Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Ozone

[Federal Register: July 2, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 127)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34878-34901]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jy01-37]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI103-7333; FRL-7005-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin;
Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On December 22, 2000, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan for
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard. The submittal includes,
among other things, air quality modeling, rules to reduce emissions of
ozone forming pollutants (i.e., nitrogen oxides ( NO_X) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC)), and a plan demonstrating how
progress in emission reductions will be achieved through the area's
attainment date of 2007 (i.e., Rate of Progress Plan (ROP)). In this
action, EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration, the
NO_X

[[Page 34879]]

rules, the VOC rules, and the post-1999 ROP plan. We find the
attainment year emissions budgets to be adequate for conformity. We are
revising the NO_X waiver to reflect NO_X emission
reductions in the Wisconsin nonattainment area that were included in
the attainment modeling. We are proposing approval of a reasonably
available control measure (RACM) analysis submitted by the state. We
are also proposing to approve commitments by the state to complete a
mid-course review of the attainment status of the one-hour ozone
nonattainment area and to recalculate conformity budgets within one
year of the release of MOBILE6.

DATES: EPA must receive written comments on or before August 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carl Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Copies of Wisconsin's submittal and EPA's Technical Support
Document (TSD) for this proposed rule, and other relevant materials are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following addresses: United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604 (Please telephone Randy Robinson at (312) 353-
6713 before visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Regulation Development
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
Telephone Number (312) 353-6713, E-Mail Address:
robinson.randall@epamail.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Technical Review of the Submittals
III. Proposed Actions
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

1. Basis for Wisconsin's Attainment Demonstration SIP

What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
The Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) requires EPA to establish National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain widespread pollutants
that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In 1979, EPA
promulgated the one-hour ground-level ozone standard of 0.12 parts per
million (ppm) (120 parts per billion [ppb]). 44 FR 8202 (February 8,
1979).
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (
NO_X), which are emitted by a wide variety of sources, react
in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NO_X
and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.
An area exceeds the one-hour ozone standard each time an ambient
air quality monitor records a one-hour average ozone concentration
above 0.124 ppm in any given day (only the highest one-hour ozone
concentration at the monitor during any 24-hour day is considered when
determining the number of exceedance days.) An area violates the ozone
standard if, during three consecutive years, more than three days of
exceedances occur at any monitor in the area or in its immediate
downwind environs.
The highest of the fourth-highest daily peak ozone concentrations
over the three-year period at any monitoring site in the area is called
the ozone design value for the area. Section 107(d)(4) of the Act, as
amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area
that was violating the one-hour ozone standard, generally based on air
quality monitoring data from 1987 through 1989. 56 FR 56694 (November
6, 1991). The Act further classified these areas, based on the area's
ozone design values, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or
extreme. Marginal areas were suffering the least significant ozone
nonattainment problems, while the areas classified as severe and
extreme had the most significant ozone nonattainment problems.
The control requirements and date by which attainment is to be
achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas are subject
to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the earliest
attainment date, November 15, 1993. Severe and extreme areas are
subject to more stringent planning requirements but are provided more
time to attain the standard. Serious areas were required to attain the
one-hour standard by November 15, 1999, and severe areas are required
to attain by November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007, depending on the
areas' ozone design values for 1987 through 1989. The Milwaukee-Racine
nonattainment area is classified as severe and its attainment date is
November 15, 2007. The Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area includes the
counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, and
Waukesha. Door and Manitowoc Counties also remain in nonattainment
status. Manitowoc County was classified as a moderate area in response
to the 1990 CAA Amendments and had an original attainment date of 1996.
Since Manitowoc County is downwind of Milwaukee and subject to ozone
transport, EPA completed an overwhelming transport rulemaking in 1997
(62 FR 39446), which made Manitowoc's attainment date the same as
Milwaukee's date of 2007. Door County remains a rural transport
nonattainment area.
An attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling analysis
component showing how the area will achieve the standard by its
attainment date and the control measures necessary to achieve those
reductions. Section 172(c)(6) of the Act requires SIPs to include
enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures,
means, or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the
applicable attainment date. Section 172(c)(1) requires the
implementation of all reasonably available control measures (including
Reasonably Available Control Technology [RACT]) and requires the SIP to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Section 182(b)(1)(A) requires the
SIP to provide for specific annual reductions in emissions of VOC and
NO_X as necessary to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. Finally, section 182(j)(1)(B) requires the use of
photochemical grid modeling or other methods judged to be at least as
effective to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS in multi-state
ozone nonattainment areas. As part of today's proposal, EPA is
proposing action on the attainment demonstration SIP revisions
submitted by Wisconsin for the Milwaukee-Racine severe ozone
nonattainment area and its associated ozone modeling domain.
The attainment demonstration SIPs must also include motor vehicle
emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes. Transportation
conformity is a process for ensuring that states consider the effects
of emissions associated with federally-funded transportation activities
on attainment of the standard. Attainment demonstrations must include
the estimates of motor vehicle VOC and NO_X emissions that
are consistent with attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling
for the purpose of determining whether transportation plans, programs,
and projects conform to the attainment SIP.

[[Page 34880]]

What Is the History of the State Attainment Demonstration SIP?
Notwithstanding significant efforts by the states, in 1995 EPA
recognized that many states in the eastern half of the United States
could not meet the November 1994 time frame for submitting an
attainment demonstration SIP because emissions of NO_X and
VOC in upwind states (and the ozone formed by these emissions) affected
these nonattainment areas and the full impact of this effect had not
yet been determined. This phenomenon is called ozone transport.
On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's
Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by the states
but noting the remaining difficulties in making attainment
demonstration SIP submittals.\1\ Recognizing the problems created by
ozone transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a
collaborative process among the states in the eastern half of the
Country to evaluate and address transport of ozone and its precursors.
This memorandum led to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment
Group (OTAG)\2\ and provided for the states to submit the attainment
demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to
complete its evaluation of ozone transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' issued
March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum may be found on EPA's web
site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
\2\ Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council of States
(ECOS) Members, dated April 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations
regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded that transport
of ozone and the precursor NO_X is significant and should be
reduced regionally to enable states in the eastern half of the country
to attain the ozone NAAQS. Building on the OTAG recommendations and
technical analyses, in November 1997, EPA proposed action addressing
the ozone transport problem. In its proposal, the EPA found that
current SIPs in 22 states and the District of Columbia (23
jurisdictions) were insufficient to provide for attainment and
maintenance of the one-hour standard because they did not regulate
emissions that significantly contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318
(November 7, 1997). The EPA finalized that rule in September 1998,
calling on the 23 jurisdictions to revise their SIPs to require
NO_X emission reductions within each state to a level
consistent with a NO_X emissions budget identified in the
final rule. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). This final rule is commonly
referred to as the SIP Call. EPA is also requiring regional
NO_X emission reductions under its authority in section 126
of the Act to assure that reductions occur in upwind areas that have
been shown to impact attainment of the ozone standard in downwind
areas. Wisconsin was originally one of the 23 areas subject to the
NO_X emission reductions specified in the SIP Call. However,
a March 3, 2000 Circuit Court ruling on the SIP Call, among other
things, vacated and remanded EPA's decision to include Wisconsin. Thus,
Wisconsin is not currently subject to the SIP Call requirements.
However, Wisconsin benefits greatly from the upwind NO_X
reductions and in fact is reliant upon them to reach attainment.
In recognition of the length of the OTAG process, in a December 29,
1997 memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's then Acting Administrator for
Air and Radiation, provided until April 1998 for states to submit the
following elements of their attainment demonstration SIPs for serious
and higher classified nonattainment areas: (1) Evidence that the
applicable control strategy measures in subchapter I, part D, subpart
2, of the Act, were adopted and implemented or that the state was on a
course to adopt and implement the measures expeditiously; (2) a list of
measures needed to meet the remaining ROP emissions reduction
requirement and to reach attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a
commitment to adopt and submit, by the end of 2000, target calculations
for post-1999 ROP, the control measures necessary for attainment, and
ROP plans through the attainment year; (4) a commitment to implement
the SIP control programs in a timely manner and to meet ROP emissions
reductions and attainment; and (5) evidence of a public hearing on the
state submittal.
Wisconsin submitted the required elements on April 30, 1998. EPA
published a rulemaking on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70531), which
proposed approval of the April 1998 submittal conditioned on the state
conducting and submitting some additional material. The December 16,
1999 rulemaking conditioned final approval upon submittal of the
following items.
1. A final modeled demonstration of attainment that considers the
impacts of the regional NO_X emission reductions and local
control measures and clearly identifies an attainment strategy.
2. Adoption and submission of all required CAA measures, including
VOC RACT for plastic parts coating, industrial clean-up solvents, and
ink manufacturing, and adoption and submission of measures relied on in
the final modeled attainment demonstration.
3. Motor vehicle emission budgets for both VOC and NO_X.
4. Control measures necessary to meet the ROP requirement from 1999
to the attainment year of 2007, including target calculations
5. A commitment to perform a mid-course review and submit it by
December 2003.
On July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), EPA published a supplemental notice
of proposed rule titled ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Attainment
Demonstration for the One-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Ozone.'' The notice discusses the need to commit to recalculate
emission budgets using MOBILE6 within one-year after the models formal
release if the attainment demonstration for the area relies on the Tier
2 program. The updated attainment demonstration for Wisconsin relies on
Tier 2 so the state is subject to the MOBILE6 commitment.
What Is the Time Frame for Taking Action on the Attainment
Demonstration SIPs?
EPA's December 16, 1999, proposed conditional approval required a
new submittal by December 2000, which would replace the April 1998
submittal with updated and additional elements. EPA views the December
2000 submittal as a replacement to the April 1998 submittal. EPA,
therefore, is not finalizing the December 16, 1999 proposed conditional
approval, but rather reproposes it in this notice based on the new
information in the December 2000 submittal. EPA will respond to
comments received on the December 16, 1999 proposed rulemaking in
conjunction with comments received on today's proposed rulemaking.
As a result of a settlement agreement with the National Resource
Defense Council \3\, EPA must propose a full attainment demonstration
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) by October 15, 2001, for any severe
one-hour ozone nonattainment area attainment demonstrations that have
not been fully approved by that date. If the attainment demonstration
has not been fully

[[Page 34881]]

approved by June 14, 2002, EPA must finalize the FIP by that date. EPA
anticipates proceeding with a final approval of the Wisconsin SIP
revision by the October 15, 2001 deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The National Resource Defense Council filed a complaint on
November 8, 1999 against EPA, alleging that EPA had an outstanding
obligation to promulgate federal implementation plans demonstrating
attainment for several serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Framework for Proposing Action on the Attainment Demonstration SIP

What Modeling Guidance Was Available To Develop and Review the
Attainment Demonstration Submittal?
The EPA provides guidance for analyzing attainment of the one-hour
standard for ozone. The following documents contain EPA's guidelines
affecting the content and review of ozone attainment demonstration
submittals:
1. Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model,
EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/
(file name: ``UAMREG'').
2. Memorandum, ``The Ozone Attainment Test in State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Modeling Demonstrations,'' from Joseph A. Tikvart, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 16, 1992.
3. Guidance on Urban Airshed Model (UAM) Reporting Requirements for
Attainment Demonstrations, EPA-454/R-93-056, March 1994. Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMRPTRQ'').
4. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, March 2, 1995.
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
5. Guidance on the Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment
of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, June 1996. Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
6. Memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the one-hour Ozone and
Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,'' from Richard Wilson, Office of Air and
Radiation, December 29, 1997. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
t1pgm.html.
What Are the Modeling Requirements for the Attainment Demonstration?
For purposes of demonstrating attainment, the Act requires
nonattainment areas designated as serious or above to use photochemical
grid modeling or an analytical method judged by EPA to be as effective.
The photochemical grid model is set up using meteorological conditions
conducive to the formation of ozone in the nonattainment area and its
modeling domain. Emissions for a base year are used to evaluate the
model's ability to reproduce monitored air quality values. Following
validation of the modeling system for a base year, emissions are
projected to an attainment year to predict air quality changes in the
attainment year due to the emission changes, which include growth up to
and controls implemented by the attainment year. A modeling domain is
chosen that encompasses the nonattainment area. Attainment is
demonstrated when all predicted ozone concentrations inside the
modeling domain are at or below the ozone standard or an acceptable
upper limit above the standard permitted under certain conditions by
EPA's guidance. When the predicted concentrations are above the
standard or upper limit, EPA guidance allows an optional weight-of-
evidence determination, which incorporates other analyses, such as air
quality and emissions trends, to address uncertainty inherent in the
application of photochemical grid models. States may use this latter
approach under certain circumstances to support the demonstration of
attainment.
The EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis
that are essential to obtain credible results. First, the state must
develop and implement a modeling protocol. The modeling protocol
describes the methods and procedures for the modeling analyses and
provides for policy oversight and technical review by individuals
responsible for developing or assessing the attainment demonstration
(state and local agencies, EPA, the regulated community, and public
interest groups). Second, for purposes of developing the information to
put into the model, the state must select air pollution days, (i.e.,
days in the past with high ozone concentrations exceeding the standard)
that are representative of the ozone pollution problem for the
nonattainment area. Third, the state must identify the appropriate
dimensions of the area to be modeled, (i.e., the modeling domain size).
The domain should be larger than the designated nonattainment area to
reduce uncertainty in the boundary conditions and should include any
large upwind sources just outside the nonattainment area. In general,
the domain is the local area where control measures are most beneficial
to bring the area into attainment. Alternatively, a much larger
modeling domain may be established, addressing the impacts of both
local and regional emission control measures on a number of ozone
nonattainment areas. In both cases, the attainment determination is
based on the review of ozone predictions within the local area where
control measures are most beneficial to bring the area into attainment
(referred to as the local modeling domain). Fourth, the state must
determine the grid resolution. The horizontal and vertical resolutions
in the model affect the dispersion and transport of emission plumes.
Artificially large grid cells (too few vertical layers and horizontal
grids) may dilute concentrations and may not properly consider impacts
of complex terrain, complex meteorology, and land/water interfaces.
Fifth, the state must generate meteorological and emissions data that
describe atmospheric conditions and emissions inputs reflective of the
selected high ozone days. Finally, the state must verify that the
modeling system is properly simulating the chemistry and atmospheric
conditions through diagnostic analyses and model performance tests
(generally referred to as model validation). Once these steps are
satisfactorily completed, the model is ready for use to generate air
quality estimates to support an attainment demonstration.
The modeled attainment test compares model predicted one-hour daily
maximum ozone concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year
to the level of the ozone standard. A predicted peak ozone
concentration above 0.124 ppm (124 ppb) indicates that the area is
expected to exceed the standard in the attainment year. This type of
test is often referred to as an exceedance test. The EPA's June 1996
guidance recommends that states use either of two exceedance tests for
the one-hour ozone standard: a deterministic test or a statistical
test.
The deterministic test requires the state to compare predicted one-
hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day \4\ to the
attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the predictions exceed 0.124
ppm, the test is passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The initial, ``ramp-up'' days for each episode are excluded
from this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The statistical test includes a modeled test in which three
benchmarks should be passed. First, the number of days with predicted
exceedances in defined locations should not be greater than a specified
number. Second, for episode days in which modeled exceedances are
allowed, predicted daily maxima should not exceed a certain value. This
value depends on the severity (in terms of the ability of the
meteorology to form high levels of ozone) of the selected episode as
well as the shape of distributions of observed daily maxima at sites
which currently just attain the NAAQS. Third,

[[Page 34882]]

for each day with an allowed exceedance, improvement in the number of
hourly occurrences with predicted ozone greater than 124 ppb should be
at least 80%. Thus, if the state models a severe day (considering
meteorological conditions that are very conducive to high ozone levels)
the statistical test provides that a prediction above 0.124 ppm up to a
certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment of the standard.
What Additional Analyses May Be Considered?
As with other predictive tools, there are inherent uncertainties
associated with modeling and its results. For example, there are
uncertainties in the modeling inputs, such as the meteorological and
emissions data bases for individual days and in the methodology used to
assess the severity of an exceedance at individual sites. In light of
these limitations, additional analyses may be considered. In
particular, EPA's guidance explicitly recognizes that when the modeling
does not demonstrate that the area will attain the standard, the state
may present additional analyses. The process by which this is done is
called a weight-of-evidence determination.
Under a weight-of-evidence determination, the state may rely on,
and EPA will consider, factors such as: model performance and results,
episode selection, other modeled attainment tests, e.g., relative
reduction factor analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in the
predicted frequency and pervasiveness of exceedances and predicted
changes in the design value; actual observed air quality trends;
estimated emission trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the
responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls; and
whether there are additional control measures that are or will be
approved into the SIP but were not included in the modeling analysis.
This list is not an exhaustive list of factors that may be considered,
and these factors may vary from case to case.
The EPA's guidance does not state how close a modeled attainment
test must be to passing to allow consideration of other evidence
besides an attainment test to determine attainment. However, the
further an area is from passing a modeled attainment test, the more
compelling the weight-of-evidence must be.
Besides the Modeled Attainment Demonstration, What Other Issues Must Be
Addressed in the Attainment Demonstration SIP?
In addition to the modeling analysis and weight-of-evidence
determination demonstrating attainment, the EPA has identified the
following key elements which must be present for EPA to approve the
one-hour attainment demonstration SIP.
Clean Air Act measures and other measures relied on in the modeled
attainment demonstration state implementation plan. The attainment
demonstration must incorporate the emission impacts of, and the SIP
submittal must address the rule development for, CAA measures and any
additional emission control measures needed to achieve attainment. The
rules for these emission controls must also have been adopted before
the EPA can finally approve the attainment demonstration. The emission
controls for these sources must be implemented prior to the beginning
of the ozone season in the attainment year.
For purposes of fully approving the state's SIP, the state must
adopt and submit all VOC and NO_X control regulations for
affected sources within the state and within the local modeling domain
as reflected in the adopted emission control strategy and in the
attainment demonstration.
The table below presents a summary of the Act's requirements that
must be met for each serious and severe nonattainment area for the one-
hour ozone NAAQS. These requirements are specified in sections 172 and
182 of the Act.

Table 1--Clean Air Act Requirements for Severe Nonattainment Areas

New Source Review (NSR) regulations for VOC and
NO_X, including an offset ratio of 1.3:1 and a major VOC and
NO_X source size cutoff of 25 tons per year (TPY).
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and
NO_X. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Areas that are currently attaining the one-hour ozone
standard or can demonstrate that NO_X controls will not
contribute to or will interfere with attainment can request a
NO_X waiver under section 182(f). Milwaukee-Racine is such
an area and is currently covered by a NO_X waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program.
15 percent Rate-Of-Progress (ROP) plan for VOC through
1996 and a Rate-of-Progress plan through 2007.
1990 baseline emissions inventory for VOC and
NO_X
Attainment demonstration.
Clean Fuels program or substitute.
Reformulated gasoline.
RACM.
Contingency Measures.
Periodic emissions inventory and source emission statement
regulations.
Stage II vapor recovery.
Enhanced monitoring Photochemical Assessment Monitoring
Stations (PAMS).
Requirement for fees for major sources for failure to
attain.
Motorvehicle emissions bugget Additionally, the Act requires that
the attainment demonstration SIP must estimate the motor vehicle
emissions that will be produced in the attainment year and must
demonstrate that this emissions level, when considered with emissions
from all other sources, is consistent with attainment. For
transportation conformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle
emissions in a control strategy SIP such as an attainment demonstration
(converted to a typical ozone season week day level) is defined as the
motor vehicle emissions budget. The motor vehicle emissions budget must
meet certain adequacy criteria, which are listed in the Transportation
Conformity Rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A, section 93.118), before the
budget can be approved as part of the attainment demonstration SIP.
When a motor vehicle emissions budget is found to be adequate, it is
used to determine the conformity of the transportation plans and
programs to the SIP, as required by section 176(c) of the Act. An
appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions budget is a necessary
part of an attainment SIP.

II. Technical Review of the Submittals

A. Summary of the State Submittals

1. General Information

When Were the Ozone Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan
Revisions Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency?
Wisconsin submitted its ozone attainment demonstration SIP
revisions to EPA on December 22, 2000. Wisconsin held three public
hearings on the ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision. A hearing
was held in Kenosha on June 27, 2000; in Milwaukee on June 28, 2000;
and in Appleton on June 29, 2000.
What Are the Components of the Wisconsin Attainment Demonstration
Submittal?
The Wisconsin Attainment Demonstration submittal includes the
following elements:
(1) A photochemical modeling analysis of a control strategy
designed to

[[Page 34883]]

achieve attainment in the Wisconsin nonattainment counties and in the
rest of the Lake Michigan area.
(2) A rate-of-progress (ROP) plan for reducing VOC and
NO_X emissions by the required milestone years of 2002, 2005,
and 2007.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The ROP plan for 1996-1999 is being approved in a separate
rulemaking document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) VOC and NO_X budgets for transportation conformity
based on the final attainment demonstration and ROP plan.
(4) An intrastate NO_X rule for electric generating
sources in the nonattainment counties starting in 2002.
(5) A trading rule for NO_X compliance.
(6) A VOC RACT rule for industrial clean-up solvents, a draft rule
for plastic parts coating, and an order for Flint Ink.
(7)An excess emissions fee rule for VOCs as required by the CAA.
(8) A request to revise the state's Inspection and Maintenance plan
to include NO_X limits.
(9) A commitment to conduct a mid-course review of the attainment
status of the Lake Michigan area.
(10) A commitment to recalculate conformity budgets using MOBILE6
within one-year of its formal release, and
(11) A request to revise the maintenance plans for Sheboygan and
Kewaunee Counties.
Additionally, Wisconsin submitted information addressing Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM) for transportation and stationary
sources.
In this notice, EPA is not acting on the trading rule, the excess
emissions fee rule, the revision to the state's Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) plan, or the request to revise the maintenance plans
for Sheboygan and Kewaunee Counties. The state has asked that the
trading and averaging provisions not be acted on at this time so that
EPA and the WDNR can work together to resolve issues with the rules.
EPA will process the I/M revision, the excess emission fee rule, and
the maintenance plan revisions in separate rulemakings.
The state submittal package, in combination with previous
submittals, addresses the five items upon which EPA conditioned the
December 16, 1999, proposed approval (i.e., modeled attainment
demonstration, VOC rules, motor vehicle emission budgets, ROP plan,
mid-course review). Each of the submitted elements will be discussed in
the following sections.

2. What Are the Basic Modeling Components of the Submittal?

Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, as members of the Lake Michigan
Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), used the same ozone modeling
approach. The regional approach is documented in a September 27, 2000
technical support document (TSD) entitled ``Technical Support
Document--Midwest Subregional Modeling--one-hour Attainment
Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area.'' LADCO is a technical
organization originally developed by Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and
Michigan to deal with ozone air quality problems in the Lake Michigan
area. LADCO conducted the majority of the attainment analysis submitted
by Wisconsin. The terms LADCO and state are used interchangeably in the
following modeling section.
The heart of the modeling system is the Urban Airshed Model-Version
V (UAM-V) developed originally for application in the Lake Michigan
area. The state used this photochemical model to model ozone and ozone
precursors in a multiple, nested grid system. In the horizontal
dimension, the extended modeling domain, referred to as Grid M, extends
from -92 west longitude/35 degrees north latitude in the southwest
corner to -82.28 degrees west longitude/45.37 degrees north latitude in
the northeast corner (borders extend from west-central Wisconsin south
to northeast Arkansas east to the western tip of North Carolina and
north to include most of the lower peninsula of Michigan.) The
regulatory modeling was done with 12 kilometer grid resolution. To
assess the sensitivity of the model to grid resolution, some modeling
was done using four kilometer grids. The modeled results using four
kilometer grid size were generally comparable to the 12 kilometer
modeling, although model performance was less satisfactory using the
four kilometer grids. Additionally, modeling using four kilometer grid
resolution requires much more computer resources than using 12
kilometer grid resolution. The use of 12 kilometer grids provided
reasonable results and allowed the state to model more days with a
variety of control strategies. Since the four kilometer grid modeling
did not add any new information to the analysis and showed results
generally comparable to 12 kilometer grid modeling, the attainment
demonstration was conducted using 12 kilometer grid spacing. In the
vertical dimension, seven layers were used to represent the atmosphere
over all of Grid M.
What Meteorological Data Was Used?
UAM-V requires three-dimensional hourly values of various
meteorological parameters including winds, temperatures, pressure,
water vapor, and vertical diffusivity. The State developed most inputs
through prognostic meteorological modeling with RAMS3a Cloud and
precipitation fields were developed based on observed National Weather
Service data. Early evaluation findings showed that the meteorological
model results provided adequate representation of the general airflow
features, and good agreement between modeled and measured wind speeds,
temperatures, and water vapor. In general, the state determined the
results were reasonable and could be used to provide inputs in UAM-V.
What Episodes Were Modeled?
The state used four episodes in the photochemical modeling.

June 22-28, 1991
July 14-21, 1991
June 13-25, 1995
July 7-18, 1995

These episodes were selected because they are representative of
typical high ozone episodes in the Lake Michigan area, they reflect a
variety of meteorological conditions, there is an intensive data base
available from a 1991 field study program, and two were previously
modeled for the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) studies. While
all of the above days were modeled, only a subset of those were used in
the attainment demonstration. Some of the days were used for ramp-up
purposes. Additionally, only those days that met the model performance
specifications were used in the attainment demonstration test.
How Did the States Evaluate Model Performance?
LADCO conducted basecase modeling to evaluate model performance by
comparing observed ozone against model predicted ozone. The model
performance evaluation included comparisons of the spatial distribution
of ozone, the creation and destruction of ozone over time, and the
magnitude of measured and predicted values. LADCO modeled four high
ozone episodes for use in the attainment demonstration: June and July
1991 and June and July 1995. Basecase modeling involves estimating
emissions from the episode time period, developing meteorological data
representing the episode, and running the model. The model predicted
values are then compared to monitored data from the same time period to
evaluate how well the model simulated ozone development and transport.
The emissions used in the attainment demonstration were the

[[Page 34884]]

latest available, from 1996. For the 1995 episodes the 1996 emissions
were used without any modifications. However, for the 1991 episodes,
the 1996 emissions were backcasted to 1991 to allow for a more
representative evaluation.
Model evaluation criteria are specified in the Environmental
Protection Agency's ``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the
Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991. This document provides
statistical guidelines for unpaired peak accuracy (15-20%), normalized
bias (5-15%), and normalized gross error (30-35%). The state and Region
5 placed more emphasis on the unpaired peak accuracy statistical
guidelines because of its relevance to the regulatory attainment test
methodology. The four LADCO episodes comprise 32 days. Model
performance statistics were produced for all days. However, only those
sets of days that generally fell within EPA's guidelines for model
performance were used in the strategy runs and ultimately used for the
attainment demonstration. Those days are shown in Table 2 below with
negative values in the peak accuracy and normalized bias columns
indicating days when the model underpredicted.

Table 2.--Model Performance Statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Acc. Norm. Bias Norm. Gr. Err 30- Peak Acc. Norm. Bias Norm. Gr. Err
Date 15-20% 5-15% 35% Date 15-20% 5-15% 30-35%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/25/91............................... 18.3 19.3 22.9 6/21/95.................. 9.8 -23.2 25.9
6/26/91............................... -22.3 0.5 22.2 6/22/95.................. 10.1 2.3 16.1
6/27/91............................... 17.8 4.3 17.7 6/23/95.................. 4.1 -6.7 17.9
6/28/91............................... -10.1 -12.1 19.0 6/24/95.................. -18.1 -1.6 17.1
7/16/91............................... -0.8 -15.9 19.0 6/25/95.................. 15.7 8.3 16.3
7/17/91............................... -13.1 -16.8 20.5 7/12/95.................. -19.2 -15.2 19.2
7/18/91............................... -19.4 -2.8 15.9 7/13/95.................. -17.4 -14.6 18.9
7/19/91............................... -19.4 -9.6 20.8 7/14/95.................. -6.7 -4.3 14.6
7/20/91............................... 20.9 11.7 20.8 7/15/95.................. 1.3 15.4 22.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to providing performance statistics, Wisconsin
submitted information comparing the spatial and temporal representation
of the surface ozone concentrations with measured ozone values. The
model adequately represented the diurnal variation of ozone production
and decay and also generally duplicated the locations where the highest
ozone was observed. The model did demonstrate a tendency to
underpredict the peak measured values on many, but not all, episode
days. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that model performance is
acceptable for air quality planning and attainment demonstration
purposes.
How Were the Base Year and Future Year Emissions Derived?
The process of demonstrating attainment in the Lake Michigan area
involved investigating numerous control strategies ranging from CAA
mandated controls only for VOCs and NO_X to full
implementation of the SIP Call NO_X controls across the
affected areas. A selection of the specific strategies are summarized
below:
Base Emissions (1996). The state used the base year inventory to
support the performance evaluation modeling as well as future year
modeling. The base year emissions are representative of the modeling
episode days and produce modeled concentrations that can be compared to
monitored concentrations for performance purposes. The base year
emissions were also used to project to the future year of interest and
then reduced to reflect a specific control strategy. The base year
inventory consisted of emissions for point, area, and mobile sources.
Emission rates for point and area sources were provided by either EPA
or the states. The emission rates for on-road mobile sources were
calculated by EMS-95 based on activity level (i.e., vehicle miles
traveled) and the MOBIL5b emission factor model. The latest base year
inventory reflects higher speeds than in previous versions, a higher
percentage of sport utility vehicles and small trucks, and the excess
NO_X produced as a result of built-in defeat devices on
heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Biogenic sources were calculated using
EPA's Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS2) model. Isoprene
emissions were reduced by 50% in the Ozarks region of Missouri based on
analysis of field study data and discussions with EPA.
Future Year Emissions (2007). The state used the future year
emissions inventories in the Lake Michigan area modeling that were
derived from the base year inventory. Two adjustments were made to the
base year inventory to generate future year values. The base year
inventory was projected to the 2007 attainment year using growth
factors. These adjusted values were then reduced to reflect the various
control measures expected to occur by that time.
The growth factors used in the projection of emissions for each
source sector are summarized below:
a. Point sources--for electric utilities--each state provided
company specific data. For certain point sources, a growth factor of
``0'' was used to reflect shutdowns. All remaining point source
emission categories growth factors were based on the EPA Economic
Growth Analysis System (EGAS).
b. Area Sources--For base year emission estimates, growth was based
on population. For gasoline marketing categories growth was based on
projected gasoline sales. EGAS or state specific surrogates were used
for other area source emissions.
c. Mobile sources--Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projections were
based on transportation modeling.
d. Biogenic sources--No growth was assumed.
How Were the 1996 and 2007 Emission Estimates Quality Assured?
To improve the reliability of the modeling source emission
inventories, the state emission inventory personnel, the emission
modelers, and the photochemical modelers performed several quality
assurance (QA) activities. These activites included:
An Emissions Quality Assurance Plan. A LADCO draft emissions
quality assurance plan documented a standardized set of data and file
checks. This plan identifies the emissions quality assuance procedures
to be followed by the state emission inventory personnel. Each state
was responsible for quality assurance of its own emissions inventory
data before providing these data to the LADCO emission modelers. The
quality assurance of the state's data included the review of several
EMS-95 emissions reports for consistency with other state-specific
emissions data.

[[Page 34885]]

Emission Reports. EMS-95 itself performs a number of emission
checks and generates reports flagging possible emission errors and
summarizing data that can be checked against alternative emissions data
sets/reports. LADCO generated these reports in the preparation of the
Grid M emissions data and used them for QA efforts.
Review by Photochemical Modelers. The photochemical modelers
quality assured the emissions inventories by generating and reviewing
spatial plots of emissions by source sector/type. The review was
designed to detect anomalies. The modelers also conducted emission
total checks against EMS-95 summary reports.
Stack Parameter Checks. A contractor quality assured the point
source emissions data. The contractor discovered errors in the stack
parameters and other point source data, including potential errors in
gas exit velocities, emission rates, and physical stack parameters, for
many point sources in the previous versions of the modeling system
emission inventories. This review was distributed to the LADCO states
to correct their respective point source emissions data. Some stack
data were shifted from the elevated point source data files to the
ground-level data files based on adopted screening parameters.
What Control Strategies Were Modeled?
Strategy modeling was used to evaluate the air quality impact of
various control scenarios. Over the past several years, the Lake
Michigan states modeled 17 different strategies in the analysis. The
primary difference between them is the level and spatial distribution
of NO_X controls. The following section will discuss just one
of those 17 scenarios, the future year attainment strategy. A
description of the other strategies is included in the technical
support document.
Future Year Attainment Strategy. This control strategy included the
following assumptions: Tennessee Valley Authority utility sources at
0.15 pounds (lb) NO_X /million British thermal units (mmBtu),
new VOC controls from the Illinois trading rule, Wisconsin modeled with
their adopted state rule, Missouri modeled at SIP Call level of
NO_X control, internal combustion engines at CAA level of
control, increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth for Southeast
Wisconsin, consideration of the proposed diesel sulfur rule, reduced
carbon monoxide emissions by 12.5% due to low sulfur and nonroad
controls, Wisconsin with inspection and maintenance program
NO_X cut-points, revised Chicago area transportation network
data, updated/corrected MOBILE5 inputs for Illinois, Wisconsin, and
Ohio, new boundary conditions considering reductions in Alabama,
Tennessee, and Texas, reduced low-level NO_X emissions due to
Tier II/low sulfur and nonroad controls.
Tables 3 and 4 below identify the anthropogenic emissions in tons
per day associated with the 1996 baseyear strategy and the future year
attainment strategy.

Table 3.--Anthropogenic VOC Emissions Summary (Tons per Day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Motor veh. Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base........................................................ 2367 6496 3633 12496
Attainment Strategy......................................... 1748 5577 2687 10072
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.--Anthropogenic NO_X Emissions Summary (Tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Motor veh. Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Base................................................... 7720 2740 5681 16141
SR Run 17................................................... 3833 2482 3230 9545
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Were the Ozone Modeling Results for the Base Period and for the
Future Attainment Period?
Table 5 shows the peak value observed for each episode day, the
model predicted ozone concentration for that episode day (used for the
model performance evaluation), the model predicted ozone concentration
for the 1996 basecase scenario, the ozone concentration from the 2007
attainment strategy, and the value allowed by the 1996 attainment test
guidance. The model concentrations represent the peak value predicted
in the Lake Michigan region of the modeling domain. Concentrations
above the level of the one-hour ozone limit are in bold.

Table 5.--Peak Observed and Modeled Concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled
Episode Model perf. 1996 Attainment Guidance
Episode day observed value baseyear strategy allowed
value value 2007 value value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/25/91........................................ 104 123 123 110 124
6/26/91........................................ 175 136 138 117 124
6/27/91........................................ 118 139 127 111 124
6/28/91........................................ 138 124 102 95 124
7/16/91........................................ 130 129 108 103 124
7/17/91........................................ 137 119 89 89 124
7/18/91........................................ 170 137 108 109 144
7/19/91........................................ 170 137 112 111 130
7/20/91........................................ 139 168 150 128 130
6/21/95........................................ 112 123 122 118 124
6/22/95........................................ 119 131 131 119 130
6/23/95........................................ 123 128 128 113 124
6/24/95........................................ 166 136 136 126 139

[[Page 34886]]

6/25/95........................................ 108 125 124 120 124
7/12/95........................................ 146 118 118 104 130
7/13/95........................................ 178 147 146 124 137
7/14/95........................................ 150 140 140 127 146
7/15/95........................................ 154 156 156 128 135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do the Modeling Results Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone Standard?
To assess attainment of the one-hour ozone standard, LADCO applied
two approaches to review the results of emission control strategy
modeling. These two approaches are defined in the Guidance on the Use
of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS (June
1996). The first approach is the deterministic approach and requires
that the daily peak one-hour ozone concentrations modeled for every
grid cell (in the surface level) be at or below the ozone standard for
all days modeled. If there are modeled ozone standard exceedances in
only a few grid cells on a limited number of days, this approach can
still be used through the use of weight-of-evidence information. As can
be seen in Table 5, every strategy run has at least four days that
exceed the ozone standard of 124 ppb. Consequently, the Lake Michigan
area attainment demonstration does not pass the deterministic
attainment test as outlined in the guidance.
The second approach allowed is the statistical approach. This
approach permits occasional modeled ozone exceedances and reflects an
approach comparable to the monitoring form of the one-hour ozone
standard. Under the statistical approach, there are three benchmarks
related to the frequency and magnitude of allowed exceedances and the
minimum level of air quality improvement after application of emission
controls. All three benchmarks must be passed in the statistical
approach or, if one or more of the benchmarks are failed, a weight-of-
evidence analysis must support the attainment demonstration. However,
for the Lake Michigan area demonstration, all parties agreed that
although the model performance generally fell within EPA's criteria,
the model tended to underpredict on a significant number of days.
Benchmark 3 provides a safeguard against cases where photchemical grid
model predictions meet EPA performance criteria but tend to
underpredict observed concentrations. All three benchmarks and LADCO's
results are discussed below.
Benchmark 1. Limits on the number of modeled exceedance days. This
benchmark is passed when the number of modeled exceedance days in each
subregion is less than or equal to three or N-1 (N is the number of
severe days), whichever is less. A subregion is an area roughly
equaling 15 square kilometers. A day is considered severe if its
``meteorological ozone forming potential'' is expected to be exceeded
less than twice per year. The technique ranked days based on their
ozone forming potential using data from 1951 to 1995.\7\ Any day with a
ranking of 87 or less is considered to be severe. The Lake Michigan
Area has 10 modeled days that are considered severe. Consequently, the
limit on the number of modeled exceedance days for the Lake Michigan
area is three. The attainment strategy had no more than one exceedance
in any subregion and the exceedances occurred on days identified as
severe. The attainment strategy passed benchmark 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Cox, W.M. and S. Chu (1993), ``Meteorologically Adjusted
Ozone Trends in Urban Areas: A Probabilistic Approach'', Atmospheric
Environment, 27B, (4) pp. 425-434.
Cox, W.M. and S. Chu, (1996) ``Assessment of Interannual Ozone
Variation in Urban Areas from a Climatological Perspective'',
Atmospheric Environment 30, pp. 2615-2625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benchmark 2. Limits on the values of allowed exceedances. This
benchmark sets acceptable upper limits for daily maximum ozone
concentrations based on a ranking of severe days. For most severe days,
the maximum modeled ozone concentration shall not exceed 130 ppb. For
days that are extremely severe (a ranking of 22 or less in the Lake
Michigan analysis), the maximum ozone allowed exceedances are higher.
As can be seen from Table 5, the attainment strategy produced
concentrations that are below the allowed values and thus passed
Benchmark 2.
Benchmark 3. Required minimum level of improvement. Under this
benchmark, the number of grid cells with modeled peak ozone
concentrations greater than 124 ppb must be reduced by at least 80
percent on each day with allowed modeled ozone standard exceedances.
This benchmark is included to provide protection in cases where the
model underpredicts observed ozone concentrations; it is not required
on days when the model does not underpredict peak values by more than
5%. This benchmark was met for the attainment strategy.
The results of the state modeling indicate that the attainment
strategy selected by the state passed all three of the statistical test
benchmarks.
What Additional Attainment Information Did the State Provide?
Although the WDNR modeling demonstrates attainment, the state
submitted additional analyses. Although not explicitly called for in
the guidance, in light of the inherent uncertainties of the modeling
analyses, EPA is considering these analyses as components of the
weight-of-evidence test.
EPA has developed a draft relative attainment test for use with the
eight-hour ozone standard. This guidance is available in a draft
document called ``Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, May
1999.'' LADCO applied this relative test to the Lake Michigan area
modeling. The relative test used observation-based design values along
with modeled data. The observed design value was multiplied by a
relative reduction factor representing the change in modeled ozone
between the base year run and the future control strategy run. To
demonstrate attainment, the projected future design value must be at or
below the NAAQS. The results of the relative attainment test conducted
by LADCO are consistent with those of the statistical attainment test.
Attainment is demonstrated at all monitoring sites with the controls
assumed in the attainment strategy. Table 6 shows the values for the
monitoring sites with design values above the one-hour NAAQS and the
adjusted value for the

[[Page 34887]]

attainment strategy. Modeled concentrations above the one-hour ozone
limit are in bold.

Table 6.--Relative Reduction Attainment Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observed
design Attainment
Monitoring site value strategy
(ppb) (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleasant Praire................................. 131 113
Milwaukee--Bayside.............................. 128 113
Harrington--Beach............................... 127 109
Sheboygan....................................... 125 108
Manitowoc....................................... 127 108
Michigan City................................... 140 119
Holland......................................... 133 117
Muskegon........................................ 132 117
Mid-lake........................................ 140 122
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WDNR also supplemented the photochemical modeling with additional
air quality analyses. These additional analyses included air quality
trends and methods that evaluate the effectiveness of VOC and
NO_X controls.
The WDNR attainment demonstration TSD shows the number of
exceedance days (monitors recording an hourly value over 124 ppb) and
the number of ``hot'' days (i.e., over 90 degrees Fahrenheit) for the
period 1981 through 1999. The number of ozone exceedances in the 1990s
(89) is significantly lower than the number of exceedances in the 1980s
(207). The trends show a clear decrease in the number of exceedance
days through the 1980s with a flattening out in the 1990s.
Additionally, the 1980s had 194 hot days compared to the 1990s hot days
numbering 162. This provides evidence that the air quality improvement
seen throughout the two decades is not the sole result of favorable
meteorological conditions but rather that VOC and NO_X
emission reduction programs implemented over the time period are
reducing the amount of ozone being monitored in the Lake Michigan area.
Wisconsin also examined ozone trends information with techniques
that filter out the influences of varying meteorology on the ozone
concentrations. The state used three methods and the results indicated
that daily peak one-hour ozone concentrations at most sites in the Lake
Michigan area decreased until the mid-1990s and then leveled off, or
slightly increased. A supplementary result found statistically
significant downward trends at two sites in southeast Wisconsin, a
statistically significant upward trend at a far downwind site, and
statistically insignificant trends elsewhere.
The state also examined ozone precursor trends, although data on
precursors is extremely limited. Only one site in Milwaukee has as much
as 10 years of data. This data shows a decline in VOC concentrations
since the mid-1980s. The NO_X data shows a flat to slight
decline over the same 10 year period. This information indicates that
reductions in VOC emissions have been very effective at reducing ozone
levels and that a future control strategy with regional NO_X
reductions combined with local VOC reductions should be beneficial. The
Lake Michigan area Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS)
began operation in the mid-1990s and will in the future provide useful
information on ozone precursor trends.
Lastly, the state used three observation-based analyses to evaluate
the relative effectiveness of VOC and NO_X control
strategies. The MAPPER program used monitoring data to estimate the
extent of photochemical reactivity conditions in the Lake Michigan
area. Receptor modeling was used to develop control curves for VOC-
ozone and NO_X-ozone. And lastly, ``indicator'' species or
ratios of species were used to distinquish between areas where VOC
emission reductions versus NO_X emission reductions were most
effective. These three analyses indicate that a control strategy
featuring regional NO_X emission reductions combined with
local VOC controls will be most effective at reducing ozone
concentrations in the Lake Michigan area.
In summary, the trends analyses show that there has been
considerable progress toward attainment of the one-hour ozone standard
in the Lake Michigan area due to the implementation of emission control
measures. Monitored levels of ozone have declined significantly over
the past 20 years, especially during the 1980s. The reduction in ozone
to this point can be attributed largely to the VOC control programs.
Future improvements in ozone will rely more on regional NO_X
controls. The air quality analysis information is consistent with the
overall modeled attainment strategy submitted by WDNR which consists of
local VOC controls and regional NO_X controls.

3. State Nitrogen Oxide (NO_X) Rule

What Are the Details of Wisconsin's State NO_X Reduction
Rule?
Wisconsin submitted its NO_X regulations to EPA for
inclusion in its SIP in response to two requirements: (1) the
attainment demonstration requirement that the southeast Wisconsin area
will attain the one-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than 2007, and (2) the rate-of-progress (ROP) provision of
the Act that Wisconsin achieve a nine-percent reduction in emissions in
each of successive three-year periods until the attainment date of
2007. The reduction of NO_X is not specifically required as
part of this area's attainment demonstration or ROP plan, because
Wisconsin is not one of the 19 states and the District of Columbia
required to reduce NO_x as a result of the EPA's
NO_X SIP Call. However, Wisconsin has chosen to reduce
NO_X emissions to claim credit toward both the attainment and
ROP requirements. Under these circumstances, there is no specific
guidance that directly addresses the review or approvability of the
submitted NO_X rules. EPA has reviewed the rules, however, to
determine consistency with general SIP requirements and, in particular,
whether the emission limits are enforceable, are SIP approvable, and
will achieve the reductions attributed to them. In general, the
Wisconsin NO_X reduction rule contains two basic elements;
(1) Combustion optimization and NO_X emission performance
standards for existing sources in the nonattainment counties of
Kenosha, Milwaukee, Manitowoc, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, and
Waukesha as well as in Sheboygan, and (2) NO_X emission
performance standards for new sources in the six severe nonattainment
counties (same as above except for Manitowoc and Sheboygan counties).
The rules impact electric utility boilers as well as other stationary
combustion sources. Details of the rule are discussed in the technical
support document.
Is the NO_X Rule Approvable?
The emission limits and combustion optimization on the affected
units have appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to make them enforceable. Some sections of the rule
contain ``Director's Discretion'' language that would allow the state
to approve alternatives to monitoring methods without EPA concurrence.
The WDNR has supplemented its package with a letter, dated May 28,
2001, clarifying the ``Directors Discretion'' language. In the letter,
WDNR notes that the approval process is outlined in section NR 439.06
of the Wisconsin Admininstrative Code. That section, which EPA has
approved as part of Wisconsin's SIP, requires the state to submit
alternative or equivalent compliance methods to EPA as source specific
SIP revisions. The alternative methods do not become effective until

[[Page 34888]]

approved by EPA. This clarification adequately addresses the EPA
concerns.
The WDNR also submitted trading/averaging rules for those sources
affected by the NO_X reduction rule. Because of concerns that
EPA had raised regarding the approvability of this part of the rule,
WDNR has requested that EPA not rulemake on the trading/averaging rules
at this time. The NO_X rules have independent monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements and can be approved without
the trading and averaging provisions. However, the trading/averaging
rules did provide important compliance flexibility to a limited number
of sources affected by the NO_X rule. EPA will continue to
work with WDNR to develop an approach that provides appropriate
flexibility.

4. Volatile Organic Compounds Reasonably Available Control Technology
Rules

What Is Required?
Under section 182(b)(2) of the Act, ozone nonattainment areas that
are classified as moderate or above must implement RACT to control VOC
emissions from stationary sources. Sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B)
require these areas to implement RACT for those source categories for
which EPA develops control technology guidelines (CTG). Section
182(b)(2)(C) requires that states develop and implement RACT for major
sources of VOCs for which EPA has not issued a CTG document. The EPA
was required to develop a CTG for industrial solvent cleaning by
November 15, 1993. However, because EPA has not issued a final CTG for
industrial solvent cleaning, the requirement of section 182(b)(2)(C) is
applicable.
Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations. As part of the December
2000 SIP package, Wisconsin submitted rules to control VOC emissions
from industrial solvent cleaning operations. Sources in the six county
severe area with maximum theoretical emissions of 25 tons per year or
more, and sources in Kewaunee, Manitowoc, and Sheboygan counties with
emissions of 100 tons per year or more are covered by this rule.
Although EPA failed to develop a CTG for industrial solvent
cleaning, EPA did develop an Alternative Control Techniques Document
(ACT) for industrial cleaning solvents. In the ACT, EPA recommends a
two-phased approach. First, facilities would adopt a solvent accounting
system to track the use and cost of cleaning solvents used in the
plant. Then, plant managers and/or state agencies would take action to
reduce emissions, using the information obtained from the accounting
system.
Is the VOC RACT Rule for Industrial Clean Ups Approvable?
The VOC RACT rule adopted by Wisconsin is consistent with EPA's
guidance. The state appropriately established the rule to cover
industrial solvent cleaning operations at major sources in its
nonattainment areas. Rather than merely setting up an accounting system
and leaving it to the individual plants to determine what action to
take, the state prescribed specific VOC content limits, work practice
standards, recordkeeping requirements, and add-on control options. The
limits and work practice standards all appear to be appropriate for the
operations that they are designed to control and are based largely on
rules developed by California's South Coast Air Quality Management
District. The provision that allows sources to use solvents that have a
composite partial vapor pressure of less than or equal to 10 mm of
mercury at 20 degrees celsius, rather than meeting the specific VOC
content limits, is consistent with the recommendations EPA made for
cleaning solvents in the Lithographic Printing Act.
Plastic Parts Coating Operations. Wisconsin submitted a draft non-
CTG RACT rule for plastic parts coating operations. The rule will
regulate plastic parts coating in three broad industry segments:
automotive/transportation, business machines, and miscellaneous. The
miscellaneous category includes items such as signs, weather stripping,
and shutters.
In the Alternative Control Techniques Document (ACT) mentioned
above, EPA presented two suggested control levels based on
reformulation for the automotive/transportation and business machine
sectors: level 1, a less stringent option and level 2, a more stringent
option. In addition, EPA presented an alternative control option, level
4, for automotive/transportation exteriors. This level of control was
based on newer, more accurate data. Wisconsin adopted the more
stringent level of control, level 2, with the following exceptions: (1)
For automotive/transportation interior air-dried nonclear coatings,
Wisconsin set a limit between control levels 1 and 2; (2) for
automotive/transportation exteriors the state adopted control level 4;
(3) for business machine prime coats, the state set level 1 controls;
and (4) for business machine nonclear coatings, the state set a limit
between control levels 1 and 2. In addition, Wisconsin adopted VOC
limits for miscellaneous plastic parts coating, which went beyond what
was suggested in the ACT. The state applied these limits to the
appropriate sources based on the areas' nonattainment classification
and included appropriate recordkeeping requirements. EPA believes the
state regulations meet the requirements of the Act as interpreted in
EPA's RACT policy.
Are the Plastic Parts Coating Regulations Approvable?
Although the rules submitted in December 2000 are draft, the state
has committed to submit a final plastic parts coating RACT rule in time
for consideration in our final rulemaking. EPA is recommending approval
of the rules if the final rules submitted by the state are
substantially the same as the draft rules. If the state significantly
modifies the draft rules, EPA would need to provide an additional
opportunity for comment before it could take a final approval action.
Flint Ink Facility Order
On October 30, 2000, Wisconsin submitted a revision to its SIP for
ozone to establish RACT for the Flint Ink facility located in
Milwaukee. The SIP revision requires the use of lids, which is a common
VOC control technology. The SIP revision includes an exemption for
paste ink, which uses an oily disperser rather than solvents. The Flint
Ink facility currently has fully enclosed screens for its existing
horizontal mills. The SIP revision requires Flint Ink to comply with
leak monitoring and repair provisions. Solvents used for cleaning ink
manufacturing equipment must contain no more than 7.5 pounds of VOC per
gallon of solvent and be kept in closed containers except while used
for cleaning.
Is the Flint Ink SIP Revision Approvable?
The requirements set forth in the Flint Ink SIP revision are
appropriate RACT measures and are approvable.

5. Nitrogen Oxide Waiver Revision

Why Is the Waiver Being Revised?
On January 26, 1996, EPA promulgated a NO_X waiver under
section 182(f) of the Act for the Lake Michigan ozone nonattainment
areas (61 FR 2428). The basis for granting the waiver at the time was
that modeling indicated that NO_X reductions in the area
would not contribute to or might interere with attainment of the ozone
standard in the nonattainment area. In that rulemaking, EPA granted
exemptions from the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and
New Source Review (NSR)

[[Page 34889]]

requirements for major stationary sources of NO_X and from
certain vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) and general and
transportation conformity requirements for ozone nonattainment areas
within the Lake Michigan area modeling domain, including southeast
Wisconsin. The rulemaking also stated that EPA would reexamine the
effectiveness of NO_X control when acting on the final
attainment demonstration for areas within the region. The final
demonstration, submitted in December 2000, includes a regional
NO_X reduction strategy as the principle means for achieving
attainment in the area.
The attainment strategy modeling runs include the Wisconsin
NO_X control regulations described earlier. This modeling
demonstrates attainment with NO_X reductions from the
following counties: Kenosha, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine,
Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha. The NO_X controls in the
counties include emission limits at large coal fired power plants,
emission limits or technology requirements for large industrial
sources, implementation of pass/fail cutpoints for motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance, and enhanced new source performance
standards for major new sources in the six-county severe nonattainment
area. The modeling demonstrates that the one-hour ozone standard will
be attained due to implementation of the controls stemming from
Wisconsin's NO_X and I/M cutpoint rules alone. Consequently,
any additional NO_X requirements beyond those described above
would be ``excess reductions'' since they would be in excess of the
reductions shown to be needed to attain the ozone standard, as defined
in section 182(f)(2) of the Act. In this notice, EPA is proposing to
revise the waiver to indicate that the basis for the waiver has changed
from being that NO_X reductions in the area ``would not
contribute to (or might interfere with) attainment'' to additional
NO_X reductions beyond those submitted by the state are
``excess reductions'' and are not required for attainment of the ozone
standard. While the basis for the NO_X waiver is changed, the
effect of the waiver on RACT for major NO_X sources, Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate Technology for major new sources in the above
mentioned counties, and offsets for major new sources locating in these
counties does not change. The waiver is only being modified to no
longer apply to the I/M program.

6. Post-1999 Rate-Of-Progress Plan

This section is divided into the following discussions.

A. The Wisconsin Post-1999 ROP Plan

(1) What is a post-1999 ROP plan?
(2) What Wisconsin counties are in the Milwaukee-Racine ozone
nonattainment area?
(3) Who is affected by the Wisconsin post-1999 ROP plan?
(4) What criteria must a post-1999 ROP plan meet for approval?
(5) What are the special requirements for claiming
NO_X reductions within and outside the nonattainment area
boundary and VOC reductions outside the nonattainment area boundary?
(6) How did Wisconsin calculate the needed post-1999 ROP
emission reduction requirement?
(A) The apportionment of VOC and NO_X emission
reductions for each milestone year.
(B) Baseline emissions.
(C) Milestone year emission target levels.
(D) Projected emission growth levels.
(E) Emission reductions needed to achieve post-1999 ROP, net-of-
growth.

(7) What are the criteria for acceptable post-1999 ROP control
strategies?
(8) What are the emission control measures in Wisconsin's post-
1999 ROP plan?
(A) VOC Control Strategies
(B) NO_X Control Strategies
(9) Are the emission control measures and calculated emission
reductions acceptable, and is the post-1999 ROP plan approvable?

B. Contingency Plan

(1) What are the requirements for contingency measures?
(2) How do Wisconsin's attainment demonstration and post-1999
ROP plan SIPs address the contingency measure requirements?
(3) Do the Wisconsin attainment demonstration and post-1999 ROP
plan meet the contingency measure requirements?
A. The Wisconsin Post-1999 ROP Plan
(1) What Is a Post-1999 ROP Plan? An ROP plan is a strategy to
achieve timely periodic reductions of emissions that produce ground-
level ozone in areas that are not attaining the ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A post-1999 ROP plan demonstrates how
ozone-forming VOC emissions affecting an area will be reduced by three
percent per year averaged over three year intervals from 1999 to the
area's attainment date.
ROP plans are a requirement of section 182 of Act. Section
182(c)(2)(B) requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified
as serious and above to adopt and implement plans to achieve periodic
reductions in VOC emissions after 1996. The requirement is intended to
ensure that an area makes steady progress toward attainment of the
ozone NAAQS and doesn't delay reductions until the attainment year. The
first three-year plan, called the ``post-1996 ROP plan'' should have
achieved emission reductions by November 15, 1999. Many states found it
difficult to meet the November 15, 1994, submittal date for an
attainment demonstration and post-1996 ROP plan, due primarily to an
inability to address or control ozone transport. We recognized the
efforts made by the states and the challenges in developing technical
information and control measures with respect to these submittals in a
memorandum entitled ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' dated March 2,
1995, from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation. The memorandum, in effect, provided new time frames for
these SIP submittals and divided the required SIP submittals into two
phases. Phase I included post-1996 ROP plans, providing for 9% emission
reductions that were to be achieved by the end of 1999. Phase II
included the post-1999 ROP plans, providing the remaining ROP SIP
measures to be achieved from 1999 through the area's attainment date.
Because the Milwaukee-Racine ozone nonattainment area is classified as
a severe area, the latest attainment date for the area is November 15,
2007. The state has used this as its attainment date and thus, must
show ROP through 2007.
The post-1999 ROP plan will contribute to continued progress toward
and ultimate attainment of the ozone standard by the November 15, 2007,
attainment date for the Milwaukee-Racine ozone nonattainment area.
Wisconsin submitted a post-1996 plan in 1997. We are taking
rulemaking action on the post-1996 ROP plan in a separate Federal
Register notice. The remainder of the ROP requirement, the post-1999
ROP emission reductions, must also be achieved at a rate of three
percent per year relative to the 1990 baseline emissions, net of growth
of emissions, averaged over three-year periods.
In lieu of achieving part or all of the post-1999 reductions only
from VOC emissions, under section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act, the post-
1999 ROP plan may provide for reductions of NO_X emissions.
The substitution of NO_X emission reductions is discussed
below in more detail.
In general, the post-1999 ROP plan should contain: (1)
Documentation showing how the state calculated the emission
reduction(s) needed on a daily basis to achieve the ROP VOC and
NO_X emission reductions; (2) a description of the control
measures used to achieve the emission reductions; and (3) a description
of how the state determined the emission reductions achievable from

[[Page 34890]]

each control measure. As discussed in more detail below, Wisconsin's
post-1999 ROP plan adequately addresses all of these elements.
EPA's TSD for this proposed action contains the details of
Wisconsin's post-1999 ROP plan. You may obtain the TSD for this
proposed rulemaking from the Region 5 office at the address indicated
above.
(2) What Wisconsin Counties Are in the Milwaukee-Racine Ozone
Nonattainment Area? The Milwaukee-Racine ozone nonattainment area
includes the counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine,
Washington, and Waukesha.
(3) Who is Affected by the Wisconsin Post-1999 ROP Plan? The VOC
and NO_X control measures in Wisconsin's plan affect a
variety of industries, businesses, and motor vehicle owners. To meet
the post-1999 ROP emission reduction requirements, Wisconsin
established NO_X emission rates for stationary source
Electric Generating Units (EGU) and non-EGUs through adoption of a
state rule (NR 428). Additional NO_X emission reduction
credits are claimed for implementation and enforcement of
NO_X cutpoints established through the state's motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program. On-board diagnostic testing of
automobiles must be incorporated into the state's overall I/M testing
program. The state submitted the NO_X regulations identified
in the post-1999 ROP plan for stationary and mobile sources as separate
SIP revisions, which must be federally approved prior to or at the same
time as the full and final approval of the post-1999 ROP plan.
Wisconsin's NO_X stationary source rule (NR428) was submitted
in December 2000 as part of the one-hour ozone attainment demonstration
and is being approved in another section of this rulemaking. The state
also submitted the revision to the motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program for NO_X cutpoints, and we will take
action on that revision through a separate Federal Register notice and
comment rulemaking process.
Wisconsin also claimed VOC emission reductions as a result of
continued implementation of the following federally promulgated
programs: Phase II of the reformulated gasoline program, on-board
diagnostic testing of automobiles, National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV), Tier 2 and low sulfur fuel.
In aggregate, these VOC and NO_X emission reductions are
expected to achieve the post-1999 ROP plan emission reduction
requirement.
(4) What Criteria Must a Post-1999 ROP Plan Meet for Approval?
Section 182(c)(2)(B) establishes the elements that a post-1999 ROP plan
must contain for approval. These elements are: (1) an emission
baseline; (2) an emission target level; (3) an emission reduction
estimate to compensate for emission growth projections and to reach the
ROP emission reduction goal; and (4) emission reduction estimates for
the plan's control measures. Through these elements, the plan must
illustrate that the nonattainment area will achieve a three percent per
year average of VOC and/or NO_X emission reductions over each
three year interval from 1999 through 2007.
We have issued several guidance documents for states to use in
developing approvable post-1996 ROP plans that also apply to post-1999
plans. These documents address such topics as: (1) the relationship of
ROP plans to other SIP elements required by the Act; (2) calculation of
baseline emissions and emission target levels; (3) procedures for
projecting emission growth; and (4) methodology for determining
emission reduction estimates for various control measures, including
federal measures.
Our January 1994, policy document, Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-
Of-Progress Plan and the Attainment Demonstration (post-1996 policy),
provides states with an appropriate method to calculate the emission
reductions needed to meet the ROP emission reduction requirement. A
complete list of ROP guidance documents is in the TSD for this
rulemaking.
(5) What Are the Special Requirements for Claiming NO_X
Reductions Within and Outside the Nonattainment Area Boundary and VOC
Reductions Outside the Nonattainment Area Boundary? If a post-1999 ROP
plan relies, in part, on NO_X reductions, it is subject to
certain additional requirements. As noted above, under section
182(c)(2)(C) of the Act, a plan can substitute NO_X
reductions for VOC if the resulting reduction in ozone concentrations
is at least equivalent to the ozone reductions that would occur under a
plan that relies only on VOC reductions. As required by section
182(c)(2)(C), we issued policy concerning the conditions for
demonstrating equivalency (see ``NO_X Substitution
Guidance,'' December 1993). Our NO_X substitution policy
provides that a ROP plan based in part on a NO_X substitution
strategy must show that the sum of the creditable VOC and
NO_X reduction percentages (relative to 1990 baseline
emissions) equals or exceeds a total of nine percent (that is the total
percentage for a three year interval). Moreover, the state must provide
technical justification that the NO_X reductions will reduce
ozone concentrations within the nonattainment area.
On December 29, 1997, we issued a policy memorandum entitled,
``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10
NAAQS'' (December 1997 policy). This policy provides additional
guidance on the types of emission reductions that are creditable
towards ROP. This guidance provides for flexibility by recognizing
emission reductions to meet the post-1996 ROP requirement from areas
outside the nonattainment area that contribute to air quality in the
nonattainment area. The geographic expansion for emission reductions
occurring outside the nonattainment area is limited to an area within
100 kilometers from the nonattainment area boundary for VOC reductions
and within 200 kilometers for substitution of NO_X reductions
in the absence of additional justification and support from the state.
These reductions are subject to the same restrictions as if they were
obtained within the nonattainment area. NO_X emissions from
sources outside the nonattainment area that are being substituted must
be included in the baseline ROP emissions and target ROP reduction
calculation.
This policy also applies to measures mandated by the Act and
implemented by states that achieve reductions in ozone either from
outside or within the nonattainment area including the regional
NO_X SIP, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), Title
IV NO_X.
Consequently, NO_X reductions from outside the Milwaukee-
Racine ozone nonattainment area, but within 200 kilometers of the
nonattainment area boundary, are creditable in the post-1999 ROP plan,
as are VOC emission reductions from outside but within 100 kilometers
of the nonattainment area boundary. Since Manitowoc and Sheboygan
counties are within 100 kilometers of the nonattainment area boundary,
both VOC and NO_X emission reductions from those counties are
creditable toward post-1999 ROP. The emission reductions from these two
counties were accounted for in the 1-hour attainment demonstration
modeling which projects attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the
Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area by 2007. We believe that the 1-hour
ozone modeled attainment demonstration supports the creditability of
these outside nonattainment area

[[Page 34891]]

VOC and NO_X reduction for post-1999 ROP purposes.
The December 1997 policy also states that there are specific
requirements for a nonattainment area which has been granted a
NO_X waiver that want to claim NO_X reductions from
outside the nonattainment area, but within the state's boundaries. This
can be done the State provides an adequate technical justification that
the substitution would result in a reduction in ozone concentrations in
the nonattainment area with the NO_X waiver. Furthermore,
states can claim ROP credits for NO_X reductions from within
the nonattainment area for which a NO_X waiver was approved,
provided the claim for ROP credits is accompanied by a showing that
such NO_X reductions will lead to lower ozone concentrations
in the nonattainment area and an amended NO_X waiver request
with modeling data supporting the revised NO_X waiver. We
granted a NO_X waiver for the Milwaukee-Racine ozone
nonattainment area on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428). Wisconsin
submitted urban-air shed modeling conducted by LADCO in cooperation
with the Lake Michigan States of Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and
Michigan as the basis of the one-hour ozone attainment demonstration
modeling. The attainment demonstration modeling, which we are proposing
to approve elsewhere in this Federal Register document, takes into
account an attainment strategy for Wisconsin that incorporates the
NO_X emission reductions achieved from the implementation of
the I/M NO_X cutpoints in the State's I/M program and the
state's stationary source NO_X rule, in conjunction with VOC
emission reductions, from both within and outside the Milwaukee-Racine
nonattainment area. This modeling shows that the post-1999 ROP VOC and
NO_X emission reductions will decrease ozone concentrations
to a level that demonstrates projected attainment of the one-hour ozone
standard in the Milwaukee-Racine ozone nonattainment area by 2007.
Wisconsin, therefore, satisfies the requirement that NO_X
reductions inside a NO_X waiver area must reduce ozone
concentrations within the nonattainment area to be creditable as ROP
reductions.
Moreover, both Sheboygan and Manitowoc counties were granted a
NO_X waiver with the January 26, 1996 approval. Consequently,
Wisconsin submitted an amended NO_X waiver for these two
counties, as well as the six-county Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment
area, which we are proposing to approve elsewhere in this Federal
Register notice. In conclusion, Wisconsin has satisfied the
requirements for claiming NO_X ROP credits inside the
NO_X waiver area, as well as in areas outside the
nonattainment area.
(6) How Did Wisconsin Calculate the Needed ROP Reduction
Requirement?
(a) The apportionment of VOC and NO_X emission reductions
for each milestone year. The post-1999 ROP plan is based on a
combination of VOC and NO_X emission reductions both inside
and outside of the Milwaukee-Racine ozone nonattainment area but within
200 kilometers of the boundary. To achieve the 9 percent emission
reduction for each three-year milestone year, Wisconsin chose the VOC/
NO_X emission reduction combinations presented in Tables 1
and 2.
Tables 7 and 8 summarize the state's post-1999 ROP calculations for
determining the target levels and needed ROP emission reductions for
each milestone year.

Table 7.--Required VOC Reduction by 2002, 2005, and 2007
[Rate of progress summary for the Milwaukee-Racine Post-1999 ROP plan
area]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions (tons/day)
Calculation of VOC reduction -----------------------------------------
needs for each milestone year 2002 2005 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 VOC Emissions............ 536.4 536.4 536.4
1990 Rate-of-Progress Base 406.97 406.97 406.97
Year Emission Inventory
(Anthropogenic Only).........
Total Non-creditable Emission 81.26 83.06 83.26
Reductions from FMVCP and RVP
expected by milestone year...
1990 Adjusted Base Year 325.71 323.91 323.71
Inventory (minus RVP and
FMVCP).......................
Percent VOC Reduction for ROP. 3.5 2 1
VOC ROP Reduction (Percent VOC 11.40 6.48 3.24
Reduction for ROP * Adjusted
Base Year Emissions).........
FMVCP Fleet Turnover 3.3 1.8 0.2
Correction Factor (FTC)
(difference between previous
milestone year and applicable
milestone year FMVCP
implementation)..............
Previous Milestone Year Target 248.74 234.04 225.76
Level of Emissions...........
Milestone Year Target Level of 234.04 225.76 222.32
Emissions (Previous Milestone
Year Target level--percent
VOC ROP--FTC)................
Projected Milestone Year 240.57 241.65 242.46
Anthropogenic Emissions......
Required Reductions by 6.53 15.89 20.14
Milestone Year to Meet the
Rate-of-Progress Requirements
(Projected--Target Level)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 8.--Required NO_X Reduction by 2002, 2005, and 2007
[Rate of progress summary for the Milwaukee-Racine Post-1999 ROP plan
area]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO_X emissions (tons/day)
Calculation of NO_X reduction -----------------------------------------
needs for each milestone year 2002 2005 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 NO_X Emissions............ 396.32 396.32 396.32
1990 Rate-of-Progress Base 396.32 396.32 396.32
Year Emission Inventory
(Anthropogenic Only).........
Total Non-creditable Emission 33.2 35.5 36.2
Reductions from FMVCP and RVP
expected by milestone year...
1990 Adjusted Base Year 363.12 360.82 360.12
Inventory (minus RVP and
FMVCP).......................
Percent NO_X Reduction for ROP. 5.5 7 5
NO_X ROP Reduction (Percent NO_X 19.97 25.26 18.01
Reduction for ROP * Adjusted
Base Year Emissions).........
FMVCP Fleet Turnover 4.7 2.3 0.7
Correction Factor (FTC)
(difference between previous
milestone year and applicable
milestone year FMVCP
implementation)..............
Previous Milestone Year Target 367.82 343.15 315.59
Level of Emissions...........

[[Page 34892]]

Milestone Year Target Level of 343.15 315.59 296.88
Emissions (Previous Milestone
Year Target level--percent
NO_X ROP--FTC)................
Projected Milestone Year 389.3 367.9 353.86
Anthropogenic Emission.......
Required Reductions by 46.15 52.31 56.98
Milestone Year to Meet the
Rate-of-Progress Requirements
(Projected--Target Level)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under our post-1996 policy, the following steps may be used to
calculate the needed emissions reduction:
(1) Establish the emission baselines for VOC and NO_X;
(2) Calculate the emission target level to meet the overall 9
percent reduction by the end of each three-year interval or milestone
years 2002, 2005 and 2007;
(3) Estimate the projected emission growth that would occur if no
ROP emission reduction takes place;
(4) Subtract the projected emission level from the emission target
to determine the VOC and NO_X emission reduction needed, net
of growth.
Application of these methods to Wisconsin's post-1999 ROP
calculations is discussed below.
(b) Baseline emissions. The Act requires that the baseline
emissions represent 1990 anthropogenic emissions on a peak ozone season
weekday basis. Peak ozone season weekday emissions represent the
average VOC and NO_X daily emissions that occur on weekdays
during the peak three-month ozone period of June through August. The
base year inventory for post-1999 ROP purposes must include 1990 base
year emissions for the six county nonattainment area as well as for
certain sources in Manitowoc and Sheboygan counties. Base year
emissions from Manitowoc and Sheboygan counties must be included
because Wisconsin is taking credit for emission reductions that occur
in theses counties.
We approved Wisconsin's 1990 base year emission inventory for the
Milwaukee-Racine area and Sheboygan and Manitowoc counties on June 15,
1994, 59 FR 30702. Therefore, the area has a comprehensive and accurate
inventory of emissions from all relevant sources of VOC and
NO_X in the nonattainment area.
Wisconsin identified the 1990 VOC and NO_X base year
emission inventories as the basis for the post-1999 ROP calculations
with several updates to reflect annual daily vehicle miles travelled
(VMT), vehicle type mix, speed distribution for the 6-county area,
average speed by HPMS class for Sheboygan and Manitowoc counties, and
conversion factors to estimate summer weekday VMT. The total 1990 VOC
and NO_X emissions are 536.4 tpd and 396.32 tpd,
respectively. The Act requires adjusting the ROP baseline for VOC and
NO_X to exclude emissions reductions achieved by the federal
Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), and federal Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP) regulations promulgated before November 15, 1990, state
regulations required to correct deficiencies in existing VOC RACT
regulations, and state regulations required to correct deficiencies in
existing I/M programs. Because these regulations were promulgated or
required before the 1990 amendments to the Act, the Act prohibits
states from claiming ROP reductions from these regulations. To achieve
an accurate ROP target, the state must adjust the baseline to reflect
these noncreditable reductions. The resulting inventory is called the
``adjusted base year inventory.''
Wisconsin determined the emission reductions associated with the
noncreditable FMVCP and RVP programs by using the MOBILE5a model.
Wisconsin determined that the VOC RACT rule corrections in the
state were technical in nature and, therefore, did not require any
adjustments to the 1990 emission inventory. Wisconsin was not required
to implement an I/M program before the 1990 amendments, and thus did
not make adjustments to the 1990 emission inventory for I/M
corrections.
Wisconsin provided the 1990 ROP adjusted base year emission
inventories for VOC and NO_X for each milestone year.
(c) Milestone year emission target levels. After the adjusted base
year emission inventory is established, the next step is to calculate
the VOC and NO_X emission target level for each milestone
year. For the post-1999 plan the milestone years are 2002, 2005, and
2007. The target level of emissions represents the maximum emissions
that an area can emit for each of those milestone years while complying
with the ROP requirement. Our post-1996 policy provides the method for
calculating VOC and NO_X target levels. In general, the
milestone year target levels of emissions for VOC and NO_X
are determined by adjusting the baseline to account for (1) the percent
reduction required to meet the ROP requirement, and (2) the fleet
turnover correction (FTC) factor for each milestone year from the
previous milestone year target level. In this case, the previous
milestone targets for milestone years 2002, 2005 and 2007 are 1999,
2002 and 2005, respectively.
The FTC factor represents the emission reduction that has occurred
under the pre-1990 Act FMVCP and RVP regulations between consecutive
milestone years, for the post-1999 plan, from 1999 to 2002, 2002 to
2005 and 2005 to 2007. Since the previous milestone year target level
and the ROP reduction do not factor in these reductions, the FTC factor
is necessary to accurately calculate the emission level that must be
achieved by each milestone year.
For the Milwaukee-Racine area's post-1999 ROP plan, it would not be
appropriate to use the 1999 VOC target level from the post-1996 ROP
plan to calculate the 2002 target level because that plan covered a
different geographic area than the post-1999 ROP plan. Thus, Wisconsin
recalculated the 1999 VOC target level consistent with the Act.
With respect to the NO_X target level calculations, since
the area did not claim NO_X credits in the post-1996 plan, a
1999 NO_X target level of emissions does not exist. The 1999
NO_X target level is then replaced with the 1990 ROP
NO_X base year inventory.
Wisconsin provides the methodology and documentation used to
determine the VOC and NO_X target levels. The target levels
are presented in Tables 1 and 2, above, for VOC and NO_X.
(d) Projected emission growth levels. To account for source
emission growth between 1990 and each milestone year 2002, 2005 and
2007, the state must develop projected emission inventories

[[Page 34893]]

for VOC and NO_X. The projected emission inventories
represent the emissions expected in each milestone year if no post-1999
ROP control measures are implemented. The TSD for the post-1999 ROP
plan discusses Wisconsin's emission projections for each source
category and pollutant.
In general, for NO_X, 1990 actual emissions were used as
the basis for projected NO_X emissions, with the exception of
point sources, where 1995, 1996 or 1997 emissions, normalized to 1990
were used. We believe that the use of actual normalized 1995, 1996 or
1997 emissions as the basis for 2002, 2005 and 2007 projections is
likely to produce a more accurate projection than 1990 emissions,
because the projection period is shorter, 7-12 years versus 12-17
years. For VOC, Wisconsin used 1990 emissions as the base year for
projections.
Growth factors were either based on Economic Growth Analysis System
(EGAS) or were state derived, and were consistent with those
projections used in LADCO's attainment demonstration modeling. State
specific factors were used when EGAS factors were determined to be
inappropriate.
On-road projections were based on the MOBILE5a model with
adjustments for Phase 2 RFG ( NO_X only), Tier 2 standards/
low sulfur gasoline, and excess emissions effect of heavy-duty diesel
defeat devices. The state submittal provides mobile input and output
files.
Wisconsin based growth projections on VMT coordinated with the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations. In addition, Wisconsin added a 7.5 percent growth buffer
was added to VMT forecasts to minimize the probability of a
transportation conformity failure. Transportation conformity means that
the level of emissions from the transportation sector (cars, trucks and
buses) must be consistent with the requirements in the SIP to attain
and maintain the air quality standards. Section 176(c) of the Act
requires conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects to
an implementation plan's purpose of attaining and maintaining the air
quality standards.
Wisconsin projects on-road mobile source emissions for VOC and
NO_X with a number of programs and assumptions incorporated
into the emissions modeling. The programs/assumptions are: (a) An
increase in NO_X emissions in eight counties due to residual
emissions increases after 90% retrofit of defeat devises from the
heavy-duty diesel consent decree; (b) inclusion of NLEV vehicles based
on local data and forecasts (MOBILE5a default distributions were not
used); (c) low sulfur gasoline in eight counties in 2005 and 2007; (d)
Tier 2 vehicles in 2005 and 2007; (e) On-board diagnostics (OBD) for
model year 1996 and new vehicles; and (f) Phase 2 reformulated gasoline
(RFG). Inclusion of these assumptions/programs into the modeling, in
general, decreases the projected emissions. Wisconsin's May 25, 2001
supplement identifies several of these programs as VOC control programs
for ROP purposes, and as a result, Wisconsin removed these VOC emission
reductions from the projected emissions to avoid double counting of the
emission reductions. None of these on-road mobile programs has been
identified as a ROP measure for NO_X and thus continues to be
incorporated into the emission projections. The total projected VOC and
NO_X emissions for 2002, 2005 and 2007 for the entire eight
county plan area and as identified by Wisconsin are in Tables 1 and 2,
above.
(e) Emission reductions needed to achieve post-1999 ROP, net-of-
growth. Based on the emission inventories and calculations, the
NO_X emission reductions needed for the Milwaukee-Racine
ozone area to meet the post-1999 ROP requirement for 2002, 2005, and
2007 are 46.15 tpd, 52.31 tpd, and 56.98 tpd, respectively. The
required VOC emissions reductions to meet the post-1999 ROP requirement
for 2002, 2005, and 2007 are 6.53 tpd, 15.89 tpd and 20.14 tpd,
respectively. For both VOC and NO_X, this is the difference
between the projected emissions with growth and with no post-1999 ROP
controls and the target level of emissions calculated for each
milestone year. Refer to Tables 1 and 2, above.
(7) What Are the Criteria for Acceptable Post-1999 ROP Control
Strategies? Under section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act, emission reductions
claimed for ROP must be creditable to the extent that the reductions
have actually occurred before the applicable ROP milestone date, that
is by November 15 of each milestone year, 2002, 2005 and 2007.
Furthermore, to be creditable, emission reductions must be real,
permanent, and enforceable.
The post-1999 plan must also adequately document the methods used
to calculate the emission reduction for each control measure. Our
policy as described in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the CAA amendments of 1990'' (General Preamble) (57 FR
13498), provides that, at a minimum, the methods should meet the
following four principles: (1) Emission reductions from control
measures must be quantifiable; (2) control measures must be
enforceable; (3) interpretation of the control measures must be
replicable; and, (4) control measures must be accountable.
Section 182(b)(1)(D) of the Act prescribes limits on what control
measures states can include in ROP plans. All permanent and enforceable
control measures occurring after 1990 are creditable with the following
exceptions: (1) FMVCP requirements promulgated by January 1, 1990; (2)
RVP regulations promulgated by November 15, 1990; (3) Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) ``Fix-Up'' regulations required
under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Act; and (4) Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) program ``Fix-Ups'' as required under section
182(a)(2)(B) of the Act.

(8) What Are the Emission Control Measures in Wisconsin's Post-1999 ROP
Plan?

(a) VOC control strategies. The VOC control measures identified in
Wisconsin's post-1999 ROP plan are Phase 2 reformulated gasoline, on-
board diagnostic testing of automobiles, NLEV, Tier 2 and low sulfur
gasoline programs. The VOC emission reductions from each of these
federal control programs is in Table 9, below. Phase 2 RFG is required
in certain areas including the Milwaukee-Racine area and was introduced
in 2001. Under section 182(c)(3) of the Act, Wisconsin must incorporate
OBD testing into its overall I/M program. This test uses the emissions
diagnostic system that manufacturers must include on all 1996 and newer
automobiles. Wisconsin is phasing this required test into its program
starting in May 2001 and is expected to submit a revision to the I/M
SIP this summer. EPA must finally approve the OBD testing revision to
the I/M SIP prior to full and final approval of the post-1999 ROP plan.
Federal regulations for NLEV, Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards
and low sulfur gasoline motor vehicle emissions were promulgated by EPA
(See 40 CFR parts 9, 80, 85 and 86) and will continue to reduce motor
vehicle emissions. The VOC emission reductions from all these control
measures were determined with the MOBILE5a model.
(b) NO_X Control Strategies. Wisconsin adopted a rule, NR
428, to reduce NO_X emissions from stationary sources, which
it submitted to us as a SIP revision. NR 428 establishes system
NO_X emissions for electric generating units starting at the
end of 2002. NO_X emission limits for most of the utility
boilers during the ozone season

[[Page 34894]]

established by the rule are 0.33 lbs/mmBTU effective on December 31,
2002, 0.29 lbs/mmBTU effective on December 31, 2005, and 0.28 lbs/mmBTU
effective on December 31, 2007. The limits are applicable to sources in
the eight county area. Emission reductions are estimated by applying
the specific emission limits to each known source for each milestone
year.
NR 428 also establishes NO_X emission rates and
combustion optimization requirements for Non-EGUs, or existing large
sources other than utilities based on the unit's capacity and
utilization, starting at the end of 2002. Emission reduction estimates
are based on historical data. Wisconsin applied the performance
standards on a projection of potentially affected sources based on an
analysis of 1995 data.
NR 428 also establishes annual NO_X emission limits for
new stationary sources based on unit capacity. This part of the rule is
intended to capture sources that are not covered under the new source
review or prevention of significant deterioration permitting
provisions. The effective date for new sources is February 1, 2001. The
emission reductions estimates were based on permitting trends of the
past few years.
The emission reductions estimated from these controls are in Table
9.
The state submitted NR 428 to us as a SIP revision. We are
proposing to approve NR 428 elsewhere in this Federal Register. NR 428
must be fully and finally approved no later than the time we fully
approve the post-1999 ROP plan.
The compliance schedule in NR 428 for EGU emission rates and
performance standards is December 31 of 2002, 2005, and 2007 and
December 31, 2002 for non-EGU. A strict reading of the Act would
require that the 2002, 2005 and 2007 ROP milestones be met by November
15 of that year, i.e. 9% by November 15, 2002, and 2005, and 6% by
November 15, 2007. Although, some sources will comply in time to
achieve emission reductions prior to the compliance date and in time to
reduce emissions prior to the post-1999 ROP milestone date, some may
not. It is difficult to determine what emission reductions will be
achieved by November 15, 2002, 2005 and 2007. However, we believe that
it is reasonable and appropriate to allow ROP credit for these emission
reductions during the milestone periods, 00-02, 03-05, and 06-07, for
the reasons discussed below.
It would be severe to penalize Wisconsin for missing the
November 15 milestone date by 6 weeks. Wisconsin believes that sources
will be upgrading in advance to meet the December 31 compliance date
established by its rule to avoid disruption in power supply.
Wisconsin's ozone season starts on April 15. Consequently,
a rule with a November 15 compliance date would have the same net
effect as a rule with a December 31 compliance date. The net effect
being ozone precursor reductions prior to the next ozone season, April
15 of 2003, 2006 and 2008. Because both November 15 and December 31
occur before the start of the next ozone season, the ambient air
quality benefit that would be gained by advancing the compliance date
by six weeks would be de minimus and would not justify the
implementation of additional measures in the Milwaukee-Racine area for
purposes of the post-1999 plan. See ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Phoenix, Arizona Ozone Nonattainment Area, 15
Percent Rate of Progress Plan and 1990 Base Year Emission Inventory,''
proposed rule on January 26, 1998 (63 FR 3687) and final rule of May
27, 1998 (63 FR 28898).
Wisconsin's control strategy also includes emission reduction
credits from the Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program NO_X Cutpoints. The Enhanced I/M program has operated
in the six county Milwaukee-Racine severe area as well as Sheboygan
county since December 1995. NO_X limits for this program were
suspended but became effective on May 1, 2001. Wisconsin's rule AM-27-
00 established enforceable limits on NO_X emissions for the
I/M program. The emission reductions expected from the I/M
NO_X cutpoints are in Table 9, below. Reduction estimates
were determined through the MOBILE5a model. EPA published a conditional
approval of Wisconsin's I/M SIP revision on January 12, 1995 (60 FR
2881). Wisconsin submitted a revision on December 30, 1998 and another
revision is expected this summer. EPA must finally approve these
revisions to the I/M SIP prior to full and final approval of the post-
1999 ROP plan.
We have issued several policy documents, listed in the TSD for this
proposed rulemaking, which provide guidance for states to use in
quantifying emission reductions. We have also developed the MOBILE5a
model for the states to calculate emission reductions from mobile
sources.
Wisconsin appropriately used our policy documents and MOBILE5a
model for calculating emission reductions for VOC and NO_X.
Wisconsin obtained the necessary data for quantifying the source
baselines and emission reductions from a variety of sources as
previously discussed. Where Wisconsin had to develop its own
assumptions regarding emission reductions, it justified the assumptions
adequately based on existing data.
Table 9 summarizes the state's VOC and NO_X emission
reduction claims for the post-1999 ROP control measures, and the amount
of reductions we find approvable. Overall, Wisconsin's ROP plan
provides for 11.8 tpd, 19.6 tpd and 24.5 tpd of VOC emission reductions
and 56.47 tpd, 69.24 tpd, and 71.88 tpd of NO_X emission
reductions by 2002, 2005 and 2007, respectively.

Table 9.--Summary of Control Measures and Emission Reductions
[Control measures summary for the Milwaukee-Racine area]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control measures within the 6 County Milwaukee- VOC emission reductions NO_X emission reductions (tpd)
Racine severe ozone nonattainment area and (tpd) --------------------------------
Manitowoc and Sheboygan Counties (within 100 ----------------------------
kilometer boundary area) to meet ROP requirement 2002 2005 2007 2002 2005 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility--System Emission Rate, 0.33................ ......... ......... .... 38.07 ......... .........
Utility--System Emission Rate, 0.29................ ......... ......... .... ......... 53.34 .........
Utility--System Emission Rate, 0.28................ ......... ......... .... ......... ......... 58.68
Performance Standards for Existing Facilities...... ......... ......... .... 4.6 4.6 4.6
Performance Standards for New Sources.............. ......... ......... .... 0.2 1.2 1.8
Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) NO_X ......... ......... .... 13.6 10.1 6.8
Cutpoints.........................................
Phase 2 RFG........................................ 5.80 5.80 5.80 ......... ......... .........
OBD Testing........................................ 1.40 3.40 4.40 ......... ......... .........
Fleet Effect of NLEV, Tier 2, and Low Sulfur Fuel.. 4.60 10.40 14.3 ......... ......... .........
0
------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 34895]]

Total Emission Reductions From Control Measures 11.80 19.60 24.5 56.47 69.24 71.88
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tables 10 and 11 summarize and demonstrate that Wisconsin's post-
1999 ROP plan will achieve sufficient VOC and NO_X emission
reductions to satisfy the ROP requirement and target levels.

Table 10.--Comparison of Required Emission Reductions to Control Measure Emission Reductions and Target Levels
to Projected Controlled Emissions for VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control
Required measures Projected
Year emission emission Target levels controlled
reductions reductions emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.............................. 6.53 11.8 234.04 228.77
2005.............................. 15.89 19.6 225.76 218.72
2007.............................. 20.14 24.5 222.32 212.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 11.--Comparison of Required Emission Reductions to Control Measure Emission Reductions and Target Levels
to Projected Emissions for NO_X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control
Required measures Projected
Year emission emission Target levels controlled
reductions reductions emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.............................. 46.15 56.47 343.15 332.83
2005.............................. 52.31 69.24 315.59 298.66
2007.............................. 56.98 71.88 296.88 281.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(9) Are the emission control measures and calculated emission
reductions acceptable, and is the post-1999 ROP plan approvable? The
emission control measures and associated emission reductions are
creditable for purposes of the post-1999 ROP plan, and the plan is
approvable provided that NR 428, the state's stationary NO_X
rule, the OBD testing of automobiles and the I/M NO_X
cutpoints SIP revisions to the I/M program are fully and finally
approved into the SIP prior to or at the same time as the post-1999 ROP
plan. Table 12 provides the status of the VOC and NO_X
control measures with respect to state adoption, SIP approval or
federal promulgation.

Table 12.--Federal Approval or Promulgation of Control Measures in the
Milwaukee-Racine Area Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control measure Status of rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2 RFG....................... Federal Regulation, 40 CFR 80,
Subpart D, February 16, 1994 (59 FR
7716).
NLEV.............................. Federal Regulation, 40 CFR Parts 9,
85 and 86, January 6, 1998 (63 FR
925).
Tier 2; Low Sulfur Fuel........... Federal Regulation, 40 CFR Parts 80,
85 and 86, February 10, 2000 (65 FR
6698).
Stationary Source NO_X Rule........ State rule (NR 428) adopted and
submitted to EPA on 12/22/00 as SIP
revisions. Region 5 is reviewing
and processing the submittal. The
rule must be fully and finally
approved prior to approval of the
post-1999 ROP plan.
Motor Vehicle Inspection and Conditional Approval on January 12,
Maintenance--NO_X Cutpoints and 1995 (60 FR 2881). Revision
OBD Testing. submitted on December 30, 1998.
Additional supplement is expected
from the State by summer 2001. NO_X
Cutpoints and OBD testing must be
fully and finally approved prior to
approval of the post-1999 ROP plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Contingency Plan
(1) What are the requirements for contingency measures? Section
172(c)(9) of the Act required states with ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate and above to adopt contingency measures by
November 15, 1993. Such measures were to provide for the implementation
of specific emission control measures if an ozone nonattainment area
failed to achieve ROP or failed to attain the NAAQS within the time-
frame specified under the Act. Section 182(c)(9) of the Act requires
that, in addition to the contingency measures required under section
172(c)(9), the contingency measure SIP revisions for serious and above
ozone nonattainment areas must also provide for the implementation of
specific measures if the area fails to meet any applicable milestone in
the Act. The contingency measures must take effect without further
action by the state or by the EPA Administrator upon failure by the
state to: meet ROP emission reduction milestones; achieve attainment of
the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the Act's required deadline;

[[Page 34896]]

or achieve other applicable milestones of the Act.
Our policy, as provided in the April 16, 1992 ``General Preamble,''
states that the contingency measures, in total, must generally be able
to provide for a 3 percent reduction of 1990 VOC baseline emissions
beyond the ROP reduction required for each particular milestone year.
While all contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or
measures, states can use the measures in two different ways. A state
can choose to implement contingency measures before the milestone
deadline. Alternatively, a state may decide not to implement
contingency measures until an area has actually failed to achieve a ROP
or attainment milestone. In the latter situation, the state must
implement the contingency measure within one year following
identification of a milestone failure.
Finally, EPA believes that it is illogical to penalize states for
early implementation of contingency measures by requiring additional
adopted contingency measures to backfill the early implemented
measures. But, if an area fails to attain, demonstrate RFP or misses a
milestone, then additional contingency measures are needed and must be
adopted. (See August 13, 1993, memorandum from G. T. Helms, ``Early
Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO) Nonattainment Areas'').
The additional 3 percent reduction would ensure that progress
toward attainment occurs at a rate similar to that specified under the
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)(also called the Rate of Progress or
ROP) requirements for severe areas (3 percent per year) and that the
state will achieve these reductions while conducting additional control
measure development and implementation as necessary to correct the
shortfall in emissions reductions or to adopt newly required measures
necessary to reach attainment.
2. How do Wisconsin's attainment demonstration and post-1999 ROP
plan SIPs address the contingency measure requirements? EPA approved a
contingency plan for Wisconsin with the approval of the 15% ROP plan on
March 22, 1996 (61 FR 11735). The contingency plan contained four
contingency measures: Class C reformulated gasoline (RFG) in moderate
counties, Class B RFG in severe counties, federal non-road engine
standards and federal consumer and commercial products. All of these
measures have been implemented and are thus no longer valid as
contingency measures, with the exception of Class C RFG in moderate
counties. Therefore, Wisconsin must provide a new contingency plan.
Wisconsin's December 22, 2000 one-hour attainment demonstration
submittal suggests that, since contingency measures do not have to be
implemented until a year after a milestone failure, i.e. 2003, 2006 and
2008, and our policy allows early implementation of contingency
measures, the state's stationary source NO_X rule, in
particular emission reductions that will be achieved from electric
generating units and VOC emissions from OBD testing, will achieve the
necessary emission reductions to meet the 3% contingency plan
requirement. The submittal provides calculations illustrating what the
contingency plan emission reduction requirement is (in tpd) and
demonstrates that the contingency measure requirement will be met with
the reductions achieved by OBD testing and the state's stationary
source NO_X rule.
The state also commits to work with EPA to address any additional
shortfalls that may occur due to unforseen circumstances.
The contingency requirement for each milestone year is in Table 13
with the VOC/ NO_X apportionment of the 3% identified by
Wisconsin:

Table 13.--Contingency Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant 2002 2005 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Adjusted VOC ROP Base Year 325.71 323.91 323.71
Emission Inventory for Milestone
Year............................
Percent of Contingency from VOC.. 0.12 0.3 0.6
Required VOC Contingency......... 0.39 0.97 1.94
1990 Adjusted NO_X ROP Base Year 363.12 360.82 360.12
Emission Inventory for Milestone
Year............................
Percent of Continency from NO_X... 2.88 2.7 2.4
Required NO_X Contingency......... 10.46 9.74 8.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, consistent with the apportionment of VOC and NO_X
in Wisconsin's post-1999 ROP plan, the contingency plan must provide
for 0.39 tpd, 0.97 tpd and 1.94 tpd of VOC reductions and 10.46 tpd,
9.74 tpd and 8.64 tpd of NO_X reductions, by 2003, 2006 and
2008, respectively, in addition to the required post-1999 ROP
reductions, to satisfy the contingency measure requirements of the Act.
(3) Do the Wisconsin Attainment Demonstration and Post-1999 ROP
Plan Meet the Contingency Measure Requirements? The following tables
present a comparison of the needed emission reductions for post-1999
ROP and contingency measures and the emission reductions provided by
the control measures in the post-1999 ROP plan. Again, Wisconsin
identified the state's stationary source NO_X rule and OBD
testing as the measures that would achieve the required contingency
emission reductions.

Table 14.--Comparison of Needed and Creditable Emission Reductions for
2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Reduction Needed for 3.5 percent ROP (tpd).......... 6.53
VOC Reduction Needed for 0.12 percent Contingency (tpd). 0.39
Total VOC Reductions Needed for ROP and Contingency 6.92
(tpd)..................................................
Total Creditable VOC Reduction (tpd).................... 11.8
NO_X Reduction Needed for 5.5 percent ROP (tpd).......... 46.15
NO_X Reduction Needed for 2.88 percent Contingency (tpd). 10.46
---------------
Total NO_X Reductions Needed for ROP and Contingency \8\ 56.61
(tpd)..................................................
---------------

[[Page 34897]]

Total Creditable NO_X Reduction (tpd).................... \6\ 56.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Although the total creditable NO_X emissions are about 0.1 tpd less
than the total required NO_X emission reductions necessary for ROP and
contingency in 2002, there are enough excess VOC emission reductions
(about 1.6%) that are anticipated to cover the contingency and ROP
requirement. Thus, the contingencies are acceptable.

Table 15.--Comparison of Needed and Creditable Emission Reductions for
2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Reduction Needed for 2.0 percent ROP (tpd).......... 15.89
VOC Reduction Needed for 0.3 percent Contingency (tpd).. 0.97
Total VOC Reductions Needed for ROP and Contingency 16.86
(tpd)..................................................
Total Creditable VOC Reduction (tpd).................... 19.6
NO_X Reduction Needed for 7.0 percent ROP (tpd).......... 52.31
NO_X Reduction Needed for 2.7 percent Contingency (tpd).. 9.74
---------------
Total NO_X Reductions Needed for ROP and Contingency 62.05
(tpd)..................................................
---------------
Total Creditable NO_X Reduction (tpd).................... 69.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 16.--Comparison of Needed and Creditable Emission Reductions for
2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Reduction Needed for 1 percent ROP (tpd)............ 20.14
VOC Reduction Needed for 0.6 percent Contingency (tpd).. 1.94
Total VOC Reductions Needed for ROP and Contingency 22.08
(tpd)..................................................
Total Creditable VOC Reduction (tpd).................... 24.5
NO_X Reduction Needed for 5 percent ROP (tpd)............ 56.98
NO_X Reduction Needed for 2.4 percent Contingency (tpd).. 8.64
---------------
Total NO_X Reductions Needed for ROP and Contingency 65.62
(tpd)..................................................
---------------
Total Creditable NO_X Reduction (tpd).................... 71.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the contingency measures will be implemented early, i.e. in
advance of an identified milestone or attainment failure, Wisconsin
states that it will work with EPA to address any failure or shortfall
should one occur despite the early implementation of the contingency
measures.
In summary, Wisconsin adequately demonstrates that the post-1999
ROP and attainment demonstration control strategy will achieve VOC and
NO_X emission reductions sufficient to achieve the required
post-1999 ROP toward attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as well as
satisfy the contingency provisions for the Milwaukee-Racine ozone
nonattainment area. We are, therefore, proposing to approve Wisconsin's
post-1999 ROP plan in this action.

7. Transportation Conformity

Did the State Address Transportation Conformity in the Submittal and
Did the State Adopt Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets?
Section 176(c) of the Act requires a showing that regional
transportation plans, and transportation improvement programs, conform
to the emissions budgets for the mobile sector in the applicable
implementation plan, in this case for the milestone years of 2002,
2005, and 2007. Conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) must
address both VOC and NO_X emissions for nonattainment areas.
The MVEBs must be developed using consistent air quality and
transportation planning assumptions, and include the impact of emission
control programs incorporated in ROP plans and attainment
demonstrations.
The WDNR attainment demonstration submittal included ROP MVEBs for
VOC and NO_X for 2002 and 2005 for the six-county Milwaukee
nonattainment area, the Manitowoc nonattainment area, and the Sheboygan
maintenance area. The submittal also included a ROP/attainment MVEB for
2007 for the above areas. EPA's conformity regulation (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)) identifies the minimum criteria to judge the adequacy of
motor vehicle emission budgets for conformity purposes. The six
adequacy criteria and a description of how the submittal addresses them
are listed below.
a. The submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan was endorsed by the Governor (or his designee) and was
subject to a state public hearing. The WDNR submitted the rate-of-
progress/attainment demonstration package on December 22, 2000, by
letter signed by Tommy Thompson, Governor. The state held a public
hearing from June 27-29, 2000.
b. Before the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan was
submitted to EPA, consultation among federal, state, and local agencies
occurred; full implementation plan documentation was provided to EPA;
and EPA's stated concerns were addressed. The WDNR developed the motor
vehicle emission budgets for both the attainment demonstration and the
ROP plan through a consultative process. Transportation stakeholders
from the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), state Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and EPA participated in
this process. Documentation of this process was included in the
submittal.
c. The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is clearly identified and
precisely quantified. The MVEB's for 2002, 2005, and 2007 are clearly
identified and precisely quantified in Table 17 below.

[[Page 34898]]

Table 17.--Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 ROP 2005 ROP 2007 ROP/Attainment
Area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC (tpd) NO_X (tpd) VOC (tpd) NO_X (tpd) VOC (tpd) NO_X (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee................... 43.5 103.5 36.7 84.1 32.2 71.4
Manitowoc................... 5.4 10.0 5.2 8.8 5.2 8.3
Sheboygan................... 4.5 9.4 3.7 7.4 3.3 6.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together
with all other emissions sources, is consistent with applicable
requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or
maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given implementation plan
submission). The ROP MVEB's for 2002 and 2005, and the MVEB for the
2007 ROP/attainment year are consistent with the requirements for ROP
reductions and attainment, as delineated in EPA guidance. The UAM-V
modeling, submitted to support the demonstration of attainment, shows
that Wisconsin can reach attainment of the standard with the control
strategies described in the submittal.
e. The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent with and
clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in
the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan. The budgets for 2002 and 2005 ROP, and 2007 ROP/
attainment are calculated appropriately using the control strategies
identified in the ROP plan and the attainment demonstration. The
emissions inventory estimates and the VMT estimates used in the ROP and
attainment plan were used to calculate the budgets.
f. Revision to previously submitted control strategy implementation
plans or maintenance plans explain and document any changes to
previously submitted budgets and control measures, impacts on point and
area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins and
reason for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to
emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled). The 2002 and
2005 ROP budgets are new budgets and do not replace any previously
established budgets. The 2007 ROP/attainment demonstration budgets,
when found adequate, will replace the 2007 VOC and NO_X
budgets that were established by the April 30, 1998 attainment
demonstration submittal. The 2007 budgets in the December 22, 2000
submittal are well documented and impacts on all sources including
point, area and mobile sources are considered. This information is
based on the most up to date planning assumptions available.
g. EPA review of the state's compilation of public comments and
response to comments. EPA has reviewed the public comments submitted to
the state during the state public comment period. The state received
four comments on the development and assumptions used in the motor
vehicle emissions budgets. There were no adverse public comments on the
proposed budgets for Milwaukee, Sheboygan, and Manitowoc counties.
Additionally, the state submitted conformity budgets in conjunction
with its April 1998 one-hour ozone submittal. EPA found those budgets
adequate on an interim basis in May 2000, but required the state to
resubmit budgets consistent with its December 2000 attainment
demonstration. EPA also required the state to commit to revise the 2007
attainment year budget from the December 2000 attainment demonstration
within one-year from the formal release of MOBILE6 to more accurately
represent the emission estimates associated with the Tier 2/Low Sulfur
gasoline program. In its December 2000 submittal, Wisconsin committed
to recalculate the 2002 and 2005 ROP budgets and the 2007 ROP/
attainment budgets in the attainment demonstration ``in a timely
fashion.'' In a letter dated May 28, 2001, the state clarified this
commitment to mean within one year from the formal release of MOBILE6.
Today's proposed action to approve the 2002 and 2005 ROP budgets
and the 2007 attainment budgets contained in the December 2000
submittal would be effective for conformity purposes only until the
revised motor vehicle emissions budgets are submitted and EPA has found
them adequate. We are proposing to limit the duration of our approval
in this manner because we would only approve the attainment
demonstration and its budget contingent on the State's commitment to
revise the budget within one year of the formal release of MOBILE6.
Therefore, once the state has revised its budgets and EPA has
established an effective date for the adequacy of the revised budgets,
the revised budget (recalculated with MOBILE6) would apply for
conformity purposes. If the revised budgets raise issues about the
sufficiency of the attainment demonstration, EPA will work with the
state to address those issues. If the revised budgets show that motor
vehicle emissions budgets are lower than the budgets we are proposing
to approve today, a reassessment of the attainment demonstration's
analysis will be necessary before reallocating the emission reductions
or assigning them as a safety margin. In other words, the area must
assess how its attainment demonstration is impacted by using MOBILE6
vs. MOBILE5 before it reallocates any apparent emission reductions
resulting from the use of MOBILE6.

8. Commitment To Conduct a Mid-Course Review

In response to EPA's December 16, 1999, notice of proposed
conditional approval, the state submitted a commitment to perform a
mid-course review (MCR) of its attainment demonstration. The 1996
attainment test guidance discusses the need for periodic reviews of the
monitoring, modeling, and inventory data to assess whether original
attainment strategies need to be refined. A MCR is a reassessment of
modeling analyses and more recent monitored air quality data to
determine if a prescribed control strategy is resulting in emission
reductions and air quality improvements needed to attain the ambient
air quality standard for ozone as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than the statutory date. The state submitted its commitment in a
letter dated February 22, 2000, from Lloyd Eagan, Director, Bureau of
Air Management to Mr. Francis X. Lyons, Region 5 Administrator. The
letter commits to perform a reassessment of the attainment status of
the one-hour ozone nonattainment areas in the Lake Michigan region by
December 31, 2003.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Because the regional NO_X controls resulting from
the SIP Call measures in upwind states will not be implemented until
2004, the WDNR may change the date of the MCR from 2003 to 2004 to
coincide with the SIP Call NO_X reductions. EPA would
consider that change acceptable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 34899]]

9. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)

What Are the Requirements for RACM Technology? Section 172(c)(1) of
the Act requires SIPs to contain RACM as necessary to provide for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. EPA has previously provided
guidance interpreting the RACM requirements of section 172(c)(1). See
57 FR 13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA stated that potentially
available measures that would not advance the attainment date for an
area would not be considered RACM. EPA also indicated in the guidance
that states should consider all potentially available measures to
determine whether they were reasonably available for implementation in
the area, and whether they would advance the attainment date. Further,
states should indicate in the SIP submittals whether the measures
considered are reasonably available or not, and if the measures are
reasonably available, they must be adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA
indicated that states could reject potential RACM either because they
would not advance the attainment date or would cause substantial
widespread and long-term adverse impacts. States could also consider
local conditions, such as economics or implementation concerns, in
rejecting potential RACM. The EPA also issued a recent memorandum on
this topic, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas.'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999.
How Does the State Analysis Address the RACM Requirement? The
Wisconsin RACM analysis discusses the reasonableness and effectiveness
of both additional transportation control measures and additional
stationary source control measures. The state concludes that there are
no control measures, above and beyond what the state is already
implementing, that would advance the Act's specified attainment date of
2007. Furthermore, the reductions from any potential additional RACM
measures are very small compared to the ROP reductions that will be
reached by 2007.
Consideration and Implementation of Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs). This section describes the analysis the state submitted to
evaluate and implement available transportation control measures (TCMs)
in the Milwaukee-Racine area. The WDNR and the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation used the 1996 Regional Travel Demand Strategy (TDS) as a
blueprint for actions considered for implementation in southeastern
Wisconsin in place of the Employee Commute Options program. The state-
selected actions included in the Regional TDS strategy were selected on
the basis of their implementation feasibility. The emissions reduction
potential of the TDM actions are very small. The total VOC and
NO_X emission reduction potential of the strategy for 2007 is
estimated to be 0.26 tons per hot summer weekday and 0.46 tons per hot
summer weekday, respectively.
A technical committee was developed to evaluate TCM's as part of a
working dialogue between WDNR and transportation stakeholders. The
committee consists of representatives from the DNR, the Department of
Transportation, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission, and Citizens for a Better Environment. The committee
evaluated a full list of potential TCMs on VMT reduction,
NO_X and/or VOC emission reductions, cost per ton,
implementation timeline, and feasibility (e.g., administrative costs,
funding, political/public acceptance). Although the state may consider
this list of measures for future SIP actions and planning, the measures
would not be effective at advancing the attainment date earlier than
2007.
Stationary Source and Area Sources RACM Analysis. The state has
pursued all reasonable VOC RACT, implemented enhanced I/M requirements
and reformulated gasoline, and must show no growth in emissions based
on growth in VMT for a 10-year period after the attainment
demonstration. The nonattainment area has a waiver from EPA regarding
NO_X control requirements, specifically NO_X RACT,
New Source Review, and certain NO_X vehicle inspection/
maintenance requirements. As part of the attainment demonstration and
the 2002-2007 rate-of-progress analysis, the WDNR evaluated which
NO_X control measures might prove beneficial to timely ozone
attainment in the region. It found that NO_X reductions from
the use of NO_X cutpoints for vehicles in the I/M program,
selective NO_X limitations on some of the major point
sources, and tightened emission limits for many new NO_X
sources would be beneficial. The NO_X reduction from these
programs from 2000-2007 is roughly 96 tons per day. More rapid
attainment depends on the speed of the vehicle and off-road equipment
fleet transition to newer technology and on the speed of the regional
NO_X controls associated with the NO_X SIP Call.
Given the status of the NO_X waiver in the nonattainment
area, the implementation of select NO_X control programs in
Wisconsin, and the regional NO_X reductions expected from the
SIP Call, the state concludes that no further stationary source control
measures, beyond those considered in the attainment demonstration, can
impact the state's attainment status for the years 2002-2006.
Additionally, the photochemical modeling accompanying the state
submittal shows that ozone concentrations in the Lake Michigan region
stem from local and regional emissions. NO_X and VOC
emissions in the Wisconsin portion of the modeling domain represent a
small portion of regional emissions and since the state has already
implemented emission control programs as required by the Act for severe
areas (considering the NO_X waiver), there are no reasonable
control measures available to the state that will accelerate attainment
of the standard. This conclusion is indicated in the modeling
documentation submitted by the state in support of the SIP revision.
The documentation contains a sensitivity run evaluating the incremental
impact of one of the more substantial emission reduction measures, Tier
II/low-sulfur gasoline. This measure is expected to reduce VOC
emissions by about 200 tons per day and NO_X emission by
about 700 tons per day across the larger regional modeling domain known
as grid M. This level of reduction resulted in a decrease in ozone peak
values in the modeling domain of roughly 1-2 ppb. Reductions of VOC and
NO_X across Wisconsin due to the implementation of the Tier
II/low-sulfur gasoline program are about 15 tons per day and 70 tons
per day, respectively. Reductions within the nonattainment area would
be even less. Any of the control measures that Wisconsin did not select
for implementation as part of its ROP or attainment program are
significantly smaller in terms of reduction potential than the Tier II/
low-sulfur program. Thus, their contribution to improving ozone air
quality would be much less than 1 ppb and would not advance attainment
of the ozone standard earlier than 2007.
Modeling conducted by LADCO and EPA has shown that regional
reductions of NO_X are required for the Lake Michigan area to
attain the ozone standard. Sensitivity tests showed that without
regional reductions in NO_X and boundary ozone levels, VOC
must be reduced as much as 90% in the Lake

[[Page 34900]]

Michigan area to achieve attainment.\10\ This level of VOC reduction is
obviously not possible without extremely harsh and expensive measures.
The Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) process and resultant
NO_X SIP Call reduction requirements apply in areas upwind of
the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area and provide for boundary level
ozone reduction. These reductions, in combination with local controls,
are instrumental in the area achieving attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Lake Michigan Ozone Study--Lake Michigan Ozone Control
Program Project Report, Volume II--Overview, December 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the Milwaukee-Racine Attainment Demonstration Submittal Meet
the RACM Requirement? The EPA has reviewed the submitted attainment
demonstration documentation, the process used by the control agencies
to review and select TCMs, other possible reduction measures for point
and area sources, and the emissions inventory for the Milwaukee-Racine
area. Although EPA encourages areas to implement available RACM
measures as potentially cost effective methods to achieve emissions
reductions in the short term, EPA does not believe that section
172(c)(1) requires implementation of potential RACM measures that
either require costly implementation efforts or produce relatively
small emissions reductions that will not be sufficient to allow the
area to achieve attainment in advance of full implementation of all
other required measures.
The attainment demonstration for the Milwaukee-Racine severe
nonattainment areas indicates that the ozone benefit expected from
regional NO_X reductions is substantial. In addition, many of
the measures designed to achieve emissions reductions from within the
nonattainment area will not be fully implemented prior to the 2007
nonattainment date. Therefore, EPA concludes, based on the available
documentation, that since the reductions from potential RACM measures
do not nearly equate to the reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment, none of the measures could advance the attainment date
prior to full implementation of the SIP call and full implementation of
the ROP measures, and thus there are no additional potential local
measures that can be considered RACM for this area.

III. Proposed Actions

EPA is proposing action on several different components of the
Milwaukee-Racine one-hour ozone attainment demonstration package
submitted by WDNR on December 22, 2000. Most of the components are
approvable as submitted. One requires action by the WDNR to be found
fully approvable. Consequently, EPA is proposing approval of most
components and parallel processing one component.
EPA is proposing approval of: The modeled attainment demonstration,
the NO_X rule, the revision to the NO_X waiver, the
rule to control VOCs from industrial solvent cleaning operations, the
SIP order requiring VOC control for Flint Ink, the conformity budgets
for the 2007 attainment year, until such time that a revised budget is
submitted and found adequate for conformity purposes as called for by
the state in its commitment to recalculate and apply a revised budget
for conformity within one year of the formal release of MOBILE6, the
RACM analysis, the commitment to conduct a mid-course review of the
attainment status of the Lake Michigan area, and the post-1999 ROP
plan. EPA is also proposing to approve, with a disapproval in the
alternative, the draft rule requiring VOC controls from plastic parts
coating operations. The plastic parts coating operations rule will
proceed with a final approval if the final rule is not significantly
different from the draft and is submitted before September 1, 2001. If
the final rule is not submitted in a timely fashion, EPA will proceed
with a disapproval without reproposing.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health
or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order
13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget,
in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism

[[Page 34901]]

implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by
state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications
and that preempts state law unless the Agency consults with state and
local officials early in the process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D, of the Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the state is already
imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under
the Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: June 21, 2001.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 01-16567 Filed 6-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Ozone

Local Navigation