P.1 

OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

15) ll-C-12 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:42 PM Sheet 15 of 79 
A' 

s

t0 sr*> 

Ki 

iSSi 

— p? 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\. .<P WASHINGTON . D.C. 20460 

JW- 21 mi 

T H E ADMINISTRATOR 

Honorable John D. Dingell 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This is in response to your letter of June 29, 1987 

regarding EPA's draft regulation packages to propose onboard 

control of refueling emissions and limits on gasoline 

volatility. Your letter expressed serious concern regarding 

the potential safety implications of onboard controls, and 

suggested that EPA either withdraw its pending onboard proposal 

or publish an Advanced Notice in lieu of a Proposed Rule. 

Attached to your letter were comments on onboard safety and 

several other issues from IIHS, MVMA, AIA, and Mazda. We have 

subsequently received copies of similar responses provided to 

you by Nissan, Toyota and Jaguar. 

As I have stated in previous letters to you, the safe 

implementation of onboard controls is an important issue to 

EPA, and we do not intend to adopt such a requirement as a 

final rule unless it is clear that it can be done without 

degrading vehicle safety. Our analysis of the safety issue 

indicates that relatively straightforward engineering solutions 

exist to the potential safety problems identified, and no 

technological barriers exist to the safe implementation of 

onboard controls. On the surface, the trade association and 

manufacturer comment letters mentioned above questioned onboard 

safety. However, upon careful reading their positions are 

basically the same as that taken by EPA, except for 

disagreements concerning how much leadtime is needed. 

Referring to the onboard safety issue, AIA says: 

"the automobile industry has developed technologies 

in the past to deal with many different challenges 

and this problem is no different. While we think 

onboard systems can be designed to be safely 

incorporated into a motor vehicle, adequate leadtime 

must be allowed to properly design and test such 

systems to ensure that no safety problems exist." 
P.3 

- 2 -

Similarly, MVMA agrees that: 

"additions to fuel systems do not need to compromise 

safety," 

and that: 

"onboard refueling vapor recovery would require that 

manufacturers must be given sufficient leadtime to 

ensure no compromise." 

The comments received from Mazda, Toyota, and Nissan 

focused more on leadtime and cost concerns; none said that 

implementing onboard controls safely was technologically 

infeasible. Furthermore, .while NHTSA recently provided some 

technical comments on our draft safety analysis, their June 11, 

1987 letter to EPA acknowledged that no technical breakthroughs 

are necessary to design and develop safe onboard systems and 

that the key element in completing this process is the 

provision of adequate leadtime. 

Thus, it appears to be a consensus of the commenters that 

onboard safety is more an issue of leadtime, and perhaps to 

some degree cost, rather than one of technological 

feasibility. Undoubtedly, leadtime will be a key issue in an 

onboard rulemaking, and a determination of the leadtime needed 

to implement onboard controls will be based on analysis of 

comments received in response to a proposed rule. EPA is open 

to providing additional leadtime and/or a phase-in of controls 

if analysis of the comments indicates a need. As we've stated 

previously, if an onboard final rule is promulgated, EPA 

intends to provide adequate leadtime to insure that controls 

can be implemented both safely and effectively. 

The question whether refueling emissions should be 

controlled using Stage II or onboard systems has been the 

subject of much study and debate for over 10 years. In August 

1984, EPA released the results of a comprehensive study of this 

issue. In response, the Agency received numerous public 

comments (over 180) and has since conducted additional study 

and analysis. Those comments and subsequent analysis have been 

considered in the proposal now under review. It is therefore 

fully appropriate and valuable to publish an NPRM, since it 

will expose EPA's subsequent analysis and current thinking to 

public scrutiny and thereby advance public debate. By the same 

token an ANPRM would not be as appropriate, since the relevant 

issues have alreaddy been identified and a large body of 

studies has already been amassed. 
P.4 

- 3 -

In accordance with your last request, my staff <<= 

compiling a chronological list of all EPA ^nf-JZo -ZZ

 is no w 

NHTSA on the refueling and volatilliy^s^^nce'^uies3 M d 

provided to OMB, which we will fo wa^d t yo u a t W "

e 

possible. in the meantime, we appreciate your r^l " *! 

interest in these important issues.

 ppreciat e y°u r continued 

• .Sincerely, 

\ 

Lee M. Thomas 

Z&J ^ ^3 - ^ 

A-a 

r\ » > 

c~