P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

129) IV-C-95 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:58 AM Sheet 129 of 232 
P.2 

J> 

| vJE J UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\ c<f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

MAR 3 1988 THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Honorable Sonny Callahan 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Callahan: 

Thank you for your January 27, 1988 letter commenting on 

EPA's proposals to control refueling emissions and summertime 

gasoline volatility. We appreciate the time the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation has taken to communicate its views on 

these important matters. 

EPA has proposed these two strategies as part of its 

approach to dealing with the nation's ozone problem. Over 

sixty urban areas currently are exceeding the ambient ozone 

standard, with over 100 million people living in these areas. 

Based on our current analyses, EPA believes it has proposed 

strategies which will significantly reduce the nation's ozone 

problem at a reasonable cost. However, we are at the same time 

soliciting comments such as yours which will help us determine 

the best overall approach to take in our final rulemaking. 

We appreciate the issues you have raised concerning 

Stage II control at gasoline pumps and the possible duplication 

of effort if states were to be required to adopt such control 

as an interim measure while onboard vehicle control was being 

phased in. We are also aware of the tradeoffs in our 

volatility proposal as we lower the required fuel RVP. We 

expect to receive a significant amount of comment on these 

issues, and will be carefully reviewing our original analyses 

in light of those comments. 

Please be assured that the comments of the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation will be fully considered in our 

review. The comments are also being placed in the public 

dockets for the two proposals. Once again, thank you for your 

interest. 

Sincerely, 

JJeeM. Thomas 

Lee M. Thomas 
p a 

m

 ** me, 
P.4 

* l PBO^C 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

V . ^ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

3 1988 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Honorable Tom Bevill 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Bevill: 

Thank you for your January 27, 1988 letter commenting on 

EPA's proposals to control refueling emissions and summertime 

gasoline volatility. We appreciate the time the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation has taken to communicate its views on 

these important matters. 

EPA has proposed these two strategies as part of its 

approach to dealing with the nation's ozone problem. Over 

sixty urban areas currently are exceeding the ambient ozone 

standard, with over 100 million people living in these areas. 

Based on our current analyses, EPA believes-itr-has 'proposed 

strategies which will significantly reduce the nation's ozone 

problem at a reasonable cost. However, we are at the same time 

soliciting comments such as yours which will help us determine 

the best overall approach to take in our final rulemaking. 

We appreciate the issues you have raised concerning 

Stage II control at gasoline pumps and the possible duplication 

of effort if states were to be required to adopt such control 

as an interim measure while onboard vehicle control was being 

phased in. We are also aware of the tradeoffs in our 

volatility proposal as we lower the required fuel RVP. We 

expect to receive a significant amount of comment on these 

issues, and will be carefully reviewing our original analyses 

in light of those comments. 

Please be assured that the comments of the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation will be fully considered in our 

review. The comments are also being placed in the public 

dockets for the two proposals. Once again, thank you for your 

interest. 

Sincerely, 

fcee M. Thomas 

Lee M. Thomas 
P.5 

^ 

52J22. ^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY v 

\ ,<<P WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

MAR 3 1988 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Honorable William Dickinson 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Dickinson: 

Thank you for your January 27, 1988 letter commenting on 

EPA's proposals to control refueling emissions and summertime 

gasoline volatility. We appreciate the time the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation has taken to communicate its views on 

these important matters. 

EPA has proposed these two strategies as part of its 

approach to dealing with the nation's ozone problem. Over 

sixty urban areas currently are exceeding the ambient ozone 

standard, with over 100 million people living in these areas. 

Based on our current analyses, EPA believes it has proposed 

strategies which will significantly reduce the nation's ozone 

problem at a reasonable cost. However, we are at the same time 

soliciting comments such as yours which will help us determine 

the best overall approach to take in our final rulemaking. 

We appreciate the issues you have raised concerning 

Stage II control at gasoline pumps and the possible duplication 

of effort if states were to be required to adopt such control 

as an interim measure while onboard vehicle control was being 

phased in. We are also aware of the tradeoffs in our 

volatility proposal as we lower the required fuel RVP. We 

expect to receive a significant amount of comment on these 

issues, and will be carefully reviewing our original analyses 

in light of those comments. 

Please be assured that the comments of the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation will be fully considered in our 

review. The comments are also being placed in the public 

dockets for the two proposals. Once again, thank you for your 

interest. 

Sincerely, 

Lee M. Thomas 
P.6 

^

t 0 ST<r* 

vJRZ * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

%. ,0^° WASHINGTON . D.C. 20460 

m 

*« MAR Q IQfift ^ THE ADMINISTRATOf' 

K.V'.-.i^rsK -©isirfisf^aii. 

Honorable William Nichols 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Nichols: 

Thank you for your January 27, 1988 letter commenting on 

EPA's proposals to control refueling emissions and summertime 

gasoline volatility. We appreciate the time the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation has taken to communicate its views on 

these important matters. 

EPA has proposed these two strategies as part of its 

approach to dealing with the nation's ozone problem. Over 

sixty urban areas currently are exceeding the ambient ozone 

standard, with over 100 million people living in these areas. 

Based on our current analyses, EPA believes it has proposed 

strategies which will significantly reduce the nation's ozone 

problem at a reasonable cost. However, we are at the same time 

soliciting comments such as yours which will help us determine 

the best overall approach to take in our final rulemaking. 

We appreciate the issues you have raised concerning 

Stage II control at gasoline pumps and the possible duplication 

of effort if states were to be required to adopt such control 

as an interim measure while onboard vehicle control was being 

phased in. We are also aware of the tradeoffs in our 

volatility proposal as we lower the required fuel RVP. We 

expect to receive a significant amount of comment on these 

issues, and will be carefully reviewing our original analyses 

in light of those comments. 

Please be assured that the comments of the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation will be fully considered in our 

review. The comments are also being placed in the public 

dockets for the two proposals. Once again, thank you for your 

interest. 

Sincerely, 

Lee M. Thomas 

Lee M. Thomas 
P.7 

<r ^________r * 

| XXlZZJ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

v'V 

*t PP.O^° 

V. ,.<f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

j MAR 3 J988 ^ 

Honorable Ben Erdreich 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Erdreich: 

Thank you for your January 27, 1988 letter commenting on 

EPA's proposals to control refueling emissions and summertime 

gasoline volatility. We appreciate the time the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation has taken to communicate its views on 

these important matters. 

EPA has proposed these two strategies as part of its 

approach to dealing with the nation's ozone problem. Over 

sixty urban areas currently are exceeding the ambient ozone 

standard, with over 100 million people living in these areas. 

Based on our current analyses, EPA believes it has proposed 

strategies which will significantly reduce the nation's ozone 

problem at a reasonable cost. However, we are at the same time 

soliciting comments such as yours which will help us determine 

the best overall approach to take in our final rulemaking. 

We appreciate the issues you have raised concerning 

Stage II control of gasoline pumps and the possible duplication 

of effort if states were to be required to adopt such control 

as an interim measure while onboard vehicle control was being 

phased in. We are also aware of the tradeoffs in our 

volatility proposal as we lower the required fuel RVP. We 

expect to receive a significant amount of comment on these 

issues, and will be carefully reviewing our original analyses 

in light of those comments. 

Please be assured that the comments of the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation will be fully considered in our 

review. The comments are also being placed in the public 

dockets for the two proposals. Once again, thank you for your 

interest. 

Sincerely, 

Lee M. Thomas 

Lee M. Thomas 
P.8 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Docket A-85-21 

SDSB:carlsonsMcManus:2565 Plymouth Rd.:X270:2/18/88:ID#:5744W 

Last reviewed by Charles Gray: 

AL 880557 

MAR 3 1988 

Honorable Claude Harris 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Harris: 

Thank you for your January 27, 1988 letter commenting on 

EPA's proposals to control refueling emissions and summertime 

gasoline volatility. We appreciate the time the Alabama. 

Congressional Delegation has taken to communicate its views on 

these important matters. 

EPA has proposed these two strategies as part of its 

approach, to dealing with the nation's ozone problem. Over 

sixty urban areas currently are exceeding the ambient osone 

standard, with over 100 million people living in these areas. 

Based on our current analyses, EPA believes it has proposed 

strategies which will significantly reduce the nation's ozone 

problem at a reasonable cost. However, we are at the same time 

soliciting comments such as yours which will help us determine 

the best overall approach to take in our final rulemaking. 

We appreciate the issues you have raised concerning 

Stage II control at gasoline pumps and the possible duplication 

of effort if states were to be required to adopt such control 

as an interim measure while onboard vehicle control was being 

phased in. We are also aware of the tradeoffs in our 

volatility proposal as we lower the required fuel RVP. We 

expect to receive a significant amount of comment on these 

issues, and will be carefully reviewing our original analyses 

in liqht of those comments. 

Please be assured that the comments of the Alabama 

Congressional Delegation will be fully considered in our 

review. The comments are also being placed in the public 

dockets for the two proposals. Once again, thank you for your 

interest. 

Sincerely, 

Co© B. Thomas 

Lee M. Thomas 
P.9 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Docket A-85-21 

SDSB:carlson:McManus: 2565 Plymouth Rd. :X270:2/l8/88:ID*:57£4w 

Last reviewed by Charles Grav: 

AL 880557 

-1AR 3 1988 

Honorable Richard Sheibv 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Shelby: 

Thank you for your January 27, 1^88 letter commenting on 

EPA's proposals to control refueling emissions and summertime 

gasoline volatility. >fe appreciate the time the AlaJutB* 

Congressional Delegation has taken to communicate its view* on 

these important matters. '-.-•* 

EPA has proposed these two strategies as part of It if. 

approach to dealing with the nation'3 opsone problem. Ovtet 

sixty urban areas currently are exceeding the ambient osoits 

standard, with over 100 million people living in these areas. 

Hased on our current analyses, EPA believes it has proposed 

strategies which will significantly reduce the nation's ozone 

problem 3t a reasonable cost. However, we are at the same time 

soliciting comments such as -yours which will help us determine 

the best overall approach to take in our final rulemaking. 

We appreciate the issues you have raised concerning 

Stage II control at casoline pumps and the possible duplication 

of effort if states were to be required to adopt such control 

as an interim measure while onboard vehicle control was ^einq 

phased in. We are also aware of the tradeoffs in our 

volatility proposal as we lower the required fuel RVP. We 

expect to receive a significant amount of comment on these 

issues, and will be carefully reviewing our original analyses 

in 1 iglit a£ tbOM comments. 

b# ." assured that the comments of the Alabama 

Congrs«S4e>iHil Delegation will he fully considered in our 

review. The comments are also being placed ir, the public 

dockets for the two proposals. Once aaain, thank you for your 

interest. 

Sincerely, 

«&ee M. Thomas 

L OP M. Thomas 

.-»