P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 39 ) IV-C-5 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:52 AM Sheet 39 of 232

### s i0ST 

### ** P,2
_ TX-CL-- ^ UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENC Y WASHINGTON

, D.C . 20460 

### SEP 

## I I 88 7

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N

Honorabl e Joh n D . Dingel l Chairman , Subcommitte e o n Oversigh t an

d investigation s Committe e o n Energ yand Commerc e Hous e o f Representative s Washington,'D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Chairman : Than k yo u fo r you r lette r o f Jul v15 , 198 7 regardin a th e "Aci d Depositio n Contro l Ac t o f 1987 " (H.R . 2666) . Enclose d ar e response s t o th e question s yo u raised , exceo t fo r question s #5 , # 3 an d #9 . W e ar e stil l workin g o n a respons e t o eac h o f thes e mor e detaile d ouestion s an d wil l forwar d the mt o yo u a s soo n a s possible . W e aooreciat e you r continue d interes t i n thi s importan t issu e an

d loo k forwar d t o workin a wit h yo u i n th e future . Pleas e le t u s kno wi f w e ca n assis t yo u further . Sincerely , 

## < 

## 7 ' ' - J . Craigr Potte r stan t Administr s fo r Ai r an

d Radiatio n Assistan t Administrato r

Enclosure sP. 3

-24

-
Questio n 5(a ) Titl e I I o f th e bil l require s tha t EPA"promulgate " regulation s fo r eithe r onboar d o r Stag e I I controls , o r both , withi n si x month s afte r enactment . Th e word "promulgate " normall ymean s "final, " s o tha t EPAmus t prepare , propose , an d finaliz e the rule s al l withi n si x months . I s tha t you r understanding ? Respons e Ordinaril ythe word "promulgate " doe s mea n t o issu e fina l regulations . Therefore , you r suggestio n tha t the bil l o n it s fac e woul d requir e proposa l an d finalizatio n o f onboar d o r Stag e I I regulation s withi n si x month s afte r enactmen t o f the bil l appear s t o b e correct . However , suc h a requiremen t migh t b e modifie d unde r existing sectio n 307(d)(1) ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , a s discusse d i n respons e t o Questio n 5(b) .P. 4 F

•25

-

Questio n 5(b ) Doe s tha t tim e requiremen t conflic t wit hth e publi c rulemakin g provision s o f sectio n 307(d ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t whic husuall ytak e mor e tha n nin e month s a t EPA ? Pleas e explain . Respons e Th e deadlin e i n th e bil l woul d no t conflic t directl ywit hth e expres s rulemakin g procedure s o f sectio n 307(d ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . However , th e procedura l requirement s o f sectio n 307(d) , includin g th e requirement s fo r a hearin g and opportunit yfo r publi c commen t o n an yproposal , normall ytak e muc hlonge r tha n si xmonth s t o complete , especiall yfo r majo r rulemakings . I n addition, , sectio n 307(d)(10 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t authorize s th e Administrato r t o exten d (t o n o mor e tha n si xmonth s afte r proposal ) th e deadlin e fo r promulgatio n o f anyregulatio n reauire d byth e Ac t t o b e promulgate d les s tha n si xmonth s afte r proposal , i f h e find s suc ha n extensio n t o b e necessar yt o giv e EP Aan d th e oubii c tim e t o carr you t th e rulemakin g provision s o f sectio n 307(d) . i n thi s case , give n tha t EP Aalread yha s propose d a n onboar d regulation , i t i s unlikel ytha t sectio n 307(d)(10 ) woul d b e invoked , eve n if . Titl e I I o f H.R . 266 6 i s enacted , althoug hi t woul d remai n a possibility .P. 5

-26

-

Questio n 5(c ) I n cas e o f suc hconflict , whic hcontrol s th e tim e deadlin e o r th e publi c requirement s o f sectio n 307(d) ? Respons e Sinc e ther e woul d b e n o expres s conflic t betwee n th e rulemakin g provision s o f sectio n 307(d ) an d th e si xmont hdeadlin e o n promulgatio n o f a refuelin g contro l regulatio n i n Titl e I I o f th e bill , presumabl yth e explici t provision s o f th e bil l woul d control , unles s th e Administrato r mad e th e necessar ydeterminatio n unde r sectio n 307(d)(10 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t and extende d th e deadlin e fo r promulgatio n (althoug htha t woul d b e unlikel yfo r th e reaso n discusse d i n th e respons e t o Questio n 5(b)) .P. 6

•27

- Questio n5(d ) D o yo uagre e tha t th e Natio ndoe s no t nee dnationwid e Stag e I I controls ? Respons e
A s yo uknow , o nJul y

2 2 th e Administrato r announce da proposa l t o requir e "onboard " technolog yonmoto r vehicle s t o contro l refueling emissions . Thi s proposa l i s base do nanassessmen t o f th e overal l benefit s o f onboar dcontrol , primaril y fo r reductio no f ozon e i nan d aroundnonattainmen t areas , bu t als o includin g benefit s wit hregardt o ai r oualit v

standar dmaintenanc e an dnationwid e protectio nfro m exposur e t o carcinogeni c component s o f qasoline . Th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e onboar dapproac hi s a superio r long-ter m wa y o f controllin g refueling emissions . However , whil e EP Acurrentl y doe s no t inten

dt o specificall y requir e it s us e wher e no t alread ybein g implemented , Stag e I I ma y b e a n optio ni nth e near-term fo r state s t o conside r i ndevelopin g revise d Stat e Implementatio nPlan s fo r ozon e attainment . Moreover , wher e Stag e I I i s alread ybein g implemented , i t i s t o continu e i n forc e unles s an dunti l revision s t o th e aporopriat e SI P (t o tak e accoun t o f onboar dcontrols , i f ultimatel yreauired ) ar e submitte d t o FPA and approved .P. 7

•28 - Questio n5(e ) NHTS A an dth e Insuranc e Institut e hav e raisedseriou s safet y issue s abou t EPA' s onboar dcontro l proposal s andI hav e urge dtha t EPA withdraw it s rul e proposal s fro m OMB t o resolve thos e safet y issues . Hav e yo u resolvedthos e issues ? Respons e I nEPA' s view , th e saf e implementatio no f onboar dcontrol s i s a very importan t issu e an

dw e inten

dt o insur e tha t i t i s full v aire ddurin g ou r rulemaking process . At th e presen t time ou r analysi s indicate s tha t relativel y

straightforwar dengineerin g solution s exis t fo r th e potentia l safet y concern s whic hhav e bee n raised . Thi s conclusio ni s simila r t o tha t draw

nb y NHTSA , whic hindicate dinit s Jun e 11 , 198 7 lette r t o EP A tha t give nsufficien t leadtime , n o technoloaica l breakthrough s ar e necessar y t o minimiz e th e safet v risk s fro monboar dsystems . Manufacturer s also , whil e indicatin g tha t safet y issue s exist , apparentl y hav e agree dtha t solution s ar e availabl e give n adequat e leadtime (e.a. , MVM A lette r t o yo u o f Jun e 24 , 1987 ; AI A lette r t o yo u o f Jun e 2 2 1987 ; Jaaua r lette r t o yo u o f Jul y2, 1987 ; Nissa n lette r t o EP Ao f Aori l 14 , 1987) . Leadtime thu s appear s t o b e th e ke yquestio n relatin g t o safet yand w e ar e activel y solicitin g comment s t o hel o u s identif yth e appropriat e amoun t o f tim e t o allo wi n ou r fina l rule . W e d o no t inten d t o implemen t a n onboar d requiremen t unles s i t ca n b e don e withou t deqradin a vehicl e safety . T o hel p insur e thi s result , w e ar e committe d t o a carefu l revie wo f al l safet vissue s an d hav e announce dtha t w e wil l reope n th e commen t perio d o n th e onboar d rul e afte r w e receive comment s from

NHTSA . Thi s proces s wil l insur e tha t ther e i s ful l opportunit y fo r al l intereste d Dartie s t o exores s thei r view s o n thi s importan t matter .P. 8

-29 -

Questio n5(f ) I s th e leadtim

e for onboar

dcontrol s i

nth e bil l consistent withth e recommendations o f NHTS A an dth e aut o industr

y t o EPA ? Respons e Th e bil l (H.R . 2666 ) couldrequire th e us e o f onboar

dcontrol s "b

y moto r vehicle s manufacture dfor an

ymode l yea r afte r th e mode l yea r 1989. " Th

e bil l woul drequire EPAt o promulgat e regulation s "not later tha nsixmonth s afte r enactment. " If th e bil l i s enacte

di nlat e 1987 , th e regulations wouldhav e t o b e finalize d b ymid-1988 . Eve n i f EP A coul d exten dth e deadlin

e for promulgatio n o f an onboar d rul e unde r the bil l b y invokin

g sectio

n307(d) (10 ) (se e prio r responses) , th e regulatio

n woul dnee

dto be finalize

db ylat e 1988 . NHTS A ha s not recommende d a specifi c leadtime perio d t o EPA . I t has , however , saidthat , i nit s experience , leadtime s o f tw o t o fou

r year s are usuall y

needed . Manufacturer s hav e generall yargue d fo r period s longe r than two years . Thus , the bil l maywel l no t b e caisisten t wit h the recommendation s o f NHTS Ao r the aut o industry . In addition , w e hav e estimate d tha t the industr ywoul d need a t leas t tw o year s o f leadtime following promulgatio n o f a fina l rule . Thus , the bil l (i f enacte d a s i t nowstands ) woul d probabl yconflic t wit h ou r leadtim e estimate s a s well .