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 éffective date is in the public interest.

House Passed Act

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19670

"(c) Each order establishing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard shall specify the date such standard is to take effect which shall not be sooner than one hundred and eighty days or later than one year from the

date such order is issued, unless the Secretary finds that an earlier or later effective date is in the public interest, and publishes his reasons for such finding.

House Debate

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my chairman for his kindness in yielding to me. There are a number of points I want to raise with respect to the contents of this legislation, particularly, I hope, dealing with questions of

lead time which is one of vital importance to the industry which is one of the principal employers in the district that I have the honor to represent in Congress.

As the membership of the committee, and anyone else familiar with the industry knows, lead time is a most important matter. 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.

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

I will appreciate the chairman's con- of their vehicles within one year. There firmation 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.

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 19649 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" 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.

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 economic production of these motor vehicles.

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

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 what 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. 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 might be some differences in the standards 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?

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

But

Mr. STAGGERS. Well, certainly, I that type of vehicle, I would say that the 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.

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

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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »