Page images

Conference Report House Report 1919, Pages 15 and 16


Subsection (c) of section 103 of the House amendment requires each order establishing a safety standard to specify the date on which it is to take effect which is not to be sooner than 180 days or later than 1 year from the date the order is issued, unless the Secretary finds an earlier or later effective date is in the public interest, and publishes his reasons for such finding.

Subsection (c) of section 103 of the proposed conference substitute is the same as the House amendment with the exception that in order to shorten or lengthen the minimum or maximum dates within which a standard must take effect the Secretary must find "for good cause shown” that such earlier or later date is in the public interest and publish his reasons for this finding.

A conforming change is also required to be made in section 103(e) 16 of the proposed conference substitute which, except for such conforming change, is the same as section 103(e) of the House amendment (relating to effective date of amendments and revocations of standards).

The House managers believe the inclusion of the phrase "for good cause shown” demonstrates that any party in interest is free to virge that an earlier or later effective date is in the public interest.

House Passed Act

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19670

"(c) Each order establishing & Federal date such order is issued, unless the Socromotor vehicle safety standard shall specify tary ands that an earlier or later effective the date such standard 18 to take effect which date is in the public interest, and publishes shall not be sooner than one hundred and his reasons for such inding. eighty days or later than ono year from the

House Debate

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want lead time which is one of vital importo thank my chairman for his kindness tance to the industry which is one of in yielding to me. There are a number the principal employers in the district of points I want to raise with respect to that I have the honor to represent in the contents of this legislation, particu- Congress. larly, I hope, dealing with questions of

As the membership of the committee, Mr. Chairman, as the committee report and anyone else familiar with the in- explains on page 16, this would require dustry knows, lead time is a most impor- the consideration of all relevant factors, tant matter. Modern cars are complex including technological ability to achieve mechanisms, made up of over 14,000 in the goal of a particular standard as well terrelated parts. This complexity and as consideration of economic factors. the tooling and other requirements for And, Mr. Chairman, as to the effective high volume mass production necessitate date, section 103(c) of the reported bill & substantial period between an initial provides that the Secretary may set a design concept and production. Cur- date earlier or later than the 180-day rently it takes a period of 2 years or so

minimum or 1-year maximum, if he finds in the industry to accomplish the neces- that an earlier or later date is in the sary design, engineering and testing work public interest. This public interest is to procure the materials and tooling and discussed on page 17 of the report. It is to lay out the production line. It also explained that the exception must be takes time to make changes. What based on a finding that an earlier or seems to be a simple change to accom- later effective date may be fixed if it is plish in one part or structure may neces- in the public interest. This was added sitate a series of difficult changes or ad- by the committee to provide the necesjustments in others, and considerable sary flexibility for unusual situations. time can be required for that, ranging Mr. Chairman, it is true as it should from a few months to as much as 2 years be, that the Secretary has the ultimate or more. Because lead time is so im- responsibility to set the effective date. portant, it is one of the factors that the However, full provision is made in the bill bull empowers and requires the Secre- for full consultation and, obviously, he tary to take into account in establishing will have to consider among other things standards, and the Secretary has stated the ability of the manufacturers to meet that he will do so.

the dates, and the economic impact upon Thus the bill in section 103 requires the manufacturers if effective dates are that standards must be practicable and not set with due regard to their leadtime that the Secretary must consider whe- requirements. ther they are reasonable, practicable, and

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I cerappropriate for the particular type of tainly thank the chairman of the Comvehicle or equipment for which they are

mittee on Interstate and Foreign Comprescribed. Obviously, a standard is not merce, the gentleman from West Virpracticable or reasonable if it cannot ginia (Mr. STAGGERS), and as the chairbe met by the best efforts of manufac

man has so well stated, it is precisely beturers within the constraints of time and cause of this leadtime problem that the technology. As the committee's report committee amended the original bill to states, “Standards, of course, cannot be authorize the Secretary to make the set in a vacuum," and the Secretary, in standard effective later than 1 year from setting standards, is required to give its issuance if he finds that this is in the consideration to “all relevant factors, in- public interest—if, for example, a year is cluding technological ability to achieve too short for compliance or compliance the goal of a particular standard as well

can be achieved only at exorbitant cost as consideration of economic factors." or other severe economic dislocation. Among those economic factors which the The explanation should satisfy any Secretary will have to consider is the concern of the industry and the workers matter of adequate lead time. As the who depend upon it for their livelihood, Department of Commerce advised in a many of whom are constitutents of my letter dated June 3, 1966, to the chair- district. It takes no great knowledge of man:

the industry to be aware that situations The tests of reasonableness of cost, feast- will undoubtedly arise where more than bility and adequate lead time should be a year will have to be allowed for comincluded among those factors which the Sec- pliance—where it will be a physical or retary could consider in making his total economic impossibility for all manufacjudgment.

turers to comply with a standard for all I will appreciate the chairman's con- of their vehicles within one year. There firmation of this analysis.

simply may not be enough tooling and Mr. STAGGERS. In response to the technology to do the job, or the cost of gentleman, I will say that section 103 compliance on a crash basis may be so requires the Secretary, as you can see, to great as to price vehicles out of the mass establish safety standards, and says that market. Because of these tooling limithey must be practicable and meet the tations and cost considerations, manuneed for motor vehicle safety and be facturers do not make basic changes in stated in objective terms.

all of their models each year. Instead.

the general industry practice is for a Mr. DINGELL. However, we are conmanufacturer to make basic model fronted with a proposal which does imchanges at intervals of three years or pose the requirements that the time limso for each of his vehicle lines, and to do itation be met, but for good cause the

so on a staggered annual basis so that time limitation may be waived which 19649 each year he has one or more basic new would be the very obvious and difficult

models while face-lifting the others until problem with which the manufacturers
their turn comes to be "rolled over" in would be faced with regard to meeting
the basic change cycle. Some changes the leadtime requirements when estab-
which standards may require can, of lished for orderly and the reasonable eco-
course, be most efficiently and economi-
cally made in connection with basic nomic production of these motor ve-
model changes. Others of the "add-on"

type could readily be made at the time

Also that we have established the patof the annual model change, even when tern whereby we could have different it is only of the face-lift variety. It standards for vehicles which are obviwould accordingly seem that, in general, ously directed for a different type of use. standards should not be made effective Am I correct? earlier than the next model year and that Mr. STAGGERS. Yes. I might rethe effective dates should ordinarily peat for the gentleman's information coincide with annual model changes, at

that it states very plainly in the bill that least in the absence of some overriding

if it is in the public interest, and he so considerations. That is the practice finds, then he must come up in writing which has been followed with the GSA

with what these reasons are. requirements and the exhaust emission Mr. MOELLER. Mr. Chairman, will standard program-they are timed to co

the gentleman yield? incide with the annual model changes.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleAs I understand the bill and the chair

man. man's remarks, these problems and prac- Mr: MOELLER. You stated that there tices of the industry are among the might be some differences in the standthings which the Secretary will have to ards set; is this correct? consider, along with safety, in deciding

Suppose, for example, a car manufacwhat standards to prescribe and when turer makes a small, so-called fun carto make them effective, and that, de

there is one made in my district. It is a pending upon the circumstances, they little, one-cylinder outfit. Is it said that may influence him to allow more than a

this man must follow the same safety year for compliance.

standards that the manufacturers of the The report explains that the require- large cars such as the General Motors, ment that the Secretary consider

Chrysler, and Ford, follow? whether a standard is reasonable, prac- Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman just ticable, and appropriate for a particular

heard the colloquy between the chairman type of vehicle or equipment will allow

and me on the difference in standards. the Secretary “to consider the reason- Mr. MOELLER. In other words, there ableness and appropriateness of a partic- would be a distinction? ular standard in its relationship to the Mr. DINGELL. I must say that this many different types or models of ve

still is not going to authorize the manuhicles which are manufactured.” Could

facturer of the one-cylinder car selling this mean, for instance, that standards

for $750 to market an unsafe automobile for trucks would not necessarily be the

any more than it is going to authorize same as standards for passenger cars?

the manufacturer of a large, luxury-type I have in mind the example of the GSA

motor vehicle selling for $5,000 or $6,000, requirements which apply to passenger to manufacture an unsafe vehicle. But cars and some other vehicles, but do not

because of the difference in weight and apply to certain heavy trucks and other

because of the difference in speed and types of vehicles.

because of the different potential use for Mr. STAGGERS. Well, certainly, I

that type of vehicle, I would say that the believe that is understood.

safety standards would not necessarily Mr. DINGELL. And, of course, there be as comprehensive, or as onerous, for would be a possibility of different stand- that type of vehicle as they might be on ards for one type of passenger vehicle, the larger, heavier weight vehicle. such as a convertible, as opposed to the But this is a matter of judgment that standards for a standard sedan, for ex- the Secretary will have to exercise. He ample? Am I correct on that point?

will still be required by this legislation to

market a vehicle that would be safe unMr. STAGGERS. Obviously a difference in types of vehicles could require der any reasonable standards or occa

sions of use. differences in standards.

The Chairman, the gentleman from and they are simply going to have to West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS) might wish manufacture good, safe motor vehicles. to comment on that, being the chief ofi- I would say they have made & sincere cer of the committee.

effort over the years to carry out this Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I purpose. I think there is no evidence think the gentleman from Michigan has on record that is in any way persuasive stated it very thoroughly.

that they have in any way deliberately Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, or willfully or wantonly or negligently will the gentleman yield ?

or carelessly manufactured unsafe motor Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentle- vehicles. The only thing they seek is man.

legislation which will afford them reaMr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,

sonable time to comply with the safety I think the gentleman from Michigan

standards that the Secretary is going to brings up a very serious problem that impose. I am satisfied that he will on may be involved here. He comes from the basis of the colloquy with my chairan area where this problem will present man, and also on the basis of my own itself.

reading, that it is fully intended that, Mr. DINGELL. I might say to the gen

where a reasonable man would say that tleman that he is correct. I represent

these requirements cannot be complied one of the largest single areas of auto

with within the time, that the Secretary mobile manufacture in the country.

not only has the authority, but that he Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,

will use that authority to see it to that I do not know anybody in the automo

adequate time is afforded to the indusbile Industry. I have not been in con

try to comply. tact with them. But I have read in

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I the gentlethe papers where under this legislation

man will yield further, I will agree, but I there is going to be a tremendous prob

will say that they are not always lem involved in this so-called leadtime.

reasonable. Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will

Mr. DINGELL. I can say to the gen

tleman that I can conceive of a situation permit, I would point out that the chair

where possibly some Secretary of Transman has already indicated in the col

portation or Secretary of Commerce loquy with me that the language in the

would not behave reasonably and well bill is directed at assuring that the Sec

under the circumstances. But I would retary will take very carefully into con

rather point out to my good friend that sideration the problems of leadtime

such is going to be a rarity, and we have and not in an unreasonable or improper

put into the bill for this very reason fashion, but certainly to see to it that the industry has reasonable opportunity

& requirement of the Administrative

Procedure Act which must be complied to present their views, and to comply

with by the Secretary, and a clear auwith the requirements in a reasonable

thorization for the industry to appeal in fashion.

the event the Secretary acts arbitrarily Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I understand that. I heard the colloquy, and I lis

or capriciously, or that he overreaches

the ordinary and reasonable bounds for tened to it very carefully. But what we

good judgment and reasonable behavior. say here and what the Secretary does after he gets this bill are two different

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My only inter- 19660

est was to determine, since the gentlethings.

man comes from an area that is priI just wondered whether the gentleman from Michigan who is primarily

marily concerned, whether he is satisconcerned with this, and as his people

fied. If he is satisfied, it is all right with

me. are—the people who work for these

Mr. DINGELL. As long as the bill is manufacturers and the manufacturers

interpreted reasonably, I do not believe I wonder whether he feels that some

I could assert any objection either to the thing more definite ought to be done in

legislation or to the manner in which it this regard, and if he would care to of

happens to be carried out. That, of fer an amendment to assure that these

course, was the principal purpose of my people are going to have time to make these changes, and produce the automo

taking the floor.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the biles, without serious financial loss?

gentleman yield? Mr. DINGELL. I would say to my

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentlegood friend that I believe the legislation

man from California. as drawn is reasonable legislation. I

Mr. MOSS. It is clearly not the inrecognize that the auto industry, which

tent that unreasonable standards be imis the largest single employer in my dis

posed. trict, is going to be compelled to conform to good manufacturing practices,

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is ab- Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

solutely correct on that point. I would Mr. MOSS. It is not intended by the not look with any kindness, nor would colloquy the gentleman has engaged in the committee, on a dragging of the feet with such finite care that we place the or any rascality of that kind, and I am stamp of approval upon a dragging of satisfied that the industry would not enthe feet by the industry.

gage in that kind of practice.

House Committee Report House Report 1776, Page 17

Effective date of orders. - Section 103(e) of the reported bill provides that

every order establishing a safety standard shall specify the effective date of that standard. This date is not to be sooner than 180 days or later than 1 year from the date the order is issued except in those cases where the Secretary finds that either an earlier or a later date is in the public interest and publishes his reasons for such finding.

This provision differs from the introduced bill which provided that a safety standard could take effect as late as 2 years after the date of issuance and did not provide for any exception from the statutory limits with respect to effective dates. The committee reduced this outside limit to 1 year because of the urgency for the prompt establishment of standards. The exception based on a finding that an earlier or later effective date may be fixed if it is in the public interest was added by the committee to provide the necessary flexibility for unusual situations.

Senate Passed Act

Congressional Record-Senate
June 24, 1966, 14256

Interim redoral motor vehicle safety

Revised Federal motor vehicle safety standards

standards Sec. 102.

SDC. 103.. (b) Interim standards prescribed pursuant (b) Standards prescribed pursuant to this o this section shall becomo efectivo on a soction shall become efectivo OD • dato dato the Secretary which shall specified by the Secretary which shall be no be no sooner than one hundred and eighty sooner than one hundrod olgbty dan nor days nor later than one year from the date later than one year from tho date on which

which such standards are published. such standards are published, except that, Such standards shall remain in effect untui for good cause shown, the secretary may

and revised Federal motor vehiclo specify a later effective date, and in such safety standards become effective pursuant event ho shall publish his reasons therefor. to soction 103.


« PreviousContinue »