[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61237-61241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30138]



[[Page 61237]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[VA062-5030 and VA080-5030; FRL-5921-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; Redesignation Request, Maintenance Plan and Mobile Emissions 
Budget for the Richmond Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the redesignation request and two State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. On July 26, 1996, the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department 
of Environmental Quality submitted a maintenance plan as a revision to 
the SIP and a request to redesignate the Richmond moderate ozone 
nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment. EPA's action is 
based upon the Commonwealth's submittal satisfying all five criteria 
for redesignation in the Clean Air Act (the Act), including the fact 
that the Richmond area has more than three years of complete, quality-
assured ambient air monitoring data which demonstrates that the 1-hour 
.12 part per million (ppm) National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS) for ozone has been attained. The Richmond area has continued to 
attain the standard while its redesignation request was pending before 
the Agency. On July 30, 1996, the Commonwealth submitted another 
revision to the SIP modifying the mobile source emission budgets in the 
Richmond area maintenance plan in support of the area's transportation 
plans for the period after the year 2015. EPA is redesignating the 
Richmond ozone nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment and 
approving the maintenance plan and mobile source emissions budget as 
revisions to the Virginia SIP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on December 17, 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 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 June 13, 1997, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia (62 FR 38856). The NPR proposed 
approval of the redesignation request, maintenance plan and mobile 
source emissions budget for the Richmond moderate ozone nonattainment 
area. The redesignation request and maintenance plan were submitted as 
SIP revisions by the Commonwealth of Virginia on July 26, 1996. The 
mobile source emissions budget was submitted as a SIP revision on July 
30, 1996. The SIP revisions establish a maintenance plan for Richmond, 
including contingency measures, which provides for continued attainment 
of the ozone NAAQS until the year 2007, and adjust the mobile source 
emissions budget established in the maintenance plan for Richmond to 
support the area's long-range transportation plans in the horizon years 
2015 and beyond. This action is being taken under sections 107 and 110 
of the Clean Air Act.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone, replacing 
the 1-hour .12 ppm standard with an 8-hour 0.08 ppm standard (62 FR 
38856). EPA is in the process of developing guidance and proposed rules 
to implement the new ozone standard based on a Presidential Directive 
signed on July 16, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on July 
18, 1997. Today's action is a redesignation to attainment for the 
Richmond area of the 1-hour .12 ppm ozone standard and approval of the 
maintenance plan and mobile source emissions budget as they relate to 
the 1-hour standard only. EPA's decision to redesignate Richmond to 
attainment and approve the related SIP revisions is based on the 
requirements of section 107 of the Act and existing EPA policy and 
guidance as they pertain to the 1-hour standard. Today's decision does 
not in any way make a determination regarding Richmond's attainment 
status for the newly promulgated 8-hour .08 ppm ozone standard. 
Decisions regarding the attainment status of areas for the new 8-hour 
.08 ppm ozone NAAQS will be conducted by EPA at a later date.

II. Outstanding Requirements

    The June 13, 1997 NPR proposed approval of the redesignation to 
attainment of the Richmond area based on certain contingencies, as 
discussed in the NPR. Specifically, it was necessary for EPA to 
complete rulemaking on several outstanding Clean Air Act requirements 
for the Richmond area before final rulemaking on the redesignation 
request could be completed. These requirements, as outlined in the 
proposed rulemaking, are: (1) the determination of nonapplicability of 
certain requirements of the Act including reasonable further progress 
(RFP) and the attainment demonstration; (2) final approval of the 
proposed nitrogen oxides (NOX) reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) waiver for the Richmond area; and (3) SIP approval of 
12 source-specific volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) SIP revisions. Final EPA action has been 
completed for each of these requirements, as discussed below, and EPA 
finds that all the applicable requirements of the Act necessary for 
redesignations have been met for the Richmond area.
    1. EPA's determination of nonapplicability of certain requirements 
of the Act for the Richmond area, specifically section 182(b)(1) (RFP, 
including the 15% plan, and attainment demonstration) and section 
172(c)(9) (contingency measures) was proposed on June 13, 1997. The 
final determination was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 
1997 (62 FR 52029).
    2. EPA's final rulemaking to waive the NOX RACT 
requirements of section 182(f) of the Act in the Richmond area was 
published in the Federal Register on July 21, 1997 (62 FR 38922).
    3. EPA published final approval of 12 source specific VOC RACT SIP 
submittals in the Federal Register on October 14, 1997 (62 FR 53234 and 
62 FR 53242). The approval of these 12 source specific VOC RACT 
approvals fulfills the section 182(a)(2) and 182(b)(2) requirements of 
the Act to impose RACT on major sources of VOCs in the nonattainment 
area.

III. Response to Public Comments

    Two letters were received submitting public comments on the NPR. 
One letter of support for EPA's proposed action to redesignate Richmond 
was received from Virginia Power (July 14, 1997). The second letter was 
received from the New

[[Page 61238]]

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which 
submitted adverse comments regarding EPA's proposed action on the 
redesignation request and maintenance plan. Below are EPA's responses 
to the comments received in NYSDEC's letter.

Comment #1

    NYSDEC disagrees with EPA's statement in the NPR that the Richmond 
area has met all relevant requirements of the Act that were due as of 
July 26, 1996, the date Virginia submitted its redesignation request. 
Specifically, NYSDEC states that the Commonwealth of Virginia missed 
the ``November 15, 1995'' statutory deadline for implementing the 
NOX RACT requirements of the Act and continues to be 
delinquent. 1 It was noted that the Commonwealth of Virginia 
responded to EPA's July 8, 1994 finding of failure to submit a 
NOX RACT SIP for the Richmond area with a petition for an 
exemption from the NOX RACT requirement submitted on 
December 18, 1995. NYSDEC states that this December 18, 1995 petition 
was well after the mandated date of November 15, 1993 for submittal of 
a NOX RACT SIP and after the mandatory implementation date. 
NYSDEC concludes that ``[t]herefore, not implementing NOX 
RACT in the Richmond area was not an option.'' NYSDEC states that it is 
not a relevant factor that Richmond is now attaining the ozone NAAQS 
because the Richmond area has avoided implementing the NOX 
RACT requirements of the Act. NYSDEC objects to the proposed approval 
of the redesignation request on the grounds that the area failed to 
implement RACT on major sources of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Actually, section 182(b)(2) of the Act specifies that RACT 
is to be implemented not later than May 15, 1995. The discrepancy in 
dates does not substantively affect the commenters argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response #1

    According to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, five requirements 
must be met in order for EPA to redesignate an area from nonattainment 
to attainment:
    1. The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS;
    2. The area must have met 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 permanent and enforceable; 
and
    5. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
section 175A of the Act.
    The commenter asserts that the obligation to meet all applicable 
requirements includes the NOX RACT requirements of part D, 
section 182(f) of the Act for controls on major sources of 
NOX in the Richmond area. The commenter claims that 
Virginia's failure to implement NOX RACT controls by 
November 15, 1995 disqualifies it from redesignation. This argument has 
been invalidated because EPA, subsequent to the proposed approval of 
the redesignation, has granted Virginia's request under section 182(f) 
for an exemption from this requirement. Therefore, the NOX 
RACT requirement is no longer applicable to the Richmond area.
    On December 18, 1995, the Commonwealth submitted a petition under 
section 182(f) of the Act to exempt the Richmond ozone nonattainment 
area from the NOX RACT requirement. The exemption petition 
was based on ambient air monitoring data from 1993-1995 which 
demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour .12 ppm ozone standard. EPA 
proposed approval of the NOX RACT exemption petition for the 
Richmond area in the Federal Register on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11170). 
Moreover, in a separate Federal Register notice published on the same 
day, EPA made an interim final determination that stayed and deferred 
the implementation of sanctions which had started for this area by 
issuance of a July 8, 1994 EPA findings letter because the 
Commonwealth, contingent upon continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS, 
had corrected the deficiency of failing to submit the NOX 
RACT rules (61 FR 11162). In conjunction with EPA's proposed approval 
of the NOX waiver petition, on September 6, 1996, the 
Commonwealth withdrew from further EPA review the May 16, 1995 and July 
17, 1995 draft NOX RACT control SIPs submitted to EPA. EPA's 
proposed approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan for 
Richmond was based, in part, on EPA's proposed approval of the 
NOX exemption petition. As was stated in the July 13, 1997 
NPR, ``although EPA is proposing approval of the Richmond redesignation 
request in today's action, EPA must complete final rulemaking action on 
the NOX waiver before the area can be finally 
redesignated.'' On July 21, 1997, EPA published final approval of an 
exemption from the NOX RACT requirement for the Richmond 
area contingent upon air quality monitoring that demonstrates continued 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38922). This final approval waives 
NOX RACT as an applicable requirement in the Richmond area 
for as long as the area attains the 1-hour ozone standard.
    The commenter's assertion that Virginia missed a May 15, 1995 
statutory deadline for implementing the NOX RACT 
requirements in Richmond is irrelevant in light of EPA's final approval 
of the NOX RACT exemption petition. NOX RACT was 
not implemented in the Richmond area because the area had attained the 
standard, without needing the additional reductions of NOX. 
EPA has approved the exemption of NOX RACT for the Richmond 
area, and therefore, the area meets the section 182(f) requirements of 
the Act and has a fully-approved SIP that meets the requirements of 
section 107 of the Act for the purposes of redesignating the area to 
attainment.
    EPA has not required NOX RACT SIP revisions in approving 
redesignation requests in a number of other areas where it has granted 
section 182(f) NOX waivers at the time of or before the 
redesignation of an area. See 61 FR 20462-20468 (May 7, 1996); 59 FR 
49361 (September 28, 1994); and 60 FR 12459 (March 7, 1995). Please 
refer to these rulemakings for additional explanation of EPA's 
interpretation of the NOX RACT requirements for areas 
attaining the ozone standard.

Comment #2

    NYSDEC also disagrees with EPA's determination that the 
Commonwealth of Virginia has a fully approved SIP for the Richmond area 
under section 110(a)(2). Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to contain 
adequate provisions to assure that the emissions activity of one state 
does not adversely affect another state from attaining the ozone NAAQS. 
NYSDEC states that EPA regional oxidant modeling and the regional 
modeling done through the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) 
2 indicate that emissions of NOX from stationary 
sources upwind of the Ozone Transport Region contribute to increased 
ozone levels in the Northeast, including New York State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ OTAG was established approximately 2 years ago to undertake 
an assessment of the regional transport problem and develop 
solutions. OTAG was a collaborative process conducted by the 
affected States and also included representatives from EPA, 
environmental groups, industry and the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response #2

    As stated above, for an area to be redesignated to attainment it 
must meet all the requirements applicable to the area under section 
110. Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that the SIP

[[Page 61239]]

contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of 
emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in 
amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in or 
interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to any 
NAAQS. This provision applies by its terms to all SIPs for each 
pollutant covered by a NAAQS and for all areas, regardless of their 
attainment designation. In other words, this provision applies to both 
nonattainment and attainment areas. EPA's decision to provide the 
NOX RACT waiver under section 182(f) for any area or 
redesignate any area to attainment would not shield that state from the 
obligation, in response to a SIP call under section 110 by EPA, for 
NOX emission reductions, if evidence such as photochemical 
grid modeling shows that NOX emissions contribute 
significantly to downwind nonattainment or maintenance problems in 
another state.
    On October 10, 1997, Administrator Browner signed a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking to issue a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) to 
reduce NOX emissions which contribute to regional transport 
of ozone in the Northeastern portion of the country. This Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking will be published shortly in the Federal Register. 
This proposed SIP call is being issued in accordance with section 
110(k)(5) and 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act. The SIP call, as proposed, will 
require 22 states (including the Commonwealth of Virginia) and the 
District of Columbia to submit, as SIP revisions, control measures to 
reduce statewide NOX emissions to ensure that emission 
reductions are achieved as needed to comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)'s 
provisions on interstate transport of ozone. This action reflects the 
technical work done by OTAG and other pertinent regional and urban 
scale analyses of ozone transport. The proposed rulemaking establishes 
statewide emissions budgets that the 22 states and the District of 
Columbia need to achieve to reduce the boundary condition 
concentrations of ozone and its precursors within a specified timeframe 
and require the submission of SIP controls to achieve those reductions. 
EPA is taking comment on this proposed rulemaking for 120 days. Final 
action on the section 110 SIP call that takes into consideration public 
comments received on the proposal is not expected to occur until 1998.
    Redesignating the Richmond area to attainment under section 107 of 
the Act will in no way relieve the Commonwealth of Virginia from any 
future obligations to secure additional NOX reductions in 
the Richmond area which may result from any final action EPA takes 
under section 110(a)(2)(D) and 110(k)(5). EPA has interpreted section 
107(d)(3)(E) to permit the Agency, when reviewing requests for 
redesignation, to rely on a prior SIP approval as establishing 
compliance with section 110 of the Act. EPA approved the Virginia SIP 
as meeting the requirements of section 110 [45 FR 55180, August 19, 
1980; 45 FR 66789, October 8, 1980; and 45 FR 85748, December 30, 
1980].
    A memorandum to EPA Regional Offices from John Calcagni, dated 
September 4, l992, describes procedures that EPA regions should use to 
evaluate requests to redesignate areas to attainment status. The memo 
states on page 3:

    An area cannot be redesignated if a required element of its plan 
is the subject of a disapproval; a finding of failure to submit or 
to implement the SIP; or partial, conditional, or limited approval. 
However, this does not mean that earlier issues with regard to the 
SIP will be reopened. Regions should not reconsider those things 
that have already been approved and for which the Clean Air Act 
Amendments did not alter what is required.

    Prior to the 1990 Amendments, the predecessor to section 
110(a)(2)(D) provided that SIPs must contain provisions ``prohibiting 
any stationary source within the State from emitting any air pollutant 
in amounts which will: (1) prevent attainment or maintenance by any 
other State of any such national primary or secondary ambient air 
quality standard.'' Section 110(a)(2)(E). The 1990 amendments to the 
Act clarified the section by providing that SIPS must contain 
provisions prohibiting emissions in amounts that ``contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, 
any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary 
ambient air quality standard.'' Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This change 
codified the interpretation EPA had long given to the section. See Air 
Pollution Control District v. EPA, 739 F.2d 1071 (6th Cir. 1984). In 
1992, EPA reviewed the amended section 110(a)(2)(D) and concluded that 
the 1990 Amendments merely incorporated the Agency's longstanding 
interpretation. See General Preamble, 57 FR 13556.
    Section 110(n)(1) also states that provisions in SIPs that were 
approved before the 1990 Amendments shall remain in effect unless the 
Amendments require changes to the provisions. Thus, EPA is not 
obligated to reexamine the SIP provision previously approved under 
section 110 in the context of a redesignation rulemaking.
    Based on its technical assessment that the issue of ozone transport 
should be addressed regionally, EPA is implementing section 
110(a)(2)(D) by exercising its authority to issue SIP calls on a 
regional basis. EPA has not issued a final rulemaking finding that the 
SIP applicable to Richmond does not meet the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D) of the Act.

Comment #3

    NYSDEC also submitted several comments that were pertinent to EPA's 
proposed rulemaking to approve a NOX RACT exemption for the 
Richmond area [March 19, 1996, 61 FR 11170]. NYSDEC believes that the 
NOX RACT exemption request has been inappropriately 
segregated from and does not address the section 110(a)(2)(D) 
requirements of the Act. Further NYSDEC states that any NOX 
exemption petition would also be invalid because section 110(a)(2)(D) 
prohibits granting an exemption from NOX RACT pursuant to 
section 182(f) of the Act where there is evidence that the exemption 
would interfere with attainment of a NAAQS in another state.

Response #3

    In the July 21, 1997 final rulemaking action on the NOX 
exemption petition, EPA responded to similar adverse comments received 
that section 110(a)(2)(D) prohibits granting exemptions pursuant to 
section 182(f) where there is evidence that granting of the exemption 
would interfere with attainment of the ozone NAAQS in downwind areas 
[62 FR 38925]. In EPA's final rulemaking approving the exemption, EPA 
made the determination that the section 110(a)(2)(D) and 182(f) 
provisions must be considered independently and would not shield a 
state from complying with a SIP call issued by EPA pursuant to section 
110 of the Act. EPA's rationale for making this determination can be 
found in the July 21, 1997 final approval of the NOX 
exemption petition for the Richmond area and will not be restated here.

IV. Final Action

    EPA has evaluated the Commonwealth's redesignation request for 
Richmond for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data 
demonstrate that this area has attained the 1-hour .12 ppm ozone 
standard. In addition, EPA has determined that the redesignation 
request meets the

[[Page 61240]]

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) and the policy set forth in the 
General Preamble and policy memoranda for area redesignations, and 
today is approving Virginia's redesignation request for Richmond, 
submitted on July 26, 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 mobile source 
emissions budget for the Richmond area. Other specific requirements of 
redesignations and maintenance plans and the rationale for EPA's 
approval action were explained in the July 13, 1997 proposed 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.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    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 Act 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 have 
a significant economic impact on 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 Richmond redesignation 
request, maintenance plan and mobile emissions budget must be filed in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by 
January 16, 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).)

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: November 5, 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)(119) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (119) The ten year ozone maintenance plan for the Richmond, 
Virginia ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Virginia Department 
of Environmental Quality on July 26, 1996:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of July 26, 1996 from the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality transmitting the 10 year ozone maintenance plan 
for the Richmond moderate ozone nonattainment area.
    (B) The ten year ozone maintenance plan including emission 
projections, control measures to maintain attainment and contingency 
measures for the Richmond ozone nonattainment area adopted on July 26, 
1996.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Remainder of July 26, 1996 Commonwealth submittal pertaining to 
the redesignation request and maintenance plan referenced in paragraph 
(c)(119)(i) of this section.
    3. Section 52.2424 is amended by designating the existing text as 
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.2424  Motor vehicle emissions budgets.

* * * * *
    (b) Motor vehicle emissions budget for the Richmond maintenance 
area adjusting the mobile emissions budget

[[Page 61241]]

contained in the maintenance plan for the horizon years 2015 and beyond 
adopted on July 30, 1996 and submitted by the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality on July 30, 1996.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

    4. In Sec. 81.347 the ``Virginia--Ozone'' table is amended by 
revising the entry for ``Richmond Area'' to read as follows:


Sec. 81.347  Virginia.

* * * * *

                                                                     Virginia--Ozone                                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Designation                                           Classification                    
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Richmond Area:                                                                                                                                          
    Charles City County                      12/17/97  Attainment...............................                                                        
     (part).....................                                                                                                                        
        Beginning at the intersection of                                                                                                                
         State Route 156 and the Henrico/                                                                                                               
         Charles City County Line,                                                                                                                      
         proceeding south along State                                                                                                                   
         Route 5/156 to the intersection                                                                                                                
         with State Route 106/156,                                                                                                                      
         proceeding south along Route                                                                                                                   
         106/156 to the intersection                                                                                                                    
         with the Prince George/Charles                                                                                                                 
         City County line, proceeding                                                                                                                   
         west along the Prince George/                                                                                                                  
         Charles City County line to the                                                                                                                
         intersection with the                                                                                                                          
         Chesterfield/Charles City                                                                                                                      
         County line, proceeding north                                                                                                                  
         along the Chesterfield/Charles                                                                                                                 
         City County line to the                                                                                                                        
         intersection with the Henrico/                                                                                                                 
         Charles City County line,                                                                                                                      
         proceeding north along the                                                                                                                     
         Henrico/Charles City County                                                                                                                    
         line to State Route 156.                                                                                                                       
    Chesterfield County, Colonial                                                                                                                       
     Heights, Hanover County, Henrico                                                                                                                   
     County, Hopewell, Richmond.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.                                                                                             

[FR Doc. 97-30138 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P