Promulgation of Reid Vapor Pressure Standard; Michigan

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