[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 105 (Friday, June 1, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30485-30490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10582]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917; FRL-8320-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; Redesignation of the Richmond-Petersburg 8-Hour Ozone 
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance 
Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is 
requesting that the Richmond-Petersburg nonattainment area (herein 
referred to as the ``Richmond Area'' or the ``Area'') be redesignated 
as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with its redesignation request, the 
Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan 
for the Richmond Area that

[[Page 30486]]

provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 
next 11 years, until 2018. Concurrently, EPA is approving the 
Commonwealth's maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is 
not taking final action in this rulemaking on the Commonwealth's 
request that the 8-hour maintenance plan supersede the previous 
maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard. EPA is also approving the 
adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) 
that are identified in the Richmond 8-hour maintenance plan for 
purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. 
EPA is also approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the 
Area. EPA is approving the redesignation request, the maintenance plan, 
and the 2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Virginia 
SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on June 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0917. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic 
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State 
submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18434), EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. On May 10, 2007 (72 
FR 26581), EPA published a correction to the NPR. The correction to the 
NPR fixed Table 5 in the original NPR. The NPR proposed approval of 
Virginia's redesignation request, a SIP revision that establishes a 
maintenance plan for the Richmond Area that sets forth how the Richmond 
Area will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11 
years, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The formal SIP 
revisions were submitted by the VADEQ on September 18, 2006, September 
20, 2006, September 25, 2006 and supplements on November 17, 2006 and 
February 13, 2007. Other specific requirements of Virginia's 
redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the 
rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will 
not be restated here. On May 14, 2007, EPA received a comment, from 
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., in support of its April 12, 2007 
NPR. Also, On May 11, 2007, EPA received adverse comments on the said 
April 12, 2007 NPR. A summary of the comments submitted and EPA's 
responses are provided in Section II of this document.

II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Comment: The commenter states that Dominion Resources Services, 
Inc. supports EPA's redesignation proposal for the Richmond-Petersburg 
Area and urges EPA to move forward with a final redesignation 
rulemaking.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the comment of support for our final 
action.
    Comment: We received comments that claimed Virginia had not 
fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements under the 8-hour NAAQS. 
Specifically, the comments claimed that because the Richmond area was 
initially designated as a moderate nonattainment area Virginia was 
required to have provisions in the SIP for the following three control 
technique guidelines (CTGs): (1) Reactor Processes and Distillation 
Processes (notice of release: 58 FR 60197, November 15, 1993); (2) Wood 
Furniture manufacturing Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 25223, May 
20, 1996); and, (3) Shipbuilding and Ship repair Surface Coating 
Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).
    Response: EPA disagrees with the comment. While the Richmond area 
was initially classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 
8-hour ozone NAAQS in an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23858), the 
area was reclassified as marginal by a September 22, 2004 final rule 
(69 FR 56697) pursuant to the authority of section 181(a)(4) of the 
CAA. Under section 181(a)(4), an ozone nonattainment area may be 
reclassified ``if an area classified under paragraph (1) (Table 1) 
would have been classified in another category if the design value in 
the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on 
which such classification was based.'' See 69 FR at 56700, September 
22, 2004.
    Under subpart 2 to Part D, the classification of an ozone 
nonattainment area has three main consequences: First, certain control 
programs, required SIP submissions and other requirements are mandated 
by section 182; second, the area receives a statutorily mandated 
attainment date pursuant to section 181; and, last, in the case of 
marginal areas, certain requirements under section 172(c), such as an 
attainment demonstration or contingency measures, are not applicable. 
In addition, with respect to Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT), section 182(a)(2)(A), which sets forth the specifics of the 
applicable Part D requirements for marginal areas, only requires states 
correct certain deficiencies in their RACT SIP which were required 
prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA on November 15, 
1990. With respect to CTG RACT requirements, section 182(a)(2)(A) 
required correction of deficiencies in rules to implement CTGs issued 
before November 15, 1990. In contrast, for moderate areas section 
182(b)(2) of the CAA requires among other things implementation of RACT 
for any existing sources covered by any CTG issued by EPA after 
November 15, 1990 until the date of attainment. The CTGs specified in 
the comment were all issued after November 15, 1990 and therefore not 
subject to section 182(a)(2)(A).
    Comment: We received comments that claimed Virginia had not 
fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements under the 1-hour NAAQS. 
Specifically, the comments claimed that because the Richmond area was 
designated as a moderate nonattainment area Virginia was required to 
have provisions in the SIP for the following three control technique 
guidelines (CTGs): (1) Reactor Processes and Distillation Processes 
(notice of release: 58 FR 60197, November 15, 1993); (2) Wood Furniture 
manufacturing Operations (notice of release: 61 FR 25223, May 20, 
1996); and, (3) Shipbuilding and Ship repair Surface Coating Operations 
(notice of release: 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996).
    Response: EPA redesignated the Richmond nonattainment area from 
nonattainment for attainment for the 1-hour NAAQS on November 17, 1997. 
In that action, EPA made a final determination that the area had 
fulfilled all applicable Part D requirements. We have not re-opened 
that issue in the context of this rulemaking.
    Comment: The commenter states that the April 12, 2007 Federal 
Register states that EPA ``. . . notified Virginia

[[Page 30487]]

that it was required to implement the contingency measures contained in 
the SIP approved maintenance plan'' (referring to the 1-hour ozone 
plan). The commenter states that there were violations of the 1-hour 
ozone standard in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The 
commenter requests clarification whether contingency measures for the 
1-hour ozone violations were implemented.
    Response: EPA asserts that implementation of previous contingency 
measures for the 1-hour ozone standard is irrelevant to the approval of 
the 8-hour ozone redesignation request. The Richmond Area is currently 
in attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation of the 
Richmond Area for the 1-hour ozone standard (62 FR 61237, November 17, 
1997) addressed the 1-hour ozone requirements adequate for 
redesignation of the 1-hour ozone standard. The status of contingency 
measures for the 1-hour maintenance plan is not an applicable Part D 
requirement for implementation of or redesignation for the 8-hour ozone 
standard and therefore is not relevant to this action.
    However, in response to the request for clarification, several 
inaccuracies in the comment are of note. First, the commenter 
incorrectly references the April 12, 2007 Federal Register. The 
statement quoted is not found in the April 12, 2007 Federal Register 
notice of proposed rulemaking, nor in any of the supporting documents 
associated with the proposed 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the 
Richmond Area. The statement is actually found in an unrelated proposed 
rule dated October 7, 2002, pertaining to revisions to the 1-hour ozone 
maintenance plan. This proposed rule was not finalized. Second, the 
commenter incorrectly reports the violations of the 1-hour standard. 
There were violations of the 1-hour NAAQS only in the years 1998, 1999 
and 2002.
    Regarding the implementation of contingency measures for these 1-
hour ozone violations, in response to the 1998 and 1999 violations, 
open burning restrictions were implemented by a state regulation as a 
contingency measure in 2000. Also, the Commonwealth implemented 
additional control measures, including the NOX SIP Call, 
after the 2002 1-hour ozone violation.
    Comment: The commenter states that the Henrico County Monitor 
measured exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard during the 2005 and 
2006 ozone season and that EPA should either delay final approval of 
the redesignation request until the end of the 2007 ozone season to 
determine if this monitor shows a violation of the 8-hour ozone 
standard, or EPA should conduct an evaluation on whether this monitor 
is projected to have no more than three exceedances during 2007.
    Response: EPA acknowledges that preliminary 2006 air quality data 
indicates a fourth high value of 0.086 parts per million (ppm) at the 
Henrico County monitor.\1\ However, in accordance with Appendix I to 40 
CFR part 50, compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met at an 
ambient air monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less 
than or equal to 0.08 ppm; it is not based on the number of days which 
exceed the 8-hour ozone standard. 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I. The 
preliminary four highest 8-hour ozone monitoring values at the Henrico 
County, Virginia monitor (one of the monitors located in the Richmond 
Area) for 2006 were 0.097 ppm, 0.096 ppm, 0.086 ppm, and 0.086 ppm. The 
design value at the Henrico County monitor for monitoring years 2003-
2005 shows attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a design value of 0.080 
ppm. In addition, preliminary 2004-2006 air quality data indicate that 
the Henrico County monitor continues to show attainment of the 8-hour 
NAAQS with a design value of 0.081 ppm. Thus exceedances at this 
monitor did not prevent the area from reaching and continuing to show 
attainment of the 8-hour standard. Preliminary data from other monitors 
in the area also showed attainment. See Table 1 below for preliminary 
2006 air quality monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ It should be noted that the Hanover County Monitor was the 
design value monitor during monitoring years 2003-2005 having a 
design value of 0.082 ppm.

  Table 1.--Richmond Monitors, Preliminary Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone
                             Concentrations
                        [Parts per million (ppm)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Monitor                      AQS ID No.      2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesterfield County...........................    510410004        0.077
Henrico County................................    510870014        0.086
Hanover County................................    510850003        0.082
Charles City County...........................    510360002        0.081
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chesterfield County monitor would have an 8-hour design value 
for 2004-2006 of 0.076 ppm. The Henrico County monitor would have an 8-
hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.081 ppm. The Hanover County 
monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-2006 of 0.081. The 
Charles City County monitor would have an 8-hour design value for 2004-
2006 of 0.080. These preliminary data and design values show that the 
site-specific ozone design values (average fourth-high daily maximum 8-
hour ozone concentrations over the period of 2004-2006) for all 
monitoring sites in the Richmond Area are below 0.084 ppm. Therefore, 
the EPA believes that the Richmond Area continues to attain the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS.
    With regard to delaying approval of the Richmond Area redesignation 
request and conducting an evaluation of the monitor, EPA may 
redesignate an Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if three 
years of quality assured data indicate that the Area has attained the 
standard. The most recent quality-assured air quality data indicates 
that the Area is attaining the standard and preliminary data for 2006 
show that the Area is still attaining the standard at the time of the 
redesignation. EPA has determined that the Richmond Area has attained 
the 8-hour standard and has met all of the applicable requirements for 
redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act.\2\ 
The Commonwealth's maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area is 
projected to maintain the standard. Consistent with the requirements of 
section 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, the Commonwealth has 
submitted a maintenance plan for the Richmond Area for the 8-hour ozone 
standard which shows continued maintenance and continuing reductions in 
NOX and VOC emissions through 2018 further decreasing peak 
ozone levels and maintaining ozone attainment. Furthermore, as 
demonstrated by the contingency measure provisions required by section 
175A(d), the CAA clearly anticipates and provides for situations where 
an area might monitor a violation of the NAAQS after having been 
redesignated to attainment. The Commonwealth has included contingency 
measure provisions consistent with CAA requirements in its

[[Page 30488]]

maintenance plan to address any possible future violation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, allows for redesignation, 
providing that: (1) EPA determines that the area has attained the 
applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the applicable 
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) EPA 
determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent 
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air 
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the 
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) The State 
containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area 
under section 110 and Part D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the contingency measures, which are a component 
of the maintenance plan, set forth the steps that the Commonwealth will 
undertake to preserve attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard if air 
quality indicators show that the air quality of the Richmond Area has 
declined to the point when contingency measures to reverse that 
deterioration of air quality should begin being implemented. Thus, for 
all the above reasons, EPA sees no reason to delay approval of the 
Commonwealth's redesignation request.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's redesignation 
request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year emissions inventory 
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has 
evaluated Virginia's redesignation request, submitted on September 20, 
2006, and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth 
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation 
request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Richmond Area has 
attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this 
redesignation request will change the designation of the Richmond Area 
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is 
approving the associated maintenance plan for the Richmond Area, 
submitted on September 25, 2006, as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA 
is approving the 8-hour maintenance plan for the Richmond Area because 
it meets the requirements of section 175A. EPA is not taking final 
action in this rulemaking on the Commonwealth's request that the 8-hour 
maintenance plan supersede the previous 1-hour maintenance plan. EPA is 
approving the MVEBs submitted by Virginia in conjunction with its 
redesignation request. EPA is also approving the 2002 base year 
emissions inventory, submitted on September 18, 2006 and supplemented 
by VADEQ on November 17, 2006 and February 13, 2007, as a revision to 
the Virginia SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public 
that we have found that the MVEBs for NOX and VOCs in the 
Richmond Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and 
approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the 
Cities of Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Richmond, and the 
Counties of Prince George, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and Charles 
City, Virginia must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone 
maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. The adequate and 
approved MVEBs are provided in the following table:

  Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in Tons
                              per Day (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Budget year                       NOX          VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011..........................................       43.661       32.343
2018..........................................       26.827       23.845
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Richmond is subject to the CAA's requirements for marginal ozone 
nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
final action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore 
is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For 
this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This 
action approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of 
the Clean Air 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 new regulatory requirements 
on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements 
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty 
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded 
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as 
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). 
This final rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one 
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 
will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), because it affects the status of a geographical area, does 
not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid 
adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it 
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an 
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not 
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of 
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of 
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this 
final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a

[[Page 30489]]

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 United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2007. 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, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance 
plan, adequacy determination for MVEBs, and the 2002 base year 
emissions inventory for the Richmond Area, 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxides, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: May 25, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an 
entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Richmond-Petersburg, VA 
Area at the end of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable      State submittal
            revision              geographic area          date        EPA approval date  Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan    Richmond-          9/18/06; 9/20/06;  6/1/07 [Insert
 and 2002 Base Year Emissions     Petersburg, VA     9/25/06; 11/17/    page number
 Inventory.                       Area.              06; 2/13/07.       where the
                                                                        document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. In Sec.  81.347 the table entitled ``Virginia--Ozone (8-Hour 
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Richmond-
Petersburg, VA area to read as follows:


Sec.  81.347  Virginia

* * * * *

                                                 Virginia--Ozone
                                                [8-hour standard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Designation \a\                    Category/classification
         Designated area          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\              Type              Date \1\             Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                          Richmond-Petersburg, VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles City County..............      6/18/07  Attainment...............
Chesterfield County..............      6/18/07  Attainment...............
Colonial Heights City............      6/18/07  Attainment...............
Hanover County...................      6/18/07  Attainment...............
Henrico County...................      6/18/07  Attainment...............
Hopewell City....................      6/18/07  Attainment...............
Petersburg City..................      6/18/07  Attainment...............
Prince George County.............      6/18/07  Attainment...............
Richmond City....................      6/18/07  Attainment...............
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.


[[Page 30490]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-10582 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P