p. 1



# OAR Box 1142 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 10)IV-F- 8 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

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

_ 

## A-&7-/I 

# W-F-8

<? • STATEMEN T O F JEFFRE Y L . LEITER O N BEHAL F O F TH E SOCIET

Y O F INDEPENDEN T GASOLINE MARKETER S O F AMERICA AN D TH E NATIONA L ASSOCIATION O F CONVENIENC E STORE S PRESENTE D A T TH E ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENC Y HEARIN G
, -'V M REGARDIN G 'REFUEUN G EMISSIO N REGULATION S FO RGASOLINE-FUELE D LIGHT-DUT Y 5 VEHICLE S AN D TRUCKS AN D HEAVY-DUT Y VEHICLE S \< £ SEPTEMBER26 , 199 1 A M

Y NAM E IS JEFFRE Y LEITER . I AM A MEMBERO F TH E WASHINGTON , D.C . LA W FIR M O F COLLIER

, SHANNO N AN D SCOTT . I APPEA RTODA Y O N BEHAL F O F OU RCLIENTS , TH E SOCIET Y OF INDEPENDEN T GASOLIN E MARKETERS O F AMERIC A ("SIGMA" ) AN D THE NATIONA L ASSOCIATION O F CONVENIENC E STORE S ("NACS") . SIGM A AN D NAC S APPRECIAT E TH E OPPORTUNIT Y T O TESTIFY A T TODAY S HEARING . A S TH E CLEA N AIRAC T AMENDMENT S O F 199 0 MANDAT E - - AN D TH E PUBU C DESERVE S - TH E ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y SHOUL D PROMULGAT E VEHICLE ONBOARD REFUELIN G SYSTE M REQUIREMENT S BY NOVEMBE R15 , 1991 .
SIGM A I S A NATIONA L TRAD E ASSOCIATIO N O F APPROXIMATELY 29 0 CHAI N RETAILER S AN D PRIVATE-BRAN D MARKETERS O F MOTOR FUELS . SIGMA MEMBERS MARKE T REFINE D PETROLEU M PRODUCT S I

N AL L 5 0 STATE S THROUG H MOR E THA N 12,75 0 RETAIL OUTLET S THE Y OW N AN D OPERATE . I

N ADDITION , SIGM

A MEMBERS ' SALE S ACCOUN T FORP. 3

NEARL Y 2 0 PERCEN T O F TH E MOTORFUEL S SOLD A T TH E RETAI L LEVEL I N TH E UNITE D STATES .
NAC S I S A NATIONA L TRAD E ASSOCIATION COMPRISED O F OVE R1,24 9 RETAIL COMPAN

Y MEMBERS . TODAY , THERE AR E APPROXIMATELY 64,00 0 CONVENIENC E STORE S I N TH E UNITE D STATES . MOTORFUEL S AR E SOLD A T 6 0 PERCEN T O F THES E RETAIL LOCATIONS .
O N A PERSONA L LEVEL , I HAV E BEE N INVOLVE D WTT H TH E REFUELIN G EMISSION ISSU E O N BEHAL F O F TH E TW O GASOLINE MARKETIN G ASSOCIATION S FO RTH E PAS T DECADE . DURIN G THI S TIME , I HAV E SEE N MOR

E STUDIES , PAPER S AN D CONGRESSIONA L INQUIRIE S THA N I CAR

E T O REMEMBE RO N ONBOARD CANISTERS AN D STATIONAR Y STAG E n VAPO RRECOVERY . TH E POLITICAL GRIDLOC K O N THI S ISSUE HA S BEE N EXTREMEL Y FRUSTRATING . FO RA NUMBE RO F YEARS , THE AVAILABILIT Y O F CANISTE RTECHNOLOGY AN D COS T WER E ARGUMENT S ADVANCE D AGAINS T ONBOARD REFUELIN G CONTROLS . THEN , ABOU T 1986 , TH E MOTO RVEHICL E MANUFACTURERS , ANTICIPATIN G EPA S AUGUS T 1987 RULEMAKING , GRASPE D A T HYPOTHETICA L SAFET Y RISK S O F TH E CANISTE RT O BLOCK ONBOARD REFUELIN G REGULATIONS . I REMAI N FULL Y PERPLEXE D HOW TH E RELATIVELY SIMPLE EXPANSIO N O F A N EXISTIN G POLLUTIO N CONTRO L SYSTE M HA S BECOME SUC H A PASSIONAT E "DRAW-THE-UN E IN TH E SAND " STAN D FO RSOME AUT O COMPANIES .P. 4

A T TH E OUTSET , LE T M E EMPHASIZ E THA T NEITHE RNAC S NO R SIGM A SEEK S T O EXPOS E TH E MOTORING PUBLI C - OU RCUSTOMERS AN D OURSELVE S - T O A N UNREASONABL E SAFET Y RISK . HOWEVER, W

E BELIEV E THA T TH E ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CANISTER, WHICH SATISFIE S ACCEPTED SAFET Y STANDARDS , CAN B E CONVINCINGLY AN D COST EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED . TH E EVIDENC E I S CLEAR.
OTHE RWITNESSE S A T TODAY S HEARIN G WIL L SPEND CONSIDERABL E TIM

E DISCUSSIN G TECHNICA L ISSUE S ASSOCIATED WIT H TH E ONBOARD CANISTER. I WOUL D LIK E T O START WIT

H CONGRESS ' MANDAT E T O EP

A T O ESTABUS H EQUIPMEN T STANDARD S FO RTH E PHASE D IMPLEMENTATION O F ONBOARD REFUELIN G CONTRO L SYSTEM S

- TH E DEVICE S AGENC Y ADMINISTRATO RREILL Y LAS T YEA RSAI D ARE TH E "MOS

T IMPORTAN T MODIFICATION T O MOTORVEHICLE S [EPA ] CAN REQUIR E T O ACHIEV E A GENUIN E AIRQUALIT Y IMPROVEMENT. "

A S A MEAN S O F CONTROLLIN G REFUELIN G EMISSIONS , TH E CLEAN AI RAC T AMENDMENT S O F 1990 PROVID E THA T STAG E H VAPO R RECOVER

Y CONTROL S MUS T B E INSTALLED O N GASOLINE DISPENSIN G SYSTEM S I N "MODERATE, " "SERIOUS, " "SEVERE, " AN D "EXTREME " OZON E NONATTAINMEN T AREAS . RETAIL GASOLINE OUTLET S SELLIN G LES S THA N 10,00 0 GALLON S PE RMONT H O R50,00 0 GALLON S PE RMONTH FOR INDEPENDEN T SMALL BUSINES S MARKETER S AR E EXEMP T FROM TH E STAG E H REQUIREMENTS . 3P. 5

TH E STATUT E ALS O REQUIRE S EP A B Y NOVEMBE R15 , 199 1 T O ISSUE A REGULATIO N REQUIRIN G UGHT-DUT Y MOTORVEHICLE S T O B E EQUIPPE D WIT

H ONBOAR

D VAPO RRECOVER

Y CONTROLS . TH E CLEAN AIRAC T AMENDMENT S FURTHE RPROVID E THAT , ONC E TH E REGULATIO N REQUIRIN G ONBOAR D CONTROL S IS ISSUED , TH E REQUIREMEN T FO R STAG E H CONTROL S I N "MODERATE " OZON E NONATTAINMEN T AREA S I S EUMINATED . AFTE RONBOARD CONTRO L SYSTEM S AR E IN WIDESPREA D US E THROUGHOU T TH E VEHICLE FLEET , TH E REQUIREMEN T FO RSTAG E H CONTROL S I

N OTHE ROZON E NONATTAINMEN T AREA S MA Y B E WAIVED .

THER E AR E SEVERA L UNAMBIGUOU S POINT S ABOU T CONGRESS ' ACTION S LAS T YEAR . FIRST , VEHICL E ONBOARD CONTROL S AR E TH E LONG-TER

M APPROAC H T O CAPTURIN G AN D REDUCIN G REFUEUN G EMISSIONS . STAG E I I REQUIREMENT S AR E INTERI M MEASURE S WHIL

E TH E VEHICL E FLEE T IS BEIN G EQUIPPE D WTT H TH E PHASED-I N CANISTERS . EP A HA S TH E FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMININ G TH E EXTEN T O F TH E US E O F SUC H STAG E U

STATIONAR

Y CONTROLS . ACCORDINGLY , EPA S MANDAT E T O PROMULGAT E ONBOARD REFUELIN G CONTROL S IS NO T CONTINGEN T ON , O RSUBJEC T TO , WHETHE RSTAG E I I REGULATION S AR E ISSUED . MOREOVER , TH E EXISTENC E O F STAG E U REQUIREMENT S I S NO T A BASI S FO RTH E AGENC Y T O AVOI D IT S CONGRESSIONA L DIRECTIV E T O ISSU E A N ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CONTROL S RULE . EPA S DUT Y I S NON DISCRETIONARY .P. 6



### SECOND , TH E REFUELIN G CANISTE RMANDAT

E I S CONSISTEN

T WIT H TH E CLEA

N AI RACT S INTEN

T T O FORC E TECHNOLOGY
. HOWEVER , UNLIK E OTHERREGULATED INDUSTRIES , TH E MOTORVEHICL E MANUFACTURERS D O NO T HAV E T O INVEN

T ENTIREL

Y NE W EMISSIO

N CONTROL DEVICES
. TH E AUTOMOTIV E INDUSTR

Y SUREL

Y HA S TH E ENGINEERIN G TALEN T T O OVERCOME AN Y TECHNICA

L CHALLENGE S THA T MA

Y B E PRESENTED B Y EPA S ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CONTROLS
.
THA T EPA MUS T ISSU

E TH E ONBOAR

D REGULATIO N I S CLEA RFROM TH E LANGUAG

E O F TH E CLEA

N AIRACT
. ALLO

W M E T O READ TH E RELEVAN

T PORTIO N O F THA T PROVISION
. SECTIO N 202(A)(6 ) PROVIDES :
ONBOAR D VAPORRECOVER

Y - WITHI

N 1 YEA RAFTE RTH E DAT E O F TH E ENACTMEN T O F TH E CLEA

N AIRAC T AMENDMENT S O F 1990 , TH E ADMINISTRATORSHALL , AFTE R CONSULTATIO

N WTT H TH E SECRETAR

Y O F TRANSPORTATION REGARDIN

G TH E SAFET

Y O F VEHICLE-BASE

D ("ONBOARD" ) SYSTEM S FO RTH E CONTROL O F VEHICL E REFUELIN G EMISSIONS, PROMULGAT E STANDARD S UNDE

RTHI S SECTION REQUIRIN G THA T NE W LIGHT-DUT Y VEHICLE S MANUFACTURE

D BEGINNING I

N TH E FOURT

H MODE L YEA R AFTE RTH E MODE L YEA RI N WHICH TH E STANDARD S AR EP. 7

PROMULGATE D AN D THEREAFTE RB E EQUIPPE D WIT H SUC H SYSTEM S

SOM E HAV E SUGGESTE D THA T TH E ISSUANC E O F TH E ONBOAR D REFUELIN G REGULATIO N I S PREDICATE D O N TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATION' S FINDIN G THA T ONBOARD CONTROL S SYSTE M AR E "SAFE. " THA T I S NO T TH E CAS E FROM TH E STATUT E O N IT S FACE . IN FACT , I T I S CLEA RFROM TH E LEGISLATIV E HISTOR

Y O F TH E CLEAN AIRAC T AMENDMENT S THA T SUC H A N APPROAC H WA S REJECTED BY CONGRESS . INSTEAD , CONGRES S PROVIDE D THA T EP A SHAL L ISSU E A REGULATIO N REQUIRIN G ONBOARD CONTROLS .
I T HA S BEE N NOTE D THA T SECTION 202(A)(4 ) PROVIDE S THA T "N O EMISSIO N CONTRO L DEVICE , SYSTEM , O RELEMEN T O F DESIG N SHAL L B E USE D IN A NE W MOTORVEHICL E O RNEW MOTO RVEHICL E ENGIN E FOR PURPOSE S O F COMPLYIN G WTT H REQUIREMENT S PRESCRIBE D UNDE RTHI S TITL E I F SUC H DEVICE , SYSTEM , O RELEMEN T O F DESIG N WIL L CAUS E O R CONTRIBUT E T O A N UNREASONABL E RIS K T O PUBU C HEALTH , WELFARE , O RSAFET Y IN TT

S OPERATIO N ORFUNCTION. " SOME COMMENTATORS ARGU E THA T THI S SECTION PRECLUDE S TH E US E O F ONBOARD REFUELIN G CONTROLS . THI S VIE W IS NO T ACCURATE . CONGRESSIONA L INTEN T I S NO T FULFILLE D SIMPL Y B Y CONDUCTIN G A STUD Y O F POTENTIA L SAFET Y ISSUES . CONGRESSIONA L INTEN T GOE S A STE P FURTHE RB Y MANDATIN G THA T EP A TH E DEPARTMEN T OF 6P. 8

TRANSPORTATION , AN D AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER S WOR K T O DESIGN A N ONBOARD SYSTE M THA T CAPTURE S REFUELIN G EMISSION S AN D MEET S APPUCABL E SAFET Y STANDARDS .
I N THI S REGARD , TH E STATUT E PROVIDE S THAT , BEFORE ISSUIN G TH E ONBOAR D REGULATION , EP A IS T O CONSUL T WITH TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N REGARDIN G SAFET Y ISSUES . AGAIN , THI S PROVISIO N DOE S NO T GIV E DO T TH E POWE RT O OVERRID E EPA S NON-DISCRETIONAR

Y DUT Y T O REQUIRE ONBOARD CONTROLS . DO T MUS T WOR

K WIT H EP A I N DESIGNIN G A N ONBOARD REFUELIN G CONTRO L SYSTE M THA T WIL

L MEE T APPUCABL E SAFETY STANDARDS , SUC H A S FMVS S 30 1 - TH E FEDERA L MOTO RVEHICL E FUE L SYSTE M INTEGRIT Y STANDARD .
A S PAR T O F TH E CONSULTATIO N PROCESS , DOT , THROUG H TH E NATIONA L HIGHWA Y TRAFFI C SAFETY ADMINISTRATION , I N JUL Y O F THI S YEA RISSUE D A REPOR T ENTITLED , "A N ASSESSMEN T O F TH E SAFETY O F ONBOARD REFUELIN G VAPO RRECOVER Y SYSTEMS. " ALTHOUG H NHST A DI D NO T DIRECTL Y TES T A N ONBOARD REFUELIN G CANISTER , TH E REPOR T CONCLUDE D THA T SUC H ONBOARD SYSTEM S WOUL D POS E "A N UNREASONABL E SAFET Y RISK. "

NHTSA' S JUL Y 199 1 REPOR T IS CONTRAR Y T O TH E WEIGH T O F EVIDENC E AN D INDEPENDEN T STUDIE S THA T ONBOAR D REFUEUN G 7P. 9

CONTROL S WOUL D B E SAF E AND , I N FACT , MA

Y B E POSSIBL

Y SAFERTHA N EXISTIN G EVAPORATIV E EMISSION SYSTEMS WHIC H THE Y BUIL D UPON . OU RASSESSMEN T O F NHTSA' S REPORT I S THA T TH E DOCUMEN T I S BASE D O N OPINION , RATHE RTHA N O N OBJECTIV E ANALYSI S AN D ACTUA L DATA . MOREOVER , SUC H OPINIO N IS WHOLL Y INCONSISTEN T WIT H NHTSA' S PUBU C STATEMENT S O N TH E REFUEUN G CANISTE RISSUE .
NHTS A EARLIE RHA D SAI D THA T I T COUL D NO T ASSES S TH E SAFET Y O F ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CONTRO L SYSTEM S BECAUS E I T COUL D NO T QUANTIF Y TH E RISK S WITHOU T TESTIN G MANUFACTURER-PRODUCE D VEHICLE S EQUIPPE D WIT H REFUELIN G CANISTERS . FURTHER , NHTS A TOL D TH E GENERA L ACCOUNTIN G OFFIC E THAT , EVE N I F TH E AGENC Y COUL D QUANTIF Y TH E RISK S AN D COUL D PROVID E A SAFET Y ANALYSI S T O EP A T

T COUL D NO T ASSES S WHETHERTHES E RISK S WER E WORTH TH E ENVIRONMENTA L BENEFIT S PROVIDED . EP A SHOUL D ASK NHTS A T O PU T INT O TH E RECORD O F THI S HEARIN G TH E BASE S FO RIT S SUDDE N AN D LAS T MINUT E "CONVERSION " AN D A N ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T O F TH E POTENTIA L SAFET Y IMPROVEMENT S FROM TH E ONBOARD REFUELIN G CANISTER .
NHTSA' S OPINIO N ASSUME S THA T ONBOARD REFUELIN G CONTROL S AR E EE RS E MOR

E COMPLE

X THA N EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEMS . I T IS NO T NECESSARIL Y TRU E THA T TH E REFUELIN G CANISTE RWIL L B E MOR E COMPLEX THA N EXISTIN G O RPROPOSED EVAPORATIV E EMISSIO N 8P.1 0

SYSTEMS . MOREOVER , WHER E WA S NHTS A WHEN MODIFICATION S T O TH E CURREN T EVAPORATIVE EMISSIO N WER E PROPOSED AN D TH E MOTO RVEHICLE MANUFACTURER S TOL D NHTS A THA T TH E CHANGE S WOUL D MAK

E TH E SYSTE

M MOR E COMPLEX ?

NHTS A I

N OPININ G THA T TH E SAFET Y RISK S POSE D B Y REFUEUN G CANISTERS WA S "UNREASONABLE " AN D THA T EP A SHOUL D NO T ISSU E A RULE , IGNORE D SEVERA L KE Y CONSIDERATIONS . FIRST , NHTS A OMITTED DISCUSSIN G THA T FORD , TOYOT A AN D HOND A REPORTE D T O NHTS A THA T REFUELING-CANISTE REQUIPPE D TES T VEHICLE S PASSE D FMVS S 301 . SECOND , NHTSA' S REPOR T DOE S NO T DISCUS S TH E POTENTIA L SAFET Y ADVANTAGE S FROM TH E ONBOARD REFUELIN G SYSTEMS . FOR EXAMPLE , TH E SYSTE M LIKEL

Y COUL D REDUC E FUE L TAN K PRESSURES , THEREB Y REDUCIN G HAZARD S IN A N ACCIDENT . I TESTIFIE D O N THI S LATTE RPOIN T IN 1987 BEFORE TH E WAXMAN SUBCOMMITTEE . FURTHER , INDEPENDEN T STUDIES , SUC H A S THOS E CONDUCTE D B Y TH E CENTER FO RAUT O SAFET Y AN D TH E BATTELLE INSTITUTE , HAV E CONCLUDE D THA T ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CANISTERS COUL D REDUC E OVERAL L SAFET Y RISKS .
NAC S AN D SIGM

A AGAI N BELIEV E THA T TH E WEIGH T O F EVIDENC E CLEARL Y SUGGEST S THA T ONBOARD REFUELIN G CANISTERS WOUL D B E SAFE , AN D POSSIBLY SAFER , THA N EXISTIN G EVAPORATIV E EMISSION SYSTEMS . TH E CENTE RFO RAUT O SAFET Y ANALYZE D NHTS A SAFETY -P.1 1

RELATE D RECAL L DAT A ONL Y TWO RECALL S OU T O F 4,27 6 INVOLVE D EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CONTROLS . FURTHER , ONLY SI X OU T O F MOR

E THA N 1,50

0 REPORTE D AUT O FIRE S INVOLVE D TH E EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CANISTER.
EP A HA S CONSULTE D WTT H DO T A S REQUIRE D B Y TH E STATUTE . EPA NOW SHOUL D PU T NHTSA' S REPOR T I N CONTEX T - PROFESSIONA L JUDGMEN T AN D NO T A FINDIN G - AN D MOVE FORWAR D T O ISSU E TH E REQUIRE D ONBOARD REFUELIN G CANISTE RREGULATION . PROFESSIONA L JUDGMEN T SHOUL D B E CONSIDERE D AN D WEIGHE D ALON G WTT H ALL OTHE REVIDENC E I

N TH E RECORD . MOREOVER , EP A SHOUL D REJEC T OUTRIGH T NHTSA' S STATEMEN T THA T "SINC E [REFUELIN G CANISTERS ] INCREAS E SAFET Y RIS K AN D STAG E U DOE S NOT , I T SEEM S REASONABL E FO REPA T O CONCLUD E THA T THES E SYSTEM S CONSTITUT E AN UNREASONABL E SAFET Y RISK. " SUC H LOGI C I S DISINGENUOUS .
NAC S AN D SIGMA CONCU RWTT H GAO S CONCLUSIO N THA T EP A SHOUL D GE T O N WITH TT S STATUTOR

Y MANDAT E - THA T IS , ISSUIN G ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CONTROLS . TH E AGENC Y PREVIOUSL Y HA S FOUN D THA T N O TECHNOLOGICA L BARRIER S EXIS T AN D CA RMAKER S WIL L HAV E UNTI L TH E 1996 MODE L YEA RT O TES T AN D PERFEC T REFUELIN G CANISTERS . GASOLIN E MARKETERS BELIEV E TH E EVIDENC E I S CLEAR AN D CONVINCIN G AN D THA T EPA' S MANDAT E I S UNAMBIGUOUS .


### 1 0P.1 2



### ACCORDINGLY , GASOLIN E MARKETERS ARE PREPARED T O PURSU E THI S MATTE RI N COURT , I F NECESSARY
.
AGAIN , LET M

E STAT E THAT TH E LA

W LEAVE S NO ROO

M FOR DOUBT
. CONGRES S IMPOSE D O N EP A A NON-DISCRETIONAR Y DUT Y T O ISSU E B Y NOVEMBE

R15 , 199 1 A REGULATION REQUIRIN G MOTO R VEHICLE S T O B E EQUIPPED WTT H ONBOAR

D VAPORRECOVER Y CONTROLS
.
THER E ARE SEVERA L ADDITIONA

L REASON S WH

Y CONGRES S INTENDED FO RONBOAR D REFUELIN G CONTROLS T O B E UTILIZED
.
FIRST , THER E I S NO DISPUT E THA T ONBOAR

D CONTROL S AR

E SUPERIO RT O STAG

E II EQUIPMEN

T I N REDUCIN G AN

D CAPTURING VEHICL E REFUELIN G EMISSIONS
. EP A ESTIMATE S TH E IN-US E EFFECTIVENES S O F ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CANISTERS AT 9 5 PERCENT
.
B Y COMPARISON

, EP A ESTIMATE S THA T TH E IN-US E EFFECTIVENES S O F STAG

E H IS ONL

Y 8 6 PERCENT DEPENDIN G UPON TH E LEVE L O F MAINTENANCE AND TH E FREQUENC Y O F INSPECTION S B Y STAT E OR LOCA L OFFICIALS . THI

S EFFECTIVENES S RATE ALS O ASSUMES THA T A MOTORIS T WEL

L KEE P TH E SYSTE M ENGAGED FO RA T LEAS T TE N SECOND S AFTE RCOMPLETIO N O F REFUELING
. A

N INDEPENDENT SURVE Y O F CALIFORNI

A MOTORIST S FOUND THA T FEWE RTHA N 1 0 I N 2,00 0 1 1P.1 3

MOTORIST S FULFILLED THI S REQUIREMENT . MOREOVER , ONBOAR D SYSTEM S CAPTURE REFUELIN G EMISSIONS FROM TH E VEHICLE' S FUE L TANK THA T STAG E I

I WIL L NO T CAPTUR

E WHE N TH E FIL

L CA P INITIALL

Y I S REMOVED , THEREB Y PROVIDIN G MOR E PROTECTION OF HUMA N HEALTH .
SECOND , ONBOARD REFUELIN G CONTROL S ARE LES S EXPENSIV E THA N STAG E U

VAPO RRECOVERY . TH E CONGRESSIONA L OFFIC E O F TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMEN T ESTIMATE S THA T TH E ONBOARD SYSTE M WOUL D COS T APPROXIMATELY $25.0 0 PE RVEHICLE . EP A ESTIMATE S THA T TH E COS T O F TH E ONBOARD SYSTE M WOUL D B E $20.00 . TH E COST S O F INSTALUN G STAG E I

I CONTROL S CA N EXCEE D $40,00 0 A T LARG E STATIONS . MAINTENANC E COST S AR E ESTIMATED T O B E APPROXIMATELY $6,00 0 T O $9,00 0 PE RYEAR . OBTAININ G FINANCIN G FO RTH E CONTROL S MA Y B E DIFFICULT , PARTICULARLY FO RSMALLE RGASOLINE MARKETERS .

THIRD , TH E US E O F ONBOARD CONTROL S PERMIT S TH E CONTRO L O F REFUELIN G EMISSION S O N A NATIONWID E BASIS .
FOURTH , REFUELIN G VAPOR S COM E FRO M TH E VEHICLE S FUE L TANK , NO T FRO M GASOLINE DISPENSERS . ONBOAR D SYSTEM S CONTRO L TH E EMISSIO N A T TH E SOURC E - TH E VEHICLE .



### 1 2P. M



### ALTHOUGH THER E AR E SOM E PARTICULA

RADVANTAGES T O ONBOAR D CONTROLS , THERE AR E SIGNIFICAN

T DISADVANTAGES T O STAG E H
.
I N ADDITION T O TH E DISADVANTAGES O F EFFECTIVENES S AN D COST , T T COUL D TAK E YEARS T O INSTAL L STAG E II
. I T I S A MISPERCEPTION THA T STAG E U CA N B E INSTALLE

D QUICKLY
. INSTALUN G STAG E 0 WOUL

D REQUIRE TH E OUTLET OPERATO RT O ARRANG E FO R FINANCING , OBTAI

N TH E NECESSAR

Y CONSTRUCTIO

N PERMITS , ENGAG

E A CONTRACTOR , AN

D PURCHAS E TH E EQUIPMENT
. BECAUS E O F TH E SUDDE N DEMAN

D CREATE

D B Y TH E REQUIREMENT T O US E STAG E II , SUPPL Y PROBLEM S AR

E LIKEL Y T O OCCU

RBOT H I N TERM S O F TH E EQUIPMENT AN

D TH E CONTRACTORS
. EXPERIENC E I N AREA S WHER

E STAG E n HA S BEE

N REQUIRE D INDICATE S I T WIL L TAK E FIVE T O SEVE

N YEAR S FO RNONATTAINMEN T AREA S T O COMPLET E TH E NECESSAR

Y INSTALLATIONS
.
ANOTHERDISADVANTAG E I S THAT TH E HIG H COS T O F INSTALUN G STAG E H THREATEN S JOB S AN D ACCES S T O PETROLEU M PRODUCTS
. GASOLIN

E MARKETER S ALREAD Y FACE SUBSTANTIA L COSTS I

N COMPLYING WIT

H UNDERGROUND STORAG E TAN K AN D OTHER ENVIRONMENTA

L REGULATIONS
. I T WIL L B E DIFFICULT FO RMARKETERS T O PAS S THROUG H THES E COSTS
. TH E COSTS O F INSTALLIN G STAG E I I AN D MEETIN G THES E OTHERENVIRONMENTA L COMPLIANC

E COSTS WIL

L 1 3P.1 5

FORC E MAN

Y GASOLINE MARKETERS , PARTICULARLY THOS E I N RURA L AREAS , T O G O OU T O F BUSINESS , COSTIN G THOUSAND S O F JOB S AN D MAKIN G ACCES S T O MOTORFUE L DIFFICULT .
REGARDLES S O F TH E ADVANTAGE S AN D DISADVANTAGE S O F EAC H RECOVER

Y CONTRO L METHOD , TH E POIN T IS THA T TH E LA W CLEARLY MANDATE S THA T EP A ISSU E A REGULATIO N REQUIRIN G MOTOR VEHICLE S T O B E EQUIPPE D WTT H ONBOAR D CONTROLS . TH E AGENC Y MUS T D O IT S JOB . NAC S AN D SIGM A URG E EP A NHST A AN D TH E AUTOMOBIL E MANUFACTURER S T O WOR K TOGETHE RT O DESIG N A N ONBOARD CONTRO L SYSTE M WHIC H MEET S TH E APPUCABL E SAFET Y STANDARDS , THEREB Y FULFILLIN G CONGRESSIONA L INTEN T AN D PROTECTIN G HUMA N HEALT H AN D TH E ENVIRONMENT .
SIGM A AN D NAC S APPRECIAT E THI S OPPORTUNIT Y T O PRESEN T THEI RVIEWS .



### 1 4