39432 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[FRL–6126–8]

Identification of Additional Ozone

Areas Attaining the 1-Hour Standard

and to Which the 1-Hour Standard is

no Longer Applicable

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On May 18, 1998, the EPA

published a proposal to approve the

identification of additional ozone areas

attaining the 1-hour standard and to

which the 1-hour standard is no longer

applicable. The comment period

concluded on June 17, 1998. Comments

were received on the proposal during

the comment period. Today, the EPA is

addressing the comments and taking

final action to approve the identification

of six additional ozone areas attaining

the 1-hour standard and to which the 1-

hour standard is no longer applicable.

Upon promulgation of this action, the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for

ozone will be amended to reflect such

changes. Additionally, today’s action is

consistent with the President’s

memorandum of July 16, 1997. The

President’s memorandum called for EPA

to publish an action identifying ozone

areas to which the 1-hour standard will

cease to apply because they have not

measured a current violation of the 1-

hour standard. For all other areas, the 1-

hour standard will continue to apply.

Furthermore, this action is being taken

as indicated in the direct final rule

published on January 16, 1998, which,

due to the receipt of adverse comments,

was withdrawn on March 16, 1998 and

subsequently converted to a proposal.

On June 5, 1998, the Agency

promulgated a final rule, effective

immediately, responding to the adverse

comments, thus completing the action

identifying ozone areas where the 1-

hour standard is no longer applicable.

According to the final rule, the Agency

intended to publish, in early 1998, a

subsequent document which takes

similar action to revoke the 1-hour

standard in additional areas that have

air quality that does not violate the 1-

hour standard. The six additional areas

identified today are: Dayton-Springfield,

Ohio; Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan;

Warrick County, Indiana; Grand Rapids,

Michigan; Poughkeepsie, New York; and

Morgan County, Kentucky.

DATES: This action will be effective on

July 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to this

rulemaking are available for inspection

at the Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6101), Attention:

Docket No. A–98–19, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Room M–1500,

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)

260–7548, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions concerning this notice should

be addressed to Annie Nikbakht (policy)

or Barry Gilbert (air quality data), Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Air Quality Strategies and Standards

Division, Ozone Policy and Strategies

Group, MD–15, Research Triangle Park,

NC 27711, telephone (919) 541–5246/

5238. In addition, the following

Regional contacts may be called for

individual information regarding

monitoring data and policy matters

specific for each Regional Office’s

geographic area:

Region II—Ray Werner, (212) 637–3706

Region IV—Kay Prince, (404) 562–9026

Region V—Todd Nettesheim, (312) 353–

9153

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic

Availability—The official record for this

final rule, as well as the public version,

has been established under docket

number A–98–19. A public version of

this record which does not include any

information claimed as Confidential

Business Information is available for

inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The official final rulemaking

record is located at the address in

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this

document.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Summary of Today’s Action

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

IV. Analysis of Air Quality Data

V. Tables

VI. Other Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Rule Effective Date

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates

E. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

G. Applicability of Executive order

(E.O.)13045

I. Background

On July 16, 1997, the President issued

a memorandum (62 FR 38421, July 18,

1997) to the Administrator of the EPA

which indicates that within 90 days of

promulgation of the new 8-hour

standard, the EPA will publish an action

identifying ozone areas to which the 1-

hour standard will cease to apply. The

memorandum states that for areas where

the air quality does not currently attain

the 1-hour standard, the 1-hour standard

will continue in effect. The provisions

of subpart 2 of title I of the Clean Air

Act (Act) would also apply to currently

designated nonattainment areas until

such time as each area has air quality

meeting the 1-hour standard.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA

promulgated a regulation replacing the

1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour

standard at a level of 0.08 parts per

million (ppm). The form of the 8-hour

standard is based on the 3-year average

of the annual fourth-highest daily

maximum 8-hour average ozone

concentrations measured at each

monitor within an area. The new

primary standard, which became

effective on September 16, 1997, will

provide increased protection to the

public, especially children and other atrisk populations. On July 18, 1997, EPA

also promulgated regulations providing

that revocation of the 1-hour ozone

national ambient air quality standard

(NAAQS) would occur on an area-byarea basis when EPA determined that an

area was meeting the 1-hour NAAQS.

This was done in order to facilitate

continuity in public health protection

during the transition to the new

NAAQS.

Therefore, on January 16, 1998, in

accordance with the President’s

memorandum and the regulations

promulgated on July 18, 1997, the

Agency issued a direct final rule (63 FR

2726) which identified ozone areas to

which the 1-hour standard will cease to

apply because they have not measured

a current violation of the 1-hour

standard. For all other areas, the 1-hour

standard will continue to apply.

However, due to the receipt of adverse

comments, the direct final action was

withdrawn on March 16, 1998 (63 FR

12652) and converted to a proposed rule

that had previously been published on

January 16, 1998 (63 FR 2804). The

Agency summarized and addressed all

relevant public comments in a

subsequent final rule, published and

effective on June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31014).

According to the final rule, the Agency

intended to publish, in early 1998, a

subsequent document which takes

similar action to revoke the 1-hour

standard in additional areas that have

air quality that does not violate the 1-

hour standard and to take similar action

each year thereafter.

On May 18, 1998, the EPA published

a proposal to approve the identification

of six additional ozone areas attaining

the 1-hour standard and to which the 1-
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 39433

hour standard is no longer applicable

(63 FR 27247). Comments were received

on the proposal during the comment

period ending on June 17, 1998.

II. Summary of Today’s Action

The purpose of this document is to

respond to comments received on the

May 18th proposed rule and finalize the

identification of the six additional areas

that EPA has determined are not

violating the 1-hour standard and,

therefore, with respect to which the 1-

hour standard no longer applies. The

newly identified areas are: DaytonSpringfield, Ohio; Detroit-Ann Arbor,

Michigan; Warrick County, Indiana;

Grand Rapids, Michigan; Poughkeepsie,

New York; and Morgan County,

Kentucky.

III. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

The following discussion summarizes

and responds to the comments received

on the proposed rule published on May

18, 1998 (63 FR 27247).

Comment: The commenter states that

clean monitoring data alone are an

insufficient legal basis for revocation of

the applicability of the 1-hour standard

in these areas and that all requirements

of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act must

be met in order to have the standard

revoked.

Response: The Agency previously

addressed this question in its

promulgated rule of June 5, 1998 (63 FR

31014) and incorporates by reference

the discussion of this issue therein. In

brief, as this action is not a

redesignation, but rather a

determination that the 1-hour NAAQS

no longer applies to certain areas,

pursuant to the regulations promulgated

in July 1997 as part of the rulemaking

regarding the ozone NAAQS (40 CFR

50.9(b)), the redesignation requirements

of section 107(d)(3)(E) do not apply to

this action. These regulations provide

the legal basis for this action and specify

the criteria that must be met—the

determination by EPA that an area has

air quality meeting the standard.

Comment: The commenter states that

many of the areas contribute to

downwind air quality problems in

Canada.

Response: Section 115 does not play

a role in today’s rulemaking action

because (1) EPA has not received any

study or petition from an international

agency; (2) today’s action does not

impose or revoke any air quality

measures, as a result, the impact is

neutral; and (3) the criteria for

determining the standard does not apply

do not include an analysis of

international impacts. Furthermore, the

EPA has not received any comments

from the government of Canada or

private Canadian citizens regarding this

matter. In ongoing discussions between

the EPA and the Canadian government,

the overall benefits of the nitrogen

oxides (NOX) State implementation plan

(SIP) call (62 FR 60318, November 7,

1997) as a vehicle to deal with transport

are widely recognized.

Comment: Data considered for this

rulemaking are incomplete. The

commenter notes a problem with

malfunctioning ozone monitors in

Allegan County, Michigan and suspect

monitoring conducted in Warrick

County. In addition, the commenter

notes that the New Haven, Michigan

ozone monitor was not functioning

during the May 1998 ozone episode.

Response: The EPA is only

considering complete, quality assured

air quality data in this rulemaking.

Today’s action does not consider 1998

air quality data, because these data have

not yet been quality assured and have

not been reported to the EPA. The 1995–

1997 period was chosen because it was

the most recent 3-year period at the time

of this rule for which EPA and the

States had complete data. With respect

to the question of malfunctioning

monitors in Allegan County, this

rulemaking does not deal with Allegan

County, therefore the comment is

irrelevant to this rulemaking action.

With regard to comments on the quality

of Warrick County, Indiana ozone data,

EPA considered only quality assured

ozone data for the 1995–1997 period

and has no reason to suspect the quality

of the ozone data supplied by the State

of Indiana. Furthermore, the commenter

provides no documentation to support

the claim of suspicious ozone data in

Warrick County. As to the comment that

the monitor in New Haven, Michigan

was not functioning during May 1998,

draft air quality data reports for 1998

indicate that this monitor was, in fact,

running during the May 1998 period

and has not recorded any exceedances

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Comment: The commenter notes that

meteorological conditions in 1996 and

1997 were atypical and a meteorological

analysis should be included to show

whether the areas have attained the 1-

hour standard.

Response: The Agency previously

addressed this concern regarding

variations in meteorological conditions

in its final rule promulgated on June 5,

1998 (63 FR 31014) and incorporates

that discussion by reference. Attainment

of the ozone NAAQS is determined

using three consecutive years of data to

account for variations in meteorological

conditions, as well as variations in

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and

NOX emissions. The ozone NAAQS is

designed to take into account such

variations.

Comment: Modeling predicts

continued violations of the 1-hour

NAAQS in these areas.

Response: The EPA’s authority for

this action is based on the regulatory

provisions adopted when it

promulgated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS

in July 1997 (62 FR 38856 (July 18,

1997)). Those regulations, in 40 CFR

50.9(b), provide that the ‘‘1-hour

standard set forth in this section will no

longer apply to an area once EPA

determines that the area has air quality

meeting the 1-hour standard.’’ Those

regulations specify a single criterion for

determining that the 1-hour standard no

longer applies—the determination by

EPA that an area has air quality meeting

the 1-hour standard. The EPA believes

that is the only criterion that may be

applied in this rulemaking, and that it

has been satisfied in the case of all the

areas covered by this action. In essence,

the commenters’ issue, properly viewed,

is not with the action being taken at this

time, but with the regulatory provision

on which this action is based. That

regulation was promulgated in July

1997, the commenters’ issues are

therefore untimely.

Comment: Areas are in

noncompliance with their maintenance

plans. The commenter notes that

Detroit, Michigan has experienced

exceedances of the ozone NAAQS,

despite the implementation of required

contingency measures.

Response: Under section 107 of the

Act, in order to be redesignated, the

Administrator must approve a

maintenance plan that meets the

requirements of section 175(A) of the

Act. Section 175(A) requires

maintenance plans to include

contingency measures sufficient to

‘‘promptly correct any violation of the

standard which occurs after the

redesignation of the area as an

attainment area.’’ On March 7, 1994, the

EPA published the final approval of the

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the Detroit area. Subsequently,

the area violated the ozone standard

and, in accordance with the approved

maintenance plan, the area

implemented two contingency

measures, a low volatility gasoline

program, and an expansion of the Stage

I gasoline vapor recovery program.

Since that time, the area has

experienced exceedances, but not

violations of the ozone standard. As the

area is attaining the standard, it satisfies

the criterion for revocation of the

NAAQS specified in 40 CFR 50.9(b). In
39434 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

fact, the exceedances experienced in the

area in May 1998 occurred prior to the

control period for the low volatility

gasoline program which runs from June

1 to September 15. As a result, Michigan

has implemented its approved

maintenance plan in the Detroit area

and the contingency measures appear to

be working as designed to prevent

future violations of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS.

Comment: The EPA has determined

that these areas interfere with

downwind areas’ abilities to attain the

1-hour standard for ozone.

Response: The EPA is addressing this

issue in the Eastern United States

through the NOX SIP call, which EPA

has proposed (62 FR 60318, November

7, 1997). The proposal would place

controls for NOX emissions in large

geographic upwind areas that contain

both attainment and nonattainment

areas. The controls would reduce NOX

emissions and, as a result, ozone levels.

The EPA has also been petitioned,

under section 126(b) of the Act, to place

controls on upwind stationary sources

of NOX emissions. More generally, it

should be noted that upwind sources

are subject to section 110(a)(2)(D)

regardless of whether the 1-hour

standard continues to apply to them.

Accordingly, a determination that the 1-

hour standard does not apply to upwind

areas does not preclude additional

reductions in the upwind areas.

Furthermore, the only criterion

specified in 40 CFR 50.9(b) for

revocation is EPA’s determination that

the area itself is meeting the standard

and the factor referred to by the

commenter is not relevant to that issue.

Comment: Children’s health will be

disproportionately and adversely

affected by this rule.

Response: EPA disagrees with this

comment. Today’s action will not result

in diminished controls or worsened air

quality.

Comment: A group of commenters

expressed concern that EPA did not

revoke the 1-hour NAAQS for the San

Francisco Bay area despite its continued

violations, but did revoke the NAAQS

for other areas designated attainment.

The commenters stated that EPA’s

approach misapplies 40 CFR 50.9 (the

regulation governing revocation of the 1-

hour standard), violates the Act and

leads to inconsistent and illogical

results.

Response: The Agency previously

addressed this comment in its final rule

promulgated on June 5, 1998 (63 FR

31014) and incorporates by reference

that discussion. The EPA is continuing

the approach employed in the earlier

notices. The Presidential memorandum

of July 16, 1997 (62 FR 38421, July 18,

1997) states, ‘‘For areas where the air

quality does not currently attain the 1-

hour standard, the 1-hour standard will

continue in effect.’’ This policy should

include maintenance and attainment

areas which currently violate the 1-hour

standard. In addition, on December 29,

1997, Richard D. Wilson, Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, issued guidance, entitled

Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour

Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,

which reiterates that ‘‘The EPA will not

revoke the 1-hour standard in an area

that is violating that standard.’’ The EPA

believes that to determine that the 1-

hour standard ceases to apply to the Bay

Area would mislead the public into

thinking their health was not at risk.

The EPA will not revoke the 1-hour

NAAQS in an area that measures

violations during the prior 3-year

period. The Bay Area had a total of 43

exceedances and 17 violations of the 1-

hour standard since the June 1995

redesignation to attainment. Therefore,

for all of the above reasons, the Agency

believes that it is prudent to keep the 1-

hour standard in place for the Bay Area.

In addition, EPA disagrees that its

actions are inconsistent or arbitrary. The

commenters point out that an area with

clean data for all years in the 1990’s,

except for four or more exceedances in

one year, may not receive a

determination that the standard will

cease to apply, but an area with

exceedances in all years in the 1990’s,

except for less than four exceedences in

a 3-year period, may receive such a

determination. Factually, the

commenters are correct because the 1-

hour NAAQS is based on air quality in

a consecutive 3-year period. After EPA

revised the 1-hour NAAQS, instead of

immediately revoking it for all areas,

EPA determined that it should be

phased out by a determination that it

would cease to apply on any area that

attained it for a 3-year period, beginning

1994–96 and continuing for each 3-year

period (on a rolling basis) after that.

Although an area may experience

exceedances after the 1-hour standard is

determined no longer to apply, the new

8-hour standard is designed to protect

the air quality.

Comment: The commenter believes

that retention of the 1-hour standard in

maintenance and attainment areas will

not promote early attainment of the 8-

hour standard and EPA cannot justify its

approach based on a desire to protect air

quality.

Response: The Agency previously

addressed this comment in a final rule

promulgated on June 5, 1998 (63 FR

31014) and incorporates by reference

that discussion. Most, if not all, of the

measures undertaken for the purpose of

attaining the 1-hour standard will assist

in the attainment of the 8-hour standard.

This is because most areas with 1-hour

exceedances also have 8-hour

exceedances. As more measures are

undertaken to meet the 1-hour standard,

the 1-hour concentrations composing

the 8-hour average will decrease in

magnitude, as will the number of 8-hour

exceedances.

IV. Analysis of Air Quality Data

This final action, to determine that

the 1-hour standard no longer applies to

selected areas, is based upon analysis of

quality-assured, ambient air quality

monitoring data showing no violations

of the 1-hour ozone standard. The

method for determining attainment of

the ozone NAAQS is contained in 40

CFR 50.9 and Appendix H to that

section. The level of the 1-hour primary

and secondary NAAQS for ozone is 0.12

ppm.

The 1-hour standard no longer applies

to an area once EPA determines that the

area has air quality not violating the 1-

hour standard. Determinations for this

document were based upon the most

recent data available, i.e., 1995–1997

data. Detailed air quality data

information used for today’s

determinations is contained in the

Technical Support Document (TSD) to

Docket No. A–98–19.

V. Tables

The ozone tables codified in today’s

action are significantly different from

the tables now included in 40 CFR part

81. The current 40 CFR part 81

designation listings (revised November

6, 1991 and most recently revised June

5, 1998) include, by State and NAAQS

pollutant, a brief description of areas

within the State and their respective

designation. Today’s final action

includes completely new entries for the

six additional ozone areas identified

where the 1-hour standard no longer

applies.

VI. Other Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The OMB has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866

review.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 39435

B. Rule Effective Date

The EPA 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 the 1-hour ozone

standard no longer applies. The

immediate effective date for this action

is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 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 section

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.’’

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604), unless EPA certifies that the

rule will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000. The EPA is certifying

that this final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities, because the

determination that the 1-hour standard

ceases to apply does not subject any

entities to any additional requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

EPA must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under section 205, EPA must select the

most cost effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by

the rule.

The EPA has determined that today’s

action, as promulgated, would 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 requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

E. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by September 21, 1998. 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)).

G. Applicability of Executive Order

(E.O.)13045

On April 21, 1997, the President

signed an Executive Order (13045)

entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks.’’ This is the primary directive to

Federal agencies and departments that

Federal health and safety standards now

must include an evaluation of the health

or safety effects of the planned

regulation on children. For rules subject

to the Executive Order, agencies are

further required to issue an explanation

as to why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonable feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to E.O.

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997), because this is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by E.O. 12866, and it

does not involve decisions on

environmental health risks or safety

risks that may disproportionately affect

children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: July 15, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 81, of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. In § 81.315, the table entitled

‘‘Indiana-Ozone (1-Hour Standard’’ is

amended by revising the entry for

‘‘Warrick County Area’’ to read as

follows:

§ 81.315 Indiana.

* * * * *

INDIANA-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Warrick County Area:

Warrick County ................................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A. 2 ................ ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is June 5, 1998, unless otherwise noted.
39436 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

2 1 hour standard Not Applicable.

* * * * *

3. In § 81.318, the table entitled

‘‘Kentucky-Ozone (1-Hour Standard)’’ is

amended by revising the entry for

‘‘Morgan County Area’’ to read as

follows:

§ 81.318 Kentucky.

* * * * *

KENTUCKY-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Morgan County Area:

Morgan County ................................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.22 ............... ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is June 5,1998, unless otherwise noted.

2 1 hour standard Not Applicable.

* * * * *

4. In § 81.323, the table entitled

‘‘Michigan-Ozone (1-Hour Standard’’ is

amended by revising the entries for

‘‘Detroit-Ann Arbor Area’’ and ‘‘Grand

Rapids Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.323 Michigan.

* * * * *

MICHIGAN-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Detroit-Ann Arbor Area:

Livingston County ............................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

Macomb County ................................................................ 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

Monroe County ................................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

Oakland County ................................................................ 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

St. Clair County ................................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

Washtenaw County ........................................................... 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

Wayne County .................................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

* * * * * * *

Grand Rapids Area:

Kent County ...................................................................... 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

Ottawa County .................................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is June 5, 1998, unless otherwise noted.

2 1 hour standard Not Applicable.

* * * * *

5. In § 81.333, the table entitled ‘‘New

York-Ozone (1-Hour Standard’’ is

amended by revising the entry for

‘‘Poughkeepsie Area’’ and revising

footnote 2 to read as follows:

§ 81.333 New York.

* * * * *

NEW YORK-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Poughkeepsie Area:

Dutchess County .............................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.3 ................. ....................

Orange County (remainder) ............................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.3 ................. ....................

Putnam County ................................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.3 ................. ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is June 5, 1998, unless otherwise noted.

2 1 hour standard Not Applicable for the remainder of Orange Co.

3 1 hour standard Not Applicable.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 39437

* * * * *

6. In § 81.336, the table entitled

‘‘Ohio-Ozone (1-Hour Standard)’’ is

amended by revising the entry for

‘‘Dayton-Springfield Area’’ to read as

follows:

§ 81.336 Ohio.

OHIO-OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Dayton-Springfield Area:

Clark County ..................................................................... 7–22–98 1 hr.std. N.A.2 ................ ....................

Greene County .................................................................. 7–22–98 1 hr.std. N.A.2 ................ ....................

Miami County .................................................................... 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

Montgomery County .......................................................... 7–22–98 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ................. ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is June 5, 1998, unless otherwise noted.

2 1 hour standard Not Applicable.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–19388 Filed 7–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P