P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

185)IV-C-152 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:01 AM Sheet 185 of 232 
P.2 

-it°»1 '«*. 

>-/ ) 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

JAN i 8 1989 

Honorable John D. Dingell 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

&* 

I am writing in response to your letter of November 9, 1988 

regarding the draft Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(SNPRM) for onboard refueling controls. Your letter raised 

issues in four main areas: the release of documents to the 

public, the scope of the SNPRM, options for proceeding and 

leadtime. Our response is organized into these four topics. 

To begin with, you requested that we provide copies of the 

draft August 1988 "Summary and Analysis of Comments Regarding 

the Potential Safety Implications of Onboard Vapor Recovery 

Systems" to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 

the National Safety Council (NSC), the Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety (IIHS) and the American Automobile Association 

(AAA) . As we explained to you in our letter of October 27, 

1988, we have placed this draft safety report (together with 

NHTSA's comments) in the public docket to make them available 

to all interested parties. We also provided copies to NTSB, 

IIHS, NSC, AAA, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association and 

the Automobile Importers of America. 

Your letter reauested a briefing for your Subcommittee 

staff by Battelle on its recently completed fuel system 

comparative risk assessment. That briefing took place on 

December 19, 1988. 

Your letter also expressed concern about whether the SNPRM 

should cover issues other than those related directly to 

safety, stating that the "non-safety changes go beyond what was 

understood in 1987." Further, your letter stated that your 

review of the SNPRM package concluded that "apparently no 

significant changes are proposed to reflect any of those 

[public] comments [on the NPRM]." 

/? *** c 
P.3 

-2-

The NPRM preamble together with the related correspondence 

on this matter explain the intended scope of the reproposal. 

To begin with, while the idea of committing to a reproposal in 

the NPRM is rather unusual, there is no requirement to limit 

the scope to safety issues alone. As EPA stated in the 

original NPRM, the purpose of the reproposal was to "assess 

changed circumstances," a phrase which we understood to include 

safety issues, but which plainly includes other potentially 

material issues as well. Of course,, it was not possible for 

EPA to state explicitly what these significant changed 

circumstances would be without first knowing the extent and 

content of public comment and other possible developments after 

the NPRM was published. 

In this case, all of the areas discussed in the SNPRM are 

either based directly on issues raised in public comments 

(e.g., test procedure changes, onboard system designs) or new 

information which became available after the NPRM was published 

(e.g., ozone compliance data, Stage II implementation). .Every 

item contained in the SNPRM is related to the EPA's decision 

regarding onboard controls. We believe it is in the public 

interest to publish the SNPRM to provide an opportunity for 

public comment on these issues before making any decisions 

regarding the content of a possible onboard final rule. 

The third topic discussed in your letter related to 

options for proceeding with the rulemaking. In particular, you 

were concerned with whether we should respond to NHTSA's 

comments on our revised safety analysis prior to publication of 

the SNPRM. 

There are several reasons why we plan to publish the SNPRM 

prior to responding to NHTSA's comments. To begin with, the 

1987 NPRM clearly states that we "will reopen the record of 

this rulemaking when the Agency receives the comments from the 

Secretary of Transportation and will repropose the rule for 

comment to assess changed circumstances." Therefore, we will 

seek comment not only on our draft safety report but also on 

NHTSA's comments. We plan to fully and carefully consider 

NHTSA's views and comments along with all other public comments 

received on the SNPRM as we make evaluations regarding a 

possible final rule. 

Lastly, you raised leadtime as an issue and questioned why 

it was no^ addressed in the reproposal. In addition, you 

characterized our position on leadtime as a "reluctant 

admission that 24-months is probably too short." We have on 

numerous occasions (beginning with the August 1987 NPRM) 

clearly stated our commitment to provide adequate leadtime. 
P.4 

1 

-3-

This commitment is once again expressed in the draft preamble 

to the SNTOM, together with a discussion of the possibility of 

a phase-in and the factors affecting how much leadtime is 

necessary. The onboard system design improvements and the 

revised test procedures described in the SNPRM may affect the 

amount of leadtime that will be necessary, and public comment 

in this area is needed. A final leadtime assessment cannot be 

made until we have considered the manufacturers' comments on 

how the changes proposed in the SNPRM affect the time needed to 

prepare for an onboard requirement. Let me once again reassure 

you that we are committed to providing adequate leadtime to 

ensure the safe and effective implementation of onboard 

controls. 

In closing, I appreciate your continued concern with these 

matters, and hope this letter helps clarify our intentions. 

Sincerely, 

fete II. Thomas 

Lee M. Thomas 

cc: The Honorable Diane K. Steed, Administrator 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Docket A-87-11 

Docket A-85-21