76848 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

7 Issue 6 (Nov. 2003).

8Such a report would be a voluntary report under 

the statute and regulations. See 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(3) 

(extending safe harbor protection from civil liability 

to voluntary filings).

potentially suspicious activity. In the 

November 2003 edition of its ‘‘SAR Activity 

Review,’’ 7 FinCEN instructed financial 

institutions to file suspicious activity reports 

on verified matches of persons designated by 

OFAC. While this guidance ensured that the 

relevant information would be available to 

law enforcement, it also resulted in financial 

institutions being required to make two 

separate filings with the Department of the 

Treasury—one with OFAC pursuant to its 

Reporting, Procedures and Penalties 

Regulations, and one with FinCEN pursuant 

to its suspicious activity reporting rules.

Revised Guidance 

FinCEN is hereby revising its prior 

guidance to eliminate the need for 

duplicative reporting in cases where a 

financial institution identifies a verified 

match with individuals or entities designated 

by OFAC. As of the date of publication of this 

interpretation, FinCEN will deem its rules 

requiring the filing of suspicious activity 

reports to be satisfied by the filing of a 

blocking report with OFAC in accordance 

with OFAC’s Reporting, Penalties and 

Procedures Regulations. OFAC will then 

provide the information to FinCEN for 

inclusion in the suspicious activity reporting 

database where it will be made available to 

law enforcement. This construction of the 

suspicious activity reporting rules will serve 

the public interest by enabling FinCEN to 

obtain and provide potentially important 

information about terrorists and major drug 

traffickers to law enforcement on an 

expedited basis without imposing 

duplicative reporting burdens on the 

regulated industry. 

Accordingly, a financial institution that 

files a blocking report with OFAC due to the 

involvement in a transaction or account of a 

person designated as a Specially Designated 

Global Terrorist, a Specially Designated 

Terrorist, a Foreign Terrorist Organization, a 

Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker 

Kingpin, or a Specially Designated Narcotics 

Trafficker, shall be deemed to have 

simultaneously filed a suspicious activity 

report on the fact of the match with FinCEN, 

in satisfaction of the requirements of the 

applicable suspicious activity reporting rule. 

This interpretation does not affect a financial 

institution’s obligation to identify and report 

suspicious activity beyond the fact of the 

OFAC match. To the extent that the financial 

institution is in possession of information not 

included on the blocking report filed with 

OFAC, a separate suspicious activity report 

should be filed with FinCEN including that 

information. This interpretation also does not 

affect a financial institution’s obligation to 

file a suspicious activity report even if it has 

filed a blocking report with OFAC, to the 

extent that the facts and circumstances 

surrounding the OFAC match are 

independently suspicious—and are 

otherwise required to be reported under 

existing FinCEN regulations. In those cases, 

the OFAC blocking report would not satisfy 

a financial institution’s suspicious activity 

report filing obligation. 

Further, nothing in this interpretation is 

intended to preclude a financial institution 

from filing a suspicious activity report to 

disclose additional information concerning 

the OFAC match,8 nor does it preclude a 

financial institution from filing a suspicious 

activity report if the financial institution has 

reason to believe that terrorism or drug 

trafficking is taking place, even though there 

is no OFAC match. Finally, this 

interpretation does not apply to blocking 

reports filed to report transactions and 

accounts involving persons owned by, or 

who are nationals of, countries subject to 

OFAC-administered sanctions programs. 

Such transactions should be reported on 

suspicious activity reports under the 

suspicious activity reporting rules if, and 

only, if, the activity itself appears to be 

suspicious under the criteria established by 

the suspicious activity reporting rules.

William J. Fox, 

Director.

[FR Doc. 04–27739 Filed 12–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

36 CFR Part 1228 

RIN 3095–AB41 

Records Management; Unscheduled 

Records; Correction

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: NARA published in the 

Federal Register of December 15, 2004, 

a final rule allowing the transfer of 

unscheduled records to records storage 

facilities. Inadvertently, a word was 

deleted from the preamble, changing the 

meaning of a sentence. This document 

corrects that deletion.

DATES: This rule is effective January 14, 

2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cheryl Stadel-Bevans at telephone 

number (301) 837–3021 or fax number 

(301) 837–0319.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NARA 

published a final rule on December 15, 

2004, at 69 FR 74976. The second 

sentence in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION contains an error. This 

correction inserts the missing word. 

In the final rule published at 69 FR 

74976, make the following correction. 

On page 74977, in the first column, 

insert the word ‘‘not’’ in line 6 so that 

the line reads ‘‘* * * Executive Order 

12866 and has not been * * *’’.

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

Nancy Y. Allard, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–28048 Filed 12–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[R05–OAR–2004–MI–0002; FRL–7849–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans: Michigan: 

Oxides of Nitrogen

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a 

revision to the plan prepared by 

Michigan that will limit the emissions 

of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from large 

stationary sources (i.e. power plants, 

industrial boilers and cement kilns). 

This plan meets all of the requirements 

contained in an EPA rule that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 16, 2004. This rule, otherwise 

known as the NOX SIP Call Phase I 

provides for NOX reductions from 

sources in 20 States in the eastern half 

of the country. The effect of this 

approval is to ensure federal 

enforceability of the state air program 

plan and to maintain consistency 

between the state-adopted plan and the 

approved State Implementation Plan 

(SIP).

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ rule is 

effective February 22, 2005, unless EPA 

receives written adverse comment by 

January 24, 2005. If written adverse 

comment is received, EPA will publish 

a timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule in the Federal Register and inform 

the public that the rule will not take 

effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID No. R05–OAR–2004–

MI–0002, by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME), EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comments 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key 

in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the onVerDate jul<14>2003 14:29 Dec 22, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM 23DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76849

line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.

Fax: (312)886–5824. 

Mail: You may send written 

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

Hand delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID 

No. R05–OAR–2004–MI–0002. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change, 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 Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME), regulations.gov, or email. The EPA RME website and the 

federal regulations.gov website are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 RME or 

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 the related proposed rule which is 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of this Federal Register.

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

Regional Material in EDocket (RME) 

index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/.

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy at Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We 

recommend that you telephone Douglas 

Aburano, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–6960 before visiting the 

Region 5 office.) This Facility is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Aburano, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section 

(AR–18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6960, 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This section provides additional 

information by addressing the following 

questions:

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What is a SIP? 

III. What is the Federal Approval Process for 

a SIP? 

IV. Background 

V. Michigan’s Control of NOX Emissions 

VI. EPA Action 

VII. What are the Statutory and Executive 

Order Review Requirements?

I. General Information. 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

This action applies to large stationary 

sources of NOX (such as electric 

generating units that produce electricity 

for sale, other large boilers that produce 

steam and/or electricity but do not sell 

electricity, and cement kilns) in the 

southern counties (Allegan, Barry, Bay, 

Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Clinton, 

Eaton, Genesee, Gratiot, Hillsdale, 

Ingham, Ionia, Isabella, Jackson, 

Kalamazoo, Kent, Lapeer, Lenawee, 

Livingston, Macomb, Mecosta, Midland, 

Monroe, Montcalm, Muskegon, 

Newaygo, Oakland, Oceana, Ottawa, 

Saginaw, Saint Clair, Saint Joseph, 

Sanilac, Shiawassee, Tuscola, Van 

Buren, Washtenaw, Wayne) of 

Michigan. This action also applies to the 

unit at DTE Energy’s Harbor Beach 

facility in Huron County. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

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. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

(a) Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

(b) Follow directions—The agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number.

(c) Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

(d) Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/

or data that you used. 

(e) If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

(f) Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

II. What Is a SIP? 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires states to develop air 

pollution regulations and control 

strategies to ensure that state air quality 

meets the national ambient air quality 

standards established by EPA. These 

ambient standards are established under 

section 109 of the CAA, and they 

currently address six criteria pollutants. 

These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, 

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 

Each state must submit these regulations 

and control strategies to us for approval 

76850 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

and incorporation into the federallyenforceable SIP. Each federallyapproved SIP protects air quality 

primarily by addressing air pollution at 

its point of origin. These SIPs can be 

extensive and contain state regulations 

or other enforceable documents, as well 

as supporting elements such as emission 

inventories, monitoring networks, and 

modeling demonstrations. 

III. What Is the Federal Approval 

Process For a SIP? 

For state regulations to be 

incorporated into the federallyenforceable SIP, states must formally 

adopt the regulations and control 

strategies consistent with state and 

federal requirements. This process 

generally includes a public notice, 

public hearing, public comment period, 

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body. Once a 

state rule, regulation, or control strategy 

is adopted, the state submits it to us for 

inclusion into the SIP. We must provide 

public notice and seek additional public 

comment regarding the federal action on 

the state submission. If adverse 

comments are received, they must be 

addressed prior to any final federal 

action. All state regulations and 

supporting information approved by 

EPA under section 110 of the CAA are 

incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. EPA has codified its 

actions on state SIP submittals in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 

Title 40, part 52, entitled ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans.’’

The actual state regulations which are 

approved are not reproduced in their 

entirety in the CFR, but are 

‘‘incorporated by reference,’’ which 

means that we have approved a given 

state regulation with a specific effective 

date.

IV. Background 

A. What Are the Phase I NOX SIP Call 

Requirements? 

On October 27, 1998, EPA published 

a final rule entitled, ‘‘Finding of 

Significant Contribution and 

Rulemaking for Certain States in the 

Ozone Transport Assessment Group 

Region for Purposes of Reducing 

Regional Transport of Ozone,’’

otherwise known as the ‘‘NOX SIP Call.’’

See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). The 

NOX SIP Call requires 22 states and the 

District of Columbia to meet NOX

emission budgets during the five month 

period from May 1 through September 

30 in order to reduce the amount of 

ground level ozone that is transported 

across the eastern United States. EPA 

discussed the history of the SIP Call 

extensively as part of the conditional 

approval of Michigan’s NOX trading 

program (see 69 FR 8905). 

B. Conditional Approval of Michigan’s 

Phase I NOX SIP 

On April 3, 2003, MDEQ submitted to 

EPA for approval a SIP to address the 

Phase I NOX SIP Call requirements. 

While the rules submitted by MDEQ 

generally met the requirements for 

approval, we identified a number of 

deficiencies preventing full approval of 

the NOX SIP at that time. EPA published 

a proposed conditional approval of 

Michigan’s submittal on February 26, 

2004 (69 FR 8905), and finalized the 

conditional approval on April 16, 2004 

(69 FR 20548). EPA required that MDEQ 

address these deficiencies and submit 

revised approvable regulations by May 

31, 2004, or the conditional approval 

would automatically convert to a 

disapproval. 

C. What Deficiencies Were Identified 

and How Did MDEQ Address Them? 

In the review of Michigan’s April 3, 

2003 NOX SIP submittal, EPA identified 

six deficiencies that MDEQ had to 

correct before EPA could fully approve 

Michigan’s submittal. EPA 

communicated these deficiencies to 

MDEQ, and, in most cases, EPA 

suggested language that Michigan could 

adopt to address each concern. On May 

27, 2004, MDEQ submitted revised 

regulations to address the deficiencies. 

Following is a list of the identified 

deficiencies and a description of how 

MDEQ addressed them: 

1. Deficiency: Rule 802(5) states, ‘‘An 

oxides of nitrogen budget unit that is 

subject to a rule promulgated under 

section 126 of the Clean Air Act shall 

not be subject to this rule until the 

section 126 requirements no longer 

apply.’’ Under this language, those 

oxides of nitrogen budget units that are 

subject to the Section 126 Rule and that 

would be subject to controls under the 

Michigan SIP are not covered by the 

SIP. The Section 126 Rule remains in 

place and will remain effective until 

EPA approves the Michigan SIP. The 

EPA cannot approve the Michigan SIP, 

and move forward to remove the Section 

126 requirements, unless the SIP has in 

place regulations to achieve the 

necessary emissions reductions to meet 

the Phase I budget. In evaluating the 

SIP, EPA cannot take into consideration 

the emissions reductions required by 

the Section 126 Rule. Because the 

Section 126 Rule would still be in place 

at the time EPA takes action on the 

Michigan SIP, oxides of nitrogen budget 

units that would otherwise be subject to 

controls under the Michigan SIP would 

not be covered at that time. Therefore, 

the SIP would not be providing 

sufficient emissions reductions to meet 

the Phase I budget and would not be 

approvable. This language must be 

removed from the State’s rules. EPA will 

then take action to ensure that no unit 

is subject to both trading programs. 

Correction: MDEQ has removed this 

language. 

2. Deficiency: The applicability of 

these rules is based on named counties 

in the southern portion of Michigan. 

While this applicability is sufficient to 

meet the requirements found in the SIP 

Call, it is not enough to remove all of 

the Section 126 requirements from the 

State. This is because there is one 

source, DTE’s Harbor Beach unit, that is 

affected by Section 126 requirements, 

but is not in one of the counties affected 

by Michigan’s NOX SIP call rule. 

Michigan has indicated a desire to 

include the Harbor Beach unit in the 

trading program in order to satisfy the 

Section 126 requirements for this 

source. To address this situation and 

enable EPA to remove all of the Section 

126 requirements from Michigan after 

the Michigan NOX SIP has been 

approved, MDEQ must extend the 

applicability of the Michigan NOX SIP 

to that one source.

Correction: The applicability section 

of this rule now includes the unit at 

DTE’s Harbor Beach facility in Huron 

County. 

3. Deficiency: Twenty-five ton 

exemption—States may develop 

alternative 25-ton NOX exemptions to 

the one included in the model rule 

provided they are based on permit 

restrictions that limit a unit’s potential 

to emit during an ozone season to 25 

tons or less and are not inconsistent 

with 40 CFR part 75 monitoring 

requirements. Michigan’s regulation, 

Part 8. Emissions Limitations and 

Prohibitions—Oxides of Nitrogen, 

includes in Rule 802(2) the 25-ton 

exemption. The rule language is based 

on the model rule but provides 

additional options for qualifying for the 

exemption that involve emission 

monitoring or testing that is inconsistent 

with Part 75. 

In addition, when a unit receives a 25-

ton exemption, the unit’s potential 

emissions (reflected as an equivalent 

number of allowances) must be removed 

from the trading budget to avoid double 

counting. An exempt unit’s emissions 

are included in the state’s large Electric 

Generating Unit (EGU) or large non-EGU 

emissions budget and therefore as 

allowances in the state’s trading budget. 

EPA is concerned that Michigan’s rule 

does not account for potential emissions 

from the exempt units. Neither the rule 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76851

nor the SIP submittal specifies a 

procedure for removing from the trading 

budget the allowances reflecting the 

exempt unit’s potential emissions. To 

address the deficiencies related to the 

25 ton exemption provisions including 

the related budget adjustments, 

Michigan must modify its regulations to 

ensure an exempt source’s emissions are 

less than 25 tons in each ozone season 

and provide a process for adjusting the 

trading budget accordingly. EPA 

provided MDEQ suggested language 

modifying the regulations. 

Correction: Language has been added 

to require monitoring in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 75, subpart H. Also, 

MDEQ has adopted the language 

suggested by EPA to address EPA’s 

other concerns. 

4. Deficiency: New source set-aside—

The new source set-aside provisions of 

section 811(1)(a) specify the set-aside 

pool allocation. The rule contains a 

typographical error regarding the 

number of allowances to be set-aside 

after 2006. A footnote in the Michigan 

SIP submittal highlights this error and 

indicates the correct number. This error 

should be corrected since the official 

regulations are the basis for all 

allocations. 

Also, section 811(2) appears to 

address the issue of adjusting a new 

source’s allowances to account for 

reduced utilization, but is incomplete 

and, for example, lacks the adjustment 

formula. This section also appears to 

specify how remaining set-aside 

allowances are determined, but that 

matter is also addressed in section 

811(3). Michigan must clarify these 

provisions. EPA provided MDEQ 

suggested language to clarify these 

provisions. 

Correction: The typographical error 

has been corrected and MDEQ has 

adopted the language suggested by EPA 

to address EPA’s other concerns. 

5. Deficiency: Language in section 

802(1)(a) appears to allow the State to 

exempt an EGU for which applicability 

has not been determined. EPA cannot 

approve any exemption that is solely at 

the discretion of the State and does not 

include EPA approval as well. The 

language relating to exemptions based 

solely on the State’s discretion must be 

removed as a condition of final 

approval. 

Correction: This language has been 

removed in the version submitted by 

MDEQ for approval. 

6. Deficiency: Language in section 804 

relating to retired unit exemptions must 

be modified to include the requirement 

that a unit that qualifies for this 

exemption, is not required to have a 

permit, and subsequently resumes 

operation will lose the exemption at the 

time of resumption of operation. EPA 

provided MDEQ suggested language 

modifying this section of the 

regulations.

Correction: The ‘‘loss of exemption’’

language suggested by EPA has been 

adopted and submitted by MDEQ. 

V. Michigan’s Control of NOX Emissions 

A. When Did Michigan Submit the SIP 

Revision to EPA in Response to the NOX

SIP Call? 

On April 3, 2003, MDEQ submitted a 

final revision to its SIP to meet the 

requirements of the Phase I NOX SIP 

Call. EPA found that the initial 

submittal generally complied with 

section 110 of the Act and the Phase I 

NOX SIP Call but that it had several 

minor deficiencies. Therefore, EPA 

conditionally approved the submittal. 

On May 27, 2004, MDEQ submitted 

another SIP revision that addressed all 

of the issues raised in EPA’s April 16, 

2004 conditional approval. 

B. When Did Michigan Hold Public 

Hearings and What Were the Results? 

Public hearings were held on 

December 3, 2001 and January 22, 2003 

for the April 3, 2003 submittal. A public 

hearing was held on March 11, 2004 for 

the May 27, 2004 submittal. MDEQ 

holds public hearings on rules at the 

end of a 30-day public comment period. 

MDEQ either modified its rules to 

accommodate the comments received or 

explained why the rules were not 

changed in light of the comments. 

C. What Is Included in Michigan’s NOX

SIP Call Revision? 

Michigan allows, as in the model rule, 

EGUs and non-EGUs to participate in 

the multi-state cap and trade program. 

Cement kilns are not included in the 

trading program, but will be required to 

install low NOX burners, mid-kiln firing 

system or technology that achieves the 

same emission decreases (a 30% 

reduction). Michigan’s SIP revision to 

meet the requirements of the NOX SIP 

Call consists of the revision of Michigan 

Rules 802 through 817. The regulations 

802 through 816 affect EGUs and nonEGUs. Rule 817 applies requirements to 

cement manufacturing facilities. 

Michigan’s SIP revision to meet the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call 

consists of the following Michigan 

Rules: 

• 802 Applicability under oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program 

• 803 Definitions for oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program 

• 804 Retired unit exemption from 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program 

• 805 Standard requirements of 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program 

• 806 Computation of time under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program 

• 807 Authorized account 

representative under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program 

• 808 Permit requirements under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program 

• 809 Compliance certification under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program 

• 810 Allowance allocations under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program 

• 811 New source set-aside under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program 

• 812 Allowance tracking system and 

transfers under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program 

• 813 Monitoring and reporting 

requirements under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program 

• 814 Individual opt-ins under oxides 

of nitrogen budget trading program 

• 815 Allowance banking under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program 

• 816 Compliance supplement pool 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program 

• 817 Emission limitations and 

restrictions for Portland cement kilns

Michigan’s Oxides of Nitrogen Budget 

Trading Program (Rules 802 through 

816) establishes and requires 

participation in a NOX allowance 

trading program for large EGUs and nonEGUs. These rules establish a NOX cap 

and allowance trading program for the 

ozone control seasons beginning May 

31, 2004. Michigan Rule 817, not part of 

the trading program, applies to cement 

kilns and also requires control during 

the ozone season starting on May 31, 

2004. Beginning in 2005, the ozone 

control period is May 1 through 

September 30. 

The State of Michigan chose to follow 

EPA’s model NOX budget and allowance 

trading rule, 40 CFR part 96, that sets 

forth a NOX emissions trading program 

for EGUs and non-EGUs. Michigan’s 

Oxides of Nitrogen Budget Trading 

Program is based upon EPA’s model 

rule, therefore, Michigan sources are 

allowed to participate in the interstate 

NOX allowance trading program that 

EPA is administering for the 

participating states. Under Rule 810, 

Michigan allocates NOX allowances to 

the EGU and non-EGU units that are 

affected by these requirements. The 

NOX trading program applies to EGUs 

(fossil fuel fired boilers and turbines 

76852 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

serving a generator with a nameplate 

capacity greater than 25 MW that sell 

any amount of electricity) as well as 

non-EGUs (fossil fuel fired industrial 

boilers and turbines that have a 

maximum design heat input greater than 

250 mmBtu per hour). Each NOX

allowance permits a source to emit one 

ton of NOX during the seasonal control 

period. NOX allowances may be bought 

or sold. Unused NOX allowances may 

also be banked for future use, with 

certain limitations. 

Source owners will monitor and 

report their NOX emissions by using 

methodologies that meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 75, subpart 

H, and report resulting data to EPA 

electronically. Each budget source 

complies with the program by 

demonstrating at the end of each control 

period that actual emissions do not 

exceed the amount of allowances held 

for that period. However, regardless of 

the number of allowances a source 

holds, it cannot emit at levels that 

would violate other federal or State 

limits, for example, reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), new source 

performance standards, or Title IV (the 

Federal Acid Rain program). 

Michigan’s Oxides of Nitrogen Budget 

Trading Program establishes 

requirements for cement manufacturing 

facilities. These sources are subject to 

NOX reduction requirements but do not 

participate in the NOX trading program. 

Michigan’s submittal does not rely on 

any additional reductions beyond the 

anticipated federal measures in the 

mobile and area source categories. 

Michigan’s submittal demonstrates 

that the Phase I NOX emission budgets 

established by EPA will be met because 

MDEQ agrees with all of the 

assumptions, projections, etc. used by 

EPA to determine the 2007 budgets. 

Because Michigan has adopted all of the 

same controls assumed by EPA in 

developing the State’s NOX budget, the 

actual emissions in 2007 should be the 

same as those EPA has projected to be 

the State’s 2007 budget. 

D. What Is the Compliance Supplement 

Pool? 

To provide additional flexibility for 

complying with emission control 

requirements associated with the NOX

SIP Call, the final NOX SIP Call rule 

provided each affected state with a 

‘‘compliance supplement pool.’’ The 

compliance supplement pool is a 

quantity of NOX allowances that may be 

used to cover excess emissions from 

sources that are unable otherwise to 

meet control requirements during the 

2004 and 2005 ozone season. 

Allowances from the compliance 

supplement pool will not be valid for 

compliance past the 2005 ozone season. 

The NOX SIP Call included these 

voluntary provisions in order to address 

commenters’ concerns about the 

possible adverse effect that the control 

requirements might have on the 

reliability of the electricity supply or on 

other industries required to install 

controls as the result of a state’s 

response to the NOX SIP Call. 

A state may issue some or all of the 

compliance supplement pool via two 

mechanisms. First, a state may issue 

some or all of the pool to sources with 

credits from implementing NOX

reductions beyond all applicable 

requirements after September 30, 1999, 

but before May 31, 2004 (i.e., early 

reductions). This allows sources that 

cannot install controls prior to May 31, 

2004, to purchase other sources’

allowances reflecting early reduction 

credits in order to comply. Second, a 

state may issue some or all of the pool 

to sources that demonstrate a need for 

an extension of the May 31, 2004 

compliance deadline due to undue risk 

to the electricity supply or other 

industrial sectors, and where 

allowances reflecting early reductions 

are not available (See 40 CFR 

51.121(e)(3)). Michigan has opted to 

issue the State’s compliance supplement 

pool through the Early Reduction Credit 

program only.

E. How Does Michigan’s NOX SIP Affect 

Sources Subject to EPA’s Section 126 

Rule in the SIP Call Area? 

All of the existing sources in the SIP 

Call area that are subject to EPA’s 

Section 126 Rule are also subject to 

Michigan’s NOX rules. 

VI. EPA Action 

EPA is fully approving the NOX SIP 

submitted on April 3, 2003 as modified 

on May 27, 2004. EPA finds that 

Michigan’s submittals are fully 

approvable because the initial April 3, 

2003 submittal was conditionally 

approved and the conditions for full 

approvability were met in the May 27, 

2004 submittal. In combination, these 

two submittals meet the requirements of 

the Phase I NOX SIP Call. 

We are approving: Michigan’s 

revision of the ozone SIP that responds 

to EPA’s Phase I NOX SIP Call. This 

revision consists of Michigan Air 

Pollution Control Rules 803, 805–810, 

and 812–817 as submitted on April 3, 

2003 and Michigan Air Pollution 

Control Rules 802, 804 and 811 as 

submitted May 27, 2004. A combined 

package of these rules 802–817 as 

submitted on April 3, 2003 and May 27, 

2004 was submitted as a supplement to 

the May 27, 2004 submittal for ease of 

incorporation by reference. This 

supplemental submittal was sent by 

MDEQ to EPA on August 5, 2004. 

By this action, we are also vacating 

our April 16, 2004 (69 FR 20548) 

conditional approval of Michigan’s 

earlier NOX SIP submittal. 

The EPA is publishing this action 

without prior proposal because we view 

this as a noncontroversial amendment 

and anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse comments 

are filed. This rule will be effective 

February 22, 2005 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by January 

24, 2005. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

February 22, 2005. 

VII. What Are the Statutory and 

Executive Order Review Requirements? 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

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. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because this action does not 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution or use, it is 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76853

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 or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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 

approves a state rule implementing a 

federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. 

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 

economically significant. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 22, 2005. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Dated: December 3, 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)(121) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(121) On April 3, 2003, the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) submitted a revision to the 

Michigan State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This SIP revision was made to 

address EPA requirements placed on a 

number of States in the eastern half of 

the country to reduce emissions of 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) that are 

contributing to the ozone transport 

phenomenon. The rulemaking that 

contains the requirements the States 

must meet is called the Phase I NOX SIP 

Call. Michigan’s April 3, 2003 SIP 

revision was conditionally approved on 

April 16, 2004. Subsequent SIP 

revisions to address the requirements 

found in EPA’s conditional approval 

were made on May 27, 2004 and August 

5, 2004. These additional submittals, in 

combination with the original SIP 

revision, fulfill the Phase I NOX SIP Call 

requirements. In its August 5, 2004 

supplemental SIP revision, MDEQ 

requests that the following rules are 

incorporated by reference: R336.1802 

Applicability under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program, R336.1803 

Definitions for oxides of nitrogen budget 

trading program, R336.1804 Retired unit 

exemption from oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program, R336.1805 

Standard requirements of oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, 

R336.1806 Computation of time under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, R336.1807 Authorized account 

representative under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program, R336.1808 

Permit requirements under oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, 

R336.1809 Compliance certification 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, R336.1810 Allowance 

allocations under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program, R336.1811 New 

source set-aside under oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, 

R336.1812 Allowance tracking system 

and transfers under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program, R336.1813 

Monitoring and reporting requirements 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading, 

R336.1814 Individual opt-ins under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, R336.1815 Allowance banking 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, R336.1816 Compliance 

supplement pool under oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, 

76854 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

R336.1817 Emission limitations and 

restrictions for Portland cement kilns. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. The 

following sections of the Michigan 

Administrative Code are incorporated 

by reference. 

(A) R336.1802 Applicability under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, effective May 20, 2004. 

(B) R336.1803 Definitions for oxides 

of nitrogen budget trading program, 

effective December 4, 2002. 

(C) R336.1804 Retired unit exemption 

from oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, effective May 20, 2004. 

(D) R336.1805 Standard requirements 

of oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, effective December 4, 2002. 

(E) R336.1806 Computation of time 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, effective December 4, 2002. 

(F) R336.1807 Authorized account 

representative under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program, effective 

December 4, 2002. 

(G) R336.1808 Permit requirements 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, effective December 4, 2002. 

(H) R336.1809 Compliance 

certification under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program, effective 

December 4, 2002. 

(I) R336.1810 Allowance allocations 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, effective December 4, 2002. 

(J) R336.1811 New source set-aside 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, effective May 20, 2004. 

(K) R336.1812 Allowance tracking 

system and transfers under oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, 

effective December 4, 2002. 

(L) R336.1813 Monitoring and 

reporting requirements under oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, 

effective December 4, 2002. 

(M) R336.1814 Individual opt-ins 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, effective December 4, 2002. 

(N) R336.1815 Allowance banking 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, effective December 4, 2002. 

(O) R336.1816 Compliance 

supplement pool under oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, 

effective December 4, 2002. 

(P) R336.1817 Emission limitations 

and restrictions for Portland cement 

kilns, effective December 4, 2002.

§ 52.1218 [Amended]

■ 3. Section 52.1218 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a).

[FR Doc. 04–27983 Filed 12–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[MD170–3113a; FRL–7851–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Control of VOC Emissions 

From Yeast Manufacturing; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is correcting the format 

in the Identification of plan section of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision for control of volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from yeast 

manufacturing which EPA approved as 

part of the Maryland SIP on October 27, 

2004. This document corrects an error 

in the rule format of a final rule 

pertaining to the State of Maryland.

DATES: Effective December 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harold A. Frankford, (215) 814–2108 or 

by e-mail at 

frankford.harold@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean EPA. 

On October 27, 2004 (69 FR 62589), 

we published a final rulemaking action 

announcing approval of a revision to the 

Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) pertaining to control of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) emissions 

from yeast manufacturing operations 

(COMAR 26.11.19.17). In our approval 

action, EPA incorporated by reference 

(IBR’d) the State rule and codified this 

IBR action at § 52.1070(c)(189).The 

effective date of the action is December 

27, 2004. Subsequently, on November 

29, 2004 (69 FR 69304), we published 

an administrative rulemaking action 

announcing format revisions to the 

Identification of plan section in 40 CFR 

part 52, subpart V (Maryland), as well 

as changes to the format for materials 

which are incorporated by reference 

(IBR). This administrative rulemaking 

action both recodified the existing 

§ 52.1070 as § 52.1100 entitled ‘‘Original 

Identification of plan section,’’ and 

created a new § 52.1070 entitled 

‘‘Identification of plan.’’ We are revising 

the entry for COMAR 26.11.19.17 in 

§ 52.1070(c), effective December 27, 

2004, so that it reflects EPA’s October 

27, 2004 approval action of the revised 

COMAR 26.11.19.17. 

In rule document 04–23948 published 

in the Federal Register on October 27, 

2004 (69 FR 62589), on page 62591 in 

the second column, Amendatory 

Instruction Number 2 is withdrawn. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because we are merely 

correcting an incorrect citation in a 

previous action. Thus, notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary. We find that 

this constitutes good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and is therefore 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)). Because the agency has made 

a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action 

is not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedures Act or any other statute as 

indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section above, it is not 

subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq), or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4). In addition, this action does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments or impose a significant 

intergovernmental mandate, as 

described in sections 203 and 204 of 

UMRA. 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 governments, as specified by 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant.