[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 15, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46879-46883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13345]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0547; FRL-8210-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Control of Gasoline Volatility
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Michigan on May 26, 2006 and July
14, 2006, establishing a lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) fuel
requirement for gasoline distributed in the Southeast Michigan area
which includes Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. Michigan has developed these fuel
requirements to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is
proposing to approve Michigan's fuel requirements into the Michigan SIP
because EPA has found that the requirements are necessary for Southeast
Michigan to achieve the 8-hr ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under section 110 of the
CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0547, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (312)886-5824.
Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0547. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
[[Page 46880]]
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open
from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo,
Environmental Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6061 before visiting
the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Description of the SIP Revision and EPA's Action
A. What Is the Background for This Action?
B. What Is Reid Vapor Pressure?
C. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
D. How Has the State Met the Test Under Section 211(c)(4)(C)?
E. What Are the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements?
F. How Has the State Met the Relevant Energy Policy Act
Requirements?
G. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
A. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part
2.
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Description of the SIP Revision and EPA's Action
A. What Is the Background for This Action?
On April 1995, the Detroit-Ann Arbor consolidated metropolitan
statistical area (CMSA) made up of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw,
Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties was redesignated as an
attainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. At the time the area was
redesignated to attainment, EPA approved, as a revision to the Michigan
SIP, contingency measures including a 7.8 psi low-RVP fuels program.
During the summer of 1995 monitors in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA
recorded violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
On January 6, 1996, Michigan Governor John Engler sent a letter to
EPA selecting the 7.8 psi low-RVP fuels program as one of the
contingency measures to be implemented in the Detroit area to address
the recent NAAQS violation. On May 16, 1996, the State submitted the
low-RVP portion of their fuels program to EPA for approval. The program
required gasoline sold in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA meet a standard of
7.8 psi from June 1 to September 15.
On May 5, 1997, EPA approved the State's SIP revision to establish
a low-RVP program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA. As detailed in the
final approval at 62 FR 24341, EPA found the State's demonstration
sufficient to satisfy the necessity requirement of Section 211(c)(4)(C)
of the CAA. Additionally, EPA found that the State's description of the
program and associated enforcement procedures were sufficient for
approval.
On June 15, 2004, the EPA designated eight counties in Southeast
Michigan as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard (Detroit-Ann
Arbor CMSA--Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties). These counties were initially
classified under the CAA as Moderate, but EPA later reclassified them
as Marginal on September 22, 2004. See 69 FR 56697 (September 22, 2004)
for further details. As part of this reclassification, the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments (SEMCOG) committed to a schedule to identify and
implement controls that will help the area attain by the Marginal
attainment date of June 15, 2007.
To bring this area into attainment, the State is adopting and
implementing a broad range of ozone control measures including control
of emissions from cement manufacturing, control of emissions from the
use of consumer/commercial products, and the implementation of a 7.0
psi low-RVP fuels program.
The State's legislative amendments changed the RVP of a compliant
fuel and became effective on April 6, 2006. The legislative authority,
as amended, requires that, beginning June 1, 2007 through September 15,
2007, and for that period of time each subsequent year, no gasoline may
be sold with an RVP greater that 7.0 psi in Wayne, Macomb, Washtenaw,
Livingston, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair and Lenawee counties. The
State's low-RVP requirements can be found in the Motor Fuels Quality
Act (1984 PA 44) as amended by 2006 PA 104 (Act 104) on April 2, 2006.
The MDEQ submitted this amended low-RVP legislation to EPA as a
revision to the SIP on May 26, 2006. MDEQ also submitted a letter dated
July 14, 2006 requesting that two provisions of the amended Motor Fuels
Quality Act, Sections 9(k) and 9(l), not be incorporated into the
Michigan SIP. In addition, Michigan submitted additional technical
support for the SIP revision, including materials supporting the
State's request to waive the CAA preemption of State fuel controls
pursuant to section 211(c)(4) of the CAA. By this low-RVP legislation,
Michigan is ensuring that these emission reductions are critical to
Michigan's attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Southeast
Michigan area.
B. What Is Reid Vapor Pressure?
Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP, is a measure of a gasoline's
volatility at a
[[Page 46881]]
certain temperature and is a measurement of the rate at which gasoline
evaporates and emits VOCs; the lower the RVP, the lower the rate of
evaporation. The RVP of gasoline can be lowered by reducing the amount
of its more volatile components, such as butane. Lowering RVP in the
summer months can offset the effect of high summer temperatures upon
the volatility of gasoline, which, in turn, lowers emissions of VOC.
Because VOC is a necessary component in the production of ground level
ozone in hot summer months, reduction of RVP will help areas achieve
the NAAQS for ozone and thereby produce benefits for human health and
the environment.
The primary emission reduction benefits from low-RVP gasoline used
in motor vehicles comes from reductions in VOC evaporative emissions;
exhaust emission reductions are much smaller. Because oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) are a product of combustion from motor
vehicles, they will not be found in evaporative emissions, and low-RVP
gasoline will have little or no effect on NOX.
C. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
In determining the approvability of a SIP revision, EPA must
evaluate the proposed revision for consistency with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the
CAA and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and
Submittal of Implementation Plans).
For SIP revisions approving certain state fuel measures, an
additional statutory requirement applies. CAA section 211(c)(4)(A)
prohibits state regulations respecting a fuel characteristic or
component for which EPA has adopted a control or prohibition under
section 211(c)(1), unless the state control is identical to the Federal
control. Section 211(c)(4)(C) provides an exception to this preemption
if EPA approves the state requirements in a SIP. Section 211(c)(4)(C)
states that the Administrator may approve an otherwise preempted state
fuel standards in a SIP:
only if he finds that the State control or prohibition is necessary
to achieve the national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard which the plan implements. The Administrator may find that
a State control or prohibition is necessary to achieve that standard
if no other measures that would bring about timely attainment exist,
or if other measures exist and are technically possible to
implement, but are unreasonable or impracticable.
EPA's August, 1997 ``Guidance on Use of Opt-in to RFG and Low RVP
Requirements in Ozone SIPs'' gives further guidance on what EPA is
likely to consider in making a finding of necessity. Specifically, the
guidance recommends breaking down the necessity demonstration into four
steps: (1) Identify the quantity of reductions needed to reach
attainment; (2) identify other possible control measures and the
quantity of reductions each measure would achieve; (3) explain in
detail which of those identified control measures are considered
unreasonable or impracticable; and (4) show that, even with the
implementation of all reasonable and practicable measures, the state
would need additional emission reductions for timely attainment, and
that the state fuel measure would supply some or all of such additional
reductions.
EPA has evaluated the submitted SIP revision and has determined
that it is consistent with the requirements of the CAA, EPA
regulations, and conforms to EPA's completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V. Further, EPA has looked at Michigan's demonstration
that the low-RVP fuel control is necessary in accordance with Section
211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA and agrees with the State's conclusion that a
fuel measure is needed to achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The SIP submittal contains: (1) 7.0 low vapor pressure gasoline
waiver request for southeast Michigan; (2) Motor Fuels Quality Act,
1984 PA 44, as amended by the Michigan Legislature and approved by the
Governor on April 2, 2006; (3) Southeast Michigan Ozone control measure
evaluation matrix; (4) Ozone attainment strategy for southeast Michigan
dated June 30, 2005; and (5) the public hearing record dated May 19,
2006.
D. How Has the State Met the Test Under Section 211(c)(4)(C)?
CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) preempts certain state fuel regulations by
prohibiting a State from prescribing or attempting to enforce any
control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or component of a
fuel or fuel additive for the purposes of motor vehicle emission
control if the Administrator has prescribed under section 211(c)(1) a
control or prohibition applicable to such characteristic or component
of the fuel or fuel additive, unless the state prohibition is identical
to the prohibition or control prescribed by the Administrator.
EPA has adopted Federal RVP controls under sections 211(c) and
211(h). See 56 FR 64704 (December 12, 1991). These regulations are
found in 40 CFR 80.27. The State of Michigan is generally required
under the Federal rule to meet a 9.0 psi RVP standard. See 40 CFR
80.27(a)(2). However, EPA approved a SIP revision establishing a 7.8
psi low-RVP program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA on May 5, 1997. See
62 FR 24341.
As stated previously, a State may prescribe and enforce an
otherwise preempted low-RVP requirement only if the EPA approves the
control into the State's SIP. In order to approve a preempted state
fuel control into a SIP, EPA must find that the state control is
necessary to achieve a NAAQS because no other measures that would bring
about timely attainment exist or that such measures exist but are
either not reasonable or practicable. Thus, to determine whether
Michigan's low-RVP rule is necessary to meet the ozone NAAQS, EPA must
consider whether there are other reasonable and practicable measures
available to produce the emission reductions needed to achieve the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
Photochemical modeling results submitted by the State in the
document titled ``Ozone Attainment Strategy for Southeast Michigan''
shows that the southeast Michigan area will not attain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by 2007 with emission reductions from national controls alone.
The MDEQ and SEMCOG concluded that additional reductions should be
obtained.
MDEQ used a weight-of-evidence approach that considered such
factors as modeling, monitoring, emission changes, and historical
experience in developing the area's attainment strategy and to estimate
the amount of emission reduction needed for attainment. Based on this
weight-of-evidence, MDEQ projected that a reduction of 13 to 15 tons of
VOC per day will be needed to reach attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
With this estimate of the VOC reductions necessary to achieve the
8-hour ozone NAAQS, the State evaluated an extensive list of non-fuel
alternative controls to determine if reasonable and practicable
controls could be adopted and used to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
2007, the required attainment date for Marginal ozone nonattainment
areas.
The State evaluated a wide range of control measures, considering
the following factors: VOC emission reduction potential; ability to
implement the control measure expeditiously; time to secure the
emission reduction and contribute to expeditious attainment;
enforceability; potential impact on other air quality
[[Page 46882]]
issues; cost; degree of confidence in achieving the reduction and
improving air quality; ease of implementation; and experience in other
states. Michigan summarized the results of this evaluation in a
document entitled ``Southeast Michigan Ozone control measure evaluation
matrix,'' and provided a more detailed discussion on each measure in
the Ozone attainment strategy for southeast Michigan dated June 30,
2005 (See May 26, 2006 submittal from the State of Michigan, which is
in the docket for this rulemaking).
After evaluating a wide range of other controls for their
reasonableness and practicability, three measures did rise to the top:
the reduction of VOC emission from cement manufacturing, the adoption
of Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) rules for consumer and commercial
products, and the lowering of gasoline vapor pressure from 7.8 psi to
7.0 psi during the summer months. Michigan determined that the rest of
the control measures would not bring about timely attainment, were
technically impossible to implement, and were either unreasonable or
impracticable.
In the case of cement manufacturing, there is a single, very large
VOC source in Monroe County. The State's analysis indicates that the
application of controls at this single facility could yield emission
reductions comparable to those from other source categories in the
range of 5-7 tpd, in a time period compatible with the State's
commitment to attain the 8-hour NAAQS as expeditiously as possible.
Michigan's evaluation also showed that sizable VOC reductions in the
range of 8 tpd could be achieved through the adoption of OTC rules for
consumer and commercial products. The State concluded, however, that,
although some of those reductions could come early, the majority of the
benefits of such a requirement would not be achieved until after the
2007 attainment date.
While the State's analysis showed that controls on cement
manufacturing and consumer/commercial products would result in
significant VOC reductions, these reductions would not sufficient to
ensure compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007.
The State's analysis identified that adoption of all measures
determined to be reasonable and practicable would result in
approximately 13 to 15 tpd of emission reductions, but not in the
timeframe needed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007. Thus, even
with implementation of all reasonable and practicable non-fuel control
measures, additional VOC reductions are necessary.
Michigan's 7.0 psi low-RVP fuels requirement is calculated to
achieve approximately 5.6 to 7.1 tpd of VOC reductions beginning the
summer of 2007. EPA believes these emission reductions are necessary to
achieve the ozone NAAQS in Southeast Michigan. EPA is basing today's
action on the information available to us at this time, which indicates
that adequate reasonable and practicable non-fuel measures that would
achieve these needed emission reductions, and protect Michigan's air
quality in a timely manner are not available to the State. Hence, EPA
finds that the RVP standards are necessary for attainment of the
applicable ozone NAAQS, and is proposing to approve them as a revision
to the Michigan SIP.
Finally, the proposed rule changes for Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP fuel
program are not within the scope of the earlier May 5, 1997,
``necessity'' demonstration, under section 211(c)(4)(C), for Michigan's
7.8 psi RVP program. Under Michigan's 7.8 psi RVP fuel program, a
smaller geographic area was covered than for the proposed 7.0 psi RVP
program, because the Detroit-Ann Arbor 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
includes one more county than the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area did.
This change to the covered geographic area, therefore, affects our
finding made at the time of the original SIP approval for 7.8 psi RVP,
regarding the availability of non-fuel measures to bring about timely
attainment.
E. What Are the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements?
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amends the CAA by requiring
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), to determine
the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs under section
211(c)(4)(C), as of September 1, 2004, and to publish a list that
identifies these fuels, the States and Petroleum Administration for
Defense Districts (PADD) in which they are used. It also places three
additional restrictions on EPA's authority to waive preemption by
approving a State fuel program into the SIP. These restrictions are as
follows:
First, EPA may not approve a State fuel program into the
SIP if it would cause an increase in the ``total number of fuels''
approved into SIPs as of September 1, 2004.
Second, in cases where EPA approval would not increase the
total number of fuels on the list because the total number of fuels in
SIPs at that point is below the number of fuels as of the September 1,
2004, then EPA approval requires a finding, after consultation with
DOE, that the new fuel will not cause supply or distribution problems
or have significant adverse impacts on fuel producibility in the
affected or contiguous areas.
Third, with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP, EPA may not
approve a state fuel unless that fuel is already approved in at least
one SIP in the applicable PADD.
F. How Has the State Met the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements?
In a Federal Register notice published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR
32532), we proposed an interpretation of the EPAct provisions which is
based on a fuel type interpretation. We also determined and published a
draft list of the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs, under
section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, as of September 1, 2004. Under the
proposed interpretation, we will approve a 7.0 psi RVP state fuel
program even if we have not previously approved 7.0 psi RVP into a SIP
in the applicable PADD as of September 1, 2004. (71 FR 32534). Our
approval of a 7.0 psi RVP program, however, is subject to the other
EPAct restrictions, described earlier above. More specifically, our
approval of a 7.0 psi RVP program must not cause an increase to the
total number of fuels approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004.
Also, if our approval will not increase the total number of fuels on
the list, because the total number of fuels in SIPs is below the number
of fuels we approved as of the September 1, 2004, we must make a
finding, after consultation with DOE, that the 7.0 psi RVP program will
not cause supply or distribution problems or have significant adverse
impacts on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas.
Under our proposed interpretation, Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP
requirement for Southeast Michigan is not a ``new fuel type.'' EPA's
approval of Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP will not increase the total number
of fuels approved into all SIPs, as of September 1, 2004, because 7.0
psi RVP is on the draft list of fuels.\1\ Further, because the total
number of fuels approved into all SIPs at this time is not below the
number of fuels on the draft list of fuels, which we have just
published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32532), we do not believe that we need
to make a finding on the effect of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel requirement in
Southeast
[[Page 46883]]
Michigan on fuel supply and distribution in either Southeast Michigan
or the contiguous areas. Nevertheless, EPA notes that an April 15, 2005
study prepared for the American Petroleum Institute titled ``Potential
Effects of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard on Gasoline Supply, Demand and
Production Costs'' concluded that the petroleum industry was capable of
supplying 7.0 psi summertime gasoline to Southeast Michigan without
fuel supply or distribution disruptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The draft list of fuels includes 7.0 psi RVP programs, which
have been approved into the Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, and
Texas SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's action, we are proposing approval of Michigan's 7.0 psi
RVP program as consistent with the provisions of EPAct, and assuming
that we will finalize our interpretation of the EPAct provisions, as
proposed. Accordingly, in our final action approving Michigan's 7.0 psi
RVP program, we will address the issue of whether our approval of
Michigan's program is consistent with the final adopted interpretation
of EPAct.
G. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision at the request of the
MDEQ. To ensure that it secures the needed approval under section
211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, Michigan submitted this action for EPA
approval to make it part of the SIP.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State
of Michigan on May 26, 2006 and July 14, 2006, establishing a 7.0 psi
RVP fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in Southeast Michigan
which includes Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. EPA is proposing this approval on the
condition that the Agency's final interpretation of the EPAct
provisions and our determination of the total number of fuels approved
under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA as of September 1, 2004, based on
this interpretation, and the resulting draft list of these fuels does
not change from what we proposed on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32532).
EPA is proposing to approve Michigan's fuel requirements into the
SIP because EPA has found that the requirements are necessary for
Southeast Michigan to achieve the NAAQS for ozone.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed 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.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will 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).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' 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).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, 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 impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 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 use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA
do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 3, 2006.
Jo-Lynn Traub,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-13345 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P