ATTACHMENT F 

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing 

April 2012 

Deputy Executive Officer, 

Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, 

Elaine Chang, Dr.PH 

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, 

Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, 

Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E. 

Planning and Rules Manager, 

Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, 

Naveen Berry 

 ____________________________________________________________________________ 

AUTHOR: Don Hopps AQ Specialist 

REVIEWED BY: William Wong Principal Deputy District Counsel 

 David Ono Program Supervisor 

 Danny Luong Senior Enforcement Manager, E&C 
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

GOVERNING BOARD 

CHAIRMAN: DR. WILLIAM A. BURKE 

 Speaker of the Assembly Appointee 

VICE CHAIRMAN: DENNIS YATES 

 Mayor, Chino 

 Cities of San Bernardino 

MEMBERS: MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH 

 Supervisor, Fifth District 

 County of Los Angeles 

 

 JOHN J. BENOIT 

 Supervisor, Fourth District 

 County of Riverside 

 

 MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI 

 Mayor, South Pasadena 

 Cities of Los Angeles County/Eastern Region 

 

 JANE W. CARNEY 

 Senate Rules Appointee 

 

 JOSIE GONZALES 

 Supervisor, Fifth District 

 County of San Bernardino 

 

 RONALD O. LOVERIDGE 

 Mayor, Riverside 

 Cities of Riverside County 

 

 JOSEPH K. LYOU, PH. D. 

 Governor’s Appointee 

 

 JUDITH MITCHELL 

 Councilmember, Rolling Hills Estates 

 Cities of Los Angeles County/Western Region 

 

 SHAWN NELSON 

 Supervisor, Fourth District 

 County of Orange 

 

 JAN PERRY 

 Councilwoman, Ninth District 

 City of Los Angeles 

 

 MIGUEL A. PULIDO 

 Mayor, Santa Ana 

 Cities of Orange County 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER: BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.ENV.

Formatted: Spanish (Mexico)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... ES-1 

CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 

REGULATORY HISTORY ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 

AFFECTED FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 

ORVR BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 

UPCOMING COMPLIANCE DEADLINES FOR ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS ............................................ 1-3 

CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 461 

OVERVIEW: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 461 ................................................................................... 2-1 

NON-RETAIL FLEET EXEMPTION EXTENSION ............................................................................................... 2-1 

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN EMISSIONS BETWEEN ORVR AND PHASE II EVR? .................................. 2-1 

ORVR IDENTIFICATION – HOW DO YOU VERIFY IF A MOTOR VEHICLE HAS ORVR? ............................ 2-2 

ORVR EFFECTIVENESS AND LONG TERM RELIABILITY ........................................................................... 2-3 

WHAT DOES A FACILITY HAVE TO DO TO GO FROM A PHASE II EVR SYSTEM TO AN ORVR SYSTEM? .... 2-4 

E-85 CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION ................................................................................................................... 2-5 

MONTHLY THROUGHPUT DEADLINE ............................................................................................................ 2-5 

CARB REQUIREMENTS REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 2-6 

BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2-6 

ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES .................................................................................................... 2-6 

CHAPTER 3: IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3-1 

EMISSION IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................... 3-1 

COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 3-2 

INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................................................................... 3-2 

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ............................................................................... 3-2 

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 3-2 

DRAFT FINDINGS UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 40727 ................................................. 3-3 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 3-3 

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES ................................................................................................ 3-3 

TABLES AND EXHIBITS 

TABLE-1: ORVR PHASE-IN SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................ 1-2 

EXHIBIT-1: NON-ORVR FORD VEHICLE ...................................................................................................... 2-3 

EXHIBIT-2: ORVR EQUIPPED SUBARU ......................................................................................................... 2-3 

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. R-1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Executive Summary Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 461 ES-1 April 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing applies to the transfer of gasoline from any tank 

truck trailer, or railroad tank car into a stationary storage tank or mobile fueler, and from any 

stationary storage tank or mobile fueler into any motor vehicle fuel tank. This rule applies to all 

facilities that have certain storage capacity to transfer and dispense gasoline. Generally, the 

equipment used for transfer and storage of gasoline has to be certified by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). Staff is proposing several changes to Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer 

and Dispensing. 

This proposed amendment for Rule 461 is designed to: 

• Provide non-retail facilities that meet certain conditions and have fleets with 100% Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) with an alternate way to comply in lieu of 

installing Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) systems certified by CARB; 

• Remove temporary exemptions for dispensing of E-85; 

• Change the deadline for submitting monthly gasoline throughput records to a specific 

date; 

• Add specific requirements for backfill inspections; 

• Require compliance with applicable CARB requirements or procedures; and 

• Make other non-substantial changes to provide clarification, improve enforceability and 

make administrative changes. 

The proposed amendment provides non-retail facilities that meet certain conditions and have 

100% On-board Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) fleets with an alternate way to comply in 

lieu of installing Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) systems that would otherwise be 

required to be installed by April 1, 2012. 

The proposed amendment will remove the temporary exemption language for dispensing E-85 by 

removing the definition for E-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) from the rule and will remove 

paragraph (c)(4) which allows E-85 dispensing to continue without Phase II EVR up to April 1, 

2012. While E-85 will be now regulated as gasoline, there is currently no E-85 compatible Phase 

II vapor recovery system that is approved under CARB Executive Orders. In lieu of the 

temporary exemption, the proposed rule includes as exemption from those portions of the rule 

that require equipment and components to be CARB certified when an applicable CARB 

Executive Order is not in effect. The net effect of the changes is to align the compliance timeline 

for Phase II EVR with the issuance of a CARB Executive Order for E-85 compatible Phase II 

systems, which would also require installation four years following issuance. 

The proposed amendment will change the deadline for submitting monthly gasoline throughput 

records to a specific date that will allow the owners/operators to submit their throughput data 

directly to District staff. The current version of the rule requires the throughput data to be 

submitted together with the periodic test results which are currently submitted by an independent 

party, typically the contractor conducting the source test. This change will make the submission 

and handling of throughput records more efficient because the owners/operators will submit 

these records directly to AQMD staff, rather than through a third party. 

The proposed amendment will add specific requirements for backfill inspections and make 

explicit the requirement that the vapor lines (pipes) be in a state of readiness for inspection prior 
Executive Summary Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 461 ES-2 April 2012

to the inspector arriving for the inspection and that the equipment shall not be disturbed after 

passing inspection or be disturbed during the backfilling operation. Additionally, the proposed 

amendment requires owners/operators to schedule a time for inspection with the District after the 

vapor lines and related appurtenances are in a state of readiness. This change is designed to 

further enhance the compliance review program. 

Lastly, the proposed amendment will add additional references to existing rule language which 

requires compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements or 

procedures including CARB’s approved Installation, Operation and Maintenance (IOM) manual, 

which was designed by CARB to assist owners/operators of the additional manufacturer 

requirements. 
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND 

ο Introduction 

ο Regulatory History 

ο Affected Facilities 

ο ORVR Background 
Chapter 1: Background Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 461 1-1 April 2012 

INTRODUCTION 

Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing applies to the transfer of gasoline from any tank 

truck trailer, or railroad tank car into a stationary storage tank or mobile fueler, and from any 

stationary storage tank or mobile fueler into any motor vehicle fuel tank. This rule applies to all 

facilities that have certain capacity to transfer and dispense gasoline. 

There are approximately 3,300 retail Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (GDFs) and an estimated 

1,200 non-retail GDFs that are equipped with Underground Storage Tanks (UST) for gasoline 

transfer and storage and are subject to the Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) 

requirements. However, about ten percent (120) of these service fleets are equipped exclusively 

with On-board Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) systems that use an on-board activated carbon 

canister to capture displaced gasoline vapor from re-fueling without returning the vapor to the 

stationary storage tanks. These facilities have opted to comply with the existing ORVR alternative 

to Phase II EVR for non-retail gasoline dispensing facilities that requires, among other 

requirements, the UST vapor return line to be capped off (sealed) and relies on ORVR equipped 

motor vehicles to capture emissions during refueling operations. 

Additionally, there are 500 GDF’s that are equipped with above ground storage tanks. The total 

throughput of gasoline in the District is seven billion gallons and 95% of the annual volume is 

dispensed through retail GDFs. Without vapor recovery, the VOC emissions are estimated to be 

170 tons per day uncontrolled; however with vapor recovery controls, daily VOC emissions are 

estimated to be 14 17 tons per day which makes Rule 461 one of the most significant control 

strategies for VOC emissions in the District. 

REGULATORY HISTORY 

Rule 461 was adopted on January 9, 1976 and has subsequently been amended 18 times. The most 

recent amendment was on March 7, 2008. 

AFFECTED INDUSTRIES 

The proposed amendment affects anyone who transfers or dispenses gasoline from a stationary 

storage tank with a capacity greater than 120 gallons; however, because of its narrow scope, staff 

believes this amendment will have minimal impact. Firstly, 120 non-retail GDFs that currently 

have a temporary exemption (until April 12, 2012) from installation of Phase II EVR systems will 

be allowed to continue using ORVR systems provided that they continue to meet certain criteria. 

Secondly, the proposed amendment to conditionally exempt non-certified equipment from the rule 

will replace the current exemption from installing a CARB certified vapor recovery system for the 

storage of E-85 until such a time when a system compatible with E-85 is certified by CARB. This 

will align requirements regarding applicability timing under this rule with the requirements under 

state law. Finally, a new method of receiving throughput data, scheduling a time for backfill 

inspections and ensuring that all underground storage tank installation and piping meet all the 

requirements under the applicable CARB Executive Orders before scheduling a time for a backfill 

inspection are administrative in nature. The remaining proposed administrative changes will delete 

outdated rule language and provide clarity to the rule. 

ORVR BACKGROUND 

ORVR is mandated by Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1978 and 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 86. ORVR systems were introduced for 1998 model year 

motor vehicles and is now required on all new cars and trucks. 
Chapter 1: Background Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 461 1-2 April 2012 

The CAA Section 182 (b)(3) requires GDFs dispensing gasoline in “Moderate,” “Serious,” 

“Severe” and “Extreme” ozone nonattainment areas to equip gasoline dispensing equipment with 

Phase II vapor recovery control systems. The U.S. EPA began the phase-in of ORVR as shown in 

Table-1 below. 

TABLE-1: ORVR PHASE-IN SCHEDULE 

Vehicle Class 40% Fleet 80% Fleet 100% Fleet 

Passenger Vehicles 1998 1999 2000 

Light Duty Trucks & Medium Duty 

Vehicles (0-6000 lbs GVWR 2001 2002 2003 

Medium Duty Vehicles 

(6001-8500 lbs GVWR) 2004 2005 2006 

In 1993, the U.S. EPA adopted the On-board Diagnostic (OBD II) System for passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks and eventually for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles up to 14,000 GVWR. OBD II is 

designed to monitor the performance of systems such as engine and emission control systems. 

OBD II also monitors the evaporative emissions control system, which includes ORVR. ORVR is 

designed to share the same vapor lines, purge valves, purge lines and an activated carbon canister 

as the other engine systems and emission control systems. In the event the OBD II system detects 

a problem with the engine or emission control system, the OBD II system will illuminate either a 

“Check Engine” or “Service Engine Soon” warning light on the vehicles instrument panel to alert 

the driver of a problem. The vehicle can then be serviced by a repair technician. The vehicle 

manufacturer’s warranty covers ORVR components up to two years or 24,000 miles. However, if 

a recall is made, the warranty can be extended for the useful life of the vehicle, typically 10 years 

or 100,000 miles for passenger cars. 

There are two systems used for Phase II EVR, a balance system and a vapor recovery assist 

system. Prior to the Phase II EVR requirements, a balance system consisted of a semi-closed loop 

system where fuel was transported from the UST to the dispenser and into the vehicle’s fuel tank 

via a dispensing nozzle. As the liquid level in the vehicle’s gasoline tank increased the gasoline 

vapors were displaced and routed back through the dispensing nozzle and into the UST. The 

vacuum assist system is quite similar to the balance system except it has an auxiliary pump to 

create a vacuum to draw the gasoline vapors from the vehicle’s gasoline tank through the 

dispensing nozzle and back into the UST. 

The proposed alternative to installing Phase II EVR at non-retail GDFs relies on ORVR 

technology which has already been installed in certain vehicles (refer to Table-1) to control vapors 

generated from the refueling operation that would otherwise be returned to the storage tanks via 

the vapor return piping. The ORVR system consists of an on-board activated carbon packed 

canister to absorb the vapors during a refueling operation. The captured vapors in the activated 

carbon canister are then drawn to the engine intake where they are combusted during normal motor 

vehicle operation. Therefore, the vapor return piping is no longer necessary and is required to be 

capped off. Additionally, the facilities are required to utilize certified fueling hoses and nozzles to 

take advantage of the features required for these components under CARB Phase II EVR 

standards. 
Chapter 1: Background Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 461 1-3 April 2012 

UPCOMING COMPLIANCE DEADLINES FOR ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS 

There are several upcoming EVR compliance deadlines for aboveground storage tanks, based on 

previously issued CARB Executive Orders. The first of such deadlines will be for Standing Loss 

Control which will be effective on April 1, 2013. The second will be for Phase I EVR which will 

be effective on July 1, 2014. Because Rule 461 currently requires CARB certified equipment, both 

of these effective dates are applicable to existing aboveground storage tanks. New aboveground 

storage tanks are already subject to each of these requirements. 
CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 461 

ο Overview: Proposed Amendment To Rule 461 

ο Non-Retail ORVR Fleet Exemption Extension 

− What is the difference in emissions between ORVR and Phase II EVR? 

− ORVR Identification – how do you verify if a motor vehicle has ORVR? 

− ORVR effectiveness and long term reliability 

− What does a facility have to do to go from a Phase II EVR system to an ORVR system? 

ο E-85 Exemption Removal 

ο Monthly Throughput Deadline 

ο CARB Requirement References 

ο Backfill Requirements 

ο Additional Administrative Changes 
Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 461 Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 2-1 April 2012 

OVERVIEW: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 461 

Staff is proposing several changes to Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing. Proposed 

Amended Rule (PAR) 461 is designed to: (1) provide non-retail GDFs that meet certain 

conditions and have fleets with 100% On-board Refueling Vapor Recovery, with an alternate 

way to comply in lieu of installing Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery systems certified by 

CARB; (2) remove temporary exemption for dispensing of E-85; (3) change the deadline for 

submitting monthly gasoline throughput records to a specific date; (4) add specific requirements 

for backfill inspections; (5) require compliance with applicable CARB requirements or 

procedures; and (6) make other non-substantial changes to provide clarification, improve 

enforceability and make administrative changes. 

NON-RETAIL ORVR FLEET EXEMPTION EXTENSION - PAR461: (c)(2)(4) 

Staff proposes to exempt non-retail GDFs with 100% ORVR equipped fleets from installing 

Phase II EVR, currently required by April 1, 2012. The rule currently provides a non-retail 

gasoline dispensing facility an alternative compliance option to installing Phase II EVR system if 

it meets certain criteria. Among the criteria for qualifying for this alternative option was to 

install and maintain a pressure monitoring device to collect pressure data within the gasoline 

storage tanks. Staff collected and analyzed the required pressure data and potential for emissions 

from the storage tanks operating without the required pressure management equipment, as under 

Phase II EVR. Approximately 120 non-retail GDFs have applied for this alternative compliance 

option. All of these GDFs are equipped with Phase I EVR as specified under Paragraph (c)(1). 

Staff has analyzed the data collected from the pressure monitoring equipment and conservatively 

estimated that the total emissions due to the absence of any pressure management system from 

all 120 non-retail GDFs to be less than 1.2 pounds/day or 0.21 tons/year, considered to be well 

below the level of significance. It is also estimated that retrofitting these systems with Phase II 

EVR systems will likely exceed $1,800,000 (a minimum of $15,000 per facility) and the annual 

operating and maintenance cost will be about $120,000 (or $1,000 per facility). Actual cost of 

the system will be dependent on the type of pressure management system chosen by the GDFs. 

Currently, there are up to four pressure management systems and two different types of Phase II 

EVR systems available. Considering the collective estimated emissions increase of only 1.2 

pounds per day and relatively high cost of the control equipment, staff is proposing to make 

permanent the alternative compliance option under Paragraph (c)(5) provided a facility can meet 

the criteria listed without the requirement for installing a pressure monitoring device. 

What is the difference in emissions between ORVR and Phase II EVR? 

Staff conducted an analysis on data collected from 99 ORVR GDFs that were required to record 

pressure data within the UST to estimate fugitive emissions. Staff also analyzed samples 

collected at the dry breaks connected to the underground gasoline storage tanks and at 

connectors to the pressure management system. Using these pressure and concentration data, 

staff estimated that the total emissions due to the absence of any Phase II EVR pressure 

management system from all 120 non-retail GDFs collectively was approximately 428 pounds 

per year of VOCs. The basis for the difference of emissions between the ORVR and the Phase 

II EVR are from two emission sources; at the nozzle/vehicle tank fill tube interface and from the 

UST vent pipes. In the case of Phase II EVR, fuel is transported from the UST to the dispenser 

and into the vehicle’s fuel tank via the dispensing nozzle. As the liquid level inside the vehicles 

gasoline tank rises, the vapors are displaced and are then captured by the EVR system and 
Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 461 Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 2-2 April 2012 

ultimately returned back into the UST. Due to the high rate of fuel dispensing at retail GDFs, 

the UST experiences a loss of liquid level which induces vapor growth, and increases the 

pressure inside the UST. The Phase II EVR systems incorporate a pressure management system 

such as an air bladder, incineration, carbon filled canister or any other CARB approved method 

to capture and process any emissions vented from the UST pressure/vacuum relief valves. 

Unlike the Phase II EVR, the gasoline vapors are not returned to the UST during a refueling 

operation equipped with an ORVR system. Instead, the vehicles ORVR system collects the 

displaced gasoline vapors with the use of an activated carbon containing canister. The adsorbed 

vapor is later stripped from the carbon bed by air and released to the vehicle’s engine as 

combustion air later while the engine is running. Since no vapor return is needed, the vapor 

return line to the UST is sealed off at the dispenser. Since no vapor is returned to the USTs, 

pressure build up within the vapor phase in the UST is strictly due to evaporation of the stored 

gasoline. Due to the lack of a pressure management device, fugitive emissions occur whenever 

the tank pressure exceeds the preset cracking pressure of the pressure/vacuum relief valve. 

In addition to analyzing the pressure data, staff also utilized infrared (IR) video cameras to 

investigate the effectiveness of the ORVR systems for controlling fugitive emissions at the 

nozzle/fuel pipe interface. Based on comparison between IR videos taken of a conventional 

fueling (Phase II EVR equipment on a non-ORVR vehicle) and fueling of an ORVR equipped 

vehicle with the Phase II vapor return line sealed at the dispenser, there was no distinguishable 

difference in observed emissions at the nozzle/fuel pipe interface. Thus, the only emissions 

forgone in this proposal would be from the vent pipe of the UST particularly when the internal 

tank pressure exceeds the preset cracking pressure of the pressure/vacuum relief valve which is 

generally set at 3.5 inches of water column. 

ORVR Identification – how do you verify if a motor vehicle has ORVR? 

The discussion above noted that only non-retail GDFs that have 100% ORVR fleets and meet 

certain conditions are eligible for the Phase II EVR alternative, the ORVR system. The U.S. 

EPA mandated that all passenger cars and light duty trucks have ORVR system installed in the 

vehicles beginning with model year 2000 (refer to Table-1 for other types of vehicles). A 

method to determine if a vehicle is equipped with the ORVR system is to inspect the emissions 

decal which is typically installed under the hood of the vehicle (front engine) or the engine cover 

(for rear mounted engines or mid-mounted engines). 

Exhibit-1 shows the emissions label for an older model Ford Vehicle, equipped with catalyst but 

not equipped with ORVR. The “EVAP” number is given as 3FMXE0155BAF. In this case the 

fifth character of the EVAP is an “E” which means this vehicle is not equipped with ORVR. If 

this fifth letter was an “R” it would indicate that this vehicle was equipped with ORVR. 
Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 461 Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 2-3 April 2012 

EXHIBIT-1: NON-ORVR FORD VEHICLE 

Exhibit-2 shows the emissions label for a recently manufactured Subaru vehicle, equipped with 

catalyst and ORVR. The “EVAP” number is given as 9FJXR01253CN. The fifth character of 

the EVAP is the letter “R” designating this vehicle to be equipped with ORVR. 

EXHIBIT-2: ORVR EQUIPPED SUBARU 

ORVR effectiveness and long term reliability 

Staff contacted CARB staff to discuss their experience with effectiveness and long term 

reliability of ORVR systems. CARB staff stated that the data on long-term effectiveness of the 

activated carbon in the canister used for controlling refueling and diurnal evaporative emissions 
Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 461 Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 2-4 April 2012 

should remain effective for the life of the vehicle. In addition, they confirmed their observation 

through in-use testing including testing conducted by the manufacturers. CARB staff also 

reported that since the same carbon packed canister that catches refueling emissions also 

captures diurnal emissions, if there were significant issues with the carbon packed canisters, 

CARB staff would have detected systemic problems in the diurnal tests on in-use vehicles. 

CARB staff also commented that the manufacturers conduct ORVR testing during their in-use 

verification program and have never had a vehicle fail the test due to excess emissions. CARB 

staff informed AQMD staff that the ORVR carbon packed canisters are not in the current smog 

check program (for California affected vehicles) but the vehicle’s OBD II does monitor vehicle 

purge and evaporative system integrity for leaks. There have not been any in-use compliance 

issues with regard to ORVR. Finally, CARB staff stated that they were extending the ORVR 

requirement to all complete vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR, so all light duty and most 

medium duty vehicles will have ORVR starting in 2015. 

Staff also contacted the U.S. EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality unit to discuss their 

experience with effectiveness and long term reliability of ORVR systems. Staff was informed 

that several ORVR equipped vehicles were tested when new and were found to have emissions 

capture reliability and capture efficiencies of 98%. Staff was also informed that several ORVR 

equipped vehicles were tested that had been in service for ten years and those vehicles still had 

effective reliability and capture efficiencies of 98%. U.S. EPA’s staff found that failures were 

not a factor and were very rare. U.S. EPA staff informed AQMD staff that ORVR vehicles are 

equipped with OBD II which monitors the vehicles emission system, including the activated 

carbon inside the canister for the ORVR system. They concurred with staff that if there was a 

problem (such as the activated carbon becoming saturated with gasoline vapors) the OBD II 

would illuminate the “Engine Check Light” to alert the driver of a problem and is sensitive 

enough to even catch a gas cap that is not secured tightly. Staff recognizes that ORVR is not 

directly monitored by the OBD II system and therefore will continue to assess long term 

effectiveness and reliability. 

What does a facility have to do to go from a Phase II EVR system to an ORVR system? 

Should a non-retail facility equipped with 100% ORVR vehicles and with Phase II EVR choose 

to opt out of the Phase II EVR by virtue of a 100% ORVR fleet consideration, there are several 

requirements that would need to be followed. A non-retail facility would have to obtain a permit 

to operate which would limit fueling of only ORVR equipped vehicles, seal off the vapor return 

line from the dispenser to the UST, and use CARB certified hanging hardware (i.e. hoses, 

breakaways and nozzles). 

In summary, the proposal to allow an alternate approach to installing Phase II EVR will instead 

require the use of CARB certified Phase I EVR requirement, which includes the use of a CARB 

certified pressure relief valve, the use of Phase II EVR approved hanging hardware including 

hoses, breakaways, and nozzles, sealing the vapor return line, and an application for a permit that 

will require fueling of only ORVR equipped vehicles, except for a vehicle used to respond to an 

on-going emergency. 
Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 461 Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 2-5 April 2012 

E-85 CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION - PAR461: (b)(12), (c)(4), & (g)(3) 

Staff proposes to remove the definition of E-85 to minimize redundancy within the definitions 

section. E-85 is a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline and has a Reid Vapor Pressure greater 

than 205 mm Hg [equates to 4.0 pounds per square inch (psi)]. Gasoline is defined under the 

current the version of Rule 461, paragraph (b)(15), as “any petroleum distillate or petroleum 

distillate/alcohol blend having a True Vapor Pressure greater than 200 mm Hg (3.9 psi) and less 

than 760 mm Hg (14.7 psi) at 100 degrees F (Fahrenheit) as determined by ASTM Method 

D323-89.” Therefore, E-85 falls under the definition for gasoline. Removal of the definition of 

E-85 under Paragraph (b)(12) and Paragraph (c)(4) would mean that operations involving E-85 

would be subject to the same requirements as operations involving gasoline. Currently, there is 

no E-85 compatible Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery System that is approved under CARB 

Executive Orders. Therefore, existing systems dispensing E-85 would not have to install Phase 

II EVR until four years after the first compatible system has been certified by CARB. 

Additionally, a conditional exemption for such systems is added to the proposed amended rule 

under paragraph (g)(3) to provide additional clarity. 

CARB’s Executive Order VR-203-I states “The VST Phase II EVR System is not compatible 

with gasoline that has a methanol content greater than 5 percent or an ethanol content greater 

than 10 percent. Any modifications to comply with future California gasoline requirements shall 

be approved in writing by the Executive Officer or Executive Officer delegate”. And “VST 

Phase II EVR Systems certified under Executive Order VR-203-A through H may remain in use 

at existing installations up to four years after the expiration date of this Executive Order”. All 

existing VR-200 series CARB Executive Orders have similar restrictions. E-85 can have an 

ethanol content as low as 70% and thus the VST Phase II EVR system is not compatible for E-85 

dispensing operations. However, it should be pointed out that the 4-year time clock for a newly 

adopted CARB Executive Order begins upon issuance of that order but will allow existing 

systems additional 4 years to comply. 

MONTHLY THROUGHPUT DEADLINE – PAR461: (c)(3)(Q) 

Staff proposes to add a specific deadline for submitting monthly gasoline throughput records. 

The rule currently has a throughput data submittal requirement to confirm compliance with 

various requirements, such as frequency of test, permit conditions, toxic risk analysis, and 

installation of an In-Station Diagnostic (ISD) system. The throughput data are required to be 

submitted together with the periodic test results which presents a confidentiality problem because 

sources are asked to submit their throughput data via their testers who are contractors. The 

addition of a date (March 1 for the previous calendar year data) and the addition of having a fax 

submittal option, ensures that data is being submitted directly to AQMD, in a timely manner and 

removes any confidentiality concerns cited by the GDFs. 

Sample throughput logs have been provided to the GDFs and are in common use. Other 

recording forms are acceptable as long as monthly throughput data are clearly listed. The 

method for submittal of the throughput data will remain the same as what is currently required in 

the rule since the proposed amendment is focused on a specific deadline date. Additionally, 

records may be submitted via a dedicated facsimile line. The District is proposing to set a 

deadline date for the collection of throughput data no later than March 1 of each and every year 

thereafter. If the proposed rule is adopted, the requirement will start on the date of approval of 
Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 461 Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 2-6 April 2012 

the amendment and throughput data during Calendar Year 2012 will have to be submitted by 

March 1, 2013. 

CARB REQUIREMENT REFERENCES – PAR461: (c)(2)(B), (c)(2)(G)(i), (c)(2)(N) (e)(1), 

(e)(2) 

Staff proposes to include additional references in the rule language The Executive Orders issued 

by CARB for EVR systems have incorporated by reference various test methods, inspection 

procedures, and detailed operation of equipment and maintenance in the CARB approved 

Installation, Operation and Maintenance (IOM) manuals. Adding specific references to the 

applicable CARB approved IOM manuals under the specified sections of Rule 461 will ensure 

that GDFs are aware of the additional manufacturer requirements and add clarity to the 

requirements that operations must comply with. 

BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS – PAR461: (c)(2)(N) 

Backfill inspections are required to confirm that vapor return lines to the UST are constructed 

with proper slope and meet the applicable CARB requirements in the Executive Orders. 

Improper sloping can lead to blockage in the vapor line from condensate accumulation inside the 

pipe. Vapor recovery system efficiency will be severely impaired if liquid blockage forms. It is 

important that the vapor return piping be kept in the same manner when it was inspected and 

approved throughout the backfill operation when the line is buried underground. The proposed 

amendment will make explicit the requirement that the vapor piping be in a state of readiness for 

inspection and not be disturbed after passing inspection or during the backfilling operation. 

Although this has been the intent, the proposed amendment addresses properly installed 

equipment and enhances enforceability and resource efficiency. 

Previously, staff spent an abundance of time waiting for contractors to properly situate the vapor 

return piping at the pre-scheduled time of inspection. On some occasions, inspectors have found 

the vapor piping to not have the proper slope only to have some contractors indicate that the 

system was not quite ready for inspection regardless of the pre-scheduling. The proposed 

amendment should help minimize this inefficiency. 

ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES – PAR461: (f), (i) & (j) 

Staff proposes to make other administrative changes to the rule as follows: 

1. Currently, subdivision (f) lists out-of-date test procedures or test procedures already included 

in CARB Executive Orders. The list of actual test methods are proposed to be removed to 

avoid redundancy and conflicts with the most current CARB approved test methods. CARB 

Executive Orders list the specific types of testing that must be conducted with each system. 

To further clarify the testing requirements, the proposal includes guidelines for tests to be 

conducted in accordance with the most recent CARB test methods, applicable CARB 

Executive Orders, approved IOM or any test methods approved in writing by other agencies 

such as the U.S. EPA, CARB or the District. 

2. The dates for compliance plans for the implementation of Phase II EVR requirements and the 

applications requirement that were required for a permit to construct and operate have 

expired. These sections are proposed to be removed because all deadlines under these 

sections have passed. 
Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 461 Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 2-7 April 2012 

3. Add additional language to paragraph (c)(2) of PAR 461 in order to make the language 

consistent with language in paragraph (c)(1). This change will make it consistent with 

historical implementation. 
CHAPTER 3: IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

ο Introduction 

ο Emission Impact Assessment 

ο Cost Analysis 

ο Incremental Cost Effectiveness 

ο California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

ο Socioeconomic Impact Assessment 

ο Draft Findings under California Health and Safety Code 40727 

ο Comparative Analysis 

ο Public Comments and Staff Responses 
Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 3-1 April 2012 

INTRODUCTION 

The proposed amendment exempts non-retail GDFs with 100% ORVR fleets that would otherwise 

be required to install Phase II EVR. A non-retail GDF has the option under the current rule but 

only until April 1, 2012 to utilize this exemption. The following reviews the emission impact 

associated with removing the April 1, 2012 end date. 

EMISSION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

There are two main emission sources from gasoline transfer and dispensing operations, where 

Phase I vapor recovery control equipment is required for gasoline transfer equipment and Phase II 

vapor recovery control equipment is required for gasoline dispensing equipment. 

Phase I vapor recovery systems recover gasoline vapors generated during the transfer of gasoline 

from a fuel delivery truck into an underground or in some cases, an aboveground storage tank. 

The proposed amendment does not affect Phase I vapor recovery control requirements. 

Phase II vapor recovery systems recover gasoline vapors generated during the refueling of a motor 

vehicle and from the storage of gasoline. An alternate method to the conventional Phase II EVR 

system is the ORVR system, which is designed with an on-board activated carbon canister to 

capture gasoline vapors during a refueling operation and subsequently release the vapors during 

vehicle operation (the vehicles engine combusts the vapors). The current rule allows this 

alternative method in conjunction with permitted requirements to install and maintain a pressure 

monitoring device to collect pressure data within the gasoline storage tanks. Staff conducted an 

analysis on 120 ORVR sites to obtain data to estimate fugitive emissions. Staff analyzed samples 

collected at the dry breaks of the gasoline USTs and at the connectors to the pressure management 

system and, together with the pressure data, estimated that the total emissions due to the absence of 

any Phase II EVR pressure management system from all 120 non-retail GDFs collectively was 

approximately 428 pounds per year of VOCs. The calculations are shown below: 

Emission Rate = 

R T Conversion Factor

P V Concentration MW

××

× × ×

 = 0.12 lb/hr (1) 

Where: 

P* = 735.25 torr = 0.97 atmosphere = 1 atmosphere 

V* = 23.2 gal/hr 

R = 0.73 (cu ft)(atm)/R/lb⋅mole 

T = 528 °R 

Concentration* = 0.336 (as propane) 

MW = Molecular Weight = 44 lb/lb⋅mole 

Conversion Factor = 7.48 gal/cu ft 

*averaged value from data collected 

lb/hr 12.0

ft. cu.

gal (deg 528 R) 7.48

 Rdeg

 (cu.ft.)(atm)( -lb mol) 0.73

mol-lb

lb 336.0 44

hr

gal 97.0 (atm) 2.23

Emission Rate =













× × 



























 × ×











×

=

 (2) 

The total hours of fugitive emissions monitored for 120 sites: 3,564 hours per year. 

Therefore, the emissions for the year monitored are as calculated: 

3,564 hrs/yr x 0.12 lb/hr = 427.68 lbs/yr = 428 pounds per year. 
Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 3-2 April 2012 

COST ANALYSIS 

PAR461 results in a cost savings to the industry, since they will be able to continue operations 

without additional hardware installation. 

INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

Under Health and Safety Code § 40920.6, the AQMD is required to perform an incremental cost 

analysis when adopting a Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) rule or feasible 

measure required by the California Clean Air Act. To perform this analysis, the AQMD must (1) 

identify one or more control options achieving the emission reduction objectives for the proposed 

rule, (2) determine the cost effectiveness for each option, and (3) calculate the incremental cost 

effectiveness for each option. To determine incremental costs, the AQMD must “calculate the 

difference in the dollar costs divided by the difference in the emission reduction potentials between 

each progressively more stringent potential control option as compared to the next less expensive 

control option.” 

The proposed amendment to Rule 461 does not implement a BARCT requirement or feasible 

control measure, and therefore § 40920.6 is inapplicable. 

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15002(k)(1), staff has reviewed proposed amended Rule 461 and 

determined that it is exempt from CEQA requirements pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 

§15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in 

question may have a significant effect on the environment. A Notice of Exemption will be 

available pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15062 and filed with the county clerks in each county 

within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. Copies of the CEQA document can be obtained by calling the 

SCAQMD’s Public Information Center at (909) 396-2039. 

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Proposed amendments to Rule 461 include clarifications of existing rule language designed to 

improve compliance with existing requirements; provide additional compliance pathways for nonretail fuel dispensaries; extend exemptions for the dispensing of E-85; change the timing for the 

submission of throughput records; and enhance the coordination of backfill inspections. Other 

proposed changes are administrative in nature or incorporate existing CARB requirements by 

reference. 

Proposed changes that provide additional flexibility, such as the proposed exemption for non-retail 

dispensaries servicing 100% ORVR fleets, are expected to reduce compliance costs that would 

otherwise be incurred under the existing rule language. In the case of the 100% ORVR exemption 

from the Phase II EVR requirements, staff estimates a compliance cost reduction of $1.8 million. 

Compliance cost reductions are also anticipated from the proposed conditional E-85 exemption, 

which will continue to provide affected GDFs with an additional four years to meet the existing 

compliance obligation to install Phase II EVR once a CARB designated Phase II EVR system has 

been certified. The proposed monthly throughput deadline requirement, compared to a yearly 

deadline, is not expected to significantly increase the compliance cost of affected GDFs because 

monthly throughout records are included in the existing recordkeeping requirement of Rule 461. 

The proposed requirement to ensure that underground storage tank sites be in a state of readiness 

for inspection does not require any additional activity at affected GDFs and is, thus, not expected 

to have impacts on their cost of compliance. 
Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 3-3 April 2012 

The proposed amendments do not affect the scope of rule applicability nor impose new 

requirements on currently affected GDFs. Cost reductions are expected from additional flexibility 

afforded GDFs by the proposed amendments. 

DRAFT FINDINGS UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 40727 

The draft findings include necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplication and reference, 

as defined in Health and Safety Code Section §40727. The draft findings are as follows: 

Necessity - The AQMD Governing Board finds and determines that Proposed Amended Rule 461 

– Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing, is necessary to align Rule 461 with applicable CARB 

requirements and other statewide practices, and to enhance recordkeeping and reporting. 

Authority - The AQMD Governing Board obtains its authority to adopt, amend or repeal rules and 

regulations from Health and Safety Code §§ 40000, 40001, and 40440. 

Clarity - The AQMD Governing Board finds and determines that Proposed Amended Rule 461 is 

written and displayed so that the meaning can be easily understood by persons directly affected by 

it. 

Consistency – The AQMD Governing Board finds and determines that Proposed Amended Rule 

461 is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court 

decisions, or federal or state regulations. 

Non-Duplication – The AQMD Governing Board has determined that Proposed Amended Rule 

461 does not impose the same requirement as any existing state or federal regulation, and the 

proposed amendment is necessary and proper to execute the powers and duties granted to, and 

imposed upon, the AQMD. 

Reference - In adopting this proposed amendment, the AQMD Governing Board references the 

following statutes which AQMD hereby implements, interprets or makes specific: Health and 

Safety Code Sections 40001, 40440, and 41950 to 41964. 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 

California Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2 requires the comparative analysis with any 

federal or other AQMD rules that apply to the same equipment or source type as the proposed 

amendments. There are no other AQMD rules that apply to gasoline transfer and dispensing 

operations. There are no federal Phase II vapor recovery requirements for GDFs. The federal 

program requires the recovery of gasoline vapors from motor vehicle refueling through an 

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) vehicle emission control system. In addition, the 

Governing Board finds that the proposed rule does not impose a new emission limit or standard. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES 

The public workshop was held on January 27, 2012 and on that date the public was informed that 

the due date for comments would be extended from February 3, 2012 until February 10, 2012. 

One comment letter was received by staff via e-mail. 
Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 3-4 April 2012 

COMMENT-1 

Proposed 461 Amendment 

Cory Carnahan [carnahan.cory@gmail.com] 

Sent: Fri 2/10/2012 5:01 PM 

To: Don B Hopps 

Dear Mr. Don Hopps, 

We here at Fuel Marketers Alliance represent over 250 independent gas stations in the greater Los 

Angeles metropolitan area. We would like to propose an amendment to Rule 461. Due to the 

further restrictions on retail facilities in the past 6 years and the fact that service stations are now 

98% efficient in vapor recovery (ARB), we believe that testing requirements should only be 

required once a year similar to Ventura country, San Diego County, and Antelope Valley APCD. 

We have yet to find anything in the CARB Executive Orders that requires testing more than once a 

year. Since the installation of the Unihose Dispensers, points of vapor leaks have been reduced 

significantly. Additionally, due to Phase I upgrade requirements, the delivery of gasoline to the 

tanks have become much more efficient. The recent Phase II upgrade has also further enhanced 

service stations’ vapor recovery system. Finally, with AQMD's enforcement of ISD (in station 

diagnostics) the district should be well satisfied that the systems operate with a minimal amount of 

vapor being released into the air. Service stations have been the most regulated industry in 

California, let alone Los Angeles. We believe that now that the stations are monitored 24 hours a 

day, 7 days a week, there is no need for bi-annual testing. Industry experts have stated that as long

as the monitoring systems are working correctly, testing twice a year is completely unnecessary. 

AQMD should follow the lead of the other agencies, not only the APCD's but also public works 

and fire department. We would like feedback to our proposal when AQMD makes its final 

decision. 

Thank you, 

Cory Carnahan 

Director of Operations 

Fuel Marketers Alliance 

RESPONSE-1 

The staff at AQMD appreciates your comment. While some agencies do require annual but not 

biannual reverification testing, some of these agencies are in regions of California that have better 

air quality than the South Coast Air Basin. It should be noted that the South Coast Air Basin’s air 

quality biannual reverification testing was implemented back on April 21, 2000, rather than the 

CARB’s annual reverification testing requirements to better ensure air quality improvements under 

this rule. The AQMD is required to be as stringent as CARB’s Executive Orders but can be more 

stringent. Please be reminded that the enhanced testing requirements of the April 2000 amendment 

were introduced to address the high industry-wide non-compliance that was identified as part of 

the pre-amendment compliance sweeps conducted by AQMD staff. The enhanced testing and 

subsequent hardware and software enhancements to the vapor recovery system have contributed to 

improving compliance but vigilance is still needed to ensure that emissions from this source 

category, which happens to be among the largest stationary source categories, are minimized. The 

AQMD does recognize the ISD as a monitoring tool as well as an alerting tool but does not 
Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report 

Proposed Amended Rule 461 3-5 April 2012 

consider it to be a compliance determination tool because the thresholds for ISD alarms are not the 

same as testing standards. In fact, CARB and CAPCOA have agreed that ISD will not be used as a 

compliance tool. Reverification tests incorporated under CARB Executive Orders are designed to 

identify equipment deficiencies that adversely impact effectiveness of the EVR systems. AQMD’s 

compliance staff has increased its presence at reverification tests and has witnessed many 

equipment deficiencies that needed repairs before tests are successfully passed despite ISD 

installations. Many of these deficiencies would not have been identified until tests are conducted 

even with the existence of ISD systems. AQMD staff also found that other deficiencies were not 

properly addressed because ISD alarms were overridden without proper repairs or ISD systems 

failed to respond due to improper installation or maintenance. AQMD staff believes that 

reverification tests are essential in ensuring proper operating condition and early detection of 

equipment deficiencies especially at stations with high throughput rates. It is for these reasons 

AQMD staff does not support reducing the frequency of biannual reverification testing to annual. 
Proposed Amended Rule 461 R-1 April 2012 

REFERENCES 

SCAQMD Final Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing, 

February 2008, Helmy Sultan, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist 

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT ORVR, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/ld-hwy/onboard/orvrq-a.txt 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1076; FRL–9439–4] 

RIN 2060–AQ97 

Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-17888.pdf 

SCAQMD Requesting Information on ORVR Motor Vehicles, e-mail from: Rao, Leela@ARB 

[lrao@arb.ca.gov] to: Don B Hopps, Thursday, February 2, 2021 @ 10:52 AM