Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0547-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Rule; Michigan; Control of Gasoline Volatility
Posted Date: 2006-08-15T13:58:49Z

[Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 157)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 46879-46883]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15au06-12]                         

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

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: mooney.john@epa.gov.
     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, 
acevedo.francisco@epa.gov.

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 http://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