p.1 

OAR Box 1142 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

10)IV-F-8 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

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

A-&7-/I 

W-F-8 

<?• 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. LEITER 

ON BEHALF OF 

THE SOCIETY OF INDEPENDENT GASOLINE MARKETERS OF AMERICA 

AND 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES 

PRESENTED AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEARING 

, -'VM REGARDING 

'REFUEUNG EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR GASOLINE-FUELED LIGHT-DUTY 

5 VEHICLES AND TRUCKS AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES 

\<£ SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 

A 

MY NAME IS JEFFREY LEITER. I AM A MEMBER OF THE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. LAW FIRM OF COLLIER, SHANNON AND SCOTT. I 

APPEAR TODAY ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS, THE SOCIETY OF 

INDEPENDENT GASOLINE MARKETERS OF AMERICA ("SIGMA") AND THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES ("NACS"). SIGMA AND 

NACS APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY AT TODAYS HEARING. 

AS THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990 MANDATE -- AND THE 

PUBUC DESERVES - THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SHOULD 

PROMULGATE VEHICLE ONBOARD REFUELING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS BY 

NOVEMBER 15, 1991. 

SIGMA IS A NATIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATION OF APPROXIMATELY 

290 CHAIN RETAILERS AND PRIVATE-BRAND MARKETERS OF MOTOR 

FUELS. SIGMA MEMBERS MARKET REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN 

ALL 50 STATES THROUGH MORE THAN 12,750 RETAIL OUTLETS THEY OWN 

AND OPERATE. IN ADDITION, SIGMA MEMBERS' SALES ACCOUNT FOR 
P.3 

NEARLY 20 PERCENT OF THE MOTOR FUELS SOLD AT THE RETAIL LEVEL 

IN THE UNITED STATES. 

NACS IS A NATIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATION COMPRISED OF OVER 1,249 

RETAIL COMPANY MEMBERS. TODAY, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 64,000 

CONVENIENCE STORES IN THE UNITED STATES. MOTOR FUELS ARE SOLD 

AT 60 PERCENT OF THESE RETAIL LOCATIONS. 

ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WTTH THE 

REFUELING EMISSION ISSUE ON BEHALF OF THE TWO GASOLINE 

MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE PAST DECADE. DURING THIS TIME, 

I HAVE SEEN MORE STUDIES, PAPERS AND CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES 

THAN I CARE TO REMEMBER ON ONBOARD CANISTERS AND STATIONARY 

STAGE n VAPOR RECOVERY. THE POLITICAL GRIDLOCK ON THIS ISSUE 

HAS BEEN EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING. FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE 

AVAILABILITY OF CANISTER TECHNOLOGY AND COST WERE ARGUMENTS 

ADVANCED AGAINST ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROLS. THEN, ABOUT 

1986, THE MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS, ANTICIPATING EPAS 

AUGUST 1987 RULEMAKING, GRASPED AT HYPOTHETICAL SAFETY RISKS 

OF THE CANISTER TO BLOCK ONBOARD REFUELING REGULATIONS. I 

REMAIN FULLY PERPLEXED HOW THE RELATIVELY SIMPLE EXPANSION OF 

AN EXISTING POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM HAS BECOME SUCH A 

PASSIONATE "DRAW-THE-UNE IN THE SAND" STAND FOR SOME AUTO 

COMPANIES. 
P.4 

AT THE OUTSET, LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT NEITHER NACS NOR 

SIGMA SEEKS TO EXPOSE THE MOTORING PUBLIC - OUR CUSTOMERS AND 

OURSELVES - TO AN UNREASONABLE SAFETY RISK. HOWEVER, WE 

BELIEVE THAT THE ONBOARD REFUELING CANISTER, WHICH SATISFIES 

ACCEPTED SAFETY STANDARDS, CAN BE CONVINCINGLY AND COSTEFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED. THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR. 

OTHER WITNESSES AT TODAYS HEARING WILL SPEND 

CONSIDERABLE TIME DISCUSSING TECHNICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH 

THE ONBOARD CANISTER. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH CONGRESS' 

MANDATE TO EPA TO ESTABUSH EQUIPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE 

PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROL SYSTEMS 

- THE DEVICES AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR REILLY LAST YEAR SAID ARE 

THE "MOST IMPORTANT MODIFICATION TO MOTOR VEHICLES [EPA] CAN 

REQUIRE TO ACHIEVE A GENUINE AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT." 

AS A MEANS OF CONTROLLING REFUELING EMISSIONS, THE CLEAN 

AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990 PROVIDE THAT STAGE H VAPOR 

RECOVERY CONTROLS MUST BE INSTALLED ON GASOLINE DISPENSING 

SYSTEMS IN "MODERATE," "SERIOUS," "SEVERE," AND "EXTREME" OZONE 

NONATTAINMENT AREAS. RETAIL GASOLINE OUTLETS SELLING LESS 

THAN 10,000 GALLONS PER MONTH OR 50,000 GALLONS PER MONTH FOR 

INDEPENDENT SMALL BUSINESS MARKETERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE 

STAGE H REQUIREMENTS. 

3 
P.5 

THE STATUTE ALSO REQUIRES EPA BY NOVEMBER 15, 1991 TO ISSUE 

A REGULATION REQUIRING UGHT-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES TO BE 

EQUIPPED WITH ONBOARD VAPOR RECOVERY CONTROLS. THE CLEAN 

AIR ACT AMENDMENTS FURTHER PROVIDE THAT, ONCE THE REGULATION 

REQUIRING ONBOARD CONTROLS IS ISSUED, THE REQUIREMENT FOR 

STAGE H CONTROLS IN "MODERATE" OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS IS 

EUMINATED. AFTER ONBOARD CONTROL SYSTEMS ARE IN WIDESPREAD 

USE THROUGHOUT THE VEHICLE FLEET, THE REQUIREMENT FOR STAGE 

H CONTROLS IN OTHER OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS MAY BE WAIVED. 

THERE ARE SEVERAL UNAMBIGUOUS POINTS ABOUT CONGRESS' 

ACTIONS LAST YEAR. FIRST, VEHICLE ONBOARD CONTROLS ARE THE 

LONG-TERM APPROACH TO CAPTURING AND REDUCING REFUEUNG 

EMISSIONS. STAGE II REQUIREMENTS ARE INTERIM MEASURES WHILE 

THE VEHICLE FLEET IS BEING EQUIPPED WTTH THE PHASED-IN CANISTERS. 

EPA HAS THE FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF THE USE OF 

SUCH STAGE U STATIONARY CONTROLS. ACCORDINGLY, EPAS MANDATE 

TO PROMULGATE ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROLS IS NOT CONTINGENT 

ON, OR SUBJECT TO, WHETHER STAGE II REGULATIONS ARE ISSUED. 

MOREOVER, THE EXISTENCE OF STAGE U REQUIREMENTS IS NOT A BASIS 

FOR THE AGENCY TO AVOID ITS CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVE TO ISSUE AN 

ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROLS RULE. EPAS DUTY IS NONDISCRETIONARY. 
P.6 

SECOND, THE REFUELING CANISTER MANDATE IS CONSISTENT WITH 

THE CLEAN AIR ACTS INTENT TO FORCE TECHNOLOGY. HOWEVER, 

UNLIKE OTHER REGULATED INDUSTRIES, THE MOTOR VEHICLE 

MANUFACTURERS DO NOT HAVE TO INVENT ENTIRELY NEW EMISSION 

CONTROL DEVICES. THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY SURELY HAS THE 

ENGINEERING TALENT TO OVERCOME ANY TECHNICAL CHALLENGES 

THAT MAY BE PRESENTED BY EPAS ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROLS. 

THAT EPA MUST ISSUE THE ONBOARD REGULATION IS CLEAR FROM 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. ALLOW ME TO READ THE 

RELEVANT PORTION OF THAT PROVISION. SECTION 202(A)(6) PROVIDES: 

ONBOARD VAPOR RECOVERY - WITHIN 1 YEAR AFTER THE 

DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT 

AMENDMENTS OF 1990, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL, AFTER 

CONSULTATION WTTH THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

REGARDING THE SAFETY OF VEHICLE-BASED ("ONBOARD") 

SYSTEMS FOR THE CONTROL OF VEHICLE REFUELING 

EMISSIONS, PROMULGATE STANDARDS UNDER THIS SECTION 

REQUIRING THAT NEW LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 

MANUFACTURED BEGINNING IN THE FOURTH MODEL YEAR 

AFTER THE MODEL YEAR IN WHICH THE STANDARDS ARE 
P.7 

PROMULGATED AND THEREAFTER BE EQUIPPED WITH SUCH 

SYSTEMS 

SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE ONBOARD 

REFUELING REGULATION IS PREDICATED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION'S FINDING THAT ONBOARD CONTROLS SYSTEM 

ARE "SAFE." THAT IS NOT THE CASE FROM THE STATUTE ON ITS FACE. 

IN FACT, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CLEAN 

AIR ACT AMENDMENTS THAT SUCH AN APPROACH WAS REJECTED BY 

CONGRESS. INSTEAD, CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT EPA SHALL ISSUE A 

REGULATION REQUIRING ONBOARD CONTROLS. 

IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT SECTION 202(A)(4) PROVIDES THAT "NO 

EMISSION CONTROL DEVICE, SYSTEM, OR ELEMENT OF DESIGN SHALL BE 

USED IN A NEW MOTOR VEHICLE OR NEW MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINE FOR 

PURPOSES OF COMPLYING WTTH REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS 

TITLE IF SUCH DEVICE, SYSTEM, OR ELEMENT OF DESIGN WILL CAUSE OR 

CONTRIBUTE TO AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO PUBUC HEALTH, WELFARE, 

OR SAFETY IN TTS OPERATION OR FUNCTION." SOME COMMENTATORS 

ARGUE THAT THIS SECTION PRECLUDES THE USE OF ONBOARD 

REFUELING CONTROLS. THIS VIEW IS NOT ACCURATE. CONGRESSIONAL 

INTENT IS NOT FULFILLED SIMPLY BY CONDUCTING A STUDY OF 

POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUES. CONGRESSIONAL INTENT GOES A STEP 

FURTHER BY MANDATING THAT EPA THE DEPARTMENT OF 

6 
P.8 

TRANSPORTATION, AND AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS WORK TO DESIGN 

AN ONBOARD SYSTEM THAT CAPTURES REFUELING EMISSIONS AND 

MEETS APPUCABLE SAFETY STANDARDS. 

IN THIS REGARD, THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT, BEFORE ISSUING 

THE ONBOARD REGULATION, EPA IS TO CONSULT WITH THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING SAFETY ISSUES. AGAIN, 

THIS PROVISION DOES NOT GIVE DOT THE POWER TO OVERRIDE EPAS 

NON-DISCRETIONARY DUTY TO REQUIRE ONBOARD CONTROLS. DOT 

MUST WORK WITH EPA IN DESIGNING AN ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROL 

SYSTEM THAT WILL MEET APPUCABLE SAFETY STANDARDS, SUCH AS 

FMVSS 301 - THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY 

STANDARD. 

AS PART OF THE CONSULTATION PROCESS, DOT, THROUGH THE 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, IN JULY OF THIS 

YEAR ISSUED A REPORT ENTITLED, "AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SAFETY OF 

ONBOARD REFUELING VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS." ALTHOUGH NHSTA 

DID NOT DIRECTLY TEST AN ONBOARD REFUELING CANISTER, THE 

REPORT CONCLUDED THAT SUCH ONBOARD SYSTEMS WOULD POSE "AN 

UNREASONABLE SAFETY RISK." 

NHTSA'S JULY 1991 REPORT IS CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF 

EVIDENCE AND INDEPENDENT STUDIES THAT ONBOARD REFUEUNG 

7 
P.9 

CONTROLS WOULD BE SAFE AND, IN FACT, MAY BE POSSIBLY SAFER THAN 

EXISTING EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEMS WHICH THEY BUILD UPON. 

OUR ASSESSMENT OF NHTSA'S REPORT IS THAT THE DOCUMENT IS BASED 

ON OPINION, RATHER THAN ON OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS AND ACTUAL DATA. 

MOREOVER, SUCH OPINION IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH NHTSA'S 

PUBUC STATEMENTS ON THE REFUEUNG CANISTER ISSUE. 

NHTSA EARLIER HAD SAID THAT IT COULD NOT ASSESS THE SAFETY 

OF ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROL SYSTEMS BECAUSE IT COULD NOT 

QUANTIFY THE RISKS WITHOUT TESTING MANUFACTURER-PRODUCED 

VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH REFUELING CANISTERS. FURTHER, NHTSA 

TOLD THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE THAT, EVEN IF THE AGENCY 

COULD QUANTIFY THE RISKS AND COULD PROVIDE A SAFETY ANALYSIS 

TO EPA TT COULD NOT ASSESS WHETHER THESE RISKS WERE WORTH THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS PROVIDED. EPA SHOULD ASK NHTSA TO PUT 

INTO THE RECORD OF THIS HEARING THE BASES FOR ITS SUDDEN AND 

LAST MINUTE "CONVERSION" AND AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE 

POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE ONBOARD REFUELING 

CANISTER. 

NHTSA'S OPINION ASSUMES THAT ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROLS 

ARE EER SE MORE COMPLEX THAN EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEMS. IT 

IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE THAT THE REFUELING CANISTER WILL BE 

MORE COMPLEX THAN EXISTING OR PROPOSED EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

8 
P.10 

SYSTEMS. MOREOVER, WHERE WAS NHTSA WHEN MODIFICATIONS TO 

THE CURRENT EVAPORATIVE EMISSION WERE PROPOSED AND THE 

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS TOLD NHTSA THAT THE CHANGES 

WOULD MAKE THE SYSTEM MORE COMPLEX? 

NHTSA IN OPINING THAT THE SAFETY RISKS POSED BY REFUEUNG 

CANISTERS WAS "UNREASONABLE" AND THAT EPA SHOULD NOT ISSUE A 

RULE, IGNORED SEVERAL KEY CONSIDERATIONS. FIRST, NHTSA OMITTED 

DISCUSSING THAT FORD, TOYOTA AND HONDA REPORTED TO NHTSA 

THAT REFUELING-CANISTER EQUIPPED TEST VEHICLES PASSED FMVSS 

301. SECOND, NHTSA'S REPORT DOES NOT DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL 

SAFETY ADVANTAGES FROM THE ONBOARD REFUELING SYSTEMS. FOR 

EXAMPLE, THE SYSTEM LIKELY COULD REDUCE FUEL TANK PRESSURES, 

THEREBY REDUCING HAZARDS IN AN ACCIDENT. I TESTIFIED ON THIS 

LATTER POINT IN 1987 BEFORE THE WAXMAN SUBCOMMITTEE. FURTHER, 

INDEPENDENT STUDIES, SUCH AS THOSE CONDUCTED BY THE CENTER 

FOR AUTO SAFETY AND THE BATTELLE INSTITUTE, HAVE CONCLUDED 

THAT ONBOARD REFUELING CANISTERS COULD REDUCE OVERALL 

SAFETY RISKS. 

NACS AND SIGMA AGAIN BELIEVE THAT THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE 

CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT ONBOARD REFUELING CANISTERS WOULD BE 

SAFE, AND POSSIBLY SAFER, THAN EXISTING EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

SYSTEMS. THE CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY ANALYZED NHTSA SAFETY-
P.11 

RELATED RECALL DATA ONLY TWO RECALLS OUT OF 4,276 INVOLVED 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CONTROLS. FURTHER, ONLY SIX OUT OF MORE 

THAN 1,500 REPORTED AUTO FIRES INVOLVED THE EVAPORATIVE 

EMISSION CANISTER. 

EPA HAS CONSULTED WTTH DOT AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE. 

EPA NOW SHOULD PUT NHTSA'S REPORT IN CONTEXT - PROFESSIONAL 

JUDGMENT AND NOT A FINDING - AND MOVE FORWARD TO ISSUE THE 

REQUIRED ONBOARD REFUELING CANISTER REGULATION. PROFESSIONAL 

JUDGMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND WEIGHED ALONG WTTH ALL 

OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. MOREOVER, EPA SHOULD REJECT 

OUTRIGHT NHTSA'S STATEMENT THAT "SINCE [REFUELING CANISTERS] 

INCREASE SAFETY RISK AND STAGE U DOES NOT, IT SEEMS REASONABLE 

FOR EPA TO CONCLUDE THAT THESE SYSTEMS CONSTITUTE AN 

UNREASONABLE SAFETY RISK." SUCH LOGIC IS DISINGENUOUS. 

NACS AND SIGMA CONCUR WTTH GAOS CONCLUSION THAT EPA 

SHOULD GET ON WITH TTS STATUTORY MANDATE - THAT IS, ISSUING 

ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROLS. THE AGENCY PREVIOUSLY HAS FOUND 

THAT NO TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS EXIST AND CAR MAKERS WILL 

HAVE UNTIL THE 1996 MODEL YEAR TO TEST AND PERFECT REFUELING 

CANISTERS. GASOLINE MARKETERS BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR 

AND CONVINCING AND THAT EPA'S MANDATE IS UNAMBIGUOUS. 

10 
P.12 

ACCORDINGLY, GASOLINE MARKETERS ARE PREPARED TO PURSUE THIS 

MATTER IN COURT, IF NECESSARY. 

AGAIN, LET ME STATE THAT THE LAW LEAVES NO ROOM FOR 

DOUBT. CONGRESS IMPOSED ON EPA A NON-DISCRETIONARY DUTY TO 

ISSUE BY NOVEMBER 15, 1991 A REGULATION REQUIRING MOTOR 

VEHICLES TO BE EQUIPPED WTTH ONBOARD VAPOR RECOVERY 

CONTROLS. 

THERE ARE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY CONGRESS 

INTENDED FOR ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROLS TO BE UTILIZED. 

FIRST, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ONBOARD CONTROLS ARE 

SUPERIOR TO STAGE II EQUIPMENT IN REDUCING AND CAPTURING 

VEHICLE REFUELING EMISSIONS. EPA ESTIMATES THE IN-USE 

EFFECTIVENESS OF ONBOARD REFUELING CANISTERS AT 95 PERCENT. 

BY COMPARISON, EPA ESTIMATES THAT THE IN-USE EFFECTIVENESS 

OF STAGE H IS ONLY 86 PERCENT DEPENDING UPON THE LEVEL OF 

MAINTENANCE AND THE FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS BY STATE OR 

LOCAL OFFICIALS. THIS EFFECTIVENESS RATE ALSO ASSUMES THAT A 

MOTORIST WELL KEEP THE SYSTEM ENGAGED FOR AT LEAST TEN 

SECONDS AFTER COMPLETION OF REFUELING. AN INDEPENDENT SURVEY 

OF CALIFORNIA MOTORISTS FOUND THAT FEWER THAN 10 IN 2,000 

11 
P.13 

MOTORISTS FULFILLED THIS REQUIREMENT. MOREOVER, ONBOARD 

SYSTEMS CAPTURE REFUELING EMISSIONS FROM THE VEHICLE'S FUEL 

TANK THAT STAGE II WILL NOT CAPTURE WHEN THE FILL CAP INITIALLY 

IS REMOVED, THEREBY PROVIDING MORE PROTECTION OF HUMAN 

HEALTH. 

SECOND, ONBOARD REFUELING CONTROLS ARE LESS EXPENSIVE 

THAN STAGE U VAPOR RECOVERY. THE CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF 

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ESTIMATES THAT THE ONBOARD SYSTEM 

WOULD COST APPROXIMATELY $25.00 PER VEHICLE. EPA ESTIMATES THAT 

THE COST OF THE ONBOARD SYSTEM WOULD BE $20.00. THE COSTS OF 

INSTALUNG STAGE II CONTROLS CAN EXCEED $40,000 AT LARGE STATIONS. 

MAINTENANCE COSTS ARE ESTIMATED TO BE APPROXIMATELY $6,000 TO 

$9,000 PER YEAR. OBTAINING FINANCING FOR THE CONTROLS MAY BE 

DIFFICULT, PARTICULARLY FOR SMALLER GASOLINE MARKETERS. 

THIRD, THE USE OF ONBOARD CONTROLS PERMITS THE CONTROL 

OF REFUELING EMISSIONS ON A NATIONWIDE BASIS. 

FOURTH, REFUELING VAPORS COME FROM THE VEHICLES FUEL 

TANK, NOT FROM GASOLINE DISPENSERS. ONBOARD SYSTEMS CONTROL 

THE EMISSION AT THE SOURCE - THE VEHICLE. 

12 
P.M 

ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME PARTICULAR ADVANTAGES TO 

ONBOARD CONTROLS, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DISADVANTAGES TO 

STAGE H. 

IN ADDITION TO THE DISADVANTAGES OF EFFECTIVENESS AND 

COST, TT COULD TAKE YEARS TO INSTALL STAGE II. IT IS A 

MISPERCEPTION THAT STAGE U CAN BE INSTALLED QUICKLY. INSTALUNG 

STAGE 0 WOULD REQUIRE THE OUTLET OPERATOR TO ARRANGE FOR 

FINANCING, OBTAIN THE NECESSARY CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, ENGAGE 

A CONTRACTOR, AND PURCHASE THE EQUIPMENT. BECAUSE OF THE 

SUDDEN DEMAND CREATED BY THE REQUIREMENT TO USE STAGE II, 

SUPPLY PROBLEMS ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR BOTH IN TERMS OF THE 

EQUIPMENT AND THE CONTRACTORS. EXPERIENCE IN AREAS WHERE 

STAGE n HAS BEEN REQUIRED INDICATES IT WILL TAKE FIVE TO SEVEN 

YEARS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS TO COMPLETE THE NECESSARY 

INSTALLATIONS. 

ANOTHER DISADVANTAGE IS THAT THE HIGH COST OF INSTALUNG 

STAGE H THREATENS JOBS AND ACCESS TO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. 

GASOLINE MARKETERS ALREADY FACE SUBSTANTIAL COSTS IN 

COMPLYING WITH UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK AND OTHER 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. IT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR MARKETERS 

TO PASS THROUGH THESE COSTS. THE COSTS OF INSTALLING STAGE II 

AND MEETING THESE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE COSTS WILL 

13 
P.15 

FORCE MANY GASOLINE MARKETERS, PARTICULARLY THOSE IN RURAL 

AREAS, TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS, COSTING THOUSANDS OF JOBS AND 

MAKING ACCESS TO MOTOR FUEL DIFFICULT. 

REGARDLESS OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF EACH 

RECOVERY CONTROL METHOD, THE POINT IS THAT THE LAW CLEARLY 

MANDATES THAT EPA ISSUE A REGULATION REQUIRING MOTOR 

VEHICLES TO BE EQUIPPED WTTH ONBOARD CONTROLS. THE AGENCY 

MUST DO ITS JOB. NACS AND SIGMA URGE EPA NHSTA AND THE 

AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS TO WORK TOGETHER TO DESIGN AN 

ONBOARD CONTROL SYSTEM WHICH MEETS THE APPUCABLE SAFETY 

STANDARDS, THEREBY FULFILLING CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND 

PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. 

SIGMA AND NACS APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT 

THEIR VIEWS. 

14