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 of their vehicles within one year. There 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. It 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.

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. Well, certainly, I 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.

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 standards for vehicles which are obviously directed for a different type of use. Am I correct?

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. 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 automo

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?

But

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 that type of vehicle, I would say that the 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.

tact 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 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 interest was to determine, since the gentleman comes from an area that is pri

marily 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.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. In setting standards the Secretary shall, 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. Mr. STAGGERS. That is the intent of the committee on both sides of the aisle. The Secretary shall consult as he deems advisable.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. As he deems advisable.

Mr. STAGGERS. Yes.

Interim Federal motor vehicle safety standards

SEC. 102. (a)

(c) In prescribing interim standards under this section, the Secretary shall

(1) consult with the Vehicle 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 consumer organizations, as he deems appropriate.

(2) consider, in the light of available technical information, 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; and

(3) consider the extent to which such standards will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this Act.

Revised Federal motor vehicle safety
standards

SEC. 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 legislative 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 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

(4) consider the extent to which such standards will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this Act.

(e) For the purposes of this section inter- 14257 ested persons afforded an opportunity to participate in the rule-making process to prescribe or amend standards under this section shall include manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, public and private organizations and individuals engaged to a significant extent in the promotion or study of motor vehicle safety and automobile insurance underwriters.

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,