Senator BIDEN. The president of Ford is coming in on Wednesday morning.

Mr. PRICE. You will have a chance to get direct information from them.

Senator BIDEN. You are aware that there is a little outfit called Chrysler that takes issue with that. They have a beautiful chart here "Facts About 1975 and 1976 Emission Standards and What You Will Pay."

Mr. PRICE. If you read the penalties, they are talking about the 1976 system and projecting the use of a dual bed catalyst. That is the only thing that anybody can guess at for doing the job even though it can't do the job yet. That is the vehicle that has been used, yes. in my opinion, to mislead the public. They are always talking about the 1976 system. For the past year there has been question as to whether that severe NO, standard is necessary.

Senator BIDEN. They do, by the way, talk about 1975 and 1976. Mr. PRICE. Read it carefully. Chrysler are very good friends of ours.

Senator BIDEN. Maybe it is just their ad man, and you know how ad men are. The implication here is that they are talking about 1975. It says the control system for meeting them will cost you a whopping increase in the price of your car starting in 1975. Then there is no specific reference that I see as to performance standards, but I assume the whopping increase they are talking about is not the cost of the catalyst. It is the cost of having to use the catalyst. I should quibble with Chrysler rather than you on that.

Mr. PRICE. I couldn't presume to know what they are talking about, but there will be an increase in 1975 because the catalyst, as has been pointed out, will add about $57 to the cost of the car. There will be additional costs associated with other parts of the system, though there may be savings when the catalysts will make it possible to leave some things off.

Senator BIDEN. You make me feel much better.

Mr. DEPALMA. I would like to repeat that in many of the cases where fuel penalties are discussed, and they talk about an overall emission control system, this may include the catalyst but it always includes exhaust gases for recirculation, spark retardation, maybe value of time, maybe compression ratio. There is a whole number of things.

Senator BIDEN. And they need to be done in order to enable the catalyst to function properly?

Mr. DEPALMA. No, sir. I have data with me today upon which we made determinations of what we call the normal 1973 engine. one which includes the exhaust gas for recirculation as well as spark retardation. In order to look at the effect, what we did was to remove those things which it was easiest for us to do, EGR and spark advance. In so doing, we saw an increase in performance in going this way. But in either case, whether we left the engine alone, normal, or tuned, did the catalytic converter affect noble fuel economy or performance. I think that is the important thing.

Mr. PRICE. It further showed improvements in economy and in performance substantially.

Senator BIDEN. That is interesting. As friends of Chrysler, as you stated, were I you, I think they would really appreciate it were you to let them know this and save a lot of money in advertising. I am sure they would appreciate it. This was a New York Times full page ad, March 13, 1973. They could get by with half a page. It would save them literally thousands of dollars. Were I you, I would tell them. Mr. PRICE. We would love to.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. PRICE. We are in touch with them daily, in fact.

Senator BIDEN. The hearing will recess until Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock, at which time we will hear from the Ford Motor Co. [Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 23, 1973.]

[Subsequent to the hearing, the following supplemental statement from the Universal Oil Co. was received:]

I am writing this letter in the absence of Mr. W. Robert Price, Jr.,
Vice President of Corporate Development for Universal Oil Products
Company.

On May 21, 1973, Mr. Price presented a statement before the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution, with regard to the EPA's decision as to
the 1975 motor vehicle exhaust emission standards. Subsequent to Mr.
Price's oral testimony before the Subcommittee it became apparent that
there were many questions which had remained unanswered. We have pre-
pared a Supplemental Statement in which we present new data which should
answer these questions. Copies of this Supplemental Statement have been
sent to the members of the Subcommittee and all staff members. We
respectfully request that this Supplemental Statement be attached to
our original statement and included in the record.

We appreciate the opportunity of allowing us to present our views.

Very truly yours,

AUTOMOTI

PRODUCTS DIVISION

ашка ив Амблем

J. W. Dunham
General Manager

uop

Universal Oil Products Company

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY W. R. PRICE, JR.,
VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT,
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY,

TO THE STATEMENT PRESENTED

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION ON
MAY 21, 1973.

On May 21, 1973, I presented a statement before the Subcommittee on behalf of Universal Oil Products Company, with regard to the decision of Mr. Ruckelshaus regarding the suspension of the 1975 motor vehicle exhaust emission standards. Subsequent to my appearance before the Subcommittee, it has become apparent that there were many questions which needed clarification and/or remained unanswered. This supplemental statement is intended to present new data which should answer those questions which are listed below with the answers thereto:

A. What is the background of UOP's relationship with the Automobile Industry, with regard to catalyst, prior to the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act?

ANSWER: UOP was founded 59 years ago, to research, develop and license
processes for use by the petroleum industry. It has grown to
a diversified international organization with more than 11,000
employees and yearly revenues of approximately $500 million.
Its ability to turn laboratory, research and development work
into commercial products and services have made it a world
leader in a number of fields. As a result of its extensive
work in developing catalytic processes for petroleum refining,
it has become a world leader in catalyst research, development

and manufacture. This background led it into the study of catalytic solutions to the automotive exhaust pollution problem. It has been working in this area for fourteen years and was one of the original group of companies whose catalytic devices were approved by the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board in 1964. Since the inception of its program, UOP has spent more than $15 million on this project.

In the early 1960's UOP started working with the automobile industry on emission control catalyst. In August of 1962 Arvin Industries, UOP and General Motors entered into an evaluation program with regard to the catalytic converter then being tested in California (Arvin made the cannister and UOP supplied the catalyst). The same type agreement was entered into with Chrysler Corporation in July of 1964.

In November of 1966 a joint testing and evaluation program was entered into between Ford Motor Company and UOP in which Ford was provided with samples of pelleted catalyst. Similar agreements were entered into with General Motors in March of 1967, International Harvester in October of 1968, and Chrysler in April of 1969. The majority of the catalyst tested was Noble Metal pellets although General Motors did request some samples of the base metal catalyst.