5932 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Department participated in their 

development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Amendments to the Regulations

■ Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended 

as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation for 

part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

■ Par. 2. Section 1.6038A–2 is amended 

by revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows:

§ 1.6038A–2 Requirement of return.

* * * * *

(d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, 

see § 1.6038A–2T(d).

* * * * *

■ Par. 3. Section 1.6038A–2T is added to 

read as follows:

§ 1.6038A–2T Requirement of return 

(temporary). 

(a) through (c) [Reserved]. For further 

guidance, see § 1.6038A–2(a) through 

(c).

(d) Time and place for filing returns.

A Form 5472 required under this 

section shall be filed with the reporting 

corporation’s income tax return for the 

taxable year by the due date (including 

extensions) of that return. A duplicate 

Form 5472 (including any attachments 

and schedules) shall be filed at the same 

time with the Internal Revenue Service 

Center, Philadelphia, PA 19255. A Form 

5472 that is timely filed electronically 

satisfies the duplicate filing 

requirement. 

(e) Through (g) [Reserved]. For further 

guidance, see § 1.6038A–2(e) through 

(g). 

(h) Effective date. (1) This section 

applies for taxable years ending on or 

after January 1, 2003. For taxable years 

ending prior to January 1, 2003, see

§ 1.6038A–2(d) in effect prior to January 

1, 2003 (see 26 CFR part 1 revised as of 

April 1, 2002). 

(2) The applicability of this section 

expires on or before February 6, 2007.

Mark E. Matthews, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: January 28, 2004. 

Pamela F. Olson, 

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 04–2645 Filed 2–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

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: 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.

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 (NOX), 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 NOX emissions by assigning states 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 5933

NOX budgets. All states affected by the 

rule, including Michigan, will be 

meeting their NOX 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 preexisting 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.

■ 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 X—Michigan

■ 2. Section 52.1170 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(119) to read as 

follows:

§ 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