28772 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor 

Recovery Programs: Guidance on Satisfying 

Requirements of Clean Air Act Sections 110(ƒ), 193, 

and 184(b)(2) (tentative title).’’ U.S. EPA Office of 

Air and Radiation, forthcoming. This guidance will 

provide the EPA’s recommendations for states to 

consider when developing SIP revisions following 

today’s rulemaking. Unlike the final rule, the 

guidance is not final agency action, and is not 

binding on or enforceable against any person. 

Consequently, it is subject to possible revision 

without additional rulemaking. In addition, the 

approaches suggested in the guidance (or in any 

changes thereto) will not represent final agency 

action unless and until the EPA takes a final SIP 

approval or disapproval action implementing those 

approaches. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1076; FRL–9671–3] 

RIN 2060–AQ97 

Air Quality: Widespread Use for 

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 

and Stage II Waiver 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA has determined that 

onboard refueling vapor recovery 

(ORVR) technology is in widespread use 

throughout the motor vehicle fleet for 

purposes of controlling motor vehicle 

refueling emissions, and, therefore, by 

this action, the EPA is waiving the 

requirement for states to implement 

Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems 

at gasoline dispensing facilities in 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Serious and above for the ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). This finding will be effective 

as noted below in the DATES section. 

After the effective date of this notice, a 

state previously required to implement 

a Stage II program may take appropriate 

action to remove the program from its 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Phasing out the use of Stage II systems 

may lead to long-term cost savings for 

gas station owners and operators while 

air quality protections are maintained. 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 16, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this rule, identified by Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1076. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., confidential 

business information or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, EPA 

Headquarters Library, Room Number 

3334 in the EPA West Building, located 

at 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lynn Dail, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Policy Division, Mail code C539–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone (919) 541–2363; fax number: 

919–541–0824; email address: dail.

lynn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

Since 1990, Stage II gasoline vapor 

recovery systems have been a required 

emissions control measure in Serious, 

Severe, and Extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas. Beginning with 

model year 1998, ORVR equipment has 

been phased in for new vehicles, and 

has been a required control on nearly all 

new highway vehicles since 2006. Over 

time, non-ORVR vehicles will continue 

to be replaced with ORVR vehicles. 

Stage II and ORVR emission control 

systems are redundant, and the EPA has 

determined that emission reductions 

from ORVR are essentially equal to and 

will soon surpass the emission 

reductions achieved by Stage II alone. In 

this action, the EPA is eliminating the 

largely redundant Stage II requirement 

in order to ensure that refueling vapor 

control regulations are beneficial 

without being unnecessarily 

burdensome to American business. This 

action allows, but does not require, 

states to discontinue Stage II vapor 

recovery programs. 

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Final Rule 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a)(6) 

provides discretionary authority to the 

EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or 

waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

requirement for Serious, Severe and 

Extreme ozone nonattainment areas 

after the Administrator determines that 

ORVR is in widespread use throughout 

the motor vehicle fleet. Based on criteria 

that the EPA proposed last year (76 FR 

41731, July 15, 2011), the EPA is 

determining that ORVR is in widespread 

use. As of the effective date of today’s 

action, states that are implementing 

mandatory Stage II programs under 

section 182(b)(3) of the CAA may 

submit revisions to their SIPs to remove 

this program. 

The EPA will also be issuing nonbinding guidance on developing and 

submitting approvable SIP revisions.1

This guidance will address SIP 

requirements for states in the Ozone 

Transport Region (OTR), which are 

separately required under section 

184(b)(2) of the CAA to adopt and 

implement control measures capable of 

achieving emissions reductions 

comparable to those achievable by Stage 

II. The EPA is updating its guidance for 

estimating what Stage II comparable 

emissions reductions could be, in light 

of the ORVR widespread use 

determination. The EPA now expects 

Stage II comparable emissions 

reductions to be substantially less than 

what was estimated in the past before 

ORVR use became widespread. 

Therefore, the EPA encourages states to 

consult the updated guidance before 

submitting a SIP revision removing 

Stage II controls. 

III. Costs and Benefits 

The primary purpose of this final rule 

is to promulgate a determination that 

ORVR is in widespread use as permitted 

in section 202(a)(6) of the CAA. In this 

final rule, EPA is exercising the 

authority provided by section 202(a)(6) 

of the CAA to, by rule, revise or waive 

the section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

requirement for Serious, Severe, and 

Extreme ozone nonattainment areas 

after the Administrator determines that 

ORVR is in widespread use throughout 

the motor vehicle fleet. This in turn 

gives states that were required to 

implement Stage II vapor recovery 

under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA the 

option to submit for the EPA’s review 

and approval revised ozone SIPs that 

will remove this requirement. The EPA 

projects that during 2013–2015, 

gasoline-dispensing facilities (GDFs) in 

up to 19 states and the District of 

Columbia could seek to decommission 

and remove Stage II systems from their 

dispensers. There are about 30,600 

GDFs with Stage II in these 20 areas. If 

the states submit and EPA approves SIP 

revisions to remove Stage II systems 

from these GDFs, the EPA projects 

savings of about $10.2 million in the 

first year, $40.5 million in the second 

year, and $70.9 million in the third year. 

Long-term savings are projected to be 

about $91 million per year, compared to 

the current use of Stage II systems in 

these areas. No significant emission 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28773 

2Originally, the section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

requirement also applied in all Moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas. However, under section 

202(a)(6) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the 

requirements of section 182(b)(3) no longer apply in 

Moderate ozone nonattainment areas after the EPA 

promulgated ORVR standards on April 6, 1994, 59 

FR 16262, codified at 40 CFR parts 86 (including 

86.098–8), 88 and 600. Under implementation rules 

issued in 2002 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 

the EPA retained the Stage II-related requirements 

under section 182(b)(3) as they applied for the nowrevoked 1-hour ozone standard. 40 CFR 51.900(f)(5) 

and 40 CFR 51.916(a). 

3This requirement only applies to facilities that 

sell more than a specified number of gallons per 

month and is set forth in sections 182(b)(3)(A)–(C) 

and 324(a)–(c). Section 182(b)(3)(B) has the 

following effective date requirements for 

implementation of Stage II after the adoption date 

by a state of a Stage II rule: 6 months after adoption 

of the state rule, for GDFs built after the enactment 

date (which for newly designated areas would be 

the designation date); 1 year after adoption date, for 

gas stations pumping at least 100,000 gal/month 

based on average monthly sales over 2-year period 

before adoption date; 2 years after adoption, for all 

others. 

4The Petroleum Equipment Institute has 

published recommended installation practices (PEI/ 

Continued 

increases or decreases are expected from 

this action. 

IV. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities directly affected by this 

action include states (typically state air 

pollution control agencies) and, in some 

cases, local governments that develop 

air pollution control rules that apply to 

areas classified as Serious and above for 

nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

Individuals and companies that operate 

gasoline dispensing facilities may be 

indirectly affected by virtue of state 

action in SIPs that implement 

provisions resulting from final 

rulemaking on this action; many of 

these sources are in the following 

groups: 

Industry group SIC a NAICSb

Gasoline stations 5541 447110, 447190 

aStandard Industrial Classification. 

b North American Industry Classification 

System. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this notice 

will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/

air/ozonepollution/actions.html#impl 

under ‘‘recent actions.’’ 

C. How is this notice organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows. 

I. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of This 

Final Rule 

III. Costs and Benefits 

IV. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. How is this notice organized? 

V. Background 

A. What requirements for Stage II gasoline 

vapor recovery apply for ozone 

nonattainment areas? 

B. Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems 

C. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 

(ORVR) Systems 

D. Compatibility Between Some Vapor 

Recovery Systems 

E. Proposed Rule to Determine Widespread 

Use of ORVR 

VI. This Action 

A. Analytical Rationale for Final Rule 

B. Updated Analysis of Widespread Use 

C. Widespread Use Date 

D. Implementation of the Rule Provisions 

E. Implementation of Rule Revisions in the 

Ozone Transport Region 

F. Comments on Other Waiver 

Implementation Issues 

VII. Estimated Cost 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

IX. Statutory Authority 

V. Background 

A. What requirements for Stage II 

gasoline vapor recovery apply in ozone 

nonattainment areas? 

The requirements in the 1990 CAA 

Amendments regarding Stage II vapor 

recovery are contained in Title I: 

Provisions for Attainment and 

Maintenance of National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. Under CAA section 

182(b)(3), Stage II gasoline vapor 

recovery systems are required to be used 

at higher throughput GDFs located in 

Serious, Severe, and Extreme 

nonattainment areas for ozone.2 States 

were required to adopt a Stage II 

program into their SIPs, and the controls 

were to be installed according to 

specified deadlines following state rule 

adoption.3 Since the early 1990s, Stage 

2 gasoline vapor controls have provided 

substantial emissions reductions and 

have contributed to improved air quality 

over time. 

B. Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems 

When a gasoline-powered automobile 

or other vehicle is brought into a GDF 

to be refueled, the empty portion of the 

fuel tank on the vehicle contains 

gasoline vapors. When liquid gasoline is 

pumped into the partially empty gas 

tank, gasoline vapors are forced out of 

the tank and fill pipe as the tank fills 

with liquid gasoline. Where air 

pollution control technology is not 

used, these vapors are emitted into the 

ambient air. In the atmosphere, these 

vapors can react with sunlight, nitrogen 

oxides and other volatile organic 

compounds to form ozone. 

There are two basic technical 

approaches to Stage II vapor recovery: A 

‘‘balance’’ system, and a vacuum assist 

system. A balance type Stage II control 

system has a rubber boot around the 

gasoline nozzle spout that fits snugly up 

to a vehicle’s gasoline fill pipe during 

refueling of the vehicle. With a balance 

system, when gasoline in the 

underground storage tank (UST) is 

pumped into a vehicle, a positive 

pressure differential is created between 

the vehicle tank and the UST. This 

pressure differential draws the gasoline 

vapors from the vehicle fill pipe through 

the rubber boot and the concentric hoses 

and underground piping into the UST. 

This is known as a balance system 

because gasoline vapors from the 

vehicle tank flow into the UST tank to 

balance pressures. About 30 percent of 

Stage II GDFs nationwide use the 

balance type Stage II system. 

The vacuum assist system is the other 

primary type of Stage II system 

currently in operation. This type of 

Stage II system uses a vacuum pump on 

the vapor return line to help draw 

vapors from the vehicle fill pipe into the 

UST. An advantage of this type of 

system is that the rubber boot around 

the nozzle can be smaller and lighter (or 

not used at all) and still draw the vapors 

into the vapor return hose. This makes 

for an easier-to-handle nozzle, which is 

popular with customers. About 70 

percent of Stage II GDFs nationwide use 

the vacuum assist approach. 

New Stage II equipment is normally 

required to achieve 95 percent control 

effectiveness at certification. However, 

studies have shown that in-use control 

efficiency depends on the proper 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

of the control equipment at the GDF.4


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28774 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

RP300–93) and most states require inspection, 

testing, and evaluation before a system is 

commissioned for use. 5 ‘‘Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle 

Refueling Control Programs,’’ U.S. EPA, Office of 

Air and Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources, 

December 1991. 6 ‘‘Technical Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery 

Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling at 

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Volume I: Chapters,’’ 

EPA–450/3–91–022a, November 1991. This study is 

a composite of multiple studies. 7Unlike Stage II, which is a requirement only in 

ozone nonattainment areas, ORVR requirements 

apply to vehicles everywhere. More detail on ORVR 

is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/orvr.htm. 

8The EPA promulgated ORVR standards for light 

duty vehicles and trucks on April 6, 1994, 59 FR 

16262, codified at 40CFR parts 86 (including 

86.098–8), 88 and 600. 

9See EPA Memorandum ‘‘Onboard Refueling 

Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment.’’ A 

copy of this memorandum is located in the docket 

for this action EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1076. 

10See Federal Register at 58 FR 9468 published 

February 19, 1993, and subsequent amendments 

and the latest OBD regulations at 40 CFR part 

86.1806–05 for program requirements in various 

years. 

11ORVR systems are basically a subset of 

evaporative emission systems because they share 

the same vapor lines, purge valves, purge lines, and 

activated carbon canister. 

12 ‘‘Effectiveness of OBD II Evaporative Emission 

Monitors—30 Vehicle Study,’’ EPA 420–R–00–018, 

October 2000. 

13See EPA Memorandum, ‘‘Review of Frequency 

of Evaporative System Related OBD Codes for Five 

State I/M Programs.’’ A copy of this memorandum 

is located in the docket for this action EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1076. 

Damaged, missing, or improperly 

operating components or systems can 

significantly degrade the control 

effectiveness of a Stage II system. 

In-use effectiveness ultimately 

depends on the consistency of 

inspections, follow-up review by state 

agencies, and actions by operators to 

perform inspections and field tests and 

conduct maintenance in a correct and 

timely manner. The EPA’s early 

guidance for Stage II discussed expected 

training, inspection, and testing criteria, 

and most states have adopted and 

supplemented these criteria as deemed 

necessary for balance and vacuum assist 

systems.5 In some cases, states have 

strictly followed the EPA guidance but 

other states have required a lesser level 

of inspection and enforcement efforts. 

Past EPA studies have estimated Stage 

II in-use efficiencies of 92 percent with 

semi-annual inspections, 86 percent 

with annual inspections and 62 percent 

with minimal or less frequent state 

inspections.6 The in-use effectiveness of 

Stage II control systems may vary from 

state to state, and may vary over time 

within any state or nonattainment area 

because the in-use efficiency of Stage II 

vapor recovery systems depends heavily 

on the ongoing maintenance and 

oversight by GDF owners/operators and 

the state/local agencies. 

C. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 

(ORVR) Systems 

In addition to Stage II controls, the 

1990 CAA Amendments required 

another method of controlling emissions 

from dispensing gasoline. Section 

202(a)(6) of the CAA requires an 

onboard system of capturing vehiclerefueling emissions, commonly referred 

to as an ORVR system.7 ORVR consists 

of an activated carbon canister installed 

on the vehicle into which vapors are 

routed from the vehicle fuel tank during 

refueling. There the vapors are captured 

by the activated carbon in the canister. 

To prevent the vapors from escaping 

through the fill pipe opening, the 

vehicle employs a seal in the fill pipe 

which allows liquid gasoline to enter 

but blocks vapor escape. In most cases, 

these are ‘‘liquid seals’’ created by the 

incoming liquid gasoline slightly 

backing near the bottom of the fill pipe. 

When the engine is started, the vapors 

are purged from the activated carbon 

and into the engine where they are 

burned as fuel. 

The EPA promulgated ORVR 

standards on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 

16262). Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA 

required that the EPA’s ORVR standards 

apply to light-duty vehicles 

manufactured beginning in the fourth 

model year after the model year in 

which the standards were promulgated, 

and that ORVR systems provide a 

minimum evaporative emission capture 

efficiency of 95 percent. 

Automobile manufacturers began 

installing ORVR on new passenger cars 

in 1998 when 40 percent of new cars 

were required to have ORVR. The 

regulation required the percentage of 

new cars with ORVR increase to 80 

percent in 1999 and 100 percent in 

2000. The regulation also required that 

ORVR for light duty trucks and vans 

(<6000 pounds (lbs) gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR)) was to be 

phased-in during 2001 with 40 percent 

of such new vehicles required to have 

ORVR in 2001, 80 percent in 2002 and 

100 percent in 2003. New heavier lightduty trucks (6001–8500 lbs GVWR) were 

required to have 40 percent with ORVR 

by 2004, 80 percent by 2005 and 100 

percent by 2006. New trucks up to 

10,000 lbs GVWR manufactured as a 

complete chassis were all required to 

have ORVR by 2006.8 Complete vehicle 

chassis for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles 

between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs GVWR 

(Class 3) are very similar to those 

between 8,501 and 10,000 lbs GVWR. 

For model consistency purposes, 

manufacturers began installing ORVR 

on Class 3 complete chassis in 2006 as 

well. So, after 2006, essentially all new 

gasoline-powered vehicles less than 

14,000 lbs GVWR are ORVR-equipped. 

ORVR does not apply to all vehicles, 

but those not covered by the ORVR 

requirement comprise a small 

percentage of the gasoline-powered 

highway vehicle fleet (approximately 

1.5 percent of gasoline consumption). 

The EPA estimates that by the end of 

2012, more than 71percent of vehicles 

currently on the road will have ORVR.9

This percentage will increase over time 

as older cars and trucks are replaced by 

new models. However, under the 

current regulatory construct, 

motorcycles and heavy-duty gasoline 

vehicles not manufactured as a 

complete chassis are not required to 

install ORVR, so it is likely that there 

will be some very small percentage of 

gasoline refueling emissions not 

captured by ORVR controls. 

Even prior to the EPA’s adoption of 

ORVR requirements, in 1993 EPA 

adopted Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) 

System requirements for passenger cars 

and light trucks, and eventually did so 

for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles up to 

14,000 lbs GVWR.10 These systems are 

designed to monitor the in-use 

performance of various vehicle emission 

control systems and components, 

including protocols for finding 

problems in the purge systems and large 

and small vapor leaks in ORVR/ 

evaporative emission controls.11 OBD II 

systems were phased in for these 

vehicle classes over the period from 

1994–1996 for lighter vehicles and 

2005–2007 for heavy-duty gasoline 

vehicles, so, during the same time frame 

that manufacturers were implementing 

ORVR into their vehicles, they already 

had implemented or were implementing 

OBD II systems. 

In 2000, the EPA published a report 

addressing the effectiveness of OBD II 

control systems.12 This study concluded 

that enhanced evaporative and ORVR 

emission control systems are durable 

and low emitting relative to the FTP 

(Federal Test Procedure) enhanced 

evaporative emission standards, and 

that OBD II evaporative emissions 

checks are a suitable replacement for 

functional evaporative emission tests in 

state inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

programs. OBD system codes are 

interrogated and evaluated in a 30- 

vehicle emission I/M program. A recent 

EPA review of OBD data gathered from 

I/M programs from five states 13

indicated relatively few vehicles had 

any evaporative system-related OBD 

codes that would indicate a potential 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28775 

14See EPA Memorandum ‘‘Onboard Refueling 

Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment.’’ A 

copy of this memorandum is located in the docket 

for this action EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1076. The level 

of these UST vent stack emissions varies based on 

several factors; EPA estimates a 5.4 to 6.4 

percentage point decrease in Stage II control 

efficiency in the 2011–2015 time frame at GDFs 

employing non-ORVR compatible vacuum assist 

Stage II nozzles. The decrease in efficiency varies 

depending on the vacuum assist technology design 

(including the use of a mini-boot for the nozzle and 

the ratio of volume of air drawn into the UST 

compared to the volume of gasoline dispensed (A/ 

L) ratio), the gasoline Reid vapor pressure, the air 

and gasoline temperatures, and the fraction of 

throughput dispensed to ORVR vehicles. The values 

will increase over time as the fraction of total 

gasoline dispensed to ORVR vehicles at Stage II 

GDFs increases. 

problem with the vapor management 

system. 

Based on emissions tests of over 1,100 

in-use ORVR-equipped vehicles, EPA 

concluded that the average in-use 

efficiency of ORVR is 98 percent. The 

legal requirement for ORVR is 95 

percent efficiency. Thus, the actual 

reported control achieved in practice is 

greater than the statutorily required 

level of control. 

D. Compatibility Between Some Vapor 

Recovery Systems 

Even though the per-vehicle vapor 

recovery efficiency of ORVR exceeds 

that of Stage II, Stage II vapor recovery 

systems have provided valuable 

reductions in ozone precursors and air 

toxics as ORVR has been phased into 

the motor vehicle fleet. In fact, overall 

refueling emissions from vehicle fuel 

tanks are minimized by having both 

ORVR and Stage II in place, but the 

incremental gain from retaining Stage II 

decreases relatively quickly as ORVR 

penetration surpasses 75 percent of 

dispensed gasoline. Please see Table 2 

below. This occurs not only because of 

a decreasing amount of gasoline being 

dispensed to non-ORVR equipped 

vehicles, but also because differences in 

operational design characteristics 

between ORVR and vacuum assist Stage 

II systems may in some cases cause a 

reduction in the overall control system 

efficiency compared to what could have 

been achieved relative to the individual 

control efficiencies of either ORVR or 

Stage II emissions from the vehicle fuel 

tank. The problem arises because the 

ORVR canister captures the gasoline 

vapor emissions from the motor vehicle 

fuel tank rather than the vapors being 

drawn off by the vacuum assist Stage II 

system. This occurs because the fill pipe 

seal blocks the vapor from reaching the 

Stage II nozzle. Thus, instead of drawing 

vapor-laden air from the vehicle fuel 

tank into the underground storage tank 

(UST), the vacuum pump of the Stage II 

system draws mostly fresh air into the 

UST. This fresh air causes gasoline in 

the UST to evaporate inside the UST 

and creates an internal increase in UST 

pressure. As the proportion of ORVR 

vehicles increases, the amount of fresh 

air, void of gasoline vapors, pumped 

into the UST also increases. Even with 

pressure/vacuum valves in place this 

eventually leads to gasoline vapors 

being forced out of the UST vent pipe 

into the ambient air. These new UST 

vent-stack emissions detract from the 

overall recovery efficiency at the GDF. 

As discussed in the proposed rule, the 

level of these UST vent stack emissions 

varies based on several factors but can 

result in a net 1 to 10 percent decrease 

in overall control efficiency of vehicle 

fuel tank emissions at any given GDF.14

The decrease in efficiency varies 

depending on the vacuum assist 

technology design (including the use of 

a mini-boot for the nozzle and the ratio 

of volume of air drawn into the UST 

compared to the volume of gasoline 

dispensed (A/L) ratio), the gasoline Reid 

vapor pressure, the air and gasoline 

temperatures, and the fraction of 

throughput dispensed to ORVR 

vehicles. There are various technologies 

that address these UST vent-stack 

emissions and can extend the utility of 

Stage II to further minimize the overall 

control of gasoline vapor emissions at 

the GDF. These technologies include 

nozzles that sense when fresh air is 

being drawn into the UST and stop or 

reduce the air flow. These ORVRcompatible nozzles are now required in 

California and Texas. Another solution 

is the addition of processors on the UST 

vent pipe that capture or destroy the 

gasoline vapor emissions from the vent 

pipe. A number of these systems were 

presented in comments on the proposed 

rule. While they may have merit, 

installing these technologies adds to the 

expense of the control systems. 

E. Proposed Rule To Determine 

Widespread Use of ORVR 

Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA provides 

discretionary authority to the EPA 

Administrator to, by rule, revise or 

waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

requirement for Serious, Severe, and 

Extreme ozone nonattainment areas 

after the Administrator determines that 

ORVR is in widespread use throughout 

the motor vehicle fleet. The percentage 

of non-ORVR vehicles and the 

percentage of gasoline dispensed to 

those vehicles grow smaller each year as 

these older vehicles wear out and are 

replaced by new ORVR-equipped 

models. Given the predictable nature of 

this trend, the EPA proposed a date for 

ORVR widespread use. 

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) (76 FR 41731, July 15, 2011), 

the EPA proposed that ORVR 

widespread use will occur at the midpoint in the 2013 calendar year, relying 

upon certain criteria outlined in the 

proposed rule. This date was also 

proposed as the effective date for the 

waiver of the CAA section 182(b)(3) 

Stage II requirements for Serious, Severe 

and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas. 

The EPA used two basic approaches 

in determining when ORVR would be in 

widespread use in the motor vehicle 

fleet. Both approaches focused on the 

penetration of ORVR-equipped vehicles 

in the gasoline-powered highway motor 

vehicle fleet. The first proposed 

approach focused on the volume of 

gasoline that is dispensed into vehicles 

equipped with ORVR, and compared the 

emissions reductions achieved by ORVR 

alone to the reductions that can be 

achieved by Stage II controls alone. The 

second approach focused on the fraction 

of highway motor gasoline dispensed to 

ORVR-equipped vehicles. 

In the proposal, the EPA included 

Table 1 (republished below). This work 

was based on outputs from EPA’s 

MOVES 2010 motor vehicle emissions 

model, which showed information 

related to the penetration of ORVR in 

the national motor vehicle fleet 

projected to 2020. These model outputs 

have been updated for the final rule to 

be consistent with the latest public 

release of the model (MOVES 2010a) 

since that is the version of the model 

states would use in any future inventory 

assessment work related to refueling 

emissions control. Overall, ORVR 

efficiency was shown in column 5 of 

Table 1 and was determined by 

multiplying the fraction of gasoline 

dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles 

by ORVR’s 98 percent in-use control 

efficiency. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28776 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

15See, ‘‘Determination of Widespread Use of 

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) and 

Waiver of Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements: 

Summary of Public Comments and Responses.’’ 

March 2012. Document contained in docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–1076. 

16See section 4.4.3 (especially Figure 4–14 and 

Table 4–4) in ‘‘Technical Guidance—Stage II Vapor 

Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling 

Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, 

Volume I: Chapters,’’ EPA–450/3–91–022a, 

November 1991. A copy of this document is located 

in the docket for this action EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1076. This is based on annual enforcement 

inspections and on allowable exemptions of 10,000/ 

50,000 gallons per month as described in section 

324(a) of the CAA. The EPA recognizes that these 

two values vary by state and that in some cases 

actual in-use efficiencies, prescribed exemption 

levels, or both may be either higher or lower. 

17AP–42, The EPA’s emission factors document, 

identifies three sources of refueling emissions: 

Displacement, spillage, and breathing losses. In the 

EPA Memorandum ‘‘Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery Widespread Use Assessment’’ (available 

in the public docket), the EPA determined that for 

separate Stage II and ORVR refueling events, 

spillage and breathing loss emission rates are 

similar. Thus, this analysis focuses on differences 

in controlled displacement emissions. 

Compatibility effects related to ORVR and Stage II 

vacuum assist systems are addressed separately. 

TABLE 1—PROJECTED PENETRATION OF ORVR IN THE NATIONAL VEHICLE FLEET BY YEAR—BASED ON MOVES 2010 

Calendar year Vehicle population 

percentage 

VMT 

Percentage 

Gasoline 

dispensed 

percentage 

ORVR Efficiency 

percentage 

1 2 3 4 5 

2006 ......................................................................................... 39.5 48.7 46.2 45.3 

2007 ......................................................................................... 45.3 54.9 52.5 51.5 

2008 ......................................................................................... 50.1 60.0 57.6 56.4 

2009 ......................................................................................... 54.3 64.5 62.1 60.9 

2010 ......................................................................................... 59.0 69.3 66.9 65.6 

2011 ......................................................................................... 63.6 73.9 71.5 70.1 

2012 ......................................................................................... 67.9 78.0 75.6 74.1 

2013 ......................................................................................... 71.7 81.6 79.3 77.7 

2014 ......................................................................................... 75.2 84.6 82.6 80.9 

2015 ......................................................................................... 78.4 87.2 85.3 83.6 

2016 ......................................................................................... 81.2 89.4 87.7 85.9 

2017 ......................................................................................... 83.6 91.2 89.7 87.9 

2018 ......................................................................................... 85.6 92.7 91.3 89.5 

2019 ......................................................................................... 87.5 93.9 92.7 90.8 

2020 ......................................................................................... 89.0 94.9 93.9 92.0 

See EPA Memorandum ‘‘Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment’’ in the docket (number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1076) addressing details on issues related to values in this table. 

Note: In this table, the columns have the following meaning. 

1. Calendar year that corresponds to the percentages in the row associated with the year. 

2. Percentage of the gasoline-powered highway vehicle fleet that have ORVR. 

3. Percentage of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicles equipped with ORVR. 

4. Amount of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles as a percentage of all gasoline dispensed to highway motor vehicles. 

5. Percentage from the same row in column 4 multiplied by 0.98. 

In the proposal, the EPA estimated 

that ORVR would need to achieve in-use 

emission reductions of about 77.4 

percent to be equivalent to the amount 

of control Stage II alone would achieve. 

This estimate was based on the in-use 

control efficiency of Stage II systems 

and exemptions for Stage II for lower 

throughput GDFs. In the NPRM, the 

EPA assumed that in areas where basic 

Stage II systems are used the control 

efficiency of Stage II gasoline vapor 

control systems is 86 percent. The use 

of this value depends on the assumption 

that daily and annual inspections, 

periodic testing, and appropriate 

maintenance are conducted in a correct 

and timely manner. In addressing 

comments, we have stated that this 

efficiency could be nearer to 60% if 

inspections testing and maintenance are 

not conducted and there is minimal 

enforcement.15

In the NPRM, the EPA estimated that 

the percentage of gasoline dispensed in 

an area that is covered by Stage II 

controls is 90 percent. Multiplying the 

estimated efficiency of Stage II systems 

(86 percent) by the estimated fraction of 

gasoline dispensed in nonattainment 

areas from Stage II-equipped gasoline 

pumps yielded an estimate of the areawide control efficiency of Stage II 

programs of 77.4 percent (0.90 × 0.86 = 

0.774 or 77.4 percent) for emissions 

displaced from vehicle fuel tanks. 16 17

Table 1 indicated this level of ORVR 

control efficiency is expected to be 

achieved during calendar year 2013. 

In the second approach for estimating 

when ORVR is in widespread use, we 

also observed from Table 1 that by the 

end of calendar year 2012 more than 75 

percent of gasoline will be dispensed 

into ORVR-equipped vehicles. As 

discussed in the NPRM, the EPA 

believed that this percentage of ORVR 

coverage (≥75 percent) is substantial 

enough to inherently be viewed as 

‘‘widespread’’ under any ordinary 

understanding of that term. 

Furthermore, in Table 1, the percentage 

of VMT by ORVR-equipped vehicles 

(column 3) and the amount of gasoline 

dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles 

(column 4) reached or exceeded 75 

percent between the end of year 2011 

and end of 2012. The EPA believed this 

provided further support for 

establishing a widespread use date after 

the end of calendar year 2012. Based on 

the dates derived from these two basic 

approaches, the EPA proposed to 

determine that ORVR will be in 

widespread use by June 30, 2013, or the 

midpoint of calendar year 2013. 

VI. This Action 

A. Analytical Rationale for Final Rule 

Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA provides 

discretionary authority to the EPA 

Administrator to, by rule, revise or 

waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

requirement after the Administrator 

determines that ORVR is in widespread 

use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. 

As discussed in the NPRM, the EPA has 

broad discretion in how it defines 

widespread use and the manner in 

which any final determination is 

implemented. In our review of the 

public comments received on the 

proposal, no commenter indicated that 

a widespread use determination was 

inappropriate or took issue with the 

EPA’s two-pronged analytical approach. 

We have integrated responses to many 

comments throughout the preamble to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28777 

18See the EPA memorandum ‘‘Updated ORVR InUse Efficiency.’’ A copy of this memorandum is 

located in the docket for this action EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1076. 

19See ‘‘Draft Vapor Recovery Test Report,’’ April 

1999 by CARB and CAPCOA (now cleared for 

public use), and ‘‘Performance of Balance Vapor 

Recovery Systems at Gasoline Dispensing 

Facilities’’, prepared by the San Diego Air Pollution 

Control District, May 18, 2000. Both reports are 

available in the public docket. 

20The EPA report, ‘‘Enforcement Guidance for 

Stage II Vehicle Refueling Control Programs,’’ U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Mobile 

Sources, December 1991, provides basic EPA 

guidance on what a state SIP and accompanying 

regulations should include to achieve high 

efficiency. 

21There are a few states that limit Stage II 

exemptions to only GDFs with less than 10,000 gpm 

throughput, which would exempt about three to 

five percent of area-wide throughput. 

22See the EPA memorandum ‘‘Summary of Stage 

II Exemption Program Values.’’ A copy of this 

memorandum is located in the docket for this 

action in EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1076. 

this final rule. A more detailed set of 

responses is in a document titled, 

‘‘Determination of Widespread Use of 

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 

(ORVR) and Waiver of Stage II Vapor 

Recovery, Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses’’ that can be 

found in the docket, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1076. 

The analytical approaches used by the 

EPA to determine the widespread use 

date are influenced by several key input 

parameters that affect the estimates of 

the emission reduction benefits of Stage 

II alone versus the benefits of ORVR 

alone and the phase-in of ORVRequipped vehicles. We received several 

comments on the assumptions and 

parameters used by the EPA in the 

NPRM, and in some cases we have 

updated the information used in 

calculations that support the final rule, 

as discussed in the following 

paragraphs. 

1. ORVR Parameters 

• ORVR efficiency. The EPA used an 

in-use control efficiency of ORVR of 98 

percent in the proposal. This was based 

on the testing of 1,160 vehicles drawn 

from the field. EPA has updated its 

analysis to include an additional 478 

refueling emission test results for 

ORVR-equipped vehicles that were 

conducted in calendar years 2010 and 

2011. The data set, which now includes 

over 1,600 vehicle tests for vehicles 

from model years 2000–2010 with 

mileages ranging from 10,000 to over 

100,000, continues to support the 

conclusion that the 98 percent in-use 

efficiency values remain appropriate.18

• Modeling program inputs. The 

NPRM relied on EPA’s MOVES 2010 

model for estimating ORVR vehicle fleet 

penetration, VMT by ORVR vehicles, 

and gallons of gasoline dispensed to 

ORVR vehicles. Since the development 

of the NPRM, the EPA has publicly 

released MOVES 2010a. The updated 

model incorporates many 

improvements. Those relevant here 

include updates in ORVR vehicle sales, 

sales projections, scrappage, fleet mix, 

annual VMT, and fuel efficiency. The 

EPA believes that the modeling 

undertaken to determine the widespread 

use date for the final rule should 

employ the EPA’s latest MOVES 

modeling program because it contains 

updated information that bears on the 

subject of this rulemaking, and because 

the EPA expects states to also use it in 

any state-specific demonstrations 

supporting future SIP revisions, 

including revisions that seek to remove 

Stage II programs. 

2. Stage II Parameters 

• Stage II efficiency. The EPA used an 

in-use control efficiency of 86 percent 

for Stage II in the proposal. As 

discussed above, Stage II control 

efficiency depends on inspection, 

testing, and maintenance by GDF 

owner/operators, and inspection and 

enforcement by state/local agencies. 

Typical values range from 62 percent to 

86 percent. The public comments 

referred the EPA to additional reported 

information directly related to in-use 

effectiveness of Stage II vapor 

recovery.19 The reports indicate that for 

balance and vacuum-assist type Stage II 

systems in use in many states today, the 

in-use effectiveness of Stage II is 

typically near 70 percent. Nonetheless, 

the EPA has elected to retain the use of 

an 86 percent efficiency value in the 

analyses supporting the final rule. This 

is because many state programs have 

included the maintenance and 

inspection provisions recommended by 

EPA to achieve this level of efficiency 

in their initial SIPs that originally 

incorporated Stage II controls.20 Current 

in-use efficiency values may well be 

lower based on the performance of the 

Stage II technology itself or for other 

reasons related to maintenance and 

enforcement. We are not rejecting the 

additional information from 

commenters or the possibility that Stage 

II efficiency may be lower in some states 

or nonattainment areas. However, the 

EPA believes these issues are best 

examined in the SIP review process. If 

real in-use efficiency across all existing 

Stage II programs is, in fact, lower than 

86 percent, the EPA’s final analysis 

overestimates the length of time 

required for emissions reductions from 

ORVR alone to eclipse the reductions 

that can be achieved by Stage II alone. 

• Stage II exemption rate. In sections 

182(b)(3) and 324 of the CAA, Congress 

permitted exemptions from Stage II 

controls for GDFs of less than 10,000 

gallons/month (privates) and 50,000 

gallons/month (independent small 

business marketers). The EPA analysis 

indicated that these GDF throughput 

values exempted about 10 percent of 

annual throughput in any given area. 

Some states included more strict 

exemption rates, most commonly 10,000 

gallons per month (3 percent of 

throughput) for both privates and 

independent small business marketers. 

A few other states’ exemption 

provisions used values that fell within 

or outside this range.21 Of the 21 states 

and the District of Columbia with areas 

classified as Serious, Severe, or Extreme 

for ozone and/or within the Ozone 

Transport Region, the plurality 

incorporated exemption provisions in 

their state regulations, which exempted 

about 10 percent of throughput.22

Therefore, we believe it remains 

reasonable to use that value within this 

analysis. 

• Compatibility factor for vacuum 

assist Stage II systems. The EPA 

discussed the compatibility factor at 

length in the NPRM and provided 

relevant materials in the docket. Several 

commenters asked that the EPA provide 

guidance on how the compatibility 

factor should be incorporated into any 

similar analysis conducted by a state for 

purposes of future SIP revisions 

involving Stage II programs. The 

magnitude of the compatibility factor for 

any given area varies depending on 

ORVR penetration, fraction of vacuum 

assist nozzles relative to balance 

nozzles, and excess A/L for vacuum 

assist nozzles. Two states have adopted 

measures to reduce this effect through 

the use of ORVR-compatible nozzles 

and one state prohibits vacuum assist 

nozzles completely. Due to these 

significant variables, the EPA is electing 

not to include the compatibility factor 

in the widespread use date 

determination analysis, but will provide 

the guidance requested by the 

commenters for use in making future 

SIP revisions. To the extent that 

compatibility emissions across all 

existing Stage II programs as a whole are 

significant, the EPA’s final analysis 

overestimates the length of time 

required for emissions reductions from 

ORVR alone to eclipse the reductions 

that can be achieved by Stage II alone. 

B. Updated Analysis of Widespread Use 

As discussed previously, the EPA has 

used two approaches for determining 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28778 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

23For example, in November 2011, New 

Hampshire put new regulations in place that 

eliminate the need for new GDFs to install Stage II, 

allows current GDFs with Stage II to decommission 

the systems, and requires all systems to be 

decommissioned by December 22, 2015. In May of 

2011, New York issued an enforcement discretion 

directive which curtailed the need for new stations 

to install Stage II and permitted current 

installations to be decommissioned. These actions 

remain under review of EPA. 

when ORVR is in widespread use on a 

nationwide basis. After reviewing our 

methodology and reviewing the related 

comments on the NPRM, we are 

retaining three of the four basic 

analytical input parameters and 

updating one. The in-use ORVR 

efficiency, the in-use Stage II efficiency, 

and the Stage II exemption rate 

parameters are the same as in the 

NPRM. However, we have updated the 

modeling program inputs as discussed 

previously, and the results are reflected 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—PROJECTED PENETRATION OF ORVR IN THE NATIONAL VEHICLE FLEET BY YEAR—BASED ON MOVES 2010(a) 

End of calendar year 

Vehicle 

population 

percentage 

VMT 

Percentage 

Gasoline 

dispensed 

percentage 

ORVR 

Efficiency 

percentage 

1 2 3 4 5 

2006 ......................................................................................... 42.6 51.2 49.2 48.2 

2007 ......................................................................................... 48.4 57.3 55.5 54.4 

2008 ......................................................................................... 53.3 62.3 60.5 59.2 

2009 ......................................................................................... 57.7 66.8 64.8 63.5 

2010 ......................................................................................... 62.4 71.6 69.5 68.1 

2011 ......................................................................................... 67.1 76.0 73.9 72.4 

2012 ......................................................................................... 71.4 80.0 77.7 76.1 

2013 ......................................................................................... 75.3 83.4 81.0 79.4 

2014 ......................................................................................... 78.7 86.3 84.0 82.3 

2015 ......................................................................................... 81.8 88.8 86.5 84.8 

2016 ......................................................................................... 84.5 90.9 88.6 86.8 

2017 ......................................................................................... 86.8 92.5 90.3 88.5 

2018 ......................................................................................... 88.8 93.9 91.9 90.0 

2019 ......................................................................................... 90.5 95.0 93.2 91.3 

2020 ......................................................................................... 92.0 95.9 94.3 92.4 

See EPA Memorandum ‘‘Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment’’ in the docket (number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1076) addressing details on issues related to values in this table. 

Note: In this table, the columns have the following meaning. 

1. Calendar year that corresponds to the percentages in the row associated with the year. 

2. Percentage of the gasoline-powered highway vehicle fleet that have ORVR. 

3. Percentage of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicles equipped with ORVR. 

4. Amount of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles as a percentage of all gasoline dispensed to highway motor vehicles. 

5. Percentage from the same row in column 4 multiplied by 0.98. 

The results in Table 2 are applied in 

the context of the two basic analytical 

approaches used in the NPRM for 

supporting the final date associated 

with the EPA’s widespread use 

determination. First, using the analysis 

based on equal reductions for Stage II 

and ORVR, the 77.4 percent in-use 

emission reduction efficiency for ORVR 

will occur in May 2013 (See column 5 

of Table 2). Second, 75 percent of 

gasoline will be dispensed to ORVRequipped vehicles by April 2012 (See 

column 4 of Table 2). 

C. Widespread Use Date 

The updated analysis indicates that 

the two benchmarks will occur about a 

year apart, and that one benchmark of 

April 2012 has already passed. At the 

time of the NPRM, both of the 

benchmark dates for the ORVR 

widespread use determination were in 

the future, many months after the EPA’s 

expected final action. Thus, given the 

basic merits of both approaches, the 

EPA believed it was reasonable to 

propose a date between the dates 

associated with the two analytical 

approaches. 

The EPA’s updated analysis presents 

a somewhat different picture. The April 

2012 benchmark date has already 

passed, and the May 2013 benchmark 

date is less than 1 year away. We believe 

it is reasonable for the EPA 

Administrator to determine that ORVR 

is in widespread use in the motor 

vehicle fleet as of the date this final 

action is published in the Federal 

Register because this final rule is being 

promulgated within the window 

bounded by the two benchmark dates 

derived from the updated analyses. 

As discussed previously in this notice 

and in the NPRM, the EPA has 

discretion in setting the widespread use 

date. It is evident from the public 

comments on the NPRM from states and 

members of the regulated industry, and 

from recent state actions, that there is a 

desire to curtail Stage II installations at 

newly constructed GDFs, and to initiate 

an orderly phase-out of Stage II controls 

at existing GDFs.23 Since one of the two 

analytical benchmark dates (April 2012) 

has passed, and we expect in most cases 

the second analytical benchmark date 

(May 2013) will have passed by the time 

the EPA is able to complete approvals 

of SIP revisions removing Stage II 

programs and pass any revised 

regulations, then in response to 

comments asking us to expedite the 

ORVR widespread use finding, the EPA 

Administrator is determining that ORVR 

is in widespread use in the motor 

vehicle fleet as of May 16, 2012. 

Accordingly, as of May 16, 2012 the 

requirement to implement a Stage II 

emissions control program under 

section 182(b)(3) of the CAA is waived. 

D. Implementation of the Rule 

Provisions 

In this final action, the ORVR 

widespread use determination and 

waiver of the section 182(b)(3) 

requirement applies to the entire 

country. This includes areas that are 

now classified as Serious or above for 

ozone nonattainment, as well as those 

that may be classified or reclassified as 

Serious or above in the future. 

In the NPRM, we indicated that states 

could potentially demonstrate that 

ORVR was in widespread use in specific 

areas sooner than the general, national 

date. Such a provision is no longer 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28779 

24 ‘‘Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor 

Recovery Programs: Guidance on Satisfying 

Requirements of Clean Air Act Sections 110(l), 193, 

and 184(b)(2) (tentative title).’’ U.S. EPA Office of 

Air and Radiation, forthcoming. 

25 ‘‘Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery in 

Situation where Widespread Use of Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery is Demonstrated,’’ from 

Stephen D. Page and Margo Tsirigotis Oge, EPA, 

December 12, 2006. 

26 ‘‘Stage II Comparability Study for the Northeast 

Ozone Transport Region,’’ (EPA–452/R–94–011; 

January 1995). 

27 ‘‘Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor 

Recovery Programs: Guidance on Satisfying 

Requirements of Clean Air Act Sections 110(l), 193, 

and 184(b)(2) (tentative title).’’ U.S. EPA Office of 

Air and Radiation, forthcoming. 

needed because today’s action provides 

for a nationwide determination of 

widespread use effective on May 16, 

2012. 

As stated in this final action and as 

pointed out by several commenters, the 

ORVR widespread use determination 

and section 182(b)(3) waiver 

determination does not obligate states to 

remove any existing Stage II vapor 

recovery requirements. It is possible that 

a state would determine it beneficial to 

continue implementation of a Stage II 

program. For example, in an area where 

ORVR-equipped fleet penetration is 

considerably less than the national 

average, or where Stage II exemptions 

are significantly more restrictive than 

the national assumptions used in this 

analysis, a state may determine that it 

would not be appropriate to modify its 

program immediately, but that it would 

be more appropriate to do so at a later 

date. In assessing whether and how to 

phase out Stage II requirements, states 

are encouraged to review, and as needed 

revise the area-specific assumptions 

about taking into consideration their 

inspection and enforcement resource 

commitments as well as ORVR/vacuumassist Stage II compatibility. 

A state that chooses to remove the 

program must submit a SIP revision 

requesting EPA to approve such action 

and provide, as appropriate, a 

demonstration that the SIP revision is 

consistent with CAA section 110(1), and 

in some cases consistent with CAA 

section 193. The EPA will provide 

additional guidance on conducting 

assessments to support Stage II-related 

SIP revisions.24 The EPA encourages 

states to review this guidance and 

consult with the EPA Regional Offices 

on developing SIP revisions seeking 

EPA approval for phasing out existing 

Stage II programs in a manner that 

ensures air quality protections are 

maintained. 

Section 110(l) precludes the 

Administrator from approving a SIP 

revision if it would interfere with 

applicable CAA requirements 

(including, but not limited to, 

attainment and maintenance of the 

ozone NAAQS and achieving reasonable 

further progress). A state may 

demonstrate through analysis that 

removing a Stage II program in an area 

as of a specific date will not result in an 

emissions increase in the area, or that 

the small and ever-declining increase is 

offset by other simultaneous changes in 

the implementation plan. However, a 

state may find that by removing Stage II 

requirements, they are reducing the 

overall level of emissions reductions 

they have previously applied toward 

meeting CAA rate of progress (ROP) or 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

requirements, or demonstrating 

attainment. If so, the state should 

explain how removing Stage II controls 

in the area would not interfere with 

attaining and maintaining the ozone 

NAAQS in the area. In such 

circumstances, it is possible that 

additional emissions reductions from 

other measures may be needed to offset 

the removal of Stage II. 

If EPA has approved a state’s adoption 

of Stage II requirements into a SIP 

before November 15, 1990, section 193 

would also apply. Section 193 provides 

that removal of an emissions control 

program cannot result in any emissions 

increase unless the increase is offset. 

Section 193 only applies if an area is 

nonattainment for the standard. 

State and local agencies should also 

consider any transportation conformity 

impacts related to removing Stage II if 

emissions reductions from Stage II are 

included in a SIP-approved on-road 

motor vehicle emissions budget. States 

may need to adjust conformity budgets 

or the components of the budget if 

removing Stage II requirements would 

alter expected air quality benefits. 

In previous memoranda, the EPA 

provided guidance to states on removing 

Stage II at refueling facilities dedicated 

to certain segments of the motor vehicle 

fleet (e.g., new automobile assembly 

plants, rental car facilities, E85 

dispensing pumps, and corporate fleet 

facilities). In these specific cases where 

all or nearly all of the vehicles being 

refueled are ORVR-equipped, the EPA 

could conservatively conclude that 

widespread use of ORVR had occurred 

in these fleets.25

E. Implementation of Rule Provisions in 

the Ozone Transport Region 

States and the District of Columbia in 

the OTR in the northeastern U.S. are 

also subject to a separate Stage II-related 

requirement. Under section 184(b)(2) of 

the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7511c(b)(2)), all 

areas in the OTR, both attainment and 

nonattainment areas, must implement 

control measures capable of achieving 

emissions reductions comparable to 

those achievable through Stage II 

controls. The CAA does not contain 

specific provisions giving authority to 

the EPA Administrator to waive this 

independent requirement. The section 

184(b)(2) requirement does not impose 

Stage II per se, but rather is a 

requirement that OTR states achieve an 

amount of emissions reductions 

comparable to the amount that Stage II 

would achieve. Moreover, section 

202(a)(6), in allowing for a waiver of the 

section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement 

for nonattainment areas, does not refer 

to the independent section 184(b)(2) 

requirements. Therefore, the section 

184(b)(2) Stage II-related requirement 

for the OTR will continue to remain in 

place even after the ORVR widespread 

use determination and section 182(b)(3) 

waiver effective date. 

In the mid-1990s, the EPA issued 

guidance on estimating what levels of 

emissions reductions would be 

‘‘comparable’’ to those reductions 

achieved by Stage II.26 In response, most 

OTR states simply adopted Stage II 

programs rather than identify other 

measures that got the same degree of 

emissions reductions. Given the 

continued penetration of ORVRequipped vehicles into the overall 

vehicle fleet, Stage II-comparable 

emissions are significantly less than in 

the past, and continue to decline. 

Accordingly, the EPA is issuing updated 

guidance on determining ‘‘comparable 

measures.’’ States in the OTR should 

refer to that guidance if preparing a SIP 

revision to remove Stage II programs in 

areas of the OTR.27

Commenters on the NPRM urged the 

EPA to revise its previous interpretation 

of section 184(b)(2) to permit ORVR to 

be recognized as a Stage II comparable 

emission reduction measure. This issue 

is not within the scope of this 

rulemaking, and EPS is not taking final 

agency action implementing section 

184(b)(2) or an interpretation thereof. 

However, for informational purposes, 

we point out that simply treating the 

ORVR requirements under section 

202(a)(6) as a comparable measure that 

an OTR SIP must additionally contain 

would arguably render the 184(b)(2) 

requirement a nullity, which could be 

an impermissible statutory 

interpretation. If commenters wish to 

further address this issue, we ask that 

they raise their concerns in any future 

SIP actions under section 184(b)(2) 

regarding OTR states that may affect 

them. In addition, we note that the 

expected level of emissions reductions 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28780 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

28 ‘‘Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor 

Recovery Programs: Guidance on Satisfying 

Requirements of Clean Air Act Sections 110(l), 193, 

and 184(b)(2) (tentative title).’’ U.S. EPA Office of 

Air and Radiation, forthcoming. 

29See ‘‘Final Regulatory Support Document, 

Decommissioning Stage II Vapor Recovery, 

Financial Benefits and Costs,’’ available in public 

docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1076. 

that Stage II programs can obtain has 

changed significantly in the past 15 

years with ORVR-equipped vehicles 

phasing in at the rate of 3–4 percent of 

the fleet each calendar year. Therefore, 

the EPA is issuing updated guidance on 

estimating the emissions reductions 

needed to be comparable to those 

achievable through Stage II controls. 

Theoretically, comparable measures 

could in some areas mean no additional 

control beyond ORVR is required if 

Stage II is achieving no additional 

emission reduction benefit in the area, 

or has reached a point of providing only 

a declining de minimis benefit. 

F. Comments on Other Waiver 

Implementation Issues 

Numerous commenters on the NPRM 

urged the EPA to adopt provisions in 

the final rule that would exempt new 

gasoline dispensing facilities with 

construction occurring between the final 

rule publication and the effective Stage 

II waiver date from installing Stage II 

equipment. The timing issue is now 

largely moot since widespread use is 

deemed to have occurred on the 

effective date of this action. However, 

under the CAA, states adopt statespecific or area-specific rules, which are 

then submitted to the EPA for approval 

into the SIP. These rules are 

independently enforceable under state 

law, and also become federally 

enforceable when the EPA approves 

them into the SIP. The EPA cannot 

unilaterally change legally-adopted state 

statutes or rules or otherwise revise an 

approved SIP that was not erroneously 

approved. The EPA’s only authority to 

establish requirements that would apply 

in lieu of approved SIPs is its authority 

under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). To 

trigger FIP authority, the EPA must first 

determine that a state has failed to 

submit a required SIP or that the state’s 

SIP must be disapproved. The 

circumstances of this ORVR widespread 

use finding and waiver of the section 

182(b)(3) Stage II requirement to do not 

present either of those situations. 

According to requirements established 

by the CAA that are applicable here, 

states will need to develop and submit 

SIP revisions to the EPA in order to 

change or eliminate SIP-approved state 

rules that set forth the compliance dates 

for newly constructed GDFs. 

Commenters also urged EPA to simply 

allow states to eliminate all active Stage 

II programs from certain nonattainment 

areas after the widespread use date, 

without requiring SIP revisions from 

states. While the EPA has discretion to 

determine the widespread use date, the 

EPA cannot simply nullify states’ rules 

that are binding and enforceable under 

state law. In order to change the federal 

enforceability of SIPs, states must go 

through the SIP revision process, and 

the EPA can approve the SIP revision 

only if the provisions of section 110(l) 

and any other applicable requirements, 

such as the requirements of section 193 

and the comparable measures 

requirement for OTR states, are 

satisfied. Today’s final rule takes no 

action in implementing CAA sections 

110(l), 193, or 184(b)(2), and any future 

final actions regarding ‘‘comparable 

measures’’ SIPs will be fact-specific in 

response to individual state 

submissions. Also, subsequent to the 

effective waiver date of the section 

182(b)(3) Stage II requirements, areas 

currently implementing the EPAapproved Stage II programs in their SIPs 

as a result of obligations under the 1- 

hour or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

would be required to continue 

implementing these programs until the 

EPA approves a SIP revision adopted 

under state law removing the 

requirement from the state’s ozone 

implementation plan. 

VII. Estimated Cost 

As part of the NPRM, the EPA 

conducted an initial assessment of the 

costs and savings to gasoline dispensing 

facility owners related to this proposed 

action. The report titled, ‘‘Draft 

Regulatory Support Document, 

Decommissioning Stage II Vapor 

Recovery, Financial Benefits and Costs,’’ 

is available in the public docket for this 

action. The report examines the initial 

costs and savings to facility owners 

incurred in the decommissioning of 

Stage II vapor recovery systems, as well 

as changes in recurring costs associated 

with above ground hardware 

maintenance, operations, and 

administrative tasks. The EPA received 

no substantive comment on the draft 

report, other than a concern that the 

savings identified therein may not come 

to pass as quickly as envisioned in the 

draft report if the EPA does not provide 

updated guidance on comparable 

measures for the OTR states. We intend 

to address this concern by issuing 

separate guidance for the states.28 EPA 

will post this action at the following 

web site address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

glo/actions.html. 

As part of the re-analysis following 

the NPRM, the EPA reviewed the input 

values used for the proposal draft. Most 

input values were confirmed as 

reasonable and representative but it was 

concluded that two of the values should 

be updated. These include: (1) The pretax price of gasoline used in the 

foregone vapor recovery savings 

calculation, which increased from $2.30 

in 2010 to $3.04 in 2011 (average price 

per gallon), and (2) the number of Stage 

II facilities potentially affected by SIP 

revisions removing Stage II 

requirements in non-California Serious, 

Severe and Extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas which increased 

from 26,900 to 30,600 in 19 states and 

the District of Columbia. As discussed 

in our final regulatory support 

document, the EPA estimates recurring 

cost savings of about $3,000 per year for 

a typical gasoline dispensing facility, 

and an annual nationwide savings of up 

to $91 million if Stage II is phased out 

of the approximately 30,600 dispensing 

facilities outside of California that are 

required to have Stage II vapor recovery 

systems under section 182(b)(3) of the 

CAA.29 This analysis assumes that Stage 

II is removed from GDFs over a three 

year time frame in an equal number 

each year. What actually occurs will 

depend on actions by the individual 

states. If the states submit and EPA 

approves SIP revisions to remove Stage 

II systems from these GDFs, the EPA 

projects savings of about $10.2 million 

in the first year, $40.5 million in the 

second year, and $70.9 million in the 

third year. Long term savings are 

projected to be about $91 million per 

year, compared to the current use of 

Stage II systems in these areas. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it raises novel legal or 

policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates. Accordingly, the EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011) and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28781 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It does not 

contain any recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this action on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined in the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this action on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will not impose any new 

requirements on small entities. Rather, 

it provides criteria for reducing existing 

regulatory requirements on gasoline 

dispensing facilities, some of which 

may qualify as small businesses. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments, or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action addresses the removal of a 

requirement regarding gasoline vapor 

recovery equipment, but does not 

impose any obligations to remove these 

programs. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action does 

not impose any new mandates on state 

or local governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. It 

does not impose additional costs on 

gasoline distribution, but rather 

promises to lower operating and 

maintenance costs for gasoline 

dispensing facilities by facilitating 

removal of redundant gasoline refueling 

vapor controls. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not directly affect the 

level of protection provided to human 

health or the environment under the 

EPA’s NAAQS for ozone. This action 

proposes to waive the requirement for 

states to adopt largely redundant Stage 

II programs, based on a determination of 

widespread use of ORVR in the motor 

vehicle fleet. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
28782 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will be effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

IX. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by the CAA, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 7401, et seq.); relevant provisions 

of the CAA include, but are not limited 

to sections 182(b)(3), 202(a)(6), 

301(a)(1), and 307(b), and 307(d)(42 

U.S.C. 7511a(b)(3), 7521(a)(6), 

7601(a)(1), 7607(b), and 7607(d)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 9, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS. 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q. 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 51.126 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.126 Determination of widespread use 

of ORVR and waiver of CAA section 

182(b)(3) Stage II gasoline vapor recovery 

requirements. 

(a) Pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act, the Administrator has 

determined that, effective May 16, 2012, 

onboard refueling vapor recovery 

(ORVR) systems are in widespread use 

in the motor vehicle fleet within the 

United States. 

(b) Effective May 16, 2012, the 

Administrator waives the requirement 

of Clean Air Act section 182(b)(3) for 

Stage II vapor recovery systems in ozone 

nonattainment areas regardless of 

classification. States must submit and 

receive EPA approval of a revision to 

their approved State Implementation 

Plans before removing Stage II 

requirements that are contained therein. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11846 Filed 5–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0714; FRL–9670–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware, New Jersey, and 

Pennsylvania; Determinations of 

Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Standard for the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making two 

determinations regarding the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE 

fine particulate (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area (the Philadelphia Area). First, EPA 

is making a determination that the 

Philadelphia Area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) by its 

attainment date of April 5, 2010. This 

determination is based upon quality 

assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that show the area 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period. Second, EPA is 

making a clean data determination, 

finding that the Philadelphia Area has 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based 

on quality assured and certified ambient 

air monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

and 2008–2010 monitoring periods. In 

accordance with EPA’s applicable PM2.5

implementation rule, this determination 

suspends the requirement for the 

Philadelphia Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, reasonably 

available control measures/reasonably 

available control technology (RACM/ 

RACT), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, and contingency measures 

related to attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. These actions are being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 15, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0714. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions concerning EPA’s 

action related to Delaware or 

Pennsylvania, please contact Maria A. 

Pino, (215) 814–2181, or by email at 

pino.maria@epa.gov. If you have 

questions concerning EPA’s action 

related to New Jersey, please contact 

Henry Feingersh, (212) 637–3382, or by 

email at feingersh.henry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this action. 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Actions 

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

IV. Final Actions 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On January 23, 2012, EPA published 

a direct final rulemaking (77 FR 3147) 

and companion notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) (77 FR 3223) for the 

States of Delaware and New Jersey and 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the 

States). In the January 23, 2012 

rulemaking action, EPA proposed to 

determine that the Philadelphia Area 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by its 

attainment date, April 5, 2010. EPA also 

proposed to make a clean data 

determination, finding that the 

Philadelphia Area has attained the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Because EPA received adverse 

comment, EPA withdrew the direct final 

rule on March 13, 2012 (77 FR14697), 

and the direct final rule was converted 

to a proposed rule. 

II. Summary of Actions 

These actions do not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under 

section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The 

designation status of the Philadelphia 

Area will remain nonattainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES