 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Congress Makes Changes at NHTSAPosted 11/13/2000By Robert L. Redding, Jr.
In what will be the first of many changes to come to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Congress has passed House Resolution 5164, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act. The bill, originally introduced as a response to the Firestone/Ford Explorer tire problem, gained nationwide attention through public hearings in both the House and the Senate. As Congress winds down for the year, the House bill, introduced by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and the Senate bill, introduced by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., came in question as to final passage. The McCain bill was almost immediately in jeopardy due to provisions imposing criminal penalties on automotive industry officials who fail to report vehicle defects to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Senators representing automotive manufacturers quietly placed “holds” on the Senate bill in order that it would die without coming to a vote on the Senate floor. A Senate “hold” allows one or more senators to block a bill from being considered on the floor for a vote for an indefinite period of time. This includes presidential nominations or appointments. This concern was also raised by Senate Judiciary Committee members. The Congressional Quarterly reported this comment by Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: “I'm very concerned with the criminal penalties. I don't think the Commerce Committee should just start assessing criminal penalties because we've had a few tragedies that are just inexplicable and basically shouldn't have happened.” U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., expressed concern that the bill could blur the lines between criminal and civil liabilities and had escaped review by the Judiciary Committee. After much negotiation, the House bill passed the House floor and then moved on the Senate floor by voice vote. The legislation is awaiting presidential signature. The compromise narrowed the penalties in the House bill to those automotive officials who knowingly mislead NHTSA. The House Commerce Committee completed its markup on Oct. 6 with a solid 42-0 final passage. The bill requires that manufacturers report a safety recall or other safety campaign in a foreign country to the Secretary of Transportation not less than five days after the determination has been made on a recall or safety campaign. After a determination has been made that there have been a “lsignificant number of serious injuries or fatalities in a foreign country caused by a defect in a motor vehicle, tire or motor vehicle equipment that is offered for sale in the United States that could be related to motor vehicle safety,” the manufacturer must report this to the Secretary. The timing of this will be established through regulation by the Secretary. The Secretary is also directed to revise and update the tire standard, which is now the controlling authority. Additional monies were given NHTSA to promulgate these new rules. What is important to note for collision repairers is the focus on defects, safety and injuries/fatalities. Specifically, the responsibility clearly is being placed on manufacturers. As mentioned in a previous article, there will be ample opportunity for Congress to review the replacement crash parts issue during NHTSA's reauthorization in 2001. What are the responsibilities of the parts manufacturer? NHTSA has refused to date to show interest in replacement crash parts. Its emphasis has been solely on new vehicles. They have shown little regard for post-showroom responsibility whether it is replacement crash parts or periodic motor vehicle inspections. Next year will be propitious for repairers as far as moving our agenda. The General Accounting Office's crash parts review will be completed prior to NHTSA's reauthorization. Chairman McCain made it clear to the automotive industry that he intends the reauthorization to be much more aggressive as to reform than the legislation passed by Congress this year. It is imperative that our industry be better prepared with quality and safety data than in past years. NHTSA has provided no leadership in the research of replacement crash parts. So the data has been minimal from the federal government. The original equipment manufacturers' infatuation with quality vs. safety has left little to encourage regulators or move policymakers. Very little if any research on the safety of these parts has been conducted. One obvious indication of public policy's focus has been the media's insistence that without accidents, injuries or deaths, there really isn't any story for the replacement crash parts issue. Although the 106th Congress will conclude with a limited auto safety reform package, the rhetoric from Capitol Hill has been loud and clear. NHTSA's activities - or its lack of activity - has been ignored for some time. NHTSA's lack of focus and interest in certain major areas of automotive safety will be a major policy discussion piece in 2001. The Automotive Service Association (ASA) will continue to work with Congress to ensure that repairers have the best possible replacement crash parts to repair vehicles. The best solution would be an industry solution. That has not occurred to date. Insurers continue to oppose consumer notice and consent legislation around the country. An ASA survey of state laws recently determined that reform of state laws concerning replacement crash parts has been insignificant despite the tremendous increase in reform bills introduced around the country. Few alternatives remain other than Congress addressing the crash parts issue during the next session.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright (c) 1996-2008. Automotive Service Association. All rights reserved.
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
