P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 192 ) IV-C-15

9 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:01 AM Sheet 192 of 232P. 2

''1 

## A~8> 7 - ((

, ^ o s ^ , 

# USfc

_ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y \ , J? WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 2046 0 FE ? 2 8 198

9

TH E ADMINISTRATO R



# ,, . iJJJJ- I Honorabl e Joh

n D . Dingel l lUi . K IQR Q Chairman , Subcommitte e o n Mil l M W 0 ra^ Oversigh t an

d Investigation s Committe e o n Energ

yan d Commerc e I L * _ .. « nftCKE T Hous e o f Representative s 1 EPAA»2_i_ ! • Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r lette r o f Novembe r 30 , 198 8 i n whic h yo u raise d concern s in severa l area s pertaining t o EPA' s analysi s o f onboar d contro l systemsafet yan d running los s emissions . You r lette r raised issue s i n fiv e mai n areas : 1 ) Nationa l Transportatio n Safet yBoar d (NTSB ) comment s o n EPA' s draf t revise d onboar d safet yanalysis , "Summaryan d Analysi s o f Comment s Regarding th e Potentia l Safet yImplication s o f Onboar d Vapo r RecoverySystems" , 2 ) NTS B comment s o n Battelle 1 s draf t failur e mode s an

d effect s analysi s (FMEA ) entitle d "Fue l Syste m Comparativ e Ris k Assessment" , 3 ) EP Awor k o n running los s emissions , 4 ) briefings , studie s an d report s whic h EPAshoul d provid e t o variou s parties , an d 5 ) recen t EPAinteraction s wit h Ford Moto r Compan yregarding the simpl e onboar d system concept . Our respons e i s organize d int o the same fiv e topics . Unfortunately , neithe r NTS B no r NHTS Aprovide d a copyo f the NTS B comment s directl yt o EPAfo r ou r consideration . However , afte r receiving the copywhic h wa s enclose d wit h you r letter , w e contacte d Dr . Merrit t Birky , th e NTS B representativ e wh o reviewe d th e two documents . W e wer e abl e t o clarif ysome o f the statement s whic h he mad e concerning the analyses . Th e enclose d mem o t o the record , whic h wa s coordinate d wit h NTSB , detail s tha t follow-u p conversation . I n general , w e d o no t disagre e wit h NTSB' s concluding commen t tha t sufficien t leadtime mus t be give n in orde r t o dea l directl ywit h th e issue s raise d regarding onboar d safety . However , lik e you , w e wer e als o concerne d abou t som e o f the statement s mad e b ythe NTS B regarding th e draf t revise d onboar d safet yanalysi s an d th e Battell e FMEA .P. 3

-2

- First , a specifi c concer n raise d i n you r lette r wa s i n regard t o NTSB' s commen t o n an apparen t bia s an d lac k o f objectivit yin the EPAdraf t revise d onboard safet yanalysis . I n our conversation , Dr . Birk ysai d tha t thi s impressio n stemme d fro

m hi s revie wo f the fir e an d recal l dat a analysi s section s o f th e draf t safet yanalysis . A s we explaine d t o Dr . Birky , we als o ha d some reservation s abou t usin g thes e dat a whic h wer e state d i n a t leas t thre e differen t point s i n th e report . However , ther e wer e severa l reason s wh ywe fel t us e o f thes e dat a wa s appropriat e an d necessary . First , i t wa s supplie d t o u s b

yNHTS Aan

d characterize d b

ythe ma s th e bes t availabl e information . Second , bot h NHTS Aan d othe r commenter s use d thes e dat a t o suppor t thei r concern s regarding onboar d an d evaporativ e system safety . Third , our us e o f th e dat a wa s constraine d onl yt o respon d t o the safet ycomment s base d upo n the sam e data . The onl yconclusion s we dre wfro mou r analysi s o f the dat a wer e tha t i t i s no t possibl e t o determin e tha t evaporativ e contro l system s hav e degrade d safety . I n an y event , our goa l i s t o conduc t a n objective , unbiase d assessmen t o f thes e importan t issues . W e ar e therefor e concerne d tha t NTS B viewe d ou

r draf t repor t otherwis e an d w e wil l work closel y wit h the

mt o assur e a

n objectiv e analysis . NTS B als o commente d tha t the potentia l fo r a n increas e i n vehicl e safet ywit h the adven t o f onboar d system s discusse d i n the draf t revise d onboar d safet yanalysi s i s no t ye t prove n an d i s no t solel ylimite d t o onboar d system s sinc e muc h o f th e claime d improvemen t coul d als o be achieve d i f modification s wer e mad e t o curren t evaporativ e contro l systems . I t i s tru e tha t manufacturer s coul d achiev e som e o f thes e potentia l safet y improvement s b

ymodifying thei r curren t system s withou t a n onboar d requirement . However , the yhave a s ye t no t don e s o an d pas t experienc e suggest s tha t such measure s wil l no t necessaril ybe take n unilaterally . Th e secon

d mai n issu e raise d i n you r lette r wa s i n regar d t o NTSB' s concer n tha t Battelle' s FME Afaile d t o addres s th e safet yrelate d issue s of : 1 ) the performanc e o f a n onboar d systemdurinqcollision/rollove r an d 2 ) the driveabilit yo f a n onboard-equippe d vehicle . A s w e discusse d wit h NTS B i n ou r follow-u

p conversation , collisio n an d rollove r ar e incorporate d i n the analysi s a s i s apparen t i n Tabl e 4-3 , Operatin g Stat e Characteristic s an d th e differen t FME Aanalysi s tables . Furthe r discussio n wit h Dr . Birk yreveale d tha t the focu s o f hi s commen t wa s tha t thes e issue s shoul d b e deal t wit h fro

ma n experimenta l perspectiv e a s wel l a s i n Battelle' s engineerin g analysis . Suc h testing is , however , outsid e the scop e o f a FMEA" . I t i s correc t tha t the potentia l effect s o f onboar d system s o n driveabilit ywer e no t evaluate d b yBattell e i n thi s study , sinc e thi s woul d no t b e possibl e withi n th e scop e o f traditiona l failur e mode s analysi s techniques .P. 4

-3

- Wit h regard t o the aforementione d Battell e FME Abriefing , ou r follow-u

p conversatio n wit h NTS B confirme d tha t NTS B di d no t actuall yreques t tha t NHTS Aatten d the briefing bu t merel y suggeste d i t a s a possibl yconvenien t measur e t o reduc e th e numbe r o f briefing s whic h EPAwoul d nee d t o give . NTS B an d NHTS Awer e no t briefe d togethe r primaril ydu e t o scheduling conflict s betwee n th e tw o groups . The ydi d bot h atten d the briefing give n t o your staff . Th e third issu e discusse d in you r lette r i s tha t o f EPA' s work o n running los s emissions . Yo u ar e correc t i n statin g tha t EPAcontinue s t o stud yrunning losses ; mor e testing i s bein g don e i n orde r t o develo p a bette r flee t averag e representatio n o f running losses . Th e fac t tha t our testing continue s shoul d no t be take n t o impl ytha t we d o no t understan

d th e source s o f running losse s o r the nee d fo r control . Th e caus e o f running losse s i s inadeouat e purg e t o dea l wit h vapor s being generate d i n th e fue l tan k durin g vehicl e operation . I n the fourt h mai n are a o f your lette r yo u requeste d tha t variou s briefing document s an d draf t report s be provide d t o variou s parties . Yo u aske d tha t EP Asen d a copyo f the draf t 3attell e FME Arepor t t o foreign an d domesti c manufacturers . I n response , EP Aha s sen t copie s o f the draf t Battell e repor t t o MVMA , AIA , an

d API , an

d a cop

yha s bee n place d i n the docket . Yo u als o aske d tha t the November , 198 8 Battelle/Offic e o f Mobil e Source s updat e briefing o n EPA' s analysi s o f onboar d contro l safet yissue s be provide d t o th e NTSB , NHTSA , you r Subcommittee , the affecte d industryan d the public . Thi s materia l wa s presente d b yEPAan

d Battell e a t the briefing s give n t o NHTS Aan d NTS 3 i n November . Th e briefing material s wil l als o b

e place d i n the publi c docke t fo r revie wb yothe r intereste d parties . Finally , yo u expresse d concer n abou t EPA' s Octobe r 21 , 198 8 lette r "t

o Ford regarding Ford' s applicatio n o f a simplifie d onboar d contro l systemdesign t o a Ford Tauru s fue l tank . W e regre t our respons e ca n be viewe d a s "defensiv e an d aggressive. " W e onl yintende d t o conve your vie wtha t Ford' s claim s regarding the performanc e an d feasibilit yo f the EPA-typ e simpl e contro l systemwer e no t correct . W e assur e yo u tha t ou r interaction s wit h Ford an d othe r manufacturer s wil l be o n a n objective , technica l basis .P. 5

< < -4

-

I n closing , we woul d lik e t o stat e tha t we shar e you r concern s fo r bot h the safet yo f vehicle s an d the the environment . W e hop e tha t thi s lette r intention s an

d addresse s you r concerns . protectio n o f clarifie s ou r

Enclosur e

cc : Th e Honorabl e Dian e K . Stee d Administrator , NHTS A \ Th e Honorabl e Jame s L . Acting Chairman , NTS B Kolstea d