B-131418, FEB. 24, 1964

B-131418, FEB. 24, 1964

TO ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 13, 1963, REQUESTING OUR DECISION WHETHER THE PRICE LIMITATION ON THE COST OF PASSENGER VEHICLES "COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR OPERATION" INCLUDES AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT. MORE PARTICULARLY, HOWEVER, YOU QUESTION WHETHER THE PRICE LIMITATION IS APPLICABLE TO THE "HANG-ON" TYPE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS.

THE CURRENT LIMITATION ON THE PURCHASE PRICE OF PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES (EXCLUSIVE OF BUSSES AND AMBULANCES) IS FIXED AT $1,500 EXCEPT STATIONS WAGONS FOR WHICH THE MAXIMUM IS $1,950. THE LIMITATION IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 501 OF THE PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1964, APPROVED DECEMBER 31, 1963, 77 STAT. 855, AND IS PRESCRIBED PURSUANT TO SECTION 16 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946, APPROVED AUGUST 2, 1946, 60 STAT. 810, 5 U.S.C. 78 (C), WHICH PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART, THAT---

"UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED, NO APPROPRIATION AVAILABLE FOR ANY DEPARTMENT SHALL BE EXPENDED---

"/1) TO PURCHASE ANY PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE (EXCLUSIVE OF BUSSES, AMBULANCES, AND STATION WAGONS), AT A COST, COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR OPERATION, AND INCLUDING THE VALUE OF ANY VEHICLE EXCHANGED, IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PRICE THEREFOR, IF ANY, ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO LAW BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND IN NO EVENT MORE THAN SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN AN APPROPRIATION OR OTHER ACT, WHICH SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR TRANSPORTATION * * *.'

THE TERM "COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR OPERATION" HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS BY OUR OFFICE WHICH, AS POINTED OUT IN YOUR LETTER, SUGGEST THAT IF THE ITEM OF EQUIPMENT (1) IS ESSENTIAL TO THE EFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE VEHICLES; (2) CONTRIBUTES TO THE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PASSENGER; (3) IS ORDINARILY OR PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO AND BECOMES A PART OF THE VEHICLE; OR (4) ENHANCES THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE, THE ITEM NORMALLY IS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PRICE LIMITATION. SINCE IT IS CLEAR THAT AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT MEETS AT LEAST THREE OF THE ABOVE-STATED REQUIREMENTS IN THAT IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PASSENGER, IS ORDINARILY OR PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO AND BECOMES A PART OF THE VEHICLE, AND ENHANCES THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE, SUCH EQUIPMENT, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS, IF INSTALLED IN OR ON PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES WOULD HAVE TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PRICE LIMITATIONS.

RELATIVE TO THIS MATTER, HOWEVER, YOU POINT OUT THAT UNDER SECTION 211 OF THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949, 64 STAT. 580, AS AMENDED, 40 U.S.C. 491, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES IS CHARGED WITH PROVIDING AN EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL SYSTEM FOR MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION FOR EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, AND IS REQUIRED, TO THE EXTENT THAT HE DETERMINES THAT SO DOING IS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT IN TERMS OF ECONOMY, EFFICIENCY, OR SERVICE, TO CONSOLIDATE, TAKE OVER, ACQUIRE, OR ARRANGE FOR OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND OTHER RELATED EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING MOTOR VEHICLE POOLS AND SYSTEMS TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.

YOU STATE THAT THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CURRENTLY IS UNABLE TO PROCURE PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH AIR CONDITIONING UNITS WITHIN THE PRICE LIMITATION ALTHOUGH THE NEED FOR SUCH EQUIPMENT, PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, HAS BEEN INDICATED BY CONTINUOUS AND WIDESPREAD COMPLAINTS AND REQUESTS FROM BOTH THE OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL OF MANY EXECUTIVE AGENCIES. YOUR URGE THAT THE USE OF AIR CONDITIONING UNITS IN AUTOMOBILES WOULD RESULT IN HIGHER EMPLOYEE EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY AND THAT A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL SAVINGS AND BENEFITS SET FORTH IN YOUR LETTER WOULD BE REALIZED IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.

YOU ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE CONGRESS, AT THE TIME THE PRICE LIMITATION WAS ORIGINALLY ENACTED, WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF OPERATIONS AND ACCESSORIES NOW AVAILABLE, NOR WAS IT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE GEOGRAPHICALLY WIDESPREAD, EXTENSIVE AND VARIED USES TO WHICH PASSENGER- CARRYING AUTOMOBILES ARE PUT IN THE CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS IN THIS DAY AND AGE. CONSEQUENTLY, YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE DETAIL TO WHICH WE ARE NOW DEVOTING MUCH OF OUR ATTENTION WAS NONEXISTENT AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ENACTMENT OF THE PRICE LIMITATION AND THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PRIOR TO 1958 INDICATING ANY CONGRESSIONAL AWARENESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH DETAILED SCRUTINY. HOWEVER, YOU STATE THAT CONGRESSIONAL ATTENTION IN 1958 WAS DIRECTED ONLY TO CERTAIN LIMITED ITEMS OF EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR POLICE-TYPE AUTOMOBILES.

IN VIEW THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION, AND THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY OF APPLYING CRITERIA USED IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS TO PARTICULAR ITEMS, YOU SUGGEST THAT THE PRICING CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES OF THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY TODAY MAY WELL AFFORD A SOUND BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF A PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLE "COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR OPERATION.' YOU STATE THAT EACH MANUFACTURER, AS WELL AS EACH DEALER, HAS AND QUOTES A "BASE PRICE" AND THAT THE TERM EXTRAS IS WELL KNOWN IN THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY AND TRADE. CONSEQUENTLY, YOU SUGGEST THAT THE PRICE LIMITATION SHOULD BE APPLIED TO INDUSTRY'S "BASE PRICE" CONCEPT FOR A VEHICLE WHICH IS IN THE ORDINARY SENSE OF THE PHRASE "COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR OPERATION.'

LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT THAT MIGHT BE PAID FOR PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR OPERATION FIRST WERE CONTAINED IN VARIOUS ACTS MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1933. THE FIRST SUCH PROVISION IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 22, 1932, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 47 STAT. 131. THIS LIMITATION LIKE SEVERAL OTHERS CONTAINED IN ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ACTS ENACTED IN THAT SAME YEAR LIMITED THE PURCHASE OF VEHICLES "COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR OPERATION" TO A COST NOT IN EXCESS OF $750,"EXCEPT, WHERE IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS CANNOT THUS BE EFFICIENTLY MET, SUCH EXCEPTIONS, HOWEVER, TO BE LIMITED TO NOT TO EXCEED 10 PERCENTUM OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR SUCH MOTOR VEHICLES PURCHASED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR * * *.'

AN EXAMINATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THESE PROVISIONS DISCLOSES LITTLE DISCUSSION OF THE TERM "COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR OPERATION.' THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE LIMITATION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TO PRECLUDE THE PURCHASE OF "HEAVY AND EXPENSIVE CARS" AS COMPARED WITH "LIGHT AND ECONOMICAL CARS.' HOWEVER, IN A MATTER INVOLVING THE COMFORT OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE VEHICLES THERE IS FOR NOTING THAT ONE OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE LIMITATION MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT DURING THE DEBATE ON THE MEASURE ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE:

"THE RANGER OR AGENT IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN SERVICE DOES NOT GET ANY TOO MUCH SALARY AT PRESENT AND HIS LIFE IS ENDANGERED MANY TIMES. ARE WE GOING TO GIVE HIM AND HIS ASSISTANTS A CLOSED CAR IN COLD OR RAINY WEATHER OR ARE WE GOING TO PUT HIM IN A LITTLE OPEN, 2-SEATED LOW PRICED CAR? SEE 75 CONG.REC. 2961.

THIS MATTER IS AGAIN DISCUSSED IN 75 CONG.REC. AT PAGE 4094, AS FOLLOWS:

"MR. MAPES. THE GENTLEMAN SAYS THAT HE DRIVES A FORD IN HIS STATE. CAN HE TELL THE HOUSE HOW MUCH A 5-PASSENGER CAR, FULLY EQUIPPED, COSTS HIM IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, DELIVERED?

"MR. DOUGLAS OF ARIZONA. AS I RECALL IT, A 5-PASSENGER FORD, PROPERLY EQUIPPED, WILL COST ME $607 DELIVERED AT PHOENIX, ARIZONA.

"MR. BLANTON. AND THAT IS A SEDAN?

"MR. DOUGLAS OF ARIZONA. NO; THAT IS AN OPEN CAR.

"MR. MAPES. HOW MUCH WOULD A CLOSED CAR COST THE GENTLEMAN?

"MR. DOUGLAS OF ARIZONA. I DO NOT KNOW. I NEVER TRAVEL IN ONE; AND IF I DO NOT TRAVEL IN A CLOSED CAR, I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON WHY ANYBODY ELSE SHOULD DEMAND THAT HE SHOULD BE GIVEN A CLOSED CAR.'

WHAT WAS THEN SAID ABOUT OPEN AND CLOSED CARS COULD AS APPROPRIATELY HAVE BEEN SAID TODAY WITH REFERENCE TO CARS EQUIPPED WITH AIR CONDITIONING UNITS AS COMPARED TO CARS WITHOUT SUCH EQUIPMENT. THE WORD "COMPLETE" IS DEFINED IN WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, SECOND EDITION, AS MEANING "FILLED UP; WITH NO PART, ITEM, OR ELEMENT LACKING; FREE FROM DEFICIENCY; ENTIRE; PERFECT; CONSUMMATE.'

IN VIEW OF THAT DISCUSSION AND THE ABOVE DEFINITION, THE CONCLUSION SEEMS REQUIRED THAT THE CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO SET ONLY A MAXIMUM PRICE THAT COULD BE PAID FOR A "STRIPPED" AUTOMOBILE BUT RATHER THAT IT INTENDED TO INCLUDE WITHIN THAT LIMITATION THE COST OF ANY AND ALL EQUIPMENT NEEDED OR INTENDED FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE. TO HOLD THAT SUCH TERM APPLIES ONLY TO ITEMS WHICH ARE REQUIRED EQUIPMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF MOST STATES, AS WAS URGED IN THE CASE APPEARING IN 28 COMP. GEN. 720, OR TO INDUSTRY'S PRESENT "BASE PRICE" CONCEPT WOULD, IN OUR OPINION, GIVE LITTLE OR NO EFFECT TO THE TERM "COMPLETELY EQUIPPED FOR OPERATION.'

WE BELIEVE, THEREFORE, THAT IN OUR EARLIER DECISIONS WE HAVE CONSTRUED THE TERM IN QUESTION IN THE MOST LIBERAL SENSE POSSIBLE AND THAT NO FURTHER RELAXATION OF THE CRITERIA STATED IN THOSE DECISIONS WOULD BE PROPER OR PERMISSIBLE. FURTHERMORE, AS INDICATED IN YOUR LETTER, THE LIMITATION RECENTLY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CONGRESS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF POLICE-TYPE AUTOMOBILES AND WAS OCCASIONED BY OUR DECISION OF APRIL 19, 1957, 36 COMP. GEN. 725. IT WAS STATED IN THAT DECISION THAT THE COST OF EQUIPMENT INSTALLED ON AUTOMOBILES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT LAW-ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES COULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIMITATION IF THE EQUIPMENT WAS NOT RELATED TO THE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PASSENGERS OR THE EFFICIENCY OF THE VEHICLE'S OPERATION. APPLICATION OF SUCH RULE REQUIRED THAT EQUIPMENT SUCH AS EIGHT CYLINDER ENGINES, HEAVY DUTY GENERATORS, SPECIAL TIRES AND TUBES, AND SAFETY PADDED SUN VISOR AND DASHBOARD, WHICH, WHILE NEEDED PRIMARILY IN CONNECTION WITH POLICE ACTIVITIES BUT WHICH ALSO AFFECTED THE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PASSENGERS AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE VEHICLES' OPERATION, BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE LIMITATION.

AS A RESULT OF THAT DECISION, YOUR ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS APPROPRIATION BILL, 1959, WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS:

" "PROVIDED, THAT SUCH AMOUNTS MAY BE EXCEEDED BY THE NET EXTRA COST, NOT TO EXCEED $300, OF ANY SPECIAL FEATURES OR EQUIPMENT WHICH,WHILE AFFECTING THE OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE AS A PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLE, ARE REQUIRED TO RENDER IT SUITABLE AND SAFE FOR THE CARRYING OUT OF CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OR POLICE-TYPE ACTIVITIES BY THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE TREASURY, INTERIOR, AND JUSTICE, AND THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UPON CERTIFICATION BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WITH RESPECT TO EACH PURCHASE REQUISITION THAT SUCH SPECIAL FEATURES ARE ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.'"

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND ITS EARLIER LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ARE SET FORTH ON PAGES 102-108 OF THE HEARINGS ENTITLED "GENERAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS APPROPRIATION, 1959," BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS EXPLAINED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR ADMINISTRATION, WHOSE STATEMENT IS SET FORTH ON PAGE 104 OF THE HEARINGS AS FOLLOWS:

"THIS IS PROPOSED AS A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHICH, AS THE COMMITTEE KNOWS, IS NOT NEW. IT ORIGINATED LAST SPRING WHEN IT WAS LEARNED THAT GSA HAD ADMINISTRATIVELY MISCONSTRUED AN OLD DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL. IN EFFECT, THE NEW DECISION SAID THAT WHERE WE WERE PROCURING EQUIPMENT WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY OF THE VEHICLE, OR THE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PASSENGERS, THEN SUCH EQUIPMENT WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRICE LIMITATIONS. THOSE ITEMS OF EQUIPMENT WHICH DID NOT SO CONTRIBUTE, SUCH AS A FLASHER LIGHT OR A SIREN, WERE NOT A PROPER CHARGE AGAINST THE LIMITATION. AS A RESULT OF THAT PROBLEM, WE SUBMITTED PROPOSED LANGUAGE LAST YEAR, WHICH THE SENATE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED IN THEIR REPORT, AND WHICH WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE.'

SINCE THE EQUIPMENT THERE CONCERNED WAS SPECIAL-USE EQUIPMENT AND WOULD ONLY INCIDENTLY AFFECT THE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PASSENGERS IT SEEMS EVIDENT THAT AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO ADD TO THE COMFORT OF THE PASSENGERS MUST BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMITATION.

WHILE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE, WAS NOT ADOPTED, THE CONGRESS SUBSEQUENTLY HAS EXEMPTED CERTAIN AGENCIES AND BUREAUS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITATION INSOFAR AS POLICE-TYPE VEHICLES ARE CONCERNED. SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, APPROPRIATIONS MADE FOR THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND FOR THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, CONTAINED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1960, APPROVED JULY 13, 1959, 73 STAT. 188. CONSEQUENTLY, INSOFAR AS ORDINARY AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT IS CONCERNED, WE MUST ADHERE TO OUR EARLIER DECISION OF OCTOBER 7, 1960, 40 COMP. GEN. 205, WHEREIN WE HELD THAT THE COST LIMITATION ON PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES IS APPLICABLE TO SUCH EQUIPMENT.

WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR FURTHER QUESTION CONCERNING "HANG-ON" UNITS, YOU STATE THAT---

"LIKE BUILDING SPACE, PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES MAY BE AIR CONDITIONED BY MEANS OF PERMANENT INSTALLATION OR BY EASILY REMOVABLE AND TRANSFERABLE UNITS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE REMOVABLE, TRANSFERABLE APPROACH TO VEHICULAR AIR-CONDITIONING WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT OPERATION. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DEALERS AND INDEPENDENT MANUFACTURERS ACTIVE IN THE FIELD OF "HANG-ON" TYPE AUTOMOTIVE AIR- CONDITIONING UNITS WHICH CAN BE TRANSFERRED FROM VEHICLE TO VEHICLE AS AND WHERE NEEDED. "HANG-ON" UNITS REQUIRE NO CHANGES IN RADIATOR, FAN, COWLING, OR OTHER VEHICLE EQUIPMENT, AND ARE EASILY REMOVED AND INSTALLED AT A LOW COST. THESE ,HANG-ON" UNITS HAVE A LIFE EXPECTANCY EQUAL TO THE LIFE OF TWO VEHICLES (12 YEARS OR 120,000 MILES) AND SHOULD LAST THROUGH FOUR OR FIVE INSTALLATIONS. SAVINGS RESULTING FROM INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY ALONE WOULD MORE THAN OFFSET THE COST OF THE EQUIPMENT. THESE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS MOVABLE EQUIPMENT AND, IN OUR OPINION, THE COST THEREOF SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRICE LIMITATION OF THE VEHICLE.

"THE PURCHASE OF ANY SUCH AIR-CONDITIONING UNITS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF NEED, BE IT OPERATIONAL OR GEOGRAPHICAL, UNDER THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY GSA, THAT THE USE OF SUCH UNITS WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT. ALL SUCH PURCHASES, OF COURSE, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO YOUR AUDIT AND TO CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS AND INQUIRY.'

FROM THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION AND LITERATURE AND OTHER INFORMATION WE HAVE OBTAINED RELATIVE TO SUCH "HANG-ON" TYPE AIR CONDITIONERS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE EQUIPMENT AND THE INSTALLATION THEREOF ARE PRACTICALLY THE SAME AS THOSE FOR FACTORY INSTALLED AIR CONDITIONING AND THAT WHEN SUCH UNITS ARE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER AUTOMOBILE THE INSTALLATION COSTS ARE AGAIN ABOUT THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL INSTALLATION COSTS. THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE IN THE "HANG-ON" EQUIPMENT APPEARS, THEREFORE, TO BE THAT ALL OR AT LEAST SOME PARTS THEREOF CAN BE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE VEHICLE TO ANOTHER VEHICLE SO THAT SOME SAVINGS WOULD BE EFFECTED IN THE USE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT AS COMPARED TO THE COST OF "FACTORY INSTALLED" EQUIPMENT. HOWEVER, THE UNIT CANNOT BE OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE VEHICLE'S ENGINE AND ITS ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IT APPEARS IT WOULD BE AS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE VEHICLE AS A FACTORY INSTALLED AIR CONDITIONER WOULD BE AND IT ORDINARILY WOULD BE TRANSFERRED ONLY WHEN AN OLD VEHICLE IS REPLACED BY A NEW ONE. ACCORDINGLY, AND SINCE THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT IS TO ADD TO THE COMFORT OF THE PASSENGERS, WE THINK SUCH EQUIPMENT ALSO IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS BEING WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMITATION. ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THAT SUCH SPECIAL EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES AS BEING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT, WE CANNOT GRANT AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITATION BY DECISION. IF AN EXCEPTION IS TO BE SOUGHT, THE MATTER SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE CONGRESS.