Environmental News January 18, 1974

UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFIC IA L BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POSTAGE AMD FEES PAID
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
EPA-335
A
222Environmental News
Fitzwater (202) 755-0344
O'Neill (202) 755-0344
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, January 18, 19 7 4
TRAIN ASKS FTC TO INVESTIGATE MISLEADING ADVERTISING BY AUTO
DEALERS
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Russell E.
Train has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate
recent advertisements by auto dealers that include "statements
which may be misleading or false concerning the removal of
emission control equipment."
In a letter to FTC Chairman Lewis A. Engman, Train
referenced a full page advertisement by "Your Chevrolet Dealer"
which appeared in the New York Times on December 17, 197 3,
"advocating Congressional action aimed at removing vehicle
emission control systems." Although no dealer names were men-
tioned, the advertisement was signed by the "Chevrolet Dealers
of Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Morris, Monmouth, Somerset, Sussex,
Union and Warren Counties, New Jersey."
Train said the statements which may be misleading or
false are: a. Total amount of fuel saved would be "5 bil-
lion gallons of gas a year." b. Removal of emission control
equipment would result in "possibly a 25 percent increase
in your gas mileage." c. "Canada has already legalized re-
moval of gas-wasting emission equipment."
(more)
Return this sheet if you do NOT wish to receive this material ~, or if change of address is needed ~ (indicate Change, including zip code).
EPA FORM 1510-1 (REV. 8-72)
R-339

-------
-2-
"We believe that action by FTC is important in this case
of a special interest group attempting to pursue its own goals
at the expense of a vulnerable public during this energy crisis,"
Train said. "We believe their advertisements are unconscionable
during a period when the President, Congress, and the American
people are attempting to cope with the current energy dilemma
while still maintaining a balance with the other very important
programs such as protecting our environment. We hope that, on
the basis of this information, you will take appropriate action
and prevent such misleading advertisements from occurring in the
future. "
Train said the statements with respect to fuel economy
gains from removing emission control equipment are grossly
inflated and misleading.
"EPA estimates," he said, "that fuel loss resulting from
the emission control equipment is on the average about 10
percent. All of this 10 percent fuel penalty cannot be re-
gained.1^ removing the emission control equipment because
numerous internal engine modifications have been made by the
manufacturers to control emissions. These internal engine
modifications cannot realistically be reversed. Data supplied
to EPA by General Motors Corporation indicate that at best a
5 percent improvement in fuel economy resulting in a savings
of 2.7 billion gallons of fuel per year could be achieved by
removing the emission control equipment from all 1970-74 con-
trolled vehicles. But even those data, as we understand, are
based on very limited study, and our technical staff believes
that they are wholly optimistic.
"The only certain result from removing the emission con-
trols from vehicles would be a major increase in emissions of
pollutants from automobiles," he said.
Train said the statement alleging that Canada has legalized
removal of emission control equipment is false. He quoted
Dr. Raymond Orr, science advisor of the Canadian Embassy, as
saying that the Canadian Department of the Environment's offi-
cial position is that removal of emission control equipment
would not reduce fuel usage to any significant extent, and
if any individual does remove this equipment he may be liable
for a sizeable fine in some of the Provinces.
"In summary," Train said, "even though some individual
vehicles could to some degree have their fuel economy improved,
it is EPA's technical judgment that a mass program to remove
or modify emission controls on existing cars would result in
little or no net gain — certainly not in the 25 percent im-
provement and five billion gallons per year savings indicated
in the advertisements."
# # #

-------
X)
»v'i'x it
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
/
Dear Mr. Engmans
Recently a full page advertisement by "Your Chevrolet
Dealer" appeared in at least one newspaper advocating
action aiaiwi at rewoviug vahicle emission
control systems (copy enclosed). This advertisement includes
three statements which may be iaisleading or false concerning
the removal of emission control equipment. These aret
a- Total amount of fuel saved would be " 5 billion
gallons of gas a year."
b.	Removal of emission control equipment would result
in "possibly a 25% increase in your own ga3 mileage."
c.	"Canada has already legalized removal of gas-wasting
emission equipment.w
Wa believe the statements with respect to fuel economy
gains from reproving emission control equipment aire grossly
inflated and misleading. SPA estimates that fuel lo3s
resulting fronvthe emission control equipment is on the
average about 10%. All of this 10% fuel penalty cannot be
regained by removing the emission control equipment because
numerous internal engine modifications havo been mada by
thes manufacturers to control emissions. These internal
engine modifications cannot realistically be reversed*
Data supplied to EPA by General Motors Corporation
indicate that at best a 5'S iiuprovejaant in fuel economy
resulting in a savings of 2.7 billion gallons of fuol per
year could bo achieved by removing the emission control
equipment from all 1970-74 controlled vehicles. Dut even
those data, as wa understand, are based on very limited
study, and our technical staff believes that they are
wholly optimistic.

-------
2
In suTOT.ary, oven though some individual vehicles could'
to some degree have their fuel economy improved, it is
EPA's technical judgment that a mass program to remove or
modify emission controls on existing cars would result in
little or no net gain—certainly not in the 25vc, improvement
and five billion gallons per year savings indicated in the
advertisements. The only certain result from removing the
emission controls from vehicles would be a major increase
in emissions of pollutants from automobiles.
I have attached for your information a fact sheet, which
explains EPA's technical analysis in more detail,along with a
copy of an excerpt from a letter from GM to EPA on this
subject.
The statement alleging that Canada has legalized removal
of emission control'equipment is false. On December 18,
197 3, a member of my staff spoke to Dr. Raymond Orr, the
Science Advisor of the Canadian Embassy. Dr. Orr, consulting
with the Canadian Department of the Environment, stated that
Canada has not legalized removal of emission controls. In
fact, the Canadian Department of the Environment's official
position is that removal of emission control equipment would
not reduce fuel usage to any significant extent, and if an
individual does remove this equipment he may be liable for
a sizeable fine in some of the Provinces.
We believe that action by FTC is important in this case
of a special interest group attempting to pursue its own
goals at the expense of a vulnerable public during this
energy crisis. We believe their advertisements are uncon-
scionable during a period when the President, Congress, and
the American people are attempting to cope with the current
energy dilemma while still maintaining a balance with the
other very important programs such as protecting our
environment. We hope that, on the basis of this information,
you will take appropriate action and prevent such misleading
advertisements from occurring in the future. If I can be of
any further assistance in pursuing this action, do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
Russell E. Train
Administrator
Mr. Lewis A. Engman, Chairman
Federal Trade Commission
Washington, D.C.
Enclosures

-------
r»r. KFV,' YUHR TIMf'S MOS'DA Y. nr.Cl'.Mb't.F
You are entitled to know!
By relaxing
emission controls somewhat,
we can start saving
5 billion gallons of gas
right now.

The things we've put in
cars in recent years to cut air
pollution are great.
Eventually they will lead
to smog-free air.
But in the present emer-
gency, by relaxing these con-
trols to 1969 standards, we
could save 5 billion gallons
of gas.
The change in your car
could be made in minutes and
RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW we could
start saving 5 billion gallons
of gas a year.
If you would like to bring
this information to the atten-
tion of the law makers who re-
present you, please use the
coupons below or write your
own letter on the subject.
But do it RIGHT NOW.
Because it could mean a sav-
ing of 5 billion gallons of gas
per year and possibly a 25%
increase in your own gas
mileage.
A public interest message from
Chevrolet Dealer
of £iM>. Hu0wn Mtddbwi, Monii Monmouth, Sontf'Wl, Union and Wgrr*n eounim, N.J.
Your Senators. In NY: Jacob Javiti, James Buckley. InNJ: Clifford Caw, Harrison William, Jr.
Senate Office Building
Washington, P C. 20510
Relaxing car emission controls thr
iwndirdi, for the current fmerfcna,
could start »?' ing 5 billion gallons of gas
RIGHT NOW.
Canada has already legalized removal of
gas-watting emission equipment.
I urge you to give this full consideration.
Nit*
Addmi—
Serute Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Relaxing car emission control* to the
standard*, for the current emergency,
could start saving 5 billion gallons of gai
RIGHT SOW.
Canada has already legalized removal of
gjs-u-a«ting emtssion equipment.
I urge you to give this full consideration.
\jmt.
Address-
' Congressman.,
House of Representatives
Washington, D C. 20515
Relaxing car emission controls to (he
1969 standards, for the current emergency,
could start saving 5 billion gallons of gas
RIGHT NOW.
Canada has already legalized removal of
gas-wasting emission tquipmtnt.
I urge you to give this full consideration.

President Richsrd Nixon
White House
Washington, D.C. 20050
Relaxing car emission controls to the
1969 standards, for the current emergency,
could start saving 5 billion gallons of gas
RIGHT NOW.
Canada has already legalized removal of
g»s-
-------