[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32055-32058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15412]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI75-01-7304; FRL-5840-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve 
Wisconsin's request to grant an exemption for the Milwaukee severe and 
Manitowoc County moderate ozone nonattainment areas from the applicable 
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) transportation conformity 
requirements. On July 10, 1996, the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resource (WDNR) submitted to the EPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision request for an exemption under section 182(b)(1) of the Clean 
Air Act (Act) from the transportation conformity requirements for 
NOX for the Milwaukee severe and Manitowoc County moderate 
ozone nonattainment areas. The request is based on the urban airshed 
modeling (UAM) conducted for the attainment demonstration for the Lake 
Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS) modeling domain. The rationale for this 
proposed approval is set forth in Supplementary Information; additional 
information is available at the address indicated.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by July 14, 
1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590. 
Copies of the SIP revision, public comments and EPA's responses are 
available for inspection at the following address: United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended 
that you telephone Michael Leslie at (312) 353-6680 before visiting the 
Region 5 Office.)
    A copy of this SIP revision is available for inspection at the 
following location: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and 
Information Center (Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20460, (202) 260-7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Leslie, Regulation 
Development Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312) 
353-6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Clean Air Act section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii) requires, in order to 
demonstrate conformity with the applicable SIP, that transportation 
plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) contribute to 
emissions reductions in ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas 
during the period before control strategy SIPs are approved by USEPA. 
This requirement is implemented in 40 CFR 51.436 through 51.440 (and 
Secs. 93.122 through 93.124), which establishes the so-called ``build/
no-build test.'' This test requires a demonstration that the ``Action'' 
scenario (representing the implementation of the proposed 
transportation plan/TIP) will result in lower motor vehicle emissions 
than the ``Baseline'' scenario (representing the implementation of the 
current transportation plan/TIP). In addition, the ``Action'' scenario 
must result in emissions lower than 1990 levels.
    The November 24, 1993, final transportation conformity rule 
1 does not require the build/no-build test and less-than-
1990 test for NOX as an ozone precursor in ozone 
nonattainment areas, where the Administrator determines that additional 
reductions of NOX would not contribute to attainment of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Clean Air Act 
section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii), which is the conformity provision requiring 
contributions to emission reductions before SIPs with emissions budgets 
can be approved, specifically references Clean Air Act section 
182(b)(1). That section requires submission of State plans that, among 
other things, provide for specific annual reductions of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX emissions ``as necessary'' 
to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date. Section 
182(b)(1) further states that its requirements do not apply in the case 
of NOX for those ozone nonattainment areas for which USEPA 
determines that additional reductions of NOX would not 
contribute to ozone attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to 
State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, 
Programs, and Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. of 
the Federal Transit Act'' November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For ozone nonattainment areas, the process for submitting waiver 
requests and the criteria used to evaluate them are explained in the 
December 1993 USEPA document ``Guidelines for Determining the 
Applicability of Nitrogen Oxides Requirements Under Section 182(f),'' 
and the May 27, 1994, and February 8, 1995, memoranda from John S. 
Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 
Regional Air Division Directors, titled ``Section 182(f) NOX 
Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria.''
    On July 13, 1994, the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and 
Wisconsin (the States) submitted to the USEPA a petition for an 
exemption from the requirements of section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act 
(Act). The States, acting through the Lake Michigan Air Directors 
Consortium (LADCo), petitioned for an exemption from the Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) and New Source Review (NSR) 
requirements for major stationary sources of NOX. The 
petition also asked for an exemption from the transportation and 
general conformity requirements for NOX in all ozone 
nonattainment areas in the Region.
    On March 6, 1995, the USEPA published a rulemaking proposing 
approval of the NOX exemption petition

[[Page 32056]]

for the RACT, NSR and transportation and general conformity 
requirements. A number of comments were received on the proposal. 
Several commenters argued that NOX exemptions are provided 
for in two separate parts of the Act, in sections 182(b)(1) and 182(f), 
but that the Act's transportation conformity provisions in section 
176(c)(3) explicitly reference section 182(b)(1). In April 1995, the 
USEPA entered into an agreement to change the procedural mechanism 
through which a NOX exemption from transportation conformity 
would be granted (EDF et al. v. USEPA, No. 94-1044, U.S. Court of 
Appeals, D.C. Circuit). Instead of a petition under 182(f), 
transportation conformity NOX exemptions for ozone 
nonattainment areas that are subject to section 182(b)(1) now need to 
be submitted as a SIP revision request. The Milwaukee and the Manitowoc 
ozone nonattainment areas are classified as moderate or above and, 
thus, are subject to section 182(b)(1).
    The transportation conformity requirements are found at sections 
176(c) (2), (3), and (4). The conformity requirements apply on an 
areawide basis in all nonattainment and maintenance areas. The USEPA's 
transportation conformity rule was amended on August 29, 1995 (60 FR 
44762) to reference section 182(b)(1) rather than 182(f) as the means 
for exempting areas subject to section 182(b)(1) from the 
transportation conformity NOX requirements.
    The July 10, 1996, SIP revision request from Wisconsin was 
submitted to meet the requirements in accordance with 182(b)(1). Public 
hearings on this SIP revision request were held on January 11 and 12, 
1995.
    In evaluating the 182(b) SIP revision request, the USEPA considered 
whether additional NOX reductions would contribute to 
attainment of the standard in Milwaukee severe and Manitowoc County 
moderate ozone nonattainment areas and also in the downwind areas of 
the LMOS modeling domain.
    The role that NOX emissions play in producing ozone at 
any given place and time is complex. NOX primarily 
represents a sum of two oxides of nitrogen, namely nitrogen oxide (NO) 
and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). In the presence of sunlight, 
NOX photo-dissociates into NO and a single oxygen atom. The 
oxygen atom reacts with molecular oxygen (O2) to form ozone 
(O3). NO, on the other hand, near its source area readily 
reacts with ozone to form O2 and NO2. The 
generated NO2 is then free to photo-dissociate and lead to 
ozone formation further downwind. The reaction of NO with ozone, which 
locally reduces ozone concentrations, is referred to as ozone 
scavenging and is one of the primary local sinks for ozone in the lower 
atmosphere in and near NO source areas. Since emissions of 
NOX from fuel combustion sources, whether internal 
combustion engines or stationary combustion sources, such as industrial 
boilers, contain significant amounts of NO, it is expected that ozone 
concentrations immediately downwind of such NOX sources will 
be reduced through ozone scavenging. Therefore, reducing NOX 
emissions can lead to increased ozone concentrations in the vicinity of 
the controlled NOX emission sources, whereas reducing 
NOX emissions may lead to reduction in ozone concentrations 
further downwind. Reducing NOX emissions in VOC-limited 
areas (areas with low VOC emissions relative to NOX 
emissions) may produce minimal ozone reductions or even ozone 
increases.
    As outlined in relevant USEPA guidance, the use of photochemical 
grid modeling is the recommended approach for testing the contribution 
of NOX emission reductions to attainment of the ozone 
standard. This approach simulates conditions over the modeling domain 
that may be expected at the attainment deadline for three emission 
reduction scenarios: (1) Substantial VOC reductions, (2) substantial 
NOX reductions, and (3) both VOC and NOX 
reductions. If the areawide predicted maximum one-hour ozone 
concentration for each day modeled under scenario (1) is less than or 
equal to those from scenarios (2) and (3) for the corresponding days, 
the test is passed and the section 182(f) NOX emissions 
reduction requirements would not apply.
    In making this determination under section 182(b)(1) that the 
NOX requirements do not apply, or may be limited in the Lake 
Michigan area, the USEPA has considered the national study of ozone 
precursors completed pursuant to section 185B of the Act. The USEPA has 
based its decision on the demonstration and the supporting information 
provided in the SIP revision request.

II. Summary of Submittal

    On July 10, 1996, the State of Wisconsin submitted as a revision to 
the SIP, a request for a waiver from the transportation conformity 
NOX requirements. The submittal included the LMOS UAM 
modeling for the attainment demonstration for 3 ozone episodes during 
1991. The modeling supported the request by documenting that 
NOX reductions in the LMOS modeling domain would not 
contribute to attainment and, in fact, would be detrimental to the goal 
of reaching attainment. The WDNR held public hearings on the submittal 
on January 11 and 12, 1995.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A, 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart T, 
the SIP revision request seeks an exemption from the transportation 
conformity requirements for NOX in the Milwaukee severe and 
Manitowoc moderate ozone nonattainment area. The States have utilized 
the UAM to demonstrate that reductions in NOX in the LMOS 
modeling domain will not contribute to attainment of the standard. To 
conduct the modeling analysis, the following steps were followed: (a) 
Emissions were projected to 1996 (the deadline for implementation of 
the 15 percent reasonable further progress reduction) and 2007 (the 
attainment deadline for the severe nonattainment areas) from the 1990 
base year, (b) it was assumed that a 40 percent VOC emission reduction 
beyond that achieved as a result of emission controls mandated by the 
Act would be necessary to attain the ozone standard in the LMOS 
modeling domain, (c) a 40 percent NOX emission reduction in 
grid B (that portion of the LMOS modeling domain that is essentially 
composed of the ozone nonattainment areas within the modeling domain) 
beyond the projected emission levels was assumed for all anthropogenic 
NOX emissions, (d) a 40 percent VOC emission reduction and a 
40 percent NOX reduction in grid B beyond projected emission 
levels were assumed for all anthropogenic VOC and NOX 
emissions and (e), the ozone modeling results for (b), (c), and (d) 
were compared considering the modeled domain-wide peak ozone 
concentrations and temporal and spatial extent of modeled ozone 
concentrations above 120 parts per billion (ppb).
    For all modeled days using 1996 and 2007 conditions, domain-wide 
peak ozone concentrations for ``VOC-only'' controls were found to be 
lower than or equal to those for ``NOX-only'' controls or 
those for ``VOC plus NOX'' controls. In addition, 
consideration of daily peak ozone isopleth maps (these maps are 
included in the documentation of the section 182(b) SIP revision 
request) shows that the ``VOC-only'' control scenario leads to the 
smallest areas with predicted peak ozone concentrations exceeding 120 
ppb.
    Additional sensitivity tests were conducted for a 40 percent 
NOX emission reduction that was applied only to point 
sources in Grid B for episode 2 and 1996 conditions for both an assumed 
NOX reduction alone and a 40 percent reduction in both VOCs 
and

[[Page 32057]]

NOX. These sensitivity tests compared to the scenarios with 
across the board anthropogenic NOX reductions demonstrated 
that control of ground level NOX sources (such as 
transportation sources) did not contribute to attainment of the 
standard and in fact increased the domain wide peak ozone 
concentrations exceeding 120 ppb and the number of hours that exceeded 
120 ppb. This result was more pronounced than with the point source 
only NOX control.

III. Analysis of the Submittal

    Review of the modeling results show a very definite directional 
signal indicating that application of NOX controls in the 
Milwaukee severe and Manitowoc County moderate ozone nonattainment 
areas would exacerbate peak ozone concentrations not in the LMOS 
modeling domain. The LMOS modeling domain includes Chicago, Northwest 
Indiana, Western Michigan and Eastern Wisconsin. The States and LADCo 
have now completed the validation process for the UAM modeling system 
used in the demonstration of attainment for the LMOS modeling domain. 
Therefore, documentation supporting the validity of the modeling 
results has been submitted with the SIP revision request.
    It is noted that the use of simple, area-wide emission projection 
factors raises some uncertainty in the modeling results for 1996 and 
2007. Some changes in modeling results may be expected if area-specific 
and source category-specific projection factors are used instead of the 
average factors used in these analyses. These more detailed projection 
factors will be used in the final demonstration of attainment for the 
LMOS domain. These changes, however, are not expected to reverse the 
directional signal of the modeling done to date, which shows that 
NOX reductions will not contribute to attainment in 
Milwaukee severe and Manitowoc County moderate ozone nonattainment 
areas and throughout the LMOS domain.
    Although ozone concentrations modeled further downwind from the 
urban source areas increase as a result of increased NOX 
point source emissions, this is not the case with the ground level 
NOX sources. LADCo and the States view the potential 
increase in outflow ozone concentrations with increasing NOX 
point source emissions to be marginal. More importantly, the SIP 
revision request demonstrates that additional reductions in 
NOX would not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard 
in the LMOS domain. These results are believed to be consistent with 
USEPA's section 185B report to Congress. Therefore, based on the 
report's conformance with USEPA guidance, the USEPA believes the State 
of Wisconsin's demonstration is adequate, and thus is proposing to 
approve the transportation conformity waiver request. It is noted by 
LADCo, however, that subsequent modeling analyses may lead to an ozone 
attainment plan which includes, for specified portions of the LMOS 
domain only, both NOX and VOC emission controls. The 
modeling indicates that these NOX emission controls most 
likely will be limited to rural areas, will not be required in the 
Wisconsin nonattainment area and will not be applied to ground level 
sources.
    Monitoring data such as concentrations of non-methane hydrocarbons 
and NOX and derived/monitored ozone production potentials of 
air parcels, collected for the urban source areas during the 1991 field 
study, generally supports the approval of the NOX waiver. 
However, the primary basis for approval of the NOX waiver is 
the modeling results submitted in support of the waiver. The 1991 field 
data by themselves do not provide adequate support for the waiver, 
since these data are limited in nature and do not assess the impacts of 
post-1991 NOX controls on LMOS modeling domain peak ozone 
concentrations.
    VOC and NOX emission reductions were found to produce 
different impacts spatially. In and downwind of major urban areas, 
within the ozone nonattainment areas, VOC reductions were effective in 
lowering peak ozone concentrations, while NOX emission 
reductions resulted in increased peak ozone concentrations. Farther 
downwind, within attainment areas, VOC emissions reductions became less 
effective for reducing ozone concentrations, while NOX 
emission reductions were effective in lowering ozone concentrations. 
The magnitude of ozone decreases farther downwind due to NOX 
emission reductions was less than the magnitude of ozone increases in 
the ozone nonattainment areas as a result of the same NOX 
emission reductions.
    Analyses of ambient data by LMOS contractors provided results which 
corroborated the modeling results. These analyses identified areas of 
VOC and NOX-limited conditions (VOC-limited conditions would 
imply a greater sensitivity of ozone concentrations to changes in VOC 
emissions; the reverse would be true for NOX-limited 
conditions) and tracked the ozone and ozone precursor concentrations in 
the urban plumes as they moved downwind. The analyses indicated VOC-
limited conditions in the Chicago/Northwest Indiana and Milwaukee areas 
and NOX-limited conditions further downwind. These results 
imply that VOC controls in the Chicago/Northwest Indiana, Milwaukee, 
and Western Michigan areas would be more effective at reducing peak 
ozone concentrations within the Lake Michigan ozone nonattainment 
areas.
    The consistency between the modeling results and the ambient data 
analysis results for all episodes with joint data supports the view 
that the UAM modeling system developed in the LMOS may be used to 
investigate the relative merits of VOC versus NOX emission 
controls. The UAM-V results for all modeled episodes point to the 
benefits of VOC controls versus NOX controls in reducing the 
modeled domain peak ozone concentrations.
    For a more detailed analysis of the modeling analysis results, 
please see the August 22, 1994 memorandum entitled ``Technical Review 
of a Four State Request for a Section 182(f) Exemption from Oxides of 
Nitrogen (NOX) Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT) and New Source Review (NSR) Requirements'', which is contained 
in the docket for this action.
    The USEPA believes LADCo's UAM application has adequately met the 
requirement to demonstrate that NOX controls within the 
Milwaukee severe and Manitowoc County moderate ozone nonattainment 
areas and throughout the LMOS domain will not contribute, but instead 
will interfere with attainment of the ozone standard.

IV. EPA Action

    The EPA is proposing approval of the transportation conformity 
NOX waiver SIP revision for the State of Wisconsin. In light 
of the modeling completed thus far and considering the importance of 
the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) process and attainment plan 
modeling efforts, EPA proposes to approve this NOX waiver on 
a contingent basis. When the results of OTAG technical work are 
available, EPA intends to require appropriate States to submit SIP 
measures to ensure emissions reductions of ozone precursors needed to 
prevent significant transport of ozone. The EPA will evaluate the OTAG 
technical work, along with EPA's emissions reduction requirements, to 
determine whether the NOX waiver should be continued, 
altered, or removed.
    The EPA also reserves the right to require NOX emission 
controls for transportation sources under section 110(a)(2)(D) of the 
Act if future ozone

[[Page 32058]]

modeling demonstrates that such controls are needed to achieve the 
ozone standard in downwind areas.

V. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in 
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted 
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 
Alternatively, EPA may certify 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 government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    This approval does not impose any requirements on small entities. 
Therefore, I certify that this action does not have a significant 
economic impact on any small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the 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 of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under 
section 205, the 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 the EPA to 
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that 
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval 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 document does not imposes any Federal requirements. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Oxides of Nitrogen, Transportation 
conformity, Transportation--air quality planning, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: May 30, 1997.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-15412 Filed 6-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P