[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5932-5933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2621]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MI83-03; FRL-7617-7]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to Michigan's definition of 
volatile organic compound (VOC). EPA's approval will revise Michigan's 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. The Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted this SIP revision on April 25, 
2003. On September 2, 2003, the EPA proposed approval of this SIP 
revision and published a direct final approval as well. EPA received 
adverse comments on the proposed rulemaking, and therefore withdrew the 
direct final rulemaking on October 31, 2003.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 10, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours 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 Kathleen D'Agostino at (312) 
886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental 
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
Telephone: (312) 886-1767. E-Mail Address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1c5c0c6ced2d5c8cfce8fcac0d5c9cdc4c4cfe1c4d1c08fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="640005030b17100d0a0b4a0f05100c0801010a240114054a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION is organized 
in the following order:

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
II. What Public Comments Were Received and What Is EPA's Response?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving a revision to Michigan's definition of VOC. 
Michigan's revised definition of the term volatile organic compound is 
``any compound of carbon or mixture of compounds of carbon that 
participates in photochemical reactions, excluding the following 
materials, all of which have been determined by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency to have negligible photochemical 
reactivity: * * *'' The definition goes on to list the exempt 
compounds. When test methods measure exempt compounds, i.e. any of 
those contained in the list of excluded compounds, Michigan's 
definition allows for their exclusion providing that two specific 
criteria are met: (1) The exempt compounds must be accurately 
quantified and (2) MDNR must approve the exclusion.
    EPA's approval of the new definition of VOC will revise Michigan's 
SIP for ozone.

II. What Public Comments Were Received and What Is EPA's Response?

    We received one adverse comment on our proposed approval of 
Michigan's revised definition of VOC. Below, we have paraphrased the 
comment and responded to it.
    Comment: I assume ozone and VOC standards are being made more lax 
and for that reason I oppose this proposal. Polluted air from Michigan 
is transported east and negatively impacts the health of citizens of 
the eastern United States. Michigan power plants must be required to 
clean the air.
    Response: Ozone and VOC standards are not being made more lax. The 
definition of VOC currently in Michigan's SIP for ozone was approved in 
1992. It met EPA's approval criteria, but had a more complicated 
structure, with divisions based on vapor pressure. In 1998, Michigan 
submitted a revised definition of VOC that we believe would have 
relaxed ozone standards. We proposed to disapprove this revision on 
June 10, 1999. After we published this proposed disapproval in the 
Federal Register, Michigan withdrew that version of the definition and 
revised it, modeling its definition after the federal definition at 40 
CFR 51.100(s).
    Since the 1992 approval, EPA has issued rules listing additional 
compounds as non-photochemically reactive. Michigan has included these 
compounds as exempt in the revised definition. This does not relax 
Michigan's definition of VOC because compounds which are not 
photochemically reactive, by their nature, do not contribute to the 
formation of ozone.
    EPA recognizes that the transport of ozone and its precursors, 
particularly oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>), is a significant 
problem that must be addressed if all areas in the country are to 
attain the national ambient air quality standards for ozone. This is 
why EPA issued the Ozone Transport Rulemaking on October 27, 1998. In 
that rule, EPA limits NO<INF>X</INF> emissions by assigning states

[[Page 5933]]

NO<INF>X</INF> budgets. All states affected by the rule, including 
Michigan, will be meeting their NO<INF>X</INF> budgets by controlling 
emissions from power plants and other large industrial sources.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (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.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    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).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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. 
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 nor 
does it significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as 
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This 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, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have federalism implications because it 
will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This 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 a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 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 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 use 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    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.).

Congressional Review Act

    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).
    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 April 9, 2004. 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, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 23, 2004.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart X--Michigan

0
2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(119) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (119) The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality submitted a 
revision to Michigan's State Implementation Plan for ozone on April 25, 
2003. This submittal contained a revised definition of volatile organic 
compound.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) R 336.1122 Definitions; V, effective March 13, 2003.

[FR Doc. 04-2621 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>