Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

SEC. 103. (a) The Secretary shall establish by order appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Each such Federal motor vehicle safety standard shall be practicable, shall meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms.

Conference Report

Contains nothing helpful.

Same as enacted Act.

House Passed Act

Standards. 2

House Debate

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19634

Mr. CUNNINGHAM.

In fact, this may increase the number of deaths in traffic accidents and injuries. I say that for this reason. As I understand it, and as I stated in my additional views, it is conceivable that the automobile industry, which has done a terrific job in trying to build a safer car-and they have been doing thatwill have the Federal Government say to them, "Here are the standards we want you to provide."

The automobile industry will then say, "OK, we will provide them." Then they will no nothing further than that. They may do away with the people who

work in their industry who have been trying to do the right type of job on their automobiles as far as safety is concerned. They will say, "OK, we will just follow what the Federal Government says we must do," and this may not be enough.

So these Federal standards may put a ceiling on performance. That is why I say this could actually increase the number of deaths and injuries and traffic accidents as the years go on. I believe we ought to remember that and think carefully about that possibility.

19648

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19648, 19649, and 19650

Mr. DINGELL.

Modern cars are complex mechanisms, made up of over 14,000 interrelated parts. This complexity and the tooling and other requirements for high volume mass production necessitate

a substantial period between an initial design concept and production. Currently it takes a period of 2 years or so in the industry to accomplish the necessary design, engineering and testing work

to procure the materials and tooling and to lay out the production line. It also takes time to make changes. What seems to be a simple change to accomplish in one part or structure may necessitate a series of difficult changes or adjustments in others, and considerable time can be required for that, ranging from a few months to as much as 2 years or more. Because lead time is so important, it is one of the factors that the bill empowers and requires the Secretary to take into account in establishing standards, and the Secretary has stated that he will do so.

Thus the bill in section 103 requires that standards must be practicable and that the Secretary must consider whether they are reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of vehicle or equipment for which they are prescribed. Obviously, a standard is not practicable or reasonable if it cannot be met by the best efforts of manufacturers within the constraints of time and technology. As the committee's report states, "Standards, of course, cannot be set in a vacuum," and the Secretary, in setting standards, is required to give consideration to "all relevant factors, including technological ability to achieve the goal of a particular standard as well as consideration of economic factors." Among those economic factors which the Secretary will have to consider is the matter of adequate lead time. As the Department of Commerce advised in a letter dated June 3, 1966, to the chair

man:

The tests of reasonableness of cost, feasibility and adequate lead time should be included among those factors which the Secretary could consider in making his total Judgment.

I will appreciate the chairman's confirmation of this analysis.

Mr. STAGGERS. In response to the gentleman, I will say that section 103 requires the Secretary, as you can see, to establish safety standards, and says that they must be practicable and meet the need for motor vehicle safety and be stated in objective terms.

Mr. Chairman, as the committee report explains on page 16, this would require the consideration of all relevant factors, including technological ability to achieve the goal of a particular standard as well as consideration of economic factors.

And, Mr. Chairman, as to the effective date, section 103(c) of the reported bill provides that the Secretary may set a date earlier or later than the 180-day minimum or 1-year maximum, if he finds that an earlier or later date is in the public interest. This public interest is

discussed on page 17 of the report. It is explained that the exception must be based on a finding that an earlier or later effective date may be fixed if it is in the public interest. This was added by the committee to provide the necessary flexibility for unusual situations.

Mr. Chairman, it is true as it should be, that the Secretary has the ultimate responsibility to set the effective date. However, full provision is made in the bill for full consultation and, obviously, he will have to consider among other things the ability of the manufacturers to meet the dates, and the economic impact upon the manufacturers if effective dates are not set with due regard to their leadtime requirements.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. STAGGERS], and as the chairman has so well stated, it is precisely because of this leadtime problem that the committee amended the original bill to authorize the Secretary to make the standard effective later than 1 year from its issuance if he finds that this is in the public interest-if, for example, a year is too short for compliance or compliance can be achieved only at exorbitant cost or other severe economic dislocation.

The explanation should satisfy any concern of the industry and the workers who depend upon it for their livelihood, many of whom are constitutents of my district. It takes no great knowledge of the industry to be aware that situations will undoubtedly arise where more than a year will have to be allowed for compliance-where it will be a physical or economic impossibility for all manufacturers to comply with a standard for all of their vehicles within one year. There simply may not be enough tooling and technology to do the job, or the cost of compliance on a crash basis may be so great as to price vehicles out of the mass market. Because of these tooling limitations and cost considerations, manufacturers do not make basic changes in all of their models each year. Instead. the general industry practice is for a manufacturer to make basic model changes at intervals of three years or so for each of his vehicle lines, and to do so on a staggered annual basis so that each year he has one or more basic new models while face-lifting the others until their turn comes to be "rolled over" in the basic change cycle. Some changes which standards may require can, of course, be most efficiently and economically made in connection with basic model changes. Others of the "add-on"

19649

It

type could readily be made at the time of the annual model change, even when it is only of the face-lift variety. would accordingly seem that, in general, standards should not be made effective earlier than the next model year and that the effective dates should ordinarily coincide with annual model changes, at least in the absence of some overriding considerations. That is the practice which has been followed with the GSA requirements and the exhaust emission standard program-they are timed to coincide with the annual model changes.

nomic production of these motor vehicles.

Also that we have established the pattern whereby we could have different standards for vehicles which are obviously directed for a different type of use. Am I correct?

Mr. STAGGERS. Yes. I might repeat for the gentleman's information that it states very plainly in the bill that if it is in the public interest, and he so finds, then he must come up in writing

with what these reasons are.

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

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentle

man.

Mr. MOELLER. You stated that there

As I understand the bill and the chairman's remarks, these problems and practices of the industry are among the things which the Secretary will have to consider, along with safety, in deciding might be some differences in the standwhat standards to prescribe and when to make them effective, and that, depending upon the circumstances, they may influence him to allow more than a year for compliance.

The report explains that the requirement that the Secretary consider whether a standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for a particular type of vehicle or equipment will allow the Secretary "to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of a particular standard in its relationship to the many different types or models of vehicles which are manufactured." Could this mean, for instance, that standards for trucks would not necessarily be the same as standards for passenger cars? I have in mind the example of the GSA requirements which apply to passenger cars and some other vehicles, but do not apply to certain heavy trucks and other types of vehicles.

Mr. STAGGERS. Well, certainly, I believe that is understood.

Mr. DINGELL. And, of course, there would be a possibility of different standards for one type of passenger vehicle, such as a convertible, as opposed to the standards for a standard sedan, for example? Am I correct on that point?

Mr. STAGGERS. Obviously a difference in types of vehicles could require differences in standards.

Mr. DINGELL. However, we are confronted with a proposal which does impose the requirements that the time limitation be met, but for good cause the time limitation may be waived which would be the very obvious and difficult problem with which the manufacturers would be faced with regard to meeting the leadtime requirements when established for orderly and the reasonable eco

ards set; is this correct?

Suppose, for example, a car manufacturer makes a small, so-called fun carthere is one made in my district. It is a little, one-cylinder outfit. Is it said that this man must follow the same safety standards that the manufacturers of the large cars such as the General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford, follow?

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman just heard the colloquy between the chairman and me on the difference in standards.

Mr. MOELLER. In other words, there would be a distinction?

But

Mr. DINGELL. I must say that this still is not going to authorize the manufacturer of the one-cylinder car selling for $750 to market an unsafe automobile any more than it is going to authorize the manufacturer of a large, luxury-type motor vehicle selling for $5,000 or $6,000, to manufacture an unsafe vehicle. because of the difference in weight and because of the difference in speed and because of the different potential use for that type of vehicle, I would say that the safety standards would not necessarily be as comprehensive, or as onerous, for that type of vehicle as they might be on the larger, heavier weight vehicle.

But this is a matter of judgment that the Secretary will have to exercise. He will still be required by this legislation to market a vehicle that would be safe under any reasonable standards or occasions of use.

The Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. STAGGERS] might wish to comment on that, being the chief officer of the committee.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Michigan has stated it very thoroughly.

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

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentle- sonable time to comply with the safety

man.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Michigan brings up a very serious problem that may be involved here. He comes from an area where this problem will present itself.

Mr. DINGELL. I might say to the gentleman that he is correct. I represent one of the largest single areas of automobile manufacture in the country.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I do not know anybody in the automobile industry. I have not been in contact with them. But I have read in the papers where under this legislation there is going to be a tremendous problem involved in this so-called leadtime.

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will permit, I would point out that the chairman has already indicated in the colloquy with me that the language in the bill is directed at assuring that the Secretary will take very carefully into consideration the problems of leadtimeand not in an unreasonable or improper fashion, but certainly to see to it that the industry has reasonable opportunity to present their views, and to comply with the requirements in a reasonable fashion.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I understand that. I heard the colloquy, and I listened to it very carefully. But what we say here and what the Secretary does after he gets this bill are two different things.

I just wondered whether the gentleman from Michigan who is primarily concerned with this, and as his people are the people who work for these manufacturers and the manufacturersI wonder whether he feels that something more definite ought to be done in this regard, and if he would care to offer an amendment to assure that these people are going to have time to make these changes, and produce the automobiles, without serious financial loss?

Mr. DINGELL. I would say to my good friend that I believe the legislation as drawn is reasonable legislation. I recognize that the auto industry, which is the largest single employer in my district, is going to be compelled to conform to good manufacturing practices, and they are simply going to have to manufacture good, safe motor vehicles. I would say they have made a sincere effort over the years to carry out this purpose. I think there is no evidence on record that is in any way persuasive that they have in any way deliberately or willfully or wantonly or negligently or carelessly manufactured unsafe motor vehicles. The only thing they seek is legislation which will afford them rea

standards that the Secretary is going to impose. I am satisfied that he will on the basis of the colloquy with my chairman, and also on the basis of my own reading, that it is fully intended that, where a reasonable man would say that these requirements cannot be complied with within the time, that the Secretary not only has the authority, but that he will use that authority to see it to that adequate time is afforded to the industry to comply.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield further, I will agree, but I will say that they are not always reasonable.

Mr. DINGELL. I can say to the gentleman that I can conceive of a situation where possibly some Secretary of Transportation or Secretary of Commerce would not behave reasonably and well under the circumstances. But I would rather point out to my good friend that such is going to be a rarity, and we have put into the bill for this very reason a requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act which must be complied with by the Secretary, and a clear authorization for the industry to appeal in the event the Secretary acts arbitrarily or capriciously, or that he overreaches the ordinary and reasonable bounds for good judgment and reasonable behavior.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My only inter- 19650 est was to determine, since the gentleman comes from an area that is primarily concerned, whether he is satisfiled. If he is satisfied, it is all right with

me.

Mr. DINGELL. As long as the bill is interpreted reasonably, I do not believe I could assert any objection either to the legislation or to the manner in which it happens to be carried out. That, of course, was the principal purpose of my taking the floor.

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

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

Mr. MOSS. It is clearly not the intent that unreasonable standards be imposed.

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. MOSS. It is not intended by the colloquy the gentleman has engaged in with such finite care that we place the stamp of approval upon a dragging of the feet by the industry.

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is absolutely correct on that point. I would not look with any kindness, nor would the committee, on a dragging of the feet or any rascality of that kind, and I am satisfied that the industry would not engage in that kind of practice.

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19626

Mr. QUILLEN.

The purpose of H.R. 13228 is to reduce In determining standards the Secretraffic accidents and the accompanying tary is required to: First, consider reledeaths and injuries. In order to achieve vant safety data; second, consult with this end, the legislation: First, provides the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commisfor the establishment of Federal safety sion and such State or interstate agenstandards for motor vehicles and vehicle equipment; second, safety research and development programs are instituted; and third, an expansion of the national driver register is authorized.

The Secretary is required to establish standards for motor vehicles and their equipment. They are to be practicable, taking into account economic factors and technological ability to achieve the desired result. Standards may be amended or revoked as necessary by the Secretary.

cies as he deems necessary; third, consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate; and, fourth, consider the extent to which the proposed standard will further the purposes of the act. To secure information upon which to base his orders the Secretary is empowered to conduct research, testing, and to make grants to States and nonprofit institutions qualified to conduct such work.

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19629

Mr. STAGGERS.

The Secretary, after thorough consultation with State, industry and other public and private interests will have to set standards which will affect every motor vehicle manufactured and each item of motor vehicle equipment that is manufactured. This should, in the very near

future, lead to a marked upgrading of all of the safety aspects of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This part of the traffic problem-and it is but a part-is covered in detail in title I of the bill.

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19630

Mr. SPRINGER.

Knowing the realities of life we also know that no such utopia will be forthcoming and that accidents will continue to happen. That being the case, we need to minimize the damage to life and limb which will be caused by the second collision that of the occupant with his own vehicle. Obviously, this is where new car standards fit the picture and this is primarily what H.R. 13228, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, is meant to provide. By this I mean more adequate standards of performance for new cars.

As rapidly as possible, all known safety devices and features will be incorporated into new automobiles as they come from the assembly lines. Then, as new and better systems and devices are developed, either by the automobile industry itself, the equipment manufacturers, or by research and experiment supported by private or government sources, those devices will become part of the expected standard for later models.

« PreviousContinue »