P. 1



# OAR Box 1142 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 15 ) IV-F-1 3 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

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

# A-87-/I iv-f-/3 ?

Befor ethe Unite dState s EnvironmentalProtectio nAgency

; r,! "T-<>l99 l •• •; ; ; ; . ....„..-...._„,..,._•j

Publi c Hearing : Controlo f Ai r PollutionFro mNe

w Motor Vehicle s an

dNe w Motor Vehicle Engines ; Refuelin

g EmissionRegulation s fo r Gasoline-FueledLight-Dut y Vehicle s an

d Trucks an dHeavy-Dut

y Vehicle s

Testimon y PresentedonBehal

f o f the Moto rVehicleManufacturers Association o f th eUnitedStates , Inc .

Septembe r

26 , 199 1 Romulus , Michiga

nP. 3

TESTIMON

Y O F TH E MOTO R VEHICL E MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATION BEFOR E TH E ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y

Docke t No . A-87-1 1 Goo d morning . I a

mTimoth

yO'Brie n o f Ford Moto r Company . Wit hm e a t th e tabl e ar e Timoth yMcCann o f Genera l Motor s an d Erik a Jone s o f Mayer , Brow n & Piatt , lega l counse l representing Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturers ' Associatio n o f th e Unite d States , Inc . W e ar e please d t o b e her e t o presen t th e view s o f th e Moto r Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n wit hrespec t t o th e rulemaking cours e EPAshoul d take , i n ligh t o f th e recen t stud yo f th e Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA ) regarding th e safet yo f onboar d refueling vapo r recovery(ORVR ) systems . MVM Aappreciate s thi s opportunit yt o participat e i n th e developmen t o f EPA' s rulemaking position . Whil e man yothe r witnesse s toda y wil l discus s th e technica l aspect s o f NHTSA' s safet yassessment , ou r comment s respon d specificall yt o EPA' s reques t fo r view s o n "th e rulemaking cours e tha t th e Agenc yshoul d take " i n ligh t o f th e NHTS Areport . Ou r view s ca n b e summarize d i n fou r points :

• First , th e rulemaking recor d require s a conclusio n tha t canister-base d ORV

R system s wil l unreasonabl yincreas e th e ris k t o moto r vehicl e safety .

• Second , EPAshoul d issu e a decisio n declining t o requir e ORV R system s a t thi s time i n ligh t o f th e unreasonabl e safet y risk .

• Third , EPAha s ampl e lega l authorit yt o reac hsuc ha result , unde r th e plai n languag e an d legislativ e historyo f th e Clean Ai r Act .P. 4

• Finally , Stag e I I control s ar e require d b yth e Clea n Ai r Act , wil l contro l th e same emission s a s ORV R systems , an

d wil l achiev e contro l i n a saf e manner .
Th e Rulemaking Recor d Require s a Conclusio n tha t Canister-Base d ORV R Svstem s wil l Increas e th e Ris k t o Moto r Vehicl e Safet y I n Novembe r 1990 , th e Presiden t signe d th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 . Thes e amendment s directe d EP At o consul t wit hth e Secretaryo f Transportatio n abou t th e safet yo f ORV R contro l system s befor e issuing standard s requiring them . Congres s directe d tha t th e safet yconsultatio n an d rulemaking b e complete d withi n on e yea r o f enactmen t o f th e amendments . Th e Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA) , the . exper t vehicl e safet yagencywithi n DOT , provide d EP Awit ha thoroughassessmen t o f th e safet yissu e i n Jul y1991 . NHTS A foun d unequivocall ytha t canister-base d ORV R system s wil l increas e th e ris k t o moto r vehicl e safety . Althoughth e comment s o f other s todaywil l b e helpful , NHTSA' s repor t mus t b e th e centerpiec e o f th e rulemaking recor d o n th e safet yissue . I n ligh t o f NHTSA' s Congressionall y chartere d expertis e i n vehicl e safet ymatters , th e statutory requiremen t tha t EPAconsul t wit hNHTS Ai n thi s regard , an d th e thoroughnes s wit hwhic hNHTS Aprepare d it s Jul y199 1 report , th e NHTS Aconclusion s ar e entitle d t o substantia l weigh t i n EPA' s rulemaking . Amon g th e finding s o f th e NHTS Aassessmen t i s th e following , conclusion :

- 2 -P. 5

"Unde r certai n condition s representativ e o f th e moto r vehicl e cras han

d operating environment , ORV R refueling vapo r recoverysystem s woul d resul t i n a substantia l increas e i n fir e potential . Thes e occurrence s resul t i n a n increase d safet yris k an d henc e woul d hav e a negativ e impac t o n safety. " Th e NHTS Arepor t als o finds : "The complexit yo f [ORVR ] system s an d dat a indicating tha t fir e risk s wil l increas e wit hORV R system s lead t o th e conclusio n tha t ORV R system s wil l resul t i n a n increas e i n safet yris k an d thu s hav e a negativ e impac t o n safety. " Th e safet yrisk s identifie d b yNHTSA , relating principall yt o increase d fue l systemcomplexit yan d vapo r volume , ar e inheren t i n an ycanister-base d onboard design . NHTS Aidentifie d failur e mode s "du e t o design , manufacture , o r assembl yerrors , a s wel l a s damage , imprope r servicing , o r deliberat e disconnectio n through tampering, " a s wel l a s othe r "operationa l safet yconcerns " associate d wit hth e refueling process , vehicl e operatio n an d vehicl e crashes . Th e safet yris k identifie d b yNHTS Ai s neithe r smal l no r speculative . AlthoughNHTS Acandidl yacknowledge d tha t i t coul d no t provid e precis e quantificatio n o f increase d number s o f vehicl e fire s o r associate d injuries , NHTS Aunequivocall y conclude d tha t "fir e risk s wil l increase " wit hORV R systems . NHTSA' s repor t als o stated , "[a]lthoughrelativel yrare , . . . th e occurrenc e o f a fir e [i n a collision ] greatl yincrease s th e ris k o f injury. " (Emphasi s added.) . Thi s rulemaking record , enhance d b yth e comment s receive d today , mus t lead t o a n EPAdecisio n tha t i t wil l no t requir e

- 3 -P. 6

canister-base d ORV

R system s i n ligh t o f th e safet yrisk s identifie d wit hth e systems . N o othe r conclusio n coul d b e rationall y supporte d byth e existing rulemaking record .

An EPADecisio n Declining t o Requir e ORV R System s Give s Ful l Effec t t o th e Plai n Languag e an d Legislativ e Historyo f th e Clean Ai r Ac t Give n th e strengt han d clarit yo f th e safet yrecor d o n thi s issue , EP Amus t procee d i n a manne r tha t give s ful l effec t t o th e overal l goal s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t a s wel l a s t o th e inten t o f Congres s i n amending th e provisio n dealing wit hORV R controls . A s EPAcorrectl ynote d i n it s reques t fo r comment s o n th e safet y study , th e statutoryframewor k fo r th e agency' s decisio n encompasse s bot hth e amende d Sectio n 202(a)(6) , whic hprovide s fo r rulemaking t o conside r mandating ORV R controls , a s wel l a s th e requirement s o f Sectio n 202(a)(4) , a longstanding provisio n o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t tha t attempt s t o ensur e tha t emissio n contro l system s d o no t hav e unintended , advers e effect s o n healt h

o r safety . EP Aals o correctl ynote d th e relevanc e o f ne w provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t whic hrequir e Stag e I I control s i n mos t populate d areas . EPA' s constructio n o f thes e provision s i s supporte d b

yth e legislativ e historyo f th e 199 0 amendments . Th e plai n languag e o f Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) make s i t clea r tha t Congres s expecte d EPAt o conside r th e safet yo f ORV R system s befor e requiring them , wit hspecia l consideratio n give n t o NHTSA' s advic e o n safety . Congres s intende d th e consultatio n t o b e meaningful , an

d specificall yexpecte d th e safet yconsultatio n

- 4 -P. 7

t o b e par t o f th e rulemaking record an d a n integra l par t o f th e rulemaking decision . An yothe r interpretatio n o f th e safet y consultatio n provisio n woul d eviscerat e th e provision . Therefore , th e onl ycours e o f actio n tha t i s consisten t wit hth e inten t o f Congres s i n providin g fo r th e safet yconsultation , an d wit hth e rulemaking record , i s an EPAdecisio n declining t o requir e canister-base d ORV

R system s becaus e the yar e unsafe . Th e legislativ e historyo f Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) provide s additiona l suppor t fo r a n EPAdecisio n declining t o requir e unsaf e ORV

R systems . Th e Hous e o f Representatives ' Subcommitte e o n Healt han

d Environmen t specificall yadde d th e requiremen t fo r a DO T safet yassessmen t t o sectio n 202(a)(6 ) during it s marku p o f th e provisio n i n 1989 , notwithstanding th e advic e o f subcommitte e counse l tha t Sectio n 202(a)(4 ) wa s sufficien t t o preclud e th e Agenc yfro

mmandating unsaf e ORV R systems . Thi s actio n o f th e subcommitte e signal s tw o points . First , th e subcommitte e wante d t o ensur e tha t EPAwoul d mak e it s ORV R regulatorydecisio n o n th e basi s o f a rulemaking recor d tha t include d th e view s o f th e exper t Federa l agencycharge d wit h vehicl e safet yresponsibilitie s - - DOT/NHTSA , a n agenc yove r whic h th e Energ

yand Commerc e Committe e ha s oversigh t authority . Th e member s o f th e subcommitte e wer e wel l awar e o f NHTSA' s longstanding concern s abou t th e safet yo f ORV R system s whe n the yassigne d th e safet yconsultatio n rol e t o DOT . Second , th e subcommitte e wa s no t conten t t o allo wth e safet y issu e t o b e resolve d solel yo n th e basi s o f th e 198 9 record . I f

- 5 -P. 8

Congres s ha d bee n conten t tha t ORV R system s wer e "saf e enough, " afte r evaluating th e record o n th e safet yissu e a s i t stoo d i n 1989 , ther e woul d hav e bee n n o reaso n t o ad d th e requiremen t fo r a ne wDOT/NHTS Aconsultatio n o n safety . Instead , Congres s wante d EPA' s decisio n t o b e base d o n a rulemaking recor d tha t include d th e newes t informatio n an d analysis , no t o n stal e data . Takin g i t together , th e onl yreasonabl e interpretatio n o f th e subcommittee' s actio n i n adding th e safet yconsultatio n i s t o conclud e tha t Congres s intende d EPAt o requir e ORV R system s onl y afte r concluding tha t th e system s ar e safe . Thus , i n it s repor t o n th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendments , th e Committe e o n Energ yan d Commerc e confirme d tha t th e safet yissu e wa s integra l t o th e EPA decision , stating , "[n] o on e want s a rul e tha t require s [ORVR ] control s fo r th e consume r tha t presen t safet yproblems. " H.R.Rep.No.490 , 101s t Cong. , 2 d Sess. , pt . 1 a t 30 4 (1990) . A s EP Anote d i n it s reques t fo r comments , Sectio n 202(a)(4 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , a provisio n tha t wa s unchange d b yth e 199 0 amendments , i s als o relevan t t o th e agency' s decision . Thi s sectio n impose s a separat e dut yo n EPAt o declin e t o requir e emissio n contro l system s tha t presen t "an unreasonabl e ris k t o publi c health , welfar e o r safety. " (Emphasi s supplied. ) Th e recor d i n thi s proceeding wil l no t suppor£__a_conclusion tha t th e ris k presente d b yORV R system s i s '^reasonable. / NHTS A ha s foun

d tha t canister-base d onboar d system s wil l increas e th e chance s o f vehicl e fire , a particularl yseriou s ris k t o moto r vehicl e safety . Notwithstanding th e rarit yo f vehicl e fire ,

- 6 -P. 9

safet yexpert s agre e tha t moto r vehicl e fire s mus t b e prevented . no t simpl ymanaged . I n a recen t repor t entitle d "Moto r Vehicl e Fire s i n Traffi c Crashe s an d th e Effect s o f th e Fue l System Integrit yStandard " (Novembe r 1990) , NHTS Afoun d that , i n collision s involving a fire , th e likelihoo d o f seriou s injuryi s 40 0 - 500 % greate r tha n i n collision s withou t fires . Similarly , th e ris k o f fatalit yi s 7 0 - 80 % greate r i n collision s wit h fires . And , i n ligh t o f NHTSA' s conclusion s identifying safet yrisk s whic har e inheren t t o canister-base d ORV R systems , ther e i s n o pre-:production tes t protoco l tha t ca n resolv e thes e risks , o r rende r them"reasonable " o r "acceptable. " Suc ha protoco l woul d merel ydefe r consideratio n o f th e safet yissue s t o some futur e date , contraryt o Congressiona l inten t tha t th e safet yissue s b e resolve d befor e ORV R control s ar e mandated . Th e unreasonablenes s o f th e safet yris k associate d wit hORV R system s i s magnifie d whe n on e consider s th e read yavailabilit yo f a saf e refueling emissio n contro l strateg y—Stag e I I systems . Stag e I I system s ar e prove n technologie s fo r th e effectiv e contro l o f refueling vapor s tha t presen t n o safet yrisk s t o th e motorin g public , tha t enhanc e servic e statio n safety , and tha t ar e require d b

yth e Clean Ai r Ac t t o b e installe d i n al l moderat e (an d worse ) ozon e nonattainmen t areas . I n ligh t o f th e strong recor d o n th e increase d ris k o f fir e associate d wit hORV R systems , an

d th e seriousnes s o f tha t risk , EPAshoul d conclud e tha t canister-base d ORV R system s presen t a n unreasonabl e ris k t o safety . Amandat e fo r suc hdevice s i s thu s

- 7 -P.1 0

prohibite d b

ySectio n 202(a)(4) , a s th e Subcommitte e wa s advise d b yit s counse l during deliberation s o n Sectio n 202(a)(6) . Th e Novembe r Deadlin e Doe s No t Overrid e EPA' s Obligation s t o Mak e AReasone d Decisio n Base d o n th e Rulemaking Recor d AlthoughSectio n 202(a)(6 ) specifie s a rulemaking deadlin e o f Novembe r 1991 , th e deadlin e canno t reasonabl yb e construe d t o requir e EP At o contradic t other , expres s wishe s o f Congress . Promulgatio n o f an ORV R mandat e i n Novembe r 199 1 woul d arbitraril y ignor e th e result s o f th e safet yconsultatio n require d unde r Sectio n 202(a)(6) , woul d b e inconsisten t wit hSectio n 202(a)(4 ) an d woul d violat e expres s Congressiona l intent . A s discusse d above , EPAclearl yha s th e lega l authorit yt o declin e t o requir e ORV R system s i n th e fac e o f th e strong evidenc e i n th e rulemaking recor d abou t th e safet yproblem s associate d wit hth e systems . AlthoughEPAcoul d rel yeithe r o n th e plai n languag e o f Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) o r o n th e requirement s o f Sectio n 202(a)(4 ) t o suppor t suc ha conclusion , reading th e tw o provision s togethe r provide s th e stronges t suppor t fo r declining t o requir e ORV

R systems . Furthermore , a decisio n declining t o requir e unsaf e ORV R system s i s full yconsisten t wit hth e Clea n Ai r Act' s overal l goa l o f improving ai r quality , becaus e th e 199 0 Amendment s provid e elsewher e tha t refueling vapor s wil l b e recapture d b y Stag e I I control s i n area s classifie d a s moderat e (or worse ) fo r ozon e nonattainment . (Section 182(b)(3)) . i f congres s ha d intende d t o requir e ORV R systems , regardles s o f th e outcome o f th e safet yconsultation , ther e woul d hav e bee n n o nee d t o requir e

- 8 -P.1 1

thi s mean s o f controlling th e same emissions. / I n fact , Stag e I I control s ca n provid e ozon e abatemen t benefit s superio r t o ORV R systems . Stag e I I control s wil l b e i n widesprea d us e fa r mor e quickl ytha n ORV

R system s coul d b e produced ; Stag e I I control s presen t absolutel yn o safet yris k t o th e motoring public , an d theyenhanc e servic e statio n safety . Conclusio n An EP Adecisio n declining t o requir e ORV R system s woul d preserv e bot hth e Congressiona l interes t i n vehicl e safety , an d th e Congressiona l interes t i n promp t an d effectiv e refueling emission s contro l throughStag e I I systems . EPAshoul d promptl y issu e a decisio n explaining tha t i t wil l no t requir e ORV R system s i n orde r t o giv e ful l effec t t o th e plai n meanin g an d intentio n o f Section s 202(a)(4 ) an d 202(a)(6 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . W e respectfull ysubmi t tha t t o d o otherwis e woul d b e arbitrary , capriciou s an

d contraryt o law . a:\ob t

- 9 -