■ ■ TO. ; I ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 1 : r ^,;- ■ HI ■ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DDDDllOflTlE ^o T «5<& Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1987 Steel in Motor Vehicles A 35-Year Perspective By J. Weinberg, K. L. Harris, and G. White ^^^5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Information Circular 9175 Steel in Motor Vehicles A 35- Year Perspective By J. Weinberg, K. L. Harris, and G. White UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary BUREAU OF MINES David S. Brown, Acting Director As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environment and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recrea- tion. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. (A

111 _l (O o> II o o X UJ 100 Q z UJ (/} o Q. o o 50 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 YEAR Figure 1.— Materials used in motor vehicles sold in the United States. (Sources: Wards Communications, Wards Automotive Yearbook, various issues; Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association, Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures, various issues; U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce.) BACKGROUND Steel is readily available, durable, ductile, easily joined and finished, and relatively inexpensive. It is avail- able in hundreds of alloys, and its physical properties can be altered to fit numerous applications. The automotive industry has been and continues to be the largest manu- facturing consumer of steel, receiving over 20% of domes- tic steel mill shipments. Steel is used in a multitude of automotive applications, but the largest use is in sheets that form the body of the vehicle. For this use, in particu- lar, the good finishing properties of steel and its ability to be formed easily with low wear to the forming dies are most important. Over 60% of the steel used in automotive applications is consumed in fabricating body parts. Steel sheets and strips, as well as forgings, castings, and struc- tural shapes, have applications in other automotive com- ponents in the engine and drive train, the suspension system, and other components of the chassis. Many of these components must meet different design characteris- tics. For instance, steel components in the engine are sub- jected to high temperatures and pressures and require more durable steels than components of the body. Engi- neers are able to select from a multitude of steel alloys and heat and surface treatments to meet these diverse design requirements. METHODOLOGY The domestic demand 4 for steel in motor vehicles (fig. 2) is made up of (1) shipments from domestic steel mills to the automotive industry, 5 (2) foreign semifinished steel im- ported for use in the manufacture of motor vehicles, (3) foreign steel contained in imported motor vehicles and mo- tor vehicle parts, and (4) domestic steel exports that return in imported motor vehicles and automotive parts. In equa- tion form, this appears as ' In this report, demand for steel refers only to domestic demand, not international or foreign demand. 5 Including adjustments for shipments to steel service centers and distrib- utors, shipments of spare parts, and scrap losses. D = S+ I s + I, + L (1) where D = total domestic demand for steel in motor vehi- cles, S = domestic steel mill shipments to the automo- tive industry, I, = imported semifinished steel used in motor ve- hicles, L = foreign steel in imported motor vehicles and parts, and I d „ = domestic steel exports that return in the form of imported vehicles and parts. b oo KEY uS Mill products ^P Parts A^o- t Vehicle manufacturers Figure 2.— Material flows to domestic motor vehicle demand. Because data for I„ and I, are not available, the follow- ing equation was used: c D = R • W • ttt (2) 100 where R W = total motor vehicle retail sales, = average curb weight of motor vehicles sold in the United States, =. average steel content, expressed in percent, of motor vehicles sold in the United States. Because the quantity of U.S. steel contained in foreign automotive products is relatively small, all steel in foreign and vehicles imported into the United States was assumed to be of foreign origin, or I,,. = 0. Two periods of time are analyzed, 1950-72 and 1973- 85, before and after the oil crisis that precipitated major Government policy and automotive structural changes. Al- though the data used in the study encompass all motor vehicles— automobiles, trucks, and buses— the discussion focuses on automobiles, the largest single component. The assumptions, definitions, and statistical data appear in the appendix. 1950-72 TRENDS The 1950's have been described by an automobile his- torian as the chrome age (i);* more appropriately, these years should have been called the steel age, in recognition of the average of more than 2,600 lb of steel contained in each of the nearly 70 million motor vehicles the United States produced during this decade. Although manufac- turers introduced changes in the automobile's outward ap- pearance every year, basic car design and material content changed little. 6 Italic numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of references preceding the bibliography at the end of this report. IMPORTS In the late 1950s, U.S. imports of motor vehicles in- creased sharply as a result of trade policies, foreign gov- ernment financial assistance for automotive industries. tax incentives in the European Economic Community (EEC* and Japan, as well as increased demand for econom- ical, high-quality small cars. Imports accounted for less than l c f of U.S. retail motor vehicle sales in 1955; they were 9 r i of sales by 1959. however, and 13 r ; by 1970. The Federal Republic of Germany led the surge, accounting for at least 301 of U.S. imported vehicles between 1955 and 1970. The Volkswagen, as well as many varieties of foreign cars that followed, frequently offered the American con- sumer a smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient, and less ex- pensive vehicle. The 1960 Volkswagen weighed 1,700 lb and cost $1,600, compared with the 1960 American com- pact, which weighed 800 lb more and cost an average of $500 more (2). By the end of the 1960's, the compact car accounted for about one quarter of all cars sold in the United States. Domestic manufacturers met the challenge of lightweight small imported cars by introducing small cars of their own, but they were not as light as imports. Subsequently, heavy options, such as more powerful engines and auxil- iary equipment such as air conditioning, automatic trans- mission, power steering, and power brakes were added. As a result, the average automobile curb weight between 1950 and 1972 fluctuated within a narrow range (fig. 3). Foreign trade policies affected imports not only of au- tomobiles but also of steel. The United States changed from being a net exporter to a net importer of steel in 1960. The greatest amount of steel imports came from the EEC countries in the 1960's, but by the mid-1960's im- ports from Japan totaled nearly as much (fig. 4). Increases in imports, although largely unnoticed at first, in later years resulted in large losses of market share for domestic manufacturers of both automobiles and steel. The domes- tic steel content of the average motor vehicle 7 fell 28% from 1950 to 1970, while foreign steel content rose 40%. ■ The average motor vehicle includes domestic and imported cars, trucks, and buses. Average ', Domestic autos Imported autos lS->0 19^ lHi>0 lSti-> 1 u /0 l^HO l«tn YEAR Figure 3.— Average motor vehicle curb weights (weights of imported autos between 1950 and 1974 are estimated at 2,000 lb). (See table A-2.) Total US apparen consump tjon & Imports, bysou < ce : :ra@0G : ; 'warn fee XSOfflQI-Js tfepatc aa*5JGra;&^^ z so O t- Q. E CO Z • O o m *d A. YEAR Figure 4.— Steel imports, by source, as percent of U.S. appar- ent steel consumption. (Sources: World Steel Trade Develop- ments, 1960-83: A Statistical Analysis, OECD, 1985, Paris, p. 24; American Iron and Steel Institute, Annual Statistical Report, 1985.) SUBSTITUTE MATERIALS Not only was foreign steel replacing domestic steel, but substitutes began to make inroads in the quantity of steel consumed as well. Between 1965 and 1970, the quan- tity of plastic in the average vehicle more than tripled, growing from 29 to 99 lb (see figure 5 and table A-2). Plastics long had been considered a low-cost, low-perform- ance substitute, used mostly for disposable goods markets. Intensive research in previous decades, however, began to pay off in new materials that were more lasting than their predecessors and that could be introduced economically into the automotive manufacturing process. The use of plastics for many automobile applications became attrac- tive because of high strength-to-weight ratio, formability, corrosion-free performance, and ease of finishing. In 1967, a new polyester resin was introduced that made it possible to paint parts directly after molding, reducing tooling costs by 25% and finishing and labor costs by over 40%. The net results were reduced manufacturing costs and su- perior material performance. From 1950 to 1970, as the motor vehicle lost 376 lb of steel, it gained 80 lb of plastic, 10 lb of aluminum, 17 lb of iron, and 214 lb of other materials. Foreign steel content of the average vehicle rose from 14% to 20% of total weight. o UJ 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 1950 1990 Figure 5.— Materials used in average domestic car. (Source: Institute of Iron and Steel Scrap; data shown for 1988-90 are based on a projection by Ford Motor Co.) 1973-85 TRENDS The average motor vehicle weighed about 3,800 lb be- tween 1973 and 1978. This gain of about 200 lb over the previous decade occurred before energy conservation mea- sures took hold and, in part, reflected increased emphasis on safety through heavier cars. Average motor vehicle weight peaked in 1976, but fell steadily through 1982 when it registered 3,160 lb. Even though the average weight of imported cars rose, it generally remained lower than that of domestic vehicles (fig. 3). Average vehicle weight has risen since 1982, largely because fuel prices have declined and sales of lightweight trucks, which are heavier than cars, have increased as a proportion of total motor vehicle sales. IMPORTS From 1973 to 1985, the import share of U.S. retail motor vehicle sales continued to grow, rising from 141 to 23% of the volume and further reducing the quantity of domestic steel required by the automotive industry. En- ergy conservation— more easily attained with the smaller foreign car— and the strong dollar in the early 1980's. played important roles in the dramatic rise in the volume of imported cars. By 1985, 3.6 million imported vehicles were sold in this country, with Japan accounting for 83' I of the import total." Despite voluntary export restraints agreed to in 1981, the number of vehicles imported from Japan continued to surge upward, resulting in a signifi- cantly reduced domestic steel content in the average motor vehicle. Imported steel, which accounted for about 141 of the U.S. market in the early 1970s, had grown to about 201 a decade later. Again, just as in automobiles, Japan has been the single largest source of U.S. steel imports for well over a decade, accounting for more than 401 of total steel imports during the 1970"s. In earlier years, imports were primarily simpler steel products such as bars and rods. As the Japanese steel industry developed, the composition of imports shifted to higher value sheet and strip as well as pipe and tube products used in automobile manufacturing (3). By 1982. the United States was the only major steel market relatively open to foreign imports (4). Both the open market and the relatively high value of the dollar fostered import growth. Hoping to stem the tide, the U.S Government negotiated voluntary limits on exports of steel to the United States through 1989 with 16 countries. " Statistics on U.S. motor vehicle retail sales include imports from ada as domestic vehicles. including Brazil, the EEC, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Spain. Despite the limits, U.S. steel imports in 1985 exceeded those in 1983 by 43%. Undoubtedly, much of this steel found its way into the U.S. manufactured automobile. DOWNSIZING Automobile manufacturers not only used lighter ma- terials in their attempts to meet the Government- mandated fuel efficiency standards,* but also downsized vehicles. Because many consumers continued to prefer the family-size car, downsizing required reducing the exterior dimensions of a vehicle, where heavy steel is used, without a commensurate reduction in the passenger or load- carrying capacity. In 1977 and 1978, General Motors re- duced the length and width of its full-size and intermedi- ate models, saving as much as 1,000 lb— mostly steel— per car. Comparable weight reductions were achieved by Ford, Chrysler, and American Motors. SUBSTITUTE MATERIALS By the late 1970's and early 1980's, automobile manu- facturers could use a variety of materials as substitutes for steel to achieve reductions in vehicle weight. For example, a bumper previously made from carbon steel could also be made from lightweight, high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steel, from plastic, or from aluminum. Substituting HSLA steel for conventional steel can achieve a 30% weight sav- ings; substituting plastics can achieve a 40% weight sav- ings, depending on the kind of plastic used; and using aluminum instead of steel can achieve a 50% weight sav- ings (5). Manufacturers look for a number of other charac- teristics in a new material besides lighter weight, including ease of forming and joining, durability, and type of surface. Cost also influences the choice of materials, but it is the cost of an installed product rather than the cost of the raw material that determines the manufacturer's deci- sion (6). During the late 1970's, high-strength steels became substitutes for conventional steel in the automotive mar- ket. Although developed in the 1960's, high-strength steels for the automotive market were not produced in large scale until the mid-1970's. Their use in the automo- bile more than doubled from 1975 through 1985, surpass- ing the growth rate of both plastics and aluminum. The effect of this substitution has been to reduce the total steel content of the automobile. High-strength steels, both HSLA and high-strength plain carbon steels, can be up to three times stronger than conventional steels. They are used in body or suspension members, and bumper rein- forcement bars. One problem in use of these steels, how- ever, is their lack of formability, a characteristic that declines in steels as strength increases. On the other hand, conversion to high-strength steels requires mini- mum retooling (unlike conversion to plastics), which is a significant advantage. The plastic content of the average motor vehicle more than doubled from 1970 through 1985 (table A-2, fig. 5), largely as a replacement for parts formerly composed of steel. Use of plastics in the automobile escalated through- out the 1970's, and by the early 1980's, two U.S. cars— the Pontiac Fiero and Chevrolet Corvette— had plastic skins over steel frames. Higher feed materials cost for plastics, low production rates for plastic parts, incompatibility with currently used paint systems, and the size of the required investment for retooling prevent the substitution of plas- tics for steel from growing at a faster pace. 1 " Although aluminum accounted for only 1% to 2% of automobile weight in the early 1970's, its share increased to more than 4% by the early 1980's (table A-2, fig. 5). In many applications, aluminum yields weight reduction benefits beyond those of HSLA steel and lends itself to conventional processing methods better than plastics. Alu- minum is more costly than steel, however, and requires more energy to produce. Furthermore, it has less strength and stiffness than steel, so a greater quantity of alumi- num must be used to be as effective as steel. Except for wheels, in which cast aluminum has replaced some fabri- cated steel products, most of the increased use of alumi- num has been as a substitute for cast iron rather than steel. As a result of these factors— the increases in imports of steel and automobiles, increased use of substitute mate- rials, and downsizing— the domestic steel content of the average motor vehicle fell 46% between 1973 and 1985, while foreign steel content rose 49%. Total steel content dropped from 61%- of the average vehicle in 1973 to 56%r by 1985. OUTLOOK In 1985, net imports of motor vehicles and iron and steel accounted for 40% of the $125 billion U.S. merchan- dise trade deficit. The deficit in motor vehicles was $40 billion— more than any other industry— and the deficit in iron and steel was $10 billion. It is unlikely that the use of domestic steel in the automotive market will increase in the next few years, despite the recent decline in the dollar. The Department of Commerce anticipates that sales of imported cars will increase 34%c from 1986 to 1990 while domestic sales will decline about 9%. Automotive imports will grow from 28% of ^he automotive market in 1986 to 34% in 1987, and nearly 37%- by 1990 (7). H Title V of the Energy Poli'.'y and Conservation Act of 1975 mandated that automobile manufacturers meet a fleet-average fuel-efficiency stand- ard of 27.5 mpg of gasoline for automobiles produced during and after model year 1985. The fuel-economy standards for passenger cars were the following: Mode! year 1978, 18 mpg; 1979, 19 mpg; 1980, 20 mpg; 1981, 22 mpg; 1982, 24 mpg; 1983, 25 mpg; 1984, 27 mpg; and 1985, 27.5 mpg. In late 1985, the Department of Transportation reduced the standard to 26 mpg for model year 1986, and additional changes are being considered. Japan will continue to account for the largest share of U.S. imports, although the 1987 volume of Japanese im- ports is not expected to grow (7-8)." The United States will import larger quantities of automobiles (and thus steel) from countries relatively new to the U.S. market such as the Republic of Korea, Yugoslavia, Australia, Brazil, Ro- mania, and Taiwan. New foreign-owned motor vehicle assembly plants are locating in the United States. About 75 Japanese parts companies have plants in the United States and 20 more are expected soon, some as joint ventures with U.S. firms (9). Most of the major components and original equipment parts, however, are being imported (7) thus leaving steel import trends unaffected. As previously discussed, the declining use of steel per automobile primarily resulted from attempts to reduce au- "' General Motors abandoned plans for a plastic sports car in late 1986 because the venture proved too costly. " See "1973-85 Trends" section. tomobile weight. Motor vehicle weight in 1985 was 24% less than in 1976, while steel weight declined 21% (com- pare figures 3 and 5). The percentage of steel in the auto- mobile in 1992 is likely to grow without a commensurate weight increase as a result of increased use of advanced high-strength steels, which can be made into lighter prod- ucts than carbon steels can. From 1985 to 1992, the per- centage of steel used in the motor vehicle is expected to increase to the levels of the mid-1970's (see table A-2) (10). In addition to greater use of high-strength steel, the use of plastics as a replacement for carbon steel in the automobile is likely to continue growing. Plastics have already displaced 7% to 9% of the carbon steel in motor vehicles and are expected to replace an additional 8% to 20% by the year 2000 (11). General Motors expects that by 1990 it will produce 1 million cars a year with plastic outer panels, in comparison with 150,000 in 1986. Chry- sler has begun a 5-yr development project to determine the economic feasibility of manufacturing a vehicle made al- most entirely of steel-substitute materials. The vehicles will have plastic outer bodies and composite structural parts, including frames (12). For the future, the automotive industry is looking at fiber-reinforced plastics for making components that must bear heavy loads, as well as a flexible thermoplastic that can be molded into body panels to limit damage in minor collisions (13). Du Pont recently unveiled a new plastic called arylon, an exceptionally hard material the company predicts will replace traditional steel in both automotive and nonautomotive applications and will cost 20% less than current products. A plastic sheet molding compound has recently been developed that can be molded into automotive components at assembly line speeds and which reduces cost and manu- facturing differences between plastic and steel. Its manu- facturer, the Budd Co., anticipates that use of the new material will provide a further boost to the use of plastics in motor vehicles during the next decade and eventually give U.S. automakers an edge over foreign rivals (14). In sum, total demand for steel in motor vehicles is expected to grow by 1990, even though use of steel substi- tutes such as plastics continues to grow. Demand for do- mestic steel for the automotive sector is likely to decline, however, as steel imports continue to rise. The increase in use of domestic HSLA steel is not expected tc compensate for the greater demand for imported steel in finished vehi- cles. CONCLUSIONS The changes that have occurred in the use of steel in motor vehicles over the past 35 yr are more apparent if the actual 1985 demand levels are compared with the levels that would have been attained in 1985 had there been no If the only change since 1950 had been growth in the num- ber of vehicles required, use of domestic steel in motor vehicles would have totaled over 16.5 MMst in 1985, more than twice the actual 1985 level of 7.2 MMst (fig. 6). About changes in the amounts and proportions of materials used. 43% of the 9.3-MMst loss was attributable to downsizing 30 Hypothetical demand KEY Materials other than steel Actual demand 20 Imported steel Domestic steel 2 Q Z < ui a 10 1950 YEAR 1985 Figure 6.— Comparison of automotive materials demand, 1950 and 1985. (Hypothetical 1985 demand based on 1950 vehicle material content.) and design changes. About 32% of the loss was attribut- able to steel imports, more than 90% of which entered the country in finished vehicles; and 25% was attributable to substitution of plastics and aluminum for steel. In 1985, the total value of market share lost by U.S. steel producers was $5.1 billion, ,2 of which $1.6 billion was lost to foreign steel producers and automobile manufacturers. i: ' Domestically produced steel used in motor vehicles fell 8% or 0.6 MMst between 1950 and 1985, while retail sales of motor vehicles increased 112%, total material de- mand increased 86%, and total steel demand increased 47% (figs. 1 and 7). In 1965, foreign steel used per vehicle was only about one-tenth the quantity of domestic steel; by 1985, the two were nearly equal (fig. 1). In 1965, the quan- tity of all raw steel imports was 9.3 MMst; it had doubled by 1978, and almost tripled to 26.2 MMst by 1984. At the same time automotive imports rose from 5% of retail sales in 1965 to 16% by 1975, and peaked in 1982 at 25%. 14 While the total amount of steel consumed in motor vehicles in the United States on an annual basis grew slightly more than 1% per year between 1950 and 1985 (fig. 1), consumption per vehicle declined 1% annually over the same period. Demand rose from 9.8 MMst in 1950 to 14.4 MMst in 1985 (table A-l), while demand per vehicle declined nearly 800 lb in the last 35 yr. Per capita demand for steel in motor vehicles has remained fairly constant, since growing motor vehicle sales volume more than made up for the decline per unit steel content resulting from '- 1985 steel price was $552 per short ton. " Loss of market would have been about 30'/f higher had scrap been included in the calculation. " Excluding imports from Canada. 15 I I I I 1 1 Total automotive steel demand substitute materials and automobile downsizing. Demand for steel in the motor vehicle sector, however, has not kept pace with the growth in GNP or in manufacturing. De- mand trends diverge for the periods before and after the energy crisis of the early 1970's, with demand for steel growing at 2.4% per year between 1950 and 1973 and de- clining 1.4% per year from 1973 through 1985. Despite the negative growth rate for 1973 through 1985, average an- nual demand was still 30% higher than for 1950 through 1973 (table 1). Although domestic steel producers had been losing motor vehicle steel market share since the 1950's, they experienced a trend of growing sales and shipments to this sector through the late 1970's, after which severe erosion occurred in the market. Steel shipments to the automotive sector reached a low in 1982, only 9 yr after the peak (fig. 1). The growing trend in shipments through the 1970's provided only an illusion of well-being for domestic steel- makers, masking the magnitude of the changes in this market and the urgency of the challenges of the 1980's. Although the declining demand for domestic steel is pre- dominantly a problem of declining market share for do- mestically produced motor vehicles, aggressive marketing of steel products that meet motor vehicle design and man- ufacturing requirements is now being undertaken by do- mestic steelmakers. Another possibility for increasing domestic steel sales for domestic motor vehicle manufac- ture lies in the supply of steel to the domestic plants of foreign motor vehicle manufacturers. Without continued improvements and greater success in marketing by the domestic steelmakers, the declining use of domestic steel in motor vehicles is unlikely to be reversed. 2,700 1,800 I O UJ 900 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980. 1985 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 YEAR Figure 7.— Automotive steel demand and steel used per vehicle. (See tables, A-1— A-3.) 10 . Table 1.— Motor vehicle dem and trends ^ ~ im ^^^^^ZZZ Compound annual _J950-73 1973-85 1950-85 rate of growth, % — Mean Std dev Mean Std dev Me an Std dev 1950-73 1973-85 1950~8^ Other ma.ernl,... 5.7 2 1 9.5 1.5 69 ?.« 5 ^ Std dev Standard deviation. : : : — Booksa b 9 e 78:p R 20r lleCtOr ' S "^ ° f *« Aut ° m ° bile - B — 2. National Research Council. The Competitive Status of the U.S. Auto Industry: A Study of the Influences of Technology in Determining International Industrial Competitive Advantage Natl. Acad. Press, 1982, pp. 72-73. 3. US. International Trade Commission. Foreign Industrial USTT e r n p g M n i,?, S ^ feCtS ° n US - Indu ^ries, Phase I: Japan. USITC Publ. 1437, Oct. 1983, p. 196. 4 U.S. President. Annual Report of the President of the United Mates on the Trade Agreements Program. 1984-85, Twenty- Eighth Issue. Feb. 1986, p. 39. 5. U.S. General Accounting Office. Policy Conflict-Energy En- vironmental, and Materials: Automotive Fuel-Economy Stan- dards^ Implication for Materials. Rep. to Congr., Feb. 5, 1980, pp. 6 Eggert, R. G. Changing Patterns of Materials Use in the US Automobile Industry. Mater, and Soc, V. 10, No. 3, 1986, pp. 405- REFERENCES look. p' S 36 D 2 ePartment ° f Commerce - 1987 U -S. Industrial Out ^mgsLVssfl n are Keeps Gettmg Sma,ier - Bus - motiv S er e t r Tan G 5 8 :98Tpp D T P 39 een " ^^ ^ A ^ 10_ Clark. iP, and M. C. Flemings. Advanced Materials and the Economy. Sci. Am., v. 255, No. 4 Oct 1986 p 53 Se" in 3 ! 3 ^ 1 ^- M^ B ' ,*'"", I? e Challen ^ of New Materials. £. W 6 f:: e w~7t 3nd Mater ' alS - A »— «* Survey. Aug.' SSftm" Dnft of Th,ngs Mln - En ^ ,Ll " leto "- c O'- and sS^o 1 : 1% !£S££2£ als Usage Trends - Mater Oct 2aSS' S ' PartaM ' nUle Plas <" Challenges Steel. American Iron and Steel Institute. Annual Statistical Report Washington, DC, various issues DC^^tr Ind "' eCt Stee ' Trade - 1985 - W -h.ngton, Automotive News, various issues a/ 561 !'™ ;' P Fish ' and E Gillett - T »e European Car in 1990 Metal Bull. Monthly, Mar. 1984, pp. 61-65 Berry, B. Automotive Materials: Steel Holds Steady. Plastics Keeps Gaining. Phoenix Q„ v. 19, No. 1, Spring 1987 p 4 Branham Automobile Reference Book. Branham Publ Co banta Monica, CA, various issues Compton ,W„ and N. Gjostein. Materials for Ground Transpor- tation. Sci. Am., v. 255, No. 4, Oct. 1986, pp. 93-100 , C° ok * J - Th e Molting of America. Forbes, Nov. 22, 1982 pp 161- lo7. ^ Dean K. C, and J. W. Sterner. Dismantling a Typical Junk Automobile To Produce Scrap. BuMines RI 7350, 1969 17 po Dean, KG, J. W. Sterner, M. B. Shirts, and L. J Froisland. B^Tn^riS^X " ^'^ *-»* A »*™™<* Gjostein, N (Ford Motor Co.. Dearborn. MI). Private communi- R M n ' w °u 1986: 3Vailable Up ° n ret * Uest from J - W «nberg BuMines, Washington, DC. Gunnarson. S., R. Ericsson, and A. Steen. Automotive Materi- * ls - S /. c -'" Encyclopedia of Mater. Sci. and Eng. Pergamon, 19S6. pp. Z4t>— Zol. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hu P. Motor Vehicle MPG and the Market Shares Report The ™-963 X l.T9 n 85 h 74 0f pp 0del ^ ^ US ^ E "^ ° RXL International Iron and Steel Institute, Committee on Economic Studies. Steel and the Automotive Sector. Brussels. 1983 chs 5 and 6. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers" Association. Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures. Detroit. MI. various issues. — -. World Motor Vehicle Data. Detroit. MI. 1984-85 366 dd N.emczewski C. The Changing Materials Content of Automo- i ? S ; i" The Im P acts of Materials Substitution on the Rea- dability of Automobiles, ed. by R. Blelloch. ASME L984 do 11-3/. ' KP Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development World 7o«t ?/, Devel °P ments - 1960-83: A Statistical Analysis. Pans, iyoo, loi pp. Sterner. J. W. D. K. Steele, and M. B. Shirts. Hand Dismantling of Japanese Automobiles To Determine Material Contents and Metal Recoveries. BuMines RI 8855. 1984. 25 pp U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Manufacturers, various issues. Wards Communications. Wards Automotive Yearbook Detroit Ml. various issues. 11 APPENDIX.— ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 1. Net shipments of steel mill products to the automo- tive sector include scrap generated during production, steel used in spare parts, and accumulated inventories by motor vehicle producers. This report makes the following adjustments to steel shipments so that only steel actually contained in motor vehicles is considered. a. A factor for scrap is subtracted. The scrap factor is 0.333 for 1950-70; 0.333 • 0.996586 N for 1971-85 where N = number of years following 1970. The annual decline in scrap is the result of increasingly efficient operations from 1971 through 1985. b. A factor for spare parts is subtracted. The spare parts factor is 0.295. c. All inventories by motor vehicle producers are eventually sold and are, therefore, treated as equal to zero. d. The amount of steel going into motor vehicle ex- ports is subtracted. 2. Some steel mill shipments destined for use in motor vehicles go to service centers and distributors. This report assumes the percentage of shipments going to service cen- ters, but eventually destined for automotive use, is equal to the same percentage of total steel shipments going di- rectly to the automotive sector. 3. This report assumes that trucks use the same pro- portion of materials as cars. 4. This report assumes that all steel in imported vehi- cles is of foreign origin. 5. Passenger cars generally include station wagons, but exclude passenger vans. Passenger vans are included with trucks and buses. 6. Shipping weight is the weight of the vehicle exclud- ing fluids such as gas and oil, curb weight is the weight of the vehicle including fluids, and gross vehicle weight (GVW) is the weight of the vehicle including fluids plus the payload. 7. Data on curb weight of trucks were not available. GVW was adjusted downward based on manufacturers' estimates. The degree of error is unknown, but relatively small, since it affects the amount of steel in the average vehicle only marginally. 8. Weighted average curb weight of motor vehicle im- ports was estimated at 2,000 lb between 1950 and 1975 based upon available information. 9. Retail sales of domestic vehicles include imports from Canada. 12 CO co CD CNJ O CO 00 CO .,_ CO o C\J CO ■tf ^f co CO en en CO CM CM CD in CM CD •* CM CM CD CD T CM 3- O CM CD CM LO o O i- CO -*f CM T t CO CO ■* T- r- CO CO r~ lo «* rv O CO O CO co CO CO CO in ^r in co in CO LO *f CO CO ,_ ,_ O CO 00 h~ LO >* r- •S E c 9- u; ro o a> E .g ?. <2 o .2 "S c L r « a 6 ; o !n w i: ffl y ^ r " tS « CO CO > co W CO & B -j -i CD O CO o E en CD E E o CO CO o to to ( 1 CD CD i- CO cn o IS o 1— CO CD o T ~ o LO en CD t CO CO ^r (^ LO ^ CD in r- « r^ CD O it LO t^ CM CD l~- _ CD T 7 _ CO co „ CD f- ^ c£> _^ in CO CD c- T c r»- CO 3 CO ■= c/> fc TO to en S o = 5 o- SgE i) LJ — CO ■■- CO T~ •* CO CD CO o> ^ CM CM r«. CO r~ CO o> CO CO ,_ CO n- -3" CO h- CM CM CT> cn co m cm ,_ CM t^ rr co in CM T— 0) CD CO t CD 00 a> in CM ^t t- CO S! o o CO r- co t-~ <0£ 5 « CO CM i- O O t^ r^ moo CO o o to to 55 O ;= cq 0) < CO 0! 0) C co Q. CO I 2 •o " c "> e a CO p co en co co in co t- CO ■^ co o o o ■* LO CO CO ^5 CO CD ,- CO co •g- r~ h~ " rr CM t in CO co r-~ CM T ^t CM O CO o> - CO CM CO 00 ^3- °vg CO CO f-. CO in CO CO CJ> - CO CO CO r» co ,- in in o o ■t . CO CO CO CD CO •V o CO i- 00 CO CO CO * CO h- CM ^ r " ^ LO CM •^ CO CO in CM Tt o in cm CO CM CD CM CM CO CO CM >- 00 en O I-- CD t~- CM Kg CO 00 " " CM CO o> CM t- 00 en ,_ cn r»- 00 CM g° CO T- m co CM CO ^ to co co tn c\j 00 t- m y- co cn T_ *" CM 00 o o CO O CM en cm o P) "3- CO CM CM to to , 5 5 in Q 1 * S 2 ^ ro o & - O CO E£ f — O) CO 2§6 CO CO O) CD CM CO CO Tj- CO ^ O p3 oo CO O i- CO CD O CM 00 CD 00 CM CD CM CO 00 CO CM CD CO r^ cm co r~ O CO CD t- m tj- •- CM m cm CO CD CD TT to to O CO cm -*r cm' co tr in o CO CO CO CO cm" CD CO LO CM CM T cm" co in m t- ^- in cm" in t^ o CM »- in < < < < 2 2 2 Z CD O t- CD cm m »- ■» in r- < < < < 2 2 Z 2 < < < < 2 -Z. 2 2 < < < < 2 2 2 2 < < < < Z Z Z 2 CD CM O CO y- m T o in r- < < < < 2 2 2 Z < < < < 2 2 2 2 < < < < 2 2 2 Z < < < < 2 2 2 Z CO CO CO CO *- in co co in t < < < < z z z z < < < < z z z z < < < - m in o> fc co t-' d oo "i 00 CM CO r- i- t-(\| ^r- t- in co •- oo fc CO IN CD CO l i 00 r- CM CM 1- t- CM i- i- OlNOtO CO CM CO "- m oo in o CD 00 CM CO 'fr in cm co o oo co r^ •- co -^r oo co CD T CO CO s to tt ob CM CM *- to Mnco s co h- in *- oo g r-. ^ i^. (D - •- >- oo CM "T CM y- co -c in tj CO Ol N N •^ t; ^: c° *- O O CO o o o o 0) CO CD HE { "5 o o to Q u- 55 | jSc ~ Es w ' *- r- ^ coi? = §2 £: a. < ± O co E .£ to Z -o O £ "S CD to tr 13 o co C\J ,_ r~- CO in cm co CO t CO *~ T— co o * m in CO CM CO CO -3- CO T ~ T— co o CO co m * CD CM T— CO CM CM t-- CO r-- CD r- CO CM LO ^r CO *~ ■" y- CO m CO CO r~ CM CM ^r ^f CO T— r ~ CD ■* o in o o CO CO CM CM CD in *~ CO CO o ^r f~ CD i- CO CM LO CM r- en m co ,_ T 00 CO y- CO CM LO CM 1^- in t CO CO co t-- a> y- CO CM CM s LO CM O CM ^r CM CO U"> CO CO LO t *~ *" cn o CD CO CO cd 00 ■* CM CM CD in CM C- cd CM in rv CO ■* CM CM CO CD cm s- CD CO ,_ m CO CO CM CD m CO CO s- ,_ a> ^r h- co o CM CD ■<* LO 00 CO r - ,_ t ■^ CM l«- u-> ^r r ~ 1 ~ CO -d- r- •cr ,_ ^f 00 CO CM CD m CO t CO r- CO ■* en co CM CM CO in 2 xz £ £ 2 E a) e a -?. _ "O cd t: — 'E CD E = o Q.'= CD Sfu CO CD > «2« CD CO CO co CO CO CO (O CO U) CD CD CD co E T- CD CM CO *~ T ,_ r- CO *~ in en en CM CD ID h- CM o CO CO CM CD CD CO CM rt CO T— CM T ~ ,_ CO CO CM *" m «* CM CM *"" CD r» T- T— '" co CO cd ^ o CO o y- T— CD o CM CM *"* CO CO T— T— '~ r~- CD o ,— ,— en CO CO T ~ ■>* CM o t— *~ ^r ^ o ,— r ~ i- t- CO = -s CD 9; co 2 O CO 10 — co a> °= ra b co co O £1, CD tT TO (D CO - E CD LJ — rr O CO £* CM £ " <° ■ .- ,- . CO sz O) CD 5 2 CD .2 o II ■tf CM 00 ^r r- cri nt-o CO CD CO sno in ^ -"j- CM I- rf y- CO CO S- CO CO CM CO CO'" 5 j; «t CO CO CD CO CO r- - in CO y- CD CO CO CM CM m in CO CO in CM O O CO CO o en o in in t CDS CO r^ in in co CO CM r- O h- o So - CD CO o> CD CM ,_ CO o CO in CO CO CM -- o 1- ■* O CO CO ^r o CO o ■* CO CO ■* CD CM in CM O CD i- CO St CD cd —: L' CD CO 00 o ,_ ,_ CO CM CM in CD CO CM CD CD CO CO CM ^r t CD CD en oo r^ TZ CO co CO T- CO CO o m co i^ ■* cd P CM ^ in lo m 1 m co co ■- co CM t- CO cm in >- CO CO CD O 00 CM CO CM -r-' 5 CD 2 ]• co s b t- CO ■>J- CM CM r-' CO CO q o o t- CO CO CO CD ™ 5 ■ 2 2 _ CO o ™CD O 5 o £ o > "> 111 >- O CD iof — CD CD S cd£ o co CM r- CD CD O CO O CD in cm CD CD 1^ CD cm in LO O CD CD O CO CD CO ■- CO CM -V CO CD CM t- it LO CD r^ ■<)• CM r- CO CO CD cm t- m- m cn oo -^ r^ CD CO 1^ 00 t- t- -a- in CM CD 00 LO onios cm t- ■* in co co co in CD CM CD in t- i- t* m N O) S O CD CM 1^ in y- t- ■* in CD r- O LO 00 CM t- t- t- t- m co in f co in 00 t- CM CO i- y- in CD Tf CO I s - CD N CD LO CO y- in CD \f 00 CO i- CO 00 CO 00 t- LO CO CO O O t- inco co s >- m cd < < < < z z z z CD CM CD r^ CD CO -23 o£ ■c a. < - O CD E O E JS Z. H CQ g.S cd cr o ° ac ll. o. 2 ra 2 CD CO 55 g 1 CD CD Is O CD r e Q. Q. CD SZ o „ CD CO 2 S o o CD a, CO CO ° c X) CD > a X) CD .g E XI a. cn .i "" CD CD "^ o *-" o ro 2 if !■ 5 co eg o co 1 i CD o " CO « ® s CO = »- CD o > % E z o .2 o to cd -; Z .9 | CO CD 2 o co E c5o2 o.s i z OT - CD E 2 If! ? a. cd v\E 2 m co co m , fX o co E £ => CD c S 5 .8 — TJ CO ii 2"° Z g.3 £ c5 S c- = € o« > = CD LO O >- 00 ^ CD I XI CO i- O 3 CD "• O y- CD CD ^ ""° Sr c z CD .2 !S > o So^ S°2 CD t q. ° .2 o X « to CD CD co E E ' m o D CO m . -D -D C CD CO CD^ CO CD O ™ <0 SCO I CD JD S £ CD To ASS _ CD ^ "in S ^ CD OC 0- CM en S.S -cr™ _o O CO CO ® CD co a c° • ^S CD O CD -t- E 9> o o Q.O E *" — c CO CO CD SZ "O — 3 CO 14 l~ o O < £ 5 — j* in c5* co — in 1° c « ,„ "" £ m ™ ,a ~ CD ra t 10 >■ CO -. — in °2 „ o | «» U1 -n t- - 1 1J r fc co a. j= o O p CD O a. 3 2 < < < < Szz zz o < < < < co Z Z Z Z 2 < < < < 2 < < < < 2z z zz 2 < < < < ezzzz o < < < < 2 z zzz f~ < < < < '-'-(oinifl ffiZZZZ "^ co co to ?- o mm s w mmstooi id id id iocd m in i/i >n in o<<<< o < < < < o<<<< o<<<< r-- o .- o eg to co cm co *- co Z Z Z Z coZZZZ ^ Z Z Z Z a> Z Z Z Z r-' n oo co r^ lor^aicdoo 2 < < < < 2zz z z g<<<< — <<<< -£ z z z z ,-zzzzz 2 < < < < 2 < < < < 2 < < < < 10 z z z z ^r < < < < o < < < < m < < < < 6 z z z z 2 < < < < 10 z z z z ■tf < < < < ^ z z z z O < < < < "" z z z z in < < < < z z z z in < < < < ■» z z z z 2 < < < < •o- < < < < - z z z z O < < < < *- z z z z in < < < < z z z z 2 < < < < 2<<<< 2<<<< CO CO CO CO CO (v CO i- i- *tf t- id ai -- id i — i — i — r-~ i — oo - to o o in tj- rv rv o to to ^ < < < < oo r- it o t cm r- iv to i- n m in m to oo < -c < < ■sr z z z z 9 < < < < 10 z z z z T < < < < .- z z z z O < < < < ^ z z z z CO < < < < z z z z 2 < < < < 2z z z z m < < < < fjZZZZ »- eft co CD ^ snwito in to co to r^ 92 < < < < ""Cz z z z o < < < < in Z Z Z Z 2 < < < < <° z z z z IV < < < < ^ z z z z O 00 r- 00 O s eo eo ■» f i- ootointN"- r» to to r- co co ininminin T tt t t *r t cocdn-coco ^t to co oo co io'»»»» «r *r ■*)• t '^r ■- o to •- v eg eg eg co co O) O CO CO CM m ■<* *T TT *T eg to eg o to Ol O) O 0> «- — — Cvj •- CM COCOCOCOCO COCOCOCOCO cococococo cococococo co co s ^ to cm co co *r it co co CO CO CO CO CO -OIOOO fltr v' m m r*- o cm i- in o o r- o co co co cm cm — CM* CM CM* CM* Ci 2 ■- '-t eg to in to to to to to O Ol CO »- (D tD S O f 0") CO N CO CO eo<" o w II 3 £ to _ •o 2 CD O c - cotootoco nontjn _- ■ JC — ■ - 5 IB C. ■ - ■ JO jt - 3 3 II ■ U c SH n \T \T N ID tD cm o o eg co too O) S tt m cocos N CO to iT i- ^~ ■- co i co d w vt o> men Olftl ID NO Ni-COOlO tn t co o o s to %t m to *- N- eg r^ r*~ to N Old "- co eg r~- co co in ih tt in in o co to CO CO oS it co to ^ n co cn o in ■- CO <- r«- en to N. ^- in oo to to to s IT CD rv m CO iT O COS-- •- o to CO in X CO >* T ^r ^r T *r f ^- ^r *r tr tt ■»■ •C IT •<* •"T ^r *T u0 in in tt IT T T o o o o o Q o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 00 T cg n. o o o CM CO vT CO oo tr in CO CO OT •- eg eg CO CO in X CO X c T egcgcgegeu cgegegcgeg egCMcgegeg CMCMcgegeg CMegegegeg egcgcgegeg egegegegcg eg CO = CD £ CD S? x: _ S 2 II 3 a co co r- co r- co -^ f^- -^t eg m m to vo co Tf m N W 00 n CM CJ N s co co co co m o co cm co -<-r ai cn -^ -^r *- co ^ ^ -^r cn CMCO S O f CO CO Tf CO N- ->r m m to co T CO CM O CO (D CO S ^t CO co -^ m co s COCOCOCOCO COCOCOCOCO COCOCOCOCO COCOCOCOCO COCOCOCOCO co m cm cn -^r O) a in m cm co n- r^- ^j- co CO CO CO CO CO CO *- 0> F*-. TT oo) ^ con o co co cn co co" cm" cm" cm cm" o co o ,„ — CO X « — V ® 05 v ° x s o o C « w . + U- m to" X 5 »o S (MjOO; CJ> ^ C co - SmO c\. > '" - ■ I » : o o 5 ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: : 2 °° o-r-egco^r mto s co O) o*-egco^r mto s coo) o*-cgco*r mtoN co oi O'-cgco^- in. a at a> 0)0)0)O)cd ooooco oo)0)0)0) 00)0)0)0) o 3 15 CO o o a- to Z> 2 ri r E o "~j o Cl_ X CD \- ro CD > i2 c ^ 2 £ Ee«2£ 2 Q. CO — O. 3 £ (0 O £ < CO CO zz CO CO co" b o ■D c () fli O CD E CO Q. CD CD fc C7> O a) t> c CD CD CO ^t nn ntn ocomnco r- cd m -" M-" cd" od co" LO CO O) CO LO cm ■ oo y- cd oo ■«• in co co co o f- t cm m •v" oo" o" t-" co" Ot-c\ CM W CM CD CM t- S- cd" co" r-" in* co" CM CM CM CM CO S00*0) CD O t CO 0_ co" cm" o" co" ■*)•" in »- o i-- cm CM -r- y- 00 i- coio s r- Ol CM l-~ h- 00 CO LOcDOJS'- cm' co' i-" r-." o" CM in CO CD CM CO CM CM CM CO CD 00 i- CO o t- co t- r- co r- CD CO (^ OO m" cm" i--" oo" hT o m cd o o cd co t- t- co t^." co" oo" cn" cd" r- cd S- cd co t- t- r- cd co CO CD O C5 CO cm" o" co" ■<*" cm" o co in co co CM i- CM ■* in T cd in cd cm CM CM CD CM O MO "- ID CO r»" cd" co" cm" t--" CD in CD CM CO t- CM CO ->3* "t OCOcOOt- co cd co *~~ y~ CO CM r-- *ct CD r-" cd" co o" in CO CD CM CM O y- CO O CO CM ncoNooi OCO N ffl >- co in o i*. m cm" y- y- y- y- oan- sco COS0OXD CO CO rf 00 s- CD CO CD M" CD in *i- t*-_ cd oo_ co" co" o" co" oo" CM CO CM y- m co co co t- in NCDOIMM t-~ in CM CM CD co r-- o ■* it o" co" o" r»" cd" in o cm ^t cd cd co t- cm in CO CD ■* S CM O y- CO h- CD T-_ O CO CO_ ■* co" cm" co" 't m" OcM*it4 NtOO) CO S S- CM CD O CM CM y- in CM CD CM h-_ CO CO CO in" t" cm" co" t " CO O y- TT CM CO CD t CO CM co in ■* co in r- in co ■i" o" a>" t" r~" CD CO CD in 1 oo co co o o CO CO CM CM CO y- CD 00 O CD in m r-- cm cd CD* S* CM CD* CD" CO CD O CD S O) ^J" N CO ^t CO* y- C*i CM »-" CM CO oo r- y- CD O CM CD CO in r--_ y~_ in co cd" cd" cd" cm" co" CD CD 00 CM 1- CM CD_ ■* r- O CM* CM* 00* CO* CO" t- co - T~ »- T- CM co co CD > CM O CM CO CO CD ID t- CD CM CM CD CO 00 N. CM* 00* CO* ■■-" CM* co cm o in in CM CD O t- r- >- CMCO CDS CO CO N to CD CO y-_ i- CM_ CM_ CD* r-" ^l" CD" O* CD 'f CM O CD co in oo co co M- CM CM CD O cm co •<}■ in r~- p- ■<}• CO 00 ^f CD CD 00 CO CD in CD CM S- CD CO CO CO CO CD tcosns ^f CD r~- CO CD "} -- lO ^ o_ r~" 1-" ■*" t" t-~" i-BJI'-S S- CM CO CD CO CD 00 CO CO 00 m !" h-" •*" co" SXCDON co t- in r- t-_ h~" co" co" cm" co' t- t- y- CM CM r- t- r- CD CD CM 00 CO O CM oo m cm s t-_ co" co" t-~" ■*" cm" in ■* ■* co co CD_ ■*_ r-_ CD_ CM CD* CD* ■■-" P-" O S- 00 CD CD O O CO cm m CD 00 t NOOCM CM -^ O CD CD o" O i-" h-" t" CM CO y- yf CD y- y? CO CO CO in co ■'t oo co y- CO CM CM 1 CO i- O CO CM cm" m" co" co" cd" CM y- -t CO •* CD CO CO CO CM CD CO CO y- CM O CO CD CD ■* m y-_ yf O CO in" co" oo" cm" co" MOSCOS co cm_ o s- r~ co" co" m" cd" r~" CO CM CD CO S Tf t- O CM •* ^ coin co n 00 y- CM r~ CD S CO O CM CM in y- co in in cm" •*" t-~" co" cd" in i- cd co co COOIOIOS CO S- CM CM CO in o oo o i- CM |-~ CD_ CO CD CD" CO* T-" co" CM* in cm r- in cd IOCM CM lOrt CO CO N ^f CO CO y- CM h- y- CO CO O 00 CM cm" co" r-" cd" t" NcOCOOcO 1-coosn CO f in MO CO S CO CD CO SCON lOO) OMO tm OIOO) SCO OOOOCDCOr- S C0_ h~ S -c\ t- CM ■* CO "t CO CO cm ■* co -a- oo ■* e» t- o co o" oo" *-" cd" r--" y- CD 00 CO CO coin i- eon r» CM y- CO CD y- y~ CM |-~ O co n oo n t cm" ->i" r~" cd" co" CM CO 00 CD S- t- CD ■* CM CM 'tCMOt*- 001-TJ-O-* ^-CMincOOO OMOOICO smin cms o cd in «J- co cm_ oo r~- in cm in" cm" co" co" oo" t-~ CO i- y- CM TT ■* CM CM CD t s co n co CM CM t- 00 O 00 O S CD CO CM O y-_ CO CD t" T-" o* co" o" y- m CD in CM CM CO "* CM CD CD CO CO y- 00 00 O CD in CD CD CO CO 00 CO co" co" oo" o" cm" cm in CO CM CO ■r- T-_ CM CO CO cm" co" cd" cm" cm" Ot-CM CO t lOCOMO Ol mminmin in in in in in CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD O r- CM CO t CO CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD in CD S 00 CD CO CO CO CD CO CD CD CD CD CD O y- CM CO -t r~ s- s- s s- CD CD CD CD CD lOCOMOOl s- s s- s- r«- CD CD CD CD CD O t- CM CO it CO 00 00 00 CO CD CD CD CD CD m cn I M- CD CO 2 CD CO 01 c ffl aj O CD CD tn T3 c CO SI CD > n () r •> CO ■n %* 3 o O co C/3 cn li.S.GOVERNr-EMT PRINTING OFFICE 1988/207-618/80079/ - '^o< *bv^ o* C^N** C u ♦ "bv* ^T. * .o v ^ *° • » * A 1 ^ % * - * -y <> *'7VV* ,0 ► v \ : . >9' * • • • • • « ° aP ,0* t .^..*o hi** . 6 ••; . '••• ^ . * • ^ ** . , i • ^ *&K ^ r . . % w ,0 ^ * . , , • y O. * «, „ o ' .0 %/ :*£fe\\/ .•^^: \/ .-ate; X/ A c o " o „ "^ ■ ■ mMm SrtKB ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I I < V , I ■ ■ ■ . i . m u H V V "•**,<> / : . ;,-w