State of Wisconsin 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

101 S. Webster Street 

Box 7921 

Madison WI 53707-7921 

November 12, 2012 

Ms. Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, R-1 9J 

Chicago IL 60604-3507 

Scott Walker, Governor 

Cathy Stepp, Secretary 

Telephone 608-266-2621 · 

Toll Free 1-888-936-7463 

TTY Access via relay - 711 

Subject: Revision of State Implementation and Maintenance Plans for Ozone- Decommissioning 

Wisconsin's Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Program 

Dear Ms. Hedman: 

The Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (WDNR) hereby submits a request to revise Wisconsin's State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Ozone relating to the Stage 2 vapor recovery program in southeast Wisconsin. The 

WDNR asks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to expeditiously remove NR 420.045, Wis. Adm. 

Code as a component of Wisconsin's ozone SIP and maintenance plan. This request is made due to USEPA's May 

16, 2012 finding of widespread use of on board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) technology. 

An evaluation using USEPA's mobile sector models and cunent Stage 2 program guidance indicates that by 2016, 

decommissioning of Stage 2 technology used in the southeast Wisconsin counties of Kenosha, Kewaunee, 

Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha, will result in a net volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions reduction benefit compared to continued use of the Stage 2 technology. To 

address anti-backsliding concerns, the WDNR is providing excess, pennanent and enforceable VOC emission 

reduction credits for the years 2012-2015 until ORVR technology is sufficiently in widespread use throughout 

the vehicle fleet. This guarantees no net increase in allowable emissions during the transition period. 

2011 WISCONSIN ACT 196, which amended Section 285.31, WI Stats, provides state legal basis for NR 420.045 

Stage 2 control system removal upon the date of EPA's formal finding. Therefore, federal approval of the SIP 

revision and removal of the Stage 2 program from the Wisconsin Ozone SIP and Maintenance Plan is requested as 

soon as possible to clarify owner/operator Stage 2 equipment operation and maintenance obligations under Title 1 of 

the CAA once systems are decommissioned following WDNR and Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional 

Services (WDSPS) guidance. 

In accordance with the April 6, 2011 McCabe Memo, one paper co'py of the SIP revision documents is enclosed. In 

addition, an electronic copy of these documents is provided on an enclosed CD. If you have any questions regarding 

this submittal, please contact Joseph Hoch at 608-267-7543 or Ralph Patterson at 608-267-7546. 

Sincerely, 

~~::::a----- Bart Sponseller, Air Management Bureau Director 

Wisconsin Depattment ofNatural Resources 

dnr:wi.gov 

wisconsin.gov Naturally WISCONSIN 
cc: Patrick Stevens - AD/8 

Joseph Hoch- AM/7 

Ralph Patterson - AM/7 

Page2 

George Czerniak- U.S. EPA Region V (A-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 

John Mooney- U.S. EPA Region V (A-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 

Douglas Aburano- U.S. EPA Region V (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 

Jacqueline Nwia- U.S. EPA Region V (AT-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 

Summary of Attachments 

• EPA Region V SIP Submittal Checklist 

• Public Hearing Notice 

• Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision regarding Wisconsin's Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Program 
1

Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision Regarding Wisconsin’s Stage 2 

Vapor Recovery Program – Submittal to US-EPA Region 5

Date: November 12, 2012

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) requests that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) expeditiously remove NR 420.045, Wis. Adm. Code, as a component of 

Wisconsin’s ozone maintenance plan. This request is due to the widespread use of onboard refueling 

vapor recovery (ORVR) technology within the state’s gasoline powered on-road vehicle fleet. 

The U.S. EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model indicates that by 2016, the absence 

of the older style stage 2 vapor recovery technology used in Wisconsin will result in a net volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions benefit compared to the continued utilization of this emissions control 

technology. The MOVES modeling was conducted by the WDNR in accordance with the U.S. EPA’s 

recently issued guidance on widespread use 1

. The WDNR is providing excess, permanent and 

enforceable VOC emission reduction credits for the years of 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 to make up for 

the limited period until ORVR technology sufficiently is in widespread use throughout the vehicle fleet. 

The VOC reduction credit substitution addresses the anti-backsliding concerns associated with Section 

110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, and guarantees no net increase in allowable 

emissions during the transition period. The credits substituted could have otherwise been utilized for new 

emissions in the form of offset credits supplied to new or expanding VOC point sources.

WDNR published a public hearing notice of this submittal in the Wisconsin State Journal on September 4 

along with contact information for submittal of public comment. A hearing was held October 8, 2012 at 

the WDNR Satellite Center in Waukesha. No comments were made at the hearing and no written 

comments on this SIP proposal have been received. A requisite concurrent 60 day legislative review 

period for the draft submittal concluded November 9, 2012.

Ozone SIP Component History

Wisconsin submitted a SIP revision to the U.S. EPA on November 18, 1992 to satisfy the requirement of 

Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA. This section required owners and operators of gasoline dispensing 

facilities to install and operate stage 2 vapor recovery equipment in ozone nonattainment areas of 

moderate severity or worse. The revision applied to the counties of Kenosha, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, 

Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha and was incorporated within the 

WDNR’s 1993-94 Ozone 15% Control Plan. The U.S. EPA approved a revision to Wisconsin’s SIP on 

August 13, 1993 pertaining to implementation of the stage 2 vapor recovery program [58 FR 43080]. 

The WDNR and the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (WDSPS) have actively 

supported installation and requisite testing and inspection of gasoline dispensing facilities with both stage 

1 and stage 2 vapor recovery technology. The WDSPS is responsible for system design and installation 

and the WDNR is responsible for stage 2 vapor recovery compliance inspections. The WDNR maintains 

a database of the approximate 900 gasoline stations subject to the stage 2 vapor recovery requirements 

(NR 420.045, Wis. Adm. Code).

Current Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Program Status

On July 15, 2011, the U.S. EPA proposed a finding of national default widespread use of ORVR, with a 

proposed effective date of June 30, 2013. On May 16, 2012, the U.S. EPA published a finding of 

widespread use of ORVR with an immediate effective date.

 1 “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and 

Assessing Comparable Measures”, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, EPA-457/B-12-001, August 7, 2012
2

The WDNR and WDSPS have developed and maintain guidance for the stage 2 vapor recovery 

decommissioning process. This guidance recommends careful and environmentally appropriate removal 

of the stage 2 vapor recovery equipment using nationally recognized techniques (PEI/RP300-09) and 

checklists to be used by qualified service personnel. The agencies are keeping guidance current through 

an online Question and Answer technical document. A quality stage 2 vapor recovery removal procedure 

is critical to ensure accidental fuel leakage and uncontrolled vapor leaks are avoided during the 

decommissioning process. These procedures are also critical to ensure the continued integrity of the 

interconnected stage 1 vapor recovery components that ensure minimal loss of gasoline VOC emissions 

during the loading and storage of fuel at most gasoline dispensing facilities. Removal of stage 2 vapor 

recovery technology in the former ozone nonattainment area is anticipated to span a 4 to 5 year period 

with approximately 20% removal by January 1, 2013 and 90% removal by January 1, 2016.

Stage 1 vapor recovery, as required under NR 420, Wis. Adm. Code, will remain in place and is part of 

Wisconsin’s ozone maintenance plan for the former ozone nonattainment counties in Wisconsin. In 

addition, all gasoline stations in the state with monthly throughput of greater than 100,000 gallons are 

subject to equivalent stage 1 vapor control as part of the federal mobile sector hazardous air pollutant 

control program (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCCC). 

Comparison of EPA Guidance-Based and Adjusted MOVES-Based VOC Offset Need

The WDNR pursued two methods to calculate the activity, emissions and lost VOC inventory reduction 

credits associated with removal of stage 2 vapor recovery as an incremental control to ORVR controls on 

the motor vehicle fleet. The first approach, pursued prior to finalization of the U.S. EPA’s August 7, 2012, 

assessment (i.e., the widespread use finding) guidance, used MOVES model output adjusted to account 

for changes to refueling emissions assumed in the model (version 2010b). The second approach used a 

standardized set of fleet efficiency transition and energy conversion metrics to craft an assessment from 

the same input vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data as the MOVES assessment following the U.S. EPA’s 

widespread use guidance.

Under both approaches, the resultant estimate of incremental benefit drops rapidly between 2012 and 

2015, transitioning to a net benefit with stage 2 vapor recovery removal in 2016. Results of the two 

approaches were nearly identical, with the major differences occurring as a result of some refueling 

emission factor simplification within the U.S. EPA guidance. The adjusted MOVES assessment results in 

a slightly higher uncontrolled base emission level and a slightly higher controlled inventory for the nine 

counties in the program assessment. The more conservative core results depend on the adjusted 

MOVES assessment and indicate a need for slightly greater offset than the guidance-based assessment. 

Stage 2 Decommissioning Process – Maximum Timeframe

The U.S. EPA has identified a window of time between its formal widespread use finding (effective 2012) 

and a future year in which the net refueling emissions from a fleet with ORVR technology fall below those 

from a combined ORVR fleet and standard stage 2 vapor recovery system with a substantial fraction of 

non-compatible hybrid vacuum assist systems. For Wisconsin, we estimate that year will be 2016,

assuming fleet turnover continues at its current fraction combined with the lower effectiveness estimate

for the stage 2 vapor recovery program.

Therefore, a 4 year period between 2012 and 2015 is set as the intended timeframe for fully 

decommissioning the large majority of the non-compatible stage 2 technology. Wisconsin is initiating a 

simple database to track and ensure that facilities subject to the stage 2 program, a requirement of the 

current ozone SIP, and not subject to NR 445, Wis. Adm. Code, based on throughput, fully decommission 

their non-compatible equipment. While non-regulatory, the system allows facilities to demonstrate 

appropriate decommissioning, receive a final inspection after a final system integrity test and, with 

adequate throughput characterization, remove themselves from further stage 2 vapor recovery control 

obligation under either federal law or NR 420.045, Wis. Adm. Code.

VOC Emissions Associated with Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Decommissioning in Wisconsin
3

The WDNR estimates that approximately 85% of the gasoline consumption in the nine former ozone 

nonattainment counties occurs from vehicles equipped with ORVR technology. This percentage is 

projected to rise to 92% in 2015, 95.4% in 2018 and 96.6% in 2022 as shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Summary of Motor Vehicle Summer Weekday Activity

Area Year VMT

Total Energy

Consumption

(BTU*10^6)

Gasoline

Consumption

(gallons)

Average

Miles per

Gallon

Six SE 

Counties

2012 47,760,004 298,297 2,538,064 18.8

2013 48,317,751 296,835 2,525,625 19.1

2015 49,449,852 292,253 2,486,639 19.9

2018 51,148,594 282,425 2,403,017 21.3

2022 52,721,080 270,064 2,297,844 22.9

Three NE 

Counties

2012 7,232,367 43,069 366,453 19.7

2013 7,297,873 42,856 364,641 20.0

2015 7,431,365 42,193 359,000 20.7

2018 7,600,979 40,323 343,089 22.2

2022 7,828,644 38,542 327,935 23.9

All Nine 

Counties

2012 54,992,371 341,366 2,904,518 18.9

2013 55,615,624 339,691 2,890,266 19.2

2015 56,881,217 334,446 2,845,639 20.0

2018 58,749,573 322,748 2,746,106 21.4

2022 60,549,724 308,606 2,625,779 23.1

Note: The Six SE Counties are: Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and Waukesha.

The Three NE Counties are: Kewaunee, Manitowoc and Sheboygan.

Table 2: Projected ORVR Penetration and Stage 2 Gasoline Consumption from MOVES - Summer 

Weekday Fractions (% of Nine Counties Total)

Year ORVR % Stage 2 %

2012 84.4% 92.5%

2013 87.6% 92.5%

2015 92.0% 92.5%

2018 95.4% 92.5%

2022 96.6% 92.5%

Table 3 summarizes the WDNR’s calculations in accordance with the U.S. EPA’s widespread use 

guidance. These calculations indicate a maximum potential loss of 0.02 – 0.70 tons per summer day 

(tpsd) from 2012 through 2015, were the decommissioning to occur completely during a specified year. 

However, decommissioning is expected to occur within a four year window from 2012 through 2015. This 

extended period accounts for the costs associated with replacement equipment and the decommissioning 

cost process. Based on the percent of gasoline stations decommissioned, the WDNR estimates that 

0.018 – 0.140 tpsd of VOC emission reductions will be lost from 2012 through 2015. The WDNR used a 

factor of 320 to convert the tons per summer day estimates to annual emission estimates. This is 

consistent with past actions approved by the U.S. EPA.
4

Table 3: VOC Emissions Offsets Needed in Wisconsin

Wisconsin Statistic 2012 2013 2015

Cumulative # of Facilities 

Assumed Decommissioned 180 450 810

Maximum Potential Loss of 

VOC Emission Credits (tpsd) 0.67 – 0.70 0.40 – 0.42 0.021 - 0.022

Percent Stage 2 Throughput 

Decommissioned 20% 50% 90%

Tons per Summer Day Lost 

VOC Credit (tpsd) 0.134 - 0.140 0.200 - 0.210 0.019 - 0.020

Tons per Year Lost VOC Credit 

(based 320 days multiplier) 42.9 – 44.8 64.0 – 67.2 6.1 – 6.4

Note, the more specific calculations and inputs used to determine these values are presented in Appendix A of this 

document.

Details on Wisconsin Specific Calculations and Ozone SIP History

At the time of program adoption (1993-94) and incorporation in the Ozone 15% Control Plan, Wisconsin 

used the U.S. EPA’s early estimates of control program effectiveness. The stage 2 vapor control 

technology was designed for 95% control efficiency for the vapor loss at the nozzle/fill neck (car) 

interface. Actual program effectiveness for refueling-related emissions at a gas station has to be reduced 

to account for other smaller emission points – fugitive loss from the nozzle, spillage and excess vapor 

loss from slightly pressurized underground tanks. Additional program effectiveness discounts occur when 

exemptions from the program are considered and to account for some level of inadequate maintenance of 

various portions of the control systems. For the installed systems, the initial 95% control was discounted 

to an average 90% control with excellent maintenance oversight and somewhat lower levels with reduced 

frequency inspections and more typical maintenance.

The WDNR initially estimated its core program refueling emissions control effectiveness for the earlier 

stage 2 vapor control technology predominantly employed within the state areas at approximately 84%. 

This reflected a lost program effectiveness of approximately 6% associated with the standardized small 

business and low throughput exemptions allowed for and recommended in the U.S. EPA’s original stage 

2 SIP planning guidance. As the ORVR technology has penetrated the motor vehicle fleet, the 

incremental reduction effectiveness assumed to occur, in addition to the stage 2 vapor recovery only 

system, somewhat declined due to the predominant use of non-ORVR compatible hybrid vacuum-assist 

systems in many states, including Wisconsin. Additionally, maintenance assessments indicated a 

somewhat lower impact.

The U.S. EPA estimated a lost benefit at an additional 5 to 7% due to the predominant use of vacuumassist rather than balance systems for the earlier generation technology used in Wisconsin. The U.S. 

EPA also recommends the use of a lower current overall program effectiveness estimate under the most 

typically approved state systems, which have not, in most cases, been able to maintain the high initial 

compliance oversight resource assumptions. A 77% net default control is the working program benefit 

estimate for 2012 and was also the same value applied in the Ozone 15% Control Plan.

The 15% plan indicated a baseline, uncontrolled emission level for the refueling sector of 11.66 tons VOC 

per summer (ozone) day (tpsd) in 1990 and dropped that baseline to 10.04 tpsd once lower volatility 

gasoline became mandatory in 1992. A 77% net reduction from the 1990 baseline before growth and 

before the introduction of reformulated gasoline (RFG) was credited at 7.7 tpsd in the Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration SIP for 2007. While the refueling activity growth projections somewhat eroded program 

benefits over the period, the introduction of RFG in 1995 and the second phase of RFG in 2000 lowered 

the overall baseline level of uncontrolled gasoline system evaporative emissions. By 2012, net reduction 

from the stage 2 vapor recovery program averaged 79% (isolated from ORVR), net reduction from the 

ORVR system averaged 82% (isolated from stage 2) and the combined effect, discounted for the 

incompatibility disbenefit, equaled 89% (See Appendix A). 
5

The U.S. EPA’s August 7, 2012 guidance indicates a need to ensure “current” program credit estimates 

using adjustments to the MOVES emission model in place of MOBILE6.2 and more current VMT activity 

data. The revised estimates for 2012 through 2015 indicate the need for VOC reduction credits to 

address CAA Section 110(l) requirements.

Identifying Sources for VOC Make-up Emissions

The U.S. EPA guidance indicates Wisconsin needs to supplement its SIP with additional real, permanent 

and enforceable ozone plan reduction credit to account for lost credit within the standing SIP under the 

provisions of the CAA Section 110(l) [non-interference clause in regard to attainment/maintenance of the 

ozone standard]. These credits can be excess VOC or nitrogen oxide (NOx) reductions (with appropriate 

control ratios per modeling) and must be fully realized to function as substitute reductions.

On June 6, 2012, the WDNR submitted a SIP revision related to the state’s vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program. As part of this submittal, the WDNR established VOC and NOx make-up 

emissions to address the removal of vehicle tailpipe testing for older vehicles. These make up emission 

credits were from facilities located in southeastern Wisconsin that had recently closed and no longer have 

an air emissions permit. As shown in Table 5 of the I/M SIP submittal (Page 11), the WDNR has the

following excess emission make-up credits from 2012 through 2015:

Table 4: Available VOC and NOx Emission Credits for the Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Program

Year VOC 

(tons)

NOx

(tons)

Equivalent 

VOC (tons) *

2012 42.02 46.42 53.63

2013 86.07 97.17 110.36

2014 130.12 147.92 167.10

2015 174.18 198.66 223.85

* Based on 4:1 NOx to VOC Ratio (i.e., 4 tons of NOx = 1 ton of VOC)

As shown in Table 5, the available VOC emission credits are more than adequate to cover the interim 

stage 2 vapor recovery shortfall.

Table 5: Make-up of Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Program Emissions Shortfall

Year VOC Emissions

Shortfall (tons)

Available VOC

Emissions Credit (tons)

Difference

(Shortfall – Credit)

(tons)

2012 42.9 – 44.8 53.63 - 8.83

2013 64.0 – 67.2 110.36 - 43.16

2014 * 47.0 – 49.6 167.10 - 117.50

2015 6.1 – 6.4 223.85 - 217.45

* The VOC emissions shortfall was interpolated between 2013 and 2015 since MOVES modeling was not done 

specifically for this year. The same methodology was used as shown in Table 3.
APPENDIX A – EXPANDED MOVES MODELING RESULTS AND WISCONSIN SPECIFIC CALCULATIONS BASED ON U.S. EPA GUIDANCE

Table A1: Expanded WI Results Using MOVES2010b Model, Adjusted Using EPA Widespread Use Guidance (August 7, 2012)

Emission Units: Tons per Summer Weekday

Area Year

VOC Refueling Displacement Emissions and Percent Reduction from 

Baseline

VOC Stage 2 Reductions*, as 

an Increment to ORVR 

Reduction

Results from MOVES model only, without 

considering U.S. EPA Guidance

MOVES, 

adjusted by 

Vacuum 

Assist 

Disbenefit 

per U.S. EPA 

Guidance

MOVES model 

only, without 

U.S. EPA 

Guidance

MOVES 

model, 

adjusted by 

Vacuum 

Assist 

Disbenefit per 

U.S. EPA 

Guidance Baseline 

(Uncontrolled)

Stage 2 

Impact Only

ORVR 

Impact Only

Stage 2 and 

ORVR 

Impact

Adjusted 

State 2 and 

ORVR 

Impact

Six SE WI 

Counties

2012

2013

2015

2018

2022

8.67

8.67

8.60

8.37

8.03

1.73 (80%)

1.73 (80%)

1.72 (80%)

1.67 (80%)

1.61 (80%)

1.55 (82%)

1.27 (85%)

0.86 (90%)

0.56 (93%)

0.43 (95%)

0.31 (96%)

0.25 (97%)

0.17 (98%)

0.11 (99%)

0.09 (99%)

0.95 (89%)

0.91 (90%)

0.83 (90%)

0.77 (91%)

0.73 (91%)

1.24

1.01

0.69

0.44

0.35

0.60

0.36

0.03

-0.22

-0.29

Three NE WI 

Counties

2012

2013

2015

2018

2022

1.76

1.76

1.75

1.68

1.62

0.48 (73%)

0.48 (73%)

0.47 (73%)

0.45 (73%)

0.44 (73%)

0.31 (82%)

0.26 (86%)

0.17 (90%)

0.11 (93%)

0.09 (95%)

0.08 (95%)

0.07 (96%)

0.05 (97%)

0.03 (98%)

0.02 (99%)

0.21 (88%)

0.20 (89%)

0.18 (90%)

0.16 (91%)

0.15 (91%)

0.23

0.19

0.13

0.08

0.06

0.10

0.06

-0.01

-0.05

-0.06

All Nine WI 

Counties

2012

2013

2015

2018

2022

10.44

10.43

10.35

10.06

9.65

2.21 (79%)

2.21 (79%)

2.19 (79%)

2.13 (79%)

2.04 (79%)

1.86 (82%)

1.52 (85%)

1.03 (90%)

0.67 (93%)

0.52 (95%)

0.39 (96%)

0.32 (97%)

0.22 (98%)

0.14 (99%)

0.11 (99%)

1.16 (89%)

1.11 (89%)

1.01 (90%)

0.93 (91%)

0.88 (91%)

1.47

1.20

0.81

0.53

0.41

0.700

0.415

0.021

-0.269

-0.357

*Reduction benefit for fully implemented program. Decommission will not occur entirely until after 2016.

85% of the nozzles assumed to be vacuum assist, as specified in the U.S. EPA Guidance released August 7, 2012. All of these vacuum assist 

nozzles are assumed to be non-ORVR compatible.
Table A2: Activity Data for Gasoline-Powered Vehicles on a Summer Weekday

Area Year VMT

Total Energy

Consumption

(BTU*10^6)

Gasoline 

Consumption

(Gallons)

Average 

Miles Per Gallon 

(MPG)

Equation 

Identifier - - - F -

Six SE WI

Counties

2012 47,760,004 298,297 2,538,064 18.8

2013 48,317,751 296,835 2,525,625 19.1

2015 49,449,852 292,253 2,486,639 19.9

2018 51,148,594 282,425 2,403,017 21.3

2022 52,721,080 270,064 2,297,844 22.9

Three NE WI

Counties

2012 7,232,367 43,069 366,453 19.7

2013 7,297,873 42,856 364,641 20.0

2015 7,431,365 42,193 359,000 20.7

2018 7,600,979 40,323 343,089 22.2

2022 7,828,644 38,542 327,935 23.9

All Nine WI

Counties

2012 54,992,371 341,366 2,904,518 18.9

2013 55,615,624 339,691 2,890,266 19.2

2015 56,881,217 334,446 2,845,639 20.0

2018 58,749,573 322,748 2,746,106 21.4

2022 60,549,724 308,606 2,625,779 23.1

Note: U.S. EPA Energy Equivalents for a Gallon of Gasoline: 124 Megajoules (MJ) & 117,529 BTU
Table A3: Calculations Supported By U.S. EPA Guidance – Part 1

Area Year

Displacement

Emission

Factor (g/gal)

[RFG

Sensitive]

VOC

Emissions

(Grams)

VOC

Uncontrolled

Emissions

(TPD)

Gasoline VMT

Fraction of

ORVR Vehicles

Gasoline

Dispensed to

ORVR Vehicles

Gasoline

Dispensed

using Stage 2

Vacuum-Assist 

Nozzle Fraction of 

All Gasoline

In-Use Stage 2

Control

Efficiency

(Non- ORVR)

Equation 

Identifier - G - - - E B C A

Six SE WI

Counties

2012 3.00 7,614,193 8.39 86.7% 84.4% 93.6% 85% 85.5%

2013 3.00 7,576,875 8.35 89.9% 87.6% 93.6% 85% 85.5%

2015 3.00 7,459,917 8.22 94.3% 92.0% 93.6% 85% 85.5%

2018 3.00 7,209,052 7.95 97.7% 95.4% 93.6% 85% 85.5%

2022 3.00 6,893,531 7.60 98.9% 96.6% 93.6% 85% 85.5%

Three NE WI

Counties

2012 3.90 1,429,168 1.58 86.8% 84.5% 85.0% 85% 85.9%

2013 3.90 1,422,100 1.57 90.0% 87.7% 85.0% 85% 85.9%

2015 3.90 1,400,099 1.54 94.5% 92.2% 85.0% 85% 85.9%

2018 3.90 1,338,047 1.47 97.7% 95.4% 85.0% 85% 85.9%

2022 3.90 1,278,947 1.41 98.9% 96.6% 85.0% 85% 85.9%

All Nine WI

Counties

2012 3.11 9,043,361 9.97 86.7% 84.4% 92.5% 85% 85.2%

2013 3.11 8,998,975 9.92 89.9% 87.6% 92.5% 85% 85.2%

2015 3.11 8,860,016 9.77 94.3% 92.0% 92.5% 85% 85.2%

2018 3.11 8,547,098 9.42 97.7% 95.4% 92.5% 85% 85.2%

2022 3.11 8,172,478 9.01 98.9% 96.6% 92.5% 85% 85.2%

Source: EPA 

Guidance

WISpecificWISpecificWISpecificMOVES WISpecificWISpecificEPA

Guidance

WISpecific

Table A4: Calculations Supported By U.S. EPA Guidance – Part 2

Area Year

EPA 

Compatibility 

Factor (using 

0.0777 

constant)

EPA 

ORVR In-use 

Efficiency

EPA 

Increment

Tons per 

Summer 

Day 

Incremental 

Impact -

Stage 2

Decommissioned 

Fraction

Excess VOC 

Tons per 

Summer Day

Ozone Season 

VOC Offsets

Equation 

Identifier - D - Key Eqn. # 1 Key Eqn. #2 - - -

Six SE WI

Counties

2012 0.0656 98% 0.069 0.580 20% 0.116 17.7

2013 0.0681 98% 0.041 0.346 50% 0.173 26.4

2015 0.0715 98% 0.003 0.027 90% 0.024 3.7

2018 0.0741 98% -0.026 -0.208 95% -0.198 -30.3

2022 0.0751 98% -0.037 -0.278 98% -0.272 -41.7

Three NE WI

Counties

2012 0.0657 98% 0.057 0.090 20% 0.018 2.8

2013 0.0681 98% 0.032 0.050 50% 0.025 3.8

2015 0.0716 98% -0.004 -0.006 90% -0.005 -0.8

2018 0.0741 98% -0.029 -0.043 95% -0.041 -6.3

2022 0.0751 98% -0.039 -0.055 98% -0.054 -8.2

All Nine WI

Counties

2012 0.0656 98% 0.067 0.670 20% 0.134 20.5

2013 0.0681 98% 0.040 0.396 50% 0.198 30.3

2015 0.0715 98% 0.002 0.022 90% 0.020 3.1

2018 0.0741 98% -0.027 -0.252 95% -0.239 -36.6

2022 0.0751 98% -0.037 -0.333 98% -0.327 -50.0
Key Equations based on Tables A2 – A4

# 1 Incremental Benefit for Stage 2 Added to ORVR By Year (Per U.S. EPA Guidance)

Increment = [B*(1-E)*A] – (C*D)

# 2 – Tons Benefit Associated With Stage 2 In Addition To ORVR Controls

Tons Per Summer Day = (F * G * Eqn. #1) / (453.59 g/lb * 2000 lb/ton)
Date of enactment: April 2, 2012

2011 Senate Bill 518 Date of publication*: April 16, 2012

* Section 991.11, WISCONSIN STATUTES 2009-10 : Effective date of acts. "Every act and every portion of an 

act enacted by the legislature over the governor's partial veto which does not expressly prescribe the time when 

it takes effect shall take effect on the day after its date of publication as designated" by the secretary of state 

[the date of publication may not be more than 10 working days after the date of enactment]. 

2011 WISCONSIN ACT 196 

AN ACT to create 285.31 (5) of the statutes; relating to: gasoline vapor recovery 

requirements and granting rule-making authority. 

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as 

follows: 

SECTION 1. 285.31 (5) of the statutes is created to read: 

285.31 (5) TERMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS. (a) The rules promulgated under sub. 

(3) cease to apply on the effective date of the waiver of the requirement for vapor control 

systems specified by the federal environmental protection agency in a regulation 

promulgated under 42 USC 7521 (a) (6). Beginning on that day, persons owning or 

operating retail stations are not required to maintain vapor control systems described in 

sub. (3) (a). 

(b) The department may promulgate by rule requirements for capping and closing 

vapor control systems described in sub. (3) (a). 

(c) The rules promulgated under sub. (3) (a) do not apply to a retail station the 

construction of which begins after the effective date of this paragraph .... [LRB inserts 

date]. 

Wisconsin Legislature: 2011 Wisconsin Act 196 Page 1 of 1

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/196 11/12/2012
7 Updated 09−10 Wis. Stats. Database AIR POLLUTION 285.33

Electronic reproduction of 2009−10 Wis. Stats. database, current through 2011 Wis. Act 286.

2009−10 Wis. Stats. database current through 2011 Wis. Act 286. Includes all Legislative Acts and all Supreme Court

Orders enacted before October 31, 2012. Statutory changes effective on or prior to October 31, 2012 are printed as currently in effect. Changes effective after October 31, 2012 are designated by NOTES. See Are the Statutes on this Website

Official? (10−31−12)

by the federal act and that inspection of emissions from motor

vehicles in any part of the county is required by federal law to

attain or maintain these standards, the department shall certify this

finding to the department of transportation.

(4) TERMINATION. If the department finds that air quality

within a county specified in a certification under sub. (3) has

attained all applicable ambient air quality standards and that these

standards will be maintained in the county or that control of motor

vehicle emissions is no longer required by federal law for attainment and maintenance of these standards, the department shall

notify the department of transportation that the county is withdrawn from the certification under sub. (3).

(5) EXEMPTIONS. Emissions limitations promulgated under

sub. (2) do not apply to the following motor vehicles:

(a) A motor vehicle of a model year of 1995 or earlier.

(b) A motor vehicle of a model year of 2006 or earlier that has

a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 8,500 pounds, as determined by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and a motor vehicle of

a model year of 2007 or later that has a gross vehicle weight rating

exceeding 14,000 pounds, as determined by the manufacturer of

the vehicle.

(c) A motor vehicle exempt from registration under s. 341.05,

except that a motor vehicle owned by the United States is not

exempt unless it comes under par. (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j),

or (k).

(d) A motor vehicle of a model year of 2006 or earlier that is

powered by diesel fuel.

(e) A new motor vehicle not previously registered in any state.

(f) A motor vehicle for which inspection, in the judgment of

the department, is not a cost effective method for attaining and

maintaining air quality.

(g) A moped as defined in s. 340.01 (29m).

(h) A motorcycle as defined in s. 340.01 (32).

(i) A farm truck as defined in s. 340.01 (18) (a).

(j) An off−road utility vehicle as defined in s. 340.01 (38m).

(k) A low−speed vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (27h).

(L) A lightweight utility vehicle as defined in s. 346.94 (21)

(a) 2.

(6) TAMPERING WITH POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM OR MECHANISM. (a) Definitions. As used in this subsection:

1. “Air pollution control equipment” means any equipment

or feature which constitutes an operational element of the air

pollution control system or mechanism of a motor vehicle.

3. “Tamper” means to dismantle, to remove without replacing

with an identical or comparable tested replacement device or to

cause to be inoperative any air pollution control equipment.

(b) Prohibition. Except as permitted or authorized by rule of

the department, no person may fail to maintain in good working

order or may tamper with air pollution control equipment.

(c) Ineligibility for motor vehicle registration. Except as permitted or authorized by rule of the department, if any person tampers with the air pollution control equipment of a motor vehicle,

that vehicle is ineligible for motor vehicle registration until the air

pollution control equipment is replaced, repaired or restored to

good working order.

(d) Suspension or cancellation of motor vehicle registration.

Except as permitted or authorized by rule of the department, if the

owner of a motor vehicle tampers with or causes or knowingly

permits any person to tamper with the air pollution control equipment, the motor vehicle registration for that vehicle may be suspended or canceled in addition to any other penalty provided by

law.

(e) Rule making. The department shall promulgate rules that

specify the requirements for the inspection of motor vehicles for

the occurrence of tampering with air pollution control equipment.

History: 1971 c. 164 s. 81; 1977 c. 29 s. 1654 (7) (b); 1979 c. 34 s. 2102 (39) (g); 1979 c. 274; 1981 c. 390; 1983 a. 243; 1987 a. 27; 1991 a. 39; 1993 a. 288; 1995 a.

137; 1995 a. 227 s. 507; Stats. 1995 s. 285.30; 1997 a. 27; 2003 a. 192; 2007 a. 20, 33; 2009 a. 157, 311.

Cross−reference: See also ch. NR 485, Wis. adm. code.

285.31 Gasoline vapor recovery. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this

section:

(a) “Gasoline dispensing facility” means a place where gasoline is dispensed to motor vehicle gasoline tanks from stationary

storage tanks.

(b) “Retail station” means a gasoline dispensing facility where

gasoline is sold at retail.

(c) “Vapor control system” means a system that gathers vapors

of organic compounds, including gasoline and benzene, released

during the operation of transfer, storage or processing equipment

and processes the vapors to prevent their emission into the atmosphere.

(3) RULES. (a) The department shall promulgate rules, based

on requirements under 42 USC 7511a, that require the owner or

operator of a retail station that is located in an ozone nonattainment area with a classification under 42 USC 7511 (a) of moderate

or worse to install and operate a vapor control system that is

approved by the department on the equipment that is used to dispense gasoline to a motor vehicle gasoline tank or other fuel tank.

(b) The department shall establish vapor recovery efficiency

standards for vapor control systems approved under par. (a). The

department shall use nationally recognized methods to determine

the vapor recovery efficiency of vapor control systems.

(4) IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS. (a) The rules promulgated under sub. (3) shall have an effective date of November 15,

1992. The rules shall apply the requirements under sub. (3) beginning on November 15, 1993, except that the requirements under

sub. (3) shall apply beginning on May 15, 1993, to retail stations

the construction of which begins after November 15, 1990.

(b) The department may not require the owner or operator of

a retail station that is located in this state to install or operate a

vapor control system for gasoline dispensing equipment before

November 15, 1993, or, if construction of the retail station begins

after November 15, 1990, before May 15, 1993.

(5) TERMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS. (a) The rules promulgated under sub. (3) cease to apply on the effective date of the

waiver of the requirement for vapor control systems specified by

the federal environmental protection agency in a regulation promulgated under 42 USC 7521 (a) (6). Beginning on that day, persons owning or operating retail stations are not required to maintain vapor control systems described in sub. (3) (a).

(b) The department may promulgate by rule requirements for

capping and closing vapor control systems described in sub. (3)

(a).

(c) The rules promulgated under sub. (3) (a) do not apply to a

retail station the construction of which begins after April 17, 2012.

History: 1991 a. 39; 1993 a. 16; 1995 a. 27, 144; 1995 a. 227 s. 504; Stats. 1995

s. 285.31; 1997 a. 27; 2011 a. 196.

285.33 Employee trip reduction program. (1) AREAS.

(a) The department shall issue documents that describe the areas

of the state in which employee trip reduction programs are

required by 42 USC 7511a (d) (1) (B).

(b) The department may, by rule, determine areas of the state,

other than areas described under par. (a), in which the department

will require employee trip reduction programs. The department

may not require an employee trip reduction program in an area

unless that requirement is authorized under s. 285.11 (6).

(c) Notwithstanding ss. 227.01 (13) and 227.10 (1), a document issued under par. (a) is not a rule. A document issued under

par. (a) may be reviewed under ss. 227.42 and 227.52.

(2) REQUIREMENTS. (a) The department shall promulgate by

rule requirements for employers who are located in areas

described under sub. (1) (a) or (b) to implement programs to

reduce work−related trips and miles traveled by employees. The

department shall develop the rules in accordance with 42 USC
EPA Region V

Wisconsin SIP Submittal

Completeness Review

Submittal Letter

1. Signed by Governor’s Designee (Bart Sponseller)? Yes X No 

2. Date of Submittal: November 12, 2012

3. WDNR Person in charge of SIP submittal. 

Name: Ralph Patterson

Telephone Number: (608) 267-7546

Fax Number: (608) 267-0560

E-mail Address: Ralph.Patterson@wisconsin.gov

4. WDNR Technical Person in charge of answering questions on SIP Submittal

Name: Joseph Hoch or Robert Lopez (608-267-5284) [Robert.Lopez@Wisconsin.gov]

Telephone: (608) 267-7543

Fax Number: (608) 267-0560

E-mail Address: Joseph.Hoch@wisconsin.gov

Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code

5. Is evidence that the State incorporated the revision into the Wisconsin Administrative Code supplied in this 

SIP package?

Yes 

No X (if No, explain)

Not applicable. This is not a rule submittal and therefore requires no incorporation into the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code.

6. The effective date of the regulation is or was: Not applicable

7. Are test methods/rules incorporated by reference correctly? (Has approval been obtained from the state 

Attorney General

Yes 

No (if No, explain answer)

Not applicable X (if Not applicable, explain answer)

This is not a rule submittal and therefore the Attorney General does not need to approve the submittal.

8. Has WDNR provided evidence that it has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement 

the revision? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X

No 
2

9. Did the State include a copy of the actual regulation or document for USEPA review? Provide additional 

explanation (if necessary).

Yes X 

No 

10. Did the State provide evidence that it followed all of the requirements of its Administrative Procedures Act 

(ch. 227, Wis. Stats., Administrative Procedure and Review) in conducting and completing 

adoption/issuance of the revision? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes 

No X 

Not applicable.

11. Did the State include evidence that Public Notice was given of the revision, including date of publication? 

Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X

No 

12. Did the State provide a copy of the certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the 

information provided in the public notice (copy of notarized Class I paper proof). Provide additional 

explanation (if necessary).

Yes X 

No 

13. Does the submittal contain a compilation of public comments and the State’s response? Provide additional 

explanation (if necessary).

Yes 

No X 

No public comments were received.

Technical Issues

14. Name all the regulated pollutants affected by the revision.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

15. Does the submittal identify the designation, status of the attainment plan and attainment date for the area(s)? 

Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes 

No X 

Not applicable.
3

16. Does the submittal identify the location and types of affected sources? Provide additional explanation (if

necessary).

Yes X 

No 

Not applicable since this SIP submittal is not a rule.

17. Does the submittal quantify the changes in SIP-allowable emissions and estimate or quantify the changes in 

actual emissions from affected sources? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X 

No 

Make up emissions are quantified as part of the SIP submittal.

18. Has the State demonstrated that the NAAQS/PSD Increment/RFP demonstration/visibility will be protected 

if the revision is approved and implemented? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X 

No 

19. Has the State provided modeling information to support the revision.

Yes X 

No 

20. Has the State provided evidence that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction 

technology? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes 

No X 

Not applicable.

21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contains emission limitations, work practice standards and 

record keeping/reporting requirements where necessary, to ensure emission levels? Provide additional 

explanation (if necessary).

Yes 

No X 

Not applicable.

22. Does the submittal contain enforcement/compliance strategies including how compliance will be determined 

in practice, and at what frequency? Provide additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes 

No X 

Not applicable.
4

STATE APPROVABILITY CHECKLISTENFORCEABILITY

USEPA USE ONLY

SIP Package Number ___________

Date Received by USEPA ________________

Date Due_____________________________

State: WISCONSIN
5

WDNR Information

Subject Matter: Ozone SIP and Maintenance Plan Revision for the Milwaukee-Racine 

Nonattainment Area and the Sheboygan County Nonattainment Area – Stage 2 Program 

Decommissioning

Applicability

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What sources are being 

regulated? Clear discussion No sources are being regulated under the SIP submittal. This is not a rulemaking.

What are criteria for 

exemption? Clear discussion This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

Is calculation procedure 

for exemption clearly 

specified?

Supply example calculation or 

clear explanation of how to 

determine exemption (line by 

line, etc.)

This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

Is emission inventory 

listed in the background 

document of the 

attainment demonstration?

Inventory including allowable 

and actual emissions in source 

category should be included, for 

enforcement purposes and 

independent of any Clean Air 

Act requirements, in the 

attainment demonstration if 

such data is necessary for 

determining baselines in 

regulations.

Yes. Wisconsin is submitting the related area 

source category inventory revision as a part of 

this SIP submittal. Emission differences 

resulting from the recent program change are 

quantified. In addition, future year emission 

projections are provided.

Is the averaging time(s) 

used in the rule different 

from that of the ambient 

standard?

The averaging time in the rule 

must be consistent with 

protecting the ambient standard 

in question. Normally, it should 

be equal to or shorter than the 

time associated with the 

standard. Longer term 

averaging is available only in 

limited instances provided that 

the ambient standard is not 

compromised.

This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

What are the units of 

compliance (lbs VOC per 

gallon of solids applied 

less water, grains per 

standard cubic foot?)

Clearly stated in the rule. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.
6

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

Is bubbling or averaging 

of any type allowed? If 

yes, state criteria. Could a 

USEPA inspector 

independently determine if 

the criteria were met?? 

Does USEPA have to 

approve each case?

Explicit description of how 

averaging, bubbling, or 

equivalency is to be determined. 

VOC equivalency must be on a 

“solids applied” basis. Any 

method must be independently 

reproducible. Provision must be 

explicit as to whether USEPA 

case-by-case approval is 

required. If provision intended 

to be “generic” then USEPA 

bubble policy must be met.

This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

If there is a redesignation, 

will this change the 

emission limitations? If 

yes, which ones and how?

Regulation may not 

automatically allow for self 

nullification upon redesignation 

of area to attainment. New 

maintenance demonstration 

required to order to drop 

regulation.

This is not applicable to this SIP submittal. 

This is not a rulemaking.

Compliance Dates

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What is the compliance 

date?

The compliance date must not 

be later than the approved or 

about to be approved date of 

attainment unless emission 

reductions are not necessary for 

attainment. In some cases, it 

will be necessary for the 

regulation to specify dates in 

compliance schedules that are 

required to be submitted by 

source to state.

This is not applicable to this SIP submittal. 

This is not a rulemaking.

What is the attainment 

date? Clearly defined. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal. This is not a rulemaking.

Specificity of Conduct

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What test method is 

required?

Test method must be explicitly 

stated. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

What is the averaging time 

in the compliance test 

method?

Averaging time and application 

of limit must be explicit. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

Is a compliance calculation 

or evaluation required? 

(i.e., daily weighted 

average for VOC).

Clearly defined. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.
7

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

If a compliance calculation 

is necessary, list the 

formula, period of 

compliance, and/or 

evaluation method.

Formula must be explicit. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

Incorporation by Reference

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What is the state authority 

for rulemaking. Clearly stated. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal. This is not a rulemaking.

Are methods/rules 

incorporated by reference 

in the right manner?

Clearly stated. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal. 

This is not a rulemaking.

Recordkeeping

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

What records are required 

to determine compliance? Clearly stated. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal. This is not a rulemaking.

In what form or units 

(lbs/gal, gr/dscf, etc.) must 

the records be kept? On 

what time basis 

(instantaneously, hourly 

daily)?

Records to be kept must be 

consistent with units of 

compliance in the performance 

requirements, including the 

applicable time period .

This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

Does the rule affirmatively 

require the records be 

kept?

There must be clearly defined 

and distinguishable from what 

constitutes a violation.

This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

Exemptions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

List any exemptions 

allowed.

Must be clearly defined and 

distinguishable from what 

constitutes a violation.

This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

Is the criteria for 

application clear? Clearly stated. This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.

Malfunction Provisions

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response

Are there any malfunction 

provisions in the rule?

Rule must specify what 

exceedances may be excused, 

how the standard is to be 

applied, and who makes the 

determination.

This is not applicable to this SIP submittal.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Notice of Public Hearing 

Draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Wisconsin's 

Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Control Program 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant toss. 285.11(5) and (6), Wis. Stats., the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) will hold a public hearing on its draft SIP for Wisconsin's 

stage 2 vapor recovery control program. 

Background 

The WDNR submitted a SIP to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 

18, 1992 to require owners and operators of gasoline dispensing facilities to install and operate 

stage 2 vapor recovery control equipment in ozone nonattainment areas of moderate severity or 

worse. The requirement applied in the counties ofKenosha, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, 

Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha. The U.S. EPA approved this SIP on 

August 13, 1993 [53 FR 43080]. 

On July 15, 20 II, the U.S. EPA proposed a finding of national default widespread use of on board 

refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) equipment. On May 16,2012, the U.S. EPA finalized this 

finding with an immediate effective date. The ORVR equipment on newer motor vehicles makes 

the stage 2 vapor recovery control equipment at gasoline stations obsolete. In some instances, the 

presence of both types of control equipment (i.e., stage 2 & ORVR-equipped vehicles) results in 

an increase in emissions. 

The WDNR has developed a draft SIP to formally seek approval from the U.S. EPA to remove 

the stage 2 vapor recovery control program from the state's overall ozone control SIP 

requirements. 

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the public hearing will be held on: 

Monday, October 8, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 

WI DNR Satellite Center, Room 163 

141 NW Barstow Street 

Waukesha, WI 53188 

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, 

will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Joseph Hoch at (608) 

267-7543 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled 

hearing. 

Written Comments and Copies of Documents 

Written comments on the draft stage 2 vapor recovery SIP may be submitted to Mr. Joseph Hoch, Bureau 

of Air Management AM/7, P.O. Box 7921 , Madison, WI 53707 no later than October 12,2012. 

Comments may be submitted electronically to joseph.hoch@wisconsin.gov. Written comments will have 

the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the hearing. 

f 

I 

! 

I 
A copy of the draft stage 2 vapor recovery SIP may be downloaded from 

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality or a hard copy may be obtained from: 

Joseph Hoch AMJ7 

Bureau of Air Management 

P.O. Box 7921 

Madison, WI 53 707 

J oseph.Hoch@wisconsin. gov 

Phone: (608) 264-8861 

FAX: (608) 267-0560 

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin -------Jt\-+->\16..~-r::T'lL'-"~O--'f..__d_~_7-J-~ __ I_~_,__ 

I 

! 

r 

f 

r 
Capital Newspapers Proof of Publication Affidavit 

Ad #: 1965881 Price: $89.88 Ad ID: AMLL-963 Hearing Notice 

Retain this portion for your records. 

Please do not remit payment until you receive your advertising invoice. 

Mail to: 

DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

!

Sharon Reeve 

P.O. Box 7921 

!Attn: Joyce Mickelson, WT/3 

MADISON, WI 53707-7921 

- · BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES Notice of Public Hearing Draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Wisconsin's Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Control Program NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to s. 285. 11(5) and (6), Wis. Stats .. the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) will hold a public hear- "SIN 

ing on its draft SIP for Wisconsin's stage 2 ~ 

vapor recovery control program, 

~~~~NRdsubmitted a SIP to the U.S. 1Unty Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 18. 1992 to require owners and 

operators of gasoline dispensing facilities to instal! and operate stage 2 vapor recovery 

control equipment in ozone nonattainment areas of moderate severity or worse. The requirement applied in the counties of Keno- sha, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, 

Ozaukee. Racine, Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha. The U.S. EPA approved this 

SIP on August 13, 1993 [53 FR 43080]. On July 15, 2011 , the U.S. EPA proposed a finding of national default widespread use of 

onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) equipment. On May 16, 2012, the U.S. EPA finalized this finding with an immediate effective date. The ORVR equipment on newer motor vehicles makes the stage 2 va- por recovery control equipment at gasoline 

stations obsolete. In some instances, the 

presence of both types of control equipment 

(i.e., stage 2 & ORVR-equipped vehicles) results in an increase in emissions. 

The WDNR has developed a draft SIP to 

formally seek approval from the U.S. EPA to remove the stage 2 vapor recovery control program from the state's overall ozone control SIP requirements. 

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN 

that the public hearing will be held on: Monday, October 8, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 

WI DNR Satellite Center. Room 163 141 NW Barstow Street 

Waukesha, Wl53188 NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN 

that pursuant to the Americans with Dis· 

abilities Act, reasonable accommodations. 

including the provision of informational 

material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Joseph Hoch at (608) 267-7543 with specific information on your request at least 10 days 

before the date of the scheduled hearing. Written Comments and Copies of Oo ~ 

ments Written comments on the draft stage 2 vapor recovery SIP may be submitted to Mr. Joseph Hoch, Bureau of Air Management AMrT, PO. Box 7921 , Madison, WI 53707 no later lhan October 12,2012. Comments 

may be submitted electronically to joseph. 

hoch@wisconsin.gov. Written comments w1U have the same weight and effect as 

oral statements presented at the hearing. 

A copy of the draft stage 2 vapor recovery SIP may be downloaded from http://dnr. 

wi.gov/topic/AirOuality or a hard copy may 

be obtained from: Joseph Hoch AMrT, Bureau of Air Manage- ment, P.O Box 7921 , Madison, Wl 53707 Joseph.Hoch@wisconsin.gov Phone: 

(608) 264-8861 FAX: (608) 267-0560 Dated at Mad1son, Wisconsin August 23. 

201 2 STATE OF WISCONSIN 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES By· Matt Moroney for Cathy Stepp, Secretary PUB. WSJ: September 4, 2012 

#1965881 WNAXLP 

} 

PWSJ 

__ _j 

ss. ELLEN MORGAN 

being duly sworn, doth depose and say that 

he (she) is an authorized representative of 

Capital Newspapers, publishers of 

Wisconsin State Jou rna I 

a newspaper, at Madison, the seat of government of said State, 

and that an advertisement of which the annexed is a true 

copy, taken from said paper, was published therein on 

September 4th, 2012 

(Signed) 

(Title) Principal Clerk 

Subscribed and sworn to before me on 

Notai)IUIC/inetounty, Wisconsin 

My Commission expires April 15th, 2015