P. 1 

# OAR Box 1142 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 18 ) IV-F-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/23/200810:21:21 AM

Sheet 18of 30

### STATEMEN TO N BEHAL F O F

EXXO N COMPANY , U.S.A . P. 2 

# 'A-87-1 1

\ OCT-?* 99 1 

### PRESENTE D B

YR. W . UPCHURC H

BEFOR E TH E ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

HEARING S O N REFUELIN G EMISSIO N REGULATION S FO R GASOLINE-FUELE D LIGH TDUTYVEHICLE S

ROMULUS , MICHIGA N

SEPTEMBE R 27 , 199 1P. 3

GOO D MORNING . M YNAM E I S BIL L UPCHURCH , AN D I A M VIC E PRESIDEN TFO R REFININ G A TEXXO N COMPANY , U.S.A . W E APPRECIAT E TH E OPPORTUNITYT O PRESEN TOU R VIEW S O N THI S IMPORTAN TVAPO R RECOV ER YRULEMAKING .

W E AR E APPEARIN G HER E TODA YBECAUS E O F EXXON' S LON G EXPERIENC E I N DEVELOPIN G PROTOTYP E AUTOMOTIV E EMISSIO N CONTRO L TECHNOLOGY .

W E RECOGNIZ E THA TTH E ALLEGE D SAFETYRIS KPRESENTE D B Y ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CONTRO L I S TH E MAJO R FOCU S O F THI S HEARING--AN D W E WIL LADDRES S OU R VIE WO F NHTSA' S CONCERN S O N THI S ISSUE . W E ALS O WAN TT O STRONGLYSUPPORTTH E VIEW S EXPRESSE D B YBIL L O'KEEF E O F AP I THA TONBOAR D REFUELIN G CONTRO L REGULATION S SHOUL D B E PROMULGATE D BYEPA , A S REQUIRE D BYTH E CLEA N AI R AC TAMENDMENTS . IF , FO R SOM E REASON , TH E CONCERN S EXPRESSE D ABOU TTH E SAFETYO F THES E SYSTEM S AR E NO TPU TT O RES TBYTHES E HEARINGS , W E SUPPORT TH E GENERA LACCOUNTIN G OFFICE' S (GAO ) RECOMMENDATIO N T O PROCEE D WIT H TH E RULEMAKING--AN D RESOLV E THES E SAFETYCONCERN S DURIN G TH E 3- 4 YEA R PERIO D O F DEVELOPMEN TBEFOR E COMMERCIA L SYSTEM S AR E OFFERE D FO R SALE .

TH E ONBOAR D REFUELIN G EMISSION S CONTRO L TECHNOLOG Y WHIC H W E AR E DISCUSSIN G TODA YDOE S NO TREPRESEN TARADICALL YNE W EMISSIO N CONTRO LAPPROACH , BU TI S SIMPL YTH E EVOLUTIO N O F TECHNOL OGY , FOLLOWIN G ASTEAD YPROGRESSIO N O F TECHNICA L DEVELOPMENT S WHIC H BEGA N OVE R 2 5 YEAR S AGO . TH E PETROLEU M INDUSTR YAN D EXXO N HAV E BEE N APAR TO F TH E EFFOR TT O DEVELO P SAFE , EFFECTIV E PRO TOTYP E CONTRO LSYSTEM S THA THAV E CONTRIBUTE D T O THI S SERIE S O F IMPROVEMENTS-WHIC H HAV E RESULTE D I N LOWE R VEHICL E EMISSIONS .P. 4

MAN YPANE LMEMBER S AR E FAMILIA R WIT H OU R WOR KO N EVAPORATIV E EMISSIO N CONTRO L SYSTEMS , INCLUDIN G WOR KUNDE R CON TRAC TWIT H EP

AI N TH E 1970' S THA TRESULTE D I N EVAPORATIV E EMISSIO N STANDARD S AN D TES TPROCEDURE S THA TAR E ESSENTIALLYIDENTICA L WIT H TODAY' S REQUIREMENTS . DURIN G THI S PERIO D O F INTENSIV E RESEARCH , EXXO N ACQUIRE D ACONSIDERABL E BACKGROUN D O N EMISSIO N CONTRO LSYSTE M PERFORMANCE , ALTERNATIV E APPROACHE S T O EMISSIO N CONTROL , AN D TH E COST-EFFECTIVENES S O F SUC H CONTROLS . T O OU R KNOWLEDGE , TH E SAFETYRIS KT O TH E DRIVIN G PUBLI C POSE D B YTHES E EMISSIO N CONTROL S HA S NEVE R BEE N ASIGNIFICAN TISSUE . FO R TH E PAS T TW O DECADES , TH E AUTOMOTIV E INDUSTR YHA S ADOPTE D AN D USE D THI S TECHNOLOG YO N AWIDE-SCAL E BASI S WITHOU TAN YSUBSTANTIA L EXPRES SIO N O F SAFETYCONCERNS .

I TI S O F NOT E THAT , FRO M TH E BEGINNIN G O F OU R VEHICL E PRO TOTYP E WOR KI N TH E MID-1960' S T O TH E US E O F COMMERCIA L CARBO N CANISTE R VEHICLE S SOL D I N CALIFORNI AI N 1970 ; LES S THA N FIV E YEAR S HA D ELAPSED . TH E ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CANISTE R DEBAT E HA S BEE N GOIN G O N FO R MOR E THA N TE N YEARS--AN D I TI S TIM E T O MOV E FORWARD . 

## BACKGROUND

I N TH E LAT E 1970' S ATTENTIO N WA S FOCUSE D O N HYDROCARBO N EMISSION S FRO M REFUELING . WHE N W E CONSIDERE D WHA T MIGH TB E DON E T O CONTRO L THES E REFUELIN G EMISSIONS , TH E SAME TYP E O F CANISTE R TECHNOLOG YALREAD YI N US E FO R EVAPORATIV E EMISSION S WA S A N OBVIOU S LOGICA LEXTENSION . I TWA S ASIMPLER , MOR E COS T EFFECTIV E APPROAC H THA N STAG E I I VAPO R RECOVERYA TSERVIC E STATIONS . I N 1984 , EXXO N AN D MOBIL , UNDE R A N AP I CONTRACT , BEGA NP. 5

WOR KT O ASSES S WHETHE R TH E PROVE N CANISTE R TECHNOLOG YCOUL D B E MODIFIE D T O CAPTUR E REFUELIN G EMISSIONS .

TW O SIGNIFICAN TTECHNICA L ISSUE S WER E IDENTIFIE D A TTH E OUTSET . FIRST , W E HA D T O ASSUR E THA TREFUELIN G VAPOR S WOUL D B E ROUTE D T O TH E CANISTER , AN D NO TFORCE D BAC KOU TTHROUG H TH E FILLPIP E INT O TH E ATMOSPHERE .

SECOND , TH E CANISTE R CAPACIT YFO R HYDROCARBO N VAPO R ADSORPTIO N HA D T O B E ENHANCE D T O ACCOMMODAT E TH E LARGE R VOLUM E FO R AREFUELIN G EVENT , COMPARE D T O TH E EVAPORATIV E CONTRO LSYSTEM . W E ESTIMAT E THA T5 0 T O 10 0 GRAM S O F VAPO R WOUL D B E DISPLACE D I N A10-2 0 GALLO N REFUELING , COMPARE D T O 30-4 0 GRAM S I N A N EVAPORATIV E CONTRO L SEQUENCE .

OU R SOLUTION S T O BOT H O F THES E ISSUE S HAV E BEE N PUB LISHE D I N TH E TECHNICA LUTERATURE-AN D VEHICLE S EQUIPPE D WIT H PRO TOTYP E ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CONTRO L SYSTEM S HAV E BEE N WIDELY DEMONSTRATED--T O EPA , NHTSA , AN D MAN YO F TH E OTHE R GROUP S APPEARIN G BEFOR E THI S PANE L TODAY . W E WIL L B E SUBMITTIN G OU R LAB ORATOR YAN D OTHE R TES TDAT AT O TH E DOCKET . I D O WAN TT O EMPHA SIZ E THA TW E HAV E SUCCESSFULL YDEVELOPE D AN D TESTE D DEMONSTRA TIO N SYSTEM S WHIC H REL YO N CONVENTIONA L AN D COMMERCIALLY-AVAIL ABL E TECHNOLOGY . W E HAV E NO TCLAIME D THA TTHES E VEHICL E SYSTEM S AR E PRODUCTION-READY , ONLYTHA TTHES E APPROACHE S AR E FEASIBLE , COST-EFFECTIVE , AN D W E BELIEVE , SAFE .

WHIL E W E HAV E WORKE D O N ANUMBE R O F VEHICLE S OVE R TH E YEARS , W E WAN TT O FOCU S OU R COMMENT S O N TH E MOS TRECEN TWOR K O N VEHICLE S MOR E REPRESENTATIV E O F CURREN TNE WCA R PRODUCTION .P. 6

I N OU R EARL

YWORK , W E PLACE D TH E REFUELIN G CANISTE R O N TH E TES TVEHICLE S I N TH E SAM E LOCATIO N A S USE D FO R TH E PRODUCTIO N EVAPORATIV E CONTRO LSYSTEM--I N TH E UNDERHOO D SPAC E I N TH E ENGIN E COMPARTMENT . BU TI N THI S LOCATION , TH E PROXIMITYT O HO TENGIN E PART S RAISE D CONCERN S ABOU TPOSSIBL E RUPTUR E O F TH E CANISTE R WIT H SUBSEQUEN TFIR E I N CAS E O F ACOLLISION . ALSO , W E WER E CONCERNE D ABOU TTH E POSSIBL E EFFEC TO F A N ACCIDEN TI N WHIC H TH E CA R MIGH T ROLLOVER , POTENTIALLYCAUSIN G LIQUI D FUE L T O REAC H TH E CANISTER .

BOT H O F THES E ISSUE S WER E ADDRESSE D THROUG H MODIFI CATION S T O TH E MOR E ADVANCE D VEHICL E DESIGN S PRESEN TI N LATE R MODE LVEHICLES , SUC H A S A198 7 BUIC KLESABR E AN D A198 8 FOR D TAURUS . W E SIMPLYMOVE D TH E CANISTE R FRO M TH E ENGIN E COMPART MEN TT O AMOR E PROTECTE D LOCATIO N ADJACEN TT O TH E FUE L TANK . [FO R TH E TAURUS , TH E SIT E CHOSE N WA S NEXTT O TH E FUE L TAN KI N TH E U BEA M WHIC H ACT S A S TH E REA R SUSPENSIO N ATTACHMEN TSUBFRAME . I N TH E BUICK , W E LOCATE D TH E CANISTE R I N ACUT-OU TPORTIO N O F TH E FUE L TAN KITSELF. ]

W E ALS O INSTALLE D ROLLOVE R VALVE S I N TH E SHOR TLINE S BETWEE N TH E FUE LTAN KAN D TH E CANISTER . I N SIMULATE D ROLLOVE R TESTS , W E FOUN D THES E VALVE S PREVENTE D FUE L SPILLAGE .

A N IMPROVED , SAFE R DESIG N INVOLVIN G ASINGL E ONBOAR D CANISTE R WA S TESTE D FO R EMISSION S CONTROL . USIN G A10. 5 PS I REI D VAPO R PRESSUR E FUE LW E STIL L ACHIEVE D 98 + PERCEN TCONTRO L OVE R REFUELIN G EMISSIONS , A TAFUELIN G RAT E O F 1 0 GALLON S PE R MINUTE . I N OU R TESTIN G FACILITIES , TH E MODIFIE D VEHICLE S ME TAL L TAILPIP E AN D EVAPORATIV E EMISSION S STANDARDS , AN D W E FOUN D TH E C O EMISSION S FO R TH E ONBOAR D CANISTE R VEHICLE S WER E SUBSTANTIALL YLOWER . EVE NP. 7

USIN G WHA TW E CONSIDE R T O B E A N UNREALISTICALLYSEVER E TESTIN G CYCLE , W E FOUN D TH E ADSORPTIV E CAPACIT YO F TH E CANISTER S WA S READILYREGENERATE D B YTH E PURG E SCHEDUL E ALREAD YUSE D I N TH E PRODUCTION-MODE LCAR . INCIDENTALLY , WIT H MODER N ELECTRONI C CON TRO LSYSTEMS , FURTHE R IMPROVEMENT S T O TH E PURG E SCHEDUL E ALS O SHOUL D B E WEL LWITHI N TH E CAPABILITYO F AUTOMOTIV E ENGINEERS .

ADDITIONALL YW E MEASURE D TH E RUNNIN G LOSSE S FRO M TH E ONBOAR D VEHICLE S VERSU S TH E SAM E MODE L CAR S A S PRODUCE D WIT H ONL YTH E EVAPORATIV E CONTRO L CANISTERS . RUNNIN G LOSSE S WER E REDUCE D B

Y90 , 9 7 AN D 9 7 PERCENT , RESPECTIVEL YWIT H TH E ONBOAR D BUICK , DODGE , AN D FOR D VEHICLES .

W E ALS O PERFORME D TW O TES TPROGRAM S T O DEFIN E I F THER E WER E AN YCUSTOMER-PERCEIVABL E DRIVEABILITYPROBLEM S WHIC H COUL D B E ATTRIBUTE D T O TH E ONBOAR D CANISTERS . I N BLIN D TEST S A T INDEPENDEN TLABORATOR YFACILITIES , N O SIGNIFICAN TDIFFERENCE S I N DRIVEABILITYWER E FOUND , UNDE R BOT H WINTERTIM E (40°F ) AN D SUMMER TIM E (95°F ) DRIVIN G CONDITIONS , NO R WER E AN YSAFETYCONCERN S RAISED . THES E TEST S CONFIRME D OU R BELIE F THA TTH E ONBOAR D SYSTE M SHOUL D PRESEN TN O OPERABILIT YO R SAFETYPROBLEM S FO R TH E PUBLIC . TH E COO LWEATHE R DRIVEABILITYDAT AAR E I N TH E PUBLI C DOCKET ; W E AR E SUBMITTIN G TH E SUMMERTIM E DAT AFO R TH E RECORD , ALTHOUG H THES E DAT AHAV E ALREAD YBEE N SHARE D WIT H NHTS AAN D EPA .

TH E EMISSIO N CONTRO L RESULTS W E HAV E DESCRIBE D WER E OBTAINE D I N EXXON' S OW N LABORATORIES . TH E SCIENTIFI C AN D ENGINEER IN G DAT ARESULTIN G FRO M OU R WOR KO N THES E PROTOTYPE S VEHICLE S AR E DESCRIBE D I N TECHNICA L PAPER S AN D REPORTS , TH E MOS TRECEN T AN D MOS TRELEVAN TBEIN G ASOCIET YO F AUTOMOTIV E ENGINEER S PUBLI -P. 8

CATIO N [NO . 900155] , PUBLISHE D I N FEBRUARYO F 1990 . THI S PAPE R WA S A PEER-REVIEWE D PUBLICATION , SUBJEC TT O TECHNICA L SCRUTIN YB Y KNOWLEDGEABL E MEMBER S O F TH E SOCIET YO F AUTOMOTIV E ENGINEERS . W E SUBSEQUENTLYPROVIDE D THES E VEHICLE S T O EP AFO R EMISSIO N TESTIN G I N THEI R LABORATORIE S I N AN N ARBOR . NHTS ACITE S EVIDENC E THA TTHES E VEHICLE S FAILE D TH E PROPOSE D EPAREFUELIN G STANDARD . FO R TH E RECORD , W E NOT E THA TTH E INITIA L EPATEST S FO R TH E BUIC KYIELDE D 0.0 3 G/TES TVERSU S A N EP APROPOSE D STANDAR D O F 0.1 . TH E INITIA LTAURU S RESUL TWA S 0.1 3 G/TEST , SLIGHTLYEXCEEDIN G TH E TARGET . TH E KE YFACTO R I N THES E TEST S I S TH E DEGRE E T O WHIC H TH E REFUELIN G CANISTE R I S PURGE D BETWEE N TEST S WHIC H I S NO T SPECIFIE D I N TH E PROPOSE D TES TPROCEDURE . TH E EPAAPPROAC H WA S T O ACCUMULAT E 25-3 0 MILE S BETWEE N REFUELIN G TESTS , WHIC H I S HAR D T O RECONCIL E WIT H TH E UNLIKELYREAL-WORL D CONDITIO N O F AMOTORIS T REFUELIN G HI S VEHICL E 25-3 0 MILE S AFTE R APRIO R REFUELING . I N SHORT , PURGIN G O F TH E CANISTE R BETWEE N REFUELIN G EVENT S WA S CLEARLYIN ADEQUATE , LEADIN G T O HYDROCARBO N BUILDU P O N TH E CANISTER , WIT H SUBSEQUEN TFAILUR E T O ACHIEV E TH E PROPOSE D REFUELIN G STANDAR D I N CONSECUTIV E TESTS . EP ASEN TU S ACOPYO F A N INTERNA L MEMO , WHIC H COMMENTE D O N THES E TEST S A S FOLLOWS : "ONL YRELATIVELYMINO R PURG E SYSTE M MODIFICATION S AR E NEEDE D T O OBTAI N TH E REQUIRE D PURG E VOLUMES" . LATER , A TOU R LABORATORIE S W E DOUBLE D TH E AI R PURG E RAT E O F TH E CANISTE R T O HANDL E ASECON D REFUELIN G AFTE R ONL Y2 6 MILE S O F DRIVING , AN D W E FOUN D THI S DI D NO TDEGRAD E TH E CONTRO LO F TAILPIP E EMISSIONS . W E BELIEV E THI S 2 6 MIL E REGENERATIO N APPROACH , UNDE R CONSIDERATIO N B YEPA , I S UNREALISTIC , GIVE N THA TAP. 9

FUL LREFUELIN G AFTE R THI S MILEAG E ACCUMULATIO N WOUL D B E ARAR E EVENT . I N ADDITION , EP ALABORATOR YPERSONNE L MAD E CHANGE S T O TH E VAPO R LINE S FRO M TH E EXXON-DESIGNE D CONFIGURATION , WHIC H W E BELIEV E ACCOUN TFO R TH E DIFFERENCE S BETWEE N OU R DAT AAN D EPA'S . W E REMAI N CONVINCE D THA TTHES E PROTOTYP E SYSTEM S WHE N PROPERL Y INSTALLE D WIL LMEE TPROPOSE D REFUELIN G STANDARDS , WHIL E MAINTAIN IN G CONTRO LO F OTHE R EMISSIONS , I F AMOR E REASONABL E AN D LOGICA L TES TPROCEDUR E I S USED .

I N NHTSA' S REPORT , CONSIDERABL E ATTENTIO N I S DIRECTE D T O DRIVEABILITYPROBLEM S ASSOCIATE D WIT H TH E ONBOARD-EQUIPPE D LESABRE , WHE N NHTS ATECHNICA L PERSONNE L TEST-DROV E TH E VEHICL E UNDE R NORMA LROA D CONDITIONS . A S MENTIONE D B YBIL L O'KEEFE , TH E VEHICL E REFUELIN G EVEN TDESCRIBE D I N TH E REPOR TSTATE S THA TTH E NHTS AEMPLOYE E OVERROA D TH E AUTOMATI C SHUTOF F MOR E THA N 10 0 TIME S I N ORDE R T O FIL LTH E FUE L TANK--WHIC H I S AHIGHLYQUESTIONABL E APPROAC H A TBEST . I TDI D ASSUR E THA TLIQUI D GASOLIN E WOUL D BE INTRODUCE D INT O TH E CARBO N CANISTE R O N THI S EXPERIMENTA L VEHICLE . UNDE R THES E CONDITIONS , TH E SUBSEQUEN TDRIVEABILITYPROBLEM S ENCOUNTERE D AR E READILYUNDERSTANDABLE .

W E ALS O STRONGL

YBELIEV E THA TONBOAR D REFUELIN G VAPO R RECOVERY , USIN G SYSTEM S ANALOGOU S T O THOS E DEVELOPE D BYEXXO N AN D API , DOE S NO TREPRESEN TA N INCREASE D RIS KO F FIRE S OVE R TH E EXISTIN G EVAPORATIV E CANISTE R SYSTEM . TH E ALLEGE D SAFETYRIS KMEN TIONE D BYNHTS AHA S NO TBEE N ADDRESSE D B YANYONE , INCLUDIN G NHTS AI N PUBLI C COMMENT S O N TH E ENHANCE D EVAPORATIV E EMISSIO N CONTRO LREGULATORYPROPOSAL . THI S PROPOSA L WIL L LIKEL YREQUIR E AP.1 0 8 LARGE R CANISTE R AN D PIPING , INCREASE D CANISTE R PURG E RATES , A S WEL L A S TH E TACI TASSUMPTIO N THA TTH E CANISTE R WOUL D CONTINU E T O B E LOCATE D I N TH E ENGIN E COMPARTMENT .

W E HAV E ALS O WORKE D WIT H AP I T O ESTIMAT E TH E COST S O F TH E ONBOAR D CANISTE R APPROAC H T O CONTROLLIN G REFUELIN G EMISSION S COMPARE D T O THA TO F TH E STAG E I I SYSTE M A TSERVIC E STATIONS . I N EVER YECONOMI C ANALYSI S AP I HA S DONE , TH E ONBOAR D CANISTE R I S TH E CLEA R ECONOMI C CHOICE , WIT H ANE TCOS TO F ABOU T$1400/TO N O F EMISSION S REDUCTION ; WHEREA S TH E STAG E I I COS TI S ABOU T$2800/TON . TH E ONBOAR D REFUELIN G CANISTE R COST S WOUL D B E CONSIDERABLY REDUCE D I F MEASURE D AGAINS TTH E REQUIRE D ENHANCE D EVAPORATIV E EMISSIO N CONTRO LSYSTEM , WHIC H WIL LLIKEL YREQUIR E AVERYSIMILA R SYSTEM . TH E SUPERIO R COST-EFFECTIVENES S O F ONBOAR D WOUL D B E FURTHE R ENHANCE D I F TH E CONTRO L O F RUNNIN G LOSSES-- AMAJO R COM PONEN TO F AUTOMOTIV E VO C EMISSIONS-I S FACTORE D INT O THES E CALCU LATIONS . TH E QUESTIO N O F STAG E I I SAFETYVERSU S ONBOAR D REFUELIN G SYSTE M SAFETYHA S BEE N RAISE D B YNHTSA . W E TAK E N O EXCEPTIO N T O TH E POSITIO N THA TSTAG E I I EMISSIO N CONTRO L DOE S NO TPOS E A N UNREASONABL E RIS KT O TH E PUBLIC . HOWEVER , I N OU R VIEW , ONBOAR D CANISTE R CONTROLS , BOT H EXISTIN G EVAPORATIV E CONTRO L SYSTEM S AN D PROPOSE D REFUELIN G CONTRO L SYSTEM S ALS O D O NO TPOS E SUC H ARISK , SO TH E COMPARISO N I S MOOT . AP I WIL L PROVID E WRITTE N COMMENT S O N TH E NHTS ASAFETYEVALUATIO N T O TH E DOCKE TWHIC H WIL L POIN TOU T TH E SERIOUSL

YFLAWE D NATUR E O F TH E NHTS ASTATISTICA L ANALYSIS . W E AR E CONTINUIN G T O WOR KO N FURTHE R IMPROVEMENT S T O TH E ONBOAR D CANISTE R SYSTEM . I N PARTICULA R W E AR E INVESTIGATIN GP.1 1

TH E US E O F NE WADSORPTIV E MEDI ATHA TCOUL D PROVID E IMPROVEMENT S OVE R TH E CURREN TACTIVATE D CARBON . THES E NE WMATERIAL S COUL D PROVID E HIGHE R ADSORPTIV E CAPACIT YAN D LOWE R PRESSUR E DROPS , OFFERIN G TH E PROMIS E O F SMALLE R CANISTERS .

I N SUMMARY , W E MAINTAI N THA TTH E ONBOAR D CANISTE R TECHNOLOGY , WHIC H FIRS TEMERGE D I N TH E LAT E 1960'S , HA S CONTINUE D T O EVOLV E T O MEE TCHANGIN G EMISSION S CONTRO L NEEDS . TH E ONBOAR D CANISTE R DESIGN S O F TODAY , WHIC H AR E VERYEFFECTIV E I N CONTROLLIN G BOT H REFUELIN G AN D EVAPORATIV E EMISSIONS , WIL L CONTINU E T O EVOLV E FURTHER , AN D WE'R E ALREAD YWORKIN G O N SOM E O F THOS E IMPROVE MENTS . W E FIRMLYBELIEV E THA TTHER E I S N O MEANINGFU L SAFETY ISSU E ASSOCIATE D WIT H ONBOAR D REFUELING . AP I HA S PRESENTE D A COMPREHENSIV E TECHNICA LASSESSMEN TO F TH E INDUSTRY' S VIE WAN D WIL LAD D CONSIDERABL E DETAI L T O TH E DOCKE TBEFOR E TH E COMMEN T PERIO D CLOSES . FO R EXXON , W E WOUL D NO TB E A N ADVOCAT E O F SUC H SYSTEM S I F W E FEL

TTHE YPROVIDE D AN YINCREASE D RIS KT O TH E DRIVIN G PUBLIC . W E URG E EPAT O G O FORWAR D WIT H THI S RULEMAKIN G B YTH E CLEA N AI R ACT-REQUIRE D NOVEMBE R 15 , 1991 , DATE , AN D T O WOR K CLOSEL YWIT H NHTS AAN D TH E AUT O INDUSTR YO N TH E DEVELOPMEN TO F EFFECTIV E AN D SAF E AUTOMOTIV E VAPO R RECOVERYSYSTEM S THA TWIL L CAPTUR E EVAPORATIVE , REFUELIN G AN D RUNNIN G LOSSES , WHIL E MAIN TAININ G CONTRO LO F EXHAUS TEMISSION .

THAN KYO U FO R THI S OPPORTUNIT YT O COMMEN TO N THI S RULEMAKING .