they are going to be, would be thoroughly satisfied with the uniform, mandatory safety standards that would be on the car. The States would be permitted to set more stringent requirements in matters of their own procurement. In this case, they might set an example such as we set in GSA. Compliance with Federal standards would not necessarily shield any person from broad liability at the common law. The common law on product liability still remains as it was. Congressional Record-Senate The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mr.LAUSCHE. Mr. President, the bill states that the Secretary of Commerce, in fixing standards of safety for the manufacture of automobiles, shall consider "whether any such proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed." In the committee, an extensive discussion took place concerning the right of the Secretary to consider the costs that would be entailed in promulgating the adoption of certain types of equipment. It was argued by some that the language did not allow the Secretary to consider the cost that would be added to the automobile. Others argued that the language was adequate, and the words that he "shall consider what is practicable" included the right to consider the costs. It was finally agreed to write into the report a certain understanding which was to be used as a guide in interpreting the language used. I now ask the manager of the bill, the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], to point out and read the language in the bill that is intended to aid in the interpretation of what was meant by the committee. Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator from Ohio is correct. The committee considered this question at some length. Several members of the committee thought that the reasonableness of cost and feasibility would be included in the words "standards shall be reasonable, practical, and appropriate." So we say in the report, to clear up this question once and for all: 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 cover ing 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 commit tee: "The test of reasonableness of cost, feasi bility and adequate lead time”— Which are important "should be included among those factors which the Secretary could consider in making his total judgment." Mr. LAUSCHE. There is one more paragraph immediately following what the Senator has read. Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes. 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. Mr. LAUSCHE. The language just read by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce is the language which the committee decided to include in the report as an aid in interpreting the language of the bill. Mr. MAGNUSON. That is correct. Mr. LAUSCHE. It interprets the words "reasonableness, practicability, and appropriateness." I thank the Senator from Washington. Congressional Record-Senate Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. As we complete our consideration of the Traffic Safety Act, I think a word of praise for President Johnson is in order. On March 2, 1966, the President, in his eloquent and forceful transportation message, told the Congress that an allout attack on the traffic safety problem must be mounted. In the President's words: The people of America deserve an aggressive highway safety program. The same day, we received the administration's traffic safety bill-the first comprehensive Federal measure in history dealing with all aspects of the safety problem-the driver, the car, the road, and the research needed to probe deeply and systematically into the causes of accidents. The President wants to give to the American people the very best, thorough, and complete safety legislation that can be devised. As a sign of his deep concern and interest, he asked the White House to work very closely with members of my committee staff in developing the essentials of the excellent measure we are discussing today. I particularly want to single out Special Assistant to the President Joe Califano who, together with the committee counsel, worked long and hard to shape and refine this legislation, and to resolve the many complex issues involved. That was the kind of partnership that has resulted in the outstanding measure we have before us today. As the President told me when the bill was reported out of the Commerce Com mittee He wants strict nationwide, mandatory safety standards. He wants these standards to prevail over any State standards. He wants these standards to go into effect just as soon as practicable. Through the support, encouragement, and leadership of the administration, this traffic safety measure will become a reality. There should be no doubt about this in the minds of anyone. It will fulfill the pledge made by President Johnson in his 1966 state of the Union message to give the American people legislation to "arrest the destruction of life and property on our highways." Congressional Record-Senate Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, one final word, about cost. Actual cost data are a carefully guarded secret of the automobile manufacturer. However, a wealth of significant 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 lead time. 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. စာ 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 19 SEC. 102. (a) The Secretary shall, from time to time, 20 review existing public and private motor vehicle safety 21 standards and the degree of effective compliance existing 22 with respect to such standards. If, at any time after two years from the date of the enactment of this Act, he deter24 mines that there is a need for a new or revised motor vehicle 23 25 safety standard and that 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 (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 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 4 9 10 11 12 (4) the degree of effective compliance with respect to any existing motor vehicle safety standard is insuffi cient 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 13 14 15 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. |