[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34408-34413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16651]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[VA-066-5024 and VA-068-5024; FRL-5846-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Designation of Areas; Virginia; Redesignation of Hampton Roads Ozone 
Nonattainment Area, Maintenance Plan and Mobile Emissions Budget

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and two state 
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. On August 27, 1996, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a 
request to redesignate the Hampton Roads marginal ozone nonattainment 
area to attainment and a maintenance plan, as a SIP revision. This 
request is based upon three years of complete, quality-assured ambient 
air monitoring data for the area which demonstrate that the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone has been attained. On 
August 29, 1996 Virginia submitted a second SIP revision establishing 
the mobile emissions budget (also known as a motor vehicle emissions 
budget) for the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. The SIP 
revisions establish a maintenance plan for Hampton Roads, including 
contingency measures which provide for continued attainment of the 
ozone NAAQS until the year 2008; and adjust the motor vehicle emissions 
budget established in the maintenance plan for Hampton Roads to support 
the area's transportation plans in the horizon years 2015 and beyond. 
Under the Clean Air Act (the Act), nonattainment areas may be 
redesignated to attainment if sufficient data are available to warrant 
the redesignation and the area meets the Act's other redesignation 
requirements. The intended effect of this action is to approve the 
redesignation request, the maintenance plan, and the motor vehicle 
emissions budget for Hampton Roads. This action is being taken under 
sections 107 and 110 of the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
19107; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460; and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East 
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristeen Gaffney, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide and Mobile Sources Section (3AT21), USEPA--Region III, 841 
Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, or by telephone 
at: (215) 566-2092. Questions may also be addressed via e-mail, at the 
following address: Gaffney.K[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 1997, EPA published a direct final rule [62 FR 11337] 
approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's request to redesignate the 
Hampton Roads marginal ozone nonattainment area from nonattainment to 
attainment and the 10 year maintenance plan and mobile emissions budget 
submitted by the Commonwealth for the Hampton Roads area as revisions 
to the Virginia SIP. As stated in the March 12, 1997 rulemaking 
document, EPA's action to approve the redesignation was based upon its 
review of the Commonwealth's submittal and its determination that all 
five criteria for redesignation in section 107 of the Act have been met 
by and for the Hampton Roads area. The ambient air quality data 
monitored in the Hampton Roads area indicated that it had attained the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone for the years 
1993-1995. Review of the data monitored in 1996 has indicated continued 
attainment of the ambient standard. EPA also determined that the 
Commonwealth had a fully approved Part D SIP for the Hampton Roads 
area, was fully implementing that SIP, and that the air quality 
improvement in the Hampton Roads area was due to permanent and 
enforceable control measures. In the same rulemaking, EPA approved the 
maintenance plan submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia as a SIP 
revision because it provides for maintenance of the ozone standard for 
10 years and a mobile emissions budget for the Hampton Roads area.
    In its March 12, 1997 rulemaking, EPA stated that if adverse 
comments were received on the direct final rule within 30 days of its 
publication, EPA would publish a document announcing the withdrawal of 
its direct final rulemaking action. Because EPA received adverse 
comments on the direct final rulemaking within the prescribed comment 
period from the Allies in Defense of Cherry Point and U.S. Senator 
Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina, EPA withdrew the March 12, 1997 
final rulemaking action pertaining to the Hampton Roads nonattainment 
area. This withdrawal document appeared in the Federal Register on 
April 29, 1997 (62 FR 23139).
    A companion proposed rulemaking was published in the Proposed Rules 
section of the March 12, 1997 Federal Register for the Hampton Roads 
redesignation (62 FR 11405). In the proposed notice, EPA also stated 
that if adverse comments were received on the direct final action 
within 30 days of its publication, it would withdraw the direct final 
rule. In their letter submitting adverse comments, the Allies in 
Defense of Cherry Point also indicated that they intended to submit 
additional adverse comments and requested that the comment period on 
the proposed rulemaking be extended. However, because the 30 day public 
comment period EPA provided on the proposed rule was due to close two 
days after receipt of their request, there was insufficient time for 
EPA to publish a document extending the comment period. In order, 
therefore, to provide additional time to the Allies in Defense of 
Cherry Point to review EPA's rulemaking decision and provide additional 
comment, EPA reopened the public comment period on the proposed rule 
for a period of two weeks. This notice was published on April 29, 1997 
in the Federal Register at 62 FR 23196. The second public comment 
period closed on May 13, 1997.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two letters of adverse comment and numerous letters of 
support for EPA's action to redesignate the Hampton Roads area. Letters 
of support for EPA's rulemaking decision were received from: all the 
local governments in the nonattainment area, the Hampton Roads Planning 
District Commission, the United States Navy, the Office of the Attorney 
General for the Commonwealth of Virginia; U.S. Senators John Warner and 
Charles Robb from Virginia and U.S. Congressman Owen Pickett from 
Virginia, among

[[Page 34409]]

others. These parties provided positive comments and are supportive of 
EPA's approval of the redesignation of the Hampton Roads area to 
attainment.
    Letters providing adverse comments on EPA's rulemaking were 
received from Senator Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina and the Allies 
in Defense of Cherry Point, North Carolina (the Allies). The following 
discussion summarizes and responds to the adverse comments received.
    Comment 1: Both the Allies and Senator Faircloth stated that, as 
part of a Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) decision, the U.S. Navy 
is assessing the potential environmental impact, including the increase 
in ozone precursor emissions, of a realignment of fighter jet squadrons 
from Florida to the Oceana Naval Air Station in the Hampton Roads area. 
The commenters believe that EPA's decision on the redesignation should 
be deferred until the draft environmental impact statement and 
conformity analysis of the Navy's BRAC decision is complete and 
available for public review.
    Response: EPA does not agree with this comment. The Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 established five criteria which must be met for 
areas to be redesignated to attainment. These criteria are found in 
section 107 and are listed as follows: (1) The area must have attained 
the applicable NAAQS; (2) the area must meet all applicable 
requirements under section 110 and part D of the Act; (3) the area must 
have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the Act; (4) the air 
quality improvement must be due to permanent and enforceable measures; 
and, (5) the area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant 
to section 175A of the Act. Review of environmental impact statements 
regarding the construction of federal projects within an attainment or 
nonattainment area are not a consideration during the determination of 
designations of areas. EPA's review of the Navy's BRAC Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement and Conformity Analysis determinations 
are not part of the criteria used for determining whether the Hampton 
Roads area should be redesignated to attainment. EPA's decision to 
redesignate the Hampton Roads area to attainment is based solely on the 
fact that the Hampton Roads area has satisfied all five criteria of the 
Act.
    The Act did make provisions for assuring that future federal 
actions and transportation projects conform to the state implementation 
plan emission budgets. All projects funded with federal monies proposed 
in both air quality nonattainment areas and maintenance areas are 
subject to the conformity requirements of section 176 of the Act. 
Regardless of whether Hampton Roads is redesignated to attainment of 
the ozone standard, the Navy will still be required to make a 
conformity determination and show that the relocation of the fighter 
squadrons remains within the emission budgets developed in the Hampton 
Roads maintenance plan as incorporated into the SIP.
    Comment 2: The Allies alleged that Virginia has not adequately 
addressed the potential air quality impacts of the possible BRAC 
realignment in the maintenance plan. They claim that Virginia should 
have accounted for the projected increase in mobile source emissions of 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) associated with the BRAC move and the 
addition of 5,300 military personnel and their dependents. They also 
contend that the maintenance plan is inaccurate because it projects 
zero population growth in federal military personnel for the entire 
maintenance period and a decrease in federal civilian personnel after 
the year 2000.
    Response: EPA does not agree with this comment. Maintenance plans 
are required to project some reasonable level of growth in the area 
during the 10-year time span and to demonstrate how increased emissions 
associated with growth will be offset. The maintenance plan for the 
Hampton Roads area does project growth in population, economic activity 
and mobile sources between 1993 and 2008, using standard acceptable 
methodology. In addition, the Navy's decision regarding the BRAC 
redeployment to Oceana Naval Air Station in Hampton Roads is not final, 
and hence remains speculative. The Commonwealth is not required to 
include potential projects which may or may not happen at some future 
date in the maintenance plan for the area. As discussed above, the air 
quality impacts of individual projects are considered during the 
conformity analysis process. Projects must be able to demonstrate that 
their potential emissions will remain below the levels established in 
the emission budgets for the area set in the maintenance plan. 
Furthermore, the maintenance plan submitted by the Commonwealth 
contains contingency provisions should the area exceed the levels 
established in the emissions budgets for the area. In the SIP, the 
Commonwealth has committed to track levels of emissions and to 
implement contingency measures to reduce emissions of VOCs should 
actual emissions in future years rise above the levels established in 
the maintenance plan.
    Despite the fact that the Commonwealth is not required to account 
for speculative emissions associated with potential growth scenarios in 
the maintenance plan, the Commonwealth of Virginia went beyond the 
requirements and did account for potential increased emissions 
associated with the BRAC relocation in the point source projection year 
inventory of the maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads area. To make 
room in the inventory for these potential future emissions, source 
specific emission caps were placed on two existing large sources of 
emissions in the Hampton Roads area to offset the anticipated increase 
in emissions associated with the increase in flight squadrons and 
related activities of the BRAC relocation. In effect, Virginia has 
provided a cushion in the budget with 200 tons/year of VOC and 800 
tons/year of NOX reductions in anticipation of the potential 
increased emissions associated with the relocation, and can still 
demonstrate that it remains within the levels of the attainment year 
inventory in the maintenance plan.
    Comment 3: The Allies commented that they believe the maintenance 
plan substantially underestimates the growth in vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT) and emissions from automobiles. They also stated population 
growth was also underestimated in the maintenance plan in their view, 
and that VMT growth should be higher than population growth. The Allies 
claim it is unrealistic to project a consistently declining growth rate 
in population in a rapidly growing area. The commenter further 
questions why VMT growth is predicted to drop off dramatically in the 
2000-2008 period, compared to the 1988-1993 period.
    Response: EPA does not agree with these statements made by the 
commenter. EPA policy on maintenance demonstrations requires states to 
develop projection year inventories that consider future growth, 
including population, mobile sources and industry, and to demonstrate 
that these projections are consistent with the attainment inventory and 
EPA guidance on inventory development.1 EPA's guidance 
document on projecting emissions inventories 2 recommends 
using U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) growth factors or growth

[[Page 34410]]

projections from local metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for 
projecting growth in point and area source inventories. The traditional 
data source for economic indicators used in projecting stationary 
source growth is the BEA growth factors. BEA has published state, 
regional and metropolitan statistical area growth factors in ``BEA 
Regional Projections to 2040''. Following EPA guidance, Virginia 
properly relied on population growth estimates supplied by BEA in the 
Hampton Roads maintenance plan. For point source growth, Virginia 
utilized EPA's developed and approved Economic Growth Analysis System 
(E-GAS). E-GAS is an economic and activity forecast model that 
translates the user's assumptions regarding regional economic policies 
and resource prices into industry growth factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment'', September 4, 1992, memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division.
    \2\ ``Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections'', July 
1991, EPA-450/4-91-019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA guidance document entitled ``Procedures for Preparing 
Emissions Projections'' states that the preferred method for performing 
VMT projections for on-road mobile sources is to use a validated travel 
demand model. According to EPA's guidance document for preparing 
emission projections from mobile sources,3 both EPA and the 
U.S. Department of Transportation have endorsed the Department of 
Transportation's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) as the 
appropriate source of VMT estimates in SIP development. In response to 
the comments received on VMT projections, the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted additional documentation 
regarding the source of VMT estimates that has been added to the 
docket. The VMT estimates in the maintenance plan were obtained from 
the Hampton Roads Planning District commission and the Virginia 
Department of Transportation (VDOT) and were developed for the official 
conformity analysis performed annually for the area. VDOT determines 
VMT estimates using HPMS protocol. The officially recognized MINUTP 
transportation demand model was used to estimate VMT and related 
traffic data in the conformity analysis process. The VMT and population 
growth estimates in the maintenance plan can be verified by comparing 
the maintenance plan to the conformity documentation for the 
nonattainment area. Both the VMT and population growth estimates are 
consistent in the Hampton Roads maintenance plan and approved 
conformity documents. Furthermore, the predicted population growth in 
Hampton Roads contained in the maintenance plan and conformity analysis 
are also consistent with the BEA projections for the same period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: 
Mobile Sources'', EPA-450/4-81-026d (revised), 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter is incorrect in his statement that the VMT growth 
rate is smaller than the growth rate assumed for population in the 
Hampton Roads area. The average annual growth rate from 1993 to 2008 in 
the maintenance plan for VMT is 1.1692%, while the annual growth rate 
in population is .834%. It can be seen that VMT is growing annually at 
a rate that is 40% higher than the annual predicted population growth.
    In response to the question ``what accounts for the dramatic 
decrease in VMT growth rate over historical patterns [after 1993]'', 
the VADEQ has submitted the following discussion for inclusion in the 
public record.

    The VMT spike between 1988 and 1993 is due to the opening of a 
second major water crossing (the I-664 Monitor Merrimac Bridge/
Tunnel) in 1992. This provided a new link between the Peninsula and 
Southside portions of Hampton Roads. This new crossing also provided 
another way to Virginia Beach and the outer banks of North Carolina 
which is highly used in the summer months due to the congestion at 
the I-64 bridge/tunnel crossing. This also opened up a new door for 
more travel between these two areas by people who normally did not 
do so before due to traffic congestion and limited travel choices. 
As can be seen from the VMT estimates after 1993, the level of 
increase has reverted back to a level consistent with population 
growth. As with any region of this type which is separated by a 
large body of water with limited crossings, a new crossing of this 
size will have a major impact on VMT. Once the impact was initially 
felt in the early 1990's, the region has been growing at a more 
normal rate.

    Virginia has utilized recognized sources of growth factor 
surrogates in projecting growth in VMT and population, such as BEA data 
or local data from the MPOs. EPA has no reason to doubt the credibility 
of these growth projections.
    Comment 4: The Allies argued that Virginia's VMT estimates differ 
sharply from (and are substantially lower than) EPA's own estimates for 
the Hampton Roads area.
    Response: The commenter is referring to data compiled in 1993 by 
EPA to create the annual national air quality trends reports. EPA 
utilizes VMT data from the HPMS database administered by the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. There are several complexities associated 
with using HPMS data to estimate VMT for this inventory. The county is 
the basic geographic unit in EPA's emissions trends inventory. To the 
contrary, all data in HPMS are divided into rural, small urban, and 
individualized urban geographic areas. For the purposes of the trends 
reports and estimating highways emissions levels on a national basis, 
EPA uses apportioning schemes to distribute the data and develops 
county-level VMT estimates. These schemes are estimation tools which 
allow different areas of the country to be compared based on similar 
parameters. The methodology EPA uses to apportion these county-level 
VMT estimates can be found in Section 4 of EPA's ``National Air 
Pollutant Emission Trends Procedures Document for 1900-1993'', page 4-
81. The same schemes were not used to develop the VMT growth estimates 
in the Hampton Roads maintenance plan. Therefore, it is reasonable to 
expect that even though both methods of determining VMT are valid, they 
are for two separate applications. The VMT growth in the Hampton Roads 
area estimated by Virginia using approved EPA methods in SIP planning, 
as discussed in the response to the previous comment, may vary from the 
VMT growth in that same area obtained using the different schemes to 
determine trends. EPA does not advise that EPA's VMT information from 
the trends database be used by states in SIP planning. Furthermore, the 
VMT projections in the EPA trends database for the years 2000 and 2008, 
quoted by the commenter, are four years old and based on 1993 data. The 
maintenance plan SIP for the Hampton Roads area relies on more up-to-
date and precise information regarding VMT supplied by the Virginia 
Department of Transportation and the Hampton Roads local metropolitan 
planning organization.
    Comment 5: The Allies commented that the three-year attainment 
period selected by Virginia may not be representative of historical 
weather conditions in the Hampton Roads area that are conducive to 
ozone formation. They question whether 1994 and 1995 ozone seasons 
deviate from the historical weather patterns in Hampton Roads in that 
they were unusually cool.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA recognizes that the 
accumulation of ozone may be dependent upon weather conditions, 
particularly high temperatures and stagnant air flows. To offset the 
variability of weather in the production of ozone, EPA requires the use 
of a three-year period to demonstrate compliance with the ozone 
standard. EPA relies on a three-year period for determining designation 
status of an area in part for the reasons being questioned by the 
commenter: to reduce

[[Page 34411]]

the potential for unrepresentative weather patterns. EPA can see no 
basis for disregarding quality assured data under the statuate and 40 
CFR part 50.9 and Appendix H.
    The Hampton Roads area has four years of data which demonstrate 
compliance with the ozone standard--or two consecutive three year 
periods, 1993-1995 and 1994-1996, which qualifies the area for 
redesignation. EPA believes that four years of data present an even 
stronger case demonstrating that the Hampton Roads area has achieved 
the ozone standard. It is unlikely that exceptionally good weather 
conditions could exist for a continuous four year period. More 
importantly, the commenter has neglected to recognize that several 
national and state VOC control measures, such as the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and reformulated gasoline, were 
implemented in the Hampton Roads area during the period between 1991 
and 1996, which reduced the amount of ozone precursor emissions. It is 
important to recognize that these and other emission reduction measures 
were responsible for bringing the area into attainment of the ozone 
standard, not favorable weather conditions.
    Comment 6: Both the Allies and Senator Faircloth commented that 
Virginia has not adopted conformity regulations as required by section 
176 of the Clean Air Act. They contend that EPA should not approve the 
redesignation unless Virginia has met all requirements of the Clean Air 
Act for the Hampton Roads area.
    Response: EPA does not agree with this comment. The Commonwealth of 
Virginia has adopted both general and transportation conformity rules 
pursuant to section 176 of the Act in 1996 and submitted these rules to 
EPA for inclusion into the SIP in the early part of 1997. EPA is 
presently reviewing both of these submittals and will take rulemaking 
action on them at a future date.
    EPA addressed the conformity requirements for the Hampton Roads 
area in the March 12, 1997 direct final rulemaking. As noted in the 
original rulemaking, EPA interprets the conformity requirements of 
section 176 of the Act as being inapplicable for the purposes of 
evaluating redesignation requests under section 107(d) of the Act. The 
rationale for this is twofold. First, the conformity provisions of the 
Act continue to apply to areas after they have been redesignated to 
attainment. EPA's conformity rules require states to adopt both 
transportation and general conformity provisions in their SIPs for 
areas designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance plan. 
Therefore, the Commonwealth is obliged to adopt, submit, and implement 
conformity regulations in the Hampton Roads maintenance area. Second, 
EPA's general conformity rules require the performance of conformity 
analyses in the absence of state adopted rules. Until EPA completes 
rulemaking action on Virginia's conformity SIP submittals, the 
Commonwealth is required to implement the federal conformity 
regulations.
    Because areas are subject to conformity requirements regardless of 
whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement the 
federal conformity rules until appropriate state rules are approved 
into the SIP, it has been EPA's policy to redesignate areas to 
attainment that meet the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 
Act, even where EPA has not yet approved a state's transportation and 
general conformity rules. EPA has used this policy many times in the 
past to redesignate other nonattainment areas to attainment when EPA 
has not yet approved state conformity regulations. See the discussions 
in 61 FR 31835-31836 (Grand Rapids, MI redesignation, June 21, 1996); 
60 FR 52748 (Tampa, FL redesignation, December 7, 1995); and 61 FR 
20458 (Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, OH redesignation, May 7, 1996).
    Comment 7: The Allies commented that the maintenance demonstration 
shows a slight increase in NOX emissions by the year 2008. 
They further maintain that Virginia should be required to support, 
through required photochemical modeling, that excess VOC reductions can 
be used to offset the increase in NOX emissions. They also 
stated that ``[w]e seriously question EPA's authority to waive the 
fundamental `no net increase' requirement for approval of a maintenance 
plan.''
    Response: EPA does not agree with the comment. The commenter has 
misread the information provided in EPA's technical support document 
(TSD) developed for this rulemaking. While EPA does mention on page 34 
of the TSD that NOX emissions are projected to increase 
between the 1999 and 2008, the NOX emissions in 2008 will 
still not exceed the NOX levels of the attainment year 
inventory. No net increase refers to no net increase above the total 
level of emissions set in the attainment year inventory for a specific 
pollutant. The 1993 attainment year level of NOX emissions 
is 230.079 tons/day. The level of NOX is projected to 
decrease by 1999 to 228.882 tons/day due to control measures, such as 
FMVCP. Virginia projects that by the year 2008, NOX 
emissions will increase again slightly to 229.221 tons/day, a figure 
attributed to normal growth within the region. However, even 
considering this slight increase, the level of NOX emissions 
in 2008 continues to remain below the 1993 attainment year level.
    As a marginal ozone nonattainment area, Hampton Roads is not 
required to submit photochemical modeling to demonstrate maintenance of 
the ozone standard. EPA policy allows states to demonstrate maintenance 
of the ozone standard by showing that future emissions of ozone 
precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment year inventory. 
Virginia has met this requirement to demonstrate that the level of both 
VOC and NOX emissions will remain below the levels set in 
the 1993 attainment year inventory.

III. Final Action

    The EPA has evaluated the Commonwealth's redesignation request for 
Hampton Roads for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA 
policy. The EPA has determined that the redesignation request and 
monitoring data demonstrate that this area has attained the ozone 
standard. In addition, EPA has determined that the redesignation 
request meets the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) and the policy 
set forth in the General Preamble and policy memorandum for area 
redesignations, and today is approving Virginia's redesignation request 
for Hampton Roads submitted on August 27, 1996. Furthermore, EPA is 
approving into the Virginia SIP, the required maintenance plan because 
it meets the requirements of section 175A of the Act and the motor 
vehicle emissions budget for the Hampton Roads area. Other specific 
requirements of redesignations and maintenance plans and the rationale 
for EPA's approval action were explained in the March 12, 1997 direct 
final rulemaking and will not be restated here.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

[[Page 34412]]

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been delegated to the Regional Administrator for 
signature. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 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. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify 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.
    Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities. 
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical 
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. EPA 
certifies that the approval of the redesignation request will not 
affect a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, 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.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated 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 approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

D. 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).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of EPA's approval of the Hampton Roads redesignation 
request, maintenance plan and mobile emissions budget must be filed in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by 
August 25, 1997. 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirement.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 17, 1997.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    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 VV--Virginia

    2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(117) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (117) The ten year ozone maintenance plan for Hampton Roads, 
Virginia ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Virginia Department 
of Environmental Quality on August 27, 1996:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of August 27, 1996 from the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality transmitting the 10 year ozone maintenance plan 
for the Hampton Roads marginal ozone nonattainment area.
    (B) The ten year ozone maintenance plan including emission 
projections, control measures to maintain attainment and contingency 
measures for the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area adopted on 
August 27, 1996.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Remainder of August 27, 1996 Commonwealth submittal pertaining 
to the redesignation request and maintenance plan referenced in 
paragraph (c)(117)(i) of this section.
    3. Section 52.2424 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 52.2424  Motor vehicle emissions budgets.

    Motor vehicle emissions budget for the Hampton Roads maintenance 
area adjusting the mobile emissions budget contained in the maintenance 
plan for the horizon years 2015 and beyond adopted on August 29, 1996 
and submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on 
August 29, 1996.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

    4. In Sec. 81.347 the ``Virginia--Ozone'' table is amended by 
revising the entry for ``Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton 
Roads) Area'' to read as follows:


Sec. 81.347  Virginia.

* * * * *

[[Page 34413]]



                                                                     Virginia--Ozone                                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation                                               Classification                  
         Designated area          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Date \1\                           Type                          Date \1\                    Type       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk-Virginia-Beach Newport     July 28, 1997....................  Attainment...................                                                     
 News (Hampton Roads) Area.                                                                                                                             
    Chesapeake                                                                                                                                          
    Hampton                                                                                                                                             
    James City County                                                                                                                                   
    Newport News                                                                                                                                        
    Norfolk                                                                                                                                             
    Poquoson                                                                                                                                            
    Portsmouth                                                                                                                                          
    Suffolk                                                                                                                                             
    Virginia Beach                                                                                                                                      
    Williamsburg                                                                                                                                        
    York County                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
                 *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                    *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.                                                                                             

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-16651 Filed 6-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P