[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61046-61051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29303]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MI23-01-6258; FRL-6472-6]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is 
proposing to disapprove revisions to the State of Michigan's New Source 
Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Michigan Department 
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted these revisions on November 
11, 1993; May 16, 1996; April 3, 1998; and August 20, 1998. MDEQ 
submitted some of these revisions to meet the requirements of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) amendments of 1990. Because these revisions are required 
under the CAA, a final disapproval would constitute a disapproval under 
section 179(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 179(a) of the CAA, 
the State of Michigan has up to 18 months after a final disapproval to 
correct the deficiencies that are the subject of the disapproval before 
USEPA must impose sanctions.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received before December 
9, 1999.


[[Page 61047]]


ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Robert Miller, Chief, Permits and 
Grants Section (MI/MN/WI), Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the proposed SIP revision and the USEPA's analysis are 
available for inspection at the following location: United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone 
Eaton Weiler at (312) 886-6041 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eaton Weiler or Laura Hartman, 
Environmental Engineers, Permits and Grants Section (AR-18J), Air 
Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6041 or (312) 353-5703.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Introduction

    The CAA mandates that states develop NSR programs for the 
construction and modification of stationary sources of air pollutants. 
See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 165, 172, and 173. NSR programs are 
necessary under the CAA to help attain and maintain the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards as well as to prevent significant 
degradation of air quality. NSR programs help achieve this goal by 
requiring owners and operators of new and modified sources of air 
pollutants to apply appropriate emissions control technology to sources 
at the time of construction. Furthermore, these programs achieve this 
goal by allowing the public an opportunity to review and comment on the 
effects of emissions on air quality from new and modified sources of 
air pollution prior to construction.
    The CAA mandates that states develop NSR programs and submit them 
to the USEPA for approval into the SIP. The requirements for an 
approvable NSR program are laid out in the CAA and 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) sections 51.160 to 51.166.

B. Current NSR SIP Submittals

    The USEPA has not approved any revisions to the State's NSR SIP 
since January 27, 1982 (47 FR 3764). Since 1982, Michigan has submitted 
six rules packages to the USEPA for approval into the SIP. Michigan 
submitted three packages in 1993, one in 1996, and two in 1998. Each of 
the rules packages is identified in the table below by the date the 
rules package went into effect in the State (State Effective Date), and 
the date the State submitted the rules package to the USEPA (Submittal 
Date). Bold indicates the latest revision to the particular rule that 
is before USEPA for review.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State
              Rules package (RP)                effective date  Submittal date      Rules submitted 336.1xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................         4/20/89        11/12/93  107, 121, 240, 241.
2.............................................         4/17/92        11/12/93  102, 106, 109, 112, 115, 118,
                                                                                 120, 123, 201, 283.
3.............................................        11/18/93        11/12/93  101, 103, 104, 105, 113, 114,
                                                                                 116, 119, 220, 278, 279, 280,
                                                                                 281, 282, 284, 285, 286, 287,
                                                                                 288, 289, 290.
4.............................................         7/26/95         5/16/96  101, 103, 113, 116, 118, 119,
                                                                                 123, 201, 205, 208(RES), 209,
                                                                                 219, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282,
                                                                                 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288,
                                                                                 289, 290.
5.............................................        12/12/96          4/3/98  116(g), 116(m), 118(g), 119(b),
                                                                                 119(q), 201a, 205.
6.............................................         6/13/97         8/20/98  118, 122, 278, 283, 284, 285,
                                                                                 286, 287, 290.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. USEPA Requirements for Disapproval

    Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the USEPA may fully approve or 
disapprove a state submittal. Where portions of the state submittal are 
separable, the USEPA may approve portions of the submittal that meet 
the requirements of the CAA, and disapprove the portions of the 
submittal that do not meet the requirements of the CAA. See 57 FR 13566 
(April 16, 1992). However, in this context, separable means that the 
USEPA may not partially disapprove a portion of a SIP submittal if the 
effect of the disapproval would make the approved portion of the SIP 
submittal more stringent than the state intended. In this proposed 
action, any partial disapproval of Michigan's NSR SIP submittal would 
make the State's entire NSR SIP program more stringent than the State 
intended. Therefore, the elements of the Michigan NSR program discussed 
below that do not meet the requirements of the CAA make the entire SIP 
submittal disapprovable.

II. Evaluation of State Submittals

    Following below is a discussion of the portions of the State's NSR 
SIP submittals that USEPA is proposing as not meeting the requirements 
of the CAA. For each section, the requirements of the CAA and its 
implementing regulations are outlined followed by an analysis of why 
the State's submittal does not meet the requirements of the CAA.

A. Public Participation

    The provisions of 40 CFR 51.161 require the State to implement 
specific public participation procedures. These procedures require the 
State to notify, inform, and invite comment from the public on all new 
and modified sources of air pollution subject to the NSR program. 
However, as discussed in a proposal to amend the federal operating 
permit program, 60 FR 45530, 45549 (August 31, 1995), USEPA believes 
that a state may exempt from public review certain categories of 
changes based upon de minimis or administrative necessity grounds, in 
accordance with the criteria set out in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 
636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
    Michigan rule 336.1205(3) requires public participation only for 
NSR sources that are major or major modifications, or limit their 
potential to emit to greater than 90 percent of the major or major 
modification thresholds. Under this provision, a source could have 
actual emissions of over 200 tons per year and not be subject to any 
public participation procedures. While this limitation may be 
acceptable if adequately justified, Michigan has not explained how the 
90 percent threshold meets the de minimis criteria. Because Michigan 
has not provided an adequate explanation of why construction or 
modification of sources resulting in emissions of less than 90 percent 
of the new source review thresholds should not require public 
participation under the NSR program, the USEPA is proposing disapproval 
of Michigan Rule 336.1205(3).
    Furthermore, Michigan rule 336.1205(3) incorrectly cites section 
5h(3) instead of 5511(3) of the Michigan Act 451, part 55. Although the 
State

[[Page 61048]]

corrected this citation error in a State rulemaking effective July 2, 
1998, it has not yet submitted the correction to USEPA for approval 
into the SIP.

B. Voiding of NSR Permits (Supersession)

    As recently communicated in a letter from John S. Seitz to STAPPA/
ALAPCO dated May 20, 1999, it is the USEPA's position that NSR permits 
may not be voided, superseded, or otherwise replaced by permits issued 
pursuant to Title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990. All terms and 
conditions of NSR permits must be independently enforceable under Title 
I of the CAA Amendments of 1990. While Title V permits must incorporate 
and record permit terms and conditions from NSR permits, Title V may 
not eliminate their independent enforceability and existence.
    Michigan rule 336.1201(6) automatically voids the NSR permit when 
the ``appropriate'' terms and conditions are incorporated into a Title 
V permit. Therefore, USEPA is proposing to disapprove this rule.

C. Construction Before Permit Issuance

    Pursuant to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 165, 172, 173, and their 
implementing regulations, the State is required to develop a NSR 
program, under which a source shall not begin actual construction of a 
major source or major modification to a major source unless the source 
has obtained a NSR permit. Furthermore, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) 
the State must adopt the federal definition of ``begin actual 
construction,'' or a definition that is demonstrably more stringent. 
The federal definition includes any construction of a permanent nature, 
such as foundations, pipework, building supports, and permanent storage 
structures. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xv). Michigan has not adopted and 
submitted for USEPA approval a definition of ``begin actual 
construction'' which is identical to or more stringent than the federal 
definition. Additionally, Michigan rule 336.1201(2) allows sources to 
begin phases of construction, including foundations and associated 
structures, before issuance of a NSR permit so long as it is not 
prohibited by the CAA. As stated above, the CAA prohibits construction 
of a major source or major modification to a major source before NSR 
permit issuance. Moreover, the CAA and its implementing regulations 
require the State to adopt provisions prohibiting construction before 
permit issuance. Michigan rule 336.1201(2) contradicts itself, and is 
contrary to the requirements of the CAA and its implementing 
regulations. Therefore, USEPA is proposing to disapprove Michigan rule 
336.1201(2).
    Michigan rule 336.1202 allows the MDEQ to waive the requirement for 
any source to obtain an NSR permit before beginning construction. As 
stated above, the CAA and its implementing regulations prohibit 
construction of major sources or major modifications to major sources 
without a preconstruction permit. Further, section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
requires states to regulate the construction and modification of any 
stationary source as necessary to assure that the national ambient air 
quality standards are achieved. Similarly, 40 CFR 51.160(b) provides 
that a state must prevent the construction or modification of a source 
if it will result in a violation of applicable portions of the control 
strategy or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a national 
ambient air quality standard. Therefore, Michigan may provide for a 
waiver from the preconstruction requirements of the CAA for minor 
sources if the waiver provisions include procedures to ensure that the 
source receiving the waiver is a ``true minor,'' that is, a source 
whose potential to emit is below the threshold for a major source or 
the potential to emit of the modification is below the major 
modification threshold without consideration of any limitations on 
emissions, and the state can verify that the construction or 
modification of the source will neither interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standard nor result in 
a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy.
    USEPA, in the past, mistakenly had approved a prior version of 
Michigan rules 336.1201(2) and 336.1202 into the SIP. Because the 
currently approved SIP rules do not comply with the requirements of the 
CAA, the USEPA is planning to issue a SIP call pursuant to section 
110(k)(5) of the CAA. Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA allows the USEPA to 
require a revision to the SIP upon a finding that the currently 
approved SIP does not meet the requirements of the CAA. A final finding 
under section 110(k)(5) would allow the State up to 18 months to 
correct the deficiency.

D. Directors Discretion Exemption From NSR Permitting

    Under Michigan rule 336.1279, a source is exempt from NSR 
permitting at the MDEQ's discretion where the source is not major or 
does not have actual emissions above the significance levels. CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160(a) require the State to develop 
legally enforceable procedures to review new and modified sources. 
Furthermore, 40 CFR 51.160(e) requires the State to identify the types 
and sizes of sources subject to review under the State's NSR program. 
Exempting sources at the director's discretion does not identify the 
sources subject to review, and, therefore, is disapprovable. Because 
Michigan rule 336.1279 exempts sources from all review procedures 
without prior identification and approval of the exemption criteria 
into the SIP, USEPA is proposing to disapprove the rule.

E. Miscellaneous Exemptions From NSR Permitting

    Michigan rules 336.1280 to 336.1290 significantly relax the types 
and sizes of sources that must obtain a NSR permit. While these 
exemptions may be acceptable, the State must demonstrate why these 
sources need not be subject to review in accordance with the Alabama 
Power de minimis or administrative necessity criteria. Such a 
demonstration may include: (1) An analysis of the types and quantities 
of emissions from exempted sources, and (2) an analysis which shows 
that exempting such facilities from permitting review will not 
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS or applicable control strategy, 
and otherwise fulfills the purposes of the minor NSR regulations.
    As part of the above demonstration, the State must require each 
exempted emissions unit with a potential for sizeable emissions to keep 
appropriate compliance records to verify that the emissions unit meets 
the specific exemption criteria, and to verify that the construction or 
modification of the emissions unit did not trigger major new source 
regulations or other exclusions from the exemptions as listed in 
Michigan rule 336.1278.
    At a minimum, sources with sizeable potential emissions which are 
assuming exemptions must keep: (1) Records of the date of equipment 
installation and a description of the emissions unit, (2) records to 
show the emissions unit does not violate any of the rule 336.1278 
exclusions from the exemptions, and (3) records to show that the 
emissions unit meets the specific exemption criteria outlined in the 
rule.
    Michigan rule 336.1285 exempts sources from obtaining NSR permits 
where the quantity and nature of the emissions increases are not 
``appreciable,'' or ``meaningful.'' Because these terms are undefined, 
this regulation does not comply adequately with 40 CFR 51.160(e), which 
requires the state to identify the types and sizes of sources subject 
to review. Therefore,

[[Page 61049]]

Michigan rule 336.1285 is not approvable at this time.
    Additionally, because Michigan uses its NSR program to implement 
section 112(g) of the CAA, the exemptions in rules 336.1279 through 
336.1290 would exempt a major Hazardous Air Pollutant source from 
complying with 112(g) of the CAA. For this reason, the State must add 
language that specifically excludes major HAP sources from the 
exemptions. Although the State has added such language in a State 
rulemaking effective July 2, 1998, it has not submitted these revisions 
to the USEPA for approval into the SIP.
    Finally, Michigan should make clear in its rules that the 
exemptions in rules 336.1279 through 336.1290, even after approved into 
the Michigan SIP, do not exempt any source from complying with any 
other applicable federal requirements or existing NSR permit 
limitations. For all these reasons, USEPA is proposing to disapprove 
Michigan rules 336.1279 through 336.1290.

F. Relaxation of Permit Conditions

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii), the State must develop 
regulations that would require sources to obtain a major NSR permit if 
the relaxation of an emission limitation that the source took to avoid 
NSR would make the original construction a major source or major 
modification. Because the Michigan NSR SIP contains no such provisions, 
it is deficient.

G. Emissions Reductions Required by the CAA Are Not Creditable

    Pursuant to section 173(c)(2) of the CAA, the State must develop 
regulations to ensure that emissions reductions otherwise required by 
the CAA are not creditable as offsets. Because the Michigan NSR SIP 
contains no such restrictions, it is deficient.

H. Definition of ``Nonattainment Area''

    The term ``nonattainment area,'' as defined in section 171(2) of 
the CAA, means ``an area which is designated `nonattainment' with 
respect to that pollutant within the meaning of section 107(d)'' of the 
CAA.
    The Michigan rule 336.114(g) defines ``nonattainment area'' as an 
area designated by the department as not having attained full 
compliance with all national ambient air quality standards. The State 
must make clear in its definition of ``nonattainment area'' that any 
major source or major modification to a stationary source located in an 
area promulgated as nonattainment by USEPA pursuant to section 107(d) 
of the CAA, must comply with the nonattainment NSR requirements. 
Therefore, USEPA is proposing to disapprove the State definition of 
``nonattainment area.''

I. Federal Enforceability

    Pursuant to section 173(a) of the CAA, the State must develop 
regulations under which all offsets required as a precondition to 
permit issuance must be federally enforceable.
    The Michigan rule 336.1220(2) only requires that offsets shall be 
legally enforceable. Therefore, USEPA is proposing to disapprove 
Michigan rule 336.1220(2).

J. Exemption From Offset Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste 
Facilities

    40 CFR 51.165 does not provide for exemptions from the offset 
requirements. As explained to the NRDC in a letter from the EPA Region 
II dated March 18, 1989, the regulations of 40 CFR 51.165 supercede the 
guidance of appendix S. Therefore, the EPA will not approve any offset 
exemptions from resource recovery facilities.
    Michigan rule 336.1220(4)(b) impermissibly exempts municipal solid 
waste burning facilities from offset requirements laid out in the CFR. 
Therefore, USEPA is proposing to disapprove Michigan rule 
336.1220(4)(b).

K. Modeling Requirements

    40 CFR 51.160(f)(1) requires that all modeling shall be based on 
the applicable models, data bases, and other requirements specified in 
40 CFR part 51, appendix W (Guideline on Air Quality Models).
    Michigan rule 336.1240 outlines the required air quality models. 
Michigan rule 336.2240 requires the use of an air quality model cited 
in EPA's 1986, ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' The ``Guideline on 
Air Quality Models'' was updated in 1987, 1993, and 1995 and codified 
in part 51 appendix W.
    Furthermore, Michigan rule 336.1240(2) impermissibly allows the use 
of an alternate model at the ``director's discretion'' without 
opportunity for public notice or comment, as required by 40 CFR 
51.160(f)(2). Michigan rule 336.1240(2)(ii) allows the director to 
decide to allow use of an alternate model if the applicant demonstrates 
the alternate model is ``comparable'' to USEPA's outdated 1984 
document, ``Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models.'' 
Instead of the word ``comparable,'' the State rule should require that 
the alternate model produce concentration estimates equivalent to the 
estimates obtained using the preferred model in the current appendix W, 
and should reference the USEPA's updated 1992 document entitled 
``Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models.''
    In addition to proposing to disapprove Michigan rule 336.1240 
because it allows use of an alternate model to escape the public 
participation procedures of 40 CFR 51.160(f)2), USEPA also is proposing 
to disapprove Michigan rule 336.1240 because it references out-of-date 
modeling guidelines rather than the current codified modeling 
guidelines in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W.

L. Air Quality Modeling Demonstration Requirements

    Michigan Rule 336.1241 outlines the requirements for air quality 
modeling demonstrations. These provisions must be updated to reflect 
the current modeling requirements laid out in 40 CFR part 51, appendix 
W.
    In particular, the provisions require five years of meteorological 
data unless the applicant can demonstrate that a shorter meteorological 
record is more representative. The rule specifically should state that, 
if the applicant uses on site data, a minimum of one year of 
meteorological data is required.

M. Offset Restrictions

    40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(A) requires that where the SIP allows 
emissions greater than the potential to emit of the source, emissions 
offset credit will be allowed only for control below this potential. 
Michigan NSR rules contain no such restriction and, therefore, are 
unapprovable.

N. Failure To Rescind Michigan Rule 336.1221

    Michigan rule 336.2221 impermissibly exempts sources that have 
significant net emissions increases of sulfur dioxide, particulate 
matter, and carbon monoxide from offset requirements.
    MDEQ rescinded Michigan rule 336.1221 effective November 14, 1990. 
However, the State never submitted the rule to USEPA for recission. 
Because Michigan did not submit the recission to the USEPA for removal 
of the rule from the SIP, the Michigan NSR rules are not approvable at 
this time.

III. Proposed Action

    To determine the approvability of a rule, USEPA must evaluate the 
rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and USEPA 
regulations as codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, and the 
EPA's interpretation of these requirements as

[[Page 61050]]

expressed in USEPA policy guidance documents. The USEPA has found the 
Michigan SIP revisions inconsistent with CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
165, 172, and 173. The USEPA has further found Michigan's proposed SIP 
revisions inconsistent with the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, and 
sections 160 through 165. For these reasons, USEPA is proposing to 
disapprove Michigan's proposed revisions to its NSR SIP.
    Michigan submitted some of the proposed revisions to meet the 
requirements of the CAA amendments of 1990. Because Michigan failed to 
satisfy requirements of the CAA through these revisions, a final 
disapproval would constitute a disapproval under section 179(a)(2) of 
the CAA. As provided under section 179(a) of the CAA, the State of 
Michigan would have up to 18 months after a final disapproval to 
correct the deficiencies that are the subject of the disapproval before 
the CAA requires USEPA to impose sanctions.
    Furthermore, pursuant to section 110(k)(5) of the CAA, the USEPA 
finds that the currently approved NSR SIP does not meet the 
requirements of the CAA. The specific provisions that USEPA finds do 
not meet the CAA are those that allow sources to construct before 
obtaining an NSR permit. The USEPA intends to issue a notice of SIP 
deficiency on this issue at the time of its final rulemaking on 
Michigan's NSR SIP submittal. This notice would allow the State up to 
18 months to correct the deficiency before USEPA must impose sanctions.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation.
    In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective 
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of 
state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely 
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant 
unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, 
local or tribal governments. Proposed disapproval of the rule does not 
impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this 
proposed rulemaking.
    On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order 
on federalism, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)), 
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current 
Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)), on federalism 
still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on 
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 12612. 
Proposed disapproval of the rule affects only one State, and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This proposed disapproval is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it 
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks disproportionately on children.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation.
    In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective 
process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.'' Today's proposed disapproval does not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 
13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This proposed disapproval will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. A proposed disapproval of a 
requested SIP revision under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 
the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing Federal requirements nor 
does it impose new requirements. Any pre-existing Federal requirements 
would remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval of 
the State submittal would not affect State-enforceability. Moreover, 
EPA's disapproval of the submittal would not impose any new Federal 
requirements. Therefore, because the proposed disapproval does not 
affect any existing requirements nor impose any new requirements, I 
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

[[Page 61051]]

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. 
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. 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 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to 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.
    EPA has determined that the disapproval action being proposed does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. The proposed disapproval 
would not change existing requirements and does not impose a Federal 
mandate. If EPA were to disapprove the State's SIP submittal, pre-
existing requirements would remain in place and State enforceability of 
the submittal would be unaffected. The action would impose no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, New source review, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: October 22, 1999.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 99-29303 Filed 11-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P