P.1 

OAR Box 1142 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

14) IV-F-12 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/23/2008 10:21:21 AM Sheet 14 of 30 
P.2 

'W-F-12 

STATEMENT OF THE k^J > 

ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC. 

REGARDING ONBOARD VAPOR CONTROL REGULATIONS 

BEFORE THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

. ^ 

r£\ SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 

Good Morning, I am Gregory Dana, Vice-President and Technical Director 

of the-Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM). AIAM is a nonprofit trade association that represents U.S. importers, distributors, and manufacturers of 

passenger cars and light trucks.1 

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to express our 

views on refueling vapor control requirements that are again being considered based on 

the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 (Act). 

The Act conditions EPA's authority to promulgate standards for onboard 

vapor control systems when it states that 

EPA shall proceed only after consultation with the Secretary of 

Transportation regarding the safety of vehicle-based 

('onboard') systems for the control of vehicle refueling 

emissions... 

It is clear that Congress intended for the safety issue to be resolved before rules are 

promulgated. It is unconceivable that Congress intended to mandate control systems 

that represent the degree of public safety hazard found by NHTSA. 

1

 AIAM represents: American Honda Motor Company, Inc.; American Suzuki Motor Corporation; BMW 

of North America, Inc.; Daihatsu Motor Ca, Ltd.; Rat Auto U.SA, Inc.; Hyundai Motor America; Isuzu 

Motors of America, Inc.; Jaguar Cars, Inc.; Mazda Motors of America, Inc.; Mitsubishi Motor America, Inc.; 

Nissan North America, Inc.; Peugeot Motors of America, Inc.; Porsche Cars North America, Inc.; Rolls 

Royce Motor Cars, Inc.; Rover Group USA Inc.; Saab-Scania of America, Inc.; Subaru of America, Inc.; 

Toyota Motor Sales U.SA, Inc.; Volkswagen of America, Inc.; Volvo North America Corporation; and Yugo 

America, Inc. 
P.3 

Given that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

whose expertise is vehicle safety, has determined such systems do represent a safety 

hazard2, EPA should not proceed with adoption of these requirements. 

What makes the argument against adoption of onboard requirements even 

more compelling is that an alternative exists. The Act also requires the installation of 

Stage II equipment in moderate, severe, serious and extreme non-attainment areas 

(which cover a large majority of the population of the U.S.). These systems have been in 

use for over ten years in Califomia and are also installed in a number of other areas 

throughout the country. They have proved effective and do not present the safety 

concerns of onboard systems. In addition, the technology has been refined repeatedly 

over time so that the original objections to Stage II of consumer inconvenience, are now 

moot. 

Stage il will also capture refueling emissions from all cars on the road, not 

just new vehicles. Reductions in refueling emissions from JStage II, then, will be far more 

effective in addressing the short term ozone non-attainment problem faced by the 

nation's urban areas, especially since the implementation plan specified by Congress 

would not have onboard fully effective in even the new car fleet until 1998 or 1999. 

On the technical side, the difficulty of controlling the massive vapor load 

from refueling and purging it through the engine, given the more stringent emission 

standards and greater useful life established in the Act, is even greater than when these 

rules were first proposed in 1987. An analysis of this issue is not presented in the 

Summary of Changed Circumstances (Summary)3 document that was placed in the 

docket. It is necessary for EPA to consider this impact and what effect it has on 

manufacturers' ability to meet the new tailpipe requirements. 

An Assessment of the Safety of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Systems, NHTSA, July 1991 

3

 Summary of Changed Circumstances - Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New 

Motor Vehicle Engines; Refueling Emission Regulations for Gasoline-Fueled Light-Duty Vehicles and Trucks 

and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, August 1991 
P.4 

In the Summary document referenced above, EPA makes the following 

comment: 

It is also possible that use of reformulated gasoline in some 

nonattainment areas would cause a slight reduction in 

benefits. 

We believe that this assertion understates the facts. Based on preliminary data on 

ARCO's EC-X fuel, evaporative emissions are reduced by 35-41 %4. Given the mandate 

for reformulated gasoline contained in the Act and the announcement by State 

organizations urging their members to opt-in to these requirements5, it is likely that 

reformulated gasoline will be widely in use throughout the country. Clearly, this reduced 

benefit to onboard systems should be analyzed more thoroughly before proceeding. 

The Act confines EPA's authority to promulgate onboard refueling controls 

for "light-duty vehicles." The statutory language is clear on its face. In light of this 

language and the principles of statutory construction, EPA's attempt to rely on report 

language to support the extension of this requirement to light-duty trucks (LDTs) is 

inappropriate. While EPA claims the right to impose refueling controls on LDTs and 

heavy-duty vehicles under Section 202(a)(1) of the Act, we believe that in a statute as 

detailed and specific as this, Congress would have expressed its desire to control these 

classes in the statutory language, if that was its intent. Moreover, this lack of statutory 

authority does not pose a problem if Stage II is the control method of choice. As stated 

above, all vehicles would be covered by Stage II requirements. 

Document: 

With regard to program coverage, EPA states the following in the Summary 

It should be noted that the onboard control standards and 

their implementation schedule are intended to apply to 

vehicles sold in all parts of the United States, even where 

Stage II controls are (or will be) in place, such as in California. 

4

 Data on EC-X Blends 2 and 4 presented by ARCO at a CARB Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline 

Hearing, August 14,1991 

5

 Statement of STAPPA/ALAPCO at the Signing Ceremony for the Regulatory Negotiation on 

Reformulated Gasoiine, August 16. 1991 
P.5 

We disagree with this assertion. Since the adoption of the Clean Air Act of 1970, 

California has maintained its own motor vehicle control program. California has already 

chosen to control refueling emissions via a statewide mandate of Stage II controls. It 

would be inappropriate for EPA to require onboard controls, both because it would 

"frustrate" the refueling control system already in place in California and because it is 

inconsistent with the Act's provision for exceptional treatment of California. 

In summary, EPA should not proceed with this rulemaking because NHTSA 

has deemed such systems as unsafe and a viable, proven and cost-effective altemative 

exists. In addition, EPA has failed to account for certain factors that have a bearing on 

the feasibility and effectiveness of onboard controls. The analyses prepared in 1988 

cannot be used to support this current action. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I would be 

happy to answer any questions.