Editor's Page

Once again, the Federal government gets "into the act" . . . that of imposing restrictive legislation and department edicts to hamper and bedevil the industry.

The proposed initial safety standards for 1968 models presented to the automotive industry by the Safety Administrator pose very serious problems for all the car manufacturers.

Company after company continues to cite several examples of what these manufacturers call "unreasonableness of the proposed safely standards." In fact, in some instances, manufacturers stale the "standards and procedures discriminate against the company."

Just how unrealistic can the burocrats in government be? Evidently none, of these men have any idea of what is involved in having the 1968 cars conform to the proposed initial safety standards.

As one manufacturer points out "long before the present safety law was enacted, we went to work on a great number of programs aimed at preparing us to meet the safety standards which we could foresee and anticipate at that lime. With the lead times necessary in our business, we then made the necessary engineering purchasing, tooling and manufacturing decisions to meet our deadlines for the 1968 models."

The auto manufacturers have met the, Safety Administrator more than halfway in compiling a carefully detailed report of reasonable! and practical safety standards recommendations . . . "to assist the Safety Administrator's office in arriving at attainable standards."

What's to be done! at this date? Evidently no one in the. Safety Administrator's office, including the "chief", realizes that the 1968 cars, designed and planned in advance; will be in production in the Spring of 1967.

How can car manufacturers make significant or substantive alterations in these models to be introduced in September?

Is it not logical to propose that all those in the Safety Administrator's office take time to visit Detroit and learn, first-hand, what is involved in car production? Sitting at a desk in Washington certainly offers no clues.

Be that it may, nevertheless, the auto makers are being badgered by individuals who haven't the fog­giest idea of what auto manufacturing is like.

Now comes another Federal bureau which wants to get "into the act".

Early in December, the press carried the headline "FTC Studies Car Warranties", stating that the Commission "is examining new car warranties in an apparent effort to see just how much they offer the consumer."

The Commission has asked the auto makers to return to them the answers to a 27-page questionnaire. It asks for details on warranty practices and how many customers were satisfied with warranty service.

In the questionnaire, car makers are asked how many complaints they received from customers on warranty claims during the 1964-1966 model years. They were asked to break down the complaints by type-gas mileage, mechanical defects, etc. and by make and model.

Commission spokesmen will not say what they plan to do with the answers but the director of its Bureau of Deceptive Practices said he would act only if public interest were involved. The director said, "The only determination the commission has made is that there may be a problem here. From the information we have, we feel there is justification to conduct an investigation."

The warranty competition, if it can be called that, began six years ago. before 1961, auto makers had offered a guarantee; of just three; months or 4,000 miles. Fed by Ford, they expanded in 1961 to one year or 12,000 miles. With the 1963 models Chrysler offered a five-year, 50,000 mile guarantee on the ear's drive train. The other auto makers went to two years or 24,000 mile's on the; entire car, twice Chrysler's rest-of-the-car guarantee.

To increase sagging sales, each car maker with its 1967 models expanded warranties. These are the warranties the FTC wants to know more about.

When you come right down to it, what seems to "bug" the FTC, and the kind of thing they are most interested in, is the fact that warranties are considered void unless repairs and maintenance work are done by an authorized dealer of the manufacturer.

What: the FTC evidently does not understand is that both dealers and customers believe warranties save car owners not only money but time and trouble. Warranties, they believe, cause the manufacturer to maintain a stricter check on quality to prevent profits from washing away in a flood of warranty claims.

May we ask where the FTC was back in 1963 when the five year, 50,000 mile; warranty was first announced? How come the Commission did not look into the aspects of this warranty at that time?

Government interference in commerce and industry is on the rise again. In fact, it has never waned. Day by clay, the boys in Washington dream up new ways to harass companies with new edicts, bans, interdictions, restrictions, rules, regulations.

Offhand, it is safe to assume that the end is not in sight! Now it is safety standards and warranties. What is the next field for exploration in the automotive industry . . . and by what government agency?

Twere better that the Safety Administrator got around to educating the public on defensive chiving to drastically cut highway accidents. 'Twere better that the Safety Administrator and his staff began a concerted drive today to have all the states quickly adopt mandatory motor vehicle inspection long before; it becomes compulsory.

But the saying still goes "Go fight City Hall!"