[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 139 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37366-37371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17763]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MI42-03-7123; FRL-5260-7]
Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard by Grand Rapids and
Muskegon, Michigan; Determination Regarding Applicability of Certain
Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Demonstration Requirements
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 2, 1995 the USEPA published a direct final and
proposed rulemaking determining that the Grand Rapids (Kent and Ottawa
Counties) and Muskegon (Muskegon County), Michigan moderate ozone
nonattainment areas were attaining the ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). Based on this determination, the USEPA also
determined that certain reasonable further progress and attainment
demonstration requirements, along with certain other related
requirements, of part D of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act (Act) are not
applicable to the areas so long as the areas continue to attain the
ozone NAAQS. The 30-day comment period concluded on July 3, 1995.
During this comment period, the USEPA received two comment letters in
response to the June 2, 1995 rulemaking. This final rule summarizes all
comments and USEPA's responses, and finalizes the USEPA's determination
that these areas have attained the ozone standard and that certain
reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements
as well as other related requirements of part D of the Act are not
applicable to these areas as long as these areas continue to attain the
ozone NAAQS.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be effective July 20, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for inspection at the following address: (It is recommended
that you telephone Jacqueline Nwia at (312) 886-6081 before visiting
the Region 5 Office.) United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Nwia, Regulation
Development Section (AT-18J), Air Toxics and Radiation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
Number (312) 886-6081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
On June 2, 1995, the USEPA published a direct final rulemaking (60
FR 28729) determining that the Grand Rapids and Muskegon moderate ozone
nonattainment areas have attained the NAAQS for ozone. In that
rulemaking, the USEPA determined that the Grand Rapids and Muskegon
ozone nonattainment areas have attained the ozone standard and that the
requirements of section 182(b)(1) concerning the submission of a 15
percent reasonable further progress plan and ozone attainment
demonstration and the requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning
contingency measures are not applicable to these areas so long as the
areas do not violate the ozone standard. In addition, the USEPA
determined that the sanctions clocks started on January 21, 1994, for
these areas for failure to submit the section 182(b)(1) reasonable
further progress requirements and section 172(c)(9) contingency
measures would
[[Page 37367]]
be stopped since the deficiencies on which they are based no longer
exist.
At the same time that the USEPA published the direct final rule, a
separate notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 28773). This proposed rulemaking specified that USEPA
would withdraw the direct final rule if adverse or critical comments
were filed on the rulemaking. The USEPA received two letters containing
adverse comments regarding the direct final rule within 30 days of
publication of the proposed rule and withdrew the direct final rule on
July 19, 1995.
The specific rationale and air quality analysis the USEPA used to
determine that the Grand Rapids and Muskegon ozone nonattainment areas
have attained the ozone NAAQS and are not required to submit SIP
revisions for reasonable further progress, attainment demonstration and
related requires are explained in the direct final rule and will not be
restated here.
This final rule contained in this Federal Register addresses the
comments which were received during the public comment period and
announces USEPA's final action regarding these determinations.
II. Public Comments and USEPA Responses
Two letters were received in response to the June 2, 1995 direct
final rulemaking. One was a joint letter from the Citizens Commission
for Clean Air in the Lake Michigan Basin (Citizens Commission) and the
American Lung Association of Michigan (American Lung) and the other
from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC). The following discussion summarizes and responds to the
comments received.
Citizens Commission and American Lung Comment
The commentor states that the rulemaking is an abuse of Agency
discretion and violates sections 172(c)(9), 175A(c) and 182(b)(1) of
the Act. The commentor believes that USEPA's action disregards
Congress' stated purposes of Title I, section 101(b)(1), that it
``protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as
to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of
its population.''
USEPA Response
The USEPA does not believe that the rulemaking violates any section
of the Clean Air Act. The USEPA believes that since the areas have
attained the ozone standard, they have achieved the stated purpose of
the section 182(b)(1) reasonable further progress and attainment
demonstration requirements as well as the section 172(c)(9) contingency
measure requirement. The rationale for that interpretation is explained
in the May 10, 1995 memorandum from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, and in the notice regarding Muskegon
and Grand Rapids published on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28729). The
commentors have not offered any persuasive reasoning for USEPA to
depart from the rationale spelled out in those documents.
The USEPA also does not agree with the commentors contention that
this action violates section 175A(c) which provides that the
requirements of part D remain in force and effect for an area until
such time as it is redesignated. Section 175A(c) does not establish any
additional substantive requirements; rather, it ensures that the
requirements that do apply by virtue of other Act provisions continue
to apply until an area is redesignated. If, however, an Act provision
does not apply to an area or does not require that the particular area
in question submit a SIP revision, section 175A(c) does not somehow add
to the requirements with which the area must comply. In this instance,
USEPA is interpreting the underlying substantive requirements at issue
so as not to apply to areas for so long as they continue to attain the
standard. This does not violate section 175A(c); it is an
interpretation of the substance of other provisions of the Act, a
matter that is not affected by section 175A(c). Other requirements that
do not depend on whether the area has attained the standard, such as
VOC RACT requirements, continue to apply, however, and section 175A(c)
ensures that they continue to apply until the area is redesignated.
Furthermore, the USEPA disagrees with the commentors' contention
that its action disregards the stated purpose of Title I, section
101(b)(1). The areas have attained the primary ozone standard, a
standard designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety (see Act section 109(b)(1)). USEPA's action does not relax any
of the requirements that have led to the attainment of the standard.
Rather, its action has the effect of suspending additional
requirements, above and beyond those that have resulted in attainment
of the health-based standard.
Citizens Commission and American Lung Comment
The commentor states that suspending reasonable further progress,
attainment demonstration, and other Part D SIP requirements based on
air quality data is particularly inappropriate when air quality data is
distorted by unusually favorable meteorology. These areas benefited
from unusually favorable meteorology during the 1992-1994 period. The
commentor cites National Weather Service data which indicates that the
30 year average for days with maximum temperatures equal to or greater
than 90 deg. Fahrenheit is 10 per year. The commentor also presents the
data that shows that between 1992 and 1994, the area benefited from
unusually mild summer temperatures with number of days equal to or
greater than 90 deg. of 2, 7, and 5. The commentor further notes that
the September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, entitled
Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment
considers unusually favorable meteorology and suggests that it would
not qualify as an air quality improvement due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions.
USEPA Response
The test of unusual meteorology may be applied in the context of a
redesignation to demonstrate satisfaction of the section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requirement to demonstrate that the improvement in
air quality is a result of permanent and enforceable emission
reductions rather than unusually favorable meteorology. The June 2,
1995 rulemaking is not a redesignation and therefore, the test of
improvement in air quality resulting from permanent and enforceable
emission reductions rather than unusually favorable meteorology is not
required in this rulemaking. Michigan has submitted a redesignation
request to the USEPA which is currently undergoing USEPA's review and
rulemaking process. USEPA notes, however, that permanent and
enforceable emission reductions have in fact occurred in the Muskegon
and Grand Rapids areas subsequent to their designation as nonattainment
areas due to the imposition of control measures such as VOC RACT rules,
fleet turnover to vehicles meeting more stringent federal motor vehicle
standards and Federal low Reid vapor pressure gasoline regulations.
Furthermore, other requirements of part D of Title I (such as VOC RACT
requirements) must continue to apply at least until an area is
redesignated to attainment, which cannot occur unless USEPA determines
that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions. In any event, as the
[[Page 37368]]
determination made by USEPA that the reasonable further progress and
related requirements do not apply is linked with the areas' continued
attainment of the standard, the areas would need to adopt additional
control measures in the event a violation occurred.
Citizens Commission and American Lung Comment
The commentor notes that the action is not based on statutory
authority or case law but rationale presented in a May 10, 1995
memorandum from John Seitz, Director, of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.
USEPA Response
As discussed in the May 10, 1995 memorandum from John Seitz
entitled Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard and June 2, 1995 rulemaking
action, the USEPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the
language of the pertinent statutory provisions so as not to require a
submission of the section 182(b)(1) reasonable further progress plan
and attainment demonstration and section 172(c)(9) contingency measures
from an area that is attaining the standard for so long as the area
continues to attain the standard because the purpose of reasonable
further progress, as stated explicitly in section 171(1)of the Act is
to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date. Once an area
has attained the standard, the stated purpose of the reasonable further
progress requirement will have already been fulfilled. As explained in
detail in those documents, this interpretation is based on the language
of the pertinent statutory provisions. The commentor has not provided
any rationale to persuade the USEPA that its interpretation is not
reasonable.
Citizens Commission and American Lung Comment
The commentor states that suspension of reasonable further progress
requirements based on a demonstration that the area is not momentarily
violating the ozone standard does not ensure attainment of the standard
in the future.
USEPA Response
This action is not intended to ensure maintenance of the ozone
standard. In fact, suspension of these requirements is only valid so
long as the area continues to attain the ozone standard. If the area
violates the standard, the requirements of sections 182(b)(1) and
172(c)(9) would have to be addressed since the basis for the
determination that they do not apply would no longer exist. Maintenance
plans, a required element of a redesignation request, must ensure
maintenance of the standard for a period of 10 years following an
area's redesignation to attainment. See section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) and
section 175A of the Act. Michigan has submitted a redesignation request
to the USEPA which is currently undergoing USEPA's review and
rulemaking process. USEPA also notes that this action does not relieve
any existing control measures, which are the measures that have brought
about attainment.
Citizens Commission and American Lung Comment
The commentor suggests that suspension of the attainment
demonstration requirements relieves the USEPA from addressing available
modeling that shows that urbanized areas in the Lake Michigan Basic
area contribute to ozone formation and transport. In addition, the
commentor contends that the nonattainment areas can use modeling
results to avoid implementing control measures required by the Act when
modeling in fact shows continued violations of the NAAQS. Specifically,
the commentor notes that modeling being conducted by the Lake Michigan
Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) shows that emissions originating in
western Michigan are contributing to exceedances of the ozone standard
elsewhere in the Lake Michigan Basin. Modeling submitted to the USEPA
for June 20-21, 1991 (Episode 4), confirms that emissions from western
Michigan contributed to exceedances of the ozone NAAQS. The commentor
claims that western Michigan contributes to elevated ozone
concentrations in Michigan City, Indiana which recently recorded three
exceedances of the ozone standard within the last two years (June 16,
15 and 18, 1995). This commentor believes that this rule will likely
necessitate USEPA to redesignate Michigan City, Indiana, an attainment
area, to nonattainment.
USEPA Response
At the outset, USEPA notes that the issue of transported emissions
is not relevant to this rulemaking action. The purpose of the
requirements of section 182(b)(1) concerning reasonable further
progress and attainment demonstrations and the contingency measure
requirements of section 172(c)(9) as they apply to Grand Rapids and
Muskegon is not to address emissions from those two areas that may
cause or contribute to air quality problems in areas downwind of Grand
Rapids and Muskegon. The purpose of those requirements as they apply to
Grand Rapids and Muskegon is to achieve attainment of the standard in
those two areas. The issue of transported emissions is dealt with by
other provisions of the Act, provisions that are not the subject of
this rulemaking action. USEPA has authority, and the state has an
obligation, under section 110(a)(2)(A) (in the case of intrastate
areas) and section 110(a)(2)(D) (in the case of interstate areas), to
address transported emissions from upwind areas that significantly
contribute to air quality problems in downwind areas. The determination
being made in this rulemaking is that, as Grand Rapids and Muskegon
have attained the ozone standard, certain additional Act requirements
whose purpose is to achieve attainment in the area concerned do not
apply to them for so long as they continue to attain the standard. That
determination does not mean that those areas might not have to achieve
additional reductions pursuant to other provisions of the Act if it is
determined in the future that such reductions are necessary to deal
with transport from the Muskegon and Grand Rapids areas to downwind
areas.
The commentors' contention that nonattainment areas in the region
can use modeling results to avoid implementation of control measures
required by the Act when modeling shows continued violations of the
ozone standard is unclear, and not relevant to this action.
The USEPA acknowledges that the Lake Michigan States of Michigan,
Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana are conducting urban airshed modeling
(UAM) which is being coordinated by LADCO. The modeling will be used
for purposes of demonstrating attainment throughout the Lake Michigan
region. Preliminary modeling results indicate that the Grand Rapids and
Muskegon areas are recipients of transported ozone and that the areas
may contribute to ozone concentrations in downwind areas. The modeling,
however, is not complete and is being further refined. The USEPA
recognizes the importance of the modeling effort and subsequent
results. The USEPA would like to note that the Lake Michigan States are
participating in the Phase I/Phase II analysis as provided for within
the March 2, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, entitled Ozone Attainment Demonstrations. Phase
II of the analysis would assess the need for regional control
strategies and refine the
[[Page 37369]]
local control strategies. Phase II would also provide the States and
USEPA the opportunity to determine appropriate regional strategies to
resolve transport issues including any impacts the Grand Rapids and
Muskegon areas may have on ozone concentrations in their downwind
areas. The USEPA has the authority under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and
110(a)(2)(D) of the Act to ensure that the required and necessary
reductions are achieved in the Grand Rapids and Muskegon areas should
subsequent modeling become available, such as the modeling that will be
available through completion of the Phase II analysis, or any other
subsequent modeling data.
The possible impact of ozone and ozone precursor emissions
originating from Grand Rapids and Muskegon on elevated ozone
concentrations recently recorded in Michigan City, Indiana, is not
relevant to this rulemaking. As discussed above, ozone transport will
be addressed at the conclusion of the Phase II modeling efforts
currently under way in the Lake Michigan area. For clarification, the
1995 ozone monitoring data cited by the commentor has not been quality
assured and is subject to change. The USEPA is aware that preliminary
data from the Michigan City, Indiana monitor shows exceedances of the
ozone standard on June 15 and June 18, 1995. However, the USEPA is
unaware of an ozone exceedance in Michigan City on June 16, 1995. USEPA
does not expect this rulemaking to have an impact on the likelihood of
Michigan City's being designated to nonattainment.
Citizens Commission and American Lung Comment
The commentor asserts that suspending adoption, submittal and
approval of contingency measures under section 172(c)(9) presages a
maintenance plan lacking similar contingency measures in the context of
a redesignation.
USEPA Response
The rulemaking specifically suspends the contingency measure
requirements of section 172(c)(9) which are intended to ensure
reasonable further progress and attainment by an applicable attainment
date (57 FR 13564; and September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum). The
rulemaking, however, does not suspend or dismiss the contingency
measures required by section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(d) whose purpose
is to assure that future violations of the standard will be promptly
corrected after an area has been redesignated to attainment. Michigan
has submitted a redesignation request to the USEPA which is currently
undergoing USEPA's review and rulemaking process. It should be noted
that the request does contain a maintenance plan with contingency
measures including an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
program, Stage II gasoline vapor recovery, and Reid Vapor Pressure
reductions to 7.8 psi. That maintenance plan will have to satisfy the
requirements of sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A(d) in order for it
and the redesignation request to be approved.
Citizens Commission and American Lung Comment
The commentor notes that the irony of the rulemaking is emphasized
by the ozone levels observed throughout the Lake Michigan basin in June
1995. The commentor cites ozone values at monitors in Muskegon, Holland
and Ludington, Michigan.
USEPA Response
This action is premised on the determination that both the Grand
Rapids and Muskegon areas have attained the ozone standard during the
period 1992-1994. As explained in the June 2, 1995 rulemaking, these
determinations are contingent on the continued monitoring and continued
attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the affected areas. No
violations in the affected areas have occurred as of this time. If a
violation of the ozone NAAQS is monitored in the Grand Rapids and
Muskegon areas (consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR
Part 58 and recorded in AIRS), USEPA will provide notice to the public
in the Federal Register. Such a violation would mean that the area
would thereafter have to address the requirements of section 182(b)(1)
and section 172(c)(9) since the basis for the determination that they
do not apply would no longer exist.
NYSDEC Comment
The NYSDEC objects to the rulemaking because it exempts the area
from certain requirements of Title I of the Act and fails to establish
any limit on emission growth of ozone precursors. The commentor states
that downwind areas such as New York State need reductions in incoming
ozone precursor concentrations during ozone episodes. The commentor is
opposed to actions that would provide relief to such areas until it is
demonstrated/determined that emissions from this area have ``no
significant impact'' on ozone levels in New York and other downwind
Northeast states.
USEPA Response
The determination that certain Title I requirements, namely section
182(b)(1) reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration
requirements, and section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirements,
do not apply is based on ambient air quality data demonstrating that
the area has attained the standard. This rulemaking is merely a
determination that the aforementioned Title I requirements are not
applicable so long as the affected areas continue to attain the ozone
standard. While the rulemaking does not establish any limit on emission
growth of ozone precursors, the USEPA does not believe that this
determination will cause emissions of ozone precursors to grow since it
is not relaxing control measures currently being implemented in the
areas. Furthermore, USEPA does not believe it necessary to establish a
limit on the growth of ozone precursors in this rulemaking since
USEPA's determination that the areas need not make certain submissions
is contingent on the areas' continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS. As
noted earlier, if a violation occurs the area would have to address the
requirements of sections 182(b)(1) and 172(c)(9).
With respect to the commentor's opposition to such actions until it
is demonstrated that emissions from this area have ``no significant
impact'' on ozone levels in New York and other downwind Northeast
states, the USEPA would note that such a process is underway within the
Lake Michigan area. The Lake Michigan States of Michigan, Wisconsin,
Illinois and Indiana are conducting UAM which is being coordinated by
LADCO. The modeling will be used for purposes of demonstrating
attainment throughout the Lake Michigan region. Moreover, the Lake
Michigan States are participating in the Phase I/Phase II analysis as
provided for within the March 2, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled Ozone
Attainment Demonstrations. Phase II of the analysis would assess the
need for regional control strategies and refine the local control
strategies. Phase II would also provide the States and USEPA the
opportunity to determine appropriate regional strategies to resolve
transport issues including any impacts the Grand Rapids and Muskegon
areas may have on ozone concentrations in their downwind areas. As
discussed above, the control of transported emissions is not the
purpose of the Act requirements at issue in this rulemaking but is the
subject of other Act provisions. The
[[Page 37370]]
USEPA has the authority under section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act to ensure
that the required and necessary reductions are achieved in the Grand
Rapids and Muskegon areas should subsequent modeling become available,
such as the modeling that will be available through completion of the
Phase II analysis, or any other subsequent modeling data. This
determination, therefore, does not preclude the area from future
imposition of additional control measures to achieve additional
emission reductions.
NYSDEC Comment
NYSDEC also request additional time to perform a detailed review
and analysis of the issues related to this proposed determination and
requests a copy of the analysis that supports this action.
USEPA Response
The public was afforded 30 days to comment on this rulemaking
action. The USEPA does not believe that any extension of time is
necessary as an adequate comment period has already been provided.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
The USEPA is making a final determination that the Grand Rapids and
Muskegon ozone nonattainment areas have attained the ozone standard and
continue to attain the standard at this time. As a consequence of this
determination, the requirements of section 182(b)(1) concerning the
submission of the 15 percent reasonable further progress plan and ozone
attainment demonstration and the requirements of section 172(c)(9)
concerning contingency measures are not applicable to the area so long
as the area does not violate the ozone standard.
The USEPA emphasizes that these determinations are contingent upon
the continued monitoring and continued attainment and maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS in the affected area. When and if a violation of the
ozone NAAQS is monitored in the Grand Rapids or Muskegon nonattainment
areas (consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 58 and
recorded in AIRS), the USEPA will provide notice to the public in the
Federal Register. Such a violation would mean that the area would
thereafter have to address the requirements of section 182(b)(1) and
section 172(c)(9) since the basis for the determination that they do
not apply would no longer exist.
As a consequence of the determination that these areas have
attained the NAAQS and that the reasonable further progress and
attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) and
contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) do not presently
apply. These are no longer requirements within the meaning of 40 CFR
52.31(c)(1). Consequently, the sanctions clocks started by USEPA on
January 21, 1994, for failure to submit SIP revisions required by the
provisions of the Act, are hereby stopped.
The USEPA finds that there is good cause for this action to become
effective immediately upon publication because a delayed effective date
is unnecessary due to the nature of this action, which is a
determination that certain Act requirements do not apply for so long as
the areas continue to attain the standard. The immediate effective date
for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d)(1), which
provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days
after publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction'' and Sec. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective
date less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.''
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
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, USEPA may certify 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 government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000. Today's determination does not create any new
requirements, but suspends the indicated requirements. Therefore,
because this notice does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on small entities affected.
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the
USEPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any
proposed or final rulemaking 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. Section
203 requires the USEPA to establish a plan for informing and advising
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by
the rule. Under section 205, the USEPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements.
The USEPA has determined that today's final action does not include
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. This Federal action imposes no new Federal
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this final action determining that the Grand Rapids and Muskegon
ozone nonattainment areas have attained the NAAQS for ozone and that
certain reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration
requirements of sections 182(b)(1) and 172(c)(9) no longer apply must
be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by September 18, 1995. 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)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 12, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
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 52.1174 is amended by adding new paragraph (k) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1174 Control Strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(k) Determination--USEPA is determining that, as of July 20, 1995,
the
[[Page 37371]]
Grand Rapids and Muskegon ozone nonattainment areas have attained the
ozone standard and that the reasonable further progress and attainment
demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) and related
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act do not apply to
the areas for so long as the areas do not monitor any violations of the
ozone standard. If a violation of the ozone NAAQS is monitored in
either the Grand Rapids or Muskegon ozone nonattainment area, the
determination shall no longer apply for the area that experiences the
violation.
[FR Doc. 95-17763 Filed 7-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
