a section of H.R. 13228 knowledge and experience of such men which is, simultaneously, a major safety as Colonel Garrison-or the various proposal and a tribute to people in my States—would appear to be wasteful. State of New York and in other states
The Increasing number of deaths on who have been striving to develop a proour highways has given birth to this leg- totype safety car. Islation. I strongly assert that even The language to which I refer is in though such laws are necessary to curb section 106 which directs the Secretary this death toll, I trust that they would of Commerce to procure, by negotiation not lead to only minimum participation or otherwise, experimental and other by our states.
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipSomehow, the feeling has developed ment for research and testing purposes. throughout these hearings that “since The committee report makes crystal the States have failed to take proper clear, despite the considerable latitude steps by estabxshing uniform safety given the Secretary, that we expect and standards, the Federal Government must strongly desire that the utilization of exnow step in and do it for them." This perimental vehicles and equipment will simply is not the case. It is better to be well underway within a year and that say that neither has done a sumcient the Secretary will "coordinate his actions job, but the plain truth is that the States to the fullest extent possible with approhave done the only job. By and large priate state programs." the States have done & good job. I do Our committee was greatly impressed admit that we have reached a point by what my own State of New York, unwhere we must have a clear delineation der the able leadership of Senator Edof authority between the Federal and ward Speno, has already done in develState Governments if we are to establish oping plans for a prototype safety car. much needed minimum standards, but it would be wasteful, indeed, if the I do not subscribe to the position that Federal Government turned its back on each State has done a poor job in this what New York has and is accomplishDeld of tralic safety. Indeed the num
Indeed the num ing in this feld. her of deaths and intudes per million Senator Speno and able legislators miles traveled during the past 5 years from several other states testified eloin my State and I believe most states- quently on this subject. has declined percentagewise most sub- I was impressed, particularly, by the stantially. This credit should be given Speno argument that in the field of the States. If we are to have a meaning. automobile salety, the future must be iw highway safety program or motor explored. vehicle safety standards in the years to
The best span to the future is developcome, it must be with the continued
ment of and continuous experiment with leadership of the States.
an actual vehicle or vehicles. That is Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the the most effective way of determining gentleman yield?
the best bold new ventures into the Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen- safety of tomorrow. tleman from California.
I hope that the Secretary, when he Mr. MOSS. I should Uke to ask the undertakes the great new responsibilchairman & question. Because tire man
ties given him under this bill will coufacturing and retreading processes in- operate with New York and other States volve different techniques, I should like in this area and consult with Senator to ask the chairman whether the Secre- Speno and other pioneers in the safety tary would have authority under this bull car nela. to establish safety standards for re Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous contreaded tires in the form of minimum
sent to revise and extend my remarks at safe procedures for retreading tires ?
this point in the RECORD. Mr. STAGGERS. I would like to call The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection the gentleman's attention to the lan- to the request of the gentleman from guage on page 32 of the report. which New York? states that in establishing standards for There was no objection. tires, the Secretary will have to consider Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I the distinction between new tires and yield to the gentleman from Michigan
ureau of (Mr. DINGELL) whatever time he might Standards has informed the committee require.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman. I ask mobllo industry. These amendments la efunanimous consent to extend my re
fect constitute . new draft biu. In the marks at this point in the RECORD and
course of these comments we sball mate
various comparisons between this draft and include extraneous matter.
8. 3005 in the form originally proposed by The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
you. (We are commenting in a separato to the request of the gentleman from
letter on proposed bill S. 3005.) For pur. Michigan?
poses of ready identication, in the following There was no objection.
wo shall refer to the latter as the "AdminisMr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I sup
tration bill" and to the amendments proposed port this bill. It is an excellent one. It
by the industry as the "industry proposal." would provide adequate protection to the
A. SUMMARY OF THE INDUSTRY PROPOSAL American public, and yet it would not do Under the industry proposal the Secretary undue violence to an industry which is would be required to establish regulations, so important to the district that I have
in accordance with section 4 of the Adminthe honor to represent.
Istrative Procedure Act, making effective as
a federal motor vehicle safety standard: Mr. Chairman. I want to add a brie w any motor vehicle safety standard that background explanation about section has been adopted by the Vehicle Equipment 116 of the bill which I proposed and Safety Commission (VESC), and which, as the report states, the commit (2) any other motor vehicle safety standtee adopted out of an abundance of cau. ard. provided (1) hc Arst allows such initial tion to make sure that the antitrust laws
time (not exceeding two years from the date will not be affected by this act.
of enactment of the Act) as be considers
reasonable for motor vehicle manufacturers In our hearings the automobile manu
to propose and for the VESC to adopt a facturers requested the inclusion in the
particular motor vehicle safety standard, bill of a provision explicitly recognizing (11) after determining with respect to a parthe need for manufacturers to cooperate ticular subject either that no standard exista reasonably within the framework of the or that existing standards or compliance antitrust laws for limited and specified therewith is inadequate, he then proposes purposes in the areas of safety and an appropriate standard to the visc, and standards. However, the Department of
(w) the VESC fails to act upon the request
within 180 days or such longer time as the Justice advised in letters dated April 6
Secretary specifics or acts by issuing a standand June 2. 1966. which I request be ard which the Secretary determines is Idadeprinted at the end of these remarks, that quate to protect the public against unreason. such a provision was unnecessary be able risk of accidents or death or injury to cause the antitrust laws do not prohibit persons resulting therefrom. cooperative efforts to develop safety de. The Secretary would be required to follow vices or to exchange information con
a number of criteria enumerated in section
102(h) and to include in any order estabcerning standards where such efforts
lishing safety standards andings of fact and seem necessary and constructive and are
conclusions on all relevant matters, presumnot accompanied by unduly restrictive
ably including compliance with the various collateral agreements that is, such el- criteria set forth. A standard would become forts are to be judged under the "rule effective no sooner than 180 days nor later of reason" and do not constitute per se than two years after the dato on which it violations of the antitrust lawsand, was issued, except that for good cause show also, because under the Noerr doctrine
the Secretary might specify a later date. the antitrust laws do not prevent manu
The automobile manufacturers would be
authorized individually or collectively to facturers from consulting and cooperat
formulate and propose safety standards for ing for the purposes of presenting indus
consideration by the VESC md the Secretary. try positions on standards to governmen They would also be authorized "Individually tal agencies.
or collectively" to comply voluntarily with The extent of permissible cooperative such a proposed standard until legally bindactivities under the antitrust laws as thus
ing Federal or State standards covering the interpreted by the Department gives sui
same subject matter have become effective.
Joint cooperation in designing, testing, and ficient latitude for industry cooperation
producing motor vehicle or motor vehicle to play a significant role in safety devel
equipment for the purpose of complying with opment. Accordingly, and since manu- the standards proposed by them would also be facturers are entitled to rely on this in- authorized. However, the Act would provido terpretation by the Department as to that nothing therein contained should be what cooperative activities are permis- deemed to exempt from the antitrust laws of sible. there is no need for including in the United States any conduct that would
otherwise be unlawful under such laws. this bill & provision spelling out what
Whereas the Administration bill would also cooperative activities industry may en
authorize the Secretary to formulato standgage in in the safety and standards field
ards to protect tho public against accidents under the antitrust laws. I therefore ol. or death, injury, or property damage resultfered, and the committee adopted, sec- ing therefrom, the industry proposal would tion 116, which is the same as section 113 provide that the authority of the Secretary of the bill passed by the Senate to make to establish standards is limited to protectsure that nothing in this bill changes
ing the public against death and personal the antitrust laws and that manufactur
Injury. His authority to formulate stand
ards designed to protect the public against ers can rely on the Department's advice
property damage caused by accidents would as to the meaning of those laws.
be eliminated. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Under the Administration bill it would bo
June 2, 1966. unlawful for any person to manufacture for Honorable WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Bale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deUnited States Senate,
liver for Introduction in Interstate commerce, Washington, D.C. 20510
or import into the United States any motor DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: At your request, vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment the Department of Justice hereby offers its unless it is in conformity with standards pre. comments on the amendments to the drart scribed by the Secretary. However, under bill on auto safety proposed by the auto- the industry bill it would only be an offense
to “knowingly and willfully" perform ono of these acts. The Industry bul would also provide that sellers relying in good faith on a certi cate 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 ilmi. tation 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 notico and opportunity to present his views, elther 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 diferent standard for judicial review would be provided. Under the Administration bill Andings of the Secretary as to facts, 11 supported by substantial evidence, would be conclusive. The Industry proposal provides that andings of the Secretary with respect to questions of fact "shall bo sustalned 11 based upon a falr 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 diders from tho Administration bil. These will be taken up in the course of our discussion of the industry bul.
The spokesman for the industry, John 8. Bugas, Vice President of Ford Motor Com. pany, sought to justify the amendments sponsored by industry in & statement before the House Committee on Interstate and Forelgo 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, & full opportunity for Judicial review, and an enforcement system under which those who act in good faith and with due care are not punished, whilo the penalty for others is appropriate to the degree of blame that can be fairly charged to the person proceeded against.
"Finally, whlle the uncertainty of antitrust interpretations in this area continues to give us concern, we believe we can make progress within tho framework of the present antitrust laws if the Opal bill explicitly recogaizes the need for manufacturers to cooperato reasonably with one another in areas related to the limited purposes of developing and evaluating improved vehicle safety characteristica, formulating proposed minimum safety performance standards for adoption by the Federal Government and the states, and complying with those standards untu legally binding standards are issued." (94)
In our opinion, the industry proposal sulfers from at least six basic shortcomings.
First, by Imposing requirements for working through the VESC tbe bill would in practice delay the introduction of new safety devices and leave the timing on introduction of new devices largely in the bands of the industry.
Second, it would require the Secretary to act in accordanco with criteria which in some instances are undecessary and in others are overly protective to industry interests and fall to take adequato account of the importance of rapid employment of now safety devices.
Third, the proposal might gant an Implied immunity from the antitrust laws for various
Martin which should not be immunized Trom antitrust scrutiny.
Fourth, amendments relating to judicial review of action taken by the Bocretary and the procedure to be followed by the Secretary require unnecessarily cumbersome and timeconsuming proceedings that can hamper the oftoctiveness of the standarda.
Firth, the proposal would severely DAFTOW the category of acts prohibited by the statuto 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: Tho Industry proposal would require prior action by the VESC beforo 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 talled to act; or standards after VISO had acted by adopting standards determined by the Secretary to be inadequato. Beforo ho would even be permitted to recommond 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) a he considered reasonable for motor vehicle manufacturers to propose and for the VESO 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 11 he determined there were no existing standards or existing standards were inndoqunto, 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 inadequnte. Section 102(d).
In support of its proposed modification of the Administration bill to require prior action by the VESC before the Secretary could promi:Igate 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 bection 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 tho formulation of standards and introduction of safety devices which this scheme would permit, it is necessary to consider how the VDBO operates. The Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact does not in itself contain standards for safety equipment. Rather, it rets up the procedures and machinery for interstate cooperation in the formulation of such standards. The compact establishes an interstate agency, tho "Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission," consisting of one membor designated by each party state. The Commission is empowered to recommend "rules, regulations or codes embodying per. formance requirements or restrictions" for Items of motor vehicle equipment.
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