« PreviousContinue »
However, full provision is made in the bill considerations. That is the practice
or full consultation and, obviously, he which has been followed with the GSA will have to consider among other things requirements and the exhaust emission the ability of the manufacturers to meet standard program—they are timed to cothe dates, and the economic impact upon incide with the annual model changes. the manufacturers if effective dates are As I understand the bill and the chairnot set with due regard to their leadtime man's remarks, these problems and pracrequirements.
tices of the industry are among the Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I cer things which the Secretary will have to tainly thank the chairman of the Com- consider, along with safety, in deciding mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com what standards to prescribe and when merce, the gentleman from West Vir- to make them effective, and that, deginia (Mr. STAGGERS), and as the chair pending upon the circumstances, they man has so well stated, it is precisely be may influence him to allow more than a cause of this leadtime problem that the year for compliance. committee amended the original bill to The report explains that the requireauthorize the Secretary to make the ment that the Secretary consider standard effective later than 1 year from whether a standard is reasonable, pracits issuance if he finds that this is in the ticable, and appropriate for a particular public interestif, for example, a year is type of vehicle or equipment will allow too short for compliance or compliance the Secretary “to consider the reasoncan be achieved only at exorbitant cost ableness and appropriateness of a particor other severe economic dislocation. ular standard in its relationship to the
The explanation should satisfy any many different types or models of veconcern of the industry and the workers hicles which are manufactured.” Could who depend upon it for their livelihood, this mean, for instance, that standards many of whom are constitutents of my for trucks would not necessarily be the district. It takes no great knowledge of same as standards for passenger cars? the industry to be aware that situations I have in mind the example of the GSA will undoubtedly arise where more than requirements which apply to passenger a year will have to be allowed for com cars and some other vehicles, but do not pliance—where it will be a physical or apply to certain heavy trucks and other economic impossibility for all manufac types of vehicles. turers to comply with a standard for all Mr. STAGGERS. Well, certainly, I of their vehicles within one year. There believe that is understood. simply may not be enough tooling and
Mr. DINGELL. And, of course, there technology to do the job, or the cost of
would be a possibility of different standcompliance on a crash basis may be so
ards for one type of passenger vehicle, great as to price vehicles out of the mass
such as a convertible, as opposed to the market. Because of these tooling limi
standards for a standard sedan, for extations and cost considerations, manu
ample? Am I correct on that point? facturers do not make basic changes in
Mr. STAGGERS. Obviously a differall of their models each year. Instead. the general industry practice is for a
ence in types of vehicles could require manufacturer to make basic model
differences in standards. changes at intervals of three years or
Mr. DINGELL. However, we are conso for each of his vehicle lines, and to do
fronted with a proposal which does imso on a staggered annual basis so that
pose the requirements that the time lim
itation be met, but for good cause the each year he has one or more basic new
time limitation may be waived which models while face-lifting the others until their turn comes to be "rolled over" in
would be the very obvious and difficult the basic change cycle. Some changes
problem with which the manufacturers which standards may require can, of
would be faced with regard to meeting course, be most efficiently and economi
the leadtime requirements when estabcally made in connection with basic lished for orderly and the reasonable ecomodel changes. Others of the “add-on" nomic production of these motor vetype could readily be made at the time hicles. of the annual model change, even when Also that we have established the patit is only of the face-lift variety. It
tern whereby we could have different would accordingly seem that, in general, standards for vehicles which are obvistandards should not be made effective
ously directed for a different type of use. earlier than the next model year and that
Am I correct?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes. I might re. Mr. DINGELL. I might say to the genpeat for the gentleman's information tleman that he is correct. I represent that it states very plainly in the bill that one of the largest single areas of autoif it is in the public interest, and he so mobile manufacture in the country. finds, then he must come up in writing Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, with what these reasons are.
I do not know anybody in the automoMr. MOELLER. Mr. Chairman, will bile industry. I have not been in conthe gentleman yield?
tact with them. But I have read in Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentle. the papers where under this legislation man.
there is going to be a tremendous probMr. MOELLER. You stated that there lem involved in this so-called leadtime. might be some differences in the stand Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will ards set; is this correct?
permit, I would point out that the chairSuppose, for example, a car manufac man has already indicated in the colturer makes a small, so-called fun car loquy with me that the language in the there is one made in my district. It is a bill is directed at assuring that the Seclittle, one-cylinder outfit. Is it said that retary will take very carefully into conthis man must follow the same safety sideration the problems of leadtime standards that the manufacturers of the and not in an unreasonable or improper large cars such as the General Motors, fashion, but certainly to see to it that Chrysler, and Ford, follow?
the industry has reasonable opportunity Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman just to present their views, and to comply heard the colloquy between the chairman with the requirements in a reasonable and me on the difference in standards. fashion. Mr. MOELLER. In other words, there
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I understand would be a distinction?
that. I heard the colloquy, and I lisMr. DINGELL. I must say that this tened to it very carefully. But what we still is not going to authorize the manu- say here and what the Secretary does facturer of the one-cylinder car selling after he gets this bill are two different for $750 to market an unsafe automobile things. any more than it is going to authorize I just wondered whether the gentlethe manufacturer of a large, luxury-type man from Michigan who is primarily motor vehicle selling for $5.000 or $6.000, concerned with this, and as his people to manufacture an unsafe vehicle. But are—the people who work for these because of the difference in weight and manufacturers and the manufacturersbecause of the difference in speed and
I wonder whether he feels that somebecause of the different potential use for
thing more definite ought to be done in that type of vehicle, I would say that the
this regard, and if he would care to ofsafety standards would not necessarily
fer an amendment to assure that these be as comprehensive, or as onerous, for
people are going to have time to make that type of vehicle as they might be on
these changes, and produce the automothe larger, heavier weight vehicle.
biles, without serious financial loss? But this is a matter of judgment that
Mr. DINGELL. I would say to my the Secretary will have to exercise. He
good friend that I believe the legislation will still be required by this legislation to
as drawn is reasonable legislation. I market a vehicle that would be safe un
recognize that the auto industry, which der any reasonable standards or occa
is the largest single employer in my dissions of use.
trict, is going to be compelled to conThe Chairman, the gentleman from
form to good manufacturing practices, West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS) might wish
and they are simply going to have to to comment on that, being the chief ofi
manufacture good, safe motor vehicles. cer of the committee.
I would say they have made a sincere Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, ]
effort over the years to carry out this think the gentleman from Michigan has
purpose. I think there is no evidence
on record that is in any way persuasive stated it very thoroughly. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
that they have in any way deliberately will the gentleman yield ?
or willfully or wantonly or negligently Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentle
or carelessly manufactured unsafe motor
vehicles. The only thing they seek is man.
legislation which will afford them reaMr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
an, 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,
where a reasonable man would say that marily concerned, whether he is satis-
legislation or to the manner in which it
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the Mr. DINGELL. I can say to the gen- gentleman yield? tleman that I can conceive of a situation Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentlewhere possibly some Secretary of Trans- man from California. portation or Secretary of Commerce Mr. MOSS. It is clearly not the inwould not behave reasonably and well tent that unreasonable standards be imunder the circumstances. But I would posed. rather point out to my good friend that Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is absuch is going to be a rarity, and we have solutely correct. put into the bill for this very reason Mr. MOSS. It is not intended by the a requirement of the Administrative colloquy the gentleman has engaged in Procedure Act which must be complied with such finite care that we place the with by the Secretary, and a clear au- stamp of approval upon a dragging of thorization for the industry to appeal in the feet by the industry. the event the Secretary acts arbitrarily Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is abor capriciously, or that he overreaches solutely correct on that point. I would the ordinary and reasonable bounds for not look with any kindness, nor would good judgment and reasonable behavior. the committee, on a dragging of the feet
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My only inter- or any rascality of that kind, and I am est was to determine, since the gentle satisfied that the industry would not enman comes from an area that is pri- gage in that kind of practice.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. In setting standards the Secretary sball, as he deems appropriate, consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, and such other State or interstate agencies, including legislative committees.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSS. I yield to the chairman.
M. STAGGERS. That is the intent of the committee on both sides of the alsle. The Secretary shall consult as he deems advisable.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. As he deems advisable.
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes.
House Committee Report
Safety performance standards based on scientific and engineering research can lead to both a reduction of the incidence of accidents and to a reduction of the deaths and injuries which are associated with motor vehicle accidents. Not only is there general agreement that there is a need for Federal legislation at this time but also most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, including the represent
atives of the automotive industry, support mandatory safety standards for new motor vehicles.
Standards, of course, cannot be set in a vacuum. They must be based on relialle information and research. One of the facts which was brought to the fore in the course of the committee's her rings was that it is virtually impossible to obtain specific information and data concerning the causes of traffic accidents and the performance of vehicles in accident situations. Much work in this area is being done but is is ciffused. Under this hill this work can be argmented and channeled so that it will be more widely disseminated to all interested persons thus leading to improved motor vehicle safety performance with a consequent reduction in deaths and injuries. ..............................................................
Consultation and other requirements. Section 103(f) of the reported 17 bill provides that the Secretary shall in prescribing standards (1) consider relevant safety data (including research, development, testing, and evaluation activities); (2) consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission and such other State or interstate agencies (including legislative committees) as he deems appropriate; (3) consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of vehicle or item or equipment for which it is prescribed; and (4) consider the extent to which a standard will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this act.
Under this subsection the Secretary before issuing an order establishing, amending, or revoking a safety standard is required to consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission and, as he deems appropriate, with other State or interstate agencies (including legislative committees). It is expected that the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission and interested State and interstate agencies will actively participate, through consultation, in the formulation of 18 safety standards.
The Secretary must also give consideration to relevant available safety data and the results of research, development, testing, and evaluation conducted pursuant to this act. In this connection it is expected that not only will the Secretary consider data and results derived from Federal activities in this area but also that he will avail himself of information derived from those State governments and educational institutions which are pursuing improvements in vehicle and equipment safety.
The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for a particular type of vehicle or equipment for which it is prescribed. This provision allows the Secretary in prescribing standards to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of a particular standard in its relationship to the many different types and models of vehicles which are manufactured.
This subsection also contains a general provision which requires the Secretary to consider the extent to which any prescribed standard contributes to the achievement of the purposes of the act.
Senate Passed Act
Interim Federal motor vehicle safety
standards Scc. 102. (a) ..............
..... (c) In prescribing interim standards under this section, the Secretary shall
(1) consult with the Vehiclo Equipment Safety Commission, with other State and interstate agencies (including legislative committees). with motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and with scientific, technical, business, and consumo organizations, as he deems appropriate.
(2) consider, in the light of avallablo technical Information, whether any such proposed standard reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular typo of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and
(3) consider the exient to which such standards will contribuie to carrying out the purposes of this Act. Revised Federal motor vehicle safety
standards SDC. 103. .....
(c) In prescribing standards under this section, the Secretary shall
(1) consider relevant available motor vehicle safety data, including the results of research, development, testing and evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this Act:
(2) consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, and such other state or interstate agencies (including legislativo committees) as he deems appropriate, which consultation shall include (A) informing the Commission and other agencies of all proposed Federal vehicle safety standards and amendments thereto and (B) affording such Commission and other agencies an opportunity to study and comment on such standards and amendments;
(3) consider whether any such proposed
(4) consider the extent to which such
(6) For the purposes of this section inter- 14257
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, the bill he "shall consider what is practicable" states that the Secretary of Commerce, included the right to consider the costs. in fixing standards of safety for the It was finally agreed to write into the manufacture of automobiles, shall con- report a certain understanding which sider “whether any such proposed stand- was to be used as a guide in interpreting ard is reasonable, practicable, and ap the language used. propriate for the particular type of motor I now ask the manager of the bill, the vehicle or item of motor vehicle equip- Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUment for which it is prescribed.”
son), to point out and read the language In the committee, an extensive discus- in the bill that is intended to aid in the sion took place concerning the right of interpretation of what was meant by the the Secretary to consider the costs that committee. would be entailed in promulgating the Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator from adoption of certain types of equipment. Ohio is correct. The committee considIt was argued by some that the language ered this question at some length. Sevdid not allow the Secretary to consider eral members of the committee thought the cost that would be added to the auto- that the reasonableness of cost and feasimobile. Others argued that the lan- bility would be included in the words guage was adequate, and the words that “standards shall be reasonable, practical,