p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1142 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 26 ) IV-F-2 4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/23/200810:21:22 AM

Sheet 26 of 30P. 2

i i 

# A-81-1 1 IV-F- 2 UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

N AGENC Y

I NTH E MATTE R OF : Contro l o f Ai r Pollutio n from) NewMoto r Vehicle s an d Ne wMoto r ) EP ADOCKE T Vehicl e Engines ; Refueling Emissio n ) #A-87-1 1 Regulation s fo r Light-Dut yVehicle s ) an d Truck s an

d Heaw-Dut yVehicle s )

Publi c Hearing o f th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yin the above-entitle d matter , hel d a t Domino' s Farms , 4 4 Fran k Lloy d Wrigh t Drive , An

n Arbor , Michigan , o n Jul y22 , 1993 .

APPEARANCES : RICHARD WILSO

N Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s CHARLE S GRA

Y Director , RegulatoryProgram s an d Technolog

y CHE T FRANC E Director , Regulatio n Developmen t an d Suppor t Divisio n GLEN NPASSAVAN

T Chief , Specia l RegulatoryProject s Branc h CHUC K FREE D Manufacturer s Operation s Divisio n CHARLE S HOT T Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n STEV E SILVERMA

N Offic e o f Genera l Counse l

Wester n Wayn e Cour t Reporting Servic e

Plymouth , Michiga n Susan Beale , Reporte r 

# tP. 3

INDE X

INTRODUCTIO

N Richar d Wilso n AMERICA NAUTOMOBIL E MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATION Richar d Klimisch , Sa mLeonard , Mik e Schwartz , Gordo n Allardyc e Discussio n GENERA L MOTOR S Sa m Leonard , Kevi n Cullen , Harol d Haskew , Ji mPase k Discussio n FOR D MOTOR COMPAN

Y Kell yBrow

n Discussio n CHRYSLE R CORPORATIO N Gordo n Allardyce , Fred Maloney , Gar yDawso n Discussio n Page : 3

6 1 3

1 8 2 8

4 6 5 1

6 2 6 6 ASSOCIATIO

NO F INTERNATIONA

L AUTOMOBIL E MANUFACTURER S Gre g Dana 6 7 Discussio n 6 8 AMERICA NPETROLEU

M INSTITUT E Bil l O'Keef e Discussio n TOYOT A Mat t Kevnick , E

d Brune , K . Takeuchi , N . Morimits u Discussio n NATURA L RESOURCE S DEFENS E COUNCI L AMERICA NLUN G ASSOCIATIO

N Deborah Sheiman Discussio n 7 2 8 1

9 1 10 1

11 1 11 8

2P. 4



### L J SOCIETY O F INDEPENDEN T GASOLINE MARKETER S O F AMERIC A NATIONA L ASSOCIATIO

NO F CONVENIENC E STORE S PETROLEU

M MARKETER S ASSOCIATIO NO F AMERIC

A Keit h Ausbroo k 11 9 Discussio n 12 5 INSURANC E INSTITUT E FO R HIGHWA

Y SAFETY Stephe n Oesc h Discussio n 12 7 13 5 RECREATIO

NVEHICL E INDUSTR

Y ASSOCIATIO

N Edward F . Conway , Jr . Discussio n 14 8 15 5 HEA T TECHNOLOGY , INCORPORATE D Fred Helle r Discussio n 16 8 17 4

2 aP. 5

r"~ i 

### I i An n Arbor , Michiga n Thursday , Jul y22 , 199 3 - 9:0 0 a.m . MR . WILSON : Goo d morning , everybody . On behal f o f th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , I woul d lik e t o welcome al l o f yo u t o today' s hearing . M yname i s Dic k Wilson . I a mDirecto r o f th e Offic e o f Mobil e Source s an d I'l l be serving a s the Presiding Office r fo r today' s hearing . Th e EP Apane l wil l consis t o f myself , Charle s Gray , Directo r fo r RegulatoryProgram s an d Technology , Che t France , Directo r o f the Regulatio n Developmen t an d Suppor t Division , Glen

n Passavant , Chie f o f th e Specia l Regulatory Project s Branch , Stev e Silverman fro mou r Offic e o f Genera l Counsel , Chuc k Free d fro mthe Manufacturer s Operation s Division , an d Charle s Hot t fro mth e Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet y Administration , W e wil l be hearing testimon ytoda yo n a Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking fo r provision s concerning onboar d refueling control s fo r light-dut yvehicles , light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut yvehicle s pursuan t t o the provision s o f the Clean Ai r Ac t a s Amende d in Novembe r o f 1990 . EPA' s lates t Notic e on the propose d regulation s wa s publishe d in the Federal Register on Ma y27 , 1993 . In tha t Notice , EP Aidentifie d tes t procedur e option s tha t woul d combin e th e refueling an d ne wP. 6

I i evaporativ e test s t o th e greates t degre e possible . Th e goal s

wer e t o reduc e the testing burde n an d t o allow , i f no t en courage , th e us e o f integrate d evap/refueling caniste r system designs . In developing the options , EP Aexpecte d tha t th e requirement s fo r refueling emission s contro l woul d resul t in simila r integrate d system s caniste r size s an d purg e design s a s thos e require d fo r evaporativ e emissio n contro l systems . Sinc e publicatio n o f the Notice , EP Aha s ha d severa l technica l meeting s wit h representative s o f the American Automobil e Manufacturer s Associatio n concerning the tes t procedur e requirement s necessar yt o accomplis h EPA' s state d goal s fo r integratin g th e refueling an d eva p tes t procedures . I n particular , the fue l temperatur e specification s o f the refueling tes t wer e discusse d in detail . A s a resul t o f thes e meetings , revision s t o th e refueling temperatur e requirement s wer e identified . Specifically , a dispense d fue l temperatur e o f 6 7 degree s F an

d tan k temperatur e o f 8 0 degree s F i s nowthough t t o resul t in a refueling caniste r siz e simila r t o tha t require d b ythe eva

p tes t procedure . EP Abelieve s tha t thes e revision s woul d provid e greate r flexibilit yt o manufacturer s i n designing thei r refueling contro l system s an d shoul d resolve safet y concern s previousl yexpresse d i n the rulemaking record . EP Ais , therefore , considering adoptio n o f refueling optio n B 1 a s describe d in th e Notic e along wit hP. 7

r i 

## LJ th e change s in the temperature s a s describe d above . Additiona l

informatio n regarding the meeting s wit h AAM Ai s in th e docke t fo r thi s rulemaking . EP Arequest s comment s o n thi s newoptio n a s wel l a s thos e describe d in the Notice . Befor e getting starte d wit h today' s testimony , I woul d like t o tak e a fewminute s t o describ e how w e wil l conduc t th e hearing . W e ar e conducting thi s hearing in accordanc e wit h Sectio n 307(d)(5 ) o f the amende d Clea n Ai r Act , whic h require s EP At o provid e intereste d person s wit h a n opportunit yfo r ora l presentatio n o f data , views , o r arguments , in additio n t o a

n opportunit yt o mak e writte n submissions . Th e record o f thi s hearing wil l remai n ope n unti l Augus t 22 , 199 3 fo r additiona l writte n comment s o r rebuttal . Th e hearing wil l be conducte d informally , an d forma l rule s o f evidenc e wil l no t apply . Th e Presiding Office r i s authorized , however , t o strik e fro mth e record statement s whic h ar e deeme d irrelevan t o r needlessl yrepeti

tious , an

d t o enforc e reasonabl e limit s o n th e duratio n o f the statemen t o f an

ywitness . Witnesse s ar e requeste d t o stat e thei r name s an

d affiliation s prio r t o making thei r statement s an d t o complet e th e name card s on the table . Whe n a witnes s ha sP. 8

. ' 1 1 I finishe d hi s o r he r presentation , member s o f th e EP Apane l wil l be give n a

n opportunit yt o as k question s concerning issue s raised in th e testimony . Witnesse s ar e reminde d tha t an yfals e statemen t o r fals e respons e t o question s ma ybe a violatio n o f law . I f ther e ar e an ymember s o f th e audienc e wh o hav e no t alread ycontacte d us , an d wh o wis h t o testify , pleas e submi t your name a t the receptio n table . W e wil l mak e ever yeffor t t o accommodat e al l thos e wh o wis h t o testify . W e woul d like al l attendee s t o sign th e attendanc e lo g whethe r o r no t theytestify . Finally , i f you woul d lik e a transcrip t o f the proceedings , yo u shoul d mak e arrangement s directl ywit h the cour t reporte r during on e o f the breaks . Th e transcrip t shoul d be availabl e i n the docke t i

n two weeks . Th e docke t numbe r fo r the Onboar d Refueling Progra

mi s A-87-11 . Th e docke t i s locate d a t 40 1 M Street , S.W. , in roo mM-150 0 o f Watersid e Mall . Wit h that , we'l l begi n wit h th e firs t speaker . Th e firs t witnes s i s the America n Automobil e Manufacturer s Association . MR . KLIMISCH : Goo d morning . M yname i s Dic k Klimisch . Wit h me toda yar e Sa

mLeonard , Mik e Schwart z an d Gordo n Allardyce . I a mher e toda

yt o presen t the testimon yo fP. 9

r ~ i 

### i i th e American Automobil e Manufacturer s Associatio n o n th e issue s

raise d b

yEPA' s Federal

Register

Notic e o f Ma

y27 , 1993 , concerning onboar d refueling vapo r recovery . Thi s i s a ver y complicate d rulemaking , eve n b yEPA' s standards , bu t th e member s o f AAM Aal l agre e on howw e believ e EP Ashoul d proceed . M y purpos e thi s morning i s t o giv e yo u a brie f overvie wo f ou r overal l position.an d ou r mai n concerns . M ycolleague s her e an d I wil l the n be gla

d t o answe r an

ygenera l question s tha t w e can addres s o n behal f o f th e AAMA , prio r t o individua l compan y presentation s b

your members . W e wan t t o begi n our testimon yher e thi s morning b

yestablishing wha t w e thin k th e mai n objective s o f thi s rulemaking proceeding shoul d be . The bes t wa yt o under

stan d ou r objective s i s t o reviewbriefl yhoww e go t t o thi s point . In 1987 , EP Apublishe d a proposa l t o requir e ORV R system s capabl e o f passing a 0.1 0 gra mpe r gallo n refueling emission s test . The complet e detail s o f tha t Augus t 198 7 propose d tes t procedur e ar e no t importan t now . Th e ke ypoin t i s tha t ou r member s tol d u s tha t thos e tes t procedure s woul d probabl yhav e require d the mt o us e so-calle d "nonintegrated " refueling emission s contro l systems , virtuall yacros s thei r entir e produc t lines . Unde r the origina l 198 7 proposal , w e woul d hav e ha

d t o deploythos e system s wit h a s littl e a s two years ' leadtime .P.1 0

I— I L. J A s soo n a s the shap e o f EPA' s propose d

ORV R tes t procedur e became clear , safet yexpert s withi n ou r membe r companies , a t NHTSAan d elsewher e began t o rais e seriou s concern s abou t the complexit yan d othe r feature s o f th e system s tha t woul d be neede d t o pas s th e propose d regulation . EPA , therefore , electe d t o keep th e docke t ope n t o addres s th e potentia l safet yrisk s o f a n ORV R requirement . Th e fiv e year s afte r publicatio n o f EPA' s 198 7 proposa l wer e spen t o n extensiv e stud yan d testing o f prototyp e ORV

R system s designe d t o pas s the typ e o f tes t pro cedur e describe d b

ythe Agencyin the Federal Register. Ther e wer e some change s in specifi c element s o f th e tes t procedure , bu t the basi c hardwar e an d functiona l requirement s create d b y the tes t procedur e di d no t change . B yApri l o f 1992 , i t wa s clea r tha t we , meaning EPA , NHTSAan d the automobil e industry , ha d don e al l w e coul d t o stud

yth e type s o f system s require d b yth e tes t pro cedure s unde r discussio n sinc e 1987 . W e al l conclude d tha t ther e wa s a

n increase d safet yris k in th e type s o f system s we ha d bee n evaluating an d tha t tha t ris k wa s inheren t t o system s o f tha t type . Accordingly , EP Adetermine d no t t o requir e ORV R controls . W e believ e a t tha t time , an d stil l believ e today , tha t EP

Aha s th e discretio n t o no t promulgat e a n ORV RP.1 1

r i rul e i f th e rul e woul d creat e safet yrisks . A s th e Hous e

committe e responsibl e fo r wha t became the newtex t o f Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) state d in 1990 , "N o on e want s a rul e tha t require s control s fo r th e consume r tha t presen t safet yproblems. " Ther e ma ybe a mandatorydut yt o requir e ORV R control s o n gasoline

powere d passenge r cars , bu t onl yi f ORV R control s ar e safe . W e believ e the Cour t o f Appeal s agree d wit h your basi c positio n o n th e primacyo f th e safet yissue s a s state d in 198 7 an

d restate d in 1992 . A s Judg e Edward s stated , i t woul d be "nonsensical " t o requir e the installatio n o f emission s contro l system s tha t woul d presen t "inheren t an d unreasonabl e safet yrisks. " Bu t th e Cour t disagree d wit h th e methodolog

yused b

yEP Ain reaching it s conclusion , a method

olog ytha t di d no t examin e "al l plausible " method s o f addressing th e safet yconcern s presente d b ythe 198 7 t o 199 2 record . Th e Cour t thu s directe d the agencie s t o g o bac k t o th e drawing board , an d se e i f ther e wa s some othe r wa yo f avoiding th e safet yrisk s identifie d b yNHTSA , EP

Aan d th e manufacturers . Th e basi c goa l fo r th e reman d proceeding s is , therefore , t o tr yt o develop a

n ORV R rul e tha t meet s th e mai n goa l o f Congress , t o provid e fo r vehicle-base d refueling emission s contro l unde r th e environmenta l condition s o f concern , an d t o ensur e tha t the rul e addresse s the safet yconcern s identifie d b

yNHTSA . We'r e gla d t o be abl e t o repor t tha t i tP.1 2

L_ i appear s that , i n th e las t fewweeks , substantia l progres s ha s bee n mad e in trying t o reach tha t goal . W e ma yno t be al l th e wa yther e yet , be we'r e muc h furthe r along nowthan w e wer e tw o years , o r eve n two months , ago . W e believ e tha t change s in th e ORV R tes t procedure s can substantiall yaffec t th e design o f th e ORV R contro l systemfo r passenge r cars . Thi s slid e show s th e ke y recommende d element s o f th e ORV R tes t procedure . Wha t w e need , a t a minimum , i s a tes t procedur e an d a performanc e standar d tha t allow s manufacturer s t o fi t th e ORV R functio n primaril y withi n th e hardwar e design an d performanc e envelop e o f an enhance d evaporativ e emission s contro l system , acros s a ful l produc t line o f passenge r cars . Suc h a tes t procedur e an d performanc e standard migh t allowu s t o reduc e o r eliminat e mos t concern s abou t systemcomplexity , including eliminating th e nee d fo r widesprea d us e o f mor e comple x "nonintegrated " ORV R design s tha t ha d create d safet yconcern s fo r ou r member s an d NHTSA . EPA' s solicitatio n o f comment s o n th e newtes t procedur e dis

cusse d thi s morning indicate s tha t w e hav e take n th e firs t step s toward achieving tha t goa l wit h a rul e tha t woul d contro l re fueling emission s unde r the condition s o f concern . Onc e EP Aha s define d a newpassenge r ca r tes t procedur e an

d se t a n appropriat e performanc e standard , i t wil l the n be possibl e t o revisi t th e safet yconcern s in the
1 0P.1 3

r 1 curren t record an d t o determin e whethe r th e risk s tha t wer e o f concern in the pas t hav e nowbee n resolved . In doing so , EP A mus t consul t wit h NHTS Aan d the publi c in the safet yevaluatio n o f it s newrule . I n orde r t o dea l responsibl ywit h EPA' s obligation s unde r the statute , th e EPA' s safet yevaluatio n mus t lea d t o clea r answer s tha t comprehensivel yaddres s eac h safet y issu e raised b

ythe curren t record o r th e Cour t o f Appeals , o r identifie d in th e cours e o f the newevaluation . Unles s EP Ai s convince d tha t thos e risk s hav e bee n addresse d an d s o state s in the fina l rule , the Agencycan an d mus t determin e no t t o procee d wit h ORV

R controls . On e reaso n i t i s critica l fo r EP At o provid e a clea r an

d decisiv e answe r on the safet yissue s nowi s tha t th e Agencyrecognize d i n it s Apri l 199 2 Register Notic e th e norma l precertificatio n reviewproces s unde r Section s 202(a)(4 ) an d 206(a)(3 ) generall ycome s fa r to o lat e i n the newvehicl e design an

d releas e proces s t o provid e a workabl e opportunit yt o addres s potentia l ORVR-relate d problems . A s EP Anote d in it s Apri l 199 2 Register

Notice , Congres s wante d th e issu e o f ORV R safet yt o be resolve d in th e rulemaking unde r Sectio n 202(a)(6) , an d tha t thi s resolutio n be incorporate d in th e fina l rule . W e wil l nee d t o knowlate r thi s yea r whether , an

d i f s o how , EP

Athink s tha t it s newtes t procedur e addresse s the safet yrisk s o f ORV R previousl yidentifie d in th e
1 1P. M



# n L_ i addresse s the safet yrisk s o f ORV R previousl yidentifie d i n th e docket . Tha t wil l allowu s t o focu s on ORV R system s tha t can mee t EPA' s specifi c requirements . I als o wan t t o commen t briefl yo n th e questio n o f whethe r EP Ashoul d exten

d a n ORV R rul e t o light-dut y trucks , heavy-dut yengines , an d engine s an

d vehicle s powere d b y diese l an

d alternativ e fuels . We'l l provid e comment s o n th e statutoryissue s raise d b ysuc h a proposa l in ou r writte n material s fo r th e Agenc ylater . Fro m a technica l perspective , it' s importan t t o not e tha t w e hav e onl yrecentl ybee n abl e t o confe r wit h EP Aregarding a ne

wORV R tes t procedur e concept . W e need t o stud yth e implication s o f the newtes t procedur e concep t fo r the design o f ORV

R system s fo r trucks . Tha t wil l requir e u s t o consider , on a

n industry-wid e basis , numerou s differen t fue l system configurations , a s wel l a s a variet yo f operating cycle s an d engin e purg e parameter s tha t ar e generall yuniqu e t o trucks . Fo r thos e truc k classe s tha t hav e traditionall ybee n teste d o n engin e dynamometers , publishe d dat a on truc k engin e purg e characteristic s during typica l passenge r ca r driving cycles , suc h a s th e LA-4 , ar e ver yscarce . Th e necessaryinitia l evaluatio n effor t canno t possibl ybe complete d withi n the 3 0 day s allowe d fo r commen t o n th e curren t ORV R proposal . I t wil l als o be critica l fo r EP At o

1 2P.1 5

r i conduc t a ful l regulator ybenefit/cos t analysi s o f an yrul e tha t migh t appl yt o vehicl e classe s othe r than passenge r cars . A truc k ORV

R rul e wil l no t hav e a significan t beneficia l impac t o n the effort s o f th e State s t o attai n the ozon e standard , an d
w e se e n o othe r well-define d benefi t t o a truc k ORV R rule . Wel l befor e ORV

R control s coul d be implemented , the non-attainmen t area s o f concer n wil l hav e installe d Stag e 2 controls . Tha t conclude s m

ystatement . Th e othe r member s o f th e AAM Apane l an

d I woul d be gla

d t o answe r your questions . MR . WILSON : Than k you ver

ymuc h fo r you r testimon

ythi s morning . I jus t had , I guess , in on e area , a coupl e o f question s o n the las t par t o f your testimon yo n thi s truc k issue . Wha t percentag e o f th e refueling incident s occu r wit h truck s o r wha t percentag e o f the fuel s use d b ytrucks ? MR . KLIMISCH : It' s somewher e betwee n 3 0 an d 4 0 percent , I think , 3 7 percent . MR . WILSON : S o obviousl ya significan t par t o f th e moto r vehicl e fleet ? MR . KLIMISCH : Yes . MR . WILSON : I gues s your argumen t fo r no t covering truck s i s tha t th e benefit s you' d ge t fro mtha t come to o late ? MR . KLIMISCH : No , tha t Stag e 2 wil l catc h

1 3P.1 6



## r n L J thos e refueling emissions . MR . WILSON : Bu t there' s als o a provisio n i n th e statut e tha t say s man yo f th e non-attainmen t area s can op t ou t o f Stag e 2 i f w e promulgat e a n onboar d rule . Ho wd o yo u dea l wit h that ? MR . LEONARD : Ma yI tak e tha t one ? Basically , b

yth e time a

n ORV R rul e begin s t o come int o force , al l o f the area s tha t can op t ou t o f th e Stag e 2 control s wil l hav e bee n b yla win complianc e sinc e 1996 . ORV R rule s won' t star t unti l '97 , '98 , '9 9 mode l an d lon g afte r that , befor e they'r e in ful l forc e acros s th e country , an yare a tha t doe s no t mak e complianc e b ytha t time frame , according t o th e term s o f the Clean Ai r Act , bump s u p t o th e nex t classifica

tion . I f it' s serious , the n they'v e go t t o pu t Stag e 2 in . Al l the serious , sever e an d extreme area s wil l hav e Stag e 2 , s o it' s a duplicatio n o f effor t fo r an ynon-attainmen t are a existing a t tha t time frame t o d o ORV R control s eve n fo r passenge r cars , bu t definitel yfo r trucks . MR . WILSON : Certainl yth e ORV R progra

m woul d giv e benefit s in th e lon g term s fo r maintenance , I mean , t o sor t o f offse t a t leas t growt h in vehicl e mile s travele d ove r th e las t year s i f tha t continued . I gues s the othe r questio n in tha t regard thoug h i s th e statut e als o provide s tha t th e Stag e 2 require

1 4P.1 7

r i ment s ge t droppe d dow n th e roa

d onc e there's , I don' t remembe r the magi c words , bu t a significan t numbe r o f vehicle s hav e onboar d system s o n them . MR . LEONARD : I believ e i f yo u look closel ya t th e languag e in th e Clea n Ai r Ac t o n tha t i t refer s t o a significan t numbe r o f th e vehicle s require d t o hav e Stag e 2 unde r 202(a)(6) , whic h i s limite d specificall yt o passenge r cars . MR . WILSON : S o you' d argu e tha t w e coul d stil l allowth e Stag e 2 system s t o be dropped , eve n thoug h on board wasn' t o n trucks ? MR . LEONARD : I f it' s abl e t o d o s o an d i t meet s ai r qualit ybenefits , yes . MR . WILSON : O f cours e a t tha t poin t the n you' d lose , eve n i

n th e sever e areas , th e benefit . MR . LEONARD : I f you chos e t o drop Stag e 2 fro ma n are a tha t alread

yha s pu t th e capita l investment s in an d whos e recover

yfro mth e Stag e 2 system s i s probabl ypaying thei r operating costs , yes . MR . WILSON : Ar e the fue l system s es peciall yon th e lighte r truc k s o differen t fro mth e passenge r ca r one s tha t that' s a technica l problem ? MR . KLIMISCH : Well , the yar e differen t an d unti l w e se e the fina l rule , we won' t knowexactl ywha t

1 5P.1 8

I ! ( I thos e configuration s hav e bee n an d we'r e focusing o n passenge r car s obviously . Ther e i s a n engineering resourc e questio n a s we i 1 . MR . HOTT : I hav e on e question ; i f EP Awa s t o allo wo r requir e ORV R system s o n light-dut ytrucks , wha t leadtime requirement s woul d you need t o develo p a saf e system ? MR . KLIMISCH : I thin k that' s a manu facture r specifi c questio n an d I' d prefe r yo u as k th e individua l companie s that . Ther e i s a n engineering resource . Thi s i s consuming a lo t o f resource s fo r a fewyears . MR . HOTT : Okay , I'l l phras e i t late r wit h them . MR . SILVERMAN : Jus t a coupl e o f ques tions ; I notic e you sai d tha t yo u don' t se e an ywell-define d benefi t t o applying onboard o n trucks . Wha t abou t ai r toxic s benefits ? Hav e yo u considere d those ? MR . LEONARD : First , lookin g a t th e ai r toxic s emission s fromvehicle s i n total , we'r e looking a t something b

ythe turn o f the centur ythat' s going t o b e dow n t o a ris k in th e neighborhoo d o f on e in a million , absen t anything mor e going on . Second , th e tw o toxic s tha t I remembe r being o f primar yconcer n ar e benzene , whic h i s bein g controlle d in the gasolin e toda

yunde r reformulate d gasolin e rules , an d th e secon

d on e that' s arguabl yo f concern i s the ra t cance r studie s on

1 6P.1 9

r 1 

### I I unleade d gasolin e vapors , whic h ar e th e one s tha t wer e th e basi s

o f muc h o f the discussio n in th e origina l rule . I think , lookin

g through the record o f what' s happene d sinc e tha t origina l '8 7 rulemaking , th e cance r incident s fro

munleade d gasoline , a s fa r a s being a human cance r ris k factor , hav e prett ymuc h bee n discredite d and , therefore , I thin k th e toxi c benefit s o f an yORV R rul e ar e relativel y 1imited . MR . KLIMISCH : Mos t o f th e toxi c concern s wer e in the exhaus t an d thos e wil l be reduce d drasticall ywit h reduction s i

n emission s o r furthe r emissio n contro l gains .

MR . SILVERMAN : An d on e othe r question ; yo u indicat e tha t there' s jus t 3 0 day s t o commen t on thi s aspec t o f the proposal , bu t w e di d propos e thi s i n 198 7 an

d the n re opene d the record o n i t in 199 1 o n thi s specifi c point , di d w e not ? MR . LEONARD : Whic h specifi c point ? MR . SILVERMAN : On applying onboar d t o non-light-dut yvehicles . MR . LEONARD : It' s bee n on an d of f s o man

y time s tha t the developmen t wor k ha s qui t a coupl e times . MR . KLIMISCH : Ou r situatio n i s tha t we'v e bee n focusing on passenge r car s an d th e newtes t procedur e no t being finalized , s o it' s difficul t t o focu s o n a fina l system . 1 7P.2 0

I 1 l_. J MR . SCHWARTZ : It' s tru e tha t it' s bee n

propose d severa l times , bu t i f w e wer e t o commen t wit h respec t t o truck s in th e contex t o f th e ol d tes t procedures , ou r respons e woul d be prett ystraightforwar d an d w e don' t wan t t o '*s> giv e yo u tha t one . Th e respons e woul d be tha t i t look s lik e i t drive s you t o separat e system s o n th e truck s an d safet y concerns . Bu t I don' t thin k that' s reall yrelevant . W e woul d assume that , give n time , i f w e pu t ou r head s together , w e migh t arriv e a t a tes t procedur e tha t achieve s simila r result s o n trucks , bu t i t couldn' t be don e i n the narrowconstraint s o f thi s rulemaking . MR . WILSON : Than k you ver

ymuch . Nex t i s Genera l Motors . MR . LEONARD : Goo d morning . M yname i s Sa mLeonard . I' mthe Directo r o f Automotiv e Emission s Contro l a t Genera l Motors . I a maccompanie d her e toda yb yKevi n Cullen , Harol d Haske wan

d Ji mPasek , als o o f GM . G M support s th e testimon

yyo u heard thi s morning fro mth e AAM

Apanel . W e wil l provid e mor e detaile d writte n comment s later . Afte r m yinitia l statement , m

ycolleague s an

d I w i 1 1 respon

d t o an yquestion s yo u ma yhave . Th e critica l issu e fo r everyon e her e toda y i s t o ensur e tha t th e Agenc ycomplie s wit h th e requirement s o f Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) an d properl yrespond s t o the question s tha t 1 8P.2 1

r i th e Cour t o f Appeal s in NRDC v. Reilly

sai d tha t EP

Aneede d t o address . Some o f thes e issue s ar e connecte d wit h th e potentia l change s in the tes t procedur e discusse d in th e AAM Atestimony . Ou r to p priorit yin thi s rulemaking i s t o d o ou r bes t t o ensur e tha t an yfina l ORV

R rul e adopte d b

yEP A doe s no t creat e a

n unreasonabl e safet yris k fo r the motoring public . W e need guidanc e an d hel p fromEP

Aan d NHTS Ao n thi s subject , an

d w e nee d i t soon , starting today . There' s nothing mor e importan t in thi s rulemaking than working togethe r wit h EPA , NHTSAan

d othe r companie s t o develop a saf e ORV R rule . It' s usefu l t o begi n wit h thi s statemen t fro mth e Hous e committe e tha t worke d o n th e ORV R provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t o f 1990 . Th e Hous e committe e state d tha t "no on e want s a rul e tha t require s control s fo r the consume r tha t presen t safet yproblems. " That' s wh yEP Aneve r finalize d it s firs t ORV

R proposal . A s Administrato r Thoma s state d in 1987 , EPA' s positio n wa s tha t "no increas e in overal l ris k shoul d be accepte d becaus e o f th e presenc e o f onboar d contro l systems. " Whe n NHTS Alooked a t th e ORV R safet yissu e fo r EPA , i t identifie d a numbe r o f potentia l problem s in th e typ e o f canister-base d system s unde r discussio n in th e 1987r199 1 time frame . I'v

e attempte d t o summariz e the mo n thi s slide . NHTSAwa s especiall ycritica l o f th e larger , nonintegrate d caniste r design , an d the adde d fue l systemcomplexit yrequire d

1 9P.2 2

. ' 1 L J

«*? ' address . Some o f thes e issue s ar e connecte d wit h the potentia l

change s in th e tes t procedur e discusse d in th e AAM Atestimony . Ou r top priorit yin thi s rulemaking i s t o d o ou r bes t t o ensur e tha t an yfina l ORV

R rul e adopte d b

yEP A doe s no t creat e a

n unreasonabl e safet yris k fo r th e motoring public . W e need guidanc e an d hel p fro

m EP Aan d NHTSAo n thi s subject , an

d w e nee d i t soon , starting today . There' s nothing mor e importan t in thi s rulemaking than working togethe r wit h EPA , NHTSAan

d othe r companie s t o develop a saf e ORV R rule . It' s usefu l t o begi n wit h thi s statemen t fro mth e Hous e committe e tha t worke d o n th e ORV R provision s o f the Clean Ai r Ac t o f 1990 . Th e Hous e committe e state d tha t "no on e want s a rul e tha t require s control s fo r the consume r tha t presen t safet yproblems. " That' s wh yEP Aneve r finalize d it s firs t ORV

R proposal . A s Administrato r Thoma s state d in 1987 , EPA' s positio n wa s tha t "n o increas e in overal l ris k shoul d be accepte d becaus e o f the presenc e o f onboard contro l systems. " Whe n NHTSAlooked a t th e ORV R safet yissu e fo r EPA , i t identifie d a numbe r o f potentia l problem s in th e typ e o f canister-base d system s unde r discussio n in the 1987-199 1 time frame . I'v

e attempte d t o summariz e the mo n thi s slide . NHTSAwa s especiall ycritica l o f th e larger , nonintegrate d can iste r design , an

d th e adde d fue l systemcomplexit yrequire d b y the tes t procedure s an d standard s propose d b yEP Aa t tha t time .

1 9P.2 3

r 1 NHTSAals o foun d tha t th e les s comple x ORV R design s develope d b yth e oi l companie s an d EP Ainvolve d seriou s driveabi1ity-relate d risk s unde r some operating condi

tions . NHTSAconclude d tha t th e design-relate d risk s o f th e ORV R system s i t ha

d evaluate d wer e presen t in al l thos e designs . W e agree d wit h NHTSA' s concern s base d upo n our understanding o f th e emission s contro l requirement s tha t EP A ha d define d a t tha t time . A s thi s slid e fro mou r Septembe r 199 1 ORV R hearing testimon

yshows , w e determine d tha t a n integrate d design unde r tha t procedur e woul d hav e neede d 3 8 cubi c fee t o f purg e fo r a typica l passenge r ca r ove r an LA- 4 in orde r t o pas s on e o f the ORV

R requirement s unde r discussion . Th e infeasi

bilityo f meeting tha t purg e requiremen t woul d hav e compelle d u s t o us e a nonintegrate d design , wit h al l o r man yo f the design problem s identifie d b yNHTSA , acros s ou r entir e passenge r ca r produc t line . In Marc h 1992 , EP Aaccepte d NHTSA' s conclusion s regarding th e safet yo f th e canister-base d system s require d b

yit s earlie r proposals , an d determine d no t t o procee d wit h ORV

R rulemaking . I t specificall yendorse d NHTSA' s positio n tha t th e design s evaluate d sinc e 198 7 involve d increase d risk . Thi s slid e quote s fro mthe portion s o f NHTSA' s fina l statemen t o n ORV R safet yrisk s in Novembe r 1991 , a s quote d in Judg e Edward' s decisio n las t winter . A s you ca n
2 0P.2 4

I 1 I 1 see , NHTSAwa s critica l o f an ysystemtha t involve d "additiona l components. " I t foun d risk s in an

yORV R systemtha t require d thos e additiona l components . That' s wher e matter s stoo d prio r t o las t winter' s decisio n b yth e Cour t o f Appeals . Th e Cour t o f Appeal s identifie d wha t i t considere d t o be thre e basi c problem s wit h the analysi s conducte d b yNHTSAan

d EPA . First , th e Cour t hel d that , befor e deciding tha t al l ORV R system s involve d unaccept abl e risks , th e Agencyshoul d hav e considere d non-canistei—base d alternatives . Second , th e Cour t hel d tha t EP Adi d no t hav e discretio n t o conside r th e availabilit yo f "Stag e II " system s in deciding whethe r passenge r ca r ORV R control s woul d be un reasonabl yhazardou s and , therefore , inappropriat e unde r Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) o f the Clean Air . Third , the Cour t trie d t o faul t some detail s o f the government' s technica l analysi s o f ORV R systems , includin

g the NHTSAanalysi s summarize d o n the previou s slide . However , NRDC v. Reilly

doe s no t allo wEP A an d NHTSAt o leave th e safet yconcern s recognize d b yCongres s i n 199 0 unaddresse d o r unresolved . Th e whol e poin t o f NRDC v. Reilly wa s tha t EP

Aha d t o addres s th e deficiencie s in it s prio r analysis , an

d then , an

d onl ythen , determin e whethe r a n ORV R rul e shoul d b e promulgated . Th e Cour t sai d tha t i t woul d b e "nonsensical " t o establis h a n ORV R requiremen t tha t create d
2 1P.2 5

r i safet yrisk s fo r th e public . Th e decisio n in NRDC v. Reilly require s tha t the Agenc yengag e in a step analysi s t o se e whethe r th e safet yrisk s i t identifie d las t yea r can possibl y be addressed . Turning t o th e firs t issu e raise d b yNRDC v. Reilly, the viabilit yo f non-canister-base d systems , here' s the lis t o f alternative s identifie d b yth e Cour t o f Appeals , along wit h severa l other s tha t w e hav e evaluate d a t Genera l Motors . Th e leadin g alternative , according t o the Cour t o f Appeals , i s the so-calle d flexibl e fue l "bladder " concept . I n hi s majorit yopinion , Judg e Edward s note d claim s b ysome equip

men t vendor s tha t bladde r technolog ycoul d b e production-read y "withi n on e o r two years. " I n ligh t o f Judg e Edward' s opinion , EP A ha s a n importan t obligatio n t o determin e whethe r bladde r technolog

yi s feasibl e an

d saf e fo r purpose s o f ORV R control . Genera l Motor s an

d othe r vehicl e manu facturer s hav e lon

g studie d bladde r technolog yfo r evaporativ e an d refueling emission s control . Ou r conclusion s ar e summarize d on thi s slide . I n additio n t o the lack o f a materia l wit h suit

abl e durab i 1 ity , flexibility , an d permeabi1ity , we'v e determine d tha t th e bladde r concep t woul d requir e EP At o regulat e th e design o f the fue l shutof f systemin fue l nozzle s a t servic e station s nationwide . Curren t productio n nozzle s woul d be
2 2P.2 6

I 1 i I "tricked " b yth e dynami c pressur e level s insid e th e bladder , int o eithe r shutting of f the flowo f gasolin e a s soo n a s i t starte d t o flowint o th e bladder , o r int o neve r shutting of f th e flow , an

d thu s creating a

n overfil l problem . I t i s als o clea r t o u s tha t a bladde r systemwoul d stil l requir e th e us e o f a caniste r t o stor e vapo r fro mth e fue l tan

k headspac e abov e th e bladde r unti l th e engin e coul d evacuat e it . Fo r tha t reason , bladde r technolog ywil l no t eliminat e the need t o displac e vapo r during the refueling even t an d stor e i t in a canister . Bladde r technolog ywoul d als o re quir e th e us e o f a mechanica l sea l devic e an d a pressur e relie f valv e no t require d b ythe some canister-base d systems . Fo r al l reasons , w e believ e tha t EP A shoul d fin

d tha t bladde r technolog yi s no t feasibl e no r safe , an d coul d no t be require d prio r t o deploymen t o f redesigne d fue l dispense r nozzle s nationwide . W e wil l provid e additiona l detail s on thi s issu e in ou r writte n comments . Th e othe r alternative s t o canister-base d ORV R design s als o nee d t o b e considere d b yEPA , becaus e th e Cour t o f Appeal s foun d tha t "i n restricting it s safet yanalysi s t o a singl e typ e o f ORV R system , EP

Adisregarde d it s responsi

bility " unde r the Clean Ai r Act . Th e othe r alternatives , in ou r judgment , woul d ten d t o increas e fue l systemcomplexity , woul d requir e large r storag e medi a an d nonintegrate d contro l systems , 2 3P.2 7

an d woul d be subjec t t o uniqu e an d potentiall ydangerou s failur e modes . Nevertheless , EP Ai s obligate d t o evaluat e themfo r feasibilit yan d safety . W e ar e read yt o wor k wit h EP

A in thi s process , an d believ e th e Agenc ywil l determin e onc e agai n tha t ther e ar e n o alternative s t o canister-base d designs . Thi s determinatio n mus t be par t o f th e fina l rule . Looking nex t a t canister-base d designs , EP Aan d NHTSAneed t o conside r th e impac t o f tes t procedur e improvements , whic h can affec t the Agency' s prio r safet y findings . Th e decisio n proces s w e woul d propos e i s outline d on thi s slide . W e ar e proceeding fo r th e presen t o n a n assumptio n tha t EP Awil l publis h the typ e o f modifie d tes t procedure s an d standard discusse d i n th e AAM

Atestimony . I f tha t expectatio n i s fulfilled , the principa l uniqu e aspec t o f ORV R contro l wil l be th e need t o displac e tan k vapo r t o a caniste r o n board the vehicle . W e believ e the systemcomplexity , driveabilit y concerns , an

d packaging issue s relate d t o nonintegrate d system s wil l hav e bee n largel yeliminated . EPA , in consultatio n wit h NHTSA , mus t the n decid e o n th e record whethe r tha t remaining issue , th e displacemen t o f tan k vapo r t o th e canister , present s a n unreasonabl e ris k t o the motoring public . In thi s connection , w e als o thin k i t i s critica l t o recal l EPA' s conclusion s in it s Apri l 199 2 Federal

2 4P.2 8

/ 1 i i Register Notic e regarding th e safet yreviewproces s unde r Section s 202(a)(4 ) an d 206(a)(3 ) o f the Clean Ai r Act . EP A determined , w e thin k correctly , tha t i t woul d b e "irrational " t o defe r evaluatio n o f th e safet yo f canister-base d system s t o th e lat e stage s o f new-vehicl e design an d release . A s thi s slid e shows , th e precertificatio n reviewproces s i s no t th e appropriat e time t o resolve ORV R safet yconcerns ; fue l system design s mus t be approve d an d teste d lon

g befor e th e precertifi

catio n reviewb

yEP Afo r a give n mode l begins . We , therefore , need t o b e tol d in th e fina l rul e wha t type s o f ORV R system s an

d designs , i f any , EP A an d NHTSAbelieve s woul d mee t th e requirement s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t an d als o be safe , in the judgmen t o f both . Th e leadtime provision s o f Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) woul d be frustrate d b ya dela

y i n suc h a determinatio n unti l afte r promulgatio n o f a fina l ORV R rule . W e woul d be glad t o cooperat e in an y reasonabl e procedur e ove r th e nex t fewmonth s tha t EP Aan d NHTSA wil l pursu e t o addres s thi s issue . W e believ e tha t the typ e o f carefu l reviewo f the safet yissu e neede d nowi s probabl yincon

sisten t wit h the rulemaking schedul e containe d in EPA' s propose d NRDC v. Reilly

settlemen t agreement . Tha t i s on e reaso n wh yw e hav e objecte d t o the Augus t 199 3 deadlin e fo r comment s in thi s docke t on the safetyissue . 2 5P.2 9

r 1 I f I ma ysummarize , ther e ar e issue s tha t EP Aneed s t o addres s nowunde r th e decisio n in NRDC v. Reilly. First , EP

Aan d NHTSAnee d t o conside r alternative s t o canister-base d technologie s an d mak e appropriat e finding s o n a ful l record regarding thos e alternatives . Second , EP

Aneed s t o determine , in consultatio n wit h NHTSA , whethe r it s fina l canister-base d rul e create s a

n unreasonabl e ris k t o moto r vehicl e safety . I f i t doe s no t believ e tha t it s rul e create s suc h risk , the n an d onl y then can i t procee d wit h promulgatio n o f a fina l rul e consisten t wit h th e inten t o f Congress . Finally , I wan t t o addres s the proposa l t o requir e ORV

R control s on vehicle s othe r than gasoline-powere d light-dut yvehicles . Th e legislativ e histor yo f the 199 0 Clea n Ai r Ac t show s tha t Congres s intende d t o limi t an yORV R require

men t o f an

ytyp e t o light-dut yvehicles . Earl yversion s o f wha t became Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) in th e newClean Ai r Ac t ha d lef t EP

A wit h discretio n t o exten d th e ORV

R rul e t o al l vehicl e classes , a s ha d th e 197 7 Clea n Ai r Act . Th e conferee s in th e 101s t Congres s limite d th e tex t o f Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) t o light-dut y vehicles . A s Mr . Lukens , a manage r o n th e par t o f th e House , stated : "The onboar d vapo r recover yrequiremen t i s limite d t o light-dut yvehicles , whic h mean s passenge r cars . Congres s mad e thi s choic e becaus e i t wa s clea r tha t applying onboar d t o truck s

2 6P.3 0



### LJ woul d be infeasibl e an d inappropriate , du e in par t t o thei r large r fue l tanks. " Extending a n ORV R rul e t o truck s wil l no t furthe r th e purpos e o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , becaus e ORV R vehicle s wil l ente r the flee t to o lat e t o hav e a significan t impac t o n the states ' effor t t o mee t th e ozon e standard . Moreover , typica l sport-utilit yvehicl e fue l tan k size s rang e from2 1 t o 3 3 gallons ; van s an d full-siz e pickup s typicall yhav e 27-3 4 gallo n fue l tank s a s standar d equipment ; an d large r utilit y vehicle s ar e sol d wit h tank s ove r 4 0 gallon s in capacity . Th e caniste r sizes , purg e requirement s an d packaging concern s fo r thes e vehicle s ar e quit e differen t fro mthos e relevan t t o passenge r ca r applications . Eve n i f EP

Aha d discretio n t o exten d ORV R control s t o trucks , i t coul d no t d o s o withou t conducting a ful l regulator

yimpac t analysi s o f the benefit s an d cost s o f th e rule . Th e timing o f a n ORV R rul e woul d mean tha t th e rul e woul d hav e n o significan t rol e in helping th e state s mee t th e ozon e standard . Th e cos t implication s fo r truck s o f th e tes t pro cedur e concep t reviewe d thi s morning hav e no t ye t bee n full y evaluated . Ther e i s n o doubt , however , tha t extending a n ORV R rul e t o truck s woul d requir e u s t o redirec t limite d capita l an d engineering resource s fro mmor e environmentall ybeneficia l truc k program s t o refuelin g emission s control . 2 7P.3 1

r i We , therefore , urg e EP At o limi t it s ORV

R rul e t o light-dut yvehicles . I f EP Aintend s t o continu e it s evaluatio n o f a

n ORV R rul e fo r othe r vehicl e classes , w e believ e the Agenc ymus t prepar e a full-scal e regulator yimpac t analysi s an d a detaile d justificatio n fo r th e rul e unde r th e Clea n Ai r Act . Thi s conclude s m yprepare d statement . M y colleague s an

d I wil l b e glad t o tr yt o answe r your questions . MR . WILSON : Than

k you ver

ymuc h fo r th e testimony . I hav e a coupl e o f questions . Assuming EP Aan d NHTSAconclud e tha t a canister-base d systemi s safe , I don' t understan

d wh yyo u fee l it' s importan t fo r u s t o mak e a deter

minatio n a s t o whethe r a bladde r system , fo r example , i s safe . Can yo u explai n that ? MR . LEONARD : Wit h the Cour t saying tha t bladde r system s ar e a n alternativ e saf e technology , i t i s essentia l tha t EP

Alook a t al l t o se e whic h i s th e safest . Ther e i s going t o b e some increase d ris k wit h onboar d refueling vapor . Th e transfe r o f th e vapo r itsel f i s th e inheren t ris k tha t th e canister-base d systemcan' t avoid . Therefore , i t i s essentia l tha t th e bladde r systembe evaluate d an d a determina

tion mad e a s t o it s feasibilit yan d safet ya s well . MR . WILSON : Yo u thin k it' s necessaryfo r u s t o conside r ever yconceivabl e typ e o f systeman d evaluat e i t

2 8P.3 2

I 1 I I in tha t regard ? I t seem s like almos t a n undoabl e task . MR . LEONARD : It' s rea l 1 yth e availabi1it y o f i t in the time frame tha t we'r e talking about . I thin k bot h Agencie s hav e t o determin e whethe r t o addres s th e Court' s state ments . I believ e th e Agencie s hav e t o mak e tha t determination . MR . WILSON : Although , I though t th e Court' s statemen t wa s mor e o f th e vie wtha t i f w e wer e t o fin d ther e i s n o saf e system , w e ha d t o reviewever

ypossibl e one . Presumably , i f w e fin d one , it' s no t clea r t o m e w e nee d t o g o furthe r an

d revieweac h an

d ever yothe r systeman

d conclud e whethe r i t i s safe . I' mtrying t o understan d wha t your objec

tiv e is . MR . LEONARD : Par t o f the argumen t b ythe proponent s o f a bladde r systemi s tha t i t doe s eliminat e the inheren t ris k o f a transfe r o f the vapor . I thin k th e Agency ha s t o look a t tha t clai min it s evaluatio n o f th e risk s tha t ar e acceptabl e an

d no t acceptabl e unde r thi s rulemaking . MR . GRAY : I hav e on e questio n regarding your comment s relativ e t o th e truck s an d th e siz e o f th e tank s being large r than , I assume you'r e expressing on average , a s compare d t o passenge r cars . Yo u didn' t showa range , I don' t think , fo r th e passenge r ca r tan k sizes , bu t tha t seem s t o be the logica l presumption . I' mno t rea l sur e wha t — MR . LEONARD : I thin k the larges t

2 9P.3 3

r i passenge r ca r tan k w e mak e i s 2 5 gallons , MR . GRAY : An

d you mentione d 2 1 t o 3 3 fo r th e ligh t trucks . MR . LEONARD : It' s average , yes . MR . GRAY : I gues s m yprincipa l questio n is , sinc e the dispens e flowrat e o f th e fue l i s the same whethe r th e fue l i s bein

g dispense d int o a passenge r ca r o r a ligh t truc k an

d sinc e th e siz e o f th e caniste r fo r the evaporativ e purpose s i s size d base d o n th e volume o f th e tan k an d i f th e tan k o n the ca r o r the truc k i s larger , the n ther e woul d b e a large r caniste r fo r evaporativ e purposes . I' m no t reall yunderstanding why , from sor t o f a technica l perspective , whethe r it' s a large r tan k o n a passenge r ca r versu s th e smalles t tan k o n a passenge r ca r becaus e th e rang e overlaps , o r a large r tan k o n a truc k than on a smalle r truck , howtha t reall ymake s a distinction , sinc e the siz e o f the caniste r i s alread ykeye d t o th e siz e o f th e tan k an d th e dispense d fue l flowrat e i s th e same . Wha t a mI missing ? MR . LEONARD : Each individua l tan k con figuratio n i s different . Eac h heating o r temperatur e —eac h tan k configuratio n affect s th e temperatur e o f the fue l in th e tan k whe n i t get s pulle d u p t o th e statio n s o it' s dispense d int o temperature . I n rea l life , ther e ar e a lo t o f difference s 3 0P.3 4

I 1 i i in th e wa ytha t th e tank s i n th e vehicle s operate . It' s no t enough , Charles , jus t t o pas s th e test . Th e vehicl e ha s t o be designe d t o d o al l o f th e fueling wit h acceptabl e fue l qualit y an d everything els e tha t i t ha s t o d o in norma l custome r usag e an d eve n t o a larg e exten t in abnorma l custome r usage . Ther e ar e a lo t o f tan k configuration s fo r truck s tha t ar e differen t than passenge r cars . Th e primar y problema t thi s time i s tha t w e hav e spen t wha t time w e hav e ha d trying t o evaluat e an d develop system s fo r passenge r cars . W e don' t hav e a whol e lo t o f developmen t dat a o n the trucks . I' m no t saying tha t i t wil l be totall ydifferen t than passenge r cars ; I' msaying tha t a t thi s time , I don' t know , becaus e w e haven' t ha

d th e opportunit yt o d o the developmen t work o n th e trucks . MR . GRAY : Okay , I thin k that' s fai r enough . I gues s I' d als o lik e t o ge t your sens e o n wha t yo u hav e i n min

d wit h respec t t o th e emphasi s in you r statemen t tha t EP Aan d NHTS Aneed t o d o additiona l reviewo f th e safet yissue . Wha t woul d b e th e criteria , fo r example , yo u woul d suggest ? Something like safet yris k o r an yris k w e dea l wit h i s alway s in a relativ e context . Woul d you sugges t tha t w e eliminat e gasolin e fue l t o eliminat e an yrisk ? I mean , there' s go t t o be limit s o n anything fro ma practica l context . Ther e hav e bee n othe r action s tha t hav e
3 1P.3 5

r 1 bee n take n b ythe Agencytha t shoul d ver ysignificantly , I think , reduc e whateve r previou s ris k migh t hav e bee n associate d wit h gasolin e us e in passenge r car s through regulation s tha t reduce d th e volatilit yo f gasolin e rathe r dramatically . An d o f course , tha t als o ha s some assistanc e in term s o f th e fueling characteristic s o f the vehicl e an d othe r consume r concern s tha t yo u mentioned . Howwoul d yo u sor t al l tha t out ? MR . LEONARD : A s yo u poin t out , numbe r one , I' m

n o exper t o n safet yris k an d don' t preten

d t o be , Charles , bu t I thin k the Court' s opinio n wa s fairl yclea r unde r th e mandat e on passenge r car s tha t th e relativ e ris k tha t yo u hav e t o compar e t o i s wha t i s the ris k t o publi c healt h in th e absenc e o f ORVR , s o that' s relative . M yow n opinio n on th e Cour t an d o n th e testimon

ytha t whe n yo u g o t o th e truc k systems , the n you'r e no t hel d t o tha t stric t standard . I think , whe n you g o truc k systems , i t can be relativ e t o othe r alternative s fo r accom plishing th e same healt h reductio n risk s fro mthe emission s and , therefore , I thin

k whe n yo u g o t o th e truc k systems , it' s relativ e to , fo r example , th e Stag e I I system . I thin k it' s relativ e t o othe r alternative s fo r accomplishing the same environmenta l gains , MR . WILSON : Mayb e you'l l dea l wit h some o f thi s in your writte n comments , bu t I thin k you ge t int o a

3 2P.3 6

I i prett ycomplicate d proces s wher e you essentiall ywoul d be

requiring Stag e I I system s t o continu e in place , assuming w e wen t along wit h your logic , becaus e the ymad e mor e sens e fo r truck s than onboar d systems , bu t onboar d system s woul d be ther e fo r car s an

d we' d hav e a relativel yexpensiv e duplicativ e system fo r th e long , lon

g term . MR . LEONARD : I t woul d be muc h mor e expensiv e t o hav e t o recapitaliz e ORV R system s fo r truck s than t o maintai n operating expense s fo r Stag e I I in seriou s an d sever e areas . MR . WILSON : Well , I' d be intereste d in seeing your analysi s on th e truc k issue . MR . FRANCE : I'v

e go t a question , mainl y aime d a t ligh t trucks . Th e concep t tha t wa s summarize d fo r light-dut yvehicle s wa s on e in whic h th e tes t parameter s an d refueling wer e adjuste d suc h tha t th e canister s an d th e purg e requirement s woul d be drive n b yeva p requirements . Tes t condition s aside , i f yo u appl yth e same concep t t o light-dut y trucks , I' mhaving a hard time understanding howcaniste r sizes , purg e requirement s an d packaging concern s woul d be differen t fo r light-truck s a s compare d t o LDV s whe n in fac t you ha d t o dea l wit h thos e concern s unde r the eva p rules ? MR . LEONARD : Numbe r one , I though t I answere d tha t questio n whe n Charle s aske d it , bu t Mr . Haske w 3 3P.3 7

F 1 I J want s th e opportunit yt o answe r it . MR . HASKEW : Chet , I woul d come a t thi s fro ma differen t way . W e ar e her e becaus e Congres s sai d w e shal l pu t onboar d vapo r recover ysystem s o n car s an d tha t wa s reinforce d b

yth e Court . Tha t i s no t a discretio n o f EP Aan d ther e ar e n o rule s o r requirement s tha t yo u justif ywhy , in th e fac e o f Stag e II , yo u hav e t o hav e onboar d vapo r recover yo n cars . Unfortunately , fo r technica l people , that' s no t the conditio n an

d we'r e her e saying , howca n w e d o i t i n th e bes t possibl e way . Adifferen t situatio n exist s fo r trucks . Yo u ar e saying , let' s als o pu t themo n truck s an d w e woul d say , shoul d societ yspen d th e moneyt o pu t hardwar e on truck s whic h i s backe d u

p o r redundant . Stag e I I i s a fact . I t wil l b e i n plac e in al l the non-attainmen t area s in th e time frame we'r e talking about . There' s n o questio n abou t it' s a prove n technolog

yan d tha t i t works . S o th e questio n is , shoul d you appl yi t t o truck s whe n th e benefi t i s so , I woul d offer , minimal ? I t i s a redundan t backu p system . Shoul d no t thos e monies , thos e engineering resources , be spen t making durabl e system s o r making thing s tha t hav e greate r potentia l fo r clean ai r in th e lon

g ter mthan jus t adding t o th e workloa d because , let' s pil e anothe r good ide a on top o f a goo d idea . I don' t thin

k w e woul d argu e tha t ther e 3 4P.3 8

I 1 L J i s a siz e break fo r th e safet yo r th e performanc e o f th e system ,

whic h i s th e poin t your questio n wa s kin d o f leadin

g to , was , i s ther e some distinguishing poin t wher e thes e thing s become different . Well , I don' t thin k that' s ou r answe r a t all . I t 1 s th e fac t tha t truck s ar e no t covere d unde r th e congressiona l mandat e an

d ther e i s a differen t kin d o f rationalizatio n tha t ha s t o g o o n t o say , shoul d societ yhav e t o pa yfo r that . MR . FRANCE : That' s no t the questio n I asked . Le t m e tr

yi t again . I t migh t be lef t bes t addresse d in your comments . Bu t m yspecifi c questio n wa s a technica l question . Asid e fro mthe merit s o f regulating ligh t trucks , i f you se t the refueling tes t condition s such tha t th e evap requirement s driv e caniste r siz e an d purg e requirements , wh y woul d your concern s wit h respec t t o caniste r size s an d purg e requirement s an

d packaging be an

ydifferen t fo r ligh t truck s a s compare d t o light-dut yvehicles , asid e fro mth e merit s o f regulating ligh t trucks ? MR . LEONARD : O n a theoretica l basis , they'r e not . On a practica l basis , becaus e o f th e numbe r o f truck s an

d especiall ybecaus e o f th e incomplet e trucks , becaus e o f th e heavy-dut ytruck s an d the larg e numbe r o f application s an d th e fac t tha t w e sel l engine s in tha t categor ymuc h mor e than w e sel l trucks , w e ar e concerne d abou t i t o n a practica l basis . 3 5P.3 9

r i Th e secon d poin t is , I thin

k ther e ar e two standard s o f comparison . Ther e i s goin g t o be some ris k regard

les s o f howw e d o thi s tes t procedure . I thin k yo u hav e a highe r standar d t o mee t whe n yo u tr yt o pu t a

n ORV R systemo n a truc k whic h i s no t mandate d b yCongres s an

d ha s t o b e don e unde r you r genera l authorit ywher e you can conside r alternative s like Stag e II , whic h NHTSAha s indicate d i s actuall ya safet y benefit , than whe n yo u tr yt o pu t themo n passenge r cars . I thin k it' s a differen t standar d o f proof , a differen t burde n tha t th e Agenc yha s t o carry . MR . GRAY : I hav e on e follow-u p questio n regarding your mor e expande d answe r t o thi s question , sinc e I raised i t als o initially . Understanding a significan t poin t in your rational e t o be tha t the redundancyo f the requirement , the Stag e I I requirement , in man yo f the areas , fro ma n ai r qualit y perspective , I' msur e you'r e awar e the Act , wher e i t require s Stag e II , specifie s tha t i t woul d onl yb e require d fo r station s o f a certai n siz e an d large r an

d fo r les s than , I thin k 50,00 0 gallon s a month , mayb e i s it , unles s it' s no t specificall y required , an

d whil e tha t ma

yrepresen t ten , 1 5 percent , i t probabl yvarie s fro mregio n t o region , an d whil e state s hav e the discretio n t o appl yi t t o a lowe r leve l an d certainl yin man y area s ma

yin fac t d o that' , ther e stil l wil l be some volume o f fue l tha t ma

yg o uncontrolled . 3 6P.4 0



### I 1 I I Fro ma n ai r qualit yperspective , it' s probabl ymor e detrimenta l t o hav e a significan t percen t un controlle d than t o compromis e the 9 9 percen t standar d bac k t o 95 , becaus e in eithe r case , you'r e talking abou t howmuc h o f wha t wa s emitte d hav e yo u controlle d an d i f a compromis e o f a standar d fro

m9 9 t o 9 5 i s a four percen t les s overal l effectiv e progra m an d you'r e comparing tha t t o a progra mtha t doesn' t includ e te n o r 1 5 percen t o f th e fuel , clearl yyou' d b e bette r of f having th e standar d acros s everything , bu t hav e i t les s stringent . S o that' s par t o f i t fro ma n ai r qualit yperspectiv e tha t ha s t o be deal t wit h in tha t context . Eve n i n th e shor t term , whe n th e vehicle s ar e bein

g phase d in wit h onboard , ther e woul d be some contro l fro m station s tha t wouldn' t otherwis e hav e Stag e I I an d clearl y there' d be contro l in area s fro ma toxi c standpoint , tha t wa s mentione d earlier , wher e Stag e I I wouldn' t be required . S o fro m a n ai r qualit yperspectiv e ther e ar e some benefits . I thin k your poin t tha t some o f th e benefit s thoug h ar e als o duplicate d b yStag e I I in thos e non-attainmen t area s wher e theyexis t an d I thin k that' s a fai r poin t an d i t ough t t o be include d in a n analysis . Bu t ther e ar e element s o f benefit , I think , it' s importan t t o poin t ou t tha t stil l woul d exist . I f you hav e an y differen t perspectiv e o n that , you'r e welcome t o — MR . LEONARD : Basicall ywha t I woul d say , 3 7P.4 1

r i numbe r one , a s yo u pointe d out , th e state s hav e optio n t o expan d tha t Stag e I I requirement . Numbe r two , man yo f the

mhav e don e s o an d I thin

k probabl ymos t o f themwil l becaus e th e state s ar e unde r thei r thre e percen t pe r yea r RF P requirements , ar e driving t o ge t t o mee t thos e reasonabl e furthe r progres s requirements . There' s n o wa

yin the worl d tha t onboar d refueling vapo r i s going t o assis t thos e state s i n meeting tha t thre e percen t requiremen t becaus e i t take s full y1 5 year s o r mor e fo r ORV R t o come acros s th e fleet . Furthermore , a t best , fro mth e poin t o f bein g argumentative , wa s th e was h whethe r Stag e I I wa s mor e effectiv e whe n i t wa s going nationwid e than nationwid e ORVft controls . I d o no t understan d how1 5 percen t o f the station s having t o pu t Stag e I I on in the seriou s an d sever e area s tha t migh t no t otherwis e hav e t o pu t i t on , can compar e th e cos t o f doing ORV

R contro l o n a nationwid e basis .

MR . GRAY : Again , I thin k tha t poin t i s a reasonabl e poin t t o tak e int o consideration , bu t ther e ar e benefit s fro

ma toxi c standpoint . I migh t als o poin t ou t tha t on e o f th e earlie r Clean Ai r Ac t Amendment s ha d mandate d tha t state s be in complianc e nowalmos t man yyear s ago , an

d w e foun

d ou t tha t in practica l experience , eve n though thi s time aroun d
w e ar e muc h mor e hopefu l tha t attainmen t wil l b e me t according t o the prescribe d schedule , we ar e alread yexperiencing some

3 8-^* T

I 1 

### L J difficultie s o r seeing some difficultie s in state s an d I believ e eve n fo r some o f th e area s tha t you hav e see n a mandat e in the la wfo r some time t o implemen t Stag e II , tha t there' s no t a n across-the-board , o n schedul e implementatio n in al l areas . It' s difficul t a t thi s time t o projec t wit h complet e confidenc e th e exac t timing o f thes e variou s things . An

d t o th e exten t tha t some o f th e area s tha t ar e hopefu l t o attai n in th e reasonabl ynea r futur e ma ynot , a s yo u poin t out , the n theyg o t o a highe r leve l o f classification . Bu t al l tha t take s time , an d i f i t slip s fa r enough , o f cours e ther e wil l be a large r percentag e o f vehicle s tha t ar e in the populatio n an

d we'l l hav e t o se e howi t al l play s out . Bu t i f everything flow s according t o th e Clean Ai r Act , your poin t i s well-taken ; it' s jus t tha t thing s ar e alread yappearing t o be running int o some difficulties . MR . LEONARD : Mayb e difficult yin the state s doing wha t they'r e mandate d t o do , bu t i f yo u look a t th e ai r qualit yresult s fro m198 8 t o 1991 , th e numbe r o f ozon e non-attainmen t area s ha s droppe d fro m10 1 t o 56 . S o ther e ha s bee n significan t progres s befor e an yo f the 199 0 Clean Ai r Ac t Amendment s hav e ha

d an yimpac t a t al l on th e ai r qualit yinven

tor you t ther e in th e states . I thin k it' s going t o b e a lo t bette r jo b thi s time around , Charles , than i t wa s th e las t time . MR . WILSON : Anybod yelse ?
3 9P.4 3

f "I MR . PASSAVANT : Sam , something you sai d

in your testimon

ytrouble d me an

d you reiterate d i t in your respons e t o a question . Tha t wa s a statemen t ther e woul d be some additiona l ris k involve d i n installing ORV R systems , a s yo u cal l them , regardles s o f anything , an d yo u wer e tying i t t o the transfe r o f th e fue l vapo r fro mthe tan

k t o th e canister . I t seem s lik e whe n w e mak e an assessmen t lik e that , w e shoul d be lookin

g a t thi s relativ e t o th e whol e refueling even t an d th e whol e possibilit yo f wha t coul d be happening . I t seem s t o me tha t what' s happening nowtoda yi s tha t tha t fiv e gram s pe r gallo n tha t woul d be transferre d in our ORV R system s i s actuall y goin g t o the atmospher e righ t now , t o the individua l standing aroun d th e tan

k an d present s a potentia l ris k there . S o in a sens e here , wha t I' msaying i s tha t I' mno t s o sur e tha t ther e an ydelt a i n ris k involve d i n thi s proces s a t all . I' d like you t o thin k abou t that . I t seem s lik e you'r e concerne d abou t publi c healt h an d safet yan

d whethe r it' s bein

g containe d in a line that' s going t o a caniste r o r coming ou t th e fil l neck , it' s stil l there . MR . LEONARD : I thin k unde r th e Court' s rulin g in th e passenge r cars , that' s the absolut e relativ e assessmen t tha t yo u hav e t o mak e fo r passenge r cars . MR . PASSAVANT : Well , wha t d o yo u think abou t that ? You'v e twic e sai d tha t ther e i s a concer n an d I' m
4 0P.4 4

I 1 i I totall ylos t t o understan d why . MR . LEONARD : Compare d t o th e fue l system , there' s a

n increase d ris k o f transferring tha t amoun t o f vapo r underneat h th e vehicl e int o th e canister . There' s n o questio n abou t that . Wha t I d o no t knowi s whethe r tha t offset s th e ris k becaus e you'r e the on e that' s going t o mak e th e healt h assess ment s o n th e vapor s coming ou t o f th e fille r neck . Wha t I d o knowtha t I thin

k tha t your burden , whe n yo u ge t t o trucks , i s tha t tha t relativ e ris k ha s t o b e bette r than th e alternative , whic h i s Stag e II , whic h als o reduce s thos e risks , an d you stil l hav e th e transfe r ris k underneat h th e vehicle . MR . PASSAVANT : Th e questio n her e wa s sor t o f m yconcer n tha t yo u wer e making suc h a n absolut e statemen t whe n I don' t thin

k i t i s absolute . MR . LEONARD : That' s wha t I' masking EP A t o determine , whethe r i t is . MR . PASSAVANT : We'l l d o that , bu t I don' t knowwh yyou'r e feeling compelle d t o mak e suc h a strong state men t abou t i t whe n yo u hav e thes e offsetting considerations , that' s al l I' m

trying t o say .

MR . LEONARD : I' mno t selling them . MR . PASSAVANT : Okay , th e nex t poin t I wante d t o as k abou t wa s your statement s abou t th e certificatio n reviewproces s fo r safety . I n ou r proposal , w e lai d ou t a

4 1P.4 5

r i proces s whereb yw e woul d si t dow n wit h th e ca r companie s earl y in th e process , no t thre e an d a hal f year s dow n th e road , bu t earl yin th e process , t o tal k ove r thes e considerations . I notice d yo u didn' t commen t o n that . D o yo u hav e an ythought s nowo r woul d yo u commen t fo r the record o n that ? MR . LEONARD : Wha t I woul d lik e t o se e come ou t o f thi s fina l rul e i s a kin d o f a , fo r wan t o f a bette r word , a typ e approva l typ e safet ydeterminatio n tha t a n inte

grate d canister-base d systemtha t utilize s goo d engineering practices , tha t ha s th e caniste r simila r t o th e siz e tha t you'v e go t fo r a

n eva p canister , tha t use s good practice s fo r routing o f th e hoses , tha t use s the righ t siz e hose s an d doe s al l thos e thing s right , woul d be considere d a saf e system , i t can be a saf e system . That' s the typ e o f determinatio n tha t w e nee d mad e on th e record u

p front . I thin

k w e wil l addres s th e res t o f your issu e in ou r writte n comments . MR . PASSAVANT : Sam , th e nex t poin t I wante d t o as k yo u i s t o mak e sur e tha t in talking abou t ligh t trucks , you talke d abou t a cos t burde n associate d wit h them . A s muc h a s fou r year s ag o now , th e Agenc ypu t an analysi s i n th e docket , a

n update d analysi s in th e docket , o n the cos t o f on board an

d i t covere d al l thre e o f the vehicl e classes . Ou r analysi s a t tha t time showe d a ver ysmal l cos t fo r ligh t trucks , whic h i s unde r $5 , i f m yrecollectio n i s correct . W e never go t

4 2P.4 6



## r i an

yfeedbac k fro

manybod

yon tha t an

d woul d appreciat e i t i f you coul d giv e u s comment s on tha t analysi s a s par t o f the fina l rulemaking . MR . LEONARD : We'l l tr yt o d o tha t a s par t o f ou r fina l comments . MR . PASSAVANT : Finally , o n ligh t trucks , on e fina l point , i f th e Agenc ydecide s t o pursu e ligh t truck s regardles s o f your testimony , I heard th e AAM Atestifier s tal k abou t engineering resources . Wha t woul d b e you r thought s o r your comment s regardin g wha t the Agencyough t t o be doing in term s o f leadtime fo r ligh t trucks , i f w e decide d t o pursu e it ? MR . LEONARD : Well , a s lon g a s it' s under

stoo d I' mo n record a s agains t i t entirely , I woul d no t lik e t o se e i t star t a t all , bu t I definitel ydon' t wan t t o se e i t starte d o n an

ytyp e o f overlap wit h th e passenge r ca r require

ment . Aphase-i n schedul e simila r t o passenge r car s beginning afte r th e passenge r ca r i s complete d woul d — MR . PASSAVANT : Understanding tha t you don' t wan t t o d o i t a t all , bu t that' s th e typ e o f ballpar k you' d like t o be in , i n term s o f implementation , i f you ha d t o d o it ? MR . LEONARD : I f I ha d t o d o it , becaus e o f th e engineering resource s involve d an d heavy-dut ytruck s bein g onl yfive o r si x percen t o f th e marke t an d being
4 3P.4 7

r i everything tha t theyar e wit h al l thei r complication s an d al l o f th e peopl e tha t ar e involve d in assembling a heavy-dut y truck , I don' t understan d howanybod

ywit h a rationa l approac h coul d wan t t o includ e heavy-dut ytruck s in a n ORV R rulemaking . MR . PASSAVANT : Wher e d o yo u drawth e lin e betwee n a heavy-dut ytruc k an d a light-dut ytruck ? MR . LEONARD : I drawi t a t anything that' s certifie d a s light-duty . MR . PASSAVANT : Anything a t 8,50 0 pounds ? MR . LEONARD : Correct , 8,500 . MR . PASSAVANT : Wha t woul d be th e differenc e betwee n tha t statemen t an d a complet e versu s a n incomplet e vehicle ? MR . LEONARD : Ver ysimilar ; mos t o f ou r incomplet e vehicle s ar e ove r 8,500 . MR . PASSAVANT : Bu t al l thre e o f th e domesti c manufacturer s hav e produc t line that' s in th e 8,50 0 t o 10,00 0 weigh t range , whic h i s th e firs t par t o f ligh t trucks . I t come s of f th e line a s a complet e vehicl e an d it' s sol d a s a complet e vehicl e an d that , t o me , i s a differen t anima l than th e vehicl e tha t come s of f a s a cab chassi s o r something an d goe s on t o a n R V manufacture r o r somebody .

MR . LEONARD : Yes , i t is . MR . PASSAVANT : Wha t woul d be your
4 4P.4 8



## rn thought s o n th e complet e vehicl e versu s th e incomplet e vehicl e

in tha t light ? MR . LEONARD : An ytime tha t th e system get s ou t o f m

ycontrol , whic h i t doe s wit h a n incomplet e vehicle , I don' t thin k yo u shoul d pu t a

n ORV R o n i t a t all . MR . PASSAVANT : Bu t doe s a complet e vehicl e tha t goe s dow n t o a littl e dealershi p an d i s sol d a t 9,00 0 pound s presen t an ykin d o f differen t consideratio n than i t doe s fo r a ligh t truc k that' s a complet e vehicle ? S o i f I hav e a 9,00 0 poun

d picku p truc k an

d a n 8,00 0 poun

d picku p truc k an d they'r e bot h bein g sol d of f th e lo t a s complet e vehicles , ar e ther e differen t consideration s there ? MR . LEONARD : That' s stil l par t o f the fiv e percen t an

d on e o f the thing s yo u int o tha t are a i s a lo t o f model s tha t hav e go t 200 , 300 , 2,000 , 3,00 0 unit s applica

tion s specifi c t o tha t model . I t jus t doesn' t mak e sens e t o spen d th e engineering resource s t o redesign the system s fo r eac h on e o f those . MR . PASSAVANT : Bu t fro mthe perspective s tha t you'v e raised , I understan d tha t it' s stil l u p in tha t fiv e o r si x percen t o f the fue l consumption , bu t in term s o f the design an

d th e cos t an

d such , I can' t se e i t woul d b e an y differen t acros s thos e two lines . MR . LEONARD : I don' t know . W e haven' t
4 5P.4 9



### r 1 ha

d time t o evaluat e on tha t typ e o f application . That' s on e o f ou r smalle r volume applications . I f w e eve r di d it , i t woul d be on e o f the las t one s we' d d o unde r a phase-i n schedul e an d w e reall yhaven' t gotte n int o th e developmen t concern s t o se e whethe r ther e ar e uniqu e concern s t o tha t vehicle . I don' t know . Unti l I ge t in an d tr yt o d o i t on tha t vehicle , I reall y don' t know . Theoretically , probabl ynot , bu t a s a practica l matter , I can' t say . I hav e no t don e th e developmen t work . MR . PASSAVANT : Thanks . MR . WILSON : I thin k that' s al l th e questions . Than

k yo u ver

ymuc h fo r th e testimony . Nex t i s For

d Motor . MR . BROWN : I' m

onl yth e third witness , bu t I thin

k a lo t o f wha t w e hav e in ou r writte n statemen t her e ha s alread

ybee n said , s o I' mgoin g t o tr yan d ski p through i t t o avoi d bein

g redundan t an

d I look forward t o th e questions . I couldn' t stan

d i t sitting bac k there , lettin g Sa mtak e al l th e questions . MR . WILSON : I thin k w e ra

n ou t o f questions , MR . BROWN : M yname i s Kell yBrown . I a m the Directo r o f th e Automotiv e Emission s an d Fue l Econom

yOffic e a t Ford . W e full ysuppor t th e AAM Atestimon

ytha t wa s presente d a t the hearing an

d we' d like i t incorporate d alon g wit h ou r ful l

4 6P.5 0

I 1 

### I I writte n comment s int o th e record . We'r e please d t o be her e t o

discus s thi s issu e onc e agai n an d w e look forward t o working wit h EP Afurthe r t o resolve th e ope n issue s tha t remai n during th e cours e o f th e rulemaking . Man ycomple x issue s associate d wit h thi s rulemaking requir e extensiv e review , including th e safet yo f today' s state-of-the-ar t caniste r base d systems , tes t pro cedures , technica l feasibility , scop e an d applicabilit yo f ORV R regulations , cos t benefi t analysis , an d th e like . Sinc e re ceiving thi s notice , our primar yfocu s ha s bee n o n developing a workabl e tes t procedur e tha t woul d allowu s t o develop a new generatio n o f canister-base d system s whic h ar e reasonabl ysafe . W e believ e canister-base d system s t o be the onl ytechnicall y feasibl e system s fo r onboard refueling vapo r recovery . Becaus e o f th e sever e tim

e an d resourc e constraints , w e hav e concen trate d ou r effort s solel yon gasolin e fuele d passenge r cars . Th e remainde r o f m ytestimon

ywil l addres s tes t procedur e modifications , safet yissues , an d applicabilit yo f th e standard . Wit h respec t t o tes t procedures , non integrate d system s ar e typicall ymor e comple x than integrate d ORV R an d eva p system s becaus e the ywil l likel yrequir e duplicat e hardware , requiring additiona l canisters , extr a vapo r line s an d contro l valves , al l o f whic h can lea d t o failure . Unde r an

yo f the propose d tes t procedure s 4 7P.5 1

r 1 

### i I containe d in th e Ma y27 , 199 3 Notice , a nonintegrate d system woul d likel ybe required . Thi s i s becaus e th e refueling tes t woul d requir e significantl ylarge r caniste r capacit ythan tha t require d fo r evaporativ e emission s control . I f the requirement s wer e t o be me t b

yan integrate d systemwit h muc h large r canis

ters , i t woul d als o be necessaryt o increas e purg e rates , i n orde r t o mee t the recentl ypromulgate d eva p emissio n require

ments . Th e onl ywa yt o avoi d th e exhaus t emission s interactio n problem s woul d be t o design a nonintegrate d system , in whic h th e separat e caniste r woul d be trickle-purged , o r purge d a t a muc h slowe r rate , ove r the cours e o f a ful l fue l tank . Th e industry' s desir e t o develop ORV R system s tha t reduc e safet yrisk s hav e le d u s t o propos e tes t procedur e change s whic h assur e the contro l o f thes e emissions , ye t facilitat e the us e o f integrate d systems . Unde r the pro cedur e describe d earlie r during the AAM Astatement , For

d believes , a t leas t in mos t cases , w e shoul d be abl e t o us e th e caniste r designe d fo r the newevap system s a s a commo n storag e mediu mfo r refueling vapors . Doing s o shoul d allowu s t o develop reasonabl ysaf e canister-base d systems . Th e safet yissue s associate d wit h th e propose d tes t procedur e revision s nee d t o b e properl yaddresse d b yEPA . W e believ e tha t a newEP Aan d NHTSAsafet yreviewwil l fin d tha t ORV

R canister-base d system s develope d unde r th e 4 8P.5 2

" I propose d tes t procedur e revision s wil l no t presen t a n unreason abl e ris k t o moto r vehicl e safety . W e believ e suc h a finding can be reache d wit h respec t t o light-dut yvehicle s base d on change d circumstance s including , a t a minimum , th e following : Tes t procedur e change s tha t woul d permi t the us e o f a

n integrate d ORVR/EVAP system , reducing complexity , thereb yfacilitating th e developmen t o f reasonabl ysaf e canister-base d system s an d tha t assume s EP

Aadopt s th e tes t procedure s tha t wer e describe d earlier . Th e us e o f Onboar d Diagnostic s wil l als o chec k systemintegrity . Th e technologica l advancement s mad e in canister-base d design s fo r enhance d evaporativ e system s sinc e the las t report , fo r example , upgrade d materials , improve d purg e hardware , an

d others . Thi s reviewha s t o be complete d earl yin the proces s t o assis t in identifying hardwar e change s tha t ar e necessaryt o develop a reasonabl ysaf e system . Th e applicabilit yo f th e standard , an d yo u spok e a lo t abou t thi s ye t thi s morning , I thin k th e ke

ything s ther e ar e tha t neithe r Congres s no r th e Cour t tol d yo u tha t you ha d t o d o truc k systems , no r di d the ytel l yo u tha t you ha d t o d o themon th e sam

e timetable , bot h th e regulator ytimetabl e an

d implementatio n timetable , tha t you hav e t o fo r cars . 4 9P.5 3

r 1 

### I I Tha t bring s u p uniqu e issues ; vehicle s equippe d wit h large r fue l tank s ma yrequir e proportionatel y large r caniste r capacit yfo r refueling a s compare d t o enhance d EVAP . Thi s coul d presen t majo r purg e rat e issue s an d packaging issues . Th e purg e rat e issu e coul d forc e nonintegrate d systems . I f nonintegrate d system s ar e required , significan t packaging issue s an d complexit yan

d safet yissue s wil l b e adde d t o th e system . Du e t o th e tigh t time constraint s o f thi s rulemaking , w e hav e no t determine d i f th e tes t procedur e modifi

cation s describe d in th e Associatio n testimon ywoul d be adequat e t o achiev e result s fo r trucks , th e same a s anticipate d o n cars . Anothe r issue s wit h thes e classe s o f truck s i s tha t you ge t int o th e heavie r ligh t trucks , incomplet e vehicle s ar e sol d t o second-stag e manufacturer s an d presen t uniqu e problems . Second-stag e manufacturer s woul d fac e a n almos t overwhelming challeng e t o properl yassembl e onboar d vapo r controls . I t i s als o difficul t t o contro l potentia l modifica

tion s tha t a second-stag e manufacture r ma ymak e t o suc h a fue l systeman

d w e hav e histor

yo f that . ORV R requirement s ar e no t mandate d b yla w fo r light-dut ytrucks , heavy-dut yvehicle s an d incomplet e vehicles . I f EP

Aproceed s unde r it s discretionaryauthorit yt o promulgat e ORV

R rule s fo r thes e vehicles , i t mus t perfor ma ful l

5 0P.5 4



### r n regulator ycost/benefi t stud yt o justif ythes e requirements . It' s ou r belie f tha t whe n considering Stag e I I a s a n alter

native , a s require d in the cas e o f thes e non-passenge r cars , ORV R requirement s canno t be justified . I n conclusion , Ford recommend s tha t EP A adop t th e tes t procedur e change s fo r light-dut yvehicle s out lined b yAAMA . Thes e change s wil l allowfo r integrate d system s tha t can reasonabl yan d effectivel ycontro l bot h eva p an d re fueling emissions . Thes e change s ar e directionall ycorrec t t o reduc e systemcomplexity , an d thereb

yfacilitating th e develop

men t o f reasonabl ysaf e canister-base d systems . Than k you ; I' d be gla d t o tak e an

y questions . MR . FRANCE : Jus t a coupl e o f question s regarding light-dut ytrucks ; fro mthe dat a tha t w e have , I presume on e o f your concern s wit h respec t t o ligh t truck s i s th e refueling vapo r generation ? MR . BROWN : Correct . MR . FRANCE : An

d th e fac t tha t it' s a uniqu e configuration ; th e dat a w e hav e doesn' t sugges t tha t there' s a relationshi p betwee n tan k siz e an

d vapo r generation . Th e mor e dominan t tend s t o b e th e fillnec k design an d diamete r an d othe r thing s like that . I wa s wondering i f yo u ha d an y informatio n tha t woul d sugges t otherwise , o r hav e you draw n some
5 1P.5 5

r i differen t observation s wit h respec t t o tan k size ? MR . BROWN : Whe n w e hav e some cars , an d that' s al l we'v e ha d a chanc e t o wor k on , w e haven' t ha d a lo t o f time sinc e w e go t th e surpris e ruling fro mth e Court , bu t eac h o f ou r car s yield s differen t result s an d w e assume , bu t w e don' t know , I wouldn' t wan t t o pu t a n SA E pape r ou t o n it , w e assume tha t it' s no t jus t tan k siz e in th e wa

yw e normall ythin

k o f it , tha t i s the numbe r o f gallons , bu t als o configuration . Ligh t truc k fue l tank s ar e configure d completel ydifferen t fro m passenge r car s an

d w e als o hav e some application s toda ytha t ar e dua l tan

k system s an

d w e don' t knowth e mechanic s o f al l that . Thos e issue s nee d t o be explore d befor e w e can come t o the sam e conclusio n o n cars . I n effect , o n car s w e haven' t teste d al l o f our applications . Yo u hav e al l the dat a we have . We'v e onl ydon e some limited testing an d we'r e making some engineering judgment s a s t o wha t w e can d o acros s passenge r cars . Whe n you ge t int o th e bigge r trucks , especiall y th e heav

ytrucks , th e fue l tan k configuration s ar e ofte n round , some hav e step s i

n the man d they'r e considerabl ylarger . S o I thin k th e simpl e answe r t o you r questio n is , w e don' t know . W e hav e concerns , bu t w e don' t know . MR . FRANCE : Same questio n I aske d th e Genera l Motor s panel , setting the merit s o f regulating ligh t truck s aside , i f the concep t tha t wa s lai d ou t wa s on e in whic h

5 2P.5 6



# n L J w e size d the refueling caniste r t o matc h tha t o f evap , i f w e

wer e successfu l i

n ligh t trucks , m

yassumptio n is , the timing aside , tha t tha t concep t woul d appl yequall yt o ligh t truck s an d i t woul d dea l wit h packaging , complexit yan d othe r safet y concern s fo r ligh t trucks , a s i t ha s th e potentia l t o d o wit h light-dut yvehicles . I s tha t a fai r statement ? MR . BROWN : I f I understan d th e question , I thin k the questio n was , i f w e spen t th e time t o properl y determin e wha t procedura l modification s wer e necessaryt o hav e the same siz e canister s on ligh t truck s fo r bot h eva p an d refueling , you come t o th e same conclusio n you woul d in cars . I thin k the problemwe'r e having i s the , if . W e haven' t gon e through the proces s t o se e i f th e change s t o the tes t procedur e tha t w e thin

k woul d work o n car s wil l als o work o n ligh t trucks . An d sinc e neithe r th e Cour t no r Congres s tol d u s t o ge t o n the sam e —I' m

no t comfortabl e wit h the schedul e we'r e o n fo r cars . W e jus t don' t hav e an yothe r choice . W e d o hav e a choic e in ligh t truck s an

d w e don' t hav e t o g o tha t fas t an d w e can stop an d actuall ythin

k an d d o intelligen t things . Tha t di d no t ofte n happene d in the Clean Ai r Act , bu t thi s i s on e o f the rar e chance s w e get . MR . FRANCE : Ar e you collecting an y informatio n on ligh t truck s in term s o f vapo r generation ? MR . BROWN : W e ar e starting . I don' t hav e 5 3P.5 7

r i anything her e t o share . MR . FRANCE : Coul d yo u suppl ytha t of f th e record , I mean , in your comments ? MR . BROWN : I n a month ; i t won' t be a lot , bu t w e can giv e yo u wha t we'v e got . I doub t ver yseriousl y there' s an

ywa yw e coul d hav e an

ykin d o f extensiv e progra min th e nex t month . MR . SCHWARTZ : Fo r the record , I' mMik e Schwartz . Th e problemwoul d be i f w e scrambl e an d ge t togethe r dat a on on e o f our truc k systems , w e won' t knowwhic h en d o f the spectru mi t represents . Th e gra mpe r gallo n rat e tha t yo u wer e talking abou t varie s configuratio n t o configuratio n an d als o the gram s pe r diurna l varie s somewha t fro mconfiguratio n t o con figuration . I n passenge r cars , we'v e reall yhustle d t o determin e wha t w e can s o tha t w e can hav e some confidenc e tha t there' s a relationshi p we can depen d on an d w e hav e depende d o n tha t relationshi p t o mol d th e tes t procedure , a s yo u know , s o tha t i t can reasonabl ymatc h th e caniste r siz e fo r evaporativ e emissions . We'v e go t the variatio n i n bot h thing s on truck s t o stil l dea l wit h an d tha t i s th e variatio n in genera tio n o f gram s pe r gallo n during refueling an d gram s pe r diurna l o r gram s during runnin g los s situation s t o conside r o n trucks . S o I' m concerne d tha t i f we hustle d an d go t some tes t dat a fo r

5 4P.5 8



### r i i I you on on e o f our truc k platform s an d the n bot h side s assume d tha t tha t wa s representativ e an d i n the middle , tha t tha t wouldn' t d o i t fo r us . MR . FRANCE : Well , jus t a commen t in term s o f ou r confidence , th e dat a o n th e light-dut yvehicl e side , a t leas t fro

mou r perspective , i s no t wha t I woul d conside r exhaustive . MR . BROWN : That' s wha t I said . MR . FRANCE : An

d w e d o hav e o n th e light

dutytruc k side , a t leas t in the uncontrolle d configuration , w e have a good dea l o f newtruc k dat a and , like I said , a lo t o f tha t wa s collecte d b yATL . W e don' t se e the difference s tha t you'r e suggesting . I mean , the yfal l withi n th e rang e o f LDVs , s o t o whateve r exten t you can collec t some dat a o n on e o r mor e o f your truc k platforms , i t woul d be helpful . MR . BROWN : I thin

k wha t we'r e suggesting , I don' t wan t t o leave th e impressio n tha t the work we'v e don e in trying t o wor k through the tes t procedure s hasn' t bee n help

fu l , it' s bee n extremel yhelpful . An d you'r e right , w e don' t have al l the answer s o n car s an d we'v e go t ou r finger s crosse d tha t betwee n nowan d jo b one , 1999 , o r wheneve r thi s i s firs t launched , I hop e w e don' t hav e an yoopses , becaus e th e oop s doesn' t allowu s t o pu t a ca r ou t tha t i f w e said , well , ther e goe s on e that' s no t safe . Th e oop s fo r u s mean s w e don' t buil d
5 5P.5 9

r 1 tha t car . That' s no t a good positio n t o be in . Tha t mean s w e migh t hav e t o shu t dow n assembl yplants , tel l peopl e t o g o home an d going bac k eithe r through you r proces s or , God forbid , th e congressiona l process . I t too k 1 3 year s th e las t time . W e can' t keep a plan t dow n fo r 1 3 years . There' s n o reaso n o n eart h wh yw e woul d wan t t o pu t truck s in , le t me tr yan d sa yi t agai n becaus e I thin k I trie d t o sa yi t an d the previou s witnesse s trie d t o sa yit , w e ar e in an almos t intellectuall ybankrup t proces s on cars , no t becaus e an yo f u s wan t to , bu t becaus e a judg e an d th e rubbe r chec k crow d in Washingto n pu t u s int o thi s pickle . It' s no t a logica l busines s situation . It' s no t the wa yyou shoul d be building cars . It' s no t the wa yt o ru

n a business . We'r e stuck . W e don' t hav e tha t same situatio n on truck s an d w e shouldn' t pu t ourselve s there . MR . PASSAVANT : I hav e a fewquic k things , ver ysimila r t o wha t I aske d GM . Yo u allude d t o a concer n abou t getting caugh t a t th e elevent h hour wit h a probleman d yo u can' t ge t a vehicl e certifie d an d I' d lik e t o knowwha t you r vie w woul d be o n the phase-i n proposa l tha t the Agenc ymad e in term s o f lookin

g a t the safet yo f system s earl yin th e proces s an d trying t o sor t o f work ou t the detail s o n tha t that' s in ou r Ma y 27t h Notice . MR . BROWN : I thin k that' s a good idea . 5 6P.6 0



## n i i I thin k wha t I understand , an d I' mno t a

n attorney , a s yo u know , bu t wha t I understan d th e Cour t suggested , th e nervou s gentleman o n m yrigh t i s fro

mth e offic e o f genera l counsel , wha t I under

stan d the Cour t t o hav e sai d i s tha t yo u can wai t unti l jus t befor e jo b one , whe n we'r e trying t o ge t a certificate , whe n we'r e standing ou t her e in An n Arbo r waiting t o ge t a certifi

cate , you'v e go t th e thing al l built , th e tooling' s released , you'v e don e pre-productio n builds , everything i s change d ove r in th e plant s an

d you'r e starting t o buil d car s an d some gu

yin An n Arbo r say , no , i t doesn' t look saf e t o me . That' s no t a situatio n yo u can g o through . I mean , i f tha t happens , i t ough t t o be becaus e we , the manufacturer , di d something stupi d in the elevent h hour an

d change d something . Tha t shouldn' t be th e norma l cours e o f business . Yo u jus t can' t ru n a busines s tha t way . MR . PASSAVANT : S o you' d suppor t tha t kin d o f a proces s afte r th e fina l rul e i s underwa ybu t befor e muc h time ha s passe d sinc e then ? MR . BROWN : I thin

k yo u hav e t o d o that . I thin k it' s mandatory .

MR . PASSAVANT : I n regard s t o the issu e

—m ylas t fe

wquestion s her e ar e o n th e light-dut ytruc k an d the heavy-dut yvehicl e issue . I aske d G M abou t the incomplet e vehicle s versu s the complet e vehicle s an d yo u allude d t o i t in 5 7P.6 1

r i your comment s a s well . D o yo u dra wa line there ? I s tha t wher e you conside r there' s a significan t se t o f difference s in term s o f design , engineering an d othe r type s o f concerns ? MR . BROWN : Onc e yo u ge t ove r 8,50 0 pounds , an

d again , I' mtalking onl ygasoline , yo u star t getting , i n ou r produc t an

d mos t o f th e industry , onc e yo u ge t ove r 85 , you als o ge t some diesel s in an d I don' t thin

k theyeve r shoul d hav e bee n a par t o f thi s process . Bu t onc e you ge t ove r 8,50 0 pounds , you'r e int o a whol e differen t worl d wher e a lo t o f th e produc t w e sel l ar e incomplet e vehicle s o r moto r home s an d ambulance s an

d towtruck s an

d schoo l buses , thing s lik e that . There' s a whol e bunc h o f differen t companie s involve d an d w e ha d some ba d experience s in th e pas t wit h some o f thos e peopl e an d the wa ythe ymodifie d ou r vehicle s afte r the ylef t ou r plants . I don' t thin

k it' s reasonabl e t o giv e them a bi g bag o f part s an d hop e tha t afte r the yge t thei r bod

yo n an d some o f th e peopl e ad d additiona l fue l tanks , afte r the y ge t thos e al l molde d togethe r an d the ypu t propan e tank s an d othe r thing s unde r there , i t give s u s hive s t o eve n thin k abou t them , an

d the n you ge t int o th e bigge r trucks , we'r e probably , I guess , th e las t o f th e ful l line manufacturer s wh o mak e al l siz e truck s ourselve s an d w e stil l hav e gasolin e powere d truc k u p int o Clas s 5 an

d touching Clas s 6 . Thos e truc k hav e bi g fue l tanks , muc h bigge r than anything though t of . S o in tha t case , 5 8P.6 2

!~"~ i beyon d evap , onc e you catc h al l th e vapors , you'r e int o a reall y uniqu e situatio n fo r purg e a s t o wha t t o d o wit h al l o f them . MR . PASSAVANT : I s ther e a differenc e thoug h betwee n a complet e vehicl e ove r 8,50 0 pound s an d a n incomplet e vehicle ? MR . BROWN : Well , th e ke ydifferenc e i s th e body' s missing o n on e o f them . Bu t I mean , th e bod yin th e contex t o f thi s proceeding i s th e par t tha t hold s u p th e res t o f th e fue l system , th e fillpip e an d al l th e hoses . Wha t w e normall yd o i s w e pu t a stubb yfillpip e o n an

d w e hav e a bag that' s calle d a dunnag e kit . I t used t o look like a littl e grapefrui t bag ful l o f parts , an d w e giv e thema boo k an d tel l them , d o this , don' t d o that , an d w e spen

d a lo t mor e time wit h secondar

ymanufacturer s nowtrying t o teac h the mhowt o d o it . Wit h th e onboar d system , we' d be giving the ma muc h bigge r bag an d a lo t mor e part s an d one s that , i f yo u pu t themin backward s o r yo u forge t t o hoo k a hos e o n right , lik e th e vapo r shutof f valve , th e situatio n now , i f th e perso n hooke d th e vapo r shutof f valv e u p wrong , yo u coul d en d u p filling al l th e canister s wit h fue l befor e i t starte d runnin g on th e groun

d an d h e knewi t an

d that' s no t a good situation . MR . PASSAVANT : Kelly , forth e record , can you tel l u s o r give u s a n estimat e o f wha t percentag e o f your ove r 8,50 0 poun

d vehicle s ar e incomplet e versu s complete ? I

5 9P.6 3

r i thin k tha t woul d hel p u s in thi s process .

MR . BROWN : I knowit' s a lot , bu t rathe r than guess , I' d rathe r giv e i t t o you fo r the record . MR . PASSAVANT : Thanks ; I als o knowtha t you'r e no t supporting extending thi s requiremen t t o ligh t truck s an d heavy-dut yvehicles . MR . BROWN : W e trie d t o giv e tha t impression , yes . MR . PASSAVANT : Yo u did ; wer e th e Agenc y t o procee d unde r tha t track , can yo u giv e me some sens e o f wha t your view s woul d be on leadtim e fo r that ? MR . BROWN : M

ypreferenc e woul d b e t o tak e i t ou t o f thi s rulemaking an d g o bac k throug

h a norma l rule

making . Remembe r those , the norma l rulemaking wher e yo u ha d reasonabl e notic e an d opportunit yt o comment , yo u ha d a hearing , yo u weren' t compelle d t o a 3 0 da ytime perio d i f yo u ha d issue s t o resolve , an

d the n a reasonabl e amoun t o f time fo r yo u t o d o th e rul e an

d the n leadtime afte r that .

I woul d als o like t o hav e a fewyear s o f passenge r ca r productio n t o se e howthe ywork . I don' t mea n jus t fro

m a safet ystandpoint , bu t t o mak e sur e tha t in rea l custome r us e al l ou r testing i s righ t an d theyactuall yfil l righ t an

d we'r e no t getting nast yphon e call s fro mcustomer s an

d thing s like that . I t woul d be certainl yn o soone r than afte r 6 0P.6 4

I — ! 1 i w e go t don e wit h the passenge r cars . Bu t actuall yagain , I

woul d prefe r tha t w e g o throug h a rulemaking an d le t tha t rulemaking an

d leadtim

e requirement s o f th e Ac t dictat e it . MR . PASSAVANT : Finally , th e las t poin t is , yo u mad e mentio n in your ora l comment s tha t th e Agenc ywoul d nee d t o d o a separat e RI Afo r tha t an d o f cours e w e agre e that' s appropriate . I n your writte n comments , I' d lik e yo u t o commen t o n th e informatio n tha t w e d o hav e ou t ther e in th e docke t righ t nowo n th e cost s an d benefits , e t cetera , o f light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut yvehicle s a s well . Than k you . MR . SILVERMAN : It' s ver yclea r you don' t wan t u s t o d o a requiremen t fo r trucks , bu t i t sound s lik e you'r e saying w e a t leas t hav e the discretio n t o d o i t legall y shoul d w e choos e to . It's , ther e ar e mor e hurdle s t o jum p over , bu t i t doe s soun

d lik e you'r e saying w e coul d d o i t legall yi f
w e compil e the prope r typ e o f record an d compl ywit h procedura l requisites . MR . BROWN : Ou r lawyer s hav e tol d u s tha t yo u d o hav e the right . W e weren' t reall yfocusing on th e numbe r o f hurdles , bu t the requirement s ar e different . An d th e mai n requiremen t that' s differen t that' s importan t in thi s proceeding i s timing an

d timing t o d o i t right . W e don' t hav e t o stumbl e of f blindl ythe wa

yw e d o on passenge r cars . MR . SILVERMAN : Than k you . 6 1P.6 5

r i MR . WILSON : Than k yo u ver

ymuch . I thin

k we'l l tak e abou t a te n minut e break . MR . WILSON : I f w e can ge t started , the nex t witnes s i s Chrysle r Corporation . MR . ALLARDYCE : Goo d morning ; I' mGordo n Allardyc e an

d I' m Manage r o f Environmenta l an d Energ yRegulatory Planning fo r Chrysle r Corporation . Wit h me toda yar e Fred Maloneyo f m

ystaf f an

d Gar yDawson , wh o i s Chrysler' s manage r o f Powertrai n Systems . Chrysle r i s please d t o hav e the oppor tunit yt o presen t it s positio n a t thi s EP Ahearing o n th e propose d adoptio n o f onboar d refueling vapo r recover yregula

tions . Ou r testimon ytoda ywil l primaril yaddres s tw o ke y issues , first , the importanc e o f a n appropriat e tes t procedure , an d second , the implementatio n o f ORV R fo r trucks . W e wil l provid e mor e detai l o n ou r positio n in ou r writte n comments . Additionally , I wan t t o mentio n a s a membe r o f the America n Automobil e Manufacturer s Association , Chrysle r support s the AAM A comment s presente d o n thi s rulemaking earlie r today . W e ar e her e toda

ybecaus e the Cour t o f Appeal s ha s directe d the EP At o mov e forward wit h rulemaking o n ORV R fo r passenge r cars , notwithstanding th e unresolve d safet y issues . Th e court' s decisio n i s o f grea t concer n t o th e auto motiv e manufacturers . A s w e testifie d a t the EP Ahearing in Septembe r o f 1991 , the ORV R emissio n tes t procedur e propose d in 6 2 

# JP.6 6

i i the 198 7 NPR M woul d caus e u s t o buil d ORV R system s tha t ad

d substantia l complexit yt o fueling an d evaporativ e emissio n contro l systems . Chrysler' s developmen t effort s hav e include d bot h integrate d an d nonintegrate d ORV R systems , bu t th e constraint s i

n EPA' s proposal , i f unchanged , wil l compe l u s t o releas e onl yth e nonintegrate d system . Suc h a systemi s eve n mor e comple x than a n integrate d system , requiring additiona l line s an

d connection s along wit h a n additional , dedicate d ORV R canister . Chrysle r believe s tha t a nonintegrate d systemwil l increas e th e safet yris k t o th e publi c ove r a n integrate d systembecaus e o f the necessaryadditiona l line s an d connections . Whil e Chrysle r wil l minimiz e an yrisk s associate d wit h ORVR,th e adde d complexit yo f nonintegrate d system s wil l reduc e reliabilit yan d increas e the difficult yo f vehicl e design , resulting in mor e costl yORV R systems . Fo r thes e reasons , th e AAM Aapproache d EP

A wit h an alternativ e tes t procedur e tha t woul d accomplis h tw o goals . First , th e tes t procedur e woul d no t penaliz e th e us e o f a n integrate d ORV

R system , an

d second , i t woul d no t increas e the siz e o f the caniste r beyon d tha t wha t wil l be on th e ca r fo r stricte r evaporativ e control . Base d o n EP

Ainput , w e hav e substantiall y 6 3P.6 7

r i modifie d ou r initia l proposal . Chrysle r believe s tha t thi s tes t

procedure , whic h EP Aoutline d earlie r today , wil l allowmanu facturer s t o design an d buil d integrate d canister-base d ORV R system s in a wa

ytha t wil l minimiz e risk s an d eliminat e man

yo f ou r previou s concern s withou t jeopardizing ai r quality . Th e challeng e t o design a saf e an d effectiv e ORV

R systemremains . I f ORV R wer e ou r onl ynewtask , the jo b woul d b e greatl ysimplified . Howeyer , ou r tas k i s com plicate d b

ytw o issues . First , th e ORV R systemwil l interac t wit h othe r emissio n contro l system s implemente d a s th e resul t o f the Clean Ai r Act , suc h as , tighte r tailpip e standards , stricte r evaporativ e tes t procedure s an d onboard diagnostics . Second , the implementatio n o f al l regulation s require d ove r the nex t fiv e years , acros s ou r entir e produc t line , wil l strai n Chrysler' s limited engineering an d financia l resources . Thes e problem s ar e exacerbate d b yth e unnecessaryinclusio n o f truck s i n th e EP Aproposal . Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t require s ORV R onl yfo r light-dut y vehicles , an

d according t o Sectio n 216(7) , the definitio n fo r LD V doe s no t includ e truck s o f an ykind . Therefore , i t i s clea r tha t th e cour t ha s no t directe d th e EP At o includ e truck s in thi s o r an

yrulemaking .

Fo r ai r qualit ypurposes , i t i s no t necessar

yfo r truck s t o be equippe d wit h ORV R system s becaus e

6 4P.6 8



# n 1 i theyar e redundan t t o the Stag e I I systems . Further , th e

propose d ORV

R phase-i n begin s i n 199 8 mode l yea r an d wil l tak e 1 5 year s t o become full yimplemente d acros s th e in-us e fleet . But , Stag e I I refueling wil l be full yImplemente d in al l Serious , Sever e an d Extreme non-attainmen t area s b y1994 , thereb yproviding ful l refueling emission s contro l commensurat e wit h th e lette r an

d inten t o f th e law . Additionally , some state s hav e chose n t o requir e Stag e I I control s in Moderat e area s eve n thoug h theyar e no t require d t o d o s o whe n ORV R regulation s ar e promulgated . Thes e state s ar e doing thi s fo r two reasons : theyrealiz e tha t Stag e I I provide s immediat e refueling contro l o n al l vehicles ; and , theycan thereb yobtai n credi t toward s th e 1 5 percen t VO C reductio n mandate . Moderat e area s mus t be in attainmen t b y Novembe r 1996 , o r the ywil l be reclassifie d t o a highe r non attainmen t statu s fo r whic h Stag e I I wil l the n be required . However , i f EP

Ashoul d fee l compelle d t o promulgat e truc k ORV R regulations , w e recommen d tha t EP

Apursu e thi s unde r separat e rulemaking . Awid e variet yo f option s i s ope n t o th e Agenc ysinc e the Clean Ai r Ac t doe s no t requir e truck s t o be equippe d wit h ORVR . Th e EP Acan , fo r instance , limi t truc k applications , increas e leadtime , exten d th e phase

in period , o r modif yth e standards . Mos t o f the developmen t wor k o n ORV R
6 5P.6 9

r i system s t o thi s poin t ha s bee n performe d o n LDVs . Whil e i t ma y appea r straightforwar d t o adap t passenge r ca r ORV R system s t o trucks , i t i s no t a simpl e matte r becaus e eac h fue l system require s individua l engineering development . Th e propose d LD V rulemaking an

d implementatio n schedul e doe s no t allo wadequat e time t o addres s the specia l problem s o f trucks . I n summary , Chrysle r appreciate s EPA' s cooperatio n in considering AAMA' s concern s wit h th e ORV R tes t proposa l an

d th e modification s mad e t o addres s thes e concerns . A n appropriat e tes t procedur e can eliminat e man yo f th e concern s w e hav e ha

d wit h ORV

R system s o n passenge r cars . W e als o urg e tha t EP Ano t requir e truck s t o be equippe d wit h ORV R systems . I f however , ORV

R regulation s ar e considere d fo r trucks , the y shoul d procee d unde r a separat e rulemaking process . MR . WILSON : Than

k you . MR . GRAY : I jus t hav e on e questio n relativ e t o thi s separat e rulemaking process . I assume tha t mean s in term s o f a schedule . D o yo u hav e a particula r schedul e fo r implementatio n fo r light-dut ytruck s tha t yo u thin k woul d provid e sufficien t time t o conside r whateve r specia l charac

teristic s tha t thos e vehicle s hav e tha t ar e perhap s differen t than your passenge r ca r platforms ? MR . ALLARDYCE : Well , i f yo u decid e t o g o fo r trucks , the n certainl yafte r th e phase-i n fo r light-dut y 6 6P.7 0



# n i i vehicles . Howfa r afte r tha t depend s o n a numbe r o f factors ,

o f course . W e haven' t ha d reall yan

yopportunit yt o look a t th e problem s associate d wit h trucks , that' s on e o f the factors . W e hav e t o d o th e developmen t work , provid e th e systems , mak e sur e they'r e saf e an

d s o on . S o i t wil l tak e some time . MR . WILSON : Than

k yo u ver

ymuch . Nex t i s th e Associatio n o f Internationa l Automobil e Manufacturers . MR . DANA : Goo d morning ; m yname i s Gregor yDana . I' mwit h th e Associatio n o f Internationa l Automobil e Manufacturers . I apologiz e t o the pane l tha t I don' t hav e a writte n cop

yo f m ystatement . Du e t o al l the las t minut e negotiations , w e haven' t ha d time t o pu t something togethe r prepared , bu t we'l l submi t something fo r the record . I' d like t o mak e a fairl ybrie f ora l statemen t her e becaus e you'v e covere d man

yo f the point s alread yb yth e Bi g Thre e representa tive s testifying , an d a s I sai d before , I'l l supplemen t wha t I sa ytoda ywit h writte n comment s befor e th e clos e o f th e commen t period . W e agre e wit h th e statemen t mad e b yDr . Klimisc h on behal f o f AAMA , specificall yth e tes t procedur e issue s tha t hav e bee n negotiate d wit h EP Aove r the las t few week s tha t woul d allowth e us e o f integrate d systems . However , EPA' s opening statemen t di d no t addres s th e leve l o f the
6 7P.7 1

r l standar d an d w e woul d lik e t o emphasiz e tha t w e canno t endors e a standar d an

ymor e stringen t than th e 0.2 0 gra m pe r gallo n fo r light-dut ygasolin e fuele d vehicles . W e woul d als o lik e t o commen t tha t the fina l rul e shoul d addres s onl yth e gasolin e fueled , light-dut y vehicles , no t trucks , no r vehicle s tha t ru n o n alternativ e fuels . W e thin

k an yapplicatio n o f thi s rul e t o light-dut y truck s woul d nee d a complet e regulator yimpac t analysi s tha t take s int o accoun t al l th e change d circumstance s tha t hav e occurre d sinc e the 198 7 proposa l an d the othe r document s tha t wer e publishe d b

yEP Ain 1991 . In it s 199 2 Federal

Register

Notice , EP

A state d tha t i t woul d be "irrational " t o pu t of f th e safet y assessmen t o f onboard system s t o reviewunde r Sectio n 202(a)(4 ) an d 202(a)(6 ) o f the Clea n Ai r Act . W e agre e tha t some assessmen t o f the safet yo f suc h system s need s t o be don e a s a par t o f th e EPA' s fina l rul e prio r t o th e effor t pu t fort h b y manufacturer s o n design o f vehicles . Wit h that , I' d like t o finis h m y statement . I' d b e happ yt o answe r an

yquestio n yo u migh t have . MR . WILSON : Than

k you . MR . GRAY : I gues s I a mcuriou s relativ e t o your reactio n t o the tes t procedur e optio n tha t ha s bee n outline d today , whethe r o r no t yo u an d your membe r companie s 6 8P.7 2

I 1 

## L J believ e tha t tha t wil l provid e greate r flexibilit yan d provid e includin

g the flexibilit yo f using a n integrate d systemi f th e manufacture r chos e tha t approach ? MR . DANA : I can sa ytha t tentativel yw e thin k so . Give n tha t w e heard th e fina l positio n o f thi s tes t procedure , I believe , yesterday , ther e reall yhasn' t bee n time t o coordinat e i t ver ycompletel ywit h al l m ymembers , bu t a t leas t o n it s surfac e i t seem s t o mov e in the righ t direction . MR . GRAY : Yo u thin k that' s a

n importan t objectiv e t o hav e a procedur e tha t woul d allowa n integrate d system s in a caniste r o f the same siz e nominall ya s th e evaporativ e system ? MR . DANA : Yes , w e do . MR . GRAY : Yo u thin k tha t i f tha t optio n wer e finalized , tha t tha t woul d dea l wit h a lo t o f th e safet y concern s tha t hav e bee n previousl yexpresse d regarding th e previou s proposal ? MR . DANA : I thin k w e woul d thin

k i t goe s in the righ t direction . I t certainl ygoe s a lon g wa ytoward s that . I thin

k w e stil l hav e concern s abou t someho wcorrecting th e record o n the safet yo f onboar d system s tha t came ou t o f EPA' s proposa l o r Notic e in the pas t t o no t g o forwar d wit h onboard . MR . GRAY : Whe n you say , correcting , wha t 6 9P.7 3

r i specificall yd o yo u mean ? I f yo u chang e th e tes t procedur e t o

allowmor e flexibilit yan d a particula r differen t system , ar e ther e — MR . DANA : I' mno t speaking o f th e tes t procedur e pe r se . I' mspeaking o f th e fac t tha t there' s stil l

a concer n tha t in th e decisio n no t t o g o forwar d in th e past , tha t ther e i s some statemen t o n th e record tha t w e thin k need s t o be solve d befor e w e ge t int o th e proces s o f designing an d building car s wit h onboar d systems . MR . GRAY : Again , d o yo u hav e anything mor e specifi c in term s of , there' s a lo t o f statement s in tha t record , a certai n aspec t o f it ? MR . DANA : I don' t hav e i t her e i n fron t o f m e t o quote , bu t again , I thin k th e genera l finding tha t wa s mad e b yth e Agenc ywa s tha t ther e wa s some concer n o f ligh t increase d ris k in safet ybecaus e o f thes e systems . I thin k w e jus t nee d t o se e something tha t somehowanswer s tha t in th e proces s o f thi s fina l rule , that' s all . MR . PASSAVANT : Greg , I' d lik e t o pursu e a coupl e o f th e same point s a s I di d wit h others . Yo u expresse d a concer n abou t the certificatio n timing an d s o on . Woul d you r membe r companies , eithe r nowo r fo r th e record , provid e u s wit h some inpu t a s t o howyou woul d suppor t o r participat e in a post fina l rul e proces s fo r resolvin g thes e safet yissue s tha t w e

7 0P.7 4



## L J talke d abou t i n term s o f th e Ma

y27t h Notice , w e lai d ou t a proces s in there , jus t t o si t dow n an d sor t some o f thi s stuf f out ? I t seem s t o m e tha t addresse s th e concern s yo u raised . MR . DANA : W e can addres s tha t in ou r writte n comments , MR . PASSAVANT : I' d als o like t o as k yo u t o pas s o n t o you r membe r companie s th e fac t tha t we' d lik e t o hav e comment s o n ou r document s in the docke t tha t lai d ou t th e cost s an

d benefit s o f onboar d fo r light-dut ytrucks . Similarly , i f w e wer e t o procee d wit h th e light-dut ytruc k an d heavy-dut y vehicl e implementation , we' d b e intereste d in getting you r organizatio n an

d your membe r companies ' perspective s o n leadtime an d phase-in . MR . DANA : A s I said , I haven' t ha d time t o coordinat e thos e kind s o f views . I thin k we' d be generall y supportiv e o f the view s alread yexpressed , bu t w e can certainl y answe r tha t i

n th e record .

MR . SILVERMAN : Jus t ou t o f curiosity , I thin k I remembe r in 1991 , i t wa s Toyota' s testimon ytha t they wer e contemplating a nonintegrate d system . D o yo u knowi f tha t apparentl yi s n o longe r unde r consideration , i s tha t right ? MR . DANA : Well , Toyot a doe s hav e a statemen t prepare d fo r today . I thin k you' d bes t as k themthat . MR . WILSON : Thank s ver ymuch . 7 1P.7 5

r i 

### L_ J Nex t i s th e America n Petroleu mInstitute . MR . O'KEEFE : Goo d morning ; m yname i s Bil l O'Keefe . I' mExecutiv e Vic e Presiden t o f th e America n Petroleu

mInstitute . I' mher e o n behal f o f API' s 30 0 membe r companie s t o testif yin suppor t o f EPA' s propose d rul e requiring onboar d vehicl e emissio n control s on light-dut yvehicles . Thi s hearing i s hopefull yth e las t installmen t in the long , agonizing historyo f th e rulemaking proces s fo r onboar d refueling vapo r controls , a histor yalmos t a s lon g a s EPA' s existence . I hav e personall ybee n involve d wit h thi s matte r fo r ove r te n years , th e las t si x o f whic h in connectio n wit h th e propose d rul e bein g discusse d today . I kat it' s normal , Dick , t o sa ytha t it' s a pleasur e t o be here , bu t unde r thos e circumstances , I' d wan t t o us e a differen t adjectiv e an d I' msur e yo u probabl ywoul d also . I mentio n thi s painfull ylon g histor

y an d wan t t o briefl yhighligh t i t fo r tw o reasons . First , i t demonstrate s howcontentiou s issue s can frustrat e rationa l decision-making a s wel l a s creat e a n incentiv e t o over-analyz e an d undei—decide . Second , becaus e thi s issu e ha s ha d suc h a contentiou s history , i t i s imperativ e tha t the Agenc yprocee d in a wa ytha t avoid s creating newopportunitie s fo r furthe r dela yan d tha t bring s thi s matte r t o conclusio n in accordanc e wit h th e recen t cour t decisio n an d settlemen t agreement . 7 2P.7 6

I 1 

### L J Onboar d vapo r recover ysystem s wil l efficiently , cost-effectivel yan d safel yreduc e gasolin e refueling vapo r emission s an d contribut e t o improve d ai r qualit y nationwide . Although thi s conclusio n ha s bee n challenged , i t i s firml ysupporte d b ya wealt h o f research , technica l dat a an d analyse s whic h hav e bee n a par t o f the EP Arecord fo r years . Originally , Congres s gav e EP Ath e dis

cretio n in 197 7 t o promulgat e th e rul e i f th e Administrato r foun d tha t i t wa s "feasibl e an d desireable " t o employsuc h technology . Although developmen t an d testing data , some o f whic h wa s availabl e in th e lat e 1970s , an d numerou s analyse s demonstrate d tha t onboar d control s wer e bot h feasibl e an d desireable , EP

Afaile d t o finaliz e it s 198 7 proposa l fo r suc h controls . I n amending th e Clean Ai r Ac t in 1990 , Congres s remove d Agenc ydiscretio n an d sai d EP

A"shal l .. . promulgat e standards " requiring onboar d control s o n light-dut y vehicle s afte r consultatio n wit h DOT . Tw o year s later , EP A reopene d the commen t perio d o n it s 198 7 proposal , bu t decline d t o issu e th e fina l rul e becaus e o f wha t w e conside r t o b e unpersuasiv e safet yconcern s raised b ythe Nationa l Highwa y Traffi c Safet yAdministration . W e strongl ydisagre e wit h EPA' s failur e t o ac t an

d s o di d th e D.C . Cour t o f Appeal s whic h ha s now
7 3P.7 7

r 1 

### i_ J ordere d EP At o issu e a rul e requiring onboard recover ysystems . A s I sai d a t th e outset , th e histor yo f thi s issu e i s a com pelling reaso n t o promulgat e thi s rul e promptl yan d in a wa

y tha t avoid s an

yfurthe r delay . T o me , thi s mean s issuin g a rul e wit h clea r an

d realisti c requirement s an d time schedules . Whil e i t i s alway s possibl e t o perfec t feature s o f a rul e o r design newones , thi s i s clearl ya situatio n wher e th e proces s shoul d be guide d b

yth e philosoph

ytha t the bes t shoul d no t b e th e enem yo f th e better . Th e Court' s decisio n require s tha t the rul e be issued withou t furthe r debat e abou t whethe r onboar d vehicl e control s resul t in a n "unquantifiabl e degradatio n in safety. " An

ysafet yissue s regarding onboar d refueling control s wil l be addresse d during the four-yea r leadtim e prio r t o implementatio n i

n mode l yea r 199 8 vehicles . We'v e heard some uniqu e interpretation s toda yo f wha t the Cour t said . Plai n languag e t o some i s obviousl yno t plai n languag e t o others . S o I' d lik e t o quot e fo r th e record some excerpt s o f th e Court' s decision . Quote , Th e statut e expressl yprovide s tha t EPA , quote , shal l promulgat e standard s afte r consultatio n wit h DOT , no t subjec t t o o r con ditione d upo n tha t consultation . No substantiv e resul t o f th e consultatio n i s comprehende d withi n th e tex t tha t migh t evis

cerat e EPA' s mandatorydut yt o promulgat e standards , N o 7 4P.7 8

I — ! i i determinatio n i s required , n o minima l standar d fo r safet yi s

articulate d an

d n o particula r measur e o r purpos e o f the consultatio n i s specified . Section s 206(a)(3)(a ) an d 202(a)(4 ) o f th e Ac t provid e fo r a late r certificatio n proces s t o ensur e tha t n o systemwil l be installe d in a n automobil e fo r sal e t o th e publi c unles s i t i s safe . However , th e safet yevaluatio n come s a t a late r stag e in the implementatio n th e emissio n contro l systems , unquote . Le t me nowturn t o th e majo r issue s EP A raise d in th e Ma

y27t h proposal . M ystatemen t toda

ywil l be supplemente d wit h detaile d comment s tha t w e wil l submi t fo r th e record . One , al l fue l type s shoul d be included , Ther e shoul d be n o exclusio n fo r non-gasolin e base d fue l systems , unles s i t can be demonstrate d tha t onboar d refueling vapo r contro l technologie s eithe r canno t be develope d o r ar e unnecessaryfor . suc h systems . Two , Californi a car s shoul d b e included . AP I support s requiring onboar d control s in newcar s sol d i n al l 5 0 states , including California . Vehicl e purchaser s in Californi a ar e entitle d t o th e same benefit s a s newca r pur chaser s in othe r states . Ther e i s n o rationa l basi s fo r exempting California , whic h mus t a t leas t mee t federa l stand

ards . Further , Californi a vehicle s can operat e in othe r state s

7 5P.7 9

r i an d be re-sol d outsid e o f California . Th e waive r grante d fo r the Californi a Lo w Emission s Vehicl e progra mthi s pas t Januar ydoe s no t waiv e onboar d requirement s in California . Onboar d standard s ha d no t bee n promulgate d whe n tha t waive r wa s granted . Afte r th e federa l onboard standar d i s promulgate d b yJanuar

y22 , 1994 , California' s emissio n standard s fo r mode l yea r 199 4 an d beyon d wil l no t b e "a s protectiv e in th e aggregate " a s th e federa l standards , unles s Californi a adopt s a n onboar d requirement . Sinc e Stag e I I i s no t a vehicle-base d control , i t canno t be considere d in determining whethe r California' s vehicl e emissio n standard s ar e "a s protective " a s federa l standards . Conse
quently , onboard vehicl e refueling control s mus t be include d o n Californi a vehicle s beginning in mode l yea r 1998 . Three , th e rul e shoul d no t be compromise d b ycoverag e o f al l vehicl e classes . Applying th e onboar d rul e t o al l vehicl e classe s i s a legitimat e exercis e o f EPA' s genera l rulemaking authorit yunde r Sectio n 202(a)(1) . Obviously , greate r benefit s ar e preferabl e t o fewer . However , expanding coverag e o f the rul e mus t no t in an ywa ydela yo r compromis e EPA' s mandatoryobligatio n unde r Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) t o promulgat e onboar d standard s fo r light-dut yvehicle s and , unde r th e recen t settlemen t agreement , t o promulgat e suc h standard s b yJanuar

y 22 , 1994 . Achieving tha t objectiv e mus t tak e precedenc e ove r

7 6P.8 0

I 1 i i others . Four , EPA' s propose d refueling tes t i s

acceptable . AP I believe s tha t automaker s shoul d be fre e t o choos e an

yo f th e option s propose d in Figur e 1 o f th e Ma y199 3 proposal . W e wil l evaluat e th e change s tha t wer e identifie d thi s morning . Th e refueling tes t ultimatel yrequire d shoul d b e realisti c an

d reasonabl e an

d designe d t o achiev e a n appropriat e leve l o f control . An d operating dat a shoul d be th e basi s fo r an ychange s i n tes t requirements . EP Arequeste d comment s o n incorporating a refueling tes t int o th e recentl ymodifie d tes t procedur e fo r evaporativ e emissio n control . Logica l inferenc e woul d lea d t o the conclusio n tha t a singl e tes t i s preferabl e t o multipl e tests . However , developing an d evaluating suc h a comprehensiv e procedur e coul d represen t a significan t undertaking . Promulga

tion o f the onboar d rul e b yJanuar

y199 4 shoul d no t be delaye d o r in an

ywa yjeopardize d b

ydevelopmen t o f a

n alternativ e tes t procedure , suc h a s a procedur e tha t measure s bot h refueling an d evaporativ e emissions . Thus , an ymodificatio n t o th e emissio n tes t procedur e t o incorporat e th e refueling tes t shoul d be a separat e rulemaking an d shoul d satisf yth e criteri a fo r ef

ficiency , cost-effectivenes s an d reasonableness . I n th e meantime , i t i s importan t tha t the tw o tes t procedure s be compatible , consisten t and , together , be realistic . 7 7P.8 1

r ~\ 

## I I Five , finally , an d mos t importantly , potentia l safet yissue s nee d no t be discusse d t o promulgatio n o f Congressionally , an d judicially , mandate d onboar d refueling controls . I f safet yissue s remain , theycan be resolve d through discussion s wit h EP Aan d NHTSAearl yon , wel l befor e certifica

tio n occur s in thre e o r fou r years . And , a s I urge d in 1991 , th e Nationa l Academ yo f Engineering shoul d be involve d in th e "hones t broker " rol e t o hel p resolv e technica l difference s o f opinion . Furthermore , onboar d refueling contro l systems , whethe r the

yar e canistei—base d o r us e a differen t technology , shoul d mee t the same federa l safet ystandard s a s othe r vehicl e systems . Inventing unnecessaril ystringen t safet ytest s fo r onboar d refueling contro l system s wil l no t keep the proces s on track , an

d n o convincing evidenc e exist s t o justif ythem .

Although question s abou t safet ywer e no t intende d t o be th e mai n focu s o f thi s hearing , I believ e comment s o n thi s subjec t ar e importan t sinc e i t i s th e reaso n tha t EP Adecline d t o issu e a rul e in 1991 , an d safet yha s bee n raise d severa l time s thi s morning . Ou r suppor t fo r onboar d refueling system s an d m yemphasi s o n publishing a rul e tha t complie s wit h the cour t decisio n an d settlemen t agreemen t doe s no t reflec t a disregard o f safety . I f ther e wa s an yconvincing evidenc e tha t onboar d refueling control s woul d be unsafe , w e wouldn' t advocat e them . Indeed , it' s precisel ybecaus e w e hav e
7 8P.8 2

I 1 I i spen t ove r a decad e developing , building an d testing prototypes , conducting engineering studie s an d studying vehicl e recal l an d acciden t statistics , tha t w e remai n strong advocate s fo r onboar d controls . Th e technolog yi s no t newo r complicated . Fo r canister-base d systems , i t represent s a simpl e expansio n o f the evaporativ e emissio n contro l systems . Million s o f existing vehicle s ar e equippe d wit h evaporativ e contro l canisters , an d n o evidenc e exist s tha t theypresen t a n unreasonabl e safet y risk . Thi s conclusio n i s reinforce d b yanalysi s o f recal l data , safet yreport s an

d NHTSA' s dat a o f crash-relate d fires , whic h hav e bee n steadil ydeclining fo r almos t two decades . Demonstratio n vehicle s equippe d wit h refueling canisters , bot h earl yan d mor e advance d prototypes , hav e bee n drive n fo r ten s o f thousand s o f mile s unde r norma l roa d conditions . In n o instanc e hav e thes e vehicle s create d a n unreasonabl e safet yrisk . A s I pointe d ou t in 1991 , ther e ar e reason s wh

yonboar d system s can enhanc e vehicl e safety : eliminating th e "externa l ven t line " improve s cras h integrity ; reducing tan

k pressur e reduce s the ris k o f fue l escaping through a break in th e fue l systemfro man ycause ; an

d refueling can ister s can b e move d ou t o f th e engin e compartmen t an d positione d i n safe r locations . 7 9P.8 3

r i Although ther e wer e a lo t o f assertion s

abou t the safet yo f canister-base d refueling control s tw o year s ago , an d theyhav e bee n repeate d extensivel ytoday , EP Arecentl y observe d tha t n o one , no t automakers , NHTSAo r aut o safet y consultants , raised a concer n abou t safet yduring EPA' s recen t evaporativ e emissio n contro l rulemaking . Enhance d evaporativ e system s ar e likel yt o involve large r canister s an d lin e size s an d be mor e comple x than curren t systems . Going froma n enhance d evaporativ e systemt o a refueling systemwil l be a modes t an

d incremental , no t radical , change .

Pu t in perspective , refueling caniste r technolog

yha s undergon e mor e than 1 5 year s o f research , developmen t an

d testing an

d bee n studie d b

yfedera l agencie s an d privat e contractors . Question s raise d hav e bee n question s answered . Moreover , a s w e hav e see n today , imaginativ e mind s can alway s construc t newquestion s an d issues . However , onc e a rul e i s issued , automaker s wil l stil l hav e fou r mor e year s t o refin e an

d perfec t th e technology , addressing an ynewissue s tha t migh t develop . Th e time ha s come t o brin g thi s matte r t o a conclusio n an

d en d th e cycl e o f prolonge d debat e an d delay . Congres s sai d issu e th e rule . Th e Cour t o f Appeal s sai d tha t Congres s di d indeed sa yissu e the rule . Tw o year s ago , m

yfina l commen t wa s tha t th e Agenc yshoul d ge t o n wit h it . Januar y22 , 199 4 i s onl ysi x 8 0P.8 4



# n l i month s away . Tha t shoul d be mor e than adequat e tim e i f th e time i s use d wisely . questions , Than k you , an

d I' d be gla

d t o answe r an

y

MR . WILSON : Than

k yo u ver

ymuc h fo r tha t testimony . Th e onl yquestio n I ha d was , d o yo u hav e a reactio n t o the discussio n earlie r abou t change s t o the jus t slightl y adjuste d tes t procedur e an d howtha t woul d affec t — MR . O'KEEFE : W e wil l evaluat e thos e an d theywil l b e par t o f our comment . Having jus t see n themtoday , w e haven' t ha

d time . MR . GRAY : I have on e questio n abou t some o f th e earlie r discussio n regarding Stag e I I equipment , firs t wit h respec t t o seriou s an d sever e area s tha t woul d b e imple

menting suc h equipmen t in th e optio n in th e Ac t fo r thos e area s t o a t some poin t in th e futur e conside r discontinuing tha t requiremen t whe n sufficien t vehicle s equippe d wit h onboar d control s ar e in place . What' s your perspectiv e o n th e main

tenanc e costs , I think , wa s on e characterizatio n o f wha t woul d be save d in eliminating the Stag e I I equipmen t in thos e areas ? D o yo u sens e tha t ther e woul d be a rea l interes t o n th e par t o f fue l retailer s an

d tru e savings , o r d o yo u thin k it' s a margina l savings ? Coul d you expan d upo n what' s reall yinvolve d here ? MR . O'KEEFE : Yes , I will . Mos t gasolin e 8 1P.8 5

r i station s ar e owne d b ysmal l businessmen . It' s no t th e Exxo n an d Mobil e an

d Texaco , s o they'r e smal l busines s people . I f you look a t th e margin s o f gasolin e i n recen t years , they'r e ver y thin . The fac t tha t the capita l cost s hav e bee n incurre d neglect s th e fac t tha t in a ver ycompetitiv e environment , an d it' s clea r th e gasolin e marke t i s ver ycompetitive , thos e dealer s hav e t o fin d a wa yt o ear n enough t o pa ybac k thos e loans . Two , th e maintenanc e cost s ar e in the vicinit yo f $1,50 0 pe r pum p pe r year , s o that' s a n ongoing cost . An d if , a s ha s bee n evidence d in California , you g o through multipl e genera tions , yo u ma

yen d u p replacing the systembefor e it s usefu l 1ifetime . S o the fac t tha t thos e cost s hav e alread y bee n incurred , they'r e sunk . It' s a n ongoing cos t o f whethe r thes e peopl e wil l be abl e t o mak e sufficien t margin s t o pa ythe maintenanc e costs , t o repai r hose s tha t hav e hole s in them , upgrad e the

m o r ultimatel yreplac e th e system . S o I thin k al l thes e dealer s certainl ywoul d lik e t o avoi d an yunnecessarycos t an d wit h th e installatio n o f onboar d controls , whic h i s a superio r technology , there' d be n o justificatio n fo r themt o bea r tha t burden . MR . GRAY : Eve n some o f your membe r companie s hav e been ver yinnovativ e wit h respec t t o advancing the technolog

yfo r Stag e I I contro l t o smaller , integrate d vapo r 8 2P.8 6



### L J return lines , s o t o speak , s o there' s a singl e hos e now , instead

o f two hose s a s the origina l version s generall ywere , an d wit h some suggestio n of , I think , o f improve d reliabilit yan d seale d fitting s an

d tha t sor t o f thing . I thin k you als o agree d tha t i t wa s a goo d poin t tha t a substantia l amoun t o f th e capita l investmen t woul d be sun k wit h the initia l installatio n an d certainl yplumbing unde r concret e an d wit h the tankage . D o yo u anticipat e an

yo f tha t having an ymor e maintenanc e than woul d be associate d wit h the othe r plumbing fo r the liqui d flow ? I t i s principall ya maintenanc e issu e o f the above-groun d equipment ? MR . O'KEEFE : W e don' t hav e an ydat a o n the maintenanc e cos t o f thos e system s an d whethe r the frequenc y ha s increased . I thin k what' s importan t i s tha t ther e ar e provision s tha t area s can eithe r avoi d mandating Stag e I I o r the ycan avoi d continuing it s existenc e afte r thi s rulemaking goe s int o effect . An d ther e ar e area s tha t currentl yd o no t fal l int o the non-attainmen t are a tha t ma ybe marginal . Thes e system s wil l ensure , wil l hel p keep the min attainment , an d i f the yslip , the n wil l avoi d the mhaving t o g o the directio n o f
a n inferio r technology . • It' s clea r tha t the onboar d control s ar e mor e cost-effective . There' s alway s the problemo f the market

plac e fo r smal l dealer s wh o ar e a t th e edg e o f a non-attainmen t
8 3P.8 7

r " i 

### i i area . I thin k w e se e thi s in Washington , wher e Washington , D.C . ha s Stag e II . Theydon' t hav e i t in Virgini a ye t o r Montgomery County . Yo u se e difference s in pric e an d peopl e wil l g o there , s o i t put s thos e dealer s a t the edg e a t a ver ycompetitiv e disadvantage . MR . GRAY : I thin k the earlie r discussio n focuse d on th e questio n o f th e onboar d regulation s als o including ligh t truck s an d th e issu e tha t i f i t di d not , ther e coul d be ver

ysignifican t ai r qualit yimpact s associate d wit h thos e vehicle s i f in area s tha t ma yhav e previousl yha d Stag e II , i f th e Stag e I I requiremen t wa s removed , an d that' s wh

yth e questio n o f th e ongoing cos t o r th e maintenanc e cos t become s a fai r poin t t o be raise d in th e proces s o f deliberating abou t th e appropriatenes s an d timing , I guess , a s wel l o f a truck' s requirement . S o reall yfollowing u p in a seriou s wa

yabou t tha t analysis , I thin

k i f you coul d suppl ysome additiona l detai l fo r your estimat e o f $1,50 0 pe r pum p pe r year , fo r example , tha t woul d be ver

yhelpful . MR . O'KEEFE : Well , we'l l tr yan d provid e whateve r additiona l informatio n w e have . Wit h some o f thes e improvements , they'r e proprietarysystem s an d the companie s don' t giv e u s th e dat a o n thei r cos t o f maintenanc e an d upkeep . Bu t I thin

k th e issu e i s on e o f lookin g a t the contex t o f th e margin , the cos t o_ f extending fro

mlight

8 4P.8 8



# n L J dutyvehicle s t o truck s an d taking a technolog yan d modifying it . A t thi s poin t w e don' t hav e an ydat a on wha t tha t cos t woul d be , becaus e al l o f ou r researc h an d analyse s hav e deal t wit h automobile s an d you hav e t o compar e tha t agains t wha t th e margina l cos t woul d b e o f Stag e I I tha t migh t expan d int o area s tha t ar e no t nowcovere d b yth e Clea n Ai r Act . Ther e ar e some area s tha t hav e installe d tha t becaus e they'r e wanting t o reduc e exposur e t o potentia l ai r toxics . Ther e ar e th e moderat e area s whic h d o no t hav e t o instal l Stag e I I an d the Agency' s indicate d tha t wit h thi s rulemaking , i t wouldn' t enforc e thei r no t failing t o d o that . S o ther e ar e a lo t o f variable s you' d hav e t o look a t an d using the onboar d system , whic h clearl yth e record demonstrate s i s superior , ough t t o be the guiding factor . I s i t superior , i s i t mor e effective , doe s i t involve les s enforcemen t an d maintenanc e an

d doe s i t provid e benefit s al l ove r in attainmen t an d non-attainment s an d improve

ment s in th e ai r quality , keeping area s s o tha t theycan grow a s oppose d t o ru

n the ris k tha t they'l l g o int o non-attainment . Al l argument s tha t sugges t onc e thi s technolog yi s in plac e tha t i t can b e considere d fo r othe r vehicle s an d tha t tha t migh t be preferabl e t o seeing area s g o the rout e o f a mor e costly , les s effectiv e an

d no t a s superio r technology . I don' t knowi f that' s responsive . 8 5P.8 9

r i i MR . GRAY : I thin k i t doe s re-summariz e the concep t o f needing t o look a t th e benefit s a s wel l a s th e cos t o f th e discretionaryapplicatio n o f a requiremen t o n ligh t trucks . Ake

ypar t o f tha t analysi s woul d be , what' s th e likelihoo d o f a

n are a no t continuing th e requiremen t onc e th e populatio n o f vehicle s wer e substantiall yequippe d wit h onboar d control . An

d on e consideratio n tha t shoul d b e importan t woul d be , ho wmuc h doe s i t cos t t o maintai n th e Stag e I I equipmen t fo r whateve r vehicle s migh t no t be covered . Fo r example , in thi s issue , i f light-dut ytruck s wer e no t covere d o r heavy-dut y truck s wer e no t covered , ther e woul d continu e t o be a fairl y substantia l benefi t o f maintaining Stag e II . Th e othe r alternativ e i s t o hav e onboar d equipmen t o n thos e vehicle s an d tha t woul d impos e a nationwid e cos t tha t woul d hav e benefit s in certai n area s an d w e can asses s those . Bu t in putting the whol e analysi s together , I thin k i t would , again , be ver yhelpfu l t o look t o yo u an d your companie s a s yo u shoul d hav e th e bes t experienc e availabl e o n wha t woul d be a reasonabl e projectio n o f thi s maintenanc e cost . MR . O'KEEFE : W e wil l pu t in th e record al l th e informatio n w e can gathe r an d analyz e in th e perio d o f tim e that' s available . Bu t in additio n t o th e maintenanc e cost s tha t the deale r incurs , there' s the cos t o f inspectio n an d
8 6P.9 0



### r" > L J enforcement . I thin k everybody' s see n th e differenc e in th e effectivenes s o f the system s in Californi a wher e there' s heav y enforcemen t an

d inspection , th e effectivenes s in area s wher e that' s no t th e case . S o par t o f th e cos t o f Stag e I I i s als o th e cos t tha t th e citie s bea r b yhaving t o inspec t an d enforc e tha t system . MR . GRAY : I jus t woul d als o as k i f yo u coul d mak e a

n estimat e o f th e saving s associate d wit h th e retentio n o f vapor s a t th e station ? Ther e i s some saving s in the amoun t o f fue l tha t otherwis e woul d be lost , an d mak e a

n estimat e o f that . MR . O'KEEFE : I thin k w e go t tha t fro

m pas t analyses . MR . PASSAVANT : I hav e a coupl e o f things ; fro myour statement , jus t t o mak e sur e I understan d it , yo u d o suppor t onboar d vapo r recover yfo r light-dut ytruck s an d heavy

dutyvehicle s absen t th e concer n abou t delaying th e rul e fo r some reason , i s tha t wha t you'r e saying ? MR . O'KEEFE : Wha t I sai d wa s tw o things ; one , mor e benefit s ar e obviousl ybette r than fewer . Th e Agency ha s tha t withi n it s genera l rulemaking authority . W e hav e neve r don e a complet e analysi s o r a n analysi s o f the extensio n o f that , s o I' mno t reall yin a positio n t o commen t o n it , excep t you d o hav e the authority . M yconcer n an

d ou r concer n i s tha t 8 7P.9 1

r i i f yo u exercis e that , tha t i t no t in an ywa yjeopardiz e going forward wit h the rulemaking that' s require d b yJanuaryo f nex t year . MR . PASSAVANT : Th e secon d questio n goe s bac k t o your oftentime s referenc e t o th e 199 1 testimony . A t tha t time , I thin k Exxo n researc h an d engineering , unde r contrac t wit h yo u guys , wa s finishing u p some wor k o n a non canister-base d systeman d w e ha

d asked , I ha

d aske d a t tha t time , tha t yo u provid e u s wit h an yinformatio n yo u had o n th e result s o f tha t an

d I don' t believ e tha t informatio n eve r came forth . MR . O'KEEFE : I f I remembe r correctly , w e ha d don e a littl e bi t o f work on that . Wha t Exxo n had don e a littl e bi t o f wor k o n wa s a ne wabsorben t materia l tha t wa s a substitut e fo r charcoal , tha t in some o f thei r analyse s suggest s you migh t be abl e t o us e thi s materia l insid e th e gasolin e tank . I wil l g o bac k t o theman d se e wha t dat a the yhav e o n it , bu t I believ e that' s wha t you'r e referring to . MR . PASSAVANT : That' s righ t an d it' s sor t o f in th e spiri t o f wha t Genera l Motor s wa s asking u s abou t earlie r today . MR . O'KEEFE : W e wil l includ e whateve r informatio n the

yhav e an

d an yadditiona l work sinc e the n o n new absorben t materia l tha t migh t affec t caniste r size . 8 8P.9 2

I 1 i i MR . FREED : Yo u sugges t in you r testimon y tha t th e Californi a progra mshoul d be include d in the federa l rul e an d not e tha t California' s waiver s fo r thei r progra mwil l be a t jeopard

yunles s it' s included . Wil l you , whe n yo u respon d fo r th e record , pleas e giv e u s you r assessmen t a s t o wh yth e Californi a progra

mwil l b e judge d les s protectiv e unles s thi s rul e i s extende d t o California ? MR . O'KEEFE : Yes , w e will . MR . FREED : Yo u als o not e tha t unless , yo u say , the rul e i s extende d b y1994 , tha t protectivenes s deter

mination , yo u imply , woul d hav e t o b e reversed . Sinc e ther e wil l be a numbe r o f year s tha t wil l exis t withou t thi s rul e being in effect , woul d you als o indicat e whethe r you'r e suggesting tha t immediat e actio n be taken , an d i f so , wha t analysi s woul d suppor t tha t actio n t o revers e an yCaliforni a waivers ? MR . O'KEEFE : We'l l provid e a complet e analysi s o f ou r position . I thin k the mai n poin t I woul d lik e t o mak e i s tha t car s i n Californi a operat e beyon d Californi a borders . They'r e resol d t o peopl e wh o ma yno t live in Californi a an

d I don' t thin

k tha t ther e i s a logi c fo r assuming tha t th e waive r give n fo r the LE V extend s t o standard s tha t hav e neve r bee n promulgated . I f you followtha t logi c t o a con clusion , i t woul d sugges t tha t the waiver s originall ygive n t o
8 9P.9 3

r i Californi a di d no t need t o be change d and , therefore , ther e wa s

n o reaso n t o giv e a waive r fo r th e LE V becaus e the

yha d a waive r in perpetuity . W e wil l buil d o n tha t point , bu t tha t wa s th e basi c rational e behin d m ycomments . MR . FREED : An

d finally , wit h regard t o whethe r w e shoul d tak e int o accoun t non-mobil e environmenta l control s like Stag e I I whe n w e d o a n assessmen t o f th e pro tectivenes s determinatio n fo r California , yo u sugges t w e shoul d not . Woul d you provid e u s wit h you r lega l rational e a s t o wh y Stag e I I shoul d no t be considere d whe n w e arriv e a t tha t determination ? MR . O'KEEFE : I wil l d o that . I' mno t a lawyer , bu t m

yunderstanding i s tha t it' s vehicle-base d standard s an

d there' s histor

ytha t ha s ha

d a dichotom

ybetwee n th e vehicl e an

d Stag e I I a t th e station , but , yes , w e will .

MR . FREED : Than

k you . MR . SILVERMAN : Wit h regard t o th e Californi a waiver , that' s no t automaticall yreopene d o f course . Ar e yo u indicatin

g you migh t fil e a petitio n t o hav e i t re opened ? MR . O'KEEFE : I wouldn' t wan t t o sa ythat . I wante d t o mak e th e observatio n tha t w e thin k tha t your rule

making shoul d exten d t o California , an d two , tha t th e existing wavie r doe s no t exemp t themfro mthat . Whe n w e se e howyo u g o
9 0P.9 4

I 1 

### I i forward wit h the rulemaking , we'l l mak e a judgmen t abou t wha t

t o d o an

d whethe r some actio n i s calle d for .

MR . SILVERMAN : An

d wit h regard t o mode l year , I tak e i t it' s your vie wtha t i f w e promulgat e a rul e in January , 1994 , tha t woul d be th e '9 4 mode l yea r fo r purpose s o f leadtime ? MR . O'KEEFE : Yes . MR . WILSON : I thin k that' s all . Than k you . I thin

k we'l l d o on e mor e befor e lunch . Nex t i s Toyota .

MR . KEVNICK : Hello , m yname i s Mat t Kevnick . There' s on e smal l correction . I wil l be giving th e testimon

ya s oppose d t o what' s listed o n th e agenda . Ed ha s agree d t o shuffl e the overheads , s o I appreciat e that . I' mrepresenting Toyot a Technica l Cente r o f An n Arbor . Wit h m e toda yfro mTT C als o i s Mr . Takeuch i an d representing Toyot a Moto r Corporatio n i s Mr . Morimitsu' , Manage r o f Researc h an

d Developmen t o f Toyot a Moto r Corporatio n in Japan . On behal f o f Toyota , I' d lik e t o presen t ou r comment s wit h respec t t o thi s ORV R propose d rule . A s show

n on thi s outline , our comment s wil l consis t o f a genera l introductio n an d commen t wit h regard s t o th e implementatio n schedul e fo r ORVR . Tes t procedur e comment s wil l consis t o f the optio n B 1 an d a n ide a fro

mToyot a o n an abbreviate d tes t sequenc e an d howi t applie s t o th e

9 1P.9 5

r i integrate d systeman d nonintegrate d system , an d the n w e woul d lik e t o respon

d t o othe r issue s whic h includ e partia l refueling , constan t purg e an

d puf f loss . I' d lik e t o stat e Toyota' s genera l positio n wit h regard s t o th e ORV R regulation . Whil e Toyot a recognize s the healt h an d environmenta l benefit s associate d wit h the contro l o f gasolin e an d refueling vapors , Toyot a believes , a s w e hav e state d previously , tha t Stag e I I provide s a safe r contro l methodolog

yfo r accomplishing thi s means . Sinc e th e safet yissu e remains , Toyot a think s tha t th e ORV R regulatio n shoul d be develope d t o minimiz e th e safet yconcern . Therefore , i t i s ou r positio n tha t implementatio n o f ORV R mus t procee d cautiousl yan

d judiciousl yin a manne r whic h addresse s safet y whil e providing adequat e leadtime an d vehicl e phase-i n considerations . EP Aha s requeste d comment s regarding implementatio n o f ORVR . Toyot a feel s that , first , i n orde r t o addres s th e limite d opportunit yfo r incorporating ORV R ont o lo

w sale s volume vehicl e model s an exemptio n be allowe d fo r thes e type s o f vehicles . Secondly , wit h regard t o the extensio n o f ORV R applicatio n beyon d light-dut yvehicles , Toyot a believe s tha t thi s issu e shoul d b e considere d afte r issuanc e o f the LD V ORV R fina l rule , primaril ydu e t o time concerns . I n additio n t o providing some relie f t o manufacturers ' resources , thi s 9 2P.9 6



# n l_ j consideratio n woul d ensur e effectiveness , integrit yand , abov e

all , th e safet yo f ORV R systemapplicatio n t o light-dut ytruc k an d heavy-dut yvehicles . A t thi s time , I' d lik e t o direc t ou r comment s t o th e tes t procedur e issues . First , Toyot a feel s tha t th e purpos e o f th e tes t shoul d be t o verif ydesign integrit yan d systemperformance . Secondly , t o addres s th e resourc e burden , test s shoul d be capabl e o f evaluating refueling emission , eithe r independentl yo r in conjunctio n wit h eva p an d tailpip e emissio n measurement . Thirdly , t o permi t design flexibilit yin ad

dressing safet yconcerns , th e tes t procedur e shoul d b e simple , ye t effective , an

d conside r rea l worl d typ e conditions . An d fourthly , sinc e th e refueling tes t procedur e itsel f ha s bee n unde r consideratio n fo r some time , i t i s mos t importan t a t thi s poin t t o conside r the manne r in whic h caniste r preconditioning woul d be treate d fo r ORV R tests . Thi s char t depict s the time require d fo r completio n o f th e tes t proposal s tha t EP Aha s describe d in th e Federal Register. Toyot a think s tha t i t i s unreasonabl e t o requir e suc h a time-consuming an d complicate d tes t procedur e in orde r t o accomplis h caniste r preconditioning an d vehicl e stabilizatio n befor e th e refueling test . Toyot a feel s tha t th e ORV R tes t coul d be simplifie d fro mthe four da

ylengt h withou t compromising the testing integrity . W e woul d lik e t o now 9 3P.9 7

r i addres s our preference s on howthi s migh t be accomplished . O f the option s provided , Toyot a think s tha t th e EP

AOptio n B 1 woul d be preferable , provide d tha t some modificatio n be permitted . Thi s i s a diagra mtha t wa s provide d in th e Federal

Register. Thes e modification s t o B 1 woul d addres s caniste r preconditioning , specificall yt o conside r vapo r loadin g an d caniste r purg e representing rea l worl d condition s an d als o t o alleviat e th e tes t time burden . Befor e I discus s Toyota' s ide a o n thes e modifications , I' d like t o provide , fo r referenc e purposes , a n estimatio n o f the caniste r conditio n a t eac h phas e o f th e EP A B 1 tes t procedure . Th e B 1 tes t sequenc e i s show n o n th e lef t side . Th e step s abov e the shade d ORV R tes t ar e considere d t o b e preconditioning befor e th e actua l refueling test . Th e caniste r preconditioning o f cours e i s a tw o gra mt o breakthrough loadin g condition . Toyota' s proposa l woul d conside r a shorte r tes t sequenc e whic h woul d provid e a simila r severit yfo r caniste r load , whic h i s show n unde r th e loa

d condition , an

d on e whic h i s mor e representativ e o f actua l event s tha t occu r in th e rea l world , Thi s figur e show s EPA' s Optio n B 1 o n th e lef t an d group s i t according t o thre e categorie s unde r Loading , Purging an

d Vehicl e Setup . On the righ t sid e i s Toyota' s proposa l whic h contain s the following ke ypoints . Unde r

9 4P.9 8

I 1 L J Loading , a preferabl e loadin g o f th e thre e da ydiurna l equivalent , whic h w e believ e i s the mos t sever e conditio n o f th e rea l worl d situation , woul d b e followe d b ya shor t UDD S cycl e o r prep cycle , followe d b yloadin

g fro ma 9 5 percen t refueling event . Following tha t woul d b e th e purg e portio n wher e benc h purging woul d b e accomplished . Th e purg e volume woul d b e determine d b

yusin g th e purg e rat e a s define d b yth e running los s tes t driving sequence . Following tha t i s the vehicl e set up , whic h i s reall yno t muc h chang e fro m the EP AB 1 option . I' d lik e t o tak e a momen t an d explai n th e rational e tha t wa s used fo r developing thi s Toyot a proposal . First , becaus e o f the design o f th e enhance d eva p test , purging abilit yi s alread

ysufficientl yevaluate d in thi s procedure , s o the provisio n t o us e benc h purging shoul d be reasonabl yaccept able . Secondly , in consideratio n o f th e ORV R abbreviate d tes t sequence , loadin

g o f the caniste r during preconditioning an d evaluatio n o f vapo r captur e performanc e wer e determine d t o b e th e mos t importan t parameter s fo r thi s test . Thirdly , th e vapo r loadin g i s t o b e don e b

yactua l refueling process . I n particu

lar loadin

g th e caniste r t o 1. 5 time s working capacit yi s terme d t o be ver

yunrealistic . Toyot a feel s tha t th e ORV R system design coul d be compromise d wit h thes e type s o f loadin g requirements . Whil e providing a representativ e leve l o f
9 5P.9 9

r i stringenc yt o EPA' s B 1 proposal , th e Toyot a proposa l can als o

be accomplishe d withi n a 2 4 hou r time period , a s show n here . Ye t th e Toyot a proposa l provide s caniste r loadin g mor e repre sentativ e o f rea l worl d conditions , a s oppose d t o th e un realisti c loadin

g procedure s nowunde r consideration . T o suppor t ou r contentio n tha t th e curren t caniste r loadin

g condition s d o no t duplicat e rea l worl d situa

tions , I' d like t o provid e thi s figur e whic h simulate s th e rea l worl d tri p patter n an d caniste r load . Th e lef t side , whic h i s labeled Norma l Condition , represent s a frequen t drive r wh o use s hi s vehicl e ever

yday . A7. 5 mil e approximatio n wa s mad e here . W e can se e tha t unde r the colum n labele d Vapo r Load , the caniste r i s almos t alway s purge d an d certainl yneve r achieve s th e breakthrough o r 1. 5 time s working capacit yloaded state , whic h i s show

n b yth e dotte d line . Th e righ t sid e o f thi s figur e i s a ver

ysever e conditio n an d on e tha t i s representativ e o f th e eva

p procedure , thre e da ydiurnal , plu s a refueling event . Eve n unde r thi s scenario , th e caniste r loa d o f a n en hance d eva

p systemwoul d neve r achiev e thes e type s o f loadings .

Justificatio n fo r th e us e o f benc h purg e in our proposa l i s offere d here . Thi s char t compare s th e vapo r desorptio n characteristic s o f activate d carbo n caniste r sub

jecte d t o bot h vehicl e purg e an d benc h purge . Sinc e desorptio n characteristic s ar e dependen t upo n purg e ai r volume in actua l

9 6P. 1



### I — ! 

### I I vehicles , ther e i s n o differenc e in desorptio n characteristic s

betwee n an integrate d systemdesign an d a nonintegrate d system design . W e can se e als o tha t th e benc h ai r flowpurg e rat e o f 7. 5 Bed Volume s pe r minut e yield s th e same desorptio n effec t tha t wa s provide d b yon-vehicl e purging . Therefore , benc h purging can easil ysimulat e vehicl e driv e purg e conditions . Thi s figur e depict s th e Toyot a abbreviate d sequenc e proposa l fo r a n integrate d systemdesign an d provide s a n illustratio n agai n o f th e caniste r loadin g condition . Th e sequenc e an

d rational e ar e a s follows . Loading th e caniste r t o a thre e da

ydiurna l equivalen t level , subjecting the n th e vehicl e t o on e LE- 4 cycl e t o simulat e driving t o maybe , say , a refueling station , followe d b yloadin

g the caniste r agai n b ya refueling ; thi s woul d be th e maximu mloaded conditio n tha t woul d be produced . Disconnecting th e caniste r t o allowbenc h purging , again , purg e volume define d b ythe B 1 runnin

g los s tes t driving cycl e equivalen t an d the n subjecting th e vehicl e t o soak ; o n completio n o f thi s phase , reconnectio n o f th e caniste r an d performing the refueling tes t woul d the n commence . A s mentione d previously , thi s procedur e can be don e in a 2 4 hou r time period . Fro mth e caniste r simulatio n tha t i s illustrate d here , i t can be see n tha t thi s i s a s sever e o f a loadin g pattern tha t exist s fo r thi s sequenc e a s wa s containe d in th e estimatio n fo r th e B 1 sequence . 9 7P. 2

r i i I Similarly , th e abbreviate d sequenc e can

be applie d t o a nonintegrate d system . Th e sequenc e an d rational e follow s in th e same manne r a s I hav e previousl y describe d fo r a

n integrate d system . Again , th e sequenc e can b e don e i n a 2 4 hou r time perio d in caniste r loading condition , whic h i s representativ e fo r th e refueling canister s provide d her e in th e Loa

d Conditio n column . Taking thi s abbreviate d sequenc e proposa l on e step further , thi s char t show s howth e enhance d evap tes t sequenc e coul d be modifie d t o provid e consisten t an d mor e realisti c caniste r loadin g throughou t th e tes t sequenc e whil e offering a reductio n in tes t time t o les s than on e week . I n addition , thi s procedur e provide s the opportunit yt o evaluat e evaporative , exhaus t an d refueling emission s in on e continuou s sequenc e o r coul d provid e a singl e ORV R tes t sequence . Th e modification s consis t o f the treatmen t o f caniste r precondi

tioning an

d loadin

g an d purging a s well . NowI' d lik e t o addres s othe r issue s tha t wer e raise d in EPA' s Notice . Partia l refueling , Toyot a believe s tha t EPA' s consideratio n o f a partia l refueling requiremen t fo r nonintegrate d systemin orde r t o ensur e ORV R system s hav e adequat e design margi n i s reall yno t necessary . Vapo r genera tio n fromrefueling increase s linearl yin proportio n t o th e amoun t o f fue l tha t i s consume d fro mthe numbe r o f cycle s

9 8P. 3

I 1 driven , whic h i s show n o n th e bottomaxis . On th e othe r hand , the desorptio n characteristic s o f the caniste r chang e expo nentiall ya s show

n b yth e curve d line . Th e differenc e betwee n the desorptio n o f th e caniste r an d th e amoun t o f refueling vapo r generatio n i s th e caniste r working capacit ymargin . Thi s margi n i s smalles t in the cas e o f a ful l refueling tes t a s show n o n th e fa r righ t sid e o f thi s graph . Therefore , w e sugges t tha t any thing othe r than a ful l refueling tes t woul d no t b e a n effectiv e us e o f time . Regarding a constan t purg e requirement , Toyot a i s ver

yconcerne d abou t EPA' s consideratio n o f thi s requiremen t fo r nonintegrate d systems . EP Asuggest s tha t i

n orde r t o preclud e a

n inappropriat e purg e strategy , thi s constan t purg e woul d be require d during eac h UDD S cycle . Toyot a doe s no t thin k tha t thi s requiremen t woul d be reasonable . Manufacturer s mus t hav e the abilit yt o modif yo r reduc e the purg e rat e in orde r t o minimiz e th e impac t o f purging o f refueling vapor s o n tailpip e emission s i f suc h a system wer e used . T o requir e constan t purg e woul d presen t a formidabl e challeng e t o non integrate d system

design . Toyot a believe s tha t th e purg e shoul d be manage d fro

mth e span o f on e refueling even t t o anothe r in orde r t o minimiz e th e impac t o f emissio n interaction . Wit h regard s t o puf f loss , fo r contro l o f evaporativ e emission s during ca p removal , eithe r puf f los s o r 9 9P. 4



### ri fue l tan k pressur e requirement s can be equall yeffective , in Toyota' s assessment . I f puf f los s i s t o be require d a s par t o f the ORV R regulation , th e tan k pressur e requiremen t become s redundan t an

d shoul d be eliminated . I n addition , Toyot a believe s tha t fo r a systemdesigne d t o reliev e tan k pressur e befor e th e ca

p i s open , eithe r requiremen t woul d b e unnecessary .

Wit h regard s t o ou r positio n o n selectiv e enforcemen t audit , t o requir e SHE D fo r selectiv e enforcemen t audi t woul d be a significan t burde n t o manufacturers . Toyot a feel s tha t SEAtesting i s no t necessarysinc e ORV R performanc e i s decide d b

ysystemdesign .

I n conclusion , Toyot a recommend s tha t pruden t an

d carefu l consideratio n b e give n t o ORV R imple

mentatio n phase-i n through the following : considering light-dut y truc k an

d heavy-dut yvehicl e implementatio n independentl yan d allowing a

n ORV R exemptio n fo r smal l sale s volume vehicl e models ; secondly , establishing th e ORV R tes t sequenc e wit h the following modification , A , t o accep t th e caniste r loadin g conditio n o f thre e da ydiurna l loa

d equivalen t plu s on e driv e cycle , plu s a 9 5 percen t refue l loading , and , B , t o allo wthe us e o f benc h purging instead o f actua l vehicl e driving . Thirdly , EP

Ashoul d conside r modificatio n t o the enhance d evaporativ e emissio n tes t procedur e fo r vehicle s designe d wit h a n integrate d ORV

R system . Caniste r loadin g requirement s woul d

10 0P. 5

be consisten t wit h th e ORV R recommendation s tha t w e hav e provided . Than k yo u ver

ymuch , an

d we' d be happ

yt o addres s an

yquestions . MR . WILSON : Than k yo u ver

ymuch . MR . GRAY : I hav e a questio n firs t o f al l abou t th e shor t tes t procedure , abbreviate d tes t procedur e proposa l tha t yo u jus t made . A s yo u summarize d in you r con clusion , ther e appear s t o be tw o basi c characteristic s o f tha t abbreviate d test . On e i s t o modif yth e evaporativ e tes t loadin g procedur e an

d substitut e a differen t mean s o f loadin g th e can ister , whic h you seemt o sugges t in you r testimon yyo u though t woul d b e equivalen t t o loadin g th e caniste r t o tw o gram s break

through . I s tha t a correc t impressio n o f wha t you wer e communicating ? MR . KEVNICK : W e believ e tha t t o be th e case . MR . GRAY : S o froma technica l feasibilit y o r stringency , mor e precisely , poin t o f view , thi s loadin g issu e you don' t thin

k wil l affec t th e stringency . It' s simpl ya pro posa l t o reduc e the cost , yo u believe , o f th e loadin g procedure ? MR . KEVNICK : T o reduc e the time an d als o t o represen t a mor e realisti c approac h t o caniste r loadin g in term s o f wha t woul d actuall yhappe n ou t in the rea l world . 10 1P. 6

. 1 1 

### i i MR . TAKEUCHI : W e prefe r performance-base d

caniste r loading . W e believ e mayb e two gra mbreakthrough penalize s caniste r size . Bu t i f w e used performance-based , I thin k tha t provide s manufacture r flexibilit yo f ORV R design . MR . GRAY : S o i f there' s flexibility , i t migh t no t alway s loa d the caniste r t o the same level ? MR . TAKEUCHI : Same difficulty ; mor e precisely , i f w e utiliz e th e same siz e caniste r severity , w e believ e equivalent . MR . GRAY : Wit h respec t t o th e secon d par t o f the abbreviate d test , th e substitutio n o f benc h purging instea d o f actua l driving , I gues s I' ma bi t uncertai n howyo u woul d determin e th e leve l o f benc h purging . I assume yo u woul d pu t some typ e o f a flowmete r in the purg e line t o establis h th e equivalen t volume purg e fo r perhap s the actua l driving tha t ha d bee n include d in th e B 1 procedure ? MR . KEVNICK : That' s correct . Th e genera l concep t o r th e ide a woul d be t o propos e o r come t o yo u an d say , thi s i s wha t w e believ e t o be representativ e o f actua l purg e volume on th e runnin g los s tes t cycle , usin g some typ e o f a measuring devic e t o measur e purg e volume . MR . GRAY : Howwoul d you sugges t dealing wit h th e vapor s otherwis e bein g generate d during tha t actua l drive ? Sinc e yo u jus t measure d volume , it' s no t clea r howtha t 10 2P. 7

r 1 approac h woul d dea l wit h th e fac t tha t i f yo u ha d actuall y drive n th e vehicle , ther e woul d be some leve l o f vapor s generate d fromth e tan k tha t woul d als o affec t th e loadin g o f th e canister , depending o n th e configuration , o f course , t o th e exten t t o whic h i t affect s it , bu t i t woul dstil l b e a factor ? MR . KEVNICK : I' m

sorry , I' mno t sur e w e understan

d th e question .

MR . GRAY : I f yo u purg e th e vehicle , measur e th e volume , te n cubi t fee t o r whatever , fo r th e drive , whe n actuall ydriving the vehicle , th e vehicl e i s generating some vapor s fro

mthe tank , the running los s vapors , an d i f you'r e no t generating vapors , you'r e onl ypulling ai r throug h th e canister . I t woul d see mlik e i t woul d be mor e completel y purge d wit h a bench tes t than i t migh t hav e bee n purge d ha d yo u actuall ydrive n th e vehicle . Howwoul d yo u addres s that ? MR . TAKEUCHI : I understan d th e question . Firs t question , w e driv e the vehicl e an d w e measur e the purg e rate . Ou r proposa l i s —I' msorry , th e bas e draf t proposa l i s EPA' s Optio n B1 . S o Optio n B 1 doe s no t includ e th e running los s test ; I thin

k runnin

g los s —equivalen t tes t o f running los s test . S o thi s time w e d o no t includ e th e running los s tes t vapo r generatio n ove r ou r tes t procedure . I s tha t okay ? MR . GRAY : Okay ; mayb e yo u coul d conside r i f there' s an

yadditiona l comment s you' d lik e t o make , the 10 3P. 8

I 1 

### i i differenc e being a benc h purg e jus t pull s through , there' s some

vapo r bein

g generate d whe n yo u actuall ydriv e the vehicle , an d howtha t woul d b e considere d in th e tradeoff . Th e las t questio n I ha d i s t o bette r understan

d you r concer n abou t th e constan t purg e requirement . T o be concerne d abou t a constan t purg e requiremen t seem s t o sugges t a desir e t o var yth e purg e fro

mtri p t o tri p in some way . Wha t d o yo u hav e in min d in thi s area ? MR . KEVNICK : Charles , can you restat e th e questio n o r le t me restat e i t t o mak e sur e tha t we confir man understanding . You'r e intereste d i n understanding howToyot a migh t var

yth e purg e rat e fro mtri p t o tri p in orde r t o accomplis h wha t we'v e suggeste d here ? MR . GRAY : Yo u suggeste d tha t th e purg e ma yno t be consisten t fro mtri p t o tri p an

d that' s wh

yyou'r e concerne d abou t a constan t purg e requirement . I t coul d be rat e o r i t coul d b e th e tim e during whic h yo u purge . Righ t afte r a star t o f the trip , yo u migh t no t wan t t o purg e a t all . S o I' m jus t trying t o understand , ar e yo u envisioning differen t purg e strategie s a s a functio n o f tri p characteristic s an d coul d yo u elaborat e a littl e bi t o n a delaye d purg e i f the vehicl e i s cold ? I s i t something beyon d tha t tha t you'r e thinking abou t her e tha t w e need t o consider ? MR . TAKEUCH I W e understan d your 10 4P. 9

r i question . Thi s i s onl yjus t a n idea , s o w e believ e noww e don' t hav e technolog

yt o reduc e th e purg e according t o th e urban driving cycle . Bu t w e woul d lik e t o express , w e d o no t eliminat e futur e technolog ya t thi s stage , onl yw e woul d lik e t o expres s tha t issue . S o w e don' t knowtoday , w e canno t expec t wha t kin

d o f technolog

yw e us e in thi s case , i s tha t okay ? MR . GRAY : Perhap s i t wasn' t clea r t o m e in you r testimony . Thi s concer n applie s onl yt o a nonintegrate d system ? MR . KEVNICK : That' s correct . MR . FRANCE : Jus t a couple , thre e ques tions ; on th e las t poin t Charle s mentione d an d i t raise d a questio n in m

ymind , sinc e al l th e othe r testifier s clearl ylef t u s wit h th e impressio n tha t integrate d system s wer e thei r preferre d choice , d o yo u shar e tha t same perspective ? MR . KEVNICK : I thin k i t woul d be fai r t o sa ytha t w e woul d like t o leave some flexibilit ya s t o howw e procee d wit h that . W e ar e investigating bot h type s o f design s an d reall you r futur e directio n depend s upo n howth e fina l rul e i s promulgated . W e ar e trying t o keep a s muc h flexibility , al l the door s open , a s possible . MR . FRANCE : I understand . We'v e heard safet yconcern s expresse d wit h respec t t o complexit ywit h nonintegrate d system s an d what' s your perspectiv e on thos e
10 5P.1 0

I — I i i concerns ? MR . TAKEUCHI : Tha t i s a ver ydifficul t question . A s Mat t said , noww e ar e lookin g fo r the regulatio n an d w e ar e waiting fo r tha t result . Unde r th e curren t regula

tion , I' m

sorry , curren t proposal , w e prefe r integrate d system , bu t tha t questio n an d tha t answe r depend s o n th e resul t o f th e fina l rule . Tha t i s ou r answer . MR . FRANCE : That' s fine . Jus t going bac k t o the questio n o n you r suggestio n o n bench purging , howmigh t you verif ywit h respec t t o in-us e testing , verifying purg e performanc e on in-us e vehicles , howwoul d w e d o that ? MR . KEVNICK : Th e idea , I guess , t o sugges t her e woul d be tha t th e Agencycertainl ywoul d hav e th e optio n t o driv e the vehicl e i f the ywould , sinc e the purg e rat e woul d be representativ e o f wha t woul d occu r during th e actua l vehicl e operation . S o in-us e testing probabl ycoul d — MR . FRANCE : Th e purg e woul d b e jus t a n optio n fo r th e manufacturer s t o us e bu t EP Awoul d hav e th e discretio n t o us e whateve r i t decide d t o use ? MR . KEVNICK : W e thin k so , yes . Certainl y benc h purging allow s u s some time saving s a s well . MR . PASSAVANT : Tha t time saving s though woul d be in the contex t o f certificatio n o r development ? MR . KEVNICK : Probabl yal l o f th e above , 10 6P.1 1

r i certainl ycertification ; we'r e no t sur e ho ww e woul d approac h

thi s fro m

a developmen t aspect , wher e w e woul d start .

MR . PASSAVANT : Well , i t seem s t o m e tha t conceptuall yyou'r e goin g t o b e doin g a whol e lo t mor e testin g durin g you r developmenta l tim e tha n yo u wil l i n you r fina l cer t test , an d w e hav e n o constraint s o n wha t yo u d o fo r development . Yo u know , i f yo u decid e tha t yo u ca n simulat e vehicl e driv e wit h
a benc h purge , yo u ca n d o tha t a t you r ow n pleasur e an d ris k unti l th e tim e yo u com e t o certification . We'r e reall yrigh t o n th e margi n ther e i n term s o f sayin g wha t tim e coul d b e save d b ygoin g t o a benc h purge . MR . KEVNICK : I understand . Th e othe r ke y thin g t o kee p i n min d als o i s tha t i t doe s fre e up som e o f ou r othe r resource s i n term s o f facilities , tes t facilities , a s we l 1 . MR . PASSAVANT : Bu t i t woul d d o tha t durin g developmen t a s wel l a s durin g certification , I gues s i s m ypoint . Th e fina l thin g I wante d t o as k yo u abou t
wa s regardin g liqui d versu s mechanica l seal s and i n you r pre viou s testimon yo f a fe wyear s ago , yo u talke d abou t bot h o f thos e an d I wa s wonderin g i f yo u ha d an yfurthe r developmen t
wor k o r anyfurthe r thought s alon g thos e lines ? MR . KEVNICK : I gues s w e woul d offe r t o 10 7P.1 2



## r n respon d t o tha t in ou r writte n comment , i f tha t woul d be acceptable . MR . PASSAVANT : Keep in min d i f yo u d o that , i s tha t par t o f th e technica l discussion s tha t w e had in th e las t mont h o r s o wit h th e AAM Afolk s wa s t o allo wth e consideratio n o f a liqui d sea l a s par t o f th e overal l integrate d systemproces s an

d tha t froma sizing perspective , tha t wa s on e o f th e thing s tha t w e considered . S o th e liqui d sea l wa s clearl ya poin t o f discussio n in tha t proces s whe n yo u begi n lookin g a t th e emissio n rate s an d th e siz e o f canister , whe n you tak e tha t an

d compar e i t t o a

n evaporativ e system . MR . FREED : I s th e basi s fo r your state men t tha t SEAwoul d be unnecessary , tha t th e eva p tes t procedur e i s a mor e rigorou s procedure , an d i f i t passe s that , th e caniste r ha s a fitting capacit yt o withstan d a refueling ? MR . KEVNICK : I gues s a t thi s poin t tha t woul d be a fai r assessment . O f course , w e don' t hav e th e fina l refueling tes t procedur e t o actuall ymak e tha t kin d o f assess ment . MR . FREED : Actually , i t wa s les s a n assessmen t than m

ytrying t o understan d wha t wa s th e basi s fo r your point . Woul d i t mak e an ydifferenc e i f the sea l wa s mechanica l versu s liquid ? I n an ycase , perhap s yo u coul d addres s tha t i

n your comments . Than k you . 10 8P.1 3

r i MR . KEVNICK : Sure . MR . HOTT : On e quic k question ; yo u stat e tha t th e safet yissu e remains , tha t the ORV R regulatio n shoul d b e develope d t o minimiz e thi s concern . D o the change s propose d toda yhandl e thos e safet yissue s and , i f not , wha t ar e th e safet yissue s an

d howd o yo u expec t t o handl e these ? MR . KEVNICK : I thin k we'v e addresse d a lo t o f th e change s o r th e recommendation s we' d lik e t o se e tha t coul d addres s those . Ke yt o ou r concern s regarding safet yar e availabl e time fo r developmen t an d the impac t we' d hav e o n ou r resource s a s well . W e trie d t o conside r al l o f thos e a s the y reflec t on th e safet yo f ORV R systemdesign . I' mno t com fortabl e tha t we'v e covere d everything , bu t certainl yi t addresse s th e majo r ORV R systemdesign issues , w e think . MR . SILVERMAN : I wa s curiou s wha t the lega l basi s fo r your ide a o f exempting smal l sale s volume vehicl e model s woul d be ? MR . KEVNICK : I don' t thin k I can provid e yo u wit h th e lega l basi s fo r that . Fro mou r poin t o f view , w e se e wit h Stag e I I contro l an d th e fac t tha t the complicate d system s an

d cos t tha t woul d be incurre d on a relativel ylo w volume sale s vehicle , i t woul d become ver yexpensiv e t o actuall y implemen t thi s typ e o f systemo n something tha t doe s no t sel l mor e than 5,00 0 vehicles . 10 9P.1 4

r~ i MR . SILVERMAN : I can understan d tha t a s a policymatter , bu t w e hav e a statut e tha t say s a hundre d percent . S o i f in your comment s you se e some lega l basi s fo r doing that , w e woul d like t o se e that . MR . KEVNICK : Okay . MR . PASSAVANT : On e fina l poin t o n that , Matt , i f yo u would ; i t seem s t o m e tha t i f w e g o the directio n o f ou r discussio n thi s morning abou t tes t procedur e wher e you'r e sizing canisters , e t cetera , t o b e compatibl e wit h eva p an d evap ha s a hundre d percen t requiremen t a s well , tha t we'r e getting prett yclos e t o thi s basicall ybeing a timing issue . MR . SILVERMAN : Jus t on e othe r question ; i s i t als o your viewtha t i f a n onboar d requiremen t wer e promulgat e in January , 1994 , tha t woul d be th e 199 4 mode l yea r fo r purpose s o f leadtime ? MR . KEVNICK : S o th e firs t affecte d mode l woul d be 1998 ? MR . SILVERMAN : Yes . MR . KEVNICK : Yes . MR . SILVERMAN : Than k you . MR . WILSON : I thin k that' s al l th e questions ; than

k you . It' s 2 0 afte r 12 . We'v e go t probably , I guess , roughl ytwo hour s mor e o f testimony . I' mgoin g t o d o a 11 0P.1 5

r i littl e audienc e participatio n here . Optio n Awoul d be t o jus t

tak e a regula r lunch break fo r roughl ya n hour an

d the n come bac k an d d o th e res t o f th e hearing . Optio n B woul d b e t o tak e a 15 , 2 0 minut e break nowan d the n come bac k an d finis h th e testimon

yan d ge t ou t a littl e sooner . Al l thos e i n favo r o f the shor t break rais e you r hand . Al l thos e wh o wan t an hou r lunch break nowrais e you r hand . Okay , let' s tr yan d b e bac k a t 2 0 afte r one . (Proceeding s recessed. ) MR . WILSON : Let' s ge t starte d wit h th e res t o f the witnesses . Th e nex t witnes s i s th e Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci1 . MS . SHEIMAN : Goo d afternoon ; I' mDeborah Sheiman . I' m

a Senio r Resourc e Specialis t wit h th e Ai r an d Energ yProgra

mo f the Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci l an d I' m ver yplease d t o be her e toda ytestifying on behal f o f bot h NRD C an d th e America n Lun g Associatio n in suppor t o f EPA' s onboar d refueling vapo r recover yproposal . W e hav e eagerl yawaite d thi s rulemaking fo r many , man yyear s an

d believ e tha t it s fina l promulgatio n in accordanc e wit h th e Cour t ordere d schedul e wil l be a n urgentl yneede d step forward in pollutio n control .

M ymessag e t o you toda yi s wery

simple . EP Ashoul d mov e quickl yt o issu e comprehensiv e standard s fo r onboar d vapo r recover ycontro l tha t wil l appl yequall yt o al l

11 1P.1 6

r ~\ vehicl e classes , al l fue l type s an d o n a nationwid e basis . I think , jus t t o pu t thi s rulemaking in perspective , it' s usefu l t o look a t th e histor yo f thi s issu e a littl e bi t an

d th e man

yyear s tha t w e hav e labore d t o tr yt o addres s thi s ver

yseriou s environmenta l problem . I n 1977 , Congres s firs t directe d EP At o investigat e th e feasibilit yo f onboar d vapo r recover ycontrols , an

d afte r man

yfit s an

d start s stretching ove r a te n yea r period , EP Afinall yissued a propose d standar d in 198 7 tha t woul d requir e onboar d control s o n cars , minivans , picku

p trucks , in short , o n th e thre e vehicl e classe s tha t ar e unde r consideratio n today . A t tha t time , si x year s ago , EP Aconclude d tha t the system s wer e feasible , economica l an d saf e an

d woul d provid e importan t emissio n contro l benefit s fo r al l vehicl e classes . Unfortunately , the proposa l wa s neve r finalized . Congres s intervene d in 199 0 b ydirecting tha t onboar d standard s be promulgate d withi n on e yea r o f enactment , tha t i s Novembe r 15 , 1991 . Tha t dat e passe d withou t EP Aaction . Litigatio n ensued . I n April , '92 , EP Aissued a decisio n no t t o promulgat e onboar d standards , citing allege d safet yconcern . Furthe r litigatio n le d t o the D.C . Circui t Court' s January , '9 3 rulin g that , quote , th e tex t o f Sectio n 202(1)(6 ) clearl y manifest s a congressiona l inten t tha t EP Apromulgat e ORV

R standard . Th e requiremen t tha t EP Aconsul t wit h DO T prio r t o
11 2P.1 7

r i th e promulgating the standard s doe s no t derogat e fro mtha t mandatoryduty . Th e Cour t furthe r directe d tha t EPA' s fina l decisio n be se t asid e an d tha t th e standard s be promulgate d an d EP Ai s nowsoliciting commen t o n settlemen t providing fo r promulgatio n b

yJanuar

y22 , 1994 . W e jus t wan t t o tak e thi s opportunit yt o emphasiz e tha t ther e can be n o dela ybeyon d tha t date . We'r e talking 1 6 year s afte r Congres s firs t directe d a n investigatio n o f onboar d control , si x year s afte r EPA' s proposa l an d tw o year s afte r th e mandatorypromulgatio n dat e establishe d b yCongress . W e believ e tha t it' s hig h time t o bring thi s rulemaking t o it s lon g overdu e conclusion . Furthermore , w e thin k it' s importan t tha t EP Amak e clea r tha t promulgatio n b ythi s dat e wil l be sufficien t t o establis h requirement s t o begi n phasing in the onboar d requiremen t fo r th e 199 8 mode l year . The publi c need s additiona l protectio n tha t onboar d control s wil l provide . Th e EP Aestimate s showtha t lookin g a t car s alone , onboar d control s woul d produc e 4 0 percen t greate r emission s reduction s than wil l be occurring unde r th e Stag e I I regime . In additio n t o offering importan t benefit s agains t ozon e pollution , onboard controls , a s ha s bee n pointe d out , ar e als o importan t t o protec t the breathing publi c fromthe gasolin e vapor s an

d th e benzen e in the gasolin e whic h i s car cinogenic . In fact , i f you loo k a t mos t area s o f th e country , 11 3P.1 8



### I — ! L J onboar d i s reall yth e onl ypromis e tha t w e hav e fo r protectio n

agains t refueling emissions . Th e record show s tha t onboar d control s ar e eminentl ycost-effectiv e becaus e manufacturer s ar e alread y going t o b e require d t o instal l improve d evaporativ e contro l systems . Th e incrementa l cos t o f adding th e refueling recovery , vapo r recover

ycapability , i s reall ytrivial , an d moreover , ther e hav e bee n advance s in th e design o f thes e system s tha t hav e bee n mad e t o furthe r reduc e th e cost . Th e botto m1 in e tha t we'r e talking abou t nowi s 9 0 cent s adde d t o th e cos t o f a new ca r o r $1.5 0 fo r a light-dut ytruc k o r $5.2 0 fo r a heavy-dut y vehicle . That' s no t eve n th e whol e stor ybecaus e you' d hav e t o facto r in the additiona l moneytha t you' d sav e b yconserving the fue l tha t n o longe r dissipate s int o th e ai r a s vapo r an d instead i s recovere d t o hel p powe r th e vehicle . S o whe n yo u conside r the conservatio n impac t o f the onboar d vapo r recover ycontrol , you actua l hav e a ne t saving s t o consumers . W e certainl yurg e yo u t o mov e forward an d tak e advantag e o f thi s opportunit yt o clean th e ai r an

d sav e consumer s moneya t th e same time . Th e aut o industr

yclearl yha s a capacit y t o design onboar d system s tha t wil l be safe . Th e D.C . Circui t foun d that , quote , th e record a s a whol e doe s no t substantiat e a finding tha t ORV R system s presen t inheren t an d unreasonabl e safet yrisks . Indeed , th e Cour t pointe d t o importan t safet y

11 4P.1 9

r i benefit s o f onboar d system s tha t wer e substantiate d b yth e record bu t ignore d in EPA' s April , '9 2 decision . Again , quoting fro mth e decision , th e numbe r o f servic e statio n fire s wil l certainl ybe reduce d b yORVR . Second, ' repeate d o r prolonge d derma l contac t wit h liqui d gasolin e du e t o spillag e can b e reduce d b

yORVR , thu s relieving resultan t ski n irritatio n an d dermatitis . Perhap s mos t significantly , ORV R ma yhel p lowe r fue l tan

k pressure s an

d thes e greate r fue l tan k pressure s lea

d to , among othe r things , fue l dispersio n an d tan k ruptur e in accidents . Finally , unde r operating conditions , vehicle s some time s creat e vapor s tha t excee d the capacit yo f curren t evapora tive canisters , leadin g t o so-calle d breakthrough an d seepag e o f vapor s int o the engin e compartment . Large r canister s in ORV R system s woul d captur e an d contai n thes e vapors , en d o f quote . Th e poin t here , I think , in term s o f safet yi s tha t canister s ar e alread yo n th e vehicle s fo r contro l o f evaporativ e emission s tha t hav e no t bee n show n t o pos e significan t safet yrisks . EP Aha s observe d tha t th e Agenc yha s in fac t certifie d vehicle s equippe d wit h canister s fo r contro l o f evaporativ e emission s fo r ove r 2 0 years . An d give n th e improvement s tha t ar e going t o be mad e i n thes e system s anyway , we believ e tha t the ORV R systemcan be feasibl yimplemente d a s par t o f a

n integrate d systemtha t woul d combin e th e evaporativ e an d refuelin

g vapo r recover

yfunction s in a singl e canister . 11 5P.2 0

I 1 An

d i t canno t be seriousl ycontende d tha t th e mino r modifica

tion s require d t o transfor ma n evaporativ e caniste r int o a n integrate d caniste r creat e a safet yrisk . I jus t not e tha t th e D.C . Circui t hel d tha t safet yissue s tha t ma yexis t hav e t o b e worke d ou t during th e fou r yea r leadtime that' s provide d b yth e statut e an

d can' t b e use d a s a n excus e t o avoi d promulgatio n o f thes e standards . Th e goo d new s i s tha t th e record give s u s everyreaso n t o anticipat e tha t thos e system s wil l pas s certai n condition s easily . S o give n al l thes e factors , the safety , th e minima l cost , th e substantia l environmenta l an d publi c healt h benefits , the energ

ysaving s an

d s b on , w e thin

k tha t there' s a ver y strong cas e tha t EP Aneed s t o mov e forward an d promulgat e comprehensiv e regulation s tha t dea l wit h al l o f the classe s o f vehicles . W e strongl ysuppor t EPA' s proposa l wit h respec t t o thi s broade r applicabilit yan d believ e tha t thi s shoul d al l be don e in a singl e rulemaking package . Yo u don' t nee d t o promulgat e a separat e proposal . Indeed , yo u alread y propose d tha t si x year s ag o an d develope d a substantia l record a t tha t time in suppor t o f onboar d vapo r recover ycontrol s fo r a variet yo f differen t vehicles . We'r e no t persuade d that , t o th e breathing public , there' s a bi g distinctio n betwee n a mini

van o r a picku

p truc k in term s o f the vapor s tha t ar e force d

11 6P.2 1

r i int o th e breathing publi c whe n they'r e refueling thei r vehicles .

The contro l ough t t o appl yacros s th e board t o al l the classe s o n gasolin e engine s an d failur e t o d o s o woul d allowabou t a third o f th e tota l refueling emission s t o sli p through th e cracks . S o there' s a n enormou s environmenta l benefi t a t stak e her e an d jus t wit h respec t t o th e leadtime issu e fo r thes e othe r classe s o f vehicle s wher e the schedul e isn' t classifie d in th e statute , I' d poin t ou t tha t bac k in '87 , I thin k yo u propose d a tw o yea r leadtime wit h an additiona l yea r fo r certification , s o yo u wer e lookin g a t thre e year s ou t a t tha t time , an

d I thin

k tha t tha t wa s fo r ful l compliance , no t a phased-i n schedule . It' s m yunderstanding tha t improve d evaporativ e contro l system s ar e going t o appl yt o al l thes e classe s o f vehicle s anyway , s o reall ywha t we'r e looking , a t ar e fairl yminor , additiona l modification s t o ensur e tha t w e ge t th e ful l benefit s tha t w e can achiev e wit h ORV R systems . Th e secon

d issu e tha t I wante d t o rais e wa s th e importanc e o f applying th e requiremen t t o a variet yo f differen t fue l type s s o tha t w e ar e ahead o f th e game in addressing potentia l refueling emission s an d th e vapor s tha t theygenerat e fo r alternativ e fuel s o r flexibl e fuele d vehicles . Also , on e o f th e issue s raise d in th e proposa l ha

d t o d o wit h the geographi c exten t o f the rul e an d

11 7P.2 2



### r i 

### I J ' th e poin t tha t w e wan t t o mak e her e i s tha t it' s ver yimportan t tha t thi s federa l requiremen t applie s in al l 5 0 states , including in California , an d we'r e goin

g t o be providing additiona l writte n comment s on th e appropriat e lega l issue s here . Bu t w e believ e tha t th e requiremen t her e i s t o establis h a nationa l standar d an d tha t th e curren t waiver s hav e n o bearing o n th e onboar d requiremen t an d tha t thi s wil l b e a newstandar d tha t wil l be issued and , especiall ygive n th e tren d tha t we'r e seeing wit h man

ystate s outsid e o f Californi a opting int o Californi a vehicl e standards , it' s importan t tha t w e hav e the ful l benefi t o f thos e vapo r recover ycontrol s o n th e vehicle . Finally , I' d like t o sa ytha t w e suppor t EPA' s effor t t o examin e th e tes t procedur e in way s tha t woul d facilitat e integrate d system s fo r refueling vapo r recover yan d evaporativ e contro l measures . Th e othe r issue s raise d in th e proposal , we' d like t o addres s in our writte n comments . MR . WILSON : Than

k you ver

ymuch . Severa l o f the witnesse s thi s morning argue d agains t applying onboar d system s t o trucks . A t leas t on e o f th e argument s wa s tha t th e benefit s woul d be ther e wel l pas t th e attainmen t date s in th e Clean Ai r Act , tha t Stag e I I system s woul d be ther e t o captur e thos e vapors , an d ther e woul d be littl e benefi t t o installin g the system s on trucks . What' s you r reaction ?

11 8P.2 3

r i MS . SHEIMAN : Well , I thin k tha t th e EP

A record provide s strong suppor t fo r applying the standar d t o al l vehicl e classes , bot h th e light-dut ytruck s an d th e heavy-dut y engine s whic h ar e responsibl e fo r ove r a third o f the fue l consumptio n in th e countr yan d Stag e I I control s onl yappl yt o a ver ylimited numbe r o f areas . Wher e theyd o apply , th e implementatio n doesn' t affec t al l ga s stations . Enforcemen t i s wsry spotty . Th e onl ywa yt o provid e nationa l publi c healt h an d environmenta l benefit s i s t o impos e thes e nationa l standard s o n vehicle s an

d on al l classe s o f vehicles . S o I'l l be ver y supportiv e o f EP

Amoving forwar d t o pu t it s proposa l in plac e o n a n aggressiv e implementatio n schedule .

MR . WILSON : Than

k you ver

ymuc h fo r your testimony . Nex t i s th e Societ yo f Independen t Gasolin e Marketer s o f America , Nationa l Associatio n o f Convenienc e Store s an d Petroleu

mMarketer s Associatio n o f America . MR . AUSBROOK : Goo d afternoon ; m yname i s Keit h Ausbroo k an

d I' mwit h th e Washington , D.C . la wfir mo f Collier , Shannon , Ril l an d Scott . I' mtestifying toda yo n behal f o f th e Nationa l Associatio n o f Convenienc e Stores , the Petroleu

mMarketer s Associatio n an d th e Societ yo f Independen t Gasolin e Marketer s o f America . NACS , PMA Aan d SIGM Aappreciat e

11 9P.2 4



## rn thi s opportunit yt o provid e thei r view s o n propose d onboar d

vapo r recover

yregulations .

NAC S i s a nationa l trad e associatio n o f 1,44 2 retai l compan ymembers . Today , ther e ar e abou t 68,00 0 convenienc e store s in th e Unite d States , an d gasolin e i s sol d a t mor e than two-third s o f those . PMA Ai s a federatio n o f stat e an d regiona l trad e associations . PMA Amembe r association s represen t some 11,00 0 independen t petroleu mmarketers , includin g gasolin e an

d diese l fue l wholesalers , commissione d distributor s o f gasoline , gasolin e reseller s an d retailers , an

d thousand s o f retai l fue l oi l dealers , a s wel l a s independen t marketer s serving th e industr yb ystoring an

d supplying petroleu mproducts . SIGM Ai s a nationa l trad e associatio n o f approximatel y25 1 chai n retailer s an d privat e bran

d marketer s o f moto r fuels . NACS , PMA Aan d SIGM Aar e please d tha t EP A i s proceeding wit h thi s rulemaking . Gasolin e marketer s hav e tw o importan t objective s in th e promulgatio n o f thes e standards . First , onc e EP

Apromulgate s standard s requirin g onboar d system s fo r light-dut yvehicles , th e federa l requiremen t tha t they instal l an

d maintai n Stag e I I equipmen t in area s designate d a s moderat e fo r ozon e non-attainmen t woul d be waived . Nothing shoul d be permitte d t o dela yfurthe r EPA' s promulgatio n o f th e
12 0P.2 5

r i standards , an d hence , the waive r o f federa l Stag e I I require

ments , beyon

d Januar

y22 , 1994 , th e dat e o n whic h EP Aha s agree d t o promulgat e th e standards . Asecondary , bu t extremel yimportant , goa l o f gasolin e marketer s i s t o maximiz e th e emissio n contro l benefit s fro

m onboar d systems . Th e contributio n o f onboar d system s t o emissio n reduction s wil l assis t ozon e non-attainmen t area s in reaching attainment . Th e mor e area s ther e ar e tha t reac h attainment , the les s likel yi t wil l be tha t state s wil l requir e Stag e I I independen t o f the federa l requirement . In addition , onc e onboard system s ar e in widesprea d use , th e Administrator , unde r th e authorit yo f Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t ma

ywaiv e th e Stag e I I requirement s in serious , sever e an

d extreme ozon e non-attainmen t areas . Therefore , gasolin e marketer s hav e a grea t interes t in EPA' s proposal s relating t o extending th e standard s t o light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut yvehicles , applying th e standard s t o th e Californi a car , an

d requiring tha t onboar d system s mee t a 9 8 percen t recaptur e rate . However , le t me emphasiz e tha t non e o f thes e proposal s mus t interfer e wit h EPA' s promulgatio n o f the standard s on o r befor e Januar y22 , 1994 . A s i t is , the standard s wil l be promulgate d mor e than tw o year s afte r th e dat e on whic h the Clean Ai r Ac t require d tha t the ybe promulgated .

12 1P.2 6

r ~. I f complication s concerning EPA' s proposal s relating t o th e

extensio n t o LDT s o r HDV s o r the recaptur e efficienc yaris e during the remainde r o f the rulemaking an d thes e concer n threate n t o dela

yth e promulgatio n o f onboar d standards , NACS , PMA Aan d SIGM Awoul d urg e EP

At o se t thos e issue s asid e an d procee d wit h the promulgatio n o f standard s tha t satisf ythe minimu mrequirement s o f th e Clea n Ai r Act .

Thus , NACS , PMA

Aan d SIGM Aurg e EP

At o promulgat e standard s applicabl e t o light-dut ytruck s an d heavy

dut yvehicles , i

n additio n t o promulgating the standard s fo r light-dut yvehicles , consisten t wit h ou r concern s ove r meeting the Januar

ydeadline . EPA' s Augus t 198 7 Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking propose d applying the standard s t o LDT s an d HDVs . The analysi s containe d i n the record o f thi s rulemaking suggest s man ysimilaritie s betwee n th e system s fo r LDV s an d LDT s an

d HDVs , whic h woul d justif ypromulgating standard s fo r LDT s an d HDVs . Th e promulgatio n o f standard s fo r thes e vehicle s woul d generall yenhanc e emissio n reduction s o f refueling vapors . Suc h furthe r emissio n reduction s wil l hel p moderat e ozon e non attainmen t area s reach attainmen t an d allowth e Administrato r t o exercis e hi s discretio n earlie r t o waiv e the Stag e I I requirement s in serious , sever e an d extreme ozon e non-attainmen t

areas . However , w e urg e EP At o establis h a

12 2P.2 7

r 1 separat e implementatio n schedul e fo r equipping vehicle s othe r

than light-dut yvehicle s wit h onboar d systems . Sectio n 202(a)(6 ) o f the Clean Ai r Ac t require s promulgatio n o f onboar d standard s requiring tha t 4 0 percen t o f light-dut yvehicle s manufacture d beginning in th e fourt h mode l yea r afte r th e mode l yea r in whic h the standard s ar e promulgated . Th e standard s the n appl yt o 8 0 percen t o f the light-dut yvehicle s in th e fift h mode l year , an

d 10 0 percen t o f light-dut yvehicle s manufacture d beginning in th e sixt h mode l year . Thi s i s th e absolut e minimu m tha t EP Amus t do . Although w e suppor t th e promulgatio n o f standard s applicabl e t o light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut y vehicles , w e urg e EP Ano t t o promulgat e a rul e tha t wil l permi t th e calculatio n o f th e percentage s a s percentage s o f al l vehicles . EPA' s Notic e specificall yrecognize s tha t light-dut y truck s an

d heavy-dut yvehicle s accoun t fo r onl yapproximatel y 3 8 percen t o f refueling emissions . Spreading th e percentage s ove r al l vehicle s coul d reduc e th e emission s reduction s achieve d fro monboard system s in the firs t tw o year s becaus e aut o manufacturer s coul d equi p mor e vehicle s tha t accoun t fo r les s emissions . EP

Ashoul d promulgat e a standar d requiring tha t the statutorypercentage s appl yonl yt o light-dut yvehicles . NACS , PMA

Aan d SIGM Awoul d lik e t o se e th e standard s applicabl e t o the Californi a moto r vehicles . 12 3P.2 8



# n Obviously , requiring Californi a car s t o be equippe d woul d

eliminat e the need fo r Stag e I I equipmen t in California . There

fore , NACS , PMA

Aan d SIGM Aar e considering whethe r t o petitio n fo r a rulemaking unde r Sectio n 20 9 o f th e Clean Ai r Ac t t o appl y th e standard s t o th e Californi a ca r o r t o tak e whateve r step s ar e necessar

yt o assur e tha t thos e standard s ar e applicabl e t o th e Californi a car . NACS , PMA Aan d SIGN Asuppor t imposing a standar d o f 9 8 percen t efficiency , providing the record can suppor t suc h a standard . A s wit h promulgatio n o f standard s applicabl e t o light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut yvehicles , promulgatio n o f a 9 8 percen t efficienc ystandard exceed s th e minimu mefficienc yo f 9 5 percen t require d b ythe statute . W e not e tha t the August , '8 7 proposa l propose d a 9 8 percen t efficiency , an

d w e believ e tha t the record include s materia l tha t demonstrate s th e technology' s capacit yt o mee t th e 9 8 percen t efficiency . T o th e exten t tha t th e record reflect s an y uncertaint yabou t meeting th e 9 8 percen t efficienc ystandard , EP Ashoul d withdrawconsideratio n o f tha t standard an d promul

gat e the rule s wit h 9 5 percen t efficiency . EP Ashoul d no t dela

y thi s rulemaking fo r th e additiona l thre e percent . Finally , NACS , PMA Aan d SIGM Asuppor t EPA' s conclusio n regarding th e procedure s fo r addressing safet y issues . Suc h issue s mus t be addresse d throug h the design an

d

12 4P.2 9

r i developmen t phase s an d ultimatel ya t vehicl e engin e certifica

tion . NACS , PMA

Aan d SIGM Ahave never

sough t th e promulgatio n o f standard s tha t coul d resul t in unreasonabl e risk s t o safety . W e hav e alway s believe d tha t thes e risk s coul d b e addresse d during th e leadtime an d tha t vehicle s woul d ultimatel yb e equippe d wit h onboar d system s tha t d o no t pos e suc h risks . I f n o suc h system s coul d be developed , the n the certificatio n proces s woul d preven t th e publi c fro mbein g expose d t o unreason abl e risks . Onc e th e standard s ar e promulgated , thi s proces s wil l be full yunderway . Than k you fo r thi s opportunit yt o testif y an d I' d be happ

yt o answe r an

yquestio n you ma

yhave . MR . WILSON : Than k you ver

ymuc h fo r coming . MR . FREED : Woul d you , a s I'v e aske d other s t o do , al l presen t your argumen t fo r a petitio n unde r 20 9 i f thi s rul e i s no t applicabl e t o Ca l ifornia , includin g whateve r analysi s tha t yo u can d o a s t o wh ya finding coul d b e mad e tha t Californi a standard s woul d no t be a s protectiv e unles s thi s wer e adopte d b

yth e fed s o r b

yCalifornia ? MR . AUSBROOK : W e woul d probabl ylik e t o pu t tha t in our forma l writte n comment s tha t w e submi t later . MR . FRANCE : I hav e jus t on e brie f question . I' mno t sur e I understoo d wha t you wer e saying whe n

12 5P.3 0



### rn I i you wer e talking abou t th e phase-i n schedul e fo r LDV s an d ligh t trucks . W e ha

d a provisio n in ther e an d aske d fo r comment s on th e desirabilit yo f counting eithe r o r light-dut yvehicle s o r light-dut ytruck s in calculating the percentag e phase-in . I wasn' t sur e wha t yo u wer e saying abou t it ? MR . AUSBROOK : Wha t we'r e concerne d abou t ther e i s tha t unles s yo u know , unles s yo u analyz e i t b ylookin

g a t th e emission s o f a specifi c clas s o f vehicle , b yallowing i t t o be spread ove r al l vehicles , yo u coul d en d u p wit h lowe r emissio n reduction s fro mth e manufacturers ' equipment . MR . FRANCE : I coul d understan d howi t migh t be the same . Howmigh t i t be lower ? Ou r assumptio n i s tha t LDV s an

d light-dut ytruck s hav e abou t the same comparabl e ai r qualit yimpac t on a pe r vehicl e basis . MR . AUSBROOK : Well , i f you thin k th e record support s that , bu t I' mjus t saying , I thin k you need t o mak e sur e tha t tha t analysi s i s clear . I don' t thin k i t i s in the proposal . I t jus t sor t o f announce s that , I believ e th e statement s say , tha t there' s a conclusio n ther e tha t ma yno t b e supporte d i

n the proposal .

MR . FRANCE : Okay , fai r enough . MR . GRAY : I' d lik e t o als o reques t tha t you se e i f an

yo f your membe r companie s o r member s o f your associatio n woul d hav e estimate s o f th e maintenanc e cos t o f
12 6P.3 1

r l retaining Stag e I I equipmen t onc e the capita l charg e ha s bee n

writte n up . MR . AUSBROOK : We'v e discusse d tha t wit h ou r membe r companie s an d I thin

k we'l l discus s i t wit h themsome more . Thei r report s ar e consisten t wit h th e America n Petroleu m Institute' s reports . Bu t I woul d lik e t o emphasiz e tha t fo r ou r member s wh o ar e independen t marketers , that' s a n eve n greate r burde n than fo r majo r integrate d oi l companies , tha t th e inde

penden t markete r i s a smalle r entit yan d ha s a lo t mor e troubl e making end s meet . MR . SILVERMAN : Jus t on e question ; d o yo u hav e an yviewon the lega l authorit yt o promulgat e HDT , HD T standard s unde r the genera l authorit yin Sectio n 202(a) ? MR . AUSBROOK : No , w e full yrecogniz e tha t EP Aha s the discretionaryauthorit yt o d o that , an d again , I can' t emphasiz e i t enoug h tha t w e suppor t that , bein g tha t i t wil l expan

d th e us e o f onboard s an d reduc e th e pressur e fo r Stag e I I fo r ou r members , bu t w e don' t suppor t i t a t th e expens e o f th e rulemaking fo r the light-dut yvehicles . MR . WILSON : Than

k yo u ver

ymuc h fo r your testimony . Nex t i s th e Insuranc e Institut e fo r Highwa ySafety . MR . OESCH : Goo d afternoon ; m yname i s 12 7P.3 2



### r i Stev e Oesch . I' mwit h th e Insuranc e Institut e fo r Highwa y Safety . A s I hop e tha t man yo f yo u know , the Insuranc e Institut e i s a non-profi t researc h an d communication s organi

zatio n tha t work s t o develop way s t o reduc e losse s on ou r nation' s highways . W e ar e sponsore d b yth e nation' s propert y an d casualt yinsurer s an d I wil l than

k yo u fo r th e opportunit y t o presen t th e Institute' s view s o n th e safet yo f onboar d refueling vapo r recover ysystems . I as k tha t m yentir e statemen t be pu t in th e record . I' d lik e t o briefl ysummariz e some o f th e majo r points . The Institut e ha s bee n lon g involve d in reducing risk s t o th e publi c pose d b yvehicl e fires . Fo r example , Institut e researc h an d cras h testing in the earl y1970 s le d t o th e strengthening o f th e federa l moto r vehicl e safet y standard o n fue l systemintegrity . I t wa s becaus e o f ou r concer n abou t an

yactio n tha t can increas e the ris k o f fir e tha t th e Institut e entere d th e debat e o n th e safet yimplication s o f controlling refueling emission s bac k in 1986 , whe n EP Abegan considering two alternativ e approache s t o trapping thos e emissions . Th e Institut e wa s th e firs t vehicl e safet yorgani

zatio n t o oppos e the onboar d approac h becaus e o f increase d ris k o f fir e in moto r vehicl e crashes . A s w e al l know , sinc e 198 6 th e Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet yAdministration , th e Nationa l

12 8P.3 3

r i Transportatio n Safet yBoard an d other s hav e als o oppose d th e us e o f onboar d system s becaus e o f thei r potentia l t o increas e th e numbe r o f vehicl e cras h fires , especiall ythos e fire s fed b y leakin g gasolin e vapo r o r gasolin e itself . Th e safet yconcern s expresse d b

yth e Institut e an d other s ar e summarize d in th e attache d issu e o f ou r newsletter , "Statu s Report, " tha t I hav e include d wit h th e testimony . Base d o n th e evidenc e gathere d during th e extensiv e rulemaking proces s concerning onboar d systems , EPA , in th e Institute' s view , correctl yconclude d tha t thos e system s pose d a n increase d ris k o f fir e cras h deaths . EPA' s conclusion s abou t the increase d safet yrisk s pose d b yonboar d system s ar e stil l valid , an d ther e i s nothing in the Agency' s curren t Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking tha t reverse s an

yo f EPA' s prio r finding s regarding safety . EPA' s conclusion s highligh t th e need t o ensur e tha t th e increase d ris k t o th e driving publi c i s minimized , an d w e believ e th e ke

yt o thi s i s b

yproviding manufacturer s wit h th e flexibilit yt o instal l simpl e system s wit h smal l canisters . An y requiremen t in the fina l rul e tha t woul d pus h the design s t o be mor e comple x woul d onl yincreas e th e ris k o f fire . Also , I' d like t o addres s specificall y severa l point s tha t wer e mad e in the Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking an

d in particula r in your Ma yNotice , EP

Areferre d t o NHTSA' s curren t effor t t o upgrad e th e existing Federa l Moto r

12 9P.3 4

I i Vehicl e Safet yStandard Numbe r 30 1 on Fue l SystemIntegrity .

Yo u cite d tha t a s on e solutio n t o the crashworthines s problem pose d b yonboar d systems . I n the Notice , EP Astated , onboar d vehicle s woul d hav e t o mee t th e applicabl e FMVSSs , including FMVS S 30 1 relate d t o Fue l SystemIntegrit ywhich , a s note d above , NHTSAi s considering amending t o provid e protectio n fo r onboar d systems . EP Aexpect s tha t thi s woul d addres s man yo f th e potentia l concern s regarding crashworthiness . I n th e same Notice , EP

Aals o sai d tha t it s independen t authorit yunde r Sectio n 206(a)(3)(B ) woul d allowi t t o requir e manufacturer s t o conduc t test s o r provid e othe r informatio n a s ma ybe neede d t o determin e i f a

n onboard systemmeet s th e vehicl e safet yrequire

ment s in Sectio n 202(a)(4 ) o f th e Act . EPA' s statement , I unfortunatel yfeel , reflect s a lack o f understanding o f wha t can be accomplishe d eve n wit h mor e stringen t safet ysystemrequirements . Neithe r Standar d 30 1 no r test s prescribe d b yEP Acan completel y eliminat e th e ris k t o moto r vehicl e safet ypose d b yonboar d systems . Fo r example , Standar d 30 1 i s a limite d serie s o f test s and , eve n i f othe r test s ar e adde d t o th e tes t sequenc e t o addres s onboar d systems , th e serie s stil l canno t possibl y addres s th e wid e rang e o f cras h configuration s an d speed s tha t occu r i n rea l worl d crashes . Tha t i s wh ycurren t fue l systems , whic h alread

yhav e t o mee t Standard 301 , stil l sometime s fail . 13 0P.3 5

r i Ther e woul d be mor e crash-relate d failure s wit h onboar d system s

because , a s currentl ydesigned , th e adde d valves , pipes , clamps , increase d caniste r siz e o f thes e system s woul d increas e fue l systemvulnerability . I' d like t o particularl yaddres s th e issu e o f extensio n o f th e standar d t o ligh t an d heav ytrucks . I ha

d the pleasur e a t lunch o f sitting wit h Eri c Stork , an d during th e cours e o f th e conversation , w e wer e talking abou t th e Clea n Ai r Ac t an d I reveale d m

ylack o f in-dept h knowledg e o f on e o f the EP Aregulation s in th e Clean Ai r Ac t itsel f an d h e wondere d wh

y someon e tha t didn' t live an d drea mabou t th e Clea n Ai r Ac t woul d be her e t o pos e issue s befor e thi s panel . Th e reaso n I' mdoing i t i s tha t I thin

k tha t w e can giv e a newperspectiv e t o thi s issue . Th e thing tha t ha s trouble d me in muc h o f th e conversatio n tha t we'v e heard toda yconcerning th e extensio n o f thes e standard s t o ligh t an d heav ytruck s i s ther e ha s bee n a n emphasi s o n th e goa l i s applying onboard , an d I though t th e goa l wa s clean ai r an d what' s the bes t wa yt o achiev e clea n ai r tha t pose s n o ris k t o the publi c o r minimu mris k t o the public , tha t can be implemente d quickl yan d tha t EP

Aalread

yha s th e authorit yt o d o eithe r b yregulatio n o r b

ypersuasio n an

d th e answe r t o tha t i s Stag e II . Stag e I I doe s no t pos e a safet y risk . Stag e I I ca

n be implemente d o n a muc h quicke r schedule , 13 1P.3 6



# n providing th e breathing publi c wit h muc h greate r protectio n a t

a quicke r rate . I wa s particularl ydisturbe d tha t ther e hasn' t bee n an

ythough t o r discussio n toda yo f non-regulatory approache s a s well . Her e w e hav e a n exampl e o f alread yon e gasolin e marketer , Amoco , ha s alread ytake n a leadershi p rol e in implementing Stag e II , an d I migh t add , a muc h mor e con venien t design , a muc h mor e improve d design Stag e I I devic e o n al l o f it s station s throughou t th e country , regardles s o f whethe r they'r e in a non-attainmen t are a o r others . I thin k ther e shoul d be mor e attentio n give n t o way s t o persuad e othe r marketer s t o followtha t approac h a s well , a s wel l a s t o discus s wit h state s tha t ar e trying t o mee t thei r Clea n Ai r Ac t goal s tha t theyshoul d als o pursu e vi a th e Stag e I I alterative . NowI' d like t o specificall yaddres s ou r safet yconcern s concerning applying the standar d t o ligh t an d heav ytrucks . Give n our safet yconcern s tha t w e expresse d abou t passenge r cars , it' s troubling tha t EP Aha s agai n propose d applying the onboar d requiremen t t o ligh t an d heav ytrucks . Applying the standard t o thes e vehicles , w e believe , i s contrar y t o rationa l publi c policy . EP Aha s acknowledge d the increase d ris k o f fire-relate d cras h death s resulting fro mth e us e o f onboar d technolog

yi n passenge r cars . Th e questio n tha t w e pos e is , wh yneedlessl yincreas e the ris k fo r drive r o f ligh t an d
13 2

## LJ heav ytruck s whe n neithe r th e Clean Ai r Ac t no r th e Cour t decisio n in NRDC

v. Reilly

require s tha t result ? W e not e tha t there' s n o discussio n in th e Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking o f the advers e safet yconsequenc e o f applying onboard standard s t o ligh t an d heav ytrucks . Yet , w e knowfro

mexisting dat a on fire-relate d death s in fata l crashe s tha t full-siz e picku p truck s generall yhav e a highe r deat h rat e than passenge r cars . Fo r example , in a n April , 199 3 NHTSAreport , theyanalyze d fire s in full-siz e pickup s an d othe r vehicles . NHTSAfoun d tha t th e pickup s consistentl yhav e a highe r fire-relate d deat h rat e than passenge r cars . Wh yin

creas e the ris k fo r ligh t an d heav ytruc k occupant s b yrequiring thos e vehicle s be equippe d wit h onboard refueling vapo r recover y systems ? I f I coul d quickl yaddres s some o f the issue s you pose d t o some o f th e manufacturer s earlie r toda ywhe n you'v e aske d in the contex t o f th e ligh t truc k rule , wha t abou t issue s suc h a s leadtime , wha t abou t incomplet e versu s complet e vehicles , wha t abou t ligh t versu s heavy ? M yrespons e t o tha t i s i f it' s a ba

d idea , whic h w e believ e i t is , an d i f th e goa l
o f th e Clean Ai r Act , th e goa l o f clean ai r fo r the breathing public , can be achieve d b yalternativ e means , Stag e II , whic h doesn' t pos e a ris k t o vehicl e safety , i t doesn' t matte r i f you provid e mor e leadtime . I t doesn' t matte r i f yo u onl yappl yi t

13 3P.3 8

r i t o on e clas s o f vehicle s versu s anothe r clas s o f vehicles . I t

doesn' t matte r i f you appl yi t t o onl yincomplet e versu s complete . It' s stil l a ba d ide a an

d w e can accomplis h th e goal s tha t w e ar e al l intereste d in accomplishing b yothe r mean s tha t don' t pos e safet yrisks . EPA' s March , 199 3 conclusio n tha t onboar d recover ysystem s pos e a

n increase d an

d unreasonabl e ris k o f fir e in moto r vehicl e crashe s i s stil l valid . Although EP Ai s unde r a cour t mandat e t o implemen t a n onboar d rul e fo r passenge r cars , ther e i s n o justification , a s I'v e jus t explained , fo r imposing thi s hazard o n othe r motorist s b yextending the rul e t o ligh t truck s an

d vans . I n addition , EP Ashoul d fashio n a rul e fo r passenge r car s wit h requirement s tha t wil l allowmanufacturer s t o us e simple , integrate d onboar d system s tha t minimiz e th e ris k t o th e motoring public . Th e safet yris k canno t be eliminated . However , i t can be minimized , bu t tha t ris k i s stil l going t o be there . I' d like t o conclud e an d I knowb

y traditio n I shoul d say , than k yo u ver

ymuc h fo r listening an d I'l l be gla

d t o answe r questions , whic h I will , bu t I' d like t o pos e a questio n t o the panel , i f I could . Th e issu e I' d lik e t o as k abou t is , wha t i s goin g t o be the rol e o f the Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n in th e promulgatio n o f thi s fina l rule ?

13 4P.3 9

I 1 W e thin k tha t the Ac t wa s quit e correc t in it s origina l directio n tha t EP Aconsul t wit h NHTSAconcerning th e safet yimpacts , an d I notic e tha t w e hav e a membe r o f NHTSA o n the pane l today , bu t there' s no t a clea r discussio n in the Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking tha t explain s th e process . Ar e w e going t o hav e a

n independen t safet yanalysi s b yNHTSAbefor e thi s fina l rul e i s promulgated ? Th e Institut e woul d clearl y urg e tha t in fac t suc h a n independen t analysi s be don e an d be considere d b

yEP Abefor e doing that . S o m yquestio n t o you , an d a s I say , I' d be delighte d t o answe r your questions , bu t m yquestio n t o yo u is , wha t i s goin

g t o be NHTSA' s rol e in th e promulgatio n o f the fina l rul e wit h regard t o passenge r cars ? MR . HOTT : Well , first , Steve , I' d lik e t o sa ytha t I' mher e t o as k th e question s an d no t answe r them . Second , I don' t creat e policyfo r the Agency . Th e Agency' s rol e wit h EP Arigh t nowi s t o hel p the mpromulgat e a saf e fina l rul e fo r onboar d vapo r recover ysystems . MR . OESCH : M

yquestio n wa s actuall y directe d mor e toward s EPA , sinc e it' s EP Atha t wil l hav e t o finaliz e a rule . MR . WILSON : Well , obviousl yNHTS Ai s represente d her e today . Theyhav e bee n involve d in developing th e proposals . W e inten d t o involve themfull ya s w e develop 13 5P.4 0

r i th e fina l rul e s o they'l l be ful l partner s in putting tha t rul e

together . MR . OESCH : Than k you , an

d than k you fo r your indulgenc e in allowing m e t o pos e th e question . MR . WILSON : I jus t ha d on e questio n whic h was , I don' t knowi f you'r e familia r wit h th e tes t procedur e change s tha t wer e discusse d thi s morning , mayb e yo u nee d some time , bu t th e questio n eithe r nowo r fo r th e record is , wit h thos e changes , an

d assuming the

yallowfo r simple r system s a s some manufacturer s wer e describing , tha t a t leas t the yfee l dea l substantiall ywit h the safet yissue s o f concern , d o yo u hav e a reactio n t o that ? MR . OESCH : I' mcertainl yno t a n exper t o n th e issue s o f th e tes t procedure s themselves . However , clearl you r positio n woul d be tha t i f ther e ar e change s in th e procedure s tha t woul d giv e th e manufacturer s th e flexibilit y an d th e abilit yt o produc e system s tha t woul d minimiz e th e ris k b ymaking themsimpler , integrated , i f possible , wit h th e exist

in g evaporativ e emissio n systems , w e clearl ywoul d suppor t that . MR . GRAY : Aclarificatio n question ; I thin k yo u mad e a commen t tha t Amoco , wh o manufacturer s on e o f the newe r generatio n Stag e I I equipmen t systems , ha s installe d thos e system s on thei r station s nationwide ? MR . OESCH : M

yunderstanding wa s tha t they
13 6P.4 1

I 1 L. J wer e talking o f doin g tha t nationwide . MR . GRAY : I f yo u hav e an ymor e informatio n regardin g that , I' d be intereste d sinc e theyhav e a fewstation s in Michiga n an d I haven' t personall ynotice d it . MR . OESCH : I' d b e delighted , okay . I hop e I hav e no t misrepresente d thei r position , bu t clearl ythe y ar e implementing improve d Stag e I I system s an d ar e featuring themin advertisements . On a plan e o n th e wa yu p here , I wa s flipping through a magazin e wher e theywer e talking abou t thei r reformulate d gasolin e tha t they'r e introducing an d ther e a t the top o f th e advertisemen t wa s a phot o o f th e pum p wit h th e improve d Stag e I I whic h wa s a fa r mor e easie r t o us e system . An d a s I say , I'l l be gla d t o g o bac k an

d i f I hav e bee n mis

take n abou t thei r position , I'l l be gla d t o correc t tha t fo r the record . MR . GRAY : An d fo r al l du e credit , it' s certai n fo r th e area s tha t ar e require d t o us e Stag e I I equip

ment , th e Amoc o systemdoe s represen t — MR . OESCH : An

d that' s why , i f I can jus t elaborat e a littl e further , that' s wh yI thin

k there' s als o — I mean , we'v e al l been talking in th e regulator ycontext , tha t i s yo u hav e certai n authoritie s t o impos e Stag e II , depending o n whethe r the state s hav e me t thei r variou s Clea n Ai r Ac t requirements . 13 7P.4 2

r i ,Bu t I thin k there' s also , we'v e see n it , i f I can us e a

n exampl e fro

msomething whic h I' mmuc h mor e familia r wit h an

d tha t i s fro

mvehicl e safety . We'v e see n in the are a o f vehicl e safet ya dramati c chang e an d tha t wha t w e hav e i s a rea l competitio n in th e marketplac e o n th e issu e o f vehicl e safety . W e hav e manufacturer s tha t ar e proclaiming in al l o f thei r advertisement s th e variou s safet yfeature s tha t the yhav e in vehicles , whic h w e thin k i s wonderfu l becaus e thi s i s driving th e marke t an d it' s meeting th e demand s o f thei r purchaser s wh o ar e lookin g fo r mor e safet yin vehicles . An d I thin

k wha t we'v e see n in th e safet y i s tha t man

ytimes , becaus e o f thi s competition , th e safet y effort s o f the manufacturer s ar e outpacing the safet yeffort s mandate d b

yNHTSA . I n fact , they'r e getting ahead o f th e schedule . Us e the exampl e o f anti-loc k brakes ; ther e i s n o requiremen t in Standar d 10 5 fo r anti-loc k brake s an d the Agenc y ha s been talking abou t thi s fo r a numbe r o f years . B yth e time th e Agenc yget s aroun d t o promulgating a rule , i f i t does , it' s alread ygoin g t o be in virtuall yth e entir e fleet .

An d wh yI raised thi s i s tha t i t seem s t o me ther e coul d be tha t same typ e o r ther e shoul d be tha t same typ e o f pressur e fo r tha t same typ e o f competitio n in th e are a o f the marketing o f gasoline , whic h you'r e talking about . You r station s ar e mor e environmentall yfriendly , your station s hav e
13 8P.4 3



### I ! L.. J th e Stag e II , your station s ar e providing th e protectio n t o th e

breathing publi c o f having thos e system s wher e they'r e refueling the vehicl e an

d you'r e doing thi s an d no t imposing an

yincrease d ris k t o moto r vehicl e safety . MR . GRAY : On e las t question ; I woul d b e intereste d in you r perspectiv e o n th e relativ e ris k issu e o f it' s hard in th e rea l worl d t o hav e a zer o ris k environment , whethe r crossing a roa d o r sometime s eve n eating certai n foods . We'v e heard recently , an d w e appreciat e you r reactio n t o ou r recen t effort s t o tr yt o accommodat e othe r people' s concern s abou t our previousl ypropose d tes t procedur e i n trying t o conside r adjustment s tha t woul d allowmanufacturer s mor e flexibility , allowmanufacturer s t o us e simple r sea l system s a s wel l a s the same siz e caniste r an d integrate d systems . S o w e woul d appreciat e your investigatio n o f al l thos e effort s in moving directionall yin th e wa yyo u encourage d an

d the n some sens e o f thi s fina l relativ e ris k issue . Certainly , we'r e no t anticipating a t thi s stag e nation

wid e Stag e II . I acknowledg e yo u suggeste d tha t i t shoul d be considere d an

d there' s some ris k associate d wit h breathing gasolin e vapors , eve n in area s tha t probabl ywon' t hav e Stag e II . S o i f everything els e happene d t o b e equal , tha t woul d b e some degre e o f benefi t fo r the motoring public , breathing public , t o no t breat h thos e vapors . 13 9P.4 4

r 1 An d jus t howclos e ar e w e wit h th e tes t procedur e modification s toward accommodating concern s abou t increase d fir e ris k an d nowtrying t o accommodat e tha t wit h th e tes t procedure s versu s th e benefit s t o avoiding breathing vapor s in area s wher e ther e migh t no t b e Stag e II , jus t giv e u s some sens e of , hav e ou r effort s bee n reasonabl e wit h respec t t o trying t o ge t a s clos e a s w e can t o sor t o f a reasonabl e balanc e in tha t regard ? MR . OESCH : Again , we'r e no t expert s in th e emission s are a certainly , bu t fro mthe testimon

yI wa s hearing thi s morning , i t certainl ysound s a s i f th e propose d change s tha t you ar e considering in thi s Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking ar e directionall ycorrect , tha t the yar e going toward s minimizing th e risk . An d the onl ypoin t I woul d ad d t o tha t is , well , w e recogniz e clearl yyou'r e unde r a mandat e an d yo u hav e t o issu e the rul e fo r passenge r cars . You r goa l ther e i s t o minimiz e th e risk , bu t sinc e you'r e no t unde r a mandat e t o d o suc h fo r ligh t truck s an d heavy-dut yvehicle s an d ther e woul d be a

n increase d risk , I woul d urg e you t o strongl y conside r othe r alternative s t o th e us e o f onboar d because , again , I thin

k tha t the goa l i s no t onboar d versu s no t onboard . Th e goa l is , wha t ar e th e thing s tha t can be don e t o improve th e qualit yo f the air . MR . PASSAVANT : I f w e mak e the kin d o f

14 0P.4 5

I 1 i i tes t procedur e change s tha t wer e suggeste d her e thi s morning an d
w e ge t system s tha t look like eac h other , wh yd o yo u fee l tha t ther e i s o r continue s t o be a n inheren t ris k involve d here ? I t seem s t o be a presumptio n o n your par t tha t ther e i s o r wil l b e in th e futur e a ris k and , therefore , an ystep tha t w e migh t tak e t o resolv e tha t wil l no t full yresolv e it . MR . OESCH : That' s correct . MR . PASSAVANT : An

d fundamentally , you'v e been involve d in thi s issu e fo r si x year s an d we'r e bac k her e on pag e thre e saying , w e stil l can' t quantif yth e risk . I' m certainl ya t a los s t o understand , afte r we'v e take n thes e kind s o f step s t o tr

yt o ge t a t what' s bee n identifie d a s concern s i n term s o f siz e o f th e components , location s o f component s an d s o on , tha t w e can' t seemt o ge t t o th e poin t o f saying , w e thin k we'v e go t a systemtha t look s like th e othe r system s ar e going t o look . MR . OESCH : Tw o points ; in th e writte n testimony , w e d o hav e informatio n whic h w e hav e provide d EP A before . Th e difficult yi n quantifying , the difficult yin quantifying i t i s becaus e in th e absenc e o f dat a tha t whil e fo r moto r vehicl e fires , tha t i s generall yalmos t alway s reporte d o n th e acciden t report . However , the police , eve n in thos e case s wher e ther e ar e moto r vehicl e fires , don' t d o th e type s o f in-dept h investigation s tha t woul d b e abl e t o identif ywha t

14 1P.4 6

r i 

### i I wer e th e componen t failure s tha t le d t o tha t fire . I n addition , there' s als o the problemo f i f ther e were , let' s say , vapo r release d fro

m th e existing evaporativ e canisters , tha t wouldn' t eve n b e identifie d an d eve n nowi f there' s fue l systemspillag e fro mth e fue l tan

k bu t n o fire , whil e ther e woul d hav e bee n a ris k o f fire , tha t isn' t identifie d o n th e reports . MR . PASSAVANT : I understan d al l tha t an

d bac k in your previou s testimon yyo u sai d tha t a large r caniste r o r a mor e complicate d systemlead s to , you r claim , o f a n inherentl yunsaf e system . I f w e mak e th e kin d o f change s we'r e talking abou t her e in th e tes t procedur e tha t woul d siz e the canister s the same a s wher e the eva p woul d be , tha t i t woul d eliminat e the need fo r some o f the othe r connection s an d s o on , wh yi s the presumptio n stil l going t o be tha t it' s les s safe ? I t seem s t o me tha t the presumptio n woul d shif t t o th e othe r directio n t o say , al l othe r thing s being equal , i t shoul d be the same . MR . OESCH : I woul d argu e tha t wha t i t is , i s you'v e elevate d th e ris k fo r everybody . S o it' s a unifor m elevatio n fo r everybody , bu t it' s stil l a greate r ris k than the other . MR . PASSAVANT : Elevate d i t — MR . OESCH : Whil e yo u ar e doing things , i t sound s like , based o n wha t I'v e heard in the othe r testimon y

14 2P.4 7



### . J thi s morning , yo u ar e doing thing s quit e correctl yt o mov e t o

mak e i t directionall ymor e —t o minimiz e th e risk . Never theless , the fac t i s becaus e o f th e complexit yo f th e system s anyhow , the sensors , th e newsensor s tha t hav e t o b e pu t in , th e fac t tha t th e canister s themselves , whil e yo u ma yb e taking action s through your change s in your tes t procedur e t o reduc e th e increas e i n size , theystil l wil l increas e in siz e and , becaus e o f tha t increase , there' s th e greate r potential . An d our point , an

d I keep coming bac k t o this , ou r poin t fromth e very beginning ha s been , w e can achiev e thes e same goals , th e goa l o f getting cleane r ai r through a wa ytha t doesn' t hav e an y o f thes e drawbacks . MR . PASSAVANT : I woul d as k you t o examin e the validit yo f a presumptio n tha t thing s wil l be unsaf e base d upon lack o f data , an d i f we'v e mad e step s toward trying t o resolve that , your bein g th e onl ytestifie r coming t o th e record toda ysaying tha t there' s inherentl ystil l a problem , I thin k

concern s me .

I could . Le t m e come bac k t o on e fina l point , i f

MR . OESCH : Sure ; I don' t thin k I wa s th e onl yon e today . I believ e other s sai d tha t th e rulemaking wa s moving , particularl ygive n the — MR . PASSAVANT : Yes , the yneed t o se e th e

14 3P.4 8

r " i fina l rule s too , I understand , bu t yo u stil l drewa prett y

strong conclusion . Finally , yo u mad e a statemen t her e abou t NHTSA' s fue l systemstandard s no t solving th e problem . MR . OESCH : Yes . MR . PASSAVANT : Wha t woul d be you r view s o n whethe r o r no t suc h a standar d i s neede d fo r a 30 1 modifi

catio n — MR . OESCH : Well , I thin k tha t i t doe s mak e sens e becaus e w e ar e goin g t o pu t onboar d system s on because , i

n ou r view , ther e i s a risk , tha t certainl y30 1 shoul d d o whatever' s possibl e t o addres s that . Bu t th e poin t I wa s trying t o mak e i s tha t i s difficul t becaus e we'r e talking abou t vehicle s tha t hav e t o work , tha t ar e going t o be traveling th e rea l worl d wher e they'r e going t o be expose d t o a wid e variet y o f differen t configuration s o r crashe s a t differen t speeds . Astandard , an

ystandard , can onl ymeasur e th e performanc e o f th e vehicl e an d se t a minimu

mo f leve l o f performanc e in a prescribe d test . Yo u hav e t o hav e a n objectiv e tes t procedure . Yo u can' t say , n o fue l spillag e in an ycras h tha t yo u ge t in the rea l world . Yo u hav e t o hav e defined , objectiv e tes t procedure s tha t manufacturer s hav e t o meet . Clearly , w e woul d suppor t anything tha t coul d be don e t o Standar d 30 1 tha t migh t als o hel p minimiz e the risks . Th e poin t

14 4P.4 9



## L J tha t I wa s trying t o mak e wa s tha t eve n thos e change s wil l no t

eliminat e the risk . MR . PASSAVANT : I know , bu t the poin t i s tha t I wa s asking you , d o yo u thin k tha t NHTSAshoul d direc

tionall yexamin e tha t an d se e i f there' s something tha t shoul d be done ? MR . OESCH : Yes , th e direc t answe r i s yes . MR . PASSAVANT : I wan t t o come t o on e fina l point . O f cours e th e audienc e doesn' t hav e thi s picture , bu t there' s a pictur e in her e o f a vehicl e an d a cras h tes t tha t show s a caniste r fire . We'v e ha d thes e vehicles , evaporativ e vehicles , in us e fo r 2 0 year s an d ove r a 2 0 yea r period , I don' t knowhowman

yo f these , i f ever , an yo f thes e type s o f fire s hav e eve r happened . Bu t wh yhasn' t ther e bee n a mov e o n th e par t o f the insuranc e industr yt o shor e u

p canisters , i f tha t reall ypresent s a safet yrisk ? Canister s toda yar e mad e o f a nylo n o r plasti c typ e composit e tha t wil l break ope n upo n a strong impac t an

d coul d easil ybe reinforce d t o solv e tha t problemo r t o relocat e i t an d solv e tha t problem , eithe r wa yyo u wan t t o look a t it . MR . OESCH : Well , th e answe r t o tha t i s mayb e w e shoul d hav e bee n addressing thi s earlier . Bu t clearly , w e ar e trying t o addres s wha t w e sa wwa s wit h a growth , cer tainl yunde r the origina l proposal , wit h a growt h in th e siz e

14 5P.5 0

r i i i o f th e canister , the growt h in th e tubing an d othe r element s o f th e design tha t woul d be use d in thes e systems , w e di d clearly . I t clearl ydawne d upon u s the safet yproblemthe n an d w e wante d t o addres s it , whic h w e hav e bee n trying t o addres s sinc e 1986 . MR . PASSAVANT : Woul d yo u sugges t o r woul d yo u agre e tha t ar e direction s tha t lea d t o engineering solution s tha t ar e availabl e t o solv e some o f thes e kind s o f concern s tha t wer e raised in your littl e flye r here ? MR . OESCH : I' msur e tha t ther e are , I' m sur e tha t ther e are . MR . PASSAVANT : Thank you . MR . SILVERMAN : I jus t wante d t o clarif y two points . Di d I hea r correctl ytha t you sai d yo u woul d suppor t a rul e i f i t coul d be implemente d using a simple r system wit h something wher e the caniste r coul d serv e a dua l purpos e fo r evap an d fo r onboard ? MR . OESCH : Yes , th e answe r i s that , becaus e yo u ar e unde r th e mandat e fromth e cour t t o d o that , tha t i f the ris k can be minimize d an d consisten t wit h your obligation s under , I hat e cod e speak , bu t I thin k it' s 202(a)(4) , yo u have t o mak e th e determinatio n tha t thes e system s wil l no t pos e a

n unreasonabl e ris k t o th e publi c health , welfar e an d safety , an

d consisten t wit h that , i f ther e can be change s t o th e rul e tha t wil l enabl e yo u bot h t o mak e tha t determina

14 6P.5 1

I 1 

## LJ tion , yes , w e woul d clearl ysupport , becaus e you'r e unde r th e

obligatio n t o d o it . I hat e t o keep goin g bac k t o this , i f w e ar e clea r tha t w e woul d hav e preferre d the othe r alternativ e tha t didn' t pos e an yo f thes e risks , tha t i s Stag e II . MR . SILVERMAN : Bu t yo u don' t thin k that' s equall ya

n answe r wit h respec t t o light-dut ytruck s an d heavy

dut ytrucks , eve n though you'r e goin g t o hav e th e same caniste r bein g used fo r evap ? MR . OESCH : No , an d th e reason , again , i s tha t I sai d you'r e unde r a n obligation . Yo u hav e basicall yn o choic e bu t t o promulgat e a rul e an d mak e th e determinatio n unde r 202(a)(4 ) tha t thes e vehicle s ar e safe , bu t I' msaying - - I' m sorry , g o on . MR . SILVERMAN : I' mjus t wondering i f the caniste r i s goin

g t o be th e same an d it' s going t o be ther e fo r eva p purpose s anyway . Yo u stil l se e some safet yrisk s being pose d i f i t — MR . OESCH : There' s still , again , i t depend s on wha t the fina l rule , bu t I still , fro mwha t I' m hearing , ther e stil l woul d be , th e ris k woul d b e minimize d bu t ther e woul d stil l be a ris k ther e wit h ligh t truck s an d th e poin t I woul d mak e is , wh ypos e tha t ris k anyhow ? / MR . SILVERMAN : I' masking/yo u though , i f / th e ris k wil l b e ther e becaus e th e caniste r ha s t o b e ther e fo r 14 7P.5 2

' 1 purpose s o f th e eva p rule , wha t incrementa l ris k i s being create d then ? MR . OESCH : Well , th e incrementa l ris k i s th e ris k o f having t o ad d o n th e additiona l siz e and/o r com ponent s in orde r t o handl e th e refueling vapor . MR . SILVERMAN : Okay , s o you'r e saying ther e migh t be a fewadditiona l component s othe r than th e canister ? MR . OESCH : O r the siz e o f th e canister . MR . SILVERMAN : Well , let' s sa yth e siz e i s the same though . MR . OESCH : Well , again , eve n with , i f I can dra wbac k t o the passenge r cars , eve n wit h those , w e woul d stil l sa

ytha t ther e i s a

n increase d ris k an d I keep going bac k t o th e point , ou r poin t is , wh yg o t o an

yincrease d ris k whe n ther e ar e risk-fre e way s o f addressing th e same problem , tha t i s addressing the problemo f improving th e ai r quality . MR . WILSON : Than

k yo u ver

ymuch . Th e nex t witnes s i s th e Recreatio n Vehicl e Industr yAssociation . MR . CONWAY : Goo d afternoon ; I' mEdward F . Conway , Jr . , Assistan t Genera l Counse l o f th e Recreatio n Vehicl e Industr

yAssociation , headquartere d in Reston , Virginia .

RVI Ai s th e nationa l trad e associatio n 14 8P.5 3

I 1 I I representing ove r 45 0 manufacturer s o f recreatio n vehicle s an d thei r relate d suppliers . It s 17 5 manufacture r member s produc e approximatel y9 5 percen t o f al l recreatio n vehicle s purchase d in the Unite d States . RVIA' s 5 8 moto r home manufacture r members , man

yo f whic h ar e smal l busines s entities , produc e approximatel y9 9 percen t o f moto r home s purchase d in th e Unite d States . RVIA' s 8 2 customvan conversio n members , mos t o f whomar e smal l busines s entities , produc e approximatel y 8 0 percen t o f th e customvan conversion s purchase d in th e Unite d States . The remaining 2 0 percen t o f customvan conversion s ar e produce d b

ymor e than 1,60 0 non-membe r manufacturers , mos t o f whompresumabl yar e als o smal l busines s entities . RVI Asupport s the testimon ypreviousl y give n b yAAM Aan d Genera l Motors , For d an d Chrysler . RVI Astrongl yurge s EP At o exclud e light

dutytruck s an

d heavy-dut yvehicle s fro m th e ORV

R standards . W e agre e wit h previou s witnesse s tha t thes e vehicle s ar e no t withi n th e scop e o f th e congressiona l an d cour t mandate s whic h ar e limited t o light-dut yvehicles , o r i n othe r words , passenge r
cars . Th e Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet y Administratio n repor t o n onboar d system s conclude d tha t thes e system s wil l resul t i n a n increas e i

n safet yris k an

d wil l hav e

14 9P.5 4

r 1 a negativ e impac t on safety . Thi s increas e in safet yris k an d negativ e impac t on safet ywil l be significantl ygreate r fo r light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut yvehicle s than fo r passenge r car s becaus e thei r large r onboar d system s wil l pos e a muc h greate r fir e hazard . Befor e proceeding t o requir e ORV R system s o n light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut yvehicles , EP Ashoul d closel y monito r an

d analyz e th e in-servic e safet yperformanc e o f onboar d system s in passenge r cars . Lesson s learne d fro mthi s migh t ultimatel ylea

d t o the developmen t o f improve d system s tha t reduc e thei r inheren t safet yris k an d negativ e impac t o n safet y sufficientl yt o mak e the msuitabl e fo r light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut yvehicles . I f light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut y vehicle s ar e nevertheles s no t t o be exclude d fro mth e ORV

R standards , RVI Astrongl yurge s EP At o exclud e al l recreatio n light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut yvehicles . In othe r words , moto r home s an

d customvan conversion s shoul d be excluded .

I t shoul d be note d tha t thes e recreatio n vehicle s ar e operate d mostl yi n remot e rura l area s tha t ar e no t withi n ozon e non-attainmen t zones . Moreover , theyconstitut e onl ya smal l segmen t o f the light-dut ytruck s an d heavy-dut y vehicle s produce d eac h year . Recreatio n light-dut ytruck s an d heavy

15 0P.5 5



### r n 1 i dutyvehicle s ar e muc h mor e comple x vehicle s than passenge r

cars . Fo r example , moto r home s provid e temporarylivin g quarter s fo r camping , recreatio n an d trave l use . Theyar e manufacture d o n chassi s supplie d b yth e automotiv e companies . The yare , in fact , motorize d house s o n wheel s wit h livin g facilitie s powere d b y1 2 vol t an

d 12 0 vol t electrica l system s an d b yLP-ga s systems . Moto r home livin g facilitie s includ e cooking stove s an

d microwav e ovens , refrigerators , televisio n set s an d VCRs , stereo s an

d compac t dis c players , self-containe d toilets , wate r heaters , showers , heating an d ai r conditioning an d potabl e wate r suppl ysystem s tha t hav e sink s wit h faucet s an d holding tank s fo r fres h an d wast e water i Man ymoto r home s als o hav e electri c generator s an d fue l tank s wit h a capacit yo f mor e than 7 5 gallons . Customvan conversion s ar e light-dut y truck s an

d heavy-dut yvehicl e van s tha t hav e bee n modifie d t o provid e minimu

mlivin

g facilities , suc h a s a n LP-ga s fuele d refrigerato r an

d stov e an

d 12 0 vol t electrica l systems . They als o provid e sleeping o r othe r temporarylivin g quarter s fo r recreatio n an

d travel . Recreatio n light-dut ytruck s an d heavy

dut yvehicle s ar e comple x vehicle s tha t mus t b e carefull y designe d t o minimiz e the ris k o f fir e in th e even t o f a collisio n o r othe r accidents . In recen t years , manufacturer s 15 1P.5 6

r 1 o f moto r home s an d customvan conversion s have , wit h consider

abl e effor t an

d expense , devise d protectiv e measure s t o safeguard th e electrica l an d LP-ga s system s an d th e hous e furnishing s o f thei r vehicle s fro mhig h temperature s generate d b ythe currentl yrequire d ai r pollutio n contro l devices . Thes e hous e furnishing s includ e beds , sofas , carpeting , woode n cabinet s an

d accessories .

T o requir e a large , comple x ORV R system in thes e alread

ycomple x vehicle s tha t ar e used t o provid e sleeping and/o r temporar ylivin g quarter s woul d greatl yincreas e the dange r o f disastrou s fire s tha t coul d resul t in numerou s fatalities . Fo r example , pilo t light s o r spark s fro mcircui t breakers , automati c ignitio n device s o r electri c generator s coul d ignit e leakin g fue l vapor s whil e the vehicle' s occupant s ar e sleeping . Becaus e chassi s manufacturer s ar e now focusing o n developing system s fo r passenge r cars , RVI Areall y doe s no t hav e a handl e o n o r an ydetaile d knowledg e o n th e configuratio n o f ORV R system s fo r light-dut ytruck s an d heavy

dutyvehicle s tha t woul d be used fo r moto r home s o r customvan conversions . However , base d o n ou r 1imite d knowledge , i t i s ou r understanding tha t th e ORV R systemwoul d requir e additiona l valves , includin

g nozzle-actuate d tan k ven t valv e assembly , a vapor-liqui d separato r an d a vent/rollove r valve . I t woul d als o 15 2P.5 7

I 1 L J requir e a larg e caniste r o r a serie s o f canister s which , depend

in g on the siz e o f the fue l tank , woul d have thre e t o 1 2 time s th e capacit yo f the currentl yrequire d canister . Moreover , it s vapo r recover

yline s woul d be muc h large r than thos e currentl y in use . A n ORV R systemwoul d severel yreduc e th e alread ylimite d availabilit yo f adequat e an d saf e spac e fo r moto r home an

d customvan conversio n manufacturer s t o instal l LP-gas , electrica l an d othe r vita l systems . Th e proximit yo f thos e system s t o a require d ORV R systemwoul d greatl yincreas e th e dange r o f disastrou s fire s whe n tha t systemmalfunction s o r the vehicl e i s involved i n a n accident . Fo r example , a n out wardl yundetectabl e impairmen t o f tha t system' s mechanica l nozzl e seals , vapor-liqui d discriminator s o r pressur e relie f valve s coul d resul t in los s o f fue l systemintegrit yduring vehicl e impact . Each recreatio n vehicl e manufacture r develop s it s ow

n floo r plan s an

d productio n methods . Conse
quently , bot h the permanen t installatio n o f a n ORV R systemb

y the chassi s manufacture r an d th e installatio n o f a n ORV R system b ythe fina l stag e manufacture r pos e sever e problem s fo r whic h ther e i s n o apparen t solution . Ther e i s ver

ylittle , i f any , fre e spac e availabl e o n a recreatio n vehicl e t o accommodat e th e permanen t 15 3P.5 8

r i installatio n o f larg e ORV R system s b

yth e chassi s manufacture r tha t wil l no t seriousl yimpai r th e abilit yo f th e fina l stag e manufacture r t o produc e th e wid e variet yo f floo r plan s necessaryt o mee t consume r needs . Moreover , th e absenc e o f experienc e wit h newl ydevelope d ORV R system s an

d wit h thei r impac t o n othe r system s an d component s o f recreatio n vehicle s woul d hamstring th e effort s o f bot h chassi s an d fina l stag e manufacturer s t o assur e th e safet yo f thes e vehicles . Conse
quently , thei r produc t liabilit yexposur e wil l b e greatl y increased . The alternativ e o f having manufacturer s o f moto r home s an

d customvan conversion s develop , instal l an d certif ythei r ow

n ORV R system s on vehicle s tha t hav e a wid e variet yo f floo r plan s desire d b yconsumer s woul d be inordi

natel ytime-consuming , cos t prohibitiv e an d beyon d the expertis e o f most , i f no t all , o f thes e manufacturers . Th e alternativ e o f having manufacturer s o f moto r home s an d customvan conversion s complet e th e installatio n o f ORV R system s develope d an d partiall yinstalle d b ychassi s manufacturer s woul d likewis e be inordinatel ytime

consuming , cos t prohibitiv e an d beyon d th e expertis e o f most , i f no t all , o f thes e manufacturers . Than k you fo r th e opportunit yt o presen t the concern s o f the member s o f our association . 15 4P.5 9

I— ! MR . WILSON : Than k yo u ver

ymuc h fo r tha t testimony . I jus t ha d on e request ; on e o f your theme s i s the concer n abou t spac e o n a recreationa l vehicl e fo r a n onboar d system . I thin

k you probabl yheard othe r testimon ytoda ytha t suggest s tha t wit h some change s t o th e tes t procedure , th e system s ma

yloo k jus t like th e evaporativ e system s tha t ar e going o n th e vehicles . I mean , it' s no t clea r i f tha t happen s wha t th e extr a spac e requiremen t woul d in fac t be , i f any , an d mayb e yo u coul d — MR . CONWAY : Tha t i s hard t o evaluate , no t knowing wha t i s goin g t o come out , bu t in an yevent , we'r e going t o hav e a large r capacit ycontaine r there . We'r e going t o hav e a large r amoun t o f vapo r storag e an d a large r system tha t coul d fail . Murphy' s law , everything tha t can g o wrong , usuall ydoe s an

d a t the wors t possibl e moment , an d we'v e ha

d problem s in othe r area s wit h moto r home s tha t hav e bee n in servic e fo r 2 0 years . Thes e vehicle s ar e aroun d fo r a lon

g time . You'r e developing , I believe , a lifetime standar d o f te n years . I thin

k you'r e proposing something like tha t in you r standard . I don' t wan t t o ge t int o th e technica l aspec t o f this . Lor

d know s I' mno t a

n engineer , s o i f you as k me an y engineering questions , I'l l declin e t o answe r themo n th e ground s tha t I don' t knowth e answer . MR . GRAY : On e questio n on the las t par t 15 5P.6 0

r i o f your testimon ywhe n yo u wer e discussing variou s alternative s fo r the installatio n o f a n onboar d system . Th e las t alternativ e yo u mentione d o f having manufacturer s o f th e recreatio n vehicle s complet e th e installatio n o f th e systemdevelope d b yth e origina l chassi s manufacturer , woul d be time-consuming , cost prohibitive , an

d yo u sa

ybeyon d th e expertis e o f most , i f no t al l o f thes e manufacturers . I though t I remembe r thi s morning some o f thos e chassi s manufacturer s testifying tha t in man y case s yo u d o alread yinstal l variou s fue l systemcomponent s includin

g the evaporativ e caniste r an d the purg e line s an d th e variou s hardwar e an d plumbing that' s alread yrequired . MR . CONWAY : I believ e tha t i s correct . However , w e hav e t o d o i t withi n the parameter s o f thei r limitation s an

d condition s an

d thos e limitation s an d condition s wil l severel yreduc e the flexibilit your peopl e have . Theycan basicall yd o i t precisel yth e wa yan d precisel ythe locatio n an d wha t hav e yo u tha t th e chassi s manufacture r prescribed , bu t i f theywan t t o mak e a sligh t chang e in th e floo r plan o r mov e i t her e o r mak e thi s adjustment , they'r e o n thei r own . They'r e outsid e th e chassi s manufacturer' s certification . MR . GRAY : The n the ywoul d be taking o n some liability , I woul d think . MR . CONWAY : Theysur e woul d be . They woul d hav e t o retest . I f the ydepar t significantl yfro mth e 15 6P.6 1

I 1 

### i i condition s an d limitations , the n theycan n o longe r rid e on th e chassi s manufacturer' s certification . They'r e going t o hav e t o d o i t themselves , wit h al l that' s involved . W e d o everything , an d a s I mentioned , thes e ar e smal l busines s entitie s an d that' s beyon d thei r technica l expertis e an d it' s probably , i n man y cases , beyon

d thei r financia l resource s a s wel l t o hir e somebod y t o d o i t fo r them . MR . GRAY : Yo u mentione d severa l times , your testimon

yha d emphasi s o n the concer n abou t th e larg e caniste r associate d wit h onboar d refueling a s a n increment , finding spac e fo r it , th e difficult yo f th e recreatio n vehicl e manufacturer s having th e expertis e o f installing it . Hopefully , als o toda

yyo u obtaine d a gras p fo r the effort s tha t we'v e bee n expending t o tr

yt o be responsiv e t o man yo f the concern s like your s wit h respec t t o considering a tes t procedur e whic h woul d allowa n integrate d system , a systemwit h the same caniste r tha t woul d otherwis e be require d fo r evaporativ e emissions . In ligh t o f al l tha t discussion , in ligh t o f th e objectiv e o f accommodating design s tha t woul d no t requir e a differen t caniste r than you woul d be otherwis e installing , wha t woul d b e our remaining concern s tha t you woul d hav e u s consider ? MR . CONWAY : Well , m yprincipa l concer n i s you , a s a

n Agency , ar e takin g a ris k o r imposin g a risk , yo u

15 7P.6 2

r i migh t say , o n our manufacturers , tha t yo u don' t hav e t o take .

You'r e unde r a cour t mandat e an d unde r a legislativ e mandate , s o you'v e go t good cove r i f thing s g o wrong . There' s a n axiom , you di d wha t you wer e tol d t o d o in th e bes t manne r according t o th e stat e o f th e ar t a t th e time . Bu t in extending thi s t o area s wher e yo u hav e complet e discretion , yo u n o longe r hav e tha t cove r an

d you'r e ou t o n a lim b an d it' s a ris k yo u don' t hav e t o tak e an

d w e don' t thin

k yo u shoul d impos e o n ou r manufacturer s o r on th e public . MR . GRAY : I thin k that' s wh

ywe'r e pursuing a

n understanding becaus e w e hav e bee n addressing o r trying t o addres s the concern s o f other s wit h regard t o thes e issues . I thin

k w e woul d particularl ybe intereste d in your specifi c respons e to , i f it' s the same siz e canister , i f that' s accommodated , it' s th e same canister , no t anothe r on e o f th e same size , tha t accommodate s the refueling vapors , that' s alread yrequire d fo r evaporativ e vapors , wha t i s thi s additiona l ris k tha t you sugges t w e woul d be assuming ? MR . CONWAY : Well , I' massuming tha t somehowo r anothe r it' s going t o be large r capacity . I t migh t no t b e large r in size . There' s going t o be mor e gases . Th e tubing wil l be larger . I mean , I' mn o engineer , bu t you'r e goin g t o hav e t o come u p wit h some kin

d o f a technologica l breakthrough wher e you can ge t accommodations , wher e you can 15 8P.6 3

I 1 L J tripl e o r quadrupl e o r whatever , th e capacit yo f the system

withou t enlarging it , MR . GRAY : Perhap s i t woul d be mos t instructiv e i f engineer s withi n you r companie s coul d conside r the revision s tha t we'r e contemplating tha t ar e focuse d exactl y o n som e o f the , i t seem s like , majo r concern s you'v e raise d an d giv e u s b

yth e clos e o f the commen t perio d an yrevise d perspec tive s yo u migh t hav e in a technica l vei n a s t o wha t stil l woul d remai n o r wha t concern s remain . Tha t woul d b e helpfu l t o us . MR . CONWAY : On e othe r thing , i f I migh t interject , i s that , a s you'r e wel l aware , you'r e no t th e onl y agencythat' s closing in o n thes e manufacturers . We'r e getting mor e an d mor e NHTSArequirement s tha t —a s a resul t o f whic h the chassi s manufacturer s increasingl yimpos e mor e stringen t condition s an

d limitations , whic h furthe r limi t the discretio n o r th e possibilitie s tha t ou r peopl e can pu t int o thes e moto r home s an

d conversio n vehicles . They'r e reall ybeing presse d in . I thin k th e ultimat e someda yi s they'r e going t o b e abl e t o chang e th e hubcap s an d pu t tri mpain t o n theman d tha t wil l be abou t th e siz e o f it . MR . GRAY : I ha d on e question ; you gav e example s o f pilo t lights , spark s fro m circui t breakers , auto mati c ignitio n devices , electri c generators , e t cetera , source s o f ignitio n tha t migh t ignit e vapor s fro ma leakin

g canister .

15 9P.6 4

r l I' mjus t curious . I t seem s like tha t lis t o f examples , thos e

example s migh t be presen t whe n a n owne r o r operato r o f th e recreatio n vehicl e wa s refueling th e vehicl e a t a servic e statio n producing a larg e quantif yo f vapors , perhap s ver y frequently , int o th e ignitio n zone s o f thes e igniters . MR . CONWAY : I f I migh t addres s that , the owne r manual s tha t g o wit h theminstruc t themt o turn of f al l thos e system s whil e they'r e refueling th e vehicl e fo r jus t tha t reason . MR . GRAY : D o you thin k tha t happen s ver

y often ? I mean , pilo t lights , sinc e I'v e ha d some experienc e wit h a recreatio n vehicl e myself , turning of f pilo t light s o n thes e unit s coul d tak e considerabl e time fo r wate r heater s t o furnace s t o refrigerators . Ha s tha t eve r happened ? MR . CONWAY : I can' t tel l you . I imagin e i t does , bu t you'r e assuming the ris k i f you don't . MR . GRAY : Well , d o yo u hav e an yinfor

mation ? Certainly , mayb e it' s somewher e in a n owner' s manual , bu t I don' t thin

k they'r e labeled o n the devices , Danger , turn the pilo t light s out , ever ytime yo u refue l your vehicl e wit h gasoline . S o it' s no t a n obviou s warning fo r sure . MR . CONWAY : I t ma ydepen

d to o on the proximity . Nowi f they'r e in clos e proximit yt o th e refueling , t o the nozzle , obviousl yyou'r e goin g t o hav e t o d o it , bu t tha t
16 0P.6 5



# n i i woul d be on e o f th e design constraint s too . Anothe r wa yyou coul d ge t aroun

d i t woul d b e b

yrelocating i t an

d se t i t a t th e othe r en

d o f th e vehicle .

MR . GRAY : True , bu t i f you'r e dispensing gasolin e int o a larg e tan k a t te n gallon s a minut e o r s o an d you've go t a larg e tank , you'v e go t a lo t o f gallon s o f vapor s tha t ar e concentrate d aroun d thi s vehicl e compare d t o a lea k o f absorbe d vapor s o n a caniste r whic h in a flowrat e sens e ha s t o be order s o f magnitud e smaller , mor e time fo r th e heavie r vapor s t o settl e awa

yfro mthe ignitio n source . I' mjus t trying , sinc e yo u raise d i t a s a n obscur e example , I' m trying t o pu t i t in some relativ e perspective . D o you hav e dat a o n howofte n thes e thing s catc h on fir e whe n peopl e ar e refueling the vehicles ? MR . CONWAY : W e di d hav e a problem . I mean , some o f ou r manufacturers , I believe , ha d a problem . Again , I' m

no t a

n engineer , bu t I remembe r readin g abou t spitting ga s tanks , howthe ywoul d spi t back , spi t ou t a t them whe n theyrefueled . That' s bee n a problemin some instances . Bu t thes e ar e comple x systems . MR . GRAY : D o you surveything s like fire s during refueling t o fin d ou t eve n wit h th e ver ylarg e amount s o f vapor s tha t ar e availabl e i n thos e zones , whethe r o r no t there' s frequen t - - MR . CONWAY : D o I surveywhat , I' msorry ? 16 1P.6 6

r ' i MR . GRAY : You r manufacturer s t o fin d ou t

i f the y—

I assum e tha t someon e refuelin g thei r vehicl e and i t caugh t fir e fro m

a n ignitio n sourc e i n th e vehicle , tha t tha t manufacture r woul d probabl yhea r abou t it . MR . CONWAY : I imagin e h e would . MR . GRAY : I s ther e anydat a availabl e o n th e rea l worl d occurrenc e o f vapo r ignitio n eve n a t th e hig h volume s tha t ar e presen t durin g refueling , jus t t o ge t a handle , a baselin e handle , o n th e severit yo f ris k associate d wit h thos e ignitio n sources ? MR . CONWAY: I thin k th e primar yvehicl e fo r developin g somethin g lik e tha t woul d probabl yb e NHTSA , woul d ge t involve d wit h investigation s an d recal l an d wha t hav e you , bu t mos t o r ou r manufacturer s ar e relativel ysmal l organi

zations . The ydon' t hav e a larg e engineerin g staff . The yrang e i n al l size s fro mpracticall ymom-and-po p va n converter s al l th e wa yup t o majo r manufacturer s suc h as , I don' t wan t t o giv e any commercials , bu t yo u kno wwh o the yare . MR . GRAY : S o you'r e no t awar e o f anydat a tha t you r member s migh t obtain ? MR . CONWAY : No , I' mnot . I n fact , I revie wa lot , o n occasion , o f governmen t dat a o n collision s i f they'r e bein g use d a s justificatio n fo r imposin g standards , moto r vehicl e safet ystandards , and on e o f th e thing s I fin d 16 2P.6 7

I 1 

### i J frustrating i s tha t we'r e lumped i n wit h something calle d light

dutyvehicle s o r light-dut ytruck s o r some abbreviatio n whic h cover s picku

p trucks . I t cover s whe n you'r e talking abou t roll

overs , i t cover s th e jee p typ e vehicle s tha t hav e a propensit y t o rol l ove r an

d we'r e lumpe d in wit h theman d w e ge t caugh t in the same standard . There' s reall yn o statistica l breakou t tha t I'v e eve r bee n abl e t o fin d tha t addresse s our particula r vehicle s becaus e w e ar e suc h a smal l segmen t o f th e fleet . MR . GRAY : Than

k you . MR . FRANCE : Yo u singl e ou t van conver sions . Ho wofte n ar e th e fue l system s o n van conversion s altered ? I' mjus t curious . M yunderstanding o f van conversion s i s yo u bu

ythe shel l o f th e van an d you ad

d the interio r fo r th e mos t part . I' mjus t curiou s howofte n you'r e asking fo r a n exemptio n fo r van conversions , howofte n d o yo u ge t in an d actuall y— MR . CONWAY : Mes s wit h th e fue l — MR . FRANCE : That' s wit h th e fue l system tha t come s fro

mth e manufacturer .

MR . CONWAY : Las t yea r whe n I wa s here , I thin k Mr . Passavan t o r somebod ychide d me , an

d I sen t ou t a memo t o our member s abou t whe n the yexpan d the fue l capacity , they'r e suppose d t o —there' s some regulator yfiling s they'r e suppose d t o mak e wit h EP Aan d apparentl ytha t hasn' t —some o f
16 3P.6 8



## r T the mhav e bee n remis s in doing that . S o i t doe s occur . Ou r van , whe n I us e the term , van conversion , you'v e go t a lo t o f terminolog

yproblem s here . Nowyo u thin k o f a van , w e d o hav e wha t w e cal l a Clas s B van whic h outwardl ylook s lik e jus t an ordinaryvan , bu t i t basicall yi s a smal l moto r home , ha s al l o f thos e component s I listed . MR . FRANCE : I understand . Wha t I' m trying t o ge t at , thi s no t onl yapplie s t o van conversions , bu t i t als o get s a t al l your othe r type s o f moto r home platforms . M yunderstanding , an d i t ma ybe incorrect , i s tha t becaus e o f the liabilit yassociate d wit h fue l systems , i t behoove s con verter s an

d moto r home builder s t o followth e manufacturer' s recommendation s an

d the yough t t o thin

k twic e befor e theyg o in an d alte r the systembecaus e the ytak e o n a whol e newse t o f liabilit yburden s an d you als o pointe d ou t tha t th e engineering ma ybe lacking . MR . CONWAY : That' s correct . Theyhav e tha t choice . Theyhav e tw o choices . Theyeithe r d o precisel y wha t th e chassi s manufacture r tell s the mt o d o i

n completing tha t vehicle , yo u don' t mes s wit h tha t system , o r i f the yd o mes s wit h it , the n they'r e on thei r own . I thin k a s a result , al l th e smal l fellow s don' t hav e an yalternative . They'v e jus t go t t o followthe manufacturer' s recommendation , no t recommenda

tion , I shoul d sa

ymandate . 16 4P.6 9

I 1 I I MR . FRANCE : Bu t i f theyfollowth e

manufacturer' s recommendations , the n the liabilit yi s on th e manufacturer , correct , i f theyinstalle d i t correctly . I' mjus t trying t o figur e ou t wher e th e liabilit yconcer n i s in term s o f th e ris k an

d stuf f lik e that .

MR . CONWAY : Well , i f there' s a n accident , they'l l bot h be sued . Th e chassi s manufacture r wil l be sue d becaus e he' s go t the deepe r pockets , bu t our manufacture r wil l b e too . MR . FRANCE : I understand , bu t i f you'r e modifying a van , you'r e asking fo r a n exemption , bu t i f th e manufacture r alread ytoo k th e burde n o n t o design a n onboar d system— MR . CONWAY : He' s alread ypu t i t on ? MR . FRANCE : Yes . MR . CONWAY : Well , the n tha t woul d limi t

—th e one

exampl e I gav e o f th e typ e B moto r home , the ywoul d probabl yhav e t o mak e some modification s t o ge t al l th e thing s theyhav e t o pu t in fo r a typ e B moto r home o r peopl e wil l ge t ou t o f the busines s o f making a typ e B moto r home wit h tha t chassis . MR . FRANCE : Tha t lead s me t o the nex t question . Our goa l wa s t o ge t refueling system s simila r in siz e an d complexit yt o the eva p system . Theymus t be encountering 16 5P.7 0

r i thes e problem s wit h evap system , correct ? MR . CONWAY : I' msorry , the ymus t what ? MR . FRANCE : I said , some o f the concern s you'r e raising hav e t o appl yt o curren t eva p system s an

d th e new eva p system s tha t ar e coming , th e newrequirement s coming dow n the road . I t strike s m e tha t a lo t thes e concern s aren' t uniqu e t o onboard . MR . CONWAY : It' s jus t a furthe r magnificatio n o f the problem s coming dow n th e road . I mean , it' s piling on , it' s a pile-o n syndrome . Yo u hav e problem s alread yan d thi s i s going t o magnif ythe man d mak e themgreater . MR . FRANCE : T o the exten t directionall y w e hav e a refueling requiremen t whic h minimize s th e difference s betwee n eva

p an d refueling systems , in fact , tha t they'r e integrated , tha t woul d g o a lon g wa ytoward s addressing a lo t o f you r concerns . MR . CONWAY : I thin k i t woul d reduc e the risk , bu t I don' t thin k i t woul d eliminat e th e concerns . W e woul d stil l hav e th e constraints . You'r e saying basicall y you'r e going t o come u p wit h a refueling vapo r recover ysystem tha t outwardl ylook s like a n identica l twin ? MR . FRANCE : Yes , I mean , i f w e en d u p wit h canister s tha t ar e th e same a s eva p — MR . CONWAY : The same tubing , the same 16 6P.7 1

I 1 L J everything ? MR . FRANCE : Yes . MR . CONWAY : An

d no t holding an

ymor e vapors ? MR . FRANCE : Well , there' s some tubing differences , bu t the leve l o f complexit yi s in order s o f magni

tud e ove r wha t you'v e bee n experiencing o r wil l be experiencing wit h evap . That , i t seem s t o me , shoul d g o a lon g way s toward s addressing that . MR . CONWAY : I thin k you'r e getting int o technica l area s tha t ar e wa ybeyon d m yexpertise . An

yanswe r I giv e yo u probabl ywon' t b e wort h th e pape r it' s writte n on . MR . FRANCE : Tha t al l right ; thanks . MR . PASSAVANT : Jus t on e poin t o f clarification ; identica l mean s the same . I t doesn' t mean a pair . I t mean s the same . W e woul d be talking abou t on e system t o d o th e same function . MR . CONWAY : Yes , I realiz e i t woul d b e integrated , you'r e talking about , I picke d u p tha t make s a differenc e betwee n a n integrate d an

d nonintegrate d system . I t woul d be one . I jus t don' t understan d howyou'r e going t o ge t a dua l purpos e system , yo u know , howyou'r e going t o expan d thi s t o a dua l fue l purpos e systemwit h a large r capacit yan d it' s outwardl ygoin

g t o look the same an d be identical . Yo u 16 7P.7 2

r 1 engineer s can d o wonderfu l things , s o I' mwaiting t o se e it . MR . WILSON : Than

k you ver

ymuc h fo r your testimony . Nex t i s Hea t Technology . Le t m e jus t doubl e check . W e hav e on e mor e witnes s tha t I' mawar e of , Hundai . Doe s anybod yels e wan t t o testif ytha t w e don' t knowabout ? Okay , than

k you . MR . HELLER : I' mrelieve d t o knowI' mno t th e las t speake r betwee n th e technica l fille d da yan d a beautifu l da

ywithi n sight . B

ywa yo f introduction , m yname i s Fred Heller . I' mwit h a consulting fir mcalle d Easto n Consultant s ou t o f Stamford , Connecticut . We'r e assisting a smalle r fir

mcalle d Hea t Technology , Incorporated , an d afte r m

y comments , i f you hav e an ydesir e t o ge t in touc h wit h us , you'l l hav e t o reall yse e me through the card . We'r e no t exactl ya househol d name like mos t o f the othe r entitie s u p her e today . Th e reductio n o f refueling vapo r emission s i s a worth

ygoa l fo r the Congres s an d the EP

At o address . However , th e safet yo f al l tha t us e the roa d i s als o ver

y important . Non e o f u s cheris h the prospec t o f trading of f healt h an

d safet yin ai r pollutio n wit h healt h an d safet yin transportation . However , the realit yi s tha t thes e tradeoff s mus t b e confronte d an d deal t wit h regularly . 16 8P.7 3

i i Onboar d vapo r recover ycanister s hav e bee n characterize d a s a n unreasonabl e ris k t o publi c safety . W e disagree . W e fee l th e safet yissue s regarding onboar d vapo r recover ycanister s can be addresse d through creativ e engineering an d th e righ t combinatio n o f existing technolog yan d new materials , a s wel l a s some o f th e newthing s tha t you'r e talking abou t thi s morning . B ywa yo f example , conside r tha t in th e home , a commo n applianc e spin s razo r sharp blade s a t speed s tha t woul d severel yhar manyon e coming in contac t wit h them . W e protec t ourselve s fro mthes e deadl yblade s wit h plasti c n o thicke r than a drinking glas s an d us e ou r food processor s with

ou t a though t o f the dange r within . Prope r packaging i s the key , Th e onboar d vapo r recover ycaniste r i s ver ydifferent , bu t simila r attentio n t o detai l wil l rende r them safe . Th e onboar d vapo r recover ycaniste r ma

y presen t severa l differen t safet yrisks , bu t w e fee l theycan al l be addresse d wit h intelligen t applicatio n o f newtechnology . Specifically , ou r clien t ha s a patente d materia l in developmen t tha t show s grea t promis e toward the saf e implementatio n o f onboar d refueling vapo r recover ycanisters . Ou r clien t ha s funde d extensiv e testing a t a majo r independen t 16 9P.7 4

r i testing la b tha t is , a s w e speak , characterizing th e materia l fo r thi s specifi c application . W e wis h t o shar e ou r vie wo f th e ris k area s an

d invit e knowledgeabl e expert s in thi s roo man d elsewher e t o contac t u s t o expan d ou r tes t parameter s an d understanding o f th e problem . W e ar e curren t testing th e materials ' suitabilit yamong th e following fou r dimensions : First , th e caniste r vapor-fe d fire ; ther e i s a commo n perceptio n tha t shoul d a caniste r ruptur e in a crash , frictio n o r electrostati c spark s ma yignit e th e vapors . I f the caniste r wa s i n a vapor-ric h stat e a t th e time o f th e impact , th e fea r i s suc h vapor s wil l continu e t o feed a n ignitio n unti 1 othe r combustible s ignite . Th e preliminarytest s o f our client' s materia l indicate s tha t shoul d thi s sequenc e o f event s begi n t o occur , th e materia l can passivel yan d auto maticall yextinguis h suc h ignitions , preventing th e flas h fro m sustaining t o a poin t wher e othe r combustible s ignite . W e believ e thi s i s a significan t an d uniqu e capability . Secondly , caniste r explosion ; whil e the caniste r i s expecte d t o be bot h packe d wit h charcoa l an d contai n littl e actua l vapor , we'v e heard tha t some peopl e can imagin e a possibl e scenari o wher e appropriat e impacts , pressures , fire s starte d elsewher e o n the car , an d eve n weathe r condition s migh t
17 0P.7 5

I 1 I i combin e t o creat e a conditio n wher e a caniste r coul d explode .

Whil e caniste r design criteri a ma yeliminat e thi s b yothe r means , th e testing o f ou r client' s materia l indicate d i t can preven t the explosio n o f suc h a containe r eve n in suc h sever e cases . Testing don e fo r militaryapplication s indicate s tha t the caniste r explosiv e ris k can b e nullified . Third , secondarycontainment ; th e new , large r caniste r geometrie s possibl e wit h the newonboar d vapo r recover yprocess , i f they'r e used , rais e th e concer n tha t caniste r structura l integrit ywil l be mor e difficul t t o contro l during a

n impac t than existing canisters . Further , ther e i s concer n tha t eve n extraordinaryconstructio n wil l no t assur e structura l integrit yin.sever e impact . I f a caniste r break s an d spill s fuel-saturate d charcoal , thi s potentiall yadd s fue l t o a n alread

yhig h fir e ris k situation . Ou r clien t i s performing test s t o implemen t secondarycharcoa l containmen t eve n in th e even t o f a catastrophi c caniste r structura l failure . W e believ e i t i s possibl e t o us e the same materia l tha t i s performing th e othe r safet yfunction s outline d abov e t o d o thi s a s well . Lastly , shoc k absorption ; t o avoi d ruptur e o f th e caniste r an

d reduc e th e ris k tha t i t emit s an yvapors , muc h les s an

ycharcoal , the clien t i s testing the abilit yo f th e same materia l doing the same thing s t o ac t a s a n integrate d shoc k absorbe r a s well . 17 1P.7 6

r i Clearly , thi s patente d materia l hold s

interesting promis e toward th e goa l o f implementing saf e onboar d vapo r recover

ycanisters . And , t o be fair , othe r material s an d approache s fro

mothe r firm s likel yexhibi t positiv e performanc e capabilitie s too . Wha t doe s see m clea r i s tha t some com binatio n o f material s an d technolog

ywil l effectivel yaddres s concern s stemming fromeve n sever e scenarios . W e fee l tw o thing s ar e neede d t o mov e thi s proces s forward : first , safet ytes t parameters ; the abilit yt o enginee r a solution , tes t i t an d refin e it , presuppose s tha t ther e ar e safet ytest s an d performanc e criteri a t o shoo t for . Whil e preliminarytesting tha t i s underwa yi s a necessaryfirs t step t o characteriz e the material' s us e in thi s application , w e soo n wil l need t o hav e a n approva l target . Withou t suc h a target , an

yfurthe r developmen t fund s ar e a t ris k o f being entirel ywasted . Nowther e ar e importan t veste d interest s tha t wis h t o influenc e th e tes t an d approva l benchmark s fo r worthwhil e reasons ; th e balanc e betwee n effectiveness , safet y an d economic s i s alway s challenging an d nearl yalway s demand s difficul t compromise s among man yintereste d parties . However , th e analysi s an

d tradeoff s can continu e beyon d th e poin t o f diminishing return s and , w e feel , can d o s o rathe r quickly . I n
17 2P.7 7

I 1 

### i i our opinion , i t i s mos t importan t t o ge t a soli d tes t require

ment , safet ytes t requirement , in th e shor t ter mrathe r than a precis e on e in the lon g term . W e fee l i t i s possibl e t o err on the sid e o f safet yan d stil l en

d u p wit h a reasonabl e produc t a t reasonabl e cos t in a reasonabl e time frame . Endles s cycle s o f tes t requiremen t refinemen t mak e th e subsequen t developmen t proces s shorte r an

d serve s n o one . Second , cooperation ; the newrecover y proces s capabilitie s requir e carefu l integratio n o f man yissues . Th e onboar d vapo r recover ysafet yissu e i s wrappe d in competi

tiv e issues , publi c controversy , unknow n liabilit yissue s an d daunting engineering requirement s bounde d b yregulation s an

d deadlines . Thes e issue s can lea d t o a

n environmen t tha t inhibit s sharing o f informatio n wit h outsid e firms . Ou r clien t i s a smal l fir mtha t ha s take n the initiativ e t o fun d developmen t wor k i n thi s are a bu t clearl y canno t explor e ever yris k facto r an

d developmen t requiremen t alone . Though newtechnolog yi s importan t here , s o ar e th e lesson s learne d throug h year s o f rea l ' worl d automotiv e part s design an

d analysis . W e look forward t o working wit h aut o maker s in developing thi s newtechnolog yin a share d environmen t o f integrate d systemengineering . Withou t cooperation , promising technologie s canno t mak e a contributio n an d onboar d vapo r recover

yi s on e are a wher e thi s shoul d no t happen . 17 3P.7 8

r ' i Earlie r in thi s presentation , I mentione d

howth e applicatio n o f a thi n bow l o f plasti c allow s cook s t o us e foo d processor s an d regard th e applianc e a s a usefu l too l rathe r than a dangerou s an d unpredictabl e menace . Likewise , w e fee l intelligen t applicatio n o f newtechnology , cooperatio n in developmen t an d a n early , unambiguou s safet ydesign targe t wil l lea d t o onboar d vapo r recover ycaniste r solution s tha t wil l mak e thi s newrequiremen t a safe , dependabl e componen t o f ou r dail ylives . Than k you . MR . WILSON : Than

k you ver

ymuch . MR . PASSAVANT : Can yo u tel l u s wha t typ e o f materia l yo u coul d provid e u s in th e writte n record o n your technolog

yan d d o yo u hav e a brochur e o r an ykin d o f material , a cop yo f the patent , fo r example , tha t you coul d provid e us ?

MR . HELLER : I' d be happ yt o suppl ysome material s an

d samples . Ther e i s n o sale s materia l a t thi s poin t in time . Th e materia l i s stil l in development . I t i s no t some thin g currentl yo n th e market . I t i s reall yjus t nowemerging .

MR . PASSAVANT : Bu t ther e i s a patent ? MR . HELLER : Ther e i s a patent . MR . PASSAVANT : Yo u coul d provid e tha t t o us ? MR . HELLER : It' s no t specifi c t o thi s application , bu t it' s a materia l wit h advance d fir e 17 4P.7 9



## r i i J extinguishing capabilitie s an d I' d be happ

yt o suppl yit , yes . MR . PASSAVANT : I f you' d like u s t o conside r wha t you'r e talking about , w e nee d t o have something concret e t o be abl e t o wor k with , o r plastic , whateve r i t is . MR . HELLER : Ver

ygood . MR . WILSON : Than k yo u ver

ymuc h fo r coming . Apparently , Hunda i i s no t testifying . Unles s somebod

yels e want s t o testify , I thin k tha t conclude s th e hearing . Than

k yo u al l fo r bein

g her e today . (Proceeding s conclude d a t 3:0 0 p.m. )

17 5P.8 0



## r i L J STAT E O F MICHIGA N) COUNTY O F WASHTENAW )

I , Susan Beale , Cour t Reporter , d o hereb ycertif ytha t thi s transcript , consisting o f 17 6 pages , i s a complete , tru e an d correc t record o f th e Publi c Hearing o f th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , I n th e Matte r of : Contro l o f Ai r Pollutio n fro mNe wMoto r Vehicle s an d Ne wMoto r Vehicl e Engines ; Refueling Emissio n Regulation s fo r Light-Dut yVehicle s an d Truck s an

d Heavy-Dut yVehicles , EP ADocke t #A-87-11 , hel d a t Domino' s Farm s Conferenc e Center , 4 4 Fran k Lloy d Wrigh t Drive , An n Arbor , Michigan , o n Jul y22 , 1993 .

Susan Beale , CSM

R 274 1 Wester n Wayn e Cour t Reporting Servic e Plymouth , Michiga n (313 ) 453-723 2

17 6