P. 1



# OAR Box 1818 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 18 ) ll-C-1 5
Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:42 PM

Sheet 18 of 79P. 2

I SffiZ

. 3 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRO N MENTA L 'PROTECTIO N AGENC Yy"^?^rf ^

. S. , .,. /

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

« • SQC'"- '


### JU L ?.1 ,98 T

> 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 U.S . Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r Jun e 23 , 198 7 letter , regardin

g the safet yimplication s o f onboar d controls , th e coordinatio n betwee n the Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) an d the Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA ) on regulation s affecting th e moto r vehicl e industry , an d Colorado' s mandat e fo r oxygenate d fuel
. Your , firs t concer n relate d t o the safet yimplication s o f onboar d contro l systems . A s yo u mentioned , NHTS Aha s expresse d concern "tha t ther e wil l b e som e unquantifiable , increase d risk s o f cras h an

d non-cras h fir e associate d wit h onboar d controls. " I n ou r technica l repor t entitled , "Safet y Implication s o f Onboar d Refueling Vapo r RecoverySystems, " EPA thoroughl yanalyze d th e potentia l fo r thes e risk s an d assesse d potentia l impact s a n onboar d systemcoul d have o n th e overal l safetyo f a vehicle' s fue l system . Th e analysi s conclude s tha t straightforward , reliabl e engineerin g solution s exis t fo r eac h o f th e potentia l problem s identified
. I n fact , NHTS Aagree s wit h thi s conclusion , statin g i n thei r lette r tha t "We d o no t thin k tha t technologica l breakthroughs , ar e necessaryt o minimiz e the risk s o f increase d fires, ' ..." . Thus, , no increas e i n ris k need occu r o r b e accepte d becaus e o f th e presenc e o f an onboard system. . Further , i f th e vehicl e manufacture r desires , th e overal l fue l syste msafet yfor in-us e vehicle s coul d improve wit h th e implementatio n o f onboar d controls
. EP Awoul d no t adop t a

n onboar d requiremen t unles s suc h system s coul d b e implemente d safel yb ymanufacturers
. W e believ e tha t thi s ca n b e accomplishe d an

d saf e fue l systemdesign s ar e achievabl e fo r al l vehicles
.P. 3

-2-

Th e NHTS A

lette r als o mak e the poin t tha t adequat e leadtime is. a ke

y ingredien t inassurin g th e developmen t o f saf e fue l syste

m design s wit honboar dcontrols . EPA an dNHTS A staf f agre e o nthi s point , an d EPA i s committe dt o providin g manufacturer s th e leadtim e necessar y

t o implemen t onboar d control s safel y

an d effectively . However , the determinatio no f how muc hleadtime i s actuall y neede dt o mee t thi s objectiv e shoul d b e handle d wit hful l publi c participatio na s par t o f a propose d rule . EPA i s willin g t o provid e additiona l leadtim e and/o r a shor t phase-i nperio dfo r onboar dcontrols , especiall y i f thes e woul d clearl y ai d i nsolving safet y

concerns . A s par t o f ou r consultatio nproces s wit hDO T regardin g the safet y implication s o f onboar dcontrols , EPA requeste dbot h NHTS A an d the Offic e o f Moto r Carrie r Safet y t o review

th e aforementione d technica l report . Prio r t o receivin g NHTSA' s Jun e 11 , 198 7 letter , EP A ha dalready

receive da numbe r o f staf f leve l comment s an d suggestion s o nth e report , mos t o f whic hDO T subsequentl y attache d to thei r letter . We wer e already

inthe proces s o f incorporatin g NHTSA' s comment s int o th e fina l versio no f technica l repor t whe nyou r lette r arrived . I nrespons e t o you r reques t t o addres s NHTSA' s detaile d comments , w e have enclose da copy o f th e fina l versio n o f th e safet y

report . A

cop y o f thi s repor t ha s als o bee n place di nthe publi c docket . Al l o f DOT' s comment s relativ e t o onboar dsafet y

hav e bee naddresse dinth e enclose dfina l versio no f ou r safet y analysis . You r second concer nrelate d t o coordinationbetwee nEPA an d NHTS A

o nthe safet y

an d environmenta l impact s o f action s affectin g th

e aut o industry . EPA an dNHTS A

d o coordinate , wheneve r necessary , to assur e tha t regulation s issue dan d action s take nb

y th e tw o agencie s wil l no t creat e safety , emissio no r fue l econom y problems . Whe nEP A become s awar e o f an y suc hissue s inthei r rulemaking proposal s o r action s whic h coul d impac t the safet y o f moto r vehicles , w e initiat e discussion s wit hNHTS A onthes e issues . Furthermore , NHTS A ha s the opportunit y

t o commen t onan y o f ou r rulemakin g proposal s durin g a publi c commen t perio di f the y hav e a safet y

concern . Also , i f othe r agencie s or intereste dpartie s rais e an y genuin e safet y concern s o na propose d rulemaking , EPA wil l coordinat e wit hNHTS A

t o evaluat e thes e concerns . Safet y i s a nimportan t concer nt o EP A

i nour rulemakings . W e woul dno t implemen t an y moto r vehicl e emissio nstandar d i f i t woul ddegrad e moto r vehicl e safety .P. 4

/ " -3 -

A s yo u know , EPAha s coordinate d extensivel ywit h NHTSA concerning th e safetyimplication s o f onboar d refueling controls
. Ove r a yea r ago , EPApresente d a n initia l briefin

g t o NHTS Aregarding onboar d controls
. Sinc e thi s briefing , ther e hav e bee n numerou s onboard-relate d meetings , telephon e conversation s an

d exchange s o f analyse s betwee n th e tw o agencie s a t bot h th e staf f an

d senio r managemen t levels
. NHTS A ha s reviewe d al l ke yportion s o f EPA' s onboar d refueling package
. Furthermore , a s par t o f ou r coordinatio n EP A prepare

d th e enclose d technica l repor t whic h identifie s an d assesse s the safet yimplication s o f onboar d systems . A s I previousl y mentioned , NHTS Aha s reviewe d an d commente d o n thi s safety analysis , an

d thei r concern s hav e bee n addresse d i n th e fina l report . Th e fina l concer n in you r lette r wa s wit h respec t t o Colorado' s mandat e fo r oxygenate d fuels
. Th e requeste dcop y o f EPA' s respons e t o Mr . Ditlo wo f th e Cente r fo r Aut o Safet y i s enclosed . A

draf t memo fro

mth e EP AOffic e o f Genera l Counse l discussing th e preemptio n issu e fo r Sectio n211(c ) i s enclose d fo r you r information
. However , thi s draf t mem o doe s no t addres s the cas e o f stat e contro l fo r a fue l paramete r no t alread yregulate d b

yEPA ; instead , i t addresse s whe n preemptio n ca n be waive d onc e EPAdoe s regulat e a fue l parameter . EPAha s no t an d presentl yha s no definit e pla n fo r formall yconsulting wit h NHTS Ao n th e specifi c issu e o f Colorado' s oxygenate dfue l progra man d it s possibl e effec t o n vehicl e safety
. A n EP A staf f membe r di d contac t a NHTS Aofficia l b ytelephon

e afte r receip t o f Mr . Ditlow' s lette r t o learn mor e abou t th e case s referre d t o b

yMr . Ditlow
. EP Aha s hel d broade r an d mor e forma l consultation s wit h NHTS Aabou t fue l systems-relate d safet ya s par t o f th e deliberation s o n refueling emissio n controls
. I hop e thi s lette r an d it s enclosure s respon d t o the concern s addresse d i n you r Jun e 2 3 letter
. A s yo u requested , I hav e provided a cop y o f thi s respons e t o the Genera l Accounting Office
. Sincerely , (Origina l signe db y L

. M

. Thomas )

Le e M

. Thoma s Enclosure s
cc : Honorabl e Charle s A . Bowshe r Comptrolle r Genera l Genera l Accounting Offic e