[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34878-34901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16567]


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

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 ( NOX) 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 
NOX

[[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 NOX waiver to reflect NOX 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: 
[email protected]

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 ( 
NOX), which are emitted by a wide variety of sources, react 
in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX 
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 
NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 
NOX emission reductions within each state to a level 
consistent with a NOX 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 
NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX 
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 NOX 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 NOX.
    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 NOX 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 
NOX, including an offset ratio of 1.3:1 and a major VOC and 
NOX source size cutoff of 25 tons per year (TPY).
     Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and 
NOX. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Areas that are currently attaining the one-hour ozone 
standard or can demonstrate that NOX controls will not 
contribute to or will interfere with attainment can request a 
NOX waiver under section 182(f). Milwaukee-Racine is such 
an area and is currently covered by a NOX 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 
NOX
     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 
NOX 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 NOX budgets for transportation conformity 
based on the final attainment demonstration and ROP plan.
    (4) An intrastate NOX rule for electric generating 
sources in the nonattainment counties starting in 2002.
    (5) A trading rule for NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX to full 
implementation of the SIP Call NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX 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) NOX /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 
NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX 
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 NOX 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 NOX 
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 NOX 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 NOX-ozone. And lastly, ``indicator'' species or 
ratios of species were used to distinquish between areas where VOC 
emission reductions versus NOX emission reductions were most 
effective. These three analyses indicate that a control strategy 
featuring regional NOX 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 NOX 
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 NOX controls.

3. State Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) Rule

What Are the Details of Wisconsin's State NOX Reduction 
Rule?
    Wisconsin submitted its NOX 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 NOX 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 NOx as a result of the EPA's 
NOX SIP Call. However, Wisconsin has chosen to reduce 
NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX reduction rule contains two basic elements; 
(1) Combustion optimization and NOX 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) NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX control when acting on the final 
attainment demonstration for areas within the region. The final 
demonstration, submitted in December 2000, includes a regional 
NOX reduction strategy as the principle means for achieving 
attainment in the area.
    The attainment strategy modeling runs include the Wisconsin 
NOX control regulations described earlier. This modeling 
demonstrates attainment with NOX reductions from the 
following counties: Kenosha, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, 
Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha. The NOX 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 NOX and I/M cutpoint rules alone. Consequently, 
any additional NOX 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 NOX reductions in the area ``would not 
contribute to (or might interfere with) attainment'' to additional 
NOX 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 NOX waiver is changed, the 
effect of the waiver on RACT for major NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX 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) NOX 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 NOX emissions. 
The substitution of NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX emission rates for stationary source 
Electric Generating Units (EGU) and non-EGUs through adoption of a 
state rule (NR 428). Additional NOX emission reduction 
credits are claimed for implementation and enforcement of 
NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 
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 NOX reductions, it is subject to 
certain additional requirements. As noted above, under section 
182(c)(2)(C) of the Act, a plan can substitute NOX 
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 ``NOX Substitution 
Guidance,'' December 1993). Our NOX substitution policy 
provides that a ROP plan based in part on a NOX substitution 
strategy must show that the sum of the creditable VOC and 
NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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. NOX 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 
NOX SIP, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), Title 
IV NOX.
    Consequently, NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 
NOX waiver that want to claim NOX 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 NOX waiver. Furthermore, 
states can claim ROP credits for NOX reductions from within 
the nonattainment area for which a NOX waiver was approved, 
provided the claim for ROP credits is accompanied by a showing that 
such NOX reductions will lead to lower ozone concentrations 
in the nonattainment area and an amended NOX waiver request 
with modeling data supporting the revised NOX waiver. We 
granted a NOX 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 
NOX emission reductions achieved from the implementation of 
the I/M NOX cutpoints in the State's I/M program and the 
state's stationary source NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX 
reductions inside a NOX 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 
NOX waiver with the January 26, 1996 approval. Consequently, 
Wisconsin submitted an amended NOX 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 NOX ROP credits inside the 
NOX 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 NOX emission reductions 
for each milestone year. The post-1999 ROP plan is based on a 
combination of VOC and NOX 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/ 
NOX 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 NOX Reduction by 2002, 2005, and 2007
  [Rate of progress summary for the Milwaukee-Racine Post-1999 ROP plan
                                  area]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        NOX emissions (tons/day)
 Calculation of NOX reduction  -----------------------------------------
 needs for each milestone year      2002          2005          2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 NOX 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 NOX Reduction for ROP.          5.5           7             5
NOX ROP Reduction (Percent NOX         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
 NOX 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 NOX;
    (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 NOX 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 NOX 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 
NOX in the nonattainment area.
    Wisconsin identified the 1990 VOC and NOX 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 NOX emissions are 536.4 tpd and 396.32 tpd, 
respectively. The Act requires adjusting the ROP baseline for VOC and 
NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX target levels. In general, the 
milestone year target levels of emissions for VOC and NOX 
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 NOX target level calculations, since 
the area did not claim NOX credits in the post-1996 plan, a 
1999 NOX target level of emissions does not exist. The 1999 
NOX target level is then replaced with the 1990 ROP 
NOX base year inventory.
    Wisconsin provides the methodology and documentation used to 
determine the VOC and NOX target levels. The target levels 
are presented in Tables 1 and 2, above, for VOC and NOX.
    (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 NOX. 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 NOX, 1990 actual emissions were used as 
the basis for projected NOX 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 ( NOX 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 
NOX with a number of programs and assumptions incorporated 
into the emissions modeling. The programs/assumptions are: (a) An 
increase in NOX 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 NOX and thus continues to be 
incorporated into the emission projections. The total projected VOC and 
NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX, 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) NOX Control Strategies. Wisconsin adopted a rule, NR 
428, to reduce NOX emissions from stationary sources, which 
it submitted to us as a SIP revision. NR 428 establishes system 
NOX emissions for electric generating units starting at the 
end of 2002. NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX Cutpoints. The Enhanced I/M program has operated 
in the six county Milwaukee-Racine severe area as well as Sheboygan 
county since December 1995. NOX limits for this program were 
suspended but became effective on May 1, 2001. Wisconsin's rule AM-27-
00 established enforceable limits on NOX emissions for the 
I/M program. The emission reductions expected from the I/M 
NOX 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 NOX. 
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 NOX 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 NOX 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    NOX 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) NOX   .........  .........  ....      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 NOX 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 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        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 NOX 
rule, the OBD testing of automobiles and the I/M NOX 
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 NOX 
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 NOX 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--NOX Cutpoints and      1995 (60 FR 2881). Revision
 OBD Testing.                        submitted on December 30, 1998.
                                     Additional supplement is expected
                                     from the State by summer 2001. NOX
                                     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 NOX 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 NOX 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/ NOX 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 NOX ROP Base Year         363.12       360.82       360.12
 Emission Inventory for Milestone
 Year............................
Percent of Continency from NOX...         2.88          2.7          2.4
Required NOX Contingency.........        10.46         9.74         8.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, consistent with the apportionment of VOC and NOX 
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 NOX 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 NOX 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
NOX Reduction Needed for 5.5 percent ROP (tpd)..........           46.15
NOX Reduction Needed for 2.88 percent Contingency (tpd).           10.46
                                                         ---------------
Total NOX Reductions Needed for ROP and Contingency            \8\ 56.61
 (tpd)..................................................
                                                         ---------------

[[Page 34897]]

 
Total Creditable NOX Reduction (tpd)....................      \6\ 56.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Although the total creditable NOX emissions are about 0.1 tpd less
  than the total required NOX 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
NOX Reduction Needed for 7.0 percent ROP (tpd)..........           52.31
NOX Reduction Needed for 2.7 percent Contingency (tpd)..            9.74
                                                         ---------------
Total NOX Reductions Needed for ROP and Contingency                62.05
 (tpd)..................................................
                                                         ---------------
Total Creditable NOX 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
NOX Reduction Needed for 5 percent ROP (tpd)............           56.98
NOX Reduction Needed for 2.4 percent Contingency (tpd)..            8.64
                                                         ---------------
Total NOX Reductions Needed for ROP and Contingency                65.62
 (tpd)..................................................
                                                         ---------------
Total Creditable NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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)     NOX (tpd)     VOC (tpd)     NOX (tpd)     VOC (tpd)     NOX (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 NOX 
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 NOX 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 NOX 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 
NOX 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, 
NOX 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 
NOX control requirements, specifically NOX RACT, 
New Source Review, and certain NOX vehicle inspection/
maintenance requirements. As part of the attainment demonstration and 
the 2002-2007 rate-of-progress analysis, the WDNR evaluated which 
NOX control measures might prove beneficial to timely ozone 
attainment in the region. It found that NOX reductions from 
the use of NOX cutpoints for vehicles in the I/M program, 
selective NOX limitations on some of the major point 
sources, and tightened emission limits for many new NOX 
sources would be beneficial. The NOX 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 
NOX controls associated with the NOX SIP Call. 
Given the status of the NOX waiver in the nonattainment 
area, the implementation of select NOX control programs in 
Wisconsin, and the regional NOX 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. NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX are required for the Lake Michigan area to 
attain the ozone standard. Sensitivity tests showed that without 
regional reductions in NOX 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 
NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX rule, the revision to the NOX 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