Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Redesignation Request, Maintenance Plan and Mobile Emissions Budget for the Richmond Ozone Nonattainment Area

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.K[email protected]

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