[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