Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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, qualityassured 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.Kristeen@epamail.epa.gov

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 sourcespecific 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
61238 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1Actually, 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.

2OTAG 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.

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.

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 fullyapproved 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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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
61240 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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:

§ 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:

§ 52.2424 Motor vehicle emissions

budgets.

* * * * *

(b) Motor vehicle emissions budget for

the Richmond maintenance area

adjusting the mobile emissions budget
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 81.347 the ‘‘Virginia—Ozone’’

table is amended by revising the entry

for ‘‘Richmond Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.347 Virginia.

* * * * *

VIRGINIA—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Richmond Area:

Charles City County (part).................... ............................ 12/17/97 Attainment.

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.

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 97–30138 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH107–3; KY94–9717a; FRL–5922–5]

Clean Air Act Promulgation of

Extension of Attainment Date for

Ozone Nonattainment Area; Ohio;

Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On May 27, 1997, USEPA

extended the attainment date for the

Cincinnati-Hamilton interstate,

moderate ozone nonattainment area

from November 15, 1996 to November

15, 1997 utilizing ‘‘direct final

rulemaking’’ procedures. On July 28,

1997, USEPA withdrew the direct final

rule due to the receipt of adverse

comments. In this action USEPA is

responding to public comments

received in response to the proposed

rule and announcing that it is extending

the attainment date for the CincinnatiHamilton interstate moderate ozone

nonattainment area from November 15,

1996 to November 15, 1997. This

extension is based in part on monitored

air quality readings for the national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)

for ozone during 1996. The USEPA is

also revising the table in the Code of

Federal Regulations concerning ozone

attainment dates in this area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This extension becomes

effective December 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Kentucky SIP revision

is available for inspection at the

following addresses:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Atlanta Federal Center, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104.

Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet, 803 Schenkel

Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

The Ohio SIP revision is available for

inspection at the following addresses:

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution

Control, 1800 Watermark Drive,

Columbus, OH 43215.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph M. LeVasseur at the USEPA

Region 4 address listed above or

Randolph O. Cano at Region 5 at the

address listed above. (It is

recommended that you contact Joseph

M. LeVasseur at (404) 562-9035 before

visiting the Region 4 office.) (It is

recommended that you contact

Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886–6036

before visiting the Region 5 office.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Attainment Date Extension

for the Cincinnati-Hamilton

Metropolitan Moderate Ozone

Nonattainment Area

On November 7, 1996, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio

EPA) requested a one-year attainment

date extension for the Ohio portion of

the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate

ozone nonattainment area which

consists of Hamilton, Butler, Clermont

and Warren Counties in Ohio. Similarly,

on November 15, 1996, the Kentucky

Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet (KNREPC) requested