to calmer and quieter discussion than it would be if we were at room's length apart.

Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, if it pleases you, I suggest we might get the engineering vice presidents to sit here with me.

Senator MUSKIE. I see that you have Mr. Herbert L. Misch, vice president of engineering of the Ford Motor Co., Mr. B. W. Bogan, vice president and director of engineering of the Chrysler Corp., Mr. Harry F. Barr, vice president of engineering staff, General Motors Corp., and Mr. Victor G. Raviolo, group vice president of automotive engineering research, styling and product planning of American Motors.

Mr. ADAMSON. Mr. Chairman, I am John F. Adamson, vice president of automotive engineering and research, American Motors Corp. Mr. Raviolo was unable to attend today.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes. It is a pleasure to welcome you this morning. Why don't you proceed and handle your testimony in your

own way.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS MANN, PRESIDENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY HERBERT L. MISCH, VICE PRESIDENT OF ENGINEERING, FORD MOTOR CO.; B. W. BOGAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, CHRYSLER CORP.; HARRY F. BARR, VICE PRESIDENT OF ENGINEERING, GENERAL MOTORS CORP.; AND JOHN F. ADAMSON, VICE PRESIDENT OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH, AMERICAN MOTORS CORP.

Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas C. Mann, president of the Automobile Manufacturers Association, appearing here today on behalf of the members of the association.

Appearing with me today are the engineering vice presidents of our four major auto producers. These gentlemen, all of whom are members of the AMA Engineering Advisory Committee, are:

Mr. B. W. Bogan, vice president and director of engineering, Chrysler Corp., and chairman of the AMA Engineering Committee.

Mr. John F. Adamson, vice president of automotive research and engineering, American Motors Corp.

Mr. Harry F. Barr, vice president in charge of engineering staff, General Motors Corp.

Mr. Herbert L. Misch, vice president, engineering staff, Ford Motor Co.

The growth of population and industry in our country has created new challenges and new opportunities. For one thing, more and more pollutants have been discharged into the air from growing members of factories and processing industries; powerplants; heating facilities in houses, schools, and apartments; and from gasoline, diesel, and jet engines of various kinds.

As President Johnson pointed out in his January 30, 1967, message to the Congress

Our air pollution problem emerges from our success as a modern nation. Sources of pollution may be environmental villains * ** but they are also social and economic necessities. Our task is to determine how to abate the poison *** without seriously diminishing the benefits they provide.

The first point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the American automobile industry fully appreciates that the problem of air pollution demands the urgent attention of both the public and private sectors of our society. Each sector has its role to play. We therefore welcome the effort which this subcommittee is making to inform the public of the nature of the problem; we equally welcome its search for feasible ways to reduce air pollution in the shortest practicable span of time.

The second point is this: Government standards are desirable in this area which is so intimately related to the public welfare. The consumer is understandably inclined to buy the lowest cost product which meets his needs as he sees them. Our experience to date suggests that the consumer is reluctant to pay additional dollars for the purchase and maintenance of systems and devices which reduce the emission of gases from his automobile. There are reasons for this: He does not regard them as immediately and directly beneficial to him. He knows that even if he spends the extra dollars others may not voluntarily do the same; and, if they do not, the atmosphere will be contaminated in any case. This consumer attitude, in turn, can penalize a particular manufacturer who adds to the cost of his product by incorporating various emission control devices if his competitors do not do the same.

Consumer preference is not an unimportant consideration in the automobile industry which has a history of such fierce competition that only a very few manufacturers survive out of the hundreds that have attempted to make automobiles. This competition for consumer preference is the secret of the success of the industry in improving its product year by year while keeping the cost within the reach of the people.

Reasonable and practicable government emission standards, by putting consumer and competitor alike on an equal footing, facilitate the ability of the industry to cope with the problem of reducing emissions of objectionable gases from its product. We therefore consider them desirable.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Mann, may I ask a question on that point. As you gentlemen know, in our California hearings there was discussion about whether the implementations have preempted the field so that a State could not move ahead with more stringent requirements on its own. From a legal point of view that question I don't think has yet been satisfactorily answered, probably will not be answered except by the courts. In any case, as you know it was the theory of the national legislation that the country as a whole ought to be given the advantage of any advances in technology which were developed for the benefit of California. Now I have noticed that there is a great deal of activity on the State legislative front across the country to set up State emission standards. Do you know how many such States are considering such legislation at the present time?

Mr. MANN. I do not think we have an exact count, Senator. We do know that several States, as you say, are considering this.

Senator MUSKIE. It is my impression that it is something like a dozen or more that are now considering these standards. Now whether they are considering them because they are fearful that the Federal standards will not be stringent enough for their requirements, whether they are considering them on the assumption that the States do have the authority under the present state of the law to apply their own standards, I do not know. In any case, if they do move ahead to set State standards, this could create a problem for this industry, could it not?

Mr. MANN. Yes, sir. I cover this point later in my statement, Senator. The industry certainly thinks that uniformity of standards nationwide is absolutely essential to prevent chaos.

Senator MUSKIE. One of the questions asked me in the press conference was that perhaps it would be fairer to the motorist to require these devices only in places where the problem exists today. This proliferation of legislation at the State legislative level suggests that many people think it exists today in their States, maybe a dozen or more. Of course, the State legislatures in those States may not necessarily agree by passage of the legislation but nevertheless that theory would create difficult problems. You will cover that later on?

Mr. MANN. Yes, sir, and I will submit this report now on that topic. (The report referred to is as follows:)

FEBRUARY 16, 1967.

To Messrs. H. F. Barr, B. G. Booth, F. W. Bowditch, E. N. Cole, H. C. Dumville, J. J. Flaharty, R. C. Gerstenberg, F. J. Kalvelage, M. M. Roensch, George Russell, J. P. Sullivan.

RE MOTOR VEHICLE AIR POLLUTION BILLS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURES:
STATUS REPORT

As of this week, there are forty-four bills on motor vehicle air pollution and/or other related matters in eighteen state legislatures. A small number of these bills refer to air pollution in general, and do not have any motor vehicle provision as yet. In our judgment, however, they must all be considered important, since a motor vehicle provision can be added by amendment to any of those which do not presently have such a provision.

There have been hearings and intensive legislative action in two states: Arizona and Wyoming. In each of these States, the original bills provided for individual state standards for motor vehicles. In each of these two cases, we have been able to have provisions added to provide, in effect, for Federal preemption. The Arizona bill is out of danger, we believe, but it will be necessary to continue to watch the Wyoming bill closely, since it was only possible to obtain an amendment in the last stages in one branch of the legislature only, and it will be necessary for the Senate to concur in the House action. We are continuing to maintain close observation of Wyoming developments.

There is an immediate urgency with respect to motor vehicle air pollution bills in six other states: Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, and West Virginia. In three of these states, we have today representatives on the ground. Bradford is in Montana, Riley (AMA) is in Oregon, and Buckner is in West Virginia.

We will make every effort in each of these states to obtain the effect of Federal preemption and to avoid the problem of individual state standards.

J. G. HALL.

77-515 0-67-pt. 1-26

Status of pending State legislation relating to motor vehicle air pollution control

Industry relations and legal evaluation

State and bill No.

Current status

Authorize board of health to adopt rules and regulations to set In Governor's hands. standards for motor vehicle emissions; may approve control devices. No reference to Federal standards.

Sets up special commission to study causes of and methods of eliminating air pollution. Motor vehicle emissions not mentioned.

Only H-8 is active others are dead. H-8 is in
senate committee with hearing likely next week.
Legislature scheduled to adjourn on Mar. 2. Gov-
ernor said he would sign it in present form. 1 bill
that died followed sec. 16 of the CSG model act.
Industry relations representative in Helena today
in attempt to introduce Federal preemption.