Page images
PDF
EPUB

Conference Report House Report 1919, Pages 15 and 16

EFFECTIVE DATES OF STANDARDS

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 urge 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 specity tary ands that an earlier or later effective the date such standard is to take effect which date is in the public interest, and pubusha shall not be sooner than one hundred and his reasons for such dinding. eighty days or later than one 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 & 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 bill 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 it 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 bi 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-il, 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 estabwhich standards may require can, of

lished for orderly and the reasonable eco. course, be most eficiently and economically made in connection with basic

nomic production of these motor vemodel changes. Others of the "add-on"

hicles. type could readily be made at the time

Also that we have established the pat-
of 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 obvi-
would 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 re-
the 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
ster

andard program--they are timed to co- the gentleman yield?
incide with the annual model changes. Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentle-

As 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 stand-
things which the Secretary will have to ards set; is this correct?
consider, along with safety, in deciding Suppose, for example, a car manufac-
what standards to prescribe and when turer makes a small, so-called fun car-
to 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 ME 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 Mr. STAGGERS. Obviously a differ

market a vehicle that would be safe un

der any reasonable standards or occaence in types of vehicles could require

sions of use. differences in standards.

The Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS) might wish to comment on that, being the chief oficer 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 gentleman.

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 leadtime and 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 manufacturers I 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 reasonable time to comply with the safety 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 & 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 interest was to determine, since the gentleman comes from an area that is primarily concerned, whether he is satisfied. 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.

19660 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(c) 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 8pc. 102. .......................

Soc. 103..........::::::initetinie (b) Interim standards prescribed pursuant (b) Standards prescribed pursuant to this o this section shall becomo efectivo on & section shall become efectivo On data dato specified by the Secretary which shall specified by the Secretary which shall be no be no sooner than one hundred and eighty sooner than one hundred oighty dan nor days nor later than one year from the date later than one year from the date on which on which such standards are published. such standards are published, except that, Such standards shall remain in effect until for good causo shown, the Socrotary may new and revised Federal motor vehiclo spocity a later effectivo date, and in such safety standards become effective pursuant event ho shall publish his reasons thorotor. to section 103.

« PreviousContinue »