THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
PRESS BRIEFING BY
GEORGE FRAMPTON, ACTING CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL
ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AND
CAROL BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Briefing Room
3:12 P.M. EDT
MR. TOIV: Good afternoon. This briefing, as you all know, is embargoed. It is on the record for broadcast. However, it is embargoed until 10:06 a.m. on Saturday. The subject of the briefing is the President's radio address tomorrow. And here to brief are George Frampton, who is the Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality; Carol Browner, who is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and also here and available to answer questions is Josh Gotbaum, who is the Executive Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
MR. FRAMPTON: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I'm George Frampton, Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. Tomorrow, in his radio address, the President will announce a major step forward in cleaning up the air we breathe and in giving consumers cleaner transportation.
He'll announce a new proposed rule under the Clean Air Act that will require significant reductions in tailpipe emissions for cars, light trucks and SUVs; and at the same time, a proposed rule to require a very significant, 90 percent reduction in the sulfur in gasoline, to clean up automobile fuels.
I think that there are two things that are quite extraordinary about this proposed rule. First, that it takes major, major steps forward to clean up the air and that it does so across the board for all kinds of light vehicles. The rule is phased in between 2004, which is the first year that we could do this under the Clean Air Act for tailpipe emission standards, to 2009. By 2009, all kinds of vehicles, including SUVs and light trucks, will have to meet the same tail pipe emission standards.
It's a major step forward, cleaning up the air. It's also extraordinary in terms of the process that was used here. EPA Administrator Browner and her staff and the Administration have engaged in what I think is a really unusual and productive series of stakeholder discussions over the past six or eight months, and particularly the last few months, with the automobile industry, the oil industry, refiners, public health officials and experts with state and local government, with the environmental community to reach a balance, to hit the sweet spot. It will clean up the air, but will also take care in account of particular problems that industry has in meeting this rule, which is a strong rule.
So that has been a very unusual and, I think, productive process. And I think that the proposed rule will really strike a good balance, the right balance, and will clean up the air. This process will continue. This is a proposed rule and we will continue in the same spirit and in the same vein, in the same process, to try to talk to all interested parties after the rule is published over the coming months to make sure that if there are changes, if there are small changes, or things that we haven't quite got the right balance or hit the sweet spot, that the final rule will do that. I think it's been a very unusual and very successful process, to date. We hope to continue it. Thank you.
Carol.
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Thank you, George. And let me begin by thanking both George, Josh and the people who work with them. It has, indeed, been an unusual process, a tremendous amount of time and energy spent with the automotive industry, with the petroleum industry. I, personally, met with CEOs, I met with environmental vice presidents and we engaged in what I think will be a dialogue that will serve the American people well.
Let me welcome you here to the White House, those of you who normally cover us at the Environmental Protection Agency; and let me thank all of you for coming here today.
Over the past six years, the President and the Vice President have made cleaner air for the people of this country one of their key environmental priorities. Today's proposal for the next generation of cleaner cars is in keeping with that tradition. These new, cost-effective standards would provide every single person in this country cleaner air. It will protect their health and their environment.
There are three important parts to this proposal. First, for the first time ever we are proposing to hold sport utility vehicles and light duty trucks to the same national pollution standards that passenger cars will meet.
Second, also for the first time ever, to achieve cost-effective reductions we are treating tailpipe emissions and gasoline as a single system -- what comes out of the tailpipe is a function, in part, of the gasoline. Not only will manufacturers build cleaner cars, but refiners will be producing cleaner fuels that contain less sulfur. Sulfur is a pollutant that can inhibit the effects of pollution reduction technology. It can literally poison the catalytic convertor.
Third, working with the automotive and petroleum sectors, we have built in flexibility that will allow them to do this in the most cost efficient manner, that will give them both the opportunity to take advantage of market mechanisms in the time frames that will allow us to achieve the greatest amount of pollution reductions at the lowest cost.
Last year, EPA issued a report in which we concluded that given the increase in miles driven or miles traveled, and the changes in the make up of the fleet mix, including an increase in the number of sport utility vehicles and light trucks, tighter standards were needed to continue this country's incredible progress in providing cleaner air.
After months of collaboration with interested parties, we have decided and we are proposing today that a cost efficient tailpipe standard of .07 grams per mile of nitrogen oxides is attainable and that it will give us the necessary pollution reductions to provide the American people with clean, healthy air. These reductions represent a 77 to 86 percent decrease for cars in the amount of pollution, and a 92 to 95 percent decrease in pollution from SUVs and light duty trucks.
Let me explain quickly how this program will work. For cars and vehicles under 6,000 pounds -- that is, your passenger cars and many of today's minivans -- the new requirements would be phased in over a four-year period in 25 percent increments, beginning with the year 2004, which is the first year we are allowed to make these requirements under the Clean Air Act of 1990. By the year 2007, all cars and light duty trucks -- ones and twos, minivans -- would be required to meet the new proposals.
In terms of the heavier trucks, the larger sport utility vehicles, they would begin the program with an initial reduction in 2004, bringing them down almost 60 percent and then they would phase into the car program from the years 2004 to 20009.
To make the fuels that our vehicles burn cleaner we will also phase in a 90 percent reduction of sulfur and gasoline beginning in the year 20004. Sulfur not only pollutes our air but it also, as I said earlier, poisons the performance of catalytic converters that are installed to actually help clean our air, or to really scrub the emissions. By addressing both sulfur and gasoline in the tailpipe standards at the same time by bringing these programs on line together, we believe that we will be able to further reduce the cost and provide cleaner air for the American people more quickly.
The nation's refiners will have to meet a sulfur standard of 30 parts per million by the year 2004. For the less than two dozen small refineries, we do provide some additional flexibilities, including an additional two to four years.
To ensure that both industries can meet these goals, the proposal contains a number of important flexibilities including an averaging scheme, in the case of the vehicles the entire fleet will have to meet an average of .07. No vehicle can be in excess of .2. We also have structured the proposal to allow recognition and credit for those in either industry who choose to provide these pollution reductions earlier than we are able to require under the law.
So, for instance, beginning in the year 2001, automobile manufactures could obtain credits for later use for vehicles produced at or below the .07 standard. Refiners and oil importers would also be able to bank and trade credits that could be used in a later year to sell to another refiner.
The results of this proposal would be to cut emissions from cars and trucks by almost 80 percent of what they are today. The effect of this proposal is the same as if 166 -- 166 million cars were literally pulled off the road and parked. We estimate that this will keep 300 million tons of pollutants out of our air and every year work to help prevent the thousands of premature deaths and the onset of respiratory illness, aggravated asthma attacks associated with air pollution.
It is important to understand that today's proposal does not in any way limit a consumer's choice in vehicles. In almost all cases the manufacturing and the refinery sectors will be able to meet these standards by building upon and perfecting existing technologies, emerging technologies. What it does allow the consumer is the car of their choice but a cleaner car. What's the cost to consumers? Minimal. We estimate that the price of gas will rise one to two cents per year. That means for the average family of four an extra $12 to $24 dollars a year for cleaner air. The new catalytic converter technologies are estimated to be approximately $100 to $200 per vehicle. With this new standard we will maintain the nation's progress in meeting our clean air goals. And as I said, we will allow every American to breathe cleaner air.
We now enter a period of public comment and outreach. We want to hear from the American people about these proposals. We will be working with industry, with public health officials, state and local government leaders, consumers. We will be conducting public hearings across the country. This administration is committed to finalizing this proposal by the end of the year so we can begin the job of cleaner air for the American people, building on this President's, the Vice President's commitment and their work of the last six years.
We are now more than happy to answer any questions you may have.
Q From what I understand, the largest sport utility vehicles, some of them like the Chevy Suburbans and the new Ford -- whatever it's called, Excursion -- would be actually too heavy to apply for any of these regulations.
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: This is actually an interesting question. We capture everything up to 8,500 pounds. When we began this work I don't think things existed over 8,500 pounds. They now exist. We are keenly aware of that. So we have modified this proposal to take comment on how to include those slightly larger SUVs, to bring them into the same program that will address all the other SUVs and the passenger cars. So we are taking comment on that and we do intend to make a decision on that.
But, literally, they didn't exist when we began this process.
Q Administrator Browner, there's been some concern among the auto industry folks about whether they'll be able to continue to make diesel engines, because they arguably can be more efficient. Will that be possible under this proposal? And are there components of the proposal to allow that to happen, and how do they work?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: I want to be clear, there is no diesel loophole. This proposal does allow for some of the cleaner, more fuel efficient technologies that are now emerging, for example, in Europe. It would allow for cleaner diesels. For example, some of the work that's going on, as I said, in some of European countries.
We do intend to shortly put forward a proposal for cleaner diesel. The fuels that we covered in today's announcement are the traditional gasoline, the sulfur reductions; but we will also be making a proposal on cleaner diesel fuels.
We recognize that there can be benefits from clean diesel engines with clean diesel fuels, that it can give you a level of fuel efficiency that can be extremely important both for environmental reasons and for the consumer. And so we worked very hard to structure a proposal that would allow for those cleaner technologies and, yet, guarantee the kind of public health benefits that were so important to us.
Q Just to follow up, but you're not including diesels under the same standards as gasoline cars and trucks, are you?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Oh, no, no, no. Whether you use diesel fuels or traditional gasoline, your vehicle is covered under this program. We are also, in this proposal, picking up traditional gasoline in terms of reducing sulfur and we will shortly make a proposal on diesel fuels.
Q The auto makers had asked for a third party review, if possible. Is that going to happen and is there a date certain on that?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: We're taking comment on how to fashion some sort of a technology review as the program comes on line. That is not something that we've made any final decision about. The automobile industry did bring that to our attention and we are asking the public for comment on how we might structure such a technology review.
Q Just to follow up, is there a deadline on that commentary period?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Yes, the comment period is 60 days and it will begin, I think, effective Monday.
Q Comment period of 60 days? You hope to finish the rule by the end of the year?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: We will finish the rule by the end of the year. I'll tell you why --
Q Then what happens for the next four years?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Under the law, under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, EPA was allowed to set the next round of tailpipe emission reductions for model year 2004 -- that was the earliest we could do it. Now, this administration has achieved a voluntary agreement with the automotive industry that is already bringing on line some cleaner cars, reducing the NOX emissions. Today's proposal would go much, much further.
But the first year we could do it in was model year 2004. We are required under the law to give the automotive industry a certain period of time to prepare for that. That has the effect of requiring us to be done by the end of this year. If we don't finish by the end of the year, we will finish by the end of the year or we would lose a full model year and we don't think the American public should have to wait any longer for cleaner air and for cleaner cars.
Q Can I got back to your cost estimate? You said one to two cents --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Per gallon.
Q -- per gallon. Now, is that per year? Is that --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Per gallon.
Q Okay. You said one to two cents a gallon, per year. Does that mean two to four cents in a second year?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: No. It's one to two cents forever, in essence. I think the additional way to think about it that I tried to offer you was for the average family of four, that would be $12 to $24 a year, not an awful lot to pay for cleaner air.
Q And can you repeat the percentage reductions, again, in pollutants for cars and SUVs and light trucks?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: For the passenger cars and what we refer to as light duty trucks -- which are, essentially, minivans, something weighing 6,000 pounds or less -- the percent reduction is 77 to 86 percent of NOX, and some other pollutants are included in that. For the larger, the 6,000 to 8,500 pound vehicles, it's a 92 to 95 percent reduction.
But, again, let me -- we did something very, very important here that allows us to get cleaner air even quicker than I think was originally envisioned. Remember, we can't make any requirements to 2004. So what we have done is said in 2004 everything is going to take an initial drop and then we will phase into the .07 averaging program. So, for example, right now the largest SUVs are, their emissions are running at 1.53 parts per million, we would drop that down immediately to .6 and then further on into the .07 averaging scheme. But you get almost a 60 percent reduction beginning in 2004 from the largest vehicles.
Q Would the changes in the catalytic --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: This is something California did not do, by the way.
Q That inclusion of the larger SUVs in the initial whack, was that in your original proposal as it went to OMB, or was that an addition?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: This was a collaborative process, we all worked together. I don't think there is a situation that -- I don' t think it's fair to say things were additions or deletions. It was an incredibly collaborative process and we all stand here today making this announcement and this proposal to the American people.
Q Is that a "yes"?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: That's an answer. (Laughter.)
Q Would the changes to the catalytic convertors -- are they going to have any foreseeable impact on performance for these vehicles?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: We don't anticipate -- in fact, if you take the time to actually look at our proposal, you will see that we have actually put one of these cleaner catalytic converters on an SUV that we purchased off the lot and we're achieving the reductions that are envisioned. Obviously, we're not able to make the kind of engine adjustments that the manufacture can make. We can simply apply the new -- apply the new catalytic convertor, put the fuels in and see what kind of reductions we can get. And we are able to get them right now.
Q But in that experiment, did it have any effect on the performance of the vehicle?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: No, it did not. No. And, in fact, another point that I should just make to you is when -- this requirement is at 120,000 miles, so you have to be able to meet the lower emission requirement out to 120,000 miles, recognizing that that is generally the life of a car. It was important not to simply look at what's a new car, or a two-year-old or a three-year-old car, but to actually go over the life of the vehicle.
Q Is there any regionalization in this plan, in the sense that the one to two cents that you mentioned -- does it raise if you're from, say, New York City, versus if you're from Wyoming, for instance?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Well, there are lots of things that can affect prices. We looked at it from a national perspective, our economists looked at it from a national perspective.
You know, let me just take an opportunity, or a moment, here to say something. Obviously, there are going to be people out there saying different things about prices. You know, there is a long history in the United States of industry claiming that pollution reductions are going to be very costly. Time and time again, that has proven to be wrong.
For example, when EPA required the petroleum industry to take lead out of gasoline, they projected very high costs. The reality was very different, the benefits significant. Similarly, acid rain -- it was projected to be very high.
I know some in industry may suggest those sorts of costs. They have traditionally been wrong. We have looked at this. We have worked with people in industry. We believe this is incredibly cost-effective, one to two cents a gallon for cleaner air.
There are no regional distinctions; it is a national program that we are proposing. And I will explain why. Some had suggested to us that we regionalize it, and we'd have gasoline with one amount of sulfur in one part of the country, and another amount of -- you know, higher sulfur. Remember, we're recommending a 30 parts per million. On average, in the United States today, it is 330 -- in some areas it is as high as 500. So we are recommending, our proposal is for a 30 parts per million average, a cap of 80 parts per million -- a very significant reduction.
The reasons that we did not make a proposal on a regional basis are several, but the most important reason is, as Americans, we love to drive across our country. We love to drive from state to state. Sulfur poisons a catalytic converter; it really does damage to its ability to scrub out the pollution.
And so if a person with a nice, clean catalytic converter who's using nice, clean gas were to drive to an area where the gasoline was not as clean, they would do damage to their car's ability to continue to function as a cleaner car.
So recognizing that, as Americans, we love to go on our family vacation, drive across the country, we are proposing a national program for the country.
Q What do you figure this will do for smog -- in Los Angeles, for instance? Is it going to cut it by a third, a half?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: No, remember California has its own air pollution programs. Under the federal law, they were given their own authorities.
This does help California -- although California has taken another set of steps -- it helps California for two reasons. One, because lots of cars come into California, so the tougher standards will help California. California has their own car standards.
The second reason it helps California, California has already gone to cleaner fuels, but again, people coming into California with the less clean fuels, and people in California leaving the state filling up with high sulfur content fuel are losing the benefits of those cleaner catalytic converters. So there is a benefit to California, but they do have their own authority under the Clean Air Act.
The real effect here -- it is cleaner air for every person in the country, including the people of California, they do get a benefit for this -- the larger effects will be felt outside of California in the large metropolitan areas. California has their own car standards. They were given their own authorities. And they made a proposal earlier this year to go to cleaner catalytic converters, they chose a different way of getting there than we are proposing.
Our proposal does have benefits to California and we get greater reductions earlier than California because of this initial reduction we take in 2004, in terms of the large SUVs. In California the larger SUVs would stay outside of their program until, I think, 2008, 2009. We felt that getting a first round of reductions, particularly from SUVs, was extremely important in terms of air quality.
Let me go to someone back there and then these two.
Q Two questions. First, are you going to do anything about fuel economy? That's not directly your agency, but you are responsible on global warming issues and the carbon dioxide from some of these vehicles getting eight miles a gallon has been a question posed. Second of all, when you talk about the 75 percent, isn't that including some of the so-called voluntary reductions that are already happening next year for the cars, anyway? Wouldn't their be a wider spread between the cars versus the SUV reductions if you take out what's already --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: No, the bigger reduction will still be in the SUVs. I mean, the baseline that you look at is what would -- you're talking about the national lower emission, the NLEP program -- for cars and light duty truck ones, the first category of trucks were picked up in that, it's a .6 cap with a .3 average. For the threes and fours, they stayed into the program that allows them to sit at 1.53. So it's a fairly significant reduction when you go to the .6 in 2004. What was the second part of your question? I apologize -- oh, fuel efficiency.
One of the very important things about how we structured our proposal was to recognize that there are these new emerging clean diesels, for example, that will bring with them fuel efficiency benefits. So while it is an averaging program where your fleet average is a .07, there is a cap of .2. No vehicle can be greater than .2. And we believe -- and, in fact, I met with diesel engine manufactures who are looking at these clean diesel technologies -- that that will allow for the more fuel efficient clean technologies to become available.
Q The auto makers are now saying that they need or want five parts per million in 2008, so the big sport utilities can meet this. How do you feel about that and is that something you're accepting comments on?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Yes, we are taking comment on that. What we tried to do -- and EPA has never done this before -- no administration has ever done this -- which is to look at both the fuels and the tailpipe. Historically, what has happened is something happens on fuels and then something happens on tailpipes and then something happens on fuels and it's been back and forth. And in most instances -- finally Congress had to set the tailpipe standards, EPA was unable to do it, for any number of reasons. So for the first time ever this Administration said let's look at it as a system, let's look at fuels, let's look at the tailpipe.
The car manufacturers did raise the issue of even lower sulfur. We will take comment on that. We did structure this proposal to look to both industries to do their part, if you will, perhaps a balancing between the two industries. Now, obviously, in the early years of a program the gasoline part of the reduction is higher in terms of the number of tons of pollution that come out of the air because you have, you know, cars, fleets have to turn over.
But as you get to full implementation cars and gasoline, it's roughly equivalent in terms of the number of pounds of pollution reduction. It's a 50-50 split that we achieved between the two industries. And the costs are roughly equal between the two industries. And that was part of what we were looking to do, to really put together a proposal that would ask both sectors to do their part in a cost-effective and an efficient manner.
Q But wouldn't the cost of gas possibly go much higher if you had to go down to five parts per million?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: We looked at -- the cost analyses that we did were focused on the 30 parts per million and the time frame that we had proposed. We did not look at that issue.
Q Ms. Browner, could you answer a question on another subject? There was a report this week that about eight different environmental groups had withdrawn from a toxics advisory committee because they were disappointed at the speed at which the EPA was issuing new standards for toxic substances.
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: It's actually a little bit different. It's on pesticide chemical registrations, yes.
Q Can you explain what your reaction is to that?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: It's a new law. The President signed this law -- we argued in Congress for two years to get a new food safety law passed to allow EPA to set standards on all foods and not simply processed foods, to set standards to protect children's health. It is a mammoth undertaking for us, and we are on schedule.
We did create a public advisory committee, made up of farmers, manufacturers, the United States Department of Agriculture, environmentalists. You know, in a perfect world, would everything go more quickly? Absolutely. We are on schedule to meet all of our statutory deadlines to take the steps to ensure safe, abundant food for the people of this country, to protect the health of our children.
We are disappointed that the environmentalists couldn't hang in there for the next several months while we make those sorts of decisions. That is the schedule we articulated from the beginning, and -- you know, it's very disappointing that so many people have put a lot of time and energy into this process to find the best ways to provide the protections and, yet, they couldn't work with us for two more months.
Q What are your cost estimates for compliance for the auto and oil industries, respectively? And, secondly, could you repeat how long the refineries will have to comply?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: The costs are approximately $3.4 to $4.4 billion. The benefits, in terms of the public health benefits -- everything from reduction in respiratory illness, asthma, crop loss, death, premature deaths that would be avoided -- approximately $16.6 billion. The benefits to the public's health far outweigh the costs.
What was the second part of your question?
Q You mentioned, I think, a time frame --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. For petroleum, the phase in begins in 2004, through 2006. It ends with a 30 part per million average, with a cap of 80. Just so you know, today gasoline is anywhere from 330 to 500 parts per million sulfur. It's a very significant reduction.
There are approximately two dozen small refineries under the SBA definitions. They are given additional time, given their unique situations -- a minimum of two years and, if necessary, for hardship reasons, they can have up to an additional four years.
Q So larger refiners would have to comply 2004?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Beginning in 2004, they can phase in, to 2006. And one of the flexibilities we offered for both industry sectors are credits for earlier reductions, so you can use -- if you're willing to -- and some, I mean, this has been reported through many of you, that some in the petroleum industry have already suggested that they're prepared to move towards cleaner fuels to lower sulfur, specifically.
Q -- that's for both industries?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Yes, and they're roughly -- they roughly split out. Again, things vary between the two industries in the short-term, because of when investments get made. But when you look out over the life of the program, it evens out.
MR. TOIV: This will be the last question.
Q Because this is being phased in, and because it applies to new cars, and obviously it would take a long time before most of the nation's vehicles fall under these regulations, I mean, it seems like --
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: You'd be surprised how quickly it starts to affect the air we breathe. For example, fuels, it's an immediate effect, right? The first day that you have cleaner fuels, there's a measurable effect. In 2007, you're already achieving 800,000 tons of reduction. By 2010, you're up to 1.2 million tons of reductions. So it happens quickly.
You're right, there is a fleet turnover. And that is part of why -- when we looked at fleet turnover, when we looked at life cycle -- that is part of why we took this initial significant reduction, are proposing this initial significant reduction in 2004 -- to bring in the SUVs, to drop them that 60 percent. I mean, there's some effect on cars, but the really big chunk of it is on the SUVs, as opposed to California, who waits until the end of their program. And that was as we looked at these issues of fleet turnover and life of vehicles, we thought that was extremely important, to get the cleaner air more quickly.
MR. TOIV: Last question.
Q Administrator Browner, the Administration will be participating in the Sustainable Development Conference next week in Detroit.
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Starting Sunday, yes.
Q Can you articulate exactly what specific outcome the Administration would like to see, what goals you would like reach?
ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER: Well, there is a great thing happening in this country. Community by community, people are coming together and looking at how they can grow their community smarter and healthier. Everything from the ballot initiatives we saw in November, where people were putting forward bond proposals to acquire to preserve green spaces, to some of the transportation challenges that communities are facing and are successfully beginning to answer.
As we traveled across the country we heard communities tell us great things that they were doing, and they would always say, what's going on in other communities? So this is an opportunity. Detroit is an opportunity for communities, for leaders, for elected officials to come together to learn from each other what is happening, what they can do. There is no requirement for any of this, it's not some federal program. It is simply an opportunity to learn from each other, to do the work community by community.
You know, when you look at the environmental challenges we face in this country, there is a host of dilemmas and challenges that have to be addressed from the national level. That's what we're proposing to date -- cleaner cars, cleaner fuels. There is a whole lot of communities who want to go beyond that, who want to make a set of local decisions that will further enhance their environment. Detroit is about that, helping communities learn from each other.
Thank you all very, very much.
MR. TOIV: And just a reminder, we're going to hand out paper very shortly on this so you won't have to memorize all those numbers. Secondly, that paper and this briefing are embargoed until 10:06 a.m. on Saturday. Thank you.
END 3:45 P.M. EDT