Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120360845
label
Mobile Source Provisions
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120360845
contentType
document
title
Mobile Source Provisions
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120360845
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg2-037-007-2018
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
51d01dccd8cd297f
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
2897
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Mobile Source Provisions
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
6
3
1
WAGNER COMMUNICATIONS
23 February 1990
Ms. Katy McGinty
c/o Senator Gore
393 Russell SOB
Washinton, D.C. 20515
Dear Katy,
Enclosed are the two proposed amendments EMA and Cummins
desire incorporated into S.1630: a provision providing for three
years of stability between regulatory modification to emmission
standards and a clarification of 5.0gbh Nox as the regulatory
standard between 1991-1997. These amendments are important
primarily because of their impact on the industries ability to
develop captial investment and R & D programs.
Your help is much appreciated in incorporating these
considerations into the clean air bill.
Kind Caml Regards
Carl R. Wagner
Enclosures
Engine
One Illinois Center
ema
Manufacturers
111 East Wacker Drive
Chicago. Illinois 60601
Association
312/644-6610
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO )
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
TITLE II OF S. 1630
)
Position: The Committee Bill should be clarified to specifically
indicate its intent to retain EPA's 5.0 gbh. NOx standard for heavy-duty
truck engines until the statutorily mandated 4.0 gbh. standard is
imposed.
Rationale: Without a clarification as to the intent of S. 1630, EPA must
revisit, and possibly revise, the NOx standard for heavy-duty engines in
1994 and 1997.
Inasmuch as the 1991 NOx standard was promulgated under EPA's revision
authority, EPA is obligated to revisit the NOx standard every three years
and determine whether it can be reduced further. Such a requirement
conflicts with what we believe is the Committee's intent to maintain the
5.0 gbh. NOx standard until the statutorily mandated reduction to 4.0
gbh. takes effect.
The heavy-duty diesel engine industry needs the certainty and stability
of the time periods established for NOx reduction and particulate
reduction in order to commit their limited resources to meeting the
technological challenge of stringent reductions in either NOx or
particulate emissions already scheduled for 1991 and 1994 and,
thereafter, as mandated by S. 1630.
In order to avoid the imposition of an unnecessary review process on EPA
or a costly interim regulation on the industry, Congress should add to
Table 2 in Section 201 a specific reference to the 5.0 gbh. NOx standard
beginning in 1991. Alternatively, Congress should clearly express its
legislative intent that EPA maintain the currently promulgated heavy-duty
emission standards until the proposed statutory standards go into effect.
Proposal: On page 283 of S. 1630, the heavy-duty trucks portion of Table
2 is amended by inserting a new NOx provision:
NOx
1991-1997
5.0 gbh.
? / table says
4.0
1996-
Engine
One illinois Center
cma
Manufacturers
111 East Wacker Drive
Chicago. Illinois 60601
Association
312/644-6610
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO )
PERIOD OF STABILITY
TITLE II OF S. 1630
)
Position: The Committee Bill should provide for a minimum three-year
period of stability between the imposition of the statutorily mandated
4.0 gbh. NOx standard, and any possible future revisions.
Rationale: Under Section 202 (a) (3) (B) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is
allowed to impose new NOx emission standards as often as it likes. In
fact, EPA is compelled to review, and possibly revise, the NOx standard
at least every three years. EPA should not be forced to undertake what
may be a costly and unnecessary review process. And, the industry should
not be jeopardized by too frequent incremental changes in standards.
It is critical to the well-being of the U.S. economy that there be a
strong, competitive domestic heavy-duty engine industry. Since 1979,
that industry has been faced with five serialized reductions in emission
standards, including a major change in test requirements. As a result,
manufacturers have committed capital expenditures of approximately $1
million per test cell. Moreover, the costs of compliance have escalated
from tens of millions of dollars in the early 1980's to hundreds of
millions of dollars for compliance with EPA's 1991 emission control
program.
These costs must be absorbed by an industry characterized by mature
markets, fierce foreign and domestic competition, financial realignment
and restructuring, and cost-conscious customers. The last decade has
left the industry financially exhausted.
The heavy-duty engine industry cannot survive another decade of too
frequent, serial reductions in emissions. Adequate time and resources
must be dedicated to ensure the production of reliable and durable
products that meet the Nation's emission goals. It is critical that the
industry be given time to recover its resources before being required
again to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on incremental emission
control.
Proposal: The Clean Air Act should be amended to provide for a minimum
three-year period of stability between the statutorily mandated 4.0 gbh.
NOx standard and any subsequent change in the NOx standard. Section
202 (a) (3) (B) of the Clean Air Act should be amended to read:
"
The Administrator may, after notice and opportunity
for a public hearing, promulgate emission regulations
revising any standard prescribed as provided in subparagraph
(A) (ii) for any class or category of heavy-duty engines or
vehicles. Such standard shall apply only for a minimum the
period of three model years beginning four model years after
the model year in which such revised standard is promulgated."
R
SSDA
SERVICE STATION DEALERS OF AMERICA
AMY R. LITTLEFIELD
Director of Government Affairs
499 SOUTH CAPITOL STREET. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20003-4013
TELEPHONE: (202) 479-0196
THE DASKAL LAW FIRM
DIMITRI G. (JIM) DASKAL
Attorney & Counselor at Law
General Counsel- - Service Station Dealers of America
Tennessee Retual basoline Dables Asso,
325 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE S.E.
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
TELEPHONE: (202) 675-6300
107(b)(2) -
rod back to SEVERE
m-Co OPW Wheston } nozzles
* are sure they High COn @ aut get the
rolled } talked to back (wld Dr. demorrated like u
Wid ratter have on bd
Controls
= or is expensive as are said
Mr denguars
5
Bristo'
SULLIVAN
HANCOCK
MONTGOMERY
CLAY
CLAIBORNE
HAWKINS
Kingsport
PICKETT
JOHNSON
MACON
STEWART
Clarksville
ROBERTSON
SUMMER
SCOTT
CAMPBELL
Johnson
City
JACKSON
FENTRESS
CARTER
LAKE
OBION
OVERTON
UNION
HENRY
rr
ORANGEAMBLEN
Morristown
WEAKLEY
HOUSTON
SMITH
GREENE
Nashy
TROUSDALE
ANDERSON
WASHINGTON
UNICO!
Davidson
DICKSON
PUTNAM
MORGAN
WILSON
KNOX
JEFFERSON
DYER
8
BENTON
DAVIDSON
6
CUMBERLAND
DE KALB
Knoxville
COCKE
HUMPHREYS
Oak
WHITE
CARROLL
GIBSON
WILLIAMSON
CROCKETT
HICKMAN
RUTHERFO
4
Ridge
ROANE
SEVIER
ORD
CANNON
VAN
LOUDON
BLOUNT
LAUDERDALE
WARREN
BUREN
HENDERSON
PERRY
RHEA
DECATURE
Ciliumbia
Jackson
HAYWOOD
LEWIS
MADISON
MAURY
BEDFORD
COFFEE
TIPTON
MEIGS
2
MCMINN
CHESTER
GRUNDY
MONROE
SHELBY
FAYETTE
HARDEMAN
WAYNE
MOORE
MARION
POLK
9
MARDIN
GILES
MCNAIRY
LINCOLN
FRANKLIN
LAWRENCE
HAMILTON
/3
BRADLEY
Tennessee
JOESPH L. KOACH, CAE
Executive Director
Affiliates:
SSDA
ALABAMA SERVICE STATION
DEALERS ASSN.
SERVICE STATION DEALERS OF AMERICA
ARIZONA UNITED SERVICE
STATION DEALERS ASSN.
SERVICE STATION DEALERS
OF ARIZONA
SERVICE STATION DEALERS
January 19th, 1990
499 South Capitol St., SE, Suite 407
Washington, DC 20003
OF ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA SERVICE STATION
(202) 479-0196
& AUTO. REPAIR ASSN.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
PETROLEUM RETAILERS ASSN.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SERVICE STATION ASSN.
COLORADO SERVICE STATION
DEALERS ASSN.
CONNECTICUT-RHODE ISLAND
GASOLINE RETAILERS &
Dear Senator :
GARAGE OWNERS ASSN.
SERVICE STATION DEALERS
OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA GASOLINE RETAILERS
On behalf of your local service station dealers, we are writing to
& GARAGE OWNERS ASSN.
HAWAII AUTO. & RETAIL
express our strong opposition to the mandate of Stage II vapor
GASOLINE DEALERS
recovery in S. 1630, The Clean Air Act Amendments.
IDAHO SERVICE STATION ASSN.
ILLINOIS GASOLINE
These radical provisions would extend Stage II to many small
DEALERS ASSN.
INDIANA AUTOMOTIVE
rural and urban areas in your state. If passed as written, the bill
SERVICE ASSN.
MIDWEST SERVICE
would force thousands of dealers nationwide, including many of
STATION ASSN.
KENTUCKY GASOLINE
your constituents, to close their businesses.
DEALERS ASSN.
BAYOU STATE GASOLINE
Stage II currently costs at least $2,000-5,000 per nozzle to put in
RETAILERS ASSN.
GREATER WASHINGTON/
and $4500 per year to maintain. These costs will only increase due
MARYLAND SERVICE STATION
to equipment and labor shortages caused by the widespread
& AUTO. REPAIR ASSN.
BAY STATE GASOLINE
installation of Stage II.
RETAILERS ASSN.
MINNESOTA SERVICE
Unfortunately, the report accompanying this bill is totally
STATION ASSN.
PRO AUTOMOTIVE ASSN. OF
divorced from reality. Claims that Stage II reduces the risk of station
MISSOURI & KANSAS
AUTOMOTIVE TRADES OF
fires is ludicrous at best. The only accurate statement is "The station
MONTANA
NEVADA GASOLINE RETAILERS
owner or operator is subject to penalties for failure to implement a
TRI-STATE GASOLINE & AUTO.
DEALERS ASSN. OF MAINE.
Stage II system." Let's look at some of the "Senate Report Myths"
NEW HAMPSHIRE & VERMONT
SERVICE STATION DEALERS
ASSN. OF NEW MEXICO
Myth #1: Stage II is Cheap and Cost Effective
NEW YORK STATE ASSN. OF
SERVICE STATIONS
The Committee assumed Stage II costs $12-18,000 to install
NORTH CAROLINA SERVICE
STATION ASSN.
at a typical 12 nozzle station. The actual costs are DOUBLE that
NORTH DAKOTA RETAIL
GASOLNE DEALERS ASSN.
($24-36,000) and these costs will only increase.
OHIO CONFERENCE OF SERVICE
STATION DEALERS ASSNS.
The $700-1,000 per ton VOC reduction cost-effectiveness
OREGON GASOLINE
number is based on this long-outdated installation cost. It also
DEALERS ASSN.
PETROLEUM RETAILERS & AUTO.
assumes a 92% efficiency rate which is a laboratory, not a real
REPAIR ASSN. OF
PENNSYLVANIA
world number. It disregards that fact that consumers do not properly
SERVICE STATION & AUTO.
REPAIR ASSN. OF
use Stage II, which requires that you hold the nozzle in for about 10
PENNSYLVANIA/DELAWARE
SOUTH CAROLINA SERVICE
seconds after you finish pumping gas. California studies show that
STATION DEALERS ASSN.
TENNESSEE RETAIL GASOLINE
the vast majority (over 90%) of motorists do not do this.
DEALERS ASSN.
TEXAS SERVICE STATION ASSN.
It disregards the fact that the equipment breaks down with
LONE STAR SERVICE
STATIONS ASSN.
clockwork regularity.
PETROLEUM RETAILERS
It disregards the fact that consumers can easily defeat the
ORANIZATION OF UTAH
VIRGINIA GASOLINE & AUTO.
nozzle by holding the boot with their fingers. It also assumes that
REPAIR ASSN.
VIRGINIA SERVICE STATION &
delivery drivers will hook up vapor return lines to carry vapors to the
AUTO. SERVICES ASSN.
AUTOMOTIVE UNITED TRADES
terminals.
ORGANIZATION
WEST VIRGINIA GASOLINE
In sum, the numbers you have been given in the Senate Report
DEALERS & AUTO.
REPAIR ASSN.
are completely unrealistic. The implications for your constituents
WISCONSIN RETAIL GASOLINE &
AUTO. TRADES ASSN.
could not be greater.
OFFICERS
EMMETT PROBUS
DENNIS HEIL
DENNIS DeCOTA
DON JOHSTONE
MARY ANN RAGONA
President
First Vice President
Second Vice President
Third Vice President
Treasurer
Louisville, KY
Wausau, WI
San Anselmo, CA
Indianapolis, IN
Patchogue, NY
Myth #2: The Consumer Acceptance Problems with Stage II
Have Been Solved
The Committee bases this statement on a 1984 statement by a prominent
auto industry contractor. This is again, ludicrous. We invite you to see the
"latest and greatest" Stage II equipment here in D.C. "User Friendly" Stage II
equipment just installed in New York and New Jersey has moved comedians
David Letterman and Andy Rooney to comment on just how "user friendly" it is.
The inconvenience costs alone to your constituents amount to $4,106.25
per nozzle per year. This does not include the costs of gasoline spills on
clothes, shoes, car finishes, and skin caused by the nozzle. Clearly, requiring
Stage II would be viewed as an unfriendly act by your constituents.
Myth #3: Stage II Can Be Installed In All These Areas Within 3
Years
This is the biggest misconception of all. For example, in New York and New
Jersey, even under a two-year, court imposed deadline, Stage II is not fully in
place due to shortages of both equipment and qualified personnel. A program
on the scope proposed by S. 1630 will take at least 5-7 years.
We must ask, where does this Committee expect a dealer to get the money
from? Our members have an average net worth of $81,000. Stage II will eat
half of that up. Banks won't lend to us due to fear of inheriting environmental
liability. We are already spending tens of thousands of dollars on 7 other
environmental initiatives, including underground storage tanks. Our well is now
dry. Neither your consumers nor your dealers can afford to put good money into
a program that former EPA administrator Lee Thomas called "A costly
technological redundancy that will do little to solve the ozone non-attainment
problem."
We urge you to vote against mandatory Stage II vapor recovery.
Sincerely,
Joseph Joseph L. Koach, L. Roach. CAE
D.G.Dasked
Jim Daskal, Esq.
Executive Director
General Counsel
amyR Littlefille
Amy R. Littlefield
Director of Government Affairs
Center for Auto Safety
2001 S Street N w_ Suite 410
Washington D.C. 20009
(802) 328-7700
March 20, 1987
Lee Thomas, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Thomas:
In an effort to combat serious ozone problems plaguing many
regions of the country and the dangerous health effects of
benzene, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently
considering methods of reducing evaporative emissions, which
consist primarily of gasoline fumes generated during motor
vehicle refueling. While EPA analysis shows that modification of
existing, so-called "onboard", emission controls on automobiles
would yield the greatest reductions in evaporative emissions,
automobile manufacturers have argued the changes would be
dangerous. These "safety" arguments are overstated and EPA
should not delay requiring vitally needed onboard controls. If
anything, EPA's combined package of fuel volatility and onboard
controls will reduce the risks of fire incidents in automobiles.
Crash Fire Safety
A central argument put forward by those opposing onboard
controls is that the proposed changes would make vehicles more
susceptible to post-collision fires. Post-collision fires have
already been reduced in vehicles made subsequent to the September
1, 1976 effective date of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA's) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) 301, for post-collision fuel system integrity. This
improvement in crash fire safety is all the more significant
since it was made on vehicles with onboarc evaporative emission
controls similar to those proposed by EPA.
This assessment is based on review of automobile defect
investigations conducted by the NHTSA, consumer complaints
received by NHTSA and the Center, and attorney information
requests received by the Center. A 1981 Society of Automotive
Engineers technical report shows that only "one in every 15
reported burn injuries associated with motor vehicles results
from a crash. [1] By these indicators, FMVSS 301 has been
effective in preventing post-collision fires.
The emissions cont: modifications EPA proposes are not new
and in fact are quite S1 Car to what has been used on cars since
1971. Vehicles current use a system consisting primarily of
1/4 inch lines which transport fuel vapors to a charcoal canister
used to absorb the vapors. In a submission to the NHTSA, General
Motors indicated that major modifications to this system would
1: "Motor Vehicle Non-Crash Fires, Peter Cooley, SAE No. 810012
(1981)
include enlarging the current vapor lines to about 5/8 inches,
increasing the capacity of the canister and adding a valve to
separate the gas tank and vapor lines. Thus GM's main post-
collision safety concerns seem to be with slightly enlarging
components which currently meet NHTSA's fuel system integrity
standard FMVSS 301.
In a May 12, 1986, letter to you, NHTSA Administrator Diane
Steed wrote:
FMVSS 301
is a performance standard that
does not dictate the design of an automobile's
fuel system. FMVSS 301 requires a vehicle to
withstand frontal, side, and rear impacts without
subsequent substantial fuel leakage in simulated
post-crash rollover positions. Most of the vapor
control systems that we reviewed do not appear to
require "exotic" changes to the vehicle.
A March 27, 1986 letter from Ms. Steed to Congressman John
Dingell also pointed out that FVMSS 301 was:
a performance standard and, assuming current crash
test compliance can be met by the particular on-
board system a manufacturer may choose, may simply
mean that the costs and benefits of the vapor
controls can be assumed at a constant level of
crash safety.
Rigorous NHTSA testing for compliance with FMVSS 301 will assure
continuance of present levels of crash fire safety. Crash fire
safety in the future depends not upon this EPA rulemaking but
upon NHTSA's efforts to upgrade FMVSS 301. Technology exists to
prevent fires in barrier collisions up to 50 MPH as opposed to
the present 30 MPH requirement. In addition to gas tank and fuel
line placement, such technology includes: fuel bladders, expanded
mesh within the tank, self-sealing breakaway valves at critical
locations within the fuel system, and reinforcement of fuel
lines. (For a complete summary of advanced fuel systems that
would sharply reduce even the present low levels of auto crash
fires, see Attachment A, "Fuel-Fed Vehicle Fires, by Center for
Auto Safety staff.)
Fire Safety Improvements From Fuel Volatility Controls
Aside from post collision fires, automakers have also
described the potential I I fuel tank overflow and fuel spitback
during refueling. Fuel overflow describes the potential
failure of the automatic nut-off mechanism used to stop the flow
of gas when the fuel tank is full. While, as occasionally occurs
on today's cars, fuel spit: involves overpressurized fuel
spurting from the filler neck when the pump nozzle is removed
after refueling. The Center agrees with EPA that these potential
problems can be addressed by straight forward engineering
solutions. General Motors, for example, appears to have already
developed overfill protection and a method of providing
indication of overfill for both liquid and mechanical filler neck
seals. [2]
In addition to vehicle changes, EPA has proposed several
non-vehicle requirements to control factors which will reduce
fire hazards. These include reducing gasoline volatility and
improving fuel pumps. Fuel spitback, especially, can be
mitigated both by limiting pump flow rates and setting stricter
volatility limits. The need for volatility limits is graphically
exemplified by a serious fuel-spurting defect currently affecting
1984-86 Ford ambulances and vans. Ford has repeatedly indicated
that higher vapor pressure contributes to the fuel-spurting
problem. [3]
Since 1970, the Center for Auto Safety has been an outspoken
advocate of safer vehicles and critic of designs which compromise
safety. In the matter of requiring onboard controls, full
implementation of the safeguards described above will not reduce
safety and, if stricter volatility limits are set, will actually
result in safety improvements. We have no doubt that onboard
controls will reduce the serious health problems associated with
evaporative emissions.
Sincerely
Clarence Chou M. Ditlow
Executive Director
Robert Dewey
Vehicle Safety Staff
2. Attachment B is an excerpt from a March 24, 1986 letter to
NHTSA from General Motors summarizing industry progress on
onboard technology.
3. Attachment C is documentation describing the impact of high
volatility gasoline on the Ford ambulance and van problem.
KIMBRO SERVICE COMPANY
LIGHTING SERVICE
PETROLEUM SERVICE
P.O. BOX 23089
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202
(615) 320-1343
January 25, 1990
Don Saddler
5025 Charlotte Ave.
Nashville, Tennessee
37209
Re: Stage 2 Vapor Recovery System.
Dear Mr. Saddler:
Kimbro Service Company proposes for your review, to install Stage 2 Vapor
recovery system on four multihose dispensers. This price includes retrofiting
four multihose dispensers and necessary underground piping.
PRICING
Kimbro Service Company's fee to provide the necessary equipment, materials
and labor to install a Stage 2 vapor recovery system will be:
Price
$29,877.34
(plus applicable sales or use taxes)
Note: The utilities will be notified before the work is to begin. However,
Kimbro Service Company will assume no liability for damage done to unknown
underground obstructions or damage caused by acts of nature.
William Sincerely, G. Vaughar.
William G. Vaughn Jr.
Operations Manager
12 nozzles -
Petroleum Division
Kimbro Service Company
Nashville
NISSAN
Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation U.S.A.
Jerry L. Benefield
President and
Chief Excentive officer
March 5, 1990
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
United States Senate
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Al:
It looks like the automotive fuel economy issue will soon -- perhaps
as soon as tomorrow -- be taken up by the Senate.
Although the Senate leadership compromise on Clean Air would delete
any fuel economy provision from S. 1630, Senator Bryan nevertheless
says he intends to offer an amendment imposing dramatically higher,
discriminatory fuel economy standards along the lines of S. 1224. It
is hard for me to imagine that Senator Bryan can succeed in thwarting
the will of the leadership of both parties, but the threat that his
percentage improvement approach to fuel economy poses to us is SO
great that we must take his effort very seriously.
We realize that addressing the threat of global warming is among your
highest priorities and we understand that you are also concerned about
our nation's energy security. I am confident -- between my testimony
before the Consumer Subcommittee in September, my letter to you of
January 22 (copy attached), and my staff's several conversations with
yours -- that you understand how great a problem a discriminatory
approach to fuel economy regulation is for us. We are gratified to
know that you are working on an alternative approach to fuel economy
regulation that will be neutral in its competitive consequences.
Until your efforts bear fruit and you are in a position to put forward
a better approach for the Senate's thorough consideration, we both are
confronted with Senator Bryan's amendment. We hope you can find a way
to voice your advocacy of prompt congressional action on the issues of
global warming and energy security while taking a position against the
Bryan amendment as the wrong approach.
Nissan Drive Smyrna, Tennessee 37167 (615) 159
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
Page 2
March 5, 1990
In one of our conversations with your staff, they raised the question
of a possible conflict between Nissan and Saturn on this fuel economy
issue. I can assure you that on the matter of the Bryan amendment, we
and the Big Three are of one mind. The entire industry is vigorously
urging its defeat.
I know this issue puts you in a tough spot, Al. It puts us in a
pretty tough spot, too. I hope you can help.
Sincerely,
Juny Burfald
Jerry L. Benefield
JLB: jd
Enclosure
NISSAN
Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation U.S.A.
Jerry L. Benefield
President and
Chief Executive Officer
January 22, 1990
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
United States Senate
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Al:
I am writing on the eve of Senate debate on the Clean Air Act to ask
for your help on a matter of the greatest importance to our company.
After hearing my testimony last September, and I hope hearing reports
of the several meetings my staff has had with yours in the months
since, I don't think my message will surprise you.
In the coming debate, Senators concerned about the impact of S. 1630
on the auto industry will raise strong objections to a number of
provisions in the bill. These will include the very presence of co₂
(fuel economy) standards, the stringency of "tier two" tailpipe
standards, the problems that "on board" vapor recovery presents, and a
number of others. Naturally we share some of these concerns. While
these concerns are not a matter of indifference to us, an overwhelming
threat that confronts us is the specter of discriminatory fuel economy
standards. That threat comes in the form of S. 1224, which Senator
Bryan may offer as a substitute for the CO₂ standards of S. 1630.
Our position in the coming debate is straightforward. We oppose
S. 1224 and discriminatory fuel economy standards in whatever guise
they may arise. We are asking you to oppose them. We are not asking
you to take a position on any other issue in the Senate floor debate.
In my testimony in September, I explained how S. 1224 would put our
company at a severe competitive disadvantage. You grasped our
predicament immediately; I will not repeat here what you already know.
We were heartened by the reservations you voiced at the hearing about
the percentage-improvement approach and encouraged by your search for
an alternative. We believe that search holds promise but every
indication we now have suggests that the only choice you will face in
the Clean Air Act debate will be between the uniform co, standards of
S. 1630 and the discriminatory approach of S. 1224. We urge you to
support uniform standards as opposed to the percent improvement
approach.
Nissan Drive Smyrna, Tennessee 37167 (615) 459-1433
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
Page 2
January 22, 1990
I do want to take this opportunity to summarize the public policy case
against S. 1224.
S. 1224 is bad regulatory policy. Setting different
standards for different companies would constitute a
dramatic departure from our Government's traditional,
even-handed regulatory philosophy. The bill would send
an unambiguous signal to every company subject to
government regulation: never exceed standards because
of the risk that superior performance will be used
against you.
S. 1224 is bad competitiveness policy. You yourself
have voiced the concern that this attempt to put high
mileage manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage
could ultimately boomerang on the Big Three by creating
strong incentives for only high mileage; i.e., foreign-
based, manufacturers to push the pace of technological
progress to the maximum.
S. 1224 is bad trade policy. Discriminatory standards
would violate U.S. international obligations under both
the GATT and the GATT Standards Code. In a year when
the highest U.S. trade policy priority is bringing to a
successful conclusion the Uruguay round of trade
negotiations which we hope will impose new obligations
on other countries in areas of the greatest importance
to the United States such as intellectual property
protection, it makes no sense for the United States to
ignore its own existing obligations. These considera-
tions persuaded the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee not to take up an amendment to S. 1630 to
adopt discriminatory co₂ standards.
S. 1224 would be self-defeating. The near certain
effect of the bill would be to shift market share from
high-mileage to low mileage manufacturers. The reason
is that since high mileage manufacturers already
utilize existing fuel saving technologies, to meet the
bill's standards, they would have to offer for sale
even smaller vehicles which consumers may not accept or
adopt unproven and highly expensive technologies. Low
mileage manufacturers, on the other hand, could
downsize at lesser risk of consumer disfavor and could
make greater use of existing fuel saving technologies.
The point is that it is by no means clear that S. 1224
would result in lower total fuel consumption.
We cannot confidently anticipate how the Clean Air debate will
proceed. We assume that Senator Bryan now plans to offer S. 1224 as a
floor amendment. We are confident Senator Bryan would carefully
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
Page 3
January 22, 1990
consider your views on this matter. You are, after all, the Senate's
leader on the issue of global warming. If you are in a position to
discourage Senator Bryan from offering his bill as an amendment, we
would certainly urge you to consider doing that. If S. 1224
nevertheless comes to a vote, we hope you will speak and vote against
it. Your vote and your leadership will be critical to the outcome.
Of course, the issue may never come to vote until a consensus
compromise has been informally negotiated. At that point the vote
will be pro forma. We understand that Senator Nickles and Senator
Levin are working on a comprehensive substitute for the mobile source
provisions of S. 1630 and that the Big Three and some others will
endorse it. Among other things, the amendment would propose to delete
any fuel economy standards from S. 1630. We have good reason to think
that this amendment will not come to a vote, however. Its purpose
will be to persuade the Majority Leader to broker a compromise. In
such a negotiation, S. 1224 may be put forward. Discriminatory CO, 2
standards might be suggested as an alternative. We ask you to take an
active role opposing the adoption of discriminatory fuel economy
standards if such a negotiation takes place.
Al, we understand the depth of your commitment to raising the
consciousness of the Nation to the problem of global warming and your
determination to fashion public policies to begin to address the
threat global warming presents. We also understand your concerns
about competitiveness. We are not asking you to compromise the
integrity of your position on either issue. We never would.
We have not often asked for your help but we need it on this one. We
hope you can give it.
Very truly yours,
Jerry Jerry L. J
JLB:jd
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
February 6, 1990
Dear Colleague:
The health and welfare of Americans in virtually every state in the
Nation is at risk because of air pollution. The simple act of
breathing threatens the health of 3 out of every 5 citizens. Motor
vehicles are the biggest culprit.
An amendment expected to be offered by Senators Levin and Nickles
would eliminate or make discretionary the second round of motor
vehicle emission reductions and improved gas mileage required by
S.1630. This would be a giant step backwards in the effort to reduce
smog and prevent global warming.
The vote on the Levin-Nickles amendment will be one of the most
important environmental votes in memory. We urge you to join with us
and vote against urban smog and global warming by voting against the
Levin-Nickles amendment.
The Levin-Nickles amendment may adopt the deal on motor vehicle
emissions engineered by Congressman Dingell in the House. We do not
believe that the "Dingell-Waxman" approach, or any similar approach,
should be adopted by the Senate. That approach would not ensure
motor vehicle emission reductions that are both needed and
achievable.
Under the Dingell-Waxman approach, even if the EPA found that the
second round's standards were available, cost effective, and
necessary, the Agency would not have to require these standards. The
Agency could promulgate standards less stringent than called for by
the second round, or adopt no new standards at all.
The experience of the past 20 years suggests that EPA would not
exercise discretionary authority to adopt the second round
standards. For example, heavy-duty truck standards ordered by the
1970 Clean Air Act still have not gone into effect because EPA has
been unable to overcome existing administrative hurdles.
Many cities will continue to violate clean air standards without a
second round of tailpipe standards. According to an analysis of the
Office of Technology Assessment, even if all other pollution controls
in S.1630 are fully implemented, 55 million Americans will still live
in areas violating ozone health standards. ("Catching Our Breath").
Furthermore, it is questionable in many areas whether reductions
comparable to those achieved by the second round of auto standards
-2-
are even feasible from other sources. Many consumer products,
ranging from lawnmowers to all-purpose cleaners, might have to be
banned entirely in order to achieve the hydrocarbon reductions
available from the second round of auto standards.
The smog problem in some cities is so severe that an ambitious
alternative fuels program is essential. But alternative fuels are
not a substitute for a second round of nationwide motor vehicle
controls. Instead, alternative fuels are a useful supplement to the
second round to enable the most polluted cities to achieve safe air.
In addition, for the many cities not targeted by the alternative
fuels programs which have been proposed, alternative fuels cannot
replace the pollution reduction benefits available from the second
round. For these cities, the cleanest conventional cars feasible are
necessary in order to meet, rather than continue to miss, clean air
attainment deadlines.
Achievement of better gas mileage is one of the most significant
steps we can take to slow the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide
(CO2) is the major contributor to global warming, accounting for
almost half of the global warming problem. Transportation sources
are responsible for 30 percent of CO2 emissions. The 40 miles-per-
gallon fuel efficiency standard required by S.1630 in 2000 is an
important step Congress can take right now to combat global warming.
This standard can be met with existing technology. Furthermore,
improved gas mileage will lessen America's dependence on foreign oil,
reduce our trade deficit, and help prevent further destruction of
pristine areas.
With your support for the required second round of auto emission
reductions and fuel efficiency improvements offered by S.1630,
Congress can make a down payment toward controlling global warming
and deliver on the promise made to the American people in 1970 - safe
air to breathe.
Sincerely,
Timothy L'. Wuth
state J
Ala Granton
Marrymkeid
Broel Adams
J hile
-3-
41.Ay
Bill
Patel Leahy
Clairta
Max Baucus
Clina DM
JimJufford
BobPackwood
P.d Kundy
THE WASHINGTON POST
THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1990 A5
Senate, White House Negotiators Compromise on Auto Pollution Controls
By Michael Weisskopf
ation on the Senate floor on legislation that
week, Mitchell threatened to take a bill to
years that further emissions controls are
the standards to remain intact for 100,000
Washington Post Staff Writer
has deeply split Congress regionally and
the floor by today whether or not a broad
not worth the high price.
miles.
ideologically for a decade.
agreement had been reached. Yesterday, he
Instead, the administration proposed an
The greatest change is in the second
Senate and administration negotiators
Only final agreement on acid rain has
repeated the threat but said he was unsure
ambitious program of alternative motor
phase, which was automatic in the commit-
struck a compromise yesterday on a com-
eluded the "Group of 15," led by Senate Ma-
if enough time remained for bill drafting.
fuels that burn more cleanly than gasoline.
tee bill. In the compromise, tougher tailpipe
plex package of auto pollution controls as
jority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Maine),
The auto agreement emerged yesterday
The proposal called for 1 million cars that
cutbacks would only kick in nationwide if 12
they neared completion of a broad agree-
Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-
after two days of negotiation in a confer-
could use alternative fuels to be made an-
of the nation's 27 "seriously" polluted areas,
ment designed to assure smooth and swift
Kan.) and Roger Porter, President Bush's
ence room off the Senate chamber. As many
nually by 1997 and sold in the nine smog-
including Washington, failed to achieve
passage of clean air legislation in the Sen-
domestic policy adviser. But Senate leaders
as 10 car industry lobbyists at a time
giest cities. By the year 2000, the fuels
health standards for smog by the year
ate.
and Bush favor similar solutions to the prob-
camped out in the marbled hallway until
would have to burn as cleanly as pure meth-
2000. The cutbacks would be required by
The breakthrough on tailpipe emissions
lem and just began focusing on it yesterday
early Tuesday and Wednesady mornings,
anol, which is made of natural gas.
2004. A category of even smoggier cities
resolved a major issue dividing the cost-con-
to win the support of senators from pollut-
ready to review the latest proposal brought
No alternative fuels provision was ap-
would have to implement a second phase in
scious Bush administration, its Republican
ing states.
to them by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich who
proved by the Senate committee, which
their regions if they exceeded smog stan-
dards by 25 percent.
loyalists in the Senate and members of the
Early Senate passage of a clean air bill is
joined administration efforts to water down
viewed them as helpful but no substitute for
considered vital to intensify pressure on the
the committee bill.
tighter tailpipe standards. The committee
The alternative fuels proposal was weak-
key Senate committee that seeks more far-
House, which has failed to move legislation
Although emissions of the two ingredi-
voted for stricter and earlier tailpipe cut-
ened earlier. The compromise ensures the
reaching controls. The agreement calls for
beyond a subcommittee.
ents of smog-hydrocarbons and nitrogen
backs than the administration-39 percent
continued use of gasoline by setting a stan-
less stringent cutbacks in smog-forming
Mitchell opened the talks Feb. 2 after
oxides-have been dramatically reduced by
for hydrocarbons and 60 percent for nitro-
dard for alternative fuels weaker than pure
emissions than the committee proposed for
deciding that the bill reported by the En-
the auto industry, they are still the primary
gen oxides by 1993. And it called for anoth-
methanol.
1993 cars, but it allows for the possibility of
vironment and Public Works Committee
source of the unhealthy pollution shrouding
er 50 percent cut in each pollutant and car-
Negotiators sought to offset the weaker
more cutbacks, which had been opposed by
faced too much opposition to survive a fil-
nearly every U.S. city.
bon monoxide by the year 2003.
alternative fuel standard by requiring a
the administration.
ibuster by a coalition of Republicans who
The administration originally proposed a
Yesterday's compromise picks up the
larger number of cars to run on the fuels—
Together with other agreements nego-
share the administration's concerns over
single phase of tailpipe cutbacks by 1995-
committee standards for the first phase but
all new cars sold in the smoggiest nine
tiated in recent days on alternative motor
cost and senators afraid of the impact on
39 percent for hydrocarbons and 30 percent
slows down the implementation, requiring a
cities starting in 1994, instead of 1 million a
fuels and industrial sources of smog and
utilities and the coal, oil, steel and auto in-
for nitrogen oxides. Administration officials
1993-1995 phase-in. And cars with 50,000
year by 1997. That assuages Detroit's fears
airborne toxics, the auto accord helps as-
dustries in their states.
said that so much pollution already has been
miles or more on them would not have to
that it would be unable to sell alternative
sure a large measure of bipartisan cooper-
With negotiations bogging down late last
squeezed out of the tailpipe in the past 15
run as cleanly. The committee bill called for
fuel-cars in cities where there was a choice.
QUENTIN N BURDICK NORTH DAKOTA CHAIRMAN
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN NEW YORK
JOHN H CHAFEE RHODE ISLAND
GEORGE J MITCHELL MAINE
ALAN K SIMPSON WYOMING
MAX BAUCUS MONTANA
STEVE SYMMS. IDAHO
FRANK R LAUTENBERG NEW JERSEY
DAVE DURENBERGER. MINNESOTA
JOHN 8 BREAUX LOUISIANA
JOHN W WARNER VIRGINIA
HARRY REID NEVADA
JAMES M JEFFORDS VERMONT
BOB GRAHAM FLORIDA
GORDON J HUMPHREY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
JOSEPH I LIEBERMAN CONNECTICUT
United States Senate
DAVID M STRAUSS STAFF DIRECTOR
ROBERT F HURLEY. MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6175
February 26, 1990
Dear Colleague:
I intend to offer an amendment to modify Section 218 of the
pending Clean Air legislation, which now mandates the use of
gasohol in areas that do not meet clean air goals. Section 218
could drain the Highway Trust Fund of at least $1 billion
desperately needed to meet our nation's infrastructure needs. At
the same time, it fails to appropriately address environmental
needs. The provision as written has no place in the bill.
My amendment has the support of the State and Territorial
Air Pollution Program Adminstrators, the Associated General
Contractors, Consumers for Competitive Fuels, and the Associated
Builders and Contractors. I seek your support.
Areas of the country that do not meet Clean Air standards --
so-called "nonattainment areas" -- are required by the bill to
take special steps to reduce pollution. Some of these measures
focus on reducing auto emissions, specifically carbon monoxide.
Using fuels with added levels of oxygen -- so-called oxygenated
fuels -- can help reduce carbon monoxide exhaust. Carbon
monoxide reductions can be maximized without creating other
environmental problems by setting an oxygen content of 2.7%.
However, section 218 sets the required oxygen content of
fuels in non-attainment areas at the unnecessarily high level of
3.1%. The only fuel that can meet that level of oxygen is
gasohol. While achieving no meaningful increase in carbon
monoxide reduction, the gasohol mandate would result in other
forms of environmental damage. Gasonol is a highly volatile
fuel. When used, it releases harmful hydrocarbons into the air.
It thereby worsens the ozone non-attainment problems of many
communities.
Section 218 -- by legislatively mandating wide use of
gasohol -- would result in a loss to the Federal Highway Trust
Fund (HTF) of at least $1 billion annually, according to the
Department of Transportation. The loss results from the deep tax
subsidies favoring gasohol. Gasohol is subsidized through
several sources, including an exemption from six cents of the
nine cent Federal gas tax. This exclusion already costs the HTF
almost $500 million in revenues annually and has cost more than
$2.5 billion in transportation revenues over the last decade.
With the gasohol mandate in section 218, the HTF could lose over
$1.5 billion a year. At a time when infrastructure needs are so
pressing, that loss of revenue would be devastating.
Page 2
In addition to reducing support for highway construction,
repair and rehabilitation, the gasohol mandate would reduce HTF
support of mass transit. At the same time that the Clean Air act
requires local governments to expand mass transit usage, to
reduce auto emissions, section 218 would deprive local
governments of needed federal mass transit assistance. That
makes no sense.
My amendment would require an oxygen content of fuels during
winter months at 2.7%. This would achieve our carbon monoxide
reduction goals without bleeding the HTF. It would allow other
fuels, such as methanol-based methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE),
to be used in non-attainment areas. MTBE is not exempt from the
gas tax, and therefore does not drain public transportation and
highway spending. And, unlike gasohol, MTBE also can reduce
hydrocarbons, and does not contribute to the ozone problem.
The goal of an oxygenated fuels provision should be to
enhance the condition of our environment, not to promote or
mandate the use of any particular fuel. This view is shared by
the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
(STAPPA), those charged with implementing clean air programs in
the states. STAPPA has stated that any oxygenated fuels
requirement should be "fuel-neutral, not favoring the use of one
beneficial fuel over another. Unfortunately, section 218 does
not meet this test.
This amendment would result in comparable reductions in
carbon monoxide levels throughout this country, while avoiding
the devastating impacts on transportation funding that the
provision now in S. 1630 would bring.
As you know, there have been ongoing discussions off the
floor to resolve a variety of concerns about the pending bill. I
am hopeful that this problem can be worked out in these
discussions. However, if it cannot, I intend to offer my
amendment to section 218, and I urge your support.
If you have any questions, please let me know, or have your
staff contact Jeff Morales at 4-9721.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Lautenberg
Suburbs polluting;
Air pollution in the Metro area
XEROX
Emissions of volatile organic compounds in Nashville and the
auto tests needed?
surrounding counties. Figures are in tons per dry.
Davidson
156
By J. Patrick Willard
reducing emissions would be an
Ruthoriord
45.6
Banner Staff Writer
2/15
expanded or enbanced auto emis-
sions inspection program like the
Summer
37.9
The seven suburban counties
one now in effect in Davidson
surrounding Davidson County pro-
Williamson
24.67
County through MARTA.
duce about as much air pollution
"The possibility is there. It de-
Wilson
20.27
as Nashville, according to a Uni-
pends on the percentage reduction
versity of Tennessee study.
needed," Stephens said.
Robertson
15.97
The study will be used to deter-
The study, required under the
federal Clean Air Act, estimated
Dickson
13.25
mine if automobile inspection pro-
grams need to be expanded into
volatile organic compound emis-
Cheatham
9.85
2-14-90;
the suburban counties, according
sions for Davidson County totaled
to Barry Stephens of the state's
156 tons for a summer day when
Source: University of Tennossee study
air pollution control division.
the ozone standard was exceeded
"This is the first big burdle that
In 1988. The seven neighboring
counties accounted for a total of
comply with the Clean Air Act.
5:08
bad to be covered," Stephens told
in a non-attainment area for ozone
the state Air Pollution Control
by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
The study showed that mobile
167.5 tons during the same period.
Board on Wednesday. He said the
Those neighboring counties are
tion Agency. The "nen-attain-
sources, including automobiles
ment" label means that the area
and other vehicles, were responsi-
board will next determine the em-
Rutherford (45.6 tons), Summer
issions reductions needed and then
(37.9), Williamson (24.67), Wilson
does not meet EPA standards.
ble for about 54 percent of the vol-
Under federal law the state
atile organic compound emissions
adopt regulations to meet those
(20.27). Robertson (15.97), Dickson
reduction goals.
(13.25) and Cheatham (9.85).
must take action in non-attain-
He said among the options for
The eight counties are included
ment areas to reduce emissions to
lease see AIR, page A-10
7365781
THOISST
-ura reduce 01 moq mo dn umurp eq
10 am a
next year. Regulations will then
0) experiments Surgapow cust
County accounts for 47 percent
use II childrent pue sq:
-1100 mm MOU a assess
the Nashville area. Davidson
those with breathing difficulties,
periments should be completed by
Stephens said University of Ten-
of carbon monoxide is emitted in
Ozone poses a health hazard to
-xa am pues Statements
percent of the total.
It showed that 892.4 tons per day
"SUOZO шлор of 143mg
in emissions needed in the area.
Davidson County accounts for 43.5
pollution in the eight-county area.
01 read SOOA FOLL "30020 to cope
mine the percentage of reductions
emitted in the metropolitan area.
bon monoxide and nitrogen oxide
cre- equal of Supeaf e
modeling experiments will deter-
tons per day of nitrogen oxides
The report also looked at car-
are 10
pollutants in the area. He said the
are
There are an estimated 269.03
also lead to potential lung dam-
Stephens said volatile organic
in the Nashville area.
3122241867573
Air
Wynn's International, Inc.
2600 EAST NUTWOOD AVENUE BOX 4370 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92634
(714) 992-2000 TELECOPIER (714) 525-3392 CABLE ADDRESS WYNNS
February 6, 1990
The Honorable Al Gore
Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Al:
It is my understanding the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee has approved a bill, S. 1630, which, if passed by
Congress, could have disastrous consequences for the automotive
business and ultimately the people of Tennessee because of the
growing number of automotive-related jobs in our State.
We at Wynn's support a responsible revision of the Clean Air
Act, including motor vehicle emissions standards tougher than
those currently in force. However, S. 1630 goes much too far.
It would provide minimal benefits to the environment with a
potential for a huge loss of jobs in Tennessee.
I am informed that Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Don Nickles
(R-OK) are developing a bipartisan approach to address the
onerous motor vehicle provision in S. 1630. It is a more
sensible approach to the problem. I urge you to support the
Levin/Nickles approach to modify S. 1630 when the bill is taken
up on the Senate floor.
In the same vein, you should be aware that our Wynn Oil Company
subsidiary has developed and patented a fuel supplement, WYNN'S
EMISSION CONTROL, which reduces hydrocarbon and monoxide
exhaust emissions. As you can see from the technical data
enclosed, the results have been remarkable.
Very truly yours,
WYNN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Bml James Carroll
President and
Chief Executive Officer
JC:jm
Enclosures
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
SAE
The Engineering Society
For Advancing Mobility
Land Sea Air and Space
®
400 COMMONWEALTH DRIVE WARRENDALE, PA 15096
SAE Technical
Paper Series
890828
Diesel Particulate Emission Control
Without Engine Modifications-
A Cost-Effective Fuel Supplement
Mark S. Filowitz and Marcel Vataru
Wynn Oil Co.
International Congress
and Exposition
Detroit, Michigan
February 27-March 3, 1989
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
STOP
Wynn's®
®
EMISSION
CONTROL*
Increase Fuel Economy
Improve Engine Performance
Reduce Black Smoke
EPA Registered
Emissions
U.S. Patent No. 4,684,373 (additional patents pending)
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN
SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
CONNECTICUT
(202) 224-4041
COMMITTEES:
STATE OFFICE:
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE COMMERCIAL PLAZA
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
United States Senate
21st FLOOR
HARTFORD, CT 06103
SMALL BUSINESS
203-240-3566
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
TOLL FREE: 1-800-225-5605
February 5, 1990
Dear Democratic Colleague:
I appreciated the opportunity to talk with you at the Caucus
STATES
IN->
last week about the need for the second round of automobile
tailpipe controls. I wanted to provide you with copies of the
is
SCreeked
AD
charts I used and briefly summarize the key points.
grys
First, transportation is the major source of our ozone and
carbon monoxide pollution problems.
Second, the contention by industry representatives that
pollution from the tailpipes of cars has been reduced by
96 percent since 1970 presents a faulty picture. Unfortunately,
while a car tested in the laboratory will show a 96 percent
reduction, in reality the cars on the road only attain a
20 percent reduction in emissions from the 1970 levels. This is
because cars actually on the road do not use the "ideal" fuel of
testing conditions; the average person does not drive a vehicle
in the same manner and under the same conditions as used during
the test procedures; and the test procedures do not reflect the
conditions during a hot summer day when the maximum ozone
problems occur.
The number of cars on the road and the number of miles
driven continue to grow, offsetting much of the gain that has
occurred. There are 140 million cars on the nation's highways
today -- over 50 million more than in 1970, driving 140 million
more miles per year. While many of these cars are on the road
for 100,000 miles, under the current law they are only required
to meet the cleaner air quality standards for 50,000 miles. The
emissions from cars increase significantly after the first 50,000
miles.
Third, it is misleading to claim that the reduction from the
second round of standards is only two percent. That figure fails
to take into account:
* Stricter controls result not only in a reduction of
hydrocarbons, but also reductions in oxides of nitrogen
(NOx), a principal component of smog and carbon monoxide.
Both of these pollutants pose severe health threats.
-2-
*
Increases in both the number and use of automobiles will
occur. Currently, Americans drive 25 billion miles each
year, and this number is growing. The attached charts
demonstrate that the impact of the second round is
substantially greater in the years after 2004 because the
stricter controls offset increased emissions from growth
in vehicle miles traveled.
In terms of the emissions from the tailpipe of the
automobile alone when compared with today's levels, the
second round of standards in S. 1630 will achieve a
52 percent greater reduction in hydrocarbons alone than
the President's proposal. Moreover, the reductions in
terms of tons of emissions eliminated from cars and light
trucks are dramatic when compared with the President's
proposal: over time, the reductions will be 1 million
more tons of hydrocarbons per year, 1.2 million more tons
of NOx per year, and 10.2 million more tons of carbon
monoxide per year removed from the air.
Fourth, the evidence before the Environment and Public Works
Committee from the California Air Resources Board, the leading
expert in this area and supported by the manufacturers of this
equipment, establishes that the cost of these standards will be
between $122-$132 per car. This cost is extremely cost-effective
when compared with strategies states might have to adopt in the
absence of emission reductions from the second round. According
to the states, some of them might be forced to consider options
such as eliminating all dry cleaners or some iron and steel
manufacturers.
Thank you for taking the time to review this issue. I would
be glad to discuss the matter with you in further detail at any
time.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
Attachments (6)
EXCESS CAR AND LIGHT TRUCK EMISSIONS FROM BUSH PROPOSAL
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
2.4
2.2
BUSH
2
1.8
MILLION TONS PER YEAR
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
S.1630
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
CALENDAR YEAR
EXCESS CAR AND LIGHT TRUCK EMISSIONS FROM BUSH PROPOSAL
HYDROCARBONS
3
2.8
BUSH
2.6
2.4
MILLION TONS PER YEAR
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
S.1630
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
CALENDAR YEAR
EXCESS CAR AND LIGHT TRUCK EMISSIONS FROM BUSH PROPOSAL
CARBON MONOXIDE
21
20
BUSH
19
18
17
16
MILLION TONS PER YEAR
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
S.1630
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
CALENDAR YEAR
0.5
0.4
HYDROCARBONS
PERCENT
0.3
0.2
0.1
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
0
Fuel Combustion
Sold Waste Disposal
MISOELLANEOUS AREA
Industrial Process
TRANSPORTATION
Additional Area
0.8
0.5
MOTOR VEHICLES
REMAIN THE
PERCENT
0.4
0.8
DOMINANT SOURCE
0.2
OF POLLUTION
0.1
0
Puel Contration
Sold Waste Disposal
MISCELLANEOUS AREA
Industrial Process
TRANSPORTATION
Additional Area
COST PER TON OF HC REMOVAL
CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED STRATEGIES
$26
$24
SOURCE:
$22
$20
STAPPA
$18
OTA
$18
$14,500
(Thousanda)
$14
$12
$10
$8
$7,000
$6,050
$8
$4,600
$4,800
$4
$2,127
$2
$0
TOP
REASONABLY AREW TEX SPRAY COAT CONTROL 2 COMPUTION PART AUTO CAR & 10 BELACE 1 FOR AVALABLE ST THOMOU 1001 TAMPS 190
AUTO STANDARDS PROPOSALS - HC
0.5
0.4
BUSH
X
0.3
X
GRAMS PER MILE
X
S. 1630
0.2
CALIFORNIA
0.1
X
X
0
1990
1994
1998
2002
MODEL YEAR
5 39
Bacbera Pennetor - alasha Enot Conver
march pources want 2001 rosent
anknorge r Failsoke pulpipe Co
problem & melity stations
onto of smke vehicles not
puby to Hein I/M
Serens receipe of have strchen
Go there I/M
hut 0) only every 3yrs.
when stichers need h be parentd.
will offer in amenhonent
TN- same pitri
pill
Il M only n novethainment
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
BRIEFING SHEET
SUBJECT: FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
Background:
Currently, federal facilities in Alaska, including military
facilities, comply with ADEC's stationary source requirements, as well
as the local I/M programs operated in Fairbanks and Anchorage.
However, military compliance with the I/M programs is a result of a
substantial effort, including the involvement of Senator Stevens'
office, to facilitate the cooperation of the military.
An additional issue in military compliance are the vehicles which
belong to military personnel stationed in an I/M program area but
which are registered in other jurisdictions. With a registration-
based compliance system, these vehicles do not become subject to the
I/M program. After considerable effort in Alaska, we reached a
'gentlemen's agreement' with the base commanders that has resulted in
emissions testing, either on-base or elsewhere, as a prerequisite for
a base sticker.
To our knowledge, this arrangement is unique to Alaska. There are a
number of other nonattainment areas that have large numbers of either
Federal or out-of-state vehicles that contribute to their air quality
problems. Federal law does not require that the out-of-state vehicles
operated by military personnel and their families conform to the same
requirements as must other vehicles. Current compliance has been
achieved because the present facility commanders have personally
agreed to such. With the ongoing turnover in military personnel,
there is no guarantee that future commanders will be so inclined.
Added to this is the reluctance of the military authorities, in Alaska
and elsewhere, to comply with other aspects of Clean Air Act
activities (e.g., the furnishing of emissions data to local agencies)
and with other federal laws. Therefore, it is our position that
additional language is needed in section 118 of the Clean Air Act to
specifically that such compliance is required.
I
A.
300r-
D # : 322241887573
2023472416 55 ->
09
Te
TO
1-30-90; 3:28 PM;
XEROX TELECOPIER 295 ;
The Mon. Max Baucus
-2-
other jurisdictions, they ware not subject to the State's
I&M program. After considerable effort, we reached a
resulted in on-base emissions testing as a prerequisite for
'gentlemen's agreement" with the base commanders that has
2 base sticker.
While WE are pleased with the accommodation we have reached
with our military neighbors, we wish to point out that to
our knowledge, our arrangement is unique. A number of other
nonattainment areas have large numbers of either federal or
out-of-state vehicles that contribute to their air quality
problems. In addition, we recognize that our arrangement is
just that -- federal law does not require that the
out-of-state vehioles operated by military personnel and
their families conform to the same requirements am must
other vehicles. Thus, we ask that you consider amending the
Clean Air Act to provide for testing of these vehicles in
nonattainment areas. Toward that end, the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservasion will be pleased to provide
have ther informati developed on 1n concernine coopcration the with and ssions the 100A1 testing DAME program
Enclosed with this letter 10 a summary of speoifio comments
on provisions OI 8,1630 that directly affect carbon monoxide
nona tainment areas. we ask that you take these comment
into account -- you develop amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Again thank you for spearheading this important bipartisan
approach to reducing memor vehicie emi ions we look
=0
antinuing
you
TOWNER
with
you
and
your
committee
meve
markup
of
clean
air
TTPA
COA
I
-0
Á
HOVM
ε # :
TUMOR 0 4 [0 - : 31. 01.
2023472416 55 >
1-30-90; 3:27 PM;
:
XEROX TELECOPIER 295
TEVE COWPER
GOVERNOR
STATE ALASKA
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
October 16, 1989
The Honorable Max Bauçus
Chairman
Senate subcommittee on
Environmental Protection
458 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We wish to express our appreciation for your introduction of
the Clean Air Restoration and Standards Attainment Act of
1989 (S.1630). If enacted, this legislation will greatly
aid the efforts of our communities to reach attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
We are very pleased to see the strong cold temperature
carbon monoxide certification program that is contained in
S.1630. As you know, the State of Alaska has consistently
maintained that until cars and trucks can reduce emissions
under normal operating conditions, many communities will be
unable to meet standards for carbon monoxide. This is
especially true for areas with colder climates. The program
specified in S.1630 will provide substantial long-term CO
reductions for communities across the nation.
It is reassuring to hear that you and a number of your
subcommittee colleagues voiced strong concerns about the
motor vehicle averaging provisions contained in the
President's clean air bill (S.1490) to Administrator Reilly
during your September 26 hearing. We strongly endorse the
approach you have taken in S.1630 by specifically forbidding
averaging, as we believe that all new vehicles should be
equipped with the best available pollution controls.
We also wish to bring to your attention another problem we
have faced in combatting our carbon monoxide problem.
Several years ago, we recognized that the operation of some
6,000 vehicles in the State of Alaska -- vehicles that were
not subject to our inspection and maintenance (I&M) program
=- were contributing greatly to our carbon monoxide
emissions, particularly during the months of November
through March. Since these vehicles -- which belong to
military personnel stationed in Alaska -- are registered in
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
1015 15th Street N.W. Suite 500
Washington, D.C 20005
JSCF
JELLINEK, SCHWARTZ.
Telephone (202) 789-8181
CONNOLLY & FRESHMAN, INC.
Fox (202) 789-8243 / 789-8244
Telex S106001897 Cable JSCF USA
TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL
TO: (Individual) Katy madinty
(Company)
Senator Gore's Office
(Phone #)
(Telefax #). 224-0580
FROM:
Barbara Bennison
DATE:
January 31, 1990
NO. OF PAGES (including cover sheet): 4
IF COPY IS ILLEGIBLE OR INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL (202) 789-8181.
OPERATOR:
Barbara
COMMENTS:
PHOTOCOPY
Per Katy our conversation, I am sending you Governor Cowper's clean air
PRESERVATION
letter of October 16, 1989, to Senator Baucus and a brief description of
the I&M/military compliance issue.
Thanks much for your help.
Barbara
Jim Danley, Representative
geH. Smith, Director
UAW CAP & Education Dept.
on8 UAW
Tennessee State UAW Community Action Program (CAP) Council
JAW
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA-UAW
CAP
5214 Maryland Way, Suite 305
Brentwood, Tennessee 37027
Phone (615) 371-9360
PRESTON W. LOVELESS
ROBERT PRUITTE
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN
HOMER DANIELS
DEBRA LASSITER
VICE CHAIRMAN
RECORDING SECRETARY
ESENTING
ID AUTO WORKERS
NOT 85
January 25, 1990
PHIS
L 342
NON
The Honorable
IL 737
VILLE
Albert Gore, Jr.
United States Senate
IL 903
IPHIS
393 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
AL 1004
IPHIS
Dear Senator Gore:
AL 1086
1PHIS
The UAW supported the Clean Air Act when it was originally
AL 1303
IVAR
passed in 1970, and again when it was re-authorized in 1977.
AL 1407
KEVILLE
However, in our judgment, tailpipe standards in S-1630
would be impossible to meet with current technology. We
AL 1479
KEVILLE
feel if these standards were enacted it would force the
automobile companies to discontinue the production of
AL 1617
RRISTOWN
large and mid-sized vehicles, which would result in massive
layoffs in the automobile and parts industries.
CAL 1676
EVELAND
IT IS WITH THIS IN MIND THAT I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE LEVIN-
CAL 1832
NICKLES SUBSTITUTE PROPOSAL WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED ON THE
DISON
SENATE FLOOR.
CAL 1853
RING HILL
Sincerely yours,
CAL 1856
LMER
PHOTOCOPY
ICAL 1988
Preston W Lovelem
PRESERVATION
FAYETTE
Preston W. Loveless, Chairman
ICAL 1989
Tennessee UAW CAP-PAC Council
EMPHIS
ICAL 2116
PWL/jb
IDANON
opeiu494
DOAL 2158
IMNOON CITY
CAL 2181
ASHVILLE
DOAL 2239
ASHVILLE
DCAL 2240
MANKLIN
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, NORTH DAKOTA, CHAIRMAN
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, NEW YORK
JOHN H. CHAFEE, RHODE ISLAND
GEORGE J MITCHELL MAINE
ALAN K. SIMPSON, WYOMING
Jerry
MAX BAUCUS. MONTANA
STEVE SYMMS. IDAHO
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, NEW JERSEY
DAVE DURENBERGER, MINNESOTA
JOHN B. BREAUX. LOUISIANA
JOHN W. WARNER, VIRGINIA
HARRY REID. NEVADA
JAMES M JEFFORDS. VERMONT
BOB GRAHAM. FLORIDA
GORDON J. HUMPHREY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, CONNECTICUT
United States Senate
DAVID M. STRAUSS. STAFF DIRECTOR
ROBERT F. HURLEY, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6175
June 15, 1989
Dear Colleague:
This week's issue of Clearing The Air focuses on carbon
monoxide (CO) pollution, its health impacts, and potential
control options.
Carbon monoxide pollution is largely a mobile source
pollution problem. Cars and trucks account for between 70% and
90% of all CO emissions. As a result, most of the control
options target tighter tailpipe standards and other automotive-
related solution. This is in contrast to ozone pollution, where
approximately 50% of the pollution is from mobile sources, the
other 50% from stationary sources.
Sincerely,
John Chunge Committee John Ranking H. Member Chafee on
Max Baunes
Max Baucus
Chairman
Subcommittee on
Environment and Public Works
Environmental Protection
CLEARING THE AIR
Briefings on the Clean Air Act
ISSUE NO. 5
June 15, 1989
CARBON MONOXIDE
It is estimated that nearly 90 million Americans live in areas where carbon monoxide pollution exceeds federal
standards. This fact sheet describes carbon monoxide pollution and its health effects.
SOURCES OF CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
Automobiles and other motor vehicles are the major source of carbon monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide is
a product of incomplete fuel combustion in the motor vehicle engine. Mobile sources account for between 70 and
90 percent of the carbon monoxide emissions in urban areas.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas. Unlike some air pollutants which are emitted from tall stacks,
carbon monoxide is emitted at ground level, or breathing level. Carbon monoxide emissions are not transported
to other areas downwind as are certain ozone precursors.
The 1970 Clean Air Act required that automobiles achieve 90 percent reduction in automobile emissions by
1975-1976. While the required reductions were not achieved during that timeframe, tailpipe standards and other
automobile pollution control strategies have had a substantial impact on reducing carbon monoxide emissions. As
the motor vehicle fleet turns over and a larger percent of new cars with pollution control devices are on the road,
carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources will continue to decrease.
However, by the mid-1990s it is estimated that carbon monoxide emissions from automobiles and other mobile
sources will increase due to the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) each year.
AREAS IN NONATTAINMENT
During the early legislative efforts to control air pollution, carbon monoxide was recognized as one of the
pervasive pollutants in urban air. Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency was
directed to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, one of which was
carbon monoxide. The Clean Air Act directed EPA to set standards to protect the public health with an adequate
margin of safety. The current national standard for carbon monoxide is 9 ppm (parts per million) averaged over
8 hours, and 35 ppm maximum over a one-hour period.
Each state was required to prepare, for EPA approval, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) which sets forth
a strategy to enable the state to meet the NAAQS by 1977. The 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act extended
the deadlines for state attainment of NAAQS to 1982, and for states with severe air pollution problems, until 1987.
These deadlines were further extended until August of 1988.
The 1988 deadlines have passed, and EPA's figures indicate that at least 52 areas of the nation are not in
attainment with the national health-based standard for carbon monoxide emissions. The estimated population living
in these areas is over 89 million.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Inhalation of carbon monoxide poses a threat to human health because it reduces the body's ability to carry
oxygen to body tissues. Carbon monoxide binds more easily than oxygen does with certain proteins, like hemoglobin,
in blood. The more easily-bonded carbon monoxide thus prevents oxygen from bonding with blood proteins, and
less oxygen is delivered through the blood stream. Oxygen is replaced by carbon monoxide, which does not perform
the essential functions that oxygen does in the body. By depriving the body of needed oxygen, carbon monoxide
is potentially lethal. At extremely high exposure levels, death by asphyxiation results.
Carbon monoxide pollution is especially hazardous to fetuses. Because the fetus does not breathe on its own,
it is totally dependent on the mother's blood stream for its oxygen supply. The blood stream passing through the
placenta to the fetus is already low in oxygen because some of the oxygen has been used by the mother. Any further
reduction of oxygen in the blood stream caused by carbon monoxide displacement of oxygen poses a threat to fetal
development. The fetal brain has high oxygen requirements and is susceptible to damage from carbon monoxide.
Health studies conducted on animals suggest that even modest levels of carbon monoxide pollution pose risks to
fetal brain development and possible irreversible neural damages. The American Lung Association estimates that
nearly 40 percent of the nation's pregnant women live in areas which have failed to attain the carbon monoxide
standards.
Another major segment of the American population which is especially vulnerable to carbon monoxide pollution
are persons suffering from heart disease. Again, it is estimated that nearly 40 percent of these heart disease victims
live in areas where carbon monoxide levels exceed national standards. The heart already weakened by disease is
particularly sensitive to the displacement of oxygen from the bloodstream by carbon monoxide because the circulatory
system has limited capacity to transport oxygen throughout the body. Even with mild exertion, angina patients
will feel pain from carbon monoxide pollution. Some experts believe carbon monoxide pollution may trigger heart
attacks.
Healthy Americans may also experience adverse effects from modest carbon monoxide exposure. As oxygen
levels in the bloodstream decline and carbon monoxide levels rise, persons may suffer reduced aerobic capacity.
As the oxygen levels in the brain are reduced, individuals may experience loss of visual perception, manual dexterity,
and learning abilities.
CO "HOTSPOTS"
The highest levels of carbon monoxide pollution are in areas where automobile and motor vehicle traffic is
heaviest. Engines emit higher levels of carbon monoxide when traveling at low speeds and under stop and go conditions.
Busy intersections, tunnels, and other areas which are congested with traffic become carbon monoxide "hotspots."
In many urban areas, excessive carbon monoxide pollution is found across a broad portion of the urban area and
not just in "hotspots."
COLD WEATHER
Carbon monoxide emissions are generally greatest in cold temperatures, unlike ozone emissions, which are
largely a warm weather problem, High altitudes also exacerbate carbon monoxide pollution. Areas of the country
like Denver, Colorado suffer especially aggravated carbon monoxide pollution in the winter months with the
combination of high altitude and cold temperatures.
Carbon monoxide emissions are high during "cold starts" because the motor vehicle engine is not burning
the fuel as efficiently as does after the engine warms up. Therefore, carbon monoxide emissions in winter months
in downtown areas, or other dense employment areas, in late afternoon when people are leaving work, can be of
special concern.
CARBON MONOXIDE CONTROLS
Efforts to control carbon monoxide pollution focus on motor vehicles as they are overwhelmingly the primary
source of carbon monoxide emissions. The current standard for carbon monoxide emissions from an automobile
tailpipe is 3.4 grams per mile,
Some legislative proposals would tighten tailpipe standards for automobiles as well as for other motor vehicles
such as trucks and buses.
The federal test procedure (FTP) which determines compliance with the tailpipe standard measures emissions
under warm weather conditions. To more accurately reflect real-world emissions, some proposals would revise federal
test procedures to include cold temperatures (20 degrees Fahrenheit) and varying driving conditions, such as low
speeds and acceleration/deceleration.
Tests have shown that properly maintained vehicles exceed the tailpipe standard for carbon monoxide after
30,000 miles. Proposals to control carbon monoxide include extension of the "useful-life" of the pollution control
equipment on motor vehicles, as well as more effective inspection and maintenance programs to ensure properly
functioning pollution control equipment.
Alternative fuels such as methanol or ethanol blends, which have higher oxygen content than gasoline, combust
more efficiently, producing lower carbon monoxide emissions. Tests in Denver have shown decreased carbon monoxide
emissions from use of "oxygenated" fuels, and some proposals would set a minimum standard for the oxygen
content of motor vehicle fuel.
Other proposals for areas with severe carbon monoxide pollution problems include transportation control
measures to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled.
National Audubon Society
NATIONAL CAPITAL OFFICE
801 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. S.E.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003
(202) 547-9009
January 30, 1990
Dear Senator Gore:
As the Senate moves to consider the clean air act this week, you will
undoubtedly be faced with more than one important vote on issues critical to the
strength and effectiveness of America's clean air program. No single vote will be
more important, however, than your decision whether to support the
Environment Committee's forward-looking provisions on emissions and fuel
economy standards for America's auto fleet, or to go along with the automobile
industry's announced intent to gut those provisions. As you know, Majority
Leader Mitchell has made passing S 1630, the Environment and Public Works
clean air bill, a top priority and we strongly support that goal.
We urge you to oppose any amendment to weaken or remove the
second round of auto emissions reductions and the fuel economy
standards from S 1630. These weakening amendments are expected to
be offered by Senators Levin and Nickles.
Without the second round of tailpipe reductions contained in
S 1630, our efforts to clean our cities' skies will inevitably be offset by increased
vehicle traffic. Without the fuel economy/CO2 standard contained in S 1630, we
have no realistic way to get necessary reductions in America's automobile CO₂
emissions to the atmosphere.
It is no secret that the auto manufacturers don't like these provisions. As
reported in a recent Detroit News front page story (copy enclosed), the Big Three
auto manufacturers have committed $1 to $3 million to a priority campaign to gut
the key provisions of S 1630.
Representatives of the auto industry continue to make the same arguments
they promoted over a decade ago. Yankee ingenuity has been replaced with a "no
can do" attitude. We believe the arguments are invalid and these tactics are
socially irresponsible. Had Congress listened to these same arguments over a
decade ago, US autos would still be getting 13/mpg and our urban smog crisis
would be much worse than it is today.
After years of delay, and enormous and expensive health-related air
pollution problems, it is time to act on a clean air bill that meets the needs of
American citizens and the environment.
We urge you to reject the Levin-Nickles amendments and to oppose any
other attempts to weaken S 1630.
Sincerely,
Brooks Yeaser
Brooks Yeager
Vice President,
Government Relations
100% Recycled Paper
Sunday, Doc. 24, 1989/THE DETROIT NEWS,
FRONT PAGE
A DETROIT NEWS EXCLUSIVE
Levin goes to bat for Big 3
Plans to help automakers fight emission rules
By Bryan Gruley
passed by a Senate environmental
Levin: Facing
Detroit News Washington Bureau
panel last month. They face a diffi-
difficult battle.
cult fight.
WASHINGTON - Michigan
The Levin-Nickles proposal is to
Baucus bill, which the automakers
Sen. Carl Levin and an unlikely ally
be the conterpiece of an industry
consider unnecessary, costly and not
- a Republican senator from Okla-
offensive taking shape as Congress
feasible.
homa - are preparing a legislative
prepares for the final battle over the
General Motors Corp., Ford Mo-
one-two punch aimed at protecting
Clean Air Act. After a decade of
tor Co., Chrysler Corp. and import-
the auto industry from the toughest
stalemate, Congress is ready to com-
ers from Japan and Europe plan to
measures of a proposed Senate anti-
plete revisions to the law, which
spend more than $1 million on news-
pollution bill.
seeks to reduce acid rain, airborne
paper ads listing cars they say will
At the urging of the Big Three
toxic chemicals and air pollution
not be available if the more-demand-
automakers, liberal Democrat Levin
from automobiles.
ing gas-milcage standards in the
and conservative Don Nickles plan
Baucus bill are passed, industry
to offer legislation that would gut key
THE AUTO industry has been
sources said.
provisions of a clean-air bill written
quietly assembling a national grass-
The automakers are also urging
by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and
roots lobbying effort to overhaul the
Please see Levin/4A
Levin
closed factories and lost jobs, they
say.
"THIS THING is really scary,"
He leads fight
said Timothy MacCarthy, a lobbyist
for the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
against tougher
Association.
Environmentalists say the indus-
car emission rules
try made similar complaints in the
1970s but has since doubled gas
mileage. They argue that automakers
From Page 1A
will not develop technology to im-
prove fuel economy unless forced.
the United Auto Workors union,
"The auto industry's problem is
auto dealers, suppliers. fleet opera-
they've been discredited by always
tors and plant managers to contact
saying no," said Daniel Weise, a
senators.
lobbyist for the Sierra Club, an envi-
"This is a call to arms," said
ronmental group. "Because they were
Elliott Hall. vice-president in charge
so wrong, they have very little credi-
of Ford's Washington office.
bility with anyone outside there (De-
troit)."
LAST WEEK, GM Chairman
At least six other bills that would
Roger Smith, Ford Vice-Chairman
increase CAFE levels are pending.
Harold Poling and Bennett Bidwell,
The automakers think they can
chairman of Chrysier's automaking
postpone a fuel-economy fight until
unit, met with White House Chief of
1991 if they can kill Baucus' CAFE
Staff John Sununu.
provision.
The executives contended that
"We want to convince the admin-
Congress threatens to overload the
istration and Congress not to do a
industry with clean-air and fuel-
CAFE bill" until a new Congress
economy rules just as slumping auto
convenes in 1991, Ford's Hall said.
sales are sapping the companies'
resources to mcet new requirements.
THE INDUSTRY is banking on
the Levin-Nickles alliance, cemented
The Senate clean air fight is
in a face-to-face meeting of the sena-
crucial because the bill's impact on
tors Dec. 15.
the auto industry has been largely
Levin, who has led the auto indus-
decided in the House.
try's Senate battle since last spring,
Congressional sources said Levin
decided he should join with a Repub-
and Nickles plan to introduce an
lican who does not hail from a state
amendment that would:
with intense ties to the industry.
Nickles' home state of Oklahoma
Eliminate the certainty of a second
includes a GM assembly plant in
round of toughened tailpipe emission
standards being imposed in 2003.
Oklahoma City and a Ford glass
plant in Tulsa.
The Baucus bill would impose two
"We need that kind of team," an
rounds of toughened limits on smog-
auto lobbyist said. "We wouldn't
forming tailpipe emissions over the
next 14 years. Levin and Nickles
want to have two strong auto-state
senators."
either would eliminate the second
Nickles, 41, is also chairman of
round or make it contingent upon
the National Republican Senatorial
approval by the Environmental Pro-
Committee, which raises money for
tection Agency (EPA).
GOP races. His pairing with Levin
The provision would be similar to
could put Nickles in an awkward
one the House is likely to pass.
position. Levin will likely be chal-
Eliminate the Baucus bill's first-
lenged for re-election next year by
of-a-kind limit on emissions of car-
Rep. Bill Schueite of Midland or
bon dioxide.
Detroit attorney W. Clark Durant,
The provision amounts to a new
Nickles' party colleagues.
fuel economy rule, because carbon-
Levin's mission in the clean air
dioxide emissions can be cut signifi-
battle is to undo the Baucus bill's
cantly only by increasing gas mile-
proposed second round of tailpipe
age. The Senate panel that approved
limits.
the provision said automakers would
need to boost their corporate average
IN SEPTEMBER, the senator
fuel economy (CAFE) to 33 miles per
told a subcommittee chaired by Bau-
gallon by 1996 and 40 mpg by 2000.
cus that the so-called "tier II" limits
The CAFE standard for 1990 is
would cost $6.5 billion for only 2
27.5 mpg.
percent in pollution reductions.
The automakers are most con-
"We ought to be spending that
cerned about the CAFE provision.
money on leap-ahead technologies
They 3ay it would force them to
for environmental cleanup," Levin
discontinue all but their smallest
said last month.
models. while low gas prices have
Nickles will focus on the proposed
boosted demand for bigger, more
carbon-dioxide standard - which
powerful cars.
industry people reier to as a "back-
Production halts would mean
door CAFE program."
The Ponca City, Okla., business-
the Wall Street Journal, the Wash-
man has criticized CAFE in the past.
ington Post and other national pa-
"He's absolutely the best on fuel
pers, as well as newspapers in the
economy in the Senate," one auto
home states of senators who are
lobbyist said. "We're absolutely de-
undecided on clean-air issues.
lighted and grateful to have him."
Ads in niche publications would
The Senate historically has been
seek to reach dealers, suppliers and
hostile to the automakers on envi-
others whose business or lifestyle
ronmental issues. The Baucus pack-
could be affected by the bill.
age passed in committee by a lopsid-
ed 15-1 vote.
FOR EXAMPLE, an ad in
Even Sununu was not entirely
Trailer World would target people
sympathetic to the auto executives
who use midsize or large cars to pull
who visited him last week, sources
their trailers.
familiar with the meeting said.
"This battle could be won or lost
at the grass roots," a lobbyist said.
SUNUNU CHIDED Smith,
"The key is to get people to
Poling and Bidwell for not working
understand how severely altered
hard enough to support Bush's clean-
their lifestyle is going to be (if the
air proposals.
Baucus bill passes).
"The situation is not good," one
"When they're going on vacation,
congressional source said. "Together
how are they going to fit all their kids
(Levin and Nickles) may have a
and two adults into a Ford Escort
fairly good chance, although there's
wagon?"
going to be some pretty significant
The canipaign budget is not final-
opposition."
ized, but sources said it will probably
The automakers aim to use the
total between $1 million and $3
Levin-Nickles proposal in their na-
million.
tional lobbying campaign, which will
Industry lobbyists are seeking
include newspaper advertising and
personal visits with all 100 senators.
mass mailings to groups such as
Added lobbyist MacCarthy:
retired auto workers.
"We've got to hit the ground running
As now planned, ads will run in
in January."
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
January 24, 1990
Dear Colleague:
The Senate is beginning consideration of S. 1630, the Clean
Air Act Amendments. While the current Clean Air Act has improved
air quality over the last twenty years, more needs to be done to
protect public health and the environment.
For tnis reason, we commend the President, the Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly, and the Members of
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for the
serious attention that they have given to this important matter,
and their efforts to put it on the Congressional agenda.
In evaluating the various proposals that have been put
forward, our goal must be to achieve both clean air and a healthy
economy. The bill proposed by the President, the bill marked up by
the House Environment and Health Subcommittee, and many of the
elements of the bill passed by the Senate Committee, would make it
possible for us to reach both of these goals. The historic Waxman-
Dingell compromise on tailpipe emissions shows that it is possible
to make real progress toward cleaner air without damaging the
economy.
Unfortunately, several provisions of the Senate bill relating
to automobile emissions go far beyond the President's proposal, the
Waxman-Dingell compromise, and even beyond current California
standards. These provisions would impose extraordinary costs on
automobile manufacturers, workers, and consumers, for marginal
pollution reductions.
o
The Phase II emissions requirements (beginning in 2003)
in the Committee proposal fail to recognize something
which the Waxman-Dingell approach does, that these
standards may not be technologically or economically
feasible.
o
The Phase I emissions standards in the Committee proposal
draw on the 1993 California standards, the most stringent
in the nation, but go beyond those standards for the same
time period.
o
The carbon dioxide emissions standards in the bill target
only the automobile industry, and leave all other sources
untouched. This section has no place in this bill. This
provision, which was not included in either the
President's bill or the House bill, would cost the
American consumer an estimated $7 - 15 billion annually
for a 1% reduction in man-made emissions of greenhouse
gases.
S. 1630, as adopted by the Committee, goes well beyond the
more balanced approaches taken by the Administration, Waxman-
Dingell and even California, as promulgated to date. We should
avoid provisions that needlessly jeopardize our economic health and
squander resources which could be used for significant long term
environmental and economic gains.
Sincerely,
Dm Nill
Carl Levin
Don Nickles
Carl Levin
December, 1989
NISSAN R&D'S COMMENTS
ON THE SENATE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
TAILPIPE STANDARDS: The standards proposed in S. 1630 are beyond Nissan's current
technological capability. We know of no proven and reliable current technology that would
permit us to achieve the first-tier standards (0.25 NMHC, 3.4 CO and 0.4 NOx) in use. The
tiere
second-tier standards (0.125 THC, 1.7 CO and 0.2 NOx) are yet one more step beyond the
feasibility of any technology we have projected. CPA cost estimates for Tier 6 B.V. for29.7
ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROL: To develop the technology necessary for safe and
acceptable onboard refueling controls will require considerable effort. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently released a study conducted for them by A.D.
Little which concludes: "There is adequate evidence to conclude there are indeed potential
safety risks associated with onboard systems." The effect of onboard on feasibility of
DC
tailpipe standards also needs to be considered.
all fews dele
Ca
her C-PA $ 20 15,00 to egry
were
onlsd
Nissan believes that a minium of four years lead time to begin the phase-in of onboard
would be required. Nissan estimates that onboard controls will cost our customers about
100 dollars per vehicle, assuming adequate leadtime and a phase-in are permitted.
service
only
mfor - of nor magnet recall
USEFUL LIFE: A 10 year/100,000 mile useful life for light-duty vehicles would render even
stas tech.
less attainable the tailpipe standards contained in S. 1630, due to in-use deterioration. We
you
have no data on 100,000 mile deterioration that would allow us to predict at what levels
vehicles would have to certify in order to meet more stringent standards. As a vehicle ages
and changes ownership, there are factors over which the manufacturer has no control that
affect emissions performance, such as poor maintenance, tampering, and the cumulative
effects of poor fuel quality.
LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK EMISSION STANDARDS: Current clean air law recognizes differences in
the weight, operating conditions and performance requirements of passenger cars and light
trucks. S. 1490 continues to recognize the inherent difference, whereas S. 1630 would
establish identical emission standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The severe
standards set in S. 1630 are thus even more infeasible for light trucks.
CARBON DIOXIDE STANDARDS: we prefer the approach in S. 1630 for dealing with fuel
economy to the approach in S. 1224 because S. 1630 establishes standards that are the same
for all manufacturers. However, we know of no currently available or planned technology
that would permit us to comply with the CO2 levels set forth in S. 1630, under any mix of
vehicles that we envision selling.
surip She. nother Men 90
CONCLUSION: We believe the requirements of S. 1490 pose more realistic goals than
those in S. 1630, and achieve the best balance between environmental and economic
considerations. S. 1490 permits less hurried development and recognizes the critical
differences between certification and in-use emission levels. Even though the emissions
reductions in S. 1490 will require considerable effort and will be costly, we support its
reductions as stringent yet realistic goals.
Nissan R&D is an independent, wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 17, 1989
RELEASE
CONTACT
Claudia Barker (916) 324-3298
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE / 916-324-3298
NISSAN JOINS STATE'S PARTNERSHIP
TO TEST CLEAN FUELS
Nissan Research and Development, Inc. today joined California's public/private partnership program to test
clean burning motor vehicles and fuels. Nissan now becomes the first foreign auto manufacturer to loan a
flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) to the state's demonstration program.
A 1989 flexible fuel Nissan Stanza was unveiled today at the California Museum of Science and Industry in
Los Angeles, making it the first foreign FFV in the state's seven-year-old alternative fuels demonstration
program.
QQ
M85
The Stanza and other FFVs could be the key to widespread commercialization of alternative transportation
fuels, since they can run OF methanol gasoline, or any combination of the two in a single fuel tank. Methanol
is a clean burning fuel that can be produced domestically from remote natural gas or biomass.
Arecent study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicates that methanol can reduce smog-forming
emissions on a per vehicle basis by up to 50 percent. butco₂ from com much
Energy Commission Chairman Charles R. Imbrecht praised Nissan for being the first Japanese auto
manufacturer to join in the state's efforts to clean up the air and strengthen domestic production of
transportation fuels.
"Alternative fuels will provide improvements in air quality beyond what is achievable from
conventionally-fueled vehicles even those using the most advanced emission controls," Imbrecht said. "It
is definitely in the state's best interest to pursue the use of clean fuels."
The Nissan FFV is based upon a regular production 1989 Stanza with a standard CA20, 4-cylinder fuel injected
engine. Modifications have been made to the fuel system and an electrostatic sensor detects the amount of
methanol in the fuel mixture and adjusts the fuel injection system accordingly.
"We at Nissan believe that it is important for California and the U.S. to identify ways to improve air quality
and reduce this country's dependence on foreign sources of energy," said Thomas Mignanelli, Executive
Vice-President of Nissan Motor Corporation in the U.S.A. "The California Energy Commission's alternative
fuels demonstration program is a vital part of achieving that goal."
"We are happy to join U.S. manufacturers in seeking solutions to these problems by donating the test vehicles
that will provide key research in these areas," Mr. Mignanelli said.
California, with help from its public/private partnerships, has a goal of putting 5,000 FFVs on the road by
1992. President Bush last June announced plans to have more than one million cars that use clean burning
fuels on America's roads by 1996.
FINTRGY COMMISSIONER
###
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 Ninth Street . Sacramento CA 95814
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
NISSAN
FLEXIBLE FUEL VEHICLE
a
6
01/11
of
CONTROL UNIT
FUEL SENSOR
Electrostatic type
FUEL PUMP
CANISTER
FUEL TANK
FUEL INJECTOR
Side feed, ball valve
ENGINE
FUEL HOSE
O₂ SENSOR
FUEL TUBE
CATALYST
ENGINE OIL
Low temperature
reactivity
NISSAN FFV STANZA
NISSAN FLEXIBLE FUEL VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE
1989 STANZA 4-DOOR SEDAN (CALIF. MODEL)
TRANSMISSION
4-SPEED AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
ENGINE
4-CYLINDER, IN-LINE (MODIFIED CA20E)
BORE X STROKE
84.5 mm X 88.0 mm
DISPLACEMENT
1974 cubic centimeters
COMPRESSION RATIO
8.5 to 1
FUEL SUPPLY
MULTI-POINT FUEL INJECTION
IGNITION SYSTEM
2-PLUG-PER-CYLINDER, FULLY TRANSISTORIZED
EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
OPERATES WITH 100% GASOLINE TO 30% METHANOL
CATALYST
UNDERFLOOR TYPE (1-LITER MONOLITH)
FUEL SENSOR
ELECTROSTATIC TYPE
ENGINE OIL
10W-30 WITH SPECIAL ADDITIVES
FUEL
GASOLINE WITH UP TO 85% METHANOL (M85)
ELECTROSTATIC FUEL SENSOR
DIELECTRIC CONSTANT ε
GASOLINE ε = 2.1
METHANOL ε = 34
3.0
CAPACITANCE
METER
OUTPUT V
2.0
-
1.0
0
25
50
85
FUEL
ELECTRODE
METHANOL
CONCENTRATION vol %
December, 1989
NISSAN R&D'S POSITION ON S. 1224, THE MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1989
Nissan has been a leader in the implementation of advanced automotive technology
to improve fuel efficiency (see Attachment). We plan to continue to aggressively
pursue such efficiency improvements in the future, regardless of any action taken by
Congress with regard to future standards.
Nissan's concern with S. 1224 lies in the implementation technique of manufacturer-
specific percentage improvement. Requring all manufacturers to improve their CAFE
by a certain percentage above their 1988 baseline, as proposed in S. 1224, would
discriminate against manufacturers with CAFE's above the existing standard, such as
Nissan.
If low-mileage manufacturers are allowed to meet lower targets, we face a
competitive disadvantage which may in effect freeze us out of markets in which we
currently compete.
-- Nissan has already implemented available fuel-efficient technology to a greater-
than-average degree than the industry overall. Nissan has less options to improve
fuel economy than do low-mileage manufacturers. Further significant downsizing
for our line of vehicles is not an available option without sacrificing the space and
comfort needs of our customers. Nissan's primary option for substantial fuel
economy improvement would thus be unproven and/or very costly new
technology. Our cars could become unacceptably small or costly in comparison to
vehicles offered by low-mileage manufacturers, since they can adopt the fuel-
efficient technologies already used to a greater degree by Nissan, and use
downsizing to a greater degree.
-- The percentage-improvement approach could also fail to result in the intended
fuel-savings if high-mileage competitors are shut out of the markets in which they
currently compete at the expense of low mileage manufacturers who are required
to make less fuel-efficient vehicles.
The Office of Technology Assessment and others have proposed alternative
approaches, based on size or weight classes of vehicles. A class-based approach would
maintain competition, and require an even application of technology by all
manufacturers.
Congress should consider ways to encourage the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles
by consumers as an alternative to a regulatory program which would establish fuel
economy standards which may discriminate against some manufacturers and could
prove to be counterproductive in achieving fuel savings.
Nissan R&D IS an independent, wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan.
Attachment I
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT CAFE STANDARDS REQUIRED UNDER S. 1224
'88 Model Year
CAFE Standard under .1224
MANUFACTURER
CAFE*
(St'd = 26.0 mpg)
1995 -2000 MY
2001 MY -
NISSAN
30.8**
37.0
43.1
MERCEDES
21.3
27.5
29.8
BMW
21.6
27.5
30.2
JAGUAR
22.0
27.5
30.8
PEUGEOT
23.4
28.1
32.8
PORSCHE
24.7
29.6
34.6
VOLVO
26.0
31.2
36.4
FORD (Domestic)
26.4
31.7
37.0
SAAB
26.5
31.8
37.1
GM (Domestic)
27.6
33.1
38.6
CHRYSLER
28.4
(Domestic)
34.1
39.8
MAZDA
28.7
34.4
40.2
MITSUBISHI
29.8
35.8
41.7
VW
30.3
36.4
42.4
SUBARU
31.8
38.2
44.5
HONDA
32.0
38.4
44.8
ISUZU
32.6
39.1
45.0
TOYOTA
32.6
39.1
45.0
HYUNDAI
35.0
40.0
45.0
*Source: NHTSA Automotive Fuel Economy Program 13th Annual Report to
Congress (Federal Register, July 19, 1989, pp. 30310-20)
**Source:
NISSAN (1988 Final CAFE)
Attachment II: FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES BY NISSAN
% PENETRATION
TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE
FUEL ECONOMY
'87MY
'89 MY
'87MY
'88MY
MARKET
NISSAN
NISSAN
NISSAN
(OTA)
Front-wheel Drive
78.0
91.1
91.3
81.0
4-cylinder/4-valve
5.0
2.2
3.7
72.0*1
Four-speed Automatic*2
35.0 (40.1)
32.2 (59.1)
23.6 (46.3)
30 (57.3)
[Automatic Transmission market share]
[87.3*³]
[54.5]
[50.9]
[52.4]
Electronic Transmission Control
2.0
3.8
4.4
25.0
Aerodynamics (Cd from 0.37 to 0.32)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
--(Average Cd)
(0.36)
(0.36)
(0.35)
Tires
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Accessories
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Engine Improvements:
-Overhead Cam Engines
40.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-Roller Cams
40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-Low Friction Rings/Pistons
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Non-carbureted:
76.0
59.7
99.4
100
-Throttle Body Fuel Injection (TBI)
31.0
12.3
63.9
54.0
-Multipoint Fuel Injection (MPI)
45.0
45.0
35.5
46.0*4
NOTES:
*1 Includes 3-valve engines
2 Figures in parentheses shows 4-speed penetration within A/T class
3 This figure is MVMA, not OTA, data
4 In '91MY, Multipoint Fuel Injection will reach 100% penetration
3
THE WASHINGTON POST
EPA Sees Cheap Way to Clean Air
Enlarging Autos' Charcoal Canisters Would Trap More Gas Fumes
in Congress to cut tailpipe emis-
tank when gasoline expands in hot
By Michael Weisskopf
sions would reduce hydrocarbons 1
weather. Once the car is started,
Washington Post Staff Writer
percent and long-debated measures
the fumes are supposed to be
The Environmental Protection
to capture gasoline fumes released
sucked into the engine and burned
Agency yesterday proposed a $10
during refueling would cut hydro-
off.
remedy for the largest source of
carbons only 2 percent.
But gasoline has become more
pollution from automobiles.
EPA Administrator William K.
evaporative in recent years because
The proposal calls on automakers
Reilly called the canister plan the
of new refining techniques. The
to increase the size of charcoal can-
"most important modification to
larger volume of fumes now over-
isters that trap gasoline fumes from
motor vehicles this agency can re-
taxes the canister, which vents ex-
the fuel tank during hot weather
quire
to achieve a genuine air
cess hydrocarbons into the atmos-
and route them to the engine to
quality improvement."
phere. The EPA discovered two
burn.
Environmentalists and industry
years ago that vapors also are gen-
Current canisters are not large
spokesmen concurred in a rare spir-
erated by a hot engine when the car
enough to contain the fumes, which
it of agreement.
is running.
WILLIAM KAREILLY
evaporate in the atmosphere, caus-
According to the EPA, the costs
Proposals in Congress would re-
plan is major "modification"
ing smog. According to the EPA,
of larger canisters and a stronger
quire the EPA to regulate both
gasoline vapors released during the
vacuum capacity to suck trapped
types of emissions.
proposal is being promoted as ev-
summer account for 5 percent of
vapors into the engine would add
The Bush administration had pro-
idence
total hydrocarbons-a key ingre-
$10 to the price of a new car. With
posed to give the EPA discretion to
But David Hawkins, of the Na-
dient of the smog contaminating
10 million new cars sold annually,
require, such regulations, but Con-
tional Clean Air Coalition, said the
more than 100 metropolitan areas,
consumers would spend $100 mil-
gress has insisted. on specific re-
including Washington.
quirements because of the agency's
proposal may have been motivated
lion more a year.
Environmentalists have pushed
But officials project fuel savings
record of inaction where discretion
by the intense, attention Congress
for larger canisters as the most ef-
of $600 million a year in fuel be-
is permitted.
currently is focusing.on the issue.
fective measure by automakers to
cause engines can run on fumes.
Reilly has promised to exercise
It's like cadets who keep their
reduce smog.
Canisters were designed to ab-
any discretion in favor of environ-
shoes shined they know
By comparison, costlier proposals
sorb vapors released from the fuel
mental protection, and yesterday's
there's an inspection," he said.
MAR 8 (LEG. DAY JAN 231. 1990
(Date)
Roll Call Vote
Legislative
NO. 34
SUBJECT MOTION- To TABLE -
LAUTENBERG AMOT. NO. 1335
YEAS
NAYS
Adams
Armstrong
/
Baucus
Bentsen
Biden
Bingaman
Bond R
Boren
Boschwitz R
Bradley
2
Breaux
Bryan
2
Bumpers
PHOTOCOPY
3
3
Burdick
Burns R
PRESERVATIO
Byrd
4
Chafee
5.
Coats R
Cochran P.
Cohen L.
A
Conrad
Cranston R
D'Amato Re
Danforth K
Daschle
DeConcini
6
Dixon
Dodd
Dole
Domenici R
7
Durenberger R
Exon
8
Ford
Fowler
9
Garn R
are
Glenn
Gore
2
Gorton Pm
Grabam, Florida
Gramm, Texas
Min
Grassley
Harkin
Hajch
Hatfield
Heflin
Heinz
Heflin
Heinz
Helms
Hollings
Humphrey
Inouye
Jeffords
10
Johnston
Kassebaum
11
Kasten
Kennedy
Kerrey, Nebraska
Kerry, Massachusetts
Kohl
Lautenberg
3
Leahy
12
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
+
Matsunaga
McCain
McClure
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
13
Mitchell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
+
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
14
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Rudman
Sanford
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Specter
Stevens
Symms
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
Wilson
Wirth
OTOCOPY
OPO 1989 97-664 (m)
SERVATION
65
33
900'0N 60.61 06:01 IPM
731