Mr. COOPER. Are adequate leadtimes enough? For example, it is my impression that such factors as high under vehicle temperatures, high vapor pressures and modifications to the vent systems by various outfitters for ambulances, contribute to the problems that ambulances have encountered, and none of these factors would have been necessarily foreseeable. Is the leadtime enough? Mr. MILLER. Leadtime is certainly a prerequisite. We can't tell for certain whether that is sufficient. That is something that would depend in large part on the comments that were received from manufacturers. We think it is absolutely a necessary pre-condition. We would also like to see a reduction in vapor pressure. I think that is a problem or a condition that adds to risk currently, and to the extent that can be reduced either with or without onboard systems, I think that is helpful.

Mr. COOPER. Can you think of a way to make an onboard control system tamper proof or at least less subject to the vagaries of auto mechanics and folks like that? Is that part of your planning or are you just accepting that as inevitable?

Mr. MILLER. I'm not an auto mechanic myself. I'm afraid I am a lawyer by training.

Mr. COOPER. Is your Agency looking at ways to make whatever onboard control system that might be required, to make that tamper proof?

Mr. MILLER. Again, those decisions would be largely in the hands of the manufacturer. NHTSA would not have standards as such for onboard control systems. As I understand it, if EPA were to proceed in this direction, they would likewise establish a performance standard. Maybe Mr. Thomas can elaborate on that.

Mr. THOMAS. Congressman, we do have a performance standard, although we have looked at and actually in our laboratories have developed design systems to accommodate onboard controls. You have to bear in mind that we already have an evaporative emission requirement for auto makers. There is already an evaporative emission control system on the car.

We are talking about what needs to be added to pick up the refueling emissions. We looked at and feel like the manufacturers will look at several alternative designs. In our ongoing review of how effective the existing systems are, we don't see much tampering and problems with existing evaporative emission control systems on cars by mechanics and others in actually repairing cars. We don't feel like a lot of additional tampering would result from the kind of additional controls we are talking about.

It is basically a straight forward, how much do you expand the canister, what additional piping may be required and maybe only one additional tube would be required, to pick up the excess emissions from refueling.

Mr. COOPER. I know all of you gentlemen are as interested in lunch as I am. I have three final questions that we are supposed to ask for the record.

Regarding safety concerns, I realize that requiring an onboard control system on a model year, say beginning with 1990, would help the manufacturers, it would be to their convenience. Would it also help improve the safety?

Mr. THOMAS. We feel it is a safety issue and that's the input we are getting from NHTSA, the adequacy of leadtime is a factor, a safety factor to be considered.

Mr. COOPER. Would limiting the rule to new models only help safety factors?

Mr. THOMAS. I think from a manufacturer's point of view, it makes it easier for packaging purposes because he is starting from ground up to design but as far as safety is concerned, we think safety can be accommodated with adequate leadtime for existing models as well as new models.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Miller, do you have a comment?

Mr. MILLER. Congressman, I believe all of the proposals that have been put forward would relate only to new vehicles. If I understood your question earlier, you had spoken of model year 1990 as a starting year.

Mr. COOPER. Counsel advises me these would be models that had never been in production before. No one has talked about retrofitting. Certainly, I've never dreamed of the idea. I don't even want to think about it.

Mr. MILLER. To the extent that a proposal of this type applies only to newly designed, newly introduced models, that would be helpful to the manufacturers. It means they would not have to go back and redesign models that are currently in production. They could build it in from the start. The model year 1990 timeframe still poses the same concerns of leadtime that we mentioned earlier. A phase-in would be helpful from the standpoint of the manufacturers, particularly since they have many other programs which they must implement during this timeframe, most notably passive restraints.

Mr. COOPER. Next to last question. Toyota believes it is unreasonable to consider that evaporative emission control technology can be easily expanded to refueling emission controls. Do you agree, particularly as to small cars?

Mr. THOMAS. We have heard from and I have met with representatives from Toyota Corporation who have laid out that presentation. We do feel they will be able to accommodate the proposed requirements. It would require-I don't think there is any question it will require more of a design packaging modification than in larger cars.

Mr. COOPER. At this point, I would like to insert in the record with the unanimous consent of the Committee, which looks like it will be fairly easy to obtain. Without objection, that letter will be entered into the record at the appropriate place. [See appendix.] The final question. Considering the 208 experience, how could EPA deal with the small car problem without creating competitive advantages?

Mr. Miller, could you comment on that?

Mr. MILLER. If I could go back and address the Toyota concern, there may be some additional problems or challenges that a manufacturer would encounter for small vehicles, such as those relating to packaging. Those are not the only difficulties that a manufacturer would encounter. There may be some additional problems with small cars.

I'm sure there are many lessons that can be learned from the 208 experience. We have found in this latest round that one of the helpful attributes of the current phase-in of Standard 208, pursuant to Secretary Dole's decision in 1984, was the phase-in aspect, to have in effect a gradual phase-in over 4 model years, beginning with model year 1987 and going into model year 1990.

A 4-year phase-in enabled manufacturers to introduce the new restraint systems on one or more types of cars to minimize the need to redesign existing models.

We also did not attempt to try to direct which class of cars those systems should be phased-in on. We did not single out small cars for either favored treatment, putting them at the end of the chain, or for unfavored treatment, putting them at the beginning of the chain. We tried to have an even phase-in for all manufacturers so that we would not be discriminating between manufacturers of few models or large number of models, or between small manufacturers or large manufacturers.

Mr. COOPER. Thank you. With no further questions, the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]