P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 134 ) IV-C-100
Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:58 AM Sheet 134 of 232P. 2



### • * rSl*^UNITE D STVTE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIONAGENC

Y iyST Z/ WASHINGTON , D.C

. 2046 0 

## \ ^ AP R 

## 5 198 8

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N


### Honorabl e Bil l Bradle y Unite d State s Senato r Pos t Offic e Bo x172 0 Union , Ne wJerse y0708 3 Dea r Senato r Bradley : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r Marc h10 , 198 8 lette r relaying th e concern s o f you r constituent , Mr . Pau l Erdbrink , regarding EPA' s regulatoryproposa l t o requir e onboar d canister s o n ne w vehicle s t o contro l refueling emissions
. T o assis t yo u wit h you r response , I hav e enclose d a copyo f ou r proposa l fo r you r review
. Sectio n E (page s 31177-31182 ) explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposin g onboar d controls
. I f yo u woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso n o f th e Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc ho f th e Emissio n Contro l TechnologyDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , An n Arbor , Michiga n 4810 5 (FT S 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270)
. Than k yo u fo r you r letter
. W e wil l full yconside r hi s comment s i n th e nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking process . Sincerel yyours , 

### CV - 'VT- £- Y C v J
. -1,-i.xR 

### Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e
Prepare dby : For m Letter: sal: 3/30/88:AL88128 0 - An nArbor , M I

cc : Regio n0 2 Congressiona l Liaison/Quin n Docke t No . A-87-1 1 c/ o Jacki e McManus'' .P. 3

ENVIRONMENT- ' PROTECTIO N

AGENC Y



### . m 

### - 9 198 8 CENTRA LDOCKE T SECTIO NP. 4



### WV < ':IVI:l ) |-!-

HI 7 \ m

Erdbrinks•Servic e Cente r 82 5 Evesha mRoa d Magnolia , NJ 0804 9 Februar y9 , 198 8

-: V i\V.V- i

Mr . Le e Thonas , Adainiatrato r Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y 401 M Street , S.H . Watersid e Nai l Washington , D-C.2046 0 Dea r Hr . Thomaa f A a a dealer , I woul dlik e t o expres s m y concer nabou t exiatin g federa l proposal s t o instal l Stag e I I control s a * th e pumps- . Lik e many

othe r dealer s I know , I strongl y oppos e suc hcontrols . Th e coa t o f installin g Stag e I I control s — ove r $20,00 0 fo r th e averag e statio n— an dmaintainin g th08 e control a — abou t $2,00 0 t o $5-00 0 a yea r — coul dforc e m

e ou t o f business , Thea e control s ar e no t wort hthe sosts . They ar c har dt o ua e an d the y ar e difficul t t o maintain . Mos t importantly , ther e i a a better , mor e effectiv e optio n- - th e o nboar dcanister Th e o nboar dcaniate r inatalle do nne w car a woul db e a more : effectiv e wa

y t o preven t refuelin g emission s fro m escapin g int o th e atmoaphere . You r ow nagenc y

estimate a tha t caniater s woul dbe 9 3 percen t effective , whil e Stag e I I control s woul db e onl y 6 2 percen t t o 8 6 percen t effective . Furthermore , th e caniste r woul dhav e non e o f the disadvantage s o f th e Stag e I I controla . I a m als o concerne dtha t Ne w Jerse y

ga s station s ar e require dt o implement - the~

_ Stag e I I control s a s aninteri m measur e unti l th e caniste r i s i nplac e (probabl y tw o o r thre e year s fro m th e time i t i s required) . Onc e th e caniste r became effective , Stag e I I control a coul dbe redundan t - - makin g m y investmen t i nthes e control a inefficien t an dunnecessary ; tha t is , i f I anstil l i n th e business o I urg e yo ut o rejec t al l proposal s t o implemen t Stag e I I control s endt o auppor t th e us e o f th e o nboar drefuelin g caniater .

Sincerely , 

## £jzd L * /K/IC $Sc'/tu /ccCe.^Jtci,