front seats and station wagon second seats in place; passenger-guard front and rear door locks which prevent the front doors, when properly locked, from being opened either inadvertently or in the panic of a crash situation (passenger guard rear door locks were standard on 1966 models); fusible link wiring to minimize fire hazards and to facilitate electrical repair; and a freeway lane changer, a driver controlled device operated in conjunction with the directional signal lever when the driver wishes to indicate that he intends to change lanes, have also been added.

All 17 items required by the General Services Administration will be available on 1967 model GM passenger cars, and sixteen of these items are standard equipment. Fourteen of these items were standard on 1966 models including among others front and rear seat belts and anchorages, padded instrument panel and visors, two-speed windshield wipers and washers, backup lights and an outside rear view mirror.

Two G.S.A. items have been added as standard equipment on 1967 models-the dual master cylinder brake system mentioned above and the four-way hazard warning flasher system which serves as an emergency measure to warn other drivers by simultaneously flashing all turn signal lamps. The seventeenth item, the General Motors Air Injection Reactor Exhaust Emission Control System, will be included on all cars purchased for Government use or purchased in California.

All models will have improved 5-tumbler locks to minimize theft. The 1967 model cars also include a variety of other product improvements which already have been or will be announced by divisions.

Evidence of the improved product value, quality and performance of the new models is the extension of the warranty period on GM's 1967 model passenger cars to cover five years or fifty thousand miles, whichever comes first, on the power train components (engine, transmission, drive line and rear axle) in addition to the current warranty coverage of 24 months or 24,000 miles on the entire car except tires (which are warranted by the tire manufacturer).

The 1967 GM passenger cars will go on display in dealer showrooms on September 29 for Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick models, and on October 6 for Cadillac models. List prices for individual makes and models excluding federal, state and local taxes, destination, dealer delivery and handling charges follow: CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION

EXHIBIT 8

FORD MOTOR Co.,

THE AMERICAN ROAD, Dearborn, Mich., August 31, 1967.

Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF,

U.S. Senate.

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: This is in reply to your letter of August 16, 1967, in which you asked for "information concerning that portion of the price of 1967 model cars which is attributable to the inclusion of General Services Administration required standards."

The exhibit attached to your letter indicates an average price increase of $46 per unit between 1966-model and 1967-model cars purchased by the General Services Administration. One G.S.A. requirement alone-the exhaust emission control device had a suggested retail price, as optional equipment, of about $46; in addition, of course, a number of other equipment items were added to meet the G.S.A. requirements. It would appear, therefore, that the G.S.A. received substantial price reductions on its 1967-model purchases, after appropriate allowance for the value of the equipment added to meet its standards.

We share your interest in securing an understanding of the economic implications of Federal automative safety and exhaust-control standards. In order to answer your question fully, however, we would need additional information on some points, and we would also have to make some assumptions and subjective judgments that might be controversial. I should like to list a few of these problems, and then to propose an alternative technique for obtaining the answers you seek.

1. G.S.A. announced its 1967-model standards in June of 1965. Ford incorporated many of these standards into its 1966 models, wherever lead time permitted such action. Accordingly, the effect of the standards on absolute prices of 1967 models was greater than their effect on the change in prices between 1966 and 1967. A complete response, therefore, would also require study of price changes between 1965 and 1966 models.

2. Our sales to G.S.A. are made directly, rather than through our franchised dealers, and they are based on competitive bids. There are legal limitations on the prices G.S.A. may pay for cars; as a result, the prices paid by G.S.A. are substantially below the prices normally paid by our dealers. Further, specifications and delivery terms applicable to G.S.A. transactions usually differ from those associated with our sales through dealers. Analysis of the prices paid by G.S.A., then, would not yield conclusions applicable to the rest of our business. 3. Because sales of other makes of cars are included among the transactions cited in the exhibit, it is difficult for us to draw meaningful conclusions about the influence of specific factors on the average prices shown.

4. The change in the absolute price of a vehicle from one year to another is easily determinable. Similarly, changes in specifications or equipment between years can be listed with little difficulty. The causal relationship between these, however, is a matter of subjective judgment, because many other factors necessarily influence prices. Our own judgment on this subject may not coincide with that of others. Further, we are concerned that the release of our views might prove competitively harmful, in that it would make available to our competitors information about our pricing that we consider confidential.

In view of these problems, I suggest that the Bureau of Labor Statistics be asked to consider your question. This agency is, of course, already familiar with 1966 and 1967-model automotive prices; it already has access to many of the facts involved; its personnel already have made some of the necessary subjective evaluations of these facts. The Bureau has also been scrupulous in preserving the confidentiality of data submitted by individual companies, and in releasing its judgments in a way that respects the confidential nature of the data. Finally, although we have not always agreed with the Bureau's judgment on specific issues, we consider it to be staffed by competent and dedicated professionals whose objective is to obtain the best possible answers to difficult statistical questions.

Sincerely,

ARJAY MILLER.