P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 28 ) IV-B-2 4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:52 AM Sheet 28of 232

### P. 2 

## 04-03-9 3 11:41A M DO J ENVIR NDE F 

# A^M 1 P02/1 4 \\f

-&-1 4

• %

UNITED STATE S COUR T O f APFfcALS FO RTH E DISTRIC T O F COLUMBI A CIRCUI T 

## .I

I I N- 3 199 3

NATURA L RESOURCE S DEFENS E COUNCI L an d CENTERFO

RAUT O SAFETY , ET AL. ,

Petitioners ,
V . CARO L M . BKOWNfcK

. Administrator , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTAT . PROTECTIO N ACENCY , Respondents . Cas e No . 92-113 7 (an dConsolidate d Case s Nos : 92-1142 , 92-1113 , 92-1157 , 92-1222 , 92-1243 , an d32-12GO )

EPA' S RESPONS E TO TNTFRVENOR-RESPONOENTS ' PETITIO N FO RREHEARTNf l E

N RAN C INTRODUCTIO

N Pursuan t t o tni s court' s Marc h2J , iyy j order . Respondent s Caro l M . Rrnunpr , Adm i n i .cr.ra r or , an

d rh o Environmenta l ProtectionAgency (collectivel y

"EPA") , fil e thi s rccponc c t o th e Petitionto r Rehearing an

d Suggestio nfo r Rehearing E

nBan c ("Pel . Fu

r Reh'y") , filedb y Intervener Respondent s America nAutomobil e Manufacturer s Associatio nan d Associatio no f Internationa l Automobil e Manufacturers , Inc . ("Intervenore*) .

Interveners ' petitionfo r rehearing i s premise dupo n thei r conclusio ntha t th e pane l hel dtha i Clea nAi r Ac t ("CAA" ) sectio n202(a)(fe) , 4 2 U.S.C . S /521(a)(6) , atford s EP A a narro u rj-rxnt r» f discretio nno t t o issue standard s tha t requir e automobile c t o b

e equippedwit honboardvapo r recover y contro l ("ORVR" ) system s withi nth e Act' s four-yea r lea dLime , i f afte r

- l -

## 04-08-9 3 11:42.A M DO J ENVIR NDEFP0 3/ 1 4 P. 3 

### i

I I



### consultatio n wit h th e Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet y Administratio n ("NHTSA"), 1 

### EP Aconclude s tha t ORV R system s poe c unreasonabl e an

d inheren t safetyrisk s t o the public . Pet . Fo r Reh' g a t 4-5 , 8 . Base d o n thi s readin g o f th e decision . Intervener s firs t argu e tha t the pane l erred b yrejecting EPA' s positio n tha t th e alternativ e Stag e I I technolog yshoul d b e considere d whe n assessing the reasonablenes s o f th e ris k pose d b y ORV R 

### systems . intervener s asser t tna t th e pane l faile d t o appl y a Chevro n ste p two analysi s in the fac e o f an ambiguou s statutory provision , an

d tha t th e pane l thu s improperl yconclude d tha t EP A ma yno t conside r th e risk s an d benefit s o f stag e T T technolog

y whe n determinin g whethe r ORV R system s pos e unreasonabl e safet y risks . Jd . a t 9-11 . Second , assumin g arguend o tha t th e pane l properl yrejecte d EPA' s approac h fo r analyzing safet yrisks , Intervener s argu e tha t the pane l shoul d hav e remande d the/cas e t o EP At o allo wi t t o asses s whethe r ORV R system s pos e unreasonabl e risk s unde r th e Court' s newl yannounce d standar d fo r assessin g risic ana t o addres s th e issue s tha t the pane l believe d had bee n inadequatel yconsidered . Jd . a t 11-13 . Third , Intervener s faul t th e pane l fo r concluding tha t non-caniste r ORV R system s wer e availabl e fo r analysis , deupiL e EPA' s conclusio nt o th e contrary , 

### id . a t 13-14 . Finally , Intervener s bas e thei r peLiLiun fo r rehearing i n larg e par t upo n thei r assumptio n tha t EPA' s determinatio n unde r sectio n 202(a)(6 ) —tha t caniste r ORV R

1 

### NHTS Ai s th e agencywithi n th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n responsibl e fo r highwa ysafety .

- 2 -

## B A 04-08-9 3 11:42A M DO J ENVIR NDE F P04/1 4

system s pos e unreasonabl e and inheren t safet yrisk s - - i s necessaril ybindin g i n an ysubsequen t safet yanalyci a Er A perform s durin g th e certificatio n stag e o f a vehicle , unde r CA A section s 202(a)(4 ) an d 206(a)(3)(A) , 4 2 U.S.C . S S 7S21(a)(4 ) and 7525(a)(3)(A) . 14

- a t 6-7 , 10 .

A s discusse d i n mor e detai l below , EP Aconcur s wit h > . some , thoug h no t all , o f th e point s Intervenor s rais e i n thei r petitio n fo r rehearing . Nevertheless , EP Aelecte d no t to--seek rehearin g o r fil e a suggestio n fo r rehearin g e n banc . Tha t decisio n wa s base d upo n EPA' s readin g (contrar yt o tha t o f th e Intervenors ) tha t th e panel' s holdin g rp.solvp. H a questio n o f la w adequatel ybriefe d b yth e parties ; namely , th e conclusio n tha t EP Aha s n o discretio n t o declin e t o issu e ORVR standards , regardles s o f th e conclusion s EPAreache s afte r consultatio n wit h NHTSA . EP Aals o believe s tha t muc h o f th e remainin g portion s o f th e decisio n constitute s dicta , an d thu s doe s no t warran t reconsideration . However , i f thes e portion s ar e no t dicta , th e pane l erre d i n no t remandin g t o th e Agency . Finally , EP Adoe s no t agre e wit h Intervenors ' clai mtha t EPAha s alread ymad e a safet ydeterminatio n legall ybindin g o n th e certificatio n proces s und*» r sf»ctinn s 702(a)(4 ) and 206(a)(J)(A) . Thi s issu e wa s no t befor e th e panel , an d th e pane l correctl ydi d no t reac h it .

- 3 -P. 5 

## 04-08-9 3 11:42A M DO J ENVIR NDE F P05/1 4

DISCUSSIO

N I . THI S COURT INCORRECTL Y HELD THA

T EP ALACK S DISCRETIO

N UNDE R SECTIO

N202(a)(6 ) T O DECLINE T O ISSUE ORV R STANDARD S EPAdisagree s wit h Intervenors ' basi c reading o f th e decision . W e believ e tha t the panel' s centra l holding i s that , irrespectiv e o f EPA' s conclusion s regarding th e safet yo f ORV R systems , EP

Aha s a n unconditiona l mandator ydut yt o issu e standard s tha t reguir e automobile s t o be eguippe d wit h suc h systems . Relyin g upo n a Chevro n step on e analysis , th e pane l conclude d tha t th e mandator ydut yi s manifes t o n th e fac e o f th e statute , id . a t 5 , 16-17 , 28 , an d tha t th e provisio n i n sectio n 202(a)(6 ) tha t require d EP At o consul t wit h th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n regardin g th e safetyo f ORV R system s "doe s no t derogat e fro

mtha t mandator

yduty. " Id . a t 28 ; se e id . a t 5 , 16

- 17 . Base d upo n this , an d othe r portion s o f th e decision,^EPA disagree s wit h Intervenors ' readin g tha t th e pane l conclude d tha t sectio n 202(a)(6 ) afford s EP Aa narrowgran t o f discretio n no t t o issu e ORV

R standards , i t "EP Awer e t o fin

d tha t al l ORV

R system s 'presen t inheren t an d unreasonabl e safet yrisks.' " Pet . Fo r Reh' g a t 4- 5 (quotin g sli p op . a t b , 24 , 29) . Rather , EP A believe s tha t th e pane l rejected EPA' s interpretation , an d rule d tha t sectio n 202(a)(6 ) doe s no t afford EP Adiscretio n t o declin e issuanc e o f ORV

R standards . Although u « rea

d th a panel' c decisio n differentl ytha n Intervenors , w e als o believe tha t the pane l arre d i n concluding tha t Congres s unambiguousl yexpresse d it s inten t i n sectio n

- 4 -PL6
. 

## 04-08-93 . 11:43A M DO J ENVIR NDE F P06/1 4

202(a ) (Cy . Congre3 9 di d no t defin e the . prrrir. c imp.ir.r . o r f.r.op e
o f th e safet yconoultatio n roquiromon t i n tactio n 202(a ) (6 ) o r th e ran'jt : o f option s availabl e i f EP Aconclude d tha t ORV R system s pos e unreasonabl e an dinherent safety

risks . Rathe r than acknowledg e the evistenc e of thi s statutor y gap i nsection 202(a)(6) , however , th e pane l fashionedit s ow npossibl e interpretation s o f the consultationprovisiontha t ar e plainl y > . no t dictate d b

yth e lanyuaye , structure , an d legislativ e nistor y o i sectio n202(a)(6). * i nthi s manner , th

e pane l railedt o affordEPA' s interpretationth e appropriat pdeferpnc. p unde r a Chevronstep tw

o analysis , an

dinctea

dsubstitute d'it

s ow n r interpretatio no f section202(a)(6 ) fo r tha t o f th e Agency. J
2 Th e pane l posited*[a) t leas t tw o reason s fo

r the requirement : first , th e proces s migh t hav e beenmean t t o provid e KPh wit h f% brtt.t.rt v flWrtven«fls o f vnriou s syaten s s o tha tORVR standard s migh t accuratel y confor m tnimminentl y

availabl e technology ; conversely , th e proces s migh t allo w EP A t o structur e standard s tha t wil l promot e th e decignan

ddevelopmen t o f safe r syst-flflis. " Sli p op . at . 1R . •

, 0 JTh e pane l als o erre db y restin g it s holding upo nNatura l Resource s Defens e counci l v . Train . 51 0 F.2 d692 , 70 4 (D.C . Cir . 1074 ) . Base duponthi s decision , the Cour t conclude dtha t * a genera l consultatio nclaus e wil l no t normall y rende r nugatory uthe r substantiv e requirements. " Sli pop . a t 18 . InTrain , however , th e issu e o t whethe r a mandat e b y congres s t o promulgat e guideline s ma

y admi t of a narro

w exceptionbase dupona safet y consultation , o r an yor.he r typ e o f r.onau l t;it . io n fo r thn t nnttf.r , wa s neve r litigated . Moreover , th e consultationprovisio n containe di

nth e sectiona

L issu e i nTiai n(Clea

nWaLc t Ac t S 304(b) , 3 3 U.S.C . $ 1314(b)) , make s n o referenc e t o safet y whatsoever , an

di t doe s no t dictat e a particula r typ e o t technolog

y a s doe s section202(a)(6 ) o f the Clea nAi r Act . Indeed , i nTrain . EP A concededi

nrelevan t par t tha t it . ha da mandatory

duty . 31 0 r.2dat 704 . Insum , Lh e pane l i nLit

e inctan t cas e faile d t o grappl e wit h th e specifi c consultatio n provisio ninsection2u^(a)(6 ) an dit s interpla

y wit hth e othe r portion s o f the Ac t a s wel l a s th e legislative history tha t support s EPA' s interpretation . Se e EP A Brie f at 16-39 .

- 5 -P. 7 

## 04-08-93 . 11:43A M DO J ENVIR NDEF . P07/1 4

On balance , EP

Aconclude d tha t thi s issue , b yitself , di d no t warran t reconsideratio n b ythe pane l o r Cour t e n banc . Th e holdin g o f th e pane l decision , vhilp . involving a n importan t issua , i s limite d t o th « precis e languag e o f sectio n 202(a)(6) , an d (iop.f i no t bea r o n EPA' s administratio n o f othe r requirement s unde r sectio n 202(a ) o r th e certificatio n proces s unde r section s 202(a)(4 ) an

d 206(a)(3)(A ) o f th e Act . Moreover , although w e disagre e wit h th e panel' s conclusion , the pane l di d refe t t o tn e appropriat e analytica l framework fo r approaching issue s o f statutoryconstruction . Sli p op . a t 15-1 6 (citin g Chevro n U.S.A . Inc . v . Natura l Resource s npfens e Council . 46 7 U.S . 83 7 (1984)) . Accordingly , EP

Adi d no t see k reconsideratio n o n thi s issue , an d doe s no t believ e tha t additiona l briefing i s necessary . Th e Agency' s interpretatio n o f sectio n 202(a)(6 ) ha s bee n adequatel y se t fort h i n it s brief . However , shoul d th e Cour t choose,• ; 

### to reconside r thi s issue , EP Awoul d certainl yparticipat e i n an y additiona l briefing tha t ma ybe requested . II . INDICTA . TH E COURT IMPROPERLY MAD E FINDING S THAT , I F RELEVANT , SHOULD HAV E BEE NRESERVE D FOR EP AO NREMAND , AN D WHIC H PERTAINE D T O ISSUE S THA T WER E NO T CHALLENGE D B Y TH E PETITIONER S Beyon d the centra l holdin g tha t EP

Aha s a mandatory dut yt o issu e ORV

R standards , the pane l reache d a numbe r o f lega l issue s an

d mad e factua l determinations , some o f whic h wer e no t raise d i n thi s action , wer e no t briefe d b yth e parties , an

d wer e unnecessaryt o tn e resolutio n o f the centra l issu e i n thi s case . I n particular , th e pane l rejecte d EPA' s methodologyfo r assessing th e reasonablenes s o f the ris k posed b yORV R systems , concluding

- 6 - - t

### PA. 

## 04-08-9 3 11:44A M DO J ENVIR NDE F PQ8/1 4

tha t Stag e T

T technolog ymayno t b e .-nnsidorod , sli p op . a t 24

- 25 ; i t se t asid e EPA' s finding s tha t ,-aniste r ORVR ay«t.«m « pose , unreasonabl e safet yrisk s and wer e t h R onl y0RV R technolog y adequatel yavailabl e fo r safet yconu Iteratio n b yEP Aan d NHTSA , id . a t 19-24 ; an

d i t conclude d tha t non-caniste r ORVR system s wer e adequatel yavailabl e fo r safet yconsideratio n and apparentl y assume d tha t caniste r ORV R system s .-u-

o safe . .Id. V

'Becaus e w e believ e tha t th e pane l hel d tha t EP AiacXe d an

ydiscretio n t o declin e t o issu e ORV R standards , w e <' 0ns true d thes e portion s o f th e panel' s decisio n a s dicta . Accnr<u nglV / w e conclude d tha t thes e issue s di d no t warran t recon a l«ic> ratio n b yth e pane l o r Cour t e n banc .

Assumin g arguend o tha t th«<rt n issue s ar e require d fo r th e Court' s holding , EP Aconcur s win , tn e intervenors ' assessmen t tha t th e pane l erre d b yno t remandin g t 0 tn e Agenc yt o asses s i n th e firs t instanc e th e safet yo f ORv wsystem s unde r th e panel' s newl yannounce d standard , instead , i i, e pan e l appear s t o hav e mad e the . ultimat e ractua l saret ydo < nrminatio n itself , thereby improperl yactin g a s * fact-findex

- . .une r tha n a reviewin g court . Se e sli p op . a t 21-24. 4 Th e cas e i., w i s clea r tha t onc e th e pane l conclude d tha t EPA' e determinei| o n Wd S arbitrar yan d capriciou s o r no t i n accordanc e witl i i QW f i t shoul d hav e remande d that , derisio n t o th e Agenc yfo r fur l lm r consideration . See ,

4 Thi s erro r wa s compounde d b yi h e fac t rha t EPA' s finding s regardin g th e questio n o f safet yo f .-nniste r ORVR systems , o r any othe r ORVR systems , wa s no t squarel ychallenge d b yth e Petitioner s an d thu s no t briefe d fo r . h e panel' s consideration .

- 7 -P. 9 

## 04-08-9 3 11:44A M DO J ENVIR NDE F P09/1 4

e.g . . Arkansa s v . Oklahom a 11 2 C . Ct . 1046 . 10* 0 (1902) ; Klcpp o
v . Cjcrr o Club . 42 7 U.C . 390 , 11 0 n.3 1 (1976) ; FP C v . Idah o Pouo r Co. . 34 4 U.S . 17 , 2 0 (1952). 5

Ina si mila r manner , th e Dane l shoul dhave provide dEP A wit hthe opportunit y o nreman d t o determin e whethe r othe r possibl e ORV

Rsystems , beside s canisters , wer e adequatel y develope dt o permi t EP A an dNHTS A t o examin e thei r safet y feature s durin g consultation , instead , th e Cour t improperl y mad e th e fina l determinatio nitsel r tha c cercai nnon-caniste r device s wer e availabl e for th e considerationo f safety . Sli pop . a t .19 - •>. T . ' ~ III . EP A DISAGREE S WIT H INTERVENORS ' POSITIO N THA T SECTION S 202(a)(6 ) AN

D 202(a)(4 ) EMPLO

V TH E SAME STANDARD , AN D THAT.VEHICLE S EQUIPPE D WIT H ONBOARD CANISTER S CANNO T A S A MATTE RO F LA

W D E CERTIFIE D i nIt s Fina l Oilbuax UD«r<.:i=>iu n(.T.A . (5'il-<S7'i ) , FP A ili. l no t addres s th e standardtha t applie s unde r section s 202(a)(4 )
an d206(a)(7)(A) . 4 2 U.S.C. § § 752.1(a)(4 ) an d7525(a)(3)(A) , . » durin g th e fina l certificationstag e tha t i s require dbefor e a

5 T o th e exten t relevant , EP A als o concur s wit h intervenors ' criticis m tha t Ui e pane l shoul dhav e aoooide d EP A deferenc e unde r a Chevroneteptw o analysi s i

nit s interpretatio n o f th e appropriat e methodolog y unde r section202(a)(6 ) t o asses s the ris k pose db

y ORV Rsystems . Se e Pet . For Ren' g a t 9-10 . Th e pane l erre db y concluding tha t EP A choul d not- , hava r.oncidoro d th e availabilit y

o f Stag e I I whenbalancin g th e 1/isX. s au*l benefit s o f ORV

Rcaniste r eyctemc . Becaus e nothin g inth« ? tex t o r legislativ e history o f the Ac t dictate s the panel' s intftrpr*t.Atinn , T.he. pan« 1 shoul dhave deferre dt o EPA' s reasonabl e interpretation .

- 8 -P.1 0 

## 04-08-9 3 11:44A M DO J ENVIR NDE F P10/1 4

ne wautomobil e ma yb e sold- 6 Specifically , EPAdi d no t determin e whethe r i t woul d b e appropriat e t o conside r th e availabilit yo f Stag e I I technolog yi n a sectio n 202(a)(4 ) certificat e determination . Thi s wa s no t an elemen t o f F.PA' s Fina l Onboar d Decision , and th e pane l appropriatel ydi d no t decid e th e issu e o f vh*t . the . standar d woul d b e durin g certification . Sli p op . a t 2 5 ri.21 ; concurrenc e a t 3 . EPAconcur s wit h thi s aspec t o f th e panel' s decision . Th e Cour t nee d not , an d shoul d not , addres s i n thi s proceedin g th e applicabl e standar d unde r section s 202:(a ) (4 )
an d 206(a)(3)(A) .

Intervenor s nevertheles s state , tha t EPAha s alread y take n actio n tha t necessaril yforeclose s certificatio n o f vehicle s equippe d wit h caniste r ORV R systems , reasonin g tha t EPA' s analysi s unde r sectio n 202(a)(6 ) i n th e Fina l Onboar d Decision , i n whic h th e Agenc yconclude d tha t caniste r ORVR- ' system s pos e unreasonabl e safet yrisks , wil l necessaril ygover n anysubsequen t analysi s and certificat e determinatio n unde r section s 202(a)(4 ) an d 206(a)(3)(A) . Pet . Fo r Reh' g a t 6-7 , 9

- 10 . Intervenor s stat e furthe r tha t EP Amus t conside r th e existenc e o f Stag e I I technolog yin assessin g th e safet yo t OKVK system s a t th e certificatio n stage .

6 Sectio n 206(a)(3)(A ) allow s EPAt o issu e a "certificat e o f conformity " t o a ne wautomobil e o r engine , includin g thos e equippe d wit h ne wemissio n contro l devices , onl yi f tha t automobil e o r engin e satisfie s th e safet yconcern s expresse d unde r sectio n 2U2(a)(4)(A) . Ne wautomobile s o r engine s ma yno t b e col d unti l the yreceiv e tha t certificat e o f conformit yfro m EPA . CA

AS 206(a)(1) , 4 2 U.S.C . S 7525(a)(1) . Th e certificatio n proces s usuall ytake s plac e durin g th e 1 2 month s jus t prio r t o a n automobile' s introductio n fo r sale .

- 9 -P.1 1 

## 04-08-9 3 11:45A M DO J ENVIR NDE F P i 1/1 4

• Intervenors ' assertion s ar e incorrect . EP A ha s historicall y

constriie

d the section s 202(a)(4 ) an d206(a)(3)(A ) certificatio nanalysi s t o involve comparison s betwee ndifferen t version s o f vehicle-base dcontro l technologies , rathe r tha n betwee nvehicle-base d an dnon-vehicl e basedcontro l technologie s (sucha s ORV

Ran dStag e I I systems ) . Se e CA A § 202(a)(4)(B)(iii) , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7521(a)(4)(B)(iii) * {limiting the evaluatio no f alternative s t o system s "whic hmay be use djt

o conform

t o requirement s prescribe d unde r thi s subchapter,* , i.e . . Subchapte r I I o f the Clea nAi r Act , 4 2 U.S.C . § § 7521-7590 , whic h include s vehicle-base demissio ncontrols , an ddoe s no t includ e th e Stag e I I requirement) . Accordingly , inconsiderin g th e safet y risk s o f ORV

Rsystem s during the certificatio nstage , th e Agenc y coul dperfor

m it s analysi s withou t referenc e t o a compariso nwit hStag e I I systems. '

Furthermore , an

dcontrary

t o intervenors ' positio n (Pet . Fo r Reh' g a t 6) , EP A ha s no t mad e a determinatio nfo r purpose s o £ eertiricatio nunae r section s 2U2(a)(4 ) an d 206(a)(3)(A ) tha t caniste r ORV Rsystems , o r an

y othe r ORV

R systems , woul dnecessaril y pos e inheren t an dunreasonabl e safet y

'Thi s positio n O*O« Rno r conflic t wit hEPA' s positio n (whic hwa s rejecte d b y th e panel , sli pop . a t 24 ) tha t ORV Ran d Staq e I I system s shoul db e compare d unde r th e sectio n202(a)(6 ) safet y consultation . Unde r tha t sectio nth e safet y assessmen t o f ORV Rsystem s i s intimatel y linked t o the availabilit y o f Stag e I I a s a safe , alternativ e contro l technology . Se e EP A Brie f a t 19-2 3

- 1 0 -P.1 2 

## 04-08-9 3 11:45A M DO J ENVIR NDE F P12/1 4

risks . Althoug h thi s possibilit yalway s exists, 8 thos e issue s mus t no wawai t th e certificatio n process , whic h wil l no t or.r.u r fo r severa l years . Indeed , EP Adoe s no t kno wth e precis e natur e o f th e ORV R system s tha t wil l b e submitte d fo r certification , especiall yi n ligh t o f th e panel' s decision , an d i t alway s remain s possibl e tha t significan t desig n improvement s ca n b e achieve d durin g thi s time . I n thi s regard , i t i s importan t t o not e that , contrar yt o interveners ' statemen t (Pet . Fo r Reh' g a t 12) , neithe r EP Ano r NHTS Aha s eve r mad e an ydetermination : regardin g whethe r caniste r ORV R system s pos e a n unreasonabl e ris k i n a n absolut e sense , i.e.,. , absen t comparison s t o Stag e I I systems . Se e supr a a t 7-8 ; J.A . a t 654-61 ; sli p op . a t 21-24 . Accordingly , th e issu e o f th e standar d applicabl e unde r section s 202(a)(4 ) an d 206(a)(3)(A ) doe s no t warran t reconsideration . • Respectfull ysubmitted , / MYLE S E . FLIN T Actin g Assistan t Attorne yGenera l Environmen t & Natura l Resource s .vision /

KAPLA I U.S . Departmen t of"Justic e Environmen t & Natura l Resuutue b Division ; R

m721 2 10t h & Pennsylvani a Ave. , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2053 0 (202 ) 514-099 7

8 O n thi s point , an d fo r th e reason s * J read ystate d i n EPA' s Brie f a t 19-36 , th e Cour t erre d b yconcludin g tha t Congres s di d no t wan t EP At o resolv e th e safet yissu e up-front , b y comparin g th e safet yrisk s and benefit s o f ORVR system s an d th e alternativ e Stag e I I contro l technolog ydurin qth e sectio n 202(a)(6 ) rulemaking .

- 1 1 -P.1 3 

## 04-08-9 3 11:46A M D O J ENVIR NDE F P13/1 4

- t

ALA N W . KCKER T Associat e Genera l Counse l LORI EJ
. SCHMIDT Assistan t

Genera l Counse l STEVE NSILVERMA

N Attorne y Offic e o f Genera l Counse l U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Date : Apri l 7 , 1993

-

- 1 2 -P.1 4 

## 04-08-9 3 11:46A M DO J ENVIR NDE F P 14/14 ) k

CERTIFICAT E O F SFRVTC F I herebycertif ytha t o n th e 7t h da yo f April , 1993 , a cop yo f th e foregoin g pleadin g wa s serve d b ytelefa x wher e indicated , and b

yfirst-clas s mail , postag e pre-paid , o n th e followin g counsel : Howar d Y . Fo x Sierr a Clu b Lega l Defens e Fun d 153 1 P Street , N.w . Suit e 20 0 Washington , D.C . <>uuu5 R . Timoth yColumbu s Michae l D . Sherma n J . Keit h Ausbroo k Collier , Shanno n & Scot t 305 0 K Street , N.w. , suit e 40 0 Washington , D.C . 2000 7 Richar d A . Penn a Va n Ness , Feldma n & Curti s 105 0 Thoma s Jefferso n St. , N.W . 

### 7t h Floo r Washington , D.C . 2000 7 Alic e Crow e Dougla s Morri s 122 0 L Street , N.W . 9t h Floo r Washington , D.C . 2000 5 Kennet h S . Gelle r Mayer , Brow n & Piat t Lelefax-861-047 3 200 0 Pennsylvani a Ave. , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 6 Charle s H
. LocJcwoo d Genera l Counse l Associatio n o f Internationa l Automobil e Manufacturer s 100 1 19t h St. , Nort h - #120 0 / Arlington , Virgini a 2220 9 

## r6 Davi d J . Kaplan/ 1

- 1 3 -