P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

205) IV-C-172 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:02 AM Sheet 205 of 232 
f39i 08:02 FROM EPA MOBILE SOURCES 

*»-««»«-' 

P.2 

TO ECTD P.02 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

<P ' WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

A-Si-' 

FILE COPY 

:MAY 7 1991 

"XV-C-ng. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

The Honorable Samuel K. Skinner 

Secretary 

Department of Transportation 

40X) 7th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sam: 

I am writing to provide the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) understanding of the Department of 

Transportation's (DOT) role in the vehicle refueling emissions 

control rulemaking process. As you know, the amendments to the 

Clean Air Act direct EPA, after consultation with the Secretary 

of Transportation, to promulgate within one year standards 

requiring vehicle-based "onboard" controls. 

The key issue for this rule has been, and continues to be, 

the safety of onboard systems. Congress recognized this in 

explicitly directing EPA to consult with the Department of 

Transportation regarding onboard system safety before 

promulgating the rule. This consultation is, of course, a 

continuation of the extensive discussion on the topic that has 

taken place between EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) in the past. Most recently, members of 

my staff have met with your key staff at NHTSA to discuss the 

rulemaking schedule facing EPA and details of the consultation 

process. 

As part of the consultation process, we are looking to you 

and your staff to advise us on the safety of onboard systems. 

It was our understanding that NHTSA staff was preparing an 

updated assessment of onboard system safety. We informed NHTSA 

staff of our intent to solicit public comment on their 

assessment during the course of the continuing rulemaking 

proceeding. 

A 

A»/f\i NCC ^ 
; 

_y 

P.3 

MPY-15-1991 0S:03 FROM EPA MOBILE SOURCES TO ECTD P.03 

-2-

We received a letter from Mr. Jerry Curry, Administrator 

of NHTSA, dated February 27, 1991 in which he reiterates 

•NHTSA's concerns about the safety of onboard systems. The 

letter does not state whether this correspondence is meant to 

be NHTSA's re-assessment of onboard safety. In any case, in 

our opinion, it is not a definitive finding of the safety of 

onboard systems. Let me provide you with our views on the 

necessity and nature of a definitive finding by DOT. 

It seems to us there are three possible outcomes of your 

assessment. First, you could find that onboard systems can be 

installed on vehicles without degrading safety. Second, you 

could find that onboard systems are inherently unsafe and 

should not be installed on vehicles. Third, you could find 

that onboard systems can be safe or unsafe depending on design 

features and that, as part of the onboard system implementation 

process that would follow the mandated onboard rule, NHTSA and 

EPA should take specific steps to insure the actual systems 

designed and installed by the vehicle manufacturers are in fact 

safe. 

As I mentioned at the outset of this letter, Congress has 

directed EPA to promulgate regulations requiring the 

installation of onboard controls, after consultation with the 

Secretary of Transportation concerning their safety, within one 

year of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 

i.e., by November 15, 1991. The only possible exception to 

this mandate would need to be Based on a determination that 

onboard systems would inherently pose an unreasonable risk to 

public safety. As the Department responsible for motor vehicle 

safety, we expect DOT to make a definitive finding about the 

safety of onboard systems upon which the required determination 

could be based. Congress expected a safety.determination to be 

made expeditiously, and certainly to occur before the date 

mandated for issuing regulations. H. Rep. No. 101-490, 101st 

Cong. 2d Sess. 303 (1990). If DOT believes that onboard 

systems cannot be made acceptably safe, it must make a specific 

and definitive finding to EPA quickly given the pending 

statutory deadline. 

We greatly appreciate the cooperation that DOT staff 

members have shown in expediting the resolution of this issue. 

Sincerely yours, 

m 

William K. Reilly