P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

39) IV-C-5 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

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

i0ST** 

P,2_ 

TX-CL-- ^ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

SEP I I 887 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable John D. Dingell 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Oversight and investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Washington,'DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for your letter of Julv 15, 1987 regardina 

the "Acid Deposition Control Act of 1987" (H.R. 2666). 

Enclosed are responses to the questions you raised, exceot 

for questions #5, #3 and #9. We are still working on a 

response to each of these more detailed ouestions and will 

forward them to you as soon as possible. 

We aooreciate your continued interest in this important 

issue and look forward to workina with you in the future. 

Please let us know if we can assist you further. 

Sincerely, 

< 7 ' ' -

J. Craigr Potter 

stant Administrs 

for Air and Radiation 

Assistant Administrator 

Enclosures 
P.3 

-24-

Question 5(a) 

Title II of the bill requires that EPA "promulgate" regulations for 

either onboard or Stage II controls, or both, within six months after 

enactment. The word "promulgate" normally means "final," so that EPA must 

prepare, propose, and finalize the rules all within six months. Is that 

your understanding? 

Response 

Ordinarily the word "promulgate" does mean to issue final regulations. 

Therefore, your suggestion that the bill on its face would require proposal 

and finalization of onboard or Stage II regulations within six months after 

enactment of the bill appears to be correct. However, such a requirement 

might be modified under existing section 307(d)(1)) of the Clean Air Act, 

as discussed in response to Question 5(b). 
P.4 

F 

•25-

Question 5(b) 

Does that time requirement conflict with the public rulemaking provisions 

of section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act which usually take more than nine 

months at EPA? Please explain. 

Response 

The deadline in the bill would not conflict directly with the express 

rulemaking procedures of section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act. However, the 

procedural requirements of section 307(d), including the requirements for a 

hearing and opportunity for public comment on any proposal, normally take 

much longer than six months to complete, especially for major rulemakings. 

In addition,, section 307(d)(10) of the Clean Air Act authorizes the 

Administrator to extend (to no more than six months after proposal) the 

deadline for promulgation of any regulation reauired by the Act to be 

promulgated less than six months after proposal, if he finds such an extension 

to be necessary to give EPA and the oubiic time to carry out the rulemaking 

provisions of section 307(d). in this case, given that EPA already has 

proposed an onboard regulation, it is unlikely that section 307(d)(10) 

would be invoked, even if. Title II of H.R. 2666 is enacted, although it 

would remain a possibility. 
P.5 

-26-

Question 5(c) 

In case of such conflict, which controls the time deadline or the 

public requirements of section 307(d)? 

Response 

Since there would be no express conflict between the rulemaking 

provisions of section 307(d) and the six month deadline on promulgation of 

a refueling control regulation in Title II of the bill, presumably the 

explicit provisions of the bill would control, unless the Administrator 

made the necessary determination under section 307(d)(10) of the Clean Air 

Act and extended the deadline for promulgation (although that would be 

unlikely for the reason discussed in the response to Question 5(b)). 
P.6 

•27 -

Question 5(d) 

Do you agree that the Nation does not need nationwide Stage II 

controls? 

Response 

As you know, on July 22 the Administrator announced a proposal 

to require "onboard" technology on motor vehicles to control refueling 

emissions. This proposal is based on an assessment of the overall 

benefits of onboard control, primarily for reduction of ozone in and 

around nonattainment areas, but also including benefits with regard to 

air oualitv standard maintenance and nationwide protection from exposure 

to carcinogenic components of qasoline. The Agency believes that the 

onboard approach is a superior long-term way of controlling refueling 

emissions. However, while EPA currently does not intend to specifically 

require its use where not already being implemented, Stage II may be an 

option in the near-term for states to consider in developing revised 

State Implementation Plans for ozone attainment. Moreover, where Stage II 

is already being implemented, it is to continue in force unless and until 

revisions to the aporopriate SIP (to take account of onboard controls, if 

ultimately reauired) are submitted to FPA and approved. 
P.7 

•28-

Question 5(e) 

NHTSA and the Insurance Institute have raised serious safety issues 

about EPA's onboard control proposals and I have urged that EPA withdraw 

its rule proposals from OMB to resolve those safety issues. Have you 

resolved those issues? 

Response 

In EPA's view, the safe implementation of onboard controls is a very 

important issue and we intend to insure that it is fullv aired during our 

rulemaking process. At the present time our analysis indicates that 

relatively straightforward engineering solutions exist for the potential 

safety concerns which have been raised. This conclusion is similar to 

that drawn by NHTSA, which indicated in its June 11, 1987 letter to EPA 

that given sufficient leadtime, no technoloaical breakthroughs are necessary 

to minimize the safetv risks from onboard systems. Manufacturers also, 

while indicating that safety issues exist, apparently have agreed that 

solutions are available given adequate leadtime (e.a., MVMA letter to you 

of June 24, 1987; AIA letter to you of June 22 1987; Jaauar letter to you 

of July 2, 1987; Nissan letter to EPA of Aoril 14, 1987). Leadtime thus 

appears to be the key question relating to safety and we are actively 

soliciting comments to helo us identify the appropriate amount of time to 

allow in our final rule. 

We do not intend to implement an onboard requirement unless it can be 

done without deqradina vehicle safety. To help insure this result, we are 

committed to a careful review of all safetv issues and have announced that 

we will reopen the comment period on the onboard rule after we receive 

comments from NHTSA. This process will insure that there is full opportunity 

for all interested Darties to exoress their views on this important matter. 
P.8 

-29-

Question 5(f) 

Is the leadtime for onboard controls in the bill consistent with the 

recommendations of NHTSA and the auto industry to EPA? 

Response 

The bill (H.R. 2666) could require the use of onboard controls "by 

motor vehicles manufactured for any model year after the model year 

1989." The bill would require EPA to promulgate regulations "not later 

than six months after enactment." If the bill is enacted in late 1987, 

the regulations would have to be finalized by mid-1988. Even if EPA could 

extend the deadline for promulgation of an onboard rule under the bill 

by invoking section 307(d)(10) (see prior responses), the regulation 

would need to be finalized by late 1988. 

NHTSA has not recommended a specific leadtime period to EPA. It 

has, however, said that, in its experience, leadtimes of two to four 

years are usually needed. Manufacturers have generally argued for periods 

longer than two years. Thus, the bill may well not be caisistent with the 

recommendations of NHTSA or the auto industry. In addition, we have 

estimated that the industry would need at least two years of leadtime 

following promulgation of a final rule. Thus, the bill (if enacted as it 

now stands) would probably conflict with our leadtime estimates as well.