Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard by Grand Rapids and Muskegon, Michigan; Determination Regarding Applicability of Certain Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Demonstration Requirements

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