P.1 

OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

18) ll-C-15 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:42 PM Sheet 18 of 79 
P.2 

I SffiZ. 3 UNITED STATES ENVIRON MENTAL 'PROTECTION AGENCY y"^?^rf^ 

. S., .,. /

 ,.*.A5H!\"CS. DC :.-?: I / / 

«• SQC'"- ' 

JUL ?.1 ,98 T 

> E ADMINISTRATOR 

Honorable John D. Dingell 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This is in response to your June 23, 1987 letter, 

regarding the safety implications of onboard controls, the 

coordination between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

on regulations affecting the motor vehicle industry, and 

Colorado's mandate for oxygenated fuel. 

Your, first concern related to the safety implications of 

onboard control systems. As you mentioned, NHTSA has expressed 

concern "that there will be some unquantifiable, increased 

risks of crash and non-crash fire associated with onboard 

controls." In our technical report entitled, "Safety 

Implications of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Systems," EPA 

thoroughly analyzed the potential for these risks and assessed 

potential impacts an onboard system could have on the overall 

safety of a vehicle's fuel system. The analysis concludes that 

straightforward, reliable engineering solutions exist for each 

of the potential problems identified. In fact, NHTSA agrees 

with this conclusion, stating in their letter that "We do not 

think that technological breakthroughs, are necessary to 

minimize the risks of increased fires,' ...". Thus,, no increase 

in risk need occur or be accepted because of the presence of an 

onboard system.. Further, if the vehicle manufacturer desires, 

the overall fuel system safety for in-use vehicles could 

improve with the implementation of onboard controls. EPA would 

not adopt an onboard requirement unless such systems could be 

implemented safely by manufacturers. We believe that this can 

be accomplished and safe fuel system designs are achievable for 

all vehicles. 
P.3 

-2-

The NHTSA letter also make the point that adequate 

leadtime is.a key ingredient in assuring the development of 

safe fuel system designs with onboard controls. EPA and NHTSA 

staff agree on this point, and EPA is committed to providing 

manufacturers the leadtime necessary to implement onboard 

controls safely and effectively. However, the determination of 

how much leadtime is actually needed to meet this objective 

should be handled with full public participation as part of a 

proposed rule. EPA is willing to provide additional leadtime 

and/or a short phase-in period for onboard controls, especially 

if these would clearly aid in solving safety concerns. 

As part of our consultation process with DOT regarding the 

safety implications of onboard controls, EPA requested both 

NHTSA and the Office of Motor Carrier Safety to review the 

aforementioned technical report. Prior to receiving NHTSA's 

June 11, 1987 letter, EPA had already received a number of 

staff level comments and suggestions on the report, most of 

which DOT subsequently attached to their letter. We were 

already in the process of incorporating NHTSA's comments into 

the final version of technical report when your letter 

arrived. In response to your request to address NHTSA's 

detailed comments, we have enclosed a copy of the final version 

of the safety report. A copy of this report has also been 

placed in the public docket. All of DOT's comments relative to 

onboard safety have been addressed in the enclosed final 

version of our safety analysis. 

Your second concern related to coordination between EPA 

and NHTSA on the safety and environmental impacts of actions 

affecting the auto industry. EPA and NHTSA do coordinate, 

whenever necessary, to assure that regulations issued and 

actions taken by the two agencies will not create safety, 

emission or fuel economy problems. When EPA becomes aware of 

any such issues in their rulemaking proposals or actions which 

could impact the safety of motor vehicles, we initiate 

discussions with NHTSA on these issues. Furthermore, NHTSA has 

the opportunity to comment on any of our rulemaking proposals 

during a public comment period if they have a safety concern. 

Also, if other agencies or interested parties raise any genuine 

safety concerns on a proposed rulemaking, EPA will coordinate 

with NHTSA to evaluate these concerns. Safety is an important 

concern to EPA in our rulemakings. We would not implement any 

motor vehicle emission standard if it would degrade motor 

vehicle safety. 
P.4 

/ " 

-3-

As you know, EPA has coordinated extensively with NHTSA 

concerning the safety implications of onboard refueling 

controls. Over a year ago, EPA presented an initial briefing 

to NHTSA regarding onboard controls. Since this briefing, 

there have been numerous onboard-related meetings, telephone 

conversations and exchanges of analyses between the two 

agencies at both the staff and senior management levels. NHTSA 

has reviewed all key portions of EPA's onboard refueling 

package. Furthermore, as part of our coordination EPA prepared 

the enclosed technical report which identifies and assesses the 

safety implications of onboard systems. As I previously 

mentioned, NHTSA has reviewed and commented on this safety 

analysis, and their concerns have been addressed in the final 

report. 

The final concern in your letter was with respect to 

Colorado's mandate for oxygenated fuels. The requested copy of 

EPA's response to Mr. Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety is 

enclosed. A draft memo from the EPA Office of General Counsel 

discussing the preemption issue for Section 211(c) is enclosed 

for your information. However, this draft memo does not 

address the case of state control for a fuel parameter not 

already regulated by EPA; instead, it addresses when preemption 

can be waived once EPA does regulate a fuel parameter. EPA has 

not and presently has no definite plan for formally consulting 

with NHTSA on the specific issue of Colorado's oxygenated fuel 

program and its possible effect on vehicle safety. An EPA 

staff member did contact a NHTSA official by telephone after 

receipt of Mr. Ditlow's letter to learn more about the cases 

referred to by Mr. Ditlow. EPA has held broader and more 

formal consultations with NHTSA about fuel systems-related 

safety as part of the deliberations on refueling emission 

controls. 

I hope this letter and its enclosures respond to the 

concerns addressed in your June 23 letter. As you requested, I 

have provided a copy of this response to the General Accounting 

Office. 

Sincerely, 

(Original signed by L. M. Thomas) 

Lee M. Thomas 

Enclosures 

cc: Honorable Charles A. Bowsher 

Comptroller General 

General Accounting Office