Approval And Promulgation Of Implementation Plans: Michigan

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MI38-01-6734; FRL-5803-2]

Approval And Promulgation Of Implementation Plans: Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to

approve requested State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted

by the State of Michigan for the purpose of transferring the authority

of the Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission (Commission) to the

Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and

subsequently transferring the authority of the Director of MDNR to the

Director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

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.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing on or

before April 28, 1997. Public comments on this document are requested

and will be considered before taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the Michigan SIP revision request and EPA's analysis are

available for inspection at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Gerleman, Air Programs Branch,

Permits and Grants Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 353-5703.

Copies of the State of Michigan's final authorization revision

application are available during normal business hours at the following

addresses for inspection and copying: Library of Michigan, Government

Documents Section, 717 West Allegan, Lansing, Michigan; Olson Library,

Northern Michigan University, Harden Circle Drive, Marquette, Michigan;

Detroit Public Library Main Branch, Sociology and Economics Department,

5201 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan. To arrange for access to the

materials in Lansing, call (517) 373-9489 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on

Mondays through Saturdays and between 12 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Sundays

(Eastern time); in Marquette, call (906) 227-2260 between 8 a.m. and 12

a.m. on Mondays through Thursdays, between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on

Fridays, and between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Sundays (Eastern time); in

Detroit, call (313) 833-1440 between 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on

Tuesdays and Thursdays through Saturdays, and between 1 p.m. and 9 p.m.

on Wednesdays (Eastern time). Anyone wishing to come to the Region 5

offices should contact Laura Gerleman first.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Executive Order 1991-31

On November 8, 1991, Governor John Engler of Michigan signed

Executive Order 1991-31 which, inter alia, abolished the Commission and

transferred the authority of the Commission to the Director of MDNR.

The State of Michigan submitted to EPA under a December 13, 1994 cover

letter, a SIP revision request containing the transfer of authority of

the Commission to the Director of MDNR. The EPA deemed the submittal

complete in a February 16, 1995 letter to Roland Harmes, Director,

MDNR.

B. Executive Order 1995-18

On July 31, 1995, Governor Engler signed Executive Order 1995-18

which, inter alia, elevated eight program divisions and two program

offices from within MDNR to the MDEQ, effective October 1, 1995. The

authority given to the Director of MDNR in Executive Order 1991-31 was

conferred upon the Director of MDEQ in Executive Order 1995-18, with

the exception of administrative appeals decisions. For administrative

appeals where the Director of MDEQ made the original permit decision,

Executive Order 1995-18 requires the Director to appoint an individual

within or outside MDEQ to decide the appeal.

The State of Michigan submitted Executive Order 1995-18 to EPA

under a January 19, 1996 cover letter as a supplement to the December

13, 1994 SIP revision.

C. Authority

The EPA proposes to approve Michigan's requested SIP revisions as

reorganizations of Michigan's environmental agencies wherein the

authorities of the Director of the Commission under the SIP have been

conferred upon the Director of MDEQ by Executive Order. Public comment

is solicited on the requested SIP revision and on EPA's proposed

approval of the request. Public comments received by the date indicated

above will be considered in the development of EPA's final rule.

The EPA notes that it is currently reviewing the Michigan

Environmental Audit Privilege and Immunity Law, Public Act 132 of 1996,

and its potential impact on Michigan's federally delegated and

authorized programs, including programs under the Federal Clean Air

Act. The EPA's proposed approval only addresses and seeks comments on

the requested SIP revisions submitted by Michigan that result from

Executive Order 1991-31 and Executive Order 1995-18. The EPA's proposed

approval of requested revisions to Michigan's SIP arising out of these

two Executive Orders does not express any viewpoint on the question of

whether there are legal deficiencies in Michigan's SIP resulting from

Public Act 132 of 1996.

Administrative Requirements

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 (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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.

The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the

Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements

that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP

approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that this does

not have a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The

Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

See Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (''Unfunded

Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the

EPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires

the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,

educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely affected by the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the EPA must

identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives

before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must

be prepared. The EPA must select from those alternatives the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the EPA explains why this

alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private

sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the EPA has not

prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the

selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or

uniquely affected by this rule, the EPA is not required to develop a

plan with regard to small governments. This rule imposes no additional

regulatory burden.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations.

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

Dated: March 14, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-7818 Filed 3-27-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P