P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

40) IV-C-6 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:53 AM Sheet 40 of 232 
P.2 

> . •*__*% 

VSBW 

\m*tf 

UN,TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

SEP 2 2 1987 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Honorable John D. Dingell 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: . 

Thank you for your letter of August 5, 1987 to Secretary, 

of Transportation Elizabeth Dole and me regarding H.R. 3054 \ 

("The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1987"). Enclosed are 

EPA's responses to the questions you raised, except for 

questions 1 and 21, which we will send to you as soon as 

possible. 

We appreciate your continued interest in this important 

issue and look forward to working with you in the future. 

Please let us know if we can assist you further. 

Sincerely, 

Lee M. Thomas 

Enclosure 
P.3 

/ 

/ 

I 

-62-

Question 20 

I also request your views and comments on the transport, new source 

review, and use of clean fuels or catalytic control, audit, and Stage II 

/ provisions of the bill. In the case of transport, I am particularly 

' interested in learning how serious the problem is, the scope or distance 

of transport areas, and the need and impact of a new governmental level 

of review which lacks real enforcement powers and which, all too often, 

would probably be run by delegates, not principals. I note too that the 

transport proposal would probably impose greater controls on areas that 

tried and succeeded in achieving attainment in order to relieve the burden 

of some areas that have not succeeded. That may be necessary. However, 

at a minimum, it would seem imperative that the nonattainment areas first 

demonstrate that they have taken all measures available to them, short 

of draconian measures, and met all commitments before looking outside the 

nonattainment area for reductions that might have a transport impact. I 

do not perceive that H.R. 3054 includes such a basic and fair requirement. 

What are your views? 

Response 

* 

In certain areas of the country, such as the Northeast Corridor, we .-

believe that long range transport from sources in upwind cities may be 

sufficient to contribute to violations of the NAAQS for ozone in downwind 

cities. However, control requirements for cities affected by such transport 

are exacerbated. 

The transport provisions in H.R. 3054 would require most areas in the 

Northeast corridor to adopt the same control measures as those required in 

"serious" areas. This requirement would be imposed on attainment areas 

shortly after non-attainment areas begin to meet their requirements. It is 

difficult for us to justify the two percent contribution cut-off used in the 

bill to determine whether an area should be able to opt out of the regional 

control areas. 

The tightening of NSR thresholds and increases in offsets ratio would 

generally produce cv'rv.mal incremental emissions reductions compared to 

current programs, however, these additional requirements can make it more 

difficult for new development to occur and can significantly increase a 

state air programs administrative burden. Therefore, EPA believes it is more 

appropriate to continue the current practice of providing states with the 

option of tightening their new source review programs. It should not be 

required of all areas. The use of clean fuels or catalytic controls provision 

seems to be excessively costly for coal-fired boilers. Catalytic controls 

only orovide minimal incremental reductions compared to low-NOX burners, but 

are far more expensive. 

Stage II and onboard controls are generally considered good substitutes 

for each other. On August 19, EPA published in the Federal Register the 

proposal to require onboard controls on new automobiles. Many questions 

have been raised concernir.g possible safety concerns and other issues. 
P.4 

/ ' -63-

The issues involved are complex and can best be addressed in EPA's 

rulemaking under its existing authority. 

The concept of periodic audit of plans by EPA is-reasonable. However biannual instead of annual audits would probably enable the Agency to conduct 

more careful reviews. 
P.5 

-/6-

Question 26 

Section!s] 204 [and 205] relates to fuel volatility [and] onboard 

controls which is now the subject of a joint rulemaking and considerable 

controversy regarding safety and leadtime. The Oversight and Investigations 

Subcommittee, with the help of the General Accounting'Office (GAO), has. 

conducted an extensive investigation. Further hearings are scheduled 

for September 21. The volatility provision of the bill does not seem 

to address the issue of oxygenated fuels in Colorado or the addition of 

alcohol fuels. I request the views and comments of DOT and EPA. _ 

Response 

The fuel volatility provisions of H.R. 3054 are very similar to 

what EPA has recently proposed. However, a few differences do exist. 

First, per our proposal, SPA believes that the two stages of 

control could occur in May of 1989 and May of 1992, thus beginning 

control one ozone season earlier than the draft bill envisions. Second, 

H.R. 3054 also designates the gasoline subject to volatility controls 

slightly differently than our proposal. The NPRM is slightly broader 

in that it includes gasoline supplied, offered for supply, or transported, 

in addition to that included in the bill. 

Third, concerning the control of oxygenated blend RVP, H.R. 3054 

does not define the "gasoline" which would be subject to RVP controls. 

In the past, EPA has included oxygenated blends when legislative requirements 

have referred to "gasoline". Section 211(g)(1) of the Act, for example, 

specifically allows EPA to define gasoline for the purpose of lead 

content regulation. Section 211(f)(2), which sets a limit on the 

manganese content of gasoline, is similar to Section 204 of H.R. 3054 

and does not define "gasoline". In both cases, EPA has applied these 

limits equally to oxygenated and non-oxygenated gasoline. 

Given this past precedent, we assume here that H.R. 3054 intends 

to require oxygenated blends to meet the same RVP standards as straight 

gasoline. As you fcnow. EPA has not yet reached a conclusion as to 

whether this approach or an RVP allowance for blends would be the 

better course of action. In particular, the impact of such controls on 

the economic viability of gasohol is uncertain, but likely negative. 

Regarding the onboard refueling provisions of H.R. 3054, our 

onboard proposal is consistent with the bill's minimum capture efficiency 

of 95 percent for vehicle emissions. The terminology of the bill 

regarding leadtime states that vehicles "sold in any model year after 

the model year 1990 ..." shall meet the onboard requirement. This 

language is somewhat imprecise, but EPA assumes it means that 1991 and 

later model year vehicles would have to be equipped with onboard controls. 

The adequacy of this leadtime period depends upon the time required for 

addition of onboard controls to vehicles by manufacturers. We have 

estimated that time as oei'ng two years or more following promulgation 
P.6 

of the final requirements. Presumably, adoption of the bill would have 

to be followed by implementing regulations developed by EPA. 

In general, H.R. 3054 closely parallels the control requirements 

we have proposed for fuel volatility and refueling emissions. However 

the comments we receive in the course of the rulemaki-ng will be needed' 

to establish our final positions on the issues involved.