Conference Report House Report 1919, Page 15 DEFINITIONS Paragraph (1) of section 102 of the House amendment defines the term "motor vehicle safety" to mean the performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of the construction or performance of motor vehicles and is also protected against unreasonable death or injury of persons in the event accidents do occur, and includes nonoperational safety of such vehicles. Paragraph (1) of section 102 of the proposed conference substitute defines the term "motor vehicle safety" in the same terms as the House amendment with the exception that the definition is expanded to include protection of the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of the "design, construction, or performance" of motor vehicles. The addition of the word "design" was accepted by the House managers not as an expansion of the authority of the Secretary but merely to clarify that the public is to be protected from inherently dangerous designs which conflict with the concept of motor vehicle safety and the performance standards issued by the Secretary. The Secretary is not to become directly involved in questions of design. House Passed Act Same as enacted Act, except that the word "design" in subsection 102(1) was added to the definition of "Motor vehicle safety" as enacted. House Debate Congressional Record-House August 17, 1966, 19664 Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer discussed it with the distinguished rankan amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: On page 30 strike out lines 22 and 23 and renumber succeeding paragraphs and any references thereto accordingly. Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I do not believe this amendment is controversial. I have ing member of the minority and with the Chairman of the committee. It would strike the definition of "person" as contained in this proposed statute, and therefore fall back on title I and the definition of "person," broadening it, and I feel in a constructive manner. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment on this side. 19665 Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, may The CHAIRMAN. The question is on I ask whether this is the amendment the amendment offered by the gentleman which we discussed previously? Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, it is. Mr. SPRINGER. We have no objec tion. from California. The amendment was agreed to. The part of the House reported bill amended by the amendment offered by Mr. Moss: 22 (11) "Person" means an individual, partnership, cor- 30 23 poration, association, or other form of business enterprise. The administration asked for authority to control design but the committee, in its wisdom, deleted this from the bill. They will be back again with this request. Wait and see. Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, will be increased. We can build houses this bill is fraught with danger and as that will not burn but who can afford such it establishes a dangerous prece- them? dent. I shall vote for it with reluctance and fear for I am fearful the day will come when we will regret this action It does increase the authority of the Federal Government over private enterprise and it does weaken the free enterprise system. For this reason I have trouble understanding why the automotive industry wants this legislation. But they say they do for the reason it will produce safer cars we are told. Indeed I hope they are right and I am wrong. 19667 Certainly we should build cars as safe as possible but we must realize that prices If the Federal Government is to decide what is safe and what is unsafe when will they say you cannot build convertibles and hardtop convertibles because they fail to offer as much protection as sedans when turned over in an accident? Or when will certain colors be outlawed because they are harder to see under certain conditions? Where and on what basis does the assumption come from that the Government has or can get personnel who know more about building cars than those in industry? Must every spare part be manufactured to a Government standard before it can be sold? Is the Government to duplicate the research and development facilities of industry? Are, in the end, prices to be subsidized with hidden subsidies in the form of grants for research, test, and development, the cost of which must or will not be recovered in the sale price of the car? Many more questions can be raised but it is safe to say that this bill rises or falls on whether or not commonsense is employed in its administration. To be sure, more commonsense will be required than has been used in the Beautification Act, for example, to date. I have always been guided by the rule of "when in doubt-don't." I am in doubt today. The man behind the wheel is the greatest safety factor of all. Congressional Record-House Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would sum up by saying, yes, we will pass this bill. I will say there has been too much sensationalism surrounding the design of the automobile as far as it concerns traffic safety. There is not a bit of evidence that would indicate that the design of the car is the cause of the accident. In fact, surveys have been made that prove to the contrary. I have evidence of this. I do believe that we have more or less made a mistake in repealing some of the safety requirements we passed in other years which legislation was brought out of our committee. I do hope that when the following bill comes up from the Public Works Committee, all the Members will recognize that it is the one that offers the greater opportunity to meet this problem with which we are all concerned. 19635 Congressional Record-House Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, does the bill give the Secretary authority to standardize operation control equipment on different kinds of new automobiles if safety performance is affected? Mr. MACKAY. Yes, it does. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. ROGERS] presented an excellent amendment to provide an advisory council that will bring in all the interested parties-State and local officials, automotive industry and equipment people-to participate in the formulation of those standards. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. MACKAY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. TAYLOR. For instance, I drive a car made by General Motors. My wife drives a car made by Ford Motor Co. The gearshift on one is just the opposite from the other. It is difficult for me to drive her car in traffic when quick, automatic action is needed. The differences in gearshifts add to the hazards of driving and could cause an accident. I am of the opinion that operating features on new cars, such as gearshifts, should be standardized. Mr. MACKAY. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. That is a good illustration of the type of safety hazard we are trying to get at. Congressional Record-House Mr. STAGGERS. DEFINITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE The House definition covers all vehicles, including trucks and buses. definition in the Senate version was The more restrictive and was interpreted as not including trucks and buses. The managers for the Senate receded. House Committee Report House Report 1776, Pages 15 and 16 DEFINITIONS Section 102 of the reported bill defines for the purposes of title I of the bill the following terms: (1) "motor vehicle safety"; (2) "motor vehicle safety standards"; (3) "motor vehicle"; (4) "motor vehicle equipment"; (5) "manufacturer"; (6) "distributor"; (7) "dealer"; (8) "State"; (9) "interstate commerce"; (10) "Secretary"; (11) "person"; (12) "defect"; (13) "United States district courts"; and (14) "Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission". The introduced bill did not undertake to define all of these terms. In the course of the committee's consideration the definitions of "manufacturer", "distributor", "dealer", "person", "defect", "United States district courts", and "Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission" were added. The most significant change made by the committee in the definition section was the deletion from the definition of motor vehicle of the exemption of those vehicles subject to part II of the Interstate Commerce Act or the Transportation of Explosives Act. Under the original bill, these vehicles would not have been subject to safety standards established by the Secretary. In its consideration of the bill it became clear to the committee that much confusion was created by this exemption. There appeared to be no way to determine with any certainty which vehicles would be subject to the standards and which would be exempt. This exemption was therefore removed. The definition of motor vehicle in the reported bill includes all vehicles driven or drawn by mechanical power. Thus, the Secretary of Commerce will have the authority to issue standards as to the manufacture, sale, and importation of all such vehicles. In order to insure that there would be the greatest uniformity possible between the standards established under this act and the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission as to safety, the 16 committee inserted as subsection (g) of section 103 a requirement that in prescribing safety regulations the Interstate Commerce Commission will not adopt or continue in effect any regulation on safety which is different from a safety standard issued under this title. The Interstate Commerce Commission, however, after manufacture, can impose a higher standard of safety performance on a motor vehicle subject to its jurisdiction. Additionally, in the definition of "distributor" the committee added the word "primarily" to modify the description of those engaged in the sale and distribution of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to make it clear that an occasional sale by one dealer to another on an accommodation basis would not make such a "dealer" a "distributor" for the purposes of this title. There is no reference anywhere in the definitions to the concept of "design." Rather, the definitions, and this bill have been written in terms of requiring standards of motor vehicle and equipment performance. The Secretary would not become directly involved in questions of design. |