Sta it will be unable to publish these hearings because of exorbitant printing costs. Is it not unusual for a regulatory commission to be unable to inform the public of its findings? There is, perhaps, a more pointed explanation in the suggestion that Mr. Paul Rand Dixon, the chairman, lacks the nerve to publish what was said. The FTC also is interested in odometers, and is said to be nearing completion of a study on the subject begun in the Hoover Administration. The National Bureau of Standards discovered in recent years that odometers, the mileage indicators, overregistered by about 3.2 percent. This meant that rental car companies, whose rates are based on mileage, were overtharging their customers (rough estimates suggest overcharges for autos alone amounted to more than $4 million a year), and the government was losing $40 million a year in inflated gas mileage, tax deductions. It also suggested gas mileage claims might be off. The industry agreed to set odometers back to an average zero error, beginning this year. But a good many rental vehicles made before then still are on the roads, the customers who are unfortunate enough to get them pay more. One solution would be to persuade the rental car companies to discount gas mileage charges by 3.2 percant for all vehicles made before January, 1965. The Commission is not eager to take this step, since it is under the impression that should a rental car customer protest loudly enough about overcharges, he will get a refund anyway. The Commission has not passed along this impression to the rental car customers. We put in calls to the Washington offices of Hertz and Avis, where friendly but firm voices said there could refunds because the rental car companies had no C trol over the auto manufacturers. ind the It is a little difficult to believe the Commission E T conned; its role in the odometer business certainly the puzzling. Perhaps it will be explained when the 30-yesin study is published. One might suspect that the com missioners would be bursting with curiosity to find ou whether Detroit's gas mileage claims actually we based on real miles or phony ones. Certainly it might sho sue to get the government's money back from rent car companies which overcharged it. And it could letect into the possible collusion between rental car me panies and automobile manufacturers, both of which seemed happy enough to leave the odometers set i even where it was a relatively simple matter to pe them back to zero. In the course of such an inquiry the FTC might eamine the workings of the Society of Automotive Eng neers, an independent professional group that se standards which the industry is said to use in the cor struction of autos. Among other things the SAE write up odometer specifications. The members of SAE tech nical committees are employed by the auto manufa turers; SAE's funds come from the industry; its staciholdings devoted largely to petroleum, tire, auto and oddly enough rental car companies, tall better the anything where the SAE's heart bes. It would be is teresting to have from the FTC, or perhaps from Mr. Ribicoff's subcommittee, a close description of how these people go about setting auto standards. That might tell a lot about competition in Detroit. ing Senator RIBICOFF. So I would take my hat off to the Bureau of Standards for coming up with a simple device to show the automobile industry-and this is the thing that bothers me, Mr. Secretary, about the automobile industry. The Bureau of Standards is a great organization, and I imagine they must have a very tough time getting enough money to do the job that is required of them because this type of agency is always a little understaffed and needs more people, and doesn't pay the salaries. Secretary CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, on that point, the diligence shown by the Bureau of Standards in this particular situation in protecting the public interest has been used to good advantage in preparing our requested appropriation in a higher amount for the Bureau of Standards. Senator RIBICOFF. How much more did you ask for the Bureau of Standards? Secretary CONNOR. That is a long story, but they asked my predecessor as Secretary more than he was willing to submit. In any event it is an appreciable increase that is now being considered by Chairman Rooney's subcommittee. Senator RIBICOFF. All right. One of the ways of helping is by calling attention to these facts. If the Bureau of Standards, through a simple inquiry, has caused a change and saved the Federal Government $40 million in revenues, boy, it wouldn't take very many more arguments like that to give the Bureau of Standards the money it needs to protect the American people, and I think this point should be made. TIRE ENDURANCE TEST FACILITY I understand that the National Bureau of Standards has the only tire endurance test facility that is not controlled by the tire industry. Is that true? Mr. JENSEN. I believe Dr. Stiehler, who is in the room, Mr. Chairman, is in better position to answer questions. Senator RIBICOFF. Dr. Stiehler? Secretary CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, your staff was very diligent because they did raise two questions which required two different specialists from the Bureau of Standards. Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much. I want to show you that we are pretty serious about this business. Secretary CONNOR. I don't think anybody doubts that, Mr. Chair man. Senator RIBICOFF. Now, what is the story? As I understand, you are the only ones outside the automobile industry that have a measure test facility for tire endurance, is that correct? Secretary CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, do you want him to introduce himself? Senator RIBICOFF. Yes, give your name. STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. STIEHLER, CHIEF OF EVALUATION CRITERIA, INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH Mr. STIEHLER. My name is Robert D. Stiehler, I am Chief of the Evaluation Criteria Section of the National Bureau of Standards. Senator RIBICOFF. How about this tire machine? Mr. STIEHLER. Well, on the endurance machine there is a machine down in San Antonio, Tex., and there is another machine being installed at the Electrical Testing Laboratories in New York which the Rubber Manufacturers Association will be using for testing tires. Senator RIBICOFF. How about you at the Bureau of Standards, is this yours? Mr. STIEHLER. This is ours, yes, we have one here. The machine that we have, the only one, is the one for measuring tread wear, indoor tire test for measuring tread wear. Senator RIBICOFF. What is the future planning for this facility? Mr. STIEHLER. There are no future plans. There are no plans to move this to Gaithersburg. Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, when you go to Gaithersburg you are abandoning it? Mr. STIEHLER. I don't know what will happen to the existing facility. Senator RIBICOFF. Do you think it is right in protecting the Ameripan people to abandon or eliminate the one facility for tire testing separate and apart from that controlled by the tire industry? Mr. STIEHLER. Well, if there are going to be Federal specifications for tires, the Government should have facilities for testing tires. Secretary CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, may I say at this point that this is the first time I have heard this. Having had some experience in the management of large organizations, I believe in organizational discipline, and if the people in the Bureau of Standards are dissatis-" fied with their appropriation request in this respect I would be most appreciative if they bring it to my attention first before obviously making it available to the committees of Congress. If you give me an opportunity to look into this I will give you a report as soon as I can. Senator RIBICOFF. I would say with all due respect, because you will have plenty of these headaches-I had my share as Secretary-I would say there is no disloyalty involved at all, because this information was called to my attention by the Joint Legislative Committee on Motor Vehicles and Traffic Safety of the State of New York, and they wrote me calling my attention to the fact that this facility was going to be dropped. This letter was sent to me by Henry H. Wakeland, automotive consultant of the Joint Legislative Committee of New York, and he sent me a copy of a letter that your Bureau sent in answer to the inquiry he had from the State of New York authorities. There wasn't any question of disloyalty. Secretary CONNOR. Well, I repeat, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I learned about it and I would appreciate an opportunity to look into it and give you a report as to whether this is wise or unwise. Senator RIBICOFF. Yes, as far as I am concerned that is all right. We will send over to you, Mr. Secretary, a copy of the correspondence that we received from the New York authorities. Secretary CONNOR. I appreciate that. EXHIBIT 34 ABANDONMENT OF TIRE ENDURANCE TEST BY NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS STATE OF NEW YORK JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON MOTOR VEHICLES & TRAFFIC SAFETY Albany, N.Y., March 23, 1965 Dear Senator Ribicoff: This Committee notes that the Committee on Executive Reorganization is studying problems of traffic safety from the Federal point of view, and this letter is to point out a possible serious loss impending in the Federal area. The enclosed letter of the National Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce, states that the Bureau must soon abandon or junk its tire endurance test facility when it moves to a new location. This Committee has used this facility to good advantage in the last year, and the test which it is able to perform is the basis for a tire safety law proposed by this Committee and still up for consideration. For our current studies in tire safety, it is very important that a test facility be available which is not under control of private interests and which can produce institutional test results not under suspicion of bias. The reason for this is simple. The major tire companies have opposed any government set standards for tire safety, and have also opposed other consumer-usable standards of tire quality. In this opposition they have argued that it is technically impractical to create such standards. Thus any testing to be done in creating such standards is automatically in question if done by the tire companies themselves or by any agency which is partially beholden to tire companies for financial support. We know of no facility which meets these requirements except the National Bureau of Standards. It was this tire endurance test facility which allowed this Committee to discover, last summer, that tires being marketed on Long Island under the name of "Safety Special" were grossly misleadingly labeled and were actually substandard. Following this discovery, representations were made to the Federal Trade Commission in which, at FTC request, the company which had manufactured the misleadingly labeled tires was named. The sequence of action was parallel to the control over drug quality which has been in existence for many years, yet we now find that the ability to make the necessary tests under unbiased conditions is to be withdrawn. The Bureau of Standards also has a large facility which allows laboratory conditions for testing of tires running against road surfaces. This facility, located in a building approximately 50 feet square, is capable of testing tire wear, just as presently installed. With minor modifications it would be suitable for testing tire friction on road surfaces and This road surface facility has not been used to any great degree since its initial usage in testing tire wear properties. If there were a federal Department for Consumer Interests as well as a Department of Commerce, and if such facility were under control of the former department rather than the latter department, the NBS facility would certainly be much more used. Those interest groups which are associated with "commerce" have not been particularly anxious to extend standards in general into the consumer field. If there is to be an unbiased test facility for governmental groups, it would seem necessary that some review be made of the apparent decision of Department of Commerce to abandon the facility. The road surface test facility may also be abandoned or junked, since it is even larger than the endurance testing machines, and the policy that these machines are not to be transferred appears to have been settled. It is not impossible that the current stresses in the area of product safety standards may produce a more consumer-oriented attitude toward standards in the Department of Commerce, or possibly andher agency specifically related to Consumer needs, but that time is not yet here. HHW/bp Very truly yours, Henry W. Wakul and Henry Wakeland |