testing under safety standards, and methods and equipment for testing motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (107).

The Secretary is also authorized to establish training programs for Federal, State, and private personnel for testing, inspection, and other purposes (§ 108).

OBLIGATION FOR NONCOMPLYING MOTOR VEHI

CLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT

If a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment fails to meet the standards prescribed by the Secretary or contains a safetyrelated defect, the manufacturer must either repurchase from the dealer the defective vehicle or item of equipment, or if the manufacturer chooses, instead promptly deliver corrective parts to the dealer and reimburse the dealer for making corrections (§ 119 (a)). Dealers may bring court actions to recover damages for the breach of this obligation (§ 119 (b)).

These obligations apply only between the manufacturer and the dealer or distributor who purchases a vehicle or item of equip. ment from the manufacturer, and only during the period before such distributor or dealer has sold such vehicle or item of equipment to a customer (§ 119(a)).

PROHIBITED ACTS

The bill makes it a prohibited act to manufacture, sell, or introduce in interstate commerce any motor vehicle or component which fails to conform to applicable Federal safety standards (§ 109(a)(1)). Similarly, the fallure to furnish the certification of compliance and the furnishing of a false certification are made prohibited acts (§ 109 (a) (3)).

It is also a prohibited act to obstruct enforcement of the act by failing to make reports or refusing access to or copying of records, or entry or inspection, or failing or refusing to furnish notification of defects, as required by other sections of the act (109 (a) (2) and (4)).

The prohibitions against the manufacture, shipment, or sale of substandard vehicles or equipment or issuance of a false certification of compliance do not apply

(1) To any sale or shipment after the Arst sale for purposes other than resale; or

(2) To any person who relies upon the certificate of compliance from the manufacturer or distributor and does not actually know of any failure to conform to standards; or

For

(3) To a manufacturer or other person who establishes that he did not know and did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment was not in conformity with such standards (sec. 109 (b)). example, a manufacturer could be relieved from liability upon a showing that he did not know of the failure to conform and that due care had been exercised in manufacturing, inspecting, and shipping the vehicle or item of equipment, in accordance with the manufacturer's obligation to produce vehlcles conforming to the standards.

PENALTIES AND INJUNCTION

The bill imposes a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for each prohibited act (sec. 110(a)). The maximum civil penalty is limited to $400,000 for any related series of violations (sec. 110(a)). For example, if a thousand manufacturer produces several substandard vehicles or items of equipment as the result of the same error in design or construction, or the use of the same defective component, the maximum penalty to be imposed upon any one person for those violations would be limited to $400,000.

The Secretary is authorized to compromise any civil penalty and, in determining the amount of the penalty, the Secretary or court is directed to consider the appropriateness of the proposed penalty to the size of the bustness of the person charged and the gravity of the violation (sec. 110(b)).

The Attorney General is also authorized
to seek injunctions against the performance
of any prohibited act and to enjoin the sale
of any vehicle which fails to conform to ap-
plicable standards under the act (sec. 111).

INSPECTION, RECORDS, AND REPORTS
The Secretary is authorized to conduct
such testing, Inspection, and investigations
as he deems necessary to aid in the enforce-
ment of standards prescribed under the act
(§ 114(a)). He is given express authority to
conduct on-site inspection in factories, ware-
houses, or sales offices (§ 114(b)). Manufac-
turers are required to maintain records, make
reports, and provide the information reason-
ably required by the Secretary (§ 114(c)).

The committee bill provides that the records, reports, and information the Secretary may reasonably require shall be limited to those relevant to determining whether the manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance with title I and motor vehicle safety standards issued thereunder (§ 114(c)). For example, the relevant records, reports, and Information would include data relating to design, manufacturing procedures, quality control, and shipping records for currently manufactured vehicles, and would not include such closely held competitive trade secrets as financial, price, or cost data (§ 114(d)).

EFFECT ON STATE LAW

The centralized, mass production, high volume character of the motor vehicle manufacturing industry in the United States requires that motor vehicle safety standards be not only strong and adequately enforced. but that they be uniform throughout the country. At the same time, the committee believes that the States should be free to adopt standards identical to the Federal standards, which apply only to the first sale of a new vehicle, so that the States may play a significant role in the vehicle safety field by applying and enforcing standards over the life of the car. Accordingly, State standards are preempted only if they differ from Federal standards applicable to the particular aspect of the vehicle or item of vehicle equipment (sec. 104).

The States are also permitted to set more stringent requirements for purposes of their own procurement. Moreover, the Federal minimum safety standards need not be interlaw preted as restricting State common standards of care. Compliance with such standards would thus not necessarily shield any person from product liability at common law.

USED MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION

In recognition of the fact that the setting of new car standards is a partial solution to the problem of motor vehicle safety, the bill expresses a congressional policy "to encourage and strengthen the enforcement of State (sec. inspection of used motor vehicles" 117(a)).

In addition, the Secretary is directed to conduct a thorough study and investigation to determine the adequacy of motor vehicle safety standards and motor vehicle inspection requirements and procedures in each State and the effect of programs authorized by this bill upon such used car standards. requirements, and procedures (sec. 117(b)). The Secretary is directed to report to Congress not later than 1 year after enactment of the bill the results of such study, together with such legislative recommendations as he may deem necessary in the interests of traffic safety (sec. 117(b)).

EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS ON VEHICLE STANDARDS

The bill repeals the Brake Fluid and Seat Belt Standard Acts (Public Laws 87-637 and 88-210), since these subjects are among those covered by the present bill (sec. 120). The Automobile Pollution Control Act (Public Law 89-272) is not repealed, since air pollution devices on automobiles are considered

621

14235

to relate to public health and safety gen-
erally.

APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS

For the reasons set forth below, the committee included a provision in the act providing that "nothing contained herein shall be deemed to exempt from the antitrust laws of the United States any conduct that would otherwise be unlawful under such laws or to prohibit any conduct that would be lawful under such laws" (113).

Although the committee firmly believes that competition among automobile manufacturers in the development of safety improvements is essential for the achievement of rapid progress in automotive safety, the committee is aware that cooperation in research and testing among manufacturers can also play a significant role in safety development. To this end, the bill authorizes the Secretary to advise, assist, and cooperate with manufacturers of inotor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, among others, in the development of motor vehicles safety standards and the testing of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (§ 107).

The committee considered including a provision in the bill to the effect that cooperation among manufacturers in developing safety devices or in exchanging information about safety standards is not illegal per se, but may be justified under the rule of reason" to the extent consistent with the antitrust laws and without creating any exemption from the antitrust laws.

However, the committee was advised by the Department of Justice that such a provision was unnecessary, since cooperation in the development of safety devices and in exchanging information about safety standards would not be unlawful per se under the antitrust laws but would be permissible under the "rule of reason" where joint efforts seem necessary and constructive and are not accompanied by any unduly restrictive collateral agreements. Since the provision under consideration would have done no more than confirm this interpretation, the committee decided that the amendment was unnecessary.

The committee by this indication of its views in no way intends to change the application of existing antitrust laws with respect to cooperative activities among automobile manufacturers in the field of safety development.

The advice received from the Department of Justice, as summarized above, is contained in a letter from Assistant Attorney General Donald F. Turner to the chairman of the committee dated April 6, 1966, and a further letter from Deputy Attorney General Ramsey Clark to the chairman dated June 2, 1966. An extract from the letter of April 6 follows:

"Nor is there anything persuasive in the general argument that the vagueness of the antitrust laws prevents the formation of any cooperative effort to develop safety devices or to exchange information concerning standards. The antitrust laws do not prohibit such arrangements where joint efforts seem necessary and constuctive and are not accompanied by unduly restrictive collateral agreements. Moreover, clarification of the applicability of the antitrust laws to any particular proposal has always been readily available by consultation with the Department of Justice and submission of a proposal under the Business Review Procedure or for other review. (As an example, the major networks and press associations requested the Division to review a proposal for industrywide cooperative efforts in the compilation of returns in the forthcoming national elections. After consultation and revision, the industry was advised the Division did not intend to take action under the antitrust laws against the arrangement.)"

PATENTS

In order to protect the public investment in research and development activities under the act, the bill provides (106(c)) that when the Federal contribution for any research or development activity authorized by the act is substantial, the Secretary must include in the contract or grant providing for such research or development provisions effective to insure that all information, uses, processes, patents, and other developments resulting from that activity will be made fully and freely available to the general public.

It was the committee's judgment that when the Government finances safety research, the public is entitled to the fruits, including the right to any inventions discovered in the performance of that research. In dealings with their employees and subcontractors private business firms typically retain the right to any inventions discovered, on the understandable ground that the one who has provided financial support is entitled to the resulting product. Such a policy is especially applicable where taxpayer funds are involved and where the research is intimately associated with the public health and safety. On several occasions, running back more than a decade. Congress has provided for public retention of results in inventions made in the course of Government-supported research. This policy is incorporated in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Coal Research and Development Act of 1960, the Saline Water Conversion Act of 1961, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1961, the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, and the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965.

Consistent with this approach the committee sought to secure to the public the benefits, accruing from research sponsored by the Secretary in accordance with section 106, that might help reduce accidents involving motor vehicles and reduce accompanying deaths and injuries. As set forth in section 106(c), the bill provides that the Secretary shall include, in any contract, grant, or other arrangement, provisions effective to insure that all resulting information, uses, processes, patents, and other developments will be made freely and fully available to the general public, wherever the Federal contribution to that activity is substantial. Of necessity. this condition must be satisfied on a case-bycase basis, but it deserves emphasis that it is the particular activity from which the information, uses, processes, patents, and other developments "result" which is the basis for the determination whether the Federal contribution is "more than minimal."

Section 106 (c), by denying contractors exclusive rights in the performance of research activities where the Federal contribution is "more than minimal," will help curtail unnecessary industry pleas for Government financial support where the companies can do the research themselves. By doing their own research and securing patents on inventions which they discover, the companies in the auto industry can make substantial progress toward increasing auto safety-without having to make substantial use of public

funds

The committee considered a problem presented by automotive manufacturers relating to the dilemma that would be created if the Secretary issued a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that could be met only by using a patented device, structure, or method and if the patent holder unreasonably refused to license the use of his patent or was willing to supply the item or permit its use only on unreasonable terms.

The automotive manufacturers therefore proposed an amendment that would bar patent holders from enjoining the use of any patent that is necessary to meet a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and would

Vol. I

14236

The proposed legislation would remove this limitation on the effectiveness of the Driver Register Service by authorizing the filing of reports on license denials as well as withdrawals of licenses, for whatever cause, except for withdrawals of less than 6 months based on accumulation of minor violations.

Section 404 also would make it clear that Federal agencies can participate in the Driver Register Service as part of their employee driver safety programs.

The amendment of the existing Driver Register Service legislation as proposed in section 404 should double the productivity of the driver register program within a short period with negligible, if any, increased costs.

COST

The authorization for programs to be carried out under title I (sec. 124) provides for $11 million for fiscal year 1967, 817 million for fiscal year 1968 and $23 million for fiscal year 1969.

For the traffic accident and injury research and test facility authorized by title II. the committee bill would authorize $2 million for planning, including necessary feasibility studies. Before any appropriation can be made for construction of the facility in excess of $100,000, the Secretary must submit a prospectus of the proposed project to Congress and obtain approving resolution from the Committee on Commerce of the Senate and Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives.

As the administration of the Traffic Safety Act of 1966, as reported, will require executive talent of a very high caliber. the committee estimates that an allotment of approximately 45 positions in grades GS-16. 17. and 18 of the general schedule of the Classification Act of 1949. 86 amended, should be reserved to aid in implementing this legislation. The shortage of available professional skills and manpower in combination with the high priority for immediate action concerning traffic safety requires certainty as to the availability of needed management, administrative, scientific, and research positions needed to staff these proKrams.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I now yield to the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee [Mr. COTION).

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the pending bill, S. 3005, the Traffic Safety Act of 1966, is truly landmark legislation.

For the first time, Congress has the opportunity to enact a comprehensive and coordinated assault on the problems of traffic safety. The Senate will seize that opportunity today. I hope, and approve the bill substantially as reported by the Committee on Commerce.

Clearly, new ways must be found to cope with the rising tide of slaughter and mayhem on Our Nation's highways. Since the automobile was first invented, we have had 1,500,000 deaths from automobile accidents. That is three times as many lives as our enemies have been able to take in all our wars. Last year alone nearly 50,000 persons lost their lives in traffic accidents, and 1,800,000 were injured to the extent of being disabled for at least the second day. Experts have put a price tag of $8.5 billion on the economic cost of last year's traffic accidents. These facts leave no room for complacency. They offer no excuses for inaction.

This bill confers new and significant powers on the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe safety standards for new automobiles and to undertake research in

order to reduce the deaths and injuries
resulting from accidents.

The breadth and scope of the powers
given to the Secretary of Commerce
carrying extensive authority over the
Nation's largest industry would be un-
thinkable if it were not invoked for pub-
lice safety and carefully circumscribed
for that purpose.

Just what kind of power and duties will the Secretary of Commerce have under the bill, as reported by the Committee on Commerce.

He will first have to issue interim safety standards for new cars, effective in the fall of next year with the 1968 model cars. These standards must be based on existing safety standards and must be developed on the basis of advice and counsel from the States, Interstate safety agencies like the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, the automobile industry, and others.

A year later, the Secretary must prescribe such new and revised safety standards for new cars as he finds necessary, based on his research and development work and on consultation with State safety agencies. Effective, farreaching means of enforcement insure that car makers and parts makers will comply with the safety standards These fundamental provisions of the bill are accompanied by a host of related sections spelling out the details, providing for court reviews and prescribing the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealers in cases where the safety standards are not met.

In addition, the bill requires the manufacturers, or the Secretary of Commerce. to notify car buyers in cases in which defects related to safety are found. The Secretary is also given broad powers to carry out the necessary safety research, testing, inspection, and evaluation.

gage

While these powers of the Secretary are enormously broad as they relate to the car manufacturers and the automotive parts industry, they are still narrow as compared to the problems of traffic safety.

First. The safety standards apply only to new cars and not to the 87 million motor vehicles now on the highway. While the committee bill. fortunately. requires a study of the possibilities of better safety inspection of older cars. nothing in the bill directly deals with the safety standards or maintenance of these cars on the road today. Even the 1968 and later models which would be subject to safety standards when built, are beyond the reach of this bill once they leave the showroom floor.

Second. The Senate should be clearly aware of the fact that vehicle failures of all types are a causative factor in only a very limited percentage of all traffic accidents. The best figures I have found, published by the Travelers Insurance Co., of Hartford, Conn., show that 87 percent of accidents which caused highway deaths and injuries were the direct result of driver violations of the rules of the road, excessive speed, driving on the wrong side of the road, failing to yield the right-of-way, reckless driving, and the like. The safety standards pre

Vol. I

14237