Page images

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 tha the time limitation be met, but for good cause the time limitation may be waived which would be the very obvious and dificult 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 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 leadtimestandards 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 view's, 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 stated it very thoroughly.

on record that is in any way persuasive 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, I think the gentleman from Michigan standards that the Secretary is going to

sonable time to comply with the safety 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-
these requirements cannot be complied fied. If he is satisfied, it is all right with
with within the time, that the Secretary me,
not only has the authority, but that he Mr. DINGELL. As long as the bill is
will use that authority to see it to that interpreted reasonably, I do not believe
adequate time is afforded to the indus- I could assert any objection either to the
try to comply.

legislation or to the manner in which it
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentle- happens to be carried out. That, of
man will yield further, I will agree, but I course, was the principal purpose of my
will say that they are not always taking the floor.

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.


Congressional Record-House
August 31, 1966, 21352

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.

M. STAGGERS. That is the intent of the committee on both sddes of the aisle. The Secretary shall consult as he deems advisable.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. As he deems advisable.


House Committee Report

House Report 1776, Pages 11, 17, and 18

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 representatives 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 reliable 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 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 allow's 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

Congressional Record-Senate
June 24, 1966, 14256 and 14257

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 10terstate agencies (including legislative committees), with motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and with scientific, technical, business, and consumor organizations, as he deems appropriate.

(2) consider, in the light of avallablo technical information, whether any such proposed standard 13 reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equpment for which it 18 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 Soc. 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 Salety Oommission, 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 18 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 tho purposes of this Act.

(e) For the purposes of this section Inter- 14257 ested persons aborded 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 10surance underwriters.

Senate Debate
Congressional Record-Senate
June 24, 1966, 14245

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,

« PreviousContinue »