P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

145) IV-C-112 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:59 AM Sheet 145 of 232 
P.2 

^°s% • ~JJ -£.- Hi. 

£ * S 'i 

USB, 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

APR 2 0 1988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Jack Davis 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Davis: 

This is in response to the March 24, 1988 letter from 

you and eight of your colleagues to Administrator Thomas 

concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling controls 

on new gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Your concerns about 

the safety of onboard systems are understandable, especially 

in light of past comments by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) on this issue. 

EPA is also concerned about any potential safety 

implications of onboard vapor controls and views safety as a 

key issue in the rulemaking analysis. However, I believe the 

Agency has entered into a process which will greatly assist 

us in dealing with this issue. 

As you know, this has been a very complex and controversial 

proposal. By the closing of the comment period on February 11, 

1988, EPA had received a great deal of public comment on the 

topic of onboard safety. We expect that these comments, which 

we are now evaluating, will' better define the specific safety 

concerns and will provide additional technical information 

and studies which can be used to analyze these concerns. 

Moreover, EPA will re-open the proposed onboard rule for public 

comment when the Agency receives the comments of the Secretary 

of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle safety. I 

believe this process will provide EPA the necessary information 

to correctly deal with the safety issue and address the 

current uncertainties. 

Along those lines, EPA staff have completed preliminary 

efforts to design and assemble a prototype onboard system which 

is a straightforward modification of a current evaporative 

fuel system. My view is that this design is very simple and, 

in some ways, less complex than systems used in many existing 

cars and trucks. My staff is in the process of presenting this 

prototype hardware to interested parties for their comment. 

Obviously, we are most interested in the reactions of motor 

vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA and other safety organizations. 
P.3 

ENV,B0 isr — 

omRAL DOCKET 

SECT/ON 
P.4 

-2-

In your letter you mentioned an alternative to refueling 

controls which included a number of other strategies for 

hydrocarbon reduction. While the control measures mentioned 

do represent added hydrocarbon reduction benefits, they do 

not address the issue of refueling emissions which, in light 

of the pressing need for ozone reductions, is an important 

part of EPA's overall ozone strategy. We are already considering 

these other control measures, where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Thank you for your interest in the onboard vapor recovery 

proposal. We will place your letter in the public docket 

for the onboard vapor recovery rulemaking so that your comments 

will be fully considered as we proceed with the next step of 

the rulemaking process. 

Sincerely, 

J pry* wcn y rOtter 

.££___Assistant Administrator 

1 for Air and Radiation 

cc: Docket A-87-11 
P.5 

jfto srA^ 

* A \ 

l Xfmfa "a UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

V^iWip-/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

APR 2 0 1988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Bob Traxler 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Traxler: 

This is in response to the March 24, 1988 letter from 

you and eight of your colleagues to Administrator Thomas 

concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling controls 

on new gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Your concerns about 

the safety of onboard systems are understandable, especially 

in light of past comments by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) on this issue. 

EPA is also concerned about any potential safety 

implications of onboard vapor controls and views safety as a 

key issue in the rulemaking analysis. However, I believe the 

Agency has entered into a process which will greatly assist 

us in dealing with this issue. 

As you know, this has been a very complex and controversial 

proposal. By the closing of the comment period on February 11, 

1988, EPA had received a great deal of public comment on the 

topic of onboard safety. We expect that these comments, which 

we are now evaluating, will better define the specific safety 

concerns and will provide additional technical information 

and studies which can be used to analyze these concerns. 

Moreover, EPA will re-open the proposed onboard rule for public 

comment when the Agency receives the comments of the Secretary 

of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle safety. I 

believe this process will provide EPA the necessary information 

to correctly deal with the safety issue and address the 

current uncertainties. 

Along those lines, EPA staff have completed preliminary 

efforts to design and assemble a prototype onboard system which 

is a straightforward modification of a current evaporative 

fuel system. My view is that this design is very simple and, 

in some ways, less complex than systems used in many existing 

cars and trucks. My staff is in the process of presenting this 

prototype hardware to interested parties for their comment. 

Obviously, we are most interested in the reactions of motor 

vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA and other safety organizations. 
P.6 

-2-

In your letter you mentioned an alternative to refueling 

controls which included a number of other strategies for 

hydrocarbon reduction. While the control measures mentioned 

do represent added hydrocarbon reduction benefits, they do 

not address the issue of refueling emissions which, in light 

of the pressing need for ozone reductions, is an important 

part of EPA's overall ozone strategy. We are already considering 

these other control measures, where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Thank you for your interest in the onboard vapor recovery 

proposal. We will place your letter in the public docket 

for the onboard vapor recovery rulemaking so that your comments 

will be fully considered as we proceed with the next step of 

the rulemaking process. 

Sincerely, 

Cfc-fij/J Potte r 

ssistan t Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

c c : Docket A-87-11 
P.7 

$901 8 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\*m&f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

APR 2 0 -

988 '^i PRO'*0 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Bill Schuette 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Schuette: 

This is in response to the March 24, 1988 letter from 

you and eight of your colleagues to Administrator Thomas 

concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling controls 

on new gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Your concerns about 

the safety of onboard systems are understandable, especially 

in light of past comments by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) on this issue. 

EPA is also concerned about any potential safety 

implications of onboard vapor controls and views safety as a 

key issue in the rulemaking analysis. However, I believe the 

Agency has entered into a process which will greatly assist 

us in dealing with this issue. 

As you know, this has been a very complex and controversial 

proposal. By the closing of the comment period on February 11, 

1988, EPA had received a great deal of public comment on the 

topic of onboard safety. We expect that these comments, which 

we are now evaluating, will better define the specific safety 

concerns and will provide additional technical information 

and studies which can be used to analyze these concerns. 

Moreover, EPA will re-open the proposed onboard rule for public 

comment when the Agency receives the comments of the Secretary 

of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle safety. I 

believe this process will provide EPA the necessary information 

to correctly deal with the safety issue and address the 

current uncertainties. 

Along those lines, EPA staff have completed preliminary 

efforts to design and assemble a prototype onboard system which 

is a straightforward modification of a current evaporative 

fuel system. My view is that this design is very simple and, 

in some ways, less complex than systems used in many existing 

cars and trucks. My staff is in the process of presenting this 

prototype hardware to interested parties for their comment. 

Obviously, we are most interested in the reactions of motor 

vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA and other safety organizations. 
P.8 

-2-

In your letter you mentioned an alternative to refueling 

controls which included a number of other strategies for 

hydrocarbon reduction. While the control measures mentioned 

do represent added hydrocarbon reduction benefits, they do 

not address the issue of refueling emissions which, in light 

of the pressing need for ozone reductions, is an important 

part of EPA's overall ozone strategy. We are already considering 

these other control measures, where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Thank you for your interest in the onboard vapor recovery 

proposal. We will place your letter in the public docket 

for the onboard vapor recovery rulemaking so that your comments 

will be fully considered as we proceed with the next step of 

the rulemaking process. 

Sincerely, 

>tter 

isistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

cc: Docket A-87-11 
P.9 

0 r ** J~L 

KWJ 

i 

S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

» -.— * * WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

APR 2 0 1988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Hal Daub 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Daub: 

This is in response to the March 24, 1988 letter from 

you and eight of your colleagues to Administrator Thomas 

concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling controls 

on new gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Your concerns about 

the safety of onboard systems are understandable, especially 

in light of past comments by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) on this issue. 

EPA is also concerned about any potential safety 

implications of onboard vapor controls and views safety as a 

key issue in the rulemaking analysis. However, I believe the 

Agency has entered into a process which will greatly assist 

us in dealing with this issue. 

As you know, this has been a very complex and controversial 

proposal. By the closing of the comment period on February 11, 

1988, EPA had received a great deal of public comment on the 

topic of onboard safety. We expect that these comments, which 

we are now evaluating, will better define the specific safety 

concerns and will provide additional technical information 

and studies which can be used to analyze these concerns. 

Moreover, EPA will re-open the proposed onboard rule for public 

comment when the Agency receives the comments of the Secretary 

of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle safety. I 

believe this process will provide EPA the necessary information 

to correctly deal with the safety issue and address the 

current uncertainties. 

Along those lines, EPA staff have completed preliminary 

efforts to design and assemble a prototype onboard system which 

is a straightforward modification of a current evaporative 

fuel system. My view is that this design is very simple and, 

in some ways, less complex than systems used in many existing 

cars and trucks. My staff is in the process of presenting this 

prototype hardware to interested parties for their comment. 

Obviously, we are most interested in the reactions of motor 

vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA and other safety organizations. 
P.10 

-2-

In your letter you mentioned an alternative to refueling 

controls which included a number of other strategies for 

hydrocarbon reduction. While the control measures mentioned 

do represent added hydrocarbon reduction benefits, they do 

not address the issue of refueling emissions which, in light 

of the pressing need for ozone reductions, is an important 

part of EPA's overall ozone strategy. We are already considering 

these other control measures, where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Thank you for your interest in the onboard vapor recovery 

proposal. We will place your letter in the public docket 

for the onboard vapor recovery rulemaking so that your comments 

will be fully considered as we proceed with the next step of 

the rulemaking process. 

Sincerely, 

sf<L -A 

Cfa-Tg "Potter 

ssistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

cc: Docket A-87-11 
P.11 

f?°J""*,. s*b *

 mm

. i 

I ^W*7

 3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\-*W»> WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

APR 2 0 I988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Jack Buechner 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Buechner: 

This is in response to the March 24, 1988 letter from 

you and eight of your colleagues to Administrator Thomas 

concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling controls 

on new gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Your concerns about 

the safety of onboard systems are understandable, especially 

in light of past comments by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) on this issue. 

EPA is also concerned about any potential safety 

implications of onboard vapor controls and views safety as a 

key issue in the rulemaking analysis. However, I believe the 

Agency has entered into a process which will greatly assist 

us in dealing with this issue. 

As you know, this has been a very complex and controversial 

proposal. By the closing of the comment period on February 11, 

1988, EPA had received a great deal of public comment on the 

topic of onboard safety. We expect that these comments, which 

we are now evaluating, will better define the specific safety 

concerns and will provide additional technical information 

and studies which can be used to analyze these concerns. 

Moreover, EPA will re-open the proposed onboard rule for public 

comment when the Agency receives the comments of the Secretary 

of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle safety. I 

believe this process will provide EPA the necessary information 

to correctly deal with the safety issue and address the 

current uncertainties. 

Along those lines, EPA staff have completed preliminary 

efforts to design and assemble a prototype onboard system which 

is a straightforward modification of a current evaporative 

fuel system. My view is that this design is very simple and, 

in some ways, less complex than systems used in many existing 

cars and trucks. My staff is in the process of presenting this 

prototype hardware to interested parties for their comment. 

Obviously, we are most interested in the reactions of motor 

vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA and other safety organizations. 
P.12 

-2-

In your letter you mentioned an alternative to refueling 

controls which included a number of other strategies for 

hydrocarbon, reduction. While the control measures mentioned 

do represent added hydrocarbon reduction benefits, they do 

not address the issue of refueling emissions which, in light 

of the pressing need for ozone reductions, is an important 

part of EPA's overall ozone strategy. We are already considering 

these other control measures, where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Thank you for your interest in the onboard vapor recovery 

proposal. We will place your letter in the public docket 

for the onboard vapor recovery rulemaking so that your comments 

will be fully considered as we proceed with the next step of 

the rulemaking process. 

Sincerely, 

'Crai/g Potter 

ssistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

cc: Docket A-87-11 
P.13 

^

t0Sr * » > 

A 

^J«7 3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\**J|4*\/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

APR 2 0 I988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Tom Delay 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Delay: 

This is in response to the March 24, 1988 letter from 

you and eight of your colleagues to Administrator Thomas 

concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling controls 

on new gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Your concerns about 

the safety of onboard systems are understandable, especially 

in light of past comments by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) on this issue. 

EPA is also concerned about any potential safety 

implications of onboard vapor controls and views safety as a 

key issue in the rulemaking analysis. However, I believe the 

Agency has entered into a process which will greatly assist 

us in dealing with this issue. 

As you know, this has been a very complex and controversial 

proposal. By the closing of the comment period on February 11, 

1988, EPA had received a great deal of public comment on the 

topic of onboard safety. We expect that these comments, which 

we are now evaluating, will better define the specific safety 

concerns and will provide additional technical information 

and studies which can be used to analyze these concerns. 

Moreover, EPA will re-open the proposed onboard rule for public 

comment when the Agency receives the comments of the Secretary 

of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle safety. I 

believe this process will provide EPA the necessary information 

to correctly deal with the safety issue and address the 

current uncertainties. 

Along those lines, EPA staff have completed preliminary 

efforts to design and assemble a prototype onboard system which 

is a straightforward modification of a current evaporative 

fuel system. My view is that this design is very simple and, 

in some ways, less complex than systems used in many existing 

cars and trucks. My staff is in the process of presenting this 

prototype hardware to interested parties for their comment. 

Obviously, we are most interested in the reactions of motor 

vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA and other safety organizations. 
P.14 

-2-

In your letter you mentioned an alternative tb refueling 

controls which included a number of other strategies for 

hydrocarbon reduction. While the control measures mentioned 

do represent added hydrocarbon reduction benefits, they do 

not address the issue of refueling emissions which, in light 

of the pressing need for ozone reductions, is an important 

part of EPA's overall ozone strategy. We are already considering 

these other control measures, where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Thank you for your interest in the onboard vapor recovery 

proposal. We will place your letter in the public docket 

for the onboard vapor recovery rulemaking so that your comments 

will be fully considered as we proceed with the next step of 

the rulemaking process. 

Sincerely, 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Cra#§ Potter 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 
P.15 

» __ 

! ^&ft « UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\4m+J WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

* l PRO ^ 

APR 2 0 I988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Guy Vander Jagt 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Vander Jagt: 

This is in response to the March 24, 1988 letter from 

you and eight of your colleagues to Administrator Thomas 

concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling controls 

on new gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Your concerns about 

the safety of onboard systems are understandable, especially 

in light of past comments by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) on this issue. 

EPA is also concerned about any potential safety 

implications of onboard vapor controls and views safety as a 

key issue in the rulemaking analysis. However, I believe the 

Agency has entered into a process which will greatly assist 

us in dealing with this issue. 

As you know, this has been a very complex and controversial 

proposal. By the closing of the comment period on February 11, 

1988, EPA had received a great deal of public comment on the 

topic of onboard safety. We expect that these comments, which 

we are now evaluating, will better define the specific safety 

concerns and will provide additional technical information 

and studies which can be used to analyze these concerns. 

Moreover, EPA will re-open the proposed onboard rule for public 

comment when the Agency receives the comments of the Secretary 

of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle safety. I 

believe this process will provide EPA the necessary information 

to correctly deal with the safety issue and address the 

current uncertainties. 

Along those lines, EPA staff have completed preliminary 

efforts to design and assemble a prototype onboard system which 

is a straightforward modification of a current evaporative 

fuel system. My view is that this design is very simple and, 

in some ways, less complex than systems used in many existing 

cars and trucks. My staff is in the process of presenting this 

prototype hardware to interested parties for their comment. 

Obviously, we are most interested in the reactions of motor 

vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA and other safety organizations. 
P.16 

-2-

In your letter you mentioned an alternative to refueling 

controls which included a number of other strategies for 

hydrocarbon reduction. While the control measures mentioned 

do represent added hydrocarbon reduction benefits, they do 

not address the issue of refueling emissions which, in light 

of the pressing need for ozone reductions, is an important 

part of EPA's overall ozone strategy. We are already considering 

these other control measures, where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Thank you for your interest in the onboard vapor recovery 

proposal. We will place your letter in the public docket 

for the onboard vapor recovery rulemaking so that your comments 

will be fully considered as we proceed with the next step of 

the rulemaking process. 

Sincerely, 

Crafg Potter 

ssistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

cc: Docket A-87-11 
P.17 

£ £ 3 4 SK 3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

* PRO^V 

APR 2 0 I98C 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Dan Coats 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Coats: 

This is in response to the March 24, 1988 letter from 

you and eight of your colleagues to Administrator Thomas 

concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling controls 

on new gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Your concerns about 

the safety of onboard systems are understandable, especially 

in light of past comments by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) on this issue. 

EPA is also concerned about any potential safety 

implications of onboard vapor controls and views safety as a 

key issue in the rulemaking analysis. However, I believe the 

Agency has entered into a process which will greatly assist 

us in dealing with this issue. 

As you know, this has been a very complex and controversial 

proposal. By the closing of the comment period on February 11, 

1988, EPA had received a great deal of public comment on the 

topic of onboard safety. We expect that these comments, which 

we are now evaluating, will better define the specific safety 

concerns and will provide additional technical information 

and studies which can be used to analyze these concerns. 

Moreover, EPA will re-open the proposed onboard rule for public 

comment when the Agency receives the comments of the Secretary 

of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle safety. I 

believe this process will provide EPA the necessary information 

to correctly deal with the safety issue and address the 

current uncertainties. 

Along those lines, EPA staff have completed preliminary 

efforts to design and assemble a prototype onboard system which 

is a straightforward modification of a current evaporative 

fuel system. My view is that this design is very simple and, 

in some ways, less complex than systems used in many existing 

cars and trucks. My staff is in the process of presenting this 

prototype hardware to interested parties for their comment. 

Obviously, we are most interested in the reactions of motor 

vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA and other safety organizations. 
P.18 

-2-

In your letter you mentioned an alternative to refueling 

controls which included a number of other strategies for 

hydrocarbon reduction. While the control measures mentioned 

do represent added hydrocarbon reduction benefits, they do 

not address the issue of refueling emissions which, in light 

of the pressing need for ozone reductions, is an important 

part of EPA's overall ozone strategy. We are already considering 

these other control measures, where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Thank you for your interest in the onboard vapor recovery 

proposal. We will place your letter in the public docket 

for the onboard vapor recovery rulemaking so that your comments 

will be fully considered as we proceed with the next step of 

the rulemaking process. 

Sincerely, 

^ ja. /Cra-lg^Totter 

jfbb*—Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

cc: Docket A-87-11 
P.19 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

APR 2 0 I988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Bob Carr 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Carr: 

This is in response to the March 24, 1988 letter from 

you and eight of your colleagues to Administrator Thomas 

concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling controls 

on new gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Your concerns about 

the safety of onboard systems are understandable, especially 

in light of past comments by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) on this issue. 

EPA is also concerned about any potential safety 

implications of onboard vapor controls and views safety as a 

key issue in the rulemaking analysis. However, I believe the 

Agency has entered into a process which will greatly assist 

us in dealing with this issue. 

As you know, this has been a very complex and controversial 

proposal. By the closing of the comment period on February 11, 

1988, EPA had received a great deal of public comment on the 

topic of onboard safety. We expect that these comments, which 

we are now evaluating, will better define the specific safety 

concerns and will provide additional technical information 

and studies which can be used to analyze "these concerns. 

Moreover, EPA will re-open the proposed onboard rule for public 

comment when the Agency receives the comments of the Secretary 

of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle safety. I 

believe this process will provide EPA the necessary information 

to correctly deal with the safety issue and address the 

current uncertainties. 

Along those lines, EPA staff have completed preliminary 

efforts to design and assemble a prototype onboard system which 

is a straightforward modification of a current evaporative 

fuel system. My view is that this design is very simple and, 

in some ways, less complex than systems used in many existing 

cars and trucks. My staff is in the process of presenting this 

prototype hardware to interested parties for their comment. 

Obviously, we are most interested in the reactions of motor 

vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA and other safety organizations. 
P.20 

-2-

In your letter you mentioned an alternative to refueling 

controls which included a number of other strategies for 

hydrocarbon reduction. While the control measures mentioned 

do represent added hydrocarbon reduction benefits, they do 

not address the issue of refueling emissions which, in light 

of the pressing need for ozone reductions, is an important 

part of EPA's overall ozone strategy. We are already considering 

these other control measures, where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Thank you for your interest in the onboard vapor recovery 

proposal. We will place your letter in the public docket 

for the onboard vapor recovery rulemaking so that your comments 

will be fully considered as we proceed with the next step of 

the rulemaking process.' 

Sincerely, 

g Potter 

ssistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

cc: Docket A-87-11