10018 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). 

2 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni 

Memo). 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. In § 52.220a, amend Table 1 to 

paragraph (c) by revising the entries for 

‘‘94700’’ and ‘‘94701’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.220a Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED STATUTES AND STATE REGULATIONS 1

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Title 17 (Public Health), Division 3 (Air Resources), Chapter 1 (Air Resources Board); Subchapter 8.6 (Maximum Incremental 

Reactivity); Article 1 (Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) Values) 

94700 ................ MIR Values for Compounds ......... 1/1/2015 2/18/2021, [Insert citation of publication].Submitted by CARB on December 

1, 2016. 

94701 ................ MIR Values for Hydrocarbon Solvents.10/2/2010 2/18/2021, [Insert citation of publication].Submitted by CARB on December 

1, 2016. 

1Table 1 lists EPA-approved California statutes and regulations incorporated by reference in the applicable SIP. Table 2 of paragraph (c) lists 

approved California test procedures, test methods and specifications that are cited in certain regulations listed in table 1. Approved California 

statutes that are nonregulatory or quasi-regulatory are listed in paragraph (e). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–02900 Filed 2–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0195; FRL–10020– 

08-Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; 1997 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard Second Maintenance 

Plan for the West Virginia Portion of 

the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area 

Comprising Brooke and Hancock 

Counties 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(WVDEP) on behalf of the State of West 

Virginia. This revision pertains to the 

West Virginia’s plan for maintaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) for the West 

Virginia portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, OH-WV area (Weirton Area), 

comprising Brooke and Hancock 

Counties. EPA is approving these 

revisions to the West Virginia SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0195. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keila M. Paga ́n-Incle, Planning & 

Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. The telephone number is (215) 

814–2926. Ms. Paga ́n-Incle can also be 

reached via electronic mail at paganincle.keila@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 29, 2020 (85 FR 38820), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of 

West Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA 

proposed approval of West Virginia’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS through June 13, 2027, in 

accordance with CAA section 175A. The 

formal SIP revision was submitted by 

WVDEP on December 10, 2019. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

On May 14, 2007 (72 FR 27060, 

effective June 13, 2007), EPA approved 

a redesignation request (and 

maintenance plan) from WVDEP for the 

Weirton Area. Per CAA section 175A(b), 

at the end of the eighth year after the 

effective date of the redesignation, the 

state must also submit a second 

maintenance plan to ensure ongoing 

maintenance of the standard for an 

additional 10 years, and in South Coast 

Air Quality Management District v. 

EPA,1 the D.C. Circuit held that this 

requirement cannot be waived for areas, 

like the Weirton Area, that had been 

redesignated to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to 

revocation and that were designated 

attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria 

for adequate maintenance plans. In 

addition, EPA has published 

longstanding guidance that provides 

further insight on the content of an 

approvable maintenance plan, 

explaining that a maintenance plan 

should address five elements: (1) An 

attainment emissions inventory; (2) a 

maintenance demonstration; (3) a 

commitment for continued air quality 

monitoring; (4) a process for verification 

of continued attainment; and (5) a 

contingency plan.2 WVDEP’s December 

10, 2019 SIP submittal fulfills West 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10019 

3See ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ from 

Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994; 

‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from 

Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and 

‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ from Lydia Wegman, 

OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. 

4The ozone design value for a monitoring site is 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations. 

The design value for an ozone nonattainment area 

is the highest design value of any monitoring site 

in the area. 

5 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni 

Memo). 

6 972 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 

7See ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ from 

Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994; 

‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from 

Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and 

‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ from Lydia Wegman, 

OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. 

8See 71 FR 57905 (October 2, 2006) and the 

following documents included in this rule’s docket: 

West Virginia’s ‘‘2020 Ambient Air Monitoring 

Annual Network Plan and SO2 Data Requirement 

Rule Annual Report’’ and Appendix D of Ohio 

EPA’s ‘‘2020–2021 Ohio EPA Air Monitoring 

Network Plan.’’ 

Virginia’s obligation to submit a second 

maintenance plan and addresses each of 

the five necessary elements. 

As discussed in the June 29, 2020 

NPRM, consistent with longstanding 

EPA guidance,3 areas that meet certain 

criteria may be eligible to submit a 

limited maintenance plan (LMP) to 

satisfy one of the requirements of CAA 

section 175A. Specifically, states may 

meet CAA section 175A’s requirements 

to ‘‘provide for maintenance’’ by 

demonstrating that the area’s design 

value 4 is well below the NAAQS and 

that it has had historical stability 

attaining the NAAQS. EPA evaluated 

WVDEP’s December 10, 2019 submittal 

for consistency with all applicable EPA 

guidance and CAA requirements. EPA 

found that the submittal met CAA 

section 175A and all CAA requirements, 

and proposed approval of the LMP for 

the Weirton Area, comprising Brooke 

and Hancock Counties, as a revision to 

the West Virginia SIP. The effect of this 

action makes certain commitments 

related to the maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS federally 

enforceable as part of the West Virginia 

SIP. 

Other specific requirements of 

WVDEP’s December 10, 2019 submittal 

and the rationale for EPA’s proposed 

action are explained in the NPRM and 

will not be restated here. 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Received 

EPA received five sets of relevant 

comments on the June 29, 2020 NPRM, 

two of which were exact duplicates. All 

comments received are in the docket for 

this rulemaking action. A summary of 

the comments and EPA’s responses are 

provided herein. 

Comment 1 

The commenter requests that EPA 

disapprove West Virginia’s LMP 

‘‘because it fails to show maintenance of 

the standard for 10 years and it fails to 

provide for the protection of health 

because of the lack of enforcement’’ and 

also because of a ‘‘lack of reductions in 

the Steubenville area.’’ The commenter 

also requests that EPA disapprove the 

LMP because EPA has not provided 

information with regards to ‘‘all of the 

areas the agency proposes to monitor.’’ 

Response 1 

EPA disagrees that the LMP should be 

disapproved based on the reasons given 

by the commenter. EPA has determined 

that the LMP adequately demonstrates 

compliance for the second 10 year 

period in accordance with CAA section 

175A and EPA’s longstanding guidance 

that establishes the five elements that 

EPA has determined will ensure 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS for 

a period of 10 years: (1) An attainment 

emissions inventory; (2) maintenance 

demonstration; (3) a commitment for 

continued air quality monitoring; (4) a 

process for verification of continue 

attainment; and (5) a contingency plan.5

EPA determined that West Virginia’s 

second maintenance plan addresses all 

the required elements of an approvable 

maintenance plan. Although the 

commenter asserts that the LMP fails to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 

NAAQS, the commenter does not offer 

any data to contradict the data that EPA 

and West Virginia relied upon, nor does 

the commenter explain why the data 

that EPA and West Virginia relied upon 

does not adequately demonstrate 

maintenance of the NAAQS. See, e.g., 

International Fabricare Institute v. 

E.P.A. 6 (The Administrative Procedures 

Act does not require that EPA change its 

decision based on ‘‘comments 

consisting of little more than assertions 

that in the opinions of the commenters 

the agency got it wrong,’’ when 

submitted with no accompanying data). 

Because this LMP demonstrates that the 

Steubenville-Weirton Area is 

maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and will maintain it for the 

duration of this LMP based on its 

historic and current level of emissions, 

there is no indication that the Weirton 

Area suffers from a ‘‘lack of reductions.’’ 

The Area is required to obtain 

additional emissions reductions from 

the contingency measures included in 

its plan, but those measures will only be 

required to be implemented if triggered 

by events indicating that the Area’s 

ability to maintain the NAAQS is 

threatened. EPA’s approval of this LMP 

under the authority of CAA 110 confers 

upon EPA the authority to enforce the 

provisions of this plan, if necessary, in 

Federal court. Therefore, EPA disagrees 

with the commenter that this LMP does 

not demonstrate maintenance of the 

NAAQS and is not enforceable. 

EPA also disagrees that the LMP 

should be disapproved because EPA has 

not provided information regarding ‘‘all 

of the areas the agency proposes to 

monitor.’’ West Virginia currently has 

an EPA approved monitoring network to 

measure compliance with the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (49 FR 18094, effective 

June 26, 1984). West Virginia is required 

to have this monitoring network for at 

least the duration of the second 

maintenance plan 7 and cannot change it 

without EPA’s approval, see 40 CFR 

58.14(a). The monitors are currently 

located in Hancock County, West 

Virginia and in Jefferson County, Ohio.8

If the monitoring locations need to 

change, EPA will approve those changes 

only if the new locations will continue 

to monitor compliance with the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the Weirton Area, see 

40 CFR 58.10(a). This information was 

available to the public through EPA’s 

prior rulemakings cited previously in 

this document, and therefore there is no 

lack of information for the public 

regarding ‘‘all of the areas the agency 

proposes to monitor’’ regarding the 

Weirton Area. The commenter therefore 

provides no basis for EPA to change its 

approval of the LMP for the Weirton 

Area. 

Comment 2 

The commenter claims that the LMP 

does not ‘‘address the critical public 

health threats posed by high levels of 

toxic air pollution’’ in the Weirton Area. 

The commenter alleges that the LMP 

should not be approved based on a letter 

that the commenter states was 

submitted by the American Lung 

Association (ALA) to Ohio EPA, in 

which the ALA identified the 

‘‘Steubenville Plan’’ to be ‘‘shortsighted, and could endanger the health 

and safety of thousands of residents in 

the nonattainment area.’’ Further, the 

commenter also contends that the LMP 

was approved ‘‘without an 

Environmental Effects Statement and an 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
10020 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

9 972 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 

10 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. 

11 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, 2.1(e). 

12See ‘‘Weirton WV State Submittal’’ and 

‘‘Weirton, WV Completeness Letter’’ of WVDEP’s 

December 10, 2019 submittal. The ‘‘Weirton WV 

State Submittal’’ states that the SIP revision 

includes documentation that proper administrative 

procedural requirements have been followed. In 

addition, the ‘‘Weirton, WV Completeness Letter,’’ 

certifies that EPA has determined that the submittal 

is administratively and technically complete and 

EPA will proceed to review the SIP submission. 

environmental review,’’ and EPA cannot 

approve ‘‘until a statement and review 

are completed and proposed to the 

public at large.’’ 

Response 2 

The commenter has misapprehended 

the purpose of West Virginia’s second 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the criteria for EPA’s 

approval of that plan. As stated in the 

NPRM, on December 10, 2019, West 

Virginia submitted a SIP revision for a 

second maintenance plan for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS which focuses on 

meeting requirements under CAA 

section 175A, to which EPA has 

published longstanding guidance that 

provides the necessary criteria for an 

approvable maintenance plan. 

The commenter states that EPA 

should disapprove the LMP based on a 

letter submitted to Ohio EPA by the 

ALA. Neither the commenter nor the 

ALA has submitted that letter to EPA, 

and whether the letter is relevant to the 

LMP or some other ‘‘Steubenville Plan’’ 

that is not before EPA is unclear. To the 

extent that the comment in general 

terms asserts that the LMP should not be 

approved due to air quality issues in 

Steubenville, EPA relies on the analysis 

in the NPRM, and its response to 

Comment 1, that this LMP meets the 

criteria for approval as it adequately 

demonstrates that the area will maintain 

the relevant NAAQS for the duration of 

the plan, contains all required elements 

of an approvable plan, and the 

commenter does not offer any data to 

contradict the data that EPA and West 

Virginia relied upon, nor does the 

commenter explain why the data that 

EPA and West Virginia does not 

adequately demonstrate maintenance of 

the NAAQS. See, e.g., International 

Fabricare Institute v. E.P.A.9. Therefore, 

EPA disagrees this comment provides a 

basis for disapproving this LMP. 

The commenter additionally states 

that West Virginia’s LMP was approved 

‘‘without an Environmental Effects 

Statement and an environmental 

review.’’ EPA is unfamiliar with these 

terms in respect to rulemaking 

conducted under the Federal 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA),10

the CAA or its implementing regulations 

relevant to this rulemaking. To the 

extent the commenter appears to be 

alleging a defect in West Virginia’s 

process for developing and approving 

this LMP West Virginia submitted to 

EPA ‘‘[e]vidence that the State followed 

all of the procedural requirements of the 

State’s laws and constitution in 

conducting and completing the 

adoption/issuance of the plan,11 which 

is in the docket for this rulemaking.’’ 12

To the extent that the comment is 

directed at EPA’s rulemaking on this 

LMP, EPA has followed all requirements 

of the APA, the CAA, and regulations 

thereunder relevant to this rulemaking. 

There is no requirement under the APA, 

the CAA, or its implementing 

regulations for anything or process 

called an ‘‘Environmental Effect 

statement’’ or ‘‘environmental review.’’ 

This comment therefore provides no 

basis for EPA to disapprove this LMP. 

Comment 3 

The commenter asserts that the LMP 

should not be approved because of 

EPA’s reliance on the Air Quality 

Modeling Technical Support Document 

(TSD) that was developed for EPA’s 

regional transport rulemaking. The 

commenter contends that: (1) The TSD 

shows maintenance of the area for three 

years and not 10 years; (2) the modeling 

was performed for transport purposes 

across state lines and not to show 

maintenance of the NAAQS; (3) the 

modeling was performed for the 2008 

and 2015 ozone NAAQS and not the 

1997 ozone NAAQS; (4) the TSD has 

been ‘‘highly contested’’ by 

environmental groups and that ‘‘other 

states contend EPA’s modeling as 

flawed;’’ and (5) the TSD does not 

address a recent court decision that 

threw out EPA’s modeling ‘‘because it 

modeled to the wrong attainment 

year. . . .’’ The commenter asserts that 

the four specific issues it raises with 

respect to the modeling means that the 

TSD is ‘‘flawed, illegal, [and] is being 

used improperly for the wrong 

purpose. . . .’’ The commenter states 

that ‘‘EPA must retract its reliance on 

the modeling for the purposes of this 

maintenance plan and must find some 

other way of showing continued 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS.’’ 

Response 3 

EPA does not agree with the 

commenter that approval of West 

Virginia’s second maintenance plan is 

not appropriate. The commenter raises 

concerns about West Virginia and EPA’s 

citation of Air Quality Modeling TSD, 

but the commenter ignores that EPA’s 

primary basis for finding that West 

Virginia has provided for maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Weirton Area is the State’s 

demonstration that the criteria for a 

LMP has been met. See 85 FR 38820, 

June 29, 2020. Specifically, as stated in 

the NPRM, for decades EPA has 

interpreted the provision in CAA 

section 175A that requires states to 

‘‘provide for maintenance’’ of the 

NAAQS to be satisfied where areas 

demonstrate that design values are and 

have been stable and well below the 

NAAQS—e.g., at 85% of the standard, 

or in this case at or below 0.071 parts 

per million (ppm). EPA calls such 

demonstration a ‘‘limited maintenance 

plan.’’ 

The modeling cited by the commenter 

was referenced in West Virginia’s 

submission and as part of EPA’s 

proposed approval as supplementary 

supporting information, and we do not 

agree that the commenter’s concerns 

about relying on that modeling are 

warranted. The commenter contends 

that the modeling only goes out three 

years (to 2023) and it needs to go out to 

10 years, and therefore may not be 

relied upon. However, the Air Quality 

Modeling TSD was only relied upon by 

EPA to provide additional support to 

indicate that the area is expected to 

continue to attain the NAAQS during 

the relevant period. As noted 

previously, West Virginia primarily met 

the requirement to demonstrate 

maintenance of the NAAQS by showing 

that they met the criteria for an LMP, 

rather than by modeling or projecting 

emissions inventories out to a future 

year. We also do not agree that the State 

is required to demonstrate maintenance 

for 10 years; CAA section 175A requires 

the State to demonstrate maintenance 

through the 20th year after the area is 

redesignated, which in this case is 2027. 

We also disagree with the 

commenter’s contention that because 

the Air Quality Modeling TSD was 

performed to analyze the transport of 

pollution across state lines with respect 

to other ozone NAAQS, it cannot be 

relied upon in this action. We 

acknowledge that the Air Quality 

Modeling TSD at issue was performed 

as part of EPA’s efforts to address 

interstate transport pollution under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, 

the purpose of the Air Quality Modeling 

TSD is fully in keeping with the 

question of whether West Virginia is 

expected to maintain the NAAQS. The 

Air Quality Modeling TSD identifies 

which air quality monitors in the United 

States are projected to have problems 

attaining or maintaining the 2008 and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10021 

13 938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 

14 Id. at 313. 

15Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 323–331. 

2015 NAAQS for ozone in 2023. 

Because the Air Quality Modeling TSD 

results simply provide projected ozone 

concentration design values, which are 

expressed as three-year averages of the 

annual fourth high 8-hour daily 

maximum ozone concentrations, the 

modeling results are useful for 

analyzing attainment and maintenance 

of any of the ozone NAAQS that are 

measured using this averaging time; in 

this case, the 1997, 2008 and 2015 

ozone NAAQS. The only difference 

between the three standards is 

stringency. Taking the Weirton Area’s 

most recent certified design value as of 

the proposal (i.e., for the years 2016– 

2018), the area’s design value was 0.065 

ppm. What we can discern from this is 

that the Weirton Area is meeting the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.080 

ppm, the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 0.075 

ppm, and the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 

0.070 ppm. The same principle applies 

to projected design values from the Air 

Quality Modeling TSD. In this case, the 

interstate transport modeling indicated 

that in 2023, the Weirton Area’s design 

value is projected to be 0.060 ppm, 

which is again, well below all three 

standards. The fact that the Air Quality 

Modeling TSD was performed to 

indicate whether the area will have 

problems attaining or maintaining the 

2015 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.070 ppm) 

does not make the modeling less useful 

for determining whether the area will 

also meet the less stringent revoked 

1997 standard (i.e., 0.080 ppm). 

The commenter asserts that many 

groups have criticized EPA’s transport 

modeling, alleging that the agency used 

improper emissions inventories, 

incorrect contribution thresholds, wrong 

modeling years, or that EPA has not 

accounted for local situations or 

reductions that occurred after the 

inventories were established. The 

commenter also alleges that EPA should 

not rely on its modeling because it ‘‘fails 

to stand up to the recent court 

decisions,’’ citing the Wisconsin v. EPA 

D.C. Circuit decision. EPA disagrees that 

the existence of criticisms of the 

agency’s Air Quality Modeling TSD 

render it unreliable, and we also do not 

agree that anything in recent court 

decisions, including Wisconsin v. EPA, 

suggests that EPA’s Air Quality 

Modeling TSD is technically flawed. We 

acknowledge that the source 

apportionment air quality modeling 

runs cited by the commenter have been 

at issue in various legal challenges to 

EPA actions, including the Wisconsin v. 

EPA case.13 However, in that case, the 

only flaw in EPA’s Air Quality Modeling 

TSD identified by the D.C. Circuit was 

the fact that its analytic year did not 

align with the attainment date found in 

CAA section 181.14 Contrary to the 

commenter’s suggestion, the D.C. Circuit 

upheld EPA’s Air Quality Modeling 

TSD with respect to the many technical 

challenges raised by petitioners in the 

Wisconsin case.15 We therefore think 

reliance on the interstate transport Air 

Quality Modeling TSD as supplemental 

support for showing that the Weirton 

Area will maintain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS through the end of its 

20th-year maintenance period is 

appropriate. 

Comment 4 

The commenter asserts that EPA 

should disapprove this maintenance 

plan because EPA should not allow 

states to rely on emission programs such 

as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) to demonstrate maintenance 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The 

commenter alleges that ‘‘the CSAPR and 

CSAPR Update and CSAPR Close-out 

rules were vacated entirely’’ by multiple 

courts and ‘‘are now illegal programs 

providing no legally enforceable 

emission reductions to any states 

formerly covered by the rules.’’ The 

commenter also asserts that nothing 

restricts ‘‘big coal and gas power plants 

from emitting way beyond there (sic) 

restricted amounts.’’ The commenter 

does allow that ‘‘If EPA can show that 

continued maintenance without these 

rules is possible for the next 10 years 

then that would be OK but as the plan 

stands it relies on these reductions and 

must be disapproved.’’ 

Response 4 

The commenter has misapprehended 

the factual circumstances regarding 

these interstate transport rules. Every 

rule cited by the commenter that 

achieves emission reductions from 

electric generating units (EGUs or power 

plants)—i.e., the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule and the CSAPR Update— 

remains in place and continues to 

ensure emission reductions of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

CSAPR began implementation in 2015 

(after it was largely upheld by the 

Supreme Court) and the CSAPR Update 

began implementation in 2017. The 

latter rule was remanded to EPA to 

address the analytic year issues 

discussed in the prior comment and 

response, but the rule remains fully in 

effect. The commenter is correct that the 

D.C. Circuit vacated the CSAPR closeout, but we note that that rule was only 

a determination that no further emission 

reductions were required to address 

interstate transport obligations for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS; the rule did not 

itself establish any emission reductions. 

We therefore disagree that the legal 

status of these rules presents any 

obstacle to EPA’s approval of West 

Virginia’s submission. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS limited maintenance 

plan for the Steubenville-Weirton, OHWV area (Weirton Area), comprising 

Brooke and Hancock Counties as a 

revision to the West Virginia SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
10022 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 31 / Thursday, February 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 19, 2021. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action 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 pertaining to West 

Virginia’s limited maintenance plan for 

the Steubenville-Weirton, OH–WV area 

(Weirton Area), comprising Brooke and 

Hancock Counties may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: February 8, 2021. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry 

‘‘1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard Second 

Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia 

Portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, 

OH-WV Area Comprising Brooke and 

Hancock Counties’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the 

West Virginia Portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, OH-WV Area Comprising Brooke and 

Hancock Counties.

Steubenville-Weirton, OH–WV 

Area Comprising Brooke and 

Hancock Counties.

12/10/19 2/18/2021, [insert Federal Register citation].

[FR Doc. 2021–03027 Filed 2–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2019–0573, FRL–10018– 

79–Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; Washington; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide and 2015 Ozone 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Whenever the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates a 

new or revised National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS), the Clean 

Air Act requires each state to make a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission to establish that its SIP 

provides for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

revised NAAQS. This type of SIP 

submission is commonly referred to as 

an infrastructure SIP submission. The 

EPA is approving the State of 

Washington’s September 30, 2019 and 

April 3, 2020, SIP submissions as 

meeting specific infrastructure 

requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide 

and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2019–0573. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and is publicly available 

only in hard copy form. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

at https://www.regulations.gov, or 

please contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section for additional availability 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, 

at (206) 553–0256, or hunt.jeff@epa.gov. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES