[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