Senator RIBICOFF. I understand that the President has asked each agency to submit to him recommendations as to how they could improve their existing safety program. Have you done so?

Postmaster General GRONOUSKI. It is being prepared, and we will submit it within 90 days.

Senator RIBICOFF. And after you clear it with the White House, will you please submit those recommendations to this committee for the record?

GRANT TO GENERAL MOTORS CORP. FOR RESEARCH

Now, getting back to this $115,000 grant to General Motors, which is still troublesome to me. As I understand it, in 1963 you asked for bids from various organizations to do a crash safety study for the Post Office Department. None of the big four automakers submitted bids; is that correct?

Mr. NIELD. We received a bid from General Motors. That is the only one of the four.

Senator RIBICOFF. In the first go-around?

Mr. NIELD. Yes, sir; that was the only 1 of the 4 big motor manufacturers that submitted a bid and we received 10 bids, altogether. Senator RIBICOFF. It was my understanding that 18 firms indicated an interest in your invitation to bid. The Big Four were not among them. At a later date, you sent a letter to the 18 respondents to the bid invitation and to 7 others who had not responded, including the General Motors Technical Center at Warren, Mich.; is that correct? Mr. NIELD. When the bids themselves were submitted, there were 10 bids, and General Motors was among the 10.

Senator RIBICOFF. But, originally, neither General Motors nor any of the major automakers indicated an interest in this study; is that correct?

Mr. NIELD. They did not respond to the advertisement in the Commerce Business Daily.

Senator RIBICOFF. They did not respond to it, but you sent a letter to them and asked them to respond; is that correct?

Mr. NIELD. Yes, sir.

Senator RIBICOFF. Now, do you know why they didn't respond? Why did you not deal with those who responded? Why did you go back and seek a bid from one of the automakers?

Mr. NIELD. Well, General Motors does have what we consider to be the finest facility in the world to do this type of work. So, we were very much interested in receiving a bid from them. It is quite common for firms that are interested in certain areas to overlook the advertisement in the Commerce Business Daily. So, in such cases, we do make available to them the information that we are actually seeking bids.

Senator RIBICOFF. What I am curious about is this: The Federal Government spends about $140 million a year on civilian and military motor vehicles; why shouldn't the automobile manufacturers who get this business do research on safety for the Government? Why should the Post Office Department have to pay any automobile manufacturer $115,000 for a safety study?

Mr. NIELD. The type of vehicle that we are considering here is not in the area where they do a great deal of business with us. In 1964,

they sold 7.8 percent of the vehicles that we procured. In the 2 previous years, they sold no vehicles to the Post Office Department. So, we are not actually a favored customer in that respect for this type of vehicle.

Senator RIBICOFF. Who gets most of your business? Which automobile manufacturer gets most of your business?

Mr. NIELD. Chrysler Corp. gets a very substantial part of it, and International Harvester also.

SHOULD THE MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY FURNISH SAFETY RESEARCH AS A MATTER OF COURSE?

Senator RIBICOFF. Why shouldn't the Chrysler Corp. then undertake to do the safety research on vehicles that they sell you? This is a large corporation, and it does this large business with you. Why couldn't this study be done, as a matter of course, by Chrysler or International Harvester?

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, if I could respond partially, I agree a great deal with your sentiments about this. I think a great deal more basic research in safety ought to be done by the leading car manufacturers. One problem here is the fact that we have a substantial number of right-hand-drive vehicles, about 14,000 that we use, which are fairly peculiar to us. In addition to that we also have a very high percentage of vehicles with a type of seat arrangement for which very little research, insofar as seat belts and restraining devices, has

been done.

So it may be considered not a direct principal concern of these larger companies to undertake research in this particular limited area. But my personal feeling would very closely coincide with yours-that a lot more basic safety research ought to be done by the automobile manufacturers themselves. In any event, we feel that we ought to take independent action in those areas of specific interest to the postal

service.

Senator RIBICOFF. Would you say that the automobile manufacturers have shirked their responsibility in the safety research field? Mr. MURPHY. I think a lot more could be done by them, from my point of view. Frankly, Senator, that is my personal view.

Senator RIBICOFF. I notice in your prepared statement that you have added some features to Post Office vehicles. They are very interesting.

WIDER FRONT VIEW VISION AND BACKUP BUZZER

On the question of special design to improve front-view vision at bumper level, if it is good enough for the Post Office, why isn't it good enough for all trucks and automobiles?

Postmaster General GRONOUSKI. I think it ought to be on all trucks where there is a lack of adequate close-in front vision.

And also, this backup buzzer is a very clever device. The child hears it and is warned if for some reason the driver does not see the child behind the vehicle.

Senator RIBICOFF. What is the cost of that front view vision mirror with buzzer device on the back of it? What is the additional cost to the trucks?

Mr. NIELD. The cost of the mirror is about $1.70.

Senator RIBICOFF. And what do you pay for a truck?

Mr. NIELD. Depending upon the size, anywhere from $1,800 up to $4,000.

Senator RIBICOFF. Some of the big trucks we see on the highways certainly cost more than $4,000. Is there any justification in your opinion, why the automobile industry shouldn't put a $1.70 safety device on a vehicle that cost $4,000, as standard equipment?

Mr. NIELD. I think the cost is very well justified by the need. Senator RIBICOFF. That is right, especially where the cost is so minor. But is there any justification for the automobile industry not to use devices like this as standard equipment?

Mr. NIELD. I know of no reason why they should not.

DISCOVERY OF WIDER FRONT VIEW VISION DEVICE

Mr. MURPHY. There is a very interesting story behind that particular device, Senator. It really is a "pot lid" basically. It was developed from one of our own employee's suggestion. We had tried to find a mirror that would give a wide-range view. There is a peculiar design problem that we have in many of our mail vehicles which makes it impossible to see young children at the front bumper level of the vehicle. We could not find any mirror that would give sufficient comprehensive view at the front. Then while one of our employees was washing dishes with his wife he happened to notice that the top of this particular pot gave a wide reflection of the whole room. He made a suggestion to us that we use this on our vehicles. He worked in a post office in Florida. We tested it out, and it gave fantastic vision and helped to solve this problem we had been wrestling with for a long time.

Here is an interesting safety device that has applicability beyond our own particular use that came about as a result of an employee's suggestion.

Senator RIBICOFF. This is very interesting. I don't drive a truck. I am sure that Senator Simpson does, or at least he has. But in driving my own automobile, I find there are many blind spots to my vision: I would like to be able to see what is in front or in back of me as a safety feature. Here we have the Post Office Department developing such a device for its trucks. This is one of the points that we would like to make, as these hearings progress: If the Federal Government uses safety devices and finds them helpful, why are the automobile manufacturers so far behind. Have you ever discussed this with them?

Mr. MURPHY. I have no direct information on it, but I share a great deal of your sentiment.

DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT SAFETY DEVICES

Postmaster General GRONOUSKI. I wonder, also, whether we disseminate this information well enough, whether this is not too much in-house, and whether we could not do a better job of publicizing these new devices as we develop them.

Senator RIBICOFF. Have other Federal agencies, who have a large number of motor vehicles, adopted this Post Office device?

Mr. NIELD. It is a device that is peculiar in application to trucks. It would not be effective on a passenger car, for instance. We do have drawings and procurement documents for the device. To my knowledge, it has been procured only by the Post Office Department to date. Senator RIBICOFF. Is this something on which there is a patent? Mr. NIELD. No, sir.

Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, this is in the public domain right now?

Mr. NIELD. Yes; it is.

Senator RIBICOFF. And any automobile manufacturer could use it? It is in the public domain so there is no development cost involved? Mr. NIELD. That is correct.

OPERATING SPEEDS OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT VEHICLES

Senator RIBICOFF. With regard to the General Motors test, I notice that the testing was done in vehicles whose speeds did not exceed 30 miles per hour, or whose acceleration rate did not exceed 20 G's.

Does this make sense? Do all post office vehicles operate at 30 miles an hour?

Postmaster General GRONOUSKI. I am going to ask Mr. Landry to comment on that.

Mr. LANDRY. Our vehicle operating speeds are governed by whatever are the prevailing traffic requirements in communities. Generally speaking, in urban driving the speeds at which postal vehicles operate stay within those limits. On freeway driving, such as going to our airmail facilities, we, of course, keep up with the normal flow of traffic. But we feel that since the greater number of our vehicles operate within these speed ranges, this would guide us in setting the test requirements.

SUGGESTION AND AWARDS PROGRAM

Senator RIBICOFF. Do you award employees who make suggestions? Postmaster General GRONOUSKI. We have a very, very extensive suggestion and awards program.

Senator RIBICOFF. What award was given this man who devised the pot lid mirror?

Mr. MURPHY. He received the largest award that was ever given.
Senator RIBICOFF. Do you have that figure?

Mr. LANDRY. It was $3,000.

Senator RIBICOFF. What is his name?

Mr. MURPHY. Henry M. Knarr, Jr.; he was in one of the Florida post offices. I will supply it for the record.