Congress, notification; presentation of data, "(3) The chairmen and ranking minority members of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee shall be notified in writing of any pro- views, or arguposed standard to which this section applies. Any Member of Congress may make an oral presentation of data, views, or arguments under paragraph (2). "(4) Any standard promulgated pursuant to this subsection shall be transmitted to both Houses of Congress, on the same day and to each House while it is in session. In addition, such standard shall be transmitted to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the committees referred to in paragraph (3). "(d)(1) A standard which the Secretary has elected to promulgate in accordance with subsection (c) shall not be effective if, during the first period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date of transmittal to Congress, both Houses of Congress pass a concurrent resolution the matter after the resolving clause of which reads as follows: 'The Congress disapproves the Federal motor vehicle safety standard transmitted to Congress on 19-'; (the blank space being filled with date of transmittal of the standard to Congress). If both Houses do not pass such a resolution during such period, such standard shall not be effective until the expiration of such period (unless the standard specifies a later date). "(2) For purposes of this section "(A) continuity of session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment sine die; and 66 (B) the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain are excluded in the computation of the 60-day period. "(e) This section shall not impair any right which any person may have to obtain judicial review of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. "(f) For purposes of this section: 66 "(1) The term 'safety belt interlock' means any system designed to prevent starting or operation of a motor vehicle if one or more occupants of such vehicle are not using safety belts. "(2) The term 'belt system' means an occupant restraint system consisting of integrated lap and shoulder belts for front outboard occupants and lap belts for other occupants. With respect to (A) motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles, (B) convertibles, and (C) open-body type vehicles, such term also includes an occupant restraint system consisting of lap belts or lap belts combined with detachable shoulder belts. (3) The term 'occupant restraint system' means a system the principal purpose of which is to assure that occupants of a motor vehicle remain in their seats in the event of a collision or rollover. Such term does not include a warning device designed to indicate that seat belts are not in use. "(4) The term 'continuous buzzer' means a buzzer other than a buzzer which operates only during the 8 second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position." ments. Definitions. 15 Conference Report-Section 109 House Report 93-1452, Pages 44 and 45 Senate bill OCCUPANT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS No comparable provision. House amendment Section 110 of the House amendment added a new provision to section 103 (a) of the Act which prohibited Federal motor vehicle safety standards from requiring that any motor vehicle be equipped (1) with a safety belt interlock system; (2) with any warning device other than a warning light designed to indicate that safety belts were not fastened; or (3) with any occupant restraint system other than an integrated lap and shoulder safety belt for front outboard occupants and lap belts for other occupants. In addition, the House amendment provided that, effective with respect to passenger cars manufactured on or after August 15, 1976, Federal motor vehicle safety standards would require that the purchaser of a motor vehicle be offered the option of purchasing either (1) passenger motor vehicles which are equipped with passive restraint systems which meet standards prescribed under section 103 of the Act or (2) passenger motor vehicles equipped with integrated lap and shoulder belts for front outboard occupants and lap belts for other occupants. The House amendment further made it a prohibited act under the Act to fail to offer purchasers the option required above. Conference substitute The conference substitute, in summary, provides as follows: 1. As soon as possible, but no later than 120 days after the date of enactment, the Department of Transportation must amend the motor vehicle safety standard pertaining to occupant restraints so as to eliminate the safety belt interlock system and any continuous buzzer designed to indicate that safety belts are not fastened. 2. The authority of the Secretary to establish a mandatory occupant restraint standard using a belt system (integrated lap and shoulder belt except for certain special vehicles where only a lap belt or some 45 other combination could be required) is not affected. 3. If the Secretary of Transportation wants to establish some other occupant restraint system, he must follow these procedures: (a) afford interested persons an opportunity for the presentation of oral as well as written data, views, or arguments; (b) keep a transcript of the oral presentation; (c) notify the Chairmen of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee. 4. No occupant restraint system other than a belt system could become effective until Congress was given an opportunity to consider such standard for sixty days of continuous session (except that DOT could permit a manufacturer (at his option) to comply with a standard with a nonbelt system instead of a belt system). Once a nonbelt system is permitted to become effective, then further changes in occu pant restraint standards would not be subject to disapproval. If Congress passes a concurrent resolution rejecting the standard promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation, then the standard does not take effect. 5. No matter what procedure is followed, the conference substitute prohibits the re-establishment of the safety belt interlock system or continuous buzzer as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard. House Passed Bill-Section 109 Congressional Record-House SEC. 110. OCCUPANT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS. Section 100 (a) of the National Trame and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 is amended by inserting "(1)" after "BEC. 103. (a)" and by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: "(2) (A) Effective with respect to motor vehicles manufactured after the date of enactment of this paragraph, Federal motor vehicle safety standards may not (except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B)) require that any such vehicle be equipped (1) with a safety belt interlock system, (1) with any warning device other than a warning light designed to indicate that safety belts are not fastened, or (111) with any occuant restraint system other than integrated lap and shoulder safety belts for front outboard occupants and lap belts for other occupants. "(B) Effective with respect to passenger cars manufactured on or after August 15, 1976, Federal motor vehicle safety standards facturer offer purchasers the option of purshall require that each motor vehicle manuchasing either (1) passenger motor vehicles which are equipped with passive restraint systems which meet standards prescribed under this section or (11) passenger motor vehicles equipped with integrated lap and shoulder belts for front outboard occupants and lap belts for other occupants." (b) Section 108(a) (1) (A) of such Act (as so redesignated by section 103 of this Act) is amended by inserting "(1)" after "(A)", and by adding at the end thereof the following: "(1) fail to offer purchasers the option required by section 103(a)(2) (B);". Congressional Record-House August 12, 1974, 27805-27807 and 27809 Mr. STAGGERS. The bill also provides that purchasers instead of safety belts with the ignition of new motor vehicles can choose safety interlock system to provide crash protecbelts with a sequential warning system tion. Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from West Virginia that I agree that we should do everything we can to improve safety and save lives, particularly in the motor vehicle field, but I am a little disturbed as to what the main results in this bill will be. 530 The gentleman undoubtedly heard a lot of discussion in the committee about the interlocking system. I believe the majority of the people of the United States do not like it, yet they are having to comply with the regulations, because the manufacturer has to comply with the regulations and install it. So where does the general public have any input as to what the cost of safety will be, and how much it will cost an individual owner of an automobile? It seems the more we look into the safety business the higher the costs go, and I am sure the gentleman will agree that we cannot mandate a safety law on this thing. In my opinion, this should be left up to the discretion of the individual. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas that the matter concerning the safety belt interlock is covered in the report, and that this is optional to the purchaser. We will have an amendment that will clarify the matter so that when you buy a car, if you wish a safety belt interlock such as we have now, you can have it, or you can choose a sequential warning device with safety belts. Mr. KAZEN. I agree with the gentleman from West Virginia that these things are provided for. The only thing that worries me is how many more such items as the interlocking system will we be faced with in the future as a consequence of this law? Mr. STAGGERS. Let me say to the gentleman from Texas that this safety standard did not originate in the committee. We did authorize the Department of Transportation to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to save lives in America. We did this, because we knew we were not experts in this field. The Department of Transportation is sued the standard requiring the interlock system. The committee adopted an amendment to this bill to make it optional. The Department had made it 27806 mandatory. We know there are difficulties with it, and we have modified the amendment further which will be offered at the proper opportunity. Mr. KAZEN. The only thing I worry about is that whenever we give a commission or an agency this tremendous power, and then do not have any way of overruling it, I think presents a pretty bad problem. We are making it optional for the purchaser of a car so that he can choose safety belts with either the ignition interlock system or a sequential warning device. Mr. KAZEN. Would we also direct the Safety Commission that they leave a lot of things in addition to this optional with the price or with the purchaser? In other words, when we start doing something mandatory, this mean that the individual purchaser must abide by that decision, and we in the Congress are encouraging this type of thing instead of going in the other direction. Mr. STAGGERS. This is true. I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas, let us reason together. The reason that we have not given them any leeway is that we were trying to create safer driving in the land by enacting the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. If we did not have laws, if we did not have stop lights and require everybody to stop, there would be all kinds of crashes. For example, experience has shown that by slowing down cars to 55 miles per hour-and now they are back up to 65 and 70-we have in the past 6 months saved 6.000 lives more than we did last year. One of those lives is worth saving-every one of them-especially if they are in our family or if they involve us. The Department of Transportation first required the installation of safety belts several years ago, but most people refused to use them, so they required the belts to be connected to the ignition system to increase their use. Mr. KAZEN. That is wrong. That is wrong to tell the individual what is good for him, because they are going to rebel. I know that they have. My mail is affected by it. I do not know whether the gentleman's is or not. But these are some of the things that the American people want to judge for themselves. Give them the equipment if they so desire, and if they do not, let them do whatever they want. Mr. STAGGERS. The gentleman is right, to a great degree. But I will say, too, that the use of safety belts increases the ability of a driver to control his car and to protect other occupants and pedestrians in a crash situation. When we do affect somebody else's safety, then we do have a right to legislate. Mr. KAZEN. This is true, I will say to the chairman, but I thought that the underlying purpose of this bill was to protect the driver's own safety, too, and he ought to have some say as to comfort and cost and everything else. There is an overriding consideration beyond that, and that is public safety. Mr. ICHORD, Mr. Chairman, will the distinguished chairman yield? Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. ICHORD. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understood that he was going to offer an amendment that would take away the right of DOT to issue a regulation making it mandatory to have an interlock ignition system or to have a buzzer system. Mr. STAGGERS. No; the bill provides that the purchaser of a new car can choose safety belts with either the ignition interlock system or a sequential warning device. I realize this still annoys a lot of people. Mr. ICHORD. What amendment is the gentleman referring to? Mr. STAGGERS. Page 48 of the bill, "Safety belt interlock optional with purchaser." It is printed in the bill. Mr. ICHORD. Then that will remove the mandate. At the present time, as I understand it, all new automobiles coming out of Detroit have to be equipped with the interlock system, and this amendment will remove the mandate. Mr. STAGGERS. At the option of the purchaser, if he wants the sequential warning system put in instead, he may have it. Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? · opinion to $10 or $15 or $20. There is no sense in the $250 for a plastic bag that goes in front of the passenger and the sensor to activate it. Mr. WYMAN. With all due respect for the gentleman, I doubt the price will ever get down that far. Then take the catalytic converter. If it gets loaded with leaded gasoline, then it is all through. Is that true? Mr. STAGGERS. Not quite. The best information they have now is it would be the best device we have to protect against damage from the automobiles. Mr. WYMAN. I have just one more question of the gentleman. We have been Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentle- through that debate before and I do not man from New Hampshire. want to go through it again in this bill, Mr. WYMAN. I thank the gentleman but how much more will the cost be for for yielding. General Motors announced that it is going to increase its 1975 models some $450. I should like to ask the gentleman how much of that increase is due and will be due to such things as the add-on catalytic converter and the sequential warning system which is referred to in the alternative, which the committee is reporting to the House today, and in the half dozen other gadgetries that are required in this so-called requirement? Mr. STAGGERS. I might say to the gentleman that to the best of my knowledge there is no additional increase for the safety devices, the interlock or the buzzing system. It is all due to the labor costs, the catalytic converter, and the other additions. The price of steel has gone up many, many times in the last year. Mr. WYMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, the price of the interlock costs more for a car with it than a car without it. Mr. STAGGERS. It might be an infinitesimal amount of money. I do not know what it would be. Mr. WYMAN. There are electronic sensors under the seats and wires and so on. Would it be at least $50 a copy? Mr. STAGGERS. No, I do not think so. It is the same principle as putting the key in and having a buzzer sound, and that does not cost a significant amount. Mr. WYMAN. The units that go into the 1975 models are going to be $72 a copy. And then there is the inflatable bag which is going to add to the cost. Does the gentleman know how much that will cost? Mr. STAGGERS. The gentleman did not mention that. I would say to the gentleman that with the present prices, it would run in the neighborhood of $200, but they ought to come down in my a car with the sequential warning system than for a car equipped with the plain seat belts? Mr. STAGGERS. I do not have that but it should not cost much more. Mr. WYMAN. Do they not have to be built in under the seats? Mr. STAGGERS. Wiring must be installed for all these systems. Mr. WYMAN. And then there are lights on the dash and a buzzer? Mr. STAGGERS. That is right. Mr. WYMAN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think we all knew what the situation was a few years ago when this program was first enacted by the Congress. I was serving on the committee in 1966 when this program was first written in the committee. I know it stirred a great deal of debate at that time, but when it came to the floor of the House, as I recall, it passed virtually unanimously in 1966. I do remember some of the statistics that were used in the debate at that time. I recall in 1966 that the death toll on the highways from highway accidents for the first time went above 50.000. In the 7 years prior to 1966, highway fatalities had increased by 40 percent in that 7-year period of time. So what the Congress was trying to do in establishing this program was to deal with a real concern, a real problem that we had in America. For the first time in 1966 the Federal Government got into this motor vehicle safety business and also the highway safety program, which of course came out of another committee. What we were doing was providing the basic tools to deal with this tragedy of growing havoc and maiming of people on the highways. Now, what has happened in the intervening 7 years since the program has been operating? Remember, I said deaths |