[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34408-34413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16651]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[VA-066-5024 and VA-068-5024; FRL-5846-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Designation of Areas; Virginia; Redesignation of Hampton Roads Ozone
Nonattainment Area, Maintenance Plan and Mobile Emissions Budget
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and two state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. On August 27, 1996, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
request to redesignate the Hampton Roads marginal ozone nonattainment
area to attainment and a maintenance plan, as a SIP revision. This
request is based upon three years of complete, quality-assured ambient
air monitoring data for the area which demonstrate that the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone has been attained. On
August 29, 1996 Virginia submitted a second SIP revision establishing
the mobile emissions budget (also known as a motor vehicle emissions
budget) for the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. The SIP
revisions establish a maintenance plan for Hampton Roads, including
contingency measures which provide for continued attainment of the
ozone NAAQS until the year 2008; and adjust the motor vehicle emissions
budget established in the maintenance plan for Hampton Roads to support
the area's transportation plans in the horizon years 2015 and beyond.
Under the Clean Air Act (the Act), nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient data are available to warrant
the redesignation and the area meets the Act's other redesignation
requirements. The intended effect of this action is to approve the
redesignation request, the maintenance plan, and the motor vehicle
emissions budget for Hampton Roads. This action is being taken under
sections 107 and 110 of the Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 28, 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 (3AT21), USEPA--Region III, 841
Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, or by telephone
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 March 12, 1997, EPA published a direct final rule [62 FR 11337]
approving the Commonwealth of Virginia's request to redesignate the
Hampton Roads marginal ozone nonattainment area from nonattainment to
attainment and the 10 year maintenance plan and mobile emissions budget
submitted by the Commonwealth for the Hampton Roads area as revisions
to the Virginia SIP. As stated in the March 12, 1997 rulemaking
document, EPA's action to approve the redesignation was based upon its
review of the Commonwealth's submittal and its determination that all
five criteria for redesignation in section 107 of the Act have been met
by and for the Hampton Roads area. The ambient air quality data
monitored in the Hampton Roads area indicated that it had attained the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone for the years
1993-1995. Review of the data monitored in 1996 has indicated continued
attainment of the ambient standard. EPA also determined that the
Commonwealth had a fully approved Part D SIP for the Hampton Roads
area, was fully implementing that SIP, and that the air quality
improvement in the Hampton Roads area was due to permanent and
enforceable control measures. In the same rulemaking, EPA approved the
maintenance plan submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia as a SIP
revision because it provides for maintenance of the ozone standard for
10 years and a mobile emissions budget for the Hampton Roads area.
In its March 12, 1997 rulemaking, EPA stated that if adverse
comments were received on the direct final rule within 30 days of its
publication, EPA would publish a document announcing the withdrawal of
its direct final rulemaking action. Because EPA received adverse
comments on the direct final rulemaking within the prescribed comment
period from the Allies in Defense of Cherry Point and U.S. Senator
Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina, EPA withdrew the March 12, 1997
final rulemaking action pertaining to the Hampton Roads nonattainment
area. This withdrawal document appeared in the Federal Register on
April 29, 1997 (62 FR 23139).
A companion proposed rulemaking was published in the Proposed Rules
section of the March 12, 1997 Federal Register for the Hampton Roads
redesignation (62 FR 11405). In the proposed notice, EPA also stated
that if adverse comments were received on the direct final action
within 30 days of its publication, it would withdraw the direct final
rule. In their letter submitting adverse comments, the Allies in
Defense of Cherry Point also indicated that they intended to submit
additional adverse comments and requested that the comment period on
the proposed rulemaking be extended. However, because the 30 day public
comment period EPA provided on the proposed rule was due to close two
days after receipt of their request, there was insufficient time for
EPA to publish a document extending the comment period. In order,
therefore, to provide additional time to the Allies in Defense of
Cherry Point to review EPA's rulemaking decision and provide additional
comment, EPA reopened the public comment period on the proposed rule
for a period of two weeks. This notice was published on April 29, 1997
in the Federal Register at 62 FR 23196. The second public comment
period closed on May 13, 1997.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received two letters of adverse comment and numerous letters of
support for EPA's action to redesignate the Hampton Roads area. Letters
of support for EPA's rulemaking decision were received from: all the
local governments in the nonattainment area, the Hampton Roads Planning
District Commission, the United States Navy, the Office of the Attorney
General for the Commonwealth of Virginia; U.S. Senators John Warner and
Charles Robb from Virginia and U.S. Congressman Owen Pickett from
Virginia, among
[[Page 34409]]
others. These parties provided positive comments and are supportive of
EPA's approval of the redesignation of the Hampton Roads area to
attainment.
Letters providing adverse comments on EPA's rulemaking were
received from Senator Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina and the Allies
in Defense of Cherry Point, North Carolina (the Allies). The following
discussion summarizes and responds to the adverse comments received.
Comment 1: Both the Allies and Senator Faircloth stated that, as
part of a Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) decision, the U.S. Navy
is assessing the potential environmental impact, including the increase
in ozone precursor emissions, of a realignment of fighter jet squadrons
from Florida to the Oceana Naval Air Station in the Hampton Roads area.
The commenters believe that EPA's decision on the redesignation should
be deferred until the draft environmental impact statement and
conformity analysis of the Navy's BRAC decision is complete and
available for public review.
Response: EPA does not agree with this comment. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 established five criteria which must be met for
areas to be redesignated to attainment. These criteria are found in
section 107 and are listed as follows: (1) The area must have attained
the applicable NAAQS; (2) the area must meet 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 due to permanent and enforceable measures;
and, (5) the area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant
to section 175A of the Act. Review of environmental impact statements
regarding the construction of federal projects within an attainment or
nonattainment area are not a consideration during the determination of
designations of areas. EPA's review of the Navy's BRAC Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Conformity Analysis determinations
are not part of the criteria used for determining whether the Hampton
Roads area should be redesignated to attainment. EPA's decision to
redesignate the Hampton Roads area to attainment is based solely on the
fact that the Hampton Roads area has satisfied all five criteria of the
Act.
The Act did make provisions for assuring that future federal
actions and transportation projects conform to the state implementation
plan emission budgets. All projects funded with federal monies proposed
in both air quality nonattainment areas and maintenance areas are
subject to the conformity requirements of section 176 of the Act.
Regardless of whether Hampton Roads is redesignated to attainment of
the ozone standard, the Navy will still be required to make a
conformity determination and show that the relocation of the fighter
squadrons remains within the emission budgets developed in the Hampton
Roads maintenance plan as incorporated into the SIP.
Comment 2: The Allies alleged that Virginia has not adequately
addressed the potential air quality impacts of the possible BRAC
realignment in the maintenance plan. They claim that Virginia should
have accounted for the projected increase in mobile source emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) associated with the BRAC move and the
addition of 5,300 military personnel and their dependents. They also
contend that the maintenance plan is inaccurate because it projects
zero population growth in federal military personnel for the entire
maintenance period and a decrease in federal civilian personnel after
the year 2000.
Response: EPA does not agree with this comment. Maintenance plans
are required to project some reasonable level of growth in the area
during the 10-year time span and to demonstrate how increased emissions
associated with growth will be offset. The maintenance plan for the
Hampton Roads area does project growth in population, economic activity
and mobile sources between 1993 and 2008, using standard acceptable
methodology. In addition, the Navy's decision regarding the BRAC
redeployment to Oceana Naval Air Station in Hampton Roads is not final,
and hence remains speculative. The Commonwealth is not required to
include potential projects which may or may not happen at some future
date in the maintenance plan for the area. As discussed above, the air
quality impacts of individual projects are considered during the
conformity analysis process. Projects must be able to demonstrate that
their potential emissions will remain below the levels established in
the emission budgets for the area set in the maintenance plan.
Furthermore, the maintenance plan submitted by the Commonwealth
contains contingency provisions should the area exceed the levels
established in the emissions budgets for the area. In the SIP, the
Commonwealth has committed to track levels of emissions and to
implement contingency measures to reduce emissions of VOCs should
actual emissions in future years rise above the levels established in
the maintenance plan.
Despite the fact that the Commonwealth is not required to account
for speculative emissions associated with potential growth scenarios in
the maintenance plan, the Commonwealth of Virginia went beyond the
requirements and did account for potential increased emissions
associated with the BRAC relocation in the point source projection year
inventory of the maintenance plan for the Hampton Roads area. To make
room in the inventory for these potential future emissions, source
specific emission caps were placed on two existing large sources of
emissions in the Hampton Roads area to offset the anticipated increase
in emissions associated with the increase in flight squadrons and
related activities of the BRAC relocation. In effect, Virginia has
provided a cushion in the budget with 200 tons/year of VOC and 800
tons/year of NOX reductions in anticipation of the potential
increased emissions associated with the relocation, and can still
demonstrate that it remains within the levels of the attainment year
inventory in the maintenance plan.
Comment 3: The Allies commented that they believe the maintenance
plan substantially underestimates the growth in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) and emissions from automobiles. They also stated population
growth was also underestimated in the maintenance plan in their view,
and that VMT growth should be higher than population growth. The Allies
claim it is unrealistic to project a consistently declining growth rate
in population in a rapidly growing area. The commenter further
questions why VMT growth is predicted to drop off dramatically in the
2000-2008 period, compared to the 1988-1993 period.
Response: EPA does not agree with these statements made by the
commenter. EPA policy on maintenance demonstrations requires states to
develop projection year inventories that consider future growth,
including population, mobile sources and industry, and to demonstrate
that these projections are consistent with the attainment inventory and
EPA guidance on inventory development.1 EPA's guidance
document on projecting emissions inventories 2 recommends
using U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) growth factors or growth
[[Page 34410]]
projections from local metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for
projecting growth in point and area source inventories. The traditional
data source for economic indicators used in projecting stationary
source growth is the BEA growth factors. BEA has published state,
regional and metropolitan statistical area growth factors in ``BEA
Regional Projections to 2040''. Following EPA guidance, Virginia
properly relied on population growth estimates supplied by BEA in the
Hampton Roads maintenance plan. For point source growth, Virginia
utilized EPA's developed and approved Economic Growth Analysis System
(E-GAS). E-GAS is an economic and activity forecast model that
translates the user's assumptions regarding regional economic policies
and resource prices into industry growth factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'', September 4, 1992, memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division.
\2\ ``Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections'', July
1991, EPA-450/4-91-019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA guidance document entitled ``Procedures for Preparing
Emissions Projections'' states that the preferred method for performing
VMT projections for on-road mobile sources is to use a validated travel
demand model. According to EPA's guidance document for preparing
emission projections from mobile sources,3 both EPA and the
U.S. Department of Transportation have endorsed the Department of
Transportation's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) as the
appropriate source of VMT estimates in SIP development. In response to
the comments received on VMT projections, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted additional documentation
regarding the source of VMT estimates that has been added to the
docket. The VMT estimates in the maintenance plan were obtained from
the Hampton Roads Planning District commission and the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) and were developed for the official
conformity analysis performed annually for the area. VDOT determines
VMT estimates using HPMS protocol. The officially recognized MINUTP
transportation demand model was used to estimate VMT and related
traffic data in the conformity analysis process. The VMT and population
growth estimates in the maintenance plan can be verified by comparing
the maintenance plan to the conformity documentation for the
nonattainment area. Both the VMT and population growth estimates are
consistent in the Hampton Roads maintenance plan and approved
conformity documents. Furthermore, the predicted population growth in
Hampton Roads contained in the maintenance plan and conformity analysis
are also consistent with the BEA projections for the same period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV:
Mobile Sources'', EPA-450/4-81-026d (revised), 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter is incorrect in his statement that the VMT growth
rate is smaller than the growth rate assumed for population in the
Hampton Roads area. The average annual growth rate from 1993 to 2008 in
the maintenance plan for VMT is 1.1692%, while the annual growth rate
in population is .834%. It can be seen that VMT is growing annually at
a rate that is 40% higher than the annual predicted population growth.
In response to the question ``what accounts for the dramatic
decrease in VMT growth rate over historical patterns [after 1993]'',
the VADEQ has submitted the following discussion for inclusion in the
public record.
The VMT spike between 1988 and 1993 is due to the opening of a
second major water crossing (the I-664 Monitor Merrimac Bridge/
Tunnel) in 1992. This provided a new link between the Peninsula and
Southside portions of Hampton Roads. This new crossing also provided
another way to Virginia Beach and the outer banks of North Carolina
which is highly used in the summer months due to the congestion at
the I-64 bridge/tunnel crossing. This also opened up a new door for
more travel between these two areas by people who normally did not
do so before due to traffic congestion and limited travel choices.
As can be seen from the VMT estimates after 1993, the level of
increase has reverted back to a level consistent with population
growth. As with any region of this type which is separated by a
large body of water with limited crossings, a new crossing of this
size will have a major impact on VMT. Once the impact was initially
felt in the early 1990's, the region has been growing at a more
normal rate.
Virginia has utilized recognized sources of growth factor
surrogates in projecting growth in VMT and population, such as BEA data
or local data from the MPOs. EPA has no reason to doubt the credibility
of these growth projections.
Comment 4: The Allies argued that Virginia's VMT estimates differ
sharply from (and are substantially lower than) EPA's own estimates for
the Hampton Roads area.
Response: The commenter is referring to data compiled in 1993 by
EPA to create the annual national air quality trends reports. EPA
utilizes VMT data from the HPMS database administered by the U.S.
Department of Transportation. There are several complexities associated
with using HPMS data to estimate VMT for this inventory. The county is
the basic geographic unit in EPA's emissions trends inventory. To the
contrary, all data in HPMS are divided into rural, small urban, and
individualized urban geographic areas. For the purposes of the trends
reports and estimating highways emissions levels on a national basis,
EPA uses apportioning schemes to distribute the data and develops
county-level VMT estimates. These schemes are estimation tools which
allow different areas of the country to be compared based on similar
parameters. The methodology EPA uses to apportion these county-level
VMT estimates can be found in Section 4 of EPA's ``National Air
Pollutant Emission Trends Procedures Document for 1900-1993'', page 4-
81. The same schemes were not used to develop the VMT growth estimates
in the Hampton Roads maintenance plan. Therefore, it is reasonable to
expect that even though both methods of determining VMT are valid, they
are for two separate applications. The VMT growth in the Hampton Roads
area estimated by Virginia using approved EPA methods in SIP planning,
as discussed in the response to the previous comment, may vary from the
VMT growth in that same area obtained using the different schemes to
determine trends. EPA does not advise that EPA's VMT information from
the trends database be used by states in SIP planning. Furthermore, the
VMT projections in the EPA trends database for the years 2000 and 2008,
quoted by the commenter, are four years old and based on 1993 data. The
maintenance plan SIP for the Hampton Roads area relies on more up-to-
date and precise information regarding VMT supplied by the Virginia
Department of Transportation and the Hampton Roads local metropolitan
planning organization.
Comment 5: The Allies commented that the three-year attainment
period selected by Virginia may not be representative of historical
weather conditions in the Hampton Roads area that are conducive to
ozone formation. They question whether 1994 and 1995 ozone seasons
deviate from the historical weather patterns in Hampton Roads in that
they were unusually cool.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA recognizes that the
accumulation of ozone may be dependent upon weather conditions,
particularly high temperatures and stagnant air flows. To offset the
variability of weather in the production of ozone, EPA requires the use
of a three-year period to demonstrate compliance with the ozone
standard. EPA relies on a three-year period for determining designation
status of an area in part for the reasons being questioned by the
commenter: to reduce
[[Page 34411]]
the potential for unrepresentative weather patterns. EPA can see no
basis for disregarding quality assured data under the statuate and 40
CFR part 50.9 and Appendix H.
The Hampton Roads area has four years of data which demonstrate
compliance with the ozone standard--or two consecutive three year
periods, 1993-1995 and 1994-1996, which qualifies the area for
redesignation. EPA believes that four years of data present an even
stronger case demonstrating that the Hampton Roads area has achieved
the ozone standard. It is unlikely that exceptionally good weather
conditions could exist for a continuous four year period. More
importantly, the commenter has neglected to recognize that several
national and state VOC control measures, such as the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and reformulated gasoline, were
implemented in the Hampton Roads area during the period between 1991
and 1996, which reduced the amount of ozone precursor emissions. It is
important to recognize that these and other emission reduction measures
were responsible for bringing the area into attainment of the ozone
standard, not favorable weather conditions.
Comment 6: Both the Allies and Senator Faircloth commented that
Virginia has not adopted conformity regulations as required by section
176 of the Clean Air Act. They contend that EPA should not approve the
redesignation unless Virginia has met all requirements of the Clean Air
Act for the Hampton Roads area.
Response: EPA does not agree with this comment. The Commonwealth of
Virginia has adopted both general and transportation conformity rules
pursuant to section 176 of the Act in 1996 and submitted these rules to
EPA for inclusion into the SIP in the early part of 1997. EPA is
presently reviewing both of these submittals and will take rulemaking
action on them at a future date.
EPA addressed the conformity requirements for the Hampton Roads
area in the March 12, 1997 direct final rulemaking. As noted in the
original rulemaking, EPA interprets the conformity requirements of
section 176 of the Act as being inapplicable for the purposes of
evaluating redesignation requests under section 107(d) of the Act. The
rationale for this is twofold. First, the conformity provisions of the
Act continue to apply to areas after they have been redesignated to
attainment. EPA's conformity rules require states to adopt both
transportation and general conformity provisions in their SIPs for
areas designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance plan.
Therefore, the Commonwealth is obliged to adopt, submit, and implement
conformity regulations in the Hampton Roads maintenance area. Second,
EPA's general conformity rules require the performance of conformity
analyses in the absence of state adopted rules. Until EPA completes
rulemaking action on Virginia's conformity SIP submittals, the
Commonwealth is required to implement the federal conformity
regulations.
Because areas are subject to conformity requirements regardless of
whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement the
federal conformity rules until appropriate state rules are approved
into the SIP, it has been EPA's policy to redesignate areas to
attainment that meet the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
Act, even where EPA has not yet approved a state's transportation and
general conformity rules. EPA has used this policy many times in the
past to redesignate other nonattainment areas to attainment when EPA
has not yet approved state conformity regulations. See the discussions
in 61 FR 31835-31836 (Grand Rapids, MI redesignation, June 21, 1996);
60 FR 52748 (Tampa, FL redesignation, December 7, 1995); and 61 FR
20458 (Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, OH redesignation, May 7, 1996).
Comment 7: The Allies commented that the maintenance demonstration
shows a slight increase in NOX emissions by the year 2008.
They further maintain that Virginia should be required to support,
through required photochemical modeling, that excess VOC reductions can
be used to offset the increase in NOX emissions. They also
stated that ``[w]e seriously question EPA's authority to waive the
fundamental `no net increase' requirement for approval of a maintenance
plan.''
Response: EPA does not agree with the comment. The commenter has
misread the information provided in EPA's technical support document
(TSD) developed for this rulemaking. While EPA does mention on page 34
of the TSD that NOX emissions are projected to increase
between the 1999 and 2008, the NOX emissions in 2008 will
still not exceed the NOX levels of the attainment year
inventory. No net increase refers to no net increase above the total
level of emissions set in the attainment year inventory for a specific
pollutant. The 1993 attainment year level of NOX emissions
is 230.079 tons/day. The level of NOX is projected to
decrease by 1999 to 228.882 tons/day due to control measures, such as
FMVCP. Virginia projects that by the year 2008, NOX
emissions will increase again slightly to 229.221 tons/day, a figure
attributed to normal growth within the region. However, even
considering this slight increase, the level of NOX emissions
in 2008 continues to remain below the 1993 attainment year level.
As a marginal ozone nonattainment area, Hampton Roads is not
required to submit photochemical modeling to demonstrate maintenance of
the ozone standard. EPA policy allows states to demonstrate maintenance
of the ozone standard by showing that future emissions of ozone
precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment year inventory.
Virginia has met this requirement to demonstrate that the level of both
VOC and NOX emissions will remain below the levels set in
the 1993 attainment year inventory.
III. Final Action
The EPA has evaluated the Commonwealth's redesignation request for
Hampton Roads for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA
policy. The EPA has determined that the redesignation request and
monitoring data demonstrate that this area has attained the ozone
standard. In addition, EPA has determined that the redesignation
request meets the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) and the policy
set forth in the General Preamble and policy memorandum for area
redesignations, and today is approving Virginia's redesignation request
for Hampton Roads submitted on August 27, 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 motor
vehicle emissions budget for the Hampton Roads area. Other specific
requirements of redesignations and maintenance plans and the rationale
for EPA's approval action were explained in the March 12, 1997 direct
final 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.
[[Page 34412]]
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been delegated to the Regional Administrator for
signature. 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 CAA 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
affect 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 Hampton Roads redesignation
request, maintenance plan and mobile emissions budget must be filed in
the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
August 25, 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).)
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: June 17, 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)(117) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(117) The ten year ozone maintenance plan for Hampton Roads,
Virginia ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality on August 27, 1996:
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter of August 27, 1996 from the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality transmitting the 10 year ozone maintenance plan
for the Hampton Roads marginal ozone nonattainment area.
(B) The ten year ozone maintenance plan including emission
projections, control measures to maintain attainment and contingency
measures for the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area adopted on
August 27, 1996.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Remainder of August 27, 1996 Commonwealth submittal pertaining
to the redesignation request and maintenance plan referenced in
paragraph (c)(117)(i) of this section.
3. Section 52.2424 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2424 Motor vehicle emissions budgets.
Motor vehicle emissions budget for the Hampton Roads maintenance
area adjusting the mobile emissions budget contained in the maintenance
plan for the horizon years 2015 and beyond adopted on August 29, 1996
and submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on
August 29, 1996.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
4. In Sec. 81.347 the ``Virginia--Ozone'' table is amended by
revising the entry for ``Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton
Roads) Area'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.347 Virginia.
* * * * *
[[Page 34413]]
Virginia--Ozone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk-Virginia-Beach Newport July 28, 1997.................... Attainment...................
News (Hampton Roads) Area.
Chesapeake
Hampton
James City County
Newport News
Norfolk
Poquoson
Portsmouth
Suffolk
Virginia Beach
Williamsburg
York County
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-16651 Filed 6-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
