RECORD OF CONFERENCE CALL
DATE:  May 28, 2011
EPA PARTICIPANTS:  Scott Mathias, Rich Damberg, Lynn Dail, OAQPS; Glenn Passavant, OTAQ; Mike Thrift, OGC; Ariel Garcia, EPA Region 1; Kirk Wieber and Paul Truchan, Region 2; Brian Rehn, Region 3; Lynorae Benjamin and Dianna Smith, Region 4; Francisco Acevedo, Region 5; Carrie Paige, Region 6; Nicole Law and Jeffrey Buss, Region 9

OUTSIDE EPA PARTICIPANTS:  Yasoob Zia and Vivian Aucoin, Louisiana; Guy Hoffman, Donna Huff, Walker Williamson, Santos Olivarez, Lisa Shuvalov, Texas; Chris Demeroukas, Illinois; Bob Lopez, Wisconsin; Gil Grodzinsky, Chuck Mueller, Jim Kelley, Georgia; Husain Waheed, Maryland; Chris Trostle and Arlene Schulman, Pennsylvania; Michael Sheehan, New York; Judy Rand, New Jersey; Bob Girard, Connecticut; Eileen Hiney, Massachusetts

SUBJECT: Conference call regarding development of technical guidance on removing Stage II gasoline vapor recovery programs from State Implementation Plans and on assessing comparable control measures

AGENDA
Guidance on Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery
EPA-State Discussion Group
February 28, 2012

Agenda
   1.    Scope of Discussions
   2.    Schedule of Discussions & Reviews
   3.    Identifying the Issues

Scope of Discussions
   *  EPA's goal is to develop and issue a guidance document to assist states in evaluating whether and how to phase out Stage II programs after EPA establishes that ORVR is in widespread use.  Draft title "Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from SIPs and Assessing Comparable Measures".
   *  EPA is currently conducting rulemaking under CAA section 202(a)(6) on determining whether ORVR is in widespread use and on whether to revise or waive the section 182 Stage II requirement for Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas.
   *  In this discussion group forum, EPA representatives will not discuss the issues proposed in that rulemaking and associated issues raised by significant public comments, and the approvability of future SIP revisions.  
   *  Issues within the scope of these EPA-state discussions include:
      o         Methods and calculations for evaluating the VOC emissions and/or ozone air quality impact of phasing out Stage II programs
      o         Assessments of what kinds of other control measures achieve emissions reductions comparable to those from using Stage II
      o         Decommissioning issues
      o         General SIP revision planning
      
Schedule of Discussions & Reviews
   *  Suggest biweekly 1-hour teleconferences
   *  Suggest separate discussions for OTR and non-OTR states

Identifying the Issues
EPA wants to know what states wish to have covered in the guidance.  Issues to address could include:

   *  Analyzing what control measures might be available for the section 184(b)(2) requirement for areas of the OTR to implement control measures capable of achieving emission reductions comparable to those achievable through Stage II controls
   *  Estimating refueling displacement emissions
   *  Estimating refueling spillage emissions
   *  Estimating refueling fugitive emissions
   *  Stage II and ORVR control efficiency estimates (refueling event and area-wide)
   *  Estimating the emissions impact of incompatibility between ORVR and Stage II controls
   *  Estimating the annual incremental emissions control benefit of Stage II over ORVR
   *  Developing annual area-wide VMT & gasoline consumption estimates for ORVR-equipped vehicles
   *  Estimating cost and cost-effectiveness for maintaining Stage II programs
   *  Evaluating air quality impact considerations
   *  Additional guidance for centrally-fueled fleets
   *  Decommissioning issues
   *  Possible Stage II phase-out strategies
   *  General 110(ℓ) requirement for SIP revisions

DISCUSSION:
Conference call held to initiate discussions on EPA's intent to develop guidance for States seeking to dismantle their 182(b)(3) stage II vapor recovery programs and for states in the ozone transport region to assess comparable measures in lieu of implementing stage II vapor recovery programs.  
The aforementioned agenda was followed.
Comments from participants included: 
There is a need to understand the relationship of 184 requirements to anti-backsliding requirements.
Cost for decommissioning Stage II.
Some states may not remove Stage II and if so, they may be upgrading to enhanced Stage II systems.  Use of vacuum assist and compatible nozzles.
NOx versus VOC substitution issues
Bi-weekly meetings suggested.
SIP revisions for establishing date other that what EPA proposed.
Widespread use of ORVR is a separate action by EPA.
Impact characterization of emission reductions.
Emission impacts of phasing out Stage II programs.

