# Attachment 29

Public Comments of the Illinois EPA (PC # 7)

dated October 11, 2013BEFORE 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 CounselBEFORE 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.

1On 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

2the 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**May 8, 2012 OAR-20**  **1 0**  **-1 0**  **76**



## 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 L ocal Programs Group ( C539 -0 3 ) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

Ma y 8, 20 1 2ii **Disclaimer**

This report has been reviewed b y the Air Quality P olicy Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and EPA, and approved for publication. Me ntion of trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.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. C omments 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 Y**  **ear**
**.. ..............................**  **. .........5** 1 

# Intr **oduction**

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 b y which the Admin istrator 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
2 7 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 Comm**  **enters 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 -00 32 David H. Fialkov, Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP. Representing

multi

- signatory

parties involved in nearl y all retail fuel outlets in the
United States.

2010 -1 0 76 -00 34 Phillip E. Russo, CAE, Executive Director, National Association of

Fleet Administrators

2010 -1076 -00 35 James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources

Board.

2010 -1076 -00 36 Erin Faessler, Project Development Manager, Vapor Sy stems

Technologies, Inc.

2010 -1076 -00 37 Arthur N. Marin, Executive Director, Northeast States for Coordinated

Air Use Management
2010 -1076 -00 38 Kurt J. Weist, Senior Attorney , Citizens for Pennsy lvania’s Future
2010 -1076 -00 39 William L . Driscoll, Executive Director, Ozone Transport Commission

2010 -1076 -00 40 J. Jared Sny der, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air Resources,

Climate Change & Energy , New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
2010 -1076 -00 4 1 Edward S. Kubinsk y, Jr., Special Projects Manager, Crompco, LL C

2010 -1076 -004 2 Laurel L. Kroack, Chief, Bureau of Air, Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency2

**Table 1. List of Comm**  **enters 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 -00 43 Ky ra L. Moore, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources

2010 -1076 -00 44 Joe Kubsh, Executive Director, Manufacturers of Emission Controls

Association

2010 -107 6 -00 45 My ra C. Reece, Chief, Bureau of Air Qualit y, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

2010 -1076 -00 46 David H. Fialkov, Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP. Representing

multi

- signatory

parties involved in nearl y all retail fuel outlets in the
United States.

2010 -1076 -00 47 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)
“Determin ation of 2 Inch WC Static Pressure Performance of Vapor Recovery S ys tems of Dispensing Facilities”

2010 -1076 -00 48 James A. Capp, Chief, Air Protection Branch, Georgia Environmental

Protection Division

2010 -1076 -00 49 John Eichberger, Vice President, Government Relations, National

Association of Convenience Stores

2010 -1076 -00 50 Mark S. Morgan, Regulatory Counsel, Petroleum Marketers
Association of America

2010 -1076 -00 51 R. Timothy Columbus, General Counsel, Societ y of Independent
Gasoline Marketers of America

2010 -1076 -00 5 2 Robert L . Greco, API Group Director, Downstream & Industry

Operations, American Petroleum I nstitute

2010 -1076 -005 3 Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env., Executive Director, South Coast Air Quality Management District.

2010 -1076 -00 54 Kevin Tokunaga, Program Manager, Glenn County Air Pollution
Control District

2010 -1076 -00 55 Nancy L . Seidman (Massachusetts), Co

- Chair and Barry R, Wal l erstein (L os Angeles, CA), Co -Chair, Mobile Sources and Fuels Committee,
National Association of Clean Air Agencies

2010 -1076 -00 56 DUPLICATE D RECORD OF 2010 -1076-0042 : Laurel L. Kroack,,

Chief, Bureau of Air, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2010 -1076 -00 57 Jason S. Hicks, CAFM, Transportation and Facilities Department

Manager

2010 -1076 -00 58 Shei la C. Holman, Director, Division of Air Quality, North Carolina

Department of Environment and Natural Resources3

**Table 1. List of Comm**  **enters 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 -00 59 Ted Tiberi, President & Founder, ARID Technologies, Inc.

2010 -1076 -00 60 Eddy Tabet, PE, President and CEO, Technology Engineering and Construction, I nc.

2010 -1076 -0061 David Garland, No

- Go Nozzle (C omment submitted after close of

comment period)

**I. Background**

This rule will allow S erious 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 SI P revision to EPA removing the Stage II requirements and get it approved by EPA in order to take this
action

. In some cases, s tates in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) may have to adopt measures that obtain emissions reductions comparable to those achieved b y Stage II to make up for an y emissions increases which might arise from rem oving 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 s ys tem decommissioning to involve equipment replacement and elimination of activities and actions a ssociated with operating Stage II vapor

recovery s ys tems. We have estimated the costs to facilities decommissioning Stage II vapor

recovery s ys tems to indicate a long term substantial annual savings of over $ 9 1 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 propos ed 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 anal ys is 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. T his would apply to any area that currentl y 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 currentl y implementing SI P-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 SI P revision that remov es the requirement from the state’s ozone implementation plan. Additionally , any no nattainment area classified Serious or above for the first time after approximately December 31, 20 09, 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 the4

terms of CAA secti on 182(b)(3), would not be required to implement Stage II programs until 2
and a half ye ars after such classification

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

. In this document, we summarize all of those comments and provid e 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

- OAR

20 1 0 -1076

.

**II. Comments**  **Regard ing**  **EPA’s Proposed**  **Criteria for Determining ORVR**  **Widespread Use**

Comment : Commenter s (EPA- HQ

- OAR -20 1 0

- 1076 -0034 , 0037

, 0039, 0044, 0045, 0048, 0049 , 0051

, 0052, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0058 ) suppor t ed the criteria EPA used in the proposed rule to determin e ORVR w idespread 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 t wo 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 anal ys is using parameters discussed in the NPRM. A fter considering the public comments received, EPA is determin ing 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 anal ys is to support a n alternative date. Response : EPA ’s final rule establishes a single national date for determining widespread

use o f 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 necessa ry for States to conduct separate anal ys is to establish an earlier date.
Comment : The commenter expressed concerns regarding the 98 percent ORVR overall efficiency used in EPA’s anal ys is for the proposed rule. The commenter was concerned that the
EPA’s st udy lacks anal ys is of critical data elements. The commenter listed s pecific issues not
included in anal ys is of the ORVR efficiency rating a s : (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) s ys tems; and (4) faster implementation of recalls when problems are found. The commenter urged EPA to invest igate these issues and de velop a more robust monitoring sy stem to gauge ORVR effectiveness, including strategies to address failures of the ORVR sy stem not detected b y on board diagnostics ( OBD ) sy stems. The commenter wa s concerned that EPA ha d
overstated the benefits of ORVR with out sufficient data to support the continued effectiveness of5

ORVR over time. Moreover, the commenter wanted assurances that SI Ps 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 analy sis, in the
NPRM EPA referenced results of the manufacturer in

- use verification program where there were over 1,1 6 0 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
anal ys is was completed an additional 478 data points have become available mostly for model

ye ars 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 yi elds 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 conclusion s about the effectiveness of ORVR is comprised of 1

, 638 individual tests covering vehicles from eleven model y ears. 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 o f 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 1076

Second, EPA examined the data to look for trends in changes in capture efficiency as the vehicles accrue mileage. To conduct this anal ys is 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 ty pe 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 the ir point regarding which capture rating to use with
various alternative fuels. There are no refueling emission sta ndards for dedicated CNG and LPG vehicles as they

have sealed fuel delivery s ys tems. There are refueling emission standards for
dedicated methanol and dual fuel LP G, and CNG vehicles. These standards are basicall y of the same identical or equivalent strin gency 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 the y do not refuel at gasoline dispensing facilities

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

sy stems to identify

performance problems in ORVR sy stems. Most ORVR sy stems 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**



## Figur **e 1**  **Refueling Emissions vs. Mileag**  **e**7

basic sub

- sy stems. 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 p ipe opening instead of a mechanical seal. A liquid seal is created b y 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 t he 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 b y 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 s ys tem leak monitoring requirement as would any other leak in the line or the fuel/vapor control s ys tem. Since essentially all current vehicles employ integrated evaporative/refueling control sy stems they use the same activated carbon canister and purge
hardware. The OBD s ys tem is required to be able to detect the abse nce 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. Th e 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

sy stem or render the OBD evaporative emission sy stem leak check hardware inoperative

, but it
would not d etect a canister which has lost efficiency

. The commenter raised concern that there might be aspects of the OBD s ys tem requirements that do not monitor the performance of ORVR

sy stems. As mentioned above, the only area of concern here would be a loss of c anister efficiency . However, the results of both the ORVR and evaporative s ys tem 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 f ive stat e I/M programs. The data covered model years 1996

- 2010; the calendar y ears varied by state with the earliest being 2002 and the latest 2006. For all evaporative s ys tem related OBD codes (P0400

- P0455 and P0465

- P0469) DTC frequency values range d 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 evap orative s ys tem codes as the data was not disaggregated b y 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 sy stem 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 evaporat ive emission control sy stems. It

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

- def.htm

3 See EPA Memorandum, Review of Frequency of Evapo rative 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

- 1076.8

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 motorcy cles. The ORVR requirement does not apply to these two classes of highway
motor vehicles and neither of these cl asses is included in the groups tested during Stage II s ys tem certifications. On a nationwide basis these vehicles use less than one percent of all highway gasoline

. 4

Comment : Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010- 1076 -00 38 ) stated that EPA’s selection of June 30, 2 013 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 propos ed rule correctly prese n ted the target control efficiency

of 77.4 percent

, expected t o be achieved b e tween the end of calendar y ear 2012 and the end of 2013 that is at some point during the calendar ye ar 2013 and therefore proposes the midpoint of the calendar ye ar, June 30, 2013. However, t he commenter argued that a percentage that is increasing over ti me will reach a specified level at some point during a given

ye ar obviousl y 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 interpolat ion between the two end -of- ye ar percentages for 2012 and 2013. Such an in t er p olation reveals that the target of 77.4 percent would not be achieved until 334.58 day s into 2013, or November 30, 2013. The commenter asserted that EPA should select November 3 0 or December 31, 2013 as the date on which widespread use of ORVR will occur. Response : T he 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
det ermines 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 ha ve broad discretion in how to define ORVR widespread use and the manner in which any final determinat ion is implemented. As can be seen in Table 1 in the NPRM, EPA considered man y different criteria for determining widespread use of ORVR including ORVR vehicle VMT, ORVR vehicle fleet penetration, percentage of gasoline dispensed to ORVR vehicles, fractio n 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 veh icles and for comparison the cross

- over date where
reductions achieved b y ORVR alone would equal reductions achieved b y Stage II s ys tems 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 foun d at http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/9

percent as a very reasonable indicator that ORVR was in widespread use. For the equivalent control approach EPA presented an anal ys is 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 val ues 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 ye ar later. As discussed in the NPRM based on this information, EPA concluded that the midpoint of 2013 was a reasonable date for widespread use. Arguabl y, given EPA’s discretion, a date an y 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 date s presented in the NPRM we re appropriate based on the data, our
anal ys is, 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

sy stems, 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 trapp ed. 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 pro cess. The commenter made clear that today , all new passenger vehicles manufactured in North America are equipped with ORVR sy stems. The commenter
contended that ORVR s ystems have been shown to be highl y effective at reducing refueling hy drocarbon emission s (approximately 98 percent refueling h ydrocarbon 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
OR VR sy stems 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

s tating that
each ye ar 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 furth er indicated that five liters per ye ar of this fuel is recovered during refueling events alone and results in a pay back time of only

two y ears in decreased fuel purchases for the ORVR s ys tem. The commenter added that carbon canisters have
been shown to las t the lifetime of the vehicle, with no normal maintenance or replacement and
with little or no deterioration in performance.10

Response : EPA thanks the commenter for presenting supportive input on how ORVR technology captur es refueling vapors and helps prot ect 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

sy stems 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 s ys tems 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

- ben e fits 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 th at EPA’s widespread use determination will provide an opportunity
for individual states or localities t o fully demonstrate compliance with applicab le CAA requirements to remove Stage II recovery s ys tems 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 sy stems. The commenter further concluded that in numerous areas, continued deplo ym ent of Stage II recovery s ys tems will provide additional environmental
benefits. However, the commenter added that w hile they concur that EPA has the authorit y to determine when ORVR is in widespread use, the y added that the agency must clearl y state in the final rule that its determination of widespread use does not automatically allow for discontinued use of Stage II recovery

sy stems. The commenter suggested that EPA should provide greater
detail on the environment al impacts of removing or continuing to operate Stage II recovery

sy stems so that individual regions can make informed decisions on whether or not to decommission these sy stems. Lastly

, the commenter suggested that state and local air agencies must be prov ided with clear guidance on a streamlined SI P 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 SI P credit was previously

obtained until EPA approves a SI P submission removing Stage II. To discontinue its Stage II program under section 182(b)(3), a State should submit a SI P revision.
EPA will act on the SI P revision through notice and comment rulemaking. The revision would also be subject to the CAA section 110(l) requirement that the S IP revision not interfere with any11

applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or an y other requirement of the CAA. EPA fully understands that the commenter requests a methodology to account for all
emission impacts of ret aining or removing Stage II including benefits and dis

- benefits of non

ORVR 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 ty pe 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 an y other requirement of the CAA) as well as how
to factor in the effec ts of ORVR/vacuum assist Stage II s ys tem incompatibility in the overall reductions from Stage II sy stems in this assessment. As suggested b y the commenter, EPA points out in the final rule that States may choose
to continue or enhance Stage II c ontrols 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 o f either removing or continuing operation of Stage II s ys tems, EPA notes that this is an area

specific issue. The anal ysis supporting EPA’s ORVR widespread use determination used what we believe to be reasonable and ty pical 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 v ehicle 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 St age 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 qualit y strategy for over 35 years and credited this program has yielded cost

effective emission reductions in the most ozone impa cted 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 gaso line 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

stor age 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 retenti on, drips, and spills; and 4)12

Further emission reductions are anticipated from a newl y 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 con strued that their area has a critical need for reducing smog- forming emissions and will continue to use Stage II

vapor recovery

until su ch 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 s ys tems for several y ears 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 significantl y 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 s ys tems in the area, the commenter claimed substantial emission reductions are garnished with Stage II

sy stems. As such, the commenter stated that ORVR equipped vehicle population must be closer to 95 percent before their area would decommission Stage II s ys tems. The commenter further

state d that to do otherwise would not be feasible given that the area could not find additional
emission reduction measures to supplant an y shortfalls associated with the Stage II s ys tems. The

comment er stated that the methodology developed by

EPA to determine the date of widespread
ORVR use does n ot 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 deplo ym ent of Sta ge II s ys tems 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 clearl y state that this date does not automatically allow for discontinued use of Stage II s ys tems and to discuss in detail the environmental impacts of removing Stage II recovery s ys tems so that individual regions can make informed decisions on the need for Stage II systems.
Res ponse : 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 wi th the
GDF emissions as a s ys tem 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 clearl y reiterates this in the final rule, as suggested b y the com m enters

. 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 pene tration level before their area would decommission Stage II s ys tems. 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 sup port their claim of 95 percent efficiency

. The commenters did not challenge the ORVR efficiency put forth b y EPA. T he environmental benefits of Stage II vapor13

recovery s ys tems and ORVR have been well documented and information is readily available
from v arious 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 param eters for both new s ys tems as well as
for s ys tems used over an extended period of time. The commenter presented data from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to show that the ORVR sy stems are not able to meet the
CAA section 202(a)(6) requirement of 0.2 grams of hy drocarbon 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 sy stems demonstrates that ORVR controls emit at 2.4 to 5.0 times t he 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 s ys tems. This is well established standard practice by ARB, and the requiremen ts 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 % C 3 H 8 (p ropane). 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 anal ys is 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 velocit y 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 crea tion 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 i nto the fuel tank14

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. An other researcher
has developed data which supports this conclusion. 5 Second, this conclusion is reinforced b y work published by ARB in 1998 6 . This research shows that the vapor return line concentration varies with sy stem V/L ratio, dispensing rate, and even the time point in the overall dispensing event. T hese 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 neare r 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 w ere 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 effe ct 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 co m menter’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 t he 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 s ys tems was provide d . We believe this would have shown little or no effect since there would be no

va cuum available to draw off vapor from the fill pipe. Finally

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

sy stems could cause a potential safet y 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 alread y a very low incident rate of service station refueling fires related to atomized

5 ORVR C om

patibility Study for the G ilbarco V aporvac 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, 1998.15

v apors/liquids (an incidence rate of about 25/ yr out of over 12 billion refueling events per ye ar ~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 b y the commenter . In our view, it is incorrect to conclude that this information indicates poor in

- use performance b y ORVR

sy stems. The degree to which this occurs is attributable to the use of a vacuum assist nozzle in this testing, the test procedure used, an d the other requirements of the test. 8

Comment : Commenter (EPA- HQ

- OAR -2010- 1076 -00 61), 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 comme nts. 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 state d 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 b y 17 to 20 percent. The commenter also stated that the nozzle could ge nerate a small, but measurable improvement on ORVR car vapor recovery , improve EVR vacuum assist efficacy to nearl y 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 bey ond applicable industry standards, the requirements in 40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCCC and related state provisions, bu t an assessment of these issues is bey ond the scope and purpose of this action

.

**III. Comments**  **Re garding**  **EPA’s Propos ed 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 c ommenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010 -1076- 0034, 0040) commended EPA for proposing to eliminate Stage II Vapor Recovery requirements
in thos e areas where ORVR is in widespread use. They further stated that air quality will improve while reducing regulatory burdens.

7 Summary and Analysis o f Comments Regarding the Potential Safety Implications of Onboard Vapor Recovery Sy stems, Chapter 4, US EPA, Office of Mobile Sources, August 1988. Available in public docket A

- 87

- 11.

8 These conclusions in no wa y 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.16

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

s ection 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery requirements. After considering the public comments received, and conducting further anal ys is EPA is making the effective date of the waiver of Stage II vapor recovery

requirements the effective date on the final rule

. EPA also recognize s a cost savings in the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery s ys tems and has updated the analy sis.
Comment : Commenter s (EPA- HQ

- OAR -2010

- 1076 -0046 , 0049 , 0051 and 005 2 ) 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 s ys tems. The commenter s maintained that the cost of installing new Stage II s ys tems is approximately $50,000. The commenter s added that it is unreasonable to

req u ire new gas stations to incorporate an expensive technology into their equipment when the technology

will be decommissioned in less than two years. The commenter s stated that E PA should account for this fact and permit new statio n s 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 s ys tem 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 shor t 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 curt ail 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 anal ys is and as explained in the final rule, we have already met ORVR widespread use
under o ne of the two proposed anal yt ical approaches and in most cases the second will have passed before a state completes its SI P revision and legislates an y needed revised regulations

. As discussed in the preamble to the rule, EPA has decided to make the deter mination that ORVR widespread use will occur up on 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 t he commenter s must rely on the states to change their requirements. EPA cannot unilaterally change existing state SIPs or state regulations ad dressing 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 SI Ps, EPA does not have the authority to allow GDFs to not comply with those SI Ps.17

Comment : Commenter s (EPA- HQ

- OAR -2010

- 1076

- 0048 and 0058) pointed to the following statement b y EPA , which states, “Nonetheless, for over 15 ye ars 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 commenter s declared that this statement is inaccurate and urged EPA to correct the statement in the final rule. The commenter s stat ed that they agree that Stage II technology

provided VOC emissions reductions as well as reductions in air toxic emissions such as benzene, however the commenter s 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 generall y effective in reduc i ng ozone. The commenter s stated that reductions in nitrogen oxides (N O x ) emissions are much more effective in reducin g ozone concentrations in their area. Therefore

, the commenter s recommended that EPA acknowledge
this fac t for this rulemaking and recommended a correction to the overly broad statement that
VOC emission red

uctions 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. Generall y , biogenic emissions do not cause ozone problems; they are part of the natural background. It is onl y after anthropogenic
emis sions 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 th at 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 anal ys es and documents created
and reviewed in two public process es supporting this view (see public dockets A-84

- 07 and A

87

- 11) and it is further supported b y the fact that Stage II controls were only required in the
S erious, S evere, and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas (mostl y metropolitan/urban areas) by
the 1990 C lean Air Act Amendments

, not in rural areas

. These urban/metropolitan areas are generall y VOC limited. More importantly , however, t his 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

- 1475.18

to remove Stage II that was previousl y required b y the CAA. If a state/area beli eves 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

. C omment : 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 reduci ng levels of ozone. Response : EPA has determined that ORVR is in widespread use upon the effective date
of the final rule . Accordingl y, to remove stage II requirements for their SI Ps, s tates m ust submit
SI P revisions and meet the requirements of secti on 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 an y other requirement of the CAA

. Comment : Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010-1 076 -00 3 5 ) concluded that the proposed federal action to waive Stage II vapor recovery requirements is an option that the c ommenter d id

not believe is viable for their areas . The commenter believed that there may be opportunities for improvement of the Sta ge II vapor recovery hardware and possible reduction s 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 affirm ed 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 searchin g 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 th at in spite of the growing share of ORVR- equipped vehicle refueling event s, 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 an y existing Stage II vapor

recovery requirements. States may choose to continue to require or enhance Stage II cont rols in a particular area if they

continue to achieve air quality benefits.
Comment: Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010- 1076

- 0037) stated that w hen correctly installed, operated, and maintained, Stage II s ys tems effectivel y control VOC emissions
associated with dispensing gasoline to motor vehicles. I n the future, as Stage II sy stems 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 conce rn that EPA

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

urge d EPA to undertake such an anal ys is 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 commenter19

believe d that EPA should also address issues related to quantify ing excess emissions that may

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

. Response : As a part of t he anal ys is supporting the NPRM, EPA assessed fugitive emissions related to refueling motor vehicles at GDFs. The conclusion of that anal ys is was that fugitive emissions (e.g., breathing and empt yi ng losses) were about the same for the ORVR onl y or ORVR + S tage II scenario because of the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCCC

– the gasoline dispensing facility NESHAP . However, in the anal ys is EPA noted that the incompatibility

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

s ys tem 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 an y 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 qualit y benefits.
Comment : Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010- 1076 -00 4 1) stated that in order to ensure that gasoline underground storage tank s ys tems continue to be maintained in a vapor

- tight condition and prevent backsliding b y 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 sy stems remain vapor

- tight as designed: I mmediately upon decommissioning a stage II s ys tem and annually thereafter, EPA should incorporate the requirement to test gasoline underground storage tank stage I vapor recovery sy stems ability

to contain the vapors b y mandating the followin g test methods: 1) California Air Resources Board ( CARB) TP 201.3 (Determination of 2 I nch WC Static Pressure Performance of Vapor Recovery Sy stems 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. I n the ORVR Widespread Use proposal, EPA did not propose to rescind an y existing state or f ederal requirement for underground storage tank (UST) integrity testing such as th ose contained in 40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCCC . EPA encourages owners and operators of UST to follow f ederal, s tate and local requirements for their sy stems and to follow currentl y recognized industry codes and

stan dards when dismantling Stage II vapor recovery s ys tems. If the s tate chooses to waive the Stage II requirements and seeks to revise its SI P, the s tate may extend such requirements to lower throughput GDFs or the increase the frequency of the testing in the ir 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 me morandum is located i n the docket for this action EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1076.20

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 su re they are still achieving the environmental benefits that w ere originall y intended, the EPA should review other programs. The commenter suggested a review of vehicle “ I nspection and Maintenance” programs. The commenter alleged that the effectiveness of the program has diminished greatl y as an emission control technology . The commenter also asserted that imposing requirements for
VOC reductions in NO x limited areas that have overwhelming biogenic VOC sources is a poor
utilization of resources. The comme nter 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

. Consequentl y, the following response is for discussion purposes only , and does not constitute final action of an y kind on EPA’s regarding the request made b y the

commenter. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made inspection/mainten ance (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 mo del enhanced I/M program. 11 EPA continues to recognize the

v ehicle I/M program as a substantial tool that assists in efforts to improve air quality by identify ing high -emitting vehicles in need of repair (through visual inspection, emissions testing,
and/or the downloading of fault codes from a vehicle's OBD s ys tem ) 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 R eview

. 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 Ai r Act Amendments of 1990. One of the reasons that I/M programs get fewer reductions nowaday s 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 diag nostic (OBD) s ys tems 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 s ys tem is generall y 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 b y various I /M programs throughout the 1990 s

11 (57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992)21

and are still used to test non

- OBD -equipped vehicles in some programs. The fact that the majority of vehicles in use nowaday s 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 g iven local conditions.
Comment : Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010- 1076 -00 54 ) indicated that their state adopted Benzene Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) , intended to reduce the public exposure to benzen e , a known carcinogen. As a result of this control measure, virtuall y all gasoline dispensing facilities were required to install Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery

sy stems. The commenter further indicated that in March of 2000, the state adopted Enhanced Vapor Recovery

(EVR). The requirements for the EV R upgrade included new Stage I and Stage
II s ys tems, 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 waivin g Stage II requirements.
The commenter realized that i n 2013, non- ORVR vehicles may remain, but attrition over time will eliminate most of those vehicles

. The commenter asserted that non

- ORVR vehicles are generall y not being used as frequently as ORVR v ehicles, and, consequently , not receiving comparable gasoline throughput that the ORVR vehicles receive. The commenter indicated that
b enzene content has recently been recommended to not exceed an annual average of 0.62% by volume by

the end of 2011 by

th e state . The commenter assert ed that the reduction in benzene content may

be sufficient reason for the state to consider modification of the ATCM. The commenter speculated that i f the ATCM is modified, the air district will revise its State Implementation Plan to reflect increased VOC emissions. The commenter also indicated that the
d istrict 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 ent ire state. The commenter believed that a ir districts in the more remote and sparsely populated areas of the state do not receive a significant air qualit y benefit from Phase II vapor

recovery

. The commenter concluded that m an y low throughput gasoline dispensing facilities throughout the state have closed or have become convenience store -onl y 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 b y a state requirement not under section 182(b)(3).
The issues raised b y 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 -00 55) supports EPA’s effort to fulfill this CAA requirement. The commenter further states that e stablishment of a widespread

- use date
for ORVR will allow stat es and localities that currently have Stage II vapor recovery s ys tems in22

place to decommission these s ys tems if they so choose and will also allow areas designated nonattainment for ozone in the future to forego installation of Stage II recovery s ys tems. T he commenter recommends that the final rule should note that decommissioning of Stage II

recovery s ys tems is not mandatory . In the final rule, therefore, EPA must clearl y and prominently

state that its action establishes a date on which EPA believes ORVR i s in widespread use, but whether Stage II will be decommissioned or retained in a specific region is a
decision reserved for each state or localit y. The commenter cautioned EPA not to undermine the ability of states and localities that wish to retain Stage II recovery s ys tems. The commenter indicated that for many ozone nonattainment areas, Stage II recovery s ys tems have served as an effective means for reducing VOC evaporative emissions from gasoline refueling. The commenter added that many areas rel y 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
bene fits of Stage II recovery s ys tems 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 aver age of 86 percent assumed by

EPA in the proposed rule. The commenter concluded that Stage II recovery s ys tems 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 determin ation. The commenter suggested that EPA should be mindful of this and include a discussion of the potential benefits of retaining properl y operated and maintained Stage II recovery s ys tems in the final rule. Response : EPA agrees with the commenter that Stage II vapor recovery sy stems 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 turnove r, the incremental emission reduction benefits of Stage II

vapor recovery

s ys tems over those achieved by ORVR diminish over time. Moreover, EPA’s
anal ys is indicates that aggregate VOC emission reductions and air toxic reductions achieved
from vehicles bei ng 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 sy stem captures the air toxic compounds (e.g., benzene, toluene, x yl ene) at least as effectively as it captures the butane and pentane compounds

1 0 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

- 1076.23

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 OR VR

- equipped vehicles will exceed those from Stage II, and the margin b y 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 an d 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 ser ious and above ozone nonattainment areas. Subsequently, of course, area -specific
decisions of whether to revise SI Ps to remove Stage II requirements will depend upon the specific needs of individual ozone nonattainment areas. Finall y, whether additional controls of air toxics emissions from GDF operations are technologicall y feasible or necessary to protect public health are bey ond the scope of this action, which addresses whether ORVR is factually in widespread use and whether it is reasonable to continu e to impose, as a general and national minimum requirement for ozone control purposes, the section 182(b)(3) requirement for S erious
and above ozone nonattainment areas.
Comment : Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010- 1076 -0037) was concerned that EPA had
not consi dered 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 ai r 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, ethy l benzene, toluene, and xylene. The commenter presented earlier EPA
anal ys is that indicated that GDFs emit more than 25,000 tons of emissions nationally for these four pollutants. The commenter stated that man y 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 S ee 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 w ould occur when a non

- ORVR vehicle is refueled at a Stage II GDF. How ever, as demonstrated in Table 1 o f 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 w ould control about 86 p ercent of gasoline and control 84 percent of emissions while Stage II w ould control only 12 percent of gasoline and control about 10 percent of emissions. By 2020, OVR w ould 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 lea d 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.24

explain ed that facilities equipped with properl y m aintained Stage II s ys tems 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 ex posures 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 disproportionatel y high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority

or low

- inco me populations. However, the commenter stated that EPA did not
anal yz e the potential increased local exposure to air toxics, either generall y or for environmental justice communities. The commenter requested that EPA provide an y environmental justice
anal ysis it conducted for this proposed rule. The commenter further urged EPA to ensure that an adequate anal ys is has been completed, and, if necessary , supplemented with an examination of the potential impacts of this proposed rule on environmental justice com munities and on local air
toxics emissions. Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010 -1076 -0053) urged EPA to discuss other environmental benefits of Stage II s ys tems such as reduced toxic air contaminants exposure to gasoline at the point of refueling and potential envi ronmental 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 s ys tems 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.
Comment er (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 an y disproportionately

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population including an y minorit y 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 for25

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 thres hold 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 Co ngress 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 min ority 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 bey ond the scope of today ’s action, which is fo cused on the narrower factual issue of whether ORVR

sy stems 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 S erious and
above ozone nona ttainment areas for purposes of ozone control. Any anal ysis 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) i s 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 mea ns 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

commen ter detailed the assertion by stating that vapor emissions at GDF s 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 sy stems. 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 t he goal for the GDF is to minimize the total emissions (Volatile Or ganic 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 s ys tem could be increased to impro ve vapor collection at the
nozzle/vehicle interface for a vacuum assist Stage II s ys tem ; however, this increase in and to liquid ratio results in air ingestion into the storage tank with a penalt y in fuel evaporation,26

increased tank pressurization with res ulting vent and fugitive emissions. The commenter added
that w ith ORVR alone, air ingestion into the storage tank is minimized, however man y non

ORVR vehicles will not capture refueling emissions. The commenter concluded that to adequatel y optimize a sol ution for the GDF, both sets of emissions must be considered simultaneously

. The commenter referenced an Emissions I nventory summary provided by ARID Technologies to State of Illinois EPA. The commenter asserted that capturing and containing refueling va por yi elds a favorable economic pay

back. The commenter referenced section 2.1.15 of “EPA’s Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews”; page 22 -23, where EPA say s, “ Available and affordable technology

choices define the potential range of environ mental 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 y ears have spurred technology development s 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 tech nology 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, t he 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 onl y . The commenter a sserts that EPA uses improper math in Table 1 of the proposed rule, specificall y column 5, where the commenter alleged that emissions from non

- ORVR equipped vehicles are not accounted for where Stage II s ys tems are not in use. On pages 3 and 4 of his comment letter, t he 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 state s 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, t he commenter stated his belief and present ed 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 p e rcent 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 yi elding a rapid pay

back on invested capital for the gasoline dispensing facility owner/operator.27

In addition to increased operating efficiency , the risk of groundwater contamination via below grade fugitive emissions is also significantl y 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 anal ys is for the final rule, EPA presented an asse ssment 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 v ehicles are refueled b y a vacuum assist ty

pe Stage II s ys tem

. 15 We do not disagree with the commenter that potentially more could be done to address storage tank emissions bey ond the requirements in 40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCCC and related state provision s , but an assessment of these issues is bey ond the scope and purpose of this action

. The commenter took the view that the “widespread use” approach used b y EPA was
flawed and instead that EPA should take a more holistic and integrated view of GDF emissio ns 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 an y state to take action to remove Stage II or prevent
a state f rom enhancing its GDF emission control requirements. We do not agree with the

commenter ’ s assertion that EPA’s anal ys is in the NPRM used improper math or that within
EPA’s anal ys is emissions from non- ORVR vehicles are not accounted for where Stage II

sy st ems are not in use. EPA conducted an area or region wide efficiency analy sis which incorporated all of the GDFs and refueling events in a given area per y ear including (a) ORVR
vehicles at Stage II GDFs , (b) ORVR vehicles at non Stage II GDFs , (c) non

- ORV R vehicles at Stage II GDFs, and (d) non

- ORVR vehicles at non Stage II GDFs

. The data used in EPA’s
anal ys is 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 memoran dum 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, t he purpose of EPA’s
anal ys is 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, t he EPA’s emission factors document, identifies three sources of refueling emissions: di splacement, 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 i ncompatibility effects related to ORVR and Stage II vacuum assist systems.28

ORVR. 16 This is not to suggest that there would no t be additional reductions available from nonORVR vehicles at Stage II GDFs after the crossover date if Stage II was retained or that ther e would not be uncontrolled emissions (non

- ORVR vehicles at non

- Stage II GDFs) , but these
would be relativel y small a nd decreasing each ye ar. For example, u sing 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 n ationwide 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 requi rement 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 sy stem incompatibility effect. 17

This would decreas e each y ear 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 s ys tems are not in use. T his is simply not true. As
can be seen in the crossover discussion above, within the NPRM analy sis there are actuall y 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

a n 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 (se gment (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 anal ys is provided by the commenter with regard to
ARI D Technol ogies’ 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 an y incentives to do s o are bey ond 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 bey ond current EPA or local requirements.

**IV. C omments Regarding State Implementation Plan Revisions** 

16 Since in our earlier analysis we concluded that the difference w as 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.29

Comment : Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010- 1076 -00 4 2) requested that EPA provide further information on the overall expectations and steps needed for states to be granted a waiver and properl y 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 t ypes of information needed to demonstrate compliance with Section 110(l) requirements, 2 ) if a quantitative area

- sp ecific calculation of vehicle refueling emissions is need ed , EPA should provide guidance on estimating excess emissions from ORVR incompatibility with vacuum assist sy stems, and 3 ) a definition of the options available to states to discontinue the requirem ent 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 possibl e, stop requiring new installations and

any enforcement activities for states with current SIP- approved Sta g e II programs

. Another c ommenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010 -1076

- 0037) provided their belief that additional guidance from EPA is needed on how to incorpor ate the proposed rule elements into a
SI P. In man y states, removing the Stage II program from the SI P requires addressing several separate sections of the Clean Air Act. States need clear and detailed guidance from EPA on how to develop appropriate and co mplete SI P revisions. Whether or not Stage II can be removed will depend on EPA’s review and approval of such SI P revisions. The commenter urge d EPA to develop this guidance as soon as possible and preferabl y well in advance of finalizing the Proposed Wide spread 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 t hat the integrit y of the SI P 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 anal ys is 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 y ear that should be used for the equivalency
and/or interference with maintenance demonstrations. The com menter recommended that EPA require that states use the first phase- out y ear of the Stage II program as their baseline ye ar. The commenter pointed out that states are confused about assessing emission reductions from an existing Stage II program. The com menter expressed their understanding that emissions resulting from the incompatibility between ORVR vehicles and vacuum- assist Stage II s ys tems as well as reduced s ys tem efficiency for the Stage II program can be used in states’ SI P demonstrations. The co mmenter 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
rela ted to SI P revision development with the goal of providing the states with clear and consistent guidance that will ensure consistent application among those states conducting these
anal ys es.30

Response : When a state wishes to remove the requirements for Sta ge 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 SI P anal ys is, states may elect to
conduct area

- specific analy ses, specify ing parameters that are reflective of the ty pes 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 currentl y i mplementing SI Papproved Stage II programs, as a result of obligations under the 1

- hour or 1997 8 -hour ozone NAAQ S, would be required to continue implementing these programs until an EPA SI P 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

occu rred 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 SI P. Some states may find t hat by

removing Stage II requirements they

are reducing the overall level of reductions for which they have previousl y obtained credit. Such states would need to show that foregoing an y 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 SI P 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 SI P a s well as
indications of what data is needed and suggestions on how the anal ys is 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 onl y 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 w ill work with the states to find a way forward on this matter. However, this is ultimately an issue for each state. EPA cannot unilaterall y change existing state
SI Ps or state regulations addressing Stage II requirements.
Comment : Commenter (EPA- HQ

- OA R-2010- 1076

- 0037) u rge d EPA to provide states with clear guidance as to whether MOVES is required to conduct Stage II removal anal ys es. If

so, the commenter specified that EPA must issue guidance on how states should run MOVES for
anal yz ing 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 anal ys is. A preliminary list of issues include: (1) determining appropriate Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) factors; (2) accounting31

for excess emissions due to ORVR incompatibility ; and (3) running the model for one representative count y rather than statewide. Response : While it may

be preferable, MOVES 2010(a) is not the only means by

which

states could support a revised SI P. 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 b y state and local agencies outside of California. This new emission modeling sy stem estimates emissions for mobile sources covering a broad range of pollutants and allows multiple scale anal ys is. The MOVES model currently estimates emissions from cars, trucks & motorcy cles. The modeling s ystem 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,

moto rcy cles, and buses. It is approved for use in official state implementation plan (SI P) submissions to EPA and for transportation conformity anal ys es outside of California. It can also be used to estimate the benefits from a range of mobile source control strategies, for more general anal ys es of national or local emissions trends, and for policy evaluation. MOVES2010 is EPA’s best available tool for quantify ing criteria pollutant and precursor emissions, as well as
for other emissions anal yses of the transp ortation 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
anal ys es

. EPA intends to address some of the commenter’ s specific questions related to issues
such as RVP and count y 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
anal ys is 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 analy sis, or alternativel y, 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 anal ys is,
EPA referenced the manufacturer in -use verification program where there were over nearl y 1 ,2 00 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 anal ys is to include an additional 478 refueling emission test results for ORVR

- equipped vehicles that were conducted in calendar

ye ars 2010 and 2011. The data set, which now includes over 1,600 vehicle tes ts for vehicles from32

model y ears 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 SI P revision by EPA. The c ommenter contended that this is particularl y important because EPA is claiming a long

- term cost savings associated with this rule to be approximately

$87 million per y ear. 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 SI P revisions in an efficient and timely manner. The commenter declared that EPA is misleading the public by imply ing that these savings result directly from EPA’s action on this rulemaking and
tha t EPA should make it clear in the record that the savings will occur onl y 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 ph ys icall y 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
removin g 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 anal ys is 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 strongl y consider guidelines published by the Petroleum Equipment
Institute and to consider c riteria alread y put in place b y Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York. Central to these considerations is a safe process which ensures sy stem tightness and minimizes unnecessary

fugitive emissions from dispenser or vapor pipe leaks.
Comment : Comment er (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 SI P Revision; this includes the CAA section
110 (l) requirements as well as the s ection 116 where States remain free to choose to implement Stage II programs in an y area. The commenter supposed that States choosing to continue using Stage II, in conjunction with a vapor processor will qualify for specia l 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

- 1076.33

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 r eward the proactive States and GDF owner s /operators who employ a state -of- the

art approach to reduce emissions above and bey ond mandated levels. The commenter concluded they would earn an attractive return by pay ing back their capital investment with saved fuel, but on the other hand, an extra incentive can help ensure that Stage II s ys tems are not incorrectl y removed b y the majorit y of the GDF owner s /operators. The commenter pointed out that as an added benefit to regulatory agencies, the efforts expended by the GDF owner s/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; wh y ensure leak integrit y of your vapor piping s ys tem, if you know the losse s 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 sy stems on the forecourt are properl y operating and that the associated piping sy stem 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 sy stems in reducing overall vapor emissions at GDFs. Response : EPA acknowledges that t hese concepts may have merit and states at their discretion may

want to consider them as part of any overall hy drocarbon emission reduction strategy . However, any

further analy sis or consideration here is outside of the scope of this

ru lemaking

. The commenter neither identif ied an existing program nor indicate d how States choosing to continue using Stage II, in conjunction with a vapor processor would qualify for special state

of- the

- art, or MACT status. The commenter also stated that states may qualify for financial incentives, y et did not identify any incentives that may

be currentl y available to states in this regard. EPA did not propose a financial incentive program to states continuing to operate Stage
II s ys tems, nor to states th at enhance their Stage II sy stems . I nstead, EPA proposed a waiver of Stage II requirements upon which the States may choose to decommission the Stage II s ys tems. Nonetheless, as has been discussed before States may elect to retain Stage II and the comment er 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 incentiv es for states to control emissions bey ond levels required b y 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 s everal 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 anal ys is and removal of the Stage II program. The NESCAUM states urged EPA to clarify in the final rule34

how Clean Data Determinations affect the ty pe and level of anal ys is required to remove a Stage II program. Response : Under EPA’s Clean Data Policy 19 and the regulation that embod ies it, 40 CFR 51.918 (1997 8

- hour ozon e), EPA may issue a determination of attain ment ( formall y 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 requi rements under section 110(l), which precludes the Administrator from approving a SI P revision if it would interfere with applicable CAA requirements (including attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS)

. W hen 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 S IP anal ys is, states may elect to conduct area

- specific anal ys es, specify ing parameters that are reflective of the t ypes and ranges of equipment and operating patterns in use in the relevant area. A planned Stage II deactivation that is shown not to resul t 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 1 10(l) if the state offsets the increase in emissions by incorporating additional emissions controls into the SI P. In general, in an area that is attaining the standard, it should be easier to demonstrate that phasing o ut State II controls is
consistent wi th the provisions of section 110(l).

19 EPA’s Clean Data Policy titled “R easonable Furthe r 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, 1995.35

**V. Comments Regarding Effects to Stage II**  **Programs in**  **Ozone Nonattainment Areas of**  **the Ozone Transport Region**

Comment : Commenters (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010

- 1076 -00 3 2 , 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 b y
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 requir e Sta g e II vapor recovery s ys tems. The

commenter s further believe that under the Agency’s current interpretation of section 184(b)(2),

r efueling stations in the OTR may be unable to take advantage of the section 182(b)(3) Stage II waiver and the costs s avings indicated. The commenter s 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. C ommenter s (EPA- HQ

- OAR -2010 -1076

- 0032, 0034) also requested that EPA delay

the deadline for comments on the proposed rule, specificall y 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 b y 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 regard ing SIP incorporation of EPA’s proposal; and 3) maintenance of Stage II s ys tems. 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 mea sures may be counted and how to conduct the comparability anal ys is. The commenter also requested that EPA provide clear and consistent guidance as to the appropriate base ye ar that should be used for the demonstrations of comparability . The commenter als o 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

sy stems, then no ad ditional measures should be required. The commenter also recommended that as part of guidance, EPA should require that states use the first phase

- out y ear of the Stage II program as the baseline year. On the subject of maintaining Stage II s ys tems, the c ommenter 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 I I 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 quantify ing excess emissions that

may occur when refueling ORVR equ ipped vehicles at gasoline stations using vacuum

- assist Stage II technology , as well as potential excess emissions from removal of Stage II s ys tems.36

Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010 -1076

- 0052) stated that in EPA’s proposal to eliminate Stage II, the EPA also de termined that the independent requirements of the OTR are “not
affected b y an y 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 nearb y states without these requirements. Commenter (EPA

- HQ -O AR -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 state s adopt (or maintain) Stage II or achieve comparable emission reductions. The commenter recalled that the preamble of the p roposed Widespread Use Rule indicated that states in the OTR must have adopted measures achieving emissions reductions that are at le ast equivalent to those achievable b y 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” anal ys is means and what it includ es. The commenter believed that OTR states should be allowed to use the y ear 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
reduction s, 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 achiev able by Stage II. The CAA does not provide the Administrator with authorit y to waive this independent

re quirement. The section 202(a)(6) waiver authority only applies to the section 182(b)(3) requirement. In the proposed rule, EPA did not propose an y action related to section 184(b)(2) and did not solicit comments on CAA section 184(b)(2). As a result, EP A 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 issu e new guidance on fulfilling the comparable measures requirement and conduct ed 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 considered37

“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 SI P must addition ally 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 s ys tems (or other comparable measures) were full y 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 b y Stage II, incremental to ORVR, are truly different today

as compared to the mid

- 1990s. In fact, comparable measure s could in some cases mean no additional control bey ond 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 re ductions,” not necessarily Stage II

- equivalent
reductions , which preserves some discretion when evaluating the adequacy of an OTR state’s
SI P 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 I mplementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures .” This future guidance will be
issued a fter 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 SI P 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 Pennsy lvania to submit the Sta g e II or comparable measures SIP revision required b y Section 184(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act. The commenter asserted that Pennsy lvania has not completed the required 184(b)(2) Stage II comparability anal ys is SI P submission to EPA

. The commenter f urther asserted that EPA has not issued to Pennsy lvania a finding of failure to submit the analy sis. The commenter alleged that the state has failed the Stage II comparability

requirement for the 55 of the state’s 67 counties where a s ection 182(b)(3)

- bas ed 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 anal ys es. The commenter assumed that “updated ” obviousl y means that there is an existing comparability analysis and that the state is 15 and one half ye ars overdue. The commenter stated that EPA must rectify this oversight immediately by making a finding of failure to submit. Response : We app reci ate 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 situation38

appropriatel y. The commenter’s statements regarding Penns yl vania’s status and regarding its
CAA sect ion 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 sy stems 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 adequa tely 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
SI Ps prior t o 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 OT R, subject to 184(b)(2), to obtain relief upon a
demonstration that ORVR sy stems 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 o f 86 percent for Stage II s ys tems. The commenter believed this number to be inflated because it assumes annual inspections of all Stage II equipmen t. 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 fugit ive emissions related to Stage II and ORVR incompatibi lity

, even tho ugh EPA acknowledged the incompatibility that exists between some vapor recovery

sy stems. The commente r further added that EPA based the efficiency determination on a report
that is more than 20 y ears old, which over -estimates the current effectiveness of these s ys tems. 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 b etween 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 ind icated that EPA’s framework for review and approval of a revised SIP prior to removal of Stage II r equirements 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 SI P revisions. The commenter contended that such delay could i n crease the potential for excess emissions. The commenter suggested that since the proposed rule in c lu d ed
the anal yt ical approach for widespread use determinations

, where state s use this a naly tical39

approach to establish widespread use they should be authorized to discontinue use of Stage II requirements without an y need for review or approval by EPA. Response : EPA recognizes that s ome states in the OTR are implementing Stage II
controls to meet both section 182(b)(3) (that requires Stage II in S erious 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 b y Stage II); others are implementing S tage 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 SI P must additionally contain would arguably render the 184(b)(2) requirement superfluous , which would not be a permissible statutory inter pretation. 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 s ys tems (or other comparable measures) were full y 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 ye ar. Thus, the factual circumstances influencing EPA’s estimate of what level of emissions
reductions Stage II now obtains, and what redu ctions are therefore “comparable” to those
achieved b y 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 comp arable to those obtained by Stage II. T his issue will be further
addressed in EPA’s anticipated updated guidance titled (tentative)

, "Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State I mplementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Me asures.” This guidance w ill 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

. Man y S tage II installations have been in place for twent y ye ars or more, Much of the above ground hardware is now approaching the second replacement cy cle EPA projected in its initial Stage II technical guidance document. 20 However, we believe this is an issue best addressed in the SI P 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 ident ified. 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 i t s Stage II efficiency if ne cessary 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 Qualit y 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,” C ARB and CAPCOA, April, 1999

, “Performance of Balance Vapor Recovery Systems at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,” San Diego Air Pollution Control District, May 18, 2000.40

EPA understands that making the Stage II waiver automatic, without the need to revise
SI Ps , 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
currentl y 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

su bmitted their laws to EPA and EPA has approved them into SI Ps, the only way to remove those state law provisions from SI Ps is for states to later seek such SI P revisions through new submissions, which EPA would then act on under CAA section 110. In additi on, w hen 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 b y removing Stage II requirements they are reducing the overall level of reductions for which they

have previo usly

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
additio nal guidance to the states to facilitate completion of these anal ys es , although that guidance is not part of today ’s final rule

. Comment : Commenter s (EPA- HQ

- OAR -2010

- 1076 -0046 , 0049, 0051 and 0052 ) believed that if Stage II controls are mandated in the OT R for several more y ears, it will lead to a net emissions increase. The commenter explained that when an ORVR equ i pped vehicle is
fueled at a Sta g e II equipped service station, a lack of compatibility between the two controls

may actuall y cause emission r eduction of the two sy stems together to be less than the emission
reduction achieved b y either s ys tem alone. The commenter contended that by removing Stage II, states would actuall y be reducing the amount of emissions because a substantial majority of car s 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 emiss ions reductions in order to offset the removal of Stage II. The commenter encouraged EPA to clearl y state that this reduction in emissions from the removal of Stage II can act as an offset for purposes of the comparability anal ys is. In other words the va por 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 sy stems that would be used in the comparability anal ys is.41

Response : We acknowledge the p oints raised b y t he 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 t h e 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 SI Ps.
Comment : Commenter s (EPA- HQ

- OAR -2010

- 1076 -0032 , 0046 , 0049, 0051 and 0052 )
indicated that in 1995, EPA released a stud y identifying control measures capable of achieving emission reductions “comparable” to those achievable b y Stage II vehicle refu e ling controls in
the OTR. 22 The commenter pointed out that in the study , EPA interpreted section 184( b)(2) as

say ing onl y measures not alread y prescribed under the CAA can be considered “comparable” measures sufficient to eliminate the Stage II requirement for areas in the OTR. The commenter s concluded that under EPA’s interpretation, ORVR controls canno t be considered a “comparable” measure because ORVR sy stems area alread y required under se ction 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 sa yi ng a technology designed to replace Stage II is not comparable to Stage II. The commenter s a ss er ted that such an interpretation ignores the plain and contextual meaning of the statute. The commenter s added that by requiring areas in the OTR to implemen t Stage II or policies that achieve emission reductions “comparable” to Stage II, Congress wanted states to achieve mechanisms not alread y in place. The commenters further stated that this is to be distinguished from mechanisms not already prescribed unde r the statute. The commenter contended that when the 1995 study was released, ORVR standards were promulgated less than one y ear earlier. The commenter s indicated that automobile manufacturers generall y did not begin installing ORVR on new passenger cars until 1998 when 40 percent of new car s 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 commenter s concluded that under the CAA, st ates in the OTR could not point to ORVR to avoid requiring Stage II in 1995 because ORVR was not yet in place, not because
OR V R was alread y prescribed under the statute. The commenter s stated their belief that ORVR was designed to p h ase out the Stage II r equirement, not augment it.
The commenter s pointed out that EPA stated in the July 15, 2011, preamble that w hen an ORVR vehicle is fueled at a service station equipped with vacuum assist Stage II vapor

recovery s ys tem, a lack of compatibility between the two controls may actually cause the emission reduction of the two sy stems together to be less than the emission reduction achieved by either s ys tem alone. The commenter s 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 Stud y for the Northeast Ozone Transport Region.”42

Sy stems Anal ys is of Widespread Use,” noted the potential for significant excess emissions throughout the northeast as earl y as 2012 caused by the incompatibility

of the two sy stems. 23

The commenter s a lso offered that b ey ond 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 commenter s contend ed that a ccording 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 y ears, largel y 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 currentl y unable to point to ORVR’s prevalence as achieving “comparable” emissions reductions. T he commenter s believed t his 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 analy ses 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 commenter s asser ted that u ntil EPA releases new guidance that cla rifies 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 i f EPA d oes 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 commenter s offered
their belief that cash -strapped states will spend their limited resources on independent comparability anal ys es and revise their SIPs to eliminate the Stage II requirement. The

commenter s 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 SI P action imp lementing that section. EPA acknowledges the concerns raised b y 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 s ys tems (or other comparable measures) were full y 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

- of

wides pread

- use/43

force with ORVR

- equipped vehicles phasi ng 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 b y Stage II, incremental to ORVR, are different today

comp ared to the mid

- 1990s. This issue will be further addressed in EPA’s guidance which w ill be issued aft er 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 con tamination. 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 s ys tems. 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 s ys tems, 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 s ys tems 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
successfull y decommissioned Stage II recovery s ystems through the SIP revision process, for those areas eligible to decommission Stage II, the commenter believes EPA must still prov ide the 2 elements minimally needed for a SI P 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 underly ing the ongoing NACAA -ECOS- EPA SI P Reform Workgroup. Commenter (EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010 -1076 -0043) pointed out that EPA did not provide an y guidance on the proper decommissioning or removal of Stage II equipment from facilities. The commenter expressed concern that S tage II s ys tems be decommissioned properl y 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 properl y 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 to44

decommission their existing Stage II equipment, 2) a description of the State’s role in the decommissioning procedure and outline an y 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 ph ys icall y 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 f or d ecommissioning Stage
II s ys tems safel y and effectively . EPA has often referenced that industry association codes and standards be followed (where applicable) to ensure that Stage II s ys tems are properl y designed, constructed, installed, and, in this c ase, dismantled or decommissioned. Industry codes and standards provide a means for improving methods or developing alternative methods of Stage II

sy stem decommissioning and we encourage States and local agencies to reference these codes. EPA realizes that industry codes and standards may be updated periodicall y 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 I nstitute (PEI) and at least four states have recommended practices o r specific requirements for decommissioning Stage II s ys tems. The PEI guidance, “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery S ys tems at Vehicle Fueling Sites, PEI /RP300 -09, ” is especially instructive as it was developed by industr y experts with a focus on regulatory compliance and
safet y. It basically contains the steps which involve dismantling Stage II hardware and appl ies to both balance and vacuum assist ty pe s ys tems. 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

compa n y that has valid emissions monitoring data from sites where Stage II vapor return has
been disconne cted. The commenter supplied dat a that showed the effectiveness of conducting continuous pressure monitoring inside storage tanks at locations where S ta g e 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 s ys tem. EPA encourages the commenter to make available their technology to the states to cons ider in
SI P actions and for the GDF operators to follow f ederal, s tate and local requirements for tank integrit y testing. We did not propose nor at this point are we considering any mandatory integrit y testing bey ond that contained in 40 CFR part 63 subpar t CCCCCC.

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

Comment: Commenter s (EPA- HQ

- OAR -2010

- 1076 -00 46 , 0049, 0050 , 00 5 1 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 overall45

escalating costs at retail locations is increasingl y burdensome for small business petroleum marketers and largely

unnecessary

given what the commenter s believed is cu rrent attainment of widespread use of ORVR nationwide. I n regards to the Stage II waiver, the commenter s 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 lengt hy 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 s trained resources to develop and submit a SI P 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 S tage II vapor recovery sy stems and we share the commenter’s interest in a quick and orderl y 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 sta te requirements

. EPA understands that making the Stag e II waiver automatic, without the need to revise
SI Ps would shorten the time before a state could act to allow GDF owners/operators to decommission their Stage II installations

. However, as previousl y explained, such an approach is not possible under the cooperative federalism scheme of the CAA, which depends upon state adoption and submission of proposed SI P revisions before EPA can revise any SIP that currentl y requires Stage II under state law. Mo reover, w hen a state wishes to remove from its EPA

approved 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 an d 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 SI P. 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 s ys tems. The commenter stated that EPA failed to highlight the unique differences between the two t ypes of State II vapor recovery

sy stems, the balanced s ys tem and the assisted s ys tems. The commenter
offered inherent advantages in the balance s ys tem and stated that EPA proposal neglected to implement programs that can lower a station’s operating costs and save substantial quantities of gasoline b y 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)

sy stems. The commenter claimed EVR sy stems would save over 66 million gallons of gasoline
between mid

- 2013 and the end of 2020.46

Response : In the proposed rule, EPA believes it addressed the incompatibility of ORVR and Stage II vapor recovery s ys tems 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

act ually cause the emission reduction of the two sy stems together to be less
than the emission reduction achieved b y either s ys tem alone. This issue was discussed in the
NPRM and d ocuments related to this issue were placed in the docket at th at time . A guida nce document related to this issue , to help states address this issue in future SI P 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 ty pe of Stage II vapor recovery technology

in
favor of a nother Stage II technology. In fact the section 182(b)(3) requirement does not specify which ty pe 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 s ys tem or a vacuum assist

sy stem. 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 SI P. Those States may

implement any particular t ype 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 . H owever, EPA has not prohibited any area that maintains its Stage II requirements from allowing inves tment into enhanced Stage II s ys tems

or an y other s ys tem which enhances emission controls at GDFs.
Comment : Commenter s (EPA- HQ

- OAR -2010

- 1076 -00 4 6, 004 9 , 0051 , and 0052 ) welcomed EPA’s desire to eliminate Stage II vapor recovery requirements. NACS has urge d
EPA move in this direction for man y ye ars. However, the commenter s articulated that if the Proposed Rule were finalized as written, it would achieve onl y 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

commenter s 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 s ys tems. The

commenter s claimed that based on EPA’s estimated cost savings, affected stations would save approximately $3,277 annually if Stage II requirements were eliminated. The commenter s determined that the t otal 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 b y the Proposal ($88 million), nearl y 60 percent of such savings would be
los t if areas in the OTR are still required to mandate Stage II controls. Response : EPA ’s anal ys is indicates that there are about 17,000 public , government, and private GDFs in the OTR with Stage II. Th is count varies almost daily as current GDFs close and

n ew ones are opened. This final rule will allow states with S erious and above ozone nonattainment areas that are now required b y 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.47

S tates in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) may alread y 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 ac hievable b y 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 anal ys is regarding comparable reductions if they choose to both act on the Stage II
waiver to revise their section 182(b)(3) SI Ps 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) requi rement would be able to remove S tage II and adopt comparable measures as needed , and we still believe this is a valid view

. Indeed such actions are now underway to vary ing degrees in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

# Attachment 30

Proposed Rule, Second Notice, Opinion and Order of the Board By J.D. O’Leary d ated November 7 , 2013ILLINOIS 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 S tage 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 o n 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 GD Fs 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, “endeavo r 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
propose d 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)).Section 5 -40(b) of the I llinois 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. T he 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 notic e 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 propos ed amendments and, as necessary, makes findings. The second -notice rule language is set forth in t he 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 inclu ded a Statement of Reasons (S R) 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 reserve d 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. Thetranscripts 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 promptl y placed in the Clerk’s Office On

Line (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 ID OA’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 th e 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).By order of June 13, 2013, the hea ring 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 I EPA 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 l atter’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
expe ditiously 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.Attached to IEPA ’s PC3 is a July 31, 2013 letter from IPMA in which IPMA’s Executive Vice President , Mr. Fleischli , confirms the se 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 Septem ber 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 me ssage 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 a void 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 PC 4 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 pr escribed 14 day time period” in addition to of fer ing “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 Cl erk with attachments (10/16 ARID email), purportedly responding to eit her 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 purport ed link for a video (collectively, 11/7 ARID emails).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 -open ed 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 i ts 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, t he 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 , t he hearing officer allowed ARID’s PC4 and PC5, which were sub mitted 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 n ecessitating 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 expedite d 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”).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 da ys (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 h as since re -opened the comment period three times, twice to solicit additional comment and once to allow AR ID’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.

Und er 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 A RID 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 a ny such alleged assertions have play ed 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 C lerk 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 StandardsNESHAP = 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 t his 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:

• O verview of se cond-notice proposal (pp. 8-9)

• Applicable air quality standards (pp. 9-10)

• Stage II SIP rev ision (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 waive r 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 econo mic 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, t he amendments proposed for second notice w ill 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 sys tem that includes all facilities from and including the refinery to the end user, except for vehicle refueling (so

- call ed 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)). S R at 1. Theproposal to phase out the S tage 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 b y 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 regula tions 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 regi stration 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 registrat ion requirement. SR at 26; TSD Att. G.

Applicable Air Quality Standards

Under the 1990 one- hour National Ambient Air Quality Stand ards (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 moder ate non -attainment. SR at 12. Both the Chicago and Metro- East NAAs were t hereafter re

classified to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. Id . Under the 2008 eight-hourozone standard, effec tive 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 impl ementation plan (SIP) for ozone. The SIP revision had to require that owners and operators of certain types of GDFs install and operate Stag e II equipment designed to capture emissions from refueling motor vehicles. Specifically, t his requirement applied in moderate, severe, serious, and extreme o zone 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 e nable 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 inst all, 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 manuf actures 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).USEPA prom ulgated O RVR 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 effici ency of ORVR is actually 98%. TS D 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 fl eet.” 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

Va pors

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. R eg. 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.).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 ins tall equipment certified by CARB to capture, with at least 95% efficiency, gasolin e 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, allow ing 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 Va cuum - 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 increase s 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;TSD Att. A; PFT1 B urkhart 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 i ncompatible 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. S R 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 “MO tor Vehicle Emission Simu lator ” (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 Ass essing Comparable Measures.” S R at 8. The Board proposes phasing out the Chicago ozone NAA’s Stage II program and requir ing 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 ass ociated with retaining and removing the Stage II program. Id

.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 H earing O fficer O rder 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 We ather Serviceat 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 in feasible. PFT2 Gebhardt at 3; Tr.2 at 21-22. The MOVES2010b run spec ifications 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 . Mo re vehicle miles are traveled during the week than on weeke nds 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 G DFs 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.

T he “ORVR + Stage II” trend represents th e 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. T he “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.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. A fter 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 “OR VR + 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 op erate 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 es timated 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 i n 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 depict s the expected trend in refueling emissions over the proposed three-year decommissioning period. The refueling emissions trend s tart s at the cross

over point in January 2014 and decreas es at a rate representing the shift in Stage II and ORVR

use, meet ing back up with the “ORVR-only” trend in 2017. TSD at 8, 10. T he 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 be come 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.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) “an ti -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. B y 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 Issue s— Retaining Stage II and /or Requiring UST Vapor P rocessors

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, AR ID 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 emis sions 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 re sult 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 inwhich environmental j ustice 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 W hite 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 consid ered, the “ORVR + Stage II (with [incompatibility excess emission s] ) 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 emission s 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 l arge capacity and small capacity GDF to earn benefits PC4, White Paper at 17.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 evaluatio n 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 fue l, ARID calculated a cost per ton of emissions reduced of $9,336 (for lower throughput) but a reven ue 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, i f 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 “mispla ced” 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 aIEPA characteriz es 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 r ulemaking, 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 bala nce type Stage II systems, USEP A 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, USEP A 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 tan k 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 calculat ing 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 pos ition 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 eva luating 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 rul emaking and

gasoline storage tank, to regulate the pressure at which vapor is allowed to escape from the tank, and the vacuum at whic h 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.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 refueli ng 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 dispe nsing 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- fo rming emissions by eliminating incompatibility emissions. PC7 at 6.

IEPA emphasizes that states with Stage II programs can determine whether it wo uld 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 ou r 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 bene ficial, 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, “wh ether 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 requir ements 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 sta te from enhancing its GDF emission control requirements.” USEPA PC Responses at 27.Lastly, IEPA addresses a question posed by the September 30, 20 13 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 informatio n 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 emissi ons 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

.Emissions” at 1, 3, docke t EPA- HQ

- OAR -2010-1076 (May 7, 2012) (O TAQ 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 compa tibility 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 processor s to control breathing/emptying losses. ARID stresse s that breathing/emptying losses must be taken into account in calcul ating 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 w ith 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 a t 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 contr ol of gasoline vapor emissio ns at GDF.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 28775 (May 16, 2012). Among t hese comme nts, 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 d ocket EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010- 1076. USEPA PC Responses at 25-26, referring to Commente r 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.”USEPA noted that AR ID 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 v apor 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 va cuum 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. US EPA 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 tank s , 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 -2010-1076-0013analysis for the a verage 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 fo r 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 [US T 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).

U SEPA also explai ned that its analysis did account for non- ORVR vehicles at non

- Stage II GDFs , a s well as non- ORVR vehicles at Stage II GDFs, ORVR vehicles at non

- Stage II GDFs, and ORVR vehicles at Stag e II GDFs . USEPA acknowledged that r etaining 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), bu t 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).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 area

wide benefit for non- ORVR refueling events, they may be come a less cost

effective 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 sign ificant 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).In turn, USEPA provide d 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 fr om State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures

, ” EPA

457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012) ( Stage II Removal Guidance) , which is Attachment C to the TSD.

T he Use r 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 M OVE S 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 emissio ns 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 em issions 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 eliminat e 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 NAAQ S, RFP, ROP, or any other applicable CAA requirement. T he 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.

Th is record shows that t he second

- notice amendments will take full advantage of the emission reductions derived from the wide spread use of ORVR . Synchronizing the January2014 crossover point with t he 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 eliminat ing l ong- 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. I f, after the removal of Stage II, USEPA or IEPA were to identify the need for additional emission reductions to attain and maint ain the o zone NAAQS, then vap or processor technology would be one of the methods the Board could consider. Any s uch 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 Permit ting 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
pe rmitting 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. Cod e 218.583(e), 219.583(e).

The Board proposes to revis e and clarif y these State permitting provisions. SR at 9. Specifically, the Board proposes to repeal the registration requirement for GDFs s ubject 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 Stage s I and II. There are also overlapping federal notification requirements at 40 C.F.R. 63, subpar t 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 th e registration requirement will streamline the rules. SR at 25; TSD at 17 -18; PFT1 Burkhart at 11-13; Tr. 1 at 21- 22.The Board finds, howeve r, that s imply ending the registration requirement would have the unintended consequence of requiring GDFs to o btain State construction or oper ating air permits under Section 201.142, 201.143, or 201.144. Currently, GDFs eligible to regist er with IEPA are provided with exemptions from State air permitting under Section s 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. Th e 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 e xemption 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 an d 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 C hicago NAA that would be affected by ending the registration program. TSD Att. A.

CAA AP 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 “insignif icant 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 theCAAPP source to add the insignificant activities or emission levels to its operations without the dela y that would occur if the source was requir ed 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 significant ly delay s a source ’s ability to engage in the se activities . SR at 10. The Board
proposes revis ing 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

Th e majority of the amendments proposed are in Part 218, Subpart Y, the g asoline distribution regulations for the Chicago NAA, particularly Section 218.586 on motor v ehicle 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 decommiss ioning Stage II systems on January 1, 2014, but require compliance with Stage II requirement s 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. C ontractors stated that the
average amou nt of time to decommission a Stage II system would be one day or less. Industryrepresentatives bel ieved 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 S ection 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 propos es that the decommissioning be performed in accordance with the Petroleum Equipment Institute’s ( PEI’s ) “Recommended Practices for Installation and Testing of Vapor

Recovery 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 i s 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 isnot 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 p erformed 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 Measu res Act ( 225 ILCS 470/8.1 (2012));

• L icensed by OSFM in the storage tank installation/retrofit module pursuant to the Petroleum Equipment Contractors Licensing Act (225 ILCS 729 (2012)) and implementing regula tions at 41 Ill. Adm. Code 172; and

• Has the a ppropriate dispenser- manufacturer certification and training, if a ny. SR at 16; TSD at 15 -16.

Depending upon the extent of decommissioning or other issues revealed during the decomm issioning 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 o f 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 retrofi t 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 I DOA maintains a list of repair persons certified and registered to work on motor fuel dispensers. Mr. Rathbun explained that I DOA’s Bureau of Weights and Measures registers any indiv idual who sells or works on anything used for commercial purposes, such as a motor fuel dispenser. Tr.1 at 50.

For decommissioning procedur es 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 thetank 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 re sults 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

contract ors 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 up on information from OSFM and IDOA, IEPA also provided website links to two of the primary dispenser manufacturers that provide training and cer tification for technicians work ing 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 requir ing owners/operators of GDFs to submit a 10-day notic e 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. T his 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/IEPA on or before t he 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 c ompleting 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. T hes e documents will enable IEPA to effectively track and monitor decommissioning activities. Id

. Consistent with the timing discussion above, t he 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 propos es 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 decomm issioning records to IEPA within 30 minutes of IEPA’s request . This will e nable IEPA to inspect and review the documents for compli ance with the rule

. TSD at 16 -17; PFT Burkhart at 11. The 30- minute timeframe was requested by IPMA for consistency with O SFM 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 believ es “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. Th e Board agrees and propos es 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 clarify ing 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 p roposed Section 201.146(l) will exempt storage tanks and dispensing equipment used to dispense fuel to mobile sources for usein 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 gallon s 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 propos es to clarif y 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 propos es two clarifications with respect to Section 201.302. That provision was intended to require the submission of annual emissions reports (A ERs ) 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). Th e 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. T he Board proposes that Section 201.302(a) be amended to tie the requirement for AER submittal to the applicabili ty 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 201.30 2(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, th e 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 Boardalso proposes to repe al the Stage I registration provision (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.583(e)) due to overlapping federal notification requirements and State tracking sy stems for GDFs. Those

e xemption s 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, t he 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 propos es 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 e xemption 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 ru lemaking. 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 e ngaged 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 Metr opolitan 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 i ts initial decommissioning time frame 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. TS D a t 33.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 pet roleum 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 gr eat 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 impac ts our control community.” Tr.2 at 26-29.

Technical Feasibil ity

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 decommissionin g procedures established by PEI, the only industry- service publication. PEI decommissioning procedures were established by indus try 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 Section s 218.583(e) and 219.583(e) is technically fea sible due to the ability of IEPA to monitor GDFs through administering and enforc ing 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 clarif y 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.Based upon this record, t he 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 savi ngs. 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 wil l 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 hard ware

. 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, a lthough 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 decommissioni ng 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 replac ing the Stage II hardware during regular maintenance. TSD Att. H at 5 -6.

For the financia l 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, inspecti ons, fees, training, and record keeping. 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 operatingand maintenance cost s 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 wou ld 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 abo ut $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 argument s 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 delay ing 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 a re electing to invest money in developing new stations in oth er 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 Ill inois. 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 favo rable payback to t he GDF owner and fuel savings

. PC4 at 2 ; White Paper at 17 . IPMA opposes the se 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 wouldsave $1 ,230 per year in va por 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 Part s 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 substan tial rule change is the pha sing 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 complet ed 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 req uirements in the Chicago and Metro- East ozone NAAs

. Finally, a pplicable throughout the State are proposed c larifications 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 g rants IEPA’s mo tion to waive copy requirements.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 Required201.143 Operating Permit s 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 C riteria 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 Appli cability 201.208 Supplemental Information201.209 Emissions of Haz ardous 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 Requirem ents 201.282 Testing 201.283 Records and Reports

SUBPART K: RECORDS AND REPORTS

Section 201.301 Records 201.302 Reports

SUBPART L: CONTINUOUS MONITORINGSection 201.401 Continuous M onitoring 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 owne r 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 appli cable permit or registration requirements.a) Air contaminant de tectors 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 CF R 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 mmb tu/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,reconstructed or modi fied 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 materi al 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 contai ning 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;r) All organic materi al

- 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 de greasers 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 bev erage 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; or4) Vented externa lly 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 o ils, 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;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 re pair 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 s hredding, 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 a t 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 systemsspecifical ly for suc h 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 mix ed 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 handli ng;

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 ofa 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 sur face 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 m 3 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 f or 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 contro l equipment had required monitoring equipment, the new air pollution control equipment will beequipped with the instr umentation 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 me thod;

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 pe rmitted 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 inthe potential to emit res ulting from the modification of any existing emission unit is either:

A) Less th an 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 en forcement 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 acti vities, 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 aggr egate 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 PERMITSSection 201.210 Categor ies 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 refu se 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 substance s 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;8) Equipment used for f illing 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 distill ate 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 operatio ns 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 reciprocatin g 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 unit s;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 subsecti ons (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 noz zles, 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 (inclu ding gasoline/ethanolblend 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 t hat 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 oth er 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 po llutant pursuant to sectionSection 112(b) of the Clean Air Act;15) Piping and storag e 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 sectionSecti on 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 38 o C (100 o F) or 0.7 kPa (5 mmHg or 0.1 psi) at 20 o C (68 o 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 USC U.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 conditio n;

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;25) Activities a ssociated 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 con tainers 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

coat ing 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 t hat 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. )29) Activities at a so urce associated with the maintenance, re pair, 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 ne cessary 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 Act APA

.
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 ANDLIMITATIONS FOR T HE 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 ValvesSUBPART E: SOLVEN T CLEANING

Section 218.181 Solvent Cleaning Degreasing Operations 218.182 Cold Clean ing 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 Meth ods 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

Section218.401 Flexographic and R otogravure 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 Re cordkeeping 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 f or 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 Systems218.443 Wastewater (Oil/W ater) 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 Operations218.505 Reporting and Recor dkeeping 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 Limitati ons 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 Monitoring218.611 Applicability for P etroleum 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)

Section218.720 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 Testi ng 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 (Renumber ed) 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 RequirementsSUBPART JJ: MISC ELLANEOUS 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 P ROCESSES

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 Schedule218.988 Testing

SUBPART UU: R ECORDKEEPING 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 ReferenceThe following mate rials 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)21) ASTM E 169 -87

22) ASTM E 2 60 -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.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 P rocess 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 Manua l", 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 Protect ion 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, Comp liance 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).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, thatrecovers at leas t 90 percent by weight of all vaporized organic material from the equipment being controlled; and

C) The deliv ery 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 t he 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 instruct ions to the operator of the gasoline dispensing operation describing necessary maintenance operations and p rocedures 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 componen t 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 t han 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 retai l 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, thenumber 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 c ollection 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.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

co llection 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, operat es, 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 reference s 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 v ehicle 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.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 wh ich 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 per forming 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 wit h 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 demons trate 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, 1993.2) 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), any Any 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 ope ration copies of the registration information required at subsection (h) below.

2) Except as provided in subsection (g)(4), records Records and reports required pursuant to this subsection (g) shall be made available to the Agency upon request.

3) Recor ds 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.B) That proper mainte nance 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
ye ars 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 submit submits to the Agency a registration which provides at minimum the operation name and address, signature of the owner or operator, the CARB Execut ive 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 be is submitted to the Agency within 30 days aft er of completion of thesuch installation.

3) A copy of the registration information shall be is maintained at the gasoline dispensing operation.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 after of 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 sh all 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 accordan ce 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), incorporat ed by reference at Section 218.112 of this Part. In addition to Section 14.6 of the PEI, the following requirements apply to decommissioning: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 (OS FM) 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. Anysuch contractor shall also have the appropriate dispensermanufac turer 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 A ct 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 wit h 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 SOURCESPART 219 ORGANIC MATER IAL 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 Appli cability 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 Tank s 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 ValvesSUBPART E: SOLVEN T 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 C oating 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 Pra ctice 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 PUBLISHINGSection 219.401 Flexog raphic 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 Val ves 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 Requirem ents 219.436 Compliance Date

SUBPART R: PETROLEUM REFINING AND RELATED INDUSTRIES; ASPHALT MATERIALS

Section 219.441 Petroleum Refinery Waste Gas Disposal219.442 Vacuum Producing S ystems 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 Se aling 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 Op erations 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 Operati ons219.504 Monitoring Require ments 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 Exce ption

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 Leaks219.610 Testing and Monitor ing 219.611 Exemption for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 219.612 Compl iance 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 ReportingSUBPART HH: MOTOR VEH ICLE 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 Emission s 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 Schedule219.928 Testing

SUBPART QQ: M ISCELLANEOUS 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 Units219.APPENDIX H Baseline VOM Content Limitations for Subpart F, Section 219.212 CrossLine AveragingAUTHORITY: I mplementing 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, effect ive 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, e ffective 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;

amen ded 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 fo llowing 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 seale d 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:A) ASTM D 3925-81 (1985) st andard 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 determ ine 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 bet ween 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 formulatio n 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.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 Sectio n 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 spe cifically exempted from the definition of VOM of coatings, inks and fountain solutions as applied shall follow the guidance provided in the following documents:A) "A Guide for Su rface 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 coati ng 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 minim um, a comprehensive plan (including a rationale) fordetermining 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 r ationale 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 th at will be kept to demonstrate compliance.Upon approval of the propos al 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 req uired 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 av erage 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 analternative 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 co ntrols 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;

G w = mass of VOM captured and delivered to control device using a TTE;F w = 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 G w . Method 204D in appendix M of 40 CFR 51, incorporated by reference in Section 219.112 of this Part, is used to obtain F w .
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;

F w = 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 F w .
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 "F B " and "G" are measured while operating only the affected lin e 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:

B 

### FG G CE + =

where:CE = capture efficiency, decimal fraction;

G = mass of VOM captured and delivered to control device;

F B = 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 F B
.
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 "F B " and "L" are measured while operating only t he 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;

F B = 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 F B
.
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, incorporatedby 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), o r 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 result s 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

commo n 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 ReportingA) All owners or opera tors 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 perf orming 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 obse rve 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 dev ice.

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 so urce 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 meth ods, 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, includi ng the sample identification and the VOM content of the sample;iii) The quantity of ma terial 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 Monit oring

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 accordi ng 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 catal yst 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 co ntinuous recorder on the temperature monitoring device, such as a strip chart, recorder or computer, having an accuracy of ± 1 percent of the temperaturemeasured, expres sed 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 Clea n 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 adsorber s 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 mea sured 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 USE PA, 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 inthe calendar year du ring 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 calc ulate 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 P art 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 t est 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 l a VOM VOM VOM E

where:

E = Equivalent overall efficiency of the capture system and control device as a percentage;VOM a = Actual VOM content of a coating, or the daily

weighted 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;

VOM 1 = 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.3) 40 CFR 60, appendix A, Me thod 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 b e 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

con centration of approximately, but no less than, 10,000 ppm methane or n- hexane.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) "Pet roleum 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 de lineated 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.i) Notwithstanding ot her requirements of this Part, upon request of the Agency where it is nec essary 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 te st 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 Refer ence

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 3 23-08

3) ASTM D 86 -82

4) ASTM D 369 -69 (1971)

5) ASTM D 396 -696) 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).e) 40 CFR 61 (July 1, 1991).

f) 40 CF R 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" (revise d 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 Emissio ns 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) "Por table Instrument User's Manual for Monitoring VOM Sources", June 1986, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-340/1- 86-015.r) "Protocols for Ge nerating 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 L oading 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 Fac ilities", 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 Faciliti es 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.

z aa ) 40 CFR 63 subpart PPPP, appendix A (2008).

aa bb) 46 CFR subchapter Q (2007).

bb cc ) 46 CFR subchapter T (2008).

(Source: Amended at 37 Ill. Reg. ______, effective ____________)

SUBPART Y: GASOLINE DISTRIBUTIONSection 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 requiremen ts 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 equipme nt 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 me et 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 re lief 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.b) The requirement s 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
req uiring 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 450/2-78-051Appendix B incorporate d by reference at Section 219.112 of thi s 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 Age ncy 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.I, John T. Therriault, C lerk 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 Con trol Board

# Attachment 31

Joint Committee on Administrative Rules Acceptance of Board ’s Second Notice dated Nov ember 8 , 2013

### 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.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.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.