Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53239

due to the nature of the federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

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 federal requirements. Accordingly,

no additional costs to state, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, result from this action.

D. 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 December 15,

1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Regional

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 VOC RACT determinations for

a number of individual sources in

Virginia as a revision to the

Commonwealth’s SIP may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: September 27, 1997.

William T. Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, 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)(121) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(121) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted on

August 12, 21, 26, 30, 1996, September

3, 1996 and March 27, 1997 by the

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality regarding non-CTG VOC RACT

requirements for six sources:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letters submitted by the Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality

transmitting source-specific VOC RACT

determinations in the form of Consent

Agreements on the following dates:

August 12, 21, 26, 30, 1996, September

3, 1996 and March 27, 1997.

(B) Consent Agreements:

(1) AlliedSignal Inc.—Hopewell Plant,

City of Hopewell, VA, Consent

Agreement Registration Number 50232,

effective March 26, 1997;

(2) AlliedSignal Inc.—Chesterfield

Plant, Chesterfield County, VA, Consent

Agreement Registration Number 50233,

effective May 20, 1996;

(3) Bear Island Paper Company, L.P.,

Hanover County, VA, Consent

Agreement Registration Number 50840,

effective July 12, 1996;

(4) Stone Container Corporation

Hopewell Mill, City of Hopewell,

Virginia, Consent Agreement

Registration Number 50370, effective

May 30, 1996;

(5) E.I. DuPont de Nemours and

Company, Spruance Plant, Chesterfield

County, Virginia, Consent Agreement

Registration Number 50397, effective

May 30, 1996;

(6) ICI Americas, Inc. Film Division—

Hopewell Site, Chesterfield County,

Virginia, Consent Agreement

Registration Number 50418, effective

May 30, 1996.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Technical Support Documents

submitted as part of the RACT

determinations in paragraph (c)(121)(i)

of this section by the Commonwealth of

Virginia on August 12, 21, 23, 26, 30,

1996, September 3, 1996 and March 27,

1997.

[FR Doc. 97–27122 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN40–03–6988; FRL–5906–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan; Minnesota;

Evidentiary Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final action approves the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Minnesota. The State’s revision clarifies

the types of testing and monitoring data,

including stack and process monitoring

data, that can be used directly for

compliance certifications and

enforcement.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective November 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available

forpublic inspection during normal

business hours at the following

location:U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Regulation

Development Branch, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Aburano, Regulation

Development Section 2, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604. Telephone: (312) 353–6960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In 1990, section 114 of the Clean Air

Act (Act) was amended to require the

Administrator of EPA to promulgate

rules implementing an enhanced

monitoring and compliance program for

major stationary sources of air pollution.

EPA determined that certain SIPs may

preclude EPA and the States from

implementing such a program because

these SIPs may be interpreted to limit

the types of testing and monitoring data
53240 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

that may be used for determining

compliance and establishing violations.

Therefore, EPA issued a SIP call to those

States whose SIPs may have limited the

types of testing and monitoring data that

may be used for determining

compliance and establishing violations.

On March 24, 1994, EPA issued a SIP

call to the State of Minnesota to revise

its SIP. As part of the SIP call, EPA

provided draft SIP language to the State.

The SIP call clarified that any

monitoring approved for the source (and

included in a federally enforceable

operating permit) may form the basis of

the compliance certification, and that

any credible evidence may be used for

purposes of enforcement in Federal

court.

On April 9, 1997, EPA published a

direct final rulemaking approving the

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s

(MPCA’s) SIP revision that was made in

response to EPA’s SIP call. During the

30 day public comment period, adverse

comments were received from the

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the

American Petroleum Institute and the

National Environmental Development

Association.

II. Public Comment/EPA Response

The following evaluation summarizes

each comment received and EPA’s

response to the comment.

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce

Comments

Following is a summary of comments

received from the Minnesota Chamber

of Commerce in a letter dated May 9,

1997 signed by Sherry Munyon. After

each comment is EPA’s response.

Comment 1: EPA’s final ‘‘credible

evidence’’ rule clearly removes any

reference to ‘‘presumptively credible’’

forms of evidence and properly leaves

questions of legal admissibility and

credibility to judicial and administrative

tribunals (62 FR 8316 February 24,

1997). Therefore, it appears that EPA is

set to approve a SIP revision containing

a rule based on an interpretation to

which it no longer subscribes.

Response 1: In writing its rule, the

MPCA did not feel that it had the

authority to create presumptively

credible evidence, since the MPCA did

not feel it had the authority to create

judicial ‘‘presumptions.’’ Therefore, the

MPCA simply stated that violations may

be based on any required monitoring

method or any credible evidence. In

doing this, the MPCA clarifies that its

own rules cannot be used to limit a

court’s consideration of any credible

evidence of a violation of a MPCA

standard. This does not create judicial

presumptions, nor does it conflict with

EPA’s final Credible Evidence rule.

Comment 2: If MPCA’s rule is

incorporated into the SIP, sources

would then face two different standards

regarding the admissibility and

credibility of evidence.

Response 2: The EPA believes,

contrary to the commentor, that

approving this SIP revision actually

enhances consistency rather than

creating inconsistency. Since the rule

submitted for Federal approvability is

already adopted at the State level,

approving it into the SIP would mean

that both State and Federal authorities

would be enforcing the same provisions.

American Petroleum Institute

Comments

Following is a summary of comments

received from the American Petroleum

Institute in a letter dated May 8, 1997

signed by John E. Reese. After each

comment is EPA’s response.

Comment 1: Because sections

7007.0800 Subpart 6.C.(5) and

7017.0100 Subparts 1 and 2 of the

Minnesota regulations were based on

EPA’s premature March 24, 1994 SIP

call, the Minnesota regulations are not

consistent with the current status of

EPA’s Enhanced Monitoring

rulemaking. For example, section

7007.0800 Subpart 6.C.(5) makes

reference to ‘‘an enhanced monitoring

protocol’’ even though in 1995 EPA

abandoned the Enhanced Monitoring

approach in favor of the Compliance

Assurance Monitoring (CAM) approach.

Thus, the reference to ‘‘Enhanced

Monitoring’’ in the Minnesota

regulations is likely to cause confusion,

and should be revised.

Response 1: By stating that the

Minnesota rule, made in response to

EPA’s March 24, 1994 SIP call, is

inconsistent with the current status of

EPA’s Enhanced Monitoring Rule, the

commentor makes the argument that

EPA’s SIP call is inconsistent with the

current status of EPA’s Enhanced

Monitoring Rule. This is not the case. In

the EPA’s final Credible Evidence

Revisions rule, EPA has stated that:

EPA’s decision to forego the enhanced

monitoring approach in favor of the CAM

proposal has no effect on the basic goals of

the SIP call, which are to clarify that nonreference test data can be used in

enforcement actions, and to remove any

potential ambiguity regarding this data’s

use for Title V compliance certifications

(62 FR 8314, p. 8327).

While the commentor is correct in

pointing out that MPCA’s SIP revision

does include language in section

7007.0800 Subpart 6.C.5 that makes

reference to ‘‘an enhanced monitoring

protocol,’’ EPA does not believe that any

confusion will arise from the language

found in Minnesota’s rule. The section

that contains the reference to the

enhanced monitoring protocol does not

limit the additional methods that can be

used to demonstrate compliance with,

or violation of, a standard to only an

enhanced monitoring protocol. Also

included are, ‘‘any other monitoring

method incorporated into a permit

issued under this chapter.’’ If only the

language pertaining to ‘‘an enhanced

monitoring protocol’’ were included as

a revision to the language found in

MPCA’s, a SIP revision might be

warranted. However, because there is

additional language that does not limit

using other methods as well, no conflict

or confusion will arise from mentioning

an enhanced monitoring protocol.

Comment 2: EPA’s SIP call is invalid.

Neither section 110 or any other

provision of the Clean Air Act requires

States to include credible evidence

provisions in their SIPs. Even if one

accepts EPA’s assertion in the recently

promulgated Credible Evidence Rule, 62

FR 8314 (February 24, 1997), that

sections 113(a), 113(e), and 114 of the

Clean Air Act authorize EPA to use any

Credible Evidence to establish

violations of emissions standards and

limitations, those provisions speak only

to the Administrator, and the courts, not

to the States.

Response 2: EPA’s SIP call is valid.

The purpose of the SIP call is to clarify

that non-reference test data can be used

in enforcement actions, and to remove

any potential ambiguity regarding this

data’s use for Title V compliance

certifications. In responding to the SIP

call the MPCA submitted to EPA rule

revisions that ensured that the

Minnesota SIP does not preclude the

use, including the exclusive use, of any

credible evidence or information,

relevant to whether a source would have

been in compliance with applicable

requirements if the appropriate

performance or compliance test or

procedures had been performed. This is

all that is required to be consistent with

EPA’s final Credible Evidence rule.

Comment 3: The reference to

‘‘Minnesota Statutes’’ is incorrect, the

correct reference is to ‘‘Minnesota

Rules.’’

Response 3: EPA recognizes that the

codification from the direct final

Federal Register rule published on

April 9, 1997 did incorrectly reference

‘‘Minnesota Statutes.’’ The new

codification correctly references

‘‘Minnesota Rules.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53241

National Environmental Development

Association Comments

Following is a summary of comments

received from the National

Environmental Development

Association in a letter dated May 9,

1997 signed by Leslie Sue Ritts. After

each comment is EPA’s response.

Comment 1: EPA cannot and should

not approve State SIP revisions during

the pendency of judicial review of

EPA’s credible evidence rule.

Response 1: The commentor assumes

that if EPA’s Credible Evidence rule is

found to be illegal, it follows that

Minnesota’s rule is also illegal and

cannot be approved. This is not

necessarily the case. If EPA’s rule is

found to be illegal, EPA may not be able

to require Minnesota to follow the

requirements of the SIP call but EPA can

still approve Minnesota’s SIP revision.

States can submit, and EPA can

approve, SIP revisions that exceed

Federal requirements at any point in

time. If it is found that EPA’s Credible

Evidence rule is found to be illegal, this

does not prevent EPA from approving

MPCA’s SIP revision.

Comment 2: The National

Environmental Development

Association believes that the current

rule should be withdrawn because

Minnesota’s rule is clearly based on a

version of the enhanced monitoring

proposal and an EPA ‘‘model rule’’ that

were withdrawn by EPA in April 1995.

References to ‘‘presumptive’’ credible

evidence in the Federal Register notice,

while also not clear on the face of the

Minnesota regulations, are also plainly

inconsistent with the notion in the final

Federal credible evidence rule that all

monitoring evidence, whatever its

origin, would be weighed by a trier of

fact and to provisions in the EPA

credible rule that condition the use of

credible evidence as ‘‘relevant to

whether a source would have been in

compliance with applicable

requirements if the appropriate

performance or compliance test or

procedure had been performed.’’ In

addition, references in the Federal

Register notice to Federal ‘‘enhanced

monitoring protocols’’ and ‘‘model

rules’’ are obsolete. These will

eventually be replaced by Federal

requirements for ‘‘compliance assurance

monitoring’’ plans under the pending

CAM rule which the Federal agency is

about to finalize.

Response 2: The MPCA did not base

its rule on EPA’s model rule. In writing

its rule, the MPCA did not feel that it

had the authority to create

presumptively credible evidence, since

the MPCA did not feel it had the

authority to create judicial

‘‘presumptions.’’ Therefore, the MPCA

simply stated that violations may be

based on any required monitoring

method or any credible evidence. In

doing this, the MPCA clarifies that its

own rules cannot be used to limit a

court’s consideration of any credible

evidence of a violation of a MPCA

standard. This does not create judicial

presumptions, nor does it conflict with

EPA’s final Credible Evidence rule.

III. Final Action

The comments received were found to

warrant no changes from proposed to

final action on the approval of

Minnesota’s Evidentiary Rule.

Therefore, EPA is approving the

Evidentiary Rule submitted by the

MPCA for inclusion in the State’s SIP.

The approval of this submittal into the

SIP clarifies the types of testing and

monitoring data that can be used for

compliance demonstrations and

enforcement.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary D.

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 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.

This approval does not create any

new requirements, but simply approves

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose

any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the Act, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Act forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning state plans on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

undertake various actions in association

with 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 the private sector, of $100 million

or more. This Federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under State or

local law. No new Federal requirements

are imposed. Accordingly, no additional

costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or 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 Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by December 15, 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)).
53242 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: September 16, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, 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 Y—Minnesota

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(44) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(44) This revision provides for data

which have been collected under the

enhanced monitoring and operating

permit programs to be used for

compliance certifications and

enforcement actions.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Minnesota Rules, sections

7007.0800 Subpart 6.C.(5), 7017.0100

Subparts 1 and 2, both effective

February 28, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–27129 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA–5029a, FRL–5904–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

VOC RACT for Phillip Morris, Hercules,

Virginia Power Station, and the

Hopewell Regional Wastewater

Treatment Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving six State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia. These revisions establish and

require volatile organic compound

(VOC) reasonably available control

technology (RACT) on six major sources

located in Virginia. The intended effect

of this action is to approve sourcespecific plan approvals and Consent

Agreements that establish the abovementioned RACT requirements in

accordance with the Clean Air Act (the

Act).

DATES: This action is effective

November 28, 1997 unless notice is

received on or before October 29, 1997

that adverse or critical comments will

be submitted. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Air, Radiation, and

Toxics Division, Mailcode 3AT21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

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:

Kimberly Peck, (215) 566–2165, at the

EPA Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

9, 1996, August 8, 16, 19, 23, 1996, and

March 26, 1997, the Commonwealth of

Virginia submitted formal revisions to

its SIP. These revisions consist of plan

approvals and Consent Agreements,

signed by the companies and the

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality, to establish and impose sourcespecific VOC RACT requirements for

major sources of VOC. Today’s

rulemaking proposes to approve the

source-specific VOC RACT

requirements for six companies. All of

the sources are located in the Richmond

moderate ozone nonattainment area.

I. Background

Under the pre-amended Clean Air Act

(i.e., the Act prior to the 1990

Amendments), ozone nonattainment

areas were required to adopt RACT rules

for VOC sources. EPA issued three sets

of control technique guideline

documents (CTGs), establishing a

‘‘presumptive norm’’ for RACT for

various categories of VOC sources. The

Richmond, Virginia area was designated

nonattainment under the pre-amended

Act and was required to adopt RACT for

all CTG categories as well as non-CTG

VOC sources with a potential to emit

100 tons per year (TPY) or more. Under

the 1990 amendments to the Act,

amended sections 172(c)(1) and

182(a)(2), required the Richmond,

Virginia nonattainment area to correct

its RACT requirements in effect prior to

enactment of the 1990 amendments.

Virginia submitted those RACT

corrections as SIP revisions on May 10,

1991 and June 20, 1991. Among the

regulations in that SIP revision, was a

provision (Rule 120–04–0407)

establishing the legal basis for imposing

RACT on all individual major VOC

sources subject to RACT in the Northern

Virginia and Richmond nonattainment

areas not covered by an existing state

adopted VOC control regulation. The

RACT correction SIP was approved by

EPA on March 31, 1994 (See 59 FR

15117). To implement Rule 120–04–

0407, the Commonwealth must submit

an enforceable RACT determination for

all major VOC sources not otherwise

controlled under existing VOC RACT

regulations of the SIP.

Sections 182(b)(2) (A), (B) and (C) of

the Act require moderate and above

areas to adopt standards for all sources

covered by any CTG document issued

by the Administrator after 1990 and

before the area is required to attain the

standard; all sources covered by any

CTG before the date of enactment of the

1990 CAA amendments; and all major

sources of VOC not subject to a CTG. In

addition, areas newly designated under

the 1990 amendments as ozone

nonattainment areas are required to

adopt RACT rules consistent with those

previously designated nonattainment.

This provision of the Act makes

nonattainment areas that were

previously exempt from RACT

requirements ‘‘catch up’’ to

requirements during the earlier period,

and therefore, is known as the RACT

catch-up requirement. Because Rule

120–04–0407 imposed RACT on all

major VOC sources in the Northern

Virginia and Richmond nonattainment

areas on an individual basis, this rule

partially satisfied the RACT catch-up

requirement. On November 6, 1992,

Virginia submitted a SIP revision

expanding the geographic boundaries of

the VOC emission control areas to

coincide with the revised boundaries of

the Richmond and Northern Virginia

ozone nonattainment areas resulting

from the 1990 amendments. This SIP

was approved by EPA on March 12,

1997 (59 FR 52701). To satisfy the RACT

correction and catch-up requirements

under sections 182(a)(2) and 182(b)(2)