Attachment 29

Public Comments of 

the Illinois EPA (PC #7) 

dated October 11, 2013

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 919
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 920
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

VAPOR RECOVERY RULES: 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. 

CODE PARTS 201, 218, At~D 219 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

R13-18 

(Rulemaking - Air) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 \Vest Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Richard R. McGill, Jr. 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Ted Tiberi 

ARID Technologies, Inc. 

323 S. Hale Street 

Wheaton, Illinois 60187 

Thomas Davis, Bureau Chief 

Environmental Bureau 

Office of the Attorney General 

500 South Second Street 

Springfield, Illinois 62706 

Office ofLegal Services 

Illinois Department ofNatural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, IL 62702-1271 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control 

Board the PUBLIC COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS EPA, a copy ofwhich is herewith served 

upon you. 

DATED: October 11, 2013 

1021 N. Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

(217) 782-5544 

(217) 782-9143 (TDD) 

Respectfully submitted, 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 921
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

VAPOR RECOVERY RULES: 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. 

CODE PARTS 201, 218, AND 219 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Rl3-18 

(Rulemaking - Air) 

PUBLIC COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS EPA 

NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA), by and 

through its attorney, and hereby submits its public comments as directed by the Hearing Officer 

Order entered on September 30, 2013, in the above-captioned rulemaking. 

Procedural Background 

On March 18, 2013, the Illinois EPA filed a regulatory proposal to amend the Board's 

vapor recovery rules, which included a Motion for Expedited Review, with the Illinois Pollution 

Control Board (Board). On April 4, 2013, the Board accepted the Illinois EPA's proposal for 

hearing, granted the Illinois EPA's Motion for Expedited Review, and adopted the proposed 

amendments for first notice. The proposed amendments were published in the Illinois Register 

on May 10, 2013 (37 Ill. Reg. 6028, 6054, and 6083). 

The Board held hearings on May 8, 2013, and June 5, 2013. At the conclusion of the 

second hearing and by Order entered June 17, 2013, the Hearing Officer set a deadline of July 8, 

2013, for filing public comments. On July 16, 2013, the Hearing Officer entered an Order reopening the public comment period solely for the purpose of receiving public comment from the 

Illinois EPA in response to a public comment filed by the Illinois Petroleum Marketers 

Association and the Illinois Association of Convenience Stores (collectively, IPMA) on July 8, 

2013. The Hearing Officer directed the Illinois EPA to file its public comment by July 31, 2013. 

The Illinois EPA timely filed its responsive public comment on July 31, 2013. 

1 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 922
On September 9, 2013, ARID Technologies, Inc. (ARID) submitted a late public 

comment with attachments to the Board followed by an Addendum on September 10, 2013 

(collectively, PC#4 ). In its public comment, ARID argued that the removal of Stage II vapor 

recovery systems will increase refueling emissions and that the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (USEPA) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) modeling program is 

inappropriate for use in this matter. PC#4 at p. 2. On September 16, 2013, the Illinois EPA filed 

a Motion to Strike (Mot.) ARID's public comment based on ARID's failure to comply with the 

Board's filing and service rules, failure to comply with the public comment deadline established 

by the Hearing Officer, and presenting arguments and comments based on information not 

contained in the record, all ofwhich risk meeting the January 1, 2014, proposed implementation 

date. Mot. at p. 2-4. On September 18, 2013, IPMA filed a response (IPMA Resp.) to ARID's 

public comment urging the Board to disregard it based on the emissions benefit of phasing-out 

Stage II and the costs to sources (mainly, several thousand retail gasoline dispensing operations) 

if the rulemaking is delayed. IPMA Resp. at p. 1. On September 20, 2013, ARID filed a 

response (ARID Resp.) to the Illinois EPA's Motion to Strike arguing again, among other things, 

that removal of Stage II with sole reliance on on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) will 

result in an emissions increase. ARID Resp. at p. 2. 

On September 23, 2013, ARID filed an additional late public comment with attachments 

(PC#5) essentially rehashing arguments made in its previous public comment (PC#4). PC#5 at 

p. l. The Illinois EPA was never served with PC#5. On September 30, 2013, the Hearing 

Officer entered an Order (Ord.) allowing ARIDs public comments (PC#4 and PC#5), denying 

the Illinois EPA's Motion to Strike, and ordering the Illinois EPA to file a public comment 

responsive to ARID's public comments (PC#4 and PC#5) and the Board's questions relating to 

2 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 923
the Stage I registration program by October 11, 2013. Ord. at p. 5-6. Also, the Hearing Officer 

Order allowed other participants to file responses to ARID's PC#4 and PC#5. Id. at p. 6. 

Illinois EPA Response to ARID Technologies, Inc.'s Public Comments (PC#4 and PC#5) 

I. Emissions Modeling 

ARID's argument that emissions will increase ifthe Stage II program is removed is both 

misplaced and based on false assumptions. What ARID seeks to address are Stage I storage tank 

vent emissions. The Illinois EPA's proposal does not address Stage I storage tank vent 

emissions. The Illinois EPA is proposing to phase-out the Stage II vapor recovery program due 

to the incompatibility that exists between Stage II vacuum-assist pumps and ORVR-equipped 

vehicles and the resulting emissions disbenefit that will begin starting January 2014. ARID 

seems to propose the continuation of Stage II with ORVR and to require some sort of 

enhancement to the current system, implying at least that Illinois should require the addition of a 

vapor processor technology (possibly ARID's) in order to address Stage I storage tank vent 

emissions. However, these Stage I storage tank emissions are beyond the scope of this 

proceeding, and have been addressed by the Illinois EPA previously. While emissions from 

gasoline dispensing operations include spillage, refueling vapor emissions, and diurnal storage 

tank breathing losses, it is the position of both the Illinois EPA and USEP A that the existence of 

Stage II has no bearing on spillage or Stage I storage tank emissions. See Exhibit 1 at p. 27. In 

the Chicago area, storage tank emissions are addressed through the Stage I program (35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.583); and additionally, the requirement to install pressure/vacuum (p/v) relief valves 

(35 II. Adm. Code 218.583(a)(3)). For this reason, ARID's argument is misplaced. 

Furthermore, enhancing or modifying the Stage II program is also beyond the scope of this 

proceeding as the Illinois EPA is proposing to phase-out the Stage II program, not maintain it. 

3 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 924
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 925
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 926
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 927
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 928
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 929
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 930
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 931
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 932
May 8, 2012

OAR-2010-1076

Determination of Widespread Use of Onboard Refueling 

Vapor Recovery (ORVR) and Waiver of Stage II Vapor 

Recovery Requirements

Summary of Public Comments and Responses 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

OAQPS/Air Quality Policy Division

State and Local Programs Group (C539-03) 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

May 8, 2012

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 933
ii

Disclaimer

This report has been reviewed by the Air Quality Policy Division of the Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, and EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or 

commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 934
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................iii

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

II. Comments Regarding EPA’s Proposed Criteria for Determining ORVR Widespread 

Use ......................................................................................................................................... 4

III. Comments Regarding EPA’s Proposed Waiver of Stage II Vapor Recovery Required 

Under CAA Section 182(b)(3)........................................................................................... 15

IV. Comments Regarding State Implementation Plan Revisions........................................... 28

V. Comments Regarding Effects to Stage II Programs in Ozone Nonattainment Areas of 

the Ozone Transport Region............................................................................................. 35

VI. Comments Regarding Decommissioning of Stage Vapor Recovery Systems ................. 43

VII. Comments Regarding EPA’s Proposed Estimated Cost Savings................................... 44

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 

1. List of Commenters............................................................................................................1

2. Measured Refueling Emission Rate by Model Year..........................................5

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 935
1

Introduction 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed criteria for determining

widespread use of onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) for control of gasoline emissions 

during refueling of vehicles at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs). This action proposed to 

establish June 30, 2013, as the date by which the Administrator determined that ORVR for 

capturing refueling emissions when vehicles are refueled with gasoline is in widespread use. The 

action also proposed that certain federal statutory requirements for Stage II gasoline vapor 

recovery at GDFs would be waived as of that date.

During the public comment period for the proposed rule, EPA received comments from 

27 entities including: twelve industry representatives; ten states; five air quality management 

agencies; and, one citizen group. Included in Table 1 below is the list of commenters and the 

associated Docket ID number for their comments.

Table 1. List of Commenters on Proposed Rule: Criteria for Determining Widespread Use 

of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Waiver of Stage II Requirements

Docket ID Commenter Name

2010-1076-0032

David H. Fialkov, Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP. Representing 

multi-signatory parties involved in nearly all retail fuel outlets in the 

United States.

2010-1076-0034 Phillip E. Russo, CAE, Executive Director, National Association of 

Fleet Administrators

2010-1076-0035 James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources 

Board.

2010-1076-0036 Erin Faessler, Project Development Manager, Vapor Systems 

Technologies, Inc.

2010-1076-0037 Arthur N. Marin, Executive Director, Northeast States for Coordinated 

Air Use Management

2010-1076-0038 Kurt J. Weist, Senior Attorney, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future

2010-1076-0039 William L. Driscoll, Executive Director, Ozone Transport Commission

2010-1076-0040

J. Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air Resources, 

Climate Change & Energy, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation

2010-1076-0041 Edward S. Kubinsky, Jr., Special Projects Manager, Crompco, LLC

2010-1076-0042

Laurel L. Kroack, Chief, Bureau of Air, Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 936
2

Table 1. List of Commenters on Proposed Rule: Criteria for Determining Widespread Use 

of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Waiver of Stage II Requirements

Docket ID Commenter Name

2010-1076-0043 Kyra L. Moore, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources

2010-1076-0044 Joe Kubsh, Executive Director, Manufacturers of Emission Controls 

Association

2010-1076-0045 Myra C. Reece, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality, South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environmental Control

2010-1076-0046

David H. Fialkov, Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP. Representing 

multi-signatory parties involved in nearly all retail fuel outlets in the 

United States.

2010-1076-0047

California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources 

Board, Vapor Recovery Test Procedures: (TP-201.1E) “Leak Rate and 

Cracking Pressure of Pressure/Vacuum Vent Valves” and (TP-201.3) 

“Determination of 2 Inch WC Static Pressure Performance of Vapor 

Recovery Systems of Dispensing Facilities”

2010-1076-0048 James A. Capp, Chief, Air Protection Branch, Georgia Environmental 

Protection Division

2010-1076-0049 John Eichberger, Vice President, Government Relations, National 

Association of Convenience Stores

2010-1076-0050 Mark S. Morgan, Regulatory Counsel, Petroleum Marketers 

Association of America

2010-1076-0051 R. Timothy Columbus, General Counsel, Society of Independent 

Gasoline Marketers of America

2010-1076-0052

Robert L. Greco, API Group Director, Downstream & Industry

Operations, American Petroleum Institute

2010-1076-0053

Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env., Executive Director, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District.

2010-1076-0054 Kevin Tokunaga, Program Manager, Glenn County Air Pollution 

Control District

2010-1076-0055

Nancy L. Seidman (Massachusetts), Co-Chair and Barry R, Wallerstein 

(Los Angeles, CA), Co-Chair, Mobile Sources and Fuels Committee, 

National Association of Clean Air Agencies

2010-1076-0056 DUPLICATED RECORD OF 2010-1076-0042: Laurel L. Kroack,, 

Chief, Bureau of Air, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2010-1076-0057 Jason S. Hicks, CAFM, Transportation and Facilities Department 

Manager

2010-1076-0058 Sheila C. Holman, Director, Division of Air Quality, North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 937
3

Table 1. List of Commenters on Proposed Rule: Criteria for Determining Widespread Use 

of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Waiver of Stage II Requirements

Docket ID Commenter Name

2010-1076-0059 Ted Tiberi, President & Founder, ARID Technologies, Inc. 

2010-1076-0060 Eddy Tabet, PE, President and CEO, Technology Engineering and 

Construction, Inc.

2010-1076-0061 David Garland, No-Go Nozzle (Comment submitted after close of 

comment period)

I. Background

This rule will allow Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas that are now required 

under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) to have Stage II gasoline vapor recovery equipment on 

GDFs to remove the requirement after the waiver date. States will have to submit a SIP revision 

to EPA removing the Stage II requirements and get it approved by EPA in order to take this 

action. In some cases, states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) may have to adopt measures 

that obtain emissions reductions comparable to those achieved by Stage II to make up for any 

emissions increases which might arise from removing Stage II incremental to ORVR control. 

This rule allows states to retain their Stage II requirements if they wish.

EPA regards Stage II vapor recovery system decommissioning to involve equipment 

replacement and elimination of activities and actions associated with operating Stage II vapor 

recovery systems. We have estimated the costs to facilities decommissioning Stage II vapor 

recovery systems to indicate a long term substantial annual savings of over $91 million, 

nationwide.

Based on our evaluation of the available data and appropriate criteria for determining 

under CAA section 202(a)(6) that widespread use of ORVR has occurred, EPA proposed a 

determination of ORVR widespread use and a general waiver of the CAA section 182(b)(3) 

Stage II requirement effective nationwide, June 30, 2013. Based on further EPA analysis and 

comments on the proposed rule, ORVR will be deemed in widespread use and the CAA section 

182(b)(3) requirement will be waived upon the effective date of the final rule. This would apply

to any area that currently requires a Stage II program under CAA section 182(b)(3). Subsequent 

to the effective waiver date of the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement, areas currently 

implementing SIP-approved Stage II programs, as a result of obligations under the 1-hour or 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, would be required to continue implementing these programs until 

EPA approval of a SIP revision that removes the requirement from the state’s ozone 

implementation plan. Additionally, any nonattainment area classified Serious or above for the 

first time after approximately December 31, 2009, would not be required to adopt and implement 

a new Stage II program under CAA section 182(b)(3). This is because such areas, under the 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 938
4

terms of CAA section 182(b)(3), would not be required to implement Stage II programs until 2 

and a half years after such classification.

During the public comment period, EPA received comments from 27 entities. In this 

document, we summarize all of those comments and provide our responses. All comments, 

information and data submitted by commenters and discussed in this document are available in 

the Air Docket, Widespread Use of ORVR and Stage II Waiver, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2010-1076.

II. Comments Regarding EPA’s Proposed Criteria for Determining ORVR 

Widespread Use

Comment: Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0034, 0037, 0039, 0044, 0045, 

0048, 0049, 0051, 0052, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0058) supported the criteria EPA used in the 

proposed rule to determine ORVR widespread use on June 13, 2013 for purposes of controlling 

motor vehicle refueling emissions throughout the motor vehicle fleet in any area that currently 

requires a Stage II vapor recovery program under CAA section 182(b)(3).

Response: EPA considered two criteria in establishing the widespread use date. These 

included the date when 75 percent of gasoline would be dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles 

and the date when ORVR and Stage II would get equivalent control of refueling emissions based 

on analysis using parameters discussed in the NPRM. After considering the public comments 

received, EPA is determining that ORVR will be in widespread use on the effective date of the 

final rule.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0037) supported EPA’s approach of 

creating one national date for determining when ORVR widespread use has occurred while 

providing flexibility for a state to conduct a state-specific analysis to support an alternative date.

Response: EPA’s final rule establishes a single national date for determining widespread 

use of ORVR. Because EPA’s final rule provides ORVR to be in widespread use at the time of 

publication of the notice in the Federal Register, it is no longer necessary for States to conduct 

separate analysis to establish an earlier date. 

Comment: The commenter expressed concerns regarding the 98 percent ORVR overall 

efficiency used in EPA’s analysis for the proposed rule. The commenter was concerned that the 

EPA’s study lacks analysis of critical data elements. The commenter listed specific issues not 

included in analysis of the ORVR efficiency rating as: (1) a lack of data on high mileage vehicles 

(>100,000 miles); (2) determining which of the many capture ratings to use with various 

alternative fuels; (3) determining failures that would not be identified by on-board diagnostic 

(OBD) systems; and (4) faster implementation of recalls when problems are found. The 

commenter urged EPA to investigate these issues and develop a more robust monitoring system

to gauge ORVR effectiveness, including strategies to address failures of the ORVR system not

detected by on board diagnostics (OBD) systems. The commenter was concerned that EPA had

overstated the benefits of ORVR without sufficient data to support the continued effectiveness of 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 939
5

ORVR over time. Moreover, the commenter wanted assurances that SIPs and Rate of Progress 

(ROP) plans use realistic numbers when assessing impacts of the ORVR program.

Response: Concerning the 98 percent ORVR efficiency used in EPA’s analysis, in the 

NPRM EPA referenced results of the manufacturer in-use verification program where there were 

over 1,160 laboratory tests of in-use ORVR-equipped vehicles tested in an as-received condition 

which led to an in-use efficiency of about 98 percent. The study used vehicles with over 67,000 

miles odometer readings.

The data used in the NPRM covered data available through November 2009. Since that 

analysis was completed an additional 478 data points have become available mostly for model 

years 2006-2010. As presented below, several conclusions can be drawn from the fuller data set. 

First, the overall efficiency for the full set of 1,638 test points is still 98 percent, as shown in 

Table 1. For the 1,638 test vehicles, the weighted average emission rate was 0.068 g/gal which 

yields an efficiency of 98 percent when compared to the uncontrolled emission rate of 3.32 g/gal 

expected under these test conditions. The data set used by EPA to draw its conclusions about the 

effectiveness of ORVR is comprised of 1,638 individual tests covering vehicles from eleven 

model years. Over 95 percent of these vehicles passed the standards and the average vehicle had 

an emission level of only about one-third of the level of the emission standard. Contrary to the 

concerns of the commenter, EPA believes this is a robust data set and that it well supports our 

conclusions about ORVR efficiency in-use. 

 Table 2: Measured Refueling Emission Rate by Model Year

Model Year Average Measured 

Emission Rate

Number of Test 

Vehicles

2000 .07 20

2001 .07 75

2002 .08 77

2003 .07 100

2004 .10 283

2005 .07 282

2006 .06 263

2007 .07 171

2008 .05 139

2009 .04 121

2010 .04 107

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 940
6

Second, EPA examined the data to look for trends in changes in capture efficiency as the

vehicles accrue mileage. To conduct this analysis EPA calculated average mileage and emission 

rates in six separate mileage increments. This included 20,000 miles increments between zero 

and 100,000 miles and all data above 100,000 miles. As can be seen in Figure 1 there does not 

seem to be a loss in efficiency even for vehicles over 100,000 miles. Based on this type of 

information EPA recently set the assigned deterioration factor for ORVR to 0.0 g/gal for small 

volume manufacturers and small volume test groups.1

Note: The points above are the average mileage in the range and the average g/gal value

 

The commenter did not explain their point regarding which capture rating to use with 

various alternative fuels. There are no refueling emission standards for dedicated CNG and LPG 

vehicles as they have sealed fuel delivery systems. There are refueling emission standards for 

dedicated methanol and dual fuel LPG, and CNG vehicles. These standards are basically of the 

same identical or equivalent stringency to that required for gasoline-powered vehicles. The 

population of these vehicles is quite small and EPA has no in-use emission rate data for these 

groups. It should be noted that they are not covered by Stage II vapor recovery requirements, 

since they do not refuel at gasoline dispensing facilities. 

The commenter also addressed the capability of vehicle onboard diagnostic (OBD) 

systems to identify performance problems in ORVR systems. Most ORVR systems have five 

 

1

 US EPA Dear Manufacturer letter, Assigned Deterioration Factors, CD-12-07 (Revised) 

(LDV/LDT/MDPV/HDV/ICI/LD-AFC), March 30, 2012 .

14824, 0.0714

26750, 0.0495

54232, 0.079

68171, 0.0765

89381, 0.0672

109170, 0.0625

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

g/gallon

Vehicle Odometer

Figure 1

Refueling Emissions vs. Mileage

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 941
7

basic sub-systems. These include the fill pipe seal, the tank valve, the vapor line, the activated 

carbon canister with solenoid, and the purge valve and lines. The fill pipe seal is not covered by

OBD. All current vehicle models employ a liquid seal to block vapor escaping from the fill pipe 

opening instead of a mechanical seal. A liquid seal is created by the flowing gasoline, so it is 

new for each refueling event and not subject to failure. Most vehicles employ some form of a 

tank valve which acts as liquid/vapor separator and aids in the closing of the opening from the 

tank to the vapor line once the refueling event is complete. The performance of this valve is not 

covered by OBD, but if it fails in the closed position refueling will not be possible. There is a 

vapor line from the fuel tank to the activated carbon canister. A failure in the connection of this 

vapor line at either the tank or canister end or a leak in the line itself will be detected by the OBD 

evaporative system leak monitoring requirement as would any other leak in the line or the 

fuel/vapor control system. Since essentially all current vehicles employ integrated 

evaporative/refueling control systems they use the same activated carbon canister and purge 

hardware. The OBD system is required to be able to detect the absence of purge air flow which 

could indicate purge valve failure, a blockage in the line from the purge valve to the canister, and 

to some degree a reduction in air flow through the canister as a result of plugged filters or a 

breakdown in the carbon bed. The degree of failure would not necessarily be known. OBD 

would detect the complete absence of a canister since it would register as a gross leak in the 

system or render the OBD evaporative emission system leak check hardware inoperative, but it 

would not detect a canister which has lost efficiency. The commenter raised concern that there 

might be aspects of the OBD system requirements that do not monitor the performance of ORVR 

systems. As mentioned above, the only area of concern here would be a loss of canister 

efficiency. However, the results of both the ORVR and evaporative system IUVP programs do 

not indicate this is a problem as pass rates in both programs exceed 95 percent.2

As part of other ongoing work EPA has examined OBD data taken from five state I/M 

programs. The data covered model years 1996-2010; the calendar years varied by state with the 

earliest being 2002 and the latest 2006. For all evaporative system related OBD codes (P0400-

P0455 and P0465-P0469) DTC frequency values ranged between 0.0 and 3.8 percent with the 

vast majority of values between 0.0 and 2.0 percent.3 This does not necessarily address the 

magnitude of the emission impacts of vehicles with OBD evaporative system codes as the data

was not disaggregated by code. However, it shows that the frequency of all problems is small. 

Furthermore, it is worth noting that there were several cases of vehicles with evaporative system 

OBD codes in the IUVP data discussed above and their test results are reflected in the overall 

emission averages.

Finally, it is worth noting that the in-use ORVR efficiency in the current version of the 

MOVES model is based on 98 percent efficiency. However, it also includes some projections 

for losses in ORVR efficiency based on data from older evaporative emission control systems. It 

 

2 See the progress reports at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oms-def.htm

3 See 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.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 942
8

does not include consideration of the ORVR design features and OBD information presented 

above or much of the in-use performance data derived from the IUVP program. 

Finally, as was discussed in the NPRM and supporting documentation it should be noted 

that neither ORVR nor Stage II applies directly to the largest of the heavy-duty gasoline vehicles 

or to motorcycles. The ORVR requirement does not apply to these two classes of highway

motor vehicles and neither of these classes is included in the groups tested during Stage II system 

certifications. On a nationwide basis these vehicles use less than one percent of all highway

gasoline.

4

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0038) stated that EPA’s selection of 

June 30, 2013 as the widespread use date or ORVR is arbitrary and unreasonable. The 

commenter recommended that EPA should determine that ORVR will be in widespread use no 

earlier that November 30, 2013. The commenter indicated that EPA’s methodology in 

determining widespread use, presented ORVR use percentages of 74.1 percent for 2012 and 77.7 

percent for 2013. The commenter believed the proposed rule correctly presented the target 

control efficiency of 77.4 percent, expected to be achieved between the end of calendar year 

2012 and the end of 2013 that is at some point during the calendar year 2013 and therefore 

proposes the midpoint of the calendar year, June 30, 2013. However, the commenter argued that 

a percentage that is increasing over time will reach a specified level at some point during a given 

year obviously does not imply that it will do so by the midpoint of that year. The commenter 

suggested an alternative to using the midpoint would be to perform a simple, straight-line 

interpolation between the two end-of-year percentages for 2012 and 2013. Such an interpolation 

reveals that the target of 77.4 percent would not be achieved until 334.58 days into 2013, or 

November 30, 2013. The commenter asserted that EPA should select November 30 or December 

31, 2013 as the date on which widespread use of ORVR will occur. 

Response: 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. See CAA section 

202(a)(6). As discussed in the NPRM, it is EPA’s view that we have broad discretion in how to

define ORVR widespread use and the manner in which any final determination is implemented. 

As can be seen in Table 1 in the NPRM, EPA considered many different criteria for determining 

widespread use of ORVR including ORVR vehicle VMT, ORVR vehicle fleet penetration, 

percentage of gasoline dispensed to ORVR vehicles, fraction of refueling emissions controlled 

by ORVR vehicles, and, as discussed in the text, equivalent control of refueling emissions 

between ORVR and Stage II vapor recovery. EPA ultimately based the NPRM on the volume of 

gasoline dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles and for comparison the cross-over date where 

reductions achieved by ORVR alone would equal reductions achieved by Stage II systems alone. 

For the fraction of gasoline dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles, EPA selected a value of 75 

 

4

 Derived from Tables in Chapter 4 of the National Transportatios Statistics for 2011; this can be found at 

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 943
9

percent as a very reasonable indicator that ORVR was in widespread use. For the equivalent 

control approach EPA presented an analysis which indicated that an ORVR value of 77.4 percent 

would provide equivalent control as Stage II based on the Stage II in-use efficiency values and 

exemption rates used. The 75 percent approach indicated a date near the end of 2012 (November) 

while the ORVR/Stage II equivalent approach indicated a date about a year later. As discussed in 

the NPRM based on this information, EPA concluded that the midpoint of 2013 was a reasonable 

date for widespread use. Arguably, given EPA’s discretion, a date any time after 75 percent was 

achieved might also have been appropriate. Thus, EPA does not agree with the general 

assertions of the commenter that our approach is arbitrary and unreasonable, and while we 

understand the commenter’s reasoning we do not find the comment compelling. As mentioned 

above, the CAA gives EPA broad discretion on how to determine widespread use and we believe 

the methodology and dates presented in the NPRM were appropriate based on the data, our 

analysis, and the statute. The widespread use date in the final rule is earlier than proposed, but 

EPA used the same fundamental data sources and approach as discussed in the NPRM. These 

were widely supported by the commenters. We believe the methodology and date presented in 

the FRM are appropriate and consistent with the methodology used in the NPRM and the statute.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0044) explained that ORVR 

systems, comprised of a carbon canister, prevent the escape of fuel vapors through the fuel filler 

pipe and prevent liquid gasoline from exiting the fuel tank when tipped beyond horizontal. The 

displaced vapor is directed into the carbon canister and trapped. The commenter added that 

during engine operation, fresh air is purged through the canister to regenerate the carbon so that 

it is ready for subsequent fueling or diurnal events. The commenter stated that purged vapors are 

consumed in the combustion process. The commenter made clear that today, all new passenger 

vehicles manufactured in North America are equipped with ORVR systems. The commenter 

contended that ORVR systems have been shown to be highly effective at reducing refueling 

hydrocarbon emissions (approximately 98 percent refueling hydrocarbon emissions reduction 

using ORVR compared to approximately 60 percent refueling emissions reduction associated 

with Stage II vapor recovery technologies). The high overall emissions reduction efficiency of 

ORVR systems is achieved with only a small incremental cost of $10 to $15 compared to vehicle 

enhanced evaporative emission technologies that do not include ORVR capabilities. The 

commenter indicated economic savings are accumulated by the vehicle owner by stating that 

each year an average vehicle owner will recover about 17 liters of fuel from refueling and diurnal 

events, if their vehicle has an ORVR canister. The commenter explained that this represents an 

energy savings of 0.7 percent. The commenter further indicated that five liters per year of this 

fuel is recovered during refueling events alone and results in a payback time of only two years in 

decreased fuel purchases for the ORVR system. The commenter added that carbon canisters have 

been shown to last the lifetime of the vehicle, with no normal maintenance or replacement and 

with little or no deterioration in performance.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 944
10

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for presenting supportive input on how ORVR 

technology captures refueling vapors and helps protect human health and the environment while 

saving costs and fuel in the process.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0055) acknowledged that EPA 

developed a methodology that compared the efficiency of Stage II recovery systems and the 

number of ORVR equipped vehicles in the fleet. The commenter also acknowledged that EPA 

indicated if a state or locality finds that removing Stage II requirements would reduce the overall 

level of reductions for which it previously obtained credit the state or locality, pursuant to the 

CAA, would need to make a demonstration that removing Stage II would not interfere with 

attaining or maintaining the ozone NAAQS. The commenter suggested that EPA develop 

implementation guidance that EPA would release in conjunction with the final rule, and that 

EPA should provide an example methodology that accounts for all of the emissions reduction 

benefits of Stage II recovery systems including the number of non-ORVR equipped vehicles that 

would no longer be refueling at Stage II dispensing facilities. The commenter stated that the 

methodology should account for any dis-benefits such as excess emissions that occur when 

ORVR-equipped vehicles refuel at incompatible Stage II installations. 

The commenter concurred with EPA’s initiative to determine widespread use of ORVR. 

The commenter concluded that EPA’s widespread use determination will provide an opportunity

for individual states or localities to fully demonstrate compliance with applicable CAA 

requirements to remove Stage II recovery systems if they choose. The commenter added that 

EPA’s determination of widespread use will allow future ozone nonattainment areas to forego 

installation of Stage II systems. The commenter further concluded that in numerous areas, 

continued deployment of Stage II recovery systems will provide additional environmental 

benefits. However, the commenter added that while they concur that EPA has the authority to 

determine when ORVR is in widespread use, they added that the agency must clearly state in the 

final rule that its determination of widespread use does not automatically allow for discontinued 

use of Stage II recovery systems. The commenter suggested that EPA should provide greater 

detail on the environmental impacts of removing or continuing to operate Stage II recovery

systems so that individual regions can make informed decisions on whether or not to 

decommission these systems. Lastly, the commenter suggested that state and local air agencies 

must be provided with clear guidance on a streamlined SIP revision process if they desire to 

decommission Stage II systems.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter’s concurrence that EPA has the necessary

authority to waive Stage II requirements when it is determined that ORVR is in widespread use. 

EPA agrees with the importance of maintaining the overall level of reductions for which the SIP 

credit was previously obtained until EPA approves a SIP submission removing Stage II. To 

discontinue its Stage II program under section 182(b)(3), a State should submit a SIP revision. 

EPA will act on the SIP revision through notice and comment rulemaking. The revision would 

also be subject to the CAA section 110(l) requirement that the SIP revision not interfere with any

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 945
11

applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other 

requirement of the CAA.

EPA fully understands that the commenter requests a methodology to account for all 

emission impacts of retaining or removing Stage II including benefits and dis-benefits of nonORVR equipped vehicles that would no longer be refueling at Stage II dispensing facilities and 

the excess emission that may occur when ORVR equipped vehicles refuel at vacuum assist type

Stage II facilities. EPA intends to provide guidance documents addressing removal of Stage II 

programs to be issued subsequent to the publishing of the final rule. This will include guidance 

addressing how to assess the provisions of CAA section 110(l) (potential emission control losses 

from removing Stage II should not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other requirement of the CAA) as well as how 

to factor in the effects of ORVR/vacuum assist Stage II system incompatibility in the overall 

reductions from Stage II systems in this assessment.

As suggested by the commenter, EPA points out in the final rule that States may choose 

to continue or enhance Stage II controls in a particular area if they continue to achieve air quality

benefits. 

In response to the commenter’s request to provide detail on environmental impacts of

either removing or continuing operation of Stage II systems, EPA notes that this is an areaspecific issue. The analysis supporting EPA’s ORVR widespread use determination used what 

we believe to be reasonable and typical national values. In assessing the potential environmental 

impact in their state/area, states can use EPA’s basic methodology but use state/area specific 

input parameters instead of the national values. For example, EPA used 86 percent efficiency

and 10 percent exemption rate for Stage II. Lower or different values may be justified. Also, a 

state may in fact experience a faster ORVR vehicle penetration than the national average or a 

larger or smaller incompatibility effect. A change in these parameter values may be justified on 

a case-by-case basis and this could help to inform the actions of any state/area in retaining or 

removing Stage II.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0035) wrote that the state

(California) has been a leader in the area of gasoline vapor recovery with the most 

comprehensive program in the nation. The commenter stated that this program has been a part of 

the State’s air quality strategy for over 35 years and credited this program has yielded costeffective emission reductions in the most ozone impacted areas. The commenter further states 

that Stage II vapor recovery requirements were extended into ozone attainment areas to reduce 

the public’s exposure to benzene. The commenter maintained that the Stage II program as 

implemented in over 10,000 gasoline service stations in the state surpassed the federal Stage II 

requirements. The commenter presented standards that exceed federal requirements as follows: 

1) ORVR compatibility and pressure management to control emission lost from the underground 

storage tank through vent lines, vapor processor exhaust, and fugitive leak sources; 2) In-station 

diagnostics requirements that help maintain in-use effectiveness; 3) Stringent standards for 

specially designed nozzles that reduce emissions from liquid retention, drips, and spills; and 4) 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 946
12

Further emission reductions are anticipated from a newly proposed low permeation fuel hose 

standard that the State will consider in 2011. The commenter concluded that these program 

elements provide emission reductions that exceed those of Stage II alone and that these 

reductions are unaffected by increasing ORVR penetration. The commenter construed that their 

area has a critical need for reducing smog-forming emissions and will continue to use Stage II 

vapor recovery until such time in the future a re-examination of ORVR and Stage II programs

can be undertaken. 

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0053) pointed out that their air management 

district has been implementing enhanced State II vapor recovery systems for several years and 

has lead to about 95 percent vapor capture efficiency, which the commenter exemplified is much 

higher than the national average of 86 percent. The commenter stated that in their area, a 

significantly larger number of older non-ORVR equipment vehicles continue to operate. The 

commenter concluded that combined with the estimated 95 percent efficiency of Stage II systems 

in the area, the commenter claimed substantial emission reductions are garnished with Stage II 

systems. As such, the commenter stated that ORVR equipped vehicle population must be closer 

to 95 percent before their area would decommission Stage II systems. The commenter further 

stated that to do otherwise would not be feasible given that the area could not find additional 

emission reduction measures to supplant any shortfalls associated with the Stage II systems. The 

commenter stated that the methodology developed by EPA to determine the date of widespread 

ORVR use does not fully account for the emission reduction benefits when non-ORVR equipped 

vehicles refuel at Stage II vapor recovered equipped facilities. This commenter believed that 

continued deployment of Stage II systems in their region would continue to generate 

environmental benefits. The commenter closed by stating that they concur with the ORVR 

determination of widespread use, but EPA must clearly state that this date does not automatically

allow for discontinued use of Stage II systems and to discuss in detail the environmental impacts 

of removing Stage II recovery systems so that individual regions can make informed decisions 

on the need for Stage II systems.

Response: These comments both came from entities located within the state of 

California. California is a national leader in Stage II vapor recovery. No other state has 

programs as aggressive in their scope or implementation or as wide sweeping in dealing with the 

GDF emissions as a system as does California and the various AQMDs. EPA’s proposed rule 

does not require states to waive their Stage II vapor recovery programs and EPA clearly 

reiterates this in the final rule, as suggested by the commenters. States have the option of 

maintaining their requirements and setting ORVR penetration levels of the vehicle fleet for their 

state before they would remove Stage II. EPA defers to the commenter’s in establishing what 

they believe is an appropriate ORVR penetration level before their area would decommission 

Stage II systems. The comprehensive control strategy for GDFs in California provides more 

overall reductions at GDFs than dispenser-based Stage II controls used in other regions but 

offered no data to support their claim of 95 percent efficiency. The commenters did not 

challenge the ORVR efficiency put forth by EPA. The environmental benefits of Stage II vapor 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 947
13

recovery systems and ORVR have been well documented and information is readily available 

from various sources for future work. 

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0059), a manufacturer of gasoline 

vapor processor equipment which enhances vapor control at GDFs, stated that many questions 

and conflicts remain on the ORVR system operating parameters for both new systems as well as 

for systems used over an extended period of time. The commenter presented data from the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) to show that the ORVR systems are not able to meet the 

CAA section 202(a)(6) requirement of 0.2 grams of hydrocarbon emission per gallon of fuel 

dispensed. The commenter included a series of reports and previous correspondence to EPA in 

the ORVR/Stage II arena.

Response: In a March 24, 2010 comment letter to EPA, the commenter makes assertions 

about the in-use efficiency of ORVR. The commenter states that California ARB emission test 

data generated as part of the certification process for Stage II vacuum assist systems 

demonstrates that ORVR controls emit at 2.4 to 5.0 times the 0.20 g/gal emission standard. This 

is data derived from field testing of ORVR vehicles with a Stage II vacuum assist nozzle as part 

of certification testing for the Stage II systems. This is well established standard practice by

ARB, and the requirements and test procedures are well prescribed in their regulations. In the 

ARB Stage II certification procedure and reports, vapor concentration measurements in the 

sleeve and vapor return line from the Stage II nozzle to the dispenser are taken as % C3H8

(propane). These concentrations are converted to gasoline vapor mass and divided by dispensed 

gasoline volume to get a gram /gallon HC emission rate. 

We have reviewed the commenter’s analysis and the three referenced ARB source test 

reports (ST-06-15, ST-06-10, and ST-04-01) and offer the following points in response. For the 

reasons set forth below, we believe the issue identified by the commenter is an artifact of the test 

procedure, test equipment, and the experimental set-up and are not useful in an ORVR efficiency

assessment. 

First, in 40 CFR 86, ORVR vehicles are certified using conventional nozzles, not Stage II 

balance or vacuum assist nozzles. With a liquid seal fill neck approach, which is the approach 

universally used by the manufacturers (as opposed to a mechanical seal approach), the vacuum 

assist nozzle spout sits in the fill pipe in the region between the fuel nozzle restrictor plate and 

the top of the liquid surface which creates the seal. During a dispensing event this is an area 

where turbulent mixing occurs as the dispensed fuel hits the fuel in the vehicle’s fill pipe. This 

fuel in the pipe makes up the flowing liquid seal. (Much like a sink trap, this liquid in the fill 

pipe blocks vapors from leaving the fuel tank through the fill pipe opening.) The dispensing rate 

is up to 10 gal/min; this means that the velocity of the fuel leaving the nozzle spout is on the 

order of 600 ft/min. The collision of this stream of fuel and the fuel in the fill pipe is a prime 

condition for the creation of vapor and gasoline droplets in the fill pipe. Also, most vehicles have 

external vent lines on the fill pipe which improve fill quality and crash safety and route vapor 

from the tank to near the top of the fill pipe. This vapor is then drawn back into the fuel tank 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 948
14

during the refueling event in lieu of fresh air. If fresh air were drawn in, it would lead to a 

greater vapor load to be captured on the activated carbon canister. 

We believe that in the ARB tests the vacuum assist nozzle draws vapor and droplets from 

this area of the fill pipe during the refueling event. These would otherwise stay in fill pipe and 

enter the tank as part of the air stream which accompanies the incoming fuel. Another researcher 

has developed data which supports this conclusion.5

Second, this conclusion is reinforced by work published by ARB in 19986. This research 

shows that the vapor return line concentration varies with system V/L ratio, dispensing rate, and 

even the time point in the overall dispensing event. These are dispensing event and refueling 

nozzle related parameters, not vehicle related. However, the report does show some Stage II 

vapor return line concentration differences between recirculation fill pipe configurations (which 

bring vapor back up nearer to the top of the fill pipe) and those without such recirculation. This 

is a clear link to the nozzle spout fill pipe interface.

Third, in reviewing the ARB source test reports cited by the commenter, it does not 

appear that ORVR and non-ORVR vehicles were segregated in the testing sequence. Thus, it is 

likely that there was vapor hang over in the Stage II vapor return hose from the non-ORVR tests 

to the ORVR tests in at least some situations. This would artificially increase the ORVR result. 

This effect is also seen in the detailed test results in the tables in the March 1998 ARB report 

referenced above. 

Fourth, we would offer that the commenter’s assertions do not appear to be consistent 

with engineering principles. It is not reasonable on its face to conclude that refueling vapor of 

the reported magnitude gets from the tank headspace through the liquid seal and into the fill pipe 

region above the seal. Also, given the dispensing rate, little if any vapor or droplets would be 

expected to get past the stream of air which follows the incoming fuel flow in an ORVR 

refueling event with a conventional nozzle. No supporting data for balance type Stage II systems 

was provided. We believe this would have shown little or no effect since there would be no 

vacuum available to draw off vapor from the fill pipe.

Finally, the commenter expresses a concern that removing Stage II vapor recovery

systems could cause a potential safety hazard for motorists by creating the possibility for an 

explosive air/gasoline vapor mixture near the individual conducting the refueling event. EPA 

studied this issue in 1988 and concluded that both ORVR and Stage II controls would reduce 

what is already a very low incident rate of service station refueling fires related to atomized 

 

5 ORVR Compatibility Study for the Gilbarco Vaporvac VRS, American Petroleum Institute by Tech 

Environmental, Inc., p.3, February 5, 2004.

6 California Air Resources Board, Monitoring and Laboratory Division, Vapor Return Path Hydrocarbon 

Concentrations in Vacuum Assist Vapor Recovery Systems Dispensing Gasoline to Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery (ORVR) Equipped Vehicles, Project No. C-97-024, March 30, 1998.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 949
15

vapors/liquids (an incidence rate of about 25/yr out of over 12 billion refueling events per year 

~1% of all service station fires).7 

Our assessment of the ARB test data leads us to conclude that in this testing the vacuum 

assist Stage II nozzles captured vapor and probably liquid droplets from the fill pipe. The ARB 

test procedure is not designed to address the issue being raised by the commenter. In our view, it 

is incorrect to conclude that this information indicates poor in-use performance by ORVR 

systems. The degree to which this occurs is attributable to the use of a vacuum assist nozzle in 

this testing, the test procedure used, and the other requirements of the test.8

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0061), a manufacturer of gasoline 

dispensing equipment known as the “No-Go Nozzle.” The comments submitted were provided to 

EPA after the deadline for submitting public comments. The commenter described their nozzle 

as being originally designed to solve the problem of drive-off gasoline theft at the pump by

locking the nozzle into the fill pipe of the vehicle and until the transaction is paid for. The 

commenter further stated that the nozzle has environmental and safety benefits. The commenter 

contends that since the nozzle locks to the fill pipe, that the nozzle improves vapor recovery on 

non-ORVR cars by 17 to 20 percent. The commenter also stated that the nozzle could generate a 

small, but measurable improvement on ORVR car vapor recovery, improve EVR vacuum assist 

efficacy to nearly 100 percent, function as a dripless nozzle and provide and provide all these 

benefits with minimal additional cost to GDFs.

Response: We do not disagree with the commenter that potentially more could be done 

to enhance Stage II vapor recovery with the use of certain nozzles beyond applicable industry

standards, the requirements in 40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCCC and related state provisions, but 

an assessment of these issues is beyond the scope and purpose of this action. 

 III. Comments Regarding EPA’s Proposed Waiver of Stage II Vapor Recovery 

Required Under CAA Section 182(b)(3)

Comment: Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0034, 0037, 0044, 0048, 0049, 

0050, 0052, 0057, 0058), supported EPA’s proposed general waiver the Stage II requirements to 

any areas subject to CAA section 182(b)(3). Another commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-

0034, 0040) commended EPA for proposing to eliminate Stage II Vapor Recovery requirements 

in those areas where ORVR is in widespread use. They further stated that air quality will 

improve while reducing regulatory burdens. 

 

7 Summary and Analysis of Comments Regarding the Potential Safety Implications of Onboard Vapor Recovery 

Systems, Chapter 4, US EPA, Office of Mobile Sources, August 1988. Available in public docket A-87-11.

8 These conclusions in no way are intended to reflect negatively on the ARB Stage II certification results or test 

procedures or the value of any other elements of ARB’s Stage II EVR program. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 950
16

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for providing support for the waiver of CAA 

section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery requirements. After considering the public comments 

received, and conducting further analysis EPA is making the effective date of the waiver of Stage 

II vapor recovery requirements the effective date on the final rule. EPA also recognizes a cost 

savings in the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems and has updated the analysis.

Comment: Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0046, 0049, 0051 and 0052) stated 

that in the interim period between the date that the rule is finalized and the proposed June 30, 

2013 widespread use of ORVR date, new fuel outlets in non-attainment areas should not be 

required to include Stage II systems. The commenters maintained that the cost of installing new 

Stage II systems is approximately $50,000. The commenters added that it is unreasonable to 

require new gas stations to incorporate an expensive technology into their equipment when the 

technology will be decommissioned in less than two years. The commenters stated that EPA 

should account for this fact and permit new stations in non-attainment areas to refrain from 

incorporating Stage II controls.

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0037) has requested guidance from EPA on 

how to make practical planning decisions for new or significantly modified gasoline dispensing 

facilities constructed within one to two years of a state’s Stage II phase-out date. The commenter 

indicated that installing a new Stage II system is costly and may not result in significant emission 

reductions in the short window of time between installation and phase-out. State program needs 

will vary, and therefore the commenter recommended that EPA work closely with states to 

develop practical strategies that address new and modified facilities within the context of each 

states’ Stage II program.

Response: EPA is aware that new construction undertaken prior to the waiver date may

incur capital costs for installing Stage II that may only be required for a short time. It is evident 

from the public comments and other materials that states and members of the regulated industry

are seeking an EPA decision on a widespread use date which a state could use as at least a partial 

basis for a decision on whether to curtail Stage II installations at newly constructed GDFs, and if 

desired, lead to an orderly phase-out of Stage II controls at existing GDFs. According to our 

updated analysis and as explained in the final rule, we have already met ORVR widespread use 

under one of the two proposed analytical approaches and in most cases the second will have 

passed before a state completes its SIP revision and legislates any needed revised regulations. 

As discussed in the preamble to the rule, EPA has decided to make the determination that ORVR 

widespread use will occur upon the effective date of the final rule. EPA shares the commenters’ 

concerns about an inefficient use of resources to meet a regulatory requirement which may have 

a short period of applicability and will work with the states to find a way forward on this matter. 

However, this is ultimately an issue for each state and the commenters must rely on the states to 

change their requirements. EPA cannot unilaterally change existing state SIPs or state 

regulations addressing Stage II requirements. As long as states keep the Stage II requirement in 

their state statutes or regulations, and as long as they choose to retain those in their SIPs, EPA 

does not have the authority to allow GDFs to not comply with those SIPs. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 951
17

Comment: Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0048 and 0058) pointed to the 

following statement by EPA, which states, “Nonetheless, for over 15 years this technology

[Stage II] has provided substantial VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas, 

which needed those reductions to attain the ozone NAAQS as well as reductions in air toxic 

emissions such as benzene”. The commenters declared that this statement is inaccurate and 

urged EPA to correct the statement in the final rule. The commenters stated that they agree that 

Stage II technology provided VOC emissions reductions as well as reductions in air toxic 

emissions such as benzene, however the commenters did not believe all areas needed those 

reductions to attain the ozone NAAQS. The commenter stated that throughout their area, 

biogenic VOC emissions dominate the VOC source category and as a result, local reductions in 

man-made VOC emissions are not generally effective in reducing ozone. The commenters stated 

that reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions are much more effective in reducing ozone 

concentrations in their area. Therefore, the commenters recommended that EPA acknowledge 

this fact for this rulemaking and recommended a correction to the overly broad statement that 

VOC emission reductions are needed to reduce ozone levels.

Response: EPA recognizes that natural source emissions can make a significant 

contribution to total volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions. 

Estimating emissions of VOC and NOx from natural sources is an essential part of preparing an 

inventory of ozone precursors. In the past, the impacts of biogenic VOC were not considered 

when ozone control strategies to limit emissions of either NOx or VOC were developed. 

However, the importance of biogenic VOC emissions in an ozone inventory became apparent in 

some regions when the biogenic VOC emission estimates were compared to the anthropogenic 

VOC emission estimates.

9

 Biogenic VOC are emitted in large quantities from vegetation and 

may dominate over those from anthropogenic sources. Generally, biogenic emissions do not 

cause ozone problems; they are part of the natural background. It is only after anthropogenic 

emissions are added to the natural background that harmful levels of ozone result. However, 

biogenic emissions must be considered when examining anthropogenic emission control 

strategies. Furthermore, EPA acknowledges that there are a few NOx limited regions where 

VOC reductions are not as helpful in reducing ozone (without NOx reductions) as in others

which are VOC limited. The views of the commenters, while perhaps true in some areas in some 

time frames, does not diminish the basic perspective in the NPRM that Stage II vapor recovery 

has reduced VOC emissions that contribute to the formation of ozone and contribute to air toxics 

risk in the vast majority of situations. There is a long record of analyses and documents created 

and reviewed in two public processes supporting this view (see public dockets A-84-07 and A87-11) and it is further supported by the fact that Stage II controls were only required in the 

Serious, Severe, and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas (mostly metropolitan/urban areas) by

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, not in rural areas. These urban/metropolitan areas are 

generally VOC limited. More importantly, however, this rule gives states/areas the way forward 

 

9

Chameides, W., R. Lindsay, J. Richardson, and C. Kiang. 1988. The Role of Biogenic Hydrocarbons in Urban 

Photochemical Smog: Atlanta as a Case Study. Science, vol. 241, pp. 1473-1475.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 952
18

to remove Stage II that was previously required by the CAA. If a state/area believes they are 

NOx limited that may well provide greater incentive to remove Stage II as soon as possible and 

make an approval of a SIP revision more straightforward.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0058) urged EPA to finalize the rule 

quickly and provide states with the ability to waive the Stage II requirements and thus free up 

resources that can be better expended on control measures that are more effective at reducing 

levels of ozone. 

Response: EPA has determined that ORVR is in widespread use upon the effective date 

of the final rule. Accordingly, to remove stage II requirements for their SIPs, states must submit 

SIP revisions and meet the requirements of section 110(l) that potential emission control losses 

from removing Stage II should not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other requirement of the CAA.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0035) concluded that the proposed 

federal action to waive Stage II vapor recovery requirements is an option that the commenter did

not believe is viable for their areas. The commenter believed that there may be opportunities for 

improvement of the Stage II vapor recovery hardware and possible reductions in operation and 

maintenance costs of the Stage II program to allow it to remain a cost-effective element of the 

commenter’s air pollution reduction program in their specific area. The commenter affirmed that 

despite great progress in achieving cleaner air, the area still needs additional reduction of air 

pollution and removal of Stage II controls would result in a significant increase in emissions of 

ozone precursors at a time when the area is searching for new control measures to reduce 

emissions. The commenter declared that the area cannot identify how to account for the lost 

emission reductions that would result from removal of their Stage II vapor recovery program. 

The commenter also emphasized that in spite of the growing share of ORVR-equipped vehicle 

refueling events, the commenter estimated that even in 2014, 17 percent of gasoline will be 

dispensed to non-ORVR vehicles.

Response: EPA’s final rule with 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. States may choose to continue to require or enhance Stage II controls in 

a particular area if they continue to achieve air quality benefits.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076- 0037) stated that when correctly

installed, operated, and maintained, Stage II systems effectively control VOC emissions 

associated with dispensing gasoline to motor vehicles. In the future, as Stage II systems are 

removed, there is concern that emissions from gasoline storage tanks may increase as a result of 

unsaturated air being drawn into the storage tanks. The commenter indicated concern that EPA 

may not have fully evaluated the potential for such additional fugitive emissions. The commenter 

urged EPA to undertake such an analysis and report its findings to the states so that they may

assess future policy steps.

The commenter added EPA should continue to allow states to maintain Stage II and be 

clear on what is required to maintain the program. While states have this option, the commenter 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 953
19

believed that EPA should also address issues related to quantifying excess emissions that may

occur when refueling ORVR-equipped vehicles at gasoline stations using vacuum-assist Stage II 

technology.

Response: As a part of the analysis supporting the NPRM, EPA assessed fugitive 

emissions related to refueling motor vehicles at GDFs. The conclusion of that analysis was that 

fugitive emissions (e.g., breathing and emptying losses) were about the same for the ORVR only 

or ORVR + Stage II scenario because of the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCCC –

the gasoline dispensing facility NESHAP. However, in the analysis EPA noted that the 

incompatibility effect observed when refueling an ORVR car with a Stage II vacuum assist 

system could increase these emissions and suggested that this might be a reason for removing 

Stage II.10 EPA’s final rule with the ORVR widespread use determination and section 182(b)(3) 

waiver determination would not obligate states to remove any existing Stage II vapor recovery

requirements. States that choose to remove the program will need to ensure that removal of the 

program does not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS per CAA section 

110(1). States may choose to continue to require or enhance Stage II controls in a particular area 

if they continue to achieve air quality benefits. 

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0041) stated that in order to ensure 

that gasoline underground storage tank systems continue to be maintained in a vapor-tight 

condition and prevent backsliding by allowing these underground storage tank systems to no 

longer be monitored when no more periodic Stage II testing is required, EPA must consider the 

following to ensure these systems remain vapor-tight as designed: Immediately upon 

decommissioning a stage II system and annually thereafter, EPA should incorporate the 

requirement to test gasoline underground storage tank stage I vapor recovery systems ability to 

contain the vapors by mandating the following test methods: 1) California Air Resources Board

(CARB) TP 201.3 (Determination of 2 Inch WC Static Pressure Performance of Vapor Recovery

Systems of Dispensing Facilities; Amended March 17, 1999); and, 2) CARB TP 201.1E (Leak 

Rate and Cracking Pressure of Pressure/Vacuum Vent Valves; October 8, 2003)

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter’s suggestion. In the ORVR Widespread Use

proposal, EPA did not propose to rescind any existing state or federal requirement for 

underground storage tank (UST) integrity testing such as those contained in 40 CFR part 63 

subpart CCCCCC. EPA encourages owners and operators of UST to follow federal, state and 

local requirements for their systems and to follow currently recognized industry codes and 

standards when dismantling Stage II vapor recovery systems. If the state chooses to waive the 

Stage II requirements and seeks to revise its SIP, the state may extend such requirements to 

lower throughput GDFs or the increase the frequency of the testing in their amended SIP to 

ensure that underground storage tanks continue to be maintained in a vapor tight condition.

 

10 See EPA Memorandum “Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment”, June 2011. A copy 

of this memorandum is located in the docket for this action EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 954
20

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0045) stated that since EPA has 

identified the proposed rule as an example of examining rules to make sure they are still 

achieving the environmental benefits that were originally intended, the EPA should review other 

programs. The commenter suggested a review of vehicle “Inspection and Maintenance” 

programs. The commenter alleged that the effectiveness of the program has diminished greatly 

as an emission control technology. The commenter also asserted that imposing requirements for 

VOC reductions in NOx limited areas that have overwhelming biogenic VOC sources is a poor 

utilization of resources. The commenter concludes by maintaining that Early Action Compact 

programs should be an option for areas that are under consideration for nonattainment 

designations.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the suggestions, although the topic is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. Consequently, the following response is for discussion purposes 

only, and does not constitute final action of any kind on EPA’s regarding the request made by the 

commenter. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made inspection/maintenance (I/M) 

mandatory for several areas across the country, based upon various criteria, such as air quality

classification, population, and/or geographic location. On September 18, 1995, EPA finalized its 

I/M Flexibility Amendments (40 CFR Part 51), which are designed to give states more options to 

meet the enhanced I/M program requirements under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

EPA's original enhanced I/M regulations included a single performance standard for enhanced 

I/M, which was based on EPA's model enhanced I/M program.11 EPA continues to recognize the 

vehicle I/M program as a substantial tool that assists in efforts to improve air quality by

identifying high-emitting vehicles in need of repair (through visual inspection, emissions testing, 

and/or the downloading of fault codes from a vehicle's OBD system) and causing them to be 

fixed as a prerequisite to vehicle registration within a given non-attainment area. At this time, 

the I/M program has not been identified in EPA’s Plan for Retrospective Review. 

While it is true that vehicle I/M programs do not achieve the same absolute level of 

emission reductions as they did during the 1990s, they do still produce significant reductions that 

can help achieve attainment and are required under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

One of the reasons that I/M programs get fewer reductions nowadays is because manufacturers 

have responded to I/M requirements by building vehicles that stay cleaner longer, leaving fewer 

excess emissions to reduce. It should also be noted that at the same time emission reductions 

from I/M programs have come down, the cost of testing vehicles has also come down, thanks to 

the introduction of onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems on vehicles. Like I/M, OBD is a 

requirement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which also required that all I/M 

programs include OBD testing once it became available. EPA has found that testing vehicles 

using the OBD system is generally quicker, more convenient, less costly, and more accurate than 

previous vehicle tests, including tailpipe tests like the idle, the Acceleration Simulation Mode 

(ASM), and the IM240 tests, which were used by various I/M programs throughout the 1990s 

 

11 (57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992)

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 955
21

and are still used to test non-OBD-equipped vehicles in some programs. The fact that the 

majority of vehicles in use nowadays are OBD-equipped means that there are many options for 

improving the cost effectiveness and convenience of existing and new I/M programs, including 

the use of remote testing and self-serve testing kiosks. Areas interested in optimizing the 

effectiveness of their local I/M programs should work with their EPA Regional offices to 

determine which program options make the most sense given local conditions. 

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0054) indicated that their state 

adopted Benzene Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM), intended to reduce the public 

exposure to benzene, a known carcinogen. As a result of this control measure, virtually all 

gasoline dispensing facilities were required to install Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery

systems. The commenter further indicated that in March of 2000, the state adopted Enhanced 

Vapor Recovery (EVR). The requirements for the EVR upgrade included new Stage I and Stage 

II systems, ORVR-compatibility, and In-Station Diagnostics. The commenter affirmed that 

virtually all of the state is required to have Stage II as per the Benzene ATCM and will continue 

to the program without waiving Stage II requirements. 

The commenter realized that in 2013, non-ORVR vehicles may remain, but attrition over 

time will eliminate most of those vehicles. The commenter asserted that non-ORVR vehicles are 

generally not being used as frequently as ORVR vehicles, and, consequently, not receiving 

comparable gasoline throughput that the ORVR vehicles receive. The commenter indicated that 

benzene content has recently been recommended to not exceed an annual average of 0.62% by

volume by the end of 2011 by the state. The commenter asserted that the reduction in benzene 

content may be sufficient reason for the state to consider modification of the ATCM. The 

commenter speculated that if the ATCM is modified, the air district will revise its State 

Implementation Plan to reflect increased VOC emissions. The commenter also indicated that the 

district will also propose new regulations to offset the additional VOC emissions from the Phase 

II equipment removal. The commenter also realized that there are air districts within the state

that need all of the benzene and associated VOC reductions possible. However, the commenter’s 

District does not believe that the “one-size-fits-all” vapor recovery approach is appropriate for 

the entire state. The commenter believed that air districts in the more remote and sparsely

populated areas of the state do not receive a significant air quality benefit from Phase II vapor 

recovery. The commenter concluded that many low throughput gasoline dispensing facilities 

throughout the state have closed or have become convenience store-only operations because of 

the cost to install and maintain vapor recovery equipment.

Response: EPA appreciates the perspectives presented by the commenter. The Stage II 

requirement in this AQMD was generated by a state requirement not under section 182(b)(3). 

The issues raised by the commenter are important in their regulatory scheme for ozone and air

toxics control, but must be resolved within the state.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0055) supports EPA’s effort to fulfill 

this CAA requirement. The commenter further states that establishment of a widespread-use date 

for ORVR will allow states and localities that currently have Stage II vapor recovery systems in 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 956
22

place to decommission these systems if they so choose and will also allow areas designated 

nonattainment for ozone in the future to forego installation of Stage II recovery systems. The 

commenter recommends that the final rule should note that decommissioning of Stage II 

recovery systems is not mandatory. In the final rule, therefore, EPA must clearly and 

prominently state that its action establishes a date on which EPA believes ORVR is in 

widespread use, but whether Stage II will be decommissioned or retained in a specific region is a 

decision reserved for each state or locality.

The commenter cautioned EPA not to undermine the ability of states and localities that 

wish to retain Stage II recovery systems. The commenter indicated that for many ozone 

nonattainment areas, Stage II recovery systems have served as an effective means for reducing 

VOC evaporative emissions from gasoline refueling. The commenter added that many areas rely 

on Stage II to reduce toxic air contaminants, such as benzene, found in gasoline. The commenter 

asserted that reduced exposure to toxic air contaminants in gasoline at the point of refueling and 

the impact on the neighborhood immediately surrounding the refueling station are especially

important considerations since older non-ORVR-equipped vehicles tend to be located in lower 

income and environmental justice communities.

The commenter agreed that with widespread use of ORVR-equipped vehicles, the 

benefits of Stage II recovery systems diminish over time. However, the commenter also 

recognized that for numerous regions, Stage II has yielded additional environmental co-benefits 

and is more effective at achieving emissions reductions than the national average of 86 percent 

assumed by EPA in the proposed rule. The commenter concluded that Stage II recovery systems 

will likely be effective in reducing VOC and air toxics in some regions long after the June 30, 

2013 date proposed for the widespread-use determination. The commenter suggested that EPA 

should be mindful of this and include a discussion of the potential benefits of retaining properly 

operated and maintained Stage II recovery systems in the final rule.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that Stage II vapor recovery systems have 

been an effective means for reducing VOC emissions and controlling toxics exposure during 

refueling. However, with the introduction and use of ORVR-equipped passenger cars and trucks 

and their phase-in with fleet turnover, the incremental emission reduction benefits of Stage II 

vapor recovery systems over those achieved by ORVR diminish over time. Moreover, EPA’s 

analysis indicates that aggregate VOC emission reductions and air toxic reductions achieved 

from vehicles being equipped with ORVR alone will soon surpass those achieved from 

application of Stage II alone.12 As discussed above, EPA estimates, based on a substantial 

volume of data, that ORVR in-use control efficiency is at 98 percent. The activated carbon 

canister used in the vehicle evaporative/ORVR system captures the air toxic compounds (e.g., 

benzene, toluene, xylene) at least as effectively as it captures the butane and pentane compounds 

 

10

See EPA Memorandum, “Updated Data for ORVR Widespread Use Assessment.” A copy of this memorandum is 

located in the docket for this action EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 957
23

which make-up the majority of the mass in the emissions.13 Thus, EPA would similarly expect 

control efficiency for air toxics with ORVR efficiency of 98 percent during refueling events. 

From a nationwide perspective, EPA estimates ORVR reductions will surpass those from Stage 

II in May 2013. After that date, reductions from ORVR-equipped vehicles will exceed those 

from Stage II, and the margin by which ORVR’s reductions exceed Stage II’s will continue to 

increase as fleet turnover continues.14 With the onset of widespread use of ORVR, EPA 

concludes that basic ORVR technology and its greater efficiency and wider implementation in 

Stage II areas will provide sufficient overall VOC emission reductions, even without Stage II, to 

support our determination to waive the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement that is 

directed to serious and above ozone nonattainment areas. Subsequently, of course, area-specific 

decisions of whether to revise SIPs to remove Stage II requirements will depend upon the 

specific needs of individual ozone nonattainment areas. Finally, whether additional controls of 

air toxics emissions from GDF operations are technologically feasible or necessary to protect 

public health are beyond the scope of this action, which addresses whether ORVR is factually in 

widespread use and whether it is reasonable to continue to impose, as a general and national 

minimum requirement for ozone control purposes, the section 182(b)(3) requirement for Serious 

and above ozone nonattainment areas. 

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0037) was concerned that EPA had 

not considered how an agency’s (state or local) request to remove Stage II will impact 

environmental justice communities. The commenter pointed out that gasoline dispensing 

operations cause significant emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) and stated that this source category represents significant potential for public 

exposure to these pollutants. The commenter indicated that HAP exposures included, but are not 

limited to, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene. The commenter presented earlier EPA 

analysis that indicated that GDFs emit more than 25,000 tons of emissions nationally for these 

four pollutants. The commenter stated that many of these facilities are located in residential 

areas, including environmental justice communities, and that research indicated that individuals 

living in close proximity to GDFs are exposed to elevated levels of several HAPs and that the 

highest short-term exposures to benzene occur during refueling operations. The commenter 

 

13 See Society of Automotive Engineers Paper 860531, “Vehicle Evaporative and Exhaust Emissions as Influenced 

by Benzene Content of Gasoline”. 

14

 On the margin, into the future there could be continued limited reductions of VOCs and air toxics if Stage II is 

retained. The amount would vary by calendar year depending on ORVR vehicle penetration, Stage II efficiency, 

and Stage II exemption criteria. This would occur when a non-ORVR vehicle is refueled at a Stage II GDF. 

However, as demonstrated in Table 1 of the EPA Memorandum “Updated Data for ORVR Widespread Use 

Assessment,” overall emission reductions (this includes VOC and air toxics) from ORVR vehicles will greatly 

surpass those achieved from Stage II. For example, in 2015 ORVR would control about 86 percent of gasoline and 

control 84 percent of emissions while Stage II would control only 12 percent of gasoline and control about 10 

percent of emissions. By 2020, OVR would control 92 percent of emissions while Stage II reductions are less than 5 

percent of emissions. (The Stage II calculations assume 10% of gasoline throughput occurs at exempt GDFs, Stage 

II efficiency remains at 86%, and ignores the ORVR/Stage II compatibility impact). Including the ORVR/Stage II 

compatibility impact would likely lead to net VOC and air toxics emission increases before 2020 from the 

combination of ORVR equipped vehicles being refueled at vacuum-assist Stage II pumps. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 958
24

explained that facilities equipped with properly maintained Stage II systems substantially

mitigate public exposures to these pollutants.

The commenter reminded EPA that in 2009, it was recommended that EPA develop a 

technical assessment of toxic emissions and exposures at GDF operations. The commenter 

pointed out that in the preamble of the Proposed Widespread Use rule, EPA stated that the 

proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income populations. However, the commenter stated that EPA did not 

analyze the potential increased local exposure to air toxics, either generally or for environmental 

justice communities. The commenter requested that EPA provide any environmental justice 

analysis it conducted for this proposed rule. The commenter further urged EPA to ensure that an 

adequate analysis has been completed, and, if necessary, supplemented with an examination of 

the potential impacts of this proposed rule on environmental justice communities and on local air 

toxics emissions.

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0053) urged EPA to discuss other environmental 

benefits of Stage II systems such as reduced toxic air contaminants exposure to gasoline at the 

point of refueling and potential environmental justice impacts. 

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0035) concluded that the proposed federal action 

to waive Stage II vapor recovery requirements is an option that the commenter did not believe is 

viable for their areas. The commenter maintained that Stage II systems remaining in place will 

have an ongoing benefit and capture approximately 31 tons of VOCs per day in 2017 and 15 tons 

per day in 2020. The commenter stated that Stage II vapor recovery is required in their state as a 

control measure for benzene emissions and Stage II removal would adversely impact human 

health protection. The commenter concludes that their area has a critical need for reducing 

smog-forming emissions and will continue to use Stage II vapor recovery until such time in the 

future a re-examination of ORVR and Stage II programs. 

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076- 0037) stated that some areas may need 

additional VOC emission reductions to attain the ozone NAAQS or address environmental 

justice or toxic concerns and that EPA should continue to allow states to maintain Stage II and be 

clear on what is required to maintain the program. 

Response: The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone final rule 

(73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008), based on a review of the air quality criteria, set standards to 

provide the requisite protection of public health and welfare. In that rulemaking, EPA 

determined that the levels set for criteria pollutants will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population 

including any minority or low-income population.

In addition, Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) governs the regulation of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and establishes a two-phased regulatory approach. First, 

subsection 112(d) requires the EPA to promulgate technology-based emission standards for 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 959
25

categories and subcategories of industries that are major or area sources. CAA Section 112(d) 

standards include new and existing source maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards, health threshold standards, and generally available control technology or management 

practices (GACT) standards for area sources, in this case GDFs. The standards that apply to 

GDFs and the control of HAP are based on GACT pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5).

Because Congress was concerned that these controls might not eliminate all emissions 

posing unacceptable health risks to exposed populations, subsection 112(f)(2) requires the EPA 

to determine for each category or subcategory of industries subject to MACT standards whether 

more stringent emission standards should be promulgated to control residual risks, and under 

subsection 112(f)(5) EPA has the discretion to do so for area sources subject to GACT standards. 

EPA’s GACT rule for GDFs was adopted on January 10, 2008, 73 FR 1916, and amended on 

January 24, 2011, 76 FR 4156. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC, § 63.11110 et seq. In 

both of these rulemakings, EPA concluded that its actions regulating HAP emissions from GDFs 

did not have a disproportionate impact on minority populations and low-income populations. 

See 73 FR at 1933, and 76 FR at 4176. Determining whether additional HAP emission 

reductions at GDFs might be necessary and appropriate under CAA section 112 is beyond the 

scope of today’s action, which is focused on the narrower factual issue of whether ORVR 

systems are in widespread use in the motor vehicle fleet, and, consequently, whether it is 

appropriate to revise of waive the CAA section 182(b)(3) requirement for Stage II in Serious and 

above ozone nonattainment areas for purposes of ozone control. Any analysis of whether further 

HAP controls at GDFs are warranted is a subject for EPA’s future technology review for subpart 

CCCCC under section 112(d)(6).

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0059) is a manufacturer of a vapor 

processor which enhances the reduction of overall gasoline vapor emissions at the GDF. The 

commenter believed that EPA’s proposal to eliminate Stage II vapor recovery, if followed, will 

not result in the most cost effective means to reduce pollutants and will not save valuable fuel. 

The commenter claimed that emissions will be significantly increased above the levels possible 

with state-of-the-art technology; which has already been proven and is commercially robust. The 

commenter detailed the assertion by stating that vapor emissions at GDFs are comprised of 

refueling emissions and storage tank emissions. In turn, refueling emissions are generated at the 

nozzle/vehicle interface and at the outlet from the carbon canister used on the ORVR systems. 

The storage tank emissions are comprised of vent line emissions through the pressure/vacuum 

valve (p/v valve) and fugitive emissions through various point sources within the vapor 

containing hardware; where the fugitive emissions are a function of storage tank pressure. The 

commenter stated that the goal for the GDF is to minimize the total emissions (Volatile Organic 

Compounds and Hazardous Air Pollutants); which is the sum of the refueling and storage tank 

emissions. The commenter further explained that a practical tradeoff exists where the Air to 

Liquid ratio of the Stage II system could be increased to improve vapor collection at the 

nozzle/vehicle interface for a vacuum assist Stage II system; however, this increase in and to 

liquid ratio results in air ingestion into the storage tank with a penalty in fuel evaporation, 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 960
26

increased tank pressurization with resulting vent and fugitive emissions. The commenter added 

that with ORVR alone, air ingestion into the storage tank is minimized, however many nonORVR vehicles will not capture refueling emissions. The commenter concluded that to 

adequately optimize a solution for the GDF, both sets of emissions must be considered 

simultaneously. The commenter referenced an Emissions Inventory summary provided by ARID 

Technologies to State of Illinois EPA. 

The commenter asserted that capturing and containing refueling vapor yields a favorable 

economic payback. The commenter referenced section 2.1.15 of “EPA’s Preliminary Plan for 

Periodic Retrospective Reviews”; page 22-23, where EPA says, “Available and affordable 

technology choices define the potential range of environmental solutions for many

environmental problems. Moreover, technology innovation can lead not only to better 

environmental outcomes, but better economic opportunities and outcomes, too. EPA efforts in 

the past 40 years have spurred technology developments responsible for profound improvements 

in environmental protection through preventing, reducing, and sequestering pollutants, and 

monitoring environmental conditions...... During retrospective reviews and new rulemakings, 

EPA intends to assess innovative technology opportunities and market drivers, and implement a 

strategy to enhance the degree to which EPA’s regulatory processes leverage market 

opportunities and encourage continued development of new sustainable technologies to achieve 

improved environmental results at lower costs.” 

On this basis, the commenter believed that the concept of ORVR widespread use is a 

flawed idea and presented an alternative that the commenter believed fulfills the intent of section 

2.1.15, referenced above. The commenter started out by stating the primary flaw in EPA 

widespread use criteria centers on the “breakeven” or “cross over point” where the emissions 

from ORVR alone are said to equal the emissions from Stage II only. The commenter asserts

that EPA uses improper math in Table 1 of the proposed rule, specifically column 5, where the 

commenter alleged that emissions from non-ORVR equipped vehicles are not accounted for 

where Stage II systems are not in use. On pages 3 and 4 of his comment letter, the commenter 

provided a detailed example of the emission reduction benefits and fuel savings associated with 

ORVR + Stage II and added technology to reduce Stage I storage tank emissions at a given GDF.

The commenter concluded that the approach allowing states to remove Stage II when ORVR is 

in widespread use is not optimal as it leads to fewer overall emission reductions than ORVR +

Stage II+ added technology to further reduce storage tank emissions. 

Furthermore, the commenter stated his belief and presented an illustration on page 5 of 

his comment letter of why he believes that the ORVR only case is not an optimum alternative. 

The commenter further added that the state-of-the-art approach provides an emissions decrease 

of about 83 percent in comparison to the EPA ORVR only proposal. These emissions, as seen in 

the supporting documentation represent a significant reduction in atmospheric emissions (in 

close proximity to the motorist), while at the same time saving a large volume of salable fuel and 

yielding a rapid payback on invested capital for the gasoline dispensing facility owner/operator. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 961
27

In addition to increased operating efficiency, the risk of groundwater contamination via below 

grade fugitive emissions is also significantly reduced. 

Response: EPA agrees that, as discussed in AP-42, in general GDF emissions are 

comprised of refueling emissions and storage tank emissions. Spillage during refueling is also 

important. As part of the analysis for the final rule, EPA presented an assessment of the 

emission rates from these three sources with ORVR and Stage II and found that the only

significant difference was in the emissions which occur from the vehicle fuel tank during the 

refueling event and the incompatibility emissions when ORVR vehicles are refueled by a 

vacuum assist type Stage II system.

15

 We do not disagree with the commenter that potentially

more could be done to address storage tank emissions beyond the requirements in 40 CFR part 

63 subpart CCCCCC and related state provisions, but an assessment of these issues is beyond the 

scope and purpose of this action. 

The commenter took the view that the “widespread use” approach used by EPA was 

flawed and instead that EPA should take a more holistic and integrated view of GDF emissions 

that could result in more control. The commenter’s approach seemed to envision a scheme 

which included ORVR + Stage II + additional storage tank controls. The commenter also 

asserted this could lead to additional fuel savings. 

EPA acknowledges that the commenter does not favor the widespread use approach, but 

EPA’s proposal was simply to propose a date for ORVR widespread use in response to the 

provisions of the CAA. It does not compel any state to take action to remove Stage II or prevent 

a state from enhancing its GDF emission control requirements. We do not agree with the 

commenter’s assertion that EPA’s analysis in the NPRM used improper math or that within 

EPA’s analysis emissions from non-ORVR vehicles are not accounted for where Stage II 

systems are not in use. EPA conducted an area or region wide efficiency analysis which 

incorporated all of the GDFs and refueling events in a given area per year including (a) ORVR 

vehicles at Stage II GDFs, (b) ORVR vehicles at non Stage II GDFs, (c) non-ORVR vehicles at 

Stage II GDFs, and (d) non-ORVR vehicles at non Stage II GDFs. The data used in EPA’s 

analysis can be used to calculate the gallons and emissions in any of these four segments. It did 

not address storage tank emissions since the EPA memorandum to the docket referenced above

concluded that these emissions would be about the same with ORVR alone or with Stage II 

alone.

Based on the criteria EPA used for widespread use assessment, the purpose of EPA’s 

analysis was to identify the “crossover” point where ORVR reductions would equal Stage II 

reductions so that if Stage II was removed there would be equivalent or greater reductions from 

 

15 AP-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 and incompatibility effects related to ORVR and Stage II vacuum assist systems.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 962
28

ORVR.16 This is not to suggest that there would not be additional reductions available from nonORVR vehicles at Stage II GDFs after the crossover date if Stage II was retained or that there 

would not be uncontrolled emissions (non-ORVR vehicles at non-Stage II GDFs), but these 

would be relatively small and decreasing each year.

For example, using the ORVR penetration rates and ORVR efficiency values from 

column 5 of Table 2 of the FRM preamble and 86 percent efficiency and 10 percent exemption 

rate for Stage II, equal control occurs in May of 2013 on a nationwide average basis. At that 

point about 77.4 percent of gasoline refueling emissions would be controlled by ORVR and if 

there were no ORVR the control would also be 77.4 percent for Stage II. However, there is an 

ORVR requirement and a Stage II requirement so at that point the remaining available reductions 

from non-ORVR vehicles going to Stage II stations would be about 16 percent. (1-

0.79)(.86)(0.90) before accounting for the Stage II vacuum assist system incompatibility effect.17 

This would decrease each year as the ORVR penetration increases.

As mentioned above, the commenter asserted that emissions from non-ORVR equipped 

vehicles are not accounted for where Stage II systems are not in use. This is simply not true. As 

can be seen in the crossover discussion above, within the NPRM analysis there are actually four 

segments. This includes a segment (d) (non-ORVR vehicles at non-Stage II GDFs) which is part 

of the total of all dispensed gasoline (a)+(b)+(c)+(d). Expanding the example above, assuming 

an even distribution of ORVR and non-ORVR equipped vehicles, of the 21 percent of gasoline 

going into non-ORVR vehicles if Stage II is still in place, 90 percent (non-exempt) of the 21 

percent would be controlled by Stage II at an 86 percent efficiency (segment (c)) while 10 

percent (exempt) of the 21 percent (about 2.1 percent) would be uncontrolled (non-ORVR cars 

going to non-Stage II stations (segment (d)).

EPA appreciates the information and analysis provided by the commenter with regard to 

ARID Technologies’ vapor processor technology including its merits in terms of emission 

reductions and fuel savings and ARID’s experience in field installations. However, further 

consideration of this technology for controlling GDF emissions and any incentives to do so are 

beyond the scope of this rule. The commenter provided no evidence that any potential action to 

remove Stage II would necessarily reduce the incentive of a state to address storage tank 

emissions beyond current EPA or local requirements.

 IV. Comments Regarding State Implementation Plan Revisions

 

16 Since in our earlier analysis we concluded that the difference was in vehicle tank displacement emissions during 

refueling, the analysis becomes a function of ORVR penetration, ORVR efficiency, Stage II efficiency, and Stage II 

exemptions.

17 The 0.79 value is the quotient of 0.774/0.98 and is the fraction of gallons dispensed to ORVR vehicles at that 

point in time.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 963
29

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0042) requested that EPA provide 

further information on the overall expectations and steps needed for states to be granted a waiver 

and properly retire a Stage II program. The commenter stated that the guidance should include 

the following: 1) a listing of the timing and required elements for an approvable State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to discontinue the Stage II program, including the types of 

information needed to demonstrate compliance with Section 110(l) requirements, 2) if a 

quantitative area-specific calculation of vehicle refueling emissions is needed, EPA should 

provide guidance on estimating excess emissions from ORVR incompatibility with vacuum 

assist systems, and 3) a definition of the options available to states to discontinue the requirement 

for new or remodeled gasoline dispensing facilities to install Stage II vapor recovery equipment 

in advance of either a state-specific or the national widespread use date. The commenter urged 

EPA to define the legal basis on how states may, if possible, stop requiring new installations and 

any enforcement activities for states with current SIP-approved Stage II programs. 

Another commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0037) provided their belief that 

additional guidance from EPA is needed on how to incorporate the proposed rule elements into a 

SIP. In many states, removing the Stage II program from the SIP requires addressing several 

separate sections of the Clean Air Act. States need clear and detailed guidance from EPA on how 

to develop appropriate and complete SIP revisions. Whether or not Stage II can be removed will 

depend on EPA’s review and approval of such SIP revisions. The commenter urged EPA to 

develop this guidance as soon as possible and preferably well in advance of finalizing the 

Proposed Widespread Use Rule. The NESCAUM states would welcome working with EPA on 

the issues identified below where the commenter believed specific guidance is needed.

The commenter stated that EPA must provide clear guidance as to what is needed in 

order to ensure that the integrity of the SIP is maintained when Stage II equipment is removed. 

The commenter declared that at a minimum, EPA must provide guidance on how to address 

requirements, including what analysis must be done and key issues to address concerning CAA

sections 110(l), 184(b)(2), and 193. Additionally, the commenter indicated that states need clear 

and consistent guidance as to the appropriate base year that should be used for the equivalency

and/or interference with maintenance demonstrations. The commenter recommended that EPA 

require that states use the first phase-out year of the Stage II program as their baseline year. The 

commenter pointed out that states are confused about assessing emission reductions from an 

existing Stage II program. The commenter expressed their understanding that emissions 

resulting from the incompatibility between ORVR vehicles and vacuum-assist Stage II systems 

as well as reduced system efficiency for the Stage II program can be used in states’ SIP 

demonstrations. The commenter believed that if a state can demonstrate that ORVR obtains 

equal or more VOC reductions than Stage II, no additional measures should be required. The 

commenter requested that EPA work together with states to identify a complete list of issues 

related to SIP revision development with the goal of providing the states with clear and 

consistent guidance that will ensure consistent application among those states conducting these 

analyses.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 964
30

Response: When a state wishes to remove the requirements for Stage II, the CAA 

requires EPA to ensure that such removal of the Stage II requirements would not interfere with 

other applicable CAA requirements under section 110(l), which precludes the Administrator 

from approving a SIP revision if it would interfere with applicable CAA requirements (including 

attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS). In their SIP analysis, states may elect to 

conduct area-specific analyses, specifying parameters that are reflective of the types and ranges 

of equipment and operating patterns in use in the relevant area. Subsequent to the effective 

waiver date of the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement, areas currently implementing SIPapproved Stage II programs, as a result of obligations under the 1-hour or 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, would be required to continue implementing these programs until an EPA SIP revision 

approves removal of the requirement from the state’s ozone implementation plan. 

Of course, even after EPA takes final action to find widespread use of ORVR has 

occurred and issues a waiver of the section 182(b)(3) requirement, states remain free under CAA 

section 116 to choose to implement Stage II programs in any area, and would not be forced to 

remove existing Stage II provisions from a SIP. Some states may find that by removing Stage II 

requirements they are reducing the overall level of reductions for which they have previously 

obtained credit. Such states would need to show that foregoing any additional VOC emissions 

reductions resulting from Stage II would not interfere with attaining and maintaining the ozone 

NAAQS in violation of section 110(l). In such circumstances it is possible that additional 

emissions reductions may be needed to offset the removal of Stage II. It should also be noted 

that removing Stage II may affect mobile source emissions budgets, so we urge states to consult 

with the state and local transportation agencies. States could choose to keep Stage II for an 

additional period of time to allow further ORVR penetration in the motor vehicle fleet, or instead

obtain equivalent emissions reductions from other sources.

EPA recognizes the need for providing guidance on SIP revisions for removing Stage II 

requirements and will release such guidance a short time after the final rule is published. Central 

to this guidance will be discussion on what should be included in a revised SIP as well as 

indications of what data is needed and suggestions on how the analysis could be conducted. 

EPA is aware that new construction that is prior to the waiver date may have capital costs for 

installing Stage II that may only be required for a short time. EPA shares the commenters’ 

concerns about an inefficient use of resources to meet a regulatory requirement which may have 

a short period of applicability and will work with the states to find a way forward on this matter. 

However, this is ultimately an issue for each state. EPA cannot unilaterally change existing state 

SIPs or state regulations addressing Stage II requirements. 

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0037) urged EPA to provide states 

with clear guidance as to whether MOVES is required to conduct Stage II removal analyses. If 

so, the commenter specified that EPA must issue guidance on how states should run MOVES for 

analyzing removal of the Stage II program. The commenter denoted that States have been 

compiling a list of issues related to using MOVES for such an analysis. A preliminary list of 

issues include: (1) determining appropriate Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) factors; (2) accounting 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 965
31

for excess emissions due to ORVR incompatibility; and (3) running the model for one 

representative county rather than statewide.

Response: While it may be preferable, MOVES 2010(a) is not the only means by which 

states could support a revised SIP. Mobile model runs or MOVES 2010 or some other approach 

may be sufficient if the submitter can demonstrate the accuracy of the outcomes. EPA's Office 

of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has developed the MOtor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator (MOVES). MOVES2010 has become EPA’s approved motor vehicle emission factor 

model for estimating volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon 

monoxide (CO), direct particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and other pollutants and precursors 

from cars, trucks, motorcycles, and buses by state and local agencies outside of California. This 

new emission modeling system estimates emissions for mobile sources covering a broad range of 

pollutants and allows multiple scale analysis. The MOVES model currently estimates emissions 

from cars, trucks & motorcycles. The modeling system can be downloaded at the following 

website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm.

MOVES2010 can be used to estimate air pollution emissions from cars, trucks, 

motorcycles, and buses. It is approved for use in official state implementation plan (SIP) 

submissions to EPA and for transportation conformity analyses outside of California. It can also 

be used to estimate the benefits from a range of mobile source control strategies, for more 

general analyses of national or local emissions trends, and for policy evaluation. MOVES2010 is 

EPA’s best available tool for quantifying criteria pollutant and precursor emissions, as well as 

for other emissions analyses of the transportation sector. 

Prior to this official release of MOVES2010, the MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission 

factor model was the only model approved for performing SIP and transportation conformity

analyses. EPA intends to address some of the commenter’s specific questions related to issues 

such as RVP and county versus statewide MOVES runs in separate guidance.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0037) is concerned with the 98

percent control efficiency rating for ORVR. The commenter urged EPA to conduct a robust 

analysis of the ORVR efficiency rating and incorporate the capability in MOVES for states and 

EPA to apply an ORVR refueling adjustment factor, similar to that for the Stage II vapor 

recovery program, in order to allow a realistic analysis, or alternatively, if warranted, EPA 

should adjust the 98 percent control efficiency in the model to account for deterioration with age 

or realistic effectiveness.

Response: Concerning the 98 percent ORVR overall efficiency used in EPA’s analysis, 

EPA referenced the manufacturer in-use verification program where there were over nearly 

1,200 laboratory tests of in-use ORVR equipped vehicles which lead to an in-use efficiency of 

about 98 percent. For the final rule, 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 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 966
32

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 

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0048) suggested EPA provide States 

with guidance on how to prepare a non-interference demonstration that meets the intent of 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act in a straightforward and simplified way that facilitates 

expeditious approval of the SIP revision by EPA. The commenter contended that this is 

particularly important because EPA is claiming a long-term cost savings associated with this rule 

to be approximately $87 million per year. The commenter asserted that these cost savings will 

not be realized if EPA does not work with the states to develop, submit, and approve these SIP 

revisions in an efficient and timely manner. The commenter declared that EPA is misleading the 

public by implying that these savings result directly from EPA’s action on this rulemaking and 

that EPA should make it clear in the record that the savings will occur only if the states make 

changes to their own rules and only after EPA approves revisions to their SIP. 

The commenter also established that EPA should be clear in the final rule that the process 

for physically decommissioning the Stage II equipment should be left to the individual states and 

regions and not dictated in a rule or guidance document by EPA.

Response: EPA recognizes the need for providing guidance on SIP revisions for 

removing Stage II requirements and will release such guidance subsequent to this final rule. 

Central to this guidance will be discussion on what should be included in a revised SIP as well as 

indications of what data is needed and suggestions on how the analysis could be conducted. 

While we agree that approved revised state SIPs are needed for Stage II decommissioning to 

begin, we note absent the widespread use determination the cost savings would not be possible. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s request that EPA not specify by regulation or guidance any

specific decommissioning criteria or requirements. We do not intend to do so, but we encourage 

the states to review and strongly consider guidelines published by the Petroleum Equipment 

Institute and to consider criteria already put in place by Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and 

New York. Central to these considerations is a safe process which ensures system tightness and 

minimizes unnecessary fugitive emissions from dispenser or vapor pipe leaks.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0059), a manufacturer of a vapor 

processor which enhances the control of gasoline vapor emissions at GDFs stated their interest in 

the section in the Federal Register which addresses SIP Revision; this includes the CAA section 

110 (l) requirements as well as the section 116 where States remain free to choose to implement 

Stage II programs in any area. The commenter supposed that States choosing to continue using 

Stage II, in conjunction with a vapor processor will qualify for special state-of-the-art, or MACT 

status. The commenter supposed that this qualification could trigger financial incentives to the 

GDF owner/operator such as reduced taxes on motor vehicle fuel and/or a subsidy to help cover 

the capital and installation expenses of installing vapor processor hardware. Moreover, the 

 

18

 See EPA Memorandum Updated ORVR In-use Efficiency. A copy of this memorandum is located in the docket 

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

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 967
33

commenter suggested that the State may also qualify for various financial incentives while at the 

same time earning emissions reductions in their SIP. The commenter believed it would be 

reasonable to reward the proactive States and GDF owners/operators who employ a state-of-theart approach to reduce emissions above and beyond mandated levels. The commenter concluded 

they would earn an attractive return by paying back their capital investment with saved fuel, but 

on the other hand, an extra incentive can help ensure that Stage II systems are not incorrectly 

removed by the majority of the GDF owners/operators. The commenter pointed out that as an 

added benefit to regulatory agencies, the efforts expended by the GDF owners/operator will be 

much stronger and more focused if their “good housekeeping” practices earn them the 

opportunity to realize an economic benefit – in other words; why ensure leak integrity of your 

vapor piping system, if you know the losses are constantly occurring through the p/v valve? 

However, if the GDF owner/operator installs and maintains Stage II technology along with a 

vapor processor; they have a strong incentive to make sure all systems on the forecourt are 

properly operating and that the associated piping system remains leak free. The commenter

raised this notion in correspondence to Mr. Thomas A Driscoll, USEPA, 28 September 2004, this 

letter was attached to the comments submitted to the NPRM. 

The commenter also lays out ideas regarding retaining Stage II and potentially enhancing 

its performance through additional vapor processing technologies. The commenter provided data 

demonstrating the performance of its systems in reducing overall vapor emissions at GDFs.

Response: EPA acknowledges that these concepts may have merit and states at their 

discretion may want to consider them as part of any overall hydrocarbon emission reduction 

strategy. However, any further analysis or consideration here is outside of the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

The commenter neither identified an existing program nor indicated how States choosing 

to continue using Stage II, in conjunction with a vapor processor would qualify for special stateof-the-art, or MACT status. The commenter also stated that states may qualify for financial 

incentives, yet did not identify any incentives that may be currently available to states in this 

regard. EPA did not propose a financial incentive program to states continuing to operate Stage 

II systems, nor to states that enhance their Stage II systems. Instead, EPA proposed a waiver of 

Stage II requirements upon which the States may choose to decommission the Stage II systems. 

Nonetheless, as has been discussed before States may elect to retain Stage II and the commenter 

made no technical connection that removing Stage II would decrease the incentive to add other 

GDF vapor control requirements if a state elected to do so. If the commenter is simply

advocating for a revision to tax policy in order to create new incentives for states to control 

emissions beyond levels required by the CAA, that subject is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, and we currently take no position on the merits of this suggestion.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0037) indicated that several states 

have or are being considered for EPA “Clean Data Determinations.” These states have questions 

regarding whether or not these determinations will affect their requirements for analysis and 

removal of the Stage II program. The NESCAUM states urged EPA to clarify in the final rule 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 968
34

how Clean Data Determinations affect the type and level of analysis required to remove a Stage 

II program.

Response: Under EPA’s Clean Data Policy19 and the regulation that embodies it, 40 CFR 

51.918 (1997 8-hour ozone), EPA may issue a determination of attainment (formally known as a 

Clean Data Determination (CDD)) after notice and comment rulemaking determining that a 

specific area is attaining the relevant standard.

If a state in the OTR wishes to shift requirements of Stage II to comparable measures or 

if a non-OTR state wishes remove the requirements for Stage II, the CAA requires EPA to 

ensure that such de-activation of the Stage II requirements would not interfere with other 

applicable CAA requirements under section 110(l), which precludes the Administrator from 

approving a SIP revision if it would interfere with applicable CAA requirements (including 

attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS). 

When de-activating Stage II control programs, states should assess the VOC emissions 

impact in the affected area during the phase-out period. The final rule and the subsequent

guidance provides methods and calculations for evaluating the emissions impact of phasing-out 

Stage II programs. In their SIP analysis, states may elect to conduct area-specific analyses, 

specifying parameters that are reflective of the types and ranges of equipment and operating 

patterns in use in the relevant area. 

A planned Stage II deactivation that is shown not to result in an increase in area-wide 

VOC emissions should be consistent with the conditions of CAA section 110(l). A planned 

Stage II phase-out that is shown to result in an area-wide emissions increase can also be 

consistent with the conditions of CAA section 110(l) if the state offsets the increase in emissions 

by incorporating additional emissions controls into the SIP. In general, in an area that is 

attaining the standard, it should be easier to demonstrate that phasing out State II controls is 

consistent with the provisions of section 110(l).

 

19 EPA’s Clean Data Policy titled “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, John 

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10), May 10, 1995.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 969
35

 V. Comments Regarding Effects to Stage II Programs in Ozone Nonattainment Areas of

the Ozone Transport Region

Comment: Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0032, 0034, 0046, 0049, 0050 and 

0051) indicated that CAA section 184(b)(2) is a separate Stage II related requirement that all 

areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) must implement either Stage II or measures that 

achieve “comparable” emissions reductions. This independent requirement is not affected by 

any widespread use determination or waiver of the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements. 

Thus, unless areas in the OTR implement measures that achieve “comparable” emissions 

reductions, they appear to still remain obligated to require Stage II vapor recovery systems. The 

commenters further believe that under the Agency’s current interpretation of section 184(b)(2), 

refueling stations in the OTR may be unable to take advantage of the section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

waiver and the costs savings indicated. The commenters urged EPA to revise it interpretation of 

section 184(b)(2) to permit ORVR to be recognized as an emission reduction measure considered 

“comparable” to Stage II. Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0032, 0034) also requested 

that EPA delay the deadline for comments on the proposed rule, specifically to comment on 

Section 184(b)(2), to at least one month after the Agency revises its interpretation of the 

aforementioned section.

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0039) endorsed and supported the comments 

offered by another commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0037) and offered further comment on 

issues related to the following: 1) EPA guidance regarding the implementation of the rule 

through the OTR; 2) coordination between OTC and EPA regarding SIP incorporation of EPA’s 

proposal; and 3) maintenance of Stage II systems. The commenter urged EPA to release the 

implementation guidance for the OTR prior to promulgation of the Widespread Use Rule and to 

clarify in the guidance what comparable measures may be counted and how to conduct the 

comparability analysis. The commenter also requested that EPA provide clear and consistent 

guidance as to the appropriate base year that should be used for the demonstrations of 

comparability. The commenter also indicated that EPA should provide an opportunity to 

comment on EPA’s draft OTR guidance before it is finalized. The commenter recommended 

that if a state can demonstrate that ORVR obtains VOC reductions equal to or more than Stage II 

systems, then no additional measures should be required. The commenter also recommended 

that as part of guidance, EPA should require that states use the first phase-out year of the Stage II 

program as the baseline year. On the subject of maintaining Stage II systems, the commenter 

recommended for states that need additional VOC emission reductions to reach attainment of the 

NAAQS and to address environmental justice or toxic concerns, that EPA continue to allow 

states to maintain the option to keep Stage II and be clear on what is required to maintain a Stage 

II program moving forward. The commenter recognized that states have this option, but the 

commenter believed that EPA should address issues related to quantifying excess emissions that 

may occur when refueling ORVR equipped vehicles at gasoline stations using vacuum-assist 

Stage II technology, as well as potential excess emissions from removal of Stage II systems.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 970
36

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076- 0052) stated that in EPA’s proposal to eliminate 

Stage II, the EPA also determined that the independent requirements of the OTR are “not 

affected by any widespread use determination or waiver of section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

requirement.” The commenter contended that OTR states are granted no relief from Stage II 

requirement under this proposal and remain subject to redundant regulatory requirements. The 

commenter asserted that this results in confusion in the marketplace and presents an unfair 

advantage for stations in nearby states without these requirements.

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0037) indicated that a number of states are 

troubled by the lack of information provided to OTR states regarding OTR-specific CAA 

requirements for Stage II. The commenter acknowledges that section 184(b)(2) of the Act 

requires that OTR states adopt (or maintain) Stage II or achieve comparable emission reductions. 

The commenter recalled that the preamble of the proposed Widespread Use Rule indicated that 

states in the OTR must have adopted measures achieving emissions reductions that are at least 

equivalent to those achievable by Stage II and “incremental” to ORVR before EPA would 

approve a SIP revision removing Stage II controls. The commenter represented that states need 

clarification on what an “incremental” analysis means and what it includes. The commenter 

believed that OTR states should be allowed to use the year that they phase out Stage II as their 

baseline year for their comparable measures demonstrations. The commenter interposed that if 

an OTR state can demonstrate that ORVR obtains equal or more VOC reductions than Stage II, 

no additional measures should be required. The commenter urged EPA to work with the Ozone 

Transport Commission to develop this guidance.

Response: This rulemaking is taking final action only under CAA section 202(a)(6) to 

find that ORVR is in widespread use and to waive only the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

requirement for serious and worse ozone nonattainment areas. This rulemaking is not taking 

final action under CAA section 184(b)(2) regarding the separate but related requirement that 

OTR states implement either Stage II or other measures that obtain comparable emissions 

reductions, and our proposed rule proposed no such action. States in the OTR, therefore, even 

after today’s rule, remain subject to a separate requirement under section 184(b)(2) of the CAA 

to implement measures that achieve comparable emissions reductions to those achievable by

Stage II. The CAA does not provide the Administrator with authority to waive this independent 

requirement. The section 202(a)(6) waiver authority only applies to the section 182(b)(3) 

requirement. 

In the proposed rule, EPA did not propose any action related to section 184(b)(2) and did 

not solicit comments on CAA section 184(b)(2). As a result, EPA does not believe it is 

necessary or appropriate to offer an extension to the comment period of the proposed rule

regarding this issue. However, as discussed below EPA will issue new guidance on fulfilling the 

comparable measures requirement and conducted outreach to the states and other parties in the 

preparation of this guidance. The intent of this effort is to update the degree of emissions 

reductions that would be expected to be achieved for a control measure to be considered 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 971
37

“comparable” to Stage II, in light of Stage II’s declining ability to obtain reductions as ORVR 

penetration increases in the motor vehicle fleet.

Since ORVR is independently required under section 202(a)(6), simply treating it as a 

comparable measure that an OTR SIP must additionally contain would arguably render the 

section 184(b)(2) requirement a nullity, which would therefore not be a permissible statutory

interpretation. However, what has changed is the expected level of emissions reductions that 

Stage II programs can obtain, in light of the fact that in the OTR areas, Stage II systems (or other 

comparable measures) were fully implemented more than a decade ago and ORVR is now in 

force with ORVR-equipped vehicles phasing in at the rate of 3-4 percent of the fleet each 

calendar year. Thus, the factual circumstances influencing EPA’s estimate of what level of 

emissions reductions are “comparable” to those achieved by Stage II, incremental to ORVR, are

truly different today as compared to the mid-1990s. In fact, comparable measures could in some 

cases mean no additional control beyond ORVR is required if Stage II is achieving no additional 

emission reduction benefit in an area or only a declining de minimis benefit. It is worth noting 

that the CAA calls for “comparable emission reductions,” not necessarily Stage II- equivalent 

reductions, which preserves some discretion when evaluating the adequacy of an OTR state’s 

SIP revision submission under section 184(b)(2).

This issue will be addressed in EPA’s anticipated update to the forthcoming guidance 

titled (tentatively), "Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from 

State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures.” This future guidance will be 

issued after the publication of this rulemaking, but it is not part of this final rulemaking and does 

not itself constitute final agency action that has binding and enforceable effect. Final action 

regarding the section 184(b)(2) issues will be taken only in response to any SIP revision 

submissions from OTR states. Only at that point will EPA’s implementation of section 

184(b)(2) be subject to judicial review under CAA section 307(b).

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0038) stated that EPA must 

immediately require the State of Pennsylvania to submit the Stage II or comparable measures SIP 

revision required by Section 184(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act. The commenter asserted that 

Pennsylvania has not completed the required 184(b)(2) Stage II comparability analysis SIP 

submission to EPA. The commenter further asserted that EPA has not issued to Pennsylvania a 

finding of failure to submit the analysis. The commenter alleged that the state has failed the 

Stage II comparability requirement for the 55 of the state’s 67 counties where a section 

182(b)(3)-based Stage II program is not in operation. The commenter reiterated the proposed 

rule where it stated that EPA intends to provide additional guidance for OTR states on how they 

can conduct updated comparability analyses. The commenter assumed that “updated” obviously 

means that there is an existing comparability analysis and that the state is 15 and one half years 

overdue. The commenter stated that EPA must rectify this oversight immediately by making a 

finding of failure to submit. 

Response: We appreciate the commenter’s concern, and have shared the commenter’s 

concerns with EPA Region 3, Office of Air Program Planning, in order to address the situation 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 972
38

appropriately. The commenter’s statements regarding Pennsylvania’s status and regarding its 

CAA section 184(b)(2) obligations, is beyond the scope of today’s final rule, and we have 

referred the commenter’s contentions to EPA Region 3.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0040) commended EPA for 

proposing this rule that eliminates Stage II vapor recovery requirement in those areas where the 

use of ORVR systems is widespread. The commenter also believed this rule will improve air 

quality while also reducing regulatory burdens. However, the commenter indicated that the 

proposed rule did not adequately address the waiver of Stage II requirements for states located 

within the OTR. The commenter also stated that EPA’s proposed rule relied on what the 

commenter believed to be an impractical framework for EPA review and approval of revised 

SIPs prior to removal of Stage II requirements. 

The commenter indicated that their state cannot benefit from the proposed rule without 

also considering provisions of section 184(b)(2). The commenter stated that EPA’s proposed 

rule does not allow states within the OTR, subject to 184(b)(2), to obtain relief upon a 

demonstration that ORVR systems are in widespread use. The commenter recommended that 

EPA revise the proposed rule to clarify that the Stage II waiver provisions are applicable in the 

OTR to the same extent as elsewhere. 

The commenter recognized that the proposed rule identified an emission control 

efficiency of 86 percent for Stage II systems. The commenter believed this number to be inflated 

because it assumes annual inspections of all Stage II equipment. The commenter stated that that 

assumption is impracticable given the vast number of GDFs in each state and the limited state 

resources to perform annual inspections. The commenter added that the 86 percent control 

efficiency does not account for fugitive emissions related to Stage II and ORVR incompatibility, 

even though EPA acknowledged the incompatibility that exists between some vapor recovery

systems. The commenter further added that EPA based the efficiency determination on a report 

that is more than 20 years old, which over-estimates the current effectiveness of these systems. 

The commenter recommended that EPA reexamine in-use Stage II installations to determine the 

actual effectiveness of the program utilizing present day studies and date and adjust the assumed 

control efficiency downward. The commenter suggested the control efficiency should be 62 

percent due in part to poor maintenance of gasoline dispensing equipment by facilities, less 

frequent inspections, and existing incompatibilities between ORVR and Stage II. The 

commenter avers that when factoring incompatibility and the over-estimation of Stage II 

efficiency, equivalency and widespread use would occur prior to 2013 and has already occurred 

in the commenter’s state.

The commenter indicated that EPA’s framework for review and approval of a revised SIP 

prior to removal of Stage II requirements appears to be impractical and may compromise air 

quality. The commenter labeled EPA’s process cumbersome and results in a delay in EPA 

approving of SIP revisions. The commenter contended that such delay could increase the 

potential for excess emissions. The commenter suggested that since the proposed rule included 

the analytical approach for widespread use determinations, where states use this analytical 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 973
39

approach to establish widespread use they should be authorized to discontinue use of Stage II 

requirements without any need for review or approval by EPA.

Response: EPA recognizes that some states in the OTR are implementing Stage II 

controls to meet both section 182(b)(3) (that requires Stage II in Serious and above ozone 

nonattainment areas) and section 184(b)(2) (that requires all OTR attainment and nonattainment 

areas to implement measures that achieve emissions reduction comparable to those achieved by 

Stage II); others are implementing Stage II controls in order to meet section 184(b)(2) alone. As 

previously explained, today’s final rule takes no action with respect to CAA section 184(b)(2). 

Since ORVR is independently required under section 202(a)(6), simply treating it as a 

comparable measure that an OTR SIP must additionally contain would arguably render the 

184(b)(2) requirement superfluous, which would not be a permissible statutory interpretation. 

However, what has changed is the expected level of emissions reductions that Stage II programs 

can obtain, in light of the fact that in the OTR areas, Stage II systems (or other comparable 

measures) were fully implemented more than a decade ago and ORVR is now in force with 

ORVR-equipped vehicles phasing in at the rate of 3-4 percent of the fleet each calendar year. 

Thus, the factual circumstances influencing EPA’s estimate of what level of emissions 

reductions Stage II now obtains, and what reductions are therefore “comparable” to those 

achieved by Stage II, incremental to ORVR, are different today compared to the mid-1990s. 

Therefore, in a separate guidance document, EPA is updating its estimate of what emissions 

reductions are needed to be comparable to those obtained by Stage II. This issue will be further 

addressed in EPA’s anticipated updated guidance titled (tentative), "Guidance on Removing 

Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing 

Comparable Measures.” This guidance will be issued some time after the publication of this 

rulemaking, but is not part of this final rulemaking.

We share the commenter’s concerns regarding Stage II efficiency. Many Stage II 

installations have been in place for twenty years or more, Much of the above ground hardware is 

now approaching the second replacement cycle EPA projected in its initial Stage II technical 

guidance document.20 However, we believe this is an issue best addressed in the SIP revision 

process because that is where the inspection, testing, and maintenance provisions for the GDF 

owners/operators and the inspection and enforcement requirements for the states were identified. 

States are encouraged to review and as needed, update the Stage II efficiency value used in this 

assessment considering their inspection and enforcement resource commitments. Through this 

revision the state can adjust its Stage II efficiency if necessary and address ORVR/Stage II 

incompatibility. Some Stage II in-use efficiency data is provided in the references cited below.21

 

20

 See Table B-15 in the EPA report “Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Refueling Emission Regulations 

for Gasoline-Fueled Motor Vehicles – Volume 1”, EPA-450/3-87-001a, July 1987.

21 “Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems Issues Paper,” U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

August, 2004, “Analysis of Future Option’s for Connecticut’s Gasoline Dispensing Facility Vapor Control 

Program,” Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, December 2011, “Draft Vapor 

Recovery Test Report,” CARB and CAPCOA, April, 1999, “Performance of Balance Vapor Recovery Systems at 

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,” San Diego Air Pollution Control District, May 18, 2000.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 974
40

EPA understands that making the Stage II waiver automatic, without the need to revise 

SIPs, would shorten the time before a state could act to allow GDF owners/operators to 

decommission their Stage II installations. However, it is not a possible result under the 

cooperative federalism approach of the CAA, under which states first adopt control strategies 

under state law and then submit those for incorporation by EPA into federal law. States 

currently have their Stage II programs established in their own legislation and regulations, and 

EPA does not have the unilateral power to alter state law. Moreover, where states have 

submitted their laws to EPA and EPA has approved them into SIPs, the only way to remove 

those state law provisions from SIPs is for states to later seek such SIP revisions through new 

submissions, which EPA would then act on under CAA section 110. In addition, when a state 

wishes to remove the requirements for Stage II, the CAA requires EPA to ensure that such an 

action would not interfere with other applicable CAA requirements under section 110(l), which 

precludes the Administrator from approving a SIP revision if it would interfere with applicable 

CAA requirements (including attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS). Some states 

may find that by removing Stage II requirements they are reducing the overall level of reductions 

for which they have previously obtained credit. Such states would need to show that foregoing 

any additional VOC emissions reductions resulting from Stage II would not interfere with 

attaining and maintaining the ozone NAAQS in violation of section 110(l). EPA is providing 

additional guidance to the states to facilitate completion of these analyses, although that guidance 

is not part of today’s final rule.

Comment: Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0046, 0049, 0051 and 0052) 

believed that if Stage II controls are mandated in the OTR for several more years, it will lead to a 

net emissions increase. The commenter explained that when an ORVR equipped vehicle is 

fueled at a Stage II equipped service station, a lack of compatibility between the two controls 

may actually cause emission reduction of the two systems together to be less than the emission 

reduction achieved by either system alone. The commenter contended that by removing Stage II, 

states would actually be reducing the amount of emissions because a substantial majority of cars 

on the road will have ORVR and will increase as older vehicles continue to be phased out. The 

commenter assumed that if EPA does not revise its section 184(b)(2) guidance for “comparable” 

measures, states in the OTR will need to achieve additional emissions reductions in order to 

offset the removal of Stage II. The commenter encouraged EPA to clearly state that this 

reduction in emissions from the removal of Stage II can act as an offset for purposes of the 

comparability analysis. In other words the vapor emissions that would result if Stage II and 

ORVR were used in conjunction with one another should be deducted from the total emission 

reductions states would otherwise need to achieve in implementing another “comparable” 

emissions reduction policy. The commenter also recommended that the guidance contain 

detailed data on the percentage of vehicles on the road projected to have ORVR systems that 

would be used in the comparability analysis.

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 975
41

Response: We acknowledge the points raised by the commenters, although they are not 

directly relevant to the ORVR widespread use finding and waiver of the section 182(b)(3) 

requirement that is the subject of this rulemaking. Part of the purpose for developing the 

separate section 184(b)(2) guidance released after the publishing of this final rule is to describe 

these kinds of concerns and address how they might be handled in future SIPs.

Comment: Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0032, 0046, 0049, 0051 and 0052) 

indicated that in 1995, EPA released a study identifying control measures capable of achieving 

emission reductions “comparable” to those achievable by Stage II vehicle refueling controls in 

the OTR.22 The commenter pointed out that in the study, EPA interpreted section 184(b)(2) as 

saying only measures not already prescribed under the CAA can be considered “comparable” 

measures sufficient to eliminate the Stage II requirement for areas in the OTR. The commenters

concluded that under EPA’s interpretation, ORVR controls cannot be considered a “comparable” 

measure because ORVR systems area already required under section 202(a)(6). The commenters

urged EPA to reconsider this interpretation. The commenters further alleged that it is not 

reasonable to interpret the statute as saying a technology designed to replace Stage II is not 

comparable to Stage II. The commenters asserted that such an interpretation ignores the plain 

and contextual meaning of the statute. The commenters added that by requiring areas in the 

OTR to implement Stage II or policies that achieve emission reductions “comparable” to Stage 

II, Congress wanted states to achieve mechanisms not already in place. The commenters further 

stated that this is to be distinguished from mechanisms not already prescribed under the statute. 

The commenter contended that when the 1995 study was released, ORVR standards were 

promulgated less than one year earlier. The commenters indicated that automobile 

manufacturers generally did not begin installing ORVR on new passenger cars until 1998 when 

40 percent of new cars were required to have ORVR. Since 2000, all new cars have been 

required to be equipped with ORVR, and all light duty trucks and vans have been so required 

since 2003. The commenters concluded that under the CAA, states in the OTR could not point 

to ORVR to avoid requiring Stage II in 1995 because ORVR was not yet in place, not because 

ORVR was already prescribed under the statute. The commenters stated their belief that ORVR 

was designed to phase out the Stage II requirement, not augment it.

 The commenters pointed out that EPA stated in the July 15, 2011, preamble that when 

an ORVR vehicle is fueled at a service station equipped with vacuum assist Stage II vapor 

recovery system, a lack of compatibility between the two controls may actually cause the 

emission reduction of the two systems together to be less than the emission reduction achieved 

by either system alone. The commenters offered a 2007 study published by the Northeast States 

for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), titled ”Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery

 

22 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Stage II Comparability Study for the Northeast Ozone 

Transport Region.” 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 976
42

Systems Analysis of Widespread Use,” noted the potential for significant excess emissions 

throughout the northeast as early as 2012 caused by the incompatibility of the two systems.23

The commenters also offered that beyond the increasing prevalence of ORVR controls, 

interpreting the word “comparable” in section 184(b)(2) as referring to measures not already

prescribed under the CAA disregards EPA’s own control efficiency data. The commenters

contended that according to EPA, ORVR-equipped vehicles achieve 98 percent control 

efficiency, while Stage II alone achieves just 77.4 percent control efficiency. The commenters

indicated their belief that ORVR has infiltrated the market to the point that the EPA no longer 

believes Stage II will be necessary within two years, largely because ORVR is more successful at 

reducing emissions than Stage II. Nonetheless, under EPA’s current interpretation of section 

184(b)(2), states in the OTR are currently unable to point to ORVR’s prevalence as achieving 

“comparable” emissions reductions. The commenters believed this is arbitrary and 

unreasonable. The commenters further speculated that EPA intends to provide additional 

guidance for OTR states on how they can conduct updated comparability analyses based on the 

1995 study for purposes of removing Stage II under section 184(b)(2). The commenters

recommended that EPA should revise its interpretation of the word “comparable” in that section. 

The commenters asserted that until EPA releases new guidance that clarifies its interpretation of 

the word “comparable” in section 184(b)(2), they lack sufficient information to provide EPA

with informed comments on the Proposal. The commenters further maintain that if EPA does 

not revise its outdated interpretation of the word “comparable” in section 184(b)(2), the proposed 

rule will be of little benefit to refueling facilities located in the OTR. The commenters offered 

their belief that cash-strapped states will spend their limited resources on independent 

comparability analyses and revise their SIPs to eliminate the Stage II requirement. The 

commenters conclude that if the EPA updates its interpretation to reflect fifteen years of

progress, facilities in the OTR stand to reap substantial benefit.

Response: See our earlier responses to similar comments regarding the separate and 

related, but not directly relevant, CAA section 184(b)(2) issues. Today’s rulemaking takes no 

final action under section 184(b)(2), but instead only under section 202(a)(6) to find widespread 

use of ORVR and to exercise our express authority to waive the specific section 182(b)(3) 

requirement. The commenter is free to re-raise its section 184(b)(2) concerns in the context of 

future SIP action implementing that section. EPA acknowledges the concerns raised by the 

commenters with regards to comparable measures and the OTR states. The NPRM discussed 

this issue by describing the emissions of concern as being those captured by Stage II incremental 

to ORVR as opposed to all emission reductions from Stage II in the absence of ORVR, as was 

the case in the mid-1990’s. What has changed is the expected level of emissions reductions that 

Stage II programs can obtain, in light of the fact that in the OTR areas, Stage II systems (or other 

comparable measures) were fully implemented more than a decade ago and ORVR is now in 

 

23 NESCAUM, “Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Systems Analysis of Widespread Use,” Appendix B and C, 

August 20, 2007. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/onboard-refueling-vapor-recovery-systems-analysis-ofwidespread-use/

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 977
43

force with ORVR-equipped vehicles phasing in at the rate of 3-4 percent of the fleet each 

calendar year. Thus, the factual circumstances influencing EPA’s estimate of what level of 

emissions reductions are “comparable” to those achieved by Stage II, incremental to ORVR, are

different today compared to the mid-1990s. This issue will be further addressed in EPA’s 

guidance which will be issued after publication of this rulemaking, but is not part of the final 

rule.

 VI. Comments Regarding Decommissioning of Stage Vapor Recovery Systems

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076- 0037) insisted that where Stage II 

equipment is decommissioned, steps must be taken to minimize leaks and fugitive emissions, all 

of which may result in increased exposure to air toxics or groundwater and soil contamination. 

NESCAUM urges EPA to provide guidance to ensure that Stage II decommissioning occurs in a 

manner that minimizes potential for vapor releases from underground piping at facilities that 

remove their Stage II systems. This guidance should encourage state air offices to coordinate 

with their state counterparts that manage underground storage tanks to ensure that consistent 

procedures are in place to address liquid and vapor leak issues associated with decommissioning.

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0055) contends that for regions interested in 

decommissioning Stage II recovery systems, EPA must provide clear implementation guidance 

describing the CAA provisions that apply depending on an area’s circumstances (i.e., Ozone 

Transport Region [OTR] states, states opting in to Stage II programs, states with Stage II 

recovery systems prior to 1990 and states with Stage II as a result of the 1990 CAA 

amendments), since the applicable CAA requirements vary depending on when Stage II was 

initially implemented or whether a particular area is part of the OTR. Although some states have 

successfully decommissioned Stage II recovery systems through the SIP revision process, for 

those areas eligible to decommission Stage II, the commenter believes EPA must still provide the 

2 elements minimally needed for a SIP revision, including what is needed for areas subject to 

CAA section 110(l) and for those subject to section 193. The resulting SIP process should be a 

streamlined one, consistent with the principles underlying the ongoing NACAA-ECOS-EPA SIP 

Reform Workgroup.

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0043) pointed out that EPA did not provide any 

guidance on the proper decommissioning or removal of Stage II equipment from facilities. The 

commenter expressed concern that Stage II systems be decommissioned properly and requested 

that EPA provide proper shut down procedures and final inspection criteria to certify a proper 

shut down.

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0042) requested that EPA provide further 

information on the overall expectations and steps needed for states to be granted a waiver and 

properly retire a Stage II program. The commenter stated that the guidance should include the 

following: 1) a listing of specific steps necessary for gasoline dispensing facilities to 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 978
44

decommission their existing Stage II equipment, 2) a description of the State’s role in the 

decommissioning procedure and outline any required follow-up with the affected GDFs.

Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0048) requested that EPA should be clear in the 

final rule that the process for physically decommissioning the Stage II equipment should be left 

to the individual states and regions and not dictated in a rule or guidance document by EPA.

Response: EPA understands the request for clear guidelines for decommissioning Stage 

II systems safely and effectively. EPA has often referenced that industry association codes and 

standards be followed (where applicable) to ensure that Stage II systems are properly designed, 

constructed, installed, and, in this case, dismantled or decommissioned. Industry codes and 

standards provide a means for improving methods or developing alternative methods of Stage II 

system decommissioning and we encourage States and local agencies to reference these codes. 

EPA realizes that industry codes and standards may be updated periodically and EPA also 

recognizes that State and local requirements may supersede industry codes and standards or be 

inherently more stringent. EPA regulations do not require the use of a particular issue of any

code. EPA encourages owners/operators to use the version of the code or standard that is current 

at the time the Stage II decommissioning activity occurs. The Petroleum Equipment Institute 

(PEI) and at least four states have recommended practices or specific requirements for 

decommissioning Stage II systems. The PEI guidance, “Recommended Practices for Installation 

and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle Fueling Sites, PEI/RP300-09,” is especially

instructive as it was developed by industry experts with a focus on regulatory compliance and 

safety. It basically contains the steps which involve dismantling Stage II hardware and applies to 

both balance and vacuum assist type systems. Please be aware that there may be other codes or 

standards not listed here that may be used to ensure proper Stage II decommissioning.

Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0060) described themselves as a 

company that has valid emissions monitoring data from sites where Stage II vapor return has 

been disconnected. The commenter supplied data that showed the effectiveness of conducting 

continuous pressure monitoring inside storage tanks at locations where Stage II vapor recovery 

has been removed. 

Response: EPA is encouraged that continuous pressure monitoring inside storage tanks 

can be very effective in monitoring the liquid and vapor containment integrity of the system. 

EPA encourages the commenter to make available their technology to the states to consider in 

SIP actions and for the GDF operators to follow federal, state and local requirements for tank 

integrity testing. We did not propose nor at this point are we considering any mandatory integrity 

testing beyond that contained in 40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCCC.

 VII. Comments Regarding EPA’s Proposed Estimated Cost Savings

Comment: Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0046, 0049, 0050, 0051 and 0052),

estimated the cost for purchase and installation of new Stage II equipment to be $50,000 per 

retail site, exclusive of annual maintenance costs. The commenters further stated that overall 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 979
45

escalating costs at retail locations is increasingly burdensome for small business petroleum 

marketers and largely unnecessary given what the commenters believed is current attainment of 

widespread use of ORVR nationwide. In regards to the Stage II waiver, the commenters stated 

that the waiver should be self-effective on June 30, 2013, when nationwide widespread use is set 

to occur, rather than conditioned on the lengthy process involving the preparation, submission 

and approval of a SIP for the NAAQS. The commenters added that this action would be far more 

likely to achieve the Administration’s regulatory and cost-savings objectives, rather than 

requiring states with strained resources to develop and submit a SIP revision.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for providing support for the waiver of CAA 

Section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery requirements. EPA also recognized a cost savings in 

the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems and we share the commenter’s interest 

in a quick and orderly decommissioning of Stage II installations and avoidance of installations at 

new GDFs where they may be in place for a very short time assuming such actions meet state 

requirements. 

EPA understands that making the Stage II waiver automatic, without the need to revise 

SIPs would shorten the time before a state could act to allow GDF owners/operators to 

decommission their Stage II installations. However, as previously explained, such an approach 

is not possible under the cooperative federalism scheme of the CAA, which depends upon state 

adoption and submission of proposed SIP revisions before EPA can revise any SIP that currently 

requires Stage II under state law. Moreover, when a state wishes to remove from its EPAapproved SIP its own state law requirements for Stage II, the CAA requires EPA to ensure that 

such an action would not interfere with other applicable CAA requirements under section 110(l), 

which precludes the Administrator from approving a SIP revision if it would interfere with 

applicable CAA requirements (including attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS). 

Of course, even after EPA takes final action to find widespread use of ORVR has 

occurred and issues a waiver of the section 182(b)(3) requirement, states remain free under CAA 

section 116 to choose to implement Stage II programs in any area, and would not be forced to 

remove existing Stage II provisions from a SIP. States may choose to continue to require or 

enhance Stage II controls in a particular area or areas assuming they continue to achieve air 

quality benefits. 

 Comment: Commenter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0036) believed that EPA’s rule 

changes did not address the incompatibility of ORVR and State II vapor recovery systems. The 

commenter stated that EPA failed to highlight the unique differences between the two types of 

State II vapor recovery systems, the balanced system and the assisted systems. The commenter 

offered inherent advantages in the balance system and stated that EPA proposal neglected to 

implement programs that can lower a station’s operating costs and save substantial quantities of 

gasoline by preventing air pollution. The commenter contends that funds would be better spent 

converting existing Stage II assist and balance sites into enhanced vapor recovery (EVR) 

systems. The commenter claimed EVR systems would save over 66 million gallons of gasoline 

between mid-2013 and the end of 2020. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 980
46

Response: In the proposed rule, EPA believes it addressed the incompatibility of ORVR 

and Stage II vapor recovery systems by indicating that when an ORVR vehicle is fueled at a 

GDF equipped with a vacuum assist Stage II vapor recovery, a lack of compatibility between the 

two controls may actually cause the emission reduction of the two systems together to be less 

than the emission reduction achieved by either system alone. This issue was discussed in the 

NPRM and documents related to this issue were placed in the docket at that time. A guidance 

document related to this issue, to help states address this issue in future SIP actions, will be 

released subsequent to this final rule. EPA proposed a waiver of the requirements of section 

182(b)(3) and did not propose a waiver of a certain type of Stage II vapor recovery technology in 

favor of another Stage II technology. In fact the section 182(b)(3) requirement does not specify

which type of Stage II hardware should be used. This specification was left to the affected 

states. EPA is taking final action to find widespread use of ORVR has occurred and has issued a 

waiver of the section 182(b)(3) requirement. The waiver of the section 182(b)(3) requirement 

does not depend upon whether an area has chosen to use a balance system or a vacuum assist 

system. States remain free under CAA section 116 to choose to implement Stage II programs in 

any area, and would not be forced to remove existing Stage II provisions from a SIP. Those 

States may implement any particular type of technology they may choose. In the draft 

Regulatory Support Document, EPA’s intent was to associate national cost savings with the 

decommissioning and removal of Stage II equipment. However, EPA has not prohibited any area 

that maintains its Stage II requirements from allowing investment into enhanced Stage II systems 

or any other system which enhances emission controls at GDFs.

Comment: Commenters (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0046, 0049, 0051, and 0052)

welcomed EPA’s desire to eliminate Stage II vapor recovery requirements. NACS has urged 

EPA move in this direction for many years. However, the commenters articulated that if the 

Proposed Rule were finalized as written, it would achieve only 41 percent of the 

Administration’s desired savings, leaving over $52,000,000 of the projected annual savings 

unrealized. The commenters indicated that 15,937 retail fuel outlets are within the OTR. The 

commenters asserted that this is approximately 59 percent of the total number of dispensing 

facilities (outside California) that are required to have Stage II vapor recovery systems. The 

commenters claimed that based on EPA’s estimated cost savings, affected stations would save 

approximately $3,277 annually if Stage II requirements were eliminated. The commenters

determined that the total dollars saved by eliminating Stage II in the OTR would be 

approximately $52,225,000. The commenters concluded that according to EPA’s estimate for the 

total savings achieved by the Proposal ($88 million), nearly 60 percent of such savings would be 

lost if areas in the OTR are still required to mandate Stage II controls.

Response: EPA’s analysis indicates that there are about 17,000 public, government, and 

private GDFs in the OTR with Stage II. This count varies almost daily as current GDFs close and 

new ones are opened. This final rule will allow states with Serious and above ozone 

nonattainment areas that are now required by CAA section 182(b)(3) to have Stage II gasoline 

vapor recovery equipment on these GDFs to be relieved of this requirement after the waiver date. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 981
47

States in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) may already choose, in lieu of Stage II 

requirements in areas that are cleaner than Serious ozone nonattainment, to adopt measures to 

achieve emissions reductions that are comparable to those achievable by Stage II. After the 

Stage II waiver is effective, Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas in the OTR would also 

be able to make this choice. Separate from this rulemaking, EPA will develop additional 

updated guidance for OTR states on determining “comparability” of emissions reductions in light 

of continuing growth of the vehicle fleet equipped with ORVR. We believe this guidance will 

facilitate state analysis regarding comparable reductions if they choose to both act on the Stage II 

waiver to revise their section 182(b)(3) SIPs and to revise their section 184(b)(2) SIPs. EPA’s 

estimate of potential cost savings was based on the assumption that states in the OTR currently

subject to the section 182(b)(3) requirement would be able to remove Stage II and adopt 

comparable measures as needed, and we still believe this is a valid view. Indeed such actions are 

now underway to varying degrees in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 982
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 983
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 984
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 985
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 986
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 987
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 988
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 989
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 990
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 991
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 992
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 993
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 994
Attachment 30

Proposed Rule, Second Notice,

Opinion and Order of the Board

By J.D. O’Leary

dated November 7, 2013

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 995
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 996
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 7, 2013 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

VAPOR RECOVERY RULES: 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 

PARTS 201, 218, and 219

)

)

)

)

)

 R13-18 

 (Rulemaking - Air)

Proposed Rule. Second Notice. 

 

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. O’Leary):

Today the Board proposes amendments to its air pollution rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201, 

218, and 219 for second-notice review by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) 

(5 ILCS 100/5-40(c) (2012)). After JCAR’s second-notice review, the Board intends to adopt 

final amendments and file them with the Secretary of State to provide a calendar year 2013 

effective date for these amendments. See 5 ILCS 100/5-40(d) (2012). 

The amendments include the phase-out of Stage II vapor recovery systems at the pump 

nozzles of gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area 

(NAA). The phase-out is based upon the determination of the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA), pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 

(42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(3)), that there is widespread use of on-board refueling vapor recovery 

(ORVR) throughout the national motor vehicle fleet. The phase-out is further based upon 

decreased emission reductions resulting from simultaneously using ORVR and incompatible 

Stage II systems. 

This rulemaking was initiated on March 18, 2013, when the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (IEPA) filed a rulemaking proposal under Sections 10, 27, and 28 of the 

Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/10, 27, 28 (2012)). The Board issued an order 

on April 4, 2013, accepting IEPA’s proposal for hearing and granting IEPA’s motion for 

expedited review, which accompanied the proposal. To allow the State of Illinois to begin 

realizing additional emission reduction benefits, IEPA asked the Board to adopt final

amendments by the end of the 2013 calendar year. Along with further reducing emissions, the 

amendments will (1) allow existing GDFs to begin decommissioning Stage II systems and (2) 

eliminate the requirement for new GDFs to install and operate Stage II systems. 

 

In granting IEPA’s motion for expedited review, the Board stated that it would, subject to 

available resources, “endeavor to adopt final rules by the end of this calendar year.” Vapor 

Recovery Rules: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 201, 218, and 219, R13-18, slip op. at 

3 (Apr. 4, 2013) (First Notice). The Board’s April 4, 2013 order accordingly adopted the 

proposed amendments for first notice without commenting on their merits. 

First-notice publication of the amendments appeared in the Illinois Register on May 10, 

2013 (37 Ill. Reg. 6028 (Part 201); 37 Ill. Reg. 6054 (Part 218); 37 Ill. Reg. 6083 (Part 219)). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 997
Section 5-40(b) of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (IAPA) (5 ILCS 100/5-40(b) 

(2012)) requires the Board to receive any public comments for at least 45 days from the date of 

first-notice publication. The Board received public comments from IEPA; the Illinois Petroleum 

Marketers Association and the Illinois Association of Convenience Stores (collectively, IPMA); 

and ARID Technologies, Inc. (ARID). The Board also conducted two public hearings during 

this rulemaking. The Board at second notice makes only minor changes to the first-notice rule 

language. 

 

In this opinion, the Board first addresses several procedural matters. The Board then 

discusses the proposed amendments and, as necessary, makes findings. The second-notice rule 

language is set forth in the order following this opinion. 

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

 This section of the opinion has five parts, the first five of which address different 

procedural aspects of the rulemaking. In the first part, the Board discusses the filing of IEPA’s 

proposal and accompanying motions, as well as the Board’s first notice (p. 2). Second, the 

Board discusses the two public hearings held (pp. 2-4). Third, the Board discusses the public 

comments filed and whether to strike seven late submissions of ARID (pp. 4-7). Fourth, the 

Board discusses its request for an economic impact study (p. 7). Fifth and finally, the Board 

provides a table of acronyms used in this opinion (pp. 7-8). 

IEPA Proposal and Motions; First Notice

On March 18, 2013, IEPA filed its rulemaking proposal, which included a Statement of 

Reasons (SR) and a Technical Support Document (TSD). IEPA’s proposal was accompanied by 

a motion for expedited review and a motion for waiver of copy requirements. On April 4, 2013, 

the Board accepted the Agency’s proposal for hearing and granted IEPA’s motion for expedited 

review. The Board found that “the emission reduction benefits for the State and economic 

savings for affected [GDFs], as described by IEPA, justify establishing a January 1, 2014 starting 

date to phase-out the Chicago NAA Stage II program.” First Notice at 3. In accord with 

expedited review, the Board adopted the proposed amendments for first notice without 

commenting on their merits. 

In its April 4, 2013 order, the Board reserved ruling upon IEPA’s motion for waiver of 

copy requirements and directed IEPA to provide, by May 6, 2013, further information in support 

of that motion. On May 2, IEPA filed its response to the Board’s order. The Board grants 

IEPA’s waiver motion. 

The first-notice amendments were published in the Illinois Register on May 10, 2013. 

See 37 Ill. Reg. 6028, 6054, 6083 (May 10, 2013). 

 

Public Hearings

The Board held two public hearings in this rulemaking. The first hearing took place in 

Springfield on May 8, 2013, and the second hearing took place in Chicago on June 5, 2013. The 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 998
transcripts of the Springfield hearing (Tr.1) and the Chicago hearing (Tr.2) were received by the 

Board on May 13 and June 12, 2013, respectively, and promptly placed in the Clerk’s Office OnLine (COOL) on the Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us. 

On April 24, 2013, IEPA timely filed its pre-filed testimony for the first hearing. To 

expedite the hearing process, four pages of Board staff questions for IEPA’s witnesses were 

attached to a hearing officer order of May 6, 2013. Two persons testified on behalf of IEPA at 

the first hearing: Darwin Burkhart, Manager of the Clean Air Programs of the Division of 

Mobile Source Programs within IEPA’s Bureau of Air; and Ross Cooper, Permit Engineer in the 

Permit Section of the Division of Air Pollution Control within IEPA’s Bureau of Air. Also 

appearing on behalf of IEPA were the following: Chuck Gebhardt, Manager of the Technical 

Services Section of IEPA’s Division of Mobile Source Programs; and Michael Rogers of IEPA’s

Technical Services Section. 

One person testified on behalf of the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) at the first 

hearing: Fred Schneller, Division Manager for OSFM’s Petroleum Chemical Safety Division. 

Also appearing on behalf of OSFM was: Scott Johnson. One person testified on behalf of the 

Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) at the first hearing: Doug Rathbun, Bureau Chief for 

IDOA’s Weights and Measures Bureau. 

The hearing officer entered three exhibits into the record at the first hearing: 

• Pre-filed Testimony of IEPA’s Darwin Burkhart for First Hearing (Exh.1 or Burkhart 

PFT1); 

• Pre-filed Testimony of IEPA’s Ross Cooper for First Hearing (Exh. 2 or Cooper PFT1); 

and

• “Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES),” User Guide for MOVES2010b, USEPA, 

Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-

B-12-00lb (June 2012) (Exh. 3 or MOVES User Guide). 

IEPA timely filed its pre-filed testimony for the second hearing on May 28, 2013. To 

expedite the hearing process, two pages of Board staff questions for IEPA’s witnesses were 

attached to a hearing officer order of May 31, 2013. Two persons testified on behalf of IEPA at 

the second hearing: Mr. Burkhart and Mr. Gebhardt. Also appearing on behalf of IEPA were the 

following: Mr. Cooper, Mr. Rogers, and Jerry Clark, Clean Air Programs of IEPA’s Division of 

Mobile Source Programs. Also testifying at the second hearing was Jeff Dzierzanowski with 

Source North America Corporation. 

The hearing officer entered three exhibits into the record at the second hearing: 

• Pre-filed Testimony of IEPA’s Darwin Burkhart for Second Hearing (Exh. 4 or Burkhart 

PFT2)

• Pre-filed Testimony of IEPA’s Chuck Gebhardt for Second Hearing (Exh. 5 or Gebhardt 

PFT2); and 

• Links to Two Websites for “Selected Gasoline Dispenser Training and Certification 

Courses” (Exh. 6). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 999
By order of June 13, 2013, the hearing officer entered two additional exhibits into the record: 

• Screen Shots for the Two Websites Identified in Exhibit 6 (Exh. 7); and 

• Run Specifications, Cook County, Years 2007, 2014, and 2020, Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator (MOVES2O lob), Printed through MOVES2OI Ob from Attachment B 

(Compact Disc) to IEPA’s Technical Support Document filed on March 18, 2013 (Exh. 

8).

 

Public Comments

IEPA (PC1) and IPMA (PC2) 

At the end of the second hearing, the hearing officer established a deadline of July 8, 

2013, for filing public comments. The deadline was reiterated in the hearing officer’s order of 

June 13, 2013. That order also posed questions for IEPA to address in public comment. IEPA 

filed a public comment on June 27, 2013 (PC1). 

On the final day for public comments, July 8, 2013, IPMA filed a comment (PC2) 

through its Executive Vice President, William J. Fleischli. IPMA had not previously participated 

actively in the rulemaking. In its public comment, IPMA proposed that the current requirement 

for new gasoline stations in the Chicago NAA to install Stage II vapor recovery equipment be 

eliminated immediately upon the effective date of the rule amendments, rather than eliminating 

the requirement only for new stations that commence operating on or after January 1, 2014, as 

proposed at first notice. PC2 at 1. IPMA likewise proposed that existing gasoline stations in the 

Chicago NAA be allowed to decommission Stage II vapor recovery equipment immediately upon 

the effective date of the rules, instead of having to wait until January 1, 2014, as proposed at first 

notice. PC2 at 1-2. IPMA primarily asserted that an earlier effective date to eliminate Stage II 

requirements would have a positive economic effect for Illinois. According to IPMA, during the 

last five months of calendar year 2013, petroleum marketers faced with maintaining existing or 

installing new Stage II equipment in Illinois would either not invest in Illinois stations or simply 

invest elsewhere. Id. 

 

IEPA (PC3) in Response to IPMA (PC2) 

By order of July 16, 2013, the hearing officer directed IEPA file a public comment by 

July 31, 2013, in response to IPMA’s public comment. IEPA did so on July 31, 2013 (PC3). 

IEPA explains that it spoke with IPMA about the latter’s comment and 

understands that IPMA’s concerns have been addressed. [IEPA] has committed 

to IPMA that it will continue working with IPMA should any compliance issues 

arise in a way that will be understanding of this situation and will seek to 

expeditiously and amicably resolve any such issues. As a result, [IEPA]

understands that an immediate effective date is no longer a request of or desired

by IPMA and that IPMA is in agreement with this statement. PC3 at 1. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1000
Attached to IEPA’s PC3 is a July 31, 2013 letter from IPMA in which IPMA’s Executive Vice 

President, Mr. Fleischli, confirms these representations of IEPA. PC3, Exh. 1 at 1. 

ARID (PC4, PC5) and Responsive Comments of IPMA (PC6) and IEPA (PC7) 

On September 9, 2013, ARID Technologies, Inc. (ARID), a Wheaton, Illinois designer 

and manufacturer of vapor processors, sent an email message with attachments to the Board’s 

Clerk (PC4), accompanied by ARID’s request to accept the late submission. On September 10, 

2013, ARID sent another email message with an attachment to the Board’s Clerk as an 

addendum to PC4. ARID had not previously participated in this rulemaking. On September 16, 

2013, IEPA filed a motion to strike ARID’s PC4, including the addendum. On September 18, 

2013, IPMA filed a response opposing ARID’s request that PC4 be accepted into the record. 

ARID submitted an email message to the Clerk on September 20, 2013, opposing IEPA's motion 

to strike. On September 23, 2013, ARID sent an email message with attachments to the Clerk

(PC5). 

In an order of September 30, 2013, the hearing officer first construed both ARID’s 

motion to add and IEPA’s motion to strike as encompassing not only PC4, but also PC5, to 

promote administrative efficiency and avoid undue delay. The hearing officer then denied 

IEPA’s motion to strike and granted ARID’s motion to allow ARID’s PC 4 and PC5 into the 

record for the Board’s consideration. On his own motion, however, the hearing officer struck a 

video file attachment that ARID submitted (as part of PC4 on September 9, 2013) because the 

video was not readily viewable. PC4 is 87 pages long and PC5 is 26 pages long. 

In addition, the hearing officer’s order directed IEPA to file a public comment in 

response to ARID’s PC 4 and PC5 by October 11, 2013. The order also allowed any other 

participant to file a public comment that is responsive to PC4 and PC5 by the same deadline. 

The order added: “In so ruling, the hearing officer does not contemplate granting any further 

extensions of the public comment period.” Hearing Officer Order, R13-18 at 1 (Sept. 30, 2013). 

On October 11, 2013, pursuant to the hearing officer’s order, IPMA filed a public 

comment (PC6) and IEPA filed a public comment (PC7). 

Other Submissions from ARID 

On September 30, 2013, ARID submitted an email twice to the Board’s Clerk, each with 

different attachments (9/30 ARID email). The 9/30 ARID email purports to submit four 

attachments “within the prescribed 14 day time period” in addition to offering “a comment.” 

9/30 ARID email at 1; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d) (any response to motion is due no 

later than 14 days after service). On October 1, 2013, ARID submitted another email to the 

Clerk (10/1 ARID email), referencing the hearing officer’s September 30, 2013 order and 

purporting to provide a link for the video file stricken by the hearing officer. On October 16, 

2013, ARID submitted an additional email to the Clerk with attachments (10/16 ARID email), 

purportedly responding to either or both IPMA’s PC6 and IEPA’s PC7. Finally, on November 6, 

2013, ARID submitted three more emails to the Clerk, including another attachment and 

purported link for a video (collectively, 11/7 ARID emails). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1001
For the reasons below, the Board declines to consider these seven submissions from 

ARID (collectively, Additional ARID Submissions). Initially, the Board notes that in allowing 

ARID’s PC4 and PC5, the hearing officer’s order of September 30, 2013, re-opened the 

comment period solely to receive responses to PC4 and PC5. Accordingly, the Additional ARID 

Submissions were not authorized by the hearing officer’s order. Additionally, to the extent part 

of the 9/30 ARID email could be characterized as a supplement to ARID’s response to IEPA’s 

motion to strike, the supplement is unnecessary as the hearing officer had already denied IEPA’s 

motion. 

Further, unlike ARID’s PC4 and PC5, ARID did not receive the prior approval of the 

Clerk or the hearing officer to file, by email, the Additional ARID Submissions. Prior approval 

is required by the Board’s procedural rules. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.302(d). The Board has 

great interest in maintaining its dockets in an orderly manner, not only for its own consideration 

but also for any public inspection or Appellate Court review. Non-compliance with the Board’s 

filing requirements jeopardies this objective. 

It must also be emphasized that ARID failed to avail itself of numerous opportunities to 

timely participate in this rulemaking, despite ample public notice. For example, ARID could 

have cross-examined IEPA witnesses and provided its own testimony at hearing, but did not. 

Before IEPA filed the rulemaking proposal, notice of the anticipated amendments appeared in 

the Illinois Register publication of the January 2013 Regulatory Agenda. See 36 Ill. Reg. 17951-

53, 17969-71 (Dec. 21, 2012). Since the proposal was filed in March 2013, information on this 

rulemaking has been posted on COOL. In May 2013, the first-notice amendments appeared in 

the Illinois Register. See 37 Ill. Reg. 6028, 6054, 6083 (May 10, 2013). Notice of the May 8 

and June 5, 2013 hearings appeared in newspapers throughout the State in late March and early 

April 2013. Notice of the July 8, 2013 deadline for filing public comments was provided both at 

the second hearing and through the June 17, 2013 order of the hearing officer. 

Over the strenuous objections of IEPA and IPMA, the hearing officer allowed ARID’s 

PC4 and PC5, which were submitted some 60 days late. PC4 is 87 pages long and PC5 is 26 

pages long. The Board finds that the hearing officer’s order has permitted ARID to substantially 

contribute to this rulemaking record. PC4 and PC5, along with the responsive comments of 

IEPA and IPMA, have been thoroughly considered by the Board, as discussed later in this 

opinion. That consideration, as well as the preceding motions necessitating hearing officer 

rulings, has delayed this proceeding. 

The delay has not prevented the Board from being in a position to adopt final 

amendments by the end of this calendar year, consistent with the Board’s grant of IEPA’s motion 

for expedited review. The Board finds, however, that allowing the Additional ARID 

Submissions, which exceed 400 pages in length, would unduly delay this rulemaking. See

Hearing Officer Order, R13-18 at 6 (Sept. 30, 2013) (“to allow the Board the opportunity to 

complete the rulemaking by the end of this calendar year pursuant to the Board’s April 4, 2013 

grant of IEPA’s motion for expedited review, the hearing officer does not contemplate further 

extending the public comment period”). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1002
When conducting any rulemaking, once the public hearing, notice, and comment period 

requirements have been fulfilled, the record must close at some point to allow the Board to 

render a decision based upon it. The IAPA requirement for a public comment period of at least 

45 days (5 ILCS 100/5-40(a) (2012)) was satisfied last June, but the hearing officer set a public 

comment deadline of July 8, 2013. The hearing officer has since re-opened the comment period 

three times, twice to solicit additional comment and once to allow ARID’s PC4 and PC5. A 

balance must be struck between information gathering and timely decision-making. The need for 

timely decision-making is heightened here because the Board has undertaken expedited review 

for compelling environmental and economic reasons. See First Notice, slip op. at 2-3. 

Under the circumstances detailed above, the Board, on its own motion, strikes the 

Additional ARID Submissions. The Board accordingly does not rely upon them in arriving at 

the second-notice amendments. 

Finally, in the 10/16 ARID email, ARID claims that it needs to defend its “reputation” 

against assertions purportedly made in either or both PC6 and PC7. 10/16 ARID email at 1. The 

Board notes that any such alleged assertions have played no part in the Board’s decision. 

Moreover, though the Board strikes the Additional ARID Submissions, the Board also directs the 

Clerk to leave the Additional ARID Submissions both physically present in the record and 

downloadable on COOL. The Board further directs the Clerk to mark each of the Additional 

ARID Submissions as “Stricken by the Board” and note the same in each corresponding docket 

entry. Accordingly, despite being stricken, the Additional ARID Submissions, including any 

defense of ARID’s reputation, remain available for public inspection. 

Economic Impact Study

As required by Section 27(b) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/27(b) (2012)), the Board requested 

that the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) conduct an economic 

impact study (EcIS) on the proposed rules. The Board’s EcIS request was hand-delivered to 

DCEO on April 8, 2013. On April 10, 2013, the Board received DCEO’s response. DCEO 

states that based upon its review of the Board’s request and in light of continuing fiscal 

constraints, DCEO would not conduct an EcIS. At the first hearing, the hearing officer noted the 

Board’s EcIS request and DCEO’s response, affording anyone the opportunity to testify. No one 

testified about DCEO’s response. Tr.1 at 71-72. 

Acronyms Used in this Opinion

 Acronyms used by the Board in this opinion include the following: 

CAA = Clean Air Act

CAAPP = Clean Air Act Permit Program

CARB = California Air Resources Board

GDFs = gasoline dispensing facilities

MOVES = MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

NAA = nonattainment area

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1003
NESHAP = National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

ORVR = on-board refueling vapor recovery 

RFP = Reasonable Further Progress

ROP = Rate of Progress

SIP = State Implementation Plan

STBL = storage tank breathing losses

UST = underground storage tank

VRS = vapor recovery systems

 

DISCUSSION

In this section of the opinion, the Board discusses the proposed amendments, the 

evidence and comments in the record, and the Board’s findings. The Board’s discussion 

proceeds as follows: 

 

• Overview of second-notice proposal (pp. 8-9) 

• Applicable air quality standards (pp. 9-10) 

• Stage II SIP revision (p. 10) 

• ORVR (pp. 10-11) 

• Vapor recovery systems (pp. 11-12) 

• Incompatibility of Stage II vacuum assist and ORVR (pp. 12-13) 

• Stage II waiver and widespread use of ORVR (p. 13) 

• MOVES modeling (p. 14) 

• Timing of implementation—“Phase-Out” of Stage II (p. 15) 

• CAA “anti-backsliding” provision (p. 16) 

• Contested issues—retaining Stage II and/or requiring UST vapor processors (pp. 16-27) 

• State and CAAPP permitting exemptions for GDFs (pp. 27-29) 

• Part-by-Part analysis (pp. 29-35) 

• Technical feasibility and economic reasonableness (pp. 35-39). 

Overview of Second-Notice Proposal 

The Board proposes second-notice amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 201 (applicable 

State-wide), Part 218 (applicable to the Chicago NAA), and Part 219 (applicable to the MetroEast NAA). 

Most significantly, the amendments proposed for second notice will phase out the 

Board’s requirements (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.586) for installing and maintaining vapor recovery 

equipment at GDFs (i.e., Stage II requirements) in the Chicago ozone NAA. SR at 1, 3. Stage I 

refers to “the entire gasoline distribution system that includes all facilities from and including the 

refinery to the end user, except for vehicle refueling (so-called Stage II).” 73 Fed. Reg. 35940 

(June 25, 2008). 

The phase-out of Stage II vapor recovery systems (VRS) is based upon USEPA’s 

determination that ORVR is widely used across the country and USEPA’s resulting waiver of the 

Stage II requirement of Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(3)). SR at 1. The 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1004
proposal to phase out the Stage II requirement affects those GDFs in the Chicago ozone NAA 

that are subject to Section 218.586 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.586), including retail gas stations, and 

private and commercial fuel facilities. PFT1 Burkhart at 1. Section 218.586 applies to any GDF 

that “dispenses an average monthly volume of more than 10,000 gallons of motor vehicle fuel 

per month.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.586(b). The proposed rules will phase out existing Stage II 

systems in the Chicago ozone NAA over a three-year period, requiring that decommissioning be 

complete by December 31, 2016. SR at 7, 15. 

Phasing out Stage II requirements in the Chicago ozone NAA will (1) allow the State of 

Illinois to realize additional emission reduction benefits, (2) allow existing GDFs in the Chicago 

ozone NAA to decommission Stage II systems starting on January 1, 2014, and (3) allow new 

GDFs locating in the Chicago ozone NAA on or after January 1, 2014, to avoid having to install 

and operate Stage II systems. SR at 1-2. 

This order also proposes amending State and federal Title V permitting regulations 

relating to fuel dispensing, including repealing the Stage I registration requirements. Finally, the 

proposed amendments include clarifications to Parts 201, 218, and 219. Id. 

The Board’s Stage I regulations apply in the Chicago NAA (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.583) 

and the Metro-East NAA (35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.583). The Board’s Stage II regulations apply 

in the Chicago NAA (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.586). SR at 26. 

IEPA’s TSD includes three lists of sources potentially affected by the proposed 

rulemaking. TSD, Atts. A, F, G. Attachment A to the TSD is a list of the thousands of GDFs in 

the Chicago NAA, including those subject to the Stage I registration requirement or the Stage II

maintenance requirement. SR at 26; TSD at 5, 17, Att. A. Attachment F is a list of over 600 

sources State-wide subject to Part 201 that may be eligible for the expanded 

exemption/insignificant activity provisions. SR at 26; TSD at 29, Att. F. Attachment G to the 

TSD lists the retail GDFs in the Metro-East NAA subject to the Stage I requirements that would 

be affected by the repeal of the registration requirement. SR at 26; TSD Att. G.

Applicable Air Quality Standards

 Under the 1990 one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, 

the Chicago NAA (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, as well as Aux 

Sable and Goose Island Townships in Grundy County and Oswego Township in Kendall 

County) was classified as “severe” non-attainment and Metro-East (Madison, Monroe, and St. 

Clair Counties) was classified as “moderate” non-attainment. SR 12. The Metro-East NAA was 

later designated to attainment of the 1990 1-hour ozone standard, and this ozone standard was 

revoked June 15, 2005. See 40 C.F.R. § 81.314. 

Under the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, which took effect on June 15, 2004, the 

Chicago NAA and Metro-East NAA (including Jersey County) were originally classified as 

moderate non-attainment. SR at 12. Both the Chicago and Metro-East NAAs were thereafter reclassified to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. Id. Under the 2008 eight-hour 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1005
ozone standard, effective July 20, 2012, both NAAs have been classified as “marginal” nonattainment. SR at 12. 

Stage II SIP Revision 

Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(3)) required that each state submit a 

revision to its state implementation plan (SIP) for ozone. The SIP revision had to require that 

owners and operators of certain types of GDFs install and operate Stage II equipment designed to 

capture emissions from refueling motor vehicles. Specifically, this requirement applied in 

moderate, severe, serious, and extreme ozone NAAs to GDFs that dispense more than 10,000 

gallons of gasoline per month. See 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(3), (c), (d), (e). For Illinois, the 

Chicago ozone NAA and the Metro-East ozone NAA were implicated because they were 

classified, respectively, as severe and moderate non-attainment for the one-hour ozone NAAQS. 

See 40 C.F.R. § 81.314; SR at 3.

To enable the State of Illinois to comply with the CAA Section 182(b)(3) Stage II 

requirement, the General Assembly amended the Act, mandating that the Board adopt Stage II 

regulations. See 415 ILCS 5/10(D) (2012). In turn, the Board adopted the Stage II gasoline 

vapor recovery rules in 1992. See Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Rules: Amendments to 35 

Ill. Adm. Code Parts 215, 218, and 219, R91-30 (Aug. 13, 1992) (final order). The rules are set 

forth in Parts 218 and 219 of Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218, 

219). The Board’s Stage II rules were approved by USEPA as an ozone SIP revision in 1993. 

See 58 Fed. Reg. 3841 (Jan. 12, 1993); SR at 4.

The Chicago ozone NAA Stage II rule (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.586) currently requires 

“gasoline dispensing operations that dispense an average monthly volume of more than 10,000 

gallons of motor vehicle fuel per month to install, operate, and maintain Stage II systems that are 

certified by the California Air Resources Board (‘CARB’) as having a vapor recovery and 

removal efficiency of at least 95 percent by weight.” SR at 4-5, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.586(b), (c); PFT1 Burkhart at 3. As discussed below, the Metro-East NAA was only 

required to maintain a Stage II program until USEPA promulgated standards for ORVR, which 

occurred in 1994. 

ORVR

The CAA required USEPA to promulgate standards for vehicle-based (“onboard”) 

systems to control refueling emissions, which became known as “onboard refueling vapor 

recovery” or “ORVR” systems. See 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(6). CAA Section 202(a)(6) required 

auto manufactures to phase in ORVR systems on new vehicles based upon a percentage of each 

manufacturer’s fleet of vehicles, beginning with the fourth model year after the model year in 

which the standards were promulgated. See 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(6). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1006
USEPA promulgated ORVR standards on April 6, 1994.1

 SR at 3. Auto manufacturers 

were required to install ORVR systems, progressing from model year 1998 with light-duty cars 

through model year 2006 for heavier light-duty gasoline trucks. Since model year 2000, all new 

passenger cars have been equipped with ORVR systems, and starting with model year 2006, all 

new vehicles less than a 14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) sold in the U.S. 

are required to have ORVR systems. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 28774; TSD at 4; PFT1 Burkhart at 4. 

Although Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(6)) requires ORVR 

systems to provide a minimum evaporative emission capture efficiency of 95%, USEPA has 

found, based upon recent research, that the average in-use efficiency of ORVR is actually 98%. 

TSD at 4; PFT1 Burkhart at 4; Tr.1 at 15-16; 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(6); 77 Fed. Reg. 28775 (May 

16, 2012). Section 202(a)(6) provided that once USEPA promulgated standards for ORVR: (1) 

the Stage II requirement would no longer apply in moderate NAA; and (2) the USEPA 

Administrator could “revise or waive the Stage II requirement for serious, severe, or extreme 

ozone NAAs after a determination is made by the Administrator that ORVR is in widespread use 

through the motor vehicle fleet.” SR at 4. 

The Metro-East ozone NAA Stage II rule contained the same Stage II requirements as the 

current Chicago ozone NAA rule, but the former was repealed in 1994 after USEPA signed the 

ORVR final rule.2

 See Stage II Vapor in the Metro-East Area: Repeal of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

219.586, R93-28; 59 Fed. Reg. 16262 (Apr. 6, 1994). Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA provided 

that Stage II would no longer apply in moderate NAAs once USEPA promulgated ORVR 

standards. SR at 4-5. 

Vapor Recovery Systems

Vapors

During the dispensing of gasoline to fill a tank, the gasoline volatilizes in the tank and the 

vapors are displaced by the incoming liquid fuel. TSD at 2-3; PFT1 Burkhart at 3. As a result, 

the vapors are forced out of the tank. If the vapors are not captured, they are released into the 

atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, gasoline vapors, which contain volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), can react with other pollutants and sunlight to contribute to the formation of 

ground-level ozone pollution. TSD at 2-3. 

1

 USEPA promulgated ORVR standards for light-duty vehicles and trucks on April 6, 1994 (59 

Fed. Reg. 16262 (Apr. 6, 1994)), codified at 40 C.F.R. Parts 86 (including § 86.098-8), 88, and 

600. 

2 At the time, ORVR systems were referred to as “on-board vapor recovery” or “OBVR” 

systems. See Stage II Vapor in the Metro-East Area: Repeal of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.586, R93-

28; 59 Fed. Reg. XXX (Mar. 24, 1994); 59 Fed. Reg. 16262 (Apr. 6, 1994.). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1007
Stage II Systems

The purpose of the Stage II program is to capture gasoline vapors displaced during 

vehicle refueling. The Stage II rules require GDFs to install equipment certified by CARB to 

capture, with at least 95% efficiency, gasoline vapors displaced during vehicle refueling. TSD at 

2-3. Using Stage II equipment has been “credited with capturing harmful, ozone precursor 

emissions that would otherwise be released during vehicle refueling, thereby improving air 

quality and human health in the Chicago NAA.” Id. 

Stage II systems come in two basic types: vacuum-assist and balance. TSD at 3; PFT1 

Burkhart at 3-4. With a vacuum-assist system, during refueling, a vacuum pump on the vapor 

return line of the gasoline dispensing nozzle draws vapors from the vehicle fill pipe through the 

nozzle back into the GDF’s storage tank. Id. With the balance system, during refueling, a 

rubber boot on the nozzle provides a seal around the vehicle’s fill pipe, allowing a natural 

positive pressure differential to build between the vehicle’s fuel tank and the GDF’s storage tank. 

Id. This pressure differential draws gasoline vapors from the vehicle’s tank through the rubber 

boot into the GDF’s storage tank. Id. Unlike the vacuum-assist system, the balance system does 

not use a mechanical pump, but the balance systems are not popular with retail GDFs because 

customers dislike the bulky rubber boots. Id. 

 

ORVR Systems

 Unlike Stage II systems, which function through the gasoline dispensing nozzle, ORVR 

systems are integrated into the vehicle’s fueling system. TSD at 4; PFT1 Burkhart at 4. With 

ORVR, vapors in the vehicle’s fuel tank that are displaced during refueling are routed into a 

canister of activated carbon located onboard the vehicle. When the engine is started, these 

vapors are purged from the canister into the engine where they are burned as fuel. Id. 

Incompatibility of Stage II Vacuum-Assist and ORVR

Both vacuum-assist Stage II and ORVR systems are effective in capturing gasoline 

vapors and reducing VOC emissions. The two systems are generally incompatible, however, 

when operated together simultaneously on the same vehicle. 77 Fed. Reg. at 28775; SR at 6; 

TSD at 4-5; PFT1 Burkhart at 4-5. When an ORVR-equipped vehicle is refueled using an 

ORVR-incompatible vacuum-assist Stage II system, the ORVR captures the gasoline vapors first 

before they reach the Stage II system. Instead of capturing displaced vapors, the Stage II 

vacuum draws in fresh air and routes it into the GDF’s storage tank. Id. The fresh air causes the 

gasoline in the GDF’s storage tank to evaporate and increases the pressure within the storage 

tank. As a result, the gasoline vapors are pushed out of the storage tank through the vent pipe 

and released into the ambient air. Id. USEPA stated that this incompatibility can result in a 1% 

to 10% efficiency decrease in controlling vehicle fuel tank emissions, as compared to either the 

Stage II system or ORVR system operating alone. Id. 

Some Stage II vacuum-assist systems are compatible with ORVR systems. Such Stage II 

vacuum-assist systems shut off the pump when they detect the presence of an ORVR-equipped 

vehicle. In this way, less fresh air is drawn into the GDFs storage tank. SR at 6-7; TSD at 5; 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1008
TSD Att. A; PFT1 Burkhart at 5. Stage II balance systems are also compatible with ORVR 

systems. Id. Compatible Stage II systems could be used to comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.586, but the vast majority of Stage II systems already in the Chicago NAA are incompatible 

with ORVR systems. Id. In the Chicago NAA, 2,420 GDFs have Stage II equipment. Of these, 

2,320 have the consumer-friendly vacuum-assist Stage II systems, 2,005 of which are 

incompatible with ORVR systems. The other 100 facilities use the balance type Stage II systems 

and are all for private fleets. Id. 

 

Stage II Waiver and Widespread Use of ORVR

CAA Section 202(a)(6) provides that USEPA may waive the Stage II requirement for 

serious, severe, or extreme ozone NAAs once USEPA determines that ORVR is in widespread 

use. SR at 2-3. USEPA defined “widespread use” as when at least 75% of gasoline is dispensed 

into ORVR-equipped vehicles. See 77 Fed. Reg. 28776 (May 16, 2012); Tr.1 at 15. Effective 

May 16, 2012, USEPA determined the following: 

[ORVR] technology is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet for 

purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions, and, therefore, . . . the 

[US]EPA is waiving the [CAA Section 182(b)(3)] 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). 77 Fed. Reg. at 28772. 

*** 

States now have the option of removing Stage II programs from their Ozone SIPs, 

by submitting a SIP revision requesting the USEPA to approve the removal. Id. at 

28779. The state must also provide, as appropriate, a demonstration that such 

revision is consistent with CAA section 110(1) (42 U.S.C. § 7410(1)) and that it 

would not result in an emissions increase or that the increase is offset by other 

changes in the SIP. Id. 

USEPA used the “MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator” (MOVES) modeling program in 

determining the national widespread use date and expects states to include the MOVES model in 

their CAA Section 110(1) SIP demonstrations. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 28777; SR at 7. IEPA’s use 

of MOVES modeling, which includes state-specific program inputs, was able to identify areawide emissions impacts associated with maintaining and removing a Stage II program. SR at 7.

In August 2012, USEPA issued a guidance document entitled “Guidance on Removing 

Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing 

Comparable Measures.” SR at 8. The Board proposes phasing out the Chicago ozone NAA’s 

Stage II program and requiring the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment due to the 

following: (1) USEPA’s determination of the widespread use of ORVR; (2) the CAA Section 

182(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(3)) Stage II waiver; and (3) IEPA’s assessment of the air quality 

impacts associated with retaining and removing the Stage II program. Id. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1009
MOVES Modeling

 Following USEPA’s directive, IEPA used the MOVES model to evaluate refueling 

emissions and determine when the Stage II requirement should be repealed in the Chicago ozone 

NAA. TSD at 6-7; PFT1 Burkhart at 5. IEPA used the modeling to minimize the loss of 

effectiveness anticipated when ORVR and incompatible Stage II systems operate 

simultaneously. Id. IEPA’s modeling considered when requirements to install Stage II 

equipment should be discontinued and when existing Stage II equipment should be 

decommissioned. Id. 

Specifically, IEPA used MOVES Version 2010b to estimate refueling emissions in the 

Chicago ozone NAA for the scenarios of “ORVR Only” and “ORVR + Stage II.” TSD at 7-8. 

IEPA ran the MOVES model for the entire Chicago ozone NAA. Resp. to June 17, 2013 

Hearing Officer Order at 2. IEPA described key input data for the modeling. TSD at 7. 

Parameters included data on annual vehicle miles traveled by type of vehicle (from the Illinois 

Department of Transportation), average meteorological data (from the National Weather Service 

at O’Hare International Airport), MOVES default data on fuel supply and fuel formation, and onboard diagnostics for idle and gas cap tests. TSD at 7; Tr.1 at 67-68. 

IEPA submitted a compact disc that includes the input and output files used with the 

MOVES model in the format required for SIP revisions. PFT2 Gebhardt at 3. IEPA indicated 

that providing a written summary of the compact disc’s voluminous data would be infeasible. 

PFT2 Gebhardt at 3; Tr.2 at 21-22. The MOVES2010b run specifications from the compact disc 

for the years 2007, 2014, and 2020 were entered into the record as Exhibit 8. Hearing Officer 

Order, R13-18, Att. C (June 17, 2013). 

IEPA ran the MOVES model for calendar years 2007 through 2020 as ORVR-equipped 

vehicles represent an increasing portion of the vehicle fleet. TSD at 7. For each year, IEPA 

modeled weekday emissions in the month of July to reflect the worst-case scenario for refueling 

emissions. More vehicle miles are traveled during the week than on weekends and USEPA 

considers July to be the peak of the ozone season. PC1 at 3. IEPA presented the modeling 

results for the entire Chicago ozone NAA in Figure 1 of the TSD and a table. Figure 1 

graphically displays a trend in total refueling emissions from GDFs in tons per day (tpd) by 

calendar year based upon an “ORVR Only” scenario superimposed onto a trend based upon 

“ORVR + Stage II.” TSD at 7-8; PFT1 Burkhart at 6; PFT2 Gebhardt at 4; Tr.1 at 62-63; PC1 at 

2. 

The “ORVR + Stage II” trend represents the projections under the current Stage II 

program and reflects the incompatibility issue. From 2007 through 2020, Figure 1 depicts a 

trend of decreasing refueling emissions under the “ORVR Only” scenario, from more than 14 tpd 

in 2007 to less than 2 tpd in 2020. Under the “ORVR + Stage II” scenario, Figure 1 depicts a 

trend of more gradually decreasing refueling emissions, from slightly more than 4 tpd to slightly 

less than 4 tpd over the same time period. The “ORVR + Stage II” scenario still reflects an 

emissions decrease because, over time, older vehicles are being replaced by newer vehicles. 

Newer vehicles have better gas mileage and therefore spend less time at the pump. TSD at 8-10; 

PFT1 Burkhart at 6; PFT2 Gebhardt at 5; Tr.1 at 16-17; Tr.2 at 20-21. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1010
Timing of Implementation—“Phase-Out” of Stage II 

There is a “cross-over point” between July 2013 and July 2014 where the “ORVR-only” 

line in Figure 1 of the TSD crosses over the “ORVR + Stage II” line. TSD at 10. After the 

cross-over point, the simultaneous use of ORVR and incompatible Stage II systems would begin 

to result in an “emissions disbenefit,” i.e., smaller emission reductions through “ORVR + Stage 

II” than with “ORVR-only.” SR at 14; TSD at 8. 

The Board finds the MOVES modeling has demonstrated beginning in 2014, ORVR 

alone would start providing greater reductions in refueling emissions than the simultaneous use 

of ORVR and Stage II in the Chicago ozone NAA. The disparity between the emission 

reductions by leaving the current Stage II program in place versus removing it and relying solely 

upon ORVR will increase over time. TSD at 6-8, 10; PFT1 Burkhart at 6. Based upon this 

analysis, the Board proposes January 1, 2014, as the date to allow existing GDFs to begin 

decommissioning their Stage II equipment and to no longer require new GDFs to install Stage II 

equipment. PFT1 Burkhart at 6; Tr.1 at 17, 20. The Stage II program will not cease operating

on January 1, 2014. GDFs must continue to operate their Stage II equipment until the date they 

arrange to have the system decommissioned. Tr.2 at 20. 

Based upon this record, the Board finds that 0.07 fewer tpd would be emitted in 2014 

with ORVR-only versus Stage II + ORVR. In 2020, the difference becomes 2.54 fewer tpd, 

when 98% of the vehicle fleet is estimated to be ORVR-equipped. SR at 14; TSD at 8; PFT2 

Gebhardt at 5. The Board further finds that beginning in 2014, Stage II would no longer be 

necessary and, worse, its continued use would result in the release of more refueling vapors than 

with ORVR alone (due to the incompatibility of the two systems and the widespread use of 

ORVR). TSD at 6-7. IEPA’s MOVES analysis shows that Stage II + ORVR is currently 

providing emission reductions beyond what ORVR alone would achieve, but only until 2014. 

Tr.1 at 18. 

Figure 1 of the TSD also depicts the expected trend in refueling emissions over the 

proposed three-year decommissioning period. The refueling emissions trend starts at the crossover point in January 2014 and decreases at a rate representing the shift in Stage II and ORVR 

use, meeting back up with the “ORVR-only” trend in 2017. TSD at 8, 10. The trend assumes 

decommissioning will proceed uniformly over the three-year period, though it cannot be 

specifically predicted when GDFs will decommission their Stage II systems. TSD at 8. 

The Board finds these proposed amendments should become effective by the end of this 

calendar year for three reasons: (1) to begin realizing additional emission reduction benefits as 

of January 1, 2014; (2) to allow existing GDFs to begin decommissioning Stage II equipment as 

of January 1, 2014, and (3) to ensure that new GDFs on and after January 1, 2014, are not 

required to install and operate Stage II systems. TSD at 34. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1011
CAA “Anti-Backsliding” Provision 

The Board finds that choosing January 2014 to begin decommissioning Stage II systems 

enables the State to comply with the CAA Section 110(1) “anti-backsliding” provision (42 

U.S.C. § 7410(1)). A SIP revision must comply with CAA Section 110(l) to prevent the loss of 

emission reductions from removing an existing clean air program. Although Illinois could have 

phased out the Stage II program before January 2014, the CAA anti-backsliding provision would 

require substitute measures to compensate for the resulting loss of emission reductions. By 

keeping the Stage II program in place until the January 2014 cross-over point, there will be no 

loss in emission reductions. The Board finds that the proposed rule will therefore not interfere 

with attainment of the applicable NAAQS, Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), Rate of Progress 

(ROP), or any other applicable CAA requirement. TSD at 8-9; PFT1 Burkhart at 2, 6; Tr.1 at 16-

18. 

Contested Issues—Retaining Stage II and/or Requiring UST Vapor Processors

ARID

 

ARID urges the Board to reconsider requiring the decommissioning of Stage II vapor 

recovery systems. PC4 at 2. ARID contends that removing Stage II equipment and relying 

solely on ORVR technology “will increase refueling emissions.” Id. ARID argues that ORVR 

and the MOVES model do not address emissions from the GDF’s storage tanks. Some of the 

increased emissions, ARID adds, will result from refueling gas cans, motorcycles, and non-road 

vehicles, such as boats and snowmobiles, because none of these have ORVR technology. Id.

ARID refers to efforts in other states (Pennsylvania, Maryland, Rhode Island, Texas, 

Connecticut, and Massachusetts) to evaluate controls for storage tank emissions and enhancing 

or eliminating Stage II. PC4 at 1. ARID represents that Pennsylvania is considering field testing 

of storage tanks emissions under various scenarios with and without Stage II and storage tank 

vapor processors. Id. For Maryland, ARID includes an analysis of potential impacts associated 

with eliminating Stage II, considering emissions from gasoline vapor displacement and spillage 

associated with on-road and non-road equipment and vehicles. Id. For Rhode Island, ARID 

highlights a shared savings program using ARID’s vapor processor that generated money for the 

GDF owner/operator with no outlay costs for the vapor processor. Id. For Texas, ARID 

summarizes information on a GDF that voluntarily installed Stage II with the ARID vapor 

processor to maximize fuel savings and reduce emissions. Id. 

ARID submitted the calculations it prepared for the States of Massachusetts and 

Connecticut. PC4 at 2. According to ARID, emissions from ORVR vehicles and non-ORVR 

vehicles refueling at non-Stage II GDFs over a period of 2013-2022 exceed emissions from 

ORVR vehicles and non-ORVR vehicles refueling at Stage II GDFs. Id. ARID asserts that 

when GDF storage tank emissions are added, the emissions from the non-Stage II scenario are 

even greater. The calculations demonstrate, ARID continues, that the decision to decommission 

Stage II would result in a large net increase in emissions, which can negatively impact human 

health and the environment. Id. ARID asserts that such a decision would also impact areas in 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1012
which environmental justice is of concern, particularly where a disproportionate share of older 

vehicles are still in use. Id.

ARID provided its December 18, 2012 “White Paper” entitled “Stage II & ORVR and 

Associated Emissions of Gasoline Vapor, State of Connecticut Gasoline Dispensing Facilities.” 

PC4, White Paper. The White Paper’s Chart 3 on refueling emissions with “incompatibility 

excess emissions” depicts Connecticut data. PC4, White Paper at 7. Chart 3 shows a point 

where the “ORVR Only” line crosses the “Stage II plus ORVR (No Processor)” line. Id. 

According to ARID, the relative slopes of the lines in Chart 3 closely approximate the depiction 

of Chicago NAA data resulting from IEPA’s use of the MOVES model. PC4, White Paper at 7; 

PC5 at 1, 25, 26; see also TSD, Fig. 1. 

ARID asserts that the “key point” is made by the White Paper’s Chart 4, which, unlike 

Chart 3, accounts for storage tank breathing losses (STBL) in the emissions inventory and has 

“no crossover,” i.e., “the lines do not intersect.” PC5 at 1; PC4, White Paper at 7-8. According 

to ARID, if STBL are considered, the “ORVR + Stage II (with [incompatibility excess 

emissions]) emissions are less than the ORVR Only emissions throughout the entire time frame – 

up to and including 2022.” PC5 at 1. ARID notes that in Chart 3, STBL for the “ORVR Only” 

line are “strangely” set to zero. PC5 at 1; PC4, White Paper at 7-8. ARID maintains that “[t]he 

assumption of zero STBL is totally unrealistic and not supportable by actual measured data.” 

PC4, White Paper at 7. “It’s clear that the MOVES model,” continues ARID, “does not 

incorporate the impact of [STBL]; and this oversight is a very significant error.” PC5 at 1. 

To show the impact of non-road, non-ORVR vehicles, ARID also provides an analysis of 

Maryland’s Stage II requirements using USEPA’s NONROAD2008a model. PC4, Att. Entitled 

“Stage II Emission Reduction Benefits,” Meszler Engineering Services (Aug. 22, 2012). 

Instead of decommissioning Stage II vapor recovery systems, ARID recommends that 

“enhancing” Stage II systems “for minimizing emissions while at the same time yielding a 

favorable economic payback for the GDF owner.” PC4 at 2. ARID explains that enhanced 

Stage II uses “vapor processors with continuous pressure monitoring and remote data 

acquisition” for “managing storage tank pressure and significantly reducing incompatibility 

excess emissions and [STBL].” PC4, White Paper at 16. Among the benefits of enhanced Stage 

II, ARID lists:

• Control of VOC’s and HAP’s 

• Reduction of Toxic Exposure Risk to motorists, GDF employees and 

members of Community 

• Energy Recovery from saved gasoline

• Automatic monitoring and inspection through data logging and remote data 

acquisition system

• Continuous monitoring to reduce leaks in UST and Stage II piping system 

• Leverage valuable existing hardware already installed at GDF

• Improve operating efficiency and associated profitability for GDF 

• Allow both large capacity and small capacity GDF to earn benefits

PC4, White Paper at 17. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1013
ARID asserts that a vapor processor can be “[c]ost neutral (or cash flow positive) to GDF 

using shared savings program.” PC4, Howard/Tiberi PowerPoint at 17. In an evaluation for 

Connecticut, ARID provided a range of cost effectiveness figures for the combination of Stage II 

+ ORVR + ARID’s vapor processor. For GDFs with a throughput of 700,001 to more than 

3,900,001 gallons per year, and STBL of 1.0 lbs/1,000 gallons of fuel, ARID calculated a cost

per ton of emissions reduced of $9,336 (for lower throughput) but a revenue per ton of emissions 

reduced of $145 (for higher throughput). When higher STBL of 2.5 lbs/1,000 gal are considered, 

the range is from a cost $6,910 per ton to a revenue of $852 per ton. PC4, White Paper at 13-15. 

Lastly, if the Board proceeds to require the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery 

systems, ARID alternatively recommends that the Board consider requiring the control of 

emissions from GDF storage tanks with a “vapor processor.” PC4 at 2. ARID also urges IEPA 

“to either make direct measurements of storage tank emissions or seek to participate with 

measurement efforts underway in the state of PA” to obtain field data upon which to make an 

objective decision based upon science. Id. 

IPMA Response to ARID

IPMA notes that ARID is one of several manufacturers that have emission control 

systems to make an existing Stage II equipment compatible with ORVR. PC6 at 1. IPMA 

contends that such Stage II “upgrading” had already been considered when IEPA drafted the 

revised SIP. Id. Further, IPMA states that upgrading existing Stage II systems would entail 

additional capital and maintenance costs. Id. IPMA also asserts that because Stage II systems 

are “only certified and compatible for up to E10 fuel,” continuing to use Stage II would limit 

Illinois marketers from offering biofuel options higher than E10 fuel. Id. 

Finally, according to IPMA, “Illinois marketers are delaying investment in building new 

sites or upgrading existing ones until the new rules are in place.” PC6 at 1. IPMA maintains that 

delaying the proposed rulemaking beyond the planned implementation date of January 1, 2014, 

“to review ARID’s product” would be “unproductive and a disservice to the citizens of Illinois.” 

Id. 

IEPA Response to ARID

According to IEPA, ARID’s position that removing the Stage II program will increase 

emissions is “misplaced” and based upon “false assumptions.” PC7 at 3. IEPA maintains that 

while the proposed regulation is intended to address the “emissions disbenefit” from 

incompatibility between Stage II vacuum-assist pumps and ORVR-equipped vehicles, ARID’s 

technology addresses Stage I storage tank vent emissions. Id. IEPA notes that storage tank 

emissions in the Chicago NAA are addressed through the Stage I program (35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.583) and the requirement to install pressure/vacuum (p/v) relief valves (35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.583(a)(3)).3 Id. 

3 USEPA describes a p/v relief valve or “pressure vacuum vent valve” as “[a] device, usually 

referred to as a “P/V vent valve,” installed at the discharge end of a vent pipe connected to a 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1014
 

IEPA characterizes ARID’s “primary argument” as being that “removal of Stage II vapor 

recovery systems with sole reliance on ORVR will increase refueling emissions.” PC7 at 4. 

IEPA states that in the ORVR widespread rulemaking, USEPA studied whether removing Stage 

II would increase UST breathing/emptying loss emissions as compared to continuing Stage II 

with ORVR: 

According to USEPA, for non-Stage II gasoline dispensing operations, ORVR 

does not increase breathing losses relative to vehicles without ORVR. [Id., citing 

and attaching USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Memorandum, 

“Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment” at 10, docket 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076 (June 9, 2011) (OTAQ 2011 Memo).] For balance 

type Stage II systems, USEPA indicates that if the p/v relief valve is retained, 

these emissions will be similar for refueling of ORVR and non-ORVR vehicles 

after the balance system is removed. Id. For vacuum-assist Stage II systems, 

USEPA indicates breathing/emptying loss emissions will likely decrease with 

removal of these systems. Id. Further, USEPA indicates that retaining Stage II

provides no additional breathing loss emission reductions and the incompatibility 

excess emissions factor arguably reduces overall efficiency. Id. at 10-11. 

IEPA notes that during the ORVR widespread rulemaking, USEPA responded to ARID’s 

primary argument. PC7 at 4. USEPA found that ARID was not targeting refueling emissions 

but rather Stage I storage tank emissions, which were beyond the scope of that rulemaking. Id., 

citing USEPA “Determination of Widespread Use of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 

(ORVR) and Waiver of Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements,” Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses at 27-28, OAR-2010-1076 (May 8, 2012) (USEPA PC Responses). Further, 

IEPA states that ARID’s calculations rely upon emissions data from other states and assumptions 

not applicable in Illinois. PC7 at 4-5. IEPA also asserts that ARID’s methodology for 

calculating emissions impacts is unexplained and appears to give no credit for (1) emissions 

reductions from Stage I and p/v relief valve requirements or (2) correcting the incompatibility 

issue through Stage II decommissioning. PC7 at 5. IEPA reiterates its position that removing 

the Stage II program addresses the incompatibility issue and results in additional emission 

reduction benefits beginning in January 2014. Id. 

Next, according to IEPA, despite ARID’s claim that the MOVES model is inappropriate 

for evaluating refueling emissions, MOVES is USEPA’s official model for estimating emissions 

from all on-road mobile sources, including refueling emissions. PC7 at 5, citing 75 Fed. Reg. 

9411, 9412 (Mar. 2, 2010). USEPA used MOVES in the ORVR widespread use rulemaking and 

gasoline storage tank, to regulate the pressure at which vapor is allowed to escape from the tank, 

and the vacuum at which outside air is allowed to enter the tank. The inflow/outflow of air 

through the vent pipe is controlled at specified pressures. These vent valves generally inhibit 

vapor release and are used to ensure the proper operation of Stage II balance systems. These P/V 

vent valves are now widely required as a result of EPA’s GDF ‘Stage I’ NESHAP regulation (40 

CFR 63 CCCCCC).” TSD, Att. C at 9. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1015
expected states to use the model in SIP revision demonstrations for removing Stage II. PC7 at 5-

6. Further, IEPA contends that using MOVES is appropriate because it allows for the use of 

state-specific data, including vehicle miles traveled, fuel Reid vapor pressure, meteorological 

data, and vehicle population. Id. On the other hand, continues IEPA, “ARID’s methodology is 

not approved by USEPA for SIP demonstration purposes.” PC7 at 6. 

 

 Regarding ARID’s complaint that non-road refueling emissions are not considered in 

IEPA’s modeling, IEPA notes that Stage II was required by the CAA to recover motor vehicle 

refueling emissions (42 U.S.C. § 182(b)(3)). PC7 at 6. Moreover, “non-road equipment is not 

typically refueled at gasoline dispensing operations covered by Stage II requirements.” Id. Also, 

IEPA maintains that emission losses from refueling non-road equipment are very small because 

the percentage of gasoline used for such refueling is insignificant at GDFs. Id. 

Noting ARID’s argument that removing Stage II will increase in emissions due to nonORVR vehicles refueling at non-Stage II facilities, IEPA responds as follows:

As USEPA has stated, “[t]his is not to suggest that there would not be additional 

reductions available from non-ORVR vehicles at Stage II GDFs [] after the 

crossover date if Stage II was retained or that there would not be uncontrolled 

emissions (non-ORVR vehicles at non-Stage II GDFs), but these would be 

relatively small and decreasing each year” as the percentage of ORVR-equipped 

vehicles grows. PC7 at 6, citing USEPA PC Responses at 28. 

IEPA adds that Stage II was required by Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA to reduce ozone precursor 

emissions, and this record shows that phasing out Stage II will reduce ozone-forming emissions 

by eliminating incompatibility emissions. PC7 at 6.

IEPA emphasizes that states with Stage II programs can determine whether it would 

benefit ozone air quality to maintain, modify, or remove Stage II. PC7 at 7.4

 IEPA evaluated 

various options, held stakeholder outreach meetings, and determined that “due to the 

demonstrated emissions ‘disbenefit’ that would ensue from maintaining our Stage II program in 

its current form after Illinois’ widespread use crossover date of January 2014, modifications to, 

or elimination of, the program would need to take place.” Id. IEPA determined that phasing out 

Stage II would be “environmentally beneficial, technically feasible, and economically 

reasonable.” Id. IEPA maintains that it is unknown, and irrelevant to this rulemaking, whether 

“ARID, or anyone else, may have a system that is capable of achieving greater emissions 

reductions” at GDFs, “whether or not they are equipped with Stage I, p/v relief valves, Stage II, 

or something else.” PC7 at 7-8. IEPA observes that from time to time, it is “offered advice from 

vendors, legislators, advocacy groups, and the general public as to specific requirements or 

measures that should be taken,” but IEPA ultimately, within legal requirements, must “choose 

the best course of action available,” which IEPA believes it has done here. PC7 at 8. 

4 USEPA explained that the ORVR widespread use determination “does not compel any state to 

take action to remove Stage II or prevent a state from enhancing its GDF emission control 

requirements.” USEPA PC Responses at 27. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1016
Lastly, IEPA addresses a question posed by the September 30, 2013 hearing officer order 

concerning the proposed repeal of the registration requirements (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.583(e), 

219.583(e)) as redundant. PC7 at 8. Those requirements call for information regarding, among 

other things, p/v relief valves for tank vent pipes. Id. IEPA states that repealing the registration 

requirements is based in part upon overlapping notification requirements under the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for gasoline dispensing (40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.11124), which IEPA administers. Id. Additionally, IEPA notes that OSFM receives GDF 

information under the Gasoline Storage Act (430 ILCS 15/2-4 (2012)) and implementing 

regulations (41 Ill. Adm. Code 175.200, 175.300, 176.400), as does IDOA under the Motor Fuel 

and Petroleum Standards Act (815 ILCS 370 (2012)) and the Weights and Measures Act (225 

ILCS 470 (2012)). PC7 at 8-9. 

IEPA concedes that the NESHAP notifications do not require information on p/v relief 

valves. PC7 at 8-9. IEPA argues, however, that information on p/v relief valves was required in 

the registration when the requirement for p/v relief valves was new in 1995. PC7 at 9-10. Upon 

re-evaluation after the passage of some nearly 20 years, IEPA maintains that the only 

information necessary to administer and enforce the Stage I program is the name and address of 

the GDF owner/operator. Id. IEPA states that it already has access to the necessary information 

through the NESHAP notifications and OSFM and IDOA tracking systems. PC7 at 10. 

Board Analysis of Issues Raised by ARID

USEPA describes “storage tank breathing loss” or STBL as being “attributable to 

gasoline evaporation into fresh air which enters the UST due to diurnal changes in barometric 

pressure and air temperature.” OTAQ 2011 Memo at 5. “[E]mptying losses,” on the other hand, 

are “caused by the evaporation of gasoline into fresh air drawn into the UST to replace gasoline 

volume dispensed to the vehicles.” Id. Distinguishing between STBL and emptying losses is 

difficult, continues USEPA, but the evaporation of gasoline due to either can lead to UST 

emissions being vented to the atmosphere. Id. at 6.5 

USEPA states that “incompatibility excess emissions”: 

can occur when ORVR-equipped vehicles are refueled with vacuum assist type 

Stage II VRS nozzles. By definition, these emissions are incremental to the 

breathing/emptying loss emissions from [USTs] which normally occur at [GDFs]. 

*** Incompatibility emissions are in excess of those normally expected from 

breathing/emptying losses. USEPA Office of Transporation and Air Quality 

Memorandum, “Calculating Vacuum-Assist Stage II VRS and ORVR Excess 

5 In the OTAQ 2011 Memo, USEPA notes that breathing and emptying losses “are often 

measured and considered together as one source of emissions and addressed in that manner from 

a technology perspective.” OTAQ 2011 Memo at 6. For convenience, the OTAQ Memo 

ultimately refers to the two types of UST emissions simply as “breathing losses.” Id. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1017
Emissions” at 1, 3, docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076 (May 7, 2012) (OTAQ 

2012 Memo).6

To reiterate the mechanics of incompatibility excess emissions for this discussion, the Board 

quotes USEPA: 

When an ORVR vehicle is fueled at a service station equipped with a vacuum 

assist Stage II vapor recovery system, a lack of compatibility between the two 

controls may actually cause the emission reduction of the two systems together to 

be less than the emission reduction achieved by either system alone. The problem 

arises when the ORVR canister captures the gasoline emissions from the motor 

vehicle fuel tank. Instead of drawing vapor-laden air from the vehicle fuel tank

into the underground storage tank, the vacuum pump of the Stage II system draws 

fresh air into the underground storage tank. The fresh air causes gasoline in the 

underground tank to evaporate inside the underground tank and thus creates an 

increase in pressure in the underground storage tank. As a result, gasoline vapors 

may be forced out of the underground storage tank vent pipe into the ambient air. 

This incompatibility can result in a 1 to 10 percent decrease in control efficiency 

over what would be achieved by either Stage II or ORVR alone. 76 Fed. Reg. 

41731 (July 15, 2011). 

ARID supports continuing to use Stage II systems but with vapor processors on GDF 

gasoline USTs to control breathing/emptying losses and incompatibility excess emissions or, if 

Stage II is phased out, using the UST vapor processors to control breathing/emptying losses. 

ARID stresses that breathing/emptying losses must be taken into account in calculating refueling 

emissions. According to ARID, the “crossover” point at which Stage II + ORVR will reduce 

emissions less than ORVR alone would likely not occur if UST breathing/emptying losses are

considered in the calculations. ARID adds that even with more ORVR-equipped vehicles, there 

will continue to be the filling of non-ORVR fuel tanks, such as gas cans, motor cycles, and nonroad equipment (e.g., boats, snowmobiles), and such filling would benefit from retaining Stage 

II. PC4 at 1. 

 

During the federal “Stage II waiver” or “ORVR widespread use” rulemaking, USEPA 

addressed comments concerning several technologies, including vapor processors that may be 

used to “extend the utility of Stage II to further minimize the overall control of gasoline vapor 

emissions at GDF.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 28775 (May 16, 2012). Among these comments, ARID

expressed concern about breathing/emptying losses and incompatibility excess emissions, and 

encouraged retaining Stage II systems and adding UST vapor processors. USEPA PC Responses 

at 25-27.7

6 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0082

 

7

 Comment dated September 13, 2011, filed in USEPA rulemaking docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-

1076. USEPA PC Responses at 25-26, referring to Commenter EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-

0059, Ted Tiberi, President and founder, ARID, “the manufacturer of a vapor processor which 

enhances the reduction of overall gasoline vapor emissions at the GDF.” 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1018
USEPA noted that ARID is “a manufacturer of a vapor processor which enhances the 

reduction of overall gasoline vapor emissions at the GDF.” PC7, USEPA PC Responses at 25. 

USEPA has also described ARID’s vapor processor as an add-on air pollution control device 

(APCD) for UST vents:

[ARID’s] APCD is a membrane technology (called PERMEATOR) that prevents 

UST venting of gasoline vapors. ARID claims the technology can be used with 

balance Stage II VRS and vacuum assist VRS. ARID believes the technology 

allows for improved UST vapor recovery efficiency during UST breathing and 

emptying; the technology has the potential to recover gasoline product that would 

otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere as vapor. USEPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, Emissions 

Factors and Policy Applications Group (C339-02), “Stage II Vapor Recovery 

Systems – Options Paper, Draft” at 22, docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0013 

(Feb. 7, 2006).8

 

Responding to ARID’s comments, USEPA noted that GDF emissions are generally 

comprised of emissions from refueling and from storage tanks, as well as from spillage during 

refueling. In its assessment for the final widespread use rule, USEPA included emission rates 

from these three sources, comparing “ORVR only” with “Stage II only.” USEPA PC Responses 

at 27. USEPA determined that “the only significant difference was in the emissions which occur 

from the vehicle fuel tank during the refueling event and the incompatibility emissions when 

ORVR vehicles are refueled by a vacuum assist type Stage II system.” Id. Accordingly, USEPA 

found that UST breathing/emptying loss emissions would be “about the same with ORVR alone 

or with Stage II alone.” USEPA PC Responses at 27. 

USEPA observed there are 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 . . . 

[such as] 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. 77 Fed. 

Reg. at 28775 (May 16, 2012). 

USEPA’s final rule neither required retention of Stage II nor required add-on controls for UST 

vent pipes. 

ARID asserts that adding vapor processor controls to USTs could provide a favorable 

“economic payback” for the GDF owner and gasoline fuel savings. PC4 at 2, White Paper at 17. 

However, ARID provided the Board with no cost information comparable to USEPA’s financial 

 

8 http://federal.eregulations.us/rulemaking/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0013

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1019
analysis for the average GDF. USEPA found that the average GDF would save $1,230 per year 

in vapor recovery (i.e., fuel) savings if Stage II were kept in place, but the GDF (1) would need 

to pay $1,844 annually to operate and maintain the Stage II equipment and (2) would not realize 

the recurring cost savings of switching to conventional, non-Stage II equipment of $2,977 total 

per year. TSD, Att. H at 7-9. The Board finds that the technological add-on favored by ARID 

could place an unspecified cost burden on the regulated community. 

For non-Stage II GDFs, USEPA found that ORVR does not increase UST 

breathing/emptying loss emissions relative to non-ORVR vehicles. OTAQ 2011 Memo at 10. 

For GDFs with balance-type Stage II, USEPA found that if the p/v relief valve is retained after 

the balance system is removed, UST breathing/emptying loss emissions will be similar for 

refueling ORVR and non-ORVR vehicles. Id. USEPA found that removing vacuum-assist 

Stage II systems will likely decrease UST breathing/emptying loss emissions in most states. Id. 

Further, USEPA found that “retaining Stage II provides no additional [UST breathing/emptying] 

loss emission reductions and the incompatibility factor arguably reduces overall efficiency.” Id. 

at 10-11. 

When USEPA approved Illinois’ October 25, 1994 SIP revision, USEPA found that 

Illinois’ rule (35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 218, Subpart Y) addresses storage tank emissions. See 60 

Fed. Reg. at 5318-5320 (Jan. 27, 1995). Sections 218.583(a)(3) and (a)(4) (35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.583(a)(3), (a)(4)) require GDFs located in the Chicago NAA with a storage tank capacity of 

at least 575 gallons to install and maintain a p/v relief valve.9

 These requirements are not being 

repealed or phased out by this rulemaking. Only the registration requirements (35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.583(e)) for p/v relief valves are proposed to be repealed. 

When the p/v relief valve regulations were adopted, IEPA stated that the average cost to 

install a p/v relief valve was between $67 and $82, with no routine maintenance, and a life 

expectancy of 10-15 years. IEPA estimated the cost effectiveness of the p/v relief valve as a 

control measure to be $139 per ton of VOC emissions reduced. See 15% ROP Plan Control 

Measures for VOM Emissions – Part I: Pressure/Vacuum Relief Valves and 7.2 RVP 

(Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201,211,218, and 219), R94-12, slip op. at 2-4 (Sept. 15, 

1994). 

 

USEPA also explained that its analysis did account for non-ORVR vehicles at non-Stage 

II GDFs, as well as non-ORVR vehicles at Stage II GDFs, ORVR vehicles at non-Stage II GDFs, 

and ORVR vehicles at Stage II GDFs. USEPA acknowledged that retaining Stage II might

provide additional emission reductions from non-ORVR vehicles refueling at a Stage II GDF 

after the crossover date, and that there could be “uncontrolled emissions (non-ORVR vehicles at 

non-Stage II GDFs), but these would be relatively small and decreasing each year.” USEPA PC 

Responses at 28. In its widespread-use determination, USEPA stated: 

9

 Tanks installed before January 1, 1979, are exempt from the rule if they have a capacity of less 

than 2,000 gallons, as are tanks equipped with floating roofs or equivalent control devices 

approved by IEPA and USEPA. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.583(a)(3), (b). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1020
ORVR does not apply to all vehicles, but those not covered by the ORVR 

requirement comprise a small percentage of gasoline-powered highway vehicle 

fleet (approximately 1.5 percent of gasoline consumption) . . . . [M]otorcyles 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. 77 

Fed. Reg. at 28774 (May 16, 2012); see also Exh. 3 at 29, 66, 79 (MOVES model 

includes motorcycles in the types of sources analyzed). 

Acknowledging that Stage II would not be “redundant” for “[a] small fraction of the onroad vehicle fleet” not covered by ORVR, USEPA cautioned:

Even though Stage II controls are capable of achieving some small level of areawide benefit for non-ORVR refueling events, they may become a less costeffective method than other alternatives for addressing area-wide VOC emissions 

and . . . may ultimately result in a disbenefit to air quality in the areas. Stage II 

Removal Guidance at 2.

There may come a point where retaining Stage II controls is otherwise 

unattractive for cost and cost-effectiveness reasons and . . . the foregone emission 

reductions are small enough that the loss of control would not affect compliance 

with the NAAQS. Id. at 22.

IEPA adds that in Illinois, non-road equipment is not typically refueled at GDFs with Stage II, 

and even for those that are, the emission losses are very small because the amount of gasoline 

used to refuel such equipment is considered insignificant. PC7 at 6. 

In its widespread use determination, USEPA discussed the “compatibility factor” for 

vacuum assist Stage II systems:

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.10 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. 77 Fed. Reg. at 28777 (May 16, 2012). 

10 “A/L” refers to “the ratio of volume of air drawn into the UST compared to the volume of 

gasoline dispensed.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 28775 (May 16, 2012). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1021
In turn, USEPA provided guidance to the states on how the compatibility factor should be 

incorporated into SIP revisions for Stage II programs. Specifically, USEPA issued both the 

OTAQ 2012 Memo and a document entitled “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor 

Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures,” EPA457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012) (Stage II Removal Guidance), which is Attachment C to the TSD. 

The User Guide for MOVES2010b states that “MOVES does not account for any effects 

on the emissions from refueling station gasoline storage tanks when Stage II is used in 

combination with vehicles equipped with ORVR systems.” Exh. 3 at F-1. Accordingly, the 

MOVES model itself does not account for incompatibility excess emissions. However, while 

USEPA’s Stage II Removal Guidance uses the same core elements of the MOVES model, it also 

includes equations for the compatibility factor not included in MOVES. Stage II Removal 

Guidance at 11-12 (compatibility factor is “an increase in UST vent pipe emissions over the 

normal breathing/emptying loss emissions”). USEPA explains: 

The compatibility factor is an especially important consideration in calculating the 

emissions impacts of Stage II controls. Even if a state/local area wishes to keep 

Stage II controls to address non-ORVR equipped vehicles being refueled at Stage 

II GDFs, for non-ORVR compatible Stage II vacuum assist systems there will 

come a point where the emissions impact of the compatibility factor surpasses any 

gain from controlling non-ORVR vehicles. After that point, Stage II would lead 

to a net area-wide loss in emissions control. The point in time when this occurs 

depends on the nature of the Stage II program and the rate of ORVR penetration 

into the fleet. Id. at 10. 

IEPA’s calculations took the compatibility factor into account. The values used to graph Figure 

1 include the incompatibility excess emissions. TSD at 7-10. This rulemaking proposes to 

require the decommissioning of Stage II, including vacuum-assist systems, which will 

necessarily eliminate incompatibility excess emissions. 

After considering ARID’s concerns, the Board finds that this rulemaking record supports 

phasing out Stage II vapor recovery systems. Further, the second-notice amendments comply 

with the CAA Section 110(1) “anti-backsliding” provision (42 U.S.C. § 7410(1)) and 

accordingly do not interfere with attaining the applicable NAAQS, RFP, ROP, or any other 

applicable CAA requirement. The record does not demonstrate, however, that retaining Stage II 

would meet these requirements or that augmenting current Board regulations on UST 

breathing/emptying loss emissions is warranted. 

Based upon this record, the Board finds that emissions from non-ORVR sources are 

relatively small and that without Stage II, whether a vehicle is ORVR or non-ORVR has no 

bearing on UST breathing/emptying loss emissions. The Board further finds that after removal 

of Stage II, GDFs compliant with p/v relief valve requirements will on the whole likely decrease 

UST breathing/emptying loss emissions. 

This record shows that the second-notice amendments will take full advantage of the 

emission reductions derived from the widespread use of ORVR. Synchronizing the January 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1022
2014 crossover point with the commencement of the Stage II phase-out, and requiring Stage II 

decommissioning within three years, minimizes the excess emissions from ORVR/Stage II 

incompatibility while eliminating long-term Stage II cost burdens on GDFs.

The Board recognizes that nothing in USEPA’s widespread use determination “prevent[s]

a state from enhancing its GDF emission control requirements.” USEPA PC Responses at 27. 

The Board appreciates ARID’s contributions to this record on the potential for add-on 

technology to better control UST breathing/emptying losses. If, after the removal of Stage II, 

USEPA or IEPA were to identify the need for additional emission reductions to attain and 

maintain the ozone NAAQS, then vapor processor technology would be one of the methods the 

Board could consider. Any such consideration would need to take place in a rulemaking 

addressing Stage I. Finally, today’s decision does not preclude GDFs from considering 

additional UST vent pipe controls for breathing/emptying losses. 

State and CAAPP Permitting Exemptions for GDFs

State Permitting Exemptions for GDFs 

Under the Act and Board regulations, State construction and operating permits are 

required for emission sources and air pollution control equipment, unless otherwise exempt from 

permitting. See 415 ILCS 5/9 (2012); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142, 201.143, 201.144. A 

permitting exemption applies to GDFs that register with IEPA in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.586(h). See 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 201.146(kk). A corollary permitting 

exemption based upon registering with IEPA applies to storage tanks with a volume of more than 

10,000 gallons for gasoline dispensing. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.586(h). 

 

Another permitting exemption applies to the storage tanks for retail dispensing other than 

those subject to the Stage I control requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code. 215.583(a)(2), 

218.583(a)(2), and 219.583(a)(2). See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146(c). Stage I control 

requirements “seek to control vapors displaced from storage tanks during the filling of such tanks 

by product delivery vessels.” SR at 9. The Stage I regulations for the Chicago and Metro-East 

NAAs also contain a permitting exemption for storage tank filling operations that register with 

IEPA. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.583(e), 219.583(e). 

The Board proposes to revise and clarify these State permitting provisions. SR at 9. 

Specifically, the Board proposes to repeal the registration requirement for GDFs subject to Stage 

I under Section 218.583(e) for the Chicago NAA or Section 219.583(e) for the Metro-East NAA. 

For GDFs in the Chicago NAA subject to Stage II under Section 218.586(h), the registration 

requirement would cease when the decommissioning process begins. The Board finds that 

OSFM and IDOA already have programs that track GDFs subject to Stages I and II. There are 

also overlapping federal notification requirements at 40 C.F.R. 63, subpart CCCCCC, which the 

IEPA administers and enforces. The federal notification requirements under the NESHAP rules 

apply to GDFs that dispense 10,000 gallons of gasoline or more per month—IEPA already has 

information on GDFs from this requirement. Ending the registration requirement will streamline 

the rules. SR at 25; TSD at 17-18; PFT1 Burkhart at 11-13; Tr. 1 at 21-22. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1023
The Board finds, however, that simply ending the registration requirement would have 

the unintended consequence of requiring GDFs to obtain State construction or operating air 

permits under Section 201.142, 201.143, or 201.144. Currently, GDFs eligible to register with 

IEPA are provided with exemptions from State air permitting under Sections 201.146(l), 

201.146(kk), 218.583(e), 218.586(h), and 219.583(e). TSD at 18-19; PFT1 Burkhart at 12. The 

Board sees no reason to now begin requiring State air permitting of these insignificant sources, 

and believes that doing so would merely add to the administrative burden and cost associated 

with permitting. 

For the above reasons, the Board finds that registration should no longer be required to 

obtain an exemption from permitting. The Board proposes a single permit exemption not tied to 

registration. The new exemption from permitting would apply to storage tanks and fueldispensing equipment used for dispensing fuel to mobile sources for use in those sources, and 

would cover all fuels used in mobile sources, such as ethanol blends. The new exemption would 

not apply to the filling or dispensing of distribution vessels, such as tanker trucks, rail tanks, and 

barge sources. PFT Cooper at 2. 

The Board therefore proposes to repeal the permit exemption tied to registration (Sections 

201.146(kk), 218.583(e), and 219.583(e)) as no longer necessary. Larger sources, such as bulk 

gasoline plants and bulk gasoline terminals, would still require a permit. TSD at 17-21; PFT 

Cooper at 3; Tr.1 at 26. IEPA provided a 69-page list of GDFs in the Chicago NAA that would 

be affected by ending the registration program. TSD Att. A. 

CAAAP Permitting Exemptions for GDFs 

Section 39.5 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/39.5 (2012)) establishes the Clean Air Act Permit 

Program (CAAPP), also known as the Title V operating permit program, which requires permits 

for major stationary sources of air pollution. SR at 9. Section 39.5 provides an exemption from 

CAAPP permitting by allowing for the designation of insignificant activities or emission levels 

that are proposed by IEPA and adopted by the Board. See 415 ILCS 5/39.5(5)(w) (2012); SR at 

9-10. 

When a CAAPP permit application is submitted to IEPA, insignificant activities or 

emission levels must be individually listed or denoted as present in the CAAPP application. See

415 ILCS 5/39.5(5)(w) (2012); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.210, 201.211; SR at 10. After permit 

issuance, the CAAPP source owner or operator may, without a permit modification, make 

changes to its operations that are not addressed or prohibited by its CAAPP permit and that are 

deemed by regulation as insignificant activities or emission levels. See 415 ILCS 5/39.5(12) 

(2012); SR at 10. 

Without these categorical exemptions, a source would, under Section 201.211, have to 

seek an IEPA “insignificant activity” determination through an application to modify the CAAPP 

permit, a laborious and time-consuming process for both the source and IEPA. TSD at 23-24. 

IEPA admits that such requests for insignificant status are often not approved in a timely manner 

because other CAAPP renewals take priority. TSD at 25. Categorical exemptions allow the 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1024
CAAPP source to add the insignificant activities or emission levels to its operations without the 

delay that would occur if the source was required to modify its CAAPP permit. SR at 10. 

Presently, Section 201.210 does not list fuel dispensing or small gasoline storage tanks as 

insignificant activities, even though these activities “will eventually be found to be insignificant” 

through the permitting process, according to IEPA. SR at 10. This lack of regulatory listing 

significantly delays a source’s ability to engage in these activities. SR at 10. The Board

proposes revising Section 201.210(a)(10) to include storage tanks of gasoline, including 

gasoline/ethanol blend fuels, with less than 2,000 gallons of capacity. The 2,000 gallon cutoff is 

consistent with USEPA’s NESHAP for gasoline dispensing (40 C.F.R Part 63, Subpart 

CCCCCC) and existing Board rules (Sections 218.583(b)(2) and 219.583(b)(2)) and provides a 

reasonably usable amount for the source. TSD at 25-26; PFT Cooper at 3; Tr.1 at 27. 

The Board also proposes to add Section 201.210(a)(19), addressing fuel dispensing 

operations and equipment for mobile sources for use in those sources, such as fleet vehicles, 

bulldozers, and landfill compactors, but not distribution vessels, such as tanker trucks. SR at 10; 

TSD at 23 25-26; Tr. 1 at 27. This insignificant activity applies to gasoline, including 

gasoline/ethanol blend fuels, if the annual average throughput of such fuel dispensed is less than 

120,000 gallons on a rolling 12 month total basis. The threshold is consistent with the NESHAP 

(40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC), which applies control requirements once a subject source 

meets or exceeds the 10,000 gallon/month threshold (rolling 12 month total). 40 C.F.R. § 

63.11117; SR at 21; TSD at 26-27; PFT Cooper at 3-4; Tr.1 at 25-28. 

The Board agrees with IEPA’s assessment that expanding the list of insignificant 

activities would not result in an adverse environmental impact because such sources are small 

and would still be bound by any applicable rules regardless of whether they have a permit. PFT 

Cooper at 6; Tr.1 at 30. 

Part-By-Part Analysis 

Amendments to Part 218, Subpart Y—Chicago NAA Stage II Vapor Recovery Rule 

The majority of the amendments proposed are in Part 218, Subpart Y, the gasoline 

distribution regulations for the Chicago NAA, particularly Section 218.586 on motor vehicle 

fueling operations. Revisions to Section 218.586 allow owners/operators of “existing” GDFs 

(i.e., operating at any time prior to January 1, 2014) to begin decommissioning Stage II systems 

on January 1, 2014, but require compliance with Stage II requirements until decommissioning is 

commenced. The amendments also remove the requirement for Stage II systems at “new” GDFs 

(i.e., commence operating for the first time on or after January 1, 2014). SR at 13-14; TSD at 12. 

The timeframes to install Stage II systems in the current rule under Section

218.586(d)(1)-(5) are proposed for deletion. The new Stage II decommissioning timeframes and 

procedures are set forth in proposed Section 218.586(i). In considering the decommissioning 

timeframes, IEPA held outreach meetings with members of the petroleum marketing industry 

and contractors likely to be involved in decommissioning work. Contractors stated that the 

average amount of time to decommission a Stage II system would be one day or less. Industry 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1025
representatives believed that a three-year timeframe to decommission all Stage II systems 

seemed reasonable. IEPA also contacted several other states and found timeframes for

decommissioning Stage II systems ranged from two to four years. Of the states surveyed, IEPA 

learned that Texas has a Stage II program similar in size to the Illinois program, with 2,800 

affected GDFs, and is contemplating a three-year decommissioning process. TSD at 12-13; Tr. 1 

at 18-19. 

The Board proposes a three-year timeframe for phasing out the Stage II program under 

Section 218.586(i)(1)(B) based upon “the number of gasoline dispensing operations subject to 

the Chicago NAA Stage II rule, the time involved in decommissioning Stage II equipment, the 

number of contractors available to perform decommissioning work, and [IEPA’s] analysis of the 

decommissioning period of other similarly situated states.” SR at 15; TSD at 13. The Board 

therefore proposes for second notice that decommissioning of all Stage II equipment be 

completed no later than December 31, 2016. PFT1 Burkhart at 8. 

The new decommissioning procedures and standards are contained in proposed Section 

218.586(i)(2). USEPA recommended that “currently available industry association codes and 

standards be followed (where applicable) to ensure that Stage II systems are properly . . . 

dismantled or decommissioned.” TSD at 13-14, Att. C, quoting Stage II Removal Guidance. 

The Board proposes that the decommissioning be performed in accordance with the Petroleum 

Equipment Institute’s (PEI’s) “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of VaporRecovery Systems at Vehicle-Fueling Sites,” PEI/RP300-09 (2009). The PEI document contains 

the steps involved in dismantling Stage II hardware for both balance and vacuum-assist type 

systems. TSD, Att. D; Tr.1 at 19. 

IEPA is unaware of any other industry codes or standards for Stage II decommissioning. 

TSD at 14; Tr.1 at 19. USEPA does not require the use of any particular industry codes or 

standards but has indicated that the PEI document is particularly instructive because it was 

developed by industry experts concentrating on regulatory compliance and safety. SR at 14; 

TSD, Att. H at 4. During the outreach meetings, IEPA found support for using the PEI 

requirements from members of the petroleum marketing and petroleum equipment industries, as 

well as officials from OSFM and other states with Stage II programs. TSD at 14-15. 

The Board finds that appropriate decommissioning procedures are necessary (1) to ensure 

that potential liquid and vapor leak issues associated with decommissioning are consistently 

addressed and (2) to realize additional emission reductions achievable through the use of only 

ORVR systems. SR at 27-28. Under Section 218.112, the Board proposes to incorporate by 

reference the PEI document and require the decommissioning steps listed in Section 14.6 of the 

PEI document, except Section 14.6.14, which is a decommissioning checklist. IEPA will 

develop its own checklist, which will be posted on IEPA’s website and call for contractor 

registration or license information under OSFM and IDOA programs. SR at 15; TSD at 14; 

PFT1 Burkhart at 8-9; Tr.1 at 45-47. 

To ensure the PEI decommissioning procedures are properly implemented, the Board 

proposes that contractors be registered or licensed by the State. Although the PEI document 

indicates that contractors should have equipment manufacturer and state certifications, IEPA is 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1026
not aware of any Illinois-specific Stage II decommissioning codes or standards, other than 

independently enforceable local and industry-specific standards and codes that may relate 

indirectly to Stage II equipment decommissioning, such as safety and electrical codes. SR at 16; 

Tr.1 at 19-20. 

OSFM and IDOA have contractor licensing and registration requirements to perform 

work on gasoline station dispensers, UST piping, and tank testing. IEPA, OSFM, and IDOA all 

agree that contractors doing Stage II decommissioning work should be licensed by both IDOA 

and OSFM, as well as carry certification from the specific dispensing equipment manufacturer to 

work on the equipment. TSD at 15; PFT1 Burkhart at 9-10; Tr.1 at 20-21. The Board therefore 

proposes under Section 218.586(i)(2)(B)(i) that decommissioning procedures be performed by a 

contractor that meets the following: 

• Registered with IDOA, Bureau of Weights and Measures, in the 3-A Gasoline Pump 

Meters Code pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Weights and Measures Act (225 ILCS 470/8.1 

(2012)); 

• Licensed by OSFM in the storage tank installation/retrofit module pursuant to the 

Petroleum Equipment Contractors Licensing Act (225 ILCS 729 (2012)) and 

implementing regulations at 41 Ill. Adm. Code 172; and

 

• Has the appropriate dispenser-manufacturer certification and training, if any. 

SR at 16; TSD at 15-16. 

Depending upon the extent of decommissioning or other issues revealed during the 

decommissioning process, other State laws or regulations may become applicable, such as 

OSFM UST regulations, but any such requirements are independently enforceable. SR at 16. 

For example, proposed Section 218.586(i)(2)(B)(i) requires that if product piping is disconnected 

during decommissioning and an OSFM permit is required for any part of the work, the contractor 

must ensure that the OSFM-permitted work is performed by the appropriate licensed contractor 

and personnel. PFT1 Burkhart at 10. 

Mr. Schellner of OSFM explained that one OSFM licensure module is the installed 

retrofit license, which covers anything related to repairing or installing components of a system. 

The other module is the tank tightness testing license, which is used at the end of the 

decommissioning effort to ensure that piping is tight and pipes are manifolded pursuant to the 

PEI standard. Tr.1 at 48-49. Mr. Rathbun of IDOA explained that the 3-A designation 

referenced in proposed subsection 218.586(i)(2)(B)(i) for the 3-A Gasoline Pump Meters Code is 

a designation IDOA uses to indicate persons and companies qualified to work on motor fuel 

dispensers. Mr. Rathbun stated that IDOA maintains a list of repair persons certified and 

registered to work on motor fuel dispensers. Mr. Rathbun explained that IDOA’s Bureau of 

Weights and Measures registers any individual who sells or works on anything used for 

commercial purposes, such as a motor fuel dispenser. Tr.1 at 50. 

For decommissioning procedures related solely to testing, the Board proposes under 

Section 218.586(i)(2)(B)(ii) that contractors performing the tests be licensed by OSFM in the 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1027
tank tightness module (225 ILCS 729 (2012); 41 Ill. Adm. Code 172). SR at 16; TSD at 15-16. 

The pressure decay test required by Section 14.6 of the PEI must be passed in accordance with 

Appendix A of the PEI document and the tie-tank test must be conducted and passed in 

accordance with CARB TP 201.3C to ensure all tanks are properly vented under proposed 

Section 218.586(i)(2)(B)(iii). The results of the tests must be reported to IEPA. SR at 15-16; 

TSD at 16; Tr.1 at 50-54, 57 

Mr. Schneller explained that the pressure decay test is done on an annual basis at Stage II 

facilities by contractors licensed through OSFM: 

[The pressure decay test] is done to verify that all fittings are tight and they seal 

off sections of the pipe, apply meter gauges, and in certain amount of time based 

on certain formulas that are built into the testing equipment, they are able to 

determine whether the tank and the piping is tight to accepted standards or not 

based on how the pressure drops. So it’s called static test because the pressure is 

applied and then let sit and see what happens. Tr.1 at 54-55. 

Once decommissioning is complete and the piping is recombined, the tie-tank test is done to 

ensure that the piping/system vents properly. The tie-tank test would also be performed by 

contractors licensed through OSFM. Tr.1 at 55. 

As to the availability of contractors to meet the above licensing, registration, and 

certification requirements, IEPA, OSFM, and IDOA all believe that there is a sufficient number 

to enable all GDFs in the Chicago NAA to complete the decommissioning work within the 

proposed three-year timeframe. IEPA provided a list of contractors meeting the above 

requirements in its proposal, showing 41 contractors for Stage II decommissioning work and 23 

contractors for tank testing. TSD Att. E. Based upon information from OSFM and IDOA, IEPA 

also provided website links to two of the primary dispenser manufacturers that provide training 

and certification for technicians working on their dispensers: Gilbarco; and Wayne. Tr.2 at 24-

25; Exh. 6, 7.11 For interested contractors that do not already have the above licensing, 

registration, and certification requirements, both OSFM and IDOA believe that the contractors 

could obtain them within a reasonable amount of time. PFT1 Burkhart at 10-11. 

The Board also proposes requiring owners/operators of GDFs to submit a 10-day notice 

of the intent to decommission under proposed Section 218.586(i)(2)(A). The notice of intent 

would need to be on a form to be provided by IEPA. The notice must be submitted to IEPA at 

least 10 days prior to commencing decommissioning. This notice would give IEPA the ability to 

schedule an inspector to be present for the decommissioning. TSD at 16-17; PFT1 Burkhart at 

11; Tr.1 at 21-22. The Board agrees with IEPA’s view that the owner or operator could comply 

with the 10-day requirement by having the notice, for example, postmarked, sent by Fed Ex, 

emailed, hand-delivered, faxed, or submitted through other conventional electronic means to 

11 IEPA’s Exh. 6 provides the following website links:

http://www.gilbarco.com/us/content/north-american-technical-training

http://www.wayne.com/index.cfm/go/product-detail/product/Technical-Training/ 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1028
IEPA on or before the 10th day before the date on which decommissioning commences. The 10-

day notice does not have to be in IEPA’s possession 10 days beforehand to comply. Tr.2 at 14-

15, 18. IEPA provided a draft form of the 10-day “Notice of Intent to Decommission Stage II 

Vapor Recovery Equipment” and stated that the final form would be available on the IEPA’s 

website. PFT2 Burkhart Exhibit 1; Tr.2 at 44-45. 

Under proposed Section 218.586(i)(2)(C), within 30 days of completing the 

decommissioning, the owner or operator of the GDF must submit to IEPA a completed checklist 

and certification, developed and provided by IEPA, and test results, documenting the 

decommissioning procedures performed. SR at 17; TSD at 17. These documents will enable 

IEPA to effectively track and monitor decommissioning activities. Id. Consistent with the 

timing discussion above, the Board agrees with IEPA’s view that an owner or operator could 

comply with the 30-day requirement by having the checklist, for example, postmarked, sent by 

Fed Ex, emailed, hand delivered, faxed, or submitted through other conventional electronic 

means to IEPA on the 30th day after the date on which decommissioning was completed. Tr.2 at 

18. IEPA provided a draft form of the “Stage II Decommissioning Checklist.” PFT2 Burkhart, 

Att. 2. 

The Board also proposes under Section 218.586(g)(4) to require owners/operators to 

maintain records relating to decommissioning for a period of five years, and to provide any 

decommissioning records to IEPA within 30 minutes of IEPA’s request. This will enable IEPA 

to inspect and review the documents for compliance with the rule. TSD at 16-17; PFT Burkhart 

at 11. The 30-minute timeframe was requested by IPMA for consistency with OSFM 

requirements. Tr.1 at 42-44. 

Clarifying Amendments to Part 201—Statewide

 The Board proposes to clarify Section 201.146(n), which provides, among other things, 

an exemption from State construction and operating permit requirements for storage tanks of 

organic liquid with a capacity of less than 10,000 gallons, provided the storage tank is not used 

to store material listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA 

and is not subject to Stage I requirements. IEPA believes “the qualifications relating to Stage I 

requirements [were] intended to address the fact that gasoline itself is not listed as a HAP, 

although it is made up of a mixture of HAPs.” TSD at 21; PFT Cooper at 2; Tr.1 at 25-26. IEPA 

proposed to “remove the reference to Stage I rules and address this prohibition against exempting 

gasoline storage tanks through clarifying that the subject storage tanks may not be used to store 

any amount of material or mixture of any material listed as a HAP.” SR at 22-23; TSD at 21. 

The Board agrees and proposes the clarifying amendments, with no change to the meaning or 

scope of this exemption, i.e., Stage I (gasoline) storage tanks are not exempt. SR at 22; TSD at 

21-22; PFT Cooper at 2-3. 

The Board proposes clarifying Section 201.146(nn), which provides a State permitting

exemption for general vehicle maintenance and servicing activities conducted at a source, motor 

vehicle repair shop, or motor vehicle body shop, but does not include motor vehicle refinishing 

or gasoline fuel handling. SR at 23; TSD at 22. Because proposed Section 201.146(l) will 

exempt storage tanks and dispensing equipment used to dispense fuel to mobile sources for use 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1029
in such mobile sources, the Board proposes to repeal the gasoline fuel handling language in 

Section 201.146(nn). SR at 23; TSD at 22; PFT Cooper at 3; Tr.1 at 26. 

 At Section 201.210(a)(10), the Board proposes to include storage tanks of gasoline 

(including gasoline/ethanol blend fuels) with a capacity of less than 2,000 gallons as insignificant 

activities to be listed in a CAAPP application. At Section 201.210(a)(19), the Board adds, as 

insignificant activities to be listed in a CAAPP application, operations and equipment used to 

dispense the following fuels to mobile sources for use in such mobile sources: gasoline, if the 

annual throughput of the fuel dispensed is less than 120,000 gallons (rolling 12 month total); and 

distillate oil (including kerosene and diesel fuel), biodiesel, and biodiesel/distillate oil blends. 

The Board also proposes to clarify Section 201.210(b)(4), which provides that general 

vehicle maintenance and services activities at a source, other than “gasoline fuel handling,” are 

insignificant activities not required to be individually listed in a CAAPP application but rather 

merely denoted as present. As proposed for second notice, fuel handling and dispensing of 

gasoline, distillate oil, biodiesel, and biodiesel/distillate oil blends would fall within the 

exception to Section 201.210(b)(4)’s insignificant activities. 

The Board proposes two clarifications with respect to Section 201.302. That provision 

was intended to require the submission of annual emissions reports (AERs) to IEPA when the 

owner/operator of an emission source or air pollution control equipment is required to obtain a 

permit. SR at 23-24; PFT Cooper at 5; Tr.1 at 29. As currently written, Section 201.302(a) 

requires all sources to submit an AER unless specifically exempt in that section. SR at 24. Since 

Section 201.302 was adopted, the number of exemptions has increased and different types of 

sources have been added to the permitting process, such as Registration of Smaller Sources 

(ROSS). The Board’s intent behind Section 201.302 of requiring AERs only from permitted 

sources is reflected in the applicability criteria of IEPA’s rule 35 Ill. Adm. Code 254.102. The 

Board proposes that Section 201.302(a) be amended to tie the requirement for AER submittal to 

the applicability criteria in Section 254.102. TSD at 28-29; PFT Cooper at 6. 

Additionally, Section 201.302(d) specifies that retail gasoline dispensing operations are 

exempt from the AER requirements unless the source has failed to obtain a permit, if applicable, 

or comply with the registration provision contained in the Stage II rule. Because Section 

254.102 refers to sources required to have permits and the Stage II program is being phased out, 

the Board proposes to repeal Section 201.302(d) as unnecessary. SR at 24; PFT Cooper at 6; Tr.1 

at 29. 

IEPA provides a list of over 600 sources potentially affected by amendments to Part 201 

that would be eligible to use the expanded exemption/insignificant activity provisions. SR at 26; 

TSD at 29, Att. F. 

Clarifying Amendments to Part 218—Chicago NAA

 For Section 218.586, the Board proposes removing the definition of “constructed” as the 

term will no longer be used, updating ASTM D 323 to its current version (i.e., ASTM D 323-08), 

and removing 40 C.F.R. Part 80, Appendix E as it no longer exists. SR at 25, 32-33. The Board 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1030
also proposes to repeal the Stage I registration provision (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.583(e)) due to 

overlapping federal notification requirements and State tracking systems for GDFs. Those 

exemptions from permitting currently conditioned upon Stage I registration or Stage II 

registration (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.586(h)) are relocated to Part 201 and do not require 

registration. 

Clarifying Amendments to Part 219—Metro-East NAA

Because the Stage II program was repealed in the Metro-East NAA, the Board proposes 

to remove the Stage II testing methods at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.105(j) and a Stage II 

incorporation by reference at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 219.112(v). TSD at 29; PFT1 Burkhart 

at 12-13. In addition, the Board proposes to repeal the Stage I registration provision (35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 219.583(e)) due to overlapping federal notification requirements and other State 

tracking systems for GDFs. The exemption from permitting currently conditioned upon Stage I 

registration is relocated to Part 201 and does not require registration. 

 

Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonableness 

Section 27(a) of the Act directs the Board to take into account the “technical feasibility 

and economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing the particular type of pollution” when 

conducting a substantive rulemaking. 415 ILCS 5/27(a) (2012). Section 27(b) of the Act 

requires the Board to determine whether a proposed substantive regulation “has any adverse 

economic impact on the people of the State of Illinois.” 415 ILCS 5/27(b) (2012). For the

reasons below, the Board finds that the amendments proposed are technically feasible and 

economically reasonable and will not have an adverse economic impact on the People of Illinois. 

See 415 ILCS 5/27(a), (b) (2012).

Initially, the Board notes that IEPA engaged in outreach regarding the proposal by 

contacting and meeting with numerous interested stakeholders from industry, government, and 

advocacy groups. Participants included representatives of individual petroleum refining and 

marketing companies, petroleum service companies, contractors likely to be involved in Stage II 

decommissioning work, the Illinois Petroleum Council, the Illinois Petroleum Marketers 

Associations, Illinois Corn Growers Association, the American Lung Association, the 

Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, the Illinois Corn Growers Association, 

the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, DCEO, OSFM, IDOA, and USEPA. SR at 29; 

TSD at 13, 32-33. In general, the outreach group supported the proposed modifications. TSD at 

33. 

IEPA sought input on the PEI decommissioning procedures, the availability of 

contractors trained in the PEI procedures, and the timeframe for decommissioning. Based upon 

these meetings, IEPA revised its initial decommissioning timeframe to three years. After 

learning about IDOA and OSFM certification/registration requirements for contractors involved 

in work on gasoline dispensers, piping, and UST testing, IEPA decided to propose that 

decommissioning work must be performed by OSFM- and IDOA-registered contractors. TSD at 

33. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1031
At hearing, Jeff Dzierzanowski with Source North America Corporation also testified, 

providing positive feedback on the outreach process for this rule proposal. Mr. Dzierzanowski 

explained that Source North America Corporation is the largest petroleum equipment distributor 

in the country and works with contractors and marketers doing Stage II decommissioning. He

stated that he is involved in legislative matters along with compatibility issues and equipment 

specialties, and has been involved in the Stage II decommissioning process in other states. Mr. 

Dzierzanowski thanked IEPA, OSFM, and IDOA for allowing him to be part of the outreach 

before the proposal was filed: “I deal with a lot of states that deal with the federal government. 

It is a great thing and it was reassuring and refreshing to be able to sit down with [IEPA, OSFM, 

and IDOA] and you respected our opinion and thought process on doing this whole thing and it 

greatly impacts our control community.” Tr.2 at 26-29. 

Technical Feasibility

Nothing in this rulemaking record indicates that the second-notice proposal is technically 

infeasible. The proposed amendments do not involve any new technology and generally impose 

no new requirements other than decommissioning Stage II equipment. 

The requirement to operate Stage II equipment at GDFs in the Chicago ozone NAA will 

be phased out over a three-year period. SR at 27. Three years is chosen due to the number of 

GDFs subject to the Chicago NAA Stage II rule, the time involved in decommissioning Stage II 

equipment, the number of contractors available to perform decommissioning work, and IEPA’s 

analysis of the decommissioning phase-out period of other similarly situated states. Id. 

Feedback received by IEPA from Stage II contractors and members of industry indicate that this 

time period is reasonable. Id. For interested contractors lacking the necessary licensing, 

registration, and certifications, both OSFM and IDOA indicated that contractors could obtain 

these within a reasonable amount of time. PFT1 Burkhart at 10-11. 

 The proposed rule will require decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment by 

following the decommissioning procedures established by PEI, the only industry-service 

publication. PEI decommissioning procedures were established by industry experts and are 

considered by USEPA as instructive. IEPA is aware of no other industry standards for Stage II 

equipment decommissioning. SR at 27. IEPA, OSFM, and IDOA learned from members of 

industry and Stage II contractors in Illinois that the PEI decommissioning procedures are feasible 

and appropriate. SR 27; TSD at 17; PFT1 Burkhart at 11. 

Repealing the Stage I registration program at Sections 218.583(e) and 219.583(e) is 

technically feasible due to the ability of IEPA to monitor GDFs through administering and 

enforcing 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC, and through the tracking systems of OSFM and 

IDOA. SR at 28. 

The proposed permitting amendments add and clarify permit exemptions and 

insignificant activities, which will reduce the burden associated with permitting and may result in 

reduced costs to affected sources. SR at 28-29; TSD at 27-28; Tr.1 at 30. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1032
Based upon this record, the Board finds that the amendments proposed in the order below 

are technically feasible.

Economic Reasonableness

If the proposed amendments are adopted, existing GDFs in the Chicago ozone NAA will 

be required to incur costs to decommission existing Stage II equipment, but will realize recurring 

annual cost savings. SR 28. GDFs that operate for the first time on or after January 1, 2014, will 

not be required to install Stage II equipment, which will result in significant capital investment 

savings as well as recurring annual cost savings. Id. 

In support of the final rule waiving the CAA Section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement, 

USEPA issued a document entitled “Decommissioning Stage II Vapor Recovery Financial 

Benefits and Costs,” dated May 8, 2012, which examined the short- and long-term costs and 

financial benefits of decommissioning. TSD at 30; TSD Att. H; PFT1 Burkhart at 13-14; Tr.1 at 

22. 

USEPA expects that after states remove the Stage II requirement, each GDF owner will 

decide the best time to begin the decommissioning process within the regulatory timeframes. 

The owner will likely select a date that will minimize total costs and business disruption, 

typically when standard maintenance is scheduled for GDF pump hanging hardware. TSD Att. 

H at 3-4. USEPA expects that not all GDFs will begin decommissioning at the same time. For 

the purposes of the cost analysis, USEPA stated that an average GDF with Stage II would pump 

about 1.2 million gallons per year, or about 100,000 gallons of fuel per month. Id. The average 

GDF has 5 dispenser cabinets with 10 fueling nozzles connected to four USTs. Id. USEPA 

estimated that on a national basis, about 70% of Stage II systems are vacuum-assist types and 

30% are balance types, although this would vary from state to state. Id. 

 USEPA estimated decommissioning at the average GDF would take about 10 hours. 

Looking at the costs for labor associated with the decommissioning process, USEPA considered 

the direct labor costs for modifying the hardware and electronics to disable or remove the Stage 

II system and administrative labor costs related to reporting and updating labels or registrations. 

TSD Att. H at 6-7. USEPA also considered lost revenue associated with the decommissioning 

process that would put at least part of the GDF out of service for at least part of the day. USEPA 

estimated total labor and lost revenue costs would total about $1,980. Id. 

As to the hardware components of a Stage II system, such as the nozzles, hoses, swivels, 

and check valves, USEPA estimated that the switch from Stage II to conventional dispensing 

hardware would be about $3,580 less than the cost of replacing the Stage II hardware during 

regular maintenance. TSD Att. H at 5-6. 

For the financial benefit of decommissioning, USEPA considered cost savings that would 

result from reduced operating and maintenance costs for dispensers along with the elimination of 

annual costs related to Stage II system testing, inspections, fees, training, and recordkeeping. 

USEPA also factored in lost revenue associated with the loss of vapor recovery savings that was 

provided by the Stage II systems of $1,230. TSD Att. H at 7-8. The savings in annual operating 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1033
and maintenance costs of $1,844 together with the lost savings in vapor recovery of $1,230 

resulted in a net savings of $614. Id. 

After the decommissioning process and going forward on an annual basis, USEPA 

estimated that the average GDF will see a $997 savings in the initial year and $2,977 to as much 

as $6,000 in following years. TSD Att. H at 9; Tr.1 at 23, 57-61. Extrapolating these savings, 

USEPA estimated the nationwide savings for the first 12-month period would be $10,200,000 in 

2013 and $91,100,000 by the end of 2016, not counting California. TSD Att. H at 10. 

Further, USEPA estimated the costs savings of not installing Stage II systems at the 

average newly-established GDFs on or after January 1, 2014, to be in the range of $20,000 to 

$60,000, with a recurring annual savings from avoided operating costs of about $3,000. TSD at 

32; TSD Att. C; TSD Att. H at 12; PFT1 Burkhart at 15, Tr. 1 at 23. 

IEPA requested cost estimates from a few major licensed contractors that perform

gasoline dispenser and fuel infrastructure work in the Chicago area. Looking at a range of GDFs 

with 2 to 6 nozzles and various dispenser manufactures, cost estimates ranged from $2,000 to 

$7,000 per GDF to decommission. The least expensive of these would be the balance-type 

systems at $2000, of which there are an estimated 100 in the Chicago NAA. For the vacuumassist Stage II systems with 2 nozzles, IEPA found estimates around $4,400. For all 2,420 GDFs 

in the Chicago NAA to decommission their Stage II equipment, IEPA estimated a total cost of 

about $10.6 million. TSD at 31-32; PFT1 Burkhart at 14, Tr. 1 at 22-23. 

IPMA, which consists of “300 members who own or supply 3500 gasoline stations and 

convenience stores in Illinois,” made economic arguments for the timely adoption of the 

proposed amendments. PC2 at 1; see also PC6 at 1. IPMA emphasized that “Illinois marketers 

are delaying investment in building new sites or upgrading existing ones until the new rules are 

in place.” PC6 at 1. IPMA argued that delaying final adoption of the amendments would have 

an economic ripple effect: 

There are several marketers with stations in Illinois that market in multiple states. 

Many of them are electing to invest money in developing new stations in other

states. By doing this they can enjoy a savings of about 50k per site. This is the 

typical average cost when stage II vapor recovery systems do not need to be 

installed. Each station built outside of Illinois is a loss of about 2.5 to 3 million 

dollars spent in Illinois. That is the average cost of construction per site in the 

impacted counties. This is a loss of jobs and revenue to the state and its citizens. 

PC2 at 1. 

ARID suggests that adding vapor processor controls to USTs would provide a favorable 

payback to the GDF owner and fuel savings. PC4 at 2; White Paper at 17. IPMA opposes these

add-on controls, arguing that “it would be an expensive investment for the site to make this 

change” and after installation, would impose additional maintenance costs both for the ARID 

system and the retained Stage II “ORVR compatible” system. PC6 at 1. The Board reiterates 

that ARID provided no cost information comparable to USEPA’s analysis for the average GDF 

for the Board to draw comparisons. USEPA’s financial analysis found the average GDF would 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1034
save $1,230 per year in vapor recovery (i.e., fuel) savings if Stage II were kept in place, but 

would still need to pay $1,844 in annual Stage II operating and maintenance costs and not realize 

the cost savings of switching to conventional, non-Stage II equipment of $2,977 total per year. 

TSD Att. H at 7-8. 

 

The proposed permit exemptions and insignificant activity amendments do not place 

additional financial obligations on affected sources, but rather should reduce the burden 

associated with permitting and may result in reduced costs to sources. SR at 28-29; TSD at 27-

28; Tr.1 at 30. 

Based upon the record, the Board finds that these amendments are economically 

reasonable and will not have an adverse economic impact on the People of Illinois. 

CONCLUSION

The Board proposes amendments to Parts 201, 218, and 219 for second-notice review by 

JCAR. No substantive changes, and only minor revisions, are made to the first-notice rule 

language. After JCAR’s second-notice review, the Board intends to adopt final amendments and 

file them with the Secretary of State to provide an effective date for these amendments during 

this calendar year. A 2013 calendar-year effective date will allow the State of Illinois to timely 

realize additional emission reduction benefits achievable by using only ORVR systems. 

This proceeding’s most substantial rule change is the phasing out of the Stage II 

requirements for GDFs in the Chicago ozone NAA. The proposed removal of Stage II vapor 

recovery systems is possible due to USEPA’s waiver of the Stage II requirement, which is based 

upon USEPA’s determination that there is widespread use of ORVR nationwide. In turn, IEPA 

has demonstrated that beginning in January 2014, ORVR operating simultaneously with 

incompatible Stage II systems will not achieve as many emission reductions as could be achieved 

through the use of ORVR alone. 

Owners and operators of existing GDFs (i.e., operating at any time before January 1, 

2014) in the Chicago ozone NAA will be allowed to begin decommissioning Stage II systems on 

January 1, 2014, but must comply with Stage II requirements until decommissioning begins. 

Decommissioning must be completed by December 31, 2016. Additionally, the amendments 

will remove the requirement for installing Stage II systems at new GDFs in the Chicago ozone 

NAA (i.e., operating for the first time on or after January 1, 2014). 

As proposed at first notice, the second-notice amendments also reflect the repeal of 

overlapping Stage I registration requirements in the Chicago and Metro-East ozone NAAs. 

Finally, applicable throughout the State are proposed clarifications to State air permitting 

exemptions and proposed amendments for Title V or CAAPP “insignificant activities.” 

Regarding procedural matters, the Board strikes the Additional ARID Submissions on the 

Board’s own motion and grants IEPA’s motion to waive copy requirements. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1035
ORDER

1. The Board, on its own motion, strikes the 9/30 ARID email, the 10/1 ARID email, 

the 10/16 ARID email, and the 11/7 ARID emails, collectively, the Additional 

ARID Submissions, all as defined in the above opinion. The Board further directs 

the Clerk to mark each of the Additional ARID Submissions as “Stricken by the 

Board” and note the same in each corresponding docket entry. 

2. The Board grants IEPA’s motion to waive copy requirements. 

3. The Board directs the Clerk to submit to JCAR the following proposed 

amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201, 218, and 219. Proposed additions to the 

current rules are underlined; proposed deletions to the current rules appear 

stricken.

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER a: PERMITS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

PART 201 

PERMITS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBPART A: DEFINITIONS

Section 

201.101 Other Definitions

201.102 Definitions 

201.103 Abbreviations and Units 

201.104 Incorporations by Reference 

SUBPART B: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 

201.121 Existence of Permit No Defense 

201.122 Proof of Emissions 

201.123 Burden of Persuasion Regarding Exceptions 

201.124 Annual Report 

201.125 Severability

201.126 Repealer

SUBPART C: PROHIBITIONS 

Section 

201.141 Prohibition of Air Pollution 

201.142 Construction Permit Required 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1036
201.143 Operating Permits for New Sources 

201.144 Operating Permits for Existing Sources 

201.146 Exemptions from State Permit Requirements 

201.147 Former Permits 

201.148 Operation Without Compliance Program and Project Completion Schedule 

201.149 Operation During Malfunction, Breakdown or Startups 

201.150 Circumvention 

201.151 Design of Effluent Exhaust Systems 

SUBPART D: PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND REVIEW PROCESS

Section 

201.152 Contents of Application for Construction Permit 

201.153 Incomplete Applications (Repealed)

201.154 Signatures (Repealed)

201.155 Standards for Issuance (Repealed)

201.156 Conditions 

201.157 Contents of Application for Operating Permit 

201.158 Incomplete Applications

201.159 Signatures

201.160 Standards for Issuance 

201.161 Conditions 

201.162 Duration 

201.163 Joint Construction and Operating Permits 

201.164 Design Criteria

201.165 Hearings

201.166 Revocation

201.167 Revisions to Permits 

201.168 Appeals from Conditions 

201.169 Special Provisions for Certain Operating Permits

201.170 Portable Emission Units

201.175 Registration of Smaller Sources (ROSS)

SUBPART E: SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR OPERATING PERMITS FOR CERTAIN 

SMALLER SOURCES

Section 

201.180 Applicability (Repealed)

201.181 Expiration and Renewal (Repealed)

201.187 Requirement for a Revised Permit (Repealed)

SUBPART F: CAAPP PERMITS

Section 

201.207 Applicability

201.208 Supplemental Information 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1037
201.209 Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants 

201.210 Categories of Insignificant Activities or Emission Levels 

201.211 Application for Classification as an Insignificant Activity 

201.212 Revisions to Lists of Insignificant Activities or Emission Levels 

SUBPART G: EXPERIMENTAL PERMITS

(Reserved)

SUBPART H: COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS AND PROJECT COMPLETION SCHEDULES

Section 

201.241 Contents of Compliance Program 

201.242 Contents of Project Completion Schedule 

201.243 Standards for Approval 

201.244 Revisions 

201.245 Effects of Approval 

201.246 Records and Reports 

201.247 Submission and Approval Dates 

SUBPART I: MALFUNCTIONS, BREAKDOWNS OR STARTUPS

Section 

201.261 Contents of Request for Permission to Operate During a Malfunction, Breakdown 

or Startup 

201.262 Standards for Granting Permission to Operate During a Malfunction, Breakdown 

or Startup 

201.263 Records and Reports 

201.264 Continued Operation or Startup Prior to Granting of Operating Permit 

201.265 Effect of Granting of Permission to Operate During a Malfunction, Breakdown or 

Startup 

SUBPART J: MONITORING AND TESTING

Section 

201.281 Permit Monitoring Equipment Requirements 

201.282 Testing

201.283 Records and Reports 

SUBPART K: RECORDS AND REPORTS

Section 

201.301 Records

201.302 Reports 

SUBPART L: CONTINUOUS MONITORING

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1038
Section 

201.401 Continuous Monitoring Requirements 

201.402 Alternative Monitoring 

201.403 Exempt Sources

201.404 Monitoring System Malfunction 

201.405 Excess Emission Reporting 

201.406 Data Reduction

201.407 Retention of Information 

201.408 Compliance Schedules 

201.APPENDIX A Rule into Section Table 

201.APPENDIX B Section into Rule Table 

201.APPENDIX C Past Compliance Dates 

AUTHORITY: Implementing Sections 10, 39 and 39.5 and authorized by Section 27 of the 

Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/10, 27, 39 and 39.5]. 

SOURCE: Adopted as Chapter 2: Air Pollution, Part I: General Provisions, in R71-23, 4 PCB 

191, filed and effective April 14, 1972; amended in R78-3 and 4, 35 PCB 75 and 243, at 3 Ill. 

Reg.30, p. 124, effective July 28, 1979; amended in R80-5, at 7 Ill. Reg. 1244, effective January 

21, 1983; codified at 7 Ill. Reg. 13579; amended in R82-1 (Docket A) at 10 Ill. Reg. 12628, 

effective July 7, 1986; amended in R87-38 at 13 Ill. Reg. 2066, effective February 3, 1989; 

amended in R89-7(A) at 13 Ill. Reg. 19444, effective December 5, 1989; amended in R89-7(B) 

at 15 Ill. Reg. 17710, effective November 26, 1991; amended in R93-11 at 17 Ill. Reg. 21483, 

effective December 7, 1993; amended in R94-12 at 18 Ill. Reg. 15002, effective September 21, 

1994; amended in R94-14 at 18 Ill. Reg. 15760, effective October 17, 1994; amended in R96-17 

at 21 Ill. Reg. 7878, effective June 17, 1997; amended in R98-13 at 22 Ill. Reg. 11451, effective 

June 23, 1998; amended in R98-28 at 22 Ill. Reg. 11823, effective July 31, 1998; amended in 

R02-10 at 27 Ill. Reg. 5820, effective March 21, 2003; amended in R05-19 and R05-20 at 30 Ill. 

Reg. 4901, effective March 3, 2006; amended in R07-19 at 33 Ill. Reg. 11965, effective August 

6, 2009; amended in R10-21 at 34 Ill. Reg.19575, effective December 1, 2010; amended in R12-

10 at 35 Ill. Reg. 19790, effective December 5, 2011; amended in R13-18 at 37 Ill. Reg. 

__________, effective ____________. 

SUBPART C: PROHIBITIONS

Section 201.146 Exemptions from State Permit Requirements 

Construction or operating permits, pursuant to Sections 201.142, 201.143 and 201.144 of this 

Part, are not required for the classes of equipment and activities listed below in this Section. The 

permitting exemptions in this Section do not relieve the owner or operator of any source from 

any obligation to comply with any other applicable requirements, including the obligation to 

obtain a permit pursuant to Sections 9.1(d) and 39.5 of the Act, sections 165, 173 and 502 of the 

Clean Air Act or any other applicable permit or registration requirements. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1039
a) Air contaminant detectors or recorders, combustion controllers or combustion 

shutoffs; 

b) Air conditioning or ventilating equipment not designed to remove air 

contaminants generated by or released from associated equipment; 

c) Each fuel burning emission unit for indirect systems and for heating and reheating 

furnace systems used exclusively for residential, or commercial establishments 

using gas and/or fuel oil exclusively with a design heat input capacity of less than 

14.6 MW (50 mmbtu/hr), except that a permit shall be required for any such 

emission unit with a design heat input capacity of at least 10 mmbtu/hr that was 

constructed, reconstructed or modified after June 9, 1989 and that is subject to 40 

CFR 60, subpart D; 

d) Each fuel burning emission unit other than those listed in subsection (c) of this 

Section for direct systems used for comfort heating purposes and indirect heating 

systems with a design heat input capacity of less than 2930 kW (10 mmbtu/hr); 

e) Internal combustion engines or boilers (including the fuel system) of motor 

vehicles, locomotives, air craft, watercraft, lifttrucks and other vehicles powered 

by nonroad engines; 

f) Bench scale laboratory equipment and laboratory equipment used exclusively for 

chemical and physical analysis, including associated laboratory fume hoods, 

vacuum producing devices and control devices installed primarily to address 

potential accidental releases; 

g) Coating operations located at a source using not in excess of 18,925 1 (5,000 gal) 

of coating (including thinner) per year; 

h) Any emission unit acquired exclusively for domestic use, except that a permit 

shall be required for any incinerator and for any fuel combustion emission unit 

using solid fuel with a design heat input capacity of 14.6 MW (50 mmbtu/hr) or 

more; 

i) Any stationary internal combustion engine with a rated power output of less than 

1118 kW (1500 bhp) or stationary turbine, except that a permit shall be required 

for the following: 

1) Any internal combustion engine with a rating at equal to or greater than 

500 bhp output that is subject to the control requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 217.388(a) or (b); or 

2) Any stationary gas turbine engine with a rated heat input at peak load of 

10.7 gigajoules/hr (10 mmbtu/hr) or more that is constructed, 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1040
reconstructed or modified after October 3, 1977 and that is subject to 

requirements of 40 CFR 60, subpart GG; 

j) Rest room facilities and associated cleanup operations, and stacks or vents used to 

prevent the escape of sewer gases through plumbing traps; 

k) Safety devices designed to protect life and limb, provided that a permit is not 

otherwise required for the emission unit with which the safety device is 

associated; 

l) Storage tanks and fuel dispensing equipment that are both used for the dispensing 

of fuel to mobile sources, including on-road and off-road vehicles, for use in such 

mobile sourcesStorage tanks for liquids for retail dispensing except for storage 

tanks that are subject to the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.583(a)(2), 

218.583(a)(2) or 219.583(a)(2); 

m) Printing operations with aggregate organic solvent usage that never exceeds 2,839 

l (750 gal) per year from all printing lines at the source, including organic solvent 

from inks, dilutents, fountain solutions and cleaning materials; 

n) Storage tanks of: 

1) Organic liquids with a capacity of less than 37,850 l (10,000 gal), 

provided the storage tank is not used to store any amount of material or 

mixture of any material listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to 

section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act, and provided the storage tank is not 

subject to the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.583(a)(2), 

218.583(a)(2) or 219.583(a)(2); 

2) Any size containing exclusively soaps, detergents, surfactants, waxes, 

glycerin, vegetable oils, greases, animal fats, sweetener, corn syrup, 

aqueous salt solutions or aqueous caustic solutions, provided an organic 

solvent has not been mixed with such materials; or 

3) Any size containing virgin or re-refined distillate oil (including kerosene 

and diesel fuel), hydrocarbon condensate from natural gas pipeline or 

storage systems, lubricating oil or residual fuel oils; 

o) Threaded pipe connections, vessel manways, flanges, valves, pump seals, pressure 

relief valves, pressure relief devices and pumps; 

p) Sampling connections used exclusively to withdraw materials for testing and 

analyses; 

q) All storage tanks of Illinois crude oil with capacity of less than 151,400 1 (40,000 

gal) located on oil field sites; 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1041
r) All organic material-water single or multiple compartment effluent water 

separator facilities for Illinois crude oil of vapor pressure of less than 34.5 kPa 

absolute (5 psia); 

s) Grain-handling operations, exclusive of grain-drying operations, with an annual 

grain through-put not exceeding 300,000 bushels; 

t) Grain-drying operations with a total grain-drying capacity not exceeding 750 

bushels per hour for 5% moisture extraction at manufacturer's rated capacity, 

using the American Society of Agricultural Engineers Standard 248.2, Section 9, 

Basis for Stating Drying Capacity of Batch and Continuous-Flow Grain Dryers; 

u) Portable grain-handling equipment and one-turn storage space; 

v) Cold cleaning degreasers that are not in-line cleaning machines, where the vapor 

pressure of the solvents used never exceeds 2 kPa (15 mmHg or 0.3 psi) measured 

at 38°C (100°F) or 0.7 kPa (5 mmHg or 0.1 psi) at 20°C (68°F); 

w) Coin-operated dry cleaning operations; 

x) Dry cleaning operations at a source that consume less than 30 gallons per month 

of perchloroethylene; 

y) Brazing, soldering, wave soldering or welding equipment, including associated 

ventilation hoods; 

z) Cafeterias, kitchens, and other similar facilities, including smokehouses, used for 

preparing food or beverages, but not including facilities used in the manufacturing 

and wholesale distribution of food, beverages, food or beverage products, or food 

or beverage components; 

aa) Equipment for carving, cutting, routing, turning, drilling, machining, sawing, 

surface grinding, sanding, planing, buffing, sand blast cleaning, shot blasting, shot 

peening, or polishing ceramic artwork, leather, metals (other than beryllium), 

plastics, concrete, rubber, paper stock, wood or wood products, where such 

equipment is either: 

1) Used for maintenance activity; 

2) Manually operated; 

3) Exhausted inside a building; or 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1042
4) Vented externally with emissions controlled by an appropriately operated 

cyclonic inertial separator (cyclone), filter, electro-static precipitor or a 

scrubber; 

bb) Feed mills that produce no more than 10,000 tons of feed per calendar year, 

provided that a permit is not otherwise required for the source pursuant to Section 

201.142, 201.143 or 201.144; 

cc) Extruders used for the extrusion of metals, minerals, plastics, rubber or wood, 

excluding: 

1) Extruders used in the manufacture of polymers; 

2) Extruders using foaming agents or release agents that contain volatile 

organic materials or Class I or II substances subject to the requirements of 

Title VI of the Clean Air Act; and 

3) Extruders processing scrap material that was produced using foaming 

agents containing volatile organic materials or Class I or II substances 

subject to the requirements of Title VI of the Clean Air Act; 

dd) Furnaces used for melting metals, other than beryllium, with a brim full capacity 

of less than 450 cubic inches by volume; 

ee) Equipment used for the melting or application of less than 22,767 kg/yr (50,000 

lbs/yr) of wax to which no organic solvent has been added; 

ff) Equipment used for filling drums, pails or other packaging containers, excluding 

aerosol cans, with soaps, detergents, surfactants, lubricating oils, waxes, vegetable 

oils, greases, animal fats, glycerin, sweeteners, corn syrup, aqueous salt solutions 

or aqueous caustic solutions, provided an organic solvent has not been mixed with 

such materials; 

gg) Loading and unloading systems for railcars, tank trucks, or watercraft that handle 

only the following liquid materials: soaps, detergents, surfactants, lubricating 

oils, waxes, glycerin, vegetable oils, greases, animal fats, sweetener, corn syrup, 

aqueous salt solutions or aqueous caustic solutions, provided an organic solvent 

has not been mixed with such materials; 

hh) Equipment used for the mixing and blending of materials at ambient temperatures 

to make water based adhesives, provided each material mixed or blended contains 

less than 5% organic solvent by weight; 

ii) Die casting machines where a metal or plastic is formed under pressure in a die 

located at a source with a through-put of less than 2,000,000 lbs of metal or 

plastic per year, in the aggregate, from all die casting machines; 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1043
jj) Air pollution control devices used exclusively with other equipment that is 

exempt from permitting, as provided in this Section; 

kk) (Reserved)An emission unit for which a registration system designed to identify 

sources and emission units subject to emission control requirements is in place, 

such as the registration system found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.586 (Gasoline 

Dispensing Operations – Motor Vehicle Fueling Operations) and 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218, Subpart HH (Motor Vehicle Refinishing); 

ll) Photographic process equipment by which an image is reproduced upon material 

sensitized to radiant energy; 

mm) Equipment used for hydraulic or hydrostatic testing; 

nn) General vehicle maintenance and servicing activities conducted at a source, motor 

vehicle repair shops, and motor vehicle body shops, but not including motor 

vehicle refinishing;: 

1) Gasoline fuel handling; and 

2) Motor vehicle refinishing; 

oo) Equipment using water, water and soap or detergent, or a suspension of abrasives 

in water for purposes of cleaning or finishing, provided no organic solvent has 

been added to the water; 

pp) Administrative activities including, but not limited to, paper shredding, copying, 

photographic activities and blueprinting machines. This does not include 

incinerators; 

qq) Laundry dryers, extractors, and tumblers processing that have been cleaned with 

water solutions of bleach or detergents that are: 

1) Located at a source and process clothing, bedding and other fabric items 

used at the source, provided that any organic solvent present in such items 

before processing that is retained from cleanup operations shall be 

addressed as part of the VOM emissions from use of cleaning materials; 

2) Located at a commercial laundry; or 

3) Coin operated; 

rr) Housekeeping activities for cleaning purposes, including collecting spilled and 

accumulated materials, including operation of fixed vacuum cleaning systems 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1044
specifically for such purposes, but not including use of cleaning materials that 

contain organic solvent; 

ss) Refrigeration systems, including storage tanks used in refrigeration systems, but 

excluding any combustion equipment associated with such systems; 

tt) Activities associated with the construction, on-site repair, maintenance or 

dismantlement of buildings, utility lines, pipelines, wells, excavations, earthworks 

and other structures that do not constitute emission units; 

uu) Piping and storage systems for natural gas, propane and liquefied petroleum gas; 

vv) Water treatment or storage systems, as follows: 

1) Systems for potable water or boiler feedwater; 

2) Systems, including cooling towers, for process water, provided that such 

water has not been in direct or indirect contact with process streams that 

contain volatile organic material or materials listed as hazardous air 

pollutants pursuant to section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act; 

ww) Lawn care, landscape maintenance and grounds keeping activities; 

xx) Containers, reservoirs or tanks used exclusively in dipping operations to coat 

objects with oils, waxes or greases, provided no organic solvent has been mixed 

with such materials; 

yy) Use of consumer products, including hazardous substances as that term is defined 

in the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 USC 1261 et seq.), where the 

product is used at a source in the same manner as normal consumer use; 

zz) Activities directly used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease, injury or other 

medical condition; 

aaa) Activities associated with the construction, repair or maintenance of roads or 

other paved or open areas, including operation of street sweepers, vacuum trucks, 

spray trucks and other vehicles related to the control of fugitive emissions of such 

roads or other areas; 

bbb) Storage and handling of drums or other transportable containers, where the 

containers are sealed during storage and handling; 

ccc) Activities at a source associated with the maintenance, repair or dismantlement of 

an emission unit or other equipment installed at the source, not including the 

shutdown of the unit or equipment, including preparation for maintenance, repair 

or dismantlement, and preparation for subsequent startup, including preparation of 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1045
a shutdown vessel for entry, replacement of insulation, welding and cutting, and 

steam purging of a vessel prior to startup; 

ddd) Equipment used for corona arc discharge surface treatment of plastic with a power 

rating of 5 kW or less or equipped with an ozone destruction device; 

eee) Equipment used to seal or cut plastic bags for commercial, industrial or domestic 

use; 

fff) Each direct-fired gas dryer used for a washing, cleaning, coating or printing line, 

excluding: 

1) Dryers with a rated heat input capacity of 2930 kW (10 mmbtu/hr) or 

more; and 

2) Dryers for which emissions other than those attributable to combustion of 

fuel in the dryer, including emissions attributable to use or application of 

cleaning agents, washing materials, coatings or inks or other process 

materials that contain volatile organic material are not addressed as part of 

the permitting of such line, if a permit is otherwise required for the line; 

ggg) Municipal solid waste landfills with a maximum total design capacity of less than 

2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3

 that are not required to install a gas collection 

and control system pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 220 or 800 through 849 or 

Section 9.1 of the Act; 

hhh) Replacement or addition of air pollution control equipment for existing emission 

units in circumstances where:

1) The existing emission unit is permitted and has operated in compliance for 

the past year;

2) The new control equipment will provide equal or better control of the 

target pollutants;

3) The new control device will not be accompanied by a net increase in 

emissions of any non-targeted criteria air pollutant;

4) Different State or federal regulatory requirements or newly proposed 

regulatory requirements will not apply to the unit; and 

BOARD NOTE: All sources must comply with underlying federal 

regulations and future State regulations. 

5) Where the existing air pollution control equipment had required 

monitoring equipment, the new air pollution control equipment will be 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1046
equipped with the instrumentation and monitoring devices that are 

typically installed on the new equipment of that type. 

BOARD NOTE: For major sources subject to Section 39.5 of the Act, 

where the new air pollution control equipment will require a different 

compliance determination method in the facility's CAAPP permit, the 

facility may need a permit modification to address the changed 

compliance determination method; 

iii) Replacement, addition, or modification of emission units at facilities with 

federally enforceable State operating permits limiting their potential to emit in 

circumstances where:

1) The potential to emit any regulated air pollutant in the absence of air 

pollution control equipment from the new emission unit, or the increase in 

the potential to emit resulting from the modification of any existing 

emission unit, is less than 0.1 pound per hour or 0.44 tons per year; 

2) The raw materials and fuels used or present in the emission unit that cause 

or contribute to emissions, based on the information contained in Material 

Safety Data Sheets for those materials, do not contain equal to or greater 

than 0.01 percent by weight of any hazardous air pollutant as defined 

under section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act; 

3) The emission unit or modification is not subject to an emission standard or 

other regulatory requirement pursuant to section 111 of the federal Clean 

Air Act;

4) Potential emissions of regulated air pollutants from the emission unit or 

modification will not, in combination with emissions from existing units 

or other proposed units, trigger permitting requirements under Section 

39.5, permitting requirements under section 165 or 173 of the federal 

Clean Air Act, or the requirement to obtain a revised federally enforceable 

State operating permit limiting the source's potential to emit; and

5) The source is not currently the subject of a Non-compliance Advisory, 

Clean Air Act Section 114 Request, Violation Notice, Notice of Violation, 

Compliance Commitment Agreement, Administrative Order, or civil or 

criminal enforcement action, related to the air emissions of the source;

jjj) Replacement, addition, or modification of emission units at permitted sources that 

are not major sources subject to Section 39.5 of the Act and that do not have a 

federally enforceable State operating permit limiting their potential to emit, in 

circumstances where:

1) The potential to emit of any regulated air pollutant in the absence of air 

pollution control equipment from the new emission unit, or the increase in 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1047
the potential to emit resulting from the modification of any existing 

emission unit is either:

A) Less than 0.1 pound per hour or 0.44 tons per year; or 

B) Less than 0.5 pound per hour, and the permittee provides prior 

notification to the Agency of the intent to construct or install the 

unit. The unit may be constructed, installed or modified 

immediately after the notification is filed;

2) The emission unit or modification is not subject to an emission standard or 

other regulatory requirement under section 111 or 112 of the federal Clean 

Air Act;

3) Potential emissions of regulated air pollutants from the emission unit or 

modification will not, in combination with the emissions from existing 

units or other proposed units, trigger permitting requirements under 

Section 39.5 of the Act or the requirement to obtain a federally 

enforceable permit limiting the source's potential to emit; and

4) The source is not currently the subject of a Non-compliance Advisory, 

Clean Air Act Section 114 Request, Violation Notice, Notice of Violation, 

Compliance Commitment Agreement, Administrative Order, or civil or 

criminal enforcement action, related to the air emissions of the source; 

kkk) The owner or operator of a CAAPP source is not required to obtain an air 

pollution control construction permit for the construction or modification of an 

emission unit or activity that is an insignificant activity as addressed by Section 

201.210 or 201.211 of this Part. Section 201.212 of this Part must still be 

followed, as applicable. Other than excusing the owner or operator of a CAAPP 

source from the requirement to obtain an air pollution control construction permit 

for the emission units or activities, nothing in this subsection shall alter or affect 

the liability of the CAAPP source for compliance with emission standards and 

other requirements that apply to the emission units or activities, either 

individually or in conjunction with other emission units or activities constructed, 

modified or located at the source; 

lll) Plastic injection molding equipment with an annual through-put not exceeding 

5,000 tons of plastic resin in the aggregate from all plastic injection molding 

equipment at the source, and all associated plastic resin loading, unloading, 

conveying, mixing, storage, grinding, and drying equipment and associated mold 

release and mold cleaning agents.

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. ______________, effective___________) 

SUBPART F: CAAPP PERMITS

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1048
Section 201.210 Categories of Insignificant Activities or Emission Levels 

a) The owner or operator of a CAAPP source, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 270, 

shall submit to the Agency within its CAAPP application a list of the following 

activities or emission levels:

1) Any emission unit determined to be an insignificant activity by the 

Agency pursuant to Section 201.211 of this Part; 

2) Emission units with emissions that never exceed 0.1 lbs/hr of any 

regulated air pollutant in the absence of air pollution control equipment 

and that do not emit any air pollutant listed as hazardous pursuant to 

sectionSection 112(b) of the Clean Air Act; 

3) Emission units with emissions that never exceed 0.44 tons/year of any 

regulated air pollutant in the absence of air pollution control equipment 

and that do not emit any air pollutant listed as hazardous pursuant to 

sectionSection 112(b) of the Clean Air Act;

4) Direct combustion units designed and used for comfort heating purposes 

and fuel combustion emission units as follows: 

A) Units with a rated heat input capacity of less than 2.5 mmbtu/hr 

that fire only natural gas, propane or liquefied petroleum gas;

B) Units with a rated heat input capacity of less than 1.0 mmbtu/hr 

that fire only oil or oil in combination with only natural gas, 

propane, or liquefied petroleum gas; 

C) Units with a rated capacity of less than 200,000 btu/hr which never 

burn refuse or treated or chemically contaminated wood;

5) Extruders used for the extrusion of metals, minerals, plastics, rubber, or 

wood, excluding extruders used in the manufacture of polymers, provided 

that volatile organic materials or class I or II substances subject to the 

requirements of Title VI of the Clean Air Act are not used as foaming 

agents or release agents or were not used as foaming agents in the case of 

extruders processing scrap material;

6) Furnaces used for melting metals other than beryllium with a brim full 

capacity of less than 450 cubic inches by volume; 

7) Equipment used for the melting or application of less than 50,000 lbs/yr of 

wax to which no organic solvent has been added; 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1049
8) Equipment used for filling drums, pails or other packaging containers, 

excluding aerosol cans, with soaps, detergents, surfactants, lubricating 

oils, waxes, vegetable oils, greases, animal fats, glycerin, sweeteners, corn 

syrup, aqueous salt solutions, or aqueous caustic solutions; 

9) Equipment used for the mixing and blending of materials at ambient 

temperature to make water based adhesives provided each material 

contains less than 5% organic solvent by weight; 

10) Storage tanks, as follows: 

A) Storage tanks of organic liquids with a capacity of less than 10,000 

gallons and an annual throughput of less than 100,000 gallons 

provided the tank is not used for the storage of any amount of 

gasoline, including gasoline/ethanol blend fuels, or any amount of 

material or mixture of any material listed as a hazardous air 

pollutant pursuant to sectionSection 112(b) of the Clean Air Act; 

B) Storage tanks of gasoline, including gasoline/ethanol blend fuels, 

with a capacity of less than 2000 gallons; 

11) Storage tanks of virgin or rerefined distillate oil (including kerosene and 

diesel fuel), hydrocarbon condensate from natural gas pipeline or storage 

systems, lubricating oil, or residual fuel oils;

12) Die casting machines where a metal or plastic is formed under pressure in 

a die;

13) Coating operations (excluding powder, architectural and industrial 

maintenance coating) with aggregate VOM usage that never exceeds 15 

lbs/day from all coating lines at the source, including VOM from coating, 

dilutents, and cleaning materials;

14) Printing operations with aggregate organic solvent usage that never 

exceeds 750 gallons per year from all printing lines at the source, 

including organic solvent from inks, dilutents, fountain solutions, and 

cleaning materials;

15) Gas turbines and stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines of 

less than 112 kW (150 horsepower) power output; 

16) Gas turbines and stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines of 

between 1118 and 112 kW (1500 and 150 horsepower) power output that 

are emergency or standby units;

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1050
17) Storage tanks of any size containing exclusively soaps, detergents, 

surfactants, waxes, glycerin, vegetable oils, greases, animal fats, 

sweetener, corn syrup, aqueous salt solutions, or aqueous caustic solutions 

provided an organic solvent has not been mixed with such materials; and

18) Loading and unloading systems for railcars, tank trucks, or watercraft that 

handle only the following liquid materials provided an organic solvent has 

not been mixed with such materials: soaps, detergents, surfactants, 

lubricating oils, waxes, glycerin, vegetable oils, greases, animal fats, 

sweetener, corn syrup, aqueous salt solutions, or aqueous caustic 

solutions; and. 

19) Fuel dispensing operations and fuel dispensing equipment for the fuels 

specified in subsections (a)(19)(A) and (B), for mobile sources, including 

on-road and off-road vehicles, for use in such mobile sources. For 

purposes of this subsection (a)(19), fuel dispensing equipment means 

equipment for transferring fuel to a mobile source, including nozzles, 

hoses, swivels, breakaways, hose retractors, vapor valves, dispensers, 

vacuum-assist devices, vapor-return piping, and liquid collection points. 

Storage tanks and storage tank equipment are not included in fuel 

dispensing operations or fuel dispensing equipment and are addressed 

separately.

A) Gasoline, including gasoline/ethanol blend fuels, if the annual 

throughput of the fuel dispensed is less than 120,000 gallons 

(rolling 12 month total). 

B) Distillate oil (including kerosene and diesel fuel), biodiesel, and 

biodiesel/distillate oil blends.

b) The owner or operator of a CAAPP source is not required to individually list the 

following activities in a CAAPP application pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 270. 

The applicant shall denote whether any of the following activities are present at 

the source in its CAAPP application: 

1) Air conditioning or ventilating equipment not designed to remove air 

contaminants generated by or released from associated equipment;

2) Photographic process equipment by which an image is reproduced upon 

material sensitized to radiant energy;

3) Equipment used for hydraulic or hydrostatic testing; 

4) General vehicle maintenance and servicing activities at the source, other 

than fuel handling or dispensing of gasoline (including gasoline/ethanol 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1051
blend fuels), distillate oil (including kerosene and diesel fuel), biodiesel, 

or biodiesel/distillate oil blends fuel handling; 

5) Cafeterias, kitchens, and other facilities used for preparing food or 

beverages primarily for consumption at the source; 

6) Equipment using water, water and soap or detergent, or a suspension of 

abrasives in water for purposes of cleaning or finishing provided no 

organic solvent has been added to the water; 

7) Administrative activities including, but not limited to, paper shredding, 

copying, photographic activities, and blueprinting machines. This does 

not include incinerators; 

8) Laundry dryers, extractors, and tumblers processing clothing, bedding, and 

other fabric items used at the source that have been cleaned with water 

solutions of bleach or detergents provided that any organic solvent present 

in such items before processing that is retained from clean-up operations 

shall be addressed as part of the VOM emissions from use of cleaning 

materials;

9) Housekeeping activities for cleaning purposes, including collecting spilled 

and accumulated materials at the source, including operation of fixed 

vacuum cleaning systems specifically for such purposes, but not including 

use of cleaning materials that contain organic solvent; 

10) Refrigeration systems, including storage tanks used in refrigeration 

systems, but excluding any combustion equipment associated with such 

systems;

11) Bench scale laboratory equipment and laboratory equipment used 

exclusively for chemical and physical analysis, including associated 

laboratory fume hoods, vacuum producing devices and control devices 

installed primarily to address potential accidental releases;

12) Restroom facilities and associated clean-up operations, and stacks or vents 

used to prevent the escape of sewer gases through plumbing traps; 

13) Activities associated with the construction, on-site repair, maintenance or 

dismantlement of buildings, utility lines, pipelines, wells, excavations, 

earthworks and other structures that do not constitute emission units;

14) Storage tanks of organic liquids with a capacity of less than 500 gallons, 

provided the tank is not used for storage of any amount of material or 

mixture of any material listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to 

sectionSection 112(b) of the Clean Air Act; 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1052
15) Piping and storage systems for natural gas, propane, and liquefied 

petroleum gas; 

16) Water treatment or storage systems, as follows:

A) Systems for potable water or boiler feedwater;

B) Systems, including cooling towers, for process water provided that 

such water has not been in direct or indirect contact with process 

streams that contain volatile organic material or materials listed as 

hazardous air pollutants pursuant to sectionSection 112(b) of the 

Clean Air Act;

17) Lawn care, landscape maintenance, and groundskeeping activities; 

18) Containers, reservoirs, or tanks used exclusively in dipping operations to 

coat objects with oils, waxes, or greases, provided no organic solvent has 

been mixed with such materials;

19) Cold cleaning degreasers that are not in-line cleaning machines, where the 

vapor pressure of the solvents used never exceed 2kPa (15 mmHg or 0.3 

psi) measured at 38o

C (100oF) or 0.7 kPa (5 mmHg or 0.1 psi) at 20oC 

(68o

F);

20) Manually operated equipment used for buffing, polishing, carving, cutting, 

drilling, machining, routing, sanding, sawing, scarfing, surface grinding or 

turning; 

21) Use of consumer products, including hazardous substances as that term is 

defined in the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 USCU.S.C. 1261 et 

seq.), where the product is used at a source in the same manner as normal 

consumer use; 

22) Activities directly used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease, injury or 

other medical condition; 

23) Firefighting activities and training in preparation for fighting fires 

conducted at the source; 

BOARD NOTE(Note: Open burning permits may be required for certain 

training activities.);

24) Internal combustion engine or boiler (including the fuel system) of motor 

vehicles, locomotives, aircraft, watercraft, lifttrucks, and other vehicles 

powered by nonroad engines; 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1053
25) Activities associated with the construction, repair or maintenance of roads 

or other paved or open areas, including operation of street sweepers, 

vacuum trucks, spray trucks and other vehicles related to the control of 

fugitive emissions of such roads or other areas; 

26) Storage and handling of drums or other transportable containers where the 

containers are sealed during storage and handling; 

27) Individual points of emission or activities as follows: 

A) Individual flanges, valves, pump seals, pressure relief valves and 

other individual components that have the potential for leaks;

B) Individual sampling points, analyzers, and process instrumentation, 

whose operation may result in emissions; 

C) Individual features of an emission unit such as each burner and 

sootblowers in a boiler or each use of cleaning materials on a 

coating or printing line;

D) Individual equipment that is transportable or activities within a 

facility established for testing units prior to sale or distribution or 

for purposes of research; and 

E) Individual equipment or activities within a pilot plant facility that 

is used for research or training; 

BOARD NOTE(Note: Notwithstanding the foregoing, such points of 

emissions or activities shall be addressed in a CAAPP application in 

sufficient detail to identify applicable requirements and demonstrate 

compliance with such requirements. Emission data for such activities 

shall be addressed in the aggregate for each emission unit or group of 

related emission units). 

28) Activities at a source associated with the modification only or construction 

only of a facility, an emission unit or other equipment at the source; and 

BOARD NOTE(Note: Notwithstanding the status of this activity as 

insignificant, a particular activity that entails modification or construction 

of an emission unit or construction of air pollution control equipment may 

require a construction permit pursuant to Section 201.142 of this Part and 

may subsequently require a revised CAAPP permit. A revised CAAPP 

permit may also be necessary for operation of an emission unit after 

completion of a particular activity if the existing CAAPP permit does not 

accommodate the new state of the emission unit.) 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1054
29) Activities at a source associated with the maintenance, repair, or 

dismantlement of an emission unit or other equipment installed at the 

source, not including the shutdown of the unit or equipment, including 

preparation for maintenance, repair or dismantlement, and preparation for 

subsequent startup, including preparation of a shutdown vessel for entry, 

replacement of insulation, welding and cutting, and steam purging of a 

vessel prior to startup. 

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg.___________, effective _____________) 

SUBPART K: RECORDS AND REPORTS

Section 201.302 Reports 

a) The owner or operator of any emission unit or air pollution control equipment 

meeting the applicability criteria contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 254.102, unless 

specifically exempted in this Section, shall submit to the Agency as a minimum, 

annual reports detailing the nature, specific emission units and total annual 

quantities of all specified air contaminant emissions; provided, however, that the 

Agency may require more frequent reports whenwhere necessary to accomplish 

the purposes of the Act and this Chapter. 

b) The Agency may adopt procedures which require that additional reports be 

submitted, and which set forth the format in which all reports shall be submitted. 

Such procedures and formats, and revisions thereto, shall not become effective 

until filed with the Secretary of State as required by the Illinois Administrative 

Procedure ActAPA. 

c) All emission data received by the Agency, shall be available for public inspection 

at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice. 

d) Retail gasoline dispensing operations are exempt from the requirements of 

subsection (a) above unless the source has failed to comply with 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.586(h) or to obtain a permit under this Part if applicable. 

 (Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. ____________, effective ___________) 

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND

LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 218 

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1055
LIMITATIONS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

218.100 Introduction 

218.101 Savings Clause 

218.102 Abbreviations and Conversion Factors 

218.103 Applicability 

218.104 Definitions 

218.105 Test Methods and Procedures 

218.106 Compliance Dates 

218.107 Operation of Afterburners 

218.108 Exemptions, Variations, and Alternative Means of Control or Compliance 

Determinations 

218.109 Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Liquids 

218.110 Vapor Pressure of Organic Material or Solvent 

218.111 Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Material 

218.112 Incorporations by Reference 

218.113 Monitoring for Negligibly-Reactive Compounds 

218.114 Compliance with Permit Conditions 

SUBPART B: ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM STORAGE 

AND LOADING OPERATIONS

Section 

218.119 Applicability for VOL 

218.120 Control Requirements for Storage Containers of VOL 

218.121 Storage Containers of VPL 

218.122 Loading Operations 

218.123 Petroleum Liquid Storage Tanks 

218.124 External Floating Roofs 

218.125 Compliance Dates 

218.126 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

218.127 Testing VOL Operations 

218.128 Monitoring VOL Operations 

218.129 Recordkeeping and Reporting for VOL Operations 

SUBPART C: ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT

Section 

218.141 Separation Operations 

218.142 Pumps and Compressors 

218.143 Vapor Blowdown 

218.144 Safety Relief Valves 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1056
SUBPART E: SOLVENT CLEANING

Section 

218.181 Solvent Cleaning Degreasing Operations 

218.182 Cold Cleaning 

218.183 Open Top Vapor Degreasing 

218.184 Conveyorized Degreasing 

218.185 Compliance Schedule (Repealed) 

218.186 Test Methods 

218.187 Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations 

SUBPART F: COATING OPERATIONS

Section 

218.204 Emission Limitations 

218.205 Daily-Weighted Average Limitations 

218.206 Solids Basis Calculation 

218.207 Alternative Emission Limitations 

218.208 Exemptions from Emission Limitations 

218.209 Exemption from General Rule on Use of Organic Material 

218.210 Compliance Schedule 

218.211 Recordkeeping and Reporting 

218.212 Cross-Line Averaging to Establish Compliance for Coating Lines 

218.213 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Cross-Line Averaging Participating Coating 

Lines 

218.214 Changing Compliance Methods 

218.215 Wood Furniture Coating Averaging Approach 

218.216 Wood Furniture Coating Add-On Control Use 

218.217 Wood Furniture Coating and Flat Wood Paneling Coating Work Practice 

Standards 

218.218 Work Practice Standards for Paper Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Large 

Appliance Coatings

218.219 Work Practice Standards for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

SUBPART G: USE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL

Section 

218.301 Use of Organic Material 

218.302 Alternative Standard 

218.303 Fuel Combustion Emission Units 

218.304 Operations with Compliance Program 

SUBPART H: PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

Section 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1057
218.401 Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing 

218.402 Applicability 

218.403 Compliance Schedule 

218.404 Recordkeeping and Reporting 

218.405 Lithographic Printing: Applicability 

218.406 Provisions Applying to Heatset Web Offset Lithographic Printing Prior to March 

15, 1996 (Repealed) 

218.407 Emission Limitations and Control Requirements for Lithographic Printing Lines 

218.408 Compliance Schedule for Lithographic Printing On and After March 15, 1996 

(Repealed)

218.409 Testing for Lithographic Printing 

218.410 Monitoring Requirements for Lithographic Printing 

218.411 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Lithographic Printing 

218.412 Letterpress Printing Lines: Applicability

218.413 Emission Limitations and Control Requirements for Letterpress Printing Lines

218.415 Testing for Letterpress Printing Lines

218.416 Monitoring Requirements for Letterpress Printing Lines

218.417 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Letterpress Printing Lines 

SUBPART Q: SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL

AND POLYMER MANUFACTURING PLANT

Section 

218.421 General Requirements 

218.422 Inspection Program Plan for Leaks 

218.423 Inspection Program for Leaks 

218.424 Repairing Leaks 

218.425 Recordkeeping for Leaks 

218.426 Report for Leaks 

218.427 Alternative Program for Leaks 

218.428 Open-Ended Valves 

218.429 Standards for Control Devices 

218.430 Compliance Date (Repealed) 

218.431 Applicability 

218.432 Control Requirements 

218.433 Performance and Testing Requirements 

218.434 Monitoring Requirements 

218.435 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

218.436 Compliance Date 

SUBPART R: PETROLEUM REFINING AND

RELATED INDUSTRIES; ASPHALT MATERIALS

Section 

218.441 Petroleum Refinery Waste Gas Disposal 

218.442 Vacuum Producing Systems 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1058
218.443 Wastewater (Oil/Water) Separator 

218.444 Process Unit Turnarounds 

218.445 Leaks: General Requirements 

218.446 Monitoring Program Plan for Leaks 

218.447 Monitoring Program for Leaks 

218.448 Recordkeeping for Leaks 

218.449 Reporting for Leaks 

218.450 Alternative Program for Leaks 

218.451 Sealing Device Requirements 

218.452 Compliance Schedule for Leaks 

218.453 Compliance Dates (Repealed) 

SUBPART S: RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTIC PRODUCTS

Section 

218.461 Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires 

218.462 Green Tire Spraying Operations 

218.463 Alternative Emission Reduction Systems 

218.464 Emission Testing 

218.465 Compliance Dates (Repealed) 

218.466 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

SUBPART T: PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING

Section 

218.480 Applicability 

218.481 Control of Reactors, Distillation Units, Crystallizers, Centrifuges and Vacuum 

Dryers 

218.482 Control of Air Dryers, Production Equipment Exhaust Systems and Filters 

218.483 Material Storage and Transfer 

218.484 In-Process Tanks 

218.485 Leaks 

218.486 Other Emission Units 

218.487 Testing 

218.488 Monitoring for Air Pollution Control Equipment 

218.489 Recordkeeping for Air Pollution Control Equipment 

SUBPART V: BATCH OPERATIONS AND AIR OXIDATION PROCESSES

Section 

218.500 Applicability for Batch Operations 

218.501 Control Requirements for Batch Operations 

218.502 Determination of Uncontrolled Total Annual Mass Emissions and Average Flow 

Rate Values for Batch Operations 

218.503 Performance and Testing Requirements for Batch Operations 

218.504 Monitoring Requirements for Batch Operations 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1059
218.505 Reporting and Recordkeeping for Batch Operations 

218.506 Compliance Date 

218.520 Emission Limitations for Air Oxidation Processes 

218.521 Definitions (Repealed) 

218.522 Savings Clause 

218.523 Compliance 

218.524 Determination of Applicability 

218.525 Emission Limitations for Air Oxidation Processes 

218.526 Testing and Monitoring 

218.527 Compliance Date (Repealed)

 

SUBPART W: AGRICULTURE

Section 

218.541 Pesticide Exception 

SUBPART X: CONSTRUCTION

Section 

218.561 Architectural Coatings 

218.562 Paving Operations 

218.563 Cutback Asphalt 

SUBPART Y: GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION

Section 

218.581 Bulk Gasoline Plants 

218.582 Bulk Gasoline Terminals 

218.583 Gasoline Dispensing Operations – Storage Tank Filling Operations 

218.584 Gasoline Delivery Vessels 

218.585 Gasoline Volatility Standards (Repealed) 

218.586 Gasoline Dispensing Operations – Motor Vehicle Fueling Operations 

SUBPART Z: DRY CLEANERS

Section 

218.601 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners (Repealed)

218.602 Applicability (Repealed)

218.603 Leaks (Repealed)

218.604 Compliance Dates (Repealed) 

218.605 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

218.606 Exception to Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

218.607 Standards for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 

218.608 Operating Practices for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 

218.609 Program for Inspection and Repair of Leaks 

218.610 Testing and Monitoring 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1060
218.611 Applicability for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 

218.612 Compliance Dates (Repealed) 

218.613 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

SUBPART AA: PAINT AND INK MANUFACTURING

Section 

218.620 Applicability 

218.621 Exemption for Waterbase Material and Heatset-Offset Ink 

218.623 Permit Conditions (Repealed) 

218.624 Open-Top Mills, Tanks, Vats or Vessels 

218.625 Grinding Mills 

218.626 Storage Tanks 

218.628 Leaks 

218.630 Clean Up 

218.636 Compliance Schedule 

218.637 Recordkeeping and Reporting 

SUBPART BB: POLYSTYRENE PLANTS

Section 

218.640 Applicability 

218.642 Emissions Limitation at Polystyrene Plants 

218.644 Emissions Testing 

SUBPART CC: POLYESTER RESIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING PROCESS

Section 

218.660 Applicability 

218.666 Control Requirements 

218.667 Compliance Schedule 

218.668 Testing 

218.670 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Exempt Emission Units 

218.672 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Subject Emission Units 

SUBPART DD: AEROSOL CAN FILLING

Section 

218.680 Applicability 

218.686 Control Requirements 

218.688 Testing 

218.690 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Exempt Emission Units 

218.692 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Subject Emission Units 

SUBPART FF: BAKERY OVENS (REPEALED)

Section 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1061
218.720 Applicability (Repealed) 

218.722 Control Requirements (Repealed) 

218.726 Testing (Repealed) 

218.727 Monitoring (Repealed) 

218.728 Recordkeeping and Reporting (Repealed) 

218.729 Compliance Date (Repealed) 

218.730 Certification (Repealed) 

SUBPART GG: MARINE TERMINALS

Section 

218.760 Applicability 

218.762 Control Requirements 

218.764 Compliance Certification 

218.766 Leaks 

218.768 Testing and Monitoring 

218.770 Recordkeeping and Reporting 

SUBPART HH: MOTOR VEHICLE REFINISHING

Section 

218.780 Emission Limitations 

218.782 Alternative Control Requirements 

218.784 Equipment Specifications 

218.786 Surface Preparation Materials 

218.787 Work Practices 

218.788 Testing 

218.789 Monitoring and Recordkeeping for Control Devices 

218.790 General Recordkeeping and Reporting (Repealed)

218.791 Compliance Date 

218.792 Registration (Repealed)

218.875 Applicability of Subpart BB (Renumbered) 

218.877 Emissions Limitation at Polystyrene Plants (Renumbered) 

218.879 Compliance Date (Repealed) 

218.881 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

218.883 Special Requirements for Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

218.886 Emissions Testing (Renumbered) 

SUBPART II: FIBERGLASS BOAT MANUFACTURING MATERIALS

Section

218.890 Applicability

218.891 Emission Limitations and Control Requirements

218.892 Testing Requirements

218.894 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1062
SUBPART JJ: MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES

Section

218.900 Applicability

218.901 Emission Limitations and Control Requirements

218.902 Testing Requirements

218.903 Monitoring Requirements 

218.904 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

SUBPART PP: MISCELLANEOUS FABRICATED PRODUCT

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Section 

218.920 Applicability 

218.923 Permit Conditions (Repealed) 

218.926 Control Requirements 

218.927 Compliance Schedule 

218.928 Testing 

218.929 Cementable and Dress or Performance Shoe Leather

SUBPART QQ: MISCELLANEOUS FORMULATION 

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Section 

218.940 Applicability 

218.943 Permit Conditions (Repealed) 

218.946 Control Requirements 

218.947 Compliance Schedule 

218.948 Testing 

SUBPART RR: MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIC CHEMICAL

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Section 

218.960 Applicability 

218.963 Permit Conditions (Repealed) 

218.966 Control Requirements 

218.967 Compliance Schedule 

218.968 Testing 

SUBPART TT: OTHER EMISSION UNITS

Section 

218.980 Applicability 

218.983 Permit Conditions (Repealed) 

218.986 Control Requirements 

218.987 Compliance Schedule 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1063
218.988 Testing 

SUBPART UU: RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING

Section 

218.990 Exempt Emission Units 

218.991 Subject Emission Units 

218.APPENDIX A List of Chemicals Defining Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer 

Manufacturing 

218.APPENDIX B VOM Measurement Techniques for Capture Efficiency (Repealed) 

218.APPENDIX C Reference Methods and Procedures 

218.APPENDIX D Coefficients for the Total Resource Effectiveness Index (TRE) Equation 

218.APPENDIX E List of Affected Marine Terminals 

218.APPENDIX G TRE Index Measurements for SOCMI Reactors and Distillation Units 

218.APPENDIX H Baseline VOM Content Limitations for Subpart F, Section 218.212 

Cross-Line Averaging 

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 10 and authorized by Sections 27, 28, and 28.5 of the 

Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/10, 27, 28, and 28.5]. 

SOURCE: Adopted at R91-7 at 15 Ill. Reg. 12231, effective August 16, 1991; amended in R91-

24 at 16 Ill. Reg. 13564, effective August 24, 1992; amended in R91-28 and R91-30 at 16 Ill. 

Reg. 13864, effective August 24, 1992; amended in R93-9 at 17 Ill. Reg. 16636, effective 

September 27, 1993; amended in R93-14 at 18 Ill. Reg. 1945, effective January 24, 1994; 

amended in R94-12 at 18 Ill. Reg. 14973, effective September 21, 1994; amended in R94-15 at 

18 Ill. Reg. 16392, effective October 25, 1994; amended in R94-16 at 18 Ill. Reg. 16950, 

effective November 15, 1994; amended in R94-21, R94-31 and R94-32 at 19 Ill. Reg. 6848, 

effective May 9, 1995; amended in R94-33 at 19 Ill. Reg. 7359, effective May 22, 1995; 

amended in R96-13 at 20 Ill. Reg. 14428, effective October 17, 1996; amended in R97-24 at 21 

Ill. Reg. 7708, effective June 9, 1997; amended in R97-31 at 22 Ill. Reg. 3556, effective 

February 2, 1998; amended in R98-16 at 22 Ill. Reg. 14282, effective July 16, 1998; amended in 

R02-20 at 27 Ill. Reg. 7283, effective April 8, 2003; amended in R04-12/20 at 30 Ill. Reg. 9684, 

effective May 15, 2006; amended in R06-21 at 31 Ill. Reg. 7086, effective April 30, 2007; 

amended in R08-8 at 32 Ill. Reg. 14874, effective August 26, 2008; amended in R10-10 at 34 Ill. 

Reg. 5330, effective March 23, 2010; amended in R10-8 at 34 Ill. Reg. 9096, effective June 25, 

2010; amended in R10-20 at 34 Ill. Reg. 14174, effective September 14, 2010; amended in R10-

8(A) at 35 Ill. Reg. 469, effective December 21, 2010; amended in R11-23 at 35 Ill. Reg. 13473, 

effective July 27, 2011; amended in R11-23(A) at 35 Ill. Reg. 18813, effective October 25, 2011; 

amended in R12-24 at 37 Ill. Reg. 1699, effective January 28, 2013; amended in R13-18 at 37 Ill. 

Reg.___________, effective _______________. 

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 218.112 Incorporations by Reference 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1064
The following materials are incorporated by reference and do not contain any subsequent 

additions or amendments. 

a) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 

Conshohocken PA 19428-9555: 

1) ASTM D 2879-86 

2) ASTM D 323-08 

3) ASTM D 86-82 

4) ASTM D 369-69 (1971) 

5) ASTM D 396-69 

6) ASTM D 2880-71 

7) ASTM D 975-68 

8) ASTM D 3925-81 (1985) 

9) ASTM E 300-86 

10) ASTM D 1475-85 

11) ASTM D 2369-87 

12) ASTM D 3792-86 

13) ASTM D 4017-81 (1987) 

14) ASTM D 4457-85 

15) ASTM D 2697-86 

16) ASTM D 3980-87 

17) ASTM E 180-85 

18) ASTM D 2372-85 

19) ASTM D 97-66 

20) ASTM E 168-67 (1977) 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1065
21) ASTM E 169-87 

22) ASTM E 260-91 

23) ASTM D 2504-83 

24) ASTM D 2382-83 

25) ASTM D 2099-00 

b) Standard Industrial Classification Manual, published by Executive Office of the 

President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C., 1987. 

c) American Petroleum Institute Bulletin 2517, "Evaporation Loss From Floating 

Roof Tanks", Second ed., February 1980. 

d) 40 CFR 60 (July 1, 1991) and 40 CFR 60, appendixAppendix A, Method 24 (57 

FR 30654, July 10, 1992). 

e) 40 CFR 61 (July 1, 1991). 

f) 40 CFR 50 (July 1, 1991). 

g) 40 CFR 51 (July 1, 1991) and 40 CFR 51, appendix M, Methods 204-204F (July 1, 

1999). 

h) 40 CFR 52 (July 1, 1991). 

i) "A Guide for Surface Coating Calculation", July 1986, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1-86-016. 

j) "Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by 

Paint, Ink and Other Coating" (revised June 1986), United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/3-84-019. 

k) "A Guide for Graphic Arts Calculations", August 1988, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1-88-003. 

l) "Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of 

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations", December 1988, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/3-88-018. 

m) "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacturing of Synthesized 

Pharmaceutical Products", December 1978, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/2-78-029. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1066
n) "Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and 

Vapor Collection Systems", December 1978, Appendix B, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/2-78-051. 

o) "Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry 

Cleaners", September 1982, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C., EPA-450/3-82-009. 

p) "APTI Course SI417 Controlling Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from 

Leaking Process Equipment", 1982, United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/2-82-015. 

q) "Portable Instrument User's Manual for Monitoring VOC Sources", June 1986, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1-

86-015. 

r) "Protocols for Generating Unit-Specific Emission Estimates for Equipment Leaks 

of VOC and VHAP", October 1988, Unites States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/3-88-010. 

s) "Petroleum Refinery Enforcement Manual", March 1980, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1-80-008. 

t) "Inspection Manual for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Gasoline 

Marketing Operations: Appendix D", 1980, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1-80-012. 

u) "Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals: 

Appendix A", December 1977, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C., EPA-450/2-77-026. 

v) "Technical Guidance – Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle 

Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities", November 1991, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/3-91-022b. 

w) California Air Resources Board, Compliance Division. Compliance Assistance 

Program: Gasoline Marketing and Distribution: Gasoline Facilities Phase I & II 

(October 1988, rev. November 1993) (CARB Manual). 

x) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Applied Science & 

Technology Division, Laboratory Services Branch, SCAQMD Method 309-91, 

Determination of Static Volatile Emissions (February 1993). 

y) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Applied Science & 

Technology Division, Laboratory Services Branch, SCAQMD Method 312-91, 

Determination of Percent Monomer in Polyester Resins (April 1996). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1067
z) "Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency", January 1995, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park NC.

aa) Memorandum "Revised Capture Efficiency Guidance for Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions", February 1995, John S. Seitz, Director, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

bb) "Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate 

of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat Operations", 

September 2008, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C., EPA-453/R-08-002. 

cc) 40 CFR 63, subpart PPPP, appendix A (2008). 

dd) 46 CFR subchapter Q (2007). 

ee) 46 CFR subchapter T (2008). 

ff) Petroleum Equipment Institute, "Recommended Practices for Installation and 

Testing of Vapor-Recovery Systems at Vehicle-Fueling Sites", PEI/RP300-09 

(2009). 

 (Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. __________, effective ______________) 

SUBPART Y: GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION

Section 218.583 Gasoline Dispensing Operations – Storage Tank Filling Operations

a) Subject to subsection (b) below, no person shall cause or allow the transfer of 

gasoline from any delivery vessel into any stationary storage tank at a gasoline 

dispensing operation unless: 

1) The tank is equipped with a submerged loading pipe; and 

2) The vapors displaced from the storage tank during filling are processed by 

a vapor control system that includes one or more of the following: 

A) A vapor collection system that meets the requirements of 

subsection (d)(4) below; or

B) A refrigeration-condensation system or any other system approved 

by the Agency and approved by the USEPA as a SIP revision, that 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1068
recovers at least 90 percent by weight of all vaporized organic 

material from the equipment being controlled; and

C) The delivery vessel displays the appropriate sticker pursuant to the 

requirements of Section 218.584(b) or (d) of this Part; and 

3) By March 15, 1995, all tank vent pipes are equipped with 

pressure/vacuum relief valves with the following design specifications: 

A) The pressure/vacuum relief valve shall be set to resist a pressure of 

at least 3.5 inches water column and to resist a vacuum of no less 

than 6.0 inches water column; or 

B) The pressure/vacuum relief valve shall meet the requirements of 

Section 218.586(c) of this Part; and

4) The owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing operation demonstrates 

compliance with subsection (a)(3) of this Section, by March 15, 1995 or 

30 days after installation of each pressure/vacuum relief valve, whichever 

is later, and at least annually thereafter, by measuring and recording the 

pressure indicated by a pressure/vacuum gauge at each tank vent pipe. 

The test shall be performed on each tank vent pipe within two hours after 

product delivery into the respective storage tank. For manifold tank vent 

systems, observations at any point within the system shall be adequate. 

The owner or operator shall maintain any records required by this 

subsection for a period of three years. 

b) The requirements of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) above shall not apply to 

transfers of gasoline to a stationary storage tank at a gasoline dispensing operation 

if:

1) The tank is equipped with a floating roof, or other system of equal or 

better emission control approved by the Agency and approved by the 

USEPA as a SIP revision;

2) The tank has a capacity of less than 2000 gallons and was in place and 

operating before January 1, 1979; or 

3) The tank has a capacity of less than 575 gallons.

c) Subject to subsection (b) above, each owner of a gasoline dispensing operation 

shall:

1) Install all control systems and make all process modifications required by 

subsection (a) above; 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1069
2) Provide instructions to the operator of the gasoline dispensing operation 

describing necessary maintenance operations and procedures for prompt 

notification of the owner in case of any malfunction of a vapor control 

system; and

3) Repair, replace or modify any worn out or malfunctioning component or 

element of design.

d) Subject to subsection (b) above, each operator of a gasoline dispensing operation 

shall:

1) Maintain and operate each vapor control system in accordance with the 

owner's instructions; 

2) Promptly notify the owner of any scheduled maintenance or malfunction 

requiring replacement or repair of a major component of a vapor control 

system;

3) Maintain gauges, meters or other specified testing devices in proper 

working order; 

4) Operate the vapor collection system and delivery vessel unloading points 

in a manner that prevents: 

A) A reading equal to or greater than 100 percent of the lower 

explosive limit (LEL measured as propane) when tested in 

accordance with the procedure described in EPA 450/2-78-051 

appendixAppendix B incorporated by reference in Section 218.112 

of this Part-; and

B) Avoidable leaks of liquid during the filling of storage tanks; and 

5) Within 15 business days after discovery of the leak by the owner, operator, 

or the Agency, repair and retest a vapor collection system which exceeds 

the limits of subsection (d)(4)(A) above. 

e) Any retail gasoline dispensing operation subject to subsection (a) above, unless 

subject to Section 218.586 of this Part, shall be exempt from the permit 

requirements specified under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142, 201.143, and 201.144 

provided that: 

1) The owner or operator of the gasoline dispensing operation submits to the 

Agency a registration which provides, at a minimum, the operation name 

and address, signature of the owner or operator, the location (including 

contact person's name, address and telephone number) of records and 

reports required by this Section, the number of underground tanks, the 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1070
number of tank pipe vents, and the date of completion of installation of the 

vapor control system and pressure/vacuum relief valve. 

2) The registration is submitted to the Agency by March 15, 1995 or 30 days 

after installation of a vapor control system or pressure/vacuum relief 

valve, whichever is later.

3) The registration certification is displayed at the gasoline dispensing 

operation. 

4) Upon modification of an existing vapor control system or 

pressure/vacuum relief valve, the owner or operator of the gasoline 

dispensing operation submits to the Agency a registration that details the 

changes to the information provided in the previous registration and which 

includes the signature of the owner or operator. The registration must be 

submitted to the Agency within 30 days after completion of such 

modification.

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. _____________, effective ____________) 

Section 218.586 Gasoline Dispensing Operations - Motor Vehicle Fueling Operations

a) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions apply. 

1) Average monthly volume means the amount of motor vehicle fuel 

dispensed per month from a gasoline dispensing operation based upon a 

monthly average for the 2-year period of November, 1990 through 

October, 1992 or, if not available, the monthly average for the most recent 

twelve calendar months. Monthly averages are to include only those 

months when the operation was operating.

2) Certified means any vapor collection and control system which has been 

tested and approved by CARB as having a vapor recovery and removal 

efficiency of at least 95% (by weight) shall constitute a certified vapor 

collection and control system. CARB testing and approval is pursuant to 

the CARB manual, incorporated by reference at Section 218.112 of this 

Part

3) Completion of installation means the successful passing of one or more of 

the following tests applicable to the installed vapor collection and control 

system: Dynamic Backpressure Test, Pressure Decay/Leak Test, and 

Liquid Blockage Test, incorporated by reference at Section 218.112 of this 

Part.

4) Constructed means fabricated, erected or installed; refers to any facility, 

emission source or air pollution control equipment. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1071
45) CARB means California Air Resources Board, P.O. Box 2815, 

Sacramento, CA 95812. 

56) Employee means any person who performs work for an employer. 

67) Operation means any building, structure, installation, operation or 

combination thereof located on contiguous properties and under common 

ownership that provides for the dispensing of motor vehicle fuel. 

78) Gasoline dispensing operation means any operation where motor vehicle 

fuel is dispensed into motor vehicle fuel tanks or portable containers from 

a storage tank with a capacity of 2176 liters (575 gallons) or more. 

89) Modification means any change, removal or addition, other than an 

identical replacement, of any component contained within the vapor 

collection and control system.

910) Motor vehicle means any self-propelled vehicle powered by an internal 

combustion engine including, but not limited to, automobiles and trucks. 

Specifically excluded from this definition are watercraft and aircraft.

1011) Motor vehicle fuel means any petroleum distillate having a Reid vapor 

pressure of more than 27.6 kilopascals (kPa) (four pounds per square inch) 

and which is used to power motor vehicles. 

1112) Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, 

manages, supervises or controls (directly or indirectly) a gasoline 

dispensing operation. 

1213) Reid vapor pressure for gasoline, shall be measured in accordance with 

either the method ASTM D323-08 or a modification of ASTM D323 

known as the "dry method" as set forth in 40 CFR 80, Appendix E, 

incorporated by references in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 218.112 of this 

Part.

1314) Vapor collection and control system means any system certified by CARB 

which limits the discharge to the atmosphere of motor vehicle fuel vapors 

displaced during the dispensing of motor vehicle fuel into motor vehicle 

fuel tanks. 

b) Applicability. The provisions of subsection (c) below shall apply to any gasoline 

dispensing operation which dispenses an average monthly volume of more than 

10,000 gallons of motor vehicle fuel per month. Compliance shall be required 

and demonstrated in accordance with the schedule provided in subsection (d) 

below. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1072
c) Vapor Collection and Control Systems. No owner or operator of a gasoline 

dispensing operation subject to the requirements of subsection (b) above shall 

cause or allow the dispensing of motor vehicle fuel at any time from a motor fuel 

dispenser unless the dispenser is equipped with and utilizes a vapor collection and 

control system which is properly installed and operated as provided belowin this 

subsection (c): 

1) Any vapor collection and control system installed, used or maintained has 

been CARB certified.

2) Any vapor collection and control system utilized is maintained in 

accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and the certification.

3) No elements or components of a vapor collection and control system are 

modified, removed, replaced or otherwise rendered inoperative in a 

manner which prevents the system from performing in accordance with its 

certification and design specifications.

4) A vapor collection and control system has no defective, malfunctioning or 

missing components. 

5) Operators and employees of the gasoline dispensing operation are trained 

and instructed in the proper operation and maintenance of a vapor 

collection and control system. 

6) Instructions are posted in a conspicuous and visible place within the motor 

fuel dispensing area and describe the proper method of dispensing motor 

vehicle fuel with the use of the vapor collection and control system. 

d) Compliance. In conjunction with the compliance provisions of Section 218.105 

of this Part, gasoline dispensing operations subject to the requirements of 

subsection (c) above shall comply and demonstrate compliance according to the 

following: 

1) Gasoline dispensing operations that operate at any time prior to January 1, 

2014 shall comply with subsection (c) until decommissioning is allowed 

and commenced in accordance with subsections (i)(l) and (i)(2)(B).

2) The provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to any new gasoline 

dispensing operation that commences operating for the first time on or 

after January 1, 2014. 

1) Operations that commenced construction after November 1, 1990, must 

comply by May 1, 1993. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1073
2) Operations that commenced construction before November 1, 1990, and 

dispense an average monthly volume of more than 100,000 gallons of 

motor fuel per month must comply by November 1, 1993. 

3) Operations that commenced construction before November 1, 1990, and 

dispense an average monthly volume of less than 100,000 gallons of motor 

fuel per month must comply by November 1, 1994. 

4) New operations constructed after the adoption of this Section shall comply 

with the requirements of subsection (c) above upon startup of the 

operation. 

5) Existing operations previously exempted from but which become subject 

to the requirements of subsection (c) above after May 1, 1993 shall 

comply with the requirements of subsection (c) above within six calendar 

months of the date from which the operation becomes subject. 

e) Except as provided in subsection (d), anyAny gasoline dispensing operation that 

becomes subject to the provisions of subsection (c) above at any time shall remain 

subject to the provisions of subsection (c) above at all times.

f) Upon request by the Agency, the owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing 

operation which claims to be exempt from the requirements of subsection (c) this 

Section shall submit records to the Agency within 30 calendar days from the date 

of the request which demonstrate that the gasoline dispensing operation is in fact 

exempt.

g) Recordkeeping and Reportingreporting: 

1) Any gasoline dispensing operation subject to subsection (c) above shall 

retain at the operation copies of the registration information required at 

subsection (h) below. 

2) Except as provided in subsection (g)(4), recordsRecords and reports 

required pursuant to this subsection (g) shall be made available to the 

Agency upon request. 

3) Records and reports, which shall be maintained by the owner or operator 

of a the gasoline dispensing operation subject to subsection (c), shall 

clearly demonstrate:

A) That a certified vapor collection and control system has been 

installed and tested to verify its performance according to its 

specifications.

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1074
B) That proper maintenance has been conducted in accordance with 

the manufacturer's specifications and requirements.

C) The time period and duration of all malfunctions of the vapor 

collection and control system.

D) The motor vehicle fuel throughput of the operation for each 

calendar month of the previous year. 

E) That operators and employees are trained and instructed in the 

proper operation and maintenance of the vapor collection and 

control system and informed as to the potential penalties associated 

with the violation of any provision of this Section. 

4) Any and all records relating to decommissioning shall be maintained by 

the owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing operation for a period of 5 

years after completion of decommissioning in accordance with subsection 

(i). For purposes of this subsection (g)(4), “records” include, but are not 

limited to, any documents, papers, reports, test results, logs, invoices, 

forms, certifications and receipts that relate to decommissioning. Records 

relating to decommissioning shall be made available to the Agency or its 

designee within 30 minutes after the Agency’s, or its designee’s, request. 

h) Any gasoline dispensing operation subject to subsection (c) above shall comply 

with the following registration requirementsbe exempt from the permit 

requirements specified under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142, 201.143 and 201.144 

for its vapor collection and control systems, provided that: 

1) Upon the installation of a vapor collection and control system, the owner 

or operator of the gasoline dispensing operation shall submitsubmits to the 

Agency a registration which provides at minimum the operation name and 

address, signature of the owner or operator, the CARB Executive Order 

Number for the vapor collection and control system to be utilized, the 

number of nozzles (excluding diesel or kerosene) used for motor vehicle 

refueling, the monthly average volume of motor vehicle fuel dispensed, 

the location (including contact person's name, address, and telephone 

number) of records and reports required by this Section, and the date of 

completion of installation of the vapor collection and control system. 

2) The registration shall beis submitted to the Agency within 30 days afterof 

completion of thesuch installation.

3) A copy of the registration information shall beis maintained at the gasoline 

dispensing operation. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1075
4) Upon the modification of an existing vapor collection and control system, 

the owner or operator of the gasoline dispensing operation shall 

submitsubmits to the Agency a registration that details the changes to the 

information provided in the previous registration of the vapor collection 

and control system and which includes the signature of the owner or 

operator. The registration must be submitted to the Agency within 30 

days afterof completion of thesuch modification.

i) Decommissioning. The owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing operation 

subject at any time to subsection (c) shall decommission vapor collection and 

control systems in accordance with the provisions of this subsection (i). 

 1) Compliance 

A) Beginning January 1, 2014, an owner or operator of a gasoline 

dispensing operation may commence decommissioning of vapor 

collection and control systems. The decommissioning of vapor 

collection and control systems must be conducted in accordance 

with all of the provisions specified in subsection (i)(2). 

B) No later than December 31, 2016, an owner or operator of a 

gasoline dispensing operation shall complete the decommissioning 

of all vapor collection and control systems in accordance with all 

of the provisions specified in subsection (i)(2). 

2) Decommissioning Procedures and Standards. The decommissioning of 

vapor collection and control systems shall be conducted as follows: 

A) The owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing operation shall 

complete and submit a notice of intent form, provided by the 

Agency, notifying the Agency of its intent to decommission. The 

completed notice of intent form shall be submitted to the Agency 

at least 10 days prior to commencing decommissioning in 

accordance with subsection (i)(2)(B); 

B) The owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing operation shall 

decommission vapor collection and control systems in accordance 

with all of the procedures specified in Section 14.6, except Section 

14.6.14, of the Petroleum Equipment Institute’s “Recommended 

Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor-Recovery Systems 

at Vehicle-Fueling Sites”, PEI/RP 300-09 (PEI), incorporated by 

reference at Section 218.112 of this Part. In addition to Section 

14.6 of the PEI, the following requirements apply to 

decommissioning: 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1076
i) All decommissioning procedures, except testing, shall be 

performed only by a contractor who is both registered with 

the Illinois Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Weights 

and Measures, in the 3-A Gasoline Pump Meters Code 

pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Weights and Measures Act 

[225 ILCS 470/8.1] and licensed by the Office of the State 

Fire Marshal (OSFM) in the installation/retrofitting 

licensure module pursuant to the Petroleum Equipment 

Contractors Licensing Act [225 ILCS 729] and 

implementing regulations at 41 Ill. Adm. Code 172. Any 

such contractor shall also have the appropriate dispensermanufacturer certification and training, if any. In the event 

that product piping must be broken or an OSFM permit is 

otherwise required for any component of the work, the 

contractor shall ensure that the OSFM-permitted work is 

performed by the appropriate OSFM-licensed contractor 

and personnel; 

ii) Decommissioning procedures related to testing shall be 

performed only by a contractor who is licensed by OSFM 

in the tank tightness testing licensure module pursuant to 

the Petroleum Equipment Contractors Licensing Act and 

implementing regulations at 41 Ill. Adm. Code 172; and 

iii) The pressure decay test required by the PEI shall be passed 

in accordance with Appendix A of the PEI. The tie-tank 

test required by the PEI shall be conducted and passed in 

accordance with CARB TP201.3C to ensure that all tanks 

are properly vented; and

A) The owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing operation and the 

contractors that performed the decommissioning shall complete 

and sign a decommissioning checklist and certification, provided 

by the Agency, documenting the decommissioning procedures 

performed. Within 30 days after completion of the 

decommissioning procedures specified by subsection (i)(2)(B), the 

owner or operator shall provide the completed checklist and 

certification and the test results to the Agency.

 (Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. ________, effective __________) 

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND

LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1077
PART 219 

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS 

FOR THE METRO EAST AREA

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

219.100 Introduction 

219.101 Savings Clause 

219.102 Abbreviations and Conversion Factors 

219.103 Applicability 

219.104 Definitions 

219.105 Test Methods and Procedures 

219.106 Compliance Dates 

219.107 Operation of Afterburners 

219.108 Exemptions, Variations, and Alternative Means of Control or Compliance 

Determinations 

219.109 Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Liquids 

219.110 Vapor Pressure of Organic Material or Solvent 

219.111 Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Material 

219.112 Incorporations by Reference 

219.113 Monitoring for Negligibly-Reactive Compounds 

SUBPART B: ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM STORAGE AND LOADING OPERATIONS 

Section 

219.119 Applicability for VOL 

219.120 Control Requirements for Storage Containers of VOL 

219.121 Storage Containers of VPL 

219.122 Loading Operations 

219.123 Petroleum Liquid Storage Tanks 

219.124 External Floating Roofs 

219.125 Compliance Dates 

219.126 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

219.127 Testing VOL Operations 

219.128 Monitoring VOL Operations 

219.129 Recordkeeping and Reporting for VOL Operations 

SUBPART C: ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT 

Section 

219.141 Separation Operations 

219.142 Pumps and Compressors 

219.143 Vapor Blowdown 

219.144 Safety Relief Valves 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1078
SUBPART E: SOLVENT CLEANING

Section 

219.181 Solvent Cleaning Degreasing Operations 

219.182 Cold Cleaning 

219.183 Open Top Vapor Degreasing 

219.184 Conveyorized Degreasing 

219.185 Compliance Schedule (Repealed) 

219.186 Test Methods 

219.187 Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations 

SUBPART F: COATING OPERATIONS

Section 

219.204 Emission Limitations 

219.205 Daily-Weighted Average Limitations 

219.206 Solids Basis Calculation 

219.207 Alternative Emission Limitations 

219.208 Exemptions From Emission Limitations 

219.209 Exemption From General Rule on Use of Organic Material 

219.210 Compliance Schedule 

219.211 Recordkeeping and Reporting 

219.212 Cross-Line Averaging to Establish Compliance for Coating Lines 

219.213 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Cross-Line Averaging Participating Coating 

Lines 

219.214 Changing Compliance Methods 

219.215 Wood Furniture Coating Averaging Approach 

219.216 Wood Furniture Coating Add-On Control Use 

219.217 Wood Furniture Coating and Flat Wood Paneling Coating Work Practice 

Standards 

219.218 Work Practice Standards for Paper Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Large 

Appliance Coatings

219.219 Work Practice Standards for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

SUBPART G: USE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL

Section 

219.301 Use of Organic Material 

219.302 Alternative Standard 

219.303 Fuel Combustion Emission Units 

219.304 Operations with Compliance Program 

SUBPART H: PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1079
Section 

219.401 Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing 

219.402 Applicability 

219.403 Compliance Schedule 

219.404 Recordkeeping and Reporting 

219.405 Lithographic Printing: Applicability 

219.406 Provisions Applying to Heatset Web Offset Lithographic Printing Prior to March 

15, 1996 (Repealed)

219.407 Emission Limitations and Control Requirements for Lithographic Printing Lines 

219.408 Compliance Schedule for Lithographic Printing On and After March 15, 1996 

(Repealed)

219.409 Testing for Lithographic Printing 

219.410 Monitoring Requirements for Lithographic Printing 

219.411 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Lithographic Printing 

219.412 Letterpress Printing Lines: Applicability

219.413 Emission Limitations and Control Requirements for Letterpress Printing Lines

219.415 Testing for Letterpress Printing Lines

219.416 Monitoring Requirements for Letterpress Printing Lines 

219.417 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Letterpress Printing Lines 

SUBPART Q: SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL AND 

POLYMER MANUFACTURING PLANT

Section 

219.421 General Requirements 

219.422 Inspection Program Plan for Leaks 

219.423 Inspection Program for Leaks 

219.424 Repairing Leaks 

219.425 Recordkeeping for Leaks 

219.426 Report for Leaks 

219.427 Alternative Program for Leaks 

219.428 Open-Ended Valves 

219.429 Standards for Control Devices 

219.430 Compliance Date (Repealed) 

219.431 Applicability 

219.432 Control Requirements 

219.433 Performance and Testing Requirements 

219.434 Monitoring Requirements 

219.435 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

219.436 Compliance Date 

SUBPART R: PETROLEUM REFINING AND 

RELATED INDUSTRIES; ASPHALT MATERIALS

Section 

219.441 Petroleum Refinery Waste Gas Disposal 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1080
219.442 Vacuum Producing Systems 

219.443 Wastewater (Oil/Water) Separator 

219.444 Process Unit Turnarounds 

219.445 Leaks: General Requirements 

219.446 Monitoring Program Plan for Leaks 

219.447 Monitoring Program for Leaks 

219.448 Recordkeeping for Leaks 

219.449 Reporting for Leaks 

219.450 Alternative Program for Leaks 

219.451 Sealing Device Requirements 

219.452 Compliance Schedule for Leaks 

219.453 Compliance Dates (Repealed) 

SUBPART S: RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTIC PRODUCTS

Section 

219.461 Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires 

219.462 Green Tire Spraying Operations 

219.463 Alternative Emission Reduction Systems 

219.464 Emission Testing 

219.465 Compliance Dates (Repealed) 

219.466 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

SUBPART T: PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING

Section 

219.480 Applicability 

219.481 Control of Reactors, Distillation Units, Crystallizers, Centrifuges and Vacuum 

Dryers 

219.482 Control of Air Dryers, Production Equipment Exhaust Systems and Filters 

219.483 Material Storage and Transfer 

219.484 In-Process Tanks 

219.485 Leaks 

219.486 Other Emission Units 

219.487 Testing 

219.488 Monitoring for Air Pollution Control Equipment 

219.489 Recordkeeping for Air Pollution Control Equipment 

SUBPART V: BATCH OPERATIONS AND AIR OXIDATION PROCESSES

Section 

219.500 Applicability for Batch Operations 

219.501 Control Requirements for Batch Operations 

219.502 Determination of Uncontrolled Total Annual Mass Emissions and Actual 

Weighted Average Flow Rate Values for Batch Operations 

219.503 Performance and Testing Requirements for Batch Operations 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1081
219.504 Monitoring Requirements for Batch Operations 

219.505 Reporting and Recordkeeping for Batch Operations 

219.506 Compliance Date 

219.520 Emission Limitations for Air Oxidation Processes 

219.521 Definitions (Repealed) 

219.522 Savings Clause 

219.523 Compliance 

219.524 Determination of Applicability 

219.525 Emission Limitations for Air Oxidation Processes (Renumbered) 

219.526 Testing and Monitoring 

219.527 Compliance Date (Repealed) 

SUBPART W: AGRICULTURE

Section 

219.541 Pesticide Exception 

SUBPART X: CONSTRUCTION

Section 

219.561 Architectural Coatings 

219.562 Paving Operations 

219.563 Cutback Asphalt 

SUBPART Y: GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION

Section 

219.581 Bulk Gasoline Plants 

219.582 Bulk Gasoline Terminals 

219.583 Gasoline Dispensing Operations – Storage Tank Filling Operations 

219.584 Gasoline Delivery Vessels 

219.585 Gasoline Volatility Standards (Repealed)

219.586 Gasoline Dispensing Operations – Motor Vehicle Fueling Operations (Repealed) 

SUBPART Z: DRY CLEANERS

Section 

219.601 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners (Repealed)

219.602 Exemptions (Repealed)

219.603 Leaks (Repealed)

219.604 Compliance Dates (Repealed) 

219.605 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

219.606 Exception to Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

219.607 Standards for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 

219.608 Operating Practices for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 

219.609 Program for Inspection and Repair of Leaks 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1082
219.610 Testing and Monitoring 

219.611 Exemption for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 

219.612 Compliance Dates (Repealed) 

219.613 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

SUBPART AA: PAINT AND INK MANUFACTURING

Section 

219.620 Applicability 

219.621 Exemption for Waterbase Material and Heatset-Offset Ink 

219.623 Permit Conditions 

219.624 Open-Top Mills, Tanks, Vats or Vessels 

219.625 Grinding Mills 

219.626 Storage Tanks 

219.628 Leaks 

219.630 Clean Up 

219.636 Compliance Schedule 

219.637 Recordkeeping and Reporting 

SUBPART BB: POLYSTYRENE PLANTS

Section 

219.640 Applicability 

219.642 Emissions Limitation at Polystyrene Plants 

219.644 Emissions Testing 

SUBPART FF: BAKERY OVENS

Section 

219.720 Applicability (Repealed) 

219.722 Control Requirements (Repealed) 

219.726 Testing (Repealed) 

219.727 Monitoring (Repealed) 

219.728 Recordkeeping and Reporting (Repealed) 

219.729 Compliance Date (Repealed) 

219.730 Certification (Repealed) 

SUBPART GG: MARINE TERMINALS

Section 

219.760 Applicability 

219.762 Control Requirements 

219.764 Compliance Certification 

219.766 Leaks 

219.768 Testing and Monitoring 

219.770 Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1083
SUBPART HH: MOTOR VEHICLE REFINISHING

Section 

219.780 Emission Limitations 

219.782 Alternative Control Requirements 

219.784 Equipment Specifications 

219.786 Surface Preparation Materials 

219.787 Work Practices 

219.788 Testing 

219.789 Monitoring and Recordkeeping for Control Devices 

219.790 General Recordkeeping and Reporting (Repealed)

219.791 Compliance Date 

219.792 Registration (Repealed)

219.875 Applicability of Subpart BB (Renumbered) 

219.877 Emissions Limitation at Polystyrene Plants (Renumbered) 

219.879 Compliance Date (Repealed) 

219.881 Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

219.883 Special Requirements for Compliance Plan (Repealed) 

219.886 Emissions Testing (Renumbered) 

SUBPART II: FIBERGLASS BOAT MANUFACTURING MATERIALS

Section

219.890 Applicability

219.891 Emission Limitations and Control Requirements

219.892 Testing and Monitoring Requirements 

219.894 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

SUBPART JJ: MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES

Section

219.900 Applicability

219.901 Emission Limitations and Control Requirements

219.902 Testing Requirements

219.903 Monitoring Requirements 

219.904 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

SUBPART PP: MISCELLANEOUS FABRICATED PRODUCT 

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Section 

219.920 Applicability 

219.923 Permit Conditions 

219.926 Control Requirements 

219.927 Compliance Schedule 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1084
219.928 Testing 

SUBPART QQ: MISCELLANEOUS FORMULATION 

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Section 

219.940 Applicability 

219.943 Permit Conditions 

219.946 Control Requirements 

219.947 Compliance Schedule 

219.948 Testing 

SUBPART RR: MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIC CHEMICAL 

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Section 

219.960 Applicability 

219.963 Permit Conditions 

219.966 Control Requirements 

219.967 Compliance Schedule 

219.968 Testing 

SUBPART TT: OTHER EMISSION UNITS

Section 

219.980 Applicability 

219.983 Permit Conditions 

219.986 Control Requirements 

219.987 Compliance Schedule 

219.988 Testing 

SUBPART UU: RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING

Section 

219.990 Exempt Emission Units 

219.991 Subject Emission Units 

219.APPENDIX A List of Chemicals Defining Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer 

Manufacturing 

219.APPENDIX B VOM Measurement Techniques for Capture Efficiency (Repealed) 

219.APPENDIX C Reference Methods and Procedures 

219.APPENDIX D Coefficients for the Total Resource Effectiveness Index (TRE) Equation 

219.APPENDIX E List of Affected Marine Terminals 

219.APPENDIX G TRE Index Measurements for SOCMI Reactors and Distillation Units 

219.APPENDIX H Baseline VOM Content Limitations for Subpart F, Section 219.212 CrossLine Averaging 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1085
AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 10 and authorized by Sections 27, 28 and 28.5 of the 

Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/10, 27, 28 and 28.5]. 

SOURCE: Adopted in R91-8 at 15 Ill. Reg. 12491, effective August 16, 1991; amended in R91-

24 at 16 Ill. Reg. 13597, effective August 24, 1992; amended in R91-30 at 16 Ill. Reg. 13883, 

effective August 24, 1992; emergency amendment in R93-12 at 17 Ill. Reg. 8295, effective May 

24, 1993, for a maximum of 150 days; amended in R93-9 at 17 Ill. Reg. 16918, effective 

September 27, 1993 and October 21, 1993; amended in R93-28 at 18 Ill. Reg. 4242, effective 

March 3, 1994; amended in R94-12 at 18 Ill. Reg. 14987, effective September 21, 1994; 

amended in R94-15 at 18 Ill. Reg. 16415, effective October 25, 1994; amended in R94-16 at 18 

Ill. Reg. 16980, effective November 15, 1994; emergency amendment in R95-10 at 19 Ill. Reg. 

3059, effective February 28, 1995, for a maximum of 150 days; amended in R94-21, R94-31 and 

R94-32 at 19 Ill. Reg. 6958, effective May 9, 1995; amended in R94-33 at 19 Ill. Reg. 7385, 

effective May 22, 1995; amended in R96-2 at 20 Ill. Reg. 3848, effective February 15, 1996; 

amended in R96-13 at 20 Ill. Reg. 14462, effective October 28, 1996; amended in R97-24 at 21 

Ill. Reg. 7721, effective June 9, 1997; amended in R97-31 at 22 Ill. Reg. 3517, effective 

February 2, 1998; amended in R04-12/20 at 30 Ill. Reg. 9799, effective May 15, 2006; amended 

in R06-21 at 31 Ill. Reg. 7110, effective April 30, 2007; amended in R10-10 at 34 Ill. Reg. 5392, 

effective March 23, 2010; amended in R10-8 at 34 Ill. Reg. 9253, effective June 25, 2010; 

amended in R10-20 at 34 Ill. Reg. 14326, effective September 14, 2010; amended in R10-8(A) at 

35 Ill. Reg. 496, effective December 21, 2010; amended in R11-23 at 35 Ill. Reg. 13676, 

effective July 27, 2011; amended in R11-23(A), at 35 Ill. Reg. 18830, effective October 25, 

2011); amended in R12-24 at 37 Ill. Reg. 1722, effective January 28, 2013; amended in R13-18 

at 37 Ill. Reg. ___________, effective ____________. 

Section 219.105 Test Methods and Procedures 

a) Coatings, Inks and Fountain Solutions 

The following test methods and procedures shall be used to determine compliance 

of as applied coatings, inks, and fountain solutions with the limitations set forth in 

this Part. 

1) Sampling: Samples collected for analyses shall be one-liter taken into a 

one-liter container at a location and time such that the sample will be 

representative of the coating as applied (i.e., the sample shall include any 

dilution solvent or other VOM added during the manufacturing process). 

The container must be tightly sealed immediately after the sample is taken. 

Any solvent or other VOM added after the sample is taken must be 

measured and accounted for in the calculations in subsection (a)(3) of this 

Section. For multiple package coatings, separate samples of each 

component shall be obtained. A mixed sample shall not be obtained as it 

will cure in the container. Sampling procedures shall follow the 

guidelines presented in: 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1086
A) ASTM D 3925-81 (1985) standard practice for sampling liquid 

paints and related pigment coating. This practice is incorporated 

by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

B) ASTM E 300-86 standard practice for sampling industrial 

chemicals. This practice is incorporated by reference in Section 

219.112 of this Part. 

2) Analyses: The applicable analytical methods specified below shall be 

used to determine the composition of coatings, inks, or fountain solutions 

as applied. 

A) Method 24 of 40 CFR 60, appendix A, incorporated by reference 

in Section 219.112 of this Part, shall be used to determine the 

VOM content and density of coatings. If it is demonstrated to the 

satisfaction of the Agency and the USEPA that plant coating 

formulation data are equivalent to Method 24 results, formulation 

data may be used. In the event of any inconsistency between a 

Method 24 test and a facility's formulation data, the Method 24 test 

will govern. 

B) Method 24A of 40 CFR 60, appendix Appendix A, incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112, shall be used to determine the VOM 

content and density of rotogravure printing inks and related 

coatings. If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Agency 

and USEPA that the plant coating formulation data are equivalent 

to Method 24A results, formulation data may be used. In the event 

of any inconsistency between a Method 24A test and formulation 

data, the Method 24A test will govern. 

C) The following ASTM methods are the analytical procedures for 

determining VOM: 

i) ASTM D 1475-85: Standard test method for density of 

paint, varnish, lacquer and related products. This test 

method is incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of 

this Part. 

ii) ASTM D 2369-87: Standard test method for volatile 

content of a coating. This test method is incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

iii) ASTM D 3792-86: Standard test method for water content 

of water-reducible paints by direct injection into a gas 

chromatograph. This test method is incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1087
iv) ASTM D 4017-81 (1987): Standard test method for water 

content in paints and paint materials by the Karl Fischer 

method. This test method is incorporated by reference in 

Section 219.112 of this Part. 

v) ASTM D 4457-85: Standard test method for determination 

of dichloromethane and 1,1,1, trichloroethane in paints and 

coatings by direct injection into a gas chromatograph. (The 

procedure delineated above can be used to develop 

protocols for any compounds specifically exempted from 

the definition of VOM.) This test method is incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

vi) ASTM D 2697-86: Standard test method for volume nonvolatile matter in clear or pigmented coatings. This test 

method is incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of 

this Part. 

vii) ASTM D 3980-87: Standard practice for interlaboratory 

testing of paint and related materials. This practice is 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

viii) ASTM E 180-85: Standard practice for determining the 

precision of ASTM methods for analysis of and testing of 

industrial chemicals. This practice is incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

ix) ASTM D 2372-85: Standard method of separation of 

vehicle from solvent-reducible paints. This method is 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

D) Use of an adaptation to any of the analytical methods specified in 

subsections (a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of this Section may not be used 

unless approved by the Agency and USEPA. An owner or 

operator must submit sufficient documentation for the Agency and 

USEPA to find that the analytical methods specified in subsections 

(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of this Section will yield inaccurate results 

and that the proposed adaptation is appropriate. 

3) Calculations: Calculations for determining the VOM content, water 

content and the content of any compounds which are specifically 

exempted from the definition of VOM of coatings, inks and fountain 

solutions as applied shall follow the guidance provided in the following 

documents: 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1088
A) "A Guide for Surface Coating Calculation", EPA-340/1-86-016, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

B) "Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic 

Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink and Other Coatings" (revised 

June 1986), EPA-450/3-84-019, incorporated by reference in 

Section 219.112 of this Part. 

C) "A Guide for Graphic Arts Calculations", August 1988, EPA340/1-88-003, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this 

Part. 

b) Automobile or Light-Duty Truck Test Protocol 

1) The protocol for testing, including determining the transfer efficiency of 

coating applicators, at primer surfacer operations and topcoat operations at 

an automobile or light-duty truck assembly source shall follow the 

procedures in the following: 

A) Prior to May 1, 2012: "Protocol for Determining the Daily 

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and 

Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations" ("topcoat protocol"), 

December 1988, EPA-450/3-88-018, incorporated by reference in 

Section 219.112 of this Part. 

B) On and after May 1, 2012: "Protocol for Determining the Daily 

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and 

Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat Operations" 

(topcoat protocol), September 2008, EPA-453/R-08-002, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

2) Prior to testing pursuant to the applicable topcoat protocol, the owner or 

operator of a coating operation subject to the topcoat or primer surfacer 

limit in Section 219.204(a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), or 

(a)(2)(E) shall submit a detailed testing proposal specifying the method by 

which testing will be conducted and how compliance will be demonstrated 

consistent with the applicable topcoat protocol. The proposal shall 

include, at a minimum, a comprehensive plan (including a rationale) for 

determining the transfer efficiency at each booth through the use of inplant or pilot testing, the selection of coatings to be tested (for the purpose 

of determining transfer efficiency) including the rationale for coating 

groupings, the method for determining the analytic VOM content of as 

applied coatings and the formulation solvent content of as applied 

coatings, and a description of the records of coating VOM content as 

applied and coating's usage that will be kept to demonstrate compliance. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1089
Upon approval of the proposal by the Agency and USEPA, the compliance 

demonstration for a coating line may proceed. 

c) Capture System Efficiency Test Protocols 

1) Applicability 

The requirements of subsection (c)(2) of this Section shall apply to all 

VOM emitting process emission units employing capture equipment (e.g., 

hoods, ducts), except those cases noted in this subsection (c)(1). 

A) If an emission unit is equipped with (or uses) a permanent total 

enclosure (PTE) that meets Agency and USEPA specifications, 

and which directs all VOM to a control device, then the emission 

unit is exempted from the requirements described in subsection 

(c)(2) of this Section. The Agency and USEPA specifications to 

determine whether a structure is considered a PTE are given in 

Method 204 of appendix M of 40 CFR 51, incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. In this instance, the 

capture efficiency is assumed to be 100 percent and the emission 

unit is still required to measure control efficiency using appropriate 

test methods as specified in subsection (d) of this Section. 

B) If an emission unit is equipped with (or uses) a control device 

designed to collect and recover VOM (e.g., carbon adsorber), an 

explicit measurement of capture efficiency is not necessary 

provided that the conditions given below are met. The overall 

control of the system can be determined by directly comparing the 

input liquid VOM to the recovered liquid VOM. The general 

procedure for use in this situation is given in 40 CFR 60.433, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, with the 

following additional restrictions: 

i) The source owner or operator shall obtain data each 

operating day for the solvent usage and solvent recovery to 

permit the determination of the solvent recovery efficiency 

of the system each operating day using a 7-day rolling 

period. The recovery efficiency for each operating day is 

computed as the ratio of the total recovered solvent for that 

day and the most recent prior 6 operating days to the total 

solvent usage for the same 7-day period used for the 

recovered solvent, rather than a 30-day weighted average as 

given in 40 CFR 60.433 incorporated by reference in 

Section 219.112 of this Part. This ratio shall be expressed 

as a percentage. The ratio shall be computed within 72 

hours following each 7-day period. A source that believes 

that the 7-day rolling period is not appropriate may use an 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1090
alternative multi-day rolling period not to exceed 30 days, 

with the approval of the Agency and USEPA. In addition, 

the criteria in subsection (c)(1)(B)(ii) or subsection 

(c)(1)(B)(iii) below must be met. 

ii) The solvent recovery system (i.e., capture and control 

system) must be dedicated to a single coating line, printing 

line, or other discrete activity that by itself is subject to an 

applicable VOM emission standard, or 

iii) If the solvent recovery system controls more than one 

coating line, printing line or other discrete activity that by 

itself is subject to an applicable VOM emission standard, 

the overall control (i.e., the total recovered VOM divided 

by the sum of liquid VOM input from all lines and other 

activities venting to the control system) must meet or 

exceed the most stringent standard applicable to any line or 

other discrete activity venting to the control system. 

2) Capture Efficiency Protocols 

The capture efficiency of an emission unit shall be measured using one of 

the protocols given below. Appropriate test methods to be utilized in each 

of the capture efficiency protocols are described in appendix M of 40 CFR 

51, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. Any error 

margin associated with a test method or protocol may not be incorporated 

into the results of a capture efficiency test. If these techniques are not 

suitable for a particular process, then an alternative capture efficiency 

protocol may be used, pursuant to the provisions of Section 219.108(b) of 

this Part. 

A) Gas/gas method using temporary total enclosure (TTE). The 

Agency and USEPA specifications to determine whether a 

temporary enclosure is considered a TTE are given in Method 204 

of appendix M of 40 CFR 51, incorporated by reference in Section 

219.112 of this Part. The capture efficiency equation to be used 

for this protocol is: 

ww

w

FG

G CE

+ =

where:

CE = capture efficiency, decimal fraction;

Gw = mass of VOM captured and delivered to control 

device using a TTE;

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1091
Fw = mass of uncaptured VOM that escapes from a TTE.

Method 204B or 204C contained in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, is used to 

obtain Gw. Method 204D in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, is used to 

obtain Fw. 

B) Liquid/gas method using TTE. The Agency and USEPA 

specifications to determine whether a temporary enclosure is 

considered a TTE are given in Method 204 of appendix M of 40 

CFR 51, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

The capture efficiency equation to be used for this protocol is: 

L

FL CE − W =

where:

CE = capture efficiency, decimal fraction;

L = mass of liquid VOM input to process emission unit;

Fw = mass of uncaptured VOM that escapes from a TTE.

Method 204A or 204F contained in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, is used to 

obtain L. Method 204in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, incorporated 

by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, is used to obtain Fw. 

C) Gas/gas method using the building or room (building or room 

enclosure), in which the affected coating line, printing line or other 

emission unit is located, as the enclosure, as determined by Method 

204 of appendix M of 40 CFR 51, incorporated by reference in 

Section 219.112 of this Part, and in which "FB" and "G" are 

measured while operating only the affected line or emission unit. 

All fans and blowers in the building or room must be operated as 

they would under normal production. The capture efficiency 

equation to be used for this protocol is: 

FG B

G CE

+ =

where:

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1092
CE = capture efficiency, decimal fraction;

G = mass of VOM captured and delivered to control device;

FB = mass of uncaptured VOM that escapes from building 

enclosure.

Method 204B or 204C contained in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, is used to 

obtain G. Method 204E in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, incorporated 

by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, is used to obtain FB. 

D) Liquid/gas method using the building or room (building or room 

enclosure), in which the affected coating line, printing line or other 

emission unit is located, as the enclosure as determined by Method 

204 of appendix M of 40 CFR 51, incorporated by reference in 

Section 219.112 of this Part, and in which "FB" and "L" are 

measured while operating only the affected line emission unit. All 

fans and blowers in the building or room must be operated as they 

would under normal production. The capture efficiency equation 

to be used for this protocol is: 

L

FL CE − B =

where:

CE = capture efficiency, decimal fraction;

L = mass of liquid VOM input to process emission unit;

FB = mass of uncaptured VOM that escapes from building 

enclosure.

Method 204A or 204F contained in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, is used to 

obtain L. Method 204E in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, incorporated 

by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, is used to obtain FB. 

E) Mass balance using Data Quality Objective (DQO) or Lower 

Confidence Limit (LCL) protocol. For a liquid/gas input where an 

owner or operator is using the DQO/LCL protocol and not using an 

enclosure as described in Method 204 of appendix M of 40 CFR 

51, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, the 

VOM content of the liquid input (L) must be determined using 

Method 204A or 204F in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, incorporated 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1093
by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. The VOM content of 

the captured gas stream (G) to the control device must be 

determined using Method 204B or 204C in appendix M of 40 CFR 

51, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. The 

results of capture efficiency calculations (G/L) must satisfy the 

DQO or LCL statistical analysis methodology as described in 

Section 3 of USEPA's "Guidelines for Determining Capture 

Efficiency,", incorporated by reference at Section 219.112 of this 

Part. Where capture efficiency testing is done to determine 

emission reductions for the purpose of establishing emission 

credits for offsets, shutdowns, and trading, the LCL protocol 

cannot be used for these applications. In enforcement cases, the 

LCL protocol cannot confirm non-compliance; capture efficiency 

must be determined using a protocol under subsection (c)(2)(A), 

(B), (C) or (D) of this Section, the DQO protocol of this subsection 

(c)(2)(E), or an alternative protocol pursuant to Section 219.108(b) 

of this Part.

BOARD NOTE: Where LCL was used in testing emission units 

that are the subject of later requests for establishing emission 

credits for offsets, shutdowns, and trading, prior LCL results may 

not be relied upon to determine the appropriate amount of credits. 

Instead, to establish the appropriate amount of credits, additional 

testing may be required that would satisfy the protocol of Section 

219.105(c)(2)(A), (B), (C) or (D), the DQO protocol of Section 

219.105(c)(2)(E), or an alternative protocol pursuant to Section 

219.108(b) of this Part. 

3) Simultaneous testing of multiple lines or emission units with a common 

control device. If an owner or operator has multiple lines sharing a 

common control device, the capture efficiency of the lines may be tested 

simultaneously, subject to the following provisions: 

A) Multiple line testing must meet the criteria of Section 4 of 

USEPA's "Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency,", 

incorporated by reference at Section 219.112 of this Part; 

B) The most stringent capture efficiency required for any individual 

line or unit must be met by the aggregate of lines or units; and 

C) Testing of all the lines of emission units must be performed with 

the same capture efficiency test protocol.

4) Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1094
A) All owners or operators affected by this subsection must maintain a 

copy of the capture efficiency protocol submitted to the Agency 

and the USEPA on file. All results of the appropriate test methods 

and capture efficiency protocols must be reported to the Agency 

within 60 days after the test date. A copy of the results must be 

kept on file with the source for a period of 3 years. 

B) If any changes are made to capture or control equipment, then the 

source is required to notify the Agency and the USEPA of these 

changes and a new test may be required by the Agency or the 

USEPA. 

C) The source must notify the Agency 30 days prior to performing 

any capture efficiency or control test. At that time, the source must 

notify the Agency which capture efficiency protocol and control 

device test methods will be used. Notification of the actual date 

and expected time of testing must be submitted a minimum of 5 

working days prior to the actual date of the test. The Agency may 

at its discretion accept notification with shorter advance notice 

provided that such arrangements do not interfere with the Agency's 

ability to review the protocol and/or observe testing.

D) Sources utilizing a PTE must demonstrate that this enclosure meets 

the requirement given in Method 204 in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, for a 

PTE during any testing of their control device.

E) Sources utilizing a TTE must demonstrate that their TTE meets the 

requirements given in Method 204 in appendix M or 40 CFR 51, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, for a 

TTE during any testing of their control device. The source must 

also provide documentation that the quality assurance criteria for a 

TTE have been achieved. 

F) Any source utilizing the DQO or LCL protocol must submit the 

following information to the Agency with each test report: 

i) A copy of all test methods, Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control procedures, and calibration procedures to be used 

from those described in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part; 

ii) A table with information on each sample taken, including 

the sample identification and the VOM content of the 

sample;

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1095
iii) The quantity of material used for each test run; 

iv) The quantity of captured VOM for each test run; 

v) The capture efficiency calculations and results for each test 

run; 

vi) The DQO and/or LCL calculations and results; and 

vii) The Quality Assurance/Quality Control results, including 

how often the instruments were calibrated, the calibration 

results, and the calibration gases used. 

d) Control Device Efficiency Testing and Monitoring 

1) The control device efficiency shall be determined by simultaneously 

measuring the inlet and outlet gas phase VOM concentrations and gas 

volumetric flow rates in accordance with the gas phase test methods 

specified in subsection (f) of this Section. 

2) An owner or operator: 

A) That uses an afterburner or carbon adsorber to comply with any 

Section of this Part 219 shall use Agency and USEPA approved 

continuous monitoring equipment which is installed, calibrated, 

maintained, and operated according to vendor specifications at all 

times the control device is in use except as provided in subsection 

(d)(3) of this Section. The continuous monitoring equipment must 

monitor the following parameters: 

i) For each afterburner which does not have a catalyst bed, 

the combustion chamber temperature of each afterburner. 

ii) For each afterburner which has a catalyst bed, commonly 

known as a catalytic afterburner, the temperature rise 

across each catalytic afterburner bed or VOM concentration 

of exhaust. 

iii) For each carbon adsorber, the VOM concentration of each 

carbon adsorption bed exhaust or the exhaust of the bed 

next in sequence to be desorbed. 

B) Must install, calibrate, operate and maintain, in accordance with 

manufacturer's specifications, a continuous recorder on the 

temperature monitoring device, such as a strip chart, recorder or 

computer, having an accuracy of ± 1 percent of the temperature 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1096
measured, expressed in degrees Celsius or ± 0.5° C, whichever is 

greater.

C) Of an automobile or light-duty truck primer surfacer operation or 

topcoat operation subject to subsection (d)(2)(A), shall keep a 

separate record of the following data for the control devices, unless 

alternative provisions are set forth in a permit pursuant to Title V 

of the Clean Air Act: 

i) For thermal afterburners for which combustion chamber 

temperature is monitored, all 3-hour periods of operation in 

which the average combustion temperature was more than 

28° C (50° F) below the average combustion temperature 

measured during the most recent performance test that 

demonstrated that the operation was in compliance. 

ii) For catalytic afterburners for which temperature rise is 

monitored, all 3-hour periods of operation in which the 

average gas temperature before the catalyst bed is more 

than 28° C (50° F) below the average gas temperature 

immediately before the catalyst bed measured during the 

most recent performance test that demonstrated that the 

operation was in compliance. 

iii) For catalytic afterburners and carbon adsorbers for which 

VOM concentration is monitored, all 3-hour periods of 

operation during which the average VOM concentration or 

the reading of organics in the exhaust gases is more than 20 

percent greater than the average exhaust gas concentration 

or reading measured by the organic monitoring device 

during the most recent determination of the recovery 

efficiency of a carbon adsorber or performance test for a 

catalytic afterburner, which determination or test that 

demonstrated that the operation was in compliance. 

3) An owner or operator that uses a carbon adsorber to comply with Section 

219.401 of this Part may operate the adsorber during periods of 

monitoring equipment malfunction, provided that: 

A) The owner or operator notifies in writing the Agency and USEPA, 

within 10 days after the conclusion of any 72 hour period during 

which the adsorber is operated and the associated monitoring 

equipment is not operational, of such monitoring equipment failure 

and provides the duration of the malfunction, a description of the 

repairs made to the equipment, and the total to date of all hours in 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1097
the calendar year during which the adsorber was operated and the 

associated monitoring equipment was not operational; 

B) During such period of malfunction the adsorber is operated using 

timed sequences as the basis for periodic regeneration of the 

adsorber; 

C) The period of such adsorber operation does not exceed 360 hours 

in any calendar year without the approval of the Agency and 

USEPA; and 

D) The total of all hours in the calendar year during which the 

adsorber was operated and the associated monitoring equipment 

was not operational shall be reported, in writing, to the Agency and 

USEPA by January 31 of the following calendar year. 

e) Overall Efficiency 

1) The overall efficiency of the emission control system shall be determined 

as the product of the capture system efficiency and the control device 

efficiency or by the liquid/liquid test protocol as specified in 40 CFR 

60.433, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, (and 

revised by subsection (c)(1)(B) of this Section) for each solvent recovery 

system. In those cases in which the overall efficiency is being determined 

for an entire line, the capture efficiency used to calculate the product of 

the capture and control efficiency is the total capture efficiency over the 

entire line. 

2) For coating lines which are both chosen by the owner or operator to 

comply with Section 219.207(a), (d), (e), (f), (g), (l), or (m) of this Part by 

the alternative in Section 219.207(b)(2) of this Part and meet the criteria 

allowing them to comply with Section 219.207 instead of Section 219.204 

of this Part, the overall efficiency of the capture system and control 

device, as determined by the test methods and procedures specified in 

subsections (c), (d) and (e)(1) of this Section, shall be no less than the 

equivalent overall efficiency which shall be calculated by the following 

equation: 

 

×100 − =

a

a l

VOM

VOM VOM E

where:

E = Equivalent overall efficiency of the capture system 

and control device as a percentage;

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1098
VOMa = Actual VOM content of a coating, or the dailyweighted average VOM content of two or more 

coatings (if more than one coating is used), as 

applied to the subject coating line as determined by 

the applicable test methods and procedures specified 

in subsection (a)(4)(i) of this Part in units of kg 

VOM/1 (lb VOM/gal) of coating solids as applied;

VOM1 = The VOM emission limit specified in Sections 

219.204 or 219.205 of this Part in units of kg 

VOM/1 (lb VOM/gal) of coating solids as applied.

f) Volatile Organic Material Gas Phase Source Test Methods 

The methods in 40 CFR 60, appendix A, incorporated by reference in Section 

219.112 of this Part delineated below shall be used to determine control device 

efficiencies. 

1) 40 CFR 60, appendix A, Method 18, 25 or 25A, incorporated by reference 

in Section 219.112 of this Part as appropriate to the conditions at the site, 

shall be used to determine VOM concentration. Method selection shall be 

based on consideration of the diversity of organic species present and their 

total concentration and on consideration of the potential presence of 

interfering gases. Except as indicated in subsections (f)(1)(A) and (B) 

below, the test shall consist of three separate runs, each lasting a minimum 

of 60 min, unless the Agency and the USEPA determine that process 

variables dictate shorter sampling times. 

A) When the method is to be used to determine the efficiency of a 

carbon adsorption system with a common exhaust stack for all the 

individual adsorber vessels, the test shall consist of three separate 

runs, each coinciding with one or more complete sequences 

through the adsorption cycles of all the individual adsorber vessels. 

B) When the method is to be used to determine the efficiency of a 

carbon adsorption system with individual exhaust stacks for each 

adsorber vessel, each adsorber vessel shall be tested individually. 

The test for each adsorber vessel shall consist of three separate 

runs. Each run shall coincide with one or more complete 

adsorption cycles. 

2) 40 CFR 60, appendix A, Method 1 or 1A, incorporated by reference in 

Section 219.112 of this Part, shall be used for sample and velocity 

traverses. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1099
3) 40 CFR 60, appendix A, Method 2, 2A, 2C or 2D, incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, shall be used for velocity and 

volumetric flow rates. 

4) 40 CFR 60, appendix A, Method 3, incorporated by reference in Section 

219.112 of this Part, shall be used for gas analysis. 

5) 40 CFR 60, appendix A, Method 4, incorporated by reference in Section 

219.112 of this Part, shall be used for stack gas moisture. 

6) 40 CFR 60, appendix A, Methods 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3 and 4, incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, shall be performed, as 

applicable, at least twice during each test run. 

7) Use of an adaptation to any of the test methods specified in subsections 

(f)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of this Section may not be used unless 

approved by the Agency and the USEPA on a case by case basis. An 

owner or operator must submit sufficient documentation for the Agency 

and the USEPA to find that the test methods specified in subsections 

(f)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of this Section will yield inaccurate results 

and that the proposed adaptation is appropriate. 

g) Leak Detection Methods for Volatile Organic Material 

Owners or operators required by this Part to carry out a leak detection monitoring 

program shall comply with the following requirements: 

1) Leak Detection Monitoring 

A) Monitoring shall comply with 40 CFR 60, appendix A, Method 21, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

B) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of 

Method 21. 

C) The instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of its use 

by the methods specified in Method 21. 

D) Calibration gases shall be: 

i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air); and 

ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a 

concentration of approximately, but no less than, 10,000 

ppm methane or n-hexane. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1100
E) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential leak 

interfaces as close to the interface as possible as described in 

Method 21. 

2) When equipment is tested for compliance with no detectable emissions as 

required, the test shall comply with the following requirements: 

A) The requirements of subsections (g)(1)(A) through (g)(1)(E) of this 

Section shall apply. 

B) The background level shall be determined as set forth in Method 

21. 

3) Leak detection tests shall be performed consistent with: 

A) "APTI Course SI 417 controlling Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Leaking Process Equipment", EPA-450/2-82-015, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

B) "Portable Instrument User's Manual for Monitoring VOM 

Sources", EPA-340/1-86-015, incorporated by reference in Section 

219.112 of this Part. 

C) "Protocols for Generating Unit-Specific Emission Estimates for 

Equipment Leaks of VOM and VHAP", EPA-450/3-88-010, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

D) "Petroleum Refinery Enforcement Manual", EPA-340/1-80-008, 

incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

h) Bulk Gasoline Delivery System Test Protocol 

1) The method for determining the emissions of gasoline from a vapor 

recovery system are delineated in 40 CFR 60, Subpartsubpart XX, section 

60.503, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

2) Other tests shall be performed consistent with: 

A) "Inspection Manual for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Gasoline Marketing Operations: Appendix D", EPA-340/1-

80-012, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

B) "Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 

Terminals: Appendix A", EPA-450/2-77-026, incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1101
i) Notwithstanding other requirements of this Part, upon request of the Agency 

where it is necessary to demonstrate compliance, an owner or operator of an 

emission unit which is subject to this Part shall, at his own expense, conduct tests 

in accordance with the applicable test methods and procedures specific in this 

Part. Nothing in this Section shall limit the authority of the USEPA pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act, as amended, to require testing. 

j) Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Test Methods 

The methods for determining the acceptable performance of Stage II Gasoline 

Vapor Recovery System are delineated in "Technical Guidance-Stage II Vapor 

Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline 

Dispensing Facilities," found at EPA 450/3-91-022b and incorporated by 

reference in Section 219.112 of this Part. Specifically, the test methods are as 

follows: 

1) Dynamic Backpressure Test is a test procedure used to determine the 

pressure drop (flow resistance) through balance vapor collection and 

control systems (including nozzles, vapor hoses, swivels, dispenser piping 

and underground piping) at prescribed flow rates. 

2) Pressure Decay/Leak Test is a test procedure used to quantify the vapor 

tightness of a vapor collection and control system installed at gasoline 

dispensing facilities. 

3) Liquid Blockage Test is a test procedure used to detect low points in any 

vapor collection and control system where condensate may accumulate. 

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. ________, effective ___________) 

Section 219.112 Incorporations by Reference 

The following materials are incorporated by reference and do not contain any subsequent 

additions or amendments: 

a) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 

Conshohocken PA 19428-9555 

1) ASTM D 2879-86 

2) ASTM D 323-08 

3) ASTM D 86-82 

4) ASTM D 369-69 (1971) 

5) ASTM D 396-69 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1102
6) ASTM D 2880-71 

7) ASTM D 975-68 

8) ASTM D 3925-81 (1985) 

9) ASTM E 300-86 

10) ASTM D 1475-85 

11) ASTM D 2369-87 

12) ASTM D 3792-86 

13) ASTM D 4017-81 (1987) 

14) ASTM D 4457-85 

15) ASTM D 2697-86 

16) ASTM D 3980-87 

17) ASTM E 180-85 

18) ASTM D 2372-85 

19) ASTM D 97-66 

20) ASTM E 168-87 (1977) 

21) ASTM E 169-87 

22) ASTM E 260-91 

23) ASTM D 2504-83 

24) ASTM D 2382-83 

b) Standard Industrial Classification Manual, published by Executive Office of the 

President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C., 1987. 

c) American Petroleum Institute Bulletin 2517, "Evaporation Loss From Floating 

Roof Tanks", Second ed., February 1980. 

d) 40 CFR 60 (July 1, 1991). 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1103
e) 40 CFR 61 (July 1, 1991). 

f) 40 CFR 50 (July 1, 1991). 

g) 40 CFR 51 (July 1, 1991) and 40 CFR 51, appendix M, Methods 204-204F (July 

1, 1999). 

h) 40 CFR 52 (July 1, 1991). 

i) "A Guide for Surface Coating Calculation", July 1986, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1-86-016. 

j) "Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by 

Paint, Ink and Other Coating" (revised June 1986), United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington D.C., EPA-450/3-84-019. 

k) "A Guide for Graphic Arts Calculations", August 1988, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., EPA-340/1-88-003. 

l) "Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate 

of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations", December 1988, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., EPA-450/3-

88-018. 

m) "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacturing of Synthesized 

Pharmaceutical Products", December 1978, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/2-78-029. 

n) "Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and 

Vapor Collection Systems", December 1978, Appendix B, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/2-78-051. 

o) "Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry 

Cleaners", September 1982, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C., EPA-450/3-82-009. 

p) "APTI Course SI417 Controlling Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from 

Leaking Process Equipment", 1982, United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/2-82-015. 

q) "Portable Instrument User's Manual for Monitoring VOM Sources", June 1986, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1-

86-015. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1104
r) "Protocols for Generating Unit-Specific Emission Estimates for Equipment Leaks 

of VOM and VHAP", October 1988, United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/3-88-010. 

s) "Petroleum Refinery Enforcement Manual", March 1980, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1-80-008. 

t) "Inspection Manual for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Gasoline 

Marketing Operations: Appendix D", 1980, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1-80-012. 

u) "Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals: 

Appendix A", December 1977, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C., EPA-450/2-77-026. 

v) "Technical Guidance-Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle 

Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities", November 1991, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-450/3-91-022b. 

vw) California Air Resources Board, Compliance Division. Compliance Assistance 

Program: Gasoline Marketing and Distribution: Gasoline Facilities Phase I & II 

(October 1988, rev. November 1993) (CARB Manual). 

wx) "Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency", January 1995, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park NC.

xy) Memorandum "Revised Capture Efficiency Guidance for Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions", February1995, John S. Seitz, Director, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

yz) "Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate 

of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat Operations", 

September 2008, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C., EPA-453/R-08-002. 

zaa) 40 CFR 63 subpart PPPP, appendix A (2008). 

aabb) 46 CFR subchapter Q (2007). 

bbcc) 46 CFR subchapter T (2008). 

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. ______, effective ____________) 

SUBPART Y: GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1105
Section 219.583 Gasoline Dispensing Operations - Storage Tank Filling Operations 

a) Subject to subsection (b) below, no person shall cause or allow the transfer of 

gasoline from any delivery vessel into any stationary storage tank at a gasoline 

dispensing operation unless: 

1) The tank is equipped with a submerged loading pipe; and 

2) The vapors displaced from the storage tank during filling are processed by 

a vapor control system that includes one or more of the following: 

A) A vapor collection system that meets the requirements of 

subsection (d)(4) below; or 

B) A refrigeration-condensation system or any other system approved 

by the Agency and approved by the USEPA as a SIP revision, that 

recovers at least 90 percent by weight of all vaporized organic 

material from the equipment being controlled; and 

C) The delivery vessel displays the appropriate sticker pursuant to the 

requirements of Section 219.584(b) or (d) of this Part; and 

3) By March 15, 1995, all tank vent pipes are equipped with 

pressure/vacuum relief valves with the following design specifications: 

A) The pressure/vacuum relief valve shall be set to resist a pressure of 

at least 3.5 inches water column and to resist a vacuum of no less 

than 6.0 inches water column; or 

B) The pressure/vacuum relief valve shall meet the requirements of 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 218.586(c); and 

4) The owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing operation demonstrates 

compliance with subsection (a)(3) of this Section, by March 15, 1995 or 

30 days after installation of each pressure/vacuum relief valve, whichever 

is later, and at least annually thereafter, by measuring and recording the 

pressure indicated by a pressure/vacuum gauge at each tank vent pipe. 

The test shall be performed on each tank vent pipe within two hours after 

product delivery into the respective storage tank. For manifolded tank 

vent systems, observations at any point within the system shall be 

adequate. The owner or operator shall maintain any records required by 

this subsection for a period of three years. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1106
b) The requirements of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) above shall not apply to 

transfers of gasoline to a stationary storage tank at a gasoline dispensing operation 

if:

1) The tank is equipped with a floating roof, or other system of equal or 

better emission control as approved by the Agency and approved by the 

USEPA as a SIP revision;

2) The tank has a capacity of less than 2000 gallons and was in place and 

operating before January 1, 1979; or 

3) The tank has a capacity of less than 575 gallons.

c) Subject to subsection (b) above, each owner of a gasoline dispensing operation 

shall:

1) Install all control systems and make all process modifications required by 

subsection (a) above; 

2) Provide instructions to the operator of the gasoline dispensing operation 

describing necessary maintenance operations and procedures for prompt 

notification of the owner in case of any malfunction of a vapor control 

system; and

3) Repair, replace or modify any worn out or malfunctioning component or 

element of design.

d) Subject to subsection (b) above, each operator of a gasoline dispensing operation 

shall:

1) Maintain and operate each vapor control system in accordance with the 

owner's instructions; 

2) Promptly notify the owner of any scheduled maintenance or malfunction 

requiring replacement or repair of a major component of a vapor control 

system;

3) Maintain gauges, meters or other specified testing devices in proper 

working order; 

4) Operate the vapor collection system and delivery vessel unloading points 

in a manner that prevents:

A) A reading equal to or greater than 100 percent of the lower 

explosive limit (LEL measured as propane) when tested in 

accordance with the procedure described in EPA 450/2-78-051 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1107
Appendix B incorporated by reference at Section 219.112 of this 

Part, and

B) Avoidable leaks of liquid during the filling of storage tanks; and 

5) Within 15 business days after discovery of the leak by the owner, operator, 

or the Agency, repair and retest a vapor collection system which exceeds 

the limits of subsection (d)(4)(A) above. 

e) Any retail gasoline dispensing operation subject to subsection (a) above shall be 

exempt from the permit requirements specified under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

201.142, 201.143, and 201.144 provided that: 

1) The owner or operator of the gasoline dispensing operation submits to the 

Agency a registration which provides, at a minimum, the operation name 

and address, signature of the owner or operator, the location (including 

contact person's name, address and telephone number) of records and 

reports required by this Section, the number of underground tanks, the 

number of tank pipe vents, and the date of completion of installation of the 

vapor control system and pressure/vacuum relief valve. 

2) The registration is submitted to the Agency by March 15, 1995 or 30 days 

after installation of a vapor control system or pressure/vacuum relief 

valve, whichever is later.

3) The registration certificate is displayed at the gasoline dispensing 

operation. 

4) Upon modification of an existing vapor control system or 

pressure/vacuum relief valve, the owner or operator of the gasoline 

dispensing operation submits to the Agency a registration that details the 

changes to the information provided in the previous registration and which 

includes the signature of the owner or operator. The registration must be 

submitted to the Agency within 30 days after completion of such 

modification.

 (Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg.__________, effective _____________) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1108
I, John T. Therriault, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board 

adopted the above opinion and order on November 7, 2013, by a vote of 4-0 . 

___________________________________ 

John T. Therriault, Clerk 

 Illinois Pollution Control Board

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1109
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1110
Attachment 31

Joint Committee on Administrative Rules 

Acceptance of Board’s Second Notice 

dated November 8, 2013

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1111
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1112
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 

ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

SEN. PAMELA ALTHOFF 

SEN. TONY MUÑOZ 

SEN. SUE REZIN 

SEN. DALE RIGHTER 

SEN. IRA SILVERSTEIN 

REP. GREG HARRIS 

RER LOU LANG 

REP. DAVID R. LEITCH 

RER DONALD L. MOFFITT 

- 

REP. ANDRÉ THAPEDI 

'ÓFRCE 

NOV 1 3 2313 

oarc 

!LUNCh'Z 

Poíution 

CO-CHAIR: 

SEN. DON HARMON 

CO-CHAIR: 

REP. TIM SCHMITZ 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: 

VICKI THOMAS 

700 STRATTON BUILDING 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706 

217/785-2254 

MEMORANDUM 

TO. Dr. Deanna Glosser, Chairman 

Pollution Control Board 

FROM: Vicki Thomas 

Executive Director 

DATE: 11/8/13 

RE: Permits and General Provisions (35 111. Adm. Code 201) 

37 Ill. Reg. 6028 - 5/10/13 

The Office of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules has accepted the Second Notice for 

the above-referenced rulemaking. The Second Notice period began on 11/7/13 and ends no later 

than 12/22/13, unless extended pursuant to Section 5-40 of the IAPA. 

This rulemaking is scheduled to be considered by JCAR at its 12/17/13 meeting, in Room 600C, 

Michael A. Bilandic Building, Chicago IL at 11:00 a.m. Staff will be contacting you if they have 

questions concerning this rulemaking and will advise you of any change in time or location of 

the Committee meeting. 

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the JCAR review procedure. 

VT:DC:rm 

cc: Richard McGill 

Adm. Code Div. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1113
CO-CHAIR: 

SEN. DON HARMON 

CO-CHAIR: 

REP. TIM SCHMITZ 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: 

VICKI THOMAS 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 

ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

700 STRATTON BUILDING 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706 

217/785-2254 

SEN. PAMELA ALTHOFF 

SEN. TONY MUÑOZ 

SEN. SUE REZIN 

SEN. DALE RIGHTER 

SEN. IRA SILVERSTEIN 

REP. GREG HARRIS 

REP. LOU LANG 

REP. DAVID R. LEITCH 

REP. DONALD L. MOFFITT 

REP. ANDRÉ THAPEDI 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Dr. Deanna Cilosser, Chairman 

Pollution Control Board 

FROM: Vicki Thomas 

Executive Director 

DATE: 11/8/13 

RE: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Chicago Area (35 

111. Adm. Code 218) 

37 111. Reg. 6054 - 5/10/13 

The Office of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules has accepted the Second Notice for 

the above-referenced rulemaking. The Second Notice period began on 11/7/13 and ends no later 

than 12/21/13, unless extended pursuant to Section 5-40 of the IAPA. 

This rulemaking is scheduled to be considered by JCAR at its 12/17/13 meeting, in Room 600C, 

Michael A. Bilandic Building, Chicago IL at 11:00 a.m. Staff will be contacting you if they have 

questions concerning this rulemaking and will advise you of any change in time or location of 

the Committee meeting. 

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the JCAR review procedure. 

VT:DC:rm 

cc: Richard McGill 

Adm. Code Div. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1114
CO-CHAIR: 

SEN. DON HARMON 

CO-CHAIR: 

REP. TIM SCHMITZ 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: 

VICKI THOMAS 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 

ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

700 STRATTON BUILDING 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706 

217/785-2254 

SEN. PAMELA ALTHOFF 

SEN. TONY MUÑOZ 

SEN. SUE REZIN 

SEN. DALE RIGHTER 

SEN. IRA SILVERSTEIN 

REP GREG HARRIS 

REP. LOU LANG 

REP DAVID R. LEITCH 

REP. DONALD L. MOFFITT 

REP. ANDRÉ THAPEDI 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Dr. Deanna Glosser, Chairman 

Pollution Control Board 

FROM: Vicki Thomas 

Executive Director 

DATE: 11/8/13 

RE: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Metro East Area (35 

111. Adm. Code 219) 

37 Ill. Reg. 6083 - 5/10/13 

The Office of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules has accepted the Second Notice for 

the above-referenced rulemaking. The Second Notice period began on 11/7/13 and ends no later 

than 12/22/13, unless extended pursuant to Section 5-40 of the IAPA. 

This rulemaking is scheduled to be considered by JCAR at its 12/17/13 meeting, in Room 600C, 

Michael A. Bilandic Building, Chicago IL at 11:00 a.m. Staff will be contacting you if they have 

questions concerning this rulemaking and will advise you of any change in time or location of 

the Committee meeting. 

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the JCAR review procedure. 

VT:DC:rm 

cc: Richard McGill 

Adm. Code Div. 

Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1115
Illinois Ozone SIP Revision - Vehicle Refuleing Vapor Recovery Program: Attachments Page - 1116