LegHist.PL89-563.Volume.ONE.Sec.Ten.and

I wlu apprectate the ehalrmdn'r con,
f,rmatlon of thls anelysls.
Mr. STAGGERfi. In respon$e to the
gentlemm, I will say that sdctlon l0B
requires the Secretsry, ffi you can see, to
este.blish safety s[mdards, and says thet
they mEt be praciicable and meet the
nfrd for motor lehicle safety and be
stated in objcctive term+.
Mr. Chairman, d,s the commlttee report
explAllrs on pa8e 16, this would require
the mrEideratlon o[ all relevant factors,
irrcludins teclrnologlcel ability t.o acNeve
the goal of a particular standard as well
as con6iderBtidn of monomic factors-
And, NIr. Chairrun, f,$ to Lhe effective
dflte, sectlon 103(c) of the repolted bill
pfovideE thet the Sccretaly may set 4
date earlier or later than the 180-day
nilnimm or l-year maximum, if he fluds
that en earller or lat€r date is in the
public 'fhis
lnterest. public interest is
discussed on page I7 oi the report. It i.s
exDlsined thst the exceptiort must b€
bLsed on a flnding that an earller or
lster erTective dtrte may be flxed if it is
in the publlc lnkrest. This was sdded
by the conunittee to provide the necessary
flexibility for unuBuel situ4tiorrs.
Mr. Chairmf,n, lt ls true as lt shou-ld
be, thst the Secretary hffi the ultimate
tsporsibllity to s€t the ef,eLive date.
However, fuU provi3ion ls mede ltr the blll
Ior full consultation md, obviouly, he
will have to con$ider arnong other trungs
the Ebuity of the rnanufMturers to de€t
ttle df,tes, altd ttle economld lmpsct tlpon
the manufd{turers if effmtlve dates Bru
not set with due regard to their leadtl$e
requrcment$-
I!Ir. DINGE"IJIJ. Mr. ChBilmsn, I certeirily
thsnk the chalmm of the Comnrlitee
on Interstate and Foreisn com-
Eerce, the gentleulan from west virginla
tMf. S$ccrnsl, and s the chElrman
ha$ so well ststed, it is prtrisly b€caree
of ttris leadtime problem th8t t"tre
comitttr emended the orlglrral bul to
euLhorire the strret3ry to IDeIe tbe
standard efiecttve lhter than I year from
Its issuence lf he fllds that tlris l$ in the
public interest-if, for example, B year ls
ts short for compllance or cordplldlce
can be aclrieved only Bt exorbitsnt co6t
of oiher scvere ftonomic dirrloetion.
The explanst.ion should satisfy any
concern of tbe lndu$try alld the wotkers
who depend upon it for their livelihood,
meny of whdm are constltutents of E.y
dlstrict. It takes no grest knowledge of
the indEtry Ld be aware thet sltuatlons
wiu undoubtedly arise where more than
a year *lll have to be allosed for compllance-where
lt wlll be a physical or
economlc impossibility for all nranufflctu'ers
to comply with e stEndard for flll
ol their vehicles wtthin one year. There
sirnply may noi be enough toolin8 and
teEhnoloEy to do the job, or the cost of
coupllance on a cfash besis may be so
great as to pflce vehicles out of the mffis
markct. Beceus€ ol these trling limltalion$
and cct considerationE, manufscturers
do not make bslc changes In
sJI of their models rrch ye8r. Irutead.
the general industry prEctlce ls for a
menufecturer to meke beslc hodel
changes at lnt€rvBls ol three yeErs or
so for eech ol hts vehicle lines, End to do
so on B stEg8ered annual basis so thgt
House Debate
$$.veer
he -he.t o_nc or more beslc nes
mmfE wnlle IAee-Ilttrng the others Untrl
their turn come$ to be "rolled over" ln
the basic change cycle. Some changes
whlch standards may requjre cah, oI
c4urse, be most efrclently End economicelly
matle lE Gonnectloh with bsic
model chenges. Others of the ''add-on"
type could reedlly be made at the time
of the annuBl hodel chanse, even when
It l$ only oI the fece-llft variety. It
would Bccordlngly Eeem that. In generBl,
sterld8rds should not be mede effective
earliel' thaD the next moriel year and that
the effective d&trs should ordlnarlly
colnclde vith Ennual model changes. at
least in the absence of somc overridin8
coroider&tions. Thst is the practice
which has been followed s'lth the GSA
requlrements and tlre exhaust emission
atandard ptogrsm-they Ere timed tO COlncide
wlth the enfiual tnodel changes.
As I understand the bill and the chaifnlEn
s rerlarks, the.se problcms and practices
of tlte lndustry are Emong tlle
thlnes which the Strretery rlll have to
cororder, f,long with $efety, In decidlng
whEt Etandaftls to prescribe and when
to meke them efiective, and that, dependlne
upon the circurnstehces. they
lhBy influence him to allow ttore than B
year lor compliance.
The report expl8in$ that the requJrement
thEt the SecFetd.ry corBlder
whether E $tsntlard ls reasohBble, pr8ctlceble,
and &pproprlate tor a partlculer
t}'pe ol verucle or equlpment wlll allow
the Strretary
"to
consider the reasonableness
and allproprl&teness ot a pertlcrUBr
Btanderd ln lt6 relEtionsilp to tlle
Eeny tlltrerent types or models o{ velrlcles
which are manufactured." Could
thls nrean, for lnstsne, that standErd.g
tor trucks would not necessarily be the
88ltte as stsndards lor passenger cflrs?
f hhve in mind the example of the GSA
requlroments whtch apply to pessengef
ffirs End some other velrlcleE. but tlo not
apply to certaln heer? trudks ahd Dther
tryes of vehlcles.
Mr. STACGE.B. Well, ctrtslnly, I
brllev€ that ls understoorl.
!trr. DINGELL, And, of cour$e, tbere
would b€ E lro$slbility of dlfferent stend-
Erd$ for one typ€ of passenger vehicle,
6uch as e. convertible, a6 oppo.ied to the
Etandud6 for E stenderd sedan. Ior exmple?
Am I torrect on that point?
Mr. STAGGER.B. Obvlously a difference
ln types of vehicles could requlre
di-flerences in standards.
Mr. DINGEL. However. we Ere confrontecl
wlth a proposal whlch do€6 lrnpo6e
the requlrement8 th8t the tlme llmitstlon
be met, but tor gdd ce.u-6e the
tlrne llrdltBtlon may be walved whlctr
E'ould tre the very obvtous ehd dLf0cult
problem wlth whlch the trrBnufMturef8
would be feced wlth regerd to meetlng
the leadtlrne requlrements when este.b*
lished for orderly and the reasonable ecorromlchlcles.
productloh of theEe [rotor ve-
AlBo thet t'e hEve establtsherl tfie pettern
q'hereby we could hBve dlfierent
Etandards lor vehilcles whlch are obvlously
alltectdd
Am I coftct?
for a dlfierent typ{ of ure.
l9d4g