P. 1



# OAR Box 1818 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 54 ) ll-D-2 6 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:45PM

Sheet 54 of 79p 2 II c'i— H ! •



### STATEMEN T O F JEFFRE Y MILLE R DEPUT Y ADMINISTRATOR , NATIONA L HIGHWA Y TRAFFI C SAFET Y ADMINISTRATIO N * BEFOR E TH E HOUS E SUBCOMMITTE E O NOVERSIGH T AN D INVESTIGATIONS , tf" COMMITTE E O NENERG Y AN D COMMERCE , O NOZON E ISSUE S ' U 

### ^"' L U
u nUiun t .JiUi J ENVIRONMENTA L HROTECTIO N <-.v,, . . • •-••-• •• AGENC Y 

### -•'--
- ^d^K;..-

. Apri l 27,J987:%^ . " •. • • ""•'" ' •• > • v:-!t*p5»
- • AU G rai98? ^

- 

### CENTRA L DOCKE T Mr . Chairma n and Member s o f th e Subcommittee
. I amplease d t o appea r befor e yo u toda yt o discus s th e moto r vehicl e safet yaspect s o f th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s (EPA ) plan s wit hrespec t t o controllin g th e vapor s produce d bygasolin e refueling
. H i t hm e a t th e witnes s tabl e fro mth e Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA ) ar e Barr y Felrice , Associat e Administrato r fo r Rulemaking , and Erik a Jones , Chie f Counsel . Frit s Wybenga , fro mth e Coas t Guard' s Offic e o f Marin e Safety , Securit yand Environmenta l Protection , and - fro mth e Federa l Highwa yAdministratio n (FHWA) , ar e als o wit hus , a s requeste d i n you r letter s o f invitation
.
Th e EPAi s currentl yconsiderin g th e issuanc e o f a proposa l t o reduc e th e atmospheri c ozon e produce d bygasolin e refuelin g vapor s bycapturin g thes e vapor s wit hrecover ysystem s o n boar d ne wgasoline-powere d passenge r cars , ligh t truck s and heavy-dut yvehicles
. Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t require s th e EPAAdministrato r to consul t wit hth e Secretar yo f Transportatio n o n th e moto r vehicl e safet yconsequence s o f thes e systems. . H I thi n DOT , responsibilit yfo r tha t functio n ha s bee n assigne d to NHTSA , consisten t wit hou r moto r vehicl e safet yP. 3



### a * 2 responsibilitie s unde r th e Nationa l Traffi c an dMoto r Vehicl e Safet y

Ac t o f 1966 , andFHWA , consisten t wit h NHTSA' s consultation s wit hEP A o nthi s matte r bega ni nOctobe r 1985 . Amon g th e factor s whic hw e believ e nee dt o b e considere dar e th e exten t t o whic hsuc hsystem s wil l increas e th e ris ko f vehicl e fire s (bot hcras h andnon-crash) , andth e safet y consequence s o f suc hfires ; th e cos t and complexit y

o f th e technica l solution s t o b e develope dinrespons e t o th e potentia l safet y

problems ; th e amoun t o f time neede di nth e pas t fo r technica l developmen t o f simila r level s o f complexity ; an dth e developmen t andtestin g don e t o date .

W e hav e recentl y

receive danEP

A draf t proposa l wit hrespec t t o onboar d recover y systems , togethe r wit hanEPA draf t technica l repor t o nth e safet y implication s o f suc hsystems . Ou r assessmen t o f th e draf t proposa l 1 s tha t th e safet y o f onboar drecover y

system s woul ddepen dupo n whic hdesig nan

dhardwar e alternative s ar e selecte db y th e vehicl e manufacturers . A s a practica l matter , th e majo r safet y implication s o f suc hsystem s o npost-cras hvehicl e fire s woul dbe evaluate dprincipall y i nth e contex t o f th e vehicl e manufacturers ' self-certificatio ntest s fo r complianc e wit hFedera l Moto r Vehicl e Safet y Standar d(FMVSS ) 301 , fjjfi l . Syste m Integrity . W e currentl y conside r th e performanc e test s o f Standar d30 1 adequat e t o assur e a reasonabl e leve l o f post-cras hfir e safet y 1 nth e moto r vehicle s t o whic hth e standar dapplies , thos e wit ha gros s vehicl e weigh t ratin g (GVWR ) o f 10,00 0 pound s o r less , an d schoo l buse s ove r 10,00 0 pound s (GVWR). . *P. 4

However , complianc e wit h th e standar d I s no t th e onl ymeasur e o f th e safet yo f suc h systems . Th e Federa l moto r vehicl e safet ystandard s ar e minimu mstandards ; the yd o no t and indee d canno t protec t moto r vehicl e occupant s agains t al l conceivabl e hazards . Standar d 301 , fo r example , seek s t o assur e fir e safet yi n severa l seriou s cras h configurations , bu t i t doe s not.asses s safeguard s agains t non-cras h fires
. Unde r th e Vehicl e Safet yAct , a manufacture r mus t no t onl ycompl ywit h al l applicabl e safet ystandards , i t mus t als o remed yan ysafety-relate d defects—includin g thos e no t relate d t o aspect s o f performanc e covere d b y
ou r safet ystandards . Fo r example , a n increase d ris k o f fir e cause d b y installatio n o f ne wdevice s i n th e fue l syste mo r b ylocatio n o f certai n component s o f th e fue l syste mcoul d resul t i n a defec t determination , eve n i f th e fue l syste mcomplie s wit h ou r safet ystandar d fo r fue l syste m integrity
. Responsibl e manufacturers , therefore , see k t o desig n and tes t thei r vehicle s t o preven t potentia l safet ydefects , a s wel l a s t o ensur e complianc e wit h NHTS Asafet ystandards .

Shoul d EP Adecid e t o requir e onboar d vapo r recover ysystems , 1 t appear s tha t technologica l breakthrough s ar e probabl yno t necessar yt o preven t
any degradatio no f curren t level s o f post-cras hvehicl e fir e safety . However , ou r curren t assessment s lea du s t o stres s tha t adequat e leadtime s mus t be provide d s o tha t th e manufacturer s cantes t fo r potentia l safet y

consequence s an d incorporat e th e safeguard s necessar y t o reduc e any

suc hhazard s associate d wit hth e emission s complianc e strateg y the y select .P. 5

* 4 NHTSA' s Fata l Acciden t Reportin g Syste m (FARS ) dat a indicate s tha t o f th e 43,79 5 moto r vehicl e fatalitie s 1 n1985 , approximatel y 1,50 0 (3.4t ) wer e occupant s o f crashe dvehicle s i nwhic hfire s occurred . Approximatel y 1,40. 0 vehicle s coverin g ever y vehicl e typ e wer e involve dinthes e fata l crashes . Base do nNHTSA' s 198 3 evaluatio no f FMVS S 301 , w e projec t tha t abou t 4,00 0 seriou s injurie s andanothe r 4,00 0 moderat e t o mino r injurie s
wer e associate dwit hthes e fire-involve dfata l crashes . We hav e n o informatio no nth e locatio nor origi no f thes e fires .

NHTSA' s Offic e o f Defect s Investigatio ni s currentl y investigatin g 1 3 separat e vehicl e fir e cases . Ou r experienc e i nf1re-1nvolve ddefect s investigation s compel s u s t o underscor e th e critica l importanc e o f providin g th e manufacturer s wit hadequat e leadtime t o develo pandtes t th e adde dcomplexitie s o f onboar drecover y systems . Fo r example , earlie r thi s month , afte r havin g receive dove r 15 0 report s o f fue l expulsion s and thre e report s o f fire s involvin g FordEconolin e E-350s , whic har e converte dt o ambulances , NHTS A aske dbot hFordan

dth e fina l stag e body manufacturer s t o voluntaril y recal l thes e vehicles . For dandth e ambulanc e manufacturer s hav e announce da join t servic e campaig nandar e currentl y

makin g "modificatio nkits " fo r 198 3 t o 198 7 Econolin e E-35 0 ambulance s tha t shoul db e read y fo r Installatio nb

y Ma y 15 . A t th e sam e time , NHTS A

i s stil l considerin g whethe r thi s campaig nshoul db e conducte d1 naccordanc e wit hfedera l regulations .

W e believ e tha t Ford' s proble m wit h"thes e converte dE-350 s 1 s ver y muc h relate dt o th e generi c proble m o f a nIncreas e i nth e probabilit y o f ris k wheneve r complexit y

1 s adde dt o a give nsystem . Muc ho f th e proble m wit hP. 6



### • * 5 thes e vehicle s ca n b e trace d t o hig h under-vehicl e temperature s resultin g fro mexhaust ' syste mai r pump s an d closed-tan k ven t system s whic h wer e adde d i n th e pas t fe wyear s t o mee t federa l emissio n requirements
. Th e proble mi s furthe r aggravate d b yth e hig h vapo r pressure s o f som e currentl yavailabl e gasoline s an d modification s t o th e gasolin e tan k ven t syste mundertake n byth e ambulanc e bod ymanufacturers . I n short , th e adde d complexit yo f onboar d vapo r recover ysystem s coul d negativel y impac t th e safet yo f existin g emission s contro l system s unles s th e manufacturer s hav e adequat e leadtim e t o desig n and tes t measure s t o safel yaccomodat e suc h systems . NHTS Acanno t mak e specifi c prediction s abou t th e safet yconsequence s o f EPA' s draf t proposa l unti l th e vehicl e manufacturer s selec t th e desig n an d hardwar e alternative s fo r suc h systems .

W e als o not e that , fo r th e nex t severa l years , th e automobil e manufacturer s wil l b e directin g a majo r portio n o f thei r safet yresource s (includin g staff , fund s and physica l facilities ) t o th e developmen t o f occupan t protectio n system s tha t mee t th e requirement s o f ou r vehicl e safet ystandar d o nautomati c cras h protection , Safet yStandar d No . 208 . Man ycompanie s hav e tol d u s tha t thei r safet yengineerin g resource s ar e straine d du e t o th e nee d t o tool-u p fo r automati c restrain t systems , an d tha t thei r cras htes t facilitie s ar e operatin g a t o r nea r capacity
. Accordingly , w e believ e i t i s essentia l tha t EPA' s leadtim e estimate s t o ensur e th e safet y

o f onboar d vapo r recover y system s full y

conside r th e othe r demand s an

dconstraint s o n th e manufacturer s du e t o th e developmen t
o f automati c restrain t systems .P. 7



### 6 I nadditio nt o regulatin g moto r vehicl e safety , NHTS A i s responsibl e fo r settin g automotiv e fue l econom y standard s fo r passenge r car s andligh t truck s unde r Titl e V

"o f th e Moto r Vehicl e Informatio nan dCos t Saving s Act . Onboar dvapo r recover y system s coul dhav e som e fue l econom

y implications , althoug hwe ar e uncertai na t thi s time wha t thes e effect s migh t be . Th e proces s o f storin g refuelin g vapor s fo r late r burnin g in th e engin e coul dresul t ina nenerg y benefit . However , th e adde dweigh t o f vapo r recover y

system s coul dpenaliz e fue l economy . Th e Issu e o f whethe r th e weigh t penalty , woul dexcee dth e energ y benefi t o f recovere d vapor s canno t b e resolve dwithou t referenc e t o specifi c hardware . Th e ne t effect s o f onboar dvapo r recover y systems , lik e othe r EP A requirements , woul db e take nint o accoun t 1 nsettin g fue l econom y standards , unde r sectio n502(e)(3 ) o f th e Act . Finally , Mr . Chairman , I woul dlik e t o su m upb y reiteratin g tha t §202(a)(6 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t require s EP A t o mak e a determinatio no f th e feasibilit y

anddesirabilit y

o f requirin g new

moto r vehicle s t o utiliz e onboar dvapo r recover y systems . I f EP A

find s tha t 1 t i s feasibl e anddesirabl e t o emplo y onboar dtechnology , th e statut e direct s th e agency , afte r consultatio nwit hDO T wit hrespec t t o moto r vehicl e safety , t o Issu e standard s requirin g th e us e o f suc htechnology . Accordingly , NHTSA' s rol e 1 s limite dt o consultin g o nth e moto r vehicl e safet y aspect s o f onboar dvapo r recover y systems . W e hav e neithe r th e statutor y authorit y

no r th e technica l expertis e t o mak e recommendation s o r otherwis e commen t o nvariou s emission s contro l technologies . However , w e ar e confiden t tha t EP

A wil l tak e ou r view s int o account , alon g wit h Informatio nfro m

othe r sources , i ndevelopin g an y proposal s o r decision sP. 8


# fi wit h regar d to.onboar d vapo r recover ysystems .

A s requeste d i n you r Marc h 1 0 and Apri l 7 letter s t o Secretar yDole , I hav e attache d t o thi s statemen t th e detaile d answer s t o th e question s yo u addresse d t o NHTSA , th e Coas t Guard' s discussio n o f th e statu s o f th e Nationa l Researc h Council' s stud yo f maritim e hydrocarbo n vapo r contro l systems , and FHWA' s statemen t regardin g highwa ysanction s unde r th e Clea n Ai r Act .

Thi s conclude s m ystatement . I wil l b e gla d t o tr yt o answe r th e question s directe d t o NHTS Atha t yo u ma yhave . Mr . Wybeng a wil l tr y t o
answe r anyquestion s concernin g marin e vesse l vapo r recover yan d wil l tr yt o answe r th e question s directe d t o FHWA .