# OAR Box 1818

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 27 ) ll-C-2 4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Primed 11/6/20083:12:44 PM Sheet 27 of 79 p. 1^ 10S %



### % w * 

# ? P. 2

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON . D.C . 2046 0 

## JU L 

## 2 I 198

7

Honorabl e Joh

n D . Dingel l Chairman , Subcommitte e on Oversigh t an

d Investigation s Committe e on Energ

yan d Commerc e Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : TH E ADMINISTRATO R

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N

AGENC Y 

## AUG ! 

## 8 198

7 CENTRA L DOCKE T I a mwritin g i n respons e t o you r lette r o f Ma y8 , 1987 . In your letter , yo u reaueste d tha t we respon d t o a numbe

r o f question s relating t o the ga s marketing issue . Arespons e t o thos e question s i s enclosed . Yo u als o aske d u s t o clarif y ou r positio n fo r the Leagu e o f Wome n Voter s o n sanctions. . Acop yo f our sanction s fac t shee t whic h wa s sen t t o tha t organizatio n i s als o enclosed . I als o wis h t o tak e thi s opportunit yt o than k yo u fo

r your Ma y15 , 198 7 letter . In tha t letter , yo u raise d the issu e o f the safet yo f onboar d vehicl e controls . A s I state d a t the Apri l 2 7 hearing , EP Ai s givin g thi s issu e a thoroug h examination , an

d w e hav e formall ysough t the commen t o f the Nationa l Highwa yTransportatio n Administration . W e wil l b e sending yo u additiona l informatio n on th e issu e in our forthcoming respons e t o your letter s o f Jun e 2 3 ari d Jun e 29 . Than k yo u fo r you r continue d interes t in thes e matters . Sincerely , 

# 5/ Le e M . Thoma s Enclosure s cc : Charle s A . Bowshe r Comptrolle r Genera l Genera l Accounting Offic eP. 3



### Questio n1 Wha t d o you mea

n b y th e term"major" ? Whe ndi dyou meet

andwhic h manufacturer s met

wit h you ? Wha

t were the y tol da t

tha t tim e abou t th e scop e an

dtimin g o f

th e propose ddraf t

rule ? I observ e tha t i n th e cas e o f

lead-time , th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA ) document s sho

w tha t EP A relie s o n1984 publi c comment s whichlon g predat e th e Re

dBorde r rul e no w a t OMB
. Suchcomments see

mquit e stal e ando f

questionabl e relevanc y t o arul e tha t never , eve nexiste d i n1984
. A

nApri l 2

4 lette r t o you fro

mth e industr y providin g ane w cos t stud y urge s a t

leas t fou r year s fo r

non-heav y dut y vehicles
. I n regar dt o thos e 1984 commentators , whic hcommentator s recommende d2 4 month s an

dwhic hcommentator s recommende dmor e time ? Di

dth e 1984 document cove r heavy dut y vehicles ?

Respons e t o Questio n 1 EPAha s ha

d a variet yo f meeting s wit h bot h automobil e manufacturer s an d MVM Aconcerning onboar d vapo r recover ysystems . Thes e meeting s hav e range d fro

mstaf f leve l discussion s o f technica l issue s (suc h a s require d hardware , tes t procedure s an d safety ) t o senio r managemen t leve l briefing s fro mintereste d manufacturers . Whil e manufacturer s clearl yhav e raise d question s relate d t o onboar d safety , non e hav e identifie d problem s tha t coul d no t b e solve d wit h straightforwar d engineering solutions . Fo r example , i n a Decembe r 22 , 198 6 letter , MVM Aan d AI Aidentifie d wha t theyconsidere d t o b e th e "keysafet yconsiderations " associate d wit h onboar d controls . Thes e wer e fue l systemintegrit yduring a crash , fue l spitbac k an

d fue l dispensing nozzl e failure . A s indicate d i n EPA' s respons e t o tha t lette r (o f whic h yo u alread yhav e a copy) , w e agre e tha t suc h consideration s mus t b e factore d int o onboar d syste m designs , bu t al l th e informatio n w e hav e indicate s tha t thi s ca n readil y b e done . Turning t o th e issu e o f leadtime , recen t comment s fro mNHTS Aand other s hav e focuse d o n th e ide a tha t adequat e leadtime i s a keyt o onboar d systemsafety . I n respons e t o thi s comment , EPAha s indicate d it s flexibilit yan

d willingnes s t o conside r ne winformatio n o n thi s • issue . Thi s coul d includ e considerin g mor e leadtime , a phase-i n o f th e requirement , o r a combinatio n o f bot h o f these , especiall yi f additiona l leadtime woul d allo wtim e fo r safet yimprovements . A s indicate d i n prio r comments , w e ar e full yccmmitte d t o providing an appropriat e amoun t o f leadtime . W e woul d expec t leadtime t o b e a keyissu e i n a n onboar d vapo r recoveryproposal . Leadtime issue s woul d b e full yaire d an d resolve d through th e publi c rulemaking process , including considera

tio n o f al l relevan t comment s o n th e proposal . Although th e issu e o f leadtime fo r heavy-dut yvehicle s wa s covere d i n ou r 198 4 analysis , w e woul d expec t t o receiv e furthe r comment s o n thi s subjec t also .P. 4



### Questio n2 Hav e yo u me twit h th e heavy-dut y manufacturers ? Wha t hav e the y sai dabou t

safet y andlead-time ?

Respons e t o Questio n 2 

### Althoug hw

e hav e met

wit hsevera l manufacturer s o f heavy-dut y vehicles , w e hav e no t

ye t ha dmeeting s specificall y concernin g safet y an dleadtim e issue s fo r

suc hvehicles , no r

hav e the y approache du s regardin g thes e issues
. EP

A has , however , met

wit hth e Offic e o f

Motor Carrie r Safet y (OMCS ) withi nth e Department o f Transportatio nspecificall y t o discus s heavy-dut y vehicl e safety
. Ou r safet y analysi s t o dat e ha s foundthat , a s fo r passenge r

cars , onboardcontrol s fo r heavy-dut y vehicle s ar e basicall y extension s o f curren t evaporativ e controls
. Safet y consideration s fo r heavy-dut y vehicle s are , therefore , simila r t o thos e fo r

othe r vehicles
. Wha t difference s ther e ar e (e.g. , th e nee dfo r alarge r

onboar dcaniste r o r difference s i nspecifi c cras htes t requirements) d o no t

substantiall y chang e th e safet y issue s involved
.P. 5



### Questio n 3 Th e ne wApri l 1987 moto r

vehicl e industry-sponsore dcos t stud y provide dt o you o nApri l 2 4 show s significantl y differen t cos t comparison s tha nthos e suggeste db y EP A i nth e Re

dBorde r draft
. I reques t

you r comment s onth e stud y indicatin g wher e you agre e o r

disagre e andi f

yo u disagree , pleas e explai nwhy
. Respons e t o Questio n3 

### Basedupo

napreliminar y revie w o f th e Apri l 198 7 moto r

vehicle-industr y sponsore dcos t

study , w

e identifie dsevera l apparen t problem s i nthei r analysis , a s wel l a s aneedfo r additiona l informatio ni nman y othe r area s s o w

e cancomplet e ou r

review
. W

e hav e sinc e met

wit hth e contractor s wh o di dth e stud y t o obtai nadditiona l clarification s ari dar e no w proceedin g wit hou r review
. W

e wil l suppl y th e results t o you a s soo na s the y ar e available
. Overall , ther e appea r t o b e significan t

deficiencie s i nth e stud y whic hexplai nmos t o f th e difference s betwee nit s results andours . Thes e were briefl y describe di nalette r o f Ma y 8 , 198 7 t o MVM

A fro m Assistan t

Administrato r

fo r Ai r andRadiatio nCrai g Potte r (cop y enclosed)
.P. 6

Questio n 4(a ) Pleas e identify

al l o f th e charcoa l supplier s an d caniste r maker s fo r th e domesti c industry . Whe n an d ho wdi d thes e supplier s provid e thi s respons e t o EPA ? Pleas e provid e th e correspondence . I f oral , pleas e se t fort h th e question s asked . Respons e t o Questio n 4(a ) 

### Th e majo r domesti c producer s o f activate dcarbo nar e Calgon , Westvaco , IC I (Nont) , Atochem , Husky , andBarnebey-Cheney
. NorthAmerica nCarbon i s no t aproducer , bu t

rathe r asupplie r

o f importe dactivate dcarbon
. T o date , w

e hav e no t

requeste dwritte nresponse s fra n thes e manufacturer s onth e question s yo

u hav e raised
. Specifi c estimate s o f suc hthing s a s operatin g capacit y andenerg y cost s ar e ofte nproprietar y becaus e the y directl y relat e t o competitiv e marketin g issues
. Yo u als o aske dabou t

th e producer s o f

canister s fo r

th e domesti c industry
. For

dandChrysle r

mak e thei r ow n canisters
. Rocheste r Products , asubsidiar y o f

GM , make s G M canisters
. Evart , asubsidiar y o f AMC , make s AM C canisters
. Canister s fo r foreig n car s produce di nth e U.S
. ar e generall y mad

e b y th e paren t

compan y andimporte dt o th e U.S
.P. 7

Question s 4(b ) an

d 4(c ) 

### Didth e above reply cove r al l vehicle s subjec t

t o th e propose drule ? I f not , wh y not ? Wha

ti s th e curren t

siz e o f canister s fo r

passenge r vehicles , ligh t

dut y trucks , andheavy dut y vehicles ? Als o pleas e provid e th e amoun

t o f charcoa l required. Wha t wil l b e th e ne

w caniste r

siz e and charcoa l requiremen t

fo r eac hsuc hvehicle ? Respons e t o Question s 4(b ) an d4(c ) O f th e curren t

domesti c activate dcarbo nsuppliers , Calgo nan d Westvac o accoun t

fo r a nestimate d8 5 percen t o f th e carbo nmarke t

fo r domesticall y produce dautomobiles , whic hi s approximatel y 10-1 2 millio n pound s pe r

year . Thi s i s abou t

fiv e percen t

o f th e 20 0 millio npound s pe r yea r o f domesti c productio no f granulate dandpowderedcarbon
. Th e amount s o f

carbo ntypicall y use dt o contro l evaporativ e emission s an dth e additiona l amount s tha t EP A believe s wil l b e neede dt o contro l refuelin g emission s fo r

light-dut y vehicles , light-dut y truck s andheavy-dut y vehicle s ar e show

ni nth e attache dtable
. (Th e externa l dimension s o f th e canister s woul

db e abou t

1 0 percen t

greate r tha nth e require dcharcoa l volumes. ) W

e estimat e th e tota l additiona l amoun t o f carbo nrequire dfo r onboardrefuelin g control s fo r al l gasoline-fuele dvehicle s (light-dut y vehicles , light-dut y trucks , heavy-dut y trucks ) t o b e betwee n2 3 millio n pound s pe r

year , assumin g 9. 0 RV Pin-us e fue l and3 0 millio npound s pe r year , assumin g 11. 5 RV Pin-us e fuel
. Thi s amount s t o abou t 10-1 5 percen t o f curren t production
. Bot

hi nth e pas t

andi nrecen t

conversations , majo r manufacturer s hav e indicate di t wouldtak e a t

mos t 1 8 month s t o two year s leadtim e t o increas e capacit y b y thi s amount . A representativ e o f on e manufacture r

state dtha t

hi s compan

y coul dmeet

a3 0 millio npoun

d pe r yea r requiremen t

wit hthei r

curren t idl e capacity
. H

e cite daStanfor d Researc hInstitut e stud y o f th e carbo nindustr y whic hindicate s tha t th e curren t domesti c marke t

i s onl y a t

2/ 3 o f ful l utilization
. Base do n thes e comments , EP

A believe s tha t

activate dcarbo nmanufacturer s wil l b e easil y abl e t o meet

th e increase dcarbo nrequiremen t fo r al l vehicles
.TABL EREFERENCE

D I NRESPONS

ET O 4(b ) an d4(c )

Averag e Fue l Tan k Size : EstiiTate dAmount s o f Activate dCarbo n Neede dt o Contro l Evaporativ e an dRefuelin g Emission s Light-Dut y Light-Dut y . Heavy-Dut y Light-Dut y Truc k

Truc k

Truc k

IT o Vehicle s (singl e tank ) (dua l tank ) (singl e tank )
12. 2 gal . 16. 3 gal . 32. 6 gal . 2 0 gal . Heavy-Dut y Truc k li b (dua l tank )
4 0 gal . Heavy-Dut yHeavy-Dut y

Truc k V I Truc k V I (singl e tank ) (dua l tank )
3 0 gal . 8 0 gal . Typica l Amoun t o f Carbo n Presentl y use d i n Integrate i Evaporativ e Canisters : 85 0 m l 85 0 ml . 150 0 m l 140 0 m l 2 @ 140 0 m l 140 0 m l 2 @ 140 0 m l
Additiona l Amoun t o f Carbo n Neede d t o Contro l Refueling Emission s with : 11. 5 RV P fuel : 9. 0 RV P fuel : 244 0 m l 202 0 m l 326 0 m l

270 0 m l 652 0 m l

540 0 m l 400 0 m l

331 0 m l 800 0 m l

663 0 m l 599 0 m l

497 0 in l 1598 0 m l

1325 0 m lP. 9



### Questio n4(d ) You r agency' s ft&fy regarding th e energ y us e i s no t responsive. America nCarbo n mad

e specifi c estimate s o f th e "Btu " needs
. I reques t tha t yo u consul t

wit h th e Departmen t o f Energ y (DOE

) an dth e charcoa l supplier s abou t

th e firms 1 

### s contention s an dindicat e wher e yo u an dDO E agre e o r disagree
. Respons e t o Questio n 4(d ) A s fo r th e specifi c energ y requirements fo r producin g activate d carbon , i t

i s difficul t

t o evaluat e Nort hAmerica nCarbon' s estimat e o f th e amount

o f energ y use di n manufacturin g activate dcarbo nsinc e mos t manufacturer s conside r informatio n regardin g thei r manufacturin g processe s an denerg y need s t o b e proprietary , i n an y case , th e energ y cos t t o th e manufacture r

i s completel y recoveredi nth e cos t o f th e product
. Therefore , th e impac t

o f thi s energ y us e i s full y accounte dfo r i nou r analyses
. I t shoul dals o b e note dthat , compare dt o th e energ y conten t o f th e recovere d refueling vapor s (whic hare , o f course , currentl y bein g lost) , th e energ y involve di n charcoa l productio ni s extremel y small
. Furthermore , th e cos t o f activate dcarbo n i s typicall y onl y abou t on e dolla r

pe r pound , an deve n wit hth e additiona l amoun t require dfo r

onboar dcontrols , automotive-typ e carbo n account s fo r onl y asmal l fractio no f th e tota l activate dcarbo n market
. Thus , i t doe s no t

seemlikel y tha t

additiona l productio no f

activate dcarbo n fo r automotiv e purpose s coul db e ameasurabl e drai nt o th e econom

y o r t o th e nation' s energ y reserves . Pursuan t t o you r

request tha t w e consul t

wit hth e Departmen t o f Energ y (DOE

) o n thi s matter , I hav e sen t acop y o f

thi s response t o th e Departmen t

o f Energy
.P.1 0



### Questio n 5(a)(1 ) Wha tar e citie s lik e Ne

w York , Houston , Detroit , Lo s Angeles , and other s t o d o whil e EP

A i s improvin g th e models ?

Respons e t o Questio n 5(a)(1 ) Th e Urba n Airshe d Mode l ha s bee n widel yevaluate d an d i s th e mode l recommende d i n EPA' s modelin g guidelines . Th e mode l i s publicl yavailabl e fro mth e Nationa l Technica l Informatio n Servic e (NTIS) , an d EP Aha s n o immediat e plan s fo r changing th e model . Ane wversio n o f EKMA , wit h a n update d chemica l mechanism , an d related guidanc e i s anticipate d fo r releas e lat e thi s summer , befor e an ySI P call s ar e made . Thus , ther e shoul d b e n o significan t delay s fo r SI P preparatio n i n majo r urba n areas . A t thi s time , citie s wit h ozon e problem s can d o a numbe r o f things . EP Abelieve s that , i n mos t cases , existin g SI P regulation s ca n b e mor e full yimplemented . EPAha s notifie d th e Governor s o f State s wit h ozon e nonattainmen t problem s an d ha s suggeste d specifi c way s thes e area s coul d reduc e VO C emissions . State s coul d als o undertak e effort s t o improv e th e dat a base s neede d fo r developing revise d SIPs . Mos t citie s wit h ozon e problem s hav e bee n allocate d gran t fund s fo r developing necessaryinput s fo r th e EKM Amodel , specificall yfo r improvin g an d updating emissio n inventorie s an d fo r collecting ambien t data . Us e o f improve d dat a base s i n modelin g analyse s shoul d enhanc e th e States ' abilit yt o determin e appropriat e contro l requirements .P.1 1

i ' Questio n 5(a)(2 ) Ho wcan-anyon e relyo n suc h inaccurat e models ?

Respons e t o Questio n 5(a)(2 ) Give n th e inherentl ycomple x chemica l an d physica l an

d processe s involved , I believ e tha t the model s w e hav e develope d actuall ygiv e quit e goo d performance . Fo r example , GA O foun d tha t th e accurac yo f Airshe d i s generall ywithi n plu s o r minu s 3 0 percent . However , th e basi s fo r GAO' s rang e o f accurac y (plu s 31 4 percen t t o minu s 8 4 percent ) i s unknown . I t appear s t o b e a misunderstandin g o f th e dat a theyanalyze d o r a misstatemen t o f th e appropriat e factors . W e hav e foun d tha t th e tendenc yfo r Airshe d t o under-predic t i s sligh t an d can var yfromcity-to-city , an d over-prediction s ma yoccu r i n san e cases . EKM Aguidanc e requires tha t a predicte d ozon e leve l b e withi n + 3 0 percen t o f th e monitore d leve l fo r th e da yt o b e use d fo r estimatin g contro l targets . Whe n th e mode l predict s highe r tha n + 3 0 percen t o f th e observe d ozon e level , th e da yi s no t use d i n th e ozon e contro l strateg ydemonstration . EKM Aesti

mate s o f th e leve l o f contro l require d compar e ver yfavorabl y(i.e. , generall y withi n + 1 0 percent ) wit h Airshe d results . W e recogniz e th e limitation s o f al l ai r qualit ymanagemen t tool s an d w e continu e t o striv e t o improv e them . However , i t i s likel ytha t ther e wil l alway s b e uncertaintie s associate d wit h ai r qualit ymodeling . Questio n 5(a)(3 ) I not e tha t eve n th e lates t model s wil l likel yresul t i n greate r hydrocarbo n inventorie s than previousl yprojecte d an d th e nee d fo r eve n greate r controls , makin g attainmen t eve n mor e difficul t o r impossible . Respons e t o Questio n 5(a)(3 ) I t i s tru e tha t improvement s i n mobil e an d stationarysourc e emissio n estimatin g procedure s ma yresul t i n greate r hydrocarbo n inventories . A t thi s time , i t i s no t certai n wha t leve l o f additiona l control s wil l b e necessaryt o provid e fo r attainment . City-specifi c analysi s woul d b e neede d t o determin e th e leve l o f additiona l control s tha t ma yb e needed .P.1 2



### Questio n5(b ) Coul dth e improvements , i f mad e afte r th e State s submi t

revise dSIPs , caus e thos e SI Prevision s t o b e out-of-dat e almos t a s written ? Respons e t o Questio n5(b ) Update dmodel-relate dguidance , a s wel l a s guidanc e ondevelopin g emissio n inventories , i s expecte dt o b e availabl e i nth e lat e summer , prio r t o SI P call s andwel l befor e revise dSIP s ar e submitte dt o EPA
. Thus , i t

i s unlikel y tha t

SI Prevision s wil l b e out-of-dat e almos t a s written
. However , w e anticipat e tha t

ther e wil l b e anee dt o periodicall y updat e th e SI Panalysi s a s ne w andbette r

informatio nbecome s available
.

Questio n 5(c ) I nyou r Apri l 2 4 lette r t o th e Subcommittee , you indicat e tha t you r • agenc y i s gettin g read y t o chang e th e are asubjec t t o modele dcontro l requirements
. Th

e lette r states : "A s par t o f revise dozon e policie s unde r consideratio n withi nth e Agency , stationar y contro l requirements / regulations coul db e identica l throughou t a nMSA
. I n th e cas e o f

metropolita ncomplexes , suc ha s Ne w York , requirement s coul dthe nb e th e sam e throughou t

a CMS A o r possibl y eve nalarge r area . I n th e cas e o f Ne w York , thi s coul dmea nsimila r

control s throughou t th e norther nhal f

o f Ne w Jersey , Ne

w Yor k City , Lon g Island , Ne

w Yor k throug hOrang e County , an dth e southwester nthir do f

Connecticut
. Whe nwil l th e State s an

dth e publi c lea mwha t you r requirements wil l be ? Respons e t o Questio n5(c ) I nth e past , on e o f

th e majo r

flaw s i nozon e plannin g activitie s wa s th e underestimatin g o f

th e geographi c are ao f control
. Contro l measure s wer e ofte nno t

applie d a s broadl y a s neede dwithi nmetropolita narea s t o brin g thos e area s int o attainment
. W e believ e tha t

broade r geographi c area s ar e neede dfo r

plannin g (suc ha s MSA's o r CMSA's). ' W

e ar e currentl y developin g ou r

post-198 7 strateg y whic hw e expec t t o propos e fo r

publi c comment, i nth e lat e summer . A t tha t time , w e expec t t o solici t

publi c comment s onth e concep t

o f a n"expande dplannin g and/o r contro l area"
.P.1 3


### 1 0
Questio n 6 Ther e hav e bee n3 Mobil e model s an d no wEPAi s developing a fourt h t o b e complete d lat e i n 1987 . Wh yha s EP Aneve r evaluate d th e model ? Wha t doe s i t mea n tha t EPAha s "improved " th e mode l o n th e basi s o f "use r comments " an d ha s evaluate d "some parts" ? Wha t i s th e uncertaint yregarding th e "assumptions " use d fo r Mobil e models ? Respons e t o Questio n 6 EP Ai s evaluating variou s aspect s o f th e MOBIL E model s o n a continuou s basis . Example s o f step s i n thi s evaluatio n proces s follow :
a . Collec t an

d analyz e emissio n measurement s o f ne w vehicle s t o augmen t th e model . b . Analyz e curren t trave l survey s t o verif yo r updat e trip s pe r day , vehicl e mile s traveled , etc . c . Conduc t studie s t o predic t th e typ e an d predominanc e o f th e emissio n contro l technologie s tha t wil l represen t th e future . d . Hol d workshop s t o presen t EPAdata , elici t comments , gathe r ne wsource s o f informatio n fro mindustr

yan d th e mode l users . Th e developmen t o f a ne wmode l i s th e resul t o f thi s evaluatio n process . Th e model s ar e empirica l models . The yar e base d o n actua l emissio n measurement s o f vehicle s operate d b yth e public . Thus , contrary t o GA O statements , mode l prediction s represen t actua l emissio n levels . Although actua l emissio n measurement s for mth e cor e o f th e models , manyassumption s abou t th e emission s behavio r o f th e futur e flee t hav e t o b e made . EP Ai s continuousl ytesting vehicle s t o gathe r mor e emission s data . Thi s testing i s focuse d o n th e currentl yoperate d model s tha t wil l bes t represent th e futur e fleet . EP Aincorporate s th e ne wdat a t o for mth e nex t MOBIL E model . Generally , improvement s t o th e mode l base d o n use r comment s woul d b e relate d t o eas e o f operatio n o r usage . Occasionally , othe r organization s (suc h a s a n aut o manufacturer , stat e ai r pollutio n contro l agency , o r privat e consulting firm ) aler t EPAt o source s o f dat a tha t ma yb e usefu l fo r th e model . EP Aevaluate s tha t ne wdat a an d ma yincorporat e th e informatio n int o th e nex t mode l i f i t i sP.1 4


### 1 1
appropriate
. Example

s o f suc hdat atha t

EP A i s currentl y evaluatin g are : emission s dat acollecte d a t low ambien t

temperatures , som

e provide db

y Alask aan

d som e provide db y th e government o f Canada ; trave l surve y informatio ncollecte db y GM ; vehicl e registratio ntrend s use db y th e Departjnent

o f Energy
. Mos t o f th e assumption s i nth e MOBIL Emodel s regar dpredictin g futur e flee t

characteristics
. Th

e uncertaint y i nthes e assumption s relat e t o ho

w accuratel y EP

A predict s th e futur e i nterm s of : th e typ e o f vehicles , thei r

emissio ncontro l technology , thei r emission s behavio r (particularl y fo r

technologie s tha t

ar e no t representedi nth e curren t fleet) , th e relative mi x o f technolog y types , th e ag e distributio no f vehicles , th e VM

T characteristics , etc . EP A forecast s thes e parameter s wit havailabl e informatio nfro mmanufacture r

produc t plans , technolog y trends , emissio nmeasurement s fro mprototyp e o r

advance dtechnolog y vehicles , andhistorica l data
.P.1 5


### 1 2

•Tz- Questio n 6(c ) I n you r Apri l 2 4 letter , yo u said : "T o som e extent , eac hsuccessiv e round o f SI P plannin g ma yinevitabl y requir e reevaluatio n o f th e specifi c reductio n target s a s ou r measuremen t and modellin g capabilitie s improve , and a s w e respon d t o demographi c changes , industria l growth , an d othe r factor s tha t ar e imperfectl y predictabl e an d tha t directl yo r indirectl yaffec t ai r quality . W e expect , however , tha t i n th e nex t round w e wil l hav e significantl ybette r tool s t o predic t th e environmenta l effec t o f emission s reductions , an d tha t reductions tha t w e predic t t o b e necessar yt o attai n th e NAAQ S wil l corresporx j mor e accuratel yt o actua l results. Th e onl ywa yt o avoi d thi s woul d b e t o adjus t th e model s t o virtuall yeliminat e anyuncertaint yo f attainmen t bu t thi s woul d resul t i n drasti c overcontrol , an d woul d impos e unreasonabl e cost s an d burdens . W e believ e tha t emission s target s ca n eventuall yb e me t i f severa l step s ar e taken . Th e effectivenes s o f curren t control s mus t b e improved . SIP' s mus t se t achievabl e reductio n goal s an d a strateg yo f attainmen t b y a specifi c date , and th e progres s o f implementin g control s mus t b e tracke d an d correction s mad e a s necessary . Thi s wil l b e a long-ter mproces s i n man yareas . However , area s ar e implementin g curren t control s and ozon e level s hav e improved . Wit ha sustaine d effor t b yEP Aan d States , w e believ e tha t i n mos t case s i t i s possibl e t o identif yan d implemen t enoug hcontrol s ove r tim e t o mee t th e ne wreduction targets . (Underlinin g supplied. ) Wha t enforcemen t measure s i n eac hRegio n wit hnonattainmen t area s hav e yo u take n i n 1985 , 1986 , an d 198 7 t o carr you t presen t requirement s an d wha t i s you r agency' s enforcemen t pla n fo r th e future ? Respons e t o Questio n 6(c ) Durin g F Y 85 , 8 6 and 87 , th e Agenc yha s move d aggressivel yt o identif yviolator s i n nonattainin g area s b yrequirin g State s t o inspec t majo r stationar ysource s eac hyea r and on e hal f o f th e smalle r (Clas s A2 ) source s eac hyear . Thes e violator s ar e designate d a s "significan t violators " an d th e resolution o f thei r complianc e statu s b yStat e agencies , loca l agencies , o r EP A

i s monitore d accordin g t o th e Agency' s guidance . Fo r th e thre e yea r perio d covere d i n you r question , ove r on e hal f o f th e 150 0 significan t violation s tha t hav e bee n tracke d fo r resolution ar e VO C relate d violations . EP Aplan s t o continu e thi s effort . W e wil l als o begi n a revie wo f regulatio n effectivenes s whic hwil l hel p t o assur e tha t expecte d emissio n reduction s ar e achieved . Th e goal s o f th e Agency' s enforcemen t pla n fo r th e futur e ar e t o wor k wit hth e State s t o assur e tha t th e plan s tha t ar e develope d and approve d ar e adeguatel yfunde d and ar e implemente d i n a n effective , expeditiou s manne r t o achiev e th e emissio n reduction s neede d fo r attain

ing and maintainin g th e ambien t standards .P.1 6 

### 1 3

T o measur e an

dassur e progress , State s ar e no wrequire d t o inspec t majo r VO C source s i n nonattainmen t area s eac h yea r an d develo p an

d implemen t strategie s t©assur e tha t a majorit yo f smal l VO C source s ar e i n compliance . I n addition , Stat e an d loca l agencie s ar e require d t o sho wyearl yeffort s t o gathe r ai r qualit yan d emission s data , determin e sourc e complianc e o r implementatio n progress , an d compar e update d informatio n wit h tha t use d i n th e initia l demonstratio n o f attainment . I n thei r demonstratio n o f attainment , State s mus t continu e t o projec t futur e emissio n reduction s resulting fromschedule d implementatio n o f variou s measures . Onc e approved , thes e futur e annua l emissio n reduction s woul d serv e a s reasonabl e furthe r progres s (RFP ) targets . Tha t is , eac h yea r th e Stat e woul d b e require d t o demonstrat e tha t it s measure s hav e achieve d thei r intende d effect . I n addition , every3 year s th e Stat e woul d b e require d t o showtha t it s tota l emissio n inventor yi s a t o r belo wth e leve l indicate d i n th e demonstration . I f th e tota l emission s fo r th e are a ar e abov e th e leve l i n th e demonstration , correctiv e actio n woul d b e take n t o achiev e th e necessaryreductions . Periodicall y(every 6 year s t o coincid e wit h everyothe r detaile d emissio n inventory) , State s woul d reexamine thei r demonstration s o f attainmen t base d o n up-to-dat e emissio n levels , modelin g techniques , emissio n factors , an d ai r qualit y levels . I n addition , eac h yea r State s and EP ARegiona l Office s wil l continu e t o evaluat e selecte d SI P regulation s an d program s t o determin e whethe r theyar e achieving thei r intende d effect . T o ensur e tha t progres s continue s a s planne d i n th e attainmen t demonstration , EP

Awil l conditionall yapprov e SIP's . Majo r problem s i n implementing th e SI P coul d result i n th e rescinding o f th e approva l an d th e possibl e impositio n o f sanctions . Wit h regard t o mobil e sources , th e Agenc yha s bee n aggressivel y enforcing th e Act' s mobil e sourc e provisions . Wit h respec t t o enforcin g th e Clea n Ai r Ac t requirement fo r a vehicl e inspectio n an d maintenanc e progra m(eithe r specificall yfo r extensio n area s unde r Sectio n 172(b)(11 ) (B ) o r indirectl ya s par t o f an overal l attainmen t strateg yfo r othe r areas) , EPAha s take n th e following action s i n 1985 , 1986 , an d 1987 . I n 1985 , EP Aenforce d SI P requirement s i n thre e state s byimposin g o r continuing sanction s fo r failur e t o adop t an d implemen t a n I/ M program . InMedford , Oregon , EP Aimpose d Sectio n 176(a ) highwayfunding limitation s an

d Sectio n 316(b ) sewag e treatmen t funding sanction s o n Ma y3 , 1985 . Th e Orego n Legislatur e adopte d an I/ M programfo r Medfor d an d al l sanction s wer e remove d o n Jun e 25 , 1985 . I n Albuquerque , Ne wMexico , EPAimpose d Sectio n 176(a ) limitation s o n Apri l 3 , 1985 . Thes e sanction s remai n i n effect .P.1 7 

### 14

Durin g 1985 , Sectio n 176(a ) an d316(b ) sanction s initiall y imposed i n198 0 remained i n effec ti nKentonan dCampbell Counties , Kentucky , fo r failur e t o adop tI/M . O nOctobe r

28 , 1986 , EP

A lifte dsanction s i n thos e countie s upo

nth e adoptio no f

a nI/ M program . O nJanuar y 21 , 1986 , EP

A propose dSectio n176(a ) limitation s fo r Indian afo r

failur e t o adop t

certai nelement s o f

a nacceptabl e I/

M program . Thes e limitation s were no t finalize dbecaus e o f

constructiv e step s take nb y th e State
. O nFebruar y 25 , 1987 , EP A propose dSectio n316(b ) limitation s fo r Albuguerque
. Thes e limitation s hav e no t ye t beenfinalized
. EP A als o conduct s fiel daudit s o f vehicl e anti-tamperin g program s (ATPs) afte r

on e yea r

o f ful l operation
. Thes e ar e generall y don e a s par t o f th e Nationa l Ai r

Audi t System
. Follow-u p audit s ar e als o conducte dt o furthe r

stud y particula r

issue s o r

problems
. Th

e primar y purpos e o f

thes e audit s i s t o allo w EP A t o ensur e tha t

eac hprogrami s bein g implemente dandenforce di namanner consisten t

wit hit s Stat e • Implementatio nPla n(SIP ) commitment
. A secondar y purpos e o f thes e audit s i s t o evaluat e th e overal l effectivenes s andefficienc y o f eac hprogram . Fiel daudit s identif y wea k an dstron g desig nelements
. The y als o uncove r thos e progra

melement s whic hhav e no t bee nimplemente dproperly
. Bot hinspecto r

andloca l audito r

knowledg e canb e tested
. The lac k o f prope r equipmen t

o r th e us e o f

imprope r

inspectio nprocedure s canb e documented
. The results o f

thes e audit s ar e sen t t o th e Stat e o r

loca l government i nth e for

mo f a naudi t o r tri p report . EP

A work s wit hthes e government s t o correc t

th e identifie dproblems
.P.1 8


### 1 5

Th e followin

g audit s o f anti-tampering program s hav e bee n o r wil l b e conducte d b

y EPA inF Y1985 , 1986 , an

d i987 . FY 198 5 Ne wYork City , N Y Atlanta , G A St . Louis , M O Charlotte , N C Houston , T X Portland , O R Denver , C O FY 198 6 Sal t Lak e City , U T Atlanta , GA Lo s Angeles , C A Sa n Francisco , C A Sacramento , C A Boise , I D Houston , T X Fairbanks , A

K Anchorage , A

K Massachusett s Main e FY 198 7 Bato n Rouge , LA Provo , U T Tulsa , O K Dallas , T X Ne wJerse y Covington , K Y Miami , F L St . Louis , M O E l Paso , T X Atlanta , GA Charlotte , N C Sal t Lak e City , U T Futur e audi t area s hav e no t bee n finalized .P.1 9


### 1 6
Questio n7(a ) Followin g th e sendin g o f you r recen t letter s t o th e Governors , th e Regio nV Administrato r sen t letter s t o al l o f

th e State s i nth e Regio n asking , amon

g othe r things , fo r

th e State s t o identif y al l SI Pcommitments , provid e asummar

y o f thei r status , an dothe r

extensiv e dat aabou t th e commitments
. Th e Regio n gav e eac hstat e 6 0 day s fro mApri l 3 t o reply. Wha t differenc e doe s i t

mak e a s t o th e statu s o f th e commitments , i f th e SI Prevision s ar e stil l no t approve do r

disapproved ? I s EP A suggestin g tha t th e State s mus t

enforc e commitment s fo r whic hthe y hav e n o assuranc e tha t EP A i s satisfie dwit hthem ? Di dal l Region s sen dsimila r letters ? Respons e t o Questio n 7(a ) 

### Th e letter s sen t

t o th e State s b y th e EP A Regiona l Office s referre d onl y t o ccmmitment s i n EPA-approve dplans
. Thi s serie s o f letter s wa s begu nwhe

nth e Administrato r

sen t letter s t o 4 2 Stat e Governor s i nApri l 1987
. Thes e letter s describe dEPA' s plan s t o ensur e tha t Stat e an dloca l agencie s wer e implementin g th e commitment s i nthei r approve dplans
. Thes e letter s bega n athre e par t evaluatio nprocess : (1 ) Revie w o f

al l federall y approve dcontro l commitment s i nSIP' s t o determin e whethe r

al l ccmmitment s an dregulation s ha dbee nadopted ; (2 ) Revie w an ddeterminatio n a s t o whethe r adopte dmeasure s wer e technicall y adequat e an dme t minimu mnationa l standard s fo r consistency ; (3 ) Initiatio n o f

acomprehensiv e an dongoin g progra mt o determin e whethe r adopte dmeasure s ar e bein g effectivel y implemented
. Th e firs t

tw o phase s shoul db e complete di nth e shor t term , bu t

th e thir dphas e wil l tak e longer
. Th e Regio nV letter s yo u cite dar e par t o f th e firs t

phase
.P.2 0


### 1 7

Questio n 7(b ) Doesn' t EP

A hav e al l th

e informatio n o n commitment s fro mthei r audit s an d reasonabl e furthe r progres s reports? Isn' t thi s going t o resul t i n massiv e paperwor k fo r the State s an d extensiv e delay ? Respons e t o Questio n 7(b ) Th e EPAdoe s no t fee l tha t th e firs t phas e o f thi s activit y(looking a t contro l commitments ) wil l resul t i n extr a paperwor k o r delay . W e mus t verif ywit h th e State s th e statu s o f al l pas t commitment s an d "conditiona l approvals " o f ozon e an d C O SIP's . Thi s wil l serv e a s a doubl e chec k o n existing audi t an

d reasonabl e furthe r progres s materia l an d fil l i n th e remaining informatio n gaps . Onc e thi s ne winformatio n ha s bee n obtaine d w e wil l b e abl e t o tak e appropriat e actio n i f ther e i s a patter n o f Stat e failur e t o implemen t it s plan .P.2 1 

### 1 8

Questio n 7(c ) EEA' s Regio

nI XAdministrator , i n a Marc h 2 6 letter , indicate s tha t same o f th e commitment s i n California' s Sout h Coas t Ai r Basi n SI P include d measure s tha t depende d upo n developnen t o f ne wtechnologie s "whic h wer e believe d t o b e realisticall yachievabl e byth e projecte d adoptio n date, " bu t theywer e no t carrie d out . Also , some o f th e commitment s wer e relaxed . I s thi s situatio n uniqu e t o California ? Pleas e explain . Ho war e thes e situation s t o b e considere d in th e ne wroun d o f correspondence ? Respons e t o Questio n 7(c ) A t thi s point , w e d o no t knowth e answer s t o thes e questions . W e expec t t o receiv e answer s through th e letter s sen t t o th e Governor s an d t o th e Environmenta l Commissioner s thi s spring . Thi s i s th e materia l mentione d i n th e firs t tw o point s in the answe r t o questio n 7(a ) above . Thes e response s ar e expecte d late r thi s summer .P.2 2


### 1 9 QUESTIO N7(d ) Mayo rKoc h ha s writte n t o u s an dexpresse dconcern s tha t ozon e control s migh taffec tgrowt hi nNe w York
. Th e Regio nI X Administrator , i ndiscussin g th e effect s o f growt han dmeteorolog y o nozon e control s i n California , sai dtha t th e Sout hCoas t

neede da nemissio nreductio no f 7 5 percen t

i n hydrocarbon s t o reac hattainment
. Sh e said : "I nth e tim e sinc e th e 197 9 an d198 2 SIP' s wer e developed , populatio n an dindustria l growt hhav e bee nexceede di nCalifornia
. A s adirec t

resul t o f thi s growth , Californi anonattainmen t area s hav e generall y faile dt o achiev e th e SIPs * predicte dlevel s o f emissio n reductions
.
Eve nth e applicatio n o f

extraordinar y contro l measure s usin g bes t availabl e contro l technologie s an dfuel s (e.g. , methano l an d electrification ) i s no t believe dt o b e sufficien t t o assur e a 7 5 percen t

reductio n i n Sout hCoas t hydrocarbo nemissions
.
Base do ncurrentl y availabl e information , however , i t i s believe d t o b e extremel y unlikel y tha t hydrocarbo nreduction s a s grea t a s 30-4 0 percen t

coul db e achieve di nth e nex t severa l years ; ongoin g analyse s wil l revea l whethe r suc hagoa l i s realistic fo r th e yea r 2000
. I t

i s importan t

t o recognize tha t

th e extrem e reduction targe t fo r th e Sout hCoas t

result s fro mth e hig hleve l o f curren t

emission s i nth e basi n combine dwit hth e area' s particularl y advers e meteorolog y an dtopography , whic hpromot e ozon e formatio nan d persistence
. Al l th e eas y control s hav e alread y bee napplie di nCalifornia, , an d furthe r reduction s mus t

no w largel y depen dupo naccumulatin g smal l reduction s fro mthousand s o f mino r source s throug hne

w rule s tha t ar e particularl y difficul t an dexpensiv e t o enforce
. Ho w i s EP A addressin g thi s growt hissu e i nit s plannin g aix i SI Pcal l criteria ?

RESPONS ET O QUESTIO

N7(d ) One o f th e ke y ingredient s i nprojectin g attainmen t i s th e applicatio n o f prope r an drealisti c growt hfactors
. Whil e typicall y havin g bee n embedde di noveral l sourc e emission s inventor y increase s an di npercentag e increase s i n vehicl e mile s travele di nth e past , th e us e o f imprope r growt hallowance s ca n hav e amajo r impac t o nth e attainmen t

demonstration
. Under-predictio n o f

growt hca n resul t

i nno t achievin g th e amoun t o f emission s reductio n required , whil e over-predictio nca nresult i n unnecessar y control
. Th e EP A i s considerin g aproposa l whic hwoul d requir e tha t

al l growt hfactors , whethe r positiv e o r

negative , b e submitte dP.2 3


### 2 0

wit h documentatio n t o substantiat e thei r use . I n th e cas e wher e a negativ e o r zer o growt h facto r i s applied , EP Awoul d closel ytrac k thos e source s o r categorie s o f source s throug h the Reasonabl e Furthe r Progres s (RFP ) requirements. Shoul d thi s tracking sho wtha t thes e growt h factor s are , i n fact , positive , EPAma yrequir e th e revisio n o f th e pla n t o correc t suc h deficiencies . A s oppose d t o applying an overall , o r categoryspecifi c growt h rate , EP Ama ypropos e tha t fo r eac h individua l stationarysourc e liste d i n th e bas e yea r inventory , th e projecte d emission s fo r eac h sourc e mus t b e base d upo n documente d growt h informatio n an d tha t th e growt h dat a b e submitte d a s par t o f th e SI P revision . Wher e RF P tracking show s substantia l deviatio n fro mth e growt h assumed , EPAwoul d notif yth e Stat e an d ma yreguir e tha t th e SI P b e revise d t o accoun t fo r thes e changes . Th e EPAproposa l migh t als o reguir e documentatio n o f al l projectio n parameter s associate d wti h mobil e sourc e emission s an d projection s o f transportatio n contro l measures . Documentatio n shal l includ e stating th e curren t (bas e year ) valu e fo r a paramete r an d th e valu e fo r th e projecte d yea r an d th e base s fo r selecting tha t particula r value . Unde r an

yplan , state s woul d hav e t o demonstrat e ho wthe ywoul d com e int o attainmen t despit e an yexpecte d growth . T o accomplis h this , i t ma yb e necessaryfo r area s t o choos e t o implemen t contro l strategie s whic h ar e aime d a t halting o r severel ylimiting growth . W e ar e incline d t o believ e tha t specifi c requirement s whic h woul d fundamentall yaffec t growt h shoul d b e decide d o n b yth e stat e an

d loca l governments , an d shoul d no t b e federall yprescribed .

### 2 1 Questio n8(a ) • 

### Th e Subcommitte e ha s provide dyo u wit hacop y o f m y Apri l 2 2 memorandu

m t o th e Members an dth e attache dstaf f document
. At

page s 55-57 , th e America nPetroleu mInstitut e (API ) doe s no t appea r t o b e i nful l agreemen t wit hEPA
. AP

I ha s adifferen t

recommendation. Pleas e respondt o th e AP I recommendatio n arx

j explai n it s impac t

o nth e moto r

vehicl e industry
. Pleas e als o identif y th e AP I comment s tha t

yo u disagre e wit h(i nwhol e o r part ) an dexplai n why
. Doe s EP A kno w wha t "octan e improvers " wil l b e use db y th e industr y a s i t remove s butan e an di s EP A satisfie dtha t

the y hav e n o advers e healt ho r enviroimenta l consequences ? I n ligh t o f API' s comment s o nth e impac t o f th e reductio no nbutane , pleas e consul t wit h th e DO Eabou t th e impac t

o f surplu s butan e o nth e butan e marke t an do n natura l ga s productio nan dprovid e th e result s thereof
. Respons e t o Questio n8(a ) I nthei r lette r t o you , AP

I recommend s tha t

EP A limi t gasolin e volatilit y t o AST

M recommendation s an dchang e certificatio nfue l volatilit y accordingl y t o 11. 5 ps i RVP
. A s thi s scenari o matche s in-us e an dcertificatio n fue l RVP

, i t i s on e o f

th e long-ter mcontro l scenario s bein g evaluate db y EP A i nit s draf t

Notic e o f

Propose dRulemakin g currentl y unde r revie w b y OMB
. W e ar e evaluatin g matchin g certificatio n an din-us e RVP s a t lowe r RV Plevels , a s well
. W e ar e basin g ou r

evaluatio no f

th e variou s scenario s on : 1 ) th e environmenta l nee dfo r VO C emissio nreductions , an d 2 ) th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s a t

whic hthe y ar e obtained
. A t th e presen t tim e thos e scenario s whic hcal l fo r lowe r in-us e an dcertificatio n fue l iW Pmatch-up s provid e th e greates t emissio nreductions, bu t d o s o a t th e greates t

cos t pe r ton . As AP

I doe s no t

sho w tha t

th e emissio nreductio n associate dwit hin-us e RV Pcontro l belo w AST

M level s i s no t

neede do r

no t cost-effective , i t

i s difficul t

fo r u s t o respondt o thei r recommendation
. Regardin g th e impac t

o f API' s recommendatio no nth e moto r vehicl e industry , i t

clearl y place s th e greates t burde no nth e vehicl e manufacturer s whil e onl y requirin g oi l companie s t o al l d o wha t i s no w roughl y th e averag e practice
. Aut o manufacturer s woul dhav e t o increas e th e siz e o f thei r evaporativ e emissio n contro l canister s an dredesig nthei r fue l meterin g an dcaniste r purg e system s t o purg e mor e vapors . Th e latte r coul dinvolv e upgradin g th e purg e contro l valv e fo r mor e precis e control , bu t i ngenera l woul dprimaril y involv e improvin g th e efficienc y o f equipmen t alread y present . Th e tota l cos t o f raisin g certificatio nfue l RV Pt o 11. 5 ps i i s estimate dt o b e roughl y $3- 5 pe r vehicl e i nth e lon g run , wit ho r withou t onboar drefueling control s i nplace
.P.2 5 

### 2 2

AP I mention s tha t unde r thi s approac haverage volatility would i

n fac t be reduce

dbecaus e gasolin

e that currentl y

exceed s th

e AST M limit s woul db e eliminated . Thi s i s tru e a s roughly

hal f o f al l gasolin e currently bein g markete

dviolate s th

e AST M limits . AP I goe s o nt o sa y that it woul db e likel y

that al l refiner s an d blender s woul d blen d gasoline s belo w th e standar

dt o guar

dagains t unintentionall y violatin

g th e standar

d becaus e o f measuremen t inaccuracies , etc . Thi s woul d depen d upo nho w EP A se t th e standar

dan dho w i t wa s enforced . I t woul d b e ou r goa l tha t average ) in-us e gasoline mee t whateve r volatility standard s woul d b e imposed , s o i t i s possibl e tha t w e woul d allo

w a nenforcemen t margi n in-us e whic hwoul dtake int o account testin g inaccuracies , etc . Thus , w e woul dno t expec t a significant amount o f contro l belo w th e leve l o f EPA' s standard . Since , nationally , average gasoline RV P i s generall y

a t th e AST M limits , w

e d o no t expec t muc hin-us e RV P contro l t o occur , o naverage , wit ha n11. 5 RV

P scenario . AP I als o refer s t o th e lag s i

nth e distributio

nsyste m an d that som

e contro l gasoline woul dente r th e syste m prio r t o th

e contro l perio

d an d remai ni

nth e syste m afte r th

e contro l perio

d wa s over . EP

A agree s wit h thi s althoug

hw e ar e stil l attemptin g t o improv

e ou r estimat e o f both ' th e amount o f tim

e an dth e amount o f gasoline fo r whichthi s occurs . I n settin g th e RV P contro l period , whic hwoul d b e base d o nenvironmenta l need , w e pla nt o tak

e int o account th

e fac t tha t som

e gasoline wil l b e controlle

dbot hbefor e an

dafte r th

e lega l enforcement period . W e als o pla nt o conside r bot hth e cost s an

d benefit s o f that gasoline whichwoul d b e controlle

doutside o f th

e lega l enforcemen t period . Finally , AP I refer s t o th e fac t tha t othe r gasoline specifications , suc ha s distillatio

ncharacteristics , sometime s iimi t RV P t o level s belo

w th e AST M recommendations . Thi s doe s appea r to b e tru e i nsom e cases . However , shoul dEP

A restric t RV

P to level s belo

w th e AST M standards , i t i s les s likely

that thes e othe r distillatio ncharacteristic s woul d affec t volatility . Also , there ar e stil l man y citie s i

nwhichth

e gasolin

e o n average exceed s th

e AST M levels . Thus , thes e non-RV P distillatio

ncharac teristic s d o not hav e enoug ho f a nimpac t to meri t not controllin g RVP . Wit hregar

dt o EPA' s agreement o r disagreemen t wit hAPI' s othe r comments , i

t i s difficul t t o be specifi c sinc e API' s comment s are fairly general . Fo r example , AP I state s tha t volatility reduction s belo

w th e current AST

M standard s coul dhav e sever e consequence s for refiner s an d coul dmak e th

e U S strongl y

dependen t o

nforeig

nimport s to supply neede d octane . Also , i t state s tha t thes e consequence s woul d b e suffere d i n exchange fo r uncertai no r minima l environmenta l benefits . Certainly EP A agree s that significant volatility reduction s belo

w th e current AST

M standard s woul dhav e significant consequence s for refiner s an d tha t som e o f th e octane currentl y

supplie

d b y butane i

nth e summe r woul d hav

e t o b e mad e up . However , w e do no t believ

e cost s o f 0.5-1. 0 cent s pe r gallon ,P.2 6 2 3 .

a s predicte d b

yAPI , woul d b e unreasonable . Thi s i s especiall ytru e sinc e mos t o f thi s cos t wil l com e fro mreplacing cheap butan e wit h mor e expensiv e butane-fre e gasolin e an d al l refiner s wil l hav e t o remov e essentiall yth e same amoun t o f butane . Thus , thi s cos t wil l b e experience d acros s the boar d b yall-domesti c refiner s a s wel l a s importers . A s thi s smal l pric e increas e wil l hav e little , i f any , effec t o n demand , w e full yexpec t tha t al l refiner s wil l b e abl e t o pas s o n thei r cost s t o th e consumer , causin g minima l economi c hardshi p o n refiners. Wit h respec t t o maintainin g octan e levels , butan e i s a relativel y hig h octan e component . However , a s AP I state s i n thei r comments , butane' s octan e i s onl y91-92 . Thus , removing butan e frompremiu munleade d gasolin e (a n eve r increasing percentag e o f al l fuel ) wil l hav e n o effec t an d wil l hav e onl ya smal l effec t o n regula r leade d an d regula r unleade d gasoline' s octane . Eve n th e mos t sever e cas e tha t EPAi s caisidering (i.e. , controlling summertime gasolin e i n Clas s C area s t o 8. 0 ps i RVP ) woul d onl yreduc e th e averag e octan e o f th e tota l gasolin e poo l by0.2 5 octan e numbers . B y comparison , thi s i s fa r les s than th e effec t o f lea d phasedown . EP Aals o recognize s tha t anysignifican t amoun t o f RV P reductio n belo wth e ASTM standard s (e.g. , mor e than a 1 ps i reduction ) woul d reguir e leadtime t o desig n an d buil d octan e generatio n equipment . Give n tha t th e industr ywil l hav e had time t o full yrespon d t o lead phasedow

n byusing additiona l octane-enhancing equipment , w e ar e talking abou t a smal l incrementa l effor t tha t wil l b e neede d t o replac e th e octan e los t fro m butane . A s EPAi s no t awar e o f an yinformatio n tha t wil l suppor t the contentio n tha t high octan e component s can b e mor e cheapl yproduce d oversea s tha n domestically , i t woul d appea r tha t onl ya decisio n b yth e domesti c refiner s no t t o generat e thi s octan e danesticall ywoul d resul t i n greate r import s o f high octan e components . I n fact , on e o f th e octane-enhancing response s tha t th e industr yha s bee n makin g t o lea

d phasedow

n ha s bee n t o increas e us e o f oxygenates , particularl ymethy l tertiary-buty l ethe r (MTBE) . MTB E i s produce d from methano l an

d iscbutylene . Iscbutylen e ca n b e produce d fro meithe r isobutan e o r norma l butane . I f a significan t amoun t o f butan e i s remove d fro m summertime gasoline , th e pric e o f norma l butan e coul d indee d drop . Thi s coul d mak e MTB E produce d fro mnorma l butan e an

d methano l ver ycost-competitiv e an d thi s MTB E coul d actuall ydirectl yreplac e bot h th e octan e an d gasolin e volum e los t whe n butan e i s removed , causing ver ylittl e ne t effec t o n othe r refiner

yoperations . EPAi s currentl yinvestigating thi s possibility . Base d o n ou r existing refiner ymodeling , whic h di d not " tak e int o accoun t th e possibilit ytha t MTB E productio n coul d b e increased , EP A believe s tha t refiner s wil l tak e a numbe r o f approache s i n replacin g bot h th e volum e an

d th e octan e los t whe n butan e i s removed . Thi s i s simila r t o wha t w e hav e see n wit. i respec t t o th e industry' s respons e t o lea d phasedown . W e believ e rr\. t industr ywil l buil d mor e isomerizatio n and/o r alkylatio n capacit yt o i^^as e octan e an d wil l increas e th e severit yo f thei r curren t reformin g e.^ucit ya s wel l a s us e improve d catalyst s in thei r catalyti c cracker s ' . v produc e highe r octan e products .P.2 7
2 4 

### The particula r

octan e additiv e tha t EP A i s mos t

concerne dabou t environmentall y i s benzene . Ou r curren t refiner y model s ar e no t accurat e enoug ht o predic tho

w muc h benzen e woul db e use dnationwide
. However , ou r refinery modelin g doe s indicat e tha t th e aromati c conten t o f gasolin e woul dg o u p slightl y wit h th e reductiono f RVP
. However , thi s increas e i s les s tha nproportiona l t o th e amoun t o f butan e tha t

woul db e take nou t o f gasoline
. Thus , i t

appear s tha t

refinerie s woul deconomicall y op t fo r approache s t o increasin g octan e tha t ar e no t

base do nincreasin g aromati c content . Assumin g tha t fue l benzen e conten t varie s proportionatel y wit h aromatic s content , th e reductioni n benzen e emission s resultin g fro mth e contro l o f

RV Pa t leas t balance s th e increas e i nbenzen e emission s tha t coul dresul t

fro mincreasin g th e benzen e conten t o f fuel
. Thus , w

e d o no t believ e tha t

ther e woul db e an y ne t increas e i nbenzen e emission s du e t o RV Pcontrol
. Th e impac t

o f RV Pcontro l o n th e nation' s crud e oi l import s depend s o nho w th e butan e take n ou t o f gasolin e i s subsequentl y used
. I f non e o f th e exces s butan e goe s towar dgasolin e production , the nw e woul dexpec t tota l crud e oi l usag e t o increas e roughl y 0. 1 an d0. 8 percen t fo r 1.0 an d 2. 5 ps i RV

Preductions , respectively
. Thes e figure s includ e th e fac t tha t i f butan e i s take n ou t o f gasoline , gasoline' s enery y conten t an d th e in-us e fue l econom y o f vehicle s wil l increase , resultin g i nfewe r tota l numbe r

o f gallon s bein g consumed
. Unde r thi s scenario , exces s butan e wil l likel y b e use da s apetrochemica l feedstock ; th e ne t

resul t bein g reduce dconsumptio no f natura l ga s an d i t s associate dnatura l ga s liquids , suc ha s ethane , propan e an dbutane
. O nth e othe r

hand , a s indicate dabove , ther e ar e anumber o f ways i n whic hbutan e coul db e converte ddirectl y int o lo w volatility , hig hoctan e gasolin e components . On e i s alkylatio n an dth e othe r i s MTBE

. I f th e exces s butan e wer e t o b e use di n eithe r o f thes e tw o processes , the nth e impac t o nrefinery operatio n woul db e eve nles s an dth e impac t o ncrud e o i l an dnatura l ga s usag e woul db e muchless
. Ther e i s athir doptio n— storag e o f

th e exces s butan e i n th e summe r unti l afte r

th e contro l period
. Th e store dbutan e coul dthe n b e mixe ddirectl y int o gasoline
. Thi s storag e an dsubsequen t us e ma y o r ma y no t result i na nincreas e i nRV P durin g th e non-contro l period , sinc e butan e i s i nrelativel y shor t suppl y i nth e winte r

an dcommand s amuchhighe r valu e relative t o gasolin e i n th e winte r

tha n i n th e summer . Thus , thi s increase davailabilit y o f butan e i nth e winte r

ma y simpl y result

i nles s butan e bein g take naway fra n it s othe r

wintertim e use s an dit s pric e no t increasin g a s dramaticall y durin g th e winter
. A s indicate di n m

y previou s letter , th e estimate s o f refiner y cost s tha t AP I quote s appea r

t o b e reasonabl e a s the y ar e base do nEPA' s stud y b y ou r contracto r

Bonne r & Moore
. I reiterat e however , tha t whil e thes e ar e th e cost s t o refiners , w e full y expec t

the mt o b e recovere dthroug h increase dgasolin e cost s o f 0.5-1
. pe r

gallo nand , thus , tha t the y wil l hav e amino r

impac t o n refinery profitability
. I hav e sen t

thi s respons e t o th e Departmen t o f Energ y an drequeste d tha t the y provid e bot hyoursel f an dEP A wit hthei r

comments .P.2 8 

### 2 5

Questio n 8(b ) A s I understan

dth e situation , th e waive r fo r gasoho i unde r th e la w wa s grante d automaticall y afte r EP Ainactio n an d ther e i s n o provisio n tha t gasolin e wit h gasoho i shal l no t excee d the "AST M standard " fo r an

y area ? I s tha t correct . Respons e t o Questio n 8(b ) 

### You r understandin g i s correct . There i s no volatilit y restriction i nth e gasbho l waiver
. Th e onl y requirements ar e thos e containe di nth e origina l waive r

request , i.e
. tha t

th e ethano l b e anhydrou s andtha t i t no t excee d1 0 percen t

by volum

e o f th e gasoline/ethano l blend
.P.2 9 

### 2 6
Questio n8(c ) (i ) T o wha texten t ha s EPA

, workin g wit hth e Bureau , NHTSA , NCWM , API , MVMA

, andSTAPPA/ALAPCO

, sough t t o ensur e th t

a U pump s i never y Stat e ar e properl y labele dan dtha t AST M standard s ar e adopte dand enforced ? I f

thi s ha s no t

happened , shoul di t

no t begi nt o happen ? Ca

n EP A requir e suc hlabelin g a s par t o f thi s rulemaking ? I f

not , wh y not ? (ii ) Wha

t ar e th e "approved " level s o f alcoho l t o gasoline ? I s tha t th e EP A approve dlevel ? (iii ) The Burea

u state s tha t

EP A "doe s no t

hav e a norganizationa l membership i nASTM

, althoug hthe y hav e informall y attende dAST M meetings ? Wh o a t EP A attends ? Wh

y i s EP A no t amember

? Shoul dEP

A join ? (iv ) Th e Burea u sai dtha t

th e NCW M Committe e onla

w andregulation s "i s plannin g t o recommen damoto r

fue l la w andregulatio nt o b e adopte d by th e NCW

M tha t woul drequire gasolin e andgasoline-alcoho l blend s t o mee t th e AST M propose dspecificatio nfo r automotiv e spark-ignitio n engin e fuel , 'excep t

tha t volatilit y standard s fo r unleade dgasolin e blend s containin g u

p t o 1 0 percen t

ethano l shal l no t

b e mor e restrictiv e tha nthos e adopte dunde r th e U.S
. Envirormenta l Protectio nAgenc y Clean Ai r Ac t waivers.' " Give nth e waive r grante dby EPA

, i s tha t exceptio n quit e asignifican t

loophol e fo r

ethanol ? Enclose di s arelevan t letter , date dAugus t 26 , 1986 , fro mth e Chairma n o f NCWM
. Respons e t o Questio n 8(c ) (i ) EP Aha s no t take n an yactio n t o requir e th e labelin g o f gasolin e pump s a s t o alcoho l content . W e ar e awar e o f th e potentia l effec t o f fuel s containing high proportion s o f alcoho l o n vehicl e fue l systems , particularl yrubbe r part s suc h a s fue l lines . Unde r sectio n 21 1 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc ymus t approv e through a waive r proces s th e additio n o f alcohol s (beyon d certai n lo w levels ) an

d othe r additive s t o unleade d gasoline . Th e Agenc yha s grante d a limite d numbe r o f waivers , wit h restrictions t o assur e tha t resultan t vehicl e ai r pollutio n emission s d o no t excee d applicabl e standards . (The gasoho i waive r discusse d abov e wa s grante d byoperatio n o f la wbecaus e th e Administrato r di d no t ac t withi n th e statutoril yprescribe d time perio d and , therefore , i t contain s n o restrictions. ) Methano l (wood alcohol ) i s th e alcoho l tha t ha s cause d th e mos t concern . Ethano l (grai n alcohol ) us e i n gasolin e (gasohoi ) ha s cause d relativel yfe wproblems . Unleade d gasolin e blend s containin g methano l ar e currentl yapprove d fo r lo wpercentage s o f methano l (generall y5 percent ) wit h a requiremen t fo r a cosolven t alcoho l which , amon g othe r things , tend s t o reduc e the propensit yt o weake n rubbe r parts .P.3 0 2 7



### Sinc e EP A doe s no t

approv e afue l blen dunles s w e ar e convince di t wil l no t caus e o r

contribut e t o vehicle s exceedin g emissio nstandards , w e hav e no t

ha d areason t o requir e alabelin g program . As note di n you r letter , many state s hav e adopted , o r ar e considering , labelin g reguirements , an dw

e hav e n o objectio nt o suc hactions
. I t shoul dals o b e note dtha t i nth e U.S
. Coas t

Guard' s Marc h198 7 report t o th e Congres s o n alcohol-blende dgasolin e i nrecreationa l boats , i t

conclude d"Nearl y al l State s tha t hav e significan t

sale s o f alcohol-blende dgasolin e reguir e adisclosur e labe l o nth e gasolin e pum p tha t inform s consumer s o f th e presenc e an dtyp e o f alcoho l s o tha t the y ca nmak

e purchasin g decisions
. I nvie w o f th e Stat e labelin g programs , n o furthe r

Federa l legislatio no r regulatio ni s recommended. " However , yo u shoul db e awar e tha t w e believ e w

e d o hav e th e authorit y t o requir e suc hlabeling , an dtha t w e coul dimpos e thi s requiremen t i f i t i s necessar y t o achiev e regulatory goals
. W e ar e considerin g proposin g volatilit y regulation s containin g alcoho l pum p an dinvoic e labelin g requirements tha t

woul dappl y i f

alcohol-gasolin e blend s ar e mad e subjec t t o differen t

regulator y standard s tha n"straignt " gasoline
. I ntha t case , w

e believ e labelin g woul dassis t enforcemen t

efforts
. (ii ) Th e statemen t

i n th e EP

A Regio nVII I lette r

concernin g "approve d level s o f

alcohol " referre dt o alcoho i level s i ngasolin e allowe dunde r th e Clea nAi r

Ac t sectio n 211(f ) "substantiall y similar " interpretiv e rul e an dwaiver s grante dunde r sectio n211(f)
. (iii ) Th e Engineerin g Operation s Divisio n(EOD ) o f EPA' s Offic e o f Mobil e Source s (OMS ) doe s hav e a norganizationa l membershi p i nAST M (membershi p #A

A 6725300)
. Althoug hpersonne l fro mtha t offic e hav e no t ye t attende dan y AST

M meetings , EO

D i s currentl y participatin g i n th e lates t

AST M roun drobi n evaluatio no f volatilit y testin g methods
. I naddition , astaf f

enginee r

fro mth e Emissio nContro l Technolog y Divisio n(ECTD

) o f OM S (whic hha s th e lea dresponsibility fo r th e volatilit y rulemaking ) attende dth e mos t recen t AST M meetin g o ngasolin e vapo r pressur e (hel di n Savannah , Georgi ao nDecembe r 11 , 1986 ) an d discusse dEPA' s volatilit y study
. A nOM S staf f perso nattende dth e AST M meetin g o n thi s subjec t i n Cincinnat i i nJun e 1987
. (iv ) Th e NCW

M committe e recomendatio nwoul dexemp t ethanol

gasolin e blend s fro mvolatilit y requirement s because , a s note dabove , th e existin g gasoho i waive r doe s no t

contai nan y control s o nthi s fue l characteristic
. However , an y Federa l control s o nvolatilit y woul d preemp t an y stat e an dloca l emission-relate dprovision s (unles s identica l t o th e Federa l controls ) o n thi s matter , subjec t t o th e exception s t o preemptio nspecifie di n sectio n 211(c)(4 ) o f th e Clea nAi r

Act
.P.3 1 

### 2 8

Questio n 8(d ) M yenclosed-lette r t o DO T show s tha t th e volatilit yo f som e gasolin e i s ver yhigh . Some sugges t tha t thi s coul d result fro mon e jobbe r adding alcohol , selling t o anothe r jobbe r wh o als o add s alcohol , an d s o forth . I s tha t possible ? I s tha t legal ? Doe s th e propose d Red Borde r rul e preven t o r contro l tha t possibilit yo r an yothe r tha t ma yoccu r no t a t th e refinerybu t i n th e distributio n chain ? Respons e t o Questio n 8(d ) Th e additio n o f alcoho l can increas e th e volatilit yo f fuel , an d additio n o f thi s substanc e b ymor e tha n on e jobbe r coul d significantl y increas e produc t volatility . A t thi s time , th e additio n o f alcoho l t o unleade d gasolin e i s prohibite d b ySectio n 211(f ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , excep t a s provide d i n th e "substantiall y similar " polic yan

d th e waiver s grante d unde r Sectio n 211(f)(4 ) o f th e Clean Ai r Act . Fo r example , whil e th e gasoho i waive r doe s no t restric t volatilit ype r se , i t doe s limi t ethano l conten t t o 10 % b yvolume . Moreover , th e methano l waiver s contai n restrictions o n bot h volatilit y an d methano l content . Thes e restriction s appl yn o matte r ho wmany , o r ho wfew , time s alcoho l i s adde d t o a bas e gasoline . W e ar e considering a propose d volatilit yrul e tha t woul d appl yt o fue l a t an

ypoin t i n th e distributio n networ k fro mrefinery(o r importer ) shippin g tank s t o retai l an d flee t pumps . Alcohol-gasolin e blend s probabl y woul d als o b e subjec t t o suc h controls , although perhap s a t les s stringen t level s tha n "straight " gasoline . W e ar e considering controlling an d restricting th e layering o f alcoho l a t variou s level s i n th e distributio n chain .P.3 2 

### 2 9
Questio n 8(e ) Your Apri l 2 4 reply t o m yquestio n 1 6 provide s a tabl e o f "Waive r Request s Grante

dUnde r 211(f)(4) " an d state s tha t n o waive r request s ar e pending . Ife-als o discusse s a 198 1 "Substantiall ysimilar " interpretative rul e whic h "applie s t o al l unleade d gasolin e including 'hydrocarbon-only ' fuel , an

d therefor e impose s a n RV P limi t o f ps i o n al l staf f memorandu m doe s no t sho wan

yAST M are a a s high a s 1 5 psi . Wher e ar e th e Clas s E areas ? Wh

yi s tha t limi t s o high ? I s i t needed ? Pleas e explai n whyEP Ai s suggesting "options " fo r RV P limit s o n th e "waive d fuels " an

d wil l th e limit s appl yt o th e "Ga s Plu s o r gasoho i waiver " whic h ne wha s "n o limi t o n RVP. " Wha t doe s SecretaryDol e thin k abou t thi s optio n approac h a s i t relate s t o onboar d control s an d safety ?
Respons e t o Questio n 8(e ) Enclose d i s a copyo f AST M D 439 , standar d specification s fo r automotiv e gasoline . Tabl e 1 provide s th e specification s fo r th e volatilit yclasse s Athroug

h E . Clas s E ha s a maximu mRV P limi t o f 1 5 psi . Tabl e 2 show s whe n an d wher e Clas s E fuel s ar e appropriate . Clas s E i s a wintertim e fue l an d th e highe r RV P i s necessaryfo r eas ystarting and combustio n i n col d weather . However , w e d o no t believ e tha t a Clas s E fue l i n Virgini a i n December , fo r example , necessaril yneed s t o hav e a s high a n RV P a s a Clas s E fue l i n Main e tha t month . However , wit h onl yfiv e volatilit y classe s t o cove r th e variation s i n climat e an d altitud e occurrin g throughou t th e yea r acros s th e entir e U.S. , the groupin g o f area s wit h seemingl y wid e climati c variatio n i s t o b e expected . Regarding EPA' s option s fo r th e volatilit ycontro l o f alcoho l blends , th e option s themselves , I believe , ar e mutuall yunderstoo d an d correctl y presente d i n you r Apri l 22 , 198 7 memorandum . A s currentl ydrafted , the y woul d appl yt o fue l currentl ymarkete d unde r th e "Ga s Plu s o r gasohoi " waiver . Th e reaso n fo r suggesting option s a t thi s time i s tha t n o singl e approac h clearl yresolves al l o f th e potentia l economi c an d environmenta l consequences . Allowin g ethano l t o continu e t o b e splas h blende d wit h an y lega l gasolin e maintain s th e curren t Federa l polic yo f providing incentive s fo r ethano l blendin g i n gasoline , bu t allow s th e ozon e impac t o f gasoho i t o b e muc h greate r tha n tha t o f gasoline . Requiring bot h blend s an d straigh t gasolin e t o mee t th e sam e RV P standar d equate s thei r ozon e impact , bu t wil l rais e th e cos t o f gasoho i relativ e t o gasolir>e . Thi s latte r effec t wil l reduc e th e valu e o f ethanol ' relativ e t o gasolin e an d likel yadversel yaffec t ethano l sales . EPAdesire s t o mor e full yunderstan d th e consequence s o f al l th e option s befor e decidin g o n a regulator y approach .£3 3


### 3 0 Questio n8(f ) AP I agree s wit hm e tha t "som e AP I membe r companie s marke t alcohol containin

g fuels , whil e other s d o not. " Tha t spli t i nthei r membershi p make s i t difficul t fo r the m t o spea

k o r comment o

nthi s alcoho l issu e a s a norganization . Enclose di s a lette r on e API-membe r firm , Marathon , wrot e recently

t o Vic e President Bus habout th e issu e o f Federal-Stat e suppor t for alcoho l adde dfuels , othe r firms , like Shell , als o d o no t ad dalcohol . Wha t effect s wil l EP A mak e t o ascertai nth e competitiv

e impact s amon

g AP I member s relativ e t o you r options ? Respons e t o Questio n8(f ) Marathon , i

nthei r letter , state s tha t a federally-mandate d gasoho i progra m woul ddepres s butane price s and , thus , negativel y affec t butane producers . Whethe r o r not thi s woul d occu r wil l b e on e o f man y issue s addresse

db y th e newly establishe

d inter-agenc

y work group o

nalcoho l fuels , chaire

db y Vic e President Bush . EPA , i nit s volatility

rule , i s no t considerin

g mandatin

g alcoho l blends . The tw o primar

y option s availabl e t o EP A to addres s th

e volatility

o f alcoho l blend s are : 1 ) requir e the m t o mee t th

e sam e volatility

standar

d a s gasoline , an

d 2 ) allo

w alcoho l blend s t o mee t a standar d1. 0 FV

P highe r tha

ntha t for gasoline whic h woul dallo

w th e splas hblendin

g o f ethano l int o otherwis e lega l gasoline . Ther e ar e als o numerou s variation s o f thes e tw o majo r options , suc ha s delayin g th e implementatio

no f optio

n1 ) abov

e for a numbe r o f years , applyin g optio n1 ) onl y

i nnon-attainment areas , etc . Eac ho f thes e option s ha s th e potentia l for competitiv e impacts . Th e continue

dallowanc e o f splash-blendin g woul d continue th e competitiv

e effect s occurrin

g whenCongres s grante d gasoho i a

nexcis e ta

xcredi t an

d EP A di dnot den

y th e reques t for a Clea nAi r Ac t Sectio

n211(f ) waiver . Inthi s case , gasoline pric e set s ethano l pric e an d no t vic e versa , s o gasolin e producer s woul dnot b e affecte d muc hb

y thi s option , excep t tha t par t o f thei r marke t for gasoline ma y b e removed . If , o nth e othe r hand , gasoho i mus t mee t th e sam e RV P standar

d a s gasoline , w

e woul d expec t th

e pric e o f ethano l t o adjus t itsel f t o th e pric e o f othe r RV P an d octane booster s an

dno t vic e versa . Thus , mos t gasoline producer s woul d agai n b e relativel y

unaffected . Thos e gasoline producer s wh o als o produc e ethano l woul d b e affected , bu t onl y

regardin

g th e ethano l sid

e o f thei r busines s an d i nth e sam e way a s thos e ethano l producer s not i nth e gasoline business . A s ethano l productio

ni s a ver y

mino r par t o f an

y majo r oi l company' s operations , the y woul d b e affecte

d fa r les s tha

nsom e othe r ethano l producers , wher e ethano l i s thei r mai no r sol e lin e o f business . Ethanol-producin g oi l companie s ar e als o i nth e bes t positio

nt o coordinat e th

e productionan

d distributio

no f low-RV

P gasoline for ethano l blendin g unde r th

e "sam e standard " approach . Also , sinc e an y gasoline produce r ha s th e freedo

m t o als o produc e ethanol , an y competitiv

e effect s betweenoi l companie s producin

g ethano l an

dthos e that d o not ar e a result o f thei r ow nbusines s decisions . Thus , ou r analysi s o f competitiv e effect s ha s focuse d o nth e ethano l industr

y an dnot o nth e oi l industry .P.3 4


### 3 1
Questio n9 Wha t i s th e basi s fo r

th e RV Plea dtime s i n th e Re dBorde r proposal ? Ar e the y to o short , considerin g th e AP I comments ? Respons e t o Questio n9 Refiner s wil l respondt o any in-us e volatilit y limitation s primaril y b y reducin g th e amoun

t o f butan e tha t

i s blende dint o gasoline
. Thi s reductio no f

butan e wil l require th e refiner t o proces s ahighe r

volum e o f crud e oi l t o mak

e u p fo r th e los t

butan e volume
. Th

e refine r would require littl e o r

no leadtim e i n orde r

t o performthes e actions , sinc e underutilize dcrud e processin g capacit y exist s today
. Butane , however , i s ahig hoctan e componen t an dit s removal wil l slightl y increas e refinery octan e requirements
. Th e leadtim e associate dwit hvolatilit y contro l i s neede dt o allo w octane-shor t refiner s tim e t o construc t ne w facilities
. Th e amoun t o f leadtim e requiredfo r refiners wa

s determine dfro

ma report entitled , "Cos t

an dFeasibilit y o f

Gasolin e Volatilit y Reductions, " whic hwas prepare db y Sobotk aandCompan y fo r th e EP A i n 1986
. The report foundtha t

du e t o lea dphasedown , whic htake s ful l effec t i n 1988 , th e abilit y o f

th e industr y t o replac e th e octan e los t wit hvolatilit y contro l woul

db e limite di n th e shor t term(1- 3 years)
. Th e analysi s estimate dtha t

th e RV Po f summe r gasolin e coul donl y b e reduce db y 1.0-1. 4 ps i belo w AST

M limit s i n thi s timefram e withou t any additiona l investments
. Four year s appear s t o b e asufficien t amoun t o f tim e betwee npublicatio n o f afina l rul e an dimplementatio no f commercial fue l RV

Pstandard s mor

e tha n1.0-1. 4 ps i RV

Pbelo w AST

M limits
. Thi s leadtim e shoul dallo w sufficien t

tim e fo r

th e desig nandconstructio no f ne w octan e generatin g capacity
. W

e hav e receive dno detaile dtechnica l informatio nfro mAP I t o th e contrary . Thi s figur e als o appear s reasonabl e i n ligh t o f th e industry' s respons e t o lea dphasedown
.P.3 5 

### 3 2

"""Sy
- Ques t io n 1 0 Th e America

nPetroleu

m Institut e advise s us , i n a n Apri l 2 4 letter , that , base d o n thei r analyse s "Th e significanc e o f th e nonattainmen t proble mi s analle r an d also'mor e manageabl e whe n mor e realisti c measure s o f ozon e progres s ar e considered. " Pleas e provid e u s th e results o f you r revie wo f th e AP I studie s an d th e action s tha t yo u plan , i f any , afte r reviewing them . Respons e t o Questio n 1 0 Th e AP I stud

ypoint s ou t tha t i n typica l non-attainmen t areas , th e ozon e standar d i s violate d o n onl ya fe wday s pe r year . Th e contentio n i s apparentl ytha t a smal l numbe r o f violation s i s tolerabl e froma publi c healt h standpoint . B ylaw , al l NAAQ S ar e se t t o protec t agains t know n o r anticipate d advers e healt h effect s wit h a margi n o f safety . Thi s include s bot h short-ter man d long-ter

meffects . Durin g period s whe n th e standard i s violated , healt h scientist s hav e clearl ycautione d u s tha t the healt h o f th e genera l publi c ma yno t b e full yprotected . Thi s include s shor t duration s whe n th e standar d i s violate d a s wel l a s longe r termexceedances . Th e Agenc yis , a s yo u know , no wi n th e proces s o f reviewing th e ozon e NAAQS .

### 3 3
Questio n1 1

A t th e subcommitte e hearing , I pointed ou t tha t three U.S . Court s o f Appeal s hav

e heldtha t "EP

A mus t ac t o

npropose

d revisions withi nfour months " whic hi s th e requirement for th e SIP's . I hav

e als o note

d thes e holding s ina recent lette r t o yo u regardin

g fugitiv

e dus t i

nMichigan . Infact , th

e 5t hCircuit , i

nAmerica

nCyanamide Co . v . U.S . EPA , Februar y 20 , 1987 , said : "T o hol d otherwis e woul dintrud e upo nth e logica l patter

n o f th e Stat e an

dFedera l relationshi p se t u p i nth e statut e whichrecognize

di nth e tim e limi t th

e importan

t rol e o f th

e States. " Ye t I understan

dthat a s t o man

y o f th e ozone nonattainment areas , liste d b y EP A i nth e categor

y o f "N o action " o r "i nth e Mill, " thes e SIP' s o r revision s hav

e beenpendin

g a t EP A fo r far mor e tha

nfou r months . Wh

y i s EP A not complyin

g wit hth

e statutor

y requirement, a s interprete d b y three Court s o f Appeals ? Doe s th e four-monthrequirement i nth e la w appl y t o propose

dan dfina l actio

nan d ho w doe s i t relat e t o th e requirement s o f sectio

n307 ? Respons e t o Questio n1 1 As yo uar e aware , th

e 4 mont hClea

nAi r Ac t deadlin

e fo r revie

w an d approva l o f SIP' s i s extremel y tight . Ove r th

e years , SIP' s an

d SI P revision s hav

e becom e increasingl y

comple xan d numerou s s o tha t i t i s very tim e consumin

g t o proces s eve

nth e simples t ones . I naddition , w

e hav e t o compl y

wit hth

e Administrativ

e Procedure s Ac t an dgiv e th e publi c ampl e opportunity t o comment o

nou r proposal s befor e w

e d o fina l rulemaking . Our philosoph y ha s bee

nt o work a s closel y wit hth e State s a s possibl e s o tha t SI P revision s ar e approvabl e rathe r tha ntak e th e alternativ

e rout e o f quickl y

processin

g disapprovals . We hav e always fel t tha t thi s i s th e bes t for everyone . I nligh t o f th e America nCyanamide decision , thi s approachwil l probabl y hav e t o b e changed . W e hav e attempte

dt o accelerat e th

e SI P revie

w proces s fo r specifi c group s o f hig

hpriority

SIP's . For instance , we ar e doin g thi s righ

t no w fo r 10-1 5 ozone/carbo nmonoxid e SIP's .

### 3 4

Questio n 1 2 You r Apri l 2 4 repl y t o m yquestio n 2 4 wa s helpful . Bu t th e legislatio n i n Illinoi s an d Marylan

d raise s th e questio n o f whether , i n ligh t o f th e statutoryrequirement s fo r SIP S (e.g. , sec . 110(a)(2)(F) ) an d th e provision s o f sectio n 10 5 an d 10 7 an

d othe r provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , thos e state s ar e operating in accordanc e wit h th e la w an d ar e stil l eligibl e fo r grants . (Th e enclose d bill s sho wtha t Ne w Jerse yi s als o considering suc h law s an d tha t Stat e ha s commitment s i n it s SI P tha t ar e clearl yno t consisten t wit h thos e bills. ) Th e la w allow s State s t o b e mor e stringent , bu t no t mor e restrictive . I reques t you r view s an

d tha t o f th e GAO , o n thi s matter . Wha t ha s EP Adon e t o infor mth e Governo r o f thes e State s tha t suc h law s ar e no t consisten t wit h th e Act ? Respons e t o Questio n 1 2
Onl yi f a stat e ha s mad e a commitmen t t o implemen t Stag e I I i n it s SI P woul d a subsequen t statutoryba r o n implementatio n o f Stag e I I cal l int o questio n th e state' s eligibilit yfo r sectio n 10 5 grants . Illinoi s ha s no t relied o n stag e I I reduction s i n an yapprove d attainmen t demon

stration . Moreover , measure s othe r than Stag e I I coul d conceivabl yachiev e adequat e emissio n reductions . Accordingly , th e Illinois ' legislativ e prohibitio n contravene s nothing i n th e SI P o r th e Clea n Ai r Act . Similarly , becaus e Maryland committe d onl yt o studying th e feasibilit yo f Stag e I I a s an additiona l contro l measur e an d di d no t relyo n Stag e I I reduction s i n it s attainmen t demonstration , Maryland' s legislativ e provisio n i s no t inconsisten t wit h it s SIP . No r i s i t necessaril yinconsisten t wit h ultimat e attainment . Ne wJersey , o n th e othe r hand , byattributing emissio n reduction s t o Stag e I I i n it s attainmen t demonstration , ha s mad e a commitmen t t o implemen t Stag e II . Legislativ e actio n precluding it s implementatio n woul d indee d b e inconsisten t wit h thos e commitments . However , Ne wJersey' s propose d legislatio n i s fa r les s inhibitor ythan an outrigh t prohibitio n o f Stag e I I i n tha t i t provide s fo r implementatio n o f Stag e I I no t onl yi f EP Aha s mandate d it , bu t als o i f EP Aha s issue d a SI P cal l o r n o othe r contro l i s available . Furthermore , a bil l introduce d simultaneousl yconcerning on boar d control s suggest s tha t Ne wJerse yi s considering adequat e substitute s fo r Stag e II . O f course , thes e change s woul d hav e t o b e incorporate d int o th e SIP . Ne wJerse yi s wel l awar e o f it s commitment s unde r it s SIP . I n Januaryo f thi s year , th e Administrato r conveye d t o Ne wJerse ytha t th e stat e wa s unlikel yt o attain , an d reminde d i t o f it s commitmen t t o Stag e I I o r an adequat e substitute . Having received n o response , EP Aagai n sen t a lette r t o th e Governo r o f Ne wJerse yi n earl yApril . Th e lette r discusse d th e possibilit yo f non-implementatio n sanctions . Shoul d th e letter s prov e ineffectiv e an d th e legislatio n mov e forward , EPAwil l tak e furthe r actio n t o ensur e tha t Ne wJerse yfulfill s it s SI P commitments .