P. 1



# OAR Box 1818 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 10 ) ll-C- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:41 PM

Sheet 10 of 79P. 2

,f. D sr

4r 

## fi-V-H K-C-bl 1 2S22 - * UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

t G < P WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 2046 0

,- Q TH E ADMINISTRATO R Mr . Georg e Niel d Presiden t Automobil e Importer s o f Americ a 172 5 Jefferso n Davi s Hw y Suit e 100 2 Arlington , V

A2220 2 Dea r Mr . Nield : Than k yo u fo r your lette r o f Decembe r 2 2 outlining fo r m e the ke ysafet yissue s whic h yo u fee l mus t be addresse d a s par t o f the refueling contro l decisionmakin g process . I appreciat e you r concer n tha t thes e area s receiv e prope r attention , relating a s the

yd o t o issue s o f vehicl e safet yan d cost . I n you r lette r yo u identifie d thre e mai n safet yconcerns : fue l systemintegrity , fue l spitbac k an d fue l dispensin g nozzl e failure . I n th e firs t are a yo u describe d concern s wit h the effec t o f onboar d refueling hardwar e on th e fue l containmen t requirement s o f Federa l Moto r Vehicl e Safet yStandar d (FMVSS ) No . 301 . Fue l spitbac k yo u describ e a s a concer n abou t th e spillag e o f fue l backe d u p i n th e fille r nec k a t th e en d o f a refueling operation . A s fo r nozzl e failure , thi s concer n relate d t o malfunction s o f the automati c shutof f mechanis mo n the fue l fille r nozzle . I mus t agre e tha t eac h o f thes e area s i s deservin g o f carefu l attentio n an d thorough study . A s yo u know , w e hav e alread ydevote d attentio n t o thes e area s in response , t o simila r question s raise d i n the past . Additionally , a s par t o f our coordinatio n proces s wit h Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet y Administratio n (NHTSA ) o n th e safet yimpact s o f onboar d controls , w e ar e currentl yinvolve d in supplementa l analyse s addressing severa l safet ymatters . Thes e analyse s includ e looking a t issue s suc h a s thos e whic h yo u raise .

f . Th e overal l philosoph ywhic h w

e appl yt o thi s are a i s tha t no increas e i n overal l ris k shoul d be accepte d becaus e o f the presenc e o f onboar d contro l systems . No r doe s thi s concer n stop a t the demonstratio n o f complianc e wit h FMVS S 301 . I t appear s t o u s tha t th e overal l safet yimpact s fo r in-us e vehicle s mus t be evaluate d fro mth e broade r system s approach , recognizing th e fac t tha t in-us e liabilit yca n exis t fo r condition s no t covere d b ythe Federa l standards .P. 3

-2

- O f course , the fina l choice s abou t exac t syste mdesign s wil l be wit h the manufacturers , bu t we woul d no t adop t a progra munles s i t wer e clea r tha t saf e fue l systemdesign s wer e available . A t thi s tim e we ar e convince d tha t thi s i s the case . I n fact , our analyse s indicat e tha t i t woul d be quit e possibl e fo r fue l system safet yt o improv e along wit h the adoptio n o f onboar d controls . On e exampl e o f howthi s migh t occur woul d be through the us e o f flexibl e bladder s insid e the fue l tan

k t o contai n the liqui d fue l an d eliminat e th

e presenc e o f an yfue l vapors . Suc h containmen t woul d improv e fue l system safet yan

d als o eliminat e the nee d fo r muc h o f the evaporativ e contro l hardwar e alread yo n curren t vehicles . Ther e ar e othe r aspect s o f overal l fue l systemdesig n whic h migh t be modifie d a t the tim e o f introducing onboar d controls . Suc h thing s a s th e placemen t an d configuratio n o f the fue l tank , the us e o f sid e fil l versu s rea r fil l fueling designs , externa l versu s interna l fueling vapo r ven t lines , etc . ar e al l area s o f desig n determine d a s a resul t o f tradeoff s betwee n competing desig n goals . W e believ e tha t curren t fue l systemdesign s ca n be improve d i n suc h area s a s thes e an

d tha t th

e safet yo f onboar d equippe d vehicle s nee d no t be compromised . Le t me briefl yrespon d t o the specifi c concern s raise d in . you r letter . You r firs t ite mconcerne d complianc e wit h FMVS S 301 . Bot h fro

mou r ow n analysi s an

d fro mour contact s wit h NHTSA , we believ e tha t complianc e wit h thi s requiremen t wil l be relativel ystraightforwar d give n sufficien t leadtime t o complet e th e require d test s an d evaluations . W e agre e tha t cras h relate d issue s mus t be factore d int o onboar d system designs , bu t w

e d o no t fin

d onboar d technolog yt o b e substantiall ydifferen t fro mcurren t evaporativ e controls . Fo r example , th e concer n ha s bee n raise d tha t the large r onboar d caniste r mean s tha t a substantiall ylarge r amoun t o f fue l vapor s wil l hav e t o b e carrie d aroun d o n th e vehicle . However , thi s wil l no t generall ybe the case , sinc e fo r the grea t majorit yo f the tim e the onboar d caniste r wil l no t contai n an y mor e vapor s than the curren t evaporativ e contro l canister . Refueling vapor s wil l be purge d t o the engin e an d burne d a s fue l withi n a relativel yfewdriving mile s following a refueling . Similarly , a s yo u indicat e i n you r letter , large r vapo r line s wil i have t o b e deal t wit h i n some onboar d designs , bu t thi s doe s no t appea r t o be a n overwhelmin g engineerin g problem . Overall , a s describe d above , we ' believ e tha t issue s o f tota l vehicl e safet yan d in-us e liabilit ywil l resul t i n n o increas e i n vehicl e safet yrisks , an d ma yeve n lea

d t o safet y improvement s i f safet yconcern s s o dictate . You r secon

d concer n involve d fue l spitbac k a t the en d o f th e refueling operation . Becaus e o f th e requirement s o f ou r testing procedure s fo r onboar d controls , onl ysystem s capabl eP. 4

-3

- o f eliminating spitbac k (which , a s yo u know , occur s on curren t vehicles ) wil l be abl e t o mee t an yrefueling contro l standard . W e hav e ha

d discussion s wit h vehicl e manufacturer s concerning the cause s o f spitback , an d hav e eve n bee n considering the possibl e nee d for desig n requirement s fo r dispensin g nozzles . I f onboar d requirement s wer e adopted , w e woul d als o plan t o contro l the dispensing rate s fo r in-us e nozzle s in orde r t o assur e the contro l o f spitback . Overall , we woul d expec t th e incidenc e o f spitbac k t o be les s wit h onboar d control s tha n i s currentl ythe case , resulting in a n improvemen t i n th e safet y issue s relativ e t o fue l spitback . Finally , yo u rais e th e questio n o f the possibl e failur e o f th e automati c shutof f featur e on the fue l dispensin g nozzle . W e agre e tha t ther e mus t b e a mechanis mwhic h wil l aler t the operato r .in the even t o f such a failur e withou t causing a dangerou s conditio n t o exist . Simpl e pressur e relie f design s have alread

ybee n develope d whic h woul d direc t backe d u p fue l ou t nea r the fille r nec k muc h a s happen s wit hcurren t vehicles . Yo u sugges t tha t i t migh t be mor e appropriat e t o implemen t change s i n the fue l nozzl e itself . W e woul db e open t o considering the need fo r suc h change s an d woul d welcom

e mor e informatio n fro

myo u abou t the specifi c change s involved , an d thei r cos t in relatio n t o the onboar d hardwar e feature s otherwis e required . I n closing , I wan t t o than k yo u fo r taking the tim e t o conve yyou r concern s t o EPA . Le t me assur e yo u tha t I a m committe d t o the ful l resolutio n o f al l safet yissue s surrounding the us e o f onboar d controls . You r inpu t ca nbe a valuabl e hel p a s w e continu e wit h thi s task .

Sincerely , 

# 5 ( Le e M . Thoma s