P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 40 ) IV-C-6 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:53 AM Sheet 40of 232P. 2

> . •*__* % 

# VSB W \m*tf UN,TE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY WASHINGTON . D.C . 2046 0 

### SE P 

## 2 2 198

7

TH E ADMINISTRATO R

Honorabl e Joh

nD . Dingel l Chairman , Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an

dInvestigation s Committe e onEnergy an dCommerc e Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D

C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : . Thankyoufo r you r lette r o f Augus t 5 , 198 7 t o Secretary , o f Transportatio nElizabet hDol e an dm e regarding H.R . 305 4 \ ("Th e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1987") . Enclose dar e EPA' s response s t o th e question s youraised , excep t fo r question s 1 an

d21 , whic hw

e wil l sen

dt o youa s soona s possible . W e appreciat e you r continue d interes t i n thi s importan t issu e and loo k forwar d t o workin g wit hyo u i n the future . Pleas e le t u s kno wi f w e ca n assis t yo u further . Sincerely ,

Le e M . Thoma s

Enclosur eP. 3

/ / I -62

- Questio n 2 0 I als o reques t you r view s an d comment s o nth e transport , ne wsourc e review , andus e o f clea nfuel s o r catalyti c control , audit , and Stag e I I / provision s o f th e bill . I nth e cas e o f transport , I a mparticularl y ' intereste d i nlearnin g ho wseriou s th e proble mis , th e scop e o r distanc e

o f transpor t areas , an d th e nee d an d impac t o f a ne wgovernmenta l leve l o f revie wwhic hlack s rea l enforcemen t power s an d which , al l to o often , woul d probabl yb e ru n bydelegates , no t principals . I not e to o tha t th e transpor t proposa l woul d probabl yimpos e greate r control s o narea s tha t trie d an d succeede d i nachievin g attainmen t i norde r t o reliev e th e burde n o f som e area s tha t hav e no t succeeded . Tha t ma yb e necessary . However , a t a minimum , i t woul d see mimperativ e tha t th e nonattainmen t area s firs t demonstrat e tha t the yhav e take nal l measure s availabl e t o them , shor t o f draconia n measures , an d me t al l commitment s befor e lookin g outsid e th e nonattainmen t area fo r reduction s tha t migh t hav e a transpor t impact . I d o no t perceiv e tha t H.R . 305 4 include s suc ha basi c an d fai r requirement . Wha t ar e you r views ? Respons e * I ncertai narea s o f th e country , suc ha s th e Northeas t Corridor , w e . - believ e tha t long rang e transpor t fro msource s i nupwin d citie s ma yb e sufficien t t o contribut e t o violation s o f th e NAAQ S fo r ozon e i ndownwin d cities . However , contro l requirement s fo r citie s affecte d b ysuc htranspor t ar e exacerbated . Th e transpor t provision s i nH.R . 305 4 woul d requir e mos t area s i nth e Northeas t corrido r t o adop t th e sam e contro l measure s a s thos e require d i n "serious " areas . Thi s requiremen t woul d b e impose d o nattainmen t area s shortl yafte r non-attainmen t area s begi nt o mee t thei r requirements . I t i s difficul t fo r u s t o justif yth e tw o percen t contributio ncut-of f use d i nth e bil l t o determin e whethe r a nare a shoul d b e abl e t o op t ou t o f th e regiona l contro l areas . Th e tightenin g o f NS Rthreshold s an d increase s i noffset s rati o woul d generall yproduc e cv'rv.ma l incrementa l emission s reduction s compare d t o curren t programs , however , thes e additiona l requirement s ca nmak e i t mor e difficul t fo r ne wdevelopmen t t o occu r an d ca nsignificantl yincreas e a stat e ai r program s administrativ e burden . Therefore , EP Abelieve s i t i s mor e appropriat e t o continu e th e curren t practic e o f providin g state s wit hth e optio no f tightenin g thei r ne wsourc e revie wprograms . I t shoul d no t b e require d o f al l areas . Th e us e o f clea nfuel s o r catalyti c control s provisio n seem s t o b e excessivel ycostl yfo r coal-fire d boilers . Catalyti c control s onl yorovid e minima l incrementa l reduction s compare d t o low-NO Xburners , bu t ar e fa r mor e expensive . Stag e I I and onboar d control s ar e generall yconsidere d goo d substitute s fo r eac hother . O nAugus t 19 , EPApublishe d i nth e Federa l Registe r th e proposa l t o requir e onboar d control s o nne wautomobiles . Manyquestion s hav e bee n raise d concernir. g possibl e safet yconcern s an d othe r issues .P. 4



### / ' -63

-

Th e issue s involve dar e comple xandca nbes t b e addresse di nEPA' s rulemakin g unde r it s existin g authority . Th e concep t o f periodi c audi t o f plan s byEP Ais-reasonable . Howeve r bi

annua l instea do f annua l audit s woul dprobabl yenabl e th e Agenc yt o conduc t mor e carefu l reviews .P. 5 -/6 -

Questio n2 6 Section!s ] 20 4 [an

d205 ] relate s t o fue l volatilit y [and ] onboard control s whic hi s now the subjec t o f a join t rulemakingan dconsiderabl e controvers y

regardingsafet y

an dleadtime . Th e Oversigh t an dInvestigation s Subcommittee , wit hth e hel po f th e Genera l Accounting'Offic e (GAO) , has . conducte danextensiv e investigation . Furthe r hearing s ar e scheduled fo r Septembe r 21 . Th e volatilit y provisio no f th e bil l doe s no t see m t o addres s th e issu e o f oxygenate dfuel s inColorad o o r th e additiono f alcoho l fuels . I reques t th e views an dcomment s o f DO T andEPA . _ Respons e Th e fue l volatilit y

provision s o f H.R . 305 4 ar e very simila r t o wha t EPA

ha s recentl y

proposed . However , a few difference s d o exist . First , pe r ou r proposal , SPA believe s tha t th e two stage s o f contro l coul doccu r i nMay o f 198 9 an

dMay o f 1992 , thu s beginning contro l on e ozon e seaso nearlie r thanthe draf t bil l envisions . Second , H.R . 305 4 als o designate s th e gasolin e subjec t t o volatilit y control s slightl ydifferentl ytha nou r proposal . Th e NPR M i s slightl y

broade r i ntha t i t include s gasolin e supplied , offere dfo r supply , o r transported , i nadditio nt o tha t include d i nth e bill . Third , concernin g th e contro l o f oxygenate d blendRVP , H.R . 305 4 doe s no t defin e th e "gasoline " whic hwoul d b e subjec t t o RV P controls . I nth e past , EP Aha s include d oxygenate d blend s whe nlegislativ e requirement s hav e referre d t o "gasoline" . Sectio n211(g)(1 ) o f th e Act , for example , specificall yallow s EP At o defin e gasolin e fo r th e purpos e o f lea d conten t regulation . Sectio n211(f)(2) , whic hset s a limi t o nth e manganes e conten t o f gasoline , i s simila r t o Sectio n20 4 o f H.R . 305 4 an d doe s no t defin e "gasoline" . I nbot hcases , EP Aha s applie d thes e limit s equall yt o oxygenate d an d non-oxygenate d gasoline . Give nthi s pas t precedent , w e assum e her e tha t H.R . 305 4 intend s t o requir e oxygenate d blend s t o mee t th e sam e RV P standard s a s straigh t gasoline . A s yo u fcnow. EP Aha s no t ye t reache d a conclusio na s t o whethe r thi s approac ho r a nRV P allowanc e fo r blend s woul d b e th e bette r cours e o f action . I nparticular , th e impac t o f suc hcontrol s o n th e economi c viabilit yo f gasoho l i s uncertain , bu t likel ynegative . Regardin gth e onboar d refuelin g provision s o f H.R . 3054 , ou r onboar d proposa l i s consisten t wit hth e bill' s minimu mcaptur e efficienc y o f 9 5 percen t fo r vehicl e emissions . Th e terminolog yo f th e bil l regardin g leadtim e state s tha t vehicle s "sol d i nanymode l yea r afte r th e mode l yea r 199 0 ... " shal l mee t th e onboar d requirement . Thi s languag e i s somewha t imprecise , bu t EP Aassume s i t mean s tha t 199 1 and late r mode l yea r vehicle s woul d hav e t o b e equippe d wit honboar d controls . Th e adequac yo f thi s leadtim e perio d depend s upo nth e tim e require d fo r additio no f onboar d control s t o vehicle s b ymanufacturers . W e hav e estimate d tha t tim e a s oei'n g tw o year s o r mor e followin g promulgatio nP. 6



### o f th e fina l requirements . Presumably , adoptio no f th e bil l woul dhav e t o b e followe dby

implementin g regulation s develope dbyEPA . I ngeneral , H.R . 305 4 closel yparallel s th e contro l requirement s w e hav e propose dfo r fue l volatilit yan drefuelin g emissions . Howeve r th e comment s w e receiv e i nth e cours e o f th e rulemaki-n g wil l b e needed ' t o establis hou r fina l position s o nth e issue s involved .