P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

180) IV-C-147 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:00 AM Sheet 180 of 232 
ft-87-" 

DEC 2 1 1988 y^° $* & 

Honorabl e John D. Dingel l 

Cnairman, Sutcotrjr.ittee on 

Oversigh t ana Investigationr. 

Coutmittee on Energy and Confere e 

U.S. House of Representative s 

Wasr.inqton, DC 20'ril5 

# 

f^ar :-ic. Cn;: - rnaa: 

/r it inc in response to your letter of October ).?., l')> 

: o^m o n t s c r EPA' 3 si iro 1 i z i o-.^ 

I ar,-

concernin g iforcl 

refuelin g contro l concept . We nave had a serie s of raeetir. 

v;:tr. For:- on thi s issue , r?.o=t recentl v on Octobe r 2-1 when 

personall y r.et with For e representative s t o noar th e 

concerns. As liste d in your letter , Ford's conclusion s a 

tha t E?A'{: -ir.piif iec.» system na s th<> 33tne, if no t creat e 

safet y concern s as othe r previousl y reviewed refuplin c sv~,t 

-•hisinn:A. Also , ?ord conclude s tn c sittoli t iei) sy?te ~ ir> n 

r^aviii'"-' ?.•:"!actnblv t o oro>-h;ctior. vehicles. 

onbonro 

as 

I 

ir 

re 

r, 

err. 

ot 

Zir.c?. \n: le^r n «?.•••• *ne result s o. Fork's •vv'slu?" ior- ir. 

::._J-Dcpte";--r, IT'. *.»ng infers n?ve '.ler'.on."tr?.ev 3 full v 

succossf u'. .~;n;l icac . or. o:: our ar.r.ole, llcii' 1 sea l system OP ;.; 

Pore1 T3Mru.--. Cua] tank . I t function s evtren-il v w?ll anr. '\o$r. 

not nriV'.t- £.•"<'• oi t.^e prory--?1^ tna t For'?1'-, -yster- •:\sf?.onstrotT?*.; 

(?.;*. , poor fil l cualit v or in<rVM lit y t o ^".•tairi ;• lia-:i-:': ;>ea1 

over .": wic-c r.>.•"•• af- oi i'ii.! conO IT.ion~y .

 ;-:? ."lavr- ••.-,•:» r ?-.'"• th^s ^ 

r-isuit " wit", Pr-rc* -~n,-.: ?.r»t ici'aaf- rurthsr c!i?cussion " -•;it.r". tpp ^ 

?noinoerr •>'• •cne pe r larr^nc..' 

r r-. c us 11 n~ s• / -. c«_- ier>. iens. 

• n r - • o ~ n-'.tv;

;nr, tr>.<_-

i/orc also rt&tes tnet Iiauui/vapor s^c-ar^'ors .-ire recur re•-.; 

.n rei.uelin'-" contra _ sv stems. 

•efutlino vaoor control "y.'-ter.-s 

e enntinuf- to believe tnat 

ao n>"i < inherently rieF, 

Iiaula/vapor seoarators: the critical ciesic.n perimeter appears 

to be tne placement of thy charcoal canister in relation to th* 

iuel cant;. Liauici/vapor separators are airee.iy used on e. 

number of no-tie Is currently cn the road an'i y.or.c manufacturers 

i^iaiit r?ec ide to use then in systems that include refuel m a 

controls. 
P.3 

_>•: 

; & 

-2-

Ford clains that the normally open fuel tank vent system in 

our design adversely affects exnaust and evaporative emissions 

control. It further states that the simplified system will not 

be capable of controlling running losses under "ozone day" 

conditions. However, this is only the case for high volatility 

fuels which, as you know, we have proposed to control. Ford's 

own presentation shows that an unpressurized tank generates 

less than 10 percent more vapor than a pressurized tank when 9 

psi volatility fuel is used. Further, Ford's exhaust and 

evaporative emissions tests using 9 psi fuel show that the 

siaple refueling system, with an unpressurized fuel tank, meets 

all current standards. 

Ford's claim tnnt the sarae enis3ion reduction benefits can 

be achieved without controlling refueling emissions is 

incorrect. Our test procedures would assure that refueling 

controls will achieve tne same runnina loss and evaporative 

emissions control benefits as improved evaporative control, 

oius the benefit of capturinq refueling emissions. 

Finally, Ford's problems with neeting the Federal Mctor 

Vehicle Safety Standard 30? test sterns from the fact that 

For.^'c vent valve was net designed for rollover function and 

had a defective seal vnen tested by Ford, according to tne 

valve supplier. It is the opinion of SPA pnqineers that this 

was tne cause of the excessive fuel leakage that Ford 

experienced, rather than some inherent design orocleir, with 

r.implif led systenc. We have obtained from Fork's valve 

supplier modified valves which function correctly in our 

onboard system. Ir. addition to the valve supplier's tests, we 

nave put one of these valves on e fuel tank and conducted s 

rollover test to verify its performance. Our prototype valve 

easily met both r.'HTSA's 301 r,tnr>~x:c~ zz veil as tne rvor? 

stringent rollover test specifications recuired of Ford's 

current production valve a. 

In surnrsarv, it .-.ppearr- tnat Ford's concerns arout tne F?A 

'•i~p.l.e on bo m i system conveyed to you ir. September appear to 

r:fivn nsen iaraelv resolved oasfic, or, tne .icvnrcH." made ny T.Vl-. 

ensineerc. We nave been and will continue to ho in contact 

with Ford and other vehicle manufacturers as we attempt to 

resolve all outstanding issues. Thank you again for expressino 

your concerns in this matter. 
t 

_ .11» 

P.4 

-3-

As a final note, I would like to inform you that the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA 

held our second ouarterly meeting under the terms of our 

Memorandum of Understanding. Representatives of NHTSA and 

various offices within EPA met on October 17 to discuss ongoing 

rulemakings and otner issues of mutual interest. 

Sincerely, 

Lee M. Thomas 

uee '•'.. Thoisas 

c c : Tne Honorabl e Diane K. Stee d 

Acmi ni s t ra t o r, l-THTSA 

Tne Honorabl e Joseph R. Wright , Jr . 

Actina Director , OVii\ 

Tne Honorabl e Cnarle s A. Bcwsher 

Comntrolle r Genera'., GAO