### 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

Teleph one 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 s ubmit s a request to revise Wisconsin's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Ozone relating to the Stage 2 vapor r ecovery program in sout hea st Wisconsin. The

WDNR asks th e U.S

. Environmental Pr otection Agency (USEPA) to expeditiously remove NR 420.045, Wis. Adm.

Cod e as a component of Wisconsin's ozone SIP and mainten a nce plan. This request is made due to USEPA ' s May 16, 2012 finding of widespread use of on board refueling vapor rec overy (ORVR) te chnology.

An evaluation using US EPA'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 vo l atile organic compound (VOC) emissions reduction b enefit compared to continued u se of the Stage 2 technology. To

address ant i-back s lidin g 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 increas e 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, fede ral approval of the SIP

revision a nd removal of the Stage 2 pr ogram from the Wisconsin Ozone SIP and Maintenance Plan i s requested as

soo n 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 Dep artme nt of Safety a nd Pr ofess ional

Services (WDSPS) guidance.

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

### In

add ition

, an electronic copy of the se documents is provided on an enclosed CD. If you have any questions re gard in g 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 Dep attme nt ofNatural Resources

dnr : wi.gov wisco nsin

. 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 R egarding Wisconsin’s Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Program

– Submittal to US

- EPA Region 5

Date : November 12 , 2012

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (W DNR ) 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 s tate’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 s tage 2 vapor recovery technology used in Wisconsin will result in a net volatile organic compound ( VOC ) emissions benefit compared to the continued utiliz ation 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) o f the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990

, and guarantees no net i ncrease 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 co mment. A hearing was held October 8, 2012 at the WDNR Satellite Center in Waukesha . No comments were made at the hearing and no writ ten comments on this SIP proposal have been received. A requisite concurrent 60 day legislative review period for the draft submittal concluded No vember 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 19 93

- 94 Ozone 15% Control Plan. The U.S. EPA approved a revision to Wiscons in’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 an d 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 ma intains
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 environmenta lly appropriate removal
of the s tage 2 vapor recovery equipment using nationally recognized te chniques ( 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% r e moval 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 gal lons are subject to equivalent s tage 1 vapor control as part of the federal mobile sector hazardous air pol lutant 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 a ctivity, 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 o utput adjusted to account for changes to refueling emissions assumed in the model (version 2010b). The second approach used a standardized set of fleet efficiency transiti on 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 dr ops 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 simplifi cation 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 result s 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 r efueling emissions from a fleet with ORVR technology fall below those
from a co mbined ORVR fleet and standard s tage 2 vapor recovery system with a substantial fraction of

non

- compatible hybr id vacuum assist systems. F or 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 betwe en 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 requir ement of the

current o zone 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 fin al 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 wit h 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 occur s 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) fro m 2012 through 2015, were the decommissioning to occur completely during a specified year. However, decommissioning is expected to occur within a four year wind ow from 2012 through 2015. This extended period accounts for the costs associated with replace ment equipment and the decommissioning cost process. Based on the percent of gasoline station s decommissioned, the WDNR estimates that
0.018

– 0.140 tpsd of VOC emission reduction s will be lost from 2012 through 2015. The WDNR used a
factor of 320 to co nvert 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
A ssumed Decommissioned 180 450 810

Maximum Potential Loss of VOC Emission Credits (tp s d) 0.67

– 0.70 0.40

– 0.42 0.021

- 0.02 2

Percent Stage 2 Throughput
Decommissioned 20% 50% 90%

Tons p er Summer Day L ost VOC Credit (tp s d) 0.134

- 0.140 0.200

- 0.2 10 0.019

- 0.0 20

Tons per Year L ost VOC Credit ( based 320 days multiplier) 42.9

– 4 4.8 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 Calculation s and Ozone SIP History

At the time of program adoption (19 93

- 94 ) and incorporation in the Ozone 15% Control Plan

, Wisconsin
used the U.S. EPA’s early estimates of control program effectiveness. T he s tage 2 vapor control technology was designed for 95% control efficiency for the vapor loss at the nozzle/fill neck (car) interface. Actual prog ram effectiveness for refueling

- related emissions at a gas station has to be reduced to account for other smaller emission points

– f ugitive 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 maintena nce 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 c ore program refueling emissions control effectiveness for the earlier

s tage 2 vapor control technology predominantly employed with in the state areas at approximately 84%. This reflected a lost program effect iveness of approximately 6% associated with t he standardized small
business and low throughput exemptions allowed for and recommended in the U.S. EPA’s original s tage 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 s tage 2 vapor recovery only system

, somewhat declined due to the predominant use of no n

- ORVR compatible hybrid vacuum

- assist systems in many states , including Wisconsin

. Addition ally, 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 vacuum

assist 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 assumptio ns. A 77% net default control is the w orking 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

pe r summer (ozone) day (t psd) in 1990 and dropped that baseline to 10.04 tpsd onc e 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 tp s d in the Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP for 2007

. While the refueling activity growth projections somewhat eroded program
benefit s 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 s tage 2 vapor recovery program averaged 79% (isolated from ORVR), net reduction fr om the ORVR system averaged 82 % (isolated from s tage 2) and the combined effect, discounted for the incompatibility disbenefi t, equaled 89% ( See Appendix A ).

### 5 The U

. S . EPA’s August 7, 2012 guidance indicate s 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 estimate s for 2012 through 2015 indicate the need for VOC reduction credit s to address CAA Section 110(l) requirements.

Identifying Sources for VOC Make

- u p Emissions

The U.S. EPA guidance indicates W isconsin need s 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 ( NO
x ) 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 NO
x make

- up emissions to address the removal of vehicle tailpipe testing for older vehicles. Th ese make up emission
credits were from facilities located in southeast ern 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 mak e

- up credits from 2012 through 2015:

Table 4 : Available VOC and NO
x Emission Credits for the Stage 2 Vapor Recovery Program

Year VOC (tons) NO
x (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 NO x to VOC Ratio (i.e., 4 tons of NOx = 1 ton of VOC)

As shown in T able 5, the available VOC emission credits are more than adequate to cover the interim stage 2 vapor recovery shortfall.

Table 5: Make

- u p 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 Usin g MOVES2010b Model, Adjusted U sing 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

Va cuum

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 BTUTable 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
Efficien cy (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 WI

Specific WI

Specific WI

Specific MOVES WI

Specific WI

Specific EPA
Guidance WI

Specific

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

- 50.0Key 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, W ISCONSIN S TATUTES 2009-10 : Effective date of acts. "E very act and every portion of an act enacted by the legislatur e over the governor's partial veto which doe s 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 da ys after the date of enactment].



# 2011 WISCONSIN ACT 196

A N 

# A CT 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:

S ECTION 

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

285.31 (5) T ERMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS 

### . (a) The rules promulgated under sub. (3) cease to apply on the effective date of th e waiver of the requirement for vapor control systems specified by the federal environm ental 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 effec tive date of this paragraph .... [LRB inserts date]. 

### Pa g e 1 of 1 Wisconsin Le g islature: 2011 Wisconsin Act 196

11/12/2012 htt p s://docs.le g is.wisconsin. g ov/2011/related/acts/196AIR POLLUTION 285.33 7 Updated 09

− 10 Wis. Stats. Database 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 CourtOrders 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) T ERMINATION. 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 motorvehicle emissions is no longer required by federal law for attainment and maintenance of these standards, the department shallnotify the department of transportation that the county is withdrawn from the certification under sub. (3)

. (5) E XEMPTIONS. 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 hasa 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) T AMPERING WITH POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM OR MECHA

NISM. (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 au thorized 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) D EFINITIONS. 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 equipmentand processes the vapors to prevent their emission into the atmosphere. (3) R ULES. (a) The department shall promulgate rules, based on requirements under 42 USC 7511a , that require the owner oroperator 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 isapproved 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) I MPLEMENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS. (a) The rules promulgated under sub. (3) shall have an effective date of November 15,
1992. The rules sh all 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) T ERMINATION 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 bythe 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) A REAS. (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) R EQUIREMENTS. (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

No2

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?

Provi de additional explanation (if necessary).

Yes X

No

12. Did the State provide a copy of the certification that public hearings were held in accordance wit h 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 poll uta nts affected by the revision.

V olatile organic compounds (VOCs)

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

Provide a dditional explanation (if necessary).

Yes

No X

Not applicable.3

16. Does the submittal identify the location and types of affected sources? Pro vide 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 emis sion 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 requi rements 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 CHECKLIST

ENFORCEABILITY

USEPA USE ONLY

SIP Package Number ___________ Date Received by USEPA ________________
Date Due_____________________________

State: WISCONSIN5



# 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

attain ment 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 standa rd 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 S IP 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 requi red 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 C onduct

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 complianc e 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 R eference

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.



## Recordk eeping

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

. E PA 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 in crease in emissions.

The WDNR has developed a draft SIP to formally seek approva l from the U.S. EPA to remove the stage 2 vapor recovery control program from the state's overall ozon e 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 mat eria l in an alternative format,

will be provid e d for qualified individuals with dis a biliti es upon requ es t. Please call Jos e ph Hoch at (608)

267-7543 with specific information on your request at least 10 days b efore the date of the scheduled hearing.

Written Comments and Copies of Documents

Writt e n comment s on the draft stage 2 vapor recovery SIP may be submitt e d to Mr

. 

### Jo se ph Hoch, Bur ea u 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 I D: 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 Hear i ng Draft State Imp l ementation Plan (SIP) for Wisconsin ' s Stage 2 Vapor Reco v ery Con

tro l Program NOTICE IS HEREBY G I VEN th at pursu

ant to s

. 2 85. 1 1( 5) and (6), Wi s. Stats

. . the Wisco n sin Department of Natural Resources ( WDNR) will h o ld a publ i c hear- "S I N ing on its draft SIP for Wisconsin ' s stage 2**~** vapor recovery control program ,**~~~~NRdsubmitted** a SIP to the U

. S

. 1 Unty

Envir o nmental Protection Agency (EPA) on No v e mb er 18

. 1992 to require owners and

ope r ators of ga s oline disp e nsing facilities to
instal! and o perate s tag e 2 vapor re cov ery control equipme nt in ozon e non a tta i nme n t

areas of moderate s e ve rity or worse

. The
requ i remen t a ppli e d in t h e c ounties of K e no- sha, Kewaunee

, Manitowoc, Milwaukee

, Ozaukee. Racine

, Sheboyg a n

, Washington and Wauke s ha

. The U.S. EP A a pp r oved thi s SIP on A ugust 13

, 1993 [53 FR 43080]. On July 1 5

, 2011

, the U

. S

. E PA proposed a finding of national def a ult wid es pread use of onboard refueling v a p o r r e covery (ORVR)
equ i p ment. O n May 16, 2012, th e U .S. E PA finali z ed this finding with a n immediate effective date

. The ORVR equ i pment on

newer motor v e hicle s ma k es the stage 2 va- por recovery control equipment at gaso l ine

stations obsol e te. In some inst a nces, the
p r esence of both types of cont r ol equipmen t (i

. e

., stage 2 & ORVR-equipped veh i cles)

r e sult s i n an increa se in emissions

. The W DNR ha s developed a draft SIP to f o rma l ly seek appro va l from the U.S. EP A

t o rem o ve the stage 2 vapor recovery c ontrol program fr o m the state's overall o z o ne contro l S IP requirement s. NO T I CE I S HEREBY FURTHER GIV EN that the public he a ring w ill be held on : Monday

, October 8, 2 012 at 10:00 a. m. W I DNR Satellite Cent e r

. Room 163 1 41 NW Barst o w Street
W au ke sha

, Wl53188 NO T I CE I S H E REBY FUR T HER GI V E N

that pursuant to the Americans wi t h D i s · abilitie s Act , r easonable ac c ommod a ti o n s. i n c lu d i ng th e pr ovision of i nform a ti o nal

m ate r ial i n an a lternative format

, will be provided for q u a lified individuals with di s

abilities upon req uest. Please ca ll J ose ph Hoc h a t (

608) 2 6 7-75 43 with speci fic i n for

mation on you r r equest a t least 1 0 d a ys befo r e t h e date o f the s c heduled he aring

. Written C o mme nts and Copies o f**Oo ~**  m e nts W r itten comme nts on the draft s tage 2 vap o r recove ry SIP may be su b mi tted to Mr. Joseph H och

, Bureau of Air M anage m e nt AMrT, P O

. Box 7921

, M a di s on

, W I 5 3 707

no l a t er lh a n O c tob e r 12

, 20 1 2. Com m en t s may be su b mitt ed el e ctroni c all y t o j os eph

. hoch@wisc o n s in.gov . W ritt e n commen t s

w 1U h ave th e s ame weight a nd effect as

ora l s t a tem e nt s presented at th e hear i ng

. A co p y of the draft stage 2 v ap or r ec o ve ry S I P m a y be d o wnloaded fr om h ttp : // dnr

. wi.gov/t o p i c/Air Ouality or a h ard co p y m a y be o b tained f ro m: Joseph H och A MrT

, B u r ea u of Air Ma n a g e

- men t

, P .O B o x 7921

, Madi son, W l 53 7 0 7 J osep h

. Hoch@ w i s co n si n

. g ov P h one : (608) 264-8861 F AX : (608) 267

- 0560 Dated at Mad 1son

, Wi s consin August 23. 201 2 STAT E OF W I S CO N S IN
D E P ART M E N T O F N AT U RA L R ESO UR C E S By · M a tt M oro ne y for Ca thy S t epp

, S e c r e t ary PU B

. WS J : Se pt em b e r 4

, 2 012

#1 965881 WN AX LP 

# }

PWSJ 

# __ _j

ss

. ELLEN MORGAN

being duly sworn, doth depose and say that

he (she) is an authorized representative of Capital Newspapers, publishers of

Wis cons in State Jou rna I

a newspaper

, at Madison, the seat of go v ernment of said State,

and that an advertisement of which the annexed is a true

copy, taken fr om s aid paper, was p u bli s hed therein o n S eptember 4th

, 2012

( Si gned)

(Title) Principal Clerk

Subscribed a nd sworn to before me on

Notai)IUIC/in eto unty, W i scons in

My Commission expires April 1 5th, 2015