p.1 

OAR Box 1142 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

9) IV-F-7 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/23/2008 10:21:21 AM Sheet 9 of 30 
P.2 

PETROLEUM 

MARKETERS 

ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA 

W-F-7 

f 

Statement of £iV& Hi--''"""'" 

John Dimmick 

On Behalf Of 

The Petroleum Marketers Association of America 

Before the 

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

On 

Refueling Emission Regulations / 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Report 

September 26, 1991 

1120 VERMONT AVENUE. NW • SUITE 1130 • WASHINGTON. DC 20005 • (202)331-1198 
P.3 

Good afternoon. My name is John Dimmick and I am Vice 

President of Walters-Dimmick Petroleum, a gasoline distributorship 

located in Marshall, Michigan serving areas of Michigan, Indiana 

and Ohio. I am testifying here today on behalf of the Petroleum 

Marketers Association of America (PMAA), in my capacity as a former 

Chairman of PMAA's Motor Fuels Committee and as a current member 

of its Board of Directors. I am also past President and a member 

of the Board of Directors of the Michigan Petroleum Association. 

PMAA is a federation of 44 state and regional trade 

associations representing more than 11,000 independent petroleum 

marketers throughout the United States. These marketers sell over 

half the gasoline, 75 percent of the home heating oil and 60 

percent of the diesel fuel consumed in this country. Eighty-nine 

percent of PMAA's membership is classified as small businesses 

under size categories established by the Small Business 

Administration. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss EPA's 

rulemaking on automobile refueling canisters, as required by the 

1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. PMAA urges the EPA to issue 

the regulation by this November, as mandated by these 1990 

Amendments. 

EPA Should Issue the Onboard Refueling Control Regulation 

The 1990 Amendments direct the EPA to issue a regulation by 

November, 1991 to phase in onboard refueling canisters on modelyear 1996 cars. Last year, EPA Administrator William K. Reilly 

called the refueling controls the "most important modification to 

motor vehicles this agency can require to achieve a genuine air 

quality improvement." The congressional mandate directs EPA to 

consult with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) before issuing the regulation; however, NHTSA has stated 

its concerns that the refueling controls may reduce automobile 

safety. Although the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from requiring 

a vehicle component or design element that causes or contributes 

to an unreasonable risk to public safety, PMAA believes that the 

bulk of the available evidence, including studies by EPA, 

independent studies and data on the existing evaporative control 

system, shows that expanding the existing systems to capture 

refueling vapors should not increase safety risks. 

As a result, PMAA joins the General Accounting Office (GAO), 

the American Petroleum Institute (API), and others in urging EPA 

to issue the onboard refueling control regulation, and to use the 

four-year period between now and 1996 to test prototypes and finetune them as necessary to ensure safety. We also agree with API's 

suggestion that the National Academy of Engineering be engaged as 

a neutral overseer during this process. 
P.4 

Finally, the NHTSA report states that "since [onboard 

refueling] systems increase safety risk and Stage II does not, it 

seems reasonable for EPA to conclude that [these] systems 

constitute an unreasonable safety risk." In other words, 

according to NHTSA, the fact that Stage II exists as an alternative 

to capture vapor emissions, effectively increases the safety risk 

of the refueling canister system (no matter how negligible or 

unproven) to an unreasonable level. This is certainly questionable 

logic. 

While the 1990 Amendments require Stage II controls in cities 

with the worst air quality problems, these controls are treated as 

an interim measure until the refueling canister is in widespread 

use. Congress' decision to require an onboard refueling rule was 

not based upon whether Stage II regulations were issued. Stage II 

is not a substitute for the onboard refueling system; and the mere 

fact that Stage II controls exist as an interim measure should not 

be used as a stepping stone to reach the conclusion that the 

onboard refueling system constitutes an unreasonable safety risk. 

In adopting the refueling canister requirement, Congress clearly 

recognized that this system is a more cost effective method of 

controlling refueling vapors than Stage II controls. EPA's own 

analysis, conducted over the last several years and revised several 

times, confirms this fact. The EPA has a non-discretionary duty 

to see that congressional intentions with regard to the canister 

are carried out; and should not be swayed by the subjective 

analysis and questionable logic of the NHTSA report. 

Environmental • Considerations Require an Onboard Refueling 

Regulation 

The 1990 Amendments also mandate a reduction in air toxics. 

While there is no evidence that gasoline vapors pose a health risk, 

widespread reductions in vapor emissions are required. EPA has 

recognized that capturing these emissions via Stage II systems is 

less efficient than with onboard refueling systems. The Stage II 

systems are subject to a wide variety of mishaps, including nozzle 

defects or malfunctions, hose tears or liquid blockage and vacuum 

pump malfunctions. Even with stringent, costly enforcement, annual 

inspections and rigid maintenance programs, stage II controls can 

capture only 86 percent of these emissions. Without added 

enforcement and maintenance, the effectiveness rate plummets to 62 

percent. The effectiveness of Stage II controls to reduce air 

toxics nationwide is, we believe, also limited by statutory 

exemptions of small marketers and independents. The canister is 

a simpler, more effective mechanism to attain emission reductions. 

If EPA is serious about improving air quality, then the refueling 

canister clearly is the best long-term solution to achieve this 

goal in all parts of the United States. 
P.5 

discretionary duty under the 1990 Amendments, and issue an onboard 

refueling regulation by November. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon, and 

would be happy to try to answer any questions you may have, either 

verbally or in writing. 
P.6 

PETROLEUM 

MARKETERS 

ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA 

STATISTICAL QUICK REFERENCE SHEET 

1989 DATA 

NUMBER OF MARKETERS REPRESENTED 10,750 

TOTAL VOLUME OF REFINED PRODUCTS SOLD 99 BILLION GALLONS 

EMPLOYMENT 271,011 

Full Time Employment 208,550 

Part Time Employment 62,460 

PERCENT OF U.S. TOTAL REFINED PRODUCTS 37% 

Motor Gasoline 63% 

Distillate Fuel Oil 52% 

DISTRIBUTION OF MARKETERS BY TYPE OF SALES 

Heating Fuels Only 6% 

Motor Fuels Only 26% 

Both Heating & Motor Fuels 68% 

TOTAL MOTOR FUELS RETAIL FACILITIES SUPPLIED 90,457 

TOTAL MOTOR FUELS RETAIL FACILITIES OWNED 38,897 

TOTAL NUMBER OF CONVENIENCE STORES OWNED 14,960 

HEATING FUELS DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS PERCENT of PRODUCT 

Residential 83% 

Commercial 7% 

Other Fuel Oil Marketers 3% 

Industrial 5% 

Other 2% 

MOTOR FUELS DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS PERCENT of PRODUCT 

Direct Owned & Operated 31 % 

Lessee Dealer 12% 

Open Dealer 18% 

Bulk End Users 28% 

Cardlock 4% 

Other Wholesalers 3% 

Other 4% 

BULK STORAGE CAPACITY 1.26 BILLION GALLONS 

NUMBER OF BULK STORAGE FACILITIES 10,500 

Source: Peirolcum Marketers Association of America 

1990 Marketer Profile Survey; 1990 Heating Oil Survey 
P.7 

MEMBERS OF THE PETROLEUM MARKETERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

The Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) 

represents the independent petroleum marketers who are members of 

these state and regional trade associations: 

Alabama Oilmen's Association 

Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association 

Arkansas Oil Marketers Association, Inc. 

California Independent Oil Marketers Association 

Colorado Petroleum Marketers Association 

Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association 

Florida Petroleum Marketers Association 

Georgia Oilmen's Association 

Idaho Oil Marketers Association 

Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association 

Indiana Oil Marketers Association, Inc. 

Petroleum Marketers of Iowa 

Kansas Oil Marketers Association 

Kentucky Petroleum Marketers Association 

Louisiana Oil Marketers Association 

Maine Oil Dealers Association 

Michigan Petroleum Association 

Mid-Atlantic Petroleum Distributors Association 

Mississippi Petroleum Marketers Association 

Missouri Petroleum Marketers Association 

Montana Petroleum Marketers Association 

Nebraska Petroleum Marketers Association, Inc. 

Nevada Petroleum Marketers Association 

Independent Oilmen's Association of New England 

New England Fuel Institute 

Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey 

New Mexico Petroleum Marketers Association 

Empire State Petroleum Association 

North Carolina Petroleum Marketers Association 

Northwest Petroleum Association 

Ohio Petroleum Marketers Association 

Oklahoma Oil Marketers Association 

Oregon Petroleum Marketers Association 

Pennsylvania Petroleum Association, Inc. 

Petroleum Marketers Association of Wisconsin 

South Carolina Oil Jobbers Association 

South Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association 

Tennessee Oil Marketers Association 

Texas Oil Marketers Association 

Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association 

Washington Oil Marketers Association 

Western Petroleum Marketers Association 

West Virginia Petroleum Marketers Association 

Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association 

The Petroleum Marketers Association of America is located at 

1120 Vermont Avenue, N,W., Suite 1130, Washington, D.C. 20005. 

Telephone: (202) 331-1198. FAX: (202) 467-6330