P. 1



# OAR Box 1818 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 15 ) ll-C-1 2 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/20083:12:42 PM

Sheet 15of 79

# A' s t0sr * > Ki



# iSS i —p ?

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y \. .<P

WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 2046 0 

### J 

# W- 21 mi

T H E ADMINISTRATO R Honorabl e Joh n D . Dingel l Chairma n Subcommitte e o nOversigh t an d Investigation s Committe e o n Energ yand Commerc e U.S . Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r lette r o f Jun e 29 , 198 7 regardin g EPA' s draf t regulatio n package s t o propos e onboar d contro l o f refuelin g emission s an d limit s o ngasolin e volatility . You r lette r expresse d seriou s concer nregardin g th e potentia l safet yimplication s o f onboar d controls , and suggeste d tha t EP Aeithe r withdra wit s pendin g onboar d proposa l o r publis ha n Advance d Notic e i n lie u o f a Propose d Rule . Attache d t o you r lette r wer e comment s o nonboar d safet yand severa l othe r issue s fro mIIHS , MVMA , AIA , and Mazda . W e hav e subsequentl yreceive d copie s o f simila r response s provide d t o yo u b yNissan , Toyot a and Jaguar . A s I hav e state d i n previou s letter s t o you , th e saf e implementatio no f onboar d control s i s animportan t issu e t o EPA , an

d w e d o no t intend t o adop t suc ha requiremen t a s a fina l rul e unles s i t i s clea r tha t i t ca nb e don e withou t degradin g vehicl e safety . Ou r analysi s o f th e safet yissu e indicate s tha t relativel ystraightforwar d engineerin g solution s exis t t o th e potentia l safet yproblem s identified , and n o technologica l barrier s exis t t o th e saf e implementatio n o f onboar d controls . O n th e surface , the trad e associatio n and manufacture r commen t letter s mentione d abov e questione d onboar d safety . However , upo ncarefu l reading thei r position s ar e basicall yth e sam e a s tha t take nb yEPA , excep t fo r disagreement s concernin g ho wmuc hleadtim e i s needed . Referrin g t o th e onboar d safet yissue , AI Asays : "th e automobil e industr yha s develope d technologie s i n th e pas t t o dea l wit hmanydifferen t challenge s and thi s proble mi s n o different . Whil e w e think onboar d system s ca nb e designe d t o be safel y incorporate d int o a moto r vehicle , adequat e leadtim e mus t b e allowe d t o properl ydesig nand tes t suc h system s t o ensur e tha t n o safet yproblem s exist. "P. 3

- 2 - Similarly , MVMAagree s that : "addition s t o fue l system s d o no t nee d t o compromis e safety, " an d that : "onboar d refuelin g vapo r recover ywoul d requir e tha t manufacturer s mus t b e give nsufficien t leadtim e t o ensur e n o compromise. " Th e comment s receive d fromMazda , Toyota , an d Nissa n focuse d mor e o nleadtim e an d cos t concerns ; non e sai d tha t implementin g onboar d control s safel ywa s technologicall y infeasible . Furthermore , .whil e NHTS Arecentl yprovide d som e technica l comment s o n ou r draf t safet yanalysis , thei r Jun e 11 , 198 7 lette r t o EP Aacknowledge d tha t n o technica l breakthrough s ar e necessar yt o desig n an d develo p saf e onboar d system s and tha t th e ke yelemen t i n completin g thi s proces s i s th e provisio no f adequat e leadtime . Thus , i t appear s t o b e a consensu s o f th e commenter s tha t onboar d safet yi s mor e a n issu e o f leadtime , and perhap s t o som e degre e cost , rathe r tha non e o f technologica l feasibility . Undoubtedly , leadtim e wil l be a keyissu e in a n onboar d rulemaking , and a determinatio no f th e leadtim e neede d t o implemen t onboar d control s wil l b e base d o nanalysi s o f comment s receive d i nrespons e t o a propose d rule . EPAi s ope n t o providin g additiona l leadtim e and/o r a phase-i no f control s i f analysi s o f th e comment s indicate s a need . A s we'v e state d previously , i f anonboar d fina l rul e i s promulgated , EP A intend s t o provid e adequat e leadtim e t o insur e tha t control s ca n b e implemente d bot hsafel yan d effectively . Th e questio n whethe r refuelin g emission s shoul d b e controlle d usin g Stag e I I o r onboar d system s ha s bee nth e subjec t o f muc hstud yan d debat e fo r ove r 1 0 years . I nAugus t 1984 , EP Arelease d th e result s o f a comprehensiv e stud yo f thi s issue . I n response , th e Agenc yreceive d numerou s publi c comment s (ove r 180 ) and ha s sinc e conducte d additiona l study and analysis . Thos e comment s and subsequen t analysi s hav e bee n considere d i n th e proposa l no wunde r review . I t i s therefor e full yappropriat e and valuabl e t o publis hanNPRM , sinc e i t wil l expos e EPA' s subsequen t analysi s and curren t thinkin g t o publi c scrutinyan d therebyadvanc e publi c debate . B yth e sam e toke n a n ANPR Mwoul d no t b e a s appropriate , sinc e th e relevan t issue s hav e alreaddybee nidentifie d an d a larg e bodyo f studie s ha s alreadybee n amassed .P. 4



### - 3 - I n accordanc e withyour las t request , m ystaf f <<

= compiling a chronologica l lis t o f al l EP A^nf-JZ o -Z Z i s no w 

### NHTSAon the refuelin g an d volatilliy^s^^nce'^uies 3 M d 

### provide d t o OMB , whichw e wil l f o wa^ d t yo u

### a t W 

### " e 

### possible . in th e meantime , we appreciat e your r^l " *! interes t i n thes e importan t issues . ppreciat e 

### y° u r 

### continued

• .Sincerely , \ 

### Le e M . Thoma s 

# Z&J ^ ^ 3 - ^

A- a

r \ » > 

### c ~