[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 170 (Friday, August 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45893-45898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21982]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MI50-01-7257a; FRL-5542-1]
Promulgation of Reid Vapor Pressure Standard; Michigan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
temporarily is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) establishing
a summertime gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit of 7.8 pounds per
square inch (psi) for gasoline sold in Wayne, Oakland, Macomb,
Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties in Michigan
(Detroit-Ann Arbor consolidated metropolitan
[[Page 45894]]
statistical area (CMSA)). The marketing of less volatile gasoline
reduces excessive evaporation of fuel during the summer months.
Evaporated gasoline combines with other pollutants on hot summer days
to form ground-level ozone, commonly referred to as smog. Ozone
pollution is of particular concern because of its harmful effects on
lung tissue and breathing passages.
In a parallel action EPA is proposing to make permanent this
temporary approval of Michigan's SIP revision to establish a RVP limit
of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA. The
proposed SIP revision is published in the proposed rule section of this
Federal Register. The EPA is requesting comments on this rulemaking
action, as well as the proposed rulemaking action. Any public comments
received by EPA will be addressed in the subsequent final rulemaking on
the proposed revision to the Michigan SIP.
An interim final approval action is being taken because EPA finds
good cause under section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
to promulgate this interim rule without prior notice and comment and to
make this action effective July 1, 1996, because of the public health
and timing concerns discussed below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This interim final rule is effective July 1, 1996
through September 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available at the above address for public inspection during normal
business hours.
Comments may be mailed to: Carlton T. Nash, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois, 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad J. Beeson at (312) 353-4779.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In April 1995, the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA which was nonattainment
for ozone was redesignated to attainment. At the time the area was
redesignated to attainment, EPA approved, as a revision to the Michigan
SIP, a 7.8 psi RVP fuels program as a contingency measure. However,
during the summer of 1995 there were several monitored violations of
the ozone standard in the Detroit area. Therefore, the State is
required to implement an ozone contingency measure.
One of the contingency measures that State has chosen to implement
is a fuels program. The fuels program requires the sale of 7.8 psi
(low-RVP) gasoline during the summer months.
RVP is a measure of a fuel's volatility and thereby affects the
rate at which gasoline evaporates and emits volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The lower a fuel's RVP, the lower the rate of evaporation of
the fuel. The RVP of gasoline can be lowered by reducing the amount of
its volatile components, such as butane. Lowering RVP in the summer
months can offset the effect of summer temperature upon the evaporation
of gasoline, which in turn lowers emissions of VOCs. Because VOCs are a
component in the formation of ground level ozone on sunny, hot summer
days, reduction of RVP will assist the State of Michigan to reduce
ozone by reducing VOC emissions from vehicles.
The EPA first proposed to regulate gasoline RVP in 1987 (52 FR
31274). The EPA's gasoline RVP proposal resulted in a two-phased final
regulation which was in large part incorporated into the 1990
Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act) in section 211(h). Phase I of the
regulation took effect in 1990 (54 FR 11868) for the years 1990 and
1991. Phase II of the regulation became effective in 1992 (55 FR
23658). The rule divides the continental United States into two control
regions, Class B and Class C. Generally speaking, the Class B states
are the warmer southern and western states, and Class C states are the
cooler northern states. The Phase II regulation limits the volatility
of gasoline sold during the high ozone season to 9.0 psi for Class C
areas and 7.8 psi for Class B ozone nonattainment areas. Michigan is a
Class C State, and therefore, required under the Federal rule to meet
the 9.0 psi standard.
II. State Submittal
Prior to making its SIP revision submittal, the State has presented
at several public hearings its intention to implement a low-RVP fuels
program. Initially the State presented the State's legislation to
implement a low-RVP gasoline program, House Bill 4898, shortly after
the legislation was passed in the State legislature, in 1993.
Next, as part of the redesignation process for Southeast Michigan,
the State held a public hearing on the redesignation plan, as well as
those measures the State was including in its contingency plan. One of
the contingency measures presented to the public was the low-RVP
gasoline program.
Lastly, the State presented the proposed low-RVP fuels program at a
public hearing as part of the State's contingency measure selection
process. The program presented to the public at these hearings not only
included the State's legislation establishing a 7.8 psi RVP program,
but also the option to market RFG in the area at the discretion of
individual gasoline marketers. Two hearings presenting this proposal
were held in October 1995.
On January 6, 1996, Michigan Governor John Engler sent a letter to
EPA advising EPA the State had selected a low-RVP fuels program as one
of the contingency measures to be implemented in the Detroit area.
Shortly thereafter, on May 16, 1996, the State submitted just the low-
RVP portion of their fuels program to EPA for approval. The SIP
revision submitted by the State was reviewed by EPA to determine
completeness shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V (1991), as
amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). On May 24, 1996, the State's
SIP submittal was found complete.
III. Analysis of State Submittal
State governments are preempted under section 211(c)(4)(A) of the
Clean Air Act from mandating a gasoline volatility standard not
identical to any Federal standard promulgated under Sec. 211(c)(1) that
is applicable to the same characteristic. However, under 211(c)(4)(C) a
State can require, through a SIP revision, a more stringent RVP
standard for a particular area if the Administrator finds that the more
stringent standard is necessary to achieve the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for ozone. In addition to demonstrating necessity as
part of the 211(c)(4)(C) waiver process, under section 110 the State
must also submit an adequate description of the low-RVP program and
associated enforcement procedures. If EPA finds that a State has shown
necessity and has provided an adequate description of the program, EPA
may approve the SIP revision requiring the lower State RVP standard for
the selected areas.
A. Demonstration of Necessity
Section 211(c)(4)(C) provides that the Administrator may find that
a State fuel control is necessary if there are no other measures that
would bring about timely attainment or such measures are unreasonable
or impracticable. The necessity showing must demonstrate that the State
is actually in nonattainment or in danger of nonattainment and must
include an evaluation of all available ozone control measures.
Once it was determined that a contingency measure would have to be
implemented, and was necessary
[[Page 45895]]
because of the violation of the ozone air quality standard, the State
organized a workgroup to aid in the selection process. The Contingency
Measure workgroup included participants from industry, state and local
government, environmentalists, and any other interested persons. The
analysis and final recommendations of the workgroup are summarized in a
report.\1\ The workgroup's recommendations were adopted by Michigan's
Governor. The contingency measures selected by the State include a
fuels program that limits RVP to 7.8 psi in the summertime, as well as
expansion of the State's existing Stage I vapor recovery program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report is titled ``Evaluation of Air Quality Contingency
Measures for Implementation in Southeast Michigan'' and is included
in the materials submitted by the State for this proposed SIP
revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the analysis, the workgroup considered several different
emission control technologies including vehicle inspection and
maintenance (basic through enhanced), Stage I vapor recovery, Stage II
vapor recovery, enhanced degreasing controls, oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) controls on stationary sources, and RFG. The reasonableness
and practicality of each of these proposed control measures were
evaluated using a number of factors, including the cost effectiveness
of each measure. After considering and weighting all the factors, the
workgroup selected stricter gasoline RVP control.
Having considered other measures that the State could implement
before a low-RVP program, EPA finds that all other measures the State
could implement are unreasonable or impracticable in this context, or
would be insufficient to bring about timely attainment. The State is
currently expanding its existing Stage I vapor recovery program as part
of its contingency plan. While an I/M program would be a reasonable
control measure, it could not be implemented as quickly as a low-RVP
program and therefore would not reduce emissions in the time-frame
necessary to reduce the likelihood of ozone standard violations and
provide for attainment in as timely a manner as possible. Reformulated
gasoline is not a practicable measure because the Detroit-Ann Arbor
CMSA is designated as an attainment area, and hence is precluded from
opting into the federal RFG program. While there are some additional
reasonable and practicable control measures available, such as more
stringent degreasing rules, Stage II vapor recovery, and NOX
controls on stationary sources, none of these measures considered
individually or collectively would reduce emissions enough to bring
about timely attainment.
Because there are no more reasonable and practicable emission
control programs available in Southeast Michigan that would bring about
timely attainment, EPA finds that a 7.8 psi summertime gasoline RVP
meets the necessity requirement of 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act.
B. Description of Program Including the Enforcement Procedures
Historically, EPA has found that an adequate program description
includes: (1) The counties included in the program, (2) the parties
regulated as part of the program, (3) the general RVP limit, (4) the
control period of the program, and (5) a list of any exceptions to the
general limit for different types of gasoline, such as gasohol and RFG.
An adequate description of the State's enforcement procedures
should include: (1) The recordkeeping requirement for all regulated
parties marketing gasoline, (2) the name of the State agency that will
be enforcing the program, (3) the testing frequency and number of
stations that will be tested, (4) how sampling will be done, (5)
procedures that will be used to determine fuel volatility during
enforcement testing, and (6) the State's authority to levy penalties
and fines for noncompliance with the program.
The Michigan submittal specifies that the gasoline distributed in
Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe
counties at the retail level must meet a RVP standard of 7.8 psi or
less per gallon between June 1 and September 15.2 Currently, the
State's rules include a 1.0 psi exemption for ethanol blended fuels. In
addition, the State's rule being developed to include RFG as part of
the program will include a 0.3 psi for RFG. The rule to be submitted
will also exempt gasoline dispensed at marinas, test tracks, and
applications for agricultural purposes from the 7.8 psi limit. Because
the State has satisfied all the program description elements, EPA finds
the State's description of the program is sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ MCLA 290.643 section 3(4), MCLA 290.650d section 10d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure enforcement of the program requirements, all parties
involved with the marketing of gasoline in the area are required to
maintain records for each gasoline shipment.3 The Michigan
Department of Agriculture (MDA) will conduct enforcement of the
program.4 As part of the SIP submittal, the State has committed to
inspect a minimum of 40 percent of the dispensing facilities in the six
county area during the control period. Sampling will be performed in
accordance with the procedures described by EPA in its gasoline
volatility regulations in 40 CFR part 80, Appendix D.5 Gasoline
volatility and ethanol content tests will be performed following
procedures described by EPA in 40 CFR part 80, Appendices E and F,
respectively. Gasoline deemed to be out of compliance will be subject
either to a stop use order or seizure.6 Additionally, MDA has the
authority to levy administrative fines, in addition to applicable civil
and criminal penalties.7 The EPA finds the State's submittal
sufficiently deters non-compliance and ensures effective enforcement of
the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ MCLA 290.647 section 7(3)-7(4), MCLA 290.649b section 9b(4).
\4\ MCLA 290.641, et seq.
\5\ MCLA 290.647 section 7(4), MCLA 290.643 section 3.
\6\ MCLA 290.643 section 3.
\7\ MCLA 290.647 section 7(5), MCLA 290.613 section 13, MCLA
290.615 section 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Procedural Requirements
Section 553(b) of the APA provides that the general requirement to
provide for notice and comment in the rulemaking process does not apply
if an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure
are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.
Additionally, section 553(d) of the APA provides that for good cause an
agency may expedite the effective date of a rule allowing it to take
effect sooner than 30 days from the date of publication. As discussed
below, EPA has concluded that there is good cause to issue this interim
final rule without notice and comment and to make the rule effective
July 1, 1996.
A. Notice and Comment
Section 553(b) of the APA provides that agencies must provide the
public notice and an opportunity to comment on agency rulemaking,
unless one of the specified exceptions applies. Further, section
553(b)(B) of the APA states that notice and comment are not required
``when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding
and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Because of unusual circumstances
associated with this rulemaking and for the reasons explained below,
EPA finds good cause to issue this interim final rule without prior
notice and comment.
[[Page 45896]]
1. Time Critical Nature of Action
Ground-level ozone is a threat to public health. Ozone pollution is
of particular concern because of its harmful effects on lung tissue and
breathing passages. To address this threat, EPA places significant
requirements on States to implement programs to control ozone to levels
that protect the public health.
Because of the seriousness of the public health issue, the State of
Michigan wants to implement a program that will provide substantial
emission reduction benefits as soon as this summer. Any program that
could be put in place immediately would help the State avoid violations
of the ozone standard this summer. Conversely, control programs which
take several months to implement would not help protect public health
this summer.
A low-RVP fuels program addresses the need for immediate reductions
because the air quality benefits of a low-RVP program are produced as
soon as the fuel is delivered to retail gasoline stations. Currently,
the State and the regulated industry are prepared to implement a low-
RVP fuels program this summer, beginning July 1, 1996. There are no
other measures the State could implement now to provide the needed
emissions reductions in this time-frame.
Providing notice and comment for this action would run counter to
the public interest because delaying this rulemaking through applying
the normal notice and comment process would mean that the low-RVP
program could not be put into place before the end of this summer.
Without implementing a low-RVP program immediately the State risks
further violations of the ozone standard and an adverse impact on
public health this summer.
2. Prior Extensive Public Process and Public Consensus
Considerable public discussion and comment has already transpired
concerning the State's adoption of a low-RVP fuels program and the
outcome of this process is widespread consensus that a low-RVP fuels
programs in the best approach. In particular, the directly affected
regulated entities have participated extensively in the decision making
process and have notice of the low-RVP fuels program to be implemented
in Southeast Michigan.
Prior to making its submittal, the State discussed its plans to
implement a fuels program beginning in the summer of 1996, featuring
7.8 psi gasoline, with the regulated parties and the general public.
Not only did the State discuss its intentions, it also solicited
comments on the State's plans. Initially, as part of the redesignation
process for Southeast Michigan, the State held a public hearing on the
redesignation plan, as well as those measures the State was including
its contingency plan. One of the contingency measures presented to the
public was a low-RVP fuels program.
Shortly after the State completed its public hearing process on the
redesignation and associated contingency measures, the State submitted
the redesignation request to EPA for approval. In the Federal Register
notice proposing approval of the redesignation, a low-RVP program was
listed as one of the possible contingency measures the State would
implement if necessary. While EPA received a variety of comments on the
proposal, none of the comments concerned the State's choice of low-RVP
as part of the contingency plan, indicating there was no opposition to
the possibility of implementation of this program. The EPA finalized
approval of the Michigan contingency plan including a low-RVP program
as a revision to the Michigan SIP on March 7, 1995.
Because of ozone violations during the summer of 1995 Michigan is
required to select a contingency measure to be implemented from its
contingency plan. To aid in the selection process, the State formed a
workgroup. The Contingency Measure workgroup included participants from
industry, state and local government, environmentalists, and any other
interested persons. The committee eventually narrowed their
recommendation to include a low-RVP fuels program. The Workgroup
recommendation indicates the consensus support for this measure by the
most directly affected and interested parties.
The final step in the contingency measure selection process was to
present the committee's recommendations at a public hearing. Two
hearings were held in October 1995. During the hearings none of the oil
companies objected to the selection of a low-RVP fuels program as a
contingency measure.
During the public participation process, the Detroit media covered
the debate concerning which contingency measure would be selected. A
number of articles and editorials were published in both the Detroit
Free Press and the Detroit News concerning the selection process and
the low-RVP fuels program. On January 6, 1996, Michigan Governor John
Engler sent a letter to EPA identifying a low-RVP fuels program as one
of its contingency measures to be implemented in the Detroit area.
Shortly after the Governor's decision, both the Michigan Department of
Agriculture and the Governor's offices issued press releases concerning
the low-RVP fuels program. Both of these press releases included the
planned start-up date of the program, July 1996. Following these press
releases several more articles on the program were published in the
print media. In addition, the AAA magazine Michigan Living, printed an
article about the low-RVP fuels program including the planned start-up
date of July 1996.
In addition to the general press coverage the program was
receiving, the State held a series of meetings with the oil companies
serving the Detroit area as well as the American Petroleum Institute
(API), an industry association. During these meetings the State,
represented oil companies, and API discussed the details concerning
implementation of a low-RVP fuels program by July 1996.
Providing prior notice and comment is of limited benefit to the
public here because of the extensive public comment process that has
already taken place and the widespread support for the program. This
public process has provided an opportunity for all interested parties
to participate in the decision to implement low-RVP gasoline as a
contingency measure and has generated consensus this is the optimal
approach. In addition, delaying the SIP revision approval to allow for
notice and comment would run counter to the public interest because of
the potential for confusion regarding the applicable requirements. At
this point in time the regulated industry, the general public, and the
State have planned to begin the program on July 1, 1996. Providing
notice and comment would preclude the program from beginning on July 1,
1996, which would likely cause disruption to the regulated industries
and confuse the public.
3. Time Limited Nature of Action
This interim final rule is a temporary SIP revision, which will
expire automatically and be followed by a notice-and-comment rulemaking
to decide whether to make this a permanent SIP revision. The EPA is
requiring that gasoline sold in the Detroit--Ann Arbor ozone
nonattainment area from July 1, 1996 to September 15, 1996, comply with
a 7.8 psi standard. This action does not establish a permanent change
to the
[[Page 45897]]
gasoline RVP requirements in Southeast Michigan.
Prior notice and comment is of limited benefit to the public
because of the limited time period of this action, and the need for
prompt implementation of the program discussed above. In a parallel
action, EPA is proposing to make this temporary RVP limit permanent by
revising Michigan's SIP to establish a RVP limit of 7.8 psi for
gasoline sold in the Detroit--Ann Arbor CMSA. The proposed SIP revision
is published in the proposed rule section of this Federal Register. The
EPA is hereby providing opportunity to comment on this rulemaking
action, as well as on the proposed rulemaking action on the permanent
revision. Any public comments received by EPA will be addressed in the
subsequent final rulemaking on the proposed revision to the Michigan
SIP. Thus, any negative results caused by the lack of notice and
comment would exist only for a short and clearly delineated period.
For all the reasons stated above EPA believes that there is good
cause for issuing this rule without prior notice and comment, as such
prior notice and opportunity to comment under these circumstances is
impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
B. Effective Period
The APA also provides that a rule may not become effective until 30
days after it is published; this requirement is generally met through
publication in the Federal Register. However, in certain situations the
APA provides that agencies may expedite, or shorten, the time to make
the rule effective. Section 553(d) of the APA provides an exception to
the effective date requirement where an agency finds there is good
cause to expedite the effective date. Because of circumstances specific
to this situation and for the reasons explained below, EPA finds good
cause to make this rule effective as of July 1, 1996.
1. Time Critical Nature of Action
As discussed more fully above, to protect public health during the
upcoming ozone season, the State would need to implement a measure that
would immediately reduce VOC emissions. The low-RVP program proposed by
the State and required here on a temporary basis, would provide such
immediate reductions if EPA's approval is effective by July 1, 1996.
Delaying the effective date until 30 days after publication runs
counter to the public interest because of the need to address the risk
of ozone air pollution occurring this summer. If this rulemaking action
were subject to such a delay, the low-RVP program could not be put into
place before the end of this summer. Without implementing a low-RVP
program immediately the State risks further violations of the ozone
standard and an adverse impact on public health this summer.
2. Prior Public Notice
Delaying the effective date until 30 days after publication is
irrelevant to the lead time needed for compliance because the public
has had substantial public notice of the upcoming low-RVP requirements.
In particular, the directly affected regulated entities and the public
have participated extensively in the decision process to implement this
program starting July 1, 1996, and have notice of that start date.
Hence, delay beyond that date is not necessary for compliance purposes
and will introduce confusion as to when the requirements will apply.
For all the reasons stated above EPA believes that there is good
cause for making this rule effective as of July, 1, 1996, as a later
effective date is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the
public interest.
IV. Action
The EPA is approving a revision to Michigan's SIP to establish a
summertime gasoline RVP limit of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold in Wayne,
Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties
and is finding that such a requirement is necessary for the area to
attain the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone, at
least for the period the approval is effective. This approval is
effective from July 1, 1996, to September 15, 1996.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
B. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
This approval does not create any new requirements. Therefore, I
certify that this action does not have a significant impact on any
small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Act, preparation of the regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427
U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).
D. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state
or local law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or the private
sector, result from this action.
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
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
[[Page 45898]]
circuit by October 29, 1996. 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)).
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 808(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) EPA submitted 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
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
section 804(2) of the APA as amended. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(2) as
added by SBREFA, this rule may take effect prior to the date of its
submission to Congress because EPA for good cause has found that
providing for notice and public procedure on this rule is
impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 21, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
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. 7401-7671q.
Subpart X--Michigan
2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(107) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(107) On May 16, 1996, the State of Michigan submitted a revision
to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision is for
the purpose of establishing a gasoline Reid vapor pressure (RVP) limit
of 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) for gasoline sold in Wayne,
Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties
in Michigan. This revision will only be effective from July 1, 1996, to
September 15, 1996.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(a) House Bill No. 4898; signed and effective November 13, 1993.
(b) Michigan Complied Laws, Motor Fuels Quality Act, Chapter 290,
Sections 642, 643, 645, and 646, 647, and 649 all effective November
13, 1993.
(c) Michigan Complied Laws, Weights and Measures Act of 1964,
Chapter 290, Sections 613, 615; all effective August 28, 1964.
(ii) Additional materials.
(a) Letter from Michigan Governor John Engler to Regional
Administrator Valdas Adamkus, dated January 5, 1996.
(b) Letter from Michigan Director of Environmental Quality Russell
Harding to Regional Administrator Valdas Adamkus, dated May 14, 1996.
(c) State report titled ``Evaluation of Air Quality Contingency
Measures for Implementation in Southeast Michigan,'' submitted to the
EPA on May 14, 1996.
[FR Doc. 96-21982 Filed 8-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
