[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56931-56944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27721]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI108-7338; FRL-7094-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans; Wisconsin; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the revisions submitted by the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR or state) to its State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Milwaukee-Racine area for attainment 
of the one-hour ozone standard and is approving the SIP as fully 
meeting the attainment demonstration requirement of the Clean Air Act 
(Act). The revision was submitted to EPA on December 27, 2000. EPA is 
approving the air quality modeling, rules to reduce emissions of ozone 
forming pollutants (i.e., nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 
organic compounds (VOC)), 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)), a reasonably available control 
measure (RACM) analysis, NOX waiver revisions, 
transportation conformity budgets, and commitments to complete a mid-
course review and to recalculate the attainment year budget using 
MOBILE6. On July 2, 2001, we proposed approval of these SIP revision 
elements and the SIP as a whole as meeting the attainment demonstration 
requirement of the Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You can access copies of the SIP revision request and the 
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the proposed rulemaking on the SIP 
revision request at the following address: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We recommend that you 
telephone Randy Robinson at (312) 353-6713 before visiting the Region 5 
Office).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Regulation Development 
Section 2, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
Telephone number (312) 353-6713, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever

[[Page 56932]]

``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA.
    The supplemental information is organized in the following order:

I. What Is EPA Approving In This Action?
I.a. Additional Information on Approval Elements.
II. Are There Related Elements that Need to be Federally Approved?
III. Did We Receive Public Comments on the Proposed Approval of 
Wisconsin's One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration?
IV. Final Rulemaking Action.
V. Administrative Requirements.

I. What Is EPA Approving in This Action?

    We are approving (1) the modeled attainment demonstration, (2) the 
NOX reduction rule, (3) the revision to the NOX 
waiver, (4) the rule to control VOCs from industrial solvent cleaning 
operations, (5) the rule requiring VOC controls at plastic parts 
coating operations, (6) the SIP order requiring VOC control for Flint 
Ink, (7) the conformity budgets for the 2007 attainment year and the 
ROP milestone years of 2002 and 2005, along with the state's commitment 
to revise the budgets within one year of the formal release of MOBILE6, 
(8) the RACM analysis, (9) the commitment to conduct a mid-course 
review of the attainment status of the Lake Michigan area, and (10) the 
post-1999 ROP plan. Today's action finalizes approval of these elements 
of Wisconsin's one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision and 
fully approves the Wisconsin SIP as meeting the attainment 
demonstration requirements of sections 182(c)(2) and (d). Below are 
additional details on the SIP revisions and our rulemaking. Further 
information is available in the July 2, 2001 proposed rulemaking (66 FR 
34878).

I.a. Additional Information on Approval Elements

    The July 2, 2001 notice proposed approval of a draft plastic parts 
rule. The proposal stated that in order to proceed with a final 
approval, the state must submit a final plastic parts rule that is not 
significantly different than the draft rule. WDNR submitted a final 
rule, with no changes, on August 29, 2001, and today's notice finalizes 
our approval of the state's plastic parts rule. The July notice also 
proposed approval of a rule to control VOC emissions from industrial 
solvent cleaning operations in the six-county Milwaukee-Racine severe 
area, and a revision to the SIP to establish RACT requirements for the 
Flint Ink facility located in Milwaukee. We are finalizing both of the 
proposed approvals in today's notice.
    In this notice we are approving the transportation conformity 
budgets submitted with both the post-1999 ROP and the attainment 
demonstration. The motor vehicle emission budgets for 2002, 2005, and 
the attainment year 2007 are identified in Table 1 below.

                                    Table 1.--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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are approving the ROP milestone and attainment year motor 
vehicle emissions budgets until such time that the state submits a 
revised budget 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 
current MVEB's were determined to be adequate effective September 4, 
2001 (66 FR 43255).
    As we proposed on July 28, 2000, in the supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (65 FR 46383), the final approval action we are 
taking today will be effective for conformity purposes only until the 
state submits revised motor vehicle emissions budgets that we find 
adequate. We are limiting the duration of our approval in this manner 
because we are only approving the attainment demonstrations and their 
budgets because the states have committed to revise them. The revised 
budgets, once confirmed as adequate, will be more appropriate than the 
budgets we are approving today.
    The Act requires nonattainment areas designated serious or above to 
use photochemical grid modeling or an analytical method judged by EPA 
to be as effective. The modeled attainment demonstration approved in 
this notice uses a photochemical grid model (Urban Airshed Model-
Variable Version, UAM-V) and follows the EPA modeling guidance in 
predicting ozone concentrations in the attainment year throughout the 
Lake Michigan region.
    We are approving the state's NOX reduction rules. These 
rules achieve staged reductions from 2002 through 2007 from sources in 
southeast Wisconsin. The reductions are accounted for in the attainment 
demonstration as well as the post-1999 ROP plan.
    We are approving the ROP plan, which provides for a nine-percent 
reduction in emissions (VOC and/or NOX) in each of the 
successive three-year periods from November 1999 through November 2000.
    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 rulemaking granted exemptions from the 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and New Source Review 
(NSR) 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. EPA 
granted this waiver based on air quality modeling indicating that 
NOX reductions in the area do not contribute to attainment 
of the ozone standard. The waiver is now being revised to reflect the 
emission reductions from the state NOX rule and the I/M 
program, which are relied on in the modeled attainment demonstration 
(On October 10, 2001, Administrator Christine Todd Whitman delegated 
authority to Region 5's Deputy Regional Administrator, David A. 
Ullrich, to sign final rulemakings concerning revision of 
NOX waivers and responding to NOX waiver 
petitions for Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin). The modeling 
demonstrates that the ozone standard will be attained with the 
implementation of these controls. Any additional NOX 
requirements beyond those described above are considered ``excess 
reductions'', since they would

[[Page 56933]]

be in excess of the reductions needed to attain the ozone standard.
    The state committed, in a letter dated February 22, 2000, to 
perform a mid-course review (MCR) of the attainment status of the one-
hour ozone nonattainment area by December 31, 2003. The state also 
reiterated, in a July 31, 2001 comment letter, that the MCR will likely 
not be completed until the end of 2004. We are finalizing approval of 
the state's commitment, yet recognize that circumstances, discussed 
later in this notice, may lead to the state submitting a MCR in 2004. 
The state's commitment and the MCR are discussed in more detail in a 
later section.
    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to contain Reasonably 
Available Control Measures (RACM) as necessary to provide for 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. On June 6, 2001, Wisconsin 
supplemented its December 2000 attainment demonstration submittal with 
a RACM analysis. This analysis was discussed, along with information 
added by EPA, in the July 2, 2001, proposed approval of the Wisconsin 
submittal. We did not receive any comments on the analysis. We are 
finalizing the approval of the RACM analysis as meeting the 
requirements of the Act.

II. Are There Other Elements That Need To Be Federally Approved?

    In addition to the elements mentioned above, there are related 
items on which EPA has recently taken final action or on which EPA is 
taking final action in other rulemakings. Two items that must be 
addressed concurrent with this rulemaking are (1) the post-1996 ROP 
plan, proposed for approval on June 22, 2001 (66 FR 33495) with a final 
approval signed by the Regional Administrator on September 26, 2001; 
and (2) revisions to the state's inspection and maintenance program. We 
conditionally approved Wisconsin's motor vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program SIP on January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2881) with a 
subsequent revision submitted on December 30, 1998. We published a 
direct final approval of Wisconsin's I/M SIP on August 16, 2001 (66 FR 
42949). Comments on the notice were due September 17, 2001. No comments 
were submitted. Therefore, the I/M SIP becomes effective on October 15, 
2001.

III. Did We Receive Public Comments on the Proposed Approval of 
Wisconsin's One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration?

    On July 2, 2001, we published a proposed approval of the Wisconsin 
one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision the state had 
submitted on December 22, 2000 (66 FR 34878). The public comment period 
closed on August 1, 2001. We received one comment letter on the 
proposed rulemaking, from the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources. A closely related rulemaking was published on December 16, 
1999 (64 FR 70531). In that notice, we proposed conditional approval of 
an earlier one-hour ozone attainment demonstration, submitted by 
Wisconsin on April 30, 1998. The December 1999 proposal was published 
concurrent with proposed actions on attainment demonstrations for nine 
other serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas across the eastern 
part of the United States. EPA received a number of comments on the 
December 1999 proposed rulemakings. The one-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration SIP revision package submitted by Wisconsin in December 
2000 essentially replaced its earlier 1998 submittal. In this final 
rulemaking, we will address the relevant comments received on our 
December 1999 proposed conditional approval rulemaking as well as the 
comments received on the recent proposed approval.
    A summary of comments received on the December 16, 1999 proposed 
conditional approval and a summary of the comments received on the July 
2001 proposal and our responses are set forth below. The comments and 
responses include those that were more general in nature, applying to 
all or several of the proposed actions issued on December 16, 1999, as 
well as comments and responses specific to the attainment demonstration 
for the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area.

A. Reliance on NOX SIP Call and Tier II Modeling

    Comment: Several commenters stated that given the uncertainty 
surrounding the NOX SIP Call at the time of EPA's proposals 
on the attainment demonstrations, there is no basis for the conclusion 
reached by EPA that states should assume implementation of the 
NOX SIP Call, or rely on it as a part of their 
demonstrations. One commenter claims that there were errors in the 
emissions inventories used for the NOX SIP Call Supplemental 
Notice (SNPR) and that these inaccuracies were carried over to the 
modeling analyses, estimates of air quality based on that modeling, and 
estimates of EPA's Tier II tailpipe emissions reduction program not 
modeled in the demonstrations. Thus, because of the inaccuracies in the 
inventories used for the SIP Call, the attainment demonstration 
modeling is also flawed. Finally, one commenter suggests that modeling 
data demonstrates that the benefits of imposing NOX SIP Call 
controls are limited to areas near the sources controlled.
    Response: These comments were submitted prior to several court 
decisions largely upholding EPA's NOX SIP Call. Michigan v. 
EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 1225, 149 
L.Ed. 135 (2001); Appalachian Power v. EPA, 251 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 
2001) . In those cases, the court largely upheld the NOX SIP 
Call. Although a few issues were vacated or remanded to EPA for further 
consideration, these issues do not concern the accuracy of the emission 
inventories relied on for purposes of the SIP Call. Moreover, contrary 
to the commenter's suggestion, the SIP Call modeling data bases were 
not used to develop estimates of reductions from the Tier II program 
for the severe-area one-hour attainment demonstrations. Accordingly, 
the commenter's concerns that inaccurate inventories for the SIP Call 
modeling lead to inaccurate results for the severe-area one-hour 
attainment demonstrations are inapposite.
    The remanded issues do affect the ability of EPA and the states to 
achieve the full level of the SIP Call reductions by May 2003. First, 
the court vacated the rule as it applied to two states--Missouri and 
Georgia--and also remanded the definition of a co-generator and the 
assumed emission limit for internal combustion engines. EPA has 
informed the states that until EPA addresses the remanded issues, EPA 
will accept SIPs that do not include those small portions of the 
emission budget. However, EPA is planning to propose a rule shortly to 
address the remanded issues and ensure that emission reductions from 
these states and the emission reductions represented by the two source 
categories are addressed in time to benefit the severe nonattainment 
areas. Also, although the court in the Michigan case subsequently 
issued an order delaying the implementation date to no later than May 
31, 2004, and the Appalachian Power case remanded an issue concerning 
computation of the EGU growth factor, it is EPA's view that states 
should assume that the SIP Call reductions will occur in time to ensure 
attainment in the severe nonattainment areas. Both EPA and the states 
are moving forward to implement the SIP Call.
    Finally, contrary to the commenter's conclusions, EPA's modeling to 
determine the region-wide impacts of the NOX SIP call 
clearly shows that regional transport of ozone and its

[[Page 56934]]

precursors is impacting nonattainment areas several states away. This 
analysis was upheld by the court in Michigan.

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)

    Comment: Several commenters have stated that there is no evidence 
in several states that they have adopted reasonably available control 
measures (RACM) or that the SIPs have provided for attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable. Specifically, the lack of transportation 
control measures (TCMs) was cited in several comments, but commenters 
also raised concerns about potential stationary source controls. One 
commenter stated that mobile source emission budgets in the plans are 
by definition inadequate because the SIPs do not demonstrate timely 
attainment or contain the emissions reductions required for all RACM. 
That commenter claims that EPA may not find adequate a motor vehicle 
emission budget (MVEB) that is derived from a SIP that is inadequate 
for the purpose for which it is submitted. The commenter alleges that 
none of the MVEBs submitted by the states that EPA is considering for 
adequacy is consistent with the level of emissions achieved by 
implementation of all RACM, nor are the MVEBs derived from SIPs that 
provide for attainment. Some commenters stated that for measures that 
are not adopted into the SIP, the state must justify why it determined 
the measures are not RACM.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the initial SIP submittals for the 
Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area and determined that they did not 
include sufficient documentation concerning available RACM measures. 
For all of the severe areas for which EPA proposed approval in December 
1999, EPA consequently issued a policy guidance memorandum requiring 
these states to address the RACM requirement through an additional SIP 
submittal. (Memorandum of December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Re: 
``Additional Submission on RACM from states with Severe 1-hour Ozone 
Nonattainment Area SIPs.''
    The State of Wisconsin supplemented its original SIP with an 
analysis of RACM on June 6, 2001. EPA proposed to approve this 
supplement to the SIP as meeting the RACM requirements on July 2, 2001 
(66 FR 34878). Based on this SIP supplement, and additional information 
derived from attainment demonstration modeling, EPA concluded that the 
SIP for the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area meets the requirement 
for adopting RACM.
    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to contain RACM and 
provides for areas to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) as expeditiously as practicable. EPA has previously provided 
guidance interpreting the 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 that 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 their SIP submittals whether measures considered were 
reasonably available or not, and if measures are reasonably available 
they must be adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA indicated that states could 
reject measures as not being RACM if they would not advance the 
attainment date, would cause substantial widespread and long-term 
adverse impacts, would be economically or technologically infeasible, 
or would be unavailable based on local considerations, including costs. 
The EPA also issued a recent memorandum re-confirming the principles in 
the earlier guidance, entitled, ``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. Web 
site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
    The July 2, 2001 proposed approval discusses the state's RACM 
analysis, focusing on 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. We received no comments on the proposed approval.
    Although EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires 
implementation of additional measures for Milwaukee-Racine, this 
conclusion is not necessarily valid for other areas. Thus, a 
determination of RACM is necessary on a case-by-case basis and will 
depend on the circumstances for the individual area. In addition, if in 
the future EPA moves forward to implement another ozone standard, this 
RACM analysis would not control what is RACM for these or any other 
areas for the new ozone standard.
    Also, EPA has long advocated that states consider the kinds of 
control measures that the commenters have suggested, and EPA has indeed 
provided guidance on those measures. See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm. In order to demonstrate that they will attain the one-
hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, some areas may need 
to consider and adopt a number of measures--including the kind that the 
Milwaukee-Racine area itself evaluated in its RACM analysis--that even 
collectively do not result in many emission reductions. Furthermore, 
EPA encourages areas to implement technically available and 
economically feasible measures to achieve emissions reductions in the 
short term-even if such measures do not advance the attainment date-
since such measures will likely improve air quality. Also, over time, 
emission control measures that may not be RACM now for an area may 
ultimately become feasible for the same area due to advances in control 
technology or more cost-effective implementation techniques. Thus, 
areas should continue to assess the state of control technology as they 
make progress toward attainment, and should consider new control 
technologies that may result in more expeditious improvement in air 
quality.
    Because EPA is finding that the SIP meets the Clean Air Act's 
requirement for RACM and that there are no additional reasonably 
available control measures that can advance the attainment date, EPA 
concludes that the attainment date being approved is as expeditiously 
as practicable.
    EPA previously responded to comments concerning the adequacy of 
MVEBs when EPA took final action determining the budgets adequate, and 
does not address those issues again here. The responses are found at 
http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/pastsips.htm.

C. Adequacy of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Comment: We received a number of comments about the process and 
substance of EPA's review of the adequacy of motor vehicle emissions 
budgets for transportation conformity purposes.
    Response: We have completed our review of the adequacy of these 
SIPs, and we have found the motor vehicle emissions budgets in all of 
these SIPs to be adequate. We responded to all comments related to 
adequacy when we issued our adequacy findings, and

[[Page 56935]]

therefore we are not listing the individual comments or responding to 
them here. You may access our findings of adequacy and responses to 
comments at www.epa.gov/otaq/traq (once there, click on the 
``conformity'' button). EPA regional contacts are identified on the web 
site.

D. Attainment Demonstration and Rate of Progress Motor Vehicle Emission 
Inventories

    Comment: Several commenters stated that the motor vehicle emissions 
inventory is not current, particularly with respect to the fleet mix. 
Commenters stated that the fleet mix does not accurately reflect the 
growing proportion of sport utility vehicles and gasoline trucks, which 
pollute more than conventional cars. Also, a commenter stated that EPA 
and states have not followed a consistent practice in updating SIP 
modeling to account for changes in vehicle fleets. For these reasons, 
commenters recommend disapproving the SIPs.
    Response: All of the SIPs on which we are taking final action are 
based on the most recent vehicle registration data available at the 
time the SIP was submitted. The SIPs use the same vehicle fleet 
characteristics used in the most recent periodic inventory update. The 
fleet mix for the Wisconsin submittal was derived from 1995-1997 
registration data, and was supplemented with 1998 registration data for 
the December 2000 submittal. EPA requires using the most recent 
available data, but we do not require updating it on a specific 
schedule. Therefore, different SIPs base their fleet mix on different 
years of data. Our guidance does not suggest disapproving SIPs on this 
basis. Nevertheless, we do expect that revisions to these SIPs that use 
MOBILE6 (as required in those cases where the SIP relies on emissions 
reductions from the Tier 2 standards) will use updated vehicle 
registration data appropriate for use with MOBILE6, whether it is 
updated local data or the updated national default data that will be 
part of MOBILE6.

E. MOBILE6 and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Comment: One commentor generally supports a policy of requiring 
motor vehicle emissions budgets to be recalculated when revised MOBILE 
models are released.
    Response: The Phase II attainment demonstrations that rely on Tier 
2 emission reduction credit contain commitments to revise the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets after MOBILE6 is released.
    Comment: The revised budgets calculated using MOBILE6 will likely 
be submitted after EPA has approved the MOBILE5 budgets. EPA's policy 
is that submitted SIPs may not replace approved SIPs.
    Response: This is the reason that EPA proposed in the July 28, 
2000, Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR 46383) that the 
approval of the MOBILE5 budgets for conformity purposes would last only 
until MOBILE6 budgets had been submitted and found adequate. In this 
way, the MOBILE6 budgets can apply for conformity purposes as soon as 
they are found adequate.
    Comment: If a state submits additional control measures that affect 
the motor vehicle emissions budget, but does not submit a revised motor 
vehicle emissions budget, EPA should not approve the attainment 
demonstration.
    Response: EPA agrees. The motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 
Milwaukee-Racine area attainment demonstration reflect the motor 
vehicle control measures in the attainment demonstration.
    Comment: EPA should make it clear that the motor vehicle emissions 
budgets used for conformity purposes will be determined from the total 
motor vehicle emissions reductions required in the SIP, even if the SIP 
does not explicitly quantify a revised motor vehicle emissions budget.
    Response: EPA will not approve SIPs without motor vehicle emissions 
budgets that are explicitly quantified for conformity purposes. The 
Milwaukee area attainment demonstration contains explicitly quantified 
motor vehicle emissions budgets.
    Comment: If a state fails to follow through on its commitment to 
submit the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets using MOBILE6, EPA 
could find a failure to submit a portion of a SIP, which would trigger 
a sanctions clock under section 179.
    Response: If a state fails to meet its commitment, EPA could find a 
failure to implement the SIP, which would start a sanctions clock under 
section 179 of the Act.
    Comment: If the budgets recalculated using MOBILE6 are larger than 
the MOBILE5 budgets, then attainment should be demonstrated again.
    Response: As EPA proposed in its December 16, 1999 notices, we will 
work with states on a case-by-case basis if the new emissions estimates 
raise issues about the sufficiency of the attainment demonstration.
    Comment: If the MOBILE6 budgets are smaller than the MOBILE5 
budgets, the difference between the budgets should not be available for 
reallocation to other sources, unless air quality data show that the 
area is attainment and a revised attainment demonstration is submitted 
that demonstrates that the increased emissions are consistent with 
attainment and maintenance. Similarly, the MOBILE5 budgets should not 
be retained (when MOBILE6 is used for conformity demonstrations) unless 
the above conditions are met.
    Response: EPA agrees that if recalculation using MOBILE6 shows 
lower motor vehicle emissions than MOBILE5, then these motor vehicle 
emission reductions cannot be reallocated to other sources or assigned 
to the motor vehicle emissions budget as a safety margin unless the 
area reassesses the analysis in its attainment demonstration and shows 
that it will still attain. In other words, the area must assess how its 
original attainment demonstration is impacted by using MOBILE6 vs. 
MOBILE5 before it reallocates any apparent motor vehicle emission 
reductions resulting from the use of MOBILE6. Since Wisconsin has 
committed to submit MOBILE6 budgets within one year of the model's 
release and EPA's approval of the MOBILE5 budgets is limited, the 
MOBILE5 budgets will not be retained once the MOBILE6 budgets have been 
found adequate.
    Comment: We received a comment on whether the grace period before 
MOBILE6 is required in conformity determinations will be consistent 
with the schedules for revising SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets 
(``budgets'') within one or two years of MOBILE6's release.
    Response: This comment is not germane to this rulemaking, since the 
MOBILE6 grace period for conformity determinations is not explicitly 
tied to EPA's SIP policy and approvals. However, EPA understands that a 
longer grace period would allow some areas to better transition to new 
MOBILE6 budgets. EPA is considering the maximum two-year grace period 
allowed by the conformity rule, and EPA will address this in the future 
when we release the final MOBILE6 emissions model and policy guidance.
    Comment: One commenter asked EPA to clarify in the final rule 
whether MOBILE6 will be required for conformity determinations once new 
MOBILE6 budgets are submitted and found adequate.
    Response: This comment is not germane to this rulemaking. However, 
it is important to note that EPA intends to clarify its policy for 
implementing MOBILE6 in conformity determinations when we release the 
final MOBILE6

[[Page 56936]]

model. EPA believes that MOBILE6 should be used in conformity 
determinations once new MOBILE6 budgets are found adequate.
    Comment: One commenter did not prefer the additional option for a 
second year before the state has to revise the conformity budgets with 
MOBILE6, since new conformity determinations and new transportation 
projects could be delayed in the second year.
    Response: EPA proposed the additional option to provide further 
flexibility in managing MOBILE6 budget revisions. The supplemental 
proposal did not change the original option to revise budgets within 
one year of MOBILE6's release. State and local governments may continue 
to use the one-year option, if desired, or submit a new commitment 
consistent with the alternative two-year option. EPA expects state and 
local agencies to consult on which option is appropriate, and consider 
the impact on future conformity determinations. Wisconsin has committed 
to revise its budgets within one year of MOBILE6's release.

F. Credit for Measures Not Fully Implemented

    Comment: States should not be given credit for measures that are 
not fully implemented. For example, the states are being given full 
credit for federal coating, refinishing and consumer product rules that 
have been delayed or weakened.
    Response: Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings: 
On March 22, 1995 EPA issued a memorandum \1\ that provided that states 
could claim a 20% reduction in VOC emissions from the AIM coatings 
category in ROP and attainment plans based on the anticipated 
promulgation of a national AIM coatings rule. In developing the 
attainment and ROP SIPs for their nonattainment areas, states relied on 
this memorandum to estimate emission reductions from the anticipated 
national AIM rule. EPA promulgated the final AIM rule in September 
1998, codified at 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D. In the preamble to EPA's 
final AIM coatings regulation, EPA estimated that the regulation will 
result in 20% reduction of nationwide VOC emissions from AIM coatings 
categories (63 FR 48855). The estimated VOC reductions from the final 
AIM rule resulted in the same level as those estimated in the March 
1995 EPA policy memorandum. In accordance with EPA's final regulation, 
states have assumed a 20% reduction from AIM coatings source categories 
in their attainment and ROP plans. AIM coatings manufacturers were 
required to comply with the final regulation within one year of 
promulgation, except for certain pesticide formulations, which were 
given an additional year to comply. Thus all manufacturers were 
required to comply, at the latest, by September 2000. Industry 
confirmed in comments on the proposed AIM rule that 12 months between 
the issuance of the final rule and the compliance deadline would be 
sufficient to ``use up existing label stock'' and ``adjust 
inventories'' to conform to the rule. 63 FR 48848 (September 11, 1998). 
In addition, EPA determined that, after the compliance date, the volume 
of nonconforming products would be very low (less than one percent) and 
would be withdrawn from retail shelves anyway. Therefore, EPA believes 
that compliant coatings were in use by the fall of 1999 with full 
reductions by September 2000, and that it was appropriate for the 
states to take credit for a 20% emission reduction in their SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for 
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) 
Coating Rules,'' March 22, 1995, from John S. Seitz, Director, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Air Division 
Directors, Regions I-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Autobody Refinish Coatings Rule: Consistent with a November 27, 
1994 EPA policy \2\, many states claimed a 37% reduction from this 
source category based on a proposed rule. However, EPA's final rule, 
``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile 
Refinish Coatings,'' published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48806), did 
not regulate lacquer topcoats and will result in a smaller emission 
reduction of around 33% overall nationwide. The 37% emission reduction 
from EPA's proposed rule was an estimate of the total nationwide 
emission reduction. Since this number is an overall national average, 
the actual reduction achieved in any particular area could vary 
depending on the level of control which already existed in the area. 
For example, in California the reduction from the national rule is zero 
because California's rules are more stringent than the national rule. 
In the proposed rule, the estimated percentage reduction for areas that 
were unregulated before the national rule was about 40%. However as a 
result of the lacquer topcoat exemption added between proposal and 
final rule, the reduction is now estimated to be 36% for previously 
unregulated areas. Thus, most previously unregulated areas will need to 
make up the approximately 1% difference between the 37% estimate of 
reductions assumed by states, following EPA guidance based on the 
proposal, and the 36% reduction actually achieved by the final rule for 
previously unregulated areas. EPA's best estimate of the reduction 
potential of the final rule was set forth in a September 19, 1996 
memorandum entitled ``Emissions Calculations for the Automobile 
Refinish Coatings Final Rule'' from Mark Morris to Docket No. A-95-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for 
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) 
Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing Rule,'' November 27, 1994, 
John S. Seitz, Director OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-
X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consumer Products Rule: Consistent with a June 22, 1995 EPA 
guidance \3\, states claimed a 20% reduction from this source category 
based on EPA's proposed rule. The final rule, ``National Volatile 
Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products,'' (63 FR 
48819), published on September 11, 1998, has resulted in a 20% 
reduction after the December 10, 1998 compliance date. Moreover, these 
reductions largely occurred by the fall of 1999. In the consumer 
products rule, EPA determined and the consumer products industry 
concurred, that a significant proportion of subject products have been 
reformulated in response to state regulations and in anticipation of 
the final rule. 63 FR 48819. That is, industry reformulated the 
products covered by the consumer products rule in advance of the final 
rule. Therefore, EPA believes that complying products in accordance 
with the rule were in use by the fall of 1999. It was appropriate for 
the states to take credit for a 20% emission reduction for the consumer 
products rule in their SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Regulatory Schedule for Consumer and Commercial Products 
under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act,'' June 22, 1995, John S. 
Seitz, Director OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Enforcement of Control Programs

    Comment: The attainment demonstrations do not clearly set out 
programs for enforcement of the various control strategies relied on 
for emission reduction credit.
    Response: In general, state enforcement, personnel and funding 
program elements are contained in SIP revisions previously approved by 
EPA under obligations set forth in section 110(a)(2)(c) of the Clean 
Air Act. Once approved by the EPA, there is no need for states to 
readopt and resubmit these programs with each and every SIP revision 
generally required by other sections of the Act. In addition, emission 
control regulations will also contain specific enforcement mechanisms, 
such as record keeping

[[Page 56937]]

and reporting requirements, and may also provide for periodic state 
inspections and reviews of the affected sources. EPA's review of these 
regulations includes review of the enforceability of the regulations. 
Rules that are not enforceable are generally not approved by the EPA. 
To the extent that the ozone attainment demonstration and ROP plan 
depend on specific state emission control regulations these individual 
regulations have undergone review by the EPA in past approval actions 
or, to the extent they are being approved through this action, have 
undergone review in the current rulemaking.

H. Attainment Demonstrations--Weight of Evidence

    Comment: The weight of evidence approach does not demonstrate 
attainment or meet CAA requirements for a modeled attainment 
demonstration. Commenters added several criticisms of various technical 
aspects of the weight of evidence approach, including certain specific 
applications of the approach to particular attainment demonstrations. 
These comments are discussed in the following response.
    Response: Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the CAA, serious and 
severe ozone nonattainment areas were required to submit by November 
15, 1994, demonstrations of how they would attain the 1-hour standard. 
Section 182(c)(2)(A) provides that ``[t]his attainment demonstration 
must be based on photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical 
method determined by the Administrator, in the Administrator's 
discretion, to be at least as effective.'' As described in more detail 
below, the EPA allows states to supplement their photochemical modeling 
results with additional evidence designed to account for uncertainties 
in the photochemical modeling to demonstrate attainment. This approach 
is consistent with the requirement of section 182(c)(2)(A) that the 
attainment demonstration ``be based on photochemical grid modeling,'' 
because the modeling results constitute the principal component of 
EPA's analysis, with supplemental information designed to account for 
uncertainties in the model. This interpretation and application of the 
photochemical modeling requirement of section 182(c)(2)(A) finds 
further justification in the broad deference Congress granted EPA to 
develop appropriate methods for determining attainment, as indicated in 
the last phrase of section 182(c)(2)(A).
    The flexibility granted to EPA under section 182(c)(2)(A) is 
reflected in the regulations EPA promulgated for modeled attainment 
demonstrations. These regulations provide, ``The adequacy of a control 
strategy shall be demonstrated by means of applicable air quality 
models, data bases, and other requirements specified in [40 CFR part 51 
Appendix W] (Guideline on Air Quality Models).'' \4\ 40 CFR 
51.112(a)(1). However, the regulations further provide, ``Where an air 
quality model specified in appendix W * * * is inappropriate, the model 
may be modified or another model substituted [with approval by EPA, and 
after] notice and opportunity for public comment * * *.'' Appendix W, 
in turn, provides that, ``The Urban Airshed Model (UAM) is recommended 
for photochemical or reactive pollutant modeling applications involving 
entire urban areas,'' but further refers to EPA's modeling guidance for 
data requirements and procedures for operating the model. 40 CFR 51 
App. W section 6.2.1.a. The modeling guidance discusses the data 
requirements and operating procedures, as well as interpretation of 
model results as they relate to the attainment demonstration. This 
provision references guidance published in 1991, but EPA envisioned the 
guidance would change as we gained experience with model applications, 
which is why the guidance is referenced, but does not appear, in 
Appendix W. With updates in 1996 and 1999, the evolution of EPA's 
guidance has led us to use both the photochemical grid model, and 
additional analytical methods approved by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The August 12, 1996 version of ``Appendix W to Part 51--
Guideline on Air Quality Models'' was the rule in effect for these 
attainment demonstrations. EPA is proposing updates to this rule, 
that will not take effect until the rulemaking process for them is 
complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeled attainment test compares model predicted 1-hour daily 
maximum ozone concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year 
to the level of the NAAQS. The results may be interpreted through 
either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests: The deterministic 
test or the statistical test. Under the deterministic test, a predicted 
concentration above 0.124 parts per million (ppm) ozone indicates that 
the area is expected to exceed the standard in the attainment year and 
a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that the area is expected 
to not exceed the standard. Under the statistical test, attainment is 
demonstrated when all predicted (i.e., modeled) 1-hour ozone 
concentrations inside the modeling domain are at, or below, an 
acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain 
conditions (depending on the severity of the episode modeled).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Guidance on the Use Of Modeled Results to Demonstrate 
Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS. EPA-454/B-95-007, June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1996, EPA issued guidance \6\ to update the 1991 guidance 
referenced in 40 CFR 50 App. W, to make the modeled attainment test 
more closely reflect the form of the NAAQS (i.e., the statistical test 
described above), to consider the area's ozone design value and the 
meteorological conditions accompanying observed exceedances, and to 
allow consideration of other evidence to address uncertainties in the 
modeling databases and application. When the modeling does not 
conclusively demonstrate attainment, EPA has concluded that additional 
analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area will 
attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are inherent 
uncertainties associated with air quality modeling and its results. The 
inherent imprecision of the model means that it may be inappropriate to 
view the specific numerical result of the model as the only determinant 
of whether the SIP controls are likely to lead to attainment. The EPA's 
guidance recognizes these limitations, and provides a means for 
considering other evidence to help assess whether attainment of the 
NAAQS is likely to be achieved. The process by which this is done is 
called a weight of evidence (WOE) determination. Under a WOE 
determination, the state may rely on, and EPA will consider in addition 
to the results of the modeled attainment test, other factors such as 
other modeled output (e.g., changes in the predicted frequency and 
pervasiveness of 1-hour ozone NAAQS exceedances, and predicted change 
in the ozone design value); actual observed air quality trends (i.e. 
analyses of monitored air quality data); estimated emissions trends; 
and the responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1999, EPA issued additional guidance \7\ that makes further use 
of model results for base case and future emission estimates to predict 
a future design value. This guidance describes the use of an additional 
component of the WOE determination, which requires, under certain 
circumstances, additional emission reductions that are or will be

[[Page 56938]]

approved into the SIP, but that were not included in the modeling 
analysis, that will further reduce the modeled design value. An area is 
considered to monitor attainment if each monitor site has air quality 
observed ozone design values (4th highest daily maximum ozone using the 
three most recent consecutive years of data) at or below the level of 
the standard. Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA, when making a 
determination that a control strategy will provide for attainment, to 
determine whether or not the model predicted future design value is 
expected to be at or below the level of the standard. Since the form of 
the 1-hour NAAQS allows exceedances, it did not seem appropriate for 
EPA to require the test for attainment to be ``no exceedances'' in the 
future model predictions. The method outlined in EPA's 1999 guidance 
uses the highest measured design value across all sites in the 
nonattainment area for each of three years. These three ``design 
values'' represent the air quality observed during the time period used 
to predict ozone for the base emissions. This is appropriate because 
the model is predicting the change in ozone from the base period to the 
future attainment date. The three yearly design values (highest across 
the area) are averaged to account for annual fluctuations in 
meteorology. The result is an estimate of an area's base year design 
value. The base year design value is multiplied by a ratio of the peak 
model predicted ozone concentrations in the attainment year (i.e., 
average of daily maximum concentrations from all days modeled) to the 
peak model predicted ozone concentrations in the base year (i.e., 
average of daily maximum concentrations from all days modeled). The 
result is an attainment year design value based on the relative change 
in peak model predicted ozone concentrations from the base year to the 
attainment year. Modeling results also show that emission control 
strategies designed to reduce areas of peak ozone concentrations 
generally result in similar ozone reductions in all core areas of the 
modeling domain, thereby providing some assurance of attainment at all 
monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through 
Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.'' 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air 
Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 
1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the attainment year design value is above the standard, the 1999 
guidance provides a method for identifying additional emission 
reductions, not modeled, which at a minimum provide an estimated 
attainment year design value at the level of the standard. This step 
uses a locally derived factor which assumes a linear relationship 
between ozone and the precursors.
    A commenter criticized the 1999 guidance as flawed on grounds that 
it allows the averaging of the three highest air quality sites across a 
region, whereas EPA's 1991 and 1996 modeling guidance requires that 
attainment be demonstrated at each site. This has the effect of 
allowing averaging lower air quality concentrations against higher 
concentrations thus reducing the total emission reduction needed to 
attain at the higher site. The commenter does not appear to have 
described the guidance accurately. The guidance does not recommend 
averaging across a region or spatial averaging of observed data. The 
guidance does recommend determination of the highest site in the region 
for each of the three-year periods, determined by the base year 
modeled. For example, if the base year is 1990, it is the amount of 
emissions in 1990 that must be adjusted or evaluated (by accounting for 
growth and controls) to determine whether attainment results. These 
1990 emissions contributed to three design value periods (1988-90, 
1989-91 and 1990-92). Under the approach of the guidance document, EPA 
determined the design value for each of those three-year periods, and 
then averaged those three design values to determine the base design 
value. This approach is appropriate because, as just noted, the 1990 
emissions contributed to each of those periods, and there is no reason 
to believe the 1990 (episodic) emissions resulted in the highest or 
lowest of the three design values. Averaging the three years is 
beneficial for another reason: It allows consideration of a broader 
range of meteorological conditions--those that occurred throughout the 
1988-1992 period, rather than the meteorology that occurs in one 
particular year or even one particular ozone episode within that year. 
Further more, EPA relied on three-year averaging only for purposes of 
determining one component, i.e.--the small amount of additional 
emission reductions not modeled--of the WOE determination. The WOE 
determination, in turn, is intended to be part of a qualitative 
assessment of whether additional factors (including the additional 
emissions reductions not modeled), taken as a whole, indicate that the 
area is more likely than not to attain.
    A commenter criticized the component of this WOE factor that 
estimates ambient improvement because it does not incorporate complete 
modeling of the additional emissions reductions. However, the 
regulations do not mandate, nor does EPA guidance suggest, that states 
must model all control measures being implemented. Moreover, a 
component of this technique--the estimation of future design value, 
should be considered a model predicted estimate. Therefore, results 
from this technique are an extension of ``photochemical grid'' modeling 
and are consistent with section 182(c)(2)(A). Also, a commenter 
believes EPA has not provided sufficient opportunity to evaluate the 
calculations used to estimate additional emission reductions. EPA 
provided a full 60-day period for comment on all aspects of the 
proposed rule. EPA has received several comments on the technical 
aspects of the approach and the results of its application, as 
discussed above and in the responses to the individual SIPs.
    A commenter states that application of the method of attainment 
analysis in the December 16, 1999 guidance will yield a lower control 
estimate than if we relied entirely on reducing maximum predictions in 
every grid cell to less than or equal to 124 ppb on every modeled day. 
However, the commenter's approach may overestimate needed controls 
because the form of the standard allows up to three exceedances in 
three years in every grid cell. If the model over predicts observed 
concentrations, predicted controls may be further overestimated. EPA 
has considered other evidence, as described above through the WOE 
determination.
    When reviewing a SIP, the EPA must make a determination that the 
control measures adopted are reasonably likely to lead to attainment. 
Reliance on the WOE factors allows EPA to make this determination based 
on a greater body of information presented by the states and available 
to EPA. This information includes model results for the majority of the 
control measures. Although the state did not model all measures, EPA 
reviewed the model's response to changes in emissions as well as 
observed air quality changes to evaluate the impact of a few additional 
measures, not modeled. EPA's decision was further strengthened by each 
state's commitment to check progress towards attainment in a mid-course 
review and to adopt additional measures, if the anticipated progress is 
not being made.
    A commenter further criticized EPA's technique for estimating the 
ambient impact of additional emissions reductions not modeled on 
grounds that EPA employed a rollback modeling technique that, according 
to the commenter, is precluded under EPA regulations. The commenter 
explained that 40 CFR 51 App. W section 6.2.1.e. provides, 
``Proportional (rollback/forward) modeling is not an acceptable 
procedure for evaluating ozone control strategies.'' Section 14.0 of 
appendix W

[[Page 56939]]

defines ``rollback'' as ``a simple model that assumes that if emissions 
from each source affecting a given receptor are decreased by the same 
percentage, ambient air quality concentrations decrease 
proportionately.'' Under this approach if 20% improvement in ozone is 
needed for the area to reach attainment, it is assumed a 20% reduction 
in VOC would be required. There was no approach for identifying 
NOX reductions. The ``proportional rollback'' approach is 
based on a purely empirically/mathematically derived relationship. EPA 
did not rely on this approach in its evaluation of the attainment 
demonstrations. The prohibition in Appendix W applies using a rollback 
method which is empirically/mathematically derived and independent of 
model estimates or observed air quality and emissions changes as the 
sole method for evaluating control strategies. For the demonstrations 
under proposal, EPA used a locally derived (as determined by the model 
and/or observed changes in air quality) ratio of change in emissions to 
change in ozone to estimate additional emission reductions to achieve 
an additional increment of ambient improvement in ozone. For example, 
if monitoring or modeling results indicate that ozone was reduced by 25 
ppb during a particular period, and that VOC and NOX 
emissions fell by 20 tons per day and 10 tons per day respectively 
during that period, EPA developed a ratio of ozone improvement related 
to reductions in VOC and NOX. This formula assumes a linear 
relationship between the precursors and ozone for a small amount of 
ozone improvement, but it is not a ``proportional rollback'' technique. 
Further, EPA uses these locally derived adjustment factors as a 
component to estimate the extent to which additional emissions 
reductions--not the core control strategies--would reduce ozone levels 
and thereby strengthen the weight of evidence test. EPA uses the UAM to 
evaluate the core control strategies. This limited use of adjustment 
factors is more technically sound than the unacceptable use of 
proportional rollback to determine the ambient impact of the entire set 
of emissions reductions required under the attainment SIP. The limited 
use of adjustment factors is acceptable for practical reasons: it 
obviates the need to expend more time and resources to perform 
additional modeling. In addition, the adjustment factor is a locally 
derived relationship between ozone and its precursors based on air 
quality observations and/or modeling which is more consistent with 
recommendations referenced to in Appendix W and does not assume a 
direct proportional relationship between ozone and its precursors. In 
addition, the requirement that areas perform a mid-course review (a 
check of progress toward attainment) provides a margin of safety.
    A commenter expressed concerns that EPA used a modeling technique 
(proportional rollback) that was expressly prohibited by 40 CFR part 51 
Appendix W, without expressly proposing to do so in a notice of 
proposed rulemaking. However, the commenter is mistaken. As explained 
above, EPA did not use or rely upon a proportional rollback technique 
in this rulemaking, but used UAM to evaluate the core control 
strategies and then applied its WOE guidance. Therefore, because EPA 
did not use an ``alternative model'' to UAM, it did not trigger an 
obligation to modify Appendix W. Furthermore, EPA did propose to use 
the November 1999 guidance, ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence 
Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not 
Modeled,'' in the December 16, 1999 NPR and has responded to all 
comments received on that guidance elsewhere in this document.
    A commenter also expressed concern that EPA applied unacceptably 
broad discretion in fashioning and applying the WOE determinations. For 
all of the attainment submittals proposed for approval in December 1999 
concerning serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas, EPA first 
reviewed the UAM results. In all cases, the UAM results did not pass 
the deterministic test. In two cases--Milwaukee and Chicago--the UAM 
results passed the statistical test; in the rest of the cases, the UAM 
results failed the statistical test. The UAM has inherent limitations 
that, in EPA's view, were manifest in all these cases. These 
limitations include: Only selected time periods were modeled, not the 
entire three-year period used as the definitive means for determining 
an area's attainment status. Also, there are inherent uncertainties in 
the model formulation and model inputs such as hourly emission 
estimates, emissions growth projections, biogenic emission estimates, 
and derived wind speeds and directions. As a result, for all areas, 
even Milwaukee and Chicago, EPA examined additional analyses to 
indicate whether additional SIP controls would yield meaningful 
reductions in ozone values. These analyses did not point to the need 
for additional emission reductions for Springfield, Greater 
Connecticut, Metropolitan Washington, DC, Chicago and Milwaukee, but 
did point to the need for additional reductions, in varying amounts, in 
the other areas. As a result, the other areas submitted control 
requirements to provide the indicated level of emissions reductions. 
EPA applied the same methodology in these areas, but because of 
differences in the application of the model to the circumstances of 
each individual area, the results differed on a case-by-case basis.
    As another WOE factor, for areas within the NOX SIP call 
domain, results from the EPA regional modeling for NOX 
controls as well as the Tier2/Low Sulfur program were considered. Also, 
for all of the areas, EPA considered recent changes in air quality and 
emissions. For some areas, this was helpful because there were emission 
reductions in the most recent years that could be related to observed 
changes in air quality, while for other areas there appeared to be 
little change in either air quality or emissions. For areas in which 
air quality trends, associated with changes in emissions levels, could 
be discerned, these observed changes were used to help decide whether 
or not the emission controls in the plan would provide progress towards 
attainment.
    The commenter also complained that EPA has applied the WOE 
determinations to adjust modeling results only when those results 
indicate nonattainment, and not when they indicate attainment. First, 
we disagree with the premise of this comment: EPA does not apply the 
WOE factors to adjust model results. EPA applies the WOE factors as 
additional analysis to compensate for uncertainty in the air quality 
modeling. Second, EPA has applied WOE determinations to all of the 
attainment demonstrations proposed for approval in December 1999. 
Although for most of them, the air quality modeling results by 
themselves indicated nonattainment, for two metropolitan areas--Chicago 
and Milwaukee, including parts of the States of Illinois, Indiana, and 
Wisconsin, the air quality modeling did indicate attainment on the 
basis of the statistical test.
    The commenter further criticized EPA's application of the WOE 
determination on grounds that EPA ignores evidence indicating that 
continued nonattainment is likely, such as, according to the commenter, 
monitoring data indicating that ozone levels in many cities during 1999 
exceeded the NAAQS by margins as wide or wider than those predicted by 
the UAM. EPA has reviewed the evidence provided by the commenter. The 
1999 monitor values do not

[[Page 56940]]

constitute substantial evidence indicating that the SIPs will not 
provide for attainment. These values do not reflect either the local or 
regional control programs which are scheduled for implementation in the 
next several years. Once implemented, these controls are expected to 
lower emissions and thereby lower ozone values. Moreover, there is 
little evidence to support the statement that ozone levels in many 
cities during 1999 continue to exceed the NAAQS by margins as wide or 
wider than those predicted by the UAM. Since areas did not model 1999 
ozone levels using 1999 meteorology and 1999 emissions which reflect 
reductions anticipated by control measures, that are or will be 
approved into the SIP, there is no way to determine how the UAM 
predictions for 1999 compare to the 1999 air quality. Therefore, we can 
not determine whether or not the monitor values exceed the NAAQS by a 
wider margin than the UAM predictions for 1999. In summary, there is 
little evidence to support the conclusion that high exceedances in 1999 
will continue to occur after adopted control measures are implemented.
    In addition, the commenter argued that in applying the WOE 
determinations, EPA ignored factors showing that the SIPs under-predict 
future emissions, and the commenter included as examples certain mobile 
source emissions sub-inventories. EPA did not ignore possible under-
prediction in mobile emissions. EPA is presently evaluating mobile 
source emissions data as part of an effort to update the computer model 
for estimating mobile source emissions. EPA is considering various 
changes to the model, and is not prepared to conclude at this time that 
the net effect of all these various changes would be to increase or 
decrease emissions estimates. For attainment demonstration SIPs that 
rely on the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment or otherwise (i.e., 
reflect these programs in their motor vehicle emissions budgets), 
states have committed to revise their motor vehicle emissions budgets 
after the MOBILE6 model is released. EPA will work with states on a 
case-by-case basis if the new emission estimates raise issues about the 
sufficiency of the attainment demonstration. If the analysis indicates 
additional measures are needed, EPA will take the appropriate action.

I. Additional VOC Reduction Technology

    Comment: For states that need additional VOC reductions, this 
commenter recommends a process to achieve these reductions, that 
involves the use of HFC-152a (1,1 difluoroethane) as the blowing agent 
in manufacturing of polystyrene foam products such as food trays and 
egg cartons. HFC-152a could be used instead of hydrocarbons, a known 
pollutant, as a blowing agent. Use of HFC-151a, which is classified as 
``VOC exempt'', would eliminate nationwide the entire 25,000 tons/year 
of VOC emissions from this industry.
    Response: EPA has met with the commenter and has discussed the 
technology described by the company to reduce VOC emissions from 
polystyrene foam blowing through the use of HFC-152a (1,1 
difluoroethane), which is a excluded as a VOC under 40 CFR 
50.100(s).\8\ Since the HFC-152a is not regulated as a VOC for purposes 
of the ozone NAAQS, its use in place of VOCs such a pentane or butane 
would result in a reduction of VOC levels. However, EPA cannot mandate 
that states adopt any specific control program to meet the NAAQS. It is 
each state's prerogative to specify which measures it will adopt in 
order to achieve the additional VOC reductions it needs. In evaluating 
the use of HFC-152a, states may want to consider claims regarding the 
comparability of the quality of products made with this blowing agent 
with the quality of products made with other blowing agents. Also the 
question of the over-all long term environmental effect of encouraging 
emissions of fluorine compounds would be relevant to consider. This is 
a technology that states may want to consider, but, ultimately, each 
state must make the decision whether to require this particular 
technology to achieve the necessary VOC emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA has excluded from regulation as a VOC, for purposes of 
the ozone NAAQS, compounds with very low reactivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Impact of SIP Call on Wisconsin

    Comment: A commenter stated that recent modeling of the impact of 
the SIP call reductions on Wisconsin shows that the state can attain 
the one-hour ozone standard in all the current nonattainment areas by 
2007 without any additional controls. Therefore, the state should not 
be subjected to further Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
or Reasonable Further Progress requirements.
    Response: Section 182(c)(2) of the Act requires that any ozone 
nonattainment area classified as serious and above submit a SIP that 
includes, among other things, (1) an attainment demonstration, based on 
photochemical grid modeling, that provides for attainment of the one-
hour ozone standard by the area's applicable attainment date, and (2) a 
demonstration that the plan will achieve volatile organic compound 
emission reductions (NOX reductions may be substituted) from 
the 1990 baseline that equal at least three percent per year averaged 
over each consecutive three-year period from 1996, until the area's 
attainment date and (3) RACT for all major stationary sources and any 
source subject to a Control Technique Guideline (CTG). Requirements 
(1), (2), and (3) above are independent even though a state may be able 
to demonstrate modeled attainment with a set of measures less than 
those needed to meet RACT or requirements. As discussed earlier, the 
area has a waiver granting exemptions from the NOX RACT 
requirements. However, even though a state may be able to demonstrate 
modeled attainment with a certain group of measures, the state must 
adopt and implement applicable VOC RACT and, if needed, additional 
measures to achieve the separate rate-of-progress requirement.

K. Mid-Course Review

    Comment: Several commenters stated that the timing of the mid-
course review (MCR) is too accelerated and incompatible with the ozone 
standard and with EPA's rules regarding the submission of quality-
assured data. Also, one commenter believes that EPA's draft guidance 
recognizes that a mid-course review in 2004 or 2005 would be far more 
robust and would require less data manipulation and much less 
speculation regarding the future effect on air quality of the control 
measures in place in 2003, and thus the need for additional control 
measures to attain by the attainment date.
    Response: EPA understands the issue of timing. However, the timing 
issue involves balancing two critical factors. On the one hand, for a 
mid-course review to be useful in flagging the need to make changes to 
a control strategy in time to affect attainment by the attainment date, 
it must be sufficiently in advance of the attainment date. On the other 
hand, the MCR could discern more accurately whether progress is being 
made if there were sufficient emission reductions that occurred in the 
time period between the attainment demonstration modeling and the MCR. 
Thus, in reviewing a state's commitment regarding the performance of 
the mid-course review for any specific area, EPA will determine if the 
timing appropriately accommodates these two factors. In general, EPA 
believes that the states should perform the MCR for nonattainment areas 
within the SIP call region immediately following the first

[[Page 56941]]

ozone season during which sources must comply with the state's SIP in 
response to EPA's SIP call. Because the court in the SIP call case 
extended the compliance deadline for the SIP call until May 2004, EPA 
generally believes that for areas in the eastern United States, the 
most appropriate time to perform the MCR would be following the 2004 
ozone season. However, EPA also recognizes that for areas with an 
attainment date of November 2005 or earlier, it may be difficult to 
ensure that the MCR would be completed in time for the state and EPA to 
react in a manner sufficient to affect the area's ability to attain by 
its attainment date. In these instances, EPA considers the MCR more of 
an ``early attainment assessment'', which--if the MCR predicts that an 
area will not attain by its attainment date--will work to put the state 
back on track before the regulatory process that would be initiated 
after the attainment date.
    Comment: Several commenters noted that a mid-course review 
following the ozone season in 2003 will reflect only one season during 
which regional and other controls of NOX emissions will have 
been implemented. One season's ozone levels are insufficient to provide 
a trend analysis. It would be heavily reliant upon the weather 
conditions of that particular season.
    Response: The commenter points out one weakness with performing the 
MCR soon after ozone control measures have taken effect--i.e., that it 
won't provide the most reliable information in terms of a trends 
analysis. However, ozone levels are only one metric that will probably 
be employed in EPA's recommended MCR method. EPA has been working with 
the states and local governments to develop MCR guidance and in that 
process is considering a range of metrics such as those discussed 
during meetings of the Federal Advisory Committee Act Subcommittee for 
Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Implementation Programs. 
For instance, EPA is considering how to account for meteorology in 
detecting a trend line. EPA is also considering how to use ambient 
ozone precursor data (e.g., from the Photochemical Assessment 
Monitoring Stations (PAMS) sites that are located in the severe areas) 
in the methodology. Also, EPA will consider ``administrative'' metrics, 
such as the level of implementation of the emission reduction measures. 
Thus, EPA believes that there will be sufficient tools available for 
the states to make good use of the information performed by an MCR even 
if some of the most significant ozone reductions have not been in place 
long.
    Again, as stated above, in determining the timing for the MCR, the 
states and EPA need to balance the need for implementation of 
additional control measures before performing the MCR with ensuring 
that the MCR is completed in time such that the information it provides 
may be useful in ensuring that an area reaches attainment by its 
attainment date. In general, EPA believes that the states should 
perform the MCR for nonattainment areas within the SIP call region 
immediately following the first ozone season during which sources are 
required to comply with the state's SIP in response to EPA's SIP call. 
Because the court in the SIP Call case extended the compliance deadline 
for the SIP call until May 2004, EPA generally believes that for areas 
in the eastern United States, the most appropriate time to perform the 
MCR would be following the 2004 ozone season.
    EPA agrees with the commenter that accounting for the influence of 
meteorology on air quality observations is challenging, critical, and 
must be taken into consideration when discerning the level of air 
quality improvement being observed. Therefore, the draft MCR technical 
guidance, under review, recommends several methods for accounting for 
meteorology in the review process. The Agency is also developing, as 
part of the PM2.5 and visibility assessments underway, new tools for 
interpreting meteorological influences on formation and transport of 
pollutants. Much of these analyses incorporate regression analysis of 
specific meteorological parameters, along with ozone and PM2.5 observed 
concentrations. We encourage scientists and analysts involved with air 
quality issues to work with EPA to develop and test these methods.

L. Measures for the 1-Hour NAAQS and for Progress Toward 8-Hour NAAQS

    Comment: One commenter notes that EPA has been working toward 
promulgation of a revised 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) because the Administrator deemed attaining the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS is not adequate to protect public health. Therefore, EPA 
must ensure that measures be implemented now that will be sufficient to 
meet the 1-hour standard and that make as much progress toward 
implementing the 8-hour ozone standard as the requirements of the CAA 
and implementing regulations allow.
    Response: The 1-hour standard remains in effect for all of these 
areas and the SIPs that have been submitted are for the purpose of 
achieving that NAAQS. Congress has provided the states with the 
authority to choose the measures necessary to attain the NAAQS and EPA 
cannot second guess the states' choice if it determines that the SIP 
meets the requirements of the CAA. EPA believes that the SIPs for the 
severe areas meet the requirements for attainment demonstrations for 
the 1-hour standard and thus, could not disapprove them even if EPA 
believed other control requirements might be more effective for 
attaining the 8-hour standard. However, EPA generally believes that 
emission controls implemented to attain the 1-hour ozone standard will 
be beneficial towards attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard as well. 
This is particularly true regarding the implementation of 
NOX emission controls resulting from EPA's NOX 
SIP Call.
    Finally, EPA notes that although the 8-hour ozone standard has been 
adopted by the EPA, implementation of this standard has been delayed 
while certain aspects of the standard remain before the United States 
Circuit Court of Appeals. The states and the EPA have yet to define the 
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas and the EPA has yet to issue guidance 
and requirements for the implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard.

M. Attainment and Post '99 Rate of Progress Demonstrations

    Comment: One commenter claims that the plans fail to demonstrate 
emission reductions of 3% per year over each 3-year period between 
November 1999 and November 2002; and November 2002 and November 2005; 
and the 2-year period between November 2005 and November 2007, as 
required by 42 U.S.C. section 7511a(c)(2)(B). The states have not even 
attempted to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, and EPA 
has not proposed to find that they have been met.
    The EPA has absolutely no authority to waive the statutory mandate 
for 3% annual reductions. The statute does not allow EPA to use the 
NOX SIP call or 126 orders as an excuse for waiving rate-of-
progress (ROP) deadlines. The statutory ROP requirement is for emission 
reductions--not ambient reductions. Emission reductions in upwind 
states do not waive the statutory requirement for 3% annual emission 
reductions within the downwind nonattainment area.
    Response: Under no condition is EPA waiving the statutory 
requirement for 3% annual emission reductions. For many areas, EPA did 
not propose approval of the post-99 ROP demonstrations at the same time 
as EPA

[[Page 56942]]

proposed action on the area's attainment demonstration. However, for 
the Milwaukee-Racine area, we are finalizing the approval of both in 
this notice. Moreover, EPA has not provided that area's may rely on 
upwind reductions for purposes of meeting the ROP requirements. Rather, 
states are relying on in-state NOX and VOC measures for 
meeting the ROP requirement.

N. Attainment and Rate of Progress Demonstrations--Approval of 
Demonstrations That Rely on State Commitments or State Rules for 
Emission Limitations To Lower Emissions in the Future Not Yet Adopted 
by a State and/or Approved by EPA

    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal to 
approve states' attainment and rate of progress demonstrations because 
(a) not all of the emissions reductions assumed in the demonstrations 
have actually taken place, (b) are reflected in rules yet to be adopted 
and approved by a state and approved by EPA as part of the SIP, (c) are 
credited illegally as part of a demonstration because they are not 
approved by EPA as part of the SIP, or (d) the commenter maintains that 
EPA does not have authority to accept enforceable state commitments to 
adopt measures in the future in lieu of current adopted measures to 
fill a near-term shortfall of reductions.
    With respect to the commitments from Texas for the Houston-
Galveston Area, the commenters contend that the 56 tpd gap must be 
closed now. The commenters are concerned that Texas has proposed a 
process that will take three more years--until at 2004--to develop and 
adopt the final control measures needed for attainment. Deferred 
adoption and submittal are not consistent with the statutory mandates 
and are not consistent with the CAA's demand that all SIPs contain 
enforceable measures. EPA does not have authority to approve a SIP if 
part of the SIP is not adequate to meet all tests for approval. Because 
the submittal consists in part of commitments, Texas has not adopted 
rules implementing final control strategies, and the plan includes 
insufficient reduction strategies to meet the emission reduction goals 
established by the TNRCC. Thus, Texas has failed to adopt a SIP with 
sufficient adopted and enforceable measures to achieve attainment. For 
these reasons, the submittal also does not meet the NRDC's consent 
decree definition of a ``full attainment demonstration SIP,'' which 
obligates EPA to propose a federal implementation plan if it does not 
approve the Houston-Galveston SIP. For these reasons, EPA should reject 
the Houston-Galveston SIP and impose sanctions on the area and publish 
a proposed FIP no later than October 15, 2001.
    Response: While at the time the comment was submitted, Wisconsin 
had not yet adopted and submitted all control measures necessary to 
demonstrate attainment, the state has now adopted and EPA has approved 
all measures relied upon in the attainment demonstration. These 
measures will be implemented sufficiently in advance of the area's 
attainment date. Thus, the commenter's concern has been addressed.
    Comments received in response to the July 2, 2001 proposed 
approval.
    We received the comments below in response to the July 2, 2001 
proposed approval of Wisconsin's one-hour attainment demonstration SIP 
revision.

O. Clarification of State's MOBILE6 Commitment

    Comment: The proposed approval contains language regarding the 
commitment to recalculate motor vehicle emission budgets within one 
year from the formal release of the MOBILE6 emissions model. The state 
clarified in its comment letter that it has committed to recalculate 
only the attainment year (2007) emission budget and not the interim 
rate-of-progress years (2002 and 2005).
    Response: EPA concurs with the state's clarification.

P. Mid-Course Review

    Comment: The commenter restated the need for MCRs to be conducted 
and submitted in 2004, after the NOX SIPs have been 
implemented and also reiterated the state's commitment to conduct the 
MCR based on attainment year emissions calculated using the new MOBILE6 
emission model.
    Response: EPA concurs with both aspects of the comment. See related 
response to comment K above.

IV. Final Rulemaking Action.

    In this rulemaking action, we are approving Wisconsin's one-hour 
ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision and the related elements 
submitted on December 27, 2001, supplemented on May 28, 2001, and on 
June 6, 2001. Specifically, we are approving (1) the modeled attainment 
demonstration, (2) the NOX reduction rule, (3) the revision 
to the NOX waiver, (4) the rule to control VOCs from 
industrial solvent cleaning operations, (5) the rule requiring VOC 
controls from plastic parts coating operations, (6) the SIP order 
requiring VOC control for Flint Ink, (7) 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, (8) 
the RACM analysis, (9) the commitment to conduct a mid-course review of 
the attainment status of the Lake Michigan area, and (10) the post-1999 
ROP plan. We are fully approving the attainment demonstration as 
meeting the requirements of sections 182(c)(2) and (d) of the Act.

V. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.). 
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law 
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also 
does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 
on the relationship between the federal Government and Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power

[[Page 56943]]

and responsibilities established by the Act. This rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because 
it is not economically significant.
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, requires federal agencies to 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are 
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior 
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for 
failure to meet such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of 
a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. 
Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply.
    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential 
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. 
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance 
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the 
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued 
under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective December 13, 2001.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by January 14, 2002. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, 
Volatile Organic Compounds.

    Dated: October 15, 2001.
David A. Ullrich,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.


    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

    2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(103) to read 
as follows.


Sec. 52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (103) On December 27, 2000, Wisconsin submitted a one-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration plan as a revision to the Wisconsin State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). Supplements to the December 27, 2001 plan 
were submitted on May 28, 2001, June 6, 2001, and August 29, 2001.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) NR 400.02 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (B) NR 422.02 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, August 
2001, No. 548 and effective September 1, 2001.
    (C) NR 422.04 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, August 
2001, No. 548 and effective September 1, 2001.
    (D) NR 422.083 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, August 
2001, No. 548 and effective September 1, 2001.
    (E) NR 422.135 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, August 
2001, No. 548 and effective September 1, 2001.
    (F) NR 423.02 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (G) NR 423.035 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 
15, 2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (H) NR 428.01 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (I) NR 428.02 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (J) NR 428.04 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (K) NR 428.05 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (L) NR 428.07 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (M) NR 428.08 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (N) NR 428.09 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (O) NR 428.10 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (P) NR 428.11 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 15, 
2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (Q) NR 439.04(5)(a) as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, 
August 2001, No. 548 and effective September 1, 2001.
    (R) NR 439.096 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, January 
15, 2001, No. 541 and effective February 1, 2001.
    (S) NR 484.04 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, August 
2001, No. 548 and effective September 1, 2001.
    (T) A Consent Order, No. AM-00-01, signed and effective September 
7, 2000. The Order, issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources, establishes Reasonably Available Control Requirements for 
ink manufacturing operations at Flint Ink, located in Milwaukee.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) A letter from Lloyd Eagan, to Cheryl Newton dated May 28, 2001, 
providing clarifications and a commitment relative to the state's one-
hour ozone SIP revision submittal.
    (B) A letter and attachments from Lloyd Eagan to David Ullrich, 
dated June 6, 2001 providing supplemental information for the state's 
reasonably available control measures analysis.

    3. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.2585  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

[[Page 56944]]

    (p) Approval--On December 27, 2000, Wisconsin submitted a one-hour 
ozone attainment demonstration plan as a revision to the Wisconsin 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). Supplements to the December 27, 2001 
plan were submitted on May 28, 2001, June 6, 2001, and August 29, 2001. 
This plan includes a modeled demonstration of attainment, rules for the 
reduction of ozone precursor emissions, a plan to reduce ozone 
precursor emissions by three percent per year from 2000 to 2007, an 
analysis of reasonably achievable control measures, an analysis of 
transportation conformity budgets, a revision of the waiver for 
emission of oxides of nitrogen, and commitments to conduct a mid-course 
review of the area's attainment status and to use the new MOBILE6 
emissions model.

[FR Doc. 01-27721 Filed 11-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P