P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 164 ) IV-C-13 1
Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:00 AM Sheet 164 of 232P. 2 

## JZ-C-/3 /

J.* 10 S,1 >-4
. I SSI ' UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y \S /? WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 20460 •"•Pfl0*t 0 AU G 1 9 198 8

T H E ADMINISTRATO R Honorabl e Joh

n D
. Dingel l Chairman , Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an

d Investigation s Committe e o n Energ

yan d Commerc e Hous e o f Representative s Washington , DC 2051 5

Dea r Mr
. Chairman : I a mwriting in r3Spons e t o you r lette r o f Jun e 13 , 198 8 i n whic h yo u as k a numbe r o f question s pertaining t o coordinatio n betwee n EPAan d th e Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA ) o n a numbe r o f differen t moto r vehicle-relate d issues

. T o facilitat e ou r respons e t o you r concerns , thes e question s hav e bee n groupe d int o four genera l categories : (a ) issue s relate d t o th e memorandu m o f understanding (MOU ) betwee n EPAan d NHTSA ; (b ) guestion s relate d t o an EPAcontrac t work assignmen t fo r a comparativ e ris k assessmen t o f evaporativ e an d refueling emissio n contro l components ; (c ) guestion s relate d t o EPA' s Jun e 30 , 198 8 Publi c Worksho p o n refueling an d evaporativ e emissio n tes t procedures ; an d (d ) NHTS Acomment s t o EPAregarding the safet yo f onboar d refueling contro l containe d i n a lette r date d Apri l 12 , 198 8 fro mMr
. Georg e L
. Parke r o f NHTSA
. Response s t o you r guestion s in the firs t thre e area s ar e enclosed ; response s t o guestion s i n the fina l are a wil l be forthcoming upo n completio n o f the safet yanalyse s require d fo r th e onboar d reproposal , sinc e the issue s raise d in Mr
. Parker' s comment s an d in you r question s ar e relate d t o thes e analyses
. Than k yo u fo r you r continuing interes t in thes e matters
. 

### Sincerely ,
Ce ® » . Thoaa
. Le e M

. Thoma s Enclosure s ,.,. > ^o ^ re** *

c c : Th e Honorabl e Charle s A

. Bowsne r ,^\ , ?4 0 V Comptrolle r Genera l Genera l Accountin g Offic e T h e Honorabl e Dian e K
. Stee d •/;•• ' Administrato r Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n 

### A •>P. 3

-2

-
(a ) Issue s Relate d t o th e MO U
EPA' s Comments : W e hav e previousl ysen t yo u a cop yo f th e MOU , whic h ha s bee n signe d b yMs
. Stee d and myself
. Th e MO U i s no w i n effect
. Th e MO U wa s publishe d i n th e Federa l Registe r o n Jul y29 , 1988
. Also , i n accordanc e wit h th e MOU , representative s o f NHTS Aan d EP Ame t o n Jul y1 5 fo r th e firs t guarterl ymeeting

. I hav e bee n tol d th e meetin g wa s productiv e an d discusse d th e statu s o f variou s NHTS Aan d EP Arulemaking s a s wel l a s othe r progra missues , suc h a s th e us e o f Stoddar d solven t i n NHTS Avehicl e cras h test s and EPA' s activit yi n th e are a o f asbesto s control
. (b ) Question s Pertainin g t o EPA' s Comparativ e Ris k Assessmen t Wor k Assignmen t 1
. I s ther e ful l accor d betwee n EP Aand NHTS Aregardin g th e wor k assignment ?
EP Ainitiate d th e wor k assignmen t a t th e suggestio n o f NHTS Aand othe r safet yorganization s (notabl yIIH S an d NTSB) , and th e Agency' s interactio n wit h NHTS Aand NHTSA' s revie w o f th e wor k assignmen t ar e full ydocumente d i n th e publi c docket
. Initially , EP Asen t a draf t cop yo f th e statemen t o f wor k (SOW ) t o NHTS Ai n Decembe r o f 1987 , reguestin g thei r revie w an d comments
. NHTS Aprovide d thei r comment s i n February , 1988
. Thei r respons e consiste d largel yo f mino r editoria l comment s and technica l clarifications , an d thes e wer e addresse d i n th e fina l versio n o f th e SOW
. However , NHTS Aadde d tha t thei r comment s "shoul d no t b e construe d a s a n agreemen t tha t th e produc t o f th e studywil l satisfactoril ydefin e th e risk s associate d wit h th e systems. " EP Aacknowledge s an d understand s NHTSA' s concer n tha t th e stud ywil l no t represen t th e entir e answe r t o th e comple x safet yissue ; i t wa s neve r intende d t o b e use d a s such
. Nevertheless , th e comparativ e ris k assessmen t i s a valuabl e technica l too l whic h use s a standar d industr ypractice , failur e mod e effect s analysi s (FWEA) , fo r assessin g risk

. FME Aha s achieve d widesprea d acceptanc e becaus e i t provide s usefu l results , and asid e fro mth e abov e reservatio n regardin g th e limitation s o f th e stud ya s a whole , NHTS Aappear s t o concu r tha t th e approac h specifie d i n th e SO W i s technicall ycorrec t and tha t th e produc t o f th e wor k assignmen t wil l b e useful
.P. 4



### -3 -
2 . Wha t i s the , timing , purpos e an d relevanc e of th e comparativ

e risk assessmen t a s relate d t o th

e step s outline d i nth e NPR M fo r analyzin

g an d resolvin

g th e safet y issue s fo

r al l vehicle s (includin g leadtim

e issues) ? Th e comparativ

e risk assessment involve s a failure mode s an

d effect s analysi s (FMEA ) fo r te ndifferen t fue l syste m configurations . Thes e includ e tw o bas e cas e system s representin

g th e tw o mos t commo

ncurrent fuel/evaporativ

e syste

m approaches , fou

r differen t minor modification s o

f th e bas e system

s to represent variation s o nthes e system

s no w see ni nth e field , an

d fou r differen t onboar d syste

m configurations . FME A i s a rigorou s analytica l techniqu e whic

hemploys standar d industr

y practic e fo

r assessin

g risk . Th

e result s of th e comparativ

e risk assessment are expecte d to better define th e relativ

e risk s of variou s fue l syste m desig

n parameters . EP

A expect s th

e comparativ

e risk assessmen t to b e complete

d i ntim e to b e fully

considered i

nth e deliberation s regardin g a fina l refuelin g contro l decision . Th

e comparativ

e risk assessmen t i nn o wa y consider s o

r addresse s leadtim e factors . (c ) Question s Pertainin g t o EPA' s Evaporativ e an d Refuelin

g Tes t Procedur e Worksho p 1 . Wha t wa s NHTSA' s rol e an d participatio

ni nth e workshop ? Th e worksho

p wa s held o

nJun e 30 , 198 8 t

o discus s onboar d an d evaporativ

e tes t procedur e issues . Althoug h th e worksho

p wa s not directe d towar

d issue s involvin g vehicl e safety , NHTSA wa s specificall y

invite

d t o attend , an d a representativ

e fro m NHTSA wa s amon

g th e mor e tha

n 15 0 attendees . A

video tap

e of th

e worksho

p proceeding s ha s bee

nsen t t o th e Publi c Docke t an d th e EP A worksho

p handout s are enclose d i nthi s response . 2 . Wh y i s EPA' s propose d tes t procedur e inadequat e fo r non- integrate

d systems ? I n it s proposal , EP Aindicate d it s expectatio n tha t refuelin

g contro l systemdesign s use d b ymanufacturer s woul d be integrate d wit h curren t evaporativ e contro l function s an

d us e a singl e caniste r syste mt o collec t bot h evaporative , an

d refueling losses
. Th e alternativ e t o suc h integrate d system s woul d be non-integrate d systems , whic h ad d refueling contro l hardwar e a s a largel yo r completel y separat e systemfro mth e curren t evaporativ e controls
.P. 5

-4 -

Becaus e o f advantage s suc ha s simplicit

y an d lowe r overal l cost , EP

A believe

d integrate

d system

s woul d b

e th e preferre

d approach , an

d focuse

d mos t of it s effort s fo r tes t procedur e developmen t o nsuc hsystems . I

n particular , th

e Agenc

y believe

d tha t integrate

d system

s ha d th e potentia l t o dea l wit hman y o f th

e exces s evaporativ

e emissio

nproblem

s whic hlimi t th

e in-us e effectivenes s of current evaporativ e controls . Therefore , althoug hsom e tes t procedur e change s were proposed t o dea l withimprovin

g th e performanc e of curren t evaporativ e control s i

nth e absenc e of refuelin g control , EP

A wa s relyin g mos t directl y

o nintegrate

d onboar

d syste m design s t o als o addres s exces s evaporativ e emissions . Contrar y to EPA' s expectations , mos t manufacturer s commentin

g o nth e proposa l indicate d tha t the

y expecte

d to us e non-integrate

d onboar

d systems . A

dominan t reaso

nfo r thi s choic e wa s th e propose

d refuelin

g tes t procedure , whichmanufacturer s believe d favore

d non-integrated ove r integrate

d system

s du e primaril y

to purg e requirements . I nanalyzin

g thes e comments , th e Agency

concluded tha t there wa s a nee d to reexamin

e th e propose

d tes t procedure s fo

r non-integrate

d refuelin

g controls , a s wel l a s th e tes t procedur e change s anticipate d fo r conventiona l evaporativ

e system

s i nth e absenc e o

f refuelin

g controls . As indicate

d i nbot hth e onboar

d an d fue l volatility contro l proposals , EP A believe s tha t insurin g th e contro l of exces s evaporativ e emission s i s a

nimportant aspec t of thes e tw

o actions . Thus , if non-integrate d system

s are goin g t o b e used , EP

A desire s to adjus t it s proposed tes t procedure s t

o insure tha t thes e system s hav e th e capacit y to contro l exces s evaporativ e emission s t o a simila r degre e a s woul d integrate d systems . 3 . Wh ydid EP

A propos e a tes t procedur e that woul d i neffec t forc e on

e desig no n th e foreign an d domesti c manufacturers ?
I t wa s an

d i s no t EPA' s inten t t o forc e an y particular syste

m desig n o n the manufacturers
. EPA' s desir e wa s t o insur e tha t essentiall yan ydesig n selecte d b ythe manufacturer s woul d provid e comparabl e in-us e contro l performance
. I n suggesting a n alternativ e tes t procedure , EP

Aw-a s attempting t o addres s the issu e o f in-us e contro l o f th e exces s evaporativ e emission s fro m non-integrate d system s describe d above
. Manufacturer s remai n fre e t o choos e a non-integrate d contro l system , i f i t ha s sufficien t capacit yi n th e evaporativ e portio n o f th e systemt o captur e thes e exces s evaporativ e emissions

.

### -5 -

EP A believes , however , tha t fo r reason s of cos t an d desig n simplicity , integrate d system

s wil l mos t likely b e preferred . Th

e suggeste

d tes t procedur e revision s presente

d a t th e worksho

p woul d assure tha t either syste m ha s similar capacity t o contro l exces s evaporativ e emissions . 4 . Wh y di d EP

A assum e tha t manufacturer s woul d choos e a n integrate

d syste

m fo r al l vehicl e line s covere d b y th e proposa l (since i t i s a performanc e standar d tha t wa s proposed) ? EP A assume

d mos t manufacturer s woul d choos e integrate

d system

s becaus e suc

hsystem

s woul d i

ngenera l b e th e simples t to engineer , an d b e les s costl y

i nterm s o f engineering/testin g resources , hardware requirement s an d packaging . I t wa s only after a revie

w of th e comment s o nth e NPR M tha t th

e Agenc y determine

d that manufacturer s were indicatin

g a preferenc e fo r non-integrate

d systems , i npar t becaus e th

e propose

d tes t procedur e appeare d t o b e les s difficul t fo r non-integrated , a s compare d t o integrated , designs . As a result , EP A develope

d th e tes t procedur e change s presente d a t th e worksho

p to ensur e tha t non-integrate

d system s woul d provide eguivalen t in-us e contro l of exces s evaporativ e emissions . 5 . Wil l th

e worksho

p cover bothoi l an d moto r vehicl e industr yissue s simultaneously ? Th e mai n focu s o f th e worksho

p wa s o n tes t procedur e issues , whic h ar e primaril yo f interes t t o motor vehicl e manufacturers
. Althoug h i t wa s expecte d tha t th e oi l industr y woul d hav

e somewha t les s interes t in suc h issues , attendanc e b

ypetroleu

m industr

yrepresentative s wa s substantial

. Ther e wa s som e discussio

nof th

e effec t of volatility

level s o n emissions , whic h i s o f interes t t o the oi l industr

y a s wel l a s t o th e automotiv e industry , bu t i n genera l oi l compan yissue s wer e no t centra l t o th e primarypurpos e of the workshop
. 6
. Wil l tn e worksho p examin e safet yan d certificatio n issue s regarding volatilit ylevel s (includin g th e effect s o f ethano l o n volatility) ? Although ther e wa s som e discussio n o f the effec t o f volatilit ylevel s o n emissions , whic h i s a certificatio n issue , the purpos e o f the worksho p wa s t o discus s tes t procedures
. Certificatio n an d safet yissue s specifi c t oP. 7



### 7 . •6 -

_t *ra, h*»in

a addresse

d i nth e fu e i volatility u ? ontro 1 » r . e cknoVledqe 8 th ^ in-us e RV P volatilit

y rulemaking . ^P

A acknowledge s « ^ Rv p level s impac t onboar d Resigns . However , ^ ^ ^ level s i s not a nissu

e sp e c i ide d upo na s a rulemaking . ^*TM.*TMl"ll nq '"ill apply to vehicle s resul t o

f th e volatilit

y rulemakin

g wi n <*vvi withonboar

d controls . -co m a timin

g standpoint , ho

w doe s th

e ^^P" 1 ^.*^ ? th e step s outline

d i nth e NPR M fo r resolvin

g safet y issues ? i f EP A propose s change s t o th e propose

d tes t

onboar d safet

y reproposal . Thus , i t i s ad d an y dela y t o th e rulemakin

g schedule .