Page images
PDF
EPUB

they are going to be, would be thoroughly they might set an example such as we satisfied with the uniform, mandatory set in GSA. Compliance with Federal safety standards that would be on the standards would not necessarily shield car.

any person from broad liability at the The States would be permitted to set common law. The common law on prodmore stringent requirements in matters uct liability still remains as it was. of their own procurement. In this case,

Congressional Record—Senate
June 24, 1966, 14245

The PRESDING OFFICER. TheIn promulgating any standard, the SecreSenator from Ohio is recognized.

tary is required to consider whether such Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, the bill

standard is reasonable, practicable and ap

propriate for the particular type of motor vestates that the Secretary of Commerce,

hicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for in fixing standards of safety for the which it is prescribed, and consider, also, the manufacture of automobiles, shall con extent to which such standard would consider "whether any such proposed stand tribute to carrying out the purposes of the ard is reasonable, practicable, and ap act (secs. 102(C) and 103(c)). The Secrepropriate for the particular type of motor

tary is not expected to issue a standard covervehicle or item of motor vehicle equip

ing every component and function of a motor

vehicle, but only for those vehicle charment for which it is prescribed."

acteristics that have a significant bearing on In the committee, an extensive discus- galety. sion took place concerning the right of The General Counsel of the Commerce Dethe Secretary to consider the costs that partment stated in a letter to the commitwould be entailed in promulgating the tee: adoption of certain types of equipment. “The test of reasonableness of cost, leasiIt was argued by some that the language

bility and adequate lead time"did not allow the Secretary to consider which are important the cost that would be added to the auto- "should be included among those factors mobile. Others argued that the lan- which the Secretary could consider in makguage was adequate, and the words that ing his total judgment." he "shall consider what is practicable" Mr. LAUSCHE. There is one more included the right to consider the costs. paragraph immediately following what It was finally agreed to write into the

the Senator has read. report a certain understanding which

Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes. was to be used as a guide in interpreting

The committee intends that safety shall be the language used.

the overriding consideration in the issuance I now ask the manager of the bill, the

of standards under this bill. The committee Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNU recognizes, as the Commerce Department SON), to point out and read the language letter indicates, that the Secretary will necesin the bul that is intended to aid in the

sarily consider reasonableness of cost, feasiinterpretation of what was meant by the bility and adequate lead time. committee.

Mr. LAUSCHE. The language just Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator from read by the chairman of the Committee Ohio is correct. The committee consid- on Commerce is the language which the ered this question at some length. Sev- committee decided to include in the reeral members of the committee thought port as an aid in interpreting the lanthat the reasonableness of cost and feasi- guage of the bill. bility would be included in the words Mr. MAGNUSON. That is correct. "standards shall be reasonable, practical, Mr. LAUSCHE. It interprets the and appropriate." So we say in the re- words “reasonableness, practicability, port, to clear up this question once and and appropriateness." for all:

I thank the Senator from Washington.

Congressional Record-Senate
June 24, 1966, 14253

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I I particularly want to single out Speyield myself 1 minute.

cial Assistant to the President Joe CaliAs we complete our consideration of fano who, together with the committee the Trafic Safety Act, I think a word of counsel, worked long and hard to shape praise for President Johnson is in order. and refine this legislation, and to resolve

On March 2, 1966, the President, in his the many complex issues involved. That eloquent and forceful transportation was the kind of partnership that has remessage, told the Congress that an all sulted in the outstanding measure we out attack on the trafic safety problem have before us today. must be mounted. In the President's As the President told me when the bil words:

was reported out of the Commerce Com. The people of America deserve an aggres- mittee sive highway safety program.

He wants strict nationwide, mandatory The same day, we received the admin- safety standards. istration's traffic safety bill—the first He wants these standards to prevall comprehensive Federal measure in his- over any State standards. tory dealing with all aspects of the safety He wants these standards to go into problem-the driver, the car, the road, effect just as soon as practicable. and the research needed to probe deeply Through the support, encouragement, and systematically into the causes of and leadership of the administration, accidents.

this traffic safety measure will become The President wants to give to the & reality. There should be no doubt American people the very best, thorough, about this in the minds of anyone. It and complete safety legislation that can will fulfill the pledge made by President be devised. As a sign of his deep concern Johnson in his 1966 state of the Union and interest, he asked the White House message to give the American people legto work very closely with members of my islation to “arrest the destruction of life committee staff in developing the essen- and property on our highways.” tials of the excellent measure we are discussing today.

Congressional Record-Senate
August 31, 1965, 21488

Mr. MAGNUSON.

Mr. President, one final word, about cost.

Actual cost data are & carefully guarded secret of the automobile manufacturer. However, a wealth of signifi. cant information relative to these costs is available. And from this information some very interesting observations can be made.

First. The 1966 models sold by the Big Four included as standard equipment all but 2-dual brakes and anti-air-pollution control-of the 17 items required by GSA specifications on 1967 models purchased by the Government. This is supported by the testimony of Mr. John

Bugas, a Ford Motor Co. vice president, who testified on behalf of the automobile manufacturers in the hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee this April.

Second. Assuming that the substance of the industry's 1967 “safety package," which will be standard on all cars, will include all of the 17 GSA specifications except the air-pollution-control system, the only addition to items already standard on 1966 models will be dual brakes. Our calculations reveal that the manufacturer's cost for dual brakes should not exceed something between $8 and $10. And it should be mentioned that dual brakes were standard equipment on all 1966 American Motors cars and on 1966 Cadillacs.

Senate Committee Report

Senate Report 1301, Page 6

Subsequently, on or before January 31, 1968, and thereafter at least once every 2 years, as Federal safety research and development matures, the Secretary is directed to issue new and revised standards (sec. 103(a)). Unlike the General Services Administration's procurement standards, which are primarily design specifications, both the interim standards and the new and revised standards are expected to be performance standards, specifying the required minimum safe performance of vehicles but not the manner in which the manufacturer is to achieve the specified performance (sec. 101(b)). Manufacturers and parts suppliers will thus be free to compete in developing and selecting devices and structures that can meet or surpass the performance standard.

The Secretary would thus be concerned with the measurable performance of a braking system, but not its design details. Such standards will be analogous to a building code which specifies the minimum load-carrying characteristics of the structural members of a building wall, but leaves the builder free to choose his own materials and design. Such safe performance standards are thus not intended or likely to stifle innovation in automotive design.

In promulgating any standard, the Secretary is required to consider whether such standard is reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed, and consider, also, the extent to which such standard would contribute to carrying out the purposes of the act (secs. 102(c) and 103(c)). The Secretary is not expected to issue a standard covering every component and function of a motor vehicle, but only for those vehicle characteristics that have a significant bearing on safety.

The General Counsel of the Commerce Department stated in a letter to the committee:

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. The committee intends that safety shall be the overriding consideration in the issuance of standards under this bill. The committee recognizes, as the Commerce Department letter indicates, that the Secretary will necessarily consider reasonableness of cost, feasibility and adequate leadtime.

In determining whether any proposed standard is “appropriate" for the particular type of motor-vehicle equipment or item of motorvehicle equipment for which it is prescribed, the committee intends that the Secretary will consider the desirability of affording consumers continued wide range of choices in the selection of motor vehicles. Thus it is not intended that standards will be set which will eliminate or necessarily be the same for small cars or such widely accepted

models as convertibles and sports cars, so long as all motor vehicles meet basic minimum standards. Such differences, of course, would be based on the type of vehicle rather than its place of origin or any special circumstances of its manufacturer.

Executive Communications Contains nothing helpful.

As Introduced
As H.R. 13228 in the House and S. 3005 in the Senate:

18

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

SEC. 102. (a) The Secretary shall, from time to time,

20 review existing public and private inotor vehicle safety

standards and the degree of effective coinpliance existing

22 with respect to such standards. If, at any time after two 23 years from the date of the enactment of this Act, he deter

[ocr errors]

mines that there is a need for a new or revised motor vehicle

25 safety standard and that,

(1) no motor vehicle safety standard exists;

(2) any existing motor vehicle safety standard is inadequate to protect the public against unreasonable

risk of accidents or of death, injury, or property damage

6

resulting therefrom, as defined in section 101 (a) ;

(3) any existing motor vehicle safety standard is not based upon all measurements of performance necessary to the achievement of motor vehicle safety; or

се

(4) the degree of effective compliance with respect to any existing motor vehicle safety standard is insufficient to achieve adequate motor vehicle safety; then the Secretary is authorized to establish and issue by order, in accordance with section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

Subsection 103(b) — As Enacted (b) The Administrative Procedure Act shall apply to all orders 60 Stat. 237. 2 establishing, amending, or revoking a Federal motor vehicle safety 5 USC 1001 standard under this title.

note.

Conference Report

Contains nothing helpful.

House Passed Act

Same as enacted Act.

House Debate

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

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will with the requirements in a reasonable permit, I would point out that the chair- fashion. man has already indicated in the col- Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I understand loquy with me that the language in the that. I heard the colloquy, and I lisbill is directed at assuring that the Sec- tened to it very carefully. But what we retary will take very carefully into con- say here and what the Secretary does sideration the problems of leadtime. after he gets this bill are two different and not in an unreasonable or improper things. fashion, but certainly to see to it that I just wondered whether the gentlethe industry has reasonable opportunity man from Michigan who is primarily to present their views, and to comply concerned with this, and as his people

« PreviousContinue »