[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.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 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
