CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge.
This matter arises on Granite City Steel Company's ("the Company's") petition to review a regulation promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") on August 23, 1973. The Company has asked us to suspend and set aside the regulation.
The regulation in question promulgates an interim compliance schedule for coke-oven pushing and quenching operations in Illinois. It provides as follows (40 CFR § 52.730(b)(2)(ii), 38 F.R. 22742):
The Illinois rule referred to in the final paragraph of the federal regulation provides:
This rule was part of the State of Illinois Air Pollution Implementation Plan. The federal regulation was one of several compliance schedules promulgated by EPA in furtherance of the State plan. It required companies operating coke ovens in Illinois to meet the four interim achievement dates established therein in order to assure progress towards full compliance with the December 31, 1974, Illinois deadline. The Company informs us that only four integrated steel companies are affected by this regulation.
In the Company's coke-oven facilities in Granite City, Illinois, coal is converted into coke to manufacture iron and steel. After the coal becomes incandescent in the Company's ovens, a large pusher ram enters the oven through one door and forces the incandescent coke out the other door into a hot coke car, also known as a quenching car, which carries the coke to a quenching tower. There the coke is deluged with water before the next step of the process. A fine coke breeze is emitted from the pushing and quenching of the coke. The Illinois rule and the EPA compliance schedule concern the pushing and quenching operations.
Pursuant to Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(a)(2)), the EPA Administrator approved the above-quoted Illinois rule as submitted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. 40 CFR § 52.722 (37 F.R. 10862 (May 31, 1972)). However, Illinois failed to establish "increment of progress" dates for meeting the December 31, 1974, deadline in its rule. Such increment of progress or milestone dates were required by 40 CFR § 51.15(c). Consequently, on June 20, 1973, the EPA Administrator proposed increment of progress dates. 38 F.R. 16171, 16175-16176. After Illinois hearings, the Administrator modified the proposal and published the regulation involved here on August 23, 1973 (38 F.R. 22736, 22742), precipitating the Company's petition for review.
The Company did not petition this Court to review the December 31, 1974, attainment date in the Illinois rule when it was approved by the EPA on May 31, 1972. Such a petition had to be filed within 30 days from that approval under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 1857h-5(b)(1)). Although the Company formally disclaims any attack on the December 31, 1974, date, it is now attacking the increment of progress dates in the federal rule on the ground that the attainment date itself is unreasonable. Such a collateral attack would evade the time period for reviewing the attainment date and cannot be countenanced. Cf. Getty Oil Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 467 F.2d 349, 358-359 (3d Cir. 1972). The time limit is not arbitrary but is designed to get issues resolved promptly and thereby prevent delay in cleaning the air.
The increment of progress dates must be considered within the constraint of the December 31, 1974, Illinois compliance date. As noted, the EPA was required to establish increments of progress when not established by the State. Here the Administrator finally had a sixteen-month period available within which to maneuver, namely, between the August 23, 1973, promulgation date and the December 31, 1974, Illinois compliance date. The parties agree that the dates he selected are not to be set aside unless arbitrary or capricious.
As noted, the December 31, 1974, compliance date is not really in issue, but rather the increment of progress dates. There is no explicable relationship between the time PEDCo thought necessary for each step and the time allowed by the regulation. However, the time steps allowed by EPA, computed from the date it proposed its regulation, are more generous than the time steps allotted by PEDCo to the Ford system. Apart from this and EPA's consideration of the then existing technology, the only support in the record for the increment of progress dates is that they are reasonable on their face given the fixed compliance date. The Company has not suggested otherwise; it has not said, e. g., that it needed two additional weeks to let contracts and two fewer weeks for actual construction. Rather, the Company's argument is that all the dates are too early. As against that attack, the dates are clearly reasonable and must be upheld, for they cannot all be delayed without violating the previously established December 31, 1974, compliance date.
The Company argues that this is a harsh and unreasonable result, and that no schedule should have been promulgated at all if the December 31, 1974, date is impossible to meet. It is a sufficient answer that a milestone schedule was required by 40 CFR § 51.15(c) and that the Company deliberately bypassed a chance to litigate the reasonableness of the endpoint. In these circumstances any harshness is irrelevant, but an affidavit filed by the EPA in response to the Company's motion for stay pending appeal shows that adequate technology was available in time. The Great Lakes Carbon Company of St. Louis, Missouri, installed a system in seven months and has had it in operation since April 1972. A West German coke plant was operating a system on two batteries of ovens before August 1973; it installed its third system in six months. Although the affidavit is ambiguous, it appears that these are actual construction times and do not include planning and contract awarding. Two other companies were constructing such systems at three other plants with somewhat longer anticipated construction times. The affidavit concluded as follows:
This affidavit was not in the record of the rule-making proceeding. The April PEDCo report refers only to the Ford and Interlake systems, and they are referred to anonymously; they were identified for the first time in this Court. Ordinarily we would be reluctant
Proper forms of relief are potentially available to the Company. If it contends that the December 31, 1974, date is unreasonable solely because of grounds arising more than thirty days after it was promulgated, it may file a petition for review in this Court under Section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 1857h-5(b)(1). If it can show that there was never an opportunity for judicial review under that Section, it can seek judicial review in an enforcement proceeding brought by the Administrator. § 307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 1857h-5(b)(2). It may seek to qualify for an extension of time under several Sections of the Act. See § 110(e), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(e); § 110(f), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(f); § 112(c), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-7(c); § 113(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-8(a)(4). EPA represented at oral argument that any such applications will be denied because the Company has made no effort to comply, and that an enforcement proceeding is inevitable. Even so, that does not accord the Company a present right to indirect review of the final compliance date here. Given that date, the interim dates are reasonable. For any other relief, the Company is in the wrong forum at the wrong time.
The petition for review is dismissed.